WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.520
 Hello and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for

00:00:09.520 --> 00:00:13.240
 Wednesday, February 6, 2019.

00:00:13.240 --> 00:00:21.380
 This is our work session, and with the quorum present, I will call us to order at 5.03 p.m.

00:00:21.380 --> 00:00:27.620
 Working down our agenda, we're going to go to our work session reports, and A is introduce

00:00:27.620 --> 00:00:32.080
 new staff.

00:00:32.080 --> 00:00:33.080
 Good afternoon.

00:00:33.080 --> 00:00:34.080
 I guess good afternoon.

00:00:34.080 --> 00:00:35.080
 Good evening.

00:00:35.080 --> 00:00:39.440
 I just wanted to introduce, I know we've had some new faces, and just wanted to properly

00:00:39.440 --> 00:00:42.840
 introduce I guess some of our new staff members.

00:00:42.840 --> 00:00:49.000
 We have a new planner that started with us last week, Corina Maldonado.

00:00:49.000 --> 00:00:59.840
 Corina is a planner, came from the North Texas cog.

00:00:59.840 --> 00:01:10.280
 So you'll probably be seeing her sooner than later, so she's already been assigned a number

00:01:10.280 --> 00:01:15.680
 of projects, and so we kind of threw her in the deep end of the pool, but she's keeping

00:01:15.680 --> 00:01:20.860
 her head above water, so.

00:01:20.860 --> 00:01:24.360
 This was just a position that we had on field.

00:01:24.360 --> 00:01:35.720
 And then we also have Mark Laird.

00:01:35.720 --> 00:01:37.520
 Mark is now a senior planner with us.

00:01:37.520 --> 00:01:43.400
 Mark was previously in real estate, so now he's moved over to development services, and

00:01:43.400 --> 00:01:48.040
 so he's helping really more on the real estate end as well as with a lot of the platting,

00:01:48.040 --> 00:01:54.880
 and so you'll probably eventually start seeing Mark present some items as it relates to platting.

00:01:54.880 --> 00:02:01.840
 Charlie, you probably met Charlie, but I figure I'll give a proper introduction.

00:02:01.840 --> 00:02:07.080
 Charlie Rosendahl, Charlie is our business, I always get, business services manager, and

00:02:07.080 --> 00:02:11.920
 he came over from I guess the city manager's office, and so he's now in development services,

00:02:11.920 --> 00:02:16.000
 so he's handling a lot of our business services and management stuff.

00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:19.120
 I'm going to introduce Christy Wells.

00:02:19.120 --> 00:02:22.280
 She's not a development services employee.

00:02:22.280 --> 00:02:26.720
 She is our environmental services coordinator, and so I think she might have been introduced

00:02:26.720 --> 00:02:32.000
 maybe six months, eight months, but she'll be presenting tonight, and I think that's

00:02:32.000 --> 00:02:34.600
 it with the exception of Ron.

00:02:34.600 --> 00:02:45.640
 Make sure everyone knows Ron, just give Ron a hard time.

00:02:45.640 --> 00:02:46.640
 And that's it.

00:02:46.640 --> 00:02:47.640
 Okay.

00:02:47.640 --> 00:02:50.880
 Well, welcome new staff.

00:02:50.880 --> 00:02:58.360
 Next item is hold a discussion on annexation process regarding city services.

00:02:58.360 --> 00:03:05.840
 That would be Cindy Jackson.

00:03:05.840 --> 00:03:20.700
 I handed out a lot of three handouts that are pertinent to this presentation.

00:03:20.700 --> 00:03:27.040
 We thought since Julie's been doing the boot camp with you that we would go ahead and give

00:03:27.040 --> 00:03:34.320
 you a little short course on annexation as well.

00:03:34.320 --> 00:03:38.440
 Now when you're thinking of annexation, what comes to mind first, there's three questions

00:03:38.440 --> 00:03:40.260
 with regard to annexation.

00:03:40.260 --> 00:03:42.760
 One is why does the city want to annex?

00:03:42.760 --> 00:03:48.820
 Two is by what authority does the city have to annex?

00:03:48.820 --> 00:03:55.280
 And three is what procedures must the city follow to annex?

00:03:55.280 --> 00:03:56.280
 Why annex?

00:03:56.280 --> 00:04:03.520
 As you know, we have no authority in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, or ETJ, over land use and design

00:04:03.520 --> 00:04:04.520
 standards.

00:04:04.520 --> 00:04:09.880
 All we have really is platting authority out there, and of course if there's our water

00:04:09.880 --> 00:04:13.840
 and sewer out there, we have authority over the design.

00:04:13.840 --> 00:04:16.480
 So the why annex?

00:04:16.480 --> 00:04:22.760
 Want to gain more control over the land use and development in the areas that are in the

00:04:22.760 --> 00:04:23.760
 ETJ.

00:04:23.760 --> 00:04:28.800
 To ensure that residents and businesses outside the city's corporate limits who benefit from

00:04:28.800 --> 00:04:35.300
 access of city facilities or services share the tax burden associated with constructing

00:04:35.300 --> 00:04:37.080
 and maintaining those facilities.

00:04:37.080 --> 00:04:41.700
 Because when you're in the ETJ but you're on city water and sewer, you don't pay the

00:04:41.700 --> 00:04:51.240
 taxes to support the maintenance and upkeep of that city water and sewer.

00:04:51.240 --> 00:04:56.100
 Now with regards to authority to annex, Denton is a home rule city.

00:04:56.100 --> 00:05:00.720
 That means we have a population over 5,000, and we are allowed to do what is authorized

00:05:00.720 --> 00:05:10.000
 by our city charter, and we are not specifically prohibited or preempted by the Texas Constitution

00:05:10.000 --> 00:05:14.680
 or state or federal law.

00:05:14.680 --> 00:05:15.680
 Annexation procedures.

00:05:15.680 --> 00:05:18.000
 Now here's where it gets interesting.

00:05:18.000 --> 00:05:25.240
 Last year, SB 6, Senate Bill 6, was approved by the state legislature in August, and well

00:05:25.240 --> 00:05:31.240
 actually it was in 2017, and it went into effect December 1, 2017.

00:05:31.240 --> 00:05:39.540
 The legislation provides revised procedures for voluntary and involuntary annexations

00:05:39.540 --> 00:05:41.520
 depending on what tier you're in.

00:05:41.520 --> 00:05:46.120
 The bill divides cities and counties into tiers.

00:05:46.120 --> 00:05:51.560
 Now tier one counties are those counties with a population of less than 500,000, and tier

00:05:51.560 --> 00:05:56.960
 two counties are those counties with a population over 5,000.

00:05:56.960 --> 00:06:00.840
 Now Denton County is a tier two city.

00:06:00.840 --> 00:06:08.280
 A tier two municipality is a city that is wholly or partly located in a tier two county.

00:06:08.280 --> 00:06:13.520
 Since Denton is a tier two county, the city of Denton is a tier two city by virtue of

00:06:13.520 --> 00:06:17.920
 being located in Denton County.

00:06:17.920 --> 00:06:21.940
 There's also additional regulations that must be considered.

00:06:21.940 --> 00:06:26.520
 A city may only annex an area that is contiguous to the current city limits.

00:06:26.520 --> 00:06:31.800
 So for example, if we have a development that's two and a half miles away from city limits,

00:06:31.800 --> 00:06:38.240
 and they want to annex into the city to make use of our water and sewer, we can't do it

00:06:38.240 --> 00:06:42.080
 unless they can convince all the property owners between them and the city limits that

00:06:42.080 --> 00:06:49.440
 they want to annex into so that we can connect, and that really, that doesn't happen too often.

00:06:49.440 --> 00:06:56.560
 A city can only annex property that is located in the city ETJ, and a city cannot annex an

00:06:56.560 --> 00:07:02.640
 area that has an agricultural, wildlife management, or timber management exemption unless we first

00:07:02.640 --> 00:07:08.160
 offer a pre-annexation development agreement to the landowner.

00:07:08.160 --> 00:07:09.160
 Commissioner Beck?

00:07:09.160 --> 00:07:10.160
 Quick question.

00:07:10.160 --> 00:07:11.160
 Thank you, Vice Chair.

00:07:11.160 --> 00:07:14.880
 The ETJ, is that, if it's not city, is it county?

00:07:14.880 --> 00:07:15.880
 Mm-hmm.

00:07:15.880 --> 00:07:16.880
 Okay.

00:07:16.880 --> 00:07:17.880
 That's right.

00:07:17.880 --> 00:07:22.720
 So we're taking from the county, we have the authority to do that, I guess you're saying.

00:07:22.720 --> 00:07:23.720
 Okay.

00:07:23.720 --> 00:07:24.720
 Okay.

00:07:24.720 --> 00:07:25.720
 All right.

00:07:25.720 --> 00:07:26.720
 It's still in the county.

00:07:26.720 --> 00:07:27.720
 We're not taking it away from the county.

00:07:27.720 --> 00:07:28.720
 But it becomes part of the...

00:07:28.720 --> 00:07:29.720
 What we're doing is annexing it into the city.

00:07:29.720 --> 00:07:30.720
 Right.

00:07:30.720 --> 00:07:32.880
 The county does not have zoning authority.

00:07:32.880 --> 00:07:37.360
 So the county would issue permits, but the city plaits.

00:07:37.360 --> 00:07:43.220
 So the county, if somebody wants to build something in the ETJ, and it's on our ETJ,

00:07:43.220 --> 00:07:47.400
 we would first require, the county would send them over to the city and tell them, "You

00:07:47.400 --> 00:07:52.280
 have to plait through the city first, have it recorded, then come back to us, and then

00:07:52.280 --> 00:07:53.280
 you can get your building permit."

00:07:53.280 --> 00:07:54.280
 Okay.

00:07:54.280 --> 00:07:56.280
 We're going to have legal say a few words here, too.

00:07:56.280 --> 00:07:57.280
 Yeah.

00:07:57.280 --> 00:08:00.160
 I was just going to point out, and I don't mean to steal any of Cindy's thunder here

00:08:00.160 --> 00:08:07.520
 or anything like that, but I like to think about the ETJ as under the children's game

00:08:07.520 --> 00:08:08.520
 dibs.

00:08:08.520 --> 00:08:12.000
 If it's in our ETJ, we've got dibs on it for annexation.

00:08:12.000 --> 00:08:14.600
 No other city can grab it.

00:08:14.600 --> 00:08:20.560
 And so by statute, because of the size of the city of Denton, we've got an ETJ of five

00:08:20.560 --> 00:08:27.600
 miles, but we can't get any of the ETJ that some other city has already claimed within

00:08:27.600 --> 00:08:29.200
 that five miles.

00:08:29.200 --> 00:08:34.200
 And so that's why you sometimes see kind of a strange looking ETJ with some cities having

00:08:34.200 --> 00:08:35.760
 their own little bubbles.

00:08:35.760 --> 00:08:40.280
 There's lots of little cities that we've kind of, our ETJ has gone out around it and

00:08:40.280 --> 00:08:41.560
 what have you.

00:08:41.560 --> 00:08:48.520
 So once it's in our ETJ, it's ours to decide whether to annex or not, and not in other

00:08:48.520 --> 00:08:49.520
 cities.

00:08:49.520 --> 00:08:56.360
 And if I'm correct, if there's some sort of conflict over which city has the ETJ, what

00:08:56.360 --> 00:09:04.000
 we do is we look and see when the extension was approved and whoever was first gets the

00:09:04.000 --> 00:09:05.000
 ETJ.

00:09:05.000 --> 00:09:15.160
 Procedures for a tier two municipality are divided into three categories, petitioned

00:09:15.160 --> 00:09:20.440
 by landowner, which is a voluntary annexation, annexation of areas with a population of less

00:09:20.440 --> 00:09:26.000
 than 200, and annexation of areas with a population of more than 200.

00:09:26.000 --> 00:09:33.240
 I'm going to go into specifics about the voluntary annexations, that's what we see most.

00:09:33.240 --> 00:09:38.480
 We haven't yet seen a voluntary annexation under this new law.

00:09:38.480 --> 00:09:43.280
 I don't expect to, to be honest with you and you'll understand why when I go through it.

00:09:43.280 --> 00:09:49.160
 Voluntary annexations, the process for voluntary annexation is we receive a petition for annexation

00:09:49.160 --> 00:09:55.340
 and we negotiate and execute the written service agreement.

00:09:55.340 --> 00:10:01.400
 We schedule two public hearings with the city council to be held at least 10 days apart.

00:10:01.400 --> 00:10:07.720
 We provide written notice to school districts, public entities, railroads, et cetera, before

00:10:07.720 --> 00:10:12.120
 the publication requirement that is below for publishing notice in the newspaper for

00:10:12.120 --> 00:10:13.620
 each public hearing.

00:10:13.620 --> 00:10:18.360
 We have to publish it at least once and the notice posted on the city's website, leaving

00:10:18.360 --> 00:10:23.120
 it up until the date of the hearing, and then we conduct a second public hearing.

00:10:23.120 --> 00:10:30.560
 Now the Texas local government code has a lot of specific requirements for the timing

00:10:30.560 --> 00:10:36.640
 of all of this, and typically it takes sitting down with a counter, a calendar and counting

00:10:36.640 --> 00:10:43.080
 out days to figure out which public hearings it's going to go to, when to send out the

00:10:43.080 --> 00:10:46.520
 notices and all.

00:10:46.520 --> 00:10:56.640
 After the state requirements -- Thank you, Chair.

00:10:56.640 --> 00:11:04.560
 On the school districts, just written notification doesn't have to be any actual negotiation

00:11:04.560 --> 00:11:09.560
 with the school districts to say that, hey, this part of the ETJ is annexed in.

00:11:09.560 --> 00:11:12.480
 Do you guys have the capacity to take this in?

00:11:12.480 --> 00:11:13.480
 There's nothing like that.

00:11:13.480 --> 00:11:14.480
 We do deal with the school districts.

00:11:14.480 --> 00:11:15.480
 I'm getting to that.

00:11:15.480 --> 00:11:16.480
 I'll shut up.

00:11:16.480 --> 00:11:19.640
 We've had all the notification requirements have been met.

00:11:19.640 --> 00:11:21.320
 The two public hearings have been held.

00:11:21.320 --> 00:11:28.440
 The city charter, section 103 also has requirements, and we have two additional meetings that are

00:11:28.440 --> 00:11:30.920
 required after the public hearings.

00:11:30.920 --> 00:11:34.560
 After the second public hearing, we have what's called the first reading of the ordinance

00:11:34.560 --> 00:11:40.280
 before council, in which we just go before council, read the caption of the ordinance.

00:11:40.280 --> 00:11:46.120
 Then we have to publish the entire annexation ordinance in the newspaper, and then 30 days

00:11:46.120 --> 00:11:50.320
 after that was published in the newspaper, we have the second reading and adoption of

00:11:50.320 --> 00:11:53.120
 the annexation ordinance by the council.

00:11:53.120 --> 00:11:57.280
 Now, the service plan process.

00:11:57.280 --> 00:12:01.840
 Each annexation provides a service plan, which details the schedule for when certain services

00:12:01.840 --> 00:12:10.040
 will be provided, and when they'll be provided immediately upon annexation, and if they're

00:12:10.040 --> 00:12:15.720
 not available immediately upon annexation, we detail when they will be provided.

00:12:15.720 --> 00:12:26.480
 If there are services that are not listed in the service plan, then after it's approved,

00:12:26.480 --> 00:12:28.320
 we are not required to provide them.

00:12:28.320 --> 00:12:34.520
 We're pretty comprehensive in our services, though, as you'll see.

00:12:34.520 --> 00:12:38.480
 Prior to the writing of a service plan, this is an actual form that was sent out for Lake

00:12:38.480 --> 00:12:39.480
 View Estates.

00:12:39.480 --> 00:12:40.920
 This is the front page.

00:12:40.920 --> 00:12:47.240
 We sent out a questionnaire to the service providers asking for input regarding the provision

00:12:47.240 --> 00:12:49.080
 of service to each site.

00:12:49.080 --> 00:12:55.720
 It's typically based on location and proposed use, and we also give the size of the area.

00:12:55.720 --> 00:13:01.480
 The following service providers received this form, Water and Wastewater, Engineering and

00:13:01.480 --> 00:13:12.680
 Construction, Police and Fire EMS, Parks and Recreation, Denton ISD, and Electric DME.

00:13:12.680 --> 00:13:16.280
 What they do is they return ... I typically give them a deadline.

00:13:16.280 --> 00:13:18.880
 I need to have these within an excellent amount of days.

00:13:18.880 --> 00:13:21.400
 Typically, I try to give them two weeks.

00:13:21.400 --> 00:13:27.320
 They then send them back to me, and the information that is sent back to me is compiled into the

00:13:27.320 --> 00:13:29.800
 service plan document.

00:13:29.800 --> 00:13:34.080
 The service plan document is then sent to the applicant, and it becomes part of the

00:13:34.080 --> 00:13:36.080
 annexation ordinance.

00:13:36.080 --> 00:13:42.000
 Now, the annexation schedule, this is an actual annexation schedule for Creekside.

00:13:42.000 --> 00:13:47.600
 The Texas Local Government Code specifies an annexation schedule for each type of annexation.

00:13:47.600 --> 00:13:53.160
 Now, voluntary annexations are governed by subchapter C3 of the Local Government Code.

00:13:53.160 --> 00:13:58.320
 The schedule includes annexation ... This schedule that I'm showing you includes annexation

00:13:58.320 --> 00:14:01.960
 procedures required by the city as well.

00:14:01.960 --> 00:14:09.920
 Typically, what I do is I list all of the city council meetings that are within the

00:14:09.920 --> 00:14:12.880
 next four months.

00:14:12.880 --> 00:14:19.560
 From that, I figure out when the notices have to go out, which has to be the 30th day before

00:14:19.560 --> 00:14:25.960
 the first hearing, the deadline to post the council agenda.

00:14:25.960 --> 00:14:30.800
 When the city council adopts the ordinance setting the dates, we have to have a separate

00:14:30.800 --> 00:14:33.580
 meeting ... Oh, well, thank you.

00:14:33.580 --> 00:14:40.760
 We have to have a separate meeting to set the dates for the annexations.

00:14:40.760 --> 00:14:45.240
 Once we have an actual ordinance that states we are going to have the first public hearing

00:14:45.240 --> 00:14:50.280
 on this date and the second public hearing on this date ... I'm not going to read the

00:14:50.280 --> 00:14:51.280
 whole thing.

00:14:51.280 --> 00:14:52.280
 You can see it.

00:14:52.280 --> 00:14:56.520
 That's typically how we work the annexation schedule.

00:14:56.520 --> 00:15:04.040
 Here, I provided for you a table which shows a comparison between the different types of

00:15:04.040 --> 00:15:05.040
 annexations.

00:15:05.040 --> 00:15:09.740
 Now, we've got voluntary, which I just went through, and then we've got involuntary annexation

00:15:09.740 --> 00:15:12.480
 of areas of less than 200 people.

00:15:12.480 --> 00:15:17.600
 Again, the service plan and schedule will be approved with the resolution to pursue

00:15:17.600 --> 00:15:20.600
 the annexation.

00:15:20.600 --> 00:15:27.120
 A petition of registered voters in the subject property has to go out into the annexation

00:15:27.120 --> 00:15:34.840
 area, has to be signed by 50 percent of the voters within that required area.

00:15:34.840 --> 00:15:50.080
 If there are not that many registered voters in the area, 50 percent of the landowners

00:15:50.080 --> 00:15:54.440
 shall be given the petition and they have to approve the annexation.

00:15:54.440 --> 00:16:04.480
 If, after we send out this petition, we receive a petition protesting the annexation, it is

00:16:04.480 --> 00:16:09.600
 received and validated by the city secretary, an election will have to be held, and the

00:16:09.600 --> 00:16:19.760
 election will only be held in that area of the annexation.

00:16:19.760 --> 00:16:24.160
 The voters that live in that area will then have the opportunity to vote on whether or

00:16:24.160 --> 00:16:27.280
 not they want to annex into the city.

00:16:27.280 --> 00:16:34.800
 The same is for annexation of areas of at least 200 people, however, the petition is

00:16:34.800 --> 00:16:39.720
 only required if the registered voters of the subject area do not own more than 50 percent

00:16:39.720 --> 00:16:41.360
 of the land.

00:16:41.360 --> 00:16:49.120
 Consent to annex must be then obtained by petition.

00:16:49.120 --> 00:16:57.440
 It is a pretty involved process and an election is required, regardless, for an involuntary

00:16:57.440 --> 00:17:01.000
 annexation of more than 200 people.

00:17:01.000 --> 00:17:07.640
 And the notices, you can see there, are the same as for the voluntary annexation as far

00:17:07.640 --> 00:17:14.960
 as the timing, written notices to school districts, service providers, railroads, notices public

00:17:14.960 --> 00:17:15.960
 in the newspaper.

00:17:15.960 --> 00:17:20.320
 >>Cindy, I think Commissioner Smith has a question.

00:17:20.320 --> 00:17:21.760
 >>Thank you, Chair.

00:17:21.760 --> 00:17:27.240
 On the involuntary of less than 200 people, the petition of protest, does it -- there's

00:17:27.240 --> 00:17:29.960
 not a percentage or a population amount?

00:17:29.960 --> 00:17:34.360
 Is it just one person signing a petition counts as a petition of protest?

00:17:34.360 --> 00:17:37.280
 >>Could you answer that for me, Jerry, because I'm not certain to be off the top of my head.

00:17:37.280 --> 00:17:40.120
 I would have to -- I think I'll have to look that up and I'll get back to you on that.

00:17:40.120 --> 00:17:41.120
 >>Right.

00:17:41.120 --> 00:17:42.120
 >>Yeah, I'm sorry.

00:17:42.120 --> 00:17:43.120
 I didn't look into that before the meeting.

00:17:43.120 --> 00:17:46.760
 >>I've got the Texas local government code with me, so I can look that up real quick

00:17:46.760 --> 00:17:47.760
 for you.

00:17:47.760 --> 00:17:48.760
 >>Thanks.

00:17:48.760 --> 00:17:50.080
 >>Now, as you can see --

00:17:50.080 --> 00:17:51.080
 >>Commissioner Beck.

00:17:51.080 --> 00:17:53.080
 >>Thank you, Vice Chair.

00:17:53.080 --> 00:17:54.080
 Okay.

00:17:54.080 --> 00:17:59.400
 At the beginning, you said that we would annex into the residents and businesses outside the

00:17:59.400 --> 00:18:03.600
 city's corporate limits who benefit from access to the city facility of service.

00:18:03.600 --> 00:18:08.080
 So obviously, they're able to utilize some of our services now.

00:18:08.080 --> 00:18:10.240
 So if they vote not to be annexed --

00:18:10.240 --> 00:18:11.240
 >>Then they --

00:18:11.240 --> 00:18:13.240
 >>Then we'll get our services in?

00:18:13.240 --> 00:18:14.240
 >>Yep.

00:18:14.240 --> 00:18:15.240
 >>We can cut them off?

00:18:15.240 --> 00:18:16.640
 >>If the services are already there, that's --

00:18:16.640 --> 00:18:19.880
 >>But they will continue to use them or we cut them off?

00:18:19.880 --> 00:18:22.680
 >>Well, we haven't come up with that situation.

00:18:22.680 --> 00:18:23.680
 >>Oh, okay.

00:18:23.680 --> 00:18:24.680
 >>I don't imagine that we --

00:18:24.680 --> 00:18:25.680
 >>We cut them off.

00:18:25.680 --> 00:18:29.720
 >>If they're lawfully receiving services, there'd be no reason to cut them off.

00:18:29.720 --> 00:18:30.720
 >>Okay.

00:18:30.720 --> 00:18:31.720
 Okay.

00:18:31.720 --> 00:18:32.720
 Thank you.

00:18:32.720 --> 00:18:33.720
 >>Really, the SB6 --

00:18:33.720 --> 00:18:34.720
 >>Commissioner Coles.

00:18:34.720 --> 00:18:35.720
 >>I have a question for you.

00:18:35.720 --> 00:18:37.160
 >>Put restrictions on involuntary annexation?

00:18:37.160 --> 00:18:38.160
 I'm sorry?

00:18:38.160 --> 00:18:39.160
 >>I have a question.

00:18:39.160 --> 00:18:40.160
 >>Mm-hmm.

00:18:40.160 --> 00:18:47.080
 >>Okay, let's say some of the areas that were annexed the last decade or so, they're on

00:18:47.080 --> 00:18:49.680
 septic and a water well.

00:18:49.680 --> 00:18:50.680
 >>Mm-hmm.

00:18:50.680 --> 00:18:55.000
 >>Do we give them the opportunity to tap into the city services?

00:18:55.000 --> 00:18:56.680
 Who pays for that?

00:18:56.680 --> 00:18:57.680
 You know, I mean --

00:18:57.680 --> 00:19:02.760
 >>If they're in the city, once the city extends services out there, yes, they are given the

00:19:02.760 --> 00:19:04.960
 opportunity to tap into that.

00:19:04.960 --> 00:19:07.840
 >>And that's not the property owner's cost?

00:19:07.840 --> 00:19:08.840
 Or is it?

00:19:08.840 --> 00:19:09.840
 >>That I don't know.

00:19:09.840 --> 00:19:10.840
 >>Yeah.

00:19:10.840 --> 00:19:11.840
 Do you know that, Jerry?

00:19:11.840 --> 00:19:12.840
 >>Yes.

00:19:12.840 --> 00:19:16.200
 If they're not currently city services and somebody wants to tap in, then they would

00:19:16.200 --> 00:19:21.040
 have to pay for the extension of the lines out to their property.

00:19:21.040 --> 00:19:27.180
 And then there would be also, you know, the fee for tying onto it as well.

00:19:27.180 --> 00:19:33.840
 But if it's already there, then obviously they don't have to pay for the extension.

00:19:33.840 --> 00:19:39.200
 >>I wanted to say that, really, the changes with SB6 are the limitations that it puts

00:19:39.200 --> 00:19:40.560
 on involuntary annexation.

00:19:40.560 --> 00:19:47.360
 We did not have these limitations on involuntary annexation before, and now it -- we can only

00:19:47.360 --> 00:19:56.480
 involuntary annex unless -- when the property owners in the area approve it.

00:19:56.480 --> 00:20:00.000
 Additional regulations with regards to annexation -- I already covered the first one -- has

00:20:00.000 --> 00:20:02.480
 to be contiguous to the city limits.

00:20:02.480 --> 00:20:05.200
 A city can only annex property that is in the city ETJ.

00:20:05.200 --> 00:20:08.160
 I think we already covered that one as well.

00:20:08.160 --> 00:20:12.520
 And the city cannot annex an area that has agricultural, wildlife management, or timber

00:20:12.520 --> 00:20:16.240
 management exemption unless the city offers a pre-annexation development agreement.

00:20:16.240 --> 00:20:19.240
 And we covered that as well.

00:20:19.240 --> 00:20:29.280
 Now Ordinance 2017-071, approved by the city in February 2017, established specific criteria

00:20:29.280 --> 00:20:34.960
 determining the annexation of areas in the ETJ when significant development is proposed.

00:20:34.960 --> 00:20:43.860
 So for example, we have a property that wants to put in a multifamily development.

00:20:43.860 --> 00:20:46.400
 It's located in our ETJ.

00:20:46.400 --> 00:20:48.840
 It's not located in the city.

00:20:48.840 --> 00:20:51.040
 It is contiguous to city limits.

00:20:51.040 --> 00:20:56.620
 It wants to use city water and sewer, and it is located within the city -- what we call

00:20:56.620 --> 00:21:08.240
 city CCN, which is certificate of -- oh, I had that -- certificate of -- I can't remember.

00:21:08.240 --> 00:21:11.120
 Do you remember what it is, Jerry, the CCN?

00:21:11.120 --> 00:21:14.080
 Oh, certificate of convenience and necessity.

00:21:14.080 --> 00:21:15.920
 Thank you.

00:21:15.920 --> 00:21:21.200
 I was just talking about it an hour ago now.

00:21:21.200 --> 00:21:26.240
 These are some of the criteria that were established for when we would involuntarily annex.

00:21:26.240 --> 00:21:30.260
 All we did was we would first go to the property owner and explain to them because you're going

00:21:30.260 --> 00:21:38.580
 to be using city services, you're in our CCN, and you are also adjacent to our city limits.

00:21:38.580 --> 00:21:44.320
 We are going to request that you voluntarily annex into the city to access the services.

00:21:44.320 --> 00:21:50.620
 If they said, "No, I don't want to do that," we actually did involuntarily annex a property

00:21:50.620 --> 00:21:51.620
 owner.

00:21:51.620 --> 00:21:58.040
 It's the only one that we did under that law, isn't it, Ron?

00:21:58.040 --> 00:21:59.040
 Yeah.

00:21:59.040 --> 00:22:09.280
 Once SB6 was approved a few months later, that amendment pretty much became defunct,

00:22:09.280 --> 00:22:13.920
 and we have to follow the state regulations with regards to involuntary annexation.

00:22:13.920 --> 00:22:15.880
 Okay.

00:22:15.880 --> 00:22:22.840
 This is the ETJ map of the city of Denton, and you'll see the limits of the ETJ and how

00:22:22.840 --> 00:22:24.840
 they follow the city limit line.

00:22:24.840 --> 00:22:27.600
 It's not a straight line.

00:22:27.600 --> 00:22:32.280
 As was mentioned previously, for a city of 100,000 or more, the ETJ will extend five

00:22:32.280 --> 00:22:34.680
 miles from the city limit line.

00:22:34.680 --> 00:22:40.520
 Now we have been annexing properties for the past couple of years, and we are expected

00:22:40.520 --> 00:22:47.540
 that we are going to adjust the ETJ limits to reflect the new city limit lines and move

00:22:47.540 --> 00:22:53.760
 it five miles out from the new city limit line sometime this year.

00:22:53.760 --> 00:23:02.400
 The pre-annexation development agreement that we offer people, this would typically include

00:23:02.400 --> 00:23:03.560
 the following.

00:23:03.560 --> 00:23:08.560
 The agreed upon zoning designation of the site, development standards such as lot size

00:23:08.560 --> 00:23:12.320
 and dimensions, permitted uses, open space, tree preservations.

00:23:12.320 --> 00:23:17.640
 I actually gave you a copy of the pre-annexation development agreement for Creekside, which

00:23:17.640 --> 00:23:28.840
 is the most recent one, and it's very extensive, 76 pages long, and it sets timing of development,

00:23:28.840 --> 00:23:36.160
 timing of permits, street standards, what plants can be planted.

00:23:36.160 --> 00:23:41.160
 You can take a look through it and you'll see how extensive it is.

00:23:41.160 --> 00:23:48.320
 It really is like a plan development.

00:23:48.320 --> 00:23:53.400
 As I said, Creekside is the most recently approved plan development amendment, and you

00:23:53.400 --> 00:23:59.860
 can see here is the land use concept plan for Creekside.

00:23:59.860 --> 00:24:04.320
 It was approved by council on August 23, 2016.

00:24:04.320 --> 00:24:10.080
 We did learn some lessons with this particular pre-annexation development agreement.

00:24:10.080 --> 00:24:16.200
 I don't know if you'll recall, some of you may recall the zoning that came through for

00:24:16.200 --> 00:24:20.680
 Creekside that was after the plotting had been approved.

00:24:20.680 --> 00:24:25.600
 We have since what we're going to do now, we've got three pre-annexation agreements

00:24:25.600 --> 00:24:27.280
 that we're working on right now.

00:24:27.280 --> 00:24:33.000
 We are going to bring them before the Planning and Zoning Commission for comment, before

00:24:33.000 --> 00:24:38.160
 they move forward to City Council for approval, so we can incorporate any comments, get the

00:24:38.160 --> 00:24:41.440
 approval from the applicant and move forward.

00:24:41.440 --> 00:24:43.940
 We want to make sure that you're involved in the process.

00:24:43.940 --> 00:24:50.360
 We don't want anybody to be blindsided this time.

00:24:50.360 --> 00:24:55.600
 Once the agreement is, oh, I already covered that, and that's just the Creekside agreement,

00:24:55.600 --> 00:24:58.720
 the cover page.

00:24:58.720 --> 00:25:02.920
 The agreement is approved by the City Council as an ordinance, as you'll see.

00:25:02.920 --> 00:25:06.320
 After pre-annexation development agreements will be brought to the Planning and Zoning

00:25:06.320 --> 00:25:07.320
 Commission.

00:25:07.320 --> 00:25:10.200
 I've already covered that, got ahead of myself.

00:25:10.200 --> 00:25:14.520
 We've also got what we call NAA, a non-annexation development agreement.

00:25:14.520 --> 00:25:21.080
 Now, this is the agreement that we were talking about where if we cannot annex areas that

00:25:21.080 --> 00:25:27.320
 are used for agricultural, wildlife preservation, et cetera, if the people who own the property

00:25:27.320 --> 00:25:35.040
 do not want to be annexed, we can negotiate an NAA with them and guarantee the site won't

00:25:35.040 --> 00:25:40.680
 be annexed for a certain number of years, providing following conditions.

00:25:40.680 --> 00:25:45.920
 Property will not be used for any purpose other than agricultural, wildlife management

00:25:45.920 --> 00:25:51.680
 or timber management and incidental activities, and the owner agrees not to plot the property

00:25:51.680 --> 00:25:54.640
 or commence with any development on the site.

00:25:54.640 --> 00:25:59.200
 We have had a few through the years since this went through in 2010.

00:25:59.200 --> 00:26:07.160
 The ones that we've got right now were approved in 2010, and we have had a few instances where

00:26:07.160 --> 00:26:12.840
 the owners have sold the property and the new owners want to develop the property, and

00:26:12.840 --> 00:26:15.360
 that's when we institute annexation.

00:26:15.360 --> 00:26:16.360
 Yes?

00:26:16.360 --> 00:26:17.360
 Commissioner Smith.

00:26:17.360 --> 00:26:19.720
 Thank you, Chair.

00:26:19.720 --> 00:26:24.960
 On the NAA, if there is currently, so I'm assuming that when you say you limit it to

00:26:24.960 --> 00:26:32.920
 just those purposes, any type of like home ranch style thing, whether it's out the ETJ,

00:26:32.920 --> 00:26:35.080
 those don't count if someone's living on the land?

00:26:35.080 --> 00:26:36.080
 Oh, no.

00:26:36.080 --> 00:26:37.080
 Okay.

00:26:37.080 --> 00:26:38.080
 Doesn't preclude it for me.

00:26:38.080 --> 00:26:39.080
 That's incidental activities.

00:26:39.080 --> 00:26:40.080
 Incidental.

00:26:40.080 --> 00:26:41.080
 Got it.

00:26:41.080 --> 00:26:42.080
 Okay.

00:26:42.080 --> 00:26:43.080
 Understood.

00:26:43.080 --> 00:26:44.080
 Didn't know that.

00:26:44.080 --> 00:26:45.080
 All right.

00:26:45.080 --> 00:26:46.080
 Thank you.

00:26:46.080 --> 00:26:53.200
 If they have this non-annexation development agreement in place, and they do commence some

00:26:53.200 --> 00:26:58.360
 kind of development, what does the City do?

00:26:58.360 --> 00:27:05.720
 Should the property owner commence development on the subject side?

00:27:05.720 --> 00:27:11.600
 The City considers it to be a petition for voluntary annexation per the agreement, and

00:27:11.600 --> 00:27:16.740
 we begin annexation proceedings.

00:27:16.740 --> 00:27:25.400
 We have the approved non-annexation development agreements come from 2009, 2010.

00:27:25.400 --> 00:27:32.400
 In the previous Denton plan, there was an ambitious plan for annexation and growth,

00:27:32.400 --> 00:27:37.840
 and the goals of the annexation were to protect the North I-35 corridor, protect the future

00:27:37.840 --> 00:27:46.120
 West Loop 288 corridor, manage the growth in the CCN area, manage land uses and types

00:27:46.120 --> 00:27:52.760
 of development in the areas, create a logical, contiguous City of Denton boundary, and provide

00:27:52.760 --> 00:28:00.240
 future growth areas as recommended by the Denton plan.

00:28:00.240 --> 00:28:10.320
 What we did, the City did, is create a map showing what we call PAAs, which are potential

00:28:10.320 --> 00:28:16.140
 annexation areas, and DHs, and you'll see the DHs right here.

00:28:16.140 --> 00:28:17.760
 We call them donut holes.

00:28:17.760 --> 00:28:20.900
 Very technical with our terms.

00:28:20.900 --> 00:28:24.860
 Donut holes are areas that are surrounded by the City, but they're not annexed into

00:28:24.860 --> 00:28:26.320
 the City.

00:28:26.320 --> 00:28:32.160
 This map actually shows the pink areas here are the areas that have NAAs in effect right

00:28:32.160 --> 00:28:37.840
 now, and all the hatched areas are areas which have been annexed into the City as a result

00:28:37.840 --> 00:28:39.620
 of this program.

00:28:39.620 --> 00:28:48.420
 The NAAs that were originally approved in 2010 and 2016 were extended to 2020.

