May 09, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2018-05-09 5:00 PM

This meeting has been dually posted and we do have a quorum present and will call us to order at 504. This will be our work session and our first order of business will be to receive clarification of agenda items. And so I will move us down to would be our minutes. Does anybody have changes or questions on the minutes for the 11th or the 25th? No. All good? So we can take both of those in one motion and legal since there aren't changes to either one? Commissioner Ellis. Unless we have people absent, right? And I don't know if that's the case or not. For how they would vote. I don't know if I had to abstain. I don't know the attendance. Okay. So we'll do them as individual items and then we'll just have to deal with whoever may or may not have attended each one of those meetings. Okay? All right. That will then move us to our consent agenda. Any questions on the consent agenda? I have a question. Commissioner Sanchez. On item P18-005. We had discussed that item back in, I believe, back in November. And some of the information that was there at that time was presented that there was an ESA in the location. Around the lake. Now we're finding it says here that the ESA has been removed. The status of an ESA has been removed. My question is, should we not have that information prior to when it was first presented to us? Because it seems like not only it might have influenced how we made our decision, but also the contractor or the developer presented us with some plans. And to me it was a big -- might have been a big expense for him looking at that and then not finding out that the ESA is no longer in place. So I just wonder if that information should be available to him at the very beginning when he comes and asks for information. Is that -- I understand your question and I'm going to make a statement. I'm going to look at Deborah and see if she nods or not. And if not, I'm going to call her forward. I can address that. You can address it even better. Haley, please, help us. All right. At the time of the rezoning and SUP request, a field assessment of the ESA on site had not been done. So the map reflected that there was possible riparian buffer around the pond or the lake that's on site. Since getting approval for the zoning to move forward with the project, they have contacted staff, requested that field assessment, and when that was done, it was determined that the conditions weren't present and the ESA was since removed from the map. So it was -- the field assessment was the missing link there, but that has since been conducted. It wasn't done prior to the rezoning and SUP because at that point they didn't know if they would get approval for the use they were seeking on the property. I understand that. My question is, even though -- I mean, it goes before us as rezoning, but it's still -- he still presented us some information that I imagine the contractor went through some process because he gave us how he was going to -- what he was going to consume. What he was going to construct. How he was going to put the buildings and all that. So when he went through that expense or to develop that, he was under the impression that the ESA was in place. So I'm just saying is should that -- at the time when a person -- developer comes in and there's an ESA in the area , should at that point we should make sure to say, hey, even if we have to wait a couple of days and say, before we do the rezoning, we need to make sure that this ESA exists or doesn't exist because that may be an expense he's going to have to create in the process and then later on finds out it doesn't exist . The ESA assessment is always available at any time. It's incumbent upon the owner and the applicant to request that. So they were aware of the ESA and they could do the assessment at the time of the rezoning. They chose to wait and do it at the end. Phase one of the development, which is the more eminent product here on lot one, has always been intended to stay away from the lake and out of that ESA, whether it was there or not. Phase two, which would be the ultimate development of lot two, phases two and three, are still very conceptual at this time and they have no immediate plans for developing those and those would have been the phases that would have been affected by the ESA had it been there. So the ESA being there or not has had no effect on their immediate development of lot one. Do you have a follow up question? No, no. Okay. Anyone else have a question on this particular item on the consent agenda? No. Okay. How about on the next item on our consent agenda? Any questions on that? Nobody. Okay. That will move us to our public hearing section and we're going to make a change on our agenda as far as the order in which these are going to be presented. I have a conflict of interest on item A and item D and we 're going to move item D up under A and it will become B so that I can step out for both items and then come back at one time during our public hearings. So our order will be item A. What's currently shown as item B will become C. Currently item C will become D. What is currently shown as item D will be B as in boy and then we will be back on schedule with E and F. So at this time the work session because of a conflict of interest on A and the renumbered item B, I'm going to step out and turn the work session over to Commissioner Roselle. Thank you, Chair. So the first item is Z180004. Looks like Cindy Jackson is presenting or? I will be. Okay, awesome. Floor is yours, Haley. Okay, this is case Z180004 for Access Bank. So the request before you is a rezoning of four parcels of land. Total is just over one acre. You can see the parcels outlined on both the maps here. The request is to rezone from DR1, which you see on the top map, to DCG District, Downtown Commercial General, which is shown on the bottom map. These properties are collectively located northwest of the Eagle and Myrtle Street intersection, also on the west side of Myrtle and southeast of Maple and Pacific. So kind of spread across an entire block. Looking at this request, one of the first things we looked at was the future land use designation for this area, which is the downtown compatibility area. The intent of this area is to create areas with compatible form and uses that strengthen to serve both the neighborhoods surrounding downtown as well as the downtown area. Development in this area is typically a mixture of uses, commercial, residential. In some cases, we even do have industrial uses existing in these areas. When looking at the requested zoning, DCG would be an extension of the [INAUDIBLE] around this already to the east, south, and west. The uses that are permitted within the DCG District are consistent with what exists in the area today, which includes banks, other offices, and some single-family homes . Looking at access to the property, the property has front age on Maple and Myrtle as well as Eagle, depending on which parcel you're looking at. The red and blue lines on the map show where water and sewer are available in this area, so there's ample access to utilities and streets for the property. A concept plan was provided with this rezoning. It was included in your backup. So you could see on the northern lots, they're proposing this is approved to add four office buildings as well as some associated parking. On the southern parcel that kind of stands on its own, they 're intending to add a parking lot in this area. Notifications were sent regarding this request. We received one response in opposition outlined in red on the map from an adjoining property owner and three responses in favor, one of which was from the current owner of Access Bank as well as two properties to the north of Maple Street here. So based on the percentages, that was 2% of the land area opposed and 26% indicated favorably. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. Haley, the two properties that were for it on Maple, the owners don't actually live in those two houses, do they? They rent them? I'm not aware of the specifics for those properties. I believe there is quite a bit of rental in this area though. And the total number of residential buildings that are going to be removed for this development, I counted five. Is that right? I believe there is more than one home on some of these lots , so it's at least four, I believe. Okay, because the little extension that sticks out there to the right and touches front Myrtle Street, is that going to sit between two different houses? Or is the house to the south of it, which there is, is that going to be removed or is that going to stay? If you, let me put the wrong direction there. So on the concept plan, I believe that existing house that you were seeing that was within the green area sits roughly in this area. So it would also be removed as well. Okay, thanks. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Vice Chair. Yes, Larry, those are two investors on those two northern properties. Haley, I know I asked you about the addresses that were affected, so there's two more houses under, you know how you've got the little outline of what the zoning request is . There's two more residences, but I guess that's already been rezoned and those houses are just going away. Yes, those houses, it shows on our map for DCAD to currently already be one parcel and it's all zoned ECG currently. Well, currently there's two houses there as well. Yeah, I'm not sure if it's all under the same ownership perhaps, but it does reflect as one property. Okay, and it already has the zoning. Yes, that's correct. But the houses remain current. Yes. Okay, thanks. All right. So with that, staff is recommending approval of the request . We found DCG to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Denton Plan 2030. We found that the zoning would also be compatible with the mixture of uses in the area as well as permitted uses under the surrounding DCG zoning. And with that, if there are any other questions. Any questions? Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. Is the applicant going to be here tonight? I believe so. Then I can ask a question. Okay, well I'll wait for that then. We'll get you to public hearing. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Vice Chair. Did they do any neighborhood meetings? I'm not aware of a neighborhood meeting. I don't believe they had one. Okay. And the homes that are currently on there now, are they owned by the applicant? I believe so since this is all considered one parcel under DCEDD. I believe it's all under the same ownership currently. And the homes that are on there now, are they currently occupied? That I'm not aware of. Okay, then try to find out for the public hearing. Thank you. And just to reiterate Commissioner Beck's point, we will have this in public session at 630 in city council chambers where you're welcome to talk and ask questions. We'll be happy to address those then. Any other questions for Haley on this item? Thank you, Haley. Haley, you also have the next agenda item that will go over the new B, it's final replat 17-0024. Yes, so this is a replat of what was formerly La Hacienda Heights as well as a large tract of unplatted land. So the development here would be approximately 190 residential lots. This eastern portion of the property was formerly La Hac ienda Heights as I mentioned. That subdivision never developed, so at this time they're replatting that for a new residential subdivision that would be between Beale and Hercules. You can see here the western portion of the property was formerly just a large unplatted tract of land, so it's being incorporated into this plat at this time to provide one larger subdivision. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. Can you give us, what are the streets on the west and east side of this? Is Locust, is it going to butt up to Locust on the east side? Beale Street will connect to Locust. There is an existing substation in this area that would separate it, but Beale Street would be the connection to Locust. Okay, and then on the west end, what are we looking at? On the west end, this property is currently undeveloped, so Beale Street would stub out at that point. And then Hercules, if you look at the very south side of the subdivision, it does have a cross street that would connect to Hercules as well to provide some east-west connectivity. Everything to the west is undeveloped right now? Yeah, currently. This development, will it be involved in the extension of Hercules? Hercules is being extended as a part of another subdivision further south of here. Okay, thanks. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Vice Chair. Haley, my question has to do with Platinum 6 with regard to the easement maintenance and the way that's worded. So I guess I just wanted some clarity. So we've got where CA1, CA2, CA3, and then it says, "And all areas designated drainage and detention easements will be maintained by the properties that traverse and are adjacent to." So does that mean the personal property owners are right there? This subdivision would have an HOA to maintain all of those common area lots in detention. And that's where my confusion is, because typically that's what that note will say, that it's going to be maintained by the HOA. And this says, "By the owners of the lot." And so I guess where I'm going with it is as these people buy these lots, is a buyer beware that, oh, ha ha, you're in charge of the drainage easement and it's your responsibility. My understanding is there will be an HOA for the subdiv ision for the maintenance of those common area lots. And that is, we could have that note rephrased for the Plat inum. Because it doesn't say that there. And if that's what the intent is, then my request would be, could it say such? Because right now, it looks like the private property owners who abut that would be responsible for that. And if they are, I mean, that's kind of a scary thing, because how are they ever going to know that? Also, with the way it's worded, you mentioned the CA1, CA2, CA3, and then all other designated drainage easements. And so I noticed there's one, I think it was like the Northwest. So it wasn't a common area, but north of right there of the City of Denton property where it says drainage easement. So is that considered part of Note 6 as well? That easement is outside the boundaries of this plat. That's just an existing drainage easement that adjoins the subdivision. Okay. So is the note just referring to CA1, 2, and 3? Or others as well? Yes, I believe that is the intent of the note. We can certainly have that note reworded before the plat is filed to avoid that confusion. Speaking to the developer, they do intend to have an HOA for the subdivision. Okay. So I guess in today's vote, how do we do that so that 's taken into consideration? We'll come up with a specific language, but it would most likely just be to revise that note, clarifying that the HOA would be the responsible party for that, if I'm understanding. Right. And so are you going to have that tonight when we vote on it? Yes. Okay. So you're going to have something before us when we go to vote? Correct. Okay. Chair, I'll start back. Thanks, Vice Chair. Clarify a little confusion for me. Had to go to the notification map if you can, because you indicated that Hercules wasn't a button in this property, but looking at how this is outlined, it looks like the southern part sits right up against where Hercules is going to come through. Okay. If you give me just a second, I can navigate to that. Okay. On the very south, it overlaps with Hercules. You may have misspoken a little bit that Hercules is being extended as a comprehensive project that will be in advance of the subdivision to the south of here being developed. Okay. But Hercules is being extended all the way across to connect to the existing Hercules. But as this development goes forward, they're not going to work on Hercules until the other development south of it? It's the same developer for both projects. They're both going to be moving forward pretty much at the same time. Okay. So there will be houses in this top development here all the way down to Hercules, correct? The subject property here in yellow? Yes. Yes. Okay. Let me clarify that a little. There is a large area of detention ponds on the south side of the property. Right, right. Where there is a detention pond, there will be houses for that northernmost development that will come down in. None of the houses within Beale Way will front on Hercules. There are these large detention ponds that separate it. Oh. Okay. So you can see North Point would be a connection point there, and then there would be a couple of cul-de-sacs that extend, that come down and just kind of dead end. But North Point would be the only direct connection besides they went all the way down to Locust and circled back into Hercules. Okay. Thank you. Haley, can you clarify, final replats usually we see are commercial. What's the reason? Do we see residential final replats outside of consent? Yes, any replant is required to have a public hearing for a residential replant. There are additional notifications required. But all replants where they're not vacating the proceeding plat are required to be public hearing items. Gotcha. Thank you for that clarification. Any other questions for Haley on this item? Commissioner Sullivan. Thanks, Professor Chair. And what was the reason for the replant again? They are replanting, actually it shows up pretty well on this notification map. The streets you see kind of grayed in here. That was the existing La Hacienda Heights subdivision. It was plotted and never developed. So rather than going with this exact plan, they wanted to reconfigure the neighborhood and extend it further to the west to include this entire unplatted tract west of there. So we're replanting all of that into one comprehensive subdivision. Do we know if the replant is allowing for larger houses, smaller houses, same size houses? The lot size? It's been zoned in R6 under both subdivisions , so they would both have had the same lot dimensions and density requirements. So it should be fairly comparable. Okay, that's fine. Thank you. Thank you, Haley. And we can call Chair back in. Chair, we're on the new item C. Okay. Does anyone have questions for Haley on item C? No? Okay. Item D. Commissioner Ellis. Sorry. Thank you, Chair. Okay, so another note question, Haley. This one, general note seven, it states the owner responsibility. Is it owner's responsibility between these two? I was confused at. So currently all 3R1 and 3R2 are both under the same ownership. Right. And similarly, the adjoining lots further back that also tie into that access easement are all within the same family of ownership. So that note is intended to state that, yes, the owner of the property is responsible for their portion of that access easement. But in this case, it all happens to be the same ownership, if that makes sense. Okay, which is why it doesn't say owners. Okay. Is that an issue if ever it was to be a different owner? It's kind of whatever portion of that existing driveway is on their property, they would be responsible for. Is what that note is trying to say. Okay, and then my other question on that same note where it references a document number, but there's a blank line in there. Is that missing the document number? The document number, it will be filled in prior to the plat being filed. They're in the process of getting that prepared and it will have to be filed prior to the plat so that can be filled in . Thank you very much. Any other questions on this item? Okay. That will then move us to item E. I haven't turned the page yet. I think you're right. That one has been withdrawn and that will take us to item F . So this is a proposed amendment to the DDC to amend our parking regulations. So the request is to hold this public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding amendments to subchapter 14 of the Denton Development Code. A little bit of background on this case. Earlier this year, Council requested a work session to discuss our residential parking standards. That was held in January. At that work session, staff presented them with a variety of options and information related to this. And they requested that staff return again with a work session specifically to make recommendations regarding ways that we could provide flexibility in our parking requirements as well as ways we could improve the residential parking standards. At that February 27th council meeting, they did provide favorable direction for staff to move forward and bring these recommendations to public hearing. Commissioner Rozelle. Thank you, Chair. Just to set the context of the rest of the presentation, the items that staff has generated or the staff recommendations are the direction of the Council's. Did Council tell you what to do and these are now your recommendations or can you help me out when it says favorable direction from Council? Certainly. So the same five recommendations were generally taken to Council in February. At that time, they provided feedback on those and we have amended what's been drafted according to those, that feedback that we received from them. Great. Thank you. So as I mentioned, there are five recommendations that we 'll go through here. I won't mention each of them specifically now. I just wanted to give you an overview of what's to come. So the first of our recommendations is related to the minimum parking standards for single family, duplex, town home and multifamily development. So currently for single family and duplexes, townhomes has been added to that because it was not specifically mentioned in our parking regulations. For single family, we require two spaces per dwelling. Duplexes is two spaces per dwelling plus one space for any bedroom over the third bedroom. What we are recommending is requiring four spaces per dwelling. Those could be inside or outside of a garage, not spec ifying that. But we would recommend that tandem spaces within a garage not be counted because garages tend to be used for storage and just the logistics of having tandem cars in a garage makes those spaces not as usable as it would be if it were a traditional two car garage with two spaces outside. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Haley, on that note of this note, the single family, at one time it was a recommendation that two were out of a garage and two were in a garage. I noticed that on one of the presentations to the City Council. Then out of a discussion, did that, because I noticed that that's removed. Yes, that was one of the changes. Council was not of the opinion that we should stipulate which spaces are in or out of a garage. Okay, very well. Thanks. I'd have a follow up question on that. Two things. One can the space requirements going from two to four be met with kind of the discussion I think we had in our last meeting with the cluster part cluster development having like common area parking. That's one way to meet it. The second question is, do we know if there are currently subdivisions that are either currently being built in or currently being planned that are single garage that would currently be two spaces only that won't be able to meet this new requirement. And the reason I asked because I know there's a subdivision we, we approved not too long ago, I don't know whether it's been developed over on the north side town off of 380 I can 't remember the name of the street. I think that's right. So if anybody's reached out to those property owners to let them know of these changes and what how that may impact what they're doing, they can help me on that. Certainly so in terms of cluster development. Yeah, we're not simulating where those spaces would have to be there were just need to be the right number of spaces for those homes. The intent being to try to keep as many cars off of the single family streets as possible by providing onset parking. Second. Yeah, I'm sure we need to go first. Yes, so the subdivision you're referring to I believe is North Point said, I'm sorry that might be the wrong name it is off che vy off of old North Road. Yes, and those, those homes are already in place the phase that had the one car garages or the tandem garages. Those would, since they're existing would be able to be in compliance with the old regulations, and this would be for new developments going forward. Well, that's my point is, I think we've already approved the next phase. And I don't know if it's the same or if it's a different product that they're going to. So phase one did have the one car or, and I believe they may have been tandem garages back to back. Phase two had all two car garages standard side by side two car garages and then phase three I don't believe they have pulled any permits for you. I didn't remember there being two car garages with two parking I just remember I had driven through there it's been a while ago and I remember saying that these had single garage doors. Phase two does have two car garages and I think actually, this, this is the subdivision here I 'm glad I remember that. So this is a home in phase two of the development with the standard two car garage. This was one of the homes in phase one. Okay, I'm just, I remember seeing some over there in that area is why prompted the question. Yeah, those are the only ones I'm aware of that we've recently proved with one car and no others in the city that we know of along those lines. I'm not aware of any recently no. Okay. Commissioner back. Thanks, Jerry, just to confirm your suspicions that's that 's where I moved and you're right, phase one is completed and they do have the tandem. And it is to car garage on everything else we did approve the preliminary plan I believe for phase three no. Phase three has an approved final plan, I'm not sure I haven't seen the building plans yet though to see what type of home product there. Okay. Question on tandem parking where you seem to be opposed to it based on people would probably use it for storage, but when they necessarily be true for two car garages to rather than putting both cars in there then. I don't see why the differentiation there. It is possible and this is also kind of a spin off of our current code doesn't permit tandem parking for a residential to count. So it's kind of a continuation of that with the assumption of tandem parking is difficult. I would find it difficult myself but I'm just curious what's the rationale why we restricted. I'm not sure where that originally came from, other than just the logistics of tandem parking encourages it not always being used for parking. Okay, thank you. All right, anything else on single family or duplex. All right, for multifamily I'm sure you're familiar from the variety of SUVs that have come before you. Our current standards have a different parking ratio for each type of multifamily product. So we're proposing condensing that and for efficiency or one bedroom units we would stay with the 1.25 spaces per unit, plus guest parking which is currently not something we have in the code. So anything two bedroom and above we would require one space per bedroom, plus the guest parking and guest parking would be calculated at a ratio of 10% of the required number of spaces. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. I didn't. So I'll come back to you Commissioner Rosalind. My question. It says here, developments with more than 10 units guest parking so if it's under 10 units no guest parking would be required. I believe, and I'm thinking about a nine unit development that's actually going. Certainly. And I got a question on that from a from a citizen. That would apply for anything 10 units and above for the smaller complexes. Yes, so under there would be difficult. Yeah, would be difficult possibly to fit that on site. Okay , thanks. Commissioner result. Thank you, Chair. I don't even know what research and information helped inform the decision to do one space per bedroom for two three and four. It seems as though we have a lot of requests to reduce the amount of parking for developments. And here we're actually going to codify a pretty high standard. And it also seems by anecdotal evidence from my eyes, as well as testimony from applicants that parking spaces in tandem to apartment complexes here in the city are not at full capacity. And so I'm wondering if you could talk me through why we believe in the world knows you live in now that every person that has a bedroom has a car. Certainly so some of the original concern expressed by Council was the amount of on street parking around residential areas, as well as the feeling that there's not enough parking for multifamily. We have had a large number of requests recently where the preferred ratio for multifamily is one space per bedroom, possibly due to some of the leasing structure for apartments in college towns. But in terms of research we did do a fair amount of research Richard might be able to speak to that a little bit more. He was kind of involved more on the front end of this but that research was done that kind of supported this ratio. Yeah, there is there is some background from that from that January. City Council item. What we did look at part of this discussion started around the Vs RL issue and regulating, but also seeing a change in how units are being rented. We're starting to see, believe it or not single family homes being converted now into rent als, where they're they're renting a bedroom within the single family home, and then looking and in some instances illegally converting a garage. So we're getting complaints from neighbors where there's a number of cars all over the place. That's kind of a different issue because it's a use it's not permitted, but really looked at how how other municipalities are, how are they dealing with this what's the current ratio. Interestingly enough, there's not a lot of data out there. One college town, Auburn, Alabama, I think was the first actually adopt an ordinance specifying this SRO I forget what they actually coined it. But on this on this rental rent by the bedroom, which is kind of interesting when we when we were even doing the research in the, in the city, some of the larger complexes that we called. We were trying to get an understanding of that breakdown of what they're providing for parking now, based on that breakdown of the ratio of actual number of units, and some of the apartment to in particular. They didn't even know the number of apartments that they had. When we call they all they knew was the number of bedrooms that they were leasing so which was kind of interesting to me. So we looked at that and then also try to look at just some general trends from some of the census data that we got. And believe it or not we're, you know, unlike a lot of places Denton has kind of slightly slowly been on kind of the uptick in in cars available per household. So we kind of took all of that you know factored all of that in. In addition to some of the, some of the larger complexes actually wanting more parking, just knowing that that they 're not really close to transportation. But the problem with that minimum maximum being the same and then having to maybe go through an ADP. They just sort of avoided it. And so this was attempt to to sort of address it. In providing it one to one. Now, now with that kind of the part two to that. We do recognize that, you know, it's very different from building kind of what I'll say infill, as opposed to building out for we're changing the zoning on a property very, very different. So what we try to do also with this is build in some flexibility, where you can start to write, write that down. I think in the. I know the gentleman that Mr Chang had sent an email I spent a good time with him, but also looking at sort of long, long term option, you know that that was also something that that council charged us with is to look, you know, looking at that area around the park. One thing we looked at was when those when those buildings were built. They were going to be able to move, because if they would have to rebuild or redevelop most likely they would get less less units for one and then they wouldn't be able to provide for the parking. And so now it's it's sort of a kid let's let's also take a step back from there and look at look at maybe alternative ways where maybe you can provide some alternatives that could further reduce, reduce your parking. So, this was sort of that first attempt to get there to provide at least some flexibility in on street parking administrative sort of deviations allow for some compact parking motorcycle bicycle parking. So, that was kind of that sort of that first attempt, but I think we still have a lot more to go as we go through that neighborhood plan that's currently underway, but also continuing to understand from UNT what their long term plans are with providing students do they want to continue to provide parking for students. And if that's the case then yeah maybe we need to relook at how we, how we begin to require parking. If you and he doesn't want to park them. And why do we want to do we want to force people to have a car here or is there another alternative. But, so that's kind of where long term where I think we need to be but, but this, that's kind of the premise behind . I actually thought it seems as though the city doesn't necessarily care about number of apartments but bedrooms so I don't, I'm not shocked to hear that the apartment complex doesn't know how many problems they have when they're, it's all based on bedrooms anyways, but when you talk to that apartment complex that one in particular I'd be interested to know what they said about their parking. I recall most of them had. I don't think they did parking permits at that one but I think most of them had most of the residents had had had parking. Okay. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Thank you. Commissioner Sullivan. Wouldn't. Thanks, Chair. Enforcement of parking laws, kind of take care of all of this. In other words, if you're not going to allow on street parking tow cars enough and eventually people won't park there. And then the apartment complexes if you don't have enough parking spaces people aren't going to rent an apartment. You know if you've got enough people that have cars and there's no parking places. They'll go to another apartment. So I'm just wondering. I don't understand the, I guess the problem, other than the fact that nobody wants to tow cars and cause that issue, especially around the campus which is where the problem is I think, you know, more pronounced. So I'm just wondering. A lot of it is for really the, you know, the new apartments . I don't think not necessarily so much some of that infill because they are, you know, that's why we sort of had that, you know, we try to pull out that exemption that, you know, less than 10 units and then if you're in the central business district if you're less than 10 units you don't have to provide for parking. So this is really, really more for medium to large size of the larger apartment complexes, where that that that network would also the roadway might not be there, and it's just to avoid the void issues that I think Council has heard from constituents. Jump in just a second, kind of piggyback on Commissioner Roselle's comment. I think our collection, as we've dealt with some of these S RO issues, mostly around the university is the times that we have had those applicants before us. They brought some studies before us about existing SROs, and that the parking garages are not full. There's a lot of trouble parking for in those, and those requirements are at a lesser than than what we're currently doing and requiring now obviously. So we're going to require more parking, which will be more probable vacant parking places and what we have now is my recollection of when we've had the SRO question here before us. The second one is, if this is going to be city wide or if we're going to look at it in certain areas because obviously parking is way different around the university around a multifamily complex than what it is out around loop 288. Those are two separate issues and if we're putting a single blanket over every single multifamily or if there should be some flexibility in different standards, depending on whether it's downtown or on the edge of town. And the third question I would have is about the flexibility, I believe in our presentation that we had a couple weeks or so ago there was talk about that we were changing the parking standards from where it's been the men and the max are exactly the same you can't have less and you can't have more that there's going to be flexibility that the applicant could apply for the point system. So we're going to apply that to the standard as well. So those three things thrown out together. Can you repeat number one again. Yes, the SRO question is the comments that have been made before us before this commission is currently at the lesser parking spaces that are currently required. Those units aren't fully parked now they have vacant spaces in them. And we're now going to require more parking in those areas that they have vacant spaces so my deduction from that is, there's going to be even more vacant parking places with this new requirement. That is possibly don't know the specific studies that you 're referring to I could look back and find those certainly, but in just within the past year I can only think of one project that actually wanted to be under parked that wanted to provide less than what was required. The majority of them do prefer the one to one ratio of recent requests that I've seen and, and like I said they're getting around, necessarily having to come for an ADP for that by either providing it in garages, willingly making parking spaces pervious a variety of things but most of them that I've seen recently within the past year I would say have requested, what would be a one to one . Okay. So, it seems like that's where the current leasing and trend is going from from the applications that we have seen, that's a change from what it's been in the past that what's been told to us before is that they're seeing less parking because more students are going and doing Uber and lift and all these other things and they don't have cars and yet we were still requiring more parking. So, I guess it's changed 180 degrees again from what we've been told before but that was kind of the direction we've been going for the last number of years. Yeah, and like Richard said from the data that we've looked at just in the past week we were seeing that Denton is increasing the number of cars per dwelling, based on census data. And just some other things that that we've seen recently like I said the one to one has become a very popular request. I'm not sure how many of those spaces are occupied . And then, I believe your other question was about where these standards would apply as it's proposed this would be city wide with some of that flexibility that Richard spoke to that I'll get to coming up but then with the development code, the Denton code 2030 we are looking to go to that getting away from tax and providing even more flexibility than what's proposed with this kind of interim step that we're trying to take. So that would that would apply here so if they have 100 bedrooms that have to have 100 spaces with the revision the development code if they could meet the points or whatever credits, they could have 75. And that or they could have 125. I'm not sure the specific amount of reduction that's under that under that current, the way it's currently drafted. But yeah, I actually do have some examples I don't know if that would help. Kind of see how. Just one thing I also wanted to add all you know we also looked at this we looked at some of these smaller developments that we're starting to see that really are comprised of more than one and two, one and two bedrooms. And that's why it's actually a reduction to some extent. If you're smaller and you're building one and two bedrooms. It conceivably could be a reduction in the required amount of parking that was currently the standard. Commissioner back and then I think I know returned to Commissioner Roselle. Thank you, Chair. Right. Part of what we're trying to do here is to reduce on street parking, is that right. But, you know, again to chairman strangers point there are going to be some areas where if you create the parking spaces, all street. You're going to have a lot of empty one so. You're going to have people that will just disregard everything and park on the street anyway. So, it does seem like there would be certain areas where you would want to create these kind of conditions where you get all street parking on busy streets but like in the outer areas off Luke 288 it wouldn't be that big of a deal so yeah I think going forward we probably need to look at you know one size fits all we probably need to reconsider that consider the locations and the volume of traffic that's going to be in there. I agree that especially when you get over in neighborhoods where you've got older housing stuff like that the historical district. That's what a lot of the complaints have been as the on street parking and reducing that is a good thing but you would have to create the spaces for the new developments for them to do that and then enforce the no parking on the streets to. My two cents worth. Thank you. Certainly, and Council had requested similarly some in the future some future looks at certain areas to see how we could better address those. This is just kind of that first step and then hopefully with things like the, you know, the gateway small area plan we can get more specific for certain areas and look at what parking might be appropriate in those areas. But just to give you a quick example of how this would compare for a large complex. Thank you. I don't belabor the point I'm really interested to hear about the flexibility that's been mentioned about this but to two things. To go back to the parking as I listened to your information as well as yours. I think it's comparing apples oranges to look at the increase of cars per dwelling and associate that with cars per bedroom, because if the city is increasing single detached families that skews up cars per dwelling, because the requirement is naturally two to one currently where cars per bedroom is a better data point to look at when we're looking at actual requirements for multifamily because you're comparing the standard for single detached to multifamily so our city going up in cars per dwelling doesn't speak to the requirement or need for cars per bedroom at the multifamily level. Those are disassociated. The other thing is, is, I may have seen a driver on town and asked myself but I have yet to see an apartment complex where the parking lot is full. I think specifically the Taco Bell men the drive through the Taco Bell on 377. There is a Taco Bell right there is on a peninsula within a parking lot from that apartment complex right there across from water burger, and I can distinctly recall every time I don't frequent often guys, but every time in Taco Bell line. I'm looking at empty parking lot. And so I've never seen that parking lot full and that's away from campus. And so I'm just on my head, and I apologize is not getting around this idea that there's a need for one to one and it seems like if if development groups are coming in asking for one to one, let's, if they want one for one and they want concrete. I would like to see the flexibility of that but if they come in and say, our demographic is using bikes and we're wanting to promote that in the city, then we shouldn't say then build more concrete or we're going to have the same issue in front of Kroger on University where it's just a concrete jungle. And I think that's what I'm not looking forward to the chair's point is just putting concrete out there because we think that they need a car per bedroom and a city in which I think the direction of council and in general is one to become more bikeable. But yet, this seems counterintuitive to that, that progress that didn't try to make. That's my soapbox. Thanks guys. Commissioner Sullivan. I think I go along with Commissioner Roselle, you know if there's a way to have credits given. In other words, in the very spot that you're talking about the reason I'm sure is, there's a bus stop there, and it goes to and from campus. And so if you got an apartment complex that has a bus stop right outside the front door, then be able to have some allowances or whether it's credits or something, how you want to use it, so that if they have alternative transportation available to that location. Let them build less. Again, if they have more people moving in with more cars that they can't handle they'll find another apartment complex. I think that, you know, I'm not a big biker I don't buy into all a lot of this stuff but I think at the same time, it costs money to build parking lots, and if they're not used. Why spend that money, why require a developer to spend that money. There's a way to be more flexible, where they live, and I dare say over by Med Park, there's a couple of apartment complexes I have no idea how the parking lot is but I know Med Park is empty most of the time. Again, there's parking spaces there they could either, you know, rent or use if necessary. So, I think there's a lot of places like that that we need to somehow incorporate the flexibility, along with making sure that we get cars off the street, if that's the end result, and told, if they're in the street. So it's pretty simple. Certainly. And so, I believe in the, the Denton code 2030, what will be brought forward later this year if I'm remembering correctly there is a credit system for facilities that are within a certain distance of a form of mass transit. So that is to come with with what's proposed. At this point we don't have anything like that in the code we do have means within the code for for mixed use developments to reduce parking for parking within a certain distance of the property that may not be on site if they provide some sort of shared parking agreement we do allow for those sort of things. They're not very frequently used, but, but they are allowed for within the code. At this point. I think we've talked about this a bunch of that we're going to run out of time so let me pause right quick rich six. I don't know how long you're anticipating hopefully we won't