WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.140 >> Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission 00:00:04.140 --> 00:00:08.140 meeting for Wednesday, August 23, 2023. 00:00:08.140 --> 00:00:12.880 This is our work session and with the quorum present, I'll call us to order at 5.01 p.m. 00:00:12.880 --> 00:00:18.200 Let the record show that Commissioners Pruitt and Anderson are absent at this time. 00:00:18.200 --> 00:00:21.960 First item on our work session is citizen comment for consent agenda items. 00:00:21.960 --> 00:00:25.280 Is there anyone wishing to speak here on that? 00:00:25.280 --> 00:00:26.280 Okay. 00:00:26.280 --> 00:00:29.960 Seeing none, we'll move on to clarification of agenda items. 00:00:29.960 --> 00:00:34.880 On tonight's agenda, first one are minutes from August 9th. 00:00:34.880 --> 00:00:38.560 Any questions on those, Commissioners? 00:00:38.560 --> 00:00:40.560 Okay. 00:00:40.560 --> 00:00:43.160 How about on consent agenda? 00:00:43.160 --> 00:00:54.160 Julie, I did have a quick question on 3B. 00:00:54.160 --> 00:00:55.160 Thank you. 00:00:55.160 --> 00:00:56.160 >> You bet. 00:00:56.160 --> 00:00:57.160 Let me pull up the -- 00:00:57.160 --> 00:00:58.160 >> Okay. 00:00:58.160 --> 00:01:03.920 All right. 00:01:03.920 --> 00:01:07.880 >> I just wanted General Note 9 a little more clarified. 00:01:07.880 --> 00:01:10.760 I don't recall seeing that before. 00:01:10.760 --> 00:01:13.600 And I'm wondering what -- what does it mean? 00:01:13.600 --> 00:01:15.560 >> I'm going to have to zoom in. 00:01:15.560 --> 00:01:16.560 >> Oh, I hear that. 00:01:16.560 --> 00:01:17.560 I just did. 00:01:17.560 --> 00:01:43.080 If you don't mind, let me just -- 00:01:43.080 --> 00:01:45.000 Perfect. 00:01:45.000 --> 00:01:52.120 That is related to our gas well ordinance that if you recall, we added a provision in 00:01:52.120 --> 00:01:56.360 previous ordinances that they had to send that notification to property owners within 00:01:56.360 --> 00:01:58.240 1,000 feet of that well. 00:01:58.240 --> 00:02:03.440 So it really is just that standard note that Robeson negotiated as part of that. 00:02:03.440 --> 00:02:04.440 >> Okay. 00:02:04.440 --> 00:02:06.640 So that's something -- and it just says will be provided? 00:02:06.640 --> 00:02:07.640 >> Yes. 00:02:07.640 --> 00:02:15.000 It is typically -- it is something that needs to be -- a notification needs to be recorded 00:02:15.000 --> 00:02:18.240 with the county as part of the -- with the final plat. 00:02:18.240 --> 00:02:19.240 >> Okay. 00:02:19.240 --> 00:02:20.240 That was my question. 00:02:20.240 --> 00:02:21.240 >> Yes. 00:02:21.240 --> 00:02:22.240 >> Because this is the preliminary plat. 00:02:22.240 --> 00:02:23.240 >> Preliminary plat. 00:02:23.240 --> 00:02:24.240 Yes, ma'am. 00:02:24.240 --> 00:02:25.240 >> Okay. 00:02:25.240 --> 00:02:26.240 Perfect. 00:02:26.240 --> 00:02:27.240 That's the clarification I needed. 00:02:27.240 --> 00:02:28.240 Anybody else? 00:02:28.240 --> 00:02:29.240 Commissioner Cole. 00:02:29.240 --> 00:02:30.240 >> Thank you, Chair. 00:02:30.240 --> 00:02:36.520 Julie, you know, when we get these backups, when we try to drill in and look at the adjacent 00:02:36.520 --> 00:02:40.080 property owners? 00:02:40.080 --> 00:02:41.080 >> Hard to see. 00:02:41.080 --> 00:02:42.080 >> It's hard to see. 00:02:42.080 --> 00:02:43.080 >> Okay. 00:02:43.080 --> 00:02:50.520 >> I need to know what the north of there, the property owner, is it? 00:02:50.520 --> 00:02:51.520 >> Maybe this will help. 00:02:51.520 --> 00:02:54.120 Let's -- we're going to zoom in again, if you don't mind. 00:02:54.120 --> 00:02:57.880 And we'll look at that vicinity map. 00:02:57.880 --> 00:03:05.080 This property is kind of buried in the center of Robeson. 00:03:05.080 --> 00:03:09.880 Do you want me to find maybe a different map to show you? 00:03:09.880 --> 00:03:15.360 >> I just need to know where that line is to the north. 00:03:15.360 --> 00:03:17.340 Because I cannot get it in the backup. 00:03:17.340 --> 00:03:18.340 >> Okay. 00:03:18.340 --> 00:03:20.040 >> I just need to know if that's us or not. 00:03:20.040 --> 00:03:21.040 >> Okay. 00:03:21.040 --> 00:03:22.040 I'll find out for you, sir. 00:03:22.040 --> 00:03:23.040 >> I'm sorry. 00:03:23.040 --> 00:03:24.040 Mine or not. 00:03:24.040 --> 00:03:25.040 >> Sure. 00:03:25.040 --> 00:03:26.760 >> And I can't do that by the backup. 00:03:26.760 --> 00:03:27.760 >> Absolutely. 00:03:27.760 --> 00:03:28.760 I can find out. 00:03:28.760 --> 00:03:31.680 And I'll make sure on Robeson properties from now on that I'll kind of try to make that 00:03:31.680 --> 00:03:33.600 a little clearer for you, sir. 00:03:33.600 --> 00:03:34.600 >> Thank you so much. 00:03:34.600 --> 00:03:35.600 I appreciate that. 00:03:35.600 --> 00:03:37.600 >> Are you trying to ascertain whether or not you might need to recuse yourself? 00:03:37.600 --> 00:03:38.600 >> Yes. 00:03:38.600 --> 00:03:39.600 >> Okay. 00:03:39.600 --> 00:03:40.600 All right. 00:03:40.600 --> 00:03:41.600 >> Exactly. 00:03:41.600 --> 00:03:42.600 >> Okay. 00:03:42.600 --> 00:03:43.600 We'll get you that information. 00:03:43.600 --> 00:03:44.600 >> I'm just trying to do the right thing. 00:03:44.600 --> 00:03:45.600 Every time. 00:03:45.600 --> 00:03:46.600 That's the way I operate. 00:03:46.600 --> 00:03:47.600 >> You're always very conscientious of that. 00:03:47.600 --> 00:03:48.600 So I appreciate it. 00:03:48.600 --> 00:03:49.600 >> Thank you. 00:03:49.600 --> 00:03:50.600 >> Thank you. 00:03:50.600 --> 00:03:51.600 >> Anything else on this one? 00:03:51.600 --> 00:03:52.600 Or anything else on consent? 00:03:52.600 --> 00:03:53.600 >> Okay. 00:03:53.600 --> 00:03:54.600 Thank you. 00:03:54.600 --> 00:03:55.600 >> Thank you. 00:03:55.600 --> 00:03:56.600 >> Thank you for doing that. 00:03:56.600 --> 00:03:57.600 Okay. 00:03:57.600 --> 00:04:03.280 We'll go to individual consideration items for A. That's Mia's item. 00:04:03.280 --> 00:04:15.660 Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, associate planner. 00:04:15.660 --> 00:04:19.680 This item is a final replat at this time or located at the northwest corner of Panhandle 00:04:19.680 --> 00:04:23.320 Drive and Heritage Trail inside of Razor Ranch. 00:04:23.320 --> 00:04:27.320 At this time, they do not meet our criteria for approval for final replats, and so we 00:04:27.320 --> 00:04:31.560 are recommended denial, but we have no objection to their requested extension, which could 00:04:31.560 --> 00:04:35.880 be granted until September 13th of 2023. 00:04:35.880 --> 00:04:37.240 >> Perfect. 00:04:37.240 --> 00:04:39.000 Any questions on this one? 00:04:39.000 --> 00:04:40.000 Good. 00:04:40.000 --> 00:04:41.000 Thank you. 00:04:41.000 --> 00:04:42.600 I think you've got the next one, too. 00:04:42.600 --> 00:04:43.600 >> Yes, ma'am. 00:04:43.600 --> 00:04:49.760 >> Hello, Commissioner Anderson. 00:04:49.760 --> 00:04:57.120 >> This item, FR23-0014, is another final replat within the Razor Ranch overlay area, 00:04:57.120 --> 00:05:05.320 but this one is north of University, located just east of I-35, again, same as the one 00:05:05.320 --> 00:05:06.320 before. 00:05:06.320 --> 00:05:10.160 They are not meeting all of our criteria for approval for final replats at this time, but 00:05:10.160 --> 00:05:14.280 we have no objection to their requested extension, which could be granted to September 13th, 00:05:14.280 --> 00:05:15.280 2023. 00:05:15.280 --> 00:05:16.280 >> Great. 00:05:16.280 --> 00:05:17.280 >> Any questions? 00:05:17.280 --> 00:05:18.280 >> Questions? 00:05:18.280 --> 00:05:19.280 Okay. 00:05:19.280 --> 00:05:22.360 Thank you very much. 00:05:22.360 --> 00:05:27.560 This 4C and 4D have been withdrawn by the applicant, so we will not be taking action 00:05:27.560 --> 00:05:29.360 on those items. 00:05:29.360 --> 00:05:34.520 So that will take us to one more individual consideration item, that's 4E, and I think 00:05:34.520 --> 00:05:37.800 that's Julie's item. 00:05:37.800 --> 00:05:48.200 >> Good evening, Julie Wyatt, and this is a final plat for Townsend Green. 00:05:48.200 --> 00:05:53.640 It is a single-family residential development, located on the south side of McKinney, situated 00:05:53.640 --> 00:05:56.520 in the east part of town. 00:05:56.520 --> 00:05:58.720 They do have a preliminary plat approved. 00:05:58.720 --> 00:06:02.440 They do have some items they still need to work through on this final plat, so staff 00:06:02.440 --> 00:06:03.600 is recommending denial. 00:06:03.600 --> 00:06:07.400 However, we have no objection to their requested extension, and I will be happy to answer any 00:06:07.400 --> 00:06:08.400 questions. 00:06:08.400 --> 00:06:09.400 >> Great. 00:06:09.400 --> 00:06:10.400 Questions for Julie? 00:06:10.400 --> 00:06:11.400 >> Great. 00:06:11.400 --> 00:06:12.400 Thank you. 00:06:12.400 --> 00:06:13.400 >> Thank you. 00:06:13.400 --> 00:06:16.520 I think you can stay right up there, because we're on the public hearing item, which we 00:06:16.520 --> 00:06:18.680 have one tonight, and it is yours. 00:06:18.680 --> 00:06:23.800 I'll let you give us a summary of that, and we can take some questions. 00:06:23.800 --> 00:06:28.200 >> I left my notes over there, so if you'll ask anything hard, I'll have to -- 00:06:28.200 --> 00:06:29.200 >> Okay. 00:06:29.200 --> 00:06:30.200 >> All right. 00:06:30.200 --> 00:06:34.320 Good evening, Julie Wyatt, DCA 23-0001. 00:06:34.320 --> 00:06:39.040 This item is related to reasonable accommodation, group homes, community homes, and elderly 00:06:39.040 --> 00:06:40.040 housing. 00:06:40.040 --> 00:06:43.480 I won't go through the whole presentation right now, I just want to give a summary, 00:06:43.480 --> 00:06:45.800 unless you want to go through those items, and we certainly can. 00:06:45.800 --> 00:06:50.920 So the proposal is to update the city's regulations related to these -- to that reasonable accommodation, 00:06:50.920 --> 00:06:53.920 group homes, community homes, and elderly housing. 00:06:53.920 --> 00:06:58.680 It involves quite a bit of the Denton Development Code, subchapter two, that administration 00:06:58.680 --> 00:07:02.840 and procedure section, that's related to the reasonable accommodation. 00:07:02.840 --> 00:07:07.760 The use regulations, not only the table of permitted uses, but also the use-specific 00:07:07.760 --> 00:07:11.880 standards and that maximum persons occupying a dwelling. 00:07:11.880 --> 00:07:19.840 We're also proposing changes to parking related to these uses, and some changes to the definitions. 00:07:19.840 --> 00:07:24.800 This is an item that we realized we really needed some work on in our code. 00:07:24.800 --> 00:07:30.540 It had been -- these provisions had been modified over the years, not only with the 2002 Denton 00:07:30.540 --> 00:07:34.400 Development Code, but then taking it forward to the 2019, and we realized we kind of had 00:07:34.400 --> 00:07:40.360 a franking code, and we needed to kind of take a wholesale look at it and make some 00:07:40.360 --> 00:07:41.960 recommended changes. 00:07:41.960 --> 00:07:45.220 This has gone through our DCRC, our Development Code Review Committee. 00:07:45.220 --> 00:07:46.300 We had five meetings. 00:07:46.300 --> 00:07:48.760 We talked about it, probably five or six hours. 00:07:48.760 --> 00:07:52.920 I know some of y'all are on that committee, so you know how long we talked about it. 00:07:52.920 --> 00:07:56.040 So tonight we'll be talking kind of a truncated version of that. 00:07:56.040 --> 00:07:58.960 I won't talk for five hours, I promise. 00:07:58.960 --> 00:08:04.960 But based upon the DCRC recommendation, the need to make these updates to the Denton Development 00:08:04.960 --> 00:08:10.000 Code and the criteria for approval, staff will recommend approval of these changes, 00:08:10.000 --> 00:08:16.320 and I'll be happy to go over them in more detail if you'd like. 00:08:16.320 --> 00:08:22.880 >> I did have one question written down here. 00:08:22.880 --> 00:08:29.240 We've got on one where I think it's in the general office where we're changing that, 00:08:29.240 --> 00:08:35.800 and we've got the affecting one property and needs a city-initiated zoning. 00:08:35.800 --> 00:08:37.960 What's the plan for that? 00:08:37.960 --> 00:08:44.000 >> Well, this will -- the next steps for this -- and you're exactly right. 00:08:44.000 --> 00:08:48.440 And so the next steps for this is to go to these code amendments to go to the Committee 00:08:48.440 --> 00:08:52.720 on Persons with Disabilities in September and then council thereafter. 00:08:52.720 --> 00:08:58.300 If it's approved, we would then start as a staff that city-initiated rezoning to move 00:08:58.300 --> 00:09:02.220 forward with the rezoning of that property. 00:09:02.220 --> 00:09:08.320 It's kind of skipping ahead, but I'll go -- because of state law changes, we do notify those property 00:09:08.320 --> 00:09:10.960 owners that you may become nonconforming because of this. 00:09:10.960 --> 00:09:11.960 >> That was my next question. 00:09:11.960 --> 00:09:18.320 >> We've actually talked to the property owner, and so we sent out the notification -- we 00:09:18.320 --> 00:09:22.720 call it the 929 notice -- to the property owner as well as all of the residents there. 00:09:22.720 --> 00:09:26.340 So we have fielded -- we thought we'd get a lot more calls. 00:09:26.340 --> 00:09:31.280 We have fielded a few calls about that, and so it is -- it's not our intent to make them 00:09:31.280 --> 00:09:32.280 nonconforming. 00:09:32.280 --> 00:09:36.960 It really is the intent to kind of tighten up those regulations in GEO to make sure that 00:09:36.960 --> 00:09:43.480 we've got compatible uses and then to help them move forward with a rezoning that matches 00:09:43.480 --> 00:09:45.640 our future land use in the surrounding zoning. 00:09:45.640 --> 00:09:46.640 >> Okay. 00:09:46.640 --> 00:09:47.640 So you talked to that property owner. 00:09:47.640 --> 00:09:50.440 They understand what's happening and -- >> Yes. 00:09:50.440 --> 00:09:51.440 >> And you've got a plan going forward. 00:09:51.440 --> 00:09:52.440 That's what I mean. 00:09:52.440 --> 00:09:53.440 >> We do. 00:09:53.440 --> 00:09:54.960 We don't have exact dates, but we do have a plan going forward. 00:09:54.960 --> 00:09:55.960 >> Okay. 00:09:55.960 --> 00:09:56.960 Perfect. 00:09:56.960 --> 00:09:58.680 That answers my question in there. 00:09:58.680 --> 00:09:59.680 Anybody else? 00:09:59.680 --> 00:10:03.520 Yeah, there's a whole lot of information there, so it'll be a good presentation. 00:10:03.520 --> 00:10:04.520 Yeah. 00:10:04.520 --> 00:10:05.520 Okay. 00:10:05.520 --> 00:10:06.520 Thank you. 00:10:06.520 --> 00:10:07.520 Okay. 00:10:07.520 --> 00:10:10.120 That is our one public hearing for tonight. 00:10:10.120 --> 00:10:16.640 So then we'll move back onto our work session agenda, which is about one report, and that's 00:10:16.640 --> 00:10:20.640 Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion Regarding Recently Passed Legislative Bills. 00:10:20.640 --> 00:10:23.960 And I think Ron is starting this, and then I'm going to tag team with some others. 00:10:23.960 --> 00:10:24.960 Right? 00:10:24.960 --> 00:10:25.960 Hi, Ron. 00:10:25.960 --> 00:10:27.360 >> Good afternoon, Chair, members of the Commission. 00:10:27.360 --> 00:10:31.960 Yes, there will be a number of staff members working and presenting this item as well. 00:10:31.960 --> 00:10:40.080 So let me go ahead and pull the presentation up. 00:10:40.080 --> 00:10:46.040 So this presentation is really to cover the 88th legislative session that occurred this 00:10:46.040 --> 00:10:47.680 year, earlier this year. 00:10:47.680 --> 00:10:53.500 The session started in January and ended in May, late May specifically. 00:10:53.500 --> 00:10:58.200 During the regular session, there were two special sessions that occurred. 00:10:58.200 --> 00:11:04.120 The main reasons for those special call sessions primarily were related to the property tax 00:11:04.120 --> 00:11:09.120 relief that the governor wanted to have further discussions on. 00:11:09.120 --> 00:11:10.120 So that ended. 00:11:10.120 --> 00:11:17.160 And so what I wanted to share with you all is just a real recap, an overview of what 00:11:17.160 --> 00:11:22.560 was heard, what was filed with the legislative. 00:11:22.560 --> 00:11:29.760 There were 8,000 bills filed, that is, in that regular session and subsequent special 00:11:29.760 --> 00:11:31.180 sessions. 00:11:31.180 --> 00:11:37.800 That's approximately 14% more than what was filed last year, so significantly more. 00:11:37.800 --> 00:11:44.520 There were about 770 bills related to cities that would potentially impact cities. 00:11:44.520 --> 00:11:48.920 That's approximately 10% of those bills filed. 00:11:48.920 --> 00:11:54.280 And throughout the process, throughout the session, regular session, there were 76 bills 00:11:54.280 --> 00:11:56.840 that were vetoed by the governor. 00:11:56.840 --> 00:12:02.120 So there is some talk about having another special session in the future to address those 00:12:02.120 --> 00:12:06.160 76 bills that were vetoed by the governor. 00:12:06.160 --> 00:12:11.400 The timeline for that is really unknown, but it's anticipated sometime either October or 00:12:11.400 --> 00:12:12.400 November of this year. 00:12:12.400 --> 00:12:17.400 So that's something that will be coming up again later this year. 00:12:17.400 --> 00:12:24.000 Of the 770 bills that were filed that passed that are affecting -- that are related to 00:12:24.000 --> 00:12:30.440 cities, 76 of those bills -- I'm sorry, 250 of those bills may directly or indirectly 00:12:30.440 --> 00:12:31.440 impact the city. 00:12:31.440 --> 00:12:35.160 So that's what we'll be talking about today. 00:12:35.160 --> 00:12:42.800 Primarily of those 250 bills, 18 to 20 are related to the development process or regulations 00:12:42.800 --> 00:12:44.960 that we have here. 00:12:44.960 --> 00:12:52.080 Wanted to also share that on July 25th, 2023, I think some of you may have heard or actually 00:12:52.080 --> 00:12:55.160 watched or even listened live. 00:12:55.160 --> 00:13:02.120 There was a presentation by our chief staff of Ryan Adams that presented basically a more 00:13:02.120 --> 00:13:06.280 higher level and some more information related to these bills. 00:13:06.280 --> 00:13:11.880 Now they only presented a portion of it, but what we have today for you today is a little 00:13:11.880 --> 00:13:17.800 bit more in terms of those bills that again affects the development processes and regulations. 