WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.260 Good evening ladies and gentlemen welcome to the planning and zoning 00:00:07.260 --> 00:00:11.460 commission work session. I'll call the work session to order seeing that we 00:00:11.460 --> 00:00:17.960 have a quorum at 5 0 5 and we'll begin this evening on the agenda on item 2 00:00:17.960 --> 00:00:22.500 which is the consent agenda. We have three items and consent. Anyone have any 00:00:22.500 --> 00:00:26.940 questions about the final plots? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. 00:00:26.940 --> 00:00:38.040 Julie I it's on C and it's really just for my own understanding. Please. So it's 00:00:38.040 --> 00:00:44.600 the Carmel villas. Yeah so my only question on it actually was because it 00:00:44.600 --> 00:00:49.760 was a final plat before but it was never recorded so is it like it never happened 00:00:49.760 --> 00:00:54.760 and so we just redo a final. We're just redoing a final. Okay yeah and and it was 00:00:54.760 --> 00:00:59.440 for that that that change in that right-of-way width so okay okay very good 00:00:59.440 --> 00:01:07.240 thank you. Any other questions for the consent? Seeing none that moves other next 00:01:07.240 --> 00:01:13.920 item of business to the public hearings. Item 3A and 3B have been withdrawn so 00:01:13.920 --> 00:01:19.960 we will not be hearing those this evening. We'll skip right to 3C and 3D 00:01:19.960 --> 00:01:22.600 and tonight although there'll be two separate votes we'll hear it in one 00:01:22.600 --> 00:01:26.680 presentation so we'll have one presentation for C and D and then we 00:01:26.680 --> 00:01:33.640 will in the public take two separate votes on that. Good evening Mr. Chair 00:01:33.640 --> 00:01:36.920 members of the Commission. I'm Cynthia Kirkhoff. I'm with the city attorney's 00:01:36.920 --> 00:01:43.520 office. I'm filling in for Ron Manguita on the the two public hearing items and 00:01:43.520 --> 00:01:58.920 pardon my delay. So the staff has recommended okay drafting to what 00:01:58.920 --> 00:02:05.320 they're called stopgap ordinances to essentially suspend the current 00:02:05.320 --> 00:02:11.840 development standards that conflict with two of the House bills House bill 00:02:11.840 --> 00:02:18.560 2167 which deals with the 30-day time limit to approve plats and plans and 00:02:18.560 --> 00:02:29.040 then the other House bill 2439 dealing with the building material prohibition 00:02:29.040 --> 00:02:34.040 just to kind of re-happen I know the the Planning and Zoning Commission has heard 00:02:34.040 --> 00:02:41.640 about these two bills but 24 and 39 deals with the prohibition on the city 00:02:41.640 --> 00:02:47.840 drafting any ordinance that would prescribe or limit require certain 00:02:47.840 --> 00:02:54.760 building materials. House bill 3167 deals with the 30-day what's called the shot 00:02:54.760 --> 00:03:00.980 clock for plats and plan approvals. These were both signed by the governor on June 00:03:00.980 --> 00:03:11.040 14th they take effect September 1. Staff does or has been reviewing the the 00:03:11.040 --> 00:03:20.240 current code as well as the 2019 DDC to see what changes need to be made. These 00:03:20.240 --> 00:03:26.440 stopgap ordinances essentially are ordinances that the Planning and 00:03:26.440 --> 00:03:31.880 Zoning Commission would consider making a recommendation onto the City Council 00:03:31.880 --> 00:03:38.440 giving staff direction to follow the law with regard to the 30-day shot clock and 00:03:38.440 --> 00:03:46.000 also the prohibition on the on the building materials. There's a public 00:03:46.000 --> 00:03:51.680 hearing tonight with the P the Planning and Zoning Commission and next Tuesday 00:03:51.680 --> 00:03:56.000 night there'll be a City Council public hearing. With that I'm happy to answer 00:03:56.000 --> 00:04:00.880 any questions. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair because Cynthia is reading 00:04:00.880 --> 00:04:10.120 through the ordinances so the 2439 draft ordinance it kept referencing bill 2497 00:04:10.120 --> 00:04:16.400 can you enlighten me on that what that is enlighten us on that? The the bill 2497 00:04:16.400 --> 00:04:22.760 deals with changes regarding appeals heard by the the board of his 00:04:22.760 --> 00:04:31.120 adjustments. What that requires is the board to hear different types of 00:04:31.120 --> 00:04:38.960 appeals and also that they any rules or regulations that they adopt would have 00:04:38.960 --> 00:04:45.960 to be approved by the City Council. Okay so then is this ordinance is that this 00:04:45.960 --> 00:04:50.600 ordinance would it's an it's an interim ordinance to say yes this is the 00:04:50.600 --> 00:04:58.400 procedure that we will take the the board of the ZBA will adhere to this 00:04:58.400 --> 00:05:03.760 this new bill. So is 2497 new as well? Correct. Okay so we had just never 00:05:03.760 --> 00:05:08.000 discussed it that's where as I was reading through it I we never discussed 00:05:08.000 --> 00:05:11.440 that particular House bill number so that's part of this as well. Yeah that's 00:05:11.440 --> 00:05:18.240 why it's incorporated into 2439. If you if you look on page five of the draft 00:05:18.240 --> 00:05:25.680 ordinance section seven it talks about amendments to the procedures for zoning 00:05:25.680 --> 00:05:31.160 board of adjustment and so that's where these changes are incorporated. Okay I 00:05:31.160 --> 00:05:34.240 think my confusion was I didn't realize it's actually three bills then we're 00:05:34.240 --> 00:05:42.040 dealing with correct? Correct. Okay. Commissioner Pernetta. So the step stop 00:05:42.040 --> 00:05:49.120 gap is simply based on enforcement right so in the event if these bills were to 00:05:49.120 --> 00:05:55.320 be overturned or withdrawn our code would not change we would simply withdraw 00:05:55.320 --> 00:06:01.040 that we would simply begin reinforcing them is and I guess my question is this 00:06:01.040 --> 00:06:04.080 simply pertains to whether or not we enforce something are we going to be 00:06:04.080 --> 00:06:08.080 changing the code or are we going to be leaving the code as is but simply not 00:06:08.080 --> 00:06:13.280 enforcing it? These two stopgap ordinances basically are suspending 00:06:13.280 --> 00:06:17.080 those provisions of the development code they're inconsistent with those bills 00:06:17.080 --> 00:06:23.240 so there are no changes to the code in these two stopgap ordinances and Mr. 00:06:23.240 --> 00:06:28.120 Drake if you have any additional comments to make. Yeah as far as you know 00:06:28.120 --> 00:06:32.440 plans for amendment I think that that's something that that staff is probably 00:06:32.440 --> 00:06:39.600 looking at but there's nothing in here that provides for that. And in the meat 00:06:39.600 --> 00:06:43.240 so in the meantime we would simply not enforce them if these were to be 00:06:43.240 --> 00:06:48.800 overturned or with or in some way you know legally reversed we wouldn't make 00:06:48.800 --> 00:06:54.560 any changes to the code we would simply simply revert revoke this stopgap. Yeah 00:06:54.560 --> 00:07:00.600 we would repeal these two ordinances. Okay. Or one or the other or both or 00:07:00.600 --> 00:07:07.240 whichever as the case may be. Thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair so I 00:07:07.240 --> 00:07:14.480 noticed on the ordinance for 3167 had a provision in there that said City 00:07:14.480 --> 00:07:21.360 Council is urged to tell their legislature to effectively repeal this 00:07:21.360 --> 00:07:28.980 bill which I thought was great do we not want that in the other one? It could 00:07:28.980 --> 00:07:37.120 certainly go in there if you wanted to. It was a matter of some urgency with 00:07:37.120 --> 00:07:44.820 respect to the shot clock