Aug 08, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2018-08-08 5:00 PM

Good evening and welcome to the Plan and Zoning Commission work session for Wednesday August 8th, 2018. We will open the work session at 5.04. The first item on our agenda is clarification of agenda items, if any. Who is going to be running that? Should I call upon someone ? Yeah, I'll go ahead and do that. I don't know if there's any...we'll go through, I guess, the clarifications. Okay. And if there's any questions on any of the consent items? Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. This is for the PP18-007. I just...who's doing this? Haley? Sean. Sean, okay. Can you just refresh us on the status of Mills Road there? It's a collector's street now, I believe, and is going to remain one? Or if there's going to be any improvements? I can't speak absolutely to that, but I have not heard any mention of widening that at this time. They are widening Mayhill. Right. But I have heard no mention of doing anything of that sort to Mills Road. Okay, so no information as to we'd get maybe a right turn lane on Mills Road going on to the new Mayhill? I can't speak to that. Okay. All right. I thought I'd try. Thanks. Commissioner Ellis. You have questions on this item? I do. Oh, not this item. Sorry, Sean. No. But I do on the next consent agenda. Is there any more questions on this item? Perfect. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you. Haley? Yes. Haley, my question is the way number, the note number seven is written. So it states the drainage easement is maintained by the lots that traverse and are adjacent to? Correct. Okay, so does that include the lot that's adjacent below that's not part of this plot? And if it does, do they know that? And if it doesn't, then my suggestion would we need to clarify the line. Let me pull that up here so we can all see. Yes, so this is a standard note required in our criteria manual to be on plats and what it is referring to is whichever lot the drainage easement is on is the lot that would be responsible for its maintenance. That's the intent of the note. Right, but okay, so there's not like misleading the way it 's written when it says traversed by or adjacent to. In other words, so you see there's a lot, so lot two has a drainage easement right on the south side, correct? That's correct. So there's an adjacent lot below it, not part of this plot. I can see your confusion in the language. I don't know that we've ever encountered an issue with that. This note is standard language from the criteria manual for drainage. It would only be for the lots within the within the boundary. Well, and that's what I thought. Right, so I mean my suggestion would be to clarify that. Maintained by the owners of the lots within. Subject plat. Yeah. Certainly, yeah, and I will say with the updates for the criteria manuals coming forward, hopefully at the end of the year, what that's something we could could hopefully try to tighten up the language on. I'd suggest it. I mean, it may not be an issue now or that we've never had it, but it certainly could be, especially if someone's not maintaining it and it's like it says right there an adjacent lot and you're adjacent. So I don't know. Okay, thanks. Any other questions on agenda consent. Haley, if you'd stay up there, can we go to item for be of individual consideration. All right, so this is a site plan for an I hop at razor ranch. So the request before you, as I mentioned, is to consider approval for a site plan for an I hop restaurant to be constructed within the South RR to district of the razor ranch overlay. So the subject side is outlined on the map in yellow. It's approximately one acre. It's currently comprised of all of one lot and a portion of another lot. There is an amending plat that's been approved but not yet filed to combine this all into one lot. The site, as you can see here is located along the frontage road of I 35 fairly adjacent to the new convention center for reference. So the base zoning for this area is the regional center commercial downtown district. However, as we've seen many times before the razor ranch overlay district shown here on the map encompasses this area and provides additional criteria on top of that base zoning. So what we see here, the subject property outlined in red is part of that South RR to district that's intended to be kind of the perimeter street commercial development within razor. Within the razor ranch overlay all site plans are required to be considered by the planning and zoning commission for approval. There are standards outlined in the overlay district itself for architecture landscaping and signage. The following things that we'll look at here the site plan the landscape plan and the building elevations are all specifically required to be considered by the planning and zoning commission. The overlay district provides criteria for approval. Those being that the site plan complies with that concept and schematic plan that we just saw this being in that are to district and being a permitted commercial use that it provides for compatible arrangement of buildings that wouldn't adversely affect properties outside of the overlay district. That there is adequate and safe circulation for vehicular traffic and that it complies with all the other criteria of the overlay. So we'll run through some of these highlights of the criteria that are outlined in more detail in your backup. Looking at the site plan, you can see in blue, the approximate building square footage of 4621 square feet. Within the razor ranch overlay, they are precluded from the maximum parking requirements of the city. So their minimum is 47 based on the square footage of the building. They are providing 66 parking spaces for the restaurant. And as you can see here, access to the site would be from one drive aisle onto an internal street within razor ranch. So no direct access to the frontage road. Looking at their landscaping plan, the site is required a minimum of 10% landscaping. Overall they have 26% provided. They're required to have a 25% tree canopy and what they provided is 46%. Apologize the highlights that are on the map there got a little bit off but you can see the general areas. Christian back. Thank you, Vice Chair. Quick question while we've got this up. So the entrance is going to be from the back of the building. Correct. Okay, and the green we're seeing there then is going to be covered. I'm assuming those are trash bins in the back there. Well, as I mentioned, the highlights are a bit off on the screen here. They shifted apparently on this computer versus mine. That's intended to highlight the landscape areas on the map . These are the dumpster locations in the back. So they'll be concealed though as you're pulling them? Correct. Yeah, they will have a screening wall around these, but the access will be from this one driveway. Great. Thank you. And one of the other main criteria for the razor ranch is the plaza area. So based on the square footage of the use, one square foot of plaza areas required per 10 square feet of building. So they were required a minimum of 462 square feet of plaza . They've provided 604 that would be roughly here in front of the building in what was intended to be outlined in yellow. And the elements they've provided within that are benches, shade trees and additional landscape plantings. Here we can see the building elevations. They've met the base criteria for razor in terms of color being the neutral earth tones. They do have some accent colors as you can see here and they are providing the kind of standard limestone that's featured throughout all the buildings at razor. So with that staff is recommending approval of the site plan request. We found it to be compliant with all of the criteria within the overlay district as well as the criteria for approval that were discussed here. I could stand for any questions. Christian back. Thank you. Just curious, are they closing down the other high hop, because you're going to have to I have something less than a mile from each other. Huh, it's too much I have for anybody. No, just curious. It is my understanding that this would replace the I hope that 's currently by you and T, because they were asking for that extra parking place I just assumed that they would take it below from them. Okay. Thank you, Haley and I think you have the next one as well. All right, this request is for an alternative development plan for a parking lot expansion at the faith tabernacle church. So, this ADP is kind of twofold it's intended to amend a previously approved ADP from 2010, as well as to provide for some other deviations from the landscape requirements of the development code. So the site is outlined here in yellow it's just under eight acres total located at the southwest corner of Audre Lane and Latimer. The site has a base zoning of NR for districts that's neighborhood residential for in 2010 as I mentioned an ADP was approved for this site. When