[A. PZ26-112 Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding a Comprehensive Denton Development Code Amendment. Amendments include, but are not limited to, revisions to the Table of Allowed Uses, Use-Specific Standards, Definitions, and Rayzor Ranch Overlay Sections of the Denton Development Code.]

THIS EVENING. AND THAT BRINGS US TO OUR ONE WORK SESSION ITEM. SO THIS IS WHERE AM I. PC

26-112. >> OKAY. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, ANGIE MANGLA, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR. AND AS YOU'VE SEEN WITH ME THIS EVENING, I HAVE MOST OF OUR PLANNING TEAM. WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH A COMPREHENSIVE CODE UPDATE, WHICH HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS WITH THE DCRC SINCE I THINK FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, PRIMARILY ADDRESSING SOME USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE CLEANED UP, AND THAT INCLUDES THE CODIFICATION OF DIRECTOR DETERMINATIONS, MAKING SOME ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO STATE LAW, AND THEN ALSO INCORPORATING SOME NEW LAND USES THAT WERE EITHER WE'RE CONTINUING TO SEE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE QUITE THE RIGHT PLACE TO PUT THEM. AND SO

[00:15:04]

VARIOUS STAFF HAVE TAKEN BITS AND PIECES OF THESE OF THIS OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE CODE AMENDMENT. AND YOU'LL BE HEARING FROM ALL OF US THIS EVENING. THE INTENT WOULD BE TO GET THIS BEFORE YOU FOR PUBLIC HEARING IN AUGUST. SO JUST A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKGROUND.

THIS IS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED A COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE. CITY STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR SEVERAL MONTHS WORKING THROUGH THESE VARIOUS ITEMS. DUE TO CHANGES IN STATE LAW, WE ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE ABILITY TO DO A COMPREHENSIVE CODE UPDATE LEGISLATION THAT WAS PASSED IN 2025 DID CLARIFY SOME OF THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AS IT RELATES TO CODE UPDATES. SO THIS WILL BE NOTICED IN THE IN THE NEWSPAPER, 17 DAYS BEFORE THE PNC AND THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING. AND REALLY THIS SPECIFIC SET OF AMENDMENTS WILL PROBABLY SEE SEVERAL COMPREHENSIVE CODE AMENDMENTS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. BUT THIS SPECIFIC SET IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS REALLY SOME ISSUES THAT WE'RE SEEING OR THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE CLEANED UP. AND SO THAT IS TO CODIFY AND CLARIFY DIRECTOR DETERMINATIONS AND MINOR INTERPRETATIONS, THAT IS TO UPDATE ANY REGULATIONS THAT WERE NEEDED DUE TO STATE LAW, THAT IS, TO CLARIFY AND REFINE EXISTING USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS. THE MORE WE WORK IN THE VERSION OF THE CODE THAT WE HAVE, THE MORE STAFF FINDS. MAYBE THIS NEEDS TO BE TWEAKED OR THIS ISN'T QUITE WORKING THE WAY WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE. AND THEN TO INCORPORATE NEW LAND USES WHICH ARE CONTINUING TO EITHER THEY'RE STARTING TO COME UP, WE'LL TALK ABOUT DRONE DELIVERY SERVICES A LITTLE BIT, BUT ALSO OTHER USES THAT ARE JUST DIFFICULT TO CLASSIFY WITHIN OUR EXISTING CATEGORIES OF LAND USES. AND SO WITH THAT, WE'RE GOING TO START GOING THROUGH THESE. AND FIRST WE WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT DIRECTOR DETERMINATIONS. AND I'LL TURN

IT OVER TO MATT. >> HELLO AGAIN. SO FOR THOSE THAT ARE PART OF THE DCRC, THEY SHOULD LOOK FAMILIAR. BUT THOSE WHO ARE NOT. AND THESE ARE SOME JUST KIND OF ADJUSTMENTS TO THE DESIGN FOR OUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. SO OVER THE YEARS, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL HOMEBUILDERS COME TO US WANTING TO INCORPORATE DIFFERENT DESIGN ELEMENTS INTO THE DESIGN OF THEIR HOMES THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY CAPTURED IN, IN OUR CODE. AND SO WE'VE, THE DIRECTORS AT THE TIME HAVE ISSUED DETERMINATIONS. AND SO THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE ACCUMULATIONS OF THOSE. AND SO THESE CODE UPDATES ARE REALLY TO CODIFY THEM INTO THE CODE FOR TRANSPARENCY AND CLARITY SAKE. SO TO START OFF, SO THIS FIRST ONE IS THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR VARIETY OF, OF HOMES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THAT THE FACADE FOR ONE CAN'T EXACTLY MATCH THE OTHER. AND SO WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE CURRENT DEFINITION IS KIND OF CONFUSING. AND SO WE'RE PROPOSING A NEW DEFINITION OR A NEW CODE, NEW REGULATION WITH THAT WHICH HAS THE SAME INTENT. BUT JUST CLARIFY WHAT IS REALLY BEING ASKED AND WHAT COUNTS AS A DIFFERENT FACADE BETWEEN HOUSES, AS WELL AS THIS LITTLE GRAPHIC TO HELP ILLUSTRATE THAT POINT. ADDITIONALLY, THERE THERE IS A LIST WITHIN THE CODE OF FEATURES THAT A BUILDER CAN USE TO SHOW THAT THEIR HOUSE, THE HOUSES THEY'RE DOING IS DIFFERENT FROM ONE OF THE OTHERS. THE CURRENT LIST IS SEVEN, OR PROPOSING TO ADD TEN DESIGN FEATURES TO THAT LIST.

AND THEN INSTEAD OF REQUIRING THREE, UPPING THAT UP TO FOUR DESIGN FEATURES THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO INCORPORATE. AND SO THE THE LIST IS. SO THERE'S A LIST OF ALL THE TEN AS WELL AS SOME CLARIFICATION IF THEY WANT TO COMBINE SOME INTO WHAT LOOKS LIKE ONE. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, PICTURES KIND OF ILLUSTRATING THAT. AND THEN FINALLY, IN ORDER TO ENHANCE THE STREETSCAPE, WHICH IS AN INTENT OF THE DDC, PART OF THE INTENT OF DDC, SOME REVISIONS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR FRONT ENTRY GARAGES. ALSO AT THE REQUEST COMING FROM OUR DISCUSSION WITH HOME BUILDERS. AND SO INSTEAD OF REQUIRING A MINIMUM THREE FOOT OFFSET OF ANY ATTACHED GARAGE FROM THE BUILDING, WE'RE SAYING IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE OFFSET AT ALL, OR IT COULD BE OFFSET AS FAR BACK FROM THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, BUT ARE PLACING A MAXIMUM LIMIT OF FIVE FEET. IF THE GARAGE IS OFFSET IN FRONT OF THE IN FRONT OF THE REST OF THE HOUSE OR THE FRONT PORCH. AND THEN SINCE WE ARE ENCOURAGING SIDE ENTRY AND GARAGES, ALSO ALLOWING THOSE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACKS LIKE WE WOULD REAR ENTRY GARAGES AS

[00:20:05]

WELL. THERE IS ONE SLIGHT CHANGE HERE FROM DRC. THE DRC RECOMMENDED KIND OF SOME WEIGHTING AS FAR AS LIKE CERTAIN DESIGN FEATURES. WE DID DISCUSS THIS WITH OUR PLANNING EXAMINERS, WHO ARE THE MAIN ONES THAT REVIEW THIS AGAINST BUILDING ELEVATIONS. THEY'RE THE ONES THAT TALK MOST WITH THE HOME BUILDERS. AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THAT WOULD BE A LESS COMPLICATED AND TOO MUCH, I GUESS UNNECESSARILY TOO MUCH COMPLICATED. AND SO DECIDING TO JUST KEEP IT AT FOUR AND THEN HAVE EACH FEATURE COUNT AS ONE. BUT THOSE AS THAT IS ALL THE STANDARDS BEING PROPOSED FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN. I TAKE ANY QUESTIONS

NOW OR. >> WE CAN LEAVE IT UP TO THE CHAIR.

>> OKAY. >> YEAH, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE CONTENT RICH AND AND DIFFERENT SUBJECTS. SO LET'S, LET'S DO IT ONE BY ONE. CONCEPT. SO A LOT OF NEW STUFF. WE DIDN'T HAVE EVERYTHING IN THE BACKUP. SO QUESTIONS THOUGHTS. COMMISSIONER RIGGS.

>> YEAH. SO I'LL JUST COMMENT ON THIS. SO FOR THOSE OF THE THE MEMBERS OF D C, R C PARTICULARLY COMMISSIONER DYER AND AND CHAIR PRUITT KNOW THAT FOR THE MOST PART, I REALLY DON'T CARE WHAT THE FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE LOOKS LIKE. AND I MADE THAT VERY CLEAR. BUT I WILL SAY THAT THESE STANDARDS WENT THROUGH RIGOROUS DEBATE AND DCRC TO TO SAY THE LEAST.

AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE SAW WAS THAT THERE WERE THINGS THAT WERE UNCLEAR IN THE CODE THAT BASICALLY HAD TO BE MADE, BUT THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING BASICALLY HAD TO MAKE A DIRECTION. AND TO, TO ME, THAT SOUNDS LIKE OUR CODE'S NOT GOOD.

SO THIS WAS TO CLARIFY, CLARIFY OUR CODE AND MAKE SURE THAT STAFF HAS THE ABILITY TO, TO CLEARLY TELL DEVELOPERS AND TELL HOMEBUILDERS WHAT THEY NEED TO DO. AND MATT, TO YOUR POINT OF WHAT YOU SAID OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PLANS EXAMINERS, ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CAN DO IS THAT OUR CODE IS CLEAR AND THAT THE PLANNING EXAMINERS CAN DO A QUICK AND THOROUGH REVIEW SO THAT THEY CAN GET BACK TO APPLICANTS. AND SO ANYWAY, I WHOLLY SUPPORT THESE THINGS. AND I JUST KIND OF WANT TO TELL YOU FROM DCC PERSPECTIVE WHERE

WE'RE AT. >> COMMISSIONER GARLAND. >> I WAS JUST YOU AT THE VERY END, RIGHT BEFORE YOU ASKED OPEN FOR QUESTIONS, YOU SAID SOMETHING THAT THEY FELT LIKE IT WAS TOO. WHAT WAS THAT LAST SENTENCE THAT YOU SAID IT WAS TOO BULKY OR TOO.

>> UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATED? >> UNNECESSARY. AND WHAT WAS IT SPECIFICALLY THAT THEY FELT WAS

UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATED? >> THERE WAS THE IDEA FROM FROM SOME THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN DRC THAT CERTAIN OF THE FEATURES BE, I GUESS, WEIGHTED. SO THEY'RE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE OTHERS.

OKAY. AND SO IF YOU HAD ONE, YOU WOULD ONLY NEED THREE DESIGN FEATURES OR YOU WOULD, I GUESS IN CERTAIN CASES NEED UP TO FIVE. AND SO THAT I GUESS CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT FELT

UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATED. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS?

BUDDING ARCHITECTS IN THE ROOM. OKAY. THANK YOU MATT. >> GOOD EVENING CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. ASHLEY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER. I'LL BE GOING OVER TWO SEPARATE CODE AMENDMENTS, BOTH RELATED TO CHANGES IN STATE LAW. THE FIRST IS MANUFACTURED HOUSING. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, EVERYTHING I'M GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT TONIGHT IS REFERRING TO ONE MANUFACTURED HOME ON ONE LOT, AND IT DOES NOT REFER TO MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS, WHICH ARE MANY MANUFACTURED HOMES ON ONE LOT. ALL THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE PROPOSING DO NOT AFFECT THE DEVELOPMENTS. THOSE WILL STAY THE SAME THAT THEY ARE. NOW. THE REASON THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS IS THE STATE IS NOW REQUIRING CITIES TO ALLOW THE PLACEMENT OF A MANUFACTURED HOME BY RIGHT IN AT LEAST ONE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. CURRENTLY, WE DO KIND OF LUMP THESE TOGETHER WITH SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS. AND AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE FIRST CHANGE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO REMOVE THAT PORTION FROM THE DEFINITION OF SINGLE FAMILY.

THE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DO REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO PLACE A MANUFACTURED HOME ON ANY LOT. SO AS STATED, WE DO NEED TO ALLOW IT BY RIGHT IN ONE ZONING

[00:25:05]

DISTRICT. WE ARE PROPOSING THAT ZONING DISTRICT BE R R. THE REMAINING ZONING ZONING DISTRICTS WILL KEEP THE REQUIREMENT FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, SO THAT WILL STAY THE SAME AS IT IS NOW. WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING THE PARKING TWO SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT, WHICH IS THE SAME AMOUNT WE REQUIRE FOR THESE HOMES WITHIN THE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS.