that we felt some comfort in there. I think that with 00:07:44.820 --> 00:07:53.480 respect to the building materials you know I don't know that that's a would 00:07:53.480 --> 00:07:58.880 necessarily be a universally held belief that we should do that. So we didn't 00:07:58.880 --> 00:08:02.600 know that the entire council would necessarily endorse that just for the 00:08:02.600 --> 00:08:07.800 purposes of a shot clock just for the purposes of a stopgap ordinance but we 00:08:07.800 --> 00:08:13.880 felt comfortable that the council would want to reflect their desire for the 00:08:13.880 --> 00:08:18.920 legislature to read this at that. I would probably want it before council to see I 00:08:18.920 --> 00:08:24.760 mean I I can't believe that we would want local control taken completely away 00:08:24.760 --> 00:08:28.240 from building materials we wouldn't want them to revoke that as soon as possible that 00:08:28.240 --> 00:08:34.240 would be my opinion. If the Commission wanted to incorporate that recommendation 00:08:34.240 --> 00:08:38.360 in there we'll modify it before we take it to council. I will let my fellow 00:08:38.360 --> 00:08:43.840 commissioners think on that. And just just to clarify so what we're talking 00:08:43.840 --> 00:08:52.000 about is adding in a recommendation urging City Council to to promote that 00:08:52.000 --> 00:08:56.120 revocation right we wouldn't it wouldn't necessarily be that City Council would 00:08:56.120 --> 00:09:00.560 have to we would just urge a resolution is that correct? 00:09:00.560 --> 00:09:15.480 Well yes so one of the ordinances reads whereas a City Council City of Denton 00:09:15.480 --> 00:09:19.160 urges the Texas legislator to reconsider the provisions of the act at its 00:09:19.160 --> 00:09:26.600 earliest opportunity that's that's already in the ordinance for 3167 but 00:09:26.600 --> 00:09:39.600 it's not in the ordinance for 2439 and to me I think that line is is well 00:09:39.600 --> 00:09:44.440 stated and and to me would fit both because I don't I don't think any of us 00:09:44.440 --> 00:09:49.680 are thrilled with either of these bills. So Commissioner Ellis I appreciate the 00:09:49.680 --> 00:09:53.240 recommendation there's no any other questions for clarification for that we 00:09:53.240 --> 00:09:56.280 can have the discussion but also if we're talking about a potential 00:09:56.280 --> 00:09:59.600 amendment or recommendation I want to have that full conversation out in the 00:09:59.600 --> 00:10:09.720 public but if there's no other questions is there I have two one is an assumption 00:10:09.720 --> 00:10:15.280 I'm making but I'd rather have clarification the like and the ordinance 00:10:15.280 --> 00:10:21.520 for 2439 the city's calling out building exemptions I'm gonna assume those are in 00:10:21.520 --> 00:10:24.800 line with what we're allowed to call out as building exemptions it looks like 00:10:24.800 --> 00:10:32.120 it's mostly for historical designated buildings but I'm curious on why are we 00:10:32.120 --> 00:10:38.000 calling that out specifically if is that not protected by the House bill to begin 00:10:38.000 --> 00:10:44.440 with so why are we being redundant to say it in our ordinance that we're 00:10:44.440 --> 00:10:48.600 putting a stopgap measure on those type of buildings correct correct that is 00:10:48.600 --> 00:10:53.660 just restating the exemptions that are actually in that House bill into the 00:10:53.660 --> 00:11:00.360 ordinance okay and then another assumption I'm assuming that these stop 00:11:00.360 --> 00:11:05.080 gap measures are temporary that at some point there's gonna be another 00:11:05.080 --> 00:11:09.800 discussion before us to remove stopgap measures and actually amend our code 00:11:09.800 --> 00:11:14.960 correct or is is the thought we could keep stopgap measures in for two years 00:11:14.960 --> 00:11:19.280 until legislation is held again is