Good afternoon, at 5.02 p.m. on April 23rd, I will call our work session of the Denton
Planning and Zoning Commission to order.
The first item on the work session report or first item in our work section is to look
at the consent agenda.
Any questions on the consent agenda, clarification items?
Seeing none, any, okay, sorry, that brings us to, I apologize, I stapled this and I stapled
it backwards, so here we are, yes.
So the, we will go through the individual items for consideration, yeah, right, okay.
I didn't know if you wanted an agenda that was in the correct order.
No, I'm just confusing myself here, thank you.
So the first item 4A, FP250014A, good afternoon, sorry.
Okay, we're confusing each other now instead of ourselves.
Good evening, Commission, Bryce Van Arsdale, Assistant Planner, this is FP250014A.
This is the final plat for approximately 19 acres intended for single family residential
use.
This is on the individual consideration portion of the agenda due to some comments we were
working through late last week, but this plat has reached approval and we have no further
issues with recommending approval for this plat and I'll stand for any questions.
Seeing no questions, thank you, Bryce.
Next item, PP250002, I think Matt is going to present this one this evening.
Good evening, Commission, Matt Bodean standing in for Ashley Exet.
This is a preliminary plat located in the west part of the ETJ, approximately 269 acres
site.
It's meant for a single family residential subdivision.
At this time, staff recommends denial as the preliminary plat does not comply with all
of our criteria, however, staff has no objection to the year first extension request to a date
certain of May 14, 2025.
Seeing no questions, thank you very much, Matt, we'll see you.
Item CFR250010, Julie.
Good evening, Julie Wyatt, I'm presenting the Ryan High School replat.
This property is located in the east part of town on the north side of McKinney and
east of May Hill.
The purpose of the replat is to add some additional property to the Ryan High School campus to
accommodate the updated transportation facility as well as some changes to the campus.
They do have some items that they need to resolve in order for staff to recommend approval,
so we are recommending denial, however, we have no objection to the requested extension
to the May 14th meeting.
Seeing no questions, we'll see you at the meeting.
Thank you.
That brings us to item DV250023.
Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.
This is V250023, a subdivision variance for Harris Ranch Industrial Plat.
This project is located west of I-35 and approximately 1700 feet south of Loop 288.
This subdivision variance is associated with the development of 84 acres for future industrial
use.
The industrial project has undergone their zoning compliance plan and staff has approved
that.
They have not come forward with the plat just yet, as they are wanting to come forward with
this subdivision variance before they prepare that plat.
If it is approved, you would see that plat before this body as well.
This subdivision variance is specifically to allow two proposed lots that are highlighted
in yellow to take access off public access easements rather than public streets.
The DDC does allow for this if the area between the lots and the street is already developed.
In this case, it is not already developed, which is why they are requesting this variance.
They are requesting it due to ownership considerations.
The whole outlined area in red in the upper left graphic is owned by the same owner, Mr.
Harris, today.
He wishes to retain ownership of the yellow portions, which is a gas well pad site and
a communications pad site.
The rest of this portion, the 84 acres, would be developed for industrial use, so this variance
would allow these lots to take access off and access easement as they do already today.
Staff is recommending approval, and I will stand for any questions.
I will have a longer presentation in the main session.
Questions on this?
I don't see any.
Thank you, Erin.
Do all the commissioners know about what a subdivision variance is about?
We've had training in the past, but is there something particularly you want us to address?
No, I just wasn't sure if this was meant to calculate.
That brings us to our public hearings.
The first one is Z250005, doubleheader with Matt, this evening.
Good evening, commission, Matt Bourdine, assistant planner, here to present a rezoning request
for the new Denton Fire Station 6.
So in summary, this is a request to rezone approximately three acres of land from a planned
development district to our public facilities district.
The property is located in the south part of Denton off of Teasley Lane and Hunters Creek
Road.
It is important to note that this is for the purpose of developing Fire Station 6.
City Council did approve the purchase of this land specifically for a new Fire Station facility
in December of 2023.
This request does advance the Denton 2040 plan, is found to be aligned with the future
land use map.
Staff is recommending approval of this request.
I have a longer presentation, but here to answer any questions.
I don't see any, thank you, Matt.
And then our second public hearing, DCA 24-0011.
Good evening, commission, Bryce Bannersdale, assistant planner.
This is DCA 24-0011, related to the addition of commercial animal services to the land
use categories within the Denton Development Code.
Currently, most domestic animal related land uses will fall under either the kennel land
use definition or the personal service general land use definition.
However, as we continue to monitor market development, we often see multiple businesses
under or multiple uses under the same business.
So for instance, we may see a doggy daycare, which also offers overnight boarding, training
services, as well as grooming.
With that, we are proposing two definitions tonight.
They are the same definition with differentiations between indoor and outdoor uses based on the
percentage of the business, which is located as an outdoor component.
We did bring this back to the commission in September of last year, and due to some noticing
requirements, we wanted to make sure that the city was meeting.
We're back at this meeting for that reason.
With our first round of noticing, we did have four responses, one in favor, three in opposition.
And I say that because with this round of noticing, we received no responses at all.
The responses in opposition were largely related to the verbiage in the state mandated 929 notice,
and I do have a slide with that if the commission would like to see it.
It's a little bit heavy handed and generally lose the fact that they may lose the ability
to operate their business.
It's not what we're intending with this.
We are allowing these businesses to continue their operation as they are today, and we're
not asking anybody to shut down or change the way they operate.
We do introduce some use of civic standards, and this will allow the city to better address
some of these new businesses as they come into the city.
I'll stand for any questions.
Commissioner Dyer.
How did you know?
So when you talked about the current businesses that are operating that this language affects,
but not really affects, because you said they're going to continue to operate, are they going
to be like grandfathered in, and would there be a possibility if they had to change something
with their business that then they would be required to meet the guidelines of this new
language?
Sure.
So any expansions, we will ask that the businesses come into compliance with these regulations
that we're proposing.
There are several businesses that are being deemed as conforming based on our ordinance.
I believe there's nine of those, and I do have a list, and it's in my presentation later.
I'm happy to go to that, actually.
So any expansions will be, they'll need to comply with our current zoning restrictions.
However, the way they operate today, we're not going to change anything.
We're not asking them to stop operating or anything along those lines.
And I can show you the verbiage real quick here.
This is state mandated down to the font, the boldness, and the size of the text.
So they get a letter that has this big block of text in the middle.
It's pretty scary.
It's a little bit heavy-handed and doesn't communicate effectively what we're actually
trying to propose.
Sorry, Commissioner Biggs?
So this is just to kind of clear up language, but they're still conforming or is there non-conforming
uses?
Sure.
So there are going to be some that are non-conforming.
The ones that are listed in the ordinance, and I believe I have that, I can have that
ready for the meeting.
The difference in conforming and non-conforming is that non-conforming businesses are able
to continue in perpetuity, but they are not able to expand without coming into conformance.
Additionally, if a conforming business were to become destroyed or torn down for some
reason through an act of God, whether, they are able to rebuild their business back.
And that threshold is at 50%.
So if more than 50% of the business is torn down, a non-conforming business is not able
to reconstruct.
Okay.
Now I'm just curious how many that would affect.
Oh, sure.
I was going to say, Bryce pretty much summarized it.
With respect to non-conforming businesses, remember, when a business is operating in
conformance and the city later changes the rules associated with it, sometimes the changing
of the rules will make them non-conforming.
When we make them non-conforming, then there's a whole nother set of provisions that kick
in that limit the ability to make alterations to the site.
As Bryce addressed in our ordinance, if a business is non-conforming, they're not allowed
to be able to expand that non-conforming use and are limited to the changes they can make
to the site.
So as he noted in the draft ordinance in your packet, the ordinance includes a list of the
businesses that we are declaring as would continue to remain conforming.
So that way if they ever wanted to make any modifications to their property, they would
be able to do so.
Yeah.
So I know it's in the ordinance, but if there's a way just to list out which one of those
are in the non-conforming, but continuing to be able to operate as is for the benefit
of the public and all, sometimes it gets confusing between conformity versus legality of continuing,
right?
Sure.
I can add a slide for that.
Okay.
Any other questions?
I'm not seeing any.
Thank you, Bryce.
That brings us to our one work session item.
If I can find the right page.
PZ25-102.
Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give stack direction on proposed land uses along
380.
Good evening.
Erin Stanley, assistant planner.
So this item is a corridor study for US 380 or a portion of it, and I will just first
go over a quick agenda.
It is a more lengthy presentation.
So first we're going to cover why we're here, why we're looking at this specific corridor,
and then give a summary of existing conditions.
Next I will present our staff's proposed future land use designation recommendation, and then
we will get into the discussion portion.
So why we are here.
So today we're here to evaluate an approximately one-mile-long corridor on the east side of
town along US 380.
It's circled here in yellow on this map to kind of orient you.
