Dec 02, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2020-12-02 4:00 PM

>> Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the planning and zoning commission work session for Wednesday, December 2nd. It is 4.02 and seeing we have a quorum, I will open the meeting. Please let the record show that Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Anderson are currently not in attendance. To jump right into our agenda, we have one work session report tonight. The agenda has two listed. The second one, item 3B, is being pulled. It wasn't heard by council yesterday and it won't be heard by us this evening or this afternoon. So we will start with 3A PZ20-272 regarding code amendments. I think Ron is leading that out. >> Yes. >> Ron, you have the floor when you're ready. >> Thank you. Let me pull up my screen real quick or my PowerPoint presentation. And we will get started. Good afternoon. Again, Ron Mingida, principal planner with development services. This item is to go over some of the code amendments that staff has been working on for over last past year. We haven't really started some of the discussion with the planning and zoning commission until recently. We've had a number of meetings with the development code review committee already, but we have some here that we would like to share with the planning and zoning commission to let y'all know what we're working on. And this particular set is specific to subchapter 2, which is administration and procedures of the Denson development code. So I just wanted to introduce the code amendments to let y'all know. Again, you've seen this slide before, but really it's important to know that what we're trying to accomplish with these code amendments is really to address some of the nonconformities that were created, and that is with the update of the development code back in 2019, April 2019 to be specific. We also know that there were a number of house bills that were passed later that summer and we are responding to those by aligning some of our requirements and standards to comply be consistent with those Texas local government code requirements. Also, there are a number of process improvements that the city has been involved in, and we are looking to codify most of those through this exercise. And you will see that in subchapter 2, much of that is part of this code amendment section specifically, just because it's under administration and procedures. And last, we hear a lot of general feedback and input from the public, the development community, PNC and city council. There are a number of substantive changes and non-substantive changes specifically as it relates to error typos, incorrect references and the like. So I'm going to go through the code amendments. Again, this is for subchapter 2 and this looks like a lot. It is a lot of items. However, some of them will be short in nature. Others will be a little bit more involved in that there are just a number of texts and languages that we are provisions that we want to introduce or reintroduce into the development code. Therefore, I just want to highlight some of those with you all this afternoon. So with that, we'll go ahead and get started. The first topic or item is PNC operational procedures. This is really to provide the operational procedures back into the DDC. As you can see, letter A above states that it references the municipal code of ordinances. Although the intent was to put it in the code of ordinances, we feel that it's helpful for the community to have it in the development code. Therefore, we're putting it or reintroducing it back. As such, we have a list of operational procedures, one through three that you see here. Again, nothing that's significantly different from what we previously had or had in the past related to PNC. The first one is that the PNC made up rules to govern its proceedings provided, and that's just a standard statement there, that the chairperson has the ability to call a meeting, a special call meeting, if at any time there is a need for that. And of course, the planning, zoning commission shall keep minutes. We want to make sure that all the records in our voting and our statements are kept and for public record. The next item is related to the tie votes as relates to non-subdivision applications. One of the things that we have is in situations where there is a tie vote, we bring it forward. What is the result of that? So we want to be clear on what that means. Back in 2018, when we were under the 2002 code, prior to the update, we did do a code amendment to specify how a tie vote from PNC results moving forward to the city council. It was carried forward to the city, sorry, to the 2019 development code. However, it only carried forward with regards to rezoning, zoning map amendments. It did not carry forward or clearly state that it also applied to specific use permits, any other recommendation that the planning zoning commission provides to the city council. Partly the reason for that is when it was in the 2002 code, the zoning amendment process covered most of these types of applications. However, with the 2019 code, we separated those procedures and applications. Therefore, it no longer was under or is under those SUPs and ALTESAs and similar applications. So what staff is proposing is that we have an all-encompassing requirement or explanation of what happens during a tie vote and this applies to all applications that one, the city, I'm sorry, the planning zoning commission has decisions on final decisions and again, these are for our non-subdivision applications. So an example of a final decision for the PNC would be similar to the razor ranch site plan. For example, you all are the final decision on some respects to the razor ranch site plan. We're also thinking of bringing back, having the PNC consider subdivision variances. So that will be another final decision that the PNC would consider. And then recommendations, that's probably the main thing as well, that if there was a tie vote, what happens to that moving forward to city council. And so what you see here is the same language that we have for rezoning. We are again carrying it forward or amending the code to apply to all of the applications. So SUPs, ALTESAs and the like. So again, the PNC, if there is a tie vote, it will be placed on the next available PNC for consideration. Probably at that next second meeting, there are an odd number so that vote would not result in a tie vote. If for whatever reason, there is still an even number and there is a tie vote at the second meeting, that recommendation will be brought forward as a denial to the city council. However, that denial that would be brought forward to city council would not require the three fourth vote that normally a denial from a PNC recommendation would garner. So I'm going to stop sharing my screen and see if there are any questions. >> We do have one, Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Chair. So as I understand the way our government works, power descends from council. And thus, my question, my first question, I'll ask both of them, is how is tie voting defined in council? And also then my second question is if this is different than council, is it different than every other commission board, Chair, and if so, a C, why would you need that difference? >> That's a great question. I think I've got an answer for the second part. But I'm going to need some help from Richard and/or Mack on what happens on a tie vote for city council. What is their remedy in that situation? >> I don't know if Mack has it handy. I don't recall off the top of my head. I would just have to pull the board, the rules of procedure in the code. >> Yeah, and I'm trying to look it up. But I believe what the result is at council is if they have a tie vote, it pushes it to the next subsequent meeting. And that continues until they can get a vote on the matter. I don't think it necessarily goes away. But that was updated at some point. So let me look at the code to see if that's changed more recently. And give me a few minutes. I'll go ahead and interrupt if I need to. >> Okay. And Commissioner Mack, regarding your second question, is the P&Z different from all the other boards in the commission? Per our code of ordinances, there is a statement in there that allows the P&Z to identify its voting procedures. And so, yes, slightly different. So we do have the ability to set that different type of voting outcome. >> And I guess the C, why do we need that? >> Say that one more time. >> The third question, question C is why do we need -- what's the need to have a different set of rules than other boards and commissions? And potentially, depending on Mack's lookup than council? >> I just know that, you know, with P&Z, we have a lot of items to consider. And there are a number of applications that we recommend to the city council that directly impacts some of their voting requirements. So I think that's why we want to be different in addressing those situations. >> Well, then let me follow up with a commission that's very similar to ours, just so I understand the overarching goals of this change. And that is ZBA, they also deal with substantially similar issues that we do. Or at least have a high overlap. And so what is their procedure on ties? >> So the ZBA is not a recommending board to the city council. Their decisions are final. And their requirements are also different. Because you need at least six votes in order to approve a variance request. So there is not a tie vote per se, other than, you know, again, meaning that they would need at least six votes. And again, they're different in the sense that they're not a recommending body to the city council. >> Yeah. I take your point that they're asking -- people are asking for a variance on that. And so it's a strong affirmative. But it does mean that if you had a tie vote, that would be a negative. Because you need the six votes to get. >> Correct. You would need at least six. >> So, you know, I'm just -- you know, I understand that different bodies have different needs and necessities. That's why we have different bodies in the first place. But I -- you know, I think it's important to make sure that we're -- the changes in the way we handle these kinds of things are not arbitrary. That they're following a goal. And anyway, I'll stop there unless Mac has a -- >> Yeah, I'll jump back in. I found the answer. So the council did change this earlier this year, the whole process. And they reviewed it and adopted code changes. So for city council, if there's a tie vote due to an absence of a council member, that item continues to be placed on each subsequent council meeting agenda until there's a full council present or it doesn't end in a tie vote. And so that's there. It continues on as long as there's an absence due to -- I'm sorry, a tie due to an absence. With the rest of the city, for the boards, commissions and committees, with the exception of this planning and zoning commission, any time there's a tie vote, it's considered a denial. >> So in a sense, going to a second meeting would be consistent, a second vote under this proposal would be consistent with the continuance at the way council does. Although council would have a continuance forever is what you're saying. Whereas we would only have a continuance once. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Commissioner Beck, if I'm hearing that we need your mic a little louder, if you can speak louder. >> Yeah, I'll turn it up. >> Thank you. >> Commissioner Burnetta. >> Yeah. And real quick to address, I guess one of the questions that Commissioner Beck was bringing up. You know, unlike a lot of other boards, you know, we have to remember that the impact of the decisions we have basically affects the city in terms of its growth and its money. It's not just, you know, a one person being absent once that we're having to take into consideration. There are going to be decisions where a commission member may have to recuse themselves from every vote that could always leave us, you know, with an even number. So we have to address those in this. But Ron, I guess my question is, when we went over this, I guess a couple of years ago, so it was always that it shows up as a denial for us, but it doesn't require the super majority on everything else for city council? >> That is correct. That is the language we have that was approved that carried forward for rezonings. And we're just making -- we're just applying it to all the other recommendation applications that go to city council. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure, because it was bolded and I wanted to make sure that, you know, that bold meant that we were putting it consistent with everything else. Thank you. >> Correct. >> Commissioner Beck. >> This is just a mic check. Is that better? >> Could be a little louder. >> More? Okay. >> Yes. >> Ron, maybe a touch on it, and I might have missed it, but again, if you remember in the old code, we didn't have separate procedures for every application. Everything followed the rezoning procedure process, and so that's where the TIVO provisions were embedded. Now that we have different procedures established, we just need to carry that forward. It's really -- I don't think too much of a change in that regard. >> Right. And just to add to that, the language is basically the same that applied to rezoning again. We're just making sure it applies to all the other applications that have a recommendation. Any other questions right now? All right, Ron, let's continue forward. >> All righty. So we'll move on to the next topic. This involves House Bill 3167, specifically what's referred to as the Shot Clock Bill, and the fact that it applies to our platting and subdivision review. I'll just read this real quickly to summarize House Bill 3167. It was approved in 2019, the summer of 2019. It affected the timeline for which we accept and review plats. It basically set a shot clock of 30 days from being filed to approval or consideration for approval or consideration period, whatever it may be. That it also, if there is a decision or determination that it is approved with condition or disapproved, that a written statement be included as part of that decision or motion. And it states in the House Bill or in the Texas local government code specifically, as you see here in that last bullet, that each condition or reason specified in their statement must be directly related to the requirements that it's cited to the law that includes a citation to the law, statutes or municipal ordinances that the basis of the condition and disapproval if applicable and may not be arbitrary. So that's a direct copy from the House Bill or from the Texas local government code. So what we're proposing is that -- let's get this slide to basically summarize what I just outlined earlier. We're proposing to codify that in the Denton development code. We know it's in the Texas local government code, but we feel that, again, to be customer friendly and to have it in one location, having it in the development code is important. So we are adding the following under the subdivision procedures. A, as far as relates to timing of city action. Again, that 30-day timeline. Decisions and post-decision actions that there needs to be a citation if there is anything that is either approved with conditions or denied in the recommendation or in the determination. And that the plan or plan is if approved with condition or denied, that the reasons for such conditions are provided in writing. The other part of that is if it were to be denied, the applicant has 15 days -- I'm sorry, has unlimited time to resubmit. And if and when they resubmit, the city planning zoning commission has a response time of 15 days. So the first consideration is 30 days from filing to consideration. If it was to be denied, the applicant can resubmit. However, at that point, we -- the city would need to consider it within 15 days. So half the time. The planning -- the applicant does have option to request a 30-day extension. However, it's only a one-time waiver for 30 days to extend it for another 30 days for that first consideration. Anybody have any questions on this one? This is just to bring into the DDC the provisions that were passed as part of House Bill 3167. >> Chair Panetta. >> And on this one, I just -- it's a real basic question. So my understanding already is if we were to deny something, and that denial is not consistent with existing code, basically, legally, our decision is technically nonbinding, right? Any developer can basically override that, right? Is that accurate? >> I don't know if Matt can answer that question or would like me to try to attempt to answer that question. >> Sure. And without getting too much into legal advice, but yeah, if you don't have a justifiable basis in the subdivision regulations for denying, it's not that it's not binding, it just puts the city in a very difficult position because you have no real authority for the decision you made, and that could be challenged in court, and if we didn't have a basis for that, then potentially that decision would be overruled by a court. But it's not that it's not binding, it would just take a subject, the city to challenge, and we would be most likely unsuccessful in such a challenge. >> So in essence, all this is doing is adding into the code something that we already know is true and tying it back to that specific House Bill, is that right? >> That is correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Chair. So I have two questions. One is they have the right to -- applicants have the right to a 30-day extension, but does -- help me clarify, I'm a little confused. Can we give them additional extensions or it's one extension for all parties? >> So we don't -- let me think about this. We don't require it. That's an option that they have. So if they choose not to apply for or request a 30-day, they don't have to. The one time is something that we have established as the 30-day, so we want to make sure that the item is moved forward, either approved, proved, conditioned, or didn't help. >> Okay. So the reason I'm making you confused faces, I don't think that really addressed my question. Can we give them additional extensions as part of our conditions that we might apply? >> It's one extension for up to 30 