1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:03,980
This meeting has been dually posted and we do have a quorum

2
00:00:03,980 --> 00:00:08,000
present and will call us to order at 504.

3
00:00:08,000 --> 00:00:12,460
This will be our work session and our first order of

4
00:00:12,460 --> 00:00:17,000
business will be to receive clarification of agenda items.

5
00:00:17,000 --> 00:00:21,000
And so I will move us down to

6
00:00:21,000 --> 00:00:25,739
would be our minutes. Does anybody have changes or

7
00:00:25,739 --> 00:00:31,000
questions on the minutes for the 11th or the 25th?

8
00:00:31,000 --> 00:00:33,000
No. All good?

9
00:00:33,000 --> 00:00:37,700
So we can take both of those in one motion and legal since

10
00:00:37,700 --> 00:00:39,000
there aren't changes to either one?

11
00:00:39,000 --> 00:00:41,000
Commissioner Ellis.

12
00:00:41,000 --> 00:00:44,000
Unless we have people absent, right?

13
00:00:44,000 --> 00:00:46,000
And I don't know if that's the case or not.

14
00:00:46,000 --> 00:00:48,000
For how they would vote.

15
00:00:48,000 --> 00:00:52,000
I don't know if I had to abstain.

16
00:00:52,000 --> 00:00:54,000
I don't know the attendance.

17
00:00:54,000 --> 00:01:00,369
Okay. So we'll do them as individual items and then we'll

18
00:01:00,369 --> 00:01:03,000
just have to deal with whoever may or may not have attended

19
00:01:03,000 --> 00:01:04,000
each one of those meetings.

20
00:01:04,000 --> 00:01:07,000
Okay?

21
00:01:07,000 --> 00:01:09,000
All right.

22
00:01:09,000 --> 00:01:13,000
That will then move us to our consent agenda.

23
00:01:13,000 --> 00:01:18,000
Any questions on the consent agenda?

24
00:01:18,000 --> 00:01:20,000
I have a question.

25
00:01:20,000 --> 00:01:23,000
Commissioner Sanchez.

26
00:01:23,000 --> 00:01:28,000
On item P18-005.

27
00:01:28,000 --> 00:01:33,200
We had discussed that item back in, I believe, back in

28
00:01:33,200 --> 00:01:34,000
November.

29
00:01:34,000 --> 00:01:38,780
And some of the information that was there at that time was

30
00:01:38,780 --> 00:01:43,000
presented that there was an ESA in the location.

31
00:01:43,000 --> 00:01:45,000
Around the lake.

32
00:01:45,000 --> 00:01:50,569
Now we're finding it says here that the ESA has been

33
00:01:50,569 --> 00:01:52,000
removed.

34
00:01:52,000 --> 00:01:55,000
The status of an ESA has been removed.

35
00:01:55,000 --> 00:01:58,719
My question is, should we not have that information prior

36
00:01:58,719 --> 00:02:02,000
to when it was first presented to us?

37
00:02:02,000 --> 00:02:06,280
Because it seems like not only it might have influenced how

38
00:02:06,280 --> 00:02:12,240
we made our decision, but also the contractor or the

39
00:02:12,240 --> 00:02:16,000
developer presented us with some plans.

40
00:02:16,000 --> 00:02:20,039
And to me it was a big -- might have been a big expense for

41
00:02:20,039 --> 00:02:24,150
him looking at that and then not finding out that the ESA

42
00:02:24,150 --> 00:02:26,000
is no longer in place.

43
00:02:26,000 --> 00:02:29,199
So I just wonder if that information should be available to

44
00:02:29,199 --> 00:02:31,960
him at the very beginning when he comes and asks for

45
00:02:31,960 --> 00:02:33,000
information.

46
00:02:33,000 --> 00:02:35,000
Is that --

47
00:02:35,000 --> 00:02:36,490
I understand your question and I'm going to make a

48
00:02:36,490 --> 00:02:37,000
statement.

49
00:02:37,000 --> 00:02:39,000
I'm going to look at Deborah and see if she nods or not.

50
00:02:39,000 --> 00:02:42,000
And if not, I'm going to call her forward.

51
00:02:42,000 --> 00:02:43,000
I can address that.

52
00:02:43,000 --> 00:02:44,000
You can address it even better.

53
00:02:44,000 --> 00:02:46,000
Haley, please, help us.

54
00:02:46,000 --> 00:02:47,000
All right.

55
00:02:47,000 --> 00:02:48,979
At the time of the rezoning and SUP request, a field

56
00:02:48,979 --> 00:02:51,000
assessment of the ESA on site had not been done.

57
00:02:51,000 --> 00:02:54,030
So the map reflected that there was possible riparian

58
00:02:54,030 --> 00:02:57,000
buffer around the pond or the lake that's on site.

59
00:02:57,000 --> 00:02:59,250
Since getting approval for the zoning to move forward with

60
00:02:59,250 --> 00:03:01,849
the project, they have contacted staff, requested that

61
00:03:01,849 --> 00:03:04,620
field assessment, and when that was done, it was determined

62
00:03:04,620 --> 00:03:07,699
that the conditions weren't present and the ESA was since

63
00:03:07,699 --> 00:03:10,000
removed from the map.

64
00:03:10,000 --> 00:03:12,080
So it was -- the field assessment was the missing link

65
00:03:12,080 --> 00:03:14,000
there, but that has since been conducted.

66
00:03:14,000 --> 00:03:17,009
It wasn't done prior to the rezoning and SUP because at

67
00:03:17,009 --> 00:03:20,250
that point they didn't know if they would get approval for

68
00:03:20,250 --> 00:03:23,000
the use they were seeking on the property.

69
00:03:23,000 --> 00:03:24,000
I understand that.

70
00:03:24,000 --> 00:03:28,759
My question is, even though -- I mean, it goes before us as

71
00:03:28,759 --> 00:03:33,090
rezoning, but it's still -- he still presented us some

72
00:03:33,090 --> 00:03:38,000
information that I imagine the contractor went through some

73
00:03:38,000 --> 00:03:43,000
process because he gave us how he was going to -- what he

74
00:03:43,000 --> 00:03:43,000
was going to consume.

75
00:03:43,000 --> 00:03:44,000
What he was going to construct.

76
00:03:44,000 --> 00:03:47,000
How he was going to put the buildings and all that.

77
00:03:47,000 --> 00:03:51,180
So when he went through that expense or to develop that, he

78
00:03:51,180 --> 00:03:55,000
was under the impression that the ESA was in place.

79
00:03:55,000 --> 00:03:58,639
So I'm just saying is should that -- at the time when a

80
00:03:58,639 --> 00:04:02,699
person -- developer comes in and there's an ESA in the area

81
00:04:02,699 --> 00:04:06,490
, should at that point we should make sure to say, hey, even

82
00:04:06,490 --> 00:04:09,729
if we have to wait a couple of days and say, before we do

83
00:04:09,729 --> 00:04:11,000
the rezoning,

84
00:04:11,000 --> 00:04:14,590
we need to make sure that this ESA exists or doesn't exist

85
00:04:14,590 --> 00:04:18,089
because that may be an expense he's going to have to create

86
00:04:18,089 --> 00:04:21,699
in the process and then later on finds out it doesn't exist

87
00:04:21,699 --> 00:04:22,000
.

88
00:04:22,000 --> 00:04:26,000
The ESA assessment is always available at any time.

89
00:04:26,000 --> 00:04:28,579
It's incumbent upon the owner and the applicant to request

90
00:04:28,579 --> 00:04:29,000
that.

91
00:04:29,000 --> 00:04:31,620
So they were aware of the ESA and they could do the

92
00:04:31,620 --> 00:04:34,000
assessment at the time of the rezoning.

93
00:04:34,000 --> 00:04:37,000
They chose to wait and do it at the end.

94
00:04:37,000 --> 00:04:40,389
Phase one of the development, which is the more eminent

95
00:04:40,389 --> 00:04:43,850
product here on lot one, has always been intended to stay

96
00:04:43,850 --> 00:04:46,949
away from the lake and out of that ESA, whether it was

97
00:04:46,949 --> 00:04:48,000
there or not.

98
00:04:48,000 --> 00:04:51,300
Phase two, which would be the ultimate development of lot

99
00:04:51,300 --> 00:04:54,209
two, phases two and three, are still very conceptual at

100
00:04:54,209 --> 00:04:56,629
this time and they have no immediate plans for developing

101
00:04:56,629 --> 00:04:58,750
those and those would have been the phases that would have

102
00:04:58,750 --> 00:05:02,000
been affected by the ESA had it been there.

103
00:05:02,000 --> 00:05:05,600
So the ESA being there or not has had no effect on their

104
00:05:05,600 --> 00:05:14,000
immediate development of lot one.

105
00:05:14,000 --> 00:05:15,000
Do you have a follow up question?

106
00:05:15,000 --> 00:05:16,000
No, no.

107
00:05:16,000 --> 00:05:17,000
Okay.

108
00:05:17,000 --> 00:05:24,430
Anyone else have a question on this particular item on the

109
00:05:24,430 --> 00:05:27,000
consent agenda?

110
00:05:27,000 --> 00:05:28,000
No.

111
00:05:28,000 --> 00:05:29,000
Okay.

112
00:05:29,000 --> 00:05:34,000
How about on the next item on our consent agenda?

113
00:05:34,000 --> 00:05:37,000
Any questions on that?

114
00:05:37,000 --> 00:05:38,000
Nobody.

115
00:05:38,000 --> 00:05:39,000
Okay.

116
00:05:39,000 --> 00:05:43,009
That will move us to our public hearing section and we're

117
00:05:43,009 --> 00:05:46,939
going to make a change on our agenda as far as the order in

118
00:05:46,939 --> 00:05:50,000
which these are going to be presented.

119
00:05:50,000 --> 00:05:53,980
I have a conflict of interest on item A and item D and we

120
00:05:53,980 --> 00:05:58,009
're going to move item D up under A and it will become B so

121
00:05:58,009 --> 00:06:01,970
that I can step out for both items and then come back at

122
00:06:01,970 --> 00:06:05,000
one time during our public hearings.

123
00:06:05,000 --> 00:06:08,000
So our order will be item A.

124
00:06:08,000 --> 00:06:12,000
What's currently shown as item B will become C.

125
00:06:12,000 --> 00:06:15,000
Currently item C will become D.

126
00:06:15,000 --> 00:06:18,709
What is currently shown as item D will be B as in boy and

127
00:06:18,709 --> 00:06:22,000
then we will be back on schedule with E and F.

128
00:06:22,000 --> 00:06:25,980
So at this time the work session because of a conflict of

129
00:06:25,980 --> 00:06:30,259
interest on A and the renumbered item B, I'm going to step

130
00:06:30,259 --> 00:06:35,000
out and turn the work session over to Commissioner Roselle.

131
00:06:35,000 --> 00:06:38,000
Thank you, Chair.

132
00:06:38,000 --> 00:06:42,000
So the first item is Z180004.

133
00:06:42,000 --> 00:06:44,000
Looks like Cindy Jackson is presenting or?

134
00:06:44,000 --> 00:06:45,000
I will be.

135
00:06:45,000 --> 00:06:48,000
Okay, awesome.

136
00:06:48,000 --> 00:06:49,000
Floor is yours, Haley.

137
00:06:49,000 --> 00:06:54,000
Okay, this is case Z180004 for Access Bank.

138
00:06:54,000 --> 00:06:57,399
So the request before you is a rezoning of four parcels of

139
00:06:57,399 --> 00:06:58,000
land.

140
00:06:58,000 --> 00:07:00,000
Total is just over one acre.

141
00:07:00,000 --> 00:07:03,000
You can see the parcels outlined on both the maps here.

142
00:07:03,000 --> 00:07:06,589
The request is to rezone from DR1, which you see on the top

143
00:07:06,589 --> 00:07:10,399
map, to DCG District, Downtown Commercial General, which is

144
00:07:10,399 --> 00:07:12,000
shown on the bottom map.

145
00:07:12,000 --> 00:07:15,589
These properties are collectively located northwest of the

146
00:07:15,589 --> 00:07:19,439
Eagle and Myrtle Street intersection, also on the west side

147
00:07:19,439 --> 00:07:23,000
of Myrtle and southeast of Maple and Pacific.

148
00:07:23,000 --> 00:07:27,000
So kind of spread across an entire block.

149
00:07:27,000 --> 00:07:29,939
Looking at this request, one of the first things we looked

150
00:07:29,939 --> 00:07:32,939
at was the future land use designation for this area, which

151
00:07:32,939 --> 00:07:35,000
is the downtown compatibility area.

152
00:07:35,000 --> 00:07:38,589
The intent of this area is to create areas with compatible

153
00:07:38,589 --> 00:07:41,500
form and uses that strengthen to serve both the

154
00:07:41,500 --> 00:07:45,269
neighborhoods surrounding downtown as well as the downtown

155
00:07:45,269 --> 00:07:46,000
area.

156
00:07:46,000 --> 00:07:49,199
Development in this area is typically a mixture of uses,

157
00:07:49,199 --> 00:07:51,000
commercial, residential.

158
00:07:51,000 --> 00:07:54,980
In some cases, we even do have industrial uses existing in

159
00:07:54,980 --> 00:07:56,000
these areas.

160
00:07:56,000 --> 00:08:01,189
When looking at the requested zoning, DCG would be an

161
00:08:01,189 --> 00:08:06,459
extension of the [INAUDIBLE] around this already to the

162
00:08:06,459 --> 00:08:07,000
east, south, and west.

163
00:08:07,000 --> 00:08:09,620
The uses that are permitted within the DCG District are

164
00:08:09,620 --> 00:08:12,480
consistent with what exists in the area today, which

165
00:08:12,480 --> 00:08:17,699
includes banks, other offices, and some single-family homes

166
00:08:17,699 --> 00:08:18,000
.

167
00:08:18,000 --> 00:08:21,980
Looking at access to the property, the property has front

168
00:08:21,980 --> 00:08:25,930
age on Maple and Myrtle as well as Eagle, depending on which

169
00:08:25,930 --> 00:08:28,000
parcel you're looking at.

170
00:08:28,000 --> 00:08:31,269
The red and blue lines on the map show where water and

171
00:08:31,269 --> 00:08:34,990
sewer are available in this area, so there's ample access

172
00:08:34,990 --> 00:08:38,000
to utilities and streets for the property.

173
00:08:38,000 --> 00:08:41,169
A concept plan was provided with this rezoning. It was

174
00:08:41,169 --> 00:08:42,000
included in your backup.

175
00:08:42,000 --> 00:08:44,759
So you could see on the northern lots, they're proposing

176
00:08:44,759 --> 00:08:47,409
this is approved to add four office buildings as well as

177
00:08:47,409 --> 00:08:49,000
some associated parking.

178
00:08:49,000 --> 00:08:53,860
On the southern parcel that kind of stands on its own, they

179
00:08:53,860 --> 00:08:58,000
're intending to add a parking lot in this area.

180
00:08:58,000 --> 00:09:00,000
Notifications were sent regarding this request.

181
00:09:00,000 --> 00:09:04,070
We received one response in opposition outlined in red on

182
00:09:04,070 --> 00:09:07,299
the map from an adjoining property owner and three

183
00:09:07,299 --> 00:09:08,000
responses in favor,

184
00:09:08,000 --> 00:09:12,279
one of which was from the current owner of Access Bank as

185
00:09:12,279 --> 00:09:17,000
well as two properties to the north of Maple Street here.

186
00:09:17,000 --> 00:09:21,419
So based on the percentages, that was 2% of the land area

187
00:09:21,419 --> 00:09:25,000
opposed and 26% indicated favorably.

188
00:09:25,000 --> 00:09:26,000
Commissioner Beck.

189
00:09:26,000 --> 00:09:27,000
Thank you, Vice Chair.

190
00:09:27,000 --> 00:09:32,169
Haley, the two properties that were for it on Maple, the

191
00:09:32,169 --> 00:09:35,000
owners don't actually live in those two houses, do they?

192
00:09:35,000 --> 00:09:37,000
They rent them?

193
00:09:37,000 --> 00:09:40,049
I'm not aware of the specifics for those properties. I

194
00:09:40,049 --> 00:09:43,000
believe there is quite a bit of rental in this area though.

195
00:09:43,000 --> 00:09:46,299
And the total number of residential buildings that are

196
00:09:46,299 --> 00:09:50,000
going to be removed for this development, I counted five.

197
00:09:50,000 --> 00:09:52,000
Is that right?

198
00:09:52,000 --> 00:09:56,090
I believe there is more than one home on some of these lots

199
00:09:56,090 --> 00:09:59,000
, so it's at least four, I believe.

200
00:09:59,000 --> 00:10:04,149
Okay, because the little extension that sticks out there to

201
00:10:04,149 --> 00:10:08,980
the right and touches front Myrtle Street, is that going to

202
00:10:08,980 --> 00:10:11,000
sit between two different houses?

203
00:10:11,000 --> 00:10:15,409
Or is the house to the south of it, which there is, is that

204
00:10:15,409 --> 00:10:19,000
going to be removed or is that going to stay?

205
00:10:19,000 --> 00:10:22,000
If you, let me put the wrong direction there.

206
00:10:22,000 --> 00:10:25,039
So on the concept plan, I believe that existing house that

207
00:10:25,039 --> 00:10:28,070
you were seeing that was within the green area sits roughly

208
00:10:28,070 --> 00:10:29,000
in this area.

209
00:10:29,000 --> 00:10:31,000
So it would also be removed as well.

210
00:10:31,000 --> 00:10:35,000
Okay, thanks.

211
00:10:35,000 --> 00:10:36,000
Commissioner Ellis.

212
00:10:36,000 --> 00:10:38,000
Thank you, Vice Chair.

213
00:10:38,000 --> 00:10:41,879
Yes, Larry, those are two investors on those two northern

214
00:10:41,879 --> 00:10:43,000
properties.

215
00:10:43,000 --> 00:10:45,769
Haley, I know I asked you about the addresses that were

216
00:10:45,769 --> 00:10:48,750
affected, so there's two more houses under, you know how

217
00:10:48,750 --> 00:10:51,649
you've got the little outline of what the zoning request is

218
00:10:51,649 --> 00:10:52,000
.

219
00:10:52,000 --> 00:10:55,080
There's two more residences, but I guess that's already

220
00:10:55,080 --> 00:10:58,000
been rezoned and those houses are just going away.

221
00:10:58,000 --> 00:11:00,940
Yes, those houses, it shows on our map for DCAD to

222
00:11:00,940 --> 00:11:04,090
currently already be one parcel and it's all zoned ECG

223
00:11:04,090 --> 00:11:05,000
currently.

224
00:11:05,000 --> 00:11:08,000
Well, currently there's two houses there as well.

225
00:11:08,000 --> 00:11:10,559
Yeah, I'm not sure if it's all under the same ownership

226
00:11:10,559 --> 00:11:13,000
perhaps, but it does reflect as one property.

227
00:11:13,000 --> 00:11:15,000
Okay, and it already has the zoning.

228
00:11:15,000 --> 00:11:16,000
Yes, that's correct.

229
00:11:16,000 --> 00:11:17,000
But the houses remain current.

230
00:11:17,000 --> 00:11:18,000
Yes.

231
00:11:18,000 --> 00:11:25,000
Okay, thanks.

232
00:11:25,000 --> 00:11:28,000
All right.

233
00:11:28,000 --> 00:11:31,710
So with that, staff is recommending approval of the request

234
00:11:31,710 --> 00:11:32,000
.

235
00:11:32,000 --> 00:11:34,470
We found DCG to be consistent with the goals and objectives

236
00:11:34,470 --> 00:11:36,000
of the Denton Plan 2030.

237
00:11:36,000 --> 00:11:39,360
We found that the zoning would also be compatible with the

238
00:11:39,360 --> 00:11:42,950
mixture of uses in the area as well as permitted uses under

239
00:11:42,950 --> 00:11:45,000
the surrounding DCG zoning.

240
00:11:45,000 --> 00:11:49,000
And with that, if there are any other questions.

241
00:11:49,000 --> 00:11:50,000
Any questions?

242
00:11:50,000 --> 00:11:51,000
Commissioner Beck.

243
00:11:51,000 --> 00:11:53,000
Thank you, Vice Chair.

244
00:11:53,000 --> 00:11:56,000
Is the applicant going to be here tonight?

245
00:11:56,000 --> 00:11:57,000
I believe so.

246
00:11:57,000 --> 00:11:58,000
Then I can ask a question.

247
00:11:58,000 --> 00:12:00,000
Okay, well I'll wait for that then.

248
00:12:00,000 --> 00:12:01,000
We'll get you to public hearing.

249
00:12:01,000 --> 00:12:05,000
Thank you.

250
00:12:05,000 --> 00:12:06,000
Commissioner Smith.

251
00:12:06,000 --> 00:12:07,000
Thank you, Vice Chair.

252
00:12:07,000 --> 00:12:10,000
Did they do any neighborhood meetings?

253
00:12:10,000 --> 00:12:13,000
I'm not aware of a neighborhood meeting.

254
00:12:13,000 --> 00:12:15,000
I don't believe they had one.

255
00:12:15,000 --> 00:12:16,000
Okay.

256
00:12:16,000 --> 00:12:19,340
And the homes that are currently on there now, are they

257
00:12:19,340 --> 00:12:21,000
owned by the applicant?

258
00:12:21,000 --> 00:12:24,370
I believe so since this is all considered one parcel under

259
00:12:24,370 --> 00:12:25,000
DCEDD.

260
00:12:25,000 --> 00:12:28,000
I believe it's all under the same ownership currently.

261
00:12:28,000 --> 00:12:31,220
And the homes that are on there now, are they currently

262
00:12:31,220 --> 00:12:32,000
occupied?

263
00:12:32,000 --> 00:12:33,000
That I'm not aware of.

264
00:12:33,000 --> 00:12:35,000
Okay, then try to find out for the public hearing.

265
00:12:35,000 --> 00:12:38,000
Thank you.

266
00:12:38,000 --> 00:12:40,269
And just to reiterate Commissioner Beck's point, we will

267
00:12:40,269 --> 00:12:44,000
have this in public session at 630 in city council chambers

268
00:12:44,000 --> 00:12:46,000
where you're welcome to talk and ask questions.

269
00:12:46,000 --> 00:12:49,000
We'll be happy to address those then.

270
00:12:49,000 --> 00:12:53,000
Any other questions for Haley on this item?

271
00:12:53,000 --> 00:12:55,000
Thank you, Haley.

272
00:12:55,000 --> 00:13:01,370
Haley, you also have the next agenda item that will go over

273
00:13:01,370 --> 00:13:07,000
the new B, it's final replat 17-0024.

274
00:13:07,000 --> 00:13:11,049
Yes, so this is a replat of what was formerly La Hacienda

275
00:13:11,049 --> 00:13:15,000
Heights as well as a large tract of unplatted land.

276
00:13:15,000 --> 00:13:19,330
So the development here would be approximately 190

277
00:13:19,330 --> 00:13:21,000
residential lots.

278
00:13:21,000 --> 00:13:24,139
This eastern portion of the property was formerly La Hac

279
00:13:24,139 --> 00:13:26,000
ienda Heights as I mentioned.

280
00:13:26,000 --> 00:13:29,379
That subdivision never developed, so at this time they're

281
00:13:29,379 --> 00:13:32,559
replatting that for a new residential subdivision that

282
00:13:32,559 --> 00:13:35,000
would be between Beale and Hercules.

283
00:13:35,000 --> 00:13:37,649
You can see here the western portion of the property was

284
00:13:37,649 --> 00:13:41,240
formerly just a large unplatted tract of land, so it's

285
00:13:41,240 --> 00:13:43,830
being incorporated into this plat at this time to provide

286
00:13:43,830 --> 00:13:46,000
one larger subdivision.

287
00:13:46,000 --> 00:13:49,000
And I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

288
00:13:49,000 --> 00:13:51,000
Commissioner Beck.

289
00:13:51,000 --> 00:13:52,000
Thank you, Vice Chair.

290
00:13:52,000 --> 00:13:55,090
Can you give us, what are the streets on the west and east

291
00:13:55,090 --> 00:13:56,000
side of this?

292
00:13:56,000 --> 00:13:59,360
Is Locust, is it going to butt up to Locust on the east

293
00:13:59,360 --> 00:14:00,000
side?

294
00:14:00,000 --> 00:14:02,000
Beale Street will connect to Locust.

295
00:14:02,000 --> 00:14:04,639
There is an existing substation in this area that would

296
00:14:04,639 --> 00:14:07,370
separate it, but Beale Street would be the connection to

297
00:14:07,370 --> 00:14:08,000
Locust.

298
00:14:08,000 --> 00:14:12,000
Okay, and then on the west end, what are we looking at?

299
00:14:12,000 --> 00:14:16,000
On the west end, this property is currently undeveloped, so

300
00:14:16,000 --> 00:14:19,000
Beale Street would stub out at that point.

301
00:14:19,000 --> 00:14:21,899
And then Hercules, if you look at the very south side of

302
00:14:21,899 --> 00:14:24,309
the subdivision, it does have a cross street that would

303
00:14:24,309 --> 00:14:26,210
connect to Hercules as well to provide some east-west

304
00:14:26,210 --> 00:14:27,000
connectivity.

305
00:14:27,000 --> 00:14:30,000
Everything to the west is undeveloped right now?

306
00:14:30,000 --> 00:14:31,000
Yeah, currently.

307
00:14:31,000 --> 00:14:35,019
This development, will it be involved in the extension of

308
00:14:35,019 --> 00:14:36,000
Hercules?

309
00:14:36,000 --> 00:14:40,149
Hercules is being extended as a part of another subdivision

310
00:14:40,149 --> 00:14:42,000
further south of here.

311
00:14:42,000 --> 00:14:43,000
Okay, thanks.

312
00:14:43,000 --> 00:14:45,000
Commissioner Ellis.

313
00:14:45,000 --> 00:14:46,000
Thank you, Vice Chair.

314
00:14:46,000 --> 00:14:51,460
Haley, my question has to do with Platinum 6 with regard to

315
00:14:51,460 --> 00:14:57,000
the easement maintenance and the way that's worded.

316
00:14:57,000 --> 00:15:00,000
So I guess I just wanted some clarity.

317
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:04,090
So we've got where CA1, CA2, CA3, and then it says, "And

318
00:15:04,090 --> 00:15:07,919
all areas designated drainage and detention easements will

319
00:15:07,919 --> 00:15:11,080
be maintained by the properties that traverse and are

320
00:15:11,080 --> 00:15:12,000
adjacent to."

321
00:15:12,000 --> 00:15:15,379
So does that mean the personal property owners are right

322
00:15:15,379 --> 00:15:16,000
there?

323
00:15:16,000 --> 00:15:19,120
This subdivision would have an HOA to maintain all of those

324
00:15:19,120 --> 00:15:21,000
common area lots in detention.

325
00:15:21,000 --> 00:15:24,179
And that's where my confusion is, because typically that's

326
00:15:24,179 --> 00:15:27,159
what that note will say, that it's going to be maintained

327
00:15:27,159 --> 00:15:28,000
by the HOA.

328
00:15:28,000 --> 00:15:31,000
And this says, "By the owners of the lot."

329
00:15:31,000 --> 00:15:37,039
And so I guess where I'm going with it is as these people

330
00:15:37,039 --> 00:15:41,220
buy these lots, is a buyer beware that, oh, ha ha, you're

331
00:15:41,220 --> 00:15:43,750
in charge of the drainage easement and it's your

332
00:15:43,750 --> 00:15:45,000
responsibility.

333
00:15:45,000 --> 00:15:47,470
My understanding is there will be an HOA for the subdiv

334
00:15:47,470 --> 00:15:50,000
ision for the maintenance of those common area lots.

335
00:15:50,000 --> 00:15:54,259
And that is, we could have that note rephrased for the Plat

336
00:15:54,259 --> 00:15:55,000
inum.

337
00:15:55,000 --> 00:15:58,000
Because it doesn't say that there.

338
00:15:58,000 --> 00:16:01,620
And if that's what the intent is, then my request would be,

339
00:16:01,620 --> 00:16:03,000
could it say such?

340
00:16:03,000 --> 00:16:06,990
Because right now, it looks like the private property

341
00:16:06,990 --> 00:16:11,000
owners who abut that would be responsible for that.

342
00:16:11,000 --> 00:16:14,220
And if they are, I mean, that's kind of a scary thing,

343
00:16:14,220 --> 00:16:17,000
because how are they ever going to know that?

344
00:16:17,000 --> 00:16:22,139
Also, with the way it's worded, you mentioned the CA1, CA2,

345
00:16:22,139 --> 00:16:27,000
CA3, and then all other designated drainage easements.

346
00:16:27,000 --> 00:16:30,049
And so I noticed there's one, I think it was like the

347
00:16:30,049 --> 00:16:31,000
Northwest.

348
00:16:31,000 --> 00:16:34,360
So it wasn't a common area, but north of right there of the

349
00:16:34,360 --> 00:16:38,000
City of Denton property where it says drainage easement.

350
00:16:38,000 --> 00:16:41,000
So is that considered part of Note 6 as well?

351
00:16:41,000 --> 00:16:44,000
That easement is outside the boundaries of this plat.

352
00:16:44,000 --> 00:16:47,059
That's just an existing drainage easement that adjoins the

353
00:16:47,059 --> 00:16:48,000
subdivision.

354
00:16:48,000 --> 00:16:55,000
Okay. So is the note just referring to CA1, 2, and 3?

355
00:16:55,000 --> 00:16:57,000
Or others as well?

356
00:16:57,000 --> 00:16:59,000
Yes, I believe that is the intent of the note.

357
00:16:59,000 --> 00:17:02,100
We can certainly have that note reworded before the plat is

358
00:17:02,100 --> 00:17:04,000
filed to avoid that confusion.

359
00:17:04,000 --> 00:17:06,690
Speaking to the developer, they do intend to have an HOA

360
00:17:06,690 --> 00:17:08,000
for the subdivision.

361
00:17:08,000 --> 00:17:18,269
Okay. So I guess in today's vote, how do we do that so that

362
00:17:18,269 --> 00:17:24,000
's taken into consideration?

363
00:17:24,000 --> 00:17:27,319
We'll come up with a specific language, but it would most

364
00:17:27,319 --> 00:17:31,650
likely just be to revise that note, clarifying that the HOA

365
00:17:31,650 --> 00:17:34,509
would be the responsible party for that, if I'm

366
00:17:34,509 --> 00:17:36,000
understanding.

367
00:17:36,000 --> 00:17:38,359
Right. And so are you going to have that tonight when we

368
00:17:38,359 --> 00:17:39,000
vote on it?

369
00:17:39,000 --> 00:17:40,000
Yes.

370
00:17:40,000 --> 00:17:43,309
Okay. So you're going to have something before us when we

371
00:17:43,309 --> 00:17:44,000
go to vote?

372
00:17:44,000 --> 00:17:45,000
Correct.

373
00:17:45,000 --> 00:17:49,000
Okay.

374
00:17:49,000 --> 00:17:50,000
Chair, I'll start back.

375
00:17:50,000 --> 00:17:52,000
Thanks, Vice Chair.

376
00:17:52,000 --> 00:17:53,000
Clarify a little confusion for me.

377
00:17:53,000 --> 00:17:56,779
Had to go to the notification map if you can, because you

378
00:17:56,779 --> 00:18:00,809
indicated that Hercules wasn't a button in this property,

379
00:18:00,809 --> 00:18:04,430
but looking at how this is outlined, it looks like the

380
00:18:04,430 --> 00:18:08,450
southern part sits right up against where Hercules is going

381
00:18:08,450 --> 00:18:10,000
to come through.

382
00:18:10,000 --> 00:18:37,000
Okay. If you give me just a second, I can navigate to that.

383
00:18:37,000 --> 00:18:40,000
Okay.

384
00:18:40,000 --> 00:18:42,000
On the very south, it overlaps with Hercules.

385
00:18:42,000 --> 00:18:45,589
You may have misspoken a little bit that Hercules is being

386
00:18:45,589 --> 00:18:49,369
extended as a comprehensive project that will be in advance

387
00:18:49,369 --> 00:18:53,000
of the subdivision to the south of here being developed.

388
00:18:53,000 --> 00:18:54,000
Okay.

389
00:18:54,000 --> 00:18:56,359
But Hercules is being extended all the way across to

390
00:18:56,359 --> 00:18:58,000
connect to the existing Hercules.

391
00:18:58,000 --> 00:19:00,960
But as this development goes forward, they're not going to

392
00:19:00,960 --> 00:19:04,000
work on Hercules until the other development south of it?

393
00:19:04,000 --> 00:19:07,359
It's the same developer for both projects. They're both

394
00:19:07,359 --> 00:19:09,000
going to be moving forward pretty much at the same time.

395
00:19:09,000 --> 00:19:10,000
Okay.

396
00:19:10,000 --> 00:19:15,269
So there will be houses in this top development here all

397
00:19:15,269 --> 00:19:19,000
the way down to Hercules, correct?

398
00:19:19,000 --> 00:19:21,000
The subject property here in yellow?

399
00:19:21,000 --> 00:19:22,000
Yes.

400
00:19:22,000 --> 00:19:23,000
Yes.

401
00:19:23,000 --> 00:19:24,000
Okay.

402
00:19:24,000 --> 00:19:26,210
Let me clarify that a little. There is a large area of

403
00:19:26,210 --> 00:19:29,000
detention ponds on the south side of the property.

404
00:19:29,000 --> 00:19:33,250
Right, right. Where there is a detention pond, there will

405
00:19:33,250 --> 00:19:37,369
be houses for that northernmost development that will come

406
00:19:37,369 --> 00:19:38,000
down in.

407
00:19:38,000 --> 00:19:44,000
None of the houses within Beale Way will front on Hercules.

408
00:19:44,000 --> 00:19:46,000
There are these large detention ponds that separate it.

409
00:19:46,000 --> 00:19:47,000
Oh.

410
00:19:47,000 --> 00:19:48,000
Okay.

411
00:19:48,000 --> 00:19:51,400
So you can see North Point would be a connection point

412
00:19:51,400 --> 00:19:53,940
there, and then there would be a couple of cul-de-sacs that

413
00:19:53,940 --> 00:19:56,000
extend, that come down and just kind of dead end.

414
00:19:56,000 --> 00:19:59,190
But North Point would be the only direct connection besides

415
00:19:59,190 --> 00:20:02,150
they went all the way down to Locust and circled back into

416
00:20:02,150 --> 00:20:03,000
Hercules.

417
00:20:03,000 --> 00:20:04,000
Okay.

418
00:20:04,000 --> 00:20:10,000
Thank you.

419
00:20:10,000 --> 00:20:13,089
Haley, can you clarify, final replats usually we see are

420
00:20:13,089 --> 00:20:16,880
commercial. What's the reason? Do we see residential final

421
00:20:16,880 --> 00:20:19,000
replats outside of consent?

422
00:20:19,000 --> 00:20:22,500
Yes, any replant is required to have a public hearing for a

423
00:20:22,500 --> 00:20:26,109
residential replant. There are additional notifications

424
00:20:26,109 --> 00:20:27,000
required.

425
00:20:27,000 --> 00:20:29,710
But all replants where they're not vacating the proceeding

426
00:20:29,710 --> 00:20:32,000
plat are required to be public hearing items.

427
00:20:32,000 --> 00:20:34,000
Gotcha. Thank you for that clarification.

428
00:20:34,000 --> 00:20:37,039
Any other questions for Haley on this item? Commissioner

429
00:20:37,039 --> 00:20:38,000
Sullivan.

430
00:20:38,000 --> 00:20:41,009
Thanks, Professor Chair. And what was the reason for the

431
00:20:41,009 --> 00:20:42,000
replant again?

432
00:20:42,000 --> 00:20:44,680
They are replanting, actually it shows up pretty well on

433
00:20:44,680 --> 00:20:47,460
this notification map. The streets you see kind of grayed

434
00:20:47,460 --> 00:20:48,000
in here.

435
00:20:48,000 --> 00:20:51,119
That was the existing La Hacienda Heights subdivision. It

436
00:20:51,119 --> 00:20:53,000
was plotted and never developed.

437
00:20:53,000 --> 00:20:56,619
So rather than going with this exact plan, they wanted to

438
00:20:56,619 --> 00:20:59,549
reconfigure the neighborhood and extend it further to the

439
00:20:59,549 --> 00:21:03,000
west to include this entire unplatted tract west of there.

440
00:21:03,000 --> 00:21:06,009
So we're replanting all of that into one comprehensive

441
00:21:06,009 --> 00:21:07,000
subdivision.

442
00:21:07,000 --> 00:21:14,079
Do we know if the replant is allowing for larger houses,

443
00:21:14,079 --> 00:21:19,000
smaller houses, same size houses?

444
00:21:19,000 --> 00:21:24,940
The lot size? It's been zoned in R6 under both subdivisions

445
00:21:24,940 --> 00:21:27,119
, so they would both have had the same lot dimensions and

446
00:21:27,119 --> 00:21:28,000
density requirements.

447
00:21:28,000 --> 00:21:30,000
So it should be fairly comparable.

448
00:21:30,000 --> 00:21:35,000
Okay, that's fine. Thank you.

449
00:21:35,000 --> 00:21:38,000
Thank you, Haley.

450
00:21:38,000 --> 00:21:41,000
And we can call Chair back in.

451
00:22:05,000 --> 00:22:17,000
Chair, we're on the new item C.

452
00:22:17,000 --> 00:22:22,000
Okay.

453
00:22:22,000 --> 00:22:45,000
Does anyone have questions for Haley on item C?

454
00:22:45,000 --> 00:23:03,000
No? Okay. Item D.

455
00:23:03,000 --> 00:23:05,000
Commissioner Ellis. Sorry.

456
00:23:05,000 --> 00:23:06,000
Thank you, Chair.

457
00:23:06,000 --> 00:23:09,000
Okay, so another note question, Haley.

458
00:23:09,000 --> 00:23:13,980
This one, general note seven, it states the owner

459
00:23:13,980 --> 00:23:19,329
responsibility. Is it owner's responsibility between these

460
00:23:19,329 --> 00:23:23,000
two? I was confused at.

461
00:23:23,000 --> 00:23:27,000
So currently all 3R1 and 3R2 are both under the same

462
00:23:27,000 --> 00:23:28,000
ownership.

463
00:23:28,000 --> 00:23:29,000
Right.

464
00:23:29,000 --> 00:23:32,799
And similarly, the adjoining lots further back that also

465
00:23:32,799 --> 00:23:36,210
tie into that access easement are all within the same

466
00:23:36,210 --> 00:23:38,000
family of ownership.

467
00:23:38,000 --> 00:23:41,849
So that note is intended to state that, yes, the owner of

468
00:23:41,849 --> 00:23:45,470
the property is responsible for their portion of that

469
00:23:45,470 --> 00:23:47,000
access easement.

470
00:23:47,000 --> 00:23:49,789
But in this case, it all happens to be the same ownership,

471
00:23:49,789 --> 00:23:51,000
if that makes sense.

472
00:23:51,000 --> 00:23:55,410
Okay, which is why it doesn't say owners. Okay. Is that an

473
00:23:55,410 --> 00:23:59,000
issue if ever it was to be a different owner?

474
00:23:59,000 --> 00:24:02,069
It's kind of whatever portion of that existing driveway is

475
00:24:02,069 --> 00:24:05,000
on their property, they would be responsible for.

476
00:24:05,000 --> 00:24:09,000
Is what that note is trying to say.

477
00:24:09,000 --> 00:24:11,539
Okay, and then my other question on that same note where it

478
00:24:11,539 --> 00:24:13,700
references a document number, but there's a blank line in

479
00:24:13,700 --> 00:24:17,000
there. Is that missing the document number?

480
00:24:17,000 --> 00:24:20,069
The document number, it will be filled in prior to the plat

481
00:24:20,069 --> 00:24:21,000
being filed.

482
00:24:21,000 --> 00:24:23,940
They're in the process of getting that prepared and it will

483
00:24:23,940 --> 00:24:26,940
have to be filed prior to the plat so that can be filled in

484
00:24:26,940 --> 00:24:27,000
.

485
00:24:27,000 --> 00:24:31,000
Thank you very much.

486
00:24:31,000 --> 00:24:35,000
Any other questions on this item?

487
00:24:35,000 --> 00:24:37,000
Okay.

488
00:24:37,000 --> 00:24:45,000
That will then move us to item E.

489
00:24:45,000 --> 00:24:50,000
I haven't turned the page yet. I think you're right.

490
00:24:50,000 --> 00:25:04,039
That one has been withdrawn and that will take us to item F

491
00:25:04,039 --> 00:25:05,000
.

492
00:25:05,000 --> 00:25:08,990
So this is a proposed amendment to the DDC to amend our

493
00:25:08,990 --> 00:25:11,000
parking regulations.

494
00:25:11,000 --> 00:25:13,900
So the request is to hold this public hearing and consider

495
00:25:13,900 --> 00:25:16,470
making a recommendation to City Council regarding

496
00:25:16,470 --> 00:25:20,000
amendments to subchapter 14 of the Denton Development Code.

497
00:25:20,000 --> 00:25:23,589
A little bit of background on this case. Earlier this year,

498
00:25:23,589 --> 00:25:26,910
Council requested a work session to discuss our residential

499
00:25:26,910 --> 00:25:28,000
parking standards.

500
00:25:28,000 --> 00:25:31,380
That was held in January. At that work session, staff

501
00:25:31,380 --> 00:25:34,150
presented them with a variety of options and information

502
00:25:34,150 --> 00:25:35,000
related to this.

503
00:25:35,000 --> 00:25:38,150
And they requested that staff return again with a work

504
00:25:38,150 --> 00:25:42,240
session specifically to make recommendations regarding ways

505
00:25:42,240 --> 00:25:44,490
that we could provide flexibility in our parking

506
00:25:44,490 --> 00:25:46,950
requirements as well as ways we could improve the

507
00:25:46,950 --> 00:25:49,000
residential parking standards.

508
00:25:49,000 --> 00:25:52,750
At that February 27th council meeting, they did provide

509
00:25:52,750 --> 00:25:56,130
favorable direction for staff to move forward and bring

510
00:25:56,130 --> 00:25:59,000
these recommendations to public hearing.

511
00:25:59,000 --> 00:26:01,000
Commissioner Rozelle.

512
00:26:01,000 --> 00:26:05,609
Thank you, Chair. Just to set the context of the rest of

513
00:26:05,609 --> 00:26:09,019
the presentation, the items that staff has generated or the

514
00:26:09,019 --> 00:26:14,000
staff recommendations are the direction of the Council's.

515
00:26:14,000 --> 00:26:16,470
Did Council tell you what to do and these are now your

516
00:26:16,470 --> 00:26:18,880
recommendations or can you help me out when it says

517
00:26:18,880 --> 00:26:21,000
favorable direction from Council?

518
00:26:21,000 --> 00:26:24,369
Certainly. So the same five recommendations were generally

519
00:26:24,369 --> 00:26:26,000
taken to Council in February.

520
00:26:26,000 --> 00:26:28,630
At that time, they provided feedback on those and we have

521
00:26:28,630 --> 00:26:31,130
amended what's been drafted according to those, that

522
00:26:31,130 --> 00:26:33,000
feedback that we received from them.

523
00:26:33,000 --> 00:26:37,000
Great. Thank you.

524
00:26:37,000 --> 00:26:39,809
So as I mentioned, there are five recommendations that we

525
00:26:39,809 --> 00:26:41,519
'll go through here. I won't mention each of them

526
00:26:41,519 --> 00:26:42,000
specifically now.

527
00:26:42,000 --> 00:26:46,000
I just wanted to give you an overview of what's to come.

