Nov 11, 2020 Development Code Review Committee on 2020-11-11 1:00 PM

Okay. Welcome everyone to this November 11th meeting of the Denton Code Review Committee. It is 1.04. We do have a quorum present. The mayor has informed me that he will not be here today, so Keely and I will have to stay on screen the whole time to keep quorum present. The first item on the agenda is consider approval of the minutes for November 4th, and there was one correction on there that we did not say the pledges as it states in the minutes that were provided to us. So with that correction, I'll move approval. I'll second. All right. And since we only have two, I don't know that we really need to have a vote, since we have the motioner and the seconder are both are the only two that really need to vote. So we will move on to item B, receive a report, hold a discussion, give staff direction regarding code amendments related to subchapter two, administrative and procedures of the Denton Development Code. Thank you, Chair. Let me share my screen and we can get started. Hope you all can see the screen and can hear me. As introduced, this is our continuation of our DDC amendments discussion with the DCRC Development Code Review Committee, which you see on your screen is just the list of what we hope to discuss this afternoon. Seems like there's a lot, there's some that are a little bit more lengthy than others, but there are some that are hopefully straightforward and we can get through those fairly quickly. Just a point of correction or clarification. The items listed as number 12 and 13 will not be discussed. Staff just needs additional more time to have discussion internally to prepare a code amendment to discuss with the DCRC. So unity of title and declaration in lieu of a unity of title will be discussed at our next meeting. So those two will not be discussed this afternoon. So we'll go ahead and get started with the first development code topic and this is related to the ZBA composition and operational procedure. This is in section 234A, again, part of the subchapter two code amendments. We have in the current DDC, the composition and operational procedures. And as you can see in green, the reference is that it's referenced to the municipal code of orange. The hope was to move all of the composition and operational procedures that pertain to the ZBA to the municipal code of orange. However, that is no longer the direction we have changed that direction. We're now bringing that information to the DDC. So since it's not in the DDC today, the proposed code amendment is to amend that section and add the following. So the first of the number of composition is what you see on the screen, that the Zoning Board of Adjustment will make up or consist of seven members. And as you can read there, their terms will be staggered so that as they are appointed, we will have the memberships that we need. And I won't read the whole language, but the one or the two things that are highlighted in bold are what we are proposing and it's consistent to what we have today. The other two is related to the alternate, alternates that is. We currently have three alternates and these are alternates that are appointed by the city council. And as mentioned earlier, they are this is our current practice and these three alternates serve on the ZBA if and when the members of the seven members are either absent or cannot participate. The alternates are numbered by first, second and third. And as a member of the ZBA is absent or cannot participate, the next person or the person in first will step in and then continue again. If there is a second person, then the second alternate will serve in that capacity. The alternates also serve a two year term and are appointed again by the city council. Other, so let me stop there. Any questions? Again, these are just what we practice today and we're just making sure that it's in the development code. Do you have any questions for this portion of the code amendment? Any questions? I do have one because I'm guessing it's still in our regular ordinance requiring that they are a resident of the city of Denton, but I did not see that in any of this lineup. Is that elsewhere in our code or is that something we may need to look at adding? Let me double check and it may be in our code of ordinances. I know that we do have some language there, but let me check and I'm 100% sure, but we'll double check that they have to be a resident of the city. Whatever requirements we currently have as long as they make their way through into this. Yes, Margie. Thank you, chair. I feel like that's addressed on the application that we have with the city that gets vetted with the city secretary. So that may take care of that issue if it's not written somewhere, but I just thought I'd offer that. Aaron? It doesn't directly say you have to be a resident per se, but what chapter 2-61 of the city code, which is qualifications for members of boards and commissions, each person shall be a qualified voter of the city. You can only be a qualified voter in the city of Denton if you are a resident of Denton. That's election law. So that's how the requirement for anybody who serves on the board has to be a Denton resident. So it may not be particularly in the ZBA section of the code of ordinances, but it's covered under boards and commission generally. Okay. And is there any part of our codes and ordinances that we'll repeal since it's now going to be in the DDC? No, the ones that we're proposing, chair, currently are not in conflict or in the code of ordinances now, so there will be no need to repeal anything. Okay. Okay. All right. So we'll move on to the operation. Again, most of this was or is current practice, and again, we're just making sure that it's covered under the DDC. I won't go through all of this, but just highlight it again in bold, that there needs to be a minimum of six, primarily because the vote in order to approve a variance is super majority. So in order to hold a meeting and be able to vote, there needs to be a minimum of six members. The other list of procedures here are just procedural, you know, administrative requirements or provisions for the ZBA. One, for example, is actually keeping minutes, and that's consistent with all boards and commission in that a ZBA meeting can be held at the call of the chairman or chairperson, and also they can adopt governing rules regarding proceedings that they would like to have. Again, as long as it's not conflict or in conflict or inconsistent with the subchapter of state law. Additionally, talking about anything that's related to the Zoning Board of Adjustments decision that is particularly related to a house bill that was passed in that now not only does the person that has any appeal to a decision have to have to be related to a project, anybody that is, you know, wants to provide or appeal a decision can take that position and file with the city. This is something that was recently adopted or approved per state law. So that's why this section or these two sections that you see here have been added to the procedures of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Again, more or less the top one, letter A, is what we're focusing on. Again, the bill that was passed does allow anybody, even not related to specific application address or project, can take action or can file an appeal to the city. Similarly, the bill that was passed also changed when the appeal can be submitted. It set the date or the number of days. So now it's no later than the 20th day after the decision is made. Prior to that, it did not have a specific timeframe. So that is now under state bill, and we're just making it consistent in our development code. So the next few sections here, again, highlighting, I won't read the whole thing, but again, an appeal. Basically, the first one under this slide, letter D, if there is a appeal, any other action that is being done or has been approved will have to remain as a status would still remain the same. Nothing can move forward until that appeal has been heard. That's what D really is saying. And then letter E is that the appeal can't be acted, another appeal that is a separate appeal can't be submitted if it is the same appeal. There must be at least six months in between the first appeal. I think these are the last two. F basically states that at a public meeting or related appeal, any interest of party may appear as part of the discussion or consideration to discuss that specific appeal process. And then letter G is that the board -- this is another law that was -- or this was passed last summer where if there's an appeal, the ZBA cannot act on that first meeting. They have to wait for a second meeting, but has to happen within 60 days. So typically what we've done since that bill was passed is present to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. They hear it. We then move on to the next consideration on the agenda. The following meeting, the ZBA will then make their decision on that previously discussed appeal application. So this again is consistent -- is consistent, that is, with what the bill that was passed last summer. So with that, I know that that was a lot, and again, these are just partly bringing the procedures that were currently -- that are currently being