the church came in it inhabited an existing school building, and with some of the upgrades they found that they needed to deviate from some of the code requirements that being the 50% tree canopy coverage that was required. In lieu of that what the planning and zoning Commission approved at the time was that they preserve all existing trees on the site I believe there were approximately 54 trees at that time. And then they added to the canopy by providing the required street trees and internal parking lot trees. They also requested to deviate from the type C buffer requirement, there are single family residences on the west and south adjoining properties. And so that requires a type C 15 foot wide buffer. In lieu of that they increase the total landscape area for the site 40% minimum was required, they provided 65% landscaping overall to provide a greater separation between the church and the surrounding residences. Some of the requirements for that ADP were that in addition to the approved deviations. The applicant maintain the landscape and tree canopy areas provided as well as not increase the number of parking spaces on site. So to deviate from this requirement, the method would then be to amend the ADP, as we're doing here tonight. So this tables intended to summarize all the elements of this ADP. So as I spoke to, they were required 50% tree canopy for the NR for district. What they was previously approved was the preservation of those trees as well as the new parking lot and street trees . What they're proposing with this amendment is to maintain all of the existing trees. So the original trees on the site as well as their plantings in 2010, as well as to provide the additional required parking lot trees and screening trees to screen the parking lot from the right of way. That would increase the total tree canopy for the site to 30%. The type C buffer that was required by the code, as I mentioned, they were allowed to not provide those buffer plantings in lieu of providing additional landscape area in 2010. What they've requested now is to add an additional 83 parking spaces to the site that would decrease the total landscape area to 58%. So they would still be well above the 40% required, but it would deviate from what was originally approved. And the other element that is new with this request that wasn't addressed in 2010 is the screening requirement for parking that's located between a building and the street. So the code outlines a number of elements that have to be included in that screening. It has to be a 15 foot wide area, contain a berm with a maximum one to four side slope, and then have either one large tree per 40 feet or three small trees clustered every 30 feet. And then in addition, it has to have either zero escaping a continuous shrub row or some sort of wall with a minimum height of three feet. Christian Smith. Thank you, Mr. Currently right now what parkings on the site as of right now, I'm asking for an additional 83 how many parking spaces are now, they have 103 spaces. Okay, I didn't hear that earlier. If this was in a traditional spot rather than an NR4, this is like an NRMU or somewhere else, you know, some other commercial use. What, what parking requirements would be needed for this square footage size of building. The required parking is just based on building square footage so it's the same regardless. Regardless, okay. My understanding and the applicant will be here to speak to this more tonight I believe was that they've always planned to have this number of spaces that they needed. The funds just weren't there at the time to provide that when they first took over the existing school building. Okay, they fall into any of our current code requirements for that to use some sort of per per unit material have to do anything like that. No, based on what they provided to us on their site plan, the number of classrooms in the building the number of seats within the chapel, all of the spaces that they're requesting our marriage just straight concrete and they'll be fine. Yes, that's correct. All right. So with the front parking screening that I was referencing that because of the existing site conditions, there's a large detention pond in between the parking lot in the street on Audra, as well as a drainage easement that runs along the frontage there they they weren't able to provide all these required elements when their engineer assessed the site he found that they couldn't provide the required barb without greatly affecting the site's drainage pattern. So what they've proposed is to widen the landscaping screening where they can so to widen that 15 feet to 20 feet in the areas that aren't affected, or that wouldn't affect the drainage easement. And within that to provide a continuous double row of shr ubs in lieu of the single row. And then they provided one tree for every 25 linear feet instead of one tree for 40 feet. So we'll look at those elements. Now, you can see here the existing church building, all of these parking spaces outlined in yellow are the new spaces you can see they already had a large number of spaces on the site. This would take them from 28% lot coverage currently to 34 %. Looking at the landscaping in blue I tried to outline as best I could the drainage easement that's on the site. Like I said there's a large detention pond within that that they were, we're trying to work around. So in the areas highlighted in green, they have widened the required landscape area to 20 feet as I mentioned, and then increase the amount of plantings within that area. The landscaping would decrease 7% from what's currently on the site with the addition of this impervious paving, and then the tree canopy would increase by 7% with the additional screening and parking lot trees. So the code outlines these criteria for approval of an alternative development plan, the preservation of existing neighborhoods, this being an expansion of an existing use that's been there for many years. Staff didn't find any concerns or any anticipated negative effects from allowing it to continue there. Assuring quality development, what they've requested we found isn't necessarily to lower design standards, it's to work within existing site conditions and provide as much as they can to meet the code. And then focusing new development to activity centers. This wouldn't be in any way contributing to scroll as I mentioned because they're just expanding their existing use on the site. The other two criteria being ensuring infrastructure can be adequately provided. The site has already served with access as well as utilities, so we didn't find any concerns with that. And then resulting in an overall high quality development that meets the intent of the code. What we found is the proposed screening elements go above and beyond what would be required in terms of the number of plantings. They are continuing to preserve all of the existing trees on site as well as increase the canopy. Really it's due to the large acreage of the site that it's quite hard to provide 50% coverage with tree canopy on an eight acre lot. And then the overall landscaping is still well in excess of the 40% minimum that's required. So staff is recommending approval of this request as we found it met all of the required criteria. I'd be happy to answer any questions. See no questions. Thank you. The next item would be public hearing 5A and I'll invite Sean Jacobson to present. All right. When you are. It's all yours. All right. Good evening vice chair and members of the planning and zoning Commission. This evening I'm bringing a request for rezoning from john Featherston on behalf of victory and 288. The proposed site is a point 744 acre site on the southwest corner of loop 288 and East University Drive. The request is to rezone from the current neighborhood residential mixed use to a commercial mixed use zoning. The site in question is currently a commercial vacant site. If you see there we have one vacant building and some out buildings. That's the view from the road you can see our sign for tonight properly posted. The request currently it's a neighborhood residential mixed use zoning as you can see there to facilitate their rede velopment they'd like to go to a community mixed use general zoning. So the two criteria we consider when looking at a rezoning are in DTC section 35.3.4 B does it match the future land use plan and does it allow for if we permit it will we be able to provide the appropriate public services public facilities. So going to the first criteria we want to look at the future land use map. As you can see there the subject property is well within the community mixed use future land use area that's intended primarily for mix of uses that has a commercial focus and the community mixed use general zoning that's proposed would fit with that because it does in fact allow for mix of uses that are commercially focused in nature. The CMG zoning is appropriate in terms of the permitted uses and scale development