AND THEN ALSO SEVERAL CHANGES TO THE USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS. WE'RE REMOVING THE PORTION FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED THAT REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THESE HOMES, AND THEN ALSO ADDING NEW USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES, SPECIFICALLY THAT THEY NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS. AND 710 THREE AND AS STATED, SINCE THESE ARE SINGLE FAMILY, THEY'RE CONSIDERED SINGLE FAMILY. NOW, THIS DOES ALREADY APPLY. SO THAT IS STAYING THE SAME. AND THEN ALSO REQUIRING THAT THEY'RE ATTACHED TO CONCRETE IN A MINIMUM OF 400FT■!S OF LIVING SPACE FLOOR AREA. AND WE DO REQUIRE THAT NOW IN MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS, THE REMAINING CHANGES ARE JUST CLARIFICATIONS. ONLY ONE ALLOWED PER LOT. AND ALL PARKING HAS TO BE ON AN APPROVED SURFACE. AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR MANUFACTURED

HOMES. SO I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM. I

GUESS WE ALL LIKE FOLLOWING STATE LAW. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. NEXT I HAVE MEDIA PRODUCTION FACILITIES. THESE ARE A PROGRAM THAT TEXAS HAS. THEY ALLOW SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENTS TO MEDIA PRODUCTION FACILITIES WITHIN MEDIA PRODUCTION DEVELOPMENT ZONES. PREVIOUSLY, THE MINIMUM POPULATION REQUIREMENT WAS 250,000. THE STATE HAS NOW REVISED THAT DOWN TO 100,000.

SO THAT DOES MAKE THEM POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE TO HAVE ONE OF THESE ZONES. CURRENTLY, WE DON'T HAVE THIS USE IN THE CODE. WE DO HAVE A MUSICIAN STUDIO USE. SO WE ARE PROPOSING TO CONSOLIDATE THESE USES TOGETHER. SO THE NEW DEFINITION IS SHOWN HERE. THIS DEFINITION ESSENTIALLY TAKES WHAT THE STATE DEFINES THESE FACILITIES AS, WHICH IS BUILDINGS THAT CREATE MOVING IMAGE PROJECTS AND COMBINES THAT WITH THE CURRENT DEFINITION FOR MUSICIAN STUDIO. SO IT WILL INCLUDE BOTH OF THOSE USES. WE ARE PROPOSING TO ALLOW IT EVERYWHERE THAT MUSICIAN STUDIO IS ALLOWED NOW, WHICH IS ALL THE NON RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS OTHER THAN P, F, AND THEN ALSO ADDING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR RR. THE PARKING WILL STAY THE SAME AS THE MUSICIAN STUDIO ONE PER 450. AND THEN WE'RE ALSO ADDING NEW SPECIFIC STANDARDS. THOSE STANDARDS ARE THAT THEY NEED TO CONFORM TO THE NOISE STANDARDS, WHICH IS A CURRENT STANDARD NOW FOR MUSICIAN STUDIOS. NO OUTDOOR STORAGE IS PERMITTED IN THE MIXED USE DISTRICTS. EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ENTIRELY WITHIN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE. AND THEN IN THE REMAINING ZONING DISTRICTS, ANY OUTDOOR STORAGE HAS TO BE OPAQUELY SCREENED. AND THAT IS EVERYTHING I HAVE FOR THOSE, AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM. I DON'T SEE ANY. THANK YOU. >> EVENING, CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MIA HAYNES, SENIOR PLANNER, AND I WILL BE TALKING TO YOU ALL ABOUT MOBILE FOOD BUSINESSES AND THE CHANGES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO THAT AS A RESULT OF SOME CHANGES TO STATE LAW. SO THE DCRC TO START DID NOT SEE THIS TOPIC COME FORWARD TO THEM BECAUSE WE TOOK BASICALLY THIS TOPIC AS WELL AS SOME OF THE PENDING LEGISLATION, LEGISLATION TO CITY COUNCIL LAST APRIL BEFORE ANY LEGISLATION CHANGE, AND SORT OF GOT A GENERAL DIRECTION AND CONSENSUS FOR HOW THEY WANTED US TO PROCEED. SO DCRC HASN'T SEEN THIS, AND I BELIEVE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE COMMISSION IS SEEING IT. BUT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS ESSENTIALLY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE STATE LAW ENDED UP PASSING, AS WELL AS THE GENERAL DIRECTION THAT CITY COUNCIL GAVE US LAST APRIL. WE ARE PROPOSING TO UPDATE DDC SUBCHAPTER FIVE FOR THE TABLE OF ALLOWED USES TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS ON MOBILE FOOD BUSINESSES, AS WELL AS THE DEFINITION FOR MOBILE FOOD, BUSINESS AND MOBILE FOOD COURT.

AGAIN, TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS. THE REASON THAT WE ARE PROPOSING THIS IS BECAUSE OF HOUSE BILL 2844, WHICH LIMITED LOCAL AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE CITY ISSUED HEALTH SAFETY PERMITS OF MOBILE FOOD BUSINESSES BEFORE. THAT'S KIND OF HOW WE AS A CITY, WERE KEEPING TRACK OF MOBILE FOOD BUSINESS OPERATIONS WITHIN OUR CITY. WE WOULD REQUIRE A LOCAL HEALTH SAFETY PERMIT FOR ANY OPERATIONS. NOW THE STATE HAS PREEMPTED THAT, SO WE CAN NO LONGER REQUIRE THAT. BUT THE STATE STILL ALLOWS US TO ENFORCE ZONING AND ENSURE THAT THESE MOBILE FOOD BUSINESSES ARE OPERATING WITHIN WHAT WE ALLOW FOR LAND USE AND ZONING. AND SO WITH THAT, ANOTHER

[00:30:06]

MECHANISM, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO ALLOW FOR A MECHANISM FOR US TO STILL KEEP UP WITH THE MOBILE FOOD TRUCK BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THEIR OPERATIONS. SINCE WE CAN'T DO THAT THROUGH THE HEALTH AND SAFETY PERMIT ANYMORE. ADDITIONALLY, WE NOTICED IN IMPLEMENTING OUR EXISTING CODES, THERE WERE JUST SOME CONFUSIONS OF SOME WAYS THAT WE WERE INTERPRETING THINGS THAT MAYBE WEREN'T SO CLEAR WITHIN THE LANGUAGE ITSELF. SO WITH THAT, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS FOR MOBILE FOOD BUSINESS. CURRENTLY, THIS FIRST SENTENCE IS ALL THAT THAT SAYS, WE WOULD PROPOSE TO ADD THAT SUCH USE SHALL BE ACCESSORY TO A PRIMARY BUSINESS ON THE SAME LOT, AND SHALL BE ONLY PERMITTED WITHIN AN APPROVED MOBILE FOOD COURT. AND THEN I'LL TALK ABOUT THE MOBILE FOOD COURT PROCESS HERE IN A LITTLE BIT. WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE WITH THAT, THE MOBILE FOOD COURT DEFINITION CURRENTLY ONLY SAYS THAT THE LOT AND AREA, OR THAT THE MOBILE FOOD COURT IS THE LOT, AN AREA WHERE MOBILE FOOD BUSINESSES OPERATE. WE ARE ADDING LOT AREA OR PARCEL, AND THEN WE'RE DISTINCT, MAKING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN ACCESSORY MOBILE FOOD COURTS ON A SITE THAT ALREADY HAS AN EXISTING BRICK AND MORTAR BUILDING VERSUS JUST ACCESSORY OR MOBILE FOOD OPERATIONS AND STANDALONE MOBILE FOOD COURTS ON THEIR OWN LOT. SO WITH THAT, WE ARE PROPOSING TO ADD THIS USE AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO MOBILE FOOD COURTS AND ALLOW IT IN ALL OF OUR NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. WE WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF LAND USE, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO FOR BUSINESSES OR THINGS TRYING TO OPERATE ON A PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE A BUILDING, BUT STILL NEEDS SOMETHING LIKE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, WE WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER COMPLETE A CERTIFICATE OF LAND USE APPLICATION TO ENSURE THAT THE SITE WHERE THEY INTEND TO SET UP THE MORE PERMANENT MOBILE FOOD OPERATIONS WOULD COMPLY WITH OUR CRITERIA HERE.

AND THAT'S A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 2000FT■!S, SPECIFIC SAFE SPACING BETWEEN TRUCKS AND BUILDINGS. AND IF IT IS ACCESSORY TO A EXISTING BUILDING, THAT AREA SHOULD NOT EXCEED 50% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. I BELIEVE THAT IS IT FOR MOBILE

FOOD TRUCKS. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY. >> QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER

MCDUFF. >> YES. YOU KNOW, I HAD A QUESTION COMING ON. SO HOW DOES THIS HOW DOES THIS AFFECT AN AREA LIKE DOWNTOWN? ALL OF THAT, ALL OF THAT THAT'S AROUND EAST

SIDE, THE BARS AND ALL OF THAT. >> SO I BELIEVE THE ONE THAT ONE PARTICULARLY THAT YOU MENTIONED IS A EXISTING MOBILE FOOD COURT. AND IT WAS KIND OF EXISTING BEFORE WHAT WE PUT IN PLACE HERE. SO IT WOULD ALLOW BE ALLOWED TO. REMAIN. AND I THINK WHAT WE ARE ACTUALLY PROPOSING WOULD BE IN LINE WITH THE WHAT THEY HAVE ESTABLISHED OVER THERE.

>> SO GRANDFATHERED, SO, SO TO SPEAK. >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. >> COMMISSIONER RIGGS. >> SO I'M JUST VERY TALKATIVE

TONIGHT APPARENTLY. >> BUT YES, YOU ARE. >> SO A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS. AND ONE THING I WANTED TO CLARIFY BETWEEN THE STATE REGULATIONS AND, AND, AND WHAT WE CAN DO, IS THERE A HEALTH SAFETY FOOD PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THESE MOBILE TRUCKS.

>> CURRENTLY IN OUR CODE OF ORDINANCE? YES. THERE IS A HEALTH SAFETY FOR CITY OR STATE.

>> JUST JUST LIKE FOOD SAFETY. I MEAN, YES, YES. >> YES. BUT IT'S THE STATE PREEMPTION SAYS THAT THEY THEY BASICALLY THEY HAVE TO GET THEIR HEALTH LICENSE WITH THE STATE. AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, HILLARY, HAVE TO GET THEIR HEALTH LICENSE AND HEALTH SAFETY INSPECTIONS WITH THE STATE. AND THEY CAN KIND OF DO THAT THROUGH ANY STATE AGENCY THAT THEY DELINEATE THAT POWER TO. BUT THE CITY CAN'T REQUIRE LIKE AN ADDITIONAL HEALTH

SAFETY INSPECTION FOR MOBILE FOOD BUSINESSES. >> OKAY. BUT THEY ARE THEY ARE BEING THEY HAVE SOME KIND OF HEALTH SAFETY. OKAY. PERFECT. THEY'RE NOT JUST TOTALLY

UNREGULATED, DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. PERFECT. >> SO, COMMISSIONER, IT'S BASICALLY TO PREVENT LIKE YOU HAVING TO GET A CITY PERMIT FROM EVERY CITY YOU WANT TO BE

IN. >> I KNOW, I TOTALLY GET IT CAN KIND OF LIKE TABC LIKE, YEAH, I GET IT. AND THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS TO, TO THE POINT SOMETHING LIKE EAST SIDE, WOULD OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS PREVENT SOMETHING LIKE THAT FROM HAPPENING?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I BELIEVE YEAH, IT WOULD. >> ALLOW PROPOSED REGULATIONS.

>> YES. IT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ACCESSORY OR A MOBILE FOOD COURT. THE MOBILE FOOD. I DON'T HAVE THE USE CHART ON HERE, BUT I BELIEVE MOBILE FOOD COURTS AS STANDALONE BUSINESSES WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. I'LL NEED TO CONFIRM, BUT IT

WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT. >> OKAY. YEAH. BECAUSE I CAN THINK OF SOME, SOME, SOME

[00:35:01]

BUSINESSES WHERE NOT LIKE THAT WHERE THEY HAVE THE, THE ACTUAL COURT SET UP, BUT WHERE I CAN THINK OF SOME GAS STATIONS THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, AN OUTSIDE. YES, YOU KNOW, FOOD THING I'M PARTICULARLY THINKING OF AND NOT TO GET INTO SPECIFICS, BUT DALLAS AND TEASLEY DRIVE, YOU

KNOW, WOULD THAT BE PERMITTED? >> YES, TO AN EXTENT. SO THEY WOULD HAVE IF IF THAT WAS ACCESSORY TO THAT GAS STATION, THEY WOULD HAVE TO NOT EXCEED 50% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA.