528
00:26:46,000 --> 00:26:49,079
So the first of our recommendations is related to the

529
00:26:49,079 --> 00:26:52,849
minimum parking standards for single family, duplex, town

530
00:26:52,849 --> 00:26:55,000
home and multifamily development.

531
00:26:55,000 --> 00:26:58,650
So currently for single family and duplexes, townhomes has

532
00:26:58,650 --> 00:27:00,970
been added to that because it was not specifically

533
00:27:00,970 --> 00:27:03,000
mentioned in our parking regulations.

534
00:27:03,000 --> 00:27:06,000
For single family, we require two spaces per dwelling.

535
00:27:06,000 --> 00:27:09,680
Duplexes is two spaces per dwelling plus one space for any

536
00:27:09,680 --> 00:27:12,000
bedroom over the third bedroom.

537
00:27:12,000 --> 00:27:14,380
What we are recommending is requiring four spaces per

538
00:27:14,380 --> 00:27:15,000
dwelling.

539
00:27:15,000 --> 00:27:18,029
Those could be inside or outside of a garage, not spec

540
00:27:18,029 --> 00:27:19,000
ifying that.

541
00:27:19,000 --> 00:27:23,740
But we would recommend that tandem spaces within a garage

542
00:27:23,740 --> 00:27:28,000
not be counted because garages tend to be used for storage

543
00:27:28,000 --> 00:27:31,000
and just the logistics of having tandem cars in a garage

544
00:27:31,000 --> 00:27:34,140
makes those spaces not as usable as it would be if it were

545
00:27:34,140 --> 00:27:37,000
a traditional two car garage with two spaces outside.

546
00:27:37,000 --> 00:27:39,000
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair.

547
00:27:39,000 --> 00:27:43,329
Haley, on that note of this note, the single family, at one

548
00:27:43,329 --> 00:27:46,430
time it was a recommendation that two were out of a garage

549
00:27:46,430 --> 00:27:48,000
and two were in a garage.

550
00:27:48,000 --> 00:27:50,400
I noticed that on one of the presentations to the City

551
00:27:50,400 --> 00:27:51,000
Council.

552
00:27:51,000 --> 00:27:54,049
Then out of a discussion, did that, because I noticed that

553
00:27:54,049 --> 00:27:55,000
that's removed.

554
00:27:55,000 --> 00:27:57,000
Yes, that was one of the changes.

555
00:27:57,000 --> 00:27:59,299
Council was not of the opinion that we should stipulate

556
00:27:59,299 --> 00:28:01,000
which spaces are in or out of a garage.

557
00:28:01,000 --> 00:28:04,000
Okay, very well. Thanks.

558
00:28:04,000 --> 00:28:07,000
I'd have a follow up question on that.

559
00:28:07,000 --> 00:28:10,000
Two things.

560
00:28:10,000 --> 00:28:12,759
One can the space requirements going from two to four be

561
00:28:12,759 --> 00:28:15,519
met with kind of the discussion I think we had in our last

562
00:28:15,519 --> 00:28:18,460
meeting with the cluster part cluster development having

563
00:28:18,460 --> 00:28:20,000
like common area parking.

564
00:28:20,000 --> 00:28:23,000
That's one way to meet it.

565
00:28:23,000 --> 00:28:26,359
The second question is, do we know if there are currently

566
00:28:26,359 --> 00:28:29,819
subdivisions that are either currently being built in or

567
00:28:29,819 --> 00:28:33,119
currently being planned that are single garage that would

568
00:28:33,119 --> 00:28:36,299
currently be two spaces only that won't be able to meet

569
00:28:36,299 --> 00:28:38,000
this new requirement.

570
00:28:38,000 --> 00:28:41,670
And the reason I asked because I know there's a subdivision

571
00:28:41,670 --> 00:28:45,400
we, we approved not too long ago, I don't know whether it's

572
00:28:45,400 --> 00:28:49,410
been developed over on the north side town off of 380 I can

573
00:28:49,410 --> 00:28:52,000
't remember the name of the street.

574
00:28:52,000 --> 00:28:55,000
I think that's right.

575
00:28:55,000 --> 00:28:58,589
So if anybody's reached out to those property owners to let

576
00:28:58,589 --> 00:29:01,849
them know of these changes and what how that may impact

577
00:29:01,849 --> 00:29:05,539
what they're doing, they can help me on that. Certainly so

578
00:29:05,539 --> 00:29:08,000
in terms of cluster development.

579
00:29:08,000 --> 00:29:10,670
Yeah, we're not simulating where those spaces would have to

580
00:29:10,670 --> 00:29:13,019
be there were just need to be the right number of spaces

581
00:29:13,019 --> 00:29:14,000
for those homes.

582
00:29:14,000 --> 00:29:16,630
The intent being to try to keep as many cars off of the

583
00:29:16,630 --> 00:29:19,420
single family streets as possible by providing onset

584
00:29:19,420 --> 00:29:20,000
parking.

585
00:29:20,000 --> 00:29:26,650
Second. Yeah, I'm sure we need to go first. Yes, so the

586
00:29:26,650 --> 00:29:28,630
subdivision you're referring to I believe is North Point

587
00:29:28,630 --> 00:29:33,039
said, I'm sorry that might be the wrong name it is off che

588
00:29:33,039 --> 00:29:38,000
vy off of old North Road.

589
00:29:38,000 --> 00:29:44,309
Yes, and those, those homes are already in place the phase

590
00:29:44,309 --> 00:29:50,089
that had the one car garages or the tandem garages. Those

591
00:29:50,089 --> 00:29:50,849
would, since they're existing would be able to be in

592
00:29:50,849 --> 00:29:51,740
compliance with the old regulations, and this would be for

593
00:29:51,740 --> 00:29:53,000
new developments

594
00:29:53,000 --> 00:29:57,630
going forward. Well, that's my point is, I think we've

595
00:29:57,630 --> 00:30:01,000
already approved the next phase.

596
00:30:01,000 --> 00:30:05,200
And I don't know if it's the same or if it's a different

597
00:30:05,200 --> 00:30:08,690
product that they're going to. So phase one did have the

598
00:30:08,690 --> 00:30:10,380
one car or, and I believe they may have been tandem garages

599
00:30:10,380 --> 00:30:11,000
back to back.

600
00:30:11,000 --> 00:30:14,589
Phase two had all two car garages standard side by side two

601
00:30:14,589 --> 00:30:18,019
car garages and then phase three I don't believe they have

602
00:30:18,019 --> 00:30:21,750
pulled any permits for you. I didn't remember there being

603
00:30:21,750 --> 00:30:24,650
two car garages with two parking I just remember I had

604
00:30:24,650 --> 00:30:25,000
driven through there

605
00:30:25,000 --> 00:30:29,119
it's been a while ago and I remember saying that these had

606
00:30:29,119 --> 00:30:32,369
single garage doors. Phase two does have two car garages

607
00:30:32,369 --> 00:30:34,730
and I think actually, this, this is the subdivision here I

608
00:30:34,730 --> 00:30:36,000
'm glad I remember that.

609
00:30:36,000 --> 00:30:39,250
So this is a home in phase two of the development with the

610
00:30:39,250 --> 00:30:41,000
standard two car garage.

611
00:30:41,000 --> 00:30:43,569
This was one of the homes in phase one. Okay, I'm just, I

612
00:30:43,569 --> 00:30:45,109
remember seeing some over there in that area is why

613
00:30:45,109 --> 00:30:47,549
prompted the question. Yeah, those are the only ones I'm

614
00:30:47,549 --> 00:30:50,069
aware of that we've recently proved with one car and no

615
00:30:50,069 --> 00:30:53,000
others in the city that we know of along those lines.

616
00:30:53,000 --> 00:30:57,170
I'm not aware of any recently no. Okay. Commissioner back.

617
00:30:57,170 --> 00:31:00,369
Thanks, Jerry, just to confirm your suspicions that's that

618
00:31:00,369 --> 00:31:03,269
's where I moved and you're right, phase one is completed

619
00:31:03,269 --> 00:31:05,000
and they do have the tandem.

620
00:31:05,000 --> 00:31:09,710
And it is to car garage on everything else we did approve

621
00:31:09,710 --> 00:31:14,000
the preliminary plan I believe for phase three no.

622
00:31:14,000 --> 00:31:16,700
Phase three has an approved final plan, I'm not sure I

623
00:31:16,700 --> 00:31:19,640
haven't seen the building plans yet though to see what type

624
00:31:19,640 --> 00:31:22,970
of home product there. Okay. Question on tandem parking

625
00:31:22,970 --> 00:31:26,000
where you seem to be opposed to it based on people would

626
00:31:26,000 --> 00:31:30,000
probably use it for storage, but when they necessarily be

627
00:31:30,000 --> 00:31:33,259
true for two car garages to rather than putting both cars

628
00:31:33,259 --> 00:31:34,000
in there then.

629
00:31:34,000 --> 00:31:37,380
I don't see why the differentiation there. It is possible

630
00:31:37,380 --> 00:31:40,259
and this is also kind of a spin off of our current code

631
00:31:40,259 --> 00:31:44,000
doesn't permit tandem parking for a residential to count.

632
00:31:44,000 --> 00:31:46,430
So it's kind of a continuation of that with the assumption

633
00:31:46,430 --> 00:31:49,299
of tandem parking is difficult. I would find it difficult

634
00:31:49,299 --> 00:31:52,150
myself but I'm just curious what's the rationale why we

635
00:31:52,150 --> 00:31:55,410
restricted. I'm not sure where that originally came from,

636
00:31:55,410 --> 00:31:58,990
other than just the logistics of tandem parking encourages

637
00:31:58,990 --> 00:32:01,000
it not always being used for parking.

638
00:32:01,000 --> 00:32:04,000
Okay, thank you.

639
00:32:04,000 --> 00:32:10,000
All right, anything else on single family or duplex.

640
00:32:10,000 --> 00:32:16,369
All right, for multifamily I'm sure you're familiar from

641
00:32:16,369 --> 00:32:22,869
the variety of SUVs that have come before you. Our current

642
00:32:22,869 --> 00:32:29,109
standards have a different parking ratio for each type of

643
00:32:29,109 --> 00:32:32,160
multifamily product. So we're proposing condensing that and

644
00:32:32,160 --> 00:32:32,380
for efficiency or one bedroom units we would stay with the

645
00:32:32,380 --> 00:32:32,660
1.25 spaces per unit, plus guest parking which is currently

646
00:32:32,660 --> 00:32:33,000
not something we have in the code.

647
00:32:33,000 --> 00:32:36,599
So anything two bedroom and above we would require one

648
00:32:36,599 --> 00:32:40,660
space per bedroom, plus the guest parking and guest parking

649
00:32:40,660 --> 00:32:44,450
would be calculated at a ratio of 10% of the required

650
00:32:44,450 --> 00:32:46,000
number of spaces.

651
00:32:46,000 --> 00:32:50,000
Commissioner Ellis.

652
00:32:50,000 --> 00:32:52,000
Thank you, Chair.

653
00:32:52,000 --> 00:33:07,000
I didn't. So I'll come back to you Commissioner Rosalind.

654
00:33:07,000 --> 00:33:07,000
My question. It says here, developments with more than 10

655
00:33:07,000 --> 00:33:07,000
units guest parking so if it's under 10 units no guest

656
00:33:07,000 --> 00:33:07,000
parking would be required.

657
00:33:07,000 --> 00:33:11,250
I believe, and I'm thinking about a nine unit development

658
00:33:11,250 --> 00:33:13,000
that's actually going.

659
00:33:13,000 --> 00:33:15,000
Certainly.

660
00:33:15,000 --> 00:33:18,000
And I got a question on that from a from a citizen.

661
00:33:18,000 --> 00:33:22,299
That would apply for anything 10 units and above for the

662
00:33:22,299 --> 00:33:26,000
smaller complexes. Yes, so under there would be difficult.

663
00:33:26,000 --> 00:33:28,539
Yeah, would be difficult possibly to fit that on site. Okay

664
00:33:28,539 --> 00:33:30,000
, thanks.

665
00:33:30,000 --> 00:33:32,000
Commissioner result.

666
00:33:32,000 --> 00:33:34,000
Thank you, Chair.

667
00:33:34,000 --> 00:33:38,680
I don't even know what research and information helped

668
00:33:38,680 --> 00:33:43,230
inform the decision to do one space per bedroom for two

669
00:33:43,230 --> 00:33:47,480
three and four. It seems as though we have a lot of

670
00:33:47,480 --> 00:33:53,000
requests to reduce the amount of parking for developments.

671
00:33:53,000 --> 00:33:57,839
And here we're actually going to codify a pretty high

672
00:33:57,839 --> 00:34:03,329
standard. And it also seems by anecdotal evidence from my

673
00:34:03,329 --> 00:34:08,610
eyes, as well as testimony from applicants that parking

674
00:34:08,610 --> 00:34:14,000
spaces in tandem to apartment complexes here in the city

675
00:34:14,000 --> 00:34:15,000
are not at full capacity.

676
00:34:15,000 --> 00:34:19,500
And so I'm wondering if you could talk me through why we

677
00:34:19,500 --> 00:34:23,820
believe in the world knows you live in now that every

678
00:34:23,820 --> 00:34:27,000
person that has a bedroom has a car.

679
00:34:27,000 --> 00:34:30,250
Certainly so some of the original concern expressed by

680
00:34:30,250 --> 00:34:33,190
Council was the amount of on street parking around

681
00:34:33,190 --> 00:34:36,699
residential areas, as well as the feeling that there's not

682
00:34:36,699 --> 00:34:39,000
enough parking for multifamily.

683
00:34:39,000 --> 00:34:43,230
We have had a large number of requests recently where the

684
00:34:43,230 --> 00:34:47,809
preferred ratio for multifamily is one space per bedroom,

685
00:34:47,809 --> 00:34:51,420
possibly due to some of the leasing structure for

686
00:34:51,420 --> 00:34:54,000
apartments in college towns.

687
00:34:54,000 --> 00:34:56,030
But in terms of research we did do a fair amount of

688
00:34:56,030 --> 00:34:58,380
research Richard might be able to speak to that a little

689
00:34:58,380 --> 00:35:02,300
bit more. He was kind of involved more on the front end of

690
00:35:02,300 --> 00:35:06,340
this but that research was done that kind of supported this

691
00:35:06,340 --> 00:35:07,000
ratio.

692
00:35:07,000 --> 00:35:10,269
Yeah, there is there is some background from that from that

693
00:35:10,269 --> 00:35:11,000
January.

694
00:35:11,000 --> 00:35:13,000
City Council item.

695
00:35:13,000 --> 00:35:17,659
What we did look at part of this discussion started around

696
00:35:17,659 --> 00:35:22,380
the Vs RL issue and regulating, but also seeing a change in

697
00:35:22,380 --> 00:35:27,400
how units are being rented. We're starting to see, believe

698
00:35:27,400 --> 00:35:31,630
it or not single family homes being converted now into rent

699
00:35:31,630 --> 00:35:34,000
als, where they're they're renting

700
00:35:34,000 --> 00:35:37,590
a bedroom within the single family home, and then looking

701
00:35:37,590 --> 00:35:41,000
and in some instances illegally converting a garage.

702
00:35:41,000 --> 00:35:43,769
So we're getting complaints from neighbors where there's a

703
00:35:43,769 --> 00:35:46,139
number of cars all over the place. That's kind of a

704
00:35:46,139 --> 00:35:48,920
different issue because it's a use it's not permitted, but

705
00:35:48,920 --> 00:35:51,739
really looked at how how other municipalities are, how are

706
00:35:51,739 --> 00:35:55,000
they dealing with this what's the current ratio.

707
00:35:55,000 --> 00:35:59,000
Interestingly enough, there's not a lot of data out there.

708
00:35:59,000 --> 00:36:03,409
One college town, Auburn, Alabama, I think was the first

709
00:36:03,409 --> 00:36:07,519
actually adopt an ordinance specifying this SRO I forget

710
00:36:07,519 --> 00:36:10,000
what they actually coined it.

711
00:36:10,000 --> 00:36:13,219
But on this on this rental rent by the bedroom, which is

712
00:36:13,219 --> 00:36:16,369
kind of interesting when we when we were even doing the

713
00:36:16,369 --> 00:36:19,869
research in the, in the city, some of the larger complexes

714
00:36:19,869 --> 00:36:21,000
that we called.

715
00:36:21,000 --> 00:36:24,300
We were trying to get an understanding of that breakdown of

716
00:36:24,300 --> 00:36:27,389
what they're providing for parking now, based on that

717
00:36:27,389 --> 00:36:30,690
breakdown of the ratio of actual number of units, and some

718
00:36:30,690 --> 00:36:33,000
of the apartment to in particular.

719
00:36:33,000 --> 00:36:35,599
They didn't even know the number of apartments that they

720
00:36:35,599 --> 00:36:36,000
had.

721
00:36:36,000 --> 00:36:39,269
When we call they all they knew was the number of bedrooms

722
00:36:39,269 --> 00:36:42,599
that they were leasing so which was kind of interesting to

723
00:36:42,599 --> 00:36:43,000
me.

724
00:36:43,000 --> 00:36:47,409
So we looked at that and then also try to look at just some

725
00:36:47,409 --> 00:36:52,000
general trends from some of the census data that we got.

726
00:36:52,000 --> 00:36:53,820
And believe it or not we're, you know, unlike a lot of

727
00:36:53,820 --> 00:36:55,750
places Denton has kind of slightly slowly been on kind of

728
00:36:55,750 --> 00:36:58,000
the uptick in in

729
00:36:58,000 --> 00:37:01,000
cars available per household.

730
00:37:01,000 --> 00:37:03,579
So we kind of took all of that you know factored all of

731
00:37:03,579 --> 00:37:04,000
that in.

732
00:37:04,000 --> 00:37:07,789
In addition to some of the, some of the larger complexes

733
00:37:07,789 --> 00:37:11,909
actually wanting more parking, just knowing that that they

734
00:37:11,909 --> 00:37:15,000
're not really close to transportation.

735
00:37:15,000 --> 00:37:18,289
But the problem with that minimum maximum being the same

736
00:37:18,289 --> 00:37:21,000
and then having to maybe go through an ADP.

737
00:37:21,000 --> 00:37:26,219
They just sort of avoided it. And so this was attempt to to

738
00:37:26,219 --> 00:37:28,000
sort of address it.

739
00:37:28,000 --> 00:37:32,000
In providing it one to one.

740
00:37:32,000 --> 00:37:37,000
Now, now with that kind of the part two to that.

741
00:37:37,000 --> 00:37:40,789
We do recognize that, you know, it's very different from

742
00:37:40,789 --> 00:37:44,099
building kind of what I'll say infill, as opposed to

743
00:37:44,099 --> 00:37:47,269
building out for we're changing the zoning on a property

744
00:37:47,269 --> 00:37:49,000
very, very different.

745
00:37:49,000 --> 00:37:52,389
So what we try to do also with this is build in some

746
00:37:52,389 --> 00:37:57,000
flexibility, where you can start to write, write that down.

747
00:37:57,000 --> 00:38:03,900
I think in the. I know the gentleman that Mr Chang had sent

748
00:38:03,900 --> 00:38:06,449
an email I spent a good time with him, but also looking at

749
00:38:06,449 --> 00:38:09,190
sort of long, long term option, you know that that was also

750
00:38:09,190 --> 00:38:12,429
something that that council charged us with is to look, you

751
00:38:12,429 --> 00:38:14,000
know, looking at that area around

752
00:38:14,000 --> 00:38:25,139
the park. One thing we looked at was when those when those

753
00:38:25,139 --> 00:38:30,000
buildings were built.

754
00:38:30,000 --> 00:38:34,300
They were going to be able to move, because if they would

755
00:38:34,300 --> 00:38:38,559
have to rebuild or redevelop most likely they would get

756
00:38:38,559 --> 00:38:42,739
less less units for one and then they wouldn't be able to

757
00:38:42,739 --> 00:38:45,260
provide for the parking. And so now it's it's sort of a kid

758
00:38:45,260 --> 00:38:45,710
let's let's also take a step back from there and look at

759
00:38:45,710 --> 00:38:47,789
look at maybe alternative ways where maybe you can provide

760
00:38:47,789 --> 00:38:50,000
some alternatives that could further reduce, reduce your

761
00:38:50,000 --> 00:38:50,000
parking.

762
00:38:50,000 --> 00:38:53,829
So, this was sort of that first attempt to get there to

763
00:38:53,829 --> 00:38:57,760
provide at least some flexibility in on street parking

764
00:38:57,760 --> 00:39:01,949
administrative sort of deviations allow for some compact

765
00:39:01,949 --> 00:39:05,000
parking motorcycle bicycle parking.

766
00:39:05,000 --> 00:39:08,280
So, that was kind of that sort of that first attempt, but I

767
00:39:08,280 --> 00:39:11,289
think we still have a lot more to go as we go through that

768
00:39:11,289 --> 00:39:14,550
neighborhood plan that's currently underway, but also

769
00:39:14,550 --> 00:39:17,670
continuing to understand from UNT what their long term

770
00:39:17,670 --> 00:39:21,000
plans are with providing students do they want to continue

771
00:39:21,000 --> 00:39:21,000
to provide parking for students.

772
00:39:21,000 --> 00:39:24,289
And if that's the case then yeah maybe we need to relook at

773
00:39:24,289 --> 00:39:27,530
how we, how we begin to require parking. If you and he

774
00:39:27,530 --> 00:39:30,889
doesn't want to park them. And why do we want to do we want

775
00:39:30,889 --> 00:39:33,920
to force people to have a car here or is there another

776
00:39:33,920 --> 00:39:35,000
alternative.

777
00:39:35,000 --> 00:39:37,699
But, so that's kind of where long term where I think we

778
00:39:37,699 --> 00:39:40,940
need to be but, but this, that's kind of the premise behind

779
00:39:40,940 --> 00:39:41,000
.

780
00:39:41,000 --> 00:39:43,469
I actually thought it seems as though the city doesn't

781
00:39:43,469 --> 00:39:46,260
necessarily care about number of apartments but bedrooms so

782
00:39:46,260 --> 00:39:49,000
I don't, I'm not shocked to hear that the apartment complex

783
00:39:49,000 --> 00:39:51,789
doesn't know how many problems they have when they're, it's

784
00:39:51,789 --> 00:39:55,000
all based on bedrooms anyways, but when you talk to that

785
00:39:55,000 --> 00:39:58,980
apartment complex that one in particular I'd be interested

786
00:39:58,980 --> 00:40:02,000
to know what they said about their parking.

787
00:40:02,000 --> 00:40:06,000
I recall most of them had.

788
00:40:06,000 --> 00:40:09,110
I don't think they did parking permits at that one but I

789
00:40:09,110 --> 00:40:12,239
think most of them had most of the residents had had had

790
00:40:12,239 --> 00:40:13,000
parking.

791
00:40:13,000 --> 00:40:15,000
Okay.

792
00:40:15,000 --> 00:40:17,000
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

793
00:40:17,000 --> 00:40:19,000
Thank you. Commissioner Sullivan.

794
00:40:19,000 --> 00:40:22,000
Wouldn't. Thanks, Chair.

795
00:40:22,000 --> 00:40:25,590
Enforcement of parking laws, kind of take care of all of

796
00:40:25,590 --> 00:40:29,050
this. In other words, if you're not going to allow on

797
00:40:29,050 --> 00:40:32,880
street parking tow cars enough and eventually people won't

798
00:40:32,880 --> 00:40:34,000
park there.

799
00:40:34,000 --> 00:40:36,900
And then the apartment complexes if you don't have enough

800
00:40:36,900 --> 00:40:40,000
parking spaces people aren't going to rent an apartment.

801
00:40:40,000 --> 00:40:42,519
You know if you've got enough people that have cars and

802
00:40:42,519 --> 00:40:46,000
there's no parking places. They'll go to another apartment.

803
00:40:46,000 --> 00:41:03,000
So I'm just wondering. I don't understand the, I guess the

804
00:41:03,000 --> 00:41:03,000
problem, other than the fact that nobody wants to tow cars

805
00:41:03,000 --> 00:41:03,000
and cause that issue, especially around the campus which is

806
00:41:03,000 --> 00:41:03,000
where the problem is I think, you know, more pronounced.

807
00:41:03,000 --> 00:41:05,000
So I'm just wondering.

808
00:41:05,000 --> 00:41:19,050
A lot of it is for really the, you know, the new apartments

809
00:41:19,050 --> 00:41:20,139
. I don't think not necessarily so much some of that infill

810
00:41:20,139 --> 00:41:20,260
because they are, you know, that's why we sort of had that,

811
00:41:20,260 --> 00:41:20,389
you know, we try to pull out that exemption that, you know,

812
00:41:20,389 --> 00:41:20,530
less than 10 units and then if you're in the central

813
00:41:20,530 --> 00:41:22,210
business district if you're less than 10 units you don't

814
00:41:22,210 --> 00:41:23,000
have to provide for parking.

815
00:41:23,000 --> 00:41:27,400
So this is really, really more for medium to large size of

816
00:41:27,400 --> 00:41:31,639
the larger apartment complexes, where that that that

817
00:41:31,639 --> 00:41:36,239
network would also the roadway might not be there, and it's

818
00:41:36,239 --> 00:41:40,460
just to avoid the void issues that I think Council has

819
00:41:40,460 --> 00:41:42,000
heard from constituents.

820
00:41:42,000 --> 00:41:46,929
Jump in just a second, kind of piggyback on Commissioner

821
00:41:46,929 --> 00:41:49,000
Roselle's comment.

822
00:41:49,000 --> 00:41:53,409
I think our collection, as we've dealt with some of these S

823
00:41:53,409 --> 00:41:58,000
RO issues, mostly around the university is the times that we

824
00:41:58,000 --> 00:42:02,429
have had those applicants before us. They brought some

825
00:42:02,429 --> 00:42:07,260
studies before us about existing SROs, and that the parking

826
00:42:07,260 --> 00:42:10,000
garages are not full.

827
00:42:10,000 --> 00:42:13,170
There's a lot of trouble parking for in those, and those

828
00:42:13,170 --> 00:42:16,570
requirements are at a lesser than than what we're currently

829
00:42:16,570 --> 00:42:19,000
doing and requiring now obviously.

830
00:42:19,000 --> 00:42:23,480
So we're going to require more parking, which will be more

831
00:42:23,480 --> 00:42:27,800
probable vacant parking places and what we have now is my

832
00:42:27,800 --> 00:42:32,349
recollection of when we've had the SRO question here before

833
00:42:32,349 --> 00:42:33,000
us.

834
00:42:33,000 --> 00:42:36,880
The second one is, if this is going to be city wide or if

835
00:42:36,880 --> 00:42:40,380
we're going to look at it in certain areas because

836
00:42:40,380 --> 00:42:44,670
obviously parking is way different around the university

837
00:42:44,670 --> 00:42:48,650
around a multifamily complex than what it is out around

838
00:42:48,650 --> 00:42:50,000
loop 288.

839
00:42:50,000 --> 00:42:54,139
Those are two separate issues and if we're putting a single

840
00:42:54,139 --> 00:42:58,409
blanket over every single multifamily or if there should be

841
00:42:58,409 --> 00:43:02,510
some flexibility in different standards, depending on

842
00:43:02,510 --> 00:43:06,000
whether it's downtown or on the edge of town.

843
00:43:06,000 --> 00:43:09,159
And the third question I would have is about the

844
00:43:09,159 --> 00:43:13,050
flexibility, I believe in our presentation that we had a

845
00:43:13,050 --> 00:43:16,699
couple weeks or so ago there was talk about that we were

846
00:43:16,699 --> 00:43:20,989
changing the parking standards from where it's been the men

847
00:43:20,989 --> 00:43:23,360
and the max are exactly the same you can't have less and

848
00:43:23,360 --> 00:43:25,739
you can't have more that there's going to be flexibility

849
00:43:25,739 --> 00:43:30,000
that the applicant could apply for the point system.

850
00:43:30,000 --> 00:43:37,000
So we're going to apply that to the standard as well.

851
00:43:37,000 --> 00:43:43,000
So those three things thrown out together.

852
00:43:43,000 --> 00:43:45,000
Can you repeat number one again.

853
00:43:45,000 --> 00:43:50,130
Yes, the SRO question is the comments that have been made

854
00:43:50,130 --> 00:43:55,510
before us before this commission is currently at the lesser

855
00:43:55,510 --> 00:44:00,400
parking spaces that are currently required. Those units

856
00:44:00,400 --> 00:44:03,000
aren't fully parked now they have vacant spaces in them.

857
00:44:03,000 --> 00:44:07,030
And we're now going to require more parking in those areas

858
00:44:07,030 --> 00:44:11,110
that they have vacant spaces so my deduction from that is,

859
00:44:11,110 --> 00:44:15,030
there's going to be even more vacant parking places with

860
00:44:15,030 --> 00:44:17,000
this new requirement.

861
00:44:17,000 --> 00:44:20,590
That is possibly don't know the specific studies that you

862
00:44:20,590 --> 00:44:24,250
're referring to I could look back and find those certainly,

863
00:44:24,250 --> 00:44:27,449
but in just within the past year I can only think of one

864
00:44:27,449 --> 00:44:31,110
project that actually wanted to be under parked that wanted

865
00:44:31,110 --> 00:44:33,000
to provide less than what was required.

866
00:44:33,000 --> 00:44:36,199
The majority of them do prefer the one to one ratio of

867
00:44:36,199 --> 00:44:39,920
recent requests that I've seen and, and like I said they're

868
00:44:39,920 --> 00:44:43,619
getting around, necessarily having to come for an ADP for

869
00:44:43,619 --> 00:44:47,260
that by either providing it in garages, willingly making

870
00:44:47,260 --> 00:44:50,000
parking spaces pervious a variety of things

871
00:44:50,000 --> 00:44:58,030
but most of them that I've seen recently within the past

872
00:44:58,030 --> 00:45:06,380
year I would say have requested, what would be a one to one

873
00:45:06,380 --> 00:45:07,260
. Okay. So, it seems like that's where the current leasing

874
00:45:07,260 --> 00:45:07,510
and trend is going from from the applications that we have

875
00:45:07,510 --> 00:45:07,739
seen, that's a change from what it's been in the past that

876
00:45:07,739 --> 00:45:09,579
what's been told to us before is that they're seeing less

877
00:45:09,579 --> 00:45:13,210
parking because more students are going and doing Uber and

878
00:45:13,210 --> 00:45:16,000
lift and all these other things and they don't have cars

879
00:45:16,000 --> 00:45:19,000
and yet we were still requiring more parking.

880
00:45:19,000 --> 00:45:24,420
So, I guess it's changed 180 degrees again from what we've

881
00:45:24,420 --> 00:45:26,369
been told before but that was kind of the direction we've

882
00:45:26,369 --> 00:45:28,000
been going for the last number of years.

883
00:45:28,000 --> 00:45:31,349
Yeah, and like Richard said from the data that we've looked

884
00:45:31,349 --> 00:45:34,219
at just in the past week we were seeing that Denton is

885
00:45:34,219 --> 00:45:37,639
increasing the number of cars per dwelling, based on census

886
00:45:37,639 --> 00:45:38,000
data.

887
00:45:38,000 --> 00:45:43,199
And just some other things that that we've seen recently

888
00:45:43,199 --> 00:45:47,730
like I said the one to one has become a very popular

889
00:45:47,730 --> 00:45:49,000
request. I'm not sure how many of those spaces are occupied

890
00:45:49,000 --> 00:45:49,000
.

891
00:45:49,000 --> 00:45:51,900
And then, I believe your other question was about where

892
00:45:51,900 --> 00:45:54,940
these standards would apply as it's proposed this would be

893
00:45:54,940 --> 00:45:57,969
city wide with some of that flexibility that Richard spoke

894
00:45:57,969 --> 00:46:01,510
to that I'll get to coming up but then with the development

895
00:46:01,510 --> 00:46:05,409
code, the Denton code 2030 we are looking to go to that

896
00:46:05,409 --> 00:46:06,000
getting away from

897
00:46:06,000 --> 00:46:08,110
tax and providing even more flexibility than what's

898
00:46:08,110 --> 00:46:10,389
proposed with this kind of interim step that we're trying

899
00:46:10,389 --> 00:46:13,659
to take. So that would that would apply here so if they

900
00:46:13,659 --> 00:46:18,099
have 100 bedrooms that have to have 100 spaces with the

901
00:46:18,099 --> 00:46:20,989
revision the development code if they could meet the points

902
00:46:20,989 --> 00:46:22,000
or whatever credits,

903
00:46:22,000 --> 00:46:24,000
they could have 75.

904
00:46:24,000 --> 00:46:27,000
And that or they could have 125.

905
00:46:27,000 --> 00:46:30,500
I'm not sure the specific amount of reduction that's under

906
00:46:30,500 --> 00:46:35,000
that under that current, the way it's currently drafted.

907
00:46:35,000 --> 00:46:37,210
But yeah, I actually do have some examples I don't know if

908
00:46:37,210 --> 00:46:38,000
that would help.

909
00:46:38,000 --> 00:46:39,000
Kind of see how.

910
00:46:39,000 --> 00:46:41,389
Just one thing I also wanted to add all you know we also

911
00:46:41,389 --> 00:46:43,610
looked at this we looked at some of these smaller

912
00:46:43,610 --> 00:46:46,150
developments that we're starting to see that really are

913
00:46:46,150 --> 00:46:49,000
comprised of more than one and two, one and two bedrooms.

914
00:46:49,000 --> 00:46:54,000
And that's why it's actually a reduction to some extent.

915
00:46:54,000 --> 00:46:58,869
If you're smaller and you're building one and two bedrooms.

916
00:46:58,869 --> 00:47:03,460
It conceivably could be a reduction in the required amount

917
00:47:03,460 --> 00:47:07,000
of parking that was currently the standard.

918
00:47:07,000 --> 00:47:11,159
Commissioner back and then I think I know returned to

919
00:47:11,159 --> 00:47:13,000
Commissioner Roselle.

920
00:47:13,000 --> 00:47:16,000
Thank you, Chair.

921
00:47:16,000 --> 00:47:24,000
Right. Part of what we're trying to do here is to reduce on

922
00:47:24,000 --> 00:47:24,000
street parking, is that right.

923
00:47:24,000 --> 00:47:28,409
But, you know, again to chairman strangers point there are

924
00:47:28,409 --> 00:47:32,170
going to be some areas where if you create the parking

925
00:47:32,170 --> 00:47:34,000
spaces, all street.

926
00:47:34,000 --> 00:47:37,000
You're going to have a lot of empty one so.

927
00:47:37,000 --> 00:47:40,090
You're going to have people that will just disregard

928
00:47:40,090 --> 00:47:43,670
everything and park on the street anyway. So, it does seem

929
00:47:43,670 --> 00:47:46,960
like there would be certain areas where you would want to

930
00:47:46,960 --> 00:47:50,260
create these kind of conditions where you get all street

931
00:47:50,260 --> 00:47:54,000
parking on busy streets but like in the outer areas

932
00:47:54,000 --> 00:47:57,650
off Luke 288 it wouldn't be that big of a deal so yeah I

933
00:47:57,650 --> 00:48:01,110
think going forward we probably need to look at you know

934
00:48:01,110 --> 00:48:04,409
one size fits all we probably need to reconsider that

935
00:48:04,409 --> 00:48:07,929
consider the locations and the volume of traffic that's

936
00:48:07,929 --> 00:48:10,000
going to be in there.

937
00:48:10,000 --> 00:48:13,500
I agree that especially when you get over in neighborhoods

938
00:48:13,500 --> 00:48:16,369
where you've got older housing stuff like that the

939
00:48:16,369 --> 00:48:19,869
historical district. That's what a lot of the complaints

940
00:48:19,869 --> 00:48:23,090
have been as the on street parking and reducing that is a

941
00:48:23,090 --> 00:48:26,000
good thing but you would have to create the spaces for the

942
00:48:26,000 --> 00:48:26,000
new

943
00:48:26,000 --> 00:48:30,739
developments for them to do that and then enforce the no

944
00:48:30,739 --> 00:48:33,000
parking on the streets to.

945
00:48:33,000 --> 00:48:36,050
My two cents worth. Thank you. Certainly, and Council had

946
00:48:36,050 --> 00:48:38,949
requested similarly some in the future some future looks at

947
00:48:38,949 --> 00:48:42,000
certain areas to see how we could better address those.

948
00:48:42,000 --> 00:48:44,409
This is just kind of that first step and then hopefully

949
00:48:44,409 --> 00:48:47,849
with things like the, you know, the gateway small area plan

950
00:48:47,849 --> 00:48:49,000
we can get more specific for certain

951
00:48:49,000 --> 00:48:52,840
areas and look at what parking might be appropriate in

952
00:48:52,840 --> 00:48:54,000
those areas.

953
00:48:54,000 --> 00:48:58,489
But just to give you a quick example of how this would

954
00:48:58,489 --> 00:49:01,000
compare for a large complex.

955
00:49:01,000 --> 00:49:05,039
Thank you. I don't belabor the point I'm really interested

956
00:49:05,039 --> 00:49:07,539
to hear about the flexibility that's been mentioned about

957
00:49:07,539 --> 00:49:10,000
this but to two things.

958
00:49:10,000 --> 00:49:13,130
To go back to the parking as I listened to your information

959
00:49:13,130 --> 00:49:16,380
as well as yours. I think it's comparing apples oranges to

960
00:49:16,380 --> 00:49:19,389
look at the increase of cars per dwelling and associate

961
00:49:19,389 --> 00:49:22,119
that with cars per bedroom, because if the city is

962
00:49:22,119 --> 00:49:25,000
increasing single detached families

963
00:49:25,000 --> 00:49:28,610
that skews up cars per dwelling, because the requirement is

964
00:49:28,610 --> 00:49:32,010
naturally two to one currently where cars per bedroom is a

965
00:49:32,010 --> 00:49:35,340
better data point to look at when we're looking at actual

966
00:49:35,340 --> 00:49:38,960
requirements for multifamily because you're comparing the

967
00:49:38,960 --> 00:49:43,489
standard for single detached to multifamily so our city

968
00:49:43,489 --> 00:49:44,000
going up in cars per dwelling

969
00:49:44,000 --> 00:49:46,900
doesn't speak to the requirement or need for cars per

970
00:49:46,900 --> 00:49:49,000
bedroom at the multifamily level.

971
00:49:49,000 --> 00:49:52,590
Those are disassociated. The other thing is, is, I may have

972
00:49:52,590 --> 00:49:55,500
seen a driver on town and asked myself but I have yet to

973
00:49:55,500 --> 00:49:59,000
see an apartment complex where the parking lot is full.

974
00:49:59,000 --> 00:50:02,179
I think specifically the Taco Bell men the drive through

975
00:50:02,179 --> 00:50:05,820
the Taco Bell on 377. There is a Taco Bell right there is

976
00:50:05,820 --> 00:50:08,860
on a peninsula within a parking lot from that apartment

977
00:50:08,860 --> 00:50:12,039
complex right there across from water burger, and I can

978
00:50:12,039 --> 00:50:14,000
distinctly recall every time I don't frequent

979
00:50:14,000 --> 00:50:19,000
often guys, but every time in Taco Bell line.

980
00:50:19,000 --> 00:50:21,000
I'm looking at empty parking lot.

981
00:50:21,000 --> 00:50:23,829
And so I've never seen that parking lot full and that's

982
00:50:23,829 --> 00:50:27,190
away from campus. And so I'm just on my head, and I

983
00:50:27,190 --> 00:50:31,190
apologize is not getting around this idea that there's a

984
00:50:31,190 --> 00:50:35,489
need for one to one and it seems like if if development

985
00:50:35,489 --> 00:50:38,320
groups are coming in asking for one to one, let's, if they

986
00:50:38,320 --> 00:50:39,000
want one for one and they

987
00:50:39,000 --> 00:50:41,590
want concrete. I would like to see the flexibility of that

988
00:50:41,590 --> 00:50:44,110
but if they come in and say, our demographic is using bikes

989
00:50:44,110 --> 00:50:46,400
and we're wanting to promote that in the city, then we

990
00:50:46,400 --> 00:50:48,860
shouldn't say then build more concrete or we're going to

991
00:50:48,860 --> 00:50:51,000
have the same issue in front of Kroger on University

992
00:50:51,000 --> 00:50:54,219
where it's just a concrete jungle. And I think that's what

993
00:50:54,219 --> 00:50:56,980
I'm not looking forward to the chair's point is just

994
00:50:56,980 --> 00:51:00,139
putting concrete out there because we think that they need

995
00:51:00,139 --> 00:51:03,150
a car per bedroom and a city in which I think the direction

996
00:51:03,150 --> 00:51:06,000
of council and in general is one to become more

997
00:51:06,000 --> 00:51:08,960
bikeable. But yet, this seems counterintuitive to that,

998
00:51:08,960 --> 00:51:12,000
that progress that didn't try to make. That's my soapbox.

999
00:51:12,000 --> 00:51:14,000
Thanks guys.

1000
00:51:14,000 --> 00:51:16,000
Commissioner Sullivan.

1001
00:51:16,000 --> 00:51:20,139
I think I go along with Commissioner Roselle, you know if

1002
00:51:20,139 --> 00:51:24,530
there's a way to have credits given. In other words, in the

1003
00:51:24,530 --> 00:51:28,860
very spot that you're talking about the reason I'm sure is,

1004
00:51:28,860 --> 00:51:33,090
there's a bus stop there, and it goes to and from campus.

1005
00:51:33,090 --> 00:51:37,050
And so if you got an apartment complex that has a bus stop

1006
00:51:37,050 --> 00:51:37,590
right outside the front door, then be able to have some

1007
00:51:37,590 --> 00:51:39,000
allowances or whether it's credits or

1008
00:51:39,000 --> 00:51:42,230
something, how you want to use it, so that if they have

1009
00:51:42,230 --> 00:51:46,000
alternative transportation available to that location.

1010
00:51:46,000 --> 00:51:49,360
Let them build less. Again, if they have more people moving

1011
00:51:49,360 --> 00:51:52,210
in with more cars that they can't handle they'll find

1012
00:51:52,210 --> 00:51:54,000
another apartment complex.

1013
00:51:54,000 --> 00:51:58,610
I think that, you know, I'm not a big biker I don't buy

1014
00:51:58,610 --> 00:52:03,289
into all a lot of this stuff but I think at the same time,

1015
00:52:03,289 --> 00:52:08,070
it costs money to build parking lots, and if they're not

1016
00:52:08,070 --> 00:52:10,369
used. Why spend that money, why require a developer to

1017
00:52:10,369 --> 00:52:11,000
spend that money.

1018
00:52:11,000 --> 00:52:15,130
There's a way to be more flexible, where they live, and I

1019
00:52:15,130 --> 00:52:19,199
dare say over by Med Park, there's a couple of apartment

1020
00:52:19,199 --> 00:52:23,179
complexes I have no idea how the parking lot is but I know

1021
00:52:23,179 --> 00:52:26,000
Med Park is empty most of the time.

1022
00:52:26,000 --> 00:52:29,869
Again, there's parking spaces there they could either, you

1023
00:52:29,869 --> 00:52:33,570
know, rent or use if necessary. So, I think there's a lot

1024
00:52:33,570 --> 00:52:37,239
of places like that that we need to somehow incorporate the

1025
00:52:37,239 --> 00:52:41,000
flexibility, along with making sure that we get cars off

1026
00:52:41,000 --> 00:52:46,489
the street, if that's the end result, and told, if they're

1027
00:52:46,489 --> 00:52:47,000
in the street.

1028
00:52:47,000 --> 00:52:51,420
So it's pretty simple. Certainly. And so, I believe in the,

1029
00:52:51,420 --> 00:52:55,079
the Denton code 2030, what will be brought forward later

1030
00:52:55,079 --> 00:52:58,139
this year if I'm remembering correctly there is a credit

1031
00:52:58,139 --> 00:53:01,400
system for facilities that are within a certain distance of

1032
00:53:01,400 --> 00:53:03,000
a form of mass transit.

