Good afternoon.
Welcome to the planning and zoning work session.
Unfortunately, we do not have quorum, so we will not be convening the work session.
However, we will convene the regularly scheduled meeting at 6.30 p.m. tonight in the council
chamber.
Good evening, and welcome to the January 29th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission
at 6.30 p.m. tonight.
I will call this meeting to order, and our first order of business is the Pledge of Allegiance
to the U.S. and Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
On the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one indivisible.
Our next order of business is item 2A, PZ25002, consider approval of the January 15th planning
and zoning meeting minutes.
I have a motion from Commissioner Villarreal.
>> Move approval.
>> And Commissioner Padron.
>> Second.
>> Thank you.
Let's vote on the board.
That brings our consent agenda, and all of these are moving forward.
Item 3A, B, and C, and there's a motion from Commissioner Villarreal.
>> Move approval.
>> Commissioner Riggs.
>> Second.
>> Any questions on the items?
Okay.
And let's vote on the board.
That brings up item 4A, FR250001, I think we will have Sean Jacobson up to present.
>> Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
I'll just pull up my presentation here.
Okay.
No.
That is definitely not it.
One moment.
Okay.
There we are.
Apologies.
There we go.
Okay.
Sorry about that.
So this is a plat of the Glenwood Meadows additional replat, essentially to remove floodplain,
to acknowledge that floodplain has been removed from these lots.
It is not fully satisfactory of our criteria yet, and so staff is recommending denial.
We have no objection to the request for an extension, which could be to a date certain
of February 26th.
Happy to answer any questions.
>> Any questions?
Commissioner Villarreal.
>> Move approval.
The extension request to a date certain of February 26th, 2025.
>> And Commissioner Pedrone.
>> Second.
>> Let's vote on the board.
Next is item 4B, FR25-0003.
Go ahead, Matt, when you're ready.
>> Good evening, Commission.
This is a replat for a lot located on the east side of Mosh Branch Road, about 600 feet
south of US-380.
It's a 9.4 acre lot, purpose to establish and abandon some public as well as private
easements.
At this moment, it does not meet our criteria for approval.
So staff is recommending denial, but has no objection to their first extension request
to a date certain of February 26th.
>> Thank you.
I understand any questions or a motion.
Commissioner Villarreal.
>> Move approval.
The extension request to a date certain of February 26th, 2025.
>> Commissioner Pedrone.
>> Second.
>> Any questions?
Let's vote on board.
That passes 4-0, brings us to item 4D, sorry, 4C, FP25-0005 also from Matt.
Excuse the number, but this is a final plat for a proximally 16.4 acre lot in the city's
ETJ off of FM-8030 south of Country Club Road.
Its purpose to establish 15 lots, 13 of them being single family residential.
It does not meet the criteria for approval.
However, staff has no objection to their first extension request.
>> Any questions or entertain a motion?
Commissioner Villarreal.
>> Move approval.
The extension request to a date certain of February 26th, 2025.
>> Commissioner Pedrone.
>> I second.
Let's vote on the board.
That motion passes 4-0, brings us to item 4D, FP25-0001, Mia Hines, good evening.
>> Good evening, Chair, members of the commission.
This item, FP25-0001 is a final plat for Hickory Grove Phase 3, which is located south of Jackson
Road.
The first two phases were located north of Western University, so just south of this
phase, approximately 1,800 feet west of Thomas J. Egan.
At this time, the plat does not meet all of our criteria for approval, so we are recommending
denial.
We have no objection to the requested extension to a date certain of February 26th, 2025,
and this would be their first extension.
At this time, I'll take any questions you have.
>> Questions or motion?
Commissioner Villarreal.
>> Move approval.
The extension request to a date certain of February 26th, 2025.
>> Commissioner Pedrone.
>> I second.
>> Let's vote on the board.
That motion passes 4-0, brings us to item 4E, FP25-0003.
>> Good evening.
Julie Wyatt, principal planner, and I am presenting this plat to you for the prestige at May Hill.
