WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.100 >> Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the planning and zoning commission 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 00:00:14.980 --> 00:00:19.960 will open the meeting. Please let the record show that Commissioner Smith and Commissioner 00:00:19.960 --> 00:00:27.580 Anderson are currently not in attendance. To jump right into our agenda, we have one 00:00:27.580 --> 00:00:35.480 work session report tonight. The agenda has two listed. The second one, item 3B, is being 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 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 00:00:49.960 --> 00:00:58.200 leading that out. >> Yes. >> Ron, you have the floor when you're ready. >> Thank you. 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. 00:01:09.440 --> 00:01:17.160 Good afternoon. Again, Ron Mingida, principal planner with development services. This item 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 00:01:24.680 --> 00:01:29.280 past year. We haven't really started some of the discussion with the planning and zoning 00:01:29.280 --> 00:01:34.120 commission until recently. We've had a number of meetings with the development code review 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 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 00:01:49.160 --> 00:01:55.880 to subchapter 2, which is administration and procedures of the Denson development code. 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 00:02:01.600 --> 00:02:06.080 slide before, but really it's important to know that what we're trying to accomplish 00:02:06.080 --> 00:02:12.080 with these code amendments is really to address some of the nonconformities that were created, 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. 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 00:02:26.920 --> 00:02:33.240 we are responding to those by aligning some of our requirements and standards to comply 00:02:33.240 --> 00:02:40.200 be consistent with those Texas local government code requirements. Also, there are a number 00:02:40.200 --> 00:02:46.360 of process improvements that the city has been involved in, and we are looking to codify 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 00:02:52.720 --> 00:02:59.120 is part of this code amendment section specifically, just because it's under administration and 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 00:03:07.360 --> 00:03:14.640 community, PNC and city council. There are a number of substantive changes and non-substantive 00:03:14.640 --> 00:03:24.360 changes specifically as it relates to error typos, incorrect references and the like. 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 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 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 00:03:45.200 --> 00:03:52.080 that we are provisions that we want to introduce or reintroduce into the development code. 00:03:52.080 --> 00:03:58.280 Therefore, I just want to highlight some of those with you all this afternoon. So with 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. 00:04:06.080 --> 00:04:15.720 This is really to provide the operational procedures back into the DDC. As you can see, 00:04:15.720 --> 00:04:23.480 letter A above states that it references the municipal code of ordinances. Although the 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 00:04:28.980 --> 00:04:36.960 to have it in the development code. Therefore, we're putting it or reintroducing it back. 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, 00:04:42.840 --> 00:04:48.840 nothing that's significantly different from what we previously had or had in the past 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 00:04:57.880 --> 00:05:04.600 provided, and that's just a standard statement there, that the chairperson has the ability 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 00:05:11.320 --> 00:05:15.360 of course, the planning, zoning commission shall keep minutes. We want to make sure that 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 00:05:25.080 --> 00:05:35.760 is related to the tie votes as relates to non-subdivision applications. One of the things 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 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 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 00:06:00.260 --> 00:06:08.720 a tie vote from PNC results moving forward to the city council. It was carried forward 00:06:08.720 --> 00:06:15.960 to the city, sorry, to the 2019 development code. However, it only carried forward with 00:06:15.960 --> 00:06:24.840 regards to rezoning, zoning map amendments. It did not carry forward or clearly state 00:06:24.840 --> 00:06:32.440 that it also applied to specific use permits, any other recommendation that the planning 00:06:32.440 --> 00:06:39.400 zoning commission provides to the city council. Partly the reason for that is when it was 00:06:39.400 --> 00:06:46.800 in the 2002 code, the zoning amendment process covered most of these types of applications. 00:06:46.800 --> 00:06:55.000 However, with the 2019 code, we separated those procedures and applications. Therefore, 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 00:07:02.960 --> 00:07:13.760 staff is proposing is that we have an all-encompassing requirement or explanation of what happens 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, 00:07:20.520 --> 00:07:27.460 the planning zoning commission has decisions on final decisions and again, these are for 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 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 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 00:07:49.400 --> 00:07:57.000 subdivision variances. So that will be another final decision that the PNC would consider. 00:07:57.000 --> 00:08:02.360 And then recommendations, that's probably the main thing as well, that if there was 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 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 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 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. 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 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 00:08:47.720 --> 00:08:55.880 vote at the second meeting, that recommendation will be brought forward as a denial to the 00:08:55.880 --> 00:09:02.280 city council. However, that denial that would be brought forward to city council would not 00:09:02.280 --> 00:09:10.480 require the three fourth vote that normally a denial from a PNC recommendation would garner. 00:09:10.480 --> 00:09:16.920 So I'm going to stop sharing my screen and see if there are any questions. 00:09:16.920 --> 00:09:22.400 >> We do have one, Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Chair. So as I understand the 00:09:22.400 --> 00:09:30.160 way our government works, power descends from council. And thus, my question, my first question, 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 00:09:40.200 --> 00:09:47.200 question is if this is different than council, is it different than every other commission 00:09:47.200 --> 00:09:52.720 board, Chair, and if so, a C, why would you need that difference? 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 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. 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 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 00:10:20.720 --> 00:10:24.120 in the code. >> Yeah, and I'm trying to look it up. But 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 00:10:28.480 --> 00:10:35.320 next subsequent meeting. And that continues until they can get a vote on the matter. I 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 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. 00:10:43.600 --> 00:10:49.520 I'll go ahead and interrupt if I need to. >> Okay. And Commissioner Mack, regarding 00:10:49.520 --> 00:10:55.180 your second question, is the P&Z different from all the other boards in the commission? 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 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 00:11:10.400 --> 00:11:17.280 type of voting outcome. >> And I guess the C, why do we need that? 00:11:17.280 --> 00:11:22.220 >> Say that one more time. >> The third question, question C is why do 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? 00:11:29.740 --> 00:11:34.920 And potentially, depending on Mack's lookup than council? 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 00:11:41.840 --> 00:11:49.000 are a number of applications that we recommend to the city council that directly impacts 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 00:11:54.320 --> 00:11:58.860 those situations. >> Well, then let me follow up with a commission 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 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 00:12:13.760 --> 00:12:19.000 a high overlap. And so what is their procedure on ties? 00:12:19.000 --> 00:12:28.440 >> So the ZBA is not a recommending board to the city council. Their decisions are final. 00:12:28.440 --> 00:12:35.180 And their requirements are also different. Because you need at least six votes in order 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, 00:12:46.080 --> 00:12:49.680 again, meaning that they would need at least six votes. And again, they're different in 00:12:49.680 --> 00:12:53.000 the sense that they're not a recommending body to the city council. 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. 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 00:13:04.560 --> 00:13:08.320 be a negative. Because you need the six votes to get. 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 00:13:14.880 --> 00:13:18.000 that different bodies have different needs and necessities. That's why we have different 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 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 00:13:39.800 --> 00:13:47.280 following a goal. And anyway, I'll stop there unless Mac has a -- 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 00:13:51.920 --> 00:13:57.520 year, the whole process. And they reviewed it and adopted code changes. So for city council, 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 00:14:02.800 --> 00:14:07.560 placed on each subsequent council meeting agenda until there's a full council present 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 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 00:14:19.600 --> 00:14:23.080 the city, for the boards, commissions and committees, with the exception of this planning 00:14:23.080 --> 00:14:28.160 and zoning commission, any time there's a tie vote, it's considered a denial. 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 00:14:36.080 --> 00:14:41.680 proposal would be consistent with the continuance at the way council does. Although council 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 00:14:45.920 --> 00:14:46.920 once. >> Correct. 00:14:46.920 --> 00:14:50.280 >> Okay. Thank you. >> Commissioner Beck, if I'm hearing that 00:14:50.280 --> 00:14:53.000 we need your mic a little louder, if you can speak louder. 00:14:53.000 --> 00:14:55.720 >> Yeah, I'll turn it up. >> Thank you. 00:14:55.720 --> 00:15:01.280 >> Commissioner Burnetta. >> Yeah. And real quick to address, I guess 00:15:01.280 --> 00:15:05.200 one of the questions that Commissioner Beck was bringing up. You know, unlike a lot of 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 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 00:15:17.080 --> 00:15:20.760 person being absent once that we're having to take into consideration. There are going 00:15:20.760 --> 00:15:26.560 to be decisions where a commission member may have to recuse themselves from every vote 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 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 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 00:15:43.180 --> 00:15:46.520 the super majority on everything else for city council? 00:15:46.520 --> 00:15:51.560 >> That is correct. That is the language we have that was approved that carried forward 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 00:15:57.900 --> 00:16:00.840 applications that go to city council. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure, because 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 00:16:04.060 --> 00:16:06.060 it consistent with everything else. Thank you. 00:16:06.060 --> 00:16:08.520 >> Correct. >> Commissioner Beck. 00:16:08.520 --> 00:16:15.680 >> This is just a mic check. Is that better? >> Could be a little louder. 00:16:15.680 --> 00:16:19.080 >> More? Okay. >> Yes. 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 00:16:23.920 --> 00:16:28.680 old code, we didn't have separate procedures for every application. Everything followed 00:16:28.680 --> 00:16:34.200 the rezoning procedure process, and so that's where the TIVO provisions were embedded. Now 00:16:34.200 --> 00:16:38.560 that we have different procedures established, we just need to carry that forward. It's really 00:16:38.560 --> 00:16:41.400 -- I don't think too much of a change in that regard. 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 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. 00:16:56.240 --> 00:17:03.360 Any other questions right now? All right, Ron, let's continue forward. 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 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 00:17:21.080 --> 00:17:27.840 and subdivision review. I'll just read this real quickly to summarize House Bill 3167. 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 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 00:17:43.440 --> 00:17:50.680 or consideration for approval or consideration period, whatever it may be. That it also, 00:17:50.680 --> 00:17:59.200 if there is a decision or determination that it is approved with condition or disapproved, 00:17:59.200 --> 00:18:05.640 that a written statement be included as part of that decision or motion. And it states 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 00:18:12.180 --> 00:18:17.720 last bullet, that each condition or reason specified in their statement must be directly 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 00:18:24.920 --> 00:18:31.840 law, statutes or municipal ordinances that the basis of the condition and disapproval 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 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 00:18:45.720 --> 00:18:51.840 slide to basically summarize what I just outlined earlier. We're proposing to codify that in 00:18:51.840 --> 00:18:56.800 the Denton development code. We know it's in the Texas local government code, but we 00:18:56.800 --> 00:19:03.240 feel that, again, to be customer friendly and to have it in one location, having it 00:19:03.240 --> 00:19:09.000 in the development code is important. So we are adding the following under the subdivision 00:19:09.000 --> 00:19:17.240 procedures. A, as far as relates to timing of city action. Again, that 30-day timeline. 00:19:17.240 --> 00:19:24.360 Decisions and post-decision actions that there needs to be a citation if there is anything 00:19:24.360 --> 00:19:32.360 that is either approved with conditions or denied in the recommendation or in the determination. 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 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, 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 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 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 00:20:13.440 --> 00:20:20.040 resubmit. However, at that point, we -- the city would need to consider it within 15 days. 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. 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 00:20:36.000 --> 00:20:42.500 that first consideration. Anybody have any questions on this one? This is just to bring 00:20:42.500 --> 00:20:49.960 into the DDC the provisions that were passed as part of House Bill 3167. 00:20:49.960 --> 00:20:58.840 >> Chair Panetta. >> And on this one, I just -- it's a real 00:20:58.840 --> 00:21:04.700 basic question. So my understanding already is if we were to deny something, and that 00:21:04.700 --> 00:21:12.000 denial is not consistent with existing code, basically, legally, our decision is technically 00:21:12.000 --> 00:21:20.120 nonbinding, right? Any developer can basically override that, right? Is that accurate? 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 00:21:24.760 --> 00:21:27.920 that question. >> Sure. And without getting too much into 00:21:27.920 --> 00:21:32.960 legal advice, but yeah, if you don't have a justifiable basis in the subdivision regulations 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 00:21:37.560 --> 00:21:41.040 position because you have no real authority for the decision you made, and that could 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 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 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. 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 00:22:01.680 --> 00:22:05.400 is true and tying it back to that specific House Bill, is that right? 00:22:05.400 --> 00:22:11.600 >> That is correct. >> Okay. Thank you. 00:22:11.600 --> 00:22:18.560 >> Thank you, Chair. So I have two questions. One is they have the right to -- applicants 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. 00:22:27.440 --> 00:22:34.000 Can we give them additional extensions or it's one extension for all parties? 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 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. 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 00:22:59.920 --> 00:23:12.160 the item is moved forward, either approved, proved, conditioned, or didn't help. 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 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? 00:23:26.160 --> 00:23:33.080 >> It's one extension for up to 30 days. >> Whichever direction is coming from. Okay. 00:23:33.080 --> 00:23:38.000 That clarified it. Thank you, Richard. >> Per applicant. So if it's a plenary plat, 00:23:38.000 --> 00:23:42.040 you can grant the one, and then when it gets to final, they're correct. 00:23:42.040 --> 00:23:45.280 >> Okay. That's great. I appreciate that. Thank you. 00:23:45.280 --> 00:23:50.280 >> Commissioner Ellis. >> Thank you, Chair. But just to clarify, the 00:23:50.280 --> 00:23:59.200 applicant has to request the extension. >> Correct. Good point. 00:23:59.200 --> 00:24:08.680 >> All right. >> Go ahead and move on. So the other -- the 00:24:08.680 --> 00:24:16.640 next few slides, I can tell you, just knowing what's upcoming, are mainly our opportunity 00:24:16.640 --> 00:24:24.080 to add more clarification and be consistent with our review process, development review 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 00:24:30.680 --> 00:24:36.880 what an administratively approved plat is. So we're just listing it here to help provide 00:24:36.880 --> 00:24:42.360 that clarification. So anything that is an amending plat, conveyance plat, a minor plat 00:24:42.360 --> 00:24:50.240 or minor replat, is considered an administratively approved plat. So again, just to clarify that. 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. 00:24:56.920 --> 00:25:04.960 However, after practicing what we hope to do, we recognize that a zoning verification 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 00:25:10.680 --> 00:25:16.320 is replacing this process of a certificate of compliance with a zoning verification letter. 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 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 00:25:30.480 --> 00:25:35.880 that the zoning verification letter, what it does, it provides the city the ability 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 00:25:43.980 --> 00:25:50.520 what uses are allowed under that zoning. So any property owner or applicant or business 00:25:50.520 --> 00:25:59.920 owner may require -- may request, that is, that zoning verification letter. 00:25:59.920 --> 00:26:06.660 The other item that we added in -- we were processing and putting together in the process 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 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 00:26:22.800 --> 00:26:29.200 a CO approves the occupancy of that building. The business registration just allows us to 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, 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 00:26:42.280 --> 00:26:47.400 do, what they would get, the business owners would get a business registration and they 00:26:47.400 --> 00:26:53.620 would need to apply for that in the process that we're proposing. 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 00:26:59.320 --> 00:27:04.800 again provides that mechanism for the city to evaluate what use either is being introduced 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 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, 00:27:20.000 --> 00:27:25.460 what happens today is any business occupying a portion of a building would need to get 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 00:27:33.320 --> 00:27:39.400 again, as I said earlier, business registration would be something that the business owner 00:27:39.400 --> 00:27:46.320 or whoever representing that business can apply for. 