Apr 18, 2018 Development Code Review Committee on 2018-04-18 9:00 AM

>> Are missing two of the members, we're missing one of the council members. So on the agenda we have considered an appointment for chair and vice chair. And I'm recommending that perhaps we table that and John, if you're willing to serve as chair today just to run the meeting. We could just do that as just a point of order. And ultimately we'll wait on the meeting minutes as well and then we can talk a little further about our time discussion . I'm gonna try to do that via do the poll and hopefully that will kind of narrow down the focus of where everybody's at on both. If you've had an opportunity to see the do the poll yet or if you've seen the poll before, pardon me? >> I've already did it last night. >> Okay, so you must have been the other response. >> Well, you should be able to see it. You should be able to see everybody's availability and then I'll narrow that down to time windows. So we'll try to get the best days. So whatever day or days that we end up with and then narrow it down to the time windows to see what those might look like. At least then we don't have to try to compare calendar sitting here and working through that. So that may take another week to do just based on what responses we get. I'll set up a meeting for next week if you're good with that. So we can just kind of keep proceeding through this. The other piece to that would be the minutes is that we'll just kind of preserve. Well, I guess we can work through the minutes or we can leave the minutes for the next week. So kind of the complete committee or hopefully the complete committee can kind of get this into a regular process and not be as bumpy as what we've been. So I apologize for that for any number of reasons of why we 're here today and the condition that we are going forward. Most importantly, I think that Clarion being in town is the ability for you as committee members to truly be able to get into whatever it is that you'd like to get into as far as specifics. They have a presentation that they put on for council last night. They're gonna put it on for PNZ today. I asked them to skip the presentation as far as the in depth because you will see it this evening rather than just to hit the high points of what those significant changes are and then that way you can kind of be able to just get into the material a little bit more. I think they're gonna give a little context so at least it makes sense as to where it is and we talked about this yesterday at Lane. So I think that they have a good handle on that. Any direction or questions for me? Anything that you'd like for me to do? With that being said, I'll just bring you to the meeting and ultimately Clarion has got the presentation prepared for you. >> Okay, since we've tabled items A and B, we'll move on to C. Hold the discussion, provide staff with direction regarding meeting frequency. I think we've kind of already discussed that on that poll. So unless there's additional comment on that, we'll move on to item D, which is hold the discussion regarding the purpose and reporting guidelines for the committee. >> Okay, with that being said, what the intent of first, I think what might work best is we'll work through this, we'll capture minutes, what it is that the committee is recommending, suggesting thoughts, ideas, and staff will report to, respectively to council as well as to PNZ in a weekly update. So we'll provide those updates, give that comment and feedback of our progress where we've made it to. So for example, today if we were working on sub-chapter one , we talked about sub-chapter one. These were the recommendations of the committee or suggestions of the committee meeting. It's good as written. There's some suggestions to re-review or look at these components. We're also soliciting public input and feedback, so we may not be complete with what it is. But at least rather than having to rehash the entire sub-ch apter one with council and or commission that we're able to give a higher level update and really what the committee's thoughts and ideas and direction is for staff to be able to continue that work. I'm not sure if there's any other thoughts or ideas with that. >> Yeah, I guess my question is as far as updating as we go , what is the timeframe on that? Because we've talked about keeping, pretty much keeping the new code as an electronic document. Is that just gonna look like notes on there or is it gonna be the actual rewrite? I'd use as an example the R4 that's come in isn't in sections of it. So if we wanted to make some changes on something so we can see what that change is and then kind of revisit to make sure that that change was proper. >> And I'm gonna let Clarion answer that. I just have one caveat that I'm gonna add in addition to that. So we're gonna attempt to work off of a one drive document like we have to the past where it is staff provided feedback to you. So if we have changes that we're suggesting that we can all work off of a single document, I'm verifying with IT that we're gonna be capable of doing that with those that do not have a city email address or if we can set up a city email address to do that. So that we have a single document rather than do a drop box . And then we can go back to how you traditionally do when kind of the time frame we need to compile. >> So with each of the three parts that have been drafted for the district's uses piece and the procedures and now finding this module three, the development students piece, we've been getting feedback continuously both from the public and from staff. We don't make changes to those drafts until the consolidated draft which is coming next. When we knit all three pieces together into a single document, that's when you're gonna see most of the changes. And we will note in there specifically, here's how it's different from your current code like we've done with each piece. But also here's a change that was made since module one or since module two. This is a change that is proposed with the consolidated draft. So that's how you'll track it. This R4 piece is a little bit unique. We don't traditionally do that. We don't continue to update the code as we go because you would never get to the end if you did that. So this is treated as an addendum. The main purpose of that is to have a conversation with the community about the zoning map. They wanted to have something in place that is closer to where we think the districts and uses will end up before adoption. So that's why that piece was streamlined. >> How are the public comments being compiled? Is that being assembled in some kind of a spreadsheet or? >> Everything needs to go through staff. >> Right. >> They're the placeholder. Even with this OneDrive concept, if comments are coming from council, they all need to be vetted through staff before they make their way to us. >> How are the public comments being vetted? >> We've got comment cards that we've established. >> Right. >> So that is -- >> Then what are you doing? >> We then take that and take the comments and insert it into a spreadsheet. >> Okay. >> So we've got it all put into one spreadsheet. >> And then you'll have like a response? >> Correct. >> As to where it is already in the code. >> What we're doing with one group, we have similar comments in the grouping. But we also are receiving emails, so it's not just the comment cards written. So we're talking to someone where we're making sure we're taking notes. But if phone call or walk-ins, public open houses, but if they want to submit through email or online, they can do that as well. And we'll make sure to copy those and put that into the same spreadsheet. >> Where can we see this spreadsheet? Is it online? >> It's probably just in-house. It's not online. But we can provide that to you. >> Okay. >> We can share that. We can share that as we go. And the purpose in that is the spreadsheet is really to try to categorize where those comments really belong or if they hit multiple sections and then distill those comments down. Because somebody -- >> Okay. >> -- one person makes a comment isn't necessarily going to make a change in the code. However, if we have 100 people saying the same thing, then we ultimately are going to distill that down to the point of where it is that we make recommendations. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. That's good. Thanks. >> So I guess a follow-up then would be since we're not going to get anything rewritten until we get to the final draft, is are we going to be looking at it from a 30,000-foot level now and then we'll come back down to the ground and go back over? Detail or? >> You can do either. >> Well, I think overall we're going to be getting into the weeds. >> Right. >> We're going to get into the detail on this. The difference is I don't think as a committee you can probably make the best decisions without getting all of the public input. So how much public input are we going to receive? We may think collectively if we talk through something from our perspective that this is the best decision we can make. >> Okay. >> So I guess I'll just say that we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> So we're going to have to do that. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> It's just a different process. When we did the subchapter, the ESA, we did it bit by bit, and she showed the ones, the specific changes, because not everything is going to be changed, right? So there was just changes that we went through, and then we worked on it for several, several meetings, and then that was the final draft, and that went to the public. Then the comments, then it came back, and so it wasn't, you know, living change, change, change. It was something that we went through, and then the public got, and then we got back again to look at the comments and then make changes there. So it's just a different -- >> I actually think it's a similar process. >> Is it? Okay. >> He's saying it's a living document, but in our mind, you all are making comments on it internally. That feedback is going to come back to Clarion at some point as a one file, here are all of Denton's comments that we want you to address, and then we turn around another draft of the entire BBC, and that is what goes out to the public. >> As that's what we're proposing to adopt. >> Okay. >> So they'll have time to review the public document, the final changes. Okay. >> Yes. It's just a matter of how is it we best get -- going to the transparency piece, how do we get this out to the public? So we're giving them all of what we're proposing to do, so they get it in bite-sized pieces. We're going to do the hard work. We're going to -- and ultimately, we get that feedback. Well, they may not understand the context of something today as they make a comment, but they're going to be able to understand it. So if you looked at module two or module one, you didn't have module three, so can you get the whole relationship, and then you can't. So you're just looking at pieces and parts. >> And is this still conceivably going to be completed this year? The idea is to complete it this year where it's implemented and developers can -- >> Do you have the draft calendar? >> I seem to remember September being -- >> Yeah, so if we -- >> Yeah, we are obviously -- >> Everything has been drafted at least once. There is a public draft of the third module that is supposed to come to the south. So now we're going to -- we want to put