WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.980
This meeting has been dually posted and we do have a quorum

00:00:03.980 --> 00:00:08.000
present and will call us to order at 504.

00:00:08.000 --> 00:00:12.460
This will be our work session and our first order of

00:00:12.460 --> 00:00:17.000
business will be to receive clarification of agenda items.

00:00:17.000 --> 00:00:21.000
And so I will move us down to

00:00:21.000 --> 00:00:25.739
would be our minutes. Does anybody have changes or

00:00:25.739 --> 00:00:31.000
questions on the minutes for the 11th or the 25th?

00:00:31.000 --> 00:00:33.000
No. All good?

00:00:33.000 --> 00:00:37.700
So we can take both of those in one motion and legal since

00:00:37.700 --> 00:00:39.000
there aren't changes to either one?

00:00:39.000 --> 00:00:41.000
Commissioner Ellis.

00:00:41.000 --> 00:00:44.000
Unless we have people absent, right?

00:00:44.000 --> 00:00:46.000
And I don't know if that's the case or not.

00:00:46.000 --> 00:00:48.000
For how they would vote.

00:00:48.000 --> 00:00:52.000
I don't know if I had to abstain.

00:00:52.000 --> 00:00:54.000
I don't know the attendance.

00:00:54.000 --> 00:01:00.369
Okay. So we'll do them as individual items and then we'll

00:01:00.369 --> 00:01:03.000
just have to deal with whoever may or may not have attended

00:01:03.000 --> 00:01:04.000
each one of those meetings.

00:01:04.000 --> 00:01:07.000
Okay?

00:01:07.000 --> 00:01:09.000
All right.

00:01:09.000 --> 00:01:13.000
That will then move us to our consent agenda.

00:01:13.000 --> 00:01:18.000
Any questions on the consent agenda?

00:01:18.000 --> 00:01:20.000
I have a question.

00:01:20.000 --> 00:01:23.000
Commissioner Sanchez.

00:01:23.000 --> 00:01:28.000
On item P18-005.

00:01:28.000 --> 00:01:33.200
We had discussed that item back in, I believe, back in

00:01:33.200 --> 00:01:34.000
November.

00:01:34.000 --> 00:01:38.780
And some of the information that was there at that time was

00:01:38.780 --> 00:01:43.000
presented that there was an ESA in the location.

00:01:43.000 --> 00:01:45.000
Around the lake.

00:01:45.000 --> 00:01:50.569
Now we're finding it says here that the ESA has been

00:01:50.569 --> 00:01:52.000
removed.

00:01:52.000 --> 00:01:55.000
The status of an ESA has been removed.

00:01:55.000 --> 00:01:58.719
My question is, should we not have that information prior

00:01:58.719 --> 00:02:02.000
to when it was first presented to us?

00:02:02.000 --> 00:02:06.280
Because it seems like not only it might have influenced how

00:02:06.280 --> 00:02:12.240
we made our decision, but also the contractor or the

00:02:12.240 --> 00:02:16.000
developer presented us with some plans.

00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:20.039
And to me it was a big -- might have been a big expense for

00:02:20.039 --> 00:02:24.150
him looking at that and then not finding out that the ESA

00:02:24.150 --> 00:02:26.000
is no longer in place.

00:02:26.000 --> 00:02:29.199
So I just wonder if that information should be available to

00:02:29.199 --> 00:02:31.960
him at the very beginning when he comes and asks for

00:02:31.960 --> 00:02:33.000
information.

00:02:33.000 --> 00:02:35.000
Is that --

00:02:35.000 --> 00:02:36.490
I understand your question and I'm going to make a

00:02:36.490 --> 00:02:37.000
statement.

00:02:37.000 --> 00:02:39.000
I'm going to look at Deborah and see if she nods or not.

00:02:39.000 --> 00:02:42.000
And if not, I'm going to call her forward.

00:02:42.000 --> 00:02:43.000
I can address that.

00:02:43.000 --> 00:02:44.000
You can address it even better.

00:02:44.000 --> 00:02:46.000
Haley, please, help us.

00:02:46.000 --> 00:02:47.000
All right.

00:02:47.000 --> 00:02:48.979
At the time of the rezoning and SUP request, a field

00:02:48.979 --> 00:02:51.000
assessment of the ESA on site had not been done.

00:02:51.000 --> 00:02:54.030
So the map reflected that there was possible riparian

00:02:54.030 --> 00:02:57.000
buffer around the pond or the lake that's on site.

00:02:57.000 --> 00:02:59.250
Since getting approval for the zoning to move forward with

00:02:59.250 --> 00:03:01.849
the project, they have contacted staff, requested that

00:03:01.849 --> 00:03:04.620
field assessment, and when that was done, it was determined

00:03:04.620 --> 00:03:07.699
that the conditions weren't present and the ESA was since

00:03:07.699 --> 00:03:10.000
removed from the map.

00:03:10.000 --> 00:03:12.080
So it was -- the field assessment was the missing link

00:03:12.080 --> 00:03:14.000
there, but that has since been conducted.

00:03:14.000 --> 00:03:17.009
It wasn't done prior to the rezoning and SUP because at

00:03:17.009 --> 00:03:20.250
that point they didn't know if they would get approval for

00:03:20.250 --> 00:03:23.000
the use they were seeking on the property.

00:03:23.000 --> 00:03:24.000
I understand that.

00:03:24.000 --> 00:03:28.759
My question is, even though -- I mean, it goes before us as

00:03:28.759 --> 00:03:33.090
rezoning, but it's still -- he still presented us some

00:03:33.090 --> 00:03:38.000
information that I imagine the contractor went through some

00:03:38.000 --> 00:03:43.000
process because he gave us how he was going to -- what he

00:03:43.000 --> 00:03:43.000
was going to consume.

00:03:43.000 --> 00:03:44.000
What he was going to construct.

00:03:44.000 --> 00:03:47.000
How he was going to put the buildings and all that.

00:03:47.000 --> 00:03:51.180
So when he went through that expense or to develop that, he

00:03:51.180 --> 00:03:55.000
was under the impression that the ESA was in place.

00:03:55.000 --> 00:03:58.639
So I'm just saying is should that -- at the time when a

00:03:58.639 --> 00:04:02.699
person -- developer comes in and there's an ESA in the area

00:04:02.699 --> 00:04:06.490
, should at that point we should make sure to say, hey, even

00:04:06.490 --> 00:04:09.729
if we have to wait a couple of days and say, before we do

00:04:09.729 --> 00:04:11.000
the rezoning,

00:04:11.000 --> 00:04:14.590
we need to make sure that this ESA exists or doesn't exist

00:04:14.590 --> 00:04:18.089
because that may be an expense he's going to have to create

00:04:18.089 --> 00:04:21.699
in the process and then later on finds out it doesn't exist

00:04:21.699 --> 00:04:22.000
.

00:04:22.000 --> 00:04:26.000
The ESA assessment is always available at any time.

00:04:26.000 --> 00:04:28.579
It's incumbent upon the owner and the applicant to request

00:04:28.579 --> 00:04:29.000
that.

00:04:29.000 --> 00:04:31.620
So they were aware of the ESA and they could do the

00:04:31.620 --> 00:04:34.000
assessment at the time of the rezoning.

00:04:34.000 --> 00:04:37.000
They chose to wait and do it at the end.

00:04:37.000 --> 00:04:40.389
Phase one of the development, which is the more eminent

00:04:40.389 --> 00:04:43.850
product here on lot one, has always been intended to stay

00:04:43.850 --> 00:04:46.949
away from the lake and out of that ESA, whether it was

00:04:46.949 --> 00:04:48.000
there or not.

00:04:48.000 --> 00:04:51.300
Phase two, which would be the ultimate development of lot

00:04:51.300 --> 00:04:54.209
two, phases two and three, are still very conceptual at

00:04:54.209 --> 00:04:56.629
this time and they have no immediate plans for developing

00:04:56.629 --> 00:04:58.750
those and those would have been the phases that would have

00:04:58.750 --> 00:05:02.000
been affected by the ESA had it been there.

00:05:02.000 --> 00:05:05.600
So the ESA being there or not has had no effect on their

00:05:05.600 --> 00:05:14.000
immediate development of lot one.

00:05:14.000 --> 00:05:15.000
Do you have a follow up question?

00:05:15.000 --> 00:05:16.000
No, no.

00:05:16.000 --> 00:05:17.000
Okay.

00:05:17.000 --> 00:05:24.430
Anyone else have a question on this particular item on the

00:05:24.430 --> 00:05:27.000
consent agenda?

00:05:27.000 --> 00:05:28.000
No.

00:05:28.000 --> 00:05:29.000
Okay.

00:05:29.000 --> 00:05:34.000
How about on the next item on our consent agenda?

00:05:34.000 --> 00:05:37.000
Any questions on that?

00:05:37.000 --> 00:05:38.000
Nobody.

00:05:38.000 --> 00:05:39.000
Okay.

00:05:39.000 --> 00:05:43.009
That will move us to our public hearing section and we're

00:05:43.009 --> 00:05:46.939
going to make a change on our agenda as far as the order in

00:05:46.939 --> 00:05:50.000
which these are going to be presented.

00:05:50.000 --> 00:05:53.980
I have a conflict of interest on item A and item D and we

00:05:53.980 --> 00:05:58.009
're going to move item D up under A and it will become B so

00:05:58.009 --> 00:06:01.970
that I can step out for both items and then come back at

00:06:01.970 --> 00:06:05.000
one time during our public hearings.

00:06:05.000 --> 00:06:08.000
So our order will be item A.

00:06:08.000 --> 00:06:12.000
What's currently shown as item B will become C.

00:06:12.000 --> 00:06:15.000
Currently item C will become D.

00:06:15.000 --> 00:06:18.709
What is currently shown as item D will be B as in boy and

00:06:18.709 --> 00:06:22.000
then we will be back on schedule with E and F.

00:06:22.000 --> 00:06:25.980
So at this time the work session because of a conflict of

00:06:25.980 --> 00:06:30.259
interest on A and the renumbered item B, I'm going to step

00:06:30.259 --> 00:06:35.000
out and turn the work session over to Commissioner Roselle.

00:06:35.000 --> 00:06:38.000
Thank you, Chair.

00:06:38.000 --> 00:06:42.000
So the first item is Z180004.

00:06:42.000 --> 00:06:44.000
Looks like Cindy Jackson is presenting or?

00:06:44.000 --> 00:06:45.000
I will be.

00:06:45.000 --> 00:06:48.000
Okay, awesome.

00:06:48.000 --> 00:06:49.000
Floor is yours, Haley.

00:06:49.000 --> 00:06:54.000
Okay, this is case Z180004 for Access Bank.

00:06:54.000 --> 00:06:57.399
So the request before you is a rezoning of four parcels of

00:06:57.399 --> 00:06:58.000
land.

00:06:58.000 --> 00:07:00.000
Total is just over one acre.

00:07:00.000 --> 00:07:03.000
You can see the parcels outlined on both the maps here.

00:07:03.000 --> 00:07:06.589
The request is to rezone from DR1, which you see on the top

00:07:06.589 --> 00:07:10.399
map, to DCG District, Downtown Commercial General, which is

00:07:10.399 --> 00:07:12.000
shown on the bottom map.

00:07:12.000 --> 00:07:15.589
These properties are collectively located northwest of the

00:07:15.589 --> 00:07:19.439
Eagle and Myrtle Street intersection, also on the west side

00:07:19.439 --> 00:07:23.000
of Myrtle and southeast of Maple and Pacific.

00:07:23.000 --> 00:07:27.000
So kind of spread across an entire block.

00:07:27.000 --> 00:07:29.939
Looking at this request, one of the first things we looked

00:07:29.939 --> 00:07:32.939
at was the future land use designation for this area, which

00:07:32.939 --> 00:07:35.000
is the downtown compatibility area.

00:07:35.000 --> 00:07:38.589
The intent of this area is to create areas with compatible

00:07:38.589 --> 00:07:41.500
form and uses that strengthen to serve both the

00:07:41.500 --> 00:07:45.269
neighborhoods surrounding downtown as well as the downtown

00:07:45.269 --> 00:07:46.000
area.

00:07:46.000 --> 00:07:49.199
Development in this area is typically a mixture of uses,

00:07:49.199 --> 00:07:51.000
commercial, residential.

00:07:51.000 --> 00:07:54.980
In some cases, we even do have industrial uses existing in

00:07:54.980 --> 00:07:56.000
these areas.

00:07:56.000 --> 00:08:01.189
When looking at the requested zoning, DCG would be an

00:08:01.189 --> 00:08:06.459
extension of the [INAUDIBLE] around this already to the

00:08:06.459 --> 00:08:07.000
east, south, and west.

00:08:07.000 --> 00:08:09.620
The uses that are permitted within the DCG District are

00:08:09.620 --> 00:08:12.480
consistent with what exists in the area today, which

00:08:12.480 --> 00:08:17.699
includes banks, other offices, and some single-family homes

00:08:17.699 --> 00:08:18.000
.

00:08:18.000 --> 00:08:21.980
Looking at access to the property, the property has front

00:08:21.980 --> 00:08:25.930
age on Maple and Myrtle as well as Eagle, depending on which

00:08:25.930 --> 00:08:28.000
parcel you're looking at.

00:08:28.000 --> 00:08:31.269
The red and blue lines on the map show where water and

00:08:31.269 --> 00:08:34.990
sewer are available in this area, so there's ample access

00:08:34.990 --> 00:08:38.000
to utilities and streets for the property.

00:08:38.000 --> 00:08:41.169
A concept plan was provided with this rezoning. It was

00:08:41.169 --> 00:08:42.000
included in your backup.

00:08:42.000 --> 00:08:44.759
So you could see on the northern lots, they're proposing

00:08:44.759 --> 00:08:47.409
this is approved to add four office buildings as well as

00:08:47.409 --> 00:08:49.000
some associated parking.

00:08:49.000 --> 00:08:53.860
On the southern parcel that kind of stands on its own, they

00:08:53.860 --> 00:08:58.000
're intending to add a parking lot in this area.

00:08:58.000 --> 00:09:00.000
Notifications were sent regarding this request.

00:09:00.000 --> 00:09:04.070
We received one response in opposition outlined in red on

00:09:04.070 --> 00:09:07.299
the map from an adjoining property owner and three

00:09:07.299 --> 00:09:08.000
responses in favor,

00:09:08.000 --> 00:09:12.279
one of which was from the current owner of Access Bank as

00:09:12.279 --> 00:09:17.000
well as two properties to the north of Maple Street here.

00:09:17.000 --> 00:09:21.419
So based on the percentages, that was 2% of the land area

00:09:21.419 --> 00:09:25.000
opposed and 26% indicated favorably.

00:09:25.000 --> 00:09:26.000
Commissioner Beck.

00:09:26.000 --> 00:09:27.000
Thank you, Vice Chair.

00:09:27.000 --> 00:09:32.169
Haley, the two properties that were for it on Maple, the

00:09:32.169 --> 00:09:35.000
owners don't actually live in those two houses, do they?

00:09:35.000 --> 00:09:37.000
They rent them?

00:09:37.000 --> 00:09:40.049
I'm not aware of the specifics for those properties. I

00:09:40.049 --> 00:09:43.000
believe there is quite a bit of rental in this area though.

00:09:43.000 --> 00:09:46.299
And the total number of residential buildings that are

00:09:46.299 --> 00:09:50.000
going to be removed for this development, I counted five.

00:09:50.000 --> 00:09:52.000
Is that right?

00:09:52.000 --> 00:09:56.090
I believe there is more than one home on some of these lots

00:09:56.090 --> 00:09:59.000
, so it's at least four, I believe.

00:09:59.000 --> 00:10:04.149
Okay, because the little extension that sticks out there to

00:10:04.149 --> 00:10:08.980
the right and touches front Myrtle Street, is that going to

00:10:08.980 --> 00:10:11.000
sit between two different houses?

00:10:11.000 --> 00:10:15.409
Or is the house to the south of it, which there is, is that

00:10:15.409 --> 00:10:19.000
going to be removed or is that going to stay?

00:10:19.000 --> 00:10:22.000
If you, let me put the wrong direction there.

00:10:22.000 --> 00:10:25.039
So on the concept plan, I believe that existing house that

00:10:25.039 --> 00:10:28.070
you were seeing that was within the green area sits roughly

00:10:28.070 --> 00:10:29.000
in this area.

00:10:29.000 --> 00:10:31.000
So it would also be removed as well.

00:10:31.000 --> 00:10:35.000
Okay, thanks.

00:10:35.000 --> 00:10:36.000
Commissioner Ellis.

00:10:36.000 --> 00:10:38.000
Thank you, Vice Chair.

00:10:38.000 --> 00:10:41.879
Yes, Larry, those are two investors on those two northern

00:10:41.879 --> 00:10:43.000
properties.

00:10:43.000 --> 00:10:45.769
Haley, I know I asked you about the addresses that were

00:10:45.769 --> 00:10:48.750
affected, so there's two more houses under, you know how

00:10:48.750 --> 00:10:51.649
you've got the little outline of what the zoning request is

00:10:51.649 --> 00:10:52.000
.

00:10:52.000 --> 00:10:55.080
There's two more residences, but I guess that's already

00:10:55.080 --> 00:10:58.000
been rezoned and those houses are just going away.

00:10:58.000 --> 00:11:00.940
Yes, those houses, it shows on our map for DCAD to

00:11:00.940 --> 00:11:04.090
currently already be one parcel and it's all zoned ECG

00:11:04.090 --> 00:11:05.000
currently.

00:11:05.000 --> 00:11:08.000
Well, currently there's two houses there as well.

00:11:08.000 --> 00:11:10.559
Yeah, I'm not sure if it's all under the same ownership

00:11:10.559 --> 00:11:13.000
perhaps, but it does reflect as one property.

00:11:13.000 --> 00:11:15.000
Okay, and it already has the zoning.

00:11:15.000 --> 00:11:16.000
Yes, that's correct.

00:11:16.000 --> 00:11:17.000
But the houses remain current.

00:11:17.000 --> 00:11:18.000
Yes.

00:11:18.000 --> 00:11:25.000
Okay, thanks.

00:11:25.000 --> 00:11:28.000
All right.

00:11:28.000 --> 00:11:31.710
So with that, staff is recommending approval of the request

00:11:31.710 --> 00:11:32.000
.

00:11:32.000 --> 00:11:34.470
We found DCG to be consistent with the goals and objectives

00:11:34.470 --> 00:11:36.000
of the Denton Plan 2030.

00:11:36.000 --> 00:11:39.360
We found that the zoning would also be compatible with the

00:11:39.360 --> 00:11:42.950
mixture of uses in the area as well as permitted uses under

00:11:42.950 --> 00:11:45.000
the surrounding DCG zoning.

00:11:45.000 --> 00:11:49.000
And with that, if there are any other questions.

00:11:49.000 --> 00:11:50.000
Any questions?

00:11:50.000 --> 00:11:51.000
Commissioner Beck.

00:11:51.000 --> 00:11:53.000
Thank you, Vice Chair.

00:11:53.000 --> 00:11:56.000
Is the applicant going to be here tonight?

00:11:56.000 --> 00:11:57.000
I believe so.

00:11:57.000 --> 00:11:58.000
Then I can ask a question.

00:11:58.000 --> 00:12:00.000
Okay, well I'll wait for that then.

00:12:00.000 --> 00:12:01.000
We'll get you to public hearing.

00:12:01.000 --> 00:12:05.000
Thank you.

00:12:05.000 --> 00:12:06.000
Commissioner Smith.

00:12:06.000 --> 00:12:07.000
Thank you, Vice Chair.

00:12:07.000 --> 00:12:10.000
Did they do any neighborhood meetings?

00:12:10.000 --> 00:12:13.000
I'm not aware of a neighborhood meeting.

00:12:13.000 --> 00:12:15.000
I don't believe they had one.

00:12:15.000 --> 00:12:16.000
Okay.

00:12:16.000 --> 00:12:19.340
And the homes that are currently on there now, are they

00:12:19.340 --> 00:12:21.000
owned by the applicant?

00:12:21.000 --> 00:12:24.370
I believe so since this is all considered one parcel under

00:12:24.370 --> 00:12:25.000
DCEDD.

00:12:25.000 --> 00:12:28.000
I believe it's all under the same ownership currently.

00:12:28.000 --> 00:12:31.220
And the homes that are on there now, are they currently

00:12:31.220 --> 00:12:32.000
occupied?

00:12:32.000 --> 00:12:33.000
That I'm not aware of.

00:12:33.000 --> 00:12:35.000
Okay, then try to find out for the public hearing.

00:12:35.000 --> 00:12:38.000
Thank you.

00:12:38.000 --> 00:12:40.269
And just to reiterate Commissioner Beck's point, we will

00:12:40.269 --> 00:12:44.000
have this in public session at 630 in city council chambers

00:12:44.000 --> 00:12:46.000
where you're welcome to talk and ask questions.

00:12:46.000 --> 00:12:49.000
We'll be happy to address those then.

00:12:49.000 --> 00:12:53.000
Any other questions for Haley on this item?

00:12:53.000 --> 00:12:55.000
Thank you, Haley.

00:12:55.000 --> 00:13:01.370
Haley, you also have the next agenda item that will go over

00:13:01.370 --> 00:13:07.000
the new B, it's final replat 17-0024.

00:13:07.000 --> 00:13:11.049
Yes, so this is a replat of what was formerly La Hacienda

00:13:11.049 --> 00:13:15.000
Heights as well as a large tract of unplatted land.

00:13:15.000 --> 00:13:19.330
So the development here would be approximately 190

00:13:19.330 --> 00:13:21.000
residential lots.

00:13:21.000 --> 00:13:24.139
This eastern portion of the property was formerly La Hac

00:13:24.139 --> 00:13:26.000
ienda Heights as I mentioned.

00:13:26.000 --> 00:13:29.379
That subdivision never developed, so at this time they're

00:13:29.379 --> 00:13:32.559
replatting that for a new residential subdivision that

00:13:32.559 --> 00:13:35.000
would be between Beale and Hercules.

00:13:35.000 --> 00:13:37.649
You can see here the western portion of the property was

00:13:37.649 --> 00:13:41.240
formerly just a large unplatted tract of land, so it's

00:13:41.240 --> 00:13:43.830
being incorporated into this plat at this time to provide

00:13:43.830 --> 00:13:46.000
one larger subdivision.

00:13:46.000 --> 00:13:49.000
And I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

00:13:49.000 --> 00:13:51.000
Commissioner Beck.

00:13:51.000 --> 00:13:52.000
Thank you, Vice Chair.

00:13:52.000 --> 00:13:55.090
Can you give us, what are the streets on the west and east

00:13:55.090 --> 00:13:56.000
side of this?

00:13:56.000 --> 00:13:59.360
Is Locust, is it going to butt up to Locust on the east

00:13:59.360 --> 00:14:00.000
side?

00:14:00.000 --> 00:14:02.000
Beale Street will connect to Locust.

00:14:02.000 --> 00:14:04.639
There is an existing substation in this area that would

00:14:04.639 --> 00:14:07.370
separate it, but Beale Street would be the connection to

00:14:07.370 --> 00:14:08.000
Locust.

00:14:08.000 --> 00:14:12.000
Okay, and then on the west end, what are we looking at?

00:14:12.000 --> 00:14:16.000
On the west end, this property is currently undeveloped, so

00:14:16.000 --> 00:14:19.000
Beale Street would stub out at that point.

00:14:19.000 --> 00:14:21.899
And then Hercules, if you look at the very south side of

00:14:21.899 --> 00:14:24.309
the subdivision, it does have a cross street that would

00:14:24.309 --> 00:14:26.210
connect to Hercules as well to provide some east-west

00:14:26.210 --> 00:14:27.000
connectivity.

00:14:27.000 --> 00:14:30.000
Everything to the west is undeveloped right now?

00:14:30.000 --> 00:14:31.000
Yeah, currently.

00:14:31.000 --> 00:14:35.019
This development, will it be involved in the extension of

00:14:35.019 --> 00:14:36.000
Hercules?

00:14:36.000 --> 00:14:40.149
Hercules is being extended as a part of another subdivision

00:14:40.149 --> 00:14:42.000
further south of here.

00:14:42.000 --> 00:14:43.000
Okay, thanks.

00:14:43.000 --> 00:14:45.000
Commissioner Ellis.

00:14:45.000 --> 00:14:46.000
Thank you, Vice Chair.

00:14:46.000 --> 00:14:51.460
Haley, my question has to do with Platinum 6 with regard to

00:14:51.460 --> 00:14:57.000
the easement maintenance and the way that's worded.

00:14:57.000 --> 00:15:00.000
So I guess I just wanted some clarity.

00:15:00.000 --> 00:15:04.090
So we've got where CA1, CA2, CA3, and then it says, "And

00:15:04.090 --> 00:15:07.919
all areas designated drainage and detention easements will

00:15:07.919 --> 00:15:11.080
be maintained by the properties that traverse and are

00:15:11.080 --> 00:15:12.000
adjacent to."

00:15:12.000 --> 00:15:15.379
So does that mean the personal property owners are right

00:15:15.379 --> 00:15:16.000
there?

00:15:16.000 --> 00:15:19.120
This subdivision would have an HOA to maintain all of those

00:15:19.120 --> 00:15:21.000
common area lots in detention.

00:15:21.000 --> 00:15:24.179
And that's where my confusion is, because typically that's

00:15:24.179 --> 00:15:27.159
what that note will say, that it's going to be maintained

00:15:27.159 --> 00:15:28.000
by the HOA.

00:15:28.000 --> 00:15:31.000
And this says, "By the owners of the lot."

00:15:31.000 --> 00:15:37.039
And so I guess where I'm going with it is as these people

00:15:37.039 --> 00:15:41.220
buy these lots, is a buyer beware that, oh, ha ha, you're

00:15:41.220 --> 00:15:43.750
in charge of the drainage easement and it's your

00:15:43.750 --> 00:15:45.000
responsibility.

00:15:45.000 --> 00:15:47.470
My understanding is there will be an HOA for the subdiv

00:15:47.470 --> 00:15:50.000
ision for the maintenance of those common area lots.

00:15:50.000 --> 00:15:54.259
And that is, we could have that note rephrased for the Plat

00:15:54.259 --> 00:15:55.000
inum.

00:15:55.000 --> 00:15:58.000
Because it doesn't say that there.

00:15:58.000 --> 00:16:01.620
And if that's what the intent is, then my request would be,

00:16:01.620 --> 00:16:03.000
could it say such?

00:16:03.000 --> 00:16:06.990
Because right now, it looks like the private property

00:16:06.990 --> 00:16:11.000
owners who abut that would be responsible for that.

00:16:11.000 --> 00:16:14.220
And if they are, I mean, that's kind of a scary thing,

00:16:14.220 --> 00:16:17.000
because how are they ever going to know that?

00:16:17.000 --> 00:16:22.139
Also, with the way it's worded, you mentioned the CA1, CA2,

00:16:22.139 --> 00:16:27.000
CA3, and then all other designated drainage easements.

00:16:27.000 --> 00:16:30.049
And so I noticed there's one, I think it was like the

00:16:30.049 --> 00:16:31.000
Northwest.

00:16:31.000 --> 00:16:34.360
So it wasn't a common area, but north of right there of the

00:16:34.360 --> 00:16:38.000
City of Denton property where it says drainage easement.

00:16:38.000 --> 00:16:41.000
So is that considered part of Note 6 as well?

00:16:41.000 --> 00:16:44.000
That easement is outside the boundaries of this plat.

00:16:44.000 --> 00:16:47.059
That's just an existing drainage easement that adjoins the

00:16:47.059 --> 00:16:48.000
subdivision.

00:16:48.000 --> 00:16:55.000
Okay. So is the note just referring to CA1, 2, and 3?

00:16:55.000 --> 00:16:57.000
Or others as well?

00:16:57.000 --> 00:16:59.000
Yes, I believe that is the intent of the note.

00:16:59.000 --> 00:17:02.100
We can certainly have that note reworded before the plat is

00:17:02.100 --> 00:17:04.000
filed to avoid that confusion.

00:17:04.000 --> 00:17:06.690
Speaking to the developer, they do intend to have an HOA

00:17:06.690 --> 00:17:08.000
for the subdivision.

00:17:08.000 --> 00:17:18.269
Okay. So I guess in today's vote, how do we do that so that

00:17:18.269 --> 00:17:24.000
's taken into consideration?

00:17:24.000 --> 00:17:27.319
We'll come up with a specific language, but it would most

00:17:27.319 --> 00:17:31.650
likely just be to revise that note, clarifying that the HOA

00:17:31.650 --> 00:17:34.509
would be the responsible party for that, if I'm

00:17:34.509 --> 00:17:36.000
understanding.

00:17:36.000 --> 00:17:38.359
Right. And so are you going to have that tonight when we

00:17:38.359 --> 00:17:39.000
vote on it?

00:17:39.000 --> 00:17:40.000
Yes.

00:17:40.000 --> 00:17:43.309
Okay. So you're going to have something before us when we

00:17:43.309 --> 00:17:44.000
go to vote?

00:17:44.000 --> 00:17:45.000
Correct.

00:17:45.000 --> 00:17:49.000
Okay.

00:17:49.000 --> 00:17:50.000
Chair, I'll start back.

00:17:50.000 --> 00:17:52.000
Thanks, Vice Chair.

00:17:52.000 --> 00:17:53.000
Clarify a little confusion for me.

00:17:53.000 --> 00:17:56.779
Had to go to the notification map if you can, because you

00:17:56.779 --> 00:18:00.809
indicated that Hercules wasn't a button in this property,

00:18:00.809 --> 00:18:04.430
but looking at how this is outlined, it looks like the

00:18:04.430 --> 00:18:08.450
southern part sits right up against where Hercules is going

00:18:08.450 --> 00:18:10.000
to come through.

00:18:10.000 --> 00:18:37.000
Okay. If you give me just a second, I can navigate to that.

00:18:37.000 --> 00:18:40.000
Okay.

00:18:40.000 --> 00:18:42.000
On the very south, it overlaps with Hercules.

00:18:42.000 --> 00:18:45.589
You may have misspoken a little bit that Hercules is being

00:18:45.589 --> 00:18:49.369
extended as a comprehensive project that will be in advance

00:18:49.369 --> 00:18:53.000
of the subdivision to the south of here being developed.

00:18:53.000 --> 00:18:54.000
Okay.

00:18:54.000 --> 00:18:56.359
But Hercules is being extended all the way across to

00:18:56.359 --> 00:18:58.000
connect to the existing Hercules.

00:18:58.000 --> 00:19:00.960
But as this development goes forward, they're not going to

00:19:00.960 --> 00:19:04.000
work on Hercules until the other development south of it?

00:19:04.000 --> 00:19:07.359
It's the same developer for both projects. They're both

00:19:07.359 --> 00:19:09.000
going to be moving forward pretty much at the same time.

00:19:09.000 --> 00:19:10.000
Okay.

00:19:10.000 --> 00:19:15.269
So there will be houses in this top development here all

00:19:15.269 --> 00:19:19.000
the way down to Hercules, correct?

00:19:19.000 --> 00:19:21.000
The subject property here in yellow?

00:19:21.000 --> 00:19:22.000
Yes.

00:19:22.000 --> 00:19:23.000
Yes.

00:19:23.000 --> 00:19:24.000
Okay.

00:19:24.000 --> 00:19:26.210
Let me clarify that a little. There is a large area of

00:19:26.210 --> 00:19:29.000
detention ponds on the south side of the property.

00:19:29.000 --> 00:19:33.250
Right, right. Where there is a detention pond, there will

00:19:33.250 --> 00:19:37.369
be houses for that northernmost development that will come

00:19:37.369 --> 00:19:38.000
down in.

00:19:38.000 --> 00:19:44.000
None of the houses within Beale Way will front on Hercules.

00:19:44.000 --> 00:19:46.000
There are these large detention ponds that separate it.

00:19:46.000 --> 00:19:47.000
Oh.

00:19:47.000 --> 00:19:48.000
Okay.

00:19:48.000 --> 00:19:51.400
So you can see North Point would be a connection point

00:19:51.400 --> 00:19:53.940
there, and then there would be a couple of cul-de-sacs that

00:19:53.940 --> 00:19:56.000
extend, that come down and just kind of dead end.

00:19:56.000 --> 00:19:59.190
But North Point would be the only direct connection besides

00:19:59.190 --> 00:20:02.150
they went all the way down to Locust and circled back into

00:20:02.150 --> 00:20:03.000
Hercules.

00:20:03.000 --> 00:20:04.000
Okay.

00:20:04.000 --> 00:20:10.000
Thank you.

00:20:10.000 --> 00:20:13.089
Haley, can you clarify, final replats usually we see are

00:20:13.089 --> 00:20:16.880
commercial. What's the reason? Do we see residential final

00:20:16.880 --> 00:20:19.000
replats outside of consent?

00:20:19.000 --> 00:20:22.500
Yes, any replant is required to have a public hearing for a

00:20:22.500 --> 00:20:26.109
residential replant. There are additional notifications

00:20:26.109 --> 00:20:27.000
required.

00:20:27.000 --> 00:20:29.710
But all replants where they're not vacating the proceeding

00:20:29.710 --> 00:20:32.000
plat are required to be public hearing items.

00:20:32.000 --> 00:20:34.000
Gotcha. Thank you for that clarification.

00:20:34.000 --> 00:20:37.039
Any other questions for Haley on this item? Commissioner

00:20:37.039 --> 00:20:38.000
Sullivan.

00:20:38.000 --> 00:20:41.009
Thanks, Professor Chair. And what was the reason for the

00:20:41.009 --> 00:20:42.000
replant again?

00:20:42.000 --> 00:20:44.680
They are replanting, actually it shows up pretty well on

00:20:44.680 --> 00:20:47.460
this notification map. The streets you see kind of grayed

00:20:47.460 --> 00:20:48.000
in here.

00:20:48.000 --> 00:20:51.119
That was the existing La Hacienda Heights subdivision. It

00:20:51.119 --> 00:20:53.000
was plotted and never developed.

00:20:53.000 --> 00:20:56.619
So rather than going with this exact plan, they wanted to

00:20:56.619 --> 00:20:59.549
reconfigure the neighborhood and extend it further to the

00:20:59.549 --> 00:21:03.000
west to include this entire unplatted tract west of there.

00:21:03.000 --> 00:21:06.009
So we're replanting all of that into one comprehensive

00:21:06.009 --> 00:21:07.000
subdivision.

00:21:07.000 --> 00:21:14.079
Do we know if the replant is allowing for larger houses,

00:21:14.079 --> 00:21:19.000
smaller houses, same size houses?

00:21:19.000 --> 00:21:24.940
The lot size? It's been zoned in R6 under both subdivisions

00:21:24.940 --> 00:21:27.119
, so they would both have had the same lot dimensions and

00:21:27.119 --> 00:21:28.000
density requirements.

00:21:28.000 --> 00:21:30.000
So it should be fairly comparable.

00:21:30.000 --> 00:21:35.000
Okay, that's fine. Thank you.

00:21:35.000 --> 00:21:38.000
Thank you, Haley.

00:21:38.000 --> 00:21:41.000
And we can call Chair back in.

00:22:05.000 --> 00:22:17.000
Chair, we're on the new item C.

00:22:17.000 --> 00:22:22.000
Okay.

00:22:22.000 --> 00:22:45.000
Does anyone have questions for Haley on item C?

00:22:45.000 --> 00:23:03.000
No? Okay. Item D.

00:23:03.000 --> 00:23:05.000
Commissioner Ellis. Sorry.

00:23:05.000 --> 00:23:06.000
Thank you, Chair.

00:23:06.000 --> 00:23:09.000
Okay, so another note question, Haley.

00:23:09.000 --> 00:23:13.980
This one, general note seven, it states the owner

00:23:13.980 --> 00:23:19.329
responsibility. Is it owner's responsibility between these

00:23:19.329 --> 00:23:23.000
two? I was confused at.

00:23:23.000 --> 00:23:27.000
So currently all 3R1 and 3R2 are both under the same

00:23:27.000 --> 00:23:28.000
ownership.

00:23:28.000 --> 00:23:29.000
Right.

00:23:29.000 --> 00:23:32.799
And similarly, the adjoining lots further back that also

00:23:32.799 --> 00:23:36.210
tie into that access easement are all within the same

00:23:36.210 --> 00:23:38.000
family of ownership.

00:23:38.000 --> 00:23:41.849
So that note is intended to state that, yes, the owner of

00:23:41.849 --> 00:23:45.470
the property is responsible for their portion of that

00:23:45.470 --> 00:23:47.000
access easement.

00:23:47.000 --> 00:23:49.789
But in this case, it all happens to be the same ownership,

00:23:49.789 --> 00:23:51.000
if that makes sense.

00:23:51.000 --> 00:23:55.410
Okay, which is why it doesn't say owners. Okay. Is that an

00:23:55.410 --> 00:23:59.000
issue if ever it was to be a different owner?

00:23:59.000 --> 00:24:02.069
It's kind of whatever portion of that existing driveway is

00:24:02.069 --> 00:24:05.000
on their property, they would be responsible for.

00:24:05.000 --> 00:24:09.000
Is what that note is trying to say.

00:24:09.000 --> 00:24:11.539
Okay, and then my other question on that same note where it

00:24:11.539 --> 00:24:13.700
references a document number, but there's a blank line in

00:24:13.700 --> 00:24:17.000
there. Is that missing the document number?

00:24:17.000 --> 00:24:20.069
The document number, it will be filled in prior to the plat

00:24:20.069 --> 00:24:21.000
being filed.

00:24:21.000 --> 00:24:23.940
They're in the process of getting that prepared and it will

00:24:23.940 --> 00:24:26.940
have to be filed prior to the plat so that can be filled in

00:24:26.940 --> 00:24:27.000
.

00:24:27.000 --> 00:24:31.000
Thank you very much.

00:24:31.000 --> 00:24:35.000
Any other questions on this item?

00:24:35.000 --> 00:24:37.000
Okay.

00:24:37.000 --> 00:24:45.000
That will then move us to item E.

00:24:45.000 --> 00:24:50.000
I haven't turned the page yet. I think you're right.

00:24:50.000 --> 00:25:04.039
That one has been withdrawn and that will take us to item F

00:25:04.039 --> 00:25:05.000
.

00:25:05.000 --> 00:25:08.990
So this is a proposed amendment to the DDC to amend our

00:25:08.990 --> 00:25:11.000
parking regulations.

00:25:11.000 --> 00:25:13.900
So the request is to hold this public hearing and consider

00:25:13.900 --> 00:25:16.470
making a recommendation to City Council regarding

00:25:16.470 --> 00:25:20.000
amendments to subchapter 14 of the Denton Development Code.

00:25:20.000 --> 00:25:23.589
A little bit of background on this case. Earlier this year,

00:25:23.589 --> 00:25:26.910
Council requested a work session to discuss our residential

00:25:26.910 --> 00:25:28.000
parking standards.

00:25:28.000 --> 00:25:31.380
That was held in January. At that work session, staff

00:25:31.380 --> 00:25:34.150
presented them with a variety of options and information

00:25:34.150 --> 00:25:35.000
related to this.

00:25:35.000 --> 00:25:38.150
And they requested that staff return again with a work

00:25:38.150 --> 00:25:42.240
session specifically to make recommendations regarding ways

00:25:42.240 --> 00:25:44.490
that we could provide flexibility in our parking

00:25:44.490 --> 00:25:46.950
requirements as well as ways we could improve the

00:25:46.950 --> 00:25:49.000
residential parking standards.

00:25:49.000 --> 00:25:52.750
At that February 27th council meeting, they did provide

00:25:52.750 --> 00:25:56.130
favorable direction for staff to move forward and bring

00:25:56.130 --> 00:25:59.000
these recommendations to public hearing.

00:25:59.000 --> 00:26:01.000
Commissioner Rozelle.

00:26:01.000 --> 00:26:05.609
Thank you, Chair. Just to set the context of the rest of

00:26:05.609 --> 00:26:09.019
the presentation, the items that staff has generated or the

00:26:09.019 --> 00:26:14.000
staff recommendations are the direction of the Council's.

00:26:14.000 --> 00:26:16.470
Did Council tell you what to do and these are now your

00:26:16.470 --> 00:26:18.880
recommendations or can you help me out when it says

00:26:18.880 --> 00:26:21.000
favorable direction from Council?

00:26:21.000 --> 00:26:24.369
Certainly. So the same five recommendations were generally

00:26:24.369 --> 00:26:26.000
taken to Council in February.

