1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:09,100
 >> Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the planning and zoning commission

2
00:00:09,100 --> 00:00:14,980
 work session for Wednesday, December 2nd. It is 4.02 and seeing we have a quorum, I

3
00:00:14,980 --> 00:00:19,960
 will open the meeting. Please let the record show that Commissioner Smith and Commissioner

4
00:00:19,960 --> 00:00:27,580
 Anderson are currently not in attendance. To jump right into our agenda, we have one

5
00:00:27,580 --> 00:00:35,480
 work session report tonight. The agenda has two listed. The second one, item 3B, is being

6
00:00:35,480 --> 00:00:41,040
 pulled. It wasn't heard by council yesterday and it won't be heard by us this evening or

7
00:00:41,040 --> 00:00:49,960
 this afternoon. So we will start with 3A PZ20-272 regarding code amendments. I think Ron is

8
00:00:49,960 --> 00:00:58,200
 leading that out. >> Yes. >> Ron, you have the floor when you're ready. >> Thank you.

9
00:00:58,200 --> 00:01:09,440
 Let me pull up my screen real quick or my PowerPoint presentation. And we will get started.

10
00:01:09,440 --> 00:01:17,160
 Good afternoon. Again, Ron Mingida, principal planner with development services. This item

11
00:01:17,160 --> 00:01:24,680
 is to go over some of the code amendments that staff has been working on for over last

12
00:01:24,680 --> 00:01:29,280
 past year. We haven't really started some of the discussion with the planning and zoning

13
00:01:29,280 --> 00:01:34,120
 commission until recently. We've had a number of meetings with the development code review

14
00:01:34,120 --> 00:01:42,840
 committee already, but we have some here that we would like to share with the planning and

15
00:01:42,840 --> 00:01:49,160
 zoning commission to let y'all know what we're working on. And this particular set is specific

16
00:01:49,160 --> 00:01:55,880
 to subchapter 2, which is administration and procedures of the Denson development code.

17
00:01:55,880 --> 00:02:01,600
 So I just wanted to introduce the code amendments to let y'all know. Again, you've seen this

18
00:02:01,600 --> 00:02:06,080
 slide before, but really it's important to know that what we're trying to accomplish

19
00:02:06,080 --> 00:02:12,080
 with these code amendments is really to address some of the nonconformities that were created,

20
00:02:12,080 --> 00:02:21,720
 and that is with the update of the development code back in 2019, April 2019 to be specific.

21
00:02:21,720 --> 00:02:26,920
 We also know that there were a number of house bills that were passed later that summer and

22
00:02:26,920 --> 00:02:33,240
 we are responding to those by aligning some of our requirements and standards to comply

23
00:02:33,240 --> 00:02:40,200
 be consistent with those Texas local government code requirements. Also, there are a number

24
00:02:40,200 --> 00:02:46,360
 of process improvements that the city has been involved in, and we are looking to codify

25
00:02:46,360 --> 00:02:52,720
 most of those through this exercise. And you will see that in subchapter 2, much of that

26
00:02:52,720 --> 00:02:59,120
 is part of this code amendment section specifically, just because it's under administration and

27
00:02:59,120 --> 00:03:07,360
 procedures. And last, we hear a lot of general feedback and input from the public, the development

28
00:03:07,360 --> 00:03:14,640
 community, PNC and city council. There are a number of substantive changes and non-substantive

29
00:03:14,640 --> 00:03:24,360
 changes specifically as it relates to error typos, incorrect references and the like.

30
00:03:24,360 --> 00:03:31,080
 So I'm going to go through the code amendments. Again, this is for subchapter 2 and this looks

31
00:03:31,080 --> 00:03:39,040
 like a lot. It is a lot of items. However, some of them will be short in nature. Others

32
00:03:39,040 --> 00:03:45,200
 will be a little bit more involved in that there are just a number of texts and languages

33
00:03:45,200 --> 00:03:52,080
 that we are provisions that we want to introduce or reintroduce into the development code.

34
00:03:52,080 --> 00:03:58,280
 Therefore, I just want to highlight some of those with you all this afternoon. So with

35
00:03:58,280 --> 00:04:06,080
 that, we'll go ahead and get started. The first topic or item is PNC operational procedures.

36
00:04:06,080 --> 00:04:15,720
 This is really to provide the operational procedures back into the DDC. As you can see,

37
00:04:15,720 --> 00:04:23,480
 letter A above states that it references the municipal code of ordinances. Although the

38
00:04:23,480 --> 00:04:28,980
 intent was to put it in the code of ordinances, we feel that it's helpful for the community

39
00:04:28,980 --> 00:04:36,960
 to have it in the development code. Therefore, we're putting it or reintroducing it back.

40
00:04:36,960 --> 00:04:42,840
 As such, we have a list of operational procedures, one through three that you see here. Again,

41
00:04:42,840 --> 00:04:48,840
 nothing that's significantly different from what we previously had or had in the past

42
00:04:48,840 --> 00:04:57,880
 related to PNC. The first one is that the PNC made up rules to govern its proceedings

43
00:04:57,880 --> 00:05:04,600
 provided, and that's just a standard statement there, that the chairperson has the ability

44
00:05:04,600 --> 00:05:11,320
 to call a meeting, a special call meeting, if at any time there is a need for that. And

45
00:05:11,320 --> 00:05:15,360
 of course, the planning, zoning commission shall keep minutes. We want to make sure that

46
00:05:15,360 --> 00:05:25,080
 all the records in our voting and our statements are kept and for public record. The next item

47
00:05:25,080 --> 00:05:35,760
 is related to the tie votes as relates to non-subdivision applications. One of the things

48
00:05:35,760 --> 00:05:45,720
 that we have is in situations where there is a tie vote, we bring it forward. What is

49
00:05:45,720 --> 00:05:53,160
 the result of that? So we want to be clear on what that means. Back in 2018, when we

50
00:05:53,160 --> 00:06:00,260
 were under the 2002 code, prior to the update, we did do a code amendment to specify how

51
00:06:00,260 --> 00:06:08,720
 a tie vote from PNC results moving forward to the city council. It was carried forward

52
00:06:08,720 --> 00:06:15,960
 to the city, sorry, to the 2019 development code. However, it only carried forward with

53
00:06:15,960 --> 00:06:24,840
 regards to rezoning, zoning map amendments. It did not carry forward or clearly state

54
00:06:24,840 --> 00:06:32,440
 that it also applied to specific use permits, any other recommendation that the planning

55
00:06:32,440 --> 00:06:39,400
 zoning commission provides to the city council. Partly the reason for that is when it was

56
00:06:39,400 --> 00:06:46,800
 in the 2002 code, the zoning amendment process covered most of these types of applications.

57
00:06:46,800 --> 00:06:55,000
 However, with the 2019 code, we separated those procedures and applications. Therefore,

58
00:06:55,000 --> 00:07:02,960
 it no longer was under or is under those SUPs and ALTESAs and similar applications. So what

59
00:07:02,960 --> 00:07:13,760
 staff is proposing is that we have an all-encompassing requirement or explanation of what happens

60
00:07:13,760 --> 00:07:20,520
 during a tie vote and this applies to all applications that one, the city, I'm sorry,

61
00:07:20,520 --> 00:07:27,460
 the planning zoning commission has decisions on final decisions and again, these are for

62
00:07:27,460 --> 00:07:35,740
 our non-subdivision applications. So an example of a final decision for the PNC would be similar

63
00:07:35,740 --> 00:07:42,760
 to the razor ranch site plan. For example, you all are the final decision on some respects

64
00:07:42,760 --> 00:07:49,400
 to the razor ranch site plan. We're also thinking of bringing back, having the PNC consider

65
00:07:49,400 --> 00:07:57,000
 subdivision variances. So that will be another final decision that the PNC would consider.

66
00:07:57,000 --> 00:08:02,360
 And then recommendations, that's probably the main thing as well, that if there was

67
00:08:02,360 --> 00:08:09,720
 a tie vote, what happens to that moving forward to city council. And so what you see here

68
00:08:09,720 --> 00:08:17,280
 is the same language that we have for rezoning. We are again carrying it forward or amending

69
00:08:17,280 --> 00:08:25,040
 the code to apply to all of the applications. So SUPs, ALTESAs and the like. So again, the

70
00:08:25,040 --> 00:08:32,200
 PNC, if there is a tie vote, it will be placed on the next available PNC for consideration.

71
00:08:32,200 --> 00:08:39,960
 Probably at that next second meeting, there are an odd number so that vote would not result

72
00:08:39,960 --> 00:08:47,720
 in a tie vote. If for whatever reason, there is still an even number and there is a tie

73
00:08:47,720 --> 00:08:55,880
 vote at the second meeting, that recommendation will be brought forward as a denial to the

74
00:08:55,880 --> 00:09:02,280
 city council. However, that denial that would be brought forward to city council would not

75
00:09:02,280 --> 00:09:10,480
 require the three fourth vote that normally a denial from a PNC recommendation would garner.

76
00:09:10,480 --> 00:09:16,920
 So I'm going to stop sharing my screen and see if there are any questions.

77
00:09:16,920 --> 00:09:22,400
 >> We do have one, Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Chair. So as I understand the

78
00:09:22,400 --> 00:09:30,160
 way our government works, power descends from council. And thus, my question, my first question,

79
00:09:30,160 --> 00:09:40,200
 I'll ask both of them, is how is tie voting defined in council? And also then my second

80
00:09:40,200 --> 00:09:47,200
 question is if this is different than council, is it different than every other commission

81
00:09:47,200 --> 00:09:52,720
 board, Chair, and if so, a C, why would you need that difference?

82
00:09:52,720 --> 00:09:58,920
 >> That's a great question. I think I've got an answer for the second part. But I'm going

83
00:09:58,920 --> 00:10:05,040
 to need some help from Richard and/or Mack on what happens on a tie vote for city council.

84
00:10:05,040 --> 00:10:17,120
 What is their remedy in that situation? >> I don't know if Mack has it handy. I don't

85
00:10:17,120 --> 00:10:20,720
 recall off the top of my head. I would just have to pull the board, the rules of procedure

86
00:10:20,720 --> 00:10:24,120
 in the code. >> Yeah, and I'm trying to look it up. But

87
00:10:24,120 --> 00:10:28,480
 I believe what the result is at council is if they have a tie vote, it pushes it to the

88
00:10:28,480 --> 00:10:35,320
 next subsequent meeting. And that continues until they can get a vote on the matter. I

89
00:10:35,320 --> 00:10:39,200
 don't think it necessarily goes away. But that was updated at some point. So let me

90
00:10:39,200 --> 00:10:43,600
 look at the code to see if that's changed more recently. And give me a few minutes.

91
00:10:43,600 --> 00:10:49,520
 I'll go ahead and interrupt if I need to. >> Okay. And Commissioner Mack, regarding

92
00:10:49,520 --> 00:10:55,180
 your second question, is the P&Z different from all the other boards in the commission?

93
00:10:55,180 --> 00:11:03,360
 Per our code of ordinances, there is a statement in there that allows the P&Z to identify its

94
00:11:03,360 --> 00:11:10,400
 voting procedures. And so, yes, slightly different. So we do have the ability to set that different

95
00:11:10,400 --> 00:11:17,280
 type of voting outcome. >> And I guess the C, why do we need that?

96
00:11:17,280 --> 00:11:22,220
 >> Say that one more time. >> The third question, question C is why do

97
00:11:22,220 --> 00:11:29,740
 we need -- what's the need to have a different set of rules than other boards and commissions?

98
00:11:29,740 --> 00:11:34,920
 And potentially, depending on Mack's lookup than council?

99
00:11:34,920 --> 00:11:41,840
 >> I just know that, you know, with P&Z, we have a lot of items to consider. And there

100
00:11:41,840 --> 00:11:49,000
 are a number of applications that we recommend to the city council that directly impacts

101
00:11:49,000 --> 00:11:54,320
 some of their voting requirements. So I think that's why we want to be different in addressing

102
00:11:54,320 --> 00:11:58,860
 those situations. >> Well, then let me follow up with a commission

103
00:11:58,860 --> 00:12:05,680
 that's very similar to ours, just so I understand the overarching goals of this change. And

104
00:12:05,680 --> 00:12:13,760
 that is ZBA, they also deal with substantially similar issues that we do. Or at least have

105
00:12:13,760 --> 00:12:19,000
 a high overlap. And so what is their procedure on ties?

106
00:12:19,000 --> 00:12:28,440
 >> So the ZBA is not a recommending board to the city council. Their decisions are final.

107
00:12:28,440 --> 00:12:35,180
 And their requirements are also different. Because you need at least six votes in order

108
00:12:35,180 --> 00:12:46,080
 to approve a variance request. So there is not a tie vote per se, other than, you know,

109
00:12:46,080 --> 00:12:49,680
 again, meaning that they would need at least six votes. And again, they're different in

110
00:12:49,680 --> 00:12:53,000
 the sense that they're not a recommending body to the city council.

111
00:12:53,000 --> 00:12:59,600
 >> Yeah. I take your point that they're asking -- people are asking for a variance on that.

112
00:12:59,600 --> 00:13:04,560
 And so it's a strong affirmative. But it does mean that if you had a tie vote, that would

113
00:13:04,560 --> 00:13:08,320
 be a negative. Because you need the six votes to get.

114
00:13:08,320 --> 00:13:14,880
 >> Correct. You would need at least six. >> So, you know, I'm just -- you know, I understand

115
00:13:14,880 --> 00:13:18,000
 that different bodies have different needs and necessities. That's why we have different

116
00:13:18,000 --> 00:13:29,400
 bodies in the first place. But I -- you know, I think it's important to make sure that we're

117
00:13:29,400 --> 00:13:39,800
 -- the changes in the way we handle these kinds of things are not arbitrary. That they're

118
00:13:39,800 --> 00:13:47,280
 following a goal. And anyway, I'll stop there unless Mac has a --

119
00:13:47,280 --> 00:13:51,920
 >> Yeah, I'll jump back in. I found the answer. So the council did change this earlier this

120
00:13:51,920 --> 00:13:57,520
 year, the whole process. And they reviewed it and adopted code changes. So for city council,

121
00:13:57,520 --> 00:14:02,800
 if there's a tie vote due to an absence of a council member, that item continues to be

122
00:14:02,800 --> 00:14:07,560
 placed on each subsequent council meeting agenda until there's a full council present

123
00:14:07,560 --> 00:14:13,560
 or it doesn't end in a tie vote. And so that's there. It continues on as long

124
00:14:13,560 --> 00:14:19,600
 as there's an absence due to -- I'm sorry, a tie due to an absence. With the rest of

125
00:14:19,600 --> 00:14:23,080
 the city, for the boards, commissions and committees, with the exception of this planning

126
00:14:23,080 --> 00:14:28,160
 and zoning commission, any time there's a tie vote, it's considered a denial.

127
00:14:28,160 --> 00:14:36,080
 >> So in a sense, going to a second meeting would be consistent, a second vote under this

128
00:14:36,080 --> 00:14:41,680
 proposal would be consistent with the continuance at the way council does. Although council

129
00:14:41,680 --> 00:14:45,920
 would have a continuance forever is what you're saying. Whereas we would only have a continuance

130
00:14:45,920 --> 00:14:46,920
 once. >> Correct.

131
00:14:46,920 --> 00:14:50,280
 >> Okay. Thank you. >> Commissioner Beck, if I'm hearing that

132
00:14:50,280 --> 00:14:53,000
 we need your mic a little louder, if you can speak louder.

133
00:14:53,000 --> 00:14:55,720
 >> Yeah, I'll turn it up. >> Thank you.

134
00:14:55,720 --> 00:15:01,280
 >> Commissioner Burnetta. >> Yeah. And real quick to address, I guess

135
00:15:01,280 --> 00:15:05,200
 one of the questions that Commissioner Beck was bringing up. You know, unlike a lot of

136
00:15:05,200 --> 00:15:10,320
 other boards, you know, we have to remember that the impact of the decisions we have basically

137
00:15:10,320 --> 00:15:17,080
 affects the city in terms of its growth and its money. It's not just, you know, a one

138
00:15:17,080 --> 00:15:20,760
 person being absent once that we're having to take into consideration. There are going

139
00:15:20,760 --> 00:15:26,560
 to be decisions where a commission member may have to recuse themselves from every vote

140
00:15:26,560 --> 00:15:30,480
 that could always leave us, you know, with an even number. So we have to address those

141
00:15:30,480 --> 00:15:35,560
 in this. But Ron, I guess my question is, when we went over this, I guess a couple of

142
00:15:35,560 --> 00:15:43,180
 years ago, so it was always that it shows up as a denial for us, but it doesn't require

143
00:15:43,180 --> 00:15:46,520
 the super majority on everything else for city council?

144
00:15:46,520 --> 00:15:51,560
 >> That is correct. That is the language we have that was approved that carried forward

145
00:15:51,560 --> 00:15:57,900
 for rezonings. And we're just making -- we're just applying it to all the other recommendation

146
00:15:57,900 --> 00:16:00,840
 applications that go to city council. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure, because

147
00:16:00,840 --> 00:16:04,060
 it was bolded and I wanted to make sure that, you know, that bold meant that we were putting

148
00:16:04,060 --> 00:16:06,060
 it consistent with everything else. Thank you.

149
00:16:06,060 --> 00:16:08,520
 >> Correct. >> Commissioner Beck.

150
00:16:08,520 --> 00:16:15,680
 >> This is just a mic check. Is that better? >> Could be a little louder.

151
00:16:15,680 --> 00:16:19,080
 >> More? Okay. >> Yes.

152
00:16:19,080 --> 00:16:23,920
 >> Ron, maybe a touch on it, and I might have missed it, but again, if you remember in the

153
00:16:23,920 --> 00:16:28,680
 old code, we didn't have separate procedures for every application. Everything followed

154
00:16:28,680 --> 00:16:34,200
 the rezoning procedure process, and so that's where the TIVO provisions were embedded. Now

155
00:16:34,200 --> 00:16:38,560
 that we have different procedures established, we just need to carry that forward. It's really

156
00:16:38,560 --> 00:16:41,400
 -- I don't think too much of a change in that regard.

157
00:16:41,400 --> 00:16:47,320
 >> Right. And just to add to that, the language is basically the same that applied to rezoning

158
00:16:47,320 --> 00:16:56,240
 again. We're just making sure it applies to all the other applications that have a recommendation.

159
00:16:56,240 --> 00:17:03,360
 Any other questions right now? All right, Ron, let's continue forward.

160
00:17:03,360 --> 00:17:13,240
 >> All righty. So we'll move on to the next topic. This involves House Bill 3167, specifically

161
00:17:13,240 --> 00:17:21,080
 what's referred to as the Shot Clock Bill, and the fact that it applies to our platting

162
00:17:21,080 --> 00:17:27,840
 and subdivision review. I'll just read this real quickly to summarize House Bill 3167.

163
00:17:27,840 --> 00:17:36,040
 It was approved in 2019, the summer of 2019. It affected the timeline for which we accept

164
00:17:36,040 --> 00:17:43,440
 and review plats. It basically set a shot clock of 30 days from being filed to approval

165
00:17:43,440 --> 00:17:50,680
 or consideration for approval or consideration period, whatever it may be. That it also,

166
00:17:50,680 --> 00:17:59,200
 if there is a decision or determination that it is approved with condition or disapproved,

167
00:17:59,200 --> 00:18:05,640
 that a written statement be included as part of that decision or motion. And it states

168
00:18:05,640 --> 00:18:12,180
 in the House Bill or in the Texas local government code specifically, as you see here in that

169
00:18:12,180 --> 00:18:17,720
 last bullet, that each condition or reason specified in their statement must be directly

170
00:18:17,720 --> 00:18:24,920
 related to the requirements that it's cited to the law that includes a citation to the

171
00:18:24,920 --> 00:18:31,840
 law, statutes or municipal ordinances that the basis of the condition and disapproval

172
00:18:31,840 --> 00:18:39,240
 if applicable and may not be arbitrary. So that's a direct copy from the House Bill or

173
00:18:39,240 --> 00:18:45,720
 from the Texas local government code. So what we're proposing is that -- let's get this

174
00:18:45,720 --> 00:18:51,840
 slide to basically summarize what I just outlined earlier. We're proposing to codify that in

175
00:18:51,840 --> 00:18:56,800
 the Denton development code. We know it's in the Texas local government code, but we

176
00:18:56,800 --> 00:19:03,240
 feel that, again, to be customer friendly and to have it in one location, having it

177
00:19:03,240 --> 00:19:09,000
 in the development code is important. So we are adding the following under the subdivision

178
00:19:09,000 --> 00:19:17,240
 procedures. A, as far as relates to timing of city action. Again, that 30-day timeline.

179
00:19:17,240 --> 00:19:24,360
 Decisions and post-decision actions that there needs to be a citation if there is anything

180
00:19:24,360 --> 00:19:32,360
 that is either approved with conditions or denied in the recommendation or in the determination.

181
00:19:32,360 --> 00:19:38,480
 And that the plan or plan is if approved with condition or denied, that the reasons for

182
00:19:38,480 --> 00:19:46,220
 such conditions are provided in writing. The other part of that is if it were to be denied,

183
00:19:46,220 --> 00:19:55,200
 the applicant has 15 days -- I'm sorry, has unlimited time to resubmit. And if and when

184
00:19:55,200 --> 00:20:04,720
 they resubmit, the city planning zoning commission has a response time of 15 days. So the first

185
00:20:04,720 --> 00:20:13,440
 consideration is 30 days from filing to consideration. If it was to be denied, the applicant can

186
00:20:13,440 --> 00:20:20,040
 resubmit. However, at that point, we -- the city would need to consider it within 15 days.

187
00:20:20,040 --> 00:20:29,000
 So half the time. The planning -- the applicant does have option to request a 30-day extension.

188
00:20:29,000 --> 00:20:36,000
 However, it's only a one-time waiver for 30 days to extend it for another 30 days for

189
00:20:36,000 --> 00:20:42,500
 that first consideration. Anybody have any questions on this one? This is just to bring

190
00:20:42,500 --> 00:20:49,960
 into the DDC the provisions that were passed as part of House Bill 3167.

191
00:20:49,960 --> 00:20:58,840
 >> Chair Panetta. >> And on this one, I just -- it's a real

192
00:20:58,840 --> 00:21:04,700
 basic question. So my understanding already is if we were to deny something, and that

193
00:21:04,700 --> 00:21:12,000
 denial is not consistent with existing code, basically, legally, our decision is technically

194
00:21:12,000 --> 00:21:20,120
 nonbinding, right? Any developer can basically override that, right? Is that accurate?

195
00:21:20,120 --> 00:21:24,760
 >> I don't know if Matt can answer that question or would like me to try to attempt to answer

196
00:21:24,760 --> 00:21:27,920
 that question. >> Sure. And without getting too much into

197
00:21:27,920 --> 00:21:32,960
 legal advice, but yeah, if you don't have a justifiable basis in the subdivision regulations

198
00:21:32,960 --> 00:21:37,560
 for denying, it's not that it's not binding, it just puts the city in a very difficult

199
00:21:37,560 --> 00:21:41,040
 position because you have no real authority for the decision you made, and that could

200
00:21:41,040 --> 00:21:46,040
 be challenged in court, and if we didn't have a basis for that, then potentially that decision

201
00:21:46,040 --> 00:21:49,760
 would be overruled by a court. But it's not that it's not binding, it would just take

202
00:21:49,760 --> 00:21:56,720
 a subject, the city to challenge, and we would be most likely unsuccessful in such a challenge.

203
00:21:56,720 --> 00:22:01,680
 >> So in essence, all this is doing is adding into the code something that we already know

204
00:22:01,680 --> 00:22:05,400
 is true and tying it back to that specific House Bill, is that right?

205
00:22:05,400 --> 00:22:11,600
 >> That is correct. >> Okay. Thank you.

206
00:22:11,600 --> 00:22:18,560
 >> Thank you, Chair. So I have two questions. One is they have the right to -- applicants

207
00:22:18,560 --> 00:22:27,440
 have the right to a 30-day extension, but does -- help me clarify, I'm a little confused.

208
00:22:27,440 --> 00:22:34,000
 Can we give them additional extensions or it's one extension for all parties?

209
00:22:34,000 --> 00:22:43,840
 >> So we don't -- let me think about this. We don't require it. That's an option that

210
00:22:43,840 --> 00:22:51,480
 they have. So if they choose not to apply for or request a 30-day, they don't have to.

211
00:22:51,480 --> 00:22:59,920
 The one time is something that we have established as the 30-day, so we want to make sure that

212
00:22:59,920 --> 00:23:12,160
 the item is moved forward, either approved, proved, conditioned, or didn't help.

213
00:23:12,160 --> 00:23:15,200
 >> Okay. So the reason I'm making you confused faces, I don't think that really addressed

214
00:23:15,200 --> 00:23:26,160
 my question. Can we give them additional extensions as part of our conditions that we might apply?

215
00:23:26,160 --> 00:23:33,080
 >> It's one extension for up to 30 days. >> Whichever direction is coming from. Okay.

216
00:23:33,080 --> 00:23:38,000
 That clarified it. Thank you, Richard. >> Per applicant. So if it's a plenary plat,

217
00:23:38,000 --> 00:23:42,040
 you can grant the one, and then when it gets to final, they're correct.

218
00:23:42,040 --> 00:23:45,280
 >> Okay. That's great. I appreciate that. Thank you.

219
00:23:45,280 --> 00:23:50,280
 >> Commissioner Ellis. >> Thank you, Chair. But just to clarify, the

220
00:23:50,280 --> 00:23:59,200
 applicant has to request the extension. >> Correct. Good point.

221
00:23:59,200 --> 00:24:08,680
 >> All right. >> Go ahead and move on. So the other -- the

222
00:24:08,680 --> 00:24:16,640
 next few slides, I can tell you, just knowing what's upcoming, are mainly our opportunity

223
00:24:16,640 --> 00:24:24,080
 to add more clarification and be consistent with our review process, development review

224
00:24:24,080 --> 00:24:30,680
 process. So this right here, what we're adding, as you can see in green, is really describing

225
00:24:30,680 --> 00:24:36,880
 what an administratively approved plat is. So we're just listing it here to help provide

226
00:24:36,880 --> 00:24:42,360
 that clarification. So anything that is an amending plat, conveyance plat, a minor plat

227
00:24:42,360 --> 00:24:50,240
 or minor replat, is considered an administratively approved plat. So again, just to clarify that.

228
00:24:50,240 --> 00:24:56,920
 The other next one here is certificate of compliance. We added that as part of the code.

229
00:24:56,920 --> 00:25:04,960
 However, after practicing what we hope to do, we recognize that a zoning verification

230
00:25:04,960 --> 00:25:10,680
 letter serves in that same capacity, which we already have in place. So all we're doing

231
00:25:10,680 --> 00:25:16,320
 is replacing this process of a certificate of compliance with a zoning verification letter.

232
00:25:16,320 --> 00:25:24,480
 So again, more -- just replacing what was put in the code with a process that we already

233
00:25:24,480 --> 00:25:30,480
 have. Just to give you a little bit more clarification on what a zoning verification letter is and

234
00:25:30,480 --> 00:25:35,880
 that the zoning verification letter, what it does, it provides the city the ability

235
00:25:35,880 --> 00:25:43,980
 to issue a form that provides the confirmation of what is the zoning on that property and

236
00:25:43,980 --> 00:25:50,520
 what uses are allowed under that zoning. So any property owner or applicant or business

237
00:25:50,520 --> 00:25:59,920
 owner may require -- may request, that is, that zoning verification letter.

238
00:25:59,920 --> 00:26:06,660
 The other item that we added in -- we were processing and putting together in the process

239
00:26:06,660 --> 00:26:14,680
 of putting together is a business registration. This is not a CO. We want to get away from

240
00:26:14,680 --> 00:26:22,800
 a CO just for any businesses that want to use a particular unit. So the difference is

241
00:26:22,800 --> 00:26:29,200
 a CO approves the occupancy of that building. The business registration just allows us to

242
00:26:29,200 --> 00:26:38,680
 record -- keep record of what uses are proposed or are being proposed for that site. And again,

243
00:26:38,680 --> 00:26:42,280
 we want to make sure that that use is permitted in that zoning district, but what they would

244
00:26:42,280 --> 00:26:47,400
 do, what they would get, the business owners would get a business registration and they

245
00:26:47,400 --> 00:26:53,620
 would need to apply for that in the process that we're proposing.

246
00:26:53,620 --> 00:26:59,320
 This kind of provides a little bit more explanation of what I just described. The business registration

247
00:26:59,320 --> 00:27:04,800
 again provides that mechanism for the city to evaluate what use either is being introduced

248
00:27:04,800 --> 00:27:12,840
 or is changing to, is required for any business occupying a building. So maybe a small unit

249
00:27:12,840 --> 00:27:20,000
 or part of the building, they would be required a business registration and not a CO. Currently,

250
00:27:20,000 --> 00:27:25,460
 what happens today is any business occupying a portion of a building would need to get

251
00:27:25,460 --> 00:27:33,320
 a CO. We are saying that that should be a business registration rather than a CO. And

252
00:27:33,320 --> 00:27:39,400
 again, as I said earlier, business registration would be something that the business owner

253
00:27:39,400 --> 00:27:46,320
 or whoever representing that business can apply for.

254
00:27:46,320 --> 00:27:53,720
 The next item here is civil engineering plans. And you all are familiar with what we've mentioned

255
00:27:53,720 --> 00:28:00,720
 this in the past as part of the planning exercise. We require that the applicants submit a civil

256
00:28:00,720 --> 00:28:06,360
 engineering plan. We know that this exists, this application or this process. We just

257
00:28:06,360 --> 00:28:12,680
 wanted to put it in this table, table 2.2A, to provide a little bit more clarification

258
00:28:12,680 --> 00:28:19,360
 and understanding of when it applies and who makes that decision as far as if this or the

259
00:28:19,360 --> 00:28:24,680
 civil engineering plans are acceptable or not. And as you can see that the development

260
00:28:24,680 --> 00:28:32,520
 assistant team, which is made up of our engineers, our planners, any other department, parks,

261
00:28:32,520 --> 00:28:37,160
 fire, building safety, all the other ones that are involved in the development review

262
00:28:37,160 --> 00:28:43,760
 process are involved and are the decision making body on the civil engineering plan.

