Jun 12, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2024-06-12 5:00 PM

Welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, June 12, 2024. This is our work session with a quorum present. I'll call us to order at 5.01 p.m. And our first item on agenda is citizen comments on consent agenda items. I do not see anyone here for that. So we'll move along to clarification of our agenda for this evening. The first item being our minutes from the 29th. Any questions, concerns on those? Okay. How about the consent agenda? We've got one plat on that. Okay. Items for individual consideration. There was an email that came through 4A, which was recommended for denial, is now recommended for approval, which Angie is going to tell us right now. This is a final plat for Stella Hills phase one. It is approximately 177 single family lots and four open space lots. This was recommended for denial in your packet. They have since met all of our criteria for approval. We are now comfortable with recommending approval of this final plat, lot 26X, which was originally slated to possibly be dedicated to the city via a development agreement. They went ahead and made that an open space lot with the understanding that parks would come back and acquire the trail they need through a separate easement. So they've satisfied all of our comments. Great. Any questions for Angie? Okay. Thank you very much. 4B is FP 240020. I think Bryce is here to give us that summary. Hi. Good evening, commission. Bryce Farnarsdale, assistant planner. This is FP 240020. It is a final plat of approximately 15.98 acres, which will create a single lot in the city's ETJ division one. It is on the southeast corner of Copper Canyon Road and Old Alton Road. While they do not currently meet our criteria for approval, staff has no objections to the requests for their extension to a date certain of June 26th, 2024. I'll stand for any questions. Questions? Commissioner Villarreal. Which extension number is this for them? The first extension. Thank you. Yeah. Anything else? Okay. Thanks, Bryce. Thank you. Commissioner Cole is recusing the next four items, C through F. And Cameron is here to tell us about those. Hi. Good evening, commission. Cameron Robertson, principal planner. The first final plat you all, that is in front of you all this evening, is Hunter Ranch phase 1A. It is approximately a 53-acre site, located north of Robson Ranch, just west of Interstate 35 West. It is going to consist of 95 single-family residential lots and 10 HOA lots. At this time, staff is recommending denial of the final plat, as it does not meet our criteria for approval. But staff has no objection to the second extension to a date certain of June 26th, and I can stand for any questions. Thanks. Are we still waiting on the same thing we've been waiting on? Yeah. Okay. You've got the floor for the next, I'll just let you continue for the next three. Sounds good. This is for Hunter Ranch phase 1B. It's approximately a 53-acre site as well. It would consist of 180 single-family residential lots and eight HOA lots. At this time, staff is recommending denial, as it does not meet our criteria for approval. But staff has no objection to the second extension request to June 26th. Questions there? Okay. Go ahead to the E. So this is for Hunter Ranch phase 1C. It's approximately a 68-acre site. It would consist of 287 single-family residential lots and 10 HOA lots. Staff recommends denial at this time, as it does not meet our criteria for approval. But staff has no objection to the second extension to a date certain of June 26th. Questions? Thank you very much. I think I have one more. I think yes, you do. You have that. I'm sorry. You sure do. It was on the next page. This is for the Hunter Ranch phase 1D final plot. It is approximately a 56-acre site. It's for 185 single-family residential lots and 8 HOA lots. Staff is recommending denial at this time, but we have no objection to the second extension request to a date certain of June 26th. Okay. No questions. Thank you very much for that. Let's bring Commissioner Cole back in. Thanks, Jordan. And we will go into our public hearings for today. First is 5A PD 240005. There is some material on your desk, and Mia is going to let us know what's happening. Hi. Hello. Good evening, Chair. Should I wait a little second? We should probably wait for one second. He's further away than we thought. There we go. Thank you. Good evening, Chair, members of the Commission. So this item, PD 240005, is a request to rezone approximately 53 acres, or 52 and a half acres, from R62 PDLI. That's an overlay within Light Industrial Base Zoning. The property is located just north of Black Road, approximately 800 feet east of Giesling Road, and it's part of a larger, approximately 86-acre tract. The PD request would establish a Light Industrial Zoning, whereas it is R6 today, but also establish some additional conditions, specifically require ESA compliance at ZCP review. It also requires a 250-foot building setback from the existing residential properties, as well as Black Road, and then it also requires a 50-foot wide buffer with 50 buffer points adjacent to the residential properties, as well as Black Road. That is recommending approval, as the request does meet our criteria for approval, and since the packet went out, there were a few updates. One, I've already mentioned that the extension of the 250-foot building setback and the 50-foot wide landscape buffer is now adjacent to, or applied to, Black Road also, whereas I think in your backup, it was just shown to be adjacent to the residential properties. Additionally, we have also received two responses in opposition of the request, and another one update that I wanted to mention that's not on this slide is that they have added additional restrictions to Black Road's access that is limiting the ability for trucks to travel from any proposed driveway on Black Road, and then they have also added a prohibition against auto fuel cells and major automotive repair within this PD. So again, staff is recommending approval, and I have the more detailed presentation in prepared for the regular session, but at this time, I'll take any questions or comments you have. Sounds good. Commissioner Thacker. Thank you, Chair. What qualifies major auto repair? I can pull that definition up exactly, but I think when we get into, I don't know the distinguish, but I think minor is more the quick lubes, the oil change places, whereas major works on transmissions and stuff like that, but I could have the definition ready for you in the regular session if you'd like. I'm just trying to distinguish between like a parking lot of stagnant cars and cars kind of coming and going, and a garage shutting every night, you know what I'm saying? Gotcha. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions at the moment? Commissioner Cole. Thank you, Chair. I don't know what Commissioner Thacker said, I'd like to know kind of the uses and what that definition is going to be. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, my thoughts were to honestly eliminate both of them when I had it on my notes, my personal notes that I can't find at the moment, that I will find. Yeah, I was hoping to not have an auto wash fuel sales major or minor. And the applicant will be here also. I do like that they added those, yeah, that's helpful. I'm trying to get my, you don't have this up, do you? I can, yes, I can. I'm trying to read the access verbiage. Oh, I do not, no, I do not have the verbiage up there. That change came much later in the day. Okay, are you planning to have it in this? Yes. Okay, okay, excellent. Okay, then I'll wrap my head around it between now and then and we can, if I end up with a question on it, I can ask it there. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Anybody else? Commissioner Villareal. Thank you, Chair. So I read it in the backup material that during the meeting with neighboring folks in the area, they mentioned they didn't have any pending development plans or proposed development plans, but they mentioned as well that they're hoping to put a warehouse here, but they're not precluded from putting something other than a warehouse. What was the last, I guess, what is our understanding of what they're planning on putting on this? So they truly do not know. The interest that the applicant has expressed that they've received has been leaning towards warehouse uses, but right now they do not know. Do you have, excuse me, just a second, do you have a picture where you've got outlined the parent tract in case people need reference for that? Yes, I can clarify that in the slides, yeah. Because there is several other pieces involved, I mean, with the same owner that possibly might develop everything as one. So it's not just this little thing that we're looking at today, but I just wanted to make sure you had that clarity as well. Okay. And yes, Tina, go ahead. Thank you. In the past, it's my understanding that this property had been considered for residential development, but because of some of the encumbrances that are associated with the property, particularly there's overhead transmission lines as well as a gas line, which you can see is evident on this aerial here, precluded it from being successfully laid out for residential purposes. So over time, when we updated the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan, we also made some revisions in this area to reflect the industrial designations. We've seen properties in this area a handful of times, at least in the time period that I've been here, where we've rezoned properties to light industrial from this property owner. There was at one point in time, I believe an Amazon distribution facility that was looking to occupy the west side of Gisling road, and then having some parking operations on the east side that did not come to fruition. And to Mia's point, there's been conversations with respect to warehouse development, obviously with the light industrial zoning district is the base zoning. You have to take into consideration all the uses that are allowed, but from what we're seeing in this area, it's typically in that format of warehouse distribution type uses. And so with the ownership that they have also here in the area, this is just one more parcel that allows them to be able to probably develop the larger ownership as either a single user or multiple buildings that are being constructed there. - And just following up on that, that staff perhaps discuss with them, since it is gonna be a PD restricting it to just warehouse uses, is that a conversation that came up with the applicant at all? - No, they wanted the flexibility since they are marketing it at this time to not, but they were okay with, like I said, limiting certain uses like the auto fuel cells and the major auto repair there. - Got it, thank you. - And I guess just to correct, they're not proposing a restricted to just warehouse. So it would be all the uses that are allowed in the light industrial, okay, I just wanna make sure you understand. Okay, perfect. - Yeah, I think his question was, would they? - Would they be willing to? - Oh, yeah. Okay, and you said the applicant will be here anyway to have further discussion about neighborhood meetings and whatnot. - Correct. - Okay, anything else at the moment for Mia? - No. - Okay, thank you very much. So our next to 5B and C, you probably saw that email come through where that item is being requested to be postponed until July 24th. Angie, I'll just let you give that formal. - Yeah, thank you, Chair, members of the commission, Angie Manglars, Development Review Manager. Yes, as stated, some infrastructure challenges have come to light that we do need to work through. Staff as well as the applicant are requesting to postpone this case to a date certain of July 24th, 2024. I say this case, but I mean both Z220018, as well as PD230001. - And from my understanding is we're going to open the public hearing, right? Leave it open and then continue to that date certain, correct? - Yes, ma'am. - Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Villarreal. - Thank you, Chair. Just a quick question on process. The folks who reached out via email about these two projects, were we able to email them letting them know it was going to be postponed to a date certain? - Sure. So I did not go back and respond to each and every individual email I got, but I was in contact with several very plugged-in neighbors and did let them know this morning of the request and told them to feel free to forward and share with whoever they felt possible. I also received probably about five or six phone calls throughout the course of the day from other people just asking to confirm that, so I do feel like word was gotten out. I did also make it clear that individuals could still come if they wished, but that was going to be the request. - Got it. Thank you. - Yes. - Yes. And I did as well reach out to anyone who had emailed regarding that to let them know of that plan as well. Okay. Okay. Let's go to, let's see, 5D, S240003, which goes in tandem with D, I'm sorry, E as well. Good evening, Chair, members of the commission. So this is S240003 and S240004 for advanced microbial solutions, and these are similar applications from the same applicant, so I will be presenting them together. In summary, this is a request for a specific use permit for a high-impact manufacturing use on approximately eight acres of land. The eight acres is outlined on the screen in red, that's S240003, and then an additional 9.5 acres of land, which is S240004, and outlined on your screen in blue. These sites are generally located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Shelby Lane and Dakota Lane, and on the west side of Dakota Lane, 800 feet south of Shelby Lane. The existing zoning is heavy industrial, which is shown on the maps on the left, and the future land use is industrial commerce, shown on the maps on the right. And staff does recommend approval as it complies with the criteria for approval, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Can you enlighten me? I think you had a talk with the fire chief yesterday, right? We have been discussing this with fire and building safety. They both have a table in their codes about maximum amounts of chemicals, so we were trying to work through some of that with them, and we did work through that with building safety. So they will, if the SUP is approved, they will submit with their CO all of the chemicals that they're storing to building safety, and building safety will approve that. And they'll also submit that to fire for their hazardous materials permits, and fire will review that. And that's where they would also review any needed secondary containment that was not already there, anything like that. Thank you. On that note, the backup material talked about requiring additional permitting that you described if additional types of chemicals would be stored in the future. Is there any vehicle for those permits having a cap of the amount as far as, you know, hazardous materials, once you get over a certain amount of the fire safety becomes a different question, or is it really just the type of material? So the way that the table is written, there's each type of chemical and then what type of that kind of chemical it is, and then they have a certain maximum amount they can have per their control area, so if they have more than that amount per their control area, they need to create a new control area. Okay, and then that would require a new permit? Yes. Got it. Thank you. Anything else? Thank you very much. Thank you. Let's see, okay, and then we've got final public hearing, and that's item F, DCA 240003. Hello, Angie Manglars, Development Review Manager. This is DCA 240003. This is amendment to the Denton Development Code as it relates to conflicts with other ordinances and criteria manuals. So the purpose of this code amendment is to update the DDC subsection 1.3.4 as it relates to conflicts with other ordinances and criteria manuals. Specifically, this code amendment is to address the recent adoption of the Denton Design Criteria Manual, which was adopted by City Council on June 4th, and removing potential conflicts. The Denton Design Criteria Manual specifies that in the event of a conflict, the DDC shall control. As it is today, the DDC says that in the event of a conflict, the Criteria Manual shall control. So we are going to make sure that those are consistent, so it's not creating any conflicts. Removing a potential conflict, it's needed to help clarify the Denton Development Code and who shall govern, as well as we made some name updates to make sure we were referring to all the right manuals and removing those that we no longer use. And so for those reasons, we are recommending approval of the code amendments tonight. I'm happy to talk through any more if you need that. Any questions? No, it was presented perfectly in the backup, yes. Great. Exactly what we're looking at. Okay. Awesome. Thank you very much, Angie. Okay. That is it for our agenda tonight. We've got two work session reports. First one being 3A, PZ24089. That's receive a report, hold a discussion related to amending the Denton Development Code to establish community engagement agreement participation process. Hello. Nice to see you, Chair Ellis, if I could. So I know some of you had the opportunity to meet Keisha at a previous meeting where we introduced her at the end of the meeting, but I'm happy to have her join our team because she's been with us month and a half, two months, almost two months. So Keisha has nearly 20 years of experience working in local government in a variety of capacities. Her most recent employment was with the city of Plano, where she was over their neighborhood engagement team, as well as some of their housing programs. And so she has an extensive amount of experience when it comes to public engagement. So we're excited to tap into her skills and resources that we can employ those here in Denton. But she's been a great addition so far. So I'm going to turn it over to her. Thank you. Hi, Keisha. Good evening, Chair and Commissioner. I'm Keisha Siriano, Assistant Planning Director, here to speak with you tonight about the possibility of adding community engagement agreement incentives as an opportunity for our developers to increase their public engagement. We understand that City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as staff, like to see developers to interact and engage with the community. So this is an option that we want to present to you today and get your thoughts on. So the current code does recommend citizen participation, but it's a recommendation, so it's optional. There is a citizen participation plan noted in there, as well as a participation report. The staff provides mailing addresses for those developers who would like to have neighborhood meetings. The staff does attend those when they're available, but in the last five years, what we found is we haven't had anyone submit a citizen participation report or a plan. So we thought, what can we do to possibly entice our development community to have more engagement with the community, which brings us to our why. So this is a staff-initiated amendment, again, just wanting to increase engagement between developers and residents as well. And we know neighborhood engagement is important, and as I mentioned, it's very important to our decision-making bodies, as well as staff. And when developers have the opportunity to speak with residents up front, that kind of minimizes some of the