00:28:48.420 --> 00:28:53.280
 That means they are due to expire next year, and about this time next year, we will be

00:28:53.280 --> 00:28:58.820
 going to the City Council for direction on whether they want to annex these areas into

00:28:58.820 --> 00:29:05.080
 the City, or if they want to extend the NAA further.

00:29:05.080 --> 00:29:10.880
 Per local government code, the NAA can be extended for up to 45 years.

00:29:10.880 --> 00:29:11.880
 Commissioner Smith.

00:29:11.880 --> 00:29:12.880
 Thank you, Chair.

00:29:12.880 --> 00:29:16.240
 Per the rules you said earlier where you cannot have annexation unless you are contiguous

00:29:16.240 --> 00:29:22.600
 with the City limits, so like if you look at PAA 3, it doesn't look like, because there's

00:29:22.600 --> 00:29:29.440
 NAA in between PAA 3 and that NAA there, does that mean that if they're touching a land

00:29:29.440 --> 00:29:34.200
 that has NAA, does the contiguous ability skip the NAA?

00:29:34.200 --> 00:29:40.920
 Because it looks like that PAA 13 isn't touching, it got annexed in, but it's not touching City

00:29:40.920 --> 00:29:41.920
 limits.

00:29:41.920 --> 00:29:44.100
 So I just didn't know what the rules were there.

00:29:44.100 --> 00:29:49.960
 The rules were there is that with the NAAs, it's going to be in the City.

00:29:49.960 --> 00:29:55.840
 We consider it to be in the City, but not annexed if that makes any sense to you.

00:29:55.840 --> 00:30:02.680
 Basically the NAA is kind of saying it doesn't exist, that if your land is up against another

00:30:02.680 --> 00:30:09.400
 parcel of land that has NAA on it and that parcel of land is in or against City limits,

00:30:09.400 --> 00:30:12.800
 then you can gain annexation.

00:30:12.800 --> 00:30:18.920
 What you need to understand is each PAA was one piece at one time, contiguous to the City

00:30:18.920 --> 00:30:24.200
 limits, the property owners, some of them agreed to annexation, some of them did not,

00:30:24.200 --> 00:30:29.960
 and that's why we ended up with the hop, skip and a jump type of thing.

00:30:29.960 --> 00:30:31.720
 And Jerry, did you want to weigh in on that?

00:30:31.720 --> 00:30:37.960
 Yeah, I think that's basically the point is that each of these, when they were initially

00:30:37.960 --> 00:30:44.820
 proposed, there was no annex land in there, that's the whole point, but they met the eligibility

00:30:44.820 --> 00:30:51.120
 criteria when they were proposed for annexation, it's just that our annexation was suspended

00:30:51.120 --> 00:30:57.120
 because of the operation of this law that required us to extend the NAAs.

00:30:57.120 --> 00:31:00.360
 Thank you.

00:31:00.360 --> 00:31:01.360
 That concludes my presentation.

00:31:01.360 --> 00:31:02.360
 Are there any other questions?

00:31:02.360 --> 00:31:03.360
 Great, I don't see any.

00:31:03.360 --> 00:31:16.760
 Yeah, if I can add one point, we didn't really go into the fact that we've got within our

00:31:16.760 --> 00:31:23.320
 ETJ Division 1 and Division 2, and for annexation it's irrelevant for the most part.

00:31:23.320 --> 00:31:29.680
 It's just that there were a couple of maps there where, you know, you see the ETJ listed

00:31:29.680 --> 00:31:33.700
 out there and it was Division 1 only.

00:31:33.700 --> 00:31:38.600
 Division 1 is kind of an inner layer with Division 2 being the outer layer of it.

00:31:38.600 --> 00:31:45.680
 Division 2 was the one that has the 5-mile radius from the city limits by virtue of the

00:31:45.680 --> 00:31:48.040
 size of the city of Denton.

00:31:48.040 --> 00:31:54.240
 Division 1 is established by an agreement with the county that we entered into a couple

00:31:54.240 --> 00:31:58.480
 of decades back and does not expand every time the city grows.

00:31:58.480 --> 00:32:03.840
 In fact, there are parts of the city that are even outside of Division 1.

00:32:03.840 --> 00:32:11.400
 Division 1 is set by where we have the CCNs for providing water service and what have

00:32:11.400 --> 00:32:12.400
 you.

00:32:12.400 --> 00:32:17.720
 And, you know, as our water service grows and our weightless water service grows, that's

00:32:17.720 --> 00:32:24.280
 when we should be going to the county and extending the Division 1 annexation.

00:32:24.280 --> 00:32:29.840
 That's where we have control over, as he was saying, platting and some of our development

00:32:29.840 --> 00:32:32.840
 standards only.

00:32:32.840 --> 00:32:35.000
 Division 2, we don't have any control over it.

00:32:35.000 --> 00:32:42.360
 It's just an area that's possibly -- that could possibly be annexed and it will expand

00:32:42.360 --> 00:32:43.360
 with the city.

00:32:43.360 --> 00:32:48.600
 In fact, over to the west, we're probably one annexation away from being over in Wise

00:32:48.600 --> 00:32:52.520
 County as far as our Division 2 ETJ is concerned.

00:32:52.520 --> 00:32:58.080
 Jerry, can you answer this question when -- we have a volunteer annexation and we do a service

00:32:58.080 --> 00:32:59.080
 agreement.

00:32:59.080 --> 00:33:06.920
 Is there a time limit on that as far as when we would execute services with them?

00:33:06.920 --> 00:33:13.000
 It could be provided in there and, in fact, there's a provision of state law and one of

00:33:13.000 --> 00:33:20.000
 these annexation areas took advantage of it where they could challenge our service agreement

00:33:20.000 --> 00:33:26.920
 and suggest that it's inadequate for providing services and doesn't meet the standards imposed

00:33:26.920 --> 00:33:32.280
 by state law and they could have an arbitration over it.

00:33:32.280 --> 00:33:41.900
 There was this one area, DH-12, where we had one of those arbitrations and I'm one of about

00:33:41.900 --> 00:33:49.240
 two people who's participated, one to my knowledge, and so the -- that area was saying that our

00:33:49.240 --> 00:34:01.400
 water tie-in policies were unfair and we persuaded the arbitrator that it's consistent with services

00:34:01.400 --> 00:34:08.200
 throughout the city that even if you're in the city limits, if you don't have a waterline

00:34:08.200 --> 00:34:13.480
 near you, you may have to pay to extend it to tie into it whether you're inside the city

00:34:13.480 --> 00:34:14.480
 limits or not.

00:34:14.480 --> 00:34:22.720
 And, in fact, if you're inside the city limits and, you know, you have a big enough lot,

00:34:22.720 --> 00:34:26.920
 you may be able to build a septic system or have a well.

00:34:26.920 --> 00:34:32.200
 So there are opportunities to challenge the sufficiency of that.

00:34:32.200 --> 00:34:37.200
 We also entered into negotiations with the area pursuant to some requirements of state

00:34:37.200 --> 00:34:38.320
 law as well.

00:34:38.320 --> 00:34:42.600
 Is there a typical rule of thumb on a -- on timing on that?

00:34:42.600 --> 00:34:48.280
 I don't know many of the planners, but no, but that's really not a legal issue as far

00:34:48.280 --> 00:34:56.200
 as what kind of timing would be there, but it's something that could be put in, I suppose.

00:34:56.200 --> 00:34:57.200
 Okay.

00:34:57.200 --> 00:34:58.200
 Okay.

00:34:58.200 --> 00:34:59.200
 Thank you, Cindy.

00:34:59.200 --> 00:35:00.200
 And Jerry.

00:35:00.200 --> 00:35:01.200
 Okay.

00:35:01.200 --> 00:35:08.280
 Moving down our agenda, we are to clarification of agenda items.

00:35:08.280 --> 00:35:12.840
 So we will move to our minutes.

00:35:12.840 --> 00:35:21.720
 Does anyone have any concerns, questions, thoughts on the minutes?

00:35:21.720 --> 00:35:22.720
 Okay.

00:35:22.720 --> 00:35:25.720
 How about the consent agenda?

00:35:25.720 --> 00:35:28.960
 Easy, easy.

00:35:28.960 --> 00:35:30.440
 Okay.

00:35:30.440 --> 00:35:32.880
 No questions there.

00:35:32.880 --> 00:35:41.400
 With regard to public hearings, A, B, and C, Andy -- no, A, B, and C have all been postponed

00:35:41.400 --> 00:35:44.980
 to February 20th.

00:35:44.980 --> 00:35:50.680
 So that will bring us to public hearing D, and I will invite Sean Jacobson up for that

00:35:50.680 --> 00:36:09.800
 discussion.

00:36:09.800 --> 00:36:13.080
 Thank you, Chair, and members of the committee.

00:36:13.080 --> 00:36:22.160
 Tonight we're looking at a residential replat of the fire station D addition.

00:36:22.160 --> 00:36:25.800
 And to start off, I want to briefly explain to you this is going to be a little different

00:36:25.800 --> 00:36:28.320
 than a final plat or a preliminary plat.

00:36:28.320 --> 00:36:31.240
 It can be a little bit confusing, so I just want to lay out why this is coming to you

00:36:31.240 --> 00:36:33.240
 as a public hearing.

00:36:33.240 --> 00:36:42.480
 Texas local government code, you can see there, 212.0146, states that in cases of a replat

00:36:42.480 --> 00:36:46.640
 without vacation, which basically means we've got a plat there, we're putting a new one

00:36:46.640 --> 00:36:51.400
 on top of it to redraw the lines, and we're not vacating the old plat, you'd have to have

00:36:51.400 --> 00:36:52.400
 a public hearing.

00:36:52.400 --> 00:36:57.560
 It has to be noticed, so similar to what we would do with the rezoning, we send out letters

00:36:57.560 --> 00:37:04.160
 to anyone who has -- any property owner within that subdivision, as well as within 200 feet

00:37:04.160 --> 00:37:05.920
 of that property.

00:37:05.920 --> 00:37:08.160
 And that's specifically with a residential replat.

00:37:08.160 --> 00:37:10.620
 So the public hearing is required for any replat.

00:37:10.620 --> 00:37:14.880
 For a residential replat, you have to notice it, just to give anyone living in that area

00:37:14.880 --> 00:37:20.200
 the chance to, if they have some concern, ask a question, express if they have a problem

00:37:20.200 --> 00:37:23.920
 with that, and, you know, express, you know, let us know.

00:37:23.920 --> 00:37:26.640
 So that's why you're going to see a little bit of a difference here, rather than it being

00:37:26.640 --> 00:37:32.480
 on consent agenda, we actually do have a public hearing in this case.

00:37:32.480 --> 00:37:37.760
 So as you can see here, this was the original subdivision, this is the original plat.

00:37:37.760 --> 00:37:44.680
 We had two lots, and what we're looking at is specifically lot two tonight.

00:37:44.680 --> 00:37:55.120
 So see there, we're now -- the property owner is now looking to split that into two lots,

00:37:55.120 --> 00:37:58.260
 R1 and R2.

00:37:58.260 --> 00:38:00.900
 This area is zoned NR3.

00:38:00.900 --> 00:38:06.000
 Both of these lots meet the minimum lot size requirements, as noted, within this zoning

00:38:06.000 --> 00:38:11.060
 district meets all the technical requirements, and for that reason, staff is recommending

00:38:11.060 --> 00:38:13.840
 approval of this residential replat.

00:38:13.840 --> 00:38:18.000
 With that, if you have any questions, let me know.

00:38:18.000 --> 00:38:20.200
 >> Anybody have questions?

00:38:20.200 --> 00:38:21.200
 Okay.

00:38:21.200 --> 00:38:25.680
 Thank you, Sean.

00:38:25.680 --> 00:38:30.920
 Next public hearing item E, good Samaritan East tract.

00:38:30.920 --> 00:38:36.840
 That is Ron.

00:38:36.840 --> 00:38:39.160
 >> Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission.

00:38:39.160 --> 00:38:46.560
 This is going to be a tag team effort between myself and Kristi Upton.

00:38:46.560 --> 00:38:54.360
 The request for you tonight is to consider making a recommendation to city council on

00:38:54.360 --> 00:38:57.440
 an alternative ESA plan.

00:38:57.440 --> 00:39:03.600
 The ESA plan is to cross a riparian stream buffer, and I won't go into the details of

00:39:03.600 --> 00:39:09.040
 that riparian stream buffer, Kristi will make that presentation, is to eventually develop

00:39:09.040 --> 00:39:16.080
 a single family development of approximately 140 lots on this tract that is approximately

00:39:16.080 --> 00:39:19.320
 45 acres.

00:39:19.320 --> 00:39:26.800
 You can see on this map here, generally located to south of Ryan and west of Roxbury Street,

00:39:26.800 --> 00:39:31.600
 which is here in Teasley, it's just not too far east of this subject property.

00:39:31.600 --> 00:39:38.480
 I just want to make the commission note that this right here is the Lake Forest Park, and

00:39:38.480 --> 00:39:43.240
 then this is the good Samaritan development to the west.

00:39:43.240 --> 00:39:51.480
 And again, as if when this develop happens, they will be looking at accessing sewer and

00:39:51.480 --> 00:39:56.000
 water and all the different utilities as part of the platting.

00:39:56.000 --> 00:39:59.280
 I know that you all didn't have any questions on the preliminary plat.

00:39:59.280 --> 00:40:04.080
 There is a preliminary plat on the consent agenda that's related to this alternative

00:40:04.080 --> 00:40:05.940
 ESA.

00:40:05.940 --> 00:40:11.480
 When you consider the preliminary plat, it will be approved, however, there is a note

00:40:11.480 --> 00:40:18.000
 on that preliminary plat that if the alternative ESA through city council is altered or not

00:40:18.000 --> 00:40:22.280
 approved, that preliminary plat will need to be revised.

00:40:22.280 --> 00:40:24.560
 So just a point of clarification.

00:40:24.560 --> 00:40:30.120
 With that, I'm going to ask Christy to come up and make her presentation.

00:40:30.120 --> 00:40:33.120
 Thank you, Ron.

00:40:33.120 --> 00:40:34.120
 Good evening.

00:40:34.120 --> 00:40:39.400
 Christy Upton, Environmental Compliance Coordinator for the City of Denton.

00:40:39.400 --> 00:40:45.200
 And the first thing I wanted to do was to give you a little background on why there

00:40:45.200 --> 00:40:48.680
 is an ESA on this property.

00:40:48.680 --> 00:40:56.920
 The city identified riparian buffers and upland habitat on this property during the preliminary

00:40:56.920 --> 00:41:07.520
 review of the information from geographical information that was made available to us

00:41:07.520 --> 00:41:16.280
 in years past and created a map and these habitats were existent on this property.

00:41:16.280 --> 00:41:21.600
 The first one, the riparian buffers, there was an unnamed tributary.

00:41:21.600 --> 00:41:29.880
 It runs along the upper portion of this northeast corner, northwest corner of the property and

00:41:29.880 --> 00:41:36.040
 it is an ephemeral stream and there was a 100 foot riparian buffer that was put across

00:41:36.040 --> 00:41:43.080
 around the stream and during the assessment it was rated in fair condition and that was

00:41:43.080 --> 00:41:48.880
 using the rapid stream assessment tool that the city of Denton uses.

00:41:48.880 --> 00:41:55.320
 And then there was a second riparian buffer identified and it's an intermittent stream

00:41:55.320 --> 00:41:58.600
 that bisects that northern part of the property.

00:41:58.600 --> 00:42:04.880
 It's also a 100 foot riparian buffer and again rated in fair condition.

00:42:04.880 --> 00:42:11.200
 The cross timbers upland habitat that was identified originally was 10.9 acres that

00:42:11.200 --> 00:42:14.400
 the city had identified on that.

00:42:14.400 --> 00:42:18.520
 The assessment found that some of that upland habitat no longer exists.

00:42:18.520 --> 00:42:26.880
 For example, this finger here and that's because it's isolated from the rest of the upland

00:42:26.880 --> 00:42:34.280
 habitat and it was removed but during the assessment it was found that there was other

00:42:34.280 --> 00:42:41.760
 parts of the property where upland habitat had established and that was added for an

00:42:41.760 --> 00:42:49.360
 increase in the overall upland habitat to 20.6 acres.

00:42:49.360 --> 00:42:56.280
 And I also want to point out on that upland habitat, I know you had a classification on

00:42:56.280 --> 00:42:59.800
 the habitat along the riparian areas.

00:42:59.800 --> 00:43:05.560
 What kind of classification, is this a fair habitat or is it poor condition or is that

00:43:05.560 --> 00:43:06.560
 important?

00:43:06.560 --> 00:43:14.120
 I'm sorry, I'll have to defer to Debra on this.

00:43:14.120 --> 00:43:28.080
 Good evening, Commission, my name is Debra Villara, Environmental Services.

00:43:28.080 --> 00:43:34.680
 Isafil assessment for upland habitat does not provide a rating system for upland habitat.

00:43:34.680 --> 00:43:38.800
 The only one that we have a rating system is for riparian buffers.

00:43:38.800 --> 00:43:44.840
 So pretty much we use the size of the tree area, more than 10 acres, and the presence

00:43:44.840 --> 00:43:52.040
 of the species, indicative species of the cross timber habitat to determine the existence

00:43:52.040 --> 00:43:53.040
 of it.

00:43:53.040 --> 00:43:55.920
 But we don't have a rating system for upland habitat.

00:43:55.920 --> 00:44:03.440
 Okay, because, I mean, going in there, there's a lot of eastern cedar, and eastern cedar

00:44:03.440 --> 00:44:08.680
 is considered a very invasive species in upland habitat.

00:44:08.680 --> 00:44:12.980
 So looking at what you have there, 5, 10 years from now, eastern cedar is going to pretty

00:44:12.980 --> 00:44:18.520
 much be the dominant species or 10, 15 years from now, that will be the dominant species.

00:44:18.520 --> 00:44:27.800
 So what's being considered, as far as for future, keeping that as upland habitat?

00:44:27.800 --> 00:44:32.840
 Because from what you look at, it's a very poor condition.

00:44:32.840 --> 00:44:35.840
 So that would be my question.

00:44:35.840 --> 00:44:42.680
 Yes, the red cedar intrusion into cross timber habitat have been documented for many years,

00:44:42.680 --> 00:44:47.760
 especially when we transition from one ecosystem to the other.

00:44:47.760 --> 00:44:55.400
 Right now, the regulations does not establish eradication of that species, as a part of

00:44:55.400 --> 00:44:57.200
 the management.

00:44:57.200 --> 00:45:06.640
 So we will, unfortunately, we will have to rely on the cross timber to be able to, you

00:45:06.640 --> 00:45:10.160
 know, stay where it is.

00:45:10.160 --> 00:45:16.560
 We have provisions in the code that allows the property owner or the developer to actually

00:45:16.560 --> 00:45:24.680
 do and remove some of invasive species, or to trim the canopy to allow for the improvement

00:45:24.680 --> 00:45:28.740
 of the health and success of the cross timber habitat.

00:45:28.740 --> 00:45:32.640
 If that's something that the developer or property owner would like to pursue, those

00:45:32.640 --> 00:45:36.880
 are permitted uses and they will be able to do it right.

00:45:36.880 --> 00:45:43.000
 So there's nothing that we can interject there to maintain that as cross timbers habitat

00:45:43.000 --> 00:45:46.920
 other than okay, you preserve it and that's it.

00:45:46.920 --> 00:45:47.920
 Correct.

00:45:47.920 --> 00:45:55.340
 If you want to trim or to remove invasive species, you are allowed to do it.

00:45:55.340 --> 00:46:05.260
 But there is not a mandate to actually go and remove any red cedars.

00:46:05.260 --> 00:46:06.260
 Commissioner Beck.

00:46:06.260 --> 00:46:07.260
 Thank you, Vice Chair.

00:46:07.260 --> 00:46:13.200
 Deborah, let me ask you this, it points out the assessment found that some of the upland

00:46:13.200 --> 00:46:15.000
 habitat no longer met the criteria and were removed.

00:46:15.000 --> 00:46:16.000
 You talked about that little finger.

00:46:16.000 --> 00:46:21.480
 I think it was mentioned that it was on one of the exhibits here, Exhibit 4, explains

00:46:21.480 --> 00:46:29.360
 how the area depicted as non-contiguous upland, because what criteria did it not meet?

00:46:29.360 --> 00:46:36.900
 When they actually go to the site and GPS the boundaries of the upland habitat, it was

00:46:36.900 --> 00:46:45.360
 found to be a gap, a physical gap between the area that met the criteria of upland habitat.

00:46:45.360 --> 00:46:50.880
 Because of that gap, that small tree area was removed.

00:46:50.880 --> 00:46:56.520
 However, after further field assessment, we gained pretty much 10 acres of upland habitat

00:46:56.520 --> 00:46:57.520
 to the south.

00:46:57.520 --> 00:46:59.240
 But we're losing that little finger, right?

00:46:59.240 --> 00:47:00.240
 Correct.

00:47:00.240 --> 00:47:01.240
 Okay.

00:47:01.240 --> 00:47:02.240
 The gap, what created the gap?

00:47:02.240 --> 00:47:03.240
 Was it manmade or natural?

00:47:03.240 --> 00:47:05.340
 It could be manmade.

00:47:05.340 --> 00:47:14.660
 Many of our upland habitat is a second generation forest, so it could have been removed by previous

00:47:14.660 --> 00:47:16.520
 activities on site.

00:47:16.520 --> 00:47:20.880
 So we don't have a lot of history of how that area was actually impacted.

00:47:20.880 --> 00:47:24.560
 But upon field verification, we found the gap.

00:47:24.560 --> 00:47:32.640
 And one of the conditions to define an upland habitat is to maintain that continuity between

00:47:32.640 --> 00:47:35.540
 one tree area to the other.

00:47:35.540 --> 00:47:40.120
 And I'm not trying to be difficult here, but it seems like this gap, if it was manmade

00:47:40.120 --> 00:47:43.880
 or whatever, in time, I mean, how big is the gap?

00:47:43.880 --> 00:47:44.880
 How wide is it?

00:47:44.880 --> 00:47:46.600
 It doesn't look that big.

00:47:46.600 --> 00:47:55.080
 Well, I think that when you -- the green polygon on top of it doesn't allow you to clearly

00:47:55.080 --> 00:47:56.080
 see it.

00:47:56.080 --> 00:47:57.080
 Right.

00:47:57.080 --> 00:48:01.760
 But I think that if you see -- I don't have my pointer yet.

00:48:01.760 --> 00:48:05.160
 My pointer is showing.

00:48:05.160 --> 00:48:06.160
 Okay.

00:48:06.160 --> 00:48:09.640
 So right here, that's a pond, right here.

00:48:09.640 --> 00:48:18.640
 So pretty much -- I don't know the specific distance between the edge of what we still

00:48:18.640 --> 00:48:21.200
 consider upland habitat and this area.

00:48:21.200 --> 00:48:26.640
 But yeah, there was a physical break into it.

00:48:26.640 --> 00:48:27.640
 Okay.

00:48:27.640 --> 00:48:33.240
 So that's an area where they're going to be building houses, and it just seems convenient

00:48:33.240 --> 00:48:40.840
 that that was -- has that break in it, yet it seems like over time, you know, as growth

00:48:40.840 --> 00:48:43.440
 goes, that gap could disappear, too.

00:48:43.440 --> 00:48:44.440
 Correct.

00:48:44.440 --> 00:48:46.240
 So we're looking at this like a snapshot.

00:48:46.240 --> 00:48:47.240
 Correct.

00:48:47.240 --> 00:48:51.680
 There's a gap now, so we can discount it as a result of that?

00:48:51.680 --> 00:48:52.680
 Yes.

00:48:52.680 --> 00:48:57.440
 That's why we are -- we recommend to do the field assessment right before development happens

00:48:57.440 --> 00:49:02.820
 and not a year ahead because we want to have the most current conditions upon development.

00:49:02.820 --> 00:49:08.440
 So if development is happening right now or in the next six months or so, I think that

00:49:08.440 --> 00:49:12.320
 we have to honor whatever existing conditions are.

00:49:12.320 --> 00:49:13.320
 Okay.

00:49:13.320 --> 00:49:15.280
 Thank you.

00:49:15.280 --> 00:49:16.280
 Commissioner Sanchez?

00:49:16.280 --> 00:49:23.680
 I just wanted to mention, from my experience working as a biologist on the grasslands,

00:49:23.680 --> 00:49:28.840
 in looking at upland habitat, upland habitat is not necessarily contiguous -- you're not

00:49:28.840 --> 00:49:31.920
 going to find the trees contiguous through the whole area.

00:49:31.920 --> 00:49:35.560
 Soils make a big difference, and so you're going to find a lot of areas where even though

00:49:35.560 --> 00:49:40.680
 the trees adjacent -- there may be an opening, but adjacent to that, you have trees, and

00:49:40.680 --> 00:49:45.240
 you'll have areas that are just open and nothing will grow there, and it's basically based

00:49:45.240 --> 00:49:47.840
 on the soil type.

00:49:47.840 --> 00:49:52.920
 So you may have -- even though you see trees growing adjacent to that and you have this

00:49:52.920 --> 00:49:57.340
 area there, the soil type makes a difference too.

00:49:57.340 --> 00:49:58.340
 You're correct.

00:49:58.340 --> 00:50:04.600
 The cross timber habitat is almost a combination of a forest with a savanna.

00:50:04.600 --> 00:50:11.240
 So therefore, there are some gaps throughout, but in this case, unfortunately, that gap

00:50:11.240 --> 00:50:12.940
 is in the outer edge.

00:50:12.940 --> 00:50:21.360
 For example, if this area were to be -- if there were other upland habitat right here,

00:50:21.360 --> 00:50:28.200
 then I will say, well, that gap may be part of that typical gaps that we find, but unfortunately,

00:50:28.200 --> 00:50:35.960
 I don't have any -- we don't find any continuity with other upland habitats probably on the

00:50:35.960 --> 00:50:37.040
 south side.

00:50:37.040 --> 00:50:39.440
 So we look into it.

00:50:39.440 --> 00:50:43.240
 We try to preserve as much upland habitat as possible.

00:50:43.240 --> 00:50:50.280
 We were happy to be able to find out that our map were underestimated, the total amount

00:50:50.280 --> 00:50:57.400
 of the upland habitat, and we were able to increase it to 20.6 of total upland habitat

00:50:57.400 --> 00:50:58.400
 on the side.

00:50:58.400 --> 00:51:04.240
 So even though we may have messed that polygon right there, I think that we gained substantial

00:51:04.240 --> 00:51:11.720
 upland habitat to this area right here, which is now subject to ESA preservation.

00:51:11.720 --> 00:51:14.400
 Thanks, Deborah.

00:51:14.400 --> 00:51:24.840
 So to continue the presentation, much of the riparian buffer also meets the criteria of

00:51:24.840 --> 00:51:33.000
 the upland habitat, and that's because of the way that this waterway has been cut through

00:51:33.000 --> 00:51:43.520
 some of what was that upland habitat before, and thus creates an overlap in the habitats.

00:51:43.520 --> 00:51:50.840
 The proposed encroachment that we bring to you today, and that's the reason for the alternative

00:51:50.840 --> 00:51:57.560
 ESA plan is for the applicant is proposing to build a roadway improvement to connect

00:51:57.560 --> 00:52:03.720
 the northern and southern tracks, which you have the preliminary platform so you can get

00:52:03.720 --> 00:52:10.800
 a feel for what they're proposing to develop, and the installation of the utilities that

00:52:10.800 --> 00:52:12.440
 would go along with that roadway.

00:52:12.440 --> 00:52:19.840
 They would be removing a 100-foot segment along the 100-foot width of that riparian

00:52:19.840 --> 00:52:24.640
 buffer equating to 10,000 square feet.

00:52:24.640 --> 00:52:30.280
 It's notable that the understory is dominantly Chinese privet at this time.

00:52:30.280 --> 00:52:36.680
 About 75 to 100 percent of that area is Chinese privet understory, and then there's 72 trees

00:52:36.680 --> 00:52:41.840
 that are located within that 10,000 square feet, and I've given you a summary of those

00:52:41.840 --> 00:52:47.640
 trees here.

00:52:47.640 --> 00:52:55.680
 For this deviation from the ESA regulations, there is criteria for approval for an alternative

00:52:55.680 --> 00:53:02.240
 ESA plan, and the mitigation analysis for in-kind replacement of the functions offered

00:53:02.240 --> 00:53:11.880
 by the ESA to be removed is what must be met, and that's in subchapter 17 of the Denton

00:53:11.880 --> 00:53:21.760
 Development Code, and to summarize it, the applicant must provide some type of mitigation

00:53:21.760 --> 00:53:27.720
 for what they are removing, and I've tried to provide you some summary of what those

00:53:27.720 --> 00:53:31.920
 mitigation requirements are.

00:53:31.920 --> 00:53:37.880
 The first mitigation strategy that the applicant is proposing is to preserve cross timbers,

00:53:37.880 --> 00:53:44.440
 upland habitat, and tree canopy beyond the minimum City of Denton requirements.

00:53:44.440 --> 00:53:55.000
 The upland habitat proposal is, or the requirement, is 10.25 acres, and they are proposing to

00:53:55.000 --> 00:54:01.840
 preserve 11.5 acres, and the tree canopy requirements per preservation is 6.16 acres

00:54:01.840 --> 00:54:04.320
 and they are proposing 11.7 acres.

00:54:04.320 --> 00:54:05.320
 Yes.

00:54:05.320 --> 00:54:06.320
 Commissioner Beck.

00:54:06.320 --> 00:54:09.320
 Thank you, Vice Chair.

00:54:09.320 --> 00:54:15.960
 We're losing, with this, I realize that what they're leaving is above the minimum, but

00:54:15.960 --> 00:54:21.080
 we're losing about nine acres, too, so they don't have to mitigate any of that?

00:54:21.080 --> 00:54:28.760
 No, because the, by rights, they can remove 50%, up to 50% of the upland habitat.

00:54:28.760 --> 00:54:29.760
 Okay.

00:54:29.760 --> 00:54:30.760
 Nice.

00:54:30.760 --> 00:54:31.760
 Thank you.

00:54:31.760 --> 00:54:37.200
 The second mitigation strategy that they are offering is to remove the Chinese privet and

00:54:37.200 --> 00:54:41.640
 calorie, there's a few calorie pear trees also within that riparian buffer, and both

00:54:41.640 --> 00:54:49.160
 of these are highly invasive species, and they will be removing those Chinese privet

00:54:49.160 --> 00:54:58.080
 and calorie pear using mechanical and chemical removal methods, and the strategy will improve

00:54:58.080 --> 00:55:04.040
 the chances for a thriving native and adaptive understory.

00:55:04.040 --> 00:55:05.040
 Commissioner Beck.

00:55:05.040 --> 00:55:06.040
 Thank you, Vice Chair.

00:55:06.040 --> 00:55:07.440
 Deborah may need your help.

00:55:07.440 --> 00:55:12.040
 This was my email to you, the method they're going to use, I understand the mechanical

00:55:12.040 --> 00:55:16.920
 is probably the best method to get rid of, but they're going to come in with a herbicide

00:55:16.920 --> 00:55:22.760
 to do the rest, so my question was, what is that herbicide, and how do we assure that

00:55:22.760 --> 00:55:26.560
 it doesn't get into the system?

00:55:26.560 --> 00:55:32.560
 So for now, the applicant has proposed to use, it's okay, for now the applicant has

00:55:32.560 --> 00:55:40.040
 proposed to defer that to the landscaping company that they hired to determine that

00:55:40.040 --> 00:55:41.040
 information.

00:55:41.040 --> 00:55:42.040
 Okay.

00:55:42.040 --> 00:55:47.120
 But does the city have standards of what they can and can't use, I mean, I'm concerned

00:55:47.120 --> 00:55:53.600
 about the glyphosate that's typically used in situation, that's a chemical in roundup

00:55:53.600 --> 00:55:54.600
 that creates problems.

00:55:54.600 --> 00:56:00.480
 Now, according to the EPA, if it's applied properly, there's not a lot of problem, no

00:56:00.480 --> 00:56:06.000
 need to be concerned, but independent studies are not as amenable to that perception as

00:56:06.000 --> 00:56:07.760
 the EPA is.

00:56:07.760 --> 00:56:14.720
 So how do we, there was a, part of it says they're going to do a report each year for

00:56:14.720 --> 00:56:15.720
 three years.

00:56:15.720 --> 00:56:19.520
 Now, that'll be the developer that does that, and they'll report each year to the city,

00:56:19.520 --> 00:56:20.600
 is that correct?

00:56:20.600 --> 00:56:21.600
 Correct.

00:56:21.600 --> 00:56:22.600
 Okay.

00:56:22.600 --> 00:56:33.160
 And will they, part of that report, monitor the herbicide they use to make sure that it's

00:56:33.160 --> 00:56:38.280
 been applied properly, it's not spreading, it's not getting into the ecosystem in any

00:56:38.280 --> 00:56:39.280
 way?

00:56:39.280 --> 00:56:45.920
 So at this time, our reporting wouldn't include monitoring specifically for the application

00:56:45.920 --> 00:56:51.840
 of a pesticide, because that's not a typical procedure.

00:56:51.840 --> 00:57:02.080
 And this concern with the glyphosate is understandable, but at this time, because the federal government

00:57:02.080 --> 00:57:08.080
 hasn't imposed regulations on this, and the city doesn't have the authority either to

00:57:08.080 --> 00:57:09.680
 impose regulations on it.

00:57:09.680 --> 00:57:11.560
 I would add to that.

00:57:11.560 --> 00:57:16.800
 I would like to add that at this point, what the applicant is trying to accomplish here

00:57:16.800 --> 00:57:23.360
 is just to use different approaches to give a better head start to the planting of native

00:57:23.360 --> 00:57:24.800
 species, okay?

00:57:24.800 --> 00:57:25.800
 That's what we're doing.

00:57:25.800 --> 00:57:31.800
 Most of the time, this type of, the removal of Chinese privet, the best way to do it is

00:57:31.800 --> 00:57:32.800
 by burning.

00:57:32.800 --> 00:57:37.680
 However, this is an organized area, so that option is not on the table.

00:57:37.680 --> 00:57:42.360
 So the other options available are mechanical or chemical.

00:57:42.360 --> 00:57:47.680
 But they're plus replanting native species after they remove those invasive.

00:57:47.680 --> 00:57:53.560
 What they're doing is just to see which combination of methods will give the better chance.

00:57:53.560 --> 00:58:00.080
 The three-year review of field assessment that they have to provide to us, I think that

00:58:00.080 --> 00:58:05.080
 will give us the chance to look at how the mechanical is doing and performing.

00:58:05.080 --> 00:58:09.600
 And if that is not doing well, then at least to consider.

00:58:09.600 --> 00:58:19.340
 The applicant have show the desire and the willingness to bring all those selection to

00:58:19.340 --> 00:58:22.200
 us and that way we have a conversation.

00:58:22.200 --> 00:58:28.560
 Just keep in mind that all type of herbicide needs to be applied by a licensed applicator,

00:58:28.560 --> 00:58:34.280
 which they have to abide by what the manufacturer have determined to be the right way to do

00:58:34.280 --> 00:58:35.520
 it, okay?

00:58:35.520 --> 00:58:42.760
 Any conditions that allows for what is called drift, which is actually the chemical relieving

00:58:42.760 --> 00:58:49.160
 the site, they need to consider that before applying the chemical.

00:58:49.160 --> 00:58:53.880
 So I think that the applicant is aware and willing to do that.

00:58:53.880 --> 00:58:58.800
 We don't have standards to able to determine, but I just wanted to bring to your attention

00:58:58.800 --> 00:59:04.360
 that herbicides also comes what is called in aquatic grade, okay?

00:59:04.360 --> 00:59:11.160
 And this being a repair and buffer subject to flooding conditions and so on, that will

00:59:11.160 --> 00:59:18.720
 be an option that the applicant has to instead of the regular roundup, which is for more

00:59:18.720 --> 00:59:24.120
 terrestrial application, they can actually go the aquatic version of it.

00:59:24.120 --> 00:59:29.280
 What the aquatic version is, they have different type of surfactants that will make the chemical

00:59:29.280 --> 00:59:32.560
 less available to the aquatic organism.

00:59:32.560 --> 00:59:38.480
 So those options are available to the applicant at this point, and we will be looking into

00:59:38.480 --> 00:59:46.160
 that closely when they are, if they choose to go chemical application to do that.

00:59:46.160 --> 00:59:50.000
 Will these reports be available to the public on the city's website?

00:59:50.000 --> 00:59:58.720
 Well, all information on the public website, most of the time the development applications

00:59:58.720 --> 01:00:03.920
 have a case number and people can actually log in and be able to pull that information.

01:00:03.920 --> 01:00:10.320
 However, any type of information submitted to the city is subject to open record request.

01:00:10.320 --> 01:00:16.240
 So if somebody is interested to actually get that information, that will be made available.

01:00:16.240 --> 01:00:17.240
 Okay.

01:00:17.240 --> 01:00:18.240
 Okay.

01:00:18.240 --> 01:00:19.240
 One last thing.

