Mar 19, 2019 City Council on 2019-03-19 12:00 PM

Welcome everyone to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday, March 19th, 2019. It is 12.03 p.m. We do have a quorum. We've got full attendance here for the council members and I'll call this meeting to order. Our first item on the agenda is citizen comments on consent agenda items. We have one, Brandon Taylor, if you'll come forward and state your name and then your time will begin and how much time, Shane, how much time? Three minutes? Yes. Yeah, you'll just stand behind the, we're televising this so it's important to speak into the mic. Absolutely. Thank you, sir. My name is Brandon Taylor. I am the designer on the project at the loophole and also general contractor. And today we'd like to ask for your consideration on the, to consent the agenda for the reimbursement grant for the historic building. And first off, let me say I apologize for my attire, working on the job over there. We got our times confused a little bit, thought I'd be speaking at 6.30 tonight. However, nonetheless, we made it, so good deal there. We believe that the amount right now which is granted to us is registered at $5,000 and we would like for a reconsideration of that amount considering the current costs that we've placed into the building and renovations thus far. And I had a slide presentation, however, three minutes, we don't have enough time to go through it. However, I wish to educate everybody on the city council on these points. And perhaps we can set a meeting or I can attend an additional meeting to actually provide a presentation for that. Julie Glover and Roman McCall have been working with us on this and I would just like to thank them for all the work that they've done on this. And by no means are we meaning to address this with any insult or upset or anything. We just believe that we have a pretty good stand to apply for a little bit more of that grant money considering the historic nature of the loophole and, like I said, the work that we've done for this. >> Okay. All right. >> Okay. Yes, Council Member Hudspeth? >> Just for staff, what is that process -- what is the process for that if they were to apply or ask for reconsideration or additional requests? >> I'd probably recommend that you have them meet with the Economic Development Partnership Board again to restate their case. And that's typically what's been done when we've asked for reconsideration, is the council's one of the commission that oversees that particular program to hear the facts and then make a recommendation based upon that new information. So that would be my suggestion, unless the council wants to simply make a different decision. Yes, yes, sir. >> And those can run at the same time, so we could approve the 5,000 that's on the Consent Agenda today and then -- or would they have to wait to do it all at once? >> No, I actually had a question of whether today's approval is -- would foreclose the opportunity to apply again. I don't know under the ordinance or the program, I'd have to rely on Julie Glover or Caroline Booth. >> It's been my understanding that one -- the buildings get one grant. Is that -- yeah, go ahead, yes, thank you. >> The address gets up to $25,000, if that makes sense. So it could be multiple businesses over a number of years that each get a little piece of that, up to $25,000. >> Okay, okay, so if it was approved today, that doesn't foreclose them from coming in and asking for an additional grant? >> It does not. >> Okay. Yes, Councilmember -- >> I'll just bring this up now, because it's related. I had actually planned on, next up, asking to have the two downtown reinvestment grant items move forward for individual consideration for the evening meeting. I'm not saying that that would mean that that would resolve this particular issue, but the reason why I wanted to do that is just because a lot of members in the public just have questions. I don't know if people actually come out and be there, but -- to ask these questions, but I myself have questions just about how the process works. And so just to be able to hear the staff presentation, and then you could put on a -- put on a suit and -- I don't know if you're able to go in the evening, but it was not -- I didn't even know that someone -- a member of the public would be coming out to speak on this. I had already planned to pull that, both of those, just to -- >> There's three of them. So there's J, K, and L. >> Oh. Okay. Of course, you're K. You're K. That's right. J, K, and L. >> So you're wanting all three of them? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. >> Just so we can hear the staff report and answer questions, and that might be another opportunity. >> Absolutely. Councilmember Briggs? >> Yeah. And just in those, if we could have the scoring sheets that we -- that we saw available so that everyone can see how those scored originally for the downtown board and economic development board. Thank you. >> Yes. Councilmember Hussbett? >> Thank you. So, yeah, that would be my request that you renew your request at that level, and then you can make that -- clarify any points that you think were missed and that sort of thing, and -- >> Sure. >> -- fold in whatever you hear this evening, you know, and try to make that case. >> Would this evening -- would it be possible to present the presentation that I have prepared, or is that -- yeah? >> You'll be able to sign up as a person to speak as an item for individual consideration. You'll need to fill out a blue card. >> Okay. >> I think it's three or four minutes. What is it? Is it four minutes? Is it four for an item for individual consideration, public comment? >> Three. >> Three. Okay. Yeah. So if you get -- if you get here a little early, then we can have the auto visual staff help you sort of load it up so once you get up there, we're not having to -- >> Absolutely. >> Yep. Good. >> Absolutely. Great. Great. Thank you so much for your time and hearing me today, and again, I apologize for -- >> Hey. If we could do it, trust me. Yeah. We're all good. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> You bet. Uh-huh. Okay. I think those are all the cards that we have to speak for clarification of consent agenda items. No. Citizen comments on consent agenda items. Excuse me. So now we'll go to agenda item number two, request for clarification on agenda items listed on today's agenda. Any -- councilmember -- >> So just a comment on item A. I wanted to -- since I don't really want to pull it, but I do want to say that we provided over 35,000 meals and snack last summer under this, and we're going to be adding a new location site at North Lakes, so hopefully those meals will increase, and I just wanted to state that so that everybody knows what a great program this is. And on H, my question is, is this just for the properties disturbed by utility work, and does this include sidewalks? So if we go into someone's property to remove grass or some sort of sidewalk, does this also include that, or is it just utility work, and do we put back in the exact things that we take out and mess up? >> Yes, ma'am. Anytime we are in there disturbing a person's yard because we're doing road work or construction work for city purposes, we do replace it. Hopefully as good, if not better, than how it was found, including irrigation work, any of those kinds of things. >> Okay. So is this irrigation? >> I believe it's just for -- I believe it's just for sod replacement. >> Right. And I think landscape, other items, too, as well. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Anybody else? Preparation of agenda items? >> So the others, what was that, J, K, and L, obviously. And I also wanted to -- I didn't want to pull these, but just to mention there are, in the number, I believe I counted four -- three items on the consent agenda. There are four LLCs, limited liability corporations, and I had asked privately earlier if it were possible to have, in the future, for consent agendas and as individual items, just any time the city is considering voting on an LLC, that information be provided as part of the backup, not just for council's benefit, but for the public as well, just stating who the owners are, who's on the board, whether or not the city has done business with them before. It would be -- I could ask individually every time, but it would be great. I just thought this would be an opportunity just to mention publicly that I would appreciate it. I think it would be good for the public, for staff, and everybody just to have that information out there when there's an LLC. I did some figuring out myself on some, my own, and so I'm going to be voting yes on these consent agenda items, but just for future reference, that would be awesome. >> We have certainly had that discussion with any land acquisitions, but you're saying any time there's an LLC with a contract, you want to see the partners? >> Yes. That would be awesome. Yeah. Just kind of doing a search for all LLCs just mentioned and then just finding out. Just that basic information, putting it out there, as a matter of course. Thank you so much. >> So I appreciate that clarification, because we did discuss doing this for land purchases, and that was sort of the direction of the council, so this is a -- which is fine, it's an additional request. It wasn't an oversight from anybody because we hadn't given direction on that. Now my understanding is we can only give the information that we're able to obtain publicly, and typically that's from the secretary of state's website, because as far as bylaws and things such as that, we're not able to gain those if it's not a public record. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. All right. So whatever's available publicly just is what you're asking for. >> Yeah, yeah, plus the question of, you know, has the city done business with this LLC before? >> Right. Go ahead. >> Thanks. >> Great. All right. Any more clarifications on agenda items? All right. Seeing none, we'll move on to our work session reports. First one is all of our favorites. Agenda item 3A, which is receive report and hold discussion, give staff direction regarding FY 2017-18 comprehensive annual financial report, commonly known and affectionately called the CAFR. >> Very affectionately. >> Yes. >> Tony Puente, chief financial officer, council mayor, appreciate the time today. I'm going to be very brief. I want to just first recognize some of our staff members that are in our accounting department. They are the folks that actually do the lion's share of all this work and spend countless hours during this time of year. So I just wanted to recognize them real quick. So David Gaines, who is our assistant finance director, is over the accounting department, but we also have Harvey Jarvis, our controller, Cody Wood, who is our assistant controller, Brian Hogan, he's also our assistant controller. He's actually brand new to the city. He's only been with the city a few months. We have Katherine Bae, who handles our grants, Katie McGee and Cindy Leong. We also added this year, Jenny Wang, she's also new to our team. Lori Allen, of course, has been with the city for a very long time. She handles all our cash reconciliation and pretty much everything else that we can think of. She does a great job. Kurt Brayfogle, Ed Lane as well, Ed has been with the city for a long time, recently moved over to Dent Municipal Electric, he's our electric accountant now. And certainly we have a number of people in accounts payable and payroll as well that contributed to this CAFR this year. So I just want to just publicly acknowledge them and thank them for a job well done again this year. Great. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you all. Thank you. So just briefly, I do want to say that, you know, overall, we had really well, really good financial results. Our general fund balance ended the year about 28.9, which is called the unassigned fund balance still within our targeted fund balance of 20 to 25%. That's actually calculated about 23% this year. If you remember last year, we ended the year, we actually added about $3.6 million last year to the fund balance. I will say that this year was not the case. This year, we actually saw a decrease in our fund balance, about 1.4 million. We had already anticipated having a fund balance about $600,000, the majority of that was really attributable to the last few months of sales tax performance. We did lose about $1 million in sales tax there at the end of the year. I will tell you that we are planning to come back to the council on April 1st to provide you just an update of where we are financially in the general fund. We continue to see some depressed sales tax in the area, and so we want to come back with some ideas on how we can rebalance the budget and kind of get us moving in the right direction. So unless the council has any questions for me, I do have Kent Willis who was our senior auditor with Petilla Browning Hill. He does have a brief presentation, certainly he is available for questions if you want to wait until the end, or now, either way, whatever the council prefers. So I'll introduce Kent Willis with Petilla Browning Hill. I have a question Tony. I know there's, top of mind for me is Bucky's when they'll report kind of there so we can get a base of understanding their sales tax contributions, but are there others that are kind of new, that do you have kind of a, these are entering their first year, we're going to get a pace for these type contributors, or do you track it that way? We do, we do receive confidential sales tax information from the Comptroller that provides us detailed information by most taxpayers, sometimes they're aggregated, for example, the two Walmarts come together in a single number. That information is confidential at the taxpayer level. We are working on looking at that information more on an aggregate basis, looking by industry code to try to understand where some of that dip may be happening. I will tell you that preliminarily we're looking at some potential dips in the, not in the retail sector so much, as it is in the mining sector, and so some of the gas and oil which you can imagine is really was contributing to some of this reduction in sales tax that we're seeing. I think overall, our sales tax continues to outperform what we had the previous year, it just hasn't performed quite as good as we anticipated, so we just have to recalibrate our forecast going forward. Well, and so let me better phrase that, so new contributors are new entities to the city that have not reported yet, that's kind of what I'm, pardon me, trying to key in on, because that, we don't have that kind of that legacy information, so it's kind of a first look at what they're contributing, do you have something like that kind of? We can sort of compile that for you and provide it on an aggregate basis, so we have provided information to you through our legal status report regarding buckies and itself, but again because that's a single taxpayer currently, we're not able to publicly provide that to you, so. Got it. Thank you. Council Member Berthes. So if we missed our expected return by 1%, is that correct? I mean, if we keep missing our expected returns, will we have to eventually start contributing more to our pension? When you say returns, I don't understand. So our expected returns on our investments on the pension liability estimates? Yes. Yes. Yeah, certainly if that, so there's a sensitivity analysis that's provided within the CAFRA on what would happen if that, if our returns did not generate, so we would definitely need to look at either contributing more to that plan or look at other options that may be out there. And so will that be something we look at in our budget season or is that something that we'll need to decide? That's part of the budget process, yes ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Okay. Thank you, Kent. Thank you guys for your time today, I'm going to get the PowerPoint pulled up here. Alrighty, well good afternoon, thank you for your time today, appreciate the opportunity to come and talk to you guys again about the 2018 audit. My name is Kent Willis. I was a supervisor over this particular engagement. John Manning, you'll see his name up here in a moment, he had two other presentations to do this afternoon, so he wasn't able to come, he asked me to come in and step in for him, so I'm glad to do that. This is my third year working on Denton's audit, so I should be able to answer any questions that you guys have, and of course if I can I can do some research and get back to you. So please stop me as I progress through or if you want to wait till the end, however you want to do that. I just wanted to start by saying thanks really for selecting us as your external auditor, we've appreciated working with your finance and accounting staff over the last three years, I think it's been a pretty good relationship, at least from our perspective, and I wanted to say thanks to the folks sitting over here on this side of the room for all your help throughout the process, it was a big help, you all made our jobs a lot easier than you had to, so thank you for doing that. So just kind of a brief overview of what I'd like to talk about today, some bullet points up here. Just want to briefly go through kind of bird's eye view of the audit process, and then move into the results of the audit, what did we conclude after performing the audit. Some value added items, really briefly talk about some upcoming audit accounting standards, and then we'll close and hold for any questions if you guys have any. So let's just take a look at the audit process, kind of like I said bird's eye view, we kind of think of the audit process happening in two phases, first phase is what we call interim work or planning, planning is really just risk assessment, information gathering, right, so we're coming out for two weeks during the summer, we're going to spend those two weeks asking questions, interviewing folks, reviewing documents, trying to gain an understanding of what's changed this year, because our audit is only so long, we only have so much time to spend, we want to focus on the risky areas, right, so this is our time to figure out what's new this year, what's complex, where do we need to spend most of our time during the actual audit when we come back in January. Second phase of the audit is field work, that's in January, that's where the heavy lifting happens. So we're out here for about five weeks, three or four people, myself and John in the office, and again, digging into both internal documents, asking questions, interviewing staff, reviewing third party documents, and the whole goal of course is to make sure that the CAFR that you've got in front of you today is completely accurate, right, that's the goal of the whole process. So part of the planning process, we've got a couple of procedures, I'll move through fairly quickly, but internal control walkthroughs as well as test of controls are procedures we perform during that planning phase, right, and so these are, again, procedures we do to gain an understanding of what's new, what's risky this year, where can we focus our time, our limited time when we're auditing the CAFR, and like I said, focus on the risky areas. Again, focus is, is the financial statements, are the financial statements that you have in front of you materially correct, that's our goal through all of this. So condensing eight or nine weeks worth of work down into a few sentences there, we'll move into the audit results now and come talk about what did we conclude after performing all those procedures, so in the agenda pack that you guys have in front of you, you'll have a copy of the CAFR, a couple of this, and a copy of the single audit report. So in conjunction with those documents, we've issued three letters or three reports. The first of those is the independent auditors report, and you'll find that on page one of the CAFR if you want to take a look at that, essentially that document is an overview of what did we do and what did we conclude, right. So in the independent auditors report, we've documented or disclosed, I suppose, that we've audited the financial statements for the fiscal year ended September 30th, 2018. Under that engagement, in terms of that engagement, management has agreed to take responsibility for the financial statements that are here. We agreed to perform an audit and give opinions, which is why we're all, or why I'm here today. So I'm happy to report that at the conclusion of the both planning and fieldwork phases of the audit, we were able to issue what's called an unmodified opinion, or just a complicated way of saying clean opinion, over the financial statements that are included in the CAFR. So that's as good as it gets. That's the highest level of assurance we can give on this type of engagement. So just congrats to you guys and congrats to the folks that know here who did all the hard work to make sure that that could happen this year. The second of the two reports we've issued falls under government auditing standards. When we audit a government, we're required to do a couple of extra procedures. Government auditing standards kind of cover that. So this letter indicates that we performed our procedures under government auditing standards, including looking at internal controls