1033
00:53:03,000 --> 00:53:18,000
So that is to come with with what's proposed. At this point

1034
00:53:18,000 --> 00:53:18,000
we don't have anything like that in the code we do have

1035
00:53:18,000 --> 00:53:18,000
means within the code for for mixed use developments to

1036
00:53:18,000 --> 00:53:18,000
reduce parking for parking within a certain distance of the

1037
00:53:18,000 --> 00:53:18,000
property that may not be on site if they provide

1038
00:53:18,000 --> 00:53:21,019
some sort of shared parking agreement we do allow for those

1039
00:53:21,019 --> 00:53:24,079
sort of things. They're not very frequently used, but, but

1040
00:53:24,079 --> 00:53:29,000
they are allowed for within the code. At this point.

1041
00:53:29,000 --> 00:53:33,409
I think we've talked about this a bunch of that we're going

1042
00:53:33,409 --> 00:53:36,820
to run out of time so let me pause right quick rich six. I

1043
00:53:36,820 --> 00:53:39,769
don't know how long you're anticipating hopefully we won't

1044
00:53:39,769 --> 00:53:41,000
wear you out as much.

1045
00:53:41,000 --> 00:53:44,500
Do we need to take a pause and get food and then just go on

1046
00:53:44,500 --> 00:53:48,000
to the rest or what do we need to do in at six o'clock.

1047
00:53:48,000 --> 00:53:56,250
Let's take a recess mode all kind of take a break and

1048
00:53:56,250 --> 00:54:00,000
refresh at six o'clock.

1049
00:54:00,000 --> 00:54:03,699
Okay, we've had the countdown so we'll call us back to

1050
00:54:03,699 --> 00:54:08,250
order at 608 and we'll continue on Haley's presentation on

1051
00:54:08,250 --> 00:54:10,000
parking standards.

1052
00:54:10,000 --> 00:54:13,000
All right, I'll try to make this as brief as possible. So

1053
00:54:13,000 --> 00:54:15,980
just a quick example showing you a comparison of this I won

1054
00:54:15,980 --> 00:54:18,969
't walk you through it, unless there are any questions on

1055
00:54:18,969 --> 00:54:23,199
here just showing you for 100 unit development with four

1056
00:54:23,199 --> 00:54:27,090
different types of units offered one through four bedroom,

1057
00:54:27,090 --> 00:54:30,039
how this would compare and how the guest parking would come

1058
00:54:30,039 --> 00:54:31,000
into play.

1059
00:54:31,000 --> 00:54:34,820
So you can see the average would increase from less than

1060
00:54:34,820 --> 00:54:39,000
one space per bedroom to just over one space per bedroom.

1061
00:54:39,000 --> 00:54:42,070
Again, just another example this was actually based on the

1062
00:54:42,070 --> 00:54:45,090
mingo road apartments how that parking could have changed

1063
00:54:45,090 --> 00:54:47,000
with an SGP that we saw last year.

1064
00:54:47,000 --> 00:54:51,130
Again, it would have brought that required parking up from

1065
00:54:51,130 --> 00:54:55,480
under one space per bedroom to just over with, with the one

1066
00:54:55,480 --> 00:55:00,000
space per bedroom plus the guest parking requirement.

1067
00:55:00,000 --> 00:55:03,500
So the second change that we're recommending is just adding

1068
00:55:03,500 --> 00:55:06,849
a sentence within section of our code as it relates to the

1069
00:55:06,849 --> 00:55:10,329
maximum allowable number of spaces, not making any changes

1070
00:55:10,329 --> 00:55:13,860
there in terms of the previous parking requirement, other

1071
00:55:13,860 --> 00:55:16,000
than to stipulate that the previous surface,

1072
00:55:16,000 --> 00:55:24,090
the parking spaces that are paved with pervious surfaces

1073
00:55:24,090 --> 00:55:31,179
would not be allowed to count towards the required

1074
00:55:31,179 --> 00:55:34,130
landscape area. So the pervious surface would still be

1075
00:55:34,130 --> 00:55:34,369
required. But within the code currently, if you provide per

1076
00:55:34,369 --> 00:55:34,570
vious paving for parking spot, it can count towards your

1077
00:55:34,570 --> 00:55:35,269
overall landscape area on the lot and result in less actual

1078
00:55:35,269 --> 00:55:38,000
landscaping being provided.

1079
00:55:38,000 --> 00:55:40,900
That's that's what this proposal would be to stipulate that

1080
00:55:40,900 --> 00:55:43,559
if you have excess parking and you use pervious pavers,

1081
00:55:43,559 --> 00:55:46,559
that's fine, but it can't count towards your landscape area

1082
00:55:46,559 --> 00:55:47,000
.

1083
00:55:47,000 --> 00:55:50,750
So again, just giving you an example, this is an existing

1084
00:55:50,750 --> 00:55:54,300
apartment complex in town that was approved over eight

1085
00:55:54,300 --> 00:55:58,440
years ago, but they did provide 55 pervious parking spaces

1086
00:55:58,440 --> 00:56:02,289
within the development because they wanted excess parking

1087
00:56:02,289 --> 00:56:06,199
above what the code allowed. And those spaces were counted

1088
00:56:06,199 --> 00:56:10,000
towards their landscape area for the development.

1089
00:56:10,000 --> 00:56:12,829
The third recommendation, this gets into some of those

1090
00:56:12,829 --> 00:56:15,940
relief mechanisms that we hinted at earlier, providing a

1091
00:56:15,940 --> 00:56:19,000
means of administrative relief for the amount of parking.

1092
00:56:19,000 --> 00:56:21,510
So what we're proposing, I don't have the exact language in

1093
00:56:21,510 --> 00:56:24,079
here, but it is in your backup. But in summary, the

1094
00:56:24,079 --> 00:56:27,099
director would be allowed to approve a reduction of up to

1095
00:56:27,099 --> 00:56:30,409
10% of the number of required spaces if certain criteria

1096
00:56:30,409 --> 00:56:34,260
are met, which would include it not causing any undue

1097
00:56:34,260 --> 00:56:37,000
burden on the surrounding area.

1098
00:56:37,000 --> 00:56:39,909
And that this could be used in combination with the other

1099
00:56:39,909 --> 00:56:43,139
relief mechanisms and substitutions that we'll discuss here

1100
00:56:43,139 --> 00:56:44,000
in a moment.

1101
00:56:44,000 --> 00:56:48,260
And as one of the additional criteria of that is that if

1102
00:56:48,260 --> 00:56:52,699
this is used for every space that is reduced, they would

1103
00:56:52,699 --> 00:56:57,000
have to provide for bicycle spaces in lieu of that one.

1104
00:56:57,000 --> 00:56:59,659
And you can see on the table here just a comparison. If you

1105
00:56:59,659 --> 00:57:02,579
were required to have 20 parking spaces, you could reduce

1106
00:57:02,579 --> 00:57:05,429
that by two spaces with this 10% reduction, but you would

1107
00:57:05,429 --> 00:57:08,090
then have to provide eight bicycle parking spaces on site

1108
00:57:08,090 --> 00:57:13,400
for a total of 18 vehicle spaces and eight bicycle parking

1109
00:57:13,400 --> 00:57:15,000
spaces.

1110
00:57:15,000 --> 00:57:17,809
One of our other recommended changes is to our on street

1111
00:57:17,809 --> 00:57:20,940
parking criteria. Right now they're a little loose in how

1112
00:57:20,940 --> 00:57:24,000
they can be applied and where those spaces can be located.

1113
00:57:24,000 --> 00:57:27,260
We're proposing that on street parking be limited to multif

1114
00:57:27,260 --> 00:57:30,510
amily and non residential developments that are within the

1115
00:57:30,510 --> 00:57:33,989
infill boundary only. So on the outskirts of the city

1116
00:57:33,989 --> 00:57:36,949
wouldn't be allowed to take credit for on street spaces and

1117
00:57:36,949 --> 00:57:39,699
then single family would no longer be allowed to take

1118
00:57:39,699 --> 00:57:43,000
credit for on street spaces or duplexes.

1119
00:57:43,000 --> 00:57:46,010
And then we would stipulate with this that on street

1120
00:57:46,010 --> 00:57:49,519
parking and within the infill boundary for multifamily and

1121
00:57:49,519 --> 00:57:52,840
non residential could be credited towards the required

1122
00:57:52,840 --> 00:57:56,480
parking for each contiguous 22 feet of frontage that they

1123
00:57:56,480 --> 00:57:58,000
have on the street.

1124
00:57:58,000 --> 00:58:01,079
So just to give you an idea this red outline here is the

1125
00:58:01,079 --> 00:58:04,460
infill special purpose district boundary so within this

1126
00:58:04,460 --> 00:58:07,750
area is where this would be allowed to count towards your

1127
00:58:07,750 --> 00:58:09,000
required parking.

1128
00:58:09,000 --> 00:58:11,610
Looking at a little more specifically at how this would

1129
00:58:11,610 --> 00:58:14,429
apply. So what we mean by contiguous frontage is like what

1130
00:58:14,429 --> 00:58:17,449
you see in the example here. This from the driveway over to

1131
00:58:17,449 --> 00:58:20,000
their line they have approximately 70 feet.

1132
00:58:20,000 --> 00:58:23,699
So dividing that by 22 they could fit three parking spaces

1133
00:58:23,699 --> 00:58:27,739
within that area. Again, no not counting for the frontage

1134
00:58:27,739 --> 00:58:30,860
they have within the driveway on the other side they could

1135
00:58:30,860 --> 00:58:34,000
fit four spaces based on that 22 foot dimension.

1136
00:58:34,000 --> 00:58:37,750
So, as I mentioned our current on street parking criteria

1137
00:58:37,750 --> 00:58:41,090
there are a little convoluted to say the least, so we

1138
00:58:41,090 --> 00:58:44,440
require, or we allow you to take credit for on street

1139
00:58:44,440 --> 00:58:47,880
parking at a ratio of one credit for every two on street

1140
00:58:47,880 --> 00:58:50,000
spaces up to four credits.

1141
00:58:50,000 --> 00:58:53,070
And then anything above that is it a one to one ratio, so

1142
00:58:53,070 --> 00:58:56,000
that math gets a little complicated sometimes.

1143
00:58:56,000 --> 00:58:58,900
So just to take an example if you needed seven parking, or

1144
00:58:58,900 --> 00:59:01,920
you wanted to provide seven on street parking spaces as

1145
00:59:01,920 --> 00:59:04,530
some of your required parking under the current code for

1146
00:59:04,530 --> 00:59:07,409
the first four of those seven credits, you would need to

1147
00:59:07,409 --> 00:59:10,000
provide eight spaces for the fifth through the seventh

1148
00:59:10,000 --> 00:59:13,130
you would then need a one to one ratio so three spaces. So

1149
00:59:13,130 --> 00:59:16,820
that would require you have frontage for 11 parking spaces

1150
00:59:16,820 --> 00:59:20,000
to get seven parking credits under the current code.

1151
00:59:20,000 --> 00:59:25,130
Sorry that five there should be a seven that's typo on my

1152
00:59:25,130 --> 00:59:28,219
part. And then under what's proposed here it would be a

1153
00:59:28,219 --> 00:59:31,130
little bit more direct as long as you had the 22 contiguous

1154
00:59:31,130 --> 00:59:33,750
feet of frontage for that for those seven spaces so total

1155
00:59:33,750 --> 00:59:37,000
of 154 linear feet of frontage on either side of your

1156
00:59:37,000 --> 00:59:37,000
driveway,

1157
00:59:37,000 --> 00:59:42,320
you could use those seven spaces as credits towards your

1158
00:59:42,320 --> 00:59:45,000
parking at a one to one ratio.

1159
00:59:45,000 --> 00:59:48,400
One of the other changes we're making currently the code

1160
00:59:48,400 --> 00:59:51,670
allows for compact car parking it only allows for it in

1161
00:59:51,670 --> 00:59:53,000
parking garages.

1162
00:59:53,000 --> 00:59:56,340
So we would propose that compact car parking be allowed

1163
00:59:56,340 --> 00:59:59,849
anywhere not just within garages could be allowed within

1164
00:59:59,849 --> 01:00:01,000
surface lots.

1165
01:00:01,000 --> 01:00:04,369
But whereas we currently allow you to substitute 20% of

1166
01:00:04,369 --> 01:00:07,849
your parking within a garage, we would propose to take that

1167
01:00:07,849 --> 01:00:11,190
down to five compact car parking isn't frequently used. So

1168
01:00:11,190 --> 01:00:14,260
we want it to be an option but maybe not for 20% of the

1169
01:00:14,260 --> 01:00:16,000
vehicles on your site.

1170
01:00:16,000 --> 01:00:19,590
So those would be the changes to compact car parking

1171
01:00:19,590 --> 01:00:23,570
allowing it outside of parking garages and reducing it to a

1172
01:00:23,570 --> 01:00:25,000
5% allowance.

1173
01:00:25,000 --> 01:00:27,940
We would propose to add more specific language for bicycle

1174
01:00:27,940 --> 01:00:30,940
parking right now it's just a recommendation motorcycle

1175
01:00:30,940 --> 01:00:33,590
parking isn't mentioned in the code at all currently so

1176
01:00:33,590 --> 01:00:35,000
that's a new addition.

1177
01:00:35,000 --> 01:00:38,000
So this is the proposed language.

1178
01:00:38,000 --> 01:00:41,389
To summarize we would stipulate within the code that bike

1179
01:00:41,389 --> 01:00:44,659
spaces be elevated to provide some safety there for the

1180
01:00:44,659 --> 01:00:46,000
bicycle parking.

1181
01:00:46,000 --> 01:00:50,300
We would allow that substitution for one vehicle space, you

1182
01:00:50,300 --> 01:00:54,559
would be required to have four bicycle spaces for every one

1183
01:00:54,559 --> 01:00:58,349
vehicle space, you can have two motorcycle spaces as a

1184
01:00:58,349 --> 01:01:00,000
substitution there.

1185
01:01:00,000 --> 01:01:03,050
Some provided some very specific language that's taken

1186
01:01:03,050 --> 01:01:06,369
directly from our current bicycle parking recommendations

1187
01:01:06,369 --> 01:01:09,650
that are bike and pedestrian coordinator developed, we're

1188
01:01:09,650 --> 01:01:12,349
opting to put those in the code and make them actual

1189
01:01:12,349 --> 01:01:15,309
requirements in terms of how much space you provide for

1190
01:01:15,309 --> 01:01:16,000
bicycle parking.

1191
01:01:16,000 --> 01:01:18,760
So those racks would need to be in an area that's two feet

1192
01:01:18,760 --> 01:01:21,519
by seven feet at least and within 50 feet of the main

1193
01:01:21,519 --> 01:01:24,409
entrance of the facility to encourage them to be actively

1194
01:01:24,409 --> 01:01:25,000
used.

1195
01:01:25,000 --> 01:01:28,119
Provide some options as to what that bicycle parking could

1196
01:01:28,119 --> 01:01:30,940
look like a rack that secures the bike in at least two

1197
01:01:30,940 --> 01:01:33,969
places and enclosed locker or some sort of other covered or

1198
01:01:33,969 --> 01:01:35,000
fenced area.

1199
01:01:35,000 --> 01:01:38,980
For running dimensions for motorcycle spaces before by

1200
01:01:38,980 --> 01:01:40,000
eight feet.

1201
01:01:40,000 --> 01:01:43,500
And then, same as with the compact spaces we would require

1202
01:01:43,500 --> 01:01:46,849
that these substitutions not be for more than 5% of the

1203
01:01:46,849 --> 01:01:48,000
required parking.

1204
01:01:48,000 --> 01:01:50,469
So you can see all of that kind of place together with the

1205
01:01:50,469 --> 01:01:53,309
administrative relief, you can have a 10% reduction, and

1206
01:01:53,309 --> 01:01:56,000
you can pick and choose how those pieces go together.

1207
01:01:56,000 --> 01:01:59,980
You could provide a combination of compact spaces bike

1208
01:01:59,980 --> 01:02:04,420
spaces, and then just administrative relief up to 10% of

1209
01:02:04,420 --> 01:02:06,000
the required number.

1210
01:02:06,000 --> 01:02:08,960
And just to kind of summarize these changes are being

1211
01:02:08,960 --> 01:02:12,090
proposed in advance of the overall DDC update, because

1212
01:02:12,090 --> 01:02:15,639
those council directives to provide flexibility and improve

1213
01:02:15,639 --> 01:02:18,000
our residential parking standards.

1214
01:02:18,000 --> 01:02:20,840
Just a reminder of how it currently works we have this men

1215
01:02:20,840 --> 01:02:23,630
max system the minimum is the maximum no flexibility,

1216
01:02:23,630 --> 01:02:26,230
unless you go to ZBA to reduce your parking through a

1217
01:02:26,230 --> 01:02:30,590
variance, which is a hardship variance, or you provide

1218
01:02:30,590 --> 01:02:33,000
permeable paving for excess spaces,

1219
01:02:33,000 --> 01:02:36,599
or you come before the PNC for approval of an ADP to

1220
01:02:36,599 --> 01:02:41,000
provide excess parking that with impervious surface.

1221
01:02:41,000 --> 01:02:44,320
And again staff is recommending approval of these requests,

1222
01:02:44,320 --> 01:02:47,199
as I've presented them to you tonight, and be happy to

1223
01:02:47,199 --> 01:02:49,000
answer any other questions.

1224
01:02:49,000 --> 01:02:52,780
Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. So we're supposed to

1225
01:02:52,780 --> 01:02:53,000
be.

1226
01:02:53,000 --> 01:02:55,989
We expressed a lot of points earlier today that was just

1227
01:02:55,989 --> 01:02:58,940
kind of concerns things without much change so we're

1228
01:02:58,940 --> 01:03:01,820
supposed to be voting saying we were approved this for

1229
01:03:01,820 --> 01:03:05,000
recommendation to city council to vote on approval.

1230
01:03:05,000 --> 01:03:08,230
So if we have considered we have concerns considerations

1231
01:03:08,230 --> 01:03:11,000
recommendations given that about the table.

1232
01:03:11,000 --> 01:03:16,000
Essentially, or what.

1233
01:03:16,000 --> 01:03:27,000
I think it's almost a two part.

1234
01:03:27,000 --> 01:03:29,000
I think it's almost a twofold.

1235
01:03:29,000 --> 01:03:31,849
We were given a, we were given a directive by Council to

1236
01:03:31,849 --> 01:03:35,000
bring, you know, to bring this to bring this forward.

1237
01:03:35,000 --> 01:03:40,940
And actually, I think it started before January January was

1238
01:03:40,940 --> 01:03:46,000
where we first presented the item at the work session.

1239
01:03:46,000 --> 01:03:48,760
And so it's kind of where we are now. And council kind of

1240
01:03:48,760 --> 01:03:50,949
looked at it as really sort of a stopgap if you will, like

1241
01:03:50,949 --> 01:03:53,159
a better way to say it, while we're getting the DC update

1242
01:03:53,159 --> 01:03:54,000
being done.

1243
01:03:54,000 --> 01:04:06,070
So I think that's a good way to get it up today. I think

1244
01:04:06,070 --> 01:04:06,659
are definitely have merit, but by all means I think we'll

1245
01:04:06,659 --> 01:04:07,179
even admit I think there's a lot more as we continue to

1246
01:04:07,179 --> 01:04:07,780
progress and move forward with the DC update that we could

1247
01:04:07,780 --> 01:04:11,280
we could add in even car share, do we give a, you know, if

1248
01:04:11,280 --> 01:04:12,000
a car shares available at a site.

1249
01:04:12,000 --> 01:04:14,210
Can we offer a percentage reduction if so which that

1250
01:04:14,210 --> 01:04:17,940
reduction be. So I think there's those, those those

1251
01:04:17,940 --> 01:04:20,000
alternatives are there.

1252
01:04:20,000 --> 01:04:23,500
And then writing all of this down to make sure that we're

1253
01:04:23,500 --> 01:04:26,000
actually tracking it for the matrix.

1254
01:04:26,000 --> 01:04:29,000
So that's where I kind of think we're almost at it.

1255
01:04:29,000 --> 01:04:31,789
Look at it as a twofold one. And we're, we're, we're

1256
01:04:31,789 --> 01:04:34,590
directed to bring this forward. This is kind of where we're

1257
01:04:34,590 --> 01:04:38,639
at. But I think we also agree that even as you'll see it in

1258
01:04:38,639 --> 01:04:40,000
the current draft.

1259
01:04:40,000 --> 01:04:42,630
With the full consolidated draft of the DC, there'll be

1260
01:04:42,630 --> 01:04:45,380
some additional changes as we continue to move forward so I

1261
01:04:45,380 --> 01:04:48,000
think this will be a moving, moving, moving target to a

1262
01:04:48,000 --> 01:04:50,699
certain extent, but this wasn't this was something that

1263
01:04:50,699 --> 01:04:53,000
Council had direct us to bring forward

1264
01:04:53,000 --> 01:05:04,789
We both approve this. It's approved. It will be essentially

1265
01:05:04,789 --> 01:05:11,110
repealed the DC update is done. Some of it some of it could

1266
01:05:11,110 --> 01:05:11,369
stay some of it could could be completely repealed when we

1267
01:05:11,369 --> 01:05:11,639
bring the DC update forward. Okay, so what parts what parts

1268
01:05:11,639 --> 01:05:14,000
of you know we talked to we have you discussed that are not

1269
01:05:14,000 --> 01:05:16,000
the data that are won't be covered in the DC update or will

1270
01:05:16,000 --> 01:05:19,000
be covering the DC update but we're not talking about here.

1271
01:05:19,000 --> 01:05:21,900
Okay, where are we, what parts are not overlapping as a

1272
01:05:21,900 --> 01:05:24,000
question I'm asking.

1273
01:05:24,000 --> 01:05:27,980
All of us would overlap. I think I think the other, I think

1274
01:05:27,980 --> 01:05:31,289
the opportunity to, to further look at these whether we

1275
01:05:31,289 --> 01:05:35,000
want to call them zones parking zones or reduction areas.

1276
01:05:35,000 --> 01:05:38,809
How we, how we define that I think another, another big

1277
01:05:38,809 --> 01:05:42,429
component of this is how we, how we define the central

1278
01:05:42,429 --> 01:05:46,710
business district. Right now the boundaries kind of gerrym

1279
01:05:46,710 --> 01:05:50,159
ander all over don't make make much sense. I think as we

1280
01:05:50,159 --> 01:05:51,250
start to pull that and sort of refine that and mold that to

1281
01:05:51,250 --> 01:05:53,000
what's where it really should be.

1282
01:05:53,000 --> 01:05:55,469
I think it's going to be a driver but I think what

1283
01:05:55,469 --> 01:05:58,530
ultimately comes out of some of the neighborhood plans.

1284
01:05:58,530 --> 01:06:01,460
Sure, I think will be a big component as far as where we,

1285
01:06:01,460 --> 01:06:04,420
where we start to target these sort of a column reduction

1286
01:06:04,420 --> 01:06:06,000
area right now for lack of.

1287
01:06:06,000 --> 01:06:10,159
What we're saying is this is this is completely whatever's

1288
01:06:10,159 --> 01:06:13,960
it covered by the DC update that we're going to vote on a

1289
01:06:13,960 --> 01:06:17,949
proof later on another. This is purely a stopgap to DC

1290
01:06:17,949 --> 01:06:22,050
updates can solidify and entrench correct everything that

1291
01:06:22,050 --> 01:06:24,000
we're talking about.

1292
01:06:24,000 --> 01:06:41,070
Please go for it. Sorry Scott. I know and I might also

1293
01:06:41,070 --> 01:06:41,289
mention just the mere fact that that there is three members

1294
01:06:41,289 --> 01:06:41,480
, there are three members of this commission that

1295
01:06:41,480 --> 01:06:41,710
participate in a committee that is going to review all of

1296
01:06:41,710 --> 01:06:43,000
this once again so just as Richard indicated.

1297
01:06:43,000 --> 01:06:45,989
Sean's capturing notes and every meeting that we go to and

1298
01:06:45,989 --> 01:06:49,079
all the public comments. We're going to consolidate all

1299
01:06:49,079 --> 01:06:52,159
those comments into a into a document that the committee is

1300
01:06:52,159 --> 01:06:55,599
going to be working through. So, this is not the last time

1301
01:06:55,599 --> 01:06:57,000
that's also be heard.

1302
01:06:57,000 --> 01:07:03,550
And I was just bringing up Mike my original question

1303
01:07:03,550 --> 01:07:10,860
because I was worried we're saying well, we would like to

1304
01:07:10,860 --> 01:07:15,000
maybe see some flexibility.

1305
01:07:15,000 --> 01:07:26,949
No, it's always just trying to make sure I got the text of

1306
01:07:26,949 --> 01:07:31,449
what was posted. You can still make those concerns part of

1307
01:07:31,449 --> 01:07:32,110
your recommendation. As I was saying, notes that they're

1308
01:07:32,110 --> 01:07:32,670
taking that and it'll be presented to with along with

1309
01:07:32,670 --> 01:07:33,000
approval.

1310
01:07:33,000 --> 01:07:37,929
This is what they're, you know, asking so it's true with

1311
01:07:37,929 --> 01:07:40,000
our recommendations.

1312
01:07:40,000 --> 01:07:43,269
We continue. We're going to continue to look at this work

1313
01:07:43,269 --> 01:07:46,409
we're, we're definitely not done we're getting a lot of

1314
01:07:46,409 --> 01:07:49,849
good feedback from different parts of the community, we're

1315
01:07:49,849 --> 01:07:53,019
very engaged with area plans and as we talked to downtown

1316
01:07:53,019 --> 01:07:56,429
businesses, and what some of the things that that haven't

1317
01:07:56,429 --> 01:07:58,000
even come before this group as of yet.

1318
01:07:58,000 --> 01:08:01,500
So we're trying to manage all of those pieces and look at

1319
01:08:01,500 --> 01:08:05,190
it holistically, and we have months to work on this, where

1320
01:08:05,190 --> 01:08:08,699
it is that we've been working on the stopgap for months,

1321
01:08:08,699 --> 01:08:12,150
really just trying to get something better than what we

1322
01:08:12,150 --> 01:08:14,000
have today is all it is.

1323
01:08:14,000 --> 01:08:20,000
Thank you for your time.

1324
01:08:20,000 --> 01:08:23,800
Commissioner Alice. Thank you, just a quick note I guess if

1325
01:08:23,800 --> 01:08:27,000
we are going to try to move this forward.

1326
01:08:27,000 --> 01:08:31,500
I made a note that G to be does not make any sense the way

1327
01:08:31,500 --> 01:08:33,000
it's written.

1328
01:08:33,000 --> 01:08:38,000
So that really needs to be

1329
01:08:38,000 --> 01:08:41,010
looked at I mean I think I know what you're trying to say

1330
01:08:41,010 --> 01:08:46,899
but it's, it's, it doesn't make any sense the way it's

1331
01:08:46,899 --> 01:08:48,000
written.

1332
01:08:48,000 --> 01:08:51,000
The administrative administrative relief.

1333
01:08:51,000 --> 01:08:58,000
And if you if you read to, and then you try to apply be as

1334
01:08:58,000 --> 01:09:01,000
it just doesn't make sense as written.

1335
01:09:01,000 --> 01:09:23,000
We can take a look at that.

1336
01:09:23,000 --> 01:09:35,000
I think that's a good point.

1337
01:09:35,000 --> 01:09:38,979
I get where you were trying to go with it. I just think it

1338
01:09:38,979 --> 01:09:42,720
for to make proper English sense and in an outline form, it

1339
01:09:42,720 --> 01:09:45,000
doesn't make sense the way it.

1340
01:09:45,000 --> 01:09:51,500
Certainly, I'll make another that we can try to rework that

1341
01:09:51,500 --> 01:09:53,000
language. Okay, yeah, and I can come up with a line if you

1342
01:09:53,000 --> 01:09:53,000
need me to do that. Okay.

1343
01:09:53,000 --> 01:09:59,850
Yeah, yeah, if you have recommended language, certainly,

1344
01:09:59,850 --> 01:10:03,000
let us know and we can consider that.

1345
01:10:03,000 --> 01:10:09,000
Any other questions for Haley on this side.

1346
01:10:09,000 --> 01:10:17,000
Okay. Thank you. That's our last agenda item on our work

1347
01:10:17,000 --> 01:10:17,000
session.

1348
01:10:17,000 --> 01:10:22,000
We made it made it through a timely break for foods.

1349
01:10:22,000 --> 01:10:26,000
Kind of reset things.

1350
01:10:26,000 --> 01:10:31,000
Work reports.

1351
01:10:31,000 --> 01:10:35,000
I gotta go back to the agenda. Thank you.

1352
01:10:35,000 --> 01:10:38,130
We didn't get to the courthouse square design standards you

1353
01:10:38,130 --> 01:10:39,000
're correct.

1354
01:10:39,000 --> 01:10:56,000
And the upland habitat management.

1355
01:10:56,000 --> 01:10:58,000
After tonight's meeting.

1356
01:10:58,000 --> 01:11:05,000
That's what we've done that before.

1357
01:11:05,000 --> 01:11:15,000
You want to try to get that one in five minutes.

1358
01:11:15,000 --> 01:11:18,000
And so one.

1359
01:11:18,000 --> 01:11:22,000
I'm sorry to a will do at the conclusion of the

1360
01:11:22,000 --> 01:11:28,000
Of our regular public meeting. Come back in here and

1361
01:11:28,000 --> 01:11:28,000
continue on that. Okay. Good evening, Commission. I'm

1362
01:11:28,000 --> 01:11:28,000
Deborah.

1363
01:11:28,000 --> 01:11:30,000
Here with environmental services.

1364
01:11:30,000 --> 01:11:33,590
Three short notify me about your questions about upland

1365
01:11:33,590 --> 01:11:37,000
habitat that were expressed during the April 25th meeting.

1366
01:11:37,000 --> 01:11:41,609
And I asked Richard to come and actually have a

1367
01:11:41,609 --> 01:11:44,500
conversation with you to gather more information and better

1368
01:11:44,500 --> 01:11:48,699
direction of the information that I that you wish to see in

1369
01:11:48,699 --> 01:11:50,000
the future.

1370
01:11:50,000 --> 01:11:55,020
I watched the video and pretty much three topics were

1371
01:11:55,020 --> 01:11:56,000
brought up.

1372
01:11:56,000 --> 01:11:58,000
The management of upland habitat.

1373
01:11:58,000 --> 01:12:02,000
The quality of upland habitat, especially if that could be

1374
01:12:02,000 --> 01:12:06,880
captured as a part of the field assessment reports and the

1375
01:12:06,880 --> 01:12:10,000
mention of a point system.

1376
01:12:10,000 --> 01:12:15,289
Staff is aware of the lack of good guidance on managing

1377
01:12:15,289 --> 01:12:20,000
environmental sensitive areas in general.

1378
01:12:20,000 --> 01:12:24,000
It is a plant staff is playing to address that through the

1379
01:12:24,000 --> 01:12:29,000
ESA criteria manual that is currently being drafted.

1380
01:12:29,000 --> 01:12:34,050
With that, we will provide a whole section of it and that

1381
01:12:34,050 --> 01:12:39,220
criteria manual will be brought to the PNC Commission for

1382
01:12:39,220 --> 01:12:42,000
you for your input and review.

1383
01:12:42,000 --> 01:12:45,989
There will be an also a section included on the criteria

1384
01:12:45,989 --> 01:12:49,000
manual about the field assessment forms.

1385
01:12:49,000 --> 01:12:53,399
Staff is actually working on modifying the upland habitat

1386
01:12:53,399 --> 01:12:57,729
to have a section that identify some if there's any issues

1387
01:12:57,729 --> 01:13:01,649
with the with the habitat with the canopy, meso canopy

1388
01:13:01,649 --> 01:13:03,000
understory and so on.

1389
01:13:03,000 --> 01:13:07,130
And we will get into the details as a part of the of the E

1390
01:13:07,130 --> 01:13:09,000
SA criteria manual.

1391
01:13:09,000 --> 01:13:13,329
So in that way, part of the reports that we will turn back

1392
01:13:13,329 --> 01:13:17,989
to the applicant will have some information about how those

1393
01:13:17,989 --> 01:13:22,000
react could be managed or improved in needed to be.

1394
01:13:22,000 --> 01:13:25,590
And that information will go back to the whole will connect

1395
01:13:25,590 --> 01:13:29,039
back to the management section that the criteria manual

1396
01:13:29,039 --> 01:13:30,000
will have.

1397
01:13:30,000 --> 01:13:33,000
What I'm not sure about and that's what I'm here.

1398
01:13:33,000 --> 01:13:36,590
There was a mention about a point system and for me to I

1399
01:13:36,590 --> 01:13:40,350
would like to receive some clarification of why you meant

1400
01:13:40,350 --> 01:13:44,000
where you were going with the idea of a point system.

1401
01:13:44,000 --> 01:13:48,170
Are you looking to have a point system similar to what is

1402
01:13:48,170 --> 01:13:52,369
called the or use for repair and buffer as a string rapid

1403
01:13:52,369 --> 01:13:54,000
assessment tool?

1404
01:13:54,000 --> 01:13:58,090
The are sat that Mr. Chances might be familiar with or

1405
01:13:58,090 --> 01:14:02,000
something similar that is done with wetland delineation.

1406
01:14:02,000 --> 01:14:06,699
So help me guide me what type of what you were heading with

1407
01:14:06,699 --> 01:14:11,199
the point system when it was mentioned during the work

1408
01:14:11,199 --> 01:14:13,000
session.

1409
01:14:13,000 --> 01:14:18,000
Commissioner Sanchez.

1410
01:14:18,000 --> 01:14:21,329
When I'm talking about a point system, I was looking at the

1411
01:14:21,329 --> 01:14:25,359
quality of the of the habitat and being able to say, OK,

1412
01:14:25,359 --> 01:14:31,000
either rate like a rating and this rating would basically

1413
01:14:31,000 --> 01:14:36,159
depending on what type of habitat or the quality of habitat

1414
01:14:36,159 --> 01:14:41,350
the individual had this rating would would determine what

1415
01:14:41,350 --> 01:14:45,399
maybe how much the owner would have to give up if it's a

1416
01:14:45,399 --> 01:14:47,000
very poor quality habitat.

1417
01:14:47,000 --> 01:14:49,000
And it's even an upland habitat.

1418
01:14:49,000 --> 01:14:52,000
And and there's no rating system.

1419
01:14:52,000 --> 01:14:55,989
What I was thinking is you may get like what I saw over

1420
01:14:55,989 --> 01:15:00,079
there and across the street from what you call it Home

1421
01:15:00,079 --> 01:15:01,000
Depot.

1422
01:15:01,000 --> 01:15:03,000
It was a very poor quality upland habitat.

1423
01:15:03,000 --> 01:15:07,189
And I think it was like two points some acres were taken

1424
01:15:07,189 --> 01:15:11,819
out of that for upland habitat, even though the quality was

1425
01:15:11,819 --> 01:15:13,000
very poor.

1426
01:15:13,000 --> 01:15:16,850
So what I'm looking at a point system or based on what type

1427
01:15:16,850 --> 01:15:20,890
of quality the habitat is, then that would determine what

1428
01:15:20,890 --> 01:15:25,000
the person would actually give up at the time when you're

1429
01:15:25,000 --> 01:15:28,000
making a decision on that.

1430
01:15:28,000 --> 01:15:32,000
Does that make sense or not?

1431
01:15:32,000 --> 01:15:36,310
I think because quality is I'm just saying the quality of

1432
01:15:36,310 --> 01:15:39,000
the habitat makes a big difference.

1433
01:15:39,000 --> 01:15:43,270
If he has a very good and then the point system also would

1434
01:15:43,270 --> 01:15:47,819
include give him something for the amount of property he's

1435
01:15:47,819 --> 01:15:49,000
giving up.

1436
01:15:49,000 --> 01:15:51,000
Does that make sense?

1437
01:15:51,000 --> 01:15:54,000
The point system.

1438
01:15:54,000 --> 01:15:57,359
So you are pretty much saying based on the quality of the

1439
01:15:57,359 --> 01:16:00,819
habitat that would be preservation requirement will be

1440
01:16:00,819 --> 01:16:02,000
established.

1441
01:16:02,000 --> 01:16:07,000
Is that what you are trying to connect between the two?

1442
01:16:07,000 --> 01:16:11,800
Based on the quality of the habitat determines how much

1443
01:16:11,800 --> 01:16:17,270
person would what your decision would indicate how much he

1444
01:16:17,270 --> 01:16:20,899
should because what he does is he gives up a certain

1445
01:16:20,899 --> 01:16:26,000
percent of land based on being an ESA, right?

1446
01:16:26,000 --> 01:16:29,729
Depending on the use of the land, residential or not

1447
01:16:29,729 --> 01:16:31,000
residential.

1448
01:16:31,000 --> 01:16:38,000
50% and 30% and then the amount of ESA present on the site.

1449
01:16:38,000 --> 01:16:42,050
Those are the two things that apply to determine the total

1450
01:16:42,050 --> 01:16:44,000
acreage of dedication.

1451
01:16:44,000 --> 01:16:49,939
But you don't consider the quality and that to me is very

1452
01:16:49,939 --> 01:16:51,000
important.

1453
01:16:51,000 --> 01:16:52,000
Okay.

1454
01:16:52,000 --> 01:16:55,010
Because you can have a very low quality habitat like what I

1455
01:16:55,010 --> 01:16:56,000
saw over there.

1456
01:16:56,000 --> 01:16:59,689
You require a lot of work to bring it back to upland

1457
01:16:59,689 --> 01:17:03,000
habitat to do it quality upland habitat.

1458
01:17:03,000 --> 01:17:06,869
So what what are you going to do to bring it back or are

1459
01:17:06,869 --> 01:17:10,649
you just going to go into use that criteria you just

1460
01:17:10,649 --> 01:17:14,000
mentioned without looking at the quality.

1461
01:17:14,000 --> 01:17:15,000
Commissioner back.

1462
01:17:15,000 --> 01:17:16,000
Thank you, Chair.

1463
01:17:16,000 --> 01:17:19,699
Can you commission Sanchez Could you give us an example or

1464
01:17:19,699 --> 01:17:23,390
two of the criteria that would be involved in determining

1465
01:17:23,390 --> 01:17:27,010
the quality of upland habitat, just so I can get a better

1466
01:17:27,010 --> 01:17:30,000
idea of what you're okay for example you may look at

1467
01:17:30,000 --> 01:17:34,560
spacing of the trees, type of trees, how much grass land

1468
01:17:34,560 --> 01:17:37,000
there is the the herbaceous vegetation.

1469
01:17:37,000 --> 01:17:41,260
Those are the species of vegetation, as far as the herbace

1470
01:17:41,260 --> 01:17:45,699
ous vegetation, you may when I'm talking about the trees you

1471
01:17:45,699 --> 01:17:49,810
may look at what different types of trees are within that

1472
01:17:49,810 --> 01:17:53,000
location within that upland habitat.

1473
01:17:53,000 --> 01:17:56,500
Okay, I'm assuming that when they look at an upland habitat

1474
01:17:56,500 --> 01:17:59,850
the primary species of upland species you're looking at

1475
01:17:59,850 --> 01:18:03,079
blackjack oak and post oak, because that was what we saw

1476
01:18:03,079 --> 01:18:04,000
over there.

1477
01:18:04,000 --> 01:18:07,979
But if you see a lot of, for example, within that that

1478
01:18:07,979 --> 01:18:12,000
habitat within that area, you are seeing cedars.

1479
01:18:12,000 --> 01:18:16,609
Well cedars aren't part of a upland habitat. That's well

1480
01:18:16,609 --> 01:18:19,000
managed because cedars are very flammable.

1481
01:18:19,000 --> 01:18:22,119
So those are the criteria you would use to determine what

1482
01:18:22,119 --> 01:18:25,390
type of habitat you have in there, what quality of habitat

1483
01:18:25,390 --> 01:18:28,710
you have in there, and we'd have to probably establish that

1484
01:18:28,710 --> 01:18:30,000
kind of criteria.

1485
01:18:30,000 --> 01:18:33,720
So determine quality and who would essentially do that then

1486
01:18:33,720 --> 01:18:38,670
? Would you expect that to fall upon? To determine the

1487
01:18:38,670 --> 01:18:40,000
criteria?

1488
01:18:40,000 --> 01:18:41,000
Okay.

1489
01:18:41,000 --> 01:18:42,000
You're asking me?

1490
01:18:42,000 --> 01:18:44,210
Well I'm pointing because I think you at the end of the day

1491
01:18:44,210 --> 01:18:45,000
will determine that.

1492
01:18:45,000 --> 01:18:48,000
That would make sense to me, yes I agree.

1493
01:18:48,000 --> 01:18:55,529
So, I guess, are you then asking Ms. Vera if she's going to

1494
01:18:55,529 --> 01:18:59,000
be putting forth some criteria to establish quality?

1495
01:18:59,000 --> 01:19:02,000
Yes, that would be my question is how would you put up,

1496
01:19:02,000 --> 01:19:04,750
because I haven't seen anything other than it's, and I don

1497
01:19:04,750 --> 01:19:08,659
't think we've seen anything other than it just says it's a

1498
01:19:08,659 --> 01:19:09,000
ESA.

1499
01:19:09,000 --> 01:19:12,760
But when you go in there, there's nothing that tells you

1500
01:19:12,760 --> 01:19:16,460
the quality and there's nothing that says okay, this is

1501
01:19:16,460 --> 01:19:19,130
what we have and this is what we're going to move to and

1502
01:19:19,130 --> 01:19:22,000
these are the species, if you have good quality habitat,

1503
01:19:22,000 --> 01:19:26,000
you're going to find these species within that area.

1504
01:19:26,000 --> 01:19:31,300
Right now the only thing you're finding are these species,

1505
01:19:31,300 --> 01:19:36,380
which is indicative of a bad quality habitat and I think it

1506
01:19:36,380 --> 01:19:38,000
's important.

1507
01:19:38,000 --> 01:19:39,000
Commissioner Ellis.

1508
01:19:39,000 --> 01:19:42,729
Thank you, Chair. Deborah, is there any standard of measure

1509
01:19:42,729 --> 01:19:45,819
? Best practices or national standards or anything like that

1510
01:19:45,819 --> 01:19:46,000
?

1511
01:19:46,000 --> 01:19:49,819
We do, and we are working on that, especially in the

1512
01:19:49,819 --> 01:19:53,859
sections that we were looking to identify issues and to

1513
01:19:53,859 --> 01:19:57,920
make it as a part of the reports in that way the person who

1514
01:19:57,920 --> 01:20:02,000
's going to manage have some sort of where to start.

1515
01:20:02,000 --> 01:20:06,170
Okay, so yes we do. And there's not only species, we're

1516
01:20:06,170 --> 01:20:10,819
talking about the presence of land, of vines, of heratious

1517
01:20:10,819 --> 01:20:13,000
material, soil, and so on.

1518
01:20:13,000 --> 01:20:17,260
So yes, we do have that. So that's going to be made

1519
01:20:17,260 --> 01:20:18,000
available.

1520
01:20:18,000 --> 01:20:21,739
But I think that we are combining two things and for the

1521
01:20:21,739 --> 01:20:25,000
lack of time I don't want to get much into it.

1522
01:20:25,000 --> 01:20:29,520
But one thing is identify issues with the habitat and how

1523
01:20:29,520 --> 01:20:33,560
we can improve it if that's the way that that person

1524
01:20:33,560 --> 01:20:35,000
chooses to do.

1525
01:20:35,000 --> 01:20:39,050
The other thing is how upland habitat is defined. Upland

1526
01:20:39,050 --> 01:20:43,250
habitat is defined by area, 10 acres or more, and by the

1527
01:20:43,250 --> 01:20:47,000
presence of species, characteristic of remnants.