days. >> Whichever direction is coming from. Okay. That clarified it. Thank you, Richard. >> Per applicant. So if it's a plenary plat, you can grant the one, and then when it gets to final, they're correct. >> Okay. That's great. I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Commissioner Ellis. >> Thank you, Chair. But just to clarify, the applicant has to request the extension. >> Correct. Good point. >> All right. >> Go ahead and move on. So the other -- the next few slides, I can tell you, just knowing what's upcoming, are mainly our opportunity to add more clarification and be consistent with our review process, development review process. So this right here, what we're adding, as you can see in green, is really describing what an administratively approved plat is. So we're just listing it here to help provide that clarification. So anything that is an amending plat, conveyance plat, a minor plat or minor replat, is considered an administratively approved plat. So again, just to clarify that. The other next one here is certificate of compliance. We added that as part of the code. However, after practicing what we hope to do, we recognize that a zoning verification letter serves in that same capacity, which we already have in place. So all we're doing is replacing this process of a certificate of compliance with a zoning verification letter. So again, more -- just replacing what was put in the code with a process that we already have. Just to give you a little bit more clarification on what a zoning verification letter is and that the zoning verification letter, what it does, it provides the city the ability to issue a form that provides the confirmation of what is the zoning on that property and what uses are allowed under that zoning. So any property owner or applicant or business owner may require -- may request, that is, that zoning verification letter. The other item that we added in -- we were processing and putting together in the process of putting together is a business registration. This is not a CO. We want to get away from a CO just for any businesses that want to use a particular unit. So the difference is a CO approves the occupancy of that building. The business registration just allows us to record -- keep record of what uses are proposed or are being proposed for that site. And again, we want to make sure that that use is permitted in that zoning district, but what they would do, what they would get, the business owners would get a business registration and they would need to apply for that in the process that we're proposing. This kind of provides a little bit more explanation of what I just described. The business registration again provides that mechanism for the city to evaluate what use either is being introduced or is changing to, is required for any business occupying a building. So maybe a small unit or part of the building, they would be required a business registration and not a CO. Currently, what happens today is any business occupying a portion of a building would need to get a CO. We are saying that that should be a business registration rather than a CO. And again, as I said earlier, business registration would be something that the business owner or whoever representing that business can apply for. The next item here is civil engineering plans. And you all are familiar with what we've mentioned this in the past as part of the planning exercise. We require that the applicants submit a civil engineering plan. We know that this exists, this application or this process. We just wanted to put it in this table, table 2.2A, to provide a little bit more clarification and understanding of when it applies and who makes that decision as far as if this or the civil engineering plans are acceptable or not. And as you can see that the development assistant team, which is made up of our engineers, our planners, any other department, parks, fire, building safety, all the other ones that are involved in the development review process are involved and are the decision making body on the civil engineering plan. So just again, give the application or the process a place in the development code. We also provide, again, the purpose, the applicability of when it is required so that anyone that's submitting an application will know what to expect. So I went through those fairly quickly. The zoning verification letter, the business registration, and the civil engineering plans. Does anybody have any questions with regards to those new procedures? Now, they're not new per se. Some of them are, but the civil engineering plans is something that we've already had or have and we're just putting it into the development code. I do not see any questions, Ron. Okay. We'll move on to the next topic and that is the ZBA composition and operational procedure. Similar to the planning zoning commission, we had the intent of referencing it in the code to the development, I'm sorry, to the code of Orensis. However, after practicing, we recognize that it'd probably be best if it was in the development code. And so what we're doing is just, again, bringing back what was already in the prior code into the 2019 development code. So the composition of what a zoning board adjustment shall be made of, as you can see listed here, they are a member, a seven member board. And again, they follow a two year term and they are appointed by the city council. I won't go into this specifically. I see there's a question. There is also a, you know what, let me stop and yeah, let me get to Christian back. I think he had one on the previous slide. Yeah. It was, it was just a question that occurred to me with the, with the weird COVID extensions of all the terms of council members and the extension of actually some of the commissioners of this board and others. What's our code and what's, how does that handled in terms of the, the, the normal two year terms that were just described? I mean, maybe just actually a general answer, not just for ZBA. Did they just do it less of a term? I, yeah, my understanding is I know that there are a member of the, the ZBA, the zoning board of adjustment, as well as the HLC, which I am self liaison to. Some of those members have, you know, extended their term past August. But my understanding is until those positions are reappointed by city council, they serve until that's done. So hopefully in January, I know that there's going to be a number of nominations and appointments in January. If, and when that happens, we should be having those positions that have expired either replaced or reappointed. But for us a slightly smaller term. Well, yes. I mean, it would be, it would, they would fill that two years. So yes, it would be smaller. They would just cover whatever is left from that two years. Okay. Thank you. That's what I thought. But thank you. Similar to the, well, not similar, but rather the ZBA is a different board in that again, we mentioned earlier that they need at least six to at least to meet and or to approve a variance request with such a high number. We want to make sure that we have at least seven members present at all times. So there are alternate members assigned to the zoning board of adjustment and these alternates are also appointed by the city council and they are also also have a two year term. So they follow the same appointment in term limit. The difference between alternate one, two and three that they specifically replace or not replace, but rather sit in where a existing board member is absent. So again, we want to make sure that that board member or that board is at seven at all times so that the proceedings are heard by at least six, but hopefully by seven board members. Continuing on with the composition and operational procedures for the zoning board of adjustment, a lot of what you're going to see here are just again, what we've stated in the past with again, the membership requirements or membership, but the quorum or need for six members. They, the zoning board of adjustment may adopt rules. The chairperson of the zoning board, similar to the planning zoning commission can hold a special call meeting if needed and that they shall keep minutes and for public record. So again, very similar to what we've already discussed with the planning zoning commission. In addition, there are special requirements when it comes to an appeal. So what this header here is an appeal of administrative decision procedures. This per the other house bill that was passed, 2497, which I included in your backup states that any one that has an grievance to a decision can appeal a decision from the, from staff. They don't have to be related. So not only are they not required to be related, they can be anybody. So that's what was approved under 2497. So the first paragraph you see here applies to anyone that is not related to a specific application dress or project. The second one relates is related to our, sorry, is referencing anybody that's who has a relationship to the specific application. So again, just to differentiate the two types and then there's a section also as part of 2497 that speaks to when an appeal can be made and that it is, cannot be more than 20 days after the decision is made. So between the decision that has, was made in 20 days, an applicant or anyone shall submit an appeal for an administrative decision. So there's a limit as to when that can happen. So that's 20 days. I won't go into much of these. These are more or less, again, additional information that was carried over similar to what was in the 2002 code. It's, it's related again to who can participate as well as what happens to a decision during an appeal and how long that can last throughout the process. And again, this kind of carries that same notion. The one thing I want to point out is that last bullet or last paragraph where it talks about the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall decide an appeal at the next meeting. So this was again, part of the House Bill 2497 where it requires that the Zoning Board of Adjustment not decide on an appeal on that first meeting, rather they need to have a second meeting and that has to happen within 60 days, 60 calendar days after which that appeal was made. So just again, to provide that procedure within the development code, we just wanted to put this back into the code and again, add some of it as part of House Bill 2497. If I don't see any questions, I can go ahead and proceed. Let me drop my screens to make sure that there's no one with any questions. I don't see any. Okay. So moving from ZBA, we're going to the Historic Landmark Commission, HLC. Again, same story. I'm going to repeat myself. Composition, we wanted to go to the Code of Orances. However, knowing that it's important to have in the development code, we're bringing it back to the TDC development code. We are, sorry, the Historic Landmark Commission is composed of nine members, so a little bit more, and they must at least one representative be representing one of the following that you see here listed A through F. I can tell you that the Historic Landmark Commission is currently at nine members, and we do have all of the professions that you see here. I think one of the important profession that we definitely need in the Historic Landmark Commission is the redshirt architect. She currently is an architect and works for UNT, so I'm glad that she's on the commission and helps us a lot when it comes to some of the historic preservation applications that come through that commission. Similarly, the members must meet one of those categories that we listed or that you saw on the first slide or the initial slide, and that they also are appointed a two-year staggered term in which is appointed by the City Council. The next few slides is a little bit wordy in that it provides the powers and duties of the Historic Landmark Commission. These again are a carry of what was in the 2002 code. We're bringing it into 2019, so I won't spend a whole lot other than let you know that the Historic Landmark Commission does a lot of work as far as historic preservation. They also establish a number of policies and guidelines in which we have the opportunity to increase our preservation of our historic resources. Again this list continues on and talks specifically to the powers and duties of the Historic Landmark Commission. We're now on the next topic, which is exploration of approval. What we are proposing here is adding additional language, so anything that's underlined is what we are proposing to add under this section. Any application, we'll jump into number two specifically. All previously approved applications for the same land shall also expire, and what we're saying that upon the expiration of an approved application, for example, let me step back a little bit, I went through that fairly quickly, preliminary plots, if they are approved and there is a final plot that comes after that, there is a time limit in which they are valid, and therefore if one expires, the previous application, final plot that's approved, the previous application is a preliminary plot, that also would be expired as well. So that's sort of one example of what number two stands for. A project is given a five-year time frame, so if you can look at a preliminary plot or subdivision, if they continue to develop that property, their five years will not expire, and that if when, say a subdivision does not continue to develop and does not continue to plot, the subsequent development of property, if after five years would need to comply with the current development code that's in place. So this is more or less a besting provision, so we use five years as it is consistent with the Texas local government code as what they define as a project and what that time frame is. So five years is the years that we want to make note of and we want to continue to follow. >> Mr. Beck has a question. >> Thank you, Ron. Ron, is there any exceptions in the Texas local government code or in our own ordinances to that five-year sort of rolling continuance? Are there any, when we, what parts of the development code are immediately applicable regardless? Does that ever happen? >> Say that one more time and again, your volume is a little low, so I'm trying to. >> So is that better? >> Yes. >> Okay. So if, are there any parts of either our municipal code or the Texas legal government code that carve out an exception to where if city council makes a change, that's immediately applicable in terms of development? Or is everything subject to the five-year continuance? >> My understanding, and Richard, correct me if I'm wrong, if they are within that five years, they are still, they're vested on that particular code, even if council changes the rules on the subdivision standards. Now, this, there may be some special rules and requirements that I'm not aware of, but when it comes to the subdivision requirements, say platting, for example, they are vested under those rules. >> And there's no exceptions, I guess, is what I'm asking. >> There are exceptions, but they're specified in the statute, so if, I don't have them in front of me, but building codes, floodplain, if those things change during that time, they'd have to comply with the latest version. >> Okay, that's good to know, thank you. >> All right, Ron. >> This continues that discussion related to the terms of the project and when an application becomes an expired application. So we'll move over here. Okay, so next topic relates to the zoning compliance plan review. What we are proposing here is what is currently, well, sorry, not currently, but rather what was, or is in our code that's referred to site plan, we are proposing to change that term and call it a zoning compliance plan. So everywhere we have in the code site plan, it will be replaced with zoning compliance plan. That's just to provide some clarification. We also want to provide the development community and general public a list of what is required or what is and should be within a zoning compliance plan. So at a minimum, we've provided them with a list of that and that's represented here in the list A through C. As much information as possible, but the general requirements are the following. So site data, the lot, the development impact area, easements and right-of-way dedications, any of the locations and mentions of existing and proposed improvements, and then environmental sensitive tree preservation and landscape areas. So all should be part of the zoning compliance plan submittal. So that's just a quick reference to that. I don't know if you all have any questions on that particular, but again, this is just again to provide a change in the name and also to provide some additional language to identify what should be included in a zoning compliance plan submittal. Moving on to the next topic, and this is related to specific use permits and their effect and the approval criteria. So the first part here, the first slide is related to the effect of approval. As you all know, we, the Planning Zoning Commission considers specific use permits and recommends them to the city council. And a lot of times, obviously most of them are related to a particular use. So the question that we have is if a specific use permit approves a multifamily, for example, does that limit that development or that property to just multifamily? And we're saying that it does not preclude other development under that property, within that property to develop as long as it is allowed or permitted within that zoning district. So say, for example, multifamily specific use permit was approved by the city council. If that zoning allowed for offices, that property could develop with office use and not have to just develop with multifamily. So this is more or less the, to be able to clarify that question and state that any use that's permitted under that zoning district would be permitted even with an approved specific use permit. As, as it relates to the approval criteria, this is the second part of this topic. We have, as you all know, a list of, I won't say standard, but approval criteria for all applications, which we review. But we also have specific approval criteria for all of our different applications. So this one in particular is specific use permits. And what you see here is that we're striking out most of what's already covered under the