It is about half a mile east of Giesling Road and extending east towards the Elm Fork-Trinity
River.
You might be wondering why we're looking at just this smaller portion rather than the
whole segment of US 380.
This area, the subject area was part of the northeast plan, the northeast area plan when
we did have that, and that was put on hold indefinitely due to community feedback.
But this specific area, still staff has been receiving inquiries for development that do
not match the future land use designation, and we thought this was needed to evaluate
a bit closer.
It is also an area that's designated in the comprehensive plan as a gateway area for staff
to look a bit closer at.
So the feedback that we are requesting today is to consider if it is appropriate to change
the future land use designation in this area considering the existing conditions both within
the city and within the ETJ just outside of this area since it does border some city property
and ETJ property pretty closely over here.
So to zoom in a bit closer, the area we're looking at here, you'll see it's half the
mile east of Giesling extending to the river, and the subject area is approximately one
mile long.
To the north and south, it extends approximately 250 feet north and south of the right-of-way.
So if you're thinking of a football field that's about 83 yards to the north and south,
it's a pretty long and narrow corridor.
It was annexed in the 1960s and '70s, and most of this area, as you can see in this
aerial, is either residential or undeveloped today.
And then we do see a few pockets of other uses which we will get into.
Today we have a mix of future land use designations in the area.
You see rural areas for both the north and south on the eastern portion, some low residential
and some light industrial in the area, and then we do see a variety of zoning districts
which we will get into.
So to go over the first part in yellow, this is zoned residential two today.
So since annexation, this has been in a rural state or in a rural zoning district, and it's
transitioned to residential two today.
This property is mostly vacant and residential.
We see those smaller single-family homes on some of these properties.
The next part I will point out is this teal color.
This today is general office.
Since its annexation, it was formally residential, and in 2021 was rezoned to general office.
The request initially came forward as a light industrial request, and the Planning and Zoning
Commission at the time, through those negotiations when it went before Planning and Zoning Commission,
general office was seen as a better fit for this area.
In the sort of pinkish-purple color, you have mixed-use neighborhood.
This was, when it was annexed, was originally residential like the other property around
here and transitioned to general retail in 1989, transitioning with our current code
to that mixed-use neighborhood, and this property today is undeveloped agricultural land, similar
to that teal color, that general office property just to the north.
The last one I will point out is this brownish color.
Just south of the subject area here, this is the city limits portion.
All the colored portion here that's not the light blue is within the city limits.
This brownish color was annexed into a plan development, a residential plan development.
In 2002, it was taken out of that plan development into a neighborhood residential four and transitioned
today to residential four.
Much of this brown color is undeveloped today, but just south of it, we do have some existing
single-family residences down Lakeview Boulevard there, and there has been recent development
interest to continue this residential pattern in this area.
This slide shows the existing conditions of the area.
You'll notice that there's a few different uses, but the primary use is this residential,
it's hard to tell with the colors, but sort of a light tan color and some vacant property
within the corridor area.
And then the other uses we see are industrial and commercial pockets in the ETJ that sort
of extend with their driveways that cross through city limits.
So the first one to talk about is this Greenbelt Business Park.
We see a variety of commercial uses here from personal service uses, offices, some general
retail.
And then to the south of the corridor, we do have some industrial uses here with high-impact
manufacturing and self-service storage.
These are both outside of city limits in the ETJ.
It's sort of a little hard to see, but it's the dashed black line sort of designates where
it is, and there's labels as well here, where is ETJ and where is city limits.
So the corridor plus this vacant area would be city limits, and then these industrial
and commercial areas are technically outside of the city, but still important to consider
in this discussion.
And then as I mentioned previously, there is that residential area that exists off Lake
View that is zoned Residential 4.
So mobility, US 380 is designated as a freeway.
It is a textile roadway, six lanes, divided freeway.
And it does have sidewalks on both the north and south side of the corridor within this
subject area.
It does serve as the largest and most direct east-west regional connector between Denton
and the municipalities to the east.
In the upper right-hand corner, that map with the yellow highlighted area does show how
this would be a very easy area to navigate from I-35 all the way going east towards all
of the neighboring cities to the east.
And it does staff, in doing this analysis and this research, we compared the different
parts of US 380 to really see how much traffic this study area receives.
We found that it does receive even more than the Razor Ranch area.
Razor Ranch sees in 2022, NCT Cog, their data showed that Razor Ranch was over 40,000 trips
per day, and this subject area was over 46,000.
There also are some major improvements that are projected in the area.
So future Loop 288 and the US 380 connector is a planned project by TxDOT.
It is anticipated to start in the next few years, but probably not anticipated completion
until 2035.
And this will be, as you see in this bottom map, this dashed black connector here to streamline
this connection from US 380 to 288, ultimately all the way to 35.
And this improvement is anticipated to increase trips per day drastically, up to over 80,000
trips per day in the subject area by 2050.
There could be additional improvements by TxDOT in the subject area.
You'll see in the next few slides where this connector project stops and where the subject
area begins, TxDOT has expressed there could be improvements in that area in the future,
but that is not planned yet.
So to look a little bit about TxDOT's very draft schematics, this is not set in stone.
Things could change.
This what you see, you'll see 288 and 380, where that connector will connect those two
roadways.
This will be a raised elevated freeway with no frontage roads.
And at Gisling Road is where 380 and the connector will sort of combine, and the orange will
stay as that elevated freeway.
And on the sides, you see a bit more here, those green frontage roads that would go along
the businesses just off of 380 and Gisling at the corner.
And continuing up to the subject area outlined in pink, that would be, as we know, 380 today
until TxDOT makes any future improvements.
So here just continuing along that corridor would be the subject area.
Again, TxDOT may come through and make future improvements to this area.
We do have Chandra here to speak on any of that if you have questions, but with no definite
plans yet, it's hard to imagine what that might look like.
So to quickly summarize these considerations, this is a gateway into Denton from Collin
County.
It is an important area to the city.
It also does serve as a six-lane freeway.
So it is not necessarily appropriate for residential driveways right off of 380.
In 2002, over 46,000 vehicles passed through in a day.
It's a very, very trafficked roadway.
Much of the corridor is vacant or has driveways into commercial and industrial uses in the
ETJ.
And it's unlikely to develop as rural residential or agriculture, which is what the current
future land use map designates it for today.
Staff also did meet with several other departments.
We met with economic development, with sustainability, transportation, sat in on TxDOT meetings.
So there was a lot of collaboration in coming up with our recommendations, which we will
get into.
So currently, we have that low residential, light industrial, and rural areas.
Staff is recommending to update these future land use designations to a majority of light
industrial for the corridor, for the eastern portion and the portion north of Lakeview
Boulevard, and then just south of the corridor near Lakeview Boulevard would be community
mixed use.
To get into these designations, so the light industrial future land use designation is
intended for those light industrial uses, but also does include those supporting uses
such as offices, retail, and restaurants.
This area should also, by the Comprehensive Plan, have adequate access to infrastructure,
including the transportation network, which staff does believe this would satisfy those
needs.
It's consistent with the current development pattern of already seeing light industrial
uses in the area and adjacent just to the west of the study area, and would consider
the 380 roadway design and improvements.
So some of these zoning districts that we could see aligned with this future land use
designation would be those light industrial districts, but also general office and suburban
corridor that would offer that more commercial development.
And then the community mixed use designation that we are recommending for the southwest
corner of the subject area is intended to remain predominantly commercial, but where
residential service or other uses could be complementary.
This future land use designation really is intended for a mix of uses and is intended
to complement and embrace existing uses.
So the reason staff would be recommending this is due to that residential development
that we already do see here, and we do anticipate just south of this area, with it being residential
for there already is that residential interest for development.
This use is also intended to create that sense of place and support the existing uses.
And some of the zoning districts that could align would be suburban corridor or mixed
use regional.
There is just a clip of that vacant and residential area that we do see south of where Lakeview
meets 380.
This future land use designation and the zoning districts associated with it would really
provide that buffer from industrial uses and traffic along 380 and provide those neighborhood
services that would be appropriate to serve those residential uses.
So with that, we are requesting your feedback.
Next steps would be neighborhood engagement to reach out to these property owners and
discuss with them some of the ones that already have come forward to staff with development
interests.
We'd like to hear from them of this discussion, but we would indeed reach out to the others
as well.
And then staff would come forward if this body supported this with a future land use
map amendment to planning zoning commission and then to city council at a later date.
But I am happy to answer any questions and receive feedback.
Thank you, Erin.
Before we get really rolling, one thing I didn't hear was any background and the requirements
on gaining access to property through a different zoning district.
I recall there were some modifications we made to the code to require that.
And then I think that has some bearing here.
So if you could try to talk through that, that would help.
Yes.
So Tina can correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that that requirement
that you do have to access your use through a zoning district that allows the use was
created with the 2019 code after the establishment of these uses, or at least it was after these
uses.
Yeah.