BUT YES, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED. >> OKAY. BECAUSE I GUESS MY ONLY CONCERN IS I, I KIND OF LIKE THE FOOD TRUCK IDEA AND I DON'T WANT TO, I GUESS, QUASH IT OR, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO JUST TOTALLY OPEN THE BAR, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, WITHDRAWAL WHAT REGULAR

USES ARE NOW. >> SO I'LL SAY IN SHORT, MUCH OF WHAT WE'RE DOING IS, IS SORT OF CODIFYING WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AS EXISTING REGULATIONS AND THEN CREATING A PROCESS FOR US TO STILL TRACK WHICH PROPERTY OWNERS, BASICALLY WHICH PROPERTIES ARE ALLOWED FOR MOBILE FOOD TRUCKS. SO WHEN SOMEONE CALLS AND SAY, HEY, THERE'S A MOBILE FOOD TRUCK SET UP OVER HERE, WE DO HAVE IT IN OUR RECORD THAT THAT'S OKAY, THAT'S OKAY.

>> I THINK THOSE TWO SENTENCES WERE ALL YOU NEEDED TO TELL ME. THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER MCDUFF. >> YES. JUST ANOTHER QUESTION. ON THIS SAME SUBJECT, ONE OF MY STUDENTS HUSBANDS, THEIR BUSINESS JUST RENTED A CHANGED THEIR LOCATION OF THEIR BUSINESS, AND NOW THEY'RE SUPPLEMENTING A BIG PARKING LOT AND THEY'VE MOVED A FOOD TRUCK.

SO IS THAT IS THAT A COURT, A FOOD COURT? BECAUSE THEY HAVE A BUSINESS AND A BIG PARKING LOT

AND THEY'VE STUCK A TRUCK THERE. >> THAT WOULD BE AN ACCESSORY, MOBILE FOOD COURT ACCESSORY.

>> AND WE STILL HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT. >> YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A

CERTIFICATE OF. >> LAND USE. OKAY. >> COMMISSIONER DYER.

>> JUMPING ON THE CLARIFICATION BANDWAGON, WHEN I'M LOOKING AT ALL THIS, COULD YOU HAVE A FOOD TRUCK AT AN APARTMENT BUILDING? AS LONG AS THEY MET ALL THE SITE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS?

>> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I BELIEVE IF THEY ARE ZONED WITHIN THESE ZONING DISTRICTS.

YES, YES. >> AND WE ALL THINK THAT WOULD BE OKAY. I MEAN.

>> FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> I MEAN, SOME OF THOSE JUST IT'S, YOU KNOW, JUST TO HAVE IT ALL PERMITTED OUTRIGHT. I KIND OF WONDER IF THERE'S SOME OF THE ZONING WHERE IT SHOULD BE A

SPECIFIC USE PERMIT INSTEAD OF JUST A STRAIGHT OUT PERMITTED. >> THERE COULD BE SOMETHING TO THAT. MAYBE SOME, SOME THERE COULD BE SOMETHING TO INCLUDE IN HERE THAT MENTIONS OR SPECIFIES THAT IT BE ALLOWED IN THE ZONING DISTRICTS, BUT ACCESSORY ONLY TO NON RESIDENTIAL USES. THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD FLOAT IF THAT WERE OF THE INTEREST OF THE BODY. BUT AS, AS IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IT WOULD JUST BE ALLOWED IN THE ZONING

DISTRICT. >> BECAUSE. >> THIS THIS PARTICULAR PART

RIGHT HERE, NONE OF THIS CAME IN FRONT OF THE DCRC, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. IT BECAME COME

BEFORE CITY COUNCIL THOUGH. OKAY. YEAH. >> SO YOU MENTIONED WAS THAT APRIL OF THIS YEAR? APRIL OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. OKAY. WELL, STUFF IS FAST AROUND HERE. THE.

I, I HAVEN'T WATCHED THAT MEETING SO. MY IMPRESSION FROM THIS IS THAT WE USED TO ESSENTIALLY REQUIRE A CITY HEALTH PERMIT AND HAVE SOME ZONING REQUIREMENTS THAT SAY YOUR COMMISSARY HAS TO BE OVER HERE AND NOT OVER HERE, SO YOU CAN'T PARK IT IN THESE PLACES AND HAVE MAMA JO CALL ME AND YELL. AND SORRY, MAMA BIS THE THE CARROT. SORRY. SO, SO TO ME THIS LOOKS LIKE, OKAY, WE'RE NOT. AND SO, SO AM I CORRECT THAT WE USED TO REQUIRE THE CITY HEALTH PERMIT OR WE CURRENTLY DO, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THESE LIMITATIONS ON PARKING A FOOD TRUCK IN A PARKING LOT OF A COMMERCIAL. ZONED LOT THAT HAS A BUSINESS THERE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS CERTIFICATE APPLICATION THING. YOU JUST PARK IT THERE, DO YOUR THING. IF THE CITY COMES BY, THEY SHOW YOU THAT HERE'S MY CITY PERMIT.

>> I'LL MAYBE POINT TO HALEY TO SEE HOW WE'VE DONE THAT IN PRACTICE. BUT THE WAY THAT THE CODE IS CURRENTLY, WE WOULD REQUIRE ALL THOSE THINGS THAT YOU NEED FOR HEALTH. WE WOULD REQUIRE WE WOULD WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THERE'S LIKE BATHROOMS NEARBY, OTHER ALL

[00:40:03]

THESE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE IN OUR CODE OF ORDINANCE FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY REASONS. AND WITH THAT, WE WOULD ALSO CONFIRM OR LIKE CHECK WITH WHERE THEY WOULD BE PARKED AND SEE IF THERE WAS CONCERNS ABOUT WHERE THEY WOULD BE PARKED, MOSTLY RELATED TO LIKE FIRE LANE ACCESS, ENSURING THAT IF THE EXISTING BUSINESS PARKING WASN'T GOING TO GO UNDER WHAT WAS REQUIRED AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, BUT THERE WASN'T REALLY A CODIFIED WAY THAT WE WOULD DO THAT. IT WAS KIND OF JUST THE WAY THAT WE DID IT IN PRACTICE BECAUSE OF THE THE EXISTING

TERMS AND DEFINITIONS THAT WERE IN THE DDC. >> OKAY. AND IT WOULD BE A REACTIVE THING BECAUSE THEY WOULD SET UP AND START SELLING POTATOES. AND THEN SOMEBODY CALLS YOU AND YOU SAY, OKAY, WELL, WE HAVE TO BE RESPONSIVE. SO LET'S GO OUT AND LOOK AT IT

AND SEE IF IT. >> MORE THAN LIKELY. >> HAS, HAS THOSE REQUIREMENTS

CORRECT? >> OR A HEALTH AND OR A MOBILE FOOD BUSINESS COMES IN IN THEIR OWN PROACTIVE WAY TO GET HEALTH INSPECTIONS. AND THEN WE LET THEM KNOW AHEAD OF TIME WHAT

WOULD BE REQUIRED. >> OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS BASICALLY TAKING A LIST OF REQUIREMENTS AND FRONT LOADING THEM SO THAT, LIKE BEFORE I SELL MY FIRST POTATO, I HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS THREE MONTH PROCESS TO GET EVERYTHING APPROVED FOR EVERYWHERE I GO.

MY IMPRESSION OF THAT TO THE QUESTION OF ARE WE SQUASHING? IT IS THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF SQUASHING GOING ON. I MEAN, OKAY, MAYBE I'M BEING FACETIOUS FOR THREE MONTHS, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN HOUR OR EVEN ONE DAY TO, TO, TO QUANTIFY, FOR INSTANCE. WHETHER THE VEHICLES ARE PARKING. WITHIN EXISTING REQUIRED PARKING FOR THE EXISTING LAND USES A LOT OF THESE LOTS. THE BUILDINGS WERE BUILT BACK IN THE 60S. WE DON'T HAVE PLANS FOR THEM. WE DON'T

KNOW WHAT THE FIRE CODE IS. WE DON'T KNOW IF. >> I THINK I THINK IN THIS CASE, SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS LIKE A SITE PLAN, AN AERIAL PLAN SHOWING WHERE YOU KIND OF WANT TO PARK WITH SOME DIMENSIONS. I THINK THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR FULL CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS.

WE JUST KIND OF WANT TO CHECK AND CONFIRM THAT WE WOULDN'T BE MAKING THE EXISTING BUILDING OR BUSINESS NONCONFORMING, AND THEN THAT THERE IS ENOUGH SPACE FOR THE TRUCKS TO PARK ON SITE.

I DON'T THINK THAT THAT I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT THAT WOULD BE MORE THAN LIKE A TYPICAL PERMIT REVIEW TIME, WHICH IS LIKE 5 TO 10 OR 3 TO 5 DAYS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> OKAY. I JUST KNOW IN THE PAST WE'VE HAD PLANNERS TALK ABOUT APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE COME IN FOR OLDER SITES LIKE DENTON CENTER AREA, WHATEVER, AND THE PROCESS OF CATALOGING AND FIGURING OUT, OKAY, IF WE WERE PERMITTING THIS TODAY, HOW MUCH, HOW MANY REQUIRED PARKING SPACES WOULD THEY HAVE? AND THEN AND THEN IT'S PRETTY EASY TO COUNT THEM UP ON THE, ON THE, OVER ON THE SATELLITE VIEW AND SEE IF THEY HAVE THAT OR NOT. BUT THE, THE PROCESS OF, OF

FIGURING THAT OUT WAS NOT OBVIOUS. >> WE, WE KIND OF DO IT NOW WITH ANY LIKE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THAT WE GET FOR A USE OR A BUSINESS TRYING TO GO IN LIKE A STRIP CENTER, AN OLDER STRIP CENTER, IF THERE'S EXISTING PARKING ON SITE. WE LOOK AT WHAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE STRIP CENTER, WHAT'S CURRENTLY ON PARKING SITE, AND ENSURE THAT EITHER THERE'S ENOUGH PARKING THERE OR WE WORK WITH THEM SOME KIND OF WAY.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S THAT'S ALL I GOT. COMMISSIONER MCDADE.

>> IS THIS GOING TO AFFECT THE LOCAL SNOW CONE TRUCK THAT COMES THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD? AND DOES THE SNOW CONE? ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS PROCESS.

>> LIKE ICE CREAM TRUCKS, SNOW CONES? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK THIS IS WHEN YOU SET UP AND PARK AND SIT AND SELL. THAT'S WHEN THAT'S WHEN THIS AFFECTS YOU.

>> THEY STAY THERE A COUPLE. >> HOURS HANDING OUT SNOW CONES. IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT.

>> COMMISSIONER RIGGS. >> SO THE MAIN REASON WHY YOU'RE BRINGING THIS TO US, THOUGH, IS SO THAT WE CAN COMPLY WITH THE STATE LAW AND THE STATE CHANGES. CORRECT.

THAT'S REALLY THE BIG THING, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. PERFECT. >> AND YEAH.

>> YEAH. COMMISSIONER DYER. >> BUT EVEN CHANGING SOME OF THE PERMITTED TO SPECIFIC USE

WOULD STILL COMPLY. WE WOULD STILL BE COMPLYING, CORRECT? >> YES.

>> BECAUSE I GUESS MY ONLY CONCERN ABOUT ALL OF THIS IS JUST THE LOCATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW, BECAUSE PERMITTED MEANS PRETTY MUCH IF YOU IF YOU MEET ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS, CHECK, CHECK, CHECK, CHECK, CHECK, YOU'RE GOOD. BUT I'M CONCERNED THAT, AND I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN SOME OF THE APARTMENT AREAS, MAYBE THEY WANT THE ABILITY TO HAVE THIS, I DON'T KNOW. BUT THAT IS KIND OF BY RESIDENTIAL. I MEAN, I

[00:45:08]

KNOW IT'S NOT OUR 2 OR 3 WHERE THAT'S MORE SINGLE FAMILY, BUT IN THE MIXED USE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT MORE APARTMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THAT'S, I GUESS THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN IS DO WE WANT TO HAVE SOME OF THE POLICIES CHANGE TO AN S? BUT MAYBE THAT COMES MAYBE THAT COMES OUT IN THE. WHEN THIS IS PRESENTED TO BOTH US AND TO CITY COUNCIL IN THE PUBLIC

HEARINGS AND TO SEE WHAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC WANTS. >> YEAH, I THINK JUST LISTENING TO SOME OF THE CONVERSATION AND YOUR SUGGESTION JUST NOW, WHAT WE COULD DO WHEN WE BRING THIS TO TO PUBLIC HEARING IS MAYBE LAY OUT AN OPTION B FOR THIS SPECIFIC USE TABLE. AND MAYBE IT'S A MATTER OF JUST ADDING A DIFFERENT USE SPECIFIC STANDARD, BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T WANT TO NECESSARILY MAKE ANY M, N, M, D OR M OUR PROPERTY NEED AN SUP BECAUSE THESE ARE SORT OF OUR WALKABLE AREAS, BUT POSSIBLY A USE SPECIFIC STANDARD THAT'S ONLY REQUIRED IF IT'S A MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX. SO WE COULD WE COULD LOOK AT BAKING THAT INTO THE WRITE UP. SO YOU

ALL CAN DEBATE IT AND CONSIDER IT AT YOUR AUGUST MEETING. >> OR ANYTHING ELSE. OKAY. YEAH.