00:13:17.800 --> 00:13:22.840 So we'll get into that in the next coming slides, but I wanted to introduce this presentation 00:13:22.840 --> 00:13:27.200 and like I said earlier and the chair mentioned, we will have a number of different staff members 00:13:27.200 --> 00:13:31.960 presenting those individual bills, discuss what they are and how they potentially can 00:13:31.960 --> 00:13:37.920 impact or have impacted the city's process. 00:13:37.920 --> 00:13:42.640 So with that, I'm going to ask Charlie to come up and we'll go through these one bill 00:13:42.640 --> 00:13:43.640 at a time. 00:13:43.640 --> 00:13:48.200 So thank you. 00:13:48.200 --> 00:13:49.200 Good afternoon. 00:13:49.200 --> 00:13:51.440 Charlie Rosendahl, Development Services. 00:13:51.440 --> 00:13:58.040 So the first bill that we have here is Senate Bill 2038, which allows for the release of 00:13:58.040 --> 00:14:00.320 property from the ETJ. 00:14:00.320 --> 00:14:07.720 It allows property owners to pursue that release by petition and if they meet a majority of 00:14:07.720 --> 00:14:11.440 the signatures required for the area that they're submitting for, then the city has 00:14:11.440 --> 00:14:13.320 to release that. 00:14:13.320 --> 00:14:16.840 There's a second way that they can do it through election as well so they can petition the 00:14:16.840 --> 00:14:23.180 city to hold an election for the release of that property from the ETJ. 00:14:23.180 --> 00:14:29.160 So currently our response to that is we've developed an application to allow for somebody 00:14:29.160 --> 00:14:36.120 to submit for that petition and then we're still assessing the impacts that those have 00:14:36.120 --> 00:14:43.480 on NAAs and then recorded de-restriction and water rights. 00:14:43.480 --> 00:14:44.480 Commissioner Smith. 00:14:44.480 --> 00:14:45.480 Thank you, Chair. 00:14:45.480 --> 00:14:49.440 Charlie, on this one, you talk about when I read the bill and said the majority of the 00:14:49.440 --> 00:14:53.800 area, how is that defined in the bill? 00:14:53.800 --> 00:14:57.440 They would define the area when they submit the petition. 00:14:57.440 --> 00:15:03.000 These boundaries in this area and there's 100 residents in this area and 51 have signed 00:15:03.000 --> 00:15:04.860 the petition and that would be a majority. 00:15:04.860 --> 00:15:10.240 And those petitioners have to be registered voters as well. 00:15:10.240 --> 00:15:16.120 But if it's something like it's one property owner and they sign one petition, there's 00:15:16.120 --> 00:15:23.880 one signature, that one property could be released. 00:15:23.880 --> 00:15:27.840 And then the only changes that would make on this because I know it's been brought up 00:15:27.840 --> 00:15:35.340 a number of times, 2038 is going to make it to where the ETJ can be released from, people 00:15:35.340 --> 00:15:39.720 can release their land or their area from the ETJ. 00:15:39.720 --> 00:15:44.100 Basically it just means that there is no longer, I know there's impacts to NAAs and de-restrictions 00:15:44.100 --> 00:15:46.860 and waste water and services in that area. 00:15:46.860 --> 00:15:51.440 But essentially the only other thing that's not on there is what interlocal agreements 00:15:51.440 --> 00:15:52.440 that would be. 00:15:52.440 --> 00:15:54.820 There's no longer a need for an interlocal agreement because now they're just solely 00:15:54.820 --> 00:15:57.720 in the county and not in an ETJ at all. 00:15:57.720 --> 00:16:02.080 Basically it's our platting authority is the only thing that this city would lose through 00:16:02.080 --> 00:16:03.080 this. 00:16:03.080 --> 00:16:08.120 We have some permitting that goes along with this, but it's related to city assets like 00:16:08.120 --> 00:16:13.000 public roadways or culverts or approaches, driver approaches. 00:16:13.000 --> 00:16:17.400 But the platting authority through our interlocal agreement with Denton County is what would 00:16:17.400 --> 00:16:21.360 be impacted if somebody released themselves from the ETJ and that platting would go to 00:16:21.360 --> 00:16:22.360 the county. 00:16:22.360 --> 00:16:29.520 - I'm gonna word this question carefully, an educated property owner or property owners 00:16:29.520 --> 00:16:36.000 would do this so that they could avoid the platting requirements by the city, essentially, 00:16:36.000 --> 00:16:37.000 correct? 00:16:37.000 --> 00:16:38.000 - Potentially. 00:16:38.000 --> 00:16:40.720 - Potentially. 00:16:40.720 --> 00:16:43.720 - One of the additional things, thanks for bringing that up too, is we're working on 00:16:43.720 --> 00:16:50.280 a one-page pros and cons list for somebody that potentially wants to do something. 00:16:50.280 --> 00:16:57.480 There's some benefit to staying within the city's ETJ, possibly annexing in the future. 00:16:57.480 --> 00:17:01.920 So that's gonna be provided along with the petition. 00:17:01.920 --> 00:17:02.920 - Thank you. 00:17:02.920 --> 00:17:03.920 - That's a good idea. 00:17:03.920 --> 00:17:06.120 - I was just saying, I would just add, I mean, one of the things that we've been working 00:17:06.120 --> 00:17:11.800 with Hillary and her colleagues on our legal team is, especially if someone does petition 00:17:11.800 --> 00:17:16.680 to have themselves released from the ETJ, but later on that property owner, whether it's 00:17:16.680 --> 00:17:20.480 the same property or a subsequent property owner of that property wants to annex into 00:17:20.480 --> 00:17:24.680 the city, then what's the vehicle to get them back in to be able to annex? 00:17:24.680 --> 00:17:31.960 Because it's clear in statute that annexation can be done as a result of annexing in properties 00:17:31.960 --> 00:17:33.080 from the ETJ. 00:17:33.080 --> 00:17:38.240 So there's still some things that have to be worked through on that. 00:17:38.240 --> 00:17:44.320 - Something else just to that, that will affect if there was a widespread annexation, I shouldn't 00:17:44.320 --> 00:17:52.560 say so, a widespread release of ETJ that would end up impacting some of our future ETJ borders, 00:17:52.560 --> 00:17:53.560 correct, as well? 00:17:53.560 --> 00:17:58.520 That, 'cause the ETJ is defined as what, five miles from our city limits, correct? 00:17:58.520 --> 00:17:59.520 - Correct. 00:17:59.520 --> 00:18:07.200 - And so does release from the ETJ, does that then stunt or lessen that five, it's still 00:18:07.200 --> 00:18:14.920 city limit lines, so there could be basically pockets of areas that are not the ETJ, pockets 00:18:14.920 --> 00:18:20.360 that are, we could end up having pockets that are annexed in the city, pockets between those 00:18:20.360 --> 00:18:21.840 that are not, correct? 00:18:21.840 --> 00:18:26.420 - Yeah, it could be a patchwork after, if somebody were to release themselves from the 00:18:26.420 --> 00:18:33.720 ETJ, it could be a patchwork of city limits, you know, then county ETJ on the other side. 00:18:33.720 --> 00:18:36.040 - Okay, got it, thank you. 00:18:36.040 --> 00:18:38.320 - Is a picture of Swiss cheese coming to mind? 00:18:38.320 --> 00:18:41.160 I mean, it's kind of what it comes down to, but yes. 00:18:41.160 --> 00:18:42.160 - Go ahead, Cole. 00:18:42.160 --> 00:18:43.160 - Thank you, Chair. 00:18:43.160 --> 00:18:48.920 But the, you know, the existence of ETJ1 and ETJ2 is still unaffected, correct? 00:18:48.920 --> 00:18:49.920 - Right, yeah. 00:18:49.920 --> 00:18:54.160 - So two is out of our grasp, right? 00:18:54.160 --> 00:19:00.840 - Yeah, it wouldn't have, so effectively there wouldn't be any impact if, for ETJ2, we don't 00:19:00.840 --> 00:19:07.640 plat in ETJ2, so this wouldn't, the platting authority that somebody releasing themselves 00:19:07.640 --> 00:19:10.480 from the ETJ wouldn't have any impact on ETJ2. 00:19:10.480 --> 00:19:11.840 - Okay, thank you. 00:19:11.840 --> 00:19:16.760 - It's almost like it, if somebody was within ETJ1 and requested to release their property 00:19:16.760 --> 00:19:22.120 from the city's ETJ, it almost is like it's treating it like very similar to ETJ2 property. 00:19:22.120 --> 00:19:24.640 It's just we're not calling it ETJ anymore. 00:19:24.640 --> 00:19:28.800 And to the question about our interlocal agreement, you know, I think this is something else, we've 00:19:28.800 --> 00:19:31.920 always been talking with the county about possibly doing some updates to that interlocal 00:19:31.920 --> 00:19:36.520 agreement, so this would just be another item that we would have to factor in as we work 00:19:36.520 --> 00:19:40.560 on that update when that time comes. 00:19:40.560 --> 00:19:41.560 Great questions. 00:19:41.560 --> 00:19:43.560 - Yeah, any more questions on that one? 00:19:43.560 --> 00:19:45.000 - Yep, go ahead, Charlie. 00:19:45.000 --> 00:19:48.380 - All right, the next one is House Bill 3492. 00:19:48.380 --> 00:19:56.040 So this one is preventing counties or municipalities from imposing value-based fees. 00:19:56.040 --> 00:19:59.720 This doesn't impact development services fee schedule. 00:19:59.720 --> 00:20:03.960 If you'll recall, in 2019, we did a fee study and adopted fees. 00:20:03.960 --> 00:20:10.400 That fee study was based on the time spent by staff to recover our costs for fees that 00:20:10.400 --> 00:20:13.880 we charge for development in Denton. 00:20:13.880 --> 00:20:18.120 The one that is gonna be impacted is capital projects. 00:20:18.120 --> 00:20:24.480 They have a public works fee that was a value-based fee, and they charge 3.5% of the public improvements 00:20:24.480 --> 00:20:26.520 currently. 00:20:26.520 --> 00:20:32.320 That was adopted by city council last week to be updated to an hourly rate, and then 00:20:32.320 --> 00:20:36.040 they're gonna charge based on an hour moving forward. 00:20:36.040 --> 00:20:38.640 - Commissioner Smith. 00:20:38.640 --> 00:20:46.000 - How does that relate to like another one of the fees that we've updated recently was 00:20:46.000 --> 00:20:47.680 parkland dedication? 00:20:47.680 --> 00:20:52.840 I can't remember, it's vague remembrance of how that parkland dedication fee was done, 00:20:52.840 --> 00:20:58.040 but if I remember it was, in lieu of dedication, it was a certain dollar amount per acre. 00:20:58.040 --> 00:21:00.160 Is that a value-based, or is that a? 00:21:00.160 --> 00:21:02.600 - No, this wouldn't impact the parks development fee. 00:21:02.600 --> 00:21:06.640 - I didn't know how that, where the lines on value-based would be, if it's like, well, 00:21:06.640 --> 00:21:10.640 if you're saying it's a per acre basis or something like that, that it would be value-based. 00:21:10.640 --> 00:21:15.400 That's just totally outside of that, so, okay, thanks. 00:21:15.400 --> 00:21:19.600 - All right, thank you everybody. 00:21:19.600 --> 00:21:24.200 - Looks like Julie's up. 00:21:24.200 --> 00:21:32.680 All right, and I'm presenting Senate Bill 929. 00:21:32.680 --> 00:21:33.840 There's two parts to this. 00:21:33.840 --> 00:21:38.720 There is a notification part, we kind of hinted about that earlier, and then an amortization 00:21:38.720 --> 00:21:40.200 of non-conformities part. 00:21:40.200 --> 00:21:47.840 So the notification, it is a new notification, so remember we have our, when we have a zoning 00:21:47.840 --> 00:21:52.600 change that we send the mailing, we send the postcard, we send, we have the newspaper, 00:21:52.600 --> 00:21:57.040 and we put the item on our website, as well as post on the property. 00:21:57.040 --> 00:22:03.660 This is an additional notice that it relates to both map changes and text changes related 00:22:03.660 --> 00:22:06.440 to use, so use only. 00:22:06.440 --> 00:22:13.360 So if that, if that change would render a property non-conforming, we need to send them 00:22:13.360 --> 00:22:15.280 this notice. 00:22:15.280 --> 00:22:21.000 That requires notification to property owners, a business personal property, and the occupant 00:22:21.000 --> 00:22:26.560 at least 12 days prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. 00:22:26.560 --> 00:22:32.580 It has to have specific language, there is, and I have an example right here, it has to 00:22:32.580 --> 00:22:39.440 have 14 point type for that specific language, and it has to be in bold. 00:22:39.440 --> 00:22:43.520 It wouldn't require a super majority, but it does alert those property owners and those 00:22:43.520 --> 00:22:50.960 occupants of that potential so that they can attend the public hearing or let PNZ and City 00:22:50.960 --> 00:22:52.800 Council know. 00:22:52.800 --> 00:22:57.220 We do have draft SOPs for this because it is something that is currently in effect, 00:22:57.220 --> 00:23:01.260 so we need to be doing this now. 00:23:01.260 --> 00:23:05.460 We are still kind of working through the kinks because it's pretty new, but one thing that 00:23:05.460 --> 00:23:10.040 we are doing is we're putting that notice on a different color of paper so staff will 00:23:10.040 --> 00:23:15.080 know that when somebody calls in that that's that 929 notice, so really working through 00:23:15.080 --> 00:23:19.760 that, and then we've got different templates for that, so that's really that notification 00:23:19.760 --> 00:23:21.360 piece for 929. 00:23:21.360 --> 00:23:24.400 Any questions on that? 00:23:24.400 --> 00:23:30.400 The second part is related to the amortization of non-conformities, so amortization is a 00:23:30.400 --> 00:23:38.000 tool that some cities use to move properties from non-conforming to conforming use. 00:23:38.000 --> 00:23:43.520 The City of Denton has that provision, it's in Section 1.5.8 to my knowledge. 00:23:43.520 --> 00:23:48.520 I've been with the city 10 years, to my knowledge it is not something that we typically use within 00:23:48.520 --> 00:23:49.520 the City of Denton. 00:23:49.520 --> 00:23:55.080 It might have been used at some point, but I have not seen it in my tenure. 00:23:55.080 --> 00:24:00.680 Typically amortization is based upon a previous investment in the property, so what a property 00:24:00.680 --> 00:24:08.640 owner put into a business in order to open up and to recoup those losses or that money 00:24:08.640 --> 00:24:10.540 that they spent to open up that business. 00:24:10.540 --> 00:24:16.540 This new regulation would change to cost incurred for moving the business and also reduce market 00:24:16.540 --> 00:24:19.080 value of that original property. 00:24:19.080 --> 00:24:23.520 It can be satisfied either through a cash payment or for a length of time that that 00:24:23.520 --> 00:24:26.080 business can operate in that location. 00:24:26.080 --> 00:24:28.880 It also includes notification and processes. 00:24:28.880 --> 00:24:33.400 We are going to need to do some code amendments and clean up just to make sure we're in good 00:24:33.400 --> 00:24:35.280 tight conformance with this. 00:24:35.280 --> 00:24:41.640 Like I said, it's not something that we typically see, so there's not a huge panic about this, 00:24:41.640 --> 00:24:47.120 but it is something that you'll probably be seeing coming forward at some point in the 00:24:47.120 --> 00:24:48.120 future. 00:24:48.120 --> 00:24:49.280 Any questions on that? 00:24:49.280 --> 00:24:56.880 Julie, is this for things going forward or if we have a non-conforming use right now, 00:24:56.880 --> 00:24:58.560 this is in effect? 00:24:58.560 --> 00:24:59.980 It would be in effect right now. 00:24:59.980 --> 00:25:02.800 Okay, so there is things we have to look at for sure. 00:25:02.800 --> 00:25:09.280 Right, but once again, it is only related to amortization of non-conforming, so if Council 00:25:09.280 --> 00:25:17.080 or the Zoning Board of Adjustment said business X over here, you don't meet current zoning, 00:25:17.080 --> 00:25:21.000 we want you to skedaddle and move to another location. 00:25:21.000 --> 00:25:25.920 But if they're allowed to continue to operate, then there's no compensation that is owed 00:25:25.920 --> 00:25:26.920 then? 00:25:26.920 --> 00:25:27.920 Correct. 00:25:27.920 --> 00:25:32.840 It would just be if we wanted them to move out. 00:25:32.840 --> 00:25:33.840 That's correct. 00:25:33.840 --> 00:25:38.840 So keep in mind, we currently have in our development code regulations that when a property 00:25:38.840 --> 00:25:44.600 becomes non-conforming, they're still allowed to continue operating. 00:25:44.600 --> 00:25:50.960 The key thing comes to when they cease operating that non-conforming use for more than a year 00:25:50.960 --> 00:25:51.960 in our code. 00:25:51.960 --> 00:25:58.400 In other cities, it's typically six months, but we allow the one year of dark provision. 00:25:58.400 --> 00:26:03.160 But if they shut their doors for a year or more, then they lose that right to that non-conforming 00:26:03.160 --> 00:26:04.360 use, right? 00:26:04.360 --> 00:26:11.280 But otherwise, I mean, our ordinance is very favorable towards non-conforming uses continuing 00:26:11.280 --> 00:26:13.280 to be able to operate within the community. 00:26:13.280 --> 00:26:26.560 So I can understand why the legislators have put forth this new law, because to allow property 00:26:26.560 --> 00:26:30.040 owners, the occupants of the property owners, the business that might be operating there 00:26:30.040 --> 00:26:35.620 to understand if an action was taken that it may result in them being non-conforming. 00:26:35.620 --> 00:26:40.240 The other thing is our ordinance though, it's clear to understand is that if we do have 00:26:40.240 --> 00:26:45.480 a business or a property that's non-conforming, then we do have some limitations though within 00:26:45.480 --> 00:26:46.480 the ordinance. 00:26:46.480 --> 00:26:50.760 We'll allow you to continue operating, but we have some limitations on expansion or modification 00:26:50.760 --> 00:26:52.080 of the structure. 00:26:52.080 --> 00:26:57.200 The other thing that we have in our ordinance is if you have a property that's being used 00:26:57.200 --> 00:27:04.320 as a non-conforming use and it chooses to cease operation, but another lesser intensive 00:27:04.320 --> 00:27:10.160 non-conforming use wants to be able to occupy the property, the DDC does allow for the direction 00:27:10.160 --> 00:27:14.000 of the director to make that determination for that to occur. 00:27:14.000 --> 00:27:19.440 So it's, and the other aspect I would say is keep in mind the property also still is 00:27:19.440 --> 00:27:23.760 able to benefit from all of the other uses that are allowed under the existing zoning, 00:27:23.760 --> 00:27:24.760 right? 