together the clean est consolidated draft that we can based on all of the feedback that we've received to this point and that we received up until the end of April so that when everything is put together into one document, it represents as much feedback as possible. We're close, and we're talking about the next month when that document comes back and is vetted for public review until you get it to the adoption phase. So it is absolutely feasible that you're looking at late summer, early fall. >> Perfect. Okay. Okay. Any other -- then we will move on to item E, receive a report, hold a discussion, provide staff on the development code update to include the draft zoning map and receive a presentation from Clarion regarding development module three. >> So for a couple of you, you saw the presentation yesterday. For the planning commissioners, you did not see that presentation yet, but you will tonight, and we're going to skip over a lot of the stuff that's in here and just land on the big focal points like Scott mentioned. So thanks for your time today. Just starting with the overall table of contents, this third piece of the rewrite, the development quality standards, there's a lot of information here, probably more to digest than the previous modules, but a lot of important features here. We have rolled in things like the ESA ordinance that was just adopted. We have reformatted it. Still a little bit of cleanup necessary just to get the cross references right, but that was carried forward. We organized this chapter, this subchapter, from the ground up. So beginning with things, how do we look at the site overall? How do we capture grading and drainage and piped infrastructure? How do we think about the landscaping after that before we even get to the building design? And then what happens after the building design when we think about the parking and exterior lighting and electric standards? So all of that is in this third and final piece. We're not going to talk about each of those in terms of the formal presentation. Certainly it's all on the table for discussion with this group especially. So we'll take any questions that you have. What I'm going to do for this presentation is just skip ahead to the summary of changes in some of the big ones like landscaping, parking, building design, and lighting. And then we'll just sit down and have a discussion. We can walk through subchapter six, the development standards. We can talk about subdivision. If you have questions that are unrelated to this module three, that's fine too. Your committee is charged with providing that level of feedback through all of the different parts of the code. So let's dive right in. I'm going to skip through some of the fun pictures. Landscaping, screening, buffering, and fences. A lot of changes here. First and foremost, and you'll see this throughout the development standards, is that there's a lot more wiggle room given to staff at the director level. There are procedures for alternative compliance to allow you to propose something different, still meeting the intent of the code, but giving you a little bit of flexibility due to site conditions or because Denton has so much opportunity for infill and redevelopment. This is particularly important in landscaping, and we've heard a lot about issues. Well, you're requiring street trees. Well, the utility lines are in the only area where I could provide street trees. So how am I supposed to do that? Yeah, that makes sense. That's just good common sense development, and staff wants to be able to work with those conditions and find a solution that works for everybody. Sure. Wildflowers? Yes. Oh, sure. Yeah, there's nothing that would prohibit that type of thing. I think you'd have to -- there's a fine line between weeds and wildflowers, but that's a good enforcement question, and your nuisance team might have something to say about that. But generally, in the code part of this, there's nothing that would prohibit you from doing something like that. Simplified the buffering standards. This is pretty new. Right now, you do have buffering standards. You recognize that there are challenges with some types of land uses adjacent to less intense land uses. And the bigger the difference in those land use types, the greatest example is single-family residential next to higher-intensity non-residential uses -- commercial , industrial. How do we treat those transitions? Well, we can do that through buffers. Certain incompatible uses require more points. We're moving to a point-based system for buffering. Larry. Yeah. Who benefits from the points? I'm not sure I fully understand who benefits from the point system. Do the developers get this for later down the road and what they can and can't do with mitigation? I'm sorry. I just -- and if it's going to be too elaborate, we can deal with it later. But I was -- I didn't understand the point system. Let's jump right in. So a lot of communities use -- this is basically a performance-based zoning tool where instead of having a black-and-white regulation that says, here is how you shall do development, you can say, there are probably a lot of good ways to address the issue, which is incompat ible land uses and how do we buffer between those. You as a development community probably have a lot of good ideas for how you might treat that scenario. We're not going to limit you. What we're going to do is say we still have a minimum bar that needs to be set, which is the base point system. You need more points, the more incompatibility there is. But we're not going to tell you exactly how to get there. If you want to build a wall, that will get you more points. Okay. If you want to have a wider buffer, that gets you more points. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. What it seemed like it was saying is, yeah, we were still specifying what they need, what's allowed. Yeah. We were giving them points for it, and I don't understand. Well, we're not awarding points. I should be clear on that. Okay. Points are not awarded. You have to earn a certain number of points to meet the code. So if you are industrial next to single-family use, you need to earn 50 points of buffering. All right. And you can earn those points through lots of different methods. I thought it was something they could cash in later. No, you cannot collect your chips and use them for other things. Gotcha. All right. Thanks. And we will have a specific table of what equals certain points? Yes. Turn to page 55 in module three. Yeah. So you can see how this works. You need 50 points. I mentioned the single-family residential adjacent to industrial, and I know, Ms. Braggs, you brought up yesterday, we're not even going to approve that scenario. You might have some of that on the ground now. And so to get those points, you're going to see very quickly, you need to use a lot more of those buffering options to hit that 50 points. There's no one thing in that table that gets you there. So you have to use a combination at that point. Street trees, shrubs, are you finding it? On page 55? Yeah, 54 and 55, I think. 55, 56. Okay. 6.7.4. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Where is it showing they have to have a total number? So the first table, which you're looking at actually, shows the developing uses in that first column. So that's what's being proposed. If you're proposing that developing use, now you look across that top row, what is adjacent to me? And then you find the cell that says, here's how many points you need. Then the following table, the shorter table on the opposite page says, here are some options for earning points. Got it. And I might also add, I think it is safe to say, this is definitely not less restrictive. I don't want to say that it's more restrictive. I want to say that it's designed to build a better event. So we know the importance of buffering and landscaping, and we're trying to promote that. We're just trying to provide the flexibility in doing it. But it certainly isn't less restrictive than what we have today. It just gives them more choice. It's just smarter. Okay. It'll be more appropriate, especially when we talk about the infill development. I have a question on the--I'm sorry. Oh, go ahead. So how does this--will this correlate with the tree code? Because I do see trees here as an option. Would those kind of be added extra if they were doing development and they had to reach a certain amount, or would it be counted towards? I mean, are you--is this an extra addition, or is it going to be allowed for their credits? Yes, it'll be allowed for their credits in the landscaping, not going to take away from the tree code. And that's where I was trying to explain how complicated the tree code is and how it is that we have to look at other means for canopy. So when we talk about parking lot standards, we're going to talk about trees and increasing tree and tree canopy, which also may count towards their landscaping, not necessarily towards their buffering. So there'll be credits given because if you add more trees by requirement, it isn't necessarily going to add to what the buffering requirements are, if that makes sense. Unless you have a more open-ended way of putting it. No, I think that's right. You can double count things. If I've got trees on the site, whether I'm using them in the buffer or for my general tree requirement, those trees count. And the same goes for parking lot landscaping. If you are requiring me in the parking section to provide landscaping in the parking lot, that also counts towards your minimum landscaping required because it's all part of your site. But if it's still required, it's not going to... It's still required. Because you're preserving a patch of trees and, say, the back of the site, you're still going to be required to have them. Correct. You're going to have both. You're going to have both more. Increasing the canopy. Digging into the weeds just a little bit on the table of the buffer elements, do we have a definition of ornamental versus large tree? And if so, on ornamental, I would imagine that three-inch is probably going to be very difficult to get three-inch caliper ornamental because I think of that as a desert willow or your understory trees, that's almost their maximum size. And that's another part of the tree code that we're working through is those defining caliper and how we're measuring tree, whether it's tree DBH or if we're talking about the canopy and several different elements to doing that. And so with that, that is where some of these will come in like the certain types of trees that would qualify because there are some currently like a crape myrtle is considered a tree, which it's not. It doesn't actually have the exact benefits that a tree would, a regular tree. Different tree. Right. And then it'll all be addressed in the tree code. Okay. But then that will reference back here. I mean, they'll kind of go hand in hand with what's allowed . Okay. And then I think as part of that, the criteria manual, it 'll give you that sort of breakdown of tree type or designation of trees. It was my understanding too, if I may, that the tree code was going to fall from canopy rather than diameter. Has that changed or do we, I know the state did some things to us that kind of tied our hands, but is that still there? That's where the draft is at. Okay. Is with tree canopy. Okay. And again, we're just looking at other opportunities to improve tree canopy where the tree code doesn't