Oct 20, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2021-10-20 5:00 PM

Good afternoon, and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, October 20th, 2021. This is our work session, and with the quorum present, I will call us to order at 512 PM. Let the record show that Commissioner Anderson is absent at this time. Our first order of business in our work session is citizen comment on the consent agenda. Do we have any citizens in the audience wishing to speak on the consent agenda? And staff, we have no callers, correct? I will take the silence as yes, we have no callers. So we will move on to our work session reports. A is receive a report, hold a discussion on board and commission attendance and removal policy. I will invite our city secretary up for presentation, hi. >> The Planning and Zoning Commission, my name is Rosa Rios, and I'm your city secretary. Let me go ahead and share my screen here. So I'll be presenting the Board and Commission Attendance Policy for Boards and Commissions. So to provide a little bit of background, the Code of Ordinances does set a certain attendance policy for Board and Commission members. It sets four certain excused absence criteria, as well as that the City Council will approve any absence, that it does not fall within that excused absence criteria. It also notifies or details a notification process, not only for the board members, but also for the city secretary's office. As you can see here, the excused absence criteria is personal or family illness, death of a family member, jury duty, service in the armed forces, testifying before the legislature, attending a seminar that relates to your responsibilities as a board member, and absence necessary for the member's business or employment. So the absence notification requirements are the member will notify the chair or the staff liaison of their inability to attend an upcoming meeting, and that should be in writing. And of course, an email will suffice. It's important that you notify as soon as possible, and of course, that the notice be received in advance. It does allow staff to plan accordingly, and of course, to ensure that there's going to be a quorum of the Board or Commission. And there is a requirement that such notice be received at least within 10 days of after the absence occurred. Again, an email will suffice. We do not need any supporting documentation. It does need to state the purpose, whether or not it meets the excused absence criteria or any other purpose, and again, it's accepted at face value. Staff is really very good about notifying our office if we're not in that initial notification from the member, and we will respond accordingly. We did establish a Board and Commission member attendance guidelines, kind of easier at a glance versus the council rules, because it kind of spreads out some of the requirements. We also developed a board member notification form, and you're not required to use it if it's, you know, the purpose is for an excused absence, but we do encourage you to use that form if it does not meet the excused absence criteria, and I'll explain that process in a little bit. So, in processing the notice of the absence, we will review, my office will review the notification and determine whether or not it meets the excused absence criteria. We will notify the member if it does meet the excused absence criteria, you need to not do anything else, we'll acknowledge as such, and the attendance record of the member will reflect that accordingly. If by chance it does not meet the excused absence criteria, you will be notified, the member will be notified immediately, and you do have the ability to seek an exception from the City Council for that absence, and the key will be that that request has to be received within 10 days, as of the date of the absence, which of course we will do in the next meeting, which of course would be the meeting date. In the interim, the absence would be noted as an excused, and if no request is received within those 10 days, the absence does remain as an excuse and there's no ability to seek a council exception, and then of course if a request for an exception is received, we schedule it as soon as possible, place it on the consent agenda for the City Council, and they have basically been approving the absences, and they have a very good understanding that sometimes things come up last minute and there's just no opportunity to attend the meeting. So at the City Council meeting to consider the final decision from the City Council, it is adoption of a resolution, a copy of that resolution will be provided to the member as well as the staff liaison, and the member's attendance record will reflect that accordingly, and of course if the absence were to be not excused, then that absence remains permanently unexcused, but so far to date that has not happened. So the attendance requirements, there is a removal process, there's certain other areas under which a member could be removed, of course that is for cause, but typically if a member's already seated, those don't come into play with the exception of the attendance requirements. So section 2.83 outlines the need for the members to attend the meeting and advise either the chair or the liaison prior to the meeting starting or being held, and then the 2.83C3 does outline that if a member has more than three unexcused absences, that does click the possible removal clause under the charter, and then of course if a member misses 50% of scheduled meetings within a given year, and the way that we calculate a year is basically a rolling year, it's a 12 month period as the next month comes on, you know the last month at the bottom drops off, so it's always that 12 month period. And again, the City Charter does reference that members of boards and commission members shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council, and that members may only be removed for cause that is subjective, it is not a requirement for the City Council to remove a member, it's totally up to them when the item comes up for their consideration if at all. So to continue, if a member has more than three unexcused absences, again at that 50%, my office will send the member a letter advising them of the reason, you know why they're receiving the letter, and that they have 10 days to submit a resignation, or the City Secretary is required to place an item on the City Council agenda requesting removal of the member, again City Council does not have to remove the member, and if a resignation is received, then of course we vacate the seat immediately, and notify the respective nominating council member. And if no resignation is received, again we place an item on the agenda, the resolution for removal will note your name, the board, and of course the reason for the removal request, and then once adopted it does become a permanent record of the City Council. Again the letter will ask for a resignation within the 10 days, certainly it is the prerogative of the member to decide whether or not they want to resign. There's certain scenarios that kind of come into play, if you ever get that letter, or if any member gets a letter, please give me a call and we can certainly discuss the options. Some members have opted not to resign, some members have opted to submit a reason, you know why they would appeal to council to not remove them, and some members have gone ahead and contacted their council member, the council members are well aware of the process, and council members will go ahead and resign, and the council member does have the ability to go ahead and basically immediately reappoint, nominate, and reappoint the member, depending on when we did the vetting at last, you know, for the last time for that term. We may do some additional vetting, however, again, the council member can choose to reappoint, we have had that happen. There's been extenuating circumstances where all of a sudden, you know, a member just has had some attendance issues where maybe before they had a really good attendance record, the council members are very understanding of that, and, you know, that's the reason why they opt to go ahead and appoint them, so that's also an option. Again, the letter kind of requests a resignation within 10 days, if