there and by contrast the current zoning neighborhood residential mixed use is more of a residential focus it's not a great fit it's a as you can see we expect that more to the south there. The CMG zoning would fit better with the future land use. However, future land use map isn't it's not infallible so we want to look at what's on the ground right now. Currently the adjacent uses are primarily commercial or vacant. So again, CMG being commercially focused would fit with that. And the site itself is at the intersection of two primary arterials loop 288 and university drive CMG is designed for allow for uses that need good access and obviously it with two primary arterials, you have great access. So it does actually fit both of those categories, the adjacent uses and the actual site location. The second element would we be able to provide the public facilities public services if we accept this rezoning, as already noted it has good access to primary arterials. Water is provided on site as a sewer, and it's a previously developed location. We did send out courtesy notices 200 500 feet receive no responses. Taking all that into consideration staff recommends approval it meets the criteria we look at it meets the location to primary arterials, and it's compatible with the adjacent uses. And with that said, happy to answer any questions. Mr Smith , they must share Sean are they similar to both is planning on doing some expansion or remodels what are they doing are they planning to sell do you have anything from the applicant to know what why their request for the zoning is coming in. Now, Zimmer a Kubota is the property to the south there. The south of that location. The one this is the undeveloped. So what is, what is that right there is that the is that the, that, that, that don't shop and stuff then or is that the old gas station, it's the old gas station. Yes, sir. Understood. Yes, sir. Okay. Zapping going to be here tonight. Yes, sir. Okay. Another question I have is, is there any protocol from a city's perspective to talk to the neighbors of this property if it seems so clear that that strip should be in alignment with CMG. Was there any reaching out to Kimoto or the donut shop that subway right there to see if they would want to pull together the reason is that happen or. That's not a practice I'm familiar with I believe we generally leave that to owners to come forward with the rez oning request at the time that they find that to be most convenient. I don't see any other questions. Thank you very much. Absolutely. So this time we'll go skip ahead to work session report B, which is a project matrix update. Hold the discussion on rezoning RD RD five X and rural residential areas to residential district. It's all yours Ron. Thank you, Vice Chair. My presentation real quickly. So this presentation is part of a response to requests regarding rural areas specifically and don't rezoning them to future residential development. I think he came from Commissioner Beck on this particular item. So as part of that request, we're presenting this this item . Just to kind of give the commission a little bit more of an overview higher altitude wanted to go over really quickly on the comprehensive plan I know we've got a new planning zoning Commissioner here as well and just want to be able to offer that inside as well. As you all know, then plan 2030 was approved back in 2015 it's our comprehensive plan for the city. As you can see this is what it's intended for primarily a guide for the city to use in considering decisions related to to lane use infrastructure, and the like and I think that relates back to what we're going to be discussing a few minutes. It is really a 20 year plan out seeing what what the city should be wants to be in the future. Moving forward. The plan itself has 10 elements from lane use to community character to mobility. There's themes that were used to to draft the comprehensive plan, all for a mobility community character, sustainability and community health were important themes that was used at the end of the comprehensive plan there is an implementation chapter that contains actions that relate back to the goals that were established in the comprehensive plan. And as any plan review and updates are necessary and comprehensive plans tend to be looked at between five to seven years out so 2015 we're in 2018 so in a couple years probably revisiting the comprehensive plan. Within the comprehensive plan there is a community vision statement, and I pulled this up, because obviously this is the meat of the plan. This is the community's vision. And as it relates to a rural areas, there is a particular section the community vision statement. I know it's hard to see so I've kind of recreated that section of community vision statement. And in that section, it's the rural fringe areas with the rural areas that we have here in the city. So the community vision statement states is that those areas contiguous in the future should be staged in growth, be physically and environmentally sound, reduce frag mentation of those areas and reduce sprawl discourage premature development and conserve as much future development as possible conservation development is encouraged, which retains rural character of the area protects our open spaces and our greenways and views. Also value our development values are greater, and it's an offer, it's a way to offer more choices to our residents. Lastly, there's a there's a bullet there that talks about safety and compatibility, as it relates to activities in these areas, primarily, as we look at the air to the west gas wall and drilling production, specifically. So, again, within the damn plan 2030 there is a section that talks about rural areas, rural area is a future land use designation in rural areas as described as an as areas, primarily for farms and ran chats, very low density, low in height, no more than two stories tall, primarily single family on large lots, which are suitable for the periphery of the city promotes conservation development. When we have the opportunity to cluster homes we should and conserve areas that are more suitable for open space. Again, materials, consistent with the natural surrounding of the area, rural in nature. So how does that translate to zoning, going a step further down a rural areas are transferred as you see in this chart , the area that is in green, our current zoning districts is the RD five, I'm sorry, yes RD five, and the RC. I don't see RD five x there because that is not a zoning district is just a designation so when it, when you look at rural areas were referring to the RD five and the RC zoning districts. What an RD five is, is as zoning district is defined as the areas that are very low in density in as used for agricultural uses RC is those areas that are allowed to have some rural. I'm sorry commercial uses, such as a general store, an area where goods can be sold and purchased. And then we have the rural residential which RD five x, and that again is not a zoning district is a designation in the x is just to distinguish the difference between the two. And these areas that are shown as RD five x are properties that were recently annexed into the city and not yet zoned. And the one and the reason why we have that designation is the section in our development code, which is stated here 35 16 AG, and that any application that comes in again now it's in the city so it's annex into the city, and any application again, we have to review again something and if there's no zoning, what do we fall back to, and we fall back to the RD five as explained here, specifically in the areas or the, the language that is in green, and I'll just really, I'll read it real briefly or quickly that is for newly annexed land that has not yet been zoned. Specifically it's identified in the DDC, but also it's our lowest intense use or zoning district. So it makes sense. So that's why you have already five x's in certain areas of the city that were again recently annexed. So, where are those areas. I had our GIS folks prepare an exhibit I apologize if it's hard to see here. The areas that are in green the lighter green our zone already five x , I'm sorry not zone but rather designated already five x. The areas that are of a darker green, and even a lighter green, are your RD. I'm sorry already five in our see. So you see that almost 111 parcels have not yet been zoned. There are about 19 that are RD five, and then 12 that are RC. So the majority of these areas are RD five x, and we need to zone these properties. Soon, or they'll remain already five. The intent of when the property was annex was that the property would be zoned immediately. We haven't done that as a city, the applicant or the property owners that that want to develop haven't done that they haven't, they haven't needed a need to come in for rez oning because they haven't developed or if they do develop there within the parameters of already five. So, no activity yet on these