WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:08.440 Good afternoon and welcome to the planning and zoning work session for January 23rd. 00:00:08.440 --> 00:00:12.040 It is 5.04, we'll call the work session to order. 00:00:12.040 --> 00:00:16.040 In terms of the meeting order, 00:00:16.040 --> 00:00:19.280 what we'll do tonight like we did last time is switch 00:00:19.280 --> 00:00:21.720 the work session reports and then look at the agenda. 00:00:21.720 --> 00:00:26.320 So we'll start with item 2A for the work session, 00:00:26.320 --> 00:00:29.920 then we'll go to 2B and then we'll come back to 1, 00:00:29.920 --> 00:00:33.040 which will walk through the short agenda this evening. 00:00:33.040 --> 00:00:34.840 So with that being said, 00:00:34.840 --> 00:00:36.920 the first item that we'll look at tonight will 00:00:36.920 --> 00:00:40.480 be a discussion regarding the historic preservation plan. 00:00:40.480 --> 00:00:43.040 I believe Roman is here for presentation. 00:00:43.040 --> 00:00:44.140 Thank you, Chair. 00:00:44.140 --> 00:00:44.720 Good evening. 00:00:44.720 --> 00:00:47.040 Good evening, everyone. Thank you. 00:00:47.040 --> 00:00:56.960 I'm going to talk to you about the preservation plan that we're working on, 00:00:56.960 --> 00:01:00.720 and then, Chair, you had asked in a previous meeting about incentives, 00:01:00.720 --> 00:01:02.240 preservation tax incentives. 00:01:02.240 --> 00:01:03.840 So it's two parts. 00:01:03.840 --> 00:01:06.840 You guys haven't heard from Lakota Group before, 00:01:06.840 --> 00:01:08.480 they're not here in town today, 00:01:08.480 --> 00:01:10.320 but I'm going to present a little bit for them. 00:01:10.320 --> 00:01:16.160 So we have just as an update to the City of Denton's preservation plan. 00:01:16.160 --> 00:01:19.440 The original plan was adopted in 1985. 00:01:19.440 --> 00:01:22.360 That's the cover of it on the right. 00:01:22.640 --> 00:01:28.440 In the Denton plan 2030, we called for updating that existing plan. 00:01:28.440 --> 00:01:31.040 In March of 2018, finally, 00:01:31.040 --> 00:01:34.200 an RFP was issued which was directly mailed to 00:01:34.200 --> 00:01:41.100 18 preservation planning firms across the country plus the normal channels. 00:01:41.100 --> 00:01:46.480 Four teams submitted to do the plan, 00:01:46.480 --> 00:01:48.440 Lakota Group was selected, 00:01:48.440 --> 00:01:53.600 and then additionally, we did receive a $20,000 matching grant from 00:01:53.600 --> 00:01:57.880 the Texas Historical Commission through our certified local government program, 00:01:57.880 --> 00:01:59.560 which Denton is a member of. 00:01:59.560 --> 00:02:02.900 So if we complete the plan by September 30th, 00:02:02.900 --> 00:02:07.800 then we will be reimbursed $20,000 from the state in that grant. 00:02:07.800 --> 00:02:09.960 So a little bit about Lakota. 00:02:09.960 --> 00:02:14.160 Let me come down and pick up a PDF of theirs real quick. 00:02:14.160 --> 00:02:21.560 Got it here. So the Lakota Group, 00:02:21.560 --> 00:02:23.440 I'm really excited about the Lakota Group. 00:02:23.440 --> 00:02:28.520 They really did a great job in their presentation and they're really well-rounded. 00:02:28.520 --> 00:02:30.640 They're based in Chicago. 00:02:30.640 --> 00:02:35.600 They have a three-group team that includes the regular preservation planners 00:02:35.600 --> 00:02:38.320 and planning group which is there at the top. 00:02:38.320 --> 00:02:40.640 The Clue Group, which is on the lower left, 00:02:40.640 --> 00:02:42.480 which is about economic incentives. 00:02:42.480 --> 00:02:47.700 They're specialists in the relationship between preservation and economic incentives. 00:02:47.700 --> 00:02:50.640 Then Mosley Architects, 00:02:50.640 --> 00:02:56.240 their specialty is sustainability and green building in relation to preservation. 00:02:56.240 --> 00:02:59.120 They were all brought in together and they're working as a team. 00:02:59.120 --> 00:03:00.480 Just as a quick reference, 00:03:00.480 --> 00:03:02.640 the Lakota Group does have experience in Texas. 00:03:02.640 --> 00:03:04.720 They worked a lot in San Antonio, Texas. 00:03:04.720 --> 00:03:08.280 They just finished a plan about two years ago in Tyler, 00:03:08.280 --> 00:03:13.880 Texas which was really well-received and then they do work around the country in some other places. 00:03:13.880 --> 00:03:20.240 Their approach is two phases and we're still in phase one right now. 00:03:20.240 --> 00:03:23.680 We're working through your community and stakeholder engagement, 00:03:23.680 --> 00:03:27.000 which they've been working on surveying the city. 00:03:27.000 --> 00:03:30.780 We're right here at Mapping and Analysis and on February the 18th, 00:03:30.780 --> 00:03:33.280 so it's a Tuesday that's coming up. 00:03:33.280 --> 00:03:36.040 We're going to have a workshop on the square on 00:03:36.040 --> 00:03:45.200 the southwest corner in the square at 207 West Hickory in the lobby of that two-story building there. 00:03:45.200 --> 00:03:48.720 We're going to have a big presentation there with a lot of us to gather 00:03:48.720 --> 00:03:53.160 more information from the community about all their ideas, including incentives. 00:03:53.160 --> 00:03:55.360 A little bit more about their background, 00:03:55.360 --> 00:03:58.640 they look at everything that we do. 00:03:58.640 --> 00:04:03.520 They've been reading and digging and just looking at everything that city does. 00:04:03.520 --> 00:04:09.000 They talk to all of our groups and the universities. 00:04:09.000 --> 00:04:11.960 We met with the chair, 00:04:11.960 --> 00:04:15.800 we met in your office with other members of this group, Marjana, you were there. 00:04:15.800 --> 00:04:20.440 We met with a really, really wide diverse group of the city of Denton. 00:04:20.440 --> 00:04:22.840 This is a little bit about how they do community engagement, 00:04:22.840 --> 00:04:25.720 including having a specialized website which is already up, 00:04:25.720 --> 00:04:28.560 but we haven't actually broadcasted that fully. 00:04:28.560 --> 00:04:32.600 As we put out the information about this upcoming community workshop, 00:04:32.600 --> 00:04:35.560 we'll spread that information a little further. 00:04:35.560 --> 00:04:40.680 Then they'll have an online survey that follows that. 00:04:40.680 --> 00:04:42.880 The Landmark Commission, just as a note, 00:04:42.880 --> 00:04:48.240 is the steering group over this contract, so to speak, and this project. 00:04:48.240 --> 00:04:51.520 Because the current ordinance states that 00:04:51.520 --> 00:04:54.320 the Landmark Commission actually brings this plan ultimately forward. 00:04:54.320 --> 00:04:56.680 Phase 2 will be a draft plan, 00:04:56.680 --> 00:04:58.720 another community workshops on that, 00:04:58.720 --> 00:05:02.840 and then go to the city and then hopefully move for an approval. 00:05:02.840 --> 00:05:10.720 They really have a really diverse wide-spectrum way of looking at preservation is why they stood out. 00:05:10.720 --> 00:05:12.880 Preservation is evolving. 00:05:12.880 --> 00:05:17.720 A lot of the house I grew up in was built in 1958, 60 years old. 00:05:17.720 --> 00:05:22.200 It could be landmark today and it's a southwest suburb of Houston, Texas, according to the old standard. 00:05:22.200 --> 00:05:26.640 But the fact is that the way we move and everything is changing and evolving, 00:05:26.640 --> 00:05:30.360 so that's why they stood out because they get involved in all of these areas, 00:05:30.360 --> 00:05:33.920 as well as neighborhood planning, 00:05:33.920 --> 00:05:40.920 and they look at our organization's approach to preservation and possible partnerships, et cetera. 00:05:40.920 --> 00:05:46.640 They get heavily into incentives, and here's a list of some types of incentives they would look at. 00:05:46.640 --> 00:05:52.200 And then I'm going to talk about incentives in general here in just a minute. 00:05:52.200 --> 00:05:57.480 So they also like for their plan to be easy to read and a joy to implement. 00:05:57.480 --> 00:06:03.320 I mean, they don't want something that sits up on the shelf and is dusty and is full of words and no one looks at it. 00:06:03.320 --> 00:06:05.480 So this is the project timeline. 00:06:05.480 --> 00:06:11.480 We're in the upper portion here and heading towards a state of the city report. 00:06:11.480 --> 00:06:15.240 But you see the February 18th, that's where we are now. 00:06:15.240 --> 00:06:19.440 And then we'll go into phase two, which are the phases I talked about. 00:06:19.440 --> 00:06:22.200 So that's what you would have heard from Lakota personally. 00:06:22.200 --> 00:06:30.440 Let me get back to the PowerPoint here. 00:06:30.440 --> 00:06:34.760 So I'll take questions on the whole topic at the end. 00:06:34.760 --> 00:06:38.040 But what do we have here in Denton, Texas today? 00:06:38.040 --> 00:06:46.520 So you guys probably know about this, but if you have a local landmark and within two years of that having property been landmarked, 00:06:46.520 --> 00:06:52.360 if you spent $10,000, you can ask for up to 10 years, 00:06:52.360 --> 00:06:57.200 or you get a 10 year exemption from half of your city of Denton property taxes. 00:06:57.200 --> 00:07:03.320 At the end of that 10 year period, if you've also spent 10,000 over that period, you can ask for another 10 years. 00:07:03.320 --> 00:07:07.360 So basically, you can go on and on with that under our current ordinance. 00:07:07.360 --> 00:07:12.880 29 properties in the city of Denton presently take advantage of this incentive. 00:07:12.880 --> 00:07:20.920 And it's kind of always evolving because buildings do roll off and people don't always do the work to ask for another 10 years. 00:07:20.920 --> 00:07:26.720 The other thing we have is an incentive that hasn't been used in the three years I've been here, it hasn't been used yet. 00:07:26.720 --> 00:07:32.600 And it's about the restoration or the rehabilitation of a historically significant site. 00:07:32.600 --> 00:07:36.880 The way the ordinance was written, it originally applied only to our downtown area. 00:07:36.880 --> 00:07:46.840 But recently, the economic development department in Caroline amended that ordinance so it could apply to anywhere at all in Denton. 00:07:46.840 --> 00:07:51.720 So if you have a historically significant site anywhere in Denton, you can take advantage of that. 00:07:51.720 --> 00:07:57.920 And if you rehabilitate that property, then you will freeze your, 00:07:57.920 --> 00:08:05.160 that one is you'll freeze the assessed value to the prior valuation before the improvement was made. 00:08:05.160 --> 00:08:11.200 And that's the one, so there is one project in town, it's the Fairhaven Project up on North Bell. 00:08:11.200 --> 00:08:19.000 And that group that's doing that has the intention, I'm knocking on all the wood I can that that actually breaks ground and happens. 00:08:19.000 --> 00:08:23.960 But they're moving forward very seriously on that. 00:08:23.960 --> 00:08:26.240 Commissioner Sanchez, you have a question? 00:08:26.240 --> 00:08:27.560 >> Commissioner Sanchez. 00:08:27.560 --> 00:08:33.520 >> I was just curious, now it only applies, does it apply to say it like a cemetery or anything like that? 00:08:33.520 --> 00:08:40.080 If you want to make that a historical site, or does it just apply, is this all just applied like to- 00:08:40.080 --> 00:08:43.480 >> I think the key would be if it was somebody paying taxes. 00:08:43.480 --> 00:08:48.200 So our look too local, or at least our I00F is we own, right? 00:08:48.200 --> 00:08:51.520 And I think we own Oak, was it Oakwood? 00:08:51.520 --> 00:08:53.040 Oakwood the other way? 00:08:53.040 --> 00:08:59.800 And so if you had a privately held cemetery, I think you'd be entitled to paying taxes on it. 00:08:59.800 --> 00:09:03.600 Oak would be my guess. 00:09:03.600 --> 00:09:09.360 And then so, the cause for why we're looking at incentives today. 00:09:09.360 --> 00:09:11.880 Commissioner Rizzo, Chair Rizzo, that's what you were really getting at. 00:09:11.880 --> 00:09:17.400 So the cause really goes back to our Denton Plan 2030, which is just a snippet in the upper right hand corner. 00:09:17.400 --> 00:09:21.320 But there were several places in the plan, including here, 00:09:21.320 --> 00:09:26.440 where we talked about successful strategy needs to include incentives and 00:09:26.440 --> 00:09:33.200 policy and then also policies to ensure compatible infill should be a part of our City of Denton program. 00:09:33.200 --> 00:09:43.400 So this kind of came to me, I pulled this slide together really just in the last hour or two after extensive reading on all of the plans. 00:09:43.400 --> 00:09:48.480 And if anyone wants a list, there is a Texas Historic Commission list of about 20, 00:09:48.480 --> 00:09:52.520 25 cities in Texas in all of their different plans. 00:09:52.520 --> 00:09:56.160 But I think you can break these plans down into four categories. 00:09:56.160 --> 00:10:02.800 This is sort of the standard incentives or the standard exemptions that have to do with rehabilitation. 00:10:02.800 --> 00:10:09.480 And so they all read something like that second one that we had that I showed you that we presently have. 00:10:09.480 --> 00:10:15.440 So that will freeze your property evaluation before your improvement for five to ten years. 00:10:15.440 --> 00:10:20.360 Or we'll give you an exemption on some part of the property taxes. 00:10:20.360 --> 00:10:24.120 So that's the typical exemption that you see in many cities. 00:10:24.120 --> 00:10:29.680 I would probably put it at 30 to 40, if not higher, if I could look through all those ordinances. 00:10:29.680 --> 00:10:34.680 Then you have, I noticed, exemptions that steer development. 00:10:34.680 --> 00:10:40.760 And then I noticed that even Paris, Texas, Little Paris, Texas has a program. 00:10:40.760 --> 00:10:43.560 And I'm quoting from one of their texts. 00:10:43.560 --> 00:10:51.680 It says, "Historically compatible new construction shall be exempted for a period of three years of 100% increase in the assessed value." 00:10:51.680 --> 00:10:57.840 This might come into play on our Denton Courthouse Square District where we had the fire, for example. 00:10:57.840 --> 00:11:04.080 So if we lay an overlay over the Denton Courthouse Square District where we want to preserve what's there. 00:11:04.080 --> 00:11:10.720 And for anything to go back to fit with some sort of design standards or guidelines, which we're going to hopefully adopt along with that. 00:11:10.720 --> 00:11:19.800 It could be that we have an incentive in place to encourage the developer to follow those guidelines, which is what Paris, Texas has done there. 00:11:19.800 --> 00:11:27.240 Houston, Texas has one, and I saw this, I believe, in Fort Worth as well, where there's an incentive to convert buildings. 00:11:27.240 --> 00:11:33.960 So in Houston, there's one that says more, it basically is talking about, let's just read it through, more than four residential units. 00:11:33.960 --> 00:11:42.200 If you add more than four residential units to a building that was built and used as a non-residential purpose, for a non-residential purpose, 00:11:42.200 --> 00:11:51.040 then that building may be exempted from the city ad valorem taxes for both improvements and the land for up to $30,000 a year. 00:11:51.040 --> 00:12:00.520 And so that's clearly an incentive where you've got an old warehouse, for example, and you want more density in your inner city and you just want to make your housing value go up. 00:12:00.520 --> 00:12:05.080 Then I call, these are not in order of significance, but I call it just the Cadillac Plan. 00:12:05.080 --> 00:12:12.480 Plano, Texas has one, and it's really a Cadillac Plan that's specific to really lifting up preservation. 