Dec 12, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2018-12-12 4:30 PM

Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday December 12, 2018. This is our work session and I will call us to order with a quorum present at 4.35 p.m. First item on the agenda is clarification of agenda items, so I will defer to Richard if we have changes with that. Just one change, item D, the CDP Bravo, they've actually withdrawn their application so that item will not be heard. So really under public hearings, we just have the tree code and then the Oak Gateway plan. So we can stay in order as we have it. Okay. Very good. Let's go to minutes. Discussion on minutes? November 14th? Nothing? Okay. November 28th, I did have an issue and I guess Jerry, I need to defer to you on that. So in the minutes, it talks about the public hearing being left open for the discussion item on the tree code, but nothing is mentioned in the minutes about the public hearing being open. So I don't know. You know, if it wasn't ever open, then, you know, that -- there was nothing to close. And so we would have to have, you know, a public hearing at another time, as opposed to for a public hearing tonight. It is. And there's no requirement to have two public hearings. We could go forward with that if that's the way that's pursued. So shall we open the public hearing tonight, then, when we do it? Is that what you're planning on doing? Yes. Okay. So we'll open the public hearing tonight. Okay. Do we need to revise anything in the minutes? I think that what you would -- tell me again what it says about open. It lists the agenda item in the minutes. And in there, it says the chair did not close the public hearing. However, the chair never opened the public hearing, apparently. Well, that sounds like it's accurate. Isn't that correct? Well, okay. Because he never closed. Never closed something that wasn't open anyway. If it says that the hearing was never open, that's an accurate reflection of the events, is it not? Well, the minutes don't state that the public hearing was ever open. It just says he didn't close the public hearing. Oh, okay. Well, why don't we revise the minutes to show -- Can we eliminate that sentence? We could. Sure. Yeah. Okay. Right. Okay. Then we'll vote on those separate anyway, I believe. And so then we can make a motion that removes that sentence in there. Does that work? Okay. Okay, that moves us to consent, where we have preliminary plat. Anybody have anything on A? Nothing. No? Okay. How about our final plat for Robeson, item B? All good there? Nothing. Okey-dokey. Then that moves us right on to public hearings, where item A has been postponed until January 9th. Item B. Do we want to go back through work session, or? What do you all think? That's our tree code discussion, landscape discussion. Do we need to bring up discussion here? Commissioner Beck? I would vote no. I think we heard a lot last week, and we're going to hear the whole thing tonight, along with the public, which would be a good time, then, to probe. So I would vote not no on a work session hearing on it. Does anybody else have specific discussion? Do we not have one other presentation regarding -- Gateway? No, water and wastewater design. Those are our work session items, which we'll get to after clarifying the agenda. So we have something that can fill the time between here and 630, right? Otherwise, maybe we ought to do the tree code, I don't know. Okay. Thanks. Okay. So we don't need that. Okay. Then let's move to our Oak Gateway discussion, which we have not heard, so let's bring up Ron for that. All right. Talking about filling in time, this will fill up the time. Madam Chair, members of the commission, I'm excited to present to you all a presentation on the Oak Gateway area plan, something that the Oak Gateway Steering Committee has been working on for over a year or plus. So this is a great time to just show what we've done, and hopefully we get a recommendation, and if you have any questions, please do so. Please ask. So just as for the agenda on the presentation, really just discuss the purpose, a little bit of history about the area, background about how we got to the small area plan planning, and then go into the steering committee that was created, talk about some of the meetings that they've held, all the public outreach efforts that was done in concert with the public meetings, and then really just dive into the draft vision recommendation goals and the implementation strategy. So the purpose of this small area plan is really kind of born out of the comprehensive plan. In the DEN Plan 2030, there's the vision statement. Within that vision statement, in 2030, we see the city as having a sense of community where shared values, where we welcome arrivals, and celebrating growing diversity. We also see establishing neighborhoods where revitalization and compatibility is a big part of it, and you'll see that as part of the recommendation, revitalizing the area, and then looking at any new development that is compatible with developments in the area as well. The DEN Plan 2030 also has a certain number of goals and actions. I pulled this off our community character element, where it talks about the creation of small area plans to preserve and to enhance the character of a district or areas. Also looking at the neighborhood university compatibility area, and that is the area shown here. This is our land use map of the subject area plan, where the lighter blue is the neighborhood compatibility area. The dark blue is the University of North Texas. You have low residential future land use to the north. You've got some commercial along I-35, and some community mix use along Fort Worth and Carroll. I'm just going to show you where those are related to the Oak Gateway Area Plan, but again, Action 4-12-2, create a neighborhood university compatibility area, small area plans. That's really the direction that we've used in moving forward with this area plan. I think you all know this area. This is the square, the courthouse shown here. This was done, the rendering back in 1883, a pretty neat illustration. What this illustrates is that to the west of downtown, you see that there's really nothing there. And as the city grew, it grew everywhere, but mainly to the west as part of the university, which is now University of North Texas, prior to that it was called North Normal College. Texas Normal College and Teacher Training Institute was what was established back in the 1800s and 1890. In fact, it started in downtown and moved west when they got a little bit bigger and needed the space. What this shows here, the 1950 aerial, which is kind of cool to look at as well, is my thing is you see the sidewalks and the streets, they really show. And then the university by 1950 has already developed a number of buildings. Further west, you see Bonnie Bray further out. This is what we often refer to as Cement City. Not fully built, apartments weren't there yet. But by 1960, you start to see more and more development towards west. The other thing that you don't see here is I-35. I-35 doesn't show up until 1957. So the area as it grew really didn't have any impediments until the highway came in. But again, that came in, and let me just go one more slide over. That came in around 1957, and you see that it divided the area to the north is UNT, and then obviously to the south is some undeveloped area and the Deenia area as well. 1972 aerial shows I-35W coming in, so things were coming forward. I did skip this slide here. I just wanted to add this slide to kind of give, again, the context of the area. The campus was served, and this area was served by a trolley system. I don't know if everybody knew that. It started from the train depot where the train station is currently, made its way towards the downtown on Hickory, went up Elm, and then west on Oak Street. And this photo, the top photo that is, shows the trolley traveling on Oak Street. And then heading south a little bit here, I think it's before, maybe Welch, and then on Hickory again, and then Avenue C is where it heads south, and it heads south to south of the freeway, but the freeway wasn't there before, to a place, a park, Highland Park is what it was called. So that was the terminus, and obviously then it went back the other way. So that's pretty neat, right? This area was served by a trolley system, and of course the university was one major pull for that system. Okay, so back in around 2016, there was a development, a proposed mixed-use development. Some of you probably are familiar with this one. It was off of Hickory Street, between Hickory and Oak. The proposed development ultimately did not get approved. What they were seeking was an amendment to the overlay district, which towards the end wasn't heading in their direction. They withdrew their application, so this project never went forward. But through that process, they heard from the citizens and heard some of the concerns, and the concerns were traffic, parking, compatibility with the area, noise, and safety. So from that, staff started to look at, well, you know, if this is an area that's going to see more of these types of developments, how can we be proactive and address some of those concerns? We looked at the small area plan, the Fry Street small area plan, and that area is shown here in red, a very small portion compared to the overall area plan. The Oak gateway area plan is the larger dark area, which is delineated by this dark black line here. And really, the reason why we went this large, I know there's been some discussion, well, this is not really a small area plan. Really, the planning study area encompassed this larger area because we saw that the future land use plan identified these neighborhood compatibility, neighborhood university compatibility area that does not just stay, not just in this area, but also to the west and also to the east and south. We also saw the development pressure not just happening in this area, we saw it to the west, and we also saw it to the south, so it made sense to expand that area. Areas of concern was to the north, we wanted to make sure we protected those neighborhoods, so we included that in our study area, our planning study area, so north of the historic districts were areas of concern. And again, we wanted to look at ways to be proactive, and so potential overlay, special purpose overlay districts, we wanted to make sure that we knew where they were, we should propose them, and so this area served that purpose. We also know that UNT is growing. We know that in 2018, they're around 39,000, they're projected to grow up to 44,000, and by 2030, that's 5,000 more students in the next 11 years. That's not far away, that's another 5,000 cars, another 5,000 units or whatever housing that they're going to need, so something that we need to look at as we propose or we look at this area plan. So the small area plan update was the result. Council directed staff back in January of 2016 to start looking at how we can be proactive and identify an area and look at where we can be looking at more area plans or overlay districts. On May 2017, there was a big gap there between January 2016 and May 2017. There was a lot of going back and forth with City Council. There was a lot of trying to understand what needed to be done. Ultimately, Council directed staff to go forward with an area plan. The Oak Gateway area plan was set forward in September of 2017, later that year, and then November, we had our first committee meeting with the steering committee, and this was our first meeting held at a church in the area plan. We started out with 24 members, a fairly large number. You see the representation or the stakes that each one held. They were residents, they were bicyclists, they were business owners, property owners, folks that represented UNT, so we had a wide representation. Currently, our chair is Patrice Lik, who will be here during the public hearing and be making some of the presentation, as well as Kim McGimmon, who is our vice chair, and they currently serve as the chair and vice chair for the committee. Throughout the process, we just didn't have enough folks attend out of the 24, and honestly, it was something that we needed to ensure that we had quorum. We ultimately went back to City Council, and that number was reduced to 17, so these folks that are listed here are the 17 members currently that serve on this steering committee. Throughout the year, a year and four months, however, was we had over 20 meetings. We met at the Development Services Center on an almost weekly basis, give or take. So we started the process, learned about what the issues, confirmed those issues, and then started documenting those. We also did area plan tours, where we actually went on site, and not just worked in the vacuum, we actually drove around, looked at all the different areas. In addition to doing area plan tours, we also did some walking tours. With Mark Oliphant here, he helped guide that process or guide that walking tour, and we actually walked the area, so it was eye-opening in some respects. We also heard from the public, so we made sure that we had a good amount of public input. Our first effort was through a community workshop, where over 125 people attended, and that was one of the largest attendees that I've ever been part of. I remember it was a February, it was raining, it was cold, I was like, "Oh, no one's going to show up." You know, next thing you know, the place was full of people. We had sign-in sheets, and I think in part of your backup, there's the sign-in sheet that shows who was there. We ran out of sign-in sheets, so it was a great event. We heard a lot of what their concerns were, and so we made sure that we wanted to address that when we made our recommendations. In November of this year, not too long ago, just a month ago, we held a public open house, and really that open house was to share what the committee has put together. We confirmed a lot of the recommendations. We heard some comments. For the most part, they were mostly in favor of all recommendations. There was nothing very significantly different, and at that meeting, we had over 40 people attend. Okay, so the area plan is a very large area, and to the credit to the committee, we made sure that, well, they made sure that we wanted to identify certain areas, and those are shown here in three sub-areas. We have the sub-area one, which is north of Hickory Street, sub-area two is west of the campus or UNT, and we also have sub-area three, which is the area to the east and to the south. Each of these areas has a vision statement, and the vision statement for sub-area one is an area that has a stable, walkable neighborhood in which to live, work, and play, a place in which the area's historic character is celebrated. We know that there's two historic districts in this area. We have the West Oak Historic District, and we also have the Oak Hickory Historic District. It's celebrated and preserved while allowing opportunities for, again, revitalization that is contextually compatible in use, scale, and design. So that is the vision for sub-area one. Sub-area two is a little bit different, different from sub-area one, sub-area two is an area that has housing that is affordable for low to moderate income families with livable neighborhoods, and that's something that the committee would like to see continued. That includes improved community services, multimodal infrastructure, more green, quality green spaces, and just to encourage community cohesiveness. So that was the vision, or is the vision proposed for the area two. Area three, again, a little bit different from sub-area two and one. It's an area that preserves the revitalization, or revitalizes the mixed-use neighborhood for families and students that preserves and builds upon the existing housing options. There's a number of different housing options there, and we'd like to see that continue, and that incorporates all the other things that we saw in others, the open spaces, the intermodal infrastructure that we saw in sub-area two. And then we had a vision for the entire area plan, because those were primarily those sub-areas. The area plan vision was more comprehensive. It's a place that has a stable, walkable area in which to live, work, and play, where existing neighborhoods are protected and enhance, again, revitalization, reinvestment is two key terms here, projects that are compatible, again, back to our comprehensive plan, in use, scale, and design. So those are the visions for each sub-area, as well as the overall area plan. Does anybody have any questions before we get to the goals? Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair. As far as, well, maybe I should wait till after goals, but a couple of thoughts come to mind here with the vision statements. Cement City comes especially with looking ahead there. Zone changes. Were they discussed? I mean, is that going to be part of what needs to be discussed to accomplish the vision statements and perhaps the goals that you're going ahead? Yes. Exactly that, Larry. Commissioner Beck, that is. We looked at the vision and how to ultimately apply that vision. We need to make sure that we have our recommendations in line. Okay. So those recommendations is part of your backup, and they are listed. We won't touch all of it. We will just touch the ones that we need, that we are referring to as catalyst projects, the really short-term ongoing projects. But overall, yes, these visions, if in order to meet them, they're going to have to have recommendations that support that vision. Great. Thanks. Commissioner Burnetta. Yeah, I have a question, and when we talk about, you know, referring to Cement City, one of the things that we talk about is basically affordable housing right now. And I don't know if this would fall in the purview of what, you know, what we're laying out in terms of a plan goes, but the complaint we get from a lot of people who live in the area around the university is the, you know, proliferation of SROs, you know, single room occupancies, right? And you know, I've talked to students, I've talked to, you know, basically what they, you know, about what they pay and these things. And the move towards that seems to be drastically inflating the price of housing there. You know, you have an apartment that would normally rent for about, you know, $1,000 to a family in a two bedroom, but when you go to a single room occupancy, it's rented out for like, you know, $700 per person and everything. So they basically, they're paying for a room plus a shared space, but basically what you've done at that point is, you know, increase that property value by about $400. And I know that that's a preferable plan for developers and for owners in that area, but my fear is that by allowing, you know, those to become more ubiquitous, what we're doing is inflating the price all the way around for families and for, you know, people who can't afford to own, we're actually now starting to price them out of renting. Is there any plan for discussing, I guess, limits on, you know, the areas in which we can put, you know, SROs in or anything that we can do to address that going forward to make sure that we maintain affordability? So two points if I can address that comment. The steering committee members felt the same way, and that's why you see the vision that we want to see this continue as an opportunity for housing affordable, housing that is affordable, right? When you talk about SROs or collegiate housing, whatever term that we're using, there is, there was a city council meeting where we talked about, is this a separate use? How do we address this? What should they be? All of that. And from that discussion with city council, we're going back to provide them with more information and options on how to address it, staff is. I believe it's scheduled for some time in January. So yes, you're right, it's a problem, and we're working on it. The area plan does identify that sort of concern, and we have set recommendations or proposed recommendations that will hopefully address some of the affordability in this area. Thank you. If I could, I just want to make sure, because the last part of the question was to promote affordability, and I want to make sure that I do respond to that, that there are goals that go along with zoning regulations, and it's not a direct impact upon the price of rent in the community, and I want to make sure that we don't have any misunderstanding of the tail wagging the dog, as it were. What we are really looking at here are things like density, appropriateness to adjacent areas and lot size, lot types, uses, things of that nature. Some of those could bear indirectly upon affordability, but don't necessarily do that, and I don't think that this could really be used as a catalyst for, say, rent control if that were to be proposed. What we're really talking about here is a plan for zoning and development regulations that might indirectly bear on that, and in the course of looking at those, it's important to look at the actual benefits and the detriments of certain types of housing rather than to begin with a conclusion that SROs are bad, therefore we want them gone. What types of uses are negatively impact property values? What kind of uses negatively impact health, safety, quality of life? What have you and justify it in terms that are supportable and recognizable through zoning regulations? Thank you, Chair. And Commissioner Preneta, we will talk about the goals coming up, and hopefully that would kind of summarize a little bit what the committee was considering or proposing as far as goals for the area specifically. So we'll start with area one, and then we'll get to area two, but area one, as you heard from the vision, is to really protect the historic context of the area. So we broke up the goals by five categories, land use, community design, mobility, parking, and services. So the future land, I'm sorry, the land use goals for area one. I won't read them all, but really to protect the historic districts, there was a goal to create more businesses along Scripture Street. They felt that that was an area that could see neighborhood services, again, along Scripture. Not the whole Scripture. We're looking at Gober Street and Ponder Avenue. Create more businesses along Oak and Hickory, and that again is within area one. We're looking at between Welch and Avenue B, that area, because we know that the other areas on Oak and Hickory are residential, so we identified some areas there. Community design goals is protect the neighborhood by ensuring revitalization and reinvestment. Again, the word compatible is throughout this document. Improving attractive neighborhoods and streets through street amenities and other improvements. Mobility, there's a lot of people that walk in area one, right? So provide safe and accessible sidewalks and crosswalks. Improve the mobility in the area, both pedestrian, bicycle-less as well, and transit. There are some recommendations that involve DCTA, and that's covered in your backup. Do some traffic signal operations. So it may be where the light needs to be, just a little bit more conducive to the need for a longer light for people across the street, for example. Parking, that's one of the probably the biggest concerns and issues that we hear for this area. What do we need to do? Well, we should implement a strategic parking plan or program, and that actually is something that we will discuss in later slides on how we do that. Develop a visibility marketing program. That's basically economic development, making sure that this area, as we start looking at additional developments or just historic districts, make it more visible. Create businesses, we talked about already along Hickory and Scripture, and how do we retain those businesses? So that's all of sub-area one. Sub-area two, this is again the area west of the University of North Texas. The first land use goal here, support existing housing in the area. That means that if there is an opportunity to revitalize it, to improve it, because we know that area. I think people know that area. There's areas, there's some buildings that we need to work on, and the city, the state, the federal, there's grants, there's opportunities for funding. So if we can support that existing housing structure or stock in that area, let's do that. Identify and prioritize, again, neighborhood revitalization and reinvestment. You're going to hear that again over and over. Again, that's a key term. Improve multimodal infrastructure along Bonnie Bray. One of the opportunities that we have with area two is that Bonnie Bray is being widened, as we speak, as we all know. And there is an opportunity to create more sidewalks, wider sidewalks, bicycle lanes, protected bicycle lanes, linear parks. As that widening project moves forward, there will be opportunities, and we should take advantage of that. Increase open space. They don't call it cement city because there's a lot of open space, right? There's a need for open space. So the committee wanted to make sure that there's recommendations that support more open space. In fact, I've forwarded these recommendations to our Parks Department, and they are in favor or in agreement with all these recommendations. They didn't see anything wrong with them. Mobility, that area, pedestrian and bicycle circulation. I drove that area, I've driven that area. There's no sidewalks, rarely any sidewalks. So how do we improve that? There's recommendations that deal with that. How do we make it more safer? Lighting, other things that we can do, that's all covered. Create more access, again, connectivity to major destinations. We see this as a pass from the university to raise a ranch, potentially, or to the hospital. There's ways we can improve connectivity. Again, DCTA was consulted, increased ridership in the area. There's a lot of students, but there's also other, you know, cohorts there that travel that need transit, and so we want to make sure that those are provided to them as well. Parking, another area that sees parking impacting that area. Same goal in that we want to provide a comprehensive strategic parking action plan. Revitalize, again, reinvest in the area, and also to improve the visual and perceived image. That's going to be difficult, but that's something that we should set a goal for. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. Let me stop before you go into sub area three. Share with us if you can, because my view of this area is not one where I see it being necessarily family-oriented. I see this more an area that should accommodate couples, single people, students, mainly. So did you get a sense in your meeting that family living would work better in sub areas one and three as opposed to this? Was there a sense that? >> We, as far as the backup, you know, there was some background information in each of the sub areas. And it's my understanding that there are some families in here now. Is it more conducive for them? You know, that is not a question I can answer. I would like to see a diversity in the area. So a mix of residents, students, and other, you know, age groups as well. >> Well, and I don't -- but I guess what I'm asking, was there any sense conveyed in your meetings that this area wasn't conducive to families? >> I don't think that was overwhelmingly in that direction. We recognize the diversity, we recognize the housing affordability, those are the main things that we discussed. But as far as specifically, you know, this is conducive for families, we didn't really spend much time on that. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Sub area three, and just to remind you, is that eastern and southern portion just east and south of the University of North Texas, there is a housing stock there that we know has been there for some time. So we felt -- when I say we, the steering committee, felt that that's an area that should be protected, support existing housing in that area, maintain the single family and multi-family. There's a mix there. We want to make sure that we continue to keep that balance, create businesses along Eagle Drive. So that was another corridor that they identified, which I think is obvious, right? Eagle Drive, we want to make sure that that continues as a commercial corridor. Community design goals is to just return to a sense of community. There's been a number of folks mentioning to me that this was a -- it is a community, and we need to make sure that that continues. And then preserve the character. There's a lot of character in that area, not just the housing, but just in the area as far as, you know, where people go and, you know, shop. There's really not much. You know, that's why we want to make sure we bring back that character that was once there. Mobility. This was actually an area that we felt that could be where more gateways be introduced, primarily along the Avenue A or the area just south of the subarea. I'm blanking on the name of the -- what's Avenue A? What's the other -- McCormick. Sorry, thank you, transportation engineer. Thank you. McCormick. That would be an area that we can see a gateway introduce as it leads into the area. Of course, UNT as well, but the area. Improved traffic signal operations, back again, traffic safety, improved protection. You've seen that throughout the subarea 1 and 2. Improved parking. There are areas here that have issues with parking. Fannin specifically, if you know that area, Fannin sees a lot of students parking on Fannin Street. And then create more neighborhood services. What I was trying to get to is that there are neighborhood services that are lacking and we want to create more, and that goes back to the character of the area. Overall, we also had goals for the entire area. A lot of this is probably repeats of what we already heard. Protect established neighborhoods, promote economic development, support the diversity in lane use patterns, improve our streets, our streetscapes, our corridors, create more open space, trails and connections between areas. Mobility goals. Again, those linkages that we just discussed. Continue the coordination with not only the neighborhoods and university, but other agencies as well. Reduce the congestion in the transportation and expand the transportation options. Not much that you can do there because pretty much built out, but if we can add transit, other ways of getting around the area, we should. Parking. Develop a parking action plan. Develop a parking action plan that is based on community input. And then just promote that mixed use design as we look at these corridors. Services. Create comprehensive funding mechanism. This is not going to pay for itself. We want to make sure that we have those in place. Now TIFF has been thrown around. There are other ways of funding improvements, but again, these are just recommendations. We also have, you know, when we talk about coordination, we already discussed this, UNT, the city and the neighborhoods. Business owners, property owners. Improve the image and enhance the neighborhoods. Create a wide range of housing that's affordable. Options that, you know, most folks have the ability to choose. And then just create facilities and programs that serve the study area. So those are the goals. They're pretty -- when you look at them, they're pretty similar, but very specific in some respects. >> All good? >> Yes. >> Okay. A couple questions for you. Thank you, Vice Chair. I guess just some context, Ron, did you -- did anybody talk to the leadership Denton class of '32? Leadership Denton '32? >> We did not, no. >> Okay. If there's still some conversation to be had with the committee, I would encourage you guys to do that. >> Okay. >> Leadership Denton class '32, which would have been 2016 and 2017, their project was affordable housing in Denton. And there was a very intensive real estate analysis that was done and looking at specifically how do we solve the affordable housing issue in Denton. And a big thing that was identified was that all the variables that you could talk about, you know, about how do you work with, you know, homeless population, how do you -- what about rent control, what about all this other stuff. Those variables were already kind of being talked about by a lot of people in the community, but the student housing issue was not being talked about. >> Okay. >> And so that's where they focused. And one of the recommendations that came out of that project was specifically looking at this zip code of 76201 and realizing that there were -- the one thing that we did have as an asset down that area was there still are large lots in comparison to areas like the Pacific Northwest that have code that's written into the municipal laws that allow for things like detached accessory dwelling units. And essentially that recommendation that came for, hey, let's -- what about revising code or utilizing DADUs to be able to increase density without increasing density, if that makes sense. Because where that project of that, you know, the apartment complex, I was supposed to come in there, was, hey, build density where density is, and that's around the university. But there was the fear of, well, if you build an apartment complex down there, trying to -- you're going to take away from the structure of the neighborhood, and so the suggestion was utilize DADUs just to -- mother-in-law suites, something built in the backyard that spreads density evenly across the entire area but doesn't affect the character of the neighborhood. And so I feel like that might be something that this committee would maybe want to look into. >> No, no, I appreciate that. I'm guessing you were part of that. >> I did the entire thing. So that's me. >> Yeah. Oh. >> Yeah. So I'd love to talk more about it. >> So just real quickly, one of the recommendations there is housing options, and one of those housing options is those accessory dwelling units that's mentioned in the recommendation. So we didn't talk to this group specifically, but I think what you're saying, what you're referring to, generally we spoke of and also let you know that as we do the DEN Development Code update, that's a big part of this effort as well. >> Good. No, I'd love to be able to offer my insight and background in that to be able to lead some help. >> Sure. >> So I guess that really -- kind of just giving that background, the question that I had, good to know that the DADU is coming in possibly with the development code and that this was a discussion, at least during the committee. When it comes to the overall area plan and kind of the goals you guys put out, I'm guessing -- and I can't really see where the genesis of this all came from. Was it -- was a lot of it, hey, we need to -- we need to protect the character. We need to know how to smartly grow density in this area. What was a lot of the -- kind of the very beginning genesis of all this? >> I think it was both of that. You know, really it was to protect. Because remember, we started to see these development pressures come to the north side of town or north side of the area plan. >> There's more protection than it was intelligent growth, essentially. >> I think a little bit of both, but the first initial reaction was protection. But then where do we -- we know growth is coming. We know the university is growing. Where do we place these types of development? And so it was then also to promote areas where they can go or should go. And that was part of the reason why we started this effort. >> Okay. And then the last question I had. You mentioned when we were talking about sub area two, about the accessibility of grants. And I think of, once again, going back to the context that I gave earlier, a lot of the areas we looked at, like places like San Francisco had this, Portland had this, New York City had this, Austin had this, where some of the areas are really dilapidated like cement city, and there was federal and state funding that was accessible. While it -- we got rid of the dilapidated buildings, what ended up happening was it encouraged gentrification. And so was there conversation about how do we preserve and preserve and protect the character, but also not throw honey out in the middle of the sidewalk and hope the bees show up kind of thing? Does that make sense? >> Yeah, no, no. That was a big -- >> Is it good now? Do you like that? >> That was a big discussion with the steering committee and the public input that we received as well, is that we don't want to just redevelop, we want to reinvest, and that means that we're not tearing things down and rebuilding, but rather work what we have there, specifically in this area. >> Okay. >> So -- but they were concerned about that as well. If you open it up, will that push out the other, you know, affordability or the other type of housing? >> Sure. >> And they made sure that that was something that we didn't want to do. >> Sure. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. I'd like to kind of just touch on something that Commissioner Smith mentioned in this group. I wasn't familiar with it, so I appreciate you bringing it to our attention. But you mentioned there was a focus on student housing. How is that looked at in terms of the university's responsibility versus city responsibility? >> Sure. >> Can you elaborate? >> Yeah. You know, the hard part that the University of North Texas has that we found was that UNT has a much higher -- did not do very good planning over a long term, and I know this is going to public record, and so I don't want it to be an indictment on the University of North Texas, but UNT grew faster in enrollment than they did in student housing, to the point now where they're only barely able to keep their freshman class on campus, and then after the freshman class, there is no spot for sophomores, juniors, or seniors. They have to go off campus, and so one of the things we did look at was zip codes that were on the admissions or the registrar's office and where those students who were sophomores, juniors, seniors, where they resided, and there was a large number of those who did reside in that area, and within the city of Denton in general, of course, but specifically saying, you know, well, the university is kind of landlocked now. They can't build out too much in the form of building student housing themselves, and so students are going elsewhere, and so our group's response wasn't necessarily, well, the city needs to go pick a bone with UNT to fix that. It's more of what can the city do to entice students to go towards more of that single occupancy dwelling that Commissioner Fernandez brought up? What can we do to entice students to go to single occupancy dwellings like these detached accessory dwelling units and stay away from the two bedroom apartments that low-income families could use instead, and so just try to create something that's more attractive for that student population to go to and leave what was more attractive for those single families. So you don't think there's an onus on the part of the university to provide? I would sit here and say yes, but I think that it was kind of like, yeah, they should have some of the responsibility and some of the stake-hold in that, but just saying that's it and then saying, well, they've got to fix it was kind of like saying let's run 100 miles an hour to a brick wall and think that we're going to run through it, and so it was kind of like, let's just go ahead and accept that we can't go through the mountain, so let's find a way to go around the mountain. Good. Good. Thank you. All right. So we're going to leave goals and we're going to go right into the recommendations, and again, it's not the complete list of recommendations. These are just the catalyst projects that we feel are worth discussing because we want to make sure we get going on some of these recommendations. So the first one is addressing parking. So the recommendation is to create a parking benefit district at the Oak/Hickory/Fry Street area, which will evaluate the cost and benefits for parking enforcement. Essentially, it's a parking management authority where an area is identified, similar to like the downtown area, and within that area, fees will be or parking fees that is, will be assessed. Using those parking fees that are received, we will then use to improve parking, either enforcement is one way of using that, supplementing the enforcement that is, also paint parking spaces. There's ultimately numbers of different things that we can do, but we have to create this parking district as a way of providing that funding we talked about to create that improvement, and we have our consultant here as well with Walter P. Moore. I think we can also use it for lighting and also for sidewalks to improve that district. So things like that is what we would see as part of this parking benefit district. Commissioner Pernitta. So when we're talking about fees along Oak and Hickory, I guess my question is, what was the feedback that you got from local business owners? Because one of the things that I've seen recently was, you know, leave us the parking because they want to ensure that, you know, people are incentivized to go there, but maybe perhaps step up on the two-hour enforcement, because, you know, one of the things that I think is hurting a lot of the businesses in the area is, A, there are so many resources inside the student union now that they're not getting student traffic, but we don't have any place for them to park, and I think basically adding fees and adding parking fees to go down there would further de-incentivize people to wind up in that area. We have a number of business owners that are in as part of the committee. They didn't seem to object as much. We presented this to the public during a public open house, and the response that we got was in favor -- now, do we talk to every business owner? No, but I think generally the idea is to create some sort of mechanism in order to improve the area, and I think if that's the ultimate goal, I'm not saying -- I'm not speaking for them, but that should be considered. If we're going to look at improving parking, we're looking at improving the area, that's one -- this is one way of creating that opportunity. Rob, do you want to add anything to the Parking Benefit District? Sure. The thing with the Parking Benefit District is that already you're competing with UNT on pricing. A lot of students get a discounted rate by parking either on the street, and you'll talk about that, or in that district, and one of the complaints we heard from the steering committee at the beginning was that the enforcement wasn't keeping up with it. So part of the deal with the Parking Benefit District is that you would have to leverage these fees for parking, but the district would benefit from those fees. And then one of the images from here that we used in the public meeting was an example of parking in Victory Park in Dallas, where if you're a retail or restaurant user, then your first two hours are free. But if you're just going to park to go to the school, then you're paying the full cost of -- that would be probably competitive with what it would be for public parking on the campus. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. So I was actually going to do my thing, which could be the utilization of the businesses. The businesses have access to the parking for their patrons, as long as their patrons are the ones who are parking there, and if they're not, then it's somebody else. So I'm glad you said that, but did you hear any feedback from anybody on the committee that was close to UNT about UNT having any issues with starting to charge or possibly having parking fees around there? I don't know if the University of North Texas would have any bones to pick about that, and especially if it was, you know, I know it's free now, so they're already losing "business," quote-unquote, to the free spots. I think UNT is pretty, as far as collaborating, there's two main folks that are on this committee and they didn't seem to object. So I guess they answer your question, nothing from UNT. Okay. Commissioner Brunetto. And just for a little bit of detail. So you mentioned that patrons of local businesses would have the free two hours and everything. How are we determining who's a patron? Is it via app check-in or something like that? There's a lot of different technologies to use. If they buy something at the store or at the coffee shop, they could get a different parking pass that would allow them to get out of the surface parking lot. It would be something that, if it was a surface lot, it would be something that would be self-enforced. So you don't have to have someone there manning a booth to make sure that people, it's a gate that opens and closes and you put in your ticket when you get your ticket when you go in and you put in a ticket when you get out. And so you can get a ticket from the retailer restaurants that validate. And just to clarify, there's no public surface lot there now that's hopefully in the future is what I think Rob is referring to. But if it's on street parking, there are apps that we can apply that collect fees and that sort of thing that you see throughout the country. Okay. All right. Thank you. You might be coming up a little bit. Another area or parking, but not necessarily within the business area, but really the residential. And again, this is one of the major concerns or topics that we've heard the exploration or the consideration for a residential parking district. And what this is, is that you identify an area. We would like to look at it block by block because we have to get property owners permission or applying this to their area would be something that we need to get their input and their feedback and their approval, ultimately. But essentially what it is, is that during a certain time of the day, the street, you need a tag in order to park there, say eight to five, for example, anything after that, you can park. And I think what that solves is that we currently have all these streets that are in the sub area that are no parking 24 hours, no one can park there. So this solves that, but also this gives us an opportunity to address some of the parking issues that we're dealing with in some of the areas. So again, for example, a block, if you look at one block, all the property owners there would get a residential tag. So if they needed to park on the street, they could. They don't have to park on the street, they can park on their property. Anybody that wants to park on the street that is not a resident, they would have to go, again, maybe through an app or something to pay into a fee, again, so that all that collection of fees we will use, again, towards improving said area. So it's a way of addressing the parking issue that we're having, but it is also a way of trying to improve the area as well. So a residential parking district, and some of the concerns, input or feedback we heard from the community was, well, what if I need more than two tags or two parking spaces or whatever it is? That was something that we couldn't help them with because there's a set time, right? Between eight and five, you're required to have a tag. After that, you can park however you like. And we know that students park there during the day, so that's going to address some of those parking concerns during the day. In the evening, not much of a concern. So this is one that we're going to explore more with Rob and his group. And as we continue with this process, we're going to potentially do maybe a pilot program, but hopefully this is something we can implement to address some of the parking concerns that we've heard so far. Simple recommendation, but I think effective in that painting parking where parking should be, right? You see that these folks, there's no dash lines. We just drew a box, and it's a white box. You fit in there, you're good. You're out of the way, and you're not within any driveway. That is for some people, while others just don't care, and they'll park wherever, right? And so a big part of this recommendation is followed by enforcement, because if someone does this, and nothing happens, and it's not enforced by either police or some other services that we know, again, back to the parking district, they're going to continue to park like that. So we want to make sure that not only do we identify areas where they should park, but we also enforce it, as you see here, where this car didn't want to follow the rules. This is a big one because it involves the Oak, but the Fry Street area. This photo that you see here is of Hickory Street. As you know, Hickory Street is being improved. There's infrastructure, water, wastewater being installed, but also the pavement is being improved as well, and as part of that improvement, bike lanes are being introduced. From Body Bray to Avenue B, there's a bike lane that runs through where there's no parking on one side. However, you get to this area, Avenue B, through Welch Street, there's businesses, there's currently parking on both sides. The proposal is to eliminate one side and do bike lanes through this area and continue from Welch all the way through to downtown. When you drive through Hickory from Welch to Carroll, you already see that the bike lane takes the south side, where there's only parking on the north side. We haven't done anything here because there's been a little bit of discussions, a little bit, more than a little bit, on what to do. Should we remove the parking on one side, add the bike lane, or do we leave the parking and find an alternative route for the bike lane? This was one of the discussions that we've had with the committee. It took several times to discuss it. Ultimately, the recommendation from the committee is to create this pedestrian area, which is what this area is, between Avenue B and Welch, where the parking will still remain on both sides, but the bike lane will now have to shift and be a shared road, shared the road travel or bike lane. Similar to what you see in downtown, you enter this special place and the bike lane is now shifted, which shares the road with the vehicles, just between Avenue B and Welch Street. We're recommending that in order to make it more of a safer area for bicyclists is to use crosswalks that are enhanced with texture, so you know you're entering an area, similar to downtown. We're introducing lighting, we're introducing signage that show that this is a special place so people slow down. The miles per hour is slower in this area, down to 20 miles per hour, similar to an area that