areas and you can see the majority of what we see along the periphery of the city is already five designated as already five. Next, again telling us that there's not a lot of development activity there if if there were you'd see them in in, I think it was last planning zoning Commission meeting, we had an application, just north of long road, and that's probably one of the more recent areas that was rezoned from our zone that is from whatever RD five x to in our four or six with a condition. So, so the reason or the why why do we have already five x is there were why haven't we done it yet, and I blew this up here to show you that in 2008. We annex all this area here has shown primarily as we receive development activity, north of town and this is the the Craver Ranch development. The city initiated a rezoning, I'm sorry, an annexation of this area, but the Craver Ranch never developed, and therefore the zoning never took place. So it's been designated RD five x since 2008. Another explanation of why we have so many already five x is, is that in 2010, we the city initiated a involuntary annexation process of these planning area annexation areas, you see that we have four planning areas to the north, and the remaining RD h, which is referred to as donut holes in the city started this back again in 2010. In 2010, the areas in blue or annex into the city. And again they were never zoned, they were just annex and so therefore receive that already five x. In 2010, the, the city council allowed for non annexation agreements to be issued or to be granted to expire in 2015. And so, those properties that were not annex were subject to annexation in 2015. In 2015, the council approved on some annexation you see there in green, but also extended those non annexation agreements for others. And for another year to expire in 2016. 2016 came around and we annex these parcels that are shown in purple. Not all of the properties were annex, the remaining parcels were again given another extension. And that year is 2020. So August 2020. These non annexation agreements of those areas that were not annex will be subject to again see see council's determination either to extend it or to proceed with annex ation. Commissioner back. Thanks. First year let me ask a question here because going up there in the northeast quadrant there , we've still got this. I guess it's et et j area. What prevented. I mean leaving that big hole there what prevented the city from going ahead and annex and that no come down to your this way. Yes. And then you're golfing that rather than leave it open like that it's like a big old hole in the year that we've been X what prevented that from being my understanding when they when they started this process back in 2009. There was actually PA five here. And then this was another PA six. However, they decided again council decided to go forward with this area, anticipating growth happening here, more likely in the immediate future than these areas so that was I believe the reason why they left these out but you're right. That would make sense but unfortunately they were. They decided to move forward with this area versus the area to the east. Okay, moving forward what kind of prohibitions or limitations with the city have in in annexing that area is there going to be some right concern. I think it's a little higher than that we have the state just approved the legislation that basically limits or not limits but rather gives direction on how involuntary annex ations are to occur, and it is a much more involved process, which requires the owners to vote to basically agree. If they don't agree then elections are scared are required to even to annex those properties so very unlikely and a little bit more difficult process. If the city does decide to go forward with future involunt ary annexation. Okay, great. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. In regards to Larry so continue on because it's in the ETJ. As I understand the ETJ it's a little bit like the Wild West out there anybody can pretty much do whatever they want to out there. Is that correct with no not not not very many restrictions no code code. Yeah, they would have to follow county requirements. There 's no city is what I should say is no no city enforcement on anything code wise. So, with having those types of holes and granted it's a harder process but having those types of holes hilarious point now in that northeast quadrant, essentially, pretty much anybody can go in there and do what they wanted to as long as it met county land use and design standards yes, what we, the city does have is subdivision regulations through an area local agreement with the county. We review and I think you've seen plats that have come through the planning zoning Commission for those properties but you're right, nothing that we can say as far as land use or design standards. Thank you. Okay, so here's here's the, the map that shows all the areas filled in. Again, again, based on her, whatever the City Council decides in 2020. They'll either move forward with annexation or extend those non annexation agreements that is yet to be determined. I threw a couple slides here, just to help illustrate some of what I'm going to be discussing in the next few slides. I looked into this back in 1974 the city annex this segment of university drive this is east of town. This is mingo and the railroad tracks, and this is again university. When they annex this. They were trying to get out as far. My understanding is really to extend our ETJ boundary further out. They gave it an art to zoning, primarily because at that time before the 2002 code is probably the lowest intense use similar to what we have now is already five so they gave an art to. Now is that the right zoning for that area. Probably not. I mean if it's a commercial I'm sorry if it's a highway a quarter commercial probably a little bit more appropriate but now that's that's what we have we have our to along university drive. Another area is north of town. Again, as you can see, they extended all the way up as far, you know, pass my lim road, and again, received an art to zoning back in 2000 or whenever it was zoned, received the lowest intense use. And then in 2002 and we zone the entire city and received an art to zoning district. Locust is right here. And this is a high. I 35. So I show all this to kind of going back to the question. I appreciate the, the patients here. The future land use or the, the den plan 2030 has goals in the land use goals that are in their den plan 2030 is to grow compactly with purpose, grow with our, our assets and be resourceful grow with character and balance. Is a preferred growth concept again in our plan 2030 that shows the area that we want to see growth happening. You know, first, and I know that this is just a guy so this is just take it for you know what it is it's a guiding document. We see that we want to see areas around the downtown. The core primarily basically the core is loop 288 in I 35, you see that we have major nodes or commercial centers identified as growth areas. We see that there are some development here in yellow towards Teasley and South of town ropes and ranch, anticipating more development there. Now that there are also, you know, development, you know, seen here on coal range the future coal ranch, when that develops. We also have hills of den so those are the areas, again, along major corridors and along commercial centers where prefer growth, again is preferred, it's a guiding document should go. Where does that leave all the areas north of town or, you know, west of town where those non, I'm sorry those are D five zoning districts or RD five x destinations, go. It didn't anticipate it so for our purposes are for the plan 2030. Development is not going to occur in any time soon, and that we should focus our growth here, not only that it fits within the goals but it's it's compact, our infrastructure is within the core, and we're not extending our, our, you know, our infrastructure. Further out where there's, there's not much activities there, and physically we we can we can withstand some of that type of development. That being said, we as you all know we're working on a draft code update with that is a draft zoning map. And we wanted to share this with you because following our land use goals in our development activity that we've seen, we, we see that the areas to the north to the west, north and around to the east, you can see that these areas are still shown in green and that green is what we refer to as rural residential. That's what we're proposing, and again, ultimately that will be brought forward to y'all for your consideration and City Council for ultimate decision. But the idea there is that, as, as you look north of town and West, it's, it's meant it's it's supposed to be rural. But again, this is the, the, the, the, the plan 2030 is a guide. The zoning map is a little bit more than that it's actually in you, you have to