no resignation is received, it does take a little bit of time to coordinate with the city attorney's office to place the item on the agenda for them to review all of the paperwork, and we will advise the member of when the item is scheduled for consideration, and the member does have the opportunity to submit their resignation up to the time of posting, even really up to even before the council meeting starts, and we would notify the council that that item does not need to be considered. Again, it does not mean that you cannot be reappointed, be it to that same board or possibly another board, and again, we do kind of encourage you contact our office, and we'll be happy to kind of, you know, provide some additional guidance if need be. As you can see here, this is typically what the resolution will look like, and if the member, as you can see here in red, if the member provides a reason, then we'll kind of modify that resolution. Whatever the communication is that was sent to the member, those are exhibits to the resolution. Again, they become a permanent record, and so we try to kind of encourage the member to contact us and let us talk over some of the options that are available to you to try to prevent this from happening. We very much appreciate your service, but of course it's really important that members attend a meeting because that's the only way that the board of commission can conduct its business. So the last part of my presentation here is to kind of cover a little bit about virtual participation. So the city council rules procedure, which board of commissions are required to follow, do provide that a member can participate virtually if the member is sick or traveling. And again, if there's a declaration of disaster emergency in place, and we do have one in place until the end of the year. So a member, you could notify, you know, staff that you're not able to participate virtually. The rules do require a four-day advance notice. Again, even if you don't give that four days and sometimes something might come up last minute and you just need to notify staff, we just ask that you kind of try to notify us, as you know, planning for virtual participation, there is a process involved and it'll just make the meeting go a lot smoother. One of the things that we do encourage the liaisons is to contact the members to try to establish that quorum to see, you know, who's going to participate in person, who's going to participate virtually, and then make the necessary plans. The key though will be that we do have to have an in-person quorum at the physical location. So that's about the only thing, and again, that is why staff, we've encouraged staff to kind of contact you ahead of time. And I'll take any questions you might have and I'll go ahead and stop sharing my screen. As of right now, the virtual participation is just through December 31st right now? Well, for virtual participation, it is right now up to December 31st. However, the rules do state that if the member is ill, but you're still able to participate or if you're traveling, and as you know, Zoom, which is the typical program that we use, you can actually even access it via your phone. We've even had council members utilize that, you know, because they want to be able to participate. So that's continuing beyond December 31st? After, unless the emergency order is extended. And then in that event, then it would only be if you're sick or if you're traveling. Okay. Otherwise, you would be... Not a voluntary option. Okay. And one of the things we do encourage again, that if you're not able to attend the meeting, to go ahead and notify. Don't be too shy that if there's a last minute situation that maybe might not meet the excused absence criteria, to go ahead and seek an exception. I mean, there's all kinds of reasons. Council's very understanding. And we do encourage you rather than just kind of not submitting anything, the last thing we want to do is, you know, kind of make that more than three unexcused absences or... It's very hard to hit the 50%, but it has been known to happen. Right. Right. Yes. And we don't want to discourage people from serving. So the policy has to be in place, but... Yes. Yes, ma'am. But it can't... We're going to be visiting it with council maybe to add, consider maybe some other, you know, reasons for the ex-use absence criteria and see if they want to make any changes. Okay. Understood. Anyone with any questions? I do not see any. Thank you very much. All right. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you. Our next work session report is hold a discussion regarding the draft of the 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission calendar that was in our backup. Do we have a presentation on that, or are we just having discussion on that amongst ourselves? Chairman Ellis, no formal presentation I should add regarding that. We included in your packet for your consideration our proposed calendar for 2022 to get your initial input to see if there's any concerns regarding the dates that are being proposed. Council has not adopted or set their calendar, if you will, just yet. So we're anticipating that, you know, they would maintain the schedule that they typically do. But we're proposing to have the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings on the second and fourth Wednesdays of every month. That allows us to be able to balance our agenda items, particularly those public hearings, with Council typically considering public hearings on the first and third. But just wanted to put this out there for your consideration, get any feedback. We've tried to be sensitive to the major holidays as well so that we're not creating any conflicts with that. And I'm happy to receive your feedback. So thank you. Tina, do you know -- I didn't look ahead on this, but I assume spring break was vetted out of that? Yes, we did. I'm getting the thumbs up from John. Okay. Okay. Excellent. Excellent. Any questions on the calendar that was presented? Yes. Commissioner Pruitt? Thank you, Judge. Just one thing. I noticed that it appears there's more than 30 days between the November meeting and the December meeting. Is that a concern for the shot clock reasons? I don't believe so. I think we tried to make sure we take that in consideration and we would continue to work with applicants and advise them of when the meeting dates are. And then we adjust our seminal schedules also accordingly as to when they can resubmit because we are very cognizant of that 30-day. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for asking. Any other questions on that item? I do not see any. Thank you very much. Okay. That moves us to our next work session report, which is Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion, Provide Suggestions and Recommendations on City Criteria Manuals. I invite Ron up for presentation. Hi, Ron. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the commission. Happy to be here. Let me pull up my presentation real quick. So today... Ron, if I could just interrupt really quick just for the commissioners. If we could let Ron get through his presentation, because I think it's lengthy, or I'll let you stop and ask questions versus having him speak a bit and then stopping to answer questions, if that's okay with all of you. Great. Okay. And then we can deal with questions. Yes. Perfect. Okay. Thank you. Perfect. Today, we're going to be talking about criteria manuals. This is something that we've been working on for some time, and due to obvious various reasons, we just haven't had an opportunity to take it to this commission. So tonight, you're going to hear from a number of team members. I'm going to talk about who they are, representatives of development services, capital projects and engineering, folks from Solid Waste, as well as staff members from water utilities. The agenda that we will be discussing or presenting to you all this afternoon is really to kind of do an introduction of why we're doing these criteria manual updates. Then you'll have an opportunity to hear from, again, Solid Waste, Stormwater, Transportation, Water and Wastewater, and see and hear from what they have proposed as far as updates. And as Madam Chair mentioned, we will have an opportunity for