Sep 13, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2017-09-13 4:30 PM

Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for September 13th. This meeting has been duly posted and we do barely have a quorum present and I will call us to order at 435. This will be our work session and our first order of business will be to welcome two new members Mr. Alfred Sanchez thank you for joining us. Thank you. And Mr. Timothy Smith thank you. Welcome aboard and both of you all. And with that I will turn the meeting over to Shandria Shandrian for presentation of our agenda this evening. Okay good evening. The first item on the agenda is the consent agenda and I wanted to see if there was any discussion on the the items that we have here. We have six plats. There's some two prelims a final plat two plat vacations and then another prelim for this associated with the plant vacations . Are there any questions about those or any discussion? Commissioner Rose ll. Thank you chair. This is why I believe my first plat vacation that I've seen and I guess it's standard to vacate the plat and then do a preliminary plat at the same time because it looks like is that what that's what's happening here with the Carmel villas they're vacating and then preliminary plat in the new one. Do they usually happen in tandem like that? Well typically the ultimate goal is to replat and so in order to do that they'll have to vacate the original plat do the prelim and then do the replat. So this is just the first step in that process. Okay thank you. Any other questions on the consent agenda? Okay we have one item for individual consideration which is to consider and appoint a member for the P&Z subcommittee I mean this P&Z vice chair wrong meeting. We're gonna do that right now we're gonna do that in our public session. So no discussion we'll do all of that in the main the regular meeting? Council chambers. Okay and then we have five public hearing items and I'll invite Haley Zagorski up for our first item which is a replat for the Brinker substation. All right good evening. Let me see if I can get this rotated for us. Okay so this is a replat for the DME substation on Brinker Road. The purpose of the replat is to replat an existing lot as well as take in acreage that was previously unplatted and with this replat they're also abandoning some old right of way that you can see here for Morish Road. So it's got multiple components going on but in essence they're creating one larger lot and abandoning right of way. Do you have any questions on the plot? I don't have a question on the plat but do have a question in general. Are they currently over there doing site work on that? Is that what's being done there on this area now? I believe they do have a minor site plan for some ground work over there. I'm not aware of the specifics of that work though. Well I knew there's work being done and it looks like it was that area so I just was curious if that's what the work is in regards to this site here. I believe it is. Okay thank you. The next item is a zoning request for property located at the southwest corner of Teasley and Old Alton. All right so this is case Z1717. It's for the relocation of Pioneer Automotive. So the request is to hold a public hearing and consider this request to rezone approximately a half acre from a neighborhood residential mixed-use zoning district to a community mixed-use general district and this property as you see outlined here in yellow is located roughly at the southeast corner of Teasley Lane and Old Alton Road. So looking at what immediately surrounds the property you can see it and land to the west are currently zoned NRMU. Just to the west here we have an electrical transfer station and some other land that just has a dry v ial on it currently. To the south of the property you can see the hatched area is all part of the city's ETJ so that hasn't yet been annexed into the city. There's multiple facilities in this area though we have an athletic training facility to the south. This is a self storage facility over here to the southeast. We have ICE district so industrial center employment to the east of the property and that is along the frontage of Teasley Road and it consists of some offices and some access points for this industrial park that's to the south. We have CMG district directly across Teasley that's the Geyer High School property and then we also have NR2 district in this area and I want to take a second on that because it at first glance when you look at the map you see what appears to be a distinct parcel of land here just to the north of the subject property. That's just I guess an error in our map we don't have those layers updated yet from the county. All of this area if you look at the most recent tax maps is dedicated right of way for Teasley Lane so that NR2 district isn't necessarily associated with a particular parcel that will all be incorporated into Teasley at some point. If we look a little bit further out you can see some more it's going on in the area as I mentioned we have this office and industrial park here that's in a mixture of ICE and ETJ. This property here has recently been developed with an auto repair shop and here you can see DM I believe that's actually a TXU electric transfer station and then Geyer High School's property across the street. So just to give you an idea of this general area of town I'm sure you're all familiar we have Old Alton Road coming up from the south Teasley Lane this is very close to the current city limits. You can see Geyer High School here to the north these two parcels just closest to the subject property were recently rezoned for Geyer to expand and then we have a lot of unincorporated area out here that hasn't been annexed into the city yet. So looking at the future land use for this area because of this major intersection we have here at Teasley and Old Alton this area serves as a primary gateway to the city for people coming from the east and from the south . So this area was designated in the Denton Plan 2030 for community mixed use and that designation is for areas where we want to promote a mixture of uses predominantly commercial but with other supporting services and some residential uses mixed in as well to kind of create a sense of place in a community center for the surrounding neighborhoods. And the goal over time with this area is to promote that mixture of land uses that can serve we have surrounding neighborhoods to the north much of Corinth is residential here and so the goal would be to create kind of a gateway to the city here with high design standards that can welcome people in from either direction and support those existing neighborhoods. Just to give you an idea of how these districts compare they are very similar in terms of the regulations for these areas you know similar lot area lot coverage permitted building height being the same. So the primary intent with this rezoning is just to get to CMG because it matches the future land use designation and it permits the use that the applicant is ultimately wanting to develop on the site which is auto repair. Just looking at the mobility in this area and how the site would be accessed it currently has frontage on Old Alton at some point when Teasley is expanded there would be lanes for Teasley much closer to the subject property. Teasley is under improvement by text audit this time its intent is to ultimately be a six lane divided road way. Old Alton is intended to be a four lane divided roadway at some point there's no immediate plans for that expansion but this immediate intersection is being improved with a signal being added there and some turn lanes because Geyer High School will have a drive aisle that punches through straight across from Old Alton at some point. Notifications were sent about this case we received two favorable notices back from the property owner and from the owner that has the self storage facility immediately to the east of this. And staff is recommending approval of this request based upon it being compatible with the surrounding zoning and land uses. The district is appropriate at a prominent gateway to the city because it does allow for those high commercial standards and it also consistent with the Denton Plan 2030. And I can stand for any questions. Commissioner Smith. So the applicant is of course aware that the expansion of Teasley is going to be happening so any building they put onto it if we do rezone it that they will be ready to make sure all accommodations are can allow for the right of way to come up closer to them correct? Yes sir the property's already been platted and that right of way has been dedicated. Anything else? Thank you Hailey. The next two items C and D have been postponed to the September 27th meeting at the request of both of the applicants and that leaves us with E which is a DDC amendment related to development agreements and I'll invite Jim Jinx up for a presentation. Before we get started on that item I'd like to get a clarification from legal being that I'm engaged in the development business and residential and commercial construction on building permits that I can participate in this item and it's not a conflict of interest. We did look at that I know originally we thought it was 2E but in regards to item 4E I do not think that you have a conflict of interest in this item. I will participate in this item thank you. Good evening everyone I'm Jim Jinx with the development