issues that may come up during a public hearing. They can hear the concerns that community may have and be able to work some of those things out beforehand and hopefully minimize any delays they may have with their projects. So how do we incentivize our applicants to engage with the community? That's a question we're going to discuss tonight. So we are considering to offer incentives for developers that move into creating, establishing a community engagement agreement with neighborhood representatives. So a community engagement agreement is a document between an applicant, so it'll be with a developer, an applicant and neighborhoods, and they will work together to try to figure out what does the neighborhood want and what could the developer possibly provide, whether it's on-site or off-site, and then in exchange for the developer, the applicant saying, "We'll take care of these things you're in need of," residents will say, "We'll give their support on your project." So here's just a list of examples of some things that they may could discuss such as providing job training classes, employment opportunities, affordable housing units, providing open space within their site that the public could use, doing some screening and buffering adjacent to the neighborhood, architectural designs, a number of different things that the neighborhood could negotiate with the applicant to provide in exchange for them supporting their project. Here's just a couple of local examples. You all may remember I wasn't here, but some of you may have been here when there was a 380 multifamily project. The applicant did submit a memorandum of understanding with the neighborhood, the neighborhood was requesting more architectural design to do more farmhouse design, and in exchange, they did do that to developer. They did come to agreement to be able to do those things, and then you also may also remember the Woodrow multifamily project where they offered the community scholarships in support of their development. So this is just a starting list. There may be other incentives we may, if this gets approved later down the line when we come back, we may add more incentives, but just to start we were thinking that they could, if they submit an executed agreement between the neighborhood and the applicant concurrent submittal of zoning compliance plan as well as a civil engineering plan, and then also insure, excuse me, of the clearing grade permit after the final plan has been approved. So what were they, so the items that we have here that they will need in order for them to receive the incentives, they need to submit that executed agreement, and the agreement would be with 51%, we're going to require that they reach out to 51% of the property owners within 500 feet of the project site, and then we're going to also ask them to get unique signatures from 51% of property owners within the project site. If there is an HOA within the neighborhood, they can choose to have the HOA represent them when their negotiations with the applicant. Can I stop you there? I'm a little confused on the, like the neighborhood representative and who that would be and how you would vet signatures and whatnot. Can you help me there? I mean, especially if they're, like a neighborhood doesn't have an HOA, then there's not really a designated body running something in representation of the neighborhood. We haven't discussed that part, but I'd imagine those addresses that we would send out the notifications that we would still be responsible for helping the developer do that piece. And on that sign-in sheet where they will sign and say, "We agree to this project. We agree to the needs that we've negotiated." There would need to be, that's why I was saying, unique signature and address tied to those that list, that's what I'm thinking that'll do, I don't know if Tina has any other thoughts on how we would verify. Yes, just like we do on any zoning cases that you all receive, when we receive letters in opposition or in support, we look to see, okay, are they within the 200 foot notification that we do in addition to the 500 foot postcards that we send out. So this process really is no different than what we do on our zoning cases. The other thing I want to make mention is, and it's on the slide, but Tisha didn't mention in her words that this agreement option would be submitted concurrently only with zoning changes or specific use permit applications. Once properties are already entitled, there's no incentive for the developer to further meet because they already have their zoning entitlement rights. So we're trying to further strengthen our engagement process and help provide some incentive for the development community to be able to engage with those neighborhoods. And so we're limiting this to zoning change requests or specific use permits. So those zoning change requests are like plan development district requests that we get, straight zoning requests, PD overlays that sometimes come through, specific use permits. Those are all forms of a zoning action where the developer has to go through that entitlement process because they're ultimately trying to get to approval, right? And we'd always encourage them to engage with the neighborhoods. So we were like, okay, what could we do to help with incentivizing them to engage with those neighborhoods just a little bit more? And so the other thing we've decided to focus on those items where we can control that process in terms of those incentives. And that's why we've linked it to our zoning compliance plan being processed simultaneously with civil engineering plans. Our preference normally is that those are kept apart and someone does their zoning compliance plan first. And then once they get that step approved, then they come in with their civils. That's our preference. However, we find that if someone's going to go through the effort of truly engaging with the neighborhood and in helping come into a better design project and having agreement, then what can we do to be able to help on the development side of it to maybe gain a little bit of that time back. The other that we think will really be popular with the development community is the issuance of the clearing grade permit prior to final plan approval, but provided that the civil engineering plans have been approved. We will not issue a clearing grade permit today until those CEPs have been approved. And we typically require the final plat to be recorded, but we feel like we have other safeguards in place where this is something that we can offer up to be able to allow someone to start moving dirt on property in exchange for them taking that extra time to make sure they engage with the community. It seems slightly scary to allow a clearing grade permit without a final plat and okay. Right. So it is, we believe that we have enough other checks and balances in place to be able to address it. And the key thing is the civil engineering plans have to be approved because if the civil engineering plans are not approved, then we're not going to turn anybody loose to start moving any dirt. I mean, that's what it comes down to. Okay. Questions? Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair. Just a few things. So one on the clearing grade permit question, it says, you know, erosion control and tree protection fencing have been installed and expected. I believe final plat, one of the requirements is the tree preservation plan, and that flows into which trees get protected. So is the proposal that we could allow that clearing grade permit after the tree preservation plan has been submitted and that fencing is erected, but before the final plat is filed? So the, in order for us to approve the civil engineering plans, we make sure, and Haley, correct me if I'm wrong, but before we approve those civil engineering plans, we make sure that the tree preservation has also been approved because we realize that those go hand in hand, so as we review civil engineering plans, if there are grading changes that are being made or utility easements that are being shifted that are gonna impact trees that were originally designated for preservation, then we have the applicant update their tree preservation plan because they still have that responsibility. So that's why we make sure that the tree preservation, that will still be addressed. It still has to be approved before those CEPs are approved. The other thing we do is we also make sure that that tree protection fencing is in place and has been inspected because we're, and that's part of our process today. So we're just making sure that you don't get to go pass go and start moving dirt unless you've got your tree protection fencing installed. So that's just a reaffirmation of what we do today. - Okay. And then I guess two questions about sort of the thresholds of engagement. Can you explain what the thought is to focus on property owners instead of residents or business proprietors within that area? - We did, initially we were thinking what she mentioned earlier was HOAs, but understanding that some neighborhoods don't have one, they don't even have a organized group. So then we switched and said maybe we just focus on the property owners. - Okay. There's a lot of times we get proposals that are nearby to many residents that are not property owners. So I'm not saying that that should be changed, I was just curious whether that had come up. And then can you explain the threshold of 51%, the way it reads it looks like 51% of the number of property owners, which is a little different than the 20% of land area within the perimeter, and then the 51% is different than the 20%, right? So I'm just trying to understand what the thought is, where we came up with that proposal. - Do you want me to address that or do you want... - I almost get right to you, but... - Go right ahead. Go right ahead. - 51%, that's the energy, I mean energy, that's the industry standard, it's the majority. And then what was that a part of your question? Is the fact that this language seems like it's the majority of the people who own property within that border, as opposed to the people who represent the majority of the land within the border, which is the way the triggering language in state law requires super majority vote at council, for instance, if they're above a 20% denial, right? - Do you want to... - Sure thing. - That's a great question. So we were focusing on the residents themselves that had the ownership, but you make a good point that right now on the 200 foot notification, for example, what triggers the super majority vote at city council is based upon 20% of the ownership within the notification area. So if that's something that the commission is interested in us modifying, we can do that. Just need that direction from you. So if you believe that the property owners that represent 51% or more of the area within the 500 foot boundary need to be the ones that are carrying heavier weight, I guess, in the decision-making process, that's something that we can definitely look into. Our challenge is we have the 200 foot rule that we have to abide by state law, but we also send out the courtesy postcards to all residents or I guess their utility bill holders within 500 feet, because we recognize that we have some folks that are not owners of the land, right? They're renters. They don't own the unit that they live within. So we were trying to draw some parallels there, hence why we laid it on the 500 feet, trying to go further out to be able to engage the neighborhood. But happy to receive, if there's concurrence from the commission for us to change that to be focused on 51% of ownership representative of the land area within the 500 foot zone, then we're happy to do that. And that's why we're having this discussion with you. Sure. Yeah. I mean, I was just curious where the proposal came from primarily. I think the land ownership rule, while it's codified in state law, is limiting and confusing and gets us into situations where there's a large number of people that don't have control over very much of the perimeter of the land or the opposite, right? So my preference, I guess, from a community engagement perspective would be the number of residents or business operators within that area and not to be land. But I want to be sensitive that part of the reason for doing this is to make sure they have an increased success rate, if you will, that there's general agreement once it comes to planning and zoning and then council. So I don't want to suggest that we do something that then gives you less of a confidence in that manner. Does that make sense? I think so. So yeah. And then the last thing, it just flew out of my head, oh, yes. In drafting these rules, were there current or previous developers that we reached out to to try to understand whether the thresholds and the incentives were a package that would be enticing to them? We haven't spoken to anyone specifically about this specific but what kind of prompt this was a member of an understanding I mentioned previously from that developer that actually was successfully worked out a deal with the community to change their architectural standards. So that was a question that we thought was going to be asked and we haven't yet, but we can. Yeah. Keshia, this is kind of in brainstorming stage still, isn't it? Right? Yes. So I guess one correction, we did reach out to Amy Bassett because she's done a fair amount of engagement, particularly because in Keshia's side of this on, I think it was her previous slide, when we had that multifamily request, I believe it was Mia's zoning case, the 380 multifamily project. If you recall, Amy mentioned we had a memorandum of understanding. And in that particular example, I believe it was the HOA representatives were negotiating on behalf of the neighborhood, but that's the project that started out where they were trying to rezone a portion of property at MN so they could get the access and then council sent it back and was interested in more of a planned development district. And so they pulled all of the property in and then they were able to work with the nearby neighborhood and Amy had come forth with that memorandum of understanding. And so we were like, okay, how can we build upon that? If that seemed to be very well received from the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as particularly council, so we're like, okay, maybe she's onto something here and how can we build upon that and be able to put something in our development code that would possibly entice others to do something similar? Okay. Yeah, I think it looks like a good first start. My only real comment that doesn't seem incorporated is a way to make sure that this is feasible for smaller developments and smaller zoning changes, if you will. For instance, if you're talking about a 500 foot border, that's 10 neighbors on either side, that's like 100 neighbors that you have to talk to. And if you're just doing a single or a two lot rezoning, that seems burdensome, a little bit more than what the area might be, but just a thought, so thank you. Okay, before we move on, do you have more of your presentation? Yes. Why don't I let you continue and then just write your questions down just so we don't get too bogged down before she has told us everything, because a lot of things might be answered on the next slide. So just want to discuss briefly the limitations. So agreements, when they're submitted to us, they must clearly state the terms and conditions for the timeframe, but when those performance commitments are going to be made, they cannot conflict with any other regulatory documents within the city. The city will not be enforcing them, however, if we do hear that the developer has failed to perform or defaulted on what they promised the neighborhood, that may impact their ability to apply for eligible for centers in the future. So neighbor engagement, so we mentioned earlier in our conversation, and we know it's very important in our community, so we will continue to, citizen participation that's already in the code, we will still follow those and still encourage our developers to have those neighborhood meetings. But one thing we've done recently is we've created a flyer to help developers when they're communicating with neighborhood residents about their projects. And so we're planning to get this posted on our website as well as be available at our front desk and during pre-application meetings and wherever else we find that it could be a resource for our developer community. That concludes my presentation, I'm open for questions. So knowing this is just in like brainstorming capacity and all that, do you have a timeline of other, like what you want to do from here? I mean, we're just talking about it now, okay, so here we go. Yes. So tonight we want to get your feedback, we'll go back and discuss some of the comments and items that you've asked us to look into, but we're planning to bring it back to you for a public hearing July 17 and council August 6th. For action then? Yes. Understood. Okay. Question, Commissioner Thacker. So I've got a few questions, sorry. So what happens in the event that the HOA representative isn't actually living within 500 feet of the change, right? So if you have a neighborhood and you have a representative that lives on the other side of the neighborhood and they're the acting decision maker, but they don't have to look at it, I think that's something maybe to be considered, right? The other thing I wanted to ask is who determines what the greatest need of the neighborhood is? And that's a twofold issue. Number one, you want to make sure that, you know, it's whatever is going to benefit the neighborhood the most, right? And sorry, something just flew out of my head. I think it could also, the other part was I think it could also further delay development. So if you're trying to get consensus with everybody in the neighborhood and everybody starts out thinking, "Oh, well, I think we should really press for an architectural facade of a certain building," and then another group is like, "Yeah, we thought about that, but maybe we should also do this," meanwhile the developer is sitting there waiting to decide whether or not he's even going to be able to break ground. And I think in an attempt to make something go faster, we could actually be making it go much slower. And then finally, you know, getting 51% of a group of people to agree to something, you hope that the other 49% are just, you know, don't care, right? But if they do care and you're setting 51% of a group of people against 49% of a group of people that live right across the street from each other, then you have an issue. So those are just things I think maybe we need to consider. It's one thing for, I don't know, you know, a council to be divided. It's another thing for a neighborhood that lives right across the street from each other to not get along because they decided to take a different approach and vote a different way on how this is organized. >> If I could offer a response to that, so this really isn't any different than present day, right, from a standpoint of developer goes and engages with neighborhood and is dealing with a group of folks that may have differing opinions. And we saw that. The St. Mark's zoning case is a good example of that. We had some folks who, you know, some people were saying, well, you know, the neighborhood park is used heavily and others were saying, well, no, it's not really. And yes, we've got these concerns in the neighborhood but others are saying, you know, no, it might. So any neighborhood engagement