01:00:19.240 --> 01:00:22.680
 The area that they're going to go in and remove the invasive plant, now they're talking just

01:00:22.680 --> 01:00:27.320
 about that 10,000 square feet, are they going to do the whole repair and buffer, that whole

01:00:27.320 --> 01:00:28.320
 thing?

01:00:28.320 --> 01:00:29.320
 Yes.

01:00:29.320 --> 01:00:30.320
 Okay.

01:00:30.320 --> 01:00:31.320
 Great.

01:00:31.320 --> 01:00:32.320
 Thank you.

01:00:32.320 --> 01:00:33.320
 Thank you, Deborah.

01:00:33.320 --> 01:00:34.320
 Commissioner Sanchos.

01:00:34.320 --> 01:00:35.320
 Yes.

01:00:35.320 --> 01:00:38.680
 When you're talking about the 100 foot buffer, is that from the center, 100 foot, or are

01:00:38.680 --> 01:00:41.120
 you saying 50 on either side?

01:00:41.120 --> 01:00:44.120
 It's 50 on each side.

01:00:44.120 --> 01:00:47.120
 50 on each side.

01:00:47.120 --> 01:00:48.120
 Okay.

01:00:48.120 --> 01:00:54.680
 The other strategy for this is that they will be installing temporary erosion control measures.

01:00:54.680 --> 01:00:58.200
 During the removal of that Chinese privet, there will be some disturbances.

01:00:58.200 --> 01:01:03.920
 They will have a rock check dam at the crossing that they're proposing, and they will be using

01:01:03.920 --> 01:01:12.720
 straw waddles or other mitigation type strategies to keep erosion from occurring along that

01:01:12.720 --> 01:01:19.600
 riparian buffer as it's exposed after they remove those invasive species.

01:01:19.600 --> 01:01:26.240
 The last mitigation strategy is to revegetate the area of the calorie pair and Chinese privet

01:01:26.240 --> 01:01:32.080
 that they have removed with a mix of native and adaptive trees and shrubs, and a riparian

01:01:32.080 --> 01:01:42.080
 restoration seed mix that will provide a protective ground cover.

01:01:42.080 --> 01:01:46.640
 As Deborah has already touched on, there will be a long-term maintenance and monitoring

01:01:46.640 --> 01:01:47.640
 program.

01:01:47.640 --> 01:02:02.800
 For three years, they will be monitoring the area, and the developer will be replacing

01:02:02.800 --> 01:02:11.280
 any dead material, and they will be repairing any eroded land and removing any trash found

01:02:11.280 --> 01:02:16.080
 in the area, and producing the annual report to environmental services.

01:02:16.080 --> 01:02:20.160
 After that three-year period, there will be a final acceptance of this alternative ESA

01:02:20.160 --> 01:02:31.040
 plan, and environmental services will be inspecting for conformance and issuing that final acceptance.

01:02:31.040 --> 01:02:37.200
 Our recommendation is to approve the request with the following conditions, that the 11.5

01:02:37.200 --> 01:02:45.040
 acres of existing cross-timbers upland habitat and the 11.7 acres of the tree canopy be preserved,

01:02:45.040 --> 01:02:50.360
 the encroachment into the riparian buffer ESA will be limited to 10,000 square feet,

01:02:50.360 --> 01:02:55.560
 the invasive species within the Fletcher branch, tributary number four riparian buffer ESA,

01:02:55.560 --> 01:03:02.960
 specifically the Chinese privet and the calorie pair will be removed, the revegetation of

01:03:02.960 --> 01:03:09.920
 the area disturbed by invasive species, removal with native plants that are provided in table

01:03:09.920 --> 01:03:15.120
 three of the alternative ESA plan and ground cover seeding of riparian restoration mix

01:03:15.120 --> 01:03:20.960
 will commence prior to the first building permit, and annual reporting during the first

01:03:20.960 --> 01:03:27.200
 three years describing the cumulative mitigation work performed, and the survivability of the

01:03:27.200 --> 01:03:32.600
 plant shall be submitted to staff for review and inspection, and the plants installed as

01:03:32.600 --> 01:03:38.840
 part of the proposed native flora revegetation are to be installed and maintained by the current

01:03:38.840 --> 01:03:44.080
 property owner and developer for a period of three years following in the installation,

01:03:44.080 --> 01:03:48.080
 and any plants that are removed, destroyed, or die within that three-year period are required

01:03:48.080 --> 01:03:52.680
 to be replaced by the current property owner developer.

01:03:52.680 --> 01:03:55.800
 Christy has the applicant seen all of these recommendations?

01:03:55.800 --> 01:03:56.800
 Yes.

01:03:56.800 --> 01:03:59.920
 And they're fine with your suggestions?

01:03:59.920 --> 01:04:00.920
 I believe so.

01:04:00.920 --> 01:04:01.920
 Okay.

01:04:01.920 --> 01:04:02.920
 Yes.

01:04:02.920 --> 01:04:09.040
 Commissioner Sanchez?

01:04:09.040 --> 01:04:10.040
 You go back one.

01:04:10.040 --> 01:04:11.040
 Sure.

01:04:11.040 --> 01:04:16.340
 Well, you have your, and I guess I have a real heartache with, you know, with looking

01:04:16.340 --> 01:04:22.040
 at the area and looking at the condition and us putting this area aside and saying, okay,

01:04:22.040 --> 01:04:28.780
 we're maintaining upland habitat, but it's a very poor condition.

01:04:28.780 --> 01:04:35.760
 It seems to me, I mean, if we're talking about cross timbers upland habitat, the whole

01:04:35.760 --> 01:04:39.680
 purpose of putting it aside is to maintain it.

01:04:39.680 --> 01:04:45.200
 But if we're going to lose it over time, what's the purpose?

01:04:45.200 --> 01:04:53.080
 And to me, it's either, it's almost like taking land from somebody and saying, okay, we wanted

01:04:53.080 --> 01:04:58.480
 to preserve it for this reason, but it's not going to happen 10 years, 15 years from

01:04:58.480 --> 01:05:01.520
 now, it's going to be a mess.

01:05:01.520 --> 01:05:07.440
 And there's no long-term vision as to maintaining that cross timbers habitat.

01:05:07.440 --> 01:05:09.040
 Because it's all cross timbers habitat.

01:05:09.040 --> 01:05:11.280
 It just happens that there's some open areas.

01:05:11.280 --> 01:05:12.680
 That's what cross timbers habitat is.

01:05:12.680 --> 01:05:17.200
 When we say cross timbers habitat, the whole area is cross timbers habitat, not just where

01:05:17.200 --> 01:05:18.680
 there's trees.

01:05:18.680 --> 01:05:19.760
 Okay.

01:05:19.760 --> 01:05:26.720
 So I have a real heartache with this not maintaining it long-term.

01:05:26.720 --> 01:05:30.600
 Conservation does not necessarily mean it's going to be there 10 years from now.

01:05:30.600 --> 01:05:33.400
 Because habitat changes.

01:05:33.400 --> 01:05:38.040
 And it has, I mean, nature in itself created this habitat.

01:05:38.040 --> 01:05:41.200
 Like she said, fire was an integral part of it.

01:05:41.200 --> 01:05:46.040
 And if we don't do nothing with it, the cedars are going to encroach there, and pretty soon

01:05:46.040 --> 01:05:48.640
 you're going to have a fire problem in there.

01:05:48.640 --> 01:05:56.640
 Because cedar is very, you know, if there's a fire, cedar is going to take off.

01:05:56.640 --> 01:06:09.780
 And so if you did have a fire, then the trees there would be probably destroyed, would be

01:06:09.780 --> 01:06:10.780
 burned.

01:06:10.780 --> 01:06:11.780
 Because cedar burns very hot.

01:06:11.780 --> 01:06:17.620
 I mean, we've seen it as part of our management on the cross, on the LBJ grasslands.

01:06:17.620 --> 01:06:23.400
 So and you see this also at Ray Roberts.

01:06:23.400 --> 01:06:26.720
 They burn on an yearly basis to maintain that habitat.

01:06:26.720 --> 01:06:29.620
 We're saying we're preserving it, but we're not doing anything long-term.

01:06:29.620 --> 01:06:31.420
 I guess I'm just saying this.

01:06:31.420 --> 01:06:36.200
 We need to look at it long-term and not just say, this is what we're doing.

01:06:36.200 --> 01:06:41.800
 Because I think it would be a very educational piece of property there if we went in there

01:06:41.800 --> 01:06:47.720
 and did, you know, you can do it with mechanical means and also with herbicides.

01:06:47.720 --> 01:06:54.440
 And long-term, it would be an area where people could go and see and say, this is what cross-timbers

01:06:54.440 --> 01:07:02.040
 habitat, this is what it used to look like, rather than, you know, a mess.

01:07:02.040 --> 01:07:03.040
 That's my two cents.

01:07:03.040 --> 01:07:04.720
 Commissioner Beck?

01:07:04.720 --> 01:07:06.720
 Thank you, Vice Chair.

01:07:06.720 --> 01:07:11.520
 Commissioner Sanchez, in all due respect, I'm curious, and not to diminish your expertise

01:07:11.520 --> 01:07:16.760
 in this area, but you keep referring to this area as poor, the environmental services is

01:07:16.760 --> 01:07:17.880
 rated at fair.

01:07:17.880 --> 01:07:23.960
 So I'm wondering where this different definition is coming from.

01:07:23.960 --> 01:07:31.920
 Being fair, it seems, in my opinion, means if we maintain it properly, it could develop

01:07:31.920 --> 01:07:32.920
 into more than fair.

01:07:32.920 --> 01:07:33.920
 Maybe good.

01:07:33.920 --> 01:07:34.920
 We're going to go in.

01:07:34.920 --> 01:07:37.160
 We're going to cut back the invasive species.

01:07:37.160 --> 01:07:39.760
 We're going to do some pruning and cleaning up.

01:07:39.760 --> 01:07:42.960
 Commissioner Beck, I think Christy is going to --

01:07:42.960 --> 01:07:49.080
 I'm sorry to correct you on that, but the fairness rating was for the riparian buffer

01:07:49.080 --> 01:07:50.080
 alone.

01:07:50.080 --> 01:07:51.080
 Yeah.

01:07:51.080 --> 01:07:54.680
 And the upland habitat, we do not have a rating at this time.

01:07:54.680 --> 01:07:55.680
 Okay.

01:07:55.680 --> 01:07:56.680
 So --

01:07:56.680 --> 01:07:59.120
 But Commissioner Sanchez is rating it as poor.

01:07:59.120 --> 01:08:01.520
 So is that a fair assessment?

01:08:01.520 --> 01:08:02.520
 There is no rating.

01:08:02.520 --> 01:08:06.720
 Environmental services does not have a rating for upland habitat at this time.

01:08:06.720 --> 01:08:07.720
 Okay.

01:08:07.720 --> 01:08:12.720
 So I guess the point I'm trying to make, and again, no offense, Commissioner Sanchez, but

01:08:12.720 --> 01:08:20.840
 since there is no rating on it, calling it poor is kind of throwing a monkey wrench into

01:08:20.840 --> 01:08:21.840
 this whole thing.

01:08:21.840 --> 01:08:25.480
 It may -- if it's poor, what's that rating based on?

01:08:25.480 --> 01:08:26.480
 Okay.

01:08:26.480 --> 01:08:31.120
 And I'm going to say we're going to stay on task with this, and does anyone have any more

01:08:31.120 --> 01:08:33.680
 questions for the presentation?

01:08:33.680 --> 01:08:38.920
 And I think Ron has a few more items of information to provide to you.

01:08:38.920 --> 01:08:43.920
 So I'll turn it back over to Ron.

01:08:43.920 --> 01:08:44.920
 Okay.

01:08:44.920 --> 01:08:45.920
 Thanks, Christy.

01:08:45.920 --> 01:08:47.920
 Just a couple more slides just to wrap up this presentation.

01:08:47.920 --> 01:08:52.640
 I just want to inform the Commission that there were two neighborhood meetings held,

01:08:52.640 --> 01:08:56.480
 one in December and one just recently last week.

01:08:56.480 --> 01:09:02.760
 You should have a copy of a summary report of the second meeting that I passed out this

01:09:02.760 --> 01:09:05.040
 afternoon.

01:09:05.040 --> 01:09:10.360
 So first meeting summary is including your packet.

01:09:10.360 --> 01:09:15.400
 Notifications were sent out because this is a public hearing, and we received one in opposition,

01:09:15.400 --> 01:09:20.160
 and that response is also included or passed out this afternoon.

01:09:20.160 --> 01:09:26.360
 That opposition just represents one percent, so -- and it's shown across Ryan in this general

01:09:26.360 --> 01:09:30.160
 area here where it's shown in red.

01:09:30.160 --> 01:09:31.160
 And that's it.

01:09:31.160 --> 01:09:35.000
 I'd be happy to answer any other questions.

01:09:35.000 --> 01:09:36.000
 Senator Beck.

01:09:36.000 --> 01:09:37.000
 Thank you, Dr. Chair.

01:09:37.000 --> 01:09:45.320
 It was mentioned that there was going to be a walkway from this developed area to the

01:09:45.320 --> 01:09:46.320
 part next to it.

01:09:46.320 --> 01:09:52.480
 I don't see it on the -- Yeah, that is part of the future development,

01:09:52.480 --> 01:09:55.680
 and that will be part of any development.

01:09:55.680 --> 01:09:58.680
 Preliminary plat is shown.

01:09:58.680 --> 01:10:02.040
 We'll come back with the final plat to the Commission, and you'll see that connection.

01:10:02.040 --> 01:10:03.040
 Okay.

01:10:03.040 --> 01:10:04.040
 And we'll see it then.

01:10:04.040 --> 01:10:05.040
 Yes.

01:10:05.040 --> 01:10:06.040
 Good.

01:10:06.040 --> 01:10:07.040
 And then we're talking about like a sidewalk.

01:10:07.040 --> 01:10:08.040
 Right.

01:10:08.040 --> 01:10:12.040
 There's connection between the two subdivisions to the east.

01:10:12.040 --> 01:10:13.040
 Great.

01:10:13.040 --> 01:10:14.040
 Thanks.

01:10:14.040 --> 01:10:16.040
 Yes, Mr. Sanchez.

01:10:16.040 --> 01:10:17.040
 Okay.

01:10:17.040 --> 01:10:18.040
 Commissioner Sanchez.

01:10:18.040 --> 01:10:23.280
 As I was reading through this, and I'm not sure if I got that right, what's that, Hollister?

01:10:23.280 --> 01:10:24.280
 Hollister?

01:10:24.280 --> 01:10:25.280
 Hollister, yes.

01:10:25.280 --> 01:10:26.280
 Yeah.

01:10:26.280 --> 01:10:29.400
 That's going to be opened up, right, or is it going to be --

01:10:29.400 --> 01:10:31.200
 It's not going to open up.

01:10:31.200 --> 01:10:35.840
 It's going to close where it is, and it's going to create more of an open area, an open

01:10:35.840 --> 01:10:39.280
 space, with pedestrian access between the two subdivisions.

01:10:39.280 --> 01:10:40.280
 Okay.

01:10:40.280 --> 01:10:47.640
 Because I drove out there, and there's a sign that says, "This is going to be opened once

01:10:47.640 --> 01:10:48.960
 the area is developed."

01:10:48.960 --> 01:10:49.960
 Sorry.

01:10:49.960 --> 01:10:50.960
 Okay.

01:10:50.960 --> 01:10:59.360
 And my question is, long-term, it was planned to open it and bring some connectivity to

01:10:59.360 --> 01:11:04.840
 the different, what do you call it, little enclaves or little subdivisions that are coming

01:11:04.840 --> 01:11:05.840
 up.

01:11:05.840 --> 01:11:12.040
 And it seems like now we're changing our mind, and everybody -- you know, instead of -- you're

01:11:12.040 --> 01:11:17.480
 going to have to either go north or south to move out of there, I guess, rather than

01:11:17.480 --> 01:11:22.920
 giving you some connectivity to the other subdivision or the other phases and maybe

01:11:22.920 --> 01:11:24.120
 move.

01:11:24.120 --> 01:11:33.400
 It just seems like we create these little enclaves and we give them two exits, but yet if there's

01:11:33.400 --> 01:11:34.400
 a --

01:11:34.400 --> 01:11:35.400
 Right here.

01:11:35.400 --> 01:11:36.400
 Yeah.

01:11:36.400 --> 01:11:44.160
 It seems like there should be some connectivity there so that we don't -- we stop creating

01:11:44.160 --> 01:11:46.640
 these little enclaves.

01:11:46.640 --> 01:11:54.240
 I think we may be potentially getting into an open meetings issue because connectivity

01:11:54.240 --> 01:11:58.600
 isn't part of the matter that's placed on the agenda for today.

01:11:58.600 --> 01:12:07.040
 This is more of a platting issue, and as far as policy is concerned, the policy is properly

01:12:07.040 --> 01:12:10.040
 addressed to the city council.

01:12:10.040 --> 01:12:18.840
 The post-it matter on the agenda is to consider the environmentally sensitive area only and

01:12:18.840 --> 01:12:23.280
 not to consider any future development.

01:12:23.280 --> 01:12:32.440
 Commissioner, just really quickly, and I know we're kind of going off, but it was presented

01:12:32.440 --> 01:12:40.000
 during the neighborhood meetings -- yes, you're correct, that street was to provide connectivity

01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:47.200
 -- however, there is two entrances or two accesses that meet the fire requirements as

01:12:47.200 --> 01:12:51.960
 well as the engineer requirements.

01:12:51.960 --> 01:12:56.800
 I guess I'm just basing it on reading the information here, and it talks about that

01:12:56.800 --> 01:13:02.880
 was closed, but when I went up there, it says that was a long-term decision, I guess, when

01:13:02.880 --> 01:13:08.680
 all that was being planned, and why all of a sudden you plan something five, ten years

01:13:08.680 --> 01:13:12.720
 back, and all of a sudden, okay, we're not going to do it, and there should be some reasoning

01:13:12.720 --> 01:13:16.560
 why we're changing it and not just we're going to close it because maybe somebody doesn't

01:13:16.560 --> 01:13:19.040
 like traffic through there.

01:13:19.040 --> 01:13:25.600
 There should be -- you know, one of the big issues we have is roads and/or people --

01:13:25.600 --> 01:13:28.680
 Okay, Commissioner Sanchez, we're getting off topic again.

01:13:28.680 --> 01:13:32.560
 I think the applicant will be there tonight, and maybe it's a -- I know it came from the

01:13:32.560 --> 01:13:37.200
 neighborhood meeting that's in our backup, that discussion.

01:13:37.200 --> 01:13:45.480
 And so, we can address it at the meeting.

01:13:45.480 --> 01:13:50.560
 I think at this time, we're going to break for food before we head to our final item,

01:13:50.560 --> 01:14:01.600
 so I will take a recess at 617.

01:14:01.600 --> 01:14:06.400
 Welcome back to the City of Dutton planning and zoning meeting on February 6, continuing

01:14:06.400 --> 01:14:07.400
 our work session.

01:14:07.400 --> 01:14:15.720
 I call us back to order at 621, and Ron is going to present our final agenda item.

01:14:15.720 --> 01:14:17.520
 Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission.

01:14:17.520 --> 01:14:23.480
 I'm going to try to be as quickly as possible, but I want to cover some of the highlights

01:14:23.480 --> 01:14:25.720
 of this important code amendment.

01:14:25.720 --> 01:14:32.400
 As you all know, we are discussing -- we have been discussing the student -- I'm sorry,

01:14:32.400 --> 01:14:40.480
 not student, but rather SRO, single room occupancy, also referred to as collegiate housing.

01:14:40.480 --> 01:14:47.360
 The purpose for this item, or this item for your consideration today, is to determine

01:14:47.360 --> 01:14:51.620
 the classification of this type of development.

01:14:51.620 --> 01:14:58.920
 Is it multifamily, or is it considered collegiate housing, also referred to as dormitory?

01:14:58.920 --> 01:15:04.920
 So we've got a lot of different uses that we can go with, and then also talk about if

01:15:04.920 --> 01:15:11.980
 it is a separate use, how do we locate them, where do we locate them, and how do we approve

01:15:11.980 --> 01:15:14.120
 them for new developments?

01:15:14.120 --> 01:15:19.440
 So those are the items that we want to get from the commission as far as recommendations

01:15:19.440 --> 01:15:20.440
 moving forward.

01:15:20.440 --> 01:15:21.440
 Excuse me.

01:15:21.440 --> 01:15:32.440
 We hope to take this to City Council for their consideration, of course, after your recommendation.

01:15:32.440 --> 01:15:38.600
 Staff is proposing if, again, if this is a separate use, to use the term dormitory.

01:15:38.600 --> 01:15:40.960
 We currently have this use in our development code.

01:15:40.960 --> 01:15:46.600
 We currently have a definition, but in order to meet this development type, we are proposing

01:15:46.600 --> 01:15:51.720
 an amendment to that definition, and that definition here is shown here and is going

01:15:51.720 --> 01:15:57.600
 to be defined, and I'll read it for the record, a structure with three or more dwelling units

01:15:57.600 --> 01:16:05.200
 in which individual bedrooms are individually rented for periods in excess of 30 days and

01:16:05.200 --> 01:16:09.600
 in which each bedroom lacks the exclusive use of a full kitchen.

01:16:09.600 --> 01:16:14.840
 And again, that is what we're trying to describe in this floor plan.

01:16:14.840 --> 01:16:15.840
 Commissioner Sanchez?

01:16:15.840 --> 01:16:21.800
 Can you go back to your definition of dormitories?

01:16:21.800 --> 01:16:27.320
 I guess I'm old school, so when I think of dormitories, I think of universities, okay?

01:16:27.320 --> 01:16:28.600
 That's what they have.

01:16:28.600 --> 01:16:35.920
 And when you use that term, especially in the context of universities or colleges, I

01:16:35.920 --> 01:16:44.120
 think most parents think of a dormitory as a place where there's some supervision.

01:16:44.120 --> 01:16:49.440
 When you use this term dormitory in this other context, there's no supervision, and I think

01:16:49.440 --> 01:16:55.240
 people -- this is an older definition, at least it is for me, older definition, and

01:16:55.240 --> 01:17:02.320
 I think when you're dealing with students, there should be a different name for dormitories,

01:17:02.320 --> 01:17:08.280
 universities or colleges, and the new, what we're talking, SROs, and have those.

01:17:08.280 --> 01:17:10.880
 That's a totally different animal, I think.

01:17:10.880 --> 01:17:14.800
 It's not multi-family, but it's not -- I don't think it's a dormitory.

01:17:14.800 --> 01:17:16.640
 So the term dormitory is --

01:17:16.640 --> 01:17:21.400
 I don't think it fits, especially when parents -- I'm going to put my son in a dormitory.

01:17:21.400 --> 01:17:27.200
 They usually think there's supervision here, there's this, as opposed to, like I said,

01:17:27.200 --> 01:17:34.480
 SROs are a totally different animal, okay?

01:17:34.480 --> 01:17:36.600
 I could try to address some of that.

01:17:36.600 --> 01:17:42.000
 I actually recommended that they use dormitory, and part of the reason for it is that it's

01:17:42.000 --> 01:17:44.640
 not just students that we're talking about.

01:17:44.640 --> 01:17:53.640
 We're talking about situations where you have a group of people that are living in a common

01:17:53.640 --> 01:18:00.920
 area with some shared facilities, and you have a situation like that.

01:18:00.920 --> 01:18:07.080
 You know, the yuppies in the 1980s liked having that kind of a lifestyle.

01:18:07.080 --> 01:18:10.760
 They didn't particularly want to cook, they didn't particularly want to keep house, they

01:18:10.760 --> 01:18:17.000
 didn't want to mow grass, and sort of having a situation where they could live in an urban

01:18:17.000 --> 01:18:23.720
 environment is attractive to them, and there's nothing that -- at least in this definition,

01:18:23.720 --> 01:18:29.840
 and part of the reason why we have the definition is to explain exactly what we mean here, even

01:18:29.840 --> 01:18:34.240
 if it's different from what you typically might use.

01:18:34.240 --> 01:18:39.880
 The other thing is that, as far as supervision is concerned, there are lots of private dormitories

01:18:39.880 --> 01:18:45.800
 that are not under the control of the university at UNT and other universities, and so for

01:18:45.800 --> 01:18:55.640
 that reason, dormitories seem to express this sort of combined living arrangement.

01:18:55.640 --> 01:18:57.200
 Is it the only way to express it?

01:18:57.200 --> 01:19:06.760
 No, not at all, but it's not intended to apply only to students.

01:19:06.760 --> 01:19:10.560
 And I think that's probably what we're going to get hung up, is a lot of people think like

01:19:10.560 --> 01:19:15.280
 what Commissioner Sanchez brought up, which is dormitory means something at a college

01:19:15.280 --> 01:19:16.920
 or university.

01:19:16.920 --> 01:19:18.160
 We are getting short on time.

01:19:18.160 --> 01:19:22.000
 Why don't we let you finish your presentation, and we're going to end up having to have discussion,

01:19:22.000 --> 01:19:23.800
 I think, in the meeting.

01:19:23.800 --> 01:19:24.800
 Okay.

01:19:24.800 --> 01:19:25.800
 Okay.

01:19:25.800 --> 01:19:34.480
 So I'm going to go ahead and jump through the background and really get to the meat of

01:19:34.480 --> 01:19:46.200
 the subject matter, and so again, the discussion is, is this a separate use?

01:19:46.200 --> 01:19:50.520
 If it is a separate use, where would they be located as far as a zoning district, and

01:19:50.520 --> 01:19:53.100
 what type of approval would they be required?

01:19:53.100 --> 01:19:56.800
 Is it an SUP or is it by right?

01:19:56.800 --> 01:20:02.720
 And then we've got also some other considerations to consider when we look at dormitories or

01:20:02.720 --> 01:20:05.840
 whatever we decide to call this.

01:20:05.840 --> 01:20:12.840
 Currently dormitory, as I said earlier, is already in the DEN Development Code.

01:20:12.840 --> 01:20:18.080
 It is permitted in these zoning districts by SUP or permitted by right.

01:20:18.080 --> 01:20:25.680
 Staff is recommending that the dormitory be permitted with a new definition as shown here

01:20:25.680 --> 01:20:33.960
 with SUPs in the NRMU, I'm sorry, NRMU-12, NRMU-DR-1 be permitted in the DR-2 and then

01:20:33.960 --> 01:20:40.640
 with a limitation in the DCN and DCG, and that limitation is that if that proposed dormitory

01:20:40.640 --> 01:20:45.800
 is above 45 feet, they would be required to obtain a specific use permit.

01:20:45.800 --> 01:20:50.920
 Now I want to also tell you that council has discussed this item and we presented to them

01:20:50.920 --> 01:20:55.900
 during a work session, two work sessions to be specific, and their recommendation or their

01:20:55.900 --> 01:21:02.800
 direction is that the dormitory is the use, is a separate use for multifamily and that

01:21:02.800 --> 01:21:10.760
 it should be permitted through an SUP in all of the zoning districts shown here.

01:21:10.760 --> 01:21:16.720
 Skip these.

01:21:16.720 --> 01:21:17.720
 That's really it.

01:21:17.720 --> 01:21:21.840
 So staff's recommendation, as you saw, is what you see here and then council has their

01:21:21.840 --> 01:21:27.720
 recommendation and what we're looking for the commission is to get your recommendation

01:21:27.720 --> 01:21:32.280
 for this item as well and we'll cover more during the public hearing.

01:21:32.280 --> 01:21:33.280
 Okay.

01:21:33.280 --> 01:21:34.280
 All right.

01:21:34.280 --> 01:21:41.480
 And with that, thank you, Ron, I'm going to go ahead and close our work session at 629

01:21:41.480 --> 01:21:46.020
 and we will reconvene in council chambers as soon as possible for the public meeting.

01:21:46.020 --> 01:21:53.600
 Thank you.

01:21:53.600 --> 01:21:58.400
 Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission for Wednesday,

01:21:58.400 --> 01:22:01.040
 February 6, 2019.

01:22:01.040 --> 01:22:07.440
 I will call us with the quorum present, call us to order at 639 PM.

01:22:07.440 --> 01:22:12.920
 If you are able, please stand and recite the pledge to the U.S. and Texas flag.

01:22:12.920 --> 01:22:21.160
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the Republic for which

01:22:21.160 --> 01:22:28.960
 it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

01:22:28.960 --> 01:22:35.260
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the Republic for which

01:22:35.260 --> 01:22:43.920
 it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

01:22:43.920 --> 01:22:44.920
 Okay.

01:22:44.920 --> 01:22:46.120
 Moving to our agenda.

01:22:46.120 --> 01:22:57.120
 Our first item of business is approval of the minutes from our meeting on January 23rd.

01:22:57.120 --> 01:22:58.120
 Commissioner Smith.

01:22:58.120 --> 01:22:59.460
 Move to approve.

01:22:59.460 --> 01:23:00.460
 Commissioner Preneta.

01:23:00.460 --> 01:23:01.460
 I second the motion.

01:23:01.460 --> 01:23:06.080
 We've got a first and a second to approve the minutes for January 23rd.

01:23:06.080 --> 01:23:17.200
 Let's take a vote.

01:23:17.200 --> 01:23:22.320
 That motion carries 6-0.

01:23:22.320 --> 01:23:26.460
 That moves us to the consent agenda.

01:23:26.460 --> 01:23:27.460
 Commissioner Smith.

01:23:27.460 --> 01:23:28.460
 Move to approve.

01:23:28.460 --> 01:23:31.000
 I give the motion to approve.

01:23:31.000 --> 01:23:32.000
 Commissioner Beck.

01:23:32.000 --> 01:23:33.000
 Second.

01:23:33.000 --> 01:23:34.000
 Okay.

01:23:34.000 --> 01:23:35.840
 Is there any discussion on the consent agenda?

01:23:35.840 --> 01:23:38.040
 We've got a first and a second to approve.

01:23:38.040 --> 01:23:39.040
 Okay.

01:23:39.040 --> 01:23:49.360
 Let's call for a vote on the board.

01:23:49.360 --> 01:23:53.120
 That will carry 6-0.

01:23:53.120 --> 01:23:57.320
 That moves us to our public hearings tonight.

01:23:57.320 --> 01:24:05.960
 Our public hearings, A, B, and C, have all been postponed to the February 20th planning

01:24:05.960 --> 01:24:09.280
 and zoning meeting.

01:24:09.280 --> 01:24:23.880
 That will take us to our item D. I will call up Shawn Jacobson for that presentation.

01:24:23.880 --> 01:24:40.360
 Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the commission.

01:24:40.360 --> 01:24:41.800
 My name is Shawn Jacobson.

01:24:41.800 --> 01:24:51.480
 Tonight I'm presenting FR180018, which is a residential replat of lots 2R1 and 2R2,

01:24:51.480 --> 01:24:55.200
 the fire station number 3 addition.

01:24:55.200 --> 01:24:59.800
 As we discussed in work session, this is a little bit different than the plats we normally

01:24:59.800 --> 01:25:02.760
 see for a replat without vacation.

01:25:02.760 --> 01:25:08.280
 We're required to hold a public hearing, and because this is a residential replat, we are

01:25:08.280 --> 01:25:15.320
 required to notice within 200 feet and within the subdivision, which we have done.

01:25:15.320 --> 01:25:20.680
 This specific replat, the original plat shown here, the addition, we're looking at lot number

01:25:20.680 --> 01:25:30.400
 2, and the request is to split lot number 2 into 2R1 and 2R2.

01:25:30.400 --> 01:25:37.880
 This is located in the NR3 zoning district, and both lots meet the minimum lot size within

01:25:37.880 --> 01:25:40.960
 that zoning district.

01:25:40.960 --> 01:25:45.860
 Just a note, we did receive two letters in response.

01:25:45.860 --> 01:25:52.080
 Both were in support and within the 200-foot radius.

01:25:52.080 --> 01:25:56.240
 Staff recommends approval because this replat meets all the technical requirements.

01:25:56.240 --> 01:25:59.000
 With that, if you have any questions, I'll stand for them.

01:25:59.000 --> 01:26:00.000
 We do.

01:26:00.000 --> 01:26:01.000
 Commissioner Beck.

01:26:01.000 --> 01:26:02.000
 Thank you, Vice Chair.

01:26:02.000 --> 01:26:03.000
 Thanks, Shawn.

01:26:03.000 --> 01:26:06.680
 Currently, there's no dwelling units on this lot, right?

01:26:06.680 --> 01:26:11.560
 There is a dwelling unit on one of them, yes, on 2R1.

01:26:11.560 --> 01:26:17.160
 Okay, and the intent for splitting this is to build another house on that?

01:26:17.160 --> 01:26:20.200
 That would certainly be something that the owner of that lot could do.

01:26:20.200 --> 01:26:21.200
 Okay.

01:26:21.200 --> 01:26:24.200
 That was an expresso in the way of doing it.

01:26:24.200 --> 01:26:25.200
 Okay, great.

01:26:25.200 --> 01:26:26.200
 Thank you.

01:26:26.200 --> 01:26:27.200
 Any other questions for staff?

01:26:27.200 --> 01:26:28.200
 I don't see any.

01:26:28.200 --> 01:26:29.200
 Thank you, Shawn.

01:26:29.200 --> 01:26:30.200
 Thank you.

01:26:30.200 --> 01:26:39.240
 Is there any discussion or I can entertain a motion?

01:26:39.240 --> 01:26:41.020
 I did not open the public hearing.

01:26:41.020 --> 01:26:42.020
 Thank you, Jerry.

01:26:42.020 --> 01:26:46.860
 I will open the public hearing.

01:26:46.860 --> 01:26:50.920
 Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item?

01:26:50.920 --> 01:26:57.280
 Okay, seeing none, I will close the public hearing for this item and I can entertain

01:26:57.280 --> 01:27:00.880
 discussion or a motion.

01:27:00.880 --> 01:27:01.880
 Commissioner Smith.

01:27:01.880 --> 01:27:02.880
 Move to approve.

01:27:02.880 --> 01:27:03.880
 Commissioner Beck.

01:27:03.880 --> 01:27:04.880
 Second.

01:27:04.880 --> 01:27:08.000
 Okay, we have a first and a second to approve.

01:27:08.000 --> 01:27:09.000
 Any discussion?

01:27:09.000 --> 01:27:20.640
 Okay, let's call for a vote.

01:27:20.640 --> 01:27:25.120
 That motion carries 6-0.

01:27:25.120 --> 01:27:31.600
 That will move us to our item E and I will open the public hearing and invite Ron up

01:27:31.600 --> 01:27:32.600
 for presentation.

01:27:32.600 --> 01:27:37.240
 Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission.

01:27:37.240 --> 01:27:43.640
 This will be a tag team effort between myself and Christy Upton regarding this subject item.

01:27:43.640 --> 01:27:49.400
 This item for you for consideration is for an alternative ESA, environmental sensitive

01:27:49.400 --> 01:27:58.840
 area plan, to allow the development of crossing a stream buffer, again, to allow for a single

01:27:58.840 --> 01:28:07.480
 family subdivision, approximately 140 residential lots on 45 acres, generally located just south

01:28:07.480 --> 01:28:13.680
 of Ryan Road and approximately 600 feet just west of Roxbury Street.

01:28:13.680 --> 01:28:24.880
 As shown on this aerial here, it is just east of the Lakeside Park as well as the Good Samaritan

01:28:24.880 --> 01:28:28.200
 development as shown on this aerial.

01:28:28.200 --> 01:28:35.080
 With that, I'm going to ask Christy Upton to continue with the presentation.

01:28:35.080 --> 01:28:38.280
 Thank you, Ron.

01:28:38.280 --> 01:28:45.200
 To give you an overview of this plan, I'm going to start with a little bit of the history

01:28:45.200 --> 01:28:50.480
 of how this ESA came to be.

01:28:50.480 --> 01:29:02.960
 The ESA regulations were established with a map that provided locations of ESAs within

01:29:02.960 --> 01:29:12.720
 the city of Denton, and we confirm the presence of those ESAs through field assessments.

01:29:12.720 --> 01:29:20.760
 This field assessment was done in 2018 and identified two tributaries, an unnamed tributary

01:29:20.760 --> 01:29:28.600
 that is an ephemeral stream, and the riparian buffer around it is 100 feet in width.

01:29:28.600 --> 01:29:34.320
 It was rated in fair condition using the City of Denton Rapid Stream Assessment Tool.

01:29:34.320 --> 01:29:41.920
 The Fletcher branch, the one in blue and the one that we will be discussing today, is an

01:29:41.920 --> 01:29:45.920
 intermittent stream that bisects the northern part of the property.

01:29:45.920 --> 01:29:53.560
 It is also 100 foot width, riparian buffer, and was also rated in fair condition.

01:29:53.560 --> 01:29:57.360
 In addition to that, there was upland habitat that was identified.

01:29:57.360 --> 01:30:04.240
 This cross-timbers upland habitat during the original assessment using the original tools

01:30:04.240 --> 01:30:10.680
 that we had available to us had identified 10.9 acres of that habitat.

01:30:10.680 --> 01:30:16.440
 During the assessment, some of that upland habitat was found to no longer meet the criteria,

01:30:16.440 --> 01:30:25.400
 namely that it was isolated from the rest of the upland habitat, and thus the isolation

01:30:25.400 --> 01:30:27.840
 keeps it from continuing.