00:26:26.000 --> 00:26:28.630
At that time, they provided feedback on those and we have

00:26:28.630 --> 00:26:31.130
amended what's been drafted according to those, that

00:26:31.130 --> 00:26:33.000
feedback that we received from them.

00:26:33.000 --> 00:26:37.000
Great. Thank you.

00:26:37.000 --> 00:26:39.809
So as I mentioned, there are five recommendations that we

00:26:39.809 --> 00:26:41.519
'll go through here. I won't mention each of them

00:26:41.519 --> 00:26:42.000
specifically now.

00:26:42.000 --> 00:26:46.000
I just wanted to give you an overview of what's to come.

00:26:46.000 --> 00:26:49.079
So the first of our recommendations is related to the

00:26:49.079 --> 00:26:52.849
minimum parking standards for single family, duplex, town

00:26:52.849 --> 00:26:55.000
home and multifamily development.

00:26:55.000 --> 00:26:58.650
So currently for single family and duplexes, townhomes has

00:26:58.650 --> 00:27:00.970
been added to that because it was not specifically

00:27:00.970 --> 00:27:03.000
mentioned in our parking regulations.

00:27:03.000 --> 00:27:06.000
For single family, we require two spaces per dwelling.

00:27:06.000 --> 00:27:09.680
Duplexes is two spaces per dwelling plus one space for any

00:27:09.680 --> 00:27:12.000
bedroom over the third bedroom.

00:27:12.000 --> 00:27:14.380
What we are recommending is requiring four spaces per

00:27:14.380 --> 00:27:15.000
dwelling.

00:27:15.000 --> 00:27:18.029
Those could be inside or outside of a garage, not spec

00:27:18.029 --> 00:27:19.000
ifying that.

00:27:19.000 --> 00:27:23.740
But we would recommend that tandem spaces within a garage

00:27:23.740 --> 00:27:28.000
not be counted because garages tend to be used for storage

00:27:28.000 --> 00:27:31.000
and just the logistics of having tandem cars in a garage

00:27:31.000 --> 00:27:34.140
makes those spaces not as usable as it would be if it were

00:27:34.140 --> 00:27:37.000
a traditional two car garage with two spaces outside.

00:27:37.000 --> 00:27:39.000
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair.

00:27:39.000 --> 00:27:43.329
Haley, on that note of this note, the single family, at one

00:27:43.329 --> 00:27:46.430
time it was a recommendation that two were out of a garage

00:27:46.430 --> 00:27:48.000
and two were in a garage.

00:27:48.000 --> 00:27:50.400
I noticed that on one of the presentations to the City

00:27:50.400 --> 00:27:51.000
Council.

00:27:51.000 --> 00:27:54.049
Then out of a discussion, did that, because I noticed that

00:27:54.049 --> 00:27:55.000
that's removed.

00:27:55.000 --> 00:27:57.000
Yes, that was one of the changes.

00:27:57.000 --> 00:27:59.299
Council was not of the opinion that we should stipulate

00:27:59.299 --> 00:28:01.000
which spaces are in or out of a garage.

00:28:01.000 --> 00:28:04.000
Okay, very well. Thanks.

00:28:04.000 --> 00:28:07.000
I'd have a follow up question on that.

00:28:07.000 --> 00:28:10.000
Two things.

00:28:10.000 --> 00:28:12.759
One can the space requirements going from two to four be

00:28:12.759 --> 00:28:15.519
met with kind of the discussion I think we had in our last

00:28:15.519 --> 00:28:18.460
meeting with the cluster part cluster development having

00:28:18.460 --> 00:28:20.000
like common area parking.

00:28:20.000 --> 00:28:23.000
That's one way to meet it.

00:28:23.000 --> 00:28:26.359
The second question is, do we know if there are currently

00:28:26.359 --> 00:28:29.819
subdivisions that are either currently being built in or

00:28:29.819 --> 00:28:33.119
currently being planned that are single garage that would

00:28:33.119 --> 00:28:36.299
currently be two spaces only that won't be able to meet

00:28:36.299 --> 00:28:38.000
this new requirement.

00:28:38.000 --> 00:28:41.670
And the reason I asked because I know there's a subdivision

00:28:41.670 --> 00:28:45.400
we, we approved not too long ago, I don't know whether it's

00:28:45.400 --> 00:28:49.410
been developed over on the north side town off of 380 I can

00:28:49.410 --> 00:28:52.000
't remember the name of the street.

00:28:52.000 --> 00:28:55.000
I think that's right.

00:28:55.000 --> 00:28:58.589
So if anybody's reached out to those property owners to let

00:28:58.589 --> 00:29:01.849
them know of these changes and what how that may impact

00:29:01.849 --> 00:29:05.539
what they're doing, they can help me on that. Certainly so

00:29:05.539 --> 00:29:08.000
in terms of cluster development.

00:29:08.000 --> 00:29:10.670
Yeah, we're not simulating where those spaces would have to

00:29:10.670 --> 00:29:13.019
be there were just need to be the right number of spaces

00:29:13.019 --> 00:29:14.000
for those homes.

00:29:14.000 --> 00:29:16.630
The intent being to try to keep as many cars off of the

00:29:16.630 --> 00:29:19.420
single family streets as possible by providing onset

00:29:19.420 --> 00:29:20.000
parking.

00:29:20.000 --> 00:29:26.650
Second. Yeah, I'm sure we need to go first. Yes, so the

00:29:26.650 --> 00:29:28.630
subdivision you're referring to I believe is North Point

00:29:28.630 --> 00:29:33.039
said, I'm sorry that might be the wrong name it is off che

00:29:33.039 --> 00:29:38.000
vy off of old North Road.

00:29:38.000 --> 00:29:44.309
Yes, and those, those homes are already in place the phase

00:29:44.309 --> 00:29:50.089
that had the one car garages or the tandem garages. Those

00:29:50.089 --> 00:29:50.849
would, since they're existing would be able to be in

00:29:50.849 --> 00:29:51.740
compliance with the old regulations, and this would be for

00:29:51.740 --> 00:29:53.000
new developments

00:29:53.000 --> 00:29:57.630
going forward. Well, that's my point is, I think we've

00:29:57.630 --> 00:30:01.000
already approved the next phase.

00:30:01.000 --> 00:30:05.200
And I don't know if it's the same or if it's a different

00:30:05.200 --> 00:30:08.690
product that they're going to. So phase one did have the

00:30:08.690 --> 00:30:10.380
one car or, and I believe they may have been tandem garages

00:30:10.380 --> 00:30:11.000
back to back.

00:30:11.000 --> 00:30:14.589
Phase two had all two car garages standard side by side two

00:30:14.589 --> 00:30:18.019
car garages and then phase three I don't believe they have

00:30:18.019 --> 00:30:21.750
pulled any permits for you. I didn't remember there being

00:30:21.750 --> 00:30:24.650
two car garages with two parking I just remember I had

00:30:24.650 --> 00:30:25.000
driven through there

00:30:25.000 --> 00:30:29.119
it's been a while ago and I remember saying that these had

00:30:29.119 --> 00:30:32.369
single garage doors. Phase two does have two car garages

00:30:32.369 --> 00:30:34.730
and I think actually, this, this is the subdivision here I

00:30:34.730 --> 00:30:36.000
'm glad I remember that.

00:30:36.000 --> 00:30:39.250
So this is a home in phase two of the development with the

00:30:39.250 --> 00:30:41.000
standard two car garage.

00:30:41.000 --> 00:30:43.569
This was one of the homes in phase one. Okay, I'm just, I

00:30:43.569 --> 00:30:45.109
remember seeing some over there in that area is why

00:30:45.109 --> 00:30:47.549
prompted the question. Yeah, those are the only ones I'm

00:30:47.549 --> 00:30:50.069
aware of that we've recently proved with one car and no

00:30:50.069 --> 00:30:53.000
others in the city that we know of along those lines.

00:30:53.000 --> 00:30:57.170
I'm not aware of any recently no. Okay. Commissioner back.

00:30:57.170 --> 00:31:00.369
Thanks, Jerry, just to confirm your suspicions that's that

00:31:00.369 --> 00:31:03.269
's where I moved and you're right, phase one is completed

00:31:03.269 --> 00:31:05.000
and they do have the tandem.

00:31:05.000 --> 00:31:09.710
And it is to car garage on everything else we did approve

00:31:09.710 --> 00:31:14.000
the preliminary plan I believe for phase three no.

00:31:14.000 --> 00:31:16.700
Phase three has an approved final plan, I'm not sure I

00:31:16.700 --> 00:31:19.640
haven't seen the building plans yet though to see what type

00:31:19.640 --> 00:31:22.970
of home product there. Okay. Question on tandem parking

00:31:22.970 --> 00:31:26.000
where you seem to be opposed to it based on people would

00:31:26.000 --> 00:31:30.000
probably use it for storage, but when they necessarily be

00:31:30.000 --> 00:31:33.259
true for two car garages to rather than putting both cars

00:31:33.259 --> 00:31:34.000
in there then.

00:31:34.000 --> 00:31:37.380
I don't see why the differentiation there. It is possible

00:31:37.380 --> 00:31:40.259
and this is also kind of a spin off of our current code

00:31:40.259 --> 00:31:44.000
doesn't permit tandem parking for a residential to count.

00:31:44.000 --> 00:31:46.430
So it's kind of a continuation of that with the assumption

00:31:46.430 --> 00:31:49.299
of tandem parking is difficult. I would find it difficult

00:31:49.299 --> 00:31:52.150
myself but I'm just curious what's the rationale why we

00:31:52.150 --> 00:31:55.410
restricted. I'm not sure where that originally came from,

00:31:55.410 --> 00:31:58.990
other than just the logistics of tandem parking encourages

00:31:58.990 --> 00:32:01.000
it not always being used for parking.

00:32:01.000 --> 00:32:04.000
Okay, thank you.

00:32:04.000 --> 00:32:10.000
All right, anything else on single family or duplex.

00:32:10.000 --> 00:32:16.369
All right, for multifamily I'm sure you're familiar from

00:32:16.369 --> 00:32:22.869
the variety of SUVs that have come before you. Our current

00:32:22.869 --> 00:32:29.109
standards have a different parking ratio for each type of

00:32:29.109 --> 00:32:32.160
multifamily product. So we're proposing condensing that and

00:32:32.160 --> 00:32:32.380
for efficiency or one bedroom units we would stay with the

00:32:32.380 --> 00:32:32.660
1.25 spaces per unit, plus guest parking which is currently

00:32:32.660 --> 00:32:33.000
not something we have in the code.

00:32:33.000 --> 00:32:36.599
So anything two bedroom and above we would require one

00:32:36.599 --> 00:32:40.660
space per bedroom, plus the guest parking and guest parking

00:32:40.660 --> 00:32:44.450
would be calculated at a ratio of 10% of the required

00:32:44.450 --> 00:32:46.000
number of spaces.

00:32:46.000 --> 00:32:50.000
Commissioner Ellis.

00:32:50.000 --> 00:32:52.000
Thank you, Chair.

00:32:52.000 --> 00:33:07.000
I didn't. So I'll come back to you Commissioner Rosalind.

00:33:07.000 --> 00:33:07.000
My question. It says here, developments with more than 10

00:33:07.000 --> 00:33:07.000
units guest parking so if it's under 10 units no guest

00:33:07.000 --> 00:33:07.000
parking would be required.

00:33:07.000 --> 00:33:11.250
I believe, and I'm thinking about a nine unit development

00:33:11.250 --> 00:33:13.000
that's actually going.

00:33:13.000 --> 00:33:15.000
Certainly.

00:33:15.000 --> 00:33:18.000
And I got a question on that from a from a citizen.

00:33:18.000 --> 00:33:22.299
That would apply for anything 10 units and above for the

00:33:22.299 --> 00:33:26.000
smaller complexes. Yes, so under there would be difficult.

00:33:26.000 --> 00:33:28.539
Yeah, would be difficult possibly to fit that on site. Okay

00:33:28.539 --> 00:33:30.000
, thanks.

00:33:30.000 --> 00:33:32.000
Commissioner result.

00:33:32.000 --> 00:33:34.000
Thank you, Chair.

00:33:34.000 --> 00:33:38.680
I don't even know what research and information helped

00:33:38.680 --> 00:33:43.230
inform the decision to do one space per bedroom for two

00:33:43.230 --> 00:33:47.480
three and four. It seems as though we have a lot of

00:33:47.480 --> 00:33:53.000
requests to reduce the amount of parking for developments.

00:33:53.000 --> 00:33:57.839
And here we're actually going to codify a pretty high

00:33:57.839 --> 00:34:03.329
standard. And it also seems by anecdotal evidence from my

00:34:03.329 --> 00:34:08.610
eyes, as well as testimony from applicants that parking

00:34:08.610 --> 00:34:14.000
spaces in tandem to apartment complexes here in the city

00:34:14.000 --> 00:34:15.000
are not at full capacity.

00:34:15.000 --> 00:34:19.500
And so I'm wondering if you could talk me through why we

00:34:19.500 --> 00:34:23.820
believe in the world knows you live in now that every

00:34:23.820 --> 00:34:27.000
person that has a bedroom has a car.

00:34:27.000 --> 00:34:30.250
Certainly so some of the original concern expressed by

00:34:30.250 --> 00:34:33.190
Council was the amount of on street parking around

00:34:33.190 --> 00:34:36.699
residential areas, as well as the feeling that there's not

00:34:36.699 --> 00:34:39.000
enough parking for multifamily.

00:34:39.000 --> 00:34:43.230
We have had a large number of requests recently where the

00:34:43.230 --> 00:34:47.809
preferred ratio for multifamily is one space per bedroom,

00:34:47.809 --> 00:34:51.420
possibly due to some of the leasing structure for

00:34:51.420 --> 00:34:54.000
apartments in college towns.

00:34:54.000 --> 00:34:56.030
But in terms of research we did do a fair amount of

00:34:56.030 --> 00:34:58.380
research Richard might be able to speak to that a little

00:34:58.380 --> 00:35:02.300
bit more. He was kind of involved more on the front end of

00:35:02.300 --> 00:35:06.340
this but that research was done that kind of supported this

00:35:06.340 --> 00:35:07.000
ratio.

00:35:07.000 --> 00:35:10.269
Yeah, there is there is some background from that from that

00:35:10.269 --> 00:35:11.000
January.

00:35:11.000 --> 00:35:13.000
City Council item.

00:35:13.000 --> 00:35:17.659
What we did look at part of this discussion started around

00:35:17.659 --> 00:35:22.380
the Vs RL issue and regulating, but also seeing a change in

00:35:22.380 --> 00:35:27.400
how units are being rented. We're starting to see, believe

00:35:27.400 --> 00:35:31.630
it or not single family homes being converted now into rent

00:35:31.630 --> 00:35:34.000
als, where they're they're renting

00:35:34.000 --> 00:35:37.590
a bedroom within the single family home, and then looking

00:35:37.590 --> 00:35:41.000
and in some instances illegally converting a garage.

00:35:41.000 --> 00:35:43.769
So we're getting complaints from neighbors where there's a

00:35:43.769 --> 00:35:46.139
number of cars all over the place. That's kind of a

00:35:46.139 --> 00:35:48.920
different issue because it's a use it's not permitted, but

00:35:48.920 --> 00:35:51.739
really looked at how how other municipalities are, how are

00:35:51.739 --> 00:35:55.000
they dealing with this what's the current ratio.

00:35:55.000 --> 00:35:59.000
Interestingly enough, there's not a lot of data out there.

00:35:59.000 --> 00:36:03.409
One college town, Auburn, Alabama, I think was the first

00:36:03.409 --> 00:36:07.519
actually adopt an ordinance specifying this SRO I forget

00:36:07.519 --> 00:36:10.000
what they actually coined it.

00:36:10.000 --> 00:36:13.219
But on this on this rental rent by the bedroom, which is

00:36:13.219 --> 00:36:16.369
kind of interesting when we when we were even doing the

00:36:16.369 --> 00:36:19.869
research in the, in the city, some of the larger complexes

00:36:19.869 --> 00:36:21.000
that we called.

00:36:21.000 --> 00:36:24.300
We were trying to get an understanding of that breakdown of

00:36:24.300 --> 00:36:27.389
what they're providing for parking now, based on that

00:36:27.389 --> 00:36:30.690
breakdown of the ratio of actual number of units, and some

00:36:30.690 --> 00:36:33.000
of the apartment to in particular.

00:36:33.000 --> 00:36:35.599
They didn't even know the number of apartments that they

00:36:35.599 --> 00:36:36.000
had.

00:36:36.000 --> 00:36:39.269
When we call they all they knew was the number of bedrooms

00:36:39.269 --> 00:36:42.599
that they were leasing so which was kind of interesting to

00:36:42.599 --> 00:36:43.000
me.

00:36:43.000 --> 00:36:47.409
So we looked at that and then also try to look at just some

00:36:47.409 --> 00:36:52.000
general trends from some of the census data that we got.

00:36:52.000 --> 00:36:53.820
And believe it or not we're, you know, unlike a lot of

00:36:53.820 --> 00:36:55.750
places Denton has kind of slightly slowly been on kind of

00:36:55.750 --> 00:36:58.000
the uptick in in

00:36:58.000 --> 00:37:01.000
cars available per household.

00:37:01.000 --> 00:37:03.579
So we kind of took all of that you know factored all of

00:37:03.579 --> 00:37:04.000
that in.

00:37:04.000 --> 00:37:07.789
In addition to some of the, some of the larger complexes

00:37:07.789 --> 00:37:11.909
actually wanting more parking, just knowing that that they

00:37:11.909 --> 00:37:15.000
're not really close to transportation.

00:37:15.000 --> 00:37:18.289
But the problem with that minimum maximum being the same

00:37:18.289 --> 00:37:21.000
and then having to maybe go through an ADP.

00:37:21.000 --> 00:37:26.219
They just sort of avoided it. And so this was attempt to to

00:37:26.219 --> 00:37:28.000
sort of address it.

00:37:28.000 --> 00:37:32.000
In providing it one to one.

00:37:32.000 --> 00:37:37.000
Now, now with that kind of the part two to that.

00:37:37.000 --> 00:37:40.789
We do recognize that, you know, it's very different from

00:37:40.789 --> 00:37:44.099
building kind of what I'll say infill, as opposed to

00:37:44.099 --> 00:37:47.269
building out for we're changing the zoning on a property

00:37:47.269 --> 00:37:49.000
very, very different.

00:37:49.000 --> 00:37:52.389
So what we try to do also with this is build in some

00:37:52.389 --> 00:37:57.000
flexibility, where you can start to write, write that down.

00:37:57.000 --> 00:38:03.900
I think in the. I know the gentleman that Mr Chang had sent

00:38:03.900 --> 00:38:06.449
an email I spent a good time with him, but also looking at

00:38:06.449 --> 00:38:09.190
sort of long, long term option, you know that that was also

00:38:09.190 --> 00:38:12.429
something that that council charged us with is to look, you

00:38:12.429 --> 00:38:14.000
know, looking at that area around

00:38:14.000 --> 00:38:25.139
the park. One thing we looked at was when those when those

00:38:25.139 --> 00:38:30.000
buildings were built.

00:38:30.000 --> 00:38:34.300
They were going to be able to move, because if they would

00:38:34.300 --> 00:38:38.559
have to rebuild or redevelop most likely they would get

00:38:38.559 --> 00:38:42.739
less less units for one and then they wouldn't be able to

00:38:42.739 --> 00:38:45.260
provide for the parking. And so now it's it's sort of a kid

00:38:45.260 --> 00:38:45.710
let's let's also take a step back from there and look at

00:38:45.710 --> 00:38:47.789
look at maybe alternative ways where maybe you can provide

00:38:47.789 --> 00:38:50.000
some alternatives that could further reduce, reduce your

00:38:50.000 --> 00:38:50.000
parking.

00:38:50.000 --> 00:38:53.829
So, this was sort of that first attempt to get there to

00:38:53.829 --> 00:38:57.760
provide at least some flexibility in on street parking

00:38:57.760 --> 00:39:01.949
administrative sort of deviations allow for some compact

00:39:01.949 --> 00:39:05.000
parking motorcycle bicycle parking.

00:39:05.000 --> 00:39:08.280
So, that was kind of that sort of that first attempt, but I

00:39:08.280 --> 00:39:11.289
think we still have a lot more to go as we go through that

00:39:11.289 --> 00:39:14.550
neighborhood plan that's currently underway, but also

00:39:14.550 --> 00:39:17.670
continuing to understand from UNT what their long term

00:39:17.670 --> 00:39:21.000
plans are with providing students do they want to continue

00:39:21.000 --> 00:39:21.000
to provide parking for students.

00:39:21.000 --> 00:39:24.289
And if that's the case then yeah maybe we need to relook at

00:39:24.289 --> 00:39:27.530
how we, how we begin to require parking. If you and he

00:39:27.530 --> 00:39:30.889
doesn't want to park them. And why do we want to do we want

00:39:30.889 --> 00:39:33.920
to force people to have a car here or is there another

00:39:33.920 --> 00:39:35.000
alternative.

00:39:35.000 --> 00:39:37.699
But, so that's kind of where long term where I think we

00:39:37.699 --> 00:39:40.940
need to be but, but this, that's kind of the premise behind

00:39:40.940 --> 00:39:41.000
.

00:39:41.000 --> 00:39:43.469
I actually thought it seems as though the city doesn't

00:39:43.469 --> 00:39:46.260
necessarily care about number of apartments but bedrooms so

00:39:46.260 --> 00:39:49.000
I don't, I'm not shocked to hear that the apartment complex

00:39:49.000 --> 00:39:51.789
doesn't know how many problems they have when they're, it's

00:39:51.789 --> 00:39:55.000
all based on bedrooms anyways, but when you talk to that

00:39:55.000 --> 00:39:58.980
apartment complex that one in particular I'd be interested

00:39:58.980 --> 00:40:02.000
to know what they said about their parking.

00:40:02.000 --> 00:40:06.000
I recall most of them had.

00:40:06.000 --> 00:40:09.110
I don't think they did parking permits at that one but I

00:40:09.110 --> 00:40:12.239
think most of them had most of the residents had had had

00:40:12.239 --> 00:40:13.000
parking.

00:40:13.000 --> 00:40:15.000
Okay.

00:40:15.000 --> 00:40:17.000
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

00:40:17.000 --> 00:40:19.000
Thank you. Commissioner Sullivan.

00:40:19.000 --> 00:40:22.000
Wouldn't. Thanks, Chair.

00:40:22.000 --> 00:40:25.590
Enforcement of parking laws, kind of take care of all of

00:40:25.590 --> 00:40:29.050
this. In other words, if you're not going to allow on

00:40:29.050 --> 00:40:32.880
street parking tow cars enough and eventually people won't

00:40:32.880 --> 00:40:34.000
park there.

00:40:34.000 --> 00:40:36.900
And then the apartment complexes if you don't have enough

00:40:36.900 --> 00:40:40.000
parking spaces people aren't going to rent an apartment.

00:40:40.000 --> 00:40:42.519
You know if you've got enough people that have cars and

00:40:42.519 --> 00:40:46.000
there's no parking places. They'll go to another apartment.

00:40:46.000 --> 00:41:03.000
So I'm just wondering. I don't understand the, I guess the

00:41:03.000 --> 00:41:03.000
problem, other than the fact that nobody wants to tow cars

00:41:03.000 --> 00:41:03.000
and cause that issue, especially around the campus which is

00:41:03.000 --> 00:41:03.000
where the problem is I think, you know, more pronounced.

00:41:03.000 --> 00:41:05.000
So I'm just wondering.

00:41:05.000 --> 00:41:19.050
A lot of it is for really the, you know, the new apartments

00:41:19.050 --> 00:41:20.139
. I don't think not necessarily so much some of that infill

00:41:20.139 --> 00:41:20.260
because they are, you know, that's why we sort of had that,

00:41:20.260 --> 00:41:20.389
you know, we try to pull out that exemption that, you know,

00:41:20.389 --> 00:41:20.530
less than 10 units and then if you're in the central

00:41:20.530 --> 00:41:22.210
business district if you're less than 10 units you don't

00:41:22.210 --> 00:41:23.000
have to provide for parking.

00:41:23.000 --> 00:41:27.400
So this is really, really more for medium to large size of

00:41:27.400 --> 00:41:31.639
the larger apartment complexes, where that that that

00:41:31.639 --> 00:41:36.239
network would also the roadway might not be there, and it's

00:41:36.239 --> 00:41:40.460
just to avoid the void issues that I think Council has

00:41:40.460 --> 00:41:42.000
heard from constituents.

00:41:42.000 --> 00:41:46.929
Jump in just a second, kind of piggyback on Commissioner

00:41:46.929 --> 00:41:49.000
Roselle's comment.

00:41:49.000 --> 00:41:53.409
I think our collection, as we've dealt with some of these S

00:41:53.409 --> 00:41:58.000
RO issues, mostly around the university is the times that we

00:41:58.000 --> 00:42:02.429
have had those applicants before us. They brought some

00:42:02.429 --> 00:42:07.260
studies before us about existing SROs, and that the parking

00:42:07.260 --> 00:42:10.000
garages are not full.

00:42:10.000 --> 00:42:13.170
There's a lot of trouble parking for in those, and those

00:42:13.170 --> 00:42:16.570
requirements are at a lesser than than what we're currently

00:42:16.570 --> 00:42:19.000
doing and requiring now obviously.

00:42:19.000 --> 00:42:23.480
So we're going to require more parking, which will be more

00:42:23.480 --> 00:42:27.800
probable vacant parking places and what we have now is my

00:42:27.800 --> 00:42:32.349
recollection of when we've had the SRO question here before

00:42:32.349 --> 00:42:33.000
us.

00:42:33.000 --> 00:42:36.880
The second one is, if this is going to be city wide or if

00:42:36.880 --> 00:42:40.380
we're going to look at it in certain areas because

00:42:40.380 --> 00:42:44.670
obviously parking is way different around the university

00:42:44.670 --> 00:42:48.650
around a multifamily complex than what it is out around

00:42:48.650 --> 00:42:50.000
loop 288.

00:42:50.000 --> 00:42:54.139
Those are two separate issues and if we're putting a single

00:42:54.139 --> 00:42:58.409
blanket over every single multifamily or if there should be

00:42:58.409 --> 00:43:02.510
some flexibility in different standards, depending on

00:43:02.510 --> 00:43:06.000
whether it's downtown or on the edge of town.

00:43:06.000 --> 00:43:09.159
And the third question I would have is about the

00:43:09.159 --> 00:43:13.050
flexibility, I believe in our presentation that we had a

00:43:13.050 --> 00:43:16.699
couple weeks or so ago there was talk about that we were

00:43:16.699 --> 00:43:20.989
changing the parking standards from where it's been the men

00:43:20.989 --> 00:43:23.360
and the max are exactly the same you can't have less and

00:43:23.360 --> 00:43:25.739
you can't have more that there's going to be flexibility

00:43:25.739 --> 00:43:30.000
that the applicant could apply for the point system.

00:43:30.000 --> 00:43:37.000
So we're going to apply that to the standard as well.

00:43:37.000 --> 00:43:43.000
So those three things thrown out together.

00:43:43.000 --> 00:43:45.000
Can you repeat number one again.

00:43:45.000 --> 00:43:50.130
Yes, the SRO question is the comments that have been made

00:43:50.130 --> 00:43:55.510
before us before this commission is currently at the lesser

00:43:55.510 --> 00:44:00.400
parking spaces that are currently required. Those units

00:44:00.400 --> 00:44:03.000
aren't fully parked now they have vacant spaces in them.

00:44:03.000 --> 00:44:07.030
And we're now going to require more parking in those areas

00:44:07.030 --> 00:44:11.110
that they have vacant spaces so my deduction from that is,

00:44:11.110 --> 00:44:15.030
there's going to be even more vacant parking places with

00:44:15.030 --> 00:44:17.000
this new requirement.

00:44:17.000 --> 00:44:20.590
That is possibly don't know the specific studies that you

00:44:20.590 --> 00:44:24.250
're referring to I could look back and find those certainly,

00:44:24.250 --> 00:44:27.449
but in just within the past year I can only think of one

00:44:27.449 --> 00:44:31.110
project that actually wanted to be under parked that wanted

00:44:31.110 --> 00:44:33.000
to provide less than what was required.

00:44:33.000 --> 00:44:36.199
The majority of them do prefer the one to one ratio of

00:44:36.199 --> 00:44:39.920
recent requests that I've seen and, and like I said they're

00:44:39.920 --> 00:44:43.619
getting around, necessarily having to come for an ADP for

00:44:43.619 --> 00:44:47.260
that by either providing it in garages, willingly making

00:44:47.260 --> 00:44:50.000
parking spaces pervious a variety of things

00:44:50.000 --> 00:44:58.030
but most of them that I've seen recently within the past

00:44:58.030 --> 00:45:06.380
year I would say have requested, what would be a one to one

00:45:06.380 --> 00:45:07.260
. Okay. So, it seems like that's where the current leasing

00:45:07.260 --> 00:45:07.510
and trend is going from from the applications that we have

00:45:07.510 --> 00:45:07.739
seen, that's a change from what it's been in the past that

00:45:07.739 --> 00:45:09.579
what's been told to us before is that they're seeing less

00:45:09.579 --> 00:45:13.210
parking because more students are going and doing Uber and

00:45:13.210 --> 00:45:16.000
lift and all these other things and they don't have cars

00:45:16.000 --> 00:45:19.000
and yet we were still requiring more parking.

00:45:19.000 --> 00:45:24.420
So, I guess it's changed 180 degrees again from what we've

00:45:24.420 --> 00:45:26.369
been told before but that was kind of the direction we've

00:45:26.369 --> 00:45:28.000
been going for the last number of years.

00:45:28.000 --> 00:45:31.349
Yeah, and like Richard said from the data that we've looked

00:45:31.349 --> 00:45:34.219
at just in the past week we were seeing that Denton is

00:45:34.219 --> 00:45:37.639
increasing the number of cars per dwelling, based on census

00:45:37.639 --> 00:45:38.000
data.

00:45:38.000 --> 00:45:43.199
And just some other things that that we've seen recently

00:45:43.199 --> 00:45:47.730
like I said the one to one has become a very popular

00:45:47.730 --> 00:45:49.000
request. I'm not sure how many of those spaces are occupied

00:45:49.000 --> 00:45:49.000
.

00:45:49.000 --> 00:45:51.900
And then, I believe your other question was about where

00:45:51.900 --> 00:45:54.940
these standards would apply as it's proposed this would be

00:45:54.940 --> 00:45:57.969
city wide with some of that flexibility that Richard spoke

00:45:57.969 --> 00:46:01.510
to that I'll get to coming up but then with the development

00:46:01.510 --> 00:46:05.409
code, the Denton code 2030 we are looking to go to that

00:46:05.409 --> 00:46:06.000
getting away from

00:46:06.000 --> 00:46:08.110
tax and providing even more flexibility than what's

00:46:08.110 --> 00:46:10.389
proposed with this kind of interim step that we're trying

00:46:10.389 --> 00:46:13.659
to take. So that would that would apply here so if they

00:46:13.659 --> 00:46:18.099
have 100 bedrooms that have to have 100 spaces with the

00:46:18.099 --> 00:46:20.989
revision the development code if they could meet the points

00:46:20.989 --> 00:46:22.000
or whatever credits,

00:46:22.000 --> 00:46:24.000
they could have 75.

00:46:24.000 --> 00:46:27.000
And that or they could have 125.

00:46:27.000 --> 00:46:30.500
I'm not sure the specific amount of reduction that's under

00:46:30.500 --> 00:46:35.000
that under that current, the way it's currently drafted.

00:46:35.000 --> 00:46:37.210
But yeah, I actually do have some examples I don't know if

00:46:37.210 --> 00:46:38.000
that would help.

00:46:38.000 --> 00:46:39.000
Kind of see how.

00:46:39.000 --> 00:46:41.389
Just one thing I also wanted to add all you know we also

00:46:41.389 --> 00:46:43.610
looked at this we looked at some of these smaller

00:46:43.610 --> 00:46:46.150
developments that we're starting to see that really are

00:46:46.150 --> 00:46:49.000
comprised of more than one and two, one and two bedrooms.

00:46:49.000 --> 00:46:54.000
And that's why it's actually a reduction to some extent.

00:46:54.000 --> 00:46:58.869
If you're smaller and you're building one and two bedrooms.

00:46:58.869 --> 00:47:03.460
It conceivably could be a reduction in the required amount

00:47:03.460 --> 00:47:07.000
of parking that was currently the standard.

00:47:07.000 --> 00:47:11.159
Commissioner back and then I think I know returned to

00:47:11.159 --> 00:47:13.000
Commissioner Roselle.

00:47:13.000 --> 00:47:16.000
Thank you, Chair.

00:47:16.000 --> 00:47:24.000
Right. Part of what we're trying to do here is to reduce on

00:47:24.000 --> 00:47:24.000
street parking, is that right.

00:47:24.000 --> 00:47:28.409
But, you know, again to chairman strangers point there are

00:47:28.409 --> 00:47:32.170
going to be some areas where if you create the parking

00:47:32.170 --> 00:47:34.000
spaces, all street.

00:47:34.000 --> 00:47:37.000
You're going to have a lot of empty one so.

00:47:37.000 --> 00:47:40.090
You're going to have people that will just disregard

00:47:40.090 --> 00:47:43.670
everything and park on the street anyway. So, it does seem

00:47:43.670 --> 00:47:46.960
like there would be certain areas where you would want to

00:47:46.960 --> 00:47:50.260
create these kind of conditions where you get all street

00:47:50.260 --> 00:47:54.000
parking on busy streets but like in the outer areas

00:47:54.000 --> 00:47:57.650
off Luke 288 it wouldn't be that big of a deal so yeah I

00:47:57.650 --> 00:48:01.110
think going forward we probably need to look at you know

00:48:01.110 --> 00:48:04.409
one size fits all we probably need to reconsider that

00:48:04.409 --> 00:48:07.929
consider the locations and the volume of traffic that's

00:48:07.929 --> 00:48:10.000
going to be in there.

00:48:10.000 --> 00:48:13.500
I agree that especially when you get over in neighborhoods

00:48:13.500 --> 00:48:16.369
where you've got older housing stuff like that the

00:48:16.369 --> 00:48:19.869
historical district. That's what a lot of the complaints

00:48:19.869 --> 00:48:23.090
have been as the on street parking and reducing that is a

00:48:23.090 --> 00:48:26.000
good thing but you would have to create the spaces for the

00:48:26.000 --> 00:48:26.000
new

00:48:26.000 --> 00:48:30.739
developments for them to do that and then enforce the no

00:48:30.739 --> 00:48:33.000
parking on the streets to.

00:48:33.000 --> 00:48:36.050
My two cents worth. Thank you. Certainly, and Council had

00:48:36.050 --> 00:48:38.949
requested similarly some in the future some future looks at

00:48:38.949 --> 00:48:42.000
certain areas to see how we could better address those.

00:48:42.000 --> 00:48:44.409
This is just kind of that first step and then hopefully

00:48:44.409 --> 00:48:47.849
with things like the, you know, the gateway small area plan

00:48:47.849 --> 00:48:49.000
we can get more specific for certain

00:48:49.000 --> 00:48:52.840
areas and look at what parking might be appropriate in

00:48:52.840 --> 00:48:54.000
those areas.

00:48:54.000 --> 00:48:58.489
But just to give you a quick example of how this would

00:48:58.489 --> 00:49:01.000
compare for a large complex.

00:49:01.000 --> 00:49:05.039
Thank you. I don't belabor the point I'm really interested

00:49:05.039 --> 00:49:07.539
to hear about the flexibility that's been mentioned about

00:49:07.539 --> 00:49:10.000
this but to two things.

00:49:10.000 --> 00:49:13.130
To go back to the parking as I listened to your information

00:49:13.130 --> 00:49:16.380
as well as yours. I think it's comparing apples oranges to

00:49:16.380 --> 00:49:19.389
look at the increase of cars per dwelling and associate

00:49:19.389 --> 00:49:22.119
that with cars per bedroom, because if the city is

00:49:22.119 --> 00:49:25.000
increasing single detached families

00:49:25.000 --> 00:49:28.610
that skews up cars per dwelling, because the requirement is

00:49:28.610 --> 00:49:32.010
naturally two to one currently where cars per bedroom is a

00:49:32.010 --> 00:49:35.340
better data point to look at when we're looking at actual

00:49:35.340 --> 00:49:38.960
requirements for multifamily because you're comparing the

00:49:38.960 --> 00:49:43.489
standard for single detached to multifamily so our city

00:49:43.489 --> 00:49:44.000
going up in cars per dwelling

00:49:44.000 --> 00:49:46.900
doesn't speak to the requirement or need for cars per

00:49:46.900 --> 00:49:49.000
bedroom at the multifamily level.

00:49:49.000 --> 00:49:52.590
Those are disassociated. The other thing is, is, I may have

00:49:52.590 --> 00:49:55.500
seen a driver on town and asked myself but I have yet to

00:49:55.500 --> 00:49:59.000
see an apartment complex where the parking lot is full.

00:49:59.000 --> 00:50:02.179
I think specifically the Taco Bell men the drive through

00:50:02.179 --> 00:50:05.820
the Taco Bell on 377. There is a Taco Bell right there is

00:50:05.820 --> 00:50:08.860
on a peninsula within a parking lot from that apartment

00:50:08.860 --> 00:50:12.039
complex right there across from water burger, and I can

00:50:12.039 --> 00:50:14.000
distinctly recall every time I don't frequent

00:50:14.000 --> 00:50:19.000
often guys, but every time in Taco Bell line.

00:50:19.000 --> 00:50:21.000
I'm looking at empty parking lot.

00:50:21.000 --> 00:50:23.829
And so I've never seen that parking lot full and that's

00:50:23.829 --> 00:50:27.190
away from campus. And so I'm just on my head, and I

00:50:27.190 --> 00:50:31.190
apologize is not getting around this idea that there's a

00:50:31.190 --> 00:50:35.489
need for one to one and it seems like if if development

00:50:35.489 --> 00:50:38.320
groups are coming in asking for one to one, let's, if they

00:50:38.320 --> 00:50:39.000
want one for one and they

00:50:39.000 --> 00:50:41.590
want concrete. I would like to see the flexibility of that

00:50:41.590 --> 00:50:44.110
but if they come in and say, our demographic is using bikes

00:50:44.110 --> 00:50:46.400
and we're wanting to promote that in the city, then we

00:50:46.400 --> 00:50:48.860
shouldn't say then build more concrete or we're going to

00:50:48.860 --> 00:50:51.000
have the same issue in front of Kroger on University

00:50:51.000 --> 00:50:54.219
where it's just a concrete jungle. And I think that's what

00:50:54.219 --> 00:50:56.980
I'm not looking forward to the chair's point is just

00:50:56.980 --> 00:51:00.139
putting concrete out there because we think that they need

00:51:00.139 --> 00:51:03.150
a car per bedroom and a city in which I think the direction

00:51:03.150 --> 00:51:06.000
of council and in general is one to become more

00:51:06.000 --> 00:51:08.960
bikeable. But yet, this seems counterintuitive to that,

00:51:08.960 --> 00:51:12.000
that progress that didn't try to make. That's my soapbox.

00:51:12.000 --> 00:51:14.000
Thanks guys.

00:51:14.000 --> 00:51:16.000
Commissioner Sullivan.

00:51:16.000 --> 00:51:20.139
I think I go along with Commissioner Roselle, you know if

00:51:20.139 --> 00:51:24.530
there's a way to have credits given. In other words, in the

00:51:24.530 --> 00:51:28.860
very spot that you're talking about the reason I'm sure is,

00:51:28.860 --> 00:51:33.090
there's a bus stop there, and it goes to and from campus.

00:51:33.090 --> 00:51:37.050
And so if you got an apartment complex that has a bus stop

00:51:37.050 --> 00:51:37.590
right outside the front door, then be able to have some

00:51:37.590 --> 00:51:39.000
allowances or whether it's credits or

00:51:39.000 --> 00:51:42.230
something, how you want to use it, so that if they have

00:51:42.230 --> 00:51:46.000
alternative transportation available to that location.

00:51:46.000 --> 00:51:49.360
Let them build less. Again, if they have more people moving

00:51:49.360 --> 00:51:52.210
in with more cars that they can't handle they'll find

00:51:52.210 --> 00:51:54.000
another apartment complex.