00:27:24.760 --> 00:27:25.960 Sometimes we have a tendency to forget about that. 00:27:25.960 --> 00:27:29.840 So it's not depriving them fully of their use of the property, because there are plenty 00:27:29.840 --> 00:27:33.960 of other uses that are allowed for the property. 00:27:33.960 --> 00:27:34.960 Commissioner Cole. 00:27:34.960 --> 00:27:35.960 Thank you, Chair. 00:27:35.960 --> 00:27:41.400 This has always been a hot button of mine about the non-conforming properties, and because 00:27:41.400 --> 00:27:44.260 I would be one of those, my home would be one of those. 00:27:44.260 --> 00:27:52.980 So let's say big rainstorm came through, 50% of my house flooded, but I'm with 500 foot 00:27:52.980 --> 00:27:56.000 of a gas well. 00:27:56.000 --> 00:27:59.080 I mean, it's a home, but I mean, I understand. 00:27:59.080 --> 00:28:03.240 Well, but we have the residential provision in there where you're really not non-conforming. 00:28:03.240 --> 00:28:09.800 So it's more of a by right if you're sticking to what you were before, you know, but the 00:28:09.800 --> 00:28:12.760 problem is, is you still have to go through the ZBA, right? 00:28:12.760 --> 00:28:16.320 Or is it the director's discretion? 00:28:16.320 --> 00:28:18.160 So I would say it depends. 00:28:18.160 --> 00:28:22.360 I don't have those regulations committed to memory, so I can't address specific scenarios, 00:28:22.360 --> 00:28:24.460 and we're really not posted for that. 00:28:24.460 --> 00:28:28.440 But know that we've got provisions in the code that if someone's property were non-conforming 00:28:28.440 --> 00:28:32.800 and they experienced damage to their property, if they met the certain thresholds, then we 00:28:32.800 --> 00:28:37.400 would take them through the appropriate process to be able to either allow for their non-conformity 00:28:37.400 --> 00:28:43.640 to continue in whatever needed to be, including if that was a reconstruction. 00:28:43.640 --> 00:28:48.320 Many times cities do have that that process has to go through a zoning board of adjustment. 00:28:48.320 --> 00:28:51.560 But I can't speak to all the thresholds within our ordinance and the exact process, but know 00:28:51.560 --> 00:28:54.800 that we would take them through what we have in our code. 00:28:54.800 --> 00:28:59.680 So again, our goal is, you know, we are very favorable to allowing for non-conforming uses 00:28:59.680 --> 00:29:04.200 to continue operating and helping property owners to be able to move forward. 00:29:04.200 --> 00:29:08.240 But it's, you know, if they do experience certain damage though, then there may be some 00:29:08.240 --> 00:29:10.640 limitations on how they rebuild. 00:29:10.640 --> 00:29:11.640 Appreciate it. 00:29:11.640 --> 00:29:20.640 However, if something has been something for 60 years, it seems like we're processing them 00:29:20.640 --> 00:29:21.640 to death. 00:29:21.640 --> 00:29:28.000 They're going to a supermajority board with the zoning board of adjustment, only takes 00:29:28.000 --> 00:29:34.580 two commissioners off that board to say no, then it's district court. 00:29:34.580 --> 00:29:42.880 But when somebody has a lot, I mean, just their house is damaged half, we're putting 00:29:42.880 --> 00:29:46.440 them through maybe a year process. 00:29:46.440 --> 00:29:53.400 I mean, I don't know what the docket is on district court, but I assume it's pretty long. 00:29:53.400 --> 00:29:57.760 You know, it all it takes is two commissioners from the ZBA to say, we don't think you need 00:29:57.760 --> 00:29:59.440 to be. 00:29:59.440 --> 00:30:00.440 This might not be the conversation. 00:30:00.440 --> 00:30:04.640 I feel like we're going down a rabbit hole that we're not posted for that we're not talking 00:30:04.640 --> 00:30:05.640 about right now. 00:30:05.640 --> 00:30:06.640 Appreciate it. 00:30:06.640 --> 00:30:11.120 But I would you could get some of your questions answered certainly offline and get a little 00:30:11.120 --> 00:30:15.600 bit more clarity on that, I think, would be the direction to go. 00:30:15.600 --> 00:30:16.600 Commissioner Pruitt. 00:30:16.600 --> 00:30:19.600 Thank you, Chair. 00:30:19.600 --> 00:30:24.600 I heard two things, and I'm trying to glue them together in my brain, so I need some 00:30:24.600 --> 00:30:26.000 help here. 00:30:26.000 --> 00:30:35.160 The language here is the stuff we must the city must provide before revoking the right 00:30:35.160 --> 00:30:37.520 to use the property. 00:30:37.520 --> 00:30:44.440 But then later you said that that would only effectuate when the city was taking some action 00:30:44.440 --> 00:30:51.480 to actively stop the use as opposed to removing the legal ability to use it. 00:30:51.480 --> 00:30:53.160 Am I understanding that correct? 00:30:53.160 --> 00:30:54.160 Correct. 00:30:54.160 --> 00:30:55.160 You're right. 00:30:55.160 --> 00:30:56.160 It's different items. 00:30:56.160 --> 00:31:03.280 It's the kind of the provisions that Tina was talking about related to you can continue 00:31:03.280 --> 00:31:04.680 to use the property. 00:31:04.680 --> 00:31:08.600 There are limitations on expansions or repairs or rebuilding. 00:31:08.600 --> 00:31:14.680 This provision is really related to a action that the city took to say you can't operate 00:31:14.680 --> 00:31:16.860 there anymore because the zoning changed. 00:31:16.860 --> 00:31:19.840 So it's kind of a difference in measure. 00:31:19.840 --> 00:31:20.840 Okay. 00:31:20.840 --> 00:31:26.280 And the development code does have the amortization provision, but like I said, it's not something 00:31:26.280 --> 00:31:27.680 that we typically do here. 00:31:27.680 --> 00:31:28.680 Okay. 00:31:28.680 --> 00:31:29.680 Thank you. 00:31:29.680 --> 00:31:35.120 I was going to say, you may recall, it's probably been within the last seven to 10 years, the 00:31:35.120 --> 00:31:37.800 city of Dallas was in the news. 00:31:37.800 --> 00:31:41.160 There was a property that was playing out in the court of public opinion on the news 00:31:41.160 --> 00:31:46.400 with respect to the amortization that had been set forth because the property owner 00:31:46.400 --> 00:31:52.600 had entered into presumably an amortization agreement with the city, but the time was 00:31:52.600 --> 00:31:56.280 coming up on that period of agreement, right? 00:31:56.280 --> 00:32:00.920 And so the city was moving forward with enforcing that amortization, and the property owner 00:32:00.920 --> 00:32:07.000 was trying to allow for the continuation of that use. 00:32:07.000 --> 00:32:13.940 And so it's, as Julie pointed out, I mean, it's a provision that's available many times 00:32:13.940 --> 00:32:17.460 in city ordinances, but it's not something that's never fully executed. 00:32:17.460 --> 00:32:21.680 I've worked in one other community where we had an amortization provision, particularly 00:32:21.680 --> 00:32:24.020 as it related to interim specific use permits. 00:32:24.020 --> 00:32:29.000 And so the city recognized that, you know, we realized that the property may not be ready 00:32:29.000 --> 00:32:34.000 for its higher and better uses and given its current condition, it might be appropriate 00:32:34.000 --> 00:32:38.740 to allow for a use to operate for a certain time period. 00:32:38.740 --> 00:32:42.040 And then the property owner would define what that certain time period was and provide an 00:32:42.040 --> 00:32:45.720 amortization schedule and the city was not able to grant anything less. 00:32:45.720 --> 00:32:47.280 So that's the only other experience. 00:32:47.280 --> 00:32:51.080 I've seen where the amortization's really come into play, but to Julie's point, it's 00:32:51.080 --> 00:32:55.760 the city deliberately taking an action saying, no, not just we're going to allow you to continue 00:32:55.760 --> 00:32:59.320 operating like our current codes, but it's the city deliberately taking an action saying 00:32:59.320 --> 00:33:05.280 you must close your business and do it by XYZ date, and that's where this amortization 00:33:05.280 --> 00:33:06.680 comes into play. 00:33:06.680 --> 00:33:12.600 >> Did that answer your -- okay. 00:33:12.600 --> 00:33:14.000 Anybody else on this bill? 00:33:14.000 --> 00:33:15.000 Okay. 00:33:15.000 --> 00:33:16.000 Thank you, Julie. 00:33:16.000 --> 00:33:17.000 >> All right. 00:33:17.000 --> 00:33:18.000 I have one more. 00:33:18.000 --> 00:33:19.000 >> Okay. 00:33:19.000 --> 00:33:22.380 >> This one's a little less involved. 00:33:22.380 --> 00:33:25.440 This is House Bill 299. 00:33:25.440 --> 00:33:30.880 This is the creation of voluntary accreditation for recovery housing. 00:33:30.880 --> 00:33:32.880 This is kind of a new housing type. 00:33:32.880 --> 00:33:36.760 We're going to be talking about similar things tonight with our group homes and community 00:33:36.760 --> 00:33:37.760 homes. 00:33:37.760 --> 00:33:41.200 This is separate and apart from that. 00:33:41.200 --> 00:33:46.480 It does create this recovery house type, and this is for persons recovering from substance 00:33:46.480 --> 00:33:47.760 abuse. 00:33:47.760 --> 00:33:55.760 So as the spreadsheet mentions, it does have voluntary accreditation. 00:33:55.760 --> 00:34:03.620 With our DCA2301 tonight, we have added a little bit of language in the definitions for 00:34:03.620 --> 00:34:08.960 community homes and group homes that those are not a recovery housing. 00:34:08.960 --> 00:34:13.520 Those are different things, and so that's really -- no other action is really needed 00:34:13.520 --> 00:34:15.560 by the city for that. 00:34:15.560 --> 00:34:17.440 Any questions? 00:34:17.440 --> 00:34:18.860 >> Questions? 00:34:18.860 --> 00:34:26.180 So voluntary accreditation, meaning it's choice? 00:34:26.180 --> 00:34:31.120 >> It's their choice, and they set up their own programs associated with it. 00:34:31.120 --> 00:34:32.120 >> Interesting. 00:34:32.120 --> 00:34:33.120 Okay. 00:34:33.120 --> 00:34:34.120 Okay. 00:34:34.120 --> 00:34:39.120 Thank you, Julie. 00:34:39.120 --> 00:34:46.560 >> Good evening again, Chair, members of the commission. 00:34:46.560 --> 00:34:55.800 This item, House Bill 3579, is related to regulations of massage therapists and massage 00:34:55.800 --> 00:35:01.720 establishments by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulations and political subdivisions. 00:35:01.720 --> 00:35:06.840 For the most part, this affects the occupational code, so it's pretty simple as to how it affects 00:35:06.840 --> 00:35:09.920 the Denton Development Code. 00:35:09.920 --> 00:35:17.720 It mentions that with zoning regulations, a massage establishment should not be treated 00:35:17.720 --> 00:35:23.300 with higher restrictions than other health care professionals, so medical offices, those 00:35:23.300 --> 00:35:27.440 who -- dental offices, doctors, and stuff like that, those that we would classify as 00:35:27.440 --> 00:35:28.440 our medical offices. 00:35:28.440 --> 00:35:33.160 So staff at this time has determined that we don't need a DDC amendment for -- to meet 00:35:33.160 --> 00:35:36.720 or to come into compliance with this particular piece of legislation. 00:35:36.720 --> 00:35:42.040 Instead, we will allow for massage establishments to be classified as medical office uses when 00:35:42.040 --> 00:35:46.800 they come in for COs and development permit applications and things like that. 00:35:46.800 --> 00:35:47.800 So this is pretty simple. 00:35:47.800 --> 00:35:48.800 Just an update. 00:35:48.800 --> 00:35:49.800 >> Commissioner Smith. 00:35:49.800 --> 00:35:52.800 >> Well, not creating any nonconformities. 00:35:52.800 --> 00:35:57.040 Medical office falls into most of the stuff that we see with, like, MNGO, that kind of 00:35:57.040 --> 00:35:58.040 stuff, right? 00:35:58.040 --> 00:36:00.760 So there's nothing -- we haven't checked to see if there's any massage establishments 00:36:00.760 --> 00:36:05.400 that are in some other type of 5,000-square-foot or less retail area that doesn't have medical 00:36:05.400 --> 00:36:06.760 office included within there, right? 00:36:06.760 --> 00:36:08.320 I mean, it should be good. 00:36:08.320 --> 00:36:12.120 >> Yeah, nothing came up when I did that type of search. 00:36:12.120 --> 00:36:19.160 And previously we've permitted -- or we've defined medical -- I'm sorry, massage establishments 00:36:19.160 --> 00:36:24.080 under the personal service uses, which is actually permitted in less zoning districts 00:36:24.080 --> 00:36:26.840 than the medical office is. 00:36:26.840 --> 00:36:29.840 So by adding it to that category, we're actually increasing that. 00:36:29.840 --> 00:36:31.320 >> Increasing the places where it could be. 00:36:31.320 --> 00:36:32.320 >> Correct. 00:36:32.320 --> 00:36:33.320 >> Got it. 00:36:33.320 --> 00:36:34.320 Thanks. 00:36:34.320 --> 00:36:35.320 >> Right. 00:36:35.320 --> 00:36:41.760 >> So because of the -- we've got the medical office way we can classify it or the personal 00:36:41.760 --> 00:36:45.120 services definition that we have in the district that it's allowed for. 00:36:45.120 --> 00:36:49.560 So it really -- it helps allow for the massage establishments to be put in place. 00:36:49.560 --> 00:36:54.040 The other thing I would add -- and great job, Mia, on explaining this -- is this treating 00:36:54.040 --> 00:36:58.180 massage establishments similar to medical professionals, that's been around a while 00:36:58.180 --> 00:37:00.080 within the state legislature. 00:37:00.080 --> 00:37:05.520 So this just further reaffirms that in HESM other provisions that come into play, more 00:37:05.520 --> 00:37:07.520 that PD would deal with than us. 00:37:07.520 --> 00:37:11.840 But so it's really no substantial change for our code. 00:37:11.840 --> 00:37:15.320 And like Mia said, we have the ability to accommodate this without having to make a 00:37:15.320 --> 00:37:16.320 code amendment. 00:37:16.320 --> 00:37:17.320 >> Any questions? 00:37:17.320 --> 00:37:18.320 Okay. 00:37:18.320 --> 00:37:19.320 Thank you. 00:37:19.320 --> 00:37:20.320 >> I'll call up Ron. 00:37:20.320 --> 00:37:25.320 >> Looks like we're on back up, yep. 00:37:25.320 --> 00:37:29.240 I like this whole tag team thing. 00:37:29.240 --> 00:37:30.240 It's like -- 00:37:30.240 --> 00:37:31.240 >> It's the whole team, right? 00:37:31.240 --> 00:37:32.240 >> It's fun. 00:37:32.240 --> 00:37:33.240 >> Yes. 00:37:33.240 --> 00:37:34.240 >> Yeah. 00:37:34.240 --> 00:37:36.080 >> My item here is House Bill 1707. 00:37:36.080 --> 00:37:42.040 It relates to the applicability of certain laws to open enrollment charter schools. 00:37:42.040 --> 00:37:46.600 Essentially what it stated is that charter schools must be treated the same as public 00:37:46.600 --> 00:37:47.600 schools. 00:37:47.600 --> 00:37:53.280 My understanding is that this bill was being discussed or drafted for like maybe four past 00:37:53.280 --> 00:37:56.560 sessions, but it finally made it this time. 00:37:56.560 --> 00:38:01.480 In addition to allowing charter schools similar to public schools, there were three amendments 00:38:01.480 --> 00:38:04.160 that were added specifically for this. 00:38:04.160 --> 00:38:10.040 One is that the governing body of the charter school must provide a written statement that 00:38:10.040 --> 00:38:16.640 no one is going to be financially benefiting from the transaction of property sales or 00:38:16.640 --> 00:38:17.640 that sort of thing. 00:38:17.640 --> 00:38:19.640 So that was one thing added. 00:38:19.640 --> 00:38:25.740 The other one that was added was that the charter school in 20 days prior to closing 00:38:25.740 --> 00:38:29.240 on a property must notify the school district that they're locating in. 00:38:29.240 --> 00:38:34.080 So again, the school district is aware of that potential charter school coming onto 00:38:34.080 --> 00:38:35.080 said area. 00:38:35.080 --> 00:38:41.560 And then the last thing is that any information that they have financially is open to open 00:38:41.560 --> 00:38:42.560 records requests. 00:38:42.560 --> 00:38:49.040 So again, the code -- I'm sorry, the House Bill states that we must treat charter schools 00:38:49.040 --> 00:38:53.740 similar to public schools, and that is going to require a code amendment because we do 00:38:53.740 --> 00:38:58.040 now have it separate, and in order to comply with state law, we're going to have to do 00:38:58.040 --> 00:39:01.480 some code amendments, and that will be something that we'll bring forward to the Planning 00:39:01.480 --> 00:39:04.720 Zoning Commission and ultimately to City Council for consideration. 00:39:04.720 --> 00:39:11.160 Again, it applies to zoning standards with regards to landscaping, parking, everything 00:39:11.160 --> 00:39:12.160 and that like. 00:39:12.160 --> 00:39:15.880 Another thing that we're going to be looking at is the zoning of PF. 00:39:15.880 --> 00:39:19.640 As you know, PF is public facilities, and that is where most of the school district's 00:39:19.640 --> 00:39:20.720 property is located. 00:39:20.720 --> 00:39:24.560 So when we're looking at the code amendment, we'll be reviewing that as well and how we 00:39:24.560 --> 00:39:28.560 can apply that for charter schools as part of this code amendment. 00:39:28.560 --> 00:39:30.480 So that concludes my presentation. 00:39:30.480 --> 00:39:32.800 I'll be happy to answer any questions. 00:39:32.800 --> 00:39:35.160 Thank you, Rob. 00:39:35.160 --> 00:39:38.840 So that would mean we need to allow them wherever we allow public schools, correct? 00:39:38.840 --> 00:39:39.840 Essentially, yes. 00:39:39.840 --> 00:39:40.840 Yeah, okay. 00:39:40.840 --> 00:39:41.840 Okay. 00:39:41.840 --> 00:39:42.840 Thank you, Rob. 00:39:42.840 --> 00:39:43.840 Thank you. 00:39:43.840 --> 00:39:55.680 Are you still now Haley's up? 00:39:55.680 --> 00:39:56.680 Good evening. 00:39:56.680 --> 00:39:58.560 Haley Zagorski, Assistant Planning Director. 00:39:58.560 --> 00:40:03.120 The first bill that I have talked to you about is 3699. 00:40:03.120 --> 00:40:08.980 This is an amendment to our 2019 shot clock legislation, basically. 00:40:08.980 --> 00:40:11.960 What it does is kind of serve as both a blessing and a curse. 00:40:11.960 --> 00:40:13.260 Parts of it are really good for the city. 00:40:13.260 --> 00:40:16.360 Parts of it are gonna complicate things for us a little bit. 00:40:16.360 --> 00:40:21.080 So on the positive side, it does allow the ability for council to delegate all plat approval 00:40:21.080 --> 00:40:22.120 authority to staff. 00:40:22.120 --> 00:40:26.600 So that is something that we'll bring forward for discussion with P&Z and council. 