applied to as far as the Zoning Board of Adjustment, but also adding a couple of the sections that pertain to House Bill, the House Bill that was passed specifically, who can appeal and when an appeal can happen, and how the appeal process works as far as having two meetings versus having it at the same meeting -- a decision at the same meeting. Any questions with regards to these sections or these provisions? Sorry, let me -- >> Councilmember Briggs. >> Not a big question, but I assume that these appeals are not free. So I'm curious, is there a pricing in our code of ordinance? I mean, is there another place where someone would have to go to look at that, and it would not be in one location, or is there a reference to where they could go to find out? >> That's a good question. I'm drawing a blank. Richard, do you recall, and maybe we can look it up, as if there is a application -- I know that there is a -- there has to be a letter, and a formal letter, obviously, sent within the time frame that's allowed, but I can't say for sure if there's a fee and/or application. >> There is. I just don't recall. I'm pulling it up now. I know that we've only had one, and Sean might have that. >> Yeah. Zoning Board of Adjustments non-subdivision variance and appeals is $351. >> Okay. >> Yeah, my question would just be, is there -- I mean, if we're trying to get all the information in one location, do we need to make reference to that somewhere, or is it -- or is it, you know, not needed? >> I think, as we look at updating our table where we talk about applications, and I can pull up our code. Sean, do you know if there is a -- I think there is an appeal, so -- >> Yeah, 2.83 is the appeal of an administrative decision. That is what goes to ZBA. >> So we have it. If it is -- let me look at my section real quick. And those are good questions. One second. >> And, Ron, in some cases, we have added specific references just saying that the fee will be as provided in our fee schedule. I'm not sure that we added that here. That might be useful. >> Okay. So, right. So we do have it in 2. -- so this -- what we're adding is 2 -- I'm ending 2.34, and this is pertaining to the ZBA composition. So, Keely, the section that talks about the appeal process and procedure and application is further in the same subchapter, but it is not listed under this section 2.34. And we can certainly discuss adding some reference to look at that section where it talks about the application in the discussion of appeal. We can certainly look into that. Does that make sense with what we're proposing? It does not have it in that particular section 2.34, but as Richard mentioned, it's further down in the development code or further in the same subchapter, but not necessarily in that particular section. >> Okay. Yeah, I mean -- >> And if we need to reference it, we can reference it. >> Right. Well, I mean, as long as it's in there and it's easily found, I just wanted to make sure we weren't forgetting it or overlooking that. For someone who's going through a process like this, having information available and easy to find is always helpful. >> Understood. I'm just going to take real quick notes here, reference application. Okay. Let me go ahead and continue the presentation. So the next section or the next topic is similar to the ZBA. This is for the HLC, Historic Landmark Commission, Composition and Powers and Duties. As you can see identified here, again, we intended to place all of this in the Code of Ordinances. However, that direction has changed, so we are now bringing it back into the DDC. So we're striking this section or that language that you see here in green in adding the following. Similar to ZBA, we have the composition. The HLC is made up of nine members, and again, appointed by City Council. Of the nine, the list that you see below here, they must be represented by the following. So when we -- and when the City Council looks to appoint or add a member or commissioner, we will make sure to let them know, let you all know that we need a public accountant. We need a registered architect. For now, I think we have everybody here. I believe maybe letter A, Denny County Historical Commission. No, I stand corrected. Melody Kohot is representing that position. So I think for now we are good, but again, wanted to make sure we have in the DDC the list of representatives that are required to be a HLC commissioner. As far as the other members, they can make up of any other parts of that. So four of the remaining five -- I'm sorry, three of the remaining nine can serve in any of those positions or be of those other positions. And then similar to the ZBA, the HLC commissioners that are appointed serve a two-year staggered term. As far as powers and duties, we have provided a list. This list is a carryover. There may be some additional ones, but for the most part, this was covered under the 2002 -- again, we're just providing this list to give guidance as far as what the powers and duties are available for the HLC. I won't read all of this other than obviously establish criteria for determining historic landmarks, recommending to the planning zoning commission historic landmarks and ultimately city council for consideration. Establish guidelines for determining how to provide certificate of appropriateness. The preservation plan, historic preservation plan that was approved last year was something that the HLC had reviewed, considered and recommended to the planning zoning commission. So that is another power that they have in duty. And then suggest resource of funding to help historic preservation in the city. In addition, we have a lot more under this particular section. Again, not going to read through all of this other than make, again, recommendations, provide staff direction on surveys and maintenance of inventory, that is. There is an opportunity to create committees made up of the members of the commission for carrying out other purposes of the ordinance. Prepare specific design guidelines and ultimately also review and provide comments as it relates to national register of historic places. So it's a long list, but again, wanted to make sure we cover all of the powers and duties that the HLC has in relationship to historic preservation for the city. So with that, that is the end of that particular topic. Do you all have any questions as far as the composition and powers of duties for the historic landmark commission? Just to clarify that they have not changed, correct? I mean, it's we're just transferring all the information over. Correct. There may be one or two that were added. I know when Roman was here with the city, he may have added a couple. But again, as you can see from that list, it's basically consistent in providing additional clarification as far as their duties. Nothing that was out of the only that I can specifically speak to. Thank you. Okay. Sure. Fine. If there's no other questions, I'll just go ahead and proceed. Any other questions or comments? I'm seeing. Okay. Next. Sorry. Next topic on the agenda is expiration of approval. And this applies to all of the applications. So it's not particular to any set of application. This is for all applications. And what you see underlined is what's being added. What's not underlined is currently in the DDC. So just want to make sure that that's clear. Number two, we're adding says all previously approved applications for the same land shall also expire. So as an example of this would be if there was a final plat that was approved or was in process of being approved and a preliminary plat was tied to it. If the final plat was not approved within the timeframe or never was approved, a preliminary plat that's associated with that final plat would also expire. So just to make sure that that was in our development code. Number three refers to the term or the status of a project. We have under here that a project expires. If on the fifth anniversary of the date of the first permit application was filed and no progress has been made, the application of that or that project would not be carried forward. So for example, a project would, for example, a subdivision variance or subdivision plat would be deemed a project if, you know, they were to continue. However, after five years, if they don't submit any other applications, that application or that particular project would no longer be considered a project. So five years is similar or very, it's consistent with state law and that's why you see that fifth anniversary identified as the timeframe. Ron, just a quick question. On that five years, I think that maybe you've mentioned state law, but didn't we discuss something expiring in two years before in our code discussions? That's specifically pertaining to applications. Okay. What we're talking about here is projects. So a project like, you know, that has maybe multiple applications. So if, for example, that project never fully develops, you know, there's certain parts of it would no longer be. I think vesting is part of this, but five years is really what we use to determine vesting. But what you're referring to, Keeley, is particularly related to applications. And we'll get into that in a few slides down. Okay. Thanks for the clarification. Yes. And Aaron, if there's anything, I saw you, you know, if you had