WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.140 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission Work 00:00:06.140 --> 00:00:10.580 Session for Wednesday, January 22, 2020. 00:00:10.580 --> 00:00:14.740 Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will open the meeting at 5.05. 00:00:14.740 --> 00:00:18.580 Let the record show that Commissioner Smith is absent at the start of the meeting. 00:00:18.580 --> 00:00:24.660 The first item of business is a work session report, and to receive a report and hold discussion 00:00:24.660 --> 00:00:26.860 regarding city-initiated rezoning. 00:00:26.860 --> 00:00:30.100 I'll invite Ron McGuida to present. 00:00:30.100 --> 00:00:34.940 Thank you, Chair, members of the Commission. 00:00:34.940 --> 00:00:41.580 This summary or presentation is really to bring you all up to date as to what is going 00:00:41.580 --> 00:00:47.960 on with our city-initiated rezoning that we've started last year as part of the DEN plan, 00:00:47.960 --> 00:00:50.720 I'm sorry, DEN code update. 00:00:50.720 --> 00:00:57.820 We did two rounds of city-initiated rezoning following that the Council requested that 00:00:57.820 --> 00:01:06.700 we have a work session to discuss the zoning changes, city-initiated rezoning due to the 00:01:06.700 --> 00:01:15.900 fact that there were some property owners that had some concerns with some of the city-initiated 00:01:15.900 --> 00:01:16.900 rezoning. 00:01:16.900 --> 00:01:24.020 We brought to the City Council a presentation on November 19th of last year. 00:01:24.020 --> 00:01:31.020 During the work session, we asked the Council three policy questions or considerations, 00:01:31.020 --> 00:01:33.900 and these were the three considerations. 00:01:33.900 --> 00:01:39.060 Should the city continue with city-initiated zonings only to address non-conforming uses 00:01:39.060 --> 00:01:46.060 and structures, or two, should the city continue with city-initiated zoning changes addressing 00:01:46.060 --> 00:01:52.660 non-conforming, and include properties in advance of future development or redevelopment? 00:01:52.660 --> 00:02:00.420 And last, should the city just discontinue city-initiated rezonings as it relates to 00:02:00.420 --> 00:02:09.500 property owners as far as the zoning of their properties, and let them come in with applications? 00:02:09.500 --> 00:02:14.340 The City Council directed staff to go with number two, which is what we had hoped for 00:02:14.340 --> 00:02:19.900 as a staff, wanted to continue our efforts with regards to city-initiated rezonings, 00:02:19.900 --> 00:02:28.900 but they also provided some comments, considerations that we look to when we start to bring back 00:02:28.900 --> 00:02:35.300 our next round, which will be our third city-initiated rezoning group. 00:02:35.300 --> 00:02:39.680 In that, we involve the public as much as possible. 00:02:39.680 --> 00:02:44.580 Where we would have public hearing notices, we would try to make sure that we meet with 00:02:44.580 --> 00:02:49.340 them in advance, and this is not just the property owner, this is the residents within 00:02:49.340 --> 00:02:55.420 200 feet, within 500 feet, so that we have a better understanding of what's being proposed 00:02:55.420 --> 00:02:58.620 prior to the public hearings. 00:02:58.620 --> 00:03:03.620 That we have property owner buy-in, that a lot of times, you know, we will suggest a 00:03:03.620 --> 00:03:09.940 rezoning, and not all the property owners, but the majority of them wanted the zoning 00:03:09.940 --> 00:03:16.260 change, but not all of them, we want to make sure that we have everyone that owns property 00:03:16.260 --> 00:03:21.420 to be in with the proposed rezoning. 00:03:21.420 --> 00:03:26.700 No downzoning, meaning that if the property is zoned, let's say a higher intense use, 00:03:26.700 --> 00:03:32.900 such as an MR, going to an MN or something lower than that, we should try to avoid that 00:03:32.900 --> 00:03:35.340 as much as possible. 00:03:35.340 --> 00:03:41.980 Hold off on proposals when needed, so basically, make sure that if someone comes in and requests 00:03:41.980 --> 00:03:46.740 a city-initiated rezoning, we should review that on a case-by-case, and not just automatically 00:03:46.740 --> 00:03:52.180 put that as part of our city-initiated rezoning, so really just fully vet it through with staff 00:03:52.180 --> 00:03:54.800 and with the general public. 00:03:54.800 --> 00:04:01.300 And lastly, to not disincentivize the zoning change request, meaning that there are property 00:04:01.300 --> 00:04:09.100 owners that still should proceed with their rezoning requests, and that shouldn't just 00:04:09.100 --> 00:04:13.900 fall back on the city to do the rezoning ourselves. 00:04:13.900 --> 00:04:20.140 So in essence, the council directs the staff to proceed with city-initiated rezoning with 00:04:20.140 --> 00:04:26.180 the understanding that we fully vet those changes, those proposed zoning changes, and 00:04:26.180 --> 00:04:33.140 also still continue to promote other ways of getting the zoning, be it by the property 00:04:33.140 --> 00:04:36.980 owner as an example. 00:04:36.980 --> 00:04:37.980 That's it. 00:04:37.980 --> 00:04:43.900 Basically, we got our direction that we were hoping for, and we have put a list, we've 00:04:43.900 --> 00:04:50.660 had a list, we're working on that list, we are continuing to meet with property owners, 00:04:50.660 --> 00:04:56.060 with residents within a certain radius of those properties, and we hope to bring forward 00:04:56.060 --> 00:04:59.180 a third round of city-initiated rezoning soon. 00:04:59.180 --> 00:05:03.620 We don't have an exact date specific, but with all of the other stuff that we're working 00:05:03.620 --> 00:05:09.700 on, it will probably be closer to late spring or maybe early summer as far as the third 00:05:09.700 --> 00:05:10.700 round. 00:05:10.700 --> 00:05:11.700 Commissioner Ellis. 00:05:11.700 --> 00:05:18.820 Ron, are you focusing on a certain area for this next round? 00:05:18.820 --> 00:05:25.540 No, we - let me see if I have the - it's hard to see, I apologize. 00:05:25.540 --> 00:05:27.940 It's pretty much everywhere in the city. 00:05:27.940 --> 00:05:33.980 We are looking at properties, again, using the criteria that we've used in the past. 00:05:33.980 --> 00:05:37.540 So the answer to that question, no, it's not in one particular area. 00:05:37.540 --> 00:05:43.300 We focused on corridors along I-35 for the first one, and then 380 in the loop on the 00:05:43.300 --> 00:05:44.480 second one. 00:05:44.480 --> 00:05:49.220 This one is probably going to focus more on the inner core of the city. 00:05:49.220 --> 00:05:51.740 You can see that there are some still outside. 00:05:51.740 --> 00:05:57.140 That stuff that we didn't consider the last time, but we still have on our list, so those 00:05:57.140 --> 00:06:03.740 will still carry forward as part of the next group. 00:06:03.740 --> 00:06:10.700 And then what happened with those properties that got pulled out of a city-initiated zoning? 00:06:10.700 --> 00:06:14.220 There were a handful of properties, I know, that would kind of - 00:06:14.220 --> 00:06:15.220 Right. 00:06:15.220 --> 00:06:16.220 Postponed. 00:06:16.220 --> 00:06:17.220 Where are those? 00:06:17.220 --> 00:06:18.220 Those will be part of phase three. 00:06:18.220 --> 00:06:19.220 That you're bringing them back? 00:06:19.220 --> 00:06:20.220 Yeah, it's hard to see. 00:06:20.220 --> 00:06:24.100 This is the one off of Lillian Miller in I-35. 00:06:24.100 --> 00:06:26.780 There was one up here, exactly. 00:06:26.780 --> 00:06:28.860 So they're still on the list. 00:06:28.860 --> 00:06:31.060 They're still on our radar. 00:06:31.060 --> 00:06:35.820 When we bring them forward, we'll reevaluate them a little bit based on council's direction, 00:06:35.820 --> 00:06:39.740 and again, we hope to bring some city-initiated rezoning in the near future. 00:06:39.740 --> 00:06:40.740 Commissioner Beck. 00:06:40.740 --> 00:06:41.740 Thank you. 00:06:41.740 --> 00:06:47.580 So for the ones that got delayed, were they delayed for particular reasons, or...? 00:06:47.580 --> 00:06:52.340 There were some questions, and working with the property owner, they asked that they be 00:06:52.340 --> 00:06:59.580 postponed or be carried forward, so it wasn't necessarily a specific reason, per se. 00:06:59.580 --> 00:07:05.100 I know the one to the Lillian Miller, there were some public comments, and we wanted to 00:07:05.100 --> 00:07:07.860 make sure that we addressed those before we brought those forward. 00:07:07.860 --> 00:07:09.620 Okay, thank you. 00:07:09.620 --> 00:07:12.820 Any other questions for Ron? 00:07:12.820 --> 00:07:13.820 Thank you very much, Ron. 00:07:13.820 --> 00:07:14.820 I wouldn't go far. 00:07:14.820 --> 00:07:15.820 Locked those out. 00:07:15.820 --> 00:07:22.180 No, no, I think you're good for the consent, but you're going to be back for the rest of 00:07:22.180 --> 00:07:23.180 the evening. 00:07:23.180 --> 00:07:24.180 Yes. 00:07:24.180 --> 00:07:31.820 So the next item for business will be, if there's any changes to the minutes, we have the consideration 00:07:31.820 --> 00:07:37.020 of January 8th minutes to look at, then we'll dive into our agenda. 00:07:37.020 --> 00:07:41.440 Just wanted to update the record to show that Commissioner Smith is in attendance with us, 00:07:41.440 --> 00:07:45.140 so welcome Commissioner Smith. 00:07:45.140 --> 00:07:47.340 The next items are the consent. 