00:40:26.600 --> 00:40:30.720 The other good thing that it does for us procedurally is clarifies that our civil engineering plans 00:40:30.720 --> 00:40:34.160 and site plans are no longer part of the 30-day shot clock window. 00:40:34.160 --> 00:40:39.160 So that allows, if needed, for us to modify our timelines on those to allow for additional 00:40:39.160 --> 00:40:41.440 review time. 00:40:41.440 --> 00:40:46.320 On the negative side of things, it does complicate our platting process as we have it today. 00:40:46.320 --> 00:40:50.400 So we'll be making some procedural amendments as well as DDC amendments. 00:40:50.400 --> 00:40:56.060 One of the most significant changes is that it specifies that we cannot require any sort 00:40:56.060 --> 00:41:01.920 of study or analysis or agreement or any other form of document as part of a plat application. 00:41:01.920 --> 00:41:06.200 So essentially, if someone meets the very narrowly defined minimum requirements for 00:41:06.200 --> 00:41:11.080 a plat in the state code, we would be obligated to accept and approve that plat. 00:41:11.080 --> 00:41:15.120 So that could create some hurdles for us, but we're modifying the process to make sure 00:41:15.120 --> 00:41:20.040 we can still require all of those same things to our traffic impact analysis, tree surveys, 00:41:20.040 --> 00:41:23.480 ESA assessments, all of that just at different touch points in the process. 00:41:23.480 --> 00:41:27.000 So those will be distributed either to the zoning compliance plan, which is our version 00:41:27.000 --> 00:41:31.520 of a site plan, or the civil engineering point in the process. 00:41:31.520 --> 00:41:34.460 And we'll be working through those processes and rolling that out to the development community 00:41:34.460 --> 00:41:38.240 to keep them abreast of all those changes and checklist changes that are going along 00:41:38.240 --> 00:41:40.240 with that. 00:41:40.240 --> 00:41:45.680 The other significant change with this is that it does limit a city's ability to require 00:41:45.680 --> 00:41:47.320 right-of-way dedication. 00:41:47.320 --> 00:41:52.760 So this potentially could have very serious impacts on our mobility plan moving forward, 00:41:52.760 --> 00:41:56.780 but we are still working through what that will mean for us and what steps we could take 00:41:56.780 --> 00:42:01.200 to maybe ameliorate some of that change so that it's not quite as bad for us. 00:42:01.200 --> 00:42:06.220 Because what it does is specify that we can only request right-of-way with a plat if the 00:42:06.220 --> 00:42:11.360 owner intends to dedicate the right-of-way and build the road, and if it's on a funded 00:42:11.360 --> 00:42:13.040 capital improvement plan. 00:42:13.040 --> 00:42:17.360 So we're looking into that, working with our city attorney's office to determine what exactly 00:42:17.360 --> 00:42:21.320 that means, how it should be interpreted for the city of Denton, and what changes we might 00:42:21.320 --> 00:42:22.760 need to make. 00:42:22.760 --> 00:42:26.600 So with this one, you'll most likely see at least two different sets of code amendments 00:42:26.600 --> 00:42:29.100 coming forward to help process these changes. 00:42:29.100 --> 00:42:32.040 Some of the platting changes we'll bring forward pretty immediately, because this does have 00:42:32.040 --> 00:42:36.440 a September 1 effective date, so we'll try to get those as soon after that as possible. 00:42:36.440 --> 00:42:39.320 And then some of those bigger scale changes, like the right-of-way piece, will take us 00:42:39.320 --> 00:42:43.760 a little bit longer to work through, so you'll see those probably at a future date. 00:42:43.760 --> 00:42:46.400 But happy to answer any questions. 00:42:46.400 --> 00:42:47.400 Commissioner Villarreal. 00:42:47.400 --> 00:42:52.000 Just real quick, I'm sorry if you mentioned this earlier, but this would remove or put 00:42:52.000 --> 00:42:57.380 all plat votes to the consent agenda or just remove them entirely? 00:42:57.380 --> 00:43:01.920 So for now, it will not have a change because our code specifies that P&Z is the authority 00:43:01.920 --> 00:43:02.920 on platts. 00:43:02.920 --> 00:43:07.960 What this does is give councils the ability to delegate that authority to staff with the 00:43:07.960 --> 00:43:13.160 ability for someone to appeal their plat denial to the P&Z or council if staff were to deny 00:43:13.160 --> 00:43:15.080 the application. 00:43:15.080 --> 00:43:19.400 So that would require a DDC amendment for our council to -- for P&Z and council to say, 00:43:19.400 --> 00:43:23.080 yes, we want to make that change and have platts go to staff for approval instead of 00:43:23.080 --> 00:43:24.520 P&Z. 00:43:24.520 --> 00:43:27.240 So no change in the immediate -- that will come forward as a code amendment that you 00:43:27.240 --> 00:43:28.240 all can consider. 00:43:28.240 --> 00:43:29.240 Got it. 00:43:29.240 --> 00:43:30.240 Thanks. 00:43:30.240 --> 00:43:34.520 So it's not a required -- so that's an optional thing and so it would have to be changed in 00:43:34.520 --> 00:43:38.200 our code if we wanted to opt into this bill effectively? 00:43:38.200 --> 00:43:39.200 Yeah. 00:43:39.200 --> 00:43:40.200 Understood. 00:43:40.200 --> 00:43:41.200 All right. 00:43:41.200 --> 00:43:42.200 Anybody else? 00:43:42.200 --> 00:43:43.200 Okay. 00:43:43.200 --> 00:43:44.200 All right. 00:43:44.200 --> 00:43:45.200 I think you got the next one. 00:43:45.200 --> 00:43:46.200 Yeah. 00:43:46.200 --> 00:43:48.080 So the next one is House Bill 2127. 00:43:48.080 --> 00:43:50.280 This one is being affectionately dubbed the Death Star Bill. 00:43:50.280 --> 00:43:54.000 You've probably heard it -- seen it or heard about it or seen about it in the news. 00:43:54.000 --> 00:43:58.520 There is, I believe, currently a lawsuit that started in Houston to challenge this bill. 00:43:58.520 --> 00:44:01.440 So it's making quite the splash. 00:44:01.440 --> 00:44:06.440 What it is, is a preemption bill that is mostly targeted at commerce regulations. 00:44:06.440 --> 00:44:11.240 So it preempts cities from regulating any form of conduct in -- I think there's either 00:44:11.240 --> 00:44:15.600 seven or nine different listed sections of the code that range from like the agriculture 00:44:15.600 --> 00:44:20.200 code to the occupation and -- occupation code and several others. 00:44:20.200 --> 00:44:23.000 The labor code is also listed in there. 00:44:23.000 --> 00:44:27.180 For the most part, it does not affect the Denton Development Code and our development 00:44:27.180 --> 00:44:29.400 review process. 00:44:29.400 --> 00:44:32.120 There are a couple of parts of it that will have impacts. 00:44:32.120 --> 00:44:35.880 One is with the agriculture code, but I'll let Angie clue you all in on more of the agriculture 00:44:35.880 --> 00:44:39.560 specific changes that came with this legislative session. 00:44:39.560 --> 00:44:44.360 The other big one is that it modifies a portion of the local government code related to animal 00:44:44.360 --> 00:44:48.960 businesses and specifies that cities can in no way regulate any business that deals with 00:44:48.960 --> 00:44:54.120 the breeding, care, or handling of animals, and that ranges from pet stores and the sale 00:44:54.120 --> 00:44:59.320 of dogs and cats to commercial stables, veterinary offices are specified in there. 00:44:59.320 --> 00:45:03.120 So we will have some significant code amendments to update our use table, because we'll no 00:45:03.120 --> 00:45:06.560 longer be able to regulate where those businesses occur. 00:45:06.560 --> 00:45:10.440 So that's the biggest piece that we've identified so far for development code regulations out 00:45:10.440 --> 00:45:12.040 of that House bill. 00:45:12.040 --> 00:45:17.280 The other thing it does is specify that individuals who feel they have been wrongfully regulated 00:45:17.280 --> 00:45:20.900 by a city under any of these sections to bring suit against the city if they give them three 00:45:20.900 --> 00:45:23.960 months notice that they intend to do so. 00:45:23.960 --> 00:45:29.720 So it's a fun bill with wide ranging implications, but thankfully semi-limited in terms of development 00:45:29.720 --> 00:45:30.720 code impacts. 00:45:30.720 --> 00:45:31.720 Commissioner Smith. 00:45:31.720 --> 00:45:35.840 You say it's relatively limited, but I just. 00:45:35.840 --> 00:45:39.820 Well, there was like seven other categories that could have affected us that didn't. 00:45:39.820 --> 00:45:44.840 If PetSmart wants to buy up four houses in my neighborhood and put a PetSmart there. 00:45:44.840 --> 00:45:45.840 They could do that. 00:45:45.840 --> 00:45:48.840 That doesn't seem like it's slightly impacted. 00:45:48.840 --> 00:45:54.400 And I guess to that point, I mean, we're still trying to work through some of that also. 00:45:54.400 --> 00:45:58.640 I mean, if they were predominantly a retail business, then one of the things we might 00:45:58.640 --> 00:46:03.320 look at is, is do we have any flexibility to really classify them as a retail business? 00:46:03.320 --> 00:46:10.560 Many times they have pet sales more as a accessory use aspect of it, but yeah, that's to your 00:46:10.560 --> 00:46:11.560 point. 00:46:11.560 --> 00:46:12.560 I mean, that's what we're trying to work through. 00:46:12.560 --> 00:46:15.680 That's what I was going to get to as primary uses and everything else like that. 00:46:15.680 --> 00:46:19.120 And there's plenty of things in the, you know, it doesn't matter what you're selling. 00:46:19.120 --> 00:46:22.880 If you're a retail business over 5,000 square feet, you're eliminated from certain zoning 00:46:22.880 --> 00:46:23.880 zone. 00:46:23.880 --> 00:46:24.880 Is there any zoning areas? 00:46:24.880 --> 00:46:25.880 I can't say zoning zones. 00:46:25.880 --> 00:46:26.880 That's not a thing. 00:46:26.880 --> 00:46:27.880 Sounds cool. 00:46:27.880 --> 00:46:28.880 So yeah, I think that. 00:46:28.880 --> 00:46:29.880 Okay. 00:46:29.880 --> 00:46:30.880 Got it. 00:46:30.880 --> 00:46:31.880 Thanks. 00:46:31.880 --> 00:46:32.880 Anything else on that one? 00:46:32.880 --> 00:46:33.880 Commissioner Villarreal. 00:46:33.880 --> 00:46:44.360 So would we be pushing to pass those code amendment changes prior to the resolution of the Houston 00:46:44.360 --> 00:46:45.360 suit? 00:46:45.360 --> 00:46:49.020 That's a fine and amicus brief in support of the Houston suit, correct? 00:46:49.020 --> 00:46:52.120 Currently, we were hoping to bring them forward relatively quickly. 00:46:52.120 --> 00:46:56.720 Of course we're working with Hillary's team in the city attorney's office to see how we 00:46:56.720 --> 00:46:57.720 should act on that. 00:46:57.720 --> 00:47:01.120 So we'll be, we'll be running all of our proposed changes past them to make sure that what we're 00:47:01.120 --> 00:47:04.240 doing doesn't interfere with any other action that the city's taking. 00:47:04.240 --> 00:47:05.240 Got it. 00:47:05.240 --> 00:47:06.240 Thanks. 00:47:06.240 --> 00:47:11.720 Well, and to that point, so because they, because these code amendments in these various 00:47:11.720 --> 00:47:15.240 categories need to be addressed sooner than later, we are just going to bring them forward. 00:47:15.240 --> 00:47:18.840 I'm through the planning and zoning commission and city council so we can get them done because 00:47:18.840 --> 00:47:20.720 they are needed from a legislative standpoint. 00:47:20.720 --> 00:47:24.920 So in case you're wondering, you know, if you serve on the DCRC, whether or not we route 00:47:24.920 --> 00:47:27.440 them through DCRC first, we are not. 00:47:27.440 --> 00:47:30.400 So we're just going to take these straight forward through a zoning case. 00:47:30.400 --> 00:47:36.800 All right, if nothing else on that one, I'll let Angie talk more about agriculture. 00:47:36.800 --> 00:47:49.280 Evening chair, members of the commission, Angie Manglaris, and I'm going to talk more 00:47:49.280 --> 00:47:51.360 about agriculture. 00:47:51.360 --> 00:47:56.840 So there are a couple of bills that impacted agriculture uses and how they're regulated 00:47:56.840 --> 00:47:58.320 or not regulated. 00:47:58.320 --> 00:48:06.120 House Bill 1750 and House Bill 2947 both have different facets that they touch on in terms 00:48:06.120 --> 00:48:11.360 of agricultural, both of them make some minor amendments to the definition of agriculture 00:48:11.360 --> 00:48:13.640 and what that includes. 00:48:13.640 --> 00:48:19.480 Most notably, the addition of commercial sales of animals was incorporated into the definition 00:48:19.480 --> 00:48:25.580 of agricultural uses, as well as including the veterinary care of livestock and poultry 00:48:25.580 --> 00:48:29.240 as part of agricultural uses. 00:48:29.240 --> 00:48:35.160 House Bill 1715 touches on a city's ability to impose governmental regulations on agricultural 00:48:35.160 --> 00:48:36.160 uses. 00:48:36.160 --> 00:48:42.840 It goes on to state that in our ETJ, we cannot regulate agricultural uses, but it also applies 00:48:42.840 --> 00:48:49.880 to uses within the city, and government regulations, as defined by this bill, is pretty broad. 00:48:49.880 --> 00:48:55.720 So that includes zoning, that includes permitting, that includes any restrictions that we would 00:48:55.720 --> 00:48:57.140 place on an agricultural use. 00:48:57.140 --> 00:49:02.680 We are limited in what we can impose to what I affectionately call the list of dangerous 00:49:02.680 --> 00:49:03.680 things. 00:49:03.680 --> 00:49:08.680 In other words, if a use has the potential to cause imminent danger to a property adjacent 00:49:08.680 --> 00:49:15.200 to it, if there's flammable material, radioactive material, health concerns, a city can regulate 00:49:15.200 --> 00:49:18.240 those uses. 00:49:18.240 --> 00:49:23.520 Any other regulation has to come through the forthcoming report from the Texas A&M AgriLife 00:49:23.520 --> 00:49:24.520 Report. 00:49:24.520 --> 00:49:29.480 They'll be publishing a report that I don't really know what the format will be. 00:49:29.480 --> 00:49:33.840 I have some guesses, but it will probably list out, you know, best practices for the 00:49:33.840 --> 00:49:36.240 care of animals or agricultural production. 00:49:36.240 --> 00:49:39.880 We will be allowed to enforce those standards. 00:49:39.880 --> 00:49:41.500 So some of that's to be forthcoming. 00:49:41.500 --> 00:49:46.920 The immediate changes that we'll see to the DDC are where agriculture is allowed. 00:49:46.920 --> 00:49:50.440 Given that we can't restrict it to any zoning district, you can expect to see a code amendment 00:49:50.440 --> 00:49:54.960 that will update our use tables that allows agriculture in any zoning district. 00:49:54.960 --> 00:49:59.680 Any regulation would have to come from the Ag report, which should be coming soon. 00:49:59.680 --> 00:50:06.000 It will also modify some of our use specific standards in that we do have some in place 00:50:06.000 --> 00:50:07.360 currently. 00:50:07.360 --> 00:50:14.000 Those will have to come out until we see what we are allowed to enforce based on this report. 00:50:14.000 --> 00:50:17.280 And then there will be some minor definition changes just to make sure that we're defining 00:50:17.280 --> 00:50:20.320 agriculture as these two bills are. 00:50:20.320 --> 00:50:25.200 You'll see some DDC amendments that amend our definition for agricultural general and 00:50:25.200 --> 00:50:27.680 also animal uses. 00:50:27.680 --> 00:50:31.800 The other interesting thing that came out of House Bill 2947 won't have any immediate 00:50:31.800 --> 00:50:38.200 impacts to development services, but does relate to nuisances. 00:50:38.200 --> 00:50:44.200 So this could affect like our CIS operation, but it effectively says that no nuisance case 00:50:44.200 --> 00:50:49.200 could be brought against an agricultural use that has been substantially unchanged in the 00:50:49.200 --> 00:50:50.960 last year. 00:50:50.960 --> 00:50:57.520 So that is a shift in how those allegations of agricultural use being a nuisance could 00:50:57.520 --> 00:50:59.160 come forward. 00:50:59.160 --> 00:51:01.040 But that is agriculture in a nutshell. 00:51:01.040 --> 00:51:03.840 I'm happy to answer any questions. 00:51:03.840 --> 00:51:04.840 >> Commissioner Cole? 00:51:04.840 --> 00:51:07.520 >> So does this kind of negate the chicken ordinance? 00:51:07.520 --> 00:51:12.840 I mean, chickens, I mean, if your next door neighbor goes and has -- puts 50 chickens 00:51:12.840 --> 00:51:17.200 next door, they're able to do that? 00:51:17.200 --> 00:51:23.380 >> It would allow for chickens to be used as their agricultural -- any limitation on 00:51:23.380 --> 00:51:27.160 the number that could be in existence in a neighborhood would have to come from that 00:51:27.160 --> 00:51:28.160 AgriLife report. 00:51:28.160 --> 00:51:29.160 >> Okay. 00:51:29.160 --> 00:51:30.160 >> So -- 00:51:30.160 --> 00:51:35.880 >> Well, and so also like with that AgriLife report specifies that, you know, 10 chickens 00:51:35.880 --> 00:51:43.320 thrive best on a property of X size in a coop of X or Y number of square feet and, you know, 00:51:43.320 --> 00:51:47.040 and also these amenities provided for them, whatever that might be, right? 00:51:47.040 --> 00:51:50.880 That's where really the -- where we're going to have to rely upon is the guidance from 00:51:50.880 --> 00:51:52.480 the AgriLife extension report. 00:51:52.480 --> 00:51:57.760 So it's to be determined, as Angie mentioned, as to what those requirements are. 00:51:57.760 --> 00:52:01.440 I mean, if you want to raise goats on your property, then presumably, hopefully that 00:52:01.440 --> 00:52:05.520 report will address what's the ideal situation of how much land area you need based upon 00:52:05.520 --> 00:52:10.040 the number that you have and what kind of improvements might be necessary associated 00:52:10.040 --> 00:52:11.040 with it. 00:52:11.040 --> 00:52:14.720 So it really puts a lot of emphasis in what's in this AgriLife extension report. 00:52:14.720 --> 00:52:19.200 So do we need a new staff position of an agricultural specialist on board? 00:52:19.200 --> 00:52:22.320 >> Let's hope not, but so -- 00:52:22.320 --> 00:52:24.920 >> Commissioner Smith? 00:52:24.920 --> 00:52:25.920 >> Two questions. 00:52:25.920 --> 00:52:31.400 One, to the I have chickens in my backyard piece, this really isn't a development services 00:52:31.400 --> 00:52:32.400 question at all. 00:52:32.400 --> 00:52:40.240 It's more of a city revenue question of does this affect Ag exemption claiming on tax reports 00:52:40.240 --> 00:52:42.760 then? 00:52:42.760 --> 00:52:49.640 >> It did not appear to affect, at least in this Ag exemption claiming, that was not addressed 00:52:49.640 --> 00:52:50.640 in these. 