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 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 00:28:00.720 --> 00:28:06.360 engineering plan. We know that this exists, this application or this process. We just 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 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 00:28:19.360 --> 00:28:24.680 civil engineering plans are acceptable or not. And as you can see that the development 00:28:24.680 --> 00:28:32.520 assistant team, which is made up of our engineers, our planners, any other department, parks, 00:28:32.520 --> 00:28:37.160 fire, building safety, all the other ones that are involved in the development review 00:28:37.160 --> 00:28:43.760 process are involved and are the decision making body on the civil engineering plan. 00:28:43.760 --> 00:28:52.940 So just again, give the application or the process a place in the development code. We 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 00:29:01.020 --> 00:29:10.280 submitting an application will know what to expect. So I went through those fairly quickly. 00:29:10.280 --> 00:29:14.880 The zoning verification letter, the business registration, and the civil engineering plans. 00:29:14.880 --> 00:29:20.160 Does anybody have any questions with regards to those new procedures? Now, they're not 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 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 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 00:29:41.400 --> 00:29:47.320 and operational procedure. Similar to the planning zoning commission, we had the intent 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, 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. 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 00:30:07.320 --> 00:30:15.040 the 2019 development code. So the composition of what a zoning board adjustment shall be 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, 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 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 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 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 00:30:49.920 --> 00:30:56.280 of all the terms of council members and the extension of actually some of the commissioners 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 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 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 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 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 00:31:27.080 --> 00:31:34.680 their term past August. But my understanding is until those positions are reappointed by 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 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 00:31:47.760 --> 00:31:54.160 should be having those positions that have expired either replaced or reappointed. But 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 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 00:32:06.840 --> 00:32:16.480 that two years. Okay. Thank you. That's what I thought. But thank you. 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, 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 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 00:32:35.760 --> 00:32:42.560 seven members present at all times. So there are alternate members assigned to the zoning 00:32:42.560 --> 00:32:47.960 board of adjustment and these alternates are also appointed by the city council and they 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. 00:32:56.060 --> 00:33:02.160 The difference between alternate one, two and three that they specifically replace or 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 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 00:33:16.960 --> 00:33:29.040 proceedings are heard by at least six, but hopefully by seven board members. 00:33:29.040 --> 00:33:34.440 Continuing on with the composition and operational procedures for the zoning board of adjustment, 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 00:33:39.680 --> 00:33:46.880 with again, the membership requirements or membership, but the quorum or need for six 00:33:46.880 --> 00:33:53.400 members. They, the zoning board of adjustment may adopt rules. The chairperson of the zoning 00:33:53.400 --> 00:33:58.920 board, similar to the planning zoning commission can hold a special call meeting if needed 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 00:34:05.560 --> 00:34:11.800 already discussed with the planning zoning commission. In addition, there are special 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 00:34:19.680 --> 00:34:28.320 decision procedures. This per the other house bill that was passed, 2497, which I included 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 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 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 00:34:54.920 --> 00:35:00.960 paragraph you see here applies to anyone that is not related to a specific application dress 00:35:00.960 --> 00:35:08.520 or project. The second one relates is related to our, sorry, is referencing anybody that's 00:35:08.520 --> 00:35:16.440 who has a relationship to the specific application. So again, just to differentiate the two types 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:36:07.680 --> 00:36:18.320 that can last throughout the process. And again, this kind of carries that same notion. 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 00:36:24.000 --> 00:36:30.000 about the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall decide an appeal at the next meeting. So this 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 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 00:36:43.520 --> 00:36:50.520 and that has to happen within 60 days, 60 calendar days after which that appeal was 00:36:50.520 --> 00:36:57.840 made. So just again, to provide that procedure within the development code, we just wanted 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. 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 00:37:11.640 --> 00:37:22.920 sure that there's no one with any questions. I don't see any. Okay. 00:37:22.920 --> 00:37:30.440 So moving from ZBA, we're going to the Historic Landmark Commission, HLC. Again, same story. 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, 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 00:37:42.040 --> 00:37:50.160 the TDC development code. We are, sorry, the Historic Landmark Commission is composed of 00:37:50.160 --> 00:37:58.880 nine members, so a little bit more, and they must at least one representative be representing 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 00:38:06.240 --> 00:38:13.120 Landmark Commission is currently at nine members, and we do have all of the professions that 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 00:38:18.720 --> 00:38:25.040 Landmark Commission is the redshirt architect. She currently is an architect and works for 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 00:38:32.520 --> 00:38:42.720 the historic preservation applications that come through that commission. Similarly, the 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 00:38:48.760 --> 00:38:54.800 slide or the initial slide, and that they also are appointed a two-year staggered term 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 00:39:03.240 --> 00:39:10.960 in that it provides the powers and duties of the Historic Landmark Commission. These again 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 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 00:39:22.920 --> 00:39:30.240 work as far as historic preservation. They also establish a number of policies and guidelines 00:39:30.240 --> 00:39:39.360 in which we have the opportunity to increase our preservation of our historic resources. 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 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 00:39:59.160 --> 00:40:04.960 here is adding additional language, so anything that's underlined is what we are proposing 00:40:04.960 --> 00:40:14.080 to add under this section. Any application, we'll jump into number two specifically. All 00:40:14.080 --> 00:40:22.040 previously approved applications for the same land shall also expire, and what we're saying 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, 00:40:31.080 --> 00:40:40.360 I went through that fairly quickly, preliminary plots, if they are approved and there is a 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 00:40:50.080 --> 00:41:00.920 therefore if one expires, the previous application, final plot that's approved, the previous application 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 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 00:41:20.360 --> 00:41:28.120 look at a preliminary plot or subdivision, if they continue to develop that property, 00:41:28.120 --> 00:41:36.960 their five years will not expire, and that if when, say a subdivision does not continue 00:41:36.960 --> 00:41:44.840 to develop and does not continue to plot, the subsequent development of property, if 00:41:44.840 --> 00:41:52.840 after five years would need to comply with the current development code that's in place. 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 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 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 00:42:15.040 --> 00:42:16.040 follow. 00:42:16.040 --> 00:42:20.760 >> Mr. Beck has a question. 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 00:42:27.040 --> 00:42:37.440 own ordinances to that five-year sort of rolling continuance? Are there any, when we, what 00:42:37.440 --> 00:42:42.680 parts of the development code are immediately applicable regardless? Does that ever happen? 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. 00:42:47.160 --> 00:42:48.560 >> So is that better? 00:42:48.560 --> 00:42:49.560 >> Yes. 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 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 00:43:00.720 --> 00:43:08.440 applicable in terms of development? Or is everything subject to the five-year continuance? 00:43:08.440 --> 00:43:13.720 >> My understanding, and Richard, correct me if I'm wrong, if they are within that five 00:43:13.720 --> 00:43:18.680 years, they are still, they're vested on that particular code, even if council changes the 00:43:18.680 --> 00:43:25.600 rules on the subdivision standards. Now, this, there may be some special rules and requirements 00:43:25.600 --> 00:43:30.360 that I'm not aware of, but when it comes to the subdivision requirements, say platting, 00:43:30.360 --> 00:43:33.200 for example, they are vested under those rules. 00:43:33.200 --> 00:43:39.600 >> And there's no exceptions, I guess, is what I'm asking. 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 00:43:44.600 --> 00:43:49.000 front of me, but building codes, floodplain, if those things change during that time, they'd 00:43:49.000 --> 00:43:50.880 have to comply with the latest version. 00:43:50.880 --> 00:43:55.880 >> Okay, that's good to know, thank you. 00:43:55.880 --> 00:44:00.920 >> All right, Ron. 00:44:00.920 --> 00:44:08.240 >> This continues that discussion related to the terms of the project and when an application 00:44:08.240 --> 00:44:22.400 becomes an expired application. So we'll move over here. Okay, so next topic relates to 00:44:22.400 --> 00:44:30.240 the zoning compliance plan review. What we are proposing here is what is currently, well, 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 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 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 00:44:51.440 --> 00:44:59.340 just to provide some clarification. We also want to provide the development community 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 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 00:45:11.600 --> 00:45:19.840 here in the list A through C. As much information as possible, but the general requirements 00:45:19.840 --> 00:45:26.400 are the following. So site data, the lot, the development impact area, easements and 00:45:26.400 --> 00:45:34.040 right-of-way dedications, any of the locations and mentions of existing and proposed improvements, 00:45:34.040 --> 00:45:37.880 and then environmental sensitive tree preservation and landscape areas. So all should be part 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 00:45:47.920 --> 00:45:51.240 know if you all have any questions on that particular, but again, this is just again 00:45:51.240 --> 00:45:57.160 to provide a change in the name and also to provide some additional language to identify 00:45:57.160 --> 00:46:04.440 what should be included in a zoning compliance plan submittal. Moving on to the next topic, 00:46:04.440 --> 00:46:13.240 and this is related to specific use permits and their effect and the approval criteria. 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 00:46:18.480 --> 00:46:23.320 all know, we, the Planning Zoning Commission considers specific use permits and recommends 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 00:46:30.560 --> 00:46:38.160 use. So the question that we have is if a specific use permit approves a multifamily, 00:46:38.160 --> 00:46:43.920 for example, does that limit that development or that property to just multifamily? And 00:46:43.920 --> 00:46:51.160 we're saying that it does not preclude other development under that property, within that 00:46:51.160 --> 00:46:57.880 property to develop as long as it is allowed or permitted within that zoning district. 00:46:57.880 --> 00:47:03.960 So say, for example, multifamily specific use permit was approved by the city council. 00:47:03.960 --> 00:47:11.400 If that zoning allowed for offices, that property could develop with office use and not have 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 00:47:17.000 --> 00:47:24.440 that question and state that any use that's permitted under that zoning district would 00:47:24.440 --> 00:47:33.640 be permitted even with an approved specific use permit. As, as it relates to the approval 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, 00:47:41.600 --> 00:47:50.320 I won't say standard, but approval criteria for all applications, which we review. But 00:47:50.320 --> 00:47:55.800 we also have specific approval criteria for all of our different applications. So this 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 00:48:00.760 --> 00:48:08.440 out most of what's already covered under the all application criteria for approval. So 00:48:08.440 --> 00:48:14.920 number three, number five and number six are already covered under that section 245 to 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 00:48:21.800 --> 00:48:29.400 criteria for approval for specific use permits. So this is what this code amendment is about. 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. 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 00:48:47.360 --> 00:48:53.360 plans, traffic impact analysis, as well as real estate applications. We know that these 00:48:53.360 --> 00:48:58.960 are processes that we have in applications. We want to make sure that represented in this 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 00:49:06.040 --> 00:49:12.440 of applications. And you can see with a traffic impact analysis, that is the responsibility 00:49:12.440 --> 00:49:18.400 and review and approval by the development assistant team. Real estate applications are 00:49:18.400 --> 00:49:24.680 a little bit different in that ultimately city council will need to prove any applications 00:49:24.680 --> 00:49:32.400 that involve real estate such as roadway encroachments or use agreements, easement encroachments, 00:49:32.400 --> 00:49:38.300 that sort of thing. Those are our examples of real estate applications. So the first 00:49:38.300 --> 00:49:44.080 one is the traffic impact analysis. And I think you all know what this analysis is, 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 00:49:50.960 --> 00:49:57.340 of a proposed development in including some of the existing conditions that are currently 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 00:50:05.280 --> 00:50:12.200 procedures, similar to what we already have for other applications with regards to the 00:50:12.200 --> 00:50:17.560 purpose, applicability, the process in which they are reviewed and determined, and then 00:50:17.560 --> 00:50:25.320 what happens after action is determined by the development assistant team, and also providing 00:50:25.320 --> 00:50:35.160 this criteria for acceptance. The real estate applications, similarly, we want to add a 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 00:50:41.680 --> 00:50:50.600 abandonments, right away abandonments, encroachments, use of gas pipeline license requests, are 00:50:50.600 --> 00:50:58.680 examples of real estate application types. Then again, similarly, there are sections 00:50:58.680 --> 00:51:04.360 that we are going to include in terms of purpose, applicability, and the actual procedures in 00:51:04.360 --> 00:51:12.880 which they are reviewed and brought forward to city council. Okay, so that concludes that 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 00:51:19.440 --> 00:51:20.440 make sure. 00:51:20.440 --> 00:51:24.800 We have one question. It's Commissioner Beck. 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 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 00:51:38.000 --> 00:51:42.940 of interplay of development and the mobility plan. And this seems like the appropriate 00:51:42.940 --> 00:51:47.800 time to ask you, because we just discussed real estate traffic impact analysis. And that 00:51:47.800 --> 00:52:03.640 is to the extent to which the mobility plan and the impacts development gets in front 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. 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 00:52:21.440 --> 00:52:27.400 land use and comprehensive plans in terms -- because we were mentioning the mobility 00:52:27.400 --> 00:52:34.040 plan, or is that language all maintained within the language of the mobility plan? 00:52:34.040 --> 00:52:38.380 So there are references to the mobility plan throughout the development code as it relates 00:52:38.380 --> 00:52:46.960 to development and subdivision requirements. We know that when we look at plats, for example, 00:52:46.960 --> 00:52:52.840 and if there are requirements for dedication, the mobility plan is referenced and reviewed 00:52:52.840 --> 00:52:58.880 against to ensure that whatever dedication is required is consistent to what the mobility 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 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 00:53:13.560 --> 00:53:20.240 or introducing to an area and how, if any, mitigation is required to address that potential 00:53:20.240 --> 00:53:21.240 impact. 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 00:53:27.520 --> 00:53:38.460 not this one. But what -- the section of the code is governing what the current definitions 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:54:21.900 --> 00:54:24.240 or is it in the mobility plan? 00:54:24.240 --> 00:54:29.160 So this section or the development code and specifically subchapter 2, again, is procedures, 00:54:29.160 --> 00:54:34.320 right? It talks about how the applications are reviewed and considered and what happens 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, 00:54:42.000 --> 00:54:47.840 speaks specifically to access and circulation. And at that particular section, there's requirements 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 00:54:52.800 --> 00:54:59.440 often refer to not only the mobility plan, but also the transportation criteria manual. 00:54:59.440 --> 00:55:08.040 So I think overall, they're covered under the DDC as required regulations or standards, 00:55:08.040 --> 00:55:13.680 but rely on other references such as the mobility plan and the transportation criteria manual 00:55:13.680 --> 00:55:14.680 as well. 00:55:14.680 --> 00:55:19.360 Okay, that clarifies. Thank you. I appreciate it. 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 00:55:29.320 --> 00:55:37.720 to the next topic, and this is subdivision application procedures. Again, this will have 00:55:37.720 --> 00:55:46.120 some applications as relates to House Bill 3167, but also wanted to provide some more 00:55:46.120 --> 00:55:52.800 clarity as to when subdivision applications, and these are plats. So preliminary plats, 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 00:55:59.880 --> 00:56:05.440 there says that subdivision procedures shall apply to all land and all developments within 00:56:05.440 --> 00:56:12.320 corporate city limits, that it's in accordance with our interlocal agreement within county. 00:56:12.320 --> 00:56:23.240 As you all know, division two is not within the requirements, but division one is, and 00:56:23.240 --> 00:56:30.160 there is a map that identifies where that outline is or where that division separates. 00:56:30.160 --> 00:56:37.500 So with regards to number three, civil engineering plans, that is also applied to division one. 00:56:37.500 --> 00:56:48.720 So just to give some clarification on when certain applications are applicable and where. 