00:12:12.480 --> 00:12:24.880 So if you have a local landmark in Plano, you can get 100% of your real property taxes taken away, and everyone participates. 00:12:24.880 --> 00:12:32.640 The city of Plano, Plano ISD, Collin County, they're all participating in that program, and Brownsville, Texas has that. 00:12:32.640 --> 00:12:43.720 So if you have a national or state registered landmark that you live in or you own in Brownsville, Texas, you'll have 100% of your property taxes exempted. 00:12:43.720 --> 00:12:48.400 And then if you have a local landmark there, 50% of your property taxes are exempted. 00:12:48.400 --> 00:12:57.760 And then finally, there's sort of the category that it just encourages creating historic landmarks, or I'm sorry, districts, the district creation. 00:12:57.760 --> 00:13:05.680 San Antonio, when you create a new district, owners in that district can have 20% off of their San Antonio property taxes. 00:13:05.680 --> 00:13:14.360 And in Tyler, Texas, they offer 50% of the assessed value of any building listed on their local landmark registry. 00:13:14.360 --> 00:13:20.080 So you see there's this sort of diverse thing, and I wanted to just stimulate a conversation, or at least plant these seeds in you now. 00:13:20.080 --> 00:13:28.600 Because on November, I mean, on February the 18th, when we have this community input, it's an opportunity for us to think about what we could do, 00:13:28.600 --> 00:13:36.040 and how these tools might be used, or be a part of the plan, and then possibly adopted as the only part of the plan in the beginning. 00:13:36.040 --> 00:13:38.240 So I'll take any questions that you have on that. 00:13:38.240 --> 00:13:42.720 >> Have you presented this to council? 00:13:42.720 --> 00:13:43.000 >> No. 00:13:44.160 --> 00:13:54.520 >> Okay, I'd be interested to hear their thoughts on around the incentive structures for historical preservation, just curious. 00:13:54.520 --> 00:13:55.600 Commissioner Beck. 00:13:55.600 --> 00:13:56.120 >> Thank you, Chair. 00:13:56.120 --> 00:14:09.360 So how would we encourage people who feel like they have property or something of historical value to connect with you, or whatever, to take advantage of these incentives? 00:14:09.360 --> 00:14:14.720 >> I think I need to do a better job of helping us promote that these are out there. 00:14:14.720 --> 00:14:23.040 Although the preservation program we do on the municipal channel, which includes the historic property of the month, has done a great job. 00:14:23.040 --> 00:14:30.360 And we list properties that aren't in a particular district, we've shown properties that are not local landmarks. 00:14:30.360 --> 00:14:33.720 And I think quite a few of those have come back and said, hey, I want to be a local landmark. 00:14:33.720 --> 00:14:35.680 And so it's a way to get that conversation going. 00:14:35.680 --> 00:14:38.440 But I think we can promote it on the website. 00:14:38.440 --> 00:14:43.240 And I think doing the preservation plan, which will happen over this next nine months, 00:14:43.240 --> 00:14:47.280 at least a lot of people should hear then about what we have to offer. 00:14:47.280 --> 00:14:49.240 Is that what you mean, how we publicize what we have? 00:14:49.240 --> 00:14:51.160 >> Yeah, that would be one way. 00:14:51.160 --> 00:14:56.880 I was thinking too, we send out, the city sends out information mailers once a month or whatever. 00:14:56.880 --> 00:15:01.000 And that would be a good source, especially if it's on the front page. 00:15:01.000 --> 00:15:04.320 People who are interested would see historical incentives, that type of thing. 00:15:04.320 --> 00:15:09.560 So if we haven't done that, that would be, I think, one way to promote it. 00:15:09.560 --> 00:15:12.920 >> Yeah, we definitely should look at that. 00:15:12.920 --> 00:15:14.280 >> Okay, thanks. 00:15:14.280 --> 00:15:15.400 >> Commissioner Cole. 00:15:15.400 --> 00:15:19.720 >> Yeah, would that go on top of, like I say, an ag exempt property? 00:15:19.720 --> 00:15:23.520 So- >> I don't know how they mesh, Mr. Cole. 00:15:23.520 --> 00:15:28.960 I don't know, I don't have experience with the overlay. 00:15:28.960 --> 00:15:33.200 I mean, if you're already exempt, then there's nothing to gain from it. 00:15:35.120 --> 00:15:39.800 And I think I have seen situations where there were two things happening. 00:15:39.800 --> 00:15:42.840 And so one is benefit, doesn't do the other, so. 00:15:42.840 --> 00:15:48.120 Because there is a little bit, each of these that I've listed, there is an application process. 00:15:48.120 --> 00:15:53.640 You are going to have to go before that local commission, it's just not a check box thing. 00:15:53.640 --> 00:15:58.080 So there's a little bit of work to it, you present your receipts and the work. 00:15:58.080 --> 00:16:03.800 Usually in every case here, the landmark commission or whatever the board is called, 00:16:03.800 --> 00:16:13.020 they have to sort of agree that the work that was done allows that building to continue on. 00:16:13.020 --> 00:16:19.700 So it has to be substantive in nature to the longevity of the building, if it's a kind of process. 00:16:19.700 --> 00:16:30.720 >> Just sort of another, I always caution to, because it sounds good, not that it's bad. 00:16:30.720 --> 00:16:36.640 But there is an additional layer of, I'll call it scrutiny, if you will. 00:16:36.640 --> 00:16:39.280 Any changes or updates that you would want to make to your property. 00:16:39.280 --> 00:16:42.480 There is certificate of appropriateness then that is required. 00:16:42.480 --> 00:16:45.720 So I always make sure we remind people of that. 00:16:45.720 --> 00:16:51.580 >> Yes, having an historic landmark does require that any exterior alterations to your building, 00:16:51.580 --> 00:16:54.560 substantive alterations need to go before the landmark commission. 00:16:54.560 --> 00:17:00.440 On staff, we can approve a lot of things, but that's really not been burdensome. 00:17:00.440 --> 00:17:05.200 I think for most people, but it does require that. 00:17:05.200 --> 00:17:11.720 It's astounding to me that Plano's program, I didn't get a list of how many people participate. 00:17:11.720 --> 00:17:18.000 But I've been to several of their commission meetings and they have, it's a strongly supported program. 00:17:18.000 --> 00:17:22.360 And kind of one of those great little secrets, and I talked to their historic preservation officer, 00:17:22.360 --> 00:17:28.480 you got all your county, your taxi entities involved, and they're, yeah, we're real happy about that. 00:17:28.480 --> 00:17:36.420 And in Brownsville, I had the responsibility of going every year to those taxing authorities and asking them to continue to participate. 00:17:36.420 --> 00:17:43.600 And the ISD there, I think in their last cycle, may have decided not to participate around. 00:17:43.600 --> 00:17:51.040 It just took some convincing, because there's been a lot of charter schools opening up in South Texas putting a little bit more of a financial burden on the ISD. 00:17:51.040 --> 00:17:55.600 Because every student goes to charter schools, one less, like $5,000 going to the ISD. 00:17:55.600 --> 00:18:04.760 But I think it's, as you know, it's extremely expensive to care well for a historic building. 00:18:04.760 --> 00:18:07.800 If it's a little smaller, it goes up in relation to the size of it. 00:18:07.800 --> 00:18:15.640 These homes out here on West Oak, they're wooden and you can paint them, but they need a lot of upkeep. 00:18:15.640 --> 00:18:17.800 And yet, they're part of our identity. 00:18:17.800 --> 00:18:21.080 They're very significant to who the city is. 00:18:21.080 --> 00:18:26.280 People don't come to see that brown brick buildings with brown roof, 00:18:26.280 --> 00:18:31.240 houses with brown roof exactly like you see along the freeway when you're going in any direction. 00:18:31.240 --> 00:18:33.760 So they really do give our city our identity. 00:18:33.760 --> 00:18:37.240 And so these programs, I think, they're worthwhile. 00:18:37.240 --> 00:18:38.560 They're worthwhile. 00:18:38.560 --> 00:18:48.000 The way they play, I don't think we have a problem, coming from Brownsville, which is the 10th poorest county in Texas, to Denton, which is the 7th wealthiest county in Texas. 00:18:48.000 --> 00:18:56.720 One thing that I argued for there, for example, with the ISD is that having preservation or historic districts, 00:18:56.720 --> 00:19:06.000 it encouraged people of higher means to move into these inner city neighborhoods that were often blighted or in rougher condition. 00:19:06.000 --> 00:19:09.400 And you encourage them to rehabilitate and move into these old homes. 00:19:09.400 --> 00:19:12.040 They bring with them their family and their kids. 00:19:12.040 --> 00:19:18.400 And many times, in my experience in Brownsville, they're going to school in that local school in an otherwise, 00:19:18.400 --> 00:19:26.560 I would say, a neighborhood that's probably in the bottom 15 percentile of economic standard of living. 00:19:26.560 --> 00:19:30.680 So you're creating diversity in that school system and you're promoting that diversity. 00:19:30.680 --> 00:19:33.760 And here in Denton, we don't particularly have that problem. 00:19:33.760 --> 00:19:48.240 But I think Denton has some unique conditions that we might need to look at in order to possibly use some of these tools to protect the city's identity and how it grows. 00:19:48.240 --> 00:19:49.800 >> Commissioner Sanchez. 00:19:49.800 --> 00:19:55.880 >> Okay. My question a while ago was when I looked at the word local landmark and when I asked about cemeteries, 00:19:55.880 --> 00:20:04.680 I know there's, the reason I was asking about that was is there funding available for, there's a cemetery located, 00:20:04.680 --> 00:20:10.000 and I can't remember exactly where, but I was told where Hispanic community, 00:20:10.000 --> 00:20:14.520 Hispanics used to be buried, just primarily Hispanics in that area. 00:20:14.520 --> 00:20:20.840 And to bring recognition to that area as far as, so that's why I was asking about that. 00:20:20.840 --> 00:20:27.720 My other question is what about some, I live in a house that basically belongs to, 00:20:27.720 --> 00:20:32.400 you used to live, Ms. Alexander, who was the daughter of Fred Moore. 00:20:32.400 --> 00:20:39.840 I've been told that would be a landmark because of her importance in the community. 00:20:39.840 --> 00:20:48.200 But we've done a lot of renovations to that house, and so, and is something like that available? 00:20:48.200 --> 00:20:52.600 And I'm not asking for myself, but I'm just trying to understand, in Southeast Denton, 00:20:52.600 --> 00:20:57.640 there's other homes that belong to prominent black community. 00:20:57.640 --> 00:21:00.040 >> That's a really good question, Commissioner Sanchez. 00:21:00.040 --> 00:21:05.160 And really, starting at the top of the national trust about eight years ago, 00:21:05.160 --> 00:21:11.400 they realized that a lot of neighborhoods and homes and structures, people that were, 00:21:11.400 --> 00:21:17.560 let's just say less prominent in the city for whatever reason, haven't been recognized. 00:21:17.560 --> 00:21:22.240 So there's been a real, actually, there are grants for 00:21:22.240 --> 00:21:27.240 underrepresented communities and things like that, but just, so that's one. 00:21:27.240 --> 00:21:32.360 The thing about landmarking it, who lived there is as important as the structure. 00:21:32.360 --> 00:21:39.640 The structure doesn't have to be, have all the architectural integrity of a house built in 1930 or whenever a home was built. 00:21:39.640 --> 00:21:45.480 I mean, I think we as a city need to recognize our leaders, whoever they were. 00:21:45.480 --> 00:21:51.680 And if that's where the person lived, and if there's a marker there, and an app, in this case, these days, it's an app. 00:21:51.680 --> 00:21:55.640 The registered Texas landmark put the history on the marker, usually. 00:21:55.640 --> 00:21:58.160 Locally, we just have the medallion. 00:21:58.160 --> 00:22:03.680 But if there's some way for that, and I remember that school teacher was a very well respected school teacher. 00:22:03.680 --> 00:22:05.560 >> Right, right, she just had a school named after her. 00:22:05.560 --> 00:22:11.040 >> Yeah, the school, so I think it's an excellent place to have a landmark. 00:22:11.040 --> 00:22:16.460 And so then your structure will then fall still under the, if you make significant 00:22:16.460 --> 00:22:21.000 exterior alterations to your structure, you would have to go before the Landmark Commission. 00:22:21.000 --> 00:22:27.320 But if the Landmark Commission is well trained and doing a good job, that just should give you just good advice. 00:22:27.320 --> 00:22:34.480 And so it could be definitely, there are definitely places in Denton that we need to look at, 00:22:34.480 --> 00:22:39.880 I think, and recognize the people that are the backstory to where we are now. 00:22:41.040 --> 00:22:45.440 >> I do not see any other questions. 00:22:45.440 --> 00:22:48.400 >> Okay, thank you. 00:22:48.400 --> 00:22:49.440 >> Thank you very much. 00:22:49.440 --> 00:22:51.400 >> Okay, so hopefully I'll see you all. 00:22:51.400 --> 00:22:55.960 You all will get an invitation for February the 18th, and then the following day, 00:22:55.960 --> 00:23:01.400 we'll have a little smaller workshop, so if you need to come by then, so please, please come and bring your ideas. 00:23:01.400 --> 00:23:05.400 And we will post that as a meeting, so don't worry about a quorum, thanks. 00:23:08.800 --> 00:23:16.200 >> The next item on our agenda is to discuss the Denton Development Code update, and Ron Minguinta is here. 00:23:16.200 --> 00:23:18.600 >> Thank you, Chair and members of the commission. 00:23:18.600 --> 00:23:20.960 Thank you for this opportunity while I pull this up. 00:23:20.960 --> 00:23:31.320 We are excited to bring you an update on the DVC update. 00:23:31.320 --> 00:23:33.320 We've got a lot going on. 00:23:33.320 --> 00:23:42.280 There's been a lot of work being done outside of the Piling and Zoning Commission, and we're really ready to bring it forward to you all. 00:23:42.280 --> 00:23:50.400 So this is an opportunity to share with you some dates that are upcoming to get some feedback from you all on the process, 00:23:50.400 --> 00:24:03.040 also to get some confirmation on certain times that we're going to have to have you guys consider these changes that we're proposing as part of the DVC update. 00:24:03.040 --> 00:24:10.360 So I've got the presentation that I shared with the commission several months ago. 00:24:10.360 --> 00:24:17.480 I'm going to go through this fairly quickly, but just to give the Piling and Zoning Commission a little bit of background where we are. 00:24:17.480 --> 00:24:22.280 The agenda, again, we're going to talk about why we're doing this, where we are as far as the status, 00:24:22.280 --> 00:24:29.360 the policies that the DCRC, the Development Code Review Committee, has been discussing over the past several months. 00:24:29.360 --> 00:24:35.400 We'll also talk about some notification in the sub-chapters, particularly, I kind of skipped that. 00:24:35.400 --> 00:24:39.400 The notification, which is going to be important as we move forward with adoption. 