questions and answers at the end of the presentation. So just a quick history, the criteria manual updates, we intend to have them reviewed and updated once a year, again, if necessary. The idea here is that we want to keep current and want to make sure that our standards and requirements are consistent with the standard practice and best practices that are being applied nationwide, and so that is one reason why we want to keep them updated. They will start by staff reviewing them early in the year. We'll prepare some recommendations, bring them to the Planning Zoning Commission for your consideration and review, and hopefully feedback and input as well. We plan on taking this out to the public. In fact, we have tomorrow scheduled a developer town hall. We also will be meeting with specialty groups to present to them these criteria manual updates, after which we will also present -- I'm sorry, publish these criteria manuals online so those that are able to view them online, they can review them and provide comments. Copies will be available at the Development Services Center as well as in City Hall. Ultimately, the goal is to take this to City Council to be approved by ordinance during a public hearing. So that is scheduled for later this year, December specifically, and the hope is that the Council approves it and these criteria manuals are effective January 1st. And then the cycle begins again, and again, if that is something that we need to update, we will do so, but it's not required. The goal is really to have one document, one format, which makes it easier for the development community, the citizen in general, to understand and to use this document. We hope that through this process, we eliminate duplications. We also eliminate conflicts in requirements. The illustration here that shows when the last updated criteria manuals were done, you can see that solid waste has been the one that's been the longest. By looking at the other, stormwater, transportation, and wastewater, they were recently done back in December of 2018. Transportation was March of 2018. I want to just really quickly share, kind of give you guys some understanding where the criteria manuals fall in relationship to the development code. So the development code is really the policy and procedural content. It is what is required and why is it required. The criteria manuals is sort of, you can imagine, the next level in terms of what is required in terms of standards and design and technical information. It helps guide some of the requirements that the DDC requires the applicant or the developers to design their site under. And then under that, we then also have specification and standard details, a little bit more refined, detailed information. In fact, the specifications that was recently updated was done January of this year. Now those specifications only specifically apply to capital projects now, but the hope is in January of 2022, they will also apply for other developments. So kind of give you an idea, DDC, you know, really up higher, a little bit higher criteria manuals and then specifications and details, all of which is used by the development community, the staff in reviewing applications that come through the city. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Brian George and he's going to talk a little bit about their efforts in updating their solid waste and recycling criteria manual. Hi, Brian George, field services supervisor for solid waste. I just want to touch on a couple things here for the criteria manual update. First of all, the enclosure details for the front load enclosures, we've got, we were adding a foot to each one of those enclosures to the inside width from like the single enclosure would be a 13 foot instead of a 12 foot, dual enclosure 24 foot to a 26 foot, basically. And then we have their roll-off compactor enclosures going from a 15 foot to a 16 foot. So that said, that's due to the changes in the equipment over the years for safety reasons, for repairs, stuff like that, make it easier for the repairs and such. The second addition, I'm sorry, the second change would be in addition to an alleyway criteria. We do not have that at this time and with the proposals through the newer projects coming in we are seeing more and more alleyway developments. So the purpose of that would be for maneuverability, sufficient for collection apparatus to navigate alleyways lined with trash and recycle containers. And second, right now we're worried about the pavement requirements. When you get one of those bigger trucks in there, the requirement for thicker concrete such to help these trucks get through there without tearing up the concrete. So that's the main two things that we're looking at to change on our criteria manuals. With that, that's what we're looking at on ours. So that completes mine, thank you. Good evening, my name is Becky Davidi, I'm the City Engineering Director of Capital Projects for the City of Denton. Nice to see all of you today. I am going to go over the stormwater criteria manual information and transportation criteria manual information. I know Commissioner Pruitt sent over a series of questions. Unfortunately, between the time I ended council last night at 1 a.m. and was back here at 8 a.m. running mobility committee, I have not had an opportunity to address all of his questions but have spoken with him and will work through the series of questions that he's presented to myself along with our team. So just a little bit of an overview of the stormwater criteria manual. We have been working with a lot of the updates are specific to definitions. In many cases, we added additional definitions. In other cases, we deleted definitions that are no longer necessary. Throughout the document, I thought it was very important to go through and really change, we used to say, the 100-year frequency to the 1% chance of that type of a storm. We've updated driveway, culvert, inspection to be the responsibility of actually the public works inspection staff. My team is responsible for public works inspection, and so the building inspection staff is actually a responsibility of Mr. McDonald's. Our team is really responsible for everything within the right-of-way, so I thought it made sense to have the actual driveway culverts be inspected by the team that's looking at all items within the right-of-way. And then we're also looking at updating the criteria to require all reinforced concrete pipe be for culverts instead of metal pipe or metal tin horn type material. Those are some of the high-level overviews of the stormwater criteria manual. On the transportation criteria manual, very similar, we updated some definitions, included some new definitions, deleted some of the terms. We are working through updating the geometric street standards, and really the importance of that is to incorporate the bicycle and pedestrian components as applicable. In many places throughout the document, you'll see specific details that talk about side pass, sidewalk. I want to make sure we're using the common terminology that everybody's familiar with. As you're all aware, we have a new individual on our team who is the Senior Planner Bicycle ADA Pedestrian Coordinator, and so we're using his expertise to review a lot of these documents and look at that more multimodal approach as we work through the mobility plan and also the capital projects that are going to be used and then, of course, development as soon as this can be adopted for the implementation of those projects. We also have been working on updating many different standards, so turning lane standards, on-street parking, several of the geometric standards and diagrams and the amenities. I'm sorry, I'm tired to have a hard time speaking, including the movement of certain information which needs to be removed from the criteria manual and actually put into the code. If you look at the criteria manual itself, you'll see many areas of which is still yellow highlighted. Those are recommendations that we're currently working with legal on that need to be moved from the criteria manual to the code, as you saw Ron's presentation talking about what needs to be in the code versus what needs to be in the criteria manual. And then also we've been working through