Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and
Zoning Commission Work Session for September 18th, 2019.
Seeing that we have a quorum, I will open this meeting at 5.08 PM.
The first item on our agenda is to receive a presentation and
hold discussion regarding the 2019 Denton Development Code project types and
development process, and I believe Julie Wyatt will be presenting this evening.
>> Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton.
And tonight, I am presenting the Planning Boot Camp Series.
I know we've talked about these before.
Some of this is gonna be review for some of you.
But because we do have a new Denton Development Code that was adopted earlier
this year, we felt like it was an important time to come talk to you about
what those project types are, what those processes are, and
just kind of revisit some of that information.
So this is gonna be a series.
Tonight's the first, and we'll continue on with some trending topics.
So tonight, we're gonna have an overview about who we are, and what we do, and
why we do it.
We're also gonna talk about sub-chapter two, the Administration and
Procedure sub-chapter in the 2019 Denton Development Code.
We'll go a little deeper in that sub-chapter.
And as part of that, we're gonna talk about project types, approving body, and
some other information.
And then we're gonna have a brief discussion about the shot clock.
That might be something that y'all are familiar with, and
we're just gonna talk about how it's gonna affect you and some of our processes.
So the overview, first of all, I wanted to talk about why we do what we do,
why you spend two nights a month here making decisions and
listening to cases and what all of this means.
So I looked at the Denton Development Code, and really,
page one kind of outlines it pretty well.
And that our purpose is to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the residents,
to implement the comprehensive plan, to preserve and protect the natural
environment, to improve the city's appearance, improve mobility,
facilitate adequate public infrastructure, encouraging appropriate use of the land,
and also establish procedures.
So how do we do that?
We have some tools in our toolbox in order to achieve those purposes.
The first one is zoning, and zoning, as you're familiar with,
is really the use of the land, what you can do on your property.
And then the scale of which you can build or develop that property, and
the intensity of the activities on that site, maybe the density or
what kind of, how those facilities would be used.
We also have platting in the toolbox.
That establishes lot boundaries.
It provides for right of way dedication, easement dedication,
also for the extension of public facilities.
We have development standards.
Those introduce things like environmental regulations, parking regulations,
tree preservation, landscaping, site design.
Things, elements having to do with lighting and drainage.
We have criteria manuals.
That's something we don't often talk about at the Planning and Zoning Commission.
But in our, we do have criteria manuals, which are really kind of those technical
documents, particularly for engineering when you're talking about designing
drainage systems, water systems, and our roadways.
And then process.
Process probably isn't the most exciting thing we do or talk about, but it is vital.
Because it truly makes sure that we treat everyone fairly, and
that we are consistent and predictable in our timelines and then the outcomes.
It's a criteria for approval.
And we also want to make sure the requirements are met.
If we didn't have processes, how would we know that we got everything we needed on any
individual project?
And just some fun facts for the 2019 Denton Development Code.
That's the document that helps us, that really lays out those tools in that toolbox.
And it includes nine subchapters.
It has 480 pages, if you've read it all.
And there are 17 zoning districts in there.
So we're not going to go over all of the subchapters tonight.
We're just going to take one.
And we're not going to really dig into all of it.
We're not going to do a page turn of subchapter two.
What we're going to do is just hit some highlights.
And talk about how those projects that you'll see more often and those processes.
So it is the second longest subchapter in the Denton Development Code.
It's got a, it's pretty information dense.
It's got a lot in it.
Once again, probably not the most exciting chapter.
But it is really, really important.
And it is organized into seven sections.
And in my brain, I think of it in, I kind of split those up.
The first three, you've got the summary table of all of the projects and those review procedures.
It kind of is a snapshot of everything that's in that subchapter.
It kind of goes over those review and decision making bodies.
Those basic duties of those entities that are responsible for administering the Denton
Development Code.
It is not a full outline of all of the, the regulations or policies that affect the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Some of that is in the code of ordinances, but it does provide some direction.
Common review procedures.
This is just that general process and general criteria for approval.
That's something new to the 2019 Denton Development Code.
In the 2002 Denton Development Code, we just had criteria for approval for each project
type.
The general ones.
So we have the general and then specific for each project.
And then the second bucket that I look at of the seven sections would be the more specific
detailed information for each project type.
So it goes into development permits and procedure.
That brings in the zoning compliance, also known as the site plan, specific use permits
and temporary use permits.
It talks about subdivision procedures.
That is all things platting.
Plan and DDC amendments.
That brings in zoning, PDs and comprehensive plan amendments.
And then flexibility and relief procedures.
That's where you bring in the variances and the alternative ESAs and finally historic
preservation procedures.
So we're going to dive into some more specificity on select project types.
I won't talk about all of them tonight.
But the first one we're going to talk about is annexation.
That's not something that P&Z really sees very often.
But it is kind of foundational.
What it does is it extends the boundaries of our city.
So when a property is annexed, that then moves the boundary of our city.
A municipality in the state of Texas can annex area that is only in its extraterritorial
jurisdiction.
That's that ETJ.
Or if the municipality owns that property.
And just ETJ, just wanted to define that.
That is -- that's unincorporated area.
That's outside of our municipal boundaries, but contiguous to our corporate boundaries.
So that's where our ETJ is.
And you can find the regulations for annexation in section 2.7.5.
It doesn't have a whole lot of detail.
It really refers you to the Texas local government code.
That's where we really get all of our procedures and timelines for that.
It doesn't go to P&Z.
It goes to city council for approval or denial.
Comprehensive plan amendments.
It's not something we see very often.
It might be something that we start to see more frequently with the adoption of the new
Denton development code.
But broadly, a comprehensive plan establishes the vision for our growth.
It shows how all of the parts of the community come together.
And that can be land use and transportation, housing and parks, how they all interplay
and work together.
Ours includes a land use plan, a mobility plan, infrastructure plan, housing plan and
others.
The Denton plan 2030, which hopefully all of you have a copy.
If you don't, we can get you one.
It was adopted in 2015.
And typically, comprehensive plans have a 20-year time rise and sometimes 30 years.
But it really should be updated every five years.
That's kind of the industry, the planning standard is to update them every five years.
And I believe we're going to be starting that pretty soon in the city.
You know, conditions change within a five-year span.
So it's really important that you continuously look at where you are and where you want to
go.
As I said, we don't often see comp plan amendments.
But you can amend the comp plan for maybe specific parcels or specific areas and not undertake
the entire update.
And our -- the 2019 code provides provisions for that, some processes as well as criteria
for approval.
And it really -- it looks at maybe changing conditions, trends in certain specific areas
where we may want to amend that land use plan, particularly that land use map.
It follows the zoning procedure.
So staff would recommend approval or denial.
There is a public hearing that's required with a public notification.
PNZ will provide a recommendation and then council would approve it.
So here's a couple of maps because we're planners, so we have to look at maps.
On your left here is a depiction of our city of Denton boundaries.
Generally where they are, that is in the yellow sort of color.
And then the ETJ is outside of it.
So you can see our ETJ extends pretty far past our boundaries.
I believe because of the size of our city, our ETJ extends five miles from our municipal
boundaries generally.
So here's what our ETJ map looks like.
And then we have a map you all know and love.
That is our future land use map.
And that really is one of our guiding documents within our city.
We look to that when we're looking at really anything that we do.
Here's the Denton plan 2030 cover just so we all remember what it looks like.
We also -- you see zoning minutes, that's probably one of the major things that you
see.
You see them often.
This is a regulatory tool and it allows us to implement our comprehensive plan.
The Texas local government code outlines what zoning regulates.
And that is height, number of stories, size of buildings, percentage of lot that can be
occupied, size of yards, courts and other space, density, location and use of buildings,
and then historical designations and building bulk.
A zoning amendment or a zoning just broadly has two parts.
It has a map and then it also has that code, the text that tells you what that map means
and what all of those colors on the map mean.
And in our 2019 Denton development code just to give you a lay of the land, our subchapter
three provides the dimensional requirements, how big the lots have to be, what setbacks
you have, how tall the buildings can be, and then the use regulations are in subchapter
five.
And we'll look at that chart in just a minute.
If someone -- if a property owner or developer wants to amend the zoning map, so they want
to change the color or the zoning designation on a map, they would follow the procedures
in section 2.7.2.
It does require a public hearing, so it requires that notification, both mailing -- or mailing
notification on the website, signs on the property and also publication in the paper.
It comes to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation and then City Council
ultimately approves or denies it.
So this is new.
I don't know if you all have really had a time to dig into the 2019 code, but our land
use tables have changed slightly.
All of the zoning districts are the top row.
Those correspond to colors on a map.
So all of these colors will tell you what zoning district you have, and then you cross
reference that with the text of the code, and it tells you what uses are permitted in
that zoning district.
So plan developments.
It's kind of new old, the City of Denton.
Prior to 2002, we had plan developments.
We have a few legacy plan developments that are still around, think of Robeson Ranch or
the preserve at Pecan Creek.
Some of those are still developing.
But in 2002, the city did away with plan developments, and we just went kind of straight -- we call
it straight zoning, where you just look at those zoning districts.
They're back.
And they're really intended to provide flexibility for developments to -- where maybe they can't
meet the strict application of the Denton development code, because they're wanting
to do something more innovative, do something a little more creative.