address that meaning in landscaping and parking lots. Okay. Okay. Good. Thanks. But yeah, generally the trees that are regulated through the tree code and through the appropriate species list that is retained on file with staff, that all applies to buffer and landscaping standards as well. Same trees. Okay. Other questions about this, about the, just the point-based buffer system? I think this is good. We should be getting into this level of dialogue before we just move on to other topics. This will probably be where you get a lot from the public tonight too, I suspect. Yeah. Yeah. So be prepared. Well, yeah. And questions are going to come up about trees and tree code and we can do a little bit through the development code. Some of that is just fluid right now and so we'll be prepared. Okay. All right. Another important change and feature of this revised landscaping screening buffering is LID, and low impact development practices. A lot of these are green infrastructure options that talk about instead of putting water into pipes underneath the ground or draining directly onto imper vious surfaces, how can we actually treat water as it moves across a site? Through rain gardens, through bioretention facilities, through swales even, through porous pavers which you currently allow as a replacement for some parking. Those types of things actually are better than providing big concrete pipes underneath the ground and can be cheaper. So rather than mandating that approach, we have listed this as an option that could be considered for developers that would like to do this. I think what you might see in the consolidated draft is more of an incentive to do that type of development because just improving the water quality and reducing runoff is a good thing for development. And so we have included them as options. So I'd encourage you to look through those and let us know if there are others. This requires a lot of coordination with Public Works, with engineering, just to make sure that they have best management practices to accommodate these types of features, and they do, and making sure that we reference those materials accordingly. The incentive being that it would be cheaper for the developer to do the LID practice as opposed to digging a ditch and putting a pipe in the ground to remove water, right? Yeah, it's actually better for the treatment of water, and a lot of these features are actually very nice, aesthetically pleasing features. Agreed. There could be other incentives too for the developer, not only the cost savings, but maybe if you do a bioswale, maybe that counts as a higher percentage for the landscaping requirements. So there's different tools that you can use in the code to say, "Maybe I don't want to do a bioswale, but it makes more sense for me to do that, because if I do that, then I don't have to do something else that maybe wouldn't have to be done in the past." So on that, I know that the Committee on the Environment, we passed a resolution, and we discussed it recently, like the razor ranch out here. A lot was developed under I-SWIM, and that we had a discussion that we would like for that to be in the code. I know here it's referred to low-impact development, but I think that's kind of the same thing. So will we be making reference to that? Because I know that in the Committee, we would like for that to be done on commercial property more often than not. We actually did reference I-SWIM in the purpose statement for these LID principles for low-impact development, recognizing the work that's already been done. That's a big deal that you should celebrate. Denton's an I-SWIM community, and by gosh, we're going to start requiring this stuff at some point, and we want it to be this way. They've received what Council had just passed as far as ESA , so they've just received that information the last couple of weeks, and of course, incorporating it in this. The I-SWIM, we had different discussions on it a while back , too, but anybody that's driven the razor ranch property on the site can see what a benefit that is to the area. Where is that referenced? It's actually on page 61, where we talk about site design for low-impact development. The last sentence of that purpose statement, and we've got a footnote saying Denton is silver certified in I-SWIM, and this is something. Beyond that technical aspect of it, two years ago when we met with stakeholders, part of the challenge with the current landscaping standards was, well, why don't we just take what they did in razor ranch and put that into the code? That was a big driver for what you see on the page here. If that was referenced, too, in the updated drainage manual s that was just passed as well. So that's the route. So we're consistent. Right. We're working very hard, and this is just truly a smarter code. It's simpler, but it's a smarter code, and it is that we had not only best practices, but even trying to get us to contemporary practices, because so many of the things that we've done, we just kind of did because we've always done them. And this really takes that, and Clarion has done a great job of integrating all of our different components, all of our criteria and analysis, as well as the different chapters that we're going to have included as part of the code. Okay. I should note, some communities require that you do LID to a certain extent. Not a lot. Most of them are still in the optional phase, which is how it's been drafted here. But again, we'll work with staff. We'll hear your opinions, too, on whether or not this should be a bigger incentive for those to be achieved. Has there been discussion of what the incentives might be? Has that ongoing discussion been started? I think one thing we had talked about was just getting more credit towards your required landscaping, so saying maybe less landscaping percentage is required if you're going to use these types of features, because you're doing the same type of treatment that a larger landscaped area would provide for the site. Is that something we're planning to put in the code, is what the incentives are? Yeah, that's the question here today. Right now, you have a little bit of that, just with your porous pavers, if you're exceeding the maximum parking limit, you say, well, you can do that, but everything above that point needs to be porous. I'm not sure we're going to carry that forward, but there are other things you can do in your parking lot, like putting a swale and cutting the curb to let the water drain through into that swale rather than following the curb line out into the street. There may be credits to your required parking for that. If you could check with the Catherine Barnett from our environmental committee, because I do believe that it was recommended that we, from this point as we were developing the new code, at least require some part of that lot to be ice- born. Okay. It's a recommendation from the committee. Great. This is the opportunity then. So if we can go back to that, if we can have the minutes pulled from that committee and then pull them up to discuss here, maybe we can talk about incentives. So from our recollection, that's where we wanted to go. Okay. That's helpful. I see Scott jotting that down and Athena typing away, so we will not lose that thought. Okay. And I've got a concern. This is more in the long-term of items, but on the street trees that we're requiring them to be between the sidewalk and the street, because that is generally all right away easement area and that's where utilities come back in. When files came through town, we lost a lot of trees over the next couple of years because they bored underneath them and the root system got torn up. We say with any certain distance behind there as well that you don't end up losing those trees over time because of it being right away that could potentially be disturbed and dug up. And that is the very reason we included that alternative landscaping provision in there to say there's a lot of that going on in Denton. We heard that loud and clear. You need to have the flexibility to put trees where they're going to survive, where they're going to be most appropriate. And I might add some other conversations that are taking place is how we look at our right of ways and where it is those utilities are going. So if we're going to have a divided street, then are we going to put those in the median or are we going to put street trees in the median? Are we going to use the outer lane to put utilities? So then we have the ability to do street trees without having utilities within that, that those utilities will be located in the drive line or in a median. But those are generally the city's utilities. I'm talking about the gas and Fios and those lines that are ... And we're looking at all of that. So just having some more of those broader and a little longer term. So how do we correct some of the sins of the past and kind of continue and what do we want for aesthetics? So when we look at the next transportation manual, that's going to be some more of those conversations when we look at how it is that we design those. It's really easy for the new stuff, for the green field development. If we get it right here, then we're preventing that from happening in the future. It's a lot more challenging for redevelopment and retrof itting. But we think some of this will get you there because you're able to have some flexibility at the director level without having to lodge a big negotiation. Other things we should talk about with landscaping. And we can come back to it as well, certainly, but let's move into parking. Are we skipping fences? I didn't have any major changes on fencing. I know you had asked about that yesterday, but no, let's talk about fences now. Well, I'll just say that I live in an older, more established neighborhood. It's a mix of different types of fences. There's a nice creek running through, so there's a lot of homes that have the creek to look out into. Some people -- okay, so right now we require, from what I understand, a wood fence. And so you have a lot of people building very cheap, not so good wood fences that fall down when there's a big gust of wind, and you have a lot of people getting cited for broken fences and things like that . Right. The request was that at some point chain link fences were just completely not allowed in neighborhood residential anymore. I think unless they have one, they can be grandfathered in. I'm not sure if that's still the case or not, but I wanted to get clarification on that and see what the options are for a homeowner that doesn't want a wood fence, but can't necessarily afford a full raw iron fence for the whole property. Right. Page 63. I'll take those as -- Yeah, I'm looking, but I see raw iron, masonry, brick. Those are things that you can't really see through. If you want to enjoy your backyard and enjoy the -- That's a perimeter fence of a subdivision. So that's a bigger deal. That is the thing that's going to surround and most likely be backing up to an arterial or a collector. Those are important features that if dilapidated, no one person is responsible for that because you're dealing with an HOA at that point or some other type of organization. The standard above that, you do have the option to use wood . You do have the option to use PVC, architectural metal panels, composite materials, all of those things that are individual choices for what you want your property to look like. So the maintenance side will still