263
00:28:43,760 --> 00:28:52,940
 So just again, give the application or the process a place in the development code. We

264
00:28:52,940 --> 00:29:01,020
 also provide, again, the purpose, the applicability of when it is required so that anyone that's

265
00:29:01,020 --> 00:29:10,280
 submitting an application will know what to expect. So I went through those fairly quickly.

266
00:29:10,280 --> 00:29:14,880
 The zoning verification letter, the business registration, and the civil engineering plans.

267
00:29:14,880 --> 00:29:20,160
 Does anybody have any questions with regards to those new procedures? Now, they're not

268
00:29:20,160 --> 00:29:24,960
 new per se. Some of them are, but the civil engineering plans is something that we've

269
00:29:24,960 --> 00:29:31,840
 already had or have and we're just putting it into the development code. I do not see

270
00:29:31,840 --> 00:29:41,400
 any questions, Ron. Okay. We'll move on to the next topic and that is the ZBA composition

271
00:29:41,400 --> 00:29:47,320
 and operational procedure. Similar to the planning zoning commission, we had the intent

272
00:29:47,320 --> 00:29:54,300
 of referencing it in the code to the development, I'm sorry, to the code of Orensis. However,

273
00:29:54,300 --> 00:30:01,480
 after practicing, we recognize that it'd probably be best if it was in the development code.

274
00:30:01,480 --> 00:30:07,320
 And so what we're doing is just, again, bringing back what was already in the prior code into

275
00:30:07,320 --> 00:30:15,040
 the 2019 development code. So the composition of what a zoning board adjustment shall be

276
00:30:15,040 --> 00:30:24,560
 made of, as you can see listed here, they are a member, a seven member board. And again,

277
00:30:24,560 --> 00:30:34,920
 they follow a two year term and they are appointed by the city council. I won't go into this

278
00:30:34,920 --> 00:30:40,200
 specifically. I see there's a question. There is also a, you know what, let me stop and

279
00:30:40,200 --> 00:30:45,280
 yeah, let me get to Christian back. I think he had one on the previous slide. Yeah. It

280
00:30:45,280 --> 00:30:49,920
 was, it was just a question that occurred to me with the, with the weird COVID extensions

281
00:30:49,920 --> 00:30:56,280
 of all the terms of council members and the extension of actually some of the commissioners

282
00:30:56,280 --> 00:31:03,460
 of this board and others. What's our code and what's, how does that handled in terms

283
00:31:03,460 --> 00:31:08,900
 of the, the, the normal two year terms that were just described? I mean, maybe just actually

284
00:31:08,900 --> 00:31:14,980
 a general answer, not just for ZBA. Did they just do it less of a term? I, yeah, my understanding

285
00:31:14,980 --> 00:31:20,120
 is I know that there are a member of the, the ZBA, the zoning board of adjustment, as

286
00:31:20,120 --> 00:31:27,080
 well as the HLC, which I am self liaison to. Some of those members have, you know, extended

287
00:31:27,080 --> 00:31:34,680
 their term past August. But my understanding is until those positions are reappointed by

288
00:31:34,680 --> 00:31:41,740
 city council, they serve until that's done. So hopefully in January, I know that there's

289
00:31:41,740 --> 00:31:47,760
 going to be a number of nominations and appointments in January. If, and when that happens, we

290
00:31:47,760 --> 00:31:54,160
 should be having those positions that have expired either replaced or reappointed. But

291
00:31:54,160 --> 00:32:01,360
 for us a slightly smaller term. Well, yes. I mean, it would be, it would, they would

292
00:32:01,360 --> 00:32:06,840
 fill that two years. So yes, it would be smaller. They would just cover whatever is left from

293
00:32:06,840 --> 00:32:16,480
 that two years. Okay. Thank you. That's what I thought. But thank you.

294
00:32:16,480 --> 00:32:23,800
 Similar to the, well, not similar, but rather the ZBA is a different board in that again,

295
00:32:23,800 --> 00:32:30,440
 we mentioned earlier that they need at least six to at least to meet and or to approve

296
00:32:30,440 --> 00:32:35,760
 a variance request with such a high number. We want to make sure that we have at least

297
00:32:35,760 --> 00:32:42,560
 seven members present at all times. So there are alternate members assigned to the zoning

298
00:32:42,560 --> 00:32:47,960
 board of adjustment and these alternates are also appointed by the city council and they

299
00:32:47,960 --> 00:32:56,060
 are also also have a two year term. So they follow the same appointment in term limit.

300
00:32:56,060 --> 00:33:02,160
 The difference between alternate one, two and three that they specifically replace or

301
00:33:02,160 --> 00:33:08,560
 not replace, but rather sit in where a existing board member is absent. So again, we want

302
00:33:08,560 --> 00:33:16,960
 to make sure that that board member or that board is at seven at all times so that the

303
00:33:16,960 --> 00:33:29,040
 proceedings are heard by at least six, but hopefully by seven board members.

304
00:33:29,040 --> 00:33:34,440
 Continuing on with the composition and operational procedures for the zoning board of adjustment,

305
00:33:34,440 --> 00:33:39,680
 a lot of what you're going to see here are just again, what we've stated in the past

306
00:33:39,680 --> 00:33:46,880
 with again, the membership requirements or membership, but the quorum or need for six

307
00:33:46,880 --> 00:33:53,400
 members. They, the zoning board of adjustment may adopt rules. The chairperson of the zoning

308
00:33:53,400 --> 00:33:58,920
 board, similar to the planning zoning commission can hold a special call meeting if needed

309
00:33:58,920 --> 00:34:05,560
 and that they shall keep minutes and for public record. So again, very similar to what we've

310
00:34:05,560 --> 00:34:11,800
 already discussed with the planning zoning commission. In addition, there are special

311
00:34:11,800 --> 00:34:19,680
 requirements when it comes to an appeal. So what this header here is an appeal of administrative

312
00:34:19,680 --> 00:34:28,320
 decision procedures. This per the other house bill that was passed, 2497, which I included

313
00:34:28,320 --> 00:34:38,400
 in your backup states that any one that has an grievance to a decision can appeal a decision

314
00:34:38,400 --> 00:34:45,200
 from the, from staff. They don't have to be related. So not only are they not required

315
00:34:45,200 --> 00:34:54,920
 to be related, they can be anybody. So that's what was approved under 2497. So the first

316
00:34:54,920 --> 00:35:00,960
 paragraph you see here applies to anyone that is not related to a specific application dress

317
00:35:00,960 --> 00:35:08,520
 or project. The second one relates is related to our, sorry, is referencing anybody that's

318
00:35:08,520 --> 00:35:16,440
 who has a relationship to the specific application. So again, just to differentiate the two types

319
00:35:16,440 --> 00:35:22,400
 and then there's a section also as part of 2497 that speaks to when an appeal can be

320
00:35:22,400 --> 00:35:28,940
 made and that it is, cannot be more than 20 days after the decision is made. So between

321
00:35:28,940 --> 00:35:37,080
 the decision that has, was made in 20 days, an applicant or anyone shall submit an appeal

322
00:35:37,080 --> 00:35:42,440
 for an administrative decision. So there's a limit as to when that can happen. So that's

323
00:35:42,440 --> 00:35:49,840
 20 days. I won't go into much of these. These are more or less, again, additional information

324
00:35:49,840 --> 00:35:57,280
 that was carried over similar to what was in the 2002 code. It's, it's related again

325
00:35:57,280 --> 00:36:07,680
 to who can participate as well as what happens to a decision during an appeal and how long

326
00:36:07,680 --> 00:36:18,320
 that can last throughout the process. And again, this kind of carries that same notion.

327
00:36:18,320 --> 00:36:24,000
 The one thing I want to point out is that last bullet or last paragraph where it talks

328
00:36:24,000 --> 00:36:30,000
 about the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall decide an appeal at the next meeting. So this

329
00:36:30,000 --> 00:36:37,040
 was again, part of the House Bill 2497 where it requires that the Zoning Board of Adjustment

330
00:36:37,040 --> 00:36:43,520
 not decide on an appeal on that first meeting, rather they need to have a second meeting

331
00:36:43,520 --> 00:36:50,520
 and that has to happen within 60 days, 60 calendar days after which that appeal was

332
00:36:50,520 --> 00:36:57,840
 made. So just again, to provide that procedure within the development code, we just wanted

333
00:36:57,840 --> 00:37:05,240
 to put this back into the code and again, add some of it as part of House Bill 2497.

334
00:37:05,240 --> 00:37:11,640
 If I don't see any questions, I can go ahead and proceed. Let me drop my screens to make

335
00:37:11,640 --> 00:37:22,920
 sure that there's no one with any questions. I don't see any. Okay.

336
00:37:22,920 --> 00:37:30,440
 So moving from ZBA, we're going to the Historic Landmark Commission, HLC. Again, same story.

337
00:37:30,440 --> 00:37:37,560
 I'm going to repeat myself. Composition, we wanted to go to the Code of Orances. However,

338
00:37:37,560 --> 00:37:42,040
 knowing that it's important to have in the development code, we're bringing it back to

339
00:37:42,040 --> 00:37:50,160
 the TDC development code. We are, sorry, the Historic Landmark Commission is composed of

340
00:37:50,160 --> 00:37:58,880
 nine members, so a little bit more, and they must at least one representative be representing

341
00:37:58,880 --> 00:38:06,240
 one of the following that you see here listed A through F. I can tell you that the Historic

342
00:38:06,240 --> 00:38:13,120
 Landmark Commission is currently at nine members, and we do have all of the professions that

343
00:38:13,120 --> 00:38:18,720
 you see here. I think one of the important profession that we definitely need in the Historic

344
00:38:18,720 --> 00:38:25,040
 Landmark Commission is the redshirt architect. She currently is an architect and works for

345
00:38:25,040 --> 00:38:32,520
 UNT, so I'm glad that she's on the commission and helps us a lot when it comes to some of

346
00:38:32,520 --> 00:38:42,720
 the historic preservation applications that come through that commission. Similarly, the

347
00:38:42,720 --> 00:38:48,760
 members must meet one of those categories that we listed or that you saw on the first

348
00:38:48,760 --> 00:38:54,800
 slide or the initial slide, and that they also are appointed a two-year staggered term

349
00:38:54,800 --> 00:39:03,240
 in which is appointed by the City Council. The next few slides is a little bit wordy

350
00:39:03,240 --> 00:39:10,960
 in that it provides the powers and duties of the Historic Landmark Commission. These again

351
00:39:10,960 --> 00:39:17,520
 are a carry of what was in the 2002 code. We're bringing it into 2019, so I won't spend

352
00:39:17,520 --> 00:39:22,920
 a whole lot other than let you know that the Historic Landmark Commission does a lot of

353
00:39:22,920 --> 00:39:30,240
 work as far as historic preservation. They also establish a number of policies and guidelines

354
00:39:30,240 --> 00:39:39,360
 in which we have the opportunity to increase our preservation of our historic resources.

355
00:39:39,360 --> 00:39:47,480
 Again this list continues on and talks specifically to the powers and duties of the Historic Landmark

356
00:39:47,480 --> 00:39:59,160
 Commission. We're now on the next topic, which is exploration of approval. What we are proposing

357
00:39:59,160 --> 00:40:04,960
 here is adding additional language, so anything that's underlined is what we are proposing

358
00:40:04,960 --> 00:40:14,080
 to add under this section. Any application, we'll jump into number two specifically. All

359
00:40:14,080 --> 00:40:22,040
 previously approved applications for the same land shall also expire, and what we're saying

360
00:40:22,040 --> 00:40:31,080
 that upon the expiration of an approved application, for example, let me step back a little bit,

361
00:40:31,080 --> 00:40:40,360
 I went through that fairly quickly, preliminary plots, if they are approved and there is a

362
00:40:40,360 --> 00:40:50,080
 final plot that comes after that, there is a time limit in which they are valid, and

363
00:40:50,080 --> 00:41:00,920
 therefore if one expires, the previous application, final plot that's approved, the previous application

364
00:41:00,920 --> 00:41:08,800
 is a preliminary plot, that also would be expired as well. So that's sort of one example

365
00:41:08,800 --> 00:41:20,360
 of what number two stands for. A project is given a five-year time frame, so if you can

366
00:41:20,360 --> 00:41:28,120
 look at a preliminary plot or subdivision, if they continue to develop that property,

367
00:41:28,120 --> 00:41:36,960
 their five years will not expire, and that if when, say a subdivision does not continue

368
00:41:36,960 --> 00:41:44,840
 to develop and does not continue to plot, the subsequent development of property, if

369
00:41:44,840 --> 00:41:52,840
 after five years would need to comply with the current development code that's in place.

370
00:41:52,840 --> 00:42:01,120
 So this is more or less a besting provision, so we use five years as it is consistent with

371
00:42:01,120 --> 00:42:07,400
 the Texas local government code as what they define as a project and what that time frame

372
00:42:07,400 --> 00:42:15,040
 is. So five years is the years that we want to make note of and we want to continue to

373
00:42:15,040 --> 00:42:16,040
 follow.

374
00:42:16,040 --> 00:42:20,760
 >> Mr. Beck has a question.

375
00:42:20,760 --> 00:42:27,040
 >> Thank you, Ron. Ron, is there any exceptions in the Texas local government code or in our

376
00:42:27,040 --> 00:42:37,440
 own ordinances to that five-year sort of rolling continuance? Are there any, when we, what

377
00:42:37,440 --> 00:42:42,680
 parts of the development code are immediately applicable regardless? Does that ever happen?

378
00:42:42,680 --> 00:42:47,160
 >> Say that one more time and again, your volume is a little low, so I'm trying to.

379
00:42:47,160 --> 00:42:48,560
 >> So is that better?

380
00:42:48,560 --> 00:42:49,560
 >> Yes.

381
00:42:49,560 --> 00:42:56,000
 >> Okay. So if, are there any parts of either our municipal code or the Texas legal government

382
00:42:56,000 --> 00:43:00,720
 code that carve out an exception to where if city council makes a change, that's immediately

383
00:43:00,720 --> 00:43:08,440
 applicable in terms of development? Or is everything subject to the five-year continuance?

384
00:43:08,440 --> 00:43:13,720
 >> My understanding, and Richard, correct me if I'm wrong, if they are within that five

385
00:43:13,720 --> 00:43:18,680
 years, they are still, they're vested on that particular code, even if council changes the

386
00:43:18,680 --> 00:43:25,600
 rules on the subdivision standards. Now, this, there may be some special rules and requirements

387
00:43:25,600 --> 00:43:30,360
 that I'm not aware of, but when it comes to the subdivision requirements, say platting,

388
00:43:30,360 --> 00:43:33,200
 for example, they are vested under those rules.

389
00:43:33,200 --> 00:43:39,600
 >> And there's no exceptions, I guess, is what I'm asking.

390
00:43:39,600 --> 00:43:44,600
 >> There are exceptions, but they're specified in the statute, so if, I don't have them in

391
00:43:44,600 --> 00:43:49,000
 front of me, but building codes, floodplain, if those things change during that time, they'd

392
00:43:49,000 --> 00:43:50,880
 have to comply with the latest version.

393
00:43:50,880 --> 00:43:55,880
 >> Okay, that's good to know, thank you.

394
00:43:55,880 --> 00:44:00,920
 >> All right, Ron.

395
00:44:00,920 --> 00:44:08,240
 >> This continues that discussion related to the terms of the project and when an application

396
00:44:08,240 --> 00:44:22,400
 becomes an expired application. So we'll move over here. Okay, so next topic relates to

397
00:44:22,400 --> 00:44:30,240
 the zoning compliance plan review. What we are proposing here is what is currently, well,

398
00:44:30,240 --> 00:44:36,440
 sorry, not currently, but rather what was, or is in our code that's referred to site

399
00:44:36,440 --> 00:44:44,240
 plan, we are proposing to change that term and call it a zoning compliance plan. So everywhere

400
00:44:44,240 --> 00:44:51,440
 we have in the code site plan, it will be replaced with zoning compliance plan. That's

401
00:44:51,440 --> 00:44:59,340
 just to provide some clarification. We also want to provide the development community

402
00:44:59,340 --> 00:45:07,080
 and general public a list of what is required or what is and should be within a zoning compliance

403
00:45:07,080 --> 00:45:11,600
 plan. So at a minimum, we've provided them with a list of that and that's represented

404
00:45:11,600 --> 00:45:19,840
 here in the list A through C. As much information as possible, but the general requirements

405
00:45:19,840 --> 00:45:26,400
 are the following. So site data, the lot, the development impact area, easements and

406
00:45:26,400 --> 00:45:34,040
 right-of-way dedications, any of the locations and mentions of existing and proposed improvements,

407
00:45:34,040 --> 00:45:37,880
 and then environmental sensitive tree preservation and landscape areas. So all should be part

408
00:45:37,880 --> 00:45:47,920
 of the zoning compliance plan submittal. So that's just a quick reference to that. I don't

409
00:45:47,920 --> 00:45:51,240
 know if you all have any questions on that particular, but again, this is just again

410
00:45:51,240 --> 00:45:57,160
 to provide a change in the name and also to provide some additional language to identify

411
00:45:57,160 --> 00:46:04,440
 what should be included in a zoning compliance plan submittal. Moving on to the next topic,

412
00:46:04,440 --> 00:46:13,240
 and this is related to specific use permits and their effect and the approval criteria.

413
00:46:13,240 --> 00:46:18,480
 So the first part here, the first slide is related to the effect of approval. As you

414
00:46:18,480 --> 00:46:23,320
 all know, we, the Planning Zoning Commission considers specific use permits and recommends

415
00:46:23,320 --> 00:46:30,560
 them to the city council. And a lot of times, obviously most of them are related to a particular

416
00:46:30,560 --> 00:46:38,160
 use. So the question that we have is if a specific use permit approves a multifamily,

417
00:46:38,160 --> 00:46:43,920
 for example, does that limit that development or that property to just multifamily? And

418
00:46:43,920 --> 00:46:51,160
 we're saying that it does not preclude other development under that property, within that

419
00:46:51,160 --> 00:46:57,880
 property to develop as long as it is allowed or permitted within that zoning district.

420
00:46:57,880 --> 00:47:03,960
 So say, for example, multifamily specific use permit was approved by the city council.

421
00:47:03,960 --> 00:47:11,400
 If that zoning allowed for offices, that property could develop with office use and not have

422
00:47:11,400 --> 00:47:17,000
 to just develop with multifamily. So this is more or less the, to be able to clarify

423
00:47:17,000 --> 00:47:24,440
 that question and state that any use that's permitted under that zoning district would

424
00:47:24,440 --> 00:47:33,640
 be permitted even with an approved specific use permit. As, as it relates to the approval

425
00:47:33,640 --> 00:47:41,600
 criteria, this is the second part of this topic. We have, as you all know, a list of,

426
00:47:41,600 --> 00:47:50,320
 I won't say standard, but approval criteria for all applications, which we review. But

427
00:47:50,320 --> 00:47:55,800
 we also have specific approval criteria for all of our different applications. So this

428
00:47:55,800 --> 00:48:00,760
 one in particular is specific use permits. And what you see here is that we're striking

429
00:48:00,760 --> 00:48:08,440
 out most of what's already covered under the all application criteria for approval. So

430
00:48:08,440 --> 00:48:14,920
 number three, number five and number six are already covered under that section 245 to

431
00:48:14,920 --> 00:48:21,800
 be specific. So again, it's repetitive. We just feel that we need to focus on the remaining

432
00:48:21,800 --> 00:48:29,400
 criteria for approval for specific use permits. So this is what this code amendment is about.

433
00:48:29,400 --> 00:48:40,360
 Any questions on this one before we move on to the next topic? I do not see any run. Okay.

434
00:48:40,360 --> 00:48:47,360
 So next few slides relate to similar to what we saw earlier with the CEP, civil engineering

435
00:48:47,360 --> 00:48:53,360
 plans, traffic impact analysis, as well as real estate applications. We know that these

436
00:48:53,360 --> 00:48:58,960
 are processes that we have in applications. We want to make sure that represented in this

437
00:48:58,960 --> 00:49:06,040
 table 2.2 A. So we're adding it to this table and other sections that relate to these type

438
00:49:06,040 --> 00:49:12,440
 of applications. And you can see with a traffic impact analysis, that is the responsibility

439
00:49:12,440 --> 00:49:18,400
 and review and approval by the development assistant team. Real estate applications are

440
00:49:18,400 --> 00:49:24,680
 a little bit different in that ultimately city council will need to prove any applications

441
00:49:24,680 --> 00:49:32,400
 that involve real estate such as roadway encroachments or use agreements, easement encroachments,

442
00:49:32,400 --> 00:49:38,300
 that sort of thing. Those are our examples of real estate applications. So the first

443
00:49:38,300 --> 00:49:44,080
 one is the traffic impact analysis. And I think you all know what this analysis is,

444
00:49:44,080 --> 00:49:50,960
 is obviously it measures any potential impact to the traffic patterns of an area as a result

445
00:49:50,960 --> 00:49:57,340
 of a proposed development in including some of the existing conditions that are currently

446
00:49:57,340 --> 00:50:05,280
 at the area or within the area. We are adding the following sections under the traffic analysis

447
00:50:05,280 --> 00:50:12,200
 procedures, similar to what we already have for other applications with regards to the

448
00:50:12,200 --> 00:50:17,560
 purpose, applicability, the process in which they are reviewed and determined, and then

449
00:50:17,560 --> 00:50:25,320
 what happens after action is determined by the development assistant team, and also providing

450
00:50:25,320 --> 00:50:35,160
 this criteria for acceptance. The real estate applications, similarly, we want to add a

451
00:50:35,160 --> 00:50:41,680
 purpose that you see here. And again, I'm going to go through this real quick, easement

452
00:50:41,680 --> 00:50:50,600
 abandonments, right away abandonments, encroachments, use of gas pipeline license requests, are

453
00:50:50,600 --> 00:50:58,680
 examples of real estate application types. Then again, similarly, there are sections

454
00:50:58,680 --> 00:51:04,360
 that we are going to include in terms of purpose, applicability, and the actual procedures in

455
00:51:04,360 --> 00:51:12,880
 which they are reviewed and brought forward to city council. Okay, so that concludes that

456
00:51:12,880 --> 00:51:19,440
 section with regards to traffic impact analysis in real estate. If I don't see, I want to

457
00:51:19,440 --> 00:51:20,440
 make sure.

458
00:51:20,440 --> 00:51:24,800
 We have one question. It's Commissioner Beck.

459
00:51:24,800 --> 00:51:34,080
 Sorry to ask all the questions, Chair. It's my nature. Ron, one of the concerns that's

460
00:51:34,080 --> 00:51:38,000
 been brought, you know, of my own and that's been brought to me by the public is this sort

461
00:51:38,000 --> 00:51:42,940
 of interplay of development and the mobility plan. And this seems like the appropriate

462
00:51:42,940 --> 00:51:47,800
 time to ask you, because we just discussed real estate traffic impact analysis. And that

463
00:51:47,800 --> 00:52:03,640
 is to the extent to which the mobility plan and the impacts development gets in front

464
00:52:03,640 --> 00:52:12,040
 of the existing guidelines and that how we're not sort of -- I guess what -- let me rephrase.

465
00:52:12,040 --> 00:52:21,440
 My question goes to in this section, do we have language that covers how we follow future

466
00:52:21,440 --> 00:52:27,400
 land use and comprehensive plans in terms -- because we were mentioning the mobility

467
00:52:27,400 --> 00:52:34,040
 plan, or is that language all maintained within the language of the mobility plan?

468
00:52:34,040 --> 00:52:38,380
 So there are references to the mobility plan throughout the development code as it relates

469
00:52:38,380 --> 00:52:46,960
 to development and subdivision requirements. We know that when we look at plats, for example,

470
00:52:46,960 --> 00:52:52,840
 and if there are requirements for dedication, the mobility plan is referenced and reviewed

471
00:52:52,840 --> 00:52:58,880
 against to ensure that whatever dedication is required is consistent to what the mobility

472
00:52:58,880 --> 00:53:07,520
 plan is set forward. So that is one example. As it relates to the TIA, I'm trying to understand

473
00:53:07,520 --> 00:53:13,560
 if that is a question you had, the TIA really just looks at what the development is producing

474
00:53:13,560 --> 00:53:20,240
 or introducing to an area and how, if any, mitigation is required to address that potential

475
00:53:20,240 --> 00:53:21,240
 impact.

476
00:53:21,240 --> 00:53:27,520
 So I guess what I'm seeking is what section -- if it's not this one, then just say it's

477
00:53:27,520 --> 00:53:38,460
 not this one. But what -- the section of the code is governing what the current definitions

478
00:53:38,460 --> 00:53:48,280
 of usage and stuff are, usage in regards to going into the traffic impact models. Is that

479
00:53:48,280 --> 00:53:53,840
 covered -- is that to be covered in this section or in the mobility section? And I'll give

480
00:53:53,840 --> 00:53:59,760
 you an example to help clarify my question. And that is on the ground right now you might

481
00:53:59,760 --> 00:54:06,560
 see farmland, but it's anticipated that someone in the future would like to develop this as

482
00:54:06,560 --> 00:54:18,260
 a large subdivision. And so where in the code do we talk about the traffic impact analysis

483
00:54:18,260 --> 00:54:21,900
 and what conditions and how they're put into the development code? Is it in this section

484
00:54:21,900 --> 00:54:24,240
 or is it in the mobility plan?

485
00:54:24,240 --> 00:54:29,160
 So this section or the development code and specifically subchapter 2, again, is procedures,

486
00:54:29,160 --> 00:54:34,320
 right? It talks about how the applications are reviewed and considered and what happens

487
00:54:34,320 --> 00:54:42,000
 during that process. I can tell you that subchapter 7, which we will be bringing forward as well,

488
00:54:42,000 --> 00:54:47,840
 speaks specifically to access and circulation. And at that particular section, there's requirements

489
00:54:47,840 --> 00:54:52,800
 and standards that need to comply with. And I can tell you that some of those standards

490
00:54:52,800 --> 00:54:59,440
 often refer to not only the mobility plan, but also the transportation criteria manual.

491
00:54:59,440 --> 00:55:08,040
 So I think overall, they're covered under the DDC as required regulations or standards,

492
00:55:08,040 --> 00:55:13,680
 but rely on other references such as the mobility plan and the transportation criteria manual

493
00:55:13,680 --> 00:55:14,680
 as well.

494
00:55:14,680 --> 00:55:19,360
 Okay, that clarifies. Thank you. I appreciate it.

495
00:55:19,360 --> 00:55:29,320
 I promise we're almost there. I think we're about three quarters through. So moving on

496
00:55:29,320 --> 00:55:37,720
 to the next topic, and this is subdivision application procedures. Again, this will have

497
00:55:37,720 --> 00:55:46,120
 some applications as relates to House Bill 3167, but also wanted to provide some more

498
00:55:46,120 --> 00:55:52,800
 clarity as to when subdivision applications, and these are plats. So preliminary plats,

499
00:55:52,800 --> 00:55:59,880
 final plats, mending plats and the like. So when do they apply? So now the first statement

500
00:55:59,880 --> 00:56:05,440
 there says that subdivision procedures shall apply to all land and all developments within

501
00:56:05,440 --> 00:56:12,320
 corporate city limits, that it's in accordance with our interlocal agreement within county.

502
00:56:12,320 --> 00:56:23,240
 As you all know, division two is not within the requirements, but division one is, and

503
00:56:23,240 --> 00:56:30,160
 there is a map that identifies where that outline is or where that division separates.

504
00:56:30,160 --> 00:56:37,500
 So with regards to number three, civil engineering plans, that is also applied to division one.

505
00:56:37,500 --> 00:56:48,720
 So just to give some clarification on when certain applications are applicable and where.

506
00:56:48,720 --> 00:56:55,600
 The next slide here is really to cover how we want to be consistent with the expiration

507
00:56:55,600 --> 00:57:04,920
 dates. This one particular is related to final plats. We know that we want to be consistent

508
00:57:04,920 --> 00:57:12,920
 with other applications in that we look at a 24 months or two year expiration date. So

509
00:57:12,920 --> 00:57:19,640
 as you can see here, there is a statement that is being crossed out as relates to when

510
00:57:19,640 --> 00:57:27,080
 filing may occur. We want to make sure that the final plat is consistent. So we're saying

511
00:57:27,080 --> 00:57:35,200
 that it should be filed within the timeframe, similar to the other expiration dates of 24

512
00:57:35,200 --> 00:57:42,400
 months. And then the other items here that you see in the orange is more or less just

513
00:57:42,400 --> 00:57:48,880
 clarification and or correction instead of filing, it's recording. So really just non-substantive

514
00:57:48,880 --> 00:57:58,040
 changes as it relates to the filing. I'm sorry, the recording of plats. This is that continuation

515
00:57:58,040 --> 00:58:03,840
 of that discussion. And you see that it must be filed with the county or recorded. Sorry,

516
00:58:03,840 --> 00:58:08,680
 I need to correct myself there. And that is recorded with the county within 24 months

517
00:58:08,680 --> 00:58:16,960
 again to be consistent with other deadlines and timeframes and due dates. That is to other

518
00:58:16,960 --> 00:58:27,600
 applications. This right here relates to preliminary plats. We are again, the green area or the

519
00:58:27,600 --> 00:58:32,280
 green text that you see below are anything that's underlying and we are adding anything

520
00:58:32,280 --> 00:58:40,160
 that's struck through is being proposed to delete, be deleted. We don't require preliminary

521
00:58:40,160 --> 00:58:47,080
 plats in the ETJ. However, if one is submitted, it shall follow the same requirements as it

522
00:58:47,080 --> 00:58:55,120
 were to be in the city. So that's what number two is about. Number three, the director will

523
00:58:55,120 --> 00:59:01,840
 determine during the pre-application if a preliminary plat is required, this gives the

524
00:59:01,840 --> 00:59:09,720
 option for a, for example, a commercial development that can go straight to final plat and may

525
00:59:09,720 --> 00:59:16,700
 not require a preliminary plat to be able to do that. So this number three gives that

526
00:59:16,700 --> 00:59:23,360
 opportunity for a developer or property owner to not have to do a preliminary plat because

527
00:59:23,360 --> 00:59:28,760
 the site may not necessarily need one just due to the fact that of its size and/or its

528
00:59:28,760 --> 00:59:38,240
 complexity a final plat would be just sufficient. Next slide here again. I just want to illustrate

529
00:59:38,240 --> 00:59:44,160
 that it's not six months, that it is 24 months. Again, we want to be consistent with our timeframe.