any additional comments to that five year. It just relates to the project. So if they get the final plat approval and they just never come back and five years pass and they don't meet the exceptions on the state statute, then after five years that final plat would expire, so to speak, it'd be considered dormant and the applicant would have to start all over again and comply with any new rules and regulations that the city has amended from the time of their final plat approval. So that's just the protection that state law provides to developments to make sure that the rules aren't changed on them during the development process. Perfect. Thank you. It continues to go further on the project. So now we've, you know, made sure that project is explained a little further. This next one, number six, any new application under sub-chapter or application modified shall be deemed to commence a new project. So for example, if they submit a plan for a project and they come in with a new application or something completely different, that basically starts a new project. So their five years would not start from the original in which they've changed since. So what we're saying is if you're coming in with a new application or a new modified plan, that time frame for that project starts at that time of that new application is submitted. And so I'm sorry, just to make sure. And so when they do resubmit a new plan, then that means that if our codes or anything has changed, then they resubmit under those new codes, not the older ones, right? The new codes or that time frame is the start. And so say after five years after they submitted their modification, if they haven't added any or had any progress, say it expires, they would be counting five years from that date when that modification was submitted. It's more or less timing. And as Erin mentioned, five years is important because, again, per state law, that kind of follows when vesting starts and ends for a project. So these are just to add to the development code, as mentioned earlier, so that it's clear. We often have these provisions, but having a section of the code that explicitly explains it helps us and the development community. All right. Let's move on to the next item. Very, very, I'm going to say more of a cleanup. I was trying to think of a word here. We're changing the term site plan to zoning compliance plan. And the reason for that is to be sure that we're in compliance with the state bill that's passed and just try to isolate or differentiate between the site plan and the zoning compliance plan. For the most part, they're pretty much the same. In this particular section, we are swapping a lot of the term state site plan with zoning compliance plan, but we're also making sure that we're adding some clarification to when a zoning compliance plan is required. And letter B, applicability, we initially had a list of when the zoning compliance is required. Rather, what we are proposing is that they would be only required if they meet the following examples covered under what we call tier two. And so if a project is proposing an expansion or alteration or modification that increases the gross floor area by 50%, they would be required to submit a zoning compliance plan. Similarly, if the expansion or modification increases the total number of dwelling units on a lot by more than 25%, they would be required to submit a zoning compliance plan. Anything below 25, also anything below 50%, they would not. But again, looking at the tier requirements for tier two, if they meet and exceed these requirements, then they would be required to submit a zoning compliance plan. We go further and added a little bit more requirements as far as what is that needs to be in the contents of the zoning compliance plan. Again, listing out the following, you know, graphical and site data information, dimensions of existing and proposed improvements, as well as any environmental tree preservation and landscape area. The idea for a zoning compliance plan is to have an idea of what is being proposed and review it against certain code requirements so that when the next step of platting is done, we are clear on what is being proposed and we wouldn't have to make any corrections on the plat because it's already been established and approved by the zoning compliance plan. So the hope here is with adding this particular section, the three I's is to make sure that when someone submits a zoning compliance plan, they have all of the following. That's pretty much it for the zoning compliance plan. Again, to summarize, we're just cleaning up where the term site plan is being replaced with zoning compliance plan and we're also making it where it's required, have to follow what's listed in tier two in the development code. So these are the examples of what tier two falls under. And lastly, just showing what is required under a zoning compliance plan, what needs to be submitted with that application. If there are no other questions, I'll go ahead and move forward to the next code amendment topic. I've got a quick one, Ron, on the tier two number two. It says expansion alterations or modifications that increase the total number of existing dwelling units on a lot by more than 25%. Is that multifamily only? Typically, yes. Yes, it'll be multifamily. Obviously, anything less than that would not qualify. But yes, the intent there is for multifamily. Now, I'm trying to think with fourplex is that you wouldn't be able to do that possibly. But more than one for sure would apply for this particular tier. And more likely, it's multifamily. Okay. How would that affect accessory dwelling units? It would not, because we don't require a zoning compliance plan for single family. So that would just be done part of the planning. Okay. Yeah, I was just in my head trying to think of the fourplexes and the triplexes. But I think for the most part, this more or less pertains to multifamily. Will pertain to multifamily. Okay. Here's another one that we have had a situation with and we just wanted to be clear. And we're adding this particular section under section 252C as it relates to specific use permits. Right now, it's current practice, but we wanted to put it in the development code. And approval of specific use permit, authorizing the specific use to develop does not preclude the development or the property to develop other uses that are otherwise permitted under that zoning district. So for example, the zoning or the specific use permit that we heard last night for the multifamily say that that developer, for whatever reason, chooses not to move forward with that specific use permit. And instead, under their zoning district, they want to propose something different, they would be able to, it does not preclude them from submitting an application or development for a use that's already permitted or currently permitted under that zoning district. I know it seems like, well, that makes sense, Ron, but why do we have to put in the DDC? I think it's important to list it out here so that it's clear for everybody. I think this is the only one as far as this particular specific use application approval, effective approval. This is all that we're proposing. Do you all have any questions how this is going to be applied or is applied? Any questions? Pretty straightforward in that particular case. And as I was saying earlier, a lot of these are more or less trying to provide clarification, nothing much. We didn't think that this would be a lot of discussion, but wanted to bring it forward to you all, the DCRC, so that when we bring it forward, hopefully it doesn't raise any questions to the Planning, Zoning Commission, City Council. The next part of this particular topic is related to the approval criteria. Again, the SUP that was heard yesterday, there was criteria for approval for applications of all applications, that is, and then we also had approval criteria for specific use permits. A lot of what was discussed is repetitive duplications of those approval criteria, so what we're doing is eliminating what is already under the approval criteria under all applications. So primarily what you are looking at here is a deletion of number 3, 5, and 6, as those already are approval criteria under the all application section of the code. That one is pretty short and quick. Again, we wanted to just make sure that you all understood what this code amendment was about, so if there are no other questions, I will move on to the next topic. Next sections are related to traffic impact analysis and real estate applications, similar to what we heard at our last meeting with regards to business registration and zoning verification letter. This is current practice and what we're trying to provide with these code amendments is a reference in the development code, so under Table 2.2A, which lists all of our applications, we're just adding, again, the two or the traffic impact analysis and providing procedures of how they are submitted, reviewed, and hopefully approved. I don't intend on reading, obviously, the purpose for a TIA, I think we all know that it's to assess the development of the roadway system and if there are any impacts, that the TIA will provide any mitigations that will help negate or lessen the impact identified. It obviously follows under