wear you out as much. Do we need to take a pause and get food and then just go on to the rest or what do we need to do in at six o'clock. Let's take a recess mode all kind of take a break and refresh at six o'clock. Okay, we've had the countdown so we'll call us back to order at 608 and we'll continue on Haley's presentation on parking standards. All right, I'll try to make this as brief as possible. So just a quick example showing you a comparison of this I won 't walk you through it, unless there are any questions on here just showing you for 100 unit development with four different types of units offered one through four bedroom, how this would compare and how the guest parking would come into play. So you can see the average would increase from less than one space per bedroom to just over one space per bedroom. Again, just another example this was actually based on the mingo road apartments how that parking could have changed with an SGP that we saw last year. Again, it would have brought that required parking up from under one space per bedroom to just over with, with the one space per bedroom plus the guest parking requirement. So the second change that we're recommending is just adding a sentence within section of our code as it relates to the maximum allowable number of spaces, not making any changes there in terms of the previous parking requirement, other than to stipulate that the previous surface, the parking spaces that are paved with pervious surfaces would not be allowed to count towards the required landscape area. So the pervious surface would still be required. But within the code currently, if you provide per vious paving for parking spot, it can count towards your overall landscape area on the lot and result in less actual landscaping being provided. That's that's what this proposal would be to stipulate that if you have excess parking and you use pervious pavers, that's fine, but it can't count towards your landscape area . So again, just giving you an example, this is an existing apartment complex in town that was approved over eight years ago, but they did provide 55 pervious parking spaces within the development because they wanted excess parking above what the code allowed. And those spaces were counted towards their landscape area for the development. The third recommendation, this gets into some of those relief mechanisms that we hinted at earlier, providing a means of administrative relief for the amount of parking. So what we're proposing, I don't have the exact language in here, but it is in your backup. But in summary, the director would be allowed to approve a reduction of up to 10% of the number of required spaces if certain criteria are met, which would include it not causing any undue burden on the surrounding area. And that this could be used in combination with the other relief mechanisms and substitutions that we'll discuss here in a moment. And as one of the additional criteria of that is that if this is used for every space that is reduced, they would have to provide for bicycle spaces in lieu of that one. And you can see on the table here just a comparison. If you were required to have 20 parking spaces, you could reduce that by two spaces with this 10% reduction, but you would then have to provide eight bicycle parking spaces on site for a total of 18 vehicle spaces and eight bicycle parking spaces. One of our other recommended changes is to our on street parking criteria. Right now they're a little loose in how they can be applied and where those spaces can be located. We're proposing that on street parking be limited to multif amily and non residential developments that are within the infill boundary only. So on the outskirts of the city wouldn't be allowed to take credit for on street spaces and then single family would no longer be allowed to take credit for on street spaces or duplexes. And then we would stipulate with this that on street parking and within the infill boundary for multifamily and non residential could be credited towards the required parking for each contiguous 22 feet of frontage that they have on the street. So just to give you an idea this red outline here is the infill special purpose district boundary so within this area is where this would be allowed to count towards your required parking. Looking at a little more specifically at how this would apply. So what we mean by contiguous frontage is like what you see in the example here. This from the driveway over to their line they have approximately 70 feet. So dividing that by 22 they could fit three parking spaces within that area. Again, no not counting for the frontage they have within the driveway on the other side they could fit four spaces based on that 22 foot dimension. So, as I mentioned our current on street parking criteria there are a little convoluted to say the least, so we require, or we allow you to take credit for on street parking at a ratio of one credit for every two on street spaces up to four credits. And then anything above that is it a one to one ratio, so that math gets a little complicated sometimes. So just to take an example if you needed seven parking, or you wanted to provide seven on street parking spaces as some of your required parking under the current code for the first four of those seven credits, you would need to provide eight spaces for the fifth through the seventh you would then need a one to one ratio so three spaces. So that would require you have frontage for 11 parking spaces to get seven parking credits under the current code. Sorry that five there should be a seven that's typo on my part. And then under what's proposed here it would be a little bit more direct as long as you had the 22 contiguous feet of frontage for that for those seven spaces so total of 154 linear feet of frontage on either side of your driveway, you could use those seven spaces as credits towards your parking at a one to one ratio. One of the other changes we're making currently the code allows for compact car parking it only allows for it in parking garages. So we would propose that compact car parking be allowed anywhere not just within garages could be allowed within surface lots. But whereas we currently allow you to substitute 20% of your parking within a garage, we would propose to take that down to five compact car parking isn't frequently used. So we want it to be an option but maybe not for 20% of the vehicles on your site. So those would be the changes to compact car parking allowing it outside of parking garages and reducing it to a 5% allowance. We would propose to add more specific language for bicycle parking right now it's just a recommendation motorcycle parking isn't mentioned in the code at all currently so that's a new addition. So this is the proposed language. To summarize we would stipulate within the code that bike spaces be elevated to provide some safety there for the bicycle parking. We would allow that substitution for one vehicle space, you would be required to have four bicycle spaces for every one vehicle space, you can have two motorcycle spaces as a substitution there. Some provided some very specific language that's taken directly from our current bicycle parking recommendations that are bike and pedestrian coordinator developed, we're opting to put those in the code and make them actual requirements in terms of how much space you provide for bicycle parking. So those racks would need to be in an area that's two feet by seven feet at least and within 50 feet of the main entrance of the facility to encourage them to be actively used. Provide some options as to what that bicycle parking could look like a rack that secures the bike in at least two places and enclosed locker or some sort of other covered or fenced area. For running dimensions for motorcycle spaces before by eight feet. And then, same as with the compact spaces we would require that these substitutions not be for more than 5% of the required parking. So you can see all of that kind of place together with the administrative relief, you can have a 10% reduction, and you can pick and choose how those pieces go together. You could provide a combination of compact spaces bike spaces, and then just administrative relief up to 10% of the required number. And just to kind of summarize these changes are being proposed in advance of the overall DDC update, because those council directives to provide flexibility and improve our residential parking standards. Just a reminder of how it currently works we have this men max system the minimum is the maximum no flexibility, unless you go to ZBA to reduce your parking through a variance, which is a hardship variance, or you provide permeable paving for excess spaces, or you come before the PNC for approval of an ADP to provide excess parking that with impervious surface. And again staff is recommending approval of these requests, as I've presented them to you tonight, and be happy to answer any other questions. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. So we're supposed to be. We expressed a lot of points earlier today that was just kind of concerns things without much change so we're supposed to be voting saying we were approved this for recommendation to city council to vote on approval. So if we have considered we have concerns considerations recommendations given that about the table. Essentially, or what. I think it's almost a two part. I think it's almost a twofold. We were given a, we were given a directive by Council to bring, you know, to bring this to bring this forward. And actually, I think it started before January January was where we first presented the item at the work session. And so it's kind of where we are now. And council kind of looked at it as really sort of a stopgap if you will, like a better way to say it, while we're getting the DC update being done. So I think that's a good way to get it up today. I think are definitely have merit, but by all means I think we'll even admit I think there's a lot more as we continue to progress and move forward with the DC update that we could we could add in even car share, do we give a, you know, if a car shares available at a site. Can we offer a percentage reduction if so which that reduction be. So I think there's those, those those alternatives are there. And then writing all of this down to make sure that we're actually tracking it for the matrix. So that's where I kind of think we're almost at it. Look at it as a twofold one. And we're, we're, we're directed to bring this forward. This is kind of where we're at. But I think we also agree that even as you'll see it in the current draft. With the full consolidated draft of the DC, there'll be some additional changes as we continue to move forward so I think this will be a moving, moving, moving target to a certain extent, but this wasn't this was something that Council had direct us to bring forward We both approve this. It's approved. It will be essentially repealed the DC update is done. Some of it some of it could stay some of it could could be completely repealed when we bring the DC update forward. Okay, so what parts what parts of you know we talked to we have you discussed that are not the data that are won't be covered in the DC update or will be covering the DC update but we're not talking about here. Okay, where are we, what parts are not overlapping as a question I'm asking. All of us would overlap. I think I think the other, I think the opportunity to, to further look at these whether we want to call them zones parking zones or reduction areas. How we, how we define that I think another, another big component of this is how we, how we define the central business district. Right now the boundaries kind of gerrym ander all over don't make make much sense. I think as we start to pull that and sort of refine that and mold that to what's where it really should be. I think it's going to be a driver but I think what ultimately comes out of some of the neighborhood plans. Sure, I think will be a big component as far as where we, where we start to target these sort of a column reduction area right now for lack of. What we're saying is this is this is completely whatever's it covered by the DC update that we're going to vote on a proof later on another. This is purely a stopgap to DC updates can solidify and entrench correct everything that we're talking about. Please go for it. Sorry Scott. I know and I might also mention just the mere fact that that there is three members , there are three members of this commission that participate in a committee that is going to review all of this once again so just as Richard indicated. Sean's capturing notes and every meeting that we go to and all the public comments. We're going to consolidate all those comments into a into a document that the committee is going to be working through. So, this is not the last time that's also be heard. And I was just bringing up Mike my original question because I was worried we're saying well, we would like to maybe see some flexibility. No, it's always just trying to make sure I got the text of what was posted. You can still make those concerns part of your recommendation. As I was saying, notes that they're taking that and it'll be presented to with along with approval. This is what they're, you know, asking so it's true with our recommendations. We continue. We're going to continue to look at this work we're, we're definitely not done we're getting a lot of good feedback from different parts of the community, we're very engaged with area plans and as we talked to downtown businesses, and what some of the things that that haven't even come before this group as of yet. So we're trying to manage all of those pieces and look at it holistically, and we have months to work on this, where it is that we've been working on the stopgap for months, really just trying to get something better than what we have today is all it is. Thank you for your time. Commissioner Alice. Thank you, just a quick note I guess if we are going to try to move this forward. I made a note that G to be does not make any sense the way it's written. So that really needs to be looked at I mean I think I know what you're trying to say but it's, it's, it doesn't make any sense the way it's written. The administrative administrative relief. And if you if you read to, and then you try to apply be as it just doesn't make sense as written. We can take a look at that. I think that's a good point. I get where you were trying to go with it. I just think it for to make proper English sense and in an outline form, it doesn't make sense the way it. Certainly, I'll make another that we can try to rework that language. Okay, yeah, and I can come up with a line if you need me to do that. Okay. Yeah, yeah, if you have recommended language, certainly, let us know and we can consider that. Any other questions for Haley on this side. Okay. Thank you. That's our last agenda item on our work session. We made it made it through a timely break for foods. Kind of reset things. Work reports. I gotta go back to the agenda. Thank you. We didn't get to the courthouse square design standards you 're correct. And the upland habitat management. After tonight's meeting. That's what we've done that before. You want to try to get that one in five minutes. And so one. I'm sorry to a will do at the conclusion of the Of our regular public meeting. Come back in here and continue on that. Okay. Good evening, Commission. I'm Deborah. Here with environmental services. Three short notify me about your questions about upland habitat that were expressed during the April 25th meeting. And I asked Richard to come and actually have a conversation with you to gather more information and better direction of the information that I that you wish to see in the future. I watched the video and pretty much three topics were brought up. The management of upland habitat. The quality of upland habitat, especially if that could be captured as a part of the field assessment reports and the mention of a point system. Staff is aware of the lack of good guidance on managing environmental sensitive areas in general. It is a plant staff is playing to address that through the ESA criteria manual that is currently being drafted. With that, we will provide a whole section of it and that criteria manual will be brought to the PNC Commission for you for your input and review. There will be an also a section included on the criteria manual about the field assessment forms. Staff is actually working on modifying the upland habitat to have a section that identify some if there's any issues with the with the habitat with the canopy, meso canopy understory and so on. And we will get into the details as a part of the of the E SA criteria manual. So in that way, part of the reports that we will turn back to the applicant will have some information about how those react could be managed or improved in needed to be. And that information will go back to the whole will connect back to the management section that the criteria manual will have. What I'm not sure about and that's what I'm here. There was a mention about a point system and for me to I would like to receive some clarification of why you meant where you were going with the idea of a point system. Are you looking to have a point system similar to what is called the or use for repair and buffer as a string rapid assessment tool? The are sat that Mr. Chances might be familiar with or something similar that is done with wetland delineation. So help me guide me what type of what you were heading with the point system when it was mentioned during the work session. Commissioner Sanchez. When I'm talking about a point system, I was looking at the quality of the of the habitat and being able to say, OK, either rate like a rating and this rating would basically depending on what type of habitat or the quality of habitat the individual had this rating would would determine what maybe how much the owner would have to give up if it's a very poor quality habitat. And it's even an upland habitat. And and there's no rating system. What I was thinking is you may get like what I saw over there and across the street from what you call it Home Depot. It was a very poor quality upland habitat. And I think it was like two points some acres were taken out of that for upland habitat, even though the quality was very poor. So what I'm looking at a point system or based on what type of quality the habitat is, then that would determine what the person would actually give up at the time when you're making a decision on that. Does that make sense or not? I think because quality is I'm just saying the quality of the habitat makes a big difference. If he has a very good and then the point system also would include give him something for the amount of property he's giving up. Does that make sense? The point system. So you are pretty much saying based on the quality of the habitat that would be preservation requirement will be established. Is that what you are trying to connect between the two? Based on the quality of the habitat determines how much person would what your decision would indicate how much he should because what he does is he gives up a certain percent of land based on being an ESA, right? Depending on the use of the land, residential or not residential. 50% and 30% and then the amount of ESA present on the site. Those are the two things that apply to determine the total acreage of dedication. But you don't consider the quality and that to me is very important. Okay. Because you can have a very low quality habitat like what I saw over there. You require a lot of work to bring it back to upland habitat to do it quality upland habitat. So what what are you going to do to bring it back or are you just going to go into use that criteria you just mentioned without looking at the quality. Commissioner back. Thank you, Chair. Can you commission Sanchez Could you give us an example or two of the criteria that would be involved in determining the quality of upland habitat, just so I can get a better idea of what you're okay for example you may look at spacing of the trees, type of trees, how much grass land there is the the herbaceous vegetation. Those are the species of vegetation, as far as the herbace ous vegetation, you may when I'm talking about the trees you may look at what different types of trees are within that location within that upland habitat. Okay, I'm assuming that when they look at an upland habitat the primary species of upland species you're looking at blackjack oak and post oak, because that was what we saw over there. But if you see a lot of, for example, within that that habitat within that area, you are seeing cedars. Well cedars aren't part of a upland habitat. That's well managed because cedars are very flammable. So those are the criteria you would use to determine what type of habitat you have in there, what quality of habitat you have in there, and we'd have to probably establish that kind of criteria. So determine quality and who would essentially do that then ? Would you expect that to fall upon? To determine the criteria? Okay. You're asking me? Well I'm pointing because I think you at the end of the day will determine that. That would make sense to me, yes I agree. So, I guess, are you then asking Ms. Vera if she's going to be putting forth some criteria to establish quality? Yes, that would be my question is how would you put up, because I haven't seen anything other than it's, and I don 't think we've seen anything other than it just says it's a ESA. But when you go in there, there's nothing that tells you the quality and there's nothing that says okay, this is what we have and this is what we're going to move to and these are the species, if you have good quality habitat, you're going to find these species within that area. Right now the only thing you're finding are these species, which is indicative of a bad quality habitat and I think it 's important. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Deborah, is there any standard of measure ? Best practices or national standards or anything like that ? We do, and we are working on that, especially in the sections that we were looking to identify issues and to make it as a part of the reports in that way the person who 's going to manage have some sort of where to start. Okay, so yes we do. And there's not only species, we're talking about the presence of land, of vines, of heratious material, soil, and so on. So yes, we do have that. So that's going to be made available. But I think that we are combining two things and for the lack of time I don't want to get much into it. But one thing is identify issues with the habitat and how we can improve it if that's the way that that person chooses to do. The other thing is how upland habitat is defined. Upland habitat is defined by area, 10 acres or more, and by the presence of species, characteristic of remnants. The quality of the habitat is not part of the definition of what defines upland habitat. That change is a policy change . Okay, so when we're starting to establish the percentage of dedication or I should say preservation based on quality, that's a policy change that needs to be reflected on the DD on 17 or whatever new section is under the new module to be able to enforce that. The grading system, we can implement that as a part of the criteria manual. The management guidelines, we can implement that as a part of the criteria manual. And we are working on it because we have identified that as a lacking out there for many years. But connecting the quality with the finding what upland habitat is, that's a changing policy. And that will have to be something that has to be brought through PNC City Council Committee on the Environment and all that. Continue Mr. Sanchez, Commissioner Sanchez. Okay, yeah, but when you're defining upland habitat as what you define it as, if I go into an area and you define it as upland habitat and all I have is a few oaks in there, post oak, but there's not no herbaceous vegetation, that to me is not really upland habitat unless you define it. Your definition kind of is mute because the definition of upland habitat should include all those species up, it should include the herbaceous vegetation and it should also the woodland habitat or vegetation. So if you're missing 90 or 50 or 60% of it, then it's not, what do you, then it's, what do you, I don't know what you 're defining then. Do I have time? Go ahead. Sure. I think that it goes back to what is considered Easter cross timbers. So we have a reference from a habitat standpoint what is present and what is not. The cross eastern habitat is, there's a wide variety of things. Yes, you have the post oaks and the blackjacks as the more, as the flagship species, if you can call it in that way and there are other species that you will see them present in a lesser extent but still there. There are indications where herbaceous materials is part of the habitat especially because you have the prairies next to the cross timber, and you have that transition from one ecoregion to the other but there are other areas where we have indications in the literature that those areas are more thick, and the presence of herbaceous material is not as permanent as in other cities. So, I think that we need to take a step back, maybe bring some people who can provide some more information about it and have a more broader discussion, but just to let you know, staff is working on it, the criteria manner would be able to answer some of those concerns. It is not in a, we're working, it's not something that is available for public review. So it will take some time. We 're working on it so and you will have the chance to go over review it and make a recommendation on it. I think I would ask and I appreciate the clarification. I would ask it to maybe you and Commissioner Sanchez have a conversation phone conversation or something and maybe get into the more specifics of some of the things that y'all are talking about. That would be a good way for that discussion to get refined to then come back before this commission for consideration when the criteria manuals ready for public view. So, thank you for staying late running here short on time at the end. With that I'm going to close our work session at 640 and I 'm going to announce just for the record that we're going to come back after our public session over here in council chambers to hear item, a to a of our work session reports, we're going to come back this evening to do that. Being and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning meeting for May the 9th 2018. This meeting has been duly posted, and we do have a quorum present and I will call us to order at 650 apologize our work session ran long and it kept you all waiting. Our first order of business will be to stand and give the pledge to us and the Texas flag. Texas flag. So we will move us to our consideration of our minutes, and we'll take these as individual motions due to possible attendance issues. So chair and attain emotion for the April 11 minutes. I approve the April 11 minutes as is get a second. Commissioner Roselle. I second the buttons are. I can't push second but I second motion. Okay, well that's why maybe nobody was. Nothing was showing up and I'll, I'll do it. Okay, so we have a first and a second for approval on the April 11 meetings minutes. Questions or discussion. Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carry 70. Commissioner Ellis. I moved to approve April 25 minutes. Okay. Commissioner Sullivan. Second that motion. Okay, we have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion. Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion is going to carry five to zero with two recuse. I will move us to our consent agenda. Commissioner Smith motion to approve. Okay. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair second. Okay, we have a first and a second for approval. Any further discussion. Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion is going to carry seven zero. I will move us to our public hearing section. Make an announcement on that. We're going to have a change in order of our agenda. Our item D which is FR 17-0024 is going to become our item B. And then our item B currently FR 18-001 will be C. Our item C FR 17-0029 will be D. And then we will be back on schedule with E and F. With that change in our agenda, I have a conflict of interest on item A and the new item B. I'm going to step out and turn the meeting over to the vice chair, Commissioner Roseau. Thank you chair. As a point of note, the new item B, the final replout for Beal Way is going to be continued. So if someone is here for that item, I just want to give you a heads up that we'll be voting on item B to be continued until May 23rd. With that, we'll move to item A Z 18-004 and I'll open the public hearing and invite Haley for presentation. Good evening. This is case Z 18-4 for Access Bank. The request before you is a rezoning from downtown residential one district to downtown commercial general or DCG district. You can see on the top map the current zoning of DR1, the lower map reflects what this would look like where this rez oned to DCG. The subject property is comprised of four parcels. Total acreage is just over one acre for all four. And the property is generally located within the block made up of Maple, Myrtle and Eagle. So with the rezoning, the primary thing that staff is looking at in our criteria for approval is consistency with the future land use plan. So the future land use map designates this area surrounding the property as downtown compatibility. The intent of that designation is to provide areas with compatible form and uses to both serve downtown with supporting uses as well as serve and protect adjacent neighborhoods. Development in this area is typically a mixture of commercial, residential and even sometimes industrial uses. The requested DCG district we also found would be a extension of the existing DCG that exists on both the east, south and west side of the properties currently. The uses that are permitted within DCG are consistent with uses existing in the area today, which includes banks, offices and single family homes. Looking at the access and public facilities available to the subject property on this map, the subject property is outlined in yellow. You can see it has frontage, the different pieces on, as I mentioned, Maple, Myrtle and Eagle streets. The red and blue lines on the map reflect the existing water and sewer lines in the area, so there is adequate services available to the property. This is a concept plan the applicant provided for what they would intend to build if this rezoning is approved. On the northern portion of the northern three lots, they would propose an expansion of the parking lot as well as four small office buildings. And then on the parcel that was on the south side along Eagle, they propose an expansion of the parking lot there as well. Notification was sent about this request. As you can see on the map, we did receive four responses. One of those was in opposition. It's shown in red on the map. It represents 2% of the land area within that 200 foot buffer. We received three favorable responses, one being from the current access bank property and then two being from properties just north of Maple, as you can see on the map. And the favorable responses represent 26% of the land area within the 200 foot notification area. Staff is recommending approval of the request. We did find it to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the future land use map within our Denton Plan 2030. We also found the proposed zoning to be compatible with the surrounding properties in terms of the permitted uses. And with that, I'd be happy to stand for any questions. We do have some questions. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Vice Chair. Haley, during the work session, we discussed a couple of things. I asked some questions. I don't know if you got answers for them or not. We had a short amount of time between work session now. H omes occupied and was there a neighborhood meeting? To my knowledge, there was not a neighborhood meeting. I didn't have a chance to look up the occupancy versus render for this area. Thank you, Haley. Any other questions for Haley? Thank you, Haley. Appreciate it. This is a public hearing, so if you would like to speak on the item, we'd ask that you fill out a blue card and you're more than welcome to speak. We do have some cards already in. The applicant is here, obviously in support. Not speaking, but here to answer any questions. Does any of the commission have any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Smith. I do. And as you approach, I'm going to say your full name and your address. Amy Bissett, 212 South Elm, Denton. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Bissett. Would you give me the floor? Sorry. Yes, Commissioner. Thank you, sir. Are the homes occupied within that area now that we're asking for the rezone? Some of the homes are occupied, yes. My understanding is that some of them are already vacant, but there are still some tenants that are in homes. In fact, I had a conversation with one of them when I was putting up the public hearing. Okay. And they're planning to vacate the lease? Because they're all renters in that area, I'm assuming, correct? They are renters. They have not been provided notice that they need to leave at this point in time, from my understanding, because there is no imminent timeframe for when the redevelopment will begin. Okay. Was there ever a neighborhood meeting held? There was not a neighborhood meeting held. Okay. And it's all one owner on that, all that land is all one owner, correct? It's two owners, technically, but they have shared ownership interests in the bank. So it's two entities, but they are both involved with the bank ownership. Thank you. We have a couple more questions. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. Hi, Amy. Thanks for coming down. Absolutely. Just for what it's worth, I'm just, I'm generally opposed to the zone change for the development. I'm always going to be the one on the commission that opposes removing any well -kept houses really that are affordable for a lot of people. And there's a few trees in there that will be missing too, but just out of curiosity, these buildings that y'all want to add as part of the development, are these directly linked to Access Bank? Are these just going to be offices that will be rented out to other companies? They would be professional office space that would be garden style, smaller offices that would be leased by individual tenants. Okay. So Access Bank doesn't have a need for these offices, but can be leased them out. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you, Chair. Approximately how many offices and how many tenants do you believe will be in these four buildings ? We really haven't gotten that far in the conceptual planning process. In fact, the concept plan that you have as a part of your backup is an early draft form of the concept plan. And we anticipate three to four professional office buildings. There's four on the plan. I think it will really depend a lot on the site layout and the landscaping and tree canopy that's going to be required and the number of parking spaces. And I would anticipate that you're looking at three to four office buildings that are maybe 3,000 square feet apiece. Okay. I've got a concern the fact that it looks like the parking or the traffic is going to be coming off of Maple and Myrtle. Is that anticipated? Is that what you all are planning? And if so, some thought I think needs to be given to how many cars that's going to add because those streets aren't very wide. And has any thought been given to that? Sure. So I'll be glad to speak to that. When this property was developed in 2008, it was developed with an alternative development plan that still stands in place today. And so once the rezoning is complete, our next step will be to amend the alternative development plan, which will trigger at that point in time a look at the traffic patterns as well as the number of parking spaces and the landscape buffers. And everything else associated with the site in terms of addressing the infrastructure and the mobility around the site. And so in short, we're not that far down the line yet, but you will see this again when it comes to the point that you 're actually looking at a site plan and counting parking spaces and looking at the mobility around the site. Okay. So this is the concept. The building that's on the north side that looks like it faces probably west, I'm assuming, is that sort of a done deal type thing or is that building may or may not exist in the final plan? The thing that you're looking at in the concept plan is a done deal. In fact, it was kind of an early draft to be able to come in and visit with city staff about it so that you have a conceptual idea of what the bank and the ownership is considering doing. But in terms of actually a site plan where any buildings are locked down in any locations, none of that is defined at this point. And you will have to approve that when it does come back through with ADP. I know that the city of Los Fargo, advisors over here on the west side, and if you're coming down Pacific Street, people want to park over there, there's no parking, they're going to park in your place, and there's no parking there, they're going to park on Maple Street. I don't know. Well, and that may, as we go through the site planning process, that may be what absolutely, the conclusion that we arrive at once we start trying to lay out the buildings and the number of parking spaces. I will speak to Pacific Street, though we will be filing an application to abandon Pacific Street, so then it will become a part of the private lots between the Wells Fargo offices and the professional offices. So it will no longer be a city street at that point if that abandonment takes place. Thank you. Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Mr. The ADP and you're going to see on the site plan as well. I think when you come back to this project, the site plan will be approved as a part of the ADP process. And so you will see that and you will have an opportunity to tweak it at that point. I don't know how much the web conceptual plan you guys already have put together but from what you got what you can tell, you know, with how it's currently zoned 40% landscape coverage and 40 40 foot building height. If it was something of, you know, of the commission where we were to say, hey, we will prove the reason we will put restrictions to maybe have that landscape as well as that building height as a restriction on that, but that be acceptable by the applicant. I believe absolutely it would. And in fact, because there's an existing alternative development plan approved on the project today, it already exceeds that some of the landscape buffering and tree canopy requirements in order to accommodate the parking that's a long and Carol and Eagle. I know you're all familiar with that bank site, but there's a wrought iron fence there and some significant landscaping and buffering. And so when we come back with an amended ADP , we'll have to speak to all of that at that point in time, and be able to show the parking that we're contemplating on the corner of Myrtle and Eagle, and would also be considered front parking. So we would have to come in for the ADP at that point in time and find ways to mitigate that. And so that would certainly be an opportunity for you to say we'd like to see additional landscaping or some additional restrictions on building height. You can understand we've seen a lot of times whatever we're putting in commercial uses right next to residential uses that building height is usually one of the biggest biggest sticking points for a lot of for a lot of citizens. So as long as as long as you and the applicant are okay with with us maybe imposing that restriction. Absolutely. And in fact, part of the reason that we're proposing this garden style professional offices is that we do feel that it's a it's a good buffer between the existing single family homes and the height of the bank. Good. Thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Mr. Hi, Amy. When you just for a point of clarity with the 2008 ADP plan that you're talking about, is that is that far reaching past the excess bank we know today does it reach into some of the land we're discussing today. It does not. In fact, there's a note in the ADP that states that there's an intent in the future to build some professional offices north of the bank site and therefore none of the amenities that were provided north of the bank site are counted in the ADP towards mitigation or towards meeting the obligations of the development plan. And so there's very specific that the ADP is very specific and it speaks primarily or really only to the buffer and the right iron fence as it relates to the parking configuration. That's all the questions we have. Thank you very much. Thank you. Again, this is a public hearing if you'd like to speak we can fill out a card and then come down speak. We have a couple individuals who would like to speak on the item. First one is Andrew. Forgive me. Hugh Haas. Did you just state your name and the address for the record . Yes, good evening. My name is Andrew you Haas 325 Maple Street. I have some concerns about this rezoning the information that came out was very preliminary. It didn't allow didn't identify any buffer drainage heights of building, or how they're going to address the traffic, which I'm glad that was raised. Thank you. As far as the drainage goes, I went out and have a look at the property and my properties goes down five foot from front to back. The property to the to the west of me. That's kind of that has right now a building proposed on it . About a third of that drains onto my property, and all that drains off to the south, which that property is six inches lower than the back of my fence. My concern is when this goes in that the property that there will be pooling or insufficient drainage on my mind. And then also, as far as the construction goes, all of the mud and whatever during rain and construction will be coming across my property. The other issue I had was privacy. Talk about this being a buffer. This is a rental property for us. So the privacy of our tenants is important. Having a large building there or building commercial building there will disrupt the privacy of my tenants and may may may reduce the value of the property and also make it less attractive to tenants to rent. I had a look at some of the design criteria. And will all that be a part of requirement of this design. The landscaping the flood control. Everything will be a part of that. These are my four concerns, the drainage issue, the privacy issue affecting the rentability and the value of my property. The traffic in front of our house we're talking about that we're the first house after the, after the driveway. So somebody is going to park. I understand the conversation about on street parking is something you want to try to avoid. We would definitely want to avoid it in front of our property. And then also the building height, so it doesn't overshadow our property in the yard. Thank you very much. We do have a question. Commissioner back. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. You. Coming down and speaking. You said you live on Maple Street. You live on the north side of the South 325 maple. If you look at the map. We're the red lot. You're the red light next to the development. Okay, that's that was going to be my next lead in. You own other rental property in this area to no sorry. No. Okay, so just you're talking when you talk about rental property talking about your house. Say it again when you're talking about rental property you 're talking about your house. Correct. Okay, very good. We did it one time. Okay, thank you very much. That's all the questions I see. But just to reiterate, I think you got some affirmative nods, but a lot of the specifics you addressed about building height, traffic patterns, privacy, drainage site design that would come at a later stage in terms of the planning the ADP that was mentioned. Today we're just focusing on the actual use of the property and his zoning. So, the certainly when it comes back to us, we'll have another public hearing for you to express again, if this was to go through those concerns you'd have to speak into those. Thank you very much. I just want to make sure it doesn't negatively affect my property, my ability to rent my property. Sure, understood. Thank you for your time. Thank you. We have one more card Wendy Roche. And again, if you can state your name and address. My name is Wendy Roush. I own 418 and 416 maple, and I actually live in 418. So, unlike a lot of the people who own land there, I live in that neighborhood, I care about this town. And prior to that for 20 years I lived like three blocks over and I have lived in that neighborhood and love it, which is why I purchased the property, and I'm very not against this construction going on, but I feel like Ms. Miss Bissett may have been uninformed on some of the facts in that she said the timeline hasn't been established. They have rented to people in those houses on two year le ases, because I was told it would be a two year lag until the construction started. If you could speak into the mic for everyone listening, so they can hear. But my, okay, I have concerns with the parking and the flow of parking and everything, and you cannot widen Maple Street because one side is a giant pine tree and the other side is a hill. But in the two year time, they still want to rent these properties and get top value, but they don't really want to invest money, which I understand. So what we have is a lot of convicted felons and now a sex offender who is being rented to, and I feel that this goes against the serve and protect. When you say that we're looking to rezone to serve and protect the neighborhoods, bring value, keep it safe. There is a large complex of students that walk through there. And just an example of what I've kind of had to deal with the felons that live in 330, even as I tried to come to this meeting, I could not get out of my driveway, because one of them had pulled their car parallel blocking me in. We have caught the call to police many times because they choke each other in the street, and they crack their door open and head open. We are now subpoenaed to testify against them. And now her brother just got out of prison and needed somewhere to live, so he moved in. And my concern is for this two year lag. This is what is going to be in the neighborhood and that's not really protecting and serving. As I said, I live there. My tenants just had twins. There's a baby in that house at 330. All the windows were smashed out, all winter. It was one of the coldest winters we've had. The landlord did nothing, and he was one of the Kellard ones as he was for this change. But meanwhile, their pursuit of profit, they're not taking into consideration the neighborhood. I believe downtown Denton could be a great place for people to live, and we can progress and have these office buildings, but we need to do it at a reasonable pace without putting people in the neighborhood at risk while you slowly wait to develop your land. So I just don't feel like they're considering the people who live there, or the town, or those students, like those 18 year old girls walking past the registered sex offender, past the other three felons every day. And they don't know. They're just college kids. They have no idea in their minds. They don't even think about it. And they come home drunk. I just don't think this is safe. And again, I'm not against the progress. I feel like the office buildings would be a nice addition, but you're not taking into consideration. And there is, like he stated, there's some, gotta be at least a hundred year old trees that I would like to see preserved. We'll never be able to grow those back. They're on the corner. You can easily keep them. And yeah, the parking and are they shouldn't have an entrance to get into that place on Maple Street. They need to come from Carol or Eagle, the streets that are wide enough to facilitate that traffic. So any exiting onto Myrtle or Maple, I feel like is an ill advised flow. So I'm not fully against. I guess I'm just afraid. Okay, my time to afraid. I'm going to live like this for two more years and it's just going to get worse. So we do have one question for you, Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was going to open it up to allow the applicant to respond back to the two year lease question that was brought up by citizen. Thank you. I'm not familiar with what the lease terms are, but I do know that we began this rezoning process in October of last year. And as you all know, public hearing processes take some time. And so without speculating, I would say that a two year lease would ensure them enough time to get it done. And once the rezoning is done, we have to come back in with a plat and come back in with an alternative development plan and then come back in through the building permit process. And so we just recognize that that takes some time . I can't speak to the property owners intent with in terms of the length of the leases or when the property will begin to develop once all those approvals are done. I just know in my role that that takes a significant amount of time just to get all the approvals. Thank you. They think they're living there for two years. They don't know that they could end their lease. She's kind of saying that if they move along, they're going to kick them out. He has 13 kids. Sorry. They believe it's a family that lives there and they believe they're going to be living there. They're paying five hundred dollars. They'll never be able to find another place. I'm sure that the owner will probably help them. But I feel like they should tell them that this two year lease is not actually two years. Like there should be some honesty with that. Wish we as a commission could give you give more help to you on that part. And I know you can't dictate. Sure. Yeah, we're limited. I'm just here to let the concerns for because I feel this is like debt. And for all of us, we can make this a great city. I think I think in past experience to say that the applicant hears the capsized concerns that you're expressing that that she 'll more than likely will take it back to the owners and bring up what's been talked about. Because if it is a danger to the current neighborhood and everything else, 100 percent makes makes sense. But I think I think in regards just to the zoning matter at hand, that it makes it hard for us to have any power over that. But I know I want to come because I live in the neighborhood and I went to the meetings for the zoning stuff. And I was because I care because I actually live there and deal with the consequences of what's going on where everyone else rents their properties. I appreciate you coming down and speaking. I know I'm out of time. No, you're fine. As long as we're conversing with you, you can step there all night, but I won't talk. And I don't want to do that. In regards to the trees, you brought that up. There is going to be some some level of conservation that can be brought up during future plans, especially when it comes to the ADP, as well as landscaping that's inside of the development criteria. So I would tell you just keep an eye out for more of the public hearing notices going out. If you want if you want to come specifically talking about those trees are 100 years old that you want to preserve, come back and voice those concerns again, because those will be decided here, but they will be decided at future meetings about this. Thank you. I was told they could pay a fine and take them down. That's that's the stress from my knowledge of what they can do trees. So I feel like they should. It's on the corner. Just keep it. It's not in the middle of the property. When when the signs if the signs are removed prior to public hearing, then the item is continued. Got it. If it's the fall of the applicant, obviously, if the wind blows it down, they're required to put them up right after. But if they are removed deliberately, then the item is pulled. I'm understanding. We're not talking about the signs. I'm sorry. We're talking about the trees behind the trees. I know what side you're talking about. So it's the pine tree right next to that. It's so on the corner. It's not like it would obstruct any building or putting in the parking lot. But the applicant doesn't have to come back with the ADP to present to us that we have to vote on again. So look out for that public hearing notice and keep an eye on it and come on back and speak. Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion. Of course. Yeah, of course. Thank you for being here. This is a public item. Does anyone else would like to speak on the item? You can certainly speak now. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open it for discussion or motion. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. I appreciate everybody coming in, especially Mr. Rouse and Mr. Hiles coming in. Amy, appreciate your comments too. As I indicated earlier, I'm opposed to this zone change simply because these houses , I've been overlooked at the area. It's our well-kept houses. There are some nice native trees there, some heritage trees that I'd hate to see be removed. But this is an area, again, where affordable housing, we're going to lose that. And there really is no place to go. It's a little further encroachment of commercial areas into residential areas. And I hate to deprive any owner of their right to profit from their land. But this would be one of those times when I would have to side with the people that live in that area and want to preserve it. So for what it's worth, I plan on opposing this zone change . Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Vice Chair. Yeah, just a couple of words on this . I cannot get on board with this either. You know, I appreciate Access Bank is a good neighbor and employer in the city. But I just have to disagree with the way staff looked at this as conforming to the area. I can't support the encroachment into the single-family neighborhood where people live and the dislocation of these tenants and property dwellers in the area. If we allow this encroachment, it will be the beginning of the collapse of that residential area of our city. And I am not here to do that. Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you, Vice Chair. I go along with Commissioner Bec and Ellis. I just can't see with the limited information that we have. The fact that rezoning to the requested DGC, DCG would increase the height to 100 feet. And I'm looking at a Google map of the houses in the neighborhood and wondering how many backyards is that going to be looking into, how many front yards. And I just don't think if we're trying to preserve areas of Denton that have affordable housing that are somewhat, I don't know, I'd call it historic. But at least they're older homes that have a relatively well kept up. I just can't see letting a bank come in with unknown information, unknown plans, unknown people, unknown streets or whatever and go along with it. I need a lot more information than that. Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez. I guess I can't agree with the change. And the reason is I've driven that area and I see some of their older homes, they probably go back to the 1950s or even older than that. And when people say affordable housing and I'm just saying I'm a landlord and I see some of the those houses are in very poor condition. And when we say affordable housing, it makes me wonder, it 's not really affordable housing. It's poor housing. I bet if you go into some of those houses, most of us wouldn't even want to live in them. So I'm imagining that what they want to do is improve that neighborhood by bringing in some new businesses. We can't always just go back and say we want to live like these houses were built 1940s, 1950s. They're in pretty bad shape. Probably a lot of the wiring is bad. The insulation is bad and there's probably a whole lot of other plumbing is bad. And so it's time to sometimes we have to give up things unless somebody's willing to spend a lot of money and rem odel those homes. And I would imagine most people aren't going to buy them. If they go up for sale, they'll probably go up for pennies that, you know, fifteen, twenty thousand dollars. A lot is the only thing that probably really is worth something. Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chair. I'm a little torn on this one. I do understand the points that are made by the commission ers that this could encroach upon the area. Same time, I think, honestly, until Ms. Rauch brought up the kind of the crime and the issue in the area, I probably would have said to be against this as well. But honestly, whenever you take a look at commercial development in certain areas, whenever it's depends upon the commercial development, you know, a bar or something like that, an area makes a difference. But if you're building professional offices like this, usually they have some sort of permanent parking parking lot lighting that's going to be on even during the evenings. That might deter some sort of the some some of the problems that you are seeing in that area. So honestly, as well as small of an area that's being developed with this project in particular, I can't I don't know if I can really even go as far as to say it's truly an encroachment. As there is already that commercial building right then and there. So I don't know. I wanted to say my piece for the record in regards to to where I'm kind of seeing this project fall. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. A couple of things. I appreciate Commissioner Sanchez's opinion of what the houses may be inside. But if he has driven by him from what I've seen, they've been very well kept on the outside and it might be safe to assume that they've been taken just as adequately cared on the inside. But just because they're old doesn't make them something that we should cover up and move over. A lot of old houses have been taken care of. Affordable means just that that if they are paying roughly $500 a month, they're not going to find anything else like that in a two or three bedroom. So I would venture to say that these houses are probably are probably have been kept up well enough where they're worth the lower value to be in charge right now. Also, I guess one of my objections to to the applicant is she mentioned that these aren't essential buildings for that bank. This is just a use for that property to be rented out to other individuals. So it kind of takes something away from me that if access bank isn't in need of this extra room, these extra buildings that they're putting these up in an area that I would like to see preserved with a lot of additional parking, a lot of additional parking, which takes up a lot of space. So parking, which takes away from area that could be used to absorb moisture instead of run off into the street. Thank you. Christian also happen real fast. I appreciate everyone coming out and listening and vocal izing their thoughts and provide some context to an area that I'm not all too familiar with. I am familiar with the area is with the I believe it's a Wells Fargo advisor and maple and Carol, as well as the ATM drive through that we approved as well as the large bank that Pacific Street, which is in disrepair is almost a safety hazard. And I feel like proper development of the area could elevate the property values in the area as well as the safety. And I think through an ADP, there could actually be a significantly better flow of traffic in the area for those existing, especially north of maple who, who I know get ransacked with through traffic going from Carol to Elm. And so I think there's some some unique opportunities that could exist by the redevelopment of this. And so I'm for res rezoning this. But but with that understanding the tone of the commission thus far. It would take for affirmative votes for this to pass. And so what I would perhaps suggest or even encourage is, if, if there's a sense of four votes of the affirmative would not happen that we could table this to allow the applicant to speak to the neighbors and see if we can come up with a better solution they could bring back that would be more palatable to the commission. So that would be my suggestion has been a motion put out there. I'll let Commissioner Ellis speak and then if there has been a motion that would be the motion that I might encourage it be to table this but Christian else forgers. Thank you, Mr. Chair, just wanted to respond to a couple of comments. Commissioner Sanchez I think you were assuming a lot with these properties in the area there's some lovely properties in the area and in my opinion everyone deserves to live somewhere even if they don't live up to two ones perceived standards and with Commissioner Smith. This is an encroachment the we are footprinting right into we're taking away 12. Let's see 123 I believe it's five residential homes and putting it on top of I believe there 's five more that will be left for how long probably not very if we do this. And I appreciate you vice chair about about the tabling idea. Not sure what it could take to get me to to get on board with with encroaching this into the neighborhood. Sure. Commissioner Smith. Thank you chair regarding commission else's points to think that the part that was trying to make with encroachment is that it's. You're seeing encroachment as a snowball effect you're seeing encroachment as this does change neighborhood into commercial and in that part I'll respect and say yes you're 100% correct there. And that's the part that I'm torn about. And so within that , I do want to make a motion to table this item until May 23 pending what legal says, but then table aside until May 23 to allow the applicant to discuss this further with the neighborhood and come up with some better, better options for us to vote on in regards to some of the concerns are brought up tonight. It's certain. Change my motion to motion to table to date certain postponed postponed to date certain commissioner Sanchez. Yes, I also agree with you about postponing it, and I didn 't mean that when I was talking about. I did see some when I drove through there. There was a couple of houses that were vacant. And to me they were really poor conditions and ones closest to the bank, and in fact also the ones that I assumed are the ones that are being considered to be to be rezoned. And as part of this project. So yeah, there is some some pretty nice little houses further on the on the west on the east side. But again, there are some pretty homes that are in pretty bad shape in that area, you know, and I'm just saying is it takes a lot to rebuild some houses, especially those older houses are going to have to redo it all the like I said earlier, the plumbing. If you want to really talk about a decent place for a person to live. You have to be able to go in there do the plumbing electricity, probably new windows almost rebuild those houses. That's all there is to it. Commissioner Sanchez for clarification you said you supported the motion, are you seconding the motion or just stating your. I was saying my opinion but I was also, I can second the motion. Okay, we have a first and a second and Christian back for discussion. Yes, thank you vice chair. I don't have a particular problem with moving this on up and looking at it later, especially if there's a condition attached to it that would make sure that there was a neighborhood meeting that people that live around there got a chance to talk to the applicant and express their concerns openly, like Commissioner Ellis so I don't think there's much going to be changed my mind about, you know, how I feel moving forward with this so, but just wanted to point out that if for some reason, this went forward as continuous that it be with stipulation that there would be a neighborhood meeting. Commissioner Sullivan. There were a few neighbors that were concerned about the traffic, which I have no idea where they thought people would be coming to or from to go to that church but they were heard and I don't know the fact that those were nice big homes nice home, nice neighborhoods and here we were talking about the hood. Mr St. Chas's language verbiage I guess of poor homes. I don't think that has even should not have anything to do with the fact that it's a neighborhood. If the board dealt with that too at that point, that way, then they should be getting the same recognition and treatment as the other homes did at that point in time so now you might be able to hear me so. I'm not going to go over it now. So again, I just, I just don't feel I don't know what tabling it will do or postp oning it or whatever. Because I don't know how much information they are required to bring to us. When they come back next time. I mean, I just don't know. So how does how does how does tabling or postponing this tonight. Change what they're going to present next time. And what will they be held to whatever they present next time. I assume that is a question for me or legal. I don't know who has. For me, for me personally, I, I know the applicant. It's already been postponed two dates because of chair and myself's attendance. So it's not my prerogative to push them back further. I support the project. I'm looking for potentially the opportunity to bring in more public support to bring in more neighbors to provide further context for the commission. This I think is wholly different than a Catholic Church of Teasley versus a downtown commercial district that already has neighboring multi story building in which they're trying to potentially raise the elevation of the property value safety traffic, etc. So I see those independent and I think it should be independent. So it'd be my prerogative to push this forward and allow allow that development to persist. My only suggestion and encouragement to postpone was provide the opportunity that maybe two weeks from now we look at it again. Fresh eyes, perhaps more public input. I'm not trying to confine the applicant to what they could or could not bring. I'm not going to define that for them, but potentially bring back opportunities to speak to the commissioners who are opposed to it in a way that that frames the project in a greater light with that Commissioner Smith. Yeah, just to speak to Commissioner Sullivan's points as the maker of the motion. I do think that postponing it just at least while it does put off this project a little bit longer. I think that this would be the one and only continuance that could that could occur without it really being a waste of time. But I think there are points that are brought up tonight that probably the applicant hadn't thought of yet. So rather than rather than than just completely cut off the project to cut the applicant off at its knees, rather say here's the points you may have not thought of have a chance to come back and either show us as a commission whether or not those problems can be solved. And if not, then it'll be pretty evident. And we'll vote to shoot down then. So more or less, instead of having the the applicant be be ambushed about a 45 minute span with no chance to to really come together with a case for why they can work around those problems. I think that's only fair. So first and second on the floor. There's no one else for discussion. So we'll vote on the board for a motion to postpone this agenda item to date certain of May 23. Motion. That motion fails 3 3. The chair will entertain a secondary motion. Mr. Sullivan. Make a motion to deny. Commissioner Alice second. We have a first and a second. Is there any discussion on the items, Commissioner Smith. I already said reiterate the same point to think that given chance to to speak to be able to form a case come back and say why these problems could be solved by something else. F ully fair to the applicant rather than just taking their project they applied for back in October and saying, sorry. I agree with with Commissioner Smith. The the current habitat of those homes is is in my estimation from the feedback I've gotten tonight unsustainable. One of those homes actually gets direct headlight traffic from ATM every night. And so are we persisting in providing the rental properties or the home ownership. When we had one rental property owner talk about light pollution. We have a home that currently has its their front doors facing the exit of an ATM. And so and I don't think it's on the it's the onus of the applicant to stop zoning encroachment. That's that's this commission's obligation. So it seems that I'm hearing in part that if we zone this there goes the block which the block is not up for rezoning tonight. It's these pieces of property. We have some individuals in support of it. And so I feel compelled obviously based on the initial motion in my earlier city comments to vote against the deny for reasons that I think this is impeding good infill development that I think raises this city's stature to a degree that that would be beneficial. Christian or Sanchez. Yeah. If you look at the that just that little neighborhood on the across the street on Myrtle you have that brand new that new apartment complex that just went up. You have the bank on the south side and then on the is that the east side west side you have another office. So really there's it's it's it's it's you know all the way around it there's nothing but commercial buildings. And that's why I think it's it's it's over time over the long period. I think eventually this whole area is going to be developed. That's my belief. Commissioner Smith. Thank you. Can I come back up to the mic for one second. I just wanted to see within regards to I know we're not we're not voting out a motion to table anymore or motion to continue. But what time give you adequate adequate way to be able to respond to some of the concerns are brought up versus just killing the motion now. I appreciate the question. Yes it definitely would. I think there are some misconceptions that I have not had an opportunity to address related to the project including parking for example our existing ADP says that we cannot increase the number of parking spaces. So while that draft concept plan shows additional parking spaces it was never intended to lock us into a specific site plan or number of parking spaces. And so I'd like to have the opportunity to come back before the commission and address some of those things that you raised as concerns that may have already be mitigated for or we may be willing to commit to some additional restrictions such as an overlay to restrict building height and things of that nature. Secondly and perhaps more importantly we applied for this zoning for all four parcels at once. There's a parcel to the south currently has a detention pond on it that we've reached an agreement with the city of Denton where we're going to tie into their drainage system when the drainage improvements are made on. And we would like the opportunity to be able to repurpose that lot and regardless of the other three. And so if nothing else I would like the opportunity to have it postponed so that we can look at either withdrawing the zoning case from the northern three so that you can just look at the lot that has no houses on it today and consider that one and or allow us the opportunity to come back and address some of the concerns that. We have we may have we may have already taken care of. So you're saying that possibly postpone might might allow you to come back and say you know what no longer we can we do all four parcels we can do just the one and we're coming to reason just that once we could tie in the drainage that tension is on. That is that is that is an opportunity that I would hate to miss because it's it's not directly tied to the concerns about affordable housing. And I do believe that we would certainly take advantage of the opportunity to visit with the neighbors. And I approached Miss Rouch before the the meeting ever began and gave her my card and told her that I'd be happy to visit with her about her concerns. And we'd like the opportunity to to come back and address some of the concerns and we won't waste everybody's time if that's something that doesn't change anybody's mind that's fine we but we'd like a chance to revisit those issues. Sure. Appreciate. Thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Vice Chair. Just to address a couple things I definitely don't look at this as an infill development of any kind. And I do think we have to look at what a rezoning does when we encroach into a neighborhood, and it is just what Commissioner Sanchez said, if we do it, the rest of the neighborhood will go and that is definitely something that we as a commission need to take into consideration. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. Again, just want to reiterate that this is it is an encroachment or becomes a slippery slope. And the fact that I'm glad to see we had at least two people to live in the area that came down and oppose this because originally didn't look like we're going to have any but. And I don't disagree with the opinion that this development will improve the area in some respects but that in alone of itself shouldn't negate the fact that you've got people who like things the way they are. The fact that we probably haven't had more people is because I think a lot of times. Especially if the renters think you know hey it's city hall they're going to do what they want to anyway they're always going to do what the developer the builder wants. And I think this is just one of those cases where we need to say no you know we need to back the people that live here for the reasons that they want. Again, wouldn't be. I'm beginning to feel like I'm between a rock and a hard spot to at least give the developer a second chance to come back. But I don't see anything really changed in my mind. That's the only reason I hesitate to say, I'll do that. But, again, the fact that city government officials are often viewed as being, you know, to pro business and not enough concerned about individual citizens is something I'd like to diminish here if we could just simply voting against this reason request. Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez. I just want to say that, you know, again I go back to this when these houses were built things change in those neighborhoods change all neighborhoods change. My neighborhood has changed quite a bit from when I moved in. So, all I want to say is, there's been a lot of new building you have gateway apartments that are catty corner to that to that area. And there's a lot of apartments being built in that whole area. And so that has changed quite a bit. So we need to look at what's happening in the city of Den and this not try to reserve one area, while everything around it is changing. Mr Smith, thank you, Chair. I just want to try to put myself in the position of what I think for Commissioner Sullivan Ellis and Beck saying that 's, I don't think my mind is going to change over my mind's going to change over my mind's going to change. I was in your seats and I was in a position where there was something in front of me that says, Yeah, you can come back but I don't think my mind's going to change. I still have to consider the fact that the applicant and the owners of that property have worked since October to do something. And then I as a commissioner could not sit there and say, well I may still vote you down two weeks from now. Why can't I at least give you the chance to come back and change my mind. And why do I need to be closed minded in that to say, come back, show me something different. And if it's my mind doesn't change because I don't think it's going to them. But how can I say that the applicant doesn't have the opportunity to at least make an attempt to change my mind. That's the only piece I'll give there. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Mr. Well, first of all, we already took a vote on the table and it was it failed. So right now we have a motion on the floor. Very true. Commissioner Sullivan. Part of my problem is that under the CG, since we don't know what's going in for sure, we could have a hotel bed and breakfast, retail restaurant private club bar laundry facilities, indoor recreation, which may not be all bad. The only one is that we don't know what we're voting on, other than change the zoning. We don't know what's going to go in there. It's not again, it's not part of the bank. This is a profit center form. And so I have a problem trading off a profit center for neighborhoods. I just don't think we need to be doing that motion still stands. I just want clarification, because you're Sullivan, it is within our prerogative to limit the uses. And so if you would be more inclined to vote yes, if we limited hotels. That's so I'm not sure your point if you're not. That's not a point is that all those things are allowed under this zoning. Correct. So that's what I'm saying those those those things are all allowed by the fact that it's a DCG. So if we limited its office space. No, okay, maybe height. Maybe width, I don't know, but not the way it's presented. So, Christian back. Thank you, Mr. Again, we are just for a vote. But should we come out three three again on this, it doesn 't I don't think and correct me if I'm wrong doesn't limit the applicant from coming back with something totally new down the road that that we probably could all agree on. So, the fact that if we get hamstrung here and I doesn't mean that they could accommodate what we're talking about here they could come back with a whole different proposal down the road I realize that a little cost and energy on their part but it's, they're not going to be able to picture completely. Commissioner Smith nature staff, if, if there was if we did , I know with with legal out of the room. But if there was a approval to deny. What happens then with this project going forward. Because, sorry, because the count. If there is a vote to deny not just a split vote would go forward to counsel with requiring a super majority for approval. And then to speak to the concern of them being able to come back later they would have to wait a year to come back with a similar request to this it would have to be something substantially different, completely different zoning district or, or something of that nature to be able to come back sure within the year. Commissioner Alice Thanks, Haley. Thank you, Vice Chair. I might need you. Right, they can't come back with this for a year, but they could come back with that southern portion at that point correct or not since that was a portion of the request I don't believe DCG could come back on that property within the year, unless they withdrew their application altogether prior to it going to city council. It's possible. Good plan. Seeing no other discussion we do have a first and second for a motion to deny so we can go to the board just for clarification a vote yes is to deny a vote no is to not deny, and we can put votes on the board. The motion is a non action at three three, and given read this city ordinance that an affirmation vote of four members is necessary to repeal an ordinance or take any official action. I've been advised by council to take a recess so we can clarify the next steps going forward so can we take a recess for five minutes. Thank you. So, so these tie votes are unique I just want to explain they are unique. It's even more unique when the tie vote is includes a an abstention referred to our coordinates ordin ances 7.5.1 and which discusses tie tie votes. I'm just kind of forming the public that where we're coming with this is it matters voted on, which ended a tie vote shall be automatically placed on a subsequent council meeting until the full until the full board is present. And so in this case that that won't occur. And also, to point out as a chair has has explained that there is a majority vote of four members that's necessary to take any action. And so at this point I would recommend that this item be postponed to date certain what that date certain is I'll leave to the, to the board. In the hopes that that the title could be broken either way , going forward so thank you legal. So the options for postp oning to date certain would be made 23rd or June 13 potentially. Miss best said, is there a date, could you is the 23rd enough time or would you prefer to come back on June 13. And I'm going to make a judgment call here and say that we'll go with June 13 if that's amenable to the board, because that does give us an opportunity to have some conversations with the neighborhood that we otherwise may not have time to do. Okay, thank you. So, with that then we'll probably have some questions here. Sounds like because it's a non action this will be postponed so date certain of June 13, my recommendation to city staff is to work with the applicant to carve out and cultivate an overlay that would restrict potential size and use and see if that would be more amen able to the community going forward and more amenable to the commission to try to limit the direction that that project goes with that. Commissioner Alice. Thank you, Vice Chair, I was just wanting clarification from legal. This is something you're postponing Is that correct. Yes, just based on our rules that we have to go by. It would be postponed to the next meeting. Anyway, until there was a full board. This is a unique situation will never get a full board will never get a full board, but so we would still defer to that to that language that be postponed to the next meeting. Then I'll just throw out two cents because you are going to get another chance to be before us. The only way that I would be for this is if we're talking about that lot that is on eagle. If you want to bring something forward and develop that and focus your efforts on that, I can get behind that particular lot. It wouldn't matter what kind of overlay. Honestly, I'm not on board with with eliminating five residential homes. Christopher Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair, again, Victor just for clarification. There's an ordinance that says because we're tied like we are then we have to instead just postpone it and move it up . Right, it doesn't it doesn't automatically go to city council. So, it, the way it's drafted and not this one I want to go check was that if the way it's drafted is it would be until there's opportunity to be before a full, a full board. Yeah , but in this case, since there's an extension it is, it doesn't work but we're still giving the intent to the language of that rule. Okay, and I just further add that I agree with Commissioner Ellis you know, if you're dealing with that front part of the area, only, I wouldn't have a problem with that either I wouldn't consider that encroachment and makes more sense than dealing with that back area along maple. Thank you. I'm sorry I lost track of my Christian Ellis. Thank you, Vice Chair, one more question Victor. Where is this that I just want to write it down. Yeah, I'll cite you to it. I had it and I close my book. Seven five five one, a, the title. And then also to run with it the 755, which is the majority vote requirement. Okay, thank you. So with that I will close the public hearing for agenda item 718 dash 004. Thank you for everyone coming out and sitting through that I appreciate that. The next item is item B, it's the final replat 17 dash 0024 . I would open the public hearing for this and ask for a motion to continue to date certain. Commissioner Smith motion to continue to date certain Commissioner Ellis. Second. There's a first and a second a discussion. Seeing none I call for a vote on the board. And continue the item passes 601 recusal with that I'll invite the chair back. Jim Jim Jim. Thank you. Chair I've yet to open the public hearing for item CFR 1800 1 but I turn it back over to you. Thank you, Vice Chair, going to open the public hearing for item CFR 18 dash 0001 and call on Haley for presentation. Good evening. This is a replat of fairway acres. The replat is to create three lots kind of reconfiguring three existing tracks of land. The properties located on Country Club Road also has front age on fairway acres and quail Creek Lane as you can see here. As I mentioned the request is to reconfigure existing tracks of land into three plotted lots. The property is located in the ETJ. I'd be happy to answer any specific questions you might have about the replat. Any questions for Haley. Thank you, Haley. This is a public hearing. Anyone who wants to speak on this item please come forward at this time. Anyone wishing to speak on this item. And we will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or motion Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair, motion to approve. Commissioner Roselle. Second. Okay, we have a first and a second for approval. Any further discussion. Seeing none, call for a vote on the board. Motion is going to carry seven zero. Good luck with your project. I will move us to our next item D, I will open the public hearing for fr 17 dash 0029 and call on Haley for presentation. All right. Good evening. This is also a replat. This particular property is located partially in the ETJ partially in the city limits. It's located on north Locust street. The intent of the repl at is to subdivide one existing lot into two lots as you can see here. Both lots. One would have frontage on Locust directly. The other would have access by means of this access eas ement as shown on the plat. Be happy to answer any questions you may have about this project. Any questions for Haley. Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or motion. Commissioner Smith motion to approve. Okay. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you. Second. Okay. We have a first and a second for approval. Any further discussion. Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. That motion is going to carry seven zero. That will move us to item E, which has been withdrawn. And this item has been re noticed for a later meeting date. And that will take us to item F and we'll open the public hearing for DCA eighteen dash zero zero zero three. And I will call on Haley for presentation. Good evening. This is a proposed amendment to the DDC related to our parking regulations. Specifically, the request is to update a number of the parking requirements within sub chapter fourteen of the development code. Again, for a little bit of background on this, this generated from a council request much earlier this year for a work session discussing residential parking standards. The first work session occurred in January, which time staff brought forward a number of options in terms of residential parking. And in response to that staff was tasked with coming back with more specific recommendations. So at a second work session in February, we brought forward five recommendations, very similar to what you're seeing here tonight. Those were intended to allow for flexibility within our parking requirements, as well as improving the residential parking standards in response to council specific concerns with some of our recommendations at that meeting. These have been amended slightly from what was brought forward in February to reflect the request that they made. So, again, we'll be going through all five of these recommendations one at a time. So the first is amendments to the minimum parking standards for all of our residential uses. Currently for single family, we require two spaces per dwelling. Duplex is the same with the addition of one extra space for each bedroom over three. What's proposed is for single family duplex and adding town homes to specify that use for spaces per dwelling. The location of the spaces is not specified, with the only stipulation being that tandem parking within a garage wouldn't count towards that requirement. One of those spaces could count, but not both. For multi-family, we're proposing amendments to our current standards that are based entirely on the number of bedrooms . We currently have a different ratio for each type of apartment unit. What we would propose is that efficiency and one bedroom units require 1.25 spaces per unit, plus guest parking. All other types of apartments would be one space per bedroom, plus the guest parking that we recommend a ratio of 10% of the required number of spaces be added for guests . Just looking at some of the options for how residential parking or single families currently handled, on the left you see a home that would meet this requirement, two spaces in a garage, two spaces outside a garage. On the right, we have a home that has a one-car garage with two spaces in the driveway, so that situation wouldn't be permitted moving forward for new subdivisions. There would be a fourth space required. Looking at how the multi-family changes would impact a hypothetical development with 100 units, under the current code, they would be required a total of 232 spaces, which is just less than one per bedroom. With the staff recommendations, that would take it up to 28 3 spaces total, because you would have one per bedroom for all of the larger units, plus that 10% guest parking. That puts it at just over one space per bedroom at the rate that we've recommended. Just to look at that for a little bit smaller development, this is the actual breakdown of bedrooms and units for the Mingo Road apartments that you all saw an SUP request for last year. With the current requirements, they needed 84 parking spaces, and this would have required 106 for that development. Moving on, recommendation two is to add a statement to our maximum allowable number of spaces that would stipulate that any pervious surfaces provided for spaces that are above the maximum number would not be allowed to count towards the landscape area requirements. Currently, the code does allow parking that is constructed of pervious pavers to count towards the required landscape area for a project. Looking at an example of that, this particular apartment complex had 55 excess parking spaces above what was required by the code. They opted to pave all of those with brick pavers, as you see in the photo. The area of those 55 spaces was counted towards their 15% landscaping that was required for the development. The third recommendation is where we start to get into some of those relief mechanisms. We are proposing an administrative parking reduction. This would allow for the director to approve up to a 10% reduction in the number of required spaces if certain criteria were met. For example, they could show that there wouldn't be any negative impact to the area if the parking were reduced. This would be allowed to be used in combination with the other relief mechanisms that we're proposing that are substitutions for different types of parking. This would stipulate, however, that for each space that is reduced by this mechanism, four bicycle spaces be provided on site. Looking at an example, if 20 spaces are required, a 10% reduction would allow you to bring that down by two to 18 vehicle spaces, but as a swap for that, eight bicycle spaces would be required. The fourth recommendation is related to on-street parking. Our current standards are a little convoluted, don't necessarily specify where the spaces have to be, so we're trying to tighten that language. Also, make this in accordance with the new transportation criteria manual parking space dimensions. We would propose to limit credits available for on-street parking to multifamily and non-residential uses just within the infill boundary. We're not saying there couldn't be parking on the street, but it would not count towards their number of spaces. Then those allowable parking spaces would be counted based on each 22 contiguous feet of frontage that the property has. Here is the infill boundary shown in red on the map. Looking at how that breaks down, you can see an example on the left of how those spaces would be measured based on the frontage of the property that's not taken up by driveways or some other form of intersection. Then looking at an example, currently if they were seeking to provide seven required parking spaces on site, based on our current ratios, they would have to have space for 11 on -street spaces to make up for those seven. With the proposed requirements, it would be a little more straightforward. If you have the 154 contiguous feet of frontage to accommodate those spaces, those credits could be granted at a one-to-one rate. The fifth recommendation, as I said, is related to additional modes of transportation. Compact car parking is currently only allowed in parking garages. Up to 20% of the parking can be substituted for compact spaces. This has