potentially has differing viewpoints being expressed. So you know, the HOA representative, to your point, if they don't live within the 500 feet, that's up to the neighborhood residents themselves to decide if they want the HOA to represent them or who from their HOA. You know, not all neighborhoods in Denton have HOA representation. So it's really the neighbors themselves, we're trying to put the power in the neighborhoods for them to decide who is going to speak and represent them. It's also, you know, but that's no different today when developer comes and is trying to engage with the neighborhood and, you know, who's going to lead the discussions with the developer. So, you know, for us to try and put forth an opportunity for an agreement, you know, we had to establish some sort of parameters and we had a fair amount of conversation on this last week also because previously we didn't set a geographic area to it. But to your point, it's like, okay, well, then who all gets to participate, right? So we decided, all right, we need to define a geographic area to represent who is in support or not at least for when it comes to this agreement. Doing all of this neighborhood engagement, yes, it does lengthen process. I mean, we've seen that with projects. This had spoken to that as well when she did the memorandum of understanding. I think they did 14 months worth of public engagement that, you know, she was -- their team was going to be doing that public engagement regardless, right? So, you know, they're -- in talking with her, and I'm not trying to put words in her mouth, but the way that we understood it from our conversations with her is that there is an opportunity then if we're going to go through this extensive public engagement process and really try to be responsive to the neighborhood, is there something that we could potentially get in return to offset the length of time that might have been spent? So for us, that's why we looked at from a process standpoint, what can we offer from a process? And so, you know, hence the clearing grade, we get requests all the time on a regular basis. Can we get under construction sooner? Can we move dirt sooner? So we're like, okay, maybe we leverage that clearing grade permit to encourage folks to -- or to encourage the development community to do the public engagement. And we tell them on a regular basis, and I bet, you know, my -- the peanut gallery in the back there would all shake their heads, yes. You know, when we do pre-application conferences with people, we tell them, look, it's imperative you engage the neighborhood or, you know, especially anything near ranch estates. We know some of the challenges there, the Denia neighborhood, right? But all the neighborhoods, we tell folks, make sure you engage the neighborhoods. Do your public engagement efforts, and, you know, we've seen some applicants come before the Planning and Zoning Commission who did not do any engagement despite what we told them to, and you all sent them packing and said, go back and go do the neighborhood engagement before you come back with your request. So we're -- you know, we continue to push on that front, but our thought was, what can we do to help better support in -- and encourage that development community to do the neighborhood engagement? And so that's why we thought, you know, there might be some value to putting this in there. You know, right now we have in the code the Citizen Participation Plan, but nobody utilizes it. It's all encouraged and recommendations, right? So it was like, okay, what can we do just to help entice the development community to give them something in exchange for doing the neighborhood engagement? Just as a follow up -- Sure. -- what happens in the event that they go so far as to entertain this idea until they get the permit, and then, you know, they're left in the dust, the neighborhoods left in the dust? So that's a great question. Keisha, do you want to take a first attempt at that, or do you want me to? I think that was on the previous slide where they would -- Yeah, it was on the slide. Yeah, where they would not be entitled. We're not going to enforce, but we do -- we are proposing to add in here. If we hear that the developer did not do what they said they were going to do, that that would impact their ability to apply for incentives in the future. Okay. Is there -- to anyone else, is there just the mildest hint that we're trying to like legislate behavior here? Sorry, I just didn't -- No, you're good. Okay. I'm going to let somebody else speak. Commissioner Cole. Thank you, Chair. I mean, this, in my mind, is a solution looking for a problem. We already go through this. I mean, this is just adding a process -- we are already the most process-heavy municipality in development in the Metroplex, if not the state, of our size. And this is adding another hurdle. And I mean, if we let neighborhoods veto development, it would still be like we were in 1963. Well, I don't think this necessarily -- I realize that, but I'm getting extraordinary a little bit on my -- but I just think this is a redundancy that's unnecessary. Why would we make it more difficult for someone to develop? I mean, we already are difficult. We already have this long process. Why would we add onto it? We already take these things into consideration; there's just no teeth in it. I guess maybe this adds teeth to that. But we already do it. And I'm just worried that we're just sitting here just going to wake up a year from now and who's going to come in here and do a project? I mean, some will, but we're -- I mean, we got Dinton-centric -- we got Dinton, small business owners, that are construction companies that will not take a Dinton project. Okay. I don't want to get off-topic. Okay. Let's see. Yeah, I agree. Okay. But I just think this is a solution looking for a problem. I don't think this forces anybody to do anything, but what I didn't hear answered, and maybe I missed it at the beginning, is why are we doing this? Because we do -- I think since we have started to kind of press a little bit more to have neighborhood engagement, I think we have had more neighborhood engagement. So I'm trying to understand exactly, I mean, do we really think that we don't have enough so that offering incentives is going to get more engagement? Is that why we would be doing this? So great question. We are trying to help incentivize developers to make sure that they're going and engaging the community. At the end of the day, I mean, they don't have to. This agreement would not prevent somebody from submitting a zoning application. If they can still move forward with the zoning application, they could still come forth to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council without an agreement, right? So it's just like today, you've had zoning cases in the past where you've taken action on them and haven't had neighborhood agreement. So it's not preventing anybody, to your point, with concerns about delaying somebody further. So we were trying to offer an incentive that we know it's important from the Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council, to engage the community. So what can we offer to the development community that might help save them a little bit of time on the backside for the engagement efforts that they've done? So it is to get, you're thinking it's to get more engagement that you think we're not getting currently? Yes? Correct. Because, you know, and I think the other thing you have is people that are, people that want to be engaged will be engaged, right? If someone's truly concerned about a project, then they're the ones that are going to be involved. A lot of times we have projects that come forth where people don't care, right? They're apathetic or they have no issue associated with it. I would say we are a well-engaged community in that our residents are very interested in what happens. I mean, we've put forth a variety of different notification tools that we utilize to be able to help the community understand what's happening near them. I mean, we've done the website, right, where people can go in and put their information and select a distance to get updates regarding any projects within a certain distance of them, right? So it's a means of, again, what can we do to possibly encourage the developer to do more public engagement and in exchange for doing public engagement, then how can we help you on the backside a little bit? And about like being able to issue that clearing grade permit and then also processing those zoning compliance plans and the CEPs concurrently might be an opportunity that helps extend an olive branch to them for the troubles of their engagement, if you want to look at it from that perspective. Honestly, with the zoning compliance plan and CEPs, you're more savvy developers. They will be the ones that will try to utilize that process. I think for more complex sites, they'll probably split those apart, but where it really helps them gain a little bit of time in our development approval process is by issuing that clearing grade permit following the approval of the CEPs and I believe we need to correct our slide because it said prior to final plan approval, I believe our intention was we were going to have final plan approval, but prior to filing because right now we require that plat to be filed before someone can go move dirt. Many other communities allow for the final plat to be filed of record after all the public improvements have been constructed. That's where we are different from other communities. The state statute does now allow for that. We're trying to also work on making some updates to sub chapter two as a result of House Bill 3699. That's taken us longer to be able to get through that process, but one of the things that came out of the last legislative session is more flexibility on the platting side of things where we can approve them administratively, also being able to approve extensions administratively without having to put them on your agenda. We're trying to utilize tools that we have that state law allows that might be an opportunity to save someone time on their development process with us and using that. I have to figure out like weighing the time of what are they really saving with those incentives and what is it costing them to get these signatures and go through that part, which makes it a little more complicated than we even have now, just engaging with the community. >> Considering the presentation that was presented, is there any data that shows which pockets of the community are more engaged than the other areas? So more engaged versus more less engaged? >> I don't think she had that on this slide. >> We didn't present that information. I'm not sure we can look and see if we have something and bring it back. >> We know from experience certain things, which we could certainly share with you, just from years of being here and seeing communities, but certainly can share with you. Does anyone else have anything for Keisha right now? >> I have a couple. Going back to the best practices that were presented, was there any data that was used or sourced to develop those best practices? >> Yes. Yes. I can't call them off the top of my head, but yes, we did look at best practices, also looked at various different what other cities have done to encourage development and just their own personal experience interacting with the community and public engagement. That's what we used to create that flyer. >> Could you go back to the flyer if possible? With that, if you do have data that demonstrates neighborhoods or pockets of the community that are more highly engaged, it may be a point to explore if the recommendations could include best practices for those neighborhoods that are more highly engaged and best practices that are listed for those neighborhoods that aren't as highly engaged to determine, again, if the point is to increase engagement, how can we better target those areas of the community that aren't as engaged? Is there something that we haven't considered? Is there something that seems to work a little bit more? On the best practices list, is there anything that suggests any written materials in different languages that are reflective of the demographics of the communities? >> Yes. Yes, there is. And even mentioned having a translator at meetings, if possible, if need be. Yes. >> Okay. I'm just checking my list. One of the other things I just want to state is while I recognize that there might be specific challenges to what's being presented, I think that for me, what I see is education. I think there is a comment that was made that those who want to engage will engage, but we also have to consider that there may be those that don't know how to engage, and so this could be the first type of possibility in which they can engage just by looking at things a little bit differently. And so I do think that their experiences are important to consider, and so I would stress to kind of take the lens of this could be a possibility for education to increase that civic engagement. >> Thank you. Thanks. Commissioner Villareal. >> Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the presentation. I'm in favor of anything that improves and pushes for additional community engagement, so thank you for putting this forward. I do want to just -- I know this was mentioned briefly during the conversation with Vice Chair Pruitt, but if we could perhaps change it from property owners to residents/business proprietors, I would be in favor of that change. I just wanted to go on the record and say I'm in favor of changing it to that. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And I'm not sure you can do residents, because I don't know that they would have a legal stake in a signature, because a resident could be a tenant, and I don't know if a tenant -- >> Okay. >> Right. Yeah. >> That makes sense. >> That's what comes off the top of my head when we're talking about like validating signatures, you know? I don't know exactly where that fits. I think since none of us saw any of this until like right now, between now and when you want us to actually take action, can we get this delivered to our email when you think it's ready for us to look at so that we can maybe offer more comments and get a little bit better hand, you know, it's kind of a lot in a very short amount of time, and, you know, everybody's kind of putting things together in their head, and helpful to -- you know, it's hard for us to give you direction on something that we're seeing for the first time. I mean, that's how I feel, and from the varying questions and concerns, I'm not sure anybody's ready to say, oh, we'll change this and do this because we just haven't wrapped our brains around it. >> Absolutely. No, I see what you're saying. And I know originally we thought we were -- let's see. We might be able to have a draft ordinance to have in a work session discussion at the next planning and zoning commission meeting to give you -- let us look at that. But if we can do that, we'll try and do so. Because we were trying to bring this for a public hearing in July, but it may be that since we've got our second June meeting, maybe we can put it -- if our draft is in good shape, we can put that on your agenda for a work session conversation, and so that way you all can start looking at the language and seeing if there's anything that we need to modify that might be of interest, and -- but, yeah, we'll definitely look into it. >> And probably even just even the presentation, just having this again in front of us to be able to read and reread, you know, where we can get with our thoughts and whatnot. >> Sure. >> Okay. Commissioner Pruitt. >> Briefly, I just want to summarize because I've rambled before. Generally in favor, I hear the concerns and I share them about let's not slow things down. The way I see this going is you're either going to have it onerous enough that nobody still takes advantage of it and so it doesn't matter, right? Or enticing enough that the projects where it makes financial sense to go through this step will do it, right? The concern I have along the line of are we creating a system where you kind of have to do this to get it through council is that we already just by nature of how projects go and the scale of financing incentivize larger projects that have a bigger impact to the community. And I'd like to make sure that as we do this, we make it a more equitable process from a big giant $800 million development down to the, hey, I've got a building south of downtown and I need so and so and I have $50,000, right? So I'm sensitive to that. So thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. I know we've got one more work session report. Do you want to continue or break for food and then continue? I'm going to get a consensus. How is everybody doing? Everybody okay? Because I think Keisha, this is yours, yes? >> Yes. >> Okay. Then you've got it ready to go. Let's go ahead and call 3B, PZ24090, receive a report, hold a discussion regarding the process of PNZ commission operational procedures as it relates to reconsideration. >> Good evening again, Chair and commissioners. I'm here before you to discuss possibility of adding a procedure in our code for planning a zoning commission to have a reconsideration process. This is again is a staff initiated request due to challenges with the prior reconsideration last summer and confirm the need that you all need your own codified process. I think currently right now you're following City Council's reconsideration process which allows for you to request from the director that an item be reconsidered prior to your next meeting date and if the item is already -- but if the item is already presented to City Council agenda, excuse me, then you have to appear before City Council and make that request at the public hearing and City Council would have to then agree to send the item back to planning a zoning commission. So we want to create a process for you all to be able to reconsider items and have that code -- and have that, excuse me, codified in our code. So here is the process that we are recommending. So the first item, there's no change, right? So you will still make the request of someone that's on the prevailing side of a vote will make a request to the director. The only thing that's going to change is the timeframe. So currently you can make that request and you have up to a week and a half prior to your next meeting to make the request. Due to sometimes items are fast-tracked and staff needs time to alert the city secretary's office that an item needs to be pulled from the council agenda if there's been an item pulled that you've requested to be reconsidered. We need that request by 10 a.m. on Friday after your meeting. So that is changing from a week and a half down to one and a half days. So just to continue with the process, I'm sure you're all familiar. So items presented to you and if it is voted -- excuse me, if we receive it, we will put it back on the agenda as an item for consideration, the commission will have the opportunity to vote to reconsider the item or not. If it is, then we'll go through the proper protocols to get the item publicly noticed and then back on for public hearing. If it fails, then staff will work through the processes to get it back on city council's agenda for their public hearing. This is just a calendar so you can visually see. I know I'm a visual person so you can visually see what this change would do. So let's look at August. So you look at August 14, you make an original