530
00:59:44,160 --> 00:59:50,640
 Ron, I'm going to interrupt you here and call on Commissioner Beck for a question.

531
00:59:50,640 --> 00:59:55,560
 Thank you, Ron. Can you go, well, okay, you don't have to go back. I can just ask you.

532
00:59:55,560 --> 01:00:00,860
 And that is that final point of three about the ETJ. And I asked you about this in email,

533
01:00:00,860 --> 01:00:11,920
 but would it be easier on staff, more streamlined, more efficacious if we recommend people do

534
01:00:11,920 --> 01:00:21,400
 preliminary plat? I know it's an option for the applicant, but would it be better if everyone

535
01:00:21,400 --> 01:00:27,760
 in the ETJ, would it be smoother, easier, faster, more efficacious if we recommend it?

536
01:00:27,760 --> 01:00:32,460
 Even if it's not a mandatory requirement, would it be better for the city and staff

537
01:00:32,460 --> 01:00:41,040
 if we recommended a preliminary plat? That's a good question. I know that, and I don't

538
01:00:41,040 --> 01:00:48,880
 know, Richard, if you have a response to that, within the ETJ, we don't require it. However,

539
01:00:48,880 --> 01:00:53,480
 Commissioner Beck's suggestion was if something, it could be recommended. I know our code is

540
01:00:53,480 --> 01:01:02,160
 very specific in that it only has requirements in shalls versus, you know, May and whatnot.

541
01:01:02,160 --> 01:01:06,720
 So it may be something that we do as a policy, but, Richard, if you--

542
01:01:06,720 --> 01:01:12,080
 Yeah, I don't think that we would, we preclude it. For instance, the one that we, probably

543
01:01:12,080 --> 01:01:17,880
 the most notable is Stuart Ridge. That was one that was completely within ETJ-1, and

544
01:01:17,880 --> 01:01:25,720
 they did do a preliminary and then ultimately final. So that was in the ETJ-1.

545
01:01:25,720 --> 01:01:31,560
 I guess my point was more to the encouragement. So, but, Ron, you were saying you could encourage

546
01:01:31,560 --> 01:01:40,080
 that policy, but outside the DDC, I mean, which is fine. I mean, if, I just, I would

547
01:01:40,080 --> 01:01:45,520
 like to, you know, if that makes staff's life easier, that's really where I'm kind of coming

548
01:01:45,520 --> 01:01:52,080
 at this question more so than is this a wonderful tool for the applicant? It's an optional tool

549
01:01:52,080 --> 01:01:56,160
 for the applicant, but if it would make life easier for staff, then we might as well just

550
01:01:56,160 --> 01:02:01,000
 encourage people to encourage, not require people to do that.

551
01:02:01,000 --> 01:02:05,480
 We can certainly look at the wording and see what we can do. But again, the intent here

552
01:02:05,480 --> 01:02:12,100
 is to just outline that one is not required in that if it is something that the applicant

553
01:02:12,100 --> 01:02:16,400
 that's in the ETJ wants to, they certainly can. We're not going to prevent that. They

554
01:02:16,400 --> 01:02:22,680
 just have to follow the rules of office of a preliminary plat approval criteria. And

555
01:02:22,680 --> 01:02:31,840
 as I mentioned earlier, if there are ones that may benefit, we can certainly encourage

556
01:02:31,840 --> 01:02:35,720
 that, but maybe, maybe we just need to look at some of the wording again.

557
01:02:35,720 --> 01:02:38,880
 Well, I mean, if it's not going to help, I don't want to get in the way. I mean, if

558
01:02:38,880 --> 01:02:43,040
 it's just going to be messy, I'm not, the whole point was to make staff's life easier.

559
01:02:43,040 --> 01:02:47,940
 So if it's just going to increase the consternation of staff, then there's no point to doing that

560
01:02:47,940 --> 01:02:50,760
 because the goal was to make staff's life easier.

561
01:02:50,760 --> 01:02:57,200
 I know we have a really good engineering and development assistant team that works well,

562
01:02:57,200 --> 01:03:05,520
 I mean, works hard, that is, with our applicants. And if one is certainly encouraged, we definitely

563
01:03:05,520 --> 01:03:09,400
 make them know about the process.

564
01:03:09,400 --> 01:03:15,400
 Thank you, Ron.

565
01:03:15,400 --> 01:03:31,680
 Okay. Click on this real quick. Yeah, okay. Subdivision application procedures. Again,

566
01:03:31,680 --> 01:03:39,640
 this talks about the post decisions and limitations after which decisions made. We're just moving

567
01:03:39,640 --> 01:03:45,840
 a couple things to be a little bit more clear. This whole section actually moves down here.

568
01:03:45,840 --> 01:03:51,960
 We do add an expiration of approval for, again, the final plat, and in two years is what we're

569
01:03:51,960 --> 01:03:58,480
 referring to. Any plat withdrawn or voided must be resubmitted. Again, just again to

570
01:03:58,480 --> 01:04:01,920
 provide that clarification.

571
01:04:01,920 --> 01:04:11,320
 Okay. So now we're onto a separate topic, and this is a replat procedure section, again,

572
01:04:11,320 --> 01:04:19,720
 under the subchapter two. There have been some, again, changes to the Texas local government

573
01:04:19,720 --> 01:04:26,520
 code and some of the, what is being proposed reflects some of those changes. But we also

574
01:04:26,520 --> 01:04:32,920
 have added a number of sections under the replat procedures to, again, provide more

575
01:04:32,920 --> 01:04:42,080
 customer-friendly, user-friendly, and clarification. So, again, replat, the purpose, the applicability.

576
01:04:42,080 --> 01:04:50,320
 I think we all know that the replats are applications that are properties that already are platted,

577
01:04:50,320 --> 01:04:56,760
 and they're either amending it or changing it. And so that requires a replat, and again,

578
01:04:56,760 --> 01:05:05,520
 it applies to any property that's already subdivided as part of their current site.

579
01:05:05,520 --> 01:05:11,920
 We have the same sections as others in that purpose, the applicability, the procedures,

580
01:05:11,920 --> 01:05:17,400
 and the approval criteria. One of the things that I wanted to highlight and I apologize

581
01:05:17,400 --> 01:05:23,040
 this is a very wordied slide, but one of the things I want you to focus on is specifically

582
01:05:23,040 --> 01:05:35,760
 step six, which is right here below that if the replat does not require a variance, and

583
01:05:35,760 --> 01:05:44,200
 it shall be reviewed by the Planning Zoning Commission and considered, the notice for

584
01:05:44,200 --> 01:05:52,040
 that replat happens after the Planning Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered it.

585
01:05:52,040 --> 01:05:58,000
 And that is per section, checks with local government code section 212. Again, that is

586
01:05:58,000 --> 01:06:05,720
 just something that was part of 3167, House Bill 3167, and we're just including that into

587
01:06:05,720 --> 01:06:11,880
 the development code to be consistent with that local government code provision. For

588
01:06:11,880 --> 01:06:18,160
 those that do require a variance, and I'm bringing you back up here to number four,

589
01:06:18,160 --> 01:06:23,960
 that has to go through the process of public hearing notifications and follows what you

590
01:06:23,960 --> 01:06:29,840
 see here and what you normally would see as part of a public hearing process and notifying

591
01:06:29,840 --> 01:06:37,160
 property prior to the public hearing. The difference is this replat requires a variance

592
01:06:37,160 --> 01:06:45,720
 while the ones that do not require a variance does not need to be notified until after the

593
01:06:45,720 --> 01:06:49,640
 Planning Zoning Commission has considered it. So just want to make sure that that's

594
01:06:49,640 --> 01:06:56,240
 understood. Moving on to the next topic, and that is subdivision

595
01:06:56,240 --> 01:07:02,800
 variance. I sort of alluded to this earlier in the presentation. When we approved the

596
01:07:02,800 --> 01:07:11,320
 2019 development code, any variance period would go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

597
01:07:11,320 --> 01:07:18,120
 And although that was a great thought, we feel that the subdivision variance, which

598
01:07:18,120 --> 01:07:24,800
 again deals with platting and other subdividing requirements, should go to the Planning Zoning

599
01:07:24,800 --> 01:07:31,680
 Commission for any variance. One is because you all review them often and are more familiar

600
01:07:31,680 --> 01:07:36,560
 with those requirements. While the Zoning Board of Adjustment, although they serve an

601
01:07:36,560 --> 01:07:42,640
 important role, I think that it's better served by the Planning Zoning Commission if it was

602
01:07:42,640 --> 01:07:49,720
 a subdivision variance. So you can see from here that ultimately the decision is made

603
01:07:49,720 --> 01:07:54,800
 by the Planning Zoning Commission and if there is any appeal, it goes to the City Council.

604
01:07:54,800 --> 01:08:01,680
 But again, the deciding factor for a design body that is for subdivision variance is the

605
01:08:01,680 --> 01:08:05,320
 Planning Zoning Commission. That is what we are proposing.

606
01:08:05,320 --> 01:08:10,960
 Again, I won't go through the whole list, but again, we want to make sure we're consistent

607
01:08:10,960 --> 01:08:18,120
 in all of the procedures. We're providing the following.

608
01:08:18,120 --> 01:08:24,720
 I won't read this. I know that we all at some point have reviewed the subdivision variances

609
01:08:24,720 --> 01:08:31,480
 and it's been a while, but we have heard some of those variances when I say we, the Planning

610
01:08:31,480 --> 01:08:35,360
 Zoning Commission, and have decided on some of those. And one particular that I can think

611
01:08:35,360 --> 01:08:43,120
 of is a separation distance between an intersection and a driveway and that's one variance that

612
01:08:43,120 --> 01:08:49,600
 certainly can be brought forward as part of a subdivision variance application.

613
01:08:49,600 --> 01:08:57,960
 Again, some of the applicability, street design, as I mentioned, the driveway and intersection

614
01:08:57,960 --> 01:09:06,920
 separation is probably one that's in my mind. Street connectivity is another, driveway access,

615
01:09:06,920 --> 01:09:14,840
 the lot planning layout, block layout, there's a certain minimum and maximum block layout.

616
01:09:14,840 --> 01:09:19,760
 So if there is an application or a project that wants to deviate from that, they would

617
01:09:19,760 --> 01:09:27,720
 need to come through the city and if this were to be passed, the Planning Zoning Commission.

618
01:09:27,720 --> 01:09:34,080
 Okay, moving on to annexation procedures. As you can tell, this subchapter two has a

619
01:09:34,080 --> 01:09:42,720
 lot of information, a lot of procedures to cover. One of them is annexation. The annexation

620
01:09:42,720 --> 01:09:50,040
 we do have, I know that the Planning Zoning Commission isn't necessarily reviewing them,

621
01:09:50,040 --> 01:09:54,360
 however, we still need them for, say, the City Council when they consider annexation.

622
01:09:54,360 --> 01:10:03,160
 So we want to outline what that process is. We have two types of applications, an involuntary,

623
01:10:03,160 --> 01:10:10,040
 which the city annexes a property, and then we also have voluntary annexation as well.

624
01:10:10,040 --> 01:10:17,120
 So the most that we will most likely see moving forward is a voluntary annexation. Any involuntary

625
01:10:17,120 --> 01:10:22,960
 annexation, because of state law, has made it very difficult for us to do that because

626
01:10:22,960 --> 01:10:30,040
 it requires an election and a vote for any involuntary annexation. So what we'll probably

627
01:10:30,040 --> 01:10:36,960
 see in the coming years is more or less voluntary annexations.

628
01:10:36,960 --> 01:10:42,640
 I want to just again identify what those sections are, and as you can see, they're very similar

629
01:10:42,640 --> 01:10:52,560
 to the previous procedures and other applications. This slide here kind of outlines the criteria

630
01:10:52,560 --> 01:10:59,840
 for voluntary annexations. One through five is specific to that criteria. Is it consistent

631
01:10:59,840 --> 01:11:08,120
 with the annexation policy of the city? Has all the owners joined in with the request?

632
01:11:08,120 --> 01:11:13,600
 If there was any conflict with any non-annexation or similar agreement, we want to make sure

633
01:11:13,600 --> 01:11:21,100
 that that isn't violated. The annexation is necessary for it to be joined into the city

634
01:11:21,100 --> 01:11:30,360
 in terms of our service costs, increased traffic, drainage. So as any annexation application

635
01:11:30,360 --> 01:11:36,560
 which comes in, they have to provide a physical impact analysis to provide the city with an

636
01:11:36,560 --> 01:11:44,320
 understanding that if annexed in future development, it would not adversely impact the city. And

637
01:11:44,320 --> 01:11:50,880
 then number five, the annexation will ensure that the adequate land use and building controls

638
01:11:50,880 --> 01:12:00,080
 are in place in which we see growth happening in the city. The next section here, if I don't

639
01:12:00,080 --> 01:12:04,340
 see any other questions or hear any other questions, I'll go fairly quickly. It's an

640
01:12:04,340 --> 01:12:08,960
 appeal to administrative decisions. We've already sort of discussed this, but this is

641
01:12:08,960 --> 01:12:16,280
 a different section of subchapter two, which is specifically two appeals. And what is going

642
01:12:16,280 --> 01:12:24,240
 to be shown is what we've already discussed. We talked about not related and related to

643
01:12:24,240 --> 01:12:32,780
 a specific application. That's something that we're introducing into this section. The appeal,

644
01:12:32,780 --> 01:12:38,840
 what should be included, when it can be made, again, 20 days, 20 calendar days, again, to

645
01:12:38,840 --> 01:12:48,720
 be consistent with House Bill 2497. And then additional proceedings with regards to when

646
01:12:48,720 --> 01:13:00,800
 projects or decisions need to be at a standstill until that appeal is considered. Continuing

647
01:13:00,800 --> 01:13:07,520
 with that same appeal of administrative decision, the text that you see here in green talks

648
01:13:07,520 --> 01:13:14,400
 about that 60-day total and having the decision not made on the first meeting, but rather

649
01:13:14,400 --> 01:13:23,080
 the second meeting. So, again, that just illustrates it being introduced into this section. The

650
01:13:23,080 --> 01:13:31,040
 next procedure is alternative environmental sensitive areas. ALT ESA is as often referred

651
01:13:31,040 --> 01:13:41,400
 to. What we are proposing to add is a provision that outlines when an ALT ESA expires. Right

652
01:13:41,400 --> 01:13:48,680
 now it's not clear and it's not specified specifically in the DDC. We are adding that

653
01:13:48,680 --> 01:13:54,800
 it shall expire within 24 months if progress is not made toward the completion of that

654
01:13:54,800 --> 01:14:00,480
 project. So, again, that 24 months is you've seen that and we're trying to make it consistent

655
01:14:00,480 --> 01:14:05,960
 with all the other deadlines and timeframes. So that's just to add that clarification.

656
01:14:05,960 --> 01:14:13,800
 Also, we're also adding a set of conditions. These two conditions that you see here are

657
01:14:13,800 --> 01:14:22,080
 often conditions of an ordinance that is approved as part of an ALT ESA. We are making it clear

658
01:14:22,080 --> 01:14:29,160
 to the applicant and the person applying for that ALT ESA that you are going to knowingly

659
01:14:29,160 --> 01:14:35,720
 have to comply with these conditions and these are conditions that are common and will be

660
01:14:35,720 --> 01:14:47,360
 part of future ALT ESA applications. Next section is related to or next topic is related

661
01:14:47,360 --> 01:14:54,880
 to interpretations. Interpretations are very similar in that an applicant can request an

662
01:14:54,880 --> 01:15:02,200
 interpretation on a specific code requirement or standard that may not be as clear and that

663
01:15:02,200 --> 01:15:08,640
 goes to the Director of Planning. However, if that decision or that determination or

664
01:15:08,640 --> 01:15:17,000
 interpretation is not accepted, the applicant or the person that requests that interpretation

665
01:15:17,000 --> 01:15:23,040
 can appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. So, again, the areas or the language in green

666
01:15:23,040 --> 01:15:33,240
 is what clarifies that. Procedures for historic landmark designation.

667
01:15:33,240 --> 01:15:38,360
 This is a, I can tell you a couple slides and it's very wordy. I just want to preface

668
01:15:38,360 --> 01:15:48,280
 this by saying that part of our code amendment, I'm sorry, our development code update, we

669
01:15:48,280 --> 01:15:54,080
 didn't include much of, most of what was included in 2002 code, so one of the things that we're

670
01:15:54,080 --> 01:16:01,720
 trying to do is add some of it and there are some that are new but some of them are carryover.

671
01:16:01,720 --> 01:16:08,600
 The area, the text that you see here is existing in our current code. We are proposing to add

672
01:16:08,600 --> 01:16:17,320
 the following. Again, these are procedures in order to designate a historic landmark,

673
01:16:17,320 --> 01:16:24,160
 mainly for the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council. So, these are mainly for

674
01:16:24,160 --> 01:16:32,800
 them to use in their consideration. And I won't go through this. There's a lot in here

675
01:16:32,800 --> 01:16:39,200
 and I want to make sure that you understand that the Historic Landmark Commission will

676
01:16:39,200 --> 01:16:43,520
 get this presentation, will see this presentation, so they'll have an opportunity and, of course,

677
01:16:43,520 --> 01:16:50,280
 City Council will also have the opportunity to weigh in on some of these procedures.

678
01:16:50,280 --> 01:16:59,000
 Okay, so I believe this is the last topic on our agenda. It is what we're calling the

679
01:16:59,000 --> 01:17:06,480
 rezone to a planned development district. There had been some discussion, I know, in

680
01:17:06,480 --> 01:17:18,240
 the DCRC related to, you know, when a planned development is considered or should be considered.

681
01:17:18,240 --> 01:17:22,440
 And I'm going to go fairly quickly. I know that you all know what a planned development

682
01:17:22,440 --> 01:17:30,240
 is. What staff is proposing is to add the following language. Our current code does

683
01:17:30,240 --> 01:17:39,880
 not have this now, so we are adding a purpose statement, an applicability section, and specifically

684
01:17:39,880 --> 01:17:45,840
 the types of PD. So, this is probably one of the slides that I probably would like to

685
01:17:45,840 --> 01:17:56,960
 ask some input from the Commission. Right now, we have proposed two types of PDs, one

686
01:17:56,960 --> 01:18:03,480
 that we're calling an overlay PD and a second one, which is what we normally would like

687
01:18:03,480 --> 01:18:12,040
 to think of as a standard PD, which is the more involved, greater complexity in terms

688
01:18:12,040 --> 01:18:17,880
 of the development in some of the standards that are being proposed. So, I guess the first

689
01:18:17,880 --> 01:18:24,680
 question or the question that maybe we can get some input from the Commission is, when

690
01:18:24,680 --> 01:18:36,520
 considering an overlay PD, the staff is looking at just subchapter 5, where the uses are listed

691
01:18:36,520 --> 01:18:47,160
 as proposed or permitted, that is. We feel that an overlay PD should only be part of

692
01:18:47,160 --> 01:18:57,120
 subchapter 5. So, for example, the application that we heard, the past P&Z, the birch track,

693
01:18:57,120 --> 01:19:05,040
 for example, they were coming in for rezoning, and they did not have any conditions, and

694
01:19:05,040 --> 01:19:12,840
 the Commission recommended that they limit those use or the use to just single family.

695
01:19:12,840 --> 01:19:20,400
 To us, that would be a PD, but right now, we don't have this provision. So, what we're

696
01:19:20,400 --> 01:19:26,120
 saying is that in that situation, because it only applies to the use and it is in subchapter

697
01:19:26,120 --> 01:19:37,960
 5, it would be considered an overlay PD. So, that's one type. Is that something that the

698
01:19:37,960 --> 01:19:45,320
 Commission would like to see us do, and if there is any input as it relates to maybe

699
01:19:45,320 --> 01:19:53,240
 additional conditions or additional standards that can be adjusted? The hope is that the

700
01:19:53,240 --> 01:20:03,160
 overlay PDs are simple ones and that are done in that manner, while the standard PDs are

701
01:20:03,160 --> 01:20:09,760
 a little bit different, involve a little bit more submittals and documentation versus what

702
01:20:09,760 --> 01:20:13,800
 an overlay PD is.

703
01:20:13,800 --> 01:20:17,480
 Commissioner Beck.

704
01:20:17,480 --> 01:20:28,720
 So, just follow on from that. Procedurally, you are expecting an overlay PD to basically

705
01:20:28,720 --> 01:20:37,280
 be, I mean, how significantly different, I mean, than the standard PD?

706
01:20:37,280 --> 01:20:43,320
 So, the standard PD, great question, the standard PD has a little bit more information, so they

707
01:20:43,320 --> 01:20:51,120
 would have to provide a development plan that identifies the differences in their standards

708
01:20:51,120 --> 01:20:55,120
 as opposed to the development code, so that's something that they would need to provide.

709
01:20:55,120 --> 01:20:59,560
 They would also have to provide a development zoning map that identifies a little bit more

710
01:20:59,560 --> 01:21:07,640
 detail of what areas is proposed to have certain uses, so that's something that would also

711
01:21:07,640 --> 01:21:13,200
 be included in the standard PD. While the overlay PD that we're talking about, often

712
01:21:13,200 --> 01:21:18,240
 referred to as the mini PD, would be just, again, subchapter 5, and it would just be

713
01:21:18,240 --> 01:21:25,460
 specific to that subchapter, and they would only be able to deviate from that, from the

714
01:21:25,460 --> 01:21:32,480
 uses and the use-specific standards. And when we say deviate, meaning that it would have

715
01:21:32,480 --> 01:21:42,400
 to be more stricter, so limiting it to a number of uses or having stricter use-specific standards,

716
01:21:42,400 --> 01:21:48,160
 and again, this would allow them to move forward with their application because obviously they're

717
01:21:48,160 --> 01:21:55,900
 maybe some concerns with other uses, or there may be concerns with the size of the development

718
01:21:55,900 --> 01:22:01,840
 that can all be covered under the overlay PD.

719
01:22:01,840 --> 01:22:07,680
 But otherwise, the underlining characteristics of a parcel would just predominate.

720
01:22:07,680 --> 01:22:14,160
 Right, so their underlining zoning or other development standards would still apply. It

721
01:22:14,160 --> 01:22:20,600
 would just be, as you all know, a condition on that property, and it would just be labeled

722
01:22:20,600 --> 01:22:29,440
 as an overlay PD. But the question I guess I'm trying to ascertain here is, is subchapter

723
01:22:29,440 --> 01:22:38,840
 5 the only subchapter we want to see, or do we see other more, I guess, restrictive standards

724
01:22:38,840 --> 01:22:44,920
 outside of subchapter 5 being included in overlay PD, or should it just be subchapter

725
01:22:44,920 --> 01:22:45,920
 5?

726
01:22:45,920 --> 01:22:46,920
 Commissioner Smith.

727
01:22:46,920 --> 01:22:53,360
 Thank you, Chair. Ron, you did this in the DCRC meeting, but can you give an example

728
01:22:53,360 --> 01:22:58,000
 of where an overlay PD would make sense in a product we've seen recently?

729
01:22:58,000 --> 01:23:03,800
 Well, I mentioned that maybe a few minutes ago, and I don't know if you were on the call,

730
01:23:03,800 --> 01:23:05,800
 but rezoning, for example.

731
01:23:05,800 --> 01:23:10,880
 I'm in. I'm in. I get it from the rezoning, but is there a specific project we've seen

732
01:23:10,880 --> 01:23:15,400
 in front of the commission that you can reference that maybe said this would have been, we would

733
01:23:15,400 --> 01:23:19,880
 have suggested it as an overlay PD rather than doing it as a straight PD or the straight

734
01:23:19,880 --> 01:23:20,880
 zoning?

735
01:23:20,880 --> 01:23:21,880
 Richard?

736
01:23:21,880 --> 01:23:24,960
 Yeah, the Mockingbird rezoning that we just went through, there were some conditions put

737
01:23:24,960 --> 01:23:29,680
 in place restricting it only to single-family detached. That would be one of those instances.

738
01:23:29,680 --> 01:23:37,360
 That's what I was looking for. Okay. Yeah, I think just my two senses that I've shared

739
01:23:37,360 --> 01:23:44,120
 in DCRC as well was that I think restricting it just to subsection 5 and not requiring

740
01:23:44,120 --> 01:23:50,200
 it to not having a development plan or anything else included in that, not expanding outside

741
01:23:50,200 --> 01:23:55,360
 subsection 5 is preferable because I think the intent is clear, but I think making it

742
01:23:55,360 --> 01:24:01,560
 more restrictive, just moving in to be redundant to what we already used the PD for.

743
01:24:01,560 --> 01:24:08,720
 Right. I know that in previous discussions also, when does an applicant know it's an

744
01:24:08,720 --> 01:24:13,840
 overlay PD? They may come in for rezoning and just think it's simply a rezoning, but

745
01:24:13,840 --> 01:24:17,920
 we also know that there are opportunities for the Planning Zoning Commission and ultimately

746
01:24:17,920 --> 01:24:27,680
 the City Council to add any restrictive conditions. Just so if that happens, then of course they

747
01:24:27,680 --> 01:24:34,760
 would be reflected as an overlay PD and mapped accordingly, but if we can have that discussion

748
01:24:34,760 --> 01:24:41,320
 with the applicant in advance and provide them this option, at least they know in advance

749
01:24:41,320 --> 01:24:46,760
 that that's something that would be a little bit smoother in their process and gives us

750
01:24:46,760 --> 01:24:51,600
 the staff, the ability to analyze and provide that explanation and presentation to City

751
01:24:51,600 --> 01:24:56,360
 Council and to Planning Zoning Commission.

752
01:24:56,360 --> 01:25:02,040
 Commissioner Beck.

753
01:25:02,040 --> 01:25:08,000
 Thank you, Chair. Ron, is there ever a time when we've run into other circumstances outside

754
01:25:08,000 --> 01:25:14,100
 of 5 that you wish that, oh, I just wished I could massage it just a little bit for other

755
01:25:14,100 --> 01:25:21,360
 sections so that maybe the language should be that we should limit it to the size of

756
01:25:21,360 --> 01:25:23,720
 the change rather than the chapter?

757
01:25:23,720 --> 01:25:34,840
 Yeah, I'm trying to remember some recent ones, but Subchapter 3 is your minimum lot sizes,

758
01:25:34,840 --> 01:25:43,640
 your height, and if that was the case, like building height or setbacks in building curvatures

759
01:25:43,640 --> 01:25:51,360
 are in Subchapter 3, so if that was something that the applicant wanted to deviate from

760
01:25:51,360 --> 01:25:57,400
 or change, that would probably either be a rezoning to a new zoning district to meet

761
01:25:57,400 --> 01:26:03,120
 that or if it's just a simple or it's not simple but rather something specific, I think

762
01:26:03,120 --> 01:26:16,720
 that would and should be a more PD rezoning, a standard PD that is, than a overlay PD.

763
01:26:16,720 --> 01:26:23,120
 You would rather see things outside of 5, 3 and whatnot kept in a standard PD even if

764
01:26:23,120 --> 01:26:26,000
 it was a small change. That would be easier on staff.

765
01:26:26,000 --> 01:26:33,400
 Right, I apologize, it's hard to hear you there, but you were saying.

766
01:26:33,400 --> 01:26:43,280
 Yeah, so it would be better if things outside of Subchapter 5 were, even if they were small,

767
01:26:43,280 --> 01:26:52,040
 say like a 1-foot variance in height or something, you'd still rather see that in a full PD rather

768
01:26:52,040 --> 01:26:53,040
 than a...

769
01:26:53,040 --> 01:26:54,040
 Yeah, that's just an example.

770
01:26:54,040 --> 01:26:59,160
 It sounds like, I mean, that can certainly be a ZBA as well, that's another option.

771
01:26:59,160 --> 01:27:06,960
 The standard PD that we're talking about, and I maybe misdirected you there, is where

772
01:27:06,960 --> 01:27:14,480
 there is an opportunity to provide some flexibility both ends with the requirements and standards

773
01:27:14,480 --> 01:27:20,520
 in that we can ask for more things on one part of their development while they can deviate

774
01:27:20,520 --> 01:27:26,360
 on others, and that's what you typically see in the PD, a plan development, but the example

775
01:27:26,360 --> 01:27:31,840
 I gave you, Commissioner Beck, with regards to building height, I take that more or less,

776
01:27:31,840 --> 01:27:37,680
 if it's just that one particular deviation, that would probably be a zoning board of adjustment

777
01:27:37,680 --> 01:27:38,680
 request.

778
01:27:38,680 --> 01:27:40,640
 No, I understand that.

779
01:27:40,640 --> 01:27:48,360
 I guess I was more trying to get at what I originally started is, should this be a question

780
01:27:48,360 --> 01:27:57,840
 of size of the change, or should it be specifically the topics in five?

781
01:27:57,840 --> 01:28:00,040
 What would be better there?