be true. You will still get citations if you let your fence fall into disrepair, but you're not going to be required to build a wall around your property unless you're part of that perimeter fencing of the subdiv ision. Now, the chain link, we've been very specific in there on that same page, item C, that those are allowed but for agricultural, institutional, or industrial. So the idea is that, no, you don't want to encourage or even allow chain link fencing for residential uses. There may be some out there. Well, you probably have a lot of those out there now. And whether or not those become nonconforming fences that the city would try to chase down as they become dilapidated , I guess that's a question for staff at that point. I guess my question is why not a chain link fence for a neighborhood or residential? Especially in the backyard. In the backyard. That's my question because you get everybody -- the people that approach me would rather have that so they can see their neighbors, speak to their neighbors, enjoy the creek rather than have a giant fence where you can't communicate or see or anything. And so right now we prohibit that. We don't allow that no matter what. And so that's my question, I guess, is why. And I'll give you the flippant answer. That's the way they've always done it. I don't know why that is. I question that myself. So again, privacy fences create just that, a lack of community or neighborhood by virtue that I can't see or talk. If somebody chooses, they have the option to build a wood fence, but we're not allowing a chain link. And I have to assume that that was council-driven at some point in time. Why is that I've challenged most of the code to say we have to rethink what we're doing. This is another one of those instances. And you as this committee saying it's very simple to say chain link construct -- well, or maybe it's just even omitting C, short of the fact that perhaps we don't want it in a front yard or something to that effect, whatever the direction may be. But I don't know what would prohibit that other than that's the way that we've always done it. Could we add the chain link is only allowed where it's not viewable from the public right of way. So in other words, when you're doing between your house and your neighbor's house, you put wood there, but then you can run a chain link down the center and chain link along the back creek because that's not viewable from the public right of way. There may be a way to say that. Yeah. It gets a little challenging because if I don't have a fence and I live the block behind you, then I can see the public -- from the public right of way, I can see that chain link fence. So people will split hairs on that. But certainly -- or we can be more prescriptive to say, you know, fencing facing the public right of way must be -- Yeah, I like that better. Yeah, I like that. It's just that it lasts longer, they're not blowing down, you know, and they can be very nice. Don't disagree. Somewhere there was direction that it ended up and shame on me because I'm always challenging the why. And I didn't challenge this other than to say that this is one of Denton's rules that you must put structural members on the inside of a fence. So if you're building a wood fence, you must put the structural members to the inside. So the posts and the brackets have to be on your side of the fence so you put the pretty side to your neighbors. We did challenge the fence code here. And there are some things that are very common around the nation. One is prohibiting chain link fencing. Most neighborhoods don't want to allow chain link fencing. It's been a trend for many years. So most codes that we write have a standard like this in there. You already have that in there, so we didn't really challenge that aspect of it. Fence height is a different story. You allow eight foot fences, whereas most communities would never consider that type of fence height without some sort of a variance. We did challenge that and we're told no, this is what we do here and that is fine. So that's the purpose of this committee, though. If we want to talk about chain link fencing, I think that's fine. I think chain link fence was more of an aesthetic, but I wrote down here affordability is probably another factor we need to factor into. So I think what Scott mentioned, as long as it's not visible from the public right away, I think that we can then take care of some of the affordability concerns. I think when this came through 2003-2004 time frame that we did away with chain link, it has been an option in the discussion at the time was to possibly allow vinyl coated chain link. And somehow that never got put in there. So one was taken away and nothing was added back. Right. Okay. And that's fairly prescriptive. Yeah, and I've worked in communities where the fencing was a big deal. And typically the chain link is working in most residential areas just for character reasons. But in one community, we wrote a code that said you could have chain link based on your law size. So if you had bigger than a square foot lot, then you could have chain link in small lots in a more residential or urban area setting. And that would allow, it helped cost because if you have a really big law, you have a lot of fence. So that would help with the cost. So there's a lot of approaches you can take to allow chain link in some circumstances or in all circumstances. Well, just because you were talking about having the flexibility, allowing that flexibility for someone who's getting the permit to decide or to look at the case by case . Just completely prohibiting it, you know, is, I would like to reevaluate that. And the issue is, we have chain link fences out there now. Yes. I mean, it's on my property on one side of it so my dogs can see. Yeah, you can come and cite me all you want. My house is 40 years ago. So that doesn't make any sense to not, you know, it's wood everywhere else. But I mean, that was put in gosh knows how long ago, probably four years ago. So I mean, and they're out there in all over the place. And still standing. And still, but I mean, so what are we really trying to do and say by, I mean, that's what we have to figure out. Right. Right. I get why we don't want them all over it and actually made a good point why you wouldn't want them in this tiny, you know, perhaps urban area. But we probably need to somehow add that back in in some capacity. Because what are you saying to all those people who have chain link fences right now? You're nonconform. I don't like regulating by lot size for fence type that that to me, I'd be nervous standing in front of court of law saying, because your lot is smaller. You can't have chain link fence, but if you have a bigger lot, could you allow it in certain zoning districts, so that yeah, and that's what we've done. The question. I think I like what Antartic said, allow them everywhere, but set some specific limitations such as not front. Would you say fronting? Side and rear yard fences. Not facing the public right of way. Otherwise, anything on the side or the rear would be allowed as long as it's not facing. Unless you're on a corner and your side lot faces the public right of way. Did I hear too that the chain link fences are more expensive? No. Because I was going to dispute that. And they last longer. Okay, I just want to make sure I didn't misunderstand. Well, make sure they grow beautiful. They do. Well, I just, this is, this can be a big deal. There are a lot of people, the chain link folks were killing it 40 years ago. They're not, they're not so much anymore. And there's reasons for that aesthetically. And even in industrial areas, chain link fence is a very good way to keep your things secure without spending a lot of money. You see people being very creative with slats inside of chain link fencing that to make what was otherwise an opaque fence or a non-opaque fence opaque. It's like, well, then you get into more aesthetic issues. So there have been challenges in a lot of communities. This is a good policy discussion. I think it's something that we would, we would have to highlight as a big change in the consolidated draft. If we were to either take this out or amend it, we'll just have to note that, hey, this is different than you're doing it now. Yeah, I'd be cautious about using the word opaque because wrought iron is, you can see through that. So, I mean, the only wrought iron on my yard is at the front. Everything else is eight foot wood. So, yeah. I just think the wood fence is the breakdown of community. Okay. I like it. Well, my neighbors got to get an eight foot tall fence and so, yeah. And I don't disagree, I don't disagree with that. And I hear and see both sides of this because again, when you look at chain link fences, often they catch Walmart bags. It did not maintain. And small children. Well, I think the governor took care of that one for us. So, maybe there's some middle ground there and we just continue to talk through this. Limiting or allowing the use in some application, which is an expanse of where we're at today. Right, right, just some sort of option. Maybe it's not in new subdivisions either. Maybe those are all still wood. But I'm just speaking from my district and hearing the out cries. And I mean, anytime somebody talks about a fence, it's just pile on pile on. Why can't we have a, you know, and mostly because we have, it's an older established neighborhood, you know, the people of Cremley. And we have the creek that runs through and people don't want to block their view of that. So, and I guess just for conversation sake. So, we say you must, you can't construct a chain link fence , but it doesn't preclude you from a picket fence. It doesn't preclude you from some sense of a board on board that you could have greater openings and shorter height. Meaning you could have a four foot instead of having a six foot or eight foot wood fence. So, you have a barrier. So, having a picket fence, it doesn't preclude you from putting wire on the face of it. This is specifically addressing a fence that is associated with, I think in today's standards, more industrial or something else. So, maybe part of this is offering up a couple more words to say picket. So, people can think in terms of different types of fencing . I don't know. I don't know that that addresses, you know, part of the need rather than promoting something. And then the second part to that is, is if there's an existing chain link, I don't know why a person couldn't put a chain link back. [ Inaudible ] Is it below 36 inches is considered just decoration or I can't remember, it was 36 or 30 inches I think. It's not considered a fence. Yeah, you're thinking of the national norms. So, and again, we're trying to go down those roads more frequently. And again, maybe that's one of those pieces. Where it isn't, it's an honor system. A person under 200 square foot on an accessory building is not required to get or 125 square feet. 120. And again, so here it is. And I will tell you that number is about a decade old, but we continue to do that as a local amendment. Well, why would we do that when we know people are living differently? But with that being said, if I build a 100 square foot shed , I don't have to get a building permit to do that. However, I still have to follow all the rules. So a fence should be no different. And the reason that you permit a fence greater than 6 feet height is because you have wind factors. So you have concerns