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 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 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 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 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 00:57:27.080 --> 00:57:35.200 that it should be filed within the timeframe, similar to the other expiration dates of 24 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 00:57:42.400 --> 00:57:48.880 clarification and or correction instead of filing, it's recording. So really just non-substantive 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 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, 00:58:03.840 --> 00:58:08.680 I need to correct myself there. And that is recorded with the county within 24 months 00:58:08.680 --> 00:58:16.960 again to be consistent with other deadlines and timeframes and due dates. That is to other 00:58:16.960 --> 00:58:27.600 applications. This right here relates to preliminary plats. We are again, the green area or the 00:58:27.600 --> 00:58:32.280 green text that you see below are anything that's underlying and we are adding anything 00:58:32.280 --> 00:58:40.160 that's struck through is being proposed to delete, be deleted. We don't require preliminary 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 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 00:58:55.120 --> 00:59:01.840 determine during the pre-application if a preliminary plat is required, this gives the 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 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 00:59:16.700 --> 00:59:23.360 opportunity for a developer or property owner to not have to do a preliminary plat because 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 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 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. 00:59:44.160 --> 00:59:50.640 Ron, I'm going to interrupt you here and call on Commissioner Beck for a question. 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. 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, 01:00:00.860 --> 01:00:11.920 but would it be easier on staff, more streamlined, more efficacious if we recommend people do 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 01:00:21.400 --> 01:00:27.760 in the ETJ, would it be smoother, easier, faster, more efficacious if we recommend it? 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 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 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, 01:00:48.880 --> 01:00:53.480 Commissioner Beck's suggestion was if something, it could be recommended. I know our code is 01:00:53.480 --> 01:01:02.160 very specific in that it only has requirements in shalls versus, you know, May and whatnot. 01:01:02.160 --> 01:01:06.720 So it may be something that we do as a policy, but, Richard, if you-- 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 01:01:12.080 --> 01:01:17.880 the most notable is Stuart Ridge. That was one that was completely within ETJ-1, and 01:01:17.880 --> 01:01:25.720 they did do a preliminary and then ultimately final. So that was in the ETJ-1. 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 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 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 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 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 01:01:56.160 --> 01:02:01.000 encourage people to encourage, not require people to do that. 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 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 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 01:02:16.400 --> 01:02:22.680 just have to follow the rules of office of a preliminary plat approval criteria. And 01:02:22.680 --> 01:02:31.840 as I mentioned earlier, if there are ones that may benefit, we can certainly encourage 01:02:31.840 --> 01:02:35.720 that, but maybe, maybe we just need to look at some of the wording again. 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 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. 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 01:02:47.940 --> 01:02:50.760 because the goal was to make staff's life easier. 01:02:50.760 --> 01:02:57.200 I know we have a really good engineering and development assistant team that works well, 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 01:03:05.520 --> 01:03:09.400 make them know about the process. 01:03:09.400 --> 01:03:15.400 Thank you, Ron. 01:03:15.400 --> 01:03:31.680 Okay. Click on this real quick. Yeah, okay. Subdivision application procedures. Again, 01:03:31.680 --> 01:03:39.640 this talks about the post decisions and limitations after which decisions made. We're just moving 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. 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 01:03:51.960 --> 01:03:58.480 referring to. Any plat withdrawn or voided must be resubmitted. Again, just again to 01:03:58.480 --> 01:04:01.920 provide that clarification. 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, 01:04:11.320 --> 01:04:19.720 under the subchapter two. There have been some, again, changes to the Texas local government 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 01:04:26.520 --> 01:04:32.920 have added a number of sections under the replat procedures to, again, provide more 01:04:32.920 --> 01:04:42.080 customer-friendly, user-friendly, and clarification. So, again, replat, the purpose, the applicability. 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, 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, 01:04:56.760 --> 01:05:05.520 it applies to any property that's already subdivided as part of their current site. 01:05:05.520 --> 01:05:11.920 We have the same sections as others in that purpose, the applicability, the procedures, 01:05:11.920 --> 01:05:17.400 and the approval criteria. One of the things that I wanted to highlight and I apologize 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 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 01:05:35.760 --> 01:05:44.200 it shall be reviewed by the Planning Zoning Commission and considered, the notice for 01:05:44.200 --> 01:05:52.040 that replat happens after the Planning Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered it. 01:05:52.040 --> 01:05:58.000 And that is per section, checks with local government code section 212. Again, that is 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 01:06:05.720 --> 01:06:11.880 the development code to be consistent with that local government code provision. For 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, 01:06:18.160 --> 01:06:23.960 that has to go through the process of public hearing notifications and follows what you 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 01:06:29.840 --> 01:06:37.160 property prior to the public hearing. The difference is this replat requires a variance 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 01:06:45.720 --> 01:06:49.640 Planning Zoning Commission has considered it. So just want to make sure that that's 01:06:49.640 --> 01:06:56.240 understood. Moving on to the next topic, and that is subdivision 01:06:56.240 --> 01:07:02.800 variance. I sort of alluded to this earlier in the presentation. When we approved the 01:07:02.800 --> 01:07:11.320 2019 development code, any variance period would go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 01:07:11.320 --> 01:07:18.120 And although that was a great thought, we feel that the subdivision variance, which 01:07:18.120 --> 01:07:24.800 again deals with platting and other subdividing requirements, should go to the Planning Zoning 01:07:24.800 --> 01:07:31.680 Commission for any variance. One is because you all review them often and are more familiar 01:07:31.680 --> 01:07:36.560 with those requirements. While the Zoning Board of Adjustment, although they serve an 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 01:07:42.640 --> 01:07:49.720 a subdivision variance. So you can see from here that ultimately the decision is made 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. 01:07:54.800 --> 01:08:01.680 But again, the deciding factor for a design body that is for subdivision variance is the 01:08:01.680 --> 01:08:05.320 Planning Zoning Commission. That is what we are proposing. 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 01:08:10.960 --> 01:08:18.120 in all of the procedures. We're providing the following. 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 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 01:08:31.480 --> 01:08:35.360 Zoning Commission, and have decided on some of those. And one particular that I can think 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 01:08:43.120 --> 01:08:49.600 certainly can be brought forward as part of a subdivision variance application. 01:08:49.600 --> 01:08:57.960 Again, some of the applicability, street design, as I mentioned, the driveway and intersection 01:08:57.960 --> 01:09:06.920 separation is probably one that's in my mind. Street connectivity is another, driveway access, 01:09:06.920 --> 01:09:14.840 the lot planning layout, block layout, there's a certain minimum and maximum block layout. 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 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. 01:09:27.720 --> 01:09:34.080 Okay, moving on to annexation procedures. As you can tell, this subchapter two has a 01:09:34.080 --> 01:09:42.720 lot of information, a lot of procedures to cover. One of them is annexation. The annexation 01:09:42.720 --> 01:09:50.040 we do have, I know that the Planning Zoning Commission isn't necessarily reviewing them, 01:09:50.040 --> 01:09:54.360 however, we still need them for, say, the City Council when they consider annexation. 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, 01:10:03.160 --> 01:10:10.040 which the city annexes a property, and then we also have voluntary annexation as well. 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 01:10:17.120 --> 01:10:22.960 annexation, because of state law, has made it very difficult for us to do that because 01:10:22.960 --> 01:10:30.040 it requires an election and a vote for any involuntary annexation. So what we'll probably 01:10:30.040 --> 01:10:36.960 see in the coming years is more or less voluntary annexations. 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 01:10:42.640 --> 01:10:52.560 to the previous procedures and other applications. This slide here kind of outlines the criteria 01:10:52.560 --> 01:10:59.840 for voluntary annexations. One through five is specific to that criteria. Is it consistent 01:10:59.840 --> 01:11:08.120 with the annexation policy of the city? Has all the owners joined in with the request? 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 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 01:11:21.100 --> 01:11:30.360 in terms of our service costs, increased traffic, drainage. So as any annexation application 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 01:11:36.560 --> 01:11:44.320 understanding that if annexed in future development, it would not adversely impact the city. And 01:11:44.320 --> 01:11:50.880 then number five, the annexation will ensure that the adequate land use and building controls 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 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 01:12:04.340 --> 01:12:08.960 appeal to administrative decisions. We've already sort of discussed this, but this is 01:12:08.960 --> 01:12:16.280 a different section of subchapter two, which is specifically two appeals. And what is going 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 01:12:24.240 --> 01:12:32.780 a specific application. That's something that we're introducing into this section. The appeal, 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 01:12:38.840 --> 01:12:48.720 be consistent with House Bill 2497. And then additional proceedings with regards to when 01:12:48.720 --> 01:13:00.800 projects or decisions need to be at a standstill until that appeal is considered. Continuing 01:13:00.800 --> 01:13:07.520 with that same appeal of administrative decision, the text that you see here in green talks 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 01:13:14.400 --> 01:13:23.080 the second meeting. So, again, that just illustrates it being introduced into this section. The 01:13:23.080 --> 01:13:31.040 next procedure is alternative environmental sensitive areas. ALT ESA is as often referred 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 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 01:13:48.680 --> 01:13:54.800 it shall expire within 24 months if progress is not made toward the completion of that 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 01:14:00.480 --> 01:14:05.960 with all the other deadlines and timeframes. So that's just to add that clarification. 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 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 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 01:14:29.160 --> 01:14:35.720 have to comply with these conditions and these are conditions that are common and will be 01:14:35.720 --> 01:14:47.360 part of future ALT ESA applications. Next section is related to or next topic is related 01:14:47.360 --> 01:14:54.880 to interpretations. Interpretations are very similar in that an applicant can request an 01:14:54.880 --> 01:15:02.200 interpretation on a specific code requirement or standard that may not be as clear and that 01:15:02.200 --> 01:15:08.640 goes to the Director of Planning. However, if that decision or that determination or 01:15:08.640 --> 01:15:17.000 interpretation is not accepted, the applicant or the person that requests that interpretation 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 01:15:23.040 --> 01:15:33.240 is what clarifies that. Procedures for historic landmark designation. 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 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 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 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. 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 01:16:08.600 --> 01:16:17.320 the following. Again, these are procedures in order to designate a historic landmark, 01:16:17.320 --> 01:16:24.160 mainly for the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council. So, these are mainly for 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 01:16:32.800 --> 01:16:39.200 and I want to make sure that you understand that the Historic Landmark Commission will 01:16:39.200 --> 01:16:43.520 get this presentation, will see this presentation, so they'll have an opportunity and, of course, 01:16:43.520 --> 01:16:50.280 City Council will also have the opportunity to weigh in on some of these procedures. 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 01:16:59.000 --> 01:17:06.480 rezone to a planned development district. There had been some discussion, I know, in 01:17:06.480 --> 01:17:18.240 the DCRC related to, you know, when a planned development is considered or should be considered. 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 01:17:22.440 --> 01:17:30.240 is. What staff is proposing is to add the following language. Our current code does 01:17:30.240 --> 01:17:39.880 not have this now, so we are adding a purpose statement, an applicability section, and specifically 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 01:17:45.840 --> 01:17:56.960 ask some input from the Commission. Right now, we have proposed two types of PDs, one 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 01:18:03.480 --> 01:18:12.040 to think of as a standard PD, which is the more involved, greater complexity in terms 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 01:18:17.880 --> 01:18:24.680 question or the question that maybe we can get some input from the Commission is, when 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 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 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, 01:18:57.120 --> 01:19:05.040 for example, they were coming in for rezoning, and they did not have any conditions, and 01:19:05.040 --> 01:19:12.840 the Commission recommended that they limit those use or the use to just single family. 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 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 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 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 01:19:45.320 --> 01:19:53.240 additional conditions or additional standards that can be adjusted? The hope is that the 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 01:20:03.160 --> 01:20:09.760 a little bit different, involve a little bit more submittals and documentation versus what 01:20:09.760 --> 01:20:13.800 an overlay PD is. 01:20:13.800 --> 01:20:17.480 Commissioner Beck. 01:20:17.480 --> 01:20:28.720 So, just follow on from that. Procedurally, you are expecting an overlay PD to basically 01:20:28.720 --> 01:20:37.280 be, I mean, how significantly different, I mean, than the standard PD? 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 01:20:43.320 --> 01:20:51.120 would have to provide a development plan that identifies the differences in their standards 01:20:51.120 --> 01:20:55.120 as opposed to the development code, so that's something that they would need to provide. 01:20:55.120 --> 01:20:59.560 They would also have to provide a development zoning map that identifies a little bit more 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 01:21:07.640 --> 01:21:13.200 be included in the standard PD. While the overlay PD that we're talking about, often 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 01:21:18.240 --> 01:21:25.460 specific to that subchapter, and they would only be able to deviate from that, from the 01:21:25.460 --> 01:21:32.480 uses and the use-specific standards. And when we say deviate, meaning that it would have 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, 01:21:42.400 --> 01:21:48.160 and again, this would allow them to move forward with their application because obviously they're 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 01:21:55.900 --> 01:22:01.840 that can all be covered under the overlay PD. 01:22:01.840 --> 01:22:07.680 But otherwise, the underlining characteristics of a parcel would just predominate. 01:22:07.680 --> 01:22:14.160 Right, so their underlining zoning or other development standards would still apply. It 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 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 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 01:22:38.840 --> 01:22:44.920 outside of subchapter 5 being included in overlay PD, or should it just be subchapter 01:22:44.920 --> 01:22:45.920 5? 01:22:45.920 --> 01:22:46.920 Commissioner Smith. 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 01:22:53.360 --> 01:22:58.000 of where an overlay PD would make sense in a product we've seen recently? 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, 01:23:03.800 --> 01:23:05.800 but rezoning, for example. 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 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 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 01:23:19.880 --> 01:23:20.880 zoning? 01:23:20.880 --> 01:23:21.880 Richard? 01:23:21.880 --> 01:23:24.960 Yeah, the Mockingbird rezoning that we just went through, there were some conditions put 01:23:24.960 --> 01:23:29.680 in place restricting it only to single-family detached. That would be one of those instances. 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 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 01:23:44.120 --> 01:23:50.200 it to not having a development plan or anything else included in that, not expanding outside 01:23:50.200 --> 01:23:55.360 subsection 5 is preferable because I think the intent is clear, but I think making it 01:23:55.360 --> 01:24:01.560 more restrictive, just moving in to be redundant to what we already used the PD for. 01:24:01.560 --> 01:24:08.720 Right. I know that in previous discussions also, when does an applicant know it's an 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 01:24:13.840 --> 01:24:17.920 we also know that there are opportunities for the Planning Zoning Commission and ultimately 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 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 01:24:34.760 --> 01:24:41.320 with the applicant in advance and provide them this option, at least they know in advance 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 01:24:46.760 --> 01:24:51.600 the staff, the ability to analyze and provide that explanation and presentation to City 01:24:51.600 --> 01:24:56.360 Council and to Planning Zoning Commission. 01:24:56.360 --> 01:25:02.040 Commissioner Beck. 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 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 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 01:25:21.360 --> 01:25:23.720 the change rather than the chapter? 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, 01:25:34.840 --> 01:25:43.640 your height, and if that was the case, like building height or setbacks in building curvatures 01:25:43.640 --> 01:25:51.360 are in Subchapter 3, so if that was something that the applicant wanted to deviate from 01:25:51.360 --> 01:25:57.400 or change, that would probably either be a rezoning to a new zoning district to meet 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 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. 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 01:26:23.120 --> 01:26:26.000 it was a small change. That would be easier on staff. 01:26:26.000 --> 01:26:33.400 Right, I apologize, it's hard to hear you there, but you were saying. 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, 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 01:26:52.040 --> 01:26:53.040 than a... 01:26:53.040 --> 01:26:54.040 Yeah, that's just an example. 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. 01:26:59.160 --> 01:27:06.960 The standard PD that we're talking about, and I maybe misdirected you there, is where 01:27:06.960 --> 01:27:14.480 there is an opportunity to provide some flexibility both ends with the requirements and standards 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 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 01:27:26.360 --> 01:27:31.840 I gave you, Commissioner Beck, with regards to building height, I take that more or less, 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 01:27:37.680 --> 01:27:38.680 request. 