JUST JUST TO CONFIRM MY UNDERSTANDING, THE REQUIREMENT FOR STATE LAW IS THAT WE STOP REQUIRING A CITY HEALTH PERMIT, AND THAT'S FULL STOP. THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT. ALL THE EXTRA

STUFF WE'RE ACTING, RIGHT? >> YEAH. THE REMAINDER OF THE STUFF IS LARGELY CLARIFYING OUR EXISTING PRACTICES SO THAT THEY LIVE SOMEWHERE RATHER THAN IN DIFFERENT STAFF'S MINDS.

>> TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WE DON'T WANT INCONSISTENT APPLICATION OF THINGS. I'M CONCERNED THAT THE THE FUNCTIONAL RESULT OF THIS WILL BE THAT WHENEVER ANYBODY CALLS ABOUT A FOOD TRUCK, THE FIRST THING STAFF DOES IS SAY, HEY, DO YOU HAVE YOUR YOUR FORM? AND THEN IMMEDIATELY IF THEY DON'T, YOU SHUT THEM DOWN. AND I THINK THAT'S GOING TO COME AS A SURPRISE TO A LOT OF PEOPLE. BUT IF THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL SAID THEIR DIRECTION WAS, THEN WE

SHALL MOVE FORWARD. SO THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER RIGGS. >> WELL, I WAS GOING TO SAY, I THINK CURRENTLY IT WOULD BE MORE REGULATORY EFFECTS ON THEM. SO I THINK THIS WOULD ACTUALLY

MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM. IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY. >> THE IDEA IS NOT NECESSARILY TO MAKE IT HARDER FOR ANYONE TO OPERATE A FOOD TRUCK. WE ARE WE DO LOOK AT HOW CAN WE BE EFFICIENT? IF SOMEONE WERE TO CALL TODAY, WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO LOOK INTO A FOOD TRUCK ON IF THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, PERMITTED OR IF THEY'RE ALLOWED ON SITE. AND SO IT'S JUST YOU SORT OF MENTIONED IT EARLIER. IT'S SHIFTING WHERE THAT HAPPENS IN THE PROCESS.

>> BUT BUT CURRENTLY THEY HAVE TO GET A STATE PERMIT AND A CITY PERMIT, AND NOW THEY ONLY HAVE TO GET A STATE PERMIT, AT LEAST FOR PART OF IT. RIGHT. THEY STILL HAVE TO GET A CITY

PERMIT, BUT NOT, NOT THE HEALTH PERMIT. SO. >> RIGHT, INSTEAD OF JUST REQUIRING THE HEALTH PERMIT FOR THE TRUCK, WE'RE REQUIRING A SPECIFIC USE. SORRY, THE.

CERTIFICATE CERTIFICATE OF LAND USE FOR EVERY PLACE THAT THEY WOULD GO.

>> YEAH. I'M THINKING LIKE RIGHT NOW THEY HAVE TO GO GET A STATE PERMIT, HEALTH PERMIT.

THEN THEY HAVE TO GET CITY HEALTH PERMIT. THEN THEY HAVE TO GET A CITY USE PERMIT. NOW THEY ONLY HAVE TO GET STATE PERMIT AND THE CITY USE PERMIT. SO WE'VE ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATED

ONE OF THE PERMITS. >> SO MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD. I DON'T IS IS THE CERTIFICATE OF

USE CURRENTLY A REQUIREMENT? >> NO WE ARE WE ARE LOOKING FOR A WAY TO, LIKE I SAID, CODIFY

HOW WE DO THINGS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THIS PART OF THE PRESENTATION IS MUCH LESS EXCITING AND THAT THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD THING. THESE ARE ALL EXISTING USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS THAT DON'T QUITE WORK. AND THIS HAS JUST COME THROUGH WORKING IN THE CODE SINCE IT'S BEEN ADOPTED.

AND SO I'M GOING TO RUN THROUGH THESE KIND OF QUICKLY. LIKE I SAID, I DON'T FIND IT PARTICULARLY EXCITING, BUT MAYBE YOU'LL FIND YOUR PASSION IN HERE. SO WE ARE UPDATING THESE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. REALLY THEY'RE JUST THINGS THAT EITHER DON'T WORK OR THEY'RE INCONSISTENT OR INCORRECT OR COULD STAND TO BE IMPROVED A LITTLE BIT. AND SO THESE ARE LARGELY MINOR UPDATES. THE TABLE OF ALLOWED USES TELLS US WHAT USES ARE ALLOWED AND WHERE ARE YOU. SPECIFIC STANDARDS. ESTABLISH HOW THESE USES CAN DEVELOP. AND THEN OUR DEFINITIONS DEFINE THESE USES. AND SO BY MAKING SURE WE'RE CLEAR AND CONCISE AND UNIFORM ACROSS THE THREE WE'RE JUST ENSURING BETTER CUSTOMER SERVICE AND APPLICATION OF THE CODE. SO WITH THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO CLARIFY. WE HAVE SEVERAL DEFINITIONS RELATED TO OUTDOOR RECREATION, INDOOR RECREATION, OUTDOOR RECREATION, PARK, PLAYGROUND, AND OPEN SPACE. AND THEY'RE ALL VERY SIMILAR, BUT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT. AND

[00:50:02]

SO AS IT RELATES TO OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITY, THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS INTENDED TO BE ABOUT PRIVATELY OWNED RECREATION FACILITIES THAT ARE MOSTLY OUTDOOR. SO THIS IS REALLY JUST CLARIFYING THAT THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC PARK OR PLAYGROUND OR ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED. THAT'S WITHIN A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION THAT FALLS IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY THAT WILL GO OVER. THESE ARE LARGELY ONLY ALLOWED IN THE M N THROUGH L I ZONING DISTRICTS DO SUGGEST ALLOWING AN SUP IN THE R1 THROUGH R7. I'M SORRY, I JUST MISSPOKE. THEY'RE CURRENTLY PERMITTED. WE ARE LOOKING TO ADD THE SUP IN OUR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS BECAUSE THESE ARE MORE PRIVATELY OWNED RECREATIONAL FACILITIES THAT COULD INCLUDE GOLF COURSES, SWIMMING POOLS. THESE ARE NOT PUBLIC FACILITIES, BUT BUT PRIVATE OUTDOOR EVENTS THAT ONE COULD GO TO. PARK, PLAYGROUND AND OPEN SPACE IS THE PUBLIC VERSION OF THAT. SO THAT'S ANY POOL PARK, OPEN SPACE THAT IS IS PUBLICLY OWNED. THE MINOR CLARIFICATION WITH THIS IS ALSO INCLUDING THAT THIS COULD BE LAND OWNED BY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WITHIN A NEIGHBORHOOD. ITS INTENT IS FOR PUBLIC USE AND IS REALLY OPEN TO ANYONE AS IT RELATES TO INDOOR RECREATION. WE'LL LEARN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE CHANGES TO THIS DEFINITION WHEN WE TALK ABOUT EVENT VENUES, BUT THE CLARIFICATIONS HERE ARE REALLY JUST THAT. THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE INDOOR SHOOTING RANGES. WE DO GET A FAIR AMOUNT OF INQUIRIES ABOUT WHERE CAN SOMEONE SET UP FOR THAT, NOR DOES IT INCLUDE WHAT WE CALL GAMES OF CHANCE, SORT OF THOSE VIDEO POKER OR WHATEVER GAMES THAT THEY'RE CALLED ALLOWED HERE. BUT THOSE ARE REALLY THE ONLY CHANGES TO THAT DEFINITION. WHEN WE GET INTO OUR GENERAL RETAIL DEFINITIONS, THEY'RE A LITTLE ODD. THEY DON'T REALLY MATCH THE TITLE OF THE USE. AND SO REALLY THESE SUGGESTIONS ARE JUST TO FIX THAT FOR TALKING ABOUT RETAIL BETWEEN 5000FT■!S AND 15,000FT■!S, WE'RE DEFINING IT. THEY WERE ALL A LITTLE BIT MISMATCHED. AND SO THIS IS REALLY JUST A CLEANUP ITEM HERE. LIKEWISE, OUR MANUFACTURING LOW IMPACT AND OUR MANUFACTURING MEDIUM IMPACT DEFINITIONS WERE REALLY VERY SIMILAR. SO STAFF HAS ADDED CLARIFYING LANGUAGE TO BOTH THE LOW IMPACT AND MEDIUM IMPACT TO SORT OF HELP SEPARATE THEM FURTHER REGULARLY. WHAT HAPPENS IS SOMEBODY WILL CALL AND THEY'LL TALK TO ONE OF OUR PLANNING TECHNICIANS, AND THEY'RE REALLY JUST RIGHT ON THE CUSP. AND SO WE END UP LIKE, WELL, LET ME CALL YOU BACK.

WE'LL DO SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. AND SO OUR HOPE IS, IS THAT BY CLARIFYING THE TYPES OF PRODUCTS THAT ARE USED AND THE PROCESS THAT IS USED TO MAKE THAT FINAL OUTPUT, WE CAN REALLY STREAMLINE THAT PROCESS. IT MAKES IT EASIER ON STAFF AND BOTH FUTURE OCCUPANTS OF BUILDINGS. THEN THERE ARE A COUPLE OF JUST DEFINITIONS THAT DON'T REALLY FIT INTO ANY ONE CATEGORY. BUT THESE ARE THESE ARE SORT OF CODIFYING THOSE EXISTING PRACTICES THAT WE HAVE.

SO WE DO SPECIFY ANY USE THAT'S ACCESSORY TO THE MAIN USE IN THE DEFINITION. AND ONE THING WE'VE KIND OF BEEN LACKING THAT COULD BE IMPROVED IS ADDING TO AUTO FUEL SALES THAT THOSE USES TYPICALLY DO INCLUDE RETAIL SALES, FOOD SALES AND AUTO WASH. SO LIKE WHEN YOU GO TO A BUCKY'S OR SOMETHING AND YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, GRAB A COKE AND YOU CAN GO THROUGH THE CAR WASH, WHICH IS CLARIFYING THAT SMOKE SHOP, WE ARE HOPING TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR THAT ESTABLISHMENTS THAT WHERE THEIR SALES DON'T ACCOUNT FOR 50% OR MORE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS OR SMOKING EQUIPMENT, THOSE DON'T FALL INTO THE CATEGORY OF SMOKE SHOP, BUT THAT 50% THRESHOLD AND UP DOES. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT STAFF REGULARLY STRUGGLES WITH, AND THAT'S BEEN A DIRECTOR DETERMINATION FOR SOME TIME. BUT AGAIN, IT'S BETTER TO TO HAVE IT WRITTEN SOMEWHERE.

AND THEN AS IT RELATES TO TEMPORARY USES, THAT'S A CLEANUP ITEM. IT'S JUST REFERENCING THE WRONG SECTION OF THE CODE. THERE ARE SOME SPECIFIC STANDARDS THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO CLEAN UP AS WELL. WE HAVE TWO DEFINITIONS FOR FOOD PROCESSING. THEY'RE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICTS, BUT FOR FOOD PROCESSING LESS THAN 25,000FT■!, WE CURRENTLY REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT WHEN ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL FOR FOOD PROCESSING, MORE THAN 2500FT■!S, WE REQUIRE AN SUP WHEN ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL AND GREATER THAN 5000FT■!S, WHICH DOESN'T REALLY MAKE ANY SENSE. SO WE'RE STRIKING THAT LANGUAGE, MEANING THAT ANY FOOD PROCESSING, NO MATTER THE SIZE, IF ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL, DOES REQUIRE AN SUP. MEDICAL CLINIC AND MEDICAL OFFICE. SO A MEDICAL CLINIC IS MORE SIMILAR TO LIKE YOUR CARE FACILITY WHERE YOU DON'T NECESSARILY NEED AN APPOINTMENT, YOU CAN WALK IN AND GET SERVICE.