for where it's going. Too many times what we do in having a fence permit is that we get into these neighbor squabbles. We get into these, this is on my property line. And again, I don't know that we really need to be in the business of doing that because there's not a health, life safety issue. The aesthetics to me, editorial, the aesthetics of putting the posts on the outside of the fence versus the inside of the fence. I think the aesthetic issue is really that chain link fence . So if we prohibit a chain link fence and somebody builds a wooden fence adjacent to me and I get the ugly posts, it's still a very nice fence and I didn't pay for it. I mean, we have a tendency of getting hung up on that. If it's fronting a right of way, I agree that aesthetically we should have the best side facing out. When I built my shed, it was 9 foot 11 inches by 11 foot 11 inches. It went in shorter than 120 square feet in both directions. That caused a lot of work. I want to go out there. I want to go out there because he put trim boards on. It's almost the time, chef. I've since sold that house. >> Does that help address that, do you think, if we provide more descriptive? >> I just think the conversation should be had. I hear it quite a bit, especially from my district. >> So talking through this, I mean, because we're kind of here, is there some recommendations that we kind of want to move forward with, not saying we're going to make a decision here today and then we can come back and visit when we get into the details on this. But just kind of give me a frame of reference on where we should go with this. >> You want to go with allowing it as an option, right? >> As an option, maybe with permission from the neighbors or maybe with the front facing wood, you know, screening. >> Certainly the new subdivision, HLA is going to prohibit and take that right out of the new development. >> But a lot of them don't have HLA's. >> No, a lot of the new development does. >> I would recommend not doing the ask your neighbors first approach. Just because, yeah, maybe you're an ex-husband, but you're still a neighbor, they're going to say no every time. Or you're going to say no every time. We don't want other squabbles getting in the middle of the fence issue. >> Perhaps what we can do is almost create what I'm thinking like a policy document overall. And so have this item on that document and then we can prepare sort of a pros and cons and bring that back and then as we move forward, I'm guessing we're going to have quite a bit of these items. >> Yeah, when we get to -- it's probably a good approach. >> We should have pictures too. >> Yeah, when we get to this -- because we're going to go sub-chapter by sub-chapter through all this material in the same way. Then when we get to that, we'll have some maybe recommendations or ideas. >> Can you add a question to the public comment just to see what people think while you're out there? >> Where's the name? >> Well, no, I mean just in your -- >> Yes. >> Add it to the comments. >> Yes. We can ask that question in the public meetings. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> Okay. >> And then we can ask questions. >> That was the question I get asked and I don't have an answer for it. We're just a really unique community and I think allowing our homeowners to have that choice is valuable. >> I think as we get rid of it, after we get some feedback from the public, I think this may be an item, fencing may be an item that should be a work session for the full council. Just so that it doesn't come to them. You might have some members of council that say absolutely no on chain link so that it doesn't get to them. >> And it would be, so when we come back and present to each of those, when staff presents, that's what it would be. So subchapter six, this is what we talked about today. We got hung up on fencing. We didn't know what to do, what was the policy direction. Here's the items. >> Maybe if anyone could figure out how we got to that point. >> We have that back history of what was the catalyst for the reason we did that in the first place. >> That's a question I get. Why can't I do this? >> Because. >> It's the beauty of my job. >> Because I said so. I can't play mom. I can't do that. >> That's great history. It's not a good reason to have it in the code. >> Some of these issues, researching some of the recent amendments that we brought forward, researching it, some of them were intended to be these quick fixes until there's an update. So these big fixes that were done on a temporary basis five , six years ago or longer, actually become the norm. Everyone forgot that it was supposed to be temporary. >> That's the important part of this committee. That's why it is that Clarion did this work once and we sent them back and said start over, not that they did anything wrong, they just replicated what we had instead of saying what's really best practice and what are progressive communities doing and how do we do it better? And this is a great point because it's how I'm most effective in my job is just why. >> Okay. >> I don't have an answer. >> In terms of process, you brought up the point about bringing this back to the whole council for policy discussion. >> Yeah, just the subject of just a work session on fencing . >> So you can do that. I will also just as a reminder, when all of this information gets put into a consolidated draft, we're going to flag those things because they're big changes. In the footnote on this page, if we change the way it's currently drafted for chain link, we'll say policy discussion item or discussion item and you can flag those and the staff report can reference those and kind of call more attention to these things that we all talked about in this room with you all. Okay. Well, I'm glad we got to fences. I almost skipped right over it. >> You have no idea the kind of comments and questions I get about it. So I was like last night, today I'm not letting it go. >> I'm happy. >> The conversation. >> No, it's great. It really needs to happen. It's no different for me. There's just a lot of these things that there are these nuances. Well, for me, it's daily. It's absolutely daily. I question it. And so I'm asking myself why and then I just have to stop asking why because I can't get anything done. >> Just change it. >> So we go out and so shouldn't be going down this road, but we go out, perform, we send building inspectors to inspect fences to make sure the posts are on the inside. To me, what a waste of a resource. So I've stopped that. I've stopped it. And I said we're not going to do that. We're going to do the health welfare inspections. We're going to spend more time on the things that actually matter. If we get a complaint, then we can address the fence posts on the wrong side. You make sure when we issue the permit that it's very clear that this is the way you build a fence according to our regulations. Their failure to do that means they have to redo their fence. I can't help them. >> It's so funny you bring that up because across the street, there's a lot of people who are going to be like, oh, I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. I'm going to build a fence. However, it is, was one piece. But no, we shouldn't be in the business of neighbor disputes. Because it goes to the fact that the paint's flaking. Painted both sides of the fence. I can't get on your property to maintain that side or put new stain. So all of a sudden now we're going to squabble on who owns the fence. Both neighbors are new. Nobody knows who built the fence. Just duel. Take out gloves and slap over the top of the fence. Burgers. Burgers. It's right on the property line. It's common usage. It serves a common purpose. It doesn't seem out of, you know, if it's starting to violate city code as far as appearance and everything like that, it does need to be repaired. And just to offset the cost for one person to pay for it while the other one benefits from it completely. That's the only reason I bring that up. If I want to build a fence on my property, you live next door to me, you didn't want a fence, I'm going to ask you to pay for half. No, no, no, no. I'm not talking about that. Well, it's sort of the same though. Well, then maybe we need to distinguish. Yeah, once a fence is up, like in new developments, right now I share a back fence where I've got the post on my side. But the way the property is, he just sees the backside of my fence with no post. So, but he benefits from that. So when that fence starts to deteriorate, I'm totally responsible. Yep. So yeah, I have a fence right now on my side. It's covered, I just grew this beautiful Boston Ivy right all over my fence. My neighbor told me yesterday that fence is all coming down and they're putting up an eight foot fence on that one side of my driveway. I'm like, my Ivy, it's beautiful. It's covered the whole fence. It's just now got to where the leaves are giant. Well, we should move to the Boston Ivy protection standards then. Yeah. Which are next. There's some creative ways of doing that. You just drop some posts on your side, on your side of the fence, just push that fence a couple inches and you keep the fence. Yeah, see a lot of that too. Gaps between two fences. I'll just save the Ivy and we'll start all over again. Okay. [inaudible] I like that public view thing because I don't like that language here. That scares me. Yeah. If I'm on the Acropolis, I can see more than somebody else. Okay. Parking. We got time for this. That was the punchline today, parking. Okay, so changes to parking as well. A new parking table. And if you were to look in your document, we start that table on page 88 and then it rolls on for a few pages here. The way you regulate parking today is highly unusual. I'm creating a running list of ways that Denton is not like the norm. This is one of them. You're required to have this exact number of parking spaces . That is not flexible. So what we've done, we've matched the use table that you saw with the zoning districts proposed last summer. Each one of those uses has a corresponding parking requirement, a minimum parking requirement. Instead of having the maximum also be that minimum like you do now, we have set a parking maximum at 125% of the minimum parking requirement. So there's no minimum. There is a minimum. You have to hit the minimum. If you're required to have 100 parking spaces, you need at least 100. But you can't provide more than 125 if 100 is your minimum. Okay. And this is going to go across the board with residential, industrial? Across the board. Okay. That's where I have a problem. I think a lot of people do. When we start getting into these shopping mall areas where you have this minimum requirement, the fact that half of that territory is probably never used except maybe on major holidays, maybe, that's a lot of wasted space. That's a lot of wasted space for green space. So I'm hoping that we can have or eliminate the minimum requirement in commercial areas. Let the developer best decide for them because I think a lot of developers would agree. They're required to put in too much parking space that they don't use and that costs them money and that gets passed on. So I'd like to open that conversation up. I'll disagree if you don't mind. I will tell you my first restaurant experience in Denton since I was employed, I met a developer at Nero Bread. Over? I was on University. Okay. I was there at 1130, 1125 and I couldn't park in their