1528
01:20:47,000 --> 01:20:51,439
The quality of the habitat is not part of the definition of

1529
01:20:51,439 --> 01:20:56,649
what defines upland habitat. That change is a policy change

1530
01:20:56,649 --> 01:20:57,000
.

1531
01:20:57,000 --> 01:21:02,100
Okay, so when we're starting to establish the percentage of

1532
01:21:02,100 --> 01:21:07,090
dedication or I should say preservation based on quality,

1533
01:21:07,090 --> 01:21:11,399
that's a policy change that needs to be reflected on the DD

1534
01:21:11,399 --> 01:21:15,500
on 17 or whatever new section is under the new module to be

1535
01:21:15,500 --> 01:21:18,000
able to enforce that.

1536
01:21:18,000 --> 01:21:21,500
The grading system, we can implement that as a part of the

1537
01:21:21,500 --> 01:21:24,819
criteria manual. The management guidelines, we can

1538
01:21:24,819 --> 01:21:28,000
implement that as a part of the criteria manual.

1539
01:21:28,000 --> 01:21:32,170
And we are working on it because we have identified that as

1540
01:21:32,170 --> 01:21:35,000
a lacking out there for many years.

1541
01:21:35,000 --> 01:21:39,829
But connecting the quality with the finding what upland

1542
01:21:39,829 --> 01:21:45,119
habitat is, that's a changing policy. And that will have to

1543
01:21:45,119 --> 01:21:49,520
be something that has to be brought through PNC City

1544
01:21:49,520 --> 01:21:54,000
Council Committee on the Environment and all that.

1545
01:21:54,000 --> 01:21:56,000
Continue Mr. Sanchez, Commissioner Sanchez.

1546
01:21:56,000 --> 01:22:02,890
Okay, yeah, but when you're defining upland habitat as what

1547
01:22:02,890 --> 01:22:07,479
you define it as, if I go into an area and you define it as

1548
01:22:07,479 --> 01:22:11,439
upland habitat and all I have is a few oaks in there, post

1549
01:22:11,439 --> 01:22:15,829
oak, but there's not no herbaceous vegetation, that to me

1550
01:22:15,829 --> 01:22:19,000
is not really upland habitat unless you define it.

1551
01:22:19,000 --> 01:22:24,300
Your definition kind of is mute because the definition of

1552
01:22:24,300 --> 01:22:29,510
upland habitat should include all those species up, it

1553
01:22:29,510 --> 01:22:36,550
should include the herbaceous vegetation and it should also

1554
01:22:36,550 --> 01:22:39,000
the woodland habitat or vegetation.

1555
01:22:39,000 --> 01:22:44,970
So if you're missing 90 or 50 or 60% of it, then it's not,

1556
01:22:44,970 --> 01:22:49,909
what do you, then it's, what do you, I don't know what you

1557
01:22:49,909 --> 01:22:52,000
're defining then.

1558
01:22:52,000 --> 01:22:54,000
Do I have time?

1559
01:22:54,000 --> 01:22:56,000
Go ahead. Sure.

1560
01:22:56,000 --> 01:22:57,140
I think that it goes back to what is considered Easter

1561
01:22:57,140 --> 01:23:03,430
cross timbers. So we have a reference from a habitat

1562
01:23:03,430 --> 01:23:10,399
standpoint what is present and what is not. The cross

1563
01:23:10,399 --> 01:23:14,000
eastern habitat is, there's a wide variety of things.

1564
01:23:14,000 --> 01:23:18,000
Yes, you have the post oaks and the blackjacks as the more,

1565
01:23:18,000 --> 01:23:21,840
as the flagship species, if you can call it in that way and

1566
01:23:21,840 --> 01:23:25,699
there are other species that you will see them present in a

1567
01:23:25,699 --> 01:23:28,000
lesser extent but still there.

1568
01:23:28,000 --> 01:23:31,810
There are indications where herbaceous materials is part of

1569
01:23:31,810 --> 01:23:35,439
the habitat especially because you have the prairies next

1570
01:23:35,439 --> 01:23:39,119
to the cross timber, and you have that transition from one

1571
01:23:39,119 --> 01:23:42,590
ecoregion to the other but there are other areas where we

1572
01:23:42,590 --> 01:23:46,470
have indications in the literature that those areas are

1573
01:23:46,470 --> 01:23:49,210
more thick, and the presence of herbaceous material is not

1574
01:23:49,210 --> 01:23:51,000
as permanent as in other cities.

1575
01:23:51,000 --> 01:23:56,640
So, I think that we need to take a step back, maybe bring

1576
01:23:56,640 --> 01:24:01,710
some people who can provide some more information about it

1577
01:24:01,710 --> 01:24:05,260
and have a more broader discussion, but just to let you

1578
01:24:05,260 --> 01:24:09,130
know, staff is working on it, the criteria manner would be

1579
01:24:09,130 --> 01:24:12,000
able to answer some of those concerns.

1580
01:24:12,000 --> 01:24:16,409
It is not in a, we're working, it's not something that is

1581
01:24:16,409 --> 01:24:21,159
available for public review. So it will take some time. We

1582
01:24:21,159 --> 01:24:24,920
're working on it so and you will have the chance to go over

1583
01:24:24,920 --> 01:24:28,000
review it and make a recommendation on it.

1584
01:24:28,000 --> 01:24:31,180
I think I would ask and I appreciate the clarification. I

1585
01:24:31,180 --> 01:24:34,229
would ask it to maybe you and Commissioner Sanchez have a

1586
01:24:34,229 --> 01:24:37,569
conversation phone conversation or something and maybe get

1587
01:24:37,569 --> 01:24:40,539
into the more specifics of some of the things that y'all

1588
01:24:40,539 --> 01:24:42,000
are talking about.

1589
01:24:42,000 --> 01:24:47,399
That would be a good way for that discussion to get refined

1590
01:24:47,399 --> 01:24:53,039
to then come back before this commission for consideration

1591
01:24:53,039 --> 01:24:58,000
when the criteria manuals ready for public view. So, thank

1592
01:24:58,000 --> 01:24:58,000
you for staying late running here short on time at the end.

1593
01:24:58,000 --> 01:25:02,029
With that I'm going to close our work session at 640 and I

1594
01:25:02,029 --> 01:25:05,819
'm going to announce just for the record that we're going to

1595
01:25:05,819 --> 01:25:09,409
come back after our public session over here in council

1596
01:25:09,409 --> 01:25:13,199
chambers to hear item, a to a of our work session reports,

1597
01:25:13,199 --> 01:25:18,000
we're going to come back this evening to do that.

1598
01:25:18,000 --> 01:25:23,939
Being and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning

1599
01:25:23,939 --> 01:25:29,340
meeting for May the 9th 2018. This meeting has been duly

1600
01:25:29,340 --> 01:25:32,159
posted, and we do have a quorum present and I will call us

1601
01:25:32,159 --> 01:25:35,390
to order at 650 apologize our work session ran long and it

1602
01:25:35,390 --> 01:25:38,000
kept you all waiting.

1603
01:25:38,000 --> 01:25:47,010
Our first order of business will be to stand and give the

1604
01:25:47,010 --> 01:26:05,000
pledge to us and the Texas flag.

1605
01:26:05,000 --> 01:26:20,000
Texas flag.

1606
01:26:20,000 --> 01:26:26,380
So we will move us to our consideration of our minutes, and

1607
01:26:26,380 --> 01:26:32,399
we'll take these as individual motions due to possible

1608
01:26:32,399 --> 01:26:41,119
attendance issues. So chair and attain emotion for the

1609
01:26:41,119 --> 01:26:45,000
April 11 minutes.

1610
01:26:45,000 --> 01:26:51,000
I approve the April 11 minutes as is get a second.

1611
01:26:51,000 --> 01:26:53,000
Commissioner Roselle.

1612
01:26:53,000 --> 01:26:56,000
I second the buttons are.

1613
01:26:56,000 --> 01:26:59,000
I can't push second but I second motion.

1614
01:26:59,000 --> 01:27:01,000
Okay, well that's why maybe nobody was.

1615
01:27:01,000 --> 01:27:04,000
Nothing was showing up and I'll, I'll do it.

1616
01:27:04,000 --> 01:27:08,760
Okay, so we have a first and a second for approval on the

1617
01:27:08,760 --> 01:27:12,000
April 11 meetings minutes.

1618
01:27:12,000 --> 01:27:15,000
Questions or discussion.

1619
01:27:15,000 --> 01:27:24,000
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

1620
01:27:24,000 --> 01:27:29,000
Motion carry 70.

1621
01:27:29,000 --> 01:27:30,000
Commissioner Ellis.

1622
01:27:30,000 --> 01:27:32,000
I moved to approve April 25 minutes.

1623
01:27:32,000 --> 01:27:33,000
Okay.

1624
01:27:33,000 --> 01:27:34,000
Commissioner Sullivan.

1625
01:27:34,000 --> 01:27:35,000
Second that motion.

1626
01:27:35,000 --> 01:27:43,000
Okay, we have a first and a second for approval. Any

1627
01:27:43,000 --> 01:27:43,000
discussion.

1628
01:27:43,000 --> 01:27:57,000
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

1629
01:27:57,000 --> 01:28:05,060
Motion is going to carry five to zero with two recuse. I

1630
01:28:05,060 --> 01:28:07,000
will move us to our consent agenda.

1631
01:28:07,000 --> 01:28:10,000
Commissioner Smith motion to approve.

1632
01:28:10,000 --> 01:28:11,000
Okay.

1633
01:28:11,000 --> 01:28:12,000
Commissioner Ellis.

1634
01:28:12,000 --> 01:28:13,000
Thank you chair second.

1635
01:28:13,000 --> 01:28:16,649
Okay, we have a first and a second for approval. Any

1636
01:28:16,649 --> 01:28:21,000
further discussion.

1637
01:28:21,000 --> 01:28:34,000
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

1638
01:28:34,000 --> 01:28:37,000
Motion is going to carry seven zero.

1639
01:28:37,000 --> 01:28:40,000
I will move us to our public hearing section.

1640
01:28:40,000 --> 01:28:44,069
Make an announcement on that. We're going to have a change

1641
01:28:44,069 --> 01:28:46,000
in order of our agenda.

1642
01:28:46,000 --> 01:28:51,939
Our item D which is FR 17-0024 is going to become our item

1643
01:28:51,939 --> 01:28:54,000
B.

1644
01:28:54,000 --> 01:28:59,000
And then our item B currently FR 18-001 will be C.

1645
01:28:59,000 --> 01:29:03,000
Our item C FR 17-0029 will be D.

1646
01:29:03,000 --> 01:29:08,000
And then we will be back on schedule with E and F.

1647
01:29:08,000 --> 01:29:11,029
With that change in our agenda, I have a conflict of

1648
01:29:11,029 --> 01:29:15,000
interest on item A and the new item B.

1649
01:29:15,000 --> 01:29:18,409
I'm going to step out and turn the meeting over to the vice

1650
01:29:18,409 --> 01:29:26,000
chair, Commissioner Roseau.

1651
01:29:26,000 --> 01:29:30,409
Thank you chair. As a point of note, the new item B, the

1652
01:29:30,409 --> 01:29:34,000
final replout for Beal Way is going to be continued.

1653
01:29:34,000 --> 01:29:36,479
So if someone is here for that item, I just want to give

1654
01:29:36,479 --> 01:29:39,270
you a heads up that we'll be voting on item B to be

1655
01:29:39,270 --> 01:29:42,000
continued until May 23rd.

1656
01:29:42,000 --> 01:29:48,159
With that, we'll move to item A Z 18-004 and I'll open the

1657
01:29:48,159 --> 01:29:52,000
public hearing and invite Haley for presentation.

1658
01:29:52,000 --> 01:29:57,000
Good evening. This is case Z 18-4 for Access Bank.

1659
01:29:57,000 --> 01:30:00,090
The request before you is a rezoning from downtown

1660
01:30:00,090 --> 01:30:03,869
residential one district to downtown commercial general or

1661
01:30:03,869 --> 01:30:05,000
DCG district.

1662
01:30:05,000 --> 01:30:08,500
You can see on the top map the current zoning of DR1, the

1663
01:30:08,500 --> 01:30:12,029
lower map reflects what this would look like where this rez

1664
01:30:12,029 --> 01:30:13,000
oned to DCG.

1665
01:30:13,000 --> 01:30:16,380
The subject property is comprised of four parcels. Total

1666
01:30:16,380 --> 01:30:19,000
acreage is just over one acre for all four.

1667
01:30:19,000 --> 01:30:24,069
And the property is generally located within the block made

1668
01:30:24,069 --> 01:30:27,000
up of Maple, Myrtle and Eagle.

1669
01:30:27,000 --> 01:30:29,989
So with the rezoning, the primary thing that staff is

1670
01:30:29,989 --> 01:30:33,369
looking at in our criteria for approval is consistency with

1671
01:30:33,369 --> 01:30:35,000
the future land use plan.

1672
01:30:35,000 --> 01:30:39,000
So the future land use map designates this area surrounding

1673
01:30:39,000 --> 01:30:42,000
the property as downtown compatibility.

1674
01:30:42,000 --> 01:30:45,729
The intent of that designation is to provide areas with

1675
01:30:45,729 --> 01:30:49,279
compatible form and uses to both serve downtown with

1676
01:30:49,279 --> 01:30:53,409
supporting uses as well as serve and protect adjacent

1677
01:30:53,409 --> 01:30:55,000
neighborhoods.

1678
01:30:55,000 --> 01:30:58,979
Development in this area is typically a mixture of

1679
01:30:58,979 --> 01:31:04,000
commercial, residential and even sometimes industrial uses.

1680
01:31:04,000 --> 01:31:07,600
The requested DCG district we also found would be a

1681
01:31:07,600 --> 01:31:12,000
extension of the existing DCG that exists on both the east,

1682
01:31:12,000 --> 01:31:16,000
south and west side of the properties currently.

1683
01:31:16,000 --> 01:31:20,189
The uses that are permitted within DCG are consistent with

1684
01:31:20,189 --> 01:31:24,310
uses existing in the area today, which includes banks,

1685
01:31:24,310 --> 01:31:27,000
offices and single family homes.

1686
01:31:27,000 --> 01:31:29,899
Looking at the access and public facilities available to

1687
01:31:29,899 --> 01:31:32,939
the subject property on this map, the subject property is

1688
01:31:32,939 --> 01:31:34,000
outlined in yellow.

1689
01:31:34,000 --> 01:31:37,729
You can see it has frontage, the different pieces on, as I

1690
01:31:37,729 --> 01:31:41,000
mentioned, Maple, Myrtle and Eagle streets.

1691
01:31:41,000 --> 01:31:44,590
The red and blue lines on the map reflect the existing

1692
01:31:44,590 --> 01:31:48,199
water and sewer lines in the area, so there is adequate

1693
01:31:48,199 --> 01:31:51,000
services available to the property.

1694
01:31:51,000 --> 01:31:54,079
This is a concept plan the applicant provided for what they

1695
01:31:54,079 --> 01:31:57,000
would intend to build if this rezoning is approved.

1696
01:31:57,000 --> 01:32:00,270
On the northern portion of the northern three lots, they

1697
01:32:00,270 --> 01:32:03,369
would propose an expansion of the parking lot as well as

1698
01:32:03,369 --> 01:32:05,000
four small office buildings.

1699
01:32:05,000 --> 01:32:08,829
And then on the parcel that was on the south side along

1700
01:32:08,829 --> 01:32:13,100
Eagle, they propose an expansion of the parking lot there

1701
01:32:13,100 --> 01:32:14,000
as well.

1702
01:32:14,000 --> 01:32:18,039
Notification was sent about this request. As you can see on

1703
01:32:18,039 --> 01:32:21,000
the map, we did receive four responses.

1704
01:32:21,000 --> 01:32:23,500
One of those was in opposition. It's shown in red on the

1705
01:32:23,500 --> 01:32:28,189
map. It represents 2% of the land area within that 200 foot

1706
01:32:28,189 --> 01:32:29,000
buffer.

1707
01:32:29,000 --> 01:32:32,979
We received three favorable responses, one being from the

1708
01:32:32,979 --> 01:32:37,560
current access bank property and then two being from

1709
01:32:37,560 --> 01:32:41,000
properties just north of Maple, as you can see on the map.

1710
01:32:41,000 --> 01:32:44,869
And the favorable responses represent 26% of the land area

1711
01:32:44,869 --> 01:32:48,000
within the 200 foot notification area.

1712
01:32:48,000 --> 01:32:50,720
Staff is recommending approval of the request. We did find

1713
01:32:50,720 --> 01:32:53,939
it to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the

1714
01:32:53,939 --> 01:32:56,000
future land use map within our Denton Plan 2030.

1715
01:32:56,000 --> 01:32:58,949
We also found the proposed zoning to be compatible with the

1716
01:32:58,949 --> 01:33:02,000
surrounding properties in terms of the permitted uses.

1717
01:33:02,000 --> 01:33:05,000
And with that, I'd be happy to stand for any questions.

1718
01:33:05,000 --> 01:33:07,000
We do have some questions. Commissioner Smith.

1719
01:33:07,000 --> 01:33:09,000
Thank you, Vice Chair.

1720
01:33:09,000 --> 01:33:10,619
Haley, during the work session, we discussed a couple of

1721
01:33:10,619 --> 01:33:12,880
things. I asked some questions. I don't know if you got

1722
01:33:12,880 --> 01:33:14,000
answers for them or not.

1723
01:33:14,000 --> 01:33:17,100
We had a short amount of time between work session now. H

1724
01:33:17,100 --> 01:33:22,000
omes occupied and was there a neighborhood meeting?

1725
01:33:22,000 --> 01:33:25,039
To my knowledge, there was not a neighborhood meeting. I

1726
01:33:25,039 --> 01:33:28,010
didn't have a chance to look up the occupancy versus render

1727
01:33:28,010 --> 01:33:29,000
for this area.

1728
01:33:29,000 --> 01:33:31,000
Thank you, Haley.

1729
01:33:31,000 --> 01:33:35,659
Any other questions for Haley? Thank you, Haley. Appreciate

1730
01:33:35,659 --> 01:33:36,000
it.

1731
01:33:36,000 --> 01:33:37,890
This is a public hearing, so if you would like to speak on

1732
01:33:37,890 --> 01:33:39,810
the item, we'd ask that you fill out a blue card and you're

1733
01:33:39,810 --> 01:33:43,430
more than welcome to speak. We do have some cards already

1734
01:33:43,430 --> 01:33:44,000
in.

1735
01:33:44,000 --> 01:33:47,810
The applicant is here, obviously in support. Not speaking,

1736
01:33:47,810 --> 01:33:50,760
but here to answer any questions. Does any of the

1737
01:33:50,760 --> 01:33:54,000
commission have any questions for the applicant?

1738
01:33:54,000 --> 01:33:56,000
Commissioner Smith.

1739
01:33:56,000 --> 01:33:57,000
I do.

1740
01:33:57,000 --> 01:34:00,779
And as you approach, I'm going to say your full name and

1741
01:34:00,779 --> 01:34:02,000
your address.

1742
01:34:02,000 --> 01:34:05,000
Amy Bissett, 212 South Elm, Denton.

1743
01:34:05,000 --> 01:34:06,000
Thank you.

1744
01:34:06,000 --> 01:34:08,000
Thank you, Ms. Bissett.

1745
01:34:08,000 --> 01:34:11,000
Would you give me the floor? Sorry.

1746
01:34:11,000 --> 01:34:12,000
Yes, Commissioner.

1747
01:34:12,000 --> 01:34:15,600
Thank you, sir. Are the homes occupied within that area now

1748
01:34:15,600 --> 01:34:17,000
that we're asking for the rezone?

1749
01:34:17,000 --> 01:34:20,029
Some of the homes are occupied, yes. My understanding is

1750
01:34:20,029 --> 01:34:23,430
that some of them are already vacant, but there are still

1751
01:34:23,430 --> 01:34:26,000
some tenants that are in homes.

1752
01:34:26,000 --> 01:34:29,050
In fact, I had a conversation with one of them when I was

1753
01:34:29,050 --> 01:34:31,000
putting up the public hearing.

1754
01:34:31,000 --> 01:34:35,380
Okay. And they're planning to vacate the lease? Because

1755
01:34:35,380 --> 01:34:38,000
they're all renters in that area, I'm assuming, correct?

1756
01:34:38,000 --> 01:34:41,590
They are renters. They have not been provided notice that

1757
01:34:41,590 --> 01:34:44,279
they need to leave at this point in time, from my

1758
01:34:44,279 --> 01:34:47,810
understanding, because there is no imminent timeframe for

1759
01:34:47,810 --> 01:34:50,000
when the redevelopment will begin.

1760
01:34:50,000 --> 01:34:53,000
Okay. Was there ever a neighborhood meeting held?

1761
01:34:53,000 --> 01:34:55,000
There was not a neighborhood meeting held.

1762
01:34:55,000 --> 01:34:58,619
Okay. And it's all one owner on that, all that land is all

1763
01:34:58,619 --> 01:35:00,000
one owner, correct?

1764
01:35:00,000 --> 01:35:02,550
It's two owners, technically, but they have shared

1765
01:35:02,550 --> 01:35:05,479
ownership interests in the bank. So it's two entities, but

1766
01:35:05,479 --> 01:35:08,000
they are both involved with the bank ownership.

1767
01:35:08,000 --> 01:35:10,000
Thank you.

1768
01:35:10,000 --> 01:35:12,000
We have a couple more questions. Commissioner Beck.

1769
01:35:12,000 --> 01:35:16,000
Thank you, Vice Chair. Hi, Amy. Thanks for coming down.

1770
01:35:16,000 --> 01:35:17,000
Absolutely.

1771
01:35:17,000 --> 01:35:21,020
Just for what it's worth, I'm just, I'm generally opposed

1772
01:35:21,020 --> 01:35:25,109
to the zone change for the development. I'm always going to

1773
01:35:25,109 --> 01:35:29,050
be the one on the commission that opposes removing any well

1774
01:35:29,050 --> 01:35:33,000
-kept houses really that are affordable for a lot of people.

1775
01:35:33,000 --> 01:35:35,000
And there's a few trees in there that will be missing too,

1776
01:35:35,000 --> 01:35:38,489
but just out of curiosity, these buildings that y'all want

1777
01:35:38,489 --> 01:35:41,399
to add as part of the development, are these directly

1778
01:35:41,399 --> 01:35:43,000
linked to Access Bank?

1779
01:35:43,000 --> 01:35:45,819
Are these just going to be offices that will be rented out

1780
01:35:45,819 --> 01:35:47,000
to other companies?

1781
01:35:47,000 --> 01:35:50,210
They would be professional office space that would be

1782
01:35:50,210 --> 01:35:53,479
garden style, smaller offices that would be leased by

1783
01:35:53,479 --> 01:35:55,000
individual tenants.

1784
01:35:55,000 --> 01:35:57,750
Okay. So Access Bank doesn't have a need for these offices,

1785
01:35:57,750 --> 01:36:00,000
but can be leased them out.

1786
01:36:00,000 --> 01:36:03,000
Okay. Thank you.

1787
01:36:03,000 --> 01:36:05,000
Commissioner Sullivan.

1788
01:36:05,000 --> 01:36:08,310
Thank you, Chair. Approximately how many offices and how

1789
01:36:08,310 --> 01:36:11,850
many tenants do you believe will be in these four buildings

1790
01:36:11,850 --> 01:36:12,000
?

1791
01:36:12,000 --> 01:36:15,500
We really haven't gotten that far in the conceptual

1792
01:36:15,500 --> 01:36:17,000
planning process.

1793
01:36:17,000 --> 01:36:20,689
In fact, the concept plan that you have as a part of your

1794
01:36:20,689 --> 01:36:25,000
backup is an early draft form of the concept plan.

1795
01:36:25,000 --> 01:36:28,100
And we anticipate three to four professional office

1796
01:36:28,100 --> 01:36:30,000
buildings. There's four on the plan.

1797
01:36:30,000 --> 01:36:33,220
I think it will really depend a lot on the site layout and

1798
01:36:33,220 --> 01:36:36,850
the landscaping and tree canopy that's going to be required

1799
01:36:36,850 --> 01:36:39,000
and the number of parking spaces.

1800
01:36:39,000 --> 01:36:42,090
And I would anticipate that you're looking at three to four

1801
01:36:42,090 --> 01:36:46,000
office buildings that are maybe 3,000 square feet apiece.

1802
01:36:46,000 --> 01:36:50,800
Okay. I've got a concern the fact that it looks like the

1803
01:36:50,800 --> 01:36:54,020
parking or the traffic is going to be coming off of Maple

1804
01:36:54,020 --> 01:36:55,000
and Myrtle.

1805
01:36:55,000 --> 01:36:59,000
Is that anticipated? Is that what you all are planning?

1806
01:36:59,000 --> 01:37:02,500
And if so, some thought I think needs to be given to how

1807
01:37:02,500 --> 01:37:06,229
many cars that's going to add because those streets aren't

1808
01:37:06,229 --> 01:37:07,000
very wide.

1809
01:37:07,000 --> 01:37:11,000
And has any thought been given to that?

1810
01:37:11,000 --> 01:37:14,130
Sure. So I'll be glad to speak to that. When this property

1811
01:37:14,130 --> 01:37:18,000
was developed in 2008, it was developed with an alternative

1812
01:37:18,000 --> 01:37:22,000
development plan that still stands in place today.

1813
01:37:22,000 --> 01:37:25,289
And so once the rezoning is complete, our next step will be

1814
01:37:25,289 --> 01:37:28,659
to amend the alternative development plan, which will

1815
01:37:28,659 --> 01:37:31,989
trigger at that point in time a look at the traffic

1816
01:37:31,989 --> 01:37:35,149
patterns as well as the number of parking spaces and the

1817
01:37:35,149 --> 01:37:36,000
landscape buffers.

1818
01:37:36,000 --> 01:37:39,590
And everything else associated with the site in terms of

1819
01:37:39,590 --> 01:37:43,369
addressing the infrastructure and the mobility around the

1820
01:37:43,369 --> 01:37:44,000
site.

1821
01:37:44,000 --> 01:37:49,210
And so in short, we're not that far down the line yet, but

1822
01:37:49,210 --> 01:37:52,500
you will see this again when it comes to the point that you

1823
01:37:52,500 --> 01:37:55,789
're actually looking at a site plan and counting parking

1824
01:37:55,789 --> 01:37:59,000
spaces and looking at the mobility around the site.

1825
01:37:59,000 --> 01:38:04,000
Okay.

1826
01:38:04,000 --> 01:38:09,000
So this is the concept.

1827
01:38:09,000 --> 01:38:12,590
The building that's on the north side that looks like it

1828
01:38:12,590 --> 01:38:18,149
faces probably west, I'm assuming, is that sort of a done

1829
01:38:18,149 --> 01:38:23,060
deal type thing or is that building may or may not exist in

1830
01:38:23,060 --> 01:38:24,000
the final plan?

1831
01:38:24,000 --> 01:38:27,359
The thing that you're looking at in the concept plan is a

1832
01:38:27,359 --> 01:38:30,680
done deal. In fact, it was kind of an early draft to be

1833
01:38:30,680 --> 01:38:34,020
able to come in and visit with city staff about it so that

1834
01:38:34,020 --> 01:38:37,000
you have a conceptual idea of what the bank and the

1835
01:38:37,000 --> 01:38:40,000
ownership is considering doing.

1836
01:38:40,000 --> 01:38:43,359
But in terms of actually a site plan where any buildings

1837
01:38:43,359 --> 01:38:46,850
are locked down in any locations, none of that is defined

1838
01:38:46,850 --> 01:38:48,000
at this point.

1839
01:38:48,000 --> 01:38:52,289
And you will have to approve that when it does come back

1840
01:38:52,289 --> 01:38:54,000
through with ADP.

1841
01:38:54,000 --> 01:38:59,310
I know that the city of Los Fargo, advisors over here on

1842
01:38:59,310 --> 01:39:04,979
the west side, and if you're coming down Pacific Street,

1843
01:39:04,979 --> 01:39:10,979
people want to park over there, there's no parking, they're

1844
01:39:10,979 --> 01:39:16,760
going to park in your place, and there's no parking there,

1845
01:39:16,760 --> 01:39:21,000
they're going to park on Maple Street.

1846
01:39:21,000 --> 01:39:25,699
I don't know. Well, and that may, as we go through the site

1847
01:39:25,699 --> 01:39:27,850
planning process, that may be what absolutely, the

1848
01:39:27,850 --> 01:39:29,779
conclusion that we arrive at once we start trying to lay

1849
01:39:29,779 --> 01:39:32,000
out the buildings and the number of parking spaces.

1850
01:39:32,000 --> 01:39:34,810
I will speak to Pacific Street, though we will be filing an

1851
01:39:34,810 --> 01:39:38,220
application to abandon Pacific Street, so then it will

1852
01:39:38,220 --> 01:39:42,800
become a part of the private lots between the Wells Fargo

1853
01:39:42,800 --> 01:39:46,000
offices and the professional offices.

1854
01:39:46,000 --> 01:39:49,220
So it will no longer be a city street at that point if that

1855
01:39:49,220 --> 01:39:51,000
abandonment takes place.

1856
01:39:51,000 --> 01:39:52,000
Thank you.

1857
01:39:52,000 --> 01:39:54,000
Mr. Smith.

1858
01:39:54,000 --> 01:39:56,000
Thank you, Mr.

1859
01:39:56,000 --> 01:39:59,000
Mr.

1860
01:39:59,000 --> 01:40:02,000
The ADP and you're going to see on the site plan as well.

1861
01:40:02,000 --> 01:40:04,640
I think when you come back to this project, the site plan

1862
01:40:04,640 --> 01:40:07,000
will be approved as a part of the ADP process.

1863
01:40:07,000 --> 01:40:10,800
And so you will see that and you will have an opportunity

1864
01:40:10,800 --> 01:40:13,000
to tweak it at that point.

1865
01:40:13,000 --> 01:40:16,100
I don't know how much the web conceptual plan you guys

1866
01:40:16,100 --> 01:40:20,970
already have put together but from what you got what you

1867
01:40:20,970 --> 01:40:25,529
can tell, you know, with how it's currently zoned 40%

1868
01:40:25,529 --> 01:40:30,000
landscape coverage and 40 40 foot building height.

1869
01:40:30,000 --> 01:40:33,079
If it was something of, you know, of the commission where

1870
01:40:33,079 --> 01:40:36,010
we were to say, hey, we will prove the reason we will put

1871
01:40:36,010 --> 01:40:39,039
restrictions to maybe have that landscape as well as that

1872
01:40:39,039 --> 01:40:41,949
building height as a restriction on that, but that be

1873
01:40:41,949 --> 01:40:44,000
acceptable by the applicant.

1874
01:40:44,000 --> 01:40:47,720
I believe absolutely it would. And in fact, because there's

1875
01:40:47,720 --> 01:40:51,189
an existing alternative development plan approved on the

1876
01:40:51,189 --> 01:40:54,199
project today, it already exceeds that some of the

1877
01:40:54,199 --> 01:40:57,720
landscape buffering and tree canopy requirements in order

1878
01:40:57,720 --> 01:41:01,359
to accommodate the parking that's a long and Carol and

1879
01:41:01,359 --> 01:41:02,000
Eagle.

1880
01:41:02,000 --> 01:41:08,850
I know you're all familiar with that bank site, but there's

1881
01:41:08,850 --> 01:41:15,810
a wrought iron fence there and some significant landscaping

1882
01:41:15,810 --> 01:41:18,239
and buffering. And so when we come back with an amended ADP

1883
01:41:18,239 --> 01:41:18,560
, we'll have to speak to all of that at that point in time,

1884
01:41:18,560 --> 01:41:20,180
and be able to show the parking that we're contemplating on

1885
01:41:20,180 --> 01:41:23,409
the corner of Myrtle and Eagle, and would also be

1886
01:41:23,409 --> 01:41:24,000
considered front parking.

1887
01:41:24,000 --> 01:41:26,470
So we would have to come in for the ADP at that point in

1888
01:41:26,470 --> 01:41:29,060
time and find ways to mitigate that. And so that would

1889
01:41:29,060 --> 01:41:31,789
certainly be an opportunity for you to say we'd like to see

1890
01:41:31,789 --> 01:41:34,739
additional landscaping or some additional restrictions on

1891
01:41:34,739 --> 01:41:36,000
building height.

1892
01:41:36,000 --> 01:41:38,770
You can understand we've seen a lot of times whatever we're

1893
01:41:38,770 --> 01:41:41,560
putting in commercial uses right next to residential uses

1894
01:41:41,560 --> 01:41:44,350
that building height is usually one of the biggest biggest

1895
01:41:44,350 --> 01:41:47,000
sticking points for a lot of for a lot of citizens.

1896
01:41:47,000 --> 01:41:50,539
So as long as as long as you and the applicant are okay

1897
01:41:50,539 --> 01:41:54,449
with with us maybe imposing that restriction. Absolutely.

1898
01:41:54,449 --> 01:41:56,119
And in fact, part of the reason that we're proposing this

1899
01:41:56,119 --> 01:41:57,810
garden style professional offices is that we do feel that

1900
01:41:57,810 --> 01:42:00,500
it's a it's a good buffer between the existing single

1901
01:42:00,500 --> 01:42:03,000
family homes and the height of the bank.

1902
01:42:03,000 --> 01:42:04,000
Good. Thank you.

1903
01:42:04,000 --> 01:42:06,000
Commissioner Ellis.

1904
01:42:06,000 --> 01:42:09,000
Thank you, Mr. Hi, Amy.

1905
01:42:09,000 --> 01:42:12,300
When you just for a point of clarity with the 2008 ADP plan

1906
01:42:12,300 --> 01:42:15,119
that you're talking about, is that is that far reaching

1907
01:42:15,119 --> 01:42:17,970
past the excess bank we know today does it reach into some

1908
01:42:17,970 --> 01:42:20,000
of the land we're discussing today.

1909
01:42:20,000 --> 01:42:24,000
It does not. In fact, there's a note in the ADP that states

1910
01:42:24,000 --> 01:42:27,279
that there's an intent in the future to build some

1911
01:42:27,279 --> 01:42:31,199
professional offices north of the bank site and therefore

1912
01:42:31,199 --> 01:42:35,039
none of the amenities that were provided north of the bank

1913
01:42:35,039 --> 01:42:39,000
site are counted in the ADP towards mitigation or towards

1914
01:42:39,000 --> 01:42:42,000
meeting the obligations of the development plan.

1915
01:42:42,000 --> 01:42:47,130
And so there's very specific that the ADP is very specific

1916
01:42:47,130 --> 01:42:52,069
and it speaks primarily or really only to the buffer and

1917
01:42:52,069 --> 01:42:56,390
the right iron fence as it relates to the parking

1918
01:42:56,390 --> 01:42:58,000
configuration.

1919
01:42:58,000 --> 01:43:00,000
That's all the questions we have. Thank you very much.

1920
01:43:00,000 --> 01:43:01,000
Thank you.

1921
01:43:01,000 --> 01:43:09,239
Again, this is a public hearing if you'd like to speak we

1922
01:43:09,239 --> 01:43:16,140
can fill out a card and then come down speak. We have a

1923
01:43:16,140 --> 01:43:17,109
couple individuals who would like to speak on the item.

1924
01:43:17,109 --> 01:43:18,000
First one is Andrew. Forgive me. Hugh Haas.

1925
01:43:18,000 --> 01:43:20,760
Did you just state your name and the address for the record

1926
01:43:20,760 --> 01:43:21,000
.

1927
01:43:21,000 --> 01:43:25,930
Yes, good evening. My name is Andrew you Haas 325 Maple

1928
01:43:25,930 --> 01:43:27,000
Street.

1929
01:43:27,000 --> 01:43:31,939
I have some concerns about this rezoning the information

1930
01:43:31,939 --> 01:43:35,000
that came out was very preliminary.

1931
01:43:35,000 --> 01:43:38,979
It didn't allow didn't identify any buffer drainage heights

1932
01:43:38,979 --> 01:43:42,720
of building, or how they're going to address the traffic,

1933
01:43:42,720 --> 01:43:48,000
which I'm glad that was raised. Thank you.

1934
01:43:48,000 --> 01:43:52,250
As far as the drainage goes, I went out and have a look at

1935
01:43:52,250 --> 01:43:56,560
the property and my properties goes down five foot from

1936
01:43:56,560 --> 01:43:58,000
front to back.

1937
01:43:58,000 --> 01:44:03,000
The property to the to the west of me.

1938
01:44:03,000 --> 01:44:05,750
That's kind of that has right now a building proposed on it

1939
01:44:05,750 --> 01:44:06,000
.

1940
01:44:06,000 --> 01:44:10,619
About a third of that drains onto my property, and all that

1941
01:44:10,619 --> 01:44:14,720
drains off to the south, which that property is six inches

1942
01:44:14,720 --> 01:44:17,000
lower than the back of my fence.

1943
01:44:17,000 --> 01:44:21,609
My concern is when this goes in that the property that

1944
01:44:21,609 --> 01:44:27,000
there will be pooling or insufficient drainage on my mind.

1945
01:44:27,000 --> 01:44:32,239
And then also, as far as the construction goes, all of the

1946
01:44:32,239 --> 01:44:37,090
mud and whatever during rain and construction will be

1947
01:44:37,090 --> 01:44:40,000
coming across my property.

1948
01:44:40,000 --> 01:44:42,000
The other issue I had was privacy.

1949
01:44:42,000 --> 01:44:48,220
Talk about this being a buffer. This is a rental property

1950
01:44:48,220 --> 01:44:51,000
for us. So the privacy of our tenants is important.

1951
01:44:51,000 --> 01:44:55,949
Having a large building there or building commercial

1952
01:44:55,949 --> 01:45:01,220
building there will disrupt the privacy of my tenants and

1953
01:45:01,220 --> 01:45:06,399
may may may reduce the value of the property and also make

1954
01:45:06,399 --> 01:45:10,000
it less attractive to tenants to rent.

1955
01:45:10,000 --> 01:45:16,000
I had a look at some of the design criteria.

1956
01:45:16,000 --> 01:45:23,000
And will all that be a part of requirement of this design.

1957
01:45:23,000 --> 01:45:30,850
The landscaping the flood control. Everything will be a

1958
01:45:30,850 --> 01:45:32,000
part of that.

1959
01:45:32,000 --> 01:45:37,020
These are my four concerns, the drainage issue, the privacy

1960
01:45:37,020 --> 01:45:41,119
issue affecting the rentability and the value of my

1961
01:45:41,119 --> 01:45:42,000
property.

1962
01:45:42,000 --> 01:45:45,500
The traffic in front of our house we're talking about that

1963
01:45:45,500 --> 01:45:49,069
we're the first house after the, after the driveway. So

1964
01:45:49,069 --> 01:45:51,949
somebody is going to park. I understand the conversation

1965
01:45:51,949 --> 01:45:55,319
about on street parking is something you want to try to

1966
01:45:55,319 --> 01:45:56,000
avoid.

1967
01:45:56,000 --> 01:45:59,130
We would definitely want to avoid it in front of our

1968
01:45:59,130 --> 01:46:00,000
property.

1969
01:46:00,000 --> 01:46:04,079
And then also the building height, so it doesn't overshadow

1970
01:46:04,079 --> 01:46:06,000
our property in the yard.

1971
01:46:06,000 --> 01:46:08,630
Thank you very much. We do have a question. Commissioner

1972
01:46:08,630 --> 01:46:09,000
back.

1973
01:46:09,000 --> 01:46:13,000
Thank you. Thank you. Mr. You.

1974
01:46:13,000 --> 01:46:15,000
Coming down and speaking.

1975
01:46:15,000 --> 01:46:17,000
You said you live on Maple Street.

1976
01:46:17,000 --> 01:46:20,250
You live on the north side of the South 325 maple. If you

1977
01:46:20,250 --> 01:46:21,000
look at the map.

1978
01:46:21,000 --> 01:46:23,000
We're the red lot.

1979
01:46:23,000 --> 01:46:30,239
You're the red light next to the development. Okay, that's

1980
01:46:30,239 --> 01:46:31,229
that was going to be my next lead in. You own other rental

1981
01:46:31,229 --> 01:46:33,069
property in this area to no sorry. No. Okay, so just you're

1982
01:46:33,069 --> 01:46:35,369
talking when you talk about rental property talking about

1983
01:46:35,369 --> 01:46:36,000
your house.

1984
01:46:36,000 --> 01:46:38,520
Say it again when you're talking about rental property you

1985
01:46:38,520 --> 01:46:40,000
're talking about your house.

1986
01:46:40,000 --> 01:46:44,000
Correct. Okay, very good.

1987
01:46:44,000 --> 01:46:46,000
We did it one time.

1988
01:46:46,000 --> 01:46:49,000
Okay, thank you very much.

1989
01:46:49,000 --> 01:46:53,430
That's all the questions I see. But just to reiterate, I

1990
01:46:53,430 --> 01:46:54,329
think you got some affirmative nods, but a lot of the

1991
01:46:54,329 --> 01:46:56,859
specifics you addressed about building height, traffic

1992
01:46:56,859 --> 01:47:01,159
patterns, privacy, drainage site design that would come at

1993
01:47:01,159 --> 01:47:04,510
a later stage in terms of the planning the ADP that was

1994
01:47:04,510 --> 01:47:05,000
mentioned.

1995
01:47:05,000 --> 01:47:07,260
Today we're just focusing on the actual use of the property

1996
01:47:07,260 --> 01:47:10,909
and his zoning. So, the certainly when it comes back to us,

1997
01:47:10,909 --> 01:47:13,569
we'll have another public hearing for you to express again,

1998
01:47:13,569 --> 01:47:15,970
if this was to go through those concerns you'd have to

1999
01:47:15,970 --> 01:47:17,000
speak into those.

2000
01:47:17,000 --> 01:47:20,130
Thank you very much. I just want to make sure it doesn't

2001
01:47:20,130 --> 01:47:23,130
negatively affect my property, my ability to rent my

2002
01:47:23,130 --> 01:47:26,449
property. Sure, understood. Thank you for your time. Thank

2003
01:47:26,449 --> 01:47:27,000
you.

2004
01:47:27,000 --> 01:47:30,000
We have one more card Wendy Roche.

2005
01:47:30,000 --> 01:47:32,569
And again, if you can state your name and address. My name

2006
01:47:32,569 --> 01:47:38,210
is Wendy Roush. I own 418 and 416 maple, and I actually

2007
01:47:38,210 --> 01:47:40,000
live in 418.

2008
01:47:40,000 --> 01:47:43,630
So, unlike a lot of the people who own land there, I live

2009
01:47:43,630 --> 01:47:47,699
in that neighborhood, I care about this town. And prior to

2010
01:47:47,699 --> 01:47:51,270
that for 20 years I lived like three blocks over and I have

2011
01:47:51,270 --> 01:47:54,420
lived in that neighborhood and love it, which is why I

2012
01:47:54,420 --> 01:47:59,250
purchased the property, and I'm very not against this

2013
01:47:59,250 --> 01:48:02,000
construction going on, but I feel like Ms.

2014
01:48:02,000 --> 01:48:06,430
Miss Bissett may have been uninformed on some of the facts

2015
01:48:06,430 --> 01:48:11,000
in that she said the timeline hasn't been established.

2016
01:48:11,000 --> 01:48:15,819
They have rented to people in those houses on two year le

2017
01:48:15,819 --> 01:48:20,640
ases, because I was told it would be a two year lag until

2018
01:48:20,640 --> 01:48:23,000
the construction started.