01:27:38.680 --> 01:27:40.640 No, I understand that. 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 01:27:48.360 --> 01:27:57.840 of size of the change, or should it be specifically the topics in five? 01:27:57.840 --> 01:28:00.040 What would be better there? 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 01:28:06.720 --> 01:28:15.960 I think maybe the more better route would probably be the complexity or the nature of 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 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 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 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 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 01:28:50.960 --> 01:28:51.960 well. 01:28:51.960 --> 01:28:52.960 Okay. 01:28:52.960 --> 01:28:53.960 Thank you. 01:28:53.960 --> 01:28:54.960 Yeah. 01:28:54.960 --> 01:29:03.520 Rhonda, answering the original question from a while ago is, I think limiting this to chapter 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 01:29:10.280 --> 01:29:13.880 how if it covers other sub-chapters, how it would be better addressed. 01:29:13.880 --> 01:29:20.120 Commissioner Anderson, did you have a question, I did? 01:29:20.120 --> 01:29:21.120 Commissioner Anderson? 01:29:21.120 --> 01:29:22.120 Yeah, thanks. 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 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 01:29:33.320 --> 01:29:37.040 place that wanted to raise the level up by six feet? 01:29:37.040 --> 01:29:39.680 This would have been more beneficial for that instead of having them come back. 01:29:39.680 --> 01:29:40.680 Does that make sense? 01:29:40.680 --> 01:29:41.680 Are you following me there? 01:29:41.680 --> 01:29:42.680 Yeah. 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 01:29:46.320 --> 01:29:47.320 three. 01:29:47.320 --> 01:29:49.560 Three, right. 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 01:29:55.440 --> 01:29:59.080 option for a specific use permit, so that's what they chose. 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, 01:30:04.280 --> 01:30:05.280 in my opinion. 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. 01:30:11.720 --> 01:30:15.280 I wouldn't think that that would be the proper procedure. 01:30:15.280 --> 01:30:19.720 It would probably be the zoning board of adjustment. 01:30:19.720 --> 01:30:20.720 Okay. 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 01:30:23.600 --> 01:30:27.960 going through these standards, something we might want to look at further, is whether 01:30:27.960 --> 01:30:32.900 or not that requirement for the SGP still makes sense, given that there's other provisions 01:30:32.900 --> 01:30:40.240 and protections that we have written in the code with respect to height limitations based 01:30:40.240 --> 01:30:44.560 upon, you know, the closer you are to a single-family property. 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 01:30:50.160 --> 01:30:56.520 to go through an SGP for six feet, again, more of a policy decision. 01:30:56.520 --> 01:31:02.240 Any other comments on this slide? 01:31:02.240 --> 01:31:04.800 Commissioner Ellis. 01:31:04.800 --> 01:31:05.800 Thank you, Chair. 01:31:05.800 --> 01:31:11.280 Well, just going back to what that discussion was, they wanted a height increase, though, 01:31:11.280 --> 01:31:12.280 with that. 01:31:12.280 --> 01:31:14.680 And that's not really what we're talking about when we're talking about overlays. 01:31:14.680 --> 01:31:19.840 I mean, we're talking about putting more restrictions on them. 01:31:19.840 --> 01:31:20.840 Correct? 01:31:20.840 --> 01:31:21.840 Yeah. 01:31:21.840 --> 01:31:22.840 Correct. 01:31:22.840 --> 01:31:23.840 Okay. 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 01:31:29.320 --> 01:31:34.800 when we were trying to adopt this code and wanting to call everything PDs, thinking that 01:31:34.800 --> 01:31:39.000 the overlay thing was going to go away, and clearly it hasn't. 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, 01:31:45.720 --> 01:31:49.120 especially with re-zones, just to get, you know. 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 01:31:54.240 --> 01:31:58.000 the applicants, we will certainly do so. 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, 01:32:03.920 --> 01:32:10.120 a meeting or a city council meeting. 01:32:10.120 --> 01:32:11.840 Okay. 01:32:11.840 --> 01:32:20.880 So, again, you see that we have similar procedures or sections under this section. 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 01:32:27.920 --> 01:32:32.880 sure that we have the same procedures for all the different applications we have, when 01:32:32.880 --> 01:32:36.960 I say procedures, sections covered. 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 01:32:41.320 --> 01:32:44.000 that was a lot of information. 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 01:32:49.320 --> 01:32:50.800 whatnot. 01:32:50.800 --> 01:32:57.120 We had to deal with some clarifications and aligning with provisions of the Texas Local 01:32:57.120 --> 01:33:00.680 Government Code that was introduced in 2019. 01:33:00.680 --> 01:33:05.800 So I appreciate your patience, and hopefully we can move forward with some of those to 01:33:05.800 --> 01:33:11.120 help our process and help our development community understand and our general public 01:33:11.120 --> 01:33:15.300 understand what is required of developments. 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 01:33:20.920 --> 01:33:22.080 working on. 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 01:33:28.400 --> 01:33:35.640 building height with an SUP is something that we're reconsidering, because as Richard mentioned, 01:33:35.640 --> 01:33:44.600 there are other provisions that address some of the impacts that might bring in that situation. 01:33:44.600 --> 01:33:48.460 Dimensional standards, number one, table of allowed uses. 01:33:48.460 --> 01:33:55.040 We have a number of uses that we would like to introduce and/or modify. 01:33:55.040 --> 01:33:59.860 Use specific standards, again, as it relates to a specific, sorry, a use. 01:33:59.860 --> 01:34:07.400 We want to modify and address some of the issues or concerns that we have experienced 01:34:07.400 --> 01:34:11.120 as a result of applying the development code. 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 01:34:16.360 --> 01:34:17.360 was updated. 01:34:17.360 --> 01:34:23.160 And accessory dwelling units is another hot topic that we will also want to share with 01:34:23.160 --> 01:34:26.860 you all and talk about in an upcoming meeting. 01:34:26.860 --> 01:34:34.640 And then SUP chapter seven, which is number seven, is a list of development standards. 01:34:34.640 --> 01:34:40.200 And you see there, we have parking, we have landscaping. 01:34:40.200 --> 01:34:41.800 I won't say there's a lot there. 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 01:34:50.280 --> 01:34:52.760 and what's happening in current practice. 01:34:52.760 --> 01:34:57.640 So we want to make sure that we address those as part of these code amendments. 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 01:35:03.080 --> 01:35:09.520 we bring forward additional code amendments to the Planning Zoning Commission. 01:35:09.520 --> 01:35:11.640 And so that concludes my presentation. 01:35:11.640 --> 01:35:19.800 And again, I appreciate your patience and I'll stand for any other questions. 01:35:19.800 --> 01:35:22.960 Any questions for Ron? 01:35:22.960 --> 01:35:25.800 Ron, I don't see any. 01:35:25.800 --> 01:35:28.520 Thanks for the in-depth analysis on some of these code amendments. 01:35:28.520 --> 01:35:30.000 Looking forward to the next presentation. 01:35:30.000 --> 01:35:31.000 Great. 01:35:31.000 --> 01:35:32.000 Thank you. 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 01:35:36.800 --> 01:35:40.240 the actual next steps from the information we received tonight? 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 01:35:45.900 --> 01:35:49.640 requires a public hearing with the Planning Zoning Commission. 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 01:35:57.640 --> 01:36:00.000 where these would come next. 01:36:00.000 --> 01:36:01.000 Great. 01:36:01.000 --> 01:36:03.280 Christian or Beck? 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 01:36:09.080 --> 01:36:10.760 section by section? 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 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 01:36:25.000 --> 01:36:28.000 through the Planning Zoning Commission as well to say council. 01:36:28.000 --> 01:36:29.000 Okay. 01:36:29.000 --> 01:36:30.200 I was going to recommend that. 01:36:30.200 --> 01:36:32.160 So thank you. 01:36:32.160 --> 01:36:35.760 All right. 01:36:35.760 --> 01:36:38.760 Thank you, Ron. 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 01:36:46.480 --> 01:36:49.600 show that Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Anderson have joined us. 01:36:49.600 --> 01:36:52.880 Welcome to the meeting, guys. 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, 01:36:58.280 --> 01:37:01.800 we have Mack Rinewand with us this evening. 01:37:01.800 --> 01:37:08.240 Cynthia Kirchhoff is moving on to greener pastures, apparently, and so Mack is going 01:37:08.240 --> 01:37:12.600 to be our city attorney serving with us for the time being. 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 01:37:17.040 --> 01:37:18.320 Planning and Zoning. 01:37:18.320 --> 01:37:19.320 Thank you. 01:37:19.320 --> 01:37:21.280 It's a pleasure. 01:37:21.280 --> 01:37:24.840 Next to that, just some clarification on some of the agenda this evening. 01:37:24.840 --> 01:37:27.760 One, our consent agenda is empty. 01:37:27.760 --> 01:37:32.720 However, because of a legislature, something happened in which the minutes got put into 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 01:37:39.320 --> 01:37:40.400 them in order. 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 01:37:45.640 --> 01:37:47.800 quick vote for the minutes. 01:37:47.800 --> 01:37:51.200 Also there was an update to the minutes that hopefully everyone received. 01:37:51.200 --> 01:37:55.000 There are some corrections there that have been made. 01:37:55.000 --> 01:38:01.600 If you haven't seen those, let someone know so you can review those. 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 01:38:08.720 --> 01:38:12.720 update to the plat, and so staff has changed the recommendation, but we'll certainly hear 01:38:12.720 --> 01:38:14.800 that in turn. 01:38:14.800 --> 01:38:22.160 And then lastly, item 5C is being pulled. 01:38:22.160 --> 01:38:24.840 The city is asking to postpone that. 01:38:24.840 --> 01:38:31.120 And as noted in the agenda, item 5D is -- and DOG is being pulled. 01:38:31.120 --> 01:38:33.520 So we have two public hearing items this evening. 01:38:33.520 --> 01:38:38.360 Richard, I think I covered all of the changes, did I miss anything? 01:38:38.360 --> 01:38:39.360 I think you got it. 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 01:38:42.640 --> 01:38:43.640 got it. 01:38:43.640 --> 01:38:46.120 If not, she'll be able to go through that here in a second. 01:38:46.120 --> 01:38:47.120 Okay. 01:38:47.120 --> 01:38:48.120 Sounds good. 01:38:48.120 --> 01:38:49.120 Well, let's just dive into this. 01:38:49.120 --> 01:38:53.480 Let's just start with item 4A, and we'll work from there. 01:38:53.480 --> 01:38:57.960 This is Corrina Maldonado's item for preliminary plat. 01:38:57.960 --> 01:39:02.160 Hi, can you hear me? 01:39:02.160 --> 01:39:03.160 We can. 01:39:03.160 --> 01:39:04.160 Okay. 01:39:04.160 --> 01:39:05.160 Good evening, everyone. 01:39:05.160 --> 01:39:09.400 So today, I'm presenting preliminary plat 20-0022. 01:39:09.400 --> 01:39:16.840 This is a preliminary plat for Country Club Village Phase 4 for a proposed 13 residential 01:39:16.840 --> 01:39:17.840 lots. 01:39:17.840 --> 01:39:26.920 This was initially recommended as denial since the posting of the agenda and tonight, or 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 01:39:33.080 --> 01:39:37.160 now being recommended for approval. 01:39:37.160 --> 01:39:39.600 Great. 01:39:39.600 --> 01:39:44.680 Any questions for Corrina? 01:39:44.680 --> 01:39:45.680 I don't see any. 01:39:45.680 --> 01:39:48.360 Thank you, Corrina. 01:39:48.360 --> 01:40:03.480 Next is Haley with item 4B, FP 20-0025. 01:40:03.480 --> 01:40:22.920 All right, let me unmute myself there. 01:40:22.920 --> 01:40:25.600 This is the final plat for the Woodmere edition. 01:40:25.600 --> 01:40:29.960 This is a residential subdivision that was previously approved through a PD that some 01:40:29.960 --> 01:40:32.600 of you may remember from last year. 01:40:32.600 --> 01:40:36.840 There are 151 residential lots and five open-space lots. 01:40:36.840 --> 01:40:40.840 At this point, we are recommending denial as we're still working through a few items 01:40:40.840 --> 01:40:45.160 with the applicant specifically related to the conservation easements and some electric 01:40:45.160 --> 01:40:47.240 easements that are on the property. 01:40:47.240 --> 01:40:51.320 So with that, the applicant has requested that extension to December 16th so that we 01:40:51.320 --> 01:40:53.160 can continue working on those items. 01:40:53.160 --> 01:40:56.200 I'm happy to answer any questions. 01:40:56.200 --> 01:40:57.200 Commissioner Beck. 01:40:57.200 --> 01:40:58.200 Thank you, Chair. 01:40:58.200 --> 01:41:00.360 Haley, are these the kind of changes? 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? 01:41:05.240 --> 01:41:06.240 Typically? 01:41:06.240 --> 01:41:08.200 Just say typically? 01:41:08.200 --> 01:41:09.200 Yeah. 01:41:09.200 --> 01:41:14.440 We're hoping that we can resolve some of these as you remember from the PD. 01:41:14.440 --> 01:41:17.800 This is one of the first subdivisions we've had that has conservation easements involved. 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 01:41:22.600 --> 01:41:27.760 office to work through that expeditiously so that we can get that resolved. 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. 01:41:33.160 --> 01:41:37.560 And so to follow up, if it's not, what are the ramifications of that? 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 01:41:43.440 --> 01:41:47.580 there any ramifications if we don't get that resolved? 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 01:41:52.960 --> 01:41:56.280 somehow by the commission, either approval or denial. 01:41:56.280 --> 01:41:59.740 If there are still outstanding items, staff would be recommending denial at that point. 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 01:42:05.640 --> 01:42:08.880 at a later date and it would come back before the commission after they do that. 01:42:08.880 --> 01:42:09.880 Okay. 01:42:09.880 --> 01:42:10.880 That's what I expected. 01:42:10.880 --> 01:42:12.840 And then I will follow up on a slightly different issue. 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 01:42:17.960 --> 01:42:19.240 me? 01:42:19.240 --> 01:42:20.920 I believe that was a glitch in legislature. 01:42:20.920 --> 01:42:23.520 It was not just you from what I can tell. 01:42:23.520 --> 01:42:25.560 I had the same issue when I tried to access it. 01:42:25.560 --> 01:42:26.560 Okay. 01:42:26.560 --> 01:42:27.560 Thank you. 01:42:27.560 --> 01:42:29.520 Any other questions for Haley? 01:42:29.520 --> 01:42:30.520 Great. 01:42:30.520 --> 01:42:44.960 We're going to jump back to Karina for item C, PP20-0026. 01:42:44.960 --> 01:42:45.960 I'm sorry. 01:42:45.960 --> 01:42:46.960 Can you hear me now? 01:42:46.960 --> 01:42:47.960 We can. 01:42:47.960 --> 01:42:48.960 All right. 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. 01:42:58.040 --> 01:43:06.200 The preliminary plat is for a subdivision of five commercial lots. 01:43:06.200 --> 01:43:10.920 The applicant has some outstanding comments, so we are recommending denial. 01:43:10.920 --> 01:43:17.720 However, they have requested a 30-day extension to the December 16th, 2020 planning and zoning 01:43:17.720 --> 01:43:19.400 commission meeting. 01:43:19.400 --> 01:43:22.960 And with that, I can take any questions. 01:43:22.960 --> 01:43:23.960 Yeah. 01:43:23.960 --> 01:43:26.820 We got one from Commissioner Anderson. 01:43:26.820 --> 01:43:30.240 Thank you, Chair. 01:43:30.240 --> 01:43:31.640 I have a quick question. 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. 01:43:39.440 --> 01:43:41.320 To me, it looks like it's on the east side of Loop 288. 01:43:41.320 --> 01:43:42.320 Is that correct? 01:43:42.320 --> 01:43:43.320 Yep. 01:43:43.320 --> 01:43:44.320 That is a typo. 01:43:44.320 --> 01:43:45.320 I apologize. 01:43:45.320 --> 01:43:48.040 Loop 288, East 288, North of McKinney. 01:43:48.040 --> 01:43:49.040 Yes. 01:43:49.040 --> 01:43:50.040 Okay. 01:43:50.040 --> 01:43:51.040 That's what I saw. 01:43:51.040 --> 01:43:54.040 I just want to make sure I wasn't reading it wrong. 01:43:54.040 --> 01:43:55.040 All right. 01:43:55.040 --> 01:43:57.200 I don't see any other questions for you, Karina. 01:43:57.200 --> 01:44:02.000 Thank you very much. 01:44:02.000 --> 01:44:04.600 As previously noted, we're going to awkwardly jump into minutes. 01:44:04.600 --> 01:44:06.800 Any other corrections for minutes? 01:44:06.800 --> 01:44:10.360 Do we need any updates? 01:44:10.360 --> 01:44:14.400 Did anyone not get the updated notes from city staff regarding lines? 01:44:14.400 --> 01:44:17.920 I think 36 and 37. 01:44:17.920 --> 01:44:18.920 Okay. 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. 01:44:23.200 --> 01:44:50.160 From EPP20-0024B, where we'll go to Sean Jacobson for presentation. 01:44:50.160 --> 01:44:51.160 All right. 01:44:51.160 --> 01:44:58.040 So presenting PP20-0024, as you know, sent this out today. 01:44:58.040 --> 01:44:59.600 We are now recommending approval. 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 01:45:06.480 --> 01:45:11.400 the outstanding issue related to the water line and the easement associated with it. 01:45:11.400 --> 01:45:16.000 So they now meet all the criteria for approval. 01:45:16.000 --> 01:45:18.160 Thanks, Sean. 01:45:18.160 --> 01:45:22.400 Any questions for Mr. Jacobson? 01:45:22.400 --> 01:45:25.080 All right. 01:45:25.080 --> 01:45:28.640 Seeing none, we'll go to the next item, which brings us to Haley again. 01:45:28.640 --> 01:45:32.920 Item FFR20-007B. 01:45:32.920 --> 01:45:47.140 All right, good evening again. 01:45:47.140 --> 01:45:52.720 This is a replat for two commercial lots at McKinney and Glengarry Way. 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 01:45:57.480 --> 01:45:59.400 copy of this plat. 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 01:46:04.880 --> 01:46:09.400 address the remaining comments that staff had on this, so I can walk you briefly through 01:46:09.400 --> 01:46:11.340 those changes. 01:46:11.340 --> 01:46:14.400 There was an update to a couple of notes. 01:46:14.400 --> 01:46:19.840 I believe it's note 10 regarding the tree preservation was updated, and then note five 01:46:19.840 --> 01:46:25.960 was updated regarding the proximity of the floodplain and the requirement for base flood 01:46:25.960 --> 01:46:26.960 elevation. 01:46:26.960 --> 01:46:31.760 Additionally, this access easement was removed as it was unnecessary, and then a couple of 01:46:31.760 --> 01:46:36.040 references on here for easements that are to be dedicated by separate instrument were 01:46:36.040 --> 01:46:37.040 updated. 01:46:37.040 --> 01:46:38.040 So fairly simple items. 01:46:38.040 --> 01:46:42.080 They were able to make those changes today, and staff is changing our recommendation to 01:46:42.080 --> 01:46:46.200 approval since it now meets all of the criteria for approval. 01:46:46.200 --> 01:46:50.100 I'm happy to answer any questions. 01:46:50.100 --> 01:46:51.100 Commissioner Smith. 01:46:51.100 --> 01:46:52.100 Thank you, Chair. 01:46:52.100 --> 01:46:56.480 Haley, you'll change that on the PowerPoint before the meeting, correct? 01:46:56.480 --> 01:46:57.480 Yes. 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 01:47:03.200 --> 01:47:06.000 it and book denial or something like that. 01:47:06.000 --> 01:47:10.720 Yes, I intend to do that after the work session. 01:47:10.720 --> 01:47:14.520 I do not see any other questions, but Haley, thanks for working with the applicant even 01:47:14.520 --> 01:47:17.680 to the last minute to get that taken care of. 01:47:17.680 --> 01:47:19.400 Excuse me. 01:47:19.400 --> 01:47:23.040 Next item is Ron Manguita. 01:47:23.040 --> 01:47:25.000 He gets to come back. 01:47:25.000 --> 01:47:26.000 Item G, FR20-0016. 01:47:26.000 --> 01:47:27.000 Thank you, Chair. 01:47:27.000 --> 01:47:40.960 I'll bring up the presentation real quick. 01:47:40.960 --> 01:47:47.600 So this final replat is for a property you probably have seen before. 01:47:47.600 --> 01:47:55.500 It recently, I had a preliminary plat as well as adjacent replats for this development. 01:47:55.500 --> 01:47:57.960 It's called Eagle Creek. 01:47:57.960 --> 01:48:00.260 It is being recommended for denial. 01:48:00.260 --> 01:48:04.960 There is a section of the code that speaks to HOA documents. 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. 01:48:13.760 --> 01:48:20.640 The applicant as part of this presentation has requested the 30-day extension, and the 01:48:20.640 --> 01:48:24.440 staff does not have any opposition to that request. 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 01:48:31.680 --> 01:48:32.680 looking at. 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 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 01:48:46.320 --> 01:48:51.780 of what this area is going to be looking like in the future. 01:48:51.780 --> 01:49:02.840 But again, as for today's consideration, we're looking at Phase 1A of that development. 