IT'S ALSO LIKE WHERE YOU MAY HAVE OUTPATIENT SERVICES, MEDICAL OFFICE IS YOUR DENTIST OR YOUR PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN PHYSICIAN. YOU NEED AN APPOINTMENT TO GO AND RECEIVE SERVICES. CLEANING UP THE USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS JUST A LITTLE BIT. WE DID HAVE A CAP

[00:55:02]

ON THE SIZE OF WHAT A MEDICAL CLINIC COULD BE. IN THE S C ZONING DISTRICT OF 10,000FT■!S.S C ZONING DISTRICTS ARE LARGELY INTENDED TO BE ALONG OUR MORE HIGH TRAFFIC CORRIDORS, AND LIMITING IT TO THAT SIZE JUST DIDN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE WITH THE SCALE THAT YOU MAY SEE IN THOSE AREAS. AND THEN FLIPPING SOME OF THE PERMISSIONS IN THE MEDICAL OFFICE. IT USED TO BE THAT ANY USES IN R SEVEN REQUIRED AN SUP IF GREATER THAN 10,000FT■!S. WE'RE PROPOSING TO JUST LIMIT THAT TO 10,000FT■!S AND NOT HAVE THAT'S U P OPTION.E OPPOSITE. SO WE ARE SUGGESTING THAT USES GREATER THAN 10,000FT■!S IN RN REQUIRE AN SU. SO REALLY JUST KIND OF TWEAKING THOSE SIZES WITH WHAT MAKES SENSE WITH THE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ARE ALLOWED IN AND WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT THAT AREA TO BE. AND THEN PERSONAL SERVICE, GENERAL, THIS IS REALLY JUST LOOKING TO ADD THAT AS A PERMITTED USE IN R SEVEN USES THAT YOU MAY FIND IN PERSONAL SERVICE GENERAL ARE THINGS LIKE YOUR BARBER SHOP OR YOUR DRY CLEANING OR YOUR SHOE REPAIR.

R7 IS TYPICALLY LOCATED ALONG SOME ARTERIAL STREETS, AND YOU MAY EXPECT TO HAVE SOME GENERAL ACCESS TO SOME OF THOSE JUST PERSONAL SERVICES. AND SO REQUESTING TO ADD THAT AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE RESIDENTIAL SEVEN DISTRICT, THOSE ARE THE U. SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS. IT'S NOT SUPER EXCITING, BUT IT IS NEEDED. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS. >> I DON'T SEE ANY. OH, YEAH. COMMISSIONER RIGGS.

>> YEAH, I SURE DO. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SMOKE SHOP? SO I GUESS I EXCUSE ME, I KNOW IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY CONSIDERED, BUT DOES THIS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT LIKE ALL THE I GUESS NON TOBACCO. I THINK OF IT AS PEOPLE JUST SMOKING OIL. BUT THAT'S MY LACK OF EXPERTISE

ON IT. DOES THAT ADEQUATELY ACCOUNT FOR THAT. >> YEAH. THIS DOES CAPTURE I THINK IT'S TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND OR SMOKING EQUIPMENT. AND A LOT OF THOSE FACILITIES DO. I DON'T KNOW ANY OF THE TERMS, BUT THERE'S VARIOUS, I GUESS, EQUIPMENT, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, THAT THAT IS WITHIN THOSE THOSE SHOPS. AND SO IT IS A, IT'S A PRETTY BROAD CATEGORY.

AND IT DOES CAPTURE THOSE THINGS. >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> OKAY, SO WE GOT A COUPLE OF NEW LAND USES TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT, AND I AM GOING TO START IT WITH WHAT ARE KNOWN AS DRONES OR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES. SO YOU ALL MAY HAVE SEEN DRONE DELIVERIES BECOMING A LITTLE BIT MORE POPULAR, NOT JUST IN DENTON, BUT IN THE BROADER NORTH TEXAS REGION AND REALLY ANY MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREA. THE CITY DOES CURRENTLY HAVE TWO DRONE DELIVERY FACILITIES. WE TREATED THEM LARGELY AS SORT OF ACCESSORY, OUTDOOR STORAGE AND ANY COMPONENTS THEY HAD WITH IT AS ASSOCIATED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. THE ISSUE IS WE'RE CONTINUING TO GET QUESTIONS ABOUT WHERE CAN I DO THIS USE? COULD I DO IT ON A STANDALONE LOT WHERE MAYBE YOU DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A PRIMARY USE THAT YOU'RE SERVING, SORT OF LIKE A DELIVERY HUB, SO TO SPEAK. AND THE DDC REALLY LACKS A CLEAR DIRECTION FOR THESE USERS. AND SO SORT OF LIKE WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WITH MANY OF THESE AMENDMENTS, ESTABLISHING A USE SPECIFIC TO THESE BECAUSE WE LACK A CLEAR CATEGORY TO PUT IT IN, ENSURES EQUAL APPLICATION OF THE CODE AS WELL AS EQUAL REGULATION TO ANY USER THAT WANTS TO COME IN, RATHER THAN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THESE FIT OR IF WE'RE APPLYING IT CORRECTLY, HAVING SOME STANDARDS THAT ADDRESS IT. SO WITH THAT, STAFF IS PROPOSING, AS IT RELATES TO THE DRONE DELIVERY SERVICE, TWO CATEGORIES OF THAT, ONE BEING A PRIMARY DRONE DELIVERY SERVICE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE AN S, U P AND THE M, R, C AND H C ZONING DISTRICT AND BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE GOLI AND H I ZONING DISTRICT AND THEN DRONE DELIVERY SERVICE AS AN ACCESSORY USE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE AN SUP IN THE M N AND M D DISTRICT. AND AS IS PERMITTED IN THE MRSCHC, G ONLY THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO. SO I'LL KIND OF GO OVER THOSE. DRONE DELIVERY SERVICE AS A PRIMARY USE WOULD BE THE PRIMARY USE OF THE PROPERTY, WITH THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING ONE OR MORE DRONE STAGING AREAS TO DELIVER COMMERCIAL GOODS BY AIR. DRONE DELIVERY SERVICE.

ACCESSORY IS A PERMITTED FOOD STORE, RETAIL, RESTAURANT, HEALTH CARE FACILITY OR WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION FACILITY WITH ONE OR MORE DESIGNATED DRONE STAGING AREAS THAT ARE INCIDENTAL TO THE PRIMARY USE. SO THIS WOULD BE WHAT YOU WOULD SEE AT THE WALMART. THEY ARE THERE SERVING WALMART ONLY, AND THEY'RE INCIDENTAL TO THAT PRIMARY USE. THEY THEY EXIST SOLELY TO SERVICE GOODS FROM WALMART AS A PRIMARY USE. IT MAY BE A DRONE DELIVERY SERVICE ON A STANDALONE LOT WHERE PEOPLE GO TO THE MCDONALD'S, THE CHICK FIL A AND THE TARGET

[01:00:04]

AND DELIVER DIFFERENT GOODS FROM THOSE AREAS, BUT THEY'RE SORT OF CENTRALLY LOCATED. AND THEN THE DRONE STAGING AREA WOULD BE ANY DESIGNATED AREA ON A SITE PLAN WHERE THOSE AIRCRAFT COMPLETE THE FINAL PHASE OF THEIR APPROACH AND WHERE WHERE THEY SITUATE. IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER, AND I FORGOT TO MENTION THIS, AT THE FRONT END, DRONES ARE HEAVILY REGULATED BY THE FAA AND ALSO BY THE STATE. WE HAVE NOT A LOT OF ACTUALLY REALLY NONE AUTHORITY ONCE IT GOES INTO THE AIR. BUT WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO REGULATE IT AS A LAND USE.

AND SO THOSE ARE ALL THE PARAMETERS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. SO WITH THOSE WE DID ESTABLISH SOME USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS BECAUSE THERE ARE CONCERNS THAT COME WITH NEW USES AND TECHNOLOGIES. SOME OF THOSE ARE THAT ANY DRONE STAGING AREA NEEDS TO BE SHOWN ON A ZONING COMPLIANCE PLAN. SO IT WOULD BE REVIEWED WITH THAT ZONING COMPLIANCE PLAN. WHEN IT'S AN ACCESSORY USE, THE DRONE DELIVERY AREA SHALL BE LIMITED TO EITHER 1000FT■!S OR 10% OF THE LOT AREA, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. DRONE STAGING AREAS CANNOT BE LOCATED WITH ANY SETBACKS. LANDSCAPING AREAS REQUIRED, PARKING, FIRE LANES, EASEMENTS, REALLY ANYTHING WE WOULD REQUIRE OF A BUILDING WE WOULD REQUIRE OF THE STAGING AREAS WHEN ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL USE OR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, THEY DO HAVE TO BE OPAQUELY SCREENED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR REQUIREMENTS AND SEVEN, SEVEN, EIGHT AND WHEN ADJACENT TO ANY RESIDENTIAL OR SENSITIVE LAND USE, SUCH AS A SCHOOL, THE MINIMUM SETBACK SHALL BE AT LEAST 300FT, MEASURED FROM THE EDGE OF THE DRONE STAGING AREA TO THE PROPERTY LINE OF THAT SENSITIVE LAND USE. AND THOSE ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS OF DRONES, I BELIEVE. AND SO THAT WAS A LOT

TO ANSWER. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT IF YOU HAVE THEM. >> I DON'T SEE ANY. THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> SEAN, LET ME INTERRUPT YOU FOR JUST A SECOND. HOW MANY OF

THESE SECTIONS DO WE HAVE REMAINING IN THE PRESENTATION? >> THIS IS THE LAST ONE.

THERE'S TWO. THERE'S THIS USE OF ONE MOMENT. >> OKAY.

>> AND THEN ACTUALLY I'M JUST. AND THEN ONE MORE. >> SO THREE. OKAY. I THINK I THINK THREE IS THE MAGIC NUMBER WHERE WE SHOULD TAKE A COUPLE MINUTES AND GRAB SOME FOOD AND THEN BE RUDE TO SEAN AND EAT WHILE HE GIVES US THE REMAINDER. SO AT 605, WE'LL TAKE A JUST A COUPLE MINUTES TO, TO GRAB SOME FOOD.

[01:07:17]

GOOD AFTERNOON. AT 610 WE WILL RECONVENE WITH THE QUORUM PRESENT TO CONTINUE HEARING ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE CODE UPDATE WORK SESSION. CONTRACTOR SERVICES.

>> THANK YOU. YES. I'M HERE TO DISCUSS AN ADDITIONAL PROPOSED NEW USE OF CONTRACTOR SERVICES USE. SO THIS IS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS A SPECIFIC ISSUE. WE'VE HAD. WE HAVE QUITE A NUMBER OF COMMON BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY. SO IMAGINE YOUR LANDSCAPERS, POOL CLEANERS, PLUMBERS, EXTERMINATORS, ETC. THEIR QUOTE UNQUOTE OFFICE IS A PLACE WHERE THEY STORE EQUIPMENT AND WE REALLY DO NOT HAVE A USE FOR BUILDING WHERE I STORE EQUIPMENT AND MAYBE HAVE A SMALL OFFICE AS PART OF IT. AND YET WE HAVE A LOT OF BUSINESSES THAT NEED THAT SPACE.

AND IT'S CREATED A CHALLENGE BECAUSE WE'RE BASICALLY HAVING TO, IN ESSENCE, DO AN INTERPRETATION EVERY TIME ONE OF THESE BUSINESS COMES IN FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, OFTEN IT'S BEING CLASSIFIED AS AN OFFICE AS JUST THE CLOSEST USE WE CAN FIND, BUT THAT CREATES ISSUES. YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE YOUR STAFF MAKING AN INTERPRETATION EVERY TIME. THAT SLOWS EVERYONE DOWN AND IT WASTES TIME. YOU WILL SOMETIMES HAVE OFFICE BEING APPROVED IN AREAS WHERE OFFICE IS NOT NECESSARILY REALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THAT AREA, WHERE SOMEONE COULD SAY, WELL, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE AN OFFICE THERE AND YOU'RE LIKE, WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO HOUSES. I'M NOT SURE THAT'S REALLY APPROPRIATE. AND IT CAN ALSO CREATE AN ISSUE WHERE WE SHOULD HAVE USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR THIS SPECIFIC USE FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES THAT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TO APPLY TO AN OFFICE, BUT WE REALLY CAN'T CREATE THEM IF WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A USE TO ATTACH THESE STANDARDS TO. SO FOR ALL THESE REASONS, WE BELIEVE TRULY THIS DOES REPRESENT A JUSTIFICATION FOR A NEW USE THAT WILL CLEARLY AND EXACTLY CAPTURE THIS USE AND ALLOW US TO PROPERLY REGULATE IT, REALLY IN THE BEST INTEREST OF EVERYONE WHO'S WANTING TO USE THIS USE AND ALSO OF STAFF TIME. SO PERMITTED ZONING DISTRICTS. YOU CAN SEE ON THE SIDE THERE, IT'S OUR MIXED USE DISTRICTS, OUR CORRIDOR DISTRICTS, OUR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, AS WELL AS AFTER CONSULTATION WITH D, C, R, C, R, R AND R SEVEN, BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SITUATIONS WHERE IT COULD MAKE SENSE IN AN R SEVEN DISTRICT, YOU'LL I'LL LET YOU KNOW IN A MINUTE. THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL STANDARDS THAT GO WITH THAT, AS WELL AS OUT IN R R, PARTLY BECAUSE WE JUST KNOW THAT SOME THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING. IF YOU'RE OUT IN THOSE BIG AREAS, OFTEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE BUSINESSES WITH A BIG SHOP THAT'S STORING A LOT OF THINGS. AND WE DO WANT TO AT LEAST HAVE SOME MEASURES TO GOVERN WHAT THEIR STORAGE IS LIKE, HELP OUT THEIR NEIGHBORS. WE DO LIST A REQUIRED PARKING, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT DETAILED. AND I JUST NOTED, OH, IT'S EASIER FOR YOU TO READ THAN ME.