00:24:39.400 --> 00:24:49.600 And then the next steps, and this is, again, where I'm going to be talking to you all about the dates and how you guys are going to be involved in that process. 00:24:49.600 --> 00:24:55.440 So for the purpose, you know, we hear about the Den Plan 2030 a lot, which is great in that plan. 00:24:55.440 --> 00:24:59.920 There's a action that talks about updating the DVC, so that's where we are. 00:24:59.920 --> 00:25:06.560 We're updating it to be consistent with the Den Plan 2030, not only for the land use element, 00:25:06.560 --> 00:25:13.960 but also the other actions that go along with development in terms of flexibility, 00:25:13.960 --> 00:25:19.280 developability, and areas of growth of the area. 00:25:19.280 --> 00:25:21.840 So this covers all of that. 00:25:21.840 --> 00:25:29.480 And we hope that with the DVC update, it addresses all of what is stated in the Den Plan 2030. 00:25:29.480 --> 00:25:37.320 We've been working on this since November 2017, I'm sorry, June of 2017 through the DCRC. 00:25:37.320 --> 00:25:44.640 We've been holding several meetings almost on a weekly or bi-weekly set schedule, 00:25:44.640 --> 00:25:49.720 discussing a number of different things, which we'll briefly go through in the next slide. 00:25:49.720 --> 00:25:54.000 We've held open houses, I know some of you attended a few of those. 00:25:54.000 --> 00:26:01.400 We've attended as many neighborhood meetings, development related organization meetings, 00:26:01.400 --> 00:26:06.000 as well as being active out in the community markets. 00:26:06.000 --> 00:26:12.360 Recently, we were at the state of the city, so we're trying to get as much input and feedback from the community as much as possible. 00:26:12.360 --> 00:26:17.360 Ultimately, our goal is to have a consolidated public draft. 00:26:17.360 --> 00:26:20.480 That is set to be published soon. 00:26:20.480 --> 00:26:26.760 That is what we are currently working on, again, with the DCRC and with internal staff. 00:26:26.760 --> 00:26:32.680 So the consultants, Clarion, has been working on putting that together. 00:26:32.680 --> 00:26:37.960 They've received all our comments and are putting the revised version together. 00:26:37.960 --> 00:26:42.720 Once they do, we will publish it online for the public to review. 00:26:42.720 --> 00:26:45.920 So that's all upcoming. 00:26:45.920 --> 00:26:50.360 So what is covered so far in the update? 00:26:50.360 --> 00:26:57.280 You see this list here, it's an extensive list, but it's probably a small portion of what really has been discussed. 00:26:57.280 --> 00:27:03.240 There's been a numerous amount of items that we have gone through, really high level policy, 00:27:03.240 --> 00:27:13.040 but also we've gone to the level of zoning districts, where they should be as well as what type of uses are permitted and also some development standards. 00:27:13.040 --> 00:27:16.520 So this is just a list, I'm not going to go through all of this. 00:27:16.520 --> 00:27:25.840 But there has been a number of discussions and topics that have been discussed through, again, the DCRC, but also within the staff internally. 00:27:25.840 --> 00:27:33.640 The main subchapters that we have proposed are here listed. 00:27:33.640 --> 00:27:35.080 There's a total of eight. 00:27:35.080 --> 00:27:40.720 As you all know, the current DDC has 24, so there's going to be a lot of consolidation, 00:27:40.720 --> 00:27:43.680 mainly the development standards. 00:27:43.680 --> 00:27:53.160 Most of the development standards that we have currently in the DDC is broken up into separate subchapters, water, transportation, and site design. 00:27:53.160 --> 00:27:57.720 It all is going to be combined into subchapter six, which is development standard. 00:27:57.720 --> 00:28:07.840 So not that it's going to be losing information, but it's going to be organized and outlined in a much organized way and user friendly way. 00:28:07.840 --> 00:28:16.480 So that's the goal, and that's the hope that this DDC update will have as part of this update. 00:28:16.480 --> 00:28:25.240 I wanted to show you this slide just to kind of present some of the zoning districts that we're considering. 00:28:25.240 --> 00:28:31.640 And this is the far right there is the new zoning districts. 00:28:31.640 --> 00:28:34.880 Many of you have already seen these zoning districts. 00:28:34.880 --> 00:28:42.920 Hopefully, what we will do when we come to you in a longer work session is to go through each of those zoning districts, 00:28:42.920 --> 00:28:50.400 explain it in more detail, and also show the associated zoning map that goes along with these zoning districts. 00:28:50.400 --> 00:28:55.160 So just to give you an idea, we have approximately 28 zoning districts. 00:28:55.160 --> 00:28:59.040 We're going to narrow that down to 15 to 16 zoning districts. 00:28:59.040 --> 00:29:03.520 So we're combining a number of them, as you can see this right here. 00:29:03.520 --> 00:29:06.600 There's five here, four in general. 00:29:06.600 --> 00:29:14.280 That's going to go down to one, and you see there's numerous examples of two that will go into one zoning district. 00:29:14.280 --> 00:29:16.680 So this is a first step. 00:29:16.680 --> 00:29:21.200 This doesn't mean that this is what it's going to transfer to, but really it's just a first blush or 00:29:21.200 --> 00:29:28.120 first step into identifying the new zoning districts for the new zoning map, for the up to date zoning map. 00:29:28.120 --> 00:29:34.660 So anybody have any questions so far? 00:29:34.660 --> 00:29:39.360 So another part of the DDC update will be notification. 00:29:39.360 --> 00:29:45.560 Of course, there's going to be a lot of people that are going to want to know what's being done on their property. 00:29:45.560 --> 00:29:53.440 So back when we first started the public open houses, we sent out a postcard to all property owners, 00:29:53.440 --> 00:29:58.120 and that totaled up to approximately 30,000 postcards. 00:29:58.120 --> 00:30:05.400 There are 30 plus thousand property owners that received this postcard, letting them know what's going on. 00:30:05.400 --> 00:30:14.280 What is going to happen with their zoning map, and then also a link to the DDC, I'm sorry, the den code 2030.com, or they can get more information. 00:30:14.280 --> 00:30:21.400 We had open houses and there were a lot of people that came, but we certainly can do better and get more people involved. 00:30:21.400 --> 00:30:24.960 Moving forward, ultimately this DDC update and 00:30:24.960 --> 00:30:31.720 zoning map will require a public hearing through the planning and zoning commission and ultimately the city council. 00:30:31.720 --> 00:30:35.080 That is going to require notification requirements. 00:30:35.080 --> 00:30:45.080 Therefore, the 30,000 plus will also be getting a letter through the mail letting them know of the public hearing. 00:30:45.080 --> 00:30:52.040 And so I don't expect them all to show up at one time, but they will be there, I'm sure. 00:30:52.040 --> 00:30:58.240 Based on my understanding of the past update in 2002, there were a number of people that came out, 00:30:58.240 --> 00:31:06.720 don't have the exact numbers, but they will obviously show their support in opposition of whatever that is. 00:31:06.720 --> 00:31:12.120 We will also make sure that it's advertised in the newspaper and posted on our website. 00:31:12.120 --> 00:31:18.400 So again, we get as much of the public outreach as we can through this process. 00:31:18.400 --> 00:31:22.360 >> Ron, what's the approximate timeline for the introduction postcards to go out? 00:31:22.360 --> 00:31:26.960 >> So the top part, that went out already. 00:31:26.960 --> 00:31:33.160 So it went out last year as we started the initial, wanting to get your feedback, your input. 00:31:33.160 --> 00:31:40.120 The next step when we get into the public hearings, we'll have to start this process. 00:31:41.120 --> 00:31:47.440 Like any public hearing notification, it will have to go out prior to state law. 00:31:47.440 --> 00:31:54.800 We say 17 days, so that's going to be 17 days before the first public hearing, which is city planning zoning commission. 00:31:54.800 --> 00:32:01.120 So what does that mean for you all? 00:32:01.120 --> 00:32:06.520 And I don't mean to scare you, but it's going to be a busy couple months. 00:32:06.520 --> 00:32:16.600 I wanted to give you this as a heads up, and really, there's going to be a couple of dates that we're going to require a special called meeting for the planning zoning commission. 00:32:16.600 --> 00:32:23.640 And it will be on, a couple of them will be on certain times. 00:32:23.640 --> 00:32:29.880 You don't necessarily have to write this, we'll make sure that we reach out to you and let you know. 00:32:29.880 --> 00:32:35.520 But we will definitely make sure that you're well aware of when those dates are. 00:32:35.520 --> 00:32:43.320 So that first P&Z work session is scheduled for February 13th. 00:32:43.320 --> 00:32:50.520 That is a non-scheduled P&Z, so it will be a special called meeting. 00:32:50.520 --> 00:32:54.880 We will make sure that that meeting agenda is posted. 00:32:54.880 --> 00:33:00.880 We are looking at a time of four, between four and 530. 00:33:00.880 --> 00:33:04.560 The idea here is Clarion will be in town. 00:33:04.560 --> 00:33:08.240 They will be making a presentation to the city council on the 12th. 00:33:08.240 --> 00:33:14.120 Really just going over highlights of the DVC update changes, 00:33:14.120 --> 00:33:23.040 talk about some high level policy updates, also to go over the procedure, the schedule of the adoption. 00:33:23.040 --> 00:33:27.040 So they'll be talking to city council on the 12th. 00:33:27.040 --> 00:33:33.480 The next day, we have set meetings with internal technical staff committee members. 00:33:33.480 --> 00:33:36.200 We will be meeting with stakeholders. 00:33:36.200 --> 00:33:41.920 And then in between, we're going to be hopefully meeting with you all again between four and 530. 00:33:41.920 --> 00:33:47.280 Later that evening, we're going to have a public meeting where we're going to be presenting to the public in general. 00:33:47.280 --> 00:33:52.000 So be a busy Wednesday for Clarion and for staff. 00:33:52.000 --> 00:33:59.040 But this is the time that we're looking for because we want to offer the public an opportunity after hours. 00:33:59.040 --> 00:34:02.000 Again, about six o'clock is when we'll start that. 00:34:02.000 --> 00:34:10.800 So that's why we're pushing our planning zoning commission special call meeting to start from four and hopefully in about 530. 00:34:10.800 --> 00:34:13.440 And again, Clarion will be in town to make that presentation. 00:34:13.440 --> 00:34:18.880 Does anybody have any conflicts on that date or that time? 00:34:18.880 --> 00:34:20.520 Does that work for everybody? 00:34:20.520 --> 00:34:28.880 I just want to make sure that you're aware of that, but we really need to know so that we can make accommodations if needed. 00:34:30.680 --> 00:34:31.800 So that's the first work session. 00:34:31.800 --> 00:34:39.040 Following that work sessions with city council and the planning zoning commission, 00:34:39.040 --> 00:34:46.200 we will be publishing the consolidated draft, which is the draft that we were talked about earlier. 00:34:46.200 --> 00:34:53.600 Where Clarion has revised it and taken into consideration the comments that they've received so far. 00:34:53.600 --> 00:34:56.200 That is scheduled for February 15th. 00:34:56.200 --> 00:35:02.600 Published that online following that publication, start hitting again the stakeholders, 00:35:02.600 --> 00:35:12.080 the hosting meetings at our offices during business hours and then also having public meetings after hours. 00:35:12.080 --> 00:35:18.040 The intent and the goal is to provide ample opportunity for the public to provide input. 00:35:18.040 --> 00:35:21.640 So that's coming in February. 00:35:24.080 --> 00:35:33.480 More meetings in February, so here's where we're going to get into the details to a certain degree of each of the sub-chapters. 00:35:33.480 --> 00:35:38.880 Like I went through fairly quickly what they are, but in these upcoming work sessions for 00:35:38.880 --> 00:35:44.640 planning zoning commission scheduled for February 20th and 27th, 00:35:44.640 --> 00:35:49.560 we will have work sessions to go over the sub-chapters. 00:35:50.680 --> 00:35:56.440 The February 20th is a scheduled P and Z, so we'll try to fit it in there with that date. 00:35:56.440 --> 00:36:01.120 The 27th, the following week, we will have to have a special call meeting. 00:36:01.120 --> 00:36:08.280 The time has not yet been set, but most likely it will probably be sometime in the afternoon or evening hours. 00:36:08.280 --> 00:36:15.320 We promise not to keep you here late, but we want to make sure we have an opportunity to go through the DDC update. 00:36:18.360 --> 00:36:25.560 Those work sessions will include a discussion on the zoning map and the zoning districts as well, so another opportunity. 00:36:25.560 --> 00:36:33.160 >> On the 20th, that's a normal call P and Z, do you have a start time for the 20th proposed? 00:36:33.160 --> 00:36:40.080 >> I think we should probably look at, maybe look at our calendar, because we're probably, that agenda's starting to get full. 00:36:40.080 --> 00:36:41.640 >> So we'll probably start earlier. 00:36:41.640 --> 00:36:46.400 >> Earlier, maybe 3.30, maybe even 3, if that works. 00:36:46.400 --> 00:36:48.400 >> Send us an email out, okay. 00:36:48.400 --> 00:36:50.320 >> Maybe even two. 00:36:50.320 --> 00:36:56.000 >> It's okay, we can commission her back. 00:36:56.000 --> 00:36:59.560 >> 11, right? 00:36:59.560 --> 00:37:00.640 >> Is that 2 AM? 00:37:00.640 --> 00:37:04.320 >> 2 AM, yeah, Commissioner Beck's out. 00:37:15.040 --> 00:37:22.800 >> Just, Scott just reminded me, again, there's been a lot of work with the DCRC, the Development Code Review Committee. 00:37:22.800 --> 00:37:25.760 And three members of the Planning Zoning Commission are part of that. 00:37:25.760 --> 00:37:31.720 And so, not to say that they're, we're going to start from scratch, there's been a lot of work already. 00:37:31.720 --> 00:37:40.080 So we're going to try to cover some highlights, but still offer the rest of the commissioners the opportunity to ask questions and provide input. 00:37:40.080 --> 00:37:49.400 I just want to make you all aware that the committee has been working on this for a long time, and so it's not like we're starting from scratch. 00:37:49.400 --> 00:37:50.120 >> Commissioner Beck. 00:37:50.120 --> 00:37:51.440 >> Thank you, Chair. 00:37:51.440 --> 00:37:57.400 We've been trying to schedule a couple of DCRC meetings, and we got a quorum. 00:37:57.400 --> 00:38:02.840 So in the last email, I think we got, they were going to shoot for this Friday. 00:38:02.840 --> 00:38:06.600 Do we know if they're- >> There was not a quorum for this Friday. 00:38:06.600 --> 00:38:07.880 >> Okay. >> Unfortunately. 00:38:09.280 --> 00:38:14.440 >> I believe the consulting group- >> Clarion. 00:38:14.440 --> 00:38:17.480 >> Clarion, they're coming in early February, aren't they? 00:38:17.480 --> 00:38:20.800 >> They're scheduled for the 12th and 13th. 00:38:20.800 --> 00:38:25.880 >> Okay, so are we going to try and have another DCRC? 00:38:25.880 --> 00:38:29.160 >> We're going to try to have another DCRC. 00:38:29.160 --> 00:38:34.920 The code discussions has kind of moved forward, but we still have a lot of zoning discussions, 00:38:34.920 --> 00:38:38.840 zoning map discussions that we want to discuss with the DCRC. 00:38:38.840 --> 00:38:40.080 >> You go forward, Clarion. 