782
01:28:00,040 --> 01:28:06,720
 Yeah, I know that we've talked about size in the past and minimum size for a PD, but

783
01:28:06,720 --> 01:28:15,960
 I think maybe the more better route would probably be the complexity or the nature of

784
01:28:15,960 --> 01:28:25,600
 the proposal, so if, again, if it's just trying to eliminate some uses or try to address some

785
01:28:25,600 --> 01:28:33,360
 of the concerns of the size of the building that's under the provision of a use-specific

786
01:28:33,360 --> 01:28:40,040
 standard, that can be addressed through this, but if it's more than that, I think that we're

787
01:28:40,040 --> 01:28:46,440
 looking at a standard PD or if it can be handled through some other avenue, such as a minor

788
01:28:46,440 --> 01:28:50,960
 modification or a variance, that that can be part of it as well, can be an option as

789
01:28:50,960 --> 01:28:51,960
 well.

790
01:28:51,960 --> 01:28:52,960
 Okay.

791
01:28:52,960 --> 01:28:53,960
 Thank you.

792
01:28:53,960 --> 01:28:54,960
 Yeah.

793
01:28:54,960 --> 01:29:03,520
 Rhonda, answering the original question from a while ago is, I think limiting this to chapter

794
01:29:03,520 --> 01:29:10,280
 or sub-chapter five, I'm in agreement with in terms of the things you spoke about, of

795
01:29:10,280 --> 01:29:13,880
 how if it covers other sub-chapters, how it would be better addressed.

796
01:29:13,880 --> 01:29:20,120
 Commissioner Anderson, did you have a question, I did?

797
01:29:20,120 --> 01:29:21,120
 Commissioner Anderson?

798
01:29:21,120 --> 01:29:22,120
 Yeah, thanks.

799
01:29:22,120 --> 01:29:28,400
 It was kind of one of, sorry, I just got on a few minutes ago, but would this, what you're

800
01:29:28,400 --> 01:29:33,320
 talking about, would that have been beneficial to our last meeting when we had that multi-story

801
01:29:33,320 --> 01:29:37,040
 place that wanted to raise the level up by six feet?

802
01:29:37,040 --> 01:29:39,680
 This would have been more beneficial for that instead of having them come back.

803
01:29:39,680 --> 01:29:40,680
 Does that make sense?

804
01:29:40,680 --> 01:29:41,680
 Are you following me there?

805
01:29:41,680 --> 01:29:42,680
 Yeah.

806
01:29:42,680 --> 01:29:46,320
 That was a little bit more specific to the height in that sub-chapter and sub-chapter

807
01:29:46,320 --> 01:29:47,320
 three.

808
01:29:47,320 --> 01:29:49,560
 Three, right.

809
01:29:49,560 --> 01:29:55,440
 That one would probably best, Richard, if it was a height thing, I know there was an

810
01:29:55,440 --> 01:29:59,080
 option for a specific use permit, so that's what they chose.

811
01:29:59,080 --> 01:30:04,280
 But if there wasn't, there would probably be a zoning board of adjustment type of application,

812
01:30:04,280 --> 01:30:05,280
 in my opinion.

813
01:30:05,280 --> 01:30:11,720
 But if this, we couldn't have done an overlay, like a, with, no, okay, with the height thing.

814
01:30:11,720 --> 01:30:15,280
 I wouldn't think that that would be the proper procedure.

815
01:30:15,280 --> 01:30:19,720
 It would probably be the zoning board of adjustment.

816
01:30:19,720 --> 01:30:20,720
 Okay.

817
01:30:20,720 --> 01:30:23,600
 But the only thing I will add, I think that's something that we might want to, as we're

818
01:30:23,600 --> 01:30:27,960
 going through these standards, something we might want to look at further, is whether

819
01:30:27,960 --> 01:30:32,900
 or not that requirement for the SGP still makes sense, given that there's other provisions

820
01:30:32,900 --> 01:30:40,240
 and protections that we have written in the code with respect to height limitations based

821
01:30:40,240 --> 01:30:44,560
 upon, you know, the closer you are to a single-family property.

822
01:30:44,560 --> 01:30:50,160
 So I think it's just something we can look at again, whether it makes sense for someone

823
01:30:50,160 --> 01:30:56,520
 to go through an SGP for six feet, again, more of a policy decision.

824
01:30:56,520 --> 01:31:02,240
 Any other comments on this slide?

825
01:31:02,240 --> 01:31:04,800
 Commissioner Ellis.

826
01:31:04,800 --> 01:31:05,800
 Thank you, Chair.

827
01:31:05,800 --> 01:31:11,280
 Well, just going back to what that discussion was, they wanted a height increase, though,

828
01:31:11,280 --> 01:31:12,280
 with that.

829
01:31:12,280 --> 01:31:14,680
 And that's not really what we're talking about when we're talking about overlays.

830
01:31:14,680 --> 01:31:19,840
 I mean, we're talking about putting more restrictions on them.

831
01:31:19,840 --> 01:31:20,840
 Correct?

832
01:31:20,840 --> 01:31:21,840
 Yeah.

833
01:31:21,840 --> 01:31:22,840
 Correct.

834
01:31:22,840 --> 01:31:23,840
 Okay.

835
01:31:23,840 --> 01:31:29,320
 Yeah, and I think it's great that we're calling this something, because I know early

836
01:31:29,320 --> 01:31:34,800
 when we were trying to adopt this code and wanting to call everything PDs, thinking that

837
01:31:34,800 --> 01:31:39,000
 the overlay thing was going to go away, and clearly it hasn't.

838
01:31:39,000 --> 01:31:45,720
 So I think for us to be able to differentiate, clearly I think that's going to keep happening,

839
01:31:45,720 --> 01:31:49,120
 especially with re-zones, just to get, you know.

840
01:31:49,120 --> 01:31:54,240
 Right, and if we can be proactive and try to address that early in the process with

841
01:31:54,240 --> 01:31:58,000
 the applicants, we will certainly do so.

842
01:31:58,000 --> 01:32:03,920
 But we also know that that could happen after, in the case of, say, a planning zoning commission,

843
01:32:03,920 --> 01:32:10,120
 a meeting or a city council meeting.

844
01:32:10,120 --> 01:32:11,840
 Okay.

845
01:32:11,840 --> 01:32:20,880
 So, again, you see that we have similar procedures or sections under this section.

846
01:32:20,880 --> 01:32:27,920
 And, again, I won't spend too much time, I just want to illustrate that we are making

847
01:32:27,920 --> 01:32:32,880
 sure that we have the same procedures for all the different applications we have, when

848
01:32:32,880 --> 01:32:36,960
 I say procedures, sections covered.

849
01:32:36,960 --> 01:32:41,320
 So that brings us to our last slide, and I appreciate your patience, and I know that

850
01:32:41,320 --> 01:32:44,000
 that was a lot of information.

851
01:32:44,000 --> 01:32:49,320
 The sub-chapter two is a big chapter, it deals a lot with applications and procedures and

852
01:32:49,320 --> 01:32:50,800
 whatnot.

853
01:32:50,800 --> 01:32:57,120
 We had to deal with some clarifications and aligning with provisions of the Texas Local

854
01:32:57,120 --> 01:33:00,680
 Government Code that was introduced in 2019.

855
01:33:00,680 --> 01:33:05,800
 So I appreciate your patience, and hopefully we can move forward with some of those to

856
01:33:05,800 --> 01:33:11,120
 help our process and help our development community understand and our general public

857
01:33:11,120 --> 01:33:15,300
 understand what is required of developments.

858
01:33:15,300 --> 01:33:20,920
 So the slide that you see here is our future agenda items, stuff that we are currently

859
01:33:20,920 --> 01:33:22,080
 working on.

860
01:33:22,080 --> 01:33:28,400
 And as you can see, number two, we talked about just a minute ago or two, where the

861
01:33:28,400 --> 01:33:35,640
 building height with an SUP is something that we're reconsidering, because as Richard mentioned,

862
01:33:35,640 --> 01:33:44,600
 there are other provisions that address some of the impacts that might bring in that situation.

863
01:33:44,600 --> 01:33:48,460
 Dimensional standards, number one, table of allowed uses.

864
01:33:48,460 --> 01:33:55,040
 We have a number of uses that we would like to introduce and/or modify.

865
01:33:55,040 --> 01:33:59,860
 Use specific standards, again, as it relates to a specific, sorry, a use.

866
01:33:59,860 --> 01:34:07,400
 We want to modify and address some of the issues or concerns that we have experienced

867
01:34:07,400 --> 01:34:11,120
 as a result of applying the development code.

868
01:34:11,120 --> 01:34:16,360
 Short-term rental is something that's come up, I won't say recently, but when the code

869
01:34:16,360 --> 01:34:17,360
 was updated.

870
01:34:17,360 --> 01:34:23,160
 And accessory dwelling units is another hot topic that we will also want to share with

871
01:34:23,160 --> 01:34:26,860
 you all and talk about in an upcoming meeting.

872
01:34:26,860 --> 01:34:34,640
 And then SUP chapter seven, which is number seven, is a list of development standards.

873
01:34:34,640 --> 01:34:40,200
 And you see there, we have parking, we have landscaping.

874
01:34:40,200 --> 01:34:41,800
 I won't say there's a lot there.

875
01:34:41,800 --> 01:34:50,280
 We just have some clarifications and/or modifications that we feel is more in line with the trends

876
01:34:50,280 --> 01:34:52,760
 and what's happening in current practice.

877
01:34:52,760 --> 01:34:57,640
 So we want to make sure that we address those as part of these code amendments.

878
01:34:57,640 --> 01:35:03,080
 So just going to give you a little bit of what to expect in the upcoming meetings as

879
01:35:03,080 --> 01:35:09,520
 we bring forward additional code amendments to the Planning Zoning Commission.

880
01:35:09,520 --> 01:35:11,640
 And so that concludes my presentation.

881
01:35:11,640 --> 01:35:19,800
 And again, I appreciate your patience and I'll stand for any other questions.

882
01:35:19,800 --> 01:35:22,960
 Any questions for Ron?

883
01:35:22,960 --> 01:35:25,800
 Ron, I don't see any.

884
01:35:25,800 --> 01:35:28,520
 Thanks for the in-depth analysis on some of these code amendments.

885
01:35:28,520 --> 01:35:30,000
 Looking forward to the next presentation.

886
01:35:30,000 --> 01:35:31,000
 Great.

887
01:35:31,000 --> 01:35:32,000
 Thank you.

888
01:35:32,000 --> 01:35:36,800
 Just by way of point, does this go down to council or on to council for a vote or what's

889
01:35:36,800 --> 01:35:40,240
 the actual next steps from the information we received tonight?

890
01:35:40,240 --> 01:35:45,900
 So this would be a code amendment to the development code, which requires an ordinance and which

891
01:35:45,900 --> 01:35:49,640
 requires a public hearing with the Planning Zoning Commission.

892
01:35:49,640 --> 01:35:57,640
 So your vote and your recommendation would be made at a future public hearing and that's

893
01:35:57,640 --> 01:36:00,000
 where these would come next.

894
01:36:00,000 --> 01:36:01,000
 Great.

895
01:36:01,000 --> 01:36:03,280
 Christian or Beck?

896
01:36:03,280 --> 01:36:09,080
 To that exact point, can we expect that after all the presentations or we're going to go

897
01:36:09,080 --> 01:36:10,760
 section by section?

898
01:36:10,760 --> 01:36:16,520
 My hope is that we can do them by sub chapters or at least by category so that it's a little

899
01:36:16,520 --> 01:36:25,000
 bit more, I guess, easier, I don't know if that's the right word, to bring forward both

900
01:36:25,000 --> 01:36:28,000
 through the Planning Zoning Commission as well to say council.

901
01:36:28,000 --> 01:36:29,000
 Okay.

902
01:36:29,000 --> 01:36:30,200
 I was going to recommend that.

903
01:36:30,200 --> 01:36:32,160
 So thank you.

904
01:36:32,160 --> 01:36:35,760
 All right.

905
01:36:35,760 --> 01:36:38,760
 Thank you, Ron.

906
01:36:38,760 --> 01:36:46,480
 Real fast by just point of updating the agenda and some things on record first, let the record

907
01:36:46,480 --> 01:36:49,600
 show that Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Anderson have joined us.

908
01:36:49,600 --> 01:36:52,880
 Welcome to the meeting, guys.

909
01:36:52,880 --> 01:36:58,280
 Second, as you'll note, in my top left square, I'm not sure where he sits on your screen,

910
01:36:58,280 --> 01:37:01,800
 we have Mack Rinewand with us this evening.

911
01:37:01,800 --> 01:37:08,240
 Cynthia Kirchhoff is moving on to greener pastures, apparently, and so Mack is going

912
01:37:08,240 --> 01:37:12,600
 to be our city attorney serving with us for the time being.

913
01:37:12,600 --> 01:37:17,040
 I don't know how long we have the pleasure of Mack being with us, but Mack, welcome to

914
01:37:17,040 --> 01:37:18,320
 Planning and Zoning.

915
01:37:18,320 --> 01:37:19,320
 Thank you.

916
01:37:19,320 --> 01:37:21,280
 It's a pleasure.

917
01:37:21,280 --> 01:37:24,840
 Next to that, just some clarification on some of the agenda this evening.

918
01:37:24,840 --> 01:37:27,760
 One, our consent agenda is empty.

919
01:37:27,760 --> 01:37:32,720
 However, because of a legislature, something happened in which the minutes got put into

920
01:37:32,720 --> 01:37:39,320
 the IC, item D. We usually hear those first and outside of IC, we're just going to hear

921
01:37:39,320 --> 01:37:40,400
 them in order.

922
01:37:40,400 --> 01:37:45,640
 So that's going to be a little bit of a hiccup between C and E. We'll just listen, take a

923
01:37:45,640 --> 01:37:47,800
 quick vote for the minutes.

924
01:37:47,800 --> 01:37:51,200
 Also there was an update to the minutes that hopefully everyone received.

925
01:37:51,200 --> 01:37:55,000
 There are some corrections there that have been made.

926
01:37:55,000 --> 01:38:01,600
 If you haven't seen those, let someone know so you can review those.

927
01:38:01,600 --> 01:38:08,720
 Next is on the -- there is one item on the individual consideration where we got a late

928
01:38:08,720 --> 01:38:12,720
 update to the plat, and so staff has changed the recommendation, but we'll certainly hear

929
01:38:12,720 --> 01:38:14,800
 that in turn.

930
01:38:14,800 --> 01:38:22,160
 And then lastly, item 5C is being pulled.

931
01:38:22,160 --> 01:38:24,840
 The city is asking to postpone that.

932
01:38:24,840 --> 01:38:31,120
 And as noted in the agenda, item 5D is -- and DOG is being pulled.

933
01:38:31,120 --> 01:38:33,520
 So we have two public hearing items this evening.

934
01:38:33,520 --> 01:38:38,360
 Richard, I think I covered all of the changes, did I miss anything?

935
01:38:38,360 --> 01:38:39,360
 I think you got it.

936
01:38:39,360 --> 01:38:42,640
 I know Haley, I think they just circulated another plat, so we want to make sure everyone

937
01:38:42,640 --> 01:38:43,640
 got it.

938
01:38:43,640 --> 01:38:46,120
 If not, she'll be able to go through that here in a second.

939
01:38:46,120 --> 01:38:47,120
 Okay.

940
01:38:47,120 --> 01:38:48,120
 Sounds good.

941
01:38:48,120 --> 01:38:49,120
 Well, let's just dive into this.

942
01:38:49,120 --> 01:38:53,480
 Let's just start with item 4A, and we'll work from there.

943
01:38:53,480 --> 01:38:57,960
 This is Corrina Maldonado's item for preliminary plat.

944
01:38:57,960 --> 01:39:02,160
 Hi, can you hear me?

945
01:39:02,160 --> 01:39:03,160
 We can.

946
01:39:03,160 --> 01:39:04,160
 Okay.

947
01:39:04,160 --> 01:39:05,160
 Good evening, everyone.

948
01:39:05,160 --> 01:39:09,400
 So today, I'm presenting preliminary plat 20-0022.

949
01:39:09,400 --> 01:39:16,840
 This is a preliminary plat for Country Club Village Phase 4 for a proposed 13 residential

950
01:39:16,840 --> 01:39:17,840
 lots.

951
01:39:17,840 --> 01:39:26,920
 This was initially recommended as denial since the posting of the agenda and tonight, or

952
01:39:26,920 --> 01:39:33,080
 a couple hours ago, they have now met all the minimum requirements of our DDC and are

953
01:39:33,080 --> 01:39:37,160
 now being recommended for approval.

954
01:39:37,160 --> 01:39:39,600
 Great.

955
01:39:39,600 --> 01:39:44,680
 Any questions for Corrina?

956
01:39:44,680 --> 01:39:45,680
 I don't see any.

957
01:39:45,680 --> 01:39:48,360
 Thank you, Corrina.

958
01:39:48,360 --> 01:40:03,480
 Next is Haley with item 4B, FP 20-0025.

959
01:40:03,480 --> 01:40:22,920
 All right, let me unmute myself there.

960
01:40:22,920 --> 01:40:25,600
 This is the final plat for the Woodmere edition.

961
01:40:25,600 --> 01:40:29,960
 This is a residential subdivision that was previously approved through a PD that some

962
01:40:29,960 --> 01:40:32,600
 of you may remember from last year.

963
01:40:32,600 --> 01:40:36,840
 There are 151 residential lots and five open-space lots.

964
01:40:36,840 --> 01:40:40,840
 At this point, we are recommending denial as we're still working through a few items

965
01:40:40,840 --> 01:40:45,160
 with the applicant specifically related to the conservation easements and some electric

966
01:40:45,160 --> 01:40:47,240
 easements that are on the property.

967
01:40:47,240 --> 01:40:51,320
 So with that, the applicant has requested that extension to December 16th so that we

968
01:40:51,320 --> 01:40:53,160
 can continue working on those items.

969
01:40:53,160 --> 01:40:56,200
 I'm happy to answer any questions.

970
01:40:56,200 --> 01:40:57,200
 Commissioner Beck.

971
01:40:57,200 --> 01:40:58,200
 Thank you, Chair.

972
01:40:58,200 --> 01:41:00,360
 Haley, are these the kind of changes?

973
01:41:00,360 --> 01:41:05,240
 I ask this question often, but are these the kind of changes we can get done by that meeting?

974
01:41:05,240 --> 01:41:06,240
 Typically?

975
01:41:06,240 --> 01:41:08,200
 Just say typically?

976
01:41:08,200 --> 01:41:09,200
 Yeah.

977
01:41:09,200 --> 01:41:14,440
 We're hoping that we can resolve some of these as you remember from the PD.

978
01:41:14,440 --> 01:41:17,800
 This is one of the first subdivisions we've had that has conservation easements involved.

979
01:41:17,800 --> 01:41:22,600
 So that item, for example, is a little tricky, but we are working with MAC and the city attorney's

980
01:41:22,600 --> 01:41:27,760
 office to work through that expeditiously so that we can get that resolved.

981
01:41:27,760 --> 01:41:33,160
 So we are hopeful that we can have all of this cleared up by the 16th fairly reasonably.

982
01:41:33,160 --> 01:41:37,560
 And so to follow up, if it's not, what are the ramifications of that?

983
01:41:37,560 --> 01:41:43,440
 If we extend, if they're requesting we extend, which is what we typically do, I mean, are

984
01:41:43,440 --> 01:41:47,580
 there any ramifications if we don't get that resolved?

985
01:41:47,580 --> 01:41:52,960
 If things are not resolved by the 16th, the plat would, it would have to be acted upon

986
01:41:52,960 --> 01:41:56,280
 somehow by the commission, either approval or denial.

987
01:41:56,280 --> 01:41:59,740
 If there are still outstanding items, staff would be recommending denial at that point.

988
01:41:59,740 --> 01:42:05,640
 And that would, that would mean that the applicant would then have to come back and resubmit

989
01:42:05,640 --> 01:42:08,880
 at a later date and it would come back before the commission after they do that.

990
01:42:08,880 --> 01:42:09,880
 Okay.

991
01:42:09,880 --> 01:42:10,880
 That's what I expected.

992
01:42:10,880 --> 01:42:12,840
 And then I will follow up on a slightly different issue.

993
01:42:12,840 --> 01:42:17,960
 Did we ever resolve what was going on with the plat not being available or was that just

994
01:42:17,960 --> 01:42:19,240
 me?

995
01:42:19,240 --> 01:42:20,920
 I believe that was a glitch in legislature.

996
01:42:20,920 --> 01:42:23,520
 It was not just you from what I can tell.

997
01:42:23,520 --> 01:42:25,560
 I had the same issue when I tried to access it.

998
01:42:25,560 --> 01:42:26,560
 Okay.

999
01:42:26,560 --> 01:42:27,560
 Thank you.

1000
01:42:27,560 --> 01:42:29,520
 Any other questions for Haley?

1001
01:42:29,520 --> 01:42:30,520
 Great.

1002
01:42:30,520 --> 01:42:44,960
 We're going to jump back to Karina for item C, PP20-0026.

1003
01:42:44,960 --> 01:42:45,960
 I'm sorry.

1004
01:42:45,960 --> 01:42:46,960
 Can you hear me now?

1005
01:42:46,960 --> 01:42:47,960
 We can.

1006
01:42:47,960 --> 01:42:48,960
 All right.

1007
01:42:48,960 --> 01:42:58,040
 So this is PP20-0026 for a preliminary plat for a property at 100 North Loop 288.

1008
01:42:58,040 --> 01:43:06,200
 The preliminary plat is for a subdivision of five commercial lots.

1009
01:43:06,200 --> 01:43:10,920
 The applicant has some outstanding comments, so we are recommending denial.

1010
01:43:10,920 --> 01:43:17,720
 However, they have requested a 30-day extension to the December 16th, 2020 planning and zoning

1011
01:43:17,720 --> 01:43:19,400
 commission meeting.

1012
01:43:19,400 --> 01:43:22,960
 And with that, I can take any questions.

1013
01:43:22,960 --> 01:43:23,960
 Yeah.

1014
01:43:23,960 --> 01:43:26,820
 We got one from Commissioner Anderson.

1015
01:43:26,820 --> 01:43:30,240
 Thank you, Chair.

1016
01:43:30,240 --> 01:43:31,640
 I have a quick question.

1017
01:43:31,640 --> 01:43:39,440
 It says on the item title that it's located on the west side of Loop 288.

1018
01:43:39,440 --> 01:43:41,320
 To me, it looks like it's on the east side of Loop 288.

1019
01:43:41,320 --> 01:43:42,320
 Is that correct?

1020
01:43:42,320 --> 01:43:43,320
 Yep.

1021
01:43:43,320 --> 01:43:44,320
 That is a typo.

1022
01:43:44,320 --> 01:43:45,320
 I apologize.

1023
01:43:45,320 --> 01:43:48,040
 Loop 288, East 288, North of McKinney.

1024
01:43:48,040 --> 01:43:49,040
 Yes.

1025
01:43:49,040 --> 01:43:50,040
 Okay.

1026
01:43:50,040 --> 01:43:51,040
 That's what I saw.

1027
01:43:51,040 --> 01:43:54,040
 I just want to make sure I wasn't reading it wrong.

1028
01:43:54,040 --> 01:43:55,040
 All right.

1029
01:43:55,040 --> 01:43:57,200
 I don't see any other questions for you, Karina.

1030
01:43:57,200 --> 01:44:02,000
 Thank you very much.

1031
01:44:02,000 --> 01:44:04,600
 As previously noted, we're going to awkwardly jump into minutes.

1032
01:44:04,600 --> 01:44:06,800
 Any other corrections for minutes?

1033
01:44:06,800 --> 01:44:10,360
 Do we need any updates?

1034
01:44:10,360 --> 01:44:14,400
 Did anyone not get the updated notes from city staff regarding lines?

1035
01:44:14,400 --> 01:44:17,920
 I think 36 and 37.

1036
01:44:17,920 --> 01:44:18,920
 Okay.

1037
01:44:18,920 --> 01:44:23,200
 Seeing no hands or any motion of any kind, we're just going to proceed forward here.

1038
01:44:23,200 --> 01:44:50,160
 From EPP20-0024B, where we'll go to Sean Jacobson for presentation.

1039
01:44:50,160 --> 01:44:51,160
 All right.

1040
01:44:51,160 --> 01:44:58,040
 So presenting PP20-0024, as you know, sent this out today.

1041
01:44:58,040 --> 01:44:59,600
 We are now recommending approval.

1042
01:44:59,600 --> 01:45:06,480
 It's a plat of a single lot for development of a medical clinic, and they have resolved

1043
01:45:06,480 --> 01:45:11,400
 the outstanding issue related to the water line and the easement associated with it.

1044
01:45:11,400 --> 01:45:16,000
 So they now meet all the criteria for approval.

1045
01:45:16,000 --> 01:45:18,160
 Thanks, Sean.

1046
01:45:18,160 --> 01:45:22,400
 Any questions for Mr. Jacobson?

1047
01:45:22,400 --> 01:45:25,080
 All right.

1048
01:45:25,080 --> 01:45:28,640
 Seeing none, we'll go to the next item, which brings us to Haley again.

1049
01:45:28,640 --> 01:45:32,920
 Item FFR20-007B.

1050
01:45:32,920 --> 01:45:47,140
 All right, good evening again.

1051
01:45:47,140 --> 01:45:52,720
 This is a replat for two commercial lots at McKinney and Glengarry Way.

1052
01:45:52,720 --> 01:45:57,480
 You may have noticed an email was just sent to you about 20 minutes ago with a revised

1053
01:45:57,480 --> 01:45:59,400
 copy of this plat.

1054
01:45:59,400 --> 01:46:04,880
 If you haven't seen that yet, the applicant was able to work quickly this afternoon and

1055
01:46:04,880 --> 01:46:09,400
 address the remaining comments that staff had on this, so I can walk you briefly through

1056
01:46:09,400 --> 01:46:11,340
 those changes.

1057
01:46:11,340 --> 01:46:14,400
 There was an update to a couple of notes.

1058
01:46:14,400 --> 01:46:19,840
 I believe it's note 10 regarding the tree preservation was updated, and then note five

1059
01:46:19,840 --> 01:46:25,960
 was updated regarding the proximity of the floodplain and the requirement for base flood

1060
01:46:25,960 --> 01:46:26,960
 elevation.

1061
01:46:26,960 --> 01:46:31,760
 Additionally, this access easement was removed as it was unnecessary, and then a couple of

1062
01:46:31,760 --> 01:46:36,040
 references on here for easements that are to be dedicated by separate instrument were

1063
01:46:36,040 --> 01:46:37,040
 updated.

1064
01:46:37,040 --> 01:46:38,040
 So fairly simple items.

1065
01:46:38,040 --> 01:46:42,080
 They were able to make those changes today, and staff is changing our recommendation to

1066
01:46:42,080 --> 01:46:46,200
 approval since it now meets all of the criteria for approval.

1067
01:46:46,200 --> 01:46:50,100
 I'm happy to answer any questions.

1068
01:46:50,100 --> 01:46:51,100
 Commissioner Smith.

1069
01:46:51,100 --> 01:46:52,100
 Thank you, Chair.

1070
01:46:52,100 --> 01:46:56,480
 Haley, you'll change that on the PowerPoint before the meeting, correct?

1071
01:46:56,480 --> 01:46:57,480
 Yes.

1072
01:46:57,480 --> 01:47:03,200
 I wanted to double check and make sure that says that, so we don't look at it and see

1073
01:47:03,200 --> 01:47:06,000
 it and book denial or something like that.

1074
01:47:06,000 --> 01:47:10,720
 Yes, I intend to do that after the work session.

1075
01:47:10,720 --> 01:47:14,520
 I do not see any other questions, but Haley, thanks for working with the applicant even

1076
01:47:14,520 --> 01:47:17,680
 to the last minute to get that taken care of.

1077
01:47:17,680 --> 01:47:19,400
 Excuse me.

1078
01:47:19,400 --> 01:47:23,040
 Next item is Ron Manguita.

1079
01:47:23,040 --> 01:47:25,000
 He gets to come back.

1080
01:47:25,000 --> 01:47:26,000
 Item G, FR20-0016.

1081
01:47:26,000 --> 01:47:27,000
 Thank you, Chair.

1082
01:47:27,000 --> 01:47:40,960
 I'll bring up the presentation real quick.

1083
01:47:40,960 --> 01:47:47,600
 So this final replat is for a property you probably have seen before.

1084
01:47:47,600 --> 01:47:55,500
 It recently, I had a preliminary plat as well as adjacent replats for this development.

1085
01:47:55,500 --> 01:47:57,960
 It's called Eagle Creek.

1086
01:47:57,960 --> 01:48:00,260
 It is being recommended for denial.

1087
01:48:00,260 --> 01:48:04,960
 There is a section of the code that speaks to HOA documents.

1088
01:48:04,960 --> 01:48:13,760
 The applicant has not satisfied the comments yet, but we hope that that would be done soon.

1089
01:48:13,760 --> 01:48:20,640
 The applicant as part of this presentation has requested the 30-day extension, and the

1090
01:48:20,640 --> 01:48:24,440
 staff does not have any opposition to that request.

1091
01:48:24,440 --> 01:48:31,680
 Just really quickly, I wanted to share a concept plan, a phasing plan of the area that we're

1092
01:48:31,680 --> 01:48:32,680
 looking at.

1093
01:48:32,680 --> 01:48:40,280
 I'm just going to give you some context that Eagle Creek will have more development applications

1094
01:48:40,280 --> 01:48:46,320
 or plots being brought forward to the commission, so I just want to give you some overall idea

1095
01:48:46,320 --> 01:48:51,780
 of what this area is going to be looking like in the future.

1096
01:48:51,780 --> 01:49:02,840
 But again, as for today's consideration, we're looking at Phase 1A of that development.

1097
01:49:02,840 --> 01:49:04,400
 Any questions for Ron?

1098
01:49:04,400 --> 01:49:08,120
 All right, Chris, you're back.

1099
01:49:08,120 --> 01:49:16,280
 Sorry, I was in the wrong window, I apologize.

1100
01:49:16,280 --> 01:49:26,280
 The common area is this is the HOA lot that is overlapping the KEPT wellhead, or is this

1101
01:49:26,280 --> 01:49:29,640
 just HOA documents in general?