any mobility requirements in any city den model that our engineering department has. Applicability, this is a long list. What we wanted to provide here, and again, I won't read through all of this, is to kind of illustrate and show our development community what we will be looking for and what would be triggered under a, or what will be, what will trigger a TIA, that is. So a TIA will be required for the following conditions. So if you meet one of these conditions under the development code, if this were to be approved, we will require you to prepare and submit a TIA to be reviewed. So again, wanted to provide that procedure in the applicability portion of the development review process in which a TIA is required. So this is the full section that we're proposing. I did not want to just provide you the whole code update, but please note that in addition to the purpose, the basis and the applicability, there's a whole section that will include the process as well as any actions and criteria for acceptance. I can certainly bring that up if you'd like, or again, if you want to just kind of understand or give direction to staff that what our purpose is to bring a procedure into the DDC, which it is currently not for a TIA, a traffic impact analysis. Again, if the DCRC would like to see the full procedure, I can certainly provide that with you all, but I thought it was just important to share the purpose and when it is applicable. So I'll seek direction from the DCRC. I did not want to just go through this without mentioning that there are other sections under this development code amendment. Ron, is this just moving it into the DDC, or are we changing what we're actually? No, sir. We're adding it to the DDC, yes. Okay. So it's our current practice is just moving to a different section, different area. Our engineering department, we're the primary author of that section, as well as any other section that the engineering department uses such as the civil engineering plans, they've been involved in. So whatever we're adding, we are adding is part of what we are doing today in our reviews of TIAs and other engineering applications. Any questions or comments? Margie? Thanks. I just have a question for clarity, Ron. So with the procedure and the determination, is that made by the development review committee on that project, or is it the engineering or head engineer who makes that decision? As far as it's a city engineering department that would make that decision once they establish. So typically what happens is that there is a trip generation study that's done. And based on that analysis or that information, again, if it meets the list of criteria for TIA, then the city engineer or his or her designee would then require the applicant to submit a full TIA. So it's the city engineer that's making the decision with what we just looked at. Okay. Understood. Thank you. Okay. So we'll move on to the next topic. And again, real estate applications, these are encroachment agreements. These are easement encroachments, use of right away. These are some of the examples of what real estate applications are. Again, we do them now and have current practices that we apply or applications or applicants apply for. We're trying to make sure that it's clear in what is required and when it's required. And so we're proposing to add this particular type of application and applications under the development code. Similar to all the other applications, there is a purpose. And the purpose here, again, as you read is the propose of an applicant's proposal to use some of the public lands such as easements that's been dedicated. Or they choose to abandon if they would like to abandon an easement that the city no longer uses, that can be also a real estate application. Right away abandonment. What I was talking about earlier was encroachments into easements, also encroachments into right away use or the right away as well. And any other oil and gas pipeline license requests. So these would be the typical real estate applications that a applicant can request to either abandon or encroach into. So these types of applications will fall under real estate applications. I wanted to just highlight some of the applicability. Obviously public land rights requests from an applicant or property owner to have direct, that has a direct interest in the land use or the land itself. The second part of this is that when staff reviews these applications, we don't just look at what is the current need for the city, but rather if in the future there is public needs or necessity for that, that would make a strong consideration and often decide if it is going to be approved or not. If staff determines that there is no current and future necessity of said easement or right away, then that particular application is then forwarded to the appropriate board and committee. Typically sometimes it's presented to the planning zoning commission, but most likely it's presented to the public utilities board, the PUB, and ultimately city council. In some instances where it would go to the PNZ is, sorry, if the dedication of that easement or that right away was done by plat, it needs to be abandoned by plat. And so PNZ would be considering those. If it is done and conveyed by a separate instrument, then that abandonment will have to be approved by a separate instrument and most of the time that is approved and considered by the PUB. Anything further than that, the city council will be involved as far as any other request. Again, just to provide you all, the application procedure has the following sections. I didn't want to go through all of them. They're very similar to what you already know is applied to all applications, but just really covered the purpose, the applicability, and then the following code amendment will also have the particular sections as it relates to procedures. So if you all have no questions, I can move on to the next one. But again, wanted to mention that it's not just the purpose and applicability that we're looking at. We're also actually looking at the procedure and that is something that we'll bring forward to the planning zoning commission and city council ultimately, but did not want to go through it unless you all want to. We can certainly go through them, but very, very similar to other procedures as far as what is required. Chair, I don't want to go through all of these at all. I'm just curious because when we went through the code before, and I know that this is stuff that we were realizing, is there a reason why before it wasn't in the code that we just approved? I mean, because I know that these applications, these are things that we've always done and other things that we've reviewed so far, we've had a reason why they weren't in. So why wasn't this in before? Good question. With the 2002, we didn't have the table. We didn't have procedures. So with the 2002 in helping our development community understand our procedures and providing them a way of knowing what we have as far as type of application, we created this table. But in 2019, when we approved the DDC, we just listed a few. We didn't expand it to all of the applications. So that's why you don't see the TIA, you don't see the civil engineering plans, and that's why you don't see the real estate application. So that's why we're adding it to what we have today. So Keely, it wasn't even in the 2002 code, because again, we didn't have a list outlined in that part. It was basically covered generally. Right. No, I was just referring to the 2019. I think we were just focused on the ones that we were focused on, the main applications. And as we go through the development review process, we find that we need to have those applications in the sub chapter. And that's why we're adding it. I think we just didn't include it just because we were focused on the others. Right. Okay. Well, I mean, it makes sense. And it needs to be in there. So, right. Appreciate that question. Yeah, Ron, I do have a question on this. Because you talk about it's a slide that wasn't in my, my backup that that I saw about dedication had to be done by platting, if it was originally done by platting. Yes. And I know that or I believe that when we change the gas well ordinance to 500 foot, any, you couldn't plat any protected use within that 500 foot after that, if the plat already existed, you could still build on it, but you couldn't do any replatting. So if someone needs to replat within that distance, or they can't replat in that distance, but yet we never trying to do something that might require a dedication or a reclaimed right of way, how will that be handled? So if I understand the question correctly, this, this particular application type, real estate application type is, is any encroachment abandonment or I'm sorry, easement abandonment, any right of way abandonment, any encroachment into the easements. So I think this is two separate things. If, if I'm understanding and I'm trying to understand your question, John, are you talking about the setback requirements or you said, yeah, the way I understood what, what got passed was you cannot, you cannot build within 500 foot of a gas well unless it had been previously plotted for that use. So during that time period that we're at 250 and we switched to 500, if it got plotted