01:30:27.840 --> 01:30:38.280
 That lack of continuity is where we lose that designation of up to and over 10 acres of

01:30:38.280 --> 01:30:41.640
 the upland habitat in continuity.

01:30:41.640 --> 01:30:47.360
 The assessment found that other areas did meet the criteria and were added, so it increased

01:30:47.360 --> 01:30:51.040
 the overall habitat to 20.6 acres.

01:30:51.040 --> 01:30:56.520
 I also want to point out that much of the riparian buffer within both the Fletcher branch

01:30:56.520 --> 01:31:03.040
 and the unnamed tributary meet also the criteria of upland habitat creating an overlap in those

01:31:03.040 --> 01:31:06.280
 two habitats.

01:31:06.280 --> 01:31:13.040
 The proposed encroachment is a roadway improvement to connect both the northern and southern

01:31:13.040 --> 01:31:20.000
 tracks and the installation of utilities throughout that roadway.

01:31:20.000 --> 01:31:25.280
 The encroachment, in order for them to establish that roadway, would require that they remove

01:31:25.280 --> 01:31:30.800
 a 100-foot long segment of the riparian buffer, and again, it being 100 feet in width, that

01:31:30.800 --> 01:31:35.960
 means that they'll be removing 10,000 square feet of total area.

01:31:35.960 --> 01:31:43.280
 The understory of this riparian buffer right now is predominantly Chinese privet, an invasive

01:31:43.280 --> 01:31:51.240
 species, and when I say predominantly, it's up to 75 to 100% of the coverage of that 10,000

01:31:51.240 --> 01:31:54.080
 square feet is Chinese privet.

01:31:54.080 --> 01:32:03.160
 Then 72 trees will also be removed, and there's a summary here of the trees that will be removed.

01:32:03.160 --> 01:32:10.920
 The criteria for approval of this alternative ESA plan for the proposed deviation from the

01:32:10.920 --> 01:32:17.720
 ordinance in sub-chapter 17, it lists those criteria.

01:32:17.720 --> 01:32:23.480
 There's more information about this in your documents that were provided to you.

01:32:23.480 --> 01:32:31.320
 To summarize the criteria for approval, the applicant must provide an in-kind replacement

01:32:31.320 --> 01:32:39.960
 of the functions that were offered by that ESA before the removal.

01:32:39.960 --> 01:32:45.200
 The mitigation strategies that they have offered up includes the preservation of cross-timbers

01:32:45.200 --> 01:32:50.280
 upland habitat in the tree canopy beyond the minimum city of Denton requirements.

01:32:50.280 --> 01:32:55.280
 The upland habitat minimum preservation requirement is 10.25 acres.

01:32:55.280 --> 01:33:06.300
 That would be the 20 acres, a little over 20 acres, 50% preservation equating to 10.25.

01:33:06.300 --> 01:33:15.160
 The applicant is proposing to preserve 11.5 acres, or one and a quarter acres more than

01:33:15.160 --> 01:33:18.840
 what is required by ordinance.

01:33:18.840 --> 01:33:26.280
 The tree canopy preservation requires 6.16 acres, and they are proposing to preserve

01:33:26.280 --> 01:33:33.040
 11.7 acres of tree canopy.

01:33:33.040 --> 01:33:38.480
 The next mitigation strategy is to remove the Chinese privet and calorie pear that have

01:33:38.480 --> 01:33:39.760
 invaded that area.

01:33:39.760 --> 01:33:47.280
 They will be removing it along the 100-foot riparian buffer all the way along the Fletcher

01:33:47.280 --> 01:33:50.160
 branch, tributary number four.

01:33:50.160 --> 01:33:54.280
 They will be doing this using mechanical and chemical removal methods.

01:33:54.280 --> 01:34:01.860
 The strategy will improve chances for a thriving native and adaptive understory.

01:34:01.860 --> 01:34:05.360
 They will also be installing temporary erosion control measures.

01:34:05.360 --> 01:34:12.760
 Specifically, they've proposed to use a rock-check dam at the crossing, and erosion control waddles

01:34:12.760 --> 01:34:18.300
 and other measures to prevent erosion during that period of time when the soils are exposed

01:34:18.300 --> 01:34:23.800
 after they have removed that Chinese privet and calorie pear.

01:34:23.800 --> 01:34:30.080
 The last mitigation strategy specifically to this all-ESA plan is to revegetate the

01:34:30.080 --> 01:34:32.040
 area cleared of the invasive species.

01:34:32.040 --> 01:34:36.640
 They will be revegetating that with the native and adaptive trees and shrubs.

01:34:36.640 --> 01:34:42.680
 Then they will also be using a riparian restoration seed mix to provide a protective ground cover.

01:34:42.680 --> 01:34:51.480
 Long-term management and monitoring that they have offered up is to provide a three-year

01:34:51.480 --> 01:34:57.080
 monitoring period to ensure the survivability of the mitigation plan that they have put

01:34:57.080 --> 01:34:58.080
 forth.

01:34:58.080 --> 01:35:05.080
 The developer will replace any dead material that is found during that annual inspection,

01:35:05.080 --> 01:35:13.080
 and we'll be replacing that, and we'll repair any eroded land, and we'll remove trash, and

01:35:13.080 --> 01:35:18.800
 we'll provide an annual report, a summary of what they found and what they have done

01:35:18.800 --> 01:35:24.280
 to mitigate any of the problems that they have identified.

01:35:24.280 --> 01:35:28.880
 Then, after three years, environmental services will inspect the area for conformists with

01:35:28.880 --> 01:35:35.720
 the alternative ESA plan and will issue final acceptance based upon our findings of that

01:35:35.720 --> 01:35:36.720
 inspection.

01:35:36.720 --> 01:35:41.920
 Our recommendation is for approval of the request with following conditions.

01:35:41.920 --> 01:35:50.320
 The 11.5 acres of existing cross-timbers upland habitat and 11.7 acres of tree canopy be preserved.

01:35:50.320 --> 01:35:55.160
 The encroachment into the riparian buffer will be limited to 10,000 square feet.

01:35:55.160 --> 01:36:00.240
 The invasive species within the Fletcher branch tributary number four riparian buffer ESA,

01:36:00.240 --> 01:36:07.240
 and specifically Chinese privet and calorie pair, will be removed.

01:36:07.240 --> 01:36:14.200
 Re-vegetation of areas disturbed by the invasive species, removal with the native plants and

01:36:14.200 --> 01:36:19.480
 provided in table three of the alternative ESA plan, and ground cover seeding of riparian

01:36:19.480 --> 01:36:25.680
 restoration mix will commence prior to the first building permit, and a reporting during

01:36:25.680 --> 01:36:31.520
 the first three years describing the cumulative mitigation work performed and the survivability

01:36:31.520 --> 01:36:36.760
 of the plants shall be submitted to staff for review and inspection.

01:36:36.760 --> 01:36:42.320
 Plants installed as part of the proposed native floral re-vegetation are to be installed and

01:36:42.320 --> 01:36:47.760
 maintained by the current property owner developer for a period of three years following installation.

01:36:47.760 --> 01:36:51.840
 Any plants that are removed, destroyed, or die within that three year period are required

01:36:51.840 --> 01:36:57.720
 to be replaced by the current property owner developer.

01:36:57.720 --> 01:37:05.640
 And before I turn this back over to Ron, I'd be happy to take any questions.

01:37:05.640 --> 01:37:06.640
 Thank you, Kristi.

01:37:06.640 --> 01:37:07.640
 I don't see any right now.

01:37:07.640 --> 01:37:08.640
 Okay.

01:37:08.640 --> 01:37:09.640
 Thank you.

01:37:09.640 --> 01:37:19.560
 I'll hand it over to Ron to provide you some more information about the neighborhood meetings.

01:37:19.560 --> 01:37:20.560
 Thank you, Kristi.

01:37:20.560 --> 01:37:26.800
 I just want to point out that the applicant did hold two neighborhood meetings, one in

01:37:26.800 --> 01:37:32.120
 December and one just recently in January, and included in your backup as well as passed

01:37:32.120 --> 01:37:38.360
 out during this afternoon's work session as a summary of those neighborhood meetings.

01:37:38.360 --> 01:37:43.680
 Questions were sent out to property owners within 200 feet as well as residents within

01:37:43.680 --> 01:37:47.640
 500 feet of the subject site, as this is a public hearing.

01:37:47.640 --> 01:37:54.080
 As of this afternoon, staff has received only one response, and that was in opposition,

01:37:54.080 --> 01:37:58.400
 and that represents one percent, and that concludes our presentation.

01:37:58.400 --> 01:38:02.080
 And if there's any questions for staff, we'll be happy to answer them.

01:38:02.080 --> 01:38:05.720
 The applicant is here and has a presentation as well.

01:38:09.040 --> 01:38:10.040
 Thank you, Ron.

01:38:10.040 --> 01:38:14.600
 And Kristi, I think I do have a question for you from me.

01:38:14.600 --> 01:38:19.080
 In work session, we discussed briefly the chemical use, and I know Deborah had mentioned

01:38:19.080 --> 01:38:22.160
 something about a water-friendly version of a pesticide.

01:38:22.160 --> 01:38:25.480
 Is that something that they'd be required to use, or is that just a suggestion that

01:38:25.480 --> 01:38:26.480
 the city would give?

01:38:26.480 --> 01:38:31.800
 Because they would be using this within the riparian buffer, they would have to use an

01:38:31.800 --> 01:38:32.800
 aquatic-approved chemical.

01:38:32.800 --> 01:38:33.800
 That would be required.

01:38:33.800 --> 01:38:34.800
 Yes.

01:38:34.800 --> 01:38:35.800
 Okay.

01:38:35.800 --> 01:38:36.800
 Very good.

01:38:36.800 --> 01:38:37.800
 Thank you.

01:38:37.800 --> 01:38:40.040
 Any other questions for staff?

01:38:40.040 --> 01:38:41.640
 Okay.

01:38:41.640 --> 01:38:44.920
 We do have some cards wishing to speak.

01:38:44.920 --> 01:38:49.600
 I'm going to call up the applicant, Thomas Fletcher.

01:38:49.600 --> 01:38:53.320
 Please state your name and address.

01:38:53.320 --> 01:38:54.320
 Good evening, commissioners.

01:38:54.320 --> 01:39:00.520
 My name is Thomas Fletcher, 5750 Genesis Court, Frisco, Texas, 75034.

01:39:00.520 --> 01:39:03.640
 I am the civil engineer for the applicant.

01:39:03.640 --> 01:39:05.440
 With me tonight is Ciara Gibbons.

01:39:05.440 --> 01:39:09.600
 She's our environmental scientist as well, so if there are questions that I am not able

01:39:09.600 --> 01:39:12.840
 to answer, then I've got her here with me as well.

01:39:12.840 --> 01:39:23.260
 I've got a quick PowerPoint presentation for you.

01:39:23.260 --> 01:39:28.680
 Really the request before you today is the alternate ESA plan, which would allow us to

01:39:28.680 --> 01:39:36.040
 cross the riparian stream buffer to access the southern portion of our track for development.

01:39:36.040 --> 01:39:40.280
 Really some side information, it's a 44.97-acre site.

01:39:40.280 --> 01:39:44.880
 It's currently zoned in R6, which allows for single-family development.

01:39:44.880 --> 01:39:49.140
 We're proposing 140 single-family lots.

01:39:49.140 --> 01:39:57.240
 Over that area, that's about a 3.1 density compared to the allowable use of six total.

01:39:57.240 --> 01:40:03.400
 Just to give you an idea of what we're proposing, it is a less dense development than what we

01:40:03.400 --> 01:40:06.280
 have the right by zoning to do.

01:40:06.280 --> 01:40:11.360
 The overall, because the preliminary plat is before you or was approved on the consent

01:40:11.360 --> 01:40:18.520
 agenda contingent upon the approval of the alternate ESA, the land plan has been established.

01:40:18.520 --> 01:40:24.480
 It has the open spaces, it has the street patterns, it has all that information that's

01:40:24.480 --> 01:40:31.480
 been reviewed by the city staff and found to be in conformance with as long as the alternate

01:40:31.480 --> 01:40:33.120
 ESA is approved.

01:40:33.120 --> 01:40:39.200
 The overall site has about 15.3 acres of open space.

01:40:39.200 --> 01:40:45.320
 That's about 35%, just under 35% open space for the entire development, so it does have

01:40:45.320 --> 01:40:48.680
 a significant amount of open space.

01:40:48.680 --> 01:40:53.880
 There is, as Christy has gone over, there's ESA in the form of riparian stream buffer

01:40:53.880 --> 01:40:56.320
 in upland habitat.

01:40:56.320 --> 01:40:57.920
 Here's an aerial image of the site.

01:40:57.920 --> 01:41:02.920
 To the north east of us is Teasley Trails, just directly north is Ridgemont.

01:41:02.920 --> 01:41:04.960
 To our east is Forest Meadows.

01:41:04.960 --> 01:41:08.200
 To our southeast is Lexington Park.

01:41:08.200 --> 01:41:13.360
 Directly to our west is Lake Forest Park and Good Samaritan Village, and you can see a

01:41:13.360 --> 01:41:19.720
 little further to the east is the Creekside development, and to the south is an undeveloped

01:41:19.720 --> 01:41:24.420
 track that's owned by Endeavour.

01:41:24.420 --> 01:41:30.680
 The ESA stream buffer is what we're asking for you to approve impacts to.

01:41:30.680 --> 01:41:34.140
 This shows the two stream buffers that are on the site.

01:41:34.140 --> 01:41:37.520
 The one in the northwest is the unnamed tributary.

01:41:37.520 --> 01:41:42.200
 The central one is Fletcher's Branch number four.

01:41:42.200 --> 01:41:47.760
 The proposed encroachment is a 100 foot by 100 foot area, 10,000 square feet.

01:41:47.760 --> 01:41:51.920
 The purpose of that encroachment is to build a residential street section to the south

01:41:51.920 --> 01:41:58.240
 so that we can have a contiguous development between the north and south portion of the

01:41:58.240 --> 01:41:59.240
 track.

01:41:59.240 --> 01:42:04.280
 It also gives us the ability to market this residential development off Ryan Road as a

01:42:04.280 --> 01:42:10.880
 contiguous neighborhood versus having residents or potential residents have to access it through

01:42:10.880 --> 01:42:13.720
 adjacent neighborhoods.

01:42:13.720 --> 01:42:18.680
 The reason or how we came up with 100 foot encroachment that we're requesting.

01:42:18.680 --> 01:42:23.880
 The city's standard residential section is 55 foot right of way.

01:42:23.880 --> 01:42:29.800
 DME requires an eight foot franchise utility easement in order to serve the development

01:42:29.800 --> 01:42:32.040
 with franchise utilities.

01:42:32.040 --> 01:42:37.320
 Because we are crossing a stream that has a large watershed, we will be utilizing box

01:42:37.320 --> 01:42:39.640
 culverts, multiple boxes.

01:42:39.640 --> 01:42:42.960
 Those will have concrete reinforced head walls.

01:42:42.960 --> 01:42:47.920
 Those are structurally designed on past projects that has been the city's position that they

01:42:47.920 --> 01:42:53.320
 want the structure itself outside the right of way so that it's not located up under the

01:42:53.320 --> 01:42:55.960
 right of way or under any of the improvements.

01:42:55.960 --> 01:42:58.240
 So it's just better for maintenance.

01:42:58.240 --> 01:43:05.200
 So when you take into account the roadway section, the franchise utility requirements,

01:43:05.200 --> 01:43:10.400
 the head walls for the drainage, and then rock riprap, typically when we have a drainage

01:43:10.400 --> 01:43:14.720
 structure because we're funneling the water through this drainage structure, we end up

01:43:14.720 --> 01:43:18.160
 having a lot of times a slight increase in velocity.

01:43:18.160 --> 01:43:23.040
 So we'll utilize rock riprap upstream and downstream to protect the banks so that we're

01:43:23.040 --> 01:43:27.500
 not getting erosion and undermining of that structure.

01:43:27.500 --> 01:43:32.600
 So that's really just to kind of give you a background on where that 100 feet came from.

01:43:32.600 --> 01:43:36.520
 That's how we derive the encroachment area.

01:43:36.520 --> 01:43:41.200
 So our application process, so we've been working on this track now for probably about

01:43:41.200 --> 01:43:43.520
 8 to 10 months.

01:43:43.520 --> 01:43:47.080
 So we first started out with our ESA assessment.

01:43:47.080 --> 01:43:54.240
 So our ESA assessment was project number ESA 18-0012, and that involved field assessment.

01:43:54.240 --> 01:43:58.920
 As Christie mentioned, there was a field assessment to go out there and determine what ESA was

01:43:58.920 --> 01:44:06.320
 present, where the limits were, so that we had a starting point or a basis for when we're

01:44:06.320 --> 01:44:11.160
 laying out the site, what we're going to have to preserve versus where we can impact.

01:44:11.160 --> 01:44:17.200
 So with the city standards, the upland habitat, you can impact up to 50%.

01:44:17.200 --> 01:44:21.840
 The riparian stream buffer, if you impact any portion of the riparian stream buffer,

01:44:21.840 --> 01:44:24.980
 it requires an alternate ESA plan.

01:44:24.980 --> 01:44:30.360
 Because the Fletcher's Branch tributary number 4 bisects the property, we need the ability

01:44:30.360 --> 01:44:31.920
 to impact that.

01:44:31.920 --> 01:44:36.760
 So we put together a plan, we met with the city, we determined that we are going to have

01:44:36.760 --> 01:44:39.360
 to do or request the alternate ESA plan.

01:44:39.360 --> 01:44:43.200
 So we started putting that plan together, we looked at the encroachments, we started

01:44:43.200 --> 01:44:45.500
 looking at mitigation measures.

01:44:45.500 --> 01:44:48.080
 It was kind of a collaborative process with the city.

01:44:48.080 --> 01:44:54.240
 We submitted our application, they worked with us on mitigation measures that we could

01:44:54.240 --> 01:44:59.280
 propose to kind of offset and mitigate for that impact.

01:44:59.280 --> 01:45:04.780
 As part of that process, we did submit our preliminary plat so that it could run concurrent

01:45:04.780 --> 01:45:09.360
 because it needs to follow the requirements or what we're requesting with the alternate

01:45:09.360 --> 01:45:10.720
 ESA plan.

01:45:10.720 --> 01:45:16.880
 So the city was able to review the preliminary plat and the alternate ESA plan concurrently

01:45:16.880 --> 01:45:21.080
 to make sure that those match up and are in alignment.

01:45:21.080 --> 01:45:26.400
 As part of the process, the city said, "Okay, we want to, as part of our citizen outreach

01:45:26.400 --> 01:45:30.600
 program, we want you to perform two neighborhood meetings."

01:45:30.600 --> 01:45:36.380
 So we set those meetings up, the first meeting was held on December 18th, the second meeting

01:45:36.380 --> 01:45:42.920
 was held on January 31st, and then we had a meeting with the city in between to discuss

01:45:42.920 --> 01:45:45.120
 some of the items that came up.

01:45:45.120 --> 01:45:51.800
 So really, in my presentation to you today, I'm going to talk to you about the ESA encroachment,

01:45:51.800 --> 01:45:56.440
 but I'm also going to talk to you about the neighborhood meetings and a lot of the concerns

01:45:56.440 --> 01:46:01.880
 or questions that came up in the neighborhood meetings and what we tried to do as the consultant

01:46:01.880 --> 01:46:08.020
 to help address and alleviate the questions and the concerns from the neighbors on this

01:46:08.020 --> 01:46:09.820
 proposed development.

01:46:09.820 --> 01:46:12.560
 So prior to the meeting, we sent out an invitation.

01:46:12.560 --> 01:46:17.640
 Within that invitation, it went to all the neighbors within 500 feet of the development.

01:46:17.640 --> 01:46:25.360
 We included a vicinity map for the site, we included the ESA riparian buffer, and then

01:46:25.360 --> 01:46:27.640
 we included two concept plans.

01:46:27.640 --> 01:46:35.680
 The concept plans showed, one, what we were allowed to do without any encroachments into

01:46:35.680 --> 01:46:42.120
 the ESA, and then what we would like to do as a developer.

01:46:42.120 --> 01:46:46.240
 The meeting was held at the Emily Fowler Central Library.

01:46:46.240 --> 01:46:48.120
 We had a sign-in sheet.

01:46:48.120 --> 01:46:50.440
 There were 26 people that signed in.

01:46:50.440 --> 01:46:55.360
 I do feel that everybody that attended probably didn't sign the sign-in sheet.

01:46:55.360 --> 01:47:00.280
 It felt like we probably had around 50 people total in attendance.

01:47:00.280 --> 01:47:03.080
 At the meeting, we put together an information sheet.

01:47:03.080 --> 01:47:04.560
 What is an ESA?

01:47:04.560 --> 01:47:06.880
 What types of ESAs are located on the site?

01:47:06.880 --> 01:47:12.520
 So we wanted it to be an educational experience about the ESA, and then we also put information

01:47:12.520 --> 01:47:16.760
 on there about our request to the residents.

01:47:16.760 --> 01:47:18.680
 I gave an informal presentation.

01:47:18.680 --> 01:47:21.400
 It was a Q&A.

01:47:21.400 --> 01:47:22.560
 There were lots of questions.

01:47:22.560 --> 01:47:25.720
 There was lots of back-and-forth discussion.

01:47:25.720 --> 01:47:31.440
 There were city staff present at the meeting that was engaged in the meeting as well.

01:47:31.440 --> 01:47:38.920
 At the residents' own discretion, we had sheets that they had the opportunity to sign, whether

01:47:38.920 --> 01:47:42.960
 or not they were in support or in opposition of our request.

01:47:42.960 --> 01:47:47.960
 We had two people sign in opposition, and we had 22 people sign in favor.

01:47:47.960 --> 01:47:53.840
 So the residents, primarily the residents in favor were Forest Meadows that's adjacent

01:47:53.840 --> 01:48:00.200
 to our east and had the potential to be impacted the most by our development.

01:48:00.200 --> 01:48:03.240
 So here are the two concept plans.

01:48:03.240 --> 01:48:08.700
 Exhibit C is what our preferred layout is, and this is what we shared with them at that

01:48:08.700 --> 01:48:10.520
 initial meeting.

01:48:10.520 --> 01:48:13.600
 Exhibit D is what we're allowed to do by right.

01:48:13.600 --> 01:48:19.800
 As you notice on Exhibit D, it has a cul-de-sac street on the north end, so the development,

01:48:19.800 --> 01:48:24.920
 the residential homes on the north would be bisected from the ones on the south.

01:48:24.920 --> 01:48:28.160
 So there's really not any continuity there.

01:48:28.160 --> 01:48:32.640
 The primary access from the southern portion of the development would either be through

01:48:32.640 --> 01:48:39.680
 Forest Meadow or Lexington Park, and it doesn't really create a new neighborhood feel by having

01:48:39.680 --> 01:48:45.120
 to go through an existing neighborhood to access the southern portion, which is important

01:48:45.120 --> 01:48:46.120
 to our builder.

01:48:46.120 --> 01:48:48.600
 We do have a home builder under contract for the lots.

01:48:48.600 --> 01:48:57.280
 It's Toll Brothers, and the connection through the riparian buffer is important to them in

01:48:57.280 --> 01:49:05.000
 order for them to effectively market and create a successful neighborhood here.

01:49:05.000 --> 01:49:08.460
 So we had our neighborhood meeting number two.

01:49:08.460 --> 01:49:11.640
 Prior to the second neighborhood meeting, we went and met with the city.

01:49:11.640 --> 01:49:16.220
 In the neighborhood meeting, the first neighborhood meeting, the primary concern was traffic.

01:49:16.220 --> 01:49:17.960
 It was Hollister Drive.

01:49:17.960 --> 01:49:23.120
 It was the existing cut-through traffic through Forest Meadows and Lexington Park.

01:49:23.120 --> 01:49:27.760
 I let the citizens know that the city has done some updates to their standards.

01:49:27.760 --> 01:49:31.800
 The new standards, they were developed under the old standards, which was 50-foot right

01:49:31.800 --> 01:49:34.760
 of way, 28-foot back-to-back streets.

01:49:34.760 --> 01:49:40.880
 Our developments under the new standards, 55-foot right of way, 31 or 33-foot back-to-back

01:49:40.880 --> 01:49:43.820
 streets, depending on the curb type that's used.

01:49:43.820 --> 01:49:46.480
 We went through some of those factors.

01:49:46.480 --> 01:49:50.760
 One of the biggest things that they requested is that they would like to see Hollister Lane

01:49:50.760 --> 01:49:53.600
 not extended through our development.

01:49:53.600 --> 01:49:55.860
 They already have a lot of cut-through traffic.

01:49:55.860 --> 01:50:01.480
 They felt like the access should be primarily off Ryan Road and Creekdale.

01:50:01.480 --> 01:50:03.600
 Ryan Road is a secondary arterial.

01:50:03.600 --> 01:50:08.160
 That is, the city's already in the process of looking at and improving it.

01:50:08.160 --> 01:50:10.640
 Creekdale Road is a collector.

01:50:10.640 --> 01:50:13.320
 It's a 37-foot back-to-back street.

01:50:13.320 --> 01:50:18.040
 The existing homes on Creekdale do not driveway off of Creekdale.

01:50:18.040 --> 01:50:24.320
 They're served by alleys, so you don't have all the traffic in those homes that would

01:50:24.320 --> 01:50:29.080
 back into Creekdale because they're served from the backside.

01:50:29.080 --> 01:50:30.840
 We did meet with the city.

01:50:30.840 --> 01:50:37.080
 The city was in agreement with access to Ryan Road and access to Creekdale.

01:50:37.080 --> 01:50:40.280
 It would meet the fire department's remote access requirement.

01:50:40.280 --> 01:50:49.520
 It's getting the residential drivers onto the collector and the arterial sooner, which

01:50:49.520 --> 01:50:55.120
 is what you want, versus traffic accumulating on the residential streets, which have less

01:50:55.120 --> 01:50:57.760
 capacity to serve.

01:50:57.760 --> 01:51:02.280
 If you look on the left, exhibit C, we updated that.

01:51:02.280 --> 01:51:07.080
 One of the things that was important in that meeting was that with removing that connection,

01:51:07.080 --> 01:51:13.920
 we still wanted to provide pedestrian connectivity, even though that these are separate subdivisions.

01:51:13.920 --> 01:51:19.600
 We've got Lake Forest Park to our west, which is an asset of the city in this area.

01:51:19.600 --> 01:51:26.280
 We want to make sure that we create an opportunity for the residents located around that to utilize

01:51:26.280 --> 01:51:29.720
 the sidewalk and trail system to access the park.

01:51:29.720 --> 01:51:34.600
 We don't want to create a situation where the residents from Lexington Park or Forest

01:51:34.600 --> 01:51:38.520
 Meadows would have to get in their car to drive over to Lake Forest.

01:51:38.520 --> 01:51:39.520
 There's sidewalks.

01:51:39.520 --> 01:51:40.520
 There's trails.

01:51:40.520 --> 01:51:42.600
 They can access it through the development.

01:51:42.600 --> 01:51:49.240
 This is the plan that we have before you with the preliminary plat and preliminary engineering.

01:51:49.240 --> 01:51:52.120
 It does show the trail access.

01:51:52.120 --> 01:51:55.920
 With this, we agreed that we would remove the stub.

01:51:55.920 --> 01:52:00.440
 Right now, if you drive to the end of Hollister Lane, it says future extension.

01:52:00.440 --> 01:52:06.440
 The city and we agreed that we didn't want that to look like it was going to be kind

01:52:06.440 --> 01:52:10.640
 of an unfinished or incomplete project.

01:52:10.640 --> 01:52:15.800
 What we agreed to do is that we would remove, and we have that shown in our preliminary

01:52:15.800 --> 01:52:20.040
 engineering that's part of the preliminary plat, that we would remove that end portion

01:52:20.040 --> 01:52:21.360
 of the street.

01:52:21.360 --> 01:52:26.920
 I did want to go over that with you just because that was one of the biggest concerns from

01:52:26.920 --> 01:52:32.360
 the residents, and this is what we did as far as meeting with the city to access and

01:52:32.360 --> 01:52:34.920
 address it.

01:52:34.920 --> 01:52:41.280
 Getting back to the ESA, the impacts and mitigation, Christy's kind of gone over that with you.

01:52:41.280 --> 01:52:45.640
 We've got a total stream buffer impact of 0.2 acres.

01:52:45.640 --> 01:52:52.940
 There's 3.4 acres of riparian stream buffer, so our request is to impact 6% of that.

01:52:52.940 --> 01:52:58.700
 Our mitigation measures are removing of the invasive species, the Chinese privet, the

01:52:58.700 --> 01:53:00.120
 calorie pear.

01:53:00.120 --> 01:53:02.880
 It's replanting with native material.

01:53:02.880 --> 01:53:05.320
 It's replanting with a seed mix.

01:53:05.320 --> 01:53:11.760
 It's putting erosion control measures in place while we're doing this work for bank stabilization.

01:53:11.760 --> 01:53:18.000
 It's preserving upland habitat and tree canopy that is above and beyond the minimum requirements.

01:53:18.000 --> 01:53:26.520
 Then it's doing the three-year inspection, maintenance, and reporting period.

01:53:26.520 --> 01:53:33.040
 Really kind of a summary through this, we're requesting this approval so that we can create

01:53:33.040 --> 01:53:37.480
 a contiguous neighborhood, so that we can create a neighborhood feel.

01:53:37.480 --> 01:53:39.760
 It would provide view corridors of the creek.

01:53:39.760 --> 01:53:45.400
 When we do the creek crossing, it kind of engages the future residents in that upland

01:53:45.400 --> 01:53:47.920
 habitat into that open space.

01:53:47.920 --> 01:53:52.160
 It provides pedestrian access from forest meadows through this development.

01:53:52.160 --> 01:53:56.480
 It would also provide pedestrian access for Lexington Park across Creekdale and through

01:53:56.480 --> 01:53:57.480
 the development.

01:53:57.480 --> 01:54:04.720
 Then it eliminates the concerns with traffic with the connection of Hollister because without

01:54:04.720 --> 01:54:12.000
 the approval of this, the only plan we could move forward without would be the other option

01:54:12.000 --> 01:54:14.760
 that you've seen before you as well.

01:54:14.760 --> 01:54:20.360
 With that, I would be happy to answer any questions.

01:54:20.360 --> 01:54:21.360
 - Thank you, Mr. Fletcher.

01:54:21.360 --> 01:54:23.360
 We do have questions.

01:54:23.360 --> 01:54:24.360
 Commissioner Perneto.

01:54:24.360 --> 01:54:25.360
 - Thank you.

01:54:25.360 --> 01:54:29.800
 I just wanted to clarify, and I don't know if this would be you or Christy that would

01:54:29.800 --> 01:54:31.400
 clarify this.

01:54:31.400 --> 01:54:38.200
 We discussed the removal of the invasive species either through mechanical or chemical means.

01:54:38.200 --> 01:54:41.800
 Vice Chair a second ago mentioned the aquatic-based herbicides.

01:54:41.800 --> 01:54:46.280
 I don't see that in the recommendation, so we make our vote.

01:54:46.280 --> 01:54:50.520
 Is that part of our stipulation, and can we stipulate that that would be the method used

01:54:50.520 --> 01:54:51.520
 for chemical?

01:54:51.520 --> 01:54:56.840
 - I guess I'd have to defer to staff.

01:54:56.840 --> 01:55:01.480
 - As a representative of the applicant, I would say that we're acceptable.

01:55:01.480 --> 01:55:08.080
 If you want to put that in your recommendation so that it's clear, then we're acceptable

01:55:08.080 --> 01:55:10.520
 to that being added to the recommendation.

01:55:10.520 --> 01:55:14.160
 - All right, thank you very much.

01:55:14.160 --> 01:55:15.160
 - Commissioner Beck.

01:55:15.160 --> 01:55:16.160
 - Thank you, Vice Chair.

01:55:16.160 --> 01:55:17.160
 Thanks, Mr. Fletcher.

01:55:17.160 --> 01:55:18.160
 Good seeing you again.

01:55:18.160 --> 01:55:29.960
 I think the only thing ... I think it's clear, pretty clear to me the 100-foot that you need.

01:55:29.960 --> 01:55:35.120
 You've got 55-foot of right-of-way that you need, 8-foot for DME, and then the rest of

01:55:35.120 --> 01:55:41.320
 it is to build up some barriers to prevent erosion down the road.

01:55:41.320 --> 01:55:42.320
 Is that right?

01:55:42.320 --> 01:55:43.320
 Am I saying that right?

01:55:43.320 --> 01:55:49.080
 - Well, so when you do a box culvert, you have a structural headwall, and your structural

01:55:49.080 --> 01:55:51.120
 headwall has a footing.

01:55:51.120 --> 01:55:53.520
 The footing is usually much wider.

01:55:53.520 --> 01:55:58.400
 If you see the concrete portion of the headwall up top, generally that's probably going to

01:55:58.400 --> 01:56:04.640
 be 8 to 10 inches wide, but where that goes down and goes underground, generally that's

01:56:04.640 --> 01:56:11.520
 probably going to be 6 to 12 feet wide, depending on the overall height of the headwall.

01:56:11.520 --> 01:56:17.360
 We will have that headwall, the protrusion for the footing, and then we will put rock

01:56:17.360 --> 01:56:22.800
 riprap in the stream to protect that from erosion, because what you don't want is you

01:56:22.800 --> 01:56:29.280
 get turbulence and velocity, and you start getting erosion that starts eating out around

01:56:29.280 --> 01:56:33.360
 the structure, and it creates a maintenance issue for the city.

01:56:33.360 --> 01:56:40.040
 So the 55, the 8, we assumed, I think, 12 feet for the headwalls, and then generally

01:56:40.040 --> 01:56:44.840
 the rock riprap is usually a minimum of 10 foot in width.

01:56:44.840 --> 01:56:49.320
 That all adds up to around 95, but you have to be able to get in there with the equipment

01:56:49.320 --> 01:56:55.200
 and the manpower to make the installation, so that's where we came up with the 100 foot.

01:56:55.200 --> 01:56:56.200
 - Great.

01:56:56.200 --> 01:56:57.200
 Got you.

01:56:57.200 --> 01:57:04.840
 - I do have a question, I think I probably would like to have Ms. Givens come up and

01:57:04.840 --> 01:57:08.280
 talk about the removal process a little bit.

01:57:08.280 --> 01:57:14.640
 I think she was in the work session, I'd just like to have her allay my concerns about any

01:57:14.640 --> 01:57:17.640
 herbicide they might use.

01:57:17.640 --> 01:57:18.640
 - Okay.

01:57:18.640 --> 01:57:22.920
 - And one other question I'll have that I think she's probably better suited to answer

01:57:22.920 --> 01:57:23.920
 too.

01:57:23.920 --> 01:57:27.400
 - If you give a name and address.

01:57:27.400 --> 01:57:31.280
 - Sierra Givens, 13455 Noel Road.

01:57:31.280 --> 01:57:33.320
 - Okay.

01:57:33.320 --> 01:57:35.640
 You were in the workshop, okay.

01:57:35.640 --> 01:57:40.080
 Could you allay my concerns about the herbicide that might be used?

01:57:40.080 --> 01:57:46.640
 I'm assuming that there probably will be a herbicide used, is that a fair assessment?

01:57:46.640 --> 01:57:53.440
 - Most potentially, we're going to set out bids for the contractors who do this often,

01:57:53.440 --> 01:58:00.760
 and so we're going to rely on them to give us proposals of what they think is best to

01:58:00.760 --> 01:58:03.200
 do a successful removal of the invasive species.

01:58:03.200 --> 01:58:10.360
 - Okay, but if they use a chemical and it's glyphosate, which again seems to be the chemical

01:58:10.360 --> 01:58:14.160
 of choice to help remove some of this.

01:58:14.160 --> 01:58:15.160
 - Right.

01:58:15.160 --> 01:58:20.040
 We would still have a say in what they use, and so we would definitely work with the city,

01:58:20.040 --> 01:58:26.160
 work with their expertise, and just kind of put it together to what we think is best to

01:58:26.160 --> 01:58:28.800
 be successful, but also do save practices.

01:58:28.800 --> 01:58:29.800
 - Okay.

01:58:29.800 --> 01:58:35.480
 I mentioned in the work session too that would this information on this chemical be included

01:58:35.480 --> 01:58:39.800
 in the annual report?

01:58:39.800 --> 01:58:45.880
 When you do your annual report, would you be assessing the chemical if it is used, and

01:58:45.880 --> 01:58:53.760
 any problems with it as far as assimilating into the environment, the ecosystem?

01:58:53.760 --> 01:58:59.480
 - In the annual report, we would write if that is the chosen method.

01:58:59.480 --> 01:59:04.480
 The city would already be aware of that, but it would go into the report of what the method

01:59:04.480 --> 01:59:12.800
 was, when it was applied, what the method was used to apply it, who the contractor was,

01:59:12.800 --> 01:59:13.800
 all that information.