parking lot so I had to go use an adjacent parking lot to park there. I will argue our minimums are probably not where they need to be. We have minimums that go back decades as far as how I see them. When we think in terms of people used to have 1.5 cars per household, it's now really three cars per household if you have at least a kid or two kids. So we have more people driving, more people working and more people meeting at whatever establishments. So the business owners or the developers or the builders will build to a minimum or less than a minimum parking if allowed, which is a safety hazard . It is problematic and people park on other people's property, which kind of these domino effects on parking. I understand when you say large shopping centers that these parking areas appear to be too large and many times we look at like the mall, there's a two or three week window when that parking lot is full, but beyond that it is not. I just want to rethink parking and where it is you're saying green space, I want to augment the parking lot and create more green space within the parking. I don't care how much parking they have. They're going to put the responsible amount of parking. We're going to ensure that they have a responsible amount of parking based on how it is used in the use of the building. But I think that we also have an opportunity to create a place that we have greater tree canopy. We reduce heat. We help the ecological system. We have a place for water to drain. So again, getting into the curb cuts. All of the things that we can do to try to help mitigate a larger parking lot by virtue of the concrete creating problem, but also serving what our public safety folks need, which is we need to have ample room and we can't have cars parked on top of each other. So that's my concern with eliminating a minimum. I don't even think our minimum is accurate today in many instances. We reduced it though. So that's inconsistent with what you just said. So you currently require more parking for minimum retail standards than we proposed. We went from basically a one per 300 square feet to one per 350 square feet is what's been proposed in the draft. Still setting a maximum at 125% of that, giving the market a little bit of flexibility. This is an ongoing debate because parking is not a science. It's one that is constantly evolving. A lot of lenders out there won't even give you the bill until they see that you have enough parking. Well, and I think each developer, especially if they've done a lot of this, they're going to know what it's going to take. I'm not saying, you know, it's verboten. I'm just saying take it away and let the developer make that decision. Here's the other. There are several communities that have this, Scott. Fort Smith, Arkansas is the one that comes to mind because it's one of the first ones. But there are several communities around the country that have eliminated their minimum parking requirements. And it's benefited them in ways that developers appreciate. But it discourages, and I know this is going to sound selfish and I don't mean it to be, but it will discourage the use of cars. You know you're probably going to have a hard time finding a parking place, and it's only six blocks down the road anyway, and it encourages people to walk, use their bikes, things like that. So that's part of the purpose behind that. I know that's not going to be a match in every case, and that's why we need to look at this. But just simply by taking away the minimum parking requirement for big commercial enterprises opens the door for them to say, well, you know, I really do need these. And I see a lot of these people coming in asking us for more than we allow to, and we do this alternate development plan for them. But there may be areas where the developers are asked to put in so many parking places, and they know that it's not going to benefit them that much except on special occasions. So just I don't disagree with your argument. It is. Those elements are there and it sounds. But I think there's other aspects to it that we're over looking. I just think it's a conversation I'd like to see open up. I proposed this about a year and a half ago when Manal Dad was here, and she liked it, and I think the staff liked it at that time, and then all of a sudden, well, it got shelved for some reason. I have no idea why. But it's something I'd still like to pursue and at least get back out there in the open and have definitive reasons either why we shouldn't have it or why we can't. I know the planning director for Portsmouth, so I'll visit with Paul Bailey. Richard, didn't we increase -- I think in some of those uses, those numbers were skewed. The office was pretty low. And I guess another piece to add to this, and we haven't had this conversation, is a parking bank, is creating a parking bank, and especially as we look at downtown in some of these mixed use developments of how it is that we can look at parking because we have different hours of operation for different businesses and how it is that we can allow less parking. And maybe that's the provision in this is if someone builds a strip mall, what do we require the parking to be in that strip mall? So we don't know what the uses are going to be. If every one of those were going to be a restaurant, we wouldn't have enough parking compared to if they were all going to be chiropractors. I mean, so again, we have to try to manage really the life of the building. So for the next hundred years, do we know how the building is going to be used and where that's going to go? So it really is a challenge. Yeah, one of the biggest struggles is what happens with a change of use. And many staffs don't have the opportunity to even open up the door for conversation about parking. Well, you're just changing a tenant space. We're not going to revisit your parking lot. That's a done deal. Well, in some cases, I think you might need that opportunity. And again, it would depend upon the location. I'm thinking in terms of development, commercial development that's in close proximity to a residential area where people could walk to. And it also the main road is where public transportation can be used. So that option is open where people suspect, well, I that place is usually I have a hard time finding a parking place . I can either walk or I can take the bus or something like that. So you would look at it from that perspective to where it's out there on five thirty five away from everything or even public transportation. And then, yeah, what that let's talk about. Let's talk about that because all of these. Yeah. Some of we let we allowed for that. Yeah. Yeah, there is. There is some. There's a whole new section for parking alternatives. What is proposed before you today is much more flexible for both the developer without compromising surrounding neighborhoods. It allows you to let the market decide in many cases. There's an escape valve for the director to be able to look at a study produced by whatever tenant it may be to say, hey, here's exactly how much parking we need. Fine. Let's have a conversation there. There are alternatives that allow for shared parking and a reduction in the amount of parking required for parking near fixed transit facilities. A reduction, 25 percent of your parking, realizing that, hey, that's a real incentive. If you're low located close to fixed transit line, you don 't need as much parking. And I think 25 percent is pretty high, actually, and maybe not that percentage of users of the site will actually be on public transportation. So it's a really good incentive for the development community. We're going to meet with them later today, actually, to walk them through this this last module. And and I think kind of take the feedback we hear from you. I think the public gets really nervous in communities where we say eliminate minimum parking requirements. So we just need to find the middle ground and see what fits for Denton. The bottom line. This is a more flexible approach and leaves you a little bit of wiggle room. And as Tark said, we did adjust it to require less parking for most for a lot of uses. And that coupled with the flexibility standards to say you 're already not required to have as much as today. But if you do these things, you can also reduce that number by a certain percentage. So there's a lot more flexibility. And with the maximum increase, you can provide more. So we 'll see if it develops. We did have as long as it's open and it's brought out. We did have a conversation on council work session on parking recently about multifamily. And I believe the discussion direction was different than this one space per bedroom because of how the mix goes. If you're all one bedrooms, you've got thirty two one bedrooms. You're only required thirty two parking places. If you're two bedrooms and you've got sixteen units, thirty two parking places probably works. But there's much more likely that you're going to have two people living in a one bedroom than in. And generally you only have to sometimes three. The third's generally a child in a two bedroom. I want to make sure that we go back and look at what council recommended at that time and get that incorporated in. Yeah. And we just received that feedback. It didn't make it into this draft. I think we'll do a better job of incorporating those discussions into the consolidated draft. And I realize too there's going to be communities maybe like Fortiness, but definitely on the East Coast where it's denser areas where people aren't dependent on their cars as we are here in Texas. We love our automobiles. We love the privacy it gives us. But you know things are changing. We are becoming more dense and public transportation is a vital part of it. So anyway, just want to see that conversation. I just want to throw out just as a like the parking lot over off university for the where Kroger is and all that stuff. A lot of people talk about how large wasted space that parking lot is. But two times a year when something's going on in the fairgrounds that lot is full. So I mean also looking at what is around and what can you can co park. You know other buildings can take advantage of that if that would have been you know then where the people that go to the fair or to those events would be in the neighborhood. Yeah. So that parking lot does serve a purpose even though it's not very pretty. That's right. So I mean I understand going down to minimums all you know and not having extra parking but looking at the area and what could use that for certain is something worth. Yeah. Yeah. I wasn't trying to create a one plan fits all. But I think at least having that conversation and opening it up where there are some areas where if you've got this minimum it really doesn't apply. And that may be they may be few and far apart. But that that's an option that ought to be out there. Well it doesn't apply downtown and that's that's aligned with most downtowns at least in more modern codes. You don't want to get into the business of regulating how downtowns manage parking that lives outside of a code and more of a transportation management and parking demand management system. There are ways you can meter and permit and collect fees in lieu to build parking structures. Lots of different ways to make sure that you have enough space requiring parking in some locations like that means you're going to end up with surface parking lots that take up viable retail space and that create character