00:51:54.000 --> 00:51:58.610
I think that, you know, I'm not a big biker I don't buy

00:51:58.610 --> 00:52:03.289
into all a lot of this stuff but I think at the same time,

00:52:03.289 --> 00:52:08.070
it costs money to build parking lots, and if they're not

00:52:08.070 --> 00:52:10.369
used. Why spend that money, why require a developer to

00:52:10.369 --> 00:52:11.000
spend that money.

00:52:11.000 --> 00:52:15.130
There's a way to be more flexible, where they live, and I

00:52:15.130 --> 00:52:19.199
dare say over by Med Park, there's a couple of apartment

00:52:19.199 --> 00:52:23.179
complexes I have no idea how the parking lot is but I know

00:52:23.179 --> 00:52:26.000
Med Park is empty most of the time.

00:52:26.000 --> 00:52:29.869
Again, there's parking spaces there they could either, you

00:52:29.869 --> 00:52:33.570
know, rent or use if necessary. So, I think there's a lot

00:52:33.570 --> 00:52:37.239
of places like that that we need to somehow incorporate the

00:52:37.239 --> 00:52:41.000
flexibility, along with making sure that we get cars off

00:52:41.000 --> 00:52:46.489
the street, if that's the end result, and told, if they're

00:52:46.489 --> 00:52:47.000
in the street.

00:52:47.000 --> 00:52:51.420
So it's pretty simple. Certainly. And so, I believe in the,

00:52:51.420 --> 00:52:55.079
the Denton code 2030, what will be brought forward later

00:52:55.079 --> 00:52:58.139
this year if I'm remembering correctly there is a credit

00:52:58.139 --> 00:53:01.400
system for facilities that are within a certain distance of

00:53:01.400 --> 00:53:03.000
a form of mass transit.

00:53:03.000 --> 00:53:18.000
So that is to come with with what's proposed. At this point

00:53:18.000 --> 00:53:18.000
we don't have anything like that in the code we do have

00:53:18.000 --> 00:53:18.000
means within the code for for mixed use developments to

00:53:18.000 --> 00:53:18.000
reduce parking for parking within a certain distance of the

00:53:18.000 --> 00:53:18.000
property that may not be on site if they provide

00:53:18.000 --> 00:53:21.019
some sort of shared parking agreement we do allow for those

00:53:21.019 --> 00:53:24.079
sort of things. They're not very frequently used, but, but

00:53:24.079 --> 00:53:29.000
they are allowed for within the code. At this point.

00:53:29.000 --> 00:53:33.409
I think we've talked about this a bunch of that we're going

00:53:33.409 --> 00:53:36.820
to run out of time so let me pause right quick rich six. I

00:53:36.820 --> 00:53:39.769
don't know how long you're anticipating hopefully we won't

00:53:39.769 --> 00:53:41.000
wear you out as much.

00:53:41.000 --> 00:53:44.500
Do we need to take a pause and get food and then just go on

00:53:44.500 --> 00:53:48.000
to the rest or what do we need to do in at six o'clock.

00:53:48.000 --> 00:53:56.250
Let's take a recess mode all kind of take a break and

00:53:56.250 --> 00:54:00.000
refresh at six o'clock.

00:54:00.000 --> 00:54:03.699
Okay, we've had the countdown so we'll call us back to

00:54:03.699 --> 00:54:08.250
order at 608 and we'll continue on Haley's presentation on

00:54:08.250 --> 00:54:10.000
parking standards.

00:54:10.000 --> 00:54:13.000
All right, I'll try to make this as brief as possible. So

00:54:13.000 --> 00:54:15.980
just a quick example showing you a comparison of this I won

00:54:15.980 --> 00:54:18.969
't walk you through it, unless there are any questions on

00:54:18.969 --> 00:54:23.199
here just showing you for 100 unit development with four

00:54:23.199 --> 00:54:27.090
different types of units offered one through four bedroom,

00:54:27.090 --> 00:54:30.039
how this would compare and how the guest parking would come

00:54:30.039 --> 00:54:31.000
into play.

00:54:31.000 --> 00:54:34.820
So you can see the average would increase from less than

00:54:34.820 --> 00:54:39.000
one space per bedroom to just over one space per bedroom.

00:54:39.000 --> 00:54:42.070
Again, just another example this was actually based on the

00:54:42.070 --> 00:54:45.090
mingo road apartments how that parking could have changed

00:54:45.090 --> 00:54:47.000
with an SGP that we saw last year.

00:54:47.000 --> 00:54:51.130
Again, it would have brought that required parking up from

00:54:51.130 --> 00:54:55.480
under one space per bedroom to just over with, with the one

00:54:55.480 --> 00:55:00.000
space per bedroom plus the guest parking requirement.

00:55:00.000 --> 00:55:03.500
So the second change that we're recommending is just adding

00:55:03.500 --> 00:55:06.849
a sentence within section of our code as it relates to the

00:55:06.849 --> 00:55:10.329
maximum allowable number of spaces, not making any changes

00:55:10.329 --> 00:55:13.860
there in terms of the previous parking requirement, other

00:55:13.860 --> 00:55:16.000
than to stipulate that the previous surface,

00:55:16.000 --> 00:55:24.090
the parking spaces that are paved with pervious surfaces

00:55:24.090 --> 00:55:31.179
would not be allowed to count towards the required

00:55:31.179 --> 00:55:34.130
landscape area. So the pervious surface would still be

00:55:34.130 --> 00:55:34.369
required. But within the code currently, if you provide per

00:55:34.369 --> 00:55:34.570
vious paving for parking spot, it can count towards your

00:55:34.570 --> 00:55:35.269
overall landscape area on the lot and result in less actual

00:55:35.269 --> 00:55:38.000
landscaping being provided.

00:55:38.000 --> 00:55:40.900
That's that's what this proposal would be to stipulate that

00:55:40.900 --> 00:55:43.559
if you have excess parking and you use pervious pavers,

00:55:43.559 --> 00:55:46.559
that's fine, but it can't count towards your landscape area

00:55:46.559 --> 00:55:47.000
.

00:55:47.000 --> 00:55:50.750
So again, just giving you an example, this is an existing

00:55:50.750 --> 00:55:54.300
apartment complex in town that was approved over eight

00:55:54.300 --> 00:55:58.440
years ago, but they did provide 55 pervious parking spaces

00:55:58.440 --> 00:56:02.289
within the development because they wanted excess parking

00:56:02.289 --> 00:56:06.199
above what the code allowed. And those spaces were counted

00:56:06.199 --> 00:56:10.000
towards their landscape area for the development.

00:56:10.000 --> 00:56:12.829
The third recommendation, this gets into some of those

00:56:12.829 --> 00:56:15.940
relief mechanisms that we hinted at earlier, providing a

00:56:15.940 --> 00:56:19.000
means of administrative relief for the amount of parking.

00:56:19.000 --> 00:56:21.510
So what we're proposing, I don't have the exact language in

00:56:21.510 --> 00:56:24.079
here, but it is in your backup. But in summary, the

00:56:24.079 --> 00:56:27.099
director would be allowed to approve a reduction of up to

00:56:27.099 --> 00:56:30.409
10% of the number of required spaces if certain criteria

00:56:30.409 --> 00:56:34.260
are met, which would include it not causing any undue

00:56:34.260 --> 00:56:37.000
burden on the surrounding area.

00:56:37.000 --> 00:56:39.909
And that this could be used in combination with the other

00:56:39.909 --> 00:56:43.139
relief mechanisms and substitutions that we'll discuss here

00:56:43.139 --> 00:56:44.000
in a moment.

00:56:44.000 --> 00:56:48.260
And as one of the additional criteria of that is that if

00:56:48.260 --> 00:56:52.699
this is used for every space that is reduced, they would

00:56:52.699 --> 00:56:57.000
have to provide for bicycle spaces in lieu of that one.

00:56:57.000 --> 00:56:59.659
And you can see on the table here just a comparison. If you

00:56:59.659 --> 00:57:02.579
were required to have 20 parking spaces, you could reduce

00:57:02.579 --> 00:57:05.429
that by two spaces with this 10% reduction, but you would

00:57:05.429 --> 00:57:08.090
then have to provide eight bicycle parking spaces on site

00:57:08.090 --> 00:57:13.400
for a total of 18 vehicle spaces and eight bicycle parking

00:57:13.400 --> 00:57:15.000
spaces.

00:57:15.000 --> 00:57:17.809
One of our other recommended changes is to our on street

00:57:17.809 --> 00:57:20.940
parking criteria. Right now they're a little loose in how

00:57:20.940 --> 00:57:24.000
they can be applied and where those spaces can be located.

00:57:24.000 --> 00:57:27.260
We're proposing that on street parking be limited to multif

00:57:27.260 --> 00:57:30.510
amily and non residential developments that are within the

00:57:30.510 --> 00:57:33.989
infill boundary only. So on the outskirts of the city

00:57:33.989 --> 00:57:36.949
wouldn't be allowed to take credit for on street spaces and

00:57:36.949 --> 00:57:39.699
then single family would no longer be allowed to take

00:57:39.699 --> 00:57:43.000
credit for on street spaces or duplexes.

00:57:43.000 --> 00:57:46.010
And then we would stipulate with this that on street

00:57:46.010 --> 00:57:49.519
parking and within the infill boundary for multifamily and

00:57:49.519 --> 00:57:52.840
non residential could be credited towards the required

00:57:52.840 --> 00:57:56.480
parking for each contiguous 22 feet of frontage that they

00:57:56.480 --> 00:57:58.000
have on the street.

00:57:58.000 --> 00:58:01.079
So just to give you an idea this red outline here is the

00:58:01.079 --> 00:58:04.460
infill special purpose district boundary so within this

00:58:04.460 --> 00:58:07.750
area is where this would be allowed to count towards your

00:58:07.750 --> 00:58:09.000
required parking.

00:58:09.000 --> 00:58:11.610
Looking at a little more specifically at how this would

00:58:11.610 --> 00:58:14.429
apply. So what we mean by contiguous frontage is like what

00:58:14.429 --> 00:58:17.449
you see in the example here. This from the driveway over to

00:58:17.449 --> 00:58:20.000
their line they have approximately 70 feet.

00:58:20.000 --> 00:58:23.699
So dividing that by 22 they could fit three parking spaces

00:58:23.699 --> 00:58:27.739
within that area. Again, no not counting for the frontage

00:58:27.739 --> 00:58:30.860
they have within the driveway on the other side they could

00:58:30.860 --> 00:58:34.000
fit four spaces based on that 22 foot dimension.

00:58:34.000 --> 00:58:37.750
So, as I mentioned our current on street parking criteria

00:58:37.750 --> 00:58:41.090
there are a little convoluted to say the least, so we

00:58:41.090 --> 00:58:44.440
require, or we allow you to take credit for on street

00:58:44.440 --> 00:58:47.880
parking at a ratio of one credit for every two on street

00:58:47.880 --> 00:58:50.000
spaces up to four credits.

00:58:50.000 --> 00:58:53.070
And then anything above that is it a one to one ratio, so

00:58:53.070 --> 00:58:56.000
that math gets a little complicated sometimes.

00:58:56.000 --> 00:58:58.900
So just to take an example if you needed seven parking, or

00:58:58.900 --> 00:59:01.920
you wanted to provide seven on street parking spaces as

00:59:01.920 --> 00:59:04.530
some of your required parking under the current code for

00:59:04.530 --> 00:59:07.409
the first four of those seven credits, you would need to

00:59:07.409 --> 00:59:10.000
provide eight spaces for the fifth through the seventh

00:59:10.000 --> 00:59:13.130
you would then need a one to one ratio so three spaces. So

00:59:13.130 --> 00:59:16.820
that would require you have frontage for 11 parking spaces

00:59:16.820 --> 00:59:20.000
to get seven parking credits under the current code.

00:59:20.000 --> 00:59:25.130
Sorry that five there should be a seven that's typo on my

00:59:25.130 --> 00:59:28.219
part. And then under what's proposed here it would be a

00:59:28.219 --> 00:59:31.130
little bit more direct as long as you had the 22 contiguous

00:59:31.130 --> 00:59:33.750
feet of frontage for that for those seven spaces so total

00:59:33.750 --> 00:59:37.000
of 154 linear feet of frontage on either side of your

00:59:37.000 --> 00:59:37.000
driveway,

00:59:37.000 --> 00:59:42.320
you could use those seven spaces as credits towards your

00:59:42.320 --> 00:59:45.000
parking at a one to one ratio.

00:59:45.000 --> 00:59:48.400
One of the other changes we're making currently the code

00:59:48.400 --> 00:59:51.670
allows for compact car parking it only allows for it in

00:59:51.670 --> 00:59:53.000
parking garages.

00:59:53.000 --> 00:59:56.340
So we would propose that compact car parking be allowed

00:59:56.340 --> 00:59:59.849
anywhere not just within garages could be allowed within

00:59:59.849 --> 01:00:01.000
surface lots.

01:00:01.000 --> 01:00:04.369
But whereas we currently allow you to substitute 20% of

01:00:04.369 --> 01:00:07.849
your parking within a garage, we would propose to take that

01:00:07.849 --> 01:00:11.190
down to five compact car parking isn't frequently used. So

01:00:11.190 --> 01:00:14.260
we want it to be an option but maybe not for 20% of the

01:00:14.260 --> 01:00:16.000
vehicles on your site.

01:00:16.000 --> 01:00:19.590
So those would be the changes to compact car parking

01:00:19.590 --> 01:00:23.570
allowing it outside of parking garages and reducing it to a

01:00:23.570 --> 01:00:25.000
5% allowance.

01:00:25.000 --> 01:00:27.940
We would propose to add more specific language for bicycle

01:00:27.940 --> 01:00:30.940
parking right now it's just a recommendation motorcycle

01:00:30.940 --> 01:00:33.590
parking isn't mentioned in the code at all currently so

01:00:33.590 --> 01:00:35.000
that's a new addition.

01:00:35.000 --> 01:00:38.000
So this is the proposed language.

01:00:38.000 --> 01:00:41.389
To summarize we would stipulate within the code that bike

01:00:41.389 --> 01:00:44.659
spaces be elevated to provide some safety there for the

01:00:44.659 --> 01:00:46.000
bicycle parking.

01:00:46.000 --> 01:00:50.300
We would allow that substitution for one vehicle space, you

01:00:50.300 --> 01:00:54.559
would be required to have four bicycle spaces for every one

01:00:54.559 --> 01:00:58.349
vehicle space, you can have two motorcycle spaces as a

01:00:58.349 --> 01:01:00.000
substitution there.

01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:03.050
Some provided some very specific language that's taken

01:01:03.050 --> 01:01:06.369
directly from our current bicycle parking recommendations

01:01:06.369 --> 01:01:09.650
that are bike and pedestrian coordinator developed, we're

01:01:09.650 --> 01:01:12.349
opting to put those in the code and make them actual

01:01:12.349 --> 01:01:15.309
requirements in terms of how much space you provide for

01:01:15.309 --> 01:01:16.000
bicycle parking.

01:01:16.000 --> 01:01:18.760
So those racks would need to be in an area that's two feet

01:01:18.760 --> 01:01:21.519
by seven feet at least and within 50 feet of the main

01:01:21.519 --> 01:01:24.409
entrance of the facility to encourage them to be actively

01:01:24.409 --> 01:01:25.000
used.

01:01:25.000 --> 01:01:28.119
Provide some options as to what that bicycle parking could

01:01:28.119 --> 01:01:30.940
look like a rack that secures the bike in at least two

01:01:30.940 --> 01:01:33.969
places and enclosed locker or some sort of other covered or

01:01:33.969 --> 01:01:35.000
fenced area.

01:01:35.000 --> 01:01:38.980
For running dimensions for motorcycle spaces before by

01:01:38.980 --> 01:01:40.000
eight feet.

01:01:40.000 --> 01:01:43.500
And then, same as with the compact spaces we would require

01:01:43.500 --> 01:01:46.849
that these substitutions not be for more than 5% of the

01:01:46.849 --> 01:01:48.000
required parking.

01:01:48.000 --> 01:01:50.469
So you can see all of that kind of place together with the

01:01:50.469 --> 01:01:53.309
administrative relief, you can have a 10% reduction, and

01:01:53.309 --> 01:01:56.000
you can pick and choose how those pieces go together.

01:01:56.000 --> 01:01:59.980
You could provide a combination of compact spaces bike

01:01:59.980 --> 01:02:04.420
spaces, and then just administrative relief up to 10% of

01:02:04.420 --> 01:02:06.000
the required number.

01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:08.960
And just to kind of summarize these changes are being

01:02:08.960 --> 01:02:12.090
proposed in advance of the overall DDC update, because

01:02:12.090 --> 01:02:15.639
those council directives to provide flexibility and improve

01:02:15.639 --> 01:02:18.000
our residential parking standards.

01:02:18.000 --> 01:02:20.840
Just a reminder of how it currently works we have this men

01:02:20.840 --> 01:02:23.630
max system the minimum is the maximum no flexibility,

01:02:23.630 --> 01:02:26.230
unless you go to ZBA to reduce your parking through a

01:02:26.230 --> 01:02:30.590
variance, which is a hardship variance, or you provide

01:02:30.590 --> 01:02:33.000
permeable paving for excess spaces,

01:02:33.000 --> 01:02:36.599
or you come before the PNC for approval of an ADP to

01:02:36.599 --> 01:02:41.000
provide excess parking that with impervious surface.

01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:44.320
And again staff is recommending approval of these requests,

01:02:44.320 --> 01:02:47.199
as I've presented them to you tonight, and be happy to

01:02:47.199 --> 01:02:49.000
answer any other questions.

01:02:49.000 --> 01:02:52.780
Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. So we're supposed to

01:02:52.780 --> 01:02:53.000
be.

01:02:53.000 --> 01:02:55.989
We expressed a lot of points earlier today that was just

01:02:55.989 --> 01:02:58.940
kind of concerns things without much change so we're

01:02:58.940 --> 01:03:01.820
supposed to be voting saying we were approved this for

01:03:01.820 --> 01:03:05.000
recommendation to city council to vote on approval.

01:03:05.000 --> 01:03:08.230
So if we have considered we have concerns considerations

01:03:08.230 --> 01:03:11.000
recommendations given that about the table.

01:03:11.000 --> 01:03:16.000
Essentially, or what.

01:03:16.000 --> 01:03:27.000
I think it's almost a two part.

01:03:27.000 --> 01:03:29.000
I think it's almost a twofold.

01:03:29.000 --> 01:03:31.849
We were given a, we were given a directive by Council to

01:03:31.849 --> 01:03:35.000
bring, you know, to bring this to bring this forward.

01:03:35.000 --> 01:03:40.940
And actually, I think it started before January January was

01:03:40.940 --> 01:03:46.000
where we first presented the item at the work session.

01:03:46.000 --> 01:03:48.760
And so it's kind of where we are now. And council kind of

01:03:48.760 --> 01:03:50.949
looked at it as really sort of a stopgap if you will, like

01:03:50.949 --> 01:03:53.159
a better way to say it, while we're getting the DC update

01:03:53.159 --> 01:03:54.000
being done.

01:03:54.000 --> 01:04:06.070
So I think that's a good way to get it up today. I think

01:04:06.070 --> 01:04:06.659
are definitely have merit, but by all means I think we'll

01:04:06.659 --> 01:04:07.179
even admit I think there's a lot more as we continue to

01:04:07.179 --> 01:04:07.780
progress and move forward with the DC update that we could

01:04:07.780 --> 01:04:11.280
we could add in even car share, do we give a, you know, if

01:04:11.280 --> 01:04:12.000
a car shares available at a site.

01:04:12.000 --> 01:04:14.210
Can we offer a percentage reduction if so which that

01:04:14.210 --> 01:04:17.940
reduction be. So I think there's those, those those

01:04:17.940 --> 01:04:20.000
alternatives are there.

01:04:20.000 --> 01:04:23.500
And then writing all of this down to make sure that we're

01:04:23.500 --> 01:04:26.000
actually tracking it for the matrix.

01:04:26.000 --> 01:04:29.000
So that's where I kind of think we're almost at it.

01:04:29.000 --> 01:04:31.789
Look at it as a twofold one. And we're, we're, we're

01:04:31.789 --> 01:04:34.590
directed to bring this forward. This is kind of where we're

01:04:34.590 --> 01:04:38.639
at. But I think we also agree that even as you'll see it in

01:04:38.639 --> 01:04:40.000
the current draft.

01:04:40.000 --> 01:04:42.630
With the full consolidated draft of the DC, there'll be

01:04:42.630 --> 01:04:45.380
some additional changes as we continue to move forward so I

01:04:45.380 --> 01:04:48.000
think this will be a moving, moving, moving target to a

01:04:48.000 --> 01:04:50.699
certain extent, but this wasn't this was something that

01:04:50.699 --> 01:04:53.000
Council had direct us to bring forward

01:04:53.000 --> 01:05:04.789
We both approve this. It's approved. It will be essentially

01:05:04.789 --> 01:05:11.110
repealed the DC update is done. Some of it some of it could

01:05:11.110 --> 01:05:11.369
stay some of it could could be completely repealed when we

01:05:11.369 --> 01:05:11.639
bring the DC update forward. Okay, so what parts what parts

01:05:11.639 --> 01:05:14.000
of you know we talked to we have you discussed that are not

01:05:14.000 --> 01:05:16.000
the data that are won't be covered in the DC update or will

01:05:16.000 --> 01:05:19.000
be covering the DC update but we're not talking about here.

01:05:19.000 --> 01:05:21.900
Okay, where are we, what parts are not overlapping as a

01:05:21.900 --> 01:05:24.000
question I'm asking.

01:05:24.000 --> 01:05:27.980
All of us would overlap. I think I think the other, I think

01:05:27.980 --> 01:05:31.289
the opportunity to, to further look at these whether we

01:05:31.289 --> 01:05:35.000
want to call them zones parking zones or reduction areas.

01:05:35.000 --> 01:05:38.809
How we, how we define that I think another, another big

01:05:38.809 --> 01:05:42.429
component of this is how we, how we define the central

01:05:42.429 --> 01:05:46.710
business district. Right now the boundaries kind of gerrym

01:05:46.710 --> 01:05:50.159
ander all over don't make make much sense. I think as we

01:05:50.159 --> 01:05:51.250
start to pull that and sort of refine that and mold that to

01:05:51.250 --> 01:05:53.000
what's where it really should be.

01:05:53.000 --> 01:05:55.469
I think it's going to be a driver but I think what

01:05:55.469 --> 01:05:58.530
ultimately comes out of some of the neighborhood plans.

01:05:58.530 --> 01:06:01.460
Sure, I think will be a big component as far as where we,

01:06:01.460 --> 01:06:04.420
where we start to target these sort of a column reduction

01:06:04.420 --> 01:06:06.000
area right now for lack of.

01:06:06.000 --> 01:06:10.159
What we're saying is this is this is completely whatever's

01:06:10.159 --> 01:06:13.960
it covered by the DC update that we're going to vote on a

01:06:13.960 --> 01:06:17.949
proof later on another. This is purely a stopgap to DC

01:06:17.949 --> 01:06:22.050
updates can solidify and entrench correct everything that

01:06:22.050 --> 01:06:24.000
we're talking about.

01:06:24.000 --> 01:06:41.070
Please go for it. Sorry Scott. I know and I might also

01:06:41.070 --> 01:06:41.289
mention just the mere fact that that there is three members

01:06:41.289 --> 01:06:41.480
, there are three members of this commission that

01:06:41.480 --> 01:06:41.710
participate in a committee that is going to review all of

01:06:41.710 --> 01:06:43.000
this once again so just as Richard indicated.

01:06:43.000 --> 01:06:45.989
Sean's capturing notes and every meeting that we go to and

01:06:45.989 --> 01:06:49.079
all the public comments. We're going to consolidate all

01:06:49.079 --> 01:06:52.159
those comments into a into a document that the committee is

01:06:52.159 --> 01:06:55.599
going to be working through. So, this is not the last time

01:06:55.599 --> 01:06:57.000
that's also be heard.

01:06:57.000 --> 01:07:03.550
And I was just bringing up Mike my original question

01:07:03.550 --> 01:07:10.860
because I was worried we're saying well, we would like to

01:07:10.860 --> 01:07:15.000
maybe see some flexibility.

01:07:15.000 --> 01:07:26.949
No, it's always just trying to make sure I got the text of

01:07:26.949 --> 01:07:31.449
what was posted. You can still make those concerns part of

01:07:31.449 --> 01:07:32.110
your recommendation. As I was saying, notes that they're

01:07:32.110 --> 01:07:32.670
taking that and it'll be presented to with along with

01:07:32.670 --> 01:07:33.000
approval.

01:07:33.000 --> 01:07:37.929
This is what they're, you know, asking so it's true with

01:07:37.929 --> 01:07:40.000
our recommendations.

01:07:40.000 --> 01:07:43.269
We continue. We're going to continue to look at this work

01:07:43.269 --> 01:07:46.409
we're, we're definitely not done we're getting a lot of

01:07:46.409 --> 01:07:49.849
good feedback from different parts of the community, we're

01:07:49.849 --> 01:07:53.019
very engaged with area plans and as we talked to downtown

01:07:53.019 --> 01:07:56.429
businesses, and what some of the things that that haven't

01:07:56.429 --> 01:07:58.000
even come before this group as of yet.

01:07:58.000 --> 01:08:01.500
So we're trying to manage all of those pieces and look at

01:08:01.500 --> 01:08:05.190
it holistically, and we have months to work on this, where

01:08:05.190 --> 01:08:08.699
it is that we've been working on the stopgap for months,

01:08:08.699 --> 01:08:12.150
really just trying to get something better than what we

01:08:12.150 --> 01:08:14.000
have today is all it is.

01:08:14.000 --> 01:08:20.000
Thank you for your time.

01:08:20.000 --> 01:08:23.800
Commissioner Alice. Thank you, just a quick note I guess if

01:08:23.800 --> 01:08:27.000
we are going to try to move this forward.

01:08:27.000 --> 01:08:31.500
I made a note that G to be does not make any sense the way

01:08:31.500 --> 01:08:33.000
it's written.

01:08:33.000 --> 01:08:38.000
So that really needs to be

01:08:38.000 --> 01:08:41.010
looked at I mean I think I know what you're trying to say

01:08:41.010 --> 01:08:46.899
but it's, it's, it doesn't make any sense the way it's

01:08:46.899 --> 01:08:48.000
written.

01:08:48.000 --> 01:08:51.000
The administrative administrative relief.

01:08:51.000 --> 01:08:58.000
And if you if you read to, and then you try to apply be as

01:08:58.000 --> 01:09:01.000
it just doesn't make sense as written.

01:09:01.000 --> 01:09:23.000
We can take a look at that.

01:09:23.000 --> 01:09:35.000
I think that's a good point.

01:09:35.000 --> 01:09:38.979
I get where you were trying to go with it. I just think it

01:09:38.979 --> 01:09:42.720
for to make proper English sense and in an outline form, it

01:09:42.720 --> 01:09:45.000
doesn't make sense the way it.

01:09:45.000 --> 01:09:51.500
Certainly, I'll make another that we can try to rework that

01:09:51.500 --> 01:09:53.000
language. Okay, yeah, and I can come up with a line if you

01:09:53.000 --> 01:09:53.000
need me to do that. Okay.

01:09:53.000 --> 01:09:59.850
Yeah, yeah, if you have recommended language, certainly,

01:09:59.850 --> 01:10:03.000
let us know and we can consider that.

01:10:03.000 --> 01:10:09.000
Any other questions for Haley on this side.

01:10:09.000 --> 01:10:17.000
Okay. Thank you. That's our last agenda item on our work

01:10:17.000 --> 01:10:17.000
session.

01:10:17.000 --> 01:10:22.000
We made it made it through a timely break for foods.

01:10:22.000 --> 01:10:26.000
Kind of reset things.

01:10:26.000 --> 01:10:31.000
Work reports.

01:10:31.000 --> 01:10:35.000
I gotta go back to the agenda. Thank you.

01:10:35.000 --> 01:10:38.130
We didn't get to the courthouse square design standards you

01:10:38.130 --> 01:10:39.000
're correct.

01:10:39.000 --> 01:10:56.000
And the upland habitat management.

01:10:56.000 --> 01:10:58.000
After tonight's meeting.

01:10:58.000 --> 01:11:05.000
That's what we've done that before.

01:11:05.000 --> 01:11:15.000
You want to try to get that one in five minutes.

01:11:15.000 --> 01:11:18.000
And so one.

01:11:18.000 --> 01:11:22.000
I'm sorry to a will do at the conclusion of the

01:11:22.000 --> 01:11:28.000
Of our regular public meeting. Come back in here and

01:11:28.000 --> 01:11:28.000
continue on that. Okay. Good evening, Commission. I'm

01:11:28.000 --> 01:11:28.000
Deborah.

01:11:28.000 --> 01:11:30.000
Here with environmental services.

01:11:30.000 --> 01:11:33.590
Three short notify me about your questions about upland

01:11:33.590 --> 01:11:37.000
habitat that were expressed during the April 25th meeting.

01:11:37.000 --> 01:11:41.609
And I asked Richard to come and actually have a

01:11:41.609 --> 01:11:44.500
conversation with you to gather more information and better

01:11:44.500 --> 01:11:48.699
direction of the information that I that you wish to see in

01:11:48.699 --> 01:11:50.000
the future.

01:11:50.000 --> 01:11:55.020
I watched the video and pretty much three topics were

01:11:55.020 --> 01:11:56.000
brought up.

01:11:56.000 --> 01:11:58.000
The management of upland habitat.

01:11:58.000 --> 01:12:02.000
The quality of upland habitat, especially if that could be

01:12:02.000 --> 01:12:06.880
captured as a part of the field assessment reports and the

01:12:06.880 --> 01:12:10.000
mention of a point system.

01:12:10.000 --> 01:12:15.289
Staff is aware of the lack of good guidance on managing

01:12:15.289 --> 01:12:20.000
environmental sensitive areas in general.

01:12:20.000 --> 01:12:24.000
It is a plant staff is playing to address that through the

01:12:24.000 --> 01:12:29.000
ESA criteria manual that is currently being drafted.

01:12:29.000 --> 01:12:34.050
With that, we will provide a whole section of it and that

01:12:34.050 --> 01:12:39.220
criteria manual will be brought to the PNC Commission for

01:12:39.220 --> 01:12:42.000
you for your input and review.

01:12:42.000 --> 01:12:45.989
There will be an also a section included on the criteria

01:12:45.989 --> 01:12:49.000
manual about the field assessment forms.

01:12:49.000 --> 01:12:53.399
Staff is actually working on modifying the upland habitat

01:12:53.399 --> 01:12:57.729
to have a section that identify some if there's any issues

01:12:57.729 --> 01:13:01.649
with the with the habitat with the canopy, meso canopy

01:13:01.649 --> 01:13:03.000
understory and so on.

01:13:03.000 --> 01:13:07.130
And we will get into the details as a part of the of the E

01:13:07.130 --> 01:13:09.000
SA criteria manual.

01:13:09.000 --> 01:13:13.329
So in that way, part of the reports that we will turn back

01:13:13.329 --> 01:13:17.989
to the applicant will have some information about how those

01:13:17.989 --> 01:13:22.000
react could be managed or improved in needed to be.

01:13:22.000 --> 01:13:25.590
And that information will go back to the whole will connect

01:13:25.590 --> 01:13:29.039
back to the management section that the criteria manual

01:13:29.039 --> 01:13:30.000
will have.

01:13:30.000 --> 01:13:33.000
What I'm not sure about and that's what I'm here.

01:13:33.000 --> 01:13:36.590
There was a mention about a point system and for me to I

01:13:36.590 --> 01:13:40.350
would like to receive some clarification of why you meant

01:13:40.350 --> 01:13:44.000
where you were going with the idea of a point system.

01:13:44.000 --> 01:13:48.170
Are you looking to have a point system similar to what is

01:13:48.170 --> 01:13:52.369
called the or use for repair and buffer as a string rapid

01:13:52.369 --> 01:13:54.000
assessment tool?

01:13:54.000 --> 01:13:58.090
The are sat that Mr. Chances might be familiar with or

01:13:58.090 --> 01:14:02.000
something similar that is done with wetland delineation.

01:14:02.000 --> 01:14:06.699
So help me guide me what type of what you were heading with

01:14:06.699 --> 01:14:11.199
the point system when it was mentioned during the work

01:14:11.199 --> 01:14:13.000
session.

01:14:13.000 --> 01:14:18.000
Commissioner Sanchez.

01:14:18.000 --> 01:14:21.329
When I'm talking about a point system, I was looking at the

01:14:21.329 --> 01:14:25.359
quality of the of the habitat and being able to say, OK,

01:14:25.359 --> 01:14:31.000
either rate like a rating and this rating would basically

01:14:31.000 --> 01:14:36.159
depending on what type of habitat or the quality of habitat

01:14:36.159 --> 01:14:41.350
the individual had this rating would would determine what

01:14:41.350 --> 01:14:45.399
maybe how much the owner would have to give up if it's a

01:14:45.399 --> 01:14:47.000
very poor quality habitat.

01:14:47.000 --> 01:14:49.000
And it's even an upland habitat.

01:14:49.000 --> 01:14:52.000
And and there's no rating system.

01:14:52.000 --> 01:14:55.989
What I was thinking is you may get like what I saw over

01:14:55.989 --> 01:15:00.079
there and across the street from what you call it Home

01:15:00.079 --> 01:15:01.000
Depot.

01:15:01.000 --> 01:15:03.000
It was a very poor quality upland habitat.

01:15:03.000 --> 01:15:07.189
And I think it was like two points some acres were taken

01:15:07.189 --> 01:15:11.819
out of that for upland habitat, even though the quality was

01:15:11.819 --> 01:15:13.000
very poor.

01:15:13.000 --> 01:15:16.850
So what I'm looking at a point system or based on what type

01:15:16.850 --> 01:15:20.890
of quality the habitat is, then that would determine what

01:15:20.890 --> 01:15:25.000
the person would actually give up at the time when you're

01:15:25.000 --> 01:15:28.000
making a decision on that.

01:15:28.000 --> 01:15:32.000
Does that make sense or not?

01:15:32.000 --> 01:15:36.310
I think because quality is I'm just saying the quality of

01:15:36.310 --> 01:15:39.000
the habitat makes a big difference.

01:15:39.000 --> 01:15:43.270
If he has a very good and then the point system also would

01:15:43.270 --> 01:15:47.819
include give him something for the amount of property he's

01:15:47.819 --> 01:15:49.000
giving up.

01:15:49.000 --> 01:15:51.000
Does that make sense?

01:15:51.000 --> 01:15:54.000
The point system.

01:15:54.000 --> 01:15:57.359
So you are pretty much saying based on the quality of the

01:15:57.359 --> 01:16:00.819
habitat that would be preservation requirement will be

01:16:00.819 --> 01:16:02.000
established.

01:16:02.000 --> 01:16:07.000
Is that what you are trying to connect between the two?

01:16:07.000 --> 01:16:11.800
Based on the quality of the habitat determines how much

01:16:11.800 --> 01:16:17.270
person would what your decision would indicate how much he

01:16:17.270 --> 01:16:20.899
should because what he does is he gives up a certain

01:16:20.899 --> 01:16:26.000
percent of land based on being an ESA, right?

01:16:26.000 --> 01:16:29.729
Depending on the use of the land, residential or not

01:16:29.729 --> 01:16:31.000
residential.

01:16:31.000 --> 01:16:38.000
50% and 30% and then the amount of ESA present on the site.

01:16:38.000 --> 01:16:42.050
Those are the two things that apply to determine the total

01:16:42.050 --> 01:16:44.000
acreage of dedication.

01:16:44.000 --> 01:16:49.939
But you don't consider the quality and that to me is very

01:16:49.939 --> 01:16:51.000
important.

01:16:51.000 --> 01:16:52.000
Okay.

01:16:52.000 --> 01:16:55.010
Because you can have a very low quality habitat like what I

01:16:55.010 --> 01:16:56.000
saw over there.

01:16:56.000 --> 01:16:59.689
You require a lot of work to bring it back to upland

01:16:59.689 --> 01:17:03.000
habitat to do it quality upland habitat.

01:17:03.000 --> 01:17:06.869
So what what are you going to do to bring it back or are

01:17:06.869 --> 01:17:10.649
you just going to go into use that criteria you just

01:17:10.649 --> 01:17:14.000
mentioned without looking at the quality.

01:17:14.000 --> 01:17:15.000
Commissioner back.

01:17:15.000 --> 01:17:16.000
Thank you, Chair.

01:17:16.000 --> 01:17:19.699
Can you commission Sanchez Could you give us an example or

01:17:19.699 --> 01:17:23.390
two of the criteria that would be involved in determining

01:17:23.390 --> 01:17:27.010
the quality of upland habitat, just so I can get a better

01:17:27.010 --> 01:17:30.000
idea of what you're okay for example you may look at

01:17:30.000 --> 01:17:34.560
spacing of the trees, type of trees, how much grass land

01:17:34.560 --> 01:17:37.000
there is the the herbaceous vegetation.

01:17:37.000 --> 01:17:41.260
Those are the species of vegetation, as far as the herbace

01:17:41.260 --> 01:17:45.699
ous vegetation, you may when I'm talking about the trees you

01:17:45.699 --> 01:17:49.810
may look at what different types of trees are within that

01:17:49.810 --> 01:17:53.000
location within that upland habitat.

01:17:53.000 --> 01:17:56.500
Okay, I'm assuming that when they look at an upland habitat

01:17:56.500 --> 01:17:59.850
the primary species of upland species you're looking at

01:17:59.850 --> 01:18:03.079
blackjack oak and post oak, because that was what we saw

01:18:03.079 --> 01:18:04.000
over there.

01:18:04.000 --> 01:18:07.979
But if you see a lot of, for example, within that that

01:18:07.979 --> 01:18:12.000
habitat within that area, you are seeing cedars.

01:18:12.000 --> 01:18:16.609
Well cedars aren't part of a upland habitat. That's well

01:18:16.609 --> 01:18:19.000
managed because cedars are very flammable.

01:18:19.000 --> 01:18:22.119
So those are the criteria you would use to determine what

01:18:22.119 --> 01:18:25.390
type of habitat you have in there, what quality of habitat

01:18:25.390 --> 01:18:28.710
you have in there, and we'd have to probably establish that

01:18:28.710 --> 01:18:30.000
kind of criteria.

01:18:30.000 --> 01:18:33.720
So determine quality and who would essentially do that then

01:18:33.720 --> 01:18:38.670
? Would you expect that to fall upon? To determine the

01:18:38.670 --> 01:18:40.000
criteria?

01:18:40.000 --> 01:18:41.000
Okay.

01:18:41.000 --> 01:18:42.000
You're asking me?

01:18:42.000 --> 01:18:44.210
Well I'm pointing because I think you at the end of the day

01:18:44.210 --> 01:18:45.000
will determine that.

01:18:45.000 --> 01:18:48.000
That would make sense to me, yes I agree.

01:18:48.000 --> 01:18:55.529
So, I guess, are you then asking Ms. Vera if she's going to

01:18:55.529 --> 01:18:59.000
be putting forth some criteria to establish quality?

01:18:59.000 --> 01:19:02.000
Yes, that would be my question is how would you put up,

01:19:02.000 --> 01:19:04.750
because I haven't seen anything other than it's, and I don

01:19:04.750 --> 01:19:08.659
't think we've seen anything other than it just says it's a

01:19:08.659 --> 01:19:09.000
ESA.

01:19:09.000 --> 01:19:12.760
But when you go in there, there's nothing that tells you

01:19:12.760 --> 01:19:16.460
the quality and there's nothing that says okay, this is

01:19:16.460 --> 01:19:19.130
what we have and this is what we're going to move to and

01:19:19.130 --> 01:19:22.000
these are the species, if you have good quality habitat,

01:19:22.000 --> 01:19:26.000
you're going to find these species within that area.

01:19:26.000 --> 01:19:31.300
Right now the only thing you're finding are these species,

01:19:31.300 --> 01:19:36.380
which is indicative of a bad quality habitat and I think it

01:19:36.380 --> 01:19:38.000
's important.

01:19:38.000 --> 01:19:39.000
Commissioner Ellis.

01:19:39.000 --> 01:19:42.729
Thank you, Chair. Deborah, is there any standard of measure

01:19:42.729 --> 01:19:45.819
? Best practices or national standards or anything like that

01:19:45.819 --> 01:19:46.000
?