01:49:02.840 --> 01:49:04.400 Any questions for Ron? 01:49:04.400 --> 01:49:08.120 All right, Chris, you're back. 01:49:08.120 --> 01:49:16.280 Sorry, I was in the wrong window, I apologize. 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 01:49:26.280 --> 01:49:29.640 just HOA documents in general? 01:49:29.640 --> 01:49:32.840 This is just for the common area documents in general. 01:49:32.840 --> 01:49:35.120 This is just for the common areas, the open space. 01:49:35.120 --> 01:49:36.120 Okay. 01:49:36.120 --> 01:49:37.120 All right. 01:49:37.120 --> 01:49:38.120 Thank you. 01:49:38.120 --> 01:49:41.320 Any other questions? 01:49:41.320 --> 01:49:43.680 Great. 01:49:43.680 --> 01:49:45.720 Thank you, Ron. 01:49:45.720 --> 01:49:49.480 That moves us to our two public hearing items. 01:49:49.480 --> 01:49:51.840 The first one is presented by Haley Zygursky. 01:49:51.840 --> 01:49:55.840 It's item 5A, Z20-0009. 01:49:55.840 --> 01:50:06.400 Haley, whenever you're ready, the floor is yours. 01:50:06.400 --> 01:50:21.840 All right, let me get the presentation pulled up here. 01:50:21.840 --> 01:50:45.720 All right, this is Project Z20-0009, known as Urban Logistics 35. 01:50:45.720 --> 01:50:49.080 The request before you tonight is kind of twofold. 01:50:49.080 --> 01:50:52.760 There are two separate aspects to the zoning request. 01:50:52.760 --> 01:50:56.360 First is a rezoning from Highway Corridor to Light Industrial. 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. 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 01:51:04.920 --> 01:51:10.220 rezoning from Heavy Industrial to Light Industrial, and that area is shown here in yellow. 01:51:10.220 --> 01:51:16.540 Both of these are part of a larger property that is currently owned by Acme Brick. 01:51:16.540 --> 01:51:19.760 There was a gas well previously located on this northern end of the property that was 01:51:19.760 --> 01:51:26.560 plugged in 2019 in anticipation of this area being redeveloped with some more commercial 01:51:26.560 --> 01:51:29.020 or industrial type uses. 01:51:29.020 --> 01:51:34.940 And the proposal with this rezoning is to combine these two pieces with the area adjacent 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 01:51:39.160 --> 01:51:43.320 mixture of Light Industrial and warehouse uses. 01:51:43.320 --> 01:51:46.380 This is a look at the current versus proposed zoning maps. 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, 01:51:50.640 --> 01:51:55.340 there are three zoning districts on it, so they're looking to consolidate that into one 01:51:55.340 --> 01:52:00.460 consistent zoning of LI across the entire property. 01:52:00.460 --> 01:52:06.200 So there are multiple criteria for approval, as we've seen with rezoning requests previously. 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 01:52:09.580 --> 01:52:13.920 them here tonight, but we did find that they meet all of these criteria. 01:52:13.920 --> 01:52:20.360 And then specifically, we'll look at the seven criteria that are specific to zoning applications. 01:52:20.360 --> 01:52:24.560 So the first of those is consistency with our comprehensive plan, specifically with 01:52:24.560 --> 01:52:26.960 the future land use element of that plan. 01:52:26.960 --> 01:52:30.720 As you can see here, this site is designated for industrial commerce. 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 01:52:35.200 --> 01:52:39.160 been developed since approximately the mid-'80s on the property adjacent. 01:52:39.160 --> 01:52:43.900 But this property itself is industrial commerce, which is intended for that mixture of both 01:52:43.900 --> 01:52:46.480 light and heavy industrial uses. 01:52:46.480 --> 01:52:50.960 The comp plan references warehousing, manufacturing, and various industrial processes as part of 01:52:50.960 --> 01:52:51.960 that. 01:52:51.960 --> 01:52:54.880 So LI would be consistent with that designation. 01:52:54.880 --> 01:52:59.920 The light industrial district permits warehousing and distribution, as well as low-impact manufacturing 01:52:59.920 --> 01:53:02.920 uses. 01:53:02.920 --> 01:53:06.640 Another of our criteria is consistency with the purpose statement for the district. 01:53:06.640 --> 01:53:12.240 So the LI district, again, describes that intent to provide highly accessible locations 01:53:12.240 --> 01:53:18.280 for lighter industrial activity, such as manufacturing, assembly, warehousing, and distribution. 01:53:18.280 --> 01:53:21.680 So this request would be consistent with that purpose statement that the site is highly 01:53:21.680 --> 01:53:23.800 accessible along I-35. 01:53:23.800 --> 01:53:28.040 It would be a continuation of that existing zoning pattern that they have to the south 01:53:28.040 --> 01:53:31.720 on the Acmebrick site that's light industrial today. 01:53:31.720 --> 01:53:35.360 And it would be reducing the intensity of zoning adjacent to that multifamily where 01:53:35.360 --> 01:53:37.240 there's heavy industrial today. 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 01:53:44.080 --> 01:53:48.320 more compatible than it is today. 01:53:48.320 --> 01:53:52.000 One of our other criteria is, rather, there have been significant changes that would warrant 01:53:52.000 --> 01:53:53.280 the rezoning. 01:53:53.280 --> 01:53:56.380 So I wanted to go a little bit through the history of this site. 01:53:56.380 --> 01:54:00.360 This split zoning that you see has been in place since 2002, when the citywide rezoning 01:54:00.360 --> 01:54:04.800 occurred with the adoption of the 2002 DDC. 01:54:04.800 --> 01:54:10.760 Prior to that, since 1969, the site had had a solid heavy industrial zoning classification 01:54:10.760 --> 01:54:14.120 across the entire property all the way up to the I-35. 01:54:14.120 --> 01:54:18.000 So since 2002, it's had this split zoning on the site. 01:54:18.000 --> 01:54:22.880 Those districts, as you know, directly transitioned from the O2 districts to 2019. 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 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 01:54:31.120 --> 01:54:37.540 in a consistent manner and be more consistent with our comprehensive plan. 01:54:37.540 --> 01:54:43.640 And then looking at potential impacts to surrounding property, the LI district is consistent with 01:54:43.640 --> 01:54:44.640 the zoning in this area. 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 01:54:48.160 --> 01:54:51.120 Worth Drive are already zoned LI in this area. 01:54:51.120 --> 01:54:55.240 And it's important to note, as I mentioned earlier, currently we have heavy industrial 01:54:55.240 --> 01:54:59.200 immediately adjacent to an existing multifamily development. 01:54:59.200 --> 01:55:03.500 This would be decreasing the intensity of uses that could go in this area and making 01:55:03.500 --> 01:55:06.840 this more compatible with the adjacent multifamily. 01:55:06.840 --> 01:55:11.520 The DDC would still require any development under LI or HI to have compatibility buffers 01:55:11.520 --> 01:55:17.080 in place, but this would reduce some of those more nuisance potential uses that are permitted 01:55:17.080 --> 01:55:22.840 in HI and would create more compatibility in the area. 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 01:55:26.800 --> 01:55:27.800 three districts. 01:55:27.800 --> 01:55:29.440 The ones shown in red are those that are different. 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 01:55:34.560 --> 01:55:36.840 permitted with this rezoning. 01:55:36.840 --> 01:55:40.560 Even medium impact manufacturing would require a specific use permit that would come back 01:55:40.560 --> 01:55:44.960 before the PNZ and council if they sought to develop that in LI. 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 01:55:50.360 --> 01:55:55.680 or storage of hazardous materials, for example. 01:55:55.680 --> 01:56:00.960 And then looking at the final criteria, which is the availability of facilities and services 01:56:00.960 --> 01:56:02.800 to serve the property. 01:56:02.800 --> 01:56:06.520 Looking first at transportation, you can see here that the property does have frontage 01:56:06.520 --> 01:56:10.360 and would take access directly off of the I-35 service road. 01:56:10.360 --> 01:56:17.020 This corridor between 377 and FM 2181 or Teasley is slated for improvements by tech stop. 01:56:17.020 --> 01:56:23.800 Their plans currently show a five to 10 year construction as the timeline for this segment. 01:56:23.800 --> 01:56:27.480 So with those improvements, access to the site would be more than adequate. 01:56:27.480 --> 01:56:32.000 The applicant did provide some trip generation for a preliminary analysis. 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 01:56:38.520 --> 01:56:42.520 this property, but also that adjacent site that I mentioned as part of their total 35 01:56:42.520 --> 01:56:44.640 acres that they're looking at. 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 01:56:52.920 --> 01:56:54.180 AM peak trips. 01:56:54.180 --> 01:56:58.960 So with those, they did not trigger the need for a transportation impact analysis at this 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 01:57:03.680 --> 01:57:07.080 or plan. 01:57:07.080 --> 01:57:11.360 Looking at utilities to serve the area, both water and sewer facilities are available adjacent 01:57:11.360 --> 01:57:14.160 to the site along the I-35 frontage road. 01:57:14.160 --> 01:57:21.240 So these lines would be extended and continued internally to serve any future development. 01:57:21.240 --> 01:57:25.600 And then finally, a public notification was provided regarding this case. 01:57:25.600 --> 01:57:30.240 We received no responses prior to this meeting. 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 01:57:33.360 --> 01:57:34.740 criteria for approval. 01:57:34.740 --> 01:57:39.960 And I will stop sharing now and I'm happy to answer any questions. 01:57:39.960 --> 01:57:40.960 Thank you, Haley. 01:57:40.960 --> 01:57:46.120 I do not see any questions, thorough presentation. 01:57:46.120 --> 01:57:53.440 The next item of business is item 5B, AESA 20-0006A. 01:57:53.440 --> 01:58:00.440 And Christy Upton is here to present this. 01:58:00.440 --> 01:58:27.440 Good evening, Christy Upton, and tonight I will be discussing an alternative ESA plan 01:58:27.440 --> 01:58:35.200 for the same property that Haley just presented. 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 01:58:48.360 --> 01:58:54.600 is to permanently remove 1.26 acres of riparian buffer. 01:58:54.600 --> 01:59:07.160 Prior to this request, there was a field assessment requested by Acme Bricks company to identify 01:59:07.160 --> 01:59:12.760 the riparian buffers, confirm the riparian buffers on the site. 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 01:59:20.280 --> 01:59:24.160 that creek was found to be in fair condition. 01:59:24.160 --> 01:59:29.720 Currently these riparian buffers, there's 50 feet on each side of the stream, however, 01:59:29.720 --> 01:59:36.440 there is a berm that was created for access to the Acme Bricks site. 01:59:36.440 --> 01:59:45.080 And this berm prevents hydrology to be able to support the riparian buffer vegetation 01:59:45.080 --> 01:59:47.120 on the west side of the creek. 01:59:47.120 --> 01:59:52.880 And since that vegetation does not exist, the protection requirements were removed from 01:59:52.880 --> 01:59:55.520 the west side. 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 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 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 02:00:23.080 --> 02:00:24.080 ESAs. 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 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 02:00:38.240 --> 02:00:40.040 10 acres. 02:00:40.040 --> 02:00:48.240 And in 2015, the citywide update identified areas that both did not meet 10 acres and 02:00:48.240 --> 02:00:55.920 unlikely would ever meet the 10 acre criteria for that protection requirement. 02:00:55.920 --> 02:01:04.320 And these areas were all identified as the protection requirements being removed. 02:01:04.320 --> 02:01:14.040 And these areas that are located on the ACME site were part of that citywide update. 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 02:01:22.440 --> 02:01:30.800 future development is requesting to construct the warehousing in an area that overlays with 02:01:30.800 --> 02:01:32.400 that riparian buffer. 02:01:32.400 --> 02:01:41.000 In addition, in order to maintain the access to ACME brick, there will be further removal 02:01:41.000 --> 02:01:45.480 of some of the riparian buffer to the south of these warehouse development. 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? 02:01:52.120 --> 02:01:54.800 Yes, thank you, Chair. 02:01:54.800 --> 02:01:59.120 Christy, what, who is the source of the 10 acre definition? 02:01:59.120 --> 02:02:01.240 Is that a state level? 02:02:01.240 --> 02:02:02.720 Is that a Denton level? 02:02:02.720 --> 02:02:03.720 I'm sorry. 02:02:03.720 --> 02:02:05.200 What is the source of that minimum? 02:02:05.200 --> 02:02:06.200 I'm sorry. 02:02:06.200 --> 02:02:07.200 Oh, yeah. 02:02:07.200 --> 02:02:08.200 No. 02:02:08.200 --> 02:02:09.200 Again. 02:02:09.200 --> 02:02:10.200 Yeah. 02:02:10.200 --> 02:02:12.280 I don't know what's going on with my microphone. 02:02:12.280 --> 02:02:14.600 What's the source of the 10 acres definition? 02:02:14.600 --> 02:02:17.320 That's a local code. 02:02:17.320 --> 02:02:18.320 Okay. 02:02:18.320 --> 02:02:21.840 That was a local decision. 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 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 02:02:35.720 --> 02:02:36.720 something like that. 02:02:36.720 --> 02:02:40.760 Let's say it was four, then we would be bumping up against it. 02:02:40.760 --> 02:02:41.760 Okay. 02:02:41.760 --> 02:02:42.760 Correct. 02:02:42.760 --> 02:02:47.080 And we make no special exceptions for having adjacent, I thought there was provisions in 02:02:47.080 --> 02:02:53.480 one section for being adjacent to another upland habitat region, like you see to the 02:02:53.480 --> 02:02:58.040 northeast, that that doesn't apply because this is under TAN, right? 02:02:58.040 --> 02:03:00.920 No, actually, that's not in the code. 02:03:00.920 --> 02:03:07.080 There's no, there's nothing specific about adjacency in the code. 02:03:07.080 --> 02:03:13.840 It's something that we have put in this future criteria manual or document that environmental 02:03:13.840 --> 02:03:22.360 services will be publishing, where we encourage the preservation of these habitats that are 02:03:22.360 --> 02:03:26.960 adjacent to other habitats so that you create these transitions. 02:03:26.960 --> 02:03:38.080 That's a preferable preservation because you have greater area in allowance for migration 02:03:38.080 --> 02:03:41.720 between different habitat types. 02:03:41.720 --> 02:03:43.960 All right. 02:03:43.960 --> 02:03:46.480 Thank you. 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 02:03:59.160 --> 02:04:05.720 buffer is related to the detention bases that will be constructed. 02:04:05.720 --> 02:04:13.680 The applicant is proposing to support these warehousing developments that they will need 02:04:13.680 --> 02:04:21.760 to construct the detention basin system in order to intercept the storm water flow. 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. 02:04:29.520 --> 02:04:37.520 And for the purpose of offsetting the ecological services that are being removed from the riparian 02:04:37.520 --> 02:04:49.160 buffer, the applicant is offering to construct these habitat uplift with native grasses and 02:04:49.160 --> 02:04:58.160 herbaceous plants, wetland, drain fields and wildflower mix that will allow for migratory 02:04:58.160 --> 02:05:07.440 birds and other wildlife to help support those type of habitats in the future. 02:05:07.440 --> 02:05:13.480 The second type of mitigation that the applicant is proposing is a conservation easement that 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 02:05:20.720 --> 02:05:21.720 that was removed. 02:05:21.720 --> 02:05:29.200 Again, that's less than 10 acres total of this habitat that had been identified previously. 02:05:29.200 --> 02:05:37.960 And thus this area, this forested area has no protection requirements placed over it. 02:05:37.960 --> 02:05:42.960 And so this conservation easement would place, by placing this conservation easement over 02:05:42.960 --> 02:05:50.520 that area, it would permanently set aside those 2.11 acres of upland habitat. 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 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 02:06:01.560 --> 02:06:12.200 remnant forest just north of the conservation easement and along the edge of the multifamily 02:06:12.200 --> 02:06:17.080 that will be also preserved in order to meet the tree preservation requirements for the 02:06:17.080 --> 02:06:22.600 development. 02:06:22.600 --> 02:06:23.600 Yes, Mr. Beck. 02:06:23.600 --> 02:06:24.600 Yeah. 02:06:24.600 --> 02:06:25.600 Thank you, Chair. 02:06:25.600 --> 02:06:27.680 Christine, are those additional 1.7 being included? 02:06:27.680 --> 02:06:31.760 I wasn't clear in the easement, in the conservation easement? 02:06:31.760 --> 02:06:34.440 It's not in the conservation easement. 02:06:34.440 --> 02:06:40.760 It is, and it's not part of this application specifically, but the applicant has mentioned 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 02:06:45.640 --> 02:06:46.640 set aside. 02:06:46.640 --> 02:06:49.920 That is their plans right now. 02:06:49.920 --> 02:06:54.280 All right, thank you. 02:06:54.280 --> 02:07:05.520 Notifications were sent out for this proposed project and there were no responses that were 02:07:05.520 --> 02:07:07.000 received by staff. 02:07:07.000 --> 02:07:13.200 There was one response, I believe, that was emailed to all the commissioners in opposition. 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 02:07:25.600 --> 02:07:27.080 calculation. 02:07:27.080 --> 02:07:33.600 The recommendation is for approval with the following conditions, that the riparian buffer 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 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 02:07:54.560 --> 02:08:00.600 with the county and that the owner will pay all the applicable fees. 02:08:00.600 --> 02:08:07.480 And then the applicant will within 14 days of the construction of the detention basins 02:08:07.480 --> 02:08:15.800 apply the vegetative cover as described in the plan and lastly the two recommended conditions 02:08:15.800 --> 02:08:22.040 that staff typically places over plans that include vegetation. 02:08:22.040 --> 02:08:31.080 And with that, I will close those and take any further questions. 02:08:31.080 --> 02:08:38.720 Thank you, Chair. 02:08:38.720 --> 02:08:43.360 I noticed that the existing detention pond is getting kept and two more detention ponds 02:08:43.360 --> 02:08:45.160 are being added. 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 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 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 02:09:04.080 --> 02:09:08.080 south, on the south, half of that forested region? 02:09:08.080 --> 02:09:12.160 I can't hear you again. 02:09:12.160 --> 02:09:17.640 I'm sorry, I apologize, I'll say that again. 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 02:09:24.960 --> 02:09:30.440 that they're proposing putting an additional detention pond in the northern half. 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 02:09:34.960 --> 02:09:36.440 here. 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 02:09:40.800 --> 02:09:44.280 and overall I think this plan is really good. 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 02:09:50.240 --> 02:09:57.560 each other rather than sort of adopting them fully and the riparian versus the upland habitat. 02:09:57.560 --> 02:10:05.520 And so my question was, are we precluded from or was there discussion of combining, putting 02:10:05.520 --> 02:10:12.640 the detention pond together with the southern detention pond that's already in existence 02:10:12.640 --> 02:10:19.560 and save the forest on the north and put the detention pond on the south? 02:10:19.560 --> 02:10:25.240 I would have to defer to the applicant on that question. 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 02:10:32.840 --> 02:10:37.580 putting the detention basins in that location. 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 02:10:44.760 --> 02:10:50.160 space, is there anything that in our code that precludes us from expanding that addition, 02:10:50.160 --> 02:10:54.160 that existing detention pond? 02:10:54.160 --> 02:10:55.160 I don't think so. 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 02:11:03.120 --> 02:11:10.280 to design the detention basins in a different manner than what they are proposing. 02:11:10.280 --> 02:11:19.240 And just keep in mind that that upland habitat, again, was not protected and thus whatever 02:11:19.240 --> 02:11:28.440 they're setting aside is more than what our code would have required of them. 02:11:28.440 --> 02:11:29.440 Yes. 02:11:29.440 --> 02:11:30.440 I appreciate it. 02:11:30.440 --> 02:11:35.400 I take your point. 02:11:35.400 --> 02:11:40.160 But as I mentioned earlier, there's sort of that concept that the 10-anchor minimum 02:11:40.160 --> 02:11:47.160 is our arbitrary standard at the dent level rather than any other standard. 02:11:47.160 --> 02:11:53.120 And thus, we could potentially petition counsel not for this particular property, mind you, 02:11:53.120 --> 02:11:56.240 but in general to alter that standard. 02:11:56.240 --> 02:12:00.080 Okay, I appreciate your responses. 02:12:00.080 --> 02:12:03.080 Thank you, Christy. 02:12:03.080 --> 02:12:04.880 Any other questions for Christy? 