* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. OKAY, GOOD [00:00:01] EVENING. WE ARE, UM, [Call to Order] OFFICIALLY OPENING UP THE WORK SESSION FOR THE ADDISON PLANNING COMMISSION ON TODAY, WHICH IS NOW THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2026. WE'RE, UM, CHANGED DAYS BECAUSE OF SOME CONFLICTS WITH OCTOBER FEST. SORRY FOR A LITTLE BIT OF LATE START. UM, [a. Status update on recent Planning and Zoning Commission cases and planning policy items.] I WILL TURN OVER TO, I'M GONNA ASSUME LESLIE. YEAH, I THINK LESLIE'S FIRST. OKAY. OKAY. SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. OH, DO I NEED TO SAY FOR WORK SESSION, THERE'S FOUR OF US PRESENT. DOES THAT MATTER? FOUR PRESENT. NOBODY ONLINE, SO FOR THE TIME BEARING. OKAY. THERE YOU GO. ALL RIGHT. LESLIE KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES. UM, THE FIRST ITEM IS JUST UPDATE SINCE THE LAST MEETING, SO I HAVE A FEW UPDATES FOR YOU. UM, THE FIRST IS, UM, ITEMS FROM THE LAST MEETING. UM, UH, THE ROSEWOOD PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT WAS CONSIDERED, UH, BY PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION AT THE LAST MEETING. UH, WENT TO CITY COUNCIL ON TUESDAY OF THIS WEEK. UM, AND THAT WAS, UH, APPROVED BY A SIX ONE VOTE. UM, SO THAT PROJECT, UM, WILL MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND WILL PROVIDE UPDATES, UM, AS APPROPRIATE. UM, THE OTHER ITEM I WANTED TO MENTION, WHICH IS, UM, SPECIFIC TO YOU ALL AS COMMISSIONERS, UM, IS OCTOBER FEST, UH, IS STARTS NEXT WEEK. AND SO AN EMAIL WAS SENT OUT EARLIER TODAY, UM, WITH TICKETS FOR, FOR YOU ALL AS COMMISSIONERS. AND THEN IS THERE ONE OTHER UPDATE I'M MISSING? NO, I THINK THAT CONCLUDES THE UPDATES SINCE OUR LAST MEETING, AND I THINK THE NEXT ITEM [b. Discussion regarding items on the agenda for the September 10, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting.] IS ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING. DISCUSSION REGARDING, YEP. ITEMS ON AGENDA FOR TONIGHT AND REGULAR. TONIGHT'S RELEVANT. YES. PERFECT. OKAY. YEAH. SO THE FIRST ITEM IS THE, UH, MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING, WHICH WAS AUGUST 18TH OF THIS YEAR. UM, WE DID RECEIVE A QUESTION WHICH, UM, I'LL POSE TO YOU ALL IF YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE, UM, ABOUT HOW THE INPUT SECTION IS, UM, ARTICULATED. SO IF THERE IS A DESIRE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THOSE WHO SUBMITTED WRITTEN, UM, INPUT AND THOSE WHO VERBALLY SPOKE, UM, THAT WAS NOT DONE ON THE MINUTES THAT WERE PROVIDED TO YOU. UM, BUT STAFF DID PROVIDE OR DID, UM, DRAFT, UH, AND WE HAVE A RED LINE ALTERNATIVE, AL AN ALTERNATIVE VERSION, EXCUSE ME. UM, WHICH SPECIFIES WITH EACH INDIVIDUAL, WHETHER IT WAS A WRITTEN COMMENT, UM, OR A VERBAL COMMENT. UM, SO WE'RE HAPPY TO, UM, AND THAT WAS PARTICULAR SPECIFICALLY FOR THE ROSEWOOD ITEM. UH, THERE WAS A LOT OF INPUT, IF YOU RECALL, ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM. SO, UM, STAFF'S HAPPY TO DO THAT TO, TO MODIFY OR ADOPT, EXCUSE ME, APPROVE THOSE MINUTES WITH THAT CHANGE. UM, LIKE I SAID, WE ALREADY HAVE THEM DRAFTED, UM, AND WE CAN CONTINUE TO DO THAT MOVING FORWARD. WHAT IS COUNSEL'S PRACTICE? SO COUNCIL TO DOES, I DID, UM, VERIFY TODAY WITH THE CITY SECRETARY THAT THEY DO SPECIFY WHETHER IT'S, UM, A WRITTEN COMMENT OR A VERBAL COMMENT. IN MY PERSONAL OPINION WOULD BE YOU BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT COUNCIL? I DON'T ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY COMMENTARY OR THOUGHTS ON THAT? TOTALLY AGREE. AGREE. OKAY. SO YOU, YOU'LL JUST, UM, WHAT IF YOU FILE CHANGE, WHATEVER THE YEAH. WHOEVER, UM, MAKES THE MOTION. IF YOU COULD JUST, UM, MAKE THE MOTION NOTING THE, UH, CHANGES WE DISCUSSED, UM, DURING THE WORK SESSION, AND WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT THOSE GET, UM, GET FILED. AND THEN THE NEXT [c. Present and discuss potential amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC).] ITEM IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, APPROVAL FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT AT VITRUVIAN, UM, THE UDR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I'M GONNA, UH, COREY, DO YOU WANNA COME UP AND TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS ONE? GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. I WOULD DEF AND I APOLOGIZE, I DID NOT INTRODUCE, UM, OUR NEW SLASH VISITING CITY ATTORNEY. UM, AND I'LL D DENISE, I'LL DEFER THAT TO, TO DREW. SO IF DENISE HAS TO RECUSE HERSELF FOR THIS ITEM, DOES SHE ALSO HAVE TO RECUSE HERSELF FOR THE WORK SESSION? UNLESS YOU HAVE, UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME RULE THAT REQUIRES THAT, I MEAN, YOU CAN STAY, YOU CAN STAY HERE. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. PERFECT. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. UH, COREY BECK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. UM, SO ON THE REGULAR AGENDA TONIGHT, WE WILL HAVE A, UM, DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, APPROVAL REQUEST FOR VITRUVIAN FOR BLOCK 300 AREA. IT IS THE [00:05:01] SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE OVERALL, UH, MASTER PLAN. UM, OKAY. HOLD UP. CAN YOU GO TO LIKE THE THIRD, LIKE I HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT. , JUST USE THE ARROWS ON THE KEYBOARD. UM, NEXT ONE. YEAH. UH, SO, UH, THE OVERALL, UM, DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR CONCEPT PLAN FOR VITRUVIAN, UM, MAJORITY OF IT IS BUILT OUT OTHER THAN THIS SOUTHEAST CORNER, UM, CURRENTLY COVERED BY THE ZOOM, UM, UH, BOX. APOLOGIES FOR THAT. UH, BUT THIS IS, UH, WHAT THE REQUEST IS FOR IS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE MULTIFAMILY AND AMENITY BUILDING FOR BLOCKS 303 0 1 AND 3 0 3, BLOCK 3 0 2, UM, WHICH IS, UH, STILL IS CURRENTLY VACANT. UM, IS A, IT IS STILL A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS NOT PART OF THE REQUEST TONIGHT. UM, THE UNIT COUNT IS 708 UNITS, WHICH IS ACTUALLY LOWER THAN THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. UM, IT IS 4.8% LOWER THAN, UM, THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN. UM, SINCE THEY ARE NOT GOING BEYOND 5%, UM, THEY ARE STILL WITHIN THE FLEXIBILITY TO REQUEST JUST DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL INSTEAD OF DOING A PD, UM, UH, AMENDMENT OR PD APPROVAL. IS THERE ANY OVERALL, UH, QUESTIONS ON IT? I CAN GO INTO AS MUCH DETAIL AS YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE IN THE WORK SESSION. UM, I CAN GIVE MY FULL PRESENTATION OR, UH, WE CAN WAIT UNTIL THE REGULAR MEETING. I GUESS THE ONLY QUESTION I'D HAD, WHICH YOU GUYS ANSWERED WAS THE IDEA THAT, UH, THEY'RE GOING WITH TRUE STUCCO, NOT EFIS. THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD THING TO BE CONSIDERED MASONRY. YEAH. UM, I DID RECALCULATE THE, UH, MASONRY VERSUS NON MASONRY PERCENTAGES. UM, AND OVERALL, UH, THE LOWEST PERCENTAGE IS ACTUALLY 56%, UM, ON ANY, UH, GIVEN FACADE THAT FACES A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, UH, GOING ALL THE WAY UP TO 85%. SO THAT RANGE ACROSS THE THREE BUILDINGS, UM, IS 56 TO 85, THEY'RE REQUIRED 80% MASONRY. UM, SO TWO FACADES DO MEET THAT 81 AND 85%. UM, BUT THE REST OF 'EM DO NOT, WHICH STILL IS WHY THEY NEED TO DO THE MAC, UH, STUCCO AS MASONRY. RIGHT. AND THAT'S INCLUDING THE, THE, UH, STUCCO AS MASONRY? NO, THAT IS NOT INCLUDING, SO THE PROPOSAL RIGHT NOW, UM, WITH WHAT IS, UM, PERMITTED BY THE PD MM-HMM . UM, NOT INCLUDING THEIR WAIVER REQUEST RANGES FROM THAT 56 TO 85%. OKAY. UM, UM, MASONRY AT THE TIME. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, I HAD A QUESTION AS WELL ON THAT. SO, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THE, UM, PD SPECIFIES AN 80% THRESHOLD FOR MASONRY, AND IN THAT DEFINITION THERE ARE SEVERAL KIND OF SUBSETS, BUT STUCCO IS NOT ONE OF THEM. IS THAT CORRECT? SO THE COMMENT I THINK IN THE WRITEUP IS THAT THIS IS IN CONFORMANCE, THEIR REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH PREVIOUS APPROVALS. MM-HMM . WHEN I DROVE THE PROPERTIES, THE NEWER PROPERTIES, IT FELT TO ME LIKE THERE WAS A LOT MORE HARD SURFACE, A LOT MORE BRICK, A LOT MORE STONE. SO I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN CLARIFY FOR ME WHEN YOU SAY THAT IT WAS IN INCONGRUENCE WITH PRIOR APPROVALS? YEAH, SO, UM, THIS, SO THIS PD, UH, AS CORY MENTIONED, WAS FIRST ADOPTED IN 2007. SO WE'VE SEEN SEVERAL BUILDINGS AND, AND PHASES OF THE CONSTRUCTED SINCE THAT TIME. AND MOST RECENTLY. UM, BUT PRIOR TO THAT AS WELL, WE DID, UM, ACT UPON, UM, AND PROCESS THE ZONING REQUEST FOR THE VILLAS AT FIORE, WHICH IS THE TOWN HOME, UM, RENTAL TOWN HOME PROJECT AT THE INTERSECTION OF VI TRIVIAN WAY IN SPRING VALLEY. AND THAT ALSO WAS GRANTED THE SAME WAIVER, UM, I, I CAN PULL IT UP AND GIVE YOU THE NUMBER, BUT THEY WERE ALSO, UM, I THINK NEAR THE 50% THRESHOLD, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, ON WHAT IS WHAT WE WOULD [00:10:01] CONSIDER PER THE PD A TRUE MASONRY PRODUCT. UM, SO THEY DID ALSO THROUGH THAT PRODUCT, THROUGH, THROUGH THAT PRODUCT, EXCUSE ME, REQUEST THE SAME WAIVER THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY REQUESTING WITH THIS PROJECT. NOW, I CAN'T, UM, SPEAK BACK TO SOME OF THE FIRST PHASES, 'CAUSE THAT GOES BACK MANY, MANY YEARS. UM, BUT LIKE I SAID, THAT IN 2021, THAT WAS KIND OF THE SAME SENTIMENT THAT THIS WAIVER CONDITION WAS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PROJECTS. SO I WAS THINKING OF A TRIVIAN WEST, UM, WHICH IS RELATIVELY NEW. AND I GUESS I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT, BUT I GUESS I WOULD ARGUE THAT GETTING A WAIVER ON TOWNHOME UH, STRUCTURES IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF MASSING AND IN TERMS OF IMPACT THAN GETTING A WAIVER ON A MULTI-LEVEL MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT. SO, BUT THANK YOU. I CAN PULL, UH, I'LL PULL UP, I'LL TRY TO ATTEMPT TO PULL UP THE VITRUVIAN WEST AND SEE WHAT THEIR TOTALS WERE. JUST AS A COMMENT, FROM MY EXPERIENCE, WE'VE, WE SEE THAT OFTEN THROUGHOUT THE NATION WE'RE TRUE STUCCO, NOT , TRUE STUCCO IS ROUTINELY ACCEPTED AS MASON MASONRY BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRUCTABILITY AND ACTUALLY THE, IT, IT ENHANCES, UM, UM, THAT'S THE WRONG WORD TO BE IT, IT AVOIDS SOME OF THE ISSUES YOU HAVE WITH STONE AND BRICK AT HIGHER ELEVATIONS. AND SO IT GOES FASTER AND IT, UH, WORKS JUST AS WELL. YEAH. CAN I ASK A QUESTION, ? SO I GUESS IN TERMS OF DURABILITY AND, AND ITS LIFECYCLE, WOULD YOU SAY IT'S, UH, EQUIVALENT? IT IS SIMILAR? YES, IT'S SIMILAR. I DON'T KNOW, A BRICK FACADE ALWAYS IS GOING TO LAST LONGER THAN, UH, THAN MOST, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING ELSE. BUT AGAIN, IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A, UM, MODIFIED RAIN SCREEN APPROACH, WHEREAS THE STUCCO IS MORE OF A SOLID, THERE IS A, UH, RAIN OR A WATER SCREEN IN IT, BUT IT'S, IT'S NOT, UM, YOU'RE NOT BASING IT ON A HALF INCH OR AN INCH GAP BETWEEN YOUR MATERIAL ON THE WALL, WHICH HAS ITS OWN PROBLEM ISSUES WHEN YOU GET UP IN, UH, HIGHER ELEVATIONS. THANK YOU. UM, SPEAKING OF THE WAIVERS, UH, THEY ARE REQUESTING TWO ADDITIONAL WAIVERS. UM, THE PARKING GARAGE ON BLOCK 3 0 3, UM, ON THE VERY SOUTHERN, UM, UH, ELEVATION, THE PARKING GARAGE, IT FRONTS THAT ELEVATION AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TO EXPOSE 247 FEET OF THE PARKING GARAGE. THE MAXIMUM THAT THE PD ALLOWS IS 200. SO, UM, SO IT IS 47 ADDITIONAL FEET BEYOND THE MAXIMUM. UM, HOWEVER, THE PD DOES ALLOW FOR SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THAT 200 FEET. UM, SO IF THERE ARE, IF, IF, UM, ENHANCED FACADE ELEMENTS ARE PROVIDED, UM, IT WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT EXCEPTION. UM, IT, THIS PROPOSAL DOES PROVIDE, UM, IS PROPOSED TO PROVIDE RIBBED METAL SCREENING APPROXIMATELY EVERY 44 FEET ALONG THAT 247, UM, FOOT, UH, EXPOSURE. SO, UH, WE STAFF DOES, DID REVIEW AND THINKS THAT THE RIBBED METAL SCREENING COULD COUNT AS ENHANCED FACADE ELEMENTS. HOWEVER, UH, THE WAIVER, UH, WE STILL DID WANNA PUT THE WAIVER REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU, UM, SO THAT YOU COULD DETERMINE IF THAT MEETS THAT, UH, EXPECT THAT INTENT. AND THE THIRD ONE IS ACTUALLY FOR A BUILD TO LINE AREA FOR THE AMENITY BUILDING. UM, THE REQUIREMENT FOR TYPE C STREETS, WHICH, UH, ALL OF THE STREETS IN THIS AREA ARE TYPE C, THEY'RE JUST DIFFERENT LEVELS OF RATINGS. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT CROSS SECTIONS, UM, THAN OTHERS IN THE VITRUVIAN AREA. BUT FOR TYPE C STREETS, THE BUILD TWO RANGE, UM, IS SIX TO NINE FEET. SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR BUILDING WITHIN THAT SIX TO NINE FOOT AREA. UM, THAT AREA IS SHOWN IN YELLOW OF WHERE THAT WOULD BE EXPECTED FOR THE BUILDING. UM, THE HIGHLIGHTED AREA IN RED IS THE AREA THAT ACTUALLY MEETS THAT, UH, SET OR THAT BUILD TWO AREA, UM, WHICH IS ROUGHLY 53%, NOT THE REQUIRED MINIMUM OF 70 UH, PERCENT. SO, UH, THEY ARE REQUESTING THE WAIVER TO ALLOW FOR THAT, UH, TO BE DECREASED FROM 70 TO 53.5%. UH, WE DID NOTICE [00:15:01] WE HAVEN'T HEARD BACK FROM ANYBODY , UM, AND STAFF HAS MOD OR HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSAL AND HAS DETERMINED IT MEETS THE APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. UM, IF THE FOLLOWING WAIVERS ARE APPROVED, UM, UH, IT WOULD MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS THEN. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, CAN YOU, UH, EXPLAIN YOUR FIRST CONDITION AGAIN? UM, FOR THE MASONRY OR FOR NO, NO, THE, THE BUILD TO LINE. GOTCHA. SO ARE YOU TELLING THEM THAT THEY HAVE TO EXTEND THE BUILDING FURTHER? UM, SO THAT WOULD BE THE REQUIREMENT. IF THE, IF YOU DON'T, UH, IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT APPROVE THE WAIVER, UM, OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE WAIVER, THEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO COME BACK AND REDESIGN THAT BUILDING. HOWEVER, HAVING THAT CURVED AREA, SO THE, THE LITTLE TRIANGLE PIECE THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE BUILD TO LINE, UM, DOES ALLOW FOR PEDESTRIAN, UM, ENHANCEMENTS. UH, THEY'VE ALREADY, UH, THEY HAVE A PLAZA DESIGNED FOR THAT AREA. IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE ON THE ZOOMED OUT VERSIONS, BUT, UM, THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A PLAZA THERE FOR IT AS WELL AS THE BUILDING WAS DESIGNED THAT WAY FOR, UH, VISIBILITY AT THAT INTERSECTION. UM, 'CAUSE IT IS A THREE-WAY Y INTERSECTION, AND SO THAT DOES GET A LITTLE TRICKY WHEN YOU'RE, UM, TRYING TO LOOK AT YOUR VISIBILITY TRIANGLES. SO, NO, I, I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE WHAT THEY'VE DONE. I THINK STUDIO OUTSIDE HAS DONE A EXCELLENT JOB IN MAKING THAT A, A VERY WALKABLE SPACE. I WOULD, I MISREAD IT THEN. I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING THAT YOU WERE, ONE OF YOUR REQUIREMENTS IS TO REQUIRE THEM TO MEET THAT UH OH, NO, NO, THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE WAIVER FROM THE 70% REQUIREMENT. YEAH. YEAH. I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. OKAY. I'LL GIVE MY FULL PRESENTATION IN THE REGULAR MEETING. UM, I HAD JUST ONE MORE COMMENT. I'VE LOOKED AT, I'M CURRENTLY LOOKING AT VITRUVIAN WEST PHASES TWO AND THREE. UM, AND THROUGH THAT PROJECT THEY DID COUNT, UM, STUCCO AS THE, AS MASONRY FOR THE SAKE OF THIS APPROVAL BACK IN 2018. AND IT WAS NOVEMBER 13TH, 2018. AND BY COUNTING STUCCO, THEY WERE ABLE TO MEET THE 80% THRESHOLD. SO JUST, AND I'M, I'M STILL HUNTING DOWN VITRUVIAN WEST PHASE ONE, BUT THIS ACCOUNTS FOR PHASES TWO AND THREE. OKAY. YEP. ALL RIGHT. UH, THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA SHOULD BE UDC. YEAH. JADE, IS THAT YOU? YEP. OKAY, I CAN TAKE THAT OVER NOW. OKAY. HELLO, GOOD EVENING COMMISSION JADE, BROAD COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING MANAGER. AND COULD YOU CLICK THE, THERE WE GO. NO PROBLEM. I'M BACK AGAIN TO TALK ABOUT UDC UPDATES. THE SCHEDULE HAS CHANGED A LITTLE BIT BASED ON COUNCIL FEEDBACK. SO THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE IN AUGUST, WE HAD MENTIONED THAT WE WOULD COME BACK TO YOU WITH AN ADOPTION HEARING, BUT WE'RE HERE WITH THE WORK SESSION BECAUSE THERE'S SOME, AGAIN, MINOR CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED TO THE CODE BASED ON FEEDBACK WE'VE RECEIVED FROM COUNCIL, AS WELL AS, UM, THE PUBLIC WHO HAD ACCESS TO THE PACKET AND MADE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO US AS WELL AS SOME MINOR STAFF, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS, KIND OF DEPENDENT ON THOSE OTHER PROPOSED EDITS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO, UM, AGAIN, Y'ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE UDC UPDATES, BUT UM, THE LINKS ARE THERE IN CASE Y'ALL ARE WANTING TO REVIEW THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD ALREADY WITH CITY COUNCIL ON TUESDAY. LESLIE WAS PRESENTING, UM, TO COUNCIL ESSENTIALLY THIS PRESENTATION THAT HIGHLIGHTS PROPOSED CHANGES, UM, AND A SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES, AGAIN, MINOR. UM, BUT BASED ON FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED, WE HAVE KIND OF WALKED BACK SOME OF THE RED LINE CHANGES FROM THE LAST TIME YOU WOULD'VE SEEN THIS. SO THE MOST SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION, I'LL SAY IN REGULATION IS THE PARK OVERLAY. UM, AND SO AGAIN, BASED ON COUNCIL, UH, FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED, IT WAS DETAILED. UM, THE PARK OVERLAY REGULATIONS WERE DETAILED ACCOUNTING FOR A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN MAINTENANCE OF PRETTY MUCH EVERY [00:20:01] SCOPE VERSUS MAJOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS. AND WE RECEIVED NEW DIRECTION TO WALK THAT BACK. AND SO I'LL GO OVER THE DETAILS ON THAT, BUT IT'S BEEN, UM, PAIRED DOWN TO REALLY FOCUS ON PARK USE RATHER THAN LIKE IMPROVEMENTS RELATIVE TO THOSE USES. SO, UM, THAT'S BEEN REDUCED QUITE A BIT. THERE ARE SOME MINOR AMENDMENTS. UM, WE DID NOT PREVIOUSLY INCLUDE THE APPENDIX, BUT THE APPENDIX IS PART OF THE, THE CODE IN TERMS OF WHAT'S LEGALLY CODIFIED. AND SO, UM, UPDATED THAT TO INCLUDE THE SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICTS. WE NOTICED THAT THE GRAPHIC TO ACCOMPANY THE SIGN DISTRICTS WAS JUST NOT INCLUDED FOR ONE OF OUR AREAS. SO WE WENT AHEAD AND INCLUDED THAT AND ADDRESSED SOME TYPOS AS A RESULT OF THAT. UM, ADDED A COUPLE NEW USES BASED ON AIRPORT FEEDBACK AND THEN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEEDBACK FOR BLOCK, BLOCK LENGTH AND, UM, SPECIFIC PROCEDURES THAT PERTAIN TO THE AIRPORT AS, UM, WE WOULD INTERACT WITH THEM IN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. AND ANOTHER PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IS THE HOOKAH LAND USE. SO WE HEARD YOUR FEEDBACK FROM OUR LAST WORK SESSION TO MOVE AWAY FROM A TOTAL BAN OF HOOKAH. AND SO WE'VE, UM, DONE THAT AND INCORPORATED CHANGES TO HOOKAH AND MADE SURE THAT IT MATCHED CIGAR LOUNGES, UM, IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS. SOMEBODY NAMED BOB IS HERE. YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP. I'M JUST JOKING. , SORRY. UM, AND THEN ALSO BASED ON FEEDBACK LAST TIME, UM, HEY COREY, I CAN'T SEE MY PRESENTATION. . THANK YOU. UM, I'M SORRY. HE'S GONNA DO, IT'S GONNA FIX . SORRY. THANK YOU. UM, CHANGE THE PARKING CRITERIA FOR TRANSIT, UH, PARKING REDUCTIONS FOR PROXIMITY TO A TRANSIT STOP. SO THAT IS A COMBINATION OF BOTH COUNCIL AND PNZ DIRECTION. UM, AND THEN SOME CLARIFICATIONS TO TREE REQUIREMENTS. CAN YOU CLICK ON THE POWERPOINT SO I CAN? OKAY, PERFECT. OKAY, SO AS MENTIONED, THE REVIEW SEQUENCE HAS CHANGED JUST A LITTLE BIT. SO WE'RE BACK FOR A WORK SESSION, BUT FOR REAL THIS TIME, THE NEXT STEP WILL BE MAILED NOTICE TOWN WIDE, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH ADOPTION HEARINGS. UM, WE STILL HAVEN'T FINALIZED THE DATES, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE THOSE TOMORROW WE'LL BE DISCUSSING, UM, IN OUR STAFF MEETING WHAT DATE WE WILL NEED TO ADVERTISE FOR. UM, SO PARK OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT CHANGES. THIS IS THE SAME SLIDE AS BEFORE. WE, UM, HAVE MADE A COUPLE UPDATES THOUGH. SO FOR, UM, THE PARK OVERLAY SECTION, WHICH IS IN ARTICLE 3 8 2, WE'VE CHANGED ALL THE TEXT TO SPECIFY THAT THE DISTRICT IS ESTABLISHED AND WITHIN THE DISTRICT YOU HAVE PERMITTED USES AND IT'S VERY LIMITED TO A PARK, UM, OR A REC FACILITY. SO PARKS AND REC, AND THAT'S IT. THEN IN THE TEXT IT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT, UM, WHEN EVALUATING THAT THE DIRECTOR DOES HAVE TO ENSURE THAT THE PARK OR REC FACILITY ALIGNS WITH THE GENERAL GOALS OF THE PARK'S, UM, MASTER PLAN. AND WE'VE NODDED TO SOME OF THE PRIOR LANGUAGE, WHICH TALKS ABOUT PARK FUNCTION AND PARK INVENTORY, BUT WE HAVE NOT CODIFIED ANYTHING THAT'S DIRECTING AN APPLICANT TO THE DETAILED AMENITY CHART THAT SAYS SPECIFICALLY THESE ELEMENTS HAVE TO BE INCLUDED. SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY OPEN TO INTERPRETATION TO MAKE SURE THAT IT COMPLIES WITH THE OVERALL GOALS, BUT THE BLACK AND WHITE REGULATION OF IT IS COMING DOWN TO THE PERMITTED USE. SO AGAIN, PARKER OPEN SPACE, WHETHER THAT'S ACTIVE OR PASSIVE, LIKE A TRAIL OR A BALL FIELD OR A REC FACILITY, INDOOR OUTDOOR. UM, AND SO IF A DEVELOPER OR AN APPLICANT WANTS TO PURSUE A USE THAT'S NOT THOSE PERMITTED USES, THEN THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN SUP. SO THAT'S, UM, PLACING AN ADDITIONAL PROTECTION ON SOMETHING THAT'S NOT JUST A TRADITIONAL PARK OR REC FACILITY AND DOES INCLUDE A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. UM, BUT AGAIN, PART OF THE EVALUATION AND PREPARATION BEFORE IT GOES THROUGH THAT PUBLIC HEARING IS THE DIRECTOR AND THEIR DELEGATED STAFF ARE GONNA HAVE TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPOSED USE, IF IT'S NOT IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT'S SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT THERE, IS GENERALLY ALIGNING WITH THE MASTER PLAN, THE PARKS MASTER PLAN. OTHERWISE IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. UM, BUT ULTIMATELY [00:25:01] THE DECISION WOULD BE UP TO COUNSEL. OKAY. CAN I ASK THE QUESTION NOW OR DO YOU WANNA WAIT? WANT ME TO WAIT TILL THE END AT THE APPROPRIATE SECTION? OKAY. SO, AND THIS MIGHT NOT BE SOMETHING THAT GOES IN THIS DOCUMENT, BUT I JUST REMEMBER A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS AND I WANNA MAKE SURE IF THIS IS THE DOCUMENT WE NEED TO BE PUTTING IT IN OR IF YOU'RE COVERED IN OTHER WAYS. THE BIG CONCERN