01:19:46.000 --> 01:19:49.819
We do, and we are working on that, especially in the

01:19:49.819 --> 01:19:53.859
sections that we were looking to identify issues and to

01:19:53.859 --> 01:19:57.920
make it as a part of the reports in that way the person who

01:19:57.920 --> 01:20:02.000
's going to manage have some sort of where to start.

01:20:02.000 --> 01:20:06.170
Okay, so yes we do. And there's not only species, we're

01:20:06.170 --> 01:20:10.819
talking about the presence of land, of vines, of heratious

01:20:10.819 --> 01:20:13.000
material, soil, and so on.

01:20:13.000 --> 01:20:17.260
So yes, we do have that. So that's going to be made

01:20:17.260 --> 01:20:18.000
available.

01:20:18.000 --> 01:20:21.739
But I think that we are combining two things and for the

01:20:21.739 --> 01:20:25.000
lack of time I don't want to get much into it.

01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:29.520
But one thing is identify issues with the habitat and how

01:20:29.520 --> 01:20:33.560
we can improve it if that's the way that that person

01:20:33.560 --> 01:20:35.000
chooses to do.

01:20:35.000 --> 01:20:39.050
The other thing is how upland habitat is defined. Upland

01:20:39.050 --> 01:20:43.250
habitat is defined by area, 10 acres or more, and by the

01:20:43.250 --> 01:20:47.000
presence of species, characteristic of remnants.

01:20:47.000 --> 01:20:51.439
The quality of the habitat is not part of the definition of

01:20:51.439 --> 01:20:56.649
what defines upland habitat. That change is a policy change

01:20:56.649 --> 01:20:57.000
.

01:20:57.000 --> 01:21:02.100
Okay, so when we're starting to establish the percentage of

01:21:02.100 --> 01:21:07.090
dedication or I should say preservation based on quality,

01:21:07.090 --> 01:21:11.399
that's a policy change that needs to be reflected on the DD

01:21:11.399 --> 01:21:15.500
on 17 or whatever new section is under the new module to be

01:21:15.500 --> 01:21:18.000
able to enforce that.

01:21:18.000 --> 01:21:21.500
The grading system, we can implement that as a part of the

01:21:21.500 --> 01:21:24.819
criteria manual. The management guidelines, we can

01:21:24.819 --> 01:21:28.000
implement that as a part of the criteria manual.

01:21:28.000 --> 01:21:32.170
And we are working on it because we have identified that as

01:21:32.170 --> 01:21:35.000
a lacking out there for many years.

01:21:35.000 --> 01:21:39.829
But connecting the quality with the finding what upland

01:21:39.829 --> 01:21:45.119
habitat is, that's a changing policy. And that will have to

01:21:45.119 --> 01:21:49.520
be something that has to be brought through PNC City

01:21:49.520 --> 01:21:54.000
Council Committee on the Environment and all that.

01:21:54.000 --> 01:21:56.000
Continue Mr. Sanchez, Commissioner Sanchez.

01:21:56.000 --> 01:22:02.890
Okay, yeah, but when you're defining upland habitat as what

01:22:02.890 --> 01:22:07.479
you define it as, if I go into an area and you define it as

01:22:07.479 --> 01:22:11.439
upland habitat and all I have is a few oaks in there, post

01:22:11.439 --> 01:22:15.829
oak, but there's not no herbaceous vegetation, that to me

01:22:15.829 --> 01:22:19.000
is not really upland habitat unless you define it.

01:22:19.000 --> 01:22:24.300
Your definition kind of is mute because the definition of

01:22:24.300 --> 01:22:29.510
upland habitat should include all those species up, it

01:22:29.510 --> 01:22:36.550
should include the herbaceous vegetation and it should also

01:22:36.550 --> 01:22:39.000
the woodland habitat or vegetation.

01:22:39.000 --> 01:22:44.970
So if you're missing 90 or 50 or 60% of it, then it's not,

01:22:44.970 --> 01:22:49.909
what do you, then it's, what do you, I don't know what you

01:22:49.909 --> 01:22:52.000
're defining then.

01:22:52.000 --> 01:22:54.000
Do I have time?

01:22:54.000 --> 01:22:56.000
Go ahead. Sure.

01:22:56.000 --> 01:22:57.140
I think that it goes back to what is considered Easter

01:22:57.140 --> 01:23:03.430
cross timbers. So we have a reference from a habitat

01:23:03.430 --> 01:23:10.399
standpoint what is present and what is not. The cross

01:23:10.399 --> 01:23:14.000
eastern habitat is, there's a wide variety of things.

01:23:14.000 --> 01:23:18.000
Yes, you have the post oaks and the blackjacks as the more,

01:23:18.000 --> 01:23:21.840
as the flagship species, if you can call it in that way and

01:23:21.840 --> 01:23:25.699
there are other species that you will see them present in a

01:23:25.699 --> 01:23:28.000
lesser extent but still there.

01:23:28.000 --> 01:23:31.810
There are indications where herbaceous materials is part of

01:23:31.810 --> 01:23:35.439
the habitat especially because you have the prairies next

01:23:35.439 --> 01:23:39.119
to the cross timber, and you have that transition from one

01:23:39.119 --> 01:23:42.590
ecoregion to the other but there are other areas where we

01:23:42.590 --> 01:23:46.470
have indications in the literature that those areas are

01:23:46.470 --> 01:23:49.210
more thick, and the presence of herbaceous material is not

01:23:49.210 --> 01:23:51.000
as permanent as in other cities.

01:23:51.000 --> 01:23:56.640
So, I think that we need to take a step back, maybe bring

01:23:56.640 --> 01:24:01.710
some people who can provide some more information about it

01:24:01.710 --> 01:24:05.260
and have a more broader discussion, but just to let you

01:24:05.260 --> 01:24:09.130
know, staff is working on it, the criteria manner would be

01:24:09.130 --> 01:24:12.000
able to answer some of those concerns.

01:24:12.000 --> 01:24:16.409
It is not in a, we're working, it's not something that is

01:24:16.409 --> 01:24:21.159
available for public review. So it will take some time. We

01:24:21.159 --> 01:24:24.920
're working on it so and you will have the chance to go over

01:24:24.920 --> 01:24:28.000
review it and make a recommendation on it.

01:24:28.000 --> 01:24:31.180
I think I would ask and I appreciate the clarification. I

01:24:31.180 --> 01:24:34.229
would ask it to maybe you and Commissioner Sanchez have a

01:24:34.229 --> 01:24:37.569
conversation phone conversation or something and maybe get

01:24:37.569 --> 01:24:40.539
into the more specifics of some of the things that y'all

01:24:40.539 --> 01:24:42.000
are talking about.

01:24:42.000 --> 01:24:47.399
That would be a good way for that discussion to get refined

01:24:47.399 --> 01:24:53.039
to then come back before this commission for consideration

01:24:53.039 --> 01:24:58.000
when the criteria manuals ready for public view. So, thank

01:24:58.000 --> 01:24:58.000
you for staying late running here short on time at the end.

01:24:58.000 --> 01:25:02.029
With that I'm going to close our work session at 640 and I

01:25:02.029 --> 01:25:05.819
'm going to announce just for the record that we're going to

01:25:05.819 --> 01:25:09.409
come back after our public session over here in council

01:25:09.409 --> 01:25:13.199
chambers to hear item, a to a of our work session reports,

01:25:13.199 --> 01:25:18.000
we're going to come back this evening to do that.

01:25:18.000 --> 01:25:23.939
Being and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning

01:25:23.939 --> 01:25:29.340
meeting for May the 9th 2018. This meeting has been duly

01:25:29.340 --> 01:25:32.159
posted, and we do have a quorum present and I will call us

01:25:32.159 --> 01:25:35.390
to order at 650 apologize our work session ran long and it

01:25:35.390 --> 01:25:38.000
kept you all waiting.

01:25:38.000 --> 01:25:47.010
Our first order of business will be to stand and give the

01:25:47.010 --> 01:26:05.000
pledge to us and the Texas flag.

01:26:05.000 --> 01:26:20.000
Texas flag.

01:26:20.000 --> 01:26:26.380
So we will move us to our consideration of our minutes, and

01:26:26.380 --> 01:26:32.399
we'll take these as individual motions due to possible

01:26:32.399 --> 01:26:41.119
attendance issues. So chair and attain emotion for the

01:26:41.119 --> 01:26:45.000
April 11 minutes.

01:26:45.000 --> 01:26:51.000
I approve the April 11 minutes as is get a second.

01:26:51.000 --> 01:26:53.000
Commissioner Roselle.

01:26:53.000 --> 01:26:56.000
I second the buttons are.

01:26:56.000 --> 01:26:59.000
I can't push second but I second motion.

01:26:59.000 --> 01:27:01.000
Okay, well that's why maybe nobody was.

01:27:01.000 --> 01:27:04.000
Nothing was showing up and I'll, I'll do it.

01:27:04.000 --> 01:27:08.760
Okay, so we have a first and a second for approval on the

01:27:08.760 --> 01:27:12.000
April 11 meetings minutes.

01:27:12.000 --> 01:27:15.000
Questions or discussion.

01:27:15.000 --> 01:27:24.000
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

01:27:24.000 --> 01:27:29.000
Motion carry 70.

01:27:29.000 --> 01:27:30.000
Commissioner Ellis.

01:27:30.000 --> 01:27:32.000
I moved to approve April 25 minutes.

01:27:32.000 --> 01:27:33.000
Okay.

01:27:33.000 --> 01:27:34.000
Commissioner Sullivan.

01:27:34.000 --> 01:27:35.000
Second that motion.

01:27:35.000 --> 01:27:43.000
Okay, we have a first and a second for approval. Any

01:27:43.000 --> 01:27:43.000
discussion.

01:27:43.000 --> 01:27:57.000
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

01:27:57.000 --> 01:28:05.060
Motion is going to carry five to zero with two recuse. I

01:28:05.060 --> 01:28:07.000
will move us to our consent agenda.

01:28:07.000 --> 01:28:10.000
Commissioner Smith motion to approve.

01:28:10.000 --> 01:28:11.000
Okay.

01:28:11.000 --> 01:28:12.000
Commissioner Ellis.

01:28:12.000 --> 01:28:13.000
Thank you chair second.

01:28:13.000 --> 01:28:16.649
Okay, we have a first and a second for approval. Any

01:28:16.649 --> 01:28:21.000
further discussion.

01:28:21.000 --> 01:28:34.000
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

01:28:34.000 --> 01:28:37.000
Motion is going to carry seven zero.

01:28:37.000 --> 01:28:40.000
I will move us to our public hearing section.

01:28:40.000 --> 01:28:44.069
Make an announcement on that. We're going to have a change

01:28:44.069 --> 01:28:46.000
in order of our agenda.

01:28:46.000 --> 01:28:51.939
Our item D which is FR 17-0024 is going to become our item

01:28:51.939 --> 01:28:54.000
B.

01:28:54.000 --> 01:28:59.000
And then our item B currently FR 18-001 will be C.

01:28:59.000 --> 01:29:03.000
Our item C FR 17-0029 will be D.

01:29:03.000 --> 01:29:08.000
And then we will be back on schedule with E and F.

01:29:08.000 --> 01:29:11.029
With that change in our agenda, I have a conflict of

01:29:11.029 --> 01:29:15.000
interest on item A and the new item B.

01:29:15.000 --> 01:29:18.409
I'm going to step out and turn the meeting over to the vice

01:29:18.409 --> 01:29:26.000
chair, Commissioner Roseau.

01:29:26.000 --> 01:29:30.409
Thank you chair. As a point of note, the new item B, the

01:29:30.409 --> 01:29:34.000
final replout for Beal Way is going to be continued.

01:29:34.000 --> 01:29:36.479
So if someone is here for that item, I just want to give

01:29:36.479 --> 01:29:39.270
you a heads up that we'll be voting on item B to be

01:29:39.270 --> 01:29:42.000
continued until May 23rd.

01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:48.159
With that, we'll move to item A Z 18-004 and I'll open the

01:29:48.159 --> 01:29:52.000
public hearing and invite Haley for presentation.

01:29:52.000 --> 01:29:57.000
Good evening. This is case Z 18-4 for Access Bank.

01:29:57.000 --> 01:30:00.090
The request before you is a rezoning from downtown

01:30:00.090 --> 01:30:03.869
residential one district to downtown commercial general or

01:30:03.869 --> 01:30:05.000
DCG district.

01:30:05.000 --> 01:30:08.500
You can see on the top map the current zoning of DR1, the

01:30:08.500 --> 01:30:12.029
lower map reflects what this would look like where this rez

01:30:12.029 --> 01:30:13.000
oned to DCG.

01:30:13.000 --> 01:30:16.380
The subject property is comprised of four parcels. Total

01:30:16.380 --> 01:30:19.000
acreage is just over one acre for all four.

01:30:19.000 --> 01:30:24.069
And the property is generally located within the block made

01:30:24.069 --> 01:30:27.000
up of Maple, Myrtle and Eagle.

01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:29.989
So with the rezoning, the primary thing that staff is

01:30:29.989 --> 01:30:33.369
looking at in our criteria for approval is consistency with

01:30:33.369 --> 01:30:35.000
the future land use plan.

01:30:35.000 --> 01:30:39.000
So the future land use map designates this area surrounding

01:30:39.000 --> 01:30:42.000
the property as downtown compatibility.

01:30:42.000 --> 01:30:45.729
The intent of that designation is to provide areas with

01:30:45.729 --> 01:30:49.279
compatible form and uses to both serve downtown with

01:30:49.279 --> 01:30:53.409
supporting uses as well as serve and protect adjacent

01:30:53.409 --> 01:30:55.000
neighborhoods.

01:30:55.000 --> 01:30:58.979
Development in this area is typically a mixture of

01:30:58.979 --> 01:31:04.000
commercial, residential and even sometimes industrial uses.

01:31:04.000 --> 01:31:07.600
The requested DCG district we also found would be a

01:31:07.600 --> 01:31:12.000
extension of the existing DCG that exists on both the east,

01:31:12.000 --> 01:31:16.000
south and west side of the properties currently.

01:31:16.000 --> 01:31:20.189
The uses that are permitted within DCG are consistent with

01:31:20.189 --> 01:31:24.310
uses existing in the area today, which includes banks,

01:31:24.310 --> 01:31:27.000
offices and single family homes.

01:31:27.000 --> 01:31:29.899
Looking at the access and public facilities available to

01:31:29.899 --> 01:31:32.939
the subject property on this map, the subject property is

01:31:32.939 --> 01:31:34.000
outlined in yellow.

01:31:34.000 --> 01:31:37.729
You can see it has frontage, the different pieces on, as I

01:31:37.729 --> 01:31:41.000
mentioned, Maple, Myrtle and Eagle streets.

01:31:41.000 --> 01:31:44.590
The red and blue lines on the map reflect the existing

01:31:44.590 --> 01:31:48.199
water and sewer lines in the area, so there is adequate

01:31:48.199 --> 01:31:51.000
services available to the property.

01:31:51.000 --> 01:31:54.079
This is a concept plan the applicant provided for what they

01:31:54.079 --> 01:31:57.000
would intend to build if this rezoning is approved.

01:31:57.000 --> 01:32:00.270
On the northern portion of the northern three lots, they

01:32:00.270 --> 01:32:03.369
would propose an expansion of the parking lot as well as

01:32:03.369 --> 01:32:05.000
four small office buildings.

01:32:05.000 --> 01:32:08.829
And then on the parcel that was on the south side along

01:32:08.829 --> 01:32:13.100
Eagle, they propose an expansion of the parking lot there

01:32:13.100 --> 01:32:14.000
as well.

01:32:14.000 --> 01:32:18.039
Notification was sent about this request. As you can see on

01:32:18.039 --> 01:32:21.000
the map, we did receive four responses.

01:32:21.000 --> 01:32:23.500
One of those was in opposition. It's shown in red on the

01:32:23.500 --> 01:32:28.189
map. It represents 2% of the land area within that 200 foot

01:32:28.189 --> 01:32:29.000
buffer.

01:32:29.000 --> 01:32:32.979
We received three favorable responses, one being from the

01:32:32.979 --> 01:32:37.560
current access bank property and then two being from

01:32:37.560 --> 01:32:41.000
properties just north of Maple, as you can see on the map.

01:32:41.000 --> 01:32:44.869
And the favorable responses represent 26% of the land area

01:32:44.869 --> 01:32:48.000
within the 200 foot notification area.

01:32:48.000 --> 01:32:50.720
Staff is recommending approval of the request. We did find

01:32:50.720 --> 01:32:53.939
it to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the

01:32:53.939 --> 01:32:56.000
future land use map within our Denton Plan 2030.

01:32:56.000 --> 01:32:58.949
We also found the proposed zoning to be compatible with the

01:32:58.949 --> 01:33:02.000
surrounding properties in terms of the permitted uses.

01:33:02.000 --> 01:33:05.000
And with that, I'd be happy to stand for any questions.

01:33:05.000 --> 01:33:07.000
We do have some questions. Commissioner Smith.

01:33:07.000 --> 01:33:09.000
Thank you, Vice Chair.

01:33:09.000 --> 01:33:10.619
Haley, during the work session, we discussed a couple of

01:33:10.619 --> 01:33:12.880
things. I asked some questions. I don't know if you got

01:33:12.880 --> 01:33:14.000
answers for them or not.

01:33:14.000 --> 01:33:17.100
We had a short amount of time between work session now. H

01:33:17.100 --> 01:33:22.000
omes occupied and was there a neighborhood meeting?

01:33:22.000 --> 01:33:25.039
To my knowledge, there was not a neighborhood meeting. I

01:33:25.039 --> 01:33:28.010
didn't have a chance to look up the occupancy versus render

01:33:28.010 --> 01:33:29.000
for this area.

01:33:29.000 --> 01:33:31.000
Thank you, Haley.

01:33:31.000 --> 01:33:35.659
Any other questions for Haley? Thank you, Haley. Appreciate

01:33:35.659 --> 01:33:36.000
it.

01:33:36.000 --> 01:33:37.890
This is a public hearing, so if you would like to speak on

01:33:37.890 --> 01:33:39.810
the item, we'd ask that you fill out a blue card and you're

01:33:39.810 --> 01:33:43.430
more than welcome to speak. We do have some cards already

01:33:43.430 --> 01:33:44.000
in.

01:33:44.000 --> 01:33:47.810
The applicant is here, obviously in support. Not speaking,

01:33:47.810 --> 01:33:50.760
but here to answer any questions. Does any of the

01:33:50.760 --> 01:33:54.000
commission have any questions for the applicant?

01:33:54.000 --> 01:33:56.000
Commissioner Smith.

01:33:56.000 --> 01:33:57.000
I do.

01:33:57.000 --> 01:34:00.779
And as you approach, I'm going to say your full name and

01:34:00.779 --> 01:34:02.000
your address.

01:34:02.000 --> 01:34:05.000
Amy Bissett, 212 South Elm, Denton.

01:34:05.000 --> 01:34:06.000
Thank you.

01:34:06.000 --> 01:34:08.000
Thank you, Ms. Bissett.

01:34:08.000 --> 01:34:11.000
Would you give me the floor? Sorry.

01:34:11.000 --> 01:34:12.000
Yes, Commissioner.

01:34:12.000 --> 01:34:15.600
Thank you, sir. Are the homes occupied within that area now

01:34:15.600 --> 01:34:17.000
that we're asking for the rezone?

01:34:17.000 --> 01:34:20.029
Some of the homes are occupied, yes. My understanding is

01:34:20.029 --> 01:34:23.430
that some of them are already vacant, but there are still

01:34:23.430 --> 01:34:26.000
some tenants that are in homes.

01:34:26.000 --> 01:34:29.050
In fact, I had a conversation with one of them when I was

01:34:29.050 --> 01:34:31.000
putting up the public hearing.

01:34:31.000 --> 01:34:35.380
Okay. And they're planning to vacate the lease? Because

01:34:35.380 --> 01:34:38.000
they're all renters in that area, I'm assuming, correct?

01:34:38.000 --> 01:34:41.590
They are renters. They have not been provided notice that

01:34:41.590 --> 01:34:44.279
they need to leave at this point in time, from my

01:34:44.279 --> 01:34:47.810
understanding, because there is no imminent timeframe for

01:34:47.810 --> 01:34:50.000
when the redevelopment will begin.

01:34:50.000 --> 01:34:53.000
Okay. Was there ever a neighborhood meeting held?

01:34:53.000 --> 01:34:55.000
There was not a neighborhood meeting held.

01:34:55.000 --> 01:34:58.619
Okay. And it's all one owner on that, all that land is all

01:34:58.619 --> 01:35:00.000
one owner, correct?

01:35:00.000 --> 01:35:02.550
It's two owners, technically, but they have shared

01:35:02.550 --> 01:35:05.479
ownership interests in the bank. So it's two entities, but

01:35:05.479 --> 01:35:08.000
they are both involved with the bank ownership.

01:35:08.000 --> 01:35:10.000
Thank you.

01:35:10.000 --> 01:35:12.000
We have a couple more questions. Commissioner Beck.

01:35:12.000 --> 01:35:16.000
Thank you, Vice Chair. Hi, Amy. Thanks for coming down.

01:35:16.000 --> 01:35:17.000
Absolutely.

01:35:17.000 --> 01:35:21.020
Just for what it's worth, I'm just, I'm generally opposed

01:35:21.020 --> 01:35:25.109
to the zone change for the development. I'm always going to

01:35:25.109 --> 01:35:29.050
be the one on the commission that opposes removing any well

01:35:29.050 --> 01:35:33.000
-kept houses really that are affordable for a lot of people.

01:35:33.000 --> 01:35:35.000
And there's a few trees in there that will be missing too,

01:35:35.000 --> 01:35:38.489
but just out of curiosity, these buildings that y'all want

01:35:38.489 --> 01:35:41.399
to add as part of the development, are these directly

01:35:41.399 --> 01:35:43.000
linked to Access Bank?

01:35:43.000 --> 01:35:45.819
Are these just going to be offices that will be rented out

01:35:45.819 --> 01:35:47.000
to other companies?

01:35:47.000 --> 01:35:50.210
They would be professional office space that would be

01:35:50.210 --> 01:35:53.479
garden style, smaller offices that would be leased by

01:35:53.479 --> 01:35:55.000
individual tenants.

01:35:55.000 --> 01:35:57.750
Okay. So Access Bank doesn't have a need for these offices,

01:35:57.750 --> 01:36:00.000
but can be leased them out.

01:36:00.000 --> 01:36:03.000
Okay. Thank you.

01:36:03.000 --> 01:36:05.000
Commissioner Sullivan.

01:36:05.000 --> 01:36:08.310
Thank you, Chair. Approximately how many offices and how

01:36:08.310 --> 01:36:11.850
many tenants do you believe will be in these four buildings

01:36:11.850 --> 01:36:12.000
?

01:36:12.000 --> 01:36:15.500
We really haven't gotten that far in the conceptual

01:36:15.500 --> 01:36:17.000
planning process.

01:36:17.000 --> 01:36:20.689
In fact, the concept plan that you have as a part of your

01:36:20.689 --> 01:36:25.000
backup is an early draft form of the concept plan.

01:36:25.000 --> 01:36:28.100
And we anticipate three to four professional office

01:36:28.100 --> 01:36:30.000
buildings. There's four on the plan.

01:36:30.000 --> 01:36:33.220
I think it will really depend a lot on the site layout and

01:36:33.220 --> 01:36:36.850
the landscaping and tree canopy that's going to be required

01:36:36.850 --> 01:36:39.000
and the number of parking spaces.

01:36:39.000 --> 01:36:42.090
And I would anticipate that you're looking at three to four

01:36:42.090 --> 01:36:46.000
office buildings that are maybe 3,000 square feet apiece.

01:36:46.000 --> 01:36:50.800
Okay. I've got a concern the fact that it looks like the

01:36:50.800 --> 01:36:54.020
parking or the traffic is going to be coming off of Maple

01:36:54.020 --> 01:36:55.000
and Myrtle.

01:36:55.000 --> 01:36:59.000
Is that anticipated? Is that what you all are planning?

01:36:59.000 --> 01:37:02.500
And if so, some thought I think needs to be given to how

01:37:02.500 --> 01:37:06.229
many cars that's going to add because those streets aren't

01:37:06.229 --> 01:37:07.000
very wide.

01:37:07.000 --> 01:37:11.000
And has any thought been given to that?

01:37:11.000 --> 01:37:14.130
Sure. So I'll be glad to speak to that. When this property

01:37:14.130 --> 01:37:18.000
was developed in 2008, it was developed with an alternative

01:37:18.000 --> 01:37:22.000
development plan that still stands in place today.

01:37:22.000 --> 01:37:25.289
And so once the rezoning is complete, our next step will be

01:37:25.289 --> 01:37:28.659
to amend the alternative development plan, which will

01:37:28.659 --> 01:37:31.989
trigger at that point in time a look at the traffic

01:37:31.989 --> 01:37:35.149
patterns as well as the number of parking spaces and the

01:37:35.149 --> 01:37:36.000
landscape buffers.

01:37:36.000 --> 01:37:39.590
And everything else associated with the site in terms of

01:37:39.590 --> 01:37:43.369
addressing the infrastructure and the mobility around the

01:37:43.369 --> 01:37:44.000
site.

01:37:44.000 --> 01:37:49.210
And so in short, we're not that far down the line yet, but

01:37:49.210 --> 01:37:52.500
you will see this again when it comes to the point that you

01:37:52.500 --> 01:37:55.789
're actually looking at a site plan and counting parking

01:37:55.789 --> 01:37:59.000
spaces and looking at the mobility around the site.

01:37:59.000 --> 01:38:04.000
Okay.

01:38:04.000 --> 01:38:09.000
So this is the concept.

01:38:09.000 --> 01:38:12.590
The building that's on the north side that looks like it

01:38:12.590 --> 01:38:18.149
faces probably west, I'm assuming, is that sort of a done

01:38:18.149 --> 01:38:23.060
deal type thing or is that building may or may not exist in

01:38:23.060 --> 01:38:24.000
the final plan?

01:38:24.000 --> 01:38:27.359
The thing that you're looking at in the concept plan is a

01:38:27.359 --> 01:38:30.680
done deal. In fact, it was kind of an early draft to be

01:38:30.680 --> 01:38:34.020
able to come in and visit with city staff about it so that

01:38:34.020 --> 01:38:37.000
you have a conceptual idea of what the bank and the

01:38:37.000 --> 01:38:40.000
ownership is considering doing.

01:38:40.000 --> 01:38:43.359
But in terms of actually a site plan where any buildings

01:38:43.359 --> 01:38:46.850
are locked down in any locations, none of that is defined

01:38:46.850 --> 01:38:48.000
at this point.

01:38:48.000 --> 01:38:52.289
And you will have to approve that when it does come back

01:38:52.289 --> 01:38:54.000
through with ADP.

01:38:54.000 --> 01:38:59.310
I know that the city of Los Fargo, advisors over here on

01:38:59.310 --> 01:39:04.979
the west side, and if you're coming down Pacific Street,

01:39:04.979 --> 01:39:10.979
people want to park over there, there's no parking, they're

01:39:10.979 --> 01:39:16.760
going to park in your place, and there's no parking there,

01:39:16.760 --> 01:39:21.000
they're going to park on Maple Street.

01:39:21.000 --> 01:39:25.699
I don't know. Well, and that may, as we go through the site

01:39:25.699 --> 01:39:27.850
planning process, that may be what absolutely, the

01:39:27.850 --> 01:39:29.779
conclusion that we arrive at once we start trying to lay

01:39:29.779 --> 01:39:32.000
out the buildings and the number of parking spaces.

01:39:32.000 --> 01:39:34.810
I will speak to Pacific Street, though we will be filing an

01:39:34.810 --> 01:39:38.220
application to abandon Pacific Street, so then it will

01:39:38.220 --> 01:39:42.800
become a part of the private lots between the Wells Fargo

01:39:42.800 --> 01:39:46.000
offices and the professional offices.

01:39:46.000 --> 01:39:49.220
So it will no longer be a city street at that point if that

01:39:49.220 --> 01:39:51.000
abandonment takes place.

01:39:51.000 --> 01:39:52.000
Thank you.

01:39:52.000 --> 01:39:54.000
Mr. Smith.

01:39:54.000 --> 01:39:56.000
Thank you, Mr.

01:39:56.000 --> 01:39:59.000
Mr.

01:39:59.000 --> 01:40:02.000
The ADP and you're going to see on the site plan as well.

01:40:02.000 --> 01:40:04.640
I think when you come back to this project, the site plan

01:40:04.640 --> 01:40:07.000
will be approved as a part of the ADP process.

01:40:07.000 --> 01:40:10.800
And so you will see that and you will have an opportunity

01:40:10.800 --> 01:40:13.000
to tweak it at that point.

01:40:13.000 --> 01:40:16.100
I don't know how much the web conceptual plan you guys

01:40:16.100 --> 01:40:20.970
already have put together but from what you got what you

01:40:20.970 --> 01:40:25.529
can tell, you know, with how it's currently zoned 40%

01:40:25.529 --> 01:40:30.000
landscape coverage and 40 40 foot building height.

01:40:30.000 --> 01:40:33.079
If it was something of, you know, of the commission where

01:40:33.079 --> 01:40:36.010
we were to say, hey, we will prove the reason we will put

01:40:36.010 --> 01:40:39.039
restrictions to maybe have that landscape as well as that

01:40:39.039 --> 01:40:41.949
building height as a restriction on that, but that be

01:40:41.949 --> 01:40:44.000
acceptable by the applicant.

01:40:44.000 --> 01:40:47.720
I believe absolutely it would. And in fact, because there's

01:40:47.720 --> 01:40:51.189
an existing alternative development plan approved on the

01:40:51.189 --> 01:40:54.199
project today, it already exceeds that some of the

01:40:54.199 --> 01:40:57.720
landscape buffering and tree canopy requirements in order

01:40:57.720 --> 01:41:01.359
to accommodate the parking that's a long and Carol and

01:41:01.359 --> 01:41:02.000
Eagle.

01:41:02.000 --> 01:41:08.850
I know you're all familiar with that bank site, but there's

01:41:08.850 --> 01:41:15.810
a wrought iron fence there and some significant landscaping

01:41:15.810 --> 01:41:18.239
and buffering. And so when we come back with an amended ADP

01:41:18.239 --> 01:41:18.560
, we'll have to speak to all of that at that point in time,

01:41:18.560 --> 01:41:20.180
and be able to show the parking that we're contemplating on

01:41:20.180 --> 01:41:23.409
the corner of Myrtle and Eagle, and would also be

01:41:23.409 --> 01:41:24.000
considered front parking.

01:41:24.000 --> 01:41:26.470
So we would have to come in for the ADP at that point in

01:41:26.470 --> 01:41:29.060
time and find ways to mitigate that. And so that would

01:41:29.060 --> 01:41:31.789
certainly be an opportunity for you to say we'd like to see

01:41:31.789 --> 01:41:34.739
additional landscaping or some additional restrictions on

01:41:34.739 --> 01:41:36.000
building height.

01:41:36.000 --> 01:41:38.770
You can understand we've seen a lot of times whatever we're

01:41:38.770 --> 01:41:41.560
putting in commercial uses right next to residential uses

01:41:41.560 --> 01:41:44.350
that building height is usually one of the biggest biggest

01:41:44.350 --> 01:41:47.000
sticking points for a lot of for a lot of citizens.

01:41:47.000 --> 01:41:50.539
So as long as as long as you and the applicant are okay

01:41:50.539 --> 01:41:54.449
with with us maybe imposing that restriction. Absolutely.

01:41:54.449 --> 01:41:56.119
And in fact, part of the reason that we're proposing this

01:41:56.119 --> 01:41:57.810
garden style professional offices is that we do feel that

01:41:57.810 --> 01:42:00.500
it's a it's a good buffer between the existing single

01:42:00.500 --> 01:42:03.000
family homes and the height of the bank.

01:42:03.000 --> 01:42:04.000
Good. Thank you.

01:42:04.000 --> 01:42:06.000
Commissioner Ellis.

01:42:06.000 --> 01:42:09.000
Thank you, Mr. Hi, Amy.

01:42:09.000 --> 01:42:12.300
When you just for a point of clarity with the 2008 ADP plan

01:42:12.300 --> 01:42:15.119
that you're talking about, is that is that far reaching

01:42:15.119 --> 01:42:17.970
past the excess bank we know today does it reach into some

01:42:17.970 --> 01:42:20.000
of the land we're discussing today.

01:42:20.000 --> 01:42:24.000
It does not. In fact, there's a note in the ADP that states

01:42:24.000 --> 01:42:27.279
that there's an intent in the future to build some

01:42:27.279 --> 01:42:31.199
professional offices north of the bank site and therefore

01:42:31.199 --> 01:42:35.039
none of the amenities that were provided north of the bank

01:42:35.039 --> 01:42:39.000
site are counted in the ADP towards mitigation or towards

01:42:39.000 --> 01:42:42.000
meeting the obligations of the development plan.

01:42:42.000 --> 01:42:47.130
And so there's very specific that the ADP is very specific

01:42:47.130 --> 01:42:52.069
and it speaks primarily or really only to the buffer and

01:42:52.069 --> 01:42:56.390
the right iron fence as it relates to the parking

01:42:56.390 --> 01:42:58.000
configuration.

01:42:58.000 --> 01:43:00.000
That's all the questions we have. Thank you very much.

01:43:00.000 --> 01:43:01.000
Thank you.

01:43:01.000 --> 01:43:09.239
Again, this is a public hearing if you'd like to speak we

01:43:09.239 --> 01:43:16.140
can fill out a card and then come down speak. We have a

01:43:16.140 --> 01:43:17.109
couple individuals who would like to speak on the item.

01:43:17.109 --> 01:43:18.000
First one is Andrew. Forgive me. Hugh Haas.

01:43:18.000 --> 01:43:20.760
Did you just state your name and the address for the record

01:43:20.760 --> 01:43:21.000
.

01:43:21.000 --> 01:43:25.930
Yes, good evening. My name is Andrew you Haas 325 Maple

01:43:25.930 --> 01:43:27.000
Street.

01:43:27.000 --> 01:43:31.939
I have some concerns about this rezoning the information

01:43:31.939 --> 01:43:35.000
that came out was very preliminary.

01:43:35.000 --> 01:43:38.979
It didn't allow didn't identify any buffer drainage heights

01:43:38.979 --> 01:43:42.720
of building, or how they're going to address the traffic,

01:43:42.720 --> 01:43:48.000
which I'm glad that was raised. Thank you.

01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:52.250
As far as the drainage goes, I went out and have a look at

01:43:52.250 --> 01:43:56.560
the property and my properties goes down five foot from

01:43:56.560 --> 01:43:58.000
front to back.

01:43:58.000 --> 01:44:03.000
The property to the to the west of me.

01:44:03.000 --> 01:44:05.750
That's kind of that has right now a building proposed on it

01:44:05.750 --> 01:44:06.000
.

01:44:06.000 --> 01:44:10.619
About a third of that drains onto my property, and all that

01:44:10.619 --> 01:44:14.720
drains off to the south, which that property is six inches

01:44:14.720 --> 01:44:17.000
lower than the back of my fence.

01:44:17.000 --> 01:44:21.609
My concern is when this goes in that the property that

01:44:21.609 --> 01:44:27.000
there will be pooling or insufficient drainage on my mind.

01:44:27.000 --> 01:44:32.239
And then also, as far as the construction goes, all of the

01:44:32.239 --> 01:44:37.090
mud and whatever during rain and construction will be

01:44:37.090 --> 01:44:40.000
coming across my property.

01:44:40.000 --> 01:44:42.000
The other issue I had was privacy.

01:44:42.000 --> 01:44:48.220
Talk about this being a buffer. This is a rental property

01:44:48.220 --> 01:44:51.000
for us. So the privacy of our tenants is important.

01:44:51.000 --> 01:44:55.949
Having a large building there or building commercial

01:44:55.949 --> 01:45:01.220
building there will disrupt the privacy of my tenants and

01:45:01.220 --> 01:45:06.399
may may may reduce the value of the property and also make

01:45:06.399 --> 01:45:10.000
it less attractive to tenants to rent.

01:45:10.000 --> 01:45:16.000
I had a look at some of the design criteria.

01:45:16.000 --> 01:45:23.000
And will all that be a part of requirement of this design.

01:45:23.000 --> 01:45:30.850
The landscaping the flood control. Everything will be a

01:45:30.850 --> 01:45:32.000
part of that.

01:45:32.000 --> 01:45:37.020
These are my four concerns, the drainage issue, the privacy

01:45:37.020 --> 01:45:41.119
issue affecting the rentability and the value of my

01:45:41.119 --> 01:45:42.000
property.

01:45:42.000 --> 01:45:45.500
The traffic in front of our house we're talking about that

01:45:45.500 --> 01:45:49.069
we're the first house after the, after the driveway. So

01:45:49.069 --> 01:45:51.949
somebody is going to park. I understand the conversation

01:45:51.949 --> 01:45:55.319
about on street parking is something you want to try to

01:45:55.319 --> 01:45:56.000
avoid.

01:45:56.000 --> 01:45:59.130
We would definitely want to avoid it in front of our

01:45:59.130 --> 01:46:00.000
property.

01:46:00.000 --> 01:46:04.079
And then also the building height, so it doesn't overshadow

01:46:04.079 --> 01:46:06.000
our property in the yard.

01:46:06.000 --> 01:46:08.630
Thank you very much. We do have a question. Commissioner

01:46:08.630 --> 01:46:09.000
back.

01:46:09.000 --> 01:46:13.000
Thank you. Thank you. Mr. You.

01:46:13.000 --> 01:46:15.000
Coming down and speaking.

01:46:15.000 --> 01:46:17.000
You said you live on Maple Street.

01:46:17.000 --> 01:46:20.250
You live on the north side of the South 325 maple. If you

01:46:20.250 --> 01:46:21.000
look at the map.

01:46:21.000 --> 01:46:23.000
We're the red lot.

01:46:23.000 --> 01:46:30.239
You're the red light next to the development. Okay, that's

01:46:30.239 --> 01:46:31.229
that was going to be my next lead in. You own other rental

01:46:31.229 --> 01:46:33.069
property in this area to no sorry. No. Okay, so just you're

01:46:33.069 --> 01:46:35.369
talking when you talk about rental property talking about

01:46:35.369 --> 01:46:36.000
your house.

01:46:36.000 --> 01:46:38.520
Say it again when you're talking about rental property you

01:46:38.520 --> 01:46:40.000
're talking about your house.

01:46:40.000 --> 01:46:44.000
Correct. Okay, very good.

01:46:44.000 --> 01:46:46.000
We did it one time.

01:46:46.000 --> 01:46:49.000
Okay, thank you very much.

01:46:49.000 --> 01:46:53.430
That's all the questions I see. But just to reiterate, I

01:46:53.430 --> 01:46:54.329
think you got some affirmative nods, but a lot of the

01:46:54.329 --> 01:46:56.859
specifics you addressed about building height, traffic

01:46:56.859 --> 01:47:01.159
patterns, privacy, drainage site design that would come at

01:47:01.159 --> 01:47:04.510
a later stage in terms of the planning the ADP that was

01:47:04.510 --> 01:47:05.000
mentioned.

01:47:05.000 --> 01:47:07.260
Today we're just focusing on the actual use of the property

01:47:07.260 --> 01:47:10.909
and his zoning. So, the certainly when it comes back to us,

01:47:10.909 --> 01:47:13.569
we'll have another public hearing for you to express again,

01:47:13.569 --> 01:47:15.970
if this was to go through those concerns you'd have to

01:47:15.970 --> 01:47:17.000
speak into those.

01:47:17.000 --> 01:47:20.130
Thank you very much. I just want to make sure it doesn't

01:47:20.130 --> 01:47:23.130
negatively affect my property, my ability to rent my

01:47:23.130 --> 01:47:26.449
property. Sure, understood. Thank you for your time. Thank

01:47:26.449 --> 01:47:27.000
you.

01:47:27.000 --> 01:47:30.000
We have one more card Wendy Roche.

01:47:30.000 --> 01:47:32.569
And again, if you can state your name and address. My name

01:47:32.569 --> 01:47:38.210
is Wendy Roush. I own 418 and 416 maple, and I actually

01:47:38.210 --> 01:47:40.000
live in 418.