during that time period, they could still build within that, in that distance between the 250 and the 500. But if you needed to go back and change your plat, all that was one of the things that was happening is that you're, you're taking anybody that's in that area and if they have to, for whatever reason, do a replat, they can't do it because we've now said you cannot plat a residential lot. We didn't say anything about replat necessarily, but to me, replatting is a plat, is a, an act of platting. So yeah, I, sorry, I didn't understand at first. I really don't know the answer to that question. I think that's more of a, a, a vesting or under maybe a gas well question that I'm not familiar with how that procedure works. I don't know if Aaron can help me out with this one or Richard. If such a situation like that arose, council member Ryan, I would probably provide legal advice to close session, to the city council in closed session. Okay. So moving on to the next topic, we get into subdivision application procedures. This covers all platts. So again, moving on to the section of the code that talks about platting. This is section two six and two six further on right now two six one, which is again subdivision applications. Our platting does not have an applicability section. So what we're adding is the section that you see or the language that you see here highlighted or underlined that is just to provide that clarity that we were talking about. As you all know that any development within the city shall submit and apply under the subdivision procedure section any plat application that is applicable, preliminary plat, final plat. If it's a replat or an amending final plat or anything of the like, they will need to submit under this particular section. And as you all know, with the cities in a local agreement with the county, we also process application for platting in division one of our ETJ. And this is again to help illustrate that that's in our code to make sure that anyone that's developing has a section or in the ETJ has a section that they can refer to, to make sure that they understand that they need to submit to the city of Denton. And also as it relates to the inner local agreement, any civil engineering plans may be applied to areas within division one as well. So continuing on with the subdivision application. So again, two six and on this particular section refers to the recording of plat applications and particularly any replat or final plat. What I wanted to focus on here is that the 180 days, this is something that we initially included, but we are now changing. We are changing it to 24 months to be consistent with other expiration or filing dates for, for plats. So again, going from 180 days to 24 months. So if someone had a plat that was approved by P and Z, they have up to 24 months to file that plat. Prior to that, they can keep it, you know, unrecorded, but in order to move forward with their development, they would have to file it or record it. But what we're saying is they have up to 24 months rather than what it is currently shown here of 180 days. Very consistent, again, trying to make sure that we cover every section of the code where it talks about 180 days. We want to make sure that it's now 24 months again to be consistent with all the filing of and expiration dates of any of the plots under this subsection. Again, 180 days to 24 months. This is this particular section that we're proposing to amend is it's more or less a cleanup. We know that a preliminary plat in the ETJ is not required, but it is permitted if the applicant chooses to. We are just making this more clear by adding it to the first line and deleting the second line. I think that was the intent of this particular code amendment. Again, a very, very minor change in our code just to be a little bit more clear. Again, we initially had 180 days or six months. What we're doing is changing the effectiveness of a preliminary plat. If it was approved by P&Z, it would be effective for up to 24 months until they final plat either the whole site or parts of it. We're saying that six months is just too short in that 24 months is a little bit more practical, and that's why you're seeing this proposed change. It is a very important change, and again, we wanted to make sure that the DCRC did not have any question as we bring forward this set of code amendments to the P&Z and City Council. Rob, sorry to interrupt, but before we get too far ahead of it, go back one more. Where you took the permitted, but not required, to me that is a change because now it's reading that within the city limits or the ETJ, so are we saying we don't require? Right now is not required, is not required in the city. I'm sorry, in the ETJ. In the ETJ, but with the way that this is rewritten, it would not be required in the ETJ or the city limits. That's correct. I think there was an option, more so I think for commercial properties for non-residential, if they wanted to just go straight to construction engineering plans and final plat to have that option available to them. I think most residential subdivisions would go the preliminary plat route just because of the phasing, but we thought for a non-residential, this could be an option rather than sending them through both processes. Richard, if I may, I'm taking note of this section. We may probably need to add that explanation just to be clearer because as the chair mentioned, it does say city limits as well, so just didn't want to keep this from us a lot. We're requiring say residential development from submitting a preliminary plat. Yeah, I agree. Thank you, chair, for catching that. All right. Great. We can, we can move on. Great. Okay. So the next part of the subdivision application procedure is related to final plots. Again, adding the effects of the approval. I think this particular section or this piece right here under A was just moving it down to here, but again, the second part D talks a little bit more of the expiration of approval. Again, two years, 24 months is what we're saying is what we want to be consistent with the code with the other sections of the code that is. So again, this is just going to provide more clarification. So that is the end of that topic, subdivision application procedures. If you all don't have any questions, we can move on to the next one. I'm not seeing any movement by anyone. So go ahead and move on. So replat procedures. We have a very short version of a replat procedure currently. And what we're trying to do is be consistent with all the other application types. So we're adding purpose and applicability. Again, anything that's underlying you see here is something that we are adding to the development code. It's shown in red primarily because it's obviously a high priority for us and we want to make sure that we get this code amendment to you all as soon as possible. Again, we all know that the replatting process of what it's intended for is to amend or vacate a plat. I'm sorry, to replat a property, of course. And then applicability, it applies to any part of a subdivision or any part of a subdivision. Next slide is just what we discussed earlier. In addition to the purpose and applicability, we have the following sections. And again, they pretty much follow very similar steps in the process and the procedures that is. I do want to make mention that there is a particular section I wanted to share with you all. Again, this is under Step 6. So going through all of this, the pre-application activities are similar to the submittal and handling of the application, staff review and action, scheduling notices of public meetings and hearings and review and decision and post-decision actions and limitations are a little different for replats. So I'm going to go ahead and share that with you. So if there is a replat that requires a variance or an exception, it has to go through a public hearing process with the Planning and Zoning Commission, just the Planning and Zoning Commission. And this is under 212.05 in the Texas Local Government Code. It has to be a public hearing. There has to be notices sent out. And if there is written protest from those, the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to vote in the supermajority. And again, this is partly as applies to state law under 212. We wanted to illustrate that or provide that in our development code. So the decision of a replat that has a variance or an exception would need to follow this procedure. However, if there is a replat that does not have a variance or exception, they will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission, but does not require a public hearing. And the only notification that would be presented or shared for that particular property would be a notice after the decision has been made. So these, again, a residential replat that does not require a variance shall be noticed to the public by no later than 15 days of the replat. The public being just those properties within 200 feet of the subject site within that subdivision. We've had several replats already that went to the Planning and Zoning Commission that did not have a variance. Those were considered under items for individual consideration. Those that were actually approved, staff has been sending out notices to those individuals or