01:59:13.800 --> 01:59:17.560
 - So it'd be pretty thorough, and I guess I think through the Freedom of Information

01:59:17.560 --> 01:59:23.240
 Act, anybody could access that, and I think that was the only way we were going to get

01:59:23.240 --> 01:59:24.240
 to it.

01:59:24.240 --> 01:59:25.240
 Okay.

01:59:25.240 --> 01:59:28.880
 The only other question concerning Avenue, you may not be able to, and I realize this

01:59:28.880 --> 01:59:34.760
 may be a reach, but in your narrative, you mentioned that no increase in 100-year peak

01:59:34.760 --> 01:59:40.720
 flows are anticipated downstream of the subject property.

01:59:40.720 --> 01:59:41.720
 What's this based on?

01:59:41.720 --> 01:59:49.480
 - The reason I raise this is because we know now that extreme climate conditions are kind

01:59:49.480 --> 01:59:51.840
 of throwing these old models out.

01:59:51.840 --> 01:59:57.960
 So when you took this into consideration, did you consider current conditions, extreme

01:59:57.960 --> 01:59:58.960
 weather conditions?

01:59:58.960 --> 01:59:59.960
 - We did.

01:59:59.960 --> 02:00:00.960
 We did.

02:00:00.960 --> 02:00:01.960
 So we've done a flood study.

02:00:01.960 --> 02:00:02.960
 - Okay.

02:00:02.960 --> 02:00:07.880
 - The flood study has been submitted to the city, and it was in process of review.

02:00:07.880 --> 02:00:14.680
 So our flood study follows the City of Denton's code requirements for flood studies as far

02:00:14.680 --> 02:00:17.440
 as delineation of the drainage basin.

02:00:17.440 --> 02:00:20.400
 Most of this drainage basin is a developed basin.

02:00:20.400 --> 02:00:25.960
 So when we look at the contributing area, we go through and look at, okay, when we have

02:00:25.960 --> 02:00:30.120
 a rain event, what area contributes to this point?

02:00:30.120 --> 02:00:31.640
 Is that an undeveloped basin?

02:00:31.640 --> 02:00:33.600
 Is it a developed basin?

02:00:33.600 --> 02:00:39.120
 If it's developed, what type of development, is it commercial, is it residential?

02:00:39.120 --> 02:00:42.340
 That all impacts the runoff rates.

02:00:42.340 --> 02:00:44.720
 Are there detention ponds in the basin?

02:00:44.720 --> 02:00:48.920
 There are a couple of developments that do have detention ponds in the basin, so that

02:00:48.920 --> 02:00:50.560
 all gets factored in.

02:00:50.560 --> 02:00:56.000
 So when we say that we're not gonna increase, we've already done the study to show that

02:00:56.000 --> 02:01:02.640
 as part of our final platen construction plans, the city will confirm final design that it

02:01:02.640 --> 02:01:08.800
 does in fact meet the flood study and does not increase runoff downstream.

02:01:08.800 --> 02:01:09.800
 Okay.

02:01:09.800 --> 02:01:10.800
 I'm sorry.

02:01:10.800 --> 02:01:11.800
 Go ahead.

02:01:11.800 --> 02:01:17.880
 I guess what I'm asking is, is part of this based on rates of rainfall historically?

02:01:17.880 --> 02:01:24.960
 Or are we looking at something a little bit different that suits what we're actually seeing

02:01:24.960 --> 02:01:27.000
 today with heavier rainfalls?

02:01:27.000 --> 02:01:29.640
 Is that taken into consideration?

02:01:29.640 --> 02:01:35.220
 The current rainfall requirements in the code is what's taken into consideration.

02:01:35.220 --> 02:01:40.280
 The code says that we have to look at certain rainfall events, whether it's the two, the

02:01:40.280 --> 02:01:41.360
 five, the ten.

02:01:41.360 --> 02:01:47.400
 We have to analyze each rainfall event and make sure that in each case, because you can

02:01:47.400 --> 02:01:53.040
 have a situation where you do development and you may be increasing runoff in one of

02:01:53.040 --> 02:01:58.560
 the rain events, but not necessarily another one of the rain events, but we have to look

02:01:58.560 --> 02:02:04.080
 at each one of those individually because you don't want to increase flows, but you

02:02:04.080 --> 02:02:09.920
 don't want to also increase velocity, which could create erosion problems.

02:02:09.920 --> 02:02:13.920
 Maybe the 100 year, there's not an issue, but in the 25, you've increased velocities

02:02:13.920 --> 02:02:16.680
 and erosion downstream, which creates an issue.

02:02:16.680 --> 02:02:17.680
 We have.

02:02:17.680 --> 02:02:19.480
 We're following the city's code.

02:02:19.480 --> 02:02:26.400
 We look at the different storm events that are required, and we model the basin upstream

02:02:26.400 --> 02:02:33.720
 and downstream of our site so that we've got an accurate model and picture of what is occurring

02:02:33.720 --> 02:02:34.720
 within the basin.

02:02:34.720 --> 02:02:35.720
 Okay.

02:02:35.720 --> 02:02:36.720
 Very good.

02:02:36.720 --> 02:02:38.680
 Thank you, Mr. Fletcher.

02:02:38.680 --> 02:02:41.720
 Commissioner Sanchez.

02:02:41.720 --> 02:02:48.260
 Looking at force metal, they have a bridge as you go into that subdivision.

02:02:48.260 --> 02:02:51.000
 Is that also crossing Fletcher?

02:02:51.000 --> 02:02:52.000
 That is.

02:02:52.000 --> 02:02:53.760
 I'm not sure how far.

02:02:53.760 --> 02:02:54.760
 It's the same tributary.

02:02:54.760 --> 02:02:55.760
 It's the same tributary, right?

02:02:55.760 --> 02:03:01.120
 I don't know if the usually a lot of times on some of the tributaries, once they get

02:03:01.120 --> 02:03:06.880
 to a certain point in the basin, they become unnamed, but that would be Fletcher's Branch

02:03:06.880 --> 02:03:13.600
 tributary number four at that culvert crossing just south of Ryan Road at the entry into

02:03:13.600 --> 02:03:14.600
 force meadows.

02:03:14.600 --> 02:03:15.600
 Correct?

02:03:15.600 --> 02:03:16.600
 Yeah.

02:03:16.600 --> 02:03:17.600
 Right.

02:03:17.600 --> 02:03:18.600
 Right.

02:03:18.600 --> 02:03:22.520
 I would guess my answer was that it's already been crossed before, you know, along right

02:03:22.520 --> 02:03:23.520
 there.

02:03:23.520 --> 02:03:24.520
 Correct.

02:03:24.520 --> 02:03:29.180
 And Duffy's Way crosses it as well for the access to the park.

02:03:29.180 --> 02:03:30.180
 Okay.

02:03:30.180 --> 02:03:33.360
 I don't see any other questions.

02:03:33.360 --> 02:03:34.360
 Thank you, Mr. Fletcher.

02:03:34.360 --> 02:03:35.360
 Thank you.

02:03:35.360 --> 02:03:36.360
 Okay.

02:03:36.360 --> 02:03:37.920
 I do have other cards to speak.

02:03:37.920 --> 02:03:46.600
 Carol Ackerman, please state your name and address and you'll have four minutes.

02:03:46.600 --> 02:03:54.280
 I'm the President of Force Meadows Homeowners Association and we'd like to present 132 signatures

02:03:54.280 --> 02:03:57.240
 in favor of this proposal and also that-

02:03:57.240 --> 02:03:59.200
 Can you state your name and address for me first, please?

02:03:59.200 --> 02:04:00.200
 Oh, I'm sorry.

02:04:00.200 --> 02:04:01.200
 Thank you.

02:04:01.200 --> 02:04:04.680
 Carol Ackerman, 1913 Knob Hill Court, Denton, Texas.

02:04:04.680 --> 02:04:05.680
 Thank you very much.

02:04:05.680 --> 02:04:06.680
 Carry on.

02:04:06.680 --> 02:04:07.680
 Okay.

02:04:07.680 --> 02:04:11.520
 Anyway, we'd like to present these to the commission.

02:04:11.520 --> 02:04:17.960
 We are in favor of them crossing the stream and the entrance off Ryan Road due to safety

02:04:17.960 --> 02:04:20.880
 issues in our community.

02:04:20.880 --> 02:04:31.940
 Thank you.

02:04:31.940 --> 02:04:38.120
 The next card I have is Joe Kratz.

02:04:38.120 --> 02:04:49.480
 If you'll state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak.

02:04:49.480 --> 02:04:59.720
 My name is Joe, last name Kratz, address is 4109 Roxbury Street, R-O-X-B-U-R-Y Street.

02:04:59.720 --> 02:05:02.360
 Thank you.

02:05:02.360 --> 02:05:04.520
 I work with Carol.

02:05:04.520 --> 02:05:07.560
 I'm a resident of Force Meadows.

02:05:07.560 --> 02:05:17.840
 Naturally, we would like to see the area remain undeveloped, but we know that's not practical.

02:05:17.840 --> 02:05:33.220
 But the proposed change to encroach the 6% of Wetland to us seems preferred to changing

02:05:33.220 --> 02:05:41.760
 the character of Hollister and the surrounding roadways of Hilawaya and Roxbury.

02:05:41.760 --> 02:05:52.880
 I don't know if the gentleman with the engineering firm could pull up the map and I could make

02:05:52.880 --> 02:05:56.840
 references that would be maybe more meaningful.

02:05:56.840 --> 02:06:03.600
 But the signatures that Carol just presented to you are signatures that I helped gather,

02:06:03.600 --> 02:06:11.800
 and it represents darn near every resident on the affected roadways of Hollister, Roxbury.

02:06:11.800 --> 02:06:17.000
 In fact, there's only about six addresses on Roxbury that did not weigh in with the

02:06:17.000 --> 02:06:20.920
 signature, and mostly because they just weren't home when we knocked on their door.

02:06:20.920 --> 02:06:29.920
 So they're pretty motivated to the proposed change simply because of, okay, I don't know

02:06:29.920 --> 02:06:39.680
 if you can see my mouse, but Ryan heads up to Teasley Road, and that light short cycles,

02:06:39.680 --> 02:06:48.160
 and the traffic on Teasley is severely backed up at peak time, and that's morning and evening.

02:06:48.160 --> 02:07:06.240
 What that does, along with Robinson and Teasley and another road, another intersection, I

02:07:06.240 --> 02:07:14.680
 had it in my notes, but the surrounding light short cycle, and so what that encourages traffic

02:07:14.680 --> 02:07:19.480
 to do is to cut down Roxbury Street and Hillalaya.

02:07:19.480 --> 02:07:28.000
 So we already are suffering from the increased development in the area, the load being heavy

02:07:28.000 --> 02:07:34.080
 on the roads, and with the short cycling lights at Robinson Road and Teasley and Ryan, and

02:07:34.080 --> 02:07:40.760
 I think it's Wheeler Ridge, because those lights short cycle, people will use our neighborhood

02:07:40.760 --> 02:07:44.240
 already to cut through.

02:07:44.240 --> 02:07:54.880
 So when we see the additional Hollister as an additional source of traffic into our neighborhood,

02:07:54.880 --> 02:08:05.440
 I think that's what motivated the residents to really speak up and endorse the change.

02:08:05.440 --> 02:08:13.880
 So that's really where, having knocked on doors and spoken to residents, Roxbury is

02:08:13.880 --> 02:08:23.600
 a very long road, and for that, people can work up a pretty good head of steam and get

02:08:23.600 --> 02:08:27.800
 above 30 miles an hour in a residential road.

02:08:27.800 --> 02:08:42.160
 So Hollister, the residents there, and Hillalaya, and I forget the, I'm going to use my mouse.

02:08:42.160 --> 02:08:43.160
 What's that road?

02:08:43.160 --> 02:08:44.160
 Hillalaya.

02:08:44.160 --> 02:08:52.600
 Well, Hillalaya, but the other one behind, the one that's, anyways, the road that comes,

02:08:52.600 --> 02:09:00.720
 this is Hollister, if you can see my mouse, and then you go behind it, that road, yeah,

02:09:00.720 --> 02:09:06.880
 the character of those roads would change to increase traffic and increase a change

02:09:06.880 --> 02:09:17.920
 in the quality of life, noise, increased car exhaust, and so we would ask council to consider

02:09:17.920 --> 02:09:24.200
 this being in favor of this change to keep Hollister from going through, give them their

02:09:24.200 --> 02:09:29.440
 encroachment of the wetlands, to give them their bridge so they can connect up.

02:09:29.440 --> 02:09:37.480
 The alternative to that, for us, we would like to see Duffy's Way, which is a road exclusively

02:09:37.480 --> 02:09:44.920
 servicing the dog park, to be changed to provide access to their development from the west

02:09:44.920 --> 02:09:48.400
 side and not the east side with Hollister.

02:09:48.400 --> 02:09:50.720
 Thank you very much.

02:09:50.720 --> 02:09:54.000
 Thank you.

02:09:54.000 --> 02:10:03.600
 Our next person to speak is Judy Reel.

02:10:03.600 --> 02:10:04.600
 Thank you.

02:10:04.600 --> 02:10:05.600
 Hi.

02:10:05.600 --> 02:10:07.640
 I'm Judy Reel, 1424 Monte Cristo Court.

02:10:07.640 --> 02:10:08.640
 Thank you.

02:10:08.640 --> 02:10:11.160
 I did in Texas, 76210.

02:10:11.160 --> 02:10:16.360
 I live in the Ridgemont Adrition, north of their new front door.

02:10:16.360 --> 02:10:24.760
 So we are within the 200-foot area of the property, and so we are one of the residents

02:10:24.760 --> 02:10:27.180
 in opposition.

02:10:27.180 --> 02:10:31.000
 Our main reason for that is we're directly across the street from where they're going

02:10:31.000 --> 02:10:33.280
 to enter that street.

02:10:33.280 --> 02:10:39.560
 Already we experience large water pooling coming down through the neighborhood, and

02:10:39.560 --> 02:10:41.680
 the water flow in that area.

02:10:41.680 --> 02:10:45.880
 We're very concerned about the disruption that's going to happen there.

02:10:45.880 --> 02:10:52.600
 The current infrastructure there on certain downpours is inadequate.

02:10:52.600 --> 02:10:54.240
 I live on the corner.

02:10:54.240 --> 02:10:56.160
 All that water rushes by me.

02:10:56.160 --> 02:11:00.920
 I have a number of easements underneath my property to support these tributaries and

02:11:00.920 --> 02:11:05.440
 the feeding of water through that area to get it down there and into where it needs

02:11:05.440 --> 02:11:06.440
 to be.

02:11:06.440 --> 02:11:11.880
 So it's one of those things that are first concerned.

02:11:11.880 --> 02:11:15.880
 My neighbors here don't want the traffic routed through them.

02:11:15.880 --> 02:11:19.400
 I can tell you I don't want the traffic increase on Ryan Road.

02:11:19.400 --> 02:11:23.480
 We are in favor of leaving the easement.

02:11:23.480 --> 02:11:28.280
 Not doing the easement, leaving the ESA and keeping the water natural, mainly because

02:11:28.280 --> 02:11:29.280
 it splits the traffic.

02:11:29.280 --> 02:11:34.360
 At least all of us can endure the increase a little more instead of dumping it all on

02:11:34.360 --> 02:11:39.520
 Ryan Road and their large marketing effort that's going to be to sell the neighborhood

02:11:39.520 --> 02:11:41.800
 and all the increased traffic that's going to be there.

02:11:41.800 --> 02:11:46.160
 It's hard enough to get out of my neighborhood in the morning just to get out and on to Ryan

02:11:46.160 --> 02:11:47.160
 Road.

02:11:47.160 --> 02:11:50.600
 When we talked with the developer who happened to be at one of the meetings that we were

02:11:50.600 --> 02:11:54.200
 at, even he recognized Ryan Road is a problem for the city.

02:11:54.200 --> 02:11:55.200
 It needs to grow.

02:11:55.200 --> 02:11:56.520
 You guys know it.

02:11:56.520 --> 02:11:58.920
 It's been on the books for years that it was going to grow.

02:11:58.920 --> 02:12:01.240
 It still hasn't been grown since we've been there.

02:12:01.240 --> 02:12:03.200
 Been there four years.

02:12:03.200 --> 02:12:10.160
 The traffic noise increase on Ryan Road has been a problem for us living in the house,

02:12:10.160 --> 02:12:11.160
 literally.

02:12:11.160 --> 02:12:16.640
 And between Good Samaritan, sending the fire trucks down every morning and the amount of

02:12:16.640 --> 02:12:21.440
 traffic that goes through that intersection, it's really quite busy.

02:12:21.440 --> 02:12:27.560
 And to add yet another major property entrance right into that intersection is of concern

02:12:27.560 --> 02:12:28.560
 to us.

02:12:28.560 --> 02:12:32.600
 Of course, we love our trees and the wild flask.

02:12:32.600 --> 02:12:39.120
 I swear one summer we ran the possum relocation plan out of our home for quite a number of

02:12:39.120 --> 02:12:42.980
 wildlife that came to visit our property.

02:12:42.980 --> 02:12:47.360
 We would like to recommend that they consider a light there if we're going to really go

02:12:47.360 --> 02:12:53.920
 forward with the ESA approval, then we need to look at not only the water situation, but

02:12:53.920 --> 02:12:59.680
 also the traffic there and so forth in the increase.

02:12:59.680 --> 02:13:05.960
 So while I know I'm in the minority here, I did attend the meetings and our neighborhood

02:13:05.960 --> 02:13:07.040
 is concerned.

02:13:07.040 --> 02:13:13.120
 We don't have a homeowners association per se to go rally around and garner up a bunch

02:13:13.120 --> 02:13:18.160
 of signatures, but the neighborhood is concerned about it and we just finished with another

02:13:18.160 --> 02:13:21.680
 new development right down the road and now we're going to plop another one right next

02:13:21.680 --> 02:13:25.560
 door across the street, so that's our main concern.

02:13:25.560 --> 02:13:26.560
 Thank you.

02:13:26.560 --> 02:13:27.560
 >> Thank you.

02:13:27.560 --> 02:13:32.800
 And I'm going to have Richard speak just a minute about Ryan Road, just because I know

02:13:32.800 --> 02:13:37.680
 yes, it has been a problem and we've brought it up as a commission and city council has

02:13:37.680 --> 02:13:43.680
 as well and it has gotten traction and moved up and I'm going to let him speak.

02:13:43.680 --> 02:13:49.120
 >> Just to give a brief update, this actually was discussed, I think, even with the last

02:13:49.120 --> 02:13:54.280
 development down the road that was recently approved.

02:13:54.280 --> 02:13:59.560
 What the city did is they undertook two different studies, one along Sherman, one and that one

02:13:59.560 --> 02:14:04.600
 has recently been completed, they're gearing up to start one on Ryan Road to specifically

02:14:04.600 --> 02:14:11.560
 look at what can be done in the near term as well as come up with some preliminary designs

02:14:11.560 --> 02:14:14.360
 and then what that will cost.

02:14:14.360 --> 02:14:19.760
 I think we have your information, what I will do is tomorrow I will send you the information,

02:14:19.760 --> 02:14:24.000
 I do know that that will be brought up at a city council work session in the very near

02:14:24.000 --> 02:14:29.360
 future just to keep you informed and updated on what's going on.

02:14:29.360 --> 02:14:30.360
 >> Commissioner Beck.

02:14:30.360 --> 02:14:31.480
 >> Thank you, vice chair.

02:14:31.480 --> 02:14:35.880
 Can I get Christy to come back up to respond to something that I think would address her

02:14:35.880 --> 02:14:41.520
 concern about water, if you don't mind.

02:14:41.520 --> 02:14:47.520
 She was giving us the impression that water is going to flow in their direction from this

02:14:47.520 --> 02:14:48.520
 development.

02:14:48.520 --> 02:14:49.520
 Is that?

02:14:49.520 --> 02:14:55.040
 That doesn't sound correct and when I'm looking at topography maps here, it looks like it's

02:14:55.040 --> 02:15:01.600
 going to be flowing the other direction.

02:15:01.600 --> 02:15:02.600
 >> Exactly.

02:15:02.600 --> 02:15:13.840
 Right, it also flows to the southwest towards that tributary that leads into Lake Forest

02:15:13.840 --> 02:15:14.840
 pond.

02:15:14.840 --> 02:15:15.840
 >> Right.

02:15:15.840 --> 02:15:21.200
 Does this development negatively impact that where it would make conditions worse for them

02:15:21.200 --> 02:15:22.200
 north of it?

02:15:22.200 --> 02:15:23.200
 >> I'm sorry, can you say it?

02:15:23.200 --> 02:15:30.400
 >> Does this development, this alternative VESAW negatively impact their drainage north

02:15:30.400 --> 02:15:31.480
 of it?

02:15:31.480 --> 02:15:35.480
 >> I can't speak to that as I don't have any hearing.

02:15:35.480 --> 02:15:36.480
 >> Okay.

02:15:36.480 --> 02:15:37.480
 Thanks, Christy.

02:15:37.480 --> 02:15:44.760
 >> Commissioner Beck, our development is downstream of that existing development so it would not

02:15:44.760 --> 02:15:45.760
 negatively impact.

02:15:45.760 --> 02:15:46.760
 >> Okay.

02:15:46.760 --> 02:15:51.640
 >> There wouldn't be a tail water created from our development that would have any impact.

02:15:51.640 --> 02:15:57.280
 >> We're actually receiving their water, sending it through our site in Lake Forest Park.

02:15:57.280 --> 02:15:58.280
 >> Okay.

02:15:58.280 --> 02:16:01.800
 Well, that's what I thought I wanted to be sure just to alight any concerns I had.

02:16:01.800 --> 02:16:03.480
 So thank you, Mr. Fletcher.

02:16:03.480 --> 02:16:04.480
 >> Commissioner Sanchez?

02:16:04.480 --> 02:16:05.480
 >> I had a question.

02:16:05.480 --> 02:16:06.480
 >> Oh, Mr. Fletcher.

02:16:06.480 --> 02:16:10.680
 >> I have a question.

02:16:10.680 --> 02:16:18.280
 Looking at exhibit C, you have Hollister, you won't be using Hollister but there'll be a

02:16:18.280 --> 02:16:19.280
 trail, right?

02:16:19.280 --> 02:16:22.080
 They'll connect both subdivisions.

02:16:22.080 --> 02:16:23.080
 >> That's correct.

02:16:23.080 --> 02:16:29.120
 >> And then you also have a little area there where you'll be able to access the park.

02:16:29.120 --> 02:16:30.120
 >> That's correct.

02:16:30.120 --> 02:16:36.760
 >> My question is you're going to have families, a lot of people like to drive the kids to

02:16:36.760 --> 02:16:40.800
 the park, not necessarily walk them to the park.

02:16:40.800 --> 02:16:49.560
 So to me it's like you're taking that away from families that want to drive to the park.

02:16:49.560 --> 02:16:55.360
 Instead of having to get on Ryan Road to come all the way to the park or come up Creekdale

02:16:55.360 --> 02:16:58.800
 Road, and those are pretty busy roads.

02:16:58.800 --> 02:17:04.400
 So you want to go through a neighborhood where there's not a whole lot of traffic that's

02:17:04.400 --> 02:17:08.400
 a lot safer than jumping on a main road to get to the park.

02:17:08.400 --> 02:17:15.440
 So when we first started looking at this project and the site, we did a traffic impact analysis,

02:17:15.440 --> 02:17:21.500
 we had meetings with the parks department, we looked at connecting to Duffy's Way.

02:17:21.500 --> 02:17:27.040
 The issue there is that you would get cut through traffic, that people were trying to

02:17:27.040 --> 02:17:32.520
 bypass Ryan Road or the intersection with Teasley and then you get cut through traffic

02:17:32.520 --> 02:17:37.680
 on Duffy's Way, which makes the park road, which is a private road, it's not a public

02:17:37.680 --> 02:17:44.800
 right of way, it makes the park road more congested and also potentially a safety issue.

02:17:44.800 --> 02:17:50.920
 So we did, we've been working through this process for several months now, had many meetings

02:17:50.920 --> 02:17:52.060
 with the city.

02:17:52.060 --> 02:17:58.000
 We did explore that because Duffy's Way is private, it's maintained by the parks department,

02:17:58.000 --> 02:18:02.760
 so we couldn't connect to it without it becoming a public road.

02:18:02.760 --> 02:18:07.240
 It was determined by city staff that they did not want to see Duffy's Way as a public

02:18:07.240 --> 02:18:13.940
 right of way, and that they felt that it would be a safety issue to the residents that are

02:18:13.940 --> 02:18:16.000
 using and enjoying the park.

02:18:16.000 --> 02:18:22.160
 So that's why it's pedestrian connectivity and not vehicular connectivity shown.

02:18:22.160 --> 02:18:23.160
 >> Okay.

02:18:23.160 --> 02:18:25.160
 >> Thank you.

02:18:25.160 --> 02:18:32.000
 I do have one more card on this item, David Bouchour.

02:18:32.000 --> 02:18:43.840
 >> He's got opposition marked on his card, so we'll just file that into the record.

02:18:43.840 --> 02:18:46.600
 This is a public hearing.

02:18:46.600 --> 02:18:50.760
 Anyone wishing to speak on this item can still do so, whether they have a card filled out

02:18:50.760 --> 02:18:53.080
 in front of me or not.

02:18:53.080 --> 02:18:55.400
 Anyone else wishing to speak on this item?

02:18:55.400 --> 02:19:03.960
 Okay, with that, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for a motion or a discussion.

02:19:03.960 --> 02:19:04.960
 Commissioner Pernetto.

02:19:04.960 --> 02:19:11.580
 >> Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to approve with an amendment to limit the chemical herbicides

02:19:11.580 --> 02:19:14.080
 to an aquatic-based product.

02:19:14.080 --> 02:19:16.120
 >> And with staff's recommendations, is that right?

02:19:16.120 --> 02:19:17.960
 >> With staff's recommendations, yeah.

02:19:17.960 --> 02:19:18.960
 >> Okay.

02:19:18.960 --> 02:19:19.960
 Commissioner Smith?

02:19:19.960 --> 02:19:20.960
 >> Second.

02:19:20.960 --> 02:19:28.080
 >> We have a first and a second to approve with staff recommendations in adding that

02:19:28.080 --> 02:19:29.080
 a --

02:19:29.080 --> 02:19:30.080
 >> Aquatic herbicides.

02:19:30.080 --> 02:19:35.040
 >> -- aquatic herbicide be used in the chemical removal of invasive species.

02:19:35.040 --> 02:19:36.920
 Is there a discussion?

02:19:36.920 --> 02:19:37.920
 Commissioner Sanchez?

02:19:37.920 --> 02:19:44.200
 >> Yeah, I'd like to talk about the herbicide.

02:19:44.200 --> 02:19:48.440
 I don't think we have enough information to say limit herbicides.

02:19:48.440 --> 02:19:55.800
 You know, herbicides can be -- actually can actually do more good than going there and

02:19:55.800 --> 02:19:56.800
 using --

02:19:56.800 --> 02:19:59.360
 >> Commissioner Sanchez, they're not limiting the herbicides.

02:19:59.360 --> 02:20:02.400
 It's -- they're requiring it be aquatic-based herbicides.

02:20:02.400 --> 02:20:06.080
 >> Well, I'm just saying any kind of herbicide.

02:20:06.080 --> 02:20:09.480
 When you're going to apply herbicide, you're going to apply -- if you're in a riparian

02:20:09.480 --> 02:20:11.480
 area, that's what you're going to apply.

02:20:11.480 --> 02:20:17.080
 You're not going to apply an upland herbicide in a buffer area.

02:20:17.080 --> 02:20:22.080
 I'm just saying leave that herbicide to the people that are doing it.

02:20:22.080 --> 02:20:27.680
 I don't think none of us know enough about herbicide to make any kind of statement that

02:20:27.680 --> 02:20:29.680
 just use aquatic herbicide.

02:20:29.680 --> 02:20:36.600
 Of course, they're going to use aquatic herbicides because that's the only thing that would be

02:20:36.600 --> 02:20:43.520
 licensed to be used in a buffer.

02:20:43.520 --> 02:20:44.520
 >> Commissioner Smith?

02:20:44.520 --> 02:20:51.600
 >> I think just to hopefully make this discussion short, because it's in a riparian area, riparian

02:20:51.600 --> 02:20:59.760
 buffer, it has to be aquatic, has to be aquatic herbicide, no matter what, Kristi, correct?

02:20:59.760 --> 02:21:00.760
 So --

02:21:00.760 --> 02:21:09.280
 >> In order for this application to comply with federal regulations, it would have to

02:21:09.280 --> 02:21:14.480
 be aquatic in order for -- you know, otherwise they would be out of compliance with federal

02:21:14.480 --> 02:21:15.480
 regulations.

02:21:15.480 --> 02:21:22.000
 >> So no offense even to the amendment or to the added recommendation by Commissioner

02:21:22.000 --> 02:21:27.800
 Pornetta, even that -- really that recommendation isn't really even needed because by federal

02:21:27.800 --> 02:21:29.720
 law it has to be aquatic.

02:21:29.720 --> 02:21:34.440
 It can be included in there for safe measure, but really the -- it's going to have to be

02:21:34.440 --> 02:21:36.880
 aquatic herbicide no matter what.

02:21:36.880 --> 02:21:41.760
 >> That was my question earlier to verify whether or not we had any stipulations on

02:21:41.760 --> 02:21:42.760
 that.

02:21:42.760 --> 02:21:46.380
 >> I apologize if I wasn't clear, but yes, that would be --

02:21:46.380 --> 02:21:50.880
 >> I can retract the amendment we came before with just staff recommendations if that's

02:21:50.880 --> 02:21:51.880
 more amenable.

02:21:51.880 --> 02:21:52.880
 >> We're safe once, we're safe twice, right?

02:21:52.880 --> 02:21:57.200
 >> Well, let's -- Commissioner Beck is on the board to speak, so let's let him speak

02:21:57.200 --> 02:21:58.200
 and --

02:21:58.200 --> 02:21:59.200
 >> That's okay.

02:21:59.200 --> 02:22:01.800
 Thank you, Vice Chair.

02:22:01.800 --> 02:22:02.800
 Just some general comments.

02:22:02.800 --> 02:22:05.000
 I want to thank everybody for coming out and speaking.

02:22:05.000 --> 02:22:10.920
 I'm always glad to hear you and appreciate the project that Mr. Fletcher has put together.

02:22:10.920 --> 02:22:16.800
 I'm always nervous when we alter environmentally sensitive areas, but this looks like a good

02:22:16.800 --> 02:22:17.800
 one.

02:22:17.800 --> 02:22:22.240
 I think it's the right thing to do as opposed to hooking up to the adjoining neighborhood

02:22:22.240 --> 02:22:31.160
 and the fact that he's designing this in a way that preserves a lot of upland habitat

02:22:31.160 --> 02:22:34.560
 is always a delight to me.

02:22:34.560 --> 02:22:41.000
 So again, thanks for coming out, and I'm definitely going to vote for this approval for it, too.

02:22:41.000 --> 02:22:42.000
 Thank you.

02:22:42.000 --> 02:22:43.000
 >> Okay.

02:22:43.000 --> 02:22:51.760
 So Commissioner Pernetta, did you want to amend your motion?

02:22:51.760 --> 02:22:58.560
 >> I will withdraw the amendment and move to approve with staff recommendations.

02:22:58.560 --> 02:22:59.560
 >> Commissioner Smith?

02:22:59.560 --> 02:23:00.560
 >> I'll second.

02:23:00.560 --> 02:23:01.560
 >> Okay.

02:23:01.560 --> 02:23:07.320
 Let's call for a vote in a second amended motion to approve with staff recommendation.

02:23:07.320 --> 02:23:08.320
 Any discussion?

02:23:08.320 --> 02:23:09.320
 Okay.

02:23:09.320 --> 02:23:14.680
 Let's call for a vote on the board.

02:23:14.680 --> 02:23:15.680
 I'm sorry.

02:23:15.680 --> 02:23:16.680
 Commissioner Sanchez?

02:23:16.680 --> 02:23:19.080
 >> Oh, I was just going to -- I want to -- I'm going to vote for it.

02:23:19.080 --> 02:23:28.120
 I think it's a good idea, and I think the idea that it's already been -- the Fletcher

02:23:28.120 --> 02:23:33.640
 stretch has already been crossed before, previously, and all the precautions are taking as far

02:23:33.640 --> 02:23:39.000
 as being able to cross it again is no issue.

02:23:39.000 --> 02:23:44.720
 I think basically having two exits, one on -- even though, like somebody mentioned, Ryan

02:23:44.720 --> 02:23:51.320
 Road is a very busy road, and I'd like -- we get this complaint all the time, all the development

02:23:51.320 --> 02:23:53.640
 that's going on on Ryan Road.

02:23:53.640 --> 02:23:58.980
 We hear this time and time again how that road does not provide enough.

02:23:58.980 --> 02:24:04.700
 It's not sufficient for the amount of traffic, and that's all we can say.

02:24:04.700 --> 02:24:11.040
 But as far as I'm concerned about crossing, I think the developer is doing everything

02:24:11.040 --> 02:24:16.880
 he can to protect that branch, and so I'm going to vote for it.

02:24:16.880 --> 02:24:21.280
 >> Is there any further discussion?

02:24:21.280 --> 02:24:22.280
 Okay.

02:24:22.280 --> 02:24:31.280
 We will call for a vote on the board.

02:24:31.280 --> 02:24:33.920
 Motion carries 6-0.

02:24:33.920 --> 02:24:38.480
 Thank you, everyone, for coming out.

02:24:38.480 --> 02:24:43.900
 That will move us to our next agenda item.

02:24:43.900 --> 02:24:52.840
 I will open the public hearing for DCA190001 and invite Ron up to present.

02:24:52.840 --> 02:24:53.840
 >> Thank you, Madam Chair.

02:24:53.840 --> 02:25:14.600
 I'm going to give you a few minutes to pull up the presentation.

02:25:14.600 --> 02:25:15.600
 >> Good evening.

02:25:15.600 --> 02:25:16.600
 I'm Chair, members of the commission.

02:25:16.600 --> 02:25:24.320
 This item for your consideration is a proposed code amendment to address the question regarding

02:25:24.320 --> 02:25:32.580
 multifamily dwellings, collegiate housing, and the possible use of dormitory as a use.

02:25:32.580 --> 02:25:39.580
 For the presentation, for our agenda, is really to go over the purpose of the code amendment,

02:25:39.580 --> 02:25:44.780
 a little bit of background of how we got here, present a little bit of the research and survey

02:25:44.780 --> 02:25:49.460
 that the city has done, and discuss a couple things related to development standards and

02:25:49.460 --> 02:25:55.780
 other consideration as you guys considered this code amendment, and ultimately a recommendation

02:25:55.780 --> 02:26:00.860
 is what staff is seeking to bring forward to city council.

02:26:00.860 --> 02:26:12.160
 So as we discuss at work session, the question is, is this particular use a different use

02:26:12.160 --> 02:26:19.180
 than multifamily, or is it a separate use, it can be called collegiate housing or the

02:26:19.180 --> 02:26:20.940
 word dormitory.

02:26:20.940 --> 02:26:26.460
 The subject item that we're talking about, development type, is where the development

02:26:26.460 --> 02:26:31.460
 is rented by the bedroom.

02:26:31.460 --> 02:26:37.400
 We also, if we decide that it is a separate use, we would like to get Payne's recommendation

02:26:37.400 --> 02:26:43.100
 on where they should be permitted and what approval type would be in place for those

02:26:43.100 --> 02:26:45.800
 locations.

02:26:45.800 --> 02:26:52.220
 So staff has drafted a definition using an existing use that's in the development code

02:26:52.220 --> 02:26:58.820
 called dormitory, and the definition proposed is stated as follows, a structure with three

02:26:58.820 --> 02:27:05.780
 or more dwelling units in which individual bedrooms are individually rented for periods

02:27:05.780 --> 02:27:12.700
 in excess of 30 days in which each bedroom lacks exclusive use of a full kitchen.

02:27:12.700 --> 02:27:19.580
 And the box to the right identifies some of the potential uses that could fall on this,

02:27:19.580 --> 02:27:23.100
 but we've clarified that by stating facts.

02:27:23.100 --> 02:27:29.540
 One, it's not considered multifamily because multifamily is rented by the unit, while dormitory

02:27:29.540 --> 02:27:33.380
 or collegiate housing is rented by the bedrooms.

02:27:33.380 --> 02:27:38.840
 The hotel/motel is short-term rentals, they're typically rented for less than 30 days, while

02:27:38.840 --> 02:27:44.540
 this definition expresses that it is rented for more than 30 days.

02:27:44.540 --> 02:27:49.940
 Elderly housing, group homes, and those types of developments would not qualify under this

02:27:49.940 --> 02:27:54.220
 definition because those require special state licenses.

02:27:54.220 --> 02:28:01.820
 A boarding or rooming house would not be considered for this definition, primarily because of

02:28:01.820 --> 02:28:08.500
 it requires a owner of that dwelling unit to permanently reside in that house, and part

02:28:08.500 --> 02:28:14.580
 of this code amendment is to redefine or amend the definition of boarding and rooming house

02:28:14.580 --> 02:28:17.420
 to add that clarification.

