- Good afternoon and welcome to our work session
of the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission.
On March 19th, it is 5.03 p.m.
We'll call us to order.
Our first order of business is citizen comments
on the consent agenda and not seeing any comments.
We will move forward to the next item,
which is the, sorry,
questions on the consent agenda from the commission.
Seems quiet.
I take that as none.
So we will move on to the items
for individual consideration.
Good afternoon.
- Good afternoon.
Karen Robertson, Prince Will Planner.
This is a final plot for a approximately 20 acre property
on the northwest corner of I-35 and Robson Ranch Road.
Staff is recommending denial at this time
for the final plot as it does not comply
with our established criteria for approval,
but we have no objection to a final extension request
of April 9th.
- Looks like this is the first extension request.
Any questions on this item?
No?
Yes, Mr. Villarreal.
- Do we believe that with the extension request,
they'll be able to meet plot requirements by April 9th?
- Yes. - Okay.
- I see nothing else.
Thank you, Cameron.
Next item, item, sorry.
4B, FP250007.
It looks like Angie is up here and me instead.
- Yes, good evening.
Angie Manglaris, Development Review Manager.
I'm gonna be presenting this final plot this evening.
This is FP, this is not FP25.
This is FP250007.
This is a final plot for Elm's Bed Multifamily.
It's generally located at the northeast corner
of Audre Lane and Nottingham.
The intent of this final plot is to create one lot
for development of a future multifamily site.
At this time, they're not compliant
with all of our review criteria.
The applicant has requested a extension
to a date certain of April 9th.
This would be their first extension request.
I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have.
- Thank you.
Is there enough time for them to get this figured out
before April 9th?
Are they gonna have a final plot for us by April 9th?
- It does look like they have a handful
of lingering comments, but it is possible
that they do all get worked out by April 9th.
It's a little difficult for me to speak on their timing.
- Thank you.
- Seeing nothing else, thank you, Angie.
Next is item 4C, FP250009.
- Good afternoon, Erins.
- Good afternoon.
This is FP250009.
This is Hilltop Village addition.
This is an approximately six acre site located
in the ETJ, east of Hilltop Road.
At this time, this plot does not meet our criteria
for approval and staff is recommending denial,
but we have no objection to their requested extension
to April 9th.
First, this would be a first extension request.
- And Commissioner Villarreal.
- Thank you.
So are we expecting this to be good to go by that time?
- I do expect that.
- Okay, thank you.
- Thank you, Erins.
Next is 4E, sorry, my D, thank you.
FP250011.
Good afternoon, Julie.
- Good afternoon, Julie Wyatt, Principal Planner.
Let me see if I can.
I guess that's gonna stay.
Julie Wyatt, Principal Planner.
I'm presenting FP2511, this is Villages on McKinney.
It is a final plot for 113-0 lot line,
single-family residential dwellings.
Some of you may remember this.
It was a plan development that went forward with zoning
recently.
They do have a few items that they need to work through,
quite a few review comments that they still have to address.
So staff is recommending denial at this time.
However, we have no objection to their requested extension,
and it is the first extension that they requested.
Should I go ahead and answer?
Yes.
- You know, we're working toward getting to that April 9th.
They may not be able to address all of those comments
by then, but that's certainly a goal that we have.
- And I think on this one in particular,
there were some additional utility access things
that make it a little bit more complex
than your average plat, is that--
- It is a complicated site as well as plat,
so that was one of the reasons for the PD
is just the complexity of the site.
- Okay, thank you.
- Thank you.
- Now we are at 4E, FP25.
- Can I just interrupt--
- Yes, please do, sorry.
- So when we're seeing all of these come through
and staff is requesting to deny it
and that they want the extension,
is it just because there's things in place
that they haven't finished and we're on a deadline
of having to meet some of the requirements,
you know, the timelines?
- Right, so state law requires us to take action on plat
within 30 days, so we either approve them,
deny them or approve with conditions
could be an option as well.
Because of the state obligation to take action,
when applicants are not ready
to have the final plat approved,
keep in mind it's typically synced up
also with their civil engineering plans.
And so since the state statute allows
for essentially unlimited extensions for the applicants,
hence why we try to work with them.
So it's not uncommon for us to have final plats
where they're on that first extension.
Most projects usually are able
to get their civil engineering plans
and their plat wrapped up within that extension timeframe.
We have had a handful of projects from time to time
that might need a second extension,
but what you're saying is not uncommon.
- So when I see these extensions,
like if we're seeing multiple extensions,
then that's like a red flag or not necessarily?
- It's not necessarily a red flag.
Each site is unique many times
and so has unique challenges that have to be worked through.
And so a lot of times it's the applicant
trying to work with our team
on getting resolution of the staff comments
because the final plat is linked
to the civil engineering plans.
Quality engineering doesn't always happen in 60 days.
And so hence the extension requests that are provided for.
So our goal is to get them to get their projects
to compliance so they meet all their standards.
So if that means they've got to get an extension
on their plat, we don't see any harm in that.
- Okay, I just noticed a lot of the recommendation
to deny and extend.
So I just wanted to make sure I had a clear understanding.