1102
01:49:29,640 --> 01:49:32,840
 This is just for the common area documents in general.

1103
01:49:32,840 --> 01:49:35,120
 This is just for the common areas, the open space.

1104
01:49:35,120 --> 01:49:36,120
 Okay.

1105
01:49:36,120 --> 01:49:37,120
 All right.

1106
01:49:37,120 --> 01:49:38,120
 Thank you.

1107
01:49:38,120 --> 01:49:41,320
 Any other questions?

1108
01:49:41,320 --> 01:49:43,680
 Great.

1109
01:49:43,680 --> 01:49:45,720
 Thank you, Ron.

1110
01:49:45,720 --> 01:49:49,480
 That moves us to our two public hearing items.

1111
01:49:49,480 --> 01:49:51,840
 The first one is presented by Haley Zygursky.

1112
01:49:51,840 --> 01:49:55,840
 It's item 5A, Z20-0009.

1113
01:49:55,840 --> 01:50:06,400
 Haley, whenever you're ready, the floor is yours.

1114
01:50:06,400 --> 01:50:21,840
 All right, let me get the presentation pulled up here.

1115
01:50:21,840 --> 01:50:45,720
 All right, this is Project Z20-0009, known as Urban Logistics 35.

1116
01:50:45,720 --> 01:50:49,080
 The request before you tonight is kind of twofold.

1117
01:50:49,080 --> 01:50:52,760
 There are two separate aspects to the zoning request.

1118
01:50:52,760 --> 01:50:56,360
 First is a rezoning from Highway Corridor to Light Industrial.

1119
01:50:56,360 --> 01:51:00,600
 That's on about 10 and a half acres, which is outlined in orange here on the map.

1120
01:51:00,600 --> 01:51:04,920
 And then the second part of the request is for 13 acres to the south of that, which is

1121
01:51:04,920 --> 01:51:10,220
 rezoning from Heavy Industrial to Light Industrial, and that area is shown here in yellow.

1122
01:51:10,220 --> 01:51:16,540
 Both of these are part of a larger property that is currently owned by Acme Brick.

1123
01:51:16,540 --> 01:51:19,760
 There was a gas well previously located on this northern end of the property that was

1124
01:51:19,760 --> 01:51:26,560
 plugged in 2019 in anticipation of this area being redeveloped with some more commercial

1125
01:51:26,560 --> 01:51:29,020
 or industrial type uses.

1126
01:51:29,020 --> 01:51:34,940
 And the proposal with this rezoning is to combine these two pieces with the area adjacent

1127
01:51:34,940 --> 01:51:39,160
 here that is currently zoned LI for a total of 35 acres that would be developed with a

1128
01:51:39,160 --> 01:51:43,320
 mixture of Light Industrial and warehouse uses.

1129
01:51:43,320 --> 01:51:46,380
 This is a look at the current versus proposed zoning maps.

1130
01:51:46,380 --> 01:51:50,640
 You can see if you're looking at the total 35 acres that they would be seeking to develop,

1131
01:51:50,640 --> 01:51:55,340
 there are three zoning districts on it, so they're looking to consolidate that into one

1132
01:51:55,340 --> 01:52:00,460
 consistent zoning of LI across the entire property.

1133
01:52:00,460 --> 01:52:06,200
 So there are multiple criteria for approval, as we've seen with rezoning requests previously.

1134
01:52:06,200 --> 01:52:09,580
 These general criteria are outlined in full detail in your backup, so I won't go through

1135
01:52:09,580 --> 01:52:13,920
 them here tonight, but we did find that they meet all of these criteria.

1136
01:52:13,920 --> 01:52:20,360
 And then specifically, we'll look at the seven criteria that are specific to zoning applications.

1137
01:52:20,360 --> 01:52:24,560
 So the first of those is consistency with our comprehensive plan, specifically with

1138
01:52:24,560 --> 01:52:26,960
 the future land use element of that plan.

1139
01:52:26,960 --> 01:52:30,720
 As you can see here, this site is designated for industrial commerce.

1140
01:52:30,720 --> 01:52:35,200
 There is a sharp transition here on the east side of it, as there is a multifamily that's

1141
01:52:35,200 --> 01:52:39,160
 been developed since approximately the mid-'80s on the property adjacent.

1142
01:52:39,160 --> 01:52:43,900
 But this property itself is industrial commerce, which is intended for that mixture of both

1143
01:52:43,900 --> 01:52:46,480
 light and heavy industrial uses.

1144
01:52:46,480 --> 01:52:50,960
 The comp plan references warehousing, manufacturing, and various industrial processes as part of

1145
01:52:50,960 --> 01:52:51,960
 that.

1146
01:52:51,960 --> 01:52:54,880
 So LI would be consistent with that designation.

1147
01:52:54,880 --> 01:52:59,920
 The light industrial district permits warehousing and distribution, as well as low-impact manufacturing

1148
01:52:59,920 --> 01:53:02,920
 uses.

1149
01:53:02,920 --> 01:53:06,640
 Another of our criteria is consistency with the purpose statement for the district.

1150
01:53:06,640 --> 01:53:12,240
 So the LI district, again, describes that intent to provide highly accessible locations

1151
01:53:12,240 --> 01:53:18,280
 for lighter industrial activity, such as manufacturing, assembly, warehousing, and distribution.

1152
01:53:18,280 --> 01:53:21,680
 So this request would be consistent with that purpose statement that the site is highly

1153
01:53:21,680 --> 01:53:23,800
 accessible along I-35.

1154
01:53:23,800 --> 01:53:28,040
 It would be a continuation of that existing zoning pattern that they have to the south

1155
01:53:28,040 --> 01:53:31,720
 on the Acmebrick site that's light industrial today.

1156
01:53:31,720 --> 01:53:35,360
 And it would be reducing the intensity of zoning adjacent to that multifamily where

1157
01:53:35,360 --> 01:53:37,240
 there's heavy industrial today.

1158
01:53:37,240 --> 01:53:44,080
 This would decrease the intensity of the uses that are permitted there and make it a little

1159
01:53:44,080 --> 01:53:48,320
 more compatible than it is today.

1160
01:53:48,320 --> 01:53:52,000
 One of our other criteria is, rather, there have been significant changes that would warrant

1161
01:53:52,000 --> 01:53:53,280
 the rezoning.

1162
01:53:53,280 --> 01:53:56,380
 So I wanted to go a little bit through the history of this site.

1163
01:53:56,380 --> 01:54:00,360
 This split zoning that you see has been in place since 2002, when the citywide rezoning

1164
01:54:00,360 --> 01:54:04,800
 occurred with the adoption of the 2002 DDC.

1165
01:54:04,800 --> 01:54:10,760
 Prior to that, since 1969, the site had had a solid heavy industrial zoning classification

1166
01:54:10,760 --> 01:54:14,120
 across the entire property all the way up to the I-35.

1167
01:54:14,120 --> 01:54:18,000
 So since 2002, it's had this split zoning on the site.

1168
01:54:18,000 --> 01:54:22,880
 Those districts, as you know, directly transitioned from the O2 districts to 2019.

1169
01:54:22,880 --> 01:54:27,200
 So now that they have a kind of higher purpose, if you will, for this site than just vacant

1170
01:54:27,200 --> 01:54:31,120
 land with a gas well, they are looking to consolidate that so that it can be developed

1171
01:54:31,120 --> 01:54:37,540
 in a consistent manner and be more consistent with our comprehensive plan.

1172
01:54:37,540 --> 01:54:43,640
 And then looking at potential impacts to surrounding property, the LI district is consistent with

1173
01:54:43,640 --> 01:54:44,640
 the zoning in this area.

1174
01:54:44,640 --> 01:54:48,160
 As you can see, a large portion of ACME site and some of the other properties along Fort

1175
01:54:48,160 --> 01:54:51,120
 Worth Drive are already zoned LI in this area.

1176
01:54:51,120 --> 01:54:55,240
 And it's important to note, as I mentioned earlier, currently we have heavy industrial

1177
01:54:55,240 --> 01:54:59,200
 immediately adjacent to an existing multifamily development.

1178
01:54:59,200 --> 01:55:03,500
 This would be decreasing the intensity of uses that could go in this area and making

1179
01:55:03,500 --> 01:55:06,840
 this more compatible with the adjacent multifamily.

1180
01:55:06,840 --> 01:55:11,520
 The DDC would still require any development under LI or HI to have compatibility buffers

1181
01:55:11,520 --> 01:55:17,080
 in place, but this would reduce some of those more nuisance potential uses that are permitted

1182
01:55:17,080 --> 01:55:22,840
 in HI and would create more compatibility in the area.

1183
01:55:22,840 --> 01:55:26,800
 So I just wanted to show you briefly an example of the industrial uses permitted in these

1184
01:55:26,800 --> 01:55:27,800
 three districts.

1185
01:55:27,800 --> 01:55:29,440
 The ones shown in red are those that are different.

1186
01:55:29,440 --> 01:55:34,560
 So you can see many uses that HI would permit either by right or with an SUP would not be

1187
01:55:34,560 --> 01:55:36,840
 permitted with this rezoning.

1188
01:55:36,840 --> 01:55:40,560
 Even medium impact manufacturing would require a specific use permit that would come back

1189
01:55:40,560 --> 01:55:44,960
 before the PNZ and council if they sought to develop that in LI.

1190
01:55:44,960 --> 01:55:50,360
 So this would be taking away some of those uses that could be more noxious, such as feedlots

1191
01:55:50,360 --> 01:55:55,680
 or storage of hazardous materials, for example.

1192
01:55:55,680 --> 01:56:00,960
 And then looking at the final criteria, which is the availability of facilities and services

1193
01:56:00,960 --> 01:56:02,800
 to serve the property.

1194
01:56:02,800 --> 01:56:06,520
 Looking first at transportation, you can see here that the property does have frontage

1195
01:56:06,520 --> 01:56:10,360
 and would take access directly off of the I-35 service road.

1196
01:56:10,360 --> 01:56:17,020
 This corridor between 377 and FM 2181 or Teasley is slated for improvements by tech stop.

1197
01:56:17,020 --> 01:56:23,800
 Their plans currently show a five to 10 year construction as the timeline for this segment.

1198
01:56:23,800 --> 01:56:27,480
 So with those improvements, access to the site would be more than adequate.

1199
01:56:27,480 --> 01:56:32,000
 The applicant did provide some trip generation for a preliminary analysis.

1200
01:56:32,000 --> 01:56:38,520
 They based it off of the development of almost 450,000 square feet of warehouse on not just

1201
01:56:38,520 --> 01:56:42,520
 this property, but also that adjacent site that I mentioned as part of their total 35

1202
01:56:42,520 --> 01:56:44,640
 acres that they're looking at.

1203
01:56:44,640 --> 01:56:52,920
 And the trips that they proposed would be a 770 total daily trips, 76 AM peak and 85

1204
01:56:52,920 --> 01:56:54,180
 AM peak trips.

1205
01:56:54,180 --> 01:56:58,960
 So with those, they did not trigger the need for a transportation impact analysis at this

1206
01:56:58,960 --> 01:57:03,680
 point in time, but that will be further analyzed once they submit for a zoning compliance plan

1207
01:57:03,680 --> 01:57:07,080
 or plan.

1208
01:57:07,080 --> 01:57:11,360
 Looking at utilities to serve the area, both water and sewer facilities are available adjacent

1209
01:57:11,360 --> 01:57:14,160
 to the site along the I-35 frontage road.

1210
01:57:14,160 --> 01:57:21,240
 So these lines would be extended and continued internally to serve any future development.

1211
01:57:21,240 --> 01:57:25,600
 And then finally, a public notification was provided regarding this case.

1212
01:57:25,600 --> 01:57:30,240
 We received no responses prior to this meeting.

1213
01:57:30,240 --> 01:57:33,360
 And staff is recommending approval of this request as we found it to meet all of those

1214
01:57:33,360 --> 01:57:34,740
 criteria for approval.

1215
01:57:34,740 --> 01:57:39,960
 And I will stop sharing now and I'm happy to answer any questions.

1216
01:57:39,960 --> 01:57:40,960
 Thank you, Haley.

1217
01:57:40,960 --> 01:57:46,120
 I do not see any questions, thorough presentation.

1218
01:57:46,120 --> 01:57:53,440
 The next item of business is item 5B, AESA 20-0006A.

1219
01:57:53,440 --> 01:58:00,440
 And Christy Upton is here to present this.

1220
01:58:00,440 --> 01:58:27,440
 Good evening, Christy Upton, and tonight I will be discussing an alternative ESA plan

1221
01:58:27,440 --> 01:58:35,200
 for the same property that Haley just presented.

1222
01:58:35,200 --> 01:58:48,360
 The request is for the Acme Bricks site and related to the zoning request, and the request

1223
01:58:48,360 --> 01:58:54,600
 is to permanently remove 1.26 acres of riparian buffer.

1224
01:58:54,600 --> 01:59:07,160
 Prior to this request, there was a field assessment requested by Acme Bricks company to identify

1225
01:59:07,160 --> 01:59:12,760
 the riparian buffers, confirm the riparian buffers on the site.

1226
01:59:12,760 --> 01:59:20,280
 There is a femoral stream that is a tributary of Hay Creek Creek, and the vegetation supporting

1227
01:59:20,280 --> 01:59:24,160
 that creek was found to be in fair condition.

1228
01:59:24,160 --> 01:59:29,720
 Currently these riparian buffers, there's 50 feet on each side of the stream, however,

1229
01:59:29,720 --> 01:59:36,440
 there is a berm that was created for access to the Acme Bricks site.

1230
01:59:36,440 --> 01:59:45,080
 And this berm prevents hydrology to be able to support the riparian buffer vegetation

1231
01:59:45,080 --> 01:59:47,120
 on the west side of the creek.

1232
01:59:47,120 --> 01:59:52,880
 And since that vegetation does not exist, the protection requirements were removed from

1233
01:59:52,880 --> 01:59:55,520
 the west side.

1234
01:59:55,520 --> 02:00:05,160
 I also wanted to bring attention to the, there was a citywide map update in 2015, originally

1235
02:00:05,160 --> 02:00:15,480
 when the code was adopted in 2002, a citywide map was adopted that, where it kind of, it

1236
02:00:15,480 --> 02:00:23,080
 was a placeholder of areas that look like it would be able to meet the criteria of these

1237
02:00:23,080 --> 02:00:24,080
 ESAs.

1238
02:00:24,080 --> 02:00:32,440
 One of those areas, the cross timbers upland habitat, if you're familiar, one of the requirements

1239
02:00:32,440 --> 02:00:38,240
 of the upland habitat to be protected is that it has to meet the criteria of greater than

1240
02:00:38,240 --> 02:00:40,040
 10 acres.

1241
02:00:40,040 --> 02:00:48,240
 And in 2015, the citywide update identified areas that both did not meet 10 acres and

1242
02:00:48,240 --> 02:00:55,920
 unlikely would ever meet the 10 acre criteria for that protection requirement.

1243
02:00:55,920 --> 02:01:04,320
 And these areas were all identified as the protection requirements being removed.

1244
02:01:04,320 --> 02:01:14,040
 And these areas that are located on the ACME site were part of that citywide update.

1245
02:01:14,040 --> 02:01:22,440
 Since the request is to remove the 1.26 acres, and that is because the applicant is, or the

1246
02:01:22,440 --> 02:01:30,800
 future development is requesting to construct the warehousing in an area that overlays with

1247
02:01:30,800 --> 02:01:32,400
 that riparian buffer.

1248
02:01:32,400 --> 02:01:41,000
 In addition, in order to maintain the access to ACME brick, there will be further removal

1249
02:01:41,000 --> 02:01:45,480
 of some of the riparian buffer to the south of these warehouse development.

1250
02:01:45,480 --> 02:01:52,120
 Can, Christy, I'm going to pause you real fast, Christy or Bec, did you have a question?

1251
02:01:52,120 --> 02:01:54,800
 Yes, thank you, Chair.

1252
02:01:54,800 --> 02:01:59,120
 Christy, what, who is the source of the 10 acre definition?

1253
02:01:59,120 --> 02:02:01,240
 Is that a state level?

1254
02:02:01,240 --> 02:02:02,720
 Is that a Denton level?

1255
02:02:02,720 --> 02:02:03,720
 I'm sorry.

1256
02:02:03,720 --> 02:02:05,200
 What is the source of that minimum?

1257
02:02:05,200 --> 02:02:06,200
 I'm sorry.

1258
02:02:06,200 --> 02:02:07,200
 Oh, yeah.

1259
02:02:07,200 --> 02:02:08,200
 No.

1260
02:02:08,200 --> 02:02:09,200
 Again.

1261
02:02:09,200 --> 02:02:10,200
 Yeah.

1262
02:02:10,200 --> 02:02:12,280
 I don't know what's going on with my microphone.

1263
02:02:12,280 --> 02:02:14,600
 What's the source of the 10 acres definition?

1264
02:02:14,600 --> 02:02:17,320
 That's a local code.

1265
02:02:17,320 --> 02:02:18,320
 Okay.

1266
02:02:18,320 --> 02:02:21,840
 That was a local decision.

1267
02:02:21,840 --> 02:02:29,880
 So you know, hypothetically, if our code was five, then when we would be bumping up against

1268
02:02:29,880 --> 02:02:35,720
 this as a definition of a forested region, because this is, well, I guess it's 4.7 or

1269
02:02:35,720 --> 02:02:36,720
 something like that.

1270
02:02:36,720 --> 02:02:40,760
 Let's say it was four, then we would be bumping up against it.

1271
02:02:40,760 --> 02:02:41,760
 Okay.

1272
02:02:41,760 --> 02:02:42,760
 Correct.

1273
02:02:42,760 --> 02:02:47,080
 And we make no special exceptions for having adjacent, I thought there was provisions in

1274
02:02:47,080 --> 02:02:53,480
 one section for being adjacent to another upland habitat region, like you see to the

1275
02:02:53,480 --> 02:02:58,040
 northeast, that that doesn't apply because this is under TAN, right?

1276
02:02:58,040 --> 02:03:00,920
 No, actually, that's not in the code.

1277
02:03:00,920 --> 02:03:07,080
 There's no, there's nothing specific about adjacency in the code.

1278
02:03:07,080 --> 02:03:13,840
 It's something that we have put in this future criteria manual or document that environmental

1279
02:03:13,840 --> 02:03:22,360
 services will be publishing, where we encourage the preservation of these habitats that are

1280
02:03:22,360 --> 02:03:26,960
 adjacent to other habitats so that you create these transitions.

1281
02:03:26,960 --> 02:03:38,080
 That's a preferable preservation because you have greater area in allowance for migration

1282
02:03:38,080 --> 02:03:41,720
 between different habitat types.

1283
02:03:41,720 --> 02:03:43,960
 All right.

1284
02:03:43,960 --> 02:03:46,480
 Thank you.

1285
02:03:46,480 --> 02:03:59,160
 So part of the mitigation that is being offered to offset for the removal of the riparian

1286
02:03:59,160 --> 02:04:05,720
 buffer is related to the detention bases that will be constructed.

1287
02:04:05,720 --> 02:04:13,680
 The applicant is proposing to support these warehousing developments that they will need

1288
02:04:13,680 --> 02:04:21,760
 to construct the detention basin system in order to intercept the storm water flow.

1289
02:04:21,760 --> 02:04:29,520
 And part of that will be to construct it per the City of Denton storm water design standards.

1290
02:04:29,520 --> 02:04:37,520
 And for the purpose of offsetting the ecological services that are being removed from the riparian

1291
02:04:37,520 --> 02:04:49,160
 buffer, the applicant is offering to construct these habitat uplift with native grasses and

1292
02:04:49,160 --> 02:04:58,160
 herbaceous plants, wetland, drain fields and wildflower mix that will allow for migratory

1293
02:04:58,160 --> 02:05:07,440
 birds and other wildlife to help support those type of habitats in the future.

1294
02:05:07,440 --> 02:05:13,480
 The second type of mitigation that the applicant is proposing is a conservation easement that

1295
02:05:13,480 --> 02:05:20,720
 will be placed over 2.11 acres of cross timbers upland habitat as an upland habitat designation

1296
02:05:20,720 --> 02:05:21,720
 that was removed.

1297
02:05:21,720 --> 02:05:29,200
 Again, that's less than 10 acres total of this habitat that had been identified previously.

1298
02:05:29,200 --> 02:05:37,960
 And thus this area, this forested area has no protection requirements placed over it.

1299
02:05:37,960 --> 02:05:42,960
 And so this conservation easement would place, by placing this conservation easement over

1300
02:05:42,960 --> 02:05:50,520
 that area, it would permanently set aside those 2.11 acres of upland habitat.

1301
02:05:50,520 --> 02:05:56,720
 Not part of this application, but the applicant has mentioned it in their plan and I wanted

1302
02:05:56,720 --> 02:06:01,560
 to bring it to your attention that there's an additional 1.7 acres of remnant, of that

1303
02:06:01,560 --> 02:06:12,200
 remnant forest just north of the conservation easement and along the edge of the multifamily

1304
02:06:12,200 --> 02:06:17,080
 that will be also preserved in order to meet the tree preservation requirements for the

1305
02:06:17,080 --> 02:06:22,600
 development.

1306
02:06:22,600 --> 02:06:23,600
 Yes, Mr. Beck.

1307
02:06:23,600 --> 02:06:24,600
 Yeah.

1308
02:06:24,600 --> 02:06:25,600
 Thank you, Chair.

1309
02:06:25,600 --> 02:06:27,680
 Christine, are those additional 1.7 being included?

1310
02:06:27,680 --> 02:06:31,760
 I wasn't clear in the easement, in the conservation easement?

1311
02:06:31,760 --> 02:06:34,440
 It's not in the conservation easement.

1312
02:06:34,440 --> 02:06:40,760
 It is, and it's not part of this application specifically, but the applicant has mentioned

1313
02:06:40,760 --> 02:06:45,640
 it in the plan and I just wanted to bring it to your attention that that also will be

1314
02:06:45,640 --> 02:06:46,640
 set aside.

1315
02:06:46,640 --> 02:06:49,920
 That is their plans right now.

1316
02:06:49,920 --> 02:06:54,280
 All right, thank you.

1317
02:06:54,280 --> 02:07:05,520
 Notifications were sent out for this proposed project and there were no responses that were

1318
02:07:05,520 --> 02:07:07,000
 received by staff.

1319
02:07:07,000 --> 02:07:13,200
 There was one response, I believe, that was emailed to all the commissioners in opposition.

1320
02:07:13,200 --> 02:07:25,600
 However, that response was from a non-land owner, so that did not get included in this

1321
02:07:25,600 --> 02:07:27,080
 calculation.

1322
02:07:27,080 --> 02:07:33,600
 The recommendation is for approval with the following conditions, that the riparian buffer

1323
02:07:33,600 --> 02:07:42,880
 removal be limited to the 1.26 acres as shown in the plan and that this alternative easement

1324
02:07:42,880 --> 02:07:54,560
 be placed over the 2.11 acres, that the city will be filing that deed or filing that record

1325
02:07:54,560 --> 02:08:00,600
 with the county and that the owner will pay all the applicable fees.

1326
02:08:00,600 --> 02:08:07,480
 And then the applicant will within 14 days of the construction of the detention basins

1327
02:08:07,480 --> 02:08:15,800
 apply the vegetative cover as described in the plan and lastly the two recommended conditions

1328
02:08:15,800 --> 02:08:22,040
 that staff typically places over plans that include vegetation.

1329
02:08:22,040 --> 02:08:31,080
 And with that, I will close those and take any further questions.

1330
02:08:31,080 --> 02:08:38,720
 Thank you, Chair.

1331
02:08:38,720 --> 02:08:43,360
 I noticed that the existing detention pond is getting kept and two more detention ponds

1332
02:08:43,360 --> 02:08:45,160
 are being added.

1333
02:08:45,160 --> 02:08:52,000
 Half of the forest is being removed and replaced with a detention pond to replace the riparian

1334
02:08:52,000 --> 02:08:56,280
 and it feels like I mentioned this in our email, robbing Peter to pay Paul a little

1335
02:08:56,280 --> 02:09:04,080
 bit on our ESA there, but was there any thought to combining the two detention ponds at the

1336
02:09:04,080 --> 02:09:08,080
 south, on the south, half of that forested region?

1337
02:09:08,080 --> 02:09:12,160
 I can't hear you again.

1338
02:09:12,160 --> 02:09:17,640
 I'm sorry, I apologize, I'll say that again.

1339
02:09:17,640 --> 02:09:24,960
 The roughly eight, nine acres of forested region has a detention pond in it and I know

1340
02:09:24,960 --> 02:09:30,440
 that they're proposing putting an additional detention pond in the northern half.

1341
02:09:30,440 --> 02:09:34,960
 And I said, it feels like we're robbing Peter to pay Paul on our environmental language

1342
02:09:34,960 --> 02:09:36,440
 here.

1343
02:09:36,440 --> 02:09:40,800
 I understand we need that drainage field to replace where they're going to put the warehouses

1344
02:09:40,800 --> 02:09:44,280
 and overall I think this plan is really good.

1345
02:09:44,280 --> 02:09:50,240
 And I'm just a little, I'm sad that we are balancing our environmental concerns against

1346
02:09:50,240 --> 02:09:57,560
 each other rather than sort of adopting them fully and the riparian versus the upland habitat.

1347
02:09:57,560 --> 02:10:05,520
 And so my question was, are we precluded from or was there discussion of combining, putting

1348
02:10:05,520 --> 02:10:12,640
 the detention pond together with the southern detention pond that's already in existence

1349
02:10:12,640 --> 02:10:19,560
 and save the forest on the north and put the detention pond on the south?

1350
02:10:19,560 --> 02:10:25,240
 I would have to defer to the applicant on that question.

1351
02:10:25,240 --> 02:10:32,840
 I think this is a design element that best answered by the applicant on why they consider

1352
02:10:32,840 --> 02:10:37,580
 putting the detention basins in that location.

1353
02:10:37,580 --> 02:10:44,760
 Then let me say that, is there anything precluding, if you need more detention pond riparian wet

1354
02:10:44,760 --> 02:10:50,160
 space, is there anything that in our code that precludes us from expanding that addition,

1355
02:10:50,160 --> 02:10:54,160
 that existing detention pond?

1356
02:10:54,160 --> 02:10:55,160
 I don't think so.

1357
02:10:55,160 --> 02:11:03,120
 I don't think that there is anything in the code that would lead to requiring the applicant

1358
02:11:03,120 --> 02:11:10,280
 to design the detention basins in a different manner than what they are proposing.

1359
02:11:10,280 --> 02:11:19,240
 And just keep in mind that that upland habitat, again, was not protected and thus whatever

1360
02:11:19,240 --> 02:11:28,440
 they're setting aside is more than what our code would have required of them.

1361
02:11:28,440 --> 02:11:29,440
 Yes.

1362
02:11:29,440 --> 02:11:30,440
 I appreciate it.

1363
02:11:30,440 --> 02:11:35,400
 I take your point.

1364
02:11:35,400 --> 02:11:40,160
 But as I mentioned earlier, there's sort of that concept that the 10-anchor minimum

1365
02:11:40,160 --> 02:11:47,160
 is our arbitrary standard at the dent level rather than any other standard.

1366
02:11:47,160 --> 02:11:53,120
 And thus, we could potentially petition counsel not for this particular property, mind you,

1367
02:11:53,120 --> 02:11:56,240
 but in general to alter that standard.

1368
02:11:56,240 --> 02:12:00,080
 Okay, I appreciate your responses.

1369
02:12:00,080 --> 02:12:03,080
 Thank you, Christy.

1370
02:12:03,080 --> 02:12:04,880
 Any other questions for Christy?

1371
02:12:04,880 --> 02:12:05,880
 Okay.

1372
02:12:05,880 --> 02:12:10,120
 Seeing none, we can continue on.

1373
02:12:10,120 --> 02:12:12,520
 Thank you for that presentation.

1374
02:12:12,520 --> 02:12:16,440
 Item C and D are being postponed.

1375
02:12:16,440 --> 02:12:21,520
 So that does actually conclude our agenda for our work session.

1376
02:12:21,520 --> 02:12:25,200
 Seeing that, I will close -- oh, Commissioner Ellis.

1377
02:12:25,200 --> 02:12:26,200
 Thank you, Chair.

1378
02:12:26,200 --> 02:12:30,960
 With regard to 5C, are we postponing to a certain date or just indefinitely?

1379
02:12:30,960 --> 02:12:33,600
 It's indefinite with a re-notice.

1380
02:12:33,600 --> 02:12:34,600
 Understood.

1381
02:12:34,600 --> 02:12:35,600
 Thank you.

1382
02:12:35,600 --> 02:12:36,600
 Yep.

1383
02:12:36,600 --> 02:12:37,600
 Okay.

1384
02:12:37,600 --> 02:12:38,600
 I will close the meeting at 614.

1385
02:12:38,600 --> 02:12:41,360
 We'll reconvene back here at 630.

1386
02:12:41,360 --> 02:12:47,040
 Thank you.

1387
02:12:47,040 --> 02:12:50,360
 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting

1388
02:12:50,360 --> 02:12:54,440
 for December 2nd, 2020.

1389
02:12:54,440 --> 02:13:00,080
 Seeing that we do have a quorum here, I will call the meeting to order at 631.

1390
02:13:00,080 --> 02:13:06,440
 The first item for business this evening is to provide a pledge of allegiance to the U.S.

1391
02:13:06,440 --> 02:13:08,680
 and Texas flag.

1392
02:13:08,680 --> 02:13:13,440
 Commissioners, if you'd unmute yourself to join, that's optional.

1393
02:13:13,440 --> 02:13:19,800
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for

1394
02:13:19,800 --> 02:13:29,440
 which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

1395
02:13:29,440 --> 02:13:40,080
 Under the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one indivisible.