there any wisdom and to Commissioner Prentiss 00:11:19.280 --> 00:11:24.680 point instead of amending code could these stopgap measures potentially be in 00:11:24.680 --> 00:11:29.800 place for two years so that we don't have to amend code and then re-amend code 00:11:29.800 --> 00:11:37.480 if and when these bills are overturned correct correct they will they will be 00:11:37.480 --> 00:11:41.640 in place until they repeal so I guess the discussion later on is do we just 00:11:41.640 --> 00:11:46.040 keep the stopgap measures on the books for two years is there anything is there 00:11:46.040 --> 00:11:50.040 any preventing the city from keeping stopgap measures in for two years rather 00:11:50.040 --> 00:11:57.520 than updating or mending our code believe so okay you know it's it's just a 00:11:57.520 --> 00:12:02.800 matter of choice and and I think that our outside consultant was suggesting 00:12:02.800 --> 00:12:08.440 that that made I think she was actually recommending that we not amend our code 00:12:08.440 --> 00:12:17.240 to to make these changes just in case that very eventuality comes to pass in 00:12:17.240 --> 00:12:25.240 case the legislature revisits it we've seen with some regulations that that 00:12:25.240 --> 00:12:32.600 they may provide a grandfather provision that if you had a regulation in place 00:12:32.600 --> 00:12:38.880 prior to a certain date that you could keep it in place and and it may be that 00:12:38.880 --> 00:12:44.560 the that if the legislature revises maybe they'll grant some kind of an 00:12:44.560 --> 00:12:50.320 exception for procedures that we had in place prior to the effective date of 00:12:50.320 --> 00:12:58.040 this ordinance additional question so with that in mind if we're not going to 00:12:58.040 --> 00:13:02.880 be amending our code at all everyone who comes before you know planning and 00:13:02.880 --> 00:13:10.680 zoning is going to have I guess a plan that is not in compliance with code when 00:13:10.680 --> 00:13:15.780 we vote will the will we require the documentation attached to this to 00:13:15.780 --> 00:13:20.160 include these measures so that way do you know what I mean because in essence 00:13:20.160 --> 00:13:24.760 we will have a code that we're going to be aligning to that we know we won't be 00:13:24.760 --> 00:13:31.840 enforcing and we will be voting for you know properties and plans that are not 00:13:31.840 --> 00:13:35.200 compliant with the code under the understanding that we're simply not 00:13:35.200 --> 00:13:39.760 enforcing that code is there additional documentation that we'd want to see or 00:13:39.760 --> 00:13:43.840 have to have in you know in everything that's presented because of this or I 00:13:43.840 --> 00:13:47.800 would imagine this ordinance would be cited in the regulation according to DC 00:13:47.800 --> 00:13:53.380 19 - 6 okay we're not forcing that's what I would imagine okay yeah not all 00:13:53.380 --> 00:14:00.000 ordinances of the city are codified codification provides a nice reference 00:14:00.000 --> 00:14:05.240 for people to follow and and ideally that's what you would want to do but 00:14:05.240 --> 00:14:11.160 there may be reasons not to incorporate a particular provision into the code like 00:14:11.160 --> 00:14:18.680 if you're expecting it might be repealed and so I think that the chair is 00:14:18.680 --> 00:14:22.880 absolutely correct that there's absolutely nothing that would prevent us 00:14:22.880 --> 00:14:30.280 from incorporating references to these ordinances and staff reports and other 00:14:30.280 --> 00:14:35.240 kinds of approvals as well okay and I guess the other question I have is 00:14:35.240 --> 00:14:38.840 precedent because very often we have something come come before us you know 00:14:38.840 --> 00:14:43.200 nothing happens two years later it comes back and it references you know a 00:14:43.200 --> 00:14:49.320 previous approval if say something