all application criteria for approval. So number three, number five and number six are already covered under that section 245 to be specific. So again, it's repetitive. We just feel that we need to focus on the remaining criteria for approval for specific use permits. So this is what this code amendment is about. Any questions on this one before we move on to the next topic? I do not see any run. Okay. So next few slides relate to similar to what we saw earlier with the CEP, civil engineering plans, traffic impact analysis, as well as real estate applications. We know that these are processes that we have in applications. We want to make sure that represented in this table 2.2 A. So we're adding it to this table and other sections that relate to these type of applications. And you can see with a traffic impact analysis, that is the responsibility and review and approval by the development assistant team. Real estate applications are a little bit different in that ultimately city council will need to prove any applications that involve real estate such as roadway encroachments or use agreements, easement encroachments, that sort of thing. Those are our examples of real estate applications. So the first one is the traffic impact analysis. And I think you all know what this analysis is, is obviously it measures any potential impact to the traffic patterns of an area as a result of a proposed development in including some of the existing conditions that are currently at the area or within the area. We are adding the following sections under the traffic analysis procedures, similar to what we already have for other applications with regards to the purpose, applicability, the process in which they are reviewed and determined, and then what happens after action is determined by the development assistant team, and also providing this criteria for acceptance. The real estate applications, similarly, we want to add a purpose that you see here. And again, I'm going to go through this real quick, easement abandonments, right away abandonments, encroachments, use of gas pipeline license requests, are examples of real estate application types. Then again, similarly, there are sections that we are going to include in terms of purpose, applicability, and the actual procedures in which they are reviewed and brought forward to city council. Okay, so that concludes that section with regards to traffic impact analysis in real estate. If I don't see, I want to make sure. We have one question. It's Commissioner Beck. Sorry to ask all the questions, Chair. It's my nature. Ron, one of the concerns that's been brought, you know, of my own and that's been brought to me by the public is this sort of interplay of development and the mobility plan. And this seems like the appropriate time to ask you, because we just discussed real estate traffic impact analysis. And that is to the extent to which the mobility plan and the impacts development gets in front of the existing guidelines and that how we're not sort of -- I guess what -- let me rephrase. My question goes to in this section, do we have language that covers how we follow future land use and comprehensive plans in terms -- because we were mentioning the mobility plan, or is that language all maintained within the language of the mobility plan? So there are references to the mobility plan throughout the development code as it relates to development and subdivision requirements. We know that when we look at plats, for example, and if there are requirements for dedication, the mobility plan is referenced and reviewed against to ensure that whatever dedication is required is consistent to what the mobility plan is set forward. So that is one example. As it relates to the TIA, I'm trying to understand if that is a question you had, the TIA really just looks at what the development is producing or introducing to an area and how, if any, mitigation is required to address that potential impact. So I guess what I'm seeking is what section -- if it's not this one, then just say it's not this one. But what -- the section of the code is governing what the current definitions of usage and stuff are, usage in regards to going into the traffic impact models. Is that covered -- is that to be covered in this section or in the mobility section? And I'll give you an example to help clarify my question. And that is on the ground right now you might see farmland, but it's anticipated that someone in the future would like to develop this as a large subdivision. And so where in the code do we talk about the traffic impact analysis and what conditions and how they're put into the development code? Is it in this section or is it in the mobility plan? So this section or the development code and specifically subchapter 2, again, is procedures, right? It talks about how the applications are reviewed and considered and what happens during that process. I can tell you that subchapter 7, which we will be bringing forward as well, speaks specifically to access and circulation. And at that particular section, there's requirements and standards that need to comply with. And I can tell you that some of those standards often refer to not only the mobility plan, but also the transportation criteria manual. So I think overall, they're covered under the DDC as required regulations or standards, but rely on other references such as the mobility plan and the transportation criteria manual as well. Okay, that clarifies. Thank you. I appreciate it. I promise we're almost there. I think we're about three quarters through. So moving on to the next topic, and this is subdivision application procedures. Again, this will have some applications as relates to House Bill 3167, but also wanted to provide some more clarity as to when subdivision applications, and these are plats. So preliminary plats, final plats, mending plats and the like. So when do they apply? So now the first statement there says that subdivision procedures shall apply to all land and all developments within corporate city limits, that it's in accordance with our interlocal agreement within county. As you all know, division two is not within the requirements, but division one is, and there is a map that identifies where that outline is or where that division separates. So with regards to number three, civil engineering plans, that is also applied to division one. So just to give some clarification on when certain applications are applicable and where. The next slide here is really to cover how we want to be consistent with the expiration dates. This one particular is related to final plats. We know that we want to be consistent with other applications in that we look at a 24 months or two year expiration date. So as you can see here, there is a statement that is being crossed out as relates to when filing may occur. We want to make sure that the final plat is consistent. So we're saying that it should be filed within the timeframe, similar to the other expiration dates of 24 months. And then the other items here that you see in the orange is more or less just clarification and or correction instead of filing, it's recording. So really just non-substantive changes as it relates to the filing. I'm sorry, the recording of plats. This is that continuation of that discussion. And you see that it must be filed with the county or recorded. Sorry, I need to correct myself there. And that is recorded with the county within 24 months again to be consistent with other deadlines and timeframes and due dates. That is to other applications. This right here relates to preliminary plats. We are again, the green area or the green text that you see below are anything that's underlying and we are adding anything that's struck through is being proposed to delete, be deleted. We don't require preliminary plats in the ETJ. However, if one is submitted, it shall follow the same requirements as it were to be in the city. So that's what number two is about. Number three, the director will determine during the pre-application if a preliminary plat is required, this gives the option for a, for example, a commercial development that can go straight to final plat and may not require a preliminary plat to be able to do that. So this number three gives that opportunity for a developer or property owner to not have to do a preliminary plat because the site may not necessarily need one just due to the fact that of its size and/or its complexity a final plat would be just sufficient. Next slide here again. I just want to illustrate that it's not six months, that it is 24 months. Again, we want to be consistent with our timeframe. Ron, I'm going to interrupt you here and call on Commissioner Beck for a question. Thank you, Ron. Can you go, well, okay, you don't have to go back. I can just ask you. And that is that final point of three about the ETJ. And I asked you about this in email, but would it be easier on staff, more streamlined, more efficacious if we recommend people do preliminary plat? I know it's an option for the applicant, but would it be better if everyone in the ETJ, would it be smoother, easier, faster, more efficacious if we recommend it? Even if it's not a mandatory requirement, would it be better for the city and staff if we recommended a preliminary plat? That's a good question. I know that, and I don't know, Richard, if you have a response to that, within the ETJ, we don't require it. However, Commissioner Beck's suggestion was if something, it could be recommended. I know our code is very specific in that it only has requirements in shalls versus, you know, May and whatnot. So it may be something that we do as a policy, but, Richard, if you-- Yeah, I don't think that we would, we preclude it. For instance, the one that we, probably the most notable is Stuart Ridge. That was one that was completely within ETJ-1, and they did do a preliminary and then ultimately final. So that was in the ETJ-1. I guess my point was more to the encouragement. So, but, Ron, you were saying you could encourage that policy, but outside the DDC, I mean, which is fine. I mean, if, I just, I would like to, you know, if that makes staff's life easier, that's really where I'm kind of coming at this question more so than is this a wonderful tool for the applicant? It's an optional tool for the applicant, but if it would make life easier for staff, then we might as well just encourage people to encourage, not require people to do that. We can certainly look at the wording and see what we can do. But again, the intent here is to just outline that one is not required in that if it is something that the applicant that's in the ETJ wants to, they certainly can. We're not going to prevent that. They just have to follow the rules of office of a preliminary plat approval criteria. And as I mentioned earlier, if there are ones that may benefit, we can certainly encourage that, but maybe, maybe we just need to look at some of the wording again. Well, I mean, if it's not going to help, I don't want to get in the way. I mean, if it's just going to be messy, I'm not, the whole point was to make staff's life easier. So if it's just going to increase the consternation of staff, then there's no point to doing that because the goal was to make staff's life easier. I know we have a really good engineering and development assistant team that works well, I mean, works hard, that is, with our applicants. And if one is certainly encouraged, we definitely make them know about the process. Thank you, Ron. Okay. Click on this real quick. Yeah, okay. Subdivision application procedures. Again, this talks about the post decisions and limitations after which decisions made. We're just moving a couple things to be a little bit more clear. This whole section actually moves down here. We do add an expiration of approval for, again, the final plat, and in two years is what we're referring to. Any plat withdrawn or voided must be resubmitted. Again, just again to provide that clarification. Okay. So now we're onto a separate topic, and this is a replat procedure section, again, under the subchapter two. There have been some, again, changes to the Texas local government code and some of the, what is being proposed reflects some of those changes. But we also have added a number of sections under the replat procedures to, again, provide more customer-friendly, user-friendly, and clarification. So, again, replat, the purpose, the applicability. I think we all know that the replats are applications that are properties that already are platted, and they're either amending it or changing it. And so that requires a replat, and again, it applies to any property that's already subdivided as part of their current site. We have the same sections as others in that purpose, the applicability, the procedures, and the approval criteria. One of the things that I wanted to highlight and I apologize this is a very wordied slide, but one of the things I want you to focus on is specifically step six, which is right here below that if the replat does not require a variance, and it shall be reviewed by the Planning Zoning Commission and considered, the notice for that replat happens after the Planning Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered it. And that is per section, checks with local government code section 212. Again, that is just something that was part of 3167, House Bill 3167, and we're just including that into the development code to be consistent with that local government code provision. For those that do require a variance, and I'm bringing you back up here to number four, that has to go through the process of public hearing notifications and follows what you see here and what you normally would see as part of a public hearing process and notifying property prior to the public hearing. The difference is this replat requires a variance while the ones that do not require a variance does not need to be notified until after the Planning Zoning Commission has considered it. So just want to make sure that that's understood. Moving on to the next topic, and that is subdivision variance. I sort of alluded to this earlier in the presentation. When we approved the 2019 development code, any variance period would go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. And although that was a great thought, we feel that the subdivision variance, which again deals with platting and other subdividing requirements, should go to the Planning Zoning Commission for any variance. One is because you all review them often and are more familiar with those requirements. While the Zoning Board of Adjustment, although they serve an important role, I think that it's better served by the Planning Zoning Commission if it was a subdivision variance. So you can see from here that ultimately the decision is made by the Planning Zoning Commission and if there is any appeal, it goes to the City Council. But again, the deciding factor for a design body that is for subdivision variance is the Planning Zoning Commission. That is what we are proposing. Again, I won't go through the whole list, but again, we want to make sure we're consistent in all of the procedures. We're providing the following. I won't read this. I know that we all at some point have reviewed the subdivision variances and it's been a while, but we have heard some of those variances when I say we, the Planning Zoning Commission, and have decided on some of those. And one particular that I can think of is a separation distance between an intersection and a driveway and that's one variance that certainly can be brought forward as part of a subdivision variance application. Again, some of the applicability, street design, as I mentioned, the driveway and intersection separation is probably one that's in my mind. Street connectivity is another, driveway access, the lot planning layout, block layout, there's a certain minimum and maximum block layout. So if there is an application or a project that wants to deviate from that, they would need to come through the city and if this were to be passed, the Planning Zoning Commission. Okay, moving on to annexation procedures. As you can tell, this subchapter two has a lot of information, a lot of procedures to cover. One of them is annexation. The annexation we do have, I know that the Planning Zoning Commission isn't necessarily reviewing them, however, we still need them for, say, the City Council when they consider annexation. So we want to outline what that process is. We have two types of applications, an involuntary, which the city annexes a property, and then we also have voluntary annexation as well. So the most that we will most likely see moving forward is a voluntary annexation. Any involuntary annexation, because of state law, has made it very difficult for us to do that because it requires an election and a vote for any involuntary annexation. So what we'll probably see in the coming years is more or less voluntary annexations. I want to just again identify what those sections are, and as you can see, they're very similar to the previous procedures and other applications. This slide here kind of outlines the criteria for voluntary annexations. One through five is specific to that criteria. Is it consistent with the annexation policy of the city? Has all the owners joined in with the request? If there was any conflict with any non-annexation or similar agreement, we want to make sure that that isn't violated. The annexation is necessary for it to be joined into the city in terms of our service costs, increased traffic, drainage. So as any annexation application which comes in, they have to provide a physical impact analysis to provide the city with an understanding that if annexed in future development, it would not adversely impact the city. And then number five, the annexation will ensure that the adequate land use and building controls are in place in which we see growth happening in the city. The next section here, if I don't see any other questions or hear any other questions, I'll go fairly quickly. It's an appeal to administrative decisions. We've already sort of discussed this, but this is a different section of subchapter two, which is specifically two appeals. And what is going to be shown is what we've already discussed. We talked about not related and related to a specific application. That's something