01:47:40.000 --> 01:47:43.630
So, unlike a lot of the people who own land there, I live

01:47:43.630 --> 01:47:47.699
in that neighborhood, I care about this town. And prior to

01:47:47.699 --> 01:47:51.270
that for 20 years I lived like three blocks over and I have

01:47:51.270 --> 01:47:54.420
lived in that neighborhood and love it, which is why I

01:47:54.420 --> 01:47:59.250
purchased the property, and I'm very not against this

01:47:59.250 --> 01:48:02.000
construction going on, but I feel like Ms.

01:48:02.000 --> 01:48:06.430
Miss Bissett may have been uninformed on some of the facts

01:48:06.430 --> 01:48:11.000
in that she said the timeline hasn't been established.

01:48:11.000 --> 01:48:15.819
They have rented to people in those houses on two year le

01:48:15.819 --> 01:48:20.640
ases, because I was told it would be a two year lag until

01:48:20.640 --> 01:48:23.000
the construction started.

01:48:23.000 --> 01:48:35.369
If you could speak into the mic for everyone listening, so

01:48:35.369 --> 01:48:39.000
they can hear. But my, okay, I have concerns with the

01:48:39.000 --> 01:48:39.000
parking and the flow of parking and everything, and you

01:48:39.000 --> 01:48:39.000
cannot widen Maple Street because one side is a giant pine

01:48:39.000 --> 01:48:39.000
tree and the other side is a hill.

01:48:39.000 --> 01:48:42.590
But in the two year time, they still want to rent these

01:48:42.590 --> 01:48:46.500
properties and get top value, but they don't really want to

01:48:46.500 --> 01:48:50.460
invest money, which I understand. So what we have is a lot

01:48:50.460 --> 01:48:54.020
of convicted felons and now a sex offender who is being

01:48:54.020 --> 01:48:58.529
rented to, and I feel that this goes against the serve and

01:48:58.529 --> 01:48:59.000
protect.

01:48:59.000 --> 01:49:03.609
When you say that we're looking to rezone to serve and

01:49:03.609 --> 01:49:09.090
protect the neighborhoods, bring value, keep it safe. There

01:49:09.090 --> 01:49:10.000
is a large complex of students that walk through there.

01:49:10.000 --> 01:49:14.380
And just an example of what I've kind of had to deal with

01:49:14.380 --> 01:49:19.189
the felons that live in 330, even as I tried to come to

01:49:19.189 --> 01:49:23.930
this meeting, I could not get out of my driveway, because

01:49:23.930 --> 01:49:29.000
one of them had pulled their car parallel blocking me in.

01:49:29.000 --> 01:49:32.289
We have caught the call to police many times because they

01:49:32.289 --> 01:49:35.649
choke each other in the street, and they crack their door

01:49:35.649 --> 01:49:38.800
open and head open. We are now subpoenaed to testify

01:49:38.800 --> 01:49:41.750
against them. And now her brother just got out of prison

01:49:41.750 --> 01:49:44.000
and needed somewhere to live, so he moved in.

01:49:44.000 --> 01:49:47.000
And my concern is for this two year lag.

01:49:47.000 --> 01:49:51.920
This is what is going to be in the neighborhood and that's

01:49:51.920 --> 01:49:55.000
not really protecting and serving.

01:49:55.000 --> 01:49:59.970
As I said, I live there. My tenants just had twins. There's

01:49:59.970 --> 01:50:02.149
a baby in that house at 330. All the windows were smashed

01:50:02.149 --> 01:50:05.449
out, all winter. It was one of the coldest winters we've

01:50:05.449 --> 01:50:06.000
had.

01:50:06.000 --> 01:50:10.409
The landlord did nothing, and he was one of the Kellard

01:50:10.409 --> 01:50:13.000
ones as he was for this change.

01:50:13.000 --> 01:50:16.590
But meanwhile, their pursuit of profit, they're not taking

01:50:16.590 --> 01:50:19.970
into consideration the neighborhood. I believe downtown

01:50:19.970 --> 01:50:23.050
Denton could be a great place for people to live, and we

01:50:23.050 --> 01:50:26.579
can progress and have these office buildings, but we need

01:50:26.579 --> 01:50:31.470
to do it at a reasonable pace without putting people in the

01:50:31.470 --> 01:50:34.569
neighborhood at risk while you slowly wait to develop your

01:50:34.569 --> 01:50:35.000
land.

01:50:35.000 --> 01:50:38.630
So I just don't feel like they're considering the people

01:50:38.630 --> 01:50:42.550
who live there, or the town, or those students, like those

01:50:42.550 --> 01:50:47.000
18 year old girls walking past the registered sex offender,

01:50:47.000 --> 01:50:50.000
past the other three felons every day.

01:50:50.000 --> 01:50:52.819
And they don't know. They're just college kids. They have

01:50:52.819 --> 01:50:57.380
no idea in their minds. They don't even think about it. And

01:50:57.380 --> 01:51:02.000
they come home drunk. I just don't think this is safe.

01:51:02.000 --> 01:51:05.090
And again, I'm not against the progress. I feel like the

01:51:05.090 --> 01:51:08.189
office buildings would be a nice addition, but you're not

01:51:08.189 --> 01:51:11.710
taking into consideration. And there is, like he stated,

01:51:11.710 --> 01:51:14.800
there's some, gotta be at least a hundred year old trees

01:51:14.800 --> 01:51:17.000
that I would like to see preserved.

01:51:17.000 --> 01:51:20.590
We'll never be able to grow those back. They're on the

01:51:20.590 --> 01:51:23.000
corner. You can easily keep them.

01:51:23.000 --> 01:51:26.079
And yeah, the parking and are they shouldn't have an

01:51:26.079 --> 01:51:29.579
entrance to get into that place on Maple Street. They need

01:51:29.579 --> 01:51:32.729
to come from Carol or Eagle, the streets that are wide

01:51:32.729 --> 01:51:35.000
enough to facilitate that traffic.

01:51:35.000 --> 01:51:41.739
So any exiting onto Myrtle or Maple, I feel like is an ill

01:51:41.739 --> 01:51:45.000
advised flow.

01:51:45.000 --> 01:51:54.000
So I'm not fully against. I guess I'm just afraid. Okay, my

01:51:54.000 --> 01:51:54.000
time to afraid. I'm going to live like this for two more

01:51:54.000 --> 01:51:54.000
years and it's just going to get worse.

01:51:54.000 --> 01:51:57.659
So we do have one question for you, Mr. Smith. Thank you,

01:51:57.659 --> 01:52:00.170
Mr. Chair. I was going to open it up to allow the applicant

01:52:00.170 --> 01:52:02.310
to respond back to the two year lease question that was

01:52:02.310 --> 01:52:08.000
brought up by citizen.

01:52:08.000 --> 01:52:11.979
Thank you. I'm not familiar with what the lease terms are,

01:52:11.979 --> 01:52:15.199
but I do know that we began this rezoning process in

01:52:15.199 --> 01:52:17.000
October of last year.

01:52:17.000 --> 01:52:19.560
And as you all know, public hearing processes take some

01:52:19.560 --> 01:52:23.659
time. And so without speculating, I would say that a two

01:52:23.659 --> 01:52:28.000
year lease would ensure them enough time to get it done.

01:52:28.000 --> 01:52:31.140
And once the rezoning is done, we have to come back in with

01:52:31.140 --> 01:52:34.159
a plat and come back in with an alternative development

01:52:34.159 --> 01:52:37.119
plan and then come back in through the building permit

01:52:37.119 --> 01:52:39.829
process. And so we just recognize that that takes some time

01:52:39.829 --> 01:52:40.000
.

01:52:40.000 --> 01:52:43.500
I can't speak to the property owners intent with in terms

01:52:43.500 --> 01:52:46.920
of the length of the leases or when the property will begin

01:52:46.920 --> 01:52:50.000
to develop once all those approvals are done.

01:52:50.000 --> 01:52:54.670
I just know in my role that that takes a significant amount

01:52:54.670 --> 01:53:00.000
of time just to get all the approvals. Thank you.

01:53:00.000 --> 01:53:02.470
They think they're living there for two years. They don't

01:53:02.470 --> 01:53:05.020
know that they could end their lease. She's kind of saying

01:53:05.020 --> 01:53:08.220
that if they move along, they're going to kick them out. He

01:53:08.220 --> 01:53:10.000
has 13 kids.

01:53:10.000 --> 01:53:13.109
Sorry. They believe it's a family that lives there and they

01:53:13.109 --> 01:53:16.159
believe they're going to be living there. They're paying

01:53:16.159 --> 01:53:19.319
five hundred dollars. They'll never be able to find another

01:53:19.319 --> 01:53:23.000
place. I'm sure that the owner will probably help them.

01:53:23.000 --> 01:53:26.600
But I feel like they should tell them that this two year

01:53:26.600 --> 01:53:31.149
lease is not actually two years. Like there should be some

01:53:31.149 --> 01:53:33.000
honesty with that.

01:53:33.000 --> 01:53:38.100
Wish we as a commission could give you give more help to

01:53:38.100 --> 01:53:42.279
you on that part. And I know you can't dictate. Sure. Yeah,

01:53:42.279 --> 01:53:45.149
we're limited. I'm just here to let the concerns for

01:53:45.149 --> 01:53:47.000
because I feel this is like debt.

01:53:47.000 --> 01:53:50.359
And for all of us, we can make this a great city. I think I

01:53:50.359 --> 01:53:52.939
think in past experience to say that the applicant hears

01:53:52.939 --> 01:53:55.819
the capsized concerns that you're expressing that that she

01:53:55.819 --> 01:53:59.180
'll more than likely will take it back to the owners and

01:53:59.180 --> 01:54:01.000
bring up what's been talked about.

01:54:01.000 --> 01:54:03.380
Because if it is a danger to the current neighborhood and

01:54:03.380 --> 01:54:06.529
everything else, 100 percent makes makes sense. But I think

01:54:06.529 --> 01:54:09.329
I think in regards just to the zoning matter at hand, that

01:54:09.329 --> 01:54:12.000
it makes it hard for us to have any power over that.

01:54:12.000 --> 01:54:14.350
But I know I want to come because I live in the

01:54:14.350 --> 01:54:17.329
neighborhood and I went to the meetings for the zoning

01:54:17.329 --> 01:54:21.090
stuff. And I was because I care because I actually live

01:54:21.090 --> 01:54:24.750
there and deal with the consequences of what's going on

01:54:24.750 --> 01:54:28.000
where everyone else rents their properties.

01:54:28.000 --> 01:54:31.000
I appreciate you coming down and speaking.

01:54:31.000 --> 01:54:33.520
I know I'm out of time. No, you're fine. As long as we're

01:54:33.520 --> 01:54:35.439
conversing with you, you can step there all night, but I

01:54:35.439 --> 01:54:38.000
won't talk. And I don't want to do that.

01:54:38.000 --> 01:54:42.430
In regards to the trees, you brought that up. There is

01:54:42.430 --> 01:54:46.689
going to be some some level of conservation that can be

01:54:46.689 --> 01:54:51.520
brought up during future plans, especially when it comes to

01:54:51.520 --> 01:54:55.680
the ADP, as well as landscaping that's inside of the

01:54:55.680 --> 01:54:58.000
development criteria. So I would tell you just keep an eye

01:54:58.000 --> 01:54:58.000
out for more of the public hearing notices going out.

01:54:58.000 --> 01:55:00.409
If you want if you want to come specifically talking about

01:55:00.409 --> 01:55:03.060
those trees are 100 years old that you want to preserve,

01:55:03.060 --> 01:55:05.439
come back and voice those concerns again, because those

01:55:05.439 --> 01:55:07.810
will be decided here, but they will be decided at future

01:55:07.810 --> 01:55:09.000
meetings about this.

01:55:09.000 --> 01:55:13.289
Thank you. I was told they could pay a fine and take them

01:55:13.289 --> 01:55:14.000
down.

01:55:14.000 --> 01:55:16.470
That's that's the stress from my knowledge of what they can

01:55:16.470 --> 01:55:19.000
do trees. So I feel like they should.

01:55:19.000 --> 01:55:22.979
It's on the corner. Just keep it. It's not in the middle of

01:55:22.979 --> 01:55:24.000
the property.

01:55:24.000 --> 01:55:27.050
When when the signs if the signs are removed prior to

01:55:27.050 --> 01:55:30.000
public hearing, then the item is continued.

01:55:30.000 --> 01:55:32.000
Got it.

01:55:32.000 --> 01:55:35.289
If it's the fall of the applicant, obviously, if the wind

01:55:35.289 --> 01:55:39.000
blows it down, they're required to put them up right after.

01:55:39.000 --> 01:55:41.439
But if they are removed deliberately, then the item is

01:55:41.439 --> 01:55:42.000
pulled.

01:55:42.000 --> 01:55:43.000
I'm understanding.

01:55:43.000 --> 01:55:45.000
We're not talking about the signs. I'm sorry.

01:55:45.000 --> 01:55:50.000
We're talking about the trees behind the trees.

01:55:50.000 --> 01:55:52.659
I know what side you're talking about. So it's the pine

01:55:52.659 --> 01:55:54.000
tree right next to that.

01:55:54.000 --> 01:55:56.000
It's so on the corner.

01:55:56.000 --> 01:55:58.930
It's not like it would obstruct any building or putting in

01:55:58.930 --> 01:56:00.000
the parking lot.

01:56:00.000 --> 01:56:02.729
But the applicant doesn't have to come back with the ADP to

01:56:02.729 --> 01:56:05.000
present to us that we have to vote on again.

01:56:05.000 --> 01:56:08.079
So look out for that public hearing notice and keep an eye

01:56:08.079 --> 01:56:10.000
on it and come on back and speak.

01:56:10.000 --> 01:56:12.000
Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion.

01:56:12.000 --> 01:56:13.000
Of course. Yeah, of course.

01:56:13.000 --> 01:56:14.000
Thank you for being here.

01:56:14.000 --> 01:56:19.590
This is a public item. Does anyone else would like to speak

01:56:19.590 --> 01:56:22.000
on the item? You can certainly speak now.

01:56:22.000 --> 01:56:26.079
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open it

01:56:26.079 --> 01:56:28.000
for discussion or motion.

01:56:28.000 --> 01:56:29.000
Commissioner Beck.

01:56:29.000 --> 01:56:31.000
Thank you, Vice Chair.

01:56:31.000 --> 01:56:34.369
I appreciate everybody coming in, especially Mr. Rouse and

01:56:34.369 --> 01:56:36.000
Mr. Hiles coming in.

01:56:36.000 --> 01:56:41.329
Amy, appreciate your comments too. As I indicated earlier,

01:56:41.329 --> 01:56:45.229
I'm opposed to this zone change simply because these houses

01:56:45.229 --> 01:56:47.000
, I've been overlooked at the area.

01:56:47.000 --> 01:56:52.149
It's our well-kept houses. There are some nice native trees

01:56:52.149 --> 01:56:55.000
there, some heritage trees that I'd hate to see be removed.

01:56:55.000 --> 01:56:57.930
But this is an area, again, where affordable housing, we're

01:56:57.930 --> 01:57:03.000
going to lose that. And there really is no place to go.

01:57:03.000 --> 01:57:06.590
It's a little further encroachment of commercial areas into

01:57:06.590 --> 01:57:08.000
residential areas.

01:57:08.000 --> 01:57:10.899
And I hate to deprive any owner of their right to profit

01:57:10.899 --> 01:57:12.000
from their land.

01:57:12.000 --> 01:57:14.569
But this would be one of those times when I would have to

01:57:14.569 --> 01:57:17.090
side with the people that live in that area and want to

01:57:17.090 --> 01:57:18.000
preserve it.

01:57:18.000 --> 01:57:23.619
So for what it's worth, I plan on opposing this zone change

01:57:23.619 --> 01:57:24.000
.

01:57:24.000 --> 01:57:26.000
Commissioner Ellis.

01:57:26.000 --> 01:57:28.899
Thank you, Vice Chair. Yeah, just a couple of words on this

01:57:28.899 --> 01:57:32.000
. I cannot get on board with this either.

01:57:32.000 --> 01:57:34.750
You know, I appreciate Access Bank is a good neighbor and

01:57:34.750 --> 01:57:36.000
employer in the city.

01:57:36.000 --> 01:57:39.020
But I just have to disagree with the way staff looked at

01:57:39.020 --> 01:57:41.000
this as conforming to the area.

01:57:41.000 --> 01:57:44.149
I can't support the encroachment into the single-family

01:57:44.149 --> 01:57:47.520
neighborhood where people live and the dislocation of these

01:57:47.520 --> 01:57:50.000
tenants and property dwellers in the area.

01:57:50.000 --> 01:57:53.649
If we allow this encroachment, it will be the beginning of

01:57:53.649 --> 01:57:57.000
the collapse of that residential area of our city.

01:57:57.000 --> 01:58:02.000
And I am not here to do that.

01:58:02.000 --> 01:58:05.609
Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you, Vice Chair. I go along

01:58:05.609 --> 01:58:08.000
with Commissioner Bec and Ellis.

01:58:08.000 --> 01:58:13.000
I just can't see with the limited information that we have.

01:58:13.000 --> 01:58:18.939
The fact that rezoning to the requested DGC, DCG would

01:58:18.939 --> 01:58:23.000
increase the height to 100 feet.

01:58:23.000 --> 01:58:26.789
And I'm looking at a Google map of the houses in the

01:58:26.789 --> 01:58:30.819
neighborhood and wondering how many backyards is that going

01:58:30.819 --> 01:58:33.000
to be looking into, how many front yards.

01:58:33.000 --> 01:58:37.409
And I just don't think if we're trying to preserve areas of

01:58:37.409 --> 01:58:43.189
Denton that have affordable housing that are somewhat, I

01:58:43.189 --> 01:58:45.000
don't know, I'd call it historic.

01:58:45.000 --> 01:58:49.609
But at least they're older homes that have a relatively

01:58:49.609 --> 01:58:51.000
well kept up.

01:58:51.000 --> 01:58:54.779
I just can't see letting a bank come in with unknown

01:58:54.779 --> 01:59:00.640
information, unknown plans, unknown people, unknown streets

01:59:00.640 --> 01:59:04.000
or whatever and go along with it.

01:59:04.000 --> 01:59:14.000
I need a lot more information than that. Thank you.

01:59:14.000 --> 01:59:18.000
Commissioner Sanchez.

01:59:18.000 --> 01:59:22.000
I guess I can't agree with the change.

01:59:22.000 --> 01:59:24.819
And the reason is I've driven that area and I see some of

01:59:24.819 --> 01:59:28.560
their older homes, they probably go back to the 1950s or

01:59:28.560 --> 01:59:30.000
even older than that.

01:59:30.000 --> 01:59:35.039
And when people say affordable housing and I'm just saying

01:59:35.039 --> 01:59:38.970
I'm a landlord and I see some of the those houses are in

01:59:38.970 --> 01:59:40.000
very poor condition.

01:59:40.000 --> 01:59:43.630
And when we say affordable housing, it makes me wonder, it

01:59:43.630 --> 01:59:46.000
's not really affordable housing.

01:59:46.000 --> 01:59:49.359
It's poor housing. I bet if you go into some of those

01:59:49.359 --> 01:59:52.000
houses, most of us wouldn't even want to live in them.

01:59:52.000 --> 01:59:55.539
So I'm imagining that what they want to do is improve that

01:59:55.539 --> 01:59:59.000
neighborhood by bringing in some new businesses.

01:59:59.000 --> 02:00:01.760
We can't always just go back and say we want to live like

02:00:01.760 --> 02:00:05.000
these houses were built 1940s, 1950s.

02:00:05.000 --> 02:00:09.439
They're in pretty bad shape. Probably a lot of the wiring

02:00:09.439 --> 02:00:10.000
is bad.

02:00:10.000 --> 02:00:14.090
The insulation is bad and there's probably a whole lot of

02:00:14.090 --> 02:00:16.000
other plumbing is bad.

02:00:16.000 --> 02:00:18.210
And so it's time to sometimes we have to give up things

02:00:18.210 --> 02:00:20.460
unless somebody's willing to spend a lot of money and rem

02:00:20.460 --> 02:00:22.000
odel those homes.

02:00:22.000 --> 02:00:26.000
And I would imagine most people aren't going to buy them.

02:00:26.000 --> 02:00:28.979
If they go up for sale, they'll probably go up for pennies

02:00:28.979 --> 02:00:31.000
that, you know, fifteen, twenty thousand dollars.

02:00:31.000 --> 02:00:36.409
A lot is the only thing that probably really is worth

02:00:36.409 --> 02:00:38.000
something.

02:00:38.000 --> 02:00:42.000
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chair. I'm a little torn on this one.

02:00:42.000 --> 02:00:45.409
I do understand the points that are made by the commission

02:00:45.409 --> 02:00:48.000
ers that this could encroach upon the area.

02:00:48.000 --> 02:00:51.979
Same time, I think, honestly, until Ms. Rauch brought up

02:00:51.979 --> 02:00:55.569
the kind of the crime and the issue in the area, I probably

02:00:55.569 --> 02:00:58.000
would have said to be against this as well.

02:00:58.000 --> 02:01:01.060
But honestly, whenever you take a look at commercial

02:01:01.060 --> 02:01:04.579
development in certain areas, whenever it's depends upon

02:01:04.579 --> 02:01:06.000
the commercial development,

02:01:06.000 --> 02:01:07.479
you know, a bar or something like that, an area makes a

02:01:07.479 --> 02:01:10.310
difference. But if you're building professional offices

02:01:10.310 --> 02:01:14.170
like this, usually they have some sort of permanent parking

02:01:14.170 --> 02:01:17.609
parking lot lighting that's going to be on even during the

02:01:17.609 --> 02:01:19.000
evenings.

02:01:19.000 --> 02:01:22.039
That might deter some sort of the some some of the problems

02:01:22.039 --> 02:01:24.000
that you are seeing in that area.

02:01:24.000 --> 02:01:27.729
So honestly, as well as small of an area that's being

02:01:27.729 --> 02:01:31.659
developed with this project in particular, I can't I don't

02:01:31.659 --> 02:01:34.180
know if I can really even go as far as to say it's truly an

02:01:34.180 --> 02:01:35.000
encroachment.

02:01:35.000 --> 02:01:38.390
As there is already that commercial building right then and

02:01:38.390 --> 02:01:39.000
there.

02:01:39.000 --> 02:01:43.779
So I don't know. I wanted to say my piece for the record in

02:01:43.779 --> 02:01:48.000
regards to to where I'm kind of seeing this project fall.

02:01:48.000 --> 02:01:51.000
Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair.

02:01:51.000 --> 02:01:53.840
A couple of things. I appreciate Commissioner Sanchez's

02:01:53.840 --> 02:01:56.000
opinion of what the houses may be inside.

02:01:56.000 --> 02:01:59.819
But if he has driven by him from what I've seen, they've

02:01:59.819 --> 02:02:03.659
been very well kept on the outside and it might be safe to

02:02:03.659 --> 02:02:07.739
assume that they've been taken just as adequately cared on

02:02:07.739 --> 02:02:09.000
the inside.

02:02:09.000 --> 02:02:13.680
But just because they're old doesn't make them something

02:02:13.680 --> 02:02:17.000
that we should cover up and move over.

02:02:17.000 --> 02:02:19.699
A lot of old houses have been taken care of. Affordable

02:02:19.699 --> 02:02:22.579
means just that that if they are paying roughly $500 a

02:02:22.579 --> 02:02:25.449
month, they're not going to find anything else like that in

02:02:25.449 --> 02:02:27.000
a two or three bedroom.

02:02:27.000 --> 02:02:31.039
So I would venture to say that these houses are probably

02:02:31.039 --> 02:02:35.159
are probably have been kept up well enough where they're

02:02:35.159 --> 02:02:39.000
worth the lower value to be in charge right now.

02:02:39.000 --> 02:02:43.380
Also, I guess one of my objections to to the applicant is

02:02:43.380 --> 02:02:47.819
she mentioned that these aren't essential buildings for

02:02:47.819 --> 02:02:49.000
that bank.

02:02:49.000 --> 02:02:52.390
This is just a use for that property to be rented out to

02:02:52.390 --> 02:02:54.000
other individuals.

02:02:54.000 --> 02:02:57.500
So it kind of takes something away from me that if access

02:02:57.500 --> 02:03:00.619
bank isn't in need of this extra room, these extra

02:03:00.619 --> 02:03:03.520
buildings that they're putting these up in an area that I

02:03:03.520 --> 02:03:06.449
would like to see preserved with a lot of additional

02:03:06.449 --> 02:03:08.000
parking, a lot of additional parking, which takes up a lot

02:03:08.000 --> 02:03:08.000
of space.

02:03:08.000 --> 02:03:12.479
So parking, which takes away from area that could be used

02:03:12.479 --> 02:03:17.000
to absorb moisture instead of run off into the street.

02:03:17.000 --> 02:03:20.000
Thank you.

02:03:20.000 --> 02:03:23.000
Christian also happen real fast.

02:03:23.000 --> 02:03:26.390
I appreciate everyone coming out and listening and vocal

02:03:26.390 --> 02:03:29.850
izing their thoughts and provide some context to an area

02:03:29.850 --> 02:03:32.000
that I'm not all too familiar with.

02:03:32.000 --> 02:03:35.979
I am familiar with the area is with the I believe it's a

02:03:35.979 --> 02:03:40.279
Wells Fargo advisor and maple and Carol, as well as the ATM

02:03:40.279 --> 02:03:44.380
drive through that we approved as well as the large bank

02:03:44.380 --> 02:03:48.449
that Pacific Street, which is in disrepair is almost a

02:03:48.449 --> 02:03:50.000
safety hazard.

02:03:50.000 --> 02:03:53.029
And I feel like proper development of the area could

02:03:53.029 --> 02:03:56.140
elevate the property values in the area as well as the

02:03:56.140 --> 02:03:59.810
safety. And I think through an ADP, there could actually be

02:03:59.810 --> 02:04:03.000
a significantly better flow of traffic in the area for

02:04:03.000 --> 02:04:07.000
those existing, especially north of maple who, who I know

02:04:07.000 --> 02:04:10.000
get ransacked with through traffic going from Carol to Elm.

02:04:10.000 --> 02:04:14.199
And so I think there's some some unique opportunities that

02:04:14.199 --> 02:04:18.310
could exist by the redevelopment of this. And so I'm for

02:04:18.310 --> 02:04:20.000
res rezoning this.

02:04:20.000 --> 02:04:25.949
But but with that understanding the tone of the commission

02:04:25.949 --> 02:04:27.000
thus far.

02:04:27.000 --> 02:04:31.560
It would take for affirmative votes for this to pass. And

02:04:31.560 --> 02:04:36.079
so what I would perhaps suggest or even encourage is, if,

02:04:36.079 --> 02:04:40.449
if there's a sense of four votes of the affirmative would

02:04:40.449 --> 02:04:44.920
not happen that we could table this to allow the applicant

02:04:44.920 --> 02:04:48.520
to speak to the neighbors and see if we can come up with a

02:04:48.520 --> 02:04:51.000
better solution they could bring back that would be more

02:04:51.000 --> 02:04:52.000
palatable to the commission.

02:04:52.000 --> 02:04:56.180
So that would be my suggestion has been a motion put out

02:04:56.180 --> 02:04:59.439
there. I'll let Commissioner Ellis speak and then if there

02:04:59.439 --> 02:05:01.979
has been a motion that would be the motion that I might

02:05:01.979 --> 02:05:05.000
encourage it be to table this but Christian else forgers.

02:05:05.000 --> 02:05:09.010
Thank you, Mr. Chair, just wanted to respond to a couple of

02:05:09.010 --> 02:05:10.000
comments.

02:05:10.000 --> 02:05:12.939
Commissioner Sanchez I think you were assuming a lot with

02:05:12.939 --> 02:05:16.090
these properties in the area there's some lovely properties

02:05:16.090 --> 02:05:18.840
in the area and in my opinion everyone deserves to live

02:05:18.840 --> 02:05:21.800
somewhere even if they don't live up to two ones perceived

02:05:21.800 --> 02:05:24.000
standards and with Commissioner Smith.

02:05:24.000 --> 02:05:35.329
This is an encroachment the we are footprinting right into

02:05:35.329 --> 02:05:41.880
we're taking away 12. Let's see 123 I believe it's five

02:05:41.880 --> 02:05:43.149
residential homes and putting it on top of I believe there

02:05:43.149 --> 02:05:44.369
's five more that will be left for how long probably not

02:05:44.369 --> 02:05:45.000
very if we do this.

02:05:45.000 --> 02:05:48.220
And I appreciate you vice chair about about the tabling

02:05:48.220 --> 02:05:51.369
idea. Not sure what it could take to get me to to get on

02:05:51.369 --> 02:05:55.000
board with with encroaching this into the neighborhood.

02:05:55.000 --> 02:05:57.000
Sure.

02:05:57.000 --> 02:06:05.810
Commissioner Smith. Thank you chair regarding commission

02:06:05.810 --> 02:06:13.279
else's points to think that the part that was trying to

02:06:13.279 --> 02:06:19.000
make with encroachment is that it's.

02:06:19.000 --> 02:06:21.680
You're seeing encroachment as a snowball effect you're

02:06:21.680 --> 02:06:24.560
seeing encroachment as this does change neighborhood into

02:06:24.560 --> 02:06:27.369
commercial and in that part I'll respect and say yes you're

02:06:27.369 --> 02:06:29.000
100% correct there.

02:06:29.000 --> 02:06:32.369
And that's the part that I'm torn about. And so within that

02:06:32.369 --> 02:06:37.039
, I do want to make a motion to table this item until May 23

02:06:37.039 --> 02:06:41.899
pending what legal says, but then table aside until May 23

02:06:41.899 --> 02:06:46.460
to allow the applicant to discuss this further with the

02:06:46.460 --> 02:06:47.000
neighborhood

02:06:47.000 --> 02:06:51.279
and come up with some better, better options for us to vote

02:06:51.279 --> 02:06:54.949
on in regards to some of the concerns are brought up

02:06:54.949 --> 02:06:56.000
tonight.

02:06:56.000 --> 02:06:58.000
It's certain.

02:06:58.000 --> 02:07:01.409
Change my motion to motion to table to date certain

02:07:01.409 --> 02:07:06.000
postponed postponed to date certain commissioner Sanchez.

02:07:06.000 --> 02:07:12.500
Yes, I also agree with you about postponing it, and I didn

02:07:12.500 --> 02:07:17.000
't mean that when I was talking about. I did see some when I

02:07:17.000 --> 02:07:17.000
drove through there. There was a couple of houses that were

02:07:17.000 --> 02:07:17.000
vacant.

02:07:17.000 --> 02:07:20.979
And to me they were really poor conditions and ones closest

02:07:20.979 --> 02:07:24.590
to the bank, and in fact also the ones that I assumed are

02:07:24.590 --> 02:07:28.569
the ones that are being considered to be to be rezoned. And

02:07:28.569 --> 02:07:32.630
as part of this project. So yeah, there is some some pretty

02:07:32.630 --> 02:07:37.649
nice little houses further on the on the west on the east

02:07:37.649 --> 02:07:38.000
side.

02:07:38.000 --> 02:07:41.590
But again, there are some pretty homes that are in pretty

02:07:41.590 --> 02:07:45.220
bad shape in that area, you know, and I'm just saying is it

02:07:45.220 --> 02:07:48.939
takes a lot to rebuild some houses, especially those older

02:07:48.939 --> 02:07:52.140
houses are going to have to redo it all the like I said

02:07:52.140 --> 02:07:54.000
earlier, the plumbing.

02:07:54.000 --> 02:07:57.779
If you want to really talk about a decent place for a

02:07:57.779 --> 02:08:01.920
person to live. You have to be able to go in there do the

02:08:01.920 --> 02:08:06.600
plumbing electricity, probably new windows almost rebuild

02:08:06.600 --> 02:08:08.000
those houses. That's all there is to it.

02:08:08.000 --> 02:08:10.010
Commissioner Sanchez for clarification you said you

02:08:10.010 --> 02:08:12.239
supported the motion, are you seconding the motion or just

02:08:12.239 --> 02:08:15.609
stating your. I was saying my opinion but I was also, I can

02:08:15.609 --> 02:08:17.000
second the motion.

02:08:17.000 --> 02:08:20.069
Okay, we have a first and a second and Christian back for

02:08:20.069 --> 02:08:21.000
discussion.

02:08:21.000 --> 02:08:24.000
Yes, thank you vice chair.

02:08:24.000 --> 02:08:27.010
I don't have a particular problem with moving this on up

02:08:27.010 --> 02:08:30.649
and looking at it later, especially if there's a condition

02:08:30.649 --> 02:08:33.710
attached to it that would make sure that there was a

02:08:33.710 --> 02:08:37.449
neighborhood meeting that people that live around there got

02:08:37.449 --> 02:08:41.000
a chance to talk to the applicant and express

02:08:41.000 --> 02:08:44.590
their concerns openly, like Commissioner Ellis so I don't

02:08:44.590 --> 02:08:47.970
think there's much going to be changed my mind about, you

02:08:47.970 --> 02:08:51.189
know, how I feel moving forward with this so, but just

02:08:51.189 --> 02:08:54.390
wanted to point out that if for some reason, this went

02:08:54.390 --> 02:08:58.000
forward as continuous that it be with

02:08:58.000 --> 02:09:03.000
stipulation that there would be a neighborhood meeting.

02:09:03.000 --> 02:09:15.000
Commissioner Sullivan.

02:09:15.000 --> 02:09:18.600
There were a few neighbors that were concerned about the

02:09:18.600 --> 02:09:22.199
traffic, which I have no idea where they thought people

02:09:22.199 --> 02:09:25.600
would be coming to or from to go to that church but they

02:09:25.600 --> 02:09:29.090
were heard and I don't know the fact that those were nice

02:09:29.090 --> 02:09:33.670
big homes nice home, nice neighborhoods and here we were

02:09:33.670 --> 02:09:35.000
talking about the hood.

02:09:35.000 --> 02:09:47.000
Mr St. Chas's language verbiage I guess of poor homes. I

02:09:47.000 --> 02:09:47.000
don't think that has even should not have anything to do

02:09:47.000 --> 02:09:47.000
with the fact that it's a neighborhood.

02:09:47.000 --> 02:09:52.939
If the board dealt with that too at that point, that way,

02:09:52.939 --> 02:09:58.199
then they should be getting the same recognition and

02:09:58.199 --> 02:10:04.000
treatment as the other homes did at that point in time so

02:10:04.000 --> 02:10:08.000
now you might be able to hear me so.

02:10:08.000 --> 02:10:11.720
I'm not going to go over it now. So again, I just, I just

02:10:11.720 --> 02:10:15.380
don't feel I don't know what tabling it will do or postp

02:10:15.380 --> 02:10:18.000
oning it or whatever.

02:10:18.000 --> 02:10:21.069
Because I don't know how much information they are required

02:10:21.069 --> 02:10:22.000
to bring to us.

02:10:22.000 --> 02:10:24.000
When they come back next time.

02:10:24.000 --> 02:10:27.170
I mean, I just don't know. So how does how does how does

02:10:27.170 --> 02:10:31.000
tabling or postponing this tonight.

02:10:31.000 --> 02:10:34.000
Change what they're going to present next time.

02:10:34.000 --> 02:10:40.000
And what will they be held to whatever they present next

02:10:40.000 --> 02:10:41.000
time.

02:10:41.000 --> 02:10:46.939
I assume that is a question for me or legal. I don't know

02:10:46.939 --> 02:10:49.000
who has.

02:10:49.000 --> 02:10:52.000
For me, for me personally, I, I know the applicant.

02:10:52.000 --> 02:10:55.500
It's already been postponed two dates because of chair and

02:10:55.500 --> 02:10:57.000
myself's attendance.

02:10:57.000 --> 02:11:01.000
So it's not my prerogative to push them back further.

02:11:01.000 --> 02:11:04.210
I support the project. I'm looking for potentially the

02:11:04.210 --> 02:11:07.399
opportunity to bring in more public support to bring in

02:11:07.399 --> 02:11:10.319
more neighbors to provide further context for the

02:11:10.319 --> 02:11:11.000
commission.

02:11:11.000 --> 02:11:14.500
This I think is wholly different than a Catholic Church of

02:11:14.500 --> 02:11:19.430
Teasley versus a downtown commercial district that already

02:11:19.430 --> 02:11:22.699
has neighboring multi story building in which they're

02:11:22.699 --> 02:11:26.319
trying to potentially raise the elevation of the property

02:11:26.319 --> 02:11:29.000
value safety traffic, etc.

02:11:29.000 --> 02:11:31.210
So I see those independent and I think it should be

02:11:31.210 --> 02:11:32.000
independent.

02:11:32.000 --> 02:11:35.500
So it'd be my prerogative to push this forward and allow

02:11:35.500 --> 02:11:38.000
allow that development to persist.

02:11:38.000 --> 02:11:41.289
My only suggestion and encouragement to postpone was

02:11:41.289 --> 02:11:44.850
provide the opportunity that maybe two weeks from now we

02:11:44.850 --> 02:11:46.000
look at it again.

02:11:46.000 --> 02:11:50.000
Fresh eyes, perhaps more public input.

02:11:50.000 --> 02:11:52.210
I'm not trying to confine the applicant to what they could

02:11:52.210 --> 02:11:53.000
or could not bring.

02:11:53.000 --> 02:11:56.800
I'm not going to define that for them, but potentially

02:11:56.800 --> 02:12:00.930
bring back opportunities to speak to the commissioners who

02:12:00.930 --> 02:12:04.710
are opposed to it in a way that that frames the project in

02:12:04.710 --> 02:12:07.000
a greater light with that Commissioner Smith.

02:12:07.000 --> 02:12:09.720
Yeah, just to speak to Commissioner Sullivan's points as

02:12:09.720 --> 02:12:11.000
the maker of the motion.

02:12:11.000 --> 02:12:19.970
I do think that postponing it just at least while it does

02:12:19.970 --> 02:12:27.000
put off this project a little bit longer. I think that this

02:12:27.000 --> 02:12:27.000
would be the one and only continuance that could that could

02:12:27.000 --> 02:12:27.000
occur without it really being a waste of time.

02:12:27.000 --> 02:12:28.960
But I think there are points that are brought up tonight

02:12:28.960 --> 02:12:31.000
that probably the applicant hadn't thought of yet.

02:12:31.000 --> 02:12:34.500
So rather than rather than than just completely cut off the

02:12:34.500 --> 02:12:37.850
project to cut the applicant off at its knees, rather say

02:12:37.850 --> 02:12:41.140
here's the points you may have not thought of have a chance

02:12:41.140 --> 02:12:44.739
to come back and either show us as a commission whether or

02:12:44.739 --> 02:12:47.000
not those problems can be solved.

02:12:47.000 --> 02:12:49.000
And if not, then it'll be pretty evident.

02:12:49.000 --> 02:12:53.199
And we'll vote to shoot down then. So more or less, instead

02:12:53.199 --> 02:12:57.090
of having the the applicant be be ambushed about a 45

02:12:57.090 --> 02:13:01.060
minute span with no chance to to really come together with

02:13:01.060 --> 02:13:05.000
a case for why they can work around those problems.

02:13:05.000 --> 02:13:10.000
I think that's only fair. So

02:13:10.000 --> 02:13:13.260
first and second on the floor. There's no one else for

02:13:13.260 --> 02:13:16.520
discussion. So we'll vote on the board for a motion to

02:13:16.520 --> 02:13:33.000
postpone this agenda item to date certain of May 23.

02:13:40.000 --> 02:13:57.000
Motion.

02:13:57.000 --> 02:14:00.000
That motion fails 3 3.

02:14:00.000 --> 02:14:08.000
The chair will entertain a secondary motion.

02:14:08.000 --> 02:14:10.000
Mr. Sullivan.

02:14:10.000 --> 02:14:13.000
Make a motion to deny.

02:14:13.000 --> 02:14:15.000
Commissioner Alice second.

02:14:15.000 --> 02:14:17.329
We have a first and a second. Is there any discussion on

02:14:17.329 --> 02:14:19.000
the items, Commissioner Smith.

02:14:19.000 --> 02:14:22.979
I already said reiterate the same point to think that given

02:14:22.979 --> 02:14:26.529
chance to to speak to be able to form a case come back and

02:14:26.529 --> 02:14:30.630
say why these problems could be solved by something else. F

02:14:30.630 --> 02:14:34.409
ully fair to the applicant rather than just taking their

02:14:34.409 --> 02:14:39.000
project they applied for back in October and saying, sorry.