It shouldn't be used if a rezoning or specific use permit could handle what they're wanting
to do, but if they are trying to do some sort of comprehensively planned development, it's
a really good tool.
Any PD you're going to look at will include a map, and then development standards.
And those development standards should address any deviations from the Denton development
code.
One caveat, the code does not allow deviations from any gas well regulations, environmental
regulations or tree preservation regulations.
In order to enact a PD or to make a major amendment to a PD, it follows that zoning
process, and that is the two public hearings, one at P&Z and one at council.
With that public notification, P&Z will make a recommendation, and then council will approve
or deny.
Here's one of our legacy PDs, just so you can kind of look and see what -- I know most
of you are familiar with them in our city, but this was a comprehensively planned plan
development with nodes of commercial activity.
There's commercial here.
This is Teasley Lane, if you're familiar, and then here's 2499 kind of snaking up.
There's also commercial here surrounded by residential and open space with amenities.
That PD also had laid out the infrastructure, which is the street, drainage, and then there's
also some -- I believe some power lines running through it.
Specific use permits are projects that you see from time to time.
This is uses that require specific use permit are generally thought to be maybe okay in
any specific zoning district, but they just require a little additional scrutiny.
Maybe there is activities associated with that use that could create impacts for the
surrounding property.
So it requires a little closer look from both staff, planning and zoning, and city council.
What we want to do is ensure there's compatibility with those surrounding properties and if there
are impacts, there's mitigation for those impacts.
If you look at the use tables in subchapter 5, anything marked with an S, that requires
an SUP.
We typically require a site plan, a landscape plan, and elevations of any structures at
a minimum with SUPs.
Sometimes additional studies are needed, things like traffic impact analysis, maybe even drainage
analysis, something to that effect, and it once again follows the dual public hearing
procedure, P and Z, council, notification, and then ultimate approval by council or denial.
Here's an SUP that may look familiar.
This was a multifamily development that came before you earlier this summer, and we looked
at the site plan, see where those buildings were placed in relationship to the surrounding
neighborhoods.
We looked at the landscape plan, see what kind of buffers were between that use and
any adjacent properties, and then we also looked at transportation in the area, make
sure traffic impacts were mitigated and that we had a full understanding of what those
impacts would be for that use.
And then we come to the flexibility and relief section.
So I know I've mentioned environmental regulations or environmentally sensitive areas this evening.
Wanted to go in a little bit further detail.
I know you've got a project that's coming before you tonight that addresses those.
We'll just hit on some high points.
So our environmentally sensitive areas are addressed in section 7.4 in the debt and development
code.
That's where those regulations are.
These are areas that are natural or ecological resources and where we limit the land-disturbing
activity.
And we really have three that we see most often in terms of development.
Cross-timbers upland habitat, those are the remnants of the cross-timbers forest.
They have to be at least 10 acres or larger.
And residential development may remove 50% of the habitat, and then non-residential development
can remove 30%.
So when you think cross-timbers upland habitat, think trees.
That's really what that is.
It's the habitat of that old forest.
A riparian buffer or water-related, those are areas near either within 50 or 100 feet
of a center line of a stream or on the outer edge of a water body or something like a wetland.
New structures are prohibited, and vegetation removal is prohibited, except for maybe some
small vines or brush where they needed that for drainage, needed to clear it.
And then undeveloped floodplain, that's something -- riparian buffers and undeveloped floodplain
are often nested together.
They're kind of put on top of each other.
Undeveloped floodplain is within that FEMA 100-year floodplain, and it has to be in a
natural state.
It's treated the same way that riparian buffers are treated.
So because development activity in these environmentally sensitive areas is limited, we do have a relief
procedure in subchapter 2, and that is the alternative ESA plan, which is what you're
going to be discussing tonight.
It provides an option for developers.
It provides a flexible discretionary process to address not only, you know, the intent
of why those ESAs are there, to that environmental protection, but also what mitigation they
can provide and how that development is going to move forward.
It follows the zoning procedure, the two public hearings, public notification, recommendation,
and then approval or denial by council.
And here is just a map of some of our ESAs.
So you can see there are sort of fingers that snake through our city, and these are kind
of all of them, once again, nested on top of each other.
But you can see that there are times and instances where the ESAs and the development may create
some conflict or some overlap.
And so that's why we've got that alternative ESA process, for us to take a little closer
look at it, make sure that we're protecting the environment, but also providing some flexibility.
And then platting.
We see a lot of platts.
Typically they're on your consent agenda.
So the subdivision section in subchapter 2 outlines a lot of platts.
We're just going to talk about the preliminary, final, and replat and the vacating platts.
So preliminary plat is what it says.
It really is that first look, that first review of an overall plan for a subdivision.
Both residential and commercial, it will lay out lots, roads, driveways, utilities, drainage.
It is that conceptual preliminary review of that development.
We look to make sure lots meet the minimum dimensions for the zoning district and also
demonstrate that there's adequate access and infrastructure would be provided.
Staff will review it and provide a recommendation.
You'll see this column maybe looks a little different than how you've always addressed
it and that P&Z can either approve or deny a plat and we're going to talk about that
shortly.
Final plat is it ensures compliance with all standards.
Once it is approved and recorded, it becomes a legal lot of record.
We do also have within subchapter 2 administratively approved platts.
The code does not give -- an administratively approved plat is one that staff would approve.
It wouldn't come to P&Z.
However, staff does not have the ability to deny a plat.
So if we were going to recommend denial because it didn't meet all the standards, it would
come to the planning and zoning commission.
So there are times when you will see an administratively approved plat.
Replat is something you see.
It just modifies an existing platted lot, either boundaries, easements, number of lots.
Once again, you can approve or deny.
What's a little different about replats is if it's a residential replat there is per
the Texas local government code and notification requirement.
And then we have vacating plat.
That essentially eliminates a platted lot, kind of just starts over.
So we just want to look at some parts of the plat just to make sure we all knew where all
of the bits of a plat are found.
All plat should have a vicinity map and a north arrow and a scale.
That's pretty standard for any map, as well as a legend.
There is an approval block.
So whomever approves it, either staff or P&Z, that will be a signature line.
The P&Z chair often has to sign a bunch of plat after the planning and zoning commission
meetings and those are those approved plat.
The face of the plat will depict the property boundaries, lot lines, any right of way dedication,
easements, lot and block number, survey.
There's lots of information here on the drawing part.
They do have a meets and bounds legal description.
Often we get a lot of calls at the planning, at development services, they say, well, I've
got a survey that I got when I bought my property, isn't my property platted?
And plats do look a lot like surveys, but one of the key differences is a plat is going
to show this big, long meets and bounds legal description.
A plat will take this legal description, define it, provide that drawing, and it will assign
a lot and block to it.
So you know, that's kind of a shorthand to talk to the public because it can be confusing
because they look a lot alike.
There's also a dedication and owner's signature on a plat and then a title block and that's
going to define that subdivision name.
If it's a replat, it will reference previous plat, the size of the tract and then the survey
and jurisdiction.
And now we come to the shot clock.
So you've probably heard us talk about it.
You may have heard about it in the news.
This is a bill that was signed by the governor earlier this summer.
And what it does is as of September 1 of this year, municipalities now have 30 days to act
upon a plat or construction plans.
So that is either approve or deny.
We can't, you can't put it off at 30 days, that plat is approved if we have not acted
upon it.
So it's vital that we make sure we get this process right.
I won't go into all the detail about it, but I just wanted to talk briefly about how it
really affects the processes in the city and how it affects you.
So prior to September 1 of this year, the city allowed applicants to submit applications
every day, any day they wanted to, and then we would work through those applications.
However, due to this shot clock, we have transitioned to specific submittal dates, and those are
to coincide with the P&Z dates because we want to make sure that we always stay within
that 30-day boundary.
We're now going to require more up front work from the development community, things like
traffic assessments, ESA assessments, any FEMA map revisions, those are all going to
have to be done prior to submittal for the plat, because sometimes they would submit
a plat and say, well, I'm working on this letter of map revision with FEMA, and the
plat would kind of hang out until they were done with that, and then it would come in.
That luxury is gone.
Now that plat has to go to P&Z or it has to be approved or denied.
So we're going to need that work done up front to make sure that they're ready to go when
they submit.
We're going to be eliminating concurrent submittals for plat-related filed applications.
So you've probably seen that we'll have a preliminary and a final plat for the same
piece of property on the same night.
Not going to be able to do that now.
They're going to have to really go in that order.
So it will be preliminary plat, then civil engineering plans for public improvements,
then final plat, and it really is going to have to follow that order.
We've been working really hard internally to create a robust completeness review.
We want to make sure that projects that we get and the applications we get are complete
and sufficient to finish the review.
We want to make sure we've got adequate information and they're not -- there aren't missing things
because that's going to affect that approval or denial at the end.
We're also reducing time for reviews and resubmittals.
So previously we had a 10 business day review time for any submittal, but because we only
have 30 days, we want to try to get the applicants -- give the applicants an opportunity to have
a resubmittal and to make some corrections.
We don't want to get a submittal and say, okay, you're denied.
We want to get to those approvals and make sure that it meets those code requirements.
So we're reducing our time for reviews.
We're reducing the time that they have to resubmit so that hopefully when it gets to
P&Z, it's ready to go.
>> Thank you, Chair.
A couple things on the up front work.
You mentioned that if there's this up front work that's needed, they don't have it, it
has to come to us.