00:07:47.340 --> 00:07:52.740 We have three items, A, B, and C. Is there any question on item 3A that we want to have 00:07:52.740 --> 00:07:57.420 Haley dive further into? 00:07:57.420 --> 00:07:58.460 Item 3B. 00:07:58.460 --> 00:08:01.060 Can we have Cindy Jackson, is she here? 00:08:01.060 --> 00:08:02.340 Oh, there she is. 00:08:02.340 --> 00:08:03.740 Can we have you present on 3B? 00:08:03.740 --> 00:08:13.220 I think we have some questions for this item. 00:08:13.220 --> 00:08:41.460 Okay. 00:08:41.460 --> 00:08:54.300 This is a plat for Glenwood Meadows and it contains 102 residential lots and four open 00:08:54.300 --> 00:08:56.220 space lots. 00:08:56.220 --> 00:09:02.980 There is a gas well currently located here and this is designated for open space. 00:09:02.980 --> 00:09:04.940 And the remainder of the plat is right here. 00:09:04.940 --> 00:09:09.580 There is a plug with gas well that is on this site right here. 00:09:09.580 --> 00:09:15.060 I've had some questions regarding the side of the plug gas well, whether or not we can 00:09:15.060 --> 00:09:17.660 permit houses to be put on that. 00:09:17.660 --> 00:09:22.940 We advise the applicant that it should be designated as open space, but we can't require 00:09:22.940 --> 00:09:30.220 it because we don't have that requirement in our code. 00:09:30.220 --> 00:09:36.260 Any questions for Cindy, Commissioner Beck? 00:09:36.260 --> 00:09:42.140 I got a bunch of questions, so I'm going to cover them a little bit at a time. 00:09:42.140 --> 00:09:43.140 Sure. 00:09:43.140 --> 00:09:50.300 So if you blow up that plat a little bit, those closest homes are 250 and 300 feet. 00:09:50.300 --> 00:09:56.780 That's like the fire code distance and we're, for what, 15 months now have been dabbling. 00:09:56.780 --> 00:10:03.180 I know we are not allowed to vote on something that doesn't exist, but it clearly is in our 00:10:03.180 --> 00:10:06.460 mindset to increase the setback distances. 00:10:06.460 --> 00:10:09.940 Yes, and that 1,000 foot setback is right here. 00:10:09.940 --> 00:10:19.260 It is clearly shown that this is now the 1,000 foot setback and this plat came in before that 00:10:19.260 --> 00:10:21.100 requirement was in place. 00:10:21.100 --> 00:10:26.580 So what we did is we've got it marked on the plat so that people who are interested in purchasing 00:10:26.580 --> 00:10:30.780 the homes, they can look at the plat and they can see that it is within that 1,000 foot 00:10:30.780 --> 00:10:36.660 area that will be non-conforming. 00:10:36.660 --> 00:10:45.380 We were talking 500 feet, as I recall, but I admit, I know that doesn't exist right now, 00:10:45.380 --> 00:10:47.060 so I'm being a little careful. 00:10:47.060 --> 00:10:49.740 Yeah, I know you might be able to. 00:10:49.740 --> 00:10:56.780 But then also, there had been ongoing discussions about just as you led off with the capped 00:10:56.780 --> 00:10:59.900 gas wells, a building on top of them. 00:10:59.900 --> 00:11:02.100 So I guess I'm a little concerned. 00:11:02.100 --> 00:11:06.540 Let's let Haley hop in, maybe she'll have some clarity, and then we'll continue the 00:11:06.540 --> 00:11:07.540 questions. 00:11:07.540 --> 00:11:09.340 Yeah, I just wanted to clarify. 00:11:09.340 --> 00:11:13.820 The 1,000 foot radius shown on there is the notification requirement in the code. 00:11:13.820 --> 00:11:18.500 That is a requirement that on a plat in your HOA documents, in every form of notification 00:11:18.500 --> 00:11:22.780 that we can require, that the homeowners be notified they're within 1,000 feet of a gas 00:11:22.780 --> 00:11:27.140 well, that that well could be refracted, re-stimulated, or expanded in the future. 00:11:27.140 --> 00:11:28.740 So that is not an actual setback distance. 00:11:28.740 --> 00:11:32.120 It's just a notification requirement that this plat reflects. 00:11:32.120 --> 00:11:40.460 There is shown down here, as you reference, Commissioner Beck, the 250 foot setback is 00:11:40.460 --> 00:11:43.220 shown here with the inner dashed line. 00:11:43.220 --> 00:11:47.340 No lots are encroaching upon that 250, which is the requirement of the code. 00:11:47.340 --> 00:11:50.140 This outer radius is the 300 foot fire code requirement. 00:11:50.140 --> 00:12:07.980 So no structure could be built within that 300 foot radius in terms of protected uses. 00:12:07.980 --> 00:12:15.300 Do we know for the capped one if gas is flowing underneath that hole? 00:12:15.300 --> 00:12:16.460 That's not something we would know. 00:12:16.460 --> 00:12:20.540 The well has been plugged in accordance with Railroad Commission requirements to the depth 00:12:20.540 --> 00:12:21.820 required. 00:12:21.820 --> 00:12:32.660 Our code doesn't speak to any requirements for plugged wells, however. 00:12:32.660 --> 00:12:38.620 I know it's -- for my interest in this issue, I know that's a tricky issue that -- I mean, 00:12:38.620 --> 00:12:42.940 there's -- we're not under -- I understand. 00:12:42.940 --> 00:12:48.280 So I don't want Cynthia to come screaming over the table at me right now. 00:12:48.280 --> 00:12:53.860 So I mean, I guess I have a couple other questions about -- for whoever. 00:12:53.860 --> 00:13:00.620 I mean, looking at the map, there looked like there was drainage wetlands in the northeast 00:13:00.620 --> 00:13:01.620 corner. 00:13:01.620 --> 00:13:06.220 I mean, not just the creek bed, but additional wet regions. 00:13:06.220 --> 00:13:13.500 And I know that said we did a report for the ESA wetlands area, but it looks like we're 00:13:13.500 --> 00:13:18.460 building homes right on top of it, or am I misseeing that? 00:13:18.460 --> 00:13:24.220 This whole area has been designated as ESA, and it's open space. 00:13:24.220 --> 00:13:27.740 There are no homes encroaching on this area. 00:13:27.740 --> 00:13:34.260 You can see the limits of the ESA floodplain and drainage easement is right here. 00:13:34.260 --> 00:13:39.300 And the homes back up to it, but they don't build on it. 00:13:39.300 --> 00:13:43.980 And, I mean, do we know -- that's the 100-year floodplain? 00:13:43.980 --> 00:13:49.140 Is that -- am I reading that correctly for the boundary? 00:13:49.140 --> 00:13:51.220 Okay. 00:13:51.220 --> 00:13:53.620 And we're going to tear all of the trees in that same area, too? 00:13:53.620 --> 00:13:59.340 I mean, I'm assuming it's under the, whatever, 20% old guidelines? 00:13:59.340 --> 00:14:02.540 It is. 00:14:02.540 --> 00:14:06.820 I mean, this is just hitting thing after thing after thing, and I know they're under the 00:14:06.820 --> 00:14:07.820 old guidelines. 00:14:07.820 --> 00:14:15.580 But we've moved on since 2002, and this isn't really a Cindy question, it's -- you know, 00:14:15.580 --> 00:14:23.780 we're -- I understand the idea of vesting in old things, but we're just hitting bullet 00:14:23.780 --> 00:14:28.740 after bullet after bullet after bullet on this property where we are cramming everything 00:14:28.740 --> 00:14:35.260 on top of each other and tearing everything out against current ordinances and against 00:14:35.260 --> 00:14:39.500 -- I'm not at all comfortable with voting for this. 00:14:39.500 --> 00:14:44.140 So if this is going to go forward, I'd like it to be put to an individual vote. 00:14:44.140 --> 00:14:51.020 We actually have a -- a lot of -- we're dealing with a lot of applications right now that 00:14:51.020 --> 00:14:57.820 have come in under the 2002 code, and they had that time period up until the code was 00:14:57.820 --> 00:15:01.420 approved October 1st, where they could determine whether or not they wanted to go under the 00:15:01.420 --> 00:15:03.540 old code or the new code. 00:15:03.540 --> 00:15:06.100 So this one is old code. 00:15:06.100 --> 00:15:15.420 We will work our way through these eventually, but right now, we're working on both codes. 00:15:15.420 --> 00:15:21.740 I guess this -- I sort of asked this question several months ago when we had this issue 00:15:21.740 --> 00:15:28.780 come back up with the gas well, and I'll let -- Cynthia, please direct me how -- where we 00:15:28.780 --> 00:15:36.140 should respond to that, but it feels like we are setting ourselves up to create non-conforming 00:15:36.140 --> 00:15:45.700 if the ordinances go the way many people anticipate that they will be going, that the entire subdivision 00:15:45.700 --> 00:15:50.020 will be non-conforming except for maybe the southeast corner. 00:15:50.020 --> 00:15:53.020 And that feels like we shouldn't do things like that. 00:15:53.020 --> 00:16:00.380 That's -- it feels like it's creating problems for our development office and the city. 00:16:00.380 --> 00:16:04.180 So you can answer that, however you want to answer that, I guess. 00:16:04.180 --> 00:16:08.620 Commissioner Mack, if your question is related to the gas well ordinance -- 00:16:08.620 --> 00:16:09.620 Yes, ma'am. 00:16:09.620 --> 00:16:22.180 -- as I've stated before, it's not on the agenda this evening for consideration. 00:16:22.180 --> 00:16:29.300 So we can't discuss issues with this matter because that item isn't on the agenda? 00:16:29.300 --> 00:16:33.740 I think more to the -- maybe more to the point is we're thinking about a hypothetical impacting 00:16:33.740 --> 00:16:39.340 something that's -- that's before us tonight, because what happens to a ordinance whenever 00:16:39.340 --> 00:16:43.620 it gets voted on to the future, that is just a hypothetical. 00:16:43.620 --> 00:16:50.340 I understand, and I guess I'm not fighting that per se, and that kind of led each one 00:16:50.340 --> 00:16:55.140 of my little paragraph statements with I understand where we sit. 00:16:55.140 --> 00:17:04.420 But we're asked to make a reasonable, you know, assessment of how these things play 00:17:04.420 --> 00:17:10.780 out, and you know, I'm not necessarily just going to divorce all knowledge out of my head 00:17:10.780 --> 00:17:12.980 in this role. 00:17:12.980 --> 00:17:20.180 Yeah, I'm not comfortable with this property at all, considering all these items. 