over financial reporting and looking at whether the city complied in all material respects with laws, agreements, contracts, grant agreements that pertain to the financial statements. So as a result of performing those procedures, we've documented in that letter that without no material weaknesses, no deficiencies in internal controls and no noncompliance to report to you guys today. So again, that's as good as it gets on the government auditing standards report. So congrats for achieving that again this year. And finally, the third report we issued falls under the Federal Single Audit Act. So if the city spends $750,000 or more of federal or state grant awards, we have to come in and do a little extra work. The granting agencies want us to pick several grants from all the money you spent during the year and drill down into those, and we select those based on dollar amount and risk. But we drill down into those to make sure that you guys are spending the money just like the granting agency wants you to. If you're only allowed to spend it on certain things, we're looking into that as well as some other compliance requirements that are required. So the three programs we selected are up there on the board. There's highway planning and construction, ambulance services, and the RTR program. And so again, on the third document I'm happy to report, we've got another unmodified opinion. So as far as the city's compliance with the requirements for those three programs, we were able to give the opinion that you followed the compliance requirements as they were required from the granting agency, and so also no deficiencies in internal control. So for the three letters that we've issued, like I said, it's as good as it gets, you're three for three there. So congrats for achieving that. That's a testament to your guidance and to, again, the folks over here and other city staff who are involved in making sure that the city is in compliance with these particular requirements. So just to kind of wrap up, I wanted to move through a couple of real brief items. Value-added stuff, just a chance for us to toot our own horn a little bit, I guess, about the audit process. These are a couple of areas where we felt like we maybe helped the process go a little smoother this year. Power purchase agreements are a new disclosure you'll find in the CAFR. And so as we were doing our process this year, we noted that there were a couple of new agreements for power purchasing, and we thought it would be best to include those in the CAFR. Finance, accounting, legal all agreed with us, and so they drafted those and made sure that those were included. The second item you see up there, guidelines 75, I won't go into too much detail about that. Long story short is it's a new accounting standard for the year. We were able to provide some templates for that, just eight or nine pages worth of disclosures that you'll see that are new here in this document in the CAFR. Hopefully helped save some time in the accounting department for drafting the OPEB stuff for that particular accounting standard. And finally, on the grant accounting side, Grant Walk Forward is an accounting tool that we provided to the staff just to help them in reconciling the life cycle of grants. They were doing a fine job, but this is just a tool that we provided to them to help them out through the process. So just to wrap up, upcoming accounting standards that are coming up in the next couple of years, these are not nearly as, I guess, an undertaking as GASB 75 was. We've got 84 and 87 upcoming in '20 and '21. We don't expect these to cause a real material change in the financial statements you've got in front of you, nor should they really change necessarily your operating or budgeting outlook. So just something to be aware of, and we're happy to help the accounting staff if we need to throughout that process of implementing those over the next couple of years. So just a quick recap, like I said, we've issued three reports along with the CAFR. All of them were as good as they could possibly be, highest level of assurance, clean books, clean opinions. So we're extremely happy with the results of the audit this year, and we hope you guys are too. I guess I wanted to take a moment. Do you guys have any particular discussion points or questions you guys might have? >> Thank you very much, and I was pleased to have the opportunity to hear about this in the audit committee and hear the internal auditor also kind of sharing praise for the job that was done. But looking forward, since, you know, the method that you look at P cards is different for this purpose than, you know, for the kind of audit that was done with the internal audit where we found sort of longitudinal, you know, opportunities where many small purchases added up to, you know, sort of big amounts from individual vendors, you know, is there something different that you would contemplate doing in this coming year? >> To take a different look at that? >> Sure. We certainly do look at the internal audit reports as they come available and can build those into our risk assessment, I mean, that's part of the risk assessment phase. So if we see that there are issues maybe at a lower level than we looked at before, we can certainly dig down a little further if necessary, because, again, the whole goal is to make sure this CAFR is materially correct, right, so we certainly can dig further. >> I'm sure we'll talk about it more in between now. >> Does that answer your question? >> Well, I know that we'll, as I said, I know we'll talk about what specifically, you know, how we'll kind of look at it differently sort of now that we know that there are these opportunities and, you know, I'm sure we all want to figure out how do we look at it differently then going forward. >> Sure. Okay. >> Yeah, and just to sort of piggyback onto that, the discussion in the audit finance was and you, Council Member Mills, will raise your question, would this have been something that this audit should have caught? And the answer from the internal auditor is no, not necessarily. But what I remember, if I remember correctly, the response was that we will certainly look at the recommendations that were made by the internal auditor to see if they're implemented and then if there's any other concerns with the committee as you do interviews with staff or with council members, that that's something that they'd be willing to look into. So it was a very good discussion in the audit finance. I appreciate that. Any other questions on this, on the audit, the CAFR? And I think you had some closing remarks or? >> Just really want to wrap up, just to say thank you guys again for your time and again for selecting us as your outside auditor and just to kind of lay on some praise for the guys that put this CAFR together, I work with probably 25 or 30 governments throughout the state. This, I would say, if not one of it is the best CAFR I get to look at. So it's certainly a pleasure to get to look at it. We have a hard time finding anything substantive when they provide the copy to us at the end of the audit. We have a hard time finding anything really substantively wrong with it. So they do a great job in the Finance and Accounting Group. >> Fantastic. Thank you very much. Yes, Council Member Meltzer. >> I think this is a question for Tony. >> Okay. >> Did you all receive some kind of an award related to this? >> That's a great point. >> We do. GFOA does have a financial certificate of excellence and so we have a longstanding track record of receiving that on an annual basis. I don't anticipate that being an issue again this year and so again, just goes to the hard work that our staff does and really appreciate what they do for the city. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> Thank you, guys, for your time. I appreciate it. >> We'll move on to Agenda Item 2B, Receive Report, Hold Discussion, and Give Staff Direction Regarding New Market Tax Credits. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council Members. I'm Caroline Booth, Director of Economic Development, and I am going to be visiting with you today about New Market Tax Credits, just going to provide you some basic information about the program and then allow y'all to have a discussion about potential uses of the program. So we'll start out by saying that the New Market Tax Credit Program was established by Congress in the year 2000, and the intention of the program was to spur private investment into operating businesses and real estate projects in low-income communities by allowing investors to get a federal tax credit equal to 39% of the investment over seven years. Qualified businesses and projects are wide-ranging. They include mixed-use developments, student housing, hotels, charter schools, community facilities, and others. The process for a New Market Tax Credit loan is interesting. So I put this graphic up here, and I'll walk you through it and answer any questions that you have about it. But the CDFI fund over here in the yellow circle is a division of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and what community development entities are groups that are formed specifically to make investments in the New Market Tax Credit Program. A community development entity will have to apply to the CDFI fund to be granted a certain amount of allocations for the tax credits. So community development entity applies in step number one. If they're approved in step number two, then they go to step number three, which is seeking out private investors to invest in the community development entity. So that's number four. They make the investment back. And then step number five is that the community development entity actually finds projects that they want to invest the investors' funds into. Any questions about that? So the project isn't known when they look for the private investors, so they're just asking for money, and then they find the project? Well, okay, so I'll answer that in two parts, and I hope it's helpful. But certain community development entities are nationwide. Some are statewide. Some are local. They all have their own sort of mission, what they want to accomplish, and that drives the type of projects that they would like to fund. Some of them are really broad. Some of them are really specific. But any of the projects have to be able to qualify under the legislation that created the program. So it's very wide ranging. And when a project seeks a CDE for a loan, they have to look at what kind of projects that CDE likes to invest in, because you wouldn't want to ask someone who only does local investment to invest in your project if you live in another town or another region, or you wouldn't want to ask for community facility support if they really only do housing. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? The economics of these investments vary depending on the facts and circumstances of the deal, and depending on what the specific project is. But there's general agreement that the new market tax credits benefit all of the parties that are involved in the transactions. The investor obviously receives the tax credits and the return of some or all of its investment. The community development entity earns fees from the use of its allocation, and also the management of the investments that it makes. And then the qualified business that gets the loan gets reduced financing costs. And in some cases, they actually can have part of the principal or the entirety of the principal of the loan forgiven, again, depends on the CDE, depends on the circumstances of the deal. Real quick question on, and you may not know the answer to this, and we can find it out, but on the, the only one that we've done in Denton was the one with Serve Denton. Correct. Is that correct? Yes. So do we know, because if you go back to that last slide, when you talk about the CDE, would that have been that organization, or is this some other consulting organization that facilitates, in other words, community development entity? What would be an example of that in our local community, I guess, is my question. So the closest community development entity that I could find was the Dallas Development Fund. The city of Dallas itself is a CDE, which we can talk, I mean, we can talk about that now or we can talk about it later. They only operate in Dallas, and so Serve Denton worked with a CDE somewhere on the East Coast. Got you. Okay. That answers my question. Okay. Thanks. So they would have been the business that is receiving the money in that last slide. Yes. They're step five. Yeah. Okay. All right. Got you. Okay. Thanks. Yes. Go ahead. Yeah. Back on the next slide. This one? Yeah. So you indicated that as far as the city, we already have low borrowing costs, but you mentioned that in some circumstances, there's the opportunity for forgiveness of principal. Correct. So what are the circumstances where that can happen? That's sort of interesting. It's project dependent and it's CDE dependent. So it's hard to answer that question specifically without knowing the project and doing some preliminary vetting of it. These, every single one of these is very different is something that I've learned. So if we decide on a project and would like to investigate it, we can do that. But I'm afraid I can't answer the question right now. No, no. Okay. So this is a quick overview of the eligible parts of the Dutton community for new market tax credits. It's a significant portion of the community. Do anyone have any questions about that? One question I have is that I know we have one opportunity zone. We do. In the city. Yes. And do you have a slide that overlays the opportunity zone on top of this? It's this right here, except it stops at loop 288. So the green part there? Yes. Okay. All right. Okay. Yes. Have you looked into, and apologies for not asking earlier, this just occurred to me now, how many city-owned properties are in that area? I have not looked into that. Okay. I will. Okay. Thanks. But the blue is the severe distress. Yes. That's correct. Okay. So who makes that designation? It's the census tract. Okay. Yes. Okay. All right. So there are some other considerations in new market tax credits. The timeframes for businesses to receive funding from a CDE can range from a year to 24 months or longer. Shuffle funding requests often, I would venture to say always, involve significant expenses for the business or the nonprofit that's applying for this because you have to hire specialized consultants, accountants, and attorneys. And the projects that receive funding have to be shovel-ready at closing because any investment that's made into a CDE has to be invested within 12 months of making the investment. So these are projects that take a lot of planning and a lot of getting ready so that immediately when you close on the loan, you can start work because that money has to be expended for the investors. Using the example that you brought up, Mr. Mayor, about Serve Denton, for their loan, which was about $3 million, they paid $800,000 in fees and consulting costs, which is rolled into a loan or taken out of the investment that's made. So the costs are significant and the time investment is significant. I think-- Council Member Mouser has a question. Yes. Do you happen to know with that particular deal whether that was a situation where there was forgiveness of principal? There is forgiveness of the principal if they meet certain conditions, and that's always how it is, documentation, community impact, so on and so forth. So they are-- they had a couple of different loans. The large one was $3 million. They had a bridge loan and another bridge loan. Those are not forgivable, but they were different tools, but also through the CDE, so. My understanding is that this program is sunset in the near future, that I don't-- I mean, I thought I heard that-- and I could be wrong. I thought I heard at NLC that the new market tax credits, that that may not be sort of an ongoing thing every time, maybe just the allocation within the federal budget. I don't know, but-- so that might be something to-- if you could maybe check into that. I didn't see that, but we'll look specifically for it. And I could have just misheard the comment. Okay. Yes, Councilmember, I'll return. This is a comment and a question, so thanks for the presentation. And I also, you know, want to thank Serve Denton for calling it to our-- or at least to my attention, but through the last time they came before us in really showing what can be done with this resource. So I think it's an outstanding resource, and I support pursuing it. And I would love to find out. I had not heard that there was some-- that it might be expiring, but it would be great to find out the answer to that question. I'm not representing that. I don't want anybody to go out here and quote me, "The mayor of City of Denton says the new market tax credits are expiring." No, no, I just-- just some verification. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So that would be important to know. I strongly support pursuing this, and so I would like to know-- and apologies for not asking earlier, you know, to have some sort of email staff report on what city-owned properties, you know, fall within that severe distress applicable area. I'd be curious to know that. Just to clarify, and it may be that there's only so many tax credit projects per state or per kind of entity, so that-- I might be getting that a little bit confused, so that-- I don't think that's correct. Okay, that's fine. Actually-- I'm wrong all the way around. Sorry. Yeah, it's all right. It's all good. It's all good. Hey, I didn't want to tell you that. No. Yeah. One thing that-- it's kind of the opposite of that. There are some states, Texas included, that appear to be underfunded in this program. So those states-- CDEs in those states are getting a closer look from the federal government as far as the amount of allocations that they receive and then can expend in the state. Council Member Housley. I apologize. Thank you for that. No problem. Thank you. So CDEs is-- and forgive me if you provided it to us. Is there a layout of kind of requirements to meet that threshold or do-- To be a CDE? Correct. There are. They're extensive and complicated, and I glanced through them in the research, but it's definitely something that takes quite a bit of resources to even apply to the CDFI to be a CDE, and only about 25% of applicants to be a CDE are actually accepted at any-- in any given cycle. So is it your recommendation that we would just partner with an existing-- if we were to-- if the body decides to proceed, your recommendation would be-- That is my recommendation. Okay. Got it. We would have to staff up to the tune of numerous FTEs to be a CDE. So Dallas has a whole division of their economic development office that does that. Got it. And no level of staffing up is too great for Tony. He's able to fund anything. Tony finds those FTEs all over the place, just laying around on the ground. Yeah, House Christians. So it's-- help me with the map. Is Fairhaven-- is it in the blue? Well, I'm trying to orient where-- so that's Sherman-ish north of TW. Is that Fairhaven? So this is 377, this is like 380 down here. Fairhaven is in-- I mean, either the blue or the green are eligible areas. Okay. It's just the level of distress. Okay. But they're all distressed. So yes, Fairhaven is in there. Okay. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to kind of give a little bit of insight on the Serve Denton project overall. I chair the property committee, which is a subcommittee of the board over there. The overall project is $9.5 million. It's a minimum $5 million project is required in order to do new market tax credits. And basically, it was what Serve Denton already had, and bridge loans all combined into with what we-- what they got from the CDE for that total of $9.5 million. The private investor invested roughly $3 million, and then you had the $800,000 in expenses on that loan. So all of that $3 million over the course of seven years, as long as certain items are met, will be forgiven. But the remainder of that $6.5 will be done through what Serve Denton already had as far as assets and additional campaign-- capital campaign campaigns. Okay. Great. Good information. Thank you. Yes, Councilmember Hussman. So I'll just start with-- so my direction, I like the options it presents. I really like the shovel-ready requirement. I think that is-- that helps people see the fruits of this funding mechanism, if you will, early on. And I think that's important that it's-- and it forces those applicants to do their due diligence up front. I know when I talked to Pat, there was a lot of that to make sure, you know, we're ready to go. And so that is significant. And it helps when you're going to find investors that, hey, we've done this work that's front-loaded so that we all know what we're getting into and expectations, that sort of thing. So that would be my direction. Okay. Yes, Councilmember Moutzer. So, you know, what that suggests to me, the fact that it's, you know, got to be pretty close to shovel-ready, is that the sequence of the way you think about it is, first, here's something we're committed to do that we haven't yet identified the funding for, right, and then this is on our list. You know, there's grants and possibly there's this. And the one project that comes to mind like that, that we sort of are committed to doing but we don't yet know how we're going to do it, is City Hall West. But I don't recall if that meets the $5 million threshold. I don't recall that off the top of my head. Does anybody over here, City Hall West restoration? Is it over a $5 million project? There were a couple of the options that were there. Okay. Yes. I'll just, you know, put that out there as a request to look at that and see if that might fit. Obviously, you know, you want to know that you're pretty well tailored to get a yes given the low odds. In fact, I don't know if there's anything you can tell us at this point about, you know, what generally makes it more likely or not that you end up in the 25% or if it really is pretty much a crapshoot. Well, so the 25% is for becoming a CDE. But I can tell you about government funded or government requests and loans. 