[01:10:03]

THAT'S GOOD. BUT BASICALLY PARKING BASED PRIMARILY ON HOW MANY VEHICLES YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ON THAT SITE. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF VEHICLES IN YOUR FLEET, YOUR PARKING IS GOING TO BE ON THAT BASIS. AND THEN A LITTLE BIT BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE SHOWROOM OR OFFICE THAT YOU HAVE. SO YOU CAN SEE THE DEFINITION THERE, BASICALLY JUST DESCRIBING WHAT THIS IS.

AND IT'S PRIMARILY SERVICES THAT ARE PERFORMED ON SITE. SO THEY'RE NOT BEING PERFORMED WHERE THE BUSINESS IS LOCATED. THEY'RE BEING PERFORMED AT YOUR HOUSE, AT YOUR BUSINESS, THEY'RE COMING TO YOU. SO IT'S ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT FIT WITHIN THAT AND THAT ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY PART OF ANOTHER USE DOES ALSO MENTION THOSE ACCESSORY USES THAT COULD MAKE SENSE WITH THAT. SO YOUR SALES AND SERVICE OFFICES, A LITTLE BIT OF OUTDOOR STORAGE, MAYBE A SHOWROOM. AND IT MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THIS EXCLUDES THINGS LIKE VEHICLE LEASING, SALES REPAIR. THIS ISN'T GOING TO BE A COVERT WAY TO SNEAK A VEHICLE REPAIR BUSINESS IN NEXT TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. JUST MAKING THAT REAL CLEAR, THIS ISN'T A MANUFACTURING, THIS ISN'T WHOLESALE. WE DO ALSO HAVE SOME SPECIFIC STANDARDS THAT GO WITH THIS. SO SOME OF THOSE JUST REITERATE WHERE OUTDOOR STORAGE IS ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY AND WHERE IT'S NOT, WHEN IT HAS TO ALL BE INDOORS, WHEN IT CAN BE OUTSIDE. WE ALSO ARE LIMITING THE VISIBILITY OF INDOOR STORAGE SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE STUFF JUST PILED UP IN FRONT OF WINDOWS WHERE PEOPLE CAN SEE THAT WE WANT IT TO STILL BE ATTRACTIVE FROM THE FRONT. WE DO LIMIT COMMERCIAL VEHICLE STORAGE TO ON SITE PARKING, SO YOU DON'T HAVE SOMEONE PARKING IT ALL UP ON THE STREET, THE COMPANY VEHICLES, AND IN OUR SEVEN, WE DO LIMIT IT TO ONE VEHICLE BECAUSE AGAIN, OUR.

SEVEN THAT CAN BE RIGHT NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ON BOTH SIDES. SO IT COULD MAKE SENSE IF YOU HAVE ONE COMPANY VEHICLE THAT PARKS ON YOUR SITE. BUT WE DON'T WANT A PARKING LOT FULL OF EIGHT VEHICLES RIGHT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THAT'S REALLY THE BEST WAY WE HAVE OF MAKING SURE THAT THIS IS ALLOWED. BUT WE ARE GUIDING WHERE IT'S ALLOWED. WE ALSO DID NEED TO MAKE AN UPDATE AT THE SAME TIME TO WHERE ACCESSORY OUTDOOR STORAGE IS ALLOWED, WHEN AND HOW, BECAUSE WE'RE ADDING RR AS AN ALLOWED USE FOR THIS CONTRACTOR SERVICES. WE DID ALSO ADD SOME STANDARDS RELATED TO OUTDOOR STORAGE IN RR AT THE SAME TIME, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CONSISTENCY. SO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. BUT ESSENTIALLY THAT'S THE PROPOSED NEW USE.

HOPEFULLY SOLVE SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN A CONSISTENT PROBLEM FOR ABOUT SIX YEARS.

>> QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? I DON'T SEE ANY. THANK YOU SEAN. >> HELLO.

>> SO OKAY, I JUST KNOCKED THE MIC OVER. SORRY. HI. OKAY, SO OUR LAST ADDITIONAL NEW USE THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE PRESENTING TO YOU ALL IS OUR EVENT VENUES, WHICH DCRC SAW THIS LAST WEEK, BUT THEY'LL SEE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PARKING SPACES. BUT ESSENTIALLY THE REASON THAT STAFF IS BRINGING THIS FORWARD, THIS NEW LAND USE IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT AT THIS TIME, A LOT OF BUSINESS OWNERS THAT ARE COMING TO THE CITY OF DENTON, AS WELL AS STAFF, ARE HAVING TO KIND OF DECIDE CURRENTLY BETWEEN WHETHER A BUSINESS FALLS WITHIN A INDOOR RECREATIONAL USE OR AN OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL USE. AND THAT'S USUALLY BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IS KIND OF THEIR MAIN USE AT THE TIME. AND SO IT KIND OF CREATES A LITTLE BIT OF, YOU KNOW, ISSUES IN TERMS OF HOLDING STAND FIRM TO THAT LAND USE, BUT ALSO JUST MAKING SURE MOVING FOR THE FUTURE, IF THAT USE WERE TO CHANGE THAT, WE JUST HAVE SOME CLARITY THERE. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE PROPOSING THOSE IN THE RR DISTRICT WHERE WE CURRENTLY HAVE WEDDING VENUES EXISTING. WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING A MIXED USE AS WELL AS CORRIDOR AND OTHER NON RESIDENTIAL AREAS, SPECIFICALLY THE GENERAL OFFICE AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. IN TERMS OF THE PARKING SPACE, I KNOW DCRC SAW THIS LAST WEEK, BUT WE ARE PROPOSING WHAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED FOR USES INDOOR RECREATIONAL USES AS ONE SPACE PER FOUR DESIGN OCCUPANCY LOAD OF INDOOR ASSEMBLY AREA, BUT ALSO GIVING THE PROPERTY OWNER SOME ADJUSTMENTS THERE WHERE THEY CAN ALSO LOOK AT DOING ONE SPACE PER 250 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AREA. IN TERMS OF THE DEFINITION, THE MAIN FOCUS HERE IS THAT IT'S JUST PRIVATELY OWNED FACILITY LEASED OUT FOR THE PRIMARY USE OF HOSTING PRIVATE EVENTS. SO WHEN ANGIE REESE FIRST BROUGHT UP THE INDOOR RECREATION FACILITY, YOU SAW THAT CONFERENCE CENTER WAS CROSSED OUT WEDDING EVENTS. SO WE ADDED THAT INTO THIS CURRENT DEFINITION. AND THEN ONE OF THE THINGS WE ALSO CALL OUT IS MAKING SURE THAT HOSTING AREAS CAN INCLUDE BOTH INDOOR AND OUTDOOR SPACE. AND THEN LASTLY, WITH THIS, THERE DOES COME NEW SPECIFIC STANDARDS. SO WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT, IF THERE IS AN EVENT VENUE USE, THAT'S A COMBINED AREA OF 2525 5000FT■!S OF GROSS FLOOR AREA AND OUTDOOR

[01:15:03]

SPACE, IT DOES REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. ALSO, WE'RE SEEING SOME EVENT VENUES SUCH AS WEDDING VENUES, HAVE ON SITE LODGING FACILITIES, SO IF THERE ARE ON SITE LODGING FACILITIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR RENT BY INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ON SITE EVENT THAT'S CURRENTLY HAPPENING, IT HAS TO CONSTITUTE ONE OF OUR LODGING FACILITY USES, SUCH AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL OR BED AND BREAKFAST. AND THEN LASTLY, THEY CAN SELL BEVERAGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRIVATE EVENT, BUT THEY CAN'T SELL BEVERAGES IN A MANNER THAT MAKE IT INDEPENDENT, SUCH AS A BAR, TAVERN OR LOUNGE. AND I CAN, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS,

HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. IF NOT, I'LL PASS IT ON TO MIA. >> ANY QUESTIONS? I DON'T SEE

ANY. THANK YOU. BRING US ON MIA. >> ALL RIGHT. >> WRAPPING UP, MIA HINES, SENIOR PLANNER. WRAPPING UP IS WITH RAZOR COTTAGES. AND THIS AMENDMENT IS KIND OF MISCELLANEOUS. AS YOU GUYS KNOW, THE RAZOR RANCH DEVELOPMENT IS OVER THERE AT THE SOUTH, EAST AND SOUTH OR NORTH. JES NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST CORNER OF I-35 AND UNIVERSITY. AND TYPICALLY THE SITE PLANS COME BEFORE THIS BODY. SO YOU GUYS MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH SORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROGRESS THAT'S HAPPENING OVER THERE. BUT WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING, EVEN WITH WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT, WHAT THIS THIS REQUEST IS TO REMOVE A REQUIREMENT OR RESTRICTION IN THERE THAT LIMITS DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN A CERTAIN AREA OF RAZOR RANCH TO ONE BEDROOM ONLY. THIS LOT SPECIFICALLY RIGHT HERE IS LOCATED WITHIN THIS SUB AREA. I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THAT. MY APOLOGIES.

THIS SUB AREA SOUTH MIXED USE DISTRICT SUB AREA OF RAZOR RANCH OVERLAY DISTRICT. AND IT IS SPECIFICALLY SUPPOSED TO BE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND THE RAZOR RANCH OVERLAY DOES REQUIRE THAT THEY BE RESTRICTED TO ONE BEDROOM. SINCE THE DEVELOPMENT OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE STREETS AND UTILITIES AND THINGS IN THAT AREA, THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE FOUND THAT NO ONE WANTS TO DEVELOP SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH ONE BEDROOM. SO THEY'RE HAVING A CHALLENGE, AND THEY REACHED OUT TO STAFF TO SEE IF WE WOULD BE OPEN TO REMOVING THAT RESTRICTION FOR THAT. STILL KEEPING IT AS A SINGLE FAMILY LAND USE, BUT REMOVING THE ONE BEDROOM RESTRICTION. AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO THAT WITH THIS AMENDMENT. TYPICALLY, WE WOULD HAVE PROCESSED LIKE RAZOR RANCH OVERLAY ORDINANCES THROUGH SEPARATE ZONING AMENDMENTS. BUT NOW THAT IT IS A PART OF OUR DDC, WE ARE PACKAGING THAT INTO THIS COMPREHENSIVE DDC

AMENDMENT. WITH THAT, HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE. WE RECENTLY ADOPTED SOME TOWNHOME CHANGES. GIVEN HOW THE RAZOR RANCH OVERLAY AND THE REST OF THE DDC OVERLAP WOULD. WOULD THOSE CHANGES ALLOW THEM IF THEY WANTED TO, TO BUILD

TOWNHOMES IN THIS AREA? >> I'M NOT SURE. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD. I RAZOR RANCH HAS ITS OWN LAND USE TABLE, ITS OWN ZONING, ITS OWN SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS, AND EVEN LIKE THIS SITE, SPECIFICALLY IN RAZOR RANCH DOES HAVE TO BE SINGLE FAMILY

DETACHED HOMES. IT'S ALSO RESTRICTED TO ONE BEDROOM. >> OKAY. I JUST DIDN'T SEE THE

WORD DETACHED ON THE SLIDE. AND IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE. >> IT'S IN THERE SOMEWHERE IN

THE LANGUAGE. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER DYER?