It is for a final plat.
Staff is currently recommending denial because they have some items that they need to correct
prior to approval.
The property is located just east of May Hill Road on the north side of Edwards.
The purpose of the plat is to -- for a single lot for a multifamily development.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
>> I had one.
Julie.
>> Yes.
>> Just -- I'm sorry.
It wasn't this one.
>> Oh, okay.
>> Any questions or a motion?
Commissioner Villarreal.
>> Approval of the extension request to date certain February 26th, 2025.
>> And Commissioner Riggs.
>> Second.
>> Let's vote on the board.
That passes 4-0, brings up item 4F, FP24-0042.
>> All right.
Once again, Julie Wyatt.
This one actually should have been on the consent agenda because they actually addressed
all of our comments prior to the agenda posting, so I do apologize, but we'll go ahead and
talk about it.
The property is located at the intersection of Loop 288 and McKinney.
They are proposing to develop the lot with a commercial use, a car wash, actually, and
it is a final plat for the property.
They have addressed all of staff's technical requirements, and so we do recommend approval
of this final plat.
>> Thank you.
Any questions or a motion?
Commissioner Villarreal.
>> With approval.
>> Commissioner Pedron.
>> Second.
>> And let's vote on the board.
That item passes 4-0, which brings us to our last item for individual consideration.
Item 4G, FP25-0004.
>> All right.
So this is my last plat tonight.
This is a final plat for the Kingsway subdivision.
It's a single family residential subdivision.
It is located on the northeast side of Loop 288, and this is the final phase of that subdivision.
It is a final plat.
We do recommend denial because they do have some items that they need to work through,
but we have no objection to the requested extension.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
>> Any questions on this one or a motion?
Commissioner Pedron.
>> Move approval to grant the extension to date certain of February 26, February 26.
>> And Commissioner Rieks.
>> Second.
>> Let's vote on the board.
Item passes 3-0, sorry, 3-1.
Brings us to our one public hearing of the evening, item 5A, AMPC24-0001B.
I will go ahead and open the public hearing at this time.
>> Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.
This is Angie Manglaris, Development Review Manager, here to present Coal Ranch Masterplan
Community, a major amendment.
So a little bit about this request.
This request is to amend a portion of the Coal Ranch Masterplan Community development
map, effectively rezoning portions of the Masterplan Community from a light industrial
and residential 7 base zoning district to a mixed-use neighborhood, mixed-use regional,
residential 4 and residential 6 base zoning districts.
The approximately 3,169-acre Coal Ranch Masterplan Community is generally located in the southwestern
part of the city, is located west of Interstate 35W, south of Tom Cole Road, and is bisected
by FM2449.
Zoning in the vicinity is varied.
To the south and southeast is in the Landmark Masterplan Community.
There are residential uses to the west, north, and northwest, both in the city limits as
well as in the extraterritorial jurisdiction.
And then public facilities and industrial uses are situated to the northeast of the subject
property.
Today, the subject property is predominantly pasture with farm and ranch-related structures.
There are also some active gas well pads, stands of mature trees, and areas of confirmed
and potential environmentally sensitive areas.
The purpose of this request is to reduce the total land area in the light industrial base
zoning district to reduce conflict between areas of light industrial and residential
development as well as to align the base zoning map with the internal land plan and infrastructure.
The primary area of change you can see here on your screen is generally located west of
Future Loop 288 and north of FM2499.
This request does not alter the maximum allowable single-family and multi-family units that
are approved with the Coal Ranch Master Plan Community, which is 5,900 single-family units
and 3,200 multi-family units.
This table is a little bit helpful to see the areas of change.
The reduction in light industrial is approximately 316 acres and 17 acres reduction in residential
seven.
Predominantly, that land area is being redistributed to mixed-use neighborhood and mixed-use regional.
However, there are also some slight increases in the total land area in residential six
and residential four base zoning districts.
This request was approved against the criteria for approval as outlined in the Coal Ranch
MPC.