02:28:17.420 --> 02:28:25.180
 And lastly, a full kitchen, just for discussion purposes, it contains plumbing and electrical

02:28:25.180 --> 02:28:33.780
 work for typical kitchen appliances, dishwashers, refrigerators, stoves, and the like.

02:28:33.780 --> 02:28:39.140
 By way of background and how we got here, this started back as far as 2016, there was

02:28:39.140 --> 02:28:45.540
 a work session by council, during council, and at that time the council that heard this

02:28:45.540 --> 02:28:52.300
 item directed staff not to regulate this as a separate use.

02:28:52.300 --> 02:28:59.340
 During that work session, staff brought forward a code amendment to require SUPs for multi-family

02:28:59.340 --> 02:29:01.860
 and specific zoning districts.

02:29:01.860 --> 02:29:07.900
 At that work session, council directed staff to move forward with that specific use permit.

02:29:07.900 --> 02:29:12.980
 We then brought that forward to the Planning Zoning Commission, commission recommended

02:29:12.980 --> 02:29:17.720
 denial, I believe it was 5-1 or 4-1.

02:29:17.720 --> 02:29:24.900
 During that, city council also heard that amendment, and they also denied it after their

02:29:24.900 --> 02:29:27.540
 consideration.

02:29:27.540 --> 02:29:35.740
 Following that series of meetings, there was request by council at a meeting for more information

02:29:35.740 --> 02:29:37.500
 on multi-family and collegiate housing.

02:29:37.500 --> 02:29:43.820
 They had a little discussion during that request, and again, at that meeting, there was direction

02:29:43.820 --> 02:29:51.660
 from that council that it is not a separate use and it should just continue as multi-family.

02:29:51.660 --> 02:29:56.980
 A series of other amendments came forward to address the concerns and issues raised

02:29:56.980 --> 02:30:03.380
 by the neighborhoods that are affected or were affected by these types of developments.

02:30:03.380 --> 02:30:10.060
 We worked on a parking standard amendment code requirement, and through a number of

02:30:10.060 --> 02:30:14.620
 work sessions and public hearing, including the Planning Zoning Commission, that parking

02:30:14.620 --> 02:30:18.740
 standard was approved in March of 2018.

02:30:18.740 --> 02:30:23.860
 Following that, later that year, there was another request by council for more information

02:30:23.860 --> 02:30:26.900
 on multi-family and collegiate housing.

02:30:26.900 --> 02:30:31.340
 That really then brought up more discussion in how we should address this particular item.

02:30:31.340 --> 02:30:38.380
 I wanted to note that also as part of the Development Code Review Committee, who's directed

02:30:38.380 --> 02:30:44.180
 to work on the Development Code update, also has been looking at this issue through ongoing

02:30:44.180 --> 02:30:48.620
 discussions and research from our consultants.

02:30:48.620 --> 02:30:57.020
 They ultimately decided to have the full council provide direction, and they left it at that.

02:30:57.020 --> 02:31:06.220
 So we did bring it to the full council back in December, and again, we discussed it further.

02:31:06.220 --> 02:31:09.140
 This is an incorrect date.

02:31:09.140 --> 02:31:14.980
 We did follow that work session with another work session with city council, and at that

02:31:14.980 --> 02:31:21.340
 particular city council work session, they did direct staff to work on the definition,

02:31:21.340 --> 02:31:28.780
 which we did, and also to allow the dormitory use as a use for this particular development

02:31:28.780 --> 02:31:34.440
 type, and allow it only with a specific use permit, and I'll share with you what those

02:31:34.440 --> 02:31:40.160
 zoning districts are in a few slides further.

02:31:40.160 --> 02:31:45.860
 I wanted to share with you some of the presentation that we did provide the city council.

02:31:45.860 --> 02:31:50.820
 We did look at what is existing as far as these types of development, and when I say

02:31:50.820 --> 02:31:57.980
 these types of development, the developments that are specifically marketed for rent by

02:31:57.980 --> 02:31:59.580
 the bedroom.

02:31:59.580 --> 02:32:05.460
 We identified thirty-three developments in the city existing, I'm sorry, twenty-six existing,

02:32:05.460 --> 02:32:09.740
 and seven that are in either proposed or in under construction.

02:32:09.740 --> 02:32:15.380
 As you can see on this map, they are located primarily surrounding the University of North

02:32:15.380 --> 02:32:16.380
 Texas.

02:32:16.380 --> 02:32:22.760
 There's a few around T.W., and then a majority of the others are south of downtown.

02:32:22.760 --> 02:32:28.540
 We know that these areas that are further from the universities are served by DCTA,

02:32:28.540 --> 02:32:35.100
 and they are also increasing in number.

02:32:35.100 --> 02:32:40.980
 The increase in number is associated with the increase in enrollment in our universities.

02:32:40.980 --> 02:32:47.020
 We anticipate that by 2030, approximately seven or eight thousand more students are

02:32:47.020 --> 02:32:50.460
 going to be enrolled in the universities.

02:32:50.460 --> 02:32:59.340
 That means 8,000 more students, 8,000 more needs of housing, and 8,000 more traffic and

02:32:59.340 --> 02:33:05.660
 other related items that come with these type of developments.

02:33:05.660 --> 02:33:08.260
 So how do we address this?

02:33:08.260 --> 02:33:15.340
 We looked at the zoning districts where these thirty-three developments are either existing

02:33:15.340 --> 02:33:24.820
 or will be placed, and we found that in the DR2 zoning district, fourteen of them exist

02:33:24.820 --> 02:33:35.160
 or are proposed, and DCG came in second, and the rest have one of these types of developments.

02:33:35.160 --> 02:33:42.100
 We also looked at the composite or how they're put together, and the numbers that came out

02:33:42.100 --> 02:33:51.660
 of that research is that approximately 6,153 units are rented by the bedroom.

02:33:51.660 --> 02:34:01.460
 That equates to approximately 18,000 bedrooms total, if you were to add all of the bedrooms.

02:34:01.460 --> 02:34:10.540
 Those that are currently rented by the bedrooms, approximately 2,992 units were converted.

02:34:10.540 --> 02:34:19.580
 They were once multifamily, by the units, they converted into rented by the bedrooms.

02:34:19.580 --> 02:34:24.620
 That represents about 34 percent of that 6,153.

02:34:24.620 --> 02:34:36.420
 I also want to note that the city, as of December, has approximately 21,899 multifamily units.

02:34:36.420 --> 02:34:44.300
 The 6,153, the rented by the bedrooms, represent 28 percent of that.

02:34:44.300 --> 02:34:51.740
 So about a third of our multifamily are rented by the bedrooms.

02:34:51.740 --> 02:34:58.180
 We also researched other cities, approximately 29 cities in Denton, I'm sorry, in Texas.

02:34:58.180 --> 02:35:00.380
 Seventeen responded.

02:35:00.380 --> 02:35:03.260
 They all address this separately and differently.

02:35:03.260 --> 02:35:08.220
 The majority of them don't do anything.

02:35:08.220 --> 02:35:10.300
 Some of them have overlay districts.

02:35:10.300 --> 02:35:16.220
 Some of them have definitions and listed as a separate use.

02:35:16.220 --> 02:35:22.500
 Those three specifically are San Marcos, who calls these type of developments purpose built

02:35:22.500 --> 02:35:30.340
 student housing, College Station for a particular area calls them Northgate high density dwelling,

02:35:30.340 --> 02:35:36.340
 and then San Antonio has a use called school dormitory or housing off campus.

02:35:36.340 --> 02:35:42.460
 That's the three that we were able to find that are examples of addressing this as a

02:35:42.460 --> 02:35:45.580
 separate use.

02:35:45.580 --> 02:35:53.020
 Back to the purpose and really the reason why we're here is for your consideration

02:35:53.020 --> 02:35:58.820
 and your recommendation on this particular development type, again, units that are rented

02:35:58.820 --> 02:36:00.700
 by the bedrooms.

02:36:00.700 --> 02:36:02.740
 Is it a separate use?

02:36:02.740 --> 02:36:10.660
 If so, staff is recommending that we call it dormitory and have the definition revised

02:36:10.660 --> 02:36:17.400
 to be revised and amended to read as shown on this screen.

02:36:17.400 --> 02:36:22.860
 If that is the direction or the recommendation from the Planning Zoning Commission, we also

02:36:22.860 --> 02:36:26.180
 would like to talk about the location.

02:36:26.180 --> 02:36:31.580
 Before we do that, I just want to share with you dormitory is currently, again, in the

02:36:31.580 --> 02:36:32.580
 development code.

02:36:32.580 --> 02:36:43.460
 It is permitted in the following zoning districts, three with an SUP and three permitted by right.

02:36:43.460 --> 02:36:50.220
 Staff is recommending that along with the definitions that will be amended, that the

02:36:50.220 --> 02:36:57.060
 land use or the allowed uses be amended as well to allow dormitories by right in the

02:36:57.060 --> 02:37:07.940
 DR2, SUP in the NRMU12, NRMU, and DR1, and then with a limitation of L39 in the DCN and

02:37:07.940 --> 02:37:08.940
 DCG.

02:37:08.940 --> 02:37:16.860
 That limitation is if a dormitory is proposed to be over 45 feet, that we require a specific

02:37:16.860 --> 02:37:19.060
 use permit.

02:37:19.060 --> 02:37:25.620
 As I mentioned earlier, the Council did discuss this item and directed staff that they also

02:37:25.620 --> 02:37:31.920
 would like to see the definition amendment and also to amend the allowed uses table as

02:37:31.920 --> 02:37:43.140
 you see here and allow dormitories as shown here with SUP throughout the zoning districts.

02:37:43.140 --> 02:37:48.300
 Looking forward to the development code update, we want to make sure that we are consistent.

02:37:48.300 --> 02:37:54.780
 Again, if whatever the decision is by the City Council, we will make sure that the future

02:37:54.780 --> 02:37:59.100
 code update reflects that change so we're not back here discussing this.

02:37:59.100 --> 02:38:07.420
 Hopefully we do get a decision by Council along with your recommendation and when that

02:38:07.420 --> 02:38:13.540
 is, we will make sure that the code update reflects that amendment.

02:38:13.540 --> 02:38:16.020
 I won't spend too much time on these next few slides.

02:38:16.020 --> 02:38:22.820
 These are just other considerations for the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider.

02:38:22.820 --> 02:38:29.380
 As I mentioned earlier, the Council or the City recently adopted back in March of 2018

02:38:29.380 --> 02:38:36.220
 parking standards that required parking one per bedroom for multifamily and added the

02:38:36.220 --> 02:38:38.900
 visitor parking requirement.

02:38:38.900 --> 02:38:43.980
 Traffic impact analysis will always be required as part of a site plan review process if it

02:38:43.980 --> 02:38:49.140
 triggers a traffic impact analysis and we're constantly looking at how we can do better

02:38:49.140 --> 02:38:53.500
 on neighborhood compatibility either through setbacks and buffers.

02:38:53.500 --> 02:38:56.620
 Special purpose overlay districts is another tool we can use.

02:38:56.620 --> 02:39:02.180
 Of course, there's a specific use permit as you know where if there is one proposed, we

02:39:02.180 --> 02:39:04.900
 have that opportunity to discuss further.

02:39:04.900 --> 02:39:11.460
 And then our neighborhood meetings, you saw that with this recent one, they had two and

02:39:11.460 --> 02:39:18.020
 it was evident from the property owners that had that petition, it was in favor so that

02:39:18.020 --> 02:39:19.060
 seems to work as well.

02:39:19.060 --> 02:39:27.140
 So there's room to work on making sure that we have neighborhood compatibility as we work

02:39:27.140 --> 02:39:32.220
 through these decisions.

02:39:32.220 --> 02:39:37.700
 One of the things that we want to keep in mind as well is the enforcement of these types

02:39:37.700 --> 02:39:39.020
 of development.

02:39:39.020 --> 02:39:46.740
 As you know, there's the opportunity to convert a multifamily into a rented by the bedroom,

02:39:46.740 --> 02:39:53.780
 dormitory, collegiate housing, whatever we call it, after the fact and your consideration

02:39:53.780 --> 02:39:56.260
 is that that is a possibility.

02:39:56.260 --> 02:40:00.900
 So how do we make sure that we address that moving forward?

02:40:00.900 --> 02:40:07.660
 The other consideration is that this definition does not include single family, duplex or

02:40:07.660 --> 02:40:13.340
 townhomes, those that rent by the bedroom in these types of development would not be

02:40:13.340 --> 02:40:15.140
 subject to the SUP.

02:40:15.140 --> 02:40:17.020
 This is a different discussion.

02:40:17.020 --> 02:40:19.900
 This is something that we would bring back at a later time.

02:40:19.900 --> 02:40:25.180
 What we're trying to address is the larger developments, the more than three units per

02:40:25.180 --> 02:40:26.620
 acre.

02:40:26.620 --> 02:40:30.740
 That's what's being proposed tonight.

02:40:30.740 --> 02:40:38.180
 And again, this is my last slide, just to restate staff's recommendation that we amend

02:40:38.180 --> 02:40:47.860
 the definition of dormitory and allow it by SUP as shown here, permitted as well as permitted

02:40:47.860 --> 02:40:49.780
 with limitation.

02:40:49.780 --> 02:40:55.420
 We would also seek your recommendation on the definition of boarding and rooming house.

02:40:55.420 --> 02:41:01.100
 As I mentioned earlier, we like to add the clarification that the owner of the dwelling

02:41:01.100 --> 02:41:04.900
 reside permanently at that location.

02:41:04.900 --> 02:41:06.820
 That concludes my presentation.

02:41:06.820 --> 02:41:09.580
 I'll be happy to answer any questions.

02:41:09.580 --> 02:41:10.580
 Thank you, Ron.

02:41:10.580 --> 02:41:11.580
 We have several.

02:41:11.580 --> 02:41:12.580
 Commissioner Brunetto.

02:41:12.580 --> 02:41:14.700
 Yeah, I've got a few.

02:41:14.700 --> 02:41:20.020
 So right now, they're currently counted as just a multifamily unit, right?

02:41:20.020 --> 02:41:21.420
 That's how they are classified, yes.

02:41:21.420 --> 02:41:28.340
 So a third of our multifamily units are dormitory, SRO.

02:41:28.340 --> 02:41:35.380
 And out of that, a third of those were converted, they were previously rented as a unit, not

02:41:35.380 --> 02:41:36.820
 by the room, right?

02:41:36.820 --> 02:41:37.820
 Correct.

02:41:37.820 --> 02:41:49.260
 They started out as regular multifamily and of the 6,153 that we know of were multifamily

02:41:49.260 --> 02:41:52.820
 and converted to rented by the bedroom.

02:41:52.820 --> 02:41:53.820
 Excellent.

02:41:53.820 --> 02:42:01.380
 So with that in mind, I guess my question is, is there a reason that we are limiting

02:42:01.380 --> 02:42:05.140
 this SUP to three or more dwelling units?

02:42:05.140 --> 02:42:09.380
 Because one of the things that we have seen around campus is things that were previously

02:42:09.380 --> 02:42:14.860
 two bedrooms are now rented in an SRO fashion.

02:42:14.860 --> 02:42:20.820
 You know, is there a reason we do that instead of just going from like more than one to two?

02:42:20.820 --> 02:42:25.700
 Any type of unit where they can break out that lease agreement would be qualifying as

02:42:25.700 --> 02:42:26.700
 this.

02:42:26.700 --> 02:42:32.640
 So just to clarify your question, are you referring to a single family or a duplex that

02:42:32.640 --> 02:42:35.900
 is rented by the bedroom, is that what you're referring to?

02:42:35.900 --> 02:42:40.180
 Yeah, well, by the definition of dormitory in your slide, you say a structure with three

02:42:40.180 --> 02:42:46.380
 or more dwelling units in which the individual - I'm sorry, you know what, I guess we're

02:42:46.380 --> 02:42:48.860
 talking about the units and I'm sorry, not the bedrooms.

02:42:48.860 --> 02:42:52.780
 So it's not limited to the bedroom, it is anything that's broken out.

02:42:52.780 --> 02:42:53.780
 Correct.

02:42:53.780 --> 02:42:56.900
 Okay, I'm sorry, I just realized I was off reading it.

02:42:56.900 --> 02:43:05.660
 So the next thing I had was the height of 45 feet, is that an either/or or are we saying

02:43:05.660 --> 02:43:13.340
 that if there's some - would they require an additional approval to be not just a dormitory

02:43:13.340 --> 02:43:16.140
 but a dormitory that's over 45 feet?

02:43:16.140 --> 02:43:23.260
 It's a proposed dormitory over 45 feet would require a specific use per - and that's staff's

02:43:23.260 --> 02:43:24.260
 recommendation.

02:43:24.260 --> 02:43:25.260
 Okay.

02:43:25.260 --> 02:43:33.340
 And as I presented, Council doesn't want to see that, but again, we're here to hear

02:43:33.340 --> 02:43:38.860
 what the Commission wants to see and we can bring that forward to City Council.

02:43:38.860 --> 02:43:39.860
 Okay.

02:43:39.860 --> 02:43:46.180
 So as that's written right now, what we're saying is that if it is over 45 feet, basically

02:43:46.180 --> 02:43:52.260
 in addition to this rental structure, it would have to be over 45 feet in addition.

02:43:52.260 --> 02:43:58.860
 So we could recommend that the 45 feet is not, you know, a stipulation that requires

02:43:58.860 --> 02:44:03.780
 us, it could just be anything that's rented by the bedroom.

02:44:03.780 --> 02:44:06.900
 I'm sorry, I didn't just repeat that all the time.

02:44:06.900 --> 02:44:13.540
 So as I look at this right now, per this, it would have to be an SRO type rental.

02:44:13.540 --> 02:44:14.540
 Correct.

02:44:14.540 --> 02:44:15.540
 Meet that definition.

02:44:15.540 --> 02:44:16.540
 And be over 45.

02:44:16.540 --> 02:44:17.540
 Correct.

02:44:17.540 --> 02:44:21.820
 And it would be only applied to the DCN and the DCG.

02:44:21.820 --> 02:44:23.820
 That's the limitation L39.

02:44:23.820 --> 02:44:30.140
 If you're proposing a dormitory by definition, you meet that definition within the DCN or

02:44:30.140 --> 02:44:31.140
 DCG.

02:44:31.140 --> 02:44:39.220
 Staff's recommending that we adopt a code that requires the specific use permit for

02:44:39.220 --> 02:44:40.220
 those developments.

02:44:40.220 --> 02:44:41.220
 Okay.

02:44:41.220 --> 02:44:47.900
 And I guess my last question for now is, we're not proposing any kind of grandfathering in

02:44:47.900 --> 02:44:49.460
 right now, are we?

02:44:49.460 --> 02:44:50.460
 So if...

02:44:50.460 --> 02:44:53.500
 If they're existing, they're existing.

02:44:53.500 --> 02:44:56.100
 We can't do anything about that.

02:44:56.100 --> 02:44:58.220
 We're talking about future developments.

02:44:58.220 --> 02:44:59.220
 Okay.

02:44:59.220 --> 02:45:00.220
 So...

02:45:00.220 --> 02:45:06.580
 And when we say existing, I mean, in terms of an existing building that decides to start

02:45:06.580 --> 02:45:10.420
 renting by the, you know, renting its units by the room.

02:45:10.420 --> 02:45:13.180
 If and when we, and that's the difficult part, right?

02:45:13.180 --> 02:45:14.180
 Right.

02:45:14.180 --> 02:45:21.900
 If and when we adopt this, and at that date moving forward, if we learn that a development

02:45:21.900 --> 02:45:30.460
 was a multi-family rented by the unit, converted to a rented by the bedroom, we would actually

02:45:30.460 --> 02:45:36.820
 take action in that regard because they were not existing as a dormitory.

02:45:36.820 --> 02:45:38.420
 So they don't have that qualification.

02:45:38.420 --> 02:45:39.420
 Okay.

02:45:39.420 --> 02:45:44.180
 So it wouldn't be the age of the building or when the building was built, it would be

02:45:44.180 --> 02:45:46.260
 when they actually moved to that particular practice?

02:45:46.260 --> 02:45:47.260
 That type of, right.

02:45:47.260 --> 02:45:48.260
 That type of rental.

02:45:48.260 --> 02:45:49.260
 Okay.

02:45:49.260 --> 02:45:50.260
 All right.

02:45:50.260 --> 02:45:51.260
 That's all I have for now.

02:45:51.260 --> 02:45:52.260
 Commissioner Smith.

02:45:52.260 --> 02:45:53.260
 Thank you, Chair.

02:45:53.260 --> 02:45:56.740
 Ron, just a couple of things on the definition.

02:45:56.740 --> 02:45:59.860
 Just help me define some of the words that are in there.

02:45:59.860 --> 02:46:05.940
 Dwelling unit, is that specifically referring to it having to be a self-sustainable, has

02:46:05.940 --> 02:46:10.900
 its own bathroom, bedroom, kitchen, that defines a quote unquote dwelling unit there?

02:46:10.900 --> 02:46:11.900
 Correct.

02:46:11.900 --> 02:46:12.900
 Okay.

02:46:12.900 --> 02:46:13.900
 Understood.

02:46:13.900 --> 02:46:16.060
 Whenever we are looking at this, I know we said we're going to address town homes and

02:46:16.060 --> 02:46:18.460
 single family later.

02:46:18.460 --> 02:46:25.140
 In the event that there's a fourplex or a three-level town home that then can be rented

02:46:25.140 --> 02:46:29.020
 out by the, you know, the flats can be rented out by the rooms there, do you see that there

02:46:29.020 --> 02:46:33.620
 might be a gray area there where there might be a couple properties that could fall that

02:46:33.620 --> 02:46:38.060
 are not multifamily, but they're also not single family?

02:46:38.060 --> 02:46:39.060
 Yeah.

02:46:39.060 --> 02:46:44.140
 Specifically, the duplexes are probably going to be the ones that are going to cause more

02:46:44.140 --> 02:46:45.500
 than anything else.

02:46:45.500 --> 02:46:50.580
 Because we know the single family, you know, they're obviously one per lot.

02:46:50.580 --> 02:46:51.580
 Town homes, one per lot.

02:46:51.580 --> 02:46:54.740
 The duplexes, because you're adding two units, it makes it a little bit more.

02:46:54.740 --> 02:46:57.940
 And the three and fourplexes, they currently right now in the code fall into a multifamily?

02:46:57.940 --> 02:46:58.940
 Multifamily, correct.

02:46:58.940 --> 02:46:59.940
 Okay.

02:46:59.940 --> 02:47:00.940
 So duplex is the word.

02:47:00.940 --> 02:47:01.940
 Duplex is where the line is drawn.

02:47:01.940 --> 02:47:02.940
 Correct.

02:47:02.940 --> 02:47:03.940
 That's what I needed to know.

02:47:03.940 --> 02:47:04.940
 So, okay.

02:47:04.940 --> 02:47:12.380
 Why did, I guess two things on your recommendation and on City Council's recommendation.

02:47:12.380 --> 02:47:16.180
 Why did council suggest an SUP across the board?

02:47:16.180 --> 02:47:25.500
 I think it's just more of an opportunity to address any concerns from the community is

02:47:25.500 --> 02:47:27.220
 what I got out of it.

02:47:27.220 --> 02:47:30.860
 So that's primarily it.

02:47:30.860 --> 02:47:35.180
 Our proposal is that we know that a lot of the developments that we've seen recently,

02:47:35.180 --> 02:47:37.420
 of course, parking is a big deal.

02:47:37.420 --> 02:47:39.420
 We have a new parking requirement.

02:47:39.420 --> 02:47:43.420
 You know, traffic, we have TIAs that address that.

02:47:43.420 --> 02:47:46.580
 You know, adjacency, we have buffers and screening.

02:47:46.580 --> 02:47:51.540
 But when it comes to height, you know, maybe there's things that we can use or can do to

02:47:51.540 --> 02:47:55.260
 eliminate or not eliminate, but limit the impact.

02:47:55.260 --> 02:47:58.660
 And so that's why we propose a specific use permit over 45 feet.

02:47:58.660 --> 02:48:04.580
 And the SUP could kick in a TIA, that's correct, you're, that's, if there's an SUP required

02:48:04.580 --> 02:48:09.100
 in that project, then underneath the definition of the SUP could kick in the need to be able

02:48:09.100 --> 02:48:11.940
 to assess parking and traffic impact analysis.

02:48:11.940 --> 02:48:12.940
 Right.

02:48:12.940 --> 02:48:17.420
 I mean, even without an SUP, you know, analysis would be required again through the site plan

02:48:17.420 --> 02:48:18.420
 process.

02:48:18.420 --> 02:48:19.420
 Got it.

02:48:19.420 --> 02:48:20.420
 Okay.

02:48:20.420 --> 02:48:27.820
 The L39, that's still, that's, it's not an SUP, it's just, it's an SUP as long as it's

02:48:27.820 --> 02:48:28.820
 over 45.

02:48:28.820 --> 02:48:29.820
 Correct.

02:48:29.820 --> 02:48:30.820
 If you're below, you're 44.

02:48:30.820 --> 02:48:31.820
 You're good to go.

02:48:31.820 --> 02:48:32.820
 You're good to go.

02:48:32.820 --> 02:48:37.700
 Why, so why, why is the staff recommendation, the height, why is the height requirement

02:48:37.700 --> 02:48:38.700
 in there?

02:48:38.700 --> 02:48:39.700
 Better question.

02:48:39.700 --> 02:48:44.540
 Why did you guys not just go right to SUP for everybody, for all, for all, for all zoning

02:48:44.540 --> 02:48:45.540
 districts?

02:48:45.540 --> 02:48:47.500
 Why didn't, why didn't you guys, the staff recommend that?

02:48:47.500 --> 02:48:48.500
 I think, I think.

02:48:48.500 --> 02:48:49.500
 Knowing your thought process.

02:48:49.500 --> 02:48:50.500
 Right.

02:48:50.500 --> 02:48:56.180
 I think it's, back to what I said earlier, is that, you know, we have development standards

02:48:56.180 --> 02:49:02.460
 already in place, forgets parking and traffic, as well as buffering and screening.

02:49:02.460 --> 02:49:07.300
 We felt that when it comes to height, there's, there's a possibility of ways to address that

02:49:07.300 --> 02:49:16.100
 through an SUP process, so, so 45 feet is the, the max height from DR2 down this way,

02:49:16.100 --> 02:49:17.420
 they can't go over 45 feet.

02:49:17.420 --> 02:49:18.420
 Yeah.

02:49:18.420 --> 02:49:19.780
 It's just when you get to DCN and DCG.

02:49:19.780 --> 02:49:24.340
 So it was, it was kind of more of the staff was trying to be as, as least restrictive

02:49:24.340 --> 02:49:27.940
 as possible, essentially, the thing that, look, there's, there's already, there's already

02:49:27.940 --> 02:49:32.380
 imposed restrictions on, within these zoning districts already, adding an SUP on top of

02:49:32.380 --> 02:49:35.460
 that would be somewhat overkill in a way.

02:49:35.460 --> 02:49:36.460
 Right.

02:49:36.460 --> 02:49:40.420
 There's already restrictions in place that are, that are kind of helping mitigate some

02:49:40.420 --> 02:49:41.980
 of the issues that we're seeing.

02:49:41.980 --> 02:49:45.820
 And we see them being developed in the DCN and DCG.

02:49:45.820 --> 02:49:46.820
 Gotcha.

02:49:46.820 --> 02:49:50.300
 And so, again, it's just that opportunity, like you said, to, to address any concerns

02:49:50.300 --> 02:49:51.300
 that the city has.

02:49:51.300 --> 02:49:52.300
 Okay.

02:49:52.300 --> 02:49:55.580
 So that, that, so with the City Council, that means anybody who has the SRO form whatsoever,

02:49:55.580 --> 02:50:02.340
 if it's, it's a single, it's a single story, but it's a, you know, a 10, 10 unit single

02:50:02.340 --> 02:50:06.780
 story, it's a really weird looking building, don't, don't, don't ask me why it's constructed

02:50:06.780 --> 02:50:07.780
 that way.

02:50:07.780 --> 02:50:08.780
 But, but it doesn't matter.

02:50:08.780 --> 02:50:09.780
 It's, it's boom, SCP.

02:50:09.780 --> 02:50:10.780
 Correct.

02:50:10.780 --> 02:50:12.980
 Doesn't matter because it's, it's tied directly to that leasing model there.

02:50:12.980 --> 02:50:16.740
 That, that is the, the discussion that they had at the work session.

02:50:16.740 --> 02:50:17.740
 Okay.

02:50:17.740 --> 02:50:22.620
 We, and at that, that work session, they were, they directed staff to, to bring this forward

02:50:22.620 --> 02:50:25.300
 and we obviously want to hear from you all as well.

02:50:25.300 --> 02:50:26.300
 Okay.

02:50:26.300 --> 02:50:28.900
 Ron, I think Richard wanted to add just a little bit to the, to your question.

02:50:28.900 --> 02:50:30.460
 Yeah, then I have a couple more things to say.

02:50:30.460 --> 02:50:35.100
 I was just going to add a little bit more on, on that, on that 45 foot.

02:50:35.100 --> 02:50:40.460
 A lot of, a lot of the, as part of the deliberations and just discussion with council and other

02:50:40.460 --> 02:50:45.980
 members of the public, the big concern was compatibility and adjacency with single family.

02:50:45.980 --> 02:50:50.100
 And really that max height in, I think in all of our single family districts is 45 feet.

02:50:50.100 --> 02:50:54.620
 And so when looking at it in, in that context, as well as factoring in the parking that would

02:50:54.620 --> 02:50:58.840
 be required and everything else, you're really not going to get that high level of intensity

02:50:58.840 --> 02:51:01.220
 at that, at that, at that height.

02:51:01.220 --> 02:51:04.820
 And that, that's part of the, part of the, the reason for that.

02:51:04.820 --> 02:51:08.460
 So within that mind, could you go through those zoning districts real quick and just

02:51:08.460 --> 02:51:12.500
 say what they are exactly and what the typical use is there just so it kind of, I can't,

02:51:12.500 --> 02:51:15.500
 I don't have my, I don't, I should probably be about to pull that out.

02:51:15.500 --> 02:51:16.500
 Sure.

02:51:16.500 --> 02:51:23.140
 Well, NRMU is 12 units per acre, primarily in between your neighborhood residential to

02:51:23.140 --> 02:51:24.180
 your commercial uses.

02:51:24.180 --> 02:51:29.560
 So it's kind of like the in between NRMU is a little bit more intense with more commercial

02:51:29.560 --> 02:51:33.980
 type uses, DR1, downtown residential one.

02:51:33.980 --> 02:51:39.980
 So it doesn't have a, I don't know exactly things, eight units per acre, DR2 is, I want

02:51:39.980 --> 02:51:46.420
 to say 30 and it increases from there, DCG is 150 units per acre.

02:51:46.420 --> 02:51:52.580
 So you can see an increase in the density with the DR1, DR2, DCN, DCG.

02:51:52.580 --> 02:51:58.900
 As you get in, go to that direction, the amount of commercial uses increases as well.

02:51:58.900 --> 02:52:05.140
 So, so that, that's primarily what you see and when you look at the map, the zoning map,

02:52:05.140 --> 02:52:09.620
 those are what you see these types of developments are located.

02:52:09.620 --> 02:52:10.620
 Or in DCG.

02:52:10.620 --> 02:52:11.620
 DCG, right.

02:52:11.620 --> 02:52:17.180
 DCG, DR2 is a lighter green, DCN is, is one of the, a little bit less, they're not as

02:52:17.180 --> 02:52:23.340
 many and then the NRMU are the red and then the NRMU-12 is the red with the hatches.

02:52:23.340 --> 02:52:28.820
 So there are, developers are already primarily focusing on DCG already for the, for development

02:52:28.820 --> 02:52:32.540
 and that's not because of anything else other than just that makes sense compatibility wise

02:52:32.540 --> 02:52:33.540
 down that area.

02:52:33.540 --> 02:52:34.540
 Correct.

02:52:34.540 --> 02:52:36.940
 And then that's how the, the area is currently zoned.

02:52:36.940 --> 02:52:37.940
 Got it.

02:52:37.940 --> 02:52:41.060
 Really no more questions, just, I guess, more statement or recommendation to you as you

02:52:41.060 --> 02:52:42.060
 go forward.

02:52:42.060 --> 02:52:48.260
 I personally, having done a lot of research on student housing and the impact on low income

02:52:48.260 --> 02:52:56.180
 housing in the city of Denton, I actually would, would strongly encourage SROs in, in

02:52:56.180 --> 02:53:00.540
 the best way possible though, trying to have growth but with mitigation to neighborhood

02:53:00.540 --> 02:53:01.540
 integrity.

02:53:01.540 --> 02:53:06.380
 The, the biggest thing is for, for me and from what I understand and from my research

02:53:06.380 --> 02:53:11.620
 has been if we promote SROs, promoting it in areas that are non, non-neighborhood centric

02:53:11.620 --> 02:53:17.460
 like the, the development that we saw 18 months ago or so that was across 35, that's still

02:53:17.460 --> 02:53:21.740
 close enough to the university, that still has DCTA access, that's out there on Oak Street,

02:53:21.740 --> 02:53:27.180
 the other side of 30, on the west side of 35, an area that's not impeding upon a neighborhood

02:53:27.180 --> 02:53:31.940
 where you can stack units and put students in there because in my mind and it seems counterintuitive

02:53:31.940 --> 02:53:37.460
 to encourage SROs to be able to help low income housing but in reality the develop, the development

02:53:37.460 --> 02:53:44.700
 of new SROs means that those existing multifamily stay low income multifamily and the existence

02:53:44.700 --> 02:53:48.540
 of single, we're gonna get to single family and duplex later on but the existence of low

02:53:48.540 --> 02:53:53.220
 income single family and duplex stay away from being utility for students.

02:53:53.220 --> 02:53:57.300
 It allows for a new development to be geared directly and marketed directly to students

02:53:57.300 --> 02:54:02.760
 rather than developers looking at the, the cheap alternative of conversion and the conversions

02:54:02.760 --> 02:54:05.340
 where we're really getting hurt right now in the city of Denton.

02:54:05.340 --> 02:54:09.540
 It's not the new development in our SROs, it's the converting of current multifamily

02:54:09.540 --> 02:54:12.860
 that could be used for low income housing, that's where we're really getting hurt and

02:54:12.860 --> 02:54:16.900
 so that's my recommendation and so I would just try to, I don't know what the rules exactly

02:54:16.900 --> 02:54:22.340
 would be but rules that would discourage conversions in neighborhoods and rather encourage new

02:54:22.340 --> 02:54:28.620
 development would be the direction I would wanna see this SRO ordinance or ruling go

02:54:28.620 --> 02:54:35.320
 and so I like the idea of the SUP, I'd actually probably side further with the staff recommendation

02:54:35.320 --> 02:54:39.900
 of using the L39 rather than SUP across the board, I feel like the SUP across the board

02:54:39.900 --> 02:54:44.180
 would be a little restrictive once the, especially once you get to higher density areas where

02:54:44.180 --> 02:54:51.180
 it kind of makes sense to have a high density development like that but as long as it kicks

02:54:51.180 --> 02:54:56.780
 in that SUP at some point in time, I think that'd be important, so.

02:54:56.780 --> 02:54:58.260
 - Great.

02:54:58.260 --> 02:54:59.780
 - Commissioner Beck.

02:54:59.780 --> 02:55:01.100
 - Thank you vice chair.

02:55:01.100 --> 02:55:06.420
 Thank you Tron for a most excellent and informative presentation, appreciate it.

02:55:06.420 --> 02:55:17.220
 Let me first ask an overarching question, a concept here in your information material,

02:55:17.220 --> 02:55:24.340
 you stated as Denton University student enrollment continues to grow, so does the need to provide

02:55:24.340 --> 02:55:30.180
 housing for students, okay, one of the arguments I and others have made when developers come

02:55:30.180 --> 02:55:39.460
 to us and wanna do SRO type developments is I didn't think it was Denton's focus to provide

02:55:39.460 --> 02:55:43.780
 student housing, that should be up to the university, so are you kind of indicating

02:55:43.780 --> 02:55:47.060
 here that we are in that business of, no?

02:55:47.060 --> 02:55:51.340
 - No, just following the trends right, as you know, obviously we're seeing a lot of

02:55:51.340 --> 02:55:57.940
 these type developments and the reason is the universities are growing and we should

02:55:57.940 --> 02:56:02.140
 see some of that reflected as well in these types of developments.

02:56:02.140 --> 02:56:06.940
 - Okay, but for the most part we still expect the universities to provide housing for their

02:56:06.940 --> 02:56:07.940
 students.

02:56:07.940 --> 02:56:12.660
 - Yeah, I mean, I believe they have certain requirements, I think their freshman class

02:56:12.660 --> 02:56:19.900
 has to be on campus while that's all they require, the other class has to find other

02:56:19.900 --> 02:56:20.900
 living quarters.

02:56:20.900 --> 02:56:25.220
 - Yeah, we can't control them what they do anyway, so I understand, okay.