Actually, we made that amendment a couple of years ago because it was just an adopted
practice that stemmed from properties within the ETJ taking access through our properties
that were within the city limits.
But Erin's correct.
Right now it's now codified in our development code for that purpose.
And these uses are also within the ETJ, so it is a bit trickier there, but that would
still be our current regulation.
Questions?
Commissioner Riggs.
So we're talking about doing the mixed use and the residential could go in that area
as well.
I assume they would not be able to add any more driveway access to 380, or they'd have
to come off of Trinity or Lakeview?
They would need to meet all spacing separation distances, so it's likely those would come
off of Lakeview.
I think that the spacing is pretty far along a freeway for sure, and so likely that you
would see them off of Lakeview, but once those came forward, they could review that with
text dot if they meet spacing distances.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Dyer.
So the reason for the light industrial is, is Denton in need of that, having more of
that zoning?
Like are you running out of space that you're seeing that developers are requesting more
light industrial?
I guess my concern is putting light industrial where there's a lot of residential area, and
if you've already got the one little section for office, like why that wouldn't just, you
know, office or retail, you know, kind of wouldn't just get expanded.
So let's see which one.
So the uses in this area, most of the residential that we do see is further back to the north
and south within the ETJ, and staff doesn't recommend or expect the residential directly
along US 380 to continue.
So we don't anticipate the residential in the rear portions off of the corridor to necessarily
go away, but we wouldn't see those, those remaining within the corridor itself.
No, I mean, I agree.
Like that's probably not a good space to put residential.
I'm just curious why light industrial over something, something else that is not residential,
but would be a little bit better transition to residential.
Do you want me to help him?
Sure.
Go ahead.
So great question.
So we, we studied this area quite a bit looking at what are our options under our comprehensive
plan.
So I'm going from memory, I don't have the document in front of me.
So Erin and Julie, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but you know, our options that we
have in the comp plan are we've got our light industrial designation.
Actually, we've got a more heavy industrial, but we felt like that was not appropriate
in this area.
So we've got light industrial.
We also have a suburban quarter land use recommendation that we have.
We also have one that is referred to as business center.
Chair Perot might remember it as business innovation.
We made some adjustments to it to try and better define what we mean by business center.
It's truly more employment, campus employment type uses being associated with that.
So in looking at more of our commercial land use designations, we felt like really those
are the ones that we're working with.
I guess Julie, am I leaving any of them out?
Okay.
In terms of ones in this area, yeah.
Okay.
So because like the neighborhood commercial type recommendations would not be appropriate
for this area.
So yeah, we look at what we had available in our comprehensive plan, doing the evaluation
of the existing conditions that are out there, thinking about longer term, what might be
appropriate and then also the fact that we do have 380 there.
We felt like it was not appropriate, hold on a second, excuse me.
We felt like it was not appropriate to establish that suburban quarter designation in the area
because we could anticipate that happening in areas maybe further west into town.
And particularly in the areas that are closer to like loop 288 and US 380.
Given the distance that we have from this area to the west, you know, could we have
other pockets be more appropriate for that designation?
Possibly so.
But given the residential uses that exist today as well as some of the other businesses,
at least in that small portion that's on the Southwest quadrant, we felt like the community
mixed use designation would be most appropriate if uses were to change within near that intersection
of North Trinity and 380.
You know, everything else within that quarter, given what we've got, especially with some
of the industrial uses that are there, that's where we felt the light industrial designation
would be more appropriate and then also evaluating those zoning districts that are in alignment
with it.
Do we have a shortage of light industrial zoning in town?
Probably not.
Just given that we've got light industrial zoning elsewhere in the communities where
it meets those particular needs and those areas of the community.
So hence why we are looking at, okay, what might be most appropriate in this area?
Keep in mind, this is a future land use planning exercise, so policy 30,000 foot level consideration
here.
If we were doing actual zoning of the quarter, then we would get much more granular in looking
at, okay, what are the, not just the zoning districts that would be appropriate for the
area, but then are there additional standards that might need to be able to come into play?
But from a land use standpoint, given the existing conditions, kind of knowing the future
that how this quarter could evolve, as well as areas north and south, if they were eventually
to annex in the city, given those uses that are there, that's where we landed on these
land use recommendations.
So we're looking to see, do you concur with our analysis and where we landed?
If you think that what we've come up with is not appropriate, would love to hear that
as well.
But I'll acknowledge that this is a challenging area to try and ascertain, okay, as we look
to the future, what types of uses might be appropriate in this area, given the existing
conditions that are there, but also where the area might be evolving.
I would just add to go off your question of why we didn't extend the community mixed use
further into this.
So some of those existing uses, like Tina was saying, that they are already commercial
industrial uses, they also are a bit more intense uses that we, the light industrial
might sort of balance that out.
It does provide those industrial uses, but also allows for restaurants and office and
commercial uses that would kind of bridge the gap between some of those residential
areas and the current heavier industrial that we see in the area today.
Will you be sharing that beautiful little grid that has all the different zones and
all the things you can put in there?
Because it's not, it wasn't in the packet, and so will that, will we see that in the...
So that's normally, we'll provide that typically when we have a rezoning request.
If you feel that that's additional information, I'm like, Erin's got a whole bunch of slides
buried since she had that already.
For me, it's just helpful to see that information and what all goes into these different zoning
areas.
Right.
So keep in mind, you have your land use categories as provided for in the Conference of Plans.
So we have one that actually has the same name as of a zoning district that we have.
But before we get into some of this deeper analysis, Erin, can you go back to your two
slides that speak to the zoning districts that we typically view as in alignment with
the land use category recommendations?
Yes.
So keep in mind, we're talking land use category, higher level, and then we have a series of
zoning districts that we view are consistent with those land use designations, right?
So I just want to have Erin go back over these here for the light industrial and then also
for the community mixed use.
Okay.
Thank you.
That might help.
And then if you want to look at those use tables, then we can look at that as well.
But I just want to kind of help paint that picture for you.
Okay.
Yes.
And I can go ahead and kind of summarize some of them.
So in light industrial future land use designation, we would typically see, and this is not a
comprehensive list, as any developer came forward with a rezoning request, we would
do a full evaluation.
But these are the typical ones we see associated with future land use light industrial, would
be that light industrial zoning district, general office, and suburban corridor.
Some of the uses, so you'd see things like general retail, car washes, I can kind of
name a few, self-service storage.
These are typical things that we would see with light industrial.
In addition to all of the sort of warehouse uses, restaurants could be approved.
That would be a quick summary there.
And then for community mixed use, we would typically see suburban corridor and mixed
use regional.
And again, this future land use does say that residential could be appropriate, so it makes
sense having that nearby residential, but this is more services for residential uses.
So again, your restaurants, your offices, your medical office, or your small office
space, things in that alignment.
And I'm happy to go through that table that I pulled up.
It's just a little, it's hard to navigate through considering many different zoning
districts.
I was going to say, while she's pulling those up, because of the interest that we have from
property owners in this area, we're trying to help them identify a path forward.
The alternative to this analysis that we've done is those property owners would come in
one at a time and submit future land use map requests one at a time, and you would evaluate
those applications.
And so we felt it was appropriate to look at this one mile stretch more holistically
to be able to see and get your assistance on what would be appropriate to see in this
quarter because then that helps us later on with these property owners and helping them
get that path forward.
At this time, if we find some concurrence with respect to our land use recommendations,
we then subsequently would go ahead and do a map amendment to our future land use map
and run that through the public hearing process after doing some additional engagement as
Aaron pointed to, but then we would allow these applicants to come in with their individual
zoning requests at whatever time that they are ready to.
We are not looking to rezone this area of the quarter because we want the ability for
the property owners to be able to come in and make those requests and be able to address
those finer granular level of zoning considerations at that time.
So again, we were hoping to have some discussion about those land use categories that are being
recommended and then to see if there's concurrence as to how to move forward.
Keep in mind, the status quo is an option, right?
So the status quo does not necessarily help out the property owners, but then know that
they will have those applications come in one at a time and we would be piecemealing
this together versus us trying to take a little bit more comprehensive review of this.
A couple of you may have been, I know you two were on the Teasley Lane case that we
had across from Denton Geyer High School.
We have an area that's kind of evolved in a property owner move forward with that zoning
change.
That quarter could benefit from greater analysis and what have you, so we're trying to kind
of find a happy medium and try to prevent maybe some of that type situation from happening
to be able to help these property owners get a path forward.
Commissioner Riggs.
So I have a question.
I think one of the things, Erin, you had in your presentation was this is a gateway from
Collin County into Denton County.
So I think one of the thoughts is, is do we want like a lot of mini storage or light industrial
type of uses in this gateway corridor, but I guess can you go through why this is maybe
the best land use as opposed to because we don't have like a commercial land use designation.
So I do have a design consideration slide.
So I'll just remind you that it is pretty, it's not a very deep corridor to the north
and south.