some updates to signs and markings to really include some additional diagrams or some sections that are missing within the document. I also wanted to make a plug, Ron already talked about it just briefly, but it is very important to our team to update the criteria manuals and I will tell you the reason why. As we implement the criteria manuals in the code and we took a strong effort last year to update the specifications and standard details, like I mentioned, and I know Ron's mentioned, those are currently being used on the capital projects. I'm very much interested in getting this taken care of from the perspective that they can be used on the development projects. The reason why is it provides the consistency that's needed amongst the entire city. It provides the inspectors the material and equipment that they need and the information, whether it's listed in a specification or a standard detail that can provide this consistency and standard design practice. It also allows for developers to know what is expected. And then at the end of the day, I'll be honest, I came from the utility department and I'm very much interested in making sure that at 2 a.m. when we have a water line break or a sewer choke or we've got a signal that's not operating, we're using a standard piece of equipment or material so that our folks that are out there making those operational changes are used to those different pieces of equipment. So I appreciate your time today and I'm going to turn it over to Steven Moore. Good evening, I'm Steven Moore, Senior Engineer for Water and Wastewater. So we've got water and wastewater that I'm going to be able to be talking about. The biggest thing that happened is, since our earlier version came out, questions arise, little technical details, and so we're trying to tighten up those details to answer those questions that we've had to figure out answers with throughout this process. For water, we've added a section being more specific on meters, how they get applied. We've added under-crowned utility crossings, something that really wasn't addressed extremely well. Fence and wall crossings has been added, as well as the pressure regulator, since we hadn't a language about that before. And we've put some details in on existing water main replacement, something that has to happen, but was usually an afterthought of the design, and we put that in so it comes in as part of the design instead of waiting until afterwards. For wastewater, we've tightened up how we figure out the wastewater flows. Again, we had questions that arose, and as we were figuring out the answers, we put those answers in here. We've added some information on separation between water and wastewater, some of which is driven by the state requirements, TCEQ. We've updated the highway crossings. Basically, we put languages in that says, "If you cross a highway, it's really up to whatever agency owns that," which in Denton is usually TxDOT. And again, we've revised the abandonment of sewer mains against something that has to happen, which is usually an afterthought. So we put it in so it's looked at during the design of the project. There's a bunch of sections that we've removed because they're being put somewhere else. They don't belong in the criteria manual, preliminary design, rights of way and easements, the agenda plan revisions, change orders and submittals. That all comes someplace else. It doesn't belong in here. So again, a lot of our tweaks have been just because these questions come up. We didn't have an answer. We had to figure it out. So now that we've done the work to figure it out, we put it here in the manual and got rid of some things that just really don't belong here. That's all I've got. Ron? Well, I want to thank our presenters. I think they are the technical experts. I would not have been able to make that presentation. So with that, we stand for any questions and want to get any feedback, comments, input, if you have any, so that we can improve the criteria manuals from this commission. Thank you, Ron. What is the best way for you all to receive feedback? Do you want it here? Do you want it emailed? I think that if you have comments or input, you can email them to me, and I will make sure to get it to the team member, appropriate team member. If it's something that you feel is beneficial for the commission to hear, you can certainly discuss it at this time as well. But again, I know that some of the criteria manuals were late coming to you all, and I do apologize for that. But there is opportunity to still provide comments and input. Like I said, we have a developer town hall tomorrow. The criteria manuals will be uploaded on the website for anyone to review. Our goal is to go to city councils on December 7th, I believe. So anytime before then, we will welcome any input that this commission may have. Okay. Thank you, Ron. I guess I don't see anyone wishing to speak at this moment, so I'll start with a question and then we can go from there. It has to do with storm water, so I will wait for, thanks. No problem. So it has to do with the inspection fee on the private detention basins, and it reads in there 3.5% inspection fee, 3.5% of what? Inspection fees for the public works inspection team is always 3.5% of the construction cost of the project, and so I'm glad you pointed that out because there's some particular areas where I'd like to take that information out of the criteria manual and put it in another location such as the code, or many times that's something that might just need to be on a permit document as we review what we call the Exhibit A that goes along with the three-way contractor, the overall contract that we sign, that's the time of which those inspection fees are collected, and so that's really what that's referring to. So that's the type of feedback that we want. We've read over on so many times, there are times we are going to miss certain things. It's on page 44. Okay, great. I can remember that because that's my age, I won't forget it, but you know, that's definitely something that's the type of information that we want to receive, so I appreciate that feedback. I'm assuming you're going to do this, but all of the pages are mismatched on transportation now? Yes. I assume that's all going to be vetted, because right now none of those pages match up to... That's correct. ... its content. That's correct. Part of what we're doing on transportation is working through updating all of the standard details, and unfortunately we've done the majority of our update before Nathan came on our team, and so we've been taking the time to incorporate as much as he can into that criteria manual. We also understand that the criteria manual gets updated once a year, and so it may be that we are not able to get everything that we'd like into the criteria manual this year, but we'll take the opportunity next year to actually do that update, but there are quite a bit of formatting. You'll see where there's comments that we're going to replace this exhibit or those types of things, but wanted to at least get you a draft form where you could see a lot of the changes that we're looking to make. Oh, yeah, that's great. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Oh, no problem. Thank you. I think the only other comment that I had, and then I'll take questions, was with water and wastewater, and it's minor, but I'm just being nitpicky. In 3.6.1, it had to do with the number of meters and whatnot, but we mentioned quadplex in that paragraph, and in our DDC, we call it a fourplex, not a quadplex, so to me, I think we should call it a fourplex in our manual just to keep things consistent. I know it's the same thing. It's just that called to me to speak out. As Becky mentioned, that's exactly the type of thing we're looking for. Absolutely. We'll take that back. Awesome. Thank you. That's all that I had written down right now, so is there anyone else who would like to ask questions? I don't know if this board is working, so yeah, do you have ... Okay. Now I see you. Commissioner Pruitt. Yeah. I do have a couple. I promise I'll try to keep it brief. I was just trying to see if anybody else wanted to ask any before I took it. Like I said, I just want to focus on a few things that I saw in the various manuals that might be beneficial for us to think about as a body. One of them, I think, is the number of meters per property being added for duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Thank you for that clarification. I guess a question, and I'm not sure who would best be ready to answer it, would be is that a building code requirement, or is that just something that we are requesting? Sorry. Yeah. Water wastewaters, our needs are to make sure we're accurately tracking by the customer. I can't answer if that is a code requirement, a building code requirement. I don't suppose we have anybody here probably who can answer that, but that's our purpose for it, so we can accurately track. We've had, historically there are issues with you don't specify it. You get inconsistent application of our rules, so we've been trying very hard to specify this. I can go back and I can work with Ron and we can try and figure out where that fits in with the building code, but I don't have an answer for you right now. Okay. No, thank you. I appreciate that. I guess when I read through these details, I try to think through are we at risk of layering on complexities that would increase cost compared to other solutions, which would be perfectly fine from a health and safety perspective. And obviously, there's a cost as far as fees and that sort of thing, which I'm not really all that concerned about because those can be changed irrespective of how many meters we create or require. And as I was doing some reading, there was a lot of benefits, like you were speaking to, of having separate meters. Local residents are more motivated to control their water use, right? You can turn one off to do maintenance without turning off ones to other units. There's all sorts of benefits. And so I guess my feedback is as we look toward the future and think through where these types of properties can fit best in Denton, let's try to make sure we don't inadvertently dissuade them from development, if that makes sense. Gotcha. I understand. Appreciate that. And then if I may, just two more comments. On the transportation, I don't really have any questions. Just wanted to make the commission aware, but certainly if you have anything to add, that would be beneficial. The, where am I, oh, I guess one question, as I was reading through the different descriptions of the transportation impact analysis requirements, I've never been certain what our requirements are as far as assumptions of future land use in areas that are not yet developed, or in order to create the proper future travel demand, or is it travel demand or traffic demand? I never remember. We're demanding something that starts with T model. Can you tell us what our practice is right now, both for city initiated traffic studies as well as developer traffic studies? Sure, so there's specific requirements when an individual has to perform a traffic impact analysis and it's based on the volume that the development is actually going to bring to the area. As far as, and I don't have those numbers memorized, a thousand's what's in my head, but when it comes to traffic studies at the city or the traffic impact analysis that the city would do, they're a little bit different. We have a wide variety of different types that we perform. The most common type of traffic study that you'll see our team performing right now is currently speed studies, and so not specifically related to impacts simply because we're not building a whole lot of infrastructure that hasn't already been currently planned where those traffic impact analysis have already been performed. The majority of the projects we're currently delivering are things that have been on the queue for some period of time and we're working to get those closed out. As new projects come on, some of those impact analysis will be something that we evaluate to make sure that the mobility plan shows, I'll give an example, it should be a secondary arterial. It may be that we see that there's been increased development with the land use map, with the comp plan that says it's going to be a lot higher use than what we anticipated and not needs to change its roadway classification to a primary arterial. At that time, we might want to perform a traffic impact analysis just to make sure that we understand that that's in alignment with our assumptions. Yeah. No, I appreciate that and it'll take me time to continue learning. I think in the past, I've seen some traffic studies do you've done sort of a broad areas that incorporate certain land use assumptions that may or may not really be strictly based on what our flumes states and sometimes it feels sometimes like that has the possibility of setting up a situation where we put some inputs into the model, then that model says we need infrastructure of type X, then we build that infrastructure, then the infrastructure is there and we say, "Well, because that infrastructure is there, it's warranted to change the flume in for these reasons." To me, that seems a little bit backwards and I don't know if it's appropriate or common in criteria manuals to stipulate kind of what those land assumptions should be when we do those large area traffic impact analysis, but that's one thing I've noticed over the time and then just one short thing, I noticed the entire transit section had been removed. Can you explain why and what we're thinking going forward of what that's? We've removed that at this time as we evaluate the best way to move forward with many changes that we're seeing and it's something honestly that has been looked at being removed for a number of years, so our team's still evaluating whether or not that's the best decision to make and I'm working with our legal department looking at many different areas, but at this time we've removed that because many of the things that were listed were no longer applicable to the current situation. Okay. Thank you. No problem. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Prude. Any other questions? Okay, so at this, there is a lot of information that was presented and it was kind of late in the week. None of us got through all of it except for perhaps Commissioner Prude who did a great job with comments and suggestions. So I'd encourage then just the commission to, as you work through these and read through these if you do have comments, to please email Ron and then we'll get it to the appropriate party. And certainly anybody is invited to attend any of these other town halls or what have, right? Correct. And I think we, in this item, I just want to make mention that the goals that have one document so that someone that's looking at this can search Fourplex, for example, and they can see it in the context of solid waste, wastewater, transportation and everything like that. So that is the ultimate goal is to make it as easy as possible to find things and to understand what is required of them in their design process. So thank you for the opportunity. That's awesome. I know you're all working really hard on all this because I can tell you in just the five plus years that I've seen this, it's just, it's come such a long way in making it easier to find things and understand what is expected. So thank you all. Thank you. Next item on our agenda is clarification of our agenda items for this evening. First one being our minutes from October 6th. Are there any comments, concerns with those meetings? Okay. Seeing none, let's move on to consent agenda. Any questions on consent agenda? I did have one. It would be on 3A. Is Lisa here or maybe Tina or Haley can answer it? It's just a quick question. On it, it mentioned that and I'll wait for Haley to walk down. I'm sorry. I thought you were going to the other microphone. I can pull up the plat if you'd like or... Well, it really has to do with the note on there. You're welcome to do that and it's probably not necessary. But it mentions in there that alternative ESA may be required. So what I want to know is, is the research still being done on that? Mainly wanted to know the meeting for that note. That note is typically added if there is something on the plant that we suspect will need an alternative ESA that will be further assessed at their Civil Engineering Plans. And then if that note is kind of