those property owners within the 200 foot or properties within 200 feet of that subject property. And again, that is per a new state law that was passed last summer. Again, just want to make sure that that was clear and that was presented because this is different from all the other applications because it is something that was recently passed by state law for replats. Any questions with regards to replat procedures? Just for me, because it is something new because of state law, but does that differ from the procedure that we did in the past? Yes. On the notification aspect of it? On the notification aspect, yes, ma'am. Okay. And the notification is specifically called out in state law? Correct. The difference between ones that require a variance or exception and ones that do not require a variance. Okay. And that was added again, added to state law under, I forget the house bill, I think I have it in the presentation, it was last summer. That is okay. Thank you. Sorry. Going back the other way. Okay. Subdivision variance is our next topic. And for those in planning and zoning, this is something that is decided only at planning and zoning commission. And with the 2019 development code, the subdivision variance was changed to the ZBA. It went to the ZBA and we realized that, or any variance, sorry, any variance, not subdivision, but just any variance would go to ZBA, including subdivision variance. We felt that something that we overlooked and something that we need to change and bring back to the planning and zoning commission. So you see here, the decision is planning and zoning commission as opposed to the zoning board of adjustments. So again, subdivision variance is anything that pertains to a variance to a subdivision. And we've got a list under the applicability. But again, I wanted to share the purpose of the subdivision variance just to share with you if it resulted in unnecessary hardship or any other variance that the applicant is seeking to grant relief outside of what is required under the current DDC subdivision requirements. So here's the applicability section or part of the section that we wanted to include. We are saying that any property owner seeking relief for standards contained in the following sections of the DDC. So streets, driveways, lot planning, and block layout. These are what would be only required or may be requested as a variance for their development. And again, we are saying that the planning and zoning commission shall decide the request for subdivision variances rather than the zoning board of adjustment, which is what is currently in our 2019 development code. It currently falls under the ZBA. What we're trying with this proposed code amendment is to bring it back to the planning zoning commission. I won't read through this again. I just wanted to share with you that the subdivision variance approval criteria so that anyone that's looking to do a subdivision variance will need to make sure that they follow or know that these are the criteria in which the planning zoning commission will use in granting that variance. And I know there's a lot there, and I didn't want just to go past this, but I wanted to make sure that you knew that there is a long list of criteria for a subdivision variance that would be considered, and hopefully, if approved by the planning zoning commission. And if you all need more time, please let me know, or if you want me to go through this individually, I can do that as well. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental. The conditions of which the request variance is based on a uniqueness of the property, but because the particular physical surroundings, shape or topography or condition is a particular hardship, and it's not just an inconvenience, the subdivision will not in any manner vary from the Den Plan 2030 or the Den Plan Comprehensive Plan, the Den Mobility Plan, and other documents. And that the special and peculiar condition of which the request is based did not result from or were created by the act or commission of the owner or any prior owner. So very similar to other variances, approval criteria, but again, wanted to make sure that the subdivision variance has its own approval criteria. Ron? Yes, ma'am. So this was planning and zoning, and then it went to the zoning board? Correct, by way of, yes, 2019 development code. Okay. So it went to the zoning board, and we're realizing that that didn't work out the best, and so we're moving it back to planning and zoning? Right, right. We feel that the planning and zoning commission reviews, plots, subdivisions, obviously a lot more than the zoning board of adjustments. So they're more, I guess, prepared or aware of what to look for. Okay. And was it the word variance that was in there that made us feel like we needed to send it over to the zoning board? I'm trying to remember this conversation, and I... Yeah, we just, again, trying to make it simple, trying to make it, you know, it's the right word. Streamlined, we thought the variance would, any variance would just be ZBA. However, this was a special variance because of the nature of it, subdivision regulations, and felt that the P&Z would be the better board or commission to look through these. Okay. Thank you. Ed, we don't have very many of these. I don't think, at least in the three years that I've been here, that we've processed one. They're very rare when we do have one. Yeah, I know in the past one or two have been block lengths or other, you know, transportation-related variances, driveway separations, that sort of thing. Okay. Okay. We are hopefully getting close. I know that we have a couple more. Here's one that I think requires a lot of review from the DCRC. It's rezoned to a planned development. Similar to the replat, we carried forward some language related to PD, you know, rezoning to PD, but it wasn't a full comprehensive procedure, and so we are adding the following sections, again, similar to the other ones having a purpose, applicability, and other sections. So, again, as you can see here, and you can read that obviously a PD is a special type of zoning where the applicant or property owner would like to propose a type of development that may not necessarily meet the development code, but by way of design and proposal, they have a little bit more unique concept and would like to consider it as a PD. I know we have had several PDs already approved or amended recently. I think the true PDs are the ones that have a design submitted that vary up front, is specific to a uniqueness and is different. Then there's also a different type of PD, which we'll get into in a little bit here, is where what we consider rezoning, when we reconsider rezoning and we add conditions, ultimately a PD or a zoning with condition or even overlay, they're all the same in nature, but different in their scope. So I'll go to the next slide. So what we have are two types of PDs. We have an overlay PD. An overlay PD may just be like we discussed and have done recently with the Planning and Zoning Commission is restrict a use that's permitted under the base zoning because it's not a zoning that was going to be approved straight zoning and that there was some conditions. We wanted to make it distinct and so this is what we would refer to as an overlay PD. A standard PD is a little bit more intended by the applicant and they realize that they are not going to meet a specific zoning dimensional standard or a specific requirement and would like to propose a PD, create their own standards and their development standards and have the P&Z and City Council consider it. This is what we're determining or defining as a standard PD. So just wanted to share that because again, we see these two types of PDs or have seen these two types of PDs and we anticipate on seeing more of them as we continue to develop in the city and wanting to see some of our infill development occur. I think this is a tool that we can certainly use and not just infill but any other areas of the city if again, we in the development community finds a need for them. And so that would be, I remember we talked about tiny homes, would that be as a PD, would that be a standard? Correct, correct under tiny homes, you're absolutely correct Keely because it's unique and we want to make sure that the design of them are consistent with the goals and the objective of the Complan and the development code. A PD would be the appropriate method for getting those types of developments approved. Any other questions? And again, the PD has, again, we wanted to make sure we followed the same outline of procedures. Again, I wanted to spend time a little bit more on step two because it is different from the other ones. There is also approval criteria for PDs. Again, all of this which is you see here are very similar. The ones that are called out, I wanted to make sure that you understood the differences. So that's why you saw that or had that discussion. Any questions on rezoning to PD? Again, I don't know if you all want to look at what's the approval criteria but what I would say is very similar to a rezoning. You just want to make sure that it's compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, it's consistent with our comprehensive plan and so on and so forth. But again, the process or procedure is very similar to the other process or applications. And the notification is the same, right? Correct. So 20%, you know, or denial, it requires a super majority for the City Council to approve. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Right. That brings us to the end of three set of code amendments. I just wanted to kind of give you some idea as to what to expect next week if we have a meeting. Again, the unity of title and declaration in lieu of unity of title may be part of this meeting next week or the meeting next week, or maybe some meeting in the future. Following that discussion we'll have additional discussions on annexation procedures as we move forward. Again, the next four, five, and six, and seven are basic cleanup like we saw earlier, nothing major, but I wanted to share that with you because obviously it does have some implications. I want to make sure that everyone under the DCRC is aware of them. As far as the other column, we get to a little bit more specific changes and a little bit more discussion, in my opinion, dimensional standards as it relates to setback changes, as it relates to height clarifications, table of allowed uses. We recently went through a discussion on tattoo and piercing parlors. There are some uses that we want to address and clear up and address nonconformities as well. Use specific standards, those are specific to a particular use and there are some standards that we want to either change or clarify by eliminating some duplications and or adding more clarification or clarity. And last, 11 and 12, I know that the DCRC, that prior to the DCRC, and I know that Tim's on the call or on the Zoom link may not have been purviewed to this, but we have had a lot of discussion probably more than we want to, but we wanted to bring this back to you all just to have a refresher. And these are important because we know that these are concerns from the community that we have been aware of and been brought to our attention. And we just want to make sure that when we bring this forward, you all are okay with what's being proposed or recommended. If there is anything else that you all know of that you would like to bring forward, please let me know. We can certainly add to the list. I was telling someone earlier, as we get further down in our meetings, the priorities, high priorities, will soon go away and we'll be focusing more on just regular code amendments, that is under our non-substantive changes and then also substantive changes as well. And then our criteria manual transition or transfer, we will also be getting into in our next set of couple, our next couple of meetings in the next couple of weeks or months. Whenever we have them scheduled, that is. So with that, I'll stand for any questions and/or if you have any recommendations or would like to see any other code amendments that you know of that we should be researching, we should be prioritizing, or that we should be bringing forward. I think Margie had a question. Well, it actually had to do when we were talking about PDs. So if I can ask it now, you just talked over me and I couldn't stop you, Ron. You just kept going. Just super quick question with regard to rezoning to PD. So would that just be considered for standard PD? I mean, or are you trying to say there's two PD rezoning options now? There will be two different PD options. So if it is something that say it's all we're looking at as far as restricting the uses, we should consider those PDs rezoning. We're still considering that a PD. Right. If we know ahead of time, that's the hope, right? I know that there was one rezoning that was brought forward and we didn't catch it before, but certainly those would be still considered. And Richard, remind me again, if the P&Z has a recommendation for restricting uses, would we consider those, I mean, we should, PDs? Right, right. And so what's happening now is if you remember when we transitioned to the 2019 PDC, all of those little, I'll call them the parcel overlays that we had from the mixed use overlay, those transitioned to with a PD designation. And so essentially what this will do is codify that, but then have a better way. So now we don't have overlays and then PD overlays. So it's just really consolidating into one thing. So it essentially is the old mixed use overlay just reconstituted into a PD, because that's how we have them mapped today. Yeah. And that I understand. I guess what my question is, is if we're rezoning to, let's say a recent request we had, and I can't remember what the rezone was, but there ended up being a condition put on it. It wasn't brought to us as a PD overlay rezoning. So I'm trying to get clarification. Yeah, so this would function just like that. So they could apply under that with rather than going through the whole PD, because I think the one you're talking, I think it's coming back next meeting, because then there was another condition that they wanted to add at council, unbeknownst to staff. And so that's when council had kicked it back for B and Z to reconsider again. But that was the one where they were rezoning to R4 and had requested an overlay or conditions be put on it. Right. So what are we calling that? Are they rezoning to R4 with conditions? With an overlay condition then that gets mapped as, because I think we've had one or two others, there was the one off of 35W that had some restrictions after the community meeting that ultimately went as an overlay. Right. So we're calling it a PD overlay, but it really would come to us originally as that, right? Because oftentimes these overlay discussions don't even get talked about until we're discussing the rezone request in our meetings. Correct. It could. There are those instances where, a lot different from where we were before with the, you know, before we had some residential, if you were over two acres, you didn't have those minimum sizes. And so there were times where we could support an R6 provided certain uses weren't more involved. And that may be the case, but I think it'll be more likely that it would get brought up after we have the, there's a neighborhood meeting or community meeting and some issues are raised. So very well could come before, but I suspect that the majority of them will either happen at the meeting or right between the neighborhood meeting. Okay. So, so to understand, so you're going to try to vet a lot of these things ahead of time and possibly and bring them before P and Z as a PD overlay request? If possible, because right now the code doesn't allow staff to. Right. We have to kind of get, have the applicant ask for an overlay. So does, so if you don't catch that ahead of time, but we catch it in a discussion, do we have to, what do we do at that point? Are we still allowed to approve a rezone with some kind of a condition if it's not called PD overlay? I think it would just have that PD overlay applied to it. So it would be say R or MN with that PD overlay. I think that's how Ron, if you can pull the language back up. I think I understand what you're trying to say Margie, if it's not brought to you as a PD, you know, as far as an application, it's a straight zoning and there was a condition placed after, you know, or during P and Z, what, what do we move? How do we move it forward to what is moved to city council? What is forwarded to city council? Exactly. So if it comes to us as you know, wanting to rezone, you know, from R2 to R4, but then we want to put something on it or I guess it maybe it wouldn't be R4, but maybe R2 to R6 or something. We want it eliminated or say you can only have single family detached or what have you. If we, if we discuss that in our, our meeting, then what, yeah, what is going to city council because it is PD over, you know, I'm confused. Yeah. I think, I think, uh, what we would do is obviously bring forward what you're recommending or what the P and Z is recommending. The only thing that I think we need to work on and I've noted here and we'll talk, uh, internally with Richard and legal is how do we notice it? Because obviously is it a PD or is it a rezoning or are they all the same or are they different? How do we clarify that for the public? That's the, I think that's the only thing. That's exactly my question. Yes. So I guess Richard and maybe Erin, I don't know the answer right now. I mean, maybe, uh, again, these are the ones that are, are conditions on a rezoning that are, that are, that are recommended by the city, um, by the planning zoning commission. How do we move that forward? Is that a rezoning or do we change it midstream as a PD overlay or PD? And is it notice, how do we notice that? And it may require re-noticing. And most of the time when those come up, it is a function of they're trying to go from an R2 to an R4 and then we put conditions on them. So as I, as I read through this, it talks about on the zoning map, it will be designated as PD dash and whatever the base zoning is. So the PD is just simply saying that we put an overlay on it on the zoning map when it's that style. Similar to the old, yeah, the mixed use overlay is exactly how we did that prior. So unless there's some, it's just kind of denoting that there is something different about, it's not just your basic MN or basic R4 that there's something special about it. I think it's