00:52:50.640 --> 00:52:51.640 >> Gotcha. 00:52:51.640 --> 00:52:52.640 Okay. 00:52:52.640 --> 00:52:55.680 And everything we talked about so far has been livestock. 00:52:55.680 --> 00:52:56.880 Corn falls into this, right? 00:52:56.880 --> 00:52:57.880 >> This applies to -- yes. 00:52:57.880 --> 00:53:01.320 >> So I got four acres in the middle of the city of Denton, and I want to plant corn and 00:53:01.320 --> 00:53:05.120 use my combine to collect it, can't get mad at me. 00:53:05.120 --> 00:53:06.120 >> Yes. 00:53:06.120 --> 00:53:09.200 The definition for agricultural operation is pretty broad. 00:53:09.200 --> 00:53:13.360 I touched on the changes, but it would include cultivation of crops. 00:53:13.360 --> 00:53:14.360 >> Gotcha. 00:53:14.360 --> 00:53:15.360 Thank you. 00:53:15.360 --> 00:53:27.000 >> There's a slight asterisk in that the city can still regulate within like a certain ten 00:53:27.000 --> 00:53:32.400 feet or so of like a public way, or if you're adjacent to a neighbor or something, there's 00:53:32.400 --> 00:53:36.120 height -- you can regulate as to height. 00:53:36.120 --> 00:53:37.880 So maybe not the entire four acres. 00:53:37.880 --> 00:53:39.420 >> In regards to crops specifically? 00:53:39.420 --> 00:53:40.420 >> Yes. 00:53:40.420 --> 00:53:44.220 >> So if I have tall cows? 00:53:44.220 --> 00:53:49.240 >> I really enjoy splitting hairs with you. 00:53:49.240 --> 00:53:56.280 >> Only short ones for you, Tim. 00:53:56.280 --> 00:53:59.440 >> Thank you, Angie, very much. 00:53:59.440 --> 00:54:01.040 >> I think Cameron has the last one. 00:54:01.040 --> 00:54:03.600 >> We're going from agriculture to cemeteries. 00:54:03.600 --> 00:54:05.880 >> Oh, there's more. 00:54:05.880 --> 00:54:06.880 Okay. 00:54:06.880 --> 00:54:07.880 Good evening. 00:54:07.880 --> 00:54:11.160 Chair and commissioners, Cameron Robertson, historic preservation officer. 00:54:11.160 --> 00:54:13.720 So now we're going to talk about pet cemeteries. 00:54:13.720 --> 00:54:14.720 Just kidding. 00:54:14.720 --> 00:54:15.720 Sorry. 00:54:15.720 --> 00:54:16.720 That was not funny. 00:54:16.720 --> 00:54:17.720 But I tried. 00:54:17.720 --> 00:54:18.720 I tried. 00:54:18.720 --> 00:54:19.720 I'm trying to lighten the mood a little bit in here. 00:54:19.720 --> 00:54:26.020 So this is related to -- it just took us a moment, but we got a -- okay. 00:54:26.020 --> 00:54:29.560 So this is related to privately owned cemeteries. 00:54:29.560 --> 00:54:37.160 So due to the fact that the city of Denton is located in a county with over 750,000 residences, 00:54:37.160 --> 00:54:44.020 we are going to be including this in our Denton development code as long -- so private entities 00:54:44.020 --> 00:54:49.820 such as an individual, corporation, partnership, association, firm or trust, that's what's 00:54:49.820 --> 00:54:53.420 being defined as privately owned in this sense. 00:54:53.420 --> 00:54:59.180 So they'll be able to establish or use a cemetery within city limits. 00:54:59.180 --> 00:55:06.680 So we're just going to be adding that privately owned cemetery to the Denton development code 00:55:06.680 --> 00:55:10.840 as well as establishing an ordinance, so changing our table of uses. 00:55:10.840 --> 00:55:15.680 Staff right now is looking specifically at those uses that allow -- or those districts 00:55:15.680 --> 00:55:18.540 that allow funeral and interment facilities. 00:55:18.540 --> 00:55:20.960 So that's what we're kind of gearing towards at the moment. 00:55:20.960 --> 00:55:22.920 But, yeah. 00:55:22.920 --> 00:55:23.920 Any questions? 00:55:23.920 --> 00:55:29.600 >> Any questions? 00:55:29.600 --> 00:55:30.600 Commissioner McDade. 00:55:30.600 --> 00:55:31.600 [ Laughter ] 00:55:31.600 --> 00:55:32.600 >> I'm totally confused. 00:55:32.600 --> 00:55:38.400 I guess I just need you to give me an example of a private cemetery. 00:55:38.400 --> 00:55:42.160 I mean, I have a private cemetery, and I can allow who I want in? 00:55:42.160 --> 00:55:43.160 Is that what you're saying? 00:55:43.160 --> 00:55:44.160 >> Yes. 00:55:44.160 --> 00:55:49.300 So say you wanted to buy a piece of property, say we decided that it's allowed in the suburban 00:55:49.300 --> 00:55:53.920 corridor zoning district, and you bought a piece of property there and you said, "I want 00:55:53.920 --> 00:55:54.920 to start a cemetery." 00:55:54.920 --> 00:56:00.640 As long as it's not going to negatively impact the public health or safety or welfare, you 00:56:00.640 --> 00:56:02.860 could establish a cemetery there. 00:56:02.860 --> 00:56:06.800 >> So I could actually turn into another I00F, I can determine who I want. 00:56:06.800 --> 00:56:07.800 >> Yes. 00:56:07.800 --> 00:56:08.800 >> That's ridiculous. 00:56:08.800 --> 00:56:11.760 >> I mean, keep in mind there are regulatory provisions at the state level with respect 00:56:11.760 --> 00:56:16.240 to operating the cemetery, so don't -- we can't forget about that aspect. 00:56:16.240 --> 00:56:23.520 But I really think the goal of this bill really was to try -- yeah, we're obviously increasing 00:56:23.520 --> 00:56:27.640 the number of people residing within Texas, which unfortunately then has a reverse effect 00:56:27.640 --> 00:56:31.920 of increasing the number of people that eventually will become deceased within our state, right? 00:56:31.920 --> 00:56:38.680 And so having a need to be able to accommodate people, right, so -- but nonetheless, so -- because 00:56:38.680 --> 00:56:40.800 to Cameron's point, I mean, it does address private cemeteries. 00:56:40.800 --> 00:56:44.040 I believe there were some other provisions that come into play that really -- there's 00:56:44.040 --> 00:56:47.600 still an approval process that has to go through at the state level in order to be able to 00:56:47.600 --> 00:56:48.980 operate a private cemetery. 00:56:48.980 --> 00:56:56.200 So it's not as easy, I would say, to be able to open a cemetery, but nonetheless -- because 00:56:56.200 --> 00:56:58.720 they still have to meet all the other regulatory requirements that come into play. 00:56:58.720 --> 00:56:59.720 >> All right. 00:56:59.720 --> 00:57:04.480 So we're not going to, like, bury great grandma in the backyard or something and call it a 00:57:04.480 --> 00:57:05.480 legal thing to do? 00:57:05.480 --> 00:57:06.480 >> All right. 00:57:06.480 --> 00:57:07.480 All right. 00:57:07.480 --> 00:57:08.480 >> Okay. 00:57:08.480 --> 00:57:11.480 >> There's still some other controls that come into play, so. 00:57:11.480 --> 00:57:12.480 >> Okay. 00:57:12.480 --> 00:57:14.600 >> Any other questions or comments? 00:57:14.600 --> 00:57:18.000 >> Historic preservation in a new form. 00:57:18.000 --> 00:57:19.000 >> Yes. 00:57:19.000 --> 00:57:20.000 >> Oh, my gosh. 00:57:20.000 --> 00:57:26.040 Did they -- is it just human cemeteries? 00:57:26.040 --> 00:57:28.160 I mean, is it -- does it mention that? 00:57:28.160 --> 00:57:29.160 I'm just curious. 00:57:29.160 --> 00:57:31.840 >> No, it actually -- it does not mention humans specifically. 00:57:31.840 --> 00:57:32.840 >> Okay. 00:57:32.840 --> 00:57:33.840 So there you go. 00:57:33.840 --> 00:57:34.840 That's something else. 00:57:34.840 --> 00:57:35.840 >> So we could have a pet cemetery. 00:57:35.840 --> 00:57:36.840 >> We could. 00:57:36.840 --> 00:57:37.840 We could. 00:57:37.840 --> 00:57:38.840 Okay. 00:57:38.840 --> 00:57:39.840 >> Okay. 00:57:39.840 --> 00:57:40.840 >> Thank you. 00:57:40.840 --> 00:57:49.000 >> Dog Days, September 9th, 2023. 00:57:49.000 --> 00:57:51.400 >> Concluding items, Commissioner Smith. 00:57:51.400 --> 00:57:53.400 Hello, Ashley. 00:57:53.400 --> 00:57:54.400 Sorry. 00:57:54.400 --> 00:57:55.400 >> Hello. 00:57:55.400 --> 00:57:56.400 Good evening. 00:57:56.400 --> 00:58:00.320 Ashley Eckstead, assistant planner. 00:58:00.320 --> 00:58:08.320 So I am covering HB 4051, and this bill is relating to media production development zones. 00:58:08.320 --> 00:58:13.160 And what this bill did was it removed the population requirement of 250,000. 00:58:13.160 --> 00:58:16.880 So with that requirement removed, this is something that we consider. 00:58:16.880 --> 00:58:21.680 There still are other requirements in the -- or there needs to be an adequate workforce 00:58:21.680 --> 00:58:24.720 and infrastructure to support this production facility. 00:58:24.720 --> 00:58:30.240 It will need to be recognized as a media produced by ordinance, and it also needs to contain 00:58:30.240 --> 00:58:33.760 a qualified media production location. 00:58:33.760 --> 00:58:38.240 The benefits of these zones, if they're approved by the state, is it allows for a sales and 00:58:38.240 --> 00:58:43.400 use tax exemption for a period of two years for construction, maintenance, expansion, 00:58:43.400 --> 00:58:46.640 and other work on a media production facility. 00:58:46.640 --> 00:58:51.400 So our code does not currently allow film production use, so if we wanted to allow this 00:58:51.400 --> 00:58:57.280 in the future, we would need to amend our code to include this use in the zoning districts 00:58:57.280 --> 00:59:01.600 where it would be permitted, parking requirements, a definition, and any use specific standards 00:59:01.600 --> 00:59:02.600 for this use. 00:59:02.600 --> 00:59:04.740 I'm happy to answer any questions. 00:59:04.740 --> 00:59:09.120 >> Again, this would be like an optional thing if a city wants to give the city the ability 00:59:09.120 --> 00:59:10.600 to offer that. 00:59:10.600 --> 00:59:14.040 >> Yes, if we were interested in one of these in the future, potentially. 00:59:14.040 --> 00:59:17.120 >> To me, I really see this as an opportunity for economic development within the state, 00:59:17.120 --> 00:59:18.120 right? 00:59:18.120 --> 00:59:22.000 If you think about, you know, if you're one who likes to watch movie credits and goes 00:59:22.000 --> 00:59:26.120 all the way to the end, and you might see some of them, you know, I think Georgia and 00:59:26.120 --> 00:59:29.920 their film commission is really supportive, you know, if the state of Texas is trying 00:59:29.920 --> 00:59:36.160 to incentivize more film production within the state, then it really helps with, you 00:59:36.160 --> 00:59:39.240 know, that particular economic development aspect, right? 00:59:39.240 --> 00:59:45.040 So for us, you know, to me, this would be -- this is such a low priority item, but if 00:59:45.040 --> 00:59:48.360 economic development came to us and said, hey, we're pursuing all of these businesses 00:59:48.360 --> 00:59:51.440 for locating here, then, you know, we'll want to make sure that we amend our development 00:59:51.440 --> 00:59:52.440 code. 00:59:52.440 --> 00:59:57.000 So this really could actually be a good thing. 00:59:57.000 --> 00:59:58.000 >> Commissioner Perot. 00:59:58.000 --> 01:00:00.680 >> Thank you, Jerry. 01:00:00.680 --> 01:00:09.560 So currently under the DDC, if somebody wanted to open a media production film, they want 01:00:09.560 --> 01:00:14.200 to make films for their, you know, friends and family that want to come pay them and 01:00:14.200 --> 01:00:17.900 all that stuff, that's actually disallowed by our current code? 01:00:17.900 --> 01:00:19.120 >> We just don't have the use. 01:00:19.120 --> 01:00:21.960 So the closest use we have is a music studio. 01:00:21.960 --> 01:00:22.960 >> Okay. 01:00:22.960 --> 01:00:28.480 So currently it would be interpreted as similar enough to that, that is how it would fall 01:00:28.480 --> 01:00:29.480 under? 01:00:29.480 --> 01:00:33.320 >> I think we would have to look at what specifically it was, probably not, but I think it would 01:00:33.320 --> 01:00:35.840 really depend on what they were trying to do. 01:00:35.840 --> 01:00:36.840 >> Okay. 01:00:36.840 --> 01:00:41.040 So it's really that doing this would give us the tools to regulate it separately from 01:00:41.040 --> 01:00:44.240 the next most close use within the DDC? 01:00:44.240 --> 01:00:45.240 >> Yes. 01:00:45.240 --> 01:00:48.600 And musician studios are allowed in the mixed use zoning districts, so we would have to see 01:00:48.600 --> 01:00:52.080 if something like this, if we would want that in those zoning districts. 01:00:52.080 --> 01:00:53.080 >> Okay. 01:00:53.080 --> 01:00:54.080 Thank you. 01:00:54.080 --> 01:00:56.200 >> To me where this really comes into play, you know, it's one thing, if somebody was 01:00:56.200 --> 01:00:59.720 doing film editing, right, that can be done in an office, right? 01:00:59.720 --> 01:01:03.000 So we would work with them and classify them as an office use and all, because really that's 01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:04.000 what they are. 01:01:04.000 --> 01:01:11.040 But it's, you know, if somebody wants to have a large film production studio, you know, 01:01:11.040 --> 01:01:13.840 let's say all the undeveloped land on the west side of town, right, and somebody wants 01:01:13.840 --> 01:01:18.800 to be able to use that for filming western movies or what have you or needing something 01:01:18.800 --> 01:01:23.240 that needs a really large pasture, maybe there's some cows in it, but it's, you know, wanting 01:01:23.240 --> 01:01:30.760 to be able to utilize that, it is, you know, if it's really used for like a movie set, 01:01:30.760 --> 01:01:34.680 that aspect, to me I think really that's where this would come into play and we would work 01:01:34.680 --> 01:01:37.800 to allow for that kind of use to occur within our community. 01:01:37.800 --> 01:01:45.520 >> I mean, they might want to film the new pet cemetery, so. 01:01:45.520 --> 01:01:49.400 >> Any other questions on this one? 01:01:49.400 --> 01:01:53.660 Thank you, Ashley. 01:01:53.660 --> 01:01:57.080 >> Michelle is next on the docket, hello. 01:01:57.080 --> 01:02:00.780 >> I am your caboose. 01:02:00.780 --> 01:02:05.360 >> So my name is Michelle Reynolds, I'm the Developed Project Facilitator Manager, Development 01:02:05.360 --> 01:02:06.360 Services. 01:02:06.360 --> 01:02:10.080 So I'm here to discuss two of the bills, Senate Bill 2449. 01:02:10.080 --> 01:02:16.400 So what that is requiring is that flats, where they're identified, groundwater, that that 01:02:16.400 --> 01:02:18.600 be shown on those flats. 01:02:18.600 --> 01:02:23.240 So what we'll do is update our checklist and coordinate with our wastewater. 01:02:23.240 --> 01:02:29.680 I don't see this being a big issue as it relates to inside the City of Dentons, but where this 01:02:29.680 --> 01:02:36.560 could have some impact are within our ETJ1s is where the biggest impact would be. 01:02:36.560 --> 01:02:41.640 Any questions? 01:02:41.640 --> 01:02:42.640 I like you all. 01:02:42.640 --> 01:02:43.640 This is great. 01:02:43.640 --> 01:02:44.640 Fantastic. 01:02:44.640 --> 01:02:45.640 Okay. 01:02:45.640 --> 01:02:46.640 Okay. 01:02:46.640 --> 01:02:47.640 I'll move, or you're hungry. 01:02:47.640 --> 01:02:48.640 All right. 01:02:48.640 --> 01:02:49.640 We'll move to House Bill 14. 01:02:49.640 --> 01:02:54.520 Where, so this bill, House Bill is really, so it's really unique, right? 01:02:54.520 --> 01:03:04.220 But the key to this is if we as cities refuse to review plans and refuse to inspect applicants 01:03:04.220 --> 01:03:10.840 or the projects that that applicant has a right to go to a third party. 01:03:10.840 --> 01:03:19.280 So what we'll do as a city is have to go out and procure and do RFP, RFQ for vendors and 01:03:19.280 --> 01:03:20.680 so that they could use those lists. 01:03:20.680 --> 01:03:26.240 But the key to that is if we as a city decide not to refuse to review plans or review to 01:03:26.240 --> 01:03:28.800 inspect properties. 01:03:28.800 --> 01:03:32.400 Commissioner Smith. 01:03:32.400 --> 01:03:37.520 And that's just refused to review, not decline or deny, I should say. 01:03:37.520 --> 01:03:38.520 We're just not going to do it. 01:03:38.520 --> 01:03:39.520 We just say we're not going to look at it. 01:03:39.520 --> 01:03:40.520 Yes, sir. 01:03:40.520 --> 01:03:43.520 I don't think we've ever just said, hey, we don't want to look at it. 01:03:43.520 --> 01:03:44.520 We'll look at all of it. 01:03:44.520 --> 01:03:45.520 You might get denied. 01:03:45.520 --> 01:03:46.520 Yeah. 01:03:46.520 --> 01:03:53.280 We might deny your review or your inspection may fail, but to refuse to work to review. 01:03:53.280 --> 01:03:56.680 But they can't invoke using a third party if it's denied. 01:03:56.680 --> 01:03:57.680 No. 01:03:57.680 --> 01:03:58.680 Correct. 01:03:58.680 --> 01:03:59.680 That's correct. 01:03:59.680 --> 01:04:00.680 Thank you. 01:04:00.680 --> 01:04:01.680 That was exactly my question. 01:04:01.680 --> 01:04:02.680 They don't like what the city said. 01:04:02.680 --> 01:04:03.680 Well, that's a different procedure. 01:04:03.680 --> 01:04:04.680 Yes, ma'am. 01:04:04.680 --> 01:04:05.680 Yes, ma'am. 01:04:05.680 --> 01:04:06.680 Commissioner Prud. 01:04:06.680 --> 01:04:07.680 Thank you, Chair. 01:04:07.680 --> 01:04:20.000 So I thought that there were instances where HB14 took effect if there was some delay or 01:04:20.000 --> 01:04:26.520 certain time limitation where if something hadn't been expected in a timely manner, they 01:04:26.520 --> 01:04:28.520 were allowed to go to a third party. 01:04:28.520 --> 01:04:29.520 Is that incorrect? 01:04:29.520 --> 01:04:34.520 Well, that comes into play, basically, if we fail to take action within a certain time 01:04:34.520 --> 01:04:35.520 period. 01:04:35.520 --> 01:04:36.520 Right. 01:04:36.520 --> 01:04:40.120 So we still have the ability to -- someone can submit the request and we can still establish 01:04:40.120 --> 01:04:45.640 our review period times or if someone's requesting an inspection and they call it on their inspection 01:04:45.640 --> 01:04:50.880 line or do it online, what have you, we still have a reasonable time to be able to respond. 01:04:50.880 --> 01:04:55.280 So it prevents someone saying, well, I put my request in and you didn't show up 10 minutes 01:04:55.280 --> 01:04:56.280 later. 01:04:56.280 --> 01:04:57.280 Yeah. 01:04:57.280 --> 01:04:58.780 Well, because we had some others in front of you, right? 