02:12:04.880 --> 02:12:05.880 Okay. 02:12:05.880 --> 02:12:10.120 Seeing none, we can continue on. 02:12:10.120 --> 02:12:12.520 Thank you for that presentation. 02:12:12.520 --> 02:12:16.440 Item C and D are being postponed. 02:12:16.440 --> 02:12:21.520 So that does actually conclude our agenda for our work session. 02:12:21.520 --> 02:12:25.200 Seeing that, I will close -- oh, Commissioner Ellis. 02:12:25.200 --> 02:12:26.200 Thank you, Chair. 02:12:26.200 --> 02:12:30.960 With regard to 5C, are we postponing to a certain date or just indefinitely? 02:12:30.960 --> 02:12:33.600 It's indefinite with a re-notice. 02:12:33.600 --> 02:12:34.600 Understood. 02:12:34.600 --> 02:12:35.600 Thank you. 02:12:35.600 --> 02:12:36.600 Yep. 02:12:36.600 --> 02:12:37.600 Okay. 02:12:37.600 --> 02:12:38.600 I will close the meeting at 614. 02:12:38.600 --> 02:12:41.360 We'll reconvene back here at 630. 02:12:41.360 --> 02:12:47.040 Thank you. 02:12:47.040 --> 02:12:50.360 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting 02:12:50.360 --> 02:12:54.440 for December 2nd, 2020. 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. 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. 02:13:06.440 --> 02:13:08.680 and Texas flag. 02:13:08.680 --> 02:13:13.440 Commissioners, if you'd unmute yourself to join, that's optional. 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 02:13:19.800 --> 02:13:29.440 which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 02:13:29.440 --> 02:13:40.080 Under the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one indivisible. 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 02:13:44.360 --> 02:13:52.600 items for individual consideration, starting with item 4A, PP20-0022B, and I will call 02:13:52.600 --> 02:13:55.160 Karina Maldonado for presentation. 02:13:55.160 --> 02:13:57.440 Good evening. 02:13:57.440 --> 02:14:05.280 This first request for PP20-0022B is for the approval of a preliminary plaque of Country 02:14:05.280 --> 02:14:12.680 Club Village Phase 4 to the approximately 12.53-acre site located on the northwest corner 02:14:12.680 --> 02:14:18.440 of Fairview Drive and Clubview Drive in South Denton, City of Denton. 02:14:18.440 --> 02:14:25.240 The staff was initially a recommendation of denial; however, the applicant has addressed 02:14:25.240 --> 02:14:31.960 all outstanding comments since the publishing of the agenda, so staff is now recommending 02:14:31.960 --> 02:14:33.440 approval of this request. 02:14:33.440 --> 02:14:38.160 A revised plaque was emailed to you tonight. 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 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 02:14:51.840 --> 02:14:54.840 can take any questions. 02:14:54.840 --> 02:14:55.840 Thank you. 02:14:55.840 --> 02:14:56.840 I appreciate it, Karina. 02:14:56.840 --> 02:14:57.840 I do not see any questions. 02:14:57.840 --> 02:14:59.800 The Chair will entertain discussion or motion. 02:14:59.800 --> 02:15:00.800 Commissioner Smith? 02:15:00.800 --> 02:15:01.800 I make a motion to approve. 02:15:01.800 --> 02:15:04.360 We have a first for approval. 02:15:04.360 --> 02:15:05.360 Commissioner Anderson? 02:15:05.360 --> 02:15:06.360 I second the motion. 02:15:06.360 --> 02:15:07.360 We have a first and a second. 02:15:07.360 --> 02:15:08.360 Any discussion? 02:15:08.360 --> 02:15:10.480 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. 02:15:10.480 --> 02:15:11.480 Commissioner Ellis? 02:15:11.480 --> 02:15:12.480 Aye. 02:15:12.480 --> 02:15:13.480 Commissioner Smith? 02:15:13.480 --> 02:15:14.480 Aye. 02:15:14.480 --> 02:15:15.480 Commissioner Bec? 02:15:15.480 --> 02:15:16.480 I think that was an aye. 02:15:16.480 --> 02:15:33.960 I can't hear you, Commissioner Bec. 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. 02:15:38.280 --> 02:15:39.280 Commissioner Anderson? 02:15:39.280 --> 02:15:40.280 Aye. 02:15:40.280 --> 02:15:43.120 I can hear that one. 02:15:43.120 --> 02:15:45.160 Commissioner Cole? 02:15:45.160 --> 02:15:46.640 This isn't working either. 02:15:46.640 --> 02:15:50.480 Commissioner Cole, your mic on. 02:15:50.480 --> 02:15:51.480 We got a thumbs up. 02:15:51.480 --> 02:15:53.000 We'll take that one as well. 02:15:53.000 --> 02:15:55.000 Commissioner Pernetta? 02:15:55.000 --> 02:15:56.000 Aye. 02:15:56.000 --> 02:15:58.200 Chair is also an aye. 02:15:58.200 --> 02:16:00.840 Motion carries 7-0. 02:16:00.840 --> 02:16:01.840 Next item. 02:16:01.840 --> 02:16:07.920 Are we getting a lot of shaking of heads? 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, 02:16:12.160 --> 02:16:13.160 we cannot hear him. 02:16:13.160 --> 02:16:14.160 Gotcha. 02:16:14.160 --> 02:16:15.160 Thank you for that interpretation. 02:16:15.160 --> 02:16:16.160 Welcome. 02:16:16.160 --> 02:16:21.680 Next item is 4B, FP20-0025. 02:16:21.680 --> 02:16:24.920 This is Haley Zygursky's presentation. 02:16:24.920 --> 02:16:34.640 Good evening, Commissioners. 02:16:34.640 --> 02:16:37.440 This is FP2025. 02:16:37.440 --> 02:16:41.160 This is the Woodmere edition. 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 02:16:46.480 --> 02:16:50.600 denial as it does not meet the requirements outlined in Exhibit 2. 02:16:50.600 --> 02:16:55.240 However, the applicant has requested extension to December 16th, and staff has no objection 02:16:55.240 --> 02:16:56.240 to that. 02:16:56.240 --> 02:16:58.560 I'm happy to stand for any questions. 02:16:58.560 --> 02:17:00.560 Thank you very much. 02:17:00.560 --> 02:17:02.640 Commissioner Anderson? 02:17:02.640 --> 02:17:09.880 I'll make a motion to approve the extension to date of December 16th. 02:17:09.880 --> 02:17:12.040 Perfect, Commissioner Smith? 02:17:12.040 --> 02:17:13.040 Second. 02:17:13.040 --> 02:17:16.960 We have a first and a second. 02:17:16.960 --> 02:17:17.960 Any discussion? 02:17:17.960 --> 02:17:24.440 Seeing none, just for clarification, Matt, considering the mics are odd, am I able to 02:17:24.440 --> 02:17:31.440 do a vote via a show of hands if I can see everyone? 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 02:17:37.560 --> 02:17:38.560 do it by hand. 02:17:38.560 --> 02:17:40.280 No, I can hear Commissioner Beck. 02:17:40.280 --> 02:17:45.240 Commissioner Kohl, can I hear you? 02:17:45.240 --> 02:17:53.000 No, I cannot hear you. 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 02:17:57.160 --> 02:17:58.160 thumbs down. 02:17:58.160 --> 02:17:59.160 Okay. 02:17:59.160 --> 02:18:00.160 Sounds good. 02:18:00.160 --> 02:18:01.640 We have a first and a second for approval. 02:18:01.640 --> 02:18:05.080 We'll start with a vote via roll call. 02:18:05.080 --> 02:18:06.080 Commissioner Ellis? 02:18:06.080 --> 02:18:07.080 Aye. 02:18:07.080 --> 02:18:08.080 Commissioner Smith? 02:18:08.080 --> 02:18:09.080 Aye. 02:18:09.080 --> 02:18:10.080 Commissioner Beck? 02:18:10.080 --> 02:18:11.080 Aye. 02:18:11.080 --> 02:18:12.080 There we go. 02:18:12.080 --> 02:18:13.080 Commissioner Anderson? 02:18:13.080 --> 02:18:14.080 Aye. 02:18:14.080 --> 02:18:15.080 Commissioner Kohl? 02:18:15.080 --> 02:18:18.080 Let's do a thumbs up, thumbs down. 02:18:18.080 --> 02:18:19.080 There we go. 02:18:19.080 --> 02:18:20.080 Commissioner Pernetta? 02:18:20.080 --> 02:18:21.080 Aye. 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. 02:18:25.640 --> 02:18:26.640 Chair is also an aye. 02:18:26.640 --> 02:18:28.780 Motion carries 7-0. 02:18:28.780 --> 02:18:35.720 Next item of business is item 3, 4C, PP20-0026. 02:18:35.720 --> 02:18:39.160 This is Carina Maldonado's item. 02:18:39.160 --> 02:18:41.520 All right. 02:18:41.520 --> 02:18:49.080 This request, PP20-0026, is for approval of the preliminary plaque at 100 North Loop 288. 02:18:49.080 --> 02:18:51.920 This is on the east side of Loop 288. 02:18:51.920 --> 02:18:55.480 I apologize for the typo in the previous work session. 02:18:55.480 --> 02:19:00.320 Staff is recommending denial of this request, as it does not meet the minimum requirements 02:19:00.320 --> 02:19:02.320 in the DDC. 02:19:02.320 --> 02:19:08.320 However, the applicant has requested a 30-day extension to the December 16th Applying and 02:19:08.320 --> 02:19:11.400 Zoning Commission meeting, and we are not opposed to this request. 02:19:11.400 --> 02:19:13.720 Behind that, I can take any questions. 02:19:13.720 --> 02:19:16.140 I appreciate it, Commissioner Ellis. 02:19:16.140 --> 02:19:17.140 Thank you, Chair. 02:19:17.140 --> 02:19:23.160 Carina, just to clarify, you mentioned 30-day request for extension. 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? 02:19:31.400 --> 02:19:35.400 The request was tipped the allowances for up to 30 days. 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 02:19:41.560 --> 02:19:42.560 16th. 02:19:42.560 --> 02:19:43.560 Okay. 02:19:43.560 --> 02:19:44.560 Understood. 02:19:44.560 --> 02:19:45.560 Thank you. 02:19:45.560 --> 02:19:46.560 Commissioner Smith? 02:19:46.560 --> 02:19:50.840 Make a motion to approve the extension to date certain December 16th. 02:19:50.840 --> 02:19:51.840 We have a first. 02:19:51.840 --> 02:19:52.840 Commissioner Pernetta? 02:19:52.840 --> 02:19:53.840 I'll second. 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 02:20:00.560 --> 02:20:01.920 certain of December 16th. 02:20:01.920 --> 02:20:03.760 Is there any discussion? 02:20:03.760 --> 02:20:07.200 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. 02:20:07.200 --> 02:20:08.200 Commissioner Ellis? 02:20:08.200 --> 02:20:09.200 Aye. 02:20:09.200 --> 02:20:10.200 Commissioner Smith? 02:20:10.200 --> 02:20:11.200 Aye. 02:20:11.200 --> 02:20:12.200 Commissioner Beck? 02:20:12.200 --> 02:20:13.200 Aye. 02:20:13.200 --> 02:20:14.200 Commissioner Anderson? 02:20:14.200 --> 02:20:15.200 Aye. 02:20:15.200 --> 02:20:18.920 Commissioner Cole, thumb up, thumb down. 02:20:18.920 --> 02:20:20.400 That's an aye from Commissioner Cole. 02:20:20.400 --> 02:20:21.400 Commissioner Pernetta? 02:20:21.400 --> 02:20:22.400 Aye. 02:20:22.400 --> 02:20:23.400 Chair, it's also an aye. 02:20:23.400 --> 02:20:24.400 Motion carries 7-0. 02:20:24.400 --> 02:20:29.280 Next item of business is item 4D, it's the consideration and approval of the November 02:20:29.280 --> 02:20:31.400 18th minutes. 02:20:31.400 --> 02:20:35.240 Our commission was sent a revised copy of the minutes. 02:20:35.240 --> 02:20:36.240 Commissioner Smith? 02:20:36.240 --> 02:20:38.200 Make a motion to approve as amended. 02:20:38.200 --> 02:20:39.480 Commissioner Ellis? 02:20:39.480 --> 02:20:40.480 Second. 02:20:40.480 --> 02:20:45.240 We have a first and a second for approval of the minutes. 02:20:45.240 --> 02:20:46.240 Any discussion? 02:20:46.240 --> 02:20:49.880 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. 02:20:49.880 --> 02:20:50.880 Commissioner Ellis? 02:20:50.880 --> 02:20:51.880 Aye. 02:20:51.880 --> 02:20:52.880 Commissioner Smith? 02:20:52.880 --> 02:20:53.880 Aye. 02:20:53.880 --> 02:20:54.880 Commissioner Beck? 02:20:54.880 --> 02:20:55.880 Aye. 02:20:55.880 --> 02:20:56.880 Commissioner Anderson? 02:20:56.880 --> 02:20:57.880 Aye. 02:20:57.880 --> 02:20:58.880 Commissioner Cole? 02:20:58.880 --> 02:20:59.880 No. 02:20:59.880 --> 02:21:00.880 Commissioner Anderson? 02:21:00.880 --> 02:21:01.880 No. 02:21:01.880 --> 02:21:02.880 Commissioner Cole is an affirmative. 02:21:02.880 --> 02:21:03.880 Commissioner Pernetta? 02:21:03.880 --> 02:21:04.880 Aye. 02:21:04.880 --> 02:21:05.880 And Chair, it's also an aye. 02:21:05.880 --> 02:21:06.880 Motion carries 7-0. 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. 02:21:13.840 --> 02:21:17.600 Good evening, Chair and members of the commission. 02:21:17.600 --> 02:21:26.600 Just pull up presentation here, and we are, hopefully you can see that now. 02:21:26.600 --> 02:21:27.600 Yep. 02:21:27.600 --> 02:21:35.000 We're meeting PP20-0024 preliminary plat. 02:21:35.000 --> 02:21:41.680 This was initially recommended for denial, but all concerns have been resolved with the 02:21:41.680 --> 02:21:45.680 plat that you were sent this afternoon, and so staff is now recommending approval because 02:21:45.680 --> 02:21:49.840 it meets all of the requirements for approval. 02:21:49.840 --> 02:21:51.560 Great. 02:21:51.560 --> 02:21:52.560 Any questions? 02:21:52.560 --> 02:21:53.560 Okay. 02:21:53.560 --> 02:21:57.800 Seeing none, Chair will entertain a motion. 02:21:57.800 --> 02:21:58.800 Commissioner Anderson? 02:21:58.800 --> 02:21:59.800 Seconded. 02:21:59.800 --> 02:22:00.800 Motion to approve. 02:22:00.800 --> 02:22:01.800 We have a first for approval. 02:22:01.800 --> 02:22:02.800 Commissioner Smith? 02:22:02.800 --> 02:22:03.800 Second. 02:22:03.800 --> 02:22:06.280 We have a first and a second for approval. 02:22:06.280 --> 02:22:08.520 Any discussion? 02:22:08.520 --> 02:22:12.240 Seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call. 02:22:12.240 --> 02:22:13.240 Commissioner Ellis? 02:22:13.240 --> 02:22:14.240 Aye. 02:22:14.240 --> 02:22:15.240 Commissioner Smith? 02:22:15.240 --> 02:22:16.240 Aye. 02:22:16.240 --> 02:22:17.240 Commissioner Beck? 02:22:17.240 --> 02:22:18.240 Aye. 02:22:18.240 --> 02:22:19.240 Commissioner Anderson? 02:22:19.240 --> 02:22:20.240 Aye. 02:22:20.240 --> 02:22:21.240 Commissioner Cole? 02:22:21.240 --> 02:22:22.240 Aye. 02:22:22.240 --> 02:22:23.840 Commissioner Cole? 02:22:23.840 --> 02:22:24.840 Aye. 02:22:24.840 --> 02:22:25.840 Commissioner Cole? 02:22:25.840 --> 02:22:26.840 Aye. 02:22:26.840 --> 02:22:27.840 Commissioner Cole? 02:22:27.840 --> 02:22:28.840 Aye. 02:22:28.840 --> 02:22:29.840 Commissioner Cole? 02:22:29.840 --> 02:22:30.840 Aye. 02:22:30.840 --> 02:22:31.840 Commissioner Cole? 02:22:31.840 --> 02:22:32.840 Aye. 02:22:32.840 --> 02:22:33.840 Commissioner Cole? 02:22:33.840 --> 02:22:34.840 Aye. 02:22:34.840 --> 02:22:35.840 Commissioner Cole? 02:22:35.840 --> 02:22:36.840 Aye. 02:22:36.840 --> 02:22:37.840 Commissioner Cole? 02:22:37.840 --> 02:22:38.840 Aye. 02:22:38.840 --> 02:22:39.840 Commissioner Cole? 02:22:39.840 --> 02:22:40.840 Aye. 02:22:40.840 --> 02:22:41.840 Commissioner Cole? 02:22:41.840 --> 02:22:42.840 Aye. 02:22:42.840 --> 02:22:43.840 Commissioner Cole? 02:22:43.840 --> 02:22:44.840 Aye. 02:22:44.840 --> 02:22:45.840 Commissioner Cole? 02:22:45.840 --> 02:22:46.840 Aye. 02:22:46.840 --> 02:22:47.840 Commissioner Cole? 02:22:47.840 --> 02:22:48.840 Aye. 02:22:48.840 --> 02:22:54.780 We have a final replant of two commercial lots located at McKinney and Glengarry Way. 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 02:22:59.720 --> 02:23:03.920 staff has since changed our recommendation from denial to approval as the new plant that 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 02:23:08.040 --> 02:23:13.400 requirements and with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. 02:23:13.400 --> 02:23:20.520 I've been told I'm muted. 02:23:20.520 --> 02:23:21.520 Thank you, Haley. 02:23:21.520 --> 02:23:25.160 Any questions for Haley on the presentation? 02:23:25.160 --> 02:23:31.340 Seeing none, I'll call for, well, Commissioner Smith. 02:23:31.340 --> 02:23:32.340 He's muted now too. 02:23:32.340 --> 02:23:36.080 I make a motion to approve. 02:23:36.080 --> 02:23:38.480 First for approval. 02:23:38.480 --> 02:23:40.360 The Chair will second that. 02:23:40.360 --> 02:23:43.120 Any discussion on the item? 02:23:43.120 --> 02:23:45.180 Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call. 02:23:45.180 --> 02:23:46.180 Commissioner Ellis? 02:23:46.180 --> 02:23:47.180 Aye. 02:23:47.180 --> 02:23:48.180 Commissioner Smith? 02:23:48.180 --> 02:23:49.180 Aye. 02:23:49.180 --> 02:23:50.180 Commissioner Beck? 02:23:50.180 --> 02:23:51.180 Aye. 02:23:51.180 --> 02:23:52.180 Commissioner Anderson? 02:23:52.180 --> 02:23:53.180 Aye. 02:23:53.180 --> 02:23:54.180 Commissioner Cole? 02:23:54.180 --> 02:23:55.180 Aye. 02:23:55.180 --> 02:23:58.660 Commissioner Cole has a thumbs up for an aye. 02:23:58.660 --> 02:23:59.660 Commissioner Panetta? 02:23:59.660 --> 02:24:00.660 Aye. 02:24:00.660 --> 02:24:01.660 Chair is also an aye. 02:24:01.660 --> 02:24:02.840 Motion carries 7-0. 02:24:02.840 --> 02:24:08.320 The last item for individual consideration is item 4G, FR20-0016. 02:24:08.320 --> 02:24:13.440 I'll invite Ron Meguida for presentation. 02:24:13.440 --> 02:24:16.360 Thank you, Chair. 02:24:16.360 --> 02:24:24.200 Bring up the presentation real quick. 02:24:24.200 --> 02:24:25.640 So this is FR20-0016. 02:24:25.640 --> 02:24:31.400 It is for a residential subdivision. 02:24:31.400 --> 02:24:39.720 The site is located between Bonnie Bray and north of Rose Lawn Drive. 02:24:39.720 --> 02:24:44.320 The applicant is proposing an extension. 02:24:44.320 --> 02:24:50.680 It currently does not meet all of the requirements and standards of the DVC, specifically Section 02:24:50.680 --> 02:24:57.440 832D, related to common areas and facilities of, again, the development code. 02:24:57.440 --> 02:25:04.000 However, staff is not in opposition of the extension, again, of the 30-day extension 02:25:04.000 --> 02:25:05.000 by the applicant. 02:25:05.000 --> 02:25:07.680 I'll stand for any questions. 02:25:07.680 --> 02:25:12.880 Ron, the other items listed here for 30 days have a date certain of December 16th. 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? 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. 02:25:22.920 --> 02:25:25.200 Therefore, that's when this item will be heard. 02:25:25.200 --> 02:25:26.200 Great. 02:25:26.200 --> 02:25:27.200 Thank you. 02:25:27.200 --> 02:25:28.200 Thank you, Ron. 02:25:28.200 --> 02:25:29.200 Okay. 02:25:29.200 --> 02:25:30.200 Thank you, Ron, for presentation. 02:25:30.200 --> 02:25:31.200 Chair will entertain a motion. 02:25:31.200 --> 02:25:32.200 Oh, this might be too exciting. 02:25:32.200 --> 02:25:33.200 Commissioner Ellis. 02:25:33.200 --> 02:25:34.200 I move approval of the applicant's request for an extension to date certain of December 02:25:34.200 --> 02:25:35.200 16th. 02:25:35.200 --> 02:25:36.200 Awesome. 02:25:36.200 --> 02:25:37.200 Thank you for that. 02:25:37.200 --> 02:25:38.200 Commissioner Smith. 02:25:38.200 --> 02:25:39.200 I'll second. 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 02:25:46.200 --> 02:25:47.200 of December 16th. 02:25:47.200 --> 02:25:58.200 Any discussion? 02:25:58.200 --> 02:26:03.200 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. 02:26:03.200 --> 02:26:04.200 Commissioner Ellis. 02:26:04.200 --> 02:26:05.200 I. 02:26:05.200 --> 02:26:06.200 Commissioner Beck. 02:26:06.200 --> 02:26:07.200 I. 02:26:07.200 --> 02:26:08.200 Commissioner Anderson. 02:26:08.200 --> 02:26:09.200 I. 02:26:09.200 --> 02:26:10.200 Commissioner Cole. 02:26:10.200 --> 02:26:14.200 Commissioner Cole has a thumbs up for an I. 02:26:14.200 --> 02:26:15.200 Commissioner Smith. 02:26:15.200 --> 02:26:16.200 I. 02:26:16.200 --> 02:26:17.200 Commissioner Bruneta. 02:26:17.200 --> 02:26:18.200 I. 02:26:18.200 --> 02:26:19.200 Chair has also an I. 02:26:19.200 --> 02:26:20.200 Did I carry everyone? 02:26:20.200 --> 02:26:21.200 I think so. 02:26:21.200 --> 02:26:25.200 Motion carries 7-0. 02:26:25.200 --> 02:26:27.200 Next item of business is our public hearing items. 02:26:27.200 --> 02:26:32.200 The first one is Z20-0009. 02:26:32.200 --> 02:26:41.200 I'll invite Haley Zygursky for presentation and open the public hearing. 02:26:41.200 --> 02:26:43.200 Good evening, commissioners. 02:26:43.200 --> 02:26:47.200 This is case Z29 for urban logistics. 02:26:47.200 --> 02:26:50.200 The request before you is twofold. 02:26:50.200 --> 02:26:55.200 There is a request for a rezoning from highway corridor to light industrial for approximately 02:26:55.200 --> 02:26:58.200 10 and a half acres that is shown here in orange. 02:26:58.200 --> 02:27:03.200 And then there is a request for rezoning from heavy industrial to light industrial on approximately 02:27:03.200 --> 02:27:07.200 13 acres that is outlined in yellow on the map. 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. 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 02:27:16.200 --> 02:27:21.200 plugged in 2019 in anticipation of the future redevelopment of this property. 02:27:21.200 --> 02:27:27.200 The proposal or the purpose for this rezoning is to facilitate the development of a mixed 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 02:27:33.200 --> 02:27:38.200 include this portion of the property here that currently has an LI zoning. 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 02:27:43.200 --> 02:27:47.200 include this area here that's already LI and they're looking to consolidate that across 02:27:47.200 --> 02:27:52.200 the entire property as you can see in the map on the right. 02:27:52.200 --> 02:27:56.200 So the general criteria for approval for all applications were described in detail in your 02:27:56.200 --> 02:27:57.200 backup. 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 02:28:00.200 --> 02:28:04.200 request meets all of these criteria. 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 02:28:08.200 --> 02:28:11.200 a little more detail. 02:28:11.200 --> 02:28:16.200 The first being whether the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, specifically 02:28:16.200 --> 02:28:18.200 the future land use element. 02:28:18.200 --> 02:28:22.200 As you can see on the map, this property is designated for industrial commerce. 02:28:22.200 --> 02:28:26.200 That is our most intense industrial future land use designation. 02:28:26.200 --> 02:28:29.200 It's intended for areas that would have a mixture of both light and heavy industrial 02:28:29.200 --> 02:28:35.200 uses that includes warehousing, manufacturing, and various industrial processes. 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 02:28:40.200 --> 02:28:46.200 such as warehouse and distribution, as well as some low impact manufacturing. 02:28:46.200 --> 02:28:50.200 The next criteria is whether the request is consistent with the purpose statement for the 02:28:50.200 --> 02:28:51.200 zoning district. 