comply with the zoning map. So that's why it's important that we visit this and take very careful consideration. And maybe this area here are closer to the loop. Maybe these areas are not rural areas, and rather rural residential but should be zone for residential. So, I think that's where we were asking and maybe that was the question maybe I went off completely the rails but if we are thinking of residential along the periphery of town. This is the time to start thinking about how we want to zone is as we move forward. If, if not, then we are going to zone these properties or the draft zoning of these properties are going to be our, our which is rural residential, and we will no longer have RD five x, it will be all zoned. So that's what we are. Let's go with Commissioner Smith real fast. Thank you. That 's true. On the on the our our there where we said the Craven development was if we'll say there was a suggestion before we get through the rest of the DC update and do the new zoning. There's nothing we can do to maybe even suggest something that make that zoning more favorable to bring development towards that way is that something you said we can't can do is that is that is the. Is that a commission to you can see if a developer came in and saw that was our arm. It basically if there was an hour versus whatever they have there are are three or four when I knew the new DC says, if it was an hour for an hour for already. And would that attract possibly more developers to it because they would have to go the extra step of having to rezone from the RR to the R for a message is asking question to see. Commission possibly make that area if we feel like that as a commission that should be developed. Could we do something now to maybe at least make that area more attractive for development by getting I think that's a fair suggestion of recommendation to city council. The risk is that you need to be right. Of course, if you hit wrong if you hit the wrong area with with the intense zoning, then you're not going to be able to dial that back later. If you find out that it was wrong. What I think what staff is proposing is a more conservative approach that would avoid potential liability for down zoning if we hit the wrong area. Question. Thank you. Thank you. I share a couple things. Once we lose the RD five X RD X and go to our right. Does that become more complicated than we want to make some zone changes down the road, then make any more different. Okay, they would, similarly to what we've seen today with any zoning change request they would just come in and submit an application. Okay, and I agree with your concept that there are just certain areas that, you know, way off down the road that, you know, we shouldn't even consider developed but if you look at this map, you kind of see a pregnancy there where it's kind of pushing out towards the northeast. No, within the loop there. Okay, yeah, see how it's pushing out. And we did bring up that area along long road and how that area is developing. You've got residential that's on the, I guess it would be the south side of the loop, kind of pushing its way towards that area. And I want to control. And I think we all should want to control expansion of residential. That's why I'm reluctant to expand our three or two or four out that way but that at least part of that Sherman drive is what it is, is going to be eventually a primary arterial because it's going to be widen later down the road. And I'm hoping we can and I guess the DC rewrite sub committee to look at it too. That should be to me like suburban corridor, a mixed use thing where we can get some commercial development in there first, and then let the residential follow that, if need be because that's prime for. Right. Does that make sense. Yeah, yeah, no, definitely. And that that again that's the, the, you know, this was a recent case that the Plains on the Commission heard and, you know, obviously, we had this as our, was it the right. I'm sorry, the future land use designation I don't I don't want to say that this was already determined but because it 's still draft, but the future land use had this as rural areas was was that the appropriate designation. Maybe not but that was just one time I think it was I think that's changing. Yeah. And we saw again, the other way you're proven 2015 so you know there's certain things that have changed. Right. The other area is concerned about but it's going to be in that area where there is a lot of growth was that stretch of University 380 out there, where it's in our to now. But again we were looking at least on the stretch of University within maybe 500 feet each side mate, making that more amenable to commercial development to and getting rid of that in our to right and then again that's why yeah that's a good point and I think that goes back to what Commissioner Smith was referring to, you know, what's more attractive you know what would what would you know if we can help you know track businesses. That's part of this effort as well and you can see that those areas that had an hour to propose. It would be more commercial. And so that's what we're proposing. Are you good. Commissioner Smith. Yeah, thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, I think I was saying is that with being our are we're just kind of letting it possibly just letting development come as it comes and if it comes and it you know hey it's sitting our now and you want to build a commercial here and then a residential there because patchwork but essentially as a commission have a little bit of power of saying, of course, you know to legal advice not making it too restrictive because they can come in but, but being able to come in and say something along the lines of hey let's make it, you know, our one or two, and we start almost like, you know, flies with honey we start putting out Hey, this is what we want to see here we want to see suburban development up this corridor. And so we want to make this are two and so that would tell developers that this is not just open for interpretation. This is what we want out here have let's attract the type of people that we want to come and develop that to zone that's already there. So, rather than letting it come as it may and commissions change over and maybe by the whims of it, they become as piecework together we can kind of go and paint the picture of what we want that there that's, that's true that's true future planning rather than just being a voting commission. But in a commissioners but just I just illustrate a little bit about what you just mentioned. See this area right over here. You can see my mouse. That's currently doesn't is RD five x, you know, we see growth happening on the east side of town as well. And so we, again, propose our to in that area. Hopefully see more development correct in that area so but yeah you I mean do I mean, where and how, in, in which area is something that I believe the commission can make recommendations towards. One thing that particular on that west side I think as we look at it. Just given the number of gas wells in that area whether or not it really makes sense. So maybe it's maybe it's sort of a lower intensity mixed use. Again, could be it could be a lot of things but, but I think if we go straight residential and some of those particularly out west. I think we'd be back again for a rezoning change. I'm not prepared to make recommendations. I think it's enlightening to know that we could possibly take a harder look at it and say, here's some here's some pretty good uses for what's out there is really a way we get a continuation of this presentation where we do see gas wells are out here here's what could be pretty good uses, other than the RR would be quick we could see an R one or two out here, or there's not too many gas wells in this area we could possibly see some suburban development here here there are gas wells here so maybe lighter mixed use or commercial use be better there. I think that'd be beneficial for us to be able to at least give you guys a direction and recommendation. Certainly, certainly appreciate it. That was my presentation unless you all have any other questions. Thank you, Vice Chair. So Ron, I think what I hear you saying is losing the already five x really means nothing because the city's probably not going to be voluntarily taking property and we're right with what you're less again again unless there's a special circumstance, then, you know, then, then, I'm sure the city would would consider an involuntary annexation but from what I hear, or experience I don't think that will be anytime soon. Does the state law now affect the non annexation agreements at all. You know that is a question that you know the city attorney, I have discussed you know the non annexation agreements were adopted or approved prior to the deadline or what the, the time that it went effective. December 1 of last year. That's still to be determined I can certainly find out and get a little