THAT, THAT I KEPT HEARING FROM STAFF WHEN YOU GO TO GO DO THIS WAS WHY THEY WERE HESITANT TO HAVE THIS PARK ZONING IS THEY DIDN'T WANNA FORCE NON-COMPLIANCES TO SURROUNDING USES LIKE HEIGHT, THAT KIND OF STUFF. HOW DO WE NEED TO APPROACH ANY OF THAT IN THIS DISCUSSION? OR DOES, OR, OR ARE YOU COVERED AT THIS DISCRETION OF THE DEVELOP? LIKE, CAN YOU KIND OF WALK ME THROUGH IF ANYTHING NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IN HERE OR NOT? YES. SO THIS IS STILL AN OVERLAY. SO IT'S ALL THE BASE DISTRICT PROTECTION STILL APPLY. SO WE'VE MADE SURE THAT WITH A STRAIGHT ZONING OR A PD, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S UNDERLYING THE OVERLAY, THEY ARE COMPATIBLE BASED ON THE PROTECTIONS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, WHETHER THAT BE HEIGHT OR EVEN RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPES, THINGS LIKE THAT. THOSE ARE ALL ADDRESSED WITH THE BASE DISTRICT. OKAY. SO THIS DOESN'T INTERRUPT ANY OF THAT, AND WE'RE GOOD TO GO. OKAY. YEP. THANK YOU. SURE. JAKE, UM, ON THE PART B, SORRY, YOU HAD AN A AND A B ON PAGE ONE 13. YEAH. I'M STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED BY THE ROLE OF THE DIRECTOR IN, IN THIS PROCESS. CAN YOU HELP CLARIFY THAT FOR ME IN TERMS OF WHEN THE DIRECTOR STEPS IN, WHAT IS THE ROLE, WHAT IS THE APPROVAL RIGHTS VIS-A-VIS THIS, THIS SECTION? YES. SO WITH A DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL THAT REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, THEY GO THROUGH AN EVALUATION PROCESS INTERNAL TO OUR DEPARTMENT WHERE, UM, LIKE YOU SEE AT EVERY MEETING, THE DIRECTOR OR THE DIRECTOR'S DESIGNEE, WHOEVER'S PRESENTING THE CASE IS HAVING TO OUTLINE THE CRITERIA AND WHETHER THEY DO OR DO NOT MEET THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. AND SO AS PART OF THIS PROCESS, RATHER THAN A REGULAR STRAIGHT ZONING CASE WHERE WE'RE SAYING, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH, UH, VITRUVIAN EARLIER, THEY'RE ASKING FOR A WAIVER FOR THIS SECTION OF THE CODE, IN THIS CASE, THE DIRECTOR WOULD SAY, THIS DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE PARK INVENTORY OR PARK FUNCTION OF THE PARKS MASTER PLAN. AND THAT IS UP TO YOU A COMMISSION OR COUNSEL TO DETERMINE IF YOU THINK THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE, UM, APPROVAL TO MAKE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? CLEAR AS MUD? NO, IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING. IT, IT, IT'S REALLY DETERMINING WHEN THAT NEXT STEP IS NEEDED. THAT'S GOT ME A LITTLE CONFUSED, BUT YEAH, I THINK THE DIRECTOR'S ROLE IN, IN MANY CASES IS ESTABLISHING WHAT PROCESS TO THAT IS NECESSARY TO PURSUE, GIVEN THE, THE CONTEXT. I MEAN, UM, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF NO DIFFERENT, IT'S THE SAME, UM, IDEA AS WE GET, UM, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REQUEST EVERY DAY AND WE THEN HAVE TO EVALUATE AND DETERMINE IF IT'S PERMITTED BY RIGHT UNDER THE CODE OR IF, IF IT REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR SO FORTH. UM, AND SO WE MAKE THAT INITIAL IN INTERPRETATION REALLY OF THE CODE AND EITHER IT'S PERMITTED BY RIGHT UNDER THE CODE OR WE HAVE TO DEFER IT TO A PRO, AN OUTLINE PROCESS IN THE UDC, UM, TO SEEK APPROVAL, WHETHER THAT THROUGH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT OR OTHERWISE. THAT MAKES SENSE. SO BASICALLY THE PROCESS IS IF IT'S QUOTE APPROVED BY RIGHT, THERE IS A CODIFICATION IN A BODY OF WORK THAT YOU GO AGAINST, IT'S NOT BASED ON YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT IS CORRECT, YES. THANK YOU. SO THIS IS TAKEN FROM THE UDC ARTICLE SEVEN THAT DEFINES SPECIFICALLY WHAT A PARK IS JUST IN CASE THERE'S, UM, QUESTIONS OR NEED TO REVIEW THAT. BUT IT'S MEANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THIS APPLIES EQUALLY ACROSS THE CODE. IT IS NOT A NEW INTERPRETATION OF WHAT A PARK IS. UM, BUT THERE IS A CLEAR DEFINITION THAT WE WILL WORK THROUGH OR WORK OFF OF. UM, IF THE OVERLAY IS PASSED AND AN APPLICANT IS WANTING TO DEVELOP SOMETHING THAT DOES OR DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THESE CATEGORIES, THAT WOULD DETERMINE THE PROCESS, UM, THAT THEY GO THROUGH. SO IF IT'S ANY OF THESE FOUR MEETING, ANY OF THESE FOUR DEFINITIONS, IT'S PERMITTED BY RIGHT. UM, THEY WOULD ESSENTIALLY SUBMIT THE EQUIVALENT OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. UM, AND THEN IF IT'S NOT, AGAIN, THEY'RE GOING THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS THROUGH AN SUP. SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE PARK OVERLAY? [00:30:04] HEARING NONE ARTICLE THREE AMENDMENTS? UM, SO JUST DISCUSSED 3 8 2. SO THIS WOULD BE THE CREATION OF THE PARK OVERLAY. A COUPLE MINOR CHANGES BASED ON AIRPORTS STAFF DIRECTION IS, UM, MINOR CLARIFICATION AT, UM, EDITS FOR AIRPORT RELATED PURPOSES THAT AGAIN PERTAIN TO DEVELOPMENT. SO SUPER MINOR THINGS LIKE TAKING THE NUMBER DESCRIPTION FOR WHAT RUNWAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUT SO THAT IT APPLIES EQUALLY IN THE FUTURE. UM, THINGS LIKE THAT. ARTICLE FOUR, SO THIS IS A POTENTIAL CHANGE. AGAIN, WE WALKED BACK THE TOTAL BAN ON HOOKAH BARS AND RESTORED IT TO SUP. SO AS CURRENTLY CODIFIED IT IS PERMITTED, UM, AS AN SUP IN MIXED USE IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, AND WE'VE RESTORED THAT PROVISION. UM, A POINT OF DISCUSSION ON THIS IS IF YOU FEEL THAT'S APPROPRIATE, THERE IS ANOTHER OPTION TO RESTRICT IT TO FEWER DISTRICTS. UM, SO I GUESS I'LL PAUSE THERE IF THERE'S ANY FEEDBACK ON THAT. YEAH, UM, JUST A COMMENT ON THAT. I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO BE TREATING CIGAR BARS AND HOOKAH VERY SIMILARLY. YEP. SO I DON'T SEE THAT THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE. THERE'S NOT, I I AGREE. I MY QUESTION IS, IF YOU READ THE LANGUAGE, THE HOOKAH BAR IS MORE RESTRICTIVE. IT HAS TO CEASE OPERATIONS AT 11. CIGAR BAR IS, THERE'S NO LANGUAGE IN THERE. AND THIS CAME UP I THINK IN THE LAST DISCUSSION OF THIS, AND I THINK, SO IT'S, IT'S CLOSER, BUT THERE'S STILL DISPARITIES BETWEEN THE TWO. YEAH. AND THAT IS A RECOMMENDED EDIT THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO MAKE, UM, AFTER THIS, IS TO ENSURE THAT THE HOURS OF OPERATION ARE IDENTICAL. SO THEY BOTH CIGAR LOUNGES AND HOOKAH BARS WOULD HAVE TO CEASE THE SMOKING OPERATIONS AT 11 O'CLOCK. YEAH. I THINK WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT IT LAST TIME, THERE WAS, UH, A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT COUNSEL HAD WANTED. YEP, YEP. DID, UH, DID YOU GUYS SEEK, UM, ANY LEGAL ASSISTANCE ON THIS? YES. SO THEY WERE CONSULTED MONTHS PRIOR TO, UM, DRAFTING IT. AND SO WE WERE GIVEN CLEAR DIRECTION ON THE EXTENT OF RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE POSSIBLE. AND SO THERE'S, UM, CITED TEXAS CASE LAW THAT CONFIRMS TOTAL BANS ARE AKAY, UH, PERTAINING TO HOOKAH BAR SPECIFICALLY. AND SO BASED ON THE DIRECTION THAT COUNSEL PROVIDED, THAT'S WHAT WAS DRAFTED. UM, AND SO ANYTHING THAT'S A REDUCTION IN THAT IS STILL FALLING WITHIN THAT, UM, PERMISSIBILITY, IF YOU WILL. AND THE OTHER, THE EXISTING ESTABLISHMENTS ARE GRANDFATHERED, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO FALL UNDER THIS. CORRECT. THIS IS ONLY FOR FUTURE. SO IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING, UM, THERE'S A BIT OF A DIFFERENT KIND OF REGULATION PERTAINING TO THOSE THAT EXIST THAT ARE, THAT WERE NOT EVER LEGALLY PERMITTED. UM, BUT IN TERMS OF HOURS OF OPERATIONS AND INSPECTIONS, UM, THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONFORM. OKAY. AND THEN MY NEXT QUESTION WAS WHAT YOU MADE A COMMENT ABOUT POSSIBLY LIMITING TO THESE TWO DISTRICTS. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE MORE IF WE OPT TO GO THAT WAY INSTEAD? YEAH. SO CURRENTLY AS DRAFTED HOOKAH BARS ARE PERMITTED VIA SUP IN ALL THE M DISTRICTS AND, UH, COMMERCIAL ALSO INDUSTRIAL, RIGHT? SO EVERYTHING EXCEPT RESIDENTIAL, UM, ESSENTIALLY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, IT'S PERMITTED VIA SUP, WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE CIGAR LOUNGE PERMISSIONS. SO BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS DRAFT WAS MUCH MORE RESTRICTIVE, IT'S A DISCUSSION POINT. IF, UM, YOU WANTED TO FURTHER RESTRICT IT, THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION IS TO REDUCE THE LOCATION THAT THESE COULD TAKE PLACE IN VIA ZONING DISTRICT. WELL, LEMME GO DOWN THE HOLE AND ASK A ANOTHER QUESTION. THE, THE REASON THE CONCERN WITH THE HOOK BAR IS, UH, SOME OF THE EXPERIENCE THAT THE TOWN HAS HAD WITH EXISTING PROPERTIES, RIGHT? YES. YEP. AND SO, UM, THIS FALLS UNDER, UM, FIX THE PROBLEM, DON'T MAKE POLICY, IS THE WAY I WOULD NORMALLY APPROACH IT. SO WHAT STEPS HAS THE TOWN TAKEN TO FIX THE PROBLEM? UM, SO WE ARE [00:35:01] FINDING THAT IN MANY INSTANCES, UM, OUR EXISTING ESTABLISHMENTS ARE, ARE OPERATING, UM, AT A MUCH MORE INTENSE LAND USE. UM, SO THE CALLS FOR SERVICE INCREASE, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT LAST MONTH. UM, AND SO IN RESPONSE TO THAT, UM, I CAN TELL YOU WE WORK CLOSELY WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THERE'S USUALLY AN INCREASED POLICE PRESENCE, UM, WHICH DOES INCREASE OUR DEMAND ON SERVICES. UM, FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE, UH, THEY ARE A, UM, IT'S NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CODE ENFORCEMENT MEASURES, WHICH CAN BE A CHALLENGE CONSIDERING SOME, WE HAVE SOME OF THESE ESTABLISHMENTS THAT, UM, OPEN AND ARE OPEN UNTIL FIVE AND 6:00 AM IN THE MORNING. UM, AND SO WE TRADITIONALLY FOLLOW A TYPICAL BUSINESS DAY. AND SO WHEN YOU HAVE BUSINESSES THAT ARE OPEN FROM 11:00 PM UNTIL 6:00 AM IT DOES BECOME CHALLENGING TO, UM, FROM AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM, UM, FROM A CODE, EXCUSE ME, FROM A ZONING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. UH, SO WE DO HAVE TO RELY ON, UM, WHETHER IT'S OVERTIME OR UM, VARIATION OF SCHEDULES AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO TRY TO FIX SOME OF THE ISSUES. UM, OTHER ISSUES THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED THAT MAY BE LANDSCAPING ISSUES OR SO FORTH, THOSE FOLLOW A STANDARD CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS. AND HOW MANY TIMES ARE THEY ALLOWED TO IN THE ENTIRE TOWN? IF, IF SOMEBODY VIOLATES OR GETS SO MANY, UM, CITATIONS FOR INFRACTIONS, WHAT, WHAT HAPPENS? UM, SO DURING A CITATION PROCESS, UM, USUALLY THERE IS A, UH, A WARNING WHICH IS CALLED THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION. UM, AND THAT'S AN IDENT THAT IS, UM, THE TOWN IDENTIFYING TO THAT PARTICULAR BUSINESS THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION THAT EITHER IS OCCURRING, HAS OCCURRED, OR CURRENTLY STILL EXISTS. UM, AND THAT IS, AND THERE'S CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR THEM ON THAT NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO, UM, REMOVE THE VIOLATION. UM, IF THEY DO NOT COMPLY WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME PERIOD, THEN STAFF CAN ISSUE A CITATION AND WE COULD ISSUE A CITATION UP TO ONCE A DAY FOR THE DURATION THAT THAT VIOLATION IS OCCURRING OR HAS OCCURRED OR EXISTS. UM, AND THEN ULTIMATELY THEY COULD PAY THE FINE AS APPROPRIATE. UM, I WOULD SAY THERE IS SOME, UM, IT REALLY DEPENDS. THERE USED, SOMETIMES THERE'S A MEDIATION PROCESS TO TRY TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE, UM, OR A, YOU KNOW, NEGOTIATION PROCESS WITH THEM. UM, NOT TO FOREGO COMPLIANCE, BUT TO TRY TO ACHIEVE VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE OR WORK OUR WAY CLOSER TO COMPLIANCE FASTER. UM, I WOULD SAY THE OTHER THING I'LL NOTE IS THAT THE TYPE OF VIOLATION VARIES SIGNIFICANTLY. AND SO IF IT IS A LIFE SAFETY VIOLATION, WE COULD GO SO FAR AS TO SHUT A BUSINESS DOWN IMMEDIATELY. YOU KNOW, YOU COULD CONDEMN A BUILDING, UM, NOW SOMETHING LIKE YOU HAVE A DEAD SHRUB THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO REVOKE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR SO FORTH. SO IT'S KIND OF HARD TO ARTICULATE EVERY SCENARIO BECAUSE THE RANGE IS VERY VAST. BUT TO, THAT KIND OF GIVES YOU AN OVERVIEW OF, OF WHAT OUR MECHANISMS ARE. WELL, I, I GUESS I WAS THINKING OF IF IT'S A PUBLIC NUISANCE OF SOME SORT, PEOPLE ARE OUT IN THE PARKING LOT AT TWO, THREE IN THE MORNING, UM, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT THERE WOULD BE GIVEN SEVERAL WARNINGS AND THEN, OKAY, FINE, YOU'RE OUT OF BUSINESS. SO TYPICALLY, UM, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD ISSUE CITATIONS PARTICULAR TO SOMETIMES TO THE, UM, INDIVIDUALS, UM, AND POTENTIALLY TO THE BUSINESS AS WELL. UM, THAT TYPICALLY DOES NOT, UM, A, A FEW NOISE COMPLAINTS OR CITATIONS TYPICALLY DOES NOT RESULT IN, UH, REVOCATION OF CO. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. SO THE, THE SECTION ON THE HOOKAH BAR SAYS THAT, UM, IF THEY INTEND TO OPERATE AFTER 11, THEY HAVE TO GET A SUP. IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? AND THEN THE NEXT SECTION SAYS IF THEY OPERATE AFTER 11, THEY'LL CEASE HOOK OPERATIONS. SO I'M NOT SURE THAT ONE IS A LITTLE BIT CONTRADICTORY. SO IF I'M READING THIS RIGHT, AND AGAIN, THESE ARE RED LINES, SO I MEAN, I THINK THE INTENT IS, IF, IF I COULD IS YOU'RE SAYING, YOU KNOW, THAT FOR THESE ISSUE THAT, THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED, ONE OF THE SOLUTIONS IS THAT IF THEY'RE GONNA OPERATE AFTER 11 O'CLOCK, THEY NEED AN SUP, THAT THAT MAY BE A, A TYPO OR, UM, NOT, UM, CLEARLY STATED. 'CAUSE THE INTENT IS, IS THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REGARDLESS, AND THAT THE OPERATIONS [00:40:01] COULD NOT OCCUR AFTER 11:00 PM P PERIOD. UM, SO WE MIGHT, THERE MIGHT BE A QUALIFIER THERE THAT WE NEED TO STRAIGHTEN OUT, BUT THAT CAN TELL YOU THAT IS OUR INTENT, SO WE WILL REVISIT THAT. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY, SO CAN WE GO BACK TO WHAT I ASKED? HOLD ON TYLER, I WANNA GO BACK TO SOMETHING EARLIER THAT I ASKED ABOUT THE CHANGES IN DISTRICTS. SO ARE, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING READY TO PROPOSE OR YOU LEAVING AT WIDE? YOU HADN'T GONE DOWN THAT FAR OF DECIDING WHERE YOU ALL WOULD RECOMMEND, WHICH, WHICH DISTRICTS YES. AND WHICH DISTRICTS? NO, YOU JUST KNOW IT'S NOT IN RESIDENTIAL AT THIS POINT AND THAT'S IT. YES, I HAVE NOT PROPOSED ANYTHING. I BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT LIMITING IT TO JUST INDUSTRIAL AND POTENTIALLY COMMERCIAL GENERAL. UM, I'M NOT SURE THE ORIGIN OF THAT, BUT THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT JUST THOSE TWO DISTRICTS. YEAH, SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE CONTEXT DISCUSSION WAS WITH COUNSEL, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DISCUSSION WITH OR AMONGST YOURSELVES? THAT WAS DISCUSSION WITH STAFF. THE QUESTION WAS POSED TO COUNCIL AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE, UM, THERE WASN'T DIRECT FEEDBACK ON THAT MATTER. UM, SPECIFIC TO THE ZONING DISTRICTS, UM, I WOULD SAY THAT THE, I, THE CONCEPT BEHIND LIMITING IT TO SOME OF OUR MORE INTENSE DISTRICTS FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE IS THOSE, UM, AREAS ARE TYPICALLY FURTHER AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL USES. UH, THEY'RE TYPICALLY ON MORE, UM, SIGNIFICANT THOROUGHFARES, UM, AND LIKELY TO CAUSE LESS, UM, NUISANCE OR DISTURBANCE GIVEN THE, UM, HIGHER INTENSITY OF THE USE. THAT WAS THE, THE THOUGHT OF, OF LIMITING IT TO OUR MORE INTENSE ZONING DISTRICTS. BUT WE DID REALLY HAVE AN APPROACH, WHICH WAS AN ISSUE THAT CAME UP ON A PREVIOUS ONE, WHICH IS GETTING 'EM SET NEXT TO LIKE A HOTEL. I MEAN, THAT'S KINDA GONNA ALL FALL IN THAT COMMERCIAL USE. SO A, WELL OUR HOTELS ARE SPREAD WI SPREAD OUT AROUND ADDISON, BUT, UM, I WOULD SAY LIMITING IT TO COM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IS AS IT'S AS IT SOUNDS, UM, COMMERCIAL GENERAL IS GOING TO BE JUST A STEP DOWN FROM THAT. SO IN MOST CASES, OUR HOTELS ARE GOING TO BE IN COMMERCIAL LIMITED MIXED USE DISTRICTS. AND WE, I KNOW WE DO HAVE A FEW IN COMMERCIAL GENERAL, UM, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THEN VIA SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE INTENT BEHIND THAT. YOU'RE SAYING PUTTING IN LANGUAGE THAT IF IT'S, SO IF WE GO DOWN THAT ROAD OF SPECIFYING LIKE COMMERCIAL, THEN YOU WOULD ADDRESS ADDITIONAL, IF IT'S WITHIN SO CLOSE OF A HOTEL OR SOMETHING, IT WOULD REQUIRE SEP SORRY. NO, WE'RE SAYING IT WOULD REQUIRE, WE'RE SAYING LIMIT LIMITING IT TO, FOR THE SAKE OF THIS CONVERSATION, I'M JUST GONNA SAY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, WE'RE GONNA LIMIT IT TO ONLY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO OBTAIN A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, BUT YOU CAN ONLY SEEK A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IF YOU ARE LOCATED IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. SO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, LET'S SAY THERE WAS A HOTEL RIGHT NEXT DOOR AND YOU WERE IN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, WE WOULD TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT OR RESIDENTIAL, WE WOULD TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT WHEN WE'RE PROCESSING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. IT WOULD ULTIMATELY BE A DECISION THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I, I'D PROBABLY LEAN A LITTLE MORE TO TIGHTENING UP INTO SPECIFIC DISTRICTS, MY PERSONAL OPINION VERSUS JUST GENERIC EVERYWHERE. BUT I, I DON'T, I'LL THROW THAT OUT FROM THE DISCUSSION OF THIS GROUP. NO, I AGREE TOTALLY. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. LIMITED TO, UM, UM, AREAS THAT, THAT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. YES. AND THE HOURS THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO OPERATE ARE, YOU'VE MENTIONED SOMETHING LIKE, UM, EARLY, EARLY MORNING, 11:00 PM WHICH IS CURRENTLY IN THE RED LINE. OKAY. THEY WOULD'VE TO CEASE OPERATIONS AT 11:00 PM WHICH IS WE ARE PROPOSING IS ALSO WITH CI THE CIGAR, WHICH IS, UH, COMMENTS WE GOT BACK ON TUESDAY WITH COUNCIL IS TO DUPLICATE THAT STANDARD FOR BOTH OF THOSE USES. I THINK THAT'S GOOD. SO I'D LIMIT THE DISTRICT AND ALSO ENSURE THAT THE TIME FRAME IS IDENTIFIED. OKAY. TYLER, I THINK YOU HAD SOMETHING. SORRY, I YEAH, NO WORRIES. UM, I THINK WE'RE TOUCHING ON EVERYTHING I, I WANTED TO GET TO, UM, I MIGHT ARGUE THAT THEY'RE ALREADY LIMITED TO THE DISTRICTS THAT HAVE THE RIGHT INTENSITY AND THAT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROTECTS OR AT LEAST ENABLES US TO USE OUR BEST JUDGMENT WHEN, WHEN THESE CASES COME UP. THEY'RE OUTSIDE OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. AS A GUY WHO LIVES IN A M TWO OR M THREE EQUIVALENT, I THINK I'M PERSONALLY OKAY IF A HOOKAH LOUNGE WANTS TO TRY AND COME HERE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT BARS IN, IN ADDISON CIRCLE AND IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, IT CAN GET A LITTLE CRAZY SOMETIMES, BUT IT'S [00:45:01] NOTHING THAT KEEPS US UP AT NIGHT REGULARLY. RIGHT. SO I WOULD SAY THE CURRENT LISTING OUTSIDE OF ALL OUR, OUR CODES IS PERFECTLY FINE BY ME AS FAR AS HOURS GO. I MENTIONED BARS BECAUSE I KIND OF SEE THIS AS A SIMILAR KIND OF VICE TYPE THING. I WOULD IMAGINE A BAR WOULD HAVE A SIMILAR AMOUNT OF, UH, YOU KNOW, EXTRA LAND USE INTENSITY, PROBABLY A FEW EXTRA POLICE CALLS, WHAT HAVE YOU, JUST BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF WHAT IT IS. AND IF WE HAVE HOOKAH LOUNGES WHICH HAVE A SIMILAR FUNCTION, MANY OF WHICH ALSO DON'T SERVE ALCOHOL, WHICH I THINK WE SHOULD CALL OUT HERE, UM, IF WE, WE HAVE THAT, UH, RESTRICTION TO 11, WE'RE KIND OF HARMING THE COMPETITIVE NATURE OF EXISTING BUSINESSES RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM BELTLINE AND MARSH IS IN CARROLLTON, BUT THERE'S I THINK AT LEAST ONE MORE HOOKAH LOUNGE RIGHT THERE THAT WOULDN'T BE SUBJECT TO THOSE RESTRICTIONS. SO WE, WE WOULD LIMIT THE COMPETITIVENESS OF ADDISON'S BUSINESSES BY, BY HARMING THE HOURS TOO FAR. I THINK 2:00 AM LET'S MAKE IT BARS OR EVEN 3:00 AM IF WE WANNA BE GENEROUS, UH, LINING UP WITH JUST GENERAL BAR NIGHTLIFE INSTEAD OF 11:00 PM I THINK IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE. UM, THE FIVE 6:00 AM I, I SORT OF UNDERSTAND AND AM WILLING TO COMPROMISE, BUT I, I REALLY THINK WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD ALLOW THEM THROUGH SUP TO GO TILL 2:00 AM. UM, BUT ALL THE OTHER RESTRICTIONS I'M COOL WITH. YES, THAT'S ALL. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THE 2:00 AM SO WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS TO DRAFT CURRENTLY. 11. I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE MOVING FROM PROHIBITING HIM COMPLETELY YES. TO THIS WINDOW. SO I'M FINE WITH AS IT'S DRAFTED, QUITE FRANKLY WITH 2:00 AM NO, THE 11. 11, OKAY. 11. OKAY. FIRST I'M KIND OF INDIFFERENT. YEAH. OUR BAR'S ONE OR TWO HERE. I'M SORRY, I'M GETTING TOO OLD. I DON'T GO HANG OUT AT BARS. A SPECIAL, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ANY FOOD AND BEVERAGE ESTABLISHED, BUT THAT IS OPEN PAST 11:00 PM SO IF WE EXTEND THE HOURS, WE'RE JUST CREATING MORE WORK. 