- Absolutely. - Thank you.
- Yeah, I'll just add to that from a lay perspective.
That state requirement came in with what we refer to
as the shot clock for plat applications,
partially as a result of many jurisdictions,
either because of capacity or because of desire,
taking a very long time to take action on plats.
Denton, even before that state law requirement was in place,
was fairly expedient on these applications,
but the language and how they're presented in the agenda
is a function of that state law.
Okay, now we will, for EFP250008, welcome.
Matt.
- There we go.
All right, so this is FP250008.
This is a final plat for a multifamily dwelling site
with a Bay Zoning MN for a 0.265 acre site
on the west side of Bryan Street,
about 340 feet south of Scripture Street
here in the city of Denton.
Staff is recommending denial of this final plat,
as it does not comply with the criteria for approval.
This is the first extension of request
the staff has no objection to.
Remaining comments are fairly minor,
so we do believe that they'll be able to achieve those
within this extension review period.
We're here to answer any questions.
- Seeing none, thank you, Matt.
And finally, item 4G, also for Matt, FP25006.
- Yes.
All right, so this one is closely related to,
this one goes along with item 4F,
which is a subdivision variance request,
which I'll explain more when we go over that one.
But this is a final plat in the city of Denton's ETJ.
It's about a 9.64 acre site located on a private road
about 1,500 feet east of FM 2064, or North Locust Street,
and approximately 5,500 feet north of Loop 288.
Staff's recommendation depends on
how this plan zoning commission rules
based on that subdivision variance.
If the commission approves said variance,
staff recommends approval of this final plat.
If the commission decides to deny
said subdivision variance,
staff then recommends denial of the plat.
- Thanks, Matt.
I think we understand that.
Quick question, I know we'll get to the variance in a minute,
but I wanted to call this first,
because the language is a little bit different
from the denial in that,
it, I guess my question would be,
if the variance is denied,
then is there a length of reapplication
that would become troublesome for the applicant
based on the plat timing?
Because typically they'll repeal it
so that they can reapply before that time expires
of being able to submit a new plat application or something.
Am I confusing everybody?
I'm sorry.
- So if I understand correctly,
you are able to resubmit denied plat after a certain time.
I don't know that time off the top of my head.
It would be, and I still get this in the variance,
it would be difficult, I would say,
for them to reach approval if we did not approve it.
- Okay, so it may be a non-issue then.
Okay, so sorry for jumping ahead,
but now we can go to item F, four F, the variance.
Sorry, go ahead.
- While he's pulling that out,
so if the plat were denied,
the applicant does have the ability
to resubmit a plat application.
Plats are not like zoning
where we have a minimum time period
for resubmission of applications.
So if they're wanting to resubmit
and pay the application fee,
then we'll process the plat once again.
So I'll let Matt be able to do his presentation
on the variance and then,
depending upon how the discussion goes,
we can circle back on any plat questions if you have.
- Thank you.
No, I appreciate that.
It's hard to keep all the timelines in my head.
(laughing)
- Yes, lots of different timelines.
(laughing)
Yes, so this is a subdivision variance,
and since we have a few new commissioners
I wanted to just briefly talk about what that is.
So we try our best as staff to,
when working with applicants,
to get them to comply with their development standards.
And in a few cases, that's not possible,
so they seek a variance.
Most of these variances do go through
the Zoning Board of Adjustments,
but when an applicant wants to vary
from our subdivision standards,
such as lot planning or lot access,
it is this body, the Planning and Zoning Commission,
that reviews those variance requests.
There are certain criteria
that they would have to meet for approval,
and I'll get into, I'll go over each one specifically
and staff's assessment about those
in the overall presentation.
But to summarize right now,
as mentioned earlier, this is for a plat
in the city of Denton, ETJ1,
more on the north side of the city,
off of FM2164 and north of Loop 288.
The plat's purpose is to subdivide
that nine-acre track into three lots.
Their variance request is to allow
more than three residential lots
to use a private drive for access.
Current requirements limit only three residential lots.
Three single-family or town-owned residential lots
to use a private access for access to a public street.
So they are seeking a variance from that
to allow more than said three.
Staff is recommending, ultimately,
approval of this variance.
Some of the considerations that went
into that recommendation is that the existing,
the peculiar pattern of development
in this area has created a situation
in which there are more than three,
there's seven properties that take access,
exclusive access to a public street
via this existing access easement.
And that at least four of the,
at least five of these lots, including the lot in question,
have existing single-family residents on them.
And so it would be very difficult
and it would create a hardship on the owner
of this particular tract to subdivide,
to plot and then subsequently develop
in a manner that's compliant with our development code.
And these conditions have been in place
since prior to this, to our code restriction being in place.
I'll go a little more detail in the main presentation,
but if there's any questions or if you want me
to go over anything now, happy to do so.
- Commissioner Carrillo, Prado Korea.
- So can you just give me some background
as to why it was set like this,
that it would only be three or less?
- So in the DDC, let's see.
So this comes from sub-chapter eight,
which is about our subdivision regulations
is where that requirement is coming from,
which says, up to three single-family detached
dwelling units may access a public means
by use of a flag drive or within a private access easement.