00:38:40.080 --> 00:38:40.720 >> Yeah, right. 00:38:40.720 --> 00:38:41.560 >> Okay, thanks. 00:38:41.560 --> 00:38:54.240 >> The version that we afforded to Clarion who is currently revising is essentially closed. 00:38:54.240 --> 00:39:02.720 And so there's no more input under the staff, but the legal department is still looking it over as well. 00:39:02.720 --> 00:39:09.720 So between now and the consolidated draft, which is, sorry, let me go back up. 00:39:09.720 --> 00:39:17.880 February 15th, we will have input from our legal department, 00:39:17.880 --> 00:39:21.320 and that is the draft that is going to be published online. 00:39:21.320 --> 00:39:29.080 That is the draft that we will be presenting to you all at the work session again on February 20th. 00:39:29.080 --> 00:39:34.360 So it's going to be quick, February 15th, as you know, is Friday, the 20th is the next Wednesday. 00:39:34.360 --> 00:39:41.120 So we know it's an aggressive schedule, but we are really wanting to get this done. 00:39:41.120 --> 00:39:47.800 And of course, it's not that we don't want to make sure we get it to everybody, 00:39:47.800 --> 00:39:53.960 but we've been working on this for some time, so we have to really move forward on this DDC update. 00:39:55.240 --> 00:40:02.040 So following the planning zoning commission work session is going to be planning zoning commission one week and then city council. 00:40:02.040 --> 00:40:03.960 We're going to be talking about the same topics. 00:40:03.960 --> 00:40:08.320 And then again, planning zoning commission on the 27th, followed by city council on the 5th. 00:40:08.320 --> 00:40:13.160 So a lot of stuff going on in the next couple months. 00:40:13.160 --> 00:40:17.880 We will continue to have stakeholder meetings, open houses, 00:40:17.880 --> 00:40:22.160 open hour office hours that is, public meetings. 00:40:22.160 --> 00:40:30.680 The final adoption draft is the result of those work sessions that we have scheduled with you all. 00:40:30.680 --> 00:40:34.800 We're going to take your input, package it up, send it back to Clarion. 00:40:34.800 --> 00:40:38.760 They're going to send it back to us so that we can review and publish. 00:40:38.760 --> 00:40:42.080 And that is scheduled for March 29th. 00:40:42.080 --> 00:40:48.080 So we'll be online, published on March 29th with the hope. 00:40:48.080 --> 00:40:49.840 And here's the big slide. 00:40:49.840 --> 00:40:51.200 When is this going to be done? 00:40:51.200 --> 00:40:55.960 So this is our attempt of identifying dates. 00:40:55.960 --> 00:40:59.720 So again, this is all, I want to say the dates. 00:40:59.720 --> 00:41:06.640 But of course, it's going to be subject to how soon we can get through plane z and city council. 00:41:06.640 --> 00:41:15.440 The scheduled planning and zoning public hearing to consider the DDC update is April 10th. 00:41:15.440 --> 00:41:20.480 And that is a special called meeting, it's not one of your scheduled meetings. 00:41:20.480 --> 00:41:29.960 So we will schedule that again, and of course, we'll need to talk to you all about what times you are all available for that time. 00:41:29.960 --> 00:41:32.080 And Scott has something to say. 00:41:32.080 --> 00:41:34.000 >> Scott always has something to say. 00:41:34.000 --> 00:41:37.960 I want to say that this is an incredibly aggressive timeline, and as Ron indicated, 00:41:37.960 --> 00:41:45.760 whatever time it takes to get this completed, in order to keep the momentum that we have going, that's why we're trying to pursue this. 00:41:45.760 --> 00:41:53.520 And if we need to drag this through this building season into next year, we can do that. 00:41:53.520 --> 00:42:03.240 It's ultimately getting that level of comfort that this commission needs as well as council needs. 00:42:03.240 --> 00:42:10.160 So this work group has been working all summer, virtually every Friday, meeting after meeting. 00:42:10.160 --> 00:42:18.600 We've went through a great deal of detail, and so we're going to try to put as much of that as we can in front of you, 00:42:18.600 --> 00:42:22.680 not expecting you to get into the same level of detail that the committee did. 00:42:22.680 --> 00:42:28.520 But if you feel that you need more, we'll schedule additional meetings, if warranted, if wanted, 00:42:28.520 --> 00:42:33.480 if desired, whatever the will of the commission is, or we'll take the time that we need. 00:42:33.480 --> 00:42:40.480 So again, I've been pushing staff and Clarion to get this done for the sake that we really, really need it done. 00:42:40.480 --> 00:42:42.600 We've got an old development code. 00:42:42.600 --> 00:42:45.120 We've got fundamentally two development codes out there. 00:42:45.120 --> 00:42:49.080 This is a vast improvement that's many years in the making. 00:42:49.080 --> 00:42:56.760 To go from 2002 to today, I mean, we're almost at that 20-year marker, getting close enough that it's just time. 00:42:56.760 --> 00:43:03.880 So again, having that level of comfort from you, the commission, as well as from council, we'll do what we need to do. 00:43:03.880 --> 00:43:08.200 But we're taking a very aggressive approach and we're asking for your help in doing this. 00:43:08.200 --> 00:43:13.960 And hopefully, your committee members can help support the work that's being done. 00:43:13.960 --> 00:43:19.800 This is not really staff-driven as much as it is staff has a mission to facilitate what's being done. 00:43:19.800 --> 00:43:23.640 So I have a quick question. 00:43:23.640 --> 00:43:28.520 I don't know if Ron or Scott can answer this. It's more of a brainstorming thought. 00:43:28.520 --> 00:43:36.640 Would it be appropriate during this kind of February review cycle to have the committee meet? 00:43:36.640 --> 00:43:41.720 Because it seems like you're going to go P&Z council, P&Z council. 00:43:41.720 --> 00:43:50.440 Would it be beneficial to have a joint meeting or rely on our subcommittee so that there is a cross talk during this? 00:43:50.440 --> 00:43:55.400 So it's not, well, council said this Tuesday, well, let's ask them and there's another delay. 00:43:55.400 --> 00:44:03.320 Is there any benefit to maybe organizing some sort of joint meeting either at the DRDC subcommittee or 00:44:03.320 --> 00:44:10.440 collectively during this kind of busy February to make sure that conversation is as productive as possible? 00:44:10.440 --> 00:44:12.000 >> Twofold, I think, to that. 00:44:12.000 --> 00:44:17.800 That is the purpose in the development review committee, is to be that cross-pollinated committee. 00:44:17.800 --> 00:44:22.080 Rather than having those two independent bodies meeting together. 00:44:22.080 --> 00:44:31.160 So again, the ability for people to get in front of a commission and have that conversation and/or council if they don't get that resolution, we keep that intact. 00:44:31.160 --> 00:44:36.920 We do intend on meeting with that subcommittee in between during this period. 00:44:36.920 --> 00:44:40.080 What isn't here is we have a calendar. 00:44:40.080 --> 00:44:41.720 We intend to be everywhere. 00:44:41.720 --> 00:44:43.920 So we're going to go to HOAs. 00:44:43.920 --> 00:44:45.880 We're going to have meetings in our building. 00:44:45.880 --> 00:44:47.920 We're going to have meetings at the chamber. 00:44:47.920 --> 00:44:51.840 We're going to be anywhere that we can to get out in front of people and hear what it is they have to say. 00:44:51.840 --> 00:44:59.600 Ultimately, we need to make sure that the legal bodies have their opportunity to hear, 00:44:59.600 --> 00:45:02.760 be heard, and to voice their concerns. 00:45:02.760 --> 00:45:06.200 It's staff's responsibility to echo what that is. 00:45:06.200 --> 00:45:12.480 So if there is a recommendation that comes from the Planning and Zoning Commission, then we intend to do that. 00:45:12.480 --> 00:45:16.680 So we have this conversation today, and today you say this is garbage, we want to get rid of it. 00:45:16.680 --> 00:45:22.120 It is our obligation, responsibility to go to council and say P&Z said start over. 00:45:22.120 --> 00:45:24.920 Whatever that may be, that's what we're obligated to do. 00:45:24.920 --> 00:45:30.520 That's why we're having the meeting with P&Z prior to council on each of these all the way up and through the adoption process. 00:45:30.520 --> 00:45:31.480 >> Makes perfect sense. 00:45:31.480 --> 00:45:32.520 Thanks. 00:45:32.520 --> 00:45:34.160 >> Can you back up one slide? 00:45:34.160 --> 00:45:37.320 I think I saw something there. 00:45:37.320 --> 00:45:38.320 Yeah, March 20th. 00:45:38.320 --> 00:45:39.360 Oh, March 29th. 00:45:39.360 --> 00:45:41.080 I thought that was February 29th. 00:45:41.080 --> 00:45:45.640 Okay, March 29th is valuable. 00:45:45.640 --> 00:45:47.520 >> Valuable for who? 00:45:47.520 --> 00:45:54.520 >> No, I was just pointing out this is not a leap year, you know, because I thought it said February 29th. 00:45:54.520 --> 00:45:57.480 >> So that is the end of the presentation. 00:45:57.480 --> 00:46:03.080 It's really just to give you a future look at what's coming. 00:46:03.080 --> 00:46:11.600 And really the date for you all to remember is February 13th when Clarion will be in town, 00:46:11.600 --> 00:46:16.800 special called meeting looking to start at four to about 530. 00:46:16.800 --> 00:46:22.880 And we'll make sure we send out meeting invites, and of course we'll post it accordingly. 00:46:22.880 --> 00:46:24.200 And it will be here in the work session. 00:46:24.200 --> 00:46:26.880 Any other questions? 00:46:26.880 --> 00:46:29.440 >> No, thanks Ron. 00:46:29.440 --> 00:46:30.320 >> All right. >> Appreciate it. 00:46:30.320 --> 00:46:30.820 >> Thank you. 00:46:33.320 --> 00:46:39.960 With that, we'll go back to work session item number one, which is the clarification of agenda items listed on the agenda. 00:46:39.960 --> 00:46:44.800 Tonight, the public hearing 5A, that item is being pulled. 00:46:44.800 --> 00:46:52.600 It might be coming back to us in February, but it'll be fully re-noticed, so we're just removing that from tonight's agenda. 00:46:52.600 --> 00:46:57.000 And then I'll ask Richard if there's any clarification for consent or individual items this evening. 00:46:57.000 --> 00:47:00.560 >> No, just the one public hearing item. 00:47:00.560 --> 00:47:01.600 >> Perfect. 00:47:01.600 --> 00:47:05.000 With that, does anyone have any questions on the consent agenda? 00:47:05.000 --> 00:47:09.240 There's two items, looks like they're both Haley, if there's any questions for Haley. 00:47:09.240 --> 00:47:19.160 Perfect, and on the individual items, can we just get a brief overview of those two items? 00:47:19.160 --> 00:47:23.680 The first one is PZ 19-9, Charlie. 00:47:23.680 --> 00:47:30.640 >> Good evening, everybody. 00:47:30.640 --> 00:47:33.160 I'm Charlie Rosendahl, business services manager. 00:47:33.160 --> 00:47:50.480 So I'm for you today, seeking a recommendation from the planning zoning commission on a developer engagement policy. 00:47:50.480 --> 00:47:57.800 City council held a work session on October 23rd of last year to discuss this matter and 00:47:57.800 --> 00:48:01.400 ultimately approved a policy on November 13th. 00:48:01.400 --> 00:48:07.000 What that policy does is it prohibits council members from 00:48:07.000 --> 00:48:12.040 interacting with developers on not only development cases but 00:48:12.040 --> 00:48:18.160 also economic development cases when the item is on 00:48:18.160 --> 00:48:23.880 the agenda because of a tie vote or is subject to reconsideration. 00:48:23.880 --> 00:48:29.280 And this policy also allows for a voluntary disclosure of any meetings 00:48:29.280 --> 00:48:34.120 that council members have with developers on the upcoming cases. 00:48:34.120 --> 00:48:40.920 So after that, on December 18th, they requested that the PNZ adopt a similar policy. 00:48:40.920 --> 00:48:44.600 So that's what I'm bringing forward today. 00:48:44.600 --> 00:48:51.440 And then we have planned to take that to city council on February 5th for adoption of a resolution. 00:48:54.240 --> 00:49:02.520 So the policy here before you is very similar to the city council's that removes the language regarding economic development. 00:49:02.520 --> 00:49:08.520 But what it would do is prohibit PNZ commission members 00:49:08.520 --> 00:49:14.160 from having discussions with developers or interested parties on any item 00:49:14.160 --> 00:49:19.080 that's on the agenda due to a tie vote or an item that's subject to reconsideration. 00:49:21.080 --> 00:49:26.520 The tie vote here is an item fails passed by a majority and it goes on the next agenda. 00:49:26.520 --> 00:49:35.280 And then is subject to reconsideration is that any time a recommendation is made by PNZ until the next meeting, 00:49:35.280 --> 00:49:38.840 you'd be prohibited to speak with developers during that time. 00:49:38.840 --> 00:49:47.680 >> So we wouldn't necessarily know if an item is being up for reconsideration since commissioners would have to bring that forward. 00:49:47.680 --> 00:49:55.760 So you're saying, just so I understand the policy, going forward after an item has been voted on and closed, 00:49:55.760 --> 00:50:03.040 we basically have a no discussion with developer for two weeks to ensure no commissioner brings up a reconsideration motion. 00:50:03.040 --> 00:50:09.880 >> The reconsideration, once it's, it's typically done before the meeting. 00:50:09.880 --> 00:50:13.320 And so for example, if you were on the prevailing side, 00:50:13.320 --> 00:50:17.440 you would request that a reconsideration be placed on the agenda for discussion. 00:50:17.440 --> 00:50:21.800 And at that time, everyone would know that that item would be scheduled and there would sort of, 00:50:21.800 --> 00:50:25.360 at that time, it would kick in. 00:50:25.360 --> 00:50:32.320 >> Because if the item has not been posted or given to us for 00:50:32.320 --> 00:50:39.320 reconsideration, are we able to talk to the developer before having that knowledge? 00:50:39.320 --> 00:50:43.640 >> Yeah, let me correct it, because first we would have to have the vote on reconsidering the item. 00:50:45.040 --> 00:50:50.040 And so if there's any affirmative to reconsider, it then would be placed on the next agenda. 00:50:50.040 --> 00:50:55.920 So from that point in time until it comes on to the next agenda is when that time period would hit. 00:50:55.920 --> 00:51:01.760 >> So I guess more specifically, if we vote on an item, item passes, 00:51:01.760 --> 00:51:08.960 the next day the developer calls me and wants to talk about the project, I have no knowledge it's being up for reconsideration. 00:51:08.960 --> 00:51:14.600 I am not to engage in that conversation until the next meeting passes and 00:51:14.600 --> 00:51:16.680 the reconsideration is off the table. 00:51:16.680 --> 00:51:17.240 >> That's correct. 00:51:17.240 --> 00:51:21.160 It's while it's subject to a motion for reconsideration. 00:51:21.160 --> 00:51:24.960 So that motion, you can't reconsider after the next official meeting. 00:51:24.960 --> 00:51:31.760 So from the end of your meeting, once you've made your decision, until the next official meeting, 00:51:31.760 --> 00:51:35.640 during that, while it's subject to a motion for reconsideration, 00:51:35.640 --> 00:51:39.240 then you wouldn't be allowed to speak with that developer about that development. 00:51:40.800 --> 00:51:48.280 >> Perfect, and I guess for clarification, P&Z holds a different tie vote procedure than council. 00:51:48.280 --> 00:51:54.480 So in this situation, after the second tie vote, it goes to council as a denial. 