>> I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. OKAY. SO OBVIOUSLY THE DEVELOPER IS, YOU KNOW, MOST OF THE TIME DEVELOPERS ARE KEENLY AWARE OF THE MARKETPLACE AND WHAT, WHAT IS GOING TO FLY. BUT I'M ALSO TRYING TO BALANCE THIS WITH, YOU KNOW, THAT WHOLE MIDDLE HOUSING AND AFFORDABILITY FACTOR. SO. WHAT IS THEIR REASONING? ARE THEY GIVING YOU LIKE SOME PRETTY, YOU KNOW, GOOD EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS JUST NOT A MARKETABLE COMMUNITY? ARE WE LOOKING AT TWO BEDROOMS? IS THIS WAS THIS GEARED TOWARDS A 55 AND OLDER COMMUNITY? WAS IT GEARED TOWARDS, YOU KNOW, SINGLE PEOPLE, FAMILY LIKE YOU'RE UNDER, YOU KNOW, YOUR NON ACTIVE ADULT RESTRICTED AGE COMMUNITIES? LIKE WHAT WAS THE INTENT OF, OF THIS? AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE CAN HAVE THAT

CONVERSATION, BUT IF WE CAN, WHAT WAS THE INTENT OF THAT? >> I'LL TAKE THAT. SINCE RAZOR WAS MY PET PROJECT AT THE TIME, THIS CAME THROUGH PROBABLY 5 OR 6 YEARS AGO. THE DEVELOPERS FOR RAZOR RANCH NEVER PROPOSED THE ONE BEDROOM LIMITATION ON THEMSELVES. THEY WANTED TO JUST BE ABLE TO DEVELOP SMALL COTTAGE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS IN THIS AREA. IT WAS ACTUALLY A CITY COUNCIL REQUIREMENT THAT THOSE BE LIMITED TO ONE BEDROOM. I DO NOT RECALL OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHAT THE SPECIFIC RATIONALE FOR THAT WAS. I THINK

[01:20:04]

IT WAS A CONCERN THAT WAS SMALL LOTS. THERE WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH ROOM FOR PARKING, BUT I COULD BE MISTAKEN ON THAT. SINCE TIME THIS WAS AMENDED, THEY'VE OBVIOUSLY PUT IN THE TIME AND EFFORT TO PLOT THE LOTS INTO INDIVIDUAL LOTS, FIGURE OUT THE PLANS FOR THOSE PUT IN ALL THE STREETS AND UTILITIES, AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND A BUILDER WHO IS WILLING TO ATTEMPT TO BUILD A ONE BEDROOM PRODUCT, BECAUSE THERE JUST ISN'T A MARKET FOR THAT. SO THAT'S THE REASON THEY'RE COMING IN NOW TO HOPEFULLY AFTER YEARS OF HAVING THESE

STREETS AND LOTS, THEY'RE BE ABLE TO PUT HOMES ON THEM. >> SO ARE WE THINKING OF LETTING LIKE LETTING THEM REDESIGN THE WHOLE THING ALTOGETHER? DOING TWO BEDROOM?

>> I WOULD SAY IT'D BE A PRETTY EXTENSIVE EFFORT FOR THEM TO REDESIGN THE WHOLE SUBDIVISION, BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT THEY'VE DONE THE WORK TO FIGURE OUT THAT THERE ARE BUILDERS WHO COULD FIT A TWO BEDROOM OR, YOU KNOW, MAYBE POTENTIALLY EVEN MORE PRODUCT ON THESE LOTS. BUT AT THIS TIME, THEY'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANYONE TO DO ONE BEDROOMS, BUT THE UTILITIES ARE IN PLACE. EVERYTHING IS DONE THERE. SO IT WOULD BE PROBABLY VERY EXPENSIVE EFFORT FOR THEM TO REPLANT THIS, TO RECONFIGURE THE LOTS AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE THE UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND

EVERYTHING ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. >> YEAH, I JUST I JUST FIND IT VERY INTERESTING BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION ABOUT AFFORDABILITY, AND THIS COULD BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR A FIRST TIME HOME BUYER TO, YOU KNOW, GET IN INSTEAD OF RENTING AN APARTMENT, YOU KNOW, A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW IS $1,200 THAT, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY AND OUT OF THE BOX DEVELOPER. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. YOU KNOW, I'M OKAY WITH WHATEVER. I JUST, I JUST FIND IT AFTER, YOU KNOW, MONTHS OF THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION OF AFFORDABILITY THAT THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AN AFFORDABLE PRODUCT.

>> AND I BELIEVE SOMEONE WILL BE HERE TONIGHT THAT COULD SPEAK FROM THE, THE APPLICANT SIDE OF THINGS. BUT MY, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING PRETTY HARD FOR YEARS TO FIND ANY BUILDER THAT THINKS THEY COULD SELL A ONE BEDROOM PRODUCT, AND THAT HASN'T BEEN

SOMETHING THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO. >> SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WE'RE NOT SEEING THIS TONIGHT IN THE REGULAR MEETING, BUT THERE'S SOMEBODY FROM RAZOR

RANCH THAT'S GOING TO BE HERE TONIGHT. >> I'M SORRY. YOU'RE CORRECT. I MISSPOKE IN AUGUST. WHEN THIS COMES BACK, WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT APPLICANT IS HERE BECAUSE THEY THEY DID REQUEST THIS AT CHAIR'S DISCRETION. SHE IS HERE IN THE AUDIENCE FOR ANOTHER

CASE. >> OKAY. NO, THAT THAT CLEARS IT UP, COMMISSIONER RIGGS.

>> SO I GUESS JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS ALREADY PLATTED. AS IT IS, UTILITIES ARE ALREADY IN PLACE BECAUSE I WILL SAY THAT. IN MY PAST DEALINGS, I PARTICULARLY HATE THIS KIND OF LOT LAYOUT WITH THESE FLAG LOTS. I THINK IT CREATES A LOT OF PROBLEMS AND IT WILL CREATE A LOT OF PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE, PARTICULARLY WITH ALL THOSE LOTS. THEY'RE KIND OF ON TO THE LEFT OF THE IMAGE. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A SHARED USE DRIVEWAY, AND THEY'RE ALL GOING TO ARGUE OVER WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THAT DRIVEWAY, AS WELL AS ALL THE SERVICE LINES AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GOES WITH THAT. BUT WITH IT BEING A DONE DEAL, IT'S A DONE

DEAL. >> COMMISSIONER GARLAND. >> JUST TO KIND OF PIGGYBACK, ARE THESE TINY HOMES? ARE THESE LIKE HOMES WITH ONE BEDROOM? BY DEFINITION.

>> HOMES WITH ONE BEDROOM? I BELIEVE TINY HOMES. AND OUR DC IS UNDER 400FT■!S. WE DON'T

NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE UNDER 400FT■!S. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE 900 SQUARE FOOT. NO. IS THAT ONLY ON DUPLEX UNITS OR IS THAT ON

SINGLE FAMILY? I CAN'T REMEMBER. >> I HAVE TO I'LL HAVE TO CHECK. >> YEAH, THAT'S JUST DUPLICATE.

OKAY. SORRY FOR MY THROAT. ANYTHING ELSE? YEAH. I WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER DYER FOR BRINGING UP THE AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT. I THINK EVERYBODY WANTS TO SEE THIS TRANSITION AREA FLOURISH INTO AN EXPERIMENT THAT WE CAN LEARN FROM AND SERVES FUTURE HOMEOWNERS WELL. RIGHT. BUT WHEN WHEN I LOOK AT IT, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN BUILT NOW, SO THE NUMBERS DON'T WORK. AND SO REALLY THE QUESTION IS, DO WE ALLOW SLIGHTLY LARGER HOMES TO GO IN HERE? DO WE WAIT FOR SOMEBODY TO COME IN AND BUILD ONE BEDROOM HOMES WITH

[01:25:03]

TWO REALLY BIG OFFICES IN THEM ALSO, RIGHT, THAT HAVE NO CLOSETS AND ARE SUBSTANDARD BECAUSE OF OUR ZONING CODE? OR THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO, TO SAY, OKAY, WHAT ARE ADDITIONAL PIECES OF FLEXIBILITY? IF THE WILL OF THIS BODY OR COUNCIL IS TO REALLY TRY TO GET SOME ACTUAL SMALL HOMES, RIGHT? DO YOU NEED SMALLER LOTS? DO YOU NEED WHAT IS IT? SO, I MEAN, I THINK THAT IS A CONVERSATION THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HAVE. I DON'T KNOW

IF WE HAVE TIME TO HAVE IT BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, BUT. >> THIS ONE IS, I DON'T KNOW, BETWEEN NOW AND THEN I'LL LOOK TO SOMEONE WHO WILL BE HERE FOR THE MONTH OF JULY, BECAUSE I WILL NOT. BUT THIS, THIS ONE ISN'T LIKE A RESPONSE TO STATE LEGISLATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO IT'S NOT IN A HURRY. I THINK THERE COULD BE SOME ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS.

>> OKAY, OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH. >> I'M JUST GOING TO OFFER ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE HOMES. THE RAZOR RANCH ORDINANCE ALSO REQUIRES HOMES ON THESE LOTS HAVE A MINIMUM OF 800FT■!S EXCLUDING THE GARAGE.

AND THEY ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE GARDEN STYLE HOMES, WHICH MEANS IT WOULD BASICALLY BE A

ZERO LOT LINE PRODUCT. OKAY. >> DO YOU KNOW WHERE THEY ARE? SINGLE ONE STORY OR TWO STORY?

>> IT DOESN'T GET THAT SPECIFIC, JUST SPECIFIES THE SIZE, THE ONE BEDROOM REQUIREMENT, AND

THEN THE. >> MAYBE THEY COULD DO ONE BEDROOM ON THE MAIN FLOOR AND A

SECOND ONE WITH A BATHROOM UP ABOVE TO GET THE TWO BEDROOM. >> YEAH.

>> AND MAYBE STICK STAY UNDER THAT, YOU KNOW, 1200 SQUARE FOOT SIZE.

>> YEAH. COMMISSIONER RIGGS. >> I THINK THIS IS KIND OF THE DILEMMA THAT WE'RE HAVING.

WE'RE WANTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE'RE WANTING ALL THESE THINGS. BUT THE PROFIT MARGINS FOR ACTUALLY PUTTING THOSE IN DON'T MAKE SENSE TO DEVELOPER AND TO HOME BUILDER.

AND SO I, I'M KIND OF TORN ON THIS BECAUSE I THINK WE TRY TO SQUEEZE IN AFFORDABILITY INTO A LOT OF OTHER SUBDIVISIONS AND THINGS THAT, THAT WHERE MAYBE IT DOESN'T FIT AND MAYBE IT DOESN'T FIT HERE, BUT THIS DOES SEEM KIND OF LIKE THE PLACE THAT WAS PLANNED FOR IT. SO.

>> WELL, THAT'S JUST IT. YOU'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, MULTIFAMILY ALL IN THIS AREA. SO TO HAVE YOUR SMALLER HOMES, THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE A PRETTY GOOD LOCATION FOR A PRODUCT LINE

LIKE THIS. >> WELL, I, I THINK YOU CAN SEE THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION, MAYBE, MAYBE HUDDLE ON THE SCHEDULE AND SEE WHAT MAKES SENSE. YEAH, I THINK WE'RE ALL MOVING TOWARD HOW DO WE GET TO A YES. THE QUESTION IS, WITHOUT US BEING DEVELOPER MATH BRAIN PEOPLE UP HERE, IT'S HARD FOR US TO KNOW WHAT THE VARIABLES ARE AND, AND WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE ECONOMICALLY, AND THEN HOW WE WOULD ACCOMMODATE THAT FROM A CODE PERSPECTIVE. THAT'S MY MY

VIEW ON IT. OKAY. >> IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION FOR RAZOR, THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION, OUR WORKS AS A PRESENTATION. AND OUR NEXT STEPS FOR MAJORITY OF THIS WOULD BE TO PREPARE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING AT A FUTURE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND BRING THOSE AMENDMENTS FORWARD. OF COURSE, I THINK WITH SOME OF THE OTHER DISCUSSION, WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE SOME MORE WORK SESSIONS ON SOME OF THOSE OTHER TOPICS, BUT THAT'S THE PLAN FOR A MAJORITY OF THOSE AMENDMENTS.

>> THANK YOU. THIS HAS BEEN A LOT OF WORK. ONE THING I'LL REQUEST IS THERE'S A LOT OF DETAILED TEXT IN HERE. SO AHEAD OF THE NEXT AGENDA POSTING, WHEN THIS COMES TO PUBLIC HEARING, IF WE COULD GET LIKE A RED LINE EMAILED OUT TO US JUST SO THAT PEOPLE HAVE TIME TO

READ IT. YES. >> CHAIR PRUITT. >> YEAH.

>> I THINK THERE WAS A NOTE IN THERE THAT SAID WE WOULD GET OUR SLIDE DECK. FOLLOWING THE

MEETING. THAT USUALLY HAPPENS. >> WE WILL SHARE THAT. >> WITH YOU.

>> VERY GOOD. >> SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS. WE'LL CLOSE OUR WORK SESSION AT GOOD EVENING. AT 6:40 P.M. WITH A QUORUM PRESENT. WE'LL RECONVENE FOR OUR REGULAR SESSION OF THE CITY OF DENTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO

[1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]

STAND AND SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE U.S. AND TEXAS FLAGS. I PLEDGE.

[01:30:02]

>> ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

>> HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE. TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD.

>> ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. >> THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 2APZ26-111. CONSIDER APPROVAL

[2. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR:]

OF THE JUNE 10TH PNC MEETING MINUTES. I HAVE DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SORRY, SORRY, COMMISSIONER

GARLAND. >> I DON'T KNOW HOW I BEAT HIM, BUT I'LL MAKE MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE THE MINUTES. >> VERY GOOD, COMMISSIONER RIGGS.

>> SECOND. >> THE MOTION AND A SECOND REMINDER THAT THERE WAS THE THE

THE NAME SPELLING FROM THE WORK SESSION. RIGHT. >> ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE THAT WAS FOR THE PREVIOUS SET OF MINUTES. I DID LOOK AND CONFIRM THAT ATTACHMENT WAS WITH THE MAY

29TH OR WHATEVER THE DATE OF THE PRIOR MEETING WAS. >> SO. GOT IT. OKAY.