So you can kind of see some of those existing uses there today.
Some of those larger scale warehouses would not even fit in this area entirely within
city limits.
As for the gateway and keeping it beautiful and preserving what we would want to see in
a gateway to the city, within the ETJ, we don't have that land use authority to review.
So if something was pushed further back, that would already not be a consideration there.
We also do have general DDC standards for how these new businesses would need to look,
architectural design features, landscaping, tree preservation.
So all of that would be addressed sort of, we didn't think it was necessary to make it
corridor specific since we do have those standards within the DDC for all uses.
So I appreciate the information on sort of the future mobility direction that things
are going.
I'd like to better understand how this melds with our Vision Zero components that are ongoing
and I don't want to just make too many assumptions, right?
Is it correct that right now many, if not the majority of our injury and fatality crashes
are along the high speed roadways, be it 35 and that sort of thing?
I might let Chandra answer that one.
Good afternoon, Commissioners, Farhan Bhatt, Deputy Director, Transportation Services Division.
When it comes to high injury network data that we are right now analyzing from Vision
Zero study, yes, part of I-35 segments, they have fatalities and serious incapacitating
injury crashes, but then when it comes to city streets, they are sporadic.
There are like 15 locations that we have identified across on different arterials and they are
not focused on just one corridor, but they are sporadic.
Yeah, I guess when I look at this, and I appreciate how can we look at this holistically instead
of piecemeal thing, I really understand that and encourage that.
If I were to look out 20 years from now after the 288/380 connector was complete and something
had changed about this corridor, would we expect the safety of the traffic here to be
influenced by what land uses are around it?
It is always, it always will be a factor.
How much of a factor, it's still to be seen, how it shifts up.
But when it comes to fatalities and serious injury crashes on interstate, that is reviewed
and fixed by TxDOT through their road safety process, and then as we go ahead with our
Vision Zero approach, we are planning to address all these frequent crash locations, in particular
fatalities and serious injury locations on city streets.
Now when the land use changes, hopefully those Vision Zero policies will be implemented by
that time, 20 years time frame for sure, and then they will bring returns when it comes
to safety within the city.
Okay.
Any questions, discussion?
Commissioner Patron?
In regards to safety strategies, can you give some examples of what those strategies could
be?
I can broadly mention a few, but they are in process right now.
For example, first few avenues that we are looking at is our serious incapacitating injuries
and frequent fatalities, hotspots, and then we will audit those locations on priority
and fixed, and try to implement whatever findings are based on those, we will provide implementation
solutions.
On the other side, we are also looking at posted speeds, but that is still a broad topic
because TxDOT will be playing some role in there, and then also it will be brought to
Council for further action.
And then also we are looking at urban core areas, how other modes are providing connectivity.
For example, if the pedestrians are crossing these facilities safely, if they are dedicated
exclusive bike lanes, or if they are providing continuity to those bike lanes from origin
to destination, first mile, last mile, all those factors are we are considering and more.
I guess in general, is there a correlation between the speed of a roadway and whether
those crashes are more or less likely to create injuries and death?
Generally, based on previous data, yes, speed has correlation with fatalities related accidents,
but then there are in-cabin underlying causalities, there are factors that would need deeper data
interpretation and analytics, and then we could go to those, but yes, speed is directly
correlated with fatalities.
Okay, thank you.
I guess a question for Chair Pruitt, so just trying to help understand then with your line
of questioning, how does that influence then the recommendations that were coming forth
and kind of where you are thinking from that perspective?
Sure.
Yeah, I appreciate that.
I don't want to put a heavy foot down, so to speak, because I want to hear what others
are thinking.
My -- I mean, right now, as you've shown, there's a mixture of things.
Most of them are in the ATJ, et cetera.
There's people with development interests coming in, understand that.
When I look out, you know, this will be basically a connector between a freeway and a freeway,
so its future designation is freeway.
When I look at other freeway segments within our city that were developed before they became
a freeway, there's safety concerns there, right, because we have -- you have existing
landowners that had, you know, lots developed, and you can't just take their access away
and say, well, your building is worthless now.
And so because it's between those freeways, it seems like its major purpose should be
to carry lots of vehicular traffic.
When I look at the recommendations, it seems like the light industrial recommendation is
kind of a compromise between the interests in the nearby property developers have for
future development of their property and concerns about the corridor and how much turning vehicle
traffic you're going to have, because I would imagine that for most but not all light industrial
uses, right, if it's warehouses, it's primarily large truck traffic, right, but relatively
few number of vehicles.
But if it's some of the other uses, it could be, you know, car wash would have lots of
turning vehicles, et cetera.
So I understand that attempt to find a middle ground there.
The community mixed use, I understand, because it matches something that's there now, but
it doesn't make sense to me here, just because -- I'll just speak frankly, right?
People are annoyed at Razor Ranch to a certain extent, right?
I mean, we said, hey, this is this great new thing.
They got sold a bill of goods to a certain extent of the area in south Razor Ranch that
then changed hands, and I understand that whole history, but now it's a busy roadway
that operates slowly, so it's a little bit safer than some other portions of 380, but
thinking forward, if we're going to have this connector between two freeways and then approve
a lot of land use changes along there so that there's congestion, so that it slows it down,
well, maybe it's safer now, but now it's no longer facilitating that vehicular and truck
traffic route desire.
So yeah, that's where I am.
I'm confused, but I want to hear what others are thinking.
Does that make sense?
Are you thinking that, like, I look on 380 to the east and how I've been told that, you
know, that back in the day was just a two-lane road, and then they put it up to a four-lane
road, and almost instantly, as soon as they were done with that, they realized that still
was not enough because you have all the retail and restaurants and gas stations and grocery
stores and developments, so you have entrances into the developments and out of the developments,
and it's a hot mess when, you know, you have to head up that way.
And are you thinking we might be bringing that kind of traffic pattern to this area,
even though right now it's a six-lane?
Yeah, so I think the recommendation from staff is not that much of a hands-off, free-for-all
scary thing as what has occurred out there.
It's hard for me to evaluate, you know, if we were going to put it on a scale of danger
of becoming that versus no land use changes and we have lower risk of that sort of thing
happening, but then you also have the competing interests and the desire of landowners to
come forward and bring development applications and staff not knowing really how to support
that.
Does that answer your question?
Well, it was really more of a question for you, you know, and in your thought process
and what you were just saying about comparing what happened with Rayser Ranch and what this
could happen.
And, you know, I'm looking at the 2040 future land use map, and yes, right to the west of
this area, it is line industrial, and it's a pretty big chunk.
So it's kind of, I guess, just extending that to the east and kind of starting that sooner.
Yeah, I think from a mobility perspective, the difference I see there is that that chunk
is kind of on less of a freeway because that's where the bypass will have been taken off,
at least once you get to Giesling.
Yeah, I guess there's a quarter or half mile chunk between Giesling and this outlined area.
Yeah.
Commissioner Riggs.
So, Aaron, I don't know if you could, but I think that might be helpful if we could
pull up the land use map.
Yes.
I have it here.
You want something more zoomed in here?
Well, mainly one of the things I was thinking of was the different categories of land use.
You know, if we're talking about, you know, what would be an appropriate land use for
this area, what exactly are our options?
Okay.
So staff did land on light industrial and community mixed use.
I can go through some of the others that we considered for this.
So I was going to say, Aaron, if you need to, maybe we can pull up on the internet.
We've got our Denton 2040 plan, and Julie can tell us the page number of the tables
that have all the different land use categories.
Okay.
I don't know if it'd be helpful to read it as well.
Well, I was going to say, yeah, why don't you go to the page that she's pulled you to
and then pull that up there, and then we can at least go over the different categories.
And then if there are certain ones that we need to go into a little deeper dive, we can
on those.
If you would rather have Julie explain them, we can, you know, pull Julie into the conversation
as well.
So she's our comprehensive plan queen.
So.
And the reason I ask is I have the land up too, and I'm looking at the legend, and I'm
really not seeing another land use that seemed like it would really be a good fit.
So I think when we're talking about our options, that would be really helpful.
And I have slides on several of them as well.
So I'll kind of skip over some that are not appropriate.
I think we're all under the same.
Or I would just say kind of just quickly show the evolution of the uses, kind of how they're
in there, because we haven't done our comprehensive plan boot camp yet, so there might be some
benefit for just kind of walking through them.
But then to your point, we can do a deeper dive on the ones that would be more appropriate.
Okay.
So agriculture for those pretty self-explanatory agricultural uses, rural areas, which is what
we do already see, and that is one that I had a slide on as well.
So I'll just show that real quick.
So rural areas, we would typically see associated with rural residential zoning district.
For those farms and ranches, it can have residential as well, but that's looking at one unit per
five acres.
So much larger lot somewhere even seen out there today.
And then going back through their low residential, we see that in the corridor already.
There's some of that today.