Are you even going to let them even submit it if the up front work is not done?
Is the city going to say, hey, look, you're going to encourage them, but we're going to
have that letter, we're going to have that thing done tomorrow or next week.
Are you even going to let them do it?
>> No.
>> Is there a chance?
>> Well, and that's a great question, because right now we're working on revising all of
our checklists.
You're actually going to see an administrative criteria manual come.
It's going to be coming forward.
Because we want to plainly say to applicants, this is what we need for your application
to be deemed complete, to be deemed filed.
And in that way, they're not getting into this endless loop of denials because they
don't have what they need.
We want to make sure that we're really transparent and we're really helping them know what they
need to do up front.
>> Okay.
And then I know on the resubmittal piece, we've had it before where we've had developers
who've come in who said, well, we saw the recommendations from the city whenever the
agenda was published on Friday.
Is there a timeline you're saying, all right, you have up to the Friday before P&Z to do
the resubmittal, or are you saying all the way up to the point of P&Z meeting, you can
have a work session, essentially, you can have a resubmittal and we can provide the
commissioners at that time, that are y'all going to put any restrictions on up to the
submittal, I guess, deadline, so it gets life to us?
>> We have created a calendar that provides them an opportunity to resubmit.
Because the backup information really needs to go to P&Z the week before, we want to make
sure that y'all get an agenda and backup information that doesn't change at the last minute.
So right now our calendar has a deadline for when they can resubmit.
>> To resubmit.
>> Cool.
Great.
Thank you.
>> Commissioner Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Julie, in the past when this commission is denied something, it still was on the city
council.
Is that going to change if we can cite a reason for denial, does it stop there?
And they've got to go back and make corrections or?
>> Sort of.
Yes.
And I think you hit it there.
>> Okay.
>> It wouldn't go on to city council.
You are the final approving board for Platts.
What it would do is, yes, our staff analysis and the approval or denial will be based upon
criteria within our code and criteria manuals.
They will have an opportunity to correct that.
And they'll have to submit those corrections to us.
Those submittal deadlines will also be tied to P&Z dates because P&Z has to act on those
corrections within 15 days.
So it could -- when I say an endless loop of denials, it could -- you could potentially
deny a Platts several times requiring resubmittals and then that 15-day hearing on it.
So if a Platts is denied, you could see it several times before it finally makes it through.
And what we're trying to do is set up processes, checklists, and timelines to prevent that.
I don't think it's going to capture all of them, but that's what we're trying to do.
>> I think Rich wanted to add a clarification.
>> Just wanted to add one clarification, and there's no time limit as to when they can
resubmit.
So they can resubmit within a week, a month, five years.
Assuming that bill is still valid, we would just have the 15-day turnaround.
So there is no deadline as to when they need to make those corrections.
>> And then that takes to the denial.
So in the past, you know, Platts usually have gone through several rounds of review, a lot
of vetting from the staff side.
So when they get to the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff is recommending approval
because it meets the technical requirements of a Platts.
That may not always be the case going forward.
>> Can -- oh, sorry.
>> No, go ahead.
>> I totally interrupted you.
Can the denial be for the same reason, the same deficiency over and over again?
>> Yes, if staff's determined they haven't met those technical requirements, then absolutely.
>> Okay.
>> So it's going to be a little different that there will be denials of Platts in your
future.
One last thing to take a look at is the common review procedure.
This is the final item I want to talk about in subchapter two.
And this is not a comprehensive review procedure.
This really is just that common sort of general terms of review.
So if an applicant, if a developer or property owner wants to develop their land, often they'll
give us a call and they'll ask what their zoning is.
That's generally where we first come in contact with them.
We try to push them, especially if it's a complicated or complex development.
We ask them, they may want to move forward with a preapplication conference.
It's not required, but it's a really good tool because it allows them to talk to engineering
and planning and building inspections in parks, all of those departments at the same table.
So it's pretty beneficial for developments.
But it's not required.
After preapplication, they would start submitting applications.
Maybe it's a zoning, maybe it's a plat, maybe it's a site plan or zoning compliance.
We would review it as part of that robust completeness check.
And if it is complete, we've got everything we need.
It starts the review process.
Staff will review that, provide comments to the applicant, written comments.
They will have to make those corrections and resubmit.
And if it's not a plat, it could go several rounds.
If it is a plat, it's probably only going to go two because that's all the time we have
for it until it meets all the code requirements.
Once it meets all the code requirements, we notice for any public hearings or schedule
it for any public meetings and then a decision is made on it, whether it's approved or denied.
And then there's that post decision, things like ordinances set to applicants or approval
letters or filing of plat.
So each one of these has several processes or potential processes through it, but that's
generally how development goes for each submittal in the City of Denton.
And that's all I have for boot camp number one.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Just one question.
And I think I know the answer to this, but no deviation from the gas well codes.
Is that because our hands are pretty much tied by state law?
Is that our-
I don't know the answer to that question as to why that's for the PDs.
Does anyone here?
Where's Scott?
Okay.
No, those really were just items that were, would not be eligible for a modification to
a PD.
Who decided that?
Just curious.
I think that was part of when we discussed through DCRC when we came up with the standards
for the plan development of what could or couldn't be modified.
Okay.
Thanks, Richard.
Julie, can you, this question I seem to always struggle with, can you add clarification of
why a final plat or replat goes to public or consent?
All replats go to public and final and preliminary are on consent?
That's a requirement by the Texas Local Government Code.
So it's not, it's not necessarily, of course it's in our codes because that is, they reflect
what the Texas Local Government Code requires.
But that's-
So prelim and final consent replats are public.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
Any other questions for Julie?
Julie, this is going to be a great series.
Thanks for all your hard work.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for joining us this evening.
The first item we'll dive into is minutes.
Is there any notations or corrections that need to be added to the minutes before our
vote this evening?
Great.
On the consent agenda, does anyone have any questions or clarification on any of the items?
The only question I had is Cindy here.
She's brokered.
No, that's terrible.
Well, the only question I had is why is B and C two different plats for different phases?
That was something we had asked the applicant, they were, as they were progressing through
the review, they wanted to keep the two different phases as two different, as two separate final
plats.
And so there was really no prohibition against that.
But we had initially asked if they'd like to combine it into one.
They wanted to remain to keep each phase as two separate plots.
Gotcha.
I guess those are two different developers, maybe.
No?
Yeah, it's both toll brothers.
Gotcha.
Any other questions on the consent this evening?
Great.
The items for individual consideration, the first one is 4A, to consider and appoint a
member of the Planning and Zoning Commission for chair and vice chair positions.
This will be a nomination and vote in council chambers.
But for the sake of efficiency there, I'd love to have some discussion here about nominations
or oppositions for that vote.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
While I would love to nominate you to remain chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Thank you, Commissioner Ellis.
If anyone would like to second that.
Commissioner Smith.
I'd like to nominate Commissioner Ellis to remain in the vice chair position.
Fantastic.
It looks like it might be clean cut this evening.
Is there any other discussion, items for that?
That was difficult.
Great.
All right, and then item 4B will be a consideration of Commissioner Cole's reclassification on
his absence.
We'll just take that in the public hearing this evening, Commissioner Cole, you'll recuse
yourself from that discussion and vote.
And then we have 4C, a presentation by Roman.
Is he here?
Do you have a presentation for this?
Yes, I do.
Do you want to present this evening or now or?
Yeah, I can do that.
Sure.
All right.
Give me one minute here.
Where are we going?
One second here.
I'm going to go ahead and put this in the public hearing.
This is to ask for a recommendation, to consider making a recommendation to city council regarding
a resolution adopting the Visions, Values, Statements, Goals, Policies, Recommendations
and the Implementation Matrix of the Denton Historic Preservation Plan.
As you know, the original plan was adapted in 1985.
That plan really was an impetus for a lot of significant historic preservation in the
city of Denton.
Many of the objectives in that plan were met.
The creation of districts, the land marking of homes and a lot of things.
And yet there were very different problems.
This is an excerpt from that plan.
In the 1980s, there was, I guess, a lot more blight and decay.
So you have this note from page one that to the community, historic preservation offers
a possibility of reversing what is otherwise an inevitable downward spiral deterioration
of the built environment without incentives to reverse that trend and gradually buildings
will decay and as they decay, their surroundings, their neighborhoods will decay.
So you get the point.
When a prosperous city becomes, a neighborhood becomes a slum.
So we were faced with really different problems.
And I don't know, I won't credit the plan or the creation of historic districts or conservation
districts to that, nor the Main Street District, which was created soon thereafter.
But it is what it is, downtown isn't that anymore and neither is any of those neighborhoods.
Another thing that you saw, though that was significant, is what was going on at the time.
It talks here, in addition, residents of West Oak Street had lost protection of single family
zoning in the citywide rezoning that took place in the 1960s.
Later, it says that the city council made a positive contribution when it allowed voluntary
backs zoning to single family status at no cost to applicants.
And I understand that that happened across the board.
But as an example, what prompted that, here's a current Google Street view of Mounts Avenue
and West Oak.
You see the apartment building in the middle and when in fact, what was there was a home,
which was scooted back and flipped around and became the back unit there.
So that the street view you got among all those big, all those majestic historic homes
was that, that home in the back sitting there is actually covering the original framing
of that old home that was there.