15% of the projects that are funded overall. Only 15% of them are governmental or quasi governmental projects. So something else that if you don't mind that I mentioned, the purpose of this program, as far as I can tell, is really to help businesses and nonprofits that don't have access to low cost capital through other traditional means. What has occurred to me is that the city, we already have access to lower cost capital in a lot of ways. And so that's not to be in any way negative about this program. It's just an observation that we have resources available to us as a city. And you know, the cost of us acquiring that capital is much lower than these sample projects would be when you account for the fees and the consultants and the specialized attorneys and all of that. I actually have an example and I just found this yesterday. So I can't go too deep into it. But I thought it might be interesting for you all to see. This is a sample transaction from the Dallas Development Fund on a $10 million project. And I mean, I'll give you guys kind of a minute to look through that, but you can see the equity from the investor is about $3.1 or $3.2 million. And then the fees and the closing costs down there a little further add up to a little over a million dollars on the project. So just kind of a sample that they put together that I thought you guys might be interested in seeing. Yes, go ahead. Just to respond to your point, or actually to a couple of your points, I register that we're not really looking for sources of low-cost capital, but loan forgiveness, or rather principal forgiveness, which makes it kind of like a grant, I think is relevant. And the fact that only 15% go to government or quasi-governmental entities doesn't really tell us what percent of the applicants are, right? It might be that all the government entities that apply are successful, but there's just 85% or something else. That's true, yes. So to me, the thought process would be, is there something we want to do that's well defined where, based on some further research, I guess, we think we'd be eligible potentially for principal forgiveness, and do we have reasonable chances of approval? Because you do have a kind of significant investment to get in. Just a couple of questions about this. I'm all about the data. So there's a song sort of similar to that, but I'm not going to go into that. So when I see total new market tax, equity grows from investor of $3.2 million. So that's somebody coming in saying, "We've got a $10 million allocation. Total tax credits are $3.9 million." And then I see the net benefit to the project. And John, Mayor Pro Tem, if you could, because this is my thought, if I was going to put something out there, I'd say, okay, we know that we have a shortage, and we can further refine the definition of low income or affordable housing. I think we have a shortage of low income housing that can really benefit the low income or the very low income. So my thought is, if you had an organization, the business entity like Serve Denton, who wanted to either purchase a complex or build one, which purchase is much quicker, that's obviously shovel ready, then you would put together, let's say in this instance, you would get together the purchase price, then you would make this application to do new market tax credits. So in that end, they're going to get some investor participation, which would potentially have this reduction of principal feature, but you're still going to have probably some additional, this isn't 100% financing. You're still going to have some financing that's necessary, and then you have to have the project that shows that it's able to meet those financial obligations. So these closing cost fees, so Mayor Pro Tem sort of helped me with this. So if I'm a guy that's wanting to invest, am I investing $3.9 million or am I willing to write a check for $3.198 million? And so when it comes time to do that, I'm writing the check, this $1 million gets taken out and the person who's the beneficiary of this new market tax credit gets the $2.165 to be allocated to their project. Is that how I'm looking at this or am I totally off? Well the overall, the 39% is what the CDE can put towards a project, is the 3.9. And then you start looking at all of the different costs because the paperwork trail on this is enormous. Right, I understand. And so that's part of that $800,000 basically that, you know, on Serve Denton's project, that's, on this project it's $1.3 million, Serve Denton was about $800,000. That $1.33 million total closing costs. So the net benefit after that. So if you are getting into a situation as Serve Denton was able to do where the principal is forgiven, it's definitely a worthwhile process. It's, I believe it took about 18 months with Serve Denton for us to get through there. So then help me understand that line where it says total new market tax credit equity, parentheses gross from the investor. So you're saying the total tax credits at CDE is saying hey, we got 3.9 million we can give to this project, what's the 3.198? I don't know the difference in the delta in that. Because the 3.9 minus 1 million is not 2.165. To me it looks like the 3.198 minus the 1.033 equals the 2.165. The 3.9 is what your private investor is putting in. Okay. And then your community development entity charges fees off of that 39%. That's how you end up down at that 3.198. Okay. $2,000 in fees is what you're saying? Yes. Yeah. And if you figure a dollar a page for the paperwork that you have to go through, that's about right. I did want to also bring up when they talk about shovel ready, they're not talking about just shovel ready. Investor didn't have to have permits in place, had to have all bids in place. Everything had to be ready to go the day after closing. It seems like this is something worth exploring now, whether or not it's a city project or the city can help facilitate a project through one of the non-profits with the help of the CDE, especially the answer to my question is no, there's no expiration on these things. I mean, I'm getting confused with something probably, but it's certainly worth looking at. I mean, you know, we all probably could come up, all of us could probably say one thing that we thought this would be something that would be worth targeting. And so I'm not sure the steps to continue the conversation, but I certainly think it's a worthy endeavor. We'll continue looking at those projects that, you know, have the most opportunity to be successful. I think you're right in terms of pulling together some other non-profits. We're currently kicking around some ideas in-house where this could be a useful tool. I'm not sure in the city projects it's going to make a lot of sense, but in terms of those partnerships we have out in the community, it very well could make sense and it could probably elevate the scoring is my guess once they see several different revenue streams coming in. Yes, Councilmember Armitage. Yeah, I was wondering if, I know I see Danny from Community Development is here, if you could, if it would be okay, if you could name some projects that have come before you say for, you know, CDBG funds, that, you know, off the top of your head that might be eligible, or if you would rather address that in an email, that would be fine too. I know that, you know, Grace Lake Rain, they recently got some property, you know, that might be to build 60 homes on, so again, I don't know, you know, if it meets all the qualifications, but I was planning on, you know, after studying for today, I was planning on letting them know and other organizations know on my own, but I know you know much more. Just generally the scale of the projects that come through the city's grant program don't meet the scale that these would typically be utilized for, so I could mention some projects, but most of them don't get to that high level of financing needs. Okay, but that's kind of as they're, as they're presenting them to you. Correct. Yeah. Correct. So theoretically, so you know, if you've got enough land for something even bigger. Yeah, theoretically. Yes. Yeah. I'm going to be able to answer that for sure. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. Oh, sorry. Yeah, I would like to continue the conversation and have another work session on projects. I think you mentioned that there were some things you were thinking about, and so I'd like to explore that further and have another work session on potential projects. Okay. Just in the context of, you know, what Tanya was referring to, could not, like a bundle of smaller projects, be presented as a $5 million effort? I'll look into that. Thanks. So I had someone who was listening. I found the answer, I think, to my question, and you can verify that, that it seems that they expire every five years, and that this round is due to expire in 2020, and so that Congress has to reauthorize them. So it's just, it's a budgetary funding mechanism, but I knew I'd heard it somewhere, and it might have been, I think it was, it was at the NLC conference, but okay, good. All right. Any other questions, comments? Fantastic. Thank you. Thank you. All right, the next item on our agenda, because this is going to be long, let's just take a five minute break because we're probably going to get into this and it's going to maybe be 30, 45 minutes plus give you a chance to. Welcome back everybody to this meeting of the Denton City Council. I see we still have one mic for three people sitting at the table. That's always fun. We'll move on to our next agenda item, which is agenda item 3C, receive report, hold discussion, provide staff direction on the Denton Development Code and draft zoning map. And does this include the tree discussion as well? No. Okay, that's for another time. Okay, I thought, oh, tonight. Okay. All right. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor, members of council. Thank you for, again, the opportunity. We have our next work session to discuss our continued discussion on the DENT code update on the screen. Essentially we're not going to be talking about the tree or the landscape ordinance dormitory or the other thing here, downtown design standards, but we're going to really focus on subchapter 4, 5, and 6. What we discussed last time we met was really subchapter 3, which is the zoning districts. We kind of talked about the use regulations as well, and now we're really just going to continue that discussion and introduce subchapters 4 and 6 as part of this work session. So with that, I want to just kind of provide the council with some updates. We had a public meeting yesterday evening. We are scheduled to have another one this Thursday evening, as well as be presenting to the Disabled, which committee? Committee on the Disability. That will be a presentation on Thursday as well. So a lot going on, a lot of information being gathered, a lot of information being presented. So with that, again, we're talking about subchapter 5. I'd like to continue our work session with regards to the use tables that you have in front of you or you have had hopefully a chance to review. I know that we received some comments or questions in advance of tonight's or today's work session. We'd be happy to clarify any of those responses. But really, this is the opportunity for the council to give us input. The list of uses that you have provided or that are provided are just that. We would like to hear from you. What is missing? What questions you have on them, or is there one that may not be something that we want to move forward? This is a question on the paranormal consultation, and I don't know if that's something that we need to necessarily bring up, but that's just an example about a use that we don't normally want or don't think we want or see here. We can certainly take that out or come up with a different terminology. So again, it's really just for us to hear from you all. I don't have a clear or a concise presentation per se, but I want to hear from the council. I think Mayor Pro Tem had a question. Yes. We discussed this last Friday at the Code Review Committee meeting, and so I'd kind of like to get input from the remainder of the council on the manufactured home development, and just to give a little clarity as to what that means as opposed to just a manufactured home versus the development, and right now, per the table, it's showing that we would allow it with an SUV in RR, R2, R6, and R7, so I think after we get that, what exactly that means, that that's what the density can end up at with that. Sure. So- We can have a little discussion on that. Right. As Mayor Pro Tem mentioned, there was a discussion with the committee on Friday. The question is, first, how are we defining manufactured home developments, and how are they being proposed, where are they being proposed, and as mentioned earlier, they are proposed in the RR, the R2, the R6, and R7, as well as the LI, with a specific use permit. The discussion was with the committee was, do we want to allow them in those zoning districts per se, specifically in the R6 and R7? What I gathered from that discussion is that we were going to look at only permitting them in the R1 and R2 with a specific use permit, and that was what was directed to staff. Now, these are manufactured home developments that are where you would have multiple manufactured homes that are HUD code that are in one development. So they're not multiple lots, they're all on one lot. So you can have as little as 15 to as many as 200, and that would be considered a manufactured home development. If they were to be proposed on a single lot, that would be a single family. One on a single lot would be considered a single family detached home. But because we have a use that's specifically for manufactured home development, they are more than just one. They're a larger number of manufactured homes on one lot. We do have a definition of that, if you'd like. I can read that for the council for the record on what is currently defined as a manufactured home development, if that would help. Thank you, Mayor. I think there was quite a bit of debate on whether to allow them in the RR and R2 versus in the R6 and R7. If you've got to come for an SGP, you might as well come for rezoning, because my feeling on it is that an RR and an R1, R2, R3 are all per our 2030 plan, the map in there would be low density. But when you're talking about one of these developments, you can end up with high density in an area that we're preferring to have low density down the road. So we're allowing it in those, that it would be better to only allow it in the higher density. So we're only looking at areas that right now are looking for medium and/or high density future growth. The argument against that is that you want them on the outside of the city, you want them on the edges, and therefore all that's going to be currently on our map is low density. Which is the R1 and R2. Correct. Yes. So I need to make sure I understood what you just said. We did have a lot of discussion about that, and where we fell in that discussion or where we came to as a committee, sort of tentatively, was I thought it was to allow them in the R1 and R2, is that right? That's our understanding. Yes. Okay, because I thought I heard you say you wanted, because they're a high density, they might would be more appropriate in the R6 or R7, but that's... Yeah, and under our current code, the one we recently approved, they had to rezone to NR6, now they had less than a six unit, and we're no longer using density, units per acre as a density, and that's where the concern comes about is that you can end up with a pocket of very high density in an area that we would prefer is developed as low density. So to allow them only in an R6 and R7 means that they would have to come in and get rezoned, which could be done on the outskirts, on the edges of the city limits, but at least that way you are looking at whether or not the future growth in that area, whether it was just something at the time that the 2030 plan was put together and the future land use map was developed, if that's something we want to look at changing to put that in there or just to make sure that as we do grow out to that area, it's not something that doesn't fit that area. Council Member Armitage, did you have a question I thought I saw you looking for? Yeah, yeah, but I don't know if that was something for staff to respond to, I can wait. Really, yeah, the discussion is really, the question I guess, is where do we want to see manufactured home development, now there is a specific use permit that is assigned to this use and if density is a concern, certainly SUP can be used to help mitigate some of that concern, but ultimately our use table here, we need to identify where they would be permitted and how they're permitted. So we went from those higher density areas, the R6, the R4 I believe, I'm sorry the R6 and R7, we pulled them out of there and wanted to just locate them in the R1 and R2 with a specific use permit. Should they be more in the denser area, that is again the question that we need some direction from the council. Okay, Council Member Armitage and Council Member Briggs. Yeah, and that's where, in my opinion, so I support, I'm a yes in my back yarder when it comes to housing and I support whatever our new codes can do to remove barriers that have previously been in place to make low income housing, I like that term, possible throughout the city, that being the purpose. We are, as a city, we receive CDBG funds, which means that, as I understand it, that even when we're not applying CDBG funds, we've agreed to affirmatively further fair housing, I think is the phrase, and that includes making sure that low income housing isn't just segregated in certain areas, but kind of spread throughout town in many different residential areas. So I support opening it up however much we can, our residential neighborhoods, to all kinds of, not just in this issue of the manufactured home communities, but tiny homes, ADUs, so much of which is the new code is already doing some to open up, so that's where I stand anyway. Council Member Briggs. Yeah, I don't know that I'm not quite there. I think my question is more in the RR and the R1s, because we do have, they're allowed now in the rural areas, are we talking about the large communities with 500 mobile homes or individual homes, because I do know that when people buy land, you know, and they have one acre, five acres, or whatever, they should have the right to put whatever kind of home, I think, on their property. So are we saying that if they wanted to have a mobile home on their five acres, that wouldn't be allowed in the RR, or I mean? No, so to address that, what we're talking about, Council Member Briggs, is the larger manufactured home development that has multiple homes on there. That's what we're referring to as manufactured home development. The reference I made earlier, if they were only one lot, and they wanted to put a single home on there, it would be considered single family, and that is another, obviously, use that's in our table that would be permitted in those particular zoning districts. So another question would be, there's an established neighborhood, right, and there's .25 acre land and somebody buys that land, they could put a mobile home on it, is what you're saying? Just in an already, just by right, in the code that we're talking about? That is currently proposed as I was, as I understand it, in the R1 and the R2 with a specific use permit, as recently discussed, but we can certainly discuss that further. Oh, sorry. Just one. Right, so I know we're talking about the development of the larger ones, but off what Council Member Amateur was just talking about, I'm trying to see where the individual property owner could put one or not. And I'll try to clarify that. We'll separate the conversation between a single manufactured housing unit can be placed on a residential piece of property like any other structure where allowed, and Ron's looking at that specific. And then the second piece is this conversation is truly around manufactured housing developments, where it is we're going to have multiple manufactured homes arranged as a community. And so then the conversation took place as to, it was shown in this draft being in the RR and allowed in R6 and R7, so our denser units, as well as on the peripherals of the city or where it is that we would anticipate. As we had the