So also up to five units per acre could have some of those very smaller supporting uses,
but mostly residential.
And that's your typical single family residential subdivisions that you see throughout the community.
Well, and I'll just jump in there too.
Currently, the land use is low residential.
Yes.
And so to put to your point on a safety concern is because it is so narrow, it seems like
if you're going to develop that as low residential, then every one of those lots would have to
have a driveway access on the 380.
And I can see that as being a big concern.
Yeah, certainly it's also unlikely, I think.
Part of the reason I asked for some background on the code requirement that a use that gains
access through another property that it must have a zoning designation that allows that
same use is because I see the future land use map here and the zoning, whatever zoning
happens in the future as really guarding not what happens within 250 feet, but what happens
beyond that.
Right?
If you've got a landowner either in the ETJ or the city who wants to put up use M in order
to gain access to 380, that use would have to be approved in the use table for whatever
zoning that property has, right?
So again, yeah, I could see residential happening, but it would be in larger lots of land, continuing
further than 250 feet, in other words.
Okay, I think I follow you.
Okay.
So continuing on, we have moderate residential.
That's typically our more multi-family townhomes, those heavier supporting, you'll see restaurants
and an office associated with that moderate residential, 5 to 12 dwelling units per acre.
We have master plan community, so plan development.
And then downtown Denton would not apply in this area.
Regional mixed use is one, again, that we did, I believe, consider.
No, we looked at neighborhood.
So regional mixed use would be more along I-35, it even says it here in the designation.
Still in those freeways, typically where we do have frontage roads.
So that would be regional draws to an area.
We don't necessarily see that in this area, it would be more along 35.
Community mixed use is our current recommendation for this area.
Neighborhood mixed use we do have, but that's going to be more nestled inside single family
neighborhoods, so those smaller, you'll have a dentist office and your bank and nestled
really inside an existing neighborhood, not along a high-speed corridor like this.
Near universities, so that will not apply.
Business center is one of the other districts that we did evaluate.
So this one kind of shows some of the highlights there.
Some generally aligned zoning districts would be that general office, suburban corridor,
but also highway corridor and mixed use regional.
These are a lot of those bigger draws, bigger offices, really a business center, so it's
a little business community out there.
One of the things that deterred us from this designation was the fact that this corridor
is so long and skinny.
It doesn't really have the room out there to be a true business center, it is a corridor.
And so it would have some of those smaller uses just with that direct access onto a freeway,
we didn't think business center.
This also encourages more walkability, retail, hotels.
It wasn't an area that we saw fit for a business center.
>> How many square miles or feet is this, how many acres is this area?
>> Corridor is a mile long and then 250 feet north and south of the right of way.
I can try to do the math, but -- >> I was going to say, you know, so while
we focus predominantly on what's in the city limits, I guess just kind of -- Chair Pruitt
said something that had me thinking also a little bit is, you know, this is the front
door into the community, but it also potentially influences what happens in the ETJ.
So if the concern is trying to potentially control land uses in a bigger swath of area
by first starting with the strip that's within our city limits that we can control, you know,
we can think about what the influence is to the north and the south longer term with the
land use designation recommendation.
I would probably still have some concerns regarding this particular land use designation
being in this area just because of, particularly to the north, the existing single family residential,
the larger lot neighborhood, the likelihood of those properties turning over and being
assembled for something that's more akin to the types of land uses and development that
we would see happen in this business center, I feel like this is a very small opportunity.
You know, we can try and force the market and with the land use designations, I mean,
there's that to consider as well, but I just, you know, in this particular instance, I don't
see this land use designation being appropriate in this particular area.
This I could see definitely more appropriate where we have it like north of loop 288, east
of I-35, some of our zoning in that area I think is a little more entitled consistent
with this, but that's where we see more of those larger opportunities from some larger
scale campus style development.
Are you thinking that some of those acreages located to the north of this area might sell
and get developed like a developer could go in there and start buying them all up?
Is that, are they that like?
It's given them, given how they're located in Aaron, maybe you've got a better aerial.
I'm trying to see, it's kind of easier to see, we've, Julie and I have driven down some
of these streets, it's a, it's rural, but it's, I would say fairly established.
We didn't anticipate this necessarily redeveloping, you'd have to buy up many different parcels
to do that.
It seemed to us to be pretty established residential that would carry on for a few generations
maybe.
So we didn't anticipate that redeveloping anytime soon.
You know, of the larger properties that could potentially accommodate larger scale development,
I mean, you'd be looking at the stuff that's to the south within the ETJ if they eventually
annexed in or they could develop as they are right now, they're fairly industrial operations
that are happening there.
But I guess if somebody wanted to sell that property and do something different with it,
you know, that that's one of the larger tracks, but you know, we rezoned that property that
Aaron pointed out, that geo tract a couple of years ago, I think they, correct me if
I'm wrong, I think you mentioned that they were looking at possibly bringing in the remaining
balance into the city limits there.
That has that general office designation on there, but even within the last two years,
nothing's happened with that property.
But that's one of the, I would say one of the larger properties we have in that area.
And then when you had further west getting more into Denton, then you start getting some
larger parcels, but they've got south wires over there.
So they've got a larger building footprint.
And then you kind of have a mix of parcel sizes.
And then as you get closer to loop 288 and, and 380, you have larger parcels that are
developed as more of that warehouse distribution.
So you know, you can see kind of the lot patterns that are to the north in this area.
And that's where much of that residential development is, is occurring in that area.
And that's, that's why we just, we don't anticipate that turning over, you know, as, as Aaron
pointed for, for potential couple of generations, just because of the housing that's there.
And these existing types of uses that we see in that business park would be things that,
that could be also permitted under that light industrial.
Some of those office type uses, they're from visiting some of this area and, and understanding
what types of businesses they have.
It is uses that they don't have as many visitors every hour as some, as a restaurant would.
It is those offices that really it's, you go for a specific purpose.
So you wouldn't see so much traffic with those type uses if that were to continue the pattern
that we see today, Aaron, why don't you go back to the list?
Yes.
So business center, light industrial, which is the current recommendation.
We have industrial commerce that is a higher, a higher industrial, which we would not likely
see.
We have that out like near the airport, for example, government or institutional wouldn't
be appropriate.
We already do see some parks and open space in this area.
It is, you see it is over by towards the creek, but that wouldn't be something that we recommend
for the corridor.
That would be more true parks property.
I can throw one thing out there, so seeing how you're struggling in your deliberation
that that don't worry, we we've had several months of deliberating and evaluating of what's
most appropriate and we've gone round and round.
So you know, if you feel like you need a little more time to ruminate on this, I think one
of the things that we could do is if you're not ready to render a decision this evening
and give us direction, what we could do is continue this discussion and our next meeting
gives you a few more weeks to think about it.
Also, I think what we could do is in the meantime, we could send to you those few pages that
Aaron just went through with the various land use categories that have those summaries.
So you can take a look at those and in my apologies, I should have thought about having
us include that as an attachment as well to since we haven't this is really our first
in depth discussion about land use planning at a high level with this group.
So my apologies for not thinking of sending those categories to you in advance, but we
can get that information to you, let you look through them and give some additional thought
to this if you're wanting that additional time.
Is that something that interests Commissioner Riggs?
Just looking at the land uses and hearing what staff has said, I don't think that I
would go with a different land use, just that's where I'm at today.
So for me, I don't think that a few more weeks of deliberation is going to change my opinion
on it.
Okay.
So to clarify, there's the existing flume and then there's the proposed light industrial
and community mixed use flume, so different than the proposal or different than the existing
condition?
The proposed future land use I think is appropriate.
I would go with the staff's recommendation.
Okay.
And Aaron, I think I saw the map on the last page of the report you were looking at.
I think if you just zoomed in on the legend for that, that kind of summarizes the different
land uses that we could essentially choose from.
And when I look at that, I don't see one that seems to be a better fit.
Okay.
Any other thoughts?
Commissioner Boudron?
I'm given that this is this particular area, I agree with Commissioner Riggs, not necessarily
seeing another fit for this space.
I don't think that I would need some additional time for consideration either.
Commissioner Dyer?
I would agree.
I mean, personally, I kind of wonder if the business center, but I also go on staff's
recommendation that it's just too skinny of a property to really appropriately do that.
So I would go with staff recommendation.
I don't really see anything other.
I mean, hopefully it's going to be something when if it were to come to us when developers
are looking at what they want to put in that and talking to the city, that they won't put
something so oddball out there for those homeowners that have been used to a quiet road up until
probably the last 10 years.
And keep in mind, so if we are to change the future land use map, then there's still a
whole zoning process that will be gone through with these individual property owners.
Their option is to develop under their existing zoning, right?
But what we're hearing is that's a little bit of a problem, but that's an option, right?
But in all likelihood, then when they bring in those individual zoning requests, we will
evaluate them for consistency with not only the future land use map, but all the other
recommendations that we have within the Denton 2040 plan and work through those finer granular
issues at that time.