>> BUT I. >> CANNOT STATE THAT IT WAS A SCRIVENER'S ERROR. THERE'S A

MISSPELLING, SO I CANNOT BE IN THE MAKEUP. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

NOT SEEING ANY MORE DISCUSSION? CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE BOARD. THAT ITEM PASSES SIX ZERO

[3. CONSENT AGENDA]

BRINGS US TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA. COMMISSIONER MCDUFF. >> YES. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A

MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE. >> YOU. SORRY. IT IT ATE YOUR.

THERE WE GO. VERY GOOD. COMMISSIONER RIGGS. >> SECOND.

>> OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE BOARD ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

[A. FP26-0016 Consider a request by Atwell LLC, on behalf of BW Gas & Convenience Real Estate LLC, for approval of a Final Plat of Lot 1, Block A, Allsup’s West Denton Addition. The 5.089-acre lot is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of U.S. Highway 380 and Western Boulevard in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. (FP26-0016, Denton Allsup’s, Matt Bodine)]

THAT ITEM PASSES SIX ZERO. BRINGS US TO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. FOR A

IS FP26-16. >> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONER ASSISTANT PLANNER. HERE TO PRESENT A FINAL PLAT FOR A APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRE PIECE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF U.S. HIGHWAY 380 AND WESTERN BOULEVARD. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN IS TO CREATE A LOT OF RECORD FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A GAS STATION. CURRENTLY, IT DOES NOT MEET OUR CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. HOWEVER, STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THEIR REQUESTED

EXTENSION TO A DATE CERTAIN OF JULY 22ND. >> COMMISSIONER MCDUFF.

>> YES, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A FIRST EXTENSION REQUEST FOR THIS ITEM

TO A DATE CERTAIN OF JULY 22ND, 2026. >> COMMISSIONER.

>> I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND SECOND, THAT MOTION TO EXTEND. >> AND SEEING NO DISCUSSION, I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE BOARD. THAT ITEM PASSES SIX ZERO. BRINGS US TO 4BFP26-17.

[B. FP26-0017 Consider a request by Kimley Horn, on behalf of Denton Enterprise Owner LLC, for approval of a Final Plat of Lots 1-3, Block A, Denton Airport Industrial Addition. The 102.9888-acre property is generally located on the east side of Westcourt Road, and approximately 1,510 feet south of Airport Road in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. (FP26-0017, Denton Enterprise Logistics Park, Matt Bodine)]

>> GOOD EVENING. THIS IS A FINAL PLAT OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY ABOUT 103 ACRES AT THE ON THE EAST SIDE OF WEST COURT ROAD, ABOUT 1510FT SOUTH OF AIRPORT ROAD. THE PURPOSE OF THE PLAT IS TO CREATE THREE LOTS OF RECORD FOR AN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT. IT DOES ALSO DOES NOT MEET OUR CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL, BUT STAFF HAS NO

OBJECTION TO THEIR EXTENSION REQUEST TO JULY 22ND. >> COMMISSIONER RIGGS.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND TO DELAY TO A DATE CERTAIN OF JULY 22ND.

>> COMMISSIONER DYER. >> I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND, THAT MOTION TO EXTEND.

>> SEEING NO DISCUSSION, I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE BOARD. THAT ITEM PASSES SIX ZERO

[C. FR26-0006 Consider a request by Traverse Land Surveying, on behalf of Steve & Watson Custom Homes, for approval of a Final Replat of Lot 6R1, Block A, and Lot 4XR1, Block B, Red Bird Ridge Addition. The 4.015-acre property is generally located on the east and north side of Jess Wallace Road, and approximately 275 feet north of Oak Ridge Lane in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Division 1 of the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. (FR26-0006, Red Bird Ridge, Matt Bodine)]

BRINGS US TO 4CFR26-6. >> THIS IS A REPLAT OF AN EXISTING LOT FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE EAST AND NORTH SIDE OF JESS WALLACE ROAD, AND ABOUT 275FT NORTH OF OAK

[01:35:04]

RIDGE LANE IN THE CITY OF DENTON'S ETJ. ONE PURPOSE OF THE PLAT IS TO MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THE HOA LOT. THIS DOES NOT MEET OUR CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL, BUT STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO

THEIR EXTENSION REQUEST TO JULY 22ND. >> COMMISSIONER MCDUFF.

>> YES, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A FIRST EXTENSION OF THIS REQUEST TO A

DATE CERTAIN >> OF JULY 22ND, 2026. >> AND COMMISSIONER GARLAND.

>> AND I WILL SECOND THAT EXTENSION. >> SEEING NO DISCUSSION, I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE BOARD. THAT PASSES SIX ZERO. BRINGS US TO 4DFP26-18.

[D. FP26-0018 Consider a request by TNP Inc., on behalf of LYDA Properties LLC, for approval of a Final Plat of Lot 1, Block A, Lyda Addition. The 36.66-acre lot is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Westcourt Road and Airport Road (F.M. Highway 1515) in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. (FP26-0018, Alliance DriveAway, Matt Bodine)]

>> ALL RIGHT. LAST ONE FOR ME. THIS IS A FINAL PLAT OF A 36.7 ACRE PIECE OF PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST COURT ROAD AND AIRPORT ROAD. WHOSE PURPOSE? TO CREATE A LOT FOR A LIGHT MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT. IT DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AND STAFF HAS NO

OBJECTION TO THEIR EXTENSION REQUEST TO JULY 22ND. >> COMMISSIONER DYER.

>> I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE FIRST EXTENSION REQUEST TO

JULY 22ND. >> COMMISSIONER MCDUFF. >> YES, I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

>> SEEING NO DISCUSSION, I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE BOARD. THAT ITEM PASSES SIX ZERO. LET

[E. FP26-0014b Consider a request by Grayson Hughes of Sutherland King Consulting, on behalf of the property owner, for approval of a Final Plat of Affordable Estates, Lot 1, Block 1. The approximately 1.832-acre site is generally located on the west side of Hinkle Drive, approximately 107 feet south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Hinkle Drive and Meadow Ridge Drive, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. (FP26-0014b, Affordable Estates, Sean Jacobson)]

THE RECORD SHOW THAT COMMISSIONER MCDADE IS RECUSING FOR THIS NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS

FOR EFP26-14. >> GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. SEAN JACOBSON, SENIOR PLANNER, HERE TO PRESENT A PROPOSED FINAL PLAT FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 1.832 ACRE PROPERTY OFF HINKLE DRIVE. THIS NOW DOES MEET ALL OF OUR CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL, AND THEREFORE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS PLAT. HAPPY TO STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> I DON'T SEE ANY COMMISSIONER RIGGS. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE,

AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. >> AND COMMISSIONER MCDUFF. >> AND I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

>> VERY GOOD. SEEING NO DISCUSSION, I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE BOARD. THAT ITEM PASSES FIVE ZERO WITH ONE RECUSAL. CAN YOU KNOCK ON THE DOOR? THAT BRINGS US TO OUR

[A. Z26-0003a Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a request by Aimee Bissett of McAdams, on behalf of the property owner, Joel Rifkin, to rezone approximately 9.487 acres of land from a Rural Residential (RR) zoning district to a Residential 1 (R1) zoning district. The subject site is generally located on the south side of FM 2153, approximately 4,646 feet east of the intersection of FM 2153 and Running Bear Road in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. (Z26-0003a, Rifkin Addition, Sean Jacobson).]

PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THIS EVENING. ITEM 5AZ26-3. >> GOOD EVENING, CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. SEAN JACOBSON, SENIOR PLANNER HERE TO PRESENT Z 263, THE RIFKIN ADDITION REZONING. THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL OR RR ZONING DISTRICT TO THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL ONE ZONING DISTRICT. PROPERTY IS ABOUT 9.487 ACRES. IT'S SOUTH OF FM 2153, WAY UP ON THE NORTH PART OF TOWN. THERE. THE PURPOSE HERE IS TO ENABLE THE CREATION OF A SECOND LOT FOR THE NEW. FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THERE'S CURRENTLY AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE LOT. IN ORDER TO ADD A SECOND HOME TO THE OVERALL PROPERTY DOES REQUIRE CREATION OF A NEW LOT, AND RIGHT NOW, THE FIVE ACRE MINIMUM IN THE RR ZONING DISTRICT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SPLIT THE LOT INTO MORE THAN ONE LOT. SO THE REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THAT TO THE R ONE MINIMUM SO THAT A SECOND LOT COULD BE CREATED. SO OBVIOUSLY WE ALWAYS CHECK AGAINST OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP. IN THIS CASE WE HAVE TWO FUTURE LAND USES RURAL AREAS AND AGRICULTURE. THEY'RE SIMILAR BUT ONE IS DESIGNED A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR FARM RANCH, BUT ALSO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON LARGE LOTS. AGRICULTURAL LEANS A LITTLE BIT MORE TOWARDS THAT.

ACTIVE AGRICULTURAL USES, BUT ALSO DOES ALLOW LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL. AND IN BOTH CASES, THE GOAL THERE IS TO PRESERVE THE PRESENT RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL CHARACTER OF THOSE OUTERLYING AREAS OF THE CITY. THE R-1 DISTRICT THAT'S PROPOSED HERE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THAT. ITS EXTENT, ITS INTENT IS TO PRESERVE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, AND OVERALL, IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY WANT TO MAINTAIN THOSE CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE LAND USE PATTERNS IN THE AREA CAN ALSO BE USED AS A TRANSITION DISTRICT BETWEEN RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, WHICH IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE IN

[01:40:01]

THE LONG RUN, THE RANCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE COMING IN SOUTH OF THIS. THIS LOT TRULY IS POSITIONED AT A TRANSITION POINT BETWEEN MORE RURAL AREAS AND SOMEWHAT DENSER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. BUT OVERALL, THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT DOES ALIGN WITH THE INTENT OF THOSE TWO FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. JUST ALSO NOTE THAT WE ALWAYS CHECK TO SEE IF THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE AREA TO HELP JUSTIFY ZONING CASE IN THIS CASE. AGAIN, WE DID JUST HAVE A ZONING CHANGE TO MOST OF THE PROPERTY IN THE CITY AROUND THIS LOT TO MAKE IT R-1. AND SO CHOOSING TO ALSO WANT TO BE R-1 IS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND UNDERSTANDABLE REASON FOR REZONING. SIMILARLY, CONCERNS ABOUT IMPACTS ON THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT ARE IN MANY WAYS MITIGATED BY THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT INTRODUCING. USES THAT AREN'T ALREADY PRESENT ARE ONE. WELL, YOU COULD DEVELOP ANY OF THE USES ALLOWED IN R-1.

THOSE USES ARE PRIMARILY HOMES AND AGRICULTURAL USES, THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY EXISTING IN THE AREA. YOU ALREADY HAVE A MIX OF SMALLER AND LARGER LOTS THERE. SO THE FACT THAT THEY COULD DO SOMEWHAT SMALLER LOTS AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY. SO OVERALL, WE'VE LOOKED AT OUR CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AND WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST FOR ZONING CHANGE TO R-1 MEETS OUR CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. WE DID OUR STANDARD NOTIFICATIONS. WE DID GET ONE LETTER BACK, WHICH DID NOT CLEARLY EXPRESS OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT. IT WAS NEUTRAL. WE DID RECEIVE IT. SO WITH THAT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CHANGE AS IT MEETS OUR CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. HAPPY TO

STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? I DON'T SEE ANY. THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC

HEARING AT THIS TIME. >> I APOLOGIZE. I WILL NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE AND THEY DO HAVE A PRESENTATION, IF DESIRED.

>> SURE. YEAH. SO I WILL CALL MISS HANNAH HABER. >> I AM THE APPLICANT. SO MY NAME IS HANNAH HABER WITH MCADAMS. AND OUR ADDRESS IS 4400 STATE HIGHWAY 121 IN LEWISVILLE, TEXAS. I HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT I'M HAPPY TO STAND AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL HAVE. SO BASICALLY WENT OVER THE EXACT SAME THING SEAN DID.

>> SO ANY. YEAH. COMMISSIONER RIGGS. >> I DON'T THINK THERE'S A

REASON FOR A PRESENTATION, BUT YEAH. >> I THINK WE'RE OKAY. I AM CURIOUS, AND I KNOW IT'S IT'S A DATA SET OF ONE, SO I WON'T TAKE IT TOO LITERALLY, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS FOR, FOR AN APPROVAL OR A, AN APPLICATION LIKE THIS, WHICH IS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, NOT VERY COMPLICATED. HOW LONG LIKE WHEN DID YOU START SUBMITTING YOUR

APPLICATION FOR THE ZONING CHANGE FOR THIS. >> IN FEBRUARY. YEAH. FEBRUARY.

OKAY. >> YEAH. THANK YOU. >> YEAH.