00:17:20.180 --> 00:17:24.460 I would at least ask that it be pulled out of consent. 00:17:24.460 --> 00:17:25.460 We certainly do that. 00:17:25.460 --> 00:17:29.220 It might be helpful, Richard, if you could help me out here. 00:17:29.220 --> 00:17:32.980 The preliminary and plaths and final plaths are an administrative process that we have 00:17:32.980 --> 00:17:33.980 as a body. 00:17:33.980 --> 00:17:35.740 It's not a recommending process. 00:17:35.740 --> 00:17:44.700 And with that, obviously, anyone can vote any way, but if it meets technical requirements... 00:17:44.700 --> 00:17:49.340 It essentially needs to be approved, or I mean, it's almost a ministerial function. 00:17:49.340 --> 00:17:56.860 I think this last House bill gives the ability for P&Z to deny a plath, but there would need 00:17:56.860 --> 00:18:02.060 to be findings associated with that, so you would need to make a finding that would go 00:18:02.060 --> 00:18:08.040 against the technical review of, say, the city engineer or the traffic engineer and make 00:18:08.040 --> 00:18:15.900 your own finding associated with those criteria that are included in the backup. 00:18:15.900 --> 00:18:18.100 That's not a... 00:18:18.100 --> 00:18:20.880 Is that a requirement for a no vote? 00:18:20.880 --> 00:18:26.180 Is a citation of where it doesn't meet technical requirements, or do we have the autonomy to 00:18:26.180 --> 00:18:30.500 vote no out of conscience on plaths? 00:18:30.500 --> 00:18:37.740 Incident can back me up, but it needs to be tied to the letter of the law, if you will. 00:18:37.740 --> 00:18:38.740 Okay. 00:18:38.740 --> 00:18:42.980 Commissioner Begg, I would just ask at public hearing if you just remind me if you want 00:18:42.980 --> 00:18:43.980 that pulled... 00:18:43.980 --> 00:18:48.820 I think I'm gonna request that we still vote individually, even if the vote is on technical 00:18:48.820 --> 00:18:54.300 merits and even if we vote the way we would likely vote on the consent other items. 00:18:54.300 --> 00:18:59.420 I just kind of want an actual record of that event, if we could, please. 00:18:59.420 --> 00:19:00.420 Will do. 00:19:00.420 --> 00:19:01.420 Thank you, Mr. Smith. 00:19:01.420 --> 00:19:02.420 Thank you, Chair. 00:19:02.420 --> 00:19:08.940 So on those plug gas wells, it's usually encouraged to make that open space, but it's not city 00:19:08.940 --> 00:19:09.940 code to make it open space? 00:19:09.940 --> 00:19:10.940 That's right. 00:19:10.940 --> 00:19:11.940 Okay. 00:19:11.940 --> 00:19:12.940 I just wanted to make sure it wasn't... 00:19:12.940 --> 00:19:13.940 Yeah. 00:19:13.940 --> 00:19:14.940 And they were encouraged. 00:19:14.940 --> 00:19:15.940 I just wanted to make clarification of it. 00:19:15.940 --> 00:19:16.940 Thanks. 00:19:16.940 --> 00:19:17.940 Dr. Shirellis. 00:19:17.940 --> 00:19:18.940 Thank you, Chair. 00:19:18.940 --> 00:19:24.140 I think you might have just answered it with regard to that lot nine, block A. So you encouraged 00:19:24.140 --> 00:19:25.140 it. 00:19:25.140 --> 00:19:26.980 I noticed it's not designated open space, so... 00:19:26.980 --> 00:19:27.980 No. 00:19:27.980 --> 00:19:28.980 Their response was no? 00:19:28.980 --> 00:19:29.980 Yes. 00:19:29.980 --> 00:19:30.980 All right. 00:19:30.980 --> 00:19:31.980 Thanks. 00:19:31.980 --> 00:19:36.380 Until we have something in the gas well ordinance that addresses this, we really can't force 00:19:36.380 --> 00:19:40.460 the issue on the applicant. 00:19:40.460 --> 00:19:42.180 Any other questions for Sundee? 00:19:42.180 --> 00:19:43.180 Great. 00:19:43.180 --> 00:19:44.900 Thank you very much, Sundee. 00:19:44.900 --> 00:19:45.900 Sure. 00:19:45.900 --> 00:19:46.900 Next item is 3C. 00:19:46.900 --> 00:19:49.720 Does anyone have any questions on this item for Julie? 00:19:49.720 --> 00:19:50.720 We do. 00:19:50.720 --> 00:20:00.260 Next item is on by Julie Upp. 00:20:00.260 --> 00:20:06.300 Good evening. 00:20:06.300 --> 00:20:08.420 The final plat for Sherman Crossing. 00:20:08.420 --> 00:20:09.420 This might look familiar. 00:20:09.420 --> 00:20:11.500 You saw the preliminary plat not too long ago. 00:20:11.500 --> 00:20:17.660 It is a single-family residential subdivision, and I'll stand for any questions. 00:20:17.660 --> 00:20:18.660 Commissioner Ellis. 00:20:18.660 --> 00:20:19.660 Thank you, Chair. 00:20:19.660 --> 00:20:23.100 I noticed that the recommendation is the tree mitigation. 00:20:23.100 --> 00:20:27.740 So with an approval of this, is that recommendation automatically being part of this? 00:20:27.740 --> 00:20:29.740 Yes, ma'am. 00:20:29.740 --> 00:20:30.740 Okay. 00:20:30.740 --> 00:20:31.740 Any other questions? 00:20:31.740 --> 00:20:32.740 Great. 00:20:32.740 --> 00:20:33.740 Thank you. 00:20:33.740 --> 00:20:34.740 Thank you. 00:20:34.740 --> 00:20:35.740 That concludes our consent agenda. 00:20:35.740 --> 00:20:36.740 We'll move into public hearings. 00:20:36.740 --> 00:20:44.180 Item 4A is asking for a postponement, and so we will not hear presentation for 4A in chambers. 00:20:44.180 --> 00:20:45.180 We will... 00:20:45.180 --> 00:20:46.180 Go ahead. 00:20:46.180 --> 00:20:47.180 Michelle Ellis. 00:20:47.180 --> 00:20:48.180 Thank you. 00:20:48.180 --> 00:20:49.180 Postponement. 00:20:49.180 --> 00:20:50.180 Yes, February 5th. 00:20:50.180 --> 00:20:51.180 Thanks. 00:20:51.180 --> 00:20:52.180 Yeah. 00:20:52.180 --> 00:20:53.180 So we will open... 00:20:53.180 --> 00:20:58.980 I will open public hearing and ask for a postponement to date certain at February 5th. 00:20:58.980 --> 00:21:07.660 Next item is 4B, and this is presented by Ron on a code amendment. 00:21:07.660 --> 00:21:14.700 Presentation real quick. 00:21:14.700 --> 00:21:16.260 Are these three separate ones? 00:21:16.260 --> 00:21:17.260 They are. 00:21:17.260 --> 00:21:18.260 Okay. 00:21:18.260 --> 00:21:24.060 Thank you for your consideration and votes. 00:21:24.060 --> 00:21:29.340 Chair members of the commission, this is one of three code amendments that we will be considering... 00:21:29.340 --> 00:21:31.380 You all will be considering this evening. 00:21:31.380 --> 00:21:36.940 The first one is a code amendment, a city-initiated code amendment regarding low-impact manufacturing 00:21:36.940 --> 00:21:39.280 use. 00:21:39.280 --> 00:21:44.260 As you all know, back in April, we adopted the Dunn Code Update. 00:21:44.260 --> 00:21:51.540 As part of that effort, there was a lot of work towards the use-specific uses, as well 00:21:51.540 --> 00:21:54.340 as creating some use-specific standards. 00:21:54.340 --> 00:22:03.500 Some of the uses were consolidated, some were introduced as new uses, as well as some were 00:22:03.500 --> 00:22:06.940 just renamed from one use to another. 00:22:06.940 --> 00:22:10.940 The low-impact manufacturing was one of those uses that was renamed. 00:22:10.940 --> 00:22:16.180 It was previously light manufacturing, and it is now low-impact manufacturing, and there 00:22:16.180 --> 00:22:21.260 is a definition that was included as part of the Dunn Code Update. 00:22:21.260 --> 00:22:27.200 That definition that you see here is defined in sub-chapter 9 of the DDC, and I'll just 00:22:27.200 --> 00:22:28.940 read it for the record. 00:22:28.940 --> 00:22:34.980 Low-impact manufacturing is defined as an industrial operations relying on the assembly, 00:22:34.980 --> 00:22:40.020 distributing, fabricating, manufacturing, packaging, processing, recycling, repairing, 00:22:40.020 --> 00:22:46.820 servicing, storing, and wholesaling of goods or products using parts previously developed 00:22:46.820 --> 00:22:48.580 from raw material. 00:22:48.580 --> 00:22:53.860 Low-impact manufacturing uses include only those uses that will not create noise, smoke, 00:22:53.860 --> 00:23:02.180 fumes, odors, glare, or health or safety hazards outside of the building where such assembly, 00:23:02.180 --> 00:23:05.140 fabrication, or processing takes place. 00:23:05.140 --> 00:23:13.340 A very low-impact, mainly assembly-type uses under this type of use. 00:23:13.340 --> 00:23:20.260 The way it is permitted in the DDC currently, it is permitted in the MD with a specific 00:23:20.260 --> 00:23:29.220 use permit, and that is permitted in the MR, SC, HC, GO, LI, and HI with a use-specific 00:23:29.220 --> 00:23:34.900 standard, and that use-specific standard is 536E, and that is the subject that we will 00:23:34.900 --> 00:23:38.780 be discussing as part of this Code Amendment. 00:23:38.780 --> 00:23:46.580 So 536E, the city-initiated amendment, Code Amendment, is really to correct what's there 00:23:46.580 --> 00:23:47.580 today. 00:23:47.580 --> 00:23:54.740 Currently, the section states that distribution, warehousing, or wholesaling activities are 00:23:54.740 --> 00:24:00.900 prohibited, but by the definition that I read earlier, it says that is part of their activity. 00:24:00.900 --> 00:24:05.940 So I'm not really sure why that was included, and that is why we're here today just to correct 00:24:05.940 --> 00:24:09.260 that use-specific standard. 