Much like we did when we did the property to the west with the -- or I'm sorry, I'm
thinking of another property that Julie had that was in a similar challenging situation.
They came in with a lot of industrial requests, and I think we ended up doing a planned development
district because of the considerations that were in that area.
So when we do the zoning, that'll allow us to even -- you know, to better address some
of those oddball situations that someone might come forth with.
Okay.
Yeah, I -- this is hard for me.
I think you can tell that because I wear it on my face.
I'm -- I agree that there's -- if what we're interested in is increased development in
this area, there's no better future land use map designation that we have.
We don't have a light industrial, but really low traffic as far as, you know, conflict
turning, et cetera.
So yeah, I totally agree.
My concern is just I don't know that this corridor in the middle of two basically converting
things into freeway projects is a corridor where we should want to induce additional
development, right?
And while the existing future land use map options don't offer the likelihood that they
would develop that way from an economic perspective, they do provide sort of a message of, well,
you know, we're on pause, if you will, just economically as opposed to rationally from
a what does the map look like perspective.
So I'm not at this time in favor of changing it.
You know, we'll go forward, and, you know, we've got three people, so that sounds good.
My message is just in this corridor, we're going to have to be really careful about the
types of zonings and land uses that go in here, right, from a safety perspective, because
our light industrial zoning district, not the future land use district, allows a lot
of things, and I think that's great in most areas of our town to have that flexibility.
But here there's a big difference between, you know, 300 cars a day pulling out and 3,000,
if that makes sense.
>> I guess I just want to make sure I understand kind of where your thoughts are.
I understand the concern of the amount of traffic, and particularly Raise Ranch, I hate
trying to get onto the highway every time we go down over there, but so is your thought
to essentially leave it as low residential, knowing that nobody will then ever, pretty
much no one will ever develop it?
>> Yeah, I mean, I think, I think so.
That's my preference.
Again, not because it explicitly describes what we want out there.
It's more of a placeholder, if you will.
I'd rather us focus a little bit more.
I'm a little bit more nervous about the community mixed use on that southwestern corridor, you
know, based on the types of zoning districts that could go in there, if we get an SC, and
then, you know, there's city land south of there, and it gets annexed, et cetera, then
that future land use is probably lends itself more toward a high traffic issue.
But I understand that we don't want to inadvertently create nonconformities and that sort of thing,
right?
So, yeah.
I'm not sure, I guess we're still missing three people now.
So do you need more direction than that, or what's your staff's needs on this?
No, I mean, our next actions would be to do the neighborhood engagement further.
Like I said, we, or as Erin mentioned, we've been working with some of the property owners
in that area, but we believe a broader engagement effort would be appropriate, and so we will
do that, and then we will share the initial direction that we've received from the commission.
We can come back and share with you the results of that neighborhood engagement that we did,
and then that way, if you're interested in any further refinements based upon that public
engagement, then you can give us that direction before we formally initiate a public hearing
to amend the future land use map.
But this is very helpful, and I appreciate the very thoughtfulness and the consideration,
because it's a hard area to evaluate and figure out what is most appropriate when you're looking
that far in the future.
But let us do that neighborhood engagement, and then we'll bring you the results of that,
and then if you have any additional thoughts, refinements to the direction you've given
us so far, we can address it at that time.
Sounds good.
Do the neighbors, you know, when you do the radius zones and all that, are you also asking
them what they would like to see, what zoning change, if any, they would like to see in
this area, or you're just looking for feedback, like we're thinking of this community mixed
use in the site industrial.
How do y'all feel about that?
Wait, it would be somewhere...
It would be somewhere in between.
So right, I mean, we would have this higher level conversation with them and talk about
these land use categories, but I think it would be appropriate for us to also talk about,
you know, what are the types of zoning districts that could potentially align with these land
use recommendations so that they understand how it fits together.
So you know, what specific properties would get rezoned to what district?
We would not be able to answer those kind of questions, but I think we could still have
a conversation about, you know, these are the, much like what we did this evening, these
are the zoning districts that typically align with these future land use plan recommendations.
Here are some of the types of land uses that are typically allowed in those zoning districts
so that they could have that understanding.
Commissioner Riggs.
I appreciate that, Tina.
I like that idea a lot.
One of the other things I would suggest is, and it may be looking too much into the crystal
ball because we don't know exactly how it's going to zone, but if, to Commissioner Pruitt's
point, get some kind of idea of traffic impacts, again, I know that may be too much crystal
ball, but if we get a high level, maybe.
So like traffic impacts associated with the land use categories or I just want to make
sure I understand your request.
Yeah.
Within the land use categories.
I mean, obviously the zoning and use is very, very quite a bit, but that might be helpful.
Yeah.
Thank you.
I think my thought would be within the uses for those future land use categories, identify
the ones that could develop with the limited depth from the roadway and kind of focus on
those, right?
Commissioner Pedrone.
I agree with Commissioner Riggs and with the traffic impact study to see what we would be
looking at moving forward.
Does that impact study also include like things, how many like stoplights and stuff you would
put in that?
We would not go to that level of analysis at this point in time.
Keep in mind, it would be a much more high level assessment associated with it.
Okay.
Does staff need anything else or no?
Okay.
Then at 623, I will take a recess until 630 for the regular meeting in council chambers.
Thank you.
Good evening.
It is 641 PM on April 23rd.
We will reconvene in our regular meeting of the Denton Planning and Zoning Commission.
Our first order of business is to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance to the US and
Texas Flag.
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible.
Texas Flag, Pledge of Allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one indivisible.
Our next item is PZ 25007, approval of the April 9th Planning and Zoning Commission minutes.
Commissioner Padron?
Move approval.
Commissioner Dyer?
I second.
And with that, let's vote on the board.
That item passes 4-0.
That brings us to our consent agenda, I'll ask for a motion to approve with the amended
plat that we received over email if you could include that in your motion please.
Commissioner Riggs?
I make a motion to approve the consent agenda and with the replat change that was emailed
to us.
Commissioner Padron?
I second.
Seeing no questions, call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 4-0, brings us to our items for individual consideration for a FP 250014.
Good evening, commission, Bryce VanArsdale, assistant planner.
This is FP 250014, this is a 19-acre lot just located about 320 feet to the east of
Country Club Road and on the north side of Hobson Lane.
While we did have some comments to work through late last week, all the comments have been
addressed and staff no longer has any problems with recommending approval of this plat and
I'll stand for any questions.
Any questions?
Or a motion?
Commissioner Riggs?
I make a motion to approve this plat.
Commissioner Padron?
Second.
Seeing no questions, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 4-0, brings us to 4B, PP 25002.
Good evening, commission.
This request is for a preliminary plat of approximately 269 acres located in Denton's
ETJ, north of FM 2449 and south of TN Scales Road.
At this time, staff recommends a denial, as it does not meet our criteria for approval.
However, we have no objection to their first extension request to a date certain of May
14, 2025.
Thank you, Matt.
Commissioner Padron?
Move approval to grant the extension to a date certain of May 14, 2025.
And Commissioner Riggs?
Second.
Let's vote on the board.
That item passes 4-0, brings us to item 4C, FR 250010.
Good evening, Julie Wyatt, principal planner.
This is FR 25-0010.
It is a replat for an existing high school campus.
The purpose of the replat is to add some additional property for campus improvements as well as
a transportation facility.
The property is located on the north side of McKinney, just east of May Hill.
Right now, they do have some items that they need to work through in order for staff to
recommend approval.
However, we have no objection to their requested extension to the May 14 meeting.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Commissioner Dyer?
I make a motion that we go ahead and move to grant the extension to May 14.
Commissioner Padron?
I second.
Seeing no questions, call for a vote on the board.
That extension motion passes 4-0, brings us to item 4D, V25-0023.
Good evening, Erin Stanley, assistant planner.
This is the Harris Ranch Industrial Subdivision variance.
So this is a request for two lots to take access off of an access easement rather than
a public street.
The subject property is located west of I-35 and approximately 1,700 feet south of North
Loop 288.
The property is zoned light industrial and the applicant is proposing to create four
lots on approximately 91 acres to facilitate the development of light industrial development
on approximately 84 acres.
So the two lots that would be requesting this subdivision variance are highlighted
in yellow on this screen.
They currently take access off of an access easement and would be this proposal would
allow them to formally be plotted taking access off of this access easement.
So in staff's consideration within the DDC of the approval criteria, the first one is
not that it would not be detrimental to public safety, health, or welfare to other property.
And as these properties already take access off of an easement, this would not change
the existing alignment.
And these pad sites also are current gas well pad site and electrical communications pad
site.
And these seldomly require human assistance or monitoring.
So there wouldn't be a lot of traffic in or out.
The second consideration is that based on particular physical surroundings that this
variance would be considered.
This in this situation, the pad sites that are requesting this variance ownership is
intended to remain with the current owner for these sites while the remaining 84 acres
would be sold to the developer for light industrial.