02:14:39.000 --> 02:14:53.140
I agree with with Commissioner Smith. The the current

02:14:53.140 --> 02:14:53.600
habitat of those homes is is in my estimation from the

02:14:53.600 --> 02:14:54.149
feedback I've gotten tonight unsustainable. One of those

02:14:54.149 --> 02:14:54.689
homes actually gets direct headlight traffic from ATM every

02:14:54.689 --> 02:14:59.460
night. And so are we persisting in providing the rental

02:14:59.460 --> 02:15:02.000
properties or the home ownership.

02:15:02.000 --> 02:15:04.819
When we had one rental property owner talk about light

02:15:04.819 --> 02:15:07.939
pollution. We have a home that currently has its their

02:15:07.939 --> 02:15:11.199
front doors facing the exit of an ATM. And so and I don't

02:15:11.199 --> 02:15:15.069
think it's on the it's the onus of the applicant to stop

02:15:15.069 --> 02:15:17.000
zoning encroachment.

02:15:17.000 --> 02:15:19.680
That's that's this commission's obligation. So it seems

02:15:19.680 --> 02:15:23.130
that I'm hearing in part that if we zone this there goes

02:15:23.130 --> 02:15:26.989
the block which the block is not up for rezoning tonight.

02:15:26.989 --> 02:15:30.000
It's these pieces of property.

02:15:30.000 --> 02:15:34.039
We have some individuals in support of it. And so I feel

02:15:34.039 --> 02:15:38.810
compelled obviously based on the initial motion in my

02:15:38.810 --> 02:15:43.659
earlier city comments to vote against the deny for reasons

02:15:43.659 --> 02:15:48.470
that I think this is impeding good infill development that

02:15:48.470 --> 02:15:52.739
I think raises this city's stature to a degree that that

02:15:52.739 --> 02:15:54.000
would be beneficial.

02:15:54.000 --> 02:15:57.720
Christian or Sanchez. Yeah. If you look at the that just

02:15:57.720 --> 02:16:01.439
that little neighborhood on the across the street on Myrtle

02:16:01.439 --> 02:16:04.869
you have that brand new that new apartment complex that

02:16:04.869 --> 02:16:06.000
just went up.

02:16:06.000 --> 02:16:10.460
You have the bank on the south side and then on the is that

02:16:10.460 --> 02:16:15.340
the east side west side you have another office. So really

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

02:16:19.869 --> 02:16:24.000
there's nothing but commercial buildings.

02:16:24.000 --> 02:16:29.640
And that's why I think it's it's it's over time over the

02:16:29.640 --> 02:16:36.059
long period. I think eventually this whole area is going to

02:16:36.059 --> 02:16:42.000
be developed. That's my belief.

02:16:42.000 --> 02:16:46.020
Commissioner Smith. Thank you. Can I come back up to the

02:16:46.020 --> 02:16:49.969
mic for one second. I just wanted to see within regards to

02:16:49.969 --> 02:16:53.520
I know we're not we're not voting out a motion to table

02:16:53.520 --> 02:16:56.000
anymore or motion to continue.

02:16:56.000 --> 02:16:59.149
But what time give you adequate adequate way to be able to

02:16:59.149 --> 02:17:02.370
respond to some of the concerns are brought up versus just

02:17:02.370 --> 02:17:06.000
killing the motion now. I appreciate the question.

02:17:06.000 --> 02:17:08.709
Yes it definitely would. I think there are some

02:17:08.709 --> 02:17:11.629
misconceptions that I have not had an opportunity to

02:17:11.629 --> 02:17:14.639
address related to the project including parking for

02:17:14.639 --> 02:17:18.000
example our existing ADP says that we cannot increase the

02:17:18.000 --> 02:17:20.000
number of parking spaces.

02:17:20.000 --> 02:17:23.590
So while that draft concept plan shows additional parking

02:17:23.590 --> 02:17:26.850
spaces it was never intended to lock us into a specific

02:17:26.850 --> 02:17:30.170
site plan or number of parking spaces. And so I'd like to

02:17:30.170 --> 02:17:33.750
have the opportunity to come back before the commission and

02:17:33.750 --> 02:17:37.000
address some of those things that you raised as concerns

02:17:37.000 --> 02:17:41.459
that may have already be mitigated for or we may be willing

02:17:41.459 --> 02:17:44.600
to commit to some additional restrictions such as an

02:17:44.600 --> 02:17:48.200
overlay to restrict building height and things of that

02:17:48.200 --> 02:17:49.000
nature.

02:17:49.000 --> 02:17:53.159
Secondly and perhaps more importantly we applied for this

02:17:53.159 --> 02:17:57.059
zoning for all four parcels at once. There's a parcel to

02:17:57.059 --> 02:18:00.209
the south currently has a detention pond on it that we've

02:18:00.209 --> 02:18:03.399
reached an agreement with the city of Denton where we're

02:18:03.399 --> 02:18:06.469
going to tie into their drainage system when the drainage

02:18:06.469 --> 02:18:09.000
improvements are made on.

02:18:09.000 --> 02:18:13.049
And we would like the opportunity to be able to repurpose

02:18:13.049 --> 02:18:16.930
that lot and regardless of the other three. And so if

02:18:16.930 --> 02:18:20.629
nothing else I would like the opportunity to have it

02:18:20.629 --> 02:18:24.590
postponed so that we can look at either withdrawing the

02:18:24.590 --> 02:18:28.540
zoning case from the northern three so that you can just

02:18:28.540 --> 02:18:33.000
look at the lot that has no houses on it today and consider

02:18:33.000 --> 02:18:36.649
that one and or allow us the opportunity to come back and

02:18:36.649 --> 02:18:38.000
address some of the concerns that.

02:18:38.000 --> 02:18:42.110
We have we may have we may have already taken care of. So

02:18:42.110 --> 02:18:44.920
you're saying that possibly postpone might might allow you

02:18:44.920 --> 02:18:47.370
to come back and say you know what no longer we can we do

02:18:47.370 --> 02:18:50.000
all four parcels we can do just the one and we're coming to

02:18:50.000 --> 02:18:53.260
reason just that once we could tie in the drainage that

02:18:53.260 --> 02:18:54.000
tension is on.

02:18:54.000 --> 02:18:59.940
That is that is that is an opportunity that I would hate to

02:18:59.940 --> 02:19:05.750
miss because it's it's not directly tied to the concerns

02:19:05.750 --> 02:19:09.790
about affordable housing. And I do believe that we would

02:19:09.790 --> 02:19:11.399
certainly take advantage of the opportunity to visit with

02:19:11.399 --> 02:19:12.000
the neighbors.

02:19:12.000 --> 02:19:15.280
And I approached Miss Rouch before the the meeting ever

02:19:15.280 --> 02:19:18.489
began and gave her my card and told her that I'd be happy

02:19:18.489 --> 02:19:22.219
to visit with her about her concerns. And we'd like the

02:19:22.219 --> 02:19:25.870
opportunity to to come back and address some of the

02:19:25.870 --> 02:19:29.459
concerns and we won't waste everybody's time if that's

02:19:29.459 --> 02:19:33.000
something that doesn't change anybody's mind that's fine we

02:19:33.000 --> 02:19:37.000
but we'd like a chance to revisit those issues.

02:19:37.000 --> 02:19:42.739
Sure. Appreciate. Thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you

02:19:42.739 --> 02:19:45.590
Vice Chair. Just to address a couple things I definitely

02:19:45.590 --> 02:19:49.000
don't look at this as an infill development of any kind.

02:19:49.000 --> 02:19:51.760
And I do think we have to look at what a rezoning does when

02:19:51.760 --> 02:19:54.399
we encroach into a neighborhood, and it is just what

02:19:54.399 --> 02:19:57.239
Commissioner Sanchez said, if we do it, the rest of the

02:19:57.239 --> 02:20:00.219
neighborhood will go and that is definitely something that

02:20:00.219 --> 02:20:05.000
we as a commission need to take into consideration.

02:20:05.000 --> 02:20:11.649
Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. Again,

02:20:11.649 --> 02:20:14.899
just want to reiterate that this is it is an encroachment

02:20:14.899 --> 02:20:21.090
or becomes a slippery slope. And the fact that I'm glad to

02:20:21.090 --> 02:20:23.469
see we had at least two people to live in the area that

02:20:23.469 --> 02:20:26.319
came down and oppose this because originally didn't look

02:20:26.319 --> 02:20:28.000
like we're going to have any but.

02:20:28.000 --> 02:20:32.000
And I don't disagree with the opinion that this development

02:20:32.000 --> 02:20:35.840
will improve the area in some respects but that in alone of

02:20:35.840 --> 02:20:39.850
itself shouldn't negate the fact that you've got people who

02:20:39.850 --> 02:20:42.000
like things the way they are.

02:20:42.000 --> 02:20:45.020
The fact that we probably haven't had more people is

02:20:45.020 --> 02:20:47.000
because I think a lot of times.

02:20:47.000 --> 02:20:49.469
Especially if the renters think you know hey it's city hall

02:20:49.469 --> 02:20:51.930
they're going to do what they want to anyway they're always

02:20:51.930 --> 02:20:54.299
going to do what the developer the builder wants. And I

02:20:54.299 --> 02:20:56.639
think this is just one of those cases where we need to say

02:20:56.639 --> 02:20:59.600
no you know we need to back the people that live here for

02:20:59.600 --> 02:21:02.000
the reasons that they want.

02:21:02.000 --> 02:21:05.000
Again, wouldn't be.

02:21:05.000 --> 02:21:10.360
I'm beginning to feel like I'm between a rock and a hard

02:21:10.360 --> 02:21:16.079
spot to at least give the developer a second chance to come

02:21:16.079 --> 02:21:17.440
back. But I don't see anything really changed in my mind.

02:21:17.440 --> 02:21:18.000
That's the only reason I hesitate to say, I'll do that.

02:21:18.000 --> 02:21:22.659
But, again, the fact that city government officials are

02:21:22.659 --> 02:21:27.170
often viewed as being, you know, to pro business and not

02:21:27.170 --> 02:21:32.110
enough concerned about individual citizens is something I'd

02:21:32.110 --> 02:21:36.190
like to diminish here if we could just simply voting

02:21:36.190 --> 02:21:39.000
against this reason request.

02:21:39.000 --> 02:21:40.000
Thank you.

02:21:40.000 --> 02:21:43.000
Commissioner Sanchez.

02:21:43.000 --> 02:21:46.389
I just want to say that, you know, again I go back to this

02:21:46.389 --> 02:21:49.540
when these houses were built things change in those

02:21:49.540 --> 02:21:53.000
neighborhoods change all neighborhoods change.

02:21:53.000 --> 02:21:56.590
My neighborhood has changed quite a bit from when I moved

02:21:56.590 --> 02:22:00.739
in. So, all I want to say is, there's been a lot of new

02:22:00.739 --> 02:22:04.469
building you have gateway apartments that are catty corner

02:22:04.469 --> 02:22:06.000
to that to that area.

02:22:06.000 --> 02:22:10.049
And there's a lot of apartments being built in that whole

02:22:10.049 --> 02:22:14.200
area. And so that has changed quite a bit. So we need to

02:22:14.200 --> 02:22:18.100
look at what's happening in the city of Den and this not

02:22:18.100 --> 02:22:22.079
try to reserve one area, while everything around it is

02:22:22.079 --> 02:22:23.000
changing.

02:22:23.000 --> 02:22:26.000
Mr Smith, thank you, Chair.

02:22:26.000 --> 02:22:28.360
I just want to try to put myself in the position of what I

02:22:28.360 --> 02:22:31.040
think for Commissioner Sullivan Ellis and Beck saying that

02:22:31.040 --> 02:22:33.540
's, I don't think my mind is going to change over my mind's

02:22:33.540 --> 02:22:36.000
going to change over my mind's going to change.

02:22:36.000 --> 02:22:37.979
I was in your seats and I was in a position where there was

02:22:37.979 --> 02:22:40.110
something in front of me that says, Yeah, you can come back

02:22:40.110 --> 02:22:42.000
but I don't think my mind's going to change.

02:22:42.000 --> 02:22:45.500
I still have to consider the fact that the applicant and

02:22:45.500 --> 02:22:49.139
the owners of that property have worked since October to do

02:22:49.139 --> 02:22:52.959
something. And then I as a commissioner could not sit there

02:22:52.959 --> 02:22:57.000
and say, well I may still vote you down two weeks from now.

02:22:57.000 --> 02:23:00.260
Why can't I at least give you the chance to come back and

02:23:00.260 --> 02:23:03.590
change my mind. And why do I need to be closed minded in

02:23:03.590 --> 02:23:07.430
that to say, come back, show me something different. And if

02:23:07.430 --> 02:23:10.659
it's my mind doesn't change because I don't think it's

02:23:10.659 --> 02:23:12.000
going to them.

02:23:12.000 --> 02:23:15.180
But how can I say that the applicant doesn't have the

02:23:15.180 --> 02:23:19.000
opportunity to at least make an attempt to change my mind.

02:23:19.000 --> 02:23:21.000
That's the only piece I'll give there.

02:23:21.000 --> 02:23:22.000
Commissioner Ellis.

02:23:22.000 --> 02:23:25.760
Thank you, Mr. Well, first of all, we already took a vote

02:23:25.760 --> 02:23:29.870
on the table and it was it failed. So right now we have a

02:23:29.870 --> 02:23:32.000
motion on the floor.

02:23:32.000 --> 02:23:35.000
Very true. Commissioner Sullivan.

02:23:35.000 --> 02:23:39.559
Part of my problem is that under the CG, since we don't

02:23:39.559 --> 02:23:44.229
know what's going in for sure, we could have a hotel bed

02:23:44.229 --> 02:23:49.430
and breakfast, retail restaurant private club bar laundry

02:23:49.430 --> 02:23:55.000
facilities, indoor recreation, which may not be all bad.

02:23:55.000 --> 02:23:58.069
The only one is that we don't know what we're voting on,

02:23:58.069 --> 02:24:01.500
other than change the zoning. We don't know what's going to

02:24:01.500 --> 02:24:04.989
go in there. It's not again, it's not part of the bank.

02:24:04.989 --> 02:24:08.000
This is a profit center form.

02:24:08.000 --> 02:24:13.069
And so I have a problem trading off a profit center for

02:24:13.069 --> 02:24:15.000
neighborhoods.

02:24:15.000 --> 02:24:19.120
I just don't think we need to be doing that motion still

02:24:19.120 --> 02:24:20.000
stands.

02:24:20.000 --> 02:24:22.840
I just want clarification, because you're Sullivan, it is

02:24:22.840 --> 02:24:25.940
within our prerogative to limit the uses. And so if you

02:24:25.940 --> 02:24:30.000
would be more inclined to vote yes, if we limited hotels.

02:24:30.000 --> 02:24:34.690
That's so I'm not sure your point if you're not. That's not

02:24:34.690 --> 02:24:38.180
a point is that all those things are allowed under this

02:24:38.180 --> 02:24:39.000
zoning.

02:24:39.000 --> 02:24:40.000
Correct.

02:24:40.000 --> 02:24:43.500
So that's what I'm saying those those those things are all

02:24:43.500 --> 02:24:47.000
allowed by the fact that it's a DCG.

02:24:47.000 --> 02:24:50.000
So if we limited its office space.

02:24:50.000 --> 02:24:53.000
No, okay, maybe height.

02:24:53.000 --> 02:24:57.000
Maybe width, I don't know, but not the way it's presented.

02:24:57.000 --> 02:24:59.000
So,

02:24:59.000 --> 02:25:01.000
Christian back.

02:25:01.000 --> 02:25:04.000
Thank you, Mr. Again, we are just for a vote.

02:25:04.000 --> 02:25:08.610
But should we come out three three again on this, it doesn

02:25:08.610 --> 02:25:13.090
't I don't think and correct me if I'm wrong doesn't limit

02:25:13.090 --> 02:25:17.780
the applicant from coming back with something totally new

02:25:17.780 --> 02:25:22.000
down the road that that we probably could all agree on.

02:25:22.000 --> 02:25:24.899
So, the fact that if we get hamstrung here and I doesn't

02:25:24.899 --> 02:25:27.979
mean that they could accommodate what we're talking about

02:25:27.979 --> 02:25:31.020
here they could come back with a whole different proposal

02:25:31.020 --> 02:25:33.850
down the road I realize that a little cost and energy on

02:25:33.850 --> 02:25:36.670
their part but it's, they're not going to be able to

02:25:36.670 --> 02:25:39.000
picture completely.

02:25:39.000 --> 02:25:42.500
Commissioner Smith nature staff, if, if there was if we did

02:25:42.500 --> 02:25:45.879
, I know with with legal out of the room. But if there was a

02:25:45.879 --> 02:25:50.079
approval to deny. What happens then with this project going

02:25:50.079 --> 02:25:51.000
forward.

02:25:51.000 --> 02:25:54.000
Because, sorry, because the count.

02:25:54.000 --> 02:25:57.819
If there is a vote to deny not just a split vote would go

02:25:57.819 --> 02:26:01.870
forward to counsel with requiring a super majority for

02:26:01.870 --> 02:26:03.000
approval.

02:26:03.000 --> 02:26:05.469
And then to speak to the concern of them being able to come

02:26:05.469 --> 02:26:07.899
back later they would have to wait a year to come back with

02:26:07.899 --> 02:26:10.250
a similar request to this it would have to be something

02:26:10.250 --> 02:26:12.850
substantially different, completely different zoning

02:26:12.850 --> 02:26:16.000
district or, or something of that nature to be able to come

02:26:16.000 --> 02:26:16.000
back

02:26:16.000 --> 02:26:18.000
sure within the year.

02:26:18.000 --> 02:26:20.000
Commissioner Alice Thanks, Haley.

02:26:20.000 --> 02:26:22.000
Thank you, Vice Chair.

02:26:22.000 --> 02:26:24.000
I might need you.

02:26:24.000 --> 02:26:27.760
Right, they can't come back with this for a year, but they

02:26:27.760 --> 02:26:31.360
could come back with that southern portion at that point

02:26:31.360 --> 02:26:34.750
correct or not since that was a portion of the request I

02:26:34.750 --> 02:26:38.219
don't believe DCG could come back on that property within

02:26:38.219 --> 02:26:40.000
the year, unless they withdrew their application

02:26:40.000 --> 02:26:43.000
altogether prior to it going to city council.

02:26:43.000 --> 02:26:44.000
It's possible.

02:26:44.000 --> 02:26:47.000
Good plan.

02:26:47.000 --> 02:26:53.370
Seeing no other discussion we do have a first and second

02:26:53.370 --> 02:26:59.059
for a motion to deny so we can go to the board just for

02:26:59.059 --> 02:27:04.930
clarification a vote yes is to deny a vote no is to not

02:27:04.930 --> 02:27:10.000
deny, and we can put votes on the board.

02:27:10.000 --> 02:27:13.979
The motion is a non action at three three, and given read

02:27:13.979 --> 02:27:17.500
this city ordinance that an affirmation vote of four

02:27:17.500 --> 02:27:21.329
members is necessary to repeal an ordinance or take any

02:27:21.329 --> 02:27:23.000
official action.

02:27:23.000 --> 02:27:30.129
I've been advised by council to take a recess so we can

02:27:30.129 --> 02:27:37.110
clarify the next steps going forward so can we take a

02:27:37.110 --> 02:27:45.000
recess for five minutes. Thank you.

02:27:45.000 --> 02:27:51.629
So, so these tie votes are unique I just want to explain

02:27:51.629 --> 02:27:56.620
they are unique. It's even more unique when the tie vote is

02:27:56.620 --> 02:28:00.520
includes a an abstention referred to our coordinates ordin

02:28:00.520 --> 02:28:05.000
ances 7.5.1 and which discusses tie tie votes.

02:28:05.000 --> 02:28:08.299
I'm just kind of forming the public that where we're coming

02:28:08.299 --> 02:28:11.379
with this is it matters voted on, which ended a tie vote

02:28:11.379 --> 02:28:14.510
shall be automatically placed on a subsequent council

02:28:14.510 --> 02:28:18.000
meeting until the full until the full board is present.

02:28:18.000 --> 02:28:22.000
And so in this case that that won't occur.

02:28:22.000 --> 02:28:26.290
And also, to point out as a chair has has explained that

02:28:26.290 --> 02:28:30.799
there is a majority vote of four members that's necessary

02:28:30.799 --> 02:28:35.379
to take any action. And so at this point I would recommend

02:28:35.379 --> 02:28:39.629
that this item be postponed to date certain what that date

02:28:39.629 --> 02:28:43.000
certain is I'll leave to the, to the board.

02:28:43.000 --> 02:28:48.350
In the hopes that that the title could be broken either way

02:28:48.350 --> 02:28:53.700
, going forward so thank you legal. So the options for postp

02:28:53.700 --> 02:28:57.729
oning to date certain would be made 23rd or June 13

02:28:57.729 --> 02:28:59.000
potentially.

02:28:59.000 --> 02:29:04.000
Miss best said,

02:29:04.000 --> 02:29:09.340
is there a date, could you is the 23rd enough time or would

02:29:09.340 --> 02:29:13.809
you prefer to come back on June 13. And I'm going to make a

02:29:13.809 --> 02:29:16.049
judgment call here and say that we'll go with June 13 if

02:29:16.049 --> 02:29:18.280
that's amenable to the board, because that does give us an

02:29:18.280 --> 02:29:20.000
opportunity to have some conversations

02:29:20.000 --> 02:29:22.559
with the neighborhood that we otherwise may not have time

02:29:22.559 --> 02:29:25.000
to do. Okay, thank you.

02:29:25.000 --> 02:29:28.850
So, with that then we'll probably have some questions here.

02:29:28.850 --> 02:29:31.819
Sounds like because it's a non action this will be

02:29:31.819 --> 02:29:35.739
postponed so date certain of June 13, my recommendation to

02:29:35.739 --> 02:29:39.069
city staff is to work with the applicant to carve out and

02:29:39.069 --> 02:29:42.000
cultivate an overlay that would restrict

02:29:42.000 --> 02:29:45.690
potential size and use and see if that would be more amen

02:29:45.690 --> 02:29:49.700
able to the community going forward and more amenable to the

02:29:49.700 --> 02:29:53.629
commission to try to limit the direction that that project

02:29:53.629 --> 02:29:55.000
goes with that.

02:29:55.000 --> 02:29:57.569
Commissioner Alice. Thank you, Vice Chair, I was just

02:29:57.569 --> 02:30:00.440
wanting clarification from legal. This is something you're

02:30:00.440 --> 02:30:03.610
postponing Is that correct. Yes, just based on our rules

02:30:03.610 --> 02:30:05.000
that we have to go by.

02:30:05.000 --> 02:30:08.379
It would be postponed to the next meeting. Anyway, until

02:30:08.379 --> 02:30:11.569
there was a full board. This is a unique situation will

02:30:11.569 --> 02:30:14.739
never get a full board will never get a full board, but so

02:30:14.739 --> 02:30:17.639
we would still defer to that to that language that be

02:30:17.639 --> 02:30:21.000
postponed to the next meeting.

02:30:21.000 --> 02:30:25.379
Then I'll just throw out two cents because you are going to

02:30:25.379 --> 02:30:29.559
get another chance to be before us. The only way that I

02:30:29.559 --> 02:30:33.750
would be for this is if we're talking about that lot that

02:30:33.750 --> 02:30:35.489
is on eagle. If you want to bring something forward and

02:30:35.489 --> 02:30:36.450
develop that and focus your efforts on that, I can get

02:30:36.450 --> 02:30:38.000
behind that particular lot.

02:30:38.000 --> 02:30:42.680
It wouldn't matter what kind of overlay. Honestly, I'm not

02:30:42.680 --> 02:30:48.000
on board with with eliminating five residential homes.

02:30:48.000 --> 02:30:52.959
Christopher Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair, again, Victor just

02:30:52.959 --> 02:30:54.000
for clarification.

02:30:54.000 --> 02:30:57.370
There's an ordinance that says because we're tied like we

02:30:57.370 --> 02:31:00.659
are then we have to instead just postpone it and move it up

02:31:00.659 --> 02:31:03.379
. Right, it doesn't it doesn't automatically go to city

02:31:03.379 --> 02:31:04.000
council.

02:31:04.000 --> 02:31:08.520
So, it, the way it's drafted and not this one I want to go

02:31:08.520 --> 02:31:13.069
check was that if the way it's drafted is it would be until

02:31:13.069 --> 02:31:18.040
there's opportunity to be before a full, a full board. Yeah

02:31:18.040 --> 02:31:18.530
, but in this case, since there's an extension it is, it

02:31:18.530 --> 02:31:19.329
doesn't work but we're still giving the intent to the

02:31:19.329 --> 02:31:21.000
language of that rule.

02:31:21.000 --> 02:31:24.979
Okay, and I just further add that I agree with Commissioner

02:31:24.979 --> 02:31:28.629
Ellis you know, if you're dealing with that front part of

02:31:28.629 --> 02:31:32.510
the area, only, I wouldn't have a problem with that either

02:31:32.510 --> 02:31:36.399
I wouldn't consider that encroachment and makes more sense

02:31:36.399 --> 02:31:39.000
than dealing with that back area along maple.

02:31:39.000 --> 02:31:46.000
Thank you.

02:31:46.000 --> 02:31:54.000
I'm sorry I lost track of my

02:31:54.000 --> 02:31:57.370
Christian Ellis. Thank you, Vice Chair, one more question

02:31:57.370 --> 02:31:58.000
Victor.

02:31:58.000 --> 02:32:01.399
Where is this that I just want to write it down. Yeah, I'll

02:32:01.399 --> 02:32:06.000
cite you to it. I had it and I close my book.

02:32:06.000 --> 02:32:13.000
Seven

02:32:13.000 --> 02:32:17.000
five five one, a, the title.

02:32:17.000 --> 02:32:24.620
And then also to run with it the 755, which is the majority

02:32:24.620 --> 02:32:28.000
vote requirement. Okay, thank you.

02:32:28.000 --> 02:32:32.190
So with that I will close the public hearing for agenda

02:32:32.190 --> 02:32:35.000
item 718 dash 004.

02:32:35.000 --> 02:32:37.840
Thank you for everyone coming out and sitting through that

02:32:37.840 --> 02:32:39.000
I appreciate that.

02:32:39.000 --> 02:32:44.940
The next item is item B, it's the final replat 17 dash 0024

02:32:44.940 --> 02:32:45.000
.

02:32:45.000 --> 02:32:48.409
I would open the public hearing for this and ask for a

02:32:48.409 --> 02:32:52.020
motion to continue to date certain. Commissioner Smith

02:32:52.020 --> 02:32:55.000
motion to continue to date certain Commissioner Ellis.

02:32:55.000 --> 02:32:57.000
Second.

02:32:57.000 --> 02:33:00.000
There's a first and a second a discussion.

02:33:00.000 --> 02:33:20.000
Seeing none I call for a vote on the board.

02:33:20.000 --> 02:33:30.629
And continue the item passes 601 recusal with that I'll

02:33:30.629 --> 02:33:35.000
invite the chair back.

02:33:35.000 --> 02:33:39.000
Jim Jim Jim.

02:33:39.000 --> 02:33:51.000
Thank you.

02:33:51.000 --> 02:34:03.450
Chair I've yet to open the public hearing for item CFR 1800

02:34:03.450 --> 02:34:11.319
1 but I turn it back over to you. Thank you, Vice Chair,

02:34:11.319 --> 02:34:15.030
going to open the public hearing for item CFR 18 dash 0001

02:34:15.030 --> 02:34:17.000
and call on Haley for presentation.

02:34:17.000 --> 02:34:22.000
Good evening. This is a replat of fairway acres.

02:34:22.000 --> 02:34:26.950
The replat is to create three lots kind of reconfiguring

02:34:26.950 --> 02:34:30.000
three existing tracks of land.

02:34:30.000 --> 02:34:33.819
The properties located on Country Club Road also has front

02:34:33.819 --> 02:34:37.280
age on fairway acres and quail Creek Lane as you can see

02:34:37.280 --> 02:34:38.000
here.

02:34:38.000 --> 02:34:43.579
As I mentioned the request is to reconfigure existing

02:34:43.579 --> 02:34:48.000
tracks of land into three plotted lots. The property is

02:34:48.000 --> 02:34:48.000
located in the ETJ.

02:34:48.000 --> 02:34:52.250
I'd be happy to answer any specific questions you might

02:34:52.250 --> 02:34:54.000
have about the replat.

02:34:54.000 --> 02:34:58.000
Any questions for Haley.

02:34:58.000 --> 02:34:59.000
Thank you, Haley.

02:34:59.000 --> 02:35:03.760
This is a public hearing. Anyone who wants to speak on this

02:35:03.760 --> 02:35:07.000
item please come forward at this time.

02:35:07.000 --> 02:35:10.000
Anyone wishing to speak on this item.

02:35:10.000 --> 02:35:13.399
And we will close the public hearing and open the floor for

02:35:13.399 --> 02:35:16.000
discussion or motion Commissioner Smith.

02:35:16.000 --> 02:35:18.000
Thank you, Chair, motion to approve.

02:35:18.000 --> 02:35:19.000
Commissioner Roselle.

02:35:19.000 --> 02:35:20.000
Second.

02:35:20.000 --> 02:35:23.000
Okay, we have a first and a second for approval.

02:35:23.000 --> 02:35:27.000
Any further discussion.

02:35:27.000 --> 02:35:36.000
Seeing none, call for a vote on the board.

02:35:36.000 --> 02:35:44.000
Motion is going to carry seven zero.

02:35:44.000 --> 02:35:52.000
Good luck with your project.

02:35:52.000 --> 02:35:58.040
I will move us to our next item D, I will open the public

02:35:58.040 --> 02:36:04.879
hearing for fr 17 dash 0029 and call on Haley for

02:36:04.879 --> 02:36:07.000
presentation.

02:36:07.000 --> 02:36:08.000
All right.

02:36:08.000 --> 02:36:11.000
Good evening. This is also a replat.

02:36:11.000 --> 02:36:14.149
This particular property is located partially in the ETJ

02:36:14.149 --> 02:36:16.000
partially in the city limits.

02:36:16.000 --> 02:36:22.229
It's located on north Locust street. The intent of the repl

02:36:22.229 --> 02:36:22.850
at is to subdivide one existing lot into two lots as you can

02:36:22.850 --> 02:36:24.000
see here.

02:36:24.000 --> 02:36:25.000
Both lots.

02:36:25.000 --> 02:36:27.000
One would have frontage on Locust directly.

02:36:27.000 --> 02:36:30.200
The other would have access by means of this access eas

02:36:30.200 --> 02:36:32.000
ement as shown on the plat.

02:36:32.000 --> 02:36:36.030
Be happy to answer any questions you may have about this

02:36:36.030 --> 02:36:37.000
project.

02:36:37.000 --> 02:36:42.000
Any questions for Haley.

02:36:42.000 --> 02:36:44.000
Okay. Thank you.

02:36:44.000 --> 02:36:48.409
This is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on

02:36:48.409 --> 02:36:52.000
this item, please come forward at this time.

02:36:52.000 --> 02:36:55.030
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and open the

02:36:55.030 --> 02:36:57.000
floor for discussion or motion.

02:36:57.000 --> 02:36:59.000
Commissioner Smith motion to approve.

02:36:59.000 --> 02:37:00.000
Okay.

02:37:00.000 --> 02:37:01.000
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you.

02:37:01.000 --> 02:37:02.000
Second. Okay.

02:37:02.000 --> 02:37:04.000
We have a first and a second for approval.

02:37:04.000 --> 02:37:08.000
Any further discussion.

02:37:08.000 --> 02:37:16.000
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

02:37:16.000 --> 02:37:22.000
That motion is going to carry seven zero.

02:37:22.000 --> 02:37:29.000
That will move us to item E, which has been withdrawn.

02:37:29.000 --> 02:37:34.000
And this item has been re noticed for a later meeting date.

02:37:34.000 --> 02:37:37.799
And that will take us to item F and we'll open the public

02:37:37.799 --> 02:37:42.000
hearing for DCA eighteen dash zero zero zero three.

02:37:42.000 --> 02:37:52.000
And I will call on Haley for presentation.

02:37:52.000 --> 02:37:54.000
Good evening.

02:37:54.000 --> 02:37:56.670
This is a proposed amendment to the DDC related to our

02:37:56.670 --> 02:37:58.000
parking regulations.

02:37:58.000 --> 02:38:01.329
Specifically, the request is to update a number of the

02:38:01.329 --> 02:38:04.819
parking requirements within sub chapter fourteen of the

02:38:04.819 --> 02:38:06.000
development code.

02:38:06.000 --> 02:38:08.370
Again, for a little bit of background on this, this

02:38:08.370 --> 02:38:13.200
generated from a council request much earlier this year for

02:38:13.200 --> 02:38:16.000
a work session discussing residential parking standards.

02:38:16.000 --> 02:38:18.899
The first work session occurred in January, which time

02:38:18.899 --> 02:38:21.590
staff brought forward a number of options in terms of

02:38:21.590 --> 02:38:23.000
residential parking.

02:38:23.000 --> 02:38:26.500
And in response to that staff was tasked with coming back

02:38:26.500 --> 02:38:29.000
with more specific recommendations.

02:38:29.000 --> 02:38:31.569
So at a second work session in February, we brought forward

02:38:31.569 --> 02:38:34.139
five recommendations, very similar to what you're seeing

02:38:34.139 --> 02:38:35.000
here tonight.

02:38:35.000 --> 02:38:37.639
Those were intended to allow for flexibility within our

02:38:37.639 --> 02:38:40.549
parking requirements, as well as improving the residential

02:38:40.549 --> 02:38:43.409
parking standards in response to council specific concerns

02:38:43.409 --> 02:38:46.000
with some of our recommendations at that meeting.

02:38:46.000 --> 02:38:50.229
These have been amended slightly from what was brought

02:38:50.229 --> 02:38:55.000
forward in February to reflect the request that they made.

02:38:55.000 --> 02:38:57.950
So, again, we'll be going through all five of these

02:38:57.950 --> 02:39:00.000
recommendations one at a time.

02:39:00.000 --> 02:39:03.750
So the first is amendments to the minimum parking standards

02:39:03.750 --> 02:39:06.000
for all of our residential uses.

02:39:06.000 --> 02:39:08.399
Currently for single family, we require two spaces per

02:39:08.399 --> 02:39:09.000
dwelling.

02:39:09.000 --> 02:39:13.659
Duplex is the same with the addition of one extra space for

02:39:13.659 --> 02:39:16.000
each bedroom over three.

02:39:16.000 --> 02:39:19.639
What's proposed is for single family duplex and adding town

02:39:19.639 --> 02:39:23.000
homes to specify that use for spaces per dwelling.

02:39:23.000 --> 02:39:26.680
The location of the spaces is not specified, with the only

02:39:26.680 --> 02:39:29.540
stipulation being that tandem parking within a garage

02:39:29.540 --> 02:39:32.000
wouldn't count towards that requirement.

02:39:32.000 --> 02:39:35.000
One of those spaces could count, but not both.

02:39:35.000 --> 02:39:38.500
For multi-family, we're proposing amendments to our current

02:39:38.500 --> 02:39:41.850
standards that are based entirely on the number of bedrooms

02:39:41.850 --> 02:39:42.000
.

02:39:42.000 --> 02:39:44.889
We currently have a different ratio for each type of

02:39:44.889 --> 02:39:46.000
apartment unit.

02:39:46.000 --> 02:39:49.190
What we would propose is that efficiency and one bedroom

02:39:49.190 --> 02:39:54.000
units require 1.25 spaces per unit, plus guest parking.

02:39:54.000 --> 02:39:57.500
All other types of apartments would be one space per

02:39:57.500 --> 02:40:01.389
bedroom, plus the guest parking that we recommend a ratio

02:40:01.389 --> 02:40:05.569
of 10% of the required number of spaces be added for guests

02:40:05.569 --> 02:40:06.000
.

02:40:06.000 --> 02:40:08.620
Just looking at some of the options for how residential

02:40:08.620 --> 02:40:11.540
parking or single families currently handled, on the left

02:40:11.540 --> 02:40:14.440
you see a home that would meet this requirement, two spaces

02:40:14.440 --> 02:40:17.000
in a garage, two spaces outside a garage.

02:40:17.000 --> 02:40:19.659
On the right, we have a home that has a one-car garage with

02:40:19.659 --> 02:40:22.409
two spaces in the driveway, so that situation wouldn't be

02:40:22.409 --> 02:40:25.000
permitted moving forward for new subdivisions.

02:40:25.000 --> 02:40:30.000
There would be a fourth space required.

02:40:30.000 --> 02:40:33.049
Looking at how the multi-family changes would impact a

02:40:33.049 --> 02:40:36.850
hypothetical development with 100 units, under the current

02:40:36.850 --> 02:40:40.430
code, they would be required a total of 232 spaces, which

02:40:40.430 --> 02:40:43.000
is just less than one per bedroom.

02:40:43.000 --> 02:40:46.799
With the staff recommendations, that would take it up to 28

02:40:46.799 --> 02:40:50.440
3 spaces total, because you would have one per bedroom for

02:40:50.440 --> 02:40:54.000
all of the larger units, plus that 10% guest parking.

02:40:54.000 --> 02:40:58.680
That puts it at just over one space per bedroom at the rate

02:40:58.680 --> 02:41:01.000
that we've recommended.

02:41:01.000 --> 02:41:04.079
Just to look at that for a little bit smaller development,

02:41:04.079 --> 02:41:07.110
this is the actual breakdown of bedrooms and units for the

02:41:07.110 --> 02:41:10.069
Mingo Road apartments that you all saw an SUP request for

02:41:10.069 --> 02:41:11.000
last year.

02:41:11.000 --> 02:41:15.469
With the current requirements, they needed 84 parking

02:41:15.469 --> 02:41:19.670
spaces, and this would have required 106 for that

02:41:19.670 --> 02:41:21.000
development.

02:41:21.000 --> 02:41:24.729
Moving on, recommendation two is to add a statement to our

02:41:24.729 --> 02:41:28.370
maximum allowable number of spaces that would stipulate

02:41:28.370 --> 02:41:31.450
that any pervious surfaces provided for spaces that are

02:41:31.450 --> 02:41:34.000
above the maximum number would not be allowed to count

02:41:34.000 --> 02:41:36.000
towards the landscape area requirements.

02:41:36.000 --> 02:41:39.819
Currently, the code does allow parking that is constructed

02:41:39.819 --> 02:41:43.540
of pervious pavers to count towards the required landscape

02:41:43.540 --> 02:41:45.000
area for a project.

02:41:45.000 --> 02:41:48.319
Looking at an example of that, this particular apartment

02:41:48.319 --> 02:41:51.520
complex had 55 excess parking spaces above what was

02:41:51.520 --> 02:41:53.000
required by the code.

02:41:53.000 --> 02:41:57.229
They opted to pave all of those with brick pavers, as you

02:41:57.229 --> 02:42:01.909
see in the photo. The area of those 55 spaces was counted

02:42:01.909 --> 02:42:06.510
towards their 15% landscaping that was required for the

02:42:06.510 --> 02:42:08.000
development.

02:42:08.000 --> 02:42:10.559
The third recommendation is where we start to get into some

02:42:10.559 --> 02:42:13.290
of those relief mechanisms. We are proposing an

02:42:13.290 --> 02:42:16.000
administrative parking reduction.

02:42:16.000 --> 02:42:19.000
This would allow for the director to approve up to a 10%

02:42:19.000 --> 02:42:21.940
reduction in the number of required spaces if certain

02:42:21.940 --> 02:42:23.000
criteria were met.

02:42:23.000 --> 02:42:25.899
For example, they could show that there wouldn't be any

02:42:25.899 --> 02:42:29.000
negative impact to the area if the parking were reduced.

02:42:29.000 --> 02:42:31.649
This would be allowed to be used in combination with the

02:42:31.649 --> 02:42:34.319
other relief mechanisms that we're proposing that are

02:42:34.319 --> 02:42:37.000
substitutions for different types of parking.

02:42:37.000 --> 02:42:41.079
This would stipulate, however, that for each space that is

02:42:41.079 --> 02:42:45.159
reduced by this mechanism, four bicycle spaces be provided

02:42:45.159 --> 02:42:47.000
on site. Looking at an example, if 20 spaces are required,

02:42:47.000 --> 02:42:52.020
a 10% reduction would allow you to bring that down by two

02:42:52.020 --> 02:42:57.420
to 18 vehicle spaces, but as a swap for that, eight bicycle

02:42:57.420 --> 02:43:00.000
spaces would be required.