2019
01:48:23,000 --> 01:48:35,369
If you could speak into the mic for everyone listening, so

2020
01:48:35,369 --> 01:48:39,000
they can hear. But my, okay, I have concerns with the

2021
01:48:39,000 --> 01:48:39,000
parking and the flow of parking and everything, and you

2022
01:48:39,000 --> 01:48:39,000
cannot widen Maple Street because one side is a giant pine

2023
01:48:39,000 --> 01:48:39,000
tree and the other side is a hill.

2024
01:48:39,000 --> 01:48:42,590
But in the two year time, they still want to rent these

2025
01:48:42,590 --> 01:48:46,500
properties and get top value, but they don't really want to

2026
01:48:46,500 --> 01:48:50,460
invest money, which I understand. So what we have is a lot

2027
01:48:50,460 --> 01:48:54,020
of convicted felons and now a sex offender who is being

2028
01:48:54,020 --> 01:48:58,529
rented to, and I feel that this goes against the serve and

2029
01:48:58,529 --> 01:48:59,000
protect.

2030
01:48:59,000 --> 01:49:03,609
When you say that we're looking to rezone to serve and

2031
01:49:03,609 --> 01:49:09,090
protect the neighborhoods, bring value, keep it safe. There

2032
01:49:09,090 --> 01:49:10,000
is a large complex of students that walk through there.

2033
01:49:10,000 --> 01:49:14,380
And just an example of what I've kind of had to deal with

2034
01:49:14,380 --> 01:49:19,189
the felons that live in 330, even as I tried to come to

2035
01:49:19,189 --> 01:49:23,930
this meeting, I could not get out of my driveway, because

2036
01:49:23,930 --> 01:49:29,000
one of them had pulled their car parallel blocking me in.

2037
01:49:29,000 --> 01:49:32,289
We have caught the call to police many times because they

2038
01:49:32,289 --> 01:49:35,649
choke each other in the street, and they crack their door

2039
01:49:35,649 --> 01:49:38,800
open and head open. We are now subpoenaed to testify

2040
01:49:38,800 --> 01:49:41,750
against them. And now her brother just got out of prison

2041
01:49:41,750 --> 01:49:44,000
and needed somewhere to live, so he moved in.

2042
01:49:44,000 --> 01:49:47,000
And my concern is for this two year lag.

2043
01:49:47,000 --> 01:49:51,920
This is what is going to be in the neighborhood and that's

2044
01:49:51,920 --> 01:49:55,000
not really protecting and serving.

2045
01:49:55,000 --> 01:49:59,970
As I said, I live there. My tenants just had twins. There's

2046
01:49:59,970 --> 01:50:02,149
a baby in that house at 330. All the windows were smashed

2047
01:50:02,149 --> 01:50:05,449
out, all winter. It was one of the coldest winters we've

2048
01:50:05,449 --> 01:50:06,000
had.

2049
01:50:06,000 --> 01:50:10,409
The landlord did nothing, and he was one of the Kellard

2050
01:50:10,409 --> 01:50:13,000
ones as he was for this change.

2051
01:50:13,000 --> 01:50:16,590
But meanwhile, their pursuit of profit, they're not taking

2052
01:50:16,590 --> 01:50:19,970
into consideration the neighborhood. I believe downtown

2053
01:50:19,970 --> 01:50:23,050
Denton could be a great place for people to live, and we

2054
01:50:23,050 --> 01:50:26,579
can progress and have these office buildings, but we need

2055
01:50:26,579 --> 01:50:31,470
to do it at a reasonable pace without putting people in the

2056
01:50:31,470 --> 01:50:34,569
neighborhood at risk while you slowly wait to develop your

2057
01:50:34,569 --> 01:50:35,000
land.

2058
01:50:35,000 --> 01:50:38,630
So I just don't feel like they're considering the people

2059
01:50:38,630 --> 01:50:42,550
who live there, or the town, or those students, like those

2060
01:50:42,550 --> 01:50:47,000
18 year old girls walking past the registered sex offender,

2061
01:50:47,000 --> 01:50:50,000
past the other three felons every day.

2062
01:50:50,000 --> 01:50:52,819
And they don't know. They're just college kids. They have

2063
01:50:52,819 --> 01:50:57,380
no idea in their minds. They don't even think about it. And

2064
01:50:57,380 --> 01:51:02,000
they come home drunk. I just don't think this is safe.

2065
01:51:02,000 --> 01:51:05,090
And again, I'm not against the progress. I feel like the

2066
01:51:05,090 --> 01:51:08,189
office buildings would be a nice addition, but you're not

2067
01:51:08,189 --> 01:51:11,710
taking into consideration. And there is, like he stated,

2068
01:51:11,710 --> 01:51:14,800
there's some, gotta be at least a hundred year old trees

2069
01:51:14,800 --> 01:51:17,000
that I would like to see preserved.

2070
01:51:17,000 --> 01:51:20,590
We'll never be able to grow those back. They're on the

2071
01:51:20,590 --> 01:51:23,000
corner. You can easily keep them.

2072
01:51:23,000 --> 01:51:26,079
And yeah, the parking and are they shouldn't have an

2073
01:51:26,079 --> 01:51:29,579
entrance to get into that place on Maple Street. They need

2074
01:51:29,579 --> 01:51:32,729
to come from Carol or Eagle, the streets that are wide

2075
01:51:32,729 --> 01:51:35,000
enough to facilitate that traffic.

2076
01:51:35,000 --> 01:51:41,739
So any exiting onto Myrtle or Maple, I feel like is an ill

2077
01:51:41,739 --> 01:51:45,000
advised flow.

2078
01:51:45,000 --> 01:51:54,000
So I'm not fully against. I guess I'm just afraid. Okay, my

2079
01:51:54,000 --> 01:51:54,000
time to afraid. I'm going to live like this for two more

2080
01:51:54,000 --> 01:51:54,000
years and it's just going to get worse.

2081
01:51:54,000 --> 01:51:57,659
So we do have one question for you, Mr. Smith. Thank you,

2082
01:51:57,659 --> 01:52:00,170
Mr. Chair. I was going to open it up to allow the applicant

2083
01:52:00,170 --> 01:52:02,310
to respond back to the two year lease question that was

2084
01:52:02,310 --> 01:52:08,000
brought up by citizen.

2085
01:52:08,000 --> 01:52:11,979
Thank you. I'm not familiar with what the lease terms are,

2086
01:52:11,979 --> 01:52:15,199
but I do know that we began this rezoning process in

2087
01:52:15,199 --> 01:52:17,000
October of last year.

2088
01:52:17,000 --> 01:52:19,560
And as you all know, public hearing processes take some

2089
01:52:19,560 --> 01:52:23,659
time. And so without speculating, I would say that a two

2090
01:52:23,659 --> 01:52:28,000
year lease would ensure them enough time to get it done.

2091
01:52:28,000 --> 01:52:31,140
And once the rezoning is done, we have to come back in with

2092
01:52:31,140 --> 01:52:34,159
a plat and come back in with an alternative development

2093
01:52:34,159 --> 01:52:37,119
plan and then come back in through the building permit

2094
01:52:37,119 --> 01:52:39,829
process. And so we just recognize that that takes some time

2095
01:52:39,829 --> 01:52:40,000
.

2096
01:52:40,000 --> 01:52:43,500
I can't speak to the property owners intent with in terms

2097
01:52:43,500 --> 01:52:46,920
of the length of the leases or when the property will begin

2098
01:52:46,920 --> 01:52:50,000
to develop once all those approvals are done.

2099
01:52:50,000 --> 01:52:54,670
I just know in my role that that takes a significant amount

2100
01:52:54,670 --> 01:53:00,000
of time just to get all the approvals. Thank you.

2101
01:53:00,000 --> 01:53:02,470
They think they're living there for two years. They don't

2102
01:53:02,470 --> 01:53:05,020
know that they could end their lease. She's kind of saying

2103
01:53:05,020 --> 01:53:08,220
that if they move along, they're going to kick them out. He

2104
01:53:08,220 --> 01:53:10,000
has 13 kids.

2105
01:53:10,000 --> 01:53:13,109
Sorry. They believe it's a family that lives there and they

2106
01:53:13,109 --> 01:53:16,159
believe they're going to be living there. They're paying

2107
01:53:16,159 --> 01:53:19,319
five hundred dollars. They'll never be able to find another

2108
01:53:19,319 --> 01:53:23,000
place. I'm sure that the owner will probably help them.

2109
01:53:23,000 --> 01:53:26,600
But I feel like they should tell them that this two year

2110
01:53:26,600 --> 01:53:31,149
lease is not actually two years. Like there should be some

2111
01:53:31,149 --> 01:53:33,000
honesty with that.

2112
01:53:33,000 --> 01:53:38,100
Wish we as a commission could give you give more help to

2113
01:53:38,100 --> 01:53:42,279
you on that part. And I know you can't dictate. Sure. Yeah,

2114
01:53:42,279 --> 01:53:45,149
we're limited. I'm just here to let the concerns for

2115
01:53:45,149 --> 01:53:47,000
because I feel this is like debt.

2116
01:53:47,000 --> 01:53:50,359
And for all of us, we can make this a great city. I think I

2117
01:53:50,359 --> 01:53:52,939
think in past experience to say that the applicant hears

2118
01:53:52,939 --> 01:53:55,819
the capsized concerns that you're expressing that that she

2119
01:53:55,819 --> 01:53:59,180
'll more than likely will take it back to the owners and

2120
01:53:59,180 --> 01:54:01,000
bring up what's been talked about.

2121
01:54:01,000 --> 01:54:03,380
Because if it is a danger to the current neighborhood and

2122
01:54:03,380 --> 01:54:06,529
everything else, 100 percent makes makes sense. But I think

2123
01:54:06,529 --> 01:54:09,329
I think in regards just to the zoning matter at hand, that

2124
01:54:09,329 --> 01:54:12,000
it makes it hard for us to have any power over that.

2125
01:54:12,000 --> 01:54:14,350
But I know I want to come because I live in the

2126
01:54:14,350 --> 01:54:17,329
neighborhood and I went to the meetings for the zoning

2127
01:54:17,329 --> 01:54:21,090
stuff. And I was because I care because I actually live

2128
01:54:21,090 --> 01:54:24,750
there and deal with the consequences of what's going on

2129
01:54:24,750 --> 01:54:28,000
where everyone else rents their properties.

2130
01:54:28,000 --> 01:54:31,000
I appreciate you coming down and speaking.

2131
01:54:31,000 --> 01:54:33,520
I know I'm out of time. No, you're fine. As long as we're

2132
01:54:33,520 --> 01:54:35,439
conversing with you, you can step there all night, but I

2133
01:54:35,439 --> 01:54:38,000
won't talk. And I don't want to do that.

2134
01:54:38,000 --> 01:54:42,430
In regards to the trees, you brought that up. There is

2135
01:54:42,430 --> 01:54:46,689
going to be some some level of conservation that can be

2136
01:54:46,689 --> 01:54:51,520
brought up during future plans, especially when it comes to

2137
01:54:51,520 --> 01:54:55,680
the ADP, as well as landscaping that's inside of the

2138
01:54:55,680 --> 01:54:58,000
development criteria. So I would tell you just keep an eye

2139
01:54:58,000 --> 01:54:58,000
out for more of the public hearing notices going out.

2140
01:54:58,000 --> 01:55:00,409
If you want if you want to come specifically talking about

2141
01:55:00,409 --> 01:55:03,060
those trees are 100 years old that you want to preserve,

2142
01:55:03,060 --> 01:55:05,439
come back and voice those concerns again, because those

2143
01:55:05,439 --> 01:55:07,810
will be decided here, but they will be decided at future

2144
01:55:07,810 --> 01:55:09,000
meetings about this.

2145
01:55:09,000 --> 01:55:13,289
Thank you. I was told they could pay a fine and take them

2146
01:55:13,289 --> 01:55:14,000
down.

2147
01:55:14,000 --> 01:55:16,470
That's that's the stress from my knowledge of what they can

2148
01:55:16,470 --> 01:55:19,000
do trees. So I feel like they should.

2149
01:55:19,000 --> 01:55:22,979
It's on the corner. Just keep it. It's not in the middle of

2150
01:55:22,979 --> 01:55:24,000
the property.

2151
01:55:24,000 --> 01:55:27,050
When when the signs if the signs are removed prior to

2152
01:55:27,050 --> 01:55:30,000
public hearing, then the item is continued.

2153
01:55:30,000 --> 01:55:32,000
Got it.

2154
01:55:32,000 --> 01:55:35,289
If it's the fall of the applicant, obviously, if the wind

2155
01:55:35,289 --> 01:55:39,000
blows it down, they're required to put them up right after.

2156
01:55:39,000 --> 01:55:41,439
But if they are removed deliberately, then the item is

2157
01:55:41,439 --> 01:55:42,000
pulled.

2158
01:55:42,000 --> 01:55:43,000
I'm understanding.

2159
01:55:43,000 --> 01:55:45,000
We're not talking about the signs. I'm sorry.

2160
01:55:45,000 --> 01:55:50,000
We're talking about the trees behind the trees.

2161
01:55:50,000 --> 01:55:52,659
I know what side you're talking about. So it's the pine

2162
01:55:52,659 --> 01:55:54,000
tree right next to that.

2163
01:55:54,000 --> 01:55:56,000
It's so on the corner.

2164
01:55:56,000 --> 01:55:58,930
It's not like it would obstruct any building or putting in

2165
01:55:58,930 --> 01:56:00,000
the parking lot.

2166
01:56:00,000 --> 01:56:02,729
But the applicant doesn't have to come back with the ADP to

2167
01:56:02,729 --> 01:56:05,000
present to us that we have to vote on again.

2168
01:56:05,000 --> 01:56:08,079
So look out for that public hearing notice and keep an eye

2169
01:56:08,079 --> 01:56:10,000
on it and come on back and speak.

2170
01:56:10,000 --> 01:56:12,000
Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion.

2171
01:56:12,000 --> 01:56:13,000
Of course. Yeah, of course.

2172
01:56:13,000 --> 01:56:14,000
Thank you for being here.

2173
01:56:14,000 --> 01:56:19,590
This is a public item. Does anyone else would like to speak

2174
01:56:19,590 --> 01:56:22,000
on the item? You can certainly speak now.

2175
01:56:22,000 --> 01:56:26,079
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open it

2176
01:56:26,079 --> 01:56:28,000
for discussion or motion.

2177
01:56:28,000 --> 01:56:29,000
Commissioner Beck.

2178
01:56:29,000 --> 01:56:31,000
Thank you, Vice Chair.

2179
01:56:31,000 --> 01:56:34,369
I appreciate everybody coming in, especially Mr. Rouse and

2180
01:56:34,369 --> 01:56:36,000
Mr. Hiles coming in.

2181
01:56:36,000 --> 01:56:41,329
Amy, appreciate your comments too. As I indicated earlier,

2182
01:56:41,329 --> 01:56:45,229
I'm opposed to this zone change simply because these houses

2183
01:56:45,229 --> 01:56:47,000
, I've been overlooked at the area.

2184
01:56:47,000 --> 01:56:52,149
It's our well-kept houses. There are some nice native trees

2185
01:56:52,149 --> 01:56:55,000
there, some heritage trees that I'd hate to see be removed.

2186
01:56:55,000 --> 01:56:57,930
But this is an area, again, where affordable housing, we're

2187
01:56:57,930 --> 01:57:03,000
going to lose that. And there really is no place to go.

2188
01:57:03,000 --> 01:57:06,590
It's a little further encroachment of commercial areas into

2189
01:57:06,590 --> 01:57:08,000
residential areas.

2190
01:57:08,000 --> 01:57:10,899
And I hate to deprive any owner of their right to profit

2191
01:57:10,899 --> 01:57:12,000
from their land.

2192
01:57:12,000 --> 01:57:14,569
But this would be one of those times when I would have to

2193
01:57:14,569 --> 01:57:17,090
side with the people that live in that area and want to

2194
01:57:17,090 --> 01:57:18,000
preserve it.

2195
01:57:18,000 --> 01:57:23,619
So for what it's worth, I plan on opposing this zone change

2196
01:57:23,619 --> 01:57:24,000
.

2197
01:57:24,000 --> 01:57:26,000
Commissioner Ellis.

2198
01:57:26,000 --> 01:57:28,899
Thank you, Vice Chair. Yeah, just a couple of words on this

2199
01:57:28,899 --> 01:57:32,000
. I cannot get on board with this either.

2200
01:57:32,000 --> 01:57:34,750
You know, I appreciate Access Bank is a good neighbor and

2201
01:57:34,750 --> 01:57:36,000
employer in the city.

2202
01:57:36,000 --> 01:57:39,020
But I just have to disagree with the way staff looked at

2203
01:57:39,020 --> 01:57:41,000
this as conforming to the area.

2204
01:57:41,000 --> 01:57:44,149
I can't support the encroachment into the single-family

2205
01:57:44,149 --> 01:57:47,520
neighborhood where people live and the dislocation of these

2206
01:57:47,520 --> 01:57:50,000
tenants and property dwellers in the area.

2207
01:57:50,000 --> 01:57:53,649
If we allow this encroachment, it will be the beginning of

2208
01:57:53,649 --> 01:57:57,000
the collapse of that residential area of our city.

2209
01:57:57,000 --> 01:58:02,000
And I am not here to do that.

2210
01:58:02,000 --> 01:58:05,609
Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you, Vice Chair. I go along

2211
01:58:05,609 --> 01:58:08,000
with Commissioner Bec and Ellis.

2212
01:58:08,000 --> 01:58:13,000
I just can't see with the limited information that we have.

2213
01:58:13,000 --> 01:58:18,939
The fact that rezoning to the requested DGC, DCG would

2214
01:58:18,939 --> 01:58:23,000
increase the height to 100 feet.

2215
01:58:23,000 --> 01:58:26,789
And I'm looking at a Google map of the houses in the

2216
01:58:26,789 --> 01:58:30,819
neighborhood and wondering how many backyards is that going

2217
01:58:30,819 --> 01:58:33,000
to be looking into, how many front yards.

2218
01:58:33,000 --> 01:58:37,409
And I just don't think if we're trying to preserve areas of

2219
01:58:37,409 --> 01:58:43,189
Denton that have affordable housing that are somewhat, I

2220
01:58:43,189 --> 01:58:45,000
don't know, I'd call it historic.

2221
01:58:45,000 --> 01:58:49,609
But at least they're older homes that have a relatively

2222
01:58:49,609 --> 01:58:51,000
well kept up.

2223
01:58:51,000 --> 01:58:54,779
I just can't see letting a bank come in with unknown

2224
01:58:54,779 --> 01:59:00,640
information, unknown plans, unknown people, unknown streets

2225
01:59:00,640 --> 01:59:04,000
or whatever and go along with it.

2226
01:59:04,000 --> 01:59:14,000
I need a lot more information than that. Thank you.

2227
01:59:14,000 --> 01:59:18,000
Commissioner Sanchez.

2228
01:59:18,000 --> 01:59:22,000
I guess I can't agree with the change.

2229
01:59:22,000 --> 01:59:24,819
And the reason is I've driven that area and I see some of

2230
01:59:24,819 --> 01:59:28,560
their older homes, they probably go back to the 1950s or

2231
01:59:28,560 --> 01:59:30,000
even older than that.

2232
01:59:30,000 --> 01:59:35,039
And when people say affordable housing and I'm just saying

2233
01:59:35,039 --> 01:59:38,970
I'm a landlord and I see some of the those houses are in

2234
01:59:38,970 --> 01:59:40,000
very poor condition.

2235
01:59:40,000 --> 01:59:43,630
And when we say affordable housing, it makes me wonder, it

2236
01:59:43,630 --> 01:59:46,000
's not really affordable housing.

2237
01:59:46,000 --> 01:59:49,359
It's poor housing. I bet if you go into some of those

2238
01:59:49,359 --> 01:59:52,000
houses, most of us wouldn't even want to live in them.

2239
01:59:52,000 --> 01:59:55,539
So I'm imagining that what they want to do is improve that

2240
01:59:55,539 --> 01:59:59,000
neighborhood by bringing in some new businesses.

2241
01:59:59,000 --> 02:00:01,760
We can't always just go back and say we want to live like

2242
02:00:01,760 --> 02:00:05,000
these houses were built 1940s, 1950s.

2243
02:00:05,000 --> 02:00:09,439
They're in pretty bad shape. Probably a lot of the wiring

2244
02:00:09,439 --> 02:00:10,000
is bad.

2245
02:00:10,000 --> 02:00:14,090
The insulation is bad and there's probably a whole lot of

2246
02:00:14,090 --> 02:00:16,000
other plumbing is bad.

2247
02:00:16,000 --> 02:00:18,210
And so it's time to sometimes we have to give up things

2248
02:00:18,210 --> 02:00:20,460
unless somebody's willing to spend a lot of money and rem

2249
02:00:20,460 --> 02:00:22,000
odel those homes.

2250
02:00:22,000 --> 02:00:26,000
And I would imagine most people aren't going to buy them.

2251
02:00:26,000 --> 02:00:28,979
If they go up for sale, they'll probably go up for pennies

2252
02:00:28,979 --> 02:00:31,000
that, you know, fifteen, twenty thousand dollars.

2253
02:00:31,000 --> 02:00:36,409
A lot is the only thing that probably really is worth

2254
02:00:36,409 --> 02:00:38,000
something.

2255
02:00:38,000 --> 02:00:42,000
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chair. I'm a little torn on this one.

2256
02:00:42,000 --> 02:00:45,409
I do understand the points that are made by the commission

2257
02:00:45,409 --> 02:00:48,000
ers that this could encroach upon the area.

2258
02:00:48,000 --> 02:00:51,979
Same time, I think, honestly, until Ms. Rauch brought up

2259
02:00:51,979 --> 02:00:55,569
the kind of the crime and the issue in the area, I probably

2260
02:00:55,569 --> 02:00:58,000
would have said to be against this as well.

2261
02:00:58,000 --> 02:01:01,060
But honestly, whenever you take a look at commercial

2262
02:01:01,060 --> 02:01:04,579
development in certain areas, whenever it's depends upon

2263
02:01:04,579 --> 02:01:06,000
the commercial development,

2264
02:01:06,000 --> 02:01:07,479
you know, a bar or something like that, an area makes a

2265
02:01:07,479 --> 02:01:10,310
difference. But if you're building professional offices

2266
02:01:10,310 --> 02:01:14,170
like this, usually they have some sort of permanent parking

2267
02:01:14,170 --> 02:01:17,609
parking lot lighting that's going to be on even during the

2268
02:01:17,609 --> 02:01:19,000
evenings.

2269
02:01:19,000 --> 02:01:22,039
That might deter some sort of the some some of the problems

2270
02:01:22,039 --> 02:01:24,000
that you are seeing in that area.

2271
02:01:24,000 --> 02:01:27,729
So honestly, as well as small of an area that's being

2272
02:01:27,729 --> 02:01:31,659
developed with this project in particular, I can't I don't

2273
02:01:31,659 --> 02:01:34,180
know if I can really even go as far as to say it's truly an

2274
02:01:34,180 --> 02:01:35,000
encroachment.

2275
02:01:35,000 --> 02:01:38,390
As there is already that commercial building right then and

2276
02:01:38,390 --> 02:01:39,000
there.

2277
02:01:39,000 --> 02:01:43,779
So I don't know. I wanted to say my piece for the record in

2278
02:01:43,779 --> 02:01:48,000
regards to to where I'm kind of seeing this project fall.

2279
02:01:48,000 --> 02:01:51,000
Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair.

2280
02:01:51,000 --> 02:01:53,840
A couple of things. I appreciate Commissioner Sanchez's

2281
02:01:53,840 --> 02:01:56,000
opinion of what the houses may be inside.

2282
02:01:56,000 --> 02:01:59,819
But if he has driven by him from what I've seen, they've

2283
02:01:59,819 --> 02:02:03,659
been very well kept on the outside and it might be safe to

2284
02:02:03,659 --> 02:02:07,739
assume that they've been taken just as adequately cared on

2285
02:02:07,739 --> 02:02:09,000
the inside.

2286
02:02:09,000 --> 02:02:13,680
But just because they're old doesn't make them something

2287
02:02:13,680 --> 02:02:17,000
that we should cover up and move over.

2288
02:02:17,000 --> 02:02:19,699
A lot of old houses have been taken care of. Affordable

2289
02:02:19,699 --> 02:02:22,579
means just that that if they are paying roughly $500 a

2290
02:02:22,579 --> 02:02:25,449
month, they're not going to find anything else like that in

2291
02:02:25,449 --> 02:02:27,000
a two or three bedroom.

2292
02:02:27,000 --> 02:02:31,039
So I would venture to say that these houses are probably

2293
02:02:31,039 --> 02:02:35,159
are probably have been kept up well enough where they're

2294
02:02:35,159 --> 02:02:39,000
worth the lower value to be in charge right now.

2295
02:02:39,000 --> 02:02:43,380
Also, I guess one of my objections to to the applicant is

2296
02:02:43,380 --> 02:02:47,819
she mentioned that these aren't essential buildings for

2297
02:02:47,819 --> 02:02:49,000
that bank.

2298
02:02:49,000 --> 02:02:52,390
This is just a use for that property to be rented out to

2299
02:02:52,390 --> 02:02:54,000
other individuals.

2300
02:02:54,000 --> 02:02:57,500
So it kind of takes something away from me that if access

2301
02:02:57,500 --> 02:03:00,619
bank isn't in need of this extra room, these extra

2302
02:03:00,619 --> 02:03:03,520
buildings that they're putting these up in an area that I

2303
02:03:03,520 --> 02:03:06,449
would like to see preserved with a lot of additional

2304
02:03:06,449 --> 02:03:08,000
parking, a lot of additional parking, which takes up a lot

2305
02:03:08,000 --> 02:03:08,000
of space.

2306
02:03:08,000 --> 02:03:12,479
So parking, which takes away from area that could be used

2307
02:03:12,479 --> 02:03:17,000
to absorb moisture instead of run off into the street.

2308
02:03:17,000 --> 02:03:20,000
Thank you.

2309
02:03:20,000 --> 02:03:23,000
Christian also happen real fast.

2310
02:03:23,000 --> 02:03:26,390
I appreciate everyone coming out and listening and vocal

2311
02:03:26,390 --> 02:03:29,850
izing their thoughts and provide some context to an area

2312
02:03:29,850 --> 02:03:32,000
that I'm not all too familiar with.

2313
02:03:32,000 --> 02:03:35,979
I am familiar with the area is with the I believe it's a

2314
02:03:35,979 --> 02:03:40,279
Wells Fargo advisor and maple and Carol, as well as the ATM

2315
02:03:40,279 --> 02:03:44,380
drive through that we approved as well as the large bank

2316
02:03:44,380 --> 02:03:48,449
that Pacific Street, which is in disrepair is almost a

2317
02:03:48,449 --> 02:03:50,000
safety hazard.

2318
02:03:50,000 --> 02:03:53,029
And I feel like proper development of the area could

2319
02:03:53,029 --> 02:03:56,140
elevate the property values in the area as well as the

2320
02:03:56,140 --> 02:03:59,810
safety. And I think through an ADP, there could actually be

2321
02:03:59,810 --> 02:04:03,000
a significantly better flow of traffic in the area for

2322
02:04:03,000 --> 02:04:07,000
those existing, especially north of maple who, who I know

2323
02:04:07,000 --> 02:04:10,000
get ransacked with through traffic going from Carol to Elm.

2324
02:04:10,000 --> 02:04:14,199
And so I think there's some some unique opportunities that

2325
02:04:14,199 --> 02:04:18,310
could exist by the redevelopment of this. And so I'm for

2326
02:04:18,310 --> 02:04:20,000
res rezoning this.

2327
02:04:20,000 --> 02:04:25,949
But but with that understanding the tone of the commission

2328
02:04:25,949 --> 02:04:27,000
thus far.

2329
02:04:27,000 --> 02:04:31,560
It would take for affirmative votes for this to pass. And

2330
02:04:31,560 --> 02:04:36,079
so what I would perhaps suggest or even encourage is, if,

2331
02:04:36,079 --> 02:04:40,449
if there's a sense of four votes of the affirmative would

2332
02:04:40,449 --> 02:04:44,920
not happen that we could table this to allow the applicant

2333
02:04:44,920 --> 02:04:48,520
to speak to the neighbors and see if we can come up with a

2334
02:04:48,520 --> 02:04:51,000
better solution they could bring back that would be more

2335
02:04:51,000 --> 02:04:52,000
palatable to the commission.

2336
02:04:52,000 --> 02:04:56,180
So that would be my suggestion has been a motion put out

2337
02:04:56,180 --> 02:04:59,439
there. I'll let Commissioner Ellis speak and then if there

2338
02:04:59,439 --> 02:05:01,979
has been a motion that would be the motion that I might

2339
02:05:01,979 --> 02:05:05,000
encourage it be to table this but Christian else forgers.

2340
02:05:05,000 --> 02:05:09,010
Thank you, Mr. Chair, just wanted to respond to a couple of

2341
02:05:09,010 --> 02:05:10,000
comments.

2342
02:05:10,000 --> 02:05:12,939
Commissioner Sanchez I think you were assuming a lot with

2343
02:05:12,939 --> 02:05:16,090
these properties in the area there's some lovely properties

2344
02:05:16,090 --> 02:05:18,840
in the area and in my opinion everyone deserves to live

2345
02:05:18,840 --> 02:05:21,800
somewhere even if they don't live up to two ones perceived

2346
02:05:21,800 --> 02:05:24,000
standards and with Commissioner Smith.

2347
02:05:24,000 --> 02:05:35,329
This is an encroachment the we are footprinting right into

2348
02:05:35,329 --> 02:05:41,880
we're taking away 12. Let's see 123 I believe it's five

2349
02:05:41,880 --> 02:05:43,149
residential homes and putting it on top of I believe there

2350
02:05:43,149 --> 02:05:44,369
's five more that will be left for how long probably not

2351
02:05:44,369 --> 02:05:45,000
very if we do this.

2352
02:05:45,000 --> 02:05:48,220
And I appreciate you vice chair about about the tabling

2353
02:05:48,220 --> 02:05:51,369
idea. Not sure what it could take to get me to to get on

2354
02:05:51,369 --> 02:05:55,000
board with with encroaching this into the neighborhood.

2355
02:05:55,000 --> 02:05:57,000
Sure.

2356
02:05:57,000 --> 02:06:05,810
Commissioner Smith. Thank you chair regarding commission

2357
02:06:05,810 --> 02:06:13,279
else's points to think that the part that was trying to

2358
02:06:13,279 --> 02:06:19,000
make with encroachment is that it's.

2359
02:06:19,000 --> 02:06:21,680
You're seeing encroachment as a snowball effect you're

2360
02:06:21,680 --> 02:06:24,560
seeing encroachment as this does change neighborhood into

2361
02:06:24,560 --> 02:06:27,369
commercial and in that part I'll respect and say yes you're

2362
02:06:27,369 --> 02:06:29,000
100% correct there.

2363
02:06:29,000 --> 02:06:32,369
And that's the part that I'm torn about. And so within that

2364
02:06:32,369 --> 02:06:37,039
, I do want to make a motion to table this item until May 23

2365
02:06:37,039 --> 02:06:41,899
pending what legal says, but then table aside until May 23

2366
02:06:41,899 --> 02:06:46,460
to allow the applicant to discuss this further with the

2367
02:06:46,460 --> 02:06:47,000
neighborhood

2368
02:06:47,000 --> 02:06:51,279
and come up with some better, better options for us to vote

2369
02:06:51,279 --> 02:06:54,949
on in regards to some of the concerns are brought up

2370
02:06:54,949 --> 02:06:56,000
tonight.

2371
02:06:56,000 --> 02:06:58,000
It's certain.

2372
02:06:58,000 --> 02:07:01,409
Change my motion to motion to table to date certain

2373
02:07:01,409 --> 02:07:06,000
postponed postponed to date certain commissioner Sanchez.

2374
02:07:06,000 --> 02:07:12,500
Yes, I also agree with you about postponing it, and I didn

2375
02:07:12,500 --> 02:07:17,000
't mean that when I was talking about. I did see some when I

2376
02:07:17,000 --> 02:07:17,000
drove through there. There was a couple of houses that were

2377
02:07:17,000 --> 02:07:17,000
vacant.

2378
02:07:17,000 --> 02:07:20,979
And to me they were really poor conditions and ones closest

2379
02:07:20,979 --> 02:07:24,590
to the bank, and in fact also the ones that I assumed are

2380
02:07:24,590 --> 02:07:28,569
the ones that are being considered to be to be rezoned. And

2381
02:07:28,569 --> 02:07:32,630
as part of this project. So yeah, there is some some pretty

2382
02:07:32,630 --> 02:07:37,649
nice little houses further on the on the west on the east

2383
02:07:37,649 --> 02:07:38,000
side.

2384
02:07:38,000 --> 02:07:41,590
But again, there are some pretty homes that are in pretty

2385
02:07:41,590 --> 02:07:45,220
bad shape in that area, you know, and I'm just saying is it

2386
02:07:45,220 --> 02:07:48,939
takes a lot to rebuild some houses, especially those older

2387
02:07:48,939 --> 02:07:52,140
houses are going to have to redo it all the like I said

2388
02:07:52,140 --> 02:07:54,000
earlier, the plumbing.

2389
02:07:54,000 --> 02:07:57,779
If you want to really talk about a decent place for a

2390
02:07:57,779 --> 02:08:01,920
person to live. You have to be able to go in there do the

2391
02:08:01,920 --> 02:08:06,600
plumbing electricity, probably new windows almost rebuild

2392
02:08:06,600 --> 02:08:08,000
those houses. That's all there is to it.

2393
02:08:08,000 --> 02:08:10,010
Commissioner Sanchez for clarification you said you

2394
02:08:10,010 --> 02:08:12,239
supported the motion, are you seconding the motion or just

2395
02:08:12,239 --> 02:08:15,609
stating your. I was saying my opinion but I was also, I can

2396
02:08:15,609 --> 02:08:17,000
second the motion.

2397
02:08:17,000 --> 02:08:20,069
Okay, we have a first and a second and Christian back for

2398
02:08:20,069 --> 02:08:21,000
discussion.

2399
02:08:21,000 --> 02:08:24,000
Yes, thank you vice chair.

2400
02:08:24,000 --> 02:08:27,010
I don't have a particular problem with moving this on up

2401
02:08:27,010 --> 02:08:30,649
and looking at it later, especially if there's a condition

2402
02:08:30,649 --> 02:08:33,710
attached to it that would make sure that there was a

2403
02:08:33,710 --> 02:08:37,449
neighborhood meeting that people that live around there got

2404
02:08:37,449 --> 02:08:41,000
a chance to talk to the applicant and express

2405
02:08:41,000 --> 02:08:44,590
their concerns openly, like Commissioner Ellis so I don't

2406
02:08:44,590 --> 02:08:47,970
think there's much going to be changed my mind about, you

2407
02:08:47,970 --> 02:08:51,189
know, how I feel moving forward with this so, but just

2408
02:08:51,189 --> 02:08:54,390
wanted to point out that if for some reason, this went

2409
02:08:54,390 --> 02:08:58,000
forward as continuous that it be with

2410
02:08:58,000 --> 02:09:03,000
stipulation that there would be a neighborhood meeting.

2411
02:09:03,000 --> 02:09:15,000
Commissioner Sullivan.

2412
02:09:15,000 --> 02:09:18,600
There were a few neighbors that were concerned about the

2413
02:09:18,600 --> 02:09:22,199
traffic, which I have no idea where they thought people

2414
02:09:22,199 --> 02:09:25,600
would be coming to or from to go to that church but they

2415
02:09:25,600 --> 02:09:29,090
were heard and I don't know the fact that those were nice

2416
02:09:29,090 --> 02:09:33,670
big homes nice home, nice neighborhoods and here we were

2417
02:09:33,670 --> 02:09:35,000
talking about the hood.

2418
02:09:35,000 --> 02:09:47,000
Mr St. Chas's language verbiage I guess of poor homes. I

2419
02:09:47,000 --> 02:09:47,000
don't think that has even should not have anything to do

2420
02:09:47,000 --> 02:09:47,000
with the fact that it's a neighborhood.

2421
02:09:47,000 --> 02:09:52,939
If the board dealt with that too at that point, that way,

2422
02:09:52,939 --> 02:09:58,199
then they should be getting the same recognition and

2423
02:09:58,199 --> 02:10:04,000
treatment as the other homes did at that point in time so

2424
02:10:04,000 --> 02:10:08,000
now you might be able to hear me so.

2425
02:10:08,000 --> 02:10:11,720
I'm not going to go over it now. So again, I just, I just

2426
02:10:11,720 --> 02:10:15,380
don't feel I don't know what tabling it will do or postp

2427
02:10:15,380 --> 02:10:18,000
oning it or whatever.

2428
02:10:18,000 --> 02:10:21,069
Because I don't know how much information they are required

2429
02:10:21,069 --> 02:10:22,000
to bring to us.

2430
02:10:22,000 --> 02:10:24,000
When they come back next time.

2431
02:10:24,000 --> 02:10:27,170
I mean, I just don't know. So how does how does how does

2432
02:10:27,170 --> 02:10:31,000
tabling or postponing this tonight.

2433
02:10:31,000 --> 02:10:34,000
Change what they're going to present next time.

2434
02:10:34,000 --> 02:10:40,000
And what will they be held to whatever they present next

2435
02:10:40,000 --> 02:10:41,000
time.

2436
02:10:41,000 --> 02:10:46,939
I assume that is a question for me or legal. I don't know

2437
02:10:46,939 --> 02:10:49,000
who has.

2438
02:10:49,000 --> 02:10:52,000
For me, for me personally, I, I know the applicant.

2439
02:10:52,000 --> 02:10:55,500
It's already been postponed two dates because of chair and

2440
02:10:55,500 --> 02:10:57,000
myself's attendance.

2441
02:10:57,000 --> 02:11:01,000
So it's not my prerogative to push them back further.

2442
02:11:01,000 --> 02:11:04,210
I support the project. I'm looking for potentially the

2443
02:11:04,210 --> 02:11:07,399
opportunity to bring in more public support to bring in

2444
02:11:07,399 --> 02:11:10,319
more neighbors to provide further context for the

2445
02:11:10,319 --> 02:11:11,000
commission.

2446
02:11:11,000 --> 02:11:14,500
This I think is wholly different than a Catholic Church of

2447
02:11:14,500 --> 02:11:19,430
Teasley versus a downtown commercial district that already

2448
02:11:19,430 --> 02:11:22,699
has neighboring multi story building in which they're

2449
02:11:22,699 --> 02:11:26,319
trying to potentially raise the elevation of the property

2450
02:11:26,319 --> 02:11:29,000
value safety traffic, etc.

2451
02:11:29,000 --> 02:11:31,210
So I see those independent and I think it should be

2452
02:11:31,210 --> 02:11:32,000
independent.

2453
02:11:32,000 --> 02:11:35,500
So it'd be my prerogative to push this forward and allow

2454
02:11:35,500 --> 02:11:38,000
allow that development to persist.

2455
02:11:38,000 --> 02:11:41,289
My only suggestion and encouragement to postpone was

2456
02:11:41,289 --> 02:11:44,850
provide the opportunity that maybe two weeks from now we

2457
02:11:44,850 --> 02:11:46,000
look at it again.

2458
02:11:46,000 --> 02:11:50,000
Fresh eyes, perhaps more public input.

2459
02:11:50,000 --> 02:11:52,210
I'm not trying to confine the applicant to what they could

2460
02:11:52,210 --> 02:11:53,000
or could not bring.

2461
02:11:53,000 --> 02:11:56,800
I'm not going to define that for them, but potentially

2462
02:11:56,800 --> 02:12:00,930
bring back opportunities to speak to the commissioners who

2463
02:12:00,930 --> 02:12:04,710
are opposed to it in a way that that frames the project in

2464
02:12:04,710 --> 02:12:07,000
a greater light with that Commissioner Smith.

2465
02:12:07,000 --> 02:12:09,720
Yeah, just to speak to Commissioner Sullivan's points as

2466
02:12:09,720 --> 02:12:11,000
the maker of the motion.

2467
02:12:11,000 --> 02:12:19,970
I do think that postponing it just at least while it does

2468
02:12:19,970 --> 02:12:27,000
put off this project a little bit longer. I think that this

2469
02:12:27,000 --> 02:12:27,000
would be the one and only continuance that could that could

2470
02:12:27,000 --> 02:12:27,000
occur without it really being a waste of time.

2471
02:12:27,000 --> 02:12:28,960
But I think there are points that are brought up tonight

2472
02:12:28,960 --> 02:12:31,000
that probably the applicant hadn't thought of yet.

2473
02:12:31,000 --> 02:12:34,500
So rather than rather than than just completely cut off the

2474
02:12:34,500 --> 02:12:37,850
project to cut the applicant off at its knees, rather say

2475
02:12:37,850 --> 02:12:41,140
here's the points you may have not thought of have a chance

2476
02:12:41,140 --> 02:12:44,739
to come back and either show us as a commission whether or

2477
02:12:44,739 --> 02:12:47,000
not those problems can be solved.

2478
02:12:47,000 --> 02:12:49,000
And if not, then it'll be pretty evident.

2479
02:12:49,000 --> 02:12:53,199
And we'll vote to shoot down then. So more or less, instead

2480
02:12:53,199 --> 02:12:57,090
of having the the applicant be be ambushed about a 45

2481
02:12:57,090 --> 02:13:01,060
minute span with no chance to to really come together with

2482
02:13:01,060 --> 02:13:05,000
a case for why they can work around those problems.

2483
02:13:05,000 --> 02:13:10,000
I think that's only fair. So

2484
02:13:10,000 --> 02:13:13,260
first and second on the floor. There's no one else for

2485
02:13:13,260 --> 02:13:16,520
discussion. So we'll vote on the board for a motion to

2486
02:13:16,520 --> 02:13:33,000
postpone this agenda item to date certain of May 23.

2487
02:13:40,000 --> 02:13:57,000
Motion.

2488
02:13:57,000 --> 02:14:00,000
That motion fails 3 3.

2489
02:14:00,000 --> 02:14:08,000
The chair will entertain a secondary motion.

2490
02:14:08,000 --> 02:14:10,000
Mr. Sullivan.

2491
02:14:10,000 --> 02:14:13,000
Make a motion to deny.

2492
02:14:13,000 --> 02:14:15,000
Commissioner Alice second.

2493
02:14:15,000 --> 02:14:17,329
We have a first and a second. Is there any discussion on

2494
02:14:17,329 --> 02:14:19,000
the items, Commissioner Smith.

2495
02:14:19,000 --> 02:14:22,979
I already said reiterate the same point to think that given

2496
02:14:22,979 --> 02:14:26,529
chance to to speak to be able to form a case come back and

2497
02:14:26,529 --> 02:14:30,630
say why these problems could be solved by something else. F

2498
02:14:30,630 --> 02:14:34,409
ully fair to the applicant rather than just taking their

2499
02:14:34,409 --> 02:14:39,000
project they applied for back in October and saying, sorry.

2500
02:14:39,000 --> 02:14:53,140
I agree with with Commissioner Smith. The the current

2501
02:14:53,140 --> 02:14:53,600
habitat of those homes is is in my estimation from the

2502
02:14:53,600 --> 02:14:54,149
feedback I've gotten tonight unsustainable. One of those

2503
02:14:54,149 --> 02:14:54,689
homes actually gets direct headlight traffic from ATM every

2504
02:14:54,689 --> 02:14:59,460
night. And so are we persisting in providing the rental

2505
02:14:59,460 --> 02:15:02,000
properties or the home ownership.