of a downtown. So we've at least got that in there. I'm hearing from Larry especially that hey let's have the conversation at a bigger scale with Denton community about maybe reducing minimums maybe getting rid of minimums and just setting a maximum and letting the market decide how much we should be parked. That's going to be problematic for things like multifamily and residential. You've got an SRO challenge here. That's probably where you draw the line. So our job now is to take those comments find the middle ground and see what works. It scares me to death. It should keep you up. We have parking problems all over town today with the exception we can pick the few large parking lots but for the most part it's parking problems. But finding credits finding incentives finding some way to offset that absolutely. And I think those are built in. Guys you're not going to figure it all out for every use. And five years from now. It's going to be before the dais again and say, we don't have enough for this particular thing that we didn't think about. We've got too much. And now let's change the standard again . But you're asking the right questions and I can tee that up tonight too and see what gets thrown. So we're going to let the developers decide how much parking they should provide. I'll hide behind Ron. Okay. I just cover a couple of other things on the parking. One was the loading facilities loading happens or deliveries rather happen more frequently smaller trucks. This is no surprise to you. You see the Amazon trucks. They 're not even marked anymore. See FedEx trucks UPS. They have better ways than big semi trucks with trailers for delivering goods, especially for smaller businesses. So we have exempted loading off street loading for those really small buildings, less than 10,000 square feet. That's a change. It's a change that's follows what most communities do. Some exempt them even up to 25,000 square feet. You're not going to let the Home Depot come in and not provide some some loading births or the Wal-Mart. This takes care of the small stuff because requiring an off street loading birth, you now have no room to put your actual building or off street parking or landscaping, all the other things that you require on a site. And in addition to not requiring minimum parking in your downtown, we've exempted non residential uses with less than 5000 square foot lot. That's a very small lot. Not sure how many of those you even have at this point. If you were to develop or redevelop this takes care of kind of a main street feel where you've got buildings up close to the street. The lots are narrow and not very deep. And if you require a certain the same amount of parking that you would otherwise. Well, I can't do the business. I actually can't move into that space because I'm only this wide. I've got room for one parallel space or 245 degree angle, maybe 390. So that that's the purpose there. And again, taking care of parking. One way is through the table. The other is through managing your parking around the community. I don't want to leave this page because the next one is a different topic. Are there other questions about parking questions concerns comments. Fences, just kidding. Not contentious at all as building design standards right. For legal. Councilman Briggs has to leave if that leaves me is the only council person we no longer have a forum. Decisions. Okay. All right. And then why would why you interrupt for next week. Are we good with meeting next week. If I can just get us a date out there. I'll shoot you an email. I'm sorry. I just got your email. No, it's okay. That's okay. And again, just trying to use a tool so that way we can kind of work through that. It looks like Mondays and Keely I think Mondays are a problem for you. Correct. I'm okay. Oh, you are. I think. When I asked the first time Monday with Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Monday was preferred because I was reminded when I talked to the mayor. Mondays were good with him as well. I don't know if we're prepared to. To meet on Monday. I can make it. After you. But you were saying morning's problems. I can't do my day after I have to be morning. Because this is not permanent. It's going to be for a couple of weeks here. Or this at least this next. I can be flexible. Because Wednesday is the service. City service awards. Oh, fun. Is there barbecue. I'm okay with it. Thursday. Thursday. I'm okay with it this week and that's probably the only Thursday of the month that I'm good with. Yeah. Morning it is. What's morning? 10. 10 going once, going twice. Not before 9. I got to get the dog. 10 o'clock it is. 10 o'clock on Thursday. I'll send the calendar. Thank you. So I'm going to speak in an auctioneer voice now to get building design in before you have to go. We've organized it very differently from how you have it now. What page are you on? Let's go to page 107. That's the purpose statement for site and building design. So there are standards that apply to all new development. There are standards that apply to single family duplex and townhomes. So we're talking about people living in houses. We're talking about different standards for multi-family, different standards for non-residential and mixed uses. Those buildings have a different feel and need to create a different environment at the streetscape level and how they interact with people on the street. And then even more additional standards for the mixed use neighborhood and mixed use downtown. Now, that doesn't mean they're overregulated from what you do now. It just means those pedestrian oriented districts, which is what you call them today, have a different set of character standards, a different set of regulations. And furthermore, on this topic, the city is currently working on a set of draft design guidelines and/or standards that would apply to the square and immediately beyond the square, north, south, east and west. Some of those components that you just can't apply a one size fits all across the city of Denton. The square is different. The immediate vicinity around the square just has a different feel and character and should be regulated as such. So expect further discussion on that. How would that tool work? What do those standards look like is under development now? Under council new business, I guess a couple of weeks back, I requested because part of the oak hickory is in my district. I know that there are other districts that you mentioned that are off the square. I just wanted to make sure that you guys were going to talk with those, the people that are in those districts specifically when you're implementing design standards for their area. We're not going to talk to them individually. We're not staff is probably working with them on other planning efforts. The way we have captured that very issue is that you have a lot of neighborhoods and overlays overlay districts that have their own rules and standards within that district. We did not touch those. Rather, we said these site and building design standards apply if you're doing new stuff. But if you're in one of those districts and these conflict with those standards, those overlay district standards apply, not these ones. So that we don't want to disrupt all of the work that's been done in those important neighborhoods. We say any overlay. And there's also other districts being created to at the moment. Yeah, there's going to be recommendations and policy out of that small area plan that might require changes to either a zoning district regulations overlay regulations or site design standards in particular. So we have to let those policies, you know, make their way onto the page and be memorialized and then adjust accordingly. From a looking at it from a national standard or something trying to figure out if this is unique to denting or not. We have single family. We have two flexes. And then you got a multi family. And so anything that's a three plex or four plex is considered multi family. Is that pretty well actually we just expanded that list through the addendum for that very reason that try plexes and four plexes are are kind of an in between for the missing middle housing is a term that's been thrown around a lot. Don't don't back us into a corner of we're either this this or that there's lots of different ways to put families into housing. And so we've added a couple of additional uses in the table . Okay, we do have those added now in the end. Yes. But they haven't seen it yet. Okay. Okay. Okay. Good. That's the last meeting. Okay. You you are unique in Denton, but not in that regard. And also in the environmental committee, we did talk about the different types of housing and would like to talk about requiring recycling containers as well and try to implement that into this new code for new development, new multi family, and then distinguishing those like like the four p lex could use the carts. But you know, like have those, because I do know that when it's in this design, you have to make room for dumpster and recycling. It came out of committee that we wanted that requirement for for multi family. Is that really where you were going. Yes. So as we talk about multi family is right. That's fine. Most of the time, that type of requirement is not in the development code. It's not a land use. Yeah. But when we're talking about the screening, which we do, we talked about how to screen refuse containers. That's a big deal here in Denton, we've keep hearing about the trash. And at least accommodating for multiple bins, one for recycling one for waste management. I think there are some components that could be inserted here. I just wanted to bring that up. Yeah. And I know that we were we wanted to be able to implement because council got several, several letters about introducing recycling to multi family. And it's something that we've been talking about. So wherever we put it, the conversation needs to be started. Yes. Okay. Is that correct? Yeah. So there's any other direction. You want to provide for staff or comfortable having it, you know, as we have a core. I said it all. Yeah, I'm gonna change numbers. I'm gonna change offices too. Just basically on design standards. There's a lot of minimal standards. I will just say that compared to a lot of communities. We do. There are a lot of standards, but they're not requiring an awful lot. It's basically, think about the buildings that you like in Dent on. And those buildings meet these minimum design standards and they exceed those minimum design standards. There might be some areas that you think are a little more stringent than they should be. And we just would like that feedback, but ultimately covering the elements that you see listed here. If you've got multiple buildings on a site, it's important to think about how they're situated on the site, not all cl umped in the middle, like the traditional old mall, but rather creating a space that, you know, captures views or creates kind of a main street feel. It's adjacent to prominent intersections, things like that, facing courtyard space. The mass and form of buildings is important, articulating walls, stepping back different portions of the building just to make sure that you've got some architectural variety and projections going on. Building materials are one of the most important things that even a community who's not doing a lot of building design regulation, they still do care about the types of things that you use on a building. Nothing in