02:43:00.000 --> 02:43:02.530
The fourth recommendation is related to on-street parking.

02:43:02.530 --> 02:43:04.719
Our current standards are a little convoluted, don't

02:43:04.719 --> 02:43:07.450
necessarily specify where the spaces have to be, so we're

02:43:07.450 --> 02:43:09.000
trying to tighten that language.

02:43:09.000 --> 02:43:12.879
Also, make this in accordance with the new transportation

02:43:12.879 --> 02:43:16.000
criteria manual parking space dimensions.

02:43:16.000 --> 02:43:19.200
We would propose to limit credits available for on-street

02:43:19.200 --> 02:43:22.569
parking to multifamily and non-residential uses just within

02:43:22.569 --> 02:43:24.000
the infill boundary.

02:43:24.000 --> 02:43:26.989
We're not saying there couldn't be parking on the street,

02:43:26.989 --> 02:43:30.000
but it would not count towards their number of spaces.

02:43:30.000 --> 02:43:33.680
Then those allowable parking spaces would be counted based

02:43:33.680 --> 02:43:37.389
on each 22 contiguous feet of frontage that the property

02:43:37.389 --> 02:43:38.000
has.

02:43:38.000 --> 02:43:43.020
Here is the infill boundary shown in red on the map.

02:43:43.020 --> 02:43:45.719
Looking at how that breaks down, you can see an example on

02:43:45.719 --> 02:43:48.540
the left of how those spaces would be measured based on the

02:43:48.540 --> 02:43:51.000
frontage of the property that's not taken up by driveways

02:43:51.000 --> 02:43:53.000
or some other form of intersection.

02:43:53.000 --> 02:43:58.340
Then looking at an example, currently if they were seeking

02:43:58.340 --> 02:44:03.280
to provide seven required parking spaces on site, based on

02:44:03.280 --> 02:44:06.360
our current ratios, they would have to have space for 11 on

02:44:06.360 --> 02:44:09.000
-street spaces to make up for those seven.

02:44:09.000 --> 02:44:11.100
With the proposed requirements, it would be a little more

02:44:11.100 --> 02:44:14.940
straightforward. If you have the 154 contiguous feet of

02:44:14.940 --> 02:44:18.690
frontage to accommodate those spaces, those credits could

02:44:18.690 --> 02:44:21.000
be granted at a one-to-one rate.

02:44:21.000 --> 02:44:24.979
The fifth recommendation, as I said, is related to

02:44:24.979 --> 02:44:28.000
additional modes of transportation.

02:44:28.000 --> 02:44:31.250
Compact car parking is currently only allowed in parking

02:44:31.250 --> 02:44:34.850
garages. Up to 20% of the parking can be substituted for

02:44:34.850 --> 02:44:36.000
compact spaces.

02:44:36.000 --> 02:44:39.829
This has rarely or never been used to my knowledge. What we

02:44:39.829 --> 02:44:43.569
're proposing is to bring that down to 5% because compact

02:44:43.569 --> 02:44:46.950
car parking isn't very common here and to allow those

02:44:46.950 --> 02:44:51.000
spaces within any parking lot, surface lots or garages.

02:44:51.000 --> 02:44:53.889
We're also proposing to strengthen our bicycle parking

02:44:53.889 --> 02:44:57.209
standards, which are currently just recommendations, and

02:44:57.209 --> 02:45:01.000
also add in accommodations for motorcycle parking spaces.

02:45:01.000 --> 02:45:04.290
So providing standards for how bicycle spaces have to be

02:45:04.290 --> 02:45:07.649
provided, the area of the parking as well as an elevation

02:45:07.649 --> 02:45:10.940
above the regular parking lot to provide some safety for

02:45:10.940 --> 02:45:12.000
the bicycles.

02:45:12.000 --> 02:45:16.510
We would propose allowing one regular parking space be

02:45:16.510 --> 02:45:21.010
substituted for four bicycle spaces or two motorcycle

02:45:21.010 --> 02:45:22.000
spaces.

02:45:22.000 --> 02:45:26.399
As I mentioned, we're proposing some minimum dimensions for

02:45:26.399 --> 02:45:30.629
the bicycle parking area to allow adequate space and safety

02:45:30.629 --> 02:45:32.959
. It would also require that that be within 50 feet of the

02:45:32.959 --> 02:45:35.000
primary building entrance to encourage it to be actively

02:45:35.000 --> 02:45:36.000
used.

02:45:36.000 --> 02:45:38.899
And then we provide some options for how the bicycle

02:45:38.899 --> 02:45:42.159
parking could be provided, either with a specific type of

02:45:42.159 --> 02:45:45.370
rack or within a bike locker or some other covered storage

02:45:45.370 --> 02:45:46.000
area.

02:45:46.000 --> 02:45:50.000
Motorcycle parking, we recommend a minimum size of four by

02:45:50.000 --> 02:45:51.000
eight feet.

02:45:51.000 --> 02:45:54.590
And then in addition, this combination of credits for

02:45:54.590 --> 02:45:58.399
bicycle and motorcycle parking shouldn't exceed 5% of the

02:45:58.399 --> 02:46:02.000
total required number of parking spaces, the same as we

02:46:02.000 --> 02:46:04.000
propose for compact cars.

02:46:04.000 --> 02:46:07.219
All that being said, these changes are proposed in advance

02:46:07.219 --> 02:46:10.250
of the pending update to the overall development code as

02:46:10.250 --> 02:46:13.149
kind of an interim means of providing flexibility and

02:46:13.149 --> 02:46:16.000
improving the residential parking standards.

02:46:16.000 --> 02:46:18.639
As we discussed at work session, all of this is still

02:46:18.639 --> 02:46:21.600
subject to change again with the DDC update. These would

02:46:21.600 --> 02:46:24.239
just be kind of an interim step to get us heading in the

02:46:24.239 --> 02:46:26.000
right direction, hopefully.

02:46:26.000 --> 02:46:29.000
Just a reminder of how our current parking standards work.

02:46:29.000 --> 02:46:32.159
It is a min/max, a very strict parking requirement. Any

02:46:32.159 --> 02:46:34.670
deviation from that sends an applicant either through

02:46:34.670 --> 02:46:38.450
providing pervious paving or to ZBA for a reduction or P&Z

02:46:38.450 --> 02:46:42.000
for an ADP approval to have excess parking.

02:46:42.000 --> 02:46:49.500
With that, we are recommending approval of this request,

02:46:49.500 --> 02:46:55.000
and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

02:46:55.000 --> 02:46:58.500
I'll ask a question, nobody else will. We had some

02:46:58.500 --> 02:47:01.309
conversation in work session about moving this forward as a

02:47:01.309 --> 02:47:04.040
stopgap, and if there were some items that the Commission

02:47:04.040 --> 02:47:06.719
felt like that could be added as a recommendation, can we

02:47:06.719 --> 02:47:08.000
still do that then?

02:47:08.000 --> 02:47:11.040
There can certainly be recommendations associated with your

02:47:11.040 --> 02:47:14.170
approval or recommendation on this, but then additionally,

02:47:14.170 --> 02:47:16.829
all of this will still be, as I said, open for discussion

02:47:16.829 --> 02:47:19.000
with the DDC update as that moves forward.

02:47:19.000 --> 02:47:22.979
So with that, the Chair is going to make a motion to

02:47:22.979 --> 02:47:27.020
approve this, and I would just put a request to City

02:47:27.020 --> 02:47:31.190
Council as they deliberate this, that there's some

02:47:31.190 --> 02:47:35.620
consideration given for the differences in areas in the

02:47:35.620 --> 02:47:40.000
downtown area on some of the one-to-one parking and some of

02:47:40.000 --> 02:47:42.680
the things that we talked about, versus some of the outlier

02:47:42.680 --> 02:47:43.000
areas.

02:47:43.000 --> 02:47:46.629
For example, along Loop 288, where we don't have near as

02:47:46.629 --> 02:47:49.889
much congestion versus around the North Texas area, the

02:47:49.889 --> 02:47:53.120
downtown area, the places that we have the most negative

02:47:53.120 --> 02:48:00.690
feedback about parking, that maybe there are some abilities

02:48:00.690 --> 02:48:03.690
to lessen some of the requirements there because of the

02:48:03.690 --> 02:48:06.680
parking, and then some of these other areas that there's

02:48:06.680 --> 02:48:10.680
ample space for parking, that there be some flexibility

02:48:10.680 --> 02:48:12.000
there in that.

02:48:12.000 --> 02:48:15.129
And some of those standards, and I realize this is a stopg

02:48:15.129 --> 02:48:18.459
ap, but hopefully, again, to your point, it kind of spurs

02:48:18.459 --> 02:48:21.690
the discussion about where this ultimately is going to end

02:48:21.690 --> 02:48:24.750
up when the DDC comes before us, that there are some flex

02:48:24.750 --> 02:48:28.329
ibilities in parking requirements for different areas of the

02:48:28.329 --> 02:48:32.000
city versus if it's the same, no matter where.

02:48:32.000 --> 02:48:35.000
And so, Commissioner Smith.

02:48:35.000 --> 02:48:38.000
Thank you, Chair.

02:48:38.000 --> 02:48:40.540
I'll second the motion, but I will say just as a way of a

02:48:40.540 --> 02:48:43.340
recommendation that while this is a stopgap, I would just

02:48:43.340 --> 02:48:45.729
make sure it seemed like from what we got when we as a

02:48:45.729 --> 02:48:48.809
commission got an update from the DDC, that this feels

02:48:48.809 --> 02:48:51.629
almost a little bit of opposite direction of where the DDC

02:48:51.629 --> 02:48:56.000
is going, and so I would just encourage that city staff and

02:48:56.000 --> 02:48:57.000
the city council take a look at it.

02:48:57.000 --> 02:49:01.879
If this is going to be a stopgap, let's at least make it a

02:49:01.879 --> 02:49:06.879
set the stopgap, similar to what we're going to see in a D

02:49:06.879 --> 02:49:12.030
DC update if that's the track we're headed towards. I would

02:49:12.030 --> 02:49:12.309
hate there for there to be a stopgap period of time where

02:49:12.309 --> 02:49:12.629
there is more restrictive and a higher requirement for

02:49:12.629 --> 02:49:13.840
parking, especially in certain areas, as the Chair pointed

02:49:13.840 --> 02:49:16.639
out, that would only apply to projects that came before us

02:49:16.639 --> 02:49:19.370
in that period of time, and then everything that came after

02:49:19.370 --> 02:49:22.020
the DDC update had different criteria. It just doesn't seem

02:49:22.020 --> 02:49:24.809
smooth, it doesn't seem congruent, so I would just make

02:49:24.809 --> 02:49:26.000
that recommendation.

02:49:26.000 --> 02:49:29.000
But I do second the motion to approve it.

02:49:29.000 --> 02:49:32.540
We have a first and a second for approval with a couple of

02:49:32.540 --> 02:49:35.000
recommendations. Commissioner Ellis.

02:49:35.000 --> 02:49:38.309
Thank you, Chair. And Haley, if I'm just going to put this

02:49:38.309 --> 02:49:41.389
on the record, what I said in the work session, just

02:49:41.389 --> 02:49:47.329
suggest for clarity rewriting G2B stopgap or not. You want

02:49:47.329 --> 02:49:49.569
people to understand what you're trying to say there for

02:49:49.569 --> 02:49:50.000
sure.

02:49:50.000 --> 02:50:01.000
Certainly. We can work on that.

02:50:01.000 --> 02:50:04.010
Well, I may have spoken out of turn and got ahead of myself

02:50:04.010 --> 02:50:07.159
because I guess we still have a public hearing that's open,

02:50:07.159 --> 02:50:08.000
don't we?

02:50:08.000 --> 02:50:13.360
You know, when you get towards the end of your term, things

02:50:13.360 --> 02:50:18.389
start to kind of slip. So this is a public hearing, and

02:50:18.389 --> 02:50:24.000
since there's no one here, we will close the public hearing

02:50:24.000 --> 02:50:24.000
.

02:50:24.000 --> 02:50:28.899
And I have stated my motion for the record and I will rest

02:50:28.899 --> 02:50:34.270
ate it, since it's already on the record, remotion, which

02:50:34.270 --> 02:50:38.659
has already been previously stated. And Commissioner Smith

02:50:38.659 --> 02:50:40.200
has seconded with a couple of recommendations and

02:50:40.200 --> 02:50:42.690
Commissioner Ellis as well, and I'm sure staff has got

02:50:42.690 --> 02:50:43.000
those.

02:50:43.000 --> 02:50:48.020
So the public hearings closed and we do have a motion to

02:50:48.020 --> 02:50:53.540
approve with a second. And if there's further discussion

02:50:53.540 --> 02:50:56.000
with that little cleanup.

02:50:56.000 --> 02:51:09.000
Nobody will vote on the board then.

02:51:09.000 --> 02:51:15.000
Motion is going to carry seven to zero.

02:51:15.000 --> 02:51:24.000
That will take us to our project matrix for this evening.

02:51:24.000 --> 02:51:26.000
Commissioner Ellis.

02:51:26.000 --> 02:51:31.000
Thank you, Jim squeaky wheel. Number three.

02:51:31.000 --> 02:51:36.229
I'm still looking for that process of signage follow up and

02:51:36.229 --> 02:51:39.000
how staff is handling that.

02:51:39.000 --> 02:51:42.500
So I asked that, well, this will be the third meeting in a

02:51:42.500 --> 02:51:45.579
row. So we are we're developing an SOP for that we did make

02:51:45.579 --> 02:51:48.000
some changes as a result of the last meeting.

02:51:48.000 --> 02:51:52.000
The way staff is handling sort of the managing it.

02:51:52.000 --> 02:51:54.409
What I wanted to do is formalize that through a full SO

02:51:54.409 --> 02:51:57.149
standard operating procedure. And once I complete that I

02:51:57.149 --> 02:51:59.709
will have that for the next we will get that we'll get that

02:51:59.709 --> 02:52:01.000
at the next meeting.

02:52:01.000 --> 02:52:04.000
Okay, I appreciate that. Thanks.

02:52:04.000 --> 02:52:07.000
Commissioner Sullivan speaking of signage.

02:52:07.000 --> 02:52:09.000
I drove by the access thing.

02:52:09.000 --> 02:52:12.389
Those are nice signs. I don't know if they were the new and

02:52:12.389 --> 02:52:16.000
improved, or if it's somebody did it different.

02:52:16.000 --> 02:52:25.000
Those are the new signs. That's good. Very good.

02:52:25.000 --> 02:52:29.000
And I would just put on the record Commissioner Ellis.

02:52:29.000 --> 02:52:32.649
I've had the similar situation in the past with things that

02:52:32.649 --> 02:52:35.870
were important to me not coming before, and I would

02:52:35.870 --> 02:52:39.000
encourage you, if there are some specifics.

02:52:39.000 --> 02:52:42.879
Maybe you can get directly with Richard or staff and have a

02:52:42.879 --> 02:52:46.750
direct conversation about those things. And hopefully maybe

02:52:46.750 --> 02:52:48.989
some of your questions can get addressed more promptly than

02:52:48.989 --> 02:52:53.000
I know our schedules very packed sometimes.

02:52:53.000 --> 02:52:55.780
Maybe that's a way for you to get your concern addressed

02:52:55.780 --> 02:53:02.000
more timely as well. So, anybody else for project matrix.

02:53:02.000 --> 02:53:05.639
As a reminder, I'm a closer meeting, one sorry one update

02:53:05.639 --> 02:53:08.989
on the tree code because I know we've talked about that

02:53:08.989 --> 02:53:10.000
quite a bit.

02:53:10.000 --> 02:53:13.260
We will be presenting or having a discussion on that item

02:53:13.260 --> 02:53:17.000
with the committee on the environment the week of 521.

02:53:17.000 --> 02:53:19.700
So in the very near future that will be coming back sooner

02:53:19.700 --> 02:53:22.350
sooner than later I know that was something we said it's

02:53:22.350 --> 02:53:24.000
not dead it's coming back.

02:53:24.000 --> 02:53:27.090
So we are we are in the process of making continuing to

02:53:27.090 --> 02:53:30.239
make those changes, really think it through on a more

02:53:30.239 --> 02:53:33.760
comprehensive basis, but we will be at the committee of the

02:53:33.760 --> 02:53:37.000
committee on the environment the week of 521.

02:53:37.000 --> 02:53:40.000
What is the time of that meeting.

02:53:40.000 --> 02:53:43.590
It hasn't been set but what I will do is as soon as we get

02:53:43.590 --> 02:53:46.770
that squared away I will make sure Athena sent a

02:53:46.770 --> 02:53:49.000
notification to everybody.

02:53:49.000 --> 02:53:53.180
Thank you. Okay, before I close, I want to remind the

02:53:53.180 --> 02:53:56.010
commission that we've got an item that we didn't get to at

02:53:56.010 --> 02:53:57.000
work session.

02:53:57.000 --> 02:53:59.950
So we're going to reconvene when we close our meeting back

02:53:59.950 --> 02:54:02.420
over in our work session room and we'll hear that

02:54:02.420 --> 02:54:05.000
presentation and then we'll call it a night.

02:54:05.000 --> 02:54:13.229
So, at 824, we'll close our meeting for this evening. Thank

02:54:13.229 --> 02:54:14.000
you, everyone.

02:54:19.000 --> 02:54:27.000
Good evening. The work never ends.

02:54:27.000 --> 02:54:33.000
We're going to reopen our work session at 827.

02:54:33.000 --> 02:54:36.610
And we're going to get back to our agenda, which is a work

02:54:36.610 --> 02:54:38.000
session report.

02:54:38.000 --> 02:54:43.000
Item a PZ 18 dash 095.

02:54:43.000 --> 02:54:46.000
And I'm sorry I forget your name.

02:54:46.000 --> 02:54:50.000
No problem. Sean Jacobson. Sean, thank you for your

02:54:50.000 --> 02:54:50.000
presentation.

02:54:50.000 --> 02:54:53.139
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning

02:54:53.139 --> 02:54:54.000
Commission.

02:54:54.000 --> 02:54:59.090
I'm here tonight to present on guidelines and standards for

02:54:59.090 --> 02:55:01.000
the Denton Square.

02:55:01.000 --> 02:55:04.239
So a little bit of background, as you may remember, we had

02:55:04.239 --> 02:55:06.000
a tragic fire on the square.

02:55:06.000 --> 02:55:09.000
We end up losing a historic building.

02:55:09.000 --> 02:55:11.469
And that actually that did serve the purpose of

02:55:11.469 --> 02:55:14.579
highlighting the fact that we really didn't have standards

02:55:14.579 --> 02:55:17.200
to guide the development in the square area and

02:55:17.200 --> 02:55:20.000
particularly to guide what goes back in that place.

02:55:20.000 --> 02:55:23.590
Highlighted that. And so the direction we received was to

02:55:23.590 --> 02:55:28.000
remedy that situation, preferably as quickly as possible.

02:55:28.000 --> 02:55:31.049
At the same time, so we want to get standards in place. We

02:55:31.049 --> 02:55:32.670
needed something. At the same time, we want to make sure

02:55:32.670 --> 02:55:35.000
that we didn't overly burden business and property owners.

02:55:35.000 --> 02:55:38.239
So we went forward with those two clear understandings in

02:55:38.239 --> 02:55:41.459
our mind. Get something in place. Make sure that it's not

02:55:41.459 --> 02:55:43.000
overly burdensome.

02:55:43.000 --> 02:55:45.700
We didn't want to reinvent the wheel. So we went out and

02:55:45.700 --> 02:55:48.909
researched comparable cities across Texas, Fort Worth, Gra

02:55:48.909 --> 02:55:52.000
pevine, Waco, Roanoke, Bastrop, Coppell, and McKinney.

02:55:52.000 --> 02:55:56.319
We looked at downtown plans, historic downtown plans, some

02:55:56.319 --> 02:55:59.000
different types of instructions.

02:55:59.000 --> 02:56:03.260
And we took what we could from that that we felt would be

02:56:03.260 --> 02:56:06.000
beneficial for here in Denton.

02:56:06.000 --> 02:56:10.709
From that, we brought forward kind of it. We wanted a

02:56:10.709 --> 02:56:12.000
starting place.

02:56:12.000 --> 02:56:14.899
This wasn't something for us to drive, but we needed to

02:56:14.899 --> 02:56:18.000
create a starting point for stakeholders to work from.

02:56:18.000 --> 02:56:21.590
So we took what we believe were some flexible, some time-t

02:56:21.590 --> 02:56:25.059
ested concepts from Fort Worth, from other places, and

02:56:25.059 --> 02:56:28.270
shaped that to what we believe would be some flexible

02:56:28.270 --> 02:56:30.000
concepts for Denton.

02:56:30.000 --> 02:56:32.469
And with that draft, then we got to the important part of

02:56:32.469 --> 02:56:35.340
this process, which was going to our stakeholders, people

02:56:35.340 --> 02:56:37.969
that would be most directly affected by standards on the

02:56:37.969 --> 02:56:39.000
downtown square.

02:56:39.000 --> 02:56:42.500
So we met with business and property owners. We actually

02:56:42.500 --> 02:56:44.940
had a breakfast with them at Agua Dolce. Met with them,

02:56:44.940 --> 02:56:47.000
residents, business owners, property owners.

02:56:47.000 --> 02:56:50.110
We met with the Main Street Association, downtown task

02:56:50.110 --> 02:56:53.000
force, and the Historic Landmark Commission.

02:56:53.000 --> 02:56:58.020
And they each saw that draft, again, as a starting point.

02:56:58.020 --> 02:56:59.000
We took their feedback.

02:56:59.000 --> 02:57:02.020
Across the board, they were unanimously in support of

02:57:02.020 --> 02:57:04.000
having standards for downtown.

02:57:04.000 --> 02:57:07.120
Said, yes, move forward with this. They gave us some

02:57:07.120 --> 02:57:09.940
feedback. You see some of the key things they gave us there

02:57:09.940 --> 02:57:10.000
.

02:57:10.000 --> 02:57:12.739
They wanted to make sure that the standards were flexible,

02:57:12.739 --> 02:57:15.450
not overly burdensome, not creating something that was so

02:57:15.450 --> 02:57:18.430
expensive that development wouldn't be feasible, at which

02:57:18.430 --> 02:57:21.000
that was our goal, was to make that flexible.

02:57:21.000 --> 02:57:23.629
And at the same time, we also heard they wanted meaningful,

02:57:23.629 --> 02:57:26.309
codified standards, as it was put more than once, something

02:57:26.309 --> 02:57:29.000
with teeth, something that wouldn't just be ignored.

02:57:29.000 --> 02:57:32.159
So we took that feedback. But the main thing was they said,

02:57:32.159 --> 02:57:35.370
yes, move forward. This is good. We want this. And that was

02:57:35.370 --> 02:57:36.000
the important thing.

02:57:36.000 --> 02:57:40.299
It should be shaped by those people who will be most

02:57:40.299 --> 02:57:43.000
directly affected by that.

02:57:43.000 --> 02:57:44.680
The other thing they helped us shape was what we're

02:57:44.680 --> 02:57:46.500
actually talking about when we're looking at a square

02:57:46.500 --> 02:57:47.000
district.

02:57:47.000 --> 02:57:49.930
So we gave them a couple of options on a map of larger and

02:57:49.930 --> 02:57:53.450
smaller areas. And what they settled on was what you see

02:57:53.450 --> 02:57:57.110
there, obviously, the buildings fronting on the courthouse

02:57:57.110 --> 02:58:00.750
square itself, but also one street back, the buildings that

02:58:00.750 --> 02:58:02.000
front on that street as well.

02:58:02.000 --> 02:58:04.209
So what they were thinking about, if you walk into Cart

02:58:04.209 --> 02:58:06.440
wrights and walk out the back, you still want to have that

02:58:06.440 --> 02:58:08.000
feeling of, I'm on the square.

02:58:08.000 --> 02:58:11.389
The facades of the buildings you see should continue that

02:58:11.389 --> 02:58:15.000
general character, that feeling of, that historic feel of

02:58:15.000 --> 02:58:16.000
the square.

02:58:16.000 --> 02:58:18.549
And they agreed. That was a good definition for what we

02:58:18.549 --> 02:58:20.000
consider the square district.

02:58:20.000 --> 02:58:23.229
So if we talk about these standards and guidelines, that

02:58:23.229 --> 02:58:26.190
would be the area that it would apply to. Buildings

02:58:26.190 --> 02:58:29.639
directly fronting on the square and then buildings fronting

02:58:29.639 --> 02:58:32.000
on those directly adjacent streets.

02:58:32.000 --> 02:58:34.649
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Sean, on those

02:58:34.649 --> 02:58:37.049
adjacent streets, it's just the one side of the street,

02:58:37.049 --> 02:58:40.000
though, correct? Is that what you carved out in that?

02:58:40.000 --> 02:58:43.500
So it would be both fronting. Just like one side of Cedar,

02:58:43.500 --> 02:58:46.000
though? Not the other side of Cedar?

02:58:46.000 --> 02:58:50.520
Both sides of Cedar? It would be both sides of Cedar. Okay.

02:58:50.520 --> 02:58:54.000
Because I think the drawing looked a little strange.

02:58:54.000 --> 02:58:57.500
So just for clarification, Commissioner Ellis, what your

02:58:57.500 --> 02:59:00.489
question is, is not only on the east side of Cedar, but

02:59:00.489 --> 02:59:02.000
also on the west side.

02:59:02.000 --> 02:59:04.250
Right. It looks to here like it's not going to be the west

02:59:04.250 --> 02:59:06.659
side of Cedar. I agree with you. I think that's a great

02:59:06.659 --> 02:59:07.000
point.

02:59:07.000 --> 02:59:11.129
So, for example, the campus theater on the west side of C

02:59:11.129 --> 02:59:15.590
edar, these rules would apply to it as well. Is that correct

02:59:15.590 --> 02:59:17.000
? Yes.

02:59:17.000 --> 02:59:19.479
So it just needs to be shaded a little different there than

02:59:19.479 --> 02:59:22.569
I guess? And I do apologize. There was a line delineating

02:59:22.569 --> 02:59:25.909
that, and unfortunately that's my bad. The line was lost in

02:59:25.909 --> 02:59:28.000
the preparation of this presentation.

02:59:28.000 --> 02:59:34.229
I apologize. So really, not only are Oak Street, Hickory

02:59:34.229 --> 02:59:39.420
Street, Locust and Elm affected, but one street off. So C

02:59:39.420 --> 02:59:44.840
edar, Pecan, Austin, and Walnut, all of those streets will

02:59:44.840 --> 02:59:46.000
have these requirements then.

02:59:46.000 --> 02:59:48.579
The frontages, the building frontages. The frontage, that's

02:59:48.579 --> 02:59:51.000
what I mean. Yes. That is correct.

02:59:51.000 --> 02:59:55.049
That was the express feeling of the groups that we took

02:59:55.049 --> 02:59:58.510
this to that that made sense to them. The clarification is

02:59:58.510 --> 03:00:00.000
the frontage, any building that fronts onto that street,

03:00:00.000 --> 03:00:02.000
whether it's the back of the building, the front of the

03:00:02.000 --> 03:00:05.000
building, the frontage onto that street. Yes, sir.

03:00:05.000 --> 03:00:08.860
Or adjacency to that street. These rules will apply. So

03:00:08.860 --> 03:00:12.610
really, if you're going to correct the drawing, we would

03:00:12.610 --> 03:00:16.149
almost go back around one more time on the outside of Wal

03:00:16.149 --> 03:00:20.209
nut, Austin, Pecan, and Cedar for those that may be watching

03:00:20.209 --> 03:00:24.000
this. Okay. Yes, sir. Great question, Commissioner Ellison.

03:00:24.000 --> 03:00:28.000
Clarification. Thank you.

03:00:28.000 --> 03:00:36.000
And in fact, sorry, that's going the wrong way.

03:00:36.000 --> 03:00:39.170
In fact, this is actually the original picture, and I

03:00:39.170 --> 03:00:42.370
apologize, that was what I had intended to have on that

03:00:42.370 --> 03:00:45.940
slide. So that actually has the line then extending it to

03:00:45.940 --> 03:00:47.000
the frontage.

03:00:47.000 --> 03:00:50.590
I think as a suggestion in the future presentations, it

03:00:50.590 --> 03:00:53.989
would be advantageous for people to have that same blue

03:00:53.989 --> 03:00:57.590
highlight that you've got on the buildings on the outside

03:00:57.590 --> 03:01:01.399
to Pecan, Austin, so it's really clear that we're not just

03:01:01.399 --> 03:01:05.540
looking at the shaded blue areas, thinking that's it, but

03:01:05.540 --> 03:01:07.840
on the other side of the street, they should be shaded blue

03:01:07.840 --> 03:01:08.000
as well.

03:01:08.000 --> 03:01:13.500
This is a suggestion noted to make it clear that it wasn't

03:01:13.500 --> 03:01:19.010
clear and I'm glad you asked the question. Yes, sir. Thank

03:01:19.010 --> 03:01:20.000
you. Will do.

03:01:20.000 --> 03:01:23.659
So thank you for that clarification. I appreciate it. That

03:01:23.659 --> 03:01:26.000
is important.

03:01:26.000 --> 03:01:29.239
What we wanted to look at then in framing this was kind of

03:01:29.239 --> 03:01:32.930
the intent, the general principles, the goals here. We,

03:01:32.930 --> 03:01:36.270
things that have been brought forward in the past include

03:01:36.270 --> 03:01:40.000
form based codes that's been brought forward and has been

03:01:40.000 --> 03:01:42.000
essentially told no, we don't want that.

03:01:42.000 --> 03:01:44.899
We've brought forward at times, there's been the idea of

03:01:44.899 --> 03:01:48.120
having a historic local historic district. And again, that

03:01:48.120 --> 03:01:51.020
wasn't what we wanted to bring forward at this time what we

03:01:51.020 --> 03:01:54.000
want to bring forward is simply a framework something that

03:01:54.000 --> 03:01:57.440
creates on the square that says, this is the general feel

03:01:57.440 --> 03:02:01.139
of the square we want to maintain this, this feeling this

03:02:01.139 --> 03:02:04.000
atmosphere this character, while giving you creativity so

03:02:04.000 --> 03:02:06.500
we don't want to tell you what paint color to put on your

03:02:06.500 --> 03:02:08.940
building, but we would like your roof line to not be a

03:02:08.940 --> 03:02:11.000
story above every building around it.

03:02:11.000 --> 03:02:13.590
We would like to maintain that feel that has made the

03:02:13.590 --> 03:02:16.940
square great while giving you creativity. So flexibility,

03:02:16.940 --> 03:02:19.590
but still maintaining kind of a timeless standards so for

03:02:19.590 --> 03:02:22.510
instance, Sherman building there which is not necessarily

03:02:22.510 --> 03:02:25.229
historic, but it fits when you're on the square you don't

03:02:25.229 --> 03:02:29.000
look at that and say what is that doing there, it fits.

03:02:29.000 --> 03:02:31.209
So that's what we wanted to encourage the some of the

03:02:31.209 --> 03:02:33.409
primary tools we're talking about to do that are the

03:02:33.409 --> 03:02:35.850
certificate of appropriateness. So when you got your

03:02:35.850 --> 03:02:37.840
building permit, then you would also be getting a

03:02:37.840 --> 03:02:40.409
certificate of appropriateness that said yes this fits with

03:02:40.409 --> 03:02:44.000
the standards and guidelines we've put out an apology there

03:02:44.000 --> 03:02:44.000
.

03:02:44.000 --> 03:02:45.000
Yes, sir.

03:02:45.000 --> 03:02:49.000
Who is going to issue the certificate of appropriateness.

03:02:49.000 --> 03:02:51.000
Thank you for bringing that up.

03:02:51.000 --> 03:02:54.250
I'm ahead of myself as usual, my apologies. No worries that

03:02:54.250 --> 03:02:57.129
's exactly where I was going to go. So one of the things

03:02:57.129 --> 03:03:00.000
that has not yet been fully determined at times.

03:03:00.000 --> 03:03:03.000
And I'm actually just going to go for it here.

03:03:03.000 --> 03:03:07.000
So, you have a project on the square.

03:03:07.000 --> 03:03:10.590
So general repair, a minor alteration, not doing a lot that

03:03:10.590 --> 03:03:13.450
could go directly to staff and staff would look at

03:03:13.450 --> 03:03:17.100
standards say yes, great, good, you move forward with that

03:03:17.100 --> 03:03:20.760
that fits, you get your certificate of appropriateness, or

03:03:20.760 --> 03:03:24.000
they might say, we think that doesn't fit these standards,

03:03:24.000 --> 03:03:28.000
and you can say well I'd like to appeal to another body.

03:03:28.000 --> 03:03:30.610
We are not going to be the ones to make a determination of

03:03:30.610 --> 03:03:33.540
what that body is but we have gotten some recommendations.

03:03:33.540 --> 03:03:36.290
We've had historic landmark Commission recommend as one

03:03:36.290 --> 03:03:38.500
option. We've had a recommendation for a group that

03:03:38.500 --> 03:03:42.000
represented downtown residents and business owners

03:03:42.000 --> 03:03:45.500
like the downtown task force, or, and we've thought that

03:03:45.500 --> 03:03:48.370
perhaps a mixture of those two groups could also be

03:03:48.370 --> 03:03:51.639
considered property owners, as well as some historic

03:03:51.639 --> 03:03:55.229
landmark Commission members design professional, but that

03:03:55.229 --> 03:03:58.000
would be something that we'd like to get your feedback on

03:03:58.000 --> 03:03:58.000
that would

03:03:58.000 --> 03:04:01.500
something that council will ultimately decide, but we would

03:04:01.500 --> 03:04:04.819
, we were told when we got feedback that they wanted to have

03:04:04.819 --> 03:04:07.909
and we of course want to have a body of appeal someone that

03:04:07.909 --> 03:04:10.000
a staff decision could be taken to.

03:04:10.000 --> 03:04:13.079
So in the case of a major alteration or demolition and that

03:04:13.079 --> 03:04:16.190
would go directly to that Board of Review, whatever that

03:04:16.190 --> 03:04:18.840
was chosen to be again to determine if that fit the

03:04:18.840 --> 03:04:22.219
standards and could receive the certificate of appropriaten

03:04:22.219 --> 03:04:25.450
ess or not, and then, again, in the case of denial, the

03:04:25.450 --> 03:04:28.000
option for appeal to city council.

03:04:28.000 --> 03:04:31.069
Okay, I may be ahead of myself, is there a criteria coming

03:04:31.069 --> 03:04:35.139
for minor and major alteration. So, that is not set in

03:04:35.139 --> 03:04:39.000
stone one option would be the historic.

03:04:39.000 --> 03:04:42.100
Preservation guidelines actually do define both of those

03:04:42.100 --> 03:04:45.040
terms. So an option would be to use as set out in there,

03:04:45.040 --> 03:04:48.129
the definitions they have for a minor and a major. So

03:04:48.129 --> 03:04:51.049
things that went beyond just hey I'm fixing, fixing a

03:04:51.049 --> 03:04:54.739
doorway I'm repairing something that's already there, where

03:04:54.739 --> 03:04:55.000
you're

03:04:55.000 --> 03:04:59.629
changing a whole facade or demolishing the building, but

03:04:59.629 --> 03:05:04.549
that would be one option for defining that difference. Well

03:05:04.549 --> 03:05:09.040
just some thoughts from being an old time didn't guy. I

03:05:09.040 --> 03:05:11.000
remember back in the day when the opera house was painted.

03:05:11.000 --> 03:05:21.120
That's certain color about that. And there was a lot of

03:05:21.120 --> 03:05:29.000
comments and feedback about that color.

03:05:29.000 --> 03:05:33.559
And there was a major alteration in the facade of the

03:05:33.559 --> 03:05:38.180
building so. So, we have not chosen to put painting of the

03:05:38.180 --> 03:05:42.319
building within the standards is something we want to try

03:05:42.319 --> 03:05:44.000
to guide right now.

03:05:44.000 --> 03:05:48.409
We know that our hope is to continue to improve these

03:05:48.409 --> 03:05:53.329
standards, but we are trying to hit kind of some big ticket

03:05:53.329 --> 03:05:58.020
item protection items first and then move forward from

03:05:58.020 --> 03:05:59.350
there. Same time we'll certainly take that under advisement

03:05:59.350 --> 03:05:59.659
and that's a good point that does have an impact on the

03:05:59.659 --> 03:06:02.000
character of the squares that's an important thing to

03:06:02.000 --> 03:06:02.000
remember.

03:06:02.000 --> 03:06:18.100
Thank you, sir. So, the thing that you're brought up with

03:06:18.100 --> 03:06:18.250
just the painting but considering the murals that are on

03:06:18.250 --> 03:06:18.389
the square and possibly even bringing in, you know, the

03:06:18.389 --> 03:06:18.540
Arts Council or some of the other arts communities into the

03:06:18.540 --> 03:06:19.469
fold of this conversation as they, as, whether they have

03:06:19.469 --> 03:06:22.250
suggestions for art to be added, or if there are certain

03:06:22.250 --> 03:06:24.649
alterations that could affect some of the art that's

03:06:24.649 --> 03:06:28.329
already out there, you know, like the mural that's on the

03:06:28.329 --> 03:06:31.000
side of opera house, the mural that's on the side of a

03:06:31.000 --> 03:06:31.000
house.

03:06:31.000 --> 03:06:35.329
The side of a these now. So, just a recommendation. Yeah,

03:06:35.329 --> 03:06:38.299
certainly and I appreciate that. And, and again we are

03:06:38.299 --> 03:06:41.700
trying to keep it fairly high level with this there we can

03:06:41.700 --> 03:06:45.129
always add new standards and adjust this, but trying to

03:06:45.129 --> 03:06:49.049
really focus on those things that would make a dramatic

03:06:49.049 --> 03:06:51.000
long term change.

03:06:51.000 --> 03:06:54.370
I just wanted to clarify and maybe Roman can also add to

03:06:54.370 --> 03:06:57.850
this but we do have some designated properties within

03:06:57.850 --> 03:07:01.510
within the square. So if there is a mural that is planned,

03:07:01.510 --> 03:07:04.879
it will go in front of HLC for a for their certificate of

03:07:04.879 --> 03:07:09.000
appropriateness just want to go raise that.

03:07:09.000 --> 03:07:16.000
I apologize I'm just tired.

03:07:16.000 --> 03:07:19.790
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you. Okay, on that note of

03:07:19.790 --> 03:07:23.809
historical, what of the square is historical, so it I mean,

03:07:23.809 --> 03:07:27.819
obviously the courthouse but I mean is not. So this whole

03:07:27.819 --> 03:07:30.870
area is that you've shaded out is not a historical

03:07:30.870 --> 03:07:32.000
designation.

03:07:32.000 --> 03:07:35.000
So that correct.

03:07:35.000 --> 03:07:43.170
I'm going to make sure I'm going to look at Roman while I

03:07:43.170 --> 03:07:50.059
say this to make sure that I get this right. But not all

03:07:50.059 --> 03:07:50.430
buildings on that would fall into designation of federal

03:07:50.430 --> 03:07:50.790
designation as historic buildings, there is a federally

03:07:50.790 --> 03:07:52.000
designated landmark area there.

03:07:52.000 --> 03:07:56.659
However, that does not provide any particular protection

03:07:56.659 --> 03:07:59.000
for any of those buildings.

03:07:59.000 --> 03:08:01.469
Not all of those buildings would be considered historic

03:08:01.469 --> 03:08:03.559
some are some would not some would be considering

03:08:03.559 --> 03:08:06.500
contributing to the National Register District. Some are

03:08:06.500 --> 03:08:07.000
not.

03:08:07.000 --> 03:08:10.610
Is that going to be similar to like when we have the oak

03:08:10.610 --> 03:08:14.899
historic district. But if you haven't actually applied for

03:08:14.899 --> 03:08:19.020
historic designation on your property. It doesn't have a

03:08:19.020 --> 03:08:22.000
designation is just in the district.

03:08:22.000 --> 03:08:26.110
It is not receiving a local protection in that sense it may

03:08:26.110 --> 03:08:30.059
be part of the federal district but it is not local and in

03:08:30.059 --> 03:08:34.329
some cases again, some of them are simply aren't old enough

03:08:34.329 --> 03:08:37.000
to be a historic building per se.