2506
02:15:02,000 --> 02:15:04,819
When we had one rental property owner talk about light

2507
02:15:04,819 --> 02:15:07,939
pollution. We have a home that currently has its their

2508
02:15:07,939 --> 02:15:11,199
front doors facing the exit of an ATM. And so and I don't

2509
02:15:11,199 --> 02:15:15,069
think it's on the it's the onus of the applicant to stop

2510
02:15:15,069 --> 02:15:17,000
zoning encroachment.

2511
02:15:17,000 --> 02:15:19,680
That's that's this commission's obligation. So it seems

2512
02:15:19,680 --> 02:15:23,130
that I'm hearing in part that if we zone this there goes

2513
02:15:23,130 --> 02:15:26,989
the block which the block is not up for rezoning tonight.

2514
02:15:26,989 --> 02:15:30,000
It's these pieces of property.

2515
02:15:30,000 --> 02:15:34,039
We have some individuals in support of it. And so I feel

2516
02:15:34,039 --> 02:15:38,810
compelled obviously based on the initial motion in my

2517
02:15:38,810 --> 02:15:43,659
earlier city comments to vote against the deny for reasons

2518
02:15:43,659 --> 02:15:48,470
that I think this is impeding good infill development that

2519
02:15:48,470 --> 02:15:52,739
I think raises this city's stature to a degree that that

2520
02:15:52,739 --> 02:15:54,000
would be beneficial.

2521
02:15:54,000 --> 02:15:57,720
Christian or Sanchez. Yeah. If you look at the that just

2522
02:15:57,720 --> 02:16:01,439
that little neighborhood on the across the street on Myrtle

2523
02:16:01,439 --> 02:16:04,869
you have that brand new that new apartment complex that

2524
02:16:04,869 --> 02:16:06,000
just went up.

2525
02:16:06,000 --> 02:16:10,460
You have the bank on the south side and then on the is that

2526
02:16:10,460 --> 02:16:15,340
the east side west side you have another office. So really

2527
02:16:15,340 --> 02:16:19,869
there's it's it's it's it's you know all the way around it

2528
02:16:19,869 --> 02:16:24,000
there's nothing but commercial buildings.

2529
02:16:24,000 --> 02:16:29,640
And that's why I think it's it's it's over time over the

2530
02:16:29,640 --> 02:16:36,059
long period. I think eventually this whole area is going to

2531
02:16:36,059 --> 02:16:42,000
be developed. That's my belief.

2532
02:16:42,000 --> 02:16:46,020
Commissioner Smith. Thank you. Can I come back up to the

2533
02:16:46,020 --> 02:16:49,969
mic for one second. I just wanted to see within regards to

2534
02:16:49,969 --> 02:16:53,520
I know we're not we're not voting out a motion to table

2535
02:16:53,520 --> 02:16:56,000
anymore or motion to continue.

2536
02:16:56,000 --> 02:16:59,149
But what time give you adequate adequate way to be able to

2537
02:16:59,149 --> 02:17:02,370
respond to some of the concerns are brought up versus just

2538
02:17:02,370 --> 02:17:06,000
killing the motion now. I appreciate the question.

2539
02:17:06,000 --> 02:17:08,709
Yes it definitely would. I think there are some

2540
02:17:08,709 --> 02:17:11,629
misconceptions that I have not had an opportunity to

2541
02:17:11,629 --> 02:17:14,639
address related to the project including parking for

2542
02:17:14,639 --> 02:17:18,000
example our existing ADP says that we cannot increase the

2543
02:17:18,000 --> 02:17:20,000
number of parking spaces.

2544
02:17:20,000 --> 02:17:23,590
So while that draft concept plan shows additional parking

2545
02:17:23,590 --> 02:17:26,850
spaces it was never intended to lock us into a specific

2546
02:17:26,850 --> 02:17:30,170
site plan or number of parking spaces. And so I'd like to

2547
02:17:30,170 --> 02:17:33,750
have the opportunity to come back before the commission and

2548
02:17:33,750 --> 02:17:37,000
address some of those things that you raised as concerns

2549
02:17:37,000 --> 02:17:41,459
that may have already be mitigated for or we may be willing

2550
02:17:41,459 --> 02:17:44,600
to commit to some additional restrictions such as an

2551
02:17:44,600 --> 02:17:48,200
overlay to restrict building height and things of that

2552
02:17:48,200 --> 02:17:49,000
nature.

2553
02:17:49,000 --> 02:17:53,159
Secondly and perhaps more importantly we applied for this

2554
02:17:53,159 --> 02:17:57,059
zoning for all four parcels at once. There's a parcel to

2555
02:17:57,059 --> 02:18:00,209
the south currently has a detention pond on it that we've

2556
02:18:00,209 --> 02:18:03,399
reached an agreement with the city of Denton where we're

2557
02:18:03,399 --> 02:18:06,469
going to tie into their drainage system when the drainage

2558
02:18:06,469 --> 02:18:09,000
improvements are made on.

2559
02:18:09,000 --> 02:18:13,049
And we would like the opportunity to be able to repurpose

2560
02:18:13,049 --> 02:18:16,930
that lot and regardless of the other three. And so if

2561
02:18:16,930 --> 02:18:20,629
nothing else I would like the opportunity to have it

2562
02:18:20,629 --> 02:18:24,590
postponed so that we can look at either withdrawing the

2563
02:18:24,590 --> 02:18:28,540
zoning case from the northern three so that you can just

2564
02:18:28,540 --> 02:18:33,000
look at the lot that has no houses on it today and consider

2565
02:18:33,000 --> 02:18:36,649
that one and or allow us the opportunity to come back and

2566
02:18:36,649 --> 02:18:38,000
address some of the concerns that.

2567
02:18:38,000 --> 02:18:42,110
We have we may have we may have already taken care of. So

2568
02:18:42,110 --> 02:18:44,920
you're saying that possibly postpone might might allow you

2569
02:18:44,920 --> 02:18:47,370
to come back and say you know what no longer we can we do

2570
02:18:47,370 --> 02:18:50,000
all four parcels we can do just the one and we're coming to

2571
02:18:50,000 --> 02:18:53,260
reason just that once we could tie in the drainage that

2572
02:18:53,260 --> 02:18:54,000
tension is on.

2573
02:18:54,000 --> 02:18:59,940
That is that is that is an opportunity that I would hate to

2574
02:18:59,940 --> 02:19:05,750
miss because it's it's not directly tied to the concerns

2575
02:19:05,750 --> 02:19:09,790
about affordable housing. And I do believe that we would

2576
02:19:09,790 --> 02:19:11,399
certainly take advantage of the opportunity to visit with

2577
02:19:11,399 --> 02:19:12,000
the neighbors.

2578
02:19:12,000 --> 02:19:15,280
And I approached Miss Rouch before the the meeting ever

2579
02:19:15,280 --> 02:19:18,489
began and gave her my card and told her that I'd be happy

2580
02:19:18,489 --> 02:19:22,219
to visit with her about her concerns. And we'd like the

2581
02:19:22,219 --> 02:19:25,870
opportunity to to come back and address some of the

2582
02:19:25,870 --> 02:19:29,459
concerns and we won't waste everybody's time if that's

2583
02:19:29,459 --> 02:19:33,000
something that doesn't change anybody's mind that's fine we

2584
02:19:33,000 --> 02:19:37,000
but we'd like a chance to revisit those issues.

2585
02:19:37,000 --> 02:19:42,739
Sure. Appreciate. Thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you

2586
02:19:42,739 --> 02:19:45,590
Vice Chair. Just to address a couple things I definitely

2587
02:19:45,590 --> 02:19:49,000
don't look at this as an infill development of any kind.

2588
02:19:49,000 --> 02:19:51,760
And I do think we have to look at what a rezoning does when

2589
02:19:51,760 --> 02:19:54,399
we encroach into a neighborhood, and it is just what

2590
02:19:54,399 --> 02:19:57,239
Commissioner Sanchez said, if we do it, the rest of the

2591
02:19:57,239 --> 02:20:00,219
neighborhood will go and that is definitely something that

2592
02:20:00,219 --> 02:20:05,000
we as a commission need to take into consideration.

2593
02:20:05,000 --> 02:20:11,649
Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. Again,

2594
02:20:11,649 --> 02:20:14,899
just want to reiterate that this is it is an encroachment

2595
02:20:14,899 --> 02:20:21,090
or becomes a slippery slope. And the fact that I'm glad to

2596
02:20:21,090 --> 02:20:23,469
see we had at least two people to live in the area that

2597
02:20:23,469 --> 02:20:26,319
came down and oppose this because originally didn't look

2598
02:20:26,319 --> 02:20:28,000
like we're going to have any but.

2599
02:20:28,000 --> 02:20:32,000
And I don't disagree with the opinion that this development

2600
02:20:32,000 --> 02:20:35,840
will improve the area in some respects but that in alone of

2601
02:20:35,840 --> 02:20:39,850
itself shouldn't negate the fact that you've got people who

2602
02:20:39,850 --> 02:20:42,000
like things the way they are.

2603
02:20:42,000 --> 02:20:45,020
The fact that we probably haven't had more people is

2604
02:20:45,020 --> 02:20:47,000
because I think a lot of times.

2605
02:20:47,000 --> 02:20:49,469
Especially if the renters think you know hey it's city hall

2606
02:20:49,469 --> 02:20:51,930
they're going to do what they want to anyway they're always

2607
02:20:51,930 --> 02:20:54,299
going to do what the developer the builder wants. And I

2608
02:20:54,299 --> 02:20:56,639
think this is just one of those cases where we need to say

2609
02:20:56,639 --> 02:20:59,600
no you know we need to back the people that live here for

2610
02:20:59,600 --> 02:21:02,000
the reasons that they want.

2611
02:21:02,000 --> 02:21:05,000
Again, wouldn't be.

2612
02:21:05,000 --> 02:21:10,360
I'm beginning to feel like I'm between a rock and a hard

2613
02:21:10,360 --> 02:21:16,079
spot to at least give the developer a second chance to come

2614
02:21:16,079 --> 02:21:17,440
back. But I don't see anything really changed in my mind.

2615
02:21:17,440 --> 02:21:18,000
That's the only reason I hesitate to say, I'll do that.

2616
02:21:18,000 --> 02:21:22,659
But, again, the fact that city government officials are

2617
02:21:22,659 --> 02:21:27,170
often viewed as being, you know, to pro business and not

2618
02:21:27,170 --> 02:21:32,110
enough concerned about individual citizens is something I'd

2619
02:21:32,110 --> 02:21:36,190
like to diminish here if we could just simply voting

2620
02:21:36,190 --> 02:21:39,000
against this reason request.

2621
02:21:39,000 --> 02:21:40,000
Thank you.

2622
02:21:40,000 --> 02:21:43,000
Commissioner Sanchez.

2623
02:21:43,000 --> 02:21:46,389
I just want to say that, you know, again I go back to this

2624
02:21:46,389 --> 02:21:49,540
when these houses were built things change in those

2625
02:21:49,540 --> 02:21:53,000
neighborhoods change all neighborhoods change.

2626
02:21:53,000 --> 02:21:56,590
My neighborhood has changed quite a bit from when I moved

2627
02:21:56,590 --> 02:22:00,739
in. So, all I want to say is, there's been a lot of new

2628
02:22:00,739 --> 02:22:04,469
building you have gateway apartments that are catty corner

2629
02:22:04,469 --> 02:22:06,000
to that to that area.

2630
02:22:06,000 --> 02:22:10,049
And there's a lot of apartments being built in that whole

2631
02:22:10,049 --> 02:22:14,200
area. And so that has changed quite a bit. So we need to

2632
02:22:14,200 --> 02:22:18,100
look at what's happening in the city of Den and this not

2633
02:22:18,100 --> 02:22:22,079
try to reserve one area, while everything around it is

2634
02:22:22,079 --> 02:22:23,000
changing.

2635
02:22:23,000 --> 02:22:26,000
Mr Smith, thank you, Chair.

2636
02:22:26,000 --> 02:22:28,360
I just want to try to put myself in the position of what I

2637
02:22:28,360 --> 02:22:31,040
think for Commissioner Sullivan Ellis and Beck saying that

2638
02:22:31,040 --> 02:22:33,540
's, I don't think my mind is going to change over my mind's

2639
02:22:33,540 --> 02:22:36,000
going to change over my mind's going to change.

2640
02:22:36,000 --> 02:22:37,979
I was in your seats and I was in a position where there was

2641
02:22:37,979 --> 02:22:40,110
something in front of me that says, Yeah, you can come back

2642
02:22:40,110 --> 02:22:42,000
but I don't think my mind's going to change.

2643
02:22:42,000 --> 02:22:45,500
I still have to consider the fact that the applicant and

2644
02:22:45,500 --> 02:22:49,139
the owners of that property have worked since October to do

2645
02:22:49,139 --> 02:22:52,959
something. And then I as a commissioner could not sit there

2646
02:22:52,959 --> 02:22:57,000
and say, well I may still vote you down two weeks from now.

2647
02:22:57,000 --> 02:23:00,260
Why can't I at least give you the chance to come back and

2648
02:23:00,260 --> 02:23:03,590
change my mind. And why do I need to be closed minded in

2649
02:23:03,590 --> 02:23:07,430
that to say, come back, show me something different. And if

2650
02:23:07,430 --> 02:23:10,659
it's my mind doesn't change because I don't think it's

2651
02:23:10,659 --> 02:23:12,000
going to them.

2652
02:23:12,000 --> 02:23:15,180
But how can I say that the applicant doesn't have the

2653
02:23:15,180 --> 02:23:19,000
opportunity to at least make an attempt to change my mind.

2654
02:23:19,000 --> 02:23:21,000
That's the only piece I'll give there.

2655
02:23:21,000 --> 02:23:22,000
Commissioner Ellis.

2656
02:23:22,000 --> 02:23:25,760
Thank you, Mr. Well, first of all, we already took a vote

2657
02:23:25,760 --> 02:23:29,870
on the table and it was it failed. So right now we have a

2658
02:23:29,870 --> 02:23:32,000
motion on the floor.

2659
02:23:32,000 --> 02:23:35,000
Very true. Commissioner Sullivan.

2660
02:23:35,000 --> 02:23:39,559
Part of my problem is that under the CG, since we don't

2661
02:23:39,559 --> 02:23:44,229
know what's going in for sure, we could have a hotel bed

2662
02:23:44,229 --> 02:23:49,430
and breakfast, retail restaurant private club bar laundry

2663
02:23:49,430 --> 02:23:55,000
facilities, indoor recreation, which may not be all bad.

2664
02:23:55,000 --> 02:23:58,069
The only one is that we don't know what we're voting on,

2665
02:23:58,069 --> 02:24:01,500
other than change the zoning. We don't know what's going to

2666
02:24:01,500 --> 02:24:04,989
go in there. It's not again, it's not part of the bank.

2667
02:24:04,989 --> 02:24:08,000
This is a profit center form.

2668
02:24:08,000 --> 02:24:13,069
And so I have a problem trading off a profit center for

2669
02:24:13,069 --> 02:24:15,000
neighborhoods.

2670
02:24:15,000 --> 02:24:19,120
I just don't think we need to be doing that motion still

2671
02:24:19,120 --> 02:24:20,000
stands.

2672
02:24:20,000 --> 02:24:22,840
I just want clarification, because you're Sullivan, it is

2673
02:24:22,840 --> 02:24:25,940
within our prerogative to limit the uses. And so if you

2674
02:24:25,940 --> 02:24:30,000
would be more inclined to vote yes, if we limited hotels.

2675
02:24:30,000 --> 02:24:34,690
That's so I'm not sure your point if you're not. That's not

2676
02:24:34,690 --> 02:24:38,180
a point is that all those things are allowed under this

2677
02:24:38,180 --> 02:24:39,000
zoning.

2678
02:24:39,000 --> 02:24:40,000
Correct.

2679
02:24:40,000 --> 02:24:43,500
So that's what I'm saying those those those things are all

2680
02:24:43,500 --> 02:24:47,000
allowed by the fact that it's a DCG.

2681
02:24:47,000 --> 02:24:50,000
So if we limited its office space.

2682
02:24:50,000 --> 02:24:53,000
No, okay, maybe height.

2683
02:24:53,000 --> 02:24:57,000
Maybe width, I don't know, but not the way it's presented.

2684
02:24:57,000 --> 02:24:59,000
So,

2685
02:24:59,000 --> 02:25:01,000
Christian back.

2686
02:25:01,000 --> 02:25:04,000
Thank you, Mr. Again, we are just for a vote.

2687
02:25:04,000 --> 02:25:08,610
But should we come out three three again on this, it doesn

2688
02:25:08,610 --> 02:25:13,090
't I don't think and correct me if I'm wrong doesn't limit

2689
02:25:13,090 --> 02:25:17,780
the applicant from coming back with something totally new

2690
02:25:17,780 --> 02:25:22,000
down the road that that we probably could all agree on.

2691
02:25:22,000 --> 02:25:24,899
So, the fact that if we get hamstrung here and I doesn't

2692
02:25:24,899 --> 02:25:27,979
mean that they could accommodate what we're talking about

2693
02:25:27,979 --> 02:25:31,020
here they could come back with a whole different proposal

2694
02:25:31,020 --> 02:25:33,850
down the road I realize that a little cost and energy on

2695
02:25:33,850 --> 02:25:36,670
their part but it's, they're not going to be able to

2696
02:25:36,670 --> 02:25:39,000
picture completely.

2697
02:25:39,000 --> 02:25:42,500
Commissioner Smith nature staff, if, if there was if we did

2698
02:25:42,500 --> 02:25:45,879
, I know with with legal out of the room. But if there was a

2699
02:25:45,879 --> 02:25:50,079
approval to deny. What happens then with this project going

2700
02:25:50,079 --> 02:25:51,000
forward.

2701
02:25:51,000 --> 02:25:54,000
Because, sorry, because the count.

2702
02:25:54,000 --> 02:25:57,819
If there is a vote to deny not just a split vote would go

2703
02:25:57,819 --> 02:26:01,870
forward to counsel with requiring a super majority for

2704
02:26:01,870 --> 02:26:03,000
approval.

2705
02:26:03,000 --> 02:26:05,469
And then to speak to the concern of them being able to come

2706
02:26:05,469 --> 02:26:07,899
back later they would have to wait a year to come back with

2707
02:26:07,899 --> 02:26:10,250
a similar request to this it would have to be something

2708
02:26:10,250 --> 02:26:12,850
substantially different, completely different zoning

2709
02:26:12,850 --> 02:26:16,000
district or, or something of that nature to be able to come

2710
02:26:16,000 --> 02:26:16,000
back

2711
02:26:16,000 --> 02:26:18,000
sure within the year.

2712
02:26:18,000 --> 02:26:20,000
Commissioner Alice Thanks, Haley.

2713
02:26:20,000 --> 02:26:22,000
Thank you, Vice Chair.

2714
02:26:22,000 --> 02:26:24,000
I might need you.

2715
02:26:24,000 --> 02:26:27,760
Right, they can't come back with this for a year, but they

2716
02:26:27,760 --> 02:26:31,360
could come back with that southern portion at that point

2717
02:26:31,360 --> 02:26:34,750
correct or not since that was a portion of the request I

2718
02:26:34,750 --> 02:26:38,219
don't believe DCG could come back on that property within

2719
02:26:38,219 --> 02:26:40,000
the year, unless they withdrew their application

2720
02:26:40,000 --> 02:26:43,000
altogether prior to it going to city council.

2721
02:26:43,000 --> 02:26:44,000
It's possible.

2722
02:26:44,000 --> 02:26:47,000
Good plan.

2723
02:26:47,000 --> 02:26:53,370
Seeing no other discussion we do have a first and second

2724
02:26:53,370 --> 02:26:59,059
for a motion to deny so we can go to the board just for

2725
02:26:59,059 --> 02:27:04,930
clarification a vote yes is to deny a vote no is to not

2726
02:27:04,930 --> 02:27:10,000
deny, and we can put votes on the board.

2727
02:27:10,000 --> 02:27:13,979
The motion is a non action at three three, and given read

2728
02:27:13,979 --> 02:27:17,500
this city ordinance that an affirmation vote of four

2729
02:27:17,500 --> 02:27:21,329
members is necessary to repeal an ordinance or take any

2730
02:27:21,329 --> 02:27:23,000
official action.

2731
02:27:23,000 --> 02:27:30,129
I've been advised by council to take a recess so we can

2732
02:27:30,129 --> 02:27:37,110
clarify the next steps going forward so can we take a

2733
02:27:37,110 --> 02:27:45,000
recess for five minutes. Thank you.

2734
02:27:45,000 --> 02:27:51,629
So, so these tie votes are unique I just want to explain

2735
02:27:51,629 --> 02:27:56,620
they are unique. It's even more unique when the tie vote is

2736
02:27:56,620 --> 02:28:00,520
includes a an abstention referred to our coordinates ordin

2737
02:28:00,520 --> 02:28:05,000
ances 7.5.1 and which discusses tie tie votes.

2738
02:28:05,000 --> 02:28:08,299
I'm just kind of forming the public that where we're coming

2739
02:28:08,299 --> 02:28:11,379
with this is it matters voted on, which ended a tie vote

2740
02:28:11,379 --> 02:28:14,510
shall be automatically placed on a subsequent council

2741
02:28:14,510 --> 02:28:18,000
meeting until the full until the full board is present.

2742
02:28:18,000 --> 02:28:22,000
And so in this case that that won't occur.

2743
02:28:22,000 --> 02:28:26,290
And also, to point out as a chair has has explained that

2744
02:28:26,290 --> 02:28:30,799
there is a majority vote of four members that's necessary

2745
02:28:30,799 --> 02:28:35,379
to take any action. And so at this point I would recommend

2746
02:28:35,379 --> 02:28:39,629
that this item be postponed to date certain what that date

2747
02:28:39,629 --> 02:28:43,000
certain is I'll leave to the, to the board.

2748
02:28:43,000 --> 02:28:48,350
In the hopes that that the title could be broken either way

2749
02:28:48,350 --> 02:28:53,700
, going forward so thank you legal. So the options for postp

2750
02:28:53,700 --> 02:28:57,729
oning to date certain would be made 23rd or June 13

2751
02:28:57,729 --> 02:28:59,000
potentially.

2752
02:28:59,000 --> 02:29:04,000
Miss best said,

2753
02:29:04,000 --> 02:29:09,340
is there a date, could you is the 23rd enough time or would

2754
02:29:09,340 --> 02:29:13,809
you prefer to come back on June 13. And I'm going to make a

2755
02:29:13,809 --> 02:29:16,049
judgment call here and say that we'll go with June 13 if

2756
02:29:16,049 --> 02:29:18,280
that's amenable to the board, because that does give us an

2757
02:29:18,280 --> 02:29:20,000
opportunity to have some conversations

2758
02:29:20,000 --> 02:29:22,559
with the neighborhood that we otherwise may not have time

2759
02:29:22,559 --> 02:29:25,000
to do. Okay, thank you.

2760
02:29:25,000 --> 02:29:28,850
So, with that then we'll probably have some questions here.

2761
02:29:28,850 --> 02:29:31,819
Sounds like because it's a non action this will be

2762
02:29:31,819 --> 02:29:35,739
postponed so date certain of June 13, my recommendation to

2763
02:29:35,739 --> 02:29:39,069
city staff is to work with the applicant to carve out and

2764
02:29:39,069 --> 02:29:42,000
cultivate an overlay that would restrict

2765
02:29:42,000 --> 02:29:45,690
potential size and use and see if that would be more amen

2766
02:29:45,690 --> 02:29:49,700
able to the community going forward and more amenable to the

2767
02:29:49,700 --> 02:29:53,629
commission to try to limit the direction that that project

2768
02:29:53,629 --> 02:29:55,000
goes with that.

2769
02:29:55,000 --> 02:29:57,569
Commissioner Alice. Thank you, Vice Chair, I was just

2770
02:29:57,569 --> 02:30:00,440
wanting clarification from legal. This is something you're

2771
02:30:00,440 --> 02:30:03,610
postponing Is that correct. Yes, just based on our rules

2772
02:30:03,610 --> 02:30:05,000
that we have to go by.

2773
02:30:05,000 --> 02:30:08,379
It would be postponed to the next meeting. Anyway, until

2774
02:30:08,379 --> 02:30:11,569
there was a full board. This is a unique situation will

2775
02:30:11,569 --> 02:30:14,739
never get a full board will never get a full board, but so

2776
02:30:14,739 --> 02:30:17,639
we would still defer to that to that language that be

2777
02:30:17,639 --> 02:30:21,000
postponed to the next meeting.

2778
02:30:21,000 --> 02:30:25,379
Then I'll just throw out two cents because you are going to

2779
02:30:25,379 --> 02:30:29,559
get another chance to be before us. The only way that I

2780
02:30:29,559 --> 02:30:33,750
would be for this is if we're talking about that lot that

2781
02:30:33,750 --> 02:30:35,489
is on eagle. If you want to bring something forward and

2782
02:30:35,489 --> 02:30:36,450
develop that and focus your efforts on that, I can get

2783
02:30:36,450 --> 02:30:38,000
behind that particular lot.

2784
02:30:38,000 --> 02:30:42,680
It wouldn't matter what kind of overlay. Honestly, I'm not

2785
02:30:42,680 --> 02:30:48,000
on board with with eliminating five residential homes.

2786
02:30:48,000 --> 02:30:52,959
Christopher Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair, again, Victor just

2787
02:30:52,959 --> 02:30:54,000
for clarification.

2788
02:30:54,000 --> 02:30:57,370
There's an ordinance that says because we're tied like we

2789
02:30:57,370 --> 02:31:00,659
are then we have to instead just postpone it and move it up

2790
02:31:00,659 --> 02:31:03,379
. Right, it doesn't it doesn't automatically go to city

2791
02:31:03,379 --> 02:31:04,000
council.

2792
02:31:04,000 --> 02:31:08,520
So, it, the way it's drafted and not this one I want to go

2793
02:31:08,520 --> 02:31:13,069
check was that if the way it's drafted is it would be until

2794
02:31:13,069 --> 02:31:18,040
there's opportunity to be before a full, a full board. Yeah

2795
02:31:18,040 --> 02:31:18,530
, but in this case, since there's an extension it is, it

2796
02:31:18,530 --> 02:31:19,329
doesn't work but we're still giving the intent to the

2797
02:31:19,329 --> 02:31:21,000
language of that rule.

2798
02:31:21,000 --> 02:31:24,979
Okay, and I just further add that I agree with Commissioner

2799
02:31:24,979 --> 02:31:28,629
Ellis you know, if you're dealing with that front part of

2800
02:31:28,629 --> 02:31:32,510
the area, only, I wouldn't have a problem with that either

2801
02:31:32,510 --> 02:31:36,399
I wouldn't consider that encroachment and makes more sense

2802
02:31:36,399 --> 02:31:39,000
than dealing with that back area along maple.

2803
02:31:39,000 --> 02:31:46,000
Thank you.

2804
02:31:46,000 --> 02:31:54,000
I'm sorry I lost track of my

2805
02:31:54,000 --> 02:31:57,370
Christian Ellis. Thank you, Vice Chair, one more question

2806
02:31:57,370 --> 02:31:58,000
Victor.

2807
02:31:58,000 --> 02:32:01,399
Where is this that I just want to write it down. Yeah, I'll

2808
02:32:01,399 --> 02:32:06,000
cite you to it. I had it and I close my book.

2809
02:32:06,000 --> 02:32:13,000
Seven

2810
02:32:13,000 --> 02:32:17,000
five five one, a, the title.

2811
02:32:17,000 --> 02:32:24,620
And then also to run with it the 755, which is the majority

2812
02:32:24,620 --> 02:32:28,000
vote requirement. Okay, thank you.

2813
02:32:28,000 --> 02:32:32,190
So with that I will close the public hearing for agenda

2814
02:32:32,190 --> 02:32:35,000
item 718 dash 004.

2815
02:32:35,000 --> 02:32:37,840
Thank you for everyone coming out and sitting through that

2816
02:32:37,840 --> 02:32:39,000
I appreciate that.

2817
02:32:39,000 --> 02:32:44,940
The next item is item B, it's the final replat 17 dash 0024

2818
02:32:44,940 --> 02:32:45,000
.

2819
02:32:45,000 --> 02:32:48,409
I would open the public hearing for this and ask for a

2820
02:32:48,409 --> 02:32:52,020
motion to continue to date certain. Commissioner Smith

2821
02:32:52,020 --> 02:32:55,000
motion to continue to date certain Commissioner Ellis.

2822
02:32:55,000 --> 02:32:57,000
Second.

2823
02:32:57,000 --> 02:33:00,000
There's a first and a second a discussion.

2824
02:33:00,000 --> 02:33:20,000
Seeing none I call for a vote on the board.

2825
02:33:20,000 --> 02:33:30,629
And continue the item passes 601 recusal with that I'll

2826
02:33:30,629 --> 02:33:35,000
invite the chair back.

2827
02:33:35,000 --> 02:33:39,000
Jim Jim Jim.

2828
02:33:39,000 --> 02:33:51,000
Thank you.

2829
02:33:51,000 --> 02:34:03,450
Chair I've yet to open the public hearing for item CFR 1800

2830
02:34:03,450 --> 02:34:11,319
1 but I turn it back over to you. Thank you, Vice Chair,

2831
02:34:11,319 --> 02:34:15,030
going to open the public hearing for item CFR 18 dash 0001

2832
02:34:15,030 --> 02:34:17,000
and call on Haley for presentation.

2833
02:34:17,000 --> 02:34:22,000
Good evening. This is a replat of fairway acres.

2834
02:34:22,000 --> 02:34:26,950
The replat is to create three lots kind of reconfiguring

2835
02:34:26,950 --> 02:34:30,000
three existing tracks of land.

2836
02:34:30,000 --> 02:34:33,819
The properties located on Country Club Road also has front

2837
02:34:33,819 --> 02:34:37,280
age on fairway acres and quail Creek Lane as you can see

2838
02:34:37,280 --> 02:34:38,000
here.

2839
02:34:38,000 --> 02:34:43,579
As I mentioned the request is to reconfigure existing

2840
02:34:43,579 --> 02:34:48,000
tracks of land into three plotted lots. The property is

2841
02:34:48,000 --> 02:34:48,000
located in the ETJ.

2842
02:34:48,000 --> 02:34:52,250
I'd be happy to answer any specific questions you might

2843
02:34:52,250 --> 02:34:54,000
have about the replat.

2844
02:34:54,000 --> 02:34:58,000
Any questions for Haley.

2845
02:34:58,000 --> 02:34:59,000
Thank you, Haley.

2846
02:34:59,000 --> 02:35:03,760
This is a public hearing. Anyone who wants to speak on this

2847
02:35:03,760 --> 02:35:07,000
item please come forward at this time.

2848
02:35:07,000 --> 02:35:10,000
Anyone wishing to speak on this item.

2849
02:35:10,000 --> 02:35:13,399
And we will close the public hearing and open the floor for

2850
02:35:13,399 --> 02:35:16,000
discussion or motion Commissioner Smith.

2851
02:35:16,000 --> 02:35:18,000
Thank you, Chair, motion to approve.

2852
02:35:18,000 --> 02:35:19,000
Commissioner Roselle.

2853
02:35:19,000 --> 02:35:20,000
Second.

2854
02:35:20,000 --> 02:35:23,000
Okay, we have a first and a second for approval.

2855
02:35:23,000 --> 02:35:27,000
Any further discussion.

2856
02:35:27,000 --> 02:35:36,000
Seeing none, call for a vote on the board.

2857
02:35:36,000 --> 02:35:44,000
Motion is going to carry seven zero.

2858
02:35:44,000 --> 02:35:52,000
Good luck with your project.

2859
02:35:52,000 --> 02:35:58,040
I will move us to our next item D, I will open the public

2860
02:35:58,040 --> 02:36:04,879
hearing for fr 17 dash 0029 and call on Haley for

2861
02:36:04,879 --> 02:36:07,000
presentation.

2862
02:36:07,000 --> 02:36:08,000
All right.

2863
02:36:08,000 --> 02:36:11,000
Good evening. This is also a replat.

2864
02:36:11,000 --> 02:36:14,149
This particular property is located partially in the ETJ

2865
02:36:14,149 --> 02:36:16,000
partially in the city limits.

2866
02:36:16,000 --> 02:36:22,229
It's located on north Locust street. The intent of the repl

2867
02:36:22,229 --> 02:36:22,850
at is to subdivide one existing lot into two lots as you can

2868
02:36:22,850 --> 02:36:24,000
see here.

2869
02:36:24,000 --> 02:36:25,000
Both lots.

2870
02:36:25,000 --> 02:36:27,000
One would have frontage on Locust directly.

2871
02:36:27,000 --> 02:36:30,200
The other would have access by means of this access eas

2872
02:36:30,200 --> 02:36:32,000
ement as shown on the plat.

2873
02:36:32,000 --> 02:36:36,030
Be happy to answer any questions you may have about this

2874
02:36:36,030 --> 02:36:37,000
project.

2875
02:36:37,000 --> 02:36:42,000
Any questions for Haley.

2876
02:36:42,000 --> 02:36:44,000
Okay. Thank you.

2877
02:36:44,000 --> 02:36:48,409
This is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on

2878
02:36:48,409 --> 02:36:52,000
this item, please come forward at this time.

2879
02:36:52,000 --> 02:36:55,030
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and open the

2880
02:36:55,030 --> 02:36:57,000
floor for discussion or motion.

2881
02:36:57,000 --> 02:36:59,000
Commissioner Smith motion to approve.

2882
02:36:59,000 --> 02:37:00,000
Okay.

2883
02:37:00,000 --> 02:37:01,000
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you.

2884
02:37:01,000 --> 02:37:02,000
Second. Okay.

2885
02:37:02,000 --> 02:37:04,000
We have a first and a second for approval.

2886
02:37:04,000 --> 02:37:08,000
Any further discussion.

2887
02:37:08,000 --> 02:37:16,000
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

2888
02:37:16,000 --> 02:37:22,000
That motion is going to carry seven zero.

2889
02:37:22,000 --> 02:37:29,000
That will move us to item E, which has been withdrawn.

2890
02:37:29,000 --> 02:37:34,000
And this item has been re noticed for a later meeting date.

2891
02:37:34,000 --> 02:37:37,799
And that will take us to item F and we'll open the public

2892
02:37:37,799 --> 02:37:42,000
hearing for DCA eighteen dash zero zero zero three.

2893
02:37:42,000 --> 02:37:52,000
And I will call on Haley for presentation.

2894
02:37:52,000 --> 02:37:54,000
Good evening.

2895
02:37:54,000 --> 02:37:56,670
This is a proposed amendment to the DDC related to our

2896
02:37:56,670 --> 02:37:58,000
parking regulations.

2897
02:37:58,000 --> 02:38:01,329
Specifically, the request is to update a number of the

2898
02:38:01,329 --> 02:38:04,819
parking requirements within sub chapter fourteen of the

2899
02:38:04,819 --> 02:38:06,000
development code.

2900
02:38:06,000 --> 02:38:08,370
Again, for a little bit of background on this, this

2901
02:38:08,370 --> 02:38:13,200
generated from a council request much earlier this year for

2902
02:38:13,200 --> 02:38:16,000
a work session discussing residential parking standards.

2903
02:38:16,000 --> 02:38:18,899
The first work session occurred in January, which time

2904
02:38:18,899 --> 02:38:21,590
staff brought forward a number of options in terms of

2905
02:38:21,590 --> 02:38:23,000
residential parking.

2906
02:38:23,000 --> 02:38:26,500
And in response to that staff was tasked with coming back

2907
02:38:26,500 --> 02:38:29,000
with more specific recommendations.

2908
02:38:29,000 --> 02:38:31,569
So at a second work session in February, we brought forward

2909
02:38:31,569 --> 02:38:34,139
five recommendations, very similar to what you're seeing

2910
02:38:34,139 --> 02:38:35,000
here tonight.

2911
02:38:35,000 --> 02:38:37,639
Those were intended to allow for flexibility within our

2912
02:38:37,639 --> 02:38:40,549
parking requirements, as well as improving the residential

2913
02:38:40,549 --> 02:38:43,409
parking standards in response to council specific concerns

2914
02:38:43,409 --> 02:38:46,000
with some of our recommendations at that meeting.

2915
02:38:46,000 --> 02:38:50,229
These have been amended slightly from what was brought

2916
02:38:50,229 --> 02:38:55,000
forward in February to reflect the request that they made.

2917
02:38:55,000 --> 02:38:57,950
So, again, we'll be going through all five of these

2918
02:38:57,950 --> 02:39:00,000
recommendations one at a time.

2919
02:39:00,000 --> 02:39:03,750
So the first is amendments to the minimum parking standards

2920
02:39:03,750 --> 02:39:06,000
for all of our residential uses.

2921
02:39:06,000 --> 02:39:08,399
Currently for single family, we require two spaces per

2922
02:39:08,399 --> 02:39:09,000
dwelling.

2923
02:39:09,000 --> 02:39:13,659
Duplex is the same with the addition of one extra space for

2924
02:39:13,659 --> 02:39:16,000
each bedroom over three.

2925
02:39:16,000 --> 02:39:19,639
What's proposed is for single family duplex and adding town

2926
02:39:19,639 --> 02:39:23,000
homes to specify that use for spaces per dwelling.

2927
02:39:23,000 --> 02:39:26,680
The location of the spaces is not specified, with the only

2928
02:39:26,680 --> 02:39:29,540
stipulation being that tandem parking within a garage

2929
02:39:29,540 --> 02:39:32,000
wouldn't count towards that requirement.

2930
02:39:32,000 --> 02:39:35,000
One of those spaces could count, but not both.

2931
02:39:35,000 --> 02:39:38,500
For multi-family, we're proposing amendments to our current

2932
02:39:38,500 --> 02:39:41,850
standards that are based entirely on the number of bedrooms

2933
02:39:41,850 --> 02:39:42,000
.

2934
02:39:42,000 --> 02:39:44,889
We currently have a different ratio for each type of

2935
02:39:44,889 --> 02:39:46,000
apartment unit.

2936
02:39:46,000 --> 02:39:49,190
What we would propose is that efficiency and one bedroom

2937
02:39:49,190 --> 02:39:54,000
units require 1.25 spaces per unit, plus guest parking.

2938
02:39:54,000 --> 02:39:57,500
All other types of apartments would be one space per

2939
02:39:57,500 --> 02:40:01,389
bedroom, plus the guest parking that we recommend a ratio

2940
02:40:01,389 --> 02:40:05,569
of 10% of the required number of spaces be added for guests

2941
02:40:05,569 --> 02:40:06,000
.

2942
02:40:06,000 --> 02:40:08,620
Just looking at some of the options for how residential

2943
02:40:08,620 --> 02:40:11,540
parking or single families currently handled, on the left

2944
02:40:11,540 --> 02:40:14,440
you see a home that would meet this requirement, two spaces

2945
02:40:14,440 --> 02:40:17,000
in a garage, two spaces outside a garage.

2946
02:40:17,000 --> 02:40:19,659
On the right, we have a home that has a one-car garage with

2947
02:40:19,659 --> 02:40:22,409
two spaces in the driveway, so that situation wouldn't be

2948
02:40:22,409 --> 02:40:25,000
permitted moving forward for new subdivisions.

2949
02:40:25,000 --> 02:40:30,000
There would be a fourth space required.

2950
02:40:30,000 --> 02:40:33,049
Looking at how the multi-family changes would impact a

2951
02:40:33,049 --> 02:40:36,850
hypothetical development with 100 units, under the current

2952
02:40:36,850 --> 02:40:40,430
code, they would be required a total of 232 spaces, which

2953
02:40:40,430 --> 02:40:43,000
is just less than one per bedroom.

2954
02:40:43,000 --> 02:40:46,799
With the staff recommendations, that would take it up to 28

2955
02:40:46,799 --> 02:40:50,440
3 spaces total, because you would have one per bedroom for

2956
02:40:50,440 --> 02:40:54,000
all of the larger units, plus that 10% guest parking.

2957
02:40:54,000 --> 02:40:58,680
That puts it at just over one space per bedroom at the rate

2958
02:40:58,680 --> 02:41:01,000
that we've recommended.

2959
02:41:01,000 --> 02:41:04,079
Just to look at that for a little bit smaller development,

2960
02:41:04,079 --> 02:41:07,110
this is the actual breakdown of bedrooms and units for the

2961
02:41:07,110 --> 02:41:10,069
Mingo Road apartments that you all saw an SUP request for

2962
02:41:10,069 --> 02:41:11,000
last year.

2963
02:41:11,000 --> 02:41:15,469
With the current requirements, they needed 84 parking

2964
02:41:15,469 --> 02:41:19,670
spaces, and this would have required 106 for that

2965
02:41:19,670 --> 02:41:21,000
development.

2966
02:41:21,000 --> 02:41:24,729
Moving on, recommendation two is to add a statement to our

2967
02:41:24,729 --> 02:41:28,370
maximum allowable number of spaces that would stipulate

2968
02:41:28,370 --> 02:41:31,450
that any pervious surfaces provided for spaces that are

2969
02:41:31,450 --> 02:41:34,000
above the maximum number would not be allowed to count

2970
02:41:34,000 --> 02:41:36,000
towards the landscape area requirements.

2971
02:41:36,000 --> 02:41:39,819
Currently, the code does allow parking that is constructed

2972
02:41:39,819 --> 02:41:43,540
of pervious pavers to count towards the required landscape

2973
02:41:43,540 --> 02:41:45,000
area for a project.

2974
02:41:45,000 --> 02:41:48,319
Looking at an example of that, this particular apartment

2975
02:41:48,319 --> 02:41:51,520
complex had 55 excess parking spaces above what was

2976
02:41:51,520 --> 02:41:53,000
required by the code.

2977
02:41:53,000 --> 02:41:57,229
They opted to pave all of those with brick pavers, as you

2978
02:41:57,229 --> 02:42:01,909
see in the photo. The area of those 55 spaces was counted

2979
02:42:01,909 --> 02:42:06,510
towards their 15% landscaping that was required for the

2980
02:42:06,510 --> 02:42:08,000
development.

2981
02:42:08,000 --> 02:42:10,559
The third recommendation is where we start to get into some

2982
02:42:10,559 --> 02:42:13,290
of those relief mechanisms. We are proposing an

2983
02:42:13,290 --> 02:42:16,000
administrative parking reduction.

2984
02:42:16,000 --> 02:42:19,000
This would allow for the director to approve up to a 10%

2985
02:42:19,000 --> 02:42:21,940
reduction in the number of required spaces if certain

2986
02:42:21,940 --> 02:42:23,000
criteria were met.

2987
02:42:23,000 --> 02:42:25,899
For example, they could show that there wouldn't be any

2988
02:42:25,899 --> 02:42:29,000
negative impact to the area if the parking were reduced.

2989
02:42:29,000 --> 02:42:31,649
This would be allowed to be used in combination with the

2990
02:42:31,649 --> 02:42:34,319
other relief mechanisms that we're proposing that are

2991
02:42:34,319 --> 02:42:37,000
substitutions for different types of parking.

2992
02:42:37,000 --> 02:42:41,079
This would stipulate, however, that for each space that is

2993
02:42:41,079 --> 02:42:45,159
reduced by this mechanism, four bicycle spaces be provided

2994
02:42:45,159 --> 02:42:47,000
on site. Looking at an example, if 20 spaces are required,

2995
02:42:47,000 --> 02:42:52,020
a 10% reduction would allow you to bring that down by two

2996
02:42:52,020 --> 02:42:57,420
to 18 vehicle spaces, but as a swap for that, eight bicycle

2997
02:42:57,420 --> 02:43:00,000
spaces would be required.

2998
02:43:00,000 --> 02:43:02,530
The fourth recommendation is related to on-street parking.

2999
02:43:02,530 --> 02:43:04,719
Our current standards are a little convoluted, don't

3000
02:43:04,719 --> 02:43:07,450
necessarily specify where the spaces have to be, so we're

3001
02:43:07,450 --> 02:43:09,000
trying to tighten that language.