00:51:54.480 --> 00:51:56.800 So it wouldn't be possible to reconsider. 00:51:56.800 --> 00:52:01.080 So after the second tie vote, this policy kind of goes away. 00:52:01.080 --> 00:52:02.240 It wouldn't be enactable. 00:52:02.240 --> 00:52:08.200 >> Well, it's a separate standard for a zoning recommendation, if it's a tie vote. 00:52:08.200 --> 00:52:13.400 And so that's not a final decision of the P&Z. 00:52:13.400 --> 00:52:18.320 So I think that what we're really talking about is reconsideration of a plan or 00:52:18.320 --> 00:52:21.560 something where P&Z has a final approval of it. 00:52:21.560 --> 00:52:26.000 >> Like the ADP item, for example, if it were to be approved for 00:52:26.000 --> 00:52:31.200 whatever reason tomorrow, you want to recall that item or ask for reconsideration. 00:52:32.800 --> 00:52:39.640 >> So we could have a tie zoning vote, and we're prohibited from discussing developer 00:52:39.640 --> 00:52:44.480 during that process too, correct? 00:52:44.480 --> 00:52:50.160 >> It doesn't say that specifically in this language, but 00:52:50.160 --> 00:52:56.800 I think that when the P&Z would be entitled to reconsider an item, 00:52:56.800 --> 00:52:58.960 it would be on an item where they have final approval. 00:52:58.960 --> 00:53:02.400 >> For reconsideration, but on a tie vote. 00:53:02.400 --> 00:53:04.520 >> I got you, on a tie vote, right. 00:53:04.520 --> 00:53:05.020 >> Okay. 00:53:05.020 --> 00:53:08.240 >> Commissioner Smith. 00:53:08.240 --> 00:53:09.360 >> Thank you, Chair. 00:53:09.360 --> 00:53:15.640 So whenever the reconsideration is as a member as a part of the prevailing side of the vote, I make the motion. 00:53:15.640 --> 00:53:20.480 So let's say that there's an item where it's a 5-2 and 00:53:20.480 --> 00:53:25.600 me and Larry are the two who vote whether against the motion or whatever it is. 00:53:25.600 --> 00:53:30.440 But the developer that approaches myself, that is pertaining to the entire council, 00:53:30.440 --> 00:53:34.360 not just to, or the entire commission, not just to those who are on the prevailing side, correct? 00:53:34.360 --> 00:53:38.920 Cuz the motion is only to the prevailing side, but it's to everybody on there. 00:53:38.920 --> 00:53:40.360 >> Yeah. >> So, okay, all right. 00:53:40.360 --> 00:53:44.400 >> Okay, oh, Commissioner Beck. 00:53:44.400 --> 00:53:50.400 >> Okay, and we're talking about discussion between a commission member or council member and a developer. 00:53:50.400 --> 00:53:57.240 Discussion between commission members or other, as long as it's a matter of public record, that's something. 00:53:57.240 --> 00:54:00.160 >> Well, it says developers or interested persons. 00:54:01.400 --> 00:54:04.440 >> Okay, that's pretty broad. 00:54:04.440 --> 00:54:10.680 So maybe, I guess the whole commission would be interested persons then, right? 00:54:10.680 --> 00:54:13.160 So it couldn't be discussed amongst us. 00:54:13.160 --> 00:54:17.320 >> Well, it seems like a commissioner to commissioner can still have a discussion if it's not a walking quorum. 00:54:17.320 --> 00:54:28.440 >> Right, so we're already blocked there by the, what's the, open meetings, right, okay, okay, okay, thanks. 00:54:28.440 --> 00:54:30.600 So it wouldn't preclude talking to staff. 00:54:30.600 --> 00:54:36.160 >> Okay, Commissioner Pernitta. 00:54:36.160 --> 00:54:38.520 >> And I just want to clarify on the uninterested person. 00:54:38.520 --> 00:54:45.000 So I know the first part discusses developers, that's pretty cut and dry, is an interested person, 00:54:45.000 --> 00:54:54.120 someone who lives right by the development that has spoken at a meeting, that kind of thing? 00:54:54.120 --> 00:54:54.880 >> Yeah, it would. 00:54:54.880 --> 00:54:56.120 >> Okay, all right. 00:54:56.120 --> 00:55:03.080 The thing is, I think that you could propose, if you wanted to limit it to, say, financially interested persons, 00:55:03.080 --> 00:55:14.040 if you wanted to allow for speaking to neighbors, it's just a matter of clarifying what the council intends and what you intend by this. 00:55:14.040 --> 00:55:17.720 What we wanted to do with interested persons was to create it out so 00:55:17.720 --> 00:55:22.120 that you would still have the ability to talk to staff about the project. 00:55:22.120 --> 00:55:27.240 Because staff is obviously disinterested in the whole issue. 00:55:27.240 --> 00:55:35.560 But if you really want to get down to that fight of a point of differentiating 00:55:35.560 --> 00:55:44.360 between somebody who has an interest that's pretty much like the general public or 00:55:44.360 --> 00:55:50.760 somebody who's curious or somebody who lives next door, it could be refined. 00:55:50.760 --> 00:55:57.000 But that was the intent of saying interested persons was to 00:55:57.000 --> 00:56:01.240 enable you to speak with people who have no stake in the outcome. 00:56:01.240 --> 00:56:04.920 >> Commissioner Ellis. 00:56:04.920 --> 00:56:06.040 >> Thank you, Chair. 00:56:06.040 --> 00:56:12.200 Well, are you considering crafting it like the city council policy, which states developers or 00:56:12.200 --> 00:56:18.200 persons entities requesting incentives or special consideration, is that? 00:56:18.200 --> 00:56:22.280 >> That's not in our draft policy, is it? 00:56:22.280 --> 00:56:23.240 >> You know what? 00:56:23.240 --> 00:56:24.520 That's a good question. 00:56:24.520 --> 00:56:28.360 >> Yeah, we do have an individual draft. 00:56:28.360 --> 00:56:30.280 >> So let's see how that's worded. 00:56:30.280 --> 00:56:37.480 >> Yeah, since the economic development component of that was out of here, we really wouldn't be talking incentives. 00:56:37.480 --> 00:56:44.600 >> I don't see any other questions. 00:56:44.600 --> 00:56:45.080 >> Okay. 00:56:47.240 --> 00:56:54.840 >> Just to add a little more clarification on how, assuming this passes, how sort of the operation, how it would function. 00:56:54.840 --> 00:56:56.600 Just a simple email. 00:56:56.600 --> 00:56:58.760 Again, that's more on the voluntary disclosure. 00:56:58.760 --> 00:57:02.920 Again, you're not obligated, but if you did want to, it's a simple email. 00:57:02.920 --> 00:57:05.840 We collect it and have it as backup. 00:57:05.840 --> 00:57:07.000 >> Commissioner Ellis. 00:57:07.000 --> 00:57:07.520 >> Thank you, Chair. 00:57:07.520 --> 00:57:09.200 Richard, do you have that disclosure written yet? 00:57:09.200 --> 00:57:14.200 >> It's not even, it's just, I had it, if you had a meeting with somebody. 00:57:14.200 --> 00:57:15.480 >> It's not going to be a form or anything. 00:57:15.480 --> 00:57:18.920 >> It's just a simple email. 00:57:18.920 --> 00:57:20.280 >> I see, to you. 00:57:20.280 --> 00:57:27.680 >> We are working on a formal process so that you guys have the opportunity to go and you see what type of information we're collecting. 00:57:27.680 --> 00:57:32.960 We're actively trying to do that with city council and for this commission as well. 00:57:32.960 --> 00:57:38.960 But at this point, like Richard said, if you just provide an email, date, time, location of meeting, who you met with. 00:57:38.960 --> 00:57:40.800 >> Legal jump in here. 00:57:40.800 --> 00:57:46.080 >> Well, and pardon me for fumbling a little bit because we don't 00:57:46.080 --> 00:57:50.240 typically see motions for reconsideration out of the Planning and Zoning Commission. 00:57:50.240 --> 00:57:59.440 And so I don't know that we've got kind of a well oiled process of how that would go forward. 00:57:59.440 --> 00:58:05.400 But as Richard said, typically you could have the motion to reconsider on the next meeting and 00:58:05.400 --> 00:58:09.560 then the actual reconsideration thereafter. 00:58:09.560 --> 00:58:17.200 I've also seen situations in which, if you could get notice to staff early enough that they could, 00:58:17.200 --> 00:58:26.680 that you're intending to do this, they could get it posted on the agenda with plenty of time to satisfy the public meetings act. 00:58:26.680 --> 00:58:31.800 And so we could work the details as far as when it would come up. 00:58:31.800 --> 00:58:39.600 But just in general, that doesn't really impact the wording of this. 00:58:39.600 --> 00:58:45.120 It's something to refine for what the motion for reconsider process would be. 00:58:45.120 --> 00:58:54.400 But certainly to the extent that you get your intention to ask for reconsideration to staff early, 00:58:54.400 --> 00:58:57.120 we could shortcut that process as much as possible. 00:58:57.120 --> 00:59:00.480 >> Thank you, Chair. >> Mr. Smith. 00:59:00.480 --> 00:59:06.080 >> In the event, I guess a real world example. 00:59:06.080 --> 00:59:14.680 So two weeks ago we had the rezoning case up on 428 near Hartley Field Road. 00:59:14.680 --> 00:59:22.240 This past Saturday, I saw Lee Allison at an event and had a conversation with him about that project. 00:59:22.240 --> 00:59:28.560 If that was to happen, once this resolution is passed, if we pass it, that then would be prohibited. 00:59:28.560 --> 00:59:34.920 Well, let's just pretend that it was in effect as of last week or two weeks ago. 00:59:34.920 --> 00:59:39.840 I would then have to disclose it, and then I would have to be recused from the reconsideration conversation. 00:59:39.840 --> 00:59:44.680 What's the process if a conversation does happen, whether it's in passing and not a formal meeting. 00:59:44.680 --> 00:59:49.600 It's something where you end up having a conversation about it, and you do break that what happened to that point in time. 00:59:49.600 --> 00:59:53.880 >> Well, I don't believe this policy says anything about recusal, if I'm not mistaken. 00:59:53.880 --> 00:59:57.800 I think what it talks about is that- >> It's prohibited, what happens if I break the rule? 00:59:57.800 --> 01:00:02.680 >> Yeah, well, I don't know that that's really stated, what happens if you break the rule. 01:00:02.680 --> 01:00:07.960 I don't know if it's really stated as far as what happens if a council member breaks a rule, for that matter. 01:00:07.960 --> 01:00:15.160 I don't know that it gets into all those details, and I don't know how much can really be done about it, to be real honest with you. 01:00:15.160 --> 01:00:19.440 >> What's the point of having a rule if there's no consequence for it being broken? 01:00:19.440 --> 01:00:27.520 >> Well, I guess as an affirmation of ethical standards going forward- 01:00:27.520 --> 01:00:29.960 >> Wow, man, I'm all in favor of ethical standards. 01:00:29.960 --> 01:00:34.720 >> I'm certainly not in a position to judge and say whether that's worthy or unworthy. 01:00:34.720 --> 01:00:42.760 That's simply the direction that council wanted to go with it, and council wanted the PNZ to go in that direction as well. 01:00:42.760 --> 01:00:48.160 I think that what this is saying is that if you encounter lials and 01:00:48.160 --> 01:00:54.400 you exchange pleasantries, you say, we can't discuss that prior issue. 01:00:54.400 --> 01:00:58.880 >> Well, let's say I break the rule, let's say I'm a bad commissioner, I break the rule, what happens? 01:00:58.880 --> 01:01:06.000 >> And in order to protect yourself, do a disclosure on that. 01:01:06.000 --> 01:01:10.160 >> I get my cookie, I'll let the Chair address somebody else. 01:01:10.160 --> 01:01:12.160 >> Commissioner Ellis. 01:01:12.160 --> 01:01:13.640 >> Commissioner Ellis. 01:01:13.640 --> 01:01:18.960 >> I'm going to guess what could happen, that's why we have the new ethics board. 01:01:18.960 --> 01:01:23.120 So what could happen is you could be brought under that, would be my guess. 01:01:23.120 --> 01:01:28.520 >> Also, can I request a clarification just in something Commissioner Smith said? 01:01:28.520 --> 01:01:31.920 The disclosure, I think, is not that you had the conversation and broke the rule. 01:01:31.920 --> 01:01:36.160 The disclosure is any time, it's a voluntary disclosure, but 01:01:36.160 --> 01:01:40.080 any time that we discuss something with a developer, correct? 01:01:40.080 --> 01:01:43.440 >> Yeah, that's prior to an item being heard. 01:01:43.440 --> 01:01:47.920 But I'm saying specifically in this scenario that I had on Saturday, that was after I was heard, I already voted. 01:01:47.920 --> 01:01:52.240 Our recommendation made to PNZ, and I get it, it falls underneath the ethics deal. 01:01:52.240 --> 01:01:57.040 I think it's not clearly stated that there's the consequence there. 01:01:57.040 --> 01:02:01.960 So that might be a good thing, and that's the reason why I'm eating cookies right now, so. 01:02:01.960 --> 01:02:05.920 >> Are you good? 01:02:05.920 --> 01:02:06.840 >> Commissioner Fernanda. 01:02:06.840 --> 01:02:10.880 >> No, I just wanted to point out, I think we've actually had an example of this already. 01:02:10.880 --> 01:02:16.720 If I'm not mistaken, Council and Hudspeth met with one of the developers, 01:02:16.720 --> 01:02:23.720 the property that's going up, I think about 250 houses on Bonnie Bray, right by where the school is going to be. 01:02:23.720 --> 01:02:31.600 And we had a question about whether or not the road alongside it was going to be extended, and he disclosed that. 01:02:31.600 --> 01:02:38.720 I don't know what came of that, but that is something that is on the record and has occurred in terms of this already, correct? 01:02:38.720 --> 01:02:39.760 >> Yeah, that's correct. 01:02:39.760 --> 01:02:42.120 So we've been talking about the voluntary disclosure a bit. 01:02:42.120 --> 01:02:47.000 So anytime you have a meeting with the developer, you can disclose that. 01:02:47.000 --> 01:02:53.880 And what will happen is we'll carry that disclosure forward on the upcoming PNC case as well as any city council cases. 01:02:53.880 --> 01:02:55.280 So that's the same with city council. 01:02:55.280 --> 01:03:01.200 We include that in the backup as an exhibit showing that there's disclosures to that. 01:03:01.200 --> 01:03:06.680 >> So and then I guess regarding Commissioner Smith's question. 01:03:06.680 --> 01:03:11.680 So there technically isn't no punitive action. 01:03:11.680 --> 01:03:15.960 This is simply a policy to encourage transparency, right? 01:03:15.960 --> 01:03:16.480 >> Yep. 01:03:16.480 --> 01:03:17.000 >> Okay. 01:03:17.000 --> 01:03:25.040 >> Question maybe that's not necessarily as important now that the policy's drafted. 01:03:25.040 --> 01:03:31.320 But prior to this policy being approved, are commissioners not allowed to disclose? 01:03:31.320 --> 01:03:36.800 >> No. >> Because the policy now permits us to do so. 01:03:36.800 --> 01:03:39.920 Have we not been permitted to do that? 01:03:39.920 --> 01:03:47.160 >> I think if you'd like to disclose, by all means disclose, it's going to be voluntary. 01:03:47.160 --> 01:03:52.400 And so whether it's, I do know some council members, I mean even if there's an email communication, 01:03:52.400 --> 01:03:57.000 some just disclose it just to be transparent about it. 01:03:57.000 --> 01:03:57.920 >> Sure. 01:03:57.920 --> 01:03:58.600 >> Commissioner Beck. 01:03:58.600 --> 01:04:00.160 >> Okay, I may be a little confused here. 01:04:00.160 --> 01:04:07.440 So we can't discuss anything with a developer, I can understand before it comes before us. 01:04:07.440 --> 01:04:11.280 But once it comes before us, we voted on it, and we passed it on to city council. 01:04:11.280 --> 01:04:13.280 We still can't discuss that with them until. 01:04:13.280 --> 01:04:14.800 >> For one meeting. 01:04:14.800 --> 01:04:15.760 >> For two weeks. 01:04:15.760 --> 01:04:16.720 >> For two weeks. 01:04:16.720 --> 01:04:18.000 >> Until the next meeting. 