sees more pedestrian activity, so I'm not going to go through the whole list, but basically creating this special place and the committee, which is made up of business owners of this area as well as a bicyclist, were in favor or did not see any objection to this and voted to move this forward as a recommendation to City Council. So it solves the continuation of a bike lane through Hickory Street while still keeping the parking that the business owners need. So any questions? Commissioner Cole. This is where you were talking about doing the Wooner, right? That's correct. I'm going to have to have you explain that term because Wooner. Such for living street, and that's, I mean, basically it's open to everything, but your speed's reduced and you're kind of guided to where, I mean, you're sharing with bicyclists and everything else, but everything's kind of out in the open patio style type pedestrian walking, but do you have a rendering of that? No, we don't, but you basically described it really well. I mean, but it looked really cool, and we looked at it and said, man, this is it. This is pretty much how this should be, you know? I mean, you really don't have to do a whole lot different, but, you know, they do it in other places. Commissioner Cole, can you speak into your microphone? Oh, sorry about that, but they do it with success in a lot of other places. And it, you know, a light bulb went off with us, and it was like, this is great. This is something that we need to explore. Right, and just to give a quick background on what Jason's talking about, Mark Ollifan, who's here as well, I don't know if you would like to come up and further explain what is being proposed, but there were several options, I think four options in total, and there was just a wide range of folks that wanted this versus this. But when we came down to it, having proposed this recommendation, everyone seemed to be okay with what is being proposed. Questions? Commissioner Pinedo. Yeah, just a quick one. So I just wanted a little clarification when you mentioned textured crosswalks. Are we talking like brick or something, or? It doesn't have to be brick. It can be, again, similar to what you see in downtown or on Hickory Street. Okay. So just to give that notice that you're entering an area that you need to slow down. Okay. And so that's what we're proposing, or what the committee's proposing. Okay. I've got a before and after, and maybe I should show that now, because kind of illustrate what Jason was referring to. So this is Hickory and Frye on the corner right there, right? So what we're talking about is just improving the area, slowing down traffic. So these brick patterns you see there, the street lights that slow people down because you're entering a special area, just landscaping, making it more protection-friendly, making this area what really it is, it's a commercial node, right? It's a commercial area. And we want people to be safe at the same time, be used as a travel lane. So that is what's being proposed. Again, you see that the sidewalks, I'm sorry, the pavement is increased. It provides that slow traffic calming device. You've got pavement that is different, a little bit more textured. And again, with the lighting and the landscaping, it just brings that whole area together. Commissioner Beck. Yeah. I like this idea. It doesn't prohibit vehicular traffic, it just discourages it. I think especially if you've got to slow down and you do have to share, and it's got to be enforced, too. It's got to be enforced with that. And obviously, people need to get in their vehicle more than others to get from A to B, but there's other ways to get there and not necessarily go through this. So this would discourage some traffic that doesn't have to go through there. And I think that's a great idea. Okay, so the next few slides are related to what we're talking about, the overlay special purpose districts. One area, and it's kind of covered or presented in the exhibit, I think exhibit three sub-areas, where we've identified some overlay district. Not all of them will be pursued or implemented soon, but we identified four that we would like to do sooner than later, and one is the Scripture Street, again, between Gober and Ponder Street, that area north of along Scripture, just north of the area plan, northern part. The Oak Hickory, this would be what we would update our existing Fry Street overlay district. We would just expand it a little bit more and create more of that area that we talked about. Collins, the area Collins that we're referring to is in sub-area three, just south of Fannin, west of Bernard, north of Greenlee, and east of Avenue A. That's the area that we're talking about, designating that as a Collins overlay district. We're calling it Collins because Collins is the middle street there. Some of the homes that are there now, they don't all look like this, I understand, but there are homes that are worth looking into. So that's another overlay district. Sycamore is another area that the committee identified, and that is just which is bounded by Hickory to the north, Carroll to the west, I'm sorry, east, and then Bernard to the west, and then just parcels to the south. There's some housing there that's worth looking at, and the committee recommended looking at a potential conservation historic district. Sidewalks, you know, that's another thing that the committee was looking into, sidewalks and lighting. The consultants looked at the area and identified priority sidewalk connections. Those are shown in red. One I think that's worth mentioning, I'm sorry, Scripture, has a need for some sidewalks. So does Oak and Hickory. You see here there's a lot of other areas that need Collins and Eagle. So are we going to tackle this all at one time? No, it's an ongoing, and you can see that the recommendation is ongoing, something that we would need to include in our CIP program. But at least we have an idea of where we should start, what we have and where we should start. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Just quickly, Scripture is an important area where you need some pedestrian facilities. How much right of way is there now where you can incorporate sidewalks on both sides of the street? Is there any? I mean, because there's not a lot of setback for some of those houses. In some cases, those lots are fairly deep and those homes are fairly set back. If there's no existing right of way to increase pedestrian safety, probably introducing sidewalks, we'd have to talk to the property owners. I don't know what that right of way with is today, but we'll certainly have to work through that process. Okay. That wasn't a subject that was raised with the committee. No, we looked at a very somewhat high level just knowing that there's a need for sidewalk within that area. Yeah, big time, thanks. Existing lighting. This is a photo of Stella and there's no lighting. There's really no light. There's no sidewalks. So you're going to be walking in the street. It's dark. There's no sidewalk. So we need to look at that and also if there is lighting, we need to improve it or repair it where there needs to be lighting. So something that we can look into, and we've discussed this with DME, the Unmutable Electric. We actually have to come up with a plan where we can prioritize where those areas should be addressed, but if we're going to make this area safe, we need to have sidewalks and we need to have lighting, good lighting. Again, this is a quick fix, putting expanding a two-way stop to a four-way stop on Collins and Bernard, again, to provide that safety. This is a really cool recommendation in that we have an opportunity, again, with the Bonnie Bray widening project as well as the Hickory Oak substation installation. The existing substation will be decommissioned and there's an opportunity to create an entry to this area as you come from the highway by redeveloping the site. Now, we haven't really developed a plan, but the idea is to use this area or this site to either an open space or a gateway entry into the area plan. So we're obviously going to be working with DME, but that is an opportunity or recommendation that the committee would like to see done. I think this is my last recommendation and that is in order for this to work, we have to rely not only with the city and other agencies such as UNT, but we also have to have the community involved. So we want to continue this community engagement, so have as many people involved. Of course, there's not a formal committee, but rather if they're involved in one way or another, we can see things happen a lot better and a lot faster. I'm not going to go into the draft implementation strategy. You have that in your backup. It's basically the summation of what the committee has done. It lists the goals, the vision, as well as the recommendations. The Oak Gateway recommended 11-0 to move these recommendations forward to city council. The staff, of course, would like to see this move as well. What we are seeking from this planning zoning commission is a recommendation to move these recommendations forward as well to city council. That is the end of my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Ron, I just have a quick question. Nowhere did I see in the draft, and the steering committee did a great job. I know how hard everyone worked and put together a beautiful draft, and great recommendations. One thing missing seems to be where should density be? I don't know if we can just address density with the accessory dwelling use, which is a great recommendation, but was it discussed in any -- I didn't see that in the draft, but it's certainly one of the problems that has been throughout this whole year. It's really back to zoning, and so there is a recommendation in there that talks about appropriate zoning to increase mixed use and to increase density. Ultimately, that will be dealt with through the development code and the zoning map update. So these recommendations do inform some areas that need more zoning, appropriate zoning, and again, through that, we will implement through the development code update. So I don't have the recommendation number. I can maybe bring that up when we get to the public hearing, but there is some mention of zoning as part of these recommendations. Okay. Thank you, Ron. Commissioner Beck. Thanks, Archer. Just one quick thing. With a little I dug into this, it appeared that the bulk of concern where you have people actually seem to be waiting in favor of the sub area one, do you feel that the other two sub areas were adequately represented as far as individuals, you know, coming up? I would agree with you that there were a majority of them, when I see them, the steering committee, that was focused on area one, however, I think with the chair and the vice chair, they made sure that the other sub areas were also discussed and not left, you know, by themselves. So we have some committee members that live and work in sub areas two and three. So we did get their input in representation as well. And just, Vice Chair, just a point of clarity or clarification. This presentation that I just presented during the public hearing will have the steering committee members make the presentations. I felt that they needed to be involved in also to share and sharing with you all what they went through with preparing this area plan. So it would be a number of the steering committee making the presentation so that you all know that's coming forward. Okay. Commissioner Pernado. So when we talk about a vote to send before city council, I guess my question is exactly -- well, we have a breakdown of how this will be implemented because there's a lot of little things here and there that are all very different that should be implemented. Are we voting to send through the whole thing in totality that will be voted on by city council to enact or are these recommendations that will subsequently be resubmitted, you know, as different, you know, projects? The plan is to bring forward the whole package. It is a plan. These are recommendations. Ultimately what happens after is the implementation. And so if the recommendations are brought forward and agreed upon, accepted, we, the staff and, again, the other agencies and the community will need to start to implement those. And what you have in your implementation strategy is the timing of those. So we're not going to take all of them at one time. We've identified some that we want to take forward sooner than later. But those other recommendations will still be there and we will tackle them as time permits. Okay. And I guess kind of the main reason I'm asking how this will lay out because Commissioner Beck asked a question about sidewalks on scripture and for those, you know, who may or may not be familiar with scripture, if you get west of Malone and everything, you know, the street's narrow and basically any place we put sidewalks is going to have to be on, you know, the property of individual homeowners and things like that. By approving this and having it go through council, I imagine you mentioned we would still have to work with homeowners in terms of securing, I guess, permission to build sidewalks on their homes. Will these be things that will wind up coming to us later? It would not. It would be part of our CIP program. And again, when we develop a CIP program, this plan informs that process. So you know, we've sort of done a little bit of the work already identifying the sidewalk needs, the gaps, and we've talked about the prioritization of those installation of sidewalks. As we move forward with the CIP program, we can use this plan as reference in identifying where we need to go first, and that is what will happen. So you won't see the details, but through CIP programs, I'm not sure that this will be coming to this board per se or this commission per se, but that's how this plan is going to be used, is to help inform other strategy or implementation of other programs as well. Okay. Thank you. It really works as a guiding document, right, to add to making decisions when it comes to zoning cases that do come before us or CIP projects or whatever becomes another tool to be used and analyzed, correct? Correct. Again, it's a plan, and that sets forward some direction of what we need to do, and that's really what this is. So those catalyst projects that we just covered is something that the staff and the committee would like to get started as well. Ultimately, any overlay district that we will bring back to you because that's part of the commission's responsibility. All righty. This isn't a supplement to the comprehensive plan to design zoning decisions, necessarily, correct? Correct. It's a help guide. We have a similar one for the downtown implementation, and if you know the downtown implementation plan, there's a set of recommendations, actions that was covered under that plan as well, and what we did with that is we started implementing those, and one that I can speak of is the Wayfinding Signage Project, right? That started out with the downtown implementation plan, and then that got going because there was direction. We needed to do that, and that's what the city did. So think of it as that. It's a guide. It's a plan, a direction of how we should proceed with this area. Commissioner Sanchez. What I got from this is that there's a lot of similarities between the areas as far as issues that they're having problems with, like transportation, revitalization, some of the issues in that. I mean, what are you going to do to revitalize this area? I mean, so I mean, and I understand long-term you want to, but is there any kind of plan when you talk about revitalization? That's a real broad term. Is there anything that would -- what would you do to do something like that? When I look at revitalization, I'm looking at the housing. A lot of that housing in those areas is rental property, and my concern, I guess, was how do -- because it's lower income, a lot of investors get in there, and you can see the -- and don't take care of those properties. How are you planning on revitalizing those areas to make more people come into there rather than become investment properties for students? You do, Commissioner Sanchez, you do a number of different things. We've got tools that can help revitalize an area. I brought up this map because I wanted to show that we -- again, we're calling this Cement City. There's probably a better term or better area description for this area, but we're calling Cement City. Right, right. That is a potential special purpose overlay district, and through a special purpose overlay district, you can enhance the development standards for that area. Through zoning, you can promote other incentives, meaning zoning land uses can come into these areas that are more conducive for that area. Working with our community development department, right, there's programs that we can help these areas, but ultimately, the goal is to improve the area, which is going to require the participation by the property owners, and through that participation and that partnership, we hope to get there. So there's no one silver bullet, you know, it's going to take a lot of different things. I mean, I understand it's a plan, and it's great, and I'm not knocking it. I was just -- it's just -- and you're looking long-term, and that's basically what you're doing. And saying like we talked about being proactive, so we want to be proactive, right, before things get any worse. So through the overlay district and through some other programs or incentives, we hope to get the right development there. Yes. >> Thank you, Ron. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. That moves us through our agenda. Do we want to maybe break, get something to eat, and then do work session? What do you think? Okay. Okay. Well, then let's carry on to our work session items. That would be receive an update on the proposed amendments to water and wastewater design criteria manual. >> Good evening, commissioners, chair. Thank you for the opportunity. I pretend that traffic engineers for the city, and we're back again. We started this -- let me get back to the original. We're back here. We started this last year. We came here in front of the same commissioners, all the commissioners here, and presented the criteria manuals. We had completely overhauled those criteria manuals. We had updated them. And as you can see in this slide, there are three criteria manuals that were coming back. We have started this on an annual basis that will come back every year updating those manuals. We go through a process through summer of next year, we'll go and collect all the comments, all the changes that we received from developers, from other engineers, as well as our internal staff that's working on some of these projects. And we take that in, we process it, and then we go through a process. I will show you the timeline a little bit next slide. But tonight we're talking about three manuals here. Summer and wastewater criteria manual, which was updated October of 2017. The stormwater design criteria manual updated March of this year. And there are some changes that are required. We came across some serious concerns, and we're trying to update those. And standard details, either engineering detailed drawings that are used out in the field by contractors to implement some of the -- as you can see in this drawing, some of the actual work that's done in the field. So that one was updated in August. This is the timeline. We started -- the first stop was about October 9th. We started a first public hearing period. It was posted for 30 days. We started getting comments and receiving comments through our website. Then on the 9th of November, I think that's the date. On the 9th, we presented it to about approximately 50 engineers and consultants that on a regular basis used these manuals. We presented in front of them the changes. These are the changes we're recommending. We'll collect more comments. We got all those, made some revisions that stopped number two between November 12th and 21st. We revised the documents. And then again, posted it for another 10-day period of comments between 26th and 7th. After which, now we're here, we've wrapped up all the comment periods and we're presenting what the changes are. I'm just going to give you a really high level. It's not that much different. It's not that many changes because we overhauled it big time last time. And the next step is definitely city council. We're going to go to council approval on December 18th and the manuals will be effective January 1st. And we're going to come back again next year, the same thing, and continue doing that. These are the changes for water, wastewater. They're minor editorial comments as well as some clarifications where people are misinterpreting some of the information. And we've done that all throughout the document. There are some major changes and the major changes is improving some of the pipe casing to improve their long-term liability. We found that there are some corrosive soils out there, so we increased or added a coating or protection or lining on the pipes. So if you can see on this particular item, these are the changes that are major in this entire document. These are the major changes. And then the last one which kind of deals with now the contractor needs to provide a plan for flushing and disinfecting water pipe. These are brand new pipes and what used to happen is they didn't have a plan. They would come in, last minute try to figure out what do we do. So now they need to submit a plan and the real catch here is the chlorinated water. How do they dispose it off? If they don't have a plan and you're running it last minute, it becomes a hassle. Now if they submit a plan and we know exactly what they're doing with the chlorinated water, how they're disposing it off, then we have a better way of tracking it and also providing them guidance as to how do you safely dispose it. So these are the main changes in water waste router manual. Next one is storm water design manual and on similar lines we had some editorial changes, clarifications throughout the document. Major changes, we added a reference to the I-Swim which is the integrated storm water management plan. This is through COG. I think you've heard that term last time so I'm pretty sure you're well worth it. The main thing here was erosion control. We saw on most of these construction site there was very little or no erosion control or specific plan was not being followed. They were not guided or told what to do and this is where we've added some information on what they should be doing, how they should be following it. There needs to be a plan and we're going to start implementing these throughout all construction sites. It's more of tightening it up in the manual where everyone is held responsible. The contractor is held responsible for any sediment going through the storm water. Similar here, erosion and sediment control should follow best practices. That's the storm water and then the last is the standard details. This was same minor cleanups on these standard detail drawings. The only big change is we've reduced the size of the water meter can which means your water meters are within an enclosed casing. We've reduced the size so that you can fit them in the parkway area. No one wants it in their driveway or any other place where they can't really access it. This is one of the feedbacks we got and we're making that changes and then provide more consistency with the other manuals. We are referencing the standard plans back to the manuals and tightening up some of the languages. So these are the main changes in all these three different documents and I want to really keep it, you know, a higher level discussion here because there are really minor changes. We don't see any. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. Just a quick question. How big of a problem is it this time of year with leaves and pine needles and everything going into the storm drains and everything like that? Is that posed in the special wildland or is -- >> So I think the leaves and pine -- there has to be erosion control. There has to be cleaning. >> Well, okay, but I'm talking about existing lots where -- we're not talking about developments. I walk my dog every morning up Foxcroft, Archer Trail and all that and these big beautiful trees but they're dropping their leaves and they're all sitting in the gutter and I'm thinking, boy, those are going to wash down into those drains. So that type of thing, you're dealing with established homes that -- >> So sediment is one thing and we're really concerned about sediment getting into the storm water which is really an issue to clog it. As far as leaves and pine and all that, there are screens available in front of those and we are trying to follow and make sure that we have some screenings going on but it's a matter of they're caught in these screenings but the sediment is something that doesn't get caught and that gets stuck in the pipe and it starts settling in the pipe and that reduces the capacity of the pipe. So that's a major concern. I agree there are leaves and stuff but we're trying to get those leaves out of the -- through screening process. >> And I don't want to be dictatorial with homeowners or anything like that but it seems like there ought to be some responsibility there on their part to keep those out of the gutter and to save themselves costs because the cost of the city to that one intersection at Foxcroft and Northcrest I think got flooded because that one drain right there was just blocked up with leaves. So is that -- >> Yeah. I think coded enforcement, CIS, can be sent to those places. >> I called them. They got out and they took quick care of it but it just -- anyway, it just -- >> Commissioner Beck, yeah, can -- we're getting a little off topic there so -- >> Okay. Okay. >> Yeah, maybe take that up after. >> Will. Thanks. >> Thank you. I just have a quick question. Did these changes come about after you had discussions along the way with -- >> No. So these are -- majority of them were gathered through the summer. So it came from our internal staff as well as working with all the developers and their consultants as to, oh, this language is really confusing, we need to change it. So it was collected over the whole year, this whole last year, and now we're just putting it in front of -- as a public document. >> Okay. Very good. Anybody -- >> Any questions? >> Any questions? Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Last work session item is receive an update on project notification and submission list. >> Okay. >> Okay. Welcome, Charlie. >> Hey. Good evening. I'm a business services manager with the development services department. Today I just wanted to give you guys a quick update on some changes we've made to the website to increase transparency on some of the things we have going on. I didn't have a presentation today. I was just going to walk through it with you. So as you know, recently we went to city council with proposed development code amendment for citizen participation. The city council wanted to hold off on that until the development code was updated and include that as the update. But during that presentation they did ask that we start putting neighborhood meetings on the website. So what we've done here is on the landing page of the development services website we've added upcoming neighborhood meetings. So right now we just have the one over the Christmas time. We don't have many neighborhood meetings. But as more of these come up, then we'll begin filling this area in with upcoming meetings. Also we're going to begin sending those notifications out to planning and zoning as we become aware of those as well. >> Commissioner Beck. >> What page was that on the website? >> It's on the development services landing page. And so also one of the recent changes is we've added a new domain name. So if you go to Denton development services.com it will point you directly to our department page right here. >> Say that again. >> Denton development services.com. The other item I wanted to talk with you guys about today is the -- one second, let me pull it up here. The new submissions list. So it's my understanding that recently you were copied on the new webpage with the map of new submissions. We've also added that online under our map page. >> Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you, Chair. Charlie, how fast are those neighborhood meetings put up? Because sometimes they -- I guess two questions really. How quickly do you guys get notified of the neighborhood meetings? How quickly are they put up on the website? Sometimes we've had it before. We've had projects come before us that say, well, we got notification two days before the neighborhood meeting and they had the neighborhood meeting the week of the item and it just was very quick. So I don't know how quickly you guys are getting stuff up and how quickly you guys are getting notified. >> Yeah. So in working with our communications department, we're trying to get that up as soon as we're aware of it. It's a new process to upload it to the website. So we've had two thus far that have been included. We had one in late November and then the one that's currently up there. So we're getting them on the website same day that we're notified. But as far as the notifications to the planners go, maybe Richard, you can tell me how often we get them. >> We typically try to get at least two weeks leeway or two weeks head time so people can plan for it. Sometimes it does go a little bit quicker. And I think this time of year it's just with the holidays and everything. >> Sure. I get the time of year. But I know there was projects in the past that were pretty quick, bang, bang, I mean, not two weeks. They were -- we certified mail out on October 24th and the project was -- or the meeting was, you know, November 1st. It's like that's not -- that's not two weeks. I can do math. >> Right. >> When you say you're finding out about the meeting, I mean, is it -- you're finding out about it, the developers finally telling you, the applicants finally telling you, what's -- >> So I think just as for this one as an example, the meeting's going to be held on December 18th and Ron was notified on December 5th. >> Okay. >> So they did let them know that they were going to hold that meeting at the -- >> It's pretty good lead time. >> The central library there. >> Chair. >> Commissioner Bec. >> Thank you. There wouldn't by any chance be any way that somebody who wants to be made aware all the time, that if we could go in here, we could put our email address and when those meetings come up, it sends us an email out, I don't suppose -- is that capable of being done, something maybe in the future? >> That's definitely something we can look into. >> Okay. >> I know we have alerts. >> But it would make it easier. Otherwise, it's up to me to go and check every day. >> Okay. >> Well, one of the things that we have discussed is maybe the signs that we put up at properties, including that link to where they can check for upcoming neighborhood meetings, give them a spot when they see it to search out for it. But we could look into some kind of sign up. Yeah. >> Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you. Can you go back, Charlie, can you go back to the actual -- the good Sam one? I just wanted to see what actually -- when you say learn more, what exactly is in there? Is there going to be kind of the -- what things that are kind of the backup and everything else or just that? >> So it's just date, time, a small synopsis, someone they can reach out to if they want more information, that's going to be kind of our standard template and then if there's any flyer or associated information, this one I think they included their own synopsis and then some maps. >> Is there a way for us to include -- I know that it all depends upon when the agenda committee is able to get this stuff out and it's all been posted for public notice, but is there a way for us to incorporate -- I guess maybe this question is a little stupid, but a way for us to incorporate the public documents into that link for that specific neighborhood meeting if it's a zoning case and then we already got the documents that already made public record, include them on that link so that if they want to be able to go look at the -- some of the documents that we're getting, that we're getting put on the website. >> I think that's where we're trying to head. >> Okay. >> If we can go -- I don't know, Charlie, if you can pull up the submission list. >> Yeah. >> So what we'd like to do with that is be able to click on and actually open up -- sort of have a one stop shop essentially for all your application questions. >> Okay. >> But pull that up, have one in the neighborhood meeting, have when it's projected, go to P&Z in city council if need be. >> Okay. Got it. >> And so we expect to essentially just start to build on that. >> Okay. Yeah, that was my recommendation. Hopefully I see that. But this is a good move forward. Appreciate it. >> All right. The weekly submission list was the last thing I was going to update on, so if anybody else has any questions. Thank you, guys. >> Thank you, Charlie. Okay. With that, that concludes our work session. I will -- or close our work session at 6.15 p.m. Charlie will reconvene in council chambers at 6.30. >> Good evening. Thank you for your patience. Welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning commission meeting for Wednesday, December 12, 2018. With the quorum present, I will call our meeting to order at 6.44 p.m. First on our agenda is the pledge to the U.S. and Texas flags. Please join us and stand if you can. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Under the United States flag, I pledge allegiance to the United States of Texas, one state, under God, one nation, indivisible. >> Thank you. I would like to make a couple of notes. Two public hearing items are removed today from the agenda. Public hearing AZ180011 is postponed to January 9th meeting. And public hearing case DZ180021H has been permanently withdrawn from the city. Okay, that will bring us to our item 2, which is approval of our planning and zoning minutes. We will take these individually. We've got November 14th. Entertain a motion or discussion. Commissioner Beck. >> I move we approve minutes of November 14th. >> November 14th? >> Commissioner Pernado. >> Quick clarification. We were requiring an update to the -- >> Not on these minutes. >> Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. Then second, yes. >> Okay. We've got a first and a second to approve November 14th PNZ minutes. Any discussion? Okay. I'll call for a vote. That passes 5-0 with one abstention in the November 28th minutes. Commissioner Smith. >> Motion to approve, but with the removal of line 43 on page 10. >> Commissioner Pernado. >> I'll second with the amendment. >> Very good. We've got a first and a second to remove -- approve with removing line 43 page 10 of those minutes. Any discussion? Okay. Let's call for a vote. Motion carries 6-0. That moves us to our consent agenda. Commissioner Smith. >> Motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Second. >> We have a first and a second to approve consent agenda. Any discussion? Okay. Let's call for a vote. Motion carries 6-0. Okay, that will move us to our public hearings. With A being removed, we will go to public hearing B, DCA 18-0008. I will open the public hearing at this time. Hi, Haley. >> All right. So this item is the update to the -- we're now calling the conservation and landscape code. And I think Richard and I will kind of tag team this one with him speaking from the dais. >> Sorry, I'm trying to get a pull-up on my screen. Again, just wanted to -- for those that are hearing this for the first time, I know the commission has seen this slide already, but just again wanted to go through a little bit of the background into the tree preservation ordinance and sort of where it started from. So it started in 2003 as a reaction to redevelopment of flow hospital. So the tree preservation landscape requirements that we have today were essentially adopted in 2004. A year later, there was the Denton Citizens Tree Committee created to look at that ordinance and recommend tightening it and eliminating some loopholes. And so this update, ironically, has been going on since 2005. There's been multiple drafts by multiple different individuals, however, there was never a real consensus on updating the regulations. In 2014, however, there was a change to the code -- I'm sorry, in 2015, a recommendation from council that looked at doing some streamlining, but expand and protect -- to expand and protect tree canopy, including planting of trees on private property with expenditures from the tree fund. In 2014, there were some minor amendments that were made, more so on the -- that had to do with the tree fund and how that could be used. Shortly thereafter, 2016, there was the State of Denton Urban Forest that provided sort of a good background and baseline of what we actually have today, or at least at that point in time, as far as canopy and some of the value of those trees. And then over the last -- through '16-'17, there's been multiple drafts that were presented. And then in 2017, early 2017, there was a council work session that talked about -- that examined purchasing properties, five properties to be exact, however, nothing at that time came about. Including that in 2017, there was a House Bill 744, which looked at providing some preemptions for municipalities and regulating trees. That bill failed, however, in the special session, House Bill 7 was approved and ultimately signed into law, creating Section 212-095 of the Texas Local Government Code that's now on the books that provides some limitations but not as far-reaching, I think, as what was originally planned or intended from 744. And so over the last year, this is just sort of a highlight of where we were and where we are today. So again, earlier in April -- in the spring, April, May, we had a policy discussion with both council and the Committee on the Environment and then held a series of those -- series of meetings with the Committee on the Environment over a multitude of drafts and sort of concepts that we worked through. And then ultimately, the draft that you have today is sort of a combination of that, along with one, making sure we increase preservation and mitigation, look to unify landscaping and the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Standards, or ESA, and most importantly, that we comply with the Texas Local Government Code. And so just to touch on some of the goals that we talked about, when we first sort of stepped back and approached this one thing, we wanted to make sure that we -- you know, what do we want to accomplish with this update? And so we sort of laid out a couple of goals to really sort of guide us through -- guide us through the process. And then just to briefly touch on that House Bill 7 and what it did. So one thing -- what it did is it prohibits a city from requiring homeowners from paying any mitigation fees or replanting for any tree under 10 inches at DBH, and DBH's diameter at breast height, which is a measurement of 4 1/2 feet above the ground. In addition to that, if the tree is diseased or dead, how diseased is defined, you know, it was not included in that bill, as well as any tree that poses an imminent or immediate threat to persons or property. Again, not very well defined and could ultimately mean a lot of different things to different people. Tree fee credits, that's also something that was new, that I don't think was in some of the other previous draft bills, so that any time a municipality imposes a tree mitigation fee for tree removal, they must allow that person to apply for a credit for tree planting to offset that amount. And that -- in order to do that, it must be planted on the property for where the mitigation fee was assessed, or in a mutually agreed upon area by the municipality and the person, and then be at least 2 inches in diameter at the point of the trunk, 4 1/2 feet above the ground, or that DBH measurement. And then in addition, there's also language about a 50% credit for residential and a 40% credit for non-residential. And as I stated, I think at the last meeting, we've seen this put in one or two codes already. A lot of people don't have yet to incorporate this into their development codes. And interestingly enough, everybody kind of reads this a little bit differently. So we took just a very liberal interpretation that -- just a 50% credit, and you'll see how that -- how we've worked that into the current draft. And so what I wanted to do, again, is now sort of step back, and so this is a little bit different, I think, than what we -- what I presented in the past. I wanted to switch it up so everyone gets excited and energized. But really, what this does is it has four major elements. So it has -- combines environmentally sensitive area, regulations, tree preservation, buffer, and landscape. And couples highlight changes. Preserved trees will now be able to count for landscape and canopy. New plannings require diversity of tree age and species. There's also a section on low impact development standards. There's no more credits available for pervious area. At times, people were able to put pavers in their driveway and count that towards meeting their open space or landscape requirements. And so that will be eliminated, as well as any credits for ESA for canopy or landscape. And we did create a buffer and landscape area point system, which we think is -- offers some flexibility, but also provides at least some level of assurances. And on the table that you see on the right, we have two sort of distinct measurements. One is the landscape area, and the second is the tree canopy cover. And these are essentially what's on the books today, and we're just carrying those forward. And so a couple changes on the applicability that I wanted to highlight. We did strike most of the city facilities or projects that currently are exempt. The only one that remained is the city airport, and they're sort of under separate guise as far as trees and obstructions with respect to the airport. But we also included in there single family and duplex lots with trees under 10 inches of DBH. Again, that's straight from the local government code. But this would require or this would apply now to single family or duplex lots if the tree was greater than 10 inches. Right now, it does not apply to single family. So this is a significant change in that it will apply to single family properties, at least in the current draft. And then these are the tree types. And so what I wanted to do here is just sort of use the existing definitions from the code just in sort of a strike through and underline. And so protected essentially is what we're calling now a heritage tree. And protected is sort of encumbering all of the trees. Quality tree is relatively the same. Secondary trees, we struck mesquite and locust. We're proposing that those trees be exempt. Initially, we didn't have large secondary trees. We were incorporating those into the heritage tree. But as we started to look at that and sort of run a couple different scenarios, it became a little bit more difficult with respect to the credits. And so while it's not in this current discussion draft, large secondary trees will be brought back in and include all but the mesquite and locust. And so with that, we've created this non-protected tree list. And so you have the mesquite honey locust, again, unless it's part of a preserved habitat or conservation easement, which we'll get into in a little bit, crepe myrtle diseased or dead trees, trees that pose an imminent or immediate threat to a person's property or any tree listed on the Texas Department of Ag noxious and invasive plant list. And what I wanted to do, I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on this table, but I wanted to at least provide some rationale as to how when we really look to exempt those trees, some of the thought that went into it, it wasn't just because we didn't like the trees. While they do pose some challenges with the thorns, particularly the honey locust and even the mesquite to a certain extent, what we did is we pulled this from that 2016 State of Denton urban forest. And what it did is it measured things based on a functional value, which looks at carbon sequestration, avoided runoff, pollution removal, energy costs and carbon emission reductions. And then it has a structural value, which is the replacement cost for the type of tree it is and carbon storage. And so when we really looked at this, thought it was interesting when you take the exempt or the honey locust and mesquite. So it's 8% of the population, it covers 2% of the leaf area, but provides no functional or structural value. Again, this is from that 2016 report. The mesquite provides a little bit of functional value, but no structural value. I'll just kind of roll down to the box down below. And so post oak and pecan make up 10% of the trees, 14% of the leaf area, but has 36% of the functional value and 29% of the structural value. And so if you look at pecan, that's only 1% of our population, but it provides 13% of the functional and 12% of the structural. So for just a small amount, it does a lot, if you will. And then the exempt and secondary trees. At one point, we were looking at having all secondary trees be exempt, but just looking at exempt and secondary together, they make up 36% of the trees, 31% of the leaf area, but only 18% of the functional value and only 12% of the structural value. And so that was part of the rationalities for us in looking at where should we put the focus on preservation. And so what I want to do with that is just show, kind of go back again to where our current tree code is. And so I kind of grouped secondary and large secondary and then quality and protected. And then if you recall, we have different standards if you're considered infill or not. And so if you're infill, there's absolutely no preservation requirements, no minimum preservation. And there is some mitigation, but interestingly, it's only if you're greater than a half acre. And even then, it's not a lot. And then outside, if you're not considered an infill lot, again, it really focuses on quality and secondary and not large secondary or protected trees. So if you're a protected tree, you have to mitigate, but there's no minimum preservation requirement related to that. And I think that's where you see a lot of that, where people get upset where they see some larger trees being cut down or post oaks being cut down and mosquitoes are being saved or something less desirable. And it's because there's not a requirement to preserve those, at least, again, this is the current code today. And so these are the tables right from the code. I just want to kind of provide that summary. Just see where it is and the mitigation that's required. And here it is for non-infill lots. And so this is sort of a comparison of current versus proposed. And I didn't use the infill, I just used the non-infill. And so proposed minimum preservation, yes, for all tree types, and then -- I'm sorry, with the exception of secondary. And then proposed mitigation, yes, for all four types. And so you see where really the only change is at the secondary, where we're not requiring any minimum preservation. And so you may recall this graphic from the last meeting. What we did do is we revised where we had secondary, sort of pulled that off to the side. Now, secondary, again, it's not required to be part of that 30 percent minimum preservation. However, there is a replacement rate. So it's really any tree that you remove, regardless of size. So it'd be six inches to 17.9 inches. You could remove, but you still have to mitigate. Rather than mitigate it for an inch basis, it's done at one replacement tree, and a replacement tree has to be two inches. Again, that's -- we're using the local government code standard for that. So large secondary tree, instead of incorporating that into a heritage tree, it just kind of stands alone. And so if you're a boat art actor or a cottonwood, it can be included in that 30 percent. There's the replacement rate at two to one. And then there is that credit, again, that I'll go through the table. But there is zero preservation credit for the large secondary. If you recall, we also had some options since we were -- we took the credits out of -- for the ESO. So what we did is we came up with a -- what we called is a preserved habitat. And so if it's an expansion of an ESA area, you can reduce your minimum preservation down to 20 percent. However, it needs to be -- the preserved habitat needs to be 10 percent of the total site or a minimum of 5,000 square feet. And then if you don't have an ESA on this site, we looked at having the ability of someone to do a conservation easement. Again, you can go down to 20 percent and then 10 percent or 5,000. Now if you recall from that table, if you do have a -- particularly in the preserved habitat. So if you do -- if you are sort of carrying forward and that ESA happens to be a floodplain area that has multiple honey locusts or mosquitoes, those honey locusts or mosquitoes can be counted for in that preserved habitat. So that -- so it's not completely excluded, but rather than go in and disrupt a habitat or continuation of an ESA, we allowed that to count. And so what I did here is rather than pull a multitude of examples, I thought it might be easier to just make one up. So what I did is I used the iTree design, if you've ever -- I can send you all a link. It's actually a pretty cool software. So what I did is I chose this lot. It's about an acre, and I -- so the trees that you see in the column on the left, those are the trees that are representative there. And the canopy growth is essentially what they predicted that based on -- based on the data that they have within the iTree, and this is at -- at this time. So it's not a 20-year growth or 30-year growth. You can predict all of that, but for this exercise I did not. I know some of you may be counting it, saying you're missing a tree. Ironically, the mesquite is not -- was not a choice, it was not an option. And so at least under this exercise, they didn't recognize it as a tree, and so that's why you don't see it on the -- on the -- on the exercise. And so what I did is I took this and assumed that it was a one-acre infill