there that's really earth-shattering compared to what you have now. We'll probably talk about, maybe talk more at length once those downtown standards come out about some other creative materials that may be appropriate. Transparency in windows is the final element in site and building design. It's important to think about breaking up, not only breaking up the physical mass of the building, but being able to see through it and walk through it. Having windows and door openings creates a much different space in the public realm than just a blank wall or facade. And so we've included some minimum standards there for mostly first story, but also some standards for the upper stories in the mixed use districts, making sure that it's not just blank walls up there. And you're not going to get, most developers won't do that anyhow, but if you don't say don't do it, then they would ultimately be allowed to do that. So preventing the least aesthetic building was really the message here. Raise the bar for quality. There's a lot in here. Do you all have questions just right off the bat about any of the site and building design standards? Okay, Scott, did you want to say anything more about around the square? I guess beyond the fact that next week, is it next week P&Z ? Yes, next week. Next week's P&Z we're going to talk about design standards for the square. You may have seen this material already. We have had four workshops. We first went, let me back up give a little bit of history. Ultimately, I was given direction because of the mini mall and what happened with the mini mall and where we're going to rebuild, what we're going to rebuild. And we were talking about we have little to no standards, so it created some frustration within the community. What we're going to do, how we're going to regulate, why we let them tear it down. Putting a historic overlay on that is going to be very challenging, so we're just taking some baby steps. The first step in that is to say that we recognize, identify that the square is unique, very unique, and that we want to create that overlay. Creating that overlay is the square and a block beyond the square, the Mews streets, what you may know them as. Cartwrights is a very easy example of they have a front door and a back door. Just treating that square as the block behind it and the fa çade that is contained within that. We started with the property owners in that area. We cast a broader net than that to say should the square be this area out here, which might encompass four or five blocks beyond the square? Or should the square be the square and that block? So we met with the property owners first, had a very good conversation. It was a couple hours long, kind of scaled that back to where we're at today. We met with a couple other downtown business groups. We met with the HLC and so we're going to go to PDZ and the council and then we're going to come forth with a recommendation for that overlay, what that's going to look like. And really that conversation is going to surround the back of guidelines or standards or a hybrid thereof. So meaning is it a shall or a may? And it is a means to preserve the character of the square without tying it to it being a historical property. So those rules are very different, but the concept is the same. Looking at timeless design and then once we get beyond the square then we can look and start looking at what does it look like to the east of the square? What do we need to do there? And it would probably follow very closely to the square, but it's going to be different because it's more industrial feel. North, south and west is going to have a very different character and then it will really encompass the entire central business district and really we're evaluating the central business district and what that should entail. So kind of a very high level in the next two weeks I'll get P&Z's feedback and council's feedback and I'll be providing all of those comments ultimately to council of what the outcomes from those meetings were. We've had overwhelming support. We've had no one that's opposed to doing what it is that we're proposing to do. So I think we're on the right track and we might need to get ready to be. I like that. Where are you going with this? I just want to clarify the historical concept, the element, the historical element isn't being totally removed. It's just not going to be the primary concept for this overlay district. Correct. Whatever is deemed historic today stays. All of the work that's been done or any future work to be done, it may help in fact to do that because we define the area a little more closely and then we can have those more challenging conversations. But today there are no design standards so anybody can build anything that they want or demolish whatever they want if it's not already done. This process will really come up with a certificate of appropriateness. So before you can do whatever it is you're proposing to do, you'll bring it to staff. Staff will determine whether or not that that's appropriate. If it's a denial, the question is whether it goes to a group of the business owners or those property owners in that area, whether we have a design professional on that, whatever that makeup might look like. Some appeals board or whether that goes to HLC or ZEA or some other body, council. But I think the overwhelming support up until we went to HLC was having that as a really a community focused meeting the stakeholders, those that have a vested interest in the square, be the ones that say what's appropriate or not appropriate. And so right now it's just it's the square and a block around. Correct. Correct. Yes, this is the first phase. Hickory there. Well, and again, no, and we recognize that. But if we don't start somewhere, the larger the area, the more stakeholders , the more stakeholders, the greater diversity, the greater diversity in what the buildings are, the more challenges you have. So if we want something immediate and concise, then we need to start. And so that's why we tried to draw, just create the box. So in terms of how that gets folded into the DDC really depends on the result of the upcoming conversations. If they are truly standards, then they should be rolled into the DDC. If they are truly just guidelines, then we typically recommend leaving that outside of the code or including as an appendix or something. So TBD. We got five minutes. I think that's enough time to to finish up building design and and at a high level, give you an introduction to the lighting component key changes. I think we've talked about most of this, just allowing the director, the ability to approve alternatives for infill and redevelopment. An application is before Planning Commission or the City Council as well. Just having the escape valve to say, yeah, this is a common sense approach. We think it still meets the intent of the code. New standards for multi building developments. We talked about that new standards for the MN and MD. We talked about that as well. One of those major components of creating an active streetscape is making sure that the buildings are close enough to the street. So we have setback requirements in most places that say, don't be too close to the street. Well, these are different . These say have most of your building actually up towards the street, because that's what makes a viable mixed use zoning district in terms of character. And you see that around your square. You see that in a lot of places you see that in a lot of the new stuff that has gone up and done. Lighting, you have very few standards for lighting today. So we haven't really, we haven't really departed from the minimal standards approach, but inserted some some basics, such as don't spill over onto your neighbor's property. So setting a minimum foot candle standard at the property line of one foot candle. That's fairly dim. It's dim enough to where you're not going to be disturbing your neighbors, your code enforcement staff is equipped to handle that type of calculation and do measurements, should that be necessary, but just giving an outlet for the developer to show to staff and ultimately to the final decision making body that . Okay, here's, here's everything we've taken into account. Here's the type of lights that we're going to use on site. They're shining downward, they're downcast, they're shield ed lights, we're not spilling over onto adjacent properties. Fine. So these minimum standards just allow you and your staff to check that box to make sure that you're not running into issues. Again, you can get very complex with lighting standards. I 'm working in Sedona right now, and that is a dark sky community. This is not that type of approach. This is the basic stuff. So with a couple of minutes left, let's just open it up. Talk about any well actually no sorry, let's, let's get into the zoning map because that was on the agenda is something that would be introduced today. I don't know if you all have spent any time with it, but it 's up on the city website, so you could just search zoning map from the main search bar or go through the development code 2030 portion of the website and access it there. It's interactive you click on the site. It tells you what the new zoning is it tells you what your existing zoning is so that you can start having those conversations, either with your friends and family or with your constituents as well. I urge you and to visit it yourself but also to just talk to as many people as possible. There are a lot of meetings coming up in the next month to focus really on the zoning map and how that relates to the new lineup of zoning districts, and the uses allowed. Show up to these if you can encourage friends and family to go there's night meetings day meetings full day workshops staff is going to be available for office hour discussions to talk about this. Just get the word out we're collecting any and all comments on this. We've got concerns on the zoning map. So we didn't put his email up there but that's when we talk to the public about that will say email comments to PZ at city of Denton.com. Yeah. You'll get a lot of feedback on the zoning map. Once it's, and that's why we drafted it this way. If you start if you start out of the gate with a new zoning map. You won't get to the end. So, here's the new districts conceptually here's the uses a lather. Okay, we're fine with that now here's the map that's when you apply the new code. Yeah, yeah. The eight of us. First phone call the first phone call I think for the city. Otherwise, she didn't care. I tried talking to her about it. Well, thanks, y'all. We're putting the lion's share of work on this committee. And so I appreciate everything you're doing in the background when we're not here. It's going to result in a better consolidated draft for us. So, appreciate your time. Thank you. That is, you'll get an electronic link, but that is a document as we walk through each of these sub chapters. This is a reference tool between the two. So, those links will take you electronically to both versions of the code. So, if you're looking at a particular section and you want to see where that's that cross reference. Anything else that I need to do. We don't have a couch in city hall. I guess, technically we adjourned 15 minutes ago when we lost the quorum. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so we're good. Was that 1045. Thank you all very, very much. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay.