Sep 25, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2024-09-25 5:30 PM

>> Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, September 25th. This is our work session and with a quorum present, I will call us to order at 5.31 p.m. First item on our work session agenda is citizen comment on consent agenda. Is there anyone wishing to speak on consent? Okay. All right, that will take us then to the clarification on tonight's agenda. That's our minutes for September 11th. Any questions, issues there? Okay. And then our consent agenda has two items. Questions on those? Make sure I don't have any notes. Okay. Okay. Items for individual consideration. Our first being FP240016. Erin, hi. >> Hello. >> Give us the summary on that one, please. >> Good evening, Erin Stanley, assistant planner. This is Redbird Ridge edition and this is a final plat for -- this one's not it. >> Nope. >> No. There we go. FP240016. This is a final plat on approximately 38.4 acres. This is generally south of Country Club Road. It's kind of hard to see, but it's right here, it's Country Club. And then east of -- east of Oak Ridge Lane and north of Fincher, it's kind of turned around here. But this is out in the ETJ division one and this is -- they still have a few more comments to work through. FP240016, they've requested a first extension and staff has no problem with that extension, which could be granted to October 23rd, 2024. >> Great. Questions for Erin? Yep. Commissioner? >> Sorry if I missed it. What number extension is this? >> First. >> First. Thank you. >> Anything else? Okay. Thank you. First is -- actually, 4B has been withdrawn. We did get an email on that. So we will not be taking any action there. Then it's 4C, FP240010. Julie is here to give a summary of that. >> Good evening, Julie Wyatt. This is the final plat for a multifamily development. It actually is a combination of horizontal multifamily and then typical more garden style apartment multifamily. Some of you might remember this from a couple of years ago. We had a comprehensive plan amendment, zoning case, and SUP for it. It is located on May Hill, just north of Russell Newman. They have a couple things they still need to work out on the civil plans. So they are requesting an extension. This is their second extension. I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> Thanks, Julie. Questions? Okay. >> Thank you. We've got a couple -- well, actually, we are going to hear one of the public hearings tonight. The 5A is being requested to be postponed until October 9th. They would like us to open the public hearing and leave it open and then take a vote on a postponement to October 9th. Questions there? Okay. Then our public hearing that we will hear tonight, hello, Bryce, is 5B DCA 240011. >> Good evening, commission. Bryce VanArsdale, assistant planner. This is DCA 240011 related to the addition of commercial animal services to the land use definitions in the DIN development code. On August 28th, we did conduct a work session item over this and went over the proposed definition updates as well as the removal of kennel from the DIN development code. With that, we did receive three comments from you all. One, we did redo the language -- or reword the language so it was more clear about what was primarily indoor and primarily outdoor. Secondly, we did add to the use specific standards the -- some standards that are from the Texas health and safety code that relate to the climate control, the health, and the cleanliness of those quarantine and impoundment areas. Additionally, we did add a provision to the use specific standards that allows for the use of outdoor areas for pet relief and specified that no portion of this use specific standard will -- is intended to prevent that from occurring. I do have a longer presentation that I'm happy to go through, but I will do that during the regular session, and I'll stand for any questions. >> Thank you, Bryce. Questions? Commissioner Pritz? >> I think we got a few public comments on this concerning one particular existing business. Has staff heard anything about other businesses that would be concerned about this change, or is that the only feedback that we've gotten from residents and businesses concerning an existing use that would be affected by this? >> Yeah, absolutely. So I do have -- I have this slide towards the end. We did mail 12 929 notices out, which go out to the affected property owners as well as the affected businesses. We did receive three in opposition. Two of those were related to the -- Club K9 is the one that we received the most feedback about. Just to specify, these businesses are, per the ordinance, going to be deemed conforming uses and allowed to continue as they are. We're not going to go in and change any of their business activity, anything like that. Again, I think we received one phone call regarding a different business, but Club K9 was the majority of the feedback that we received. >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> And you've talked with those businesses, like saying those words that you just said to us? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> There was, I believe, two letters I received that they didn't request feedback, so I didn't reach back out to them, but there were two that I did receive feedback from, a request for clarification on, and I reached out to those owners and we had that conversation as well. >> But they still are in opposition? >> They didn't revise the letter they sent. >> Okay. >> They sounded like it was fine. I do believe they'll be here to speak tonight. I interpreted it and explained it as best as I could, under the impression that they're all good, but knowing they'll be here tonight, I'm sure they'll speak on it. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Just to add to Bryce's comments, so one of the challenges that we have with what we refer to as the 929 notice is state law requires us to put language on the notice. It's in 14 or 16-point bold that says basically your business may become nonconforming, and so we try to provide some contextual information within the letter as well, so to Bryce's point, having those conversations with those property owners or those businesses is really good, so hopefully we can allay any concerns or fears. Our intent is not to make them nonconforming, and we've been very cognizant as we've worked on this proposed ordinance amendment taken into consideration where we currently allow the businesses, because keep in mind, under our current definition, we classify them as personal service. It's kind of the stretch we've made, especially like the groomers, it's pretty obvious. The folks that do the boarding, it's a little more challenging for us to -- and so we haven't been able to really fully apply that, so we're just trying to do some cleanup also from that perspective, but that notice that goes out, it can be very intimidating, even despite us providing some additional contextual information for their benefit. >> I believe the exact wording is you may lose the right to continue operating your business. It's a little bit miscommunicating. >> Right, yeah, because I mean, the way that they word this, please do not close this business, you know. >> We have no intent, no plans to do that. They're allowed to continue operating as they are, and that's -- that'll be that with the proposal. >> Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think -- thank you for that additional background and reminding us of those notices. I'm not heartbroken about this, but I did notice that at least in the case of Club Canine, they are -- you know, the majority of their property is in our zone, but it's a split-zoned property with some strip zoning that's R4. Technically that means they're taking access through an R4 lot that doesn't allow this even with an SUP, so my head starts spinning in the case where any modifications or anything else would be desired by that business, and then thinking, does this apply to others? So if there's something I'm missing of why that access through doesn't apply here, please let me know. If so, maybe there's something we can look at going forward after this to bring that into conformance. I don't know. That's my thought. >> So presumably they have a valid certificate of occupancy that allows them to operate today, and so they are able to continue operating. So even given the change we made to the DEC -- gosh, when was that, last year, maybe two years ago, when we clarified the requirement of when you take access it has to be through a zoning district that allows your property or that allows your use, they are still able to continue operating as a nonconforming use. If they ever decide to expand later on, make modifications, then we'll look to see what is it at that time that they're doing to their property, but we will continue to respect the fact that they are able to function as a nonconforming business. Our intention is not to close anyone down. To Bryce's point, nonconforming uses in our community, they're allowed to continue operating in perpetuity unless the business closes their doors or the property owner ceases the use for more than a year, then they lose that one particular use that's allowed under the code, but they still benefit from all the other uses that are allowed in the zoning district. >> And with this specific ordinance, we do ensure they're considered conforming rather than nonconforming, which basically, as my conversation with Hillary, is that if the business were, God forbid, to burn down more than 50%, they would still be able to rebuild that business as it exists today. If they do any additions or any modifications in that sense, then they would have to bring it up to standards with our 5.35 that would be proposed, but as it is, it would still be a conforming business, per that definition. >> Okay. Great. Anything else? Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> I think that was our last item on the agenda. Before I close work session, you can see that Commissioner Cole is not here. There was a new appointment for him. He did term out and he was a holdover. That new appointment, we will meet at our next meeting, but certainly, we thank Commissioner Cole for his six-plus years of service with us and all he brought to the room. So we appreciate that very much, and I'll mention that again in the public meeting. I'll go ahead and close our work session at 5.42 p.m. and we will reconvene at 6.30 in council chambers. >> Good evening and welcome to the city planning and zoning commission meeting for Wednesday, September 25th, 2024. With the quorum present, I'll call us to order at 6.30 p.m. First item on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Honor the Texas flag, which is to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. >> First item on our agenda for consideration is the approval of our minutes for September 11th. Commissioner Villarreal. >> Move approval. >> Thank you. Commissioner Padron. >> Second. >> Okay. We've got a first and a second. Any discussion? Okay. Let's vote, please. That motion carries 4-0. That will take us to our items for individual consideration, the first one being 4A, FP2-40016. Aaron is second. >> Second. >> We have a second. >> Okay. We have a second. >> Second. >> We have a second. >> Okay. We have a second. >> Second. >> Okay. Let's vote, please. That motion carries 4-0. That will take us to our items for individual consideration, the first one being 4A, FP2-40016. Aaron is here for presentation. Hi. >> Hello. Aaron Stanley, assistant planner. This is a final plat for Redbird Ridge addition, a 38.4-acre site generally south of Country Club Road, and this is for 17 residential lots and for HOA lots. At this time, they've not met our criteria for approval, but staff has no objection to the requested extension, which could be granted to October 23rd. >> Thank you. Any questions for Aaron? Thank you. Commissioner Villarreal. >> We have approval of the requested extension to a date certain of October 23rd, 2024. >> Thank you. Commissioner Pruitt. >> Second. >> Got a first and a second to grant their extension request to a date certain of October 23rd, 2024. Any discussion? Okay. Let's vote, please. That motion carries for zero. Our item that was listed on the agenda, item 4B, that item has been withdrawn by the applicant, so we will not be taking action there. So that will take us to 4C, FP2-40010. Julie is here for presentation. Hi, Julie. >> Good evening. Julie Wyatt. And I am presenting a final plat for a multifamily development located just west of Mayhill Road, north of Russell Newman. This multifamily use was approved by a specific use permit. They do have a couple of items they still need to work through in order to meet the minimum technical requirements of the plat. So staff is recommending denial. However, we have no objection to the second extension request from the applicant. I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Julie. Any questions for Julie? Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. I'll go ahead and motion to grant the extension request to a date certain of October 23, 2024. Commissioner Pedron? >> Second. >> Okay. We've got a first and a second to grant the extension to a date certain of October 23, 2024. Discussion? Okay. Please. The motion carries 4-0. That will take us to our public hearings for this evening. Item 5A, PD240004, staff is requesting this item be postponed until a date certain of October the 9th. So I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing and leave that public hearing open and then look for a motion to postpone. Commissioner Villareal? >> I move postponement to a date certain of October 9th, 2024. >> Thank you. Commissioner Pruitt? >> Second. >> Okay. We've got a first and a second to postpone this item to October 9th, 2024, leaving the public hearing open. Discussion? Okay. Let's go ahead and vote, please. The motion carries 4-0. That will take us to item 5B, DCA240011. Bryce is here for presentation. I will go ahead and open the public hearing. >> Good evening, Commissioner. Bryce Van Arsdale, Assistant Planner. This is DCA240011, related to the addition of commercial animal services. Currently, the DDC uses kennel and personal service grooming to capture most domestic animal-related businesses. However, as the market has developed, we often see businesses which include multiple uses under one roof. For instance, we'll see a doggie daycare, which in addition to the daycare use, will also provide training, grooming or overnight boarding. As we consider those sorts of businesses, I'll call your attention to the existing definitions where we see in kennel, we have both overnight boarding as well as training, and then in the personal service, general, we also include the pet grooming shops. So, you can see that when we have multiple of these uses under one roof, it can be a little bit murky for staff to interpret which regulations to apply. Staff's proposing two additions to the development code. There's commercial animal service indoor and commercial service outdoor. The differentiation is going to be made within the use-specific standards. Both of these definitions will apply to the grooming, training, boarding, adoption and daycare of domestic animals. I'm looking at the table of allowed uses. You'll notice that kennel is removed as most of these businesses, of the proposed businesses, will now fall under one of the commercial animal services. Additionally, you'll note that the both commercial animal service indoor and outdoor follow a very similar pattern to the veterinary clinic-allowed zoning districts. The major difference being that the commercial animal service outdoor is not allowed in the MN or MD zoning districts. With these specific standards, they are rather wordy, but there are some key takeaways that I'd like for you to get from this slide. First, with residential adjacency, we do establish distance minimums as well as time requirements on the outdoor elements that are allowed and adjacent to a residential zoning district. Additionally, you'll note under the commercial animal service indoor definition is where we make the differentiation between the indoor and outdoor definitions. More than 50% of a proposed business may be outdoor if the business will be proposed as an indoor land use. Additionally, no provision is intended to prevent the use of an outdoor area for animal relief or the provision of that area. With the definitions to commercial stable as well as personal service general, you'll note that both of these are fairly minor in nature, just some clarifying language. As previously discussed, we do remove the kennel definition. With these specific standards, we do make two minor additions to the veterinary clinic. These are both related to livestock veterinary care on site, which we do know is rare and typically these animals are treated on their home property. However, we do feel that these are important for the businesses to be protected in those areas. With the minimum required off-street parking, you'll note that the commercial animal services are both lumped into one category and these are consistent with the veterinary clinic, one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. We did send out 12 929 notices per state requirements. We received three in opposition and one in favor. On the right side, you'll see the businesses that received this notice. These businesses are, per the ordinance, going to be considered as conforming businesses and will be allowed to continue their use as they are today and there will be no effect from this proposal to their operation of their business as they stand today. This update does meet the criteria for approval set out in section 2.7d and staff does recommend approval of this proposal as it does meet those criteria for approval. I'll stand for any questions. Thank you, Bryce. Questions? Bryce, I guess I've got a quick question as you called out these businesses that would be allowed to continue running as they are today. That's not actually in this ordinance, though, correct? It's not written in the ordinance. Is that? The specific businesses? Yes, ma'am. It's going to be in the actual legal numbers. Yes, ma'am. Excellent. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you. Other questions for Bryce? Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. I do have a few cards in front of me. First one being Charles Lee. Good evening. If you'll state your name, your time will begin. Good evening. My name is Charles Lee. I just want to say that I'm against this proposal because as far as I know, there has been no complaints against these businesses at all, zero complaints. I don't understand why we're trying to create a whole new regulatory system on businesses that the community is not complaining there's any problem or issues that's going on. This is just look like you're just trying to do a sledgehammer to the regulatory system on the people for no good reason at all. If there was complaints and things of that nature, then I would see, I understand there might be need for regulations. It just completely flies in the face of self-governance because this country is based on the principle of self-governance. It wasn't just like self-government away from Britain, but it was also individual self-government that everybody governs themselves and as long as I'm not causing any problems with my neighbor, the government should just stay out of my business. I don't understand why you're just creating a whole system for no good reason at all. I just find it personally objectable and that's pretty much all I have to say. I move for this not to be approved at all, thank you. Thank you Mr. Lee for sharing your thoughts. Next card I have is Bobby Self. Hello there. If you'll give us your name, your time will begin, you'll have four minutes. Okay, my name is Bobby Self, 7800 East McKinney, Club K9. Now I'm trying to find it because I didn't find it over there, but I got it right here. If you'd like to put the eye on the sky on it, there it is right there. Thank you. I'm going to ask Cathy to check. Oh, okay. That's okay. I can just read it. I can just read it. It's cool. But it's from y'all's paper. They just did it. Okay, yes, I agree with others as well. But the verbiage, let's try to reduce the verbiage or get with whomever in the state level through our mayor, city manager, whomever and push up because when we receive information such as this, the City of Denton Planning Zoning Commission is holding a hearing that will determine whether you may lose the right to continue using your property for its current use. Now this is, I'm told it's from the state level. It's nothing that you could have done or nothing that possibly come from our departments here in the city, but that really put a burden on us mentally. Okay, well anyway, yeah, I like the comment. I really did. We do need a little bit of self-governing and if it's just a title change, that's great. But if it jumps into where you have to be licensed and such as that, that might get a little bit crazy down the road. But overall, I can deal with it because it's just like the hot dog guy. You don't sell a good hot dog, you're not going to get a repeat customer. So I think if we're in business this long, a little verbiage change here and there, that would be all right for me. But if it gets into licensing and such as that, I don't know about all that. But anyway, thank you. Thank you very much. Tina, I'm going to call on you because this did come up in work session and we're going to go ahead and yeah, just clarify here at this meeting if you could about the notices that we do have to give out. Yes. So the letter that we had to send you with the language and the bold font is actually a requirement of state law. We try to add additional information in the letter to hopefully address resident concerns or property owner concerns, but I don't disagree with you that that language is pretty tough when it says that you may lose the right to your business or the ability to utilize your property with the ordinance amendment that we're doing this evening. As Bryce mentioned at the beginning in his presentation, we realized that there are businesses that provide boarding services as well as many other services for domestic animals that we're having difficulty making a determination in our current zoning regulations about where to allow those businesses to occur because our zoning ordinance references if you're providing grooming services, so that's pretty clear, but being that the services that are available for animals today have expanded, I myself am a user of similar type services, we needed to clean up our ordinance to be able to help better address that. So we've also included language in our proposed ordinance where our existing businesses would be determined to be conforming so you would not fall into a non-conforming situation, and Bryce, keep me honest on this, but so we've tried to recognize that with our existing businesses that we've put some additional protections in place to allow you to continue operating and be conforming in accordance with the zoning. But that letter, my apologies, we're required to send that out and it is not friendly wording unfortunately, so like I said, my apologies, but we have to follow state law and hence why that letter has to be sent that way. Thank you, Tina, I did an explanation. Commissioner Prude, I did see your name, did you need to speak? I think I'll hold it until we've heard the rest of the public hearing. Okay, very good. So this is a public hearing, I don't have any other cards in front of me, but is there anyone else wishing to speak? Sure, come on forward. You can fill out a card afterward and if you'll give us your name, your time will begin. Hi. Hi, my name is Bruce Brown and I have a commercial property on Market Street property for one of my tenants, Collar Clubs Academy has been there three and a half years and trains dogs at that area and I've read the rules and regulations that you've come up with and it is air conditioned. One rule that they have is you cannot expand the property even though you have an existing business, if you grow, unless you own all the buildings next to you, you own it personally, you can't expand and I'm trying to accommodate my tenant as she has more growth coming along. Where can I put her, expand her business? You now have a rule in the stipulation where the training area, it has to be 150 feet away from any commercial property. Now, I have nine acres in that location, so I have an area where they do train and it's 150 feet away from any commercial property, but if you add up the size of that building, which is a 40 by, excuse me, it's a 60 by 75 and you add a 150 foot requirement on each side that would require over three acres of land. If I didn't have a facility where she could train, I'd have to have over three acres of land on that size building with that requirement, so I don't know how anybody else is going to get in the kennel business in the city limits if they're going to have to have three acres of land for that, but my request is with my tenant, can I expand the property because whether she has 4,000 square feet or 8,000 square feet would make no difference since she's got the training area with 150 foot away from any commercial property. Am I making sense? Possibly, and I'll get staff in on this to see if they can add for us and if they understand what you're asking and what you're asking for clarification on. Yeah, Bryce, that'd be great. Thank you. Thank you. Absolutely. So, I believe the 150 foot requirement, which is being mentioned, is in the use of specific standards. It is when it's adjacent to or within 1,000 feet of a residential zoning district. I'm not familiar with the exact parcel that we're talking about in this instance. It's something that we put in that is common for other municipalities and things of that sort to regulate both sound, stench, noise, and just general clean air, as well as the litter that can come with some of these areas. Right. This is adjacent to residential zoning district. It's adjacent to a residential zoning district. Right. Okay. And your question had to do with other commercial properties? If you could come up to the microphone, yeah, we're recording, so we need. The requirement, and correct me if I'm wrong, you have to have a training area or a exercise area that has to be 150 feet away from any commercial property. No, sir. So, if you're within, if you're adjacent to- Bryce, I need you at the mic. Thanks. If you're adjacent to a residential zoning district, that's when that requirement would kick in. It does not relate to commercial areas or commercial properties. It's only when adjacent to a residential zoning district. There's no 150-foot minimum? Not if we're referring to a commercial zoning district, no, sir. Okay. All right. Now, it does state- Oh, I need the microphone. It does state they cannot expand their business? No, sir. I'm not sure which portion you're referring to, but as it exists today, assuming that it exists, well, first of all, the business will be a conforming use, so the business is allowed to operate as it is. When it comes to expansion, they will be required to meet these additional use-specific standards that we're setting forth, but if you're adjacent, there's only, again, one adjacent to a residential zoning district. It doesn't have to do, you can see on the screen here, this is when located inside over within 1,000 feet of a residential zoning district. There's no specific standard for one adjacent to a commercial zoning district. Okay, thank you. I guess with one thing he mentioned, I'm not sure if the business that we're discussing is on the list. It is on the list? Yes. Okay. In regard to expansion, it is a conforming use, so would the business be allowed to expand? It would need to adhere to the new use-specific standards that are being set forth. The difference in non-conforming and conforming in this situation are that if a business were in our non-conforming use standards, I believe it's chapter 1.6, we do require that if a business that's non-conforming burns down or is destroyed more than 50%, they're not able to rebuild that without being brought up to current standards. However, these being deemed conforming uses, if that building, or God forbid something were to happen in that instance, the business would be able to reconstruct as it was originally constructed. Or in this situation, just want to expand because business is booming and they want to expand. They would be allowed to expand, but would have to then adhere to whatever, yeah, those use-specific standards that are in this ordinance. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you for the explanation. This is a public hearing. I don't have any more cards, but if there's anyone wishing to speak, yes, please come down and if you will state your name, your four minutes will begin. Hello. Hi. Yes, ma'am. My name's Kendra Angel. I own Shed Pet Salon at the corner of Elm, and we've been in business for three years. Everything's been going real well. I do have dogs that are older, and I worry about them when they stay other places like in a typical kennel situation, so I've talked to zoning and everything. We're moving to 820 this week, and then I got this notice, so it scared me, but I talked to them about doing boarding, in-home boarding to expand to maybe 10 dogs max, but we're still continuing the grooming downstairs. Is this going to affect my business? Okay. I'm going to bring Bryce up, our expert here, to answer that question hopefully. Yes, ma'am. Since the new definitions will refer to grooming, you will fall under either commercial animal services indoor, it sounds like that's what you'll be, or potentially commercial animal services outdoor. So you'll fall under one of those two definition categories. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Bryce. Yeah. Okay. Before we hear any more speakers, Tina did a little research on our speaker before this, so we'll just shed a little bit more light there. So the property that is at, I think I caught the address, 3822 Market Street, is that correct? So in looking at that, you're surrounded by commercial zoning. So you do not have any residential adjacent zoned properties. So again, as Bryce explained earlier, that minimum 150 foot separation requirement comes into play when your property is adjacent to or within 150 feet of a residential zone property. So in your case, you're surrounded by commercial zoning. Thank you very much, Tina. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item who has not already? Okay. I was having another question, but we don't really know how to answer that. You know what? I'm going to let you, you come up and ask the question. How's that? And then we'll see if we can get you an answer. Right. Or within the newest residential areas going into, they have disturbed the ground. They are going to build half a million dollar homes and by the 500s of them. Do we meet that thousand foot? 150 or a thousand? So it's a thousand feet to win, is when that requirement does kick in. As you exist today, we are not going to ask that you change anything. Whether you're within that or not, you are, as you exist today, deemed a conforming use. We're all good. We're going to come in and make you change anything. All good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wishing to speak on this public hearing? Okay. Seeing none. I will go ahead and close the public hearing. I will go ahead and open the dais for a motion or discussion. Commissioner Perrett. Thank you, chair. Brief question for staff, just to make sure everybody leaves today with a good understanding so that when we show up at council, there's no confusion. The example that we had one commenter talk about, I think it was more toward the center of town, might have some boarding. The answer you gave was assuming that that boarding would be inside boarding, that there wouldn't be an outdoor play area for the pets. Is that your understanding as well? Am I correct in interpreting that? Sure, just based on the very brief conversation we just had, I would assume that would hit the indoor definition. Again, we do have some zoning districts that allow the outdoor primary use if that is what is proposed. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I'm thankful for staff bringing this and I'm happy to keep going on it. I will say that my guess is less than the majority of these types of businesses right now are actually conforming, and so we have a lot of reasons why expansion would be made more complicated, whether it be parking minimums or setbacks or et cetera. I think these are reasonable restrictions though, and so let's see how it goes. It makes me a little scared that there's SUPs required in seemingly a lot of cases for situations where we want our pets and our animals, especially in light of recent situations, to be able to have access to exercise and that sort of thing. We'll see where this goes, but I don't see this as a large departure from how the old regulations would have been attempted to been applied. I see it more as a clarification. With that said, I continue to see with our code that people are generally restricted from expansion by nature of the last time they did construction was 20 years ago and we had a different zoning code then with different requirements. So that, yeah, thank you. Sure. Anything else, discussion or a motion? I'll go ahead and move approval on this item. Commission approve it? Okay. Got a first and a second for approval discussion. I'll go ahead and take a moment. First of all, thanks staff. Bryce, I think your information was extremely thorough, your attention to detail, the knowledge that you have gained in putting this together has been tremendous and certainly helps us understand exactly what's going on here. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, everyone. I wish that, and it's not just me, I'm sure staff wishes that those scary notices that we are required to go out, it didn't have to go out, truly staff has no, there's no option to do that, we'd be sued by the state if it was found out that we were not adhering to that, nobody wants that, we've got to do it. So unfortunately, yes, that mental anguish that unfortunately that you had to endure and sorry about that, we hope that with the communication that you were able to have with staff who's always available, always, to talk to the public, anybody on staff in this department, probably throughout our city, but this is the department that I'm most familiar with, will be willing to talk you through any questions that you have when things like this come up. Secondly, I understand the confusion, I understand the thoughts of yes, we should govern ourselves in a world that we could do that. The other thing that this does, it's not really just governance, it's what our vice chair already mentioned with clarifying things, you know, the world of animals has done nothing but grown. How people take care of their animals and what they want for their animals with dog, with daycare and grooming and everything and you know, it's just done nothing but grow, which is wonderful, but that means there's more businesses that want to do this and we have things in our code that doesn't allow staff to right now know how to guide these people. We don't have it defined, we've got it in descriptions where it doesn't belong like personal grooming services, you know, it's something that does need to be clarified so that not only our existing businesses, which staff has done an exceptional job calling out and making conforming, but it does allow these new businesses to come in and know exactly, you know, what they need to be doing for the animal business that they're in. So thank you again for coming out. Commissioner Pruitt, I saw you, yep, go ahead. Yeah, just wanted to point out and staff has more accurate dates, feel free to correct me, but I don't think we have city manager's representation. I know council in general gives direction for the state legislative priorities at some time before the state legislative session starts. My advice would be to look on the council agendas for that happening at work session times, sometime at the end of the year or the beginning of next year. Thank you for that. Speaking of, I understand, but thank you for coming tonight. And also, can we get the date that this is going to council? We have not scheduled this yet for city council's consideration. Okay. All right. So it will be on their agenda, should, depending on what happens here, I suppose. And I was going to add, if any of the business representations or representatives that are here this evening want to give your email address or phone number, your contact information to Bryce, we can follow up with you and let you know when once that is scheduled. Yes, that's a great idea. Thank you very much. Do you know? Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval. Any other discussion? Okay. Let's go ahead and vote, please. That motion carries for zero moving that on to council. Thank you, Bryce, for being available here. Appreciate that. Next on our agenda is the planning and zoning matrix. I'll go ahead and turn that over to Tina. Thank you, Chair Ellis. So regarding the matrix itself, I just wanted to let the commission know one of the things that we are actually going to add to the matrix and it's sort of a follow up from a request that Chair Ellis had made regarding some data related to multifamily. So we're going to add a discussion item for work session consideration to the matrix. We are looking at having that at your second meeting in October and being able to present that data. So you'll see that being added in terms of city council's actions on cases that you've seen from since your last meeting back on September 17th. We had a very generous agenda with items on there. So happy to report the adoption of the downtown, or the design downtown Denton plan. Make sure I call it by the correct name. Council unanimously approved the plan. I know the planning and zoning commission spent a lot of time and effort with that. And Zoe, thank you for all of your involvement as well as the community's involvement in the preparation of that plan because we did some extensive public engagement on that. But that was approved. So now we look forward to working on implementing the recommendations from the plan. Other items that we had that evening. If you recall, there were two historic or excuse me, a historic landmark designation items that one was at 1526 Willowwood. The other one was at 1900 Westridge Street. Those were both approved also unanimously by city council. Then we also had a specific use permit for multifamily use on 2.4 acres of land that was on the south side of North Elm, approximately 560 feet east of Riney Road. If you recall, this track was kind of triangular shape backs up to a city regional detention pond. So that was also approved by city council. And then also we had the amending specific use permit for the multifamily project that was at the southeast corner of Locust and loop 288. And if I'm not mistaken correctly, north of Hercules drive. That was also approved by city council. And then short term rentals that continues to live on but a couple of updates as it relates to that. So last night, we were hoping to have council's consideration of that. There's a public notice requirement that we did not satisfy that we're required to do per state law. So we wanted to get that corrected. So we asked council to go ahead and continue the short term rentals discussion to the October 22nd meeting. So we will have our formal public hearing of that proposed ordinance at that time. Before then, though, on October 15th, we will have a work session discussion with city council soon it's been quite some time since the ordinance was originally acted on on July 23rd that resulted in the tie vote. So for those of you that are interested in short term rentals, whether you're here in the audience or maybe watching at home, I would encourage you to listen to the council meeting on October 15th again during their work session. And then anybody that wants to provide comments related to the ordinance may do so on October 22nd. So and then lastly, I would also like to thank former Commissioner Jason Cole, who's usually sitting at the very end of our dais here. So want to thank him for all of his years of service. I know he spent six years on the Planning and Zoning Commission and always provided very thoughtful consideration of requests being brought before him and was a wonderful person to be able to work with and get to know. So we thank you for your service if you're watching at home. And that concludes my report. Thank you so much. Commissioner really real. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Tina. Just a quick question on the downtown area plan. I was only able to catch a brief segment of the city council meeting on it. I know there was discussion at the meeting about the pool and the auditorium was that changed at all in the final plan or the plan passed? We had passed it. The plan passed as the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended. So there was no changes made to the plan document itself. There's always interest in the continued interest in the community with respect to the swimming pool. And so this plan included a couple of alternatives as the commission had seen, but as Parks Department continues working on refining the plan for Quaker Town Park, they will have an extensive public engagement process that they undertake at that time. So persons are able to work with the Parks Department, provide comments and feedback related to the pool, because I know many people within the community are emotionally attached to that pool facility, but all of the elements that are actually in that park plan, there will be another phase of the park planning for the Quaker Town Park property. And so all of those items will be re-discussed, not just the swimming pool itself, but the entire park plan layout at such point in time when the city is ready to do those improvements. Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you. Is there anything to add to the matrix? Concluding items, I'll go ahead and state what Tina has already, and that is to thank Commissioner Cole for his time with us. He did serve his three terms and a little bit over that as a holdover, and we very much appreciate the time and dedication that he gave to the role. It was certainly a pleasure to serve with him. So thank you, Commissioner Cole. Very much appreciate you. Commissioner Villarreal. Just wanted to say ditto. We didn't always agree, but Commissioner Cole was always a positive presence on the board, and I know he'll be missed by everyone on the commission. Great energy. Yeah. Thank you very much. Anything else? Concluding items? Okay. With that, go ahead and adjourn our meeting at 7.08 p.m. Thank you very much.