parcel. Just to give you an idea of what it -- what it does. And so this is -- again, this is the current code. And so under the current code, there's zero preserved, and then mitigation would be 71.5 inches or 36 trees we typically round up. Or if you just paid it, it would be just under $9,000. And then assuming that it wouldn't fall into a infill lot, it changes -- you do have some preserved trees, albeit 14 inches. If you look at the column under preserved, the -- what I have in parentheses, the 2 1/2, the 2 1/2 and 5, that's actually what would be required based on the code. And so because they don't have a tree that's small, so they're only required to preserve 2 1/2 inches. And so because we just took the closest tree to that, and so that's why you have the 14 inches, but technically only 5 inches would have been required to be preserved. So that's that 14 -- those 14 inches. So everything else could be taken down. And then there is some mitigation, either planting 62 trees or paying $15,000, just over $15,000. Again, this is the current code today. And so using that same example, I'm going to go through sort of what we're proposing in a couple different scenarios. And so under the first scenario, we looked at if you preserved all of the post oaks. And so this sort of carries forward. And if you look at the spreadsheet or the chart that's within the regulations, I thought this might be a little bit easier to follow, and I can't point to it, so I'll try to describe it as best I can. But really what we did is, so if you look at the heritage trees, 42 inches, that takes into account the pecan and the black walnut, the 22 and 20. Heritage post oak, there was zero removed, but that is the -- there's 24 inches total there, which you see down in the column for preserved. Quality trees, there was 12 inches removed. And then 8 inches that were preserved, that's the -- I'm sorry, that's the pecan. Large secondary, there were 19 removed. And then secondary, there were three trees. And so under calculated DBH, that's the multiplier. So it's three for heritage, quality is one and a half, and large secondary is one and a half. And then the three, that's the two inches, and so that's how that gets calculated. And then your preliminary, so that's your total calculated DBH. Eliminary mitigation DBH, which applies that 50% credit to that 188, gives you the 94. And so going down to the preserved section of this, there's the three multiplier, because you're preserving the post oak, so that brings it to 72. You get some, you get a half for quality trees, we put that at .5, and so there is some credit that you get for the quality, so your preserved credit is 76, so your total mitigation inches would be 18 under this scenario. And then we did a -- I did a second scenario that removed all of the post oaks, removed all, but removed 20, I'm sorry, removed 22 inches of heritage, preserved the quality, removed large secondary, and then as well as the secondary. And so your total calculated DBH, 182, preliminary at 91. So your heritage, you do get that, you do get the credit. And then quality, you still get the credit, so your preserved credit is 50, which brings your mitigation inches at 41. And so again, same project, just different methods and options for somebody. And then I did a third option, just to kind of give you the look and feel of it all. So if they just preserved quality and large secondaries and decided to cut out all of the post oaks and all of the heritage trees, I won't go through the whole steps again, but you see your mitigation inches comes up drastically to 92. So really they have an option, they can go 18 if you preserve sort of the -- what we'll call the heritage trees, or if you want to go with the quality or smaller trees, then your mitigation will be much higher. And then as far as mitigation fee, the current fee is at 125. At one point we had proposed following a manual that references a calculation for tree, which was essentially came out to about 202 at DBH. We talked to parks to see what the actual cost, their cost is for that, and they're at 317 an inch. And so we don't know where -- this will be something ultimately that council decides, but most likely it will be greater -- I would anticipate it will be greater than 125. I can't say for certain, but at least that would be our recommendation. That I'll turn it to Hayley. >> All right. So the landscape code is one of the other big pieces of the draft that you have before you. And as Richard mentioned before, the primary change is that we're going from the very prescriptive standards we have now to a point system across the board. So the compatibility buffers between adjacent uses are one of the main components of the landscape code. What you can see here is that we would still maintain kind of the matrix we have in the code now where depending on your use, it would determine kind of how large and how intensive that buffer needs to be. So it would vary from no buffer at all between certain uses to needing either 10, 20 or 30 points within your buffer area. And those points are attained from the second table that's in your draft, which is kind of the combination of proposed elements that could fit within that buffer to provide screening and some spatial separation between uses. So that's everything from wood fences, masonry walls, up to various combinations of trees and shrubs. As far as the remainder of the landscape code, you know, the right-of-way screening, parking lot landscaping, all of those things, we're going to a similar structure. Whereas our code now dictates, you know, a certain width of screening area depending on where your parking lot is and exactly what has to be in that. This would allow, once again, that flexibility. So within the table that we're about to look at, each site would have to choose two elements to provide right-of-way screening, two elements for internal parking lot landscaping, and then the remainder of the points required for the site, which is a total of 30, could be drawn from any of these various categories depending on what works best for the site. So again, kind of a menu board of options. As I mentioned, right-of-way screening is still an important aspect. So we would require that each site that has parking in front of their building choose two of these. If they just have dry vials in front of the building, that could be reduced to one. So again, that's a combination of either berms, trees, shrubs, or some sort of low wall. And then within the parking lot, again, whereas now the code just says you have to have 7% landscaping, 15% tree canopy, and then depending on the size of your parking lot, it dictates how often you have to have landscape islands, this would just require that you pick at least two of these things and incorporate them in your parking lot. So end caps, internal islands, or landscape medians could be an option that our current code doesn't provide for. And then in terms of the remainder of your site landscaping, there are a wide variety of things that could give you credit towards that. Some of that would be encouraging drought tolerant plants and things of that nature with in your site. But it also includes things that we don't have in our code now, such as allowing rooftop vegetation to count, living walls on a building could now be an option. And then a new one that we've added recently is the Butterflyer Pollinator Gardens, since Stinton has been designated as a monarch city. So to go along with that, we added that as another option. So I wanted to kind of look at an example, we won't get into it in too much detail. Some of you may remember a recent ADP that we had just earlier this year for a church at the corner of Latimer and Audra. They actually had an ADP back in 2009 for some of their landscaping. And then when they added onto their parking lot, they had to come back to revise that ADP and request some new deviations from the code, because of their unique site features, such as this large drainage channel in the front of the property. So we won't get into this in too much detail, but this table kind of outlines what the original ADP was for, what their update was for, and then how this could change under the new code. So the site, because of its zoning of NR4, requires 50 percent tree canopy. We are proposing that that standard remain in the code, and one of the points of discussion that we would like to bring to you all and council ultimately is how we could provide some relief for that. What we've had but we haven't put into the draft yet would be, rather we would allow payments into the tree fund to be made if someone couldn't provide all their canopy on site. Could they make payment to allow those trees to be planted elsewhere in the city so that we still get that canopy in the end. But again, that's not in the code now, so that may still be a thing that we would see occasional alternative development plans for. A second requirement of the site was a Type C buffer. Part of their ADP both times around was that they didn't want to provide that buffer on site. They thought the lot was large enough and they were separated enough from the single family home that that wasn't necessary, and that was approved with those ADPs. There is an existing wood fence on the site, which under our proposed code would have allowed them to at least attain some sort of buffer and get credit for that fence where the current code doesn't allow it. So again, it could have at least reduced the need for that ADP in this case. And then the other piece was their screening along the right-of-way. As you can see here on the far left, the current code has a very specific set of four things that you have to have if you have front parking. So that 15 foot wide area has to contain a berm, one of those two combinations of trees and then either a wall, shrubs, or zero scaping. As I showed you on their landscape plan, they have this huge drainage feature in front of the property that made it very challenging for them to fit that in there because trees are not encouraged in drainage easements. So what they ended up doing was kind of mixing the site around and providing a few trees where they could and then enhancing the site with additional shrubs. With what we're proposing now, they could have selected options that would have eliminated the need for the ADP for that particular challenge, because they could have fit in a cluster of trees, a low wall or things like that that would have worked on the site and allowed them to still provide screening but not have to come before you all to request the deviation from the code. And then the final thing here is we just wanted to show you kind of the anticipated schedule for how this will move forward from here. So we are planning a series of kind of community and stakeholder meetings with the various groups such as the developers, keep it in beautiful some of those groups that would be interested in this and that will occur this month and on through January and maybe a little beyond that. And then we are looking to bring this back in January for another public hearing with a more finalized draft at that point that we would be considering implementing. And then ultimately city council, this shows February, I believe that February 19th meeting has been canceled, so it would probably be early March that it would go to city council if we stay on this timeline and we can go backwards, answer any questions, whatever you all would like to do at this point. I don't see any questions from the commission at the moment, but this is a public hearing. I don't have any cards for this unless this is one coming here, and it is. Rick I'm sorry, I can't read your last name. Come on down and talk to us. Sorry, my handwriting is not very good, but my name is Rick Barry. I live in Denton. I'm at 5112 Edwards Road and I just want to say that I think the staff should be congratulated. It's been a long, long, long time coming. And every time I read it, it gets better. And if I have any quibbles, they're small. As someone who does tree surveys from time to time, there are a few things that I might point out that I'm not sure that they're needed, that might be helpful, and I'll just address a couple of those. One of them, let's see, there's a few here. The section that's, section F starts at 586, Tree Survey and Preservation Plan. We're asked to provide the common and scientific name of each tree. That's fine, but you remember these are going to be presented probably as an Excel spreadsheet. That's generally the way it's done, so let's just one more column. And if we already know the name of the tree, why do we need two? Then the other one is diameter, oh, that's great, condition of the tree. I usually make notes, I have a section for notes. Average canopy spread, don't know that that's necessary if we're not really registering canopy in the first place. We're really, this is a system that uses tree diameter, and that makes at least two, sometimes four other measurements that would have to be done for that tree by the surveyor, not just by someone like me who's measuring it and writing down the condition and what type of tree it is. And then the number eight, location coordinates and state plane data, and I don't think that's necessary either. If the trees are kind of sparse and are out in the middle of a field, well, if someone from the city wants to check our work, then they can walk out and pretty much look at the map and see that's that tree and check the numbers. If they're close enough to where you need them to be numbered and you need the northing and the easting, I would say that most likely the handheld that would be used by someone working for the city of Denton would not be accurate enough to make much difference. You might get within 10 feet, but there could be three or four trees right there. So I don't know that that's necessary. And those data, if you want to carry them out as far as you need to to make it accurate, I think it goes, I don't know, eight or 12 decimal places. So I don't think that's necessary. I have a few other things, but I can see that I'm about to run out of time. But most of it has to do with the type of trees. I think that, yes, all trees do provide us with shelter and they provide us with a lot of benefits, but some trees are just better than others. And I think that we've lumped them into two large groups here. I'd like to see some of the trees not considered to be quality trees because they're not quality. And I guess I'll just leave it at that and say thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Barrio. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Okay, seeing none, I will close the public hearing and entertain any discussion from the commission. Commissioner Smith? Motion for approval. We'll be bringing the draft back. So actually, I don't, I just had it as a public hearing so we can take input. Do we need a motion to table then? What's the? How about a motion to postpone indefinitely? And the staff will bring it back according to the anticipated schedule to be sent possible. Revise a motion for motion to postpone indefinitely. Commissioner Beck? Okay, we have a motion on the floor to postpone. Any discussion? Okay, let's call for a vote. Motion carries 6-0. Thank you for your hard work, Richard. I think that showed up as a motion to approve. Was it shown in the minutes as a motion to postpone? Okay. I just wanted to let, for those watching or those in the audience, we do have a comment form on the website, so if you do have additional comments, you can enter them there or reach out to me directly. I'd be more than happy to sit down and go through your comments. I know you're on that first committee, so. Thank you, Richard. Okay, that moves us to next public hearing item, PZ18179. At this time, I'll open the public hearing and bring up Ron Mangida. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair, members of the commission. This presentation, just to clarify, is for the commission to consider a future resolution that City Council will consider on recommendations that are part of a steering committee's task to identify some improvements or enhancement for the area. It is not tied to an update to the comprehensive plan, but rather just recommendations as directed by our council to work on an area plan. Started in this presentation will be a purpose, a history of the area, a couple background information as it relates to how we start this process, the steering committee, their meetings that they've held, public outreach efforts throughout the process, and then we'll get into the draft vision statements, the goals, the recommendations again, and then the implementation strategy to how these recommendations are to be implemented. Looking at the Dem Plan 2030 as a guide, we have a vision statement that provides the citizens and the City Council what we want to see the city be in the next 20 years, 50, 20 years. We want to see that we retain our sense of community, share values, welcome arrivals, and celebrate the growing diversity that we have. We want to see our established neighborhoods where revitalization and compatible infill contributes to a stable, livable, and historic character that fosters neighborhood pride and homeownership. Specifically there's a goal in the comprehensive plan that talks about small area plans. They identify it as a way of preserving and enhancing a character or district in areas of an area. Following that action is identification of a neighborhood university compatibility area. In that area, I'm going to skip a slide here, in that area that we're talking about is the lighter blue area that we see here. The area that's light blue is the neighborhood compatibility area. The darker blue is the UNT property, which is considered a government as well as institutional future land use. We also see some low density or low residential to the north, shown here in yellow, and then commercial along I-35. A little bit of history of the area. I think everyone knows the downtown is right here on Hickory, Oak, Elm, Locust. What I wanted for you all to take out of this slide is the area to the west. You see that back in 1883. There really wasn't anything. We got our downtown, but growth was coming. Part of that growth was the University of North Texas back in 1890. It was called Normal College. Just to illustrate that, back in 1950, there was no highway. There was no highway in the area. This was just our city. I want to point out as well that Bonnie Bray, further out, there really wasn't anything past that, but there was development, again, in 1950. As you all know, we grew from that to where we are today. In fact, this area I read that it was served by a trolley system. That trolley system started at the train depot back on Railroad and Hickory. It extended heading west on Hickory, turning north on Elm, and then further west on Oak. This image to the top illustrates that trolley that was traveling along Oak, making its way eventually to Avenue C, heading south to an area called Highland Park. That park was the terminus to one end, and the trolley would go back and serve, again, not only the university or the campus, but also the area that we're talking about today, tonight. These illustrations here just, again, help explain that in 1957, the highway came that you see now here, and then later in the coming years, I-35W was installed or constructed. Just to give you a little context that the area's already filled in by this time with the university expansions, as well as additional development within the area. Why are we doing an area plan? Why is it important that we do that? Well, one, the comprehensive plan is a direction that we need to look at, that neighborhood compatibility area, those areas in light blue. As a result, we also dealt with a proposed mixed-use development. Some of you may recognize this proposed development between Oak and Hickory right there, between Avenue B and Fry Street. That proposed development required an amendment to the Fry Street Overlay District. It ultimately didn't pass. It was withdrawn at the last city council, but the concerns that were raised as part of that process dealt with traffic, parking, neighborhood compatibility, the noise and safety associated with this development. That raised some questions and some need for an area plan, an idea to be more proactive in how do we address these concerns. That was the Fry Street small area plan. That area plan here is shown in red. It's a very small area compared to the larger area, which is the Oak Gateway area plan. The reason why we chose a larger area, because it's really not a small area plan. It's a fairly large area, but we really wanted to make sure we comprehensively looked at this planning study area for the following reasons. Again, the comprehensive plan directed that this area be looked at, maybe a small area plan, which we're doing. Development pressure was coming, not only to this area, which is Fry Street area, but to the north. There's development pressure, although on the other side as well, on the west side. It didn't make sense to just look at this area. We needed to look at the greater area, which involves the area to the west, to the east, and to the south of the university. Areas of concern, the areas of concern is to the north. We've got historic districts, the West Oak Historic District, the Oak Gateway Historic District, as well as the residential areas to the north. Again, looking at a possibility of some special purpose overlay districts to, again, be proactive to look at how we can protect some areas, but also to be able to enhance some areas that we feel needs to be enhanced. We know that the University of North Texas is going to grow. It continues to grow. It's projected to grow another 5,000 enrollment students by 2030, and that growth has got to go somewhere. We want to make sure that we're, again, proactive as to where they're supposed to be, but also address some of the concerns that relates to the pedestrian and the traffic and the parking and all that other stuff that we heard from the community. On January 16, 2016, the City Council directed staff to start that process for an amendment to the overlay small-year plan. There were some discussions. It went back and forth. It took a little bit over a year to finally determine that we needed to hire a consultant, and that meant that we needed to select one in order to start the old Gateway Area Plan. Officially, the Gateway Plan started on September 13, 2017, and then a committee was selected and started the work on November 7, 2017. This photo just illustrates the first meeting that we held as part of the committee. We started the committee with 24, and that's a lot of committee members, but we wanted to make sure we had a representation in all stakes. You see here, we've got residents, we've got business owners, DCTA and UNT was represented, builders, bicyclists, UNT student representative. Some of the steering committee members are here. Some of them will actually present part of this presentation. You can see that their dedication in this plan carries today because they're here making this presentation. Ultimately, we could not make quorum in some meetings, so we asked council to reduce the number. We went from 24 to 17, which helped. We were able to get quorum and make some decisions and recommendations. As part of your backup, you have those recommendations that the committee has reviewed, drafted, and recommended. They did this through 20 plus meetings held at the Development Service Center. We did some area plan tours where we got into some vans and drove around the areas, because it's a large area, and we wanted to make sure we understood what was happening in those areas. We wanted to make sure that they knew what those areas were or what they are. We also did walking tours, walked the area, identified where there were concerns. This photo here is off of scripture, and I want to say ponder. Starting with the work that the consultant did, we held a community workshop where we had over 125 people attend, which is a great turnout to get their input, to understand what their concerns, and to confirm some of the things that we already knew. On November of this year, just a month ago, we held a follow-up public open house to share with the public what we have drafted in regards to visions, to goals, and to recommendations. Before we continue, I want to introduce our vice chair, who's going to make the next presentation on the next few slides. If the commission does not have any questions, I'd like to invite Patrice Lyke to make the next presentation. Thank you. Patrice Lyke, 1109 Eagan. The first part that I'll be talking about here are the draft vision statements. One of the first things we recognized that we needed to do, because this small area plan is such a big area, was to divide the area into these three areas. There are many shared goals among these three areas. However, each of these areas does have a set of individual characteristics that we wanted to particularly point out. This is going to be a reference point when we're thinking about future development coming to any of these areas. This will be a reference point for planning and zoning to look back to, for the city council to look back to. It is important that we do make some good