Staff does find it consistent with the Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan as well as the adopted
MPC.
In addition, it is not anticipated to generate any adverse impacts and adequate road systems
and public facilities are available to serve the development and are outlined in the various
operating and project agreements associated with Coal Ranch.
A little bit more about the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan does designate this area as Master Plan Community as you can see
here on your map.
This applies to our large-scale developments that are guided by separate approvals within
the city.
The total land area as part of this request remains unchanged, so the total amount of
land area in the Coal Ranch MPC stays the same, although the base zoning districts are
shifting a little bit.
At the time of adoption, the Comprehensive Plan did recognize that some areas zoned MPC
may not reflect future needs, and this request is consistent with Action Item 211, which
calls to establish a process to facilitate revisions to the land use mix of approved
MPCs.
This request specifically is consistent with generating compact and mixed-use developments
as well as allowing for a mix of housing types, specifically by rezoning portions of the MPC
from LI to the MN and MR as you see along the future Loop 288.
Additionally, the Coal Ranch Master Plan Community is consistent with the population projections
in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which calls for an additional approximately 37,000 housing
units.
Again, the Coal Ranch Master Plan Community will contain no more than 5,900 single-family
units and 3,200 multi-family units.
This is also consistent with Goal HN1, which calls to develop and maintain a diverse housing
stock to meet the price point, location, and choice and type for residents.
The Preferred Land Preservation Plan does show several areas of confirmed and potential
ESA development can occur in a manner that's consistent with the Preferred Land Preservation
Plan by following the ESA standards as outlined in the Coal Ranch MPC, which calls for development
in accordance in the same manner that the Denton Development Code does, preserving those areas.
Public outreach was conducted in accordance with state law and the Denton Development
Code.
Public notices were mailed as well as posted in the newspaper and the website.
At this time, no responses have been received in opposition in favor or neutral.
The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting in December of 2024, and staff is recommending
approval as this is consistent with the criteria for approval within the Coal Ranch MPC.
The next steps for this project would be a public hearing at City Council on February
18th.
I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have, and the applicant is also here who
can answer questions you may have.
Any questions from the commission?
I've got one, Angie.
Could you, for the benefit of those up here, explain how the zoning designations within
this MPC overlay with the limits of the number of homes within each type that is also a limitation
within the MPC?
Does that make sense, as far as the number of units that can be built?
Sure.
I think maybe I follow, but are you asking for me to explain how the MPC dictates those?
Just in a normal zoning case, we understand that the density and number of units is limited
by height and setbacks within a particular zoning district, as well as building coverage.
This is a little bit different, because there's an additional cap, is my understanding.
Could you explain how that additional cap works with this request?
I think so, so this might help just as we talk a little bit.
The land area is shifting within the master plan community.
Within the coal ranch MPC, all of the zoning districts apart from light industrial do allow
for some residential use, be that multifamily townhome or single family.
The number of units that are allowed are capped in the coal ranch MPC as part of that adopting
ordinance and is also outlined in their operating and project agreements.
While the overall distribution of the base zoning districts is shifting, those unit counts
are not also increasing with the increased land in MR and MN, which allow for residential
uses.
Effectively, that would make the overall density of the development slightly less than what
it was when it was initially adopted, just based on how the land area is distributed.
It's much different than a typical zoning case, which does not typically have these
normal caps.
If you were to zone to RR, you would be limited to those lot sizes, and that would dictate
the number of houses essentially, but they're very different than a normal zoning case.
Typically, we wouldn't have that associated with it unless it was something like a plan
development where you're adopting that site plan.
Okay.
Thank you.
Is there a cap for commercial development or industrial development similar to the number
of units of residential?
No.
I'm not aware of any cap that would limit the number of commercial or industrial developments.
Just they'd have to be situated in the land area that allows for it.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
I just have one question, and it's related to the public meeting.
Did anybody come to the public meeting?
It looks like there wasn't any response to the-
No.
There were no attendees at the neighborhood meeting apart from those on the applicant's
team, and they can speak more to that if you need more information.
No, that's good.
Okay.
This is a public hearing.
First of all, I don't have a card, but if the applicant would like to speak, you're
welcome to.
We can fill out a card afterwards.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, my name is O.C. Vest, and
I'm the project manager for the Coal Ranch Company and for the Coal Ranch Project.
I think Angie's done a wonderful job analyzing the application and the request, and I really
don't have anything to add to that except that we're here and happy to answer any questions
that you might have.
It's a quiet evening.
I'll ask one, I'm sorry, Mr. Vest.
Vest.
It's a quiet evening, and my ears are not quite working well.
I also totally understand the strange oddity of the LI adjacent to residential before.
Can you speak to, I don't know how long you've been on the project, can you speak to what
the rationale was for having that originally?
It makes sense to me to convert away from that, but I think I'd understand better if
I understood what the original plan was.
Does that make sense?
Sure.
I think that's a great question.
I've been on the project now for 15 years, so it has gone through a bit of a metamorphosis
over time.
The light industrial zoning was an idea that the Coal family had as a land use because
they're in the light industrial business.
The family also owns a business park called ILC West that's in northern Fort Worth next
to the BNSF Intermodal, and they've got about 1,200 acres there that is light industrial.
What we've learned over time with that project is what light industrial really means in this
area of DFW these days is distribution warehouse, right?
It's all about online shopping and the increased amount of distribution that's necessary for
that, which is great.
The only drawback to distribution warehouse is it generates a lot of trucks.
It's 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
There is some residential that's coming in next to the Fort Worth project where we have
that business park.
What we've seen is that truck traffic and the residential traffic is a bad mix because
the truck traffic just never lets up, and then during the peak times when people are
going to work, going to school, coming home, there's a lot of conflicts.
Because they have that light industrial park in Fort Worth, they felt like we don't want
to make that mistake here, so we've got plenty as a family, we have plenty of light industrial
land to develop, let's pull that out of Coal Ranch and just make that area residential,
but not ask for any additional units.
What that allows us to do, as Angie pointed out, is it allows us to lower the density in
areas.
If you go back and look at some of the original documentation for Coal Ranch in the original
NPC, there's over 1,000 acres of open space, so it's going to allow us to do some lot
sizes that are bigger than what the builder appetite has been for the last few years.
The builder appetite has been give us 40 foot lots, give us 50 foot lots, we're going to
be able to produce lot sizes much bigger than that.
With 3,000 acres, it's a 20 plus year project.
We need the diversity and product type in order to have a well-rounded master plan community,
and that means a wide range of residential products.
It's really the safety, what we learned from the light industrial project in Fort Worth,
that really spurred us to move to ask for this change.
I noticed that there's more MR zoning adjacent to the future WIP 288.
Does that play into a desire to have buildable land available for more commercial uses along
that corridor or is that moving some of the higher density residential closer to there?
What's the thought?
Both.
Okay.
As you probably guessed, like we have, loop 288 corridor is going to provide an increased
commercial capability we don't have today, and then that intersection with FM 2449 is
also very important commercially.
We wanted to give that the best opportunity as possible to create more mixed use, like
we're doing with our phase one.
With our phase one, which is the MR area in the northeast corner there, we've got a pretty
wide range of products there, including mixed use commercial and restaurants and uses like
that, other non-residential uses.
We really like the MR capability to allow us to do that mixed use in an area where we
think it'll actually work right here.
Any other questions?
Okay.
Thank you.
You bet.
This is a public hearing, so if anyone else would like to speak on this item, you're welcome
to come down and fill out a card later.
Not seeing any movement, I will close the public hearing.
Open the floor for discussion or questions for staff or motion.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Commissioner Riggs?
Second.
All right.
It's a quiet group tonight, like I said before.
I think it's interesting to see the difference in dynamic between an MPC amendment and as
any case, closer to where there's existing development.