02:56:25.220 --> 02:56:31.020
 - What essentially we're talking about here is SROs, the dormitory nomenclature, that's

02:56:31.020 --> 02:56:36.620
 fine and it's definition, I'm okay with that, but I'm glad you brought up that we're not

02:56:36.620 --> 02:56:41.540
 dealing with single family homes and duplexes and everything and need to be later 'cause

02:56:41.540 --> 02:56:46.460
 my question was before you raised that is what's to stop a developer from going into

02:56:46.460 --> 02:56:52.420
 an area where it allows single family homes and duplexes and just build a row in there

02:56:52.420 --> 02:56:56.460
 and then rent 'em out as SROs, so is that--

02:56:56.460 --> 02:57:03.180
 - Right, that is a concern and we are seeing that we actually have some of those currently

02:57:03.180 --> 02:57:11.020
 now in the city, some on Prairie Street and then some on, I believe it's Nev Street, not

02:57:11.020 --> 02:57:18.740
 too far from the university, where they removed or redeveloped a single family detached home,

02:57:18.740 --> 02:57:26.060
 built a duplex and built it up to four, maybe five bedrooms and that's changing the streetscape

02:57:26.060 --> 02:57:31.260
 or the character of the neighborhood and we certainly want to address that as well, but

02:57:31.260 --> 02:57:35.260
 when we first started this effort it was really to deal with the larger complexes.

02:57:35.260 --> 02:57:41.660
 - And I agree, I agree, I'm glad though that you are gonna realize that that is something

02:57:41.660 --> 02:57:47.500
 we do need to look at as far as single family homes and duplexes.

02:57:47.500 --> 02:57:54.680
 - What is the area zoned where we do have a single family houses that's just south of

02:57:54.680 --> 02:58:01.140
 downtown, we brought this up when that bank wanted to encroach in there, is that DR2,

02:58:01.140 --> 02:58:02.140
 what is that?

02:58:02.140 --> 02:58:03.140
 - That's DCG.

02:58:03.140 --> 02:58:04.140
 - Is it DCG?

02:58:04.140 --> 02:58:05.140
 - I believe.

02:58:05.140 --> 02:58:11.940
 - And that's one of the areas where they could build up to 45 feet, anything over it would

02:58:11.940 --> 02:58:12.940
 require--

02:58:12.940 --> 02:58:16.380
 - Yeah, I think it's just generally right here and it looks like it's DCG.

02:58:16.380 --> 02:58:24.060
 - Okay, and that's the one that you wanna allow, that's your recommendation.

02:58:24.060 --> 02:58:25.060
 - Right with the--

02:58:25.060 --> 02:58:27.940
 - That they could build up to 45 feet, anything higher than that would--

02:58:27.940 --> 02:58:29.980
 - And over, would require a specific use permit.

02:58:29.980 --> 02:58:34.700
 - Yeah, see I have a problem with that, I think 45 feet is just way too much, depending

02:58:34.700 --> 02:58:38.540
 on where they put it, if it's on the periphery I probably wouldn't have a problem, but you

02:58:38.540 --> 02:58:41.780
 know when somebody sells a couple of lots then and then they wanna go right in the middle

02:58:41.780 --> 02:58:49.660
 of that neighborhood, so I'm kind of in line with the City Council, probably just going

02:58:49.660 --> 02:58:53.980
 across the board with the SUPs, I know it sounds restrictive and everything like that,

02:58:53.980 --> 02:59:01.380
 but to me the SUP is the one element that the public has to control development just

02:59:01.380 --> 02:59:06.140
 a little bit, it's not that we're always gonna rule in favor of the public or the developer,

02:59:06.140 --> 02:59:11.500
 but it gives that public that sense of control, so I wouldn't be opposed to that.

02:59:11.500 --> 02:59:19.020
 - And just lastly, your definition for boarding rooms, I think is spot on, so I don't see

02:59:19.020 --> 02:59:22.900
 any need to change that, I think you hit all the points there, if somebody else on the

02:59:22.900 --> 02:59:27.900
 commission has something to add, I'd be glad to hear it, but I think you're fine with that.

02:59:27.900 --> 02:59:28.900
 - Thank you.

02:59:28.900 --> 02:59:29.900
 - Thank you.

02:59:29.900 --> 02:59:30.900
 - Commissioner Sanchez.

02:59:30.900 --> 02:59:37.940
 - Again, I wanted to talk a little bit about, I was looking at the definition in the back

02:59:37.940 --> 02:59:43.060
 of this book, they're using the definition of what a dormitory was, and it's somewhat

02:59:43.060 --> 02:59:48.180
 different from what we're looking at here, and so to me that's an established definition

02:59:48.180 --> 02:59:53.700
 that people use when they look at dormitories, when we're looking at SROs that's an entirely

02:59:53.700 --> 02:59:59.620
 different animal, and to me that should have its own definition, something that's specific

02:59:59.620 --> 03:00:09.740
 to that issue, to that type of construction, now, for example, I don't know, SROs or students

03:00:09.740 --> 03:00:17.340
 sometimes say semester over or they graduate or whatever, some students continue living

03:00:17.340 --> 03:00:26.580
 in those SROs as opposed to a dormitory where the university usually, if you're out that

03:00:26.580 --> 03:00:32.380
 semester, you're out, but in these SROs, some students continue to live there as I understand,

03:00:32.380 --> 03:00:39.260
 because I've heard of students living in those SROs even after, say, whether they fail or

03:00:39.260 --> 03:00:44.300
 whatever happens, they'll continue living there, so I think we need to define, leave

03:00:44.300 --> 03:00:51.940
 the definition for dormitories alone and just start anew with it, I like that definition

03:00:51.940 --> 03:00:58.420
 for, but call it collegiate housing or something different, because what we're looking at is

03:00:58.420 --> 03:01:04.700
 we want to look, we want to separate that from multifamily, okay, so let's start anew

03:01:04.700 --> 03:01:10.420
 and just leave it, yeah, dormitory alone, because that's established, we've been with

03:01:10.420 --> 03:01:13.580
 that for years, let's just keep it there and start anew.

03:01:13.580 --> 03:01:20.620
 The other question I had is, you mentioned something about location, so I think it's

03:01:20.620 --> 03:01:28.660
 important to look at that when we talk about SROs is the location, it's almost, they should

03:01:28.660 --> 03:01:35.780
 be close to the university, we should at least push that, because a lot of these students,

03:01:35.780 --> 03:01:41.660
 even though you said the buses are available, I don't know if you've ever taken the bus

03:01:41.660 --> 03:01:47.180
 in the city of Dent, it's nothing, if you have a choice between walking, riding a bike,

03:01:47.180 --> 03:01:52.500
 you probably prefer that, you know, so I'm just saying is we need to look at trying to

03:01:52.500 --> 03:01:58.380
 keep those as close to the university as possible, as far as your definition, as you said you

03:01:58.380 --> 03:02:06.420
 also wanted to look at the definition for boarding and boarding house, I have a real

03:02:06.420 --> 03:02:15.740
 issue where it says where the owner of the dwelling permanently resides, why would we

03:02:15.740 --> 03:02:23.660
 require that, if you're renting a room, why do you have to live with your tenant?

03:02:23.660 --> 03:02:30.300
 Because again, we wanted to differentiate that versus the dormitory or whatever collegiate

03:02:30.300 --> 03:02:34.980
 housing that we're calling, because otherwise they would fall under that definition, so

03:02:34.980 --> 03:02:40.540
 if you're proposing to have a home, or not home, because we're not looking at single

03:02:40.540 --> 03:02:47.580
 family or duplexes, but if you're proposing to lease out a multi-family, or three bedrooms

03:02:47.580 --> 03:02:55.000
 or more, whatever it may be, you want to be able to differentiate between the dormitory

03:02:55.000 --> 03:03:02.900
 and the boarding and rooming house, and that's the only way we were able to determine that

03:03:02.900 --> 03:03:05.540
 that's the difference between the two.

03:03:05.540 --> 03:03:12.900
 That's the only thing, I had a real issue with that, because a lot of people, it may

03:03:12.900 --> 03:03:21.620
 be a boarding house, it may be a business, especially if you're talking about up to 20

03:03:21.620 --> 03:03:30.780
 persons, that allows a business to have 20 people living there, it doesn't make sense

03:03:30.780 --> 03:03:42.580
 why you have to live with them.

03:03:42.580 --> 03:03:48.460
 I think we need to look at that, and I just have an issue with that, that was added on

03:03:48.460 --> 03:03:49.460
 afterwards, I guess.

03:03:49.460 --> 03:03:52.460
 That's part of the clarification.

03:03:52.460 --> 03:03:55.980
 Yeah, that was added on afterwards.

03:03:55.980 --> 03:03:59.860
 The bold that you see here, yes that is added on to there.

03:03:59.860 --> 03:04:04.220
 So my question, I'm just saying this, you shouldn't, just because you have a boarding

03:04:04.220 --> 03:04:11.740
 house or a rooming house, I don't mind the rest of it, but I just see that you shouldn't

03:04:11.740 --> 03:04:14.420
 make that a requirement.

03:04:14.420 --> 03:04:20.140
 Yeah, I see that in Commissioner Sanchez, I just realized that it says a dwelling, so

03:04:20.140 --> 03:04:24.620
 by our definition of a dormitory, if it's three or more, this wouldn't fall under that.

03:04:24.620 --> 03:04:30.060
 So we can look into maybe not requiring that, and maybe that doesn't fall under the definition

03:04:30.060 --> 03:04:36.180
 of a dormitory, because it does say a dwelling, and by definition, because this says three

03:04:36.180 --> 03:04:40.780
 or more, the boarding house may not qualify as a dormitory, just for that reason alone.

03:04:40.780 --> 03:04:47.340
 So we can see potentially removing that requirement, again, and not be considered a dormitory.

03:04:47.340 --> 03:04:53.320
 And that was the intent of adding that, but I can see that there's a way to work it without

03:04:53.320 --> 03:04:56.020
 adding that requirement.

03:04:56.020 --> 03:04:57.020
 Okay.

03:04:57.020 --> 03:05:00.660
 Commissioner Pernitto.

03:05:00.660 --> 03:05:06.220
 To Commissioner Sanchez's question real quick, before I go into my thoughts and concerns,

03:05:06.220 --> 03:05:11.860
 I'm fine with this definition, because really, if you live in a house and you're renting

03:05:11.860 --> 03:05:19.260
 out to 20 strangers and charging them all separate rents, that's probably not going

03:05:19.260 --> 03:05:20.260
 to happen, right?

03:05:20.260 --> 03:05:22.340
 You're probably not going to want to live there, and you're probably not going to want

03:05:22.340 --> 03:05:27.160
 to live there, because it's all 20 strangers all paying separate rents, and if we take

03:05:27.160 --> 03:05:33.420
 that out, that's just basically giving somebody a loophole, you know?

03:05:33.420 --> 03:05:38.160
 I mean, you wouldn't want 20 strangers in your house paying separate rent just to stay

03:05:38.160 --> 03:05:39.160
 in there, right?

03:05:39.160 --> 03:05:42.900
 You know, if you did that, you would basically be doing what is, in essence, the definition

03:05:42.900 --> 03:05:47.260
 of what we're calling an SRO, right?

03:05:47.260 --> 03:05:53.060
 I think what you're doing, a boarding house and an SRO are two different animals.

03:05:53.060 --> 03:05:57.340
 SROs are geared for students that are going to college.

03:05:57.340 --> 03:05:58.340
 Okay.

03:05:58.340 --> 03:05:59.340
 Okay?

03:05:59.340 --> 03:06:07.460
 A boarding house is primarily geared to people of low income and people that can afford maybe,

03:06:07.460 --> 03:06:12.540
 you know, an apartment, so the clients are two different clients.

03:06:12.540 --> 03:06:16.820
 Well, and the problem is, and that's kind of where I'm going to go with this, is technically

03:06:16.820 --> 03:06:19.260
 we don't have those two different clients in Denton.

03:06:19.260 --> 03:06:23.420
 Whenever we hear about what we're calling dormitory, but what is essentially SRO, the

03:06:23.420 --> 03:06:27.780
 main concern that I've gotten from anyone who's talked to me about this over the last

03:06:27.780 --> 03:06:33.820
 couple of years is the impact that it has on affordable housing, right?

03:06:33.820 --> 03:06:38.340
 Basically this model is, particularly the conversions, are impacting people's ability

03:06:38.340 --> 03:06:44.500
 to find, you know, basically units for their family.

03:06:44.500 --> 03:06:50.060
 And to that end, I think if we're, you know, making a recommendation, I would prefer to

03:06:50.060 --> 03:06:55.580
 take out the 45-foot stipulation on there because, you know, at that point we're saying,

03:06:55.580 --> 03:06:59.340
 well, if it's over 45 feet, well, there's not a lot of buildings that are 45 feet around

03:06:59.340 --> 03:07:00.340
 here.

03:07:00.340 --> 03:07:05.060
 And the main problem that we're having is that we have a lot of, you know, property

03:07:05.060 --> 03:07:11.060
 managers moving toward this model, which in effect lets them increase their profits without

03:07:11.060 --> 03:07:14.420
 making any structural changes to the housing, right?

03:07:14.420 --> 03:07:20.020
 And thereby driving up the prices of the properties around them and making it seem more lucrative.

03:07:20.020 --> 03:07:25.180
 You're going to wind up seeing more and more people go, hey, I'm renting out this apartment

03:07:25.180 --> 03:07:30.580
 for $1,000, but if I, you know, rented it to two students for $700 apiece, I could get

03:07:30.580 --> 03:07:34.780
 an extra $400 a month without having to do anything.

03:07:34.780 --> 03:07:38.180
 And I think that's kind of one of the concerns, and I think that's probably why City Council

03:07:38.180 --> 03:07:42.380
 kind of removed it, and it's one of the, you know, it's the primary drive I think we have

03:07:42.380 --> 03:07:49.300
 behind what we're doing, because if we remove that, you know, there's no real reason to

03:07:49.300 --> 03:07:54.860
 differentiate from one building to another, and I understand why it's happening.

03:07:54.860 --> 03:07:58.660
 In effect, what we're doing right now is having to address the fact that UNT hasn't kept up

03:07:58.660 --> 03:08:03.740
 with its own demand for housing its students, much less giving them parking.

03:08:03.740 --> 03:08:10.060
 So my goal, my hope is that we approve this, because I do understand that we have too many

03:08:10.060 --> 03:08:14.060
 students to house, and there is a purpose for this.

03:08:14.060 --> 03:08:20.460
 But right now, I think the 45-foot is too much of a loophole to let people, you know,

03:08:20.460 --> 03:08:21.460
 take advantage.

03:08:21.460 --> 03:08:24.980
 Like Commissioner Beck said, you know, what's the stop somebody from taking a row of houses,

03:08:24.980 --> 03:08:26.900
 or as you've described, this has already happened.

03:08:26.900 --> 03:08:30.900
 So I like what we've got here.

03:08:30.900 --> 03:08:33.180
 I would hope that we remove the 45-foot.

03:08:33.180 --> 03:08:37.900
 I'm actually fine with the definitions of, you know what, if you're going to rent this

03:08:37.900 --> 03:08:41.700
 out to that many people, chances are you need to live in there, or else that's one more

03:08:41.700 --> 03:08:45.740
 loophole that we have in there to keep people from, you know, adhering to what we're hoping

03:08:45.740 --> 03:08:46.740
 to do.

03:08:46.740 --> 03:08:47.740
 I think that's all I've got.

03:08:47.740 --> 03:08:48.740
 I think that was my rant.

03:08:48.740 --> 03:08:49.740
 Thank you.

03:08:49.740 --> 03:08:50.740
 >> Thank you.

03:08:50.740 --> 03:08:51.740
 Okay.

03:08:51.740 --> 03:08:57.860
 I'm just going to chime in on a few things here, because I think we're getting a couple

03:08:57.860 --> 03:09:04.460
 of different discussions going, because I think SRO is kind of a separate discussion

03:09:04.460 --> 03:09:10.180
 in and of itself in the sense that you can have an SRO in a single-family home, and that's

03:09:10.180 --> 03:09:13.220
 just for another time and another discussion.

03:09:13.220 --> 03:09:17.540
 I think what we've got to drill down, and that's what I think we're trying to do here,

03:09:17.540 --> 03:09:25.100
 but I think we've missed it, is what is the definition of these high-density rent-by-the-bedroom

03:09:25.100 --> 03:09:30.980
 developments that are going to continue to show their face, because it's a very popular

03:09:30.980 --> 03:09:34.420
 development concept.

03:09:34.420 --> 03:09:35.420
 We are a college town.

03:09:35.420 --> 03:09:37.700
 It's going to happen, and there's a need for it.

03:09:37.700 --> 03:09:40.620
 There's absolutely a need for it.

03:09:40.620 --> 03:09:44.220
 We can't regulate it because we don't know what to call it, because we don't have any

03:09:44.220 --> 03:09:46.920
 use restrictions for it.

03:09:46.920 --> 03:09:50.640
 To Commissioner Sanchez's point, we do have a definition for dormitory.

03:09:50.640 --> 03:09:52.620
 This is not a dormitory.

03:09:52.620 --> 03:09:53.620
 It really isn't.

03:09:53.620 --> 03:10:00.020
 I understand maybe how you got there, but I don't, because it's a very specific use.

03:10:00.020 --> 03:10:02.540
 I like what San Marcos did.

03:10:02.540 --> 03:10:04.180
 It's student-specific housing.

03:10:04.180 --> 03:10:05.340
 That is what it is.

03:10:05.340 --> 03:10:07.100
 That's what these developments are.

03:10:07.100 --> 03:10:15.260
 That's what has gotten us to this circle for the last three years.

03:10:15.260 --> 03:10:22.440
 Those developments are what keeps us here in this circle, but we've got to define it.

03:10:22.440 --> 03:10:24.180
 We have to figure this out.

03:10:24.180 --> 03:10:28.100
 I don't know if it's going to be tonight, because I don't know that we got to where

03:10:28.100 --> 03:10:29.380
 we need to be going.

03:10:29.380 --> 03:10:34.960
 I absolutely am on board with needing an SUP across the board with whatever the zoning

03:10:34.960 --> 03:10:36.260
 districts are.

03:10:36.260 --> 03:10:41.340
 We need to regulate where we're going to put these, because where we put these affects

03:10:41.340 --> 03:10:44.540
 our community.

03:10:44.540 --> 03:10:47.540
 One of the biggest things is the scripture development.

03:10:47.540 --> 03:10:52.620
 That's kind of what got all this started well, and the one on Hickory as well.

03:10:52.620 --> 03:10:57.580
 We have got to figure this out as a city, because this is not going to go away.

03:10:57.580 --> 03:11:01.840
 For me, I'd love more time with this.

03:11:01.840 --> 03:11:06.820
 I don't like dormitory, because it means something to most people.

03:11:06.820 --> 03:11:10.300
 It doesn't mean these high-density developments that run by the bedroom.

03:11:10.300 --> 03:11:12.860
 That is not what people think of when they think dormitory.

03:11:12.860 --> 03:11:18.340
 I just didn't want to interrupt, but we're not stuck.

03:11:18.340 --> 03:11:23.720
 We can move forward with some other term, but does the definition at least get us there?

03:11:23.720 --> 03:11:26.620
 Not using the word dormitory, but the definition that we've proposed?

03:11:26.620 --> 03:11:30.500
 Yeah, I think the definition is okay.

03:11:30.500 --> 03:11:31.500
 It's the term.

03:11:31.500 --> 03:11:35.820
 It's what are we going to call these?

03:11:35.820 --> 03:11:39.220
 That I think needs further discussion.

03:11:39.220 --> 03:11:44.820
 I'm okay with boarding house, and actually the traditional definition of a boarding house

03:11:44.820 --> 03:11:49.380
 is someone who lives in their home and rents out a bedroom in their house.

03:11:49.380 --> 03:11:55.540
 If you go way back to when it's what my parents did, my grandparents did, that's just what

03:11:55.540 --> 03:11:56.540
 happened.

03:11:56.540 --> 03:12:05.860
 That's actually a more correct definition, in my opinion, on that.

03:12:05.860 --> 03:12:10.580
 To me, I think this needs further tweaking, and I don't know that we're going to be able

03:12:10.580 --> 03:12:15.420
 to figure that out today, so I'll just throw that out there to my fellow commissioners

03:12:15.420 --> 03:12:24.720
 and to staff that we may need more time with this and more time to actually discuss it.

03:12:24.720 --> 03:12:29.900
 We weren't afforded a work session discussion on this, and that's really too bad, in my

03:12:29.900 --> 03:12:30.900
 opinion.

03:12:30.900 --> 03:12:34.500
 Anyway, I'm going to stop speaking because there's more commissioners who want to say

03:12:34.500 --> 03:12:35.500
 something.

03:12:35.500 --> 03:12:36.500
 Sure.

03:12:36.500 --> 03:12:37.500
 Commissioner Cole.

03:12:37.500 --> 03:12:38.500
 Thank you, Chair.

03:12:38.500 --> 03:12:41.220
 I guess the question is, which way do we go on this?

03:12:41.220 --> 03:12:47.740
 SUP straight across, that's what I prefer, but I also have a problem with dormitory.

03:12:47.740 --> 03:12:55.580
 It should be student-specific housing instead, or whatever San Marcos does, but this all

03:12:55.580 --> 03:13:03.580
 comes back to scripture normal, putting a five-story building next to a historical neighborhood.

03:13:03.580 --> 03:13:10.920
 That's what triggered most of this, but I'm for SUPs across the board, but maybe we need

03:13:10.920 --> 03:13:15.780
 further discussion on this.

03:13:15.780 --> 03:13:16.780
 Commissioner Sanchez.

03:13:16.780 --> 03:13:22.360
 Yeah, I agree with you.

03:13:22.360 --> 03:13:32.540
 I guess the only thing I have about boarding houses is that boarding houses can go from

03:13:32.540 --> 03:13:40.740
 four individuals to 20 individuals, so we have to allow for somebody who wants to develop

03:13:40.740 --> 03:13:47.500
 a 20-people boarding house, so that doesn't really allow you to ... The old boarding houses,

03:13:47.500 --> 03:13:55.980
 I think, were five, six ... I know years ago, my parents used to rent a room in their house,

03:13:55.980 --> 03:13:58.120
 but those were years ago.

03:13:58.120 --> 03:14:00.820
 I'm just saying this.

03:14:00.820 --> 03:14:06.940
 We have to allow for expansion of the idea of boarding houses, and when you have 20 people,

03:14:06.940 --> 03:14:12.700
 that's good, to me, it's kind of like you're going to hire somebody to help you overlook

03:14:12.700 --> 03:14:19.700
 it, because it'd be a lot of work to manage 20 people living in your house, and nobody

03:14:19.700 --> 03:14:23.020
 has a house that big, I don't think.

03:14:23.020 --> 03:14:29.160
 You would actually have kind of like an old hotel or something that you could convert

03:14:29.160 --> 03:14:34.460
 to a boarding house, and then you would have somebody available there, but you wouldn't

03:14:34.460 --> 03:14:36.060
 want to live there either.

03:14:36.060 --> 03:14:37.660
 I'm just saying this.

03:14:37.660 --> 03:14:39.780
 Give us a window.

03:14:39.780 --> 03:14:44.060
 Make it more ... Expand the definition, I mean, expand the definition.

03:14:44.060 --> 03:14:49.260
 Remove that so a person can expand the boarding house without having to have that restriction

03:14:49.260 --> 03:14:50.260
 there.

03:14:50.260 --> 03:14:51.260
 Okay.

03:14:51.260 --> 03:14:52.260
 Commissioner Prenama.

03:14:52.260 --> 03:14:59.740
 I guess my question is where we are right now, because obviously, we're not in a position

03:14:59.740 --> 03:15:04.980
 to vote to recommend, and I think that's what we were initially tasked to do, to vote to

03:15:04.980 --> 03:15:07.060
 recommend.

03:15:07.060 --> 03:15:11.340
 So I know we've tossed out a few things, recommendations for staff to take back and

03:15:11.340 --> 03:15:13.820
 come back with something.

03:15:13.820 --> 03:15:15.060
 What is the next appropriate action?

03:15:15.060 --> 03:15:32.020
 Would it be to table to a date certain, or open up a public hearing, by the way, I guess?

03:15:32.020 --> 03:15:47.980
 First, I know Richard has something that he wanted to say, and then we can continue that.

03:15:47.980 --> 03:15:53.180
 Just wanted to provide a little bit ... I know we've had quite a, almost a confusing

03:15:53.180 --> 03:15:58.020
 conversation, I think, on this item, and that was one of the suggestions I was going to

03:15:58.020 --> 03:16:01.940
 make is that we really kind of look at how we define this.

03:16:01.940 --> 03:16:07.500
 I think we would be a little remiss if we ... I know we talk about, let's come back

03:16:07.500 --> 03:16:14.020
 with single family and duplex, but I can't tell you, we get a number of complaints from

03:16:14.020 --> 03:16:18.740
 residents with concerns within their single family neighborhood.

03:16:18.740 --> 03:16:23.580
 Part of the concern, I think, at least from staff, putting it with SUPs across the board,

03:16:23.580 --> 03:16:31.100
 not saying it's not needed, but it almost forces someone ... If you have the opportunity,

03:16:31.100 --> 03:16:37.540
 why would you go through the SUP if you can buy a house that's much cheaper, put a six-bedroom

03:16:37.540 --> 03:16:39.940
 single family house, rent by the bedroom?

03:16:39.940 --> 03:16:44.260
 It might be worth ... because we're seeing it.

03:16:44.260 --> 03:16:47.900
 The concern I have is, all of a sudden, you're going to have blocks.

03:16:47.900 --> 03:16:52.260
 We see it already in some of the neighborhoods that have completely changed.

03:16:52.260 --> 03:16:56.540
 Bryan, Texas has gone through that now, they were calling them stealth dorms is the term

03:16:56.540 --> 03:16:58.360
 they were using.

03:16:58.360 --> 03:17:06.540
 I think it's a much bigger issue, but I think we still need to, as we continue to move this

03:17:06.540 --> 03:17:12.460
 larger issue, I think we still need to not necessarily push the single family and duplex

03:17:12.460 --> 03:17:16.700
 for later, but also still think about that now.

03:17:16.700 --> 03:17:21.300
 Just looking at trends, just running quick numbers.

03:17:21.300 --> 03:17:29.140
 Of the total bedrooms, 18% of the 18,000, 3,251, are being proposed within the last

03:17:29.140 --> 03:17:30.140
 two years.

03:17:30.140 --> 03:17:34.660
 That's pretty substantial over two years.

03:17:34.660 --> 03:17:35.940
 It's a lot.

03:17:35.940 --> 03:17:43.900
 Just looking at overall, just to give you how this fits in, if you look at the undergraduate

03:17:43.900 --> 03:17:48.860
 admission for both UNT and TWU, again, these aren't exact numbers, just what I was able

03:17:48.860 --> 03:17:49.860
 to dig up.

03:17:49.860 --> 03:17:54.480
 If you look at the number of commuters, I think UNT estimated there at around 8,000.

03:17:54.480 --> 03:17:59.980
 The 18,000 represents 50% of the undergraduate students.

03:17:59.980 --> 03:18:08.180
 50% of those bedrooms represent 50% of the undergraduate students, which is pretty substantial.

03:18:08.180 --> 03:18:13.620
 If 18% of that was just in the last two years, it's here and it's going to continue to come.

03:18:13.620 --> 03:18:17.980
 Obviously, we need to address it, but what I don't want to do is also ignore it to a

03:18:17.980 --> 03:18:24.780
 certain extent, where we're going to push the problem into our single-family neighborhoods.

03:18:24.780 --> 03:18:35.380
 With that, one thing that we didn't do, because this is still your presentation and we've

03:18:35.380 --> 03:18:40.780
 just had discussion, is find out if there's anyone who wants to speak at this public hearing.

03:18:40.780 --> 03:18:44.980
 Is there anyone wishing to speak at this public hearing?

03:18:44.980 --> 03:18:51.300
 Would you like to?

03:18:51.300 --> 03:18:52.300
 There is no pressure.

03:18:52.300 --> 03:18:53.300
 I'm simply...

03:18:53.300 --> 03:19:05.260
 Do you live in an SRO?

03:19:05.260 --> 03:19:06.260
 Come on down.

03:19:06.260 --> 03:19:22.060
 My name is Tamsen Price, I live at 707 Bernard Street, apartment number 12, Denton, TX 7601.

03:19:22.060 --> 03:19:25.420
 I was not planning on speaking tonight, I just kind of wanted to come and hear what

03:19:25.420 --> 03:19:30.560
 you guys had to say, but a couple of comments that I had.

03:19:30.560 --> 03:19:34.460
 So the thing about SROs, I know you guys are saying that they're particularly for collegiate

03:19:34.460 --> 03:19:38.060
 use, but there's actually no stipulation that it has to just be college students that live

03:19:38.060 --> 03:19:39.060
 in them.

03:19:39.060 --> 03:19:44.300
 I know a lot of people who live, particularly in the one that I live in, which is the metro

03:19:44.300 --> 03:19:49.380
 apartments, they're not college students, it's just one of the more cheaper options

03:19:49.380 --> 03:19:50.380
 to live in.

03:19:50.380 --> 03:19:59.300
 But also, the apartment that I live in is a two-bedroom, it's like 750 square feet,

03:19:59.300 --> 03:20:03.500
 and we get charged $640 for each bedroom.

03:20:03.500 --> 03:20:06.340
 It's a really crappy apartment.

03:20:06.340 --> 03:20:10.520
 Like really crappy.

03:20:10.520 --> 03:20:24.860
 But also, yeah, I don't know what the heck I'm saying.

03:20:24.860 --> 03:20:33.100
 Also I used to live at 3317 Cooper Ranch East, which was a four-bedroom, what you guys are

03:20:33.100 --> 03:20:35.660
 assuming is a single-family home.

03:20:35.660 --> 03:20:40.420
 Our landlord lived out of state, and it was rented out by the room.

03:20:40.420 --> 03:20:44.220
 A lot of people in the neighborhood did not like having us there, and there were a couple

03:20:44.220 --> 03:20:49.180
 of other houses that were rented out like that, because there wasn't enough parking

03:20:49.180 --> 03:20:50.180
 on the street.

03:20:50.180 --> 03:20:53.660
 And that's one of the biggest issues that I have, is that there's just not enough parking

03:20:53.660 --> 03:20:55.220
 for all the people who live there.

03:20:55.220 --> 03:21:00.540
 So we had four cars that were parked on our street and in our driveway, and it was always

03:21:00.540 --> 03:21:03.420
 an issue with the neighbors trying to get in and out, and we were parking on their side

03:21:03.420 --> 03:21:08.080
 of the street and blocking their driveway.

03:21:08.080 --> 03:21:13.860
 So in the apartment that I currently live in, there's two people in each apartment,

03:21:13.860 --> 03:21:17.780
 so there's 24 apartments total.

03:21:17.780 --> 03:21:23.140
 And we don't have enough parking for all of the residents and additional visitors.

03:21:23.140 --> 03:21:28.220
 And I know that there's a lot right next to our apartment that actually went up before

03:21:28.220 --> 03:21:33.540
 this board in the fall for replatting.

03:21:33.540 --> 03:21:38.580
 That they're going to put two duplexes on, possibly, is what I've heard.

03:21:38.580 --> 03:21:41.940
 And from the size of the lot, I just don't understand how it's going to be able to fit

03:21:41.940 --> 03:21:47.460
 as many people as they're going to try and push in there with the parking spaces.

03:21:47.460 --> 03:21:51.340
 So yeah, that's all I have to say.

03:21:51.340 --> 03:21:54.820
 >> Looks like we have a couple questions for you.

03:21:54.820 --> 03:21:55.820
 [ Laughter ]

03:21:55.820 --> 03:21:56.820
 >> Oh, no.

03:21:56.820 --> 03:21:57.820
 >> Commissioner Beck.

03:21:57.820 --> 03:21:58.820
 >> Thank you, Vice Chair.

03:21:58.820 --> 03:22:02.300
 Actually, when I put my name up there, I still had a comment I wanted to make in our discussion,

03:22:02.300 --> 03:22:05.340
 but she mentioned something that raises a question.

03:22:05.340 --> 03:22:12.580
 You said the apartments you live in don't necessarily have students, and that SROs don't

03:22:12.580 --> 03:22:16.300
 necessarily, you know, fit the need of just students.

03:22:16.300 --> 03:22:23.100
 But they do fit the needs of single people, or maybe couples, but not families with children.

03:22:23.100 --> 03:22:25.300
 You don't have -- do you have families with children in this?

03:22:25.300 --> 03:22:32.700
 >> Yeah, down the street, there's a family that lives in one, but it's multiple families.

03:22:32.700 --> 03:22:33.940
 >> Okay, right.

03:22:33.940 --> 03:22:38.140
 But in yours, what you're saying is pretty much an SRO.

03:22:38.140 --> 03:22:42.520
 There's not families with children in that?

03:22:42.520 --> 03:22:44.060
 >> Not that I know of in my particular --

03:22:44.060 --> 03:22:45.060
 >> Okay.

03:22:45.060 --> 03:22:51.260
 And I agree that SROs aren't strictly for students, so that's one of the targeted populations.

03:22:51.260 --> 03:22:56.100
 But it does meet a need for single people, couples, young couples who have yet to have

03:22:56.100 --> 03:22:57.100
 a family.

03:22:57.100 --> 03:23:02.300
 Once they're ready to establish a family, I think they do want to move into a family

03:23:02.300 --> 03:23:06.340
 unit, multi-family apartment, or single-family residential.

03:23:06.340 --> 03:23:08.980
 But thank you for your input, too, Ms. Price.

03:23:08.980 --> 03:23:14.060
 And I'll come back later, because I think, Tim, Commissioner Smith wants to ask you something,

03:23:14.060 --> 03:23:15.060
 but I --

03:23:15.060 --> 03:23:16.060
 >> Commissioner Smith.

03:23:16.060 --> 03:23:17.060
 >> Thank you, Chair.

03:23:17.060 --> 03:23:18.060
 Let me go last down.

03:23:18.060 --> 03:23:19.060
 I'm sorry.

03:23:19.060 --> 03:23:20.060
 >> Price?

03:23:20.060 --> 03:23:23.860
 >> Price, Ms. Price.

03:23:23.860 --> 03:23:31.020
 Is there -- in the single-family residence you lived in, was the landlord in town?

03:23:31.020 --> 03:23:32.020
 >> No.

03:23:32.020 --> 03:23:37.260
 So in the single-family residence that I lived in before, the landlord lived in Washington.

03:23:37.260 --> 03:23:38.260
 >> Okay.

03:23:38.260 --> 03:23:43.660
 And the homes that were -- I'm sorry, the rooms, did you move in there -- it was rented

03:23:43.660 --> 03:23:47.780
 out specifically by the room that you didn't know the other three people that lived in

03:23:47.780 --> 03:23:48.780
 that whatsoever?

03:23:48.780 --> 03:23:49.780
 >> No.

03:23:49.780 --> 03:23:50.780
 >> Okay.

03:23:50.780 --> 03:23:54.540
 Did you ever feel unsafe at all at any point in time, because you didn't know the other

03:23:54.540 --> 03:23:55.540
 three people that are in that?

03:23:55.540 --> 03:23:56.540
 >> Oh, yeah.

03:23:56.540 --> 03:23:57.540
 >> Okay.

03:23:57.540 --> 03:23:58.540
 Awesome.

03:23:58.540 --> 03:23:59.540
 You've answered my questions.

03:23:59.540 --> 03:24:00.540
 Thank you.

03:24:00.540 --> 03:24:01.540
 Staff, you know what?

03:24:01.540 --> 03:24:02.540
 I'll put it on my motion.

03:24:02.540 --> 03:24:03.540
 You're good.

03:24:03.540 --> 03:24:04.540
 Thank you very much, Ms. Price.

03:24:04.540 --> 03:24:05.540
 I appreciate it.

03:24:05.540 --> 03:24:08.540
 >> Can I actually say something to his comment?

03:24:08.540 --> 03:24:15.380
 So that's one of the things that, like, SROs are marketed as being more -- better for students,

03:24:15.380 --> 03:24:17.540
 because you're able to have your own lease.

03:24:17.540 --> 03:24:22.740
 And so if your roommate violates the lease at any point or doesn't pay their rent, it

03:24:22.740 --> 03:24:23.740
 doesn't affect you.

03:24:23.740 --> 03:24:24.740
 You won't get evicted.

03:24:24.740 --> 03:24:30.100
 But at the same time, once someone's lease is up, the landlords can move in whoever they

03:24:30.100 --> 03:24:31.100
 want.

03:24:31.100 --> 03:24:36.860
 And you have no real options besides filing a complaint or filing a request for a roommate

03:24:36.860 --> 03:24:43.700
 change or an apartment change, which oftentimes don't happen.

03:24:43.700 --> 03:24:47.860
 I have a friend, actually, that's going through an issue right now with Denton PD, where she

03:24:47.860 --> 03:24:54.420
 was assaulted by her roommate, and her apartment complex won't move the roommate out of the

03:24:54.420 --> 03:24:58.020
 apartment and won't let her move out as well.