rarely or never been used to my knowledge. What we 're proposing is to bring that down to 5% because compact car parking isn't very common here and to allow those spaces within any parking lot, surface lots or garages. We're also proposing to strengthen our bicycle parking standards, which are currently just recommendations, and also add in accommodations for motorcycle parking spaces. So providing standards for how bicycle spaces have to be provided, the area of the parking as well as an elevation above the regular parking lot to provide some safety for the bicycles. We would propose allowing one regular parking space be substituted for four bicycle spaces or two motorcycle spaces. As I mentioned, we're proposing some minimum dimensions for the bicycle parking area to allow adequate space and safety . It would also require that that be within 50 feet of the primary building entrance to encourage it to be actively used. And then we provide some options for how the bicycle parking could be provided, either with a specific type of rack or within a bike locker or some other covered storage area. Motorcycle parking, we recommend a minimum size of four by eight feet. And then in addition, this combination of credits for bicycle and motorcycle parking shouldn't exceed 5% of the total required number of parking spaces, the same as we propose for compact cars. All that being said, these changes are proposed in advance of the pending update to the overall development code as kind of an interim means of providing flexibility and improving the residential parking standards. As we discussed at work session, all of this is still subject to change again with the DDC update. These would just be kind of an interim step to get us heading in the right direction, hopefully. Just a reminder of how our current parking standards work. It is a min/max, a very strict parking requirement. Any deviation from that sends an applicant either through providing pervious paving or to ZBA for a reduction or P&Z for an ADP approval to have excess parking. With that, we are recommending approval of this request, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. I'll ask a question, nobody else will. We had some conversation in work session about moving this forward as a stopgap, and if there were some items that the Commission felt like that could be added as a recommendation, can we still do that then? There can certainly be recommendations associated with your approval or recommendation on this, but then additionally, all of this will still be, as I said, open for discussion with the DDC update as that moves forward. So with that, the Chair is going to make a motion to approve this, and I would just put a request to City Council as they deliberate this, that there's some consideration given for the differences in areas in the downtown area on some of the one-to-one parking and some of the things that we talked about, versus some of the outlier areas. For example, along Loop 288, where we don't have near as much congestion versus around the North Texas area, the downtown area, the places that we have the most negative feedback about parking, that maybe there are some abilities to lessen some of the requirements there because of the parking, and then some of these other areas that there's ample space for parking, that there be some flexibility there in that. And some of those standards, and I realize this is a stopg ap, but hopefully, again, to your point, it kind of spurs the discussion about where this ultimately is going to end up when the DDC comes before us, that there are some flex ibilities in parking requirements for different areas of the city versus if it's the same, no matter where. And so, Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. I'll second the motion, but I will say just as a way of a recommendation that while this is a stopgap, I would just make sure it seemed like from what we got when we as a commission got an update from the DDC, that this feels almost a little bit of opposite direction of where the DDC is going, and so I would just encourage that city staff and the city council take a look at it. If this is going to be a stopgap, let's at least make it a set the stopgap, similar to what we're going to see in a D DC update if that's the track we're headed towards. I would hate there for there to be a stopgap period of time where there is more restrictive and a higher requirement for parking, especially in certain areas, as the Chair pointed out, that would only apply to projects that came before us in that period of time, and then everything that came after the DDC update had different criteria. It just doesn't seem smooth, it doesn't seem congruent, so I would just make that recommendation. But I do second the motion to approve it. We have a first and a second for approval with a couple of recommendations. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. And Haley, if I'm just going to put this on the record, what I said in the work session, just suggest for clarity rewriting G2B stopgap or not. You want people to understand what you're trying to say there for sure. Certainly. We can work on that. Well, I may have spoken out of turn and got ahead of myself because I guess we still have a public hearing that's open, don't we? You know, when you get towards the end of your term, things start to kind of slip. So this is a public hearing, and since there's no one here, we will close the public hearing . And I have stated my motion for the record and I will rest ate it, since it's already on the record, remotion, which has already been previously stated. And Commissioner Smith has seconded with a couple of recommendations and Commissioner Ellis as well, and I'm sure staff has got those. So the public hearings closed and we do have a motion to approve with a second. And if there's further discussion with that little cleanup. Nobody will vote on the board then. Motion is going to carry seven to zero. That will take us to our project matrix for this evening. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Jim squeaky wheel. Number three. I'm still looking for that process of signage follow up and how staff is handling that. So I asked that, well, this will be the third meeting in a row. So we are we're developing an SOP for that we did make some changes as a result of the last meeting. The way staff is handling sort of the managing it. What I wanted to do is formalize that through a full SO standard operating procedure. And once I complete that I will have that for the next we will get that we'll get that at the next meeting. Okay, I appreciate that. Thanks. Commissioner Sullivan speaking of signage. I drove by the access thing. Those are nice signs. I don't know if they were the new and improved, or if it's somebody did it different. Those are the new signs. That's good. Very good. And I would just put on the record Commissioner Ellis. I've had the similar situation in the past with things that were important to me not coming before, and I would encourage you, if there are some specifics. Maybe you can get directly with Richard or staff and have a direct conversation about those things. And hopefully maybe some of your questions can get addressed more promptly than I know our schedules very packed sometimes. Maybe that's a way for you to get your concern addressed more timely as well. So, anybody else for project matrix. As a reminder, I'm a closer meeting, one sorry one update on the tree code because I know we've talked about that quite a bit. We will be presenting or having a discussion on that item with the committee on the environment the week of 521. So in the very near future that will be coming back sooner sooner than later I know that was something we said it's not dead it's coming back. So we are we are in the process of making continuing to make those changes, really think it through on a more comprehensive basis, but we will be at the committee of the committee on the environment the week of 521. What is the time of that meeting. It hasn't been set but what I will do is as soon as we get that squared away I will make sure Athena sent a notification to everybody. Thank you. Okay, before I close, I want to remind the commission that we've got an item that we didn't get to at work session. So we're going to reconvene when we close our meeting back over in our work session room and we'll hear that presentation and then we'll call it a night. So, at 824, we'll close our meeting for this evening. Thank you, everyone. Good evening. The work never ends. We're going to reopen our work session at 827. And we're going to get back to our agenda, which is a work session report. Item a PZ 18 dash 095. And I'm sorry I forget your name. No problem. Sean Jacobson. Sean, thank you for your presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I'm here tonight to present on guidelines and standards for the Denton Square. So a little bit of background, as you may remember, we had a tragic fire on the square. We end up losing a historic building. And that actually that did serve the purpose of highlighting the fact that we really didn't have standards to guide the development in the square area and particularly to guide what goes back in that place. Highlighted that. And so the direction we received was to remedy that situation, preferably as quickly as possible. At the same time, so we want to get standards in place. We needed something. At the same time, we want to make sure that we didn't overly burden business and property owners. So we went forward with those two clear understandings in our mind. Get something in place. Make sure that it's not overly burdensome. We didn't want to reinvent the wheel. So we went out and researched comparable cities across Texas, Fort Worth, Gra pevine, Waco, Roanoke, Bastrop, Coppell, and McKinney. We looked at downtown plans, historic downtown plans, some different types of instructions. And we took what we could from that that we felt would be beneficial for here in Denton. From that, we brought forward kind of it. We wanted a starting place. This wasn't something for us to drive, but we needed to create a starting point for stakeholders to work from. So we took what we believe were some flexible, some time-t ested concepts from Fort Worth, from other places, and shaped that to what we believe would be some flexible concepts for Denton. And with that draft, then we got to the important part of this process, which was going to our stakeholders, people that would be most directly affected by standards on the downtown square. So we met with business and property owners. We actually had a breakfast with them at Agua Dolce. Met with them, residents, business owners, property owners. We met with the Main Street Association, downtown task force, and the Historic Landmark Commission. And they each saw that draft, again, as a starting point. We took their feedback. Across the board, they were unanimously in support of having standards for downtown. Said, yes, move forward with this. They gave us some feedback. You see some of the key things they gave us there . They wanted to make sure that the standards were flexible, not overly burdensome, not creating something that was so expensive that development wouldn't be feasible, at which that was our goal, was to make that flexible. And at the same time, we also heard they wanted meaningful, codified standards, as it was put more than once, something with teeth, something that wouldn't just be ignored. So we took that feedback. But the main thing was they said, yes, move forward. This is good. We want this. And that was the important thing. It should be shaped by those people who will be most directly affected by that. The other thing they helped us shape was what we're actually talking about when we're looking at a square district. So we gave them a couple of options on a map of larger and smaller areas. And what they settled on was what you see there, obviously, the buildings fronting on the courthouse square itself, but also one street back, the buildings that front on that street as well. So what they were thinking about, if you walk into Cart wrights and walk out the back, you still want to have that feeling of, I'm on the square. The facades of the buildings you see should continue that general character, that feeling of, that historic feel of the square. And they agreed. That was a good definition for what we consider the square district. So if we talk about these standards and guidelines, that would be the area that it would apply to. Buildings directly fronting on the square and then buildings fronting on those directly adjacent streets. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Sean, on those adjacent streets, it's just the one side of the street, though, correct? Is that what you carved out in that? So it would be both fronting. Just like one side of Cedar, though? Not the other side of Cedar? Both sides of Cedar? It would be both sides of Cedar. Okay. Because I think the drawing looked a little strange. So just for clarification, Commissioner Ellis, what your question is, is not only on the east side of Cedar, but also on the west side. Right. It looks to here like it's not going to be the west side of Cedar. I agree with you. I think that's a great point. So, for example, the campus theater on the west side of C edar, these rules would apply to it as well. Is that correct ? Yes. So it just needs to be shaded a little different there than I guess? And I do apologize. There was a line delineating that, and unfortunately that's my bad. The line was lost in the preparation of this presentation. I apologize. So really, not only are Oak Street, Hickory Street, Locust and Elm affected, but one street off. So C edar, Pecan, Austin, and Walnut, all of those streets will have these requirements then. The frontages, the building frontages. The frontage, that's what I mean. Yes. That is correct. That was the express feeling of the groups that we took this to that that made sense to them. The clarification is the frontage, any building that fronts onto that street, whether it's the back of the building, the front of the building, the frontage onto that street. Yes, sir. Or adjacency to that street. These rules will apply. So really, if you're going to correct the drawing, we would almost go back around one more time on the outside of Wal nut, Austin, Pecan, and Cedar for those that may be watching this. Okay. Yes, sir. Great question, Commissioner Ellison. Clarification. Thank you. And in fact, sorry, that's going the wrong way. In fact, this is actually the original picture, and I apologize, that was what I had intended to have on that slide. So that actually has the line then extending it to the frontage. I think as a suggestion in the future presentations, it would be advantageous for people to have that same blue highlight that you've got on the buildings on the outside to Pecan, Austin, so it's really clear that we're not just looking at the shaded blue areas, thinking that's it, but on the other side of the street, they should be shaded blue as well. This is a suggestion noted to make it clear that it wasn't clear and I'm glad you asked the question. Yes, sir. Thank you. Will do. So thank you for that clarification. I appreciate it. That is important. What we wanted to look at then in framing this was kind of the intent, the general principles, the goals here. We, things that have been brought forward in the past include form based codes that's been brought forward and has been essentially told no, we don't want that. We've brought forward at times, there's been the idea of having a historic local historic district. And again, that wasn't what we wanted to bring forward at this time what we want to bring forward is simply a framework something that creates on the square that says, this is the general feel of the square we want to maintain this, this feeling this atmosphere this character, while giving you creativity so we don't want to tell you what paint color to put on your building, but we would like your roof line to not be a story above every building around it. We would like to maintain that feel that has made the square great while giving you creativity. So flexibility, but still maintaining kind of a timeless standards so for instance, Sherman building there which is not necessarily historic, but it fits when you're on the square you don't look at that and say what is that doing there, it fits. So that's what we wanted to encourage the some of the primary tools we're talking about to do that are the certificate of appropriateness. So when you got your building permit, then you would also be getting a certificate of appropriateness that said yes this fits with the standards and guidelines we've put out an apology there . Yes, sir. Who is going to issue the certificate of appropriateness. Thank you for bringing that up. I'm ahead of myself as usual, my apologies. No worries that 's exactly where I was going to go. So one of the things that has not yet been fully determined at times. And I'm actually just going to go for it here. So, you have a project on the square. So general repair, a minor alteration, not doing a lot that could go directly to staff and staff would look at standards say yes, great, good, you move forward with that that fits, you get your certificate of appropriateness, or they might say, we think that doesn't fit these standards, and you can say well I'd like to appeal to another body. We are not going to be the ones to make a determination of what that body is but we have gotten some recommendations. We've had historic landmark Commission recommend as one option. We've had a recommendation for a group that represented downtown residents and business owners like the downtown task force, or, and we've thought that perhaps a mixture of those two groups could also be considered property owners, as well as some historic landmark Commission members design professional, but that would be something that we'd like to get your feedback on that would something that council will ultimately decide, but we would , we were told when we got feedback that they wanted to have and we of course want to have a body of appeal someone that a staff decision could be taken to. So in the case of a major alteration or demolition and that would go directly to that Board of Review, whatever that was chosen to be again to determine if that fit the standards and could receive the certificate of appropriaten ess or not, and then, again, in the case of denial, the option for appeal to city council. Okay, I may be ahead of myself, is there a criteria coming for minor and major alteration. So, that is not set in stone one option would be the historic. Preservation guidelines actually do define both of those terms. So an option would be to use as set out in there, the definitions they have for a minor and a major. So things that went beyond just hey I'm fixing, fixing a doorway I'm repairing something that's already there, where you're changing a whole facade or demolishing the building, but that would be one option for defining that difference. Well just some thoughts from being an old time didn't guy. I remember back in the day when the opera house was painted. That's certain color about that. And there was a lot of comments and feedback about that color. And there was a major alteration in the facade of the building so. So, we have not chosen to put painting of the building within the standards is something we want to try to guide right now. We know that our hope is to continue to improve these standards, but we are trying to hit kind of some big ticket item protection items first and then move forward from there. Same time we'll certainly take that under advisement and that's a good point that does have an impact on the character of the squares that's an important thing to remember. Thank you, sir. So, the thing that you're brought up with just the painting but considering the murals that are on the square and possibly even bringing in, you know, the Arts Council or some of the other arts communities into the fold of this conversation as they, as, whether they have suggestions for art to be added, or if there are certain alterations that could affect some of the art that's already out there, you know, like the mural that's on the side of opera house, the mural that's on the side of a house. The side of a these now. So, just a recommendation. Yeah, certainly and I appreciate that. And, and again we are trying to keep it fairly high level with this there we can always add new standards and adjust this, but trying to really focus on those things that would make a dramatic long term change. I just wanted to clarify and maybe Roman can also add to this but we do have some designated properties within within the square. So if there is a mural that is planned, it will go in front of HLC for a for their certificate of appropriateness just want to go raise that. I apologize I'm just tired. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you. Okay, on that note of historical, what of the square is historical, so it I mean, obviously the courthouse but I mean is not. So this whole area is that you've shaded out is not a historical designation. So that correct. I'm going to make sure I'm going to look at Roman while I say this to make sure that I get this right. But not all buildings on that would fall into designation of federal designation as historic buildings, there is a federally designated landmark area there. However, that does not provide any particular protection for any of those buildings. Not all of those buildings would be considered historic some are some would not some would be considering contributing to the National Register District. Some are not. Is that going to be similar to like when we have the oak historic district. But if you haven't actually applied for historic designation on your property. It doesn't have a designation is just in the district. It is not receiving a local protection in that sense it may be part of the federal district but it is not local and in some cases again, some of them are simply aren't old enough to be a historic building per se. So when you mentioned to the chair standards, were you referring to national standards for historical buildings or what were you referring to in this case I'm referring to the standards that we're putting forward, potentially, let me rephrase the standards that are within this draft and been shaped by the feedback we've been getting your own standards and that's my error and clarification. So I believe somebody actually approved the mural that's on the temporary wall was that approved by somebody. It's like a, you know what they're paying on the side of train cars. I love art. Real good question, Commissioner, what what what happened there, which kind of looking at this diagram. It's not really mentioned here but it is in the guidelines as we've laid them out staff can always approve in those areas. And in the case of the mural. I think technically the staff could have approved it and that would be me the preservation officer, but when we have some leeway there, and I didn't want to put my stamp of approval on that, so that mural, the full mural. They had a beautiful rendering of it went to the Landmark Commission and the Landmark Commission approved the approved the mural. That's how that happened. That's it was another question in there somewhere I believe it. Well, it looked really rough before they thought it was a good cleanup there but it is correct now there are approximately half a dozen structures on the square I believe that are landmarked as local landmarks so all of those local ones always have to get like the scripture and James Coney Island is that is a local landmark. And so is the one with the mural and there's some others. Commissioner Smith, thank you chair. In regards to this, we 're seeking to look over and you'd make recommend us help give you recommendations on is the, the actual landmark and the, the regulations that go on with alterations to that is that going to supersede this and on all instances, whatever regulations are put down and put forth with this and this new one. The landmark for regulations are always going to supersede this no matter what. Correct. Yes, and that's actually something that's stated in the draft there that stricter regulations in that case will prevail. I know that I wanted to clarify. Commissioner Ellis on the standards because that question was raised by citizen recently why aren't we just adopting the United States Secretary of Interior standards for historic preservation or historic buildings. When we the ordinance. When our ordinance revisions pass, along with the debt and development code we have some preservation ordinances that have been slightly delayed as we just kind of bring them forward with that, and in there under certificates of appropriateness. When we the city or the Landmark Commission or whatever the governing body is has to apply or may apply the Secretary of Interior standards are adopted on guidelines, either one . So those standards with quotes around him which refers to the standards from the Secretary of Interior. Those are sort of incorporated in what we're doing, but we're allowing greater, we may want to do more or do less but and they don't do anything is about those guidelines they they only apply to existing buildings. We have now a vacant lot actually have to vacant lots of parking lot associated with that other building. So, and we don't know what will come forward in the future plus we have buildings that are really kind of really relatively new like the Abby in building, and that's construction, it's going to be a long time before that's a historic building, and if it isn't even altered in between and then it won't be. So, the standards wouldn't don't have enough breath to cover all that we need to cover. Thank you. Roman one more on that note then so yeah so that 's what I thought so this is really needed for new construction or younger buildings, right where those national standards don't apply I'm trying to get my head around historic and what we're doing. Let me let me jump in here maybe I can simplify this. These , these standards are really just guidelines and standards for everything within the square and what's considered the new streets, the block immediately adjacent. It applies to all buildings. So, historic or not. However, if it's a historic landmark, then the more strict standards shall apply. And it really is the only goal in this is that we manage the square in its entirety so we have a cultural component to our community that we have no protection mechanism today. So, the demolition of, or the construction thereof. There are no standards or guidelines that apply. This is designed to do that, and to complement where it is that we have historic preservation or any of our other codes and standards that are in place, not looking to create another layer body or anything else as much as it is it's just to preserve, you know the quality of what we have . Mr. Sullivan, is there any buildings I know this is going forward you can't go back and say hey y'all need to redo something. And you've got some examples of where they are consistent and what that construction looks like and I think that's all well and good. If there's anything on the square today that if this had been in place earlier, that would not have been approved, or would have been inconsistent with what the downtown should look like. I just for frame of reference. I will, I will pick on, I will pick on one component that comes to mind for me. And there's a green and white sign that wouldn't meet the standards. So if you look at the square then I name no names, but it's a box sign with an acrylic front, which really isn't a timeless design. So, it's things like that. The building, the facade of the building. So, if someone were to want to come into a storefront remove the entirety of that storefront and put a mirrored glass front, it wouldn't match the character. So that's what this is designed to do. And like I said I can only think of quickly one instance of a structure that may bring that into question. I'd have two things. Can you go back to the map we were looking at? Yes, sir. Just a second. The question comes to mind on the square itself is very apparent we've got what I'm gonna call the checker or the t ic tac toe board the little corners. When you go one street back, is the corner one street back going to be included in that as well? That would be something that would be excellent to get your feedback on. We'd like to hear from you on that, because that is a good question. I just thought out as an observation we have it here but I don't know that we talked about it one street back. Just to throw that out. And this is again just work session we're not taking action, we're making comments recommendations. It's on the record now. Yes, sir. The second one is two buildings come to my mind immediately . The Fine Arts building and then the building that's burned . Yes, sir. And let's just put the elephant there. Obviously this is being taken up because for the most part, those two properties. Yes, sir. And my question would be, I would feel better if this is going to ultimately come before us to vote on for a recommendation that the property owners of both of those properties are okay with what we're doing because obviously these standards are being moved forward to deal with those particular properties and so I'm curious if those building owners have looked at this and go, check the box, we're 100 % A okay or five people around them are okay and they're not , they're going to be the ones that more than likely this affects more than anybody else on this word. Absolutely. I will say we have certainly made every effort to reach out to repeatedly to as many of the business and property owners as we can. And I will say, I believe with one of the properties I can think of, believe one of the gentlemen who may be part of purchasing that was very supportive of this when we brought it to his attention. In fact, he basically said I've been asking for this for a couple years. So but your point is well taken. And that would be a good thing to ensure that we do. The only other thing that comes to mind is there any height restriction I didn't did a very quick thumb through on this is there a height restriction on any of these. What we have at this point is a principle that you should be essentially harmonious with the height of the buildings around you, and it was far bow. Yeah, yes. Yes. I didn't know what I'm sorry I'm being a little flippant. No, no, I understand. It would be our preference to have it would certainly be in line with the direction of the standards to say that you should have your roof should be in line with the roofs of those next to you in that block. So as time progresses and things happen. Let's say the building right across the street from Wells Fargo the tilt wall building as a structural failure. It could come back and say well Wells Fargo is 100 feet tall, that's my next door neighbor I want to be 100 feet tall. You see where I'm going with that. Yes, sir. I believe in some ways we would need to leave that to the body that would be looking at the standards we have look at that situation and use their judgment in that situation. And I would trust that they would make a good decision. Commissioner Sullivan, so really Wells Fargo being built under these guidelines, it probably would not be as tall as it is under, you know, if this was put together, and now they're going to build a new building on that corner, it wouldn't be what Wells Fargo is today is that I certainly can't speak to what decision would be made. Well, I'm saying to stay in line as you say the height is somewhat copacetic and not more than one story above I think is what I read or something. So that would preclude, you know, tall building like Wells Fargo from going into that corner. I would suspect that if these were in place that there would be some concerns about that. That's what I was wondering earlier just in my mind to see what would be would not have been approved. Yes, sir. If this had been under play in play. I think that's a reasonable statement. Yes, sir. Commissioner Rosal. Thank you, Chair. Sorry I know you're fighting that. What is the overall perspective the city of increasing height as you get away from the square so can can the cedar streaming campus theaters really tall, but is it the long term goal is we build density downtown. I would think, elevating building vertical makes the most sense in the downtown core long term. How close can that density and height get up to the square is this protected. Could they buildings are budding like walnut, which I'm not sure I don't know if that's Hannah's hand this is one street down but those buildings. Thank you. Could, could, has there any consideration of allowing the maximum height to be 5060 feet there to start kind of fading in denser structures. Okay, simple question, multifaceted answer. What you have today is what we've proposed and recommended that we're taking to this body for feedback and input to an earlier point we have not received a single derogatory or person opposed to these standards, as of yet, nothing on the record. It's going to go before Council, and then we're going to come back with an ordinance, and then refine standards from all the feedback that we received. Keep in mind that the square creating this as a square district is the immediate square area those facades and the , and the streets immediately adjacent to. So when you go another block beyond so ie walnut. Separate and apart from the fact as we look at the central business district, where that central business business district actually exists. And then ultimately the conversation in its infancy stage is talking about having similar overlay districts in the central business district and saying, you may have something different, where it is rail where it's more industrial and to the south more residential and. And so trying to manage the character of each of these components within the central business district. Our focus is exclusively on the square, and it just didn't make sense to us when we propose this originally to say that it stops on this, this, the storefront facing the square proper. We ended up with the facade on the street immediately adjacent. But as you say that you have Oak Street which is very similar in character so why don't we include Oak Street and why wouldn't we include to the point of another building well where do you stop. So, this was very defined and very refined because we have something that's unique and and really wanting to brand this to say, this is the square of dent not to say that we don't want all of these other areas to have a character and for that character to complement the square. So, we're going to manage that and then we're going to look at yes, as as we, as we move out from that, or go more vertical what makes sense and what what's good for our community. Sorry it's a long answer but it was just, it's a complicated issue. This is just one of those first steps to try to manage or maintain the character of what we have in the square because we have no tools in place today. Thank you. I appreciate the clarification and it brings to my mind we were talking based on Commissioner Ellis's question about the facades on the streets immediately off the square. And whether that should just stop basically what is the blue highlight versus crossing the street because when you cross the street. You take a whole nother core there as well that depending on how those properties are shaped. In my, in my experience, the properties on the west side of cedar. You can't make that whole block of being able to do anything with that building because you've got the facade facing north to Walnut Street. And again, it's how it is that we treat or transition that building into something else, knowing that we have unique circumstances. It's not going to be prohibited. It's designed to be flexible. And again as we craft this and go forward. I heard this Do we know this so muse being an old English term, but really treating Austin cedar, those streets are used as an alley by virtue of we have grease interceptors and we have waste receptacles and so the city's looking at how it is that we can help to facilitate or improve those streets so we've dubbed them new streets. We're looking at putting some investment into those streets , how it is that we can consolidate the trash receptacles, find other means to do something with that to try to enhance that. So the importance of capturing those streets within this and the facades of those streets tie hand in hand. I will also say there's been some conversation some dialogue about , again, is there some ability to do some, you know, some private, public ventures, where it is that maybe where we did have a fire and there have been fires on the square, can we as a municipality offer up some ideas on getting fire suppression throughout the entirety of that area. So how do we upsize the infrastructure to make it appropriate. So, making those capital improvements that are necessary to invest in our square because the importance of the square. Keeping in mind that we're focusing on one aspect of that but there are any number of things that are going along with that that really haven't been brought to the surface as of yet but it's not a secret it just, it's, again, all in its infancy. Well that I appreciate the clarification is that that's what I'm starting to think about is what you're calling the new streets the one street off. When you move that another layer out. It makes a very different or could have a very different effect on what you can do on some of those properties, depending on what the building orientation is. So for example up there on the northwest corner of Cedar and Oak Street you've got one on the north side of oak and the west side of Cedar. You've got one little skinny building there on the north side of oak. All right. Beyond that, you might have to save the little sliver building but those other buildings would not have any of those guidelines, unless there's going to be something new with the new streets that impacts those. So, again, as Scott said, definitely this is going to be an ongoing process that's something where we would be able to look at what we want to have. If this would work well would we want to have a district that fit the character of that area, a little bit more clearly, so we may not what you need there may be a little different than what we need on the area directly surrounding the square and that's something we can look at. But again we want to find somewhere to draw that line, so that in that area right in and just off the squares like we are on the square, and then being careful going beyond that to not try and encompass everything in that realm. And another piece to that is keep in mind is that the reason we went to the property owners and the business owners in that area is to get their feedback and input, an important component for them was to be involved in what that body was so that appellate body. So let's use your example to say that the city said yep you have to follow the standards and this is what you have to do or no you can't do that. We deny a C of A, then it goes before that that group of property owners and business owners and they say well that just doesn't make sense. And they go about their business so it's not as if this is this is going to be the catch all or the gotcha. It is really designed to manage what it's designed to manage, and it's going to be overseen by those that have the greatest input or as far as I'm concerned I think should be that app ellate body. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. Okay. I'm late. Anybody have any other. Do we have more presentation. I was just briefly, I had a couple pictures just to my apologies. No I understand it's getting late. I'm not to go in, in any depth into what we're touching but some of the things that these standards could help us look at would include building edge. So again, generally trying to guide buildings to create that nice frame. So you have your creativity in here but you have a frame around lets you know you're on the square. Things don't stand out too dramatically articulation, so that you know, hey, this is the first floor. This is the second floor it's pedestrian friendly. As you're approaching this building you're feeling welcome windows and doors along those facades there. So again you creating environment that's welcoming to the pedestrian in terms of guidelines, we're not going to tell you to put a door way on the corner but if you do, that's great you know that's again it's welcoming orientation. So we would want to have buildings that front on the square actually have your main entrance on the square that's welcoming it creates a frame there. You have lighting that is not overbearing that's welcoming but not bleeding on nearby streets. And then, and this is kind of a key thing that we looked at was requiring that you actually have a building along 100% of that lot line that's on the square so that you're not putting a parking lot and having you know building building whole building that felt that was an important piece to have in there. Just a comparison some of the things we have had without standards so the Texas building covered in a nice aluminum cladding a roof here that is currently existing that I believe belongs on a great temple maybe not on our square, a Masonic Hall that was demolished to make way for a parking lot just off the square storefront where we now today have fantastic windows and transoms with Montesquieu but previously we had cement all blocking those up. What we would love to see with these standards and what was possible without them. Again, you know, we're looking at screening making sure that that equipment on your roof is not visible to the pedestrian temporary construction, look at what could be put in those places to screen that and have some approval process for that actually encouraging some pedestrian dining as long as you're not impeding on the right way but creating an opportunity for restaurants saying yeah, that's a good thing on the square. Commissioner Rosal. It's going to be the time or place when I'm sitting through out there, and we were considered getting rid of some of the parking on the square and increasing the exterior sidewalks. I go to the McKinney Square, often, and I think why is didn 't not doing this in which there is a ton of pedestrian dining, great walkways. Now granted didn't have to solve the problem with parking downtown, but it seems like there 's a lot of cars and the walkways to get to place to place or, you know, eight feet wide. I'd love in a perfect world to expand those out and have all these great restaurants with the outdoor eating but I don't know if that's possible. There is actually a plan for about the 1960s. There's actually a plan that we discovered. One of our planners offices from about the 1960s that proposed basically that broader sidewalks more trees right along the edges really turning into a plaza, rather than square. So that is something that has been put forward that there's been a lot of support for, and probably not something we would try to address with this but absolutely something that would be in the spirit of welcoming pedestrians to this area so I pause and I'd say I strongly agree with Commissioner Roselle's point. point been to McKinney in the square over there. Totally different feel, and there's some great restaurants and places to go and I think that's certainly something that needs to be considered in this process. Absolutely. So, to finish up just to give you an idea of kind of the timeline we're looking at right now so at this point we are getting your feedback. In June we're going to go to City Council and get their feedback. We're going to distill that to create a draft and new draft set of standards and a draft ordinance, and then crucially we are going to go back to those stakeholders the property owners business owners and residents who we have told will let you know when changes are made to this, get their feedback on that again, and then come back, hopefully, in. Late summer, early fall for some more public hearings, move towards adoption. And again important continuous improvement so what we would like to have in this final product built in is a planned review and about a year where we go back and say how these standards worked. Have they done what we wanted them to do are the things that we need to add in or take out we want to have that almost like a sunset. Yes, sir. Commissioner Smith, thank you, Chair, I encourage possibly another another stakeholder to include Chamber of Commerce and the CVB might be a really good option for us to bring them in mainstream associations getting corporate a lot of those business owners but as the CVB is also talking about bringing a lot of outside visitors downtown, just have them involved in the conversation, not that they're going to say anything that's over and above or different than what you know mainstream association DTF, the residents business owners down there to say but I think they might have some really valuable information in the way that how visitors to Denton perceive the square. And if maybe external view the square might change how we do our preservation and design criteria. Also with seeing how we internally view it might also just be a good suggestion. Absolutely really appreciate that, certainly. And, and I will say on the feedback as well. I'm going to hear from you so if I will make sure that we have you do have a copy of all this, I'd love for you to take some time to read that anything you want to email directly to me and I'll give you my card to Richard to Scott, that'll all go in you know take your time with that and let us know what your thoughts are we'd like to get all of that really appreciate your time. Last line. That is the last line. Okay. Any other questions for Sean, while we have him. Commissioner Ellis, okay real quick sorry Thank you chair. Okay, so to back up the, the standards and guidelines that 's what you want us because I made a bunch of notes on here, so I'll just take those notes and email them to you. Okay. Great. Great presentation. Good job. Any other matters before we close. Nope. Okay, we will close. We will close the second round of our work session at 908 still early and compared to gas well timeframes would be getting pizza about now.