choices as we're moving forward. With sub area one, when we're talking about a walkable neighborhood in which to live, work, and play, there's emphasis here on the historical character in the sub area. I'd like to point out that there are a lot of UNT faculty and staff that live in sub area one, so it is a super walkable area. The northern terminus of the sub area is Panhandle, and that neighborhood to the south of Panhandle, including West Oak, including Eagan Panhandle, Congress, including Oak Hickory, is really full of people who walk to work. We looked at that as a very important piece, that the walkability, the bikeability is maintained in that area. We're also looking at the contextual compatibility in any proposed revitalization in the area. In sub area one, right now, there is some zoning in here that we hope will be changed that with the updated DDC that some of the zoning will become more neighborhood compatible. Right now, some of the zoning in here is in place from when Flow Hospital was there, and there were offices, there were businesses, there were neighborhoods scaled that supported the hospital and the people, of course, visiting their friends in the hospital, but not all of that zoning is genuinely compatible with the future that we're seeing for the area, so we're hoping to look at that. Sub area two, this is the area we were talking about earlier that we, of course, refer to as Cement City. Here we're looking at housing that is affordable to low to moderate income families and to students. There is a family component in this area, and it is an economically, frequently an economically precarious set of families that live in this area, which is why we found it important as a committee to put in writing that we wanted to help preserve affordable housing where it has traditionally been affordable. Additionally, when we're looking at quality green spaces, you'll notice, of course, in sub area two that there is one park, and it is pretty much a concrete park on Stella. Our hope is that as the area can be revitalized, that perhaps some of the revitalization projects may increase intensity on a site, yet while not increasing density, potentially leaving more room for green space to be added where it has thus far been void. Sub area three, we're looking at the area then to the south of the university. Again, a mixed-use neighborhood for families and students. There's a lot of single-family housing still in that area, so we hope to, again, keep the existing green spaces, continue with established tree canopy because there's a lot of established trees in that area, but once again, continue to enhance the livability for people who are in that area. The overall plan, a stable, walkable area in which to live, work, and play, protecting existing neighborhoods and to revitalize, reinvest, and look at projects that are compatible in use, scale, and design. In that area in particular, there's a lot of fairly low-intensity sites, and some of that gets threatened. The draft land use goals that we have here, looking again at protecting historic districts and identifying new historic districts in this area, we've got some of those on tap. Looking at creating more businesses along scripture, maybe looking at some aspirational zoning in that area to protect the neighborhoods surrounding the area, again, with Area 1, LU3. A development that is in scale with the existing development in the area. Community design goals. We've talked a little bit. I know we've begun to talk about collegiate housing as a separate zoning area, and one of the things that our committee has talked about a lot is the difference between collegiate housing versus truly multi-family housing. We have agreed that Sub-Area 1 is the place for sure, multi-family housing, but that as we discuss collegiate housing further, that collegiate housing is not an appropriate use for Sub-Area 1. Sub-Area 1 mobility goals. Again, we will discuss sidewalks more, and again, identification of gaps in the sidewalk infrastructure for future CIPs, but again, the emphasis here is on pedestrians, the emphasis is on cyclists, whether we're talking about lighting, talking about sidewalks, and then the parking and service goals. This is something we will discuss further too in relationship to hoping to alleviate many of the parking pinches that we see in the area. The parking pinch is one of the reasons that this small area is so large, because as you know, cars are like water. If you squeeze out one place for students and faculty staff to park, they're just going to ooze over some place else. That's part of the reason that we ended up with a large encompassing UNT on all sides, a small area plan. One of the things about looking at developing a visibility marketing program that will attract economic development to the area, this is something that if you'll notice, we talked about with the demise of Sac and Save to the south side of campus that we lost the only grocery store in the area, but again, we would like to encourage some seeking out of businesses that could be good fits for any of these three areas, three sub-areas, in order to, again, encourage walkability, encourage people to stay close so they can get many, probably not all, but get many of the things they need by simply hopping on their bike or walking three or four blocks to get those things. That's the end of my portion. I'll be back, though, and we have more coming. Any questions for me at the moment? We do. Okay. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Mrs. Light, thank you very much for your presentation. I think my only real concern or real question is that it does seem like it is sub-two, sub-three are places for students, but sub-one is not a place for students. It's kind of the gist that I'm getting a lot from a lot of this is that the vision for the area is that sub-one is not meant to be a place where student housing, student growth has been to be, and please correct me if I'm getting the wrong gist from it. You did just say in the last thing, if you go back one slide, that sub-one is not intended to be a student housing area. Well, we can't say that just because collegiate housing as a zoning designation, as a particular use there, does not mean that multifamily would not be appropriate and a place where students could indeed live. The difference when we're looking at collegiate housing, and this is a ... Collegiate housing has precedents set in other university towns in Texas. So if you look at, for instance, many of the SROs, we've been calling them SROs, those are floor plans that cannot accommodate a family. So when those structures are built, they tend to be locked into that particular use. If you look at many older cities in which apartment buildings become condos, apartments are eventually bought by people who have ownership of these, multifamily can morph, multifamily can change. Yeah. The floor plans and the business plan of the collegiate housing product is very limited. Yep. Now, in sub area one, we already have apartment buildings and students live in those apartment buildings. They tend to be two-story apartment buildings, parking is on site, students are close to campus, works out really well. I live a block from an apartment complex, it's fine. It's absolutely fine. I wouldn't want to change it. The difference is in the tall SROs, which will never be a place where a family could live if a family chose. Whereas sub two and sub three would be in the future, it wouldn't be solved with this, it would be solved with the DDC update and the rezoning, but sub two and sub three based on this area plan would be more susceptible to SRO type buildings, by the way, that's going to be zoned and coded if this council follows this. It would be more appropriate in those areas. Sure. Again, if you look at where UNT's services for students are, UNT's been building, they're building a new dorm on the south side. Sure. UNT has permission to build another dorm, but it's not in the pipeline at the moment. They can do it, but the cafeterias are going on the south side. Over to the west, there are already dorms over there, cafeterias. On the north side, it's office buildings. It's significantly more appropriate. Students would probably feel much more a part of campus as well if they are choosing those places to the south and to the west. Sure. I guess my only real reason to bring it up is the fact that it was very clear during work session. I think you were in there. I saw you in there. It was very clear during work session that those who are on this committee is very heavily represented by sub one residents. I would hate to go through and make a recommendation to council to approve a revision for an area that is primarily dominated by one section of a neighborhood to then take what is usually seen as not a very likable or not a very favorited use of building of SROs and say, "Well, you can do them in this small area, but just not near me." Right. That's all I wanted to bring up. I think I'm going to interrupt you. I'm going to let them finish their presentation. We're not even through the presentation yet. Why don't we hold? Because we're going to get into too much detailed discussion, I think, so why don't we let the presentation continue? Okay. Okay. Thank you. I totally empathize with that. You did a good job of looking around. Okay. Christopher Wilkins is up next. Hello. My name is Christopher Wilkins. I'm going to be going over some of the draft goals of sub area two, there we go, which we all fondly call cement city. While it might be a term of endearment for people and didn't, it does have a sort of a negative connotation to it, understandably. To me, and I'm just speaking for myself, it talks about almost transient, almost forgotten place in terms of development, in terms of opportunity, and it's very transient in terms of people who live there, and that seems to be a lost opportunity for a neighborhood that's nestled right by UNT and right between future housing and raise a ranch that will eventually go over there. This neighborhood is ripe for possibilities and so these are a few of them. Land use and community design goals, some of the things we talked about were supporting existing housing in the area and identifying and prioritizing neighborhood revitalization and reinvestment needs and the opportunities that it affords. One of the big infrastructure projects over there we all know is the Bonneberry expansion, and we want to include more multimodal infrastructure projects, including pedestrian and bicycle paths in that area that can help connect, like I said, the Seamont City neighborhood with UNT and raise a ranch, make it more one giant pathway. We also want to increase open space in the area any way possible, perhaps through vertical housing to make use of lack of land space, community courtyards, and stuff like that. Some of the mobility goals we discussed is to, again, like I mentioned before, improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation in the area, create more access and connectivity to major destinations that are walkable, and even incorporate public art to make it more of a communal space for people to actually enjoy and to want to spend more time there, to make it more of a home. One of the also things is we want to increase ridership and improve transit in the area. DCTA is actually a partner in trying to improve ridership in sub area too. So they're working with us on that goal. Parking and services goal. Parking, as everybody probably knows, is pretty rough around there sometimes, and so we want to implement a comprehensive strategic parking action plan, which will be discussed in a later slide, so we will hear more about that. So if you have any questions, I would probably wait for that. And again, since it's right by raise a ranch, it seems like all the services that they could possibly need is right there. There's actually opportunities for us to develop services in Siemens City itself. There's actually some infrastructure there. I can't think of the street, but there's a few existing structures that we could revitalize and help bring more entrepreneurial spirit in that neighborhood of all sorts of types. And also just improve the visual perceived area. I started this presentation saying that Siemens City has a very negative connotation sometimes, but we want to use all these goals that we talked about to kind of revitalize the image of the area by working to make it more of a livable neighborhood. So I'm also going to be presenting on sub area three, which is my neighborhood personally. Some of the land use goals we talked about is protecting existing single-family dwelling units in the area, support existing housing already there in the area. The big thing for me was to maintain single-family dwelling and multi-family dwelling balance in the area. So we make sure that a lot of people who live there already are not pushed out. And also a big thing for me is to create a potential overlay of an equal drive to create more businesses on there and more business opportunities that are walkable and in scale with the area itself. Also with the community design goals we talked about is returning to a sense of community, making it more of a gathering place for people to want to invest in for a long time to buy houses to commit themselves to it for a good period of time. And just part of all of this is preserve the character of the area any way we possibly can. Mobility goals is create gateways into the area. One of the gateways, or possible gateways, is the fire station off of McCormick. Ronald 35 and McCormick when you go in, places that are like markers for the area, some place that makes it feel like, okay, this is my area now, welcomes you to the neighborhood. Improve traffic signal operations in the area in terms of streetlight timing for vehicles and pedestrians, especially along Eagle. Improve traffic safety in the area in general. And improve pedestrian safety and circulation as well. Those are two pretty big things, especially as they're expanding on UNT, that seems to be kind of an issue at the moment. Parking and services goal, yeah, just as improved parking, I'm assuming we're gonna go through that more later. Create more, and also just create more neighborhood services. We talked about through maybe potential overlay on Eagle Drive, but also there's some other existing infrastructures we could also revitalize in the area later on. All right. And that being said, I'm gonna hand it off to my partner in crime, Christopher Walker. - Good evening, commissioners, my name's Christopher Walker, I reside at 805 Emory Street. Back to overarching recommendations and goals and visions for the entire area in total. Protecting established neighborhoods and enhancing neighborhood character. This right off the bat, I think, is an overarching through point through all of the recommendations, goals, and visions that we, as a subcommittee, have been drafting. We're very, very careful and mindful that we want to reflect and enhance the already established character of this area. And you'll notice that we don't use the term redevelop in most any of this entire presentation. But we really emphasize reinvestment and revitalization. LU2 promote economic development and strategic locations along key corridors and major intersections. Again, that can be along Eagle Drive, certain key areas within sub area two, or along Oak and Hickory, as well as Scrippeter Street. LU3 support a diverse land use pattern, creating opportunities for mixed use within strategic locations for people to live, work, and socialize. Onto community design goals, improve streets that enhance the community's image through streetscape improvements among major road quarters that welcome residents and visitors. This gets a little bit back to the name of this entire plan, the Oak Gateway Plan. It's emphasized in other ways throughout this presentation, but we really see that this area is a gateway into Denton itself. If you think about it geographically, it sits within the very center and heart of our city land area. And from the highway and traversing through, it provides figurative and could be literal gateway entrances into the rest of the city. CD2 create an integrated system of parks, trails, and open space with walking and biking distance for residents. This will go through immobility, improving linkages between sub-areas and other distinct destinations between those two, really thinking thoughtfully about how people move through this space and how linkages and from before, integrated systems can enhance that. Area Plan M2, continue coordination between the neighborhoods, UNT, and the city to identify and develop multiple ways to safely move through and around the area, again, re-emphasizing that same point. M3, reduce congestion and expand transportation options. Within the parking goals, and again, as we've been alluding to, this will be hashed out here in an incoming slide, develop a comprehensive strategic parking action plan based on community input, then implement that plan. Promote new parking facility designs that support mixed-use developments. One of the major impetuses amongst folks within our subcommittee is thinking about the businesses that are there and what their parking needs are and how they can be mitigated, enhanced upon, and contended with. Service goals, S1, create comprehensive funding mechanisms to fund public improvements for the area plan. S2, continue coordination between the neighborhood, UNT, and the city to identify and enhance neighborhood services to the area. It's already been mentioned, the loss of SAC and SAVE, but one of the things that we're very mindful of is this is a bit of a grocer food desert, and then even beyond the grocery, any actual restaurants and whatnot are kind of contended within one particular area within this entire area plan, and we think there's certainly room and opportunity for that to be made available in the other two areas as well. S3, further coordination between property owners, business owners, and the city, whether that comes through bodies similar to our subcommittee and like an expansion and continuation thereof or something otherwise. S4, improve the area's image and enhance neighborhoods using codes, regulations, programs, and enforcement. That again gets to overly districts and not only the zoning code update that is coming, but something with, again, more thoughtful and directed codes and regulations that fit development and reinvigoration to fit the character of the areas themselves. S5, provide a wide range of high quality and affordable housing options. S6, create facilities and programs that serve the city, areas, neighborhoods, and residents. Okay, so one of the things we've been alluding to for a while here and what we're thinking is a catalyst or pilot program within the Oak Hickory and Fry Street areas, this district would be a parking benefit district. This could be a public private entity or agency that is administered through the city but has advice and consent through neighborhood groups within that district as an oversight committee consisting of property owners, business owners, and city staff. It has defined boundaries of where this is managed parking. It would be paid parking metered through, if you're familiar with seeing this across other cities, both in our state or elsewhere, whether that be app based, whether that be a terminal kiosk in a parking lot or at adjacent intersections for blocks and streets. Let me run through here and make sure I don't miss something. The parking revenues that would be coming from this benefit district would first go towards paying for its enforcement and an evaluation would need to be done to see whether or not the enforcement should be primarily via police or can be of its own enforcement staff. It was the mood and general direction of our subcommittee that the enforcement should be coming from the agency itself as paid staff. Then eventually, it being a parking benefit district is that the excess revenue of this goes back into the actual streetscape infrastructure and continuously enhancing the area that it manages. In a similar fashion, we have considered and are offering to propose within that same sort of agency, a residential parking district. This would be opt in by block, but not necessarily by an entire street, so a certain contingency of numbers of homes and homeowners or the owners within a block would have to collectively and by majority vote to opt in, not necessarily opt out. It would be by permits, and there's options for both hang type permits or app based things similar to the rest of the parking benefit district and enforced in the same agency. Some catalyst projects within Area 1P1, you notice the way the parking striping happens here along Hickory Street. We've heard feedback that this kind of striping as opposed to the directly defined this exact car space where it's not a loose, but a designated like this is the strip in which someone can park rather than the exact notch out of each individual vehicle was appropriate. However, this of course needs to come with enforcement to avoid situations like this in which an enterprising vehicular driver thinks that if one portion of their vehicle is there that that counts, in which it should not. This one is a big one. I know there's going to be some feedback from the room on this. I, as well as Sonia, were some of the bicycle representatives on this committee. This is a component of this area plan and recommendations that has received a lot of feedback from both our public forums and the open house that came afterwards. Out of our last meeting, an option was presented in the style of a warner. I think that was articulated a little bit before in the meeting earlier today. If you read it, just laid out as it is here on this slide, it seems to signify just parallel parking, a share row, and some bump outs and other infrastructure that would indicate a slowing down. Personally, as a bicyclist, when I hear share row, I think dooring, because I've seen that happen. That is not what we as a committee were agreed to last week. We were sold on the idea of a true warner. To articulate that, we'll have a partial slide here. You see certain enhancements that could happen here at the intersection, such as these raised bump crosswalks. You notice the utilities have been sunken to the ground, and the street lights are now off to the side requiring that vehicles, or really all intermodal users of these two blocks, would have to pay attention to their surroundings for the basic traffic hues. What really distinguishes a Woonorff from this style, Woonorff is an overarching European term, but you might have also heard this as a better block, complete street, living street, things like that. The way that actually comes about is that it slows and directs all intermodal traffic in a way that embraces what this area actually is, and that is a heavily pedestrian trafficked area. Again, harkening back to each recommendation in this area plan is to enhance the already existing character of that area. That means people are crossing mid-block, not just at intersections. That means this is a shared intermodal space. If a true Woonorff were to happen, it would have to reflect that character and enhance upon it. That doesn't necessarily mean a share where it is just a straight line and parking on both sides, but parking broken up, infrastructure brought out and abutting into the streets so that it's not just a straight through lane, but it is a little bit of a wiggle or a curve so that it demands that anybody using that street actually pays attention to what's going on and maintains the safety they are in. I think if we need to expand upon that further, we can, because I'm sure it will receive both public comment and questions from you all, just judging on the facial reactions I'm seeing. The one other thing I would note upon that is that out of last week's meeting when we were content with this, it was contingent upon it being designed and brought back as a true Woonorff. If it wasn't, I think a heavy caveat would be there that the protected bike lane that had been presented and received a lot of favorable comments and agreement upon from the community would be the default standby, if were that not to be the case. We identified some catalyst projects, some things that we could begin to look at immediately so we would feel like we were doing something once the plan is voted on and begins doing its thing. One of the catalyst projects that we looked at is creating some additional overlay districts within the small area plan and also another conservation district. The first one that we looked at here is the scripture street. Like I said earlier, the zoning that is currently in place is tied to the old flow hospital. So Chopsticks is there, perfect, Killer's Tacos is there, perfect. But they also left room for an SRO going in on the old rehab center site. So with that in mind, we have identified scripture as a good place for an overlay that would allow additional requirements to revitalization in the area, any projects coming up. It would encourage more walkability. You can see on this slide that there are sidewalks over there on the south side. This is the intersection right here of Jago and scripture. So there are sidewalks on one