01:04:58.780 --> 01:05:00.640 So it puts some parameter within that. 01:05:00.640 --> 01:05:06.480 But really, to Michelle's point, it gets at if a city chooses -- if we decide that we're 01:05:06.480 --> 01:05:09.480 just not going to review your project for whatever reason, we're just not going to review 01:05:09.480 --> 01:05:15.360 it, then once the time window expires, right, then the applicant has the ability to be able 01:05:15.360 --> 01:05:20.440 to go procure a third party based upon an approved list of providers that we give them 01:05:20.440 --> 01:05:21.840 to go have that work done. 01:05:21.840 --> 01:05:27.680 To Tim's point, you know, we were talking about the -- the likelihood of us to refuse 01:05:27.680 --> 01:05:32.040 reviewing somebody's project or refusing to do an inspection is like -- 01:05:32.040 --> 01:05:33.040 Very minuscule. 01:05:33.040 --> 01:05:34.400 We won't be done. 01:05:34.400 --> 01:05:35.400 Exactly. 01:05:35.400 --> 01:05:36.400 Right? 01:05:36.400 --> 01:05:37.400 So -- but it's unfortunate. 01:05:37.400 --> 01:05:42.360 Bills like this get proposed and in past, as this one did, as a result of, there are 01:05:42.360 --> 01:05:47.680 cities out there that, let's say, you know, we don't want your development, so we're just 01:05:47.680 --> 01:05:49.360 not going to review your plans, right? 01:05:49.360 --> 01:05:51.480 We don't take that business approach, it doesn't. 01:05:51.480 --> 01:05:57.140 So I mean, that is -- that is not a good way to do business. 01:05:57.140 --> 01:05:59.160 Governor Smith? 01:05:59.160 --> 01:06:03.720 But this could essentially say -- and I think it really comes down to the integrity of the 01:06:03.720 --> 01:06:06.320 third parties that are being put out there, right? 01:06:06.320 --> 01:06:10.760 But I want to come in and I want to put a strip club in downtown. 01:06:10.760 --> 01:06:13.720 We as a city, I think we would all -- I mean, the city -- city staff's probably looking 01:06:13.720 --> 01:06:17.200 at that saying, no, right? 01:06:17.200 --> 01:06:19.400 We've got regulations that would address that. 01:06:19.400 --> 01:06:20.400 Right? 01:06:20.400 --> 01:06:21.400 What's the zoning? 01:06:21.400 --> 01:06:22.400 Got you. 01:06:22.400 --> 01:06:23.400 Right? 01:06:23.400 --> 01:06:24.400 What's the zoning? 01:06:24.400 --> 01:06:25.400 The zoning says, no, you can't do that here, so go find a zoning district in which you're 01:06:25.400 --> 01:06:26.400 allowed. 01:06:26.400 --> 01:06:31.560 But even then, I mean, there's -- there might be some uses that it could come up where it 01:06:31.560 --> 01:06:33.260 falls within the zoning. 01:06:33.260 --> 01:06:37.040 And then I'm -- I think I'm still going back to the fact that we've never refused it. 01:06:37.040 --> 01:06:41.280 If it's in the zoning, we as a city have always been -- if it's allowed, if it's in the table 01:06:41.280 --> 01:06:44.000 of permitted uses, we're going to review it. 01:06:44.000 --> 01:06:46.800 It'll probably be recommended for denial or if it's recommended for approval because it 01:06:46.800 --> 01:06:52.600 meets all criteria, city council or we will deny something like that in that scenario. 01:06:52.600 --> 01:06:57.160 Well, and even if the use is silent within the development code, we have a process in 01:06:57.160 --> 01:07:00.800 place to allow for new and unlisted use as classification. 01:07:00.800 --> 01:07:03.600 So there's a process in place to be able to address that. 01:07:03.600 --> 01:07:08.460 But this is for, you know, the submission of development applications, if the city chooses 01:07:08.460 --> 01:07:15.760 to just fail to act on it, right, then it gives the applicant the ability to obtain 01:07:15.760 --> 01:07:19.760 another entity to be able to review their plans and demonstrate as to why these plans 01:07:19.760 --> 01:07:20.760 meet the city's requirements. 01:07:20.760 --> 01:07:29.960 Not all cities are bad, they're just bad cities. 01:07:29.960 --> 01:07:30.960 Any more questions? 01:07:30.960 --> 01:07:36.160 If I could share, I would like to compliment the team because, you know, part of the challenge 01:07:36.160 --> 01:07:39.840 of when the legislature is in session is being able to respond really quickly, but then also 01:07:39.840 --> 01:07:45.040 going back through once they've been adopted, just confirming what has been passed by the 01:07:45.040 --> 01:07:46.040 legislature. 01:07:46.040 --> 01:07:49.280 And so I know I've tasked with -- as you can see, some of these topics are more complex 01:07:49.280 --> 01:07:52.240 than others, but they've worked really hard on trying to work through this. 01:07:52.240 --> 01:07:56.120 And I also have to give a shout out to Charlie as well, because I tasked him with managing 01:07:56.120 --> 01:08:00.160 all of this aspect, given everything else we've got going on, but to help us stay on 01:08:00.160 --> 01:08:03.900 top of making sure that we're getting each of the bills addressed, we're getting them 01:08:03.900 --> 01:08:09.540 calendared for where we need to do ordinance amendments and also updating any other processes 01:08:09.540 --> 01:08:12.960 and checklists and things of that nature and information on our website. 01:08:12.960 --> 01:08:17.520 So it's been truly a great team effort by all. 01:08:17.520 --> 01:08:21.080 >> Thank you, Ron, so -- >> I just brought up a slide, so kind of illustrate 01:08:21.080 --> 01:08:22.080 what Tina was talking about. 01:08:22.080 --> 01:08:24.040 So there's still work to be done. 01:08:24.040 --> 01:08:26.440 So that concludes our presentation. 01:08:26.440 --> 01:08:29.600 >> Yeah, I think it is very well done. 01:08:29.600 --> 01:08:32.040 Yeah, I've had this on the matrix for a long time. 01:08:32.040 --> 01:08:37.600 So it's -- this is fantastic and, yeah, I hope it kind of becomes a staple when I'm 01:08:37.600 --> 01:08:43.000 not sitting here anymore and just that y'all do this, just because it's so important. 01:08:43.000 --> 01:08:50.440 >> It was -- you know, we had -- I know Ron put 18 to 20 development bills that were on 01:08:50.440 --> 01:08:56.040 there, but there were -- I was reviewing -- there were 40 bills that we were going through and 01:08:56.040 --> 01:09:00.800 reviewing as it relates to our -- just development services in general. 01:09:00.800 --> 01:09:09.240 And so it is -- you know, it -- this year, with respect to the development regulations, 01:09:09.240 --> 01:09:13.480 there was obviously quite a few bills, as Ron pointed out, that were proposed. 01:09:13.480 --> 01:09:16.920 And so, you know, we're always evaluating to see for consistency with the city's policies 01:09:16.920 --> 01:09:18.880 and legislative priorities. 01:09:18.880 --> 01:09:22.920 But then also, you know, are they in the best interest of Denton? 01:09:22.920 --> 01:09:24.220 What are the implications? 01:09:24.220 --> 01:09:28.320 We try to work with the legislators also on, you know, trying to understand what the issue 01:09:28.320 --> 01:09:33.480 is, what they're trying to address, and seeing if we can help provide better language within 01:09:33.480 --> 01:09:34.600 the statute as well. 01:09:34.600 --> 01:09:39.320 So we've -- we're, I think, instrumental in that aspect, and in some cases, is trying 01:09:39.320 --> 01:09:45.600 to help our legislators who represent Denton be able to help get bills possibly converted 01:09:45.600 --> 01:09:46.600 into a yes. 01:09:46.600 --> 01:09:47.600 >> All right. 01:09:47.600 --> 01:09:51.760 Yeah, and Ron, while we have you up there, I don't know if everyone knows, but this is 01:09:51.760 --> 01:09:57.440 Ron's last planning and zoning meeting, because by the time we meet again, it will be his 01:09:57.440 --> 01:09:58.920 last day with the city. 01:09:58.920 --> 01:09:59.920 So -- 01:09:59.920 --> 01:10:00.920 >> There will be no items on that. 01:10:00.920 --> 01:10:05.000 >> -- you won't want to be at our meeting for some reason. 01:10:05.000 --> 01:10:06.920 But anyway, you will be truly, Mr. Ron. 01:10:06.920 --> 01:10:07.920 You are -- 01:10:07.920 --> 01:10:08.920 >> Thank you so much. 01:10:08.920 --> 01:10:09.920 >> -- such an asset. 01:10:09.920 --> 01:10:11.600 And over all these years, you have taught us all so, so much. 01:10:11.600 --> 01:10:12.600 >> I appreciate that. 01:10:12.600 --> 01:10:13.600 Thank you so much. 01:10:13.600 --> 01:10:14.600 >> It has been a pleasure. 01:10:14.600 --> 01:10:15.600 >> And I hope Ms. Dannen and everyone here as well. 01:10:15.600 --> 01:10:16.600 So thank you. 01:10:16.600 --> 01:10:17.600 >> Very good. 01:10:17.600 --> 01:10:18.600 All right. 01:10:18.600 --> 01:10:19.600 Anything else? 01:10:19.600 --> 01:10:20.600 Okay. 01:10:20.600 --> 01:10:24.480 Let's close the work session at 611, and we will reconvene in council chambers for our 01:10:24.480 --> 01:10:28.240 regular meeting at 630. 01:10:28.240 --> 01:10:31.560 Good evening, and welcome to the City and Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting 01:10:31.560 --> 01:10:34.440 for Wednesday, August 23, 2023. 01:10:34.440 --> 01:10:39.600 With the quorum present, I will call us to order at 636 p.m. 01:10:39.600 --> 01:10:42.880 First item on our agenda this evening is the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas 01:10:42.880 --> 01:10:43.880 flags. 01:10:43.880 --> 01:10:59.520 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for 01:10:59.520 --> 01:11:02.520 which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 01:11:02.520 --> 01:11:03.520 Honor the Texas flag. 01:11:03.520 --> 01:11:11.040 I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. 01:11:11.040 --> 01:11:12.040 Thank you. 01:11:12.040 --> 01:11:16.200 Next item on our agenda is consider approval of the minutes for the planning and zoning 01:11:16.200 --> 01:11:18.280 meeting from August 9th. 01:11:18.280 --> 01:11:19.280 Commissioner Villarreal. 01:11:19.280 --> 01:11:20.280 >> I move approval. 01:11:20.280 --> 01:11:21.280 >> Commissioner Cole. 01:11:21.280 --> 01:11:22.280 >> Second. 01:11:22.280 --> 01:11:23.280 >> Okay. 01:11:23.280 --> 01:11:24.280 We've got a first and a second. 01:11:24.280 --> 01:11:25.280 Any discussion? 01:11:25.280 --> 01:11:26.280 Okay. 01:11:26.280 --> 01:11:33.120 Let's go ahead and vote, please. 01:11:33.120 --> 01:11:34.640 That motion carries 7-0. 01:11:34.640 --> 01:11:38.600 That will take us to our consent agenda this evening. 01:11:38.600 --> 01:11:39.600 Commissioner Villarreal. 01:11:39.600 --> 01:11:41.240 >> I move approval. 01:11:41.240 --> 01:11:42.240 >> Commissioner Anderson. 01:11:42.240 --> 01:11:43.240 >> Second. 01:11:43.240 --> 01:11:44.240 >> Okay. 01:11:44.240 --> 01:11:47.800 We've got a first and a second for approval of consent this evening. 01:11:47.800 --> 01:11:48.800 Any discussion? 01:11:48.800 --> 01:11:49.800 Okay. 01:11:49.800 --> 01:11:57.240 Let's go ahead and vote, please. 01:11:57.240 --> 01:11:59.920 That motion carries 7-0. 01:11:59.920 --> 01:12:02.880 That will take us to our items for individual consideration. 01:12:02.880 --> 01:12:07.320 First one is 4A, FR230013. 01:12:07.320 --> 01:12:09.320 Mia is here to present that item. 01:12:09.320 --> 01:12:10.320 Good evening. 01:12:10.320 --> 01:12:16.880 Good evening, Chair, members of the Commission. 01:12:16.880 --> 01:12:18.720 Mia Hines, Associate Planner. 01:12:18.720 --> 01:12:22.960 This first item is a final replat for Razor Ranch Town Center. 01:12:22.960 --> 01:12:27.440 Sorry, I was making sure this was the right one. 01:12:27.440 --> 01:12:31.360 It is located at the northwest corner of Panhandle Drive and Heritage Trail. 01:12:31.360 --> 01:12:33.760 The site itself is just under three acres. 01:12:33.760 --> 01:12:38.320 At this time, the site does not meet all of our criteria for approval for final replats, 01:12:38.320 --> 01:12:39.320 so we are recommending denial. 01:12:39.320 --> 01:12:44.080 However, we have no objection to the requested extension, which can be granted to September 01:12:44.080 --> 01:12:45.080 13th, 2023. 01:12:45.080 --> 01:12:46.080 Any questions? 01:12:46.080 --> 01:12:49.720 >> I do not see any questions. 01:12:49.720 --> 01:12:50.720 Thank you, Mia. 01:12:50.720 --> 01:12:51.720 Appreciate it. 01:12:51.720 --> 01:12:52.720 Commissioner Villarreal. 01:12:52.720 --> 01:12:55.840 >> I move approval of the extension to a date certain of September 13th, 2023. 01:12:55.840 --> 01:12:56.840 >> Okay. 01:12:56.840 --> 01:12:57.840 Commissioner Cole. 01:12:57.840 --> 01:12:58.840 >> Second. 01:12:58.840 --> 01:13:01.400 >> We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of 01:13:01.400 --> 01:13:04.440 September 13th, 2023. 01:13:04.440 --> 01:13:05.440 Any questions? 01:13:05.440 --> 01:13:06.440 Discussion? 01:13:06.440 --> 01:13:07.440 Okay. 01:13:07.440 --> 01:13:14.520 Let's go ahead and vote, please. 01:13:14.520 --> 01:13:16.280 That motion carries 7-0. 01:13:16.280 --> 01:13:18.280 That will take us to 4B, FR230014. 01:13:18.280 --> 01:13:24.760 >> Good evening again, Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, associate planner. 01:13:24.760 --> 01:13:28.680 This item is a final replat for Razor Ranch North. 01:13:28.680 --> 01:13:32.160 Specifically, the site is just under 15 acres. 01:13:32.160 --> 01:13:37.920 It's located just north of -- I'm sorry, just east of I-35, north of University. 01:13:37.920 --> 01:13:42.720 Similarly, this item does not meet all of our criteria for approval for final replats, 01:13:42.720 --> 01:13:46.860 so we are recommending denial, but we have no objection to the requested extension, which 01:13:46.860 --> 01:13:50.200 can be granted to September 13th, 2023. 01:13:50.200 --> 01:13:52.200 At this time, I'll stand for any questions. 01:13:52.200 --> 01:13:53.200 >> Great. 01:13:53.200 --> 01:13:54.200 Questions? 01:13:54.200 --> 01:13:55.800 I do not see any. 01:13:55.800 --> 01:13:56.800 Thank you. 01:13:56.800 --> 01:13:57.800 Commissioner Villarreal. 01:13:57.800 --> 01:14:02.600 >> Approval of the extension to date certain of September 13th, 2023. 01:14:02.600 --> 01:14:03.600 >> Commissioner Cole. 01:14:03.600 --> 01:14:04.600 >> Second. 01:14:04.600 --> 01:14:05.600 >> Okay. 01:14:05.600 --> 01:14:08.160 We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of September 01:14:08.160 --> 01:14:11.200 13th, 2023. 01:14:11.200 --> 01:14:12.200 Any discussion? 01:14:12.200 --> 01:14:13.200 Questions? 01:14:13.200 --> 01:14:14.200 Okay. 01:14:14.200 --> 01:14:20.720 Let's go ahead and vote, please. 01:14:20.720 --> 01:14:23.680 That motion carries 7-0. 01:14:23.680 --> 01:14:30.000 Item 4C has been withdrawn by the applicant, so we will not be taking action there. 01:14:30.000 --> 01:14:34.160 As well as 4D has been withdrawn by the applicant. 01:14:34.160 --> 01:14:35.760 No action there. 01:14:35.760 --> 01:14:37.760 4E is next, FP230022. 01:14:37.760 --> 01:14:38.760 Hello, Julie. 01:14:38.760 --> 01:14:39.760 >> Good evening. 01:14:39.760 --> 01:14:48.800 Julie Wyatt, principal planner with the City of Denton, and I'm presenting FP230022. 01:14:48.800 --> 01:14:50.760 This is for the towns and green development. 01:14:50.760 --> 01:14:52.200 It's the second phase of that. 01:14:52.200 --> 01:14:54.440 It's for single family residential development. 01:14:54.440 --> 01:14:59.000 They still have some things they need to work through on this final plat, and so staff is 01:14:59.000 --> 01:15:00.000 recommending denial. 01:15:00.000 --> 01:15:04.920 However, we have no objection to the requested extension to September 13th, and I'll be happy 01:15:04.920 --> 01:15:05.920 to answer any questions. 01:15:05.920 --> 01:15:06.920 >> Thank you, Julie. 01:15:06.920 --> 01:15:07.920 Any questions, commissioners? 01:15:07.920 --> 01:15:11.380 I'm not seeing any. 01:15:11.380 --> 01:15:12.800 Thank you very much. 01:15:12.800 --> 01:15:13.800 Commissioner Villarreal. 01:15:13.800 --> 01:15:17.720 >> Approval of the extension to date certain of September 13th, 2023. 01:15:17.720 --> 01:15:19.960 >> Thank you. 01:15:19.960 --> 01:15:20.960 Commissioner Pruitt. 01:15:20.960 --> 01:15:21.960 >> Second. 01:15:21.960 --> 01:15:22.960 >> Okay. 01:15:22.960 --> 01:15:27.000 First and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of September 13th, 01:15:27.000 --> 01:15:28.720 2023. 01:15:28.720 --> 01:15:29.720 Any discussion? 01:15:29.720 --> 01:15:30.720 Okay. 01:15:30.720 --> 01:15:38.460 Let's vote, please. 01:15:38.460 --> 01:15:40.760 That motion carries 7-0. 01:15:40.760 --> 01:15:43.360 That will take us to our public hearings for this evening. 01:15:43.360 --> 01:15:44.360 We have one. 01:15:44.360 --> 01:15:49.600 It is 5A, DCA23-0001. 01:15:49.600 --> 01:15:52.560 Julie is here to present the item, and I will open the public hearing. 01:15:52.560 --> 01:15:53.560 >> All right. 01:15:53.560 --> 01:15:54.560 Good evening. 01:15:54.560 --> 01:15:55.560 Julie Wyatt. 01:15:55.560 --> 01:16:03.000 I am presenting DCA23-0001, a reasonable accommodation, group homes, community homes, and elderly 01:16:03.000 --> 01:16:04.000 housing. 01:16:04.000 --> 01:16:08.960 So, as we discussed in the work session, this is a proposal for DENT and development code 01:16:08.960 --> 01:16:14.960 regulations related to these items, and we're going to go over a little more detail than 01:16:14.960 --> 01:16:16.640 we did in the work session. 01:16:16.640 --> 01:16:21.800 I'll go over all of the detail that we did in DCRC unless you did want a further discussion 01:16:21.800 --> 01:16:22.800 on it. 01:16:22.800 --> 01:16:25.800 So, here we go. 01:16:25.800 --> 01:16:31.120 First of all, before we talk about the regulations, just want to hit on a couple of key concepts. 01:16:31.120 --> 01:16:33.200 First, what is a disability? 01:16:33.200 --> 01:16:34.680 How is that defined by law? 01:16:34.680 --> 01:16:39.680 It really relates to three things associated with that. 01:16:39.680 --> 01:16:44.560 There needs to be a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major 01:16:44.560 --> 01:16:45.880 life activities. 01:16:45.880 --> 01:16:51.520 Two, there has to be a record of such impairment, and then three, that disability cannot include 01:16:51.520 --> 01:16:54.120 current use of alcohol or drugs. 01:16:54.120 --> 01:17:00.360 However, individuals in recovery may be considered disabled. 01:17:00.360 --> 01:17:05.340 As part of that, there is a concept called reasonable accommodation, and that is intended 01:17:05.340 --> 01:17:11.700 for a change exception or adjustment to a rule within the city that would be necessary 01:17:11.700 --> 01:17:17.720 to remove barriers for a person with disabilities so that they can enjoy housing in a similar 01:17:17.720 --> 01:17:21.800 manner as persons without disabilities. 01:17:21.800 --> 01:17:26.400 The courts have determined there are two parts to reasonable accommodation. 