comes before us it is approved and it's 00:14:49.320 --> 00:14:53.880 technically not in compliant with code but we pass it based on you know this 00:14:53.880 --> 00:14:59.840 non-enforcement stopgap if it were to come back later on after a bill is 00:14:59.840 --> 00:15:06.960 approved how I guess which standards would be applicable would it be 00:15:06.960 --> 00:15:14.160 applicable under and non enforced code or would we be enforcing that code as 00:15:14.160 --> 00:15:19.760 it's no longer the statute is something that we have to follow okay irrespective 00:15:19.760 --> 00:15:24.380 of what our code says okay we have to follow the statute effective September 00:15:24.380 --> 00:15:28.940 1st so I don't think that that's anything that we're going to have to 00:15:28.940 --> 00:15:36.720 defend as a decision to not memorialize as a code provision but yet in 00:15:36.720 --> 00:15:46.320 force the statute upon ourselves and and so we had that come up with when the 00:15:46.320 --> 00:15:54.360 vested rights provision was first brought into law under chapter 245 it was 00:15:54.360 --> 00:15:59.840 probably a good year or two before we came forward with a code amendment to 00:15:59.840 --> 00:16:07.640 actually create a procedure in the code to model chapter 245 and in that interim 00:16:07.640 --> 00:16:15.560 period we simply obeyed state law okay thank you any other questions about 00:16:15.560 --> 00:16:22.320 these two ordinances mr. Cole thank you chair so we're saddled with this thing 00:16:22.320 --> 00:16:28.840 legislatively for two years now right well we don't know how long the 00:16:28.840 --> 00:16:33.960 legislature's gonna have to come back in session at some you know and fix this or 00:16:33.960 --> 00:16:41.760 is there a legal way to fix this through the court system is that being looked at 00:16:41.760 --> 00:16:48.640 or is there any you hearing anything like an adjunction yes yeah I don't know 00:16:48.640 --> 00:16:54.000 you you attended the TML meeting did did did you hear any discussion of that I 00:16:54.000 --> 00:17:00.280 did not attend it no there's no discussion of that sounds like we're 00:17:00.280 --> 00:17:09.120 saddled with it any other questions that concludes our work session for this 00:17:09.120 --> 00:17:14.000 evening I'll close the meeting at 521 we'll reconvene in council chambers at 00:17:14.000 --> 00:17:22.920 630 good evening ladies and gentlemen welcome to the planning zoning 00:17:22.920 --> 00:17:29.280 Commission session for August 14th 2019 seeing that we have a quorum call this 00:17:29.280 --> 00:17:36.720 meeting to order at 632 31 and that's one let the record show that 00:17:36.720 --> 00:17:40.920 Commissioner Beck is absent for this evening's meeting the first item of 00:17:40.920 --> 00:17:45.520 business is to stand and give a pledge allegiance to the US and Texas flag 00:17:52.920 --> 00:18:00.240 under God the indivisible with the liberty and justice for all I pledge 00:18:00.240 --> 00:18:09.920 allegiance to the Texas one state under God one indivisible the next item of 00:18:09.920 --> 00:18:14.040 businesses to consider the consent agenda 00:18:14.040 --> 00:18:19.520 Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I move approval we have a motion to approve 00:18:19.520 --> 00:18:23.440 Commissioner Smith second we have a first and a second any discussion on the 00:18:23.440 --> 00:18:30.080 items seeing none I'll call for a vote by way of hands all those in favor all 00:18:30.080 --> 00:18:39.840 those opposed abstain motion carries six zero next item of business is the 00:18:39.840 --> 00:18:45.640 public hearing as a point of agenda clarification items 3a and 3b have been 00:18:45.640 --> 00:18:51.200 withdrawn from this evening that'll move us directly into items 3c and 3d 00:18:51.200 --> 00:19:00.240 I'll open the public hearing for both 3c DCA 19 - 6 and 3d DCA 19 - 0 0 7 00:19:00.240 --> 