00:24:09.260 --> 00:24:15.620 The second part of the use-specific standard is related to the maximum square feet of gross 00:24:15.620 --> 00:24:18.020 flow area per lot. 00:24:18.020 --> 00:24:24.420 The maximum that is specified for low-impact manufacturing is 5,000 square feet, and if 00:24:24.420 --> 00:24:29.180 you know low-impact manufacturing and the type of uses that are allowed under that, 00:24:29.180 --> 00:24:31.820 5,000 really is not much. 00:24:31.820 --> 00:24:38.340 In fact, there are a number of businesses today that are now non-conforming because of that 00:24:38.340 --> 00:24:44.240 limitation in the square footage of, again, a maximum of 5,000 square feet. 00:24:44.240 --> 00:24:49.080 What staff is proposing, as you see here in this strikethrough and underline, is we're 00:24:49.080 --> 00:24:55.220 getting rid of that first use-specific standard, and that distribution, warehousing, and wholesaling 00:24:55.220 --> 00:24:56.980 activities are prohibited. 00:24:56.980 --> 00:25:00.340 We would like to see that be part of low-impact manufacturing. 00:25:00.340 --> 00:25:03.260 Again, it is part of their activity. 00:25:03.260 --> 00:25:12.140 The MD would have a maximum 10,000 square feet, and MD is the area around the downtown 00:25:12.140 --> 00:25:13.140 primarily. 00:25:13.140 --> 00:25:14.140 -Tricia Ellis. 00:25:14.140 --> 00:25:15.140 -Thank you, Chair. 00:25:15.140 --> 00:25:19.620 So, Ron, with regard to the MD, you are removing the SUP. 00:25:19.620 --> 00:25:21.900 -No, we still have the SUP. 00:25:21.900 --> 00:25:24.420 -You're leaving it in there? 00:25:24.420 --> 00:25:25.420 -That's still in there. 00:25:25.420 --> 00:25:26.420 That's not changing. 00:25:26.420 --> 00:25:32.340 -The 10,000 is just an added use-specific standard that they will still have to comply 00:25:32.340 --> 00:25:36.940 with even with a specific use permit. 00:25:36.940 --> 00:25:46.900 Under the MRSC and HC, which are the next three lineup of zoning districts that permit 00:25:46.900 --> 00:25:53.140 low-impact manufacturing by right, they can go up to 10,000 square feet. 00:25:53.140 --> 00:25:58.620 However, if they choose to exceed 10,000, they have the option to get that through a 00:25:58.620 --> 00:26:00.260 specific use permit. 00:26:00.260 --> 00:26:05.980 So you can see there's a tier as far as square footage based on the zoning district as we 00:26:05.980 --> 00:26:09.380 move further to the more intense. 00:26:09.380 --> 00:26:17.980 The remaining zoning districts, the GO, LI, and HI, have a use-specific standard. 00:26:17.980 --> 00:26:23.220 All that is required for those zoning districts is that all activities shall occur entirely 00:26:23.220 --> 00:26:25.300 within an enclosed structure. 00:26:25.300 --> 00:26:28.060 They don't have any maximum square footage. 00:26:28.060 --> 00:26:32.900 All that is required of them is that they be within an enclosed structure. 00:26:32.900 --> 00:26:36.980 And that is the basis of the code amendment. 00:26:36.980 --> 00:26:37.980 -Commissioner Smith. 00:26:37.980 --> 00:26:38.980 -Thank you, Chair. 00:26:38.980 --> 00:26:45.620 Ron, have we turned down or lost anybody who's trying to apply for a rezoning because the 00:26:45.620 --> 00:26:46.620 code was wrong? 00:26:46.620 --> 00:26:48.820 There was a small window there, it just didn't open. 00:26:48.820 --> 00:26:49.820 -Yeah, we have it. 00:26:49.820 --> 00:26:50.820 Luckily, we haven't. 00:26:50.820 --> 00:26:51.820 I don't think we have. 00:26:51.820 --> 00:26:56.780 I know that we've had a lot of people call in that have existing facilities that are 00:26:56.780 --> 00:26:59.980 now not conforming, and so they asked that, right? 00:26:59.980 --> 00:27:05.140 So this is why we're bringing this forward as we have gone through a number of development 00:27:05.140 --> 00:27:06.140 review processes. 00:27:06.140 --> 00:27:08.580 -Just wanted to make sure we didn't lose any new people we were looking at. 00:27:08.580 --> 00:27:09.580 -Not to my understanding. 00:27:09.580 --> 00:27:14.580 I believe that most of the ones that have this issue is mainly non-conforming. 00:27:14.580 --> 00:27:15.580 -Awesome. 00:27:15.580 --> 00:27:16.580 Thanks. 00:27:16.580 --> 00:27:23.540 Just a follow-on from Commissioner Smith's question, do we have a feel for how many non-conforming 00:27:23.540 --> 00:27:25.020 businesses we have right now? 00:27:25.020 --> 00:27:27.660 -I did not do an inventory, but I can tell you... 00:27:27.660 --> 00:27:28.660 -It's crudely. 00:27:28.660 --> 00:27:33.620 -I tell you, most of the areas along Loop 288 in the Mayhill area, there's a number 00:27:33.620 --> 00:27:39.180 of LI zoning districts there where there's existing Labanol, I believe, Labanol's in 00:27:39.180 --> 00:27:40.180 that area. 00:27:40.180 --> 00:27:48.140 There are some other larger square footage facilities that no longer comply with the 00:27:48.140 --> 00:27:49.140 use-specific standard. 00:27:49.140 --> 00:27:50.140 -Thank you. 00:27:50.140 --> 00:27:56.380 -Do they, Ron, individuals that meet the second criteria, let's say, of 25,000 square feet 00:27:56.380 --> 00:28:03.540 in HC, do they need to come back for an SUP, or how is that non-conform... 00:28:03.540 --> 00:28:06.500 Are they considered non-conformed if they don't have an SUP, but they do fall within 00:28:06.500 --> 00:28:07.500 an ability? 00:28:07.500 --> 00:28:17.180 -If they don't meet, they would be non-conforming, and if they choose to expand or whatnot, then 00:28:17.180 --> 00:28:19.340 they would have to get in a specific use-perm. 00:28:19.340 --> 00:28:23.500 They couldn't expand because they're non-conforming, but if they choose to, they would be able 00:28:23.500 --> 00:28:25.620 to under this standard. 00:28:25.620 --> 00:28:30.500 -They would be non-conforming, but nothing would happen until they took action or a rebuild 00:28:30.500 --> 00:28:31.500 or an expansion. 00:28:31.500 --> 00:28:32.500 -Correct. 00:28:32.500 --> 00:28:33.500 Yeah. 00:28:33.500 --> 00:28:34.500 -They would come back. 00:28:34.500 --> 00:28:35.500 Okay. 00:28:35.500 --> 00:28:37.500 Any questions on this item? 00:28:37.500 --> 00:28:38.500 Great. 00:28:38.500 --> 00:28:40.380 Next item of business is 4C. 00:28:40.380 --> 00:28:47.780 This is also Ron with the development code. 00:28:47.780 --> 00:28:50.780 -Okay. 00:28:50.780 --> 00:28:54.580 Okay. 00:28:54.580 --> 00:28:57.380 This is the second code amendment that we'll bring forward. 00:28:57.380 --> 00:28:59.420 It's the city-initiated code amendment. 00:28:59.420 --> 00:29:05.460 This is related to the administrative criteria manual and some of the other criteria manuals 00:29:05.460 --> 00:29:08.660 that we have currently in place. 00:29:08.660 --> 00:29:14.940 Part of the effort that we are working with staff internally is to develop and improve 00:29:14.940 --> 00:29:21.540 our development review process, and one way of doing that is to create offshore efficiency. 00:29:21.540 --> 00:29:27.020 What we've done is identified a development handbook where it is one document where all 00:29:27.020 --> 00:29:32.860 of the following information will be available for the development community. 00:29:32.860 --> 00:29:40.020 The development handbook will have and contain within itself will be flow charts, submittal 00:29:40.020 --> 00:29:45.660 schedules, application forms, checklists, calendars, and other development review documents 00:29:45.660 --> 00:29:50.660 that are typical that you normally see during the development review process. 00:29:50.660 --> 00:29:56.140 What we found is that what is the administrative criteria manual, which I presented to you 00:29:56.140 --> 00:30:02.420 all back last year, a lot of the information would be included there. 00:30:02.420 --> 00:30:07.460 There is also an application criteria manual that's referenced in the DDC, but really 00:30:07.460 --> 00:30:10.380 it's the same document that we're talking about. 00:30:10.380 --> 00:30:12.940 The site design criteria manual, similar. 00:30:12.940 --> 00:30:18.640 It has a lot of the requirements that is needed for the development review process. 00:30:18.640 --> 00:30:23.120 We feel that that is something that can be contained or consolidated within a development 00:30:23.120 --> 00:30:24.460 handbook. 00:30:24.460 --> 00:30:30.020 The construction criteria manual, as we began to look at the construction criteria manual, 00:30:30.020 --> 00:30:35.220 we found that a lot of what is stated in the construction criteria manual can also be included 00:30:35.220 --> 00:30:38.140 and consolidated into the development handbook. 00:30:38.140 --> 00:30:45.140 Lastly, the ESA criteria manual that you all heard from our water protection team, it also 00:30:45.140 --> 00:30:51.220 has certain information and other requirements that are related to development that again 00:30:51.220 --> 00:30:56.020 would benefit in being part of a development handbook. 00:30:56.020 --> 00:31:02.300 With that, we are proposing as far as code amendment that all of these references that 00:31:02.300 --> 00:31:08.980 are listed here be referenced in the then development code as a development handbook. 00:31:08.980 --> 00:31:14.200 Now everyone that sees that will be directed to one document, and that is the intent to 00:31:14.200 --> 00:31:19.540 create again an efficient way, a more easier way of understanding our development review 00:31:19.540 --> 00:31:21.380 process. 00:31:21.380 --> 00:31:26.620 That is again what is being proposed, are these references that are listed here that 00:31:26.620 --> 00:31:33.460 they will be renamed as part of this code amendment to development handbook. 00:31:33.460 --> 00:31:39.260 There are a few sections where they are referenced, obviously the admin criteria manual, construction 00:31:39.260 --> 00:31:45.220 criteria manual, and ESA criteria manual will no longer exist, so then they will no longer 00:31:45.220 --> 00:31:50.440 be included or added or left on this list, so that's why you see a strikethrough for 00:31:50.440 --> 00:31:52.300 those three there. 