And so those plotting or subdivision requirements
do apply in the ETJ and would thus apply to this plat.
Those were adopted with the current development code,
which was passed in 2019.
Which, and this particular track and these properties
and this area has developed with more than three lots
off of the single access drive prior to 2019.
Does that help answer your question?
- No, yeah, I understand that.
I was just wondering, like, is there,
I know you're saying that staff is pro-living
towards having this approved, the variance approved,
but my question was, why was it set to three?
Is there a downfall to it in the case of an emergency
for emergency vehicles?
Like what's the, why was it decided that three
would be the magic number in the first place?
- Gotcha, gotcha.
Yes, I think Tina will help answer.
- So that is a great question.
I think probably the only person who probably was here
when we adopted the code was Julie,
and I'm gonna look to you for a moment.
Did this provision exist in the 02 code?
Okay, so typically when we provide a limitation
like this with three, ideally it's probably the goal
at the time or when the codes were written
was to have some reasonable number of lots
that could take access off of the private street.
Sometimes codes don't even have this allowance for them.
It just assumes that everybody gets access
off of a public street.
So we have this allowance.
You know, we look for a reasonable means of access.
We have this variance provision to allow
for consideration of more than three
so that we can evaluate existing conditions.
Is there something unique associated with it?
In this case, there was multiple structures
that had already been built in existence
because it's out in the county
and we don't regulate land use out in the county.
So hence why we've got this variance process in place
to be able to take into consideration
those existing conditions to see whether or not
it warrants deviation from it.
We typically coordinate with the county
and I believe they're fire marshal on the review
to make sure that they have no issues with it
either since it is dealing with access to properties.
So probably, I don't know the full magic answer behind three
but I would suspect that those were the considerations
that were taken into, or that were, yeah,
taken into consideration when that provision was established.
- Okay, but being that it's 9.64 acres,
I mean, there's ample space that there's not a concern
if we were to allow for the variance then, right?
- Correct. - Okay.
- Yeah, if we had any concerns
regarding the variance being requested,
then our recommendation would be different.
- Okay, perfect, thank you.
- Yeah, and to confirm Tina's point,
we did reach out to Denton County staff regarding this
and their reviewer for fire safety
did not have any issues with the proposed plat
in this variance.
- Thank you.
- Commissioner Dive.
- Okay, so the plat shows that this nine acres
is gonna be divided into three,
almost three acre parcels.
- Correct. - Correct.
And you talked about there's preexisting buildings.
Are they homes or just?
- Yes, yeah, so they are.
- And are they located one on each lot, proposed lot,
or are they all located on one of the lots?
Is she wanting to build on the others?
- So the applicant, she did provide this graphic for us
that kind of illustrates her point.
In blue is showing their proposed lot boundaries
over a Google satellite image.
And so the main structures,
there's a house here on lot three,
a house here on lot two,
and then they're proposing to move this residential house
onto lot one, as it would right now across the lot boundary
that's on them.
That is what they're proposing to do.
- Is this affecting, I mean, I know that there's one
named person, but is this like a family,
like a generational family
where they're all on the same property?
- She did not specify that.
All that was said regarding that is that these are,
I guess, single family residences.
- That would be a question that you could ask
of the applicant, if you wish.
Just remember also, since the property is out in the county,
we cannot regulate land use.
So if even she was wanting to,
or if the property owner was wanting to use it
for different purposes,
our review is limited to the proposed land subdivision,
making sure it has appropriate access,
and then also extension of service for utilities.
- Okay, thank you.
- I just have one quick one.
You mentioned that the county fire marshal reviewed.
Is this area serviced by the county or serviced by the city?
Or is it just sort of whoever can respond sooner
when the call comes in?
- I'll let Tina.
- So great questions.
So typically, it's my understanding
the county fire marshal's office would determine
which agency would report.
So if they have the ability to service this area
and be first responders, then they would do so.
Otherwise, they can assign it to other municipalities
to be part of the response team.
It's my understanding in working with our fire chief,
as well as others, it's all about many times,
it's about when people are in an emergency need
and responses needed, whoever's available
is the one that is responding.
So we do typically have interlocal agreements in place
with other communities for response in areas
that we cannot serve or where we would be delayed
in getting service to.
But ultimately, the way I understand it,
it's the fire marshal's office at the county
who would be the responding entity.
- Okay, thank you.
Any other questions?
Seeing none, we'll look forward to it at the public hearing.
I guess also, are there any other questions
from a procedural perspective, given the application
that comes after this individual consideration item?
Okay.
All right, thank you, Matt.
That brings us to our public hearings.
Item 5A is being withdrawn and will be re-noticed,
so we will not take action on that item.
Item B is S240006.
Good afternoon, Erin.
- Good afternoon.
So this is a specific use permit
for national equipment dealers,
and I'll just give a brief summary here,
and I'll have a longer presentation in the main session,
but I'll be happy to answer any questions.
This is a request for a specific use permit
for equipment sales and rental use
to facilitate a national equipment dealer's
commercial business.
This is an approximately 4.25-acre site
just west of North I-35 and east of the terminus
of Jim Crystal Road.