conditioning the plant so that they know before you get to final plant, you'll have to do this step if we confirm that that is needed. Okay. And that was my question. So yeah, research is ongoing and it'll be removed on the final or it will go forward with an ALT ESA. That's correct. Okay. Understood. Thank you. All right. Okay. So that will move us then to our items for individual consideration. Item number A, FP210033 is Sean Jacobson's item. Hi, Sean. Good evening. I'm going to pull up my presentation here, take just a moment. So this is a request for a plat of the YOLO First Edition Block A Lot 2. It's a .888 acre property on the west side of Teasley Lane. Staff is currently recommending denial because it doesn't meet the established criteria for approval. Staff does not object to the request for an extension to the November 17th meeting. Very good. Thank you, Sean. Any questions on that? I do not see any. Thank you. We'll take us to 4B, which is also yours, FP210030. This is a request for a plat of the final plat of the Vintage Village Edition, which is just to the northwest of Fort Worth Drive. Again, staff is recommending denial of this plat as it does not meet the established criteria. But again, staff has no objection to the applicant's request for an extension to the November 17th meeting. Thank you, Sean. Any questions for Sean on this item? I do not see any. Thank you. It takes us . . . oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Pruitt. Maybe I misheard, but I believe you said no objection to an extension to November 17th, but on the slide it says November 3rd. Which date is it that the . . . I'm sorry. I move forward to the next, the slide for the next one. My apologies, I rushed it. That's my . . . And then we'll move us to 4C, FP210032, Karina's item. Hi, Karina. Hi. So the request today is for FP21-0032. This is a final plat of Country Club Village Phase 3A, Lots 1 through 6. This is on the south side of town, east of 377. At the northwest corner of Fairway Drive and Clubview Drive. Staff is recommending denial of this plat as it does not meet the established criteria for approval. However, the applicant has requested an extension to the November 3rd meeting, which is the next P&Z meeting, as they believe that they can clear out those last remaining items. Okay. Great. Any questions for Karina? I do not see any. Thank you. Item 4D, PP210020A. That is Julie Wyatt's item. Hi, Julie. Good evening. Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner. This is PP21-0020A. It is in the Robeson Ranch development. It is for a single-family residential development. It has already had an extension granted to it. They still have a few more items that they need to clean up on it. So we are recommending denial of the request. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thanks Julie. All right. Thank you. I do not see any. All right. We'll go to 4E, FP210031. That is Mark Laird's item. And for this one, commissioners, a very late email came to us that changed the initial backup. But Mark, I'll let you do that. Good evening. My name is Mark Laird, Planner in the Development Service Department. This evening, you have for your request a final plat for SB-DIN 1, Phase 2. Today, this evening, you received two emails. The last email you received, the second email, shows the approved, the plat that's recommended for approval. The applicant has addressed all the comments and it meets the criteria for approval. Great. Any questions for Mark on this item? I do not see any. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. That will move us to our one public hearing item for today, which is Z210011C, which we have seen before. Hi, Ron. Yes, Madam Chair. Stop sharing this and pull up that presentation. Should be a quick presentation. As you had mentioned, this item you've seen before, it was at our last PNZ meeting. The request now, as changed by the applicant, is to go from Residential 2, R2, to GO, General Office, for the subject site that you see here highlighted or outlined in yellow. Staff did send out notifications prior to this meeting and therefore, we meet the public hearing notification requirements. With that, staff recommends approval of the GO requested zoning district as it complies with the following sections outlined under this slide. With that, I'll stand for any questions. Thank you, Ron. Any questions for Ron? Ron, the one in opposition, is that from the previous public hearing? Yes. That carries forward. That is still the notice, I'm sorry, the label there that shows in opposition. This afternoon, you did receive, hopefully, another email from another property owner, which I've not had an opportunity to update the PowerPoint slide, but that person was in favor of the rezoning request. Okay. Anything about the opposition? We haven't heard from him again. No. I think that at the last meeting, I know that the applicant mentioned that the applicant tried to meet with that person and she may have more information on how or what their concerns were, but certainly, we can ask that when the public hearing item comes up. Sounds good. Okay. I do not see any other questions. Thank you, Ron. Thank you. Okay, that will end our work session, so I will adjourn us at 6.05 p.m. We'll meet back here for the public meeting at 6.30. Thank you. , Ron. , Ron. Check, check. Okay. Thank you, Ron. Mic check. Zoom, one, two, three. Mic check. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. Zoom, one, two, three. >> Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning commission meeting for Wednesday, October 20th, 2021. With the quorum present, I will call us to order at 634 p.m. Our first item on the agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> On our Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one nation. >> Thank you. The first item on our agenda for consideration tonight is the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes for October 6th. Commissioner Villarreal. Commissioner Smith. >> Second. >> We have a first and a second for approval of the minutes. Any discussion? Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. Our next item is the Consent Agenda. Chair will look for a motion on that. Commissioner Smith. >> Make a motion to approve. >> Commissioner Anderson. >> Second. >> We have a first and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. Next item is 4A. This is our items for individual consideration. First item is FP21-0033 and we'll invite Sean Jacobson up. Hi, Sean. >> Sean Jacobson, Associate Planner, here to present this plot of the YOLO First Edition. I'm just going to pull that up here so that you can see it. One moment, sorry. There we are. So this is a request for a plot of the YOLO First Edition, Lot 2 Block A, which is a .88-acre property on the west side of Teasley Lane, approximately 968 feet north of the intersection of Teasley Lane and Hickory Creek Road. Staff is recommending denial at this time because it does not meet the approval for criteria, but staff does not object to the applicant's request for a one-time extension to the November 17th meeting. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Sean. I do not see any questions. Thank you very much. Commissioner Villarreal. >> I move you approve the extension to November 17th. >> Okay, we have a first to approve the extension request to date certain of November 17th. Commissioner Cole. >> Second. >> We've got a first and a second to extend the item to November 17th. Any discussion? Let's vote on the board, please. That motion carries 7-0. Moving us to item 4B, FP 210030, Sean Jacobson's item again. >> Good evening again, Sean Jacobson, Associate Planner. And I'll just make sure this is sharing correctly. Okay. And I'm here with a request for a final plat of the Vintage Village edition. This is an approximately 51.808 acre located on the west side of Vintage Boulevard. Right now staff is recommending denial of this plat as it does not currently meet our criteria for approval, but staff has no objection to the request for an extension to the November 17th meeting. With that, happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Sean. I do not see any questions. Appreciate it. Commissioner Villarreal. >> I move to approve the extension to November 17th. >> Okay, we have a first to approve the extension request to November 17th. Commissioner Cole. >> Second. >> First and second, excuse me, to extend the item to November 17th. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. Moving us to 4C, FP21-0032. I'll invite Karina Maldonado up for presentation. Hi, Karina. >> Hi, good evening. Karina Maldonado, Associate Planner. The request today is for FP21-0032. It is a final plat of the Country Club Village Phase 3A, Lots 1 through 6. Staff is recommending denial of this plat as it does not meet the established criteria. However, staff has no objection to the applicant's request for a one-time extension to the November 3rd, 2021 P&Z meeting. That is the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. With that, I can take any questions? >> Thanks, Karina. And they think they can work through that, that they just need until the next meeting. >> I'm sorry? >> They think they can work through all of staff comments? >> Yes, they have three minor comments that they need to address, and they believe they can address that in the next meeting. >> Very well. Thank you. I do not see any questions. Thank you. Commissioner Anderson. >> Make a motion to extend the applicant's request to the November 3rd meeting. >> Okay, we have a first. Commissioner Villarreal. >> Second. >> We've got a first and a second to extend the item to November 3rd. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. Takes us to 4-D, PP21-0020A. I'll invite Julie Wyatt up for presentation. Hi, Julie. >> Good evening, Julie Wyatt. This is PP21-002A. It is for a single-family residential subdivision within the Robeson Ranch Plan development. They have some additional items that they do need to correct. They have already received an extension request in September. And so staff does recommend denial of the request. I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> Okay, thanks, Julie. Any questions for Julie? Commissioner -- I don't see any, Julie. Thank you. Commissioner Villarreal. >> I move to deny the plat as written. >> We've got a motion to deny the item. Commissioner Cole. >> Second. >> Got a first and a second to deny. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0, moving us to 4-E, FP21-0031. Where'd it go? Good evening. My name is Mark Laird. I'm planner of the development service department. This is the unit for your reference review. I have a final plat for SP-DIN 1 edition, phase 2. I'd like for you to note that the staff analysis providing your backup, the applicant has addressed all comments. The staff does recommend this plat for approval as it meets the criteria. And the staff for any questions that you may have. >> Thank you. >> Commissioner Anderson. >> Make a motion to approve. >> Okay. We have a motion to approve this item. Commissioner Villarreal. >> Second. >> First and a second to approve. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. Bring up my presentation. The item for your consideration this evening is a rezoning request. It is for a property located at the northwest corner of University Drive and North Trinity Road. This item you've seen before, the applicant prior has amended their zoning change request. Their request now is to go from residential 2, R2, to general office, GEO. Again, the site is located, as shown on this slide, surrounded by the yellow line that you see there. The property has been properly noticed. The request has been noticed per the requirements for a public hearing. As of this afternoon, we did receive one response in favor. We also received one in opposition. This one was several, I guess several weeks or a month ago. So one in favor and one in opposition of the request. Reviewing the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval of this item request to general office as it meets the general requirements under section 245E as well as 272D of the Denton Development Code. That concludes my presentation. I'll stand for any questions. The applicant is also here and is available for any questions. Thank you, Ron. We do have a question. Commissioner Smith? Thank you, Chair. Ron, this is the project we saw last meeting. Excuse me. And we had gone through, we made a motion. We made a second to approve it. But we needed to delay it because it was a zoning change. It hadn't been properly re-noticed since we closed the public hearing. Is that summation correct? That is correct. Okay. Just wanted to make sure that I know we had two commissioners who are out. So essentially we got nowhere to that point, but we needed to hold off per legal just because of the Texas Open Meetings Act. Good. That is accurate. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Smith. Any other questions for Ron? This is a public -- I don't see any, Ron. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak? I don't have any cards in front of me. Staff, is there any on the phone? No, we don't have any callers. Okay. Thank you. With that, I will close the public hearing and make a mention that we did have, as Ron mentioned, a response in opposition and one in favor of this request, and those will be recorded with this item. Commissioner Villarreal? I move to approve the zoning change request to a general office zoning district. We have a motion to approve the request. Commissioner Pohl? Second. We have a first and a second on the floor to approve. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please. That motion carries 7-0. That will move us to our planning and zoning commission matrix, and I will turn it over to Tina for that discussion. Thank you, Chairman Ellis. Several things to address. First of all, I'd like to welcome Colleen Fitzpatrick to our team and introduce her to the commission. She's up there in the back row next to Julie. Colleen is our new landscape planner, so you may see her from time to time at the podium in providing insight on all things landscaping and tree preservation in coordination with our team that oversees the environmentally sensitive areas. Also, just a recap from last night's city council meeting related to the various public hearing items that we had on the council's agenda. So the first item was a request to rezone approximately 1.3 acres from residential rural to residential one district. This property was located on the south side of Miller Road, approximately 260 feet east of Mosh Branch Road. Did I get that correct? We noticed the no-guess, single-family zoning. Council did approve that, 7-0. We also had the request on Giesling Road. This was the request at south of Threeny, just to the east of Giesling Road, related to a zoning case that the commission had received earlier this year. That request was to rezone property from MN and R6 to light industrial, as well as there was a portion that was zoned residential rural, also to light industrial. In total, roughly 25 acres, if you will. That was approved 6 to 1. We also had a change in zoning requests over on Bolivar Street, just north of our development services building. And that was a request to rezone the property from R3 to R7 district. If you recall, that was to be able to use one of the existing residential structures as an office. So that was also approved 7-0 last night. We also had another request on the agenda that was to rezone property from the neighborhood residential 4 district and rural residential district to a planned development district. It was approximately 7 acres, generally located on the north side of East McKinney Street, about 1,600 feet east of south of Threeny Road. I know we had identified it as the light industrial zoning case. But anyway, it was recommended approval 6 to 1, or I'm sorry, it was approved, I should say, 6 to 1. And we also had another public hearing last night for a specific use permit to allow multifamily development that was roughly on about 10 acres of land located on the east side of Loop 288, about 300 feet south of McKinney Street. This was an item that the commission had considered probably early in September for the multifamily development, but that was also approved by city council 7-0. And that was also the affordable housing residential development for that particular project. And then lastly, our one remaining public hearing item, that was the specific use