01:04:18.000 --> 01:04:21.120 >> Even though we've already made our decision on it. 01:04:21.120 --> 01:04:22.400 Okay, that helps, thank you. 01:04:22.400 --> 01:04:26.560 >> All right, any other questions? 01:04:26.560 --> 01:04:28.160 >> Maybe, Commissioner Ellis? 01:04:28.160 --> 01:04:28.680 >> Thank you. 01:04:28.680 --> 01:04:32.960 I'm going to just maybe throw it out to legal. 01:04:32.960 --> 01:04:36.680 Do you understand what, it's for reconsideration, right? 01:04:36.680 --> 01:04:38.360 So, I want to make sure that you want- 01:04:38.360 --> 01:04:43.680 >> I can use some clarification on reconsideration because as you said, we don't do that much, so. 01:04:43.680 --> 01:04:44.280 >> But we can. 01:04:44.280 --> 01:04:46.560 >> Maybe if you can elaborate on that. 01:04:46.560 --> 01:04:51.280 >> Yeah, and I didn't bring the copy 2-29 with me today. 01:04:51.280 --> 01:05:02.840 But I could try to get on that before a regular meeting and see if I could get you a better answer on that. 01:05:02.840 --> 01:05:05.480 >> What would help me if you could give an example? 01:05:05.480 --> 01:05:07.840 >> I'll try to find one. 01:05:07.840 --> 01:05:10.360 >> Okay, instead of quoting the law- 01:05:10.360 --> 01:05:23.320 >> Because I haven't seen one either, you know, and so it's, I just have to be very candid with you that I've been dealing with P&Z off and on for 20 some odd years, and I haven't seen a motion to reconsider. 01:05:23.320 --> 01:05:25.400 >> Well, I've been here for three and a half years and I don't recall anything. 01:05:25.400 --> 01:05:31.760 >> Yeah, so it's, don't judge me too harshly if I can't easily come up with an example. 01:05:31.760 --> 01:05:33.280 >> Okay, if you can, that'd be great. 01:05:33.280 --> 01:05:34.440 I'm a visual person that helps. 01:05:34.440 --> 01:05:36.760 >> Okay. 01:05:36.760 --> 01:05:37.720 >> Commissioner Burnetta. 01:05:37.720 --> 01:05:54.120 >> And I just want to clarify, because before we get too comfortable with reciting two weeks, in an instance where, say, end of the year, December, where we might have a month before the next P&Z meeting, it would be a month in that case, because we are actually holding until the next meeting. 01:05:54.120 --> 01:05:55.000 >> Right, until the next meeting. 01:05:55.000 --> 01:05:56.000 >> Okay. 01:05:56.000 --> 01:05:56.920 >> Typically two weeks. 01:05:56.920 --> 01:06:00.840 >> Or in February where the next meeting might be a week later, right? 01:06:00.840 --> 01:06:05.880 >> That's correct, we can send something out, too, that may be helpful on when that time period is. 01:06:05.880 --> 01:06:14.680 So just for an example, anything leading up to this point tonight, you can have discussions, you can disclose it, you can choose not to disclose it, it's voluntary. 01:06:14.680 --> 01:06:26.040 After you've made a vote, if we had a, well, I guess we still do have some items, but after you've made your vote tonight, then you wouldn't discuss that until February 6th. 01:06:26.040 --> 01:06:35.280 You wouldn't discuss that development with that developer or any interested party until February 6th, and then you could discuss it after that. 01:06:35.280 --> 01:06:37.880 >> Thank you. 01:06:37.880 --> 01:06:40.680 >> Any other questions? 01:06:40.680 --> 01:06:43.400 Thank you very much, Charlie, for the presentation. 01:06:43.400 --> 01:06:50.520 The next and last item for our work session is 4B, and Haley, I'll ask you to present this item. 01:06:56.040 --> 01:07:09.920 All right, so this case is an alternative development plan request for Blue Beacon. 01:07:09.920 --> 01:07:17.680 So you can see the site outlined in black on the map, it's located at the intersection of I-35 and Barthold Road. 01:07:17.680 --> 01:07:23.960 So the request before you is to consider approval of an ADP to deviate from two sections of sub-chapter 13. 01:07:23.960 --> 01:07:30.040 That is the landscape and tree canopy requirements, and then the access parking and circulation requirements. 01:07:30.040 --> 01:07:33.920 This property is just under 11 and a half acres. 01:07:33.920 --> 01:07:38.160 It's located in an employment center commercial zoning district. 01:07:38.160 --> 01:07:46.080 Some of you may remember over the past couple of years we've gone through a voluntary annexation for part of the property and then rezoning to ECC. 01:07:46.080 --> 01:07:50.520 I believe that was last year, and then you've recently seen a preliminary plat for this site as well. 01:07:50.520 --> 01:07:53.640 So they've been working on this consistently for a couple of years now. 01:07:53.640 --> 01:07:56.680 And the proposed use is a Blue Beacon truck wash facility. 01:07:56.680 --> 01:08:03.520 So to kind of show you the reason for this request, as they've gone through platting and 01:08:03.520 --> 01:08:12.960 site planning for this location, they've come to realize that meeting the landscaping standards of our code is very difficult given the number of easements on the site. 01:08:12.960 --> 01:08:19.880 So what you can see here is kind of their proposed site plan layout, and then they've highlighted the easements that are encumbering the site. 01:08:19.880 --> 01:08:25.680 So this blue color is a drainage easements, there is a detention facility here in a lighter shade of blue. 01:08:25.680 --> 01:08:29.960 There's an existing pipeline easement in yellow going around the perimeter of the site. 01:08:29.960 --> 01:08:35.240 There is a water line easement here, and also a sanitary sewer easement and an electrical easement. 01:08:35.240 --> 01:08:41.120 So of that 11 and a half acres, a very limited portion of the site can actually be developed. 01:08:44.320 --> 01:08:50.800 So looking in detail at what they've proposed, the minimum for the zoning district is 20% landscaping. 01:08:50.800 --> 01:08:55.360 Since all of these easements are grass, they have no trouble meeting that requirement. 01:08:55.360 --> 01:08:57.560 They're at over 80% landscaping. 01:08:57.560 --> 01:09:00.920 The code also requires for ECC 30% tree canopy. 01:09:00.920 --> 01:09:04.000 On this site, that would be just over three acres worth of tree canopy. 01:09:04.000 --> 01:09:11.360 What they've done is work extensively with planning staff in our engineering department to figure out where within these 01:09:11.360 --> 01:09:15.640 numerous encumbrances they could feasibly plant trees and not interfere with something. 01:09:15.640 --> 01:09:24.320 And what they've come up with is this plan for 45 new trees on the site as one tree is being preserved and then one tree is being relocated. 01:09:24.320 --> 01:09:28.720 And that gets them to right around 11.6% tree canopy coverage. 01:09:28.720 --> 01:09:36.120 So far short of the 30%, but definitely fitting things in where they can given the numerous encumbrances here. 01:09:36.120 --> 01:09:42.960 Within the site design itself, the parking lot is really the only other place we have specific landscaping and tree canopy requirements. 01:09:42.960 --> 01:09:45.120 And they are able to meet those within their parking lot. 01:09:45.120 --> 01:09:54.640 So looking at the exact deviations they're asking for, the 30% tree canopy, as I mentioned, is probably their biggest challenge. 01:09:54.640 --> 01:09:59.080 So they're falling short of that at just over 11%. 01:09:59.080 --> 01:10:06.680 The street trees, you'll notice because of those easements, unable to plant trees along both of their street frontages as the code would require. 01:10:06.680 --> 01:10:11.960 And then the code also requires when you have parking or vehicle maneuvering areas between your building and the street, 01:10:11.960 --> 01:10:19.020 that you have that very specific 15 foot wide planted area that includes the berm, trees, and then either a wall or shrubs. 01:10:19.020 --> 01:10:24.800 So again, given the easements, they were unable to provide that exact configuration that the code requires. 01:10:24.800 --> 01:10:33.280 So while they don't have that specific planting area, and they don't have the berm, they have accommodated what they could, which is in the area in orange. 01:10:33.280 --> 01:10:37.160 They intend to provide a minimum three foot high screening wall. 01:10:37.160 --> 01:10:42.600 And then in front of the parking lot itself, they are providing small landscape islands planted with shrubs and trees. 01:10:42.600 --> 01:10:45.320 So again, doing their best to meet the intent of that code requirement. 01:10:45.320 --> 01:10:52.240 So looking at the criteria for approval of an ADP, preservation of existing neighborhoods. 01:10:52.240 --> 01:10:56.640 And while there's not any residential neighborhoods in this area, we did look at the character of the area. 01:10:56.640 --> 01:11:00.880 And this being a prominent highway intersection with other auto oriented uses, 01:11:00.880 --> 01:11:05.880 this use fits well within that development pattern here. 01:11:05.880 --> 01:11:11.280 Assuring quality development, again, over the last two years we've worked extensively with this developer. 01:11:11.280 --> 01:11:19.880 And they're not trying to lower the design standards, they're just battling a high number of encumbrances on this site with drainage easements and utility easements. 01:11:19.880 --> 01:11:23.040 And then focusing new development to activity centers. 01:11:23.040 --> 01:11:29.280 This intersection's kind of already established itself as really that travel center kind of corridor here. 01:11:29.280 --> 01:11:31.520 This whole area is intended for business innovation. 01:11:31.520 --> 01:11:38.280 So someday we hope to see, based on our comp plan, those large campus style developments, light industrial and things of that nature. 01:11:38.280 --> 01:11:42.120 So these auto uses like we see there with the truck stops at this location and 01:11:42.120 --> 01:11:45.680 this truck wash would be supporting uses for that at some point in the future. 01:11:48.000 --> 01:11:52.760 The last two criteria to ensure that infrastructure can accommodate the development. 01:11:52.760 --> 01:11:55.280 The road frontages are already in place here. 01:11:55.280 --> 01:11:59.880 Other developments such as the Loves here just south of them have brought utilities to this far north part of Denton. 01:11:59.880 --> 01:12:02.880 So those are available for extension to this site. 01:12:02.880 --> 01:12:07.840 And then again, resulting in a high quality development that meets the intent of our standards. 01:12:07.840 --> 01:12:12.640 As you've seen here, they are trying their best to accommodate what the code requires of them. 01:12:12.640 --> 01:12:18.720 Providing as many trees and as much landscaping as is possible within the constraints of the site. 01:12:18.720 --> 01:12:23.400 So with that, staff is recommending approval of their request as we found it to meet those criteria. 01:12:23.400 --> 01:12:24.600 >> Mr. Beck. 01:12:24.600 --> 01:12:26.440 >> Thank you, Chair. 01:12:26.440 --> 01:12:34.320 I'm assuming because they can't meet the 30% canopy is because they can't build because of all their strengths. 01:12:34.320 --> 01:12:39.400 And that eliminates them from putting into the tree fund too, is that correct? 01:12:39.400 --> 01:12:44.960 In other words, to make up for it, you know, we'd say it won't kick into the tree fund, but it's not their fault. 01:12:44.960 --> 01:12:48.040 Am I saying that right? 01:12:48.040 --> 01:12:53.480 >> Well, the code currently only allows tree fund payment when you're mitigating for existing trees that you're removing. 01:12:53.480 --> 01:12:54.120 >> Okay. 01:12:54.120 --> 01:12:58.160 >> So they are meeting the tree preservation standards for the site. 01:12:58.160 --> 01:13:00.120 Because there's not a whole lot of trees on this lot. 01:13:00.120 --> 01:13:01.640 So those two trees that I mentioned- 01:13:01.640 --> 01:13:05.200 >> And they're not actually removing, they're relocating one. 01:13:05.200 --> 01:13:07.360 >> Relocating one, preserving one. 01:13:07.360 --> 01:13:13.560 There are a couple of other secondary trees that they will be removing, and then there's some dead trees on the site that they'll be removing. 01:13:13.560 --> 01:13:20.000 So they are meeting the tree preservation, so that payment to the tree fund for mitigation doesn't apply to this situation. 01:13:20.000 --> 01:13:21.600 >> Okay, thank you. 01:13:21.600 --> 01:13:26.680 >> That is something we're looking at, if you remember, with the draft landscape code, but we don't have that yet. 01:13:26.680 --> 01:13:30.080 >> Any other questions? 01:13:30.080 --> 01:13:33.600 All right, thanks, Hayley. 01:13:33.600 --> 01:13:34.800 >> Thank you. 01:13:34.800 --> 01:13:40.120 With the public hearing item being pulled, that concludes our work session. 01:13:40.120 --> 01:13:43.600 I'll close this work session at 618. 01:13:43.600 --> 01:13:49.400 We will have the public hearing and the full P&Z commission at 630 in council chambers. 01:13:49.400 --> 01:13:58.800 >> Good evening and welcome to the January 23rd Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 01:13:58.800 --> 01:14:04.080 This meeting will commence at 631. 01:14:04.080 --> 01:14:09.560 The first item on the agenda is to stand and give the pledge of allegiance to the US and Texas flag. 01:14:09.560 --> 01:14:19.600 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, 01:14:19.600 --> 01:14:24.480 one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 01:14:24.480 --> 01:14:33.880 On this Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the United States, Texas, one state under God, one university. 01:14:34.080 --> 01:14:41.120 >> The next item of business is to consider the approval of our planning and zoning commission minutes. 01:14:41.120 --> 01:14:43.720 The chair will entertain any discussion or a motion. 01:14:43.720 --> 01:14:48.480 >> Commissioner Ellis. 01:14:48.480 --> 01:14:49.080 >> Thank you, Chair. 01:14:49.080 --> 01:14:50.200 I have motion approval. 01:14:50.200 --> 01:14:54.040 >> We have a first, Commissioner Pernitta. 01:14:54.040 --> 01:14:55.480 >> I second the motion. 01:14:55.480 --> 01:14:59.640 >> We have a first and a second to approve the planning and zoning minutes for January 9th. 01:14:59.640 --> 01:15:00.720 Is there any discussion on the item? 01:15:02.320 --> 01:15:04.120 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 01:15:04.120 --> 01:15:13.640 Motion carries 7-0. 01:15:13.640 --> 01:15:16.760 The next item for business is our consent agenda. 01:15:16.760 --> 01:15:19.400 Chair will entertain any motion or discussion on the items. 01:15:19.400 --> 01:15:20.520 Commissioner Smith. 01:15:20.520 --> 01:15:21.120 >> Move to approve. 01:15:21.120 --> 01:15:23.520 >> Commissioner Beck. 01:15:23.520 --> 01:15:24.560 >> Second. 01:15:24.560 --> 01:15:28.320 >> We have a first and a second to approve the consent agenda. 01:15:28.320 --> 01:15:29.520 Is there any discussion on the matter? 01:15:31.240 --> 01:15:33.280 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 01:15:33.280 --> 01:15:42.920 Motion carries 7-0. 01:15:42.920 --> 01:15:47.000 That brings us to the next items on the agenda. 01:15:47.000 --> 01:15:52.960 And I want to make sure we at least announce that the public hearing item 5A, 01:15:52.960 --> 01:15:58.440 there's a rezone case for the Hills of Argyle, has been pulled from tonight's agenda. 01:15:58.440 --> 01:16:02.800 It will not be heard, so if anyone's watching on TV or here, that item has been pulled. 01:16:02.800 --> 01:16:05.560 It'll be re-noticed for a future meeting. 01:16:05.560 --> 01:16:14.160 With that, we'll go back to individual consideration, item 4A, PZ19-9. 