You can see here, this is Jim Crystal,
and it used to cut through, the road didn't cut through,
but it was proposed to cut through.
This was abandoned in the year 2000,
and so the existing, what looks like a road cutting
through the property is actually just utility easement today,
and so staff is recommending approval of this request,
it complies with all of our criteria,
and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
- Any questions?
Seeing none, thank you, Erin.
And then I'll let Bryce say a couple things
for item 5C for this application.
- Good evening, Commission,
Bryce Van Arsdale, Assistant Planner.
So with item 5C tonight, it was commercial animal services,
it's a DCA 2411, I'm happy to pull up the presentation.
We are asking that this item is withdrawn
from the agenda tonight, as there was a business
that has since moved, since our notices were sent out,
and this change was not caught with the addressing,
thank you, Chair Pruitt.
So we will be noticing this address and this property
for an additional hearing in the future.
So for that reason, we're asking that tonight,
this item is withdrawn from the agenda.
- Any questions, sir?
Okay, thank you, Bryce.
- Thank you.
And with that, at 529 p.m.,
I will bring our, without objection,
I will bring our work session to a close.
Thank you, we'll see you at 630 in the main auditorium.
- Good evening, at 630 p.m. on Wednesday, March 19th,
I will call this regular meeting
of the Denton Planning and Zoning Commission to order.
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.
- Under the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas,
one state, under God, one, and indivisible.
- Our next item is item 2A, PZ25005,
consider approval of the February 26th
planning and zoning meeting minutes.
Commissioner Villarreal.
- Move approval.
- Commissioner Prodokorio.
- Second.
- Any questions with that, we'll vote on the board.
That item passes 4-0.
That brings us to our consent agenda.
Commissioner Villarreal.
- Move approval.
- Commissioner Prodokorio.
- I second.
- Any discussion or questions?
With that, I will call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 4-0.
That brings us to our items for individual consideration.
Item 4A, FP250013.
- Good evening, commissioners.
Cameron Robertson, principal planner.
- There we go.
This is for a final plot for the landmark edition.
It's approximately 20 acres located on the northwest corner
of Robeson Ranch Road and I-35 West.
Staff is currently recommending denial,
but staff has no objection to a first extension request
of April 9th.
I can stand for any questions.
- Any questions?
Seeing none, we have a motion.
Or, commissioner Dyer.
- I make a motion that we approve the extension.
- Can you say to a date certain?
That's fine. - Oh, to the April 9th.
- Yes.
And commissioner Prodokorio.
- I second that.
- Thank you.
And I call for a vote on the board.
- That item passes 3-1.
The next item is 4B, FP250007.
- Good evening, chair, members of the commission.
Angie Manglaris, development review manager,
here to present FP250007.
This is a final plot for Elms Bend Multifamily.
It is situated at the northeast corner of Audre Lane
and Nottingham Drive at this time.
There's still some comments to be worked out
and staff is recommending denial of this final plot.
However, staff has no objection to the extension request
to a date certain of April 9th.
Happy to answer any questions you all may have.
- Any questions or a motion?
Commissioner Prodokorio.
- I move that we approve the extension to April 9th.
- And commissioner Dyer.
There's a second.
And I will call for a vote on the board.
And that item passes 3-1.
Next item is item 4C, FP250009.
- Good evening, Aaron Stanley, assistant planner.
This is FP250009.
This is the Hilltop Village addition located in the ETJ,
just east of Hilltop Road.
At this time, they have a few more comments to work out
and staff is recommending denial,
but we have no objection to their requested extension
to April 9th.
- Thank you, Aaron.
Any questions or a motion?
Commissioner Prodokorio.
- So I approve that we accept the extension to April 9th.
- And commissioner Dyer.
- I'll go ahead and second that.
- Seeing no questions, I'll call for a vote on the board.
And that item passes 3-1.
That brings us to item 4D.
Julie.
- Good evening, Julie Wyatt, principal planner.
This is a final plat for villages on McKinney.
It's about a 12 acre site
located on the north side of McKinney.
The purpose of the final plat is to create 113
zero lot line residential lots.
They do have some items they do need to work out
in order to meet the criteria for approval.
However, staff is, so we are recommending denial.
However, staff has no objection
to the proposed extension to the April 9th P&Z.
And I'll be happy to answer any questions.
- I have a question.
- Commissioner Dyer.
- If we vote not to extend the request to April 9th,
like what happens to this process?
- So there are kind of three options
to approve the extension, to deny the plat,
or to approve the plat.
So as far as options other than.
- I mean, if you were to deny the plat,
then it's denied and the applicant would have to resubmit.
If you're going to make a motion for denial,
you need to cite the reasons as such.
Since it is a plat, you know,
as we discussed in the work session,
the state statute does provide opportunities
for the extension and we try to work with applicants
to get their engineering plans to an approval state,
which has an impact on the plat as well.
So, but again, if you're going to make a motion for denial
on it, I would ask for you to cite the reasons
why the plat's not being made a motion for,
or make sure you cite the provisions within the code
as for the motion for denial.
- Sure.
And just a little reminder, as Tina said,
that specifically for plat, the reason for voting against
needs to be related to one of the subdivision regulations
that was not met.
There's less discretion with plat
than there are with zoning entitlement decisions.
- And just a question for legal.
Our procedures provide for essentially,
in a case of a tie vote, the item is considered again
at the next meeting.
How does that interact with the shot clock request?
- That's a great question.
Tina looks like she might have an answer.
I'm gonna verify something real quick.
- I was gonna say, if you could please verify,
but with the result of the, if a plat had a tie vote,
then I believe it by default then is considered not approved.
So then it's denied.
I would caution us on that for the reasons
that Hillary had just cited,
particularly with respect to, you know, again,
we're trying to get these,
we have less subjective abilities with regarding plat,
like you do on zoning, for example.
So the plat, you know, it either meets all the requirements
or it doesn't.
Again, we try to work with the applicants
to get their plat along with their civil engineering plans
in a position of approval-ness.
I think I said earlier, you know,
quality engineering can't happen in 60 days.
My apologies, I should have said 30 days
because the 30 day provision is what's provided
for in the state statute.
But we wanna make sure our projects are designed properly
in accordance with our standards.
So hence why staff typically supports the extension request.
- Any other questions?
No?
Okay.
Commissioner Dyer.
- I would like to make a motion to go ahead
and extend to the April 9th meeting.
- Okay.
Commissioner Prover-Carrillo.
- I'll second that motion.
- Seeing no other questions,
I'll call for a vote on the board.
And that item passes three, one.
That brings us to item four E,
FP250008.
- Good evening, Commissioner Matt Bodine,
Assistant Planner.
Here to present a final plat for a .265 acre site
on Bryan Street, about 340 feet south of Scripture Street
in the city of Denton.
At this time, this plat does not meet the criteria
for approvals, so we cannot recommend approval.
But we have no objection to the request extension
to a date certain of April 9th.
- Thank you, Matt.
Any questions or a motion?
Commissioner Prover-Carrillo.
- I motion that we approve the extension until April 9th.
- Commissioner Dyer.
- I will second that.
- And seeing no other questions,
I'll call for a vote on the board.
And that item passes three, one.
That brings us to item four FV2500029.
- Matt Bodine, Assistant Planner.
Here to present a subdivision variance
for a final plat FB250006.
Which is on today's meeting agenda.
So just a reminder.
This plat is located in the ETJ1 of the city of Denton.
So in the county, in an area where we have
planning authority, but any sort of zoning
and building permitting is through the county.
It's about 5500 feet north of loop 288 on a private road.
The tract itself is about nine acre tract.
With access to a public street
through an existing private access easement.
With existing single family residents on it.
And the plat is proposing to subdivide into three lots.
They are requesting a variance from our lot planning
subdivision regulations.
Specifically to allow more than three residential lots
to access a public street by means
of a private access easement.
In the consideration, staff found it to be true
that granting this variance would not be detrimental
to the public safety, health or welfare.
Nor would it be injurious to other property owners.
Due to Denton County Fire Marshal having no issues
and there being no expected increase in traffic.
Regarding the consideration of the physical surroundings
or conditions of the specific property.
Staff did find that the peculiar pattern of development
in this area creates a hardship.
There are already over, there are seven properties
that take access from this private easement.
At least five of them have known residential buildings
on them and would be considered residential lots.
And so whether the property decide to apply as one,
three or 10, it would require a variance before you
based on the requirement they're seeking a variance from.
In any attempt to create a flag drive would be difficult.
And that flag drive length would again require
a variance from this body.
So any way you go about it, a variance would be needed
in order for this person to plot
and then subsequently develop on this lot.
This variance request is not expected to vary
the provisions of Denton's codes or plans.
It meets all the subdivision requirements
except for the requested variance.
There is also a future right away easement on the property
to preserve a corridor for a future primary material
as identified in the mobility plan.
Finally, these conditions that lead to this request
and hardship have an existence prior to the code requirements.
It's been recorded with Denton County
this particular lot configuration
that is out of compliance since at least 1987,
well before our requirement for a maximum three lots
was in place and hence not the action of the owner
of this piece of land.
With these considerations in mind staff does recommend
approval of this subdivision variance requests
as it complains with the criteria for approval
in the Denton development code.
At this time, I'm willing to take any questions.
- Any questions or motion?
Commissioner Prado-Carrillo.
- Okay, I move that we approve
the subdivision variance request.
- Okay, and Commissioner Dyer.
- I will second that.
- Any discussion or questions?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes three one.
That brings us to item four G, FP25-0006.
- Okay, let's see, there we go.
Matt Bodean here presents a final plat
for the piece of property that was under question
regarding the variance that was just approved.
This piece of property is an EGJ.
Since planning zoning commission
approved the subdivision variance request
associated with this final plat,
staff is recommending approval of said final plat.
- Commissioner Villarreal.
- Move approval.
- Commissioner Prado-Carrillo.
- I second.
- Any discussion or questions?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes four zero.
That brings us to our public hearings.
The first item, five A, is requested to be withdrawn.
It'll be re-noticed for a future meeting.
That brings us to item five B, S24-0006.