00:31:52.300 --> 00:31:58.260 And then just to summarize, throughout the code, administrative criteria manual is mentioned 00:31:58.260 --> 00:32:03.740 22 times, the application criteria manual five times, the site design criteria manual 00:32:03.740 --> 00:32:10.660 is referenced 13, construction once, and then ESA is referenced four times in the DDC. 00:32:10.660 --> 00:32:15.740 And all of these references, again if this code amendment were to be passed, will now 00:32:15.740 --> 00:32:21.180 be referenced in the DDC as the development handbook. 00:32:21.180 --> 00:32:24.620 Concludes my presentation, I'll be happy to answer any questions. 00:32:24.620 --> 00:32:25.620 Commissioner Beck. 00:32:25.620 --> 00:32:28.060 So thank you, Chair. 00:32:28.060 --> 00:32:31.900 So it feels like an efficiency to me as well, and it feels like something that we should 00:32:31.900 --> 00:32:37.980 do, but I have some questions about like unintended consequences that I'm trying to work through 00:32:37.980 --> 00:32:42.580 in my head, and that is if we group these books together, going forward in the future 00:32:42.580 --> 00:32:49.300 we would just, for modifications, we would just take one vote on that consolidated item? 00:32:49.300 --> 00:32:53.020 Because right now we take like 12 different votes for every criterion manual. 00:32:53.020 --> 00:32:55.740 Right, it would be one document in any amendment manual. 00:32:55.740 --> 00:33:01.340 This is a handbook, and that is something that is going to be administered administratively 00:33:01.340 --> 00:33:07.380 by staff, and so any changes to that would be done internally by staff. 00:33:07.380 --> 00:33:12.100 So there would be no vote, I guess, I don't know if that is your question. 00:33:12.100 --> 00:33:16.180 It wasn't, but it's informative, so I appreciate it. 00:33:16.180 --> 00:33:23.660 So we feel that the content of the development handbook is again administrative, again flowcharts, 00:33:23.660 --> 00:33:29.700 checklist items, procedures that is needed for the development review process. 00:33:29.700 --> 00:33:38.780 Anything that is regulatory or policy related, we will include or have include into the development 00:33:38.780 --> 00:33:40.120 code itself. 00:33:40.120 --> 00:33:45.700 So just to help differentiate between a handbook and the development code, obviously the development 00:33:45.700 --> 00:33:50.980 code is something that this body will review and has reviewed and will continue to review, 00:33:50.980 --> 00:33:57.700 while the handbook is meant to be just that, a development handbook administered by staff. 00:33:57.700 --> 00:34:01.460 So then why don't we put the other criterion manuals into a giant handbook? 00:34:01.460 --> 00:34:05.500 Well that's a good question, and that's something that we will be coming to you hopefully in 00:34:05.500 --> 00:34:12.820 the near future, there is plans to consolidate the criterion manuals into one criterion manual. 00:34:12.820 --> 00:34:18.700 While they'll still have the transportation, the waste water and water sections and storm 00:34:18.700 --> 00:34:26.220 water in each of, in broken down in the actual criterion manual, but that will be a separate 00:34:26.220 --> 00:34:30.940 document and it will be just referred to as the development criterion manual. 00:34:30.940 --> 00:34:32.900 So kind of leading to what you were saying. 00:34:32.900 --> 00:34:37.200 So again, efficiency, right, so you have one criterion manual where you have all of those 00:34:37.200 --> 00:34:42.940 different categories identified, but again that is a criterion manual, this is a handbook 00:34:42.940 --> 00:34:45.420 and again the difference between the two. 00:34:45.420 --> 00:34:50.700 The handbook is again very development review process, the criterion manual very technical 00:34:50.700 --> 00:34:55.140 related to engineering, related to storm water, that's a little bit different from a development 00:34:55.140 --> 00:34:56.140 handbook. 00:34:56.140 --> 00:34:59.740 Okay, thank you Ron. 00:34:59.740 --> 00:35:03.500 Ron in the posting, I don't know if this is a big deal or not, but in the posting it's 00:35:03.500 --> 00:35:07.840 saying that there's going to be two handbooks, a development handbook and an ESA handbook. 00:35:07.840 --> 00:35:12.940 That is, I apologize, that should have been updated, the caption, what we're trying to 00:35:12.940 --> 00:35:16.540 do is consolidate into one development handbook. 00:35:16.540 --> 00:35:19.980 Initially we were thinking that it would be a development handbook and an ESA handbook, 00:35:19.980 --> 00:35:26.640 but towards the end of our analysis we decided that we would fold in the ESA into one development 00:35:26.640 --> 00:35:30.260 handbook, but that is the plan. 00:35:30.260 --> 00:35:35.140 This has no bearing on public notification or anything that what's being voted upon is 00:35:35.140 --> 00:35:36.660 different than the item? 00:35:36.660 --> 00:35:38.420 I don't think so. 00:35:38.420 --> 00:35:39.420 Great, perfect. 00:35:39.420 --> 00:35:43.140 Okay, any other questions for this item? 00:35:43.140 --> 00:35:51.540 The next item of business is 4D, this is also Ron with the development code. 00:35:51.540 --> 00:35:59.420 Okay, this is the third code amendment. 00:35:59.420 --> 00:36:05.700 It's related to the location of parking areas, primarily parking in front. 00:36:05.700 --> 00:36:08.900 Again as you all know, there was a code update. 00:36:08.900 --> 00:36:14.980 Part of that effort, there were some standards that were created or carried forward and added 00:36:14.980 --> 00:36:21.220 to, specifically section 796D2. 00:36:21.220 --> 00:36:26.660 Under that section it refers to all other uses and all other uses are basically the 00:36:26.660 --> 00:36:32.220 uses that are not single family, duplexes, ten homes, triplexes, or fourplexes, everything 00:36:32.220 --> 00:36:33.460 else. 00:36:33.460 --> 00:36:44.620 In all other uses, parking in front is prohibited in the MN, the MD, and the MR. 00:36:44.620 --> 00:36:51.460 Now what was added as part of the development code update in 2019 was the addition of the 00:36:51.460 --> 00:36:53.580 MR. 00:36:53.580 --> 00:37:00.580 Previously in the 2002 code, the parking in front was prohibited in a protection oriented 00:37:00.580 --> 00:37:06.980 districts, which is your MN, and it was also prohibited in the downtown, the DCG, which 00:37:06.980 --> 00:37:10.220 is your MD. 00:37:10.220 --> 00:37:16.820 The MR again, like I said earlier, was a zoning district that was added to this list. 00:37:16.820 --> 00:37:23.460 What we have found through development reviews after the code was updated, we found that 00:37:23.460 --> 00:37:28.740 properties that were zoned MR, and you can see from the zoning map, MR are these dark 00:37:28.740 --> 00:37:30.280 purple areas. 00:37:30.280 --> 00:37:39.780 They're primarily located along I-35 and along major arterials and collectors. 00:37:39.780 --> 00:37:48.180 Now they're no longer allowed to have parking in front, while prior to 2002, they were in 00:37:48.180 --> 00:37:50.020 those zoning districts. 00:37:50.020 --> 00:38:01.900 For those that are familiar, the MR was once RCCN and RCCD, and under that zoning district 00:38:01.900 --> 00:38:08.780 in the 2002, they were allowed parking in front, but now with the 2019, the MR, by adding 00:38:08.780 --> 00:38:17.780 the MR into that prohibition, those areas that were once RCCN and RCCD are no longer 00:38:17.780 --> 00:38:21.540 able to have parking in front. 00:38:21.540 --> 00:38:28.900 What we found is that it's not appropriate to have that prohibition under the MR. 00:38:28.900 --> 00:38:35.620 Primarily those that are along an arterial, such as the loop, such as I-35 frontage road 00:38:35.620 --> 00:38:40.700 would be considered an arterial, and such as other collectors that are largely areas 00:38:40.700 --> 00:38:44.640 where there's high traffic volumes and whatnot. 00:38:44.640 --> 00:38:56.380 What staff is proposing is that we correct 7962, again, primarily because parking in front 00:38:56.380 --> 00:39:03.580 is appropriate in the MR district, and that is also appropriate within arterials and collectors. 00:39:03.580 --> 00:39:09.220 This is the code update that we are proposing under that section, where I'm going to read 00:39:09.220 --> 00:39:15.260 it for the record, off-street parking areas located between the front building facade 00:39:15.260 --> 00:39:22.540 and the adjacent street frontage is prohibited, unless the parcel satisfies the following. 00:39:22.540 --> 00:39:28.500 It is located outside the NMD. 00:39:28.500 --> 00:39:35.300 We struck out the MR zoning district, so all other zoning districts would be allowed parking 00:39:35.300 --> 00:39:37.200 in front. 00:39:37.200 --> 00:39:44.060 There is also that it also shall adjoin, the property shall also adjoin either an arterial 00:39:44.060 --> 00:39:49.420 or collector, as defined by the mobility plan. 00:39:49.420 --> 00:39:52.780 Those are the changes that we are proposing. 00:39:52.780 --> 00:40:00.700 Again, if there's a specific property that's located within an MR, today they would not 00:40:00.700 --> 00:40:03.820 be allowed to park in front. 00:40:03.820 --> 00:40:10.980 Those properties that are MR and are on a collector also would not be permitted. 00:40:10.980 --> 00:40:17.580 What we're saying is that they should be allowed under the MR, as well as those properties 00:40:17.580 --> 00:40:23.420 that are both MR and along a collector and an arterial. 00:40:23.420 --> 00:40:25.620 Any questions? 00:40:25.620 --> 00:40:28.580 Commissioner Beck. 00:40:28.580 --> 00:40:30.340 Thank you, Chair. 00:40:30.340 --> 00:40:35.580 Is there any, I guess I haven't mapped it out like you guys have, is there any place 00:40:35.580 --> 00:40:42.460 where you're going to give the potential for an unintended, undesirable parking lot to 00:40:42.460 --> 00:40:49.460 be plopped down and sort of because you're creating an allowed exception, where it would 00:40:49.460 --> 00:40:53.620 just really break things, as it were? 00:40:53.620 --> 00:40:54.900 We definitely looked into that. 00:40:54.900 --> 00:41:00.980 We even thought about any other zoning districts that we would prohibit the parking in front. 00:41:00.980 --> 00:41:06.620 Right now it is proposed to be just the MN and the MD. 00:41:06.620 --> 00:41:12.660 We've looked at not only the zonings and where certain uses are permitted. 00:41:12.660 --> 00:41:20.980 I'll use an example, general retail is permitted in the R7, right? 00:41:20.980 --> 00:41:29.500 As long as it's not MN and MR, it's permitted in the R7, however, the R7 requires a specific 00:41:29.500 --> 00:41:30.500 use permit. 00:41:30.500 --> 00:41:35.280 We've kind of gone through a lot of the analysis, not only on the zoning side, but also where 00:41:35.280 --> 00:41:41.520 it is in relationship to a arterial or collector, and a lot of what we found was these uses 00:41:41.520 --> 00:41:47.640 that would be impacting a neighborhood or some other way of impacting an area, we found 00:41:47.640 --> 00:41:54.220 that they were covered under a specific use permit, so our understanding and our analysis 00:41:54.220 --> 00:41:59.900 show that if we approve this, there's still a specific use permit that would address parking 00:41:59.900 --> 00:42:04.060 in your front if and when a property decides to do something in that effect. 00:42:04.060 --> 00:42:06.020 Okay, thank you, Ron. 00:42:06.020 --> 00:42:17.460 Ron, it doesn't appear that this is changing, but can you help me out on 796D, C, the corridors 00:42:17.460 --> 00:42:20.300 that are not allowed? 00:42:20.300 --> 00:42:24.220 There's like this weird exemption, it seems to be downtown. 00:42:24.220 --> 00:42:32.940 Chair, those are what was carried forward from the previous code and what that represents, 00:42:32.940 --> 00:42:36.580 they represent corridors that lead into the downtown. 00:42:36.580 --> 00:42:41.620 Entry corridors like Dallas Drive, Fort Worth Drive, again, the intent there, Elm and Locust 00:42:41.620 --> 00:42:49.180 as you come in from the north, is to not allow parking in front in those particular arterials 00:42:49.180 --> 00:42:51.660 because they are classified as arterials. 00:42:51.660 --> 00:42:56.380 If we didn't make that exception, then they would be allowed parking in front under that 00:42:56.380 --> 00:43:04.300 segment, so we wanted to identify those specifically where we would prohibit those within those 00:43:04.300 --> 00:43:05.300 entry corridors. 00:43:05.300 --> 00:43:06.300 Gotcha. 00:43:06.300 --> 00:43:09.340 Okay, thanks for that clarification. 00:43:09.340 --> 00:43:13.900 Any other questions for Ron on this item? 00:43:13.900 --> 00:43:17.060 Okay, that concludes our agenda for this evening. 00:43:17.060 --> 00:43:21.700 It is 548, I'll call this meeting to a close. 00:43:21.700 --> 00:43:24.660 We'll reconvene at 630 in council chambers. 00:43:27.380 --> 00:43:33.100 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting 00:43:33.100 --> 00:43:35.660 for Wednesday, January 22, 2020. 00:43:35.660 --> 00:43:38.780 Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call this meeting to order. 00:43:38.780 --> 00:43:42.220 The first item of business is to stand if able and give a Pledge of Allegiance to the 00:43:42.220 --> 00:43:45.220 U.S. and Texas flag. 00:43:45.220 --> 00:44:00.340 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for 00:44:00.340 --> 00:44:12.300 which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 00:44:12.300 --> 00:44:15.940 The next item of business is to consider the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission 00:44:15.940 --> 00:44:21.740 minutes from January 8th, and as a point of order, anyone who missed that meeting is still 00:44:21.740 --> 00:44:26.620 able to vote, so there's no need for recusal, even if you were absent, you can still participate 00:44:26.620 --> 00:44:28.580 and should participate in the vote. 00:44:28.580 --> 00:44:30.220 Commissioner Ellis. 00:44:30.220 --> 00:44:31.780 I move approval. 00:44:31.780 --> 00:44:32.780 We have a first for approval. 00:44:32.780 --> 00:44:33.780 Commissioner Smith. 00:44:33.780 --> 00:44:34.780 Second. 00:44:34.780 --> 00:44:35.780 We have a first and a second for approval. 00:44:35.780 --> 00:44:36.780 Any discussion? 00:44:36.780 --> 00:44:41.780 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 00:44:41.780 --> 00:45:03.340 Motion carries 6-0. 00:45:03.340 --> 00:45:08.060 Next item of business is the Consent Agenda, and at the request of Commissioner Beck, we're 00:45:08.060 --> 00:45:11.300 going to be pulling 3-B into a separate vote. 00:45:11.300 --> 00:45:15.780 So the Chair will entertain a motion for items 3-A and 3-C. 00:45:15.780 --> 00:45:16.780 Commissioner Smith. 00:45:16.780 --> 00:45:20.020 I move approval of items 3-A and 3-C. 00:45:20.020 --> 00:45:21.820 We have a first for 3-A and 3-C. 00:45:21.820 --> 00:45:22.820 Commissioner Pernetta. 00:45:22.820 --> 00:45:23.820 I second. 00:45:23.820 --> 00:45:28.860 We have a first and a second for the Consent Agenda, items 3-A and 3-C. Any discussion? 00:45:28.860 --> 00:45:36.820 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 00:45:36.820 --> 00:45:39.540 Motion carries 7-0. 00:45:39.540 --> 00:45:42.980 We also will take a separate vote for item 3-B. 00:45:42.980 --> 00:45:46.060 Any discussion or motion for item 3-B? 00:45:46.060 --> 00:45:47.060 Commissioner Beck? 00:45:47.060 --> 00:46:13.380 Yeah, we discussed some of this in the first session, but I think just given the proximity 00:46:13.380 --> 00:46:14.380 and the gas volume, some of the other issues with the wetlands and the lack of tree canopy, 00:46:14.380 --> 00:46:15.380 I feel like we're setting ourselves up for more future work. 00:46:15.380 --> 00:46:16.380 I can't support this. 00:46:16.380 --> 00:46:17.380 We have a first for approval. 00:46:17.380 --> 00:46:18.380 Commissioner Anderson? 00:46:18.380 --> 00:46:19.380 Second. 00:46:19.380 --> 00:46:21.860 We have a first and a second for approval. 00:46:21.860 --> 00:46:24.300 Any further discussion? 00:46:24.300 --> 00:46:34.620 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 00:46:34.620 --> 00:46:38.460 Motion carries 5-2. 00:46:38.460 --> 00:46:46.180 Next item of business is item 4-A. It's item Z19-0013. 00:46:46.180 --> 00:46:50.180 I will open the public hearing. 00:46:50.180 --> 00:46:58.020 This applicant has requested to postpone the item until a date certain of February 5th, 00:46:58.020 --> 00:46:59.020 2020. 00:46:59.020 --> 00:47:00.020 It is a public hearing. 00:47:00.020 --> 00:47:05.100 If anyone's wishing to speak, we will listen to public comment this evening. 00:47:05.100 --> 00:47:09.580 Seeing none, I'll leave the public hearing open and ask Commissioner Smith. 00:47:09.580 --> 00:47:13.380 Move to postpone to date certain of February 5th. 00:47:13.380 --> 00:47:15.020 We have a first for postponement. 00:47:15.020 --> 00:47:16.020 Commissioner Ellis? 00:47:16.020 --> 00:47:17.020 Thank you. 00:47:17.020 --> 00:47:19.300 We have a first and a second for postponement. 00:47:19.300 --> 00:47:20.300 Any discussion? 00:47:20.300 --> 00:47:29.100 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 00:47:29.100 --> 00:47:31.480 Motion carries 7-0. 00:47:31.480 --> 00:47:36.860 Next item of business is item 4B, DCA 19-0025. 00:47:36.860 --> 00:47:48.700 I'll invite Ron Maguina for presentation and open the public hearing. 00:47:48.700 --> 00:47:55.580 This item is a city initiated code amendment regarding, that is, low impact manufacturing 00:47:55.580 --> 00:47:58.980 in the use related to use specific standards. 00:47:58.980 --> 00:48:05.180 As you all know, there was a development code update back in April 2019. 00:48:05.180 --> 00:48:12.500 Part of that effort, there were work towards unifying some of the existing uses, consolidating 00:48:12.500 --> 00:48:17.740 them for simplicity, also to introduce new ones for clarity, and then also to rename 00:48:17.740 --> 00:48:20.460 some of the existing uses. 00:48:20.460 --> 00:48:25.900 Light manufacturing was one of those existing uses that was renamed into or to low impact 00:48:25.900 --> 00:48:30.420 manufacturing and also was provided a definition. 00:48:30.420 --> 00:48:36.460 For the record, you see here is the definition for low impact manufacturing. 00:48:36.460 --> 00:48:42.540 Just by looking at it, you see that there is distributing manufacturing and other processes 00:48:42.540 --> 00:48:51.540 involved in the manufacturing of items as part of a low impact manufacturing use. 00:48:51.540 --> 00:48:55.420 This slide here illustrates where low impact manufacturing is permitted. 00:48:55.420 --> 00:48:59.620 You can see that under the MD, it is permitted with an SUP. 00:48:59.620 --> 00:49:06.140 And then the following MR, SC, HC, G, O, L, I, and HI, it is permitted with a use specific 00:49:06.140 --> 00:49:07.140 standard. 00:49:07.140 --> 00:49:11.140 And that use specific standard is 536E. 00:49:11.140 --> 00:49:16.940 For the purpose of this code amendment, we are correcting two sections of that use specific 00:49:16.940 --> 00:49:17.940 standard. 00:49:17.940 --> 00:49:22.900 The first one is related to the prohibition of distribution, warehousing, and wholesaling 00:49:22.900 --> 00:49:24.220 activities. 00:49:24.220 --> 00:49:31.620 The second of the two is the limited maximum of 5,000 square feet of gross floor area per 00:49:31.620 --> 00:49:34.700 lot. 00:49:34.700 --> 00:49:41.260 The staff is proposing with the following code amendment to eliminate that first use 00:49:41.260 --> 00:49:47.180 specific standard that we would allow for distribution, wholesaling, and warehousing. 00:49:47.180 --> 00:49:53.780 And that in the MD, the maximum square feet gross floor area per lot is 10,000. 00:49:53.780 --> 00:49:59.460 And just for, again, MD, MD is primarily in the downtown, and that is an appropriate maximum 00:49:59.460 --> 00:50:00.900 square footage. 00:50:00.900 --> 00:50:08.020 The MR, SC, and HC, zoning districts would have a limitation of 10,000 square feet, where 00:50:08.020 --> 00:50:14.220 if they choose to propose a larger square footage, they could through an SUP. 00:50:14.220 --> 00:50:20.140 Lastly, the remaining zoning districts, the G, O, L, I, and HI, would not have a maximum 00:50:20.140 --> 00:50:25.420 square footage, however, all of the zoning districts would have to comply with the use 00:50:25.420 --> 00:50:31.420 specific standard, which is number three, that all activities shall occur entirely within 00:50:31.420 --> 00:50:33.900 an enclosed structure. 00:50:33.900 --> 00:50:34.900 That concludes my presentation. 00:50:34.900 --> 00:50:36.660 I'd be happy to answer any questions. 00:50:36.660 --> 00:50:39.380 I do not see any questions. 00:50:39.380 --> 00:50:41.100 Thank you for the presentation. 00:50:41.100 --> 00:50:42.100 Okay. 00:50:42.100 --> 00:50:43.100 This is a public hearing. 00:50:43.100 --> 00:50:44.100 Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. 00:50:44.100 --> 00:50:49.980 I do not see anyone here wishing to do so, so I will close the public hearing and ask 00:50:49.980 --> 00:50:52.260 Commissioner Burnett for a motion. 00:50:52.260 --> 00:50:54.020 Motion to approve the amendment. 00:50:54.020 --> 00:50:55.700 We have a first for approval, Commissioner Smith. 00:50:55.700 --> 00:50:56.700 Second. 00:50:56.700 --> 00:50:58.340 We have a first and a second. 00:50:58.340 --> 00:51:00.900 Any discussion on the item? 00:51:00.900 --> 00:51:09.740 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 00:51:09.740 --> 00:51:12.780 Motion to approve carries 7-0. 00:51:12.780 --> 00:51:16.460 The next item of business is item 4C, DCA 19-0026. 00:51:16.460 --> 00:51:24.580 I'll invite Ron McGuina back for presentation and open the public hearing. 00:51:24.580 --> 00:51:26.380 Thank you, Chair, members of the commission. 00:51:26.380 --> 00:51:29.540 This is the second code amendment for tonight for your consideration. 00:51:29.540 --> 00:51:33.900 This is in relationship to a code amendment, a city-initiated code amendment related to 00:51:33.900 --> 00:51:36.380 development handbook. 00:51:36.380 --> 00:51:42.980 In an effort to improve our development review process, create efficiency, we are preparing 00:51:42.980 --> 00:51:43.980 a development handbook. 00:51:43.980 --> 00:51:49.820 What a development handbook is is a document that contains a number of information. 00:51:49.820 --> 00:51:55.540 For example, flow charts, submittal schedules, checklists, calendars, any related development 00:51:55.540 --> 00:52:03.000 review-related supporting documents is what a handbook will contain, will have. 00:52:03.000 --> 00:52:11.460 We are proposing a code amendment to the development code for renaming the following criteria manuals. 00:52:11.460 --> 00:52:16.620 We have found that a lot of the information contained in these criteria manuals have information 00:52:16.620 --> 00:52:22.300 that are related to development review and therefore meet or should be more in line as 00:52:22.300 --> 00:52:25.640 being part of a development handbook. 00:52:25.640 --> 00:52:31.140 Those are the administrative criteria manual, the application criteria manual, the site 00:52:31.140 --> 00:52:36.340 design criteria manual, the construction criteria manual, as well as the environmental sensitive 00:52:36.340 --> 00:52:42.140 areas criteria manual, again, all of which have the same information that is related 00:52:42.140 --> 00:52:46.180 to development review and should be part of a development handbook. 00:52:46.180 --> 00:52:51.700 And again, part of this code amendment is to rename all of those references as a development 00:52:51.700 --> 00:52:53.440 handbook. 00:52:53.440 --> 00:52:57.500 We are also proposing to amend section 134B. 00:52:57.500 --> 00:53:02.900 Again, because these will no longer be criteria manuals, they will be eliminated from this 00:53:02.900 --> 00:53:07.700 list that you see here as part of this section. 00:53:07.700 --> 00:53:13.300 For your purposes, administrative criteria manual is referenced in the development code 00:53:13.300 --> 00:53:19.780 22 times, the application criteria manual five times, the site design 13 construction 00:53:19.780 --> 00:53:24.620 criteria manual once, and the ESA is referenced in the code four times. 00:53:24.620 --> 00:53:30.760 And all of these references, again, will be renamed as development handbook in the Denton 00:53:30.760 --> 00:53:33.100 development code. 00:53:33.100 --> 00:53:34.100 That concludes my presentation. 00:53:34.100 --> 00:53:36.260 I would be happy to answer any questions. 00:53:36.260 --> 00:53:37.260 We do have one question. 00:53:37.260 --> 00:53:38.260 Commissioner Beck? 00:53:38.260 --> 00:53:39.260 Yes. 00:53:39.260 --> 00:53:40.260 Thank you, Chair. 00:53:40.260 --> 00:53:43.540 Ron, you answered this for me, and I think I've forgotten the answer, so I'm going to 00:53:43.540 --> 00:53:44.540 ask it again. 00:53:44.540 --> 00:53:45.540 Sure. 00:53:45.540 --> 00:53:54.780 Are we going to this combined handbook, and then what's the vision for how many more handbooks? 00:53:54.780 --> 00:53:56.300 One giant handbook, or? 00:53:56.300 --> 00:54:01.820 One consolidated handbook that will contain all the information related to development 00:54:01.820 --> 00:54:02.820 review. 00:54:02.820 --> 00:54:09.180 Again, items that are administratively processed or administered. 00:54:09.180 --> 00:54:10.180 Thank you. 00:54:10.180 --> 00:54:11.180 That answers my question. 00:54:11.180 --> 00:54:12.180 Thank you. 00:54:12.180 --> 00:54:14.420 I do not see any other questions, Ron. 00:54:14.420 --> 00:54:15.420 Thank you. 00:54:15.420 --> 00:54:16.420 This is a public hearing. 00:54:16.420 --> 00:54:21.300 Anyone who wishes to speak may certainly do so, seeing none, I will close the public hearing. 00:54:21.300 --> 00:54:22.300 Commissioner Smith? 00:54:22.300 --> 00:54:23.800 Move to approve. 00:54:23.800 --> 00:54:25.340 We have a first for approval. 00:54:25.340 --> 00:54:26.340 Mr. Pernetta? 00:54:26.340 --> 00:54:27.340 Second. 00:54:27.340 --> 00:54:28.660 We have a first and a second for approval. 00:54:28.660 --> 00:54:29.660 Any discussion? 00:54:29.660 --> 00:54:37.700 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 00:54:37.700 --> 00:54:40.100 Motion to approve carries 7-0. 00:54:40.100 --> 00:54:45.140 Next item of business is item 4D, DCA 19-0028. 00:54:45.140 --> 00:54:48.700 I'll invite Ron McGuida back for presentation and open the public hearing. 00:54:48.700 --> 00:54:50.460 Thank you, Chair, members of the commission. 00:54:50.460 --> 00:54:53.900 This is the last code amendment for consideration this evening. 00:54:53.900 --> 00:54:59.260 This is related to location of parking areas, specifically parking in front. 00:54:59.260 --> 00:55:04.500 Again, as you all know, April 2019, there was a development code update. 00:55:04.500 --> 00:55:12.180 As part of that update, the section 796D2 was carried over from the previous code. 00:55:12.180 --> 00:55:18.620 As part of that carryover, there was an addition to where parking in front is prohibited. 00:55:18.620 --> 00:55:27.140 For the 2002 code, MN, which is protection-oriented related, and MD, which is the downtown area, 00:55:27.140 --> 00:55:31.780 were areas that had a prohibition for parking in front. 00:55:31.780 --> 00:55:39.220 What the 2019 code did was add MR as part of that prohibition zoning districts. 00:55:39.220 --> 00:55:46.940 We have had several development reviews since April, and we have heard and seen examples 00:55:46.940 --> 00:55:52.580 where MR is permitted, where it is proposed, that is, where development is proposed, and 00:55:52.580 --> 00:55:57.460 where the parking in front became a concern or an issue. 00:55:57.460 --> 00:56:03.860 Looking at the zoning map, we realized that adding that MR probably was not the best direction, 00:56:03.860 --> 00:56:06.620 and that this code amendment is going to correct that. 00:56:06.620 --> 00:56:13.380 The MR is primarily located along I-35, as well as primary arterials, as you can see here 00:56:13.380 --> 00:56:18.500 on the zoning map, as well as collectors. 00:56:18.500 --> 00:56:23.860 Having the MR, having it prohibited, or parking in front, we looked at also existing site 00:56:23.860 --> 00:56:29.700 features that have the same location, and a lot of those areas did have parking in front, 00:56:29.700 --> 00:56:35.380 so we feel that keeping in line with those urban characters that we would remove and 00:56:35.380 --> 00:56:41.180 correct the MR as part of that zoning district that prohibits parking in front. 