review engineering division and I've got a presentation here for the developments improvements to our development agreements and basically we are trying to achieve a few different objectives here. We frequently get requests from developers to file a plat shortly after a P&Z approval and prior to their hiring of a contractor and they're entering into the three-way development contracts that are required to get the project into construction. We're trying to as our code is currently written it doesn't allow us to do that until those three- way contracts between the city contractor and developer have been fully executed. We're trying to find a way to facilitate filing the platts at a sooner time while still protecting the city's interest and then as with a lot of our recent initiatives and ongoing initiatives we are trying to also help streamline the pre- construction process eliminate some inefficiencies and we can we'll talk about specifically how we will be doing that but this is one that's those are the two main aims of this initiative. If you can see that this is an outline of our current process. The process from starting at final plan approval at the P&Z meeting until a project gets into construction both on the public improvements and the private improvements. To kind of walk you through this what our practice has been is that you can see after the final plan is approved by P&Z. Jim I need to interrupt. Will you put the PowerPoint in presentation mode for the team? I may need a hand on that. Okay. Katie's coming to help. Glad to. Thank you. Yes much better. Thank you. Basically after the final plan is approved by planning and zoning see the next step is the three-way contract execution and again as I said that is a that is a standard form that the city has been using for I understand we started using it it's something like 1987 and basically it is between the city the developer and the contractor it requires the developer and the contractor to build the public improvements associated with the private development project by public improvements I mean public water mains sewer mains public streets public drainage facilities requires that they build those to the requirements of the approved plans it gives us the right to inspect that construction it requires that the work to be bonded performance bond and typically if it meets a certain threshold payment bond as well and it also establishes the two-year warranty period the city has that begins at the point at which we accept the public improvements typically the process between a plant getting approved and the developer entering into this contract with a contractor getting it submitted to the city with all the required bonding and insurance requirements and getting it reviewed and approved by the city fully executed by the parties here at the city who have to sign off we find at a minimum that typically takes six weeks we unfortunately had many examples in which that six weeks has been exceeded and that's typically a point of consternation on a project for a developer who's anxious to get going on the project or at the very least get their final plat filed oftentimes we understand that they're the filing of the final plat is a is a significant or required milestone to be reached in order to get financing for their project so basically we face this long step right now as you can see on here from approval to execution of the three-way contracts after that you can see in the the steps below that once those are executed we can have our pre-construction meeting the plat can be filed parallel to that we've got the HHA listed here that's the hold harmless agreement for projects other than single-family residential let me back up our code stipulates that no private improvements may be started in terms of construction until the public improvements have been constructed and accepted now that's no big deal for a residential subdivision for single-family but for anything else multifamily commercial industrial that's almost always the applicants will seek a way in which they can run those two construction tasks concurrently our code does allow for that provided that the applicant enters into a hold harmless agreement we issue that following the execution of the three-way contract and then the applicant will sign that and record it at the county so the bottom line here is after we've had the pre-construction meeting the plaque can be filed which handles the public improvements the hold harmless is executed which would address the private improvements the building permit can be issued the site permit to building permit whatever pertains to the public private improvements what we're trying to do what we're proposing after much discussion internally and a lot of thought and energy put into it and research we're trying to get it to where we can break out the filing of the final plat much sooner and what we thought might help facilitate that is basically breaking the agreement into two agreements so now instead of a three-way agreement we've got two two-way agreements the first being between the city and the developer I'll get into the particulars of the major terms of these here next but basically once that agreement was signed that would facilitate the plant being filed following that which I brought my pointer I'm sorry but following that the two-way agreement between the city and the contractor could be executed and that's unlike our current process that can be done at the leisure of the developer really sometimes they are not in a hurry necessarily to get the project under construction or enter a contract with a contractor but they are in a hurry to get the plat filed this separates the two and gives them some flexibility following that we would we would have the pre- construction meeting and the permit could be issued because I should have mentioned in that first two-way agreement we would fold in the current hold harmless language and I'll explain more about the whole harmless agreement basically that states that the developer signs the whole harmless agreement and in that they acknowledge that they are allowed by the city to commence their private improvements before their public improvements are complete but that they will not be issued a certificate occupancy until the public improvements are complete and they will hold us harmless if we put a stop on them in that way. One thing I should mention is this would be we would also propose adding a standard note to plats going forward in conjunction with this. It'd be on the face of the plat and we would clarify that no lots shall be sold no construction of private improvements shall be authorized to begin until a two-way agreement between the contractor in the city that's the latter two-way agreement is fully executed which would legally bind the contractor to construction of all public improvements associated with the plat. That way no one would that way it would be made clear that there may be public improvements that have yet to be constructed despite the plat being filed so everyone is sort of on notice. Getting into the first of the two-way agreements that I mentioned the major terms there would be a performance bond included as an attachment that would be a performance bond between the developer and or in the name of the developer. In practice it would basically bind in the performance bond it requires that they have to get a surety bond that they will construct the work in the three- way contract or the development contracts. It binds them to performing that. In the past we have been it's the typically the contractor that acquires those bonds but you know interestingly we found in the Texas local government code it does state actually section 212.073 it says the developer must execute a performance bond for the construction of the improvements to ensure completion of the project. A weakness of the current three-way contract document form is that it binds the contractor to completing the work but it does not bind the developer so if you have the case of a contractor who's installing say a new street or a new turn lane or something and halfway through halfway through the job his developer his his client stops paying him we have we currently don't have a recourse to go after the developer. This change would address that. Now also we would also require a three-way or excuse me a performance bond sorry. I think you can use the up and down arrows. We would also require a performance bond. With the city and contractor agreement. So there would still be a performance bond on the contractor in this in this latter agreement and all the other terms of our current through a contract would apply payment bonds insurance certificate conformance to the plans our right to inspect the warranty period and so forth. Main difference is the developer would no longer be named in this agreement. We believe this would help improve the process just kind of to summarize again it would allow the plat to be filed several weeks earlier which I think would be from what we hear would be beneficial to a lot of developers. It would also allow the plat to be filed without the developer having to enter into a contract with the contractor. I believe plat's expire two years after plat a P&Z approval if there's no three-way contract so there would still be that provision but if the developer wanted some time between plat filing and entering a contract with a contractor this would facilitate that. This would also eliminate the separate whole harmless agreement being that again that language would be folded into the first of the two-way agreements here the thought being it would simplify the process. I would be happy to answer any questions at this time. Commissioner Roselle. Thanks chair. Thank you for the presentation. I have a couple questions. You mentioned that y'all the staff had spoke internally about this was there outside council brought in from like developers about this process? We've had some input from one. Okay. We've also talked to a shorty. Okay. And they we've but the the party who who did give input we made aware of the public hearing tonight and at the upcoming City Council meeting and invited them to give input. Oftentimes when there's changes like this we hear comparisons to other municipalities local to our area. I consider a lot of developers cross city lines it seems to make sense to align the process so that developers in Louisville could come to Denton and have similar kind of processes. Are other cities doing a double two-way agreement with contractors and developers is this kind of standard or how does this compare to other processes? Sure. Hi how are you? Good. Good evening commissioners. Wanted to give you some background or the history behind these three ways and why we are where we are this evening. It's actually a very exciting moment for us. We have been analyzing for a couple of years now where the discrepancies or the deficiencies do lie in our development code where it hind ers the ability for applicants to continue to proceed with their processes. So when I talk about processes I'm referring to their applications or their specific applications. We have a myriad of applications in the system from planning to site plan approval to civil engineering or construction engineering plans and what have you. One of the things that we highlighted in March was the fact that there was a lot of redundancy and time wasted or a time wastage component associated with requiring the three- way agreement to be clumped together the way it is because what was happening is when you have an applicant who says I think this is what I'm going to do so I'm going to put all my paper in order right I'm going to have all my drawings in order but I'm not ready to execute and actually go to the to the next level of actually doing flat work perhaps or going vertical but I am ready to start looking at my opportunities and start project planning my program this gives them the ability to say we will allow you to move forward because they might not have that contractor in line at that time so the burden of the onus falls upon the applicant or developer rather in this case to go ahead and say I need to find a contractor I need to make sure all the bonding is in place at that time. In the meantime while that developer is doing that guess what we still haven't executed their plat and nor have we filed their plat for record for them so they're just sitting there so this could impact their financial obligations would they be still paying for this property as they're moving forward so that's one disconnect secondly that glut of the three-way agreement and the review of it falls on the DRC engineering reviewers at that time however it's actually a two-part step where you have the initial agreement which is the first two way that Jim was trying to explain and he was very eloquent in that and the second step is when it comes to I 'm ready to actually do something so I have my contractors in place let's move on it now and that's more of a public works function and that's where that review would occur so what have we done we've actually saved in essence to some degree weeks of timing or you've actually saved financial obligation on the developer that is the intent so when you talk about why did did we then benchmark this process did we look at other communities absolutely we did we sat with the city manager's office and looked at these examples and ideas to see what other communities do some are more like some are more strict we use the larger communities we looked at the smaller communities as well and try to figure out what is best for us how do we address this but again we also have to stay in the parameters of the local government code which provides that that burden of proof on on the developer as it relates to is this a large DDC amendment and does it warrant us to go and pull the community I wouldn't disagree with you or the development community I wouldn't disagree with you it would not but we also find that this is one of the quick fixes that we can implement quickly and keep moving so that we don't have further redundancy and how in what we're doing so it's actually a process improvement and it should not cause undue burden I will use a name here Lee Allison has been instrumental not just as representative of DCDA but also you know he's provided some insight and he may have comment today I'm sure he will have comment today at the public hearing and I'd like to take that in but I really don't want to pause this process unless it's absolutely necessary it is scheduled for council on October 17th if I'm not mistaken and that will give us a good opportunity in a window to maybe take in more comments if we need to or maybe tweak or adjust but this this basic framework that we're proposing to you really does add value to our development community both large and small thank you Manal and one more question maybe for legal is what is PNC's responsibility to understand these agreements are we just approving that the function is going from a three-way to a two-way or should we as a body be looking at this agreement more in detail because we looked over the major terms but is it our responsibility to approve the minutiae as well no which you're approving is actually in front of you tonight it was handed out to you and it's just going to be a couple of surgical changes within the DDC as to what agreements are required where there will be more detail probably in the construction criteria manual which is currently as you know being amended right so you'll get some more information that way but the actual agreements themselves you really have no jurisdiction over but you have jurisdiction over the DDC so that's why we have to have a public hearing today in order because it 's a dual public hearing process in order to amend the DDC for our new people so that's why we're here today but it also in response to what you were saying when we were looking at other communities and we sort of did do a benchmark process and Manal is correct a lot of them were either more strict or more relaxed but this was a way in order for us to comply with both the local government code for the subdivision regulations and also the government code which is for public infrastructure and that requires the performance and payment bonds with the contractor and whereas the local government code requires the performance bond with the developer and so we just came up with this process in order to streamline it so we think this is the best that we could do for Denton given the background that we have in the current codes we have in place and the state of the law and clearly we were missing that in our three-way agreement it wasn't in compliance with statute so I think this is a good fix in my opinion it's on the heels of we want to actually be in line or in line with the criteria manuals that Jennifer is talking about so that we can incorporate everything in one time so timing is of the essence and we do not want to compromise anybody's ability to respond to any this we do have about a month window now perfect thank you Commissioner Smith Commissioner Roselle asked a lot of the questions that I was going to ask but just a clarification I think I was writing a note when you said it the there is a failsafe for timing out process correct if they get if they get their plotting and the time between getting the plotting and then having the contractor get the second two- way agreement if that goes too long the plot will fall apart correct is that what I've there is a plat note so they wouldn't be able to proceed they wouldn't even get their building permits to move forward okay so I want to know thank you thank you I have a couple questions I may have missed it I think I was reading when the contractor signs their two-way whose bonding takes over at that as a time as the contractors bonding or is the developer bonding still in place I believe if I'm not mistaken it would be contractor bonding but you would have a signature block for the developer for the contractor to maintain his contract with the developer but that two-way with the part with that that two-way agreement would be contractor plus city okay because I see that as a possible issues during the construction really the contractors their bonding is one that needs to stand behind the performance and payment typically and then just thinking out loud again just kind of get my hands around this I don't know how difficult it may or may not be for developers to get bonding because typically every time we've done these in the past it's the contractors the bonding is based on their work experience their performance and those types of things and so I don't I'm not familiar with that versus the other problem actually Jim Jenks did his research in due diligence on that and I think you research that with if you want to elaborate on that because the expert on this communicate with a local surety about that and we we understand that in practice it more often it is the contractor that gets the bond but it's not uncommon for the developer to get the performance bond okay and like I said interestingly that the local government code names the developer as the party that must execute the performance bond so we've apparently been out of compliance and we're trying to rectify that and then one other question is I remember reading through when you were talking about lots there was a clause about you can't sell lots until you have I want to say the second the contractor bonding in place correct so the only question I would have and I know you all are in the early stages and this is kind of our first time how is that going to impact what we call paper lots the ability to sell paper lots where we get a piece of property get it preliminary platted and ready to go and then a third party buys that property quote-unquote entitled and I don't know how this language may or may not impact that business transaction so that may be something that needs to be discussed a little bit more and talk through how that may or may not impact that possibility and that's something that we can review that's independent of the language that's included in the change for tonight okay okay and then that and I may have missed it at the beginning there was talk about no private improvements in residential but you can do it in commercial is that changing that you can do now residential prior to substantial completion or not not for single-family residential and just one multifamily and why is that not the case why is it excluded in the others are permitted trying to recall if it's I believe we just kept it as it was yes yeah I believe it's worded that way currently in our code and there would be no change to that proposed here I understand and that's why I'm asking the question is I know in commercial and in multifamily we do phasing as to why there's not some type of a provision for that to be done in single-family residential that it may take four to six months or whatever to get a home built and it would be nice once the streets are paved and you have fire access while you're doing all your franchise utilities and other things if you can go in and begin building those homes and you have marketable homes available at substantial completion versus you have substantial completion everything's completely finished and then you're able to begin building homes but it takes four to six months to be able to get product finishes up four to six month drag there that's just a kind of a dead time and not very productive for the parties that are involved financially and maybe an opportunity for us to look at that as well just so that I'm clear and the records clear the suggestion that you're making is to separate the type of improvement like the roads have to go in but then while you're waiting for the other franchise things to go in you can start well it'd be similar to I think what you're doing in the commercial that you'd have to do a whole harmless and and then once you sign the whole harmless and I would assume it'd be similar to what we get into with commercial that you can't go vertical until you've met your fire marshal requirements of being able to have access 150 feet each way and all those types of things that then you would be allowed to begin building homes while you're in there doing DME at all your franchise utilities all your fences entryways and all those types of things it just is would be a an efficiency thing while we're talking about efficiencies that would help as well that would actually require a change in the version that you have before you tonight so you would have to make a motion to provide for that so that we can change it accordingly and bring it to council okay I was just going to point out the current code and and that we haven't changed that wording allows as many as four model homes to be to be constructed before the public improvements are accepted right I understand that that's why I was wondering if there's a way to look at because again you're you have a four to six month lag on marketable they're not going to sell the models look they're gonna keep those so there's a four to six month lag between substantial completion and then you 're able to actually have a marketable product that you can sell and close so there's a four to six month lag in there that would be an opportunity to take a look at and see if there's a way to do that incorporated so those would be my comments I'm open to the idea I think it's time to update and I see a positive with it and a few questions that just are outside of my realm of expertise or knowledge that would like to get some more information on but I think it's on the surface it's a it's an improvement and a good idea thank you any else questions on this item I just wanted to mention as I was Commissioner Sanchez sorry I'm sorry okay just so I can say timeout for for those of you that are new on the Commission the only reason that we try to do introductions is so in the back we have these meetings are recorded and they do the minutes and so it's very helpful for staff that is recording our meetings to be able to know who says what when they're doing all the minutes back there so that's why I like to try to recognize you and if we get into crosstalk help me with giving you an opportunity to introduce so the guys in the back know who's talking so Commissioner Sanchez yes as I was listening to it and some of the experience I've seen and heard from contractors is the process is very time consuming and the idea of something like this seems to bring out that you are working towards making the process simpler and it does look like it's you know it's something to try I agree with it thank you yes that is a major point of focus for staff for sure okay thank you Jim thank you all okay with that we've kind of gone through things fairly quickly this evening that's our work session and so I will close our work session at 515 and we will reconvene in council chambers at 630 thank you everyone , thank you. Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning commission meeting for September 13th this meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and I will call us to order at 630 our first order of business will be to stand and give the pledge the US and the Texas flag one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag and pledge allegiance to thee Texas one state under God one indivisible. As chair I'm going to take a moment and go off agenda we have two new commissioners with us tonight and I would like to welcome mr. Alfred Sanchez to our Commission thank you for agreeing to serve and also mr. Tim Smith and appreciate you being willing to service well Tim welcome to our Commission the next item on our agenda will be our consent agenda Commissioner Roselle I motion to approve the consent agenda okay the chair would entertain a second Commissioner Smith a second to accept okay we have a first and a second for approval any discussion seeing none we will call for a vote on the board motion carries four to zero we'll make an announcement for some of you all we'll draw your attention that we do have two items on our public hearing tonight that have been postponed that is item C that is going to be the 3.2 acres that there are in our six to NRM you which is Z 17 - zero zero one three and then the second item that has been postponed is item D which is Z 17 - zero zero one five it is the 73 acres over on the corner of loop 288 and McKinney Street and those are both being postponed to September the 27th want to make that announcement for anybody who's here so you don't have to wait as we go through the rest of our agenda those but both of those will be back September 27 two weeks thank you for coming out tonight sorry give just a second to let the room clear okay back to our agenda we have approved our consent agenda and we will now move on to our items for individual consideration that item will be to consider and appoint a member of the planning and zoning Commission for vice chair and the chair will make a motion for Commissioner Roselle and I make that motion based on your experience and tenure here on a board and so I would put that motion forward for consideration Commissioner Smith I second that motion to accept Commissioner Roselle as a vice chair okay we have a first and a second any discussion okay that I will call for a vote on the board that motion carries four to zero congratulations and thank you for being willing to serve you that will move us to our public hearing section this evening and at this time I will open a public hearing for fr 17 - zero zero one zero and I will call on Haley's aversely for presentation good evening this is a replat of property that is used as a DME substation out on Brinker Road and let me get it rotated here so this plat the purpose of it is to combine some previously plotted property with unplatted property and make one larger lot for the subst ation there is also a right-of-way for Morse Road that is no longer used and is being abandoned by this plot and I can answer any questions any questions for staff thank you Haley this is a public hearing anyone who would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time anyone to speak on this item seeing none I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion Commissioner Roselle I motion to approve fr 17 - 10 okay Commissioner Smith I second the motion to approve fr 17 - 10 okay we have a first and a second for approval any discussion seeing none we will call for a vote on the board that motion carries four to zero we'll move us to public hearing item B this time I will open the public hearing for Z 17 - zero zero one seven and I will call on Haley for presentation of this item as well this is case Z 17 17 it's for pioneer automotive so the request is to hold a public hearing and consider a request to rezone approximately a half acre from neighborhood residential mixed-use district to community mixed-use general district and you can see outlined here the property is located on the southeast corner of the Teasley and old Alton Road intersection looking at what's surrounding the property you can see we have a mix of zoning districts here the subject property and property to the west are zoned in our MU to the south you have in the hatched area area that's in our extra territorial jurisdiction so that property hasn't yet been annexed into the city we have ICE district to the east that is along Teasley Lane and features some industrial office park uses across Teasley we have CMG our community mixed-use general district that property is associated with Geyer High School and then we have some in our two districts here to the northeast and on the map you also see NR two district immediately north of the property these are no longer separate parcels all of this area has been platted and this is actually all dedicated right of way for Teasley Lane so in the future this will look much just different when the road is expanded to its full width if we zoom a little bit further out you can see here there's an electrical transfer station nearby you get a better idea of the mix of uses here in this office an industrial park that 's partially in the city partially still in the ETJ there's a sporting facility directly south of the subject property and then you can see a mix of commercial uses across Teasley to give you a better idea of this general area you can see the Geyer High School campus is just north of the subject property we are very close to the city limits here so there's Corinth is just a little ways over to the east and then we have a lot of land that's still here in the ETJ to the south and west of the property looking at the future land use that was designated for this area under the Denton plan 2030 it's designated as community mixed use and that designation applies to areas where we're trying to promote a mixture of uses predominantly commercial but with a mixture of other services and some residential uses as well this particular area was designated with this because you can see here old Alton Road from the south and Teasley that combination creates a pretty prominent gateway into the city for people coming from the south or the east so the goal with this designation for this area is to over time promote a wide mixture of land uses primarily commercial uses that can support the existing neighborhoods in the area as well as new neighborhoods that may develop in the future and help create kind of a sense of place and a prominent entry point to the city of Denton just to give you a brief comparison of the two zoning districts here you can see based on the general regulations that NRMU and CMG are fairly comparable the goal with this rezoning is to obtain CMG because it matches that future land use it gets the area where we're wanting to go with it and that district also allows the applicants intended use of auto repair which is not permitted in NRMU but other than that as you can see here the districts create fairly comparable design based on lot coverage and landscape area requirements if we look at our mobility plan we have Teasley which is a primary arterial and old Alton which is a secondary arterial that adjoin the property Teasley is ultimately intended to be built out as a six-lane divided roadway it's under improvement by tech stock currently old Alton is intended to be a four-lane divided roadway there's no immediate plans for those improvements there but this intersection is being improved with some turn lanes and a signal is being placed there as Geyer High School expands to the south and creates a new driveway for the school notifications were sent about the request before the meeting we had received two in favor the owners of the subject property as well as the owners immediately to the east staff is recommending approval for this request based on it being compatible with the surrounding zoning and mixture of land uses the district is appropriate at a prominent gateway because it allows us to have the commercial design standards in place and it's also consistent with the Denton plan 2030s designation for this area and with that I can stand for any questions any questions for staff thank you Haley again this is a public hearing anyone who would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time I have no cards from anyone seeing none we will close the public hearing and we'll open the floor for discussion or motion Commissioner Rizzo I'll just keep going here I move approval of Z 17 - 17 okay Commissioner Smith second the motion to accept Z 17 - 0 17 okay we have a first and a second for approval any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board motion is going to carry four to zero as I announced earlier items C and D have both been postponed until September the 27th so if you're here for either one of those items or watching online those will be back before us currently on the 27th item C and D both that will move us to item E on our public hearing at this time I will open DCA 17 - 0 0 1 0 and I will call on Jim Jinx for presentation congratulations and best wishes on your project good evening as one of the many process improvements that the city is looking at doing on the development review side I've got here for presentation to you tonight some agree revisions to development agreements sorry what one particular area focus has been streamlining the the pre- construction phase of a development project from the period from approval by the P&Z to the kickoff of construction both private improvement construction and public improvement construction and this is that's what this effort is focused on and I'll explain how as we go through it basically the the objectives here are to facilitate an expedited plat filing for the benefit benefit of the developer it's a request that we frequently get to to file the plat early we have to make sure of course that it's done in a way in which the city's interests are protected and as I mentioned we also want to just with this and other initiatives we're working on help streamline the pre-const ruction process to shorten the timeline this diagram here represents a simplified version of our current process basically starting at the top you see the the final plat approved by the P&Z and then the next step is our current three-way development agreements those are forms that we have in place and have been using for many years the three parties involved are the city the developer and the contractor you can see on the far right I've got a I've got a timeline listed here this is this is what we are accustomed to seeing in engineering development review we're we're sort of the main party that processes these agreements for the city and typically as far as the time for the developer to get the agreements to together and submit them and have them executable and have them executed we see a timeline of about six weeks sometimes we can it's shorter than that sometimes it's longer than that but that's sort of a more or less a reasonable best-case expectation and you can see fault it was not till following that that we can have the pre-construction meeting and the filing of the plat there in the lower left so that and that is how that's a function of how our development code is currently written it requires that sequence so and then following that also if for for anything other than single-family residential development well let me back up our code stipulates that no private construction improvements may begin until all the public improvements have been installed and accepted unless a hold harmless agreement which is the HHA that's listed here is executed by the developer basically that involves in that agreement the developer says acknowledges that he has been allowed to proceed forward with his private improvements but he will not be issued a CEO by the city until his public improvements are complete and in the event that his CEO his CEO is held up because of that issue he will hold the city harmless so that has to be executed that's a separate step currently in a precursor to the issuance of any sort of private building permit there at the bottom the next slide is the proposed change we have before you starting again at approval by P&Z of the final plat we go on what we've done here is essentially break up the existing three-way development agreement into two two-way agreements the first would be simply between the city and the developer and I will in my next slide to go through the major terms of what that agreement will have but basically once that is signed the plaque can be filed and as you can see on the far right we're anticipating that can be done realistically within a couple weeks of the plat being approved by P&Z so that's a big improvement on the six weeks plus that we are currently seeing and we get these requests to file plat early from developers we hear and understand that often it's developers financing is tied to that milestone so in an effort to come help accommodate the development community we are again trying to break that out toward that milestone can be reached much sooner so going down on this chart the next step would be the two-way agreement between the city and the contractor that would other than subtracting the developer from that because he's already under agreement for the previous step that agreement would be very similar to how it is currently worded once that is done then we can proceed on to the pre-construction meeting and and I should have mentioned in the first agreement there we were also proposing to roll in the current hold harmless agreement language into that first two-way agreement between the city and developer our current whole harmless agreement is names the developer he's the one who has to sign it and record it so it makes sense that it could be folded into that agreement and that would eliminate that separate step which is usually not we usually can't initiate that until the full three-way agreement is signed so again that's six weeks plus out in in conjunction with this we would we propose requiring a standard note being added to the plant the plat the face of the plat very prominently clarifying that no lots shall be sold no construction of private improvements shall be authorized to begin until the two-way agreement between the contractor and the city is fully executed legally binding the contractor to construction of all public improvements associated with the plan that way it is the intent there is that it be made clear to anyone looking at the plat that there there may be public improvements that have to be installed and that none of the private improvements may be begun before that step the two-way agreement delving into that a little bit more this is the first of the two sequential agreements we're proposing it would include as an attachment a performance bond signed or issued to the developer a current three-way contract has a requires a performance bond be attached and it is it is issued to the contractor kind of a what we perceive as a weak point of that agreement is that there's nothing with the developer not named there's there's nothing binding the developer and I should point out that per the Texas local government code section 212.073 it states quote the developer must execute a performance bond for the construction of the improvements to ensure completion of the project so we are trying to make sure we are in compliance with that as part of this effort also it would as I mentioned they would incorporate language from our current cold harmless agreement documenting that we will not issue a certificate of occupancy until the developer has completed all public improvements associated with the plan and then also it has the language that is currently in the form that all construction will comply with the fire code as to emergency access and water for firefighting purposes being provided at all times during construction the next agreement the second of the two between the city and the contractor this one the the terms would be as I say that similar to those of the existing three-way contract except the developer is no longer a party them having been a party to the previous agreement so this would still as it currently does include his attachments performance and payment bonds insurance certificate so the contractor would still be bound and require construction be done in conformance with the approved plans you know document our right to inspect the public improvements and document the two-year warranty period following acceptance of the public improvements to kind of summarize what we what we anticipate these changes would achieve it would allow the plat to be filed several weeks earlier and again that is to accommodate a frequent request we received from developers but also certainly it will also allow the plat to be filed without the developer having in having to enter into in a contract with the contractor now the same requirement will still be in place they would still have to enter into that contract within two years of the plat approval which is our current requirement but again this way they could get their plat filed without entering with contract with a contractor in case they were not quite ready for that step and we do encounter that and then it would eliminate the separate whole harm's agreement again that that language would be incorporated into the first of these two two-way agreements and simplify the process and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions we talked about a couple of them in work session I'll just bring them up here again in public session I would like to go back to the slide I think we talked about it some at length about the residential the single- family to where it's prohibited to be able to sell any of those until substantial completion I believe or right until it's a two-way agreement could could that be substitute between contractor to where it says developer because if it has to be contractor there's not a way to do what are called paper lots to where you get all the entitlements done and be able to sell them that that would prohibit that business transaction so I would like to put that before us to consider obviously the building permits are only going to be available once the contractor agreement is in place so it might be that we need to separate those two but since it doesn't affect the language on the code tonight we can we can actually discuss that further I think there's two issues I think that would be one that would prohibit paper lots and then the second issue that I asked about in work session had to do with no single-family residential being able to begin except for the four models until substantial completion and is made and so I don't know where that language on your slides are but if there was it's it's not on the slide it's um that that policy or that requirement is the current requirement so there's no change currently being proposed to that unless we'd like to suggest that we can consider that we can discuss that we will okay well I'd like if we get further in into this and get around to making a motion that we would be able to do that if there's a hold harmless agreement put in place just like is done with multifamily and commercial I don't see a reason to exclude one type of construction when we allow it with commercial and multifamily because I think it's a four to six month waste of time at least for the development community to miss out on an opportunity there so we'll can talk about that further if there's not a slide for that those would be mine two initial suggestions otherwise I'm all for trying to continue to improve and streamline the processes with the city normally I like to see a little more detail and see all the things I understand that this is a process and there's a time frame and I think based on our work session that there's going to be some additional discussions I think there's going to be some reach out to stakeholders in the development community to actually go through this in a little greater detail and provide some actual copies of the two-way agreements and some other details that I'm comfortable moving this forward on to City Council when we get to that point this evening with the understanding that there is going to be some some engagement and some reach out to the development community and stakeholders to to make sure that this is definitely what's intended is a streamlining and to make this process more user-friendly so thank you and I've got a couple other questions or comments Commissioner Smith mr. jinx we talked about it in the public or in the the work session we asked about Commissioner Rozelle and then I echoed it we asked about contemporaries other cities and municipalities who have this type of this type of two-way agreement this sequential two-way agreement here can you for the public record can you guys name or does anybody in your office know the names of the other contemporaries we've looked at the other municipalities so we can use that as a reference I personally was not involved I may defer to other staff here if they can contribute but I know that this effort and that research has been ongoing since at least March myself was was been involved more recently and as she comes down the the reason why I asked is because if we're out of if we are out of compliance with the Texas Code how many other cities are like that are they facing the same issue and if we are going to be fixing it is this something that other cities have already fixed and we'd like to at least know what are the municipalities have done this just so we have an idea of a frame of reference sure mr. Smith to address your question in terms of the benchmarking study we conducted the team looked at a number of communities from Plano to McKinney to surrounding adjacent communities however when it comes to addressing the question are they out of compliance what we were looking at specifically is how do they do their their development agreement so to speak as it relates to for example Fort Worth how do they do it we're pretty similar to what they were proposing something very similar to what they're doing right now so in terms of looking at the legalities and seeing who was in or out of compliance as it relates to state requirements that that exercise obviously was not conducted but the exercise that we did conduct was trying to understand how long for instance does a specific application stay in the process and now let's look at what we do in Denton and is it taking an extraordinary longer time than it should and in this case we felt that it was taking too long in terms of our parameters and our metrics and we wanted to understand what is the delay what is the trigger for the delay and it was realized it was the agreement or the length or the the onus or the owner or the requirements of the agreement that were causing a hardship earlier on in the development process so those are the that's the tangent we took in terms of our study and our benchmarking great and before I relinquish my chance to speak just want to agree with our commissioner as long as we do except with the new language to match both residential as well as commercial and multifamily commissioner real zone thank you chair I asked this in work session but I just want more clarification there by men all or by legal are is our vote tonight approving the framework of a sequential two-way agreement or are we actually approving the ordinance language that we were provided what we're doing tonight is actually approving the amendment to the DDC which can be substantially the ordinances in front of you if you want to make some minor changes to it that's fine and then we can bring that forward to council so to chairs concern earlier in section e2 is is changing this language something that needs to be done tonight or is approving this and moving it forward the language about the single-family residents can that be done after or does that need to be called out tonight I think that it would be fine if you wanted to make a motion to approve the ordinance subject to a change and give us what that change would be then I think that would be sufficient okay thank you any other questions for staff seeing none this is a public hearing I do have one card wishing to speak Lee Allison in support good evening I'm Lee Allison with Allison Engineering Group 2415 North Elm Street Denton Texas first I'd like to express my admiration to staff for taking the risk and the effort to work on fixing our codes and ordinances and bring him forward for great scrutiny by a large number of people everybody who wants to pick on everything and nobody who wants to say anything good about it and yet this is a wonderful thing to see happening and I appreciate it I'm glad for it do have a few comments one developers they do ask for the plat to be filed but for two reasons one is to get financing and the others to sell lots with the note on the plat this doesn't accomplish the selling lots goal not to say that it shouldn't be done it just doesn't get that part of it there that much quicker when it comes to financing it'll be interesting to see what the financing companies say because a lot of times they don't want to release the financing until the contractor and all the people who are really going to make it happen are in place and they don't want to start making funds available before that's there so this might have a practical concern there I do have a suggestion in that between paragraphs a and B you might want to add a paragraph something like a development agreement required before constructing public improvements there's no explicit language in here saying that such an agreement is required it is implied in a couple of places by saying that such work cannot proceed until that's done but it doesn't say you have to go get one secondly in the current paragraph B it seems it'd be prudent to require the contractor to be at the pre-const ruction conference as well and not just the developer and the city organizations and you'd need to consider whether you want the developer to have his two-way agreement in place or not before having that pre-construction conference then as I listen tonight and I'm sorry for these last-minute comments I like to if I'd been able to see things in advance I really like to give staff comments and not say as much here but is a two-way developers agreement really required it's not required in the local government code it's something the city has come up with and why do we want to put a performance put a performance bond on the same project twice why didn't the developers performance bond sufficient and provide the city with adequate protection would it not be possible to consider having a construction permit to be issued after the developers agreement that has a checklist of items pardon me such as construction cost estimate payment of inspection fees liability insurance etc. that could be provided and not even have to go through a two-way developer agreement with with the city I mean I'm sorry a two-way contractors agreement with the city then I just curious and when I say that not asking of y'all but concerns would be the ability of developers to get the appropriate bonds I know that's been heard that it's been issued in the past but usually that requires a track record it requires substantial financial abilities and while large developers may be able to come in here and accomplish that can the person who's trying to develop a small one lot development or a small four or five lot development have the wherewithal to go and get that kind of bonding or financing I think there's a lot of practical elements that are beyond the scope of the local government code or our city ordinances that do or do not allow these kind of things to come into place and would encourage to have some kind of a backup plan in case we have a backlog of developments that can't happen because developers cannot accomplish this I was surprised to hear that the three-way agreement as we have it is not in compliant with the local government code my understanding was the reason three-way agreements were developed was so that the developer and the contractor were in an agreement together with the city and therefore the contractor was providing the bonds in accordance with the local government code but as it was read tonight it doesn't say provide the bonds it says execute the bond so I 'm not sure exactly how that worked and I might suggest a little bit more look into that but I do appreciate the concern in the effort got the question sorry for you go commissioner thank you chair thank you mr. Allison for being here and helping provide some context from your perspective you said a couple things that I wanted to clarify specifically you brought up the idea of the the need for a contractor city agreement whether that needs to be there or not which I think is a valid question but you also said earlier the idea of duplicate bonds being issued of the developer performance bond and the contractor performance bond and then lastly you were talking about rightfully the difficulty a developer might have in getting a performance bond putting all those together if we don't have a contractor agreement and you don't in the performance bond on the developer is hard to get then that effectively removes any bonds does that make sense and how do we go about oh it wouldn't remove the bonds that kill the project right wouldn't have a project but you have the bond on the contractor well but you couldn't but your plat wouldn't be filed you couldn't go to work because you don't have your developer agreement with the developer and his bond is required by the local government code so to put the steps in place first you have to have a two-way agreement with the developer where you obtain the bond under that developers agreement with that bond in place why do you need another performance bond from the contractor to bond the same project that the developers already bonded I think I track with that but you also have a concern about the developer procuring the bond to begin with as well though correct in many cases yes and that's just a practical consideration sure sure that's where we would need input from both banks and or fine financers and bonding companies in detail is to it's easy to call up a bonding company surety and say would you bond oh yeah we do that all the time but what are their conditions what are their requirements and prerequisites may be very difficult for developers to comply with their qualification requirements I know staff talked to surety providers was there any explicit detail about how a bond is issued to a developer and what the requirements are for that type of surety performance bond is that a question for staff that is for a question for staff sure I think it's a valid point in my own personal discussion with a surety we did not get into that level of specific specificity others at the city may have I'm not sure okay but you know I will just say we appreciate Lee's input these are good points to consider and we will consider them we still have some some improvements and tweaks to make in this process in these forms and it's it's not too late to make them and and we will keep these concerns in mind as we finalize these I appreciate that and Manal said in work session the the priority to keep this going and the importance of this for projects but I don't want to sacrifice good developer and contractor language to get projects done at the risk of an urgency to process this so my concern would be if mr. Allison and other developers who hopefully will be talked to you have concerns goes back to my initial question can we approve the framework with those type of things being changed between now in council commissioners oh absolutely what we