bit more information and share that with the commission but I don't have a quick answer. Yeah, because I guess that my question would be is, if suddenly we've now taken that property, then what is it. 2020, you know we get in 2020 what that zoning would be. That's a good question. We probably have to at that point zone that property. In my opinion, as we, if we do decide to go forward with annexation, we would zone those with the appropriate zoning at that time, and not leave it to any default zoning or default designation. Just just to add, if, if there is a use there they can still continue, I believe under the annexation. Opportunity. Yeah, well, yes, and at the end of the non annexation agreement, if it is not extended, then we can annex at that time. There's nothing that says we couldn't hold it in a holding pattern similar to an already five x what we call it now or the idea that it's just unzoned at that time and subject to zoning at, at some point but I think that what we're hearing is that staff is wanting to try to get more out in front of that and try to anticipate the needs when properties are brought in if at all possible. Mr Sanchez. Okay. Yeah, I kind of like that. Five dx because it kind of leaves that open to, to it well, the development is we don't. It seems like we want to what we're hearing is, you want to put in zoning, when in reality we really don't know how the city is going to grow. And then we zone it at that point. It kind of limits what you're going to do and to me it kind of puts a break on on what he just mentioned is is puts a break on it scares developers. I think the idea of you work with it, you work with the area and see what's happening there and then start developing it I mean zoning it not come in and annex it and then say okay we're going to give it this egg is designation. I think that's time or time or hands quite a bit. I think, I think development is something that flows growing of cities is constantly flowing. Once we start putting designations, we kind of tie it. And then we tie our own hands rather than let let the city grow . I mean, when I say grow I'm saying is we're constantly overseeing it here in the, what do you call it planning and zoning, we're constantly going back every five six years to see what's going on. And then at that point, but just annex an area and then given the designation I think that that's limiting our growth and, and then brings, it's going to bring a lot of more issues. Point taken. Yes. See any other questions. You said your presentation. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you. So before we close out the work session we want to take a minute, the commission and city staff wanted to honor outgoing chairman strange for a service to the commission, and so I'll turn it over to Richard for for more. We wanted to just thank Jim for the six years of service, and I haven't been here that that that amount of time but but I do appreciate having him having him sit as the chair, particularly coming coming into this position recently. He's asked him some challenging questions, and obviously has a different perspective being being from development community which which makes it, you know, it's good to have have all those different perspectives. So I'm sure we will will see you probably in a different light. But we did want to offer your or recognize you, but also offer you a lifetime membership. Time. I may sit out in the audience. A few times and hopefully we'll have the opportunity to continue to bring projects before this commission as I did before I got to sit on the commission and hopefully we'll continue to do so after and we'll reflect on earlier this morning. First and foremost I want to just take a few minutes and think peak camp. It's been six years ago when she called and asked if I would serve, and she gave me a very good warning. She said gas wells is coming up so before you consider taking this you need to know what you're signing up for, and I agreed to do that and that was a very fair warning from her. And then I was honored when Dalton Gregory appointed me two more times, and again to to serve for six years and so it's been an honor to serve serve six years prior to being on PN C with building and standards, or haps go board before getting the opportunity to serve here at PNC and we'll see what the future holds. It's didn't the community obviously I was born in and raised in and work in, and have enjoyed getting opportunity to serve and maybe there'll be some other opportunities that I can continue to give back. I have a lot of fellow commissioners there's been a lot of folks that I've had the opportunity to serve with before you all were here and they'll be. I'm sure a group of very talented people that will continue to come before this commission and serve on this commission. Thank you each of you all for making it a pleasure and an honor to to be your chairman for these last two years it's a it's a responsibility and an honor that I've cherished it sometimes I'm sure I've stepped on some toes. I'm sorry for anybody that that I may have stepped on too hard sometime but I hope also that by sharing my opinion it 's helped not only our commission but mostly of all our, our city. And your faith in me to be your chairperson and, and thank you for this honor. Your presence will be missed for sure. So, best of luck enjoying your Wednesday nights. Welcome to the planning and zoning Commission meeting for August 8 2018. I'll call this meeting to order at 640 apologize for the delay. The first order of business is to stand give allegiance to the US and Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one individual. The next item on the agenda is to consider the approval of the planning and zoning Commission meetings for July 25, chair will open the floor to a motion. Commissioner back. I move we approve the minutes. Commissioner Ellis. Second. We have first and second will call for a vote on the board. We vote on the board vote by hands by show of hands those in favor for approval against abstention. The vote minutes carry for zero with one abstaining. Next we have a change in the agenda. We're going to go ahead and move item for a and cover that now. Item for is to consider and appoint a member for the planning and zoning Commission chair and vice chair we had a chair roll off this evening. And so that position is being vacated. The vice chair will entertain a nomination for the chair position. Commissioner Smith a motion to point Andrews L is our chair for our commission. I appreciate that. Commissioner back. Second. First and second. Is there any discussion or do we vote and take another nomination if it fails. See no discussion will call this to a vote will do by show of hands those in favor. Raise your hand against abstaining passes six zero. Thank you all very much. I appreciate that. Hopefully I can serve in a good capacity. Next we will entertain a motion for the vice chair position . Commissioner back. I move we approve commissioner Margie Ellis for vice chair and commissioner Smith. Second. Commissioner Ellis do you accept the nomination. I do. Thank you very much. With that we will call vote by show of hands those in favor . Against abstaining vote carries six zero. Congratulations vice chair Ellis. With that we can progress to the consent agenda chair will entertain a motion for the consent agenda. Commissioner Smith motion for approval and commissioner Ellis. Second we have a first and second is there any discussion on the items. With that we will vote by show of hands those in favor. Against abstaining passes six zero. Next we have item 4B SP eighteen zero zero one eight and I will invite Haley for presentation. Good evening this is case SP eighteen eighteen for I hop at razor ranch. The request is for approval of a site plan for an I hop restaurant to be constructed within the razor ranch south R R two district. The site is outlined in yellow on the map. It's approximately one acre in total. The site is currently comprised of one lot plus a portion of a second lot. The property is going through the planning process to reloc ate that lot line and make this all one lot. As you can see it's located along the frontage road north of scripture street and in close proximity to the new convention center. The base zoning for this area is a regional center commercial downtown. However as you can see here this entire area is part of the razor ranch overlay district. In particular this property is part of what's known as the south RR two district which is kind of a commercial commercial perimeter district for the southern part that would surround the town center. All site plans for properties within the razor ranch overlay district are required to be approved by the planning and zoning commission. In particular there are architectural and landscape standards outlined in the overlay district that are required to be considered as part of this approval. The criteria for approval of a site plan are that it