It looks to me like we're going to allow for, there's no guarantee that it would happen,
more of a retail sort of strip center, if you can think of, between on the other side
of Loop 288 that exists, that's not a freeway.
And I'll recall, gosh, maybe a year ago now, when we were looking at this West Denton area
with lots of muds coming in west of here, that without an outlet to allow development
to have a place for that, we would essentially be forcing all of the residential development
west I-35 to cross east of I-35 under a bridge that's not widened yet.
And even once it is, it'll be too small, because we all live seven miles away from everything.
So hopefully this will be able to distribute some more things around, even though it's
very much of a corridor plan, I doubt it'll be mixed use, it'll be a strip mall.
But if that's what's demanded, that's what's demanded.
Any other questions or comments?
I will call for a vote on the floor.
That item passes 4-0.
That brings us to our item 6A, Planning and Zoning Commission Matrix Report, Tina.
Thank you, Chair Perot.
So just wanted to bring to your attention a couple of updates that we made to the matrix.
There were no items that were requested from the commission, but I did add two items to
the matrix for your benefit.
So one of the things is, what we would like to do is share with you some of the projects
that our team has been working on, kind of more behind the scenes.
Some of these projects, you may not necessarily have a role in, but just wanted to let you
know what we are working on, because they are associated with implementation of our
Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan, as well as our Southeast Denton Area Plan, and our Design
Downtown Denton Plan, in addition to council strategic initiatives.
So I thought you all might benefit from receiving that information.
And then also, we're going to go ahead and start doing our PNZ boot camps for a couple
of you that have been on the commission, maybe a little longer, you know, will -- we have
a series of topics that we will do presentations to the commission, typically during that work
session, and I'll -- can I maybe get -- Angie, can I maybe get your help?
Thank you.
So -- but anyway, so we do these PNZ boot camp presentations.
They're more done in work session.
They're more informational purposes, just kind of -- I wanted to say maybe a little
higher than a Planning 101 -- thank you, Angie -- a little more higher than a Planning 101
class, but just -- we do this so that from time to time, we all have a refresher on the
regulations associated with some of the efforts or the types of applications that the commission
may see.
So you'll start seeing us getting those scheduled more regularly during your work sessions.
The other thing I'll make note on the Matrix, I did tweak one item, the second line item
in the Matrix, with the LSR explaining the practices and legal limitations associated
with state law changes, so I just noted that that will provide an update at a future date.
I know it's on Hillary's radar, so -- because we remind her from time to time, so but anyway,
so just wanted to update the timeframe that was on that.
In terms of council action on any planning items, since your last Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting, there have been none, so nothing to report on that front.
And then, wanted to also follow up with the commission, just bring to your attention,
so on February 12th, that is when we will be doing our CIAC, our Capital Improvements
Advisory Committee.
If you recall, you all serve in that capacity.
The city is working on its utility impact fees, and so we are needing to convene the
CIAC and have that meeting.
So we typically do those before the Planning and Zoning Commission work session.
So we would do those at 4 o'clock p.m., and again, this would be on February 12th.
So does anybody know if they have a conflict with that meeting date and time?
Okay.
Good.
So love to see that.
Also a friendly reminder, if you could make sure that you also respond to the email that
Kathy has sent you, because we do track your availability that way.
So thank you for that, and I believe that concludes my report, so thank you.
Any requests or additions for the matrix?
I have one that may just fold into the bootcamp updates, but I think especially with concerning
the plats that we move forward, I would like to see an overview of not only what is that
process and what is our responsibility in that, but also what does staff have to do
when there are last-minute changes from the plat perspective or meeting quorum perspective,
and then what are the implications of not being able to act on those applications in
a timely manner?
Yeah.
Okay.
We can do that.
Okay.
Well, concluding items.
Anybody have any concluding items for this evening?
Seeing none.
Thank you, Commission and staff, and I will adjourn this meeting of the Denton Planning
and Zoning Commission at 7.05 p.m.