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 02:28:57.200 --> 02:29:01.200 would provide a mixture of light industrial and employment type uses that would be highly 02:29:01.200 --> 02:29:06.200 accessible, and this request would meet that given the high accessibility of this area 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 02:29:11.200 --> 02:29:16.200 there's already LI to the south, and that it would increase the compatibility in the 02:29:16.200 --> 02:29:21.200 area as it would be reducing the intensity of the zoning designation on this property 02:29:21.200 --> 02:29:25.200 adjacent to the neighboring multifamily use. 02:29:25.200 --> 02:29:30.200 So looking at the next criteria, which is whether there have been significant changes 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. 02:29:35.200 --> 02:29:40.200 This entire property that is Acme Brick was originally zoned heavy industrial. 02:29:40.200 --> 02:29:44.200 It had had that zoning since the 1969 zoning ordinance, actually. 02:29:44.200 --> 02:29:49.200 However, in 2002, a split zoning was applied to this northern part of the property, and 02:29:49.200 --> 02:29:54.200 that directly transitioned to the zoning that we see today with the 2019 code adoption and 02:29:54.200 --> 02:29:57.200 citywide rezoning. 02:29:57.200 --> 02:30:02.200 With the plugging of that gas well, the property owner was looking to facilitate development 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 02:30:07.200 --> 02:30:11.200 buyer who's looking to consolidate that zoning and have consistent development standards 02:30:11.200 --> 02:30:14.200 applicable across the site. 02:30:14.200 --> 02:30:19.200 Our next criteria is whether it would minimize adverse impacts on surrounding property. 02:30:19.200 --> 02:30:22.200 The LI zoning is consistent with the zoning in this area. 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 02:30:26.200 --> 02:30:29.200 of uses that have been permitted in the past. 02:30:29.200 --> 02:30:33.200 It is important to note that even with this current mix of zoning, those light industrial 02:30:33.200 --> 02:30:36.200 uses could occur on the property today. 02:30:36.200 --> 02:30:39.200 Warehouse and distribution are even permitted in the HC district, but there are some size 02:30:39.200 --> 02:30:43.200 limitations that would make a comprehensive development of the site with an industrial 02:30:43.200 --> 02:30:45.200 campus a little bit tricky. 02:30:45.200 --> 02:30:48.200 So that's the reason for their looking to consolidate. 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 02:30:53.200 --> 02:30:56.200 of uses that could occur on this portion of the property that is directly adjacent to 02:30:56.200 --> 02:30:58.200 a multifamily use. 02:30:58.200 --> 02:31:04.200 This adjacent property that's zoned HC has had multifamily use there since the mid-1980s, 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 02:31:08.200 --> 02:31:13.200 permitted in HI, as you can see here, that would not be compatible with that adjacent 02:31:13.200 --> 02:31:14.200 multifamily. 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 02:31:17.200 --> 02:31:24.200 and take away the prospect of things such as a feedlot or hazardous waste storage. 02:31:24.200 --> 02:31:28.200 Even medium impact manufacturing, as you can see, would require a specific use permit to 02:31:28.200 --> 02:31:32.200 come back before you all in city council. 02:31:32.200 --> 02:31:37.200 And then finally looking at the availability of public facilities and services, the site 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 02:31:41.200 --> 02:31:42.200 road today. 02:31:42.200 --> 02:31:47.200 This portion of the corridor from 377 over to Teasley is slated for improvement within 02:31:47.200 --> 02:31:52.200 the next 5 to 10 years, according to TxDOT's current plans and schedule. 02:31:52.200 --> 02:31:58.200 The applicant provided a trip generation based upon an estimation of about 450,000 square 02:31:58.200 --> 02:32:00.200 feet of warehouse space. 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 02:32:05.200 --> 02:32:10.200 plans for, a zoning compliance plan rather, for the specific development of the site and 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 02:32:14.200 --> 02:32:18.200 that would be warranted, but it is unlikely given their adjacency to a TxDOT right of 02:32:18.200 --> 02:32:20.200 way. 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 02:32:24.200 --> 02:32:29.200 water lines and the red being sewer lines, that there are facilities subbed out to this 02:32:29.200 --> 02:32:32.200 property immediately adjacent along the I-35 frontage. 02:32:32.200 --> 02:32:37.200 Those would be extended across this site to serve this development. 02:32:37.200 --> 02:32:42.200 Public notification was provided regarding this request and we've received no responses 02:32:42.200 --> 02:32:43.200 to date. 02:32:43.200 --> 02:32:47.200 And staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning to light industrial as 02:32:47.200 --> 02:32:50.200 it complies with all of our criteria for approval. 02:32:50.200 --> 02:32:51.200 And I'm happy to answer any questions. 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 02:32:55.200 --> 02:32:56.200 all. 02:32:56.200 --> 02:32:57.200 Great. 02:32:57.200 --> 02:32:58.200 Thank you, Haley. 02:32:58.200 --> 02:32:59.200 Is there any questions initially for Haley? 02:32:59.200 --> 02:33:01.200 Commissioner Anderson. 02:33:01.200 --> 02:33:02.200 Just quick one. 02:33:02.200 --> 02:33:11.200 Haley, can you go to slide 11, I believe, please? 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 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 02:33:27.200 --> 02:33:30.200 equal 770. 02:33:30.200 --> 02:33:36.200 No, sir, these are -- these are strictly the peak hour trips, so based on estimations from 02:33:36.200 --> 02:33:41.200 the IT, which is the International Transportation Engineers Society that estimates various uses 02:33:41.200 --> 02:33:45.200 and how much traffic they generate, this is what would be estimated in that peak hour 02:33:45.200 --> 02:33:49.200 of morning incoming traffic and then evening traffic leaving the site. 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. 02:33:53.200 --> 02:33:54.200 Okay. 02:33:54.200 --> 02:33:55.200 All right. 02:33:55.200 --> 02:33:56.200 Thank you, ma'am. 02:33:56.200 --> 02:33:59.200 Any other questions for Haley? 02:33:59.200 --> 02:34:00.200 Okay. 02:34:00.200 --> 02:34:07.200 If the applicant's available and would like to present, they can certainly do so. 02:34:07.200 --> 02:34:10.200 I'm not sure if they're muted or unmuted. 02:34:10.200 --> 02:34:11.200 This is Amy Bissett. 02:34:11.200 --> 02:34:12.200 Can you hear me? 02:34:12.200 --> 02:34:13.200 I can, Amy. 02:34:13.200 --> 02:34:14.200 Thanks for being here. 02:34:14.200 --> 02:34:19.200 As the applicant, you have 10 minutes to present. 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 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 02:34:29.200 --> 02:34:30.200 10. 02:34:30.200 --> 02:34:31.200 So -- 02:34:31.200 --> 02:34:32.200 Amy, you are correct. 02:34:32.200 --> 02:34:35.200 You would have 20 with a combined team, so take your time. 02:34:35.200 --> 02:34:36.200 All right. 02:34:36.200 --> 02:34:37.200 Okay. 02:34:37.200 --> 02:34:39.200 Well, I still think we'll be pretty quick. 02:34:39.200 --> 02:34:41.200 Haley, thank you for pulling up the slides. 02:34:41.200 --> 02:34:44.200 Will you advance to the first slide, please? 02:34:44.200 --> 02:34:47.200 First, I do want to introduce my team here. 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 02:34:53.200 --> 02:34:58.200 you momentarily, and we also have our architect and our engineering firm on the line. 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 02:35:05.200 --> 02:35:09.200 the work session and just wanted to clarify a couple of things. 02:35:09.200 --> 02:35:15.200 Haley did mention that public notifications went out and she received no responses. 02:35:15.200 --> 02:35:23.200 We also did invite that same list of neighbors to a neighborhood meeting and received no 02:35:23.200 --> 02:35:24.200 RSVPs. 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. 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, 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 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 02:35:47.200 --> 02:35:49.200 we do and why there are two of them. 02:35:49.200 --> 02:35:57.200 So in very brief response to that, the existing pond that was referenced by Commissioner Beck 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 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, 02:36:09.200 --> 02:36:15.200 to that specific body of water in order to facilitate detention there, which would require 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 02:36:21.200 --> 02:36:22.200 where it is. 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 02:36:27.200 --> 02:36:30.200 that we need to leave room for. 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 02:36:36.200 --> 02:36:37.200 if necessary. 02:36:37.200 --> 02:36:41.200 So with that, I'm going to walk through a few slides here. 02:36:41.200 --> 02:36:45.200 The first one is just to kind of orient you to where this is located. 02:36:45.200 --> 02:36:50.200 Obviously, Acme Brick, this site, they have been there for a number of years. 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 02:36:56.200 --> 02:37:01.200 for redeveloping something that is more compatible with the neighborhood, but it is kind of in 02:37:01.200 --> 02:37:04.200 the heart of Denton in a highly visible location. 02:37:04.200 --> 02:37:07.200 Next slide, please. 02:37:07.200 --> 02:37:08.200 Well, there you go. 02:37:08.200 --> 02:37:10.200 You can see it a little more closely. 02:37:10.200 --> 02:37:13.200 Next slide, please. 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. 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 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 02:37:33.200 --> 02:37:38.200 adjacencies in the way that the town has grown up around it. 02:37:38.200 --> 02:37:40.200 I'm going to introduce Jason Nunley. 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 02:37:44.200 --> 02:37:50.200 you about the company and their intended plans for this development. 02:37:50.200 --> 02:37:52.200 Jason, are you on the line? 02:37:52.200 --> 02:37:53.200 Yes, ma'am. 02:37:53.200 --> 02:37:54.200 Thank you, Amy. 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. 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 02:38:03.200 --> 02:38:07.200 get passionate about this, so forgive me if I ramble. 02:38:07.200 --> 02:38:09.200 As Amy mentioned, my name is Jason Nunley. 02:38:09.200 --> 02:38:12.200 I am a co-owner of Urban Logistics Realty. 02:38:12.200 --> 02:38:17.200 We are a local North Texas-based real estate investment and development firm that really 02:38:17.200 --> 02:38:24.200 has a 15-year history and track record of developing multi-tenant, multi-building 02:38:24.200 --> 02:38:28.200 corporate campuses all over North Texas. 02:38:28.200 --> 02:38:32.200 We are extremely excited about this opportunity on a number of different levels. 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 02:38:37.200 --> 02:38:41.200 the evolution of what's a really fascinating land site. 02:38:41.200 --> 02:38:44.200 Haley, if you could go to the next slide, please. 02:38:44.200 --> 02:38:51.200 So, again, as Amy alluded to, this site has a very distinguished and long history. 02:38:51.200 --> 02:38:56.200 Acme has actually owned the land for over 120 years. 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 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 02:39:06.200 --> 02:39:10.200 of Denton has evolved and grown up around it. 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 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 02:39:22.200 --> 02:39:25.200 a brick fabrication plant. 02:39:25.200 --> 02:39:29.200 But we see an opportunity with this rezoning request to really embrace the city's future 02:39:29.200 --> 02:39:35.200 land plan while paying respect and homage to the history of the site. 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 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 02:39:48.200 --> 02:39:54.200 and identifiable more so than an opportunity to, hey, let's go put up four buildings. 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 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 02:40:07.200 --> 02:40:09.200 or provider. 02:40:09.200 --> 02:40:16.200 So our tenants expect and demand that level of attention and detail and really thoughtfulness 02:40:16.200 --> 02:40:17.200 throughout the project. 02:40:17.200 --> 02:40:20.200 Haley, next slide, if you'd please. 02:40:20.200 --> 02:40:24.200 This is where we are at today with a site plan. 02:40:24.200 --> 02:40:30.200 This is actually site plan probably about 64 in kind of the evolution of the design 02:40:30.200 --> 02:40:36.200 and what we really identified as best and highest use for the site. 02:40:36.200 --> 02:40:40.200 All four of these buildings are designed and intended to be multi-tenant. 02:40:40.200 --> 02:40:47.200 We would envision somewhere between six and probably 10 different companies calling this 02:40:47.200 --> 02:40:49.200 location home. 02:40:49.200 --> 02:40:54.200 So, Haley, next slide, if you please. 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 02:41:00.200 --> 02:41:06.200 corner, it's very different, I would say, than what most of us have been conditioned 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 02:41:12.200 --> 02:41:15.200 target audience and we know our target tenants. 02:41:15.200 --> 02:41:20.200 So we're taking very modern design concepts from office buildings. 02:41:20.200 --> 02:41:28.200 We're sprinkling in design intent and details and nuance from restaurants, from hospitality, 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 02:41:34.200 --> 02:41:39.200 that caters to our class of tenant. 02:41:39.200 --> 02:41:42.200 That's not just accomplished through the building. 02:41:42.200 --> 02:41:46.200 It's very much accomplished through attention to detail. 02:41:46.200 --> 02:41:54.200 We try, when we orient buildings, when we locate buildings to create a sense of place, 02:41:54.200 --> 02:41:58.200 we do that through landscaping, we do that through berms, we do that through textures, 02:41:58.200 --> 02:42:06.200 we do that through materials, we do that through articulation, both horizontal and vertical. 02:42:06.200 --> 02:42:10.200 Haley, could you back up one slide, pretty please? 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 02:42:16.200 --> 02:42:18.200 front door of all four of those buildings. 02:42:18.200 --> 02:42:22.200 So nothing is buried and nothing is in the back. 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 02:42:29.200 --> 02:42:34.200 which, again, is kind of counterintuitive to what most people would dub industrial, and 02:42:34.200 --> 02:42:40.200 I'm highlighting that only because we don't think this product functions solely as industrial. 02:42:40.200 --> 02:42:45.200 It really is a corporate campus environment when we're done with it. 02:42:45.200 --> 02:42:48.200 Haley, could you go forward, please? 02:42:48.200 --> 02:42:55.200 Again, just a little closer look at the elevations. 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 02:43:04.200 --> 02:43:05.200 stain. 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 02:43:11.200 --> 02:43:17.200 applied concrete stain over a decade ago, and we did it because we wanted something 02:43:17.200 --> 02:43:20.200 unique and corporate and different, and nobody had done it. 02:43:20.200 --> 02:43:23.200 We brought consultants in from the East Coast and the West Coast. 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. 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. 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. 02:43:38.200 --> 02:43:40.200 It's like a seven-step process. 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 02:43:45.200 --> 02:43:51.200 nature and quality and characteristics of the concrete underneath it. 02:43:51.200 --> 02:43:58.200 And it's been extremely well received both by tenants and architects just across the 02:43:58.200 --> 02:43:59.200 community. 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, 02:44:03.200 --> 02:44:07.200 and they all were made possible out of artists out of Denton. 02:44:07.200 --> 02:44:12.200 Next, if you would, Haley? 02:44:12.200 --> 02:44:16.200 Yeah, we talk about the evolution of these buildings and how they perform and how they 02:44:16.200 --> 02:44:17.200 behave. 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 02:44:23.200 --> 02:44:29.200 this is what the interior of our buildings recently have looked like and how this space 02:44:29.200 --> 02:44:30.200 is used. 02:44:30.200 --> 02:44:35.200 And they are used by businesses that want to attract and retain talent. 02:44:35.200 --> 02:44:42.200 We have a very high usership from technology companies, light manufacturing kind of on 02:44:42.200 --> 02:44:49.200 the tech side, from training, from materials and supplies. 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 02:44:54.200 --> 02:44:58.200 people would have as a preconceived notion. 02:44:58.200 --> 02:45:00.200 Next, if you would, Haley? 02:45:00.200 --> 02:45:02.200 I guess that's it. 02:45:02.200 --> 02:45:08.200 So I will be here for any questions afterwards or now or whenever. 02:45:08.200 --> 02:45:11.200 Amy? 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 02:45:16.200 --> 02:45:20.200 quickly because I do think Haley and Jason covered everything. 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 02:45:26.200 --> 02:45:33.200 office and warehouse buildings, roughly 446,000 square feet based on the current site plan. 02:45:33.200 --> 02:45:36.200 Next slide, please. 02:45:36.200 --> 02:45:43.200 This kind of shows you overlaid on an aerial what the zoning change actually physically 02:45:43.200 --> 02:45:44.200 would look like. 02:45:44.200 --> 02:45:51.200 So we're maintaining some highway corridor zoning along the frontage while creating a 02:45:51.200 --> 02:45:57.200 more comprehensive zoning across the entire site, including right up against the multifamily 02:45:57.200 --> 02:46:02.200 next door would be the down zoning from heavy industrial to light industrial. 02:46:02.200 --> 02:46:04.200 Next slide, please. 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 02:46:09.200 --> 02:46:14.200 where the ACME site is, but it tends to be a little bit out of sight. 02:46:14.200 --> 02:46:16.200 It is right next to South Lakes Park. 02:46:16.200 --> 02:46:22.200 It is right next to McMath Middle School and it is surrounded by neighborhoods, really. 02:46:22.200 --> 02:46:25.200 Southridge being just on the other side of South Lakes Park. 02:46:25.200 --> 02:46:28.200 Next slide, please. 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 02:46:33.200 --> 02:46:39.200 industrial commerce, everything around it is more low density residential or parks and 02:46:39.200 --> 02:46:40.200 community mixed use. 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 02:46:46.200 --> 02:46:50.200 at the same time bring something that's more compatible to the area. 02:46:50.200 --> 02:46:52.200 Next slide, please. 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. 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 02:47:03.200 --> 02:47:07.200 riparian buffer that is cutting right through the middle of the site. 02:47:07.200 --> 02:47:15.200 And the intent is to offset the removal of those ecological resources by providing the 02:47:15.200 --> 02:47:21.200 enhanced detention ponds that do provide alternative habitat opportunities for any 02:47:21.200 --> 02:47:25.200 wildlife that might migrate out of that riparian buffer. 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 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. 02:47:41.200 --> 02:47:46.200 So this would create a protection that is currently not there. 02:47:46.200 --> 02:47:51.200 And as Christy mentioned earlier as well, we do intend to preserve the trees that are 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 02:47:57.200 --> 02:48:05.200 screen and the detention pond above it as a part of our tree preservation plan. 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 02:48:11.200 --> 02:48:17.200 for an alternative ESA because we are obligated to meet each of these requirements separately 02:48:17.200 --> 02:48:18.200 and independently. 02:48:18.200 --> 02:48:25.200 But in the end, it will create a contiguous preservation area between the detention pond 02:48:25.200 --> 02:48:28.200 and the existing body of water that's south of our site. 02:48:28.200 --> 02:48:33.200 And back to the discussion that you had in work session about the detention pond. 02:48:33.200 --> 02:48:36.200 Haley, if you could put your cursor over. 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 02:48:43.200 --> 02:48:49.200 create kind of a barrier to us being able to access that pond for detention. 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 02:48:53.200 --> 02:49:00.200 to access it, and it really doesn't drain that direction to start with. 02:49:00.200 --> 02:49:04.200 Next slide, please, Haley. 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 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 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 02:49:21.200 --> 02:49:23.200 have that would be more appropriate for them. 02:49:23.200 --> 02:49:27.200 Thank you. 02:49:27.200 --> 02:49:28.200 >> Thank you very much. 02:49:28.200 --> 02:49:35.200 Amy, is there any questions for Amy or Mr. Nunnally? 