substantially complies with that concept plan we just saw. So this meets that criteria being a commercial use that's permitted within that district. The site plan is to provide for a compatible arrangement of buildings and uses so as not to adversely affect properties outside of the overlay district. It's to provide for adequate and safe vehicular circulation and to comply with all of the architectural and landscape standards outlined in the overlay. So we'll look at these in a little more detail now. Outlined in blue is the apartment building footprint. It would be just over 4600 square feet. The minimum of 47 parking spaces are required. They are providing 66 on site within the razor ranch overlay. They are exempted from the maximum parking standard that we have elsewhere in the city. And as you can see here there would be a one driveway shown in gray that would connect to an internal drive aisle within the overlay district. So no direct connectivity to the service road. In terms of landscaping the site is required to have a minimum of 10 percent landscaping. They're providing 26 percent generally in the areas shown in green. They're required 25 percent tree canopy at maturity. The trees they're planting would provide 46 percent canopy coverage for the site. Another criteria of razor ranch is to provide plaza areas for pedestrians on each property. They're providing a 604 square feet of plaza that would include benches, shade trees in close proximity and then some additional planters outside the front of the building. And that area is generally shown in yellow. Here you can see the building elevations. So they are meeting the building material and color palette requirements for razor ranch. As I'm sure you're familiar with there's a general neutral earth tone theme that's carried throughout all of the buildings there. As well as a requirement for some native Texas limestone on each of the buildings. So this is providing for those elements. With that staff is recommending approval of the request as we found it to be compliant with all the regulations of the razor ranch overlay district as well as the criteria for approval. And I'd be happy to stand for any questions. Thank you Haley. There are no questions at this time. Thank you very much. Oh never mind. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. Haley you mentioned in work session that there's part of another lot and the plant has not been filed yet. Is that on them to file it. So the plot has been through the approval process. It was an amending plot. So it's a approval by staff under the local government code . So it's been approved. They just haven't brought in the execution package to have that filed yet. But obviously they will and they would need to. Yes. Yes. That will be done. I think that's it. This item is an individual individual consideration item. If there's anyone to speak they can speak on this item. If you want to speak and come up we just need to fill out a card after before you leave. But you're more welcome to step forward. We just need your name and address. Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the commission. I appreciate you having me here today. My name is Michael Walden. I'm the director of construction facility services for IHOP . We just want to let you know that we're very excited to have the opportunity to move and be part of Razor Ranch. As you know we'll be closing down our own location as the university continues to expand and grow. And it's just been an exciting opportunity to work with H aley and the team. And we appreciate the hard work of the entire city staff and city of Denver. It's been a great experience. We thank you. Great. I don't see any questions but thank you for being here. With that the chair will entertain a motion. Commissioner Smith. And Commissioner Ellis. Second. We have a first and second. Any discussion? Seeing none we will vote by show of hands. Those in favor? Opposed? Six against abstain. The item is approved 6-0. Congratulations. Next I'll invite Haley back up for item 4C ADP 18-5. This is a parking lot expansion at the faith tabernacle church. The purpose of this ADP is kind of dual fold. There was an original ADP approved for the site in 2010 that would be amended with this approval. As well as some new deviations being requested from the landscaping requirements contained in subchapter 13 of the development code. The property is outlined here in yellow on the map. It is just under eight acres in total. Located at the southwest corner of Audreau lane and Lat imore street. The property is zoned neighborhood residential 4. A little bit of history. In 2010 as I mentioned an ADP was approved that granted a few deviations from the codes landscaping requirements. The first of those being a reduction in the minimum tree canopy. 50% canopy coverage is required for the NR4 district. Given the large size of the site that was difficult to attain. So the planning and zoning commission at that time approved a lower percentage that was comprised of all existing trees on the site being preserved. And the new trees being planted as street trees and parking lot trees. Additionally they had requested to deviate from the buffer requirement because of the close proximity of residential uses. A 15 foot type C buffer was required on the south and west property lines. In lieu of providing the buffer plantings they provided additional landscape area on the site to help create more separation between the church and the residential uses nearby. And as kind of the conditions of approval of that plat was that the applicant maintained the landscape and tree canopy area approved under the ADP. As well as not increase the number of parking spaces on site. So to add additional parking and deviate from what was approved that brings us back here tonight. Kind of a brief summary of what was approved then and what 's requested now. As I mentioned in terms of the tree canopy they were unable to provide that 50%. What was approved was the preservation of 54 existing trees . As well as the provision of new trees to bring them to 22.8 % landscaping. What you'll see here on the plans tonight is again to maintain all of the existing trees. And provide additional trees by way of parking lot trees and screening that would increase the canopy to 30%. The type C buffer as I mentioned they were approved to not provide the buffer plantings by providing greater landscape area. So that would be affected by this. They're adding 83 spaces to 103 that are already on site. So that would increase the lot coverage and decrease the landscape area to 58%. And then as I mentioned front parking screening is the other component here was not addressed in the 2010 ADP. But the code does require when parking is between the building and the street that a 15 foot wide landscape screening area be provided. That contains a berm, a certain number of tree plantings and either shrubs or some sort of wall. What the applicant has proposed is in areas where they're able to to not interfere with the drainage and tension on site. To provide a 20 foot wide landscape area with a double row of shrubs and increased number of trees. So just looking at the proposed site plan you can see outlined in yellow the general areas where new parking would be provided. As I mentioned there's 83 more spaces in addition to the 103 that are already approved. They would decrease the lot coverage from 34% to 28% with this addition. In terms of landscaping outlined in the grayish blue color is that drainage facility or tension facility that I mentioned. That created some complications because as you can see the parking already butts up against that. So it's hard for them to provide for the required landsca ping and berm in that area. So what they have proposed in the areas outlined in green are the new plantings on site in front of the parking would be that 20 foot wide area that I referenced that contained one tree per 25 feet as well as a double row of evergreen shrubs. The total site landscaping would be decreased by 7% but the canopy coverage for the site would increase by 7% as a result of this change. There are several criteria for approval of an ADP so I'll run through those briefly. The preservation of existing neighborhoods we did not identify any concerns there as this is the expansion of parking for an existing use. In terms of assuring a quality development we found that what they're requesting isn't necessarily lowering design standards it's just providing an alternative that works with the existing drainage and engineering of the site. And then this would not be in any way contributing to spraw l because it's just a continuation and expansion of their use. Infrastructure is already provided to the site served by utilities as well as access to roadways. And then in terms of this being a high quality development they are providing above and beyond the plantings that would be required for that screening area just an alternative locations. They're