vote. Someone on the prevailing side requests to reconsider to the director and that would have to be submitted by that Friday on the 16th at 10 a.m. So previously you would have had until the 28th, but with this change it will be the 16th. So it's all items, whether it's fast-tracked or not. That's the end of my presentation. I'm open for questions or comments. >> Okay. So let's go back to that visual. >> Okay. >> So what you're saying is the reconsideration any time has to be done on the Friday after the meeting. Is that? >> Yes, ma'am. >> That's what -- and so if it would be fast-tracked to the city council meeting the next week, that wouldn't even work. >> If we're able to receive it by 10 a.m., that gives us time to let the secretary office know. >> Oh, you would pull it? >> Yes. >> You would pull it. I see. Okay. >> That fast-track thing is really what we were hoping to balance, but keep going. >> Right. And so the knowledge of it being a fast-track item, we would know about on that day that we would take a vote? >> Yes. >> Okay. Commissioner Villarreal, I think you had your hand up. >> Thank you, Chair. So I'm a little confused as to why items that aren't fast-tracked also have to be submitted on this fast-track basis. If they're not considering it at the next council meeting, why do we have to submit our reconsideration request a day and a half later? I mean, sometimes there are things that come up the week after, there are conversations that are had, you know, additional information rises to the surface. I'm not sure I'm in favor of having every single reconsideration have to be done by the fast-track date and time. I understand for fast-track items, of course. Thank you. >> We were trying to just be consistent and not have two separate calendars of information. So that was the reason why we were proposing just to have the one process. >> Yeah. I mean, Keisha's right. We were trying to have a standardized process because also there are some factors that come into play, like for example, depending upon when the meetings are scheduled. I mean, most of the time we've got a fair amount of advance notice, but it's on our meeting dates. But we're just -- we struggled through this -- or not, I shouldn't say struggled. We discussed this extensively on how best to -- you know, do we have two separate processes versus just one? We were concerned that trying to come up with two separate processes was -- would be more confusing. And so hence why we landed on the -- a streamlined process of -- we figured if you had an issue with the vote, particularly those that might have been on the prevailing side where you believe a reconsideration is necessary, that your gut's probably going to tell you sooner than later and that it's going to be on the sooner side. Because keep in mind when an item is also being reconsidered, then we're having to process it and getting it back on the Planning and Zoning Commission's agenda as soon as we can. But the one factor that was challenging for us to be able to work through and hence why we landed on where we did was in particular those items that have to be fast-tracked to city council. And, you know, we even discussed -- you know, the reason why we need to be able to preserve being able to move an item to city council faster than the normal three weeks in between when it goes to P&Z and council is let's say, for example, we had an error on our part. You know, an applicant shouldn't be penalized for an error that staff made. We tried to make sure that we don't make those errors, but when it does happen, then we tried to be able to make it right by the applicant to be able to get it moved forward. You know, if you all feel -- if the concurrence of the commission -- yeah, if the concurrence of the commission is that we need to have two separate processes, then we can go back and explore that further and see what we can come up with and hopefully not -- and hopefully have it a streamlined language that we can put in a proposed draft for your consideration. But, you know, open to your thoughts on it. That's why we're having this conversation. >> Okay. Is there anybody else with -- yep. Mr. Pruitt. >> Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of factual questions so I'm not spewing. Is there a legal problem to notice a public hearing if a motion to reconsider causes that public hearing to not occur? >> So we've had some jurisdictional conversation in this -- and, Hillary, feel free to add to this, but this was part of the challenge, I think, we ran into last August, right, when we had this, is once the commission takes action on an item, you lose jurisdiction on it because you've already made a decision. So we've -- if we've noticed and we're trying to put it on council's agenda, then we got caught in this somewhat of a quandary gray area, whatever you want to call it, in terms of who's court is the ball in, right? You know, who has the jurisdiction now to consider the item? You know, in that particular case, I believe we had already posted it on the council's agenda, so it was clearly in the council's court. We had also already noticed for the public hearing, so felt it was in council's court on that as well, but the fact that the commission had already taken action on the item means that your jurisdiction or your ability to act on the item has now -- that window has closed. But, Hillary, any additional insight to add? >> If I may, just add some color so that you're not like, what is he talking about? I'm trying to think through Commissioner Villarreal's comment of, hey, that seems kind of short, and I'm also thinking in my context of, while I think this is a tool that should be used sparingly, I hate the idea of, you know, us causing a minimum of a one-month delay, right? Because two weeks later, we vote to reconsider, and then two or three weeks after that, we have the original vote, and then it moves forward. >> Right, because we have to re-notice. And so I'm wondering whether if we have a shortened timeline to reconsider, whether that would give us the opportunity to say, hey, look, let's just go ahead and re-notice so that in this example, we can vote to reconsider on the 28th and then hold the public hearing on the 28th so that it's not as much of a delay that's incurred in that case. Does that make sense? >> Oh, yeah. I think we won't be able to meet our notification requirements. So because of when -- >> Because it's more than 12 days. >> Right, because it's -- we have to send out notices the day before the 10th day preceding the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. So we would not be able to get the noticing accomplished because we've got to be able to process our mail notices, you know, one, make sure we can meet the calendar, but then two, be able to get our administrative tasks accomplished behind the scenes so we can get that all taken care of. Next amendments also require noticing to be published in the newspaper. So we have lead time that we have to factor in on that. So while I appreciate your creativity, we just can't meet the other legal obligations that we have to address. >> Okay. Thank you. >> But to your point, reconsideration, when an item is reconsidered, we -- when you vote to reconsider an item and if the motion is passed, then we have to go back through the public notification process and meet the state statute requirements in order to put it back on your agenda for action. Because again, you've already taken a preceding action, so you've lost jurisdiction, so we have to do the re-noticing to put it legally back in your camp for consideration, if that makes sense. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> And that state statute is just -- we have no choice. Mr. Cole. >> Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I was just going through my memory banks of six years and how many reconsiderations we've had and I can only think of two. >> Two. In eight years. >> Yeah. Right? So -- and a day and a half is kind of -- I mean, we do have a right to reconsider and it shouldn't just be a day and a half. You know what I mean? I mean, because if that would have been -- then both the ones -- Chair and I wanted to reconsider wouldn't have been done because it was after a day and a half. I know mine was, so I -- you know, I don't know, it just -- a day and a half just doesn't seem very thorough or -- I mean, because facts on the ground can change and you learn new things, you know, it just -- I think it needs to be a little more flexible than that. >> Yeah, maybe we need to look at having a true fast track item, you know, date and having what the true procedure is because we don't really have -- fast track is not a regular thing that we do. So it seems like that wouldn't happen as often, so it's almost like we should have what the procedure is and then asterisk, if it's a fast track item, this is what it is. >> Okay. We can definitely look into that. That's the concurrence of the group, absolutely. >> And then this -- you're bringing this back. Is this something we would have to -- >> This is a code amendment, so -- >> So this would require public hearing, yeah, that's what I figured. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, so maybe look at that and maybe, yeah, send it out again or press the look at or -- >> Sure thing. >> Well, I mean, I guess it would be -- it would be in the backup. >> It will be in the backup material. >> Yeah, sorry. >> So it would be in your normal packet. >> Yeah. >> I know the other item is a little more complicated, but if we have the ability to get you something in advance, we'll try. >> Is that good direction? Is that anything -- okay. Kiesha, thank you. Okay. That concludes our work session, so we'll go ahead and adjourn at 616 and reconvene as close to 630 as possible in Council Chambers. >> Good evening, and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, June 12, 2024. With the quorum present, I will call us to order at 642 p.m. Thank you for your patience. Our first item on our agenda is Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Flags. Thank you. Our next item is to consider the approval of our Planning and Zoning minutes from May 29th. Commissioner Villarreal. >> Move approval. >> Commissioner Thaggard. >> Second. >> Got a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Okay. Let's go ahead and vote on the board, please. That motion carries 6-0. That'll take us to our Consent Agenda this evening. Commissioner Villarreal. >> Move approval. >> Commissioner Thaggard. >> Second. >> Got a first and a second for approval of the Consent Agenda discussion. Let's vote, please. That motion carries 6-0. That will move us into our items for individual consideration. And let me pause here just for a moment in case there's anyone in the audience or listening that are here for public hearing items 5B and C. That is the zoning change with regard to Corbin Road. That is going to be postponed and we won't be taking action on that item today. So I just wanted to make sure everybody has a heads up ahead of time, 5B and 5C will not be heard today. So our first item for individual consideration is 4A, FP240011. Angie is here for presentation. Hi. >> Good evening, Chair, members of the Commission. Angie Mangleris, Development Review Manager. This is FP240011B. This is a final plan for Stella Hills Phase 1. It is located just south of McKinney Street where McKinney Street and Laney Circle intersect. There's approximately 177 single family lots and four open space lots. The zoning is R6. At the time the packet went out, they did not meet all the criteria for approval. However, the plot does now satisfy all of our criteria and staff as recommending approval of the plot as presented. Happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Angie. >> Any questions for Angie? Thank you. Chair can entertain a motion or discussion at this time. I will move approval of that item. Vice Chair approve it. >> Second. >> Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval. Is there any discussion? Okay. Let's vote, please. That motion carries 6-0. That takes us to 4B, FP240020. Bryce is here for that item. Hello. >> Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Bryce Van Arsdale, Assistant Planner. This is a final plot for approximately 15.98 acres on the southeast corner of the intersection of Copper Canyon Road and Old Alton Road. This plot will create one single lot, and while it does not meet our current criteria for approval, staff has no objection to the requested extension date certain to a date certain of June 26th, 2024. I'll stand for any questions. >> Thank you, Bryce. I do not see any questions. Appreciate it. Commissioner Villarreal. >> Move approval of the extension request to a date certain of June 26th, 2024. >> Thank you. Commissioner Thaggard? >> Second. >> Second to grant the extension request to a date certain of June 26th, 2024. Any discussion? Okay. Let's go ahead and vote, please. That motion carries 6-0. The next four items, Commissioner Cole is going to recuse himself, so I'm going to let him leave the dais. And then Cameron is here for the first one of 4CFP240012. >> Thank you, Chair and Commission, Cameron Robertson, principal planner. This is a final plot for Hunter Ranch Phase 1A. It's for approximately 53 acres, located just north of Robeson Ranch Road and west of Interstate 35 West. It is to consist of 95 single-family residential lots as well as 10 HOA lots. Staff is recommending denial at this time, but staff has no objection to the second extension request date certain of June 26th, 2024, and I can stand for any questions. >> Thank you. I do not see any questions. Commissioner Villarreal? >> Move approval of the extension request to a date certain of June 26th, 2024. >> Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Thaggard? >> Second. >> We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of June 26th, 2024. Seeing no discussion, let's vote, please. That motion carries 5-0. Next item is 4DFP240013. >> Thank you so much, Chair and Commission. This is for Hunter Ranch Phase 1B. It's approximately 50-acre site, it would consist of 180 single-family residential lots and 8 HOA lots. Staff is recommending denial at this time, but staff has no objection to the second extension request to a date certain of June 26th, 2024, and I can stand for any questions. >> Thanks, Cameron. I do not see any questions. Thank you very much. Commissioner Villarreal? >> Move approval of the extension request to a date certain of June 26th, 2024. >> Thank you. Commissioner Perot? >> Second. >> Okay, we've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of June 26th, 2024. Let's go ahead and vote, please. That motion carries 5-0. That'll take us to 4EFP240014. >> Thank you so much. This is for our final plot for Hunter Ranch Phase 1C. It's for approximately 68-acre site to consist of 287 single-family residential lots and 10 HOA lots. Staff is recommending denial at this time, but staff has no objection to the second extension request to a date certain of June 26th, 2024, and I can stand for any questions. >> Thanks, Cameron. I do not see any questions. Thank you. Commissioner Villarreal? >> Move approval of the extension request to a date certain of June 26th, 2024. >> Commissioner Thaggard? >> Second. >> Okay, first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of June 26th, 2024. Let's go ahead and vote, please. That motion carries 5-0. That will take us to 4FFP240015. >> Thank you. This is a final plot for Hunter Ranch Phase 1D. It's approximately 50-acre site. I'm consisting of 185 single-family residential lots and 8 HOA lots. Staff is recommending denial at this time, but staff has no objection to the second extension request date to a date certain of June 26th, 2024, and I can stand for any questions. >> Thank you. I do not see any -- thank you so much, Cameron. Commissioner Villarreal? >> Move approval of the extension request to a date certain of June 26th, 2024. >> Thank you. Commissioner Thaggard? >> Second. >> We've got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of June 26th, 2024. Let's go ahead and vote, please. That motion carries 5-0. We'll let Commissioner Cole enter back in, and I will call Item 5A of our public hearings as PD240005. I'll open the public hearing, and Mia is here for presentation. >> Good evening, Chair, members of the commission. Mia Hines, senior planner, and this item is a PD24-0005. The request is to rezone approximately 52 1/2 acres from R6 to PDLI, which is an overlay PD with a light industrial-based zoning. The request or the subject site is a part of a larger 86-acre site, and I've highlighted that here in yellow on your screen, so you can see that that site is -- or the subject property is a part of that larger site, which has access off of Black, Geesling, and also touches US380. The request would establish a light industrial zoning. It would require ESA compliance at zoning compliance plan review. It would also require a 250-foot building setback from residential properties and Black Road. It would require a 50-foot wide landscape buffer from -- with 50 buffer points from -- adjacent to the residential properties and Black Road. It would also restrict truck traffic access onto Black Road from any driveways that are proposed as a part of future developments. It also would prohibit automotive fuel cells and major auto repair, and I do apologize, there is one more. It limits the building height for structures within this PD to 55 feet as opposed to the 75 feet that is allowed in our -- or currently permitted in our light industrial zoning district. So just to give you a broad overview, this is a PD overlay, and our code does allow for applicants to apply for an overlay PD and a standard PD. The standard PD usually comes with a development plan, and it's usually utilized when an applicant or property owner has a more fleshed-out idea of their development. In this case, they are wanting to get their zoning title to be consistent with the rest of the property and be able to develop and come forward through our development processes at a later time. So this is an overlay PD as opposed to a standard PD. So we did, of course, put this up against our criteria for approval, and I'll get into those points here in a second. Just highlights, the new PD would be -- is compliant with our criteria for approval. It would be subject to the LI development standards of our current development code, and as amended, it would require ESA compliance at zoning compliance plan, whereas we're most usually flexible with that for -- sometimes it's deferred to CEPs or later in the process, but this requires them to have those answers ahead of time. The proposed PD builds in additional buffers to minimize adverse impacts on the surrounding less intense uses. Additionally, light industrial flume designation is intended to allow for development of light manufacturing and assembling in warehouses on these tracks, and that is the future land use designation on this property. There's also an overlay or an overlap of a little bit of low residential future land use that map designation on this property, and this PD does take that into consideration. Specifically in those areas, like I said, adjacent to the residential zoning district, and this is just that future land use map that shows that light industrial future land use on the majority of the property with a low residential overlap along the fringes there, and again, where the applicant is proposing those overlay buffers, that is within that area. So the proposed PD development standards, like I said, include a