03:08:37.000 --> 03:08:40.090
So when you mentioned to the chair standards, were you

03:08:40.090 --> 03:08:43.600
referring to national standards for historical buildings or

03:08:43.600 --> 03:08:46.680
what were you referring to in this case I'm referring to

03:08:46.680 --> 03:08:50.239
the standards that we're putting forward, potentially, let

03:08:50.239 --> 03:08:52.690
me rephrase the standards that are within this draft and

03:08:52.690 --> 03:08:55.200
been shaped by the feedback we've been getting your own

03:08:55.200 --> 03:08:59.000
standards and that's my error and clarification.

03:08:59.000 --> 03:09:05.540
So I believe somebody actually approved the mural that's on

03:09:05.540 --> 03:09:11.000
the temporary wall was that approved by somebody.

03:09:11.000 --> 03:09:15.139
It's like a, you know what they're paying on the side of

03:09:15.139 --> 03:09:16.000
train cars.

03:09:16.000 --> 03:09:22.000
I love art.

03:09:22.000 --> 03:09:26.420
Real good question, Commissioner, what what what happened

03:09:26.420 --> 03:09:30.000
there, which kind of looking at this diagram.

03:09:30.000 --> 03:09:33.219
It's not really mentioned here but it is in the guidelines

03:09:33.219 --> 03:09:36.309
as we've laid them out staff can always approve in those

03:09:36.309 --> 03:09:37.000
areas.

03:09:37.000 --> 03:09:41.200
And in the case of the mural. I think technically the staff

03:09:41.200 --> 03:09:44.379
could have approved it and that would be me the

03:09:44.379 --> 03:09:48.709
preservation officer, but when we have some leeway there,

03:09:48.709 --> 03:09:52.610
and I didn't want to put my stamp of approval on that, so

03:09:52.610 --> 03:09:55.000
that mural, the full mural.

03:09:55.000 --> 03:09:57.889
They had a beautiful rendering of it went to the Landmark

03:09:57.889 --> 03:10:00.940
Commission and the Landmark Commission approved the

03:10:00.940 --> 03:10:02.000
approved the mural.

03:10:02.000 --> 03:10:07.000
That's how that happened.

03:10:07.000 --> 03:10:13.000
That's it was another question in there somewhere I believe

03:10:13.000 --> 03:10:14.000
it.

03:10:14.000 --> 03:10:17.170
Well, it looked really rough before they thought it was a

03:10:17.170 --> 03:10:20.000
good cleanup there but it is correct now there are

03:10:20.000 --> 03:10:23.659
approximately half a dozen structures on the square I

03:10:23.659 --> 03:10:28.500
believe that are landmarked as local landmarks so all of

03:10:28.500 --> 03:10:31.000
those local ones always have to get like the scripture

03:10:31.000 --> 03:10:35.000
and James Coney Island is that is a local landmark.

03:10:35.000 --> 03:10:39.000
And so is the one with the mural and there's some others.

03:10:39.000 --> 03:10:42.250
Commissioner Smith, thank you chair. In regards to this, we

03:10:42.250 --> 03:10:45.370
're seeking to look over and you'd make recommend us help

03:10:45.370 --> 03:10:48.729
give you recommendations on is the, the actual landmark and

03:10:48.729 --> 03:10:52.020
the, the regulations that go on with alterations to that is

03:10:52.020 --> 03:10:56.000
that going to supersede this and on all instances,

03:10:56.000 --> 03:10:59.709
whatever regulations are put down and put forth with this

03:10:59.709 --> 03:11:01.000
and this new one.

03:11:01.000 --> 03:11:03.840
The landmark for regulations are always going to supersede

03:11:03.840 --> 03:11:06.620
this no matter what. Correct. Yes, and that's actually

03:11:06.620 --> 03:11:09.059
something that's stated in the draft there that stricter

03:11:09.059 --> 03:11:11.000
regulations in that case will prevail.

03:11:11.000 --> 03:11:14.399
I know that I wanted to clarify. Commissioner Ellis on the

03:11:14.399 --> 03:11:17.540
standards because that question was raised by citizen

03:11:17.540 --> 03:11:20.659
recently why aren't we just adopting the United States

03:11:20.659 --> 03:11:24.159
Secretary of Interior standards for historic preservation

03:11:24.159 --> 03:11:26.000
or historic buildings.

03:11:26.000 --> 03:11:29.639
When we the ordinance. When our ordinance revisions pass,

03:11:29.639 --> 03:11:32.760
along with the debt and development code we have some

03:11:32.760 --> 03:11:36.270
preservation ordinances that have been slightly delayed as

03:11:36.270 --> 03:11:39.649
we just kind of bring them forward with that, and in there

03:11:39.649 --> 03:11:42.000
under certificates of appropriateness.

03:11:42.000 --> 03:11:46.489
When we the city or the Landmark Commission or whatever the

03:11:46.489 --> 03:11:50.799
governing body is has to apply or may apply the Secretary

03:11:50.799 --> 03:11:55.549
of Interior standards are adopted on guidelines, either one

03:11:55.549 --> 03:11:57.399
. So those standards with quotes around him which refers to

03:11:57.399 --> 03:11:58.000
the standards from

03:11:58.000 --> 03:12:01.979
the Secretary of Interior. Those are sort of incorporated

03:12:01.979 --> 03:12:05.610
in what we're doing, but we're allowing greater, we may

03:12:05.610 --> 03:12:09.069
want to do more or do less but and they don't do anything

03:12:09.069 --> 03:12:12.860
is about those guidelines they they only apply to existing

03:12:12.860 --> 03:12:14.000
buildings.

03:12:14.000 --> 03:12:16.809
We have now a vacant lot actually have to vacant lots of

03:12:16.809 --> 03:12:20.120
parking lot associated with that other building. So, and we

03:12:20.120 --> 03:12:22.969
don't know what will come forward in the future plus we

03:12:22.969 --> 03:12:25.950
have buildings that are really kind of really relatively

03:12:25.950 --> 03:12:28.000
new like the Abby in building, and that's

03:12:28.000 --> 03:12:32.000
construction, it's going to be a long time before that's a

03:12:32.000 --> 03:12:36.069
historic building, and if it isn't even altered in between

03:12:36.069 --> 03:12:40.319
and then it won't be. So, the standards wouldn't don't have

03:12:40.319 --> 03:12:44.000
enough breath to cover all that we need to cover.

03:12:44.000 --> 03:12:47.590
Thank you. Roman one more on that note then so yeah so that

03:12:47.590 --> 03:12:50.459
's what I thought so this is really needed for new

03:12:50.459 --> 03:12:53.899
construction or younger buildings, right where those

03:12:53.899 --> 03:12:57.319
national standards don't apply I'm trying to get my head

03:12:57.319 --> 03:13:01.000
around historic and what we're

03:13:01.000 --> 03:13:03.000
doing.

03:13:03.000 --> 03:13:07.020
Let me let me jump in here maybe I can simplify this. These

03:13:07.020 --> 03:13:11.219
, these standards are really just guidelines and standards

03:13:11.219 --> 03:13:15.350
for everything within the square and what's considered the

03:13:15.350 --> 03:13:19.000
new streets, the block immediately adjacent.

03:13:19.000 --> 03:13:25.870
It applies to all buildings. So, historic or not. However,

03:13:25.870 --> 03:13:32.239
if it's a historic landmark, then the more strict standards

03:13:32.239 --> 03:13:35.680
shall apply. And it really is the only goal in this is that

03:13:35.680 --> 03:13:38.000
we manage the square in its entirety so we have a cultural

03:13:38.000 --> 03:13:39.000
component to our

03:13:39.000 --> 03:13:44.350
community that we have no protection mechanism today. So,

03:13:44.350 --> 03:13:49.180
the demolition of, or the construction thereof. There are

03:13:49.180 --> 03:13:51.440
no standards or guidelines that apply. This is designed to

03:13:51.440 --> 03:13:55.219
do that, and to complement where it is that we have

03:13:55.219 --> 03:13:57.000
historic preservation or any of our

03:13:57.000 --> 03:14:01.709
other codes and standards that are in place, not looking to

03:14:01.709 --> 03:14:06.260
create another layer body or anything else as much as it is

03:14:06.260 --> 03:14:11.000
it's just to preserve, you know the quality of what we have

03:14:11.000 --> 03:14:11.000
.

03:14:11.000 --> 03:14:14.760
Mr. Sullivan, is there any buildings I know this is going

03:14:14.760 --> 03:14:18.100
forward you can't go back and say hey y'all need to redo

03:14:18.100 --> 03:14:21.840
something. And you've got some examples of where they are

03:14:21.840 --> 03:14:25.299
consistent and what that construction looks like and I

03:14:25.299 --> 03:14:27.000
think that's all well and good.

03:14:27.000 --> 03:14:31.270
If there's anything on the square today that if this had

03:14:31.270 --> 03:14:35.909
been in place earlier, that would not have been approved,

03:14:35.909 --> 03:14:40.200
or would have been inconsistent with what the downtown

03:14:40.200 --> 03:14:45.000
should look like. I just for frame of reference.

03:14:45.000 --> 03:14:49.799
I will, I will pick on, I will pick on one component that

03:14:49.799 --> 03:14:54.639
comes to mind for me. And there's a green and white sign

03:14:54.639 --> 03:14:58.000
that wouldn't meet the standards.

03:14:58.000 --> 03:15:03.569
So if you look at the square then I name no names, but it's

03:15:03.569 --> 03:15:08.510
a box sign with an acrylic front, which really isn't a

03:15:08.510 --> 03:15:10.000
timeless design.

03:15:10.000 --> 03:15:16.000
So, it's things like that. The building, the facade of the

03:15:16.000 --> 03:15:16.000
building.

03:15:16.000 --> 03:15:20.049
So, if someone were to want to come into a storefront

03:15:20.049 --> 03:15:24.559
remove the entirety of that storefront and put a mirrored

03:15:24.559 --> 03:15:29.149
glass front, it wouldn't match the character. So that's

03:15:29.149 --> 03:15:33.459
what this is designed to do. And like I said I can only

03:15:33.459 --> 03:15:37.870
think of quickly one instance of a structure that may bring

03:15:37.870 --> 03:15:40.000
that into question.

03:15:40.000 --> 03:15:45.440
I'd have two things. Can you go back to the map we were

03:15:45.440 --> 03:15:47.000
looking at? Yes, sir. Just a second.

03:15:47.000 --> 03:15:50.590
The question comes to mind on the square itself is very

03:15:50.590 --> 03:15:54.329
apparent we've got what I'm gonna call the checker or the t

03:15:54.329 --> 03:15:57.000
ic tac toe board the little corners.

03:15:57.000 --> 03:16:01.670
When you go one street back, is the corner one street back

03:16:01.670 --> 03:16:05.840
going to be included in that as well? That would be

03:16:05.840 --> 03:16:11.000
something that would be excellent to get your feedback on.

03:16:11.000 --> 03:16:12.510
We'd like to hear from you on that, because that is a good

03:16:12.510 --> 03:16:13.000
question.

03:16:13.000 --> 03:16:16.500
I just thought out as an observation we have it here but I

03:16:16.500 --> 03:16:20.190
don't know that we talked about it one street back. Just to

03:16:20.190 --> 03:16:23.860
throw that out. And this is again just work session we're

03:16:23.860 --> 03:16:28.000
not taking action, we're making comments recommendations.

03:16:28.000 --> 03:16:31.000
It's on the record now. Yes, sir.

03:16:31.000 --> 03:16:36.610
The second one is two buildings come to my mind immediately

03:16:36.610 --> 03:16:42.569
. The Fine Arts building and then the building that's burned

03:16:42.569 --> 03:16:43.000
. Yes, sir. And let's just put the elephant there.

03:16:43.000 --> 03:16:46.500
Obviously this is being taken up because for the most part,

03:16:46.500 --> 03:16:52.180
those two properties. Yes, sir. And my question would be, I

03:16:52.180 --> 03:16:54.850
would feel better if this is going to ultimately come

03:16:54.850 --> 03:16:58.000
before us to vote on for a recommendation that the property

03:16:58.000 --> 03:17:00.000
owners of both of those properties

03:17:00.000 --> 03:17:04.409
are okay with what we're doing because obviously these

03:17:04.409 --> 03:17:08.370
standards are being moved forward to deal with those

03:17:08.370 --> 03:17:12.590
particular properties and so I'm curious if those building

03:17:12.590 --> 03:17:16.899
owners have looked at this and go, check the box, we're 100

03:17:16.899 --> 03:17:21.000
% A okay or five people around them are okay and they're not

03:17:21.000 --> 03:17:21.000
,

03:17:21.000 --> 03:17:25.129
they're going to be the ones that more than likely this

03:17:25.129 --> 03:17:30.040
affects more than anybody else on this word. Absolutely. I

03:17:30.040 --> 03:17:31.920
will say we have certainly made every effort to reach out

03:17:31.920 --> 03:17:33.750
to repeatedly to as many of the business and property

03:17:33.750 --> 03:17:35.000
owners as we can.

03:17:35.000 --> 03:17:39.540
And I will say, I believe with one of the properties I can

03:17:39.540 --> 03:17:44.090
think of, believe one of the gentlemen who may be part of

03:17:44.090 --> 03:17:48.959
purchasing that was very supportive of this when we brought

03:17:48.959 --> 03:17:51.000
it to his attention. In fact, he basically said I've been

03:17:51.000 --> 03:17:51.000
asking for this for a couple years.

03:17:51.000 --> 03:17:54.030
So but your point is well taken. And that would be a good

03:17:54.030 --> 03:17:56.850
thing to ensure that we do. The only other thing that comes

03:17:56.850 --> 03:17:59.409
to mind is there any height restriction I didn't did a very

03:17:59.409 --> 03:18:02.030
quick thumb through on this is there a height restriction

03:18:02.030 --> 03:18:03.000
on any of these.

03:18:03.000 --> 03:18:07.129
What we have at this point is a principle that you should

03:18:07.129 --> 03:18:11.639
be essentially harmonious with the height of the buildings

03:18:11.639 --> 03:18:14.000
around you, and it was far bow.

03:18:14.000 --> 03:18:17.000
Yeah, yes.

03:18:17.000 --> 03:18:19.000
Yes.

03:18:19.000 --> 03:18:22.229
I didn't know what I'm sorry I'm being a little flippant.

03:18:22.229 --> 03:18:24.000
No, no, I understand.

03:18:24.000 --> 03:18:27.649
It would be our preference to have it would certainly be in

03:18:27.649 --> 03:18:31.149
line with the direction of the standards to say that you

03:18:31.149 --> 03:18:34.629
should have your roof should be in line with the roofs of

03:18:34.629 --> 03:18:37.000
those next to you in that block.

03:18:37.000 --> 03:18:43.000
So as time progresses and things happen.

03:18:43.000 --> 03:18:48.479
Let's say the building right across the street from Wells

03:18:48.479 --> 03:18:54.030
Fargo the tilt wall building as a structural failure. It

03:18:54.030 --> 03:18:54.959
could come back and say well Wells Fargo is 100 feet tall,

03:18:54.959 --> 03:18:56.000
that's my next door neighbor I want to be 100 feet tall.

03:18:56.000 --> 03:18:58.620
You see where I'm going with that. Yes, sir. I believe in

03:18:58.620 --> 03:19:01.280
some ways we would need to leave that to the body that

03:19:01.280 --> 03:19:04.000
would be looking at the standards we have look at that

03:19:04.000 --> 03:19:07.000
situation and use their judgment in that situation.

03:19:07.000 --> 03:19:11.000
And I would trust that they would make a good decision.

03:19:11.000 --> 03:19:14.860
Commissioner Sullivan, so really Wells Fargo being built

03:19:14.860 --> 03:19:18.709
under these guidelines, it probably would not be as tall as

03:19:18.709 --> 03:19:22.409
it is under, you know, if this was put together, and now

03:19:22.409 --> 03:19:26.000
they're going to build a new building on that corner, it

03:19:26.000 --> 03:19:30.000
wouldn't be what Wells Fargo is today is that

03:19:30.000 --> 03:19:33.360
I certainly can't speak to what decision would be made.

03:19:33.360 --> 03:19:36.579
Well, I'm saying to stay in line as you say the height is

03:19:36.579 --> 03:19:39.729
somewhat copacetic and not more than one story above I

03:19:39.729 --> 03:19:42.000
think is what I read or something.

03:19:42.000 --> 03:19:45.670
So that would preclude, you know, tall building like Wells

03:19:45.670 --> 03:19:49.239
Fargo from going into that corner. I would suspect that if

03:19:49.239 --> 03:19:52.450
these were in place that there would be some concerns about

03:19:52.450 --> 03:19:53.000
that.

03:19:53.000 --> 03:19:56.290
That's what I was wondering earlier just in my mind to see

03:19:56.290 --> 03:19:59.870
what would be would not have been approved. Yes, sir. If

03:19:59.870 --> 03:20:02.709
this had been under play in play. I think that's a

03:20:02.709 --> 03:20:05.000
reasonable statement. Yes, sir.

03:20:05.000 --> 03:20:08.000
Commissioner Rosal. Thank you, Chair.

03:20:08.000 --> 03:20:24.110
Sorry I know you're fighting that. What is the overall

03:20:24.110 --> 03:20:24.440
perspective the city of increasing height as you get away

03:20:24.440 --> 03:20:24.729
from the square so can can the cedar streaming campus

03:20:24.729 --> 03:20:26.610
theaters really tall, but is it the long term goal is we

03:20:26.610 --> 03:20:29.000
build density downtown.

03:20:29.000 --> 03:20:34.370
I would think, elevating building vertical makes the most

03:20:34.370 --> 03:20:38.670
sense in the downtown core long term. How close can that

03:20:38.670 --> 03:20:41.000
density and height get up to the square is this protected.

03:20:41.000 --> 03:20:45.450
Could they buildings are budding like walnut, which I'm not

03:20:45.450 --> 03:20:49.180
sure I don't know if that's Hannah's hand this is one

03:20:49.180 --> 03:20:53.000
street down but those buildings. Thank you.

03:20:53.000 --> 03:20:58.100
Could, could, has there any consideration of allowing the

03:20:58.100 --> 03:21:03.200
maximum height to be 5060 feet there to start kind of

03:21:03.200 --> 03:21:06.000
fading in denser structures.

03:21:06.000 --> 03:21:11.000
Okay, simple question, multifaceted answer.

03:21:11.000 --> 03:21:15.700
What you have today is what we've proposed and recommended

03:21:15.700 --> 03:21:20.299
that we're taking to this body for feedback and input to an

03:21:20.299 --> 03:21:24.909
earlier point we have not received a single derogatory or

03:21:24.909 --> 03:21:29.850
person opposed to these standards, as of yet, nothing on

03:21:29.850 --> 03:21:31.000
the record.

03:21:31.000 --> 03:21:34.979
It's going to go before Council, and then we're going to

03:21:34.979 --> 03:21:39.290
come back with an ordinance, and then refine standards from

03:21:39.290 --> 03:21:42.000
all the feedback that we received.

03:21:42.000 --> 03:21:46.959
Keep in mind that the square creating this as a square

03:21:46.959 --> 03:21:52.620
district is the immediate square area those facades and the

03:21:52.620 --> 03:21:58.260
, and the streets immediately adjacent to. So when you go

03:21:58.260 --> 03:22:02.000
another block beyond so ie walnut.

03:22:02.000 --> 03:22:05.770
Separate and apart from the fact as we look at the central

03:22:05.770 --> 03:22:09.809
business district, where that central business business

03:22:09.809 --> 03:22:13.030
district actually exists. And then ultimately the

03:22:13.030 --> 03:22:15.559
conversation in its infancy stage is talking about having

03:22:15.559 --> 03:22:20.000
similar overlay districts in the central business district

03:22:20.000 --> 03:22:23.190
and saying, you may have something different, where it is

03:22:23.190 --> 03:22:26.010
rail where it's more industrial and to the south more

03:22:26.010 --> 03:22:29.209
residential and. And so trying to manage the character of

03:22:29.209 --> 03:22:32.090
each of these components within the central business

03:22:32.090 --> 03:22:33.000
district.

03:22:33.000 --> 03:22:38.250
Our focus is exclusively on the square, and it just didn't

03:22:38.250 --> 03:22:43.079
make sense to us when we propose this originally to say

03:22:43.079 --> 03:22:48.110
that it stops on this, this, the storefront facing the

03:22:48.110 --> 03:22:50.000
square proper.

03:22:50.000 --> 03:22:52.770
We ended up with the facade on the street immediately

03:22:52.770 --> 03:22:55.940
adjacent. But as you say that you have Oak Street which is

03:22:55.940 --> 03:22:58.629
very similar in character so why don't we include Oak

03:22:58.629 --> 03:23:01.659
Street and why wouldn't we include to the point of another

03:23:01.659 --> 03:23:04.000
building well where do you stop.

03:23:04.000 --> 03:23:07.989
So, this was very defined and very refined because we have

03:23:07.989 --> 03:23:11.819
something that's unique and and really wanting to brand

03:23:11.819 --> 03:23:15.549
this to say, this is the square of dent not to say that we

03:23:15.549 --> 03:23:19.459
don't want all of these other areas to have a character and

03:23:19.459 --> 03:23:22.000
for that character to complement

03:23:22.000 --> 03:23:25.629
the square. So, we're going to manage that and then we're

03:23:25.629 --> 03:23:29.000
going to look at yes, as as we, as we move out from that,

03:23:29.000 --> 03:23:32.399
or go more vertical what makes sense and what what's good

03:23:32.399 --> 03:23:34.000
for our community.

03:23:34.000 --> 03:23:36.590
Sorry it's a long answer but it was just, it's a

03:23:36.590 --> 03:23:40.059
complicated issue. This is just one of those first steps to

03:23:40.059 --> 03:23:43.079
try to manage or maintain the character of what we have in

03:23:43.079 --> 03:23:46.000
the square because we have no tools in place today.

03:23:46.000 --> 03:23:49.000
Thank you.

03:23:49.000 --> 03:23:54.940
I appreciate the clarification and it brings to my mind we

03:23:54.940 --> 03:24:00.649
were talking based on Commissioner Ellis's question about

03:24:00.649 --> 03:24:06.000
the facades on the streets immediately off the square.

03:24:06.000 --> 03:24:11.270
And whether that should just stop basically what is the

03:24:11.270 --> 03:24:16.989
blue highlight versus crossing the street because when you

03:24:16.989 --> 03:24:20.090
cross the street. You take a whole nother core there as

03:24:20.090 --> 03:24:22.000
well that depending on how those properties are shaped.

03:24:22.000 --> 03:24:35.739
In my, in my experience, the properties on the west side of

03:24:35.739 --> 03:24:38.000
cedar.

03:24:38.000 --> 03:24:43.149
You can't make that whole block of being able to do

03:24:43.149 --> 03:24:49.340
anything with that building because you've got the facade

03:24:49.340 --> 03:24:53.000
facing north to Walnut Street.

03:24:53.000 --> 03:24:59.250
And again, it's how it is that we treat or transition that

03:24:59.250 --> 03:25:05.780
building into something else, knowing that we have unique

03:25:05.780 --> 03:25:08.000
circumstances.

03:25:08.000 --> 03:25:19.989
It's not going to be prohibited. It's designed to be

03:25:19.989 --> 03:25:27.000
flexible. And again as we craft this and go forward.

03:25:27.000 --> 03:25:31.739
I heard this Do we know this so muse being an old English

03:25:31.739 --> 03:25:37.120
term, but really treating Austin cedar, those streets are

03:25:37.120 --> 03:25:42.139
used as an alley by virtue of we have grease interceptors

03:25:42.139 --> 03:25:48.219
and we have waste receptacles and so the city's looking at

03:25:48.219 --> 03:25:50.000
how it is that we can help to facilitate

03:25:50.000 --> 03:25:58.000
or improve those streets so we've dubbed them new streets.

03:25:58.000 --> 03:26:00.549
We're looking at putting some investment into those streets

03:26:00.549 --> 03:26:03.049
, how it is that we can consolidate the trash receptacles,

03:26:03.049 --> 03:26:05.149
find other means to do something with that to try to

03:26:05.149 --> 03:26:06.000
enhance that.

03:26:06.000 --> 03:26:13.860
So the importance of capturing those streets within this

03:26:13.860 --> 03:26:21.030
and the facades of those streets tie hand in hand. I will

03:26:21.030 --> 03:26:21.420
also say there's been some conversation some dialogue about

03:26:21.420 --> 03:26:21.790
, again, is there some ability to do some, you know, some

03:26:21.790 --> 03:26:26.790
private, public ventures, where it is that maybe where we

03:26:26.790 --> 03:26:29.610
did have a fire and there have been fires on the square,

03:26:29.610 --> 03:26:33.000
can we as a municipality offer up some ideas on getting

03:26:33.000 --> 03:26:35.000
fire suppression throughout the entirety of that area.

03:26:35.000 --> 03:26:37.899
So how do we upsize the infrastructure to make it

03:26:37.899 --> 03:26:41.819
appropriate. So, making those capital improvements that are

03:26:41.819 --> 03:26:45.079
necessary to invest in our square because the importance of

03:26:45.079 --> 03:26:46.000
the square.

03:26:46.000 --> 03:26:49.870
Keeping in mind that we're focusing on one aspect of that

03:26:49.870 --> 03:26:53.590
but there are any number of things that are going along

03:26:53.590 --> 03:26:57.549
with that that really haven't been brought to the surface

03:26:57.549 --> 03:27:01.469
as of yet but it's not a secret it just, it's, again, all

03:27:01.469 --> 03:27:03.000
in its infancy.

03:27:03.000 --> 03:27:07.120
Well that I appreciate the clarification is that that's

03:27:07.120 --> 03:27:11.399
what I'm starting to think about is what you're calling the

03:27:11.399 --> 03:27:15.780
new streets the one street off. When you move that another

03:27:15.780 --> 03:27:17.530
layer out. It makes a very different or could have a very

03:27:17.530 --> 03:27:19.290
different effect on what you can do on some of those

03:27:19.290 --> 03:27:21.000
properties, depending on

03:27:21.000 --> 03:27:25.500
what the building orientation is. So for example up there

03:27:25.500 --> 03:27:29.819
on the northwest corner of Cedar and Oak Street you've got

03:27:29.819 --> 03:27:34.000
one on the north side of oak and the west side of Cedar.

03:27:34.000 --> 03:27:37.129
You've got one little skinny building there on the north

03:27:37.129 --> 03:27:38.000
side of oak.

03:27:38.000 --> 03:27:41.870
All right. Beyond that, you might have to save the little

03:27:41.870 --> 03:27:45.590
sliver building but those other buildings would not have

03:27:45.590 --> 03:27:49.000
any of those guidelines, unless there's going to be

03:27:49.000 --> 03:27:53.000
something new with the new streets that impacts those.

03:27:53.000 --> 03:27:56.690
So, again, as Scott said, definitely this is going to be an

03:27:56.690 --> 03:28:00.280
ongoing process that's something where we would be able to

03:28:00.280 --> 03:28:03.829
look at what we want to have. If this would work well would

03:28:03.829 --> 03:28:07.170
we want to have a district that fit the character of that

03:28:07.170 --> 03:28:08.000
area, a little bit more clearly,

03:28:08.000 --> 03:28:11.120
so we may not what you need there may be a little different

03:28:11.120 --> 03:28:14.129
than what we need on the area directly surrounding the

03:28:14.129 --> 03:28:17.319
square and that's something we can look at. But again we

03:28:17.319 --> 03:28:20.459
want to find somewhere to draw that line, so that in that

03:28:20.459 --> 03:28:23.319
area right in and just off the squares like we are on the

03:28:23.319 --> 03:28:25.770
square, and then being careful going beyond that to not try

03:28:25.770 --> 03:28:28.000
and encompass everything in that realm.

03:28:28.000 --> 03:28:31.049
And another piece to that is keep in mind is that the

03:28:31.049 --> 03:28:34.370
reason we went to the property owners and the business

03:28:34.370 --> 03:28:37.829
owners in that area is to get their feedback and input, an

03:28:37.829 --> 03:28:41.200
important component for them was to be involved in what

03:28:41.200 --> 03:28:44.000
that body was so that appellate body.

03:28:44.000 --> 03:28:49.639
So let's use your example to say that the city said yep you

03:28:49.639 --> 03:28:55.159
have to follow the standards and this is what you have to

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

03:28:58.690 --> 03:29:00.120
before that that group of property owners and business

03:29:00.120 --> 03:29:02.000
owners and they say well that just doesn't make sense.

03:29:02.000 --> 03:29:05.500
And they go about their business so it's not as if this is

03:29:05.500 --> 03:29:08.850
this is going to be the catch all or the gotcha. It is

03:29:08.850 --> 03:29:12.700
really designed to manage what it's designed to manage, and

03:29:12.700 --> 03:29:16.260
it's going to be overseen by those that have the greatest

03:29:16.260 --> 03:29:20.819
input or as far as I'm concerned I think should be that app

03:29:20.819 --> 03:29:22.000
ellate body.

03:29:22.000 --> 03:29:25.000
Okay. Perfect. Thank you.

03:29:25.000 --> 03:29:28.000
Okay.

03:29:28.000 --> 03:29:32.680
Okay. I'm late. Anybody have any other. Do we have more

03:29:32.680 --> 03:29:35.500
presentation. I was just briefly, I had a couple pictures

03:29:35.500 --> 03:29:40.000
just to my apologies. No I understand it's getting late.

03:29:40.000 --> 03:29:43.149
I'm not to go in, in any depth into what we're touching but

03:29:43.149 --> 03:29:46.309
some of the things that these standards could help us look

03:29:46.309 --> 03:29:49.809
at would include building edge. So again, generally trying

03:29:49.809 --> 03:29:53.040
to guide buildings to create that nice frame. So you have

03:29:53.040 --> 03:29:56.069
your creativity in here but you have a frame around lets

03:29:56.069 --> 03:29:58.000
you know you're on the square.

03:29:58.000 --> 03:30:00.719
Things don't stand out too dramatically articulation, so

03:30:00.719 --> 03:30:03.379
that you know, hey, this is the first floor. This is the

03:30:03.379 --> 03:30:05.000
second floor it's pedestrian friendly.

03:30:05.000 --> 03:30:07.969
As you're approaching this building you're feeling welcome

03:30:07.969 --> 03:30:10.940
windows and doors along those facades there. So again you

03:30:10.940 --> 03:30:13.850
creating environment that's welcoming to the pedestrian in

03:30:13.850 --> 03:30:16.579
terms of guidelines, we're not going to tell you to put a

03:30:16.579 --> 03:30:20.139
door way on the corner but if you do, that's great you know

03:30:20.139 --> 03:30:22.000
that's again it's welcoming orientation.

03:30:22.000 --> 03:30:24.959
So we would want to have buildings that front on the square

03:30:24.959 --> 03:30:27.940
actually have your main entrance on the square that's

03:30:27.940 --> 03:30:30.899
welcoming it creates a frame there. You have lighting that

03:30:30.899 --> 03:30:33.790
is not overbearing that's welcoming but not bleeding on

03:30:33.790 --> 03:30:35.000
nearby streets.

03:30:35.000 --> 03:30:38.309
And then, and this is kind of a key thing that we looked at

03:30:38.309 --> 03:30:42.209
was requiring that you actually have a building along 100%

03:30:42.209 --> 03:30:45.360
of that lot line that's on the square so that you're not

03:30:45.360 --> 03:30:48.920
putting a parking lot and having you know building building

03:30:48.920 --> 03:30:52.379
whole building that felt that was an important piece to

03:30:52.379 --> 03:30:53.000
have in there.

03:30:53.000 --> 03:30:56.360
Just a comparison some of the things we have had without

03:30:56.360 --> 03:30:59.959
standards so the Texas building covered in a nice aluminum

03:30:59.959 --> 03:31:03.219
cladding a roof here that is currently existing that I

03:31:03.219 --> 03:31:06.819
believe belongs on a great temple maybe not on our square,

03:31:06.819 --> 03:31:10.000
a Masonic Hall that was demolished to make way for a

03:31:10.000 --> 03:31:10.000
parking

03:31:10.000 --> 03:31:14.559
lot just off the square storefront where we now today have

03:31:14.559 --> 03:31:18.829
fantastic windows and transoms with Montesquieu but

03:31:18.829 --> 03:31:23.000
previously we had cement all blocking those up.

03:31:23.000 --> 03:31:26.370
What we would love to see with these standards and what was

03:31:26.370 --> 03:31:28.000
possible without them.

03:31:28.000 --> 03:31:31.590
Again, you know, we're looking at screening making sure

03:31:31.590 --> 03:31:34.819
that that equipment on your roof is not visible to the

03:31:34.819 --> 03:31:38.370
pedestrian temporary construction, look at what could be

03:31:38.370 --> 03:31:41.780
put in those places to screen that and have some approval

03:31:41.780 --> 03:31:44.000
process for that actually encouraging

03:31:44.000 --> 03:31:46.350
some pedestrian dining as long as you're not impeding on

03:31:46.350 --> 03:31:48.799
the right way but creating an opportunity for restaurants

03:31:48.799 --> 03:31:51.000
saying yeah, that's a good thing on the square.

03:31:51.000 --> 03:31:53.590
Commissioner Rosal. It's going to be the time or place when

03:31:53.590 --> 03:31:55.940
I'm sitting through out there, and we were considered

03:31:55.940 --> 03:31:58.069
getting rid of some of the parking on the square and

03:31:58.069 --> 03:32:00.000
increasing the exterior sidewalks.

03:32:00.000 --> 03:32:03.250
I go to the McKinney Square, often, and I think why is didn

03:32:03.250 --> 03:32:06.200
't not doing this in which there is a ton of pedestrian

03:32:06.200 --> 03:32:09.819
dining, great walkways. Now granted didn't have to solve

03:32:09.819 --> 03:32:13.239
the problem with parking downtown, but it seems like there

03:32:13.239 --> 03:32:16.000
's a lot of cars and the walkways to get to place to

03:32:16.000 --> 03:32:20.409
place or, you know, eight feet wide. I'd love in a perfect

03:32:20.409 --> 03:32:23.889
world to expand those out and have all these great

03:32:23.889 --> 03:32:27.000
restaurants with the outdoor eating but I don't know if

03:32:27.000 --> 03:32:27.000
that's possible.

03:32:27.000 --> 03:32:31.000
There is actually a plan for about the 1960s.

03:32:31.000 --> 03:32:34.500
There's actually a plan that we discovered. One of our

03:32:34.500 --> 03:32:38.360
planners offices from about the 1960s that proposed

03:32:38.360 --> 03:32:42.170
basically that broader sidewalks more trees right along the

03:32:42.170 --> 03:32:46.069
edges really turning into a plaza, rather than square. So

03:32:46.069 --> 03:32:47.430
that is something that has been put forward that there's

03:32:47.430 --> 03:32:48.799
been a lot of support for, and probably not something we

03:32:48.799 --> 03:32:51.489
would try to address with this but absolutely something

03:32:51.489 --> 03:32:54.200
that would be in the spirit of welcoming pedestrians to

03:32:54.200 --> 03:32:58.889
this area so I pause and I'd say I strongly agree with

03:32:58.889 --> 03:33:00.000
Commissioner Roselle's point.

03:33:00.000 --> 03:33:03.500
point been to McKinney in the square over there. Totally

03:33:03.500 --> 03:33:06.559
different feel, and there's some great restaurants and

03:33:06.559 --> 03:33:09.639
places to go and I think that's certainly something that

03:33:09.639 --> 03:33:15.000
needs to be considered in this process. Absolutely.

03:33:15.000 --> 03:33:22.270
So, to finish up just to give you an idea of kind of the

03:33:22.270 --> 03:33:30.219
timeline we're looking at right now so at this point we are

03:33:30.219 --> 03:33:34.120
getting your feedback. In June we're going to go to City

03:33:34.120 --> 03:33:34.340
Council and get their feedback. We're going to distill that

03:33:34.340 --> 03:33:34.510
to create a draft and new draft set of standards and a

03:33:34.510 --> 03:33:34.729
draft ordinance, and then crucially we are going to go back

03:33:34.729 --> 03:33:36.329
to those stakeholders the property owners business owners

03:33:36.329 --> 03:33:38.940
and residents who we have told will let you know when

03:33:38.940 --> 03:33:42.149
changes are made to this, get their feedback on that again,

03:33:42.149 --> 03:33:44.000
and then come back, hopefully, in.

03:33:44.000 --> 03:33:47.649
Late summer, early fall for some more public hearings, move

03:33:47.649 --> 03:33:49.000
towards adoption.

03:33:49.000 --> 03:33:52.149
And again important continuous improvement so what we would

03:33:52.149 --> 03:33:54.940
like to have in this final product built in is a planned

03:33:54.940 --> 03:33:57.799
review and about a year where we go back and say how these

03:33:57.799 --> 03:33:59.000
standards worked.

03:33:59.000 --> 03:34:01.399
Have they done what we wanted them to do are the things

03:34:01.399 --> 03:34:03.709
that we need to add in or take out we want to have that

03:34:03.709 --> 03:34:06.000
almost like a sunset. Yes, sir.

03:34:06.000 --> 03:34:12.280
Commissioner Smith, thank you, Chair, I encourage possibly

03:34:12.280 --> 03:34:14.049
another another stakeholder to include Chamber of Commerce

03:34:14.049 --> 03:34:15.639
and the CVB might be a really good option for us to bring

03:34:15.639 --> 03:34:17.409
them in mainstream associations getting corporate a lot of

03:34:17.409 --> 03:34:20.989
those business owners but as the CVB is also talking about

03:34:20.989 --> 03:34:21.000
bringing

03:34:21.000 --> 03:34:24.590
a lot of outside visitors downtown, just have them involved

03:34:24.590 --> 03:34:28.139
in the conversation, not that they're going to say anything

03:34:28.139 --> 03:34:31.219
that's over and above or different than what you know

03:34:31.219 --> 03:34:34.860
mainstream association DTF, the residents business owners

03:34:34.860 --> 03:34:37.750
down there to say but I think they might have some really

03:34:37.750 --> 03:34:38.000
valuable

03:34:38.000 --> 03:34:42.739
information in the way that how visitors to Denton perceive

03:34:42.739 --> 03:34:47.270
the square. And if maybe external view the square might

03:34:47.270 --> 03:34:52.000
change how we do our preservation and design criteria.

03:34:52.000 --> 03:34:53.329
Also with seeing how we internally view it might also just

03:34:53.329 --> 03:34:56.159
be a good suggestion. Absolutely really appreciate that,

03:34:56.159 --> 03:35:00.000
certainly. And, and I will say on the feedback as well.

03:35:00.000 --> 03:35:02.840
I'm going to hear from you so if I will make sure that we

03:35:02.840 --> 03:35:05.930
have you do have a copy of all this, I'd love for you to

03:35:05.930 --> 03:35:08.559
take some time to read that anything you want to email

03:35:08.559 --> 03:35:11.299
directly to me and I'll give you my card to Richard to

03:35:11.299 --> 03:35:13.000
Scott, that'll all go in you

03:35:13.000 --> 03:35:15.889
know take your time with that and let us know what your

03:35:15.889 --> 03:35:19.110
thoughts are we'd like to get all of that really appreciate

03:35:19.110 --> 03:35:20.000
your time.

03:35:20.000 --> 03:35:22.000
Last line.

03:35:22.000 --> 03:35:24.000
That is the last line. Okay.

03:35:24.000 --> 03:35:29.000
Any other questions for Sean, while we have him.

03:35:29.000 --> 03:35:32.000
Commissioner Ellis, okay real quick sorry Thank you chair.

03:35:32.000 --> 03:35:35.370
Okay, so to back up the, the standards and guidelines that

03:35:35.370 --> 03:35:38.639
's what you want us because I made a bunch of notes on here,

03:35:38.639 --> 03:35:41.000
so I'll just take those notes and email them to you.

03:35:41.000 --> 03:35:44.000
Okay.

03:35:44.000 --> 03:35:45.000
Great.

03:35:45.000 --> 03:35:50.000
Great presentation. Good job.

03:35:50.000 --> 03:35:54.000
Any other matters before we close.

03:35:54.000 --> 03:35:59.000
Nope. Okay, we will close.

03:35:59.000 --> 03:36:03.670
We will close the second round of our work session at 908

03:36:03.670 --> 03:36:07.889
still early and compared to gas well timeframes would be

03:36:07.889 --> 03:36:10.000
getting pizza about now.