1396
02:13:40,080 --> 02:13:44,360
 Next item of business is we have no consent agenda this evening, so we'll move right into

1397
02:13:44,360 --> 02:13:52,600
 items for individual consideration, starting with item 4A, PP20-0022B, and I will call

1398
02:13:52,600 --> 02:13:55,160
 Karina Maldonado for presentation.

1399
02:13:55,160 --> 02:13:57,440
 Good evening.

1400
02:13:57,440 --> 02:14:05,280
 This first request for PP20-0022B is for the approval of a preliminary plaque of Country

1401
02:14:05,280 --> 02:14:12,680
 Club Village Phase 4 to the approximately 12.53-acre site located on the northwest corner

1402
02:14:12,680 --> 02:14:18,440
 of Fairview Drive and Clubview Drive in South Denton, City of Denton.

1403
02:14:18,440 --> 02:14:25,240
 The staff was initially a recommendation of denial; however, the applicant has addressed

1404
02:14:25,240 --> 02:14:31,960
 all outstanding comments since the publishing of the agenda, so staff is now recommending

1405
02:14:31,960 --> 02:14:33,440
 approval of this request.

1406
02:14:33,440 --> 02:14:38,160
 A revised plaque was emailed to you tonight.

1407
02:14:38,160 --> 02:14:43,560
 I just want to make note of one change that was not shown previously, this is a correction

1408
02:14:43,560 --> 02:14:51,840
 to the label off Clubview Drive, just to correct the right-of-way labeling, and with that I

1409
02:14:51,840 --> 02:14:54,840
 can take any questions.

1410
02:14:54,840 --> 02:14:55,840
 Thank you.

1411
02:14:55,840 --> 02:14:56,840
 I appreciate it, Karina.

1412
02:14:56,840 --> 02:14:57,840
 I do not see any questions.

1413
02:14:57,840 --> 02:14:59,800
 The Chair will entertain discussion or motion.

1414
02:14:59,800 --> 02:15:00,800
 Commissioner Smith?

1415
02:15:00,800 --> 02:15:01,800
 I make a motion to approve.

1416
02:15:01,800 --> 02:15:04,360
 We have a first for approval.

1417
02:15:04,360 --> 02:15:05,360
 Commissioner Anderson?

1418
02:15:05,360 --> 02:15:06,360
 I second the motion.

1419
02:15:06,360 --> 02:15:07,360
 We have a first and a second.

1420
02:15:07,360 --> 02:15:08,360
 Any discussion?

1421
02:15:08,360 --> 02:15:10,480
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

1422
02:15:10,480 --> 02:15:11,480
 Commissioner Ellis?

1423
02:15:11,480 --> 02:15:12,480
 Aye.

1424
02:15:12,480 --> 02:15:13,480
 Commissioner Smith?

1425
02:15:13,480 --> 02:15:14,480
 Aye.

1426
02:15:14,480 --> 02:15:15,480
 Commissioner Bec?

1427
02:15:15,480 --> 02:15:16,480
 I think that was an aye.

1428
02:15:16,480 --> 02:15:33,960
 I can't hear you, Commissioner Bec.

1429
02:15:33,960 --> 02:15:38,280
 By signal of a big nod, we're going to go with an aye from Commissioner Bec.

1430
02:15:38,280 --> 02:15:39,280
 Commissioner Anderson?

1431
02:15:39,280 --> 02:15:40,280
 Aye.

1432
02:15:40,280 --> 02:15:43,120
 I can hear that one.

1433
02:15:43,120 --> 02:15:45,160
 Commissioner Cole?

1434
02:15:45,160 --> 02:15:46,640
 This isn't working either.

1435
02:15:46,640 --> 02:15:50,480
 Commissioner Cole, your mic on.

1436
02:15:50,480 --> 02:15:51,480
 We got a thumbs up.

1437
02:15:51,480 --> 02:15:53,000
 We'll take that one as well.

1438
02:15:53,000 --> 02:15:55,000
 Commissioner Pernetta?

1439
02:15:55,000 --> 02:15:56,000
 Aye.

1440
02:15:56,000 --> 02:15:58,200
 Chair is also an aye.

1441
02:15:58,200 --> 02:16:00,840
 Motion carries 7-0.

1442
02:16:00,840 --> 02:16:01,840
 Next item.

1443
02:16:01,840 --> 02:16:07,920
 Are we getting a lot of shaking of heads?

1444
02:16:07,920 --> 02:16:12,160
 This Commissioner Bec was asking to see if we could hear him, but now that we could not,

1445
02:16:12,160 --> 02:16:13,160
 we cannot hear him.

1446
02:16:13,160 --> 02:16:14,160
 Gotcha.

1447
02:16:14,160 --> 02:16:15,160
 Thank you for that interpretation.

1448
02:16:15,160 --> 02:16:16,160
 Welcome.

1449
02:16:16,160 --> 02:16:21,680
 Next item is 4B, FP20-0025.

1450
02:16:21,680 --> 02:16:24,920
 This is Haley Zygursky's presentation.

1451
02:16:24,920 --> 02:16:34,640
 Good evening, Commissioners.

1452
02:16:34,640 --> 02:16:37,440
 This is FP2025.

1453
02:16:37,440 --> 02:16:41,160
 This is the Woodmere edition.

1454
02:16:41,160 --> 02:16:46,480
 This is a final plat for 151 single family lots, and at this point, staff is recommending

1455
02:16:46,480 --> 02:16:50,600
 denial as it does not meet the requirements outlined in Exhibit 2.

1456
02:16:50,600 --> 02:16:55,240
 However, the applicant has requested extension to December 16th, and staff has no objection

1457
02:16:55,240 --> 02:16:56,240
 to that.

1458
02:16:56,240 --> 02:16:58,560
 I'm happy to stand for any questions.

1459
02:16:58,560 --> 02:17:00,560
 Thank you very much.

1460
02:17:00,560 --> 02:17:02,640
 Commissioner Anderson?

1461
02:17:02,640 --> 02:17:09,880
 I'll make a motion to approve the extension to date of December 16th.

1462
02:17:09,880 --> 02:17:12,040
 Perfect, Commissioner Smith?

1463
02:17:12,040 --> 02:17:13,040
 Second.

1464
02:17:13,040 --> 02:17:16,960
 We have a first and a second.

1465
02:17:16,960 --> 02:17:17,960
 Any discussion?

1466
02:17:17,960 --> 02:17:24,440
 Seeing none, just for clarification, Matt, considering the mics are odd, am I able to

1467
02:17:24,440 --> 02:17:31,440
 do a vote via a show of hands if I can see everyone?

1468
02:17:31,440 --> 02:17:37,560
 Yeah, I suppose if it's the only alternative, if the mics aren't working, then they can

1469
02:17:37,560 --> 02:17:38,560
 do it by hand.

1470
02:17:38,560 --> 02:17:40,280
 No, I can hear Commissioner Beck.

1471
02:17:40,280 --> 02:17:45,240
 Commissioner Kohl, can I hear you?

1472
02:17:45,240 --> 02:17:53,000
 No, I cannot hear you.

1473
02:17:53,000 --> 02:17:57,160
 I would say continue to do the roll call, and Commissioner Kohl can do a thumbs up or

1474
02:17:57,160 --> 02:17:58,160
 thumbs down.

1475
02:17:58,160 --> 02:17:59,160
 Okay.

1476
02:17:59,160 --> 02:18:00,160
 Sounds good.

1477
02:18:00,160 --> 02:18:01,640
 We have a first and a second for approval.

1478
02:18:01,640 --> 02:18:05,080
 We'll start with a vote via roll call.

1479
02:18:05,080 --> 02:18:06,080
 Commissioner Ellis?

1480
02:18:06,080 --> 02:18:07,080
 Aye.

1481
02:18:07,080 --> 02:18:08,080
 Commissioner Smith?

1482
02:18:08,080 --> 02:18:09,080
 Aye.

1483
02:18:09,080 --> 02:18:10,080
 Commissioner Beck?

1484
02:18:10,080 --> 02:18:11,080
 Aye.

1485
02:18:11,080 --> 02:18:12,080
 There we go.

1486
02:18:12,080 --> 02:18:13,080
 Commissioner Anderson?

1487
02:18:13,080 --> 02:18:14,080
 Aye.

1488
02:18:14,080 --> 02:18:15,080
 Commissioner Kohl?

1489
02:18:15,080 --> 02:18:18,080
 Let's do a thumbs up, thumbs down.

1490
02:18:18,080 --> 02:18:19,080
 There we go.

1491
02:18:19,080 --> 02:18:20,080
 Commissioner Pernetta?

1492
02:18:20,080 --> 02:18:21,080
 Aye.

1493
02:18:21,080 --> 02:18:25,640
 And I guess I should let the record show that Commissioner Kohl did give a thumbs up.

1494
02:18:25,640 --> 02:18:26,640
 Chair is also an aye.

1495
02:18:26,640 --> 02:18:28,780
 Motion carries 7-0.

1496
02:18:28,780 --> 02:18:35,720
 Next item of business is item 3, 4C, PP20-0026.

1497
02:18:35,720 --> 02:18:39,160
 This is Carina Maldonado's item.

1498
02:18:39,160 --> 02:18:41,520
 All right.

1499
02:18:41,520 --> 02:18:49,080
 This request, PP20-0026, is for approval of the preliminary plaque at 100 North Loop 288.

1500
02:18:49,080 --> 02:18:51,920
 This is on the east side of Loop 288.

1501
02:18:51,920 --> 02:18:55,480
 I apologize for the typo in the previous work session.

1502
02:18:55,480 --> 02:19:00,320
 Staff is recommending denial of this request, as it does not meet the minimum requirements

1503
02:19:00,320 --> 02:19:02,320
 in the DDC.

1504
02:19:02,320 --> 02:19:08,320
 However, the applicant has requested a 30-day extension to the December 16th Applying and

1505
02:19:08,320 --> 02:19:11,400
 Zoning Commission meeting, and we are not opposed to this request.

1506
02:19:11,400 --> 02:19:13,720
 Behind that, I can take any questions.

1507
02:19:13,720 --> 02:19:16,140
 I appreciate it, Commissioner Ellis.

1508
02:19:16,140 --> 02:19:17,140
 Thank you, Chair.

1509
02:19:17,140 --> 02:19:23,160
 Carina, just to clarify, you mentioned 30-day request for extension.

1510
02:19:23,160 --> 02:19:31,400
 December 16th is two weeks from now, so is it December 16th that the applicant is requesting?

1511
02:19:31,400 --> 02:19:35,400
 The request was tipped the allowances for up to 30 days.

1512
02:19:35,400 --> 02:19:41,560
 However, just based on the way our meetings are scheduled, that would have to be by December

1513
02:19:41,560 --> 02:19:42,560
 16th.

1514
02:19:42,560 --> 02:19:43,560
 Okay.

1515
02:19:43,560 --> 02:19:44,560
 Understood.

1516
02:19:44,560 --> 02:19:45,560
 Thank you.

1517
02:19:45,560 --> 02:19:46,560
 Commissioner Smith?

1518
02:19:46,560 --> 02:19:50,840
 Make a motion to approve the extension to date certain December 16th.

1519
02:19:50,840 --> 02:19:51,840
 We have a first.

1520
02:19:51,840 --> 02:19:52,840
 Commissioner Pernetta?

1521
02:19:52,840 --> 02:19:53,840
 I'll second.

1522
02:19:53,840 --> 02:20:00,560
 We have a first and a second for an approval of this extension request of 30 days to date

1523
02:20:00,560 --> 02:20:01,920
 certain of December 16th.

1524
02:20:01,920 --> 02:20:03,760
 Is there any discussion?

1525
02:20:03,760 --> 02:20:07,200
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

1526
02:20:07,200 --> 02:20:08,200
 Commissioner Ellis?

1527
02:20:08,200 --> 02:20:09,200
 Aye.

1528
02:20:09,200 --> 02:20:10,200
 Commissioner Smith?

1529
02:20:10,200 --> 02:20:11,200
 Aye.

1530
02:20:11,200 --> 02:20:12,200
 Commissioner Beck?

1531
02:20:12,200 --> 02:20:13,200
 Aye.

1532
02:20:13,200 --> 02:20:14,200
 Commissioner Anderson?

1533
02:20:14,200 --> 02:20:15,200
 Aye.

1534
02:20:15,200 --> 02:20:18,920
 Commissioner Cole, thumb up, thumb down.

1535
02:20:18,920 --> 02:20:20,400
 That's an aye from Commissioner Cole.

1536
02:20:20,400 --> 02:20:21,400
 Commissioner Pernetta?

1537
02:20:21,400 --> 02:20:22,400
 Aye.

1538
02:20:22,400 --> 02:20:23,400
 Chair, it's also an aye.

1539
02:20:23,400 --> 02:20:24,400
 Motion carries 7-0.

1540
02:20:24,400 --> 02:20:29,280
 Next item of business is item 4D, it's the consideration and approval of the November

1541
02:20:29,280 --> 02:20:31,400
 18th minutes.

1542
02:20:31,400 --> 02:20:35,240
 Our commission was sent a revised copy of the minutes.

1543
02:20:35,240 --> 02:20:36,240
 Commissioner Smith?

1544
02:20:36,240 --> 02:20:38,200
 Make a motion to approve as amended.

1545
02:20:38,200 --> 02:20:39,480
 Commissioner Ellis?

1546
02:20:39,480 --> 02:20:40,480
 Second.

1547
02:20:40,480 --> 02:20:45,240
 We have a first and a second for approval of the minutes.

1548
02:20:45,240 --> 02:20:46,240
 Any discussion?

1549
02:20:46,240 --> 02:20:49,880
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

1550
02:20:49,880 --> 02:20:50,880
 Commissioner Ellis?

1551
02:20:50,880 --> 02:20:51,880
 Aye.

1552
02:20:51,880 --> 02:20:52,880
 Commissioner Smith?

1553
02:20:52,880 --> 02:20:53,880
 Aye.

1554
02:20:53,880 --> 02:20:54,880
 Commissioner Beck?

1555
02:20:54,880 --> 02:20:55,880
 Aye.

1556
02:20:55,880 --> 02:20:56,880
 Commissioner Anderson?

1557
02:20:56,880 --> 02:20:57,880
 Aye.

1558
02:20:57,880 --> 02:20:58,880
 Commissioner Cole?

1559
02:20:58,880 --> 02:20:59,880
 No.

1560
02:20:59,880 --> 02:21:00,880
 Commissioner Anderson?

1561
02:21:00,880 --> 02:21:01,880
 No.

1562
02:21:01,880 --> 02:21:02,880
 Commissioner Cole is an affirmative.

1563
02:21:02,880 --> 02:21:03,880
 Commissioner Pernetta?

1564
02:21:03,880 --> 02:21:04,880
 Aye.

1565
02:21:04,880 --> 02:21:05,880
 And Chair, it's also an aye.

1566
02:21:05,880 --> 02:21:06,880
 Motion carries 7-0.

1567
02:21:06,880 --> 02:21:13,840
 The next item of business is item 4E, PP20-0024B, and I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation.

1568
02:21:13,840 --> 02:21:17,600
 Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.

1569
02:21:17,600 --> 02:21:26,600
 Just pull up presentation here, and we are, hopefully you can see that now.

1570
02:21:26,600 --> 02:21:27,600
 Yep.

1571
02:21:27,600 --> 02:21:35,000
 We're meeting PP20-0024 preliminary plat.

1572
02:21:35,000 --> 02:21:41,680
 This was initially recommended for denial, but all concerns have been resolved with the

1573
02:21:41,680 --> 02:21:45,680
 plat that you were sent this afternoon, and so staff is now recommending approval because

1574
02:21:45,680 --> 02:21:49,840
 it meets all of the requirements for approval.

1575
02:21:49,840 --> 02:21:51,560
 Great.

1576
02:21:51,560 --> 02:21:52,560
 Any questions?

1577
02:21:52,560 --> 02:21:53,560
 Okay.

1578
02:21:53,560 --> 02:21:57,800
 Seeing none, Chair will entertain a motion.

1579
02:21:57,800 --> 02:21:58,800
 Commissioner Anderson?

1580
02:21:58,800 --> 02:21:59,800
 Seconded.

1581
02:21:59,800 --> 02:22:00,800
 Motion to approve.

1582
02:22:00,800 --> 02:22:01,800
 We have a first for approval.

1583
02:22:01,800 --> 02:22:02,800
 Commissioner Smith?

1584
02:22:02,800 --> 02:22:03,800
 Second.

1585
02:22:03,800 --> 02:22:06,280
 We have a first and a second for approval.

1586
02:22:06,280 --> 02:22:08,520
 Any discussion?

1587
02:22:08,520 --> 02:22:12,240
 Seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call.

1588
02:22:12,240 --> 02:22:13,240
 Commissioner Ellis?

1589
02:22:13,240 --> 02:22:14,240
 Aye.

1590
02:22:14,240 --> 02:22:15,240
 Commissioner Smith?

1591
02:22:15,240 --> 02:22:16,240
 Aye.

1592
02:22:16,240 --> 02:22:17,240
 Commissioner Beck?

1593
02:22:17,240 --> 02:22:18,240
 Aye.

1594
02:22:18,240 --> 02:22:19,240
 Commissioner Anderson?

1595
02:22:19,240 --> 02:22:20,240
 Aye.

1596
02:22:20,240 --> 02:22:21,240
 Commissioner Cole?

1597
02:22:21,240 --> 02:22:22,240
 Aye.

1598
02:22:22,240 --> 02:22:23,840
 Commissioner Cole?

1599
02:22:23,840 --> 02:22:24,840
 Aye.

1600
02:22:24,840 --> 02:22:25,840
 Commissioner Cole?

1601
02:22:25,840 --> 02:22:26,840
 Aye.

1602
02:22:26,840 --> 02:22:27,840
 Commissioner Cole?

1603
02:22:27,840 --> 02:22:28,840
 Aye.

1604
02:22:28,840 --> 02:22:29,840
 Commissioner Cole?

1605
02:22:29,840 --> 02:22:30,840
 Aye.

1606
02:22:30,840 --> 02:22:31,840
 Commissioner Cole?

1607
02:22:31,840 --> 02:22:32,840
 Aye.

1608
02:22:32,840 --> 02:22:33,840
 Commissioner Cole?

1609
02:22:33,840 --> 02:22:34,840
 Aye.

1610
02:22:34,840 --> 02:22:35,840
 Commissioner Cole?

1611
02:22:35,840 --> 02:22:36,840
 Aye.

1612
02:22:36,840 --> 02:22:37,840
 Commissioner Cole?

1613
02:22:37,840 --> 02:22:38,840
 Aye.

1614
02:22:38,840 --> 02:22:39,840
 Commissioner Cole?

1615
02:22:39,840 --> 02:22:40,840
 Aye.

1616
02:22:40,840 --> 02:22:41,840
 Commissioner Cole?

1617
02:22:41,840 --> 02:22:42,840
 Aye.

1618
02:22:42,840 --> 02:22:43,840
 Commissioner Cole?

1619
02:22:43,840 --> 02:22:44,840
 Aye.

1620
02:22:44,840 --> 02:22:45,840
 Commissioner Cole?

1621
02:22:45,840 --> 02:22:46,840
 Aye.

1622
02:22:46,840 --> 02:22:47,840
 Commissioner Cole?

1623
02:22:47,840 --> 02:22:48,840
 Aye.

1624
02:22:48,840 --> 02:22:54,780
 We have a final replant of two commercial lots located at McKinney and Glengarry Way.

1625
02:22:54,780 --> 02:22:59,720
 As we discussed in the work session, a revised plot was sent to you all this evening and

1626
02:22:59,720 --> 02:23:03,920
 staff has since changed our recommendation from denial to approval as the new plant that

1627
02:23:03,920 --> 02:23:08,040
 was provided to you and is now shown here on the screen does meet all of the established

1628
02:23:08,040 --> 02:23:13,400
 requirements and with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

1629
02:23:13,400 --> 02:23:20,520
 I've been told I'm muted.

1630
02:23:20,520 --> 02:23:21,520
 Thank you, Haley.

1631
02:23:21,520 --> 02:23:25,160
 Any questions for Haley on the presentation?

1632
02:23:25,160 --> 02:23:31,340
 Seeing none, I'll call for, well, Commissioner Smith.

1633
02:23:31,340 --> 02:23:32,340
 He's muted now too.

1634
02:23:32,340 --> 02:23:36,080
 I make a motion to approve.

1635
02:23:36,080 --> 02:23:38,480
 First for approval.

1636
02:23:38,480 --> 02:23:40,360
 The Chair will second that.

1637
02:23:40,360 --> 02:23:43,120
 Any discussion on the item?

1638
02:23:43,120 --> 02:23:45,180
 Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call.

1639
02:23:45,180 --> 02:23:46,180
 Commissioner Ellis?

1640
02:23:46,180 --> 02:23:47,180
 Aye.

1641
02:23:47,180 --> 02:23:48,180
 Commissioner Smith?

1642
02:23:48,180 --> 02:23:49,180
 Aye.

1643
02:23:49,180 --> 02:23:50,180
 Commissioner Beck?

1644
02:23:50,180 --> 02:23:51,180
 Aye.

1645
02:23:51,180 --> 02:23:52,180
 Commissioner Anderson?

1646
02:23:52,180 --> 02:23:53,180
 Aye.

1647
02:23:53,180 --> 02:23:54,180
 Commissioner Cole?

1648
02:23:54,180 --> 02:23:55,180
 Aye.

1649
02:23:55,180 --> 02:23:58,660
 Commissioner Cole has a thumbs up for an aye.

1650
02:23:58,660 --> 02:23:59,660
 Commissioner Panetta?

1651
02:23:59,660 --> 02:24:00,660
 Aye.

1652
02:24:00,660 --> 02:24:01,660
 Chair is also an aye.

1653
02:24:01,660 --> 02:24:02,840
 Motion carries 7-0.

1654
02:24:02,840 --> 02:24:08,320
 The last item for individual consideration is item 4G, FR20-0016.

1655
02:24:08,320 --> 02:24:13,440
 I'll invite Ron Meguida for presentation.

1656
02:24:13,440 --> 02:24:16,360
 Thank you, Chair.

1657
02:24:16,360 --> 02:24:24,200
 Bring up the presentation real quick.

1658
02:24:24,200 --> 02:24:25,640
 So this is FR20-0016.

1659
02:24:25,640 --> 02:24:31,400
 It is for a residential subdivision.

1660
02:24:31,400 --> 02:24:39,720
 The site is located between Bonnie Bray and north of Rose Lawn Drive.

1661
02:24:39,720 --> 02:24:44,320
 The applicant is proposing an extension.

1662
02:24:44,320 --> 02:24:50,680
 It currently does not meet all of the requirements and standards of the DVC, specifically Section

1663
02:24:50,680 --> 02:24:57,440
 832D, related to common areas and facilities of, again, the development code.

1664
02:24:57,440 --> 02:25:04,000
 However, staff is not in opposition of the extension, again, of the 30-day extension

1665
02:25:04,000 --> 02:25:05,000
 by the applicant.

1666
02:25:05,000 --> 02:25:07,680
 I'll stand for any questions.

1667
02:25:07,680 --> 02:25:12,880
 Ron, the other items listed here for 30 days have a date certain of December 16th.

1668
02:25:12,880 --> 02:25:17,360
 Does that apply to this one as well, as it's going to the December 16th meeting?

1669
02:25:17,360 --> 02:25:22,920
 It would, and similar to what Karina's explanation is that the next meeting is December 16th.

1670
02:25:22,920 --> 02:25:25,200
 Therefore, that's when this item will be heard.

1671
02:25:25,200 --> 02:25:26,200
 Great.

1672
02:25:26,200 --> 02:25:27,200
 Thank you.

1673
02:25:27,200 --> 02:25:28,200
 Thank you, Ron.

1674
02:25:28,200 --> 02:25:29,200
 Okay.

1675
02:25:29,200 --> 02:25:30,200
 Thank you, Ron, for presentation.

1676
02:25:30,200 --> 02:25:31,200
 Chair will entertain a motion.

1677
02:25:31,200 --> 02:25:32,200
 Oh, this might be too exciting.

1678
02:25:32,200 --> 02:25:33,200
 Commissioner Ellis.

1679
02:25:33,200 --> 02:25:34,200
 I move approval of the applicant's request for an extension to date certain of December

1680
02:25:34,200 --> 02:25:35,200
 16th.

1681
02:25:35,200 --> 02:25:36,200
 Awesome.

1682
02:25:36,200 --> 02:25:37,200
 Thank you for that.

1683
02:25:37,200 --> 02:25:38,200
 Commissioner Smith.

1684
02:25:38,200 --> 02:25:39,200
 I'll second.

1685
02:25:39,200 --> 02:25:46,200
 We have a first and a second for an approval of the 30-day extension to a date certain

1686
02:25:46,200 --> 02:25:47,200
 of December 16th.

1687
02:25:47,200 --> 02:25:58,200
 Any discussion?

1688
02:25:58,200 --> 02:26:03,200
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

1689
02:26:03,200 --> 02:26:04,200
 Commissioner Ellis.

1690
02:26:04,200 --> 02:26:05,200
 I.

1691
02:26:05,200 --> 02:26:06,200
 Commissioner Beck.

1692
02:26:06,200 --> 02:26:07,200
 I.

1693
02:26:07,200 --> 02:26:08,200
 Commissioner Anderson.

1694
02:26:08,200 --> 02:26:09,200
 I.

1695
02:26:09,200 --> 02:26:10,200
 Commissioner Cole.

1696
02:26:10,200 --> 02:26:14,200
 Commissioner Cole has a thumbs up for an I.

1697
02:26:14,200 --> 02:26:15,200
 Commissioner Smith.

1698
02:26:15,200 --> 02:26:16,200
 I.

1699
02:26:16,200 --> 02:26:17,200
 Commissioner Bruneta.

1700
02:26:17,200 --> 02:26:18,200
 I.

1701
02:26:18,200 --> 02:26:19,200
 Chair has also an I.

1702
02:26:19,200 --> 02:26:20,200
 Did I carry everyone?

1703
02:26:20,200 --> 02:26:21,200
 I think so.

1704
02:26:21,200 --> 02:26:25,200
 Motion carries 7-0.

1705
02:26:25,200 --> 02:26:27,200
 Next item of business is our public hearing items.

1706
02:26:27,200 --> 02:26:32,200
 The first one is Z20-0009.

1707
02:26:32,200 --> 02:26:41,200
 I'll invite Haley Zygursky for presentation and open the public hearing.

1708
02:26:41,200 --> 02:26:43,200
 Good evening, commissioners.

1709
02:26:43,200 --> 02:26:47,200
 This is case Z29 for urban logistics.

1710
02:26:47,200 --> 02:26:50,200
 The request before you is twofold.

1711
02:26:50,200 --> 02:26:55,200
 There is a request for a rezoning from highway corridor to light industrial for approximately

1712
02:26:55,200 --> 02:26:58,200
 10 and a half acres that is shown here in orange.

1713
02:26:58,200 --> 02:27:03,200
 And then there is a request for rezoning from heavy industrial to light industrial on approximately

1714
02:27:03,200 --> 02:27:07,200
 13 acres that is outlined in yellow on the map.

1715
02:27:07,200 --> 02:27:11,200
 Both of these are part of a larger parent track that is part of the Acme brick property.

1716
02:27:11,200 --> 02:27:16,200
 And I wanted to point out that this site was previously developed with a gas well that was

1717
02:27:16,200 --> 02:27:21,200
 plugged in 2019 in anticipation of the future redevelopment of this property.

1718
02:27:21,200 --> 02:27:27,200
 The proposal or the purpose for this rezoning is to facilitate the development of a mixed

1719
02:27:27,200 --> 02:27:33,200
 use complex with light industrial and warehouse uses on a total of 35 acres that would also

1720
02:27:33,200 --> 02:27:38,200
 include this portion of the property here that currently has an LI zoning.

1721
02:27:38,200 --> 02:27:43,200
 So here you can see that the mixed zoning that was just described, so the property would

1722
02:27:43,200 --> 02:27:47,200
 include this area here that's already LI and they're looking to consolidate that across

1723
02:27:47,200 --> 02:27:52,200
 the entire property as you can see in the map on the right.

1724
02:27:52,200 --> 02:27:56,200
 So the general criteria for approval for all applications were described in detail in your

1725
02:27:56,200 --> 02:27:57,200
 backup.

1726
02:27:57,200 --> 02:28:00,200
 I won't go through those in detail here, but I wanted to note that we did find that this

1727
02:28:00,200 --> 02:28:04,200
 request meets all of these criteria.

1728
02:28:04,200 --> 02:28:08,200
 There are seven criteria specific to a rezoning request and we'll look at each of those in

1729
02:28:08,200 --> 02:28:11,200
 a little more detail.

1730
02:28:11,200 --> 02:28:16,200
 The first being whether the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, specifically

1731
02:28:16,200 --> 02:28:18,200
 the future land use element.

1732
02:28:18,200 --> 02:28:22,200
 As you can see on the map, this property is designated for industrial commerce.

1733
02:28:22,200 --> 02:28:26,200
 That is our most intense industrial future land use designation.

1734
02:28:26,200 --> 02:28:29,200
 It's intended for areas that would have a mixture of both light and heavy industrial

1735
02:28:29,200 --> 02:28:35,200
 uses that includes warehousing, manufacturing, and various industrial processes.

1736
02:28:35,200 --> 02:28:40,200
 So the light industrial district is consistent with that as it allows for a mixture of things

1737
02:28:40,200 --> 02:28:46,200
 such as warehouse and distribution, as well as some low impact manufacturing.

1738
02:28:46,200 --> 02:28:50,200
 The next criteria is whether the request is consistent with the purpose statement for the

1739
02:28:50,200 --> 02:28:51,200
 zoning district.