01:17:26.400 --> 01:17:29.320 It must be necessary, and it must be reasonable. 01:17:29.320 --> 01:17:33.800 So as we looked at these development code regulations, that's what we kept in mind 01:17:33.800 --> 01:17:35.720 the entire time. 01:17:35.720 --> 01:17:39.740 And these are really related to the physical aspects of the property. 01:17:39.740 --> 01:17:44.760 Think maybe somebody would need to encroach into a front yard setback for a covering for 01:17:44.760 --> 01:17:53.040 a carport to allow a person with a van to allow for a wheelchair to get in and out so 01:17:53.040 --> 01:17:56.440 they wouldn't be out in the elements of rain. 01:17:56.440 --> 01:18:02.720 Or think about something like landscape area or lot coverage where a ramp would be needed. 01:18:02.720 --> 01:18:09.840 So it's those physical aspects to make a property and to change a property so that 01:18:09.840 --> 01:18:16.240 a person with disabilities could use it in a manner as a person without disabilities. 01:18:16.240 --> 01:18:22.120 The state of Texas also has rules related to disabilities in housing, essentially. 01:18:22.120 --> 01:18:26.320 Discrimination is not legal, so we should keep that in mind as we're thinking about 01:18:26.320 --> 01:18:27.320 our ordinances. 01:18:27.320 --> 01:18:33.320 And then there's two types of housing that are related to persons with disabilities that 01:18:33.320 --> 01:18:34.920 I want to cover tonight. 01:18:34.920 --> 01:18:43.760 One, community homes for the disabled, that is a very specific type of housing. 01:18:43.760 --> 01:18:49.480 It was created by chapter 123 of the Texas Human Resources Code, and it is limited to 01:18:49.480 --> 01:18:52.640 no more than six residents with two supervisors. 01:18:52.640 --> 01:18:55.600 There are provisions for how far apart they can be. 01:18:55.600 --> 01:18:59.480 How many bedroom or how many vehicles they can have. 01:18:59.480 --> 01:19:02.680 So it's got to be licensed in a very specific way. 01:19:02.680 --> 01:19:06.440 So it's a very specific type of housing. 01:19:06.440 --> 01:19:10.640 The other type of housing is group home, and our legal department did some research on 01:19:10.640 --> 01:19:14.760 this and found that there are 24 types of group homes within the state of Texas. 01:19:14.760 --> 01:19:17.480 It's a really broad category. 01:19:17.480 --> 01:19:24.040 And so we're trying to encapsulate all of those 24 items within our regulations. 01:19:24.040 --> 01:19:31.560 So keeping those key concepts in mind, we looked at the development code to see where 01:19:31.560 --> 01:19:33.720 we needed to make some improvements. 01:19:33.720 --> 01:19:41.320 As we talked about in work session, our regulations related to these concepts and uses, they've 01:19:41.320 --> 01:19:46.720 been added on and modified over the years without anybody taking a holistic view. 01:19:46.720 --> 01:19:51.280 So that's what we tried to do with DCRC earlier this year, is to kind of take everything and 01:19:51.280 --> 01:19:54.720 figure out how it all works together and make sure it makes sense. 01:19:54.720 --> 01:19:58.920 So first, reasonable accommodation, we are proposing changes to that. 01:19:58.920 --> 01:20:03.920 We found that our regulations, they're housed under the minor modification standards in 01:20:03.920 --> 01:20:05.160 the Denton Development Code. 01:20:05.160 --> 01:20:10.600 It was extremely limited as to what someone could do, not only in the types of modifications 01:20:10.600 --> 01:20:12.200 but in the amount. 01:20:12.200 --> 01:20:15.560 So for instance, you could only encroach 10 percent in a setback. 01:20:15.560 --> 01:20:22.320 It may not get someone with a disability what they need in order to make that house livable 01:20:22.320 --> 01:20:23.320 for them. 01:20:23.320 --> 01:20:29.640 So we wanted to kind of take a look at that, put it in its own category, and really look 01:20:29.640 --> 01:20:32.220 to see what we needed to be able to modify. 01:20:32.220 --> 01:20:35.000 We also looked at the use regulations. 01:20:35.000 --> 01:20:40.720 We not only looked at the use tables, but also the use specific standards, and made 01:20:40.720 --> 01:20:46.400 sure that they made sense and that they were something that could be enforceable and that 01:20:46.400 --> 01:20:48.340 they weren't confusing. 01:20:48.340 --> 01:20:53.960 We looked at an exception for maximum persons occupying a dwelling. 01:20:53.960 --> 01:20:57.240 We also looked at parking regulations and then our definitions. 01:20:57.240 --> 01:21:00.940 So we'll take a little more detail on each of these. 01:21:00.940 --> 01:21:03.180 So a little bit more about reasonable accommodation. 01:21:03.180 --> 01:21:06.960 As I mentioned, it was under the minor modification standards. 01:21:06.960 --> 01:21:10.960 We've gone ahead and we're proposing to pull that out, just put a separate line item in 01:21:10.960 --> 01:21:13.640 our flexibility and relief procedures. 01:21:13.640 --> 01:21:19.280 That way staff can find it more easily and also the community. 01:21:19.280 --> 01:21:27.800 As part of that, we talked about the application, and so we've got a process established within 01:21:27.800 --> 01:21:33.320 the Denton Development Code that requires owner authorization but no fees, so we wanted 01:21:33.320 --> 01:21:35.440 to make it as easy as possible. 01:21:35.440 --> 01:21:38.960 We also established a process, we want it to be as quick as possible. 01:21:38.960 --> 01:21:44.480 So to ask for some information from the applicant, we want to make sure we get them what they 01:21:44.480 --> 01:21:50.000 need, but with a limitation, that it really should be completed within 30 days. 01:21:50.000 --> 01:21:56.240 The staff review and analysis and determination really should be completed as quickly as possible. 01:21:56.240 --> 01:22:01.260 There are some provisions to be able to stop that clock if we need more data, but really 01:22:01.260 --> 01:22:05.000 to get it through and get it moving on. 01:22:05.000 --> 01:22:14.200 We are proposing to rest the approval, denial, or alternatives with the city manager or designee. 01:22:14.200 --> 01:22:18.520 And then any appeals would follow our administrative appeal procedure. 01:22:18.520 --> 01:22:23.040 What we tried to do with all of these is really look at processes we already had established 01:22:23.040 --> 01:22:28.960 in the code and then try to just piggyback on those, not create new wheels, just try 01:22:28.960 --> 01:22:31.240 to use what we had. 01:22:31.240 --> 01:22:37.200 And then any accommodations that would be approved and installed would be subject to 01:22:37.200 --> 01:22:43.420 our nonconforming regulations once that person who was in need of that accommodation was 01:22:43.420 --> 01:22:46.340 no longer living on that property. 01:22:46.340 --> 01:22:51.640 So then it would just become part of that nonconformity where it could stay in place 01:22:51.640 --> 01:22:53.360 but it could not be expanded. 01:22:53.360 --> 01:23:02.360 So think about if somebody needed a covering over a walkway, the next person couldn't 01:23:02.360 --> 01:23:04.120 come in and enclose that covering. 01:23:04.120 --> 01:23:09.960 It would be part of those nonconforming regulations, couldn't be expanded, but wouldn't necessarily 01:23:09.960 --> 01:23:13.320 have to be removed. 01:23:13.320 --> 01:23:18.280 We also looked at the table of allowed uses for community homes, elderly housing, and 01:23:18.280 --> 01:23:19.640 group home. 01:23:19.640 --> 01:23:22.240 We are proposing no changes to community home. 01:23:22.240 --> 01:23:28.760 Our regulations are consistent with the state statute in that it is required to be every 01:23:28.760 --> 01:23:34.400 place that residential uses are permitted, so it's consistent with state law. 01:23:34.400 --> 01:23:38.120 Where we are proposing changes are elderly housing and then group homes. 01:23:38.120 --> 01:23:40.240 So first of all, elderly housing. 01:23:40.240 --> 01:23:46.860 We are proposing to add use-specific standards to MD and MR, and that will be a little clearer 01:23:46.860 --> 01:23:48.040 on a next slide. 01:23:48.040 --> 01:23:54.000 Add it to suburban corridor and highway corridor, and then remove it from general office. 01:23:54.000 --> 01:23:58.560 When we talked about adding it to suburban corridor or highway corridor, those are places 01:23:58.560 --> 01:24:03.160 that we allow things like multi-family dwellings, and when you think about an elderly housing 01:24:03.160 --> 01:24:08.160 use, it can go all the way from just a single-family home to something that is a very institutional 01:24:08.160 --> 01:24:11.380 type use or something that even looks like multi-family. 01:24:11.380 --> 01:24:16.760 So there's a lot of variability within elderly housing, and so putting that within suburban 01:24:16.760 --> 01:24:22.120 corridor and highway corridor with a specific use permit to allow a little bit of extra 01:24:22.120 --> 01:24:27.080 review, we felt like it was appropriate because there are different physical types of elderly 01:24:27.080 --> 01:24:28.080 housing developments. 01:24:28.080 --> 01:24:33.520 And then to remove it from GEO, because GEO has some industrial uses. 01:24:33.520 --> 01:24:37.440 There are some incompatibilities that could be created, and so we felt like, you know, 01:24:37.440 --> 01:24:41.000 those just need to be separated, so it makes a lot of sense. 01:24:41.000 --> 01:24:46.720 For group home, we did add that use to R1 and R2 with a specific use permit, and that 01:24:46.720 --> 01:24:52.080 would be consistent with the rest of our residential zoning districts. 01:24:52.080 --> 01:24:55.560 So when we get to use specific standards, there's quite a bit in your backup. 01:24:55.560 --> 01:24:58.800 I won't read them, but just I want to touch on some highlights. 01:24:58.800 --> 01:25:00.640 First of all, elderly housing. 01:25:00.640 --> 01:25:04.800 We're proposing to remove the maximum square footage from R6 and R7. 01:25:04.800 --> 01:25:06.640 It requires a specific use permit. 01:25:06.640 --> 01:25:13.640 The lot sizes are smaller, so we don't anticipate that that 55,000 square foot max would really 01:25:13.640 --> 01:25:16.360 come into play in an R6 or R7. 01:25:16.360 --> 01:25:19.360 Those are more residential zoning districts. 01:25:19.360 --> 01:25:24.560 We also clarified the design standards, because elderly housing sort of has one foot in residential 01:25:24.560 --> 01:25:30.240 uses and one foot in institutional uses, we really kind of had to make judgment calls 01:25:30.240 --> 01:25:35.040 as to what design standards in subchapter 7 would be required. 01:25:35.040 --> 01:25:41.800 We just went ahead and codified that to say, you know, what would be required for any development. 01:25:41.800 --> 01:25:46.520 Community homes, our current code has the use specific standards for community homes 01:25:46.520 --> 01:25:49.520 and group homes all squished together. 01:25:49.520 --> 01:25:56.120 And it was really hard for staff to parse out and to tease out what applied when. 01:25:56.120 --> 01:25:59.200 And it was also probably confusing for the community as well. 01:25:59.200 --> 01:26:03.000 So we went ahead and said, we need to break these two apart, have community home, have 01:26:03.000 --> 01:26:08.960 its own use specific standards that are consistent with state law, and then have a group home 01:26:08.960 --> 01:26:12.640 be its own stand alone use specific standard. 01:26:12.640 --> 01:26:15.560 That gets us to that group home. 01:26:15.560 --> 01:26:20.280 Not only was it combined with community home, but it also established new processes for 01:26:20.280 --> 01:26:25.320 specific use permits, different expiration dates, things that could create confusion 01:26:25.320 --> 01:26:26.640 in the future. 01:26:26.640 --> 01:26:32.920 So what we're proposing to do is to simplify that, rely on those established processes 01:26:32.920 --> 01:26:40.740 where appropriate, but add a little bit extra for group home, for example, specific use 01:26:40.740 --> 01:26:46.240 permits for group homes, we're proposing that they are specific to the operator. 01:26:46.240 --> 01:26:50.680 And so any new operator for a group home would need to come in and get a new specific use 01:26:50.680 --> 01:26:52.200 permit. 01:26:52.200 --> 01:26:56.480 Just thinking about the residents, making sure we're protecting our residents and also 01:26:56.480 --> 01:27:00.680 those neighborhoods and communities where those uses would be. 01:27:00.680 --> 01:27:07.940 We also wanted to remove redundancies and then clarify specific application requirements. 01:27:07.940 --> 01:27:14.800 We looked at parking for these uses, they were confusing under our current code because 01:27:14.800 --> 01:27:18.480 it talks about design capacity, we really didn't define that. 01:27:18.480 --> 01:27:22.360 So what we did is just said for community home, one space per bedroom that's consistent 01:27:22.360 --> 01:27:28.600 with state law, it's really easy to apply, it is just more straightforward. 01:27:28.600 --> 01:27:34.080 For elderly housing, once again, because there is that variability, we went ahead and DCRC 01:27:34.080 --> 01:27:40.240 agreed to just have that be director determination, that way we can make sure that any future 01:27:40.240 --> 01:27:45.400 projects get the parking that they need so that they can accommodate their residents 01:27:45.400 --> 01:27:52.680 and visitors and employees, but not make them over park, so they can get those right size 01:27:52.680 --> 01:27:53.680 parking slots. 01:27:53.680 --> 01:27:58.160 And then group home, follow the community home, once again, really easy to just apply 01:27:58.160 --> 01:28:01.560 that one space per bedroom. 01:28:01.560 --> 01:28:06.120 I won't go over, we've gone over most of this, I just want to highlight the last row 01:28:06.120 --> 01:28:08.360 and that's that other. 01:28:08.360 --> 01:28:14.560 We did, I touched on it at the top of the presentation, we added an exemption for the 01:28:14.560 --> 01:28:20.120 maximum persons occupying a dwelling for community homes, group homes and elderly housing. 01:28:20.120 --> 01:28:26.360 Our current code limits it to four unrelated persons, we've gone ahead and added that exemption 01:28:26.360 --> 01:28:32.000 for these types of uses because they are more communal living uses. 01:28:32.000 --> 01:28:36.760 And then we also did make some changes or proposing to make some changes within our 01:28:36.760 --> 01:28:37.760 definitions. 01:28:37.760 --> 01:28:42.520 One, we currently under our code do not have a definition for just disability. 01:28:42.520 --> 01:28:48.640 We have disabled persons, we have handicapped, we have impaired, but we do not have disability. 01:28:48.640 --> 01:28:56.800 Thought we would remove all of those redundant or other terms that aren't used in other parts 01:28:56.800 --> 01:29:03.760 of the code for that one definition, it's a lot cleaner to apply for staff in the community. 01:29:03.760 --> 01:29:11.160 We did add or proposing to include former use of controlled substances and or alcohol 01:29:11.160 --> 01:29:18.600 as part of that disability, because that's kind of one of those standards that is used 01:29:18.600 --> 01:29:26.840 within the disability regulations in some communities. 01:29:26.840 --> 01:29:31.560 And then like I said, remove those definitions which were really redundant. 01:29:31.560 --> 01:29:36.800 Public outreach was sent out, we sent out the newspaper ad that we typically do for 01:29:36.800 --> 01:29:39.240 text amendments to the Denton Development Code. 01:29:39.240 --> 01:29:47.200 We had a new notification with the House bill, sorry, Senate bill 929, and that's that notification 01:29:47.200 --> 01:29:54.160 because we had the one property that would be made nonconforming with this project. 01:29:54.160 --> 01:30:00.360 We sent out 272 notices to the residents and the property owner. 01:30:00.360 --> 01:30:07.240 As I mentioned in work session, staff, if this is approved by council, staff intends 01:30:07.240 --> 01:30:15.960 to follow up pretty quickly with a staff initiated rezoning to get this property in line with 01:30:15.960 --> 01:30:23.400 the comprehensive plan and the surrounding zoning pattern and also the use. 01:30:23.400 --> 01:30:25.520 So that concludes my presentation. 01:30:25.520 --> 01:30:28.660 We have, if you have any questions, be happy to answer them. 01:30:28.660 --> 01:30:32.900 We have the Committee on Persons with Disabilities on September 21st. 01:30:32.900 --> 01:30:38.080 We also sent out a informal staff report to that group just to kind of let them know what's 01:30:38.080 --> 01:30:39.740 going on. 01:30:39.740 --> 01:30:45.200 And then that would be followed up tentatively with council schedules for September 26th. 01:30:45.200 --> 01:30:47.760 And like I said, be happy to answer any questions. 01:30:47.760 --> 01:30:49.920 Thank you, Julie. 01:30:49.920 --> 01:30:51.280 Any questions? 01:30:51.280 --> 01:30:53.800 Everybody's screens are coming up. 01:30:53.800 --> 01:30:55.480 Julia, I've got one. 01:30:55.480 --> 01:30:58.880 You mentioned in there needing an owner authorization form. 01:30:58.880 --> 01:31:06.080 Is that something that we have that is like prepared and consistent and hopefully notarized? 01:31:06.080 --> 01:31:07.080 That is a great question. 01:31:07.080 --> 01:31:12.820 We have an owner authorization form that we require on every application that's submitted 01:31:12.820 --> 01:31:13.820 to the city. 01:31:13.820 --> 01:31:15.360 So you're just using that same one? 01:31:15.360 --> 01:31:16.360 Yes, we'll just use the same one. 01:31:16.360 --> 01:31:18.800 Is it a notarized form? 01:31:18.800 --> 01:31:20.080 I don't think so. 01:31:20.080 --> 01:31:22.100 I think we used to. 01:31:22.100 --> 01:31:23.100 No. 01:31:23.100 --> 01:31:24.100 Okay. 01:31:24.100 --> 01:31:28.640 So that's interesting because the applicant in this situation, if they're a tenant, is 01:31:28.640 --> 01:31:29.640 coming to you. 01:31:29.640 --> 01:31:31.520 The owner is never coming to you. 01:31:31.520 --> 01:31:33.560 Well, and that is a good point. 01:31:33.560 --> 01:31:38.200 And that is something we talked about in DCRC quite a bit about that owner authorization 01:31:38.200 --> 01:31:42.880 because the owner and the person needing the accommodation could very well be two different 01:31:42.880 --> 01:31:43.880 people. 01:31:43.880 --> 01:31:44.880 Right. 