continuing to preserve all the trees as was required by the previous ADP and they are still maintaining landscaping area that's well in excess of the 40% minimum. With that staff is recommending approval of the request as we found it to meet all the criteria for approval. I'd be happy to stand for any questions. Thank you Haley. I do not see any questions. Appreciate the presentation. This item is for individual consideration. You are open to speak on the item if you'd like to speak if anyone here would like to speak I don't have any cards but you're more than welcome to speak. Seeing none we'll move to a discussion or motion. Commissioner Smith. Motion to approve. Commissioner Sanchez. I'll second is there any discussion. Seeing no Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. Just wanted to thank Haley for putting this together so nicely. It was great to see you know the requirement the background . So well and how it relates to the current request. So thank you. Good point. Seeing no further discussion will call for a vote by show of hands those in favor. Against abstaining. Item carries six zero. Next on the agenda is public hearing Z 18 dash 12 I'll invite Sean Jacobson presentation and with that I'll also open the public hearing for the item. Good evening. Good evening chair and members of the commission. Tonight I'm presenting a rezoning request on behalf of John Featherston who's here for victory in 288 LLC is here if you have questions afterwards. The property in question is at the southwest corner of the intersection of loop 288 and East University Drive say 0.7 44 acre site and they're requesting a rezoning from neighborhood residential mixed use to community mixed use general. Currently the site is basically a vacant commercial site. You have one large vacant building and then some outbuild ings around that site there. Current zoning neighborhood residential mixed use proposed community mixed use general. When we're assessing a rezoning request we look at DDC section 35.3.4 B and we consider whether it aligns the proposed zoning aligns with the future land use plan as well as if the requested zoning was allowed whether we would be able to provide adequate public facilities public services. So taking that first question looking at the future land use map we see that the property in question is in the community mixed use area and it turns out that community mixed use general works very well with that proposed potential land use. It's a future land use is expected to be a mix of uses but with a primarily commercial angle and those are the types of uses that CMG would permit. By contrast the current zoning neighborhood residential mixed use while allowing for a mix of uses is more of a residentially focused zoning and so it's less appropriate when compared to the future land use map. Looking at the adjacent uses right now primarily it's either commercial or undeveloped around the property in question and so commercially focused CMG zoning would be compatible with those current uses around the area. Also as you can see in the lower side we have two primary arterials there at the intersection and CMG is particularly well designed allows uses that are commercial and that fit well in places with good access and two primary arterials good access. It's a good fit for the uses allowed under CMG. Looking at the second criteria public facilities and provision of public services as we've discussed it has good access site also has both water and sewer available and it has been previously developed. We did send out notifications to the public in the area 200 and 500 feet we received no responses for or against. Taking all this together staff recommends approval the request meets with our criteria in the DDC and it fits the adjacent uses and the nature of the location. With that I'm happy to answer any questions and I know as I said the applicant is available as well. Perfect great presentation. Thank you very much. There's no no questions this time. Thank you. This is a public hearing and open for individuals to speak the applicant if you'd like to speak or anyone else like to speak. You're more than welcome to do so at this time. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, sir. Can I ask the applicant a question. And sir when when you come up you say your full name and address for the record. John the last name's Featherstone I'm with the dimension group 10755 Sandhill Road Dallas Texas 75238. Thank you. Great. So the question I had was what is the intent for the rezone . I know that there's the old gas station there. The reason is an intent to develop actual property rezone and sell. What's the intent for the reason. Actually the intent is it will be the existing the old vacant convenience store gas station all the car wash that building that's sitting there. All of that will be demoed. We already have plans turned in to the city and they're under review for a new convenience store with gasoline sales. They'll be developed per your current standards. They can look far better than what's sitting there right now. Anything look for about what's sitting there. So pretty sure. Thank you very much. Thank you. We would I would just respectfully request that you follow the staff's recommendation and recommend approval to the council. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Commissioner Beck. Thank you. Chair I'm glad to see this development come in. I remember when the old Shell station was there and when it disappeared I couldn't believe it's set there for so long. So I'm glad to see this come back in play. It's in an area in close proximity to me. It keeps me from having to go under the loop to the gas stations up there. So it's very convenient. I'm glad to see this. I hope this change goes through. I think CMG is a good change for this area especially along loop 288 as far up as Audreau. So I think this is a good move all the way around. Thank you. Seeing no other speakers or questions I'll close the public hearing and move to discussion or motion. Commissioner Beck. I move to approve the 180012. Commissioner Smith. Second the motion. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none we will vote by show of hands. Those in favor? Against? Abstaining? The item passes 6-0. Congratulations. That moves us to item 6A our planning and zoning project matrix. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Just wanted to bring it onto the public record for the item that we discussed during work session reports. Just if we can make sure that gets on the planning matrix to see that RR and what possible uses we could do in those areas that were discussed. Just wanted to make sure that got on. I didn't know if that got on the matrix of work session. I want to make sure it got on there now. Yes. Just to kind of go back over the matrix because I know we had set some dates sort of clear because I know some things were pending since 2016. At the next meeting what we'll try to do is also bring that back for the next meeting for discussion. We will have another new P&Z member. I think at that time it might be good to have legal sort of just talk a little bit about what we can and we can't talk about as part of the work session. So that item will be included as well as I presented to the Committee on the Environment earlier in the week on Monday with the latest draft of the tree code. What I will do on Friday is or prior to Friday I will send everybody a copy of the memo, the AIS that I had prepared as well as the draft regulations and PowerPoint presentation. And then I'll go over that whole packet really at the next P&Z meeting. We're going back to COE in September and then I have coming back again to P&Z for work session. So we're coming back full force with the tree code. So I just wanted to make sure everyone was in the loop. So it is coming. I said it was coming back. So it's coming back. So we're going to really devote probably the next two meetings and then some. We're going to be getting a memo from Solid Waste on the recycling question. I'll have that distributed as well. If we need further clarification, we'll have them come back in. But I wanted to I figured most of the time would be spent on the on the tree code. And so I wanted to reserve enough time for that. Otherwise, we have the other dates and we'll continue to move through these items and any new ones that come up. Great. Thank you. You good. Kishore Ellis. Thank you, Chair. You know, I just wanted to take a moment in regular meeting to thank our outgoing chair, Jim Strange, for his years of service and leadership to the city. He's done a great job on planning and zoning these last six years. So thanks to him. Yeah, for sure. I can echo that. Kishore Beck. I would like to second Commissioner Ellis's comments and I 'd like to officially welcome new Commissioner Matt Pernita to our crew to welcome board. Any other items for the matrix discussion with that, we will close the PNC meeting for August 8th at seven oh five.