3002
02:43:09,000 --> 02:43:12,879
Also, make this in accordance with the new transportation

3003
02:43:12,879 --> 02:43:16,000
criteria manual parking space dimensions.

3004
02:43:16,000 --> 02:43:19,200
We would propose to limit credits available for on-street

3005
02:43:19,200 --> 02:43:22,569
parking to multifamily and non-residential uses just within

3006
02:43:22,569 --> 02:43:24,000
the infill boundary.

3007
02:43:24,000 --> 02:43:26,989
We're not saying there couldn't be parking on the street,

3008
02:43:26,989 --> 02:43:30,000
but it would not count towards their number of spaces.

3009
02:43:30,000 --> 02:43:33,680
Then those allowable parking spaces would be counted based

3010
02:43:33,680 --> 02:43:37,389
on each 22 contiguous feet of frontage that the property

3011
02:43:37,389 --> 02:43:38,000
has.

3012
02:43:38,000 --> 02:43:43,020
Here is the infill boundary shown in red on the map.

3013
02:43:43,020 --> 02:43:45,719
Looking at how that breaks down, you can see an example on

3014
02:43:45,719 --> 02:43:48,540
the left of how those spaces would be measured based on the

3015
02:43:48,540 --> 02:43:51,000
frontage of the property that's not taken up by driveways

3016
02:43:51,000 --> 02:43:53,000
or some other form of intersection.

3017
02:43:53,000 --> 02:43:58,340
Then looking at an example, currently if they were seeking

3018
02:43:58,340 --> 02:44:03,280
to provide seven required parking spaces on site, based on

3019
02:44:03,280 --> 02:44:06,360
our current ratios, they would have to have space for 11 on

3020
02:44:06,360 --> 02:44:09,000
-street spaces to make up for those seven.

3021
02:44:09,000 --> 02:44:11,100
With the proposed requirements, it would be a little more

3022
02:44:11,100 --> 02:44:14,940
straightforward. If you have the 154 contiguous feet of

3023
02:44:14,940 --> 02:44:18,690
frontage to accommodate those spaces, those credits could

3024
02:44:18,690 --> 02:44:21,000
be granted at a one-to-one rate.

3025
02:44:21,000 --> 02:44:24,979
The fifth recommendation, as I said, is related to

3026
02:44:24,979 --> 02:44:28,000
additional modes of transportation.

3027
02:44:28,000 --> 02:44:31,250
Compact car parking is currently only allowed in parking

3028
02:44:31,250 --> 02:44:34,850
garages. Up to 20% of the parking can be substituted for

3029
02:44:34,850 --> 02:44:36,000
compact spaces.

3030
02:44:36,000 --> 02:44:39,829
This has rarely or never been used to my knowledge. What we

3031
02:44:39,829 --> 02:44:43,569
're proposing is to bring that down to 5% because compact

3032
02:44:43,569 --> 02:44:46,950
car parking isn't very common here and to allow those

3033
02:44:46,950 --> 02:44:51,000
spaces within any parking lot, surface lots or garages.

3034
02:44:51,000 --> 02:44:53,889
We're also proposing to strengthen our bicycle parking

3035
02:44:53,889 --> 02:44:57,209
standards, which are currently just recommendations, and

3036
02:44:57,209 --> 02:45:01,000
also add in accommodations for motorcycle parking spaces.

3037
02:45:01,000 --> 02:45:04,290
So providing standards for how bicycle spaces have to be

3038
02:45:04,290 --> 02:45:07,649
provided, the area of the parking as well as an elevation

3039
02:45:07,649 --> 02:45:10,940
above the regular parking lot to provide some safety for

3040
02:45:10,940 --> 02:45:12,000
the bicycles.

3041
02:45:12,000 --> 02:45:16,510
We would propose allowing one regular parking space be

3042
02:45:16,510 --> 02:45:21,010
substituted for four bicycle spaces or two motorcycle

3043
02:45:21,010 --> 02:45:22,000
spaces.

3044
02:45:22,000 --> 02:45:26,399
As I mentioned, we're proposing some minimum dimensions for

3045
02:45:26,399 --> 02:45:30,629
the bicycle parking area to allow adequate space and safety

3046
02:45:30,629 --> 02:45:32,959
. It would also require that that be within 50 feet of the

3047
02:45:32,959 --> 02:45:35,000
primary building entrance to encourage it to be actively

3048
02:45:35,000 --> 02:45:36,000
used.

3049
02:45:36,000 --> 02:45:38,899
And then we provide some options for how the bicycle

3050
02:45:38,899 --> 02:45:42,159
parking could be provided, either with a specific type of

3051
02:45:42,159 --> 02:45:45,370
rack or within a bike locker or some other covered storage

3052
02:45:45,370 --> 02:45:46,000
area.

3053
02:45:46,000 --> 02:45:50,000
Motorcycle parking, we recommend a minimum size of four by

3054
02:45:50,000 --> 02:45:51,000
eight feet.

3055
02:45:51,000 --> 02:45:54,590
And then in addition, this combination of credits for

3056
02:45:54,590 --> 02:45:58,399
bicycle and motorcycle parking shouldn't exceed 5% of the

3057
02:45:58,399 --> 02:46:02,000
total required number of parking spaces, the same as we

3058
02:46:02,000 --> 02:46:04,000
propose for compact cars.

3059
02:46:04,000 --> 02:46:07,219
All that being said, these changes are proposed in advance

3060
02:46:07,219 --> 02:46:10,250
of the pending update to the overall development code as

3061
02:46:10,250 --> 02:46:13,149
kind of an interim means of providing flexibility and

3062
02:46:13,149 --> 02:46:16,000
improving the residential parking standards.

3063
02:46:16,000 --> 02:46:18,639
As we discussed at work session, all of this is still

3064
02:46:18,639 --> 02:46:21,600
subject to change again with the DDC update. These would

3065
02:46:21,600 --> 02:46:24,239
just be kind of an interim step to get us heading in the

3066
02:46:24,239 --> 02:46:26,000
right direction, hopefully.

3067
02:46:26,000 --> 02:46:29,000
Just a reminder of how our current parking standards work.

3068
02:46:29,000 --> 02:46:32,159
It is a min/max, a very strict parking requirement. Any

3069
02:46:32,159 --> 02:46:34,670
deviation from that sends an applicant either through

3070
02:46:34,670 --> 02:46:38,450
providing pervious paving or to ZBA for a reduction or P&Z

3071
02:46:38,450 --> 02:46:42,000
for an ADP approval to have excess parking.

3072
02:46:42,000 --> 02:46:49,500
With that, we are recommending approval of this request,

3073
02:46:49,500 --> 02:46:55,000
and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

3074
02:46:55,000 --> 02:46:58,500
I'll ask a question, nobody else will. We had some

3075
02:46:58,500 --> 02:47:01,309
conversation in work session about moving this forward as a

3076
02:47:01,309 --> 02:47:04,040
stopgap, and if there were some items that the Commission

3077
02:47:04,040 --> 02:47:06,719
felt like that could be added as a recommendation, can we

3078
02:47:06,719 --> 02:47:08,000
still do that then?

3079
02:47:08,000 --> 02:47:11,040
There can certainly be recommendations associated with your

3080
02:47:11,040 --> 02:47:14,170
approval or recommendation on this, but then additionally,

3081
02:47:14,170 --> 02:47:16,829
all of this will still be, as I said, open for discussion

3082
02:47:16,829 --> 02:47:19,000
with the DDC update as that moves forward.

3083
02:47:19,000 --> 02:47:22,979
So with that, the Chair is going to make a motion to

3084
02:47:22,979 --> 02:47:27,020
approve this, and I would just put a request to City

3085
02:47:27,020 --> 02:47:31,190
Council as they deliberate this, that there's some

3086
02:47:31,190 --> 02:47:35,620
consideration given for the differences in areas in the

3087
02:47:35,620 --> 02:47:40,000
downtown area on some of the one-to-one parking and some of

3088
02:47:40,000 --> 02:47:42,680
the things that we talked about, versus some of the outlier

3089
02:47:42,680 --> 02:47:43,000
areas.

3090
02:47:43,000 --> 02:47:46,629
For example, along Loop 288, where we don't have near as

3091
02:47:46,629 --> 02:47:49,889
much congestion versus around the North Texas area, the

3092
02:47:49,889 --> 02:47:53,120
downtown area, the places that we have the most negative

3093
02:47:53,120 --> 02:48:00,690
feedback about parking, that maybe there are some abilities

3094
02:48:00,690 --> 02:48:03,690
to lessen some of the requirements there because of the

3095
02:48:03,690 --> 02:48:06,680
parking, and then some of these other areas that there's

3096
02:48:06,680 --> 02:48:10,680
ample space for parking, that there be some flexibility

3097
02:48:10,680 --> 02:48:12,000
there in that.

3098
02:48:12,000 --> 02:48:15,129
And some of those standards, and I realize this is a stopg

3099
02:48:15,129 --> 02:48:18,459
ap, but hopefully, again, to your point, it kind of spurs

3100
02:48:18,459 --> 02:48:21,690
the discussion about where this ultimately is going to end

3101
02:48:21,690 --> 02:48:24,750
up when the DDC comes before us, that there are some flex

3102
02:48:24,750 --> 02:48:28,329
ibilities in parking requirements for different areas of the

3103
02:48:28,329 --> 02:48:32,000
city versus if it's the same, no matter where.

3104
02:48:32,000 --> 02:48:35,000
And so, Commissioner Smith.

3105
02:48:35,000 --> 02:48:38,000
Thank you, Chair.

3106
02:48:38,000 --> 02:48:40,540
I'll second the motion, but I will say just as a way of a

3107
02:48:40,540 --> 02:48:43,340
recommendation that while this is a stopgap, I would just

3108
02:48:43,340 --> 02:48:45,729
make sure it seemed like from what we got when we as a

3109
02:48:45,729 --> 02:48:48,809
commission got an update from the DDC, that this feels

3110
02:48:48,809 --> 02:48:51,629
almost a little bit of opposite direction of where the DDC

3111
02:48:51,629 --> 02:48:56,000
is going, and so I would just encourage that city staff and

3112
02:48:56,000 --> 02:48:57,000
the city council take a look at it.

3113
02:48:57,000 --> 02:49:01,879
If this is going to be a stopgap, let's at least make it a

3114
02:49:01,879 --> 02:49:06,879
set the stopgap, similar to what we're going to see in a D

3115
02:49:06,879 --> 02:49:12,030
DC update if that's the track we're headed towards. I would

3116
02:49:12,030 --> 02:49:12,309
hate there for there to be a stopgap period of time where

3117
02:49:12,309 --> 02:49:12,629
there is more restrictive and a higher requirement for

3118
02:49:12,629 --> 02:49:13,840
parking, especially in certain areas, as the Chair pointed

3119
02:49:13,840 --> 02:49:16,639
out, that would only apply to projects that came before us

3120
02:49:16,639 --> 02:49:19,370
in that period of time, and then everything that came after

3121
02:49:19,370 --> 02:49:22,020
the DDC update had different criteria. It just doesn't seem

3122
02:49:22,020 --> 02:49:24,809
smooth, it doesn't seem congruent, so I would just make

3123
02:49:24,809 --> 02:49:26,000
that recommendation.

3124
02:49:26,000 --> 02:49:29,000
But I do second the motion to approve it.

3125
02:49:29,000 --> 02:49:32,540
We have a first and a second for approval with a couple of

3126
02:49:32,540 --> 02:49:35,000
recommendations. Commissioner Ellis.

3127
02:49:35,000 --> 02:49:38,309
Thank you, Chair. And Haley, if I'm just going to put this

3128
02:49:38,309 --> 02:49:41,389
on the record, what I said in the work session, just

3129
02:49:41,389 --> 02:49:47,329
suggest for clarity rewriting G2B stopgap or not. You want

3130
02:49:47,329 --> 02:49:49,569
people to understand what you're trying to say there for

3131
02:49:49,569 --> 02:49:50,000
sure.

3132
02:49:50,000 --> 02:50:01,000
Certainly. We can work on that.

3133
02:50:01,000 --> 02:50:04,010
Well, I may have spoken out of turn and got ahead of myself

3134
02:50:04,010 --> 02:50:07,159
because I guess we still have a public hearing that's open,

3135
02:50:07,159 --> 02:50:08,000
don't we?

3136
02:50:08,000 --> 02:50:13,360
You know, when you get towards the end of your term, things

3137
02:50:13,360 --> 02:50:18,389
start to kind of slip. So this is a public hearing, and

3138
02:50:18,389 --> 02:50:24,000
since there's no one here, we will close the public hearing

3139
02:50:24,000 --> 02:50:24,000
.

3140
02:50:24,000 --> 02:50:28,899
And I have stated my motion for the record and I will rest

3141
02:50:28,899 --> 02:50:34,270
ate it, since it's already on the record, remotion, which

3142
02:50:34,270 --> 02:50:38,659
has already been previously stated. And Commissioner Smith

3143
02:50:38,659 --> 02:50:40,200
has seconded with a couple of recommendations and

3144
02:50:40,200 --> 02:50:42,690
Commissioner Ellis as well, and I'm sure staff has got

3145
02:50:42,690 --> 02:50:43,000
those.

3146
02:50:43,000 --> 02:50:48,020
So the public hearings closed and we do have a motion to

3147
02:50:48,020 --> 02:50:53,540
approve with a second. And if there's further discussion

3148
02:50:53,540 --> 02:50:56,000
with that little cleanup.

3149
02:50:56,000 --> 02:51:09,000
Nobody will vote on the board then.

3150
02:51:09,000 --> 02:51:15,000
Motion is going to carry seven to zero.

3151
02:51:15,000 --> 02:51:24,000
That will take us to our project matrix for this evening.

3152
02:51:24,000 --> 02:51:26,000
Commissioner Ellis.

3153
02:51:26,000 --> 02:51:31,000
Thank you, Jim squeaky wheel. Number three.

3154
02:51:31,000 --> 02:51:36,229
I'm still looking for that process of signage follow up and

3155
02:51:36,229 --> 02:51:39,000
how staff is handling that.

3156
02:51:39,000 --> 02:51:42,500
So I asked that, well, this will be the third meeting in a

3157
02:51:42,500 --> 02:51:45,579
row. So we are we're developing an SOP for that we did make

3158
02:51:45,579 --> 02:51:48,000
some changes as a result of the last meeting.

3159
02:51:48,000 --> 02:51:52,000
The way staff is handling sort of the managing it.

3160
02:51:52,000 --> 02:51:54,409
What I wanted to do is formalize that through a full SO

3161
02:51:54,409 --> 02:51:57,149
standard operating procedure. And once I complete that I

3162
02:51:57,149 --> 02:51:59,709
will have that for the next we will get that we'll get that

3163
02:51:59,709 --> 02:52:01,000
at the next meeting.

3164
02:52:01,000 --> 02:52:04,000
Okay, I appreciate that. Thanks.

3165
02:52:04,000 --> 02:52:07,000
Commissioner Sullivan speaking of signage.

3166
02:52:07,000 --> 02:52:09,000
I drove by the access thing.

3167
02:52:09,000 --> 02:52:12,389
Those are nice signs. I don't know if they were the new and

3168
02:52:12,389 --> 02:52:16,000
improved, or if it's somebody did it different.

3169
02:52:16,000 --> 02:52:25,000
Those are the new signs. That's good. Very good.

3170
02:52:25,000 --> 02:52:29,000
And I would just put on the record Commissioner Ellis.

3171
02:52:29,000 --> 02:52:32,649
I've had the similar situation in the past with things that

3172
02:52:32,649 --> 02:52:35,870
were important to me not coming before, and I would

3173
02:52:35,870 --> 02:52:39,000
encourage you, if there are some specifics.

3174
02:52:39,000 --> 02:52:42,879
Maybe you can get directly with Richard or staff and have a

3175
02:52:42,879 --> 02:52:46,750
direct conversation about those things. And hopefully maybe

3176
02:52:46,750 --> 02:52:48,989
some of your questions can get addressed more promptly than

3177
02:52:48,989 --> 02:52:53,000
I know our schedules very packed sometimes.

3178
02:52:53,000 --> 02:52:55,780
Maybe that's a way for you to get your concern addressed

3179
02:52:55,780 --> 02:53:02,000
more timely as well. So, anybody else for project matrix.

3180
02:53:02,000 --> 02:53:05,639
As a reminder, I'm a closer meeting, one sorry one update

3181
02:53:05,639 --> 02:53:08,989
on the tree code because I know we've talked about that

3182
02:53:08,989 --> 02:53:10,000
quite a bit.

3183
02:53:10,000 --> 02:53:13,260
We will be presenting or having a discussion on that item

3184
02:53:13,260 --> 02:53:17,000
with the committee on the environment the week of 521.

3185
02:53:17,000 --> 02:53:19,700
So in the very near future that will be coming back sooner

3186
02:53:19,700 --> 02:53:22,350
sooner than later I know that was something we said it's

3187
02:53:22,350 --> 02:53:24,000
not dead it's coming back.

3188
02:53:24,000 --> 02:53:27,090
So we are we are in the process of making continuing to

3189
02:53:27,090 --> 02:53:30,239
make those changes, really think it through on a more

3190
02:53:30,239 --> 02:53:33,760
comprehensive basis, but we will be at the committee of the

3191
02:53:33,760 --> 02:53:37,000
committee on the environment the week of 521.

3192
02:53:37,000 --> 02:53:40,000
What is the time of that meeting.

3193
02:53:40,000 --> 02:53:43,590
It hasn't been set but what I will do is as soon as we get

3194
02:53:43,590 --> 02:53:46,770
that squared away I will make sure Athena sent a

3195
02:53:46,770 --> 02:53:49,000
notification to everybody.

3196
02:53:49,000 --> 02:53:53,180
Thank you. Okay, before I close, I want to remind the

3197
02:53:53,180 --> 02:53:56,010
commission that we've got an item that we didn't get to at

3198
02:53:56,010 --> 02:53:57,000
work session.

3199
02:53:57,000 --> 02:53:59,950
So we're going to reconvene when we close our meeting back

3200
02:53:59,950 --> 02:54:02,420
over in our work session room and we'll hear that

3201
02:54:02,420 --> 02:54:05,000
presentation and then we'll call it a night.

3202
02:54:05,000 --> 02:54:13,229
So, at 824, we'll close our meeting for this evening. Thank

3203
02:54:13,229 --> 02:54:14,000
you, everyone.

3204
02:54:19,000 --> 02:54:27,000
Good evening. The work never ends.

3205
02:54:27,000 --> 02:54:33,000
We're going to reopen our work session at 827.

3206
02:54:33,000 --> 02:54:36,610
And we're going to get back to our agenda, which is a work

3207
02:54:36,610 --> 02:54:38,000
session report.

3208
02:54:38,000 --> 02:54:43,000
Item a PZ 18 dash 095.

3209
02:54:43,000 --> 02:54:46,000
And I'm sorry I forget your name.

3210
02:54:46,000 --> 02:54:50,000
No problem. Sean Jacobson. Sean, thank you for your

3211
02:54:50,000 --> 02:54:50,000
presentation.

3212
02:54:50,000 --> 02:54:53,139
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning

3213
02:54:53,139 --> 02:54:54,000
Commission.

3214
02:54:54,000 --> 02:54:59,090
I'm here tonight to present on guidelines and standards for

3215
02:54:59,090 --> 02:55:01,000
the Denton Square.

3216
02:55:01,000 --> 02:55:04,239
So a little bit of background, as you may remember, we had

3217
02:55:04,239 --> 02:55:06,000
a tragic fire on the square.

3218
02:55:06,000 --> 02:55:09,000
We end up losing a historic building.

3219
02:55:09,000 --> 02:55:11,469
And that actually that did serve the purpose of

3220
02:55:11,469 --> 02:55:14,579
highlighting the fact that we really didn't have standards

3221
02:55:14,579 --> 02:55:17,200
to guide the development in the square area and

3222
02:55:17,200 --> 02:55:20,000
particularly to guide what goes back in that place.

3223
02:55:20,000 --> 02:55:23,590
Highlighted that. And so the direction we received was to

3224
02:55:23,590 --> 02:55:28,000
remedy that situation, preferably as quickly as possible.

3225
02:55:28,000 --> 02:55:31,049
At the same time, so we want to get standards in place. We

3226
02:55:31,049 --> 02:55:32,670
needed something. At the same time, we want to make sure

3227
02:55:32,670 --> 02:55:35,000
that we didn't overly burden business and property owners.

3228
02:55:35,000 --> 02:55:38,239
So we went forward with those two clear understandings in

3229
02:55:38,239 --> 02:55:41,459
our mind. Get something in place. Make sure that it's not

3230
02:55:41,459 --> 02:55:43,000
overly burdensome.

3231
02:55:43,000 --> 02:55:45,700
We didn't want to reinvent the wheel. So we went out and

3232
02:55:45,700 --> 02:55:48,909
researched comparable cities across Texas, Fort Worth, Gra

3233
02:55:48,909 --> 02:55:52,000
pevine, Waco, Roanoke, Bastrop, Coppell, and McKinney.

3234
02:55:52,000 --> 02:55:56,319
We looked at downtown plans, historic downtown plans, some

3235
02:55:56,319 --> 02:55:59,000
different types of instructions.

3236
02:55:59,000 --> 02:56:03,260
And we took what we could from that that we felt would be

3237
02:56:03,260 --> 02:56:06,000
beneficial for here in Denton.

3238
02:56:06,000 --> 02:56:10,709
From that, we brought forward kind of it. We wanted a

3239
02:56:10,709 --> 02:56:12,000
starting place.

3240
02:56:12,000 --> 02:56:14,899
This wasn't something for us to drive, but we needed to

3241
02:56:14,899 --> 02:56:18,000
create a starting point for stakeholders to work from.

3242
02:56:18,000 --> 02:56:21,590
So we took what we believe were some flexible, some time-t

3243
02:56:21,590 --> 02:56:25,059
ested concepts from Fort Worth, from other places, and

3244
02:56:25,059 --> 02:56:28,270
shaped that to what we believe would be some flexible

3245
02:56:28,270 --> 02:56:30,000
concepts for Denton.

3246
02:56:30,000 --> 02:56:32,469
And with that draft, then we got to the important part of

3247
02:56:32,469 --> 02:56:35,340
this process, which was going to our stakeholders, people

3248
02:56:35,340 --> 02:56:37,969
that would be most directly affected by standards on the

3249
02:56:37,969 --> 02:56:39,000
downtown square.

3250
02:56:39,000 --> 02:56:42,500
So we met with business and property owners. We actually

3251
02:56:42,500 --> 02:56:44,940
had a breakfast with them at Agua Dolce. Met with them,

3252
02:56:44,940 --> 02:56:47,000
residents, business owners, property owners.

3253
02:56:47,000 --> 02:56:50,110
We met with the Main Street Association, downtown task

3254
02:56:50,110 --> 02:56:53,000
force, and the Historic Landmark Commission.

3255
02:56:53,000 --> 02:56:58,020
And they each saw that draft, again, as a starting point.

3256
02:56:58,020 --> 02:56:59,000
We took their feedback.

3257
02:56:59,000 --> 02:57:02,020
Across the board, they were unanimously in support of

3258
02:57:02,020 --> 02:57:04,000
having standards for downtown.

3259
02:57:04,000 --> 02:57:07,120
Said, yes, move forward with this. They gave us some

3260
02:57:07,120 --> 02:57:09,940
feedback. You see some of the key things they gave us there

3261
02:57:09,940 --> 02:57:10,000
.

3262
02:57:10,000 --> 02:57:12,739
They wanted to make sure that the standards were flexible,

3263
02:57:12,739 --> 02:57:15,450
not overly burdensome, not creating something that was so

3264
02:57:15,450 --> 02:57:18,430
expensive that development wouldn't be feasible, at which

3265
02:57:18,430 --> 02:57:21,000
that was our goal, was to make that flexible.

3266
02:57:21,000 --> 02:57:23,629
And at the same time, we also heard they wanted meaningful,

3267
02:57:23,629 --> 02:57:26,309
codified standards, as it was put more than once, something

3268
02:57:26,309 --> 02:57:29,000
with teeth, something that wouldn't just be ignored.

3269
02:57:29,000 --> 02:57:32,159
So we took that feedback. But the main thing was they said,

3270
02:57:32,159 --> 02:57:35,370
yes, move forward. This is good. We want this. And that was

3271
02:57:35,370 --> 02:57:36,000
the important thing.

3272
02:57:36,000 --> 02:57:40,299
It should be shaped by those people who will be most

3273
02:57:40,299 --> 02:57:43,000
directly affected by that.

3274
02:57:43,000 --> 02:57:44,680
The other thing they helped us shape was what we're

3275
02:57:44,680 --> 02:57:46,500
actually talking about when we're looking at a square

3276
02:57:46,500 --> 02:57:47,000
district.

3277
02:57:47,000 --> 02:57:49,930
So we gave them a couple of options on a map of larger and

3278
02:57:49,930 --> 02:57:53,450
smaller areas. And what they settled on was what you see

3279
02:57:53,450 --> 02:57:57,110
there, obviously, the buildings fronting on the courthouse

3280
02:57:57,110 --> 02:58:00,750
square itself, but also one street back, the buildings that

3281
02:58:00,750 --> 02:58:02,000
front on that street as well.

3282
02:58:02,000 --> 02:58:04,209
So what they were thinking about, if you walk into Cart

3283
02:58:04,209 --> 02:58:06,440
wrights and walk out the back, you still want to have that

3284
02:58:06,440 --> 02:58:08,000
feeling of, I'm on the square.

3285
02:58:08,000 --> 02:58:11,389
The facades of the buildings you see should continue that

3286
02:58:11,389 --> 02:58:15,000
general character, that feeling of, that historic feel of

3287
02:58:15,000 --> 02:58:16,000
the square.

3288
02:58:16,000 --> 02:58:18,549
And they agreed. That was a good definition for what we

3289
02:58:18,549 --> 02:58:20,000
consider the square district.

3290
02:58:20,000 --> 02:58:23,229
So if we talk about these standards and guidelines, that

3291
02:58:23,229 --> 02:58:26,190
would be the area that it would apply to. Buildings

3292
02:58:26,190 --> 02:58:29,639
directly fronting on the square and then buildings fronting

3293
02:58:29,639 --> 02:58:32,000
on those directly adjacent streets.

3294
02:58:32,000 --> 02:58:34,649
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Sean, on those

3295
02:58:34,649 --> 02:58:37,049
adjacent streets, it's just the one side of the street,

3296
02:58:37,049 --> 02:58:40,000
though, correct? Is that what you carved out in that?

3297
02:58:40,000 --> 02:58:43,500
So it would be both fronting. Just like one side of Cedar,

3298
02:58:43,500 --> 02:58:46,000
though? Not the other side of Cedar?

3299
02:58:46,000 --> 02:58:50,520
Both sides of Cedar? It would be both sides of Cedar. Okay.

3300
02:58:50,520 --> 02:58:54,000
Because I think the drawing looked a little strange.

3301
02:58:54,000 --> 02:58:57,500
So just for clarification, Commissioner Ellis, what your

3302
02:58:57,500 --> 02:59:00,489
question is, is not only on the east side of Cedar, but

3303
02:59:00,489 --> 02:59:02,000
also on the west side.

3304
02:59:02,000 --> 02:59:04,250
Right. It looks to here like it's not going to be the west

3305
02:59:04,250 --> 02:59:06,659
side of Cedar. I agree with you. I think that's a great

3306
02:59:06,659 --> 02:59:07,000
point.

3307
02:59:07,000 --> 02:59:11,129
So, for example, the campus theater on the west side of C

3308
02:59:11,129 --> 02:59:15,590
edar, these rules would apply to it as well. Is that correct

3309
02:59:15,590 --> 02:59:17,000
? Yes.

3310
02:59:17,000 --> 02:59:19,479
So it just needs to be shaded a little different there than

3311
02:59:19,479 --> 02:59:22,569
I guess? And I do apologize. There was a line delineating

3312
02:59:22,569 --> 02:59:25,909
that, and unfortunately that's my bad. The line was lost in

3313
02:59:25,909 --> 02:59:28,000
the preparation of this presentation.

3314
02:59:28,000 --> 02:59:34,229
I apologize. So really, not only are Oak Street, Hickory

3315
02:59:34,229 --> 02:59:39,420
Street, Locust and Elm affected, but one street off. So C

3316
02:59:39,420 --> 02:59:44,840
edar, Pecan, Austin, and Walnut, all of those streets will

3317
02:59:44,840 --> 02:59:46,000
have these requirements then.

3318
02:59:46,000 --> 02:59:48,579
The frontages, the building frontages. The frontage, that's

3319
02:59:48,579 --> 02:59:51,000
what I mean. Yes. That is correct.

3320
02:59:51,000 --> 02:59:55,049
That was the express feeling of the groups that we took

3321
02:59:55,049 --> 02:59:58,510
this to that that made sense to them. The clarification is

3322
02:59:58,510 --> 03:00:00,000
the frontage, any building that fronts onto that street,

3323
03:00:00,000 --> 03:00:02,000
whether it's the back of the building, the front of the

3324
03:00:02,000 --> 03:00:05,000
building, the frontage onto that street. Yes, sir.

3325
03:00:05,000 --> 03:00:08,860
Or adjacency to that street. These rules will apply. So

3326
03:00:08,860 --> 03:00:12,610
really, if you're going to correct the drawing, we would

3327
03:00:12,610 --> 03:00:16,149
almost go back around one more time on the outside of Wal

3328
03:00:16,149 --> 03:00:20,209
nut, Austin, Pecan, and Cedar for those that may be watching

3329
03:00:20,209 --> 03:00:24,000
this. Okay. Yes, sir. Great question, Commissioner Ellison.

3330
03:00:24,000 --> 03:00:28,000
Clarification. Thank you.

3331
03:00:28,000 --> 03:00:36,000
And in fact, sorry, that's going the wrong way.

3332
03:00:36,000 --> 03:00:39,170
In fact, this is actually the original picture, and I

3333
03:00:39,170 --> 03:00:42,370
apologize, that was what I had intended to have on that

3334
03:00:42,370 --> 03:00:45,940
slide. So that actually has the line then extending it to

3335
03:00:45,940 --> 03:00:47,000
the frontage.

3336
03:00:47,000 --> 03:00:50,590
I think as a suggestion in the future presentations, it

3337
03:00:50,590 --> 03:00:53,989
would be advantageous for people to have that same blue

3338
03:00:53,989 --> 03:00:57,590
highlight that you've got on the buildings on the outside

3339
03:00:57,590 --> 03:01:01,399
to Pecan, Austin, so it's really clear that we're not just

3340
03:01:01,399 --> 03:01:05,540
looking at the shaded blue areas, thinking that's it, but

3341
03:01:05,540 --> 03:01:07,840
on the other side of the street, they should be shaded blue

3342
03:01:07,840 --> 03:01:08,000
as well.

3343
03:01:08,000 --> 03:01:13,500
This is a suggestion noted to make it clear that it wasn't

3344
03:01:13,500 --> 03:01:19,010
clear and I'm glad you asked the question. Yes, sir. Thank

3345
03:01:19,010 --> 03:01:20,000
you. Will do.

3346
03:01:20,000 --> 03:01:23,659
So thank you for that clarification. I appreciate it. That

3347
03:01:23,659 --> 03:01:26,000
is important.

3348
03:01:26,000 --> 03:01:29,239
What we wanted to look at then in framing this was kind of

3349
03:01:29,239 --> 03:01:32,930
the intent, the general principles, the goals here. We,

3350
03:01:32,930 --> 03:01:36,270
things that have been brought forward in the past include

3351
03:01:36,270 --> 03:01:40,000
form based codes that's been brought forward and has been

3352
03:01:40,000 --> 03:01:42,000
essentially told no, we don't want that.

3353
03:01:42,000 --> 03:01:44,899
We've brought forward at times, there's been the idea of

3354
03:01:44,899 --> 03:01:48,120
having a historic local historic district. And again, that

3355
03:01:48,120 --> 03:01:51,020
wasn't what we wanted to bring forward at this time what we

3356
03:01:51,020 --> 03:01:54,000
want to bring forward is simply a framework something that

3357
03:01:54,000 --> 03:01:57,440
creates on the square that says, this is the general feel

3358
03:01:57,440 --> 03:02:01,139
of the square we want to maintain this, this feeling this

3359
03:02:01,139 --> 03:02:04,000
atmosphere this character, while giving you creativity so

3360
03:02:04,000 --> 03:02:06,500
we don't want to tell you what paint color to put on your

3361
03:02:06,500 --> 03:02:08,940
building, but we would like your roof line to not be a

3362
03:02:08,940 --> 03:02:11,000
story above every building around it.

3363
03:02:11,000 --> 03:02:13,590
We would like to maintain that feel that has made the

3364
03:02:13,590 --> 03:02:16,940
square great while giving you creativity. So flexibility,

3365
03:02:16,940 --> 03:02:19,590
but still maintaining kind of a timeless standards so for

3366
03:02:19,590 --> 03:02:22,510
instance, Sherman building there which is not necessarily

3367
03:02:22,510 --> 03:02:25,229
historic, but it fits when you're on the square you don't

3368
03:02:25,229 --> 03:02:29,000
look at that and say what is that doing there, it fits.

3369
03:02:29,000 --> 03:02:31,209
So that's what we wanted to encourage the some of the

3370
03:02:31,209 --> 03:02:33,409
primary tools we're talking about to do that are the

3371
03:02:33,409 --> 03:02:35,850
certificate of appropriateness. So when you got your

3372
03:02:35,850 --> 03:02:37,840
building permit, then you would also be getting a

3373
03:02:37,840 --> 03:02:40,409
certificate of appropriateness that said yes this fits with

3374
03:02:40,409 --> 03:02:44,000
the standards and guidelines we've put out an apology there

3375
03:02:44,000 --> 03:02:44,000
.

3376
03:02:44,000 --> 03:02:45,000
Yes, sir.

3377
03:02:45,000 --> 03:02:49,000
Who is going to issue the certificate of appropriateness.

3378
03:02:49,000 --> 03:02:51,000
Thank you for bringing that up.

3379
03:02:51,000 --> 03:02:54,250
I'm ahead of myself as usual, my apologies. No worries that

3380
03:02:54,250 --> 03:02:57,129
's exactly where I was going to go. So one of the things

3381
03:02:57,129 --> 03:03:00,000
that has not yet been fully determined at times.

3382
03:03:00,000 --> 03:03:03,000
And I'm actually just going to go for it here.

3383
03:03:03,000 --> 03:03:07,000
So, you have a project on the square.

3384
03:03:07,000 --> 03:03:10,590
So general repair, a minor alteration, not doing a lot that

3385
03:03:10,590 --> 03:03:13,450
could go directly to staff and staff would look at

3386
03:03:13,450 --> 03:03:17,100
standards say yes, great, good, you move forward with that

3387
03:03:17,100 --> 03:03:20,760
that fits, you get your certificate of appropriateness, or

3388
03:03:20,760 --> 03:03:24,000
they might say, we think that doesn't fit these standards,

3389
03:03:24,000 --> 03:03:28,000
and you can say well I'd like to appeal to another body.

3390
03:03:28,000 --> 03:03:30,610
We are not going to be the ones to make a determination of

3391
03:03:30,610 --> 03:03:33,540
what that body is but we have gotten some recommendations.

3392
03:03:33,540 --> 03:03:36,290
We've had historic landmark Commission recommend as one

3393
03:03:36,290 --> 03:03:38,500
option. We've had a recommendation for a group that

3394
03:03:38,500 --> 03:03:42,000
represented downtown residents and business owners

3395
03:03:42,000 --> 03:03:45,500
like the downtown task force, or, and we've thought that

3396
03:03:45,500 --> 03:03:48,370
perhaps a mixture of those two groups could also be

3397
03:03:48,370 --> 03:03:51,639
considered property owners, as well as some historic

3398
03:03:51,639 --> 03:03:55,229
landmark Commission members design professional, but that

3399
03:03:55,229 --> 03:03:58,000
would be something that we'd like to get your feedback on

3400
03:03:58,000 --> 03:03:58,000
that would

3401
03:03:58,000 --> 03:04:01,500
something that council will ultimately decide, but we would

3402
03:04:01,500 --> 03:04:04,819
, we were told when we got feedback that they wanted to have

3403
03:04:04,819 --> 03:04:07,909
and we of course want to have a body of appeal someone that

3404
03:04:07,909 --> 03:04:10,000
a staff decision could be taken to.

3405
03:04:10,000 --> 03:04:13,079
So in the case of a major alteration or demolition and that

3406
03:04:13,079 --> 03:04:16,190
would go directly to that Board of Review, whatever that

3407
03:04:16,190 --> 03:04:18,840
was chosen to be again to determine if that fit the

3408
03:04:18,840 --> 03:04:22,219
standards and could receive the certificate of appropriaten

3409
03:04:22,219 --> 03:04:25,450
ess or not, and then, again, in the case of denial, the

3410
03:04:25,450 --> 03:04:28,000
option for appeal to city council.

3411
03:04:28,000 --> 03:04:31,069
Okay, I may be ahead of myself, is there a criteria coming

3412
03:04:31,069 --> 03:04:35,139
for minor and major alteration. So, that is not set in

3413
03:04:35,139 --> 03:04:39,000
stone one option would be the historic.

3414
03:04:39,000 --> 03:04:42,100
Preservation guidelines actually do define both of those

3415
03:04:42,100 --> 03:04:45,040
terms. So an option would be to use as set out in there,

3416
03:04:45,040 --> 03:04:48,129
the definitions they have for a minor and a major. So

3417
03:04:48,129 --> 03:04:51,049
things that went beyond just hey I'm fixing, fixing a

3418
03:04:51,049 --> 03:04:54,739
doorway I'm repairing something that's already there, where

3419
03:04:54,739 --> 03:04:55,000
you're

3420
03:04:55,000 --> 03:04:59,629
changing a whole facade or demolishing the building, but

3421
03:04:59,629 --> 03:05:04,549
that would be one option for defining that difference. Well

3422
03:05:04,549 --> 03:05:09,040
just some thoughts from being an old time didn't guy. I

3423
03:05:09,040 --> 03:05:11,000
remember back in the day when the opera house was painted.

3424
03:05:11,000 --> 03:05:21,120
That's certain color about that. And there was a lot of

3425
03:05:21,120 --> 03:05:29,000
comments and feedback about that color.

3426
03:05:29,000 --> 03:05:33,559
And there was a major alteration in the facade of the

3427
03:05:33,559 --> 03:05:38,180
building so. So, we have not chosen to put painting of the

3428
03:05:38,180 --> 03:05:42,319
building within the standards is something we want to try

3429
03:05:42,319 --> 03:05:44,000
to guide right now.

3430
03:05:44,000 --> 03:05:48,409
We know that our hope is to continue to improve these

3431
03:05:48,409 --> 03:05:53,329
standards, but we are trying to hit kind of some big ticket

3432
03:05:53,329 --> 03:05:58,020
item protection items first and then move forward from

3433
03:05:58,020 --> 03:05:59,350
there. Same time we'll certainly take that under advisement

3434
03:05:59,350 --> 03:05:59,659
and that's a good point that does have an impact on the

3435
03:05:59,659 --> 03:06:02,000
character of the squares that's an important thing to

3436
03:06:02,000 --> 03:06:02,000
remember.

3437
03:06:02,000 --> 03:06:18,100
Thank you, sir. So, the thing that you're brought up with

3438
03:06:18,100 --> 03:06:18,250
just the painting but considering the murals that are on

3439
03:06:18,250 --> 03:06:18,389
the square and possibly even bringing in, you know, the

3440
03:06:18,389 --> 03:06:18,540
Arts Council or some of the other arts communities into the

3441
03:06:18,540 --> 03:06:19,469
fold of this conversation as they, as, whether they have

3442
03:06:19,469 --> 03:06:22,250
suggestions for art to be added, or if there are certain

3443
03:06:22,250 --> 03:06:24,649
alterations that could affect some of the art that's

3444
03:06:24,649 --> 03:06:28,329
already out there, you know, like the mural that's on the

3445
03:06:28,329 --> 03:06:31,000
side of opera house, the mural that's on the side of a

3446
03:06:31,000 --> 03:06:31,000
house.

3447
03:06:31,000 --> 03:06:35,329
The side of a these now. So, just a recommendation. Yeah,

3448
03:06:35,329 --> 03:06:38,299
certainly and I appreciate that. And, and again we are

3449
03:06:38,299 --> 03:06:41,700
trying to keep it fairly high level with this there we can

3450
03:06:41,700 --> 03:06:45,129
always add new standards and adjust this, but trying to

3451
03:06:45,129 --> 03:06:49,049
really focus on those things that would make a dramatic

3452
03:06:49,049 --> 03:06:51,000
long term change.

3453
03:06:51,000 --> 03:06:54,370
I just wanted to clarify and maybe Roman can also add to

3454
03:06:54,370 --> 03:06:57,850
this but we do have some designated properties within

3455
03:06:57,850 --> 03:07:01,510
within the square. So if there is a mural that is planned,

3456
03:07:01,510 --> 03:07:04,879
it will go in front of HLC for a for their certificate of

3457
03:07:04,879 --> 03:07:09,000
appropriateness just want to go raise that.

3458
03:07:09,000 --> 03:07:16,000
I apologize I'm just tired.

3459
03:07:16,000 --> 03:07:19,790
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you. Okay, on that note of

3460
03:07:19,790 --> 03:07:23,809
historical, what of the square is historical, so it I mean,

3461
03:07:23,809 --> 03:07:27,819
obviously the courthouse but I mean is not. So this whole

3462
03:07:27,819 --> 03:07:30,870
area is that you've shaded out is not a historical

3463
03:07:30,870 --> 03:07:32,000
designation.

3464
03:07:32,000 --> 03:07:35,000
So that correct.

3465
03:07:35,000 --> 03:07:43,170
I'm going to make sure I'm going to look at Roman while I

3466
03:07:43,170 --> 03:07:50,059
say this to make sure that I get this right. But not all

3467
03:07:50,059 --> 03:07:50,430
buildings on that would fall into designation of federal

3468
03:07:50,430 --> 03:07:50,790
designation as historic buildings, there is a federally

3469
03:07:50,790 --> 03:07:52,000
designated landmark area there.

3470
03:07:52,000 --> 03:07:56,659
However, that does not provide any particular protection

3471
03:07:56,659 --> 03:07:59,000
for any of those buildings.

3472
03:07:59,000 --> 03:08:01,469
Not all of those buildings would be considered historic

3473
03:08:01,469 --> 03:08:03,559
some are some would not some would be considering

3474
03:08:03,559 --> 03:08:06,500
contributing to the National Register District. Some are

3475
03:08:06,500 --> 03:08:07,000
not.

3476
03:08:07,000 --> 03:08:10,610
Is that going to be similar to like when we have the oak

3477
03:08:10,610 --> 03:08:14,899
historic district. But if you haven't actually applied for

3478
03:08:14,899 --> 03:08:19,020
historic designation on your property. It doesn't have a

3479
03:08:19,020 --> 03:08:22,000
designation is just in the district.

3480
03:08:22,000 --> 03:08:26,110
It is not receiving a local protection in that sense it may

3481
03:08:26,110 --> 03:08:30,059
be part of the federal district but it is not local and in

3482
03:08:30,059 --> 03:08:34,329
some cases again, some of them are simply aren't old enough

3483
03:08:34,329 --> 03:08:37,000
to be a historic building per se.