00:56:41.180 --> 00:56:46.540 In addition, parking in front, staff has determined that it is appropriate on properties that 00:56:46.540 --> 00:56:49.600 are along arterials, as well as collectors. 00:56:49.600 --> 00:56:54.940 These street classifications primarily have high volumes of traffic and have a high speed 00:56:54.940 --> 00:56:59.260 as far as miles per hour, so again, these locations would be appropriate for parking 00:56:59.260 --> 00:57:01.260 in front. 00:57:01.260 --> 00:57:08.100 What staff is proposing as part of Section 796(d)(2) is to amend that section to eliminate 00:57:08.100 --> 00:57:13.940 the MR from the list where parking in front is prohibited as a zoning district, and also 00:57:13.940 --> 00:57:20.300 to add collector as part of where parking in front would be allowed, and that is what 00:57:20.300 --> 00:57:25.460 is shown here, and that is what staff is proposing as part of this code amendment. 00:57:25.460 --> 00:57:30.820 Staff again is recommending approval and can stand for any questions. 00:57:30.820 --> 00:57:34.500 Thanks for the presentation, Ron, I don't see any questions. 00:57:34.500 --> 00:57:35.500 This is a public hearing. 00:57:35.500 --> 00:57:38.020 Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. 00:57:38.020 --> 00:57:40.380 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. 00:57:40.380 --> 00:57:41.380 Commissioner Smith? 00:57:41.380 --> 00:57:42.500 Move to approve. 00:57:42.500 --> 00:57:43.900 We have a first for approval. 00:57:43.900 --> 00:57:44.900 Commissioner Pernetta? 00:57:44.900 --> 00:57:45.900 Second. 00:57:45.900 --> 00:57:46.900 We have a first and a second for approval. 00:57:46.900 --> 00:57:49.140 Any discussion? 00:57:49.140 --> 00:57:57.500 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 00:57:57.500 --> 00:58:00.260 Motion to approve carries 7-0. 00:58:00.260 --> 00:58:07.140 The next item of business is item 5A, the P&Z Commission Project Matrix. 00:58:07.140 --> 00:58:14.260 I will ask Richard for any updates and then turn it to the dais for additions or questions. 00:58:14.260 --> 00:58:15.900 No real updates on the matrix. 00:58:15.900 --> 00:58:20.820 I think we've got through most of the items that have been on there. 00:58:20.820 --> 00:58:26.580 We have no additional items that went to council at the last meeting. 00:58:26.580 --> 00:58:34.380 The only thing I will mention is next week on the 28th, council will be rehearing the 00:58:34.380 --> 00:58:38.820 Gaswell item, so that will be on the 28th, other than that, that's all I had. 00:58:38.820 --> 00:58:42.780 Will they take a vote on 28th or is it just a further discussion? 00:58:42.780 --> 00:58:46.060 It'll be to reconsider that ordinance. 00:58:46.060 --> 00:58:48.340 It's essentially a do-over, if you will. 00:58:48.340 --> 00:58:49.340 Gotcha. 00:58:49.340 --> 00:58:50.340 Commissioner Beck? 00:58:50.340 --> 00:58:51.860 Yeah, thank you, Chair. 00:58:51.860 --> 00:58:59.780 I briefly brought this up at work session, but a citizen had the idea of regarding the 00:58:59.780 --> 00:59:07.860 notification issues, having an opt-in system on our webpage where they could enter in an 00:59:07.860 --> 00:59:14.900 address and our general notification 200 or 500 foot distance, and for any developments 00:59:14.900 --> 00:59:22.300 in that radius, it would automatically email them of any public hearings that we were having. 00:59:22.300 --> 00:59:26.980 I don't know about the feasibility, the FTE, the development, anything of that sort of 00:59:26.980 --> 00:59:36.300 thing, but I thought, as an opt-in mechanism, that it could be separate than the state-mandated 00:59:36.300 --> 00:59:40.540 mechanism that we currently follow, but it sounded very intriguing to me because people 00:59:40.540 --> 00:59:43.020 that were interested could be notified. 00:59:43.020 --> 00:59:46.420 Is that something we could explore for the matrix? 00:59:46.420 --> 00:59:48.900 We can certainly look into it. 00:59:48.900 --> 00:59:56.980 What we have now is we have our active projects map, and then every week we submit a new or 00:59:56.980 --> 01:00:03.000 publish a new map that shows the projects that were submitted that week. 01:00:03.000 --> 01:00:08.420 We also do post all of the upcoming community meetings or neighborhood meetings related 01:00:08.420 --> 01:00:10.240 to development projects. 01:00:10.240 --> 01:00:15.420 What I can do is look to see if there's a way that -- that's something we've started 01:00:15.420 --> 01:00:20.780 to look at already, but if there's a way that we can link when we have those community meetings, 01:00:20.780 --> 01:00:25.500 at least tied to that project map, so if somebody is interested at any given time, if they click 01:00:25.500 --> 01:00:31.900 on it, it might show there's a neighborhood meeting set up for whatever day that is. 01:00:31.900 --> 01:00:36.740 I think if we could make some progress in that mechanism, I mean, even if we just took 01:00:36.740 --> 01:00:43.860 baby steps in that direction to improve our notification, I think it would help to maybe 01:00:43.860 --> 01:00:49.220 address some of the items that keep coming up before the commission about notification, 01:00:49.220 --> 01:00:54.300 where people could get some level of notification in an automatic fashion. 01:00:54.300 --> 01:00:58.580 There will be a public -- there are community hearing at -- you know, because you asked 01:00:58.580 --> 01:00:59.580 for this. 01:00:59.580 --> 01:01:03.860 There will be a public hearing about that property, and it's in the radius you asked. 01:01:03.860 --> 01:01:09.700 Now, I understand that it might be more involved, hire a computer programmer or whatever, a 01:01:09.700 --> 01:01:15.880 web developer, but if we could explore that, I certainly would like to hear information 01:01:15.880 --> 01:01:16.880 with that regard. 01:01:16.880 --> 01:01:17.880 Yeah. 01:01:17.880 --> 01:01:18.880 I can look into it. 01:01:18.880 --> 01:01:23.780 I know it -- I want to say a year or two ago there was a -- something similar, I think, 01:01:23.780 --> 01:01:27.140 the town of Southlake does for notifications. 01:01:27.140 --> 01:01:31.740 I know there was a ISR that was put together for council, but I can pull that together 01:01:31.740 --> 01:01:32.740 and provide that. 01:01:32.740 --> 01:01:33.740 Thank you, Richard. 01:01:33.740 --> 01:01:34.740 Commissioner Ellis. 01:01:34.740 --> 01:01:35.740 Thank you, Chair. 01:01:35.740 --> 01:01:43.840 Richard, can we get maybe a work session or maybe just a memo on removal of traffic lights 01:01:43.840 --> 01:01:44.840 in light? 01:01:44.840 --> 01:01:49.500 Recently, there have been several traffic lights removed, and I've gotten questions, 01:01:49.500 --> 01:01:55.580 and I don't know the answer as to how this city makes these decisions. 01:01:55.580 --> 01:01:57.660 So I would love to be enlightened on that. 01:01:57.660 --> 01:02:03.260 We talk all the time about how a traffic light is needed and the steps for that, but I don't 01:02:03.260 --> 01:02:06.060 know how the city decides to remove traffic lights. 01:02:06.060 --> 01:02:07.580 So I would love that information. 01:02:07.580 --> 01:02:08.980 I can get something for you. 01:02:08.980 --> 01:02:09.980 Thanks. 01:02:09.980 --> 01:02:10.980 Put together. 01:02:10.980 --> 01:02:11.980 Yeah. 01:02:11.980 --> 01:02:16.660 The only thing I have, and maybe this is just an offline update, I would love to hear how 01:02:16.660 --> 01:02:24.620 the city is seeing any impact from the HB violence from last year, if there's construction 01:02:24.620 --> 01:02:29.460 happening that is less than what we historically have with build materials and aesthetics, 01:02:29.460 --> 01:02:34.060 or I know the process of the shot clock is being very well managed from what I can tell, 01:02:34.060 --> 01:02:39.220 but I'm just curious if we've seen any projects come through in which the city, maybe it's 01:02:39.220 --> 01:02:43.700 too short, it hasn't been long enough, but I'm curious if that has a detrimental aesthetic 01:02:43.700 --> 01:02:47.340 to our city yet, or if fears are coming to fruition about that. 01:02:47.340 --> 01:02:51.620 I think in the very near future we'll start to see that, and I think where it's going 01:02:51.620 --> 01:02:56.620 to impact more is in the existing neighborhoods. 01:02:56.620 --> 01:03:02.900 Just to give you one example, because we had it happen this week where an individual is 01:03:02.900 --> 01:03:05.420 looking to do a carport. 01:03:05.420 --> 01:03:10.020 So previously with carports, accessory structures, there were certain architectural requirements 01:03:10.020 --> 01:03:17.300 where it had to match the style of the house and the building materials of the house. 01:03:17.300 --> 01:03:24.540 What this individual wanted to do essentially was to have two shipping containers, metal 01:03:24.540 --> 01:03:29.140 roof, corrugated metal over top of it. 01:03:29.140 --> 01:03:30.980 That is now permitted. 01:03:30.980 --> 01:03:35.740 It would have been prohibited now that somebody could put that in. 01:03:35.740 --> 01:03:42.220 They still need to comply with setbacks in that, but we cannot tell them that they cannot 01:03:42.220 --> 01:03:43.220 use that material. 01:03:43.220 --> 01:03:44.220 Great. 01:03:44.220 --> 01:03:47.460 Thanks for that update. 01:03:47.460 --> 01:03:51.180 Any other things to add or questions of the MED matrix? 01:03:51.180 --> 01:03:52.180 Okay. 01:03:52.180 --> 01:03:53.900 Seeing none, that concludes our agenda. 01:03:53.900 --> 01:03:55.820 I'll close the meeting at 6.50. 01:03:55.820 --> 01:03:56.660 Thank you.