While it is possible to plot the pad sites with that industrial tract, they would have
to maintain the same ownership.
So to have that separate ownership, they do need to be plotted separately, hence why the
subdivision variance would be necessary.
The third criteria is that it would not be in conflict with anything else in the development
code, comprehensive plan or mobility plan.
Aside from this specific variance, the development would be required to meet all other criteria,
plot dimensions and setbacks, everything would be required.
So there is no conflict there.
And then the fourth criteria that there are particular considerations or conditions for
this site, these pad sites have been in their existing uses since prior to the adoption
of the current development code.
The gas well pad site has existed since at least 2004 and communications pad sites since
at least 2001.
So with that, staff is recommending approval of the request as it complies with all approval
criteria and I'll stand for any questions.
Any questions for staff?
We do have one card on this item wishing to speak, but if you have questions for staff
at this time.
I have a question and I don't know why I didn't think about this when we were in the workshop.
So when you're looking at this and the property owner wanting to keep the two, the gas well
and the communications pad are, it's part of this agreement that they will either put
some sort of like fencing material or landscaping material to kind of keep that separated out
from the other, the warehousing lots there.
So I know there are fences around the communications pad site.
I'm not sure about the gas well one, but the applicant is here and can speak to that.
- Well, is that a requirement that the city has that they do that with this?
- The fence would not be required, no.
- Okay, any other questions of staff?
Okay, I have a card from Amy Bissett for the applicant.
If you want to come up, you'll have 10 minutes.
- Good evening, commissioners, Amy Bissett, 109 North Elm, 76201.
I brought a couple of slides in case we get into any specific questions.
Just to clarify on your question, Commissioner Dyer, there are existing fences in both locations
today and security will be one of the site features that's planned for as we move through
the development process.
There will certainly be, the way access works, we'll have to provide access off of those
easements into their properties, but we'll be considering security on both sides of that,
of the development.
Happy to answer any other questions you may have.
- Any questions of the applicant?
Not seeing anything.
- Right, thank you.
- Discussion or a motion or other questions?
Commissioner Riggs?
- I'd make a motion to approve the variance.
- Commissioner Dyer?
- I will second that motion.
- Okay.
Not seeing any other questions, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Item passes 4-0.
It brings us to our public hearings tonight, first one is 5AZ25-0005.
- Good evening, Commission, Matt Boudin, Assistant Planner, here to present the zoning case for
the new Denton Fire Station 6.
So this request is to rezone approximately three acres of land located at the corner
of Teasley and Hunters Creek from the existing planned development zoning district to our
public facilities district for the purpose of developing a new fire station at this site.
So this piece of property has gone through several changes related to City Council and
Commission's decisions, some of the recent ones being the City Council approving a rezoning
to the current PD back in April of 2023, however, before any commercial development occurred
on the site, City Council approved the purchase of this property for the development specifically
of a new fire station facility.
While the PD does allow for that fire station land use as staff has worked through those
development plans, it's become apparent that the unique development requirements and needs
of a fire station have been difficult to provide for within the constraints of the PD.
In addition, we believe rezoning to the public facilities district would align that future
use of a fire station better with the zoning, or sorry, reline the zoning better with the
use as that public facilities district is meant for those public uses.
Additionally, the rezoning would allow staff to apply flexibility in the design to account
for those unique needs of a fire station that any development under a base zoning district
is able to apply, but not able to under the current PD.
We did review this request against our criteria for approval, both the general and the zoning
change criteria.
I did find that this rezoning does advance the goals of the comprehensive plan specifically
to provide emergency services, and it does align with the future land use map designations.
In this area, you'll see the community mixed use and low residential designations, which
are meant to promote a mix of uses as well as allowing those uses that support residential
neighborhoods that a fire station will do.
This request was notified according to our city requirements, so mailings and newspaper
notices were sent.
We did receive two written responses in favor of the request within that 200 foot buffer,
and then a written response that was neutral, neither in favor or in opposition, and then
staff did not receive any responses in opposition to this rezoning request.
Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning request as it complies with the criteria.
We're also here to answer any questions.
Any questions on this one?
Yeah, Commissioner Riggs?
I have a question.
What design constraints or site constraints does go into this new zoning allow for?
Specifically regarding flexibility around landscaping, so as the fire station, as the
trucks enter and exit, they do need high visibility onto the road, and so the PD asked for additional
landscaping along Hunters Creek that had to be along Hunters Creek, such as trees, and
so in order to meet, as that's one example, that need of high visibility for the trucks
out of safety, it was deemed necessary to rezone and so to the PF district where those
trees could then be moved elsewhere on site through the alternative landscape plan process
in the development code.
In either way, the fire station's going to go there because it was already a permitted
use?
Correct.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Yeah, that was going to be my same question, so thank you for addressing that.
Discussion or a motion, sorry.
This is a public hearing, so if you have not filled out a card, I'll open the public hearing
now.
If you have not filled out a card, you're still welcome to come speak, and you can fill
out a card afterward.
Would anybody like to come speak?
Come on up, please.
Good afternoon, this is my first one, so I apologize if I didn't say the right things.
If you can pull your microphone down just so that we have it on record, and state your
name and address, and then you'll have three minutes.
Julia Hernandez, I live in 2505 Briar Forest Drive, just right off Teasley.
So after hearing the proposal, for me I do have some concerns, along with my neighbors
as well, but really it's about the noise that's going to be going on, potentially 24/7, day
or night, so I know a lot of my friends have a lot of kids in that area, so that could
be a potential concern for them.
For me and myself, I would say that I work from home a lot, so these meetings, the potential
noise could cause some issues and eruptions that are unnecessary, and then also along
with just the noise, the traffic that might come along with this spill, my concern as
well for that, and then overall there is a view that property values decrease because
of this, and that's a concern when I sell my home.
So right now, even after hearing the proposal, I do not approve of it, or disapprove of it,
whichever is said, but that's it, that's it for me, my concerns.
Thank you.
Any questions from the commission?
No?
Okay.
Anybody else?
Can you come speak?
Commissioner Patron?
I don't know if this is a question for staff or not, but is there a correlation between
property value and fire stations or public facilities?
Is there somebody from staff that can speak to that?
So I've never received a market analysis regarding a fire station located in proximity to properties.
I think typically what we find though is that the convenience of having fire stations nearby
can be an attractive factor for some property owners.
I can understand the concerns expressed by the resident regarding the operational aspects,
particularly with the fire apparatus coming and going.
Our fire chief is present this evening.
He could address some of their operational considerations that they employ versus daytime
operations versus nighttime, and that might be able to address some of the resident concerns.
Can I address the property values?
Oh, sure, absolutely.
As the resident real estate agent, it's kind of a toss up.
If it will devalue a property, it could go to the sellability where there will be some
people that just don't want to live like behind, especially the houses that bump up against
this property.
There will be some buyers who will probably not want to look at a house because they just
don't want to live behind a fire station.
I would think, and I'm not an insurance agent, but I would think that having the fire station
so close that it would help with insurance premiums because of the response time.
Chief Hedges, can you speak to the operational nature of these types of fire stations?
Sure thing.
Kenneth Hedges, fire chief.
There's a couple of different questions here as well, so let me kind of start off on really
the reason why we moved from current existing site to the current site as well and took
this presentation to council back in 2023 after the bond committee committed and finished
with the projects as well.
We look at everything in response time and really try to focus on a four-minute response
time is the NFPA standard, really best practice out there.
How quick can we get there in four minutes as well?
By moving just seven-tenths of a mile to the south, this new location, we actually have
data to show we increased by almost 6,000 residents that moved from outside a four-minute
response time to within a four-minute response time, so huge, dramatic operational improvement
moving this location.
At-risk populations, 65, age 65 and above, we increased that by 410 residents.
Household disabilities, we increased that by 306, so all this is adding to the four-minute
response window for us.
Commercial, number of businesses, we increased by 58 businesses within a four-minute response
time, told employees of those businesses almost 1,700 and I think the big thing also is the
fact that now we get the four-minute response time to Geyer.
So beforehand, we were outside of that and once again, this is a national standard we
try to hit.
I do understand the concerns, I mean, we are not usually the best neighbors, but we do
try to accommodate it.
Any time at nighttime, we do try to respond with just lights only, so if there's no traffic,
we don't have to capture the intersections.
Our officers do have discretion to turn the sirens off.
One thing about this facility also, there will be a police department substation, just
a two-office there in the front as well, so they will be on-site occasionally, so it's
more of a public safety building, primarily fire as well, so I think that's really all
I have for operational.
Is there kind of any other further questions?
I hope I answered most of them.
What is your average response time?
So like, are you usually getting a call like once every three hours, once every half hour,
like for the resident here who's concerned about interruption in her workday, is she
going to experience that once or twice a day or multiple times?