that we're introducing into this section. The appeal, what should be included, when it can be made, again, 20 days, 20 calendar days, again, to be consistent with House Bill 2497. And then additional proceedings with regards to when projects or decisions need to be at a standstill until that appeal is considered. Continuing with that same appeal of administrative decision, the text that you see here in green talks about that 60-day total and having the decision not made on the first meeting, but rather the second meeting. So, again, that just illustrates it being introduced into this section. The next procedure is alternative environmental sensitive areas. ALT ESA is as often referred to. What we are proposing to add is a provision that outlines when an ALT ESA expires. Right now it's not clear and it's not specified specifically in the DDC. We are adding that it shall expire within 24 months if progress is not made toward the completion of that project. So, again, that 24 months is you've seen that and we're trying to make it consistent with all the other deadlines and timeframes. So that's just to add that clarification. Also, we're also adding a set of conditions. These two conditions that you see here are often conditions of an ordinance that is approved as part of an ALT ESA. We are making it clear to the applicant and the person applying for that ALT ESA that you are going to knowingly have to comply with these conditions and these are conditions that are common and will be part of future ALT ESA applications. Next section is related to or next topic is related to interpretations. Interpretations are very similar in that an applicant can request an interpretation on a specific code requirement or standard that may not be as clear and that goes to the Director of Planning. However, if that decision or that determination or interpretation is not accepted, the applicant or the person that requests that interpretation can appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. So, again, the areas or the language in green is what clarifies that. Procedures for historic landmark designation. This is a, I can tell you a couple slides and it's very wordy. I just want to preface this by saying that part of our code amendment, I'm sorry, our development code update, we didn't include much of, most of what was included in 2002 code, so one of the things that we're trying to do is add some of it and there are some that are new but some of them are carryover. The area, the text that you see here is existing in our current code. We are proposing to add the following. Again, these are procedures in order to designate a historic landmark, mainly for the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council. So, these are mainly for them to use in their consideration. And I won't go through this. There's a lot in here and I want to make sure that you understand that the Historic Landmark Commission will get this presentation, will see this presentation, so they'll have an opportunity and, of course, City Council will also have the opportunity to weigh in on some of these procedures. Okay, so I believe this is the last topic on our agenda. It is what we're calling the rezone to a planned development district. There had been some discussion, I know, in the DCRC related to, you know, when a planned development is considered or should be considered. And I'm going to go fairly quickly. I know that you all know what a planned development is. What staff is proposing is to add the following language. Our current code does not have this now, so we are adding a purpose statement, an applicability section, and specifically the types of PD. So, this is probably one of the slides that I probably would like to ask some input from the Commission. Right now, we have proposed two types of PDs, one that we're calling an overlay PD and a second one, which is what we normally would like to think of as a standard PD, which is the more involved, greater complexity in terms of the development in some of the standards that are being proposed. So, I guess the first question or the question that maybe we can get some input from the Commission is, when considering an overlay PD, the staff is looking at just subchapter 5, where the uses are listed as proposed or permitted, that is. We feel that an overlay PD should only be part of subchapter 5. So, for example, the application that we heard, the past P&Z, the birch track, for example, they were coming in for rezoning, and they did not have any conditions, and the Commission recommended that they limit those use or the use to just single family. To us, that would be a PD, but right now, we don't have this provision. So, what we're saying is that in that situation, because it only applies to the use and it is in subchapter 5, it would be considered an overlay PD. So, that's one type. Is that something that the Commission would like to see us do, and if there is any input as it relates to maybe additional conditions or additional standards that can be adjusted? The hope is that the overlay PDs are simple ones and that are done in that manner, while the standard PDs are a little bit different, involve a little bit more submittals and documentation versus what an overlay PD is. Commissioner Beck. So, just follow on from that. Procedurally, you are expecting an overlay PD to basically be, I mean, how significantly different, I mean, than the standard PD? So, the standard PD, great question, the standard PD has a little bit more information, so they would have to provide a development plan that identifies the differences in their standards as opposed to the development code, so that's something that they would need to provide. They would also have to provide a development zoning map that identifies a little bit more detail of what areas is proposed to have certain uses, so that's something that would also be included in the standard PD. While the overlay PD that we're talking about, often referred to as the mini PD, would be just, again, subchapter 5, and it would just be specific to that subchapter, and they would only be able to deviate from that, from the uses and the use-specific standards. And when we say deviate, meaning that it would have to be more stricter, so limiting it to a number of uses or having stricter use-specific standards, and again, this would allow them to move forward with their application because obviously they're maybe some concerns with other uses, or there may be concerns with the size of the development that can all be covered under the overlay PD. But otherwise, the underlining characteristics of a parcel would just predominate. Right, so their underlining zoning or other development standards would still apply. It would just be, as you all know, a condition on that property, and it would just be labeled as an overlay PD. But the question I guess I'm trying to ascertain here is, is subchapter 5 the only subchapter we want to see, or do we see other more, I guess, restrictive standards outside of subchapter 5 being included in overlay PD, or should it just be subchapter 5? Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Ron, you did this in the DCRC meeting, but can you give an example of where an overlay PD would make sense in a product we've seen recently? Well, I mentioned that maybe a few minutes ago, and I don't know if you were on the call, but rezoning, for example. I'm in. I'm in. I get it from the rezoning, but is there a specific project we've seen in front of the commission that you can reference that maybe said this would have been, we would have suggested it as an overlay PD rather than doing it as a straight PD or the straight zoning? Richard? Yeah, the Mockingbird rezoning that we just went through, there were some conditions put in place restricting it only to single-family detached. That would be one of those instances. That's what I was looking for. Okay. Yeah, I think just my two senses that I've shared in DCRC as well was that I think restricting it just to subsection 5 and not requiring it to not having a development plan or anything else included in that, not expanding outside subsection 5 is preferable because I think the intent is clear, but I think making it more restrictive, just moving in to be redundant to what we already used the PD for. Right. I know that in previous discussions also, when does an applicant know it's an overlay PD? They may come in for rezoning and just think it's simply a rezoning, but we also know that there are opportunities for the Planning Zoning Commission and ultimately the City Council to add any restrictive conditions. Just so if that happens, then of course they would be reflected as an overlay PD and mapped accordingly, but if we can have that discussion with the applicant in advance and provide them this option, at least they know in advance that that's something that would be a little bit smoother in their process and gives us the staff, the ability to analyze and provide that explanation and presentation to City Council and to Planning Zoning Commission. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Ron, is there ever a time when we've run into other circumstances outside of 5 that you wish that, oh, I just wished I could massage it just a little bit for other sections so that maybe the language should be that we should limit it to the size of the change rather than the chapter? Yeah, I'm trying to remember some recent ones, but Subchapter 3 is your minimum lot sizes, your height, and if that was the case, like building height or setbacks in building curvatures are in Subchapter 3, so if that was something that the applicant wanted to deviate from or change, that would probably either be a rezoning to a new zoning district to meet that or if it's just a simple or it's not simple but rather something specific, I think that would and should be a more PD rezoning, a standard PD that is, than a overlay PD. You would rather see things outside of 5, 3 and whatnot kept in a standard PD even if it was a small change. That would be easier on staff. Right, I apologize, it's hard to hear you there, but you were saying. Yeah, so it would be better if things outside of Subchapter 5 were, even if they were small, say like a 1-foot variance in height or something, you'd still rather see that in a full PD rather than a... Yeah, that's just an example. It sounds like, I mean, that can certainly be a ZBA as well, that's another option. The standard PD that we're talking about, and I maybe misdirected you there, is where there is an opportunity to provide some flexibility both ends with the requirements and standards in that we can ask for more things on one part of their development while they can deviate on others, and that's what you typically see in the PD, a plan development, but the example I gave you, Commissioner Beck, with regards to building height, I take that more or less, if it's just that one particular deviation, that would probably be a zoning board of adjustment request. No, I understand that. I guess I was more trying to get at what I originally started is, should this be a question of size of the change, or should it be specifically the topics in five? What would be better there? Yeah, I know that we've talked about size in the past and minimum size for a PD, but I think maybe the more better route would probably be the complexity or the nature of the proposal, so if, again, if it's just trying to eliminate some uses or try to address some of the concerns of the size of the building that's under the provision of a use-specific standard, that can be addressed through this, but if it's more than that, I think that we're looking at a standard PD or if it can be handled through some other avenue, such as a minor modification or a variance, that that can be part of it as well, can be an option as well. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Rhonda, answering the original question from a while ago is, I think limiting this to chapter or sub-chapter five, I'm in agreement with in terms of the things you spoke about, of how if it covers other sub-chapters, how it would be better addressed. Commissioner Anderson, did you have a question, I did? Commissioner Anderson? Yeah, thanks. It was kind of one of, sorry, I just got on a few minutes ago, but would this, what you're talking about, would that have been beneficial to our last meeting when we had that multi-story place that wanted to raise the level up by six feet? This would have been more beneficial for that instead of having them come back. Does that make sense? Are you following me there? Yeah. That was a little bit more specific to the height in that sub-chapter and sub-chapter three. Three, right. That one would probably best, Richard, if it was a height thing, I know there was an option for a specific use permit, so that's what they chose. But if there wasn't, there would probably be a zoning board of adjustment type of application, in my opinion. But if this, we couldn't have done an overlay, like a, with, no, okay, with the height thing. I wouldn't think that that would be the proper procedure. It would probably be the zoning board of adjustment. Okay. But the only thing I will add, I think that's something that we might want to, as we're going through these standards, something we might want to look at further, is whether or not that requirement for the SGP still makes sense, given that there's other provisions and protections that we have written in the code with respect to height limitations based upon, you know, the closer you are to a single-family property. So I think it's just something we can look at again, whether it makes sense for someone to go through an SGP for six feet, again, more of a policy decision. Any other comments on this slide? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Well, just going back to what that discussion was, they wanted a height increase, though, with that. And that's not really what we're talking about when we're talking about overlays. I mean, we're talking about putting more restrictions on them. Correct? Yeah. Correct. Okay. Yeah, and I think it's great that we're calling this something, because I know early when we were trying to adopt this code and wanting to call everything PDs, thinking that the overlay thing was going to go away, and clearly it hasn't. So I think for us to be able to differentiate, clearly I think that's going to keep happening, especially with re-zones, just to get, you know. Right, and if we can be proactive and try to address that early in the process with the applicants, we will certainly do so. But we also know that that could happen after, in the case of, say, a planning zoning commission, a meeting or a city council meeting. Okay. So, again, you see that we have similar procedures or sections under this section. And, again, I won't spend too much time, I just want to illustrate that we are making sure that we have the same procedures for all the different applications we have, when I say procedures, sections covered. So that brings us to our last slide, and I appreciate your patience, and I know that that was a lot of information. The sub-chapter two is a big chapter, it deals a lot with applications and procedures and whatnot. We had to deal with some clarifications and aligning with provisions of the Texas Local Government Code that was introduced in 2019. So I appreciate your patience, and hopefully we can move forward with some of those to help our process and help our development community understand and our general public understand what is required of developments. So the slide that you see here is our future agenda items, stuff that we are currently working on. And as you can see, number two, we talked about just a minute ago or two, where the building height with an SUP is something that we're reconsidering, because as Richard mentioned, there are other provisions that address some of the impacts that might bring in that situation. Dimensional standards, number one, table of allowed uses. We have a number of uses that we would like to introduce and/or modify. Use specific standards, again, as it relates to a specific, sorry, a use. We want to modify and address some of the issues or concerns that we have experienced as a result of applying the development code. Short-term rental is something that's come up, I won't say recently, but when the code was updated. And accessory dwelling units is another hot topic that we will also want to share with you all and talk about in an upcoming meeting. And then SUP chapter seven, which is number seven, is a list of development standards. And you see there, we have parking, we have landscaping. I won't say there's a lot there. We just have some clarifications and/or modifications that we feel is more in line with the trends and what's happening in current practice. So we want to make sure that we address those as part of these code amendments. So just going to give you a little bit of what to expect in the upcoming meetings as we bring forward additional code amendments to the Planning Zoning Commission. And so that concludes my presentation. And again, I appreciate your patience and I'll stand for any other questions. Any questions for Ron? Ron, I don't see any. Thanks for the in-depth analysis on some of these code amendments. Looking forward to the next presentation. Great. Thank you. Just by way of point, does this go down to council or on to council for a vote or what's the actual next steps from the information we received tonight? So this would be a code amendment to the development code, which requires an ordinance and which requires a public hearing with the Planning Zoning Commission. So your vote and your recommendation would be made at a future public hearing and that's where these would come next. Great. Christian or Beck? To that exact point, can we expect that after all the presentations or we're going to go section by section? My hope is that we can do them by sub chapters or at least by category so that it's a little bit more, I guess, easier, I don't know if that's the right word, to bring forward both through the Planning Zoning Commission as well to say council. Okay. I was going to recommend that. So thank you. All right. Thank you, Ron. Real fast by just point of updating the agenda and some things on record first, let the record show that Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Anderson have joined us. Welcome to the meeting, guys. Second, as you'll note, in my top left square, I'm not sure where he sits on your screen, we have Mack Rinewand with us this evening. Cynthia Kirchhoff is moving on to greener pastures, apparently, and so Mack is going to be our city attorney serving with us for the time being. I don't know how long we have the pleasure of Mack being with us, but Mack, welcome to Planning and Zoning. Thank you. It's a pleasure. Next to that, just some clarification on some of the agenda this evening. One, our consent agenda is empty. However, because of a legislature, something happened in which the minutes got put into the IC, item D. We usually hear those first and outside of IC, we're just going to hear them in order. So that's going to be a little bit of a hiccup between C and E. We'll just listen, take a quick vote for the minutes. Also there was an update to the minutes that hopefully everyone received. There are some corrections there that have been made. If you haven't seen those, let someone know so you can review those. Next is on the -- there is one item on the individual consideration where we got a late update to the plat, and so staff has changed the recommendation, but we'll certainly hear that in turn. And then lastly, item 5C is being pulled. The city is asking to postpone that. And as noted in the agenda, item 5D is -- and DOG is being pulled. So we have two public hearing items this evening. Richard, I think I covered all of the changes, did I miss anything? I think you got it. I know Haley, I think they just circulated another plat, so we want to make sure everyone got it. If not, she'll be able to go through that here in a second. Okay. Sounds good. Well, let's just dive into this. Let's just start with item 4A, and we'll work from there. This is Corrina Maldonado's item for preliminary plat. Hi, can you hear me? We can. Okay. Good evening, everyone. So today, I'm presenting preliminary plat 20-0022. This is a preliminary plat for Country Club Village Phase 4 for a proposed 13 residential lots. This was initially recommended as denial since the posting of the agenda and tonight, or a couple hours ago, they have now met all the minimum requirements of our DDC and are now being recommended for approval. Great. Any questions for Corrina? I don't see any. Thank you, Corrina. Next is Haley with item 4B, FP 20-0025. All right, let me unmute myself there. This is the final plat for the Woodmere edition. This is a residential subdivision that was previously approved through a PD that some of you may remember from last year. There are 151 residential lots and five open-space lots. At this point, we are recommending denial as we're still working through a few items with the applicant specifically related to the conservation easements and some electric easements that are on the property. So with that, the applicant has requested that extension to December 16th so that we can continue working on those items. I'm happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Haley, are these the kind of changes? I ask this question often, but are these the kind of changes we can get done by that meeting? Typically? Just say typically? Yeah. We're hoping that we can resolve some of these as you remember from the PD. This is one of the first subdivisions we've had that has conservation easements involved. So that item, for example, is a little tricky, but we are working with MAC and the city attorney's office to work through that expeditiously so that we can get that resolved. So we are hopeful that we can have all of this cleared up by the 16th fairly reasonably. And so to follow up, if it's not, what are the ramifications of that? If we extend, if they're requesting we extend, which is what we typically do, I mean, are there any ramifications if we don't get that resolved? If things are not resolved by the 16th, the plat would, it would have to be acted upon somehow by the commission, either approval or denial. If there are still outstanding items, staff would be recommending denial at that point. And that would, that would mean that the applicant would then have to come back and resubmit at a later date and it would come back before the commission after they do that. Okay. That's what I expected. And then I will follow up on a slightly different issue. Did we ever resolve what was going on with the plat not being available or was that just me? I believe that was a glitch in legislature. It was not just you from what I can tell. I had the same issue when I tried to access it. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Haley? Great. We're going to jump back to Karina for item C, PP20-0026. I'm sorry. Can you hear me now? We can. All right. So this is PP20-0026 for a preliminary plat for a property at 100 North Loop 288. The preliminary plat is for a subdivision of five commercial lots. The applicant has some outstanding comments, so we are recommending denial. However, they have requested a 30-day extension to the December 16th, 2020 planning and zoning commission meeting. And with that, I can take any questions. Yeah. We got one from Commissioner Anderson. Thank you, Chair. I have a quick question. It says on the item title that it's located on the west side of Loop 288. To me, it looks like it's on the east side of Loop 288. Is that correct? Yep. That is a typo. I apologize. Loop 288, East 288, North of McKinney. Yes. Okay. That's what I saw. I just want to make sure I wasn't reading it wrong. All right. I don't see any other questions for you, Karina. Thank you very much. As previously noted, we're going to awkwardly jump into minutes. Any other corrections for minutes? Do we need any updates? Did anyone not get the updated notes from city staff regarding lines? I think 36 and 37. Okay. Seeing no hands or any motion of any kind, we're just going to proceed forward here. From EPP20-0024B, where we'll go to Sean Jacobson for presentation. All right. So presenting PP20-0024, as you know, sent this out today. We are now recommending approval. It's a plat of a single lot for development of a medical clinic, and they have resolved the outstanding issue related to the water line and the easement associated with it. So they now meet all the criteria for approval. Thanks, Sean. Any questions for Mr. Jacobson? All right. Seeing none, we'll go to the next item, which brings us to Haley again. Item FFR20-007B. All right, good evening again. This is a replat for two commercial lots at McKinney and Glengarry Way. You may have noticed an email was just sent to you about 20 minutes ago with a revised copy of this plat. If you haven't seen that yet, the applicant was able to work quickly this afternoon and address the remaining comments that staff had on this, so I can walk you briefly through those changes. There was an update to a couple of notes. I believe it's note 10 regarding the tree preservation was updated, and then note five was updated regarding the proximity of the floodplain and the requirement for base flood elevation. Additionally, this access easement was removed as it was unnecessary, and then a couple of references on here for easements that are to be dedicated by separate instrument were updated. So fairly simple items. They were able to make those changes today, and staff is changing our recommendation to approval since it now meets all of the criteria for approval. I'm happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Haley, you'll change that on the PowerPoint before the meeting, correct? Yes. I wanted to double check and make sure that says that, so we don't look at it and see it and book denial or something like that. Yes, I intend to do that after the work session. I do not see any other questions, but Haley, thanks for working with the applicant even to the last minute to get that taken care of. Excuse me. Next item is Ron Manguita. He gets to come back. Item G, FR20-0016. Thank you, Chair. I'll bring up the presentation real quick. So this final replat is for a property you probably have seen before. It recently, I had a preliminary plat as well as adjacent replats for this development. It's called Eagle Creek. It is being recommended for denial. There is a section of the code that speaks to HOA documents. The applicant has not satisfied the comments yet, but we hope that that would be done soon. The applicant as part of this presentation has requested the 30-day extension, and the staff does not have any opposition to that request. Just really quickly, I wanted to share a concept plan, a phasing plan of the area that we're looking at. I'm just going to give you some context that Eagle Creek will have more development applications or plots being brought forward to the commission, so I just want to give you some overall idea of what this area is going to be looking like in the future. But again, as for today's consideration, we're looking at Phase 1A of that development. Any questions for Ron? All right, Chris, you're back. Sorry, I was in the wrong window, I apologize. The common area is this is the HOA lot that is overlapping the KEPT wellhead, or is this just HOA documents in general? This is just for the common area documents in general. This is just for the common areas, the open space. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Great. Thank you, Ron. That moves us to our two public hearing items. The first one is presented by Haley Zygursky. It's item 5A, Z20-0009. Haley, whenever you're ready, the floor is yours. All right, let me get the presentation pulled up here. All right, this is Project Z20-0009, known as Urban Logistics 35. The request before you tonight is kind of twofold. There are two separate aspects to the zoning request. First is a rezoning from Highway Corridor to Light Industrial. That's on about 10 and a half acres, which is outlined in orange here on the map. And then the second part of the request is for 13 acres to the south of that, which is rezoning from Heavy Industrial to Light Industrial, and that area is shown here in yellow. Both of these are part of a larger property that is currently owned by Acme Brick. There was a gas well previously located on this northern end of the property that was plugged in 2019 in anticipation of this area being redeveloped with some more commercial or industrial type uses. And the proposal with this rezoning is to combine these two pieces with the area adjacent here that is currently zoned LI for a total of 35 acres that would be developed with a mixture of Light Industrial and warehouse uses. This is a look at the current versus proposed zoning maps. You can see if you're looking at the total 35 acres that they would be seeking to develop, there are three zoning districts on it, so they're looking to consolidate that into one consistent zoning of LI across the entire property. So there are multiple criteria for approval, as we've seen with rezoning requests previously. These general criteria are outlined in full detail in your backup, so I won't go through them here tonight, but we did find that they meet all of these criteria. And then specifically, we'll look at the seven criteria that are specific to zoning applications. So the first of those is consistency with our comprehensive plan, specifically with the future land use element of that plan. As you can see here, this site is designated for industrial commerce. There is a sharp transition here on the east side of it, as there is a multifamily that's been developed since approximately the mid-'80s on the property adjacent. But this property itself is industrial commerce, which is intended for that mixture of both light and heavy industrial uses. The comp plan references warehousing, manufacturing, and various industrial processes as part of that. So LI would be consistent with that designation. The light industrial district permits warehousing and distribution, as well as low-impact manufacturing uses. Another of our criteria is consistency with the purpose statement for the district. So the LI district, again, describes that intent to provide highly accessible locations for lighter industrial activity, such as manufacturing, assembly, warehousing, and distribution. So this request would be consistent with that purpose statement that the site is highly accessible along I-35. It would be a continuation of that existing zoning pattern that they have to the south on the Acmebrick site that's light industrial today. And it would be reducing the intensity of zoning adjacent to that multifamily where there's heavy industrial today. This would decrease the intensity of the uses that are permitted there and make it a little more compatible than it is today. One of our other criteria is, rather, there have been significant changes that would warrant the rezoning. So I wanted to go a little bit through the history of this site. This split zoning that you see has been in place since 2002, when the citywide rezoning occurred with the adoption of the 2002 DDC. Prior to that, since 1969, the site had had a solid heavy industrial zoning classification across the entire property all the way up to the I-35. So since 2002, it's had this split zoning on the site. Those districts, as you know, directly transitioned from the O2 districts to 2019. So now that they have a kind of higher purpose, if you will, for this site than just vacant land with a gas well, they are looking to consolidate that so that it can be developed in a consistent manner and be more consistent with our comprehensive plan. And then looking at potential impacts to surrounding property, the LI district is consistent with the zoning in this area. As you can see, a large portion of ACME site and some of the other properties along Fort Worth Drive are already zoned LI in this area. And it's important to note, as I mentioned earlier, currently we have heavy industrial immediately adjacent to an existing multifamily development. This would be decreasing the intensity of uses that could go in this area and making this more compatible with the adjacent multifamily. The DDC would still require any development under LI or HI to have compatibility buffers in place, but this would reduce some of those more nuisance potential uses that are permitted in HI and would create more compatibility in the area. So I just wanted to show you briefly an example of the industrial uses permitted in these three districts. The ones shown in red are those that are different. So you can see many uses that HI would permit either by right or with an SUP would not be permitted with this rezoning. Even medium impact manufacturing would require a specific use permit that would come back before the PNZ and council if they sought to develop that in LI. So this would be taking away some of those uses that could be more noxious, such as feedlots or storage of hazardous materials, for example. And then looking at the final criteria, which is the availability of facilities and services to serve the property. Looking first at transportation, you can see here that the property does have frontage and would take access directly off of the I-35 service road. This corridor between 377 and FM 2181 or Teasley is slated for improvements by tech stop. Their plans currently show a five to 10 year construction as the timeline for this segment. So with those improvements, access to the site would be more than adequate. The applicant did provide some trip generation for a preliminary analysis. They based it off of the development of almost 450,000 square feet of warehouse on not just this property, but also that adjacent site that I mentioned as part of their total 35 acres that they're looking at. And the trips that they proposed would be a 770 total daily trips, 76 AM peak and 85 AM peak trips. So with those, they did not trigger the need for a transportation impact analysis at this point in time, but that will be further analyzed once they submit for a zoning compliance plan or plan. Looking at utilities to serve the area, both water and sewer facilities are available adjacent to the site along the I-35 frontage road. So these lines would be extended and continued internally to serve any future development. And then finally, a public notification was provided regarding this case. We received no responses prior to this meeting. And staff is recommending approval of this request as we found it to meet all of those criteria for approval. And I will stop sharing now and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Haley. I do not see any questions, thorough presentation. The next item of business is item 5B, AESA 20-0006A. And Christy Upton is here to present this. Good evening, Christy Upton, and tonight I will be discussing an alternative ESA plan for the same property that Haley just presented. The request is for the Acme Bricks site and related to the zoning request, and the request is to permanently remove 1.26 acres of riparian buffer. Prior to this request, there was a field assessment requested by Acme Bricks company to identify the riparian buffers, confirm the riparian buffers on the site. There is a femoral stream that is a tributary of Hay Creek Creek, and the vegetation supporting that creek was found to be in fair condition. Currently these riparian buffers, there's 50 feet on each side of the stream, however, there is a berm that was created for access to the Acme Bricks site. And this berm prevents hydrology to be able to support the riparian buffer vegetation on the west side of the creek. And since that vegetation does not exist, the protection requirements were removed from the west side. I also wanted to bring attention to the, there was a citywide map update in 2015, originally when the code was adopted in 2002, a citywide map was adopted that, where it kind of, it was a placeholder of areas that look like it would be able to meet the criteria of these ESAs. One of those areas, the cross timbers upland habitat, if you're familiar, one of the requirements of the upland habitat to be protected is that it has to meet the criteria of greater than 10 acres. And in 2015, the citywide update identified areas that both did not meet 10 acres and unlikely would ever meet the 10 acre criteria for that protection requirement. And these areas were all identified as the protection requirements being removed. And these areas that are