- Good evening, this is a specific use permit request
for national equipment dealers,
Aaron Stanley, assistant planner.
This is a request for an equipment sales and rental use
to allow the development of a national equipment dealers
commercial business.
This business will facilitate the sale of construction
and agriculture equipment such as earth moving
carrier equipment, excavators, bulldozers, dump trucks,
compactors, pavers, things like that.
And this site is generally located west of I-35
and east of the terminus of Jim Crystal Road,
right where the portion of Jim Crystal was abandoned
in the year 2000 and a utility easement lies today.
The subject site is zoned light industrial today
and the future land use is regional mixed use.
So here is the proposed site plan.
The specific use permit is proposing one 12,000
square foot building that would have the sales area
as well as office space and have 7,000 square feet
of warehouse space that's associated with maintaining
and storing some of the equipment that they sell on site.
There is also an equipment display area circled in purple.
This is an outdoor area that is adjacent to the right of way
is about 42,000 square feet and would have all of
the equipment that they're selling, any outdoor storage
of parts or any other things that are not for immediate sale
would need to be opaquely screened.
And the building is approximately 31.5 feet
and they are proposing 24 vehicular spaces
circled in yellow.
The easement that I mentioned in the previous slide
is in red additionally, there's a 60 foot utility easement
and then there's gas easement and electric lines there.
So this is about 90 feet of area that they are proposing
their storage or their equipment display area
and their parking, so all paved surfaces.
Their landscape area here, so the requirement
is 15% landscape area.
They are proposing 27.6, including the detention pond
that's over, this is the south side of the site
and 23.4% tree canopy out of a 20% requirement.
A landscape compatibility buffer was required
on the north side of the site, it's circled in green.
This is to buffer from the self storage use
that is to the north of the site
and is classified as an industrial use.
And then there are a few landscape alternatives
that staff did approve in reviewing this plan.
Street trees are required for all of our sites
and with this being a textile roadway
and having a good amount of utility easement
along the right of way, they did move these further back
on site and one street tree was relocated
to the rear parking area, circled in blue.
And then a few trees from their parking lot landscaping
were also relocated to the rear of the site
due to these utility easements
and not allowing trees in this area.
This project does meet the criteria for approval
set out in the DDC.
It meets the goals of the comprehensive plan
and the future land use map.
Some of these goals are to reinvest, revitalize
and redevelop key growth corridors,
which this would do as this is a currently undeveloped lot.
Another goal is to increase the city's job to worker ratio
and increase specifically jobs within the agricultural
construction and retail sectors, which this would do as well.
The proposal is also consistent with the LI zoning district
and is not expected to generate any adverse fiscal,
environmental or infrastructure impacts.
And utilities do already serve and cross the property.
Public outreach was conducted in accordance
with state law in the DDC and staff did receive
one response in favor from the property
to the south of this subject area.
And staff is recommending approval of the SUP
with the following conditions.
To go through them real quickly, the first one is that
the development does need to substantially comply
with the attached site plan and landscape plan.
There are a few ways that it could change.
They would not be allowed to increase equipment sales
and rental use area, not be allowed to change
parking requirements, reduce buffering or screening,
or decrease the total landscape area by more than 5%.
Number two on these conditions does require that
even if they're not doing any of these things,
staff can say that the change to the specific use permit
would warrant coming before this body again.
The third is just acknowledging that this is
a TxDOT roadway they are adjacent to.
TxDOT is making some changes along I-35,
so if TxDOT does need them to change their access,
as long as it still matches on site, that can be done.
And the fourth is talking about the outdoor storage.
So at this time, the applicant is not proposing
any outdoor storage.
If that changes as they develop, they would be able
to make the necessary changes to their fencing
to be able to screen that outdoor storage
from the rights of way.
And number five is just that the zoning map
will reflect the specific use permit.
So their next steps would be city council on April 15th,
and I will stand for any questions.
- Thank you, Erin.
Any questions for staff at this time?
I will open the public hearing at this time.
I don't have any cards wishing to speak,
but this is a public hearing.
If you would like to come down and share any thoughts,
you're welcome to.
Seeing no movement.
I do have a question, I don't know if it's better
for staff or the applicant.
Condition three, if you can flip back to your condition,
it's a recommended conditions slide.
So let me set the stage for this.
I noticed that, as you said, the street trees
are moved back to behind the easement,
and condition three is worded as if tech stop plans
on widening or changing.
And my understanding is there's an approved funded project
for this 35 EW I-35Y, so I imagine changes are coming.
So I'm just, I'm wondering whether that project
is far enough along that we've had discussions
with tech stop to understand whether the widening
of the right of way would cause all the trees
that we're planning to be cut down.
Does that make sense?
- No, the applicant has, it does make sense, yes.
We have been working with tech stop on this project,
and so it is worded that if the plans for widening
impact the subject property, we don't anticipate
that they will, and the applicant has been talking
with tech stop and is aware of how tech stop updates
will impact the subject property.
This is just kind of a carve out in case things change,
but the applicant is aware of what tech stop plans
are right now.
- It looks like maybe the, if you can come down
and identify yourself and feel free to speak.