minimum side yard setback compared to the existing light industrial zoning district, where we would only require a minimum five foot building setback under LI. The proposed ... This development would ... Or any subsequent developments would have to respect the 250 foot residential ... I'm sorry, building setback from those residential properties. Additionally, as far as land use compatibility buffers, we do require in our current DDC a minimum of 30 feet landscape buffer with 50 points from DDC table 7.E, and this of course increases that requirement to a minimum of 50 feet. Again, ESA compliance plan review comes at the zoning compliance plan stage, and permitted uses where the LI district does permit ... I'm sorry, the base LI zoning district would of course permit all of those permitted uses that are listed in our table of allowed uses under LI. This overlay district does prohibit automotive fuel sales and major auto repair. So those uses, whereas they would be allowed under regular LI, would not be allowed within this portion of the PD. Since it was discussed in work session, I did add the definition of those prohibited uses. Automotive repair major is an establishment engaged in providing major automotive repair services such as engine and drive train repair, body work, mechanical services, and painting. So when those items that are highlighted there, the engine, drive train, repair, body work, mechanical servicing, and/or painting, when those come into the equation, it's considered major auto repair. As far as access and circulation, that stipulation is written there, and again, the purpose or the intent behind this requirement or this addition to the PD is to restrict truck traffic from Black Road given the existing residences, the existing condition of that road. We felt that if that was possible, we could limit some potential conflicts in vehicular traffic there. We did perform public outreach per our development code. We did receive two letters in opposition expressing concerns of drainage and land use compatibility. Sorry about that. That equates to just over 11% in opposition for those curious about the supermajority requirement at council. The applicant did perform a few neighborhood meetings which they are here and could potentially speak to as well. So with that, staff is recommending approval of this request as it complies with the criteria for approval in our DDC, and I will take any questions or comments that you have at this time. Thank you very much, Mia. Anybody have any questions? Mia, my question that I couldn't come up with in work session with regarding to that verbiage, which I like, but it talks about having signage on the property, like do not exit. What about entering the driveway on Black? I mean, ideally we don't want truck -- I mean, prefer not to have truck traffic on Black. So if we've got an internal sign saying, okay, do not exit, what's keeping them from entering? So we could add that restriction. I think the goal here was tried -- because this is the use or the warehouse use would be on this property, the goal was to try to permit -- prevent, rather, the truck traffic that would be using this property from going on to Black Road, but I think that that could be a condition that we could add also to add that signage outside so that trucks traveling from outside into the property would know not to use that also, but at that point they would already be on Black Road. That's true. Yeah. I'm not sure the best way to do that. Okay. That's just my brain working. Go ahead, Tina. Yeah. Thank you. One of the things that we could look at, if that's desired by the commission, we could -- between the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, if you were to approve this this evening or recommend approval, excuse me, between now and when it goes to council next week, we could talk to our transportation services team to see if there is any value to possibly limiting truck traffic on that portion of Black Road, if that's a concern of the commission. If not, you know, just tell us. With just, like, signage, you mean? Well, we'd have to look at probably from intersection to intersection, and in all likelihood it's from a major, you know, a more prominent intersection to a more prominent intersection to be able to look at whether or not prohibiting -- in order for us to prevent trucks from entering the site. I mean, we could have them post a sign, but if the truck is already on Black Road, it's already on Black Road, right? So that's why I said, yeah, we'd have to evaluate a larger section of it, but again, just whatever the commission's desire is. I keep thinking about that. Okay. And thank you, Tina. I did fail to mention that this is one of those cases that is being fast-tracked. It will be on City Council agenda or plans for City Council agenda next week. Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. Appreciate it. This is a public hearing. I have one card at the moment to speak, and it is the applicant, and it is Amy Bissett. I will invite her up to speak. Hello. Hello. Thank you. Thank you, Mia. Good evening, Commissioners and Chair Ellis. I appreciate the opportunity to be in front of you this evening. If I can get my slides to work, that would be great. There we go. I do want to start by saying that I did watch the work session, and I'm going to address some of those questions in my presentation tonight. And in a little bit of irony, the property owner, my client, is going to be here tonight, but he's currently stuck in traffic on 380, so he should be walking in any minute now. But speaking of the property owner, I do want to share anecdotally that Mr. Walker and Mr. Martin, who own this property today, have owned it for nearly 40 years now. They bought it in 1986 with the intent to develop it residentially, and have had a tremendous number of problems with the site, with the number of utilities that bisect the site. And it's just over the course of the years, the nature of 380 and the location have changed to where the suitability for residential has not improved during their time of ownership. And just thought I would share that. So this is the entire property you can see here, a portion of the property. This is the zoning map today. The northwest portion of the property was actually rezoned in 2021, some of you may remember that, to facilitate a project that ultimately did not materialize. The current property owners, Mr. Walker and Mr. Martin, are seeking to market the property for sale. They've had multiple developers interested since 2021, but just the number of challenges associated with it, and the fact that it's split zoning today, has caused them to seek out an attempt to rezone it ahead of a sale. The site does include electric transmission lines, an Atmos gas pipeline, and is adjacent to a substation, which are some of the challenges associated with it. I won't capture this again, but it is, future land use is mostly light industrial, but we are attempting to be respectful of the adjacency of low residential as well. The initial conditions that we proposed when we submitted the zoning application were an increased building setback along the eastern property line specifically, and then the ESA field assessment requirement. We then went into neighborhood engagement. We held two virtual meetings in May, and the neighbors indicated that they wanted to meet amongst themselves, and many of them are here tonight, which I very much appreciate. They've been a pleasure to work with. And then they followed up with us and asked for some additional conversation. We had a follow-up meeting on June 7th with a couple of the neighbors specifically related to issues on Black Road. And then I had an additional discussion last night with a neighborhood representative making some additional requests, so we'll kind of walk through what some of those are that we've addressed within the conditions today, and some that you could potentially put additional conditions on tonight. So here's a highlighted map of the property owners that I know I've personally spoken with. I know there's some here this evening that are not highlighted here, but I just wanted you to see that we have really tried to have a good representation of the residential property owners in the area. So the neighborhood requests and the additional conditions that we've agreed to, as Mia mentioned, now the setback and the landscape buffer encompass the entire area highlighted in yellow here. We've reduced the maximum building height from 75 feet to 55 feet. We had originally agreed to 60 feet. The neighborhood was asking for 50. I did a quick analysis on recent industrial project heights, and 55 seemed to be the max, and without putting a limitation on a potential buyer, we felt like 55 was reasonable to kind of meet in the middle and still not limit potential developers. We have also agreed to restrict Black Road to no truck traffic and employee entrance only to your question, Chair Ellis, about how do you keep them from coming onto Black Road. We've handled this in a couple of different cases in the past on zoning cases where we wanted truck traffic to go into a particular location and not others, and depending on the developer, they can certainly configure the site to discourage that. Trucks really want the easiest way in and out to start with, and so if they make it more difficult, that helps with that, but I agree that a conversation with transportation would be helpful between now and when we go to city council. We have agreed to prohibit major auto repair and fueling stations. I did listen to the work session, and there were some conversations about some additional prohibitions, and so I want to cover those options as well this evening. Before I get to that, though, I want to talk about a couple of specific requests from the neighbors that we are not opposed to, but might be a little challenging from a wording standpoint in the zoning ordinance. The neighbors prefer to have a 25-foot wide natural buffer area from their property where we basically don't touch what's there today, and then a screening wall, and then another 25 feet, so it still meets the 50-foot width and all of the elements associated with it. We are fine with that being codified in the ordinance, if that's the wish of the council. I did speak with the neighbor about how that may create some vermin-type situations or something where there's a little bit of a no man's land where something might not get maintained well, and their preference was that that's how it is today, and they would like for it to stay that way because it's a natural buffer. We've also heard considerable conversation about a drainage, and specifically there is a potential ESA that comes through the northeast side of the property here, and there's really not a whole lot we can do from a zoning standpoint to address drainage. I think it's well addressed in the design criteria manual for drainage design in that we're not permitted to increase runoff from what it is today, and we have to detain for water quality volume as well. However, there are some existing drainage issues across Black Road draining to the south, and there's some concerns about contamination of water runoff. I just want to acknowledge those here in front of you all today. I don't know that we have a solution other than following the criteria manual when the property does develop, and hopefully we would be involved with that developer at that time and can help encourage them to work with the neighbors to solve some of those issues. There's also concern about landscaping being irrigated and maintained, and we've covered the requirement that the landscape buffer would require irrigation and that any landscaping that did not survive within the first couple of years would be required to be replaced. As it relates to allowable land uses, these are the industrial category allowable land uses that would be permitted under LI. Just the highlighted ones are the only ones that are permitted by right. Those that have an S beside them would require a specific use permit, which would require us to come back before you again. Those with an X are not permitted in light industrial. I personally don't see anything on this list that would be objectionable. However, if any of you do, we are open to discussion on those. I think what I heard from the work session is really more of a concern of the auto or the vehicle related uses that are highlighted here, auto wash, fuel sales, auto repair shop, minor and major. We have no issue eliminating all of those as land uses on this property, and just highlighted a few others here that you may want to point out or seek further prohibitions on. My client is open to any of those. He's basically seeking true light industrial warehousing uses on this site. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm waiting for my screen to come up here to see if we've got any questions. Vice Chair Perot. Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of things. I wasn't able to pull up the topo information quickly with the desire of the 25 foot natural barrier and then the further 25 feet being where the buffer points are spent essentially to create the natural buffer or the landscape buffer. Is there a considerable rise or fall from the adjacent properties inland or inward to the site that would cause a buffer to be more height guarding, if you will, if it were closer than further away? The low points on this site are near the east, southeast corner, and then south along Black. Anything falls to the southeast. I don't know that having it closer or further away is necessarily going to affect the visual buffer. Okay. Then secondly, I appreciate you looking into the typical heights of developments and that sort of thing. I'm really not very familiar with the economic cost jumps, if you will, in industrial type large building construction. What I'm wondering is, does setting 55 feet for the entire, I mean, not the entire highlighted parcel you're there, but the parcel that we're talking about in this rezoning, it's fairly tall and wide, right? There's some places there that are more than 1,000 feet from the adjacent properties. I wouldn't want a 55 foot height limit carte blanche in that region to cause the development to move closer to the adjacent residential sites if allowing 65 feet or something else, if it made more sense from a construction dollars perspective on the northern and western side of the site would allow them the flexibility, if you would, to not encroach as close as possible. Does that make sense? Sure. I'll do my best to address that question. The height that we arrived at, 55 feet, is really driven by clearance heights for the various uses that warehouses typically have. You're going to have dock doors and bays where you may have equipment moving in and out, open span areas for storage and maneuvering of equipment inside the building. That's really where the 55 feet came from. I don't know that there's a direct correlation between square footage versus height. It's more about what's functioning in the building and how much clearance span they need to be able to maneuver inside the building and in and out of the building. The 55 feet seem to be of the projects that I looked at in the recent year that have been permitted 55 feet seem to be the highest that I found, and so most are right at 50 feet. Okay. Thanks. That does help. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions at the moment? Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. I don't have any cards in front of me, but this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to come speak on this item? Yep, come on down. If you will state your name and address, your time will begin. Yes, I'm Debbie Brooks. I live at 5585 Black Road. My concern is about the barrier structure. It needs to be substantial enough to last years, decades, five, 10 decades, because the sum of structures as we know, they look substantial initially, and yet they deteriorate in attrition. It looks horrible after just a few years. So if that can be addressed about the quality and the sustainability of that barrier, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Let me ask you a question. Yes. If I could, please. You're talking about the buffering, like that 250 foot buffer. Is that what you're referring to? Well, there's a 25 foot, and then a barrier is my understanding, and then another 25 feet. In what Ms. Bissett just presented. Yes, so that barrier, a physical barrier is my understanding. Is that yours as well? I think that was a little bit different than the material that we had right in front of us. So I'll probably ask her to bring that back up, and we can discuss that a little bit further. Thank you for sharing your concerns. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Come on down, if you'll state your name and address, your time will begin. Thank you. Jonathan Brooks. I'm at 5579 Black Road. There were several things that I discussed with Amy about the property. It seems that most of those have been addressed here. I'm happy with what she came up with. I think there is some concern, I'll reiterate, mostly just for the records you hear from me. There's a concern about drainage. I've done a bit of research on it, asked some friends who are in the know about it. And it seems as though the natural drainage will drain off the southwest of the property towards Blag and into some county land that's owned by Gary, who's not here today. How is draining addressed? That's the first question when it comes to planning and zoning. If anybody could fill me in on how that will be addressed as a whole. And then the only other question I had was on the ESA itself. What are the regulatory bodies who will make sure that that ESA doesn't get polluted? Because many of our homes, either when that ESA floods or if there's rain, it comes into our properties. Those are the only two that I had, at least right now. Thank you very much for sharing your concerns. I might ask Mia to come up, just so those questions is fresh in the mind. Can you address either of those concerns publicly for us, please? So drainage review will be done when we review their civil engineering plans. Of course, we'll make sure that they are meeting our criteria, manuals, and code, and also state law, which I think Amy stated, prohibits properties from creating a drainage flow that is, or a rate that is greater than what was existing with any development. And then as far as the ESA review, that is, again, another review that staff does. The alternative ESA plans do come before this body, if it comes to that. But ESA compliance is a staff review, and I don't know... As far as, I think, maybe Tina could speak to what happens after the ESA review, but I know that that's also done at civil engineering plan review, end zone compliance plan review. We have one... Christy is here. Excellent. Awesome. Yeah. Awesome. Hello, Christy. Hi, Christy Upton, environmental compliance coordinator, and I am the main staff who reviews environmentally sensitive areas when there is a property where there's environmentally sensitive areas, I'm heavily involved in that process. So in this case of this property, there was a field assessment in the past where we confirmed that there is a riparian buffer or a zone of vegetation that spans 50 feet on either side of the waterway itself. The regulatory protection is just focused on the vegetation and is not a part of drainage and drainage control. So that distinction needs to be in the minds of the reviewers and the applicant. And then in addition to that, any drainage issues should be addressed through the civil plans or through drainage reviews. Okay. Thank you. That does help. I appreciate it, Christy. Thank you. Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else wishing to come and speak? Who has not? Hello there. Hi. My name's Tom Brooks, not related to the other Brookses, but I'm on 6801 Appaloosa Court. And so my property is adjacent on the east side of this new proposed piece of property, and that ESA that we're all talking about runs through a part of my property and the rest of my neighborhood. So I have serious concerns about drainage off that land, into that creek, into my property, and through the rest of my neighborhood. I think she briefly mentioned a detention pond. I don't know if it was specifically stated, but I'm not even sure that a detention pond is going to be enough. Depending on what type of structure is being built on that, I heard me say that a study would be done after a decision was made on what type of structure would be built. I think a study needs to be done now. There's serious drainage concerns into that creek, into that ESA currently. And there's two properties that haven't been built in Lakeview Ranch, and it's because of the issues of that creek and the drainage from that property. They've talked about the drainage being southwest or south towards Blag, but a good portion of this newly rezoned proposed land drains eastward towards that creek. So any significant structure that gets built there is going to cause significant drainage into that creek, which already floods. And it's on my property, a good portion of that, you'll see that property line, a good portion of that property is my property. And so I have serious concerns if anything gets built there, and no study being done until after a decision has been made of what's being built there. That's a serious problem. And I don't know if a detention pond is enough. I think a retention pond at the minimum has to be built. And you don't even know what size a retention pond needs to be built if you don't know what structure is going to be built there. So I'd like that to be seriously considered by this committee before anything's decided. The other concern I think has been addressed here as far as the traffic on Blag Road. I'm not sure how familiar you guys are with Blag Road. It's a narrow two-lane road currently. It cannot support any kind of trucks driving on that currently. You get driven off the road if any significant vehicle comes down that road the opposite direction. So I'm not sure how you're going to propose to prevent any trucks coming down Blag. I mean, even if you're preventing entrance or exit from that property onto Blag, they can still exit via Geesling and get to Blag. So I mean, if you're familiar with 380 now and how this property is structured, the only way you can get out of there is to go east on 380. What's the proposed solution for any truck wanting to go the other direction? They're going to go down Geesling onto Blag and it's going to cause more issues. I'm surprised there's not more people that live on Blag that aren't complaining about this. That's a significant issue that needs to be addressed before anything is built, before zoning is changed. And I'm not sure what type of structures can be built underneath those power lines and over that gas line underground, but you know, I'm not sure why we're even having a discussion of rezoning that piece of property at this point in time. Any questions for me? I do not see any, but thank you for sharing your concern. When will anything be addressed about that ESA, because it's been brought up a number of times, but nothing's been said about what would be addressed. That 50 foot buffer that she talked about on each side of the creek, it's actually larger than that, the tree canopy, so I would like that to not be disturbed at all. Is that my time? It is. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right. This is a public hearing, come on down. Good evening. My name is Cynthia Porter. I live at 5511 Black Road with my husband and my daughter and my four-year-old granddaughter. I ask for your consideration to protect the interests of my family and our neighbors. I love Denton. I've earned two degrees at the University of North Texas, bachelor's in education and educational administration. I retired from public education just two years ago, after 32 years, 18 of which I was a campus administrator, so I understand how difficult it is to be in your position to make decisions. Each day when I go home at night, to know that I made those decisions based upon what was on the best interest of my kids made me sleep well at night, and to know I did the wrong thing, the right thing, no matter how difficult that it was, putting the kids first. And so I ask that you also put yourself in that shoes in putting our neighborhood and our neighbors first above businesses that haven't even developed an ownership and plans that haven't even come to fruition after decades, decades of being a residentially zoned area. We purchased our home in March of 2007. I believe I'm one of the longest residents that have lived on Black Road adjacent to that property. My daughter grew up and went to school here for 13 years, attends Texas Women's University. We are vested citizens in this community. We may not be business owners, but we pay our taxes and we love our neighborhood. It's part of the American dream to come out here and to build and own property. As you look at a map, the smallest acreage in that neighborhood is three acres. We're on the outskirts of Denton. We chose to live in a nice community where we had space, we had breathing room. Out of the seven homes that are on Black Road, five of them have been built within the past 10 years. They're newer homes. People have invested themselves into coming and living and being a part of this area and to have a little breathing space and a little breathing room. You've looked at maps probably from above and seen plots and drawings, but if you've never driven the neighborhood, it is very unique. There are no cookie cutter homes. They're all custom. They're all different. There's no comps. Real estate experts will tell you there's no comps for my home in the area. It's different and it's special. I love looking out my back patio onto this adjacent property that is currently trees and canopies and have lots of wildlife, wild boars, deer, coyotes, all that comes with that. Why would we move our families and invest in this area that has been residentially zoned for decades to have it now be changed to light industrial? We've invested our time and our family. I understand the staff analysts, they have all of the electrical work, the gas pipelines. It can't be built residential on that adjacent property, but that's not our burden to bear. That's not our fault to have to compromise our property values, our tax values, my well water, my well system. We're all on well water out there. That's not our burden to bear. It's not our burden to bear to have to tie those plots up with a nice little bow and make them all unanimous zoning because some are light industrial and some are residential. That's not my burden to bear. My burden to bear is to raise my family and to enjoy my investment in the city of Den. I know it's a difficult decision when they're looking at fiscal investments and $8 billion, million dollars. I can't compete with that, but I do ask that you do consider that we have our own investment in our own families and the being good community citizens. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Commissioner Pruitt, I know I had seen your name and I did not call on you before that speaker. Did you have something to add? Yeah. I had a late question for the previous speaker. Okay. If it's possible for them to come back. Of course. Yes. Yes. Yes, please. Thank you for coming and speaking to give clarity of the types of things you're concerned about. It strikes me that sometimes when we have ESAs and we do the ESA plans for that, the type of buffering that we do, whether it's natural plantings or a wall or that sort of thing is limited for the reasons of maintaining the natural order of that ESA buffer. I'm wondering is ... I'm anticipating that we may talk a little bit about what that buffer and fence and wall might look like, and I want to make sure that your perspective is heard from a stance of is a wall or fence preferred, and if so, what does that look like or is it really just let's keep the natural order the way things are and focus on giving flexibility to provide a buffer visually there. Does that make sense? Yes, so luckily for me, the tree canopy that surrounds the creek, that ESA, kind of runs down my property line, but there's two properties next to me that are exposed directly to the lots, to this property that we're speaking about, and so they will have more of an impact. For me, the existing canopy, if it's not changed harm or damaged in any way, is enough of a buffer that I won't see anything beyond that, but the bigger concern for me is obviously the drainage and anything that comes towards that creek. Amy had mentioned a detention pond. I'm not sure ... There's been no discussion about where that would even be located, how large it would be, making sure ... I mean, if no study's been done on the type of drainage, how much drainage, what direction the drainage, nobody knows where and how large that would be, right? I don't even know if it's enough. Like I mentioned, I think a retention pond would probably be more appropriate, but I don't even know that. I would love for whoever's responsible for this ESA and any drainage towards it to do a study and understand that prior to. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, as far as the buffer, I think it would be obviously the folks on the black side of the property and the other two next to me that would have more of an idea of what would be better to obscure that view. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else wishing to speak who has not already? Hello. Hi. Do I need to state my name again? You do. All right. I'm Deborah Brooks. I live at 5585 Black Brook. And you did speak once, right? Yes. Okay. May I speak twice? I was under four minutes. I will go ahead and let you have the floor for ... Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Just cross my mind as we were sitting here. You know how sometimes light industrial areas or industrial areas do have these lights that just glow like something from outer space. I would think light pollution might be something that needs to be addressed as well so that it's more pleasant in our neighborhood. That's all I have to say. Commissioner Thacker. Thank you, Chair. Quick question. I'm looking at some of those of you that gave public comment and thank you for participating in your community and coming and speaking for your area. I'm looking at some of your addresses in relation to where the Black Road and Giesling Road are at. And it looks like there's already some industrial areas that are established there. And in addition, speaking to the lighting, those electric units, are those not already highly lit at night? Are you talking about the electric area? Yeah. The grids there? Yes. And they were quite invasive, and I believe, Johnna, called the city or whoever it is, is in charge of those. And they asked them to redirect those lights. But there are some lights that even glow more than that, where if they're on really high poles, that it's just illuminated tremendously at 24/7. And I understand for security purposes why that might exist, but in keeping with neighborhoods being right there, too, that something might want to be considered. Right. Okay. One other quick question. Yes. So while the owners may have issues selling it as a residential area to investors, that doesn't mean if we were to keep it zoned residential that they might not eventually sell it as a residential area. I'm not certain what you're saying. Well, it's zoned for residential, and if we're wanting to rezone it. So I think about some of the issues that were discussed tonight, everything ranging from the lighting to runoff to pollution to traffic, if in fact it remains residential and we don't rezone it, and eventually it's sold to a large developer, my concern is that things like lighting and traffic and runoff would be even more prevalent if you had lots of families in that area. So those are just kind of my feedback there. I didn't know if you had thought about that. I'm not totally opposed to what's being proposed. Okay. All right. I'm just saying that these maybe need to be a consideration that buffer wall, and this is what's being presented tonight, and that considering those would eliminate future problems and expense on the part of the developer if our considerations are taken into account. Fair enough? Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else wishing to speak who has not already done so? Yep, come on down. Hello. My name is Eric Janssen. I live at 3617 Falcon Court in South Denton, but I do own 46 and 47 and a half acres of land on the south side of Black. My northwest little stick piece of 15-foot gravel lane connects to Black Road, and that's why I'm within 200 feet, 15 feet wide connecting to the subject property. But to my immediate west is Gary Castro, and he regrets not being able to be here tonight. So I just want to speak on his behalf in regards to the runoff. He gave Mia, and we appreciate the time that Mia Hines has given us in preparation, but he showed her some pictures of the culvert that he has that he had to put lots of money into for rock because of the drainage that already comes off of the native land of this subject property on the north side of Black. That water comes through a culvert and spouts directly onto his property and runs down through the heart of his property down to the creek, down to Cooper Creek. And so he was very, very concerned, just as the other Mr. Brooks mentioned about runoff. If there's streets, warehouses, parking lots, etc., then that really is going to be a major concern of water being shed underneath Black and directly onto Mr. Castro's property. Second thing is, I want to commend Amy of Land 97. It seems like she's engaged the neighbors considerably, and there have been modifications to that 250-foot setback buffer and where it was, and so that's good to see. Light industrial seems to be coming to this area more. There's more warehouses being built. Geesling is supposed to be a major north-south connector based off of Denton's mobility plan, and so I would presume that vehicular traffic leaving the site would go onto Geesling, and Geesling at 380 will have to have a traffic light. So vehicular traffic going west will want to go to Geesling and then up to the traffic light on 380. Truck traffic going east would end up going the university exit to go east, would make the most sense. Sewer drainage, I don't even know where they're planning on sewer exactly. Sewage drainage has always been a difficult problem for this part of the city, but that's not part of the zoning. Storm drainage. The lighting issue that Ms. Brooks mentioned, I don't know whether there's a way to restrict lighting so that the shields around the light do not permit the light to go beyond the property line, but it seems to me that something like that might be addressed or considered. That's about it, really. Appreciate the time. Appreciate the interest. I know Mr. Martin for 22 years, just acquaintance-wise, and he supported me in my rezoning when the city was trying to involuntarily rezone my property many years ago, and they were considerate and respectful. He was in that process, and I know they have worked for a long time trying to figure out exactly what the best utilization of this property is with the power lines across it, the gaseous underneath it, et cetera. So I know it's a tough nut to crack, and I wish you the best, but I really encourage you to give consideration to each of these neighbors because they do cherish the rural atmosphere out there in East Denton. They cherish that, and they want to preserve that as best they can. So managing the PD in such a way as to make sure you line up in the industrial site right next to these rural residential areas would be most appreciated by all the neighbors. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you. I do not see any. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to speak who has not done so already? Okay. Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing, and I will open up the dais for more discussion or motion. Commissioner Villareal. Thank you, Chair. I just had a quick question for Amy. I know you mentioned earlier during the presentation y'all would be willing to restrict the PD further to exclude all auto uses. I believe you put travel plaza as well as parking lot and hotel motel. Would that be included in the PD if this is passed today going to council? That would be up to you all in terms of what conditions you put on the PD. I was specifically highlighting and pointing out that the vehicle uses, we really have no interest in those uses, so eliminating all of those would be fine. I don't know that a hotel or motel would be appropriately located here regardless, so I think that's probably a relevant conversation, but if you wanted to exclude them, you all have an issue with that? There you go. You can exclude everything that's highlighted on this page if you would like. Just a question for Chair, is there a way we could have that included as a friendly amendment too? Yeah, so in any kind of motion, that could be tacked on to already what staff has on for condition. Got it. Thank you. And we actually have a couple of potential amendments based on what we've heard tonight if now would be an okay time to propose those. In a moment, if you could, well, and maybe, no, maybe, I will let you do that because it might address my question actually, so yeah, go ahead. So I would propose the following additional conditions. One, that an alternative ESA plan would not be permitted. In other words, we could not come to you all and request encroachment into that ESA buffer. And two, that the 50 points for the landscape buffer include an eight-foot masonry wall that is structurally designed so that it's sound and has footings. I don't necessarily, I don't know that it's a good idea to locate it at exactly 25 feet from the property line just for a number of reasons, tree preservation being one, encroachment into the ESA being another, and potential maintenance issues, but if we could have that be a part of the 50-point requirement, at least the neighborhood would have the assurance that the wall would be there and that it would be structurally engineered to last as Ms. Brooks was requesting. And then the other thing that I just wanted to say is that, and I think that maybe you know this, if I was coming up here representing a Hillwood or an Amazon or a large industrial developer, these conditions would be well above and beyond what I think they would propose. And so I know it's hard for you all and the neighborhood to not have a concept plan and know exactly what's going here. My hope is that these conditions are great enough that it protects the neighborhood in a way that if a developer was standing right here right now trying to do this, they would push harder on this. Go ahead, Tina. I think Tina's got a question. So I just want to make sure we understand the conditions that you're proposing. So because we distributed an amended plan development district ordinance before the meeting, and you had presented some other options within your presentation. So are you, what you just spoke to regarding excluding the auto-related uses, eliminating hotel motel, I think also on that slide is parking lot as a principal use and travel plaza. So I heard you say those uses that are highlighted in yellow on that slide are what you were willing to restrict. So you add that. And then we have the alt ESA plan not being permitted. And then the 50 points for the landscape buffer, including an eight foot tall masonry wall, that no placement restrictions on that to give your client flexibility to be able to address tree preservation and other site conditions that might need to be addressed. So and that that wall be structurally engineered. But are those the only conditions that you're proposing to offer? In addition to the ones that were already within the ordinance, yes. I'm open to others if y'all have specific ones that you would like to discuss. Okay. But I just want to make sure that we understood on the record and then I summarize the conditions that you were offering up in addition to the document that we gave the commission this afternoon. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So going back to the masonry wall. So earlier you had a where yes, I mean a big concern for those who spoke today and was one concern I had brought up to staff earlier this week was leaving as much of that natural buffer as could be. I don't really know exactly what can be left and how far of that 250 foot buffer it can be and I guess we won't know that answer, I assume. I know you have 25 foot up but is that just? So that was the request of the neighborhood representative that I spoke with. We're not opposed to it. I think that it could potentially create some unintended consequences specifically related to tree preservation and maintenance issues. And so we're open to that being the condition that a wall is placed 25 feet from the property line and left in a natural condition. There's a possibility that you've got a heritage tree right at that 25 foot mark that has to be preserved by code. And so then we would kind of be in a bit of a predicament there and so having some flexibility in where that wall is placed, maybe there's a statement in there that says leaving at least 50% natural in its natural state. Something along those lines I think gives a little more flexibility regarding the placement of the wall and tree preservation. I'm just trying to not box us into an issue where we can't comply in the future. And I'll also point out that the ESA on the northeast corner is going to be wider than that 50 foot landscape buffer so any wall will have to be outside of that in that location as well, so I'm hesitant to box us in so much that it creates a problem down the road. But however you all want to word that condition, we don't have a problem with. I think we, Commissioner Villarreal, do you still have a question? Yeah, just one more and you've answered a lot of the concerns the neighborhood folks from the neighborhood brought today. Just one concern that wasn't addressed regarding light pollution. Have you all considered ways to negate light pollution or reduce it to assist the neighbors with this change? Sure, absolutely. That's a great question. So it's a conversation that we had during the neighborhood meetings. There's specific requirements within the development code regarding lighting for both parking lots and building that prevent the light from crossing the property line by more than half a foot candle, if I recall correctly, so the actual light is measured at the property line and the direction of parking lot lighting must be aimed down and cannot be taller than 25 feet, I believe, and then all building lighting must be aimed at the building or towards the ground and so the light pollution issue is really addressed within the code already. One of the neighbors brought up Ryan High School and when the stadium lights are on, which stadium lighting is a whole separate animal, this development would have to comply with lighting standards for just the development standards in subchapter 7, which would prevent light pollution automatically. Commissioner Pritt. Thank you, Chair. One question for you, Amy, and then one for staff. Can you help me understand in the discussions that you've had with the community just the general concern that a wall or opaque fence alleviates versus the vegetation barrier? Yes, so the conversation was had with Mr. Jonathan Brooks yesterday evening and he explained that right now everything is already in its natural state and the preference of the neighbors is that it remain in its natural state, so in terms of creating a maintenance issue, they were not concerned with a wall basically creating a barrier where the developer could not get in there and maintain necessarily. Their preference was that there would be no maintenance within that area. I do want to clarify that that would not apply to the property along Black Road. Obviously, Black Road itself needs to be landscaped and doesn't need to have a big masonry wall in front of it, but all the rest of the buffer, we would not be opposed to maintaining as much of it in its natural state as possible. I just brought up with him at the time that I've seen it create maintenance issues and other development projects in similar situations. That helps. I'm just trying to understand whether it would alleviate more of the concerns if it is placed closer to the existing residential properties or further away in respect to the vegetation barrier. Does that make sense? Maybe there's a condition that the masonry wall is required, but it has to be at least 25 feet away from the property line and what's left in between is natural vegetative state. That way it can move a little bit based upon tree preservation and other conditions that might require it. Thank you. Then for staff, as always, we get questions about drainage. I'm not sure if this is Christy or somebody else. I'm specifically wondering, in our code I know that we require the outflow to not exceed the outflow before development. However, I'm not certain what happens when there are two separate outflow locations on a single property. In other words, is it the cumulative outflow that gets regulated or at each outflow location may it not exceed what it was pre-development? I may defer to Christy on this if she knows anything that I don't. In general, the requirement is no negative impacts to adjacent properties. Whatever existing drainage conditions are on site, they cannot worsen that on any of those adjacent properties. If they could engineer the two different drainage areas to all flow one direction versus another, that's something that we could work with them on through the civil engineering plan process. My understanding is, at the end of the day, the rule is no negative impact whatsoever. What's leaving the site today in terms of the amount of water, the velocity of the water, can't be increased to negatively impact the neighboring properties. They would have to hold it all on site and release it into the storm source system or into a natural ... Sometimes we're allowed to release into the floodplain if they can manage to do so at a rate that would not negatively impact other properties. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Haley. I don't see any questions in front of me at the moment from the dance. I'm trying to wrap my head around exactly what we have just discussed to make sure we've got it all. You gave the synopsis of what Amy proposed. We just had discussion about the masonry wall language of it possibly being at least 25 feet from the buffer line. Staff would like to be able to address that. I was going to say, Mia, I didn't know if you were doing that, or Haley, so if you've got that suggestion regarding the issue with the tree preservation, the natural buffer, the placement of the wall, did you want to address that? I'll bring Haley out to answer that one. I didn't know if we were ready for conditions, and I'm welcome to add anything to the screen. Thank you. Okay. I don't know that we could wordsmith anything appropriate here, so I'd like to have some flexibility if we could to continue crafting this before it goes to council. If the commission does wish to require a wall, which is always an option in a buffer, but it's not required, so if the commission wanted to impose a requirement, I would ask that we be left the flexibility to also address tree preservation and ESA preservation within that buffer area so that we're not requiring inadvertently removal of trees and impact to the natural buffer that already exists along those property lines, just to add a masonry wall. Completely agree. Because any eight-foot wall, and I'm not an engineer, don't play one on TV, but any eight-foot wall would require some sort of footing be dug into the ground that would impact the roots of adjacent trees, and my understanding from our experts on staff is that really any impact to the roots within the drip line of the tree, so within the canopy area going straight down, could potentially do long-term damage to those trees, especially if they're post oaks or pecan or other more sensitive native species. We'd like to avoid that potential impact by imposing a strict location for any wall that the commission may wish to see on-site. What you're saying is incorporated as it would be on-site as part of the buffer in some placement? I would say dictating a location would be hard. If we could craft something, and I don't know, Amy, we can talk about this more. My thought was if we say that the goal is tree preservation of everything that's within the 50-foot buffer and a wall is required around the south and east perimeters so that it does not affect those trees, something in that nature, I think, was really the intent of what everyone's wanting. I'm just not quite sure how we would word that at this time. Right. I agree. That's where we're not going to be able to do it up here at this time. If the commission wishes, though, that is something you could direct us to work on and come up with wording, obviously, before it gets to council next week if you wanted to keep this moving forward. I'd have to ask Haley how we would actually make that. Sure. How we would do that. My suggestion might be to consider tabling this, hearing the next public hearing item. In that intervening time, perhaps staff can put something together, and then coming back to this item so that we're not considering speculative conditions. Right. If we're missing something that we've taught, there's been so many things, and even on top of what we were presented with at work session, that, yeah, it would be great if somebody could have the time to type it all up of what was discussed. Alternatively, we could come back at a subsequent meeting, but I think there's an appetite to try and avoid that if possible. It has been noticed for council, so Tina, I don't know if you know anything additional. I was just talking with the applicant's representative, so Amy, you can confirm her if you want to come to the podium or shake your head, but I had asked her about a continuance, and I think we're to the point. We're given the way we're crafting conditions that we do need to continue this item. I would ask Mia, Haley, do you think this is something that we could continue to the next planning and zoning commission meeting to give us a chance to work on that language, and then being that your council date is scheduled for next week, we would have council then continue to the next appropriate council meeting to allow the commission to take action. I think we're fine with that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Commissioner Peruzza. Thank you, Chair, and thanks for that direction and clarification on what the preferred option is. You know, with that, I'll move to table to the date certain of the next planning and zoning commission with the following recommendations, and I invite my colleagues to add anything else I've forgotten. One is to restrict the automotive major and minor uses instead of just the major uses, hotel, motel, and parking lot as primary use. On the fence and the buffer area, my proposal, which may not be the will of the rest of the commission, would be to stipulate that any fence erected along these borders to the residential areas be compliant with table 7.H in our development code for the fences listed for front yard fences in industrial areas, that it lists masonry wall in there, it also lists some other types of fences that would be long standing and kind of alleviates the problem of having a chain link fence or something like that. And then as far as placement, my proposal would be that we give wide latitude as to where it's placed. I think the applicant and the community have worked really well together and I don't want to hamstring them from working out these final details, such that any position from 25 feet away all the way up to 200, 250 feet away at the edge of the setback would be permissible for a fence if they wish to place one there. And if it's further than the 50 foot standard buffer area, it would still count toward the buffer points. Is that clear, Tina? I don't think it's necessarily part of your motion, correct? Your motion? No. You're giving a recommendation. Okay. Exactly. Yeah. Motion is simply to continue and I wanted to kind of capture my thoughts and invite others to you as well. Was that the end of your thoughts? Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Can I have some clarification? You can. Commissioner Pruitt. If the fence or wall is beyond a 50 foot setback from what the residential properties and the ETJ properties, then that fence or wall would be still allowed to count towards the 50 points within the buffer? Exactly. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So the motion on the floor is to table the item to a date certain of? The next planning and zoning meeting? That would be June 26. Thank you. June 26. Good. Okay. Commissioner Thaggard. I second tabling the item. Okay. We've got a first and a second to table the item to a date certain of June 26. Is there any other discussion? If we could get possibly the transportation talk a little bit, like can we get signage somewhere? I don't know if we can have an answer by then, but if we can, that would be super helpful. And then yeah, just basically getting, it's a great discussion we had tonight. Obviously I want to commend you on engaging the neighborhood and listening and hearing. All of this is difficult, I know, for everyone. So I feel comfortable that we are tabling because we changed so much tonight, I think for the better, exactly what we're looking at. I know this would be a lot easier if we had an actual plan in place and I know you're working your best to work all around that except to have that. And yeah, thank you staff. Yeah, so if you'll be able to the next time have all of these things written down so we know exactly what we're looking at and what we're voting on and going from there. Okay. Commissioner Pruitt, I think you have another point. I apologize for double speaking here. That's okay. I brought up the transportation issues that were raised by some of the residents. It's not entirely clear to me what the plan, if there is a plan yet for the bypass that starts right around Geesling Road from TxDOT's perspective. I'd like to understand whether northbound traffic from Geesling will be navigable toward Loop 288 Northwest around town or not, just when we come back after the continuance. Thank you. Anything else? Okay. Let's go ahead and vote, please. That motion carries 6-0. See you at the next meeting. Our next item is 5BZ220018, which is in tandem with 5CPD230001. I'm going to go ahead and open both of those public hearings and invite Angie up to clarify discussion on that item. Hi. Hi. Good evening. I'm Angie, review manager, both Z220018 and PD230001 are being requested to be continued to the planning and zoning commission meeting on July 24th, 2024, as there have been some infrastructure issues that have come to light in the last couple of days that the additional time is needed to work those out. The request is for July 24, 2024, for both Z220018 and PD230001. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Angie. Appreciate that. Any questions? Okay. Chair can entertain a motion or discussion. I will go ahead and make a motion to postpone item 5BZ220018 and 5CPD230001 to a date certain of July 24th, 2024, with the public hearing being left open on both of those items. Commissioner Pedro? I second. Okay. We've got a first and a second. Is there any discussion? Okay. Let's go ahead and vote, please. And with this, the vote would be for both of those items together. Motion carries 6-0. Okay. That will then take us to 5D-S240003, which is in tandem with 5E-S240004. I will open both of those public hearings, and Ashley is here for presentation. Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Ashley Eckstead, Associate Planner. This is S24-3 and S24-4, Advanced Microbial Solutions, and I will be presenting both of these cases together. This request is for a specific use permit to allow a high-impact manufacturing use on approximately 8 acres of land, and that is S24-3, which is outlined in red, and an additional 9 1/2 acres of land, S24-4. They are generally located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Shelby Lane and Dakota Lane, and on the west side of Dakota Lane, 800 feet south of Shelby. The existing zoning is the HI, which is shown in light purple, and the future land use is industrial commerce, which is shown in dark purple. Just to briefly go over the site history, in 2011, they applied for a certificate of occupancy for 4951 Dakota, which is the southernmost building outlined in blue. They have that certificate of occupancy that was issued for a heavy manufacturing use. In 2016, they applied for a certificate of occupancy at 5001 Dakota, which is the middle building outlined in blue, and they have that as a warehouse use. In 2002, they applied for a certificate of occupancy for 5071, which is the northernmost building outlined in blue, and that has been issued as a warehouse use as well. Earlier this year, they requested a certificate of occupancy for 3650 Shelby, which is outlined in red, and staff realized the intensive nature of this use, and we notified the applicant that a specific use permit would be required to continue operations and to begin operations at the building on Shelby. To briefly go over their business operations, high-impact manufacturing, which is why we're having this conversation today, the definition includes businesses that use hazardous inputs in the course of their manufacturing, and it also includes fertilizer manufacturing from organic matter, which both of those apply to this use. Manufacturing and outdoor storage of finished product do occur in the southernmost building and the middle building outlined in blue. That is also proposed to occur in the northernmost building, the single lot outlined in red, and the finished product is a non-hazardous that is stored outside. The majority of the inputs are stored in the northernmost building on the three-lot site, but they do have additional storage in the other buildings as well. They do have operational controls in place, which include trenches to contain spills inside the buildings, secondary containment where necessary. They have a safety plan, an emergency response plan, and the outdoor storage tanks are appropriately constructed for the product and the hazard rating. Land use-wise, the proposed and existing operations are located within an industrial park with similar types of uses, similar outdoor storage, similar types of vehicles, and similar operations. To briefly go over the site layouts, these are existing buildings. They are not proposing any changes to the buildings or the sites. The buildings range in size from approximately 40,000 to 61,000 square feet, and the outdoor storage tanks, which are highlighted on the plan in red. On the existing outdoor storage tanks, which is the southernmost lot in the middle building that was outlined in blue, it's the three-lot SUP, and then they are proposing additional outdoor storage, which is outlined in red on the left, and that is S243, the single building SUP. It does meet the criteria for approval. It's consistent with the goals and policies of the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan and the future land use map. It's compatible with the surrounding area, and approval of this SUP is not expected to generate significant adverse environmental or fiscal impacts. Public outreach was done, an ad was posted in the newspaper on the website, and a sign was posted on the property. We mailed out notices to everyone within 500 feet. We did not receive any responses in opposition or in favor. The applicant also discussed this project with the neighbors and delivered letters in person. The addresses is within 500 feet, and we performed notices for both individually. To go through the conditions, I'll go through S243 first, and this is the northernmost lot that is just the single lot. They'll need to maintain compliance with the Texas Multisector Stormwater General Permit and update their certification as required. They'll also need to maintain a spill response team that requires staff training at least once a year. The outdoor storage tanks, and these are the outdoor storage tanks that are proposed, they'll need to be screened from the right of way with an eight-foot wood fence and evergreen trees with a minimum 30-foot mature height. Additionally, all stored hazardous chemicals shall be located inside the building only, and they are currently doing that, so the outdoor storage tanks shown on the plans are not permitted to hold the hazardous materials. In condition six, this was added to your conditions that we sent out to you through email earlier today, and this was after discussions with building safety. They will need to obtain all necessary permits within 90 days to achieve the proper storage and placement of materials or chemicals within the control areas according to the building code. They'll also need to obtain the permits from the fire department for all the hazardous chemicals stored on site. Prior to any manufacturing, the wastewater discharge being connected to the city's wastewater collection system, they'll need building permits to hook up to the city's wastewater system on their manufacturing floor. So S24-3, this is the three lots, and some of these conditions are the same, so I won't reread those to you. There are a few conditions that are different. The southernmost lot, it does contain floodplain, so the chiller that is currently located there will need to be relocated outside of the floodway and the 100-year floodplain, and all mechanical equipment has to remain outside of the floodway and floodplain. No outdoor storage is permitted within the floodway or floodplain as well. Highlighted in red is additional changes to the conditions that we sent you earlier after talking with the fire department. We did add a 90-day timeframe to condition six to get the necessary permits for the storage of hazardous materials, and we do have the same condition from building safety to obtain any permits needed from them in accordance with the building code. Staff recommendations, we do recommend approval of S24-3, which is the northernmost lot, and S24-4, which is the three lots. I'm happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is also here with the presentation. Thank you very much, Ashley. Any questions? I do not see any. Thank you very much. Okay, I do not have a card for the applicant, but I'll go ahead and invite you up, and you can give us your name and address, and . . . All right. Good evening, commissioners, chair. My name is Jesse Copeland, 500 Winstead Building, 2728 North Harwood Street, Dallas, Texas, 75201. I'm here representing the applicant in this request. So I want to quickly thank all of staff, specifically Ashley, for reviewing, communicating, and processing all this material for these two applications very quickly and efficiently. I'll be brief. A lot of our presentations are duplicative of Ashley's, but I just want to run through a couple things. Here's the site that you've seen. This is for S24-3, located at 3650 Shelby Lane, an aerial, it's outlined in yellow here. And here's a street view of the site facing southwest on the corner of Shelby and Dakota Lane. As you know, this request is for a specific use permit for high-impact manufacturing, specifically, the production of a non-hazardous agricultural fertilizer that's used as a soil amendment to assist with nitrogen use efficiency in row crops. This is probably a good time to mention that the applicant is here to help explain and answer any technical and operational questions that the commissioners may have. Going forward, I'd like to just briefly outline the existing site conditions and some of the background on this site. As mentioned before, in 2024, the applicant entered into a lease at the site, which is their fourth in the immediate area, and this site will be used to produce the applicant's newest bio-stimulant technology. It was during the CO process for this site that the city notified the applicant the proposed use will be considered a high-impact manufacturing and that the SUP would be required. It's also important to note that this use is consistent with the future land use element of the Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan. As mentioned before, the site is surrounded entirely by land zone heavy industrial, and the uses of the site consist of the industrial uses like light manufacturing, distribution, warehousing, gas well production, as well as a trade school to the east. Lastly we did want to touch a little bit on our community outreach. The applicant and business owner personally delivered letters to the neighboring properties that we got from the list provided by staff. All but five of those addresses were made personal contact with, and the feedback was overwhelmingly positive, including a few folks that mentioned that they were happy to see that our business was expanding. I'll move on to S24-4. Again here's an aerial of the sites located within this request, 4951 here at the bottom, 5001 in the middle, and 5071 at the top. More street views of the sites facing southwest, here's 4951, 5001, and 5071 to Codelane. There's no need for me to rehash a lot of this as it's very similar to the previous request. However, I will clarify for this request, the SCP will offer production of the fertilizers and bio-stimulant products at 4951 and 5001 Codelane, whereas 5071 Codelane will be utilized to store empty totes, raw materials, and other finished bio-stimulant products in totes containers. It is a part of this overall manufacturing and distribution process, which is why it's being considered in this request. I actually spoke to this and I'll just bring it back up. The history of 4951, the applicant initially leased 4951 to Codelane in 2011 with the plan to build a production system to produce its original bio-stimulant product. At this time, the building had a CEO for heavy manufacturing that related back to the buildings used prior to the annexation. In 2016, the applicant expanded and leased its second building at 5001 Dakota and followed the same CEO process that it had for the first building. The applicant initially uses property for storage, but starting in late 2017, it constructed production systems for its newer bio-stimulant technologies. These production systems are similar to the ones used in 4951. Finally, in 2022, the applicant expanded again and leased its third building at 5071 Dakota to use solely for storage of empty totes, which are material containers, raw materials used to produce the company's products, and final finished bio-stimulant products. Again, the uses in these sites are consistent with the future land use element of the comprehensive plan. Once again, these sites are surrounded by heavy industrial, with the exception of the ETJ to the south, as well as various industrial uses, including light manufacturing, distribution, warehousing, automotive repair, and that same trade school now to the northeast. Again, the neighborhood outreach was done for these sites in conjunction with the site for S24-3, and feedback was still positive. As I mentioned earlier, the applicant business owner is here to answer technical operational questions, and I'll be here as well. Thank you, Mr. Griffin. Questions at the moment? I think I've got a question just about this bio-stimulant, if I could ask one. Sure. You said it's newer, so I'm wondering what the difference is, and if it can be done in a not-super-technical way that we could understand. I don't know if that's a question that can be done like that or not. Hi. My name is John Wolfe. I'm the chief operating officer of Advanced Microbial Solutions. Basically the difference here is these are fermentation tanks that are serialized so that water flows from one tank to the next, and it consumes whatever organic feedstock you put in there. We direct these to make certain kinds of microbes that do different things. This newest one is just designed to help us get corn, primarily corn plants to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere, reduce the amount of nitrogen we apply to corn crops. I think you did very well. I actually understood that. All right. I have to explain it to my son a lot so that if I can do that, it helps. Any other questions? Yeah. I don't think so. Thank you very much for that. Appreciate that. I don't have any other cards in front of me. Is there anyone else wishing to speak who has not? There should be like one only person here, okay? Very good. Very good. Okay, with that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing for 5D S240003 and 5E S240004, and I will open the floor for a motion or discussion. Commissioner Cole. I'll make a motion to approve. Commissioner Pruitt? Second. Okay. I need to clarify, because these had differing conditions, I should have said that before that. We need to take these one motion at a time. So we're looking at 5D here. I will ask S240003. So Commissioner Cole, are you good with your to approve 5D? Commissioner Pruitt? Yes. So second. I will make a motion to approve 5D S240003 with staff's conditions as presented. Okay. Any discussion? Before we vote, can I just say thank you, Ashley. Thank you, Mr. Copeland. The backup material was fantastic on this. I will say when I first read just the AIS, I was like, oh, my gosh, you know, what is -- and as I delved into it, and it was still -- I mean, it took a minute. But you presented it so well, the narrative was great, so that we really could understand exactly what was being asked. So well done. Thank you very much. Let's go ahead and vote, please. That motion will carry 6-0. That will take us to then the vote on 5E, S240004. Commissioner Thaggard? I make a motion to approve. Is that with staff's conditions as presented? Commissioner Pergero? I second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of item 5E, S240004. Any discussion? Okay. Let's go ahead and vote, please. That motion carries 6-0. And that will take us to our final public hearing item for the night, which is 5F, DCA240003. I will open the public hearing, and Angie is here for presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Just one second. Good evening. Angie Manglaris, Development Review Manager. This is DCA240003, amendments to the Debt and Development Code as it relates to conflicts with other ordinances and criteria manuals. So a little bit of background on this proposal. This is amendments to sections 1.3.4 of the DDC. This is the section that spells out really conflicts with other ordinances as well as criteria manuals in the Denton Development Code. On June 4th, 2024, the City Council adopted the new Denton Design Criteria Manual. The Denton Design Criteria Manual consolidates our existing criteria manuals into one comprehensive manual and also specifies that in the event of conflict between the Denton Design Criteria Manual and the Denton Development Code, the Denton Design Criteria Manual shall not supersede the DDC. As it is today, we do have some conflicting language. As section 1.3.4 specifies that in the event of conflict with the DDC and criteria manuals, the criteria manuals shall govern. And really the purpose of the DDC is to establish the subdivision and design standards for land regulations to carry out the goals of the comprehensive plan. The new manuals are intended to provide the supplemental technical detail that we need to carry out the provisions of the DDC. So we do really want the DDC and its regulations to control in the event of conflict. While we're in this section of the DDC, there are just some additional amendments that needed to be made to remove references to manuals that we no longer use as well as just clean up some names. So the proposed amendments are here before you. Again, correcting that the Denton Development Code shall govern in the event of conflict as well as calling out that our criteria manuals are now in one consolidated manual. Although I do apologize, this needs to be indented in a little bit further. But this does address the creation of the Denton Design Criteria Manual, which houses all of our existing criteria manuals and also moves to amending these criteria manuals as needed. I believe before it was called out as a yearly basis, so we're shifting that to when the need arises for criteria manual amendments. Having said all of that, this is consistent with our criteria for approval for text amendments and staff is recommending approval as the amendments as presented and the next step is City Council in July. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Angie? Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. This is a public hearing. There is no one but staff left in front of me, so I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and open the floor for a motion or discussion on the item. Commissioner Villarreal. Move approval. Commissioner Cole? Second. Okay. Got a first and a second for approval discussion. Okay. Let's go ahead and vote, please. That motion carries 6-0. That will take us to our matrix, item 6-A, and I will turn it over to Tina. Thank you, Chair Ellis. So with respect to the matrix, there were no additional items added at your last meeting, so that remained as is given that we had the discussion regarding the P&Z reconsideration process and the matrix will go ahead and remove that as we continue to move that item forward from a public hearing perspective. Several updates for you. So the Southeast Denton area plan, we are in the final stretch of trying to wrap up that project. So a few items that you might be interested in. So we're trying to get our steering committee to be able to meet on June 20th, so we anticipate that occurring. The team is going to be doing additional engagement activities with the Juneteenth celebrations that are happening this weekend. Excuse me just a moment. We also have slated for July 17th a special called Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to be able to consider this item. So we're proposing to bring forth the draft plan for your consideration and we also have -- oh, I skipped a date. Hold on. Before we get to that. So we'll have a P&Z discussion on June 26th, because we promised you at our joint meeting that we would bring the action items before the commission for your consideration, so we'll be doing that in the work session. So I'm presuming all of that goes well. Then we're proposing to then bring the plan forward for the July 7th special called meeting. If you have not done so, if you could please let Kathy know your availability so we can ensure that we've got quorum. Also we may be scheduling some additional public hearings for that meeting as well since we've asked you to come in for that, but we'll start July 17th and that is a Wednesday. But anyway, so hopefully we'll be able to have that project before you on the 17th. With all of our intention, we're currently reviewing the final draft -- or the draft document. I'm looking at Mia, so she and Julia put so much hard work into this, but we anticipate being able to move forward with that. And then once we have -- if the commission is able to successfully recommend approval at your meeting on the 17th of July, then we would get that scheduled for council and I believe the date we're targeting for that is July 23rd for that project. It's kind of a race between Mia and Julia and Cameron and Sean, so with the two projects going on. Downtown, you know, we continue to work on that. That one -- we just received the draft document plan on that as well and so we've pretty much finished our work, I believe, with the steering committee. We will be looking forward to bringing that to the commission here in the very near future also for your consideration. And right now I believe we are targeting your July 24th meeting date for that. In terms of projects that you all took action on at your last meeting and their outcome at council, so if you recall, Mia worked on an amendment to the debt and development code to address donation boxes. Council did approve those ordinance amendments as presented, which was as recommended by the commission. Short-term rentals continues to live on. That went before council and they continued that to the July 23rd meeting date to allow staff to be able to meet with local realtors group. There's some concern amongst local realtors that the proposed registration requirement will lead to a rental registration program here within the city for all rental properties. So I believe we have that meeting scheduled for July 20th and so we'll be meeting with them and then going back to council on July 23rd. That concludes my report, so thank you. Thank you. Anything to add to the matrix? Commissioner Pruitt. So nothing specifically to add, but I know earlier in the work session today we had talked about the community engagement incentives policy and method of doing that. And we talked about pushing or bringing that back at the next meeting on June 26th. I think our agenda is stacking up to be pretty full with lots of public hearing on June 26th. So I was just going to offer a suggestion that if it makes more sense to hold that after the Southeast Denton discussion ... You're still not on. On our special call meeting on July 17th, if that gives staff more time to prepare and removes the schedule pressure of a full agenda, I think that's fine with me anyway. Yeah, I appreciate that suggestion. I think we're in a position where we could at least bring that item back for a work session discussion because I know we've got a good solid draft already assembled. We were not able to get it completed in time for this meeting, but I think we'll be in good shape. So it's good to know that that offer is out there. Thank you. Yes. Anything else for the matrix? Concluding items? Okay. Well, with that, I want to thank you all, thank staff for being awesome, and I will adjourn us at 8.28 PM. See you at the next one.