conversation with the council committee or the review committee, the question was asked if RR or the conversion of RD5X to RR is that those rural pieces were five acres that perhaps it's more appropriate that they're in the R1, R2, and I don't know that we were prohibiting the R6 or R7, but it was that it was more appropriate in the R1, R2, not in the RR, but that's really the topic of conversation. If we want to encourage manufactured housing developments, or if we are looking at that we're going to be careful and meticulous as to where it is that we are placing manufactured housing developments in the community. Thank you. I appreciate that committee, great question, and like many things it cuts both ways. For me, I think the prudent thing is, just one, I want to make sure I understand it right, so there's no instance where manufactured home development is allowed by right. Each of those instances looks like it has a plus, like it would come to council by way of a SUP, is that right? That's correct. Okay, and so that process is, SUP process goes to P and Z, then comes to council, and then a decision is made, am I tracking right? That's correct. Okay, great. So yeah, so that's encouraging to me because I think it needs that individual scrutiny because there's different scenarios, and so with that understanding, I think the way staff has outlined it that it is on the periphery that it's, I think I can get there because then even, so in the particular area, then you manage how that comes forward through the SUP process and make a decision if it fits. Just because I think there's some extra controls that are necessary when you're talking about those developments and just kind of existing properties and what that looks like, and so to have that individual look at each of those developments is very important. So I think I'm okay with it. I think absent SUP process, I think I would line up that we do need to put it on the more dense areas, but I'm okay with the rural areas because it comes with that SUP process. Yeah, as I recall from reading it, I might be wrong about this, that the manufactured home developments are described with required distances between the homes. There are, yes, use standards specific to that that would have some separation between each unit. But I mean, as opposed to the land around them being described as a lot, right, but I wonder if you could kind of interpolate from those distances to a kind of implied lot size, and then I wonder if that might give us guidance as to where it would sort of fit density-wise. I know we're not doing density, but we do have lot sizes associated with the different zones, and I would think that whatever it kind of matches, whatever the implied lot sizes might point you toward it fitting in with one or another of these existing residential zones, because it's kind of counterintuitive in a way that you'd say, "Hey, this is kind of a relatively dense form of housing, so we'd only put it where we're relatively not dense." You know what I mean? It seems like it would kind of fit more where the density is, so I don't know, it seems like we maybe have both minds on that. Help me out on this. No, well, may I approach you and then Council Member Armitage to you, too? Yeah, mine's kind of a follow-up on that. On these, if I remember right, and I haven't read it in the new one, but on the last version, you don't have lots for manufactured housing developments, but you have pad sites, and I believe those pad sites had a minimum of 5,000 square feet, so that's something we could adjust as well. Is that ... That actually has been updated, 5,000. We will double-check. Okay. Double-check. Yeah, because it's probably smaller than that. But that's something that we could look at even ... [inaudible] Yeah, but I mean, that is something that we could look at at the SUP processes. It requires a certain size pad site as well, if you were concerned about the density. Council Member Armitage? I have a question that's kind of a point of semantics, just for my sake, but also for the public's. What is the difference between ... In our new codes, between a manufactured home and what is colloquially called a mobile home, because I know that currently, at least under the current codes, we've had a manufactured home community come before us that was definitely not mobile homes, and they were big homes and very expensive homes. So what exactly is ... What's the definition of manufactured homes under the new code? Not so much the ... I mean, you've been speaking about the community as a community of manufactured home, but exactly what is, when we say manufactured home, is that synonymous with what's typically called mobile home, or is that kind of inclusive of, but could also go beyond that definition? I'll answer that. In the colloquial sense, it's the same thing, but under HUD standards, it's any home built after, I think the year was 1976, is called a manufactured home, provided they're built according to the guidelines set by HUD. Many people still use the old term mobile home, but it's basically the same thing. Okay, thank you, so that was my understanding, and okay, thank you very much, thanks. A couple comments, just so that we understand what we're saying here. First of all, I really want to separate manufactured home development from low income housing, because I don't think ... I mean, they may be the same, but those are two really different distinct conversations, plus Council Member Armitage, you just said the one we just passed had some very expensive homes in it, so I think those are separate conversations. They may merge together at some specific development, but I think they're separate. So Council Member Briggs, you asked, there's a established neighborhood with a quarter-acre, let's say a half-acre lot, right in the middle of a street, and it's zoned R6 or R7. According to the draft currently, the SUP requirement is on the R6 and R7 for manufactured home development. So technically, correct me if I'm wrong, you have a half-acre lot, which I think meets the minimum lot size for R6 or R7, does it? It's 20-something thousand feet, so it does. So somebody could come in ... Now, whether it got through the SUP process would be a different story, but somebody could come in and say, "We don't want to just put one." So somebody could come in number one and put in a manufactured home on that lot, just one, where everything else around there is stick-built, brick, veneer, whatever. They would have the right to do that, just one. But they could also come in, correct me if I'm wrong, and if they wanted to put two or three on there, if they could fit two or three on, based upon the design-specific standards for manufacturing development, they could do that as long as they received an SUP. Now, we all know that that probably wouldn't fly. However, we had a lot of discussion with our legal consultant, and this is a question that the Council has played with for many years on SUPs, that SUPs are not simply to be used as a tool for a flat-out denial, that if you can find a way to craft the development in a way that meets those standards of an SUP, and there's very specific standards, we looked at that when we did that other development, that you just can't make it so onerous that it is a de facto denial. So those are the kinds of things that I think were the questions that were brought up in the committee, is it's not so much we're trying to move people to an outskirt or move people here or deny people housing opportunities anywhere in the city, it's you're talking about a manufactured home development, which could be two or more manufactured homes on a lot that would meet the zoning criteria of that particular designation. So that's really -- that's part of what the discussion was, was if you have an R6 or R7, those typically are going to be in an area where you've got smaller lot sizes, which means higher density, most likely homes, single-family homes, do you want somebody to be able to propose a development where they put multiple manufactured homes on one lot if it meets the criteria? So that's to me really the crux of the issue. Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. I'm not in favor of that. >> Okay. All right. >> But you just said the last one. >> Why must we distinguish between the way the home is built, you know? Why wouldn't we just say you can build to the lot size that's permitted by the zoning and if it happens to be manufactured off-site or stick built on-site? >> Well, I don't think that -- I think we're not saying that in the code. We are allowing that to happen. I'm just simply saying for the purposes of compatibility, I mean, there's only so much you can do with an off-site built home as far as the materials you use. That's not to say it's less than or more than, it's just different. So that really wasn't my point in that. My point was, because our code is already allowing that, that if you want to put in a manufactured home on an infill single-family home lot, it doesn't matter if every property around it is a stick framed home, that doesn't preclude you from doing that, correct? >> Their development standards and building code related, yes, I mean, they would have to be on, you know, foundations and all the other stuff that they would have to be, right. >> Sure, yeah. They just can't be in there on axles and what's skirting around it and those kinds of things. >> So there are building code requirements. >> This is more how many are on each "lot," which it's -- this is where I had to really make a big distinction is we measured things in the past code with density, four units per acre, and that gets you to four lots per acre, you know, four something. Now lots are sort of out except for you have to have the minimum size for the lot for the particular zoning. So if you have a half-acre R6, what's the minimum lot size for an R6? About 4,000, 5,000, 6,000? >> 6,000. >> Yeah, so if you have a 6,000 or 20,000-square-foot lot, that's greater than 6,000. So as it stands now, you could put as many manufactured homes on that lot that would meet the design criteria for the spacing of those pad sites if -- through the SUP. >> If I can -- >> Sure. >> Just follow up. The example that, you know, you first gave was if you have a site, you know, would you want someone to be able to put three on that site. >> Wouldn't the question be the same whether they're manufactured homes or stick built? In other words, would you want someone to be able to put three of anything? >> I don't think it would be the same. Because if you have a quarter-acre lot in an R6, and you want to put three houses on that lot, you're not going to be able to do that. Because the definition of mobile home