There were also perceived threats, one of which is almost kind of humorous.
It talks about the, in this context, the Landmark Commission would like to note its concern
over the increase in the proportion of Dentons.
Regional areas which are passing to non-resident ownership, non-resident ownership poses the
danger that owners may choose to ignore the community's best interest.
The problem is compounded today by a significant amount of properties being owned by citizens
of foreign nations, either directly or through nominees.
These persons, Canadians, Germans and others may wish to be good citizens, but it's difficult
to inform them of community concerns.
That's actually right out of the current plan.
But then there were real opportunities and this was the main thing.
What preservation does is residents in Denton's older areas would welcome a greater degree
of stability than they enjoyed in recent years.
And that's really what conservation districts and historic districts and land marking properties
is about.
It's kind of creating stability, it's looking for what homes need to be here hundreds of
years from now and what we want things to look like.
So getting to the plan, I just put this slide in just to let you know because there had
been some concern by maybe one or two people, if that, about what all went on since this
month.
So on the left is a list of input meetings that we've had, community meetings that we've
had across the state, I mean the city, and then we had online surveys with over 400 responses
and the majority, the vast majority, 80 to 90% of those were people who live in our city.
And then on the right is right out of your staff report on this item, just the times
that either myself or the Lakota group were here presenting.
This slide here, I just wanted to speak to, let's see, no, I've got the Lakota group.
What I also want to do right here is kind of insert the Lakota group's presentation.
They will be at city council, assuming this is still on the agenda on Tuesday, and they
will present this slide show.
So this is about the plan, which I believe is attached in your current staff report.
It has the history of our districts and when they were created, the number of national
landmarks, the districts and local landmarks.
They talk about what is a plan itself, and in this case what the plan was is they went
back and looked at all of our old preservation plans and our surveys, of which there's four
or five of them.
They studied all of that.
Then they have recommendations for future landmarks, economic development ideas, and
ideas about how we administer this program.
This is how the outline of the document, this is how they went in phase one and two of the
plan.
This is significant and unusual.
I didn't know this, but the United States Secretary of Interior actually has guidelines
for how you make a plan, number one being you look for the context, what's the history
of the place that you're looking at, because it's the history of the place, that context,
that you have to then say, "Well, where do these buildings fit in it?"
The other thing is that you have goals and priorities for recognizing properties and
then that you involve the community.
So that's what they did here.
This is a list of those things that happened.
Further breakdown of the plans organization, which is not the hundred and something pages
in it, but it's within there.
These are the four parts of a preservation program as they see it, surveying properties,
community development, program administration, and education outreach.
In that plan, they have a recommendation of surveying areas, and there's a map, and these
are areas they recommend surveying.
Surveying is just usually done with a grant.
I think all of them that have ever been done in Denton have had the benefit of a grant,
and then we've gone around like Idiots Hill was surveyed in 2015, the Bolivar Street
area in 2012, and in 1996, the whole city, every building older than 50 years was surveyed.
Here's what you find out in there, the types of properties in those neighborhoods.
This is some of the recommendations that have to do with economic development, program administration,
education outreach, and then just two pages here about the goals.
There's four kind of goals in the plan, and they present to the surveying, as I just mentioned,
and then this one is about the engagement in the community, upgrading our website, etc.
So that's what they're going to present.
And then finally, I just want to come back for a minute to this slide here.
The Landmark Commission met on Monday, they recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission
does recommend a city council is approved.
They voted unanimously in favor of that with a couple of suggestions.
One of them had to do with the wording in the plan about Quaker Town.
In the very old plan that I referred to about the invading Germans and Canadians, we also
had something that I found quite funny, just so peculiar, but there at the top, it talks
about the neighborhood and the name that the neighborhood, it says here, many of the structures
that were on the site were moved just across the railroad tracks to an area that became
known as Quaker Town, possibly because of after being moved, the buildings were shaky.
So they were quaking.
I don't know how I missed that until recently, but that was quite interesting because the
Denton County Office of History and Culture has it right that it has to do with the Quakers
and that the Quakers helped slaves escape through the Underground Railroad, and so this
area was actually called Quaker Town because of that.
And so in our Landmark Commission meeting, a new commissioner to the Historic Landmark
Commission, Commissioner McAdams, recommended that we change some language there under a
section called African Americans and Other Diverse Populations.
She would rather have this wording, which I'll read to you, it's Denton's Quaker Town
story includes the forced relocation of the African American community to Solomon Hill
and other areas of Denton's east and south sides.
While there is a Texas Historical Commission marker in the park that provides some information
about Quaker Town, additional research and survey work for this context would identify
properties, blocks, and areas of cultural significance worthy of preservation and protection,
and then the historic, that part, so the most part of it.
And the second recommendation, you have?
- Commissioner Pereta.
- Yeah, I just wanna clarify, so right here, this language where it says, where it includes
the forced relocation, is that replacing the previous page where it implies that the land
was given?
Is that?
- No, it's, I'm sorry to cut for that confusion.
It's replacing the language on page 25 of the proposed plan in your AIS and your, on
your agenda.
- Okay.
- The proposed plan, these, this word language, the top, is from the '86 plan.
- Okay.
- On the other hand, we've been getting it wrong for a while here.
- Okay, and that's no longer, okay.
- So on our, under African Americans and other diverse communities, on page 25, there's
a very small paragraph, in fact, this would replace the whole paragraph here, that is
inaccurate.
It actually implies that people just voluntarily sold their land.
It doesn't mention that they were actually forced to leave.
- Okay.
And then that's what we're replacing with this?
- Yes.
- Okay, thank you very much.
There's another line that the, there was concern that the plan, one of the commissioners, Commissioner
Anderson, wanted specifically to see more incentives for local landmark owners, for
property owners for historic homes.
And she asked that we add a goal that would recommend a program for the partial or full
exemption from City of Denton Property Taxes in coordination with other applicable taxing
doors for locally designated homes, it would be a recommendation, again, it's a policy
document.
The reason she thought of that is if you know about Plano, if you have a local landmark
in Plano that is an owner-occupied home, they have worked it out with all of the taxing
entities and they do not pay taxes on those properties.
And in the city of Brownsville, it's the same way.
Those are the only two cities that I know of, and I know a lot about all the city that
have that, and they both, when you ask the preservation officer in Plano how it happened,
he just says, I don't know, I got here and it's there and I keep my mouth quiet and it
keeps going.
And in Brownsville, I had to go fight before each of the taxing entities annually to maintain
that.
But anyway, those are the two recommendations.
They do recommend unanimously that they ask the P&Z for approval, so that's what I have.
- Commissioner Betts.
- Hey, Chair.
So your position on that, Rowan, are you in favor of that recommendation?
- Yes.
- Okay.
So additionally, we have spoken to one city council member who confirmed some of the other
things we noticed.
We have some wording in there about the Landmark Commission having a subcommittee that does
a few things that it doesn't really line up with the way our Landmark Commission operates,
and we'd like to remove that language, but it's something that staff does, and someone
pointed out that we do it.
So we don't wanna put things in there that our Landmark Commission's not gonna have time
to address.
- Commissioner Smith.
- Thank you, Chair.
So going back to that, the goal number two, our recommendation.
So as an approval, it's just saying make a recommendation for city staff to go look at
that.
It's not saying that we have to go.
We're not approving that, of course, right?
What is...
Go through that wording again that you said.
- Yeah.
- Recommend a program.
So it's just gonna be moralizing that we're recommending for a program to be looked at,
not actually saying it has to be created.
- Yes.
In the working draft, as you have as an attachment, on page 44 and 74, there's a section about
incentivizing preservation, and so there would be a goal added, and I think it'd be goal
number 19, unless we put it at the top, so there's quite a number.
And they can have priorities in 'em.
Obviously this is gonna be a little bit of a...
This would be a lot of work.
So maybe it needs to be kind of a lower priority or a medium-prem or a five-year plan, so staff
can take the time to look at it.
- I guess I'll just hate for us to look back on something 15, 20 years from now and say,
"Well, this was in there, but we never did this.
Why was that?"
I'm just looking through to see what actual steps after this goes through gets approved,
that there'd be steps towards it, one, and if there are gonna be steps towards it, I
think it'd be good to know about how many properties that is in the city of Denton that
would be falling underneath that exemption, and then what criteria do...
I think you said Brownsville, and Brownswood or Brownswood?
- Brownsville, Texas on the border, and Plano.
- Brownsville and Plano does it.
What stipulations they also have on those homeowners for what type of upkeep?
Because I get like an exemption, "Don't pay taxes because you have these requirements
to upkeep the historical nature of the building."
So I guess some more explanation on that, I don't know how restrictive this vote tonight
is gonna be on that.
- I have two thoughts on that.
I mean, possibly right now, so the HLC recommended a program.
Maybe that wording needs to be recommend studying this.
We don't have to recommend it as a program, but I think it will, of course, involve a
pretty intense study there to show...
- I mean, Carol, honestly, it's not really like, you know, causing me a whole lot of
heartburn or something like that to say that this is gonna be in there.
I just don't, one, don't know how much weight it's actually gonna have to where we're gonna
see action come out of it, and two, if there is gonna be action coming out of it, what
does that look like, I guess, before we start voting and approving things?
- Right.
- Does that make sense?
- Yes, absolutely.
And you're right, of course, in Brownsville, what they do is do an annual inspection of
all of the properties receiving that.