01:16:14.160 --> 01:16:16.240 And I will invite Charlie for presentation. 01:16:16.240 --> 01:16:27.080 >> Good evening, commission members. 01:16:27.080 --> 01:16:31.960 My name is Charlie Rosendahl, business services manager for the development services department. 01:16:31.960 --> 01:16:37.080 I'm here today seeking a recommendation from P&Z regarding a developer engagement policy. 01:16:37.080 --> 01:16:41.040 A little background on this, on October 23rd, 01:16:41.040 --> 01:16:48.120 city council held a work session to discuss possible engagement policy for development. 01:16:48.120 --> 01:16:54.160 On November 13th, they adopted a policy that prohibits discussions with developers or 01:16:54.160 --> 01:16:58.880 persons regarding upcoming developments from the point in time that they've 01:16:58.880 --> 01:17:05.800 made a motion and voted on an item until the next meeting, 01:17:05.800 --> 01:17:10.480 which is the subject for reconsideration, and you're also prohibited during a tie vote. 01:17:10.480 --> 01:17:16.240 On December 18th, they requested that P&Z adopt a similar policy. 01:17:16.240 --> 01:17:18.360 So I'm here today seeking your recommendation, and 01:17:18.360 --> 01:17:20.880 we'll take that forward to city council on February 5th. 01:17:24.240 --> 01:17:29.560 So the draft policy you have in your backup would prohibit discussions with developers 01:17:29.560 --> 01:17:37.000 or interested parties when an item is on a pending due to a tie vote, 01:17:37.000 --> 01:17:39.880 or an item is subject to reconsideration. 01:17:39.880 --> 01:17:43.680 So effectively, you would be prohibited from discussing with developers from the point 01:17:43.680 --> 01:17:49.480 in time a recommendation is made at P&Z until the next official meeting, 01:17:49.480 --> 01:17:53.600 or when an item is on the next agenda due to a tie vote. 01:17:54.160 --> 01:18:04.800 The second part of the policy would be a voluntary disclosure of meetings with developers. 01:18:04.800 --> 01:18:09.000 They must be submitted in writing to the director of development services. 01:18:09.000 --> 01:18:13.440 We're currently working on a form that would be provided to you all so 01:18:13.440 --> 01:18:16.080 that you can disclose those. 01:18:16.080 --> 01:18:21.920 In the meantime, you can email staff and disclose that information, and 01:18:21.920 --> 01:18:26.560 we'll include those disclosures in any future P&Z and city council backup. 01:18:26.560 --> 01:18:32.400 And with that, I'm seeking your recommendation. 01:18:32.400 --> 01:18:36.880 >> So we do have a question, Commissioner Beck. 01:18:36.880 --> 01:18:37.720 >> Thank you, Chair. 01:18:37.720 --> 01:18:39.520 With the help of my fellow commissioner Ellis, 01:18:39.520 --> 01:18:41.200 I think I understand a little bit more what's going on here. 01:18:41.200 --> 01:18:45.440 But the question did arise, and I don't know that this happens often. 01:18:45.440 --> 01:18:56.120 But if we vote on an issue before the next P&Z, it makes it to city council. 01:18:56.120 --> 01:19:01.000 Once it's on the city council's agenda, then that's something we can discuss, 01:19:01.000 --> 01:19:05.280 because we're free and clear of it, or does that make sense? 01:19:05.280 --> 01:19:09.680 I don't know that that happens that often, where it goes, we're in P&Z, and 01:19:09.680 --> 01:19:12.240 then next week it's on the city council's agenda. 01:19:12.240 --> 01:19:17.560 >> So it'll be our policy and development services to make a gap between those items. 01:19:17.560 --> 01:19:22.320 In rare instances, there may be some items that would go to council prior to your next 01:19:22.320 --> 01:19:26.880 P&Z meeting, but we're going to put enough space in there during that time frame. 01:19:26.880 --> 01:19:31.040 >> So once it's on the city council's agenda, and they actually vote on it, 01:19:31.040 --> 01:19:36.320 then we don't have to wait until the next P&Z, because it's a done deal then, right? 01:19:36.320 --> 01:19:41.560 >> So we ideally wouldn't put another case on city council agenda until 01:19:41.560 --> 01:19:44.220 at least the P&Z held their next meeting. 01:19:44.220 --> 01:19:46.400 >> Okay, thank you. 01:19:46.400 --> 01:19:51.360 >> If I could come in legal, do you have an add? 01:19:51.360 --> 01:19:53.480 >> Yes, if I could. 01:19:53.480 --> 01:19:57.720 Typically, that's not going to be an issue because, well, of course, 01:19:57.720 --> 01:20:04.560 we're talking about a policy where reconsideration is only incidentally brought up. 01:20:04.560 --> 01:20:08.640 But looking at the actual rule regarding reconsideration, 01:20:08.640 --> 01:20:13.400 it's a rule that was drafted with council in mind. 01:20:13.400 --> 01:20:17.760 And it talks about any action taken by the city council. 01:20:17.760 --> 01:20:25.480 Now, there's another provision that says to the extent possible all of the various boards of commission should abide by these rules as well. 01:20:25.480 --> 01:20:35.520 And so adapting that, I think that the real intent on the reconsideration issue is an action. 01:20:35.520 --> 01:20:40.720 That's the word that's actually set forth in 2-29, 01:20:40.720 --> 01:20:45.600 where it says emotionally reconsider any action of, in this case, the commission. 01:20:45.600 --> 01:20:51.840 An action of the commission would be a plat approval, an ADP approval, something like that. 01:20:51.840 --> 01:20:57.800 A vote to recommend approval or a vote to recommend denial is not an action. 01:20:57.800 --> 01:21:05.440 It's a report that's made to the city council, pursuant to the rules in Chapter 211. 01:21:05.440 --> 01:21:09.400 Or the local government code and our ordinances. 01:21:09.400 --> 01:21:16.280 And so I don't think that the situation that you're talking about is going to be one that's going to be susceptible to a motion to reconsider anyway. 01:21:16.280 --> 01:21:25.240 >> Okay, and I think you answered another question that popped up is that if I wanted to change my vote, that wouldn't be considered an action. 01:21:25.240 --> 01:21:26.720 Is that what you're saying? 01:21:26.720 --> 01:21:31.120 In other words, if I were part of the minority, say it was a 5-2 vote and I was part of the minority. 01:21:31.120 --> 01:21:34.440 >> On what kind of item? 01:21:34.440 --> 01:21:35.880 >> So that makes a difference, huh? 01:21:35.880 --> 01:21:37.360 >> Yes. 01:21:37.360 --> 01:21:39.600 >> Well, a zone change. 01:21:39.600 --> 01:21:40.200 >> I'm sorry? 01:21:40.200 --> 01:21:41.080 >> A zone change. 01:21:41.080 --> 01:21:43.400 >> Okay, if it's a zoning change, that's not an action. 01:21:43.400 --> 01:21:46.440 And so I don't believe that it's really subject to reconsideration. 01:21:46.440 --> 01:21:54.640 >> Well, what I'm saying, yeah, if I changed it and I became, but I was still part of the minority, then that wouldn't be a matter of reconsider. 01:21:54.640 --> 01:21:58.120 >> You'd have to be on the prevailing side to do a motion to reconsider anyway. 01:21:58.120 --> 01:22:00.640 >> Okay, okay, got you, thanks. 01:22:03.600 --> 01:22:05.080 >> I did not see any other questions. 01:22:05.080 --> 01:22:05.920 Appreciate the presentation. 01:22:05.920 --> 01:22:07.080 >> Mm-hm. 01:22:07.080 --> 01:22:10.560 >> This is an individual consideration item, it's not a public hearing. 01:22:10.560 --> 01:22:14.400 So the chair will certainly entertain any motion or discussion on the item. 01:22:14.400 --> 01:22:31.680 I'll go ahead and make a motion to, or I move to approve the item with the condition that a word is inserted. 01:22:32.920 --> 01:22:38.720 I would like to see the word financially inserted between or and interested to make 01:22:38.720 --> 01:22:44.160 it more clear on who the interested persons and entities prohibited to speaking with would be. 01:22:44.160 --> 01:22:47.240 That's my motion. 01:22:47.240 --> 01:22:53.720 Commissioner Sanchez. 01:22:53.720 --> 01:22:55.000 >> I second that. 01:22:55.000 --> 01:22:58.600 >> We have a first and a second to approve as amended by the chair. 01:22:58.600 --> 01:23:00.280 Commissioner Smith. 01:23:00.280 --> 01:23:04.880 >> Thank you, Chair, I think that, I didn't want to mention it in work session, I thought if it was brought up then possibly. 01:23:04.880 --> 01:23:10.720 But the financially interested, I can give you any clarification of the chair first, if you're emotionally and financially interested. 01:23:10.720 --> 01:23:17.680 You're specifically trying to aim it towards anybody, whether it's a developer, it's an engineer, somebody who's involved in the project itself. 01:23:17.680 --> 01:23:25.320 I feel like this policy should extend to also those who are in the neighborhood who could be affected by the case itself. 01:23:25.320 --> 01:23:29.560 That's just my belief, that if there's, let's say there's a motion, we can't do it on a zoning case. 01:23:29.560 --> 01:23:33.940 Let's say it is a preliminary plotting is of course, is an action, correct, legal? 01:23:33.940 --> 01:23:36.120 >> I'm sorry. 01:23:36.120 --> 01:23:38.000 >> Preliminary plotting is an action, correct? 01:23:38.000 --> 01:23:42.920 Where we vote, we vote for preliminary plot, that is an action, we brought that up, the difference between those. 01:23:42.920 --> 01:23:47.680 But if there's something that happens that we do vote on, and there's a 5-2, 01:23:47.680 --> 01:23:55.240 that somebody who's in the majority then gets approached by somebody in the neighborhood saying, hey, you didn't see this and this and there, you need to change that. 01:23:55.240 --> 01:23:58.920 And they have a conversation with that person in the neighborhood, and then that person comes back and says, yeah, you know what? 01:23:58.920 --> 01:24:00.560 We do need to have reconsideration. 01:24:00.560 --> 01:24:07.000 I feel like that's just as much of a violation of what we're trying to do as it is talking to the developer. 01:24:07.000 --> 01:24:11.320 And so I want to make sure that if there's financials added in there, great. 01:24:11.320 --> 01:24:12.760 I think that you'd have to extend that financial. 01:24:12.760 --> 01:24:17.800 It has to mean those who are financially also involved being the neighborhood person as well. 01:24:17.800 --> 01:24:23.160 If they say that, well, this development's going to hurt my property values, or not even have the financial in there at all. 01:24:23.160 --> 01:24:28.160 Because I feel like the neighborhood people should also be included in not being able to communicate with commissioners 01:24:28.160 --> 01:24:34.400 on an item that could be brought back up for reconsideration, much to my point. 01:24:34.400 --> 01:24:35.120 >> Yep, that's it. 01:24:35.120 --> 01:24:36.160 >> That's a good point. 01:24:36.160 --> 01:24:36.880 Mr. Sanchez? 01:24:36.880 --> 01:24:42.400 >> Well, I think anybody that's involved, even the neighbors, have a financial. 01:24:42.400 --> 01:24:48.640 We have that, a lot of people that come here and talk to us that it's going to lower the value of their homes. 01:24:48.640 --> 01:24:51.680 So they have a financial concern. 01:24:51.680 --> 01:24:56.840 So I think that's something we have to look at and say, hey, are you part of that neighborhood? 01:24:56.840 --> 01:24:58.840 And we have to consider that. 01:24:58.840 --> 01:25:03.120 But I think it clarifies it when you say financial. 01:25:03.120 --> 01:25:08.680 Now, if somebody's just asking you what kind of projects are you working on and have nothing to do with it, 01:25:08.680 --> 01:25:11.360 then it's a totally different animal, I think. 01:25:11.360 --> 01:25:16.360 But I think we have to be cognizant of asking them, where do you live? 01:25:16.360 --> 01:25:17.760 What's your concern? 01:25:17.760 --> 01:25:20.480 And then we make that determination. 01:25:20.480 --> 01:25:24.920 Is it financial that, well, you don't want it? 01:25:24.920 --> 01:25:27.240 You feel it's going to affect you financially. 01:25:27.240 --> 01:25:35.960 >> Yeah, to Commissioner Sanchez's point, the reason I would like to keep it as just financially interested is 01:25:35.960 --> 01:25:42.480 anyone who asks you a question about a project pertinent to this policy is showing interest. 01:25:42.480 --> 01:25:48.880 And so I feel that there needs to be some sort of division of defining that interest. 01:25:48.880 --> 01:25:53.880 And so I feel comfortable with financially interested, and Commissioner Sanchez brings up a good point about, 01:25:53.880 --> 01:25:58.720 that's our discretion of what the motive is, if it's financial or not, that I think legal wants to do. 01:25:58.720 --> 01:26:02.440 >> Yeah, if I could make a suggestion in there, 01:26:02.440 --> 01:26:08.120 if we could communicate the idea of interested beyond the public at large. 01:26:08.120 --> 01:26:16.880 Something along those lines, and if they have an interest that's different from the public at large. 01:26:16.880 --> 01:26:22.200 So for example, let's say you've got a residential replant, 01:26:22.200 --> 01:26:32.520 where you have a public hearing and the people that live within the area of the replant have 01:26:32.520 --> 01:26:39.640 specific stake in the outcome that's different from the public at large. 01:26:39.640 --> 01:26:47.480 That's a final action, and so that might be a circumstance in which 01:26:47.480 --> 01:26:54.160 it might fit what Mr. Smith is concerned with. 01:26:54.160 --> 01:26:58.840 And sort of bridge the gap between someone 01:26:58.840 --> 01:27:09.360 who's poised to derive income from the development and someone who's merely curious about it. 01:27:09.360 --> 01:27:13.360 >> Commissioner Smith. 01:27:13.360 --> 01:27:15.160 >> Yeah, I think that's my big point there. 01:27:15.160 --> 01:27:24.640 In work session, it seemed like the financial piece that was being, the financial word that was meant to be added in there was to try to exclude the neighborhood. 01:27:24.640 --> 01:27:30.960 And I want to make sure that we don't try to write the neighborhood out from also having to play into this conversation. 01:27:30.960 --> 01:27:37.040 So I think at large, possibly you would be willing to reconsider your motion. 01:27:37.040 --> 01:27:40.760 >> Yeah, I'd be happy to amend my motion. 01:27:40.760 --> 01:27:49.200 So my motion would be, the amended motion would be to not include financially, but rather insert. 01:27:49.200 --> 01:27:53.280 >> Coming up with something right now. 01:27:53.280 --> 01:27:55.840 See if you like that. 01:27:55.840 --> 01:28:05.120 >> To insert the words beyond that of the public at large after the word entities. 01:28:05.120 --> 01:28:11.400 >> Or an interest beyond that of the public at large. 01:28:11.400 --> 01:28:14.920 >> And strike persons and entities. 01:28:14.920 --> 01:28:21.520 >> Well, yeah, with developers or maybe we relocate persons or 01:28:21.520 --> 01:28:29.200 entities over here, persons or entities holding an interest beyond that of the public at large regarding any matter related to the development. 01:28:29.200 --> 01:28:42.200 And I think that you could, if you wanted to discuss in this context whether that might even include people who might be within 200 feet of a zoning project or 01:28:42.200 --> 01:28:47.800 something like that that could possibly influence a super majority vote, that might be another example. 01:28:47.800 --> 01:28:52.680 >> So I'm comfortable with the friendly amendments add beyond that of the public at large. 01:28:52.680 --> 01:28:56.880 Mr. Sanchez, are you okay with that amended language? 01:28:56.880 --> 01:28:58.280 >> Yes, I'm fine with it. 01:28:58.280 --> 01:29:01.800 >> Okay, we have a first and second for the amended language, Commissioner Pernetta. 