03:24:58.020 --> 03:25:02.940
 And so she's stuck in a room where she can't go and use any of the common spaces.

03:25:02.940 --> 03:25:04.940
 >> Is that a -- I'm sorry to interrupt you.

03:25:04.940 --> 03:25:09.140
 Is that a single-family residence or is that an apartment complex?

03:25:09.140 --> 03:25:12.140
 >> No, that's what we're terming as an SRO.

03:25:12.140 --> 03:25:18.020
 >> Okay, but I guess what I mean by that is, is it an SRO but inside of a single-family

03:25:18.020 --> 03:25:19.020
 complex?

03:25:19.020 --> 03:25:23.460
 Like, it's an actual home, the same structure you had previously, or is it like what you

03:25:23.460 --> 03:25:28.140
 live in now, which is a "apartment complex" where it's multiple dwellings but each room

03:25:28.140 --> 03:25:29.140
 is --

03:25:29.140 --> 03:25:30.140
 >> It's what I live in now.

03:25:30.140 --> 03:25:31.140
 >> Okay, what you live in now.

03:25:31.140 --> 03:25:32.140
 Okay.

03:25:32.140 --> 03:25:33.940
 Well, actually, what you're bringing up, I was going to -- I was wanting to bring it

03:25:33.940 --> 03:25:38.940
 up whenever I made my motion in a minute, but I think the point that I wanted to make

03:25:38.940 --> 03:25:42.660
 and why I wanted to ask you those questions and why I asked where your owner, the owner

03:25:42.660 --> 03:25:48.060
 of that single-family residence was, who was renting out by room -- by single-resident

03:25:48.060 --> 03:25:55.220
 or single-room occupancy lease model was because at least if the very -- at least if there's

03:25:55.220 --> 03:25:59.580
 something like the university courtyards or there's something like the Grove or those

03:25:59.580 --> 03:26:05.620
 other, you know, SRO-type models that already exist, at least there is a management staff

03:26:05.620 --> 03:26:10.260
 that is required to be there at all times, and so there could be -- and there's -- and

03:26:10.260 --> 03:26:13.340
 you probably -- hopefully the place you live in now, but I've -- you know, I grew up in

03:26:13.340 --> 03:26:14.340
 Denton.

03:26:14.340 --> 03:26:17.580
 I've been in these SROs before where there are the -- there's the red button in every

03:26:17.580 --> 03:26:18.740
 single room now.

03:26:18.740 --> 03:26:21.740
 Almost every single one of the new SROs that's going up now, there has to be a red button

03:26:21.740 --> 03:26:26.100
 in every single room in the event that an assault or something like that occurs that

03:26:26.100 --> 03:26:30.300
 immediately calls emergency services, and so I think the motion I was going to make was

03:26:30.300 --> 03:26:37.620
 to be able to get staff to see that we need to talk about single-family duplex along with

03:26:37.620 --> 03:26:39.260
 the multi-family together.

03:26:39.260 --> 03:26:40.860
 We can't separate them.

03:26:40.860 --> 03:26:41.860
 We have to do it together.

03:26:41.860 --> 03:26:45.420
 We have to -- we have to try to address it as soon as possible because if we address

03:26:45.420 --> 03:26:50.100
 them separately, in my mind, we're going to end up forcing people to go and do this -- well,

03:26:50.100 --> 03:26:55.180
 let's go buy up blocks of single-family residences and try to turn these into SROs now because

03:26:55.180 --> 03:26:58.500
 we're getting basically pushed out of doing conversions in multi-family residences.

03:26:58.500 --> 03:27:00.740
 So I actually really appreciate you being here tonight.

03:27:00.740 --> 03:27:01.740
 So thank you.

03:27:01.740 --> 03:27:02.740
 Thank you for speaking.

03:27:02.740 --> 03:27:05.500
 Commissioner Beck, did you have a question for the staff?

03:27:05.500 --> 03:27:09.700
 Yeah, what I was going to say, and it'll probably -- I'm not sure what Commissioner Smith is

03:27:09.700 --> 03:27:10.700
 going to motion.

03:27:10.700 --> 03:27:16.660
 I just -- it seems like we are stuck on the word dormitory, so I'm okay with the definition.

03:27:16.660 --> 03:27:21.140
 You know, if we could move the definition forward, I'm okay with that, and then we can

03:27:21.140 --> 03:27:23.340
 come -- I always like the term collegiate housing.

03:27:23.340 --> 03:27:28.140
 I thought that encompassed more what we're looking for here, but then we get to the part

03:27:28.140 --> 03:27:38.340
 about SUPs, so I don't know -- we probably need to do a vote on who stands -- I'm personally

03:27:38.340 --> 03:27:43.380
 okay with SUPs across the board, but I get the feeling there's a few that aren't.

03:27:43.380 --> 03:27:44.380
 Okay.

03:27:44.380 --> 03:27:48.580
 So I'll just say that, and then we'll see what's offered up in Commissioner Smith's

03:27:48.580 --> 03:27:49.580
 motion.

03:27:49.580 --> 03:27:50.580
 Thank you.

03:27:50.580 --> 03:27:51.580
 Okay.

03:27:51.580 --> 03:27:54.540
 Well, before I entertain that, I'm going to find out if there's anyone else wishing to

03:27:54.540 --> 03:27:58.420
 speak at this public hearing.

03:27:58.420 --> 03:28:02.820
 And seeing none, I will close the public hearing, and Commissioner Smith.

03:28:02.820 --> 03:28:03.820
 Thank you.

03:28:03.820 --> 03:28:10.620
 I'd like to make a motion to table this discussion to date certain of March 6th, 2019, and I

03:28:10.620 --> 03:28:17.780
 would like to give -- while we table the discussion, I'd like to give staff direction to, one,

03:28:17.780 --> 03:28:24.620
 I want to try to address this problem along with single-family and duplex.

03:28:24.620 --> 03:28:32.480
 I think that if we don't, we could foreseeably open up a gap of time where there could be

03:28:32.480 --> 03:28:36.100
 some shifts and changes that wouldn't be favorable, and so I'd rather address it all at one point

03:28:36.100 --> 03:28:40.180
 in time, understanding the all-encompassing problem that we have.

03:28:40.180 --> 03:28:43.460
 Commissioner Smith, let's state your motion, see if we get a second, and then we can have

03:28:43.460 --> 03:28:44.460
 discussion, please.

03:28:44.460 --> 03:28:45.460
 Sure.

03:28:45.460 --> 03:28:49.820
 Okay, motion to table to date certain, March 6th, 2019.

03:28:49.820 --> 03:28:50.820
 Commissioner Perneto.

03:28:50.820 --> 03:28:52.300
 I second that motion.

03:28:52.300 --> 03:29:09.660
 And then I guess I will ask Richard if that date is something that can be done.

03:29:09.660 --> 03:29:12.020
 I would actually prefer to have a little more time.

03:29:12.020 --> 03:29:20.420
 Because one thing, just to -- we will re-notice this, and so I want to make sure that we vetted

03:29:20.420 --> 03:29:25.940
 enough internally along with legal, and then whatever we come up with, we're able to notice

03:29:25.940 --> 03:29:26.940
 it properly.

03:29:26.940 --> 03:29:37.500
 I do know the meetings in March right now are pretty heavy with agenda items.

03:29:37.500 --> 03:29:44.980
 I'd like to move to amend my motion to date certain of April 9th, 2019.

03:29:44.980 --> 03:29:52.980
 April 9th, I think that's a Tuesday.

03:29:52.980 --> 03:29:56.580
 April 3rd, 2019.

03:29:56.580 --> 03:29:59.580
 April 3rd.

03:29:59.580 --> 03:30:04.200
 Development code, DDC update.

03:30:04.200 --> 03:30:05.200
 Or further.

03:30:05.200 --> 03:30:07.700
 Indefinitely.

03:30:07.700 --> 03:30:09.580
 Yeah, definitely.

03:30:09.580 --> 03:30:11.620
 We'll bring it back when we're ready.

03:30:11.620 --> 03:30:14.500
 We do have, like Richard said, there's a lot of stuff going on.

03:30:14.500 --> 03:30:23.460
 I'd like to amend my motion to table the discussion to date uncertain -- or to indefinitely.

03:30:23.460 --> 03:30:27.980
 Jerry, don't kill me.

03:30:27.980 --> 03:30:30.740
 I will second that.

03:30:30.740 --> 03:30:31.740
 Okay.

03:30:31.740 --> 03:30:35.780
 We have a first and a second to table indefinitely.

03:30:35.780 --> 03:30:37.200
 I know there's some discussion.

03:30:37.200 --> 03:30:42.500
 I'm going to ask Jerry to speak, because he's been wanting to say a few words, and then

03:30:42.500 --> 03:30:45.500
 we can entertain more.

03:30:45.500 --> 03:30:49.780
 Certainly if the commission is going to give any direction to staff, I want to make a few

03:30:49.780 --> 03:30:55.020
 comments from a legal perspective before you give feedback, because if I don't, Ron's going

03:30:55.020 --> 03:30:58.260
 to tell me you already gave him feedback, he doesn't want to listen to me.

03:30:58.260 --> 03:31:06.480
 But the first thing I wanted to point out is that, as you do give consideration to this,

03:31:06.480 --> 03:31:15.740
 try to avoid the temptation of assuming that SROs or rent by the bedroom is bad per se,

03:31:15.740 --> 03:31:17.500
 if we do get any kind of a challenge of that.

03:31:17.500 --> 03:31:25.780
 We're going to have to articulate zoning-based reasons why we're regulating these, and it's

03:31:25.780 --> 03:31:33.380
 going to have to be something in terms of traffic or something along those lines that

03:31:33.380 --> 03:31:38.940
 we're going to have to justify from a zoning perspective.

03:31:38.940 --> 03:31:45.380
 Similarly with SUPs, I want to make sure that we're sensitive to the idea that SUPs, the

03:31:45.380 --> 03:31:52.060
 intent is not to impede development with an SUP, the intent with the SUP is that if you

03:31:52.060 --> 03:31:59.180
 allow something subject to an SUP, that means it's allowed use, and the SUP is only there

03:31:59.180 --> 03:32:04.780
 to just look at the way in which you are implementing it.

03:32:04.780 --> 03:32:07.020
 Are you allowing enough traffic access?

03:32:07.020 --> 03:32:15.020
 Are you allowing enough protections in terms of access from the streets or what have you?

03:32:15.020 --> 03:32:21.260
 Typically these are traffic type of situations, so be careful not to use SUPs as an impediment

03:32:21.260 --> 03:32:23.900
 to development.

03:32:23.900 --> 03:32:28.820
 Probably my biggest concern is on the definition of dormitories.

03:32:28.820 --> 03:32:35.580
 This is something that I know I've brought up to staff before, and I think the council

03:32:35.580 --> 03:32:39.060
 was a little bit reluctant on it.

03:32:39.060 --> 03:32:48.660
 I was actually proposing that to have the definition be that it would be provided for

03:32:48.660 --> 03:32:55.020
 consideration rather than for rent, and I know that's not a term that's typically used

03:32:55.020 --> 03:33:00.100
 and that's one of the problems with dealing with the legal world is that sometimes legal

03:33:00.100 --> 03:33:02.860
 words have meaning and they mean something for a reason.

03:33:02.860 --> 03:33:11.300
 It's not that I love legalese, it's that if being someone who has prosecuted before, if

03:33:11.300 --> 03:33:16.980
 we say for rent in this definition, that just means the prosecutor has to prove the existence

03:33:16.980 --> 03:33:22.500
 of a lease and that the terms of the lease have that in there when the prosecution doesn't

03:33:22.500 --> 03:33:25.460
 have any right of discovery from the defendant.

03:33:25.460 --> 03:33:31.700
 I don't think that that's, trying to understand where the commission and the council is wanting

03:33:31.700 --> 03:33:36.780
 to go with this, I don't think you necessarily care if it's a lease agreement, it could be

03:33:36.780 --> 03:33:37.780
 a license.

03:33:37.780 --> 03:33:43.460
 It could be something where you permit someone to live somewhere, but they pay something,

03:33:43.460 --> 03:33:51.980
 or maybe it's in-kind services, you let me live there and I'll mow your yard for you.

03:33:51.980 --> 03:34:00.740
 If you require it to be for rent, that just creates a proof issue that impedes our ability

03:34:00.740 --> 03:34:03.860
 to enforce.

03:34:03.860 --> 03:34:09.400
 Please give consideration to the idea of leaving more, kind of like what you have with boarding

03:34:09.400 --> 03:34:15.180
 house, where you have the dissolver for consideration.

03:34:15.180 --> 03:34:16.180
 What is a consideration?

03:34:16.180 --> 03:34:21.160
 It doesn't have to be cash, it could be, again, I'll mow your yards, I'll be your maintenance

03:34:21.160 --> 03:34:25.780
 man if you let me live there.

03:34:25.780 --> 03:34:31.700
 And then finally, I think the point was made up about boarding houses being a separate

03:34:31.700 --> 03:34:37.780
 category, and I think one of the reasons for that is to differentiate them from single-family

03:34:37.780 --> 03:34:38.780
 homes.

03:34:38.780 --> 03:34:45.420
 And I think the idea is that with single-family homes, you rely upon the definition of family,

03:34:45.420 --> 03:34:49.620
 which talks about the number of unrelated persons that can live on site.

03:34:49.620 --> 03:34:52.980
 With a boarding house, family is not an issue.

03:34:52.980 --> 03:34:55.940
 The number of unrelated persons is not an issue.

03:34:55.940 --> 03:34:58.380
 That's why you have a different standard.

03:34:58.380 --> 03:35:04.980
 Just to answer that question, I wanted to provide that level of explanation.

03:35:04.980 --> 03:35:10.740
 As I indicated earlier, dormitories were something I came up with just because trying to describe

03:35:10.740 --> 03:35:12.860
 the living arrangement.

03:35:12.860 --> 03:35:16.180
 What word we use to describe it is largely immaterial.

03:35:16.180 --> 03:35:21.500
 But the concept with a dormitory is that it's a bunch of grown people that are living together.

03:35:21.500 --> 03:35:25.300
 They may all have cars, they may have a lot of traffic impacts, they're all independently

03:35:25.300 --> 03:35:26.300
 minded.

03:35:26.300 --> 03:35:28.180
 They're not part of a family.

03:35:28.180 --> 03:35:33.340
 They're people, and having that kind of relationship where you have a bunch of grown adults living

03:35:33.340 --> 03:35:39.500
 together and all being independently minded, that can create some impacts that are different

03:35:39.500 --> 03:35:46.360
 from, you know, situations with a single-family home or multi-family or what have you.

03:35:46.360 --> 03:35:51.580
 So just in short, those were some considerations that I wanted to bring to the commission's

03:35:51.580 --> 03:35:56.780
 attention with hopes that, you know, perhaps those might guide some of the recommendations

03:35:56.780 --> 03:35:57.780
 going forward.

03:35:57.780 --> 03:35:58.780
 Thank you, Chair.

03:35:58.780 --> 03:35:59.780
 Commissioner Smith.

03:35:59.780 --> 03:36:00.780
 Thank you, Chair.

03:36:00.780 --> 03:36:08.320
 A couple of recommendations to staff.

03:36:08.320 --> 03:36:15.380
 In light of what Jerry said, I think that we need to address the high-density areas

03:36:15.380 --> 03:36:21.660
 at the same time as we address single-family and duplex areas with this.

03:36:21.660 --> 03:36:24.740
 Primarily that is, I think there's some ulterior motives that I've already mentioned that's

03:36:24.740 --> 03:36:33.600
 on the record already, but in the form of zoning issues, in all instances, the creation

03:36:33.600 --> 03:36:39.740
 of a single-room occupancy-style leasing method creates a traffic and parking issue that needs

03:36:39.740 --> 03:36:41.740
 to be discussed.

03:36:41.740 --> 03:36:49.860
 That ruins the integrity of the single-family areas, for sure, but also congests and clogs

03:36:49.860 --> 03:36:57.260
 up some of the already high-dense areas that are in the downtown areas or areas around

03:36:57.260 --> 03:37:02.980
 the university that are right next to single-family areas.

03:37:02.980 --> 03:37:07.460
 So I think that we need to address them at the same time.

03:37:07.460 --> 03:37:15.020
 I hate to go through and say that on a single-family side, I think this still coincides with zoning

03:37:15.020 --> 03:37:20.900
 and planning use, Jerry, but I hate to say that a single-family area, we need to have

03:37:20.900 --> 03:37:24.540
 regulations and restrictions on private property owners and what they can do on their private

03:37:24.540 --> 03:37:31.080
 property, but I think in this instance, by not regulating and having some sort of rules

03:37:31.080 --> 03:37:36.820
 in force where we can make sure that traffic and parking and whatnot can be regulated correctly,

03:37:36.820 --> 03:37:41.780
 we're allowing single-family residential owners, private property owners, to negatively affect

03:37:41.780 --> 03:37:45.620
 the value and the quality of life of other private property owners surrounding them.

03:37:45.620 --> 03:37:51.560
 And so I think it's important that we address this all at one time with essentially one

03:37:51.560 --> 03:37:53.700
 simple common thread that can be used.

03:37:53.700 --> 03:37:57.620
 I'd rather not have us be disjointed and say that just for these high-density areas, we

03:37:57.620 --> 03:38:02.820
 want to have this mindset, and for these low-density residential areas, we have a different mindset.

03:38:02.820 --> 03:38:07.220
 I think it'd be much more important if we have a common thread mindset across the entire

03:38:07.220 --> 03:38:13.900
 city with what we want, and I think that we could agree that development of new SRO areas

03:38:13.900 --> 03:38:19.260
 are fine in areas where it's not a conversion and it's not in existing neighborhoods.

03:38:19.260 --> 03:38:23.940
 So I'd like that to come back and be seen before us.

03:38:23.940 --> 03:38:24.940
 Commissioner Beck.

03:38:24.940 --> 03:38:26.740
 Thank you, Vice Chair.

03:38:26.740 --> 03:38:33.280
 So we're clear here when we're talking about single-family, we're just talking about those

03:38:33.280 --> 03:38:35.980
 six zones you put up on the board, correct?

03:38:35.980 --> 03:38:39.540
 We're not talking about NR1, NR2, NR3, NR4.

03:38:39.540 --> 03:38:44.100
 Those SROs have been kind of forbidden there, and that's what kind of surprises me that

03:38:44.100 --> 03:38:51.380
 she lived in one over in an NR3 district, I believe.

03:38:51.380 --> 03:38:52.380
 Am I correct?

03:38:52.380 --> 03:38:58.940
 Well, just as I'm hearing the recommendations, if we expand this study to be more comprehensive

03:38:58.940 --> 03:39:07.780
 and identify and use our single-family duplexes, it's got to expand, the zoning district's

03:39:07.780 --> 03:39:12.020
 got to expand, and we've got to look at every zoning district from this point forward.

03:39:12.020 --> 03:39:18.980
 Well, I would think that we just simply wouldn't allow it in those four single-family districts,

03:39:18.980 --> 03:39:19.980
 period.

03:39:19.980 --> 03:39:24.860
 There would be no need for an SUP because SROs wouldn't be allowed there.

03:39:24.860 --> 03:39:27.580
 That's something we'd have to look into.

03:39:27.580 --> 03:39:34.100
 We haven't really studied the single-family duplexes component, and just for, again, as

03:39:34.100 --> 03:39:39.620
 for your consideration, we know that there's a lot of those around town, and if we're going

03:39:39.620 --> 03:39:43.580
 to move forward with some-- And they're not in violation?

03:39:43.580 --> 03:39:44.580
 Recommendations.

03:39:44.580 --> 03:39:45.580
 Of current codes?

03:39:45.580 --> 03:39:50.180
 Anyone moving forward that wants to do this, if it's a specific use permit, you're going

03:39:50.180 --> 03:39:56.380
 to have a lot of these types, and if that's the idea is to prevent them, then true, but--

03:39:56.380 --> 03:40:01.060
 Okay, but correct me if I'm wrong, Ron, I mean, isn't it currently a violation to put

03:40:01.060 --> 03:40:02.060
 an SRO?

03:40:02.060 --> 03:40:03.060
 No.

03:40:03.060 --> 03:40:08.580
 If they have four unrelated persons, they're legally allowed to rent.

03:40:08.580 --> 03:40:10.740
 Okay, and that is an area we need to look at.

03:40:10.740 --> 03:40:16.140
 I can see the issue with the six zones you put up there, they're there by right, but

03:40:16.140 --> 03:40:24.140
 I didn't think they'd be allowed in-- So if we move this into single-family duplexes,

03:40:24.140 --> 03:40:30.340
 then you're going to affect that type of development, or that type of rental option, whatever you

03:40:30.340 --> 03:40:35.380
 want to call it, for those property owners that have homes that want to lease to four

03:40:35.380 --> 03:40:36.380
 unrelated persons.

03:40:36.380 --> 03:40:42.580
 Okay, the other thing I guess I wanted to mention, I'm a little reluctant to make this

03:40:42.580 --> 03:40:43.580
 data uncertain.

03:40:43.580 --> 03:40:51.540
 I mean, we're trying to get the Denton development code done soon, and if we put this thing in--

03:40:51.540 --> 03:40:55.540
 and this is a definition, this is an area we need to address and needs to be in the

03:40:55.540 --> 03:41:00.700
 new code, so if we make this indefinite, are we going to be cutting ourselves off at the

03:41:00.700 --> 03:41:08.500
 knees for trying to get this code written without this definition in there?

03:41:08.500 --> 03:41:13.660
 The code will move forward, and this would be something that we'd have to address--

03:41:13.660 --> 03:41:14.660
 Later.

03:41:14.660 --> 03:41:15.660
 Separately.

03:41:15.660 --> 03:41:16.660
 Yeah.

03:41:16.660 --> 03:41:21.180
 Unless we bring it forward with it, and that can be part of the discussion, but I don't

03:41:21.180 --> 03:41:22.540
 see that happening.

03:41:22.540 --> 03:41:23.540
 Okay.

03:41:23.540 --> 03:41:24.540
 Okay.

03:41:24.540 --> 03:41:25.540
 Thanks.

03:41:25.540 --> 03:41:27.880
 Richard, did you want to--

03:41:27.880 --> 03:41:34.300
 What I was going to say is, let us continue to dig into this a little bit more, particularly

03:41:34.300 --> 03:41:39.820
 as we look at the single family and duplex issue, again, the definition as it was proposed

03:41:39.820 --> 03:41:47.020
 only applied if it was three or more units, so let us just dig into it a little more.

03:41:47.020 --> 03:41:52.380
 As we start to prepare information, I think we can easily provide that to you even in

03:41:52.380 --> 03:41:54.740
 a work session setting.

03:41:54.740 --> 03:41:58.760
 We are going to have DDC update as a discussion item.

03:41:58.760 --> 03:42:02.500
 This falls right within it, so I wouldn't think that it would-- I mean, Jared, maybe

03:42:02.500 --> 03:42:06.200
 I'm correct if I'm wrong, but I don't think it would preclude us from discussing that

03:42:06.200 --> 03:42:12.740
 in the terms of the overall DDC update, which I think is on the next subsequent agendas.

03:42:12.740 --> 03:42:13.740
 Three agendas here.

03:42:13.740 --> 03:42:14.740
 Thank you, Richard.

03:42:14.740 --> 03:42:20.540
 Okay, I'll just say a couple words and there's a couple more commissioners.

03:42:20.540 --> 03:42:24.220
 I don't really want to postpone this indefinitely either, but I don't see at this point that

03:42:24.220 --> 03:42:26.980
 we have much of a choice with where this discussion went.

03:42:26.980 --> 03:42:32.460
 For me, I think we've got-- we're kind of combining two separate things.

03:42:32.460 --> 03:42:40.820
 I think an SRO is a single room occupancy, rent by the bedroom.

03:42:40.820 --> 03:42:43.980
 That's really what it is, and it can be a single family house, it could be a duplex,

03:42:43.980 --> 03:42:49.860
 it could be a 500-unit building, but that's what an SRO is.

03:42:49.860 --> 03:42:54.980
 I think a lot of people think SRO, they think massive density buildings.

03:42:54.980 --> 03:43:00.140
 So for me, I think that's where we might have been trying to go to with this definition,

03:43:00.140 --> 03:43:10.240
 but I think we desperately need a definition for these high-density, purpose-built student

03:43:10.240 --> 03:43:12.000
 housing complexes.

03:43:12.000 --> 03:43:13.620
 We need that.

03:43:13.620 --> 03:43:19.580
 We need to be able to regulate where we want to put them.

03:43:19.580 --> 03:43:23.660
 That's one fold of this discussion, in my opinion.

03:43:23.660 --> 03:43:29.580
 Then there's the whole SRO discussion to be had.

03:43:29.580 --> 03:43:32.220
 Do we want them in the city?

03:43:32.220 --> 03:43:33.220
 How do we regulate it?

03:43:33.220 --> 03:43:35.380
 What are the regulations for that?

03:43:35.380 --> 03:43:38.180
 I think these are two separate discussions.

03:43:38.180 --> 03:43:43.980
 I don't know going forward as a staff, that'll be up to you of how you want to chop things

03:43:43.980 --> 03:43:51.660
 up, but to me, we need a high-density definition that's a hot button issue in this community.

03:43:51.660 --> 03:43:57.940
 It's what gets people ired up, because these massive complexes with hundreds and hundreds

03:43:57.940 --> 03:44:03.440
 of students come in to these existing neighborhoods, and we can't regulate them with the way we

03:44:03.440 --> 03:44:05.940
 have our code written right now.

03:44:05.940 --> 03:44:11.560
 I think that absolutely has got to be done, and we haven't done it.

03:44:11.560 --> 03:44:19.700
 Then the discussion is another discussion to be had about renting bedrooms, whether that

03:44:19.700 --> 03:44:23.400
 be single-family, a three-plex, a tri-plex, whatever.

03:44:23.400 --> 03:44:27.300
 That's another issue.

03:44:27.300 --> 03:44:32.020
 On related family members, however, we need to regulate that.

03:44:32.020 --> 03:44:38.460
 I think that's a separate issue to what this discussion started as.

03:44:38.460 --> 03:44:45.180
 Chair, if I can clarify, are we saying that those are two different discussions, but during

03:44:45.180 --> 03:44:49.260
 our work session, future work session, we want to bring all that together?

03:44:49.260 --> 03:44:58.260
 Well, they're certainly related, so I mean, I would defer to you guys about what needs

03:44:58.260 --> 03:45:02.300
 to happen first and what, but I mean.

03:45:02.300 --> 03:45:07.780
 I just want to make sure I understand what we're preparing for, and we'll definitely

03:45:07.780 --> 03:45:15.260
 regroup and come up with a strategy, but I didn't want to miss anything.

03:45:15.260 --> 03:45:17.980
 Commissioner Newpreneta.

03:45:17.980 --> 03:45:23.820
 My original point was to remove the height, but based on what Vice Chair Ellis has said,

03:45:23.820 --> 03:45:30.340
 in this, we have two different types of structures that are bound together by a rental agreement

03:45:30.340 --> 03:45:39.340
 type, so I think maybe the solution is to come back with basically both, one that addresses

03:45:39.340 --> 03:45:43.660
 the single-family residence and one that addresses that type of unit.

03:45:43.660 --> 03:45:49.340
 That way, you could have the height restriction, but we could also put these in.

03:45:49.340 --> 03:45:56.260
 I think we would have to move to counsel both things concurrently to avoid a situation where

03:45:56.260 --> 03:46:04.260
 people might take advantage of a gap of time, but that would probably be my recommendation.

03:46:04.260 --> 03:46:11.100
 Probably would be easier to present two different options, or basically two different cases

03:46:11.100 --> 03:46:16.980
 that we approve concurrently.

03:46:16.980 --> 03:46:20.080
 Commissioner Sanchez.

03:46:20.080 --> 03:46:24.660
 We started with a conversation of student housing, and now we're finding out that these

03:46:24.660 --> 03:46:30.620
 actually, people are changing using the same plan that was developed for student housing

03:46:30.620 --> 03:46:32.020
 so they can make more money.

03:46:32.020 --> 03:46:35.820
 I think what we need to do is concentrate on student housing, because that's what we

03:46:35.820 --> 03:46:43.540
 started with, and figure out that, and then move on to what's happening, why these people

03:46:43.540 --> 03:46:50.660
 that are changing regular residence into the same pattern, the same model that they're

03:46:50.660 --> 03:46:58.340
 using on student housing, we need to find out what's going on with those.

03:46:58.340 --> 03:47:01.380
 Our whole discussion was, first, student housing.

03:47:01.380 --> 03:47:10.340
 I think we need to stick with that and work that out completely, because to me, student

03:47:10.340 --> 03:47:17.380
 housing also has location, and just to say we're going to do an SRO in Timbuktu, for

03:47:17.380 --> 03:47:24.780
 the fact that I can make more money, but it's not for students, then are you breaking the

03:47:24.780 --> 03:47:27.980
 law based on how many people you have in there?

03:47:27.980 --> 03:47:37.860
 We need to look at, just concentrate on SROs first, and fix that, and location, and how

03:47:37.860 --> 03:47:43.140
 many students, if you're calling that you're going to create student housing, what percentage

03:47:43.140 --> 03:47:47.920
 of those people living there are students?

03:47:47.920 --> 03:47:53.140
 You have to have 80% or 90% of those people living there to call it student housing.

03:47:53.140 --> 03:47:58.780
 If you call it an SRO, and everybody's just working, and no students, then you're not

03:47:58.780 --> 03:48:02.780
 an SRO.

03:48:02.780 --> 03:48:08.580
 I think what has happened is people figured out how to make more money, and are using

03:48:08.580 --> 03:48:14.180
 that model to make it, but we need to define it, and say this is what a student housing

03:48:14.180 --> 03:48:15.180
 is.

03:48:15.180 --> 03:48:24.100
 It's 90%, 100% students, not working people.

03:48:24.100 --> 03:48:32.700
 If that's all you're doing, then you have a different model that you have to follow.

03:48:32.700 --> 03:48:38.180
 Okay, I don't see any other discussion, so we do have a motion on the table to table

03:48:38.180 --> 03:48:56.940
 this indefinitely, and I will call for a vote on the board.

03:48:56.940 --> 03:49:04.460
 Motion passes 5-2-1.

03:49:04.460 --> 03:49:07.900
 That leads us to our final item.

03:49:07.900 --> 03:49:24.580
 That's our matrix, and Richard, I'll let you bring up our matrix.

03:49:24.580 --> 03:49:29.980
 Just wanted to touch on a couple of the items on the matrix.

03:49:29.980 --> 03:49:36.740
 At our next meeting on 2/20, we will have representatives from DSID to talk about their

03:49:36.740 --> 03:49:40.980
 student generation rates and capacity, and how they determine that.

03:49:40.980 --> 03:49:46.380
 I believe the consultant that assists them with that will also be in attendance to give

03:49:46.380 --> 03:49:55.180
 that presentation on March 6th regarding the roundabout in the special study areas.

03:49:55.180 --> 03:50:01.460
 I spoke to Preetam earlier today about that item, and so he will be here on the 6th.

03:50:01.460 --> 03:50:07.140
 We'll probably want to start that meeting also a little bit earlier, so it'll be a number

03:50:07.140 --> 03:50:11.800
 of items discussed as part of that, one being obviously the roundabouts, but I also want

03:50:11.800 --> 03:50:17.340
 to have him give an update on the study that was completed, the special area study for

03:50:17.340 --> 03:50:25.620
 the Sherman Avenue or Sherman Road area, as well as both Ryan Road and Hickory Creek.

03:50:25.620 --> 03:50:31.900
 That way we're all in the loop as these projects progress.

03:50:31.900 --> 03:50:35.700
 The Master Thoroughfare Mobility Plan, that is still in the works, so I don't have a

03:50:35.700 --> 03:50:40.620
 specific date as to when, but I do know it will be in the very near future as they get

03:50:40.620 --> 03:50:44.460
 that RFP out and begin that selection.

03:50:44.460 --> 03:50:51.340
 Just wanted to mention also, while not on the matrix, City Council did approve the resolution

03:50:51.340 --> 03:50:57.100
 last night regarding the developer engagement policy, so it is in effect.

03:50:57.100 --> 03:51:02.340
 What we will do is I'll make sure everyone gets a copy of that signed resolution.

03:51:02.340 --> 03:51:09.380
 Nothing changed from what the commission recommended, and just wanted to update on a couple projects.

03:51:09.380 --> 03:51:16.220
 We did deny two applications last night, one being the Windsor Avenue Apartments.

03:51:16.220 --> 03:51:20.380
 That was denied, as well as the rezoning for the lakeside, if you recall.

03:51:20.380 --> 03:51:23.380
 That was in front of you.

03:51:23.380 --> 03:51:26.100
 The lakeside rezoning.

03:51:26.100 --> 03:51:30.660
 I also wanted to give you an update briefly, I don't want to get into the conversation

03:51:30.660 --> 03:51:34.820
 on the project, just want to let you know what's on the horizon.

03:51:34.820 --> 03:51:38.340
 The Agave Ranch most likely will be brought back.

03:51:38.340 --> 03:51:44.020
 They're looking at amending their application, potentially reducing, if they do ultimately

03:51:44.020 --> 03:51:49.060
 amend it and reduce the density, it will be brought back in front of the commission for

03:51:49.060 --> 03:51:51.140
 consideration.

03:51:51.140 --> 03:51:56.840
 They are holding some meetings with the neighbors, so just wanted to keep everyone apprised of

03:51:56.840 --> 03:52:02.180
 where that's at.

03:52:02.180 --> 03:52:06.940
 Anybody need to add anything to the matrix?

03:52:06.940 --> 03:52:15.100
 Just real quick, so the next meeting's on the 20th, on the 13th, there's a special

03:52:15.100 --> 03:52:18.580
 call session regarding the DDC update with Clarion.

03:52:18.580 --> 03:52:19.580
 So that is okay.

03:52:19.580 --> 03:52:20.580
 Commissioner Sanchez.

03:52:20.580 --> 03:52:28.740
 I just, on the matrix, I was wondering if we could add something on, when we were talking

03:52:28.740 --> 03:52:40.580
 about the special areas, I wanted, when they talked about the buffer stream size management

03:52:40.580 --> 03:52:49.060
 zones, or they defined it fair or whatever, but when they talk about uplands, they never

03:52:49.060 --> 03:52:51.300
 define what condition it is.

03:52:51.300 --> 03:52:58.620
 I'd like to talk a little bit or discuss that a little bit, and also as to how we can improve

03:52:58.620 --> 03:53:04.580
 it to make it, if there's any kind of management that we can bring into that and say if it's

03:53:04.580 --> 03:53:09.100
 in fair condition or in good condition, how do we maintain that?

03:53:09.100 --> 03:53:10.100
 Okay.

03:53:10.100 --> 03:53:16.620
 We'll do, what I'll try to do is, let me talk to Deborah to see when I can have something

03:53:16.620 --> 03:53:17.940
 brought in front of you.

03:53:17.940 --> 03:53:24.860
 We will be bringing the conservation and landscape code for formal consideration on the 20th.

03:53:24.860 --> 03:53:31.580
 I'll see if she can at least maybe get something, even beforehand, just to, where their thoughts

03:53:31.580 --> 03:53:34.580
 are on it.

03:53:34.580 --> 03:53:37.660
 Then I'll just add one comment.

03:53:37.660 --> 03:53:43.460
 I know back in the day we used to have someone at our meetings from engineering, namely traffic.

03:53:43.460 --> 03:53:52.740
 I don't know when that ended or if that can be done or, I just thought I'd throw that

03:53:52.740 --> 03:53:53.740
 out there.

03:53:53.740 --> 03:53:56.940
 Sometimes we have so many questions and it would be nice if we could call them down like

03:53:56.940 --> 03:54:01.820
 we used to be able to call them down and get a quick update.

03:54:01.820 --> 03:54:04.860
 Just because it's so relevant when we've got these public hearings, when they're right

03:54:04.860 --> 03:54:09.540
 in front of us and they've got these concerns and we can quickly get to an update.

03:54:09.540 --> 03:54:13.460
 I don't know when that decision was made, and I don't know if it can be fixed, because

03:54:13.460 --> 03:54:18.740
 I don't know what staff is like now, but I just thought I'd throw that out there for

03:54:18.740 --> 03:54:19.740
 our thought.

03:54:19.740 --> 03:54:20.740
 I don't have an answer.

03:54:20.740 --> 03:54:21.740
 Okay.

03:54:21.740 --> 03:54:22.740
 I'll get one.

03:54:22.740 --> 03:54:24.120
 Yeah, I'd appreciate that.

03:54:24.120 --> 03:54:29.500
 We just always had one in attendance as part of staff.

03:54:29.500 --> 03:54:37.980
 It was helpful a lot, a lot of the time, in work session and in regular session.

03:54:37.980 --> 03:54:41.220
 I don't see anything else, so thank you everybody.

03:54:41.220 --> 03:54:46.460
 With that, I will close our meeting at 9.11.

03:54:46.460 --> 03:54:47.460
 Thank you.

03:54:47.460 --> 03:54:47.460
 Thank you.