1740
02:28:51,200 --> 02:28:57,200
 You can see here the LI district purpose statement does indicate that it would be in areas that

1741
02:28:57,200 --> 02:29:01,200
 would provide a mixture of light industrial and employment type uses that would be highly

1742
02:29:01,200 --> 02:29:06,200
 accessible, and this request would meet that given the high accessibility of this area

1743
02:29:06,200 --> 02:29:11,200
 along I-35, that it would be a continuation of an existing zoning pattern, as you saw

1744
02:29:11,200 --> 02:29:16,200
 there's already LI to the south, and that it would increase the compatibility in the

1745
02:29:16,200 --> 02:29:21,200
 area as it would be reducing the intensity of the zoning designation on this property

1746
02:29:21,200 --> 02:29:25,200
 adjacent to the neighboring multifamily use.

1747
02:29:25,200 --> 02:29:30,200
 So looking at the next criteria, which is whether there have been significant changes

1748
02:29:30,200 --> 02:29:35,200
 that would warrant the request, I wanted to point out a little of the history of the site.

1749
02:29:35,200 --> 02:29:40,200
 This entire property that is Acme Brick was originally zoned heavy industrial.

1750
02:29:40,200 --> 02:29:44,200
 It had had that zoning since the 1969 zoning ordinance, actually.

1751
02:29:44,200 --> 02:29:49,200
 However, in 2002, a split zoning was applied to this northern part of the property, and

1752
02:29:49,200 --> 02:29:54,200
 that directly transitioned to the zoning that we see today with the 2019 code adoption and

1753
02:29:54,200 --> 02:29:57,200
 citywide rezoning.

1754
02:29:57,200 --> 02:30:02,200
 With the plugging of that gas well, the property owner was looking to facilitate development

1755
02:30:02,200 --> 02:30:07,200
 of this northern end of the site that's been largely unused, and so now they have a potential

1756
02:30:07,200 --> 02:30:11,200
 buyer who's looking to consolidate that zoning and have consistent development standards

1757
02:30:11,200 --> 02:30:14,200
 applicable across the site.

1758
02:30:14,200 --> 02:30:19,200
 Our next criteria is whether it would minimize adverse impacts on surrounding property.

1759
02:30:19,200 --> 02:30:22,200
 The LI zoning is consistent with the zoning in this area.

1760
02:30:22,200 --> 02:30:26,200
 It's not expected to have any adverse impacts, as this would be a continuation of the type

1761
02:30:26,200 --> 02:30:29,200
 of uses that have been permitted in the past.

1762
02:30:29,200 --> 02:30:33,200
 It is important to note that even with this current mix of zoning, those light industrial

1763
02:30:33,200 --> 02:30:36,200
 uses could occur on the property today.

1764
02:30:36,200 --> 02:30:39,200
 Warehouse and distribution are even permitted in the HC district, but there are some size

1765
02:30:39,200 --> 02:30:43,200
 limitations that would make a comprehensive development of the site with an industrial

1766
02:30:43,200 --> 02:30:45,200
 campus a little bit tricky.

1767
02:30:45,200 --> 02:30:48,200
 So that's the reason for their looking to consolidate.

1768
02:30:48,200 --> 02:30:53,200
 This zoning would -- one of the most important things about it is it would reduce the intensity

1769
02:30:53,200 --> 02:30:56,200
 of uses that could occur on this portion of the property that is directly adjacent to

1770
02:30:56,200 --> 02:30:58,200
 a multifamily use.

1771
02:30:58,200 --> 02:31:04,200
 This adjacent property that's zoned HC has had multifamily use there since the mid-1980s,

1772
02:31:04,200 --> 02:31:08,200
 and to date there hasn't been much use on this property, but there is a variety of things

1773
02:31:08,200 --> 02:31:13,200
 permitted in HI, as you can see here, that would not be compatible with that adjacent

1774
02:31:13,200 --> 02:31:14,200
 multifamily.

1775
02:31:14,200 --> 02:31:17,200
 So this would reduce some of those more intensive uses that would have much more nuisance potential

1776
02:31:17,200 --> 02:31:24,200
 and take away the prospect of things such as a feedlot or hazardous waste storage.

1777
02:31:24,200 --> 02:31:28,200
 Even medium impact manufacturing, as you can see, would require a specific use permit to

1778
02:31:28,200 --> 02:31:32,200
 come back before you all in city council.

1779
02:31:32,200 --> 02:31:37,200
 And then finally looking at the availability of public facilities and services, the site

1780
02:31:37,200 --> 02:31:41,200
 is adjacent to the I-35 East corridor, so they do have direct access off the service

1781
02:31:41,200 --> 02:31:42,200
 road today.

1782
02:31:42,200 --> 02:31:47,200
 This portion of the corridor from 377 over to Teasley is slated for improvement within

1783
02:31:47,200 --> 02:31:52,200
 the next 5 to 10 years, according to TxDOT's current plans and schedule.

1784
02:31:52,200 --> 02:31:58,200
 The applicant provided a trip generation based upon an estimation of about 450,000 square

1785
02:31:58,200 --> 02:32:00,200
 feet of warehouse space.

1786
02:32:00,200 --> 02:32:05,200
 That did not trigger the need for a TIA at this point in time, however, once they provide

1787
02:32:05,200 --> 02:32:10,200
 plans for, a zoning compliance plan rather, for the specific development of the site and

1788
02:32:10,200 --> 02:32:14,200
 configuration of uses, then that will be looked at again to see if there are any improvements

1789
02:32:14,200 --> 02:32:18,200
 that would be warranted, but it is unlikely given their adjacency to a TxDOT right of

1790
02:32:18,200 --> 02:32:20,200
 way.

1791
02:32:20,200 --> 02:32:24,200
 And with respect to utilities, you can see on the map here with the blue lines representing

1792
02:32:24,200 --> 02:32:29,200
 water lines and the red being sewer lines, that there are facilities subbed out to this

1793
02:32:29,200 --> 02:32:32,200
 property immediately adjacent along the I-35 frontage.

1794
02:32:32,200 --> 02:32:37,200
 Those would be extended across this site to serve this development.

1795
02:32:37,200 --> 02:32:42,200
 Public notification was provided regarding this request and we've received no responses

1796
02:32:42,200 --> 02:32:43,200
 to date.

1797
02:32:43,200 --> 02:32:47,200
 And staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning to light industrial as

1798
02:32:47,200 --> 02:32:50,200
 it complies with all of our criteria for approval.

1799
02:32:50,200 --> 02:32:51,200
 And I'm happy to answer any questions.

1800
02:32:51,200 --> 02:32:55,200
 I believe the applicant is on the line as well and does have a presentation for you

1801
02:32:55,200 --> 02:32:56,200
 all.

1802
02:32:56,200 --> 02:32:57,200
 Great.

1803
02:32:57,200 --> 02:32:58,200
 Thank you, Haley.

1804
02:32:58,200 --> 02:32:59,200
 Is there any questions initially for Haley?

1805
02:32:59,200 --> 02:33:01,200
 Commissioner Anderson.

1806
02:33:01,200 --> 02:33:02,200
 Just quick one.

1807
02:33:02,200 --> 02:33:11,200
 Haley, can you go to slide 11, I believe, please?

1808
02:33:11,200 --> 02:33:20,200
 It's the one that shows the daily trips and I just -- down at the bottom it says 76 morning

1809
02:33:20,200 --> 02:33:27,200
 peak trips and 85, but if -- I mean, I'm not the smartest person, but 85 and 76 doesn't

1810
02:33:27,200 --> 02:33:30,200
 equal 770.

1811
02:33:30,200 --> 02:33:36,200
 No, sir, these are -- these are strictly the peak hour trips, so based on estimations from

1812
02:33:36,200 --> 02:33:41,200
 the IT, which is the International Transportation Engineers Society that estimates various uses

1813
02:33:41,200 --> 02:33:45,200
 and how much traffic they generate, this is what would be estimated in that peak hour

1814
02:33:45,200 --> 02:33:49,200
 of morning incoming traffic and then evening traffic leaving the site.

1815
02:33:49,200 --> 02:33:53,200
 So that's just one hour of the day, whereas this is a daily total of all traffic.

1816
02:33:53,200 --> 02:33:54,200
 Okay.

1817
02:33:54,200 --> 02:33:55,200
 All right.

1818
02:33:55,200 --> 02:33:56,200
 Thank you, ma'am.

1819
02:33:56,200 --> 02:33:59,200
 Any other questions for Haley?

1820
02:33:59,200 --> 02:34:00,200
 Okay.

1821
02:34:00,200 --> 02:34:07,200
 If the applicant's available and would like to present, they can certainly do so.

1822
02:34:07,200 --> 02:34:10,200
 I'm not sure if they're muted or unmuted.

1823
02:34:10,200 --> 02:34:11,200
 This is Amy Bissett.

1824
02:34:11,200 --> 02:34:12,200
 Can you hear me?

1825
02:34:12,200 --> 02:34:13,200
 I can, Amy.

1826
02:34:13,200 --> 02:34:14,200
 Thanks for being here.

1827
02:34:14,200 --> 02:34:19,200
 As the applicant, you have 10 minutes to present.

1828
02:34:19,200 --> 02:34:24,200
 I believe -- we're not going to take this amount of time, but we do have multiple representatives

1829
02:34:24,200 --> 02:34:29,200
 here with us today, and I think that means we would have 20 total, but we won't take

1830
02:34:29,200 --> 02:34:30,200
 10.

1831
02:34:30,200 --> 02:34:31,200
 So --

1832
02:34:31,200 --> 02:34:32,200
 Amy, you are correct.

1833
02:34:32,200 --> 02:34:35,200
 You would have 20 with a combined team, so take your time.

1834
02:34:35,200 --> 02:34:36,200
 All right.

1835
02:34:36,200 --> 02:34:37,200
 Okay.

1836
02:34:37,200 --> 02:34:39,200
 Well, I still think we'll be pretty quick.

1837
02:34:39,200 --> 02:34:41,200
 Haley, thank you for pulling up the slides.

1838
02:34:41,200 --> 02:34:44,200
 Will you advance to the first slide, please?

1839
02:34:44,200 --> 02:34:47,200
 First, I do want to introduce my team here.

1840
02:34:47,200 --> 02:34:53,200
 We have the developer with Urban Logistics Realty on the line who's going to speak to

1841
02:34:53,200 --> 02:34:58,200
 you momentarily, and we also have our architect and our engineering firm on the line.

1842
02:34:58,200 --> 02:35:05,200
 I want to -- before I get into the presentation, I do want to acknowledge that I listened to

1843
02:35:05,200 --> 02:35:09,200
 the work session and just wanted to clarify a couple of things.

1844
02:35:09,200 --> 02:35:15,200
 Haley did mention that public notifications went out and she received no responses.

1845
02:35:15,200 --> 02:35:23,200
 We also did invite that same list of neighbors to a neighborhood meeting and received no

1846
02:35:23,200 --> 02:35:24,200
 RSVPs.

1847
02:35:24,200 --> 02:35:29,200
 It was a virtual meeting that we had set and no questions that came out of that.

1848
02:35:29,200 --> 02:35:36,200
 So the other question that I heard in work session, which is really more related to ESA,

1849
02:35:36,200 --> 02:35:41,200
 but I want to address now because we don't intend to make two presentations tonight for

1850
02:35:41,200 --> 02:35:47,200
 each of these items, so it was related to why we have the detention ponds located where

1851
02:35:47,200 --> 02:35:49,200
 we do and why there are two of them.

1852
02:35:49,200 --> 02:35:57,200
 So in very brief response to that, the existing pond that was referenced by Commissioner Beck

1853
02:35:57,200 --> 02:36:03,200
 that is south of our site is actually -- it's not functioning as a detention pond today

1854
02:36:03,200 --> 02:36:09,200
 and our site doesn't drain into it, so we would have to route a pipeline to that property,

1855
02:36:09,200 --> 02:36:15,200
 to that specific body of water in order to facilitate detention there, which would require

1856
02:36:15,200 --> 02:36:21,200
 removing as many or more trees than we're having to remove in order to put the detention

1857
02:36:21,200 --> 02:36:22,200
 where it is.

1858
02:36:22,200 --> 02:36:27,200
 It's also split into two locations because there is a gas pipeline that runs in between

1859
02:36:27,200 --> 02:36:30,200
 that we need to leave room for.

1860
02:36:30,200 --> 02:36:36,200
 So we do have our engineer on the line, though, who can help walk through that in more detail

1861
02:36:36,200 --> 02:36:37,200
 if necessary.

1862
02:36:37,200 --> 02:36:41,200
 So with that, I'm going to walk through a few slides here.

1863
02:36:41,200 --> 02:36:45,200
 The first one is just to kind of orient you to where this is located.

1864
02:36:45,200 --> 02:36:50,200
 Obviously, Acme Brick, this site, they have been there for a number of years.

1865
02:36:50,200 --> 02:36:56,200
 In fact, the town has really grown up around them, so we really see this as an opportunity

1866
02:36:56,200 --> 02:37:01,200
 for redeveloping something that is more compatible with the neighborhood, but it is kind of in

1867
02:37:01,200 --> 02:37:04,200
 the heart of Denton in a highly visible location.

1868
02:37:04,200 --> 02:37:07,200
 Next slide, please.

1869
02:37:07,200 --> 02:37:08,200
 Well, there you go.

1870
02:37:08,200 --> 02:37:10,200
 You can see it a little more closely.

1871
02:37:10,200 --> 02:37:13,200
 Next slide, please.

1872
02:37:13,200 --> 02:37:18,200
 So you can see from this aerial view that Acme Brick does still operate on the site.

1873
02:37:18,200 --> 02:37:27,200
 They are an active -- it is an active plant that will remain there, and we are coming

1874
02:37:27,200 --> 02:37:33,200
 in to develop the northern end of that site in a way that would be compatible with the

1875
02:37:33,200 --> 02:37:38,200
 adjacencies in the way that the town has grown up around it.

1876
02:37:38,200 --> 02:37:40,200
 I'm going to introduce Jason Nunley.

1877
02:37:40,200 --> 02:37:44,200
 He is with Urban Logistics Realty, and he is going to share a little more detail with

1878
02:37:44,200 --> 02:37:50,200
 you about the company and their intended plans for this development.

1879
02:37:50,200 --> 02:37:52,200
 Jason, are you on the line?

1880
02:37:52,200 --> 02:37:53,200
 Yes, ma'am.

1881
02:37:53,200 --> 02:37:54,200
 Thank you, Amy.

1882
02:37:54,200 --> 02:37:58,200
 Good evening, first of all, and thank you all for the opportunity to talk to you tonight.

1883
02:37:58,200 --> 02:38:03,200
 I got excited when Amy said we had 20 minutes until she told me not to filibuster, but I

1884
02:38:03,200 --> 02:38:07,200
 get passionate about this, so forgive me if I ramble.

1885
02:38:07,200 --> 02:38:09,200
 As Amy mentioned, my name is Jason Nunley.

1886
02:38:09,200 --> 02:38:12,200
 I am a co-owner of Urban Logistics Realty.

1887
02:38:12,200 --> 02:38:17,200
 We are a local North Texas-based real estate investment and development firm that really

1888
02:38:17,200 --> 02:38:24,200
 has a 15-year history and track record of developing multi-tenant, multi-building

1889
02:38:24,200 --> 02:38:28,200
 corporate campuses all over North Texas.

1890
02:38:28,200 --> 02:38:32,200
 We are extremely excited about this opportunity on a number of different levels.

1891
02:38:32,200 --> 02:38:37,200
 We're excited to work with the city of Denton, but we're also really excited to be part of

1892
02:38:37,200 --> 02:38:41,200
 the evolution of what's a really fascinating land site.

1893
02:38:41,200 --> 02:38:44,200
 Haley, if you could go to the next slide, please.

1894
02:38:44,200 --> 02:38:51,200
 So, again, as Amy alluded to, this site has a very distinguished and long history.

1895
02:38:51,200 --> 02:38:56,200
 Acme has actually owned the land for over 120 years.

1896
02:38:56,200 --> 02:39:00,200
 We've gone back and done an extensive amount of research on the history of the site and

1897
02:39:00,200 --> 02:39:06,200
 the characteristics of the site and how the site was located here and really how the city

1898
02:39:06,200 --> 02:39:10,200
 of Denton has evolved and grown up around it.

1899
02:39:10,200 --> 02:39:15,200
 When you look back over the history of the site, where it was then made sense, where

1900
02:39:15,200 --> 02:39:22,200
 it is now is arguably not the best and highest use as it's been used for a mining pit and

1901
02:39:22,200 --> 02:39:25,200
 a brick fabrication plant.

1902
02:39:25,200 --> 02:39:29,200
 But we see an opportunity with this rezoning request to really embrace the city's future

1903
02:39:29,200 --> 02:39:35,200
 land plan while paying respect and homage to the history of the site.

1904
02:39:35,200 --> 02:39:41,200
 Our design will embrace kind of the history of Acme as we use their product through the

1905
02:39:41,200 --> 02:39:48,200
 site and, again, it's just a unique opportunity to try to create something special and unique

1906
02:39:48,200 --> 02:39:54,200
 and identifiable more so than an opportunity to, hey, let's go put up four buildings.

1907
02:39:54,200 --> 02:39:59,200
 We believe that's fundamental and necessary to what we do because we do build on a speculative

1908
02:39:59,200 --> 02:40:07,200
 basis and the caliber of tenants that we attract and demand, we will not be the low-cost option

1909
02:40:07,200 --> 02:40:09,200
 or provider.

1910
02:40:09,200 --> 02:40:16,200
 So our tenants expect and demand that level of attention and detail and really thoughtfulness

1911
02:40:16,200 --> 02:40:17,200
 throughout the project.

1912
02:40:17,200 --> 02:40:20,200
 Haley, next slide, if you'd please.

1913
02:40:20,200 --> 02:40:24,200
 This is where we are at today with a site plan.

1914
02:40:24,200 --> 02:40:30,200
 This is actually site plan probably about 64 in kind of the evolution of the design

1915
02:40:30,200 --> 02:40:36,200
 and what we really identified as best and highest use for the site.

1916
02:40:36,200 --> 02:40:40,200
 All four of these buildings are designed and intended to be multi-tenant.

1917
02:40:40,200 --> 02:40:47,200
 We would envision somewhere between six and probably 10 different companies calling this

1918
02:40:47,200 --> 02:40:49,200
 location home.

1919
02:40:49,200 --> 02:40:54,200
 So, Haley, next slide, if you please.

1920
02:40:54,200 --> 02:41:00,200
 To that attention to detail, if you look at kind of the elevations up in the upper left-hand

1921
02:41:00,200 --> 02:41:06,200
 corner, it's very different, I would say, than what most of us have been conditioned

1922
02:41:06,200 --> 02:41:12,200
 to think of industrial house, and that's very intentional on our part because we know our

1923
02:41:12,200 --> 02:41:15,200
 target audience and we know our target tenants.

1924
02:41:15,200 --> 02:41:20,200
 So we're taking very modern design concepts from office buildings.

1925
02:41:20,200 --> 02:41:28,200
 We're sprinkling in design intent and details and nuance from restaurants, from hospitality,

1926
02:41:28,200 --> 02:41:34,200
 really trying to create, and we say this over and over, but the evolution of a product type

1927
02:41:34,200 --> 02:41:39,200
 that caters to our class of tenant.

1928
02:41:39,200 --> 02:41:42,200
 That's not just accomplished through the building.

1929
02:41:42,200 --> 02:41:46,200
 It's very much accomplished through attention to detail.

1930
02:41:46,200 --> 02:41:54,200
 We try, when we orient buildings, when we locate buildings to create a sense of place,

1931
02:41:54,200 --> 02:41:58,200
 we do that through landscaping, we do that through berms, we do that through textures,

1932
02:41:58,200 --> 02:42:06,200
 we do that through materials, we do that through articulation, both horizontal and vertical.

1933
02:42:06,200 --> 02:42:10,200
 Haley, could you back up one slide, pretty please?

1934
02:42:10,200 --> 02:42:16,200
 So imagine pulling into the site there from the entry and the fact that you can see the

1935
02:42:16,200 --> 02:42:18,200
 front door of all four of those buildings.

1936
02:42:18,200 --> 02:42:22,200
 So nothing is buried and nothing is in the back.

1937
02:42:22,200 --> 02:42:29,200
 We're striving to create a very dynamic and very dramatic entrance to a site, a lot of

1938
02:42:29,200 --> 02:42:34,200
 which, again, is kind of counterintuitive to what most people would dub industrial, and

1939
02:42:34,200 --> 02:42:40,200
 I'm highlighting that only because we don't think this product functions solely as industrial.

1940
02:42:40,200 --> 02:42:45,200
 It really is a corporate campus environment when we're done with it.

1941
02:42:45,200 --> 02:42:48,200
 Haley, could you go forward, please?

1942
02:42:48,200 --> 02:42:55,200
 Again, just a little closer look at the elevations.

1943
02:42:55,200 --> 02:43:04,200
 I know it doesn't show through this rendering, but the darker color there is actually a concrete

1944
02:43:04,200 --> 02:43:05,200
 stain.

1945
02:43:05,200 --> 02:43:11,200
 Fascinating aside, I'll be quick not to bore anybody, we pioneered the use of this horizontally

1946
02:43:11,200 --> 02:43:17,200
 applied concrete stain over a decade ago, and we did it because we wanted something

1947
02:43:17,200 --> 02:43:20,200
 unique and corporate and different, and nobody had done it.

1948
02:43:20,200 --> 02:43:23,200
 We brought consultants in from the East Coast and the West Coast.

1949
02:43:23,200 --> 02:43:28,200
 No one could figure out to do it until we found a concrete artist out of Denton.

1950
02:43:28,200 --> 02:43:33,200
 Her name is Shelly Rigsby, and Shelly came out to the site, said she could do it.

1951
02:43:33,200 --> 02:43:38,200
 She treated it not as a building or as a project, but almost as an independent living mural.

1952
02:43:38,200 --> 02:43:40,200
 It's like a seven-step process.

1953
02:43:40,200 --> 02:43:45,200
 It's beautiful to see once it's finished because it really brings out kind of the inherent

1954
02:43:45,200 --> 02:43:51,200
 nature and quality and characteristics of the concrete underneath it.

1955
02:43:51,200 --> 02:43:58,200
 And it's been extremely well received both by tenants and architects just across the

1956
02:43:58,200 --> 02:43:59,200
 community.

1957
02:43:59,200 --> 02:44:03,200
 So they are kind of living, breathing works of art right there on the front of the building,

1958
02:44:03,200 --> 02:44:07,200
 and they all were made possible out of artists out of Denton.

1959
02:44:07,200 --> 02:44:12,200
 Next, if you would, Haley?

1960
02:44:12,200 --> 02:44:16,200
 Yeah, we talk about the evolution of these buildings and how they perform and how they

1961
02:44:16,200 --> 02:44:17,200
 behave.

1962
02:44:17,200 --> 02:44:23,200
 I highlighted two slides here, this one, and if you'd go forward to the next, just to show

1963
02:44:23,200 --> 02:44:29,200
 this is what the interior of our buildings recently have looked like and how this space

1964
02:44:29,200 --> 02:44:30,200
 is used.

1965
02:44:30,200 --> 02:44:35,200
 And they are used by businesses that want to attract and retain talent.

1966
02:44:35,200 --> 02:44:42,200
 We have a very high usership from technology companies, light manufacturing kind of on

1967
02:44:42,200 --> 02:44:49,200
 the tech side, from training, from materials and supplies.

1968
02:44:49,200 --> 02:44:54,200
 So just highlighting this to show again that it's maybe a little different than what some

1969
02:44:54,200 --> 02:44:58,200
 people would have as a preconceived notion.

1970
02:44:58,200 --> 02:45:00,200
 Next, if you would, Haley?

1971
02:45:00,200 --> 02:45:02,200
 I guess that's it.

1972
02:45:02,200 --> 02:45:08,200
 So I will be here for any questions afterwards or now or whenever.

1973
02:45:08,200 --> 02:45:11,200
 Amy?

1974
02:45:11,200 --> 02:45:16,200
 All right, I'll take it back over and just walk through these last couple of slides very

1975
02:45:16,200 --> 02:45:20,200
 quickly because I do think Haley and Jason covered everything.

1976
02:45:20,200 --> 02:45:26,200
 We are looking at a 35-acre project that's primarily a down zoning with multi-tenant

1977
02:45:26,200 --> 02:45:33,200
 office and warehouse buildings, roughly 446,000 square feet based on the current site plan.

1978
02:45:33,200 --> 02:45:36,200
 Next slide, please.

1979
02:45:36,200 --> 02:45:43,200
 This kind of shows you overlaid on an aerial what the zoning change actually physically

1980
02:45:43,200 --> 02:45:44,200
 would look like.

1981
02:45:44,200 --> 02:45:51,200
 So we're maintaining some highway corridor zoning along the frontage while creating a

1982
02:45:51,200 --> 02:45:57,200
 more comprehensive zoning across the entire site, including right up against the multifamily

1983
02:45:57,200 --> 02:46:02,200
 next door would be the down zoning from heavy industrial to light industrial.

1984
02:46:02,200 --> 02:46:04,200
 Next slide, please.

1985
02:46:04,200 --> 02:46:09,200
 Do you want to provide a little bit of context for where this is located as you all know

1986
02:46:09,200 --> 02:46:14,200
 where the ACME site is, but it tends to be a little bit out of sight.

1987
02:46:14,200 --> 02:46:16,200
 It is right next to South Lakes Park.

1988
02:46:16,200 --> 02:46:22,200
 It is right next to McMath Middle School and it is surrounded by neighborhoods, really.

1989
02:46:22,200 --> 02:46:25,200
 Southridge being just on the other side of South Lakes Park.

1990
02:46:25,200 --> 02:46:28,200
 Next slide, please.

1991
02:46:28,200 --> 02:46:33,200
 And you can see in terms of the future land use plan, this area while it's designated for

1992
02:46:33,200 --> 02:46:39,200
 industrial commerce, everything around it is more low density residential or parks and

1993
02:46:39,200 --> 02:46:40,200
 community mixed use.

1994
02:46:40,200 --> 02:46:46,200
 So the intent here is to meet the future land use plan in terms of industrial commerce, but

1995
02:46:46,200 --> 02:46:50,200
 at the same time bring something that's more compatible to the area.

1996
02:46:50,200 --> 02:46:52,200
 Next slide, please.

1997
02:46:52,200 --> 02:46:58,200
 I'm just going to briefly touch on the alternative ESA because we do not intend to present again.

1998
02:46:58,200 --> 02:47:03,200
 But as Christy went through with you in work session, we are proposing the removal of some

1999
02:47:03,200 --> 02:47:07,200
 riparian buffer that is cutting right through the middle of the site.

2000
02:47:07,200 --> 02:47:15,200
 And the intent is to offset the removal of those ecological resources by providing the

2001
02:47:15,200 --> 02:47:21,200
 enhanced detention ponds that do provide alternative habitat opportunities for any

2002
02:47:21,200 --> 02:47:25,200
 wildlife that might migrate out of that riparian buffer.

2003
02:47:25,200 --> 02:47:34,200
 And then also we are proposing to place in a conservation easement 2.1 acres of upland

2004
02:47:34,200 --> 02:47:41,200
 habitat that is not currently protected, but at one point in time was designated as an ESA.

2005
02:47:41,200 --> 02:47:46,200
 So this would create a protection that is currently not there.

2006
02:47:46,200 --> 02:47:51,200
 And as Christy mentioned earlier as well, we do intend to preserve the trees that are

2007
02:47:51,200 --> 02:47:57,200
 between that 2.1 acre site that you see in yellow in the bottom right-hand side of the

2008
02:47:57,200 --> 02:48:05,200
 screen and the detention pond above it as a part of our tree preservation plan.

2009
02:48:05,200 --> 02:48:11,200
 However, we don't want to mix the two in terms of the approval in this particular application

2010
02:48:11,200 --> 02:48:17,200
 for an alternative ESA because we are obligated to meet each of these requirements separately

2011
02:48:17,200 --> 02:48:18,200
 and independently.

2012
02:48:18,200 --> 02:48:25,200
 But in the end, it will create a contiguous preservation area between the detention pond

2013
02:48:25,200 --> 02:48:28,200
 and the existing body of water that's south of our site.

2014
02:48:28,200 --> 02:48:33,200
 And back to the discussion that you had in work session about the detention pond.

2015
02:48:33,200 --> 02:48:36,200
 Haley, if you could put your cursor over.

2016
02:48:36,200 --> 02:48:43,200
 There's an active gas well just to the northwest of the existing body of water that would also

2017
02:48:43,200 --> 02:48:49,200
 create kind of a barrier to us being able to access that pond for detention.

2018
02:48:49,200 --> 02:48:53,200
 We would end up having to come down with a pipeline through the existing trees in order

2019
02:48:53,200 --> 02:49:00,200
 to access it, and it really doesn't drain that direction to start with.

2020
02:49:00,200 --> 02:49:04,200
 Next slide, please, Haley.

2021
02:49:04,200 --> 02:49:08,200
 This is just a quick summary of what we're proposing in our ESA, but I will let Christy

2022
02:49:08,200 --> 02:49:15,200
 walk through that in detail and just appreciate everybody's time and am happy to answer any

2023
02:49:15,200 --> 02:49:21,200
 questions or to bring any member of our team up to answer specific questions that you may

2024
02:49:21,200 --> 02:49:23,200
 have that would be more appropriate for them.

2025
02:49:23,200 --> 02:49:27,200
 Thank you.

2026
02:49:27,200 --> 02:49:28,200
 >> Thank you very much.

2027
02:49:28,200 --> 02:49:35,200
 Amy, is there any questions for Amy or Mr. Nunnally?

2028
02:49:35,200 --> 02:49:36,200
 Okay.

2029
02:49:36,200 --> 02:49:39,200
 I do not have any public citizen feedback on this.

2030
02:49:39,200 --> 02:49:44,200
 I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing on this item and ask for a motion

2031
02:49:44,200 --> 02:49:47,200
 and then discussion.

2032
02:49:47,200 --> 02:49:49,200
 Commissioner Ellis.

2033
02:49:49,200 --> 02:49:52,200
 >> Move approval of the request.

2034
02:49:52,200 --> 02:49:54,200
 >> We have a first for approval.