Well, unfortunately, we're a very busy system, but with the addition of Station 8 on Colorado,
that actually has brought Station 6 call volume down significantly as well, so it is not one
of our probably top three busiest stations, and that's very hard to predict.
I don't have the data from me on how many times they go out.
It could be anywhere from 10 times in a 24-hour shift, they could only go once as well, so
it just varies.
Any other questions?
I'll say I appreciate the flexibility you give to your crews, because I live on a street
where frequently at night I see flashing lights, and they're very considerate, so thank you.
Yeah, and just one thing I'd like to add, and primarily the reason is the fact that we
can't have trees on the front ramp, so when our crews do leave, we have to try to capture
that line of sight and the traffic as well, and we want people to see us, and we want
to see them, so I think that's kind of the primary reason on this rezoning request.
Thank you.
Anybody else wishing to speak?
Public hearing.
Not seeing anyone, I will close the public hearing.
Any questions or a motion from the commission?
Commissioner Pedrone.
Sorry.
Commissioner Riggs.
So I had a comment.
So I'm actually one of your neighbors over there too.
I live in that area, and I actually live a little bit closer to the current fire station,
and I haven't seen any nuisance or been disturbed by it at all.
One of the other things I do want to point out is that this is basically just a zoning
change request, so even if we were to deny this, the station would still go there.
It would just be with the trees blocking, and maybe making it more unsafe, so that's
all.
Thank you.
Commissioner Pedrone.
Move approval.
Commissioner Riggs.
That was a second.
There you go.
Thank you.
Seeing no additional questions, I'll call for a vote on the board of trustees.
Seeing no additional questions, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 4-0.
Brings us to our last public hearing, item 5B, DCA 24-0011.
Good evening, commission.
Bryce Van Arsdale, assistant planner.
This is DCA 24-0011 regarding the addition of commercial normal services to the land
use definitions provided in the development code.
Currently, most domestic animal services such as groomers, training, dog, daycares, those
sort of things will fall either under the kennel definition or the personal service
general definition.
However, as the market has continued to develop, we often see multiple of these uses under
a single building.
So we'll see, for instance, a doggie daycare that also offers overnight boarding as well
as training and grooming services.
With our existing definitions, I'll point out two things.
First is that the kennel definition provides for training as well as overnight, specifically
overnight, boarding, and the personal service general provides for the grooming services
of animals.
However, a couple takeaways from this, first is that there's no mention of doggie daycares
or pet daycares, rather.
Additionally, whenever multiple of these uses are under the same building, it leaves staff
in a bit of a gray area when interpreting zoning regulations.
Our proposed amendments are to introduce two different definitions, and they're very similar.
There's a differentiation that will be made in the use specific standards between the
indoor and the outdoor definition.
But generally, these definitions allow for the training, grooming, boarding, adoption,
or daycare services of domestic animals.
I will note that these definitions do exclude the sale of animals as well as any veterinary
care as those apply to their own definitions.
When looking at the table of allowed uses, you'll notice that the commercial animal
services both follow very closely with the veterinary clinic, allowed zoning districts.
The one major difference being that commercial animal service outdoor is not permitted in
the MN or MD zoning districts.
The use specific standards are a little bit wordy, but there's a couple takeaways from
this slide as well.
The first is that when the property is adjacent to within or within 1,000 feet of a residential
zoning district, we establish time and distance restrictions on outdoor elements.
Secondly, with the commercial animal service indoor, this is where the differentiation
is made between the indoor and outdoor use, and establishing that no more than 50% of
the proposed business may be allocated for outdoor use.
Finally, we did, I believe it was Chair Pruitt back in September, requested that we include
a provision that states no provision is intended to prevent the allocation of outdoor areas
for animal relief.
So that is also an element of this proposal.
With our proposed definition amendments, you'll note that commercial stable and the amendment
to personal service general are fairly minor in nature.
However, we do propose the removal of the kennel definition.
Many businesses that fall into the kennel definition today will now fall under either
the commercial animal service indoor or outdoor, based on the allocation of their outdoor element.
And following with that, we removed the use specific standards for kennel.
And secondly, we introduced two use specific standards to the veterinary clinic.
These are both related to on-site livestock veterinary care.
We realized that it's not very common to see this.
Typically, the vet will be going out to the site where the animal resides, but we did
want to provide these protections where it was relevant to these zoning districts.
The minimum parking requirements follow very closely and are the exact same as veterinary
clinic, which is one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area.
This project was noticed in accordance with state statute.
We sent out 20 929 notices to 10 businesses.
And the reason that those numbers are different are because the 929 notices go to both the
property owner as well as the business owner.
We received zero responses to this round of noticing.
And if you'll notice on the left, we have the businesses, or on the right, excuse me.
You'll notice the businesses which were noticed.
The businesses with the asterisks are the ones that are noted in the ordinance as those
two will be conforming.
This proposal does meet the general goals and policies of both the Denton Comprehensive
Plan and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as well as the Denton Development Code.
Staff does recommend approval of this as it meets the criteria set forth in sections 2.74(d)
of the Denton Development Code, and I'm happy to stand for any questions.
I don't see any yet.
This is a public hearing, so I will open the public hearing and invite anybody to come down
and share their thoughts or concerns or questions so that we can understand everybody.
We're happy to...
Hang on.
I'm sorry.
This is my slide.
Okay.
If you could come down and state your name and address.
Myself, Club K-9, 7800 East McKinney Street.
Okay.
Now, it's said veterinarian, I'm not a very...
So what if you bring your dog to our facility under veterinarian regulation or...
You got four dogs, three rambunctious, and one just got a hip surgery.
You don't want that to get messed up, so you bring it to us for two weeks, low, slow, heel,
and go back home.
But the vet comes to our place, drives on our property.
Are we now a veterinarian?
Any of those above anything gonna conflict with that?
So I'll let staff address that.
Sure.
Great question.
No, that will not make you a veterinary clinic.
It'll be based on the land use, which is dictated by one-year zoning, but also your certificate
of occupancy.
So if you're not operating as a veterinarian clinic, then you won't fall into that veterinary
clinic.
Okay, thank you for your time.
Sure.
Absolutely.
Any questions or discussions?
Commissioner Riggs?
I'd make a motion to approve as staff recommended.
And Commissioner Padron?
Second.
I will close the public hearing.
And with that, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 4-0, thank you.
That brings us to our Planning and Zoning Commission matrix.
Are there any updates, Tina?
So just a few things to bring to your attention.
So no changes to the matrix since there were no requests from the last meeting.
Also, wanted to share with you just past City Council action since your meeting on the 9th
of April.
So we did have a specific use permit for equipment sales and rental.
If you recall, this property was west of I-35, east of the terminus of Jim Crystal Road,
about 1,000 feet north of West Oak.
So it was a property that I believe Erin presented and had quite a few easements that encumbered
this site.
And so the commission recommended approval and council ended up approving that specific
use permit.
So that's the only action that we've had that the commission has seen since your last meeting.
Excuse me just a moment.
Excuse me.
A couple other things I'd like to bring to your attention.
So May is National Preservation Month.
And so our team, in particular, our Historic Preservation Officer, Cameron Robertson, will
give her a shout out.
City as well as has some partners, particularly with the county, that do a series of events
referred to as their Denton Revealed program.
So I would encourage you to take a look at that, especially if historic preservation
is of interest to you.
They have several events that are planned during the month of May.
For more information about that, you can go to the city's website and just do a search
for Denton Revealed and that'll bring up that schedule events they have planned.
So this is their fourth annual Denton Revealed event.
So they've had a tremendous amount of success with this.
Also for the month of May is Building Safety Month.
So our team assists, our planning team assists our building safety team, which includes all
of our plans examiners as well as our building inspectors and our permit technicians with
review of applications.
But just wanted to acknowledge the Building Safety Month because I know that team works
really diligently and we were able to provide them that support to be able to review all
of the buildings that are constructed in town and/or modified that would require any permits
associated with them as well as follow-up building inspections to make sure that the
occupancy is safe for the public's entrance into those facilities.
So just want to give them a shout out, but also bring that to your attention.
So I think we'll have an acknowledgement of the Building Safety Month at council's
meeting on May 6th.
And then lastly, just want to welcome Shirley McDade to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
She was appointed and Commissioner Prado Carillo was having work conflicts and unfortunately
resigned from the commission last week.
So I know the council is considering possible appointments to that position.
So hopefully we'll have Ms. McDade completed all of her paperwork so she can join the commission
at your next meeting on May 14th.
So that concludes my remarks and happy to address anything else.
Any additions to the matrix?
Not seeing any.
That brings us to our concluding items.
Any concluding items to mention from the commission?
I have one.
Oh, early voting has started.
So please go participate in the wonderful opportunity that we have to elect our municipal
leaders, both at the school district and the council level, who have great influence over
our daily lives.
Seeing nothing else, with no objection, I will adjourn this meeting of the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Thank you.