'CAUSE THEN YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME THROUGH, THEY WOULD REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REGARDLESS. WELL, NO, BUT IF WE PUT, YOU'RE SAYING IF WE GO BEYOND 11 O'CLOCK IN HERE, THEN THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME GET A SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE GETTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT REGARDLESS OF WHAT TIME THEY CLOSE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT TIME THEY CLOSE THIS, THIS, UM, STANDARD, THE SPECIAL USE STANDARD, UM, CLOSING AT 11:00 PM IS REALLY KIND OF A, UM, A QUALIFIER OR, UM, A OPPORTUNITY FOR STAFF TO COMMUNICATE TO THE, TO, UM, POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS THAT THAT'S KIND OF THE EXPECTATION. OKAY. SO IF WE LEAVE IT AT 11 O'CLOCK, THEY CAN ASK FOR A, A OF WAIVER IN THEIR SUP IF THEY REALLY WANNA STAY ABOVE LATER THEY COULD. I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT I STILL HAVE REALLY MUCH OF AN OPINION. I'M GOOD WITH 11. UH, PROBABLY. OKAY WITH 1111. OKAY. I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA GO TO THE MAT A LITTLE BIT FOR THIS ONE. UH, WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A NUMBER OF BUSINESSES THAT HAVE ALREADY EXISTED AND HAVE ALREADY GONE THROUGH LATE NIGHT AND CARVED OUT THEIR MARKET SECTOR HERE. IF WE RETROACTIVELY MOVE THESE INTO ILLEGAL NON-CONFORMING, THEY CAN'T MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS TO THEIR FACILITIES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT WITHOUT KNOCKING THEMSELVES INTO THIS, THIS HARMS THE COMPETITIVENESS OF ADDISON BUSINESSES. UM, HAVE WE CONSULTED THEM ENOUGH THOUGHT, TRIED TO COME UP WITH A JOINT APPROACH? I DON'T THINK WE HAVE. DO WE HAVE WE DON'T NECESSARILY ALSO HAVE THE EVIDENCE. WE TALK ABOUT INCREASED LAND USES INCREASED POLICE PRESENCE, BUT WE HAVEN'T, WE DON'T HAVE IT DOCUMENTED HERE. I THINK IF WE WANT TO GO ANY FARTHER, I WANT TO SEE MORE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF IT BEING AN ACTUAL GENUINE, UH, DRAIN, SO TO SPEAK, ON TOWN RESOURCES COMPARED TO THE VALUE IT CREATES BECAUSE THIS HARMS JOBS, THIS HARMS BUSINESS OWNERS. WE SHOULD REALLY THINK ABOUT THIS BEFORE RESTRICTING IT. I GUESS WHERE, WHERE I'M AT TYLER WITH THAT IS, IS IT'S NOT, THEY CAN ASK FOR WAIVERS. I MEAN, THEY CAN COME THROUGH HERE AND ASK FOR THAT. SO IT'S NOT, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S SO MUCH OF A COMPLETE DISALLOW . IT'S PROBABLY, IF YOU WORD IT THIS WAY TO ME IS MORE OF A WE'RE ENCOURAGED, MAYBE NOT, BUT IT'S NOT A BANISHMENT OF IT FOR ONE TWO, DIDN'T WE TALK ABOUT, THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN BEFORE YOU CAME ON, DIDN'T WE SAY THEY'RE NOT, THIS DOES NOT AFFECT ONES THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. CORRECT. OKAY, SO, SO REMEMBER THAT TOO, TYLER, THIS IS THE ONLY STUFF GOING FORWARD, THE HOURS OF OPERATION PORTION AND REQUIRING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD NOT BE A RETROACTIVE REQUIREMENT. CORRECT. OKAY. BUT THE INSPECTION OF THE SYSTEMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT WOULD BE A RETROACTIVE ALL WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO THAT. UM, THIS WOULD BE ONLY FOR NEW ESTABLISHMENTS FOR THE SUP 11:00 PM ALL THAT COMPONENT IS FOR NEW. OKAY. UM, AND SO THEY WOULDN'T BE, THEY WOULDN'T BE LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING. THEY, SORRY, LEMME CLARIFY. THEY COULD BE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING. IT DEPENDS. OKAY. IT DEPENDS. UM, SO FOR EXAMPLE, ONE [00:50:01] OF THE REDLINE STANDARDS IS THAT THEY MUST BE LOCATED IN A STANDALONE BUILDING. IF THEY ARE NOT IN A STANDALONE BUILDING AND THIS GETS ADOPTED AS, AS DRAFTED, THEN THAT WOULD BE LEGAL NONCONFORMING. HOWEVER, I WOULD DEFER TO OUR LEGAL NONCONFORMING SECTION, WHICH IS IN SEC CHAPTER ARTICLE ONE OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT, THAT IT'S NOT A PROHIBITION ON ANY IMPROVEMENTS. UM, SOME OF THE STANDARDS INCLUDE ENLARGEMENT OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA. THEY CANNOT ENLARGE THE GROSS FLOOR AREA. UM, THAT'S, AND THEY'RE, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF, THEY CAN'T INCREASE THE INTENSITY OF THE USE. SO FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY THAT THEY HAVE A KITCHEN, THEY CAN'T REPLACE THEIR KITCHEN WITH MORE, UM, DINING AREA, THINGS LIKE THAT. UM, BUT IF THEY WANTED TO DO ANY SORT OF AESTHETIC IMPROVEMENTS OR MAYBE THEY WANT TO REFRESH THE FACADE OR THEIR SIGNAGE, THAT DOES NOT TRIGGER COMPLIANCE UNDER OUR LEGAL NON-CONFORMITY. OKAY. THAT'S A LITTLE BETTER. UM, ONE MORE QUESTION MAYBE TO FRAME THIS AND FOR LESLIE, YOUR STAFF, UM, DO SPORTS BARS? I THINK SMOKING LIKE CIGARETTES AND CIGARS IS GENERALLY OKAY IN MOST PLACES. SO WE'RE, WE'RE IN THE CASE WHERE LIKE, LIKE A BAR IN ADDISON CAN ALLOW SMOKING IF THEY WISH IN MOST CASES, RIGHT? YES. OUR CURRENT SMOKING STANDARDS ACTUALLY ARE IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. THEY DON'T CURRENTLY LIVE WITHIN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. MM-HMM . OKAY. SO MY, MY QUESTION TO THE, THE COMMISSION IS WHAT, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE, RIGHT? IF, IF A BAR CAN BE OPEN UNTIL 2:00 AM AND ALLOW CIGARETTES AND CIGARS, WHY CAN'T A HOOKAH BAR THROUGH AN SUP BE OPEN UNTIL 2:00 AM A BAR CANNOT BE OPEN UNTIL 2:00 AM OH, EXCUSE ME, 1:00 AM AND THEN 2:00 AM THROUGH SUP, RIGHT? UM, OR IS IT BAR RESTAURANT? NO, A BAR AT, WELL ONE WE DO NOT ALLOW BARS. UM, YOU CAN HAVE A, YOU CAN HAVE A OH RIGHT LIQUOR LICENSE WITH A FOOD AND BEVERAGE PERMIT. UM, AND IT'S 60% FOOD SALES, UM MM-HMM REQUIRED PER TABC. HOWEVER, UM, IT REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IF THEY'RE OPEN AFTER 11:00 PM RIGHT. AND THEY, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT ANYONE CAN REMAIN OPEN UNTIL AFTER. SO THAT IS DETERMINED THAT TIME PERIOD. SO IT COULD BE MIDNIGHT FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IS SET BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL BASED ON THE CONTEXT OF THE APPLICATION. RIGHT. SO WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT IS THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH HOW THINGS ARE ALREADY WITH BARS. I MEAN, THEY'RE ONLY OPEN LATE 'CAUSE THEY ALREADY GOT THEIR SUP APPROVAL. OKAY. THEN I STAY, WE STICK WITH 11 O'CLOCK AND MAKE IT CONSISTENT FROM ONE TO THE OTHER. YEAH, I AGREE. OKAY. ALL RIGHTY. OKAY JADE, SORRY TO DERAIL THAT ISSUE. UM, SO, UH, THIS IS A SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO HOOKAH BAR, WHICH WE'VE DISCUSSED ALREADY. SO, UH, I JUST WANNA CALL OUT. THERE IS ALSO THE LOCATION OR THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT THAT IS DRAFTED IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED. SO HOOKAH BARS NEED TO BE A THOUSAND FEET FROM EACH OTHER, UM, IN ADDITION TO, UM, REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED IN A STANDALONE BUILDING AND THEN MOVING FORWARD WITH CLOSING HOOKAH OPERATIONS AT 11 O'CLOCK AS WELL AS THE INSPECTIONS, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH CIGAR LOUNGE. SO, UM, BASED ON FEEDBACK RECEIVED AT THE LAST WORK SESSION, WE DID MAKE SURE THAT THESE MATCHED, UM, FILTRATION SYSTEMS ARE REQUIRED FOR CIGAR LOUNGES IN THE SAME MANNER THAT THEY OFFER FOR H HOOKAH LOUNGES. AND THEY HAVE THE SAME SEPARATION REQUIREMENT AS WELL AND THEY HAVE IDENTICAL USE, UM, RESTRICTIONS CURRENTLY. SO APPROVABLE BY SUP IN EVERYTHING EXCEPT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IS WHAT'S DRAFTED. UM, MINOR CHANGES MOVING FORWARD. ARTICLE TWO, THIS IS A MINOR CHANGE. WE, UM, MADE SURE THAT THE TREE MEASUREMENT STANDARD IS APPLICABLE EVENLY ACROSS ALL SECTIONS OF THE CODE. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A TYPO, UM, THAT WE NEEDED TO FIX. UH, TOUCHED ON THIS EARLIER PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT. SO AGAIN, COMBINED COUNCIL AND PNZ DIRECTION FOR THIS. SO THERE IS A, A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT THAT IS MIRRORING THE ADDISON CIRCLE SPECIAL AREA STUDY TO DEFINE THE BOUNDARY THAT YOU CAN RECEIVE A PARKING REDUCTION WITHIN SO THAT WE CAN ENSURE THAT THE PARKING REDUCTION IS MEETING ITS INTENDED MEETING ITS INTENT. UM, ARTICLE FIVE CHANGES A LOT OF TREE THINGS IN HERE. AGAIN, THIS RELATES TO THE MEASUREMENT STANDARD. SO, UM, THIS WE TOUCHED ON LAST TIME, BUT THE INDUSTRY STANDARD FOR TREE MEASUREMENT IS, UM, DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT FOR CERTAIN TREE TYPES DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF CALIBER INCHES. AND SO JUST REFORMATTED [00:55:01] THAT IN ALL THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS CONSISTENT. UM, THEN THE UNPROTECTED TREES RATIO, WE HAD TO INCLUDE THE RATIO FOR THAT. WE DIDN'T HAVE IT IN THERE. SO, UM, IT'S ONE TO 0.5 RATHER THAN NOTHING BEING SPECIFIED. SO IT'S ENSURING THAT EVEN THE UNPROTECTED TREES STILL HAVE SOME TYPE OF, UM, BENEFIT IN TERMS OF MITIGATION TO THE TOWN. THEN THE TREE PERMIT SECTION, AGAIN, IT'S RELATING TO THE MEASUREMENT DEPENDING ON CALIBER INCH OF TREE FOR THE MOST PART THERE. AND, UM, FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC HERE IS ABOUT A CROSS REFERENCE THAT WAS CONFUSING. SO ESSENTIALLY IT WAS A DOUBLE REFERENCE AND SO JUST REMOVED SOME REDUNDANCY THERE AND MADE IT EASIER TO FIND THE SECTION, UM, THAT DIRECTS A USER TO THE PLANT LIST. THE APPROVED PLANT LIST, ARTICLE SEVEN, THESE ARE USE CHANGES, UH, MINOR CHANGES BASED ON FEEDBACK. WE CAUGHT AN ERROR AT THE LAST WORK SESSION. THERE WAS A REFERENCE TO MEDICAL WASTE THAT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE IN THERE, SO WE REMOVED THAT, UM, AND CLARIFIED THE DEFINITION FOR KITCHEN AND KITCHENETTE SO THAT IT'S CLEAR THOSE ARE DEFINED RELATIVE TO LODGING USES NOT FOR OTHER USES, UM, BASED ON FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC AIRPORT DEFINITION. SO WE HAD A COUPLE TRAINING SLASH WORKING SESSIONS WITH AIRPORT STAFF TO TALK ABOUT, UM, ESSENTIALLY THEIR LONG RANGE PLANS AND AIRPORT MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS PROCEDURES THAT DO PERTAIN TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. AND SO IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE WORKING SMOOTHLY WITH THEM AND NOT CREATING INSTANCES WHERE AN APPLICANT COMES TO THE AIRPORT AND IS UNAWARE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PROCESSES, WE DEFINE SOME OF THEIR TERMS. SO IT'S CLEAR EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS, UM, WHAT THEY MAY BE SUBJECT TO. SO ADDED A LOT OF TECHNICAL THINGS PERTAINING TO THAT. UM, AND THEN BASED ON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, WE DID NOT HAVE A DEFINITION FOR BLOCK OR BLOCK LENGTH. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE DISTANCE BETWEEN RIGHTS OF WAY AND WE REFERENCE IT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS A, THERE'S A RECOMMENDED BLOCK LENGTH TO ENSURE AN URBAN STANDARD FOR LARGE NEW REDEVELOPMENTS. AND SO WANTED TO ADD THAT TECHNICAL DEFINITION IN THE UDC. AND I THINK FINALLY APPENDIX A, UM, AGAIN, WE FOUND THE ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICTS FOR SECTIONS THAT WERE NOT LISTED THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN LISTED AND MADE SURE THAT THOSE ARE REFERENCED SO THAT IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUILD A NEW SIGN OR AMEND A SIGNED FACE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN A SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICT, THEY HAVE THE VISUAL TO ACCOMPANY THAT AND THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THOSE STANDARDS ARE AND THAT IS IT. UM, WE'RE STILL, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? YES. SO I KNOW JIMMY'S NOT HERE TONIGHT, BUT HE, UM, APPARENTLY INSERTED A NUMBER OF ITEMS, UM, IN THE APPENDIX A UNDER, UH, PROTEST PROCEDURES WHERE IT WAS IN APPENDIX A. YEAH, I HAVE IT ON PAGE 27 OF APPENDIX A. I BELIEVE IT'S, I BELIEVE IT'S JIMMY BARKER. IT'S JB TWO OH OH, IT'S ME. SORRY. EXCUSE ME. IN THAT CASE I COULD SAY NEVERMIND, BUT , BUT COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT A LITTLE BIT? UM, I THINK THAT'S IN THE UDC, ISN'T IT? I'M WONDERING IF THE FORMATTING IS STRANGE DEPENDING ON WHAT VERSION DOES IT PRINTED OUT. MAYBE I'M AN OLD SCHOOL KIND OF GUY HERE. MIGHT LOOK AT IT WITH YOU. OKAY. YEAH, SO THE FORMATTING IS REALLY WONKY IN TRACK CHANGE WORD DOCUMENT UNLESS YOU'RE VIEWING IT IN APP. AND SO ALL THE HEADERS ARE OFF AND IT'S HARD TO SEE WHERE THIS IS, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S ARTICLE FOUR AND, OH WAIT, NO, THIS IS TWO, THIS IS ARTICLE TWO AND IT'S TALKING ABOUT, UM, THIS WAS MADE IN THE PREVIOUS RED LINE. UM, SO IF THIS IS SHOWING UP IN DRAFT TWO RED LINE, THAT'S AN ERROR. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN ACCEPTED CHANGE AND IT SHOULDN'T BE READ. I AGREE WITH IT, BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS. , UM, THOSE ARE CHANGES THAT WERE, WEREN'T THOSE MADE TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW? YES. YEAH. YEP. THIS IS HOUSE BILL 24 AND [01:00:01] NON-CONFORMITY PROTEST PROCEDURES. SO THERE'S NO WAY AROUND THIS RED LINE. THANK YOU. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTION, TYLER, ONLINE. OKAY. ALL RIGHTY. THANKS JADE. THANK YOU. OKAY, NEXT, UH, OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. AT THIS TIME, CITIZENS WILL BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTER OTHER THAN PERSONAL MATTER UNDER LITIGATION FOR A LENGTH OF TIME NOT TO EXCEED THREE MINUTES. NO P AND Z ACTION OR DISCUSSION MAY TAKE PLACE ON ANY MATTER UNTIL SUCH MATTER HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE AGENDA AND IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. UH, ARE YOU WHAT? YEAH, UM, SOME OF US HAVE THESE, UH, GQ OR TRISHA, ARE YOU WANTING TO SPEAK NOW OR AT THE ACTUAL MEETING? COME ON. TRICIA STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE. COMMISSIONERS TRISHA STEWART, 1 5 7 5 5 SEA BOLTS IN ADDISON. TONIGHT I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST A PURPOSE STATEMENT CLARIFICATION TO ADD AS CITIZENS OF ADDISON BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU REPRESENT. YOU REPRESENT OUR VOICES. YOU'RE NOT HERE AS VOLUNTEER CONSULTANTS, YOU'RE ON THE D BECAUSE YOU'RE RESIDENTS. SO WHETHER YOUR DECISIONS VIEW ADDISON AS A PORTFOLIO OR A COMMUNITY, BALANCE AND DIVERSITY ARE CRUCIAL. WE HAVE MANY DIVERSE OPINIONS IN OUR COMMUNITY, WHICH SHOULD BE RESPECTED EVEN IF WE DON'T ALL AGREE. SO WHEN RESIDENTS RAISE CONCERNS THAT 80% OF OUR HOUSING IS RENTAL, IT'S NOT TO OFFEND OR INSULT OR CAUSE CLASS WARFARE. IT'S NOT TO DISCOURAGE OR SCARE AWAY DEVELOPERS. IT'S A CONCERN ABOUT BALANCE. SO WHAT'S THE OUTCOME? WHEN OUR ONLY OWNERSHIP HOUSING CHOICES ARE BUYING OLDER, EXPENSIVE HOMES OR LIVING IN THREE STORY TOWN HOMES THAT ARE VERY DIFFICULT FOR FAMILIES OR PEOPLE WITH MOBILITY CONCERNS OR RENTING WHERE TWO BEDROOM UNITS ARE RARE AND ASTRONOMICALLY PRICED, IT DOES NOT SUPPORT LONG-TERM RESIDENCY. WHAT'S THE OUTCOME? WHEN OUR PROPERTY TAXES ARE SO HIGH, IT MAKES A COST OF LIVING SORE FOR BOTH COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. WHETHER YOU, WHETHER YOU LEASE OR OWN, WELL PEOPLE LEAVE. SO WHAT'S THE OUTCOME? WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PUBLIC SAFETY RESOURCES OR UPDATED INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT AN INCREASED NEED? IT DOESN'T MAKE THINGS SAFER WHEN YOU ADD A THOUSAND MORE RESIDENTS WITHOUT INCREASED RESOURCES. I LIVE IN A TOWNHOUSE COMMUNITY AND AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING OUR HOA PRESIDENT SHARED, WE'VE HAD MURDER, DRUG, BUS, AND NEXT DOOR TO ME, SEX TRAFFICKING AND AN ARMS DEALER, WHICH WAS SUPER SPECIAL. BUT THAT'S NOT BECAUSE OF RENTALS OR OWNERSHIP. IT'S BECAUSE OUR MANAGEMENT COMPANY AND OUR HOA DID NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO ADEQUATELY TRACK RENTALS AND ENFORCE OUR COMMUNITY LAWS. BECAUSE THE MORE RESIDENCES YOU ADD TO AN EQUATION, MORE SUPPORT IS NEEDED. AND THAT'S THE ISSUE WITH APPROXIMATELY 9,000 RENTAL UNITS AND 2,400 OWNERSHIP UNITS BEFORE YOUR APPROVALS. WE NEED TO ASK WHETHER WE HAVE THE STAFFING, PUBLIC SAFETY RESOURCES AND ENFORCEMENT AVAILABLE TO KEEP PACE WITH YOUR APPROVALS. WE HAVE AN OUT OF CONTROL SHORT-TERM RENTAL ISSUE THAT AFFECTS THE SAFETY OF ALL OF OUR COMMUNITIES AND WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH STAFF THAT'S SUFFICIENT TO UPHOLD COMPLIANCE. WHEN SOMEONE SAYS THAT THEY WANT MORE OWNERSHIP, IT'S NOT SOCIAL CLASS JUDGMENT. IT'S ABOUT CREATING HOUSING PRODUCTS THAT ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO PUT DOWN ROOTS AND STAY IN ADDISON. LONG TERM. NOTHING EXISTS IN A SILO. WE HAVE LIMITED LAND IN OUR SMALL TOWN. SO EVERY DECISION YOU MAKE HAS LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES FOR ALL OF US. LIKE ALL THINGS IN NATURE, OUR COMMUNITY NEEDS BALANCE. WHEN WEIGHTED TOO HEAVILY IN ONE SEGMENT, THERE ARE GUARANTEED PROBLEMS LONG TERM. WE NEED DIVERSIFICATION IN OUR BUSINESSES AND OUR HOUSING. SO DON'T JUST ASK, DOES THIS PROJECT SOLVE CURRENT ISSUE? ASK WITH OUR LIMITED LAND, DO WE HAVE THE RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THIS APPROVAL? AND WILL THIS DECISION BRING BALANCE? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. THANKS FOR BEING HERE. MY NAME IS GUILLERMO QUINTANILLA, CHAIR FANSLER AND COMMISSIONERS. UH, I WANNA OFFER ONE OBSERVATION AFTER WATCHING ADDRESS REAL QUICK. ROSEWOOD CASE MOVED FROM DQ ADDRESS REAL QUICK. I'M SORRY, YOUR ADDRESS REAL QUICK, QUICK, I'M SORRY. SORRY. 41 15 RUSH CIRCLE. UH, THANK I I'D LIKE, UH, I WANNA OFFER ONE OBSERVATION AFTER WATCHING THE ROSEWOOD CASE MOVE FROM THIS COMMISSION TO COUNCIL. UH, ROSEWOOD LEFT P AND Z ON AN ARROW FOUR THREE RECOMMENDATION. A FEW NIGHTS AGO, COUNCIL APPROVED THE SAME PROJECT SIX TO ONE. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT P AND Z SHOULD PREDICT COUNCIL VOTES OR BECOME A RUBBER STAMP. REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN LOOK AT THE SAME PROJECT AND DISAGREE, BUT A DIFFERENCE THAT LARGE SHOULD CAUSE SOME REFLECTION. [01:05:01] ADDISON IS LARGELY BUILT OUT. INCREASINGLY, THE PROJECTS COMING BEFORE YOU WILL INVOLVE REDEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT REQUIRES US TO EVALUATE THE REAL CHOICES AVAILABLE IN THE TOWN. ROSEWOOD DEMONSTRATED THAT SOME OF THE DISCUSSION WERE FOCUSED HEAVILY ON WHETHER THE BUILDING ITSELF LOOKED EXCEPTIONAL ENOUGH, WHETHER ADDISON ALREADY HAD ENOUGH APARTMENTS OR WHETHER WE MIGHT PREFER SOME OTHER TYPE OF HOUSING. COUNCIL ULTIMATELY CONSIDERED A BROADER QUESTION, WHAT IS THERE TODAY? WHAT CAN REALISTICALLY REPLACE IT, AND WHAT HAPPENS IF WE SAY NO? THEY ALSO CONSIDERED REDEVELOPMENT, ECONOMICS, PUBLIC SAFETY, TAX BASE CONNECTIVITY, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE OVERALL BENEFIT TO ADDISON. I BELIEVE ROSEWOOD EXPOSED REAL GAP BETWEEN HOW SOME MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION ARE EVALUATING REDEVELOPMENT AND HOW THE ELECTED COUNCIL IS APPLYING ADDISON'S POLICIES, I BELIEVE, EXCUSE ME. AND TONIGHT OUR PACKET. YOUR PACKET REMINDS US OF THE SAME THING. ADDISON'S, UDC SAYS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWING A PUBLIC HEARING SHOULD INCLUDE FINDINGS BASED ON COMPETENT MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND SHOULD CLEARLY STATE THE FACTORS AND RATIONALE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATION. THAT IS A VERY GOOD STANDARD. IT MEANS THE QUESTION SHOULD NOT SIMPLY BE, CAN WE IMAGINE SOMETHING WE WOULD LIKE BETTER? THE BETTER QUESTIONS ARE WHAT EXISTS THERE TODAY, WHAT CAN REALISTICALLY REPLACE IT AND WHAT EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE ALTERNATIVE, PNZ IS OFTEN THE FIRST MAJOR PUBLIC DECISION A DEVELOPER ENCOUNTERS IN ADDISON. IF WE EVALUATE PROJECTS PRIMARILY THROUGH OPPOSITION TO A PARTICULAR HOUSING TYPE, RATHER THAN THE COMPLETE REDEVELOPMENT QUESTION, I BELIEVE WE RISK MISSING GOOD OPPORTUNITIES. THE ROSEWOOD DISCUSSION GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN FROM THAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? ANYONE ONLINE? COREY, THAT WAS NO. OKAY. HAVING SEEN THAT, I WILL ADJOURN THE WORK SESSION PORTION OF OUR MEETING TONIGHT AND RECONVENE IN. YOU GUYS PRETTY CLOSE TO BEING READY? I'M READY. YOU READY TO GO? YEP. OKAY. WE'RE GONNA JUST KEEP ROLLING AND, AND NOT TAKE A BREAK. OKAY. SO, [Call to Order] AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN UP THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2026. UH, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM OF FOUR COMMISSIONERS PRESENT, PRESENT WITH COMMISSIONER WRIGHT ONLINE. UM, TYLER, JUST TO KEEP IN MIND, YOU GOTTA STAY VISUAL. I CAN SEE YOU, SO KEEP IT UP. UM, AND AS WE DO WITH ALL MEETINGS, PLEASE STAND AND, UH, SAY THE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE STUDIO LIFE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC, WHICH IS OKAY. UM, THERE WILL BE A OPEN PORTION FOR PUBLIC MEETING LATER ON AT THAT TIME. GO AHEAD AND REMEMBER TO KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE SPEAKING. UM, SO NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO PURPOSE STATEMENT. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SERVES AS AN ADVISORY CAPACITY TO THE TOWN EVALUATING, PLANNING, ZONING, AND SUBDIVISION PROPOSALS, AND PRESENTING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON MATTERS OF LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY. THE COMMISSION'S PRIMARY OBJECTIVE IS TO ENSURE RESPONSIBLE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT BY ADHERING TO ESTABLISHED PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND OVERSEEING THE ADMINISTRATION OF ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. THESE EFFORTS, EFFORTS ARE INTENDED TO UPHOLD THE SAFETY, WELFARE AND OVERALL WELLBEING OF THE RESIDENTS, THE WORKFORCE, AND THE VISITORS. [Consent Agenda] OKAY. NUMBER THREE ITEM ON OUR, OH, EXCUSE ME. NUMBER FOUR ITEM IS OUR CONGEN CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH IS TO CONSIDER ACTIONS ON THE MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 18TH, 2026 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MISSION MEETING. DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO THAT? OKAY. HAVING SEEN, KNOWN, DO I HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE APPROVAL YOU HAVE TO DO WITH THE, THE, UM, CHANGES TO THE WRITTEN. YOU GET A, SO I NEED A MOTION? YEAH, JUST TO, TO, YEAH. MOTION WITH A, WITH YOUR RULES, LIKE, UM, SO I'D LIKE TO, UH, MOVE, UM, WITH THE ADDITION OF, UM, MAKING THE CHANGE TO BOTH THE IN-PERSON COMMENTS AND THE, UM, [01:10:01] AND THE EMAIL COMMENTS BEING NOTED, UH, IN THE MINUTES. JUST SECOND. I SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. PASSES, MOVES [a. Hold a public hearing, present, discuss, and consider action on a request for a Planned Development Amendment, for 13.8+/- acres generally located on the north and south of Ponte Avenue and east of Bella Lane, currently zoned Planned Development (PD) through Ordinance No. O07-034 as amended by Ordinance Nos. O16-017 and O24-028, to approve a development plan with waivers to the development standards, including but not limited to, architectural standards for residential stoops and building massing standards. Case 1950-Z/Vitruvian Block 300.] ON. OKAY. AND AT THIS POINT, UM, I HAVE A, I HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM ANY OF THE UDR SECTION, SO I'M GONNA TURN THE MEETING OVER TO CHELSEA TO HANDLE. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO FOR THE REGULAR AGENDA, WE'RE GOING TO START WITH, UM, HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING TO PRESENT, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR 13.8 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES. UH, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF, UM, POINT AVENUE AND EAST OF VILLA LANE. CURRENTLY ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ORDINANCE NUMBER 0 0 7 0 3 4 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NUMBERS 0 1 6 0 1 7 AND 0 2 4 THROUGH 0 2 8 TO APPROVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH WAIVERS TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL STOOPS AND BUILDING MASSING STANDARDS. IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE MASONRY MASKING STANDARDS? UH, CASE NUMBER 1950, UH, Z VITRUVIAN BLOCK 300, COREY WITH THE STAFF REPORT. COREY, BE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. UM, TONIGHT I HAVE BEFORE YOU A DEVELOPMENT APP PLAN, APPROVAL REQUEST FOR VITRUVIAN, UM, FOR BLOCK 300, ROUGHLY, UH, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VITRUVIAN. THE SITE HISTORY FOR THIS, UH, OVERALL DEVELOPMENT, UM, IN 2007, THE INITIAL PD ZONING DISTRICT WAS ROUGHLY 99 ACRES. UM, AND THEN IN 2013, THERE WAS A PD EXPANSION TO INCLUDE THAT UPPER LEFT CORNER, WHICH IS, UH, NOW KNOWN AS THE BROOKHAVEN VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER. AND THAT WAS ROUGHLY 2100 ACRES. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, 122 GIVE OR TAKE ACRES, UH, FOR THIS ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT. IN 2016, WE DID HAVE A CONCEPT PLAN AMENDMENT, UM, WHICH ALSO INCLUDED A PD AMENDMENT THAT ADDED ADDITIONAL RETAIL AND OFFICE USES. THEN IN 2021, WE, UH, THERE WAS A PD AMENDMENT, UM, FOR THE TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT VILLAS AT FIOR. AND IN 2024, UH, FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA WE DID, THERE WAS A CONCEPT PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE, UH, GENERAL LAYOUT OF THE AREA AS WELL AS IMPROVING EMERGENCY ACCESS AND UNIT RE REALLOCATION. AND IN THAT CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL, UH, THERE WAS NO INCREASE TO THE OVERALL TOTAL APPROVED UNITS FOR THAT AREA OR FOR THE TOTAL OF VITRUVIAN. THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS THAT ARE, UM, FOR, UH, BEING PRESENTED TONIGHT INCLUDE MULTIFAMILY AND AMENITY BUILDING. UM, UH, I'M IN BLOCK 300. THE MULTIFAMILY IS IN BLOCK 3 0 1 AND 3 0 3. UH, MULTIFAMILY IS FIVE STORIES WITH 708 UNITS. UH, BETWEEN THE TWO, BETWEEN BLOCK 3 0 1 AND BLOCK 3 0 3, THERE'S 304 UNITS AND 404 UNITS. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS STRUCTURED AND ON STREET PARKING FOR RESIDENTS AND VISITORS AND, UH, STAFF FOR THE LEASING OFFICE AND EVERYTHING. THE PARKING THAT IS INCLUDED IS 1,048 TOTAL SPACES, UH, WITH MAJORITY OF THAT BEING PARKING GARAGE INSIDE OF BOTH THE MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS AND 69 ON STREET SPACES. I DO WANNA CLARIFY ON THE ON STREET SPACES. UM, I MENTIONED BELOW AS WELL THAT THERE IS EV CHARGING SPACES THAT IS ALSO ON STREET THAT IT DOES NOT, IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE 69. SO THERE'S ACTUALLY 82 92 ON STREET PARKING SPACES, UM, FOR THAT. AND INSIDE THE GARAGE, WHILE I'M ON THE EV CHARGING, UM, SPACES, IS, UH, THEY HAVE 16 EV READY PARKING SPACES. UH, SO THE REQUIREMENT FOR THAT WAS TO HAVE 42 SPACES. UM, AND THEY BROKE THAT UP BETWEEN ON STREET AND EV READY. IF WE EVER, UM, HAVE FIRE APPARATUSES THAT OUR FIRE MARSHAL IS CONFIDENT CAN FIGHT A, UH, POTENTIAL ELECTRICAL FIRE, UM, THEN THEY WOULD TURN THOSE EV READY SPACES INTO ELECTRIC EV CHARGING LOCATIONS, UM, BACK TO THE EXCEEDS MINIMUM . UM, SO THE, THE TOTAL PARKING SPACES DOES ACTUALLY EXCEED THE MINIMUM REQUIRED, UM, WHICH IS 938 SPACES. [01:15:01] UH, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT ROUGHLY 110 SPACES THAT THEY ARE OVER. AND, UH, THE PROPOSED PARKING RATIO IS 1.48 UNITS, PARKING SPACES PER UNIT. UH, THEY'RE ALSO PROVIDING 120 PARK BIKE PARKING SPACES, UH, ACROSS THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT IN GENERAL WITH MAJORITY OF THE BIKE PARKING SPACES BEING IN THE ACTUAL PARKING GARAGES IN A, LIKE A BI, A BIKE LOCKER ROOM. FOR THE UNIT MIX, WE HAVE, UH, BEDROOM STUDIOS ALL THE WAY UP TO THREE BEDROOMS, UM, WITH ROUGHLY 5% BEING STUDIOS, 62% BEING ONE BEDROOMS, 28 BEING 28% BEING TWO BEDROOMS, AND 5% BEING THREE BEDROOMS ACROSS BLOCK 3 0 1 AND 3 0 3. THE AVERAGE SIZE IS 84 SQUARE, SORRY, NOT EIGHTY FOUR, EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY FOUR SQUARE FEET, UM, FOR BOTH BLOCKS. FOR OPEN SPACE DEDICATION. UM, THE PD REQUIRES THE, UH, FOR PARK SPACE TO BE DEDICATED AT A DEDICATION RATIO. UM, I TRY TO BREAK THIS DOWN. IT'S A LITTLE, UH, CONFUSING. HOWEVER, UM, WE'VE GOT, UH, THE DEDICATION REQUIREMENT IS TWO ACRES PER 1000 RESIDENTS, UH, UP TO 2,250 RESIDENTS. THEN AFTER THE, THAT 200, 2,250 RESIDENCE IS MET, THEN IT'S 1.5 ACRES PER THOUSAND RESIDENTS AND BEYOND. UM, AND THE PD ALSO ASSUMES THAT IN OUR, UH, CALCULATION, WE HAVE 1.5 PERSONS PER UNIT. ALL THAT TO SAY . UM, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN BLOCKS 3 0 1 AND 3 0 3, UM, E ROUGHLY ASSUMES 1,062 RESIDENTS, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN 2.14 ACRES OF PARK, UH, LAND UDR HAS PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED 12 ACRES FOR VITRUVIAN PARK AND THIS PROJECT, THE, THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL, UH, PARK DEDICATION BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THAT 12 ACRES THAT WAS DEDICATED PREVIOUSLY FOR TREE MITIGATION. UM, THEY ARE, THE PROPOSAL IS TO REMOVE ALL TREES ON SITE. UM, SO IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE IN THIS PLAN. UM, BUT, UH, BASICALLY EXACTLY WHERE ALL THE BUILDINGS ARE IS WHERE ALL THE TREES ARE . SO, UM, SO THEY ARE FOR RE UM, PROPOSING TO REMOVE, UH, ALL TREES ON SITE. HOWEVER, THEY ARE GOING TO BE, UM, UH, REPLACING BY EITHER PLANTING OR PROVIDING, UM, UH, FEE IN LIEU OF, SO THEY ARE PLANTING A THOUSAND CALIBER INCHES ACROSS ALL THREE BLOCKS. UM, AND THE TABLE BREAKS DOWN PER, PER BLOCK, BUT IN GENERAL, THEY'RE PLANTING ABOUT A THOUSAND CALIBER INCHES, AND THEY ARE GOING TO BE PAYING, UM, FOR THE FEE IN LIEU OF FOR 1,618 CALIBER INCHES, WHICH IS EQUAL TO THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY SIX DOLLARS. THE AMENITY BUILDING IS 20, ROUGHLY 2,600. I'M SO SORRY, I'M GETTING MY NUMBERS REALLY MIXED UP TONIGHT. 6,200 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. UM, AND IT'S GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE NORTHERN, UM, NORTHERN PORTION OF THE CURRENT PROPOSAL. BUT WHEN YOU FACTOR IN, UM, FATE, THE NEXT PHASE, WHICH IS BLOCK 302, UM, IT IS COUNTER CENTRALLY LOCATED BETWEEN THE THREE OF THOSE. SO EACH OF THESE BUILDINGS WOULD HAVE A, UM, ACCESS TO IT, THE AMENITIES THAT WILL BE IN INCLUDED IN OUR LEASING OFFICE, A FITNESS FACILITY, RESIDENTIAL LOUNGES, COWORKING SPACE, A GAME ROOM, AND THE PRIVATE POOL THAT IS TO THE NORTH OF THE BUILDING. UH, THIS AREA OF THE OVERALL PROJECT IS ALSO, UM, PROVIDING 23%, UH, LANDSCAPE AREA WHERE 20% IS REQUIRED FOR THE ELEVATIONS IN THE BUILDING FACADES. THIS IS WHERE WE GET INTO TALKING ABOUT THE MASONRY REQUIREMENTS. UM, SO THE AMENITY BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE THREE STORIES, UM, WITH A MAX HEIGHT OF ROUGHLY 42 FEET. THE MATERIALS INCLUDE LIMESTONE VENEER AND FIBER CEMENT SIDING, AS WELL AS, UH, GLASS FOR THE GLAZING. UH, THE MASONRY RECOVERED. UM, COVERAGE DOES HAVE A RANGE. UM, AND I DID DO SOME ADDITIONAL CALCULATIONS, UM, WITHOUT INCLUDING, THERE'S ACTUALLY NO SUCKLE ON THIS ONE. UM, SO THE RANGES FOR THIS ONE IS 57% TO [01:20:01] 85% PER FACADE THAT FACES THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. AND THE MATERIALS THAT ARE PROVIDED, UM, HAVE A, UH, AN OFF-WHITE, UM, UH, LIMESTONE ALL THE WAY TO DARK GRAY AND BLACK FOR, UH, THE OTHER MATERIALS. BLOCK 3 0 1 IS A FIVE STORY MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING THAT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER. UM, THEY, THERE WILL BE A COUPLE OF AMENITIES IN THIS BUILDING AS WELL, WHICH INCLUDE THE INTERNAL COURTYARDS AND THE BIKE PARKING IN THE GARAGE. LIKE I DID MENTION, THOSE ARE BIKE PARKING LOCKER AREA. UM, SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN JUST HAVING A, UH, UM, UH, BIKE STALL. AND THIS PORTION OF THE PROJECT IS PROVIDING 20.26% LANDSCAPE AREA. AGAIN, 20% IS REQUIRED. UM, THE BREAKDOWN FOR BLOCK 3 0 1 FOR THE UNIT MIX IS, UM, UH, AGAIN 304 TOTAL UNITS WITH MAJORITY OF IT BEING, UH, ONE BEDROOM UNITS. THE FACADES FOR, UH, FOR BLOCK 3 0 1, UH, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS ROUGH, APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET. UM, AND IT DOES INCLUDE STUCCO, STONE MASONRY AND FIBER SMIT SIDING AS WELL AS THE GLAZING. UM, AND THE COVER MASONRY COVERAGE FOR THIS WITHOUT INCLUDING STUCCO AS MASONRY, UH, RANGE FROM 56 TO 64%. I DID DO SOME ADDITIONAL CALCULATIONS AND, UM, WITH INCLUDING STUCCO AS A MASONRY UNIT OR MASONRY CONSTRUCTION, IF YOU CHOOSE TO APPROVE THAT WAIVER. UH, WE ARE LOOKING, UM, IN THE NINETIES 90, 98 PERCENTILE FOR MAJORITY OF THE, UH, FACADES FOR BLOCK 3 0 3. AGAIN, THIS IS A FIVE STORY MULTIFAMILY BUILDING. THIS ONE IS ACTUALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, UM, AND IT HAS THE SAME AMENITIES AS 3 0 1 WITH INTERNAL COURTYARDS AND BIKE PARKING. UH, AND IT DOES PROVIDE 23% LANDSCAPE, UM, WITH THE UNIT BREAKDOWN BEING MOSTLY ONE BEDROOMS. BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN, UH, TWO BEDROOMS COMPARED TO 3 0 1 FOR BLOCK 3 0 3. THE MA THE, AGAIN, THE HEIGHT IS APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET. IT INCLUDES STUCCO, STONE, MASONRY FIBER, CEMENT, SIDING, AND GLAZING AS ITS MATERIALS. AND THE MASONRY COVERAGE WITHOUT STUCCO INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATIONS. IT RANGES FROM 60 TO 67% WITH STUCCO COUNTED. SHOULD YOU APPROVE. THE WAIVER REQUEST FOR THAT, UM, IS AGAIN, ON ANYWHERE FROM 93 TO 98% FOR THIS, UM, BUILDING THE PD DOES ALLOW FOR FLEXIBLE, SORRY, I GOTTA GET THE LANGUAGE FOR YOU. . UM, FLEXIBLE, UH, FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBLE STANDARDS, UM, WHICH SAYS THAT, UH, STANDARDS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN THE PREVIOUS SECTIONS, UM, CAN BE APPROVED, UH, WITH WAIVERS TO ANY OF THOSE STANDARDS BY ZONING, PLANNING OF ZONING COMMISSION, AND CITY COUNCIL. UM, AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE USES THAT ARE AUTHORIZED OR INCREASE THE INTENSITY OR DENSITY OF ANY OF THE LAND USES. UH, SO NONE OF THE WAIVERS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED, UM, ARE, UH, INCREASING THE INTENSITY OR, UM, OF IN OR DENSITY OF ANY OF THE, UH, USES, AND IT'S NOT CHANGING ANY OF THE USES AS WELL. SO THE FIRST ONE, FIRST WAIVER REQUEST THAT WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT IS THE STUCCO AS MASONRY RECONSTRUCTION. AS I DID MENTION, WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT THE FACADES, UM, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER THAT WOULD PERMIT STUCCO TO COUNT AS MASONRY CONSTRUCTION. UM, IT IS THE PREDOMINANT, UH, MATERIAL ON MOST ALL OF THE FACADES THAT WOULD FACE A, UH, PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. UM, DOING THIS, UM, THE PD DOES, UH, IDENTIFY MASONRY MATERIALS. GIVES US A SHORT LIST, BUT IT DOES SAY LIMITED TO OR NOT LIMITED TO. UM, AND STUCCO IS NOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS MASONRY. UH, OTHER EXISTING VITRUVIAN DEVELOPMENTS HAVE, UM, HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO COUNT MASONRY AS THE, AS, UM, SORRY, COUNT STUCCO AS MASONRY . UM, AND OFTEN ISTI OFTENTIMES IS THE PRIMARY, UH, MATERIAL FOR THAT. UM, I WAS ABLE TO FIND THE VI TRIVIUM WEST, UM, UH, PHASE ONE AND IT DOES, UH, INCLUDE STUCCO AS MASONRY TO BE ABLE TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT OF 80% QUI OF [01:25:01] REQUIRED MASONRY. UM, STAFF DOES FIND THAT THIS REQUESTED WAIVER IS CONSISTENT WITH THE, UM, EXTERIOR APPEARANCE STANDARDS AND, UM, AND IT IS BECAUSE IT'S A PRIMARY FACADE MATERIAL THAT IS IN OTHER MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE ALSO IN THE NI VI TRIVIAN AREA. THE SECOND WAIVER THAT IS BEING REQUESTED IS FOR THE, UM, BLOCK 3 0 3 PARKING GARAGE. THE PD HAS A STANDARD THAT SAYS THAT PARKING GARAGES, UH, CANNOT HAVE ANY MORE THAN 200 FEET EXPOSED, UM, ELEVATION OR BUILDING FACADE FOR, UM, FOR THOSE. SO THE REQUEST IS TO EXCEED THAT, THAT MAXIMUM BY 47%, SORRY, 47 FEET, UM, BECAUSE THE MAXIMUM IS 200, THEY'RE PROPOSING 247. HOWEVER, THE PD DOES ALLOW FOR EXCEPTIONS, UM, AND THAT EXCEPTION IS THAT THEY MUST PROVIDE, UH, ENHANCED FACADE MATERIALS. SO THE PROPOSED GARAGE DOES INCLUDE RIBBED METAL SCREENING, UH, APPROXIMATELY EVERY 44 FEET OF THE 247, UM, LENGTH, FOOT LENGTH OF THE PARKING GARAGE. UM, THAT DOES HELP WITH THE SCREENING AS WELL AS, UM, THE OVERALL BUILDING DESIGN AND TREATMENT OF THAT, UH, GARAGE FACADE. UH, SO THAT IS PART OF WHAT, UH, STAFF BELIEVES COULD BE INCLUDED IN THE ENHANCED FACADE ELEMENTS IF YOU CHOOSE TO, UH, APPROVE THIS WAIVER REQUEST. AND THE LAST WAIVER REQUEST IS FOR, UH, THE BUILD TO LINE AREA FOR THE AMENITY BUILDING. UM, THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT FOR TYPE CCE STREETS, WHICH ALL OF THE STREETS THAT ARE PROPOSED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE TYPE C, UM, IS REQUIRED A MINIMUM OF 70% OF THE BUILDING TO BE WITHIN THE BUILD. TWO LINE, UH, SPECIFICALLY FOR TYPE C IS A SIX FOOT TO NINE FOOT AREA, UM, THAT, THAT BUILDING MUST BE WITHIN. UH, THE PROPOSED AMENITY BUILDING IS, HAS 53.5% OF THE BUILDING AND UH, AND BASICALLY THEN MAKES A LARGE PLAZA IN THE CORNER WHERE THEY ARE NOT MEETING THAT REQUIREMENT. SO IN THE YELLOW ON THE PICTURE IS THE AREA THAT IS CONSIDERED THE BUILT TO AREA FOR THIS PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT. AND WHAT IS IN RED IS THE ONLY PARTS OF THE BUILDING THAT MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. UM, SO THAT TRIANGLE THAT'S CREATED IS, HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENHANCE PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY AND IS ALSO THERE BECAUSE OF SITE, UH, VISIBILITY WITH THE INTERSECTION. IT IS A Y INTERSECTION, SO IT DOES CAU COULD CAUSE SOME PROBLEMS IF A BUILDING WAS BUILT ALL THE WAY UP TO THAT CORNER. STAFF DID NOTICE FOR THIS PROJECT. WE ACTUALLY DID NOTICE FOR IT TWICE, UM, SINCE IT WAS POSTPONED AT OUR LAST MEETING. UM, SO WE DID NOTICE AGAIN, UM, WE HAVE NOT, UH, RECEIVED ANY FEEDBACK, UM, WRITTEN FEEDBACK AND STAFF DID EVALUATE ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPO PLANS AS WELL AS THE WAIVERS. AND SHOULD THE WAIVERS BE RE UM, APPROVED, IT WOULD MEET DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT, UM, STANDARDS. AND I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE FOR STAFF AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT OR A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT IS IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL. COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS, UH, THIS IS KIND OF A BROAD QUESTION, BUT THE, YOU GAVE IN THE WAIVER ON THE PARKLAND BECAUSE OF THE LARGER, UH, DEDICATED PARK AREA, I THINK 12 ACRES, I BELIEVE, IN OTHER WORDS, THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH IT SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS PROJECT BECAUSE THE BROADER PROJECT, YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS, BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS THIS HAS BEEN APPROVED TO A BUILD OUT NUMBER, THE OVERALL PROJECT. ARE YOU COMFORTABLE THAT WE ARE NOT KIND OF PUSHING THIS DOWN THE ROAD AND AT THE END OF THE PROJECT WE'LL HAVE A, A SHORTFALL? IN OTHER WORDS, WAS THAT 12 ACRES CONTEMPLATING THE 5,000 UNITS OR IS IT EVEN CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE OVERALL PLAN? YEAH, FROM THE RESEARCH THAT I DID ON THE CONCEPT PLAN, UM, UH, FROM THE APPROVED ONE, THE 12 ACRES SHOULD HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION A FULL COMPLETE BUILD OUT. UM, AND WITH THIS PROJECT ACTUALLY LOWERING THE UNIT COUNT, UM, IT WOULD NOT PUSH IT OVER. THANKS. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'M, GO AHEAD TYLER. UH, THANKS. THANKS CHAIR. UM, [01:30:01] COREY, I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. UM, WE'RE JUST VOTING ON WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO ALLOW THESE WAIVERS CORRECT. AND TWO, DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON EACH INDIVIDUAL WAIVER OR, UM, THE, THE APPLICATION IS FOR THE APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS. DEVELOPMENT PLANS, YES. SO, UH, THE VOTE TONIGHT OR MOTION TONIGHT WOULD BE ON APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS. MM-HMM . UM, WITH OR WITHOUT THE WAIVERS. UM, SO, UH, SO WHICHEVER, IF YOU THINK ALL OF THEM ARE APPROPRIATE, UM, THEN YOU WOULD APPROVE ALL OF THEM OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL. UM, IF YOU DON'T THINK SO, THEN YOU WOULD RECOMMEND, UM, NOT INCLUDING CERTAIN ONES. UNDERSTOOD. UM, I DO WANNA ALSO MENTION, UM, THAT, THANK YOU FOR THAT REMINDER. UM, THERE IS, UH, A LO SOME CRITERIA ON, UM, WHAT CAN AND CAN'T BE VOTED ON FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANS. UM, SO IF THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS MEET THE CONCEPT PLAN, UM, THEN THEY ARE, UH, THEN WE'RE JUST KIND OF GOING THROUGH FORMALITY AND WE'RE, WE WOULD BE APPROVING THEM. UM, IF THEY ARE OUTSIDE OF THE FLEXIBILITY THAT IS ALLOWED PER THE PD OR THE PD REVIEW CRITERIA, UM, THEN A NEW APPLICATION HAS TO BE MADE, UM, WITH THEM ONLY, UH, CHANGING THE UNIT COUNT 4.8%. THEY ARE NOT, THEY ARE WITHIN THAT FLEXIBILITY. UM, 'CAUSE THE FLEXIBILITY IS UP TO 5%, UM, OF UNIT OF A CHANGE IN UNITS. SO I, I DO HAVE A, A QUESTION ON, IN GENERALLY, I'M, I AGREE WITH MOST OF THE CHANGES. MOST OF THEM ARE FOR GOOD, KIND OF EASILY UNDERSTOOD REASONS. THE BUILDING MATERIALS IS THE ONE THAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH, AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE PD WAS DRAFTED WITH A REQUIREMENT FOR A REASON. IT ALSO COMPORTS VERY CLOSELY WITH OUR NORMAL PROCESS. AND IF YOU LOOK AT OUR CODE, WE HAVE THE SAME 80% AND WE DO NOT ALLOW STUCCO AT ALL, UH, UH, ON A FACING BUILDING. I'M ASSUMING THIS IS A COST ISSUE. UH, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT, NOT A BUILDER, BUT I'M ASSUMING IT'S A COST ISSUE. SO I AM STRUGGLING WITH THAT. THE REST OF THE VARIANCES I'M FINE WITH, BUT THAT ONE IN PARTICULAR, I'M REALLY DISPOSED TO HAVING THEM STAY WITH THE PD REQUIREMENTS AS DEFINED AND AS THEY'VE AGREED TO AN ORIGINAL PLAN. SO JUST AS A COMMENT, YEAH, I'LL DEFER TO THE APPLICANT FOR, UM, THE REASONING FOR STUCCO. UM, AND I'M WAITING FOR MY COMPUTER TO, TO COME UP, UM, AND I CAN VERIFY, UH, BUILDING MATERIALS FOR YOU. SO COREY, DO YOU WANT US TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE APPLICANT COME UP WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT? UM, YEAH, THAT WOULD, THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU. HI THERE. CAN, CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME OKAY? YES, SIR. YEAH. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. MY NAME IS ROBERT ST. JOHN AND MY ADDRESS IS 35 46 SOUTH OGDEN STREET, INGLEWOOD, COLORADO. UH, AS IT RELATES TO THE, THE STUCCO QUESTION, IT'S A FAIR QUESTION. AND, AND, AND COREY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT OUR SPECIFIC PD, IT, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE OR EXCLUDE STUCCO. AND SO IN YEARS PAST, UM, IT'S REALLY BEEN MORE OF A AESTHETIC COMPONENT AND, AND WORKING WITH THE ARCHITECT AS WELL AS, AS WELL AS A COST, UM, PIECE AS WELL. JEEP IS THE ARCHITECT FOR THIS PROJECT. UH, THEY ALSO WERE THE ARCHITECT FOR FURY ON VITRI PARK. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE, THE COMPOSITION OF THE FACADE AT FRE SPECIFICALLY THERE, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF STUCCO. UM, AND THAT BUILDING WAS BUILT IN 2013. IT'S HELD UP VERY WELL. THE, THE STUCCO SYSTEM BEING CONTEMPLATED WOULD BE A TRUE THREE CODE SYSTEM. UM, SO IT WOULD BE VERY DURABLE LONGER TERM. AND THE, THE ACCENT MATERIALS, UM, FEATURE, THERE'S A, THERE'S A VERY NICE NIETZCHE HA UM, WOOD LOOK, FIBER CEMENT PANEL SIMILAR TO THE WOOD PANEL ON FURY ACTUALLY. AND PART OF THE, THE DESIGN AESTHETIC IS, IS NOT SO MUCH, UM, YOU KNOW, SUCH A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF STUCCO, BUT IT REALLY HELPS BRING OUT THE ACCENT MATERIALS AND HIGHLIGHT THOSE EVEN MORE. AND WHERE YOU ARE SEEING THAT STUCCO OCCUR ON THE FACADE, A LOT OF TIMES IT'S ACTUALLY THE INSETS OF THOSE, OF THOSE BALCONIES. SO IT'S NOT AS PROMINENT, UM, AS LIKE THE MASONRY THAT THAT RUNS UP THE BUILDING LEVELS ONE THROUGH THREE. AND THEN THE AMENITY BUILDING SPECIFICALLY, THERE'S ACTUALLY NO, UM, ON BLOCK 300. HOPEFULLY THAT, THAT'S HELPFUL. BUT I'M, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER IT. SO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT CO DO YOU HAVE THE CLARIFICATION? YES. UM, I DID, UH, PULL THE BUILDING MATERIALS. UH, WE DO ALLOW STUCCO AS A, UM, AS [01:35:01] A MATERIAL FOR, UH, FACADES. HOWEVER, IT'S FACADES NOT VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC STREET. OKAY, THANK YOU. I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NUMBER, UH, 1950 Z VITRUVIAN BLOCK 300. UH, DO WE HAVE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, HEARING NONE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING AT 6 45. COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? NO, NONE HERE. OKAY. DO I HAVE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE 1950 Z VITRUVIAN BLOCK 300 WITH THE THREE, UM, UH, WAIVERS AS REQUESTED. I'LL SECOND THAT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NO. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE AYE. AYE. SOUNDS LIKE IT'S PASSED. DO WE NEED TO GET DENISE BACK IN HERE? OKAY, . PERFECT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COREY. THANKS. I DID WANNA TAKE AWAY YOUR COMMENT SECTION FOR YOU. OKAY. YEAH, I WAS GONNA SAY, OKAY, NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE. I THINK IT'S REALLY SIX. I THINK THERE WAS A TYPE ON YOUR AGENDA. JUST SO YOU KNOW, PUBLIC COMMENT. UH, AT THIS TIME, CITIZENS WILL BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTER OTHER THAN PERSONAL MATTERS UNDER LITIGATION FOR A LENGTH OF TIME, NOT TO EXCEED THREE MINUTES. NO P AND Z ACTION OR DISCUSSION MAY TAKE PLACE ON ANY MATTER UNTIL SUCH MATTER HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE AGENDA AND POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ANYONE ONLINE? OKAY. HAVING SEEN NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND AT THIS POINT WE ARE ADJOURNED FOR THE EVENING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.