just a notification. In my, in my opinion, I think it's just a notification. How do we want to make sure it's clear? Because to the best of my knowledge, we cannot make it less restrictive than what the zoning requires. We can only make it more restrictive. That is correct. Yes. Councilmember Briggs. So this is really good conversation and a lot of really great things come out of planning and zoning when you guys are discussing things together on the dais that when it comes to us at council are really great conditions. My question would be, so if an item comes to P and Z and it's already marked a PD overlay and the staff has put conditions on it, can those conditions be changed by P and Z or added to? Yes. Yes. Okay. Yes. Ultimately city council will take the recommendation by P and Z and by staff and then decide on what conditions would be placed. Right. I just wanted to make sure their hands weren't tied if something like that already came to them. So as, as the PD, okay. Yes, Tim. Hey chair. So I know on most of the PDs, Ron, and I think I missed it on the, not most, all PDs, I missed it possibly in the change to the PD overlay. Most of the PDs require that, and I probably used the wrong term, the site plan, preliminary plan to be codified in the zoning change. Is it the same on the overlay? Is it going to be a codified piece within there? Cause that's something that I haven't liked so far by even having the PD in the first place, but I understand it if we're doing a, you know, a 100% true blue PD, but in this type of scenario, it's a PD overlay and we're just restricting some of the conditions in the, in the base zoning that the codified site plan, preliminary plan, whatever the wording is, seems, it seems to add even more restrictions to it. Right. Right. No, I understand what you're saying. I think that's why we had those two types of PDs. So on the overlay, I think I missed it, in the PD overlay that codified site plan, preliminary plan wouldn't be required. Correct. If it's just the uses that we're talking about, then yes. However, with any condition, if it speaks specifically to a lot layout or whatever, then we would need to have that documented somehow. Just a clarification. Thank you for that. Yes. Andrew. Thank you, chair. I don't know if this is appropriate to move on to another item, but I had a question about something else that might be applicable to the DCRC to cover, but I certainly don't want to take the floor from the PD conversation. So, I'll just go ahead and ask it. And if someone wants to circle back to PD, I apologize for interrupting that conversation. I came up in PNZ last week about the opportunity for property owners to petition the city to abandon a road. And I don't, it didn't seem like there was, I didn't get clarity on how the city actually provides a mechanism for road abandonment for property owners. And I don't know if the DCRC is the appropriate mechanism to review that. But I would like to figure out a way to outline to property owners who own both sides of a road, what petition they have available to them to look at. I don't know if it's TIA to see if a road can be removed or if it's road quality. I don't know those things that go into play about how a property owner can do it, but I certainly want to follow through on that conversation we had at PNZ last week on what the city can do to set up structures for that process. Richard, I don't know if you want to respond to that, but I know that we have part of the real estate application is a road right away abandonment. And that is an application that they can submit either property owners on both sides or obviously you would hope that both sides would request for that abandonment. So, Andrew, we do have an application already in place. Okay, great. That's helpful. I didn't get that information last week. Maybe I did. Maybe I didn't under process it enough. Richard, if you want to. The only thing I was going to add is that's really the we do, but it's not really as formal as it needs to be. Going back to the real estate application that we were that Ron had talked about earlier, I guess it doesn't make sense to lump everything under real estate applications or should we break those out? Maybe it is better to have separate items for right of way abandonment or vacation easement abandonment. That way it's clear in the code and it just doesn't get hidden under one catch all phrase. There really isn't a formal process for road abandonments. They have just been handled through the real estate division. So that could be something that probably not development services but maybe the engineering department can work on and with real estate. The cases that I have seen over the years have included where we have taken like for example with Mayhill where we have redone realigned the road, there's going to be a piece of Mayhill that is still a street, but it has no function anymore. That's not related to anything regarding a physical development that development services will be involved with, but the people there may want to request that that portion of the nonfunctional roadway piece to be abandoned so that they can use it for whatever purposes. That will impact them as they develop that property in the future if they wish to do that. But that's typically what we see with road abandonments. It's an old road that no longer has any function and the people just want to abandon it. Sometimes it does spill over into the development on gated subdivisions that predate the rules that we used to have and they want to have that road abandoned and so that's a different story. But typically these requests come after a development has occurred for the most part. Not always, but for the most part they think that's how they usually occur. Yeah, I appreciate that insight. I mean more specifically the item that came into P&Z was Shady Shores west of Lakeview in which there's the northern part of the property is basically half ESA and the southern part of the property which the owner owns both parcels is I-35 frontage road and Shady Shores, I'm not sure what the rating of that road is but I can't assume it's high and so I would like to see what mechanisms are available to remove Shady Shores, that portion of Shady Shores road, allow the developer to put in what we it seemed like retail or grocery store there and give him access or them access to I-35 frontage road so that they can have more developable property outside that ESA. So in this specific example it's not necessarily that the road needs to be abandoned because of development that's already taken or that there's been a realignment of roads that road I imagine gets driven on, I'm not sure by whom or how many but in this case this is what I was looking for is the ability for the city to proactively encourage the development of properties that because of ESA or otherwise have limitations and this specific example it seems to benefit everyone that the neighbors, the city, the developers, to look into what mechanisms they would have to combine those two parcels on the north and south side of Shady Shores. That's what I appreciate historically how a right away abandonment is taking place. I was looking for more like proactive to encourage development where a right away is preventing it potentially. That's a very good example, something that we can discuss internally. That would be great. Thank you. I would like to re-discuss or talk about parking minimum and maximums. I don't know if this committee would be interested in that but I know that since we upgraded our or changed our ordinance a while ago different things have happened and we have some flexibility in there for the planners to work with the developments which is really great but I'm just curious if we could have that conversation to see where we used to be, where we are now and if there's -- if what we have, the new ordinance is working or not. Kayla, we have that on our list and that is part of subchapter 7 so as we move down we'll certainly get to that and we do have some recommendations. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? I've got one. And that is I think somehow it got misinterpreted when we're dealing with perimeter fences and we said you could use wood if it was raised above -- we meant to say above masonry where it was like a wood panel up inside the masonry so your bottom was all solid and just to make sure that that kind of gets corrected if it hasn't already. That too will be brought forward in subchapter 7 and if we need to clarify that further we'll make sure the DCRC has an opportunity not only to get a refresher but to hopefully if there was any miscommunication we can clear that up. Yeah, I believe fences, perimeter fences were about a six-hour conversation the first go. More like six days. Days versus hours. Yeah, so I have one more suggestion. If we could get these presentations that we see uploaded to the backup so that the public can review them, I think that would be helpful to you. We'll do that, yes ma'am. Okay, thanks. Anything else on this item? All right, any concluding items? Well, I'll just say happy Veterans Day and I want to thank all the service members for what they have done for us. And if there's nothing else we will adjourn the meeting at 2 41. Thank you everyone. - Thank you. - Thank you.