located on the ACME site were part of that citywide update. Since the request is to remove the 1.26 acres, and that is because the applicant is, or the future development is requesting to construct the warehousing in an area that overlays with that riparian buffer. In addition, in order to maintain the access to ACME brick, there will be further removal of some of the riparian buffer to the south of these warehouse development. Can, Christy, I'm going to pause you real fast, Christy or Bec, did you have a question? Yes, thank you, Chair. Christy, what, who is the source of the 10 acre definition? Is that a state level? Is that a Denton level? I'm sorry. What is the source of that minimum? I'm sorry. Oh, yeah. No. Again. Yeah. I don't know what's going on with my microphone. What's the source of the 10 acres definition? That's a local code. Okay. That was a local decision. So you know, hypothetically, if our code was five, then when we would be bumping up against this as a definition of a forested region, because this is, well, I guess it's 4.7 or something like that. Let's say it was four, then we would be bumping up against it. Okay. Correct. And we make no special exceptions for having adjacent, I thought there was provisions in one section for being adjacent to another upland habitat region, like you see to the northeast, that that doesn't apply because this is under TAN, right? No, actually, that's not in the code. There's no, there's nothing specific about adjacency in the code. It's something that we have put in this future criteria manual or document that environmental services will be publishing, where we encourage the preservation of these habitats that are adjacent to other habitats so that you create these transitions. That's a preferable preservation because you have greater area in allowance for migration between different habitat types. All right. Thank you. So part of the mitigation that is being offered to offset for the removal of the riparian buffer is related to the detention bases that will be constructed. The applicant is proposing to support these warehousing developments that they will need to construct the detention basin system in order to intercept the storm water flow. And part of that will be to construct it per the City of Denton storm water design standards. And for the purpose of offsetting the ecological services that are being removed from the riparian buffer, the applicant is offering to construct these habitat uplift with native grasses and herbaceous plants, wetland, drain fields and wildflower mix that will allow for migratory birds and other wildlife to help support those type of habitats in the future. The second type of mitigation that the applicant is proposing is a conservation easement that will be placed over 2.11 acres of cross timbers upland habitat as an upland habitat designation that was removed. Again, that's less than 10 acres total of this habitat that had been identified previously. And thus this area, this forested area has no protection requirements placed over it. And so this conservation easement would place, by placing this conservation easement over that area, it would permanently set aside those 2.11 acres of upland habitat. Not part of this application, but the applicant has mentioned it in their plan and I wanted to bring it to your attention that there's an additional 1.7 acres of remnant, of that remnant forest just north of the conservation easement and along the edge of the multifamily that will be also preserved in order to meet the tree preservation requirements for the development. Yes, Mr. Beck. Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Christine, are those additional 1.7 being included? I wasn't clear in the easement, in the conservation easement? It's not in the conservation easement. It is, and it's not part of this application specifically, but the applicant has mentioned it in the plan and I just wanted to bring it to your attention that that also will be set aside. That is their plans right now. All right, thank you. Notifications were sent out for this proposed project and there were no responses that were received by staff. There was one response, I believe, that was emailed to all the commissioners in opposition. However, that response was from a non-land owner, so that did not get included in this calculation. The recommendation is for approval with the following conditions, that the riparian buffer removal be limited to the 1.26 acres as shown in the plan and that this alternative easement be placed over the 2.11 acres, that the city will be filing that deed or filing that record with the county and that the owner will pay all the applicable fees. And then the applicant will within 14 days of the construction of the detention basins apply the vegetative cover as described in the plan and lastly the two recommended conditions that staff typically places over plans that include vegetation. And with that, I will close those and take any further questions. Thank you, Chair. I noticed that the existing detention pond is getting kept and two more detention ponds are being added. Half of the forest is being removed and replaced with a detention pond to replace the riparian and it feels like I mentioned this in our email, robbing Peter to pay Paul a little bit on our ESA there, but was there any thought to combining the two detention ponds at the south, on the south, half of that forested region? I can't hear you again. I'm sorry, I apologize, I'll say that again. The roughly eight, nine acres of forested region has a detention pond in it and I know that they're proposing putting an additional detention pond in the northern half. And I said, it feels like we're robbing Peter to pay Paul on our environmental language here. I understand we need that drainage field to replace where they're going to put the warehouses and overall I think this plan is really good. And I'm just a little, I'm sad that we are balancing our environmental concerns against each other rather than sort of adopting them fully and the riparian versus the upland habitat. And so my question was, are we precluded from or was there discussion of combining, putting the detention pond together with the southern detention pond that's already in existence and save the forest on the north and put the detention pond on the south? I would have to defer to the applicant on that question. I think this is a design element that best answered by the applicant on why they consider putting the detention basins in that location. Then let me say that, is there anything precluding, if you need more detention pond riparian wet space, is there anything that in our code that precludes us from expanding that addition, that existing detention pond? I don't think so. I don't think that there is anything in the code that would lead to requiring the applicant to design the detention basins in a different manner than what they are proposing. And just keep in mind that that upland habitat, again, was not protected and thus whatever they're setting aside is more than what our code would have required of them. Yes. I appreciate it. I take your point. But as I mentioned earlier, there's sort of that concept that the 10-anchor minimum is our arbitrary standard at the dent level rather than any other standard. And thus, we could potentially petition counsel not for this particular property, mind you, but in general to alter that standard. Okay, I appreciate your responses. Thank you, Christy. Any other questions for Christy? Okay. Seeing none, we can continue on. Thank you for that presentation. Item C and D are being postponed. So that does actually conclude our agenda for our work session. Seeing that, I will close -- oh, Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. With regard to 5C, are we postponing to a certain date or just indefinitely? It's indefinite with a re-notice. Understood. Thank you. Yep. Okay. I will close the meeting at 614. We'll reconvene back here at 630. Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for December 2nd, 2020. Seeing that we do have a quorum here, I will call the meeting to order at 631. The first item for business this evening is to provide a pledge of allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. Commissioners, if you'd unmute yourself to join, that's optional. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Under the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one indivisible. Next item of business is we have no consent agenda this evening, so we'll move right into items for individual consideration, starting with item 4A, PP20-0022B, and I will call Karina Maldonado for presentation. Good evening. This first request for PP20-0022B is for the approval of a preliminary plaque of Country Club Village Phase 4 to the approximately 12.53-acre site located on the northwest corner of Fairview Drive and Clubview Drive in South Denton, City of Denton. The staff was initially a recommendation of denial; however, the applicant has addressed all outstanding comments since the publishing of the agenda, so staff is now recommending approval of this request. A revised plaque was emailed to you tonight. I just want to make note of one change that was not shown previously, this is a correction to the label off Clubview Drive, just to correct the right-of-way labeling, and with that I can take any questions. Thank you. I appreciate it, Karina. I do not see any questions. The Chair will entertain discussion or motion. Commissioner Smith? I make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Anderson? I second the motion. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Bec? I think that was an aye. I can't hear you, Commissioner Bec. By signal of a big nod, we're going to go with an aye from Commissioner Bec. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. I can hear that one. Commissioner Cole? This isn't working either. Commissioner Cole, your mic on. We got a thumbs up. We'll take that one as well. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. Next item. Are we getting a lot of shaking of heads? This Commissioner Bec was asking to see if we could hear him, but now that we could not, we cannot hear him. Gotcha. Thank you for that interpretation. Welcome. Next item is 4B, FP20-0025. This is Haley Zygursky's presentation. Good evening, Commissioners. This is FP2025. This is the Woodmere edition. This is a final plat for 151 single family lots, and at this point, staff is recommending denial as it does not meet the requirements outlined in Exhibit 2. However, the applicant has requested extension to December 16th, and staff has no objection to that. I'm happy to stand for any questions. Thank you very much. Commissioner Anderson? I'll make a motion to approve the extension to date of December 16th. Perfect, Commissioner Smith? Second. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, just for clarification, Matt, considering the mics are odd, am I able to do a vote via a show of hands if I can see everyone? Yeah, I suppose if it's the only alternative, if the mics aren't working, then they can do it by hand. No, I can hear Commissioner Beck. Commissioner Kohl, can I hear you? No, I cannot hear you. I would say continue to do the roll call, and Commissioner Kohl can do a thumbs up or thumbs down. Okay. Sounds good. We have a first and a second for approval. We'll start with a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. There we go. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Kohl? Let's do a thumbs up, thumbs down. There we go. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. And I guess I should let the record show that Commissioner Kohl did give a thumbs up. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. Next item of business is item 3, 4C, PP20-0026. This is Carina Maldonado's item. All right. This request, PP20-0026, is for approval of the preliminary plaque at 100 North Loop 288. This is on the east side of Loop 288. I apologize for the typo in the previous work session. Staff is recommending denial of this request, as it does not meet the minimum requirements in the DDC. However, the applicant has requested a 30-day extension to the December 16th Applying and Zoning Commission meeting, and we are not opposed to this request. Behind that, I can take any questions. I appreciate it, Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Carina, just to clarify, you mentioned 30-day request for extension. December 16th is two weeks from now, so is it December 16th that the applicant is requesting? The request was tipped the allowances for up to 30 days. However, just based on the way our meetings are scheduled, that would have to be by December 16th. Okay. Understood. Thank you. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve the extension to date certain December 16th. We have a first. Commissioner Pernetta? I'll second. We have a first and a second for an approval of this extension request of 30 days to date certain of December 16th. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Cole, thumb up, thumb down. That's an aye from Commissioner Cole. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Chair, it's also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. Next item of business is item 4D, it's the consideration and approval of the November 18th minutes. Our commission was sent a revised copy of the minutes. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve as amended. Commissioner Ellis? Second. We have a first and a second for approval of the minutes. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Cole? No. Commissioner Anderson? No. Commissioner Cole is an affirmative. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. And Chair, it's also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. The next item of business is item 4E, PP20-0024B, and I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation. Good evening, Chair and members of the commission. Just pull up presentation here, and we are, hopefully you can see that now. Yep. We're meeting PP20-0024 preliminary plat. This was initially recommended for denial, but all concerns have been resolved with the plat that you were sent this afternoon, and so staff is now recommending approval because it meets all of the requirements for approval. Great. Any questions? Okay. Seeing none, Chair will entertain a motion. Commissioner Anderson? Seconded. Motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Smith? Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. We have a final replant of two commercial lots located at McKinney and Glengarry Way. As we discussed in the work session, a revised plot was sent to you all this evening and staff has since changed our recommendation from denial to approval as the new plant that was provided to you and is now shown here on the screen does meet all of the established requirements and with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. I've been told I'm muted. Thank you, Haley. Any questions for Haley on the presentation? Seeing none, I'll call for, well, Commissioner Smith. He's muted now too. I make a motion to approve. First for approval. The Chair will second that. Any discussion on the item? Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Cole has a thumbs up for an aye. Commissioner Panetta? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. The last item for individual consideration is item 4G, FR20-0016. I'll invite Ron Meguida for presentation. Thank you, Chair. Bring up the presentation real quick. So this is FR20-0016. It is for a residential subdivision. The site is located between Bonnie Bray and north of Rose Lawn Drive. The applicant is proposing an extension. It currently does not meet all of the requirements and standards of the DVC, specifically Section 832D, related to common areas and facilities of, again, the development code. However, staff is not in opposition of the extension, again, of the 30-day extension by the applicant. I'll stand for any questions. Ron, the other items listed here for 30 days have a date certain of December 16th. Does that apply to this one as well, as it's going to the December 16th meeting? It would, and similar to what Karina's explanation is that the next meeting is December 16th. Therefore, that's when this item will be heard. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Ron. Okay. Thank you, Ron, for presentation. Chair will entertain a motion. Oh, this might be too exciting. Commissioner Ellis. I move approval of the applicant's request for an extension to date certain of December 16th. Awesome. Thank you for that. Commissioner Smith. I'll second. We have a first and a second for an approval of the 30-day extension to a date certain of December 16th. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis. I. Commissioner Beck. I. Commissioner Anderson. I. Commissioner Cole. Commissioner Cole has a thumbs up for an I. Commissioner Smith. I. Commissioner Bruneta. I. Chair has also an I. Did I carry everyone? I think so. Motion carries 7-0. Next item of business is our public hearing items. The first one is Z20-0009. I'll invite Haley Zygursky for presentation and open the public hearing. Good evening, commissioners. This is case Z29 for urban logistics. The request before you is twofold. There is a request for a rezoning from highway corridor to light industrial for approximately 10 and a half acres that is shown here in orange. And then there is a request for rezoning from heavy industrial to light industrial on approximately 13 acres that is outlined in yellow on the map. Both of these are part of a larger parent track that is part of the Acme brick property. And I wanted to point out that this site was previously developed with a gas well that was plugged in 2019 in anticipation of the future redevelopment of this property. The proposal or the purpose for this rezoning is to facilitate the development of a mixed use complex with light industrial and warehouse uses on a total of 35 acres that would also include this portion of the property here that currently has an LI zoning. So here you can see that the mixed zoning that was just described, so the property would include this area here that's already LI and they're looking to consolidate that across the entire property as you can see in the map on the right. So the general criteria for approval for all applications were described in detail in your backup. I won't go through those in detail here, but I wanted to note that we did find that this request meets all of these criteria. There are seven criteria specific to a rezoning request and we'll look at each of those in a little more detail. The first being whether the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, specifically the future land use element. As you can see on the map, this property is designated for industrial commerce. That is our most intense industrial future land use designation. It's intended for areas that would have a mixture of both light and heavy industrial uses that includes warehousing, manufacturing, and various industrial processes. So the light industrial district is consistent with that as it allows for a mixture of things such as warehouse and distribution, as well as some low impact manufacturing. The next criteria is whether the request is consistent with the purpose statement for the zoning district. You can see here the LI district purpose statement does indicate that it would be in areas that would provide a mixture of light industrial and employment type uses that would be highly accessible, and this request would meet that given the high accessibility of this area along I-35, that it would be a continuation of an existing zoning pattern, as you saw there's already LI to the south, and that it would increase the compatibility in the area as it would be reducing the intensity of the zoning designation on this property adjacent to the neighboring multifamily use. So looking at the next criteria, which is whether there have been significant changes that would warrant the request, I wanted to point out a little of the history of the site. This entire property that is Acme Brick was originally zoned heavy industrial. It had had that zoning since the 1969 zoning ordinance, actually. However, in 2002, a split zoning was applied to this northern part of the property, and that directly transitioned to the zoning that we see today with the 2019 code adoption and citywide rezoning. With the plugging of that gas well, the property owner was looking to facilitate development of this northern end of the site that's been largely unused, and so now they have a potential buyer who's looking to consolidate that zoning and have consistent development standards applicable across the site. Our next criteria is whether it would minimize adverse impacts on surrounding property. The LI zoning is consistent with the zoning in this area. It's not expected to have any adverse impacts, as this would be a continuation of the type of uses that have been permitted in the past. It is important to note that even with this current mix of zoning, those light industrial uses could occur on the property today. Warehouse and distribution are even permitted in the HC district, but there are some size limitations that would make a comprehensive development of the site with an industrial campus a little bit tricky. So that's the reason for their looking to consolidate. This zoning would -- one of the most important things about it is it would reduce the intensity of uses that could occur on this portion of the property that is directly adjacent to a multifamily use. This adjacent property that's zoned HC has had multifamily use there since the mid-1980s, and to date there hasn't been much use on this property, but there is a variety of things permitted in HI, as you can see here, that would not be compatible with that adjacent multifamily. So this would reduce some of those more intensive uses that would have much more nuisance potential and take away the prospect of things such as a feedlot or hazardous waste storage. Even medium impact manufacturing, as you can see, would require a specific use permit to come back before you all in city council. And then finally looking at the availability of public facilities and services, the site is adjacent to the I-35 East corridor, so they do have direct access off the service road today. This portion of the corridor from 377 over to Teasley is slated for improvement within the next 5 to 10 years, according to TxDOT's current plans and schedule. The applicant provided a trip generation based upon an estimation of about 450,000 square feet of warehouse space. That did not trigger the need for a TIA at this point in time, however, once they provide plans for, a zoning compliance plan rather, for the specific development of the site and configuration of uses, then that will be looked at again to see if there are any improvements that would be warranted, but it is unlikely given their adjacency to a TxDOT right of way. And with respect to utilities, you can see on the map here with the blue lines representing water lines and the red being sewer lines, that there are facilities subbed out to this property immediately adjacent along the I-35 frontage. Those would be extended across this site to serve this development. Public notification was provided regarding this request and we've received no responses to date. And staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning to light industrial as it complies with all of our criteria for approval. And I'm happy to answer any questions. I believe the applicant is on the line as well and does have a presentation for you all. Great. Thank you, Haley. Is there any questions initially for Haley? Commissioner Anderson. Just quick one. Haley, can you go to slide 11, I believe, please? It's the one that shows the daily trips and I just -- down at the bottom it says 76 morning peak trips and 85, but if -- I mean, I'm not the smartest person, but 85 and 76 doesn't equal 770. No, sir, these are -- these are strictly the peak hour trips, so based on estimations from the IT, which is the International Transportation Engineers Society that estimates various uses and how much traffic they generate, this is what would be estimated in that peak hour of morning incoming traffic and then evening traffic leaving the site. So that's just one hour of the day, whereas this is a daily total of all traffic. Okay. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Any other questions for Haley? Okay. If the applicant's available and would like to present, they can certainly do so. I'm not sure if they're muted or unmuted. This is Amy Bissett. Can you hear me? I can, Amy. Thanks for being here. As the applicant, you have 10 minutes to present. I believe -- we're not going to take this amount of time, but we do have multiple representatives here with us today, and I think that means we would have 20 total, but we won't take 10. So -- Amy, you are correct. You would have 20 with a combined team, so take your time. All right. Okay. Well, I still think we'll be pretty quick. Haley, thank you for pulling up the slides. Will you advance to the first slide, please? First, I do want to introduce my team here. We have the developer with Urban Logistics Realty on the line who's going to speak to you momentarily, and we also have our architect and our engineering firm on the line. I want to -- before I get into the presentation, I do want to acknowledge that I listened to the work session and just wanted to clarify a couple of things. Haley did mention that public notifications went out and she received no responses. We also did invite that same list of neighbors to a neighborhood meeting and received no RSVPs. It was a virtual meeting that we had set and no questions that came out of that. So the other question that I heard in work session, which is really more related to ESA, but I want to address now because we don't intend to make two presentations tonight for each of these items, so it was related to why we have the detention ponds located where we do and why there are two of them. So in very brief response to that, the existing pond that was referenced by Commissioner Beck that is south of our site is actually -- it's not functioning as a detention pond today and our site doesn't drain into it, so we would have to route a pipeline to that property, to that specific body of water in order to facilitate detention there, which would require removing as many or more trees than we're having to remove in order to put the detention where it is. It's also split into two locations because there is a gas pipeline that runs in between that we need to leave room for. So we do have our engineer on the line, though, who can help walk through that in more detail if necessary. So with that, I'm going to walk through a few slides here. The first one is just to kind of orient you to where this is located. Obviously, Acme Brick, this site, they have been there for a number of years. In fact, the town has really grown up around them, so we really see this as an opportunity for redeveloping something that is more compatible with the neighborhood, but it is kind of in the heart of Denton in a highly visible location. Next slide, please. Well, there you go. You can see it a little more closely. Next slide, please. So you can see from this aerial view that Acme Brick does still operate on the site. They are an active -- it is an active plant that will remain there, and we are coming in to develop the northern end of that site in a way that would be compatible with the adjacencies in the way that the town has grown up around it. I'm going to introduce Jason Nunley. He is with Urban Logistics Realty, and he is going to share a little more detail with you about the company and their intended plans for this development. Jason, are you on the line? Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Amy. Good evening, first of all, and thank you all for the opportunity to talk to you tonight. I got excited when Amy said we had 20 minutes until she told me not to filibuster, but I get passionate about this, so forgive me if I ramble. As Amy mentioned, my name is Jason Nunley. I am a co-owner of Urban Logistics Realty. We are a local North Texas-based real estate investment and development firm that really has a 15-year history and track record of developing multi-tenant, multi-building corporate campuses all over North Texas. We are extremely excited about this opportunity on a number of different levels. We're excited to work with the city of Denton, but we're also really excited to be part of the evolution of what's a really fascinating land site. Haley, if you could go to the next slide, please. So, again, as Amy alluded to, this site has a very distinguished and long history. Acme has actually owned the land for over 120 years. We've gone back and done an extensive amount of research on the history of the site and the characteristics of the site and how the site was located here and really how the city of Denton has evolved and grown up around it. When you look back over the history of the site, where it was then made sense, where it is now is arguably not the best and highest use as it's been used for a mining pit and a brick fabrication plant. But we see an opportunity with this rezoning request to really embrace the city's future land plan while paying respect and homage to the history of the site. Our design will embrace kind of the history of Acme as we use their product through the site and, again, it's just a unique opportunity to try to create something special and unique and identifiable more so than an opportunity to, hey, let's go put up four buildings. We believe that's fundamental and necessary to what we do because we do build on a speculative basis and the caliber of tenants that we attract and demand, we will not be the low-cost option or provider. So our tenants expect and demand that level of attention and detail and really thoughtfulness throughout the project. Haley, next slide, if you'd please. This is where we are at today with a site plan. This is actually site plan probably about 64 in kind of the evolution of the design and what we really identified as best and highest use for the site. All four of these buildings are designed and intended to be multi-tenant. We would envision somewhere between six and probably 10 different companies calling this location home. So, Haley, next slide, if you please. To that attention to detail, if you look at kind of the elevations up in the upper left-hand corner, it's very different, I would say, than what most of us have been conditioned to think of industrial house, and that's very intentional on our part because we know our target audience and we know our target tenants. So we're taking very modern design concepts from office buildings. We're sprinkling in design intent and details and nuance from restaurants, from hospitality, really trying to create, and we say this over and over, but the evolution of a product type that caters to our class of tenant. That's not just accomplished through the building. It's very much accomplished through attention to detail. We try, when we orient buildings, when we locate buildings to create a sense of place, we do that through landscaping, we do that through berms, we do that through textures, we do that through materials, we do that through articulation, both horizontal and vertical. Haley, could you back up one slide, pretty please? So imagine pulling into the site there from the entry and the fact that you can see the front door of all four of those buildings. So nothing is buried and nothing is in the back. We're striving to create a very dynamic and very dramatic entrance to a site, a lot of which, again, is kind of counterintuitive to what most people would dub industrial, and I'm highlighting that only because we don't think this product functions solely as industrial. It really is a corporate campus environment when we're done with it. Haley, could you go forward, please? Again, just a little closer look at the elevations. I know it doesn't show through this rendering, but the darker color there is actually a concrete stain. Fascinating aside, I'll be quick not to bore anybody, we pioneered the use of this horizontally applied concrete stain over a decade ago, and we did it because we wanted something unique and corporate and different, and nobody had done it. We brought consultants in from the East Coast and the West Coast. No one could figure out to do it until we found a concrete artist out of Denton. Her name is Shelly Rigsby, and Shelly came out to the site, said she could do it. She treated it not as a building or as a project, but almost as an independent living mural. It's like a seven-step process. It's beautiful to see once it's finished because it really brings out kind of the inherent nature and quality and characteristics of the concrete underneath it. And it's been extremely well received both by tenants and architects just across the community. So they are kind of living, breathing works of art right there on the front of the building, and they all were made possible out of artists out of Denton. Next, if you would, Haley? Yeah, we talk about the evolution of these buildings and how they perform and how they behave. I highlighted two slides here, this one, and if you'd go forward to the next, just to show this is what the interior of our buildings recently have looked like and how this space is used. And they are used by businesses that want to attract and retain talent. We have a very high usership from technology companies, light manufacturing kind of on the tech side, from training, from materials and supplies. So just highlighting this to show again that it's maybe a little different than what some people would have as a preconceived notion. Next, if you would, Haley? I guess that's it. So I will be here for any questions afterwards or now or whenever. Amy? All right, I'll take it back over and just walk through these last couple of slides very quickly because I do think Haley and Jason covered everything. We are looking at a 35-acre project that's primarily a down zoning with multi-tenant office and warehouse buildings, roughly 446,000 square feet based on the current site plan. Next slide, please. This kind of shows you overlaid on an aerial what the zoning change actually physically would look like. So we're maintaining some highway corridor zoning along the frontage while creating a more comprehensive zoning across the entire site, including right up against the multifamily next door would be the down zoning from heavy industrial to light industrial. Next slide, please. Do you want to provide a little bit of context for where this is located as you all know where the ACME site is, but it tends to be a little bit out of sight. It is right next to South Lakes Park. It is right next to McMath Middle School and it is surrounded by neighborhoods, really. Southridge being just on the other side of South Lakes Park. Next slide, please. And you can see in terms of the future land use plan, this area while it's designated for industrial commerce, everything around it is more low density residential or parks and community mixed use. So the intent here is to meet the future land use plan in terms of industrial commerce, but at the same time bring something that's more compatible to the area. Next slide, please. I'm just going to briefly touch on the alternative ESA because we do not intend to present again. But as Christy went through with you in work session, we are proposing the removal of some riparian buffer that is cutting right through the middle of the site. And the intent is to offset the removal of those ecological resources by providing the enhanced detention ponds that do provide alternative habitat opportunities for any wildlife that might migrate out of that riparian buffer. And then also we are proposing to place in a conservation easement 2.1 acres of upland habitat that is not currently protected, but at one point in time was designated as an ESA. So this would create a protection that is currently not there. And as Christy mentioned earlier as well, we do intend to preserve the trees that are between that 2.1 acre site that you see in yellow in the bottom right-hand side of the screen and the detention pond above it as a part of our tree preservation plan. However, we don't want to mix the two in terms of the approval in this particular application for an alternative ESA because we are obligated to meet each of these requirements separately and independently. But in the end, it will create a contiguous preservation area between the detention pond and the existing body of water that's south of our site. And back to the discussion that you had in work session about the detention pond. Haley, if you could put your cursor over. There's an active gas well just to the northwest of the existing body of water that would also create kind of a barrier to us being able to access that pond for detention. We would end up having to come down with a pipeline through the existing trees in order to access it, and it really doesn't drain that direction to start with. Next slide, please, Haley. This is just a quick summary of what we're proposing in our ESA, but I will let Christy walk through that in detail and just appreciate everybody's time and am happy to answer any questions or to bring any member of our team up to answer specific questions that you may have that would be more appropriate for them. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Amy, is there any questions for Amy or Mr. Nunnally? Okay. I do not have any public citizen feedback on this. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing on this item and ask for a motion and then discussion. Commissioner Ellis. >> Move approval of the request. >> We have a first for approval. Commissioner Beck. >> Yeah, I'll second that. >> We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? The only thing I'm going to say is I know we still have the ESA to go through, but that's really exciting to see the product that you're intending, and I think it would look good driving through Denton. So thank you for bringing such a high quality project, and hopefully it's well received and sells out quickly. So with that, I will go ahead and call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Anderson. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Pernetta. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Cole. He has a thumbs up as an aye. Commissioner Smith. >> Aye. >> Chair has also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. That takes us to the next item tied to this, which is item 5B, AESA 20-0006A. I will invite Christy Upton for presentation and open the public hearing. And Christy, whenever you're ready, you have the floor. >> Sorry. Thank you. Christy Upton, and I will be presenting an alternative environmentally sensitive area plan tonight for the Urban Logistics 35 project that you just discussed. The request is for the permanent removal of 1.26 acres of riparian buffer. And a little background on the riparian buffer. This is a tributary of Hickory Creek, and this ephemeral stream has riparian vegetation that supports it, that vegetation was found to be in fair condition. And typically, the buffer protection requirements are 50 feet on each side of the stream, and that applies to everything below a berm that was constructed as part of access to the Acme site. The area upstream of that berm on the west side does not receive flow, and that interruption of the hydrology means that the vegetation, the riparian vegetation that typically would grow along these waterways because of the interruption of hydrology is not there, and thus, with the lack of presence of the riparian vegetation, the protection requirements do not apply. A little bit of further background. In 2015, staff had identified certain areas, specifically some cross timbers upland habitats that had previously been mapped and were found to be fractured and isolated and would never meet the criteria for 10 acres and that criteria being required for the protection requirements to apply to those forested areas, and that's specifically the cross timbers upland habitat protection requirements. And with that identification of these areas that were less than 10 acres, staff removed the protection requirements by removing the designation. It just, it made sense to do this where the requirements would never apply. So the specifics to the request and removing the 1.26 acres as Amy just presented is to place the warehouse and infrastructure supporting the warehouse where the riparian buffer currently overlaps, and then to realign the road for the, to remain or to keep the access, ACME bricks access to their site, and all of that requiring that removal of the 1.26 acres riparian buffer. To offset the ecological features and functions that are offered by the riparian buffer, the applicant will be installing or upgrading the detention basins with native grasses and herbaceous plants and by planting a wetland fringe mix, a drain field mix and a wildflower mix that will kind of transition along the banks of these detention basins and provide habitat, future habitat to migrating birds and other wildlife. In addition, the applicant is proposing this conservation easement that would be placed over 2.11 acres of Crest Timbers upland habitat and permanently preserving that upland habitat. Again, that habitat meets many of the features that has many of the features of upland habitat as in soil topography and vegetation is just, it was less than 10 acres. And as Amy also just recently pointed out, there's an additional 1.7 acres of remnant forest that would be preserved by, with the intent of meeting the tree preservation requirements. Notifications were sent out and there were no responses, except for a response from a nonland owner in opposition to the project. The recommendation is to permanently remove the recommendation is for approval with the following conditions to permanently remove the repairing buffer that limiting that to 1.26 acres as shown in Exhibit C that this easement would be placed over the 2.11 acres and filed with Denton County and within 14 days of the construction of the detention basins that the detention basins be covered with the vegetative coverage that was described in Exhibit C and then the last two conditions being the typical request by environmental services that the applicant provide as a report and to ensure 90% survival of the vegetation as was shown in Exhibit C. And with that, I will take any questions. >> Thank you for the presentation, Christy. Is there any questions for Christy? The applicant is still on the line, I know they're not representing, but I'm sure they're available for questions if there's any questions of the commission. While y'all are thinking about any, I just want to let you know for this item we had one person make comments using the online form. There was zero support of this item and one against all these comment forms or this comment form was emailed to the commissioners and our city secretary to be recorded. With that, that kind of brings us to the close of anyone wanting to speak, so I will close the public hearing. Commissioner Smith. >> Approved with staff recommendations. >> First for approval, Commissioner Anderson. >> I'll second, but can I say something real quick as well? >> Absolutely. >> I just want to reiterate what you said. That whole section right there on 35 has been kind of an eyesore for years for Ditton. No bad thing against ACME, but it's just barren land and it's just dirty and I think the presentation they did and if they get to develop what they did, I think it's going to be awesome, like you said. And also I think it's great that they found a Ditton artist that adds even more value to something that they're doing. So anyway, kudos to the developers. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I actually want to sort of agree. I have -- if you noticed, I had no comments about the other item and actually seconded the motion. I think the development is reasonable development with, you know, interesting potential. And I appreciate Amy's and Christy's explanation of sort of the limitations of our own code and the need of the development. I will point out -- I'm going to rant and scream about that 10 acres and then vote yes. I'm going to tell you that right now because what we're doing is we're tearing out all the green spaces and I think that the DSA plan for the riparian repair and the grasses are a good job. I commend the architects and the engineers on that. I understand the limits of our existing code, you know, specifying that that is not quote unquote a green space. But Christy, I'm also a biologist. So -- and I understand that, you know, I'm not going to hold -- I'm going to hold the engineers and developers harmless on this one. But I -- we are making a mistake to constantly pay -- you know, what's the phrase? Steal from Peter to pay Paul. You know, I think it's a mistake to -- I understand that we don't want to put pipes through a gas well region. We don't want to adjust the water table around a gas well. Once again, we see gas wells contributing to lack of proper development in our municipal environment. I understand, you know, we need to maintain -- you're going to have waterfowl and whatnot. They're doing -- I mean, the ponds themselves seem like from the plan that it's not a bad alt ESA. What we are doing, though, is chopping up what little green corridor goes from that park to the northwest, the little strip of verge north, chopping that up, fragmenting the forest even further around down to South Lakes Park. We're just slowly chopping up all that green space. So, you know, I don't want to hear any complaints when the coyotes eat your bunnies, when the -- you know, when the -- you know, you hit a deer with your car because we ran those things all out of there because we wanted to put a detention pond. So I'm going to vote yes, and I'm not -- you know, I think Amy did a good job of describing this, but this is where our ordinances are failing us, and we do not have good green corridor, green space ordinances, and that really, really needs to be fixed. So we don't -- I don't have a handle to grab onto. I don't have a problem with the product. I have a problem with this sort of unsweet spot that we find ourselves in and having a good quality environmental existence in Denton. So I'll leave it there. >> Thank you, Commissioner Beck. Commissioner Pernetta. >> Yeah, and, you know, kind of along the lines of what Commissioner Anderson said and what Commissioner Beck said, you know, I have a lot of people who send me their concerns. I mean, anything to do with an all ESA or something like that comes up. And this is one of those cases where, you know, you look at it and you go -- it makes more sense what we're doing going forward, particularly because, you know, that patch, that area is basically -- it might as well be a dump right now when you drive by it. It's unsightly, and I always wonder what the hell is going on with it. So I have no problem voting for this one. You know, kind of along the lines of what Commissioner Beck said. You know, I do have a little concern over the fact that, you know, as Denton gets, you know, grows and becomes more dense and in and of itself I have no problem with density because we need affordable housing in this area and we can only get that through more density. I do think, you know, if we are going to keep an eye on, you know, making sure as we grow we keep Denton beautiful, it would be nice to have, you know, council, you know, staff and everything kind of look into whether or not 10 acres is too much, you know, is too large a number. I don't know what the sweet spot would be. But, you know, in the last year we did find a sweet spot with setbacks, you know. And I think this is kind of a direction we should be looking into in terms of growing our town but making sure that we are taking care of the environment because ultimately it's one of the things that, you know, that we're not going to be able to build more of as we go forward. I support the project though. Great looking project and, you know, a lot of good work and, you know, documentation and everything. Thank you. >> Commissioner Beck. >> I just -- something just occurred to me. ACME being a brick facility, they have a lot of airborne pollutant heavy metal waste. Do we test that soil? I mean, I would hate for these developers to develop a lovely property and have contaminated soil. Does anyone know? This isn't going to affect my vote. This is actually more of a warning to the developers. I hope that you do not have contaminated soil because I know traditionally like cement factories, brick factories are dirty. They're really dirty. So I don't -- you know, I would encourage you to test your own property. I guess I'll say that to the architects and the engineers. Have we ever tested that land around there? Maybe that's a Christy question. >> I don't have any background on that. Sorry. >> That's okay. Thank you, Chris. >> Jason, if you would like to answer or if you have insights, Commissioner Beck. >> Yeah, I certainly do. Forgive me if I'm acting out of order here. This is my first time doing this virtually. But yes, sir, Commissioner Beck, we have extensively gone through phase 1, phase 2 environmental -- environmental. I mean, for our sake, we have to. I mean, we're looking at investing north of $35 million in the property to do this and do it right. So it's essential for us. And we very much shared your concerns going into it. But I can tell you that we are over that and understand that none exist. >> I appreciate that insight. We do have a first and a second for approval with the five conditions on the tables. Any other further discussion on this? Seeing none, I will call for a vote. I will call for a vote via roll call. We'll start with Commissioner Ellis. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Beck. >> I reelect it, yes. Aye. >> Commissioner Anderson. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Pernetta. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Smith. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Cold. Commissioner Cole is giving me a thumbs up as an affirmative. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. Congratulations and best of luck. >> Thank you. The next two items, item 5C and 5D, are being postponed to a date uncertain. So they will be renoticed. The commission tonight will take no action on those two items. Which moves us to our concluding item, the Planning and Zoning Commission Project Matrix. As always, I will turn this over to Richard for an update and then to the virtual dais for discussion. >> Thank you. Just a brief update. The next meeting, we will have our GIS folks here kind of walking everyone through those project maps. And as well as the weekly submittal project maps. And then just to walk through the interactive map to show everything that's available. As well as where we're starting to go with linking some of the application submittal information through track it into the GIS system. And so it's a work in progress. But at least wanted to provide that update. In addition, I did speak to Christy this evening, and so we'll look to have her come back in January for a work session on the item that we had to be determined regarding the native plants and ESA. So maybe there's additional discussion that we can have in light of our discussion today that could then lead into maybe some DDC discussions. But just wanted to note that the only other thing I'll add at last night's council meeting. They did take action on the birch track. Both the land use plan amendment and rezoning. Both of those were approved. The rezoning, although PNZ did recommend the condition restricting the use. Council did not include that restriction. So it has the straight zoning of R6. The other item they took action on and was approved was the SUP for that additional six feet of height. The other item they took action on and was approved was the SUP for the multi-family project. And those were the council action items from yesterday. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any additional questions you may have. >> Great. Commissioner Bec? >> Thank you, chair. Richard, I pointed out the map once you pointed out to me a couple of meetings ago. And I've gotten a lot of really positive feedback. I think I want to encourage you to maybe actually consider doing a public -- just sort of as a feedback educational EOT training for the public. We could certainly fulfill some of that role and staff can too. But I've gotten a lot of really good feedback. I had two questions. People asked me -- they didn't see -- and maybe we just overlooked it. It was in a different overlay. Was tonight's ACME brick on that map? I assume it was, but I didn't see it. I saw the little frontage piece along Fort Worth or not Fort Worth. Yes, that's right. >> I'd have to check. It should be on there. It should be linked. >> Maybe I just overlooked it. >> Yeah, I could check. >> And the other thing I wanted to ask you about that I mentioned last time when we talked about the matrix, but I got the request again. And that is people love the map, so there's really positive feedback. So I really want to encourage that. But they'd also still like if there was a list, so if we could dump a list, that would be super helpful. >> And I think that's something when Cody comes, he can show how to access that or if it's not being displayed properly, maybe that's something we can work on. But I actually like your idea. I think it's a good point of a sort of public education campaign. Maybe that's something we can work with DTV and kind of put something out there for folks to further see what's going on in their city and how to access that data. So I can report back as we progress. >> I've used it a lot, actually, since you pointed it out to me. I pretty much do every single backup and check over the map. So I really appreciate it myself. >> Richard, I have two things, one of great import, one of zero import. The first thing is when Christy comes back, can she provide some justification on the 10 acres? I imagine there's a critical mass with ESAs of what actually there has to be some sort of size to be able to encourage and promote growth and natural habitat. And I'd love to know back to Commissioner Beck's point where that 10 acres came from and justification for that. That's the comment. >> For the upland habitat, right, the 10 acre. >> Yeah, exactly. Thank you. That was the important note. The one that's not important is that I'm in favor of the goatee being brought back, Richard. Glad to see that. You were in the office earlier with the mask on. I didn't get to appreciate it. Is there any other items for the matrix? Okay. Seeing none, thank you for a great meeting. I'll close this at 730. Have a great week. >> Thanks.