And if you have any, you know, peeling pain or any problems there that you won't get on
it the next year if you don't take care of it, Plano's, I'm not sure what the maintenance
is...
- I guess all these goals altogether, let's just say this is goal number 19 of, I don't
know how many, I don't remember from looking at the document, but of all the goals in there,
what is the city's process, what is y'all's process next up then to take those goals and
take action on it then?
Are you guys gonna start working on it as...
- There's short-range, medium-range, and long-range goals, and whoever the historic preservation
officer is, I would think that that's be their next, you know, that kind of gives you a job
description there to look at those things and figure out what you need to be able to
look at.
- Okay.
Thank you.
- Jerry.
- Roman, I know that on your last slide there, you've got a staff recommendation on it, but
someone was asking you earlier about, do you recommend the changes that the HLC had, and
you said yes, recognizing that we've got a policy in place for this board that a motion
to approve unless otherwise stated is a motion to approve with the staff recommendations,
is that a correct staff recommendation as stated, or is your staff recommendation also
include the HLC recommendations, or does that need to be specified in the motion?
- It needs to be specified in the motion.
- Okay.
- Thank you.
Thank you for clarifying that.
- Sure.
- Any other questions for Roman?
- Do we need to clarify, I guess on the last, if you can go pack a slide, where we talked
about program, do we talk about, is it a program or is it a study that we look to move forward?
I mean, do we wanna include that as part of the recommendation, just to--
- Recommend exploring.
- Recommend exploring, yeah.
- I would feel better saying recommend exploring it, letting that go through so that if we
go through and do explore it and doesn't come back and, you know, when they come back to
review this, we're not looking at the 1986 one and we're laughing at it, they're not
looking at the 2019 one.
- It has to be looking.
- Laughing at it too, so.
- Yeah, I agree.
- I'd like to strike the program and make it to, I recommend exploring the partial full
exemption from the City of Dent Property Taxes and Coordination with other applicable taxes.
- Absolutely.
- But let's just make sure to clarify that in the motion.
- Okay.
- Yeah.
- Chambers.
- That works.
- Thank you, Roman, for the presentation.
- Thank you, Commissioner.
- Moving on to the public hearings this evening, 5AZ18-0013A has been removed.
Moving to 5B, Sean Jacobson can present to us this replat.
- Good evening, Chair and members of the Commission.
Before you for consideration tonight is a final replat of Lot 1 Block A of the Brazil
addition, so it's a 4.994 acre property at the corner of Fort Worth Drive and Wildflower.
The proposal is to replat that into two lots of equal size.
Each one would be, let's see, 2.447 acres.
Where it is within the city, it's in the NR2 Zoning District, and so both lots proposed
would meet all the dimensional standards of the NR2 Zoning District.
Overall, this replat meets all of the requirements that we have, and staff recommends approval.
- Fantastic.
Any questions for Sean?
Great.
Thank you.
Next item is 5C, the final replat presented by Karina Maldonado.
I'm Karina Maldonado, assistant planner with the City of Denton.
Today I will be presenting a replat for the Fire Station 8.
It is for Lot 4R Block 1.
It is to combine two lots, one that was previously platted and one that is unplatted, for a total
of 5.156 acres.
This is currently zone RCCN under the 2002 code.
They will be submitting under the 2019 code, so that will transition to the PF Zoning District.
Staff is recommending approval.
It is just to, again, combine the lots and provide right-of-way dedication.
- Any questions for Karina?
Thank you very much.
The next item is 5D, the AESA presented by Haley Zygirsky.
Commissioner Kohler, are you set out for this one?
- Good evening.
This is an alternative, environmentally sensitive area plan for Fisher 59 for some modifications
to the floodplain designation.
I'll actually be tag-teaming this presentation with Christy Upton, so I'll try to make that
transition as smooth as possible.
The request before you is to hold a public hearing this evening and consider making a
recommendation to the council regarding a request by Fisher 59 for this alternative
ESA plan.
There are properties outlined in yellow on the map.
It is just under 50 acres.
It's located roughly at the intersection of University here on the south side and Mosque
Branch Road on the eastern boundary of the property.
Notification was sent regarding this request over the summer.
If you remember, this has appeared on your agenda several times since July.
In that time, a few things have changed from what you may have originally read as our recommendations.
In that time, they've received full FEMA approval of their associated CLOMAR, which
are the map revisions for the floodplain, as well as receiving approval and a waiver
from TxDOT for some additional detention ponds that they thought may be required to get their
driveway permit.
But all of that has now been cleared up, and the original plan from July is back before
us this evening.
The zoning for this property is employment center industrial, so the distribution center
and warehouse that is currently being constructed on a part of this property is of permitted
use.
This originally started back in 2009.
The original ESA field assessment was done at that time for the two creeks that were
on the property.
That assessment did result in the removal of the riparian buffer designation on both
of those streams.
So the eastern stream had some erosion conditions present, as well as it was already restricted
by the at-grade crossing at university, so that designation was removed for the area
that we'll be looking at this evening.
So now it's strictly the floodplain designation.
And then this western channel, you may have seen if you looked at our maps, there used
to be a stream there, but as a part of this ESA field assessment combined with the LOMAR,
which is a letter of map revision, that FEMA approved in 2013, that was channelized.
So what you may remember seeing in the past few months, right about a year ago, in September
of last year, you approved the preliminary plat for two lots.
So on lot one, you can see here in the hatched area, that is that now channelized western
stream that used to be on the property.
This lot one was final plotted last November.
If you've been by the property, you'll see that they are well underway with construction
of the distribution center on that site.
What's led us to the need for this alternative ESA is that that facility is large enough
that fire code requires two points of access to the facility.
So they were able to get one driveway onto Highway 380.
They are looking at a second driveway and have plans for it to connect to Moss Branch
Road.
So lot two of the plat was separated to allow them to move the building forward while working
through the floodplain and the alternative ESA conditions.
So if this is approved by council, they will be pursuing that driveway to obtain that required
second point of access for their facility.
And with that, I will let Christy come up and get more into the technical aspects of
the report.
Christy Upton, Environmental Compliance Coordinator.
And we wanted to let you know about the other field assessment.
So after the plans for this project started, another field assessment was conducted on
the floodplain of that stream.
And it was determined to be undeveloped floodplain.
And it was found to be predominantly in a natural state, and that's the designation.
The proposed encroachment, as Haley has explained, is to construct a drive approach through that
floodplain and over it to be able to access the property.
And there is a conditional letter of map approval or map revision that has been approved at
this time.
The proposed encroachments, this exhibit is a little bit confusing, so I wanted to walk
through it with you.
If you notice this kind of purplish area here, that is the original floodplain.
And then there will be 7,775 cubic feet of fill to construct that drive that is located
generally within that blue area that you see.
And then there will be 11,870 cubic yards of cut in order to compensate for the loss
of the valley storage.
So as they construct this area and they're filling in the floodplain, they have to remove
parts of what is now slopes of that floodplain in order to create more valley storage.
And that in general will be from the hashed line through this red area here and then also
to the south here.
And then there will be 5.51 acres of that existing floodplain that will be disturbed.
And then .27 acres, generally a quarter of an acre of the existing floodplain that's
going to be permanently removed as floodplain.
As you've heard earlier tonight, there is criteria for approval for the flexibility
and discretionary of this process to provide for the deviation from the Denton Development
Code and requiring protection of the environmentally sensitive areas.
And in general, as to create or expand or improve the habitat that currently exists,
improve the impacted environment in some manner to maintain the habitat continuity, to maximize
public access and utilization, preserve the protected area in perpetuity, and create a
high quality development.
So the first strategy that the applicant has chosen is to create a water quality enhancement
feature.
They'll be constructing two bioretention basins generally in those areas that are shown
in red here.
And they will be constructed to offset the removed water quality treatment offered by
that floodplain's natural features to help kind of explain how that water quality enhancement
works.
The applicant first tried to create a comparison of the standards of that floodplain that's
going to be removed in comparison to the water quality treatment that will be provided by
those bioretention systems, so they start by determining the storage that is currently
provided by the floodplain to capture and remove pollutants.
And that would be that pre-project water quality volume.
They will be, by removing the driveway, they would be removing the floodplain for the driveway.
They would be removing that portion of the water quality components that would be offered
by the natural floodplain.
And so to compensate for that, and the volume of the water quality volume treatment, water
quality volume that will be treated, is shown in that blue area above the post-construction,
post-project column.
Sorry, I'll clean that up.
That one's hard to explain and get through.
So for the second mitigation strategy, the applicant has proposed to replace and enhance
the habitat that currently exists.
So for the cut and fill, they will be removing the vegetation from 5.51 acres of land.
And then they will be planting six acres of vegetation, all will be a native drain field
mix of some sort.
That will be 5.24 acres within the current floodplain and then another three quarters
of an acre outside of what is currently the floodplain.
And then there will be a little over a quarter of an acre that they'll be planting in those
bioretention systems with the native plant mix as well.
For approval, there will be several conditions placed on the applicant.
There will be a three-year monitoring period.
The developer will replace any dead material, plant material within that time frame, and
repair any rotted land, remove any trash that's found.
There will be an annual report to describe the activities during that period of time.
And after three years, environmental services will inspect for conformance with the alternative
ESA plan, and then if we find that there's conformance with the plan, then we will issue
a final acceptance.
In addition to that, the applicant has also agreed to a maintenance plan that you can
find in the alternative ESA plan in Appendix E, and in that they have committed to a long-term
management and monitoring of the bioretention system that would include trash and sediment
removal and vegetation maintenance.
You will find these recommendations in your backup material.
I will just kind of skim through them.
There's the permanent removal of the quarter of an acre of the floodplain, and the disturbance
would be limited to the five and a half acres, and there would be seeding to replace the
vegetation that would be removed, and the construction of the two bioretention systems.
And we have struck condition number four, because the applicant has satisfied TechStat's
requirements, and TechStat is no longer requiring or has waived a requirement for the additional
detention that they were originally requesting.
We will also allow for five percent of modifications to that bioretention system that they are
constructing and allowing some flexibility with staff to approve up to five percent of
modification of that bioretention system, but not reducing the water quality treatment
that would be provided.
And then the long-term or the three-year maintenance period and acceptance is within that recommendation.
Any questions?
Just for clarity, Christine, the water now will flow unimpededly through concrete culverts?
No.
Okay.
Yes.
I'm sorry.
Yes.
I see what you're saying.
As opposed to a bridge or something like that?
There would be concrete culverts within that red area right there.
And they'll be covered with soil, and then native seed will be planted over there?
The native seed would be planted within that disturbed areas here.
Great.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay.
Does Commissioner Cole hang around here close by?
Thanks.
So that concludes the agenda for this evening.
There's a couple items that aren't on the agenda.
So I'm going to informally bring these up as a way of just making some announcements.
First, I want to welcome Mr. Ronnie Anderson to the Planning Commission Board.
We look forward to serving with you, and I appreciate already the service and the volunteer
who joined us.
And so thank you for being here and welcome aboard.
Second, with the one coming on, we have one leaving us.
I think maybe this is final.
So real quick, Commissioner Beck, I have to do this in back-to-back meetings, which is
terrible.
But I want to say thank you.
You and I came in at the same time.
So four years we've been serving on Wednesday nights together.
And so personally, I appreciate the feedback you've given us.
We, I think, healthily don't see eye to eye on things.
I think it's good for this board.
It cultivates, I think, good conversation and good things for the city.
I appreciate you in a lot of ways taking up Commissioner Briegel's stance on biking locations
for parking and trees and all those things.
So I appreciate you being an advocate for those the past four years.
And we'll see if your nomination for Board of Ethics goes through.
But if that goes through, have fun.
And thanks for -- you won't see me.
In all seriousness, thank you.
You mean a lot to this commission and to this city.
And so we have -- I'm not going to walk it down to you, but we have a -- I don't know
what you call this -- a certificate for you for your service.
So thank you very much.
With that departure, I also want to bring up the fact that we will now have a DCRC empty
spot going forward.
DCRC is a joint subcommittee between City Council and P&Z to go over the Ditten Development
Code and other items pertaining to that.
So I'm not going to ask for volunteers this evening.
But if you think about it, next meeting, we will formally have on the agenda the ability
to volunteer to serve on that board.
I'm not sure the current status, if it's winding down or not.
Kishalis.
Thank you, Chair.
I can add to that, because I'm sitting on that committee.
But generally, we've been meeting on Fridays from 11 a.m. to 1.
I believe, and I think Richard can probably clarify this, that it is going to end at the
end of the year.
Okay.
What it appears to be.
So it would be a potentially short volunteer service.
So -- Yeah, but it will be most Friday.
Please.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you again, Chair.
I can also add, it's great conversation.
There's three council people, three people from P&Z.
It's really good conversation having to do with the implementation and changes that are
going on between at the state level and our new code.
Yeah.
If you all schedule permits, it would be a good thing to fill that void.
Commissioner Becks is leaving big shoes, but I think someone on this board can certainly
do that if the time schedule permits.
That's all I have for the work session.
We will get a quick bite to eat, but let's plan on being in council chambers at 635.
Thank you.
I'll close the work session at 5 -- no, 622.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
for September 18th, 2019.
Seeing that we do have a quorum, I'll call this meeting to order at 639.
The first item of business is to stand if able and to give the Pledge of Allegiance
to the U.S. and Texas flag.
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.
Honored by the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one
and indivisible.
Thank you.
The next item of business is to consider approval of the amendments from August 21st, 2019.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion on the item?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
I have to say abstain.
Motion carries 5-0.
The next item of business is to consider our consent agenda.
Commissioner Smith?
Motion to approve.
We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Ellis?
Second.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion on the item?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0.
The next item of business is item 4A.
It's considering a point.
The plan and zoning chair and vice chair position will take a motion, a vote for chair, then
a motion and vote for vice chair.
Commissioner Ellis?
Thank you, chair.
I would like to nominate you, Chair Rozelle, to remain as chair.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
We have a first, or motion, Commissioner Smith?
I second.
Appreciate that.
Seeing we have a first and a second, do we have any discussion on the item for chair?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0.
Thank you all.
The next item is consider vice chair, Commissioner Smith?
A motion to nominate Commissioner Ellis for vice chair position.
Commissioner Ellis, do you accept the nomination?
I do.
Thank you.
We have a first.
Commissioner Pernetta?
I second the motion.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion on the item?
Seeing none, we'll vote on the board for the position of vice chair.
Thank you.
Motion carries 7-0.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
The next item for consideration is a consider request by Commissioner Cole to reclassify
his absence on August 21st.
I'll ask Commissioner Cole to step away, and we have a discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Ellis?
I move approval of reclassifying.
We have a first for the reclassification.
Commissioner Smith?
Second.
We have a first and a second for reclassifying his absence.
Any discussion on the matter?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 6-0 with one recuse on by Commissioner Cole back to the dais.
Next item of business is item 4C, a presentation by Roman McAllen on the historic preservation
plan.
Or not.
So what we'll go ahead and do is we will skip 4C for right now, we'll take that item out
of order later in the evening, so that'll go ahead and move us to the public hearings.
Item 5A, just for the record, has been removed from the agenda, so we will not be hearing
item 5A, Z18-13A.
That brings us to item 5B, FR19-0011, and I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation
on the final replat.
And I'll open the public hearing.
Good evening Chair and members of the commission.
My name is Sean Jacobson, assistant planner with development services.
I'm here tonight to present a final replat of lot 1, block A, of the Brazil edition.
It's a 4.994 acre property, generally located at the southeast corner of the intersection
of Fort Worth Drive and Wildflower Place.
What is being requested is a replat into two lots of equal size, both to be 2.447 acre
lots.
These lots would both meet the standards of the NR2 zoning district in which the property
is located.
And as this replat meets all other standards, staff recommends approval.
Thank you Sean.
Any questions?
I don't see any questions, thank you.
This is the public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak on the item may certainly do so.
Seeing no movement.
I will close the public hearing and turn today's for discussion or motion.
Commissioner Smith?
Motion to approve.
We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Pernetta?
Second the motion.
We have a second for approval.
Any discussion on the item?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0.
The next item of business item 5C, FR19-7, I'll invite Karina Maldonado for presentation.
My name is Karina Maldonado, assistant planner of development services.
Today I'll be taking a non-residential replat for lot 4R block 1 of the fire station number
8 addition.
This is to plat 1, previously platted lot under the Denton Regional Medical Center phase 3
with a unplatted tract to combine them for the future fire station number 8.
This is located near the intersection of Brinker Road and Colorado Boulevard.
It meets all requirements of the 2019 Denton Development Code.
The current zoning is RCCN under the 2002 code, and it will transition to the public
facilities or PF zoning district.
With that, we are recommending approval of the non-residential replat.
Thank you for the presentation.
This is a public hearing.
It is open.
If anyone wants to speak on the item.
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and turn to the days for discussion or motion.
Commissioner Preneta.
A motion to approve.
We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Ellis.
Second.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion on the item?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0.
The next item for public hearings is item 5D, ASA 19-001D.
I'll invite Haley Zygursky for a presentation and open the public hearing.
Good evening, Haley Zygursky, Senior Planner, and this will be a joint presentation between
myself and Christy Upton with our environmental services department.
The request before you is to hold the public hearing and consider making a recommendation
to the City Council regarding a request by Fisher 59 Properties LLC for an alternative
environmentally sensitive area plan.
The subject property is just under 50 acres in size and is located on the north side of
West University, just west of Moss Branch Road.
If you recall, this item has been on your agenda several times before now.
It was originally noticed and the public hearing was first begun in July and since that time
it's been postponed a few times as the applicant works through some details of the project.
In that time, a few things have been cleared up.
They've received full approval through FEMA for their CLOMAR and they have also received
a waiver from TxDOT, so there's no longer additional detention required.
You may recall those were referenced in the original staff recommendations back in July.
The property is zoned employment center industrial, so the distribution center or warehouse use
that Fisher 59 has proposed is permitted on the property.
Back in 2009, a ESA field assessment was done of the two creeks that originally traversed
the property.
At that time, the conditions in place due to erosion and the existing crossing of one
of the streams under university led to both of the riparian buffer designations being
removed for those two streams.
They didn't meet the criteria at that time.
Subsequently, in 2013, a letter of map revision or LOMAR was done through FEMA that resulted
in the channelization of the western tributary.
That is not a part of our discussion here tonight.
All of the remaining floodplain on the property is surrounding that eastern channel.
Speaking of what has happened since then, in 2018, a preliminary plat was approved for
both lots.
The portion of the property outlined in blue is lot two.
Lot one is where, if you've driven by the property, you'll see the distribution center
is well under construction at this point in time.
This hatched area on lot one is that channelized stream that I referenced that used to be that
western tributary.
And then the hatched area on lot two is the floodplain that we'll be discussing this evening.
If this alternative ESA plan is approved, the applicant will be constructing a second
driveway for their site.
They have one driveway roughly in this area on University, but due to the size of the
facility, it does require two points of access to meet the fire code.
So this would be that second point of access to their site off of Moss Branch.
And with that, I will turn this over to Christy now to go more into detail on the alternative
ESA plan.
Thank you, Haley.
Christy Upton, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, and the first component I wanted to explain
to you is to continue on with the ESA field assessments.
There was another ESA field assessment conducted in 2018 that assessed the floodplain that
was associated with that stream on the eastern side of the two lots.
The floodplain was found to be predominantly in a natural state and it was designated as
undeveloped floodplain ESA.
As Haley explained, there is a proposed encroachment into that undeveloped floodplain, which would
be a deviation from the ESA protection requirements that are outlined in the DDC.
And there is a conditional letter of map revision that has been sought and approved now from
PMOP.
A little bit more detail on the encroachments.
So we have the 7,775 cubic yards that will be filled within the floodplain that currently
exists and that fill will be located generally in the area where the drive approach will
be constructed.
To compensate for the fill of the floodplain, the applicant is proposing to remove or cut
away portions of the floodplain and that will allow for more valley storage, and that in
general is in the areas that are shown in red here up to the dotted line that are the
limits of the construction, both on the north side and the south side of the floodplain.
That will result in 5.51 acres of the existing floodplain that will be disturbed and nearly
a little over a quarter of the acres of the existing floodplain that will be permanently
removed.
For that deviation from the DDC, the code allows for flexibility and discretionary processes
to create those deviations and there will be a mitigation for the activity that will
include creating and expanding or improving the habitat, improving the impacted environment,
maintaining habitat continuity, maximizing public access and utilization, and preserving
the protected area in perpetuity and creating a high quality development.
The first mitigation strategy that the applicant is proposing is to create a water quality
enhancement.
This will be through a bioretention basin.
There will be two of them, one located in general in this location on the property and
the other in general right next to the floodplain.
These water quality features will treat the runoff before it reaches the floodplain.
The water quality enhancement, in order for the applicant to kind of create that apples
to apples comparison, they created a standard by analyzing the natural features and determining
the storage of the floodplain that is currently provided to capture and remove pollutants.
That would be reflected in this first column here.
By removing a portion, permanently removing that portion of the floodplain from, moving
a portion of the floodplain by constructing the driveway, the bioretention system will
be compensating for that water quality treatment and as you can see, it is a little bit more
than what is proposed to be removed.
The second mitigation strategy is to replace and enhance the habitat that currently exists
by constructing this drive approach.
They will be removing, or they will be cut through the cut and fill.
They will be disturbing 5.51 acres and they will be replacing that with little over six
acres of that seeded native drain field mix.
There will be five and a quarter acres will be what is currently in the floodplain and
three quarters of it in the area that is now going to be the new floodplain.
In addition to that, there will be a little over a quarter of an acre of native vegetation
that will be added to the bioretention systems.
The long term habitat management and monitoring plan is to have a three year monitoring period
to ensure that the vegetation gets established.
During that time, the developer will be replacing any dead plant material, repair any erosion,
and remove any trash and create an annual report that will be submitted to environmental services
for the activities that occur during that year.
There will be a final acceptance period after three years which environmental services will
inspect for conformance with that plan and if found to be in compliance then issue a
final acceptance.
There is another long term management and monitoring plan that you can find in appendix
E of the ALTA ESA plan and that includes a routine inspection checklist and routine and
non-routine maintenance including trash and sediment removal and vegetation maintenance.
The recommendations that are found in your backup materials are listed here to hit the
highlights.
The land disturbance will be limited to the 5.51 acres and the permanent removal of 0.27
acres of that flood plain and then there will be a seeding of the native prairie habitat
over six acres of land and construction of two bioretention systems with native vegetation
within those bioretention systems.
We have struck recommendation number four.
As Haley mentioned earlier because TechSat has waived the additional detention basing
requirements and then we are asking the applicant is asking for some flexibility to allow for
staff approval of up to 5% of the bioretention system being modified in some way as long
as the water quality component is not affected.
The following installation there will be the inspection and acceptance period.
Questions?
I do not see any.
Thanks for the presentation.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak on this item may certainly do so.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and turn the dais for discussion or motion.
Commissioner Smith.
Motion to approve.
We have a first for approval and just for clarification does that include all staff
recommendations?
Okay.
Seven strike four.
Commissioner Pernetta.
Second the motion.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion on the item?
Seeing none, I will call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 6-0 with one recusal.
With that I invite Commissioner Cole back to the dais.
That concludes the public hearing.
Let's give them back in the agenda one page.
We are going to go to item 4C for presentation from Roland McAllen about the historic preservation
plan.
Thank you, Chair.
Good evening, commissioners.
I'm Roman McAllen, the historic preservation officer, and I have an item for you here.
I'm going to ask you to consider the historic preservation plan for the City of Denton and
to hold a public meeting and consider recommending to City Council regarding a resolution adopting
the vision, value statements, goals, policies, recommendations and the implementation matrix
as proposed in the Denton historic preservation plan.
A little bit about where we are today.
The current preservation plan for the City of Denton was adopted in 1985, and that plan
was the impetus for significant historic preservation efforts in Denton, and many of the objectives
of that plan were met, including local landmarks and the creation of districts and just the
operation within the City in general.
An excerpt from page one of the 1986 plan shows you that at the time there were very
different problems in the late 1980s, and this paragraph kind of gets to that point.
It says that to the community, it, meaning historic preservation, offers the possibility
of reversing what is otherwise an inevitable downward spiral, the deterioration of the
built environment, without incentives to reverse the trend, buildings gradually decay, and
as they decay, their surroundings, their neighborhoods decay, businesses seek, seeking low overhead
and owners and renters who may take few pains with the property to replace the earlier proud
owners or lessers.
The unfortunate part of this trend from the point of view of city management is that tax
revenues just go down, and as you see, it's about blight, and we didn't, and so that was
the problem back then.
I won't credit the creation of historic districts and conservation districts and the Main Street
District to the dramatic turnaround that clearly has happened since the late '80s in Denton,
because downtown looks fully revitalized.
Those neighborhoods have almost no visible neglect, at least on the west side of town,
and so it was a different time.
Another page in the ordinance talks about what some of those challenges were.
In the West Oak area, they had lost protection of single-family zoning in the 1960s, and
so the City Council made a positive contribution when it allowed the voluntary back zoning
to single-family status at no cost to the applicants, and that was done throughout the
Oak Hickory area, where it is all now single-family.
Why did they do that?
You see an example of it at the intersection of Mounts and West Oak Street, where you see
this apartment, roof of an apartment building in that picture, when in fact there was an
old home there facing the street like all the other historic homes.
That home was pulled back and stripped and turned around, and so what you see there today
is an apartment building, and then this building in the back is actually a wraparound, that
old structure that was there.
So people were faced with some instability, and there were also perceived threats, and
this section of the old plan seems sort of out of place today, but it says here, "In
this context, the Historic Landmark Commission would like to note its concern over the increase
in the proportion of Denton's commercial areas, which is passing to non-resident ownership.
Non-resident ownership always poses the danger that owners may choose to ignore the community's
best interests.
The problem is compounded today by a significant amount of properties being owned by citizens
of foreign nations, either directly or through nominees.
Those persons, Germans, Canadians, and others, may wish to be good citizens of Denton, but
it is difficult to inform them of community concerns."
So there were these perceived and maybe not perceived threats, but there were also the
real opportunities of preservation, which is summarized there at the end.
The residents of Denton's older areas welcomed a greater degree of stability than they have
enjoyed in recent years, and that's what preservation, conservation districts, historic districts,
and landmarks do.
They sort of say, "This place matters here, and we think we should stay around for a while."
So that brings us to today.
The Lakota Group has been working with the city since 2018.
Back in about October of 2018, we got started.
On the left is just a summary of all of the public input, the majority of the public input
that took place in meetings here within the city, including also at the end, there are
two online surveys with over 400 responses.
On the right is a list which is coming right from your staff report showing the times that
either the Lakota Group or myself have been in front of the City Council or Planning and
Zoning or the Landmark Commission.
Now I want to come back and talk to you for a minute about the presentation that the Lakota
Group will make to City Council next week, and that plan is presented here.
This is the summary.
They want to just point out all of the things we've done from 1977 to now are partially
here, and then down that there are four buildings on the National Register, and there are two
districts on the National Register, there are 62 landmarks and three local districts.
They talk about what a preservation plan is, which in our case was an evaluation of our
current program.
We asked them in the original RFP for this to look at everything we've done in the past,
the most recent survey of the Idiots Hill area in 2015, the 2012 survey of the Bolivar
Street area, the 1996 survey of the whole city.
Those were all paid for as is this plan, partially by a certified local government grant from
the Texas Historical Commission, which watches out for resources across the state.