00:19:04.080 invite Cynthia for presentation 00:19:13.640 --> 00:19:17.840 thank you mr. chair members of the Commission I'm Cynthia Kirkoff of the 00:19:17.840 --> 00:19:23.160 city attorney's office I'm filling in for Ron Mangida you have in front of you 00:19:23.160 --> 00:19:33.480 tonight two different stopgap ordinances that are on the agenda to deal with or 00:19:33.480 --> 00:19:40.080 address two house bills that were adopted this past session the first one 00:19:40.080 --> 00:19:48.680 is house bill 2439 the second one is house bill 3167 these were passed on 00:19:48.680 --> 00:19:56.920 June 14th and are in effect September 1 this these stopgap ordinances will give 00:19:56.920 --> 00:20:05.240 staff time to draft amendments to the code development code the first house 00:20:05.240 --> 00:20:13.760 bill is relating to the building materials what it will do is suspend 00:20:13.760 --> 00:20:19.800 enforcement of those provisions of the code that specify building materials and 00:20:19.800 --> 00:20:29.540 allow staff time to propose amendments to the current DDC as well as the DDC 00:20:29.540 --> 00:20:36.800 that's takes effect October 1 there's another bill in this first ordinance 00:20:36.800 --> 00:20:41.960 it's house bill 2439 and that really deals with the Board of Adjustments and 00:20:41.960 --> 00:20:47.360 their procedure when they can hear appeals from administrative decisions 00:20:47.360 --> 00:20:53.200 the the third bill and this would be the second ordinance item D this deals with 00:20:53.200 --> 00:20:59.960 30-day shot clock for plats and plans what this stopgap stopgap ordinance 00:20:59.960 --> 00:21:10.360 will do is allow the current code to stay in place and require staff to follow 00:21:10.360 --> 00:21:16.640 that new bill where any plats and plans have to be either approved approved with 00:21:16.640 --> 00:21:23.960 conditions or disapproved with reasons within 30 days after being filed with 00:21:23.960 --> 00:21:28.680 that I'll stand for any questions that you have you city presentation any 00:21:28.680 --> 00:21:37.560 questions I don't see thank you this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak 00:21:37.560 --> 00:21:45.000 may certainly do so seeing none I will close the public hearing for both item 00:21:45.000 --> 00:21:50.160 C and D and the chair will entertain a discussion or motion for item 3c 00:21:50.160 --> 00:21:56.400 mr. Smith motion to approve item 3c we have first for approval 00:21:56.400 --> 00:22:04.480 mr. Sanchez make us a second it okay we have first and second for approval any 00:22:04.480 --> 00:22:08.560 discussion on the item question Alice thank you chair with regard to this 00:22:08.560 --> 00:22:14.640 ordinance I was wondering if we could add to the motion a recommendation to 00:22:14.640 --> 00:22:19.040 add to the ordinance whereas the City Council of the City of Denton urges the 00:22:19.040 --> 00:22:23.520 Texas legislature to consider the provisions of the act at its earliest 00:22:23.520 --> 00:22:29.400 opportunity mr. Smith you accept the friendly amendment thank you and mr. 00:22:29.400 --> 00:22:36.200 Sanchez are you okay with seconding that yes any other discussion on the item 00:22:36.200 --> 00:22:42.840 seeing none I'll call for a vote by way of hands all in favor all opposed 00:22:42.840 --> 00:22:49.160 abstained motion carries 6-0 now the chair will entertain discussion or a 00:22:49.160 --> 00:22:57.920 motion for item 3d Christian Ellis Mr. Pernitta second we have a first and a 00:22:57.920 --> 00:23:04.400 second for approval any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote by show 00:23:04.400 --> 00:23:10.360 of hands all those in favor all those opposed abstained motion carries 6-0 00:23:10.360 --> 00:23:15.480 that concludes the agenda for this evening special call the P&Z meeting I 00:23:15.480 --> 00:23:21.400 will close the meeting at 637 thank you