3484
03:08:37,000 --> 03:08:40,090
So when you mentioned to the chair standards, were you

3485
03:08:40,090 --> 03:08:43,600
referring to national standards for historical buildings or

3486
03:08:43,600 --> 03:08:46,680
what were you referring to in this case I'm referring to

3487
03:08:46,680 --> 03:08:50,239
the standards that we're putting forward, potentially, let

3488
03:08:50,239 --> 03:08:52,690
me rephrase the standards that are within this draft and

3489
03:08:52,690 --> 03:08:55,200
been shaped by the feedback we've been getting your own

3490
03:08:55,200 --> 03:08:59,000
standards and that's my error and clarification.

3491
03:08:59,000 --> 03:09:05,540
So I believe somebody actually approved the mural that's on

3492
03:09:05,540 --> 03:09:11,000
the temporary wall was that approved by somebody.

3493
03:09:11,000 --> 03:09:15,139
It's like a, you know what they're paying on the side of

3494
03:09:15,139 --> 03:09:16,000
train cars.

3495
03:09:16,000 --> 03:09:22,000
I love art.

3496
03:09:22,000 --> 03:09:26,420
Real good question, Commissioner, what what what happened

3497
03:09:26,420 --> 03:09:30,000
there, which kind of looking at this diagram.

3498
03:09:30,000 --> 03:09:33,219
It's not really mentioned here but it is in the guidelines

3499
03:09:33,219 --> 03:09:36,309
as we've laid them out staff can always approve in those

3500
03:09:36,309 --> 03:09:37,000
areas.

3501
03:09:37,000 --> 03:09:41,200
And in the case of the mural. I think technically the staff

3502
03:09:41,200 --> 03:09:44,379
could have approved it and that would be me the

3503
03:09:44,379 --> 03:09:48,709
preservation officer, but when we have some leeway there,

3504
03:09:48,709 --> 03:09:52,610
and I didn't want to put my stamp of approval on that, so

3505
03:09:52,610 --> 03:09:55,000
that mural, the full mural.

3506
03:09:55,000 --> 03:09:57,889
They had a beautiful rendering of it went to the Landmark

3507
03:09:57,889 --> 03:10:00,940
Commission and the Landmark Commission approved the

3508
03:10:00,940 --> 03:10:02,000
approved the mural.

3509
03:10:02,000 --> 03:10:07,000
That's how that happened.

3510
03:10:07,000 --> 03:10:13,000
That's it was another question in there somewhere I believe

3511
03:10:13,000 --> 03:10:14,000
it.

3512
03:10:14,000 --> 03:10:17,170
Well, it looked really rough before they thought it was a

3513
03:10:17,170 --> 03:10:20,000
good cleanup there but it is correct now there are

3514
03:10:20,000 --> 03:10:23,659
approximately half a dozen structures on the square I

3515
03:10:23,659 --> 03:10:28,500
believe that are landmarked as local landmarks so all of

3516
03:10:28,500 --> 03:10:31,000
those local ones always have to get like the scripture

3517
03:10:31,000 --> 03:10:35,000
and James Coney Island is that is a local landmark.

3518
03:10:35,000 --> 03:10:39,000
And so is the one with the mural and there's some others.

3519
03:10:39,000 --> 03:10:42,250
Commissioner Smith, thank you chair. In regards to this, we

3520
03:10:42,250 --> 03:10:45,370
're seeking to look over and you'd make recommend us help

3521
03:10:45,370 --> 03:10:48,729
give you recommendations on is the, the actual landmark and

3522
03:10:48,729 --> 03:10:52,020
the, the regulations that go on with alterations to that is

3523
03:10:52,020 --> 03:10:56,000
that going to supersede this and on all instances,

3524
03:10:56,000 --> 03:10:59,709
whatever regulations are put down and put forth with this

3525
03:10:59,709 --> 03:11:01,000
and this new one.

3526
03:11:01,000 --> 03:11:03,840
The landmark for regulations are always going to supersede

3527
03:11:03,840 --> 03:11:06,620
this no matter what. Correct. Yes, and that's actually

3528
03:11:06,620 --> 03:11:09,059
something that's stated in the draft there that stricter

3529
03:11:09,059 --> 03:11:11,000
regulations in that case will prevail.

3530
03:11:11,000 --> 03:11:14,399
I know that I wanted to clarify. Commissioner Ellis on the

3531
03:11:14,399 --> 03:11:17,540
standards because that question was raised by citizen

3532
03:11:17,540 --> 03:11:20,659
recently why aren't we just adopting the United States

3533
03:11:20,659 --> 03:11:24,159
Secretary of Interior standards for historic preservation

3534
03:11:24,159 --> 03:11:26,000
or historic buildings.

3535
03:11:26,000 --> 03:11:29,639
When we the ordinance. When our ordinance revisions pass,

3536
03:11:29,639 --> 03:11:32,760
along with the debt and development code we have some

3537
03:11:32,760 --> 03:11:36,270
preservation ordinances that have been slightly delayed as

3538
03:11:36,270 --> 03:11:39,649
we just kind of bring them forward with that, and in there

3539
03:11:39,649 --> 03:11:42,000
under certificates of appropriateness.

3540
03:11:42,000 --> 03:11:46,489
When we the city or the Landmark Commission or whatever the

3541
03:11:46,489 --> 03:11:50,799
governing body is has to apply or may apply the Secretary

3542
03:11:50,799 --> 03:11:55,549
of Interior standards are adopted on guidelines, either one

3543
03:11:55,549 --> 03:11:57,399
. So those standards with quotes around him which refers to

3544
03:11:57,399 --> 03:11:58,000
the standards from

3545
03:11:58,000 --> 03:12:01,979
the Secretary of Interior. Those are sort of incorporated

3546
03:12:01,979 --> 03:12:05,610
in what we're doing, but we're allowing greater, we may

3547
03:12:05,610 --> 03:12:09,069
want to do more or do less but and they don't do anything

3548
03:12:09,069 --> 03:12:12,860
is about those guidelines they they only apply to existing

3549
03:12:12,860 --> 03:12:14,000
buildings.

3550
03:12:14,000 --> 03:12:16,809
We have now a vacant lot actually have to vacant lots of

3551
03:12:16,809 --> 03:12:20,120
parking lot associated with that other building. So, and we

3552
03:12:20,120 --> 03:12:22,969
don't know what will come forward in the future plus we

3553
03:12:22,969 --> 03:12:25,950
have buildings that are really kind of really relatively

3554
03:12:25,950 --> 03:12:28,000
new like the Abby in building, and that's

3555
03:12:28,000 --> 03:12:32,000
construction, it's going to be a long time before that's a

3556
03:12:32,000 --> 03:12:36,069
historic building, and if it isn't even altered in between

3557
03:12:36,069 --> 03:12:40,319
and then it won't be. So, the standards wouldn't don't have

3558
03:12:40,319 --> 03:12:44,000
enough breath to cover all that we need to cover.

3559
03:12:44,000 --> 03:12:47,590
Thank you. Roman one more on that note then so yeah so that

3560
03:12:47,590 --> 03:12:50,459
's what I thought so this is really needed for new

3561
03:12:50,459 --> 03:12:53,899
construction or younger buildings, right where those

3562
03:12:53,899 --> 03:12:57,319
national standards don't apply I'm trying to get my head

3563
03:12:57,319 --> 03:13:01,000
around historic and what we're

3564
03:13:01,000 --> 03:13:03,000
doing.

3565
03:13:03,000 --> 03:13:07,020
Let me let me jump in here maybe I can simplify this. These

3566
03:13:07,020 --> 03:13:11,219
, these standards are really just guidelines and standards

3567
03:13:11,219 --> 03:13:15,350
for everything within the square and what's considered the

3568
03:13:15,350 --> 03:13:19,000
new streets, the block immediately adjacent.

3569
03:13:19,000 --> 03:13:25,870
It applies to all buildings. So, historic or not. However,

3570
03:13:25,870 --> 03:13:32,239
if it's a historic landmark, then the more strict standards

3571
03:13:32,239 --> 03:13:35,680
shall apply. And it really is the only goal in this is that

3572
03:13:35,680 --> 03:13:38,000
we manage the square in its entirety so we have a cultural

3573
03:13:38,000 --> 03:13:39,000
component to our

3574
03:13:39,000 --> 03:13:44,350
community that we have no protection mechanism today. So,

3575
03:13:44,350 --> 03:13:49,180
the demolition of, or the construction thereof. There are

3576
03:13:49,180 --> 03:13:51,440
no standards or guidelines that apply. This is designed to

3577
03:13:51,440 --> 03:13:55,219
do that, and to complement where it is that we have

3578
03:13:55,219 --> 03:13:57,000
historic preservation or any of our

3579
03:13:57,000 --> 03:14:01,709
other codes and standards that are in place, not looking to

3580
03:14:01,709 --> 03:14:06,260
create another layer body or anything else as much as it is

3581
03:14:06,260 --> 03:14:11,000
it's just to preserve, you know the quality of what we have

3582
03:14:11,000 --> 03:14:11,000
.

3583
03:14:11,000 --> 03:14:14,760
Mr. Sullivan, is there any buildings I know this is going

3584
03:14:14,760 --> 03:14:18,100
forward you can't go back and say hey y'all need to redo

3585
03:14:18,100 --> 03:14:21,840
something. And you've got some examples of where they are

3586
03:14:21,840 --> 03:14:25,299
consistent and what that construction looks like and I

3587
03:14:25,299 --> 03:14:27,000
think that's all well and good.

3588
03:14:27,000 --> 03:14:31,270
If there's anything on the square today that if this had

3589
03:14:31,270 --> 03:14:35,909
been in place earlier, that would not have been approved,

3590
03:14:35,909 --> 03:14:40,200
or would have been inconsistent with what the downtown

3591
03:14:40,200 --> 03:14:45,000
should look like. I just for frame of reference.

3592
03:14:45,000 --> 03:14:49,799
I will, I will pick on, I will pick on one component that

3593
03:14:49,799 --> 03:14:54,639
comes to mind for me. And there's a green and white sign

3594
03:14:54,639 --> 03:14:58,000
that wouldn't meet the standards.

3595
03:14:58,000 --> 03:15:03,569
So if you look at the square then I name no names, but it's

3596
03:15:03,569 --> 03:15:08,510
a box sign with an acrylic front, which really isn't a

3597
03:15:08,510 --> 03:15:10,000
timeless design.

3598
03:15:10,000 --> 03:15:16,000
So, it's things like that. The building, the facade of the

3599
03:15:16,000 --> 03:15:16,000
building.

3600
03:15:16,000 --> 03:15:20,049
So, if someone were to want to come into a storefront

3601
03:15:20,049 --> 03:15:24,559
remove the entirety of that storefront and put a mirrored

3602
03:15:24,559 --> 03:15:29,149
glass front, it wouldn't match the character. So that's

3603
03:15:29,149 --> 03:15:33,459
what this is designed to do. And like I said I can only

3604
03:15:33,459 --> 03:15:37,870
think of quickly one instance of a structure that may bring

3605
03:15:37,870 --> 03:15:40,000
that into question.

3606
03:15:40,000 --> 03:15:45,440
I'd have two things. Can you go back to the map we were

3607
03:15:45,440 --> 03:15:47,000
looking at? Yes, sir. Just a second.

3608
03:15:47,000 --> 03:15:50,590
The question comes to mind on the square itself is very

3609
03:15:50,590 --> 03:15:54,329
apparent we've got what I'm gonna call the checker or the t

3610
03:15:54,329 --> 03:15:57,000
ic tac toe board the little corners.

3611
03:15:57,000 --> 03:16:01,670
When you go one street back, is the corner one street back

3612
03:16:01,670 --> 03:16:05,840
going to be included in that as well? That would be

3613
03:16:05,840 --> 03:16:11,000
something that would be excellent to get your feedback on.

3614
03:16:11,000 --> 03:16:12,510
We'd like to hear from you on that, because that is a good

3615
03:16:12,510 --> 03:16:13,000
question.

3616
03:16:13,000 --> 03:16:16,500
I just thought out as an observation we have it here but I

3617
03:16:16,500 --> 03:16:20,190
don't know that we talked about it one street back. Just to

3618
03:16:20,190 --> 03:16:23,860
throw that out. And this is again just work session we're

3619
03:16:23,860 --> 03:16:28,000
not taking action, we're making comments recommendations.

3620
03:16:28,000 --> 03:16:31,000
It's on the record now. Yes, sir.

3621
03:16:31,000 --> 03:16:36,610
The second one is two buildings come to my mind immediately

3622
03:16:36,610 --> 03:16:42,569
. The Fine Arts building and then the building that's burned

3623
03:16:42,569 --> 03:16:43,000
. Yes, sir. And let's just put the elephant there.

3624
03:16:43,000 --> 03:16:46,500
Obviously this is being taken up because for the most part,

3625
03:16:46,500 --> 03:16:52,180
those two properties. Yes, sir. And my question would be, I

3626
03:16:52,180 --> 03:16:54,850
would feel better if this is going to ultimately come

3627
03:16:54,850 --> 03:16:58,000
before us to vote on for a recommendation that the property

3628
03:16:58,000 --> 03:17:00,000
owners of both of those properties

3629
03:17:00,000 --> 03:17:04,409
are okay with what we're doing because obviously these

3630
03:17:04,409 --> 03:17:08,370
standards are being moved forward to deal with those

3631
03:17:08,370 --> 03:17:12,590
particular properties and so I'm curious if those building

3632
03:17:12,590 --> 03:17:16,899
owners have looked at this and go, check the box, we're 100

3633
03:17:16,899 --> 03:17:21,000
% A okay or five people around them are okay and they're not

3634
03:17:21,000 --> 03:17:21,000
,

3635
03:17:21,000 --> 03:17:25,129
they're going to be the ones that more than likely this

3636
03:17:25,129 --> 03:17:30,040
affects more than anybody else on this word. Absolutely. I

3637
03:17:30,040 --> 03:17:31,920
will say we have certainly made every effort to reach out

3638
03:17:31,920 --> 03:17:33,750
to repeatedly to as many of the business and property

3639
03:17:33,750 --> 03:17:35,000
owners as we can.

3640
03:17:35,000 --> 03:17:39,540
And I will say, I believe with one of the properties I can

3641
03:17:39,540 --> 03:17:44,090
think of, believe one of the gentlemen who may be part of

3642
03:17:44,090 --> 03:17:48,959
purchasing that was very supportive of this when we brought

3643
03:17:48,959 --> 03:17:51,000
it to his attention. In fact, he basically said I've been

3644
03:17:51,000 --> 03:17:51,000
asking for this for a couple years.

3645
03:17:51,000 --> 03:17:54,030
So but your point is well taken. And that would be a good

3646
03:17:54,030 --> 03:17:56,850
thing to ensure that we do. The only other thing that comes

3647
03:17:56,850 --> 03:17:59,409
to mind is there any height restriction I didn't did a very

3648
03:17:59,409 --> 03:18:02,030
quick thumb through on this is there a height restriction

3649
03:18:02,030 --> 03:18:03,000
on any of these.

3650
03:18:03,000 --> 03:18:07,129
What we have at this point is a principle that you should

3651
03:18:07,129 --> 03:18:11,639
be essentially harmonious with the height of the buildings

3652
03:18:11,639 --> 03:18:14,000
around you, and it was far bow.

3653
03:18:14,000 --> 03:18:17,000
Yeah, yes.

3654
03:18:17,000 --> 03:18:19,000
Yes.

3655
03:18:19,000 --> 03:18:22,229
I didn't know what I'm sorry I'm being a little flippant.

3656
03:18:22,229 --> 03:18:24,000
No, no, I understand.

3657
03:18:24,000 --> 03:18:27,649
It would be our preference to have it would certainly be in

3658
03:18:27,649 --> 03:18:31,149
line with the direction of the standards to say that you

3659
03:18:31,149 --> 03:18:34,629
should have your roof should be in line with the roofs of

3660
03:18:34,629 --> 03:18:37,000
those next to you in that block.

3661
03:18:37,000 --> 03:18:43,000
So as time progresses and things happen.

3662
03:18:43,000 --> 03:18:48,479
Let's say the building right across the street from Wells

3663
03:18:48,479 --> 03:18:54,030
Fargo the tilt wall building as a structural failure. It

3664
03:18:54,030 --> 03:18:54,959
could come back and say well Wells Fargo is 100 feet tall,

3665
03:18:54,959 --> 03:18:56,000
that's my next door neighbor I want to be 100 feet tall.

3666
03:18:56,000 --> 03:18:58,620
You see where I'm going with that. Yes, sir. I believe in

3667
03:18:58,620 --> 03:19:01,280
some ways we would need to leave that to the body that

3668
03:19:01,280 --> 03:19:04,000
would be looking at the standards we have look at that

3669
03:19:04,000 --> 03:19:07,000
situation and use their judgment in that situation.

3670
03:19:07,000 --> 03:19:11,000
And I would trust that they would make a good decision.

3671
03:19:11,000 --> 03:19:14,860
Commissioner Sullivan, so really Wells Fargo being built

3672
03:19:14,860 --> 03:19:18,709
under these guidelines, it probably would not be as tall as

3673
03:19:18,709 --> 03:19:22,409
it is under, you know, if this was put together, and now

3674
03:19:22,409 --> 03:19:26,000
they're going to build a new building on that corner, it

3675
03:19:26,000 --> 03:19:30,000
wouldn't be what Wells Fargo is today is that

3676
03:19:30,000 --> 03:19:33,360
I certainly can't speak to what decision would be made.

3677
03:19:33,360 --> 03:19:36,579
Well, I'm saying to stay in line as you say the height is

3678
03:19:36,579 --> 03:19:39,729
somewhat copacetic and not more than one story above I

3679
03:19:39,729 --> 03:19:42,000
think is what I read or something.

3680
03:19:42,000 --> 03:19:45,670
So that would preclude, you know, tall building like Wells

3681
03:19:45,670 --> 03:19:49,239
Fargo from going into that corner. I would suspect that if

3682
03:19:49,239 --> 03:19:52,450
these were in place that there would be some concerns about

3683
03:19:52,450 --> 03:19:53,000
that.

3684
03:19:53,000 --> 03:19:56,290
That's what I was wondering earlier just in my mind to see

3685
03:19:56,290 --> 03:19:59,870
what would be would not have been approved. Yes, sir. If

3686
03:19:59,870 --> 03:20:02,709
this had been under play in play. I think that's a

3687
03:20:02,709 --> 03:20:05,000
reasonable statement. Yes, sir.

3688
03:20:05,000 --> 03:20:08,000
Commissioner Rosal. Thank you, Chair.

3689
03:20:08,000 --> 03:20:24,110
Sorry I know you're fighting that. What is the overall

3690
03:20:24,110 --> 03:20:24,440
perspective the city of increasing height as you get away

3691
03:20:24,440 --> 03:20:24,729
from the square so can can the cedar streaming campus

3692
03:20:24,729 --> 03:20:26,610
theaters really tall, but is it the long term goal is we

3693
03:20:26,610 --> 03:20:29,000
build density downtown.

3694
03:20:29,000 --> 03:20:34,370
I would think, elevating building vertical makes the most

3695
03:20:34,370 --> 03:20:38,670
sense in the downtown core long term. How close can that

3696
03:20:38,670 --> 03:20:41,000
density and height get up to the square is this protected.

3697
03:20:41,000 --> 03:20:45,450
Could they buildings are budding like walnut, which I'm not

3698
03:20:45,450 --> 03:20:49,180
sure I don't know if that's Hannah's hand this is one

3699
03:20:49,180 --> 03:20:53,000
street down but those buildings. Thank you.

3700
03:20:53,000 --> 03:20:58,100
Could, could, has there any consideration of allowing the

3701
03:20:58,100 --> 03:21:03,200
maximum height to be 5060 feet there to start kind of

3702
03:21:03,200 --> 03:21:06,000
fading in denser structures.

3703
03:21:06,000 --> 03:21:11,000
Okay, simple question, multifaceted answer.

3704
03:21:11,000 --> 03:21:15,700
What you have today is what we've proposed and recommended

3705
03:21:15,700 --> 03:21:20,299
that we're taking to this body for feedback and input to an

3706
03:21:20,299 --> 03:21:24,909
earlier point we have not received a single derogatory or

3707
03:21:24,909 --> 03:21:29,850
person opposed to these standards, as of yet, nothing on

3708
03:21:29,850 --> 03:21:31,000
the record.

3709
03:21:31,000 --> 03:21:34,979
It's going to go before Council, and then we're going to

3710
03:21:34,979 --> 03:21:39,290
come back with an ordinance, and then refine standards from

3711
03:21:39,290 --> 03:21:42,000
all the feedback that we received.

3712
03:21:42,000 --> 03:21:46,959
Keep in mind that the square creating this as a square

3713
03:21:46,959 --> 03:21:52,620
district is the immediate square area those facades and the

3714
03:21:52,620 --> 03:21:58,260
, and the streets immediately adjacent to. So when you go

3715
03:21:58,260 --> 03:22:02,000
another block beyond so ie walnut.

3716
03:22:02,000 --> 03:22:05,770
Separate and apart from the fact as we look at the central

3717
03:22:05,770 --> 03:22:09,809
business district, where that central business business

3718
03:22:09,809 --> 03:22:13,030
district actually exists. And then ultimately the

3719
03:22:13,030 --> 03:22:15,559
conversation in its infancy stage is talking about having

3720
03:22:15,559 --> 03:22:20,000
similar overlay districts in the central business district

3721
03:22:20,000 --> 03:22:23,190
and saying, you may have something different, where it is

3722
03:22:23,190 --> 03:22:26,010
rail where it's more industrial and to the south more

3723
03:22:26,010 --> 03:22:29,209
residential and. And so trying to manage the character of

3724
03:22:29,209 --> 03:22:32,090
each of these components within the central business

3725
03:22:32,090 --> 03:22:33,000
district.

3726
03:22:33,000 --> 03:22:38,250
Our focus is exclusively on the square, and it just didn't

3727
03:22:38,250 --> 03:22:43,079
make sense to us when we propose this originally to say

3728
03:22:43,079 --> 03:22:48,110
that it stops on this, this, the storefront facing the

3729
03:22:48,110 --> 03:22:50,000
square proper.

3730
03:22:50,000 --> 03:22:52,770
We ended up with the facade on the street immediately

3731
03:22:52,770 --> 03:22:55,940
adjacent. But as you say that you have Oak Street which is

3732
03:22:55,940 --> 03:22:58,629
very similar in character so why don't we include Oak

3733
03:22:58,629 --> 03:23:01,659
Street and why wouldn't we include to the point of another

3734
03:23:01,659 --> 03:23:04,000
building well where do you stop.

3735
03:23:04,000 --> 03:23:07,989
So, this was very defined and very refined because we have

3736
03:23:07,989 --> 03:23:11,819
something that's unique and and really wanting to brand

3737
03:23:11,819 --> 03:23:15,549
this to say, this is the square of dent not to say that we

3738
03:23:15,549 --> 03:23:19,459
don't want all of these other areas to have a character and

3739
03:23:19,459 --> 03:23:22,000
for that character to complement

3740
03:23:22,000 --> 03:23:25,629
the square. So, we're going to manage that and then we're

3741
03:23:25,629 --> 03:23:29,000
going to look at yes, as as we, as we move out from that,

3742
03:23:29,000 --> 03:23:32,399
or go more vertical what makes sense and what what's good

3743
03:23:32,399 --> 03:23:34,000
for our community.

3744
03:23:34,000 --> 03:23:36,590
Sorry it's a long answer but it was just, it's a

3745
03:23:36,590 --> 03:23:40,059
complicated issue. This is just one of those first steps to

3746
03:23:40,059 --> 03:23:43,079
try to manage or maintain the character of what we have in

3747
03:23:43,079 --> 03:23:46,000
the square because we have no tools in place today.

3748
03:23:46,000 --> 03:23:49,000
Thank you.

3749
03:23:49,000 --> 03:23:54,940
I appreciate the clarification and it brings to my mind we

3750
03:23:54,940 --> 03:24:00,649
were talking based on Commissioner Ellis's question about

3751
03:24:00,649 --> 03:24:06,000
the facades on the streets immediately off the square.

3752
03:24:06,000 --> 03:24:11,270
And whether that should just stop basically what is the

3753
03:24:11,270 --> 03:24:16,989
blue highlight versus crossing the street because when you

3754
03:24:16,989 --> 03:24:20,090
cross the street. You take a whole nother core there as

3755
03:24:20,090 --> 03:24:22,000
well that depending on how those properties are shaped.

3756
03:24:22,000 --> 03:24:35,739
In my, in my experience, the properties on the west side of

3757
03:24:35,739 --> 03:24:38,000
cedar.

3758
03:24:38,000 --> 03:24:43,149
You can't make that whole block of being able to do

3759
03:24:43,149 --> 03:24:49,340
anything with that building because you've got the facade

3760
03:24:49,340 --> 03:24:53,000
facing north to Walnut Street.

3761
03:24:53,000 --> 03:24:59,250
And again, it's how it is that we treat or transition that

3762
03:24:59,250 --> 03:25:05,780
building into something else, knowing that we have unique

3763
03:25:05,780 --> 03:25:08,000
circumstances.

3764
03:25:08,000 --> 03:25:19,989
It's not going to be prohibited. It's designed to be

3765
03:25:19,989 --> 03:25:27,000
flexible. And again as we craft this and go forward.

3766
03:25:27,000 --> 03:25:31,739
I heard this Do we know this so muse being an old English

3767
03:25:31,739 --> 03:25:37,120
term, but really treating Austin cedar, those streets are

3768
03:25:37,120 --> 03:25:42,139
used as an alley by virtue of we have grease interceptors

3769
03:25:42,139 --> 03:25:48,219
and we have waste receptacles and so the city's looking at

3770
03:25:48,219 --> 03:25:50,000
how it is that we can help to facilitate

3771
03:25:50,000 --> 03:25:58,000
or improve those streets so we've dubbed them new streets.

3772
03:25:58,000 --> 03:26:00,549
We're looking at putting some investment into those streets

3773
03:26:00,549 --> 03:26:03,049
, how it is that we can consolidate the trash receptacles,

3774
03:26:03,049 --> 03:26:05,149
find other means to do something with that to try to

3775
03:26:05,149 --> 03:26:06,000
enhance that.

3776
03:26:06,000 --> 03:26:13,860
So the importance of capturing those streets within this

3777
03:26:13,860 --> 03:26:21,030
and the facades of those streets tie hand in hand. I will

3778
03:26:21,030 --> 03:26:21,420
also say there's been some conversation some dialogue about

3779
03:26:21,420 --> 03:26:21,790
, again, is there some ability to do some, you know, some

3780
03:26:21,790 --> 03:26:26,790
private, public ventures, where it is that maybe where we

3781
03:26:26,790 --> 03:26:29,610
did have a fire and there have been fires on the square,

3782
03:26:29,610 --> 03:26:33,000
can we as a municipality offer up some ideas on getting

3783
03:26:33,000 --> 03:26:35,000
fire suppression throughout the entirety of that area.

3784
03:26:35,000 --> 03:26:37,899
So how do we upsize the infrastructure to make it

3785
03:26:37,899 --> 03:26:41,819
appropriate. So, making those capital improvements that are

3786
03:26:41,819 --> 03:26:45,079
necessary to invest in our square because the importance of

3787
03:26:45,079 --> 03:26:46,000
the square.

3788
03:26:46,000 --> 03:26:49,870
Keeping in mind that we're focusing on one aspect of that

3789
03:26:49,870 --> 03:26:53,590
but there are any number of things that are going along

3790
03:26:53,590 --> 03:26:57,549
with that that really haven't been brought to the surface

3791
03:26:57,549 --> 03:27:01,469
as of yet but it's not a secret it just, it's, again, all

3792
03:27:01,469 --> 03:27:03,000
in its infancy.

3793
03:27:03,000 --> 03:27:07,120
Well that I appreciate the clarification is that that's

3794
03:27:07,120 --> 03:27:11,399
what I'm starting to think about is what you're calling the

3795
03:27:11,399 --> 03:27:15,780
new streets the one street off. When you move that another

3796
03:27:15,780 --> 03:27:17,530
layer out. It makes a very different or could have a very

3797
03:27:17,530 --> 03:27:19,290
different effect on what you can do on some of those

3798
03:27:19,290 --> 03:27:21,000
properties, depending on

3799
03:27:21,000 --> 03:27:25,500
what the building orientation is. So for example up there

3800
03:27:25,500 --> 03:27:29,819
on the northwest corner of Cedar and Oak Street you've got

3801
03:27:29,819 --> 03:27:34,000
one on the north side of oak and the west side of Cedar.

3802
03:27:34,000 --> 03:27:37,129
You've got one little skinny building there on the north

3803
03:27:37,129 --> 03:27:38,000
side of oak.

3804
03:27:38,000 --> 03:27:41,870
All right. Beyond that, you might have to save the little

3805
03:27:41,870 --> 03:27:45,590
sliver building but those other buildings would not have

3806
03:27:45,590 --> 03:27:49,000
any of those guidelines, unless there's going to be

3807
03:27:49,000 --> 03:27:53,000
something new with the new streets that impacts those.

3808
03:27:53,000 --> 03:27:56,690
So, again, as Scott said, definitely this is going to be an

3809
03:27:56,690 --> 03:28:00,280
ongoing process that's something where we would be able to

3810
03:28:00,280 --> 03:28:03,829
look at what we want to have. If this would work well would

3811
03:28:03,829 --> 03:28:07,170
we want to have a district that fit the character of that

3812
03:28:07,170 --> 03:28:08,000
area, a little bit more clearly,

3813
03:28:08,000 --> 03:28:11,120
so we may not what you need there may be a little different

3814
03:28:11,120 --> 03:28:14,129
than what we need on the area directly surrounding the

3815
03:28:14,129 --> 03:28:17,319
square and that's something we can look at. But again we

3816
03:28:17,319 --> 03:28:20,459
want to find somewhere to draw that line, so that in that

3817
03:28:20,459 --> 03:28:23,319
area right in and just off the squares like we are on the

3818
03:28:23,319 --> 03:28:25,770
square, and then being careful going beyond that to not try

3819
03:28:25,770 --> 03:28:28,000
and encompass everything in that realm.

3820
03:28:28,000 --> 03:28:31,049
And another piece to that is keep in mind is that the

3821
03:28:31,049 --> 03:28:34,370
reason we went to the property owners and the business

3822
03:28:34,370 --> 03:28:37,829
owners in that area is to get their feedback and input, an

3823
03:28:37,829 --> 03:28:41,200
important component for them was to be involved in what

3824
03:28:41,200 --> 03:28:44,000
that body was so that appellate body.

3825
03:28:44,000 --> 03:28:49,639
So let's use your example to say that the city said yep you

3826
03:28:49,639 --> 03:28:55,159
have to follow the standards and this is what you have to

3827
03:28:55,159 --> 03:28:58,690
do or no you can't do that. We deny a C of A, then it goes

3828
03:28:58,690 --> 03:29:00,120
before that that group of property owners and business

3829
03:29:00,120 --> 03:29:02,000
owners and they say well that just doesn't make sense.

3830
03:29:02,000 --> 03:29:05,500
And they go about their business so it's not as if this is

3831
03:29:05,500 --> 03:29:08,850
this is going to be the catch all or the gotcha. It is

3832
03:29:08,850 --> 03:29:12,700
really designed to manage what it's designed to manage, and

3833
03:29:12,700 --> 03:29:16,260
it's going to be overseen by those that have the greatest

3834
03:29:16,260 --> 03:29:20,819
input or as far as I'm concerned I think should be that app

3835
03:29:20,819 --> 03:29:22,000
ellate body.

3836
03:29:22,000 --> 03:29:25,000
Okay. Perfect. Thank you.

3837
03:29:25,000 --> 03:29:28,000
Okay.

3838
03:29:28,000 --> 03:29:32,680
Okay. I'm late. Anybody have any other. Do we have more

3839
03:29:32,680 --> 03:29:35,500
presentation. I was just briefly, I had a couple pictures

3840
03:29:35,500 --> 03:29:40,000
just to my apologies. No I understand it's getting late.

3841
03:29:40,000 --> 03:29:43,149
I'm not to go in, in any depth into what we're touching but

3842
03:29:43,149 --> 03:29:46,309
some of the things that these standards could help us look

3843
03:29:46,309 --> 03:29:49,809
at would include building edge. So again, generally trying

3844
03:29:49,809 --> 03:29:53,040
to guide buildings to create that nice frame. So you have

3845
03:29:53,040 --> 03:29:56,069
your creativity in here but you have a frame around lets

3846
03:29:56,069 --> 03:29:58,000
you know you're on the square.

3847
03:29:58,000 --> 03:30:00,719
Things don't stand out too dramatically articulation, so

3848
03:30:00,719 --> 03:30:03,379
that you know, hey, this is the first floor. This is the

3849
03:30:03,379 --> 03:30:05,000
second floor it's pedestrian friendly.

3850
03:30:05,000 --> 03:30:07,969
As you're approaching this building you're feeling welcome

3851
03:30:07,969 --> 03:30:10,940
windows and doors along those facades there. So again you

3852
03:30:10,940 --> 03:30:13,850
creating environment that's welcoming to the pedestrian in

3853
03:30:13,850 --> 03:30:16,579
terms of guidelines, we're not going to tell you to put a

3854
03:30:16,579 --> 03:30:20,139
door way on the corner but if you do, that's great you know

3855
03:30:20,139 --> 03:30:22,000
that's again it's welcoming orientation.

3856
03:30:22,000 --> 03:30:24,959
So we would want to have buildings that front on the square

3857
03:30:24,959 --> 03:30:27,940
actually have your main entrance on the square that's

3858
03:30:27,940 --> 03:30:30,899
welcoming it creates a frame there. You have lighting that

3859
03:30:30,899 --> 03:30:33,790
is not overbearing that's welcoming but not bleeding on

3860
03:30:33,790 --> 03:30:35,000
nearby streets.

3861
03:30:35,000 --> 03:30:38,309
And then, and this is kind of a key thing that we looked at

3862
03:30:38,309 --> 03:30:42,209
was requiring that you actually have a building along 100%

3863
03:30:42,209 --> 03:30:45,360
of that lot line that's on the square so that you're not

3864
03:30:45,360 --> 03:30:48,920
putting a parking lot and having you know building building

3865
03:30:48,920 --> 03:30:52,379
whole building that felt that was an important piece to

3866
03:30:52,379 --> 03:30:53,000
have in there.

3867
03:30:53,000 --> 03:30:56,360
Just a comparison some of the things we have had without

3868
03:30:56,360 --> 03:30:59,959
standards so the Texas building covered in a nice aluminum

3869
03:30:59,959 --> 03:31:03,219
cladding a roof here that is currently existing that I

3870
03:31:03,219 --> 03:31:06,819
believe belongs on a great temple maybe not on our square,

3871
03:31:06,819 --> 03:31:10,000
a Masonic Hall that was demolished to make way for a

3872
03:31:10,000 --> 03:31:10,000
parking

3873
03:31:10,000 --> 03:31:14,559
lot just off the square storefront where we now today have

3874
03:31:14,559 --> 03:31:18,829
fantastic windows and transoms with Montesquieu but

3875
03:31:18,829 --> 03:31:23,000
previously we had cement all blocking those up.

3876
03:31:23,000 --> 03:31:26,370
What we would love to see with these standards and what was

3877
03:31:26,370 --> 03:31:28,000
possible without them.

3878
03:31:28,000 --> 03:31:31,590
Again, you know, we're looking at screening making sure

3879
03:31:31,590 --> 03:31:34,819
that that equipment on your roof is not visible to the

3880
03:31:34,819 --> 03:31:38,370
pedestrian temporary construction, look at what could be

3881
03:31:38,370 --> 03:31:41,780
put in those places to screen that and have some approval

3882
03:31:41,780 --> 03:31:44,000
process for that actually encouraging

3883
03:31:44,000 --> 03:31:46,350
some pedestrian dining as long as you're not impeding on

3884
03:31:46,350 --> 03:31:48,799
the right way but creating an opportunity for restaurants

3885
03:31:48,799 --> 03:31:51,000
saying yeah, that's a good thing on the square.

3886
03:31:51,000 --> 03:31:53,590
Commissioner Rosal. It's going to be the time or place when

3887
03:31:53,590 --> 03:31:55,940
I'm sitting through out there, and we were considered

3888
03:31:55,940 --> 03:31:58,069
getting rid of some of the parking on the square and

3889
03:31:58,069 --> 03:32:00,000
increasing the exterior sidewalks.

3890
03:32:00,000 --> 03:32:03,250
I go to the McKinney Square, often, and I think why is didn

3891
03:32:03,250 --> 03:32:06,200
't not doing this in which there is a ton of pedestrian

3892
03:32:06,200 --> 03:32:09,819
dining, great walkways. Now granted didn't have to solve

3893
03:32:09,819 --> 03:32:13,239
the problem with parking downtown, but it seems like there

3894
03:32:13,239 --> 03:32:16,000
's a lot of cars and the walkways to get to place to

3895
03:32:16,000 --> 03:32:20,409
place or, you know, eight feet wide. I'd love in a perfect

3896
03:32:20,409 --> 03:32:23,889
world to expand those out and have all these great

3897
03:32:23,889 --> 03:32:27,000
restaurants with the outdoor eating but I don't know if

3898
03:32:27,000 --> 03:32:27,000
that's possible.

3899
03:32:27,000 --> 03:32:31,000
There is actually a plan for about the 1960s.

3900
03:32:31,000 --> 03:32:34,500
There's actually a plan that we discovered. One of our

3901
03:32:34,500 --> 03:32:38,360
planners offices from about the 1960s that proposed

3902
03:32:38,360 --> 03:32:42,170
basically that broader sidewalks more trees right along the

3903
03:32:42,170 --> 03:32:46,069
edges really turning into a plaza, rather than square. So

3904
03:32:46,069 --> 03:32:47,430
that is something that has been put forward that there's

3905
03:32:47,430 --> 03:32:48,799
been a lot of support for, and probably not something we

3906
03:32:48,799 --> 03:32:51,489
would try to address with this but absolutely something

3907
03:32:51,489 --> 03:32:54,200
that would be in the spirit of welcoming pedestrians to

3908
03:32:54,200 --> 03:32:58,889
this area so I pause and I'd say I strongly agree with

3909
03:32:58,889 --> 03:33:00,000
Commissioner Roselle's point.

3910
03:33:00,000 --> 03:33:03,500
point been to McKinney in the square over there. Totally

3911
03:33:03,500 --> 03:33:06,559
different feel, and there's some great restaurants and

3912
03:33:06,559 --> 03:33:09,639
places to go and I think that's certainly something that

3913
03:33:09,639 --> 03:33:15,000
needs to be considered in this process. Absolutely.

3914
03:33:15,000 --> 03:33:22,270
So, to finish up just to give you an idea of kind of the

3915
03:33:22,270 --> 03:33:30,219
timeline we're looking at right now so at this point we are

3916
03:33:30,219 --> 03:33:34,120
getting your feedback. In June we're going to go to City

3917
03:33:34,120 --> 03:33:34,340
Council and get their feedback. We're going to distill that

3918
03:33:34,340 --> 03:33:34,510
to create a draft and new draft set of standards and a

3919
03:33:34,510 --> 03:33:34,729
draft ordinance, and then crucially we are going to go back

3920
03:33:34,729 --> 03:33:36,329
to those stakeholders the property owners business owners

3921
03:33:36,329 --> 03:33:38,940
and residents who we have told will let you know when

3922
03:33:38,940 --> 03:33:42,149
changes are made to this, get their feedback on that again,

3923
03:33:42,149 --> 03:33:44,000
and then come back, hopefully, in.

3924
03:33:44,000 --> 03:33:47,649
Late summer, early fall for some more public hearings, move

3925
03:33:47,649 --> 03:33:49,000
towards adoption.

3926
03:33:49,000 --> 03:33:52,149
And again important continuous improvement so what we would

3927
03:33:52,149 --> 03:33:54,940
like to have in this final product built in is a planned

3928
03:33:54,940 --> 03:33:57,799
review and about a year where we go back and say how these

3929
03:33:57,799 --> 03:33:59,000
standards worked.

3930
03:33:59,000 --> 03:34:01,399
Have they done what we wanted them to do are the things

3931
03:34:01,399 --> 03:34:03,709
that we need to add in or take out we want to have that

3932
03:34:03,709 --> 03:34:06,000
almost like a sunset. Yes, sir.

3933
03:34:06,000 --> 03:34:12,280
Commissioner Smith, thank you, Chair, I encourage possibly

3934
03:34:12,280 --> 03:34:14,049
another another stakeholder to include Chamber of Commerce

3935
03:34:14,049 --> 03:34:15,639
and the CVB might be a really good option for us to bring

3936
03:34:15,639 --> 03:34:17,409
them in mainstream associations getting corporate a lot of

3937
03:34:17,409 --> 03:34:20,989
those business owners but as the CVB is also talking about

3938
03:34:20,989 --> 03:34:21,000
bringing

3939
03:34:21,000 --> 03:34:24,590
a lot of outside visitors downtown, just have them involved

3940
03:34:24,590 --> 03:34:28,139
in the conversation, not that they're going to say anything

3941
03:34:28,139 --> 03:34:31,219
that's over and above or different than what you know

3942
03:34:31,219 --> 03:34:34,860
mainstream association DTF, the residents business owners

3943
03:34:34,860 --> 03:34:37,750
down there to say but I think they might have some really

3944
03:34:37,750 --> 03:34:38,000
valuable

3945
03:34:38,000 --> 03:34:42,739
information in the way that how visitors to Denton perceive

3946
03:34:42,739 --> 03:34:47,270
the square. And if maybe external view the square might

3947
03:34:47,270 --> 03:34:52,000
change how we do our preservation and design criteria.

3948
03:34:52,000 --> 03:34:53,329
Also with seeing how we internally view it might also just

3949
03:34:53,329 --> 03:34:56,159
be a good suggestion. Absolutely really appreciate that,

3950
03:34:56,159 --> 03:35:00,000
certainly. And, and I will say on the feedback as well.

3951
03:35:00,000 --> 03:35:02,840
I'm going to hear from you so if I will make sure that we

3952
03:35:02,840 --> 03:35:05,930
have you do have a copy of all this, I'd love for you to

3953
03:35:05,930 --> 03:35:08,559
take some time to read that anything you want to email

3954
03:35:08,559 --> 03:35:11,299
directly to me and I'll give you my card to Richard to

3955
03:35:11,299 --> 03:35:13,000
Scott, that'll all go in you

3956
03:35:13,000 --> 03:35:15,889
know take your time with that and let us know what your

3957
03:35:15,889 --> 03:35:19,110
thoughts are we'd like to get all of that really appreciate

3958
03:35:19,110 --> 03:35:20,000
your time.

3959
03:35:20,000 --> 03:35:22,000
Last line.

3960
03:35:22,000 --> 03:35:24,000
That is the last line. Okay.

3961
03:35:24,000 --> 03:35:29,000
Any other questions for Sean, while we have him.

3962
03:35:29,000 --> 03:35:32,000
Commissioner Ellis, okay real quick sorry Thank you chair.

3963
03:35:32,000 --> 03:35:35,370
Okay, so to back up the, the standards and guidelines that

3964
03:35:35,370 --> 03:35:38,639
's what you want us because I made a bunch of notes on here,

3965
03:35:38,639 --> 03:35:41,000
so I'll just take those notes and email them to you.

3966
03:35:41,000 --> 03:35:44,000
Okay.

3967
03:35:44,000 --> 03:35:45,000
Great.

3968
03:35:45,000 --> 03:35:50,000
Great presentation. Good job.

3969
03:35:50,000 --> 03:35:54,000
Any other matters before we close.

3970
03:35:54,000 --> 03:35:59,000
Nope. Okay, we will close.

3971
03:35:59,000 --> 03:36:03,670
We will close the second round of our work session at 908

3972
03:36:03,670 --> 03:36:07,889
still early and compared to gas well timeframes would be

3973
03:36:07,889 --> 03:36:10,000
getting pizza about now.