So then they have the plan contents listed out.
They have done this in two phases.
The first phase resulted in a State of the City report after they looked at all of that
information, and then they began to draft the plan.
As a basis for the plan, they turned to the United States Secretary of Interior Standards
for preservation planning.
The three standards are that you create, one, the context.
You look at the history of the place, because that is what allows you to recognize why the
built resources matter, or for that matter, the landscape and any other archaeological
things matter.
So standard two is that you develop goals and priorities.
You identify resources, you evaluate them.
And then three is that you involve the public.
So there was a lot of community engagement.
They presented here some of it, two workshops.
We've actually probably had about five workshops.
We had stakeholder interviews with some members of this committee, Commissioner Rozell's office.
We had one with Alfred was one of the members that was there.
And so then we had the online surveys.
So the preservation plan is kind of inside of that document.
It has the executive summary, the introduction, the vision statement, the four goals statements,
and then 32 recommendations.
This is a summary of how Lakota sees what a plan encompasses, surveying, community development,
program administration, and outreach.
There's an information about survey and documentation.
You have a map in there which recommends future survey areas.
And a survey is where you get someone who's qualified to look at historic resources to
study the buildings in an area or the landscape.
From there, they can get the historic context.
So we have post-World War II development here, which includes styled ranch housing, mid-century
ranch housing.
They also talk about the fact that we have a lot of remaining O'Neill Ford buildings
in our city, which are very significant.
And later, they actually recommend that we pursue a state landmark for the remaining
resources.
And then they talk about there are remaining industrial buildings, like the Morrison Milling
Company and the African-American experience in Denton and historic signs.
They talk about incentives, program administration, which is how do we handle it as a city.
And Denton has been very, let me just step back and say, Denton has always been involved.
Since very early on, our Main Street program is over 25 years old.
Being a historic preservation program officer is important because that's required by a
certified local government program that we're in.
So we've been always involved in it a long time and dedicated to it.
And then the education and outreach.
So within the plan that you have, there are two samples here of the goals.
Goal number one is the documentation, the inventory, and the preservation of resources.
So you see under recommendations different survey areas within the city and then an implementation
timeline and a priority scale as well as in who would be involved in those things.
Typically you're surveying would be really staff along with possibly a consultant because
you can ask every year, which you usually probably get every two years, for a grant
from the Texas Historic Commission to do this.
Then for example, talking about the benefits of community involvement.
And so we've got recommendations on better community involvement, upgrading our website.
Currently on our website, City of Denton Historic Preservation, you can find all of our historic
resource surveys and links to the application for a certificate of appropriateness and what's
needed there.
Then they just summarize the benefits of preservation, building rehabilitation, revitalization of
our downtown, which we don't have a challenge with.
Preserving neighborhoods, tourism, and of course sustainability, which is the number
one thing.
As we go forward in this country with preservation, the preservation movement being essentially
50 years old, we're now moving into a time where we're really recognizing that these
buildings that have been built have energy infused in them that it's better to repurpose
those buildings than it is to take them down and rebuild.
So with that, coming back, that's their plan.
So coming back here to this current slide, I want to say that in the plan, the Landmark
Commission voted unanimously to ask you to recommend to city council that this plan be
approved with two conditions.
One of them related to the language around Quaker Town.
In our old plan, which is the top here on this screen, we had the language wrong about
what Quaker Town, where it got its name, and specifically it says here that when the homes
were being moved, that the buildings were a little shaky, and hence they thought that's
where the name Quaker Town came from.
It was a long shot from Akron in '86, so we're moving more.
We're getting better now as we go forward.
The Denton County Office of History and Culture has it.
What we think is the right answer today is that the community was named for the Quakers,
who helped slaves to escape on the Underground Railroad, and that is how they named it.
So what happened is we went to Landmark Commission, and one of our commissioners thought that
the language we had in the plan that's a part of your attached material today, there was
a paragraph that seemed to imply that people just decided to leave Quaker Town on their
own and moved.
And one of our commissioners wanted it to be clear that the language was they were forced
to leave, which they were forced to leave, including that one person never left their
house, and there's the story of a lady, and I'm sorry I don't remember her name, who never
got out of the chair in her house.
Her house was picked up and moved over to the east side with her in the chair, and that's
recognized in the Civic Center, where there's a sculpture there on the wall about that.
So the language they're looking for there is that Denton's Quaker Town story includes
a forced relocation of the African American community to Solomon Hill and to other areas
of Denton's east and south sides.
While there is a Texas Historical Commission marker in the park that provides some information
about Quaker Town, additional research and survey work for this context would identify
properties, blocks, and areas of cultural significance worthy of preservation and protection.
The historic and cultural resource of Denton, Texas, 1882 to 1949 multiples property listing
identifies four original surviving Quaker Town homes that may be worthy of local designation
and protection.
That's one recommendation they have, and the second recommendation pertains to a desire
to see a stronger program related to an incentive for local property owners, historic property
owners.
That's why we recommend a program for the partial or full exemption from City of Denton
property taxes in coordination with other applicable taxing authorities for locally
designated historic homes, and that can be found on page 44 and 74 of that document.
And so that's what they're recommending, and we recommend approval.
We recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to City Council the adoption
of the proposed Denton Historic Preservation Plan with the vision, value, statements, goals,
recommendations, and the matrix, along with the two recommendations from the Historic
Landmark Commission for adoption, and I'll take any questions.
We do have one question for Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
No questions for Roman.
Just a little praise, if I may.
From one public servant to another who no longer graces these walls this chamber after
tonight, I just want to commend Roman for his excellent job as Denton's Historic Preservation
Office.
He's moving onward and upward to a more rewarding position in his old stomping grounds of Houston,
and I just want to wish him and his wife the very best on the relocation and let him know
it's going to be missed.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Beck.
There are no other questions, so I appreciate the presentation.
This is an individual consideration, so at any time we can have discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Smith.
I'd like to make a motion to approve the staff recommendations with one change to the recommendations,
have it say instead, "Recommend the exploration of partial or full exemption from City of
Denton property taxes," instead of saying, "Recommend a program for the partial or full
exemption."
I'd rather see the expiration of the program not saying that they have to create a program
just in case that we do find that it doesn't seem to be fiscally responsible for us to
do it.
We can have it memorialized in the plan for us to have that.
So to clarify the motion, Commissioner Smith, I think I understand you are recommending
approval of the verbiage with the one change to the additional goal recommended by HALC
to have it emphasize an exploration, not an implementation of a program as a stated goal.
Correct.
Okay.
Commissioner Burnetta.
I second with the amendment of the exploration of a program.
Perfect.
We have a first and a second, any discussion?
Yes, please.
Just to make sure that that's, except for the recommendation of the HLC that was modified,
the other remaining recommendations of the HLC are also incorporated, including the change
suggested by Commissioner McAdams.
Yes.
Commissioner Burnetta.
Yes.
We have a first and a second, any discussion?
Seeing none, I will call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0.
Next item of business is our Planning and Zoning Commission matrix.
I will turn it over to Richard for updates and then open for questions or new items.
I'll just be brief on the matrix this evening.
One item will be bringing back the staff analysis updates on October 2nd.
Along with that, we're working through just how we will be presenting platting as it relates
to House Bill 3167.
Early on we have platts as a consent item recommending approval.
If we do have consent items, whether or not we're going to have two different consent
agendas, one for approval, one for denial, and then if an applicant does want to speak
on behalf of an item.
So we're working through that now with legal, and we'll have that for the second.
Right now we're just getting those applications, so none are really subject to that that we're
hearing tonight or subject to that 30-day rule.
The only other item I wanted to just touch on is some actions that Council had taken.
Last night they did adopt on second reading the zoning map, so that is approved now.
So we're just about there.
I think that was the last step.
The other fireside park, if you remember, there was a request to modify Council deferred
action on that item, so we are working through some concerns with that fence.
The only other item, I know Kathy has reached out about a work session for October 23rd.
What we'd like to do on that for that meeting is really just have a work session, and it'll
be centered around the Hunter and Cole ranches, MPCs, as they will be moving forward.
So there's a work session with Council on a number of items, and as we're preparing
for that, we thought it was really appropriate, given that probably most of you or most of
us have not really seen what those MPCs were even about many years ago, and so we thought
it would be best, rather than bring an amendment with that large of two projects, really, but
almost really one, is to really have a work session and explain exactly what's going on.
So that's scheduled for the 23rd.
The only thing I would like to add to the matrix, I don't have it in front of me, so
forgive me if it's already there, is the update on city res zoning, city initiated res zoning.
It seems like there was a batch that kept on getting pushed, and I want to do our best
to not let that go years without getting that taken care of.
So just the status on where those properties are.
Is there any other items for the matrix?
Commissioner Beck, do you want to add any parting items for staff to look at?
No, I just want to thank everybody for their friendship and just their input on what we've
done here.
I've enjoyed being a part of this process, and it's been a pleasure and an honor to serve
with each and every one of you.
But Ronnie, we haven't got a chance to meet.
I wish you the best in the future in your position, so thank each and every one of you.
We appreciate it.
Commissioner Beck, best of luck to the Board of Ethics or whatever your next endeavor is,
and I'll be looking forward to your articles in the DRC, I'm sure.
Any other items for the agenda this evening?
With that, I will close the public hearing at 719.
Thank you.