can do is we can use this next month to go ahead and start fine-tuning and incorporate or discuss with Lee Allison and other members of the development community we have reached out to a few who seemed amenable but it wasn't a detailed conversation at that time so our intent is to get the ball rolling on this move forward as a recommendation with the conditions that you're discussing if if those conditions are in fact void once we determine how we want to do that we can also iterate that at the council meeting then upon further review and evaluation with our legal team and our engineering team that this was the best way to approach it but definitely we'll revisit the plat note or revisit the the bonding requirements as well and make sure all our eyes are dotted and teased across and if we feel we're not ready at that time we will not proceed so a motion tonight could include language that would require the condition to speak to developers or without explicitly putting language in how do we make that motion so in terms of your motion if you think you want to add a condition that relates to the residential component or removing the plat note you know making sure that there is no plat note attached to something that you saw in your presentation in terms of reaching out to the community or or or as it relates to the due process we have notified the request per our local government code requirements and public hearing has been set and we will definitely reach out to to Lee as well and he has some valid points definitely we always seem to meet and discuss issues such as these anyway we also have the design criteria manual that's moving forward so we're hoping to tie everything in together if there are conditions that you're proposing I would limit them to the ordinance opposed to you know we know we should meet with the community if you want to add that you're more than welcome to but we will definitely reach out to Lee tonight after tonight's meeting thank you I have a couple of comments along that with some of the points that mr. Allison made is one of the concerns I haven't I think we spoke about it between work session is currently it's requiring two sets of bonds so you're gonna have double cost you have a cost of rich taming bonds as a developer and a cost of attaining the same bonds as a contractor and I bonded a number of projects and I can't recall if there's a way to hold the bonds without them actually going into full effect and if then you got a contractor bond in place you could just let the developer ones expire I can't recall when those go interactive I know we've done that with a multitude of projects where we bid and have to provide a bond or evidence of a bond but unless you're awarded the project you actually don't incur the bonding cost and so there may be some discussions with sureties on exactly how that process would work where you're not duplic ating bond costs because they are expensive and the second point is is accurate that it it does it is a process it's not like getting car insurance there is a pretty good process to get bonding it is based upon experience and a track record and it is a period of time typically that you are able to build up a history of performance that you do projects complete projects in a timely manner and all the other things to be able to get larger and larger and larger bonds and as part of that also having the financial backing to be able to stand behind and get those issued so I think those are valid points that are the details that are a very good idea I think it is again a good idea to go down this road to try to streamline it but I do think we need to look into those couple of areas specifically and make sure that this has the intended outcome at the back end that we intend on the front end of making it easier and more streamlined with that I don't know that we have anyone else that would like to speak I don't have anybody else here on the board but I will make one final call that this is a public hearing and if there's anyone who would like to come forward to please do so at this time and seeing none I will close the public hearing and I will open the floor for discussion or a motion Commissioner Roselle thank you chair I would love to see this go forward I am at a loss of how to word a motion and I I I worry about the motion not being right if it's done spot spontaneously so I'm wondering if it would it would make sense not to lag the process down but to continue the item to the next meeting so that we could have opportunities to talk to mr. Allison and kind of shore up some of these things about the residential language the chair had mentioned the plat language that prevents sales this double bonding issue and even the idea of a contract contractor city agreement and the need for that and so some of those concerns seem that's five right there just to put motion with those conditions to move it to council and this body not even be able to see it again it just go to council with the hope that that's tough for sure let's make an inquiry to staff if we continue this to our next meeting the 27th does that allow you all to continue on the timeline that you're working towards with council chair person strange if I'm not mistaken we are optimistic the we're optimistic that we can hit the October 17th council meeting for this item which means we could actually push this item to make sure we address Commissioner Roselle's mr. Allison's and of course your concerns and questions that did come up we want to make sure that we do have the right answers we believe we do but we want to be able to clearly articulate those to yourselves I would recommend we push to the first meeting on October which would still give us time to hit the council meeting if I'm not mistaken and I need our legal councils be available too so I'm looking at my calendar and I'm actually gonna look to Shandrin when is the first meeting in October do you know that's October 11th if if that would be cutting it close are you sure you want it the 11th or the do you want the 27th which is the next meeting right but the 27th we might have some absences and I want to make sure that we have the right people at the table to have the conversation and you know hopefully we don't get to that point but we it gives us the three weeks to actually diligently pursue answers to these questions you would have to reopen the public hearing because I heard you close it so you'll have to reopen it to continue so we don't have to re-notice it just as kind of as we're brainstorming here if we did it to the 27th and we aren't able to get all of this addressed then it could possibly push on to October the 11th if we are able to do it it's done and if not we then get a little bit I think that 's a fantastic idea yes absolutely okay and as a point of order since we are going to continue some here and I'd be my motion be a motion we'll can rest ate that here in a minute I'm going to reopen this item and I'm gonna give the number is item DCA 17 - 0 0 1 0 I had closed it inadvertently before the discussion of continuation so we will reopen this item and it will be continued to a date certain and we will look for a motion here to set that date so I'd motion to continue item DCA 17 - 0 1 0 to date certain September 27th okay Commissioner Smith I second that motion okay we have a first and a second to continue to September the 27th of this item any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board the motion to continue passes and thank you everyone for a great presentation and I think a very good discussion with a number of good points for us to talk about when this comes back also we're going to have to go back in our agenda to item C and D and I'm going to we're going to need to do the same procedure here to continue both of those items so we will do those individually okay so at this time I'm going to open item C which is Z 17 - 0 0 1 3 and the chair would entertain a motion to keep this item open and continue it to a date certain of September the 27th Commissioner Roselle I motion to continue items Z 17 - 13 to date certain September 27th okay Commissioner Smith I second that motion okay we have a first and a second to continue to September 27th any discussion seeing none we'll call for a vote on board that motion will carry 4 to 0 and at this time we will do the same thing on item D I will open the item to open the public hearing for Z 17 - 0 0 1 5 and the chair would entertain a motion to continue that item to September the 27th Commissioner Roselle thank you chair I move that we continue items Z 17 - 0 0 1 5 to a date certain of September 27th Commissioner Smith I second that motion okay we have a first and a second to continue to September the 27th any discussion seeing none we'll call for a vote on the board and that motion carries 4 to 0 I'm just gonna turn to legal I believe that is all of the items that we had that's correct cleaned up okay that will bring to a close our public hearing section tonight and that will move us to our final item which is going to be our project matrix Commissioner Roselle thank you chair Commissioner Beck asked for a tree code status update we're waiting on a special session at the state to end since that's concluded can we get that back on our agenda to figure out what we're doing about the tree code yes thank you anybody else okay with that I will close our meeting at 725 this evening thank you everyone and appreciate all the discussion tonight