side, you don't have sidewalks on the north side of that street. But additionally, this is a neighborhood that wants more goods and services that are close by. These are mainly neighbors who don't want to get in their cars for everything. So if we could identify this area as, again, a good place to enhance the walkability, enhance the bikeability, but also encourage more businesses to invest in that area. Again, neighborhood goods and services. We also tossed out there the idea of using a form-based code in the area. There is interest in this area in a national registry district, which would then preserve the structures. And of course, a form-based code would require that the structures, historic structures remain intact, yet the use of those structures could change. So there is the area with Normal Street, Bryan, Frye, where there are still some single-family residences. But if a business was interested, again, there's already law offices on Sycamore, I believe. But you could change the use without changing the building. So the character could remain the same, but there could be more services for the neighborhood and for people on the north side of UNT. The other catalyst project we're looking at is an overlay district in the Oak Hickory area, which would then include Frye Street. But this overlay would go up West Hickory. It would then be backing up to the West Oak Historical District. So we would need to discuss buffering and compatibility there. But again, encouraging more urban design, more goods and services for that area. We're also looking at the Collins area as an overlay district, a historical overlay district, or a conservation district. Lots of single-family homes there with, again, they could be preserved. And I get a little picture there of the old Greenlea Street, my goodness. And then finally, we're taking a look at the Sycamore area as a potential historical conservation district. Again, if it's a conservation district and we additionally use form-based code with that, that is a perfect area where we could do, again, like I said, more attorney's offices, more just services, and you maintain the structure, yet bring revitalized businesses in. So those are some catalyst projects that we're looking at. And they would be additional overlays to the small area plan, so that's a lot of layers, but we can do it. And next, Kim's going to talk about sidewalk programs. I think that's one of the things I'm going to talk about. My name's Kim McKibbin. I've been pleased to be the vice chair of this program for the past year, and it's been a really interesting program, and I don't think it's something that's going to go away. Because what we do have here are some very concrete recommendations that we can begin with, we can look at as ongoing projects in the city, things that are already happening, things that can move some of these other things forward that are in line with those visions. One of the first recommendations that comes up as an ongoing recommendation is the priority sidewalk connections. Now, these have been identified by the city, by the different people who are working on these projects, by our new pedestrian and bike coordinator, but to be able to repair and enhance some of the existing sidewalks in the areas that we're talking about, and install some of the sidewalks where there's gaps in the area. It's very obvious you'll be walking along, and the sidewalk will be there, and then it'll be gone for half a block, and then it'll come back again, and it'll go away again. Some of the sidewalks are the old WPA things, some are newer sidewalks that have been put in, some desperately need repair. We are asking or suggesting a minimum five-foot sidewalk, but we'd really like an eight-foot if that can be worked into the plans. Also, in a lot of places through this whole area, because of the proximity to the university, we're asking that maybe some rapid flashing beacons be at unsealed pedestrian crossings. One of these would be the one at Welch and Oak, where it runs into the church there. It's just really hard to get across in those kinds of areas, so some flashing lights might be really helpful for us in some of those areas. When you go back and you think again about catalyst projects, where do we get started? You've heard a whole lot of stuff, and these were just some of the highlights, but there are pages and pages and pages of an Excel spreadsheet that we worked on and worked from near the end, identifying what could we do now? What could we use to get started as a catalyst? What do you start this process with? Where do you begin? Because it's a huge ongoing project from now on out. We're looking at this and working on these plans. Another catalyst project that was coming up, because this came up over and over again, was to repair the existing street lights in some of the areas and install street lights where they're needed. There's one here on Fry Street that you can see, and then here's another on Stella. You can just barely see the little pocket park or the park that's on the corner there behind the dumpster. A lot of these places don't have any street lights. If there are street lights, they're not functional. The one here on Stella Street is these telephone poles are set to be replaced with the power poles for DME. We do have assurance that DME is going to put those lights back up there. That's also helpful. A catalyst project that everyone was interested in is getting more light into the area, so sidewalks, lighting. This goes back to the walkability and the compatibility of the different spaces. Another catalyst project that came up is in Area 3, and this is something that can be done immediately, minimal cost, that multiple people identified. That's to expand the two-way stop at Bernard and Collins to a four-way stop. It's a nice, long stretch. People get going pretty fast. Over and over again, we heard from people on the committee and from people who came to the community meetings, this was something that needed to happen. Here's another thing in Area 1 and Area 2, where they come together, a catalyst project. Because of the things that are happening in the city right now, we might be able to make some improvements to existing parks and identify new park opportunities. The Bonny Bray expansion is going to make major changes to the landscape down there in that area. It's going to isolate a little spot and open up some spaces. Parks opportunities, the UNT property at Bradley Street has been discussed. There's a little place there that could easily become a park at park. There's very few parks in this area. The decommissioned DME property on the northwest corner of Bonny Bray and Hickory Street could possibly become utilized as a pocket park, a wider, linear park, as they're talking about along Bonny Bray. One of the recommendations that comes through over and over again is we're not going to be able to do this if we don't engage the community groups to participate in the implementation of this. We don't envision that it's going to be the city coming in and say, "This is the way it's going to be." It's going to be the communities coming back to the city and saying, "This is how we would like to do this. This is where we would like to go with these sort of things." We really do have to encourage citizen engagement and keep them involved in the process. Well, okay, what we had to look at, once again, with a lot of the spreadsheets, was what were the priority recommendations? What did we want to fix off the bat? What did we want to look at first? We came up, or the city people came up with recommended implementation timelines, short-term, medium-term, and long-term, and implementing agencies would need to be identified. Some we have already identified in this paperwork, who needs to work together to get something done, and the catalyst in ongoing projects that you've just seen here. Those were the beginning points for us. We did have a quorum in our last meeting last Thursday night. We looked at all of this. We looked at sheets and sheets of stuff that we've written on all three plans, and on the areas as they combine as a whole, and also is how they influence other areas right adjacent to these areas. We did recommend, as a committee, approval 11 to 0. Staff is also recommending approval of the draft visions, goals, recommendations, and implementing strategies. You ready to come back up, Ron? We're going to let Ron field out all your questions and point to the rest of us. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate the time. I know it was a long presentation, but this was an important project. We want to make sure we cover it as much as we could. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have. I think we do, Ron. If I could just say a couple of things to the commissioners. If you have specific questions to staff, then let's ask them and get them answered, but maybe not long discussion, because it is a public hearing. We do have people who want to speak, so we do have more things to listen to. Okay? Please. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Vice Chair. Ron, just to get clarification, it is a vote of vote, or really I should say it's more of a legal question, but what you're wanting to get approved tonight is a recommendation to city council that just gives them essentially direction on what this plan would be, would just be direction for what the neighborhood wants this area to become and how it wants to be treated. It's not specific projects. It's not even specific details in relation to specific projects in that area, but it's more of this plan gives an overview direction for this geographical location in our city and what the people who are involved in this committee, which were a lot of residents who live in that area, what they would like to see this area treated as. Is that correct? That is correct. It's an area plan, a plan for the area, recommendations, what happens after. We have to go through an implementation of it, and that would, if required, need to go to certain groups in particular. If it's a utility, if it's a planning relay, we'll have to come back to you all, but it's just a recommendation, a guide of what we need to do next. Correct. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. If I could add on to that, it's not a plan, as I understand it, in the sense of a plan amendment under the plan amendment procedure of the DDC, and I know that's rather confusing because it was posted for a double public hearing as if it were a recommendation to the city council to change the plan that would influence and give credibility to future zoning actions that would be taken in accordance with it. There are a number of provisions in here that are not within the scope of the planning and zoning commission's charge necessarily, like, for example, the layout of traffic devices on public streets or parking enforcement methodologies, the use of parking funds, the creation of parking committees that would not be binding upon future zoning cases, even with a recommendation that would be brought forward. It's a recommendation that's brought forward to the planning and zoning commission as an advisory board in much the way that a rate ordinance might be recommended to the city council by the public utilities board. So in making a recommendation, passing along to the city council, this is the hard work of this committee, these are the recommendations that they would like to see in this area, but because of the way that this was posted, because of the possibility that there could be confusion, you know, I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't confusion. It's not a plan in the sense of a plan amendment procedure of the DDC, it's not a plan in the sense of a comprehensive plan or a comprehensive plan amendment. Thank you, Jerry. Commissioner Sanchez. I guess my question is, the committee has done a great job of identifying needs for each of those areas. Does a committee, is a committee going to continue, or that's it? So once the plan has been created, they resolve? Correct, that was their task, and the committee will dissolve once this recommendation is brought forward to city council. Commissioner Pernao. And I just kind of wanted to go back and clarify, you know, some of the points that you, in legal, just made. So during the presentation, I know there was a discussion about things that were in the plan that weren't specifically what I guess some of the members of the committee had agreed on. I think bike lanes was one of them and everything. And I just wanted to stress kind of what you were saying. When we vote to approve this, what we're not doing is saying this is exactly how things are going to go, this is just a general overview. And in particular, things like a bike lane or the, you know, the textured walk crossways, those aren't in the purview of planning and zoning anyway, right? Right. Okay. There's no super majority vote that will be created as a consequence of your vote tonight with city council. It's just, you know, forwarding along the recommendations of this committee and confirming that you did hold a public hearing on this and letting the council consider it, you know, within their purview as a legislative body of the city of Denton. Okay. And this one I think would go back to Ms. Lyke. We kind of had a little question about, the first thing I wanted to ask was, you used the phrase intensity versus density and can we get a clarification on, you know, what the idea is between the distinction of those two terms when related to cement city? Yeah. I would have to say it is an idea. This is not a codification. Okay. This is something, you're not going to find it in black's law, let me tell you. Okay. But as we talked about this idea in cement city, for instance, that we didn't want to necessarily demand that we increase density on a one acre, for instance. Okay. So the number of, you know, the number of bodies that could inhabit one acre might not necessarily change per recommendation, but the intensity of use in an area might change. Right now that area allows for, I think, 40 foot buildings, but there's a height max in that area. Right. And that means that necessarily those apartment complexes have spread. Now that is an area that's close to the highway, it's close to UNT. So they are ripe for higher buildings, taller buildings, more vertical buildings that might then be going up, allow for more green space, allow for some of the, you know, more parks as we've been talking about. So the intensity on that like three quarters acre might increase, but the density over one acre might not because the other quarter acre could remain green space or, you know, shared parks. So it's more like the difference between capacity versus footprint, right? Yeah. Okay. Right. Right. Yeah. The other thing that I wanted to, and somebody mentioned it when we were talking about it, and I think you mentioned it as well, the loss of SAC and SAFE as far as the grocery store. And that's one of the things that's kind of occurred to me in that area that we have effectively created a food desert because I guess people would have to go to Albertson's Way over in Bonnie Bray or, but I guess Kroger, which is far away and not, you know, compatible with foot traffic. Are there areas that y'all have identified where we might be able to put or entice maybe a grocery store that would make those areas more accessible for people on foot to get basic staples? Well, we were not able to identify specific lots or specific areas, but as like Ron was saying, we're doing our best to give suggestions so that we create a hope which could create an expectation that those services would become part of these neighborhoods. But I don't believe that we could establish a particular site where we would say that's definitely where we would put that particular, you know, grocery store. And by that I didn't mean a specific site, but like, you know, I know that there are different ideals identified as to where things could go, were there any areas that y'all thought are in general would be an area where that could, you know, we could see that kind of development? Well, we did think, of course, that sub area two, if there was an area that was going to be revitalized would be a perfect place for small grocery stores. People do talk about the failure of many of the small grocery stores that have popped up in Denton, but another member of our steering committee has seen very successful bodegas go in, in many of the surrounding communities. So something small, something that is, again, this intensity meets the neighborhood, and I think sub area two would be a great place. We apparently know nothing about what's going in right now. What will go in south of UNT, where, you know, Poncho's was, that whole Carriage Square area. Right. Carriage Square. Okay. Yeah. All right. That's a little bit. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. This is a public hearing. I've got some cards to speak. Kevin Marshall, is that your name and address, and your time will begin? Yeah. So I just came here ... I need your name and address for the record. Your name and address for the record. Kevin Marshall. Thank you. 700 West Hickory Street. I own a property, 700 West Hickory Street, and also a business there. So I mainly just came today to point out ... I mean, everything that I've heard so far has been really nice, because I think everything from the trees to the zoning areas are different things that apply to me with two of the locations that I have. But the main thing is, whenever y'all are looking at developing out Hickory and that area in there, the main thing that I wanted to kind of push forward is, I definitely think when we develop that area that we need a designated bike lane and not shared lanes. That's one thing I sit there and do all day long is watch cyclists and pedestrians walk down the road. And there are constantly ... I mean, there's more pedestrians walking from campus to the square than there are cyclists, and the sidewalks are definitely packed out. I ride on that road probably every day. And it's definitely not a safe area if you've ever been there on a bike. People leave campus in quite a hurry in their cars. So I know my friend actually sits out, he also owns property on Hickory, and he sits out there with a ... he's got a laser speed gun and tracks how fast people are going in his front yard. So there are people constantly flying down that road, so we definitely need a safe way to get back and forth from campus to the square. But that was the main thing that I was just gonna point out. I think I love the idea of developing the area, actually doing some multi-zoning where it can be residential, but leaving ... I mean, I'm one of the rare spots where I'm in a historic district, but I am a residential historic district, but I am a business right there. So I know it's been really good for me, and there are some other businesses there. I really like everything that I heard in y'all's plan, it all sounded really good, seemed like it was moving in the right direction for that area. But definitely when we are looking at doing that, we need to give cyclists a safe way to get from campus, because you are gonna have ... you're gonna end up having people get killed. That's really what it comes down to. Over the years, I've lost a couple of customers just from automobile accidents, getting hit, being cyclists, getting hit by cars, and so that is something that you will see, and you'll look back on the development of that area and the decision to share that road. So I think it's pretty serious, and we need to take it with that weight. But yeah. Thank y'all. Y'all are doing a great job. Thank you. I shall mark you in support. You didn't mark your card, so in support of what you heard today? Yeah. Support and support of having designated cycling lanes. Very good. Thank you for coming out. Commissioner Cole. I just had a quick question for you. I mean, you're in the battle zone, so if you could guesstimate, I mean, the last two days I've seen two people almost get killed on a bicycle. In a week, how many close calls do you see? Yeah. I was actually, I mean, leaving the Frey Street area where somebody was going so fast they lost control on their car and hit a telephone pole and died. So me and my friend walked up on that. So yeah. It's definitely something that's a problem, like there needs to be, I mean, even the sidewalk right there, I would love to see the sidewalk developed out where even being able to walk, because I have daughters and we get on their bikes and we'll go on the sidewalk and go all the way down to Beth Marie's and J&J's Pizza on the Square. And so just having sidewalks that they could even go where there's a ramp so that when they're going off, I don't have to stop and like pick my daughter's bike up with her on it, but yeah, definitely even in the winter, like I've sat there and just counted and about every three minutes there's a cyclist riding down the bike lane right there. So there are cyclists all year round, but it's definitely, yeah, a high traffic area for, especially when campus lets out, there's a lot of traffic. Thanks. I appreciate it. Next card is Daisy Horta. If you'll state your name and address, please. Hi, my name is Daisy Horta, I live at the 3252 Bent Creek Drive. Hi. Is my time starting? All right. Okay. Hi there. I also came to talk about the bike lane there. I do agree with Kevin, everything that sounds really great as far as a zone, but I mean, as a person who does ride their bicycle, I did have concerns about the particular lane. I think that a shared space is a great idea, but it may be difficult to enforce because it's very high traffic. You do have the pedestrians, so sharing the thick sidewalk on the right-hand side is maybe not the best idea for that reason. A slower speeding limit is also going to be difficult to enforce. As someone earlier pointed out, when you have parking taken away, cars will find their ways around to neighboring neighborhoods where maybe the traffic is less and there are less pedestrians in that area, or at least they're not as congested. Having that specific lane there may be a way to get cars to park somewhere else. There's also that added thing that somebody else already pointed out is when cars open, it's going to be something that people don't really look at. Are there people behind you running bicycles? The lane is also going downhill on Hickory, so there's that added speed, again, with that enforcement of how do we enforce the speed limit, and so I just wanted to point out that concern. Thank you. >> Thank you. And Daisy? >> Do you have questions? >> Well, I have a question. >> Yes. >> Would you be in support or opposition of the- >> I'd be in support. >> Very good. >> Yes. >> Thank you so much. Thanks for speaking. I have Suzanne Rumore, who is speaking in opposition. >> Okay, hi, my name is Suzanne Rumore, and you pronounced it beautifully, it's my new last name. I live at 1700 Crescent Street, and I have been at all of the open houses and public meetings and everything regarding the Oak Gateway area plan, and also things involving the bike lane on West Hickory Street before that. I also want to applaud the steering committee, they've put in a lot of hard work, I really love the plan overall. My big concern is having gone to all of those open houses and public meetings, this is the first time that I've seen that option for the bike infrastructure. So we have not had the opportunity to vet that option, we have not had the opportunity to have any public input on that option. We had lots of options presented to us, but this is the first time we've seen that one, is today. So I have a pretty strong concern of moving forward a recommendation that was basically not presented publicly until today. Ideally what I would like to see is I would like to see the bike, West Hickory Street bike lane actually separated from the Oak Gateway area plan, because I feel like the area plan needs to move forward, I think it looks really good otherwise, but I don't want the bike lane holding it back, but I feel like this bike lane option needs to be separated and considered further, further vetted. One thing I would like to add is there's sort of been some chatter on Facebook, so on the Federal Highway Administration page, though I always say the word wrong, Wooernerf option that was presented, is generally designed for residential streets that have low volume of traffic, which probably doesn't define West Hickory Street, and it's also generally not appropriate where there's a need to provide for non-resident motorists to access services or through streets. So my understanding of West Hickory Street is it's supposed to carry quite a bit of traffic, so even this option may not be the best, but I'm definitely open to talking about it, discussing it, but we haven't had the opportunity to do that yet, and I see there's a lot of residents in Denton who have lived in places where that design exists, so some people who have lived in the Netherlands, we've got people in Denton who have lived there, and they can talk about their experience and do they think that would apply to this area, but we just haven't had the chance to discuss it yet. So I do approve of the overall Gateway Area Plan, but I don't approve of the recommendation