01:29:01.800 --> 01:29:08.200 >> I just want to clarify, because right now when we go into interest beyond the public at large, 01:29:08.200 --> 01:29:14.160 ultimately this is all a judgment call on what we feel we should report. 01:29:14.160 --> 01:29:21.720 Because to basically qualify that requires a specific questioning and clarification. 01:29:21.720 --> 01:29:22.240 >> Microphone. 01:29:22.240 --> 01:29:22.760 >> I'm sorry. 01:29:22.760 --> 01:29:28.800 I just wanted to say, when we talk about the public at large, ultimately it's a judgment call, correct? 01:29:28.800 --> 01:29:36.400 Because in order to ascertain that, that's going to require qualifying questions that very obviously, 01:29:36.400 --> 01:29:42.360 if someone starts discussing financials behind it, we can identify that person as having that interest. 01:29:42.360 --> 01:29:51.080 But beyond that, if someone just talks to us about something, ultimately that's not something that might normally be apparent, right? 01:29:51.080 --> 01:29:59.360 So when we're talking about this, ultimately, once again, this is our judgment call and this is strictly voluntary. 01:29:59.360 --> 01:30:05.400 This is not something that we'd be held responsible to with regard to ethics, 01:30:05.400 --> 01:30:13.040 if we did not judge that it was beyond the interest of the public at large, is that correct? 01:30:13.040 --> 01:30:18.200 >> That would be my understanding. 01:30:18.200 --> 01:30:24.640 If someone came with you and asked a question about a project, you'd have to ask a qualifying question to know if they're financially involved or not. 01:30:24.640 --> 01:30:28.720 So whether it's financially interested or beyond that of the public, there's still, 01:30:28.720 --> 01:30:33.640 if you're engaging in that conversation about an item that's been tied or up for reconsideration, 01:30:33.640 --> 01:30:41.160 there is an assumed dialogue happening for you to understand whether or not the conversation's appropriate or not. 01:30:41.160 --> 01:30:41.660 >> Okay. 01:30:41.660 --> 01:30:46.640 Are you good? 01:30:46.640 --> 01:30:57.480 >> That's it, I just wanted to kind of see where we were just to avoid any inadvertent lack of disclosure, I guess. 01:30:57.480 --> 01:30:59.080 >> I got you, Commissioner Ellis. 01:30:59.080 --> 01:30:59.600 >> Thank you, Chair. 01:30:59.600 --> 01:31:03.520 I'm going to ask for a restatement just so I can understand, please. 01:31:03.520 --> 01:31:08.120 >> Yeah, so my restatement would be that the sentence read, 01:31:08.120 --> 01:31:13.280 members of the Planning and Zoning Commission will not communicate outside of a public meeting with developers or 01:31:13.280 --> 01:31:19.360 parties, entities interested beyond that of the public at large regarding any matter related to the development. 01:31:19.360 --> 01:31:26.680 We have a first and a second for that amended motion. 01:31:26.680 --> 01:31:28.720 Seeing no other discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board. 01:31:28.720 --> 01:31:38.720 Motion carries seven, zero. 01:31:38.720 --> 01:31:45.600 The next item and final item for the individual consideration is item 4B, and I'll invite Haley for presentation. 01:31:45.600 --> 01:31:59.720 >> All right, good evening. 01:31:59.720 --> 01:32:04.560 So this is a request for an alternative development plan for Blue Beacon. 01:32:04.560 --> 01:32:10.520 So the proposed truck wash facility would be located generally where you see the black outline on the map. 01:32:10.520 --> 01:32:17.040 This property is located at the intersection of the I-35 frontage road and Berthold road on the north side of town. 01:32:17.040 --> 01:32:21.760 It's just under 11 and a half acres, currently zoned employment center commercial. 01:32:21.760 --> 01:32:26.480 The requested ADP is to deviate from two specific sections of the code, the landscape and 01:32:26.480 --> 01:32:30.280 tree canopy requirements and then the access parking and circulation requirements. 01:32:32.240 --> 01:32:38.080 So to give you an idea of the layout of the site, their access would be from Berthold road. 01:32:38.080 --> 01:32:40.600 There is, as I mentioned, a truck wash facility. 01:32:40.600 --> 01:32:46.960 It contains two bays that would be located here with associated parking just to the west of that. 01:32:46.960 --> 01:32:51.680 And then there is a detention pond generally in the area shown in the lighter blue color. 01:32:51.680 --> 01:32:56.560 The brighter blue here surrounding this is drainage easement. 01:32:56.560 --> 01:33:01.000 And then the yellow shown on this map is an existing pipeline easement. 01:33:01.000 --> 01:33:04.920 There is a sanitary sewer easement that would go here in the green area. 01:33:04.920 --> 01:33:07.920 An electric easement and then also a water line easement. 01:33:07.920 --> 01:33:13.040 So the site is significantly encumbered with the necessary easements for this development. 01:33:13.040 --> 01:33:20.000 So looking specifically at their landscape plan where all of these deviations would occur, 01:33:20.000 --> 01:33:25.880 the overall site well exceeds the minimum 20% landscape area for the ECC district. 01:33:25.880 --> 01:33:32.120 All of these easements would remain basically grass or turf, so they would meet the definition of landscape area. 01:33:32.120 --> 01:33:37.920 The ECC district does require 30% tree canopy for the site, so that's based on the total lot area. 01:33:37.920 --> 01:33:42.160 So for a lot of this size, that would be over three acres of tree canopy required. 01:33:42.160 --> 01:33:46.600 Because of all those easements and the code restricting planting trees within easements and 01:33:46.600 --> 01:33:52.520 within certain distances of utility lines, it was very hard for them to accommodate those trees on the site. 01:33:52.520 --> 01:33:57.320 So in working with staff, they have formed a plan that would involve the planting of 45 new trees, 01:33:57.320 --> 01:34:01.080 as you can see, in these areas along with some trees in the parking lot. 01:34:01.080 --> 01:34:04.280 And that would get them to just over 11% tree canopy total. 01:34:04.280 --> 01:34:13.560 Within the site, our code really only has specific landscaping requirements for just your overall lot and then for your parking lot. 01:34:13.560 --> 01:34:17.440 So they are meeting those specific parking lot landscape requirements within the code. 01:34:17.440 --> 01:34:20.440 It's that overall tree canopy where they found some struggles. 01:34:21.960 --> 01:34:27.680 And then beyond that, as I mentioned, they're at 11.6 compared to 30, which is required. 01:34:27.680 --> 01:34:33.680 They were also unable to plant the required street trees along their frontages on Barthold and I-35. 01:34:33.680 --> 01:34:38.800 So the code requires that one tree for every 45 feet, which would be about 20 trees on this site. 01:34:38.800 --> 01:34:41.880 They were unable to plant those in the easements. 01:34:41.880 --> 01:34:48.600 And then similarly, the code has specific requirements when there is parking or drive aisles located between a building and the street. 01:34:48.600 --> 01:34:55.520 It requires a specific 15 foot wide planting area in front of those drive aisles and parking that contains a berm, 01:34:55.520 --> 01:35:04.560 one tree for every 40 feet, or three small trees clustered once every 30 feet, and then either a row of shrubs or a continuous wall. 01:35:04.560 --> 01:35:08.840 Because of the easements, again, they were unable to provide that very specific combination of things. 01:35:08.840 --> 01:35:15.880 So what they have proposed in the area in orange is that three foot high screening wall for the drive aisles. 01:35:15.880 --> 01:35:20.200 And then directly in front of the parking lot, which you can see here, 01:35:20.200 --> 01:35:25.000 they have proposed these landscape islands that would contain shrubs and trees to screen the parking lot itself. 01:35:25.000 --> 01:35:35.040 So in looking at the criteria for approval outlined in the code, the first is that the proposal would contribute to the preservation of existing neighborhoods. 01:35:35.040 --> 01:35:40.920 While there's not actually any neighborhood in this area, we did look to see if the development's consistent with the character of the area. 01:35:40.920 --> 01:35:46.200 And this intersection on the highway is, as I'm sure you're aware, is kind of a travel center, if you will. 01:35:46.200 --> 01:35:51.920 It has a couple of existing truck stops in this area, some other auto oriented uses. 01:35:51.920 --> 01:35:54.320 So this use would be consistent with that development pattern. 01:35:54.320 --> 01:35:58.240 Assuring quality development is the second criteria. 01:35:58.240 --> 01:36:03.880 So again, you can hopefully see through that landscape plan that they worked very hard to accommodate things where they could on the site. 01:36:03.880 --> 01:36:10.200 So they weren't attempting to lower the development standards, just trying to work within the many encumbrances and constraints on the site. 01:36:10.200 --> 01:36:14.080 The third criteria, focusing new development activity centers. 01:36:14.080 --> 01:36:18.160 This entire area is designated by our future land use map for business innovation. 01:36:18.160 --> 01:36:25.760 So that's those large office parks, employment center type uses, light industrial uses fit within that. 01:36:25.760 --> 01:36:32.640 So this use, we thought would be consistent with that and would be one of those many supporting uses that you would eventually need as this area develops. 01:36:32.640 --> 01:36:39.680 The last two criteria were whether there is infrastructure that can accommodate the development. 01:36:39.680 --> 01:36:42.720 So the roadway network is already in place here. 01:36:42.720 --> 01:36:46.440 As you can see on the map, the red and blue lines represent water and sewer lines in the area. 01:36:46.440 --> 01:36:51.440 So as development has traveled north on the interstate, that infrastructure has been in place. 01:36:51.440 --> 01:36:54.320 So it is there for them to extend to their site. 01:36:54.320 --> 01:36:58.920 And then finally, will it result in a high quality development that meets the intent of the standards. 01:36:58.920 --> 01:37:04.560 As I've mentioned, they've worked very extensively with staff over two years on this project. 01:37:04.560 --> 01:37:09.320 And what they've come up with is the best combination of things we could find that would meet the intent of the code. 01:37:09.320 --> 01:37:11.400 And work with the constraints on their side. 01:37:11.400 --> 01:37:14.200 So they are planting as many trees as planning and 01:37:14.200 --> 01:37:18.600 engineering staff found were feasible within the given easements on this property. 01:37:18.600 --> 01:37:27.520 So staff is recommending approval of this request as it meets our established requirements for the approval of an ADP, and I'm happy to answer any questions. 01:37:27.520 --> 01:37:30.960 And the developer is also here if you had any specific questions. 01:37:30.960 --> 01:37:32.880 >> Thank you, Haley, for the presentation. 01:37:32.880 --> 01:37:36.040 There are no questions for you at this time. 01:37:36.040 --> 01:37:40.920 This is an item for individual consideration, so the chair will entertain a motion or discussion at this time. 01:37:40.920 --> 01:37:44.720 Commissioner Beck. 01:37:44.720 --> 01:37:49.600 >> I just want to applaud the developer for wanting to build here. 01:37:49.600 --> 01:37:53.120 I don't think anybody else would want to build on this property, so this works out well for them. 01:37:53.120 --> 01:37:59.520 And I want to move to approve ADP 190001. 01:37:59.520 --> 01:38:01.400 >> We have a first, Commissioner Smith. 01:38:01.400 --> 01:38:02.600 >> Second. 01:38:02.600 --> 01:38:04.120 >> We have a first and a second. 01:38:04.120 --> 01:38:05.240 Is there any discussion on the item? 01:38:07.040 --> 01:38:12.360 >> I, too, with Commissioner Beck, I'm glad this is getting developed. 01:38:12.360 --> 01:38:16.120 So great job somehow figuring out what can go in that space. 01:38:16.120 --> 01:38:21.360 So I'll be supporting this for sure and wishing you the best on construction. 01:38:21.360 --> 01:38:23.320 Seeing no other discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board. 01:38:23.320 --> 01:38:31.480 Motion carries 7-0. 01:38:31.480 --> 01:38:32.200 Congratulations. 01:38:34.360 --> 01:38:40.480 >> Public hearing 5A has been pulled from tonight's meeting, so that will take us to the plan and zoning matrix. 01:38:40.480 --> 01:38:42.400 And I will ask Richard for any updates. 01:38:42.400 --> 01:38:49.000 >> As you can see, we've kind of whittled down the list quite a bit. 01:38:49.000 --> 01:38:55.280 I do have at our next meeting to talk a little bit about the annexation process. 01:38:55.280 --> 01:39:02.360 I know at one point I wanted to have that in conjunction with the RD5X and rural residential. 01:39:02.360 --> 01:39:09.120 I thought I would at least pull it out separate so we can at least have that discussion even before we get into that. 01:39:09.120 --> 01:39:15.200 Also wanted to note on 220, DISD will be here, along with their consultant, 01:39:15.200 --> 01:39:24.080 to give a presentation on kind of their future plans and how they, what and how they use student generation rates. 01:39:24.080 --> 01:39:32.000 And sort of even as a precursor, I thought it would be good for the annexation because they are part of that analysis. 01:39:32.000 --> 01:39:34.240 And so those are just some items coming up. 01:39:34.240 --> 01:39:41.160 One thing I wanted to kind of go back to our first item, what I'll start doing just so everyone, 01:39:41.160 --> 01:39:47.400 sometimes it's easy just to forget, when we have those actionable items being considered by the commission, 01:39:47.400 --> 01:39:52.120 I'll just put a note on the AIS, either part of the recommendation or part of the backup. 01:39:52.120 --> 01:40:00.160 Just so you have an idea that this is one of those actionable items and could be subject to recall just so it's kind of fresher in your mind. 01:40:00.160 --> 01:40:01.520 Other than that, that was all I had. 01:40:01.520 --> 01:40:03.280 >> That's a great point. 01:40:03.280 --> 01:40:04.120 Commissioner Beck. 01:40:04.120 --> 01:40:06.000 >> Thank you, Chair. 01:40:06.000 --> 01:40:12.360 Any consideration about an update on the mobility plan for them? 01:40:12.360 --> 01:40:18.040 Edification of, especially newer members on the commission? 01:40:18.040 --> 01:40:20.200 >> Yes. 01:40:20.200 --> 01:40:29.240 They are completely going to be redoing that mobility plan and really going to a thorough traffic thoroughfare plan. 01:40:29.240 --> 01:40:30.800 >> Okay. 01:40:30.800 --> 01:40:39.560 >> I think once that gets better vetted and they have an idea of when they're going to actually go out to that, that's when I'd like them to come here. 01:40:39.560 --> 01:40:42.760 >> Okay, is there going to be PSROR again? 01:40:42.760 --> 01:40:47.120 >> That will be through Todd Estes and Preetam. 01:40:47.120 --> 01:40:48.360 >> Okay. 01:40:48.360 --> 01:40:50.480 Thank you, sir. 01:40:50.480 --> 01:40:57.400 >> The only thing I would stay at a request is generally stopped, it's a great job on this, but February 20th looks like a busy day. 01:40:57.400 --> 01:41:03.560 So if we could just make sure there's plenty of time for a work session, it would be helpful. 01:41:03.560 --> 01:41:06.720 Any other items for the matrix? 01:41:06.720 --> 01:41:11.600 Seeing none, we will close this meeting at 6.58.