- Mack Mackey with Kimley Horn, 100 West Oak Street,
Suite 203, Denton, Texas.
So, do you have the site plan that we could open?
Yeah, so essentially the thick black line that you see
on the top of this site plan, that's the ultimate
tech stop taking right of way that has already happened,
and then there's a 20 foot PUE on the eastern side
of the site, so the taking has already happened,
and the PUE is already in place for the current improvements
that are currently designed and in construction, so.
- Okay, thank you, that answered my question.
I just wanted to make sure that we weren't gonna set up
a situation where you would, by that provision three,
you would be forced to come back for a new SUP
just because a position of a tree changed.
- Yeah, I can't speak to what tech stop's gonna do
in 2040, but the current plan, that is the taking,
and that is the PUE, so.
- Thank you very much.
At this point, any other public wishing to speak
on this item?
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing.
Any questions from the commission or a motion?
Or discussion?
Commissioner Prodokorio?
- I'll make a motion that we approve the SUP
with the conditions listed.
- Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Dyer?
Thank you.
It's a second from Commissioner Dyer.
And any discussion?
More questions?
I'll just say, you know, 35 is a big,
you know, a human-made divider.
You know, we have lots of industrial uses
to the west of here.
And, you know, there's other places on the other side
of the freeway where this may not make sense,
but I think it makes sense here.
So I'm comforted that the qualities of the SUP
are satisfied, so.
Seeing no other questions,
I will call for a vote on the board.
Okay.
That item passes four, zero.
That brings us to our last public hearing,
item 5C, DCA 25-0011.
- Good evening, Commission.
Bryce Van Arsdale, Assistant Planner.
Staff is requesting withdrawal of this item
from the agenda tonight in order to ensure
that all state-required noticing standards
are met prior to the public hearing.
- Thank you, Bryce.
This is a public hearing.
I haven't opened it yet because we're planning
on re-noticing it, but I do see a couple
of attendees in the audience.
Do we need to open the public hearing?
Okay.
(faintly speaking)
Yeah, if you did come because you're interested
in this particular case, I would suggest
that you get with Bryce or other staff
immediately following this.
I think this is the last main item on the meeting agenda.
It should be coming up here, I would assume,
within about a month for the noticing timeline.
- April 23rd.
- Okay, April 23rd.
Thank you, Bryce.
So we will not take action on this item,
and that brings us to item 6A,
the PZ25017, the Planning and Zoning Commission Matrix.
- Thank you, Chair Pruitt.
Let me get to my notes here.
Okay, a couple of items to report on.
So let me get this down.
First of all, in terms of, so for commissioners
that are new, typically during this particular item,
we report, really staff reports on action
that council took on cases that the commission
would have seen previously.
So since your meeting on February 26th,
we have not had any zoning requests
or specific use permits or anything else
that this body might have seen since that time.
So our meeting calendar's been a little different
and not nearly many items scheduled,
so hence why there's been no action there.
Regarding the matrix document itself,
so we did remove the planning work program item
that was on there.
If you recall, Keisha gave a presentation
back on February 26th.
It's my understanding also at that last meeting
that there was a request for updates
regarding annexations that are approved by council.
I normally do that as part of my matrix report,
so I did not add that to this report,
but if you're wanting to see it reflected on there,
happy to do so, but since it was just
kind of a normal practice, hence why we did not add it.
And then lastly, I would like to take an opportunity
to recognize Commissioner Villarreal
with this being his last meeting here
for the Planning and Zoning Commission.
We appreciate his three and a half years of service
that he has provided to us.
If you're not familiar with Commissioner Villarreal's
efforts, he also joins us for the
Development Code Review Committee,
so he takes time out of his schedule for that as well.
So looking back on some of the projects
that you've been involved in,
unfortunately we did not get to
what I would call parking 2.0,
which was the request for removing parking,
minimum parking requirements,
but it's still on the Development Code Review
Committee's work program, so we haven't forgotten.
But I do want to acknowledge,
I know you were very instrumental in providing feedback
with respect to our short-term rentals ordinance
that we worked on, being very concerned
regarding implications on single-family
residential neighborhoods and being very concerned
about that, and I know you had acknowledged
even when the commission was considering
that ordinance, some of the different perspectives
that you had considered and kind of moved off
of your position in the interest of some compromise,
and so you always have single-family
residential neighborhoods first and foremost,
just given whether it was on short-term rentals
or even on other development requests
that have come before the commission,
particularly in a zoning matter
when they're requesting those entitlements.
But also kind of looking back on some other
more significant projects you've been involved in,
obviously the adoption of the comprehensive plan
that we did in March 2022, that was on your watch.
Same with the mobility plan, we did that same night.
You were also very involved in the adoption
of the Southeast Denton area plan
and providing constructive comments
and interested in the public engagement
and then the action items that were recommended.
Same with the design downtown Denton plan as well
and being involved in that aspect.
I know we had made some amendments
to the Denton Development Code.
The list was long, so I picked a few with that,
but horizontal multi-family living,
that was a new land use type
that we were seeing more and more of,
and so we had done some amendments to the code
to be able to accommodate that.