01:31:44.880 --> 01:31:48.640 So that's why we really wanted that owner authorization to make sure that everybody 01:31:48.640 --> 01:31:56.940 was well-informed of what was taking place and what was being requested by the city. 01:31:56.940 --> 01:31:59.920 I mean, would you ever follow up to make sure that that's the owner? 01:31:59.920 --> 01:32:06.140 I mean, I guess I'm confused that way in the sense that, not that anyone would try this, 01:32:06.140 --> 01:32:10.680 and I hope they wouldn't, but I'm just wondering, I mean, we've got a lot of landlords who don't 01:32:10.680 --> 01:32:16.620 live here, and they may not know what's going on with their house, and suddenly someone 01:32:16.620 --> 01:32:20.000 comes and changes their property. 01:32:20.000 --> 01:32:26.480 And I'm just wondering, should we think about, I don't want to complicate it for you all, 01:32:26.480 --> 01:32:33.520 but I'm just wondering how you know that they brought the owner's signature on that authorization 01:32:33.520 --> 01:32:34.520 form? 01:32:34.520 --> 01:32:40.280 Well, I would add, excuse me, sorry about that, I think with any development application 01:32:40.280 --> 01:32:46.240 form that we have, if we have concerns regarding whether or not the owner had signed the form, 01:32:46.240 --> 01:32:51.080 you know, we can do a basic quick check and look on DCAD records and see what's listed 01:32:51.080 --> 01:32:55.880 and then verify with the applicant that they did receive the owner's signature. 01:32:55.880 --> 01:33:02.520 I mean, but with the development applications that we received today, you know, we've employed 01:33:02.520 --> 01:33:09.060 a consistent process as that, and we have the ability to cross-check with the Denton 01:33:09.060 --> 01:33:14.600 Central Appraisal District, but we take it at face value that what is submitted is submitted 01:33:14.600 --> 01:33:19.200 to us with property owner authorization. 01:33:19.200 --> 01:33:23.360 Okay. 01:33:23.360 --> 01:33:26.860 Any other questions for Julie? 01:33:26.860 --> 01:33:27.860 Thank you. 01:33:27.860 --> 01:33:28.860 That was a lot of information. 01:33:28.860 --> 01:33:31.160 It looks like that was succinctly done. 01:33:31.160 --> 01:33:32.600 I appreciate that very much. 01:33:32.600 --> 01:33:35.840 I can tell the DCR is very hard on that. 01:33:35.840 --> 01:33:36.840 This is a public hearing. 01:33:36.840 --> 01:33:39.040 I don't have any cards in front of me. 01:33:39.040 --> 01:33:41.480 Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? 01:33:41.480 --> 01:33:42.480 Okay. 01:33:42.480 --> 01:33:49.440 Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and open the floor for a motion or 01:33:49.440 --> 01:33:50.440 discussion. 01:33:50.440 --> 01:33:51.440 Commissioner Smith. 01:33:51.440 --> 01:33:54.360 I just want to say thank you to staff for the hard work on this one. 01:33:54.360 --> 01:33:59.480 Being on DCRC, this was definitely a lot of different questions about maybe a topic that 01:33:59.480 --> 01:34:03.000 commission and even council might even look at and say it seems kind of straightforward 01:34:03.000 --> 01:34:05.040 and dry, but there's a lot of kinks we had to work out there. 01:34:05.040 --> 01:34:11.200 So thanks, Julie, and thanks to Ron for the hard work on that and Tina for the work putting 01:34:11.200 --> 01:34:12.200 into it. 01:34:12.200 --> 01:34:14.520 So with that, make a motion to approve. 01:34:14.520 --> 01:34:15.520 Commissioner Cole. 01:34:15.520 --> 01:34:16.520 Second. 01:34:16.520 --> 01:34:17.520 Okay. 01:34:17.520 --> 01:34:22.320 We've got a first and a second for approval. 01:34:22.320 --> 01:34:23.320 Any discussion? 01:34:23.320 --> 01:34:24.320 Yeah. 01:34:24.320 --> 01:34:27.160 I'll just say thank you commissioners for serving on that committee. 01:34:27.160 --> 01:34:33.300 I know that takes a lot of time, extra time, and yeah, there's a lot of information here 01:34:33.300 --> 01:34:36.000 and good changes happening. 01:34:36.000 --> 01:34:39.440 So thank you. 01:34:39.440 --> 01:34:41.280 I think with that, Commissioner Pruitt. 01:34:41.280 --> 01:34:45.680 Just maybe I missed it, but have we closed the public hearing? 01:34:45.680 --> 01:34:46.680 I did. 01:34:46.680 --> 01:34:47.680 Okay. 01:34:47.680 --> 01:34:48.680 Thank you. 01:34:48.680 --> 01:34:49.680 Thank you for checking. 01:34:49.680 --> 01:34:50.680 Appreciate it. 01:34:50.680 --> 01:34:51.680 Okay. 01:34:51.680 --> 01:34:52.680 Any other discussion? 01:34:52.680 --> 01:34:53.680 Okay. 01:34:53.680 --> 01:35:02.760 Let's go ahead and vote on the board, please. 01:35:02.760 --> 01:35:04.640 That motion carries 7-0. 01:35:04.640 --> 01:35:15.040 That will take us to our planning and zoning matrix, and I will turn the floor to Tina. 01:35:15.040 --> 01:35:16.040 Thank you, Chair Ellis. 01:35:16.040 --> 01:35:19.560 So I have quite a bit of information to share with you. 01:35:19.560 --> 01:35:24.480 So maybe not as long as Julie's presentation, but I will challenge her on her length. 01:35:24.480 --> 01:35:28.680 So as to the matrix itself, so just a couple of quick updates. 01:35:28.680 --> 01:35:31.760 So the first item on the matrix, we'll go ahead and remove that since we accomplished 01:35:31.760 --> 01:35:33.120 that this evening. 01:35:33.120 --> 01:35:37.520 And then with respect to the discussion about removing minimum parking requirements from 01:35:37.520 --> 01:35:43.000 the DDC, originally we were anticipating getting to that discussion with DCRC last Monday. 01:35:43.000 --> 01:35:46.400 Unfortunately, our other topic took the whole entire time, is my understanding. 01:35:46.400 --> 01:35:51.900 So we will resume and initiate that conversation this coming Monday with the DCRC. 01:35:51.900 --> 01:35:54.240 So know that we will be kicking that off. 01:35:54.240 --> 01:35:59.180 Otherwise, we did not have any other matrix requests to be added from our previous planning 01:35:59.180 --> 01:36:00.400 and zoning commission meetings. 01:36:00.400 --> 01:36:08.160 So in terms of city council action on items, so we had several cases at the last city council 01:36:08.160 --> 01:36:09.160 meeting. 01:36:09.160 --> 01:36:13.320 If you recall, Julie presented three cases that were related with each other, a comprehensive 01:36:13.320 --> 01:36:18.560 plan amendment, a rezoning, and a specific use permit for property, about a 24-acre property 01:36:18.560 --> 01:36:21.760 on May Hill just north of Russell Newman. 01:36:21.760 --> 01:36:23.920 All of those items were approved. 01:36:23.920 --> 01:36:28.600 Part of that discussion was related to have a reconsideration of the planning and zoning 01:36:28.600 --> 01:36:29.600 commission. 01:36:29.600 --> 01:36:35.960 We all had submitted a request for that, and that request did not prevail. 01:36:35.960 --> 01:36:39.880 Part of the challenge was that the zoning case had already been noticed for city council 01:36:39.880 --> 01:36:41.480 and posted on council's agenda. 01:36:41.480 --> 01:36:44.200 So there was much discussion related to that. 01:36:44.200 --> 01:36:49.720 Key takeaway from that is we need to codify some procedures as it relates to reconsideration 01:36:49.720 --> 01:36:53.800 requests, including addressing what happens if something has already been noticed for 01:36:53.800 --> 01:36:55.400 city council's consideration. 01:36:55.400 --> 01:36:59.440 So we will add that to our to-do list of code amendments to be able to get that accomplished. 01:36:59.440 --> 01:37:04.880 But otherwise, all three of those applications were approved by council that evening. 01:37:04.880 --> 01:37:09.300 We also had a zoning request, if you recall, Sean had presented it at a prior planning 01:37:09.300 --> 01:37:14.280 and zoning commission meeting a request on Bonnie Bray north of Windsor. 01:37:14.280 --> 01:37:19.680 If members remember correctly, that was to rezone from R2 to an MN zoning district. 01:37:19.680 --> 01:37:20.680 Thank you, Haley. 01:37:20.680 --> 01:37:27.420 And so that case, while it had a motion for approval and the vote was 4-3, it did trigger 01:37:27.420 --> 01:37:28.680 a supermajority vote. 01:37:28.680 --> 01:37:32.220 So that case was not approved. 01:37:32.220 --> 01:37:34.260 So that took place. 01:37:34.260 --> 01:37:38.800 Also there was an alternative ESA plan that was approved by council for the site on 380, 01:37:38.800 --> 01:37:41.280 about 1600 feet west of Western Boulevard. 01:37:41.280 --> 01:37:47.560 If you recall, that was to be able to address an environmentally sensitive area where some 01:37:47.560 --> 01:37:49.200 parking improvements were going to be done. 01:37:49.200 --> 01:37:52.240 So council did approve that. 01:37:52.240 --> 01:37:55.960 Also at that same meeting, the downtown advisory group was appointed. 01:37:55.960 --> 01:38:02.840 So we have initiated work, obviously on the downtown master plan update that we have ongoing. 01:38:02.840 --> 01:38:08.080 Southeast Denton steering committee also received two attendees, or excuse me, two new committee 01:38:08.080 --> 01:38:09.400 appointees. 01:38:09.400 --> 01:38:12.400 So they have been since added. 01:38:12.400 --> 01:38:18.320 And then speaking of our area plans, so this Friday evening, we have our Southeast Denton 01:38:18.320 --> 01:38:19.680 steering committee meeting. 01:38:19.680 --> 01:38:21.480 So that is taking place. 01:38:21.480 --> 01:38:25.760 And then this Saturday, for those that are interested, we do have a community workshop. 01:38:25.760 --> 01:38:29.520 It is from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., American Legion Hall, correct? 01:38:29.520 --> 01:38:30.520 Okay. 01:38:30.520 --> 01:38:31.520 Yes, at the American Legion Hall. 01:38:31.520 --> 01:38:34.360 And again, it's a workshop, it's a come and go event. 01:38:34.360 --> 01:38:38.120 There's a presentation that will be given that will be happening at two different times. 01:38:38.120 --> 01:38:44.080 But otherwise it is a come and go event so people can participate in the activities and 01:38:44.080 --> 01:38:47.140 then get back to enjoying the rest of their Saturday. 01:38:47.140 --> 01:38:53.080 Also other items of interest for you all, October 17th, make sure that is on your calendar. 01:38:53.080 --> 01:38:57.800 It is a joint meeting with the City Council regarding the Northeast Denton area plan that 01:38:57.800 --> 01:39:00.320 is just between the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. 01:39:00.320 --> 01:39:05.040 So I believe we're planning for that to be at 11, doing a working lunch again, kind of 01:39:05.040 --> 01:39:07.280 similar to what we did previously. 01:39:07.280 --> 01:39:08.880 So make sure you've got that on your calendar. 01:39:08.880 --> 01:39:12.900 And of course, Kathy is really good about sending those invites to have on your calendars 01:39:12.900 --> 01:39:14.280 as well. 01:39:14.280 --> 01:39:17.760 And then if that's not enough, we're also working on short-term rentals. 01:39:17.760 --> 01:39:21.800 And so you may have seen some of the public service announcements on Channel 5 that have 01:39:21.800 --> 01:39:24.520 been covering our work on the amendment. 01:39:24.520 --> 01:39:30.900 So if you recall, the DCRC had requested that we do some public engagement before they made 01:39:30.900 --> 01:39:34.000 any additional decisions related to proposed code amendments. 01:39:34.000 --> 01:39:37.120 And so we've held two town hall events. 01:39:37.120 --> 01:39:39.920 One was an in-person town hall event last Thursday evening. 01:39:39.920 --> 01:39:43.500 I would say we had roughly 25 people in attendance, plus or minus. 01:39:43.500 --> 01:39:47.640 And then we had a virtual town hall this past Monday evening where we had about 20 people 01:39:47.640 --> 01:39:48.760 in attendance for that. 01:39:48.760 --> 01:39:53.640 So we have all of the information posted on and discussed. 01:39:53.640 --> 01:39:57.800 Right now we do have an online survey that is taking place as it relates to short-term 01:39:57.800 --> 01:39:58.800 rental regulations. 01:39:58.800 --> 01:40:04.680 So if that is of interest or if you know people where this is of interest to them, whether 01:40:04.680 --> 01:40:09.900 they're a resident or an operator here within the community, I would encourage you to direct 01:40:09.900 --> 01:40:11.440 them to that survey. 01:40:11.440 --> 01:40:14.120 So we are interested in receiving feedback. 01:40:14.120 --> 01:40:18.280 For folks that participated in the town hall meetings, we encourage them to take the survey 01:40:18.280 --> 01:40:22.120 because there are some items that we're seeking feedback on that were not necessarily brought 01:40:22.120 --> 01:40:24.700 up in part of the Q&A and in the presentation we did. 01:40:24.700 --> 01:40:29.000 So know that that is live, and my apologies, I should have written down the date for when 01:40:29.000 --> 01:40:30.000 that closes. 01:40:30.000 --> 01:40:31.320 But I think we have it open about three weeks. 01:40:31.320 --> 01:40:32.320 I'm sorry. 01:40:32.320 --> 01:40:33.400 Oh, September 8th. 01:40:33.400 --> 01:40:38.200 So yes, so September 8th we'll have that close and then we'll accumulate all that data and 01:40:38.200 --> 01:40:43.780 then bring that back to the DCRC to make some finishing touches on the proposed code amendments 01:40:43.780 --> 01:40:45.420 if need be. 01:40:45.420 --> 01:40:47.800 One we know we needed to adjust was parking. 01:40:47.800 --> 01:40:50.440 It was not easily understood as what the intent on the parking was. 01:40:50.440 --> 01:40:54.080 So that's something that we'll need to bring back to DCRC, but otherwise know that that 01:40:54.080 --> 01:40:58.600 is out there and we continue to work on that project and we'll be bringing that back. 01:40:58.600 --> 01:41:06.480 So I believe that concludes, yes, that concludes my comments for this evening, so thank you. 01:41:06.480 --> 01:41:10.840 Thank you for bringing this up to date. 01:41:10.840 --> 01:41:11.840 Anything to add to the matrix? 01:41:11.840 --> 01:41:19.040 I just got questions, the southeast area planning meeting on the 25th, what's the time and place 01:41:19.040 --> 01:41:20.760 that that's going to occur? 01:41:20.760 --> 01:41:21.760 Six p.m. 01:41:21.760 --> 01:41:23.960 And is that at our building? 01:41:23.960 --> 01:41:24.960 Our building, right? 01:41:24.960 --> 01:41:27.880 So the Development Services Center, so our meeting rooms that are up there in the front, 01:41:27.880 --> 01:41:28.880 that's where we'll have that. 01:41:28.880 --> 01:41:29.880 All right. 01:41:29.880 --> 01:41:30.880 Thank you. 01:41:30.880 --> 01:41:31.880 Are those closed meetings? 01:41:31.880 --> 01:41:35.600 I know if the community want to just come and listen, are they allowed or is that a 01:41:35.600 --> 01:41:36.600 closed meeting? 01:41:36.600 --> 01:41:39.760 No, they're open to the public, so we follow the Texas Open Meetings Act for the Steering 01:41:39.760 --> 01:41:40.760 Committee meetings. 01:41:40.760 --> 01:41:44.640 So if anybody's interested in coming and listen, they're more than welcome to, so discussion 01:41:44.640 --> 01:41:48.480 will be limited to the Steering Committee and the project team, but anyone is welcome 01:41:48.480 --> 01:41:49.480 to come and listen. 01:41:49.480 --> 01:41:50.480 All right. 01:41:50.480 --> 01:41:51.480 Thank you. 01:41:51.480 --> 01:41:52.480 You're welcome. 01:41:52.480 --> 01:41:53.480 Commissioner Pruitt? 01:41:53.480 --> 01:41:54.480 Yeah, just another quick question. 01:41:54.480 --> 01:42:00.160 On the Northeast Denton area plan, is the intention to have that implementation workshop 01:42:00.160 --> 01:42:09.840 before the next, the October dual council plus PNZ meeting or is that after or? 01:42:09.840 --> 01:42:14.400 I don't have the calendar committed in my memory, so I'd have to follow up with you. 01:42:14.400 --> 01:42:18.640 Yeah, so I'll have to follow up with you on that one. 01:42:18.640 --> 01:42:19.640 Okay. 01:42:19.640 --> 01:42:20.640 That's fine. 01:42:20.640 --> 01:42:23.840 Anything else for the matrix? 01:42:23.840 --> 01:42:29.920 Tina, I'm glad you had brought up that you're moving forward with some kind of changes somewhere 01:42:29.920 --> 01:42:34.800 with what happened at City Council last week with the reconsideration. 01:42:34.800 --> 01:42:38.480 So I mean, probably the easiest thing is to make sure that that scheduling just doesn't 01:42:38.480 --> 01:42:40.920 happen ever where they're back to back. 01:42:40.920 --> 01:42:47.280 I mean, reconsideration is certainly an option that this body has and I mean, it did seem 01:42:47.280 --> 01:42:52.080 like people weren't quite sure what to do with that, with just the way it was scheduled. 01:42:52.080 --> 01:42:55.480 It was kind of an unfortunate and unique circumstance. 01:42:55.480 --> 01:42:59.680 So yeah, I'm glad it's being discussed and it can be rectified if possible. 01:42:59.680 --> 01:43:06.160 Yeah, and in hindsight, having some better codified procedures as it relates to reconsideration 01:43:06.160 --> 01:43:11.000 would be helpful because right now the DDC does not address that, so it defers to council's 01:43:11.000 --> 01:43:12.000 procedures. 01:43:12.000 --> 01:43:16.640 You know, normally a zoning case would follow our standard process, which is about three 01:43:16.640 --> 01:43:20.240 weeks between the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the council, so it accommodates 01:43:20.240 --> 01:43:24.320 for the timelines on the reconsideration, but there are times when we do need to move 01:43:24.320 --> 01:43:29.440 a zoning case from PNZ to council at a quicker pace and so I think it would be important 01:43:29.440 --> 01:43:34.480 that our procedures be updated to acknowledge that and what does transpire and take place 01:43:34.480 --> 01:43:35.480 in that event. 01:43:35.480 --> 01:43:39.320 So in that particular case, that was one of those that went to the Planning and Zoning 01:43:39.320 --> 01:43:42.080 Commission one week and was on the city council agenda for the next week. 01:43:42.080 --> 01:43:47.000 So we recognize the challenge there, but understood. 01:43:47.000 --> 01:43:48.280 Thank you. 01:43:48.280 --> 01:43:51.320 Okay, any concluding items? 01:43:51.320 --> 01:43:53.760 Commissioner Smith? 01:43:53.760 --> 01:43:58.720 Dog days is on September 9th, 2023. 01:43:58.720 --> 01:44:02.320 Thank you. 01:44:02.320 --> 01:44:04.080 Any other concluding items? 01:44:04.080 --> 01:44:08.680 Okay, seeing none, I will adjourn this at 7.09 p.m. 01:44:08.680 --> 01:44:09.280 Thank you very much.