2035
02:49:54,200 --> 02:49:56,200
 Commissioner Beck.

2036
02:49:56,200 --> 02:49:58,200
 >> Yeah, I'll second that.

2037
02:49:58,200 --> 02:50:00,200
 >> We have a first and a second for approval.

2038
02:50:00,200 --> 02:50:04,200
 Any discussion?

2039
02:50:04,200 --> 02:50:09,200
 The only thing I'm going to say is I know we still have the ESA to go through, but that's

2040
02:50:09,200 --> 02:50:14,200
 really exciting to see the product that you're intending, and I think it would look good

2041
02:50:14,200 --> 02:50:16,200
 driving through Denton.

2042
02:50:16,200 --> 02:50:23,200
 So thank you for bringing such a high quality project, and hopefully it's well received

2043
02:50:23,200 --> 02:50:25,200
 and sells out quickly.

2044
02:50:25,200 --> 02:50:30,200
 So with that, I will go ahead and call for a vote via roll call.

2045
02:50:30,200 --> 02:50:32,200
 Commissioner Ellis.

2046
02:50:32,200 --> 02:50:33,200
 >> Aye.

2047
02:50:33,200 --> 02:50:34,200
 >> Commissioner Beck.

2048
02:50:34,200 --> 02:50:35,200
 >> Aye.

2049
02:50:35,200 --> 02:50:37,200
 >> Commissioner Anderson.

2050
02:50:37,200 --> 02:50:38,200
 >> Aye.

2051
02:50:38,200 --> 02:50:40,200
 >> Commissioner Pernetta.

2052
02:50:40,200 --> 02:50:41,200
 >> Aye.

2053
02:50:41,200 --> 02:50:42,200
 >> Commissioner Cole.

2054
02:50:42,200 --> 02:50:44,200
 He has a thumbs up as an aye.

2055
02:50:44,200 --> 02:50:46,200
 Commissioner Smith.

2056
02:50:46,200 --> 02:50:47,200
 >> Aye.

2057
02:50:47,200 --> 02:50:48,200
 >> Chair has also an aye.

2058
02:50:48,200 --> 02:50:49,200
 Motion carries 7-0.

2059
02:50:49,200 --> 02:50:56,200
 That takes us to the next item tied to this, which is item 5B, AESA 20-0006A.

2060
02:50:56,200 --> 02:51:18,200
 I will invite Christy Upton for presentation and open the public hearing.

2061
02:51:18,200 --> 02:51:37,200
 And Christy, whenever you're ready, you have the floor.

2062
02:51:37,200 --> 02:51:38,200
 >> Sorry.

2063
02:51:38,200 --> 02:51:39,200
 Thank you.

2064
02:51:39,200 --> 02:51:48,200
 Christy Upton, and I will be presenting an alternative environmentally sensitive area

2065
02:51:48,200 --> 02:51:56,200
 plan tonight for the Urban Logistics 35 project that you just discussed.

2066
02:51:56,200 --> 02:52:04,200
 The request is for the permanent removal of 1.26 acres of riparian buffer.

2067
02:52:04,200 --> 02:52:07,200
 And a little background on the riparian buffer.

2068
02:52:07,200 --> 02:52:14,200
 This is a tributary of Hickory Creek, and this ephemeral stream has riparian vegetation

2069
02:52:14,200 --> 02:52:20,200
 that supports it, that vegetation was found to be in fair condition.

2070
02:52:20,200 --> 02:52:27,200
 And typically, the buffer protection requirements are 50 feet on each side of the stream, and

2071
02:52:27,200 --> 02:52:34,200
 that applies to everything below a berm that was constructed as part of access to the Acme

2072
02:52:34,200 --> 02:52:35,200
 site.

2073
02:52:35,200 --> 02:52:41,200
 The area upstream of that berm on the west side does not receive flow, and that interruption

2074
02:52:41,200 --> 02:52:50,200
 of the hydrology means that the vegetation, the riparian vegetation that typically would

2075
02:52:50,200 --> 02:52:58,200
 grow along these waterways because of the interruption of hydrology is not there, and

2076
02:52:58,200 --> 02:53:04,200
 thus, with the lack of presence of the riparian vegetation, the protection requirements do

2077
02:53:04,200 --> 02:53:05,200
 not apply.

2078
02:53:05,200 --> 02:53:10,200
 A little bit of further background.

2079
02:53:10,200 --> 02:53:19,200
 In 2015, staff had identified certain areas, specifically some cross timbers upland habitats

2080
02:53:19,200 --> 02:53:26,200
 that had previously been mapped and were found to be fractured and isolated and would never

2081
02:53:26,200 --> 02:53:35,200
 meet the criteria for 10 acres and that criteria being required for the protection requirements

2082
02:53:35,200 --> 02:53:42,200
 to apply to those forested areas, and that's specifically the cross timbers upland habitat

2083
02:53:42,200 --> 02:53:45,200
 protection requirements.

2084
02:53:45,200 --> 02:53:51,200
 And with that identification of these areas that were less than 10 acres, staff removed

2085
02:53:51,200 --> 02:53:55,200
 the protection requirements by removing the designation.

2086
02:53:55,200 --> 02:54:07,200
 It just, it made sense to do this where the requirements would never apply.

2087
02:54:07,200 --> 02:54:16,200
 So the specifics to the request and removing the 1.26 acres as Amy just presented is to

2088
02:54:16,200 --> 02:54:24,200
 place the warehouse and infrastructure supporting the warehouse where the riparian buffer currently

2089
02:54:24,200 --> 02:54:35,200
 overlaps, and then to realign the road for the, to remain or to keep the access, ACME

2090
02:54:35,200 --> 02:54:43,200
 bricks access to their site, and all of that requiring that removal of the 1.26 acres riparian

2091
02:54:43,200 --> 02:54:45,200
 buffer.

2092
02:54:45,200 --> 02:54:53,200
 To offset the ecological features and functions that are offered by the riparian buffer, the

2093
02:54:53,200 --> 02:55:02,200
 applicant will be installing or upgrading the detention basins with native grasses and

2094
02:55:02,200 --> 02:55:08,200
 herbaceous plants and by planting a wetland fringe mix, a drain field mix and a wildflower

2095
02:55:08,200 --> 02:55:16,200
 mix that will kind of transition along the banks of these detention basins and provide

2096
02:55:16,200 --> 02:55:23,200
 habitat, future habitat to migrating birds and other wildlife.

2097
02:55:23,200 --> 02:55:30,200
 In addition, the applicant is proposing this conservation easement that would be placed

2098
02:55:30,200 --> 02:55:38,200
 over 2.11 acres of Crest Timbers upland habitat and permanently preserving that upland habitat.

2099
02:55:38,200 --> 02:55:47,200
 Again, that habitat meets many of the features that has many of the features of upland habitat

2100
02:55:47,200 --> 02:55:52,200
 as in soil topography and vegetation is just, it was less than 10 acres.

2101
02:55:52,200 --> 02:56:02,200
 And as Amy also just recently pointed out, there's an additional 1.7 acres of remnant

2102
02:56:02,200 --> 02:56:13,200
 forest that would be preserved by, with the intent of meeting the tree preservation requirements.

2103
02:56:13,200 --> 02:56:23,200
 Notifications were sent out and there were no responses, except for a response from a

2104
02:56:23,200 --> 02:56:29,200
 nonland owner in opposition to the project.

2105
02:56:29,200 --> 02:56:38,200
 The recommendation is to permanently remove the recommendation is for approval with the

2106
02:56:38,200 --> 02:56:44,200
 following conditions to permanently remove the repairing buffer that limiting that to

2107
02:56:44,200 --> 02:56:52,200
 1.26 acres as shown in Exhibit C that this easement would be placed over the 2.11 acres

2108
02:56:52,200 --> 02:57:00,200
 and filed with Denton County and within 14 days of the construction of the detention

2109
02:57:00,200 --> 02:57:08,200
 basins that the detention basins be covered with the vegetative coverage that was described

2110
02:57:08,200 --> 02:57:15,200
 in Exhibit C and then the last two conditions being the typical request by environmental

2111
02:57:15,200 --> 02:57:27,200
 services that the applicant provide as a report and to ensure 90% survival of the vegetation

2112
02:57:27,200 --> 02:57:37,200
 as was shown in Exhibit C. And with that, I will take any questions.

2113
02:57:37,200 --> 02:57:39,200
 >> Thank you for the presentation, Christy.

2114
02:57:39,200 --> 02:57:41,200
 Is there any questions for Christy?

2115
02:57:41,200 --> 02:57:45,200
 The applicant is still on the line, I know they're not representing, but I'm sure they're

2116
02:57:45,200 --> 02:57:50,200
 available for questions if there's any questions of the commission.

2117
02:57:50,200 --> 02:57:54,200
 While y'all are thinking about any, I just want to let you know for this item we had one

2118
02:57:54,200 --> 02:57:56,200
 person make comments using the online form.

2119
02:57:56,200 --> 02:58:02,200
 There was zero support of this item and one against all these comment forms or this comment

2120
02:58:02,200 --> 02:58:07,200
 form was emailed to the commissioners and our city secretary to be recorded.

2121
02:58:07,200 --> 02:58:13,200
 With that, that kind of brings us to the close of anyone wanting to speak, so I will close

2122
02:58:13,200 --> 02:58:15,200
 the public hearing.

2123
02:58:15,200 --> 02:58:17,200
 Commissioner Smith.

2124
02:58:17,200 --> 02:58:20,200
 >> Approved with staff recommendations.

2125
02:58:20,200 --> 02:58:23,200
 >> First for approval, Commissioner Anderson.

2126
02:58:23,200 --> 02:58:26,200
 >> I'll second, but can I say something real quick as well?

2127
02:58:26,200 --> 02:58:27,200
 >> Absolutely.

2128
02:58:27,200 --> 02:58:29,200
 >> I just want to reiterate what you said.

2129
02:58:29,200 --> 02:58:37,200
 That whole section right there on 35 has been kind of an eyesore for years for Ditton.

2130
02:58:37,200 --> 02:58:41,200
 No bad thing against ACME, but it's just barren land and it's just dirty and I think the

2131
02:58:41,200 --> 02:58:46,200
 presentation they did and if they get to develop what they did, I think it's going to be awesome,

2132
02:58:46,200 --> 02:58:48,200
 like you said.

2133
02:58:48,200 --> 02:58:53,200
 And also I think it's great that they found a Ditton artist that adds even more value to

2134
02:58:53,200 --> 02:58:55,200
 something that they're doing.

2135
02:58:55,200 --> 02:58:59,200
 So anyway, kudos to the developers.

2136
02:58:59,200 --> 02:59:01,200
 >> Commissioner Beck.

2137
02:59:01,200 --> 02:59:03,200
 >> Thank you, Chair.

2138
02:59:03,200 --> 02:59:07,200
 Yeah, I actually want to sort of agree.

2139
02:59:07,200 --> 02:59:13,200
 I have -- if you noticed, I had no comments about the other item and actually seconded

2140
02:59:13,200 --> 02:59:15,200
 the motion.

2141
02:59:15,200 --> 02:59:24,200
 I think the development is reasonable development with, you know, interesting potential.

2142
02:59:24,200 --> 02:59:34,200
 And I appreciate Amy's and Christy's explanation of sort of the limitations of our own code

2143
02:59:34,200 --> 02:59:37,200
 and the need of the development.

2144
02:59:37,200 --> 02:59:44,200
 I will point out -- I'm going to rant and scream about that 10 acres and then vote yes.

2145
02:59:44,200 --> 02:59:49,200
 I'm going to tell you that right now because what we're doing is we're tearing out all the

2146
02:59:49,200 --> 02:59:56,200
 green spaces and I think that the DSA plan for the riparian repair and the grasses are

2147
02:59:56,200 --> 02:59:58,200
 a good job.

2148
02:59:58,200 --> 03:00:01,200
 I commend the architects and the engineers on that.

2149
03:00:01,200 --> 03:00:09,200
 I understand the limits of our existing code, you know, specifying that that is not quote

2150
03:00:09,200 --> 03:00:11,200
 unquote a green space.

2151
03:00:11,200 --> 03:00:15,200
 But Christy, I'm also a biologist.

2152
03:00:15,200 --> 03:00:20,200
 So -- and I understand that, you know, I'm not going to hold -- I'm going to hold the

2153
03:00:20,200 --> 03:00:23,200
 engineers and developers harmless on this one.

2154
03:00:23,200 --> 03:00:33,200
 But I -- we are making a mistake to constantly pay -- you know, what's the phrase?

2155
03:00:33,200 --> 03:00:35,200
 Steal from Peter to pay Paul.

2156
03:00:35,200 --> 03:00:40,200
 You know, I think it's a mistake to -- I understand that we don't want to put pipes through a

2157
03:00:40,200 --> 03:00:42,200
 gas well region.

2158
03:00:42,200 --> 03:00:44,200
 We don't want to adjust the water table around a gas well.

2159
03:00:44,200 --> 03:00:49,200
 Once again, we see gas wells contributing to lack of proper development in our municipal

2160
03:00:49,200 --> 03:00:51,200
 environment.

2161
03:00:51,200 --> 03:00:57,200
 I understand, you know, we need to maintain -- you're going to have waterfowl and whatnot.

2162
03:00:57,200 --> 03:01:04,200
 They're doing -- I mean, the ponds themselves seem like from the plan that it's not a bad

2163
03:01:04,200 --> 03:01:05,200
 alt ESA.

2164
03:01:05,200 --> 03:01:11,200
 What we are doing, though, is chopping up what little green corridor goes from that park

2165
03:01:11,200 --> 03:01:19,200
 to the northwest, the little strip of verge north, chopping that up, fragmenting the forest

2166
03:01:19,200 --> 03:01:23,200
 even further around down to South Lakes Park.

2167
03:01:23,200 --> 03:01:26,200
 We're just slowly chopping up all that green space.

2168
03:01:26,200 --> 03:01:30,200
 So, you know, I don't want to hear any complaints when the coyotes eat your bunnies, when the

2169
03:01:30,200 --> 03:01:35,200
 -- you know, when the -- you know, you hit a deer with your car because we ran those

2170
03:01:35,200 --> 03:01:40,200
 things all out of there because we wanted to put a detention pond.

2171
03:01:40,200 --> 03:01:46,200
 So I'm going to vote yes, and I'm not -- you know, I think Amy did a good job of describing

2172
03:01:46,200 --> 03:01:53,200
 this, but this is where our ordinances are failing us, and we do not have good green

2173
03:01:53,200 --> 03:01:58,200
 corridor, green space ordinances, and that really, really needs to be fixed.

2174
03:01:58,200 --> 03:02:01,200
 So we don't -- I don't have a handle to grab onto.

2175
03:02:01,200 --> 03:02:03,200
 I don't have a problem with the product.

2176
03:02:03,200 --> 03:02:11,200
 I have a problem with this sort of unsweet spot that we find ourselves in and having

2177
03:02:11,200 --> 03:02:14,200
 a good quality environmental existence in Denton.

2178
03:02:14,200 --> 03:02:16,200
 So I'll leave it there.

2179
03:02:16,200 --> 03:02:17,200
 >> Thank you, Commissioner Beck.

2180
03:02:17,200 --> 03:02:19,200
 Commissioner Pernetta.

2181
03:02:19,200 --> 03:02:23,200
 >> Yeah, and, you know, kind of along the lines of what Commissioner Anderson said and

2182
03:02:23,200 --> 03:02:29,200
 what Commissioner Beck said, you know, I have a lot of people who send me their concerns.

2183
03:02:29,200 --> 03:02:34,200
 I mean, anything to do with an all ESA or something like that comes up.

2184
03:02:34,200 --> 03:02:39,200
 And this is one of those cases where, you know, you look at it and you go -- it makes

2185
03:02:39,200 --> 03:02:46,200
 more sense what we're doing going forward, particularly because, you know, that patch,

2186
03:02:46,200 --> 03:02:52,200
 that area is basically -- it might as well be a dump right now when you drive by it.

2187
03:02:52,200 --> 03:02:57,200
 It's unsightly, and I always wonder what the hell is going on with it.

2188
03:02:57,200 --> 03:03:00,200
 So I have no problem voting for this one.

2189
03:03:00,200 --> 03:03:03,200
 You know, kind of along the lines of what Commissioner Beck said.

2190
03:03:03,200 --> 03:03:08,200
 You know, I do have a little concern over the fact that, you know, as Denton gets, you

2191
03:03:08,200 --> 03:03:13,200
 know, grows and becomes more dense and in and of itself I have no problem with density

2192
03:03:13,200 --> 03:03:18,200
 because we need affordable housing in this area and we can only get that through more

2193
03:03:18,200 --> 03:03:19,200
 density.

2194
03:03:19,200 --> 03:03:26,200
 I do think, you know, if we are going to keep an eye on, you know, making sure as we

2195
03:03:26,200 --> 03:03:31,200
 grow we keep Denton beautiful, it would be nice to have, you know, council, you know,

2196
03:03:31,200 --> 03:03:38,200
 staff and everything kind of look into whether or not 10 acres is too much, you know, is

2197
03:03:38,200 --> 03:03:39,200
 too large a number.

2198
03:03:39,200 --> 03:03:41,200
 I don't know what the sweet spot would be.

2199
03:03:41,200 --> 03:03:46,200
 But, you know, in the last year we did find a sweet spot with setbacks, you know.

2200
03:03:46,200 --> 03:03:53,200
 And I think this is kind of a direction we should be looking into in terms of growing

2201
03:03:53,200 --> 03:03:59,200
 our town but making sure that we are taking care of the environment because ultimately

2202
03:03:59,200 --> 03:04:03,200
 it's one of the things that, you know, that we're not going to be able to build more

2203
03:04:03,200 --> 03:04:05,200
 of as we go forward.

2204
03:04:05,200 --> 03:04:07,200
 I support the project though.

2205
03:04:07,200 --> 03:04:13,200
 Great looking project and, you know, a lot of good work and, you know, documentation

2206
03:04:13,200 --> 03:04:14,200
 and everything.

2207
03:04:14,200 --> 03:04:15,200
 Thank you.

2208
03:04:15,200 --> 03:04:17,200
 >> Commissioner Beck.

2209
03:04:17,200 --> 03:04:19,200
 >> I just -- something just occurred to me.

2210
03:04:19,200 --> 03:04:25,200
 ACME being a brick facility, they have a lot of airborne pollutant heavy metal waste.

2211
03:04:25,200 --> 03:04:27,200
 Do we test that soil?

2212
03:04:27,200 --> 03:04:32,200
 I mean, I would hate for these developers to develop a lovely property and have

2213
03:04:32,200 --> 03:04:34,200
 contaminated soil.

2214
03:04:34,200 --> 03:04:36,200
 Does anyone know?

2215
03:04:36,200 --> 03:04:38,200
 This isn't going to affect my vote.

2216
03:04:38,200 --> 03:04:42,200
 This is actually more of a warning to the developers.

2217
03:04:42,200 --> 03:04:47,200
 I hope that you do not have contaminated soil because I know traditionally like cement

2218
03:04:47,200 --> 03:04:51,200
 factories, brick factories are dirty.

2219
03:04:51,200 --> 03:04:53,200
 They're really dirty.

2220
03:04:53,200 --> 03:04:58,200
 So I don't -- you know, I would encourage you to test your own property.

2221
03:04:58,200 --> 03:05:03,200
 I guess I'll say that to the architects and the engineers.

2222
03:05:03,200 --> 03:05:07,200
 Have we ever tested that land around there?

2223
03:05:07,200 --> 03:05:09,200
 Maybe that's a Christy question.

2224
03:05:09,200 --> 03:05:12,200
 >> I don't have any background on that.

2225
03:05:12,200 --> 03:05:14,200
 Sorry.

2226
03:05:14,200 --> 03:05:17,200
 >> That's okay.

2227
03:05:17,200 --> 03:05:18,200
 Thank you, Chris.

2228
03:05:18,200 --> 03:05:23,200
 >> Jason, if you would like to answer or if you have insights, Commissioner Beck.

2229
03:05:23,200 --> 03:05:25,200
 >> Yeah, I certainly do.

2230
03:05:25,200 --> 03:05:27,200
 Forgive me if I'm acting out of order here.

2231
03:05:27,200 --> 03:05:30,200
 This is my first time doing this virtually.

2232
03:05:30,200 --> 03:05:37,200
 But yes, sir, Commissioner Beck, we have extensively gone through phase 1, phase 2

2233
03:05:37,200 --> 03:05:41,200
 environmental -- environmental.

2234
03:05:41,200 --> 03:05:43,200
 I mean, for our sake, we have to.

2235
03:05:43,200 --> 03:05:48,200
 I mean, we're looking at investing north of $35 million in the property to do this

2236
03:05:48,200 --> 03:05:50,200
 and do it right.

2237
03:05:50,200 --> 03:05:52,200
 So it's essential for us.

2238
03:05:52,200 --> 03:05:54,200
 And we very much shared your concerns going into it.

2239
03:05:54,200 --> 03:06:00,200
 But I can tell you that we are over that and understand that none exist.

2240
03:06:00,200 --> 03:06:02,200
 >> I appreciate that insight.

2241
03:06:02,200 --> 03:06:06,200
 We do have a first and a second for approval with the five conditions on the tables.

2242
03:06:06,200 --> 03:06:10,200
 Any other further discussion on this?

2243
03:06:10,200 --> 03:06:12,200
 Seeing none, I will call for a vote.

2244
03:06:12,200 --> 03:06:15,200
 I will call for a vote via roll call.

2245
03:06:15,200 --> 03:06:17,200
 We'll start with Commissioner Ellis.

2246
03:06:17,200 --> 03:06:18,200
 >> Aye.

2247
03:06:18,200 --> 03:06:20,200
 >> Commissioner Beck.

2248
03:06:20,200 --> 03:06:21,200
 >> I reelect it, yes.

2249
03:06:21,200 --> 03:06:22,200
 Aye.

2250
03:06:22,200 --> 03:06:24,200
 >> Commissioner Anderson.

2251
03:06:24,200 --> 03:06:26,200
 >> Aye.

2252
03:06:26,200 --> 03:06:27,200
 >> Commissioner Pernetta.

2253
03:06:27,200 --> 03:06:29,200
 >> Aye.

2254
03:06:29,200 --> 03:06:30,200
 >> Commissioner Smith.

2255
03:06:30,200 --> 03:06:31,200
 >> Aye.

2256
03:06:31,200 --> 03:06:32,200
 >> Commissioner Cold.

2257
03:06:32,200 --> 03:06:35,200
 Commissioner Cole is giving me a thumbs up as an affirmative.

2258
03:06:35,200 --> 03:06:37,200
 Chair is also an aye.

2259
03:06:37,200 --> 03:06:39,200
 Motion carries 7-0.

2260
03:06:39,200 --> 03:06:41,200
 Congratulations and best of luck.

2261
03:06:41,200 --> 03:06:43,200
 >> Thank you.

2262
03:06:43,200 --> 03:06:49,200
 The next two items, item 5C and 5D, are being postponed to a date uncertain.

2263
03:06:49,200 --> 03:06:51,200
 So they will be renoticed.

2264
03:06:51,200 --> 03:06:55,200
 The commission tonight will take no action on those two items.

2265
03:06:55,200 --> 03:06:59,200
 Which moves us to our concluding item, the Planning and Zoning Commission Project Matrix.

2266
03:06:59,200 --> 03:07:07,200
 As always, I will turn this over to Richard for an update and then to the virtual dais for discussion.

2267
03:07:07,200 --> 03:07:08,200
 >> Thank you.

2268
03:07:08,200 --> 03:07:10,200
 Just a brief update.

2269
03:07:10,200 --> 03:07:16,200
 The next meeting, we will have our GIS folks here kind of walking everyone through those project maps.

2270
03:07:16,200 --> 03:07:19,200
 And as well as the weekly submittal project maps.

2271
03:07:19,200 --> 03:07:23,200
 And then just to walk through the interactive map to show everything that's available.

2272
03:07:23,200 --> 03:07:31,200
 As well as where we're starting to go with linking some of the application submittal information through track it into the GIS system.

2273
03:07:31,200 --> 03:07:33,200
 And so it's a work in progress.

2274
03:07:33,200 --> 03:07:36,200
 But at least wanted to provide that update.

2275
03:07:36,200 --> 03:07:50,200
 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.

2276
03:07:50,200 --> 03:07:58,200
 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.

2277
03:07:58,200 --> 03:08:04,200
 But just wanted to note that the only other thing I'll add at last night's council meeting.

2278
03:08:04,200 --> 03:08:06,200
 They did take action on the birch track.

2279
03:08:06,200 --> 03:08:09,200
 Both the land use plan amendment and rezoning.

2280
03:08:09,200 --> 03:08:11,200
 Both of those were approved.

2281
03:08:11,200 --> 03:08:17,200
 The rezoning, although PNZ did recommend the condition restricting the use.

2282
03:08:17,200 --> 03:08:21,200
 Council did not include that restriction.

2283
03:08:21,200 --> 03:08:24,200
 So it has the straight zoning of R6.

2284
03:08:24,200 --> 03:08:30,200
 The other item they took action on and was approved was the SUP for that additional six feet of height.

2285
03:08:30,200 --> 03:08:36,200
 The other item they took action on and was approved was the SUP for the multi-family project.

2286
03:08:36,200 --> 03:08:39,200
 And those were the council action items from yesterday.

2287
03:08:39,200 --> 03:08:43,200
 And with that, I'll be happy to answer any additional questions you may have.

2288
03:08:43,200 --> 03:08:44,200
 >> Great.

2289
03:08:44,200 --> 03:08:46,200
 Commissioner Bec?

2290
03:08:46,200 --> 03:08:47,200
 >> Thank you, chair.

2291
03:08:47,200 --> 03:08:53,200
 Richard, I pointed out the map once you pointed out to me a couple of meetings ago.

2292
03:08:53,200 --> 03:08:56,200
 And I've gotten a lot of really positive feedback.

2293
03:08:56,200 --> 03:09:10,200
 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.

2294
03:09:10,200 --> 03:09:13,200
 We could certainly fulfill some of that role and staff can too.

2295
03:09:13,200 --> 03:09:17,200
 But I've gotten a lot of really good feedback.

2296
03:09:17,200 --> 03:09:19,200
 I had two questions.

2297
03:09:19,200 --> 03:09:22,200
 People asked me -- they didn't see -- and maybe we just overlooked it.

2298
03:09:22,200 --> 03:09:25,200
 It was in a different overlay.

2299
03:09:25,200 --> 03:09:28,200
 Was tonight's ACME brick on that map?

2300
03:09:28,200 --> 03:09:30,200
 I assume it was, but I didn't see it.

2301
03:09:30,200 --> 03:09:34,200
 I saw the little frontage piece along Fort Worth or not Fort Worth.

2302
03:09:34,200 --> 03:09:36,200
 Yes, that's right.

2303
03:09:36,200 --> 03:09:37,200
 >> I'd have to check.

2304
03:09:37,200 --> 03:09:39,200
 It should be on there.

2305
03:09:39,200 --> 03:09:41,200
 It should be linked.

2306
03:09:41,200 --> 03:09:42,200
 >> Maybe I just overlooked it.

2307
03:09:42,200 --> 03:09:43,200
 >> Yeah, I could check.

2308
03:09:43,200 --> 03:09:50,200
 >> 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.

2309
03:09:50,200 --> 03:09:54,200
 And that is people love the map, so there's really positive feedback.

2310
03:09:54,200 --> 03:09:56,200
 So I really want to encourage that.

2311
03:09:56,200 --> 03:10:04,200
 But they'd also still like if there was a list, so if we could dump a list, that would be super helpful.

2312
03:10:04,200 --> 03:10:12,200
 >> 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.

2313
03:10:12,200 --> 03:10:14,200
 But I actually like your idea.

2314
03:10:14,200 --> 03:10:18,200
 I think it's a good point of a sort of public education campaign.

2315
03:10:18,200 --> 03:10:27,200
 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.

2316
03:10:27,200 --> 03:10:31,200
 So I can report back as we progress.

2317
03:10:31,200 --> 03:10:34,200
 >> I've used it a lot, actually, since you pointed it out to me.

2318
03:10:34,200 --> 03:10:39,200
 I pretty much do every single backup and check over the map.

2319
03:10:39,200 --> 03:10:45,200
 So I really appreciate it myself.

2320
03:10:45,200 --> 03:10:51,200
 >> Richard, I have two things, one of great import, one of zero import.

2321
03:10:51,200 --> 03:10:58,200
 The first thing is when Christy comes back, can she provide some justification on the 10 acres?

2322
03:10:58,200 --> 03:11:10,200
 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.

2323
03:11:10,200 --> 03:11:16,200
 And I'd love to know back to Commissioner Beck's point where that 10 acres came from and justification for that.

2324
03:11:16,200 --> 03:11:18,200
 That's the comment.

2325
03:11:18,200 --> 03:11:20,200
 >> For the upland habitat, right, the 10 acre.

2326
03:11:20,200 --> 03:11:21,200
 >> Yeah, exactly.

2327
03:11:21,200 --> 03:11:22,200
 Thank you.

2328
03:11:22,200 --> 03:11:24,200
 That was the important note.

2329
03:11:24,200 --> 03:11:30,200
 The one that's not important is that I'm in favor of the goatee being brought back, Richard.

2330
03:11:30,200 --> 03:11:32,200
 Glad to see that.

2331
03:11:32,200 --> 03:11:34,200
 You were in the office earlier with the mask on.

2332
03:11:34,200 --> 03:11:36,200
 I didn't get to appreciate it.

2333
03:11:36,200 --> 03:11:40,200
 Is there any other items for the matrix?

2334
03:11:40,200 --> 03:11:41,200
 Okay.

2335
03:11:41,200 --> 03:11:43,200
 Seeing none, thank you for a great meeting.

2336
03:11:43,200 --> 03:11:45,200
 I'll close this at 730.

2337
03:11:45,200 --> 03:11:46,200
 Have a great week.

2338
03:11:46,200 --> 03:11:47,200
 >> Thanks.