Data centers, I know you were involved
in that conversation as well,
because that was something our ordinance did not address
and seeing more of that happening within our community.
Reasonable accommodations in how we address
community homes and group homes, both from a DCRC perspective
but also the Planning and Zoning Commission,
and then also many property rezonings.
So I know particularly multi-family developments,
particularly where they were adjacent
to single-family residential neighborhoods.
You're always very interested in what the impacts
to the single-family residential neighborhoods would be.
And I'd be remiss if I didn't, or if I left off,
you'll definitely be known for plat extension requests,
how many are being requested.
So I know that's a common question.
And then like I said, the other item,
just being listening to neighborhood concerns,
especially when people are here in opposition
and trying to push the developer
to find the compromise where feasible.
So with that, we thank you for your service.
We do have a certificate here for you,
so your token of appreciation.
And that concludes my report, so thank you.
(audience applauding)
- Yeah, I think I'll just add to that that
I've learned a great deal from you, Jordan,
and appreciate your ability to think larger picture
about all of those who may have concerns that either can't
or didn't know about, can't attend
or didn't know about the hearings that we have.
Keeping those in mind throughout the public process
is very important, especially your focus
on Southeast Denton and District One wide,
about the concentration of housing types that are there
versus the rest of the city and how that area grows
and morphs over the coming decades.
So I really appreciate that.
I think many of those thoughts will continue in my mind
as we hear things upcoming.
And I hope to do you a good service
by making sure that the Southeast Denton plan
moves forward in implementation,
but also in such a way that we move from
an attitude of concern of disenfranchisement
from past actions in that area
to an attitude of, hey, we gave our input
and the city heard us and has now done the necessary things
to do what we wanted as opposed to what we didn't want.
So let me know if I'm going astray from that
'cause that's certainly my desire.
And Jordan, will you?
- If I could say a few words.
I just wanna first off thank Councilwoman Byrd
and former Councilwoman McGuire for providing me
the opportunity to serve the people of Denton
these past three and a half years.
It's been an honor to fight for neighborhood preservation
and citizen input, which I think y'all put
into good words there, and always fighting back
against overdevelopment, gentrification,
and untoward influence.
I will always fight for the community first
and I wanna thank the council members
for giving me that opportunity.
I also wanna thank Chairman Pruitt,
former Chairwoman Ellis, and my fellow commissioners
and the staff for their service.
It's been a pleasure serving you as your vice chair
these past few months and as your fellow colleague
these past several years.
With that, I hope that council and city management
are able to institute practices that would prevent
a forced resignation like this in the future.
It's unfortunate I have to leave at this moment,
but I cannot execute my duties here
while also working at the state capitol
during the legislative session.
So I hope staff or city management and our council
are able to find some resolution there.
With that, I pray my colleagues continue to strive
to make Denton a better place to live,
not just a bigger place to live.
It's been an honor to serve the people of Denton
and I look forward to serving y'all in a future capacity.
Thank you.
- Thank you, Jordan.
That brings us to our last item, item seven,
the concluding items.
- I realized in my matrix report
that I forgot to acknowledge
we actually have a block party.
All this conversation about Southeast Denton
made me think of the block party
that the team is working on.
So we've done a tremendous effort
on trying to get the word out
for the residents in Southeast Denton
to join us in our block party.
That is tomorrow afternoon from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.
and Keisha, I'm drawing a blank on the name of the park.
Fredmore Park, thank you.
So I'm like, it's by the American Legion Center
and I can see all of the improvements around it.
But anyway, if anybody is interested in joining us
for the block party, we encourage you to do so.
Again, it's at Fredmore Park from five to seven.
We will have a variety of activities.
We'll have food there as well.
More importantly though, we are looking for public feedback
on some initiatives associated with implementation
of the Southeast Denton area plan
and looking to validate what we heard from the community
on certain action items
because it's continuing to provide the foundation
as we move forward on implementation
of some of those actions.
So if you have friends, family that are in Southeast Denton,
we encourage you to try and get the word out
and have them come join us again from five to 7 p.m.
So thank you.
- Thank you, Tina.
I'm excited to hear that.
I'll just offer a memory of mine early on
when I was on this commission three and a half years ago
or so as we were getting into some public engagement
for at that time, I think it was, I don't remember now,
may have been the mobility plan updates.
Yeah, and I made the comment that bridging the divide
between the busy lives that all of our residents lead
and the strange and jargon-filled things
that the city does here to be able to put the future
plans into action is always a challenge.
And I made the comment at that time
that I hoped that more of our engagement
would move toward meeting residents where they are
by having block parties and bringing food.
And I think this is a welcome addition.
I think our team really over the last two years or so
as we've delved into the small area plans
and other efforts has really taken that to heart.
And I just thank you.
I think it's always a challenge.
We can always do better, but it shows, so thank you.
Any other concluding items?
I'll just say, Jordan, good luck at the state ledge.
Hopefully, whereas there's a lot going on,
so thank you for your service in all the ways that you do.
With that, seeing no objection, I will adjourn this meeting
of the Denton Planning and Zoning Commission at 7, 10 p.m.
Thank you.