permit request for the increase in the building height from 40 feet to 60 feet for the proposed multifamily development that was on approximately 7 and a half acres of land. It was zoned or it is zoned MN district, but it was on the south side of Interstate Highway 35 east, about 1,500 feet south of Lillian Miller Parkway. I know we had quite a bit of public testimony when we had received that as the commission and the council did deny that request by a vote of 5 to 1. We also had Councilmember Davis had to step down due to conflict of interest, so hence the 5-1 vote instead of the votes totaling 7. So that was our action from last night. As it relates to the matrix that is in your calendar, or excuse me, in your packet, we did update that to reflect the items that the commission requested at your meeting on October 6. The review, I want to make sure I pointed out the legal review of our agenda items, I know it was requested by our commission. We have established a procedure in place with our legal team to be able to discuss our agenda items and just verify any procedural questions if there are any as well as any other outstanding legal issues that may arise on the various projects. So hopefully we can avoid what took place at our meeting two weeks ago. So with that, we'll remove that item from the matrices, but happy to receive any other comments that the commission may have. So thank you. Thank you, Tina, for that. Anything to add to the matrix, Commissioner Smith? Thank you, Chair. Tina, just a question on, I know the shot clock, I've been on PNZs before we had the shot clock rule, and obviously been on it while we had the shot clock. I've been seeing so many of these that are denials, extensions, all this kind of stuff. I don't know if you guys can maybe give us another work session item, just kind of talks about what type of things we're getting slowed down on. Is it just, is it just we're not hearing from the applicant back in time? Are they dragging their feet? Are we bogged down in our own regulation processes of having to go through those comments and see those? Because as we've been seeing stuff that we've had a thing at least one every single week for the last, one every single meeting for the last couple meetings where it's been. We got our stuff in today, and it's we're now changing it to approval. We've gone through shot clock conversations before. I'm not trying to ask about that, more just like that platting, that back and forth that's going on. Is there a way we can maybe see if there's some slowdowns in there that maybe we'd want to see so many of these extensions over and over and over again, or if it's just impossible, just tell me it's impossible and we'll just move on. I would say it's somewhat impossible, but we're happy to bring that back and have more of a discussion on it, because I know we're not posted for that. I just will say that we're very sensitive to the shot clock timing and our submittal processes are built around that and even our resubmittals. So, and as you can see, we're trying to be as accommodating to the developers also, should they get a plat into us the day of your meeting, and hence why we get that out to you. But if you'd like to have a more in-depth discussion on it, happy to bring that back for you and just let me know. I think more than anything else, I'd love to just hear from some of the planners, just like, on these plots, we're sending them emails and 10 days later we're saying, hey, we're going to have to move to deny. We'll let you request an extension and they're just not hearing from these applicants in times, even just some testimony from them would be great, just kind of hear why we're seeing so many now. There's never, I don't think I can remember a plaque that's come in that has just been 100% approved from the start that hasn't gone through an extension process and then approval. Maybe there was one tonight I just didn't remember because we see so many of these extensions. I don't just want to see if there's something that we can do city wise to help speed up the communication, or is it just purely applicants are slow at not responding. I think it's in like I said happy to bring this back and have that conversation but just in short, I think it's just a matter of we're trying to be communicated to them, getting the information out, but also with development, just being extremely busy across the Metroplex. It's, I'm sure they're very deadline driven as well and and some of the projects are, especially when they're preliminary plots and sometimes the issues are a little more complex and so they need the additional time, but, but again happy happy to bring that back and we can post that on the agenda have that conversation give you some staff testimony and they can share their insights and go from there. We'll save it for when we got a light meeting. So, you know, throw it in front of the doesn't have to be the next one I could be better whatever we got a light we got a light light Thanksgiving or December ish type one that we'll burn some time and that kind of stuff that work maybe it can be like a boot camp on the shot clock. You know, definition and procedure and we didn't we didn't we just do it from there boot camp on the shot right we did, I guess we did it on plant so yeah I guess you want something I just more looking at what that process is in depth of okay we get a plat and we're looking at it is these are some of the things we're reviewing the common issues that we're catching on here is that these types of notes are the problems and then the things that kind of are slowing us down and having us have all these, we recommend denial but we're doing the extension a lot of is because of XYZ issue. Those types of conversations just to see if there's anything we can identify some other sets of eyes from the public that will maybe help you guys even speed that process up so you don't have to keep coming in front of us with projects that are just read to deny but one extension but then we'll extend and then they might get approved and so on and so forth. Happy to bring that back. Thanks. Thank you. And anything else for the matrix. Or any concluding items. Okay, seeing none. Oh, Commissioner McDade. Anyway, yeah, I just wanted to take this time on behalf of the residents of Southeast didn't regarding the Robertson Street project. And I know when I first talked about it, I was telling her, letting everyone know why the residents refused to show up to the P and Z and to the city council because it feels like they're not being heard. Well, this time I can actually say that P and Z. Listen to what they had to say. But the only problem is we didn't know that we were facing a double edged sword, because when it went to city council. They changed our six to an MN. That didn't set too well that was like. Okay, you heard you heard what we had to say. But then the city council pretty much told us. Well, we think we know what y'all we think you know, we know what you need better than you do. To them that was a slap in the face. And I felt proud after we voted seven oh, I could go back to the residents and tell them, hey, they're listening. But there was nothing more embarrassing than have to go back and do the walk of shame after the city council turned their back on them. So I don't know. I'm pretty sure after that, I'm pretty sure that when something comes into Southeast didn't, you're not going to get a phone call. You're not going to get any attendance because they're sick and tired of being told pretty much treated like children like hey, when it comes to Southeast didn't. Let it let let us do the talking for you. They're sick and tired of it. I'm sick and tired of it. And I've talked to quite a few. And I've let it be known that as of today. If there's something that needs to be done in Southeast didn't I will talk to him. And when it comes to PNC, if I have to talk from the from the table, or I have to go down to the podium, I don't know that the proper protocol, but I will make sure that as of October 20 2021, the disrespect that shown and given to salvage didn't stops today. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Any other concluding items. Okay, seeing none. I will adjourn this meeting at 658 PM. Thank you, everyone.