for the West Hickory Street bike lane, so I wasn't sure what to write on the comment card. Thank you. We do have a question for you. Commissioner Beck. Thanks, Vice Chair. I think you actually answered it there at the end, so it's just strictly the bike lane itself, pedestrian walkways, you're not concerned about that, you're okay with what's being proposed in the Gateway Plan for that, right, but you want to distinguish the bike path of this vision plan they have from the overall plan, make it a separate deal, is that right? Yeah, I would like the bike lane topic to be separated from this overall plan so it can be discussed independently of the plan. Certainly we should consider the plan in the design options, but 2012 City Council actually approved a bike lane through this stretch, so the recommendation actually goes against a City Council approved bike plan. So that's another consideration and something that needs to be discussed further. Okay. I think too, if I can ask legal again, we're not actually approving a bike plan here, we're just approving this general plan and there will be room I believe down the road to delineate what will and won't be approved as far as bike lanes. Actually there's really no rule for PUB to approve anything, as I understand this. It's posted for a public hearing and P&Z can make a recommendation to City Council as it sees fit, but there's no requirement under the law for P&Z to make a recommendation at all and no consequence of a recommendation either way. Okay. I guess my concern here, because I understand her concern, Suzanne's concern, but I don't want to hold this up with the notion that her consideration isn't going to be considered. It will be, but on down the road. We're not going to negate... Right. Okay. Is that clear as mud? Yeah. As long as the bike lane can be separated further down the road, I would be good with it. Just my understanding is this, I guess you all are forwarding on the recommendation to City Council, but they're talking about it next Tuesday I think, so I'm kind of concerned that it's going to all end up in their lap and have not been separated or further discussed. Well, again, Jerry, but we're not going to make a recommendation about the bike plan itself. If you could recommend to separate it, I don't know if you all can do that, but... It's very confusing the way that is written here, and I think that the plan that's been brought forward does not appear to be and has been explained that it's not a comprehensive plan or comprehensive plan amendment that would ordinarily be within P&Z's charge to make a recommendation to City Council on. It appears to be something beyond that or something more than that and something other than that, so the P&Z is simply allowing the public hearing to take place and it will decide as it sees fit whether to make a recommendation to council or not. Thank you, Susan. Commissioner Prenda? And this is kind of along those lines because I know we started the public conversation with the idea that what we were voting on today was not a recommendation on bike lanes and stuff, but I know a lot of people have a concern about bike lanes. I just wanted to toss out to staff, so knowing that today what we're voting on is not about bike lanes and that bike lanes are actually not part of what we would vote on because it's not a planning and zoning thing, there are a number of concerns about what seems to be written out. What would be the normal process right now? Because I know we're not putting in a final plan to council. For the people who do have concerns about this, what would be their recourse for making sure that their concerns are registered with you before this goes to council? Sure. Appreciate the comment. The way I see it is this actual recommendation is just that, is a recommendation. Ultimately, the design of this area has got to go through a process, right? And if the commission wants to move forward a recommendation, you can put a condition or pull this particular recommendation out and make comments to it that you'll forward to city council, and they will ultimately make a decision on how they want to address it. So it's an opportunity to, like they were saying earlier, maybe recommend the rest, but this particular recommendation that's on the screen that you have in front of you may be something that needs further discussion, and certainly that you can provide that or forward that to city council. I do have one more card here, Garrett Lamour, speaking in opposition. Put your name and address, your time will begin. My name is Garrett Lamour, also at 1700 Crescent, and my card might be mislabeled. Overall, I'm in favor of the plan, there's a lot of great things in there. My main point for speaking tonight is also on the bike lane, and even though this commission is making a recommendation and it's not like legally binding or whatnot, the city council has looked at this bike lane before, and they, I forget what the exact procedure status was, but they kind of tabled it and attached it to the Oak Gateway area plan, just pending the outcome of that. So the recommendation that comes from this, I'd expect it to have a bit of weight in how they view moving forward. So with that, I do have some concerns with how the committees are recommending to not complete the bike lane. As Susie mentioned, the Wooner configuration was not presented at any of the open meetings, the public meetings, open houses, so really just kind of found out about it four hours ago, and so as far as I know, nobody's really seen any designs of what that will actually look like. We had the little mock-up of the crosswalks and some of the other niceties, but none of those really reflected kind of what I found with a Google image search, and so if you go and compare those, they're great spaces when you look those up, but they don't really identify with Hickory and its current configuration, and I couldn't see how that would be implemented without a lot more work and thought on how traffic would be redirected and such. So I think it's a larger project. So anyway, from my point of view, this idea hasn't been openly discussed or vetted, and we have an approved bike plan that calls for a continuous bike lane through that area, and through this plan, several designs from our city engineers were presented for consideration, and up until the meeting today, every indication was that it would recommend a bike lane of some form was the takeaway that I had for most of the meetings and communications. So I would recommend using one of those vetted designs, and basically pursue the feasibility of the Wooner at some other time under some other project. So thank you. Thank you. I don't see any questions. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. I don't have any other cards, but it is a public hearing, so anyone is welcome to speak. Jennifer's on her way down. Hey, Jennifer Lane, 1526 Willowwood Street, Denton, and I have ridden that area more in the past than I do these days, but I've ridden it a lot, and two things come to mind. One, with reference to the bike lane, one is that there's a lane there now. It's kind of almost erased, and the road has been torn up so much that it seems to be almost as if it weren't there, but it is in the memory of Denton that there's a bike lane already on Hickory, and so to refresh it and keep it seems to be part of the historical aspect of the district. It's one of the few that's been here a long time. The new ones that are coming in are really welcome and really nice, but that one's been there for a long time. I'm not exactly sure if the city did it, or if people just painted it, or what's going on with that bike lane, but there always was a little figure of a cyclist, and you sort of knew at least at one point to get in it. The other thing is that it seems to me that the plan in general is quite nice, perfect in many ways, and that cyclists will always use common sense, they'll always do what is safest as a cyclist, always that choice. So there has to be room for discretion for cyclists. For example, using the Idaho laws, for example, treating traffic lights as stops, and treating stops as yields allows cyclists, when there's nothing else happening, to sort of get out of the way, and then when the big things need to move fast, they're not competing with small vulnerable things. Treating it as a yield, drivers maybe need to realize that actually stopping the bicycle and getting off of the seat and standing is as if every car when it pulled up to a stop sign had to open the door and get out. That would be sort of equivalency in terms of the vulnerability created. And yet at the same time, it's quite dangerous to ride on sidewalks, which cyclists will often do when they feel unsafe in the street, and the reason that it's dangerous is because then when they get to the intersections, the cars haven't seen them. They're sort of hidden by bushes and shrubs and houses and things, and then all of a sudden a cyclist appears. We've had a number of city accidents from precisely that. So maybe even in the center of town, it's part of this plan, some of the bigger picture of how cyclists should function together with cars, together with pedestrians, might require some looking -- that's it. Safety first. Thanks. >> Thank you, Trevor. Anyone else wanting to speak on this item? >> I can be corrected if I'm mistaken in this regard, but I believe a recommendation is to complete a contiguous bike lane, but if there was the opportunity to make this distinct area even more safe through order of design to go that route. But I believe most everyone in the subcommittee is on board with completing that bike lane. >> Thank you for the clarification. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and entertain discussion or a motion. Commissioner Smith. >> I'm going to motion for approval on the recommendation to City Council for this with no amendments in regards to the bike lanes, not the -- that I feel that bike lanes are important or that I have no care for the Hickory bike lane or anything like that, but rather that the recommendation we're making tonight is just that it is a recommendation to the City Council to give direction for how this area should be treated, and that has been formed by a committee of the residents of the area, and that future projects, the implementation of those projects and how those projects look is not within the scope of what we are discussing tonight or what the recommendation is being made to City Council, and so a continuous bike lane through Hickory, whether the subcommittee talked about it or not, honestly, those are all just ideas and options that can happen in the future, and so the fact that they're not concrete details that are part of a plan that if we approve it tonight and that City Council approves it next Tuesday means that that's exactly how things have to be done. That's not what we're voting on. That's not what we're talking about. So I do want to vote an approval for this recommendation. Commissioner Cole. I'd like to second that. We have a motion on the floor to approve and a second. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. I'm not going to have a hard time agreeing with this. I did have a few concerns I wanted to address to some of the members, if I may, and Patrice maybe if you could come forward and answer this, I think you'd be better served. We were talking about collegiate housing. I think we're talking about SROs, and it is an issue. It's a concern. It's something that we don't want to see over in sub area one. I've always kind of supported the notion that sub area or the cement city area would be a liking place. There'd have to be some zone changes, and that's something down the road, but as a member of the Denton Code Rewrite Subcommittee, as Commissioner Ellis is too, what would you say to this subcommittee about SROs? If you had something to offer the subcommittee, is this something that there's a place for them in Denton, or is this something we should probably stay away from? I would say that, first of all, the SRO business model as we look at it today was subsumed into multifamily when they first came into Denton maybe 15 years ago, because we didn't have ... It wasn't on our radar. We didn't think about that business model, ergo that floor plan, as being something that would be in Denton's landscape. When they were first proposed, when projects came forward, then the default was of course, "Oh, that is multifamily," because we didn't have another way to talk about them. With more of them coming online, more of them being built, and there are problems that are in-house with the SROs. There is ... You can ask the Denton PD, I've read things in the Denton paper, about the crime statistics within the buildings are higher than in, for instance, dormitories or in multifamily, because the students don't necessarily know each other going into rental contracts. There's a whole raft of problems that kind of fly under the radar, because they are problems that are happening with students, and students might not report everything. We just kind of defaulted into multifamily. Of course, what we're learning is one of the problems is that, again, like I said earlier, the development and the floor plan is fixed for that use into the lifespan of that building. A family can't live there. You may have some choice, real estate, that a family may be interested in living in a neighborhood. Sub-area one is sent students to the IB schools in Denton. Newton Razor Elementary, Calhoun Middle, and Denton High are all IB schools. You have to live in that area in order to go to the schools. The transfer list is huge. The number of transfers that, for instance, Newton Razor takes is very small. There may be families interested in living in that area that if we use truly multifamily in sub-area one, we could accommodate more families, because none of us said no, keep all multifamily out of sub-area one. With a collegiate housing designation, that could be something then that when you're approving, in planning and zoning, city council is approving a project, you know exactly what's coming in. You say, "Okay, this is collegiate housing. We have designations, areas where it is appropriate. We discussed where some of those areas would be," and then the transparency is built in to that particular zoning designation that will accommodate that particular use. As it is, you can come forward with a project for a multifamily zoning designation, but neighborhoods might not know what's coming your way until it's in the pipeline, as long as nothing has to have an ADP or an SUP or any type of additional overlay to it. Okay. Well, that's good. I appreciate that. Now, to the point that I believe either Commissioner Puneet or Commissioner Smith made about how this would impact low-income families over there, if we start building this, if we're tearing down older apartment complexes and building that, then we're raising costs. That would be a negative result of putting SROs over there, so how would you respond to that? I don't have a good answer for that. There is a lifespan, however, to all buildings, and we cannot guarantee at this moment that even as some of those genuinely multifamily buildings that are housing families, we cannot guarantee that when the building runs its lifespan, that it will not be changed to collegiate housing and SRO even at this moment. We can't change that. We can't do anything about that now. That's a good point. In that area, really, housing a lot of multifamily units now anyway would be, it would be less threatening, I guess, than if we were to put it over in a single-family residential area. Right. Okay. Then I think I have one question for ... Thank you, Patrice, by the way. Christopher Walker, I believe, you were the one that addressed the parking thing. Benefit district, yes. I guess my question on that was what kind of authority would a private force that you're talking about that monitors the parking with fees or what, how would they compel adherence if it's not the police force, if it's not the police, how's a private force going to compel adherence? The recognition is not exactly a private force, but a public-private joint partnership force. Okay. Elaborate on that a little bit. Public-private entities and agencies are a common thing across the country and in different cities and whatnot in which it is governed by city as an agency, but has continued extenuating governance through boards and commissions to this proposal, a board of similar to our body that the subcommittee is of the relevant stakeholders in this impacted area. Okay. It would actually be then police that would be enforcing the violation? Part of the recommendation of this is evaluating whether that would be more efficient for either police or enforcement staff from that agency to be the enforcement staff. You don't see any problem with people, you're not the police force, sorry, get out of here. One of the things that we did discuss and would need to be worked through is how is that fine then taken, how does that go? Does that go to municipal court? How does the money from that work back out of the court itself? Okay. Does that go into the agency to support the agency's endeavors, but no, it would, the fine and fee itself, the penalty, the punitive act of going against what the parking benefit district would establish would be fines and fees similar to any other fee that would end up in municipal court. And it would be dealt with in the legal community? Yes. Okay. Great. Thank you. That's all I've got. Okay. I've just got a couple of comments. I think the committee has done a great job and put together some really thorough information. I think you missed density in this discussion. I don't think we've marked any areas as being something that could grow more densely and I think it's needed in that area. I would like to have seen that in this plan. Overall, I think it's well done. One issue I'm having is the way we've posted it and I'm still not sure I have clarification that I'm comfortable with from legal. There was a lot of confusion in work session which made us late to this meeting, making me uncomfortable to move this forward at this time. So I guess I will defer once again to you, Mr. Drake, and see if you can enlighten me a little bit. I'll try my best. Just stepping through the way that it's worded, hold a public hearing, we did do that. There's no particular requirement for notice the way there is with a zoning case, with a code amendment or what have you, notifying people within 200 feet, any of that stuff. But nevertheless, we did post the meeting properly. There was a hearing that was afforded to citizens and we did follow the hearing procedures. We're making a recommendation to the city council regarding an ordinance. The way that it's posted, the PMZ could always do less than what's posted, but can never do more. And so I think that what we talked about was making a recommendation, it could be a recommendation in favor of the plan, it could be a recommendation generally opposed to the plan, it could be no recommendation at all. What you're bound to do is to consider making a recommendation and maybe you will, maybe you won't. And as far as regarding an ordinance, to accept the vision's goals and recommendations, I don't think that an ordinance will ultimately be the appropriate vehicle. I'll just go ahead and share that with you now. I think that it will likely be a resolution of the city council, it won't be an ordinance because there won't be a direct authorization to expend budgeted funds, there won't be a direct punitive law that's imposed upon the citizens, it will essentially be a vote. And a vote stated another way is a resolution, it's just the name of it. Accepting the vision's goals, recommendations, and implementation strategy, maybe they will, maybe they won't, proposed in the Oak Gateway area plan, there are a lot of ideas in there, a lot of the ideas that are proposed are not matters that are ordinarily put forward to P&Z and within the charge of the Planning and Zoning Commission. For example, bike lanes on existing public streets, those are traffic issues and those are matters within the council's legislative prerogative, speed limits, traffic calming, some of the other things that we heard about tonight, parking enforcement, the methodology of parking enforcement, who will enforce traffic laws, who will enforce parking laws, how will fines be collected, how will they be used? Those are all matters that are within the city council's legislative prerogative. Perhaps some of these recommendations, some of these visions, some of these goals will bear upon the city council's future actions or decisions, but perhaps not. It has no binding impact upon them, they're not forced to do this, but I think that there are a number of very, very interesting ideas that have been put forward for consideration that I'm sure the council will love to hear and love to consider as appropriate, but it won't be anything that's going to be, it's not going to force their decision one way or another as far as how P&Z makes a recommendation, if at all. Okay, so let me clarify you where the word I'm stuck on is ordinance. So the motion as given right now by Commissioner Smith is, that's what we're recommending, that they create an ordinance to accept this? Yes, and you could choose to recommend that they create a resolution instead. You could recommend not to create a resolution, you could recommend that they merely consider the ideas for whatever they think is appropriate. Commissioner Pernado. To what Legalist just suggested, I guess to Commissioner Smith, would you be amenable to changing the motion to a recommendation regarding a resolution recommending the vision's goals? As long as it's okay for us to change that, it wasn't posted as a resolution, it was posted as an ordinance, but as long as it's saying that's fine, then I'd be amenable to that amendment. I think it would be fine as far, like I said, the P&Z could always do less than what's posted, and after all, the posting is to consider making a recommendation. That includes the possibility that you would consider not making a recommendation. Yes, I'd be amenable to make an amendment to calling it a resolution rather than an ordinance. So is that a friendly amendment to the motion? That's up to the mover to accept a friendly amendment or not. I accept a friendly amendment. Commissioner Cole. I second that. I have a question for Ron. Given the way that this was posted, what are you wanting to see from City Council? From City Council or from the Commission? From the Council, we would like to see a resolution accepting the recommendations for this area plan. That's for us to move to Council. What do you want to see from Council, a resolution or an ordinance? A resolution. Okay. Yes. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Cole. I just wanted to thank you guys for all your hard work. This is volunteerism. You're giving your time to the city, and I sure do appreciate it. It's been great getting to know you guys better. Patrice, you're a heck of a leader, and you steered us true and away from the rocks. We kind of got off kilter a couple of times, but thank you. You fostered an environment of open discussion, and everybody felt free to talk and give their ideas. Thank all you guys for participating. Any further discussion? Okay. We will call for a vote on the board. Motion will carry 6-0. That will move us to our matrix. Does anybody have anything for our matrix? Richard, do you have anything? Just wanted to note that the last item provided for the neighborhood meetings and projects, we went ahead and just moved that up tonight once the other items started falling off. So that one will just take off the list. Okay. And then concluding items. Okay. I've just got one to the fellow commissioners. If you have any input with regard to the tree and landscape discussion today, if you could provide that to Richard, you can send comments to him via email or to Haley so we can keep that moving along. I know we postponed it to a date uncertain today, but hopefully that will come back and we can get that rolling. So you've got the draft in several of these agendas. So I would recommend going through it and then making your comments to him if you have any so we can keep it rolling. Okay. With that, I'll just say since Ron is coming up to the podium. I just want to advise or update the commission on the special called meeting. I think there was some question on the special called meeting regarding the DDC update. It was supposed to be scheduled, obviously, next week, but that is not the case. It's actually going to be more in February, February the 13th is what we're looking at. I know it's sometimes away, but I just want to make sure that the commission knew that the special called meeting is not scheduled for next week and that it will be in February of next year. Wonderful. Okay. And since it's our last meeting of the year, happy holidays to you all. And thank you all for your hard work and hope everyone enjoys time with family and friends and thanks for the time given to help the city move forward in a better direction. So thanks to those watching and online. Happy holidays. We'll see you next year. I will close our meeting at 9, 10 p.m.