02:49:35.200 --> 02:49:36.200 Okay. 02:49:36.200 --> 02:49:39.200 I do not have any public citizen feedback on this. 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 02:49:44.200 --> 02:49:47.200 and then discussion. 02:49:47.200 --> 02:49:49.200 Commissioner Ellis. 02:49:49.200 --> 02:49:52.200 >> Move approval of the request. 02:49:52.200 --> 02:49:54.200 >> We have a first for approval. 02:49:54.200 --> 02:49:56.200 Commissioner Beck. 02:49:56.200 --> 02:49:58.200 >> Yeah, I'll second that. 02:49:58.200 --> 02:50:00.200 >> We have a first and a second for approval. 02:50:00.200 --> 02:50:04.200 Any discussion? 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 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 02:50:14.200 --> 02:50:16.200 driving through Denton. 02:50:16.200 --> 02:50:23.200 So thank you for bringing such a high quality project, and hopefully it's well received 02:50:23.200 --> 02:50:25.200 and sells out quickly. 02:50:25.200 --> 02:50:30.200 So with that, I will go ahead and call for a vote via roll call. 02:50:30.200 --> 02:50:32.200 Commissioner Ellis. 02:50:32.200 --> 02:50:33.200 >> Aye. 02:50:33.200 --> 02:50:34.200 >> Commissioner Beck. 02:50:34.200 --> 02:50:35.200 >> Aye. 02:50:35.200 --> 02:50:37.200 >> Commissioner Anderson. 02:50:37.200 --> 02:50:38.200 >> Aye. 02:50:38.200 --> 02:50:40.200 >> Commissioner Pernetta. 02:50:40.200 --> 02:50:41.200 >> Aye. 02:50:41.200 --> 02:50:42.200 >> Commissioner Cole. 02:50:42.200 --> 02:50:44.200 He has a thumbs up as an aye. 02:50:44.200 --> 02:50:46.200 Commissioner Smith. 02:50:46.200 --> 02:50:47.200 >> Aye. 02:50:47.200 --> 02:50:48.200 >> Chair has also an aye. 02:50:48.200 --> 02:50:49.200 Motion carries 7-0. 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. 02:50:56.200 --> 02:51:18.200 I will invite Christy Upton for presentation and open the public hearing. 02:51:18.200 --> 02:51:37.200 And Christy, whenever you're ready, you have the floor. 02:51:37.200 --> 02:51:38.200 >> Sorry. 02:51:38.200 --> 02:51:39.200 Thank you. 02:51:39.200 --> 02:51:48.200 Christy Upton, and I will be presenting an alternative environmentally sensitive area 02:51:48.200 --> 02:51:56.200 plan tonight for the Urban Logistics 35 project that you just discussed. 02:51:56.200 --> 02:52:04.200 The request is for the permanent removal of 1.26 acres of riparian buffer. 02:52:04.200 --> 02:52:07.200 And a little background on the riparian buffer. 02:52:07.200 --> 02:52:14.200 This is a tributary of Hickory Creek, and this ephemeral stream has riparian vegetation 02:52:14.200 --> 02:52:20.200 that supports it, that vegetation was found to be in fair condition. 02:52:20.200 --> 02:52:27.200 And typically, the buffer protection requirements are 50 feet on each side of the stream, and 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 02:52:34.200 --> 02:52:35.200 site. 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 02:52:41.200 --> 02:52:50.200 of the hydrology means that the vegetation, the riparian vegetation that typically would 02:52:50.200 --> 02:52:58.200 grow along these waterways because of the interruption of hydrology is not there, and 02:52:58.200 --> 02:53:04.200 thus, with the lack of presence of the riparian vegetation, the protection requirements do 02:53:04.200 --> 02:53:05.200 not apply. 02:53:05.200 --> 02:53:10.200 A little bit of further background. 02:53:10.200 --> 02:53:19.200 In 2015, staff had identified certain areas, specifically some cross timbers upland habitats 02:53:19.200 --> 02:53:26.200 that had previously been mapped and were found to be fractured and isolated and would never 02:53:26.200 --> 02:53:35.200 meet the criteria for 10 acres and that criteria being required for the protection requirements 02:53:35.200 --> 02:53:42.200 to apply to those forested areas, and that's specifically the cross timbers upland habitat 02:53:42.200 --> 02:53:45.200 protection requirements. 02:53:45.200 --> 02:53:51.200 And with that identification of these areas that were less than 10 acres, staff removed 02:53:51.200 --> 02:53:55.200 the protection requirements by removing the designation. 02:53:55.200 --> 02:54:07.200 It just, it made sense to do this where the requirements would never apply. 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 02:54:16.200 --> 02:54:24.200 place the warehouse and infrastructure supporting the warehouse where the riparian buffer currently 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 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 02:54:43.200 --> 02:54:45.200 buffer. 02:54:45.200 --> 02:54:53.200 To offset the ecological features and functions that are offered by the riparian buffer, the 02:54:53.200 --> 02:55:02.200 applicant will be installing or upgrading the detention basins with native grasses and 02:55:02.200 --> 02:55:08.200 herbaceous plants and by planting a wetland fringe mix, a drain field mix and a wildflower 02:55:08.200 --> 02:55:16.200 mix that will kind of transition along the banks of these detention basins and provide 02:55:16.200 --> 02:55:23.200 habitat, future habitat to migrating birds and other wildlife. 02:55:23.200 --> 02:55:30.200 In addition, the applicant is proposing this conservation easement that would be placed 02:55:30.200 --> 02:55:38.200 over 2.11 acres of Crest Timbers upland habitat and permanently preserving that upland habitat. 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 02:55:47.200 --> 02:55:52.200 as in soil topography and vegetation is just, it was less than 10 acres. 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 02:56:02.200 --> 02:56:13.200 forest that would be preserved by, with the intent of meeting the tree preservation requirements. 02:56:13.200 --> 02:56:23.200 Notifications were sent out and there were no responses, except for a response from a 02:56:23.200 --> 02:56:29.200 nonland owner in opposition to the project. 02:56:29.200 --> 02:56:38.200 The recommendation is to permanently remove the recommendation is for approval with the 02:56:38.200 --> 02:56:44.200 following conditions to permanently remove the repairing buffer that limiting that to 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 02:56:52.200 --> 02:57:00.200 and filed with Denton County and within 14 days of the construction of the detention 02:57:00.200 --> 02:57:08.200 basins that the detention basins be covered with the vegetative coverage that was described 02:57:08.200 --> 02:57:15.200 in Exhibit C and then the last two conditions being the typical request by environmental 02:57:15.200 --> 02:57:27.200 services that the applicant provide as a report and to ensure 90% survival of the vegetation 02:57:27.200 --> 02:57:37.200 as was shown in Exhibit C. And with that, I will take any questions. 02:57:37.200 --> 02:57:39.200 >> Thank you for the presentation, Christy. 02:57:39.200 --> 02:57:41.200 Is there any questions for Christy? 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 02:57:45.200 --> 02:57:50.200 available for questions if there's any questions of the commission. 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 02:57:54.200 --> 02:57:56.200 person make comments using the online form. 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 02:58:02.200 --> 02:58:07.200 form was emailed to the commissioners and our city secretary to be recorded. 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 02:58:13.200 --> 02:58:15.200 the public hearing. 02:58:15.200 --> 02:58:17.200 Commissioner Smith. 02:58:17.200 --> 02:58:20.200 >> Approved with staff recommendations. 02:58:20.200 --> 02:58:23.200 >> First for approval, Commissioner Anderson. 02:58:23.200 --> 02:58:26.200 >> I'll second, but can I say something real quick as well? 02:58:26.200 --> 02:58:27.200 >> Absolutely. 02:58:27.200 --> 02:58:29.200 >> I just want to reiterate what you said. 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. 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 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, 02:58:46.200 --> 02:58:48.200 like you said. 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 02:58:53.200 --> 02:58:55.200 something that they're doing. 02:58:55.200 --> 02:58:59.200 So anyway, kudos to the developers. 02:58:59.200 --> 02:59:01.200 >> Commissioner Beck. 02:59:01.200 --> 02:59:03.200 >> Thank you, Chair. 02:59:03.200 --> 02:59:07.200 Yeah, I actually want to sort of agree. 02:59:07.200 --> 02:59:13.200 I have -- if you noticed, I had no comments about the other item and actually seconded 02:59:13.200 --> 02:59:15.200 the motion. 02:59:15.200 --> 02:59:24.200 I think the development is reasonable development with, you know, interesting potential. 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 02:59:34.200 --> 02:59:37.200 and the need of the development. 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. 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 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 02:59:56.200 --> 02:59:58.200 a good job. 02:59:58.200 --> 03:00:01.200 I commend the architects and the engineers on that. 03:00:01.200 --> 03:00:09.200 I understand the limits of our existing code, you know, specifying that that is not quote 03:00:09.200 --> 03:00:11.200 unquote a green space. 03:00:11.200 --> 03:00:15.200 But Christy, I'm also a biologist. 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 03:00:20.200 --> 03:00:23.200 engineers and developers harmless on this one. 03:00:23.200 --> 03:00:33.200 But I -- we are making a mistake to constantly pay -- you know, what's the phrase? 03:00:33.200 --> 03:00:35.200 Steal from Peter to pay Paul. 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 03:00:40.200 --> 03:00:42.200 gas well region. 03:00:42.200 --> 03:00:44.200 We don't want to adjust the water table around a gas well. 03:00:44.200 --> 03:00:49.200 Once again, we see gas wells contributing to lack of proper development in our municipal 03:00:49.200 --> 03:00:51.200 environment. 03:00:51.200 --> 03:00:57.200 I understand, you know, we need to maintain -- you're going to have waterfowl and whatnot. 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 03:01:04.200 --> 03:01:05.200 alt ESA. 03:01:05.200 --> 03:01:11.200 What we are doing, though, is chopping up what little green corridor goes from that park 03:01:11.200 --> 03:01:19.200 to the northwest, the little strip of verge north, chopping that up, fragmenting the forest 03:01:19.200 --> 03:01:23.200 even further around down to South Lakes Park. 03:01:23.200 --> 03:01:26.200 We're just slowly chopping up all that green space. 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 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 03:01:35.200 --> 03:01:40.200 things all out of there because we wanted to put a detention pond. 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 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 03:01:53.200 --> 03:01:58.200 corridor, green space ordinances, and that really, really needs to be fixed. 03:01:58.200 --> 03:02:01.200 So we don't -- I don't have a handle to grab onto. 03:02:01.200 --> 03:02:03.200 I don't have a problem with the product. 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 03:02:11.200 --> 03:02:14.200 a good quality environmental existence in Denton. 03:02:14.200 --> 03:02:16.200 So I'll leave it there. 03:02:16.200 --> 03:02:17.200 >> Thank you, Commissioner Beck. 03:02:17.200 --> 03:02:19.200 Commissioner Pernetta. 03:02:19.200 --> 03:02:23.200 >> Yeah, and, you know, kind of along the lines of what Commissioner Anderson said and 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. 03:02:29.200 --> 03:02:34.200 I mean, anything to do with an all ESA or something like that comes up. 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 03:02:39.200 --> 03:02:46.200 more sense what we're doing going forward, particularly because, you know, that patch, 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. 03:02:52.200 --> 03:02:57.200 It's unsightly, and I always wonder what the hell is going on with it. 03:02:57.200 --> 03:03:00.200 So I have no problem voting for this one. 03:03:00.200 --> 03:03:03.200 You know, kind of along the lines of what Commissioner Beck said. 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 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 03:03:13.200 --> 03:03:18.200 because we need affordable housing in this area and we can only get that through more 03:03:18.200 --> 03:03:19.200 density. 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 03:03:26.200 --> 03:03:31.200 grow we keep Denton beautiful, it would be nice to have, you know, council, you know, 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 03:03:38.200 --> 03:03:39.200 too large a number. 03:03:39.200 --> 03:03:41.200 I don't know what the sweet spot would be. 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. 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 03:03:53.200 --> 03:03:59.200 our town but making sure that we are taking care of the environment because ultimately 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 03:04:03.200 --> 03:04:05.200 of as we go forward. 03:04:05.200 --> 03:04:07.200 I support the project though. 03:04:07.200 --> 03:04:13.200 Great looking project and, you know, a lot of good work and, you know, documentation 03:04:13.200 --> 03:04:14.200 and everything. 03:04:14.200 --> 03:04:15.200 Thank you. 03:04:15.200 --> 03:04:17.200 >> Commissioner Beck. 03:04:17.200 --> 03:04:19.200 >> I just -- something just occurred to me. 03:04:19.200 --> 03:04:25.200 ACME being a brick facility, they have a lot of airborne pollutant heavy metal waste. 03:04:25.200 --> 03:04:27.200 Do we test that soil? 03:04:27.200 --> 03:04:32.200 I mean, I would hate for these developers to develop a lovely property and have 03:04:32.200 --> 03:04:34.200 contaminated soil. 03:04:34.200 --> 03:04:36.200 Does anyone know? 03:04:36.200 --> 03:04:38.200 This isn't going to affect my vote. 03:04:38.200 --> 03:04:42.200 This is actually more of a warning to the developers. 03:04:42.200 --> 03:04:47.200 I hope that you do not have contaminated soil because I know traditionally like cement 03:04:47.200 --> 03:04:51.200 factories, brick factories are dirty. 03:04:51.200 --> 03:04:53.200 They're really dirty. 03:04:53.200 --> 03:04:58.200 So I don't -- you know, I would encourage you to test your own property. 03:04:58.200 --> 03:05:03.200 I guess I'll say that to the architects and the engineers. 03:05:03.200 --> 03:05:07.200 Have we ever tested that land around there? 03:05:07.200 --> 03:05:09.200 Maybe that's a Christy question. 03:05:09.200 --> 03:05:12.200 >> I don't have any background on that. 03:05:12.200 --> 03:05:14.200 Sorry. 03:05:14.200 --> 03:05:17.200 >> That's okay. 03:05:17.200 --> 03:05:18.200 Thank you, Chris. 03:05:18.200 --> 03:05:23.200 >> Jason, if you would like to answer or if you have insights, Commissioner Beck. 03:05:23.200 --> 03:05:25.200 >> Yeah, I certainly do. 03:05:25.200 --> 03:05:27.200 Forgive me if I'm acting out of order here. 03:05:27.200 --> 03:05:30.200 This is my first time doing this virtually. 03:05:30.200 --> 03:05:37.200 But yes, sir, Commissioner Beck, we have extensively gone through phase 1, phase 2 03:05:37.200 --> 03:05:41.200 environmental -- environmental. 03:05:41.200 --> 03:05:43.200 I mean, for our sake, we have to. 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 03:05:48.200 --> 03:05:50.200 and do it right. 03:05:50.200 --> 03:05:52.200 So it's essential for us. 03:05:52.200 --> 03:05:54.200 And we very much shared your concerns going into it. 03:05:54.200 --> 03:06:00.200 But I can tell you that we are over that and understand that none exist. 03:06:00.200 --> 03:06:02.200 >> I appreciate that insight. 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. 03:06:06.200 --> 03:06:10.200 Any other further discussion on this? 03:06:10.200 --> 03:06:12.200 Seeing none, I will call for a vote. 03:06:12.200 --> 03:06:15.200 I will call for a vote via roll call. 03:06:15.200 --> 03:06:17.200 We'll start with Commissioner Ellis. 03:06:17.200 --> 03:06:18.200 >> Aye. 03:06:18.200 --> 03:06:20.200 >> Commissioner Beck. 03:06:20.200 --> 03:06:21.200 >> I reelect it, yes. 03:06:21.200 --> 03:06:22.200 Aye. 03:06:22.200 --> 03:06:24.200 >> Commissioner Anderson. 03:06:24.200 --> 03:06:26.200 >> Aye. 03:06:26.200 --> 03:06:27.200 >> Commissioner Pernetta. 03:06:27.200 --> 03:06:29.200 >> Aye. 03:06:29.200 --> 03:06:30.200 >> Commissioner Smith. 03:06:30.200 --> 03:06:31.200 >> Aye. 03:06:31.200 --> 03:06:32.200 >> Commissioner Cold. 03:06:32.200 --> 03:06:35.200 Commissioner Cole is giving me a thumbs up as an affirmative. 03:06:35.200 --> 03:06:37.200 Chair is also an aye. 03:06:37.200 --> 03:06:39.200 Motion carries 7-0. 03:06:39.200 --> 03:06:41.200 Congratulations and best of luck. 03:06:41.200 --> 03:06:43.200 >> Thank you. 03:06:43.200 --> 03:06:49.200 The next two items, item 5C and 5D, are being postponed to a date uncertain. 03:06:49.200 --> 03:06:51.200 So they will be renoticed. 03:06:51.200 --> 03:06:55.200 The commission tonight will take no action on those two items. 03:06:55.200 --> 03:06:59.200 Which moves us to our concluding item, the Planning and Zoning Commission Project Matrix. 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. 03:07:07.200 --> 03:07:08.200 >> Thank you. 03:07:08.200 --> 03:07:10.200 Just a brief update. 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. 03:07:16.200 --> 03:07:19.200 And as well as the weekly submittal project maps. 03:07:19.200 --> 03:07:23.200 And then just to walk through the interactive map to show everything that's available. 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. 03:07:31.200 --> 03:07:33.200 And so it's a work in progress. 03:07:33.200 --> 03:07:36.200 But at least wanted to provide that update. 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. 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. 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. 03:08:04.200 --> 03:08:06.200 They did take action on the birch track. 03:08:06.200 --> 03:08:09.200 Both the land use plan amendment and rezoning. 03:08:09.200 --> 03:08:11.200 Both of those were approved. 03:08:11.200 --> 03:08:17.200 The rezoning, although PNZ did recommend the condition restricting the use. 03:08:17.200 --> 03:08:21.200 Council did not include that restriction. 03:08:21.200 --> 03:08:24.200 So it has the straight zoning of R6. 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. 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. 03:08:36.200 --> 03:08:39.200 And those were the council action items from yesterday. 03:08:39.200 --> 03:08:43.200 And with that, I'll be happy to answer any additional questions you may have. 03:08:43.200 --> 03:08:44.200 >> Great. 03:08:44.200 --> 03:08:46.200 Commissioner Bec? 03:08:46.200 --> 03:08:47.200 >> Thank you, chair. 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. 03:08:53.200 --> 03:08:56.200 And I've gotten a lot of really positive feedback. 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. 03:09:10.200 --> 03:09:13.200 We could certainly fulfill some of that role and staff can too. 03:09:13.200 --> 03:09:17.200 But I've gotten a lot of really good feedback. 03:09:17.200 --> 03:09:19.200 I had two questions. 03:09:19.200 --> 03:09:22.200 People asked me -- they didn't see -- and maybe we just overlooked it. 03:09:22.200 --> 03:09:25.200 It was in a different overlay. 03:09:25.200 --> 03:09:28.200 Was tonight's ACME brick on that map? 03:09:28.200 --> 03:09:30.200 I assume it was, but I didn't see it. 03:09:30.200 --> 03:09:34.200 I saw the little frontage piece along Fort Worth or not Fort Worth. 03:09:34.200 --> 03:09:36.200 Yes, that's right. 03:09:36.200 --> 03:09:37.200 >> I'd have to check. 03:09:37.200 --> 03:09:39.200 It should be on there. 03:09:39.200 --> 03:09:41.200 It should be linked. 03:09:41.200 --> 03:09:42.200 >> Maybe I just overlooked it. 03:09:42.200 --> 03:09:43.200 >> Yeah, I could check. 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. 03:09:50.200 --> 03:09:54.200 And that is people love the map, so there's really positive feedback. 03:09:54.200 --> 03:09:56.200 So I really want to encourage that. 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. 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. 03:10:12.200 --> 03:10:14.200 But I actually like your idea. 03:10:14.200 --> 03:10:18.200 I think it's a good point of a sort of public education campaign. 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. 03:10:27.200 --> 03:10:31.200 So I can report back as we progress. 03:10:31.200 --> 03:10:34.200 >> I've used it a lot, actually, since you pointed it out to me. 03:10:34.200 --> 03:10:39.200 I pretty much do every single backup and check over the map. 03:10:39.200 --> 03:10:45.200 So I really appreciate it myself. 03:10:45.200 --> 03:10:51.200 >> Richard, I have two things, one of great import, one of zero import. 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? 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. 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. 03:11:16.200 --> 03:11:18.200 That's the comment. 03:11:18.200 --> 03:11:20.200 >> For the upland habitat, right, the 10 acre. 03:11:20.200 --> 03:11:21.200 >> Yeah, exactly. 03:11:21.200 --> 03:11:22.200 Thank you. 03:11:22.200 --> 03:11:24.200 That was the important note. 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. 03:11:30.200 --> 03:11:32.200 Glad to see that. 03:11:32.200 --> 03:11:34.200 You were in the office earlier with the mask on. 03:11:34.200 --> 03:11:36.200 I didn't get to appreciate it. 03:11:36.200 --> 03:11:40.200 Is there any other items for the matrix? 03:11:40.200 --> 03:11:41.200 Okay. 03:11:41.200 --> 03:11:43.200 Seeing none, thank you for a great meeting. 03:11:43.200 --> 03:11:45.200 I'll close this at 730. 03:11:45.200 --> 03:11:46.200 Have a great week. 03:11:46.200 --> 03:11:47.200 >> Thanks.