development, what manufactured housing development is a specific definition in use, whereas technically if you got a quarter-acre lot and you want to build a single-family home, either stick build it or move one in, then it meets the criteria. You have a -- you meet the -- it's not how many you can get on that lot. Does that make sense? >> It does. And that's accurate. So if we go back to what we're really speaking to is a manufactured home development. So we know we're going to have multiple residents on a single parcel, or potentially a single parcel of land. Where is it that this council would like for those types of developments to be located like any other development aspect that we have in the code? >> I appreciate your asking -- posing that and saying it slowly so I can follow. But in the exact sort of same circumstance, let's say we agreed there's some place where manufactured home development could go, which is going to mean a certain number of structures, certain distance apart. Would we feel differently about it if they weren't manufactured, but they were stick build? >> Yes. >> That we would? >> The question is, it's five acres. >> We don't allow -- we don't allow for multiple residences on a single parcel. >> Single family. >> Single family. >> Right. >> So I guess I'm sort of saying, so why would you allow it if they're manufactured? >> It's the zoning districts, I think what we're getting into is in the parcel specific to say a single lot in the middle of a neighborhood. And this is really the areas of the city, and that's what Cody has highlighted are -- >> I got six and seven up. >> Six and seven would be what we're saying by virtue of this draft is those are appropriate places to allow for manufactured housing communities. So when the development community looks to the city of Denton, we say, if you'd like to put one, this is where we suggest that you look for land. So that's the very question that you have to ask. Now, if you add R1 and R2 on there, I think after last Friday's meeting with the development review committee, R1 and R2 were those other components to say that we have these options. And again, it's another consideration of traffic and knowing that it's going to be a greater density. It just -- it always is. It's an economy of scale when we see manufactured housing communities. So did you get -- did you get -- I don't know if the answer is the right word or explanation of -- because I think -- >> I think I'm just not thinking about it right. >> He's saying, wait a minute, if you've got a half acre of R6, you've met the minimum lot size, and you want to put on a single -- well, first of all, can you put on three single-family homes, whether they're three mobile homes or they're three stick-built homes? >> Why not? >> You'd have to go, if you wanted to put on more than one manufactured home, then you're saying that's a development. That's a manufactured housing development. So if we just -- you can't put three stick-built homes on one parcel of land -- >> It would be considered a different use, either a duplex, right, for two -- >> Yes. Or a multifamily or something like that. This is where it gets confusing, because I think of platted lots. I think of a parcel of land with platted lots. But you're just saying, hey, you've got a piece of land, and what can you put on that one piece of land, whether it's one acre or it's 10,000 square feet, council member, husband? >> And what I hear is one that I've -- that's rattled in my head since we've had that conversation about out by Ryan High School. And I started off kind of with that same understanding of, hey, it's where it's manufactured, and it shouldn't in essence matter, but where I've grown to understand it does is, when you're talking about a stick-built home on-site, you're talking about -- it's more the materials. The aesthetics look, you know, is one, but two, the materials that are utilized. So not all manufactured homes will have sheetrock because they can't weather the transportation. And so a stick-built home here would weather -- has better insulation, has better building materials internally. And so that's what I've kind of grown to understand, is it's not so much that it's where it's made -- it's the materials utilized and the aesthetics of it outside. You know, so you're limited in what you can transport as far as a brick veneer sort of thing. And then two, you're limited in the sheetrock because over the road, it would crack and present all kinds of problems. You set it up. So there's some other issues that are differences in the build that would then -- which is sensitive to me because if I'm okaying a family -- a Denton family to live there, I want it to be equitable and I want them to be in a great environment. And so they're -- and you're limited in those controls when you're talking about a manufactured home. That's the other thing that jumped out at me. The federal guidelines and that's about it versus residentially we can do some different things. So those are some of the nuances I see, the differences, and I appreciate the conversation understanding how those lots are plotted and that sort of thing. Again, I much prefer the options to the other map where it's a little more restrictive. And then I just think it would be making sure that SUP process is done in earnest and making sure we evaluate that properly. But I think it is -- it should be more exclusive just because of those deficiencies in the quality of the internal materials of the home. >> Councilmember Omitra. >> So I had a question about an aspect of subchapter 6 development standards. Does this be -- it was in the presentation, including the presentation for today. >> Is it okay if we -- because y'all have asked a specific question about the manufactured home development. Is that related to that? Because I want to sort of wrap that up. If we need more discussion on it, that's fine at a later time. I just want to see is there direction that this council wants to give regarding that at this moment or we can look for some more data. >> I'm okay with staff's recommendation, with SUPs across the board in the areas they've identified. >> Okay. So you're saying R1 -- you're saying -- what the ones y'all are saying is in the current draft? >> Let me read it. Currently, as proposed in the draft, it would be permitted to the R1, R2, and the R6 and R7. >> Okay. >> Zoning districts. >> Okay. All right. Let's see where you are, council member, husband. >> No, what was the one before that? Was that just 6 and 7? >> That was just 6 and 7. >> Sorry. >> That was just 1 and 2. >> Sorry. >> Just a second ago. >> 1 and 2. >> I give him just 1 and 2. >> This is 1 and 2, which is what the committee talked about. >> Got it. >> 1 and 2. >> Was there not one before that, that had -- before you -- >> That was just 6 and 7. >> That was just 6 and 7. >> That was probably 6 and 7. >> There you go. >> I'm going to make those blue to stand out. >> Whereas -- yeah. That's all of them, but you got R2 down there at the bottom. >> Yeah, so blue is 6 and 7, right? >> Yep. >> Yeah. So that's my pain threshold, 6 and 7. >> Wait, just put 6 and 7 on there? >> Yeah. Just put 6 and 7 on. You got R1 and R2 up there. >> Well, they'll be in blue now, so it's much easier to see. >> So what's in blue? >> The blue is the 6 and 7, red is R1 and R2. >> Okay. All right. Okay. So council member, husband, again, yours is -- >> 6 and 7. >> Only. >> Only. >> Okay. Council members, have a comment? Council member Briggs? >> Mine's R1 and R2. >> Okay. Council member -- we'll just go around the horn. Mayor Pro Tem and then we'll just go to council member Pro Tem. >> With SEP, I'm okay with -- I would probably prefer just the 6 and 7, but I'm okay with 1 and 2, but more importantly, I think that we should have a minimum pad site requirement with these so that they're not -- I mean, we've got minimum distances on RVs, but we don't have the minimum distance even on the manufactured housing, so I believe we used to have either 4 or 5,000 square feet per pad site requirement, and that should probably come back in. >> So let me make sure I understand. Are you saying you're okay with just R1 and R2 with an SEP, or are you wanting R1, R2, R6, and R7 with an SEP? >> My preference would be just R6 and R7, and if it is on the outskirts, we would rezone to that. They would come before us for a zoning and an SEP request so that we can look at the density. >> Okay. So your direction is? >> Is R6, R7, and a minimum pad site requirement. >> Okay. Council Member Armitage. >> And I'm for a 1, 2, 6, and 7. >> Yeah, I'm just for 1 and 2. I thought that's what the committee decided on, but -- Council Member Meltzer? >> I acknowledge my lack of understanding of some of the issue. My inclination would be to allow with SEP in any of the residentials, but with minimum pad sites to sort of mimic the sorry density of the surrounding areas. The argument that they have sort of inferior materials that might not be -- kind of give adequate protection would argue against allowing them, not having them in certain places. So it just didn't help me sort it out any further. So that's as far as I can get on the issue. >> Council Member Duff. >> I think R6 and R7, you know, with the SUP, you know, I agree with a minimum pad size and that kind of thing. So -- >> Okay. So we don't have really a consensus anywhere. Go ahead. >> Can I ask you to go to Google Maps to like say one of the internal 6 or 7 so we can see the surrounding area that we're saying that we think one of these might fit into? I mean, it's different when you look at, you know -- >> So you want to look at the aerial at one of these R6 or 7 locations? >> Yeah. Inside the city, yeah. One of the ones that are closer so we can kind of -- >> Sort of within the core. >> Within the core. >> Yeah. Where we're saying these would go -- >> R6. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah, but that's not -- there's no open land. So it's not steeped in reality. >> This open. >> So this would be all R7 in this area. >> And so I see a lot of single family homes there. Thank you. I just have issue with that. >> Council Member Armitage. >> I just wanted to ask for qualification. Council Member Meltzer, so when you said all the residential areas, you mean the 3 and 4-2? >> Well, yeah. >> Yeah. >> The more critical, you know, let's say operative part of my comments were that I want minimum pad sites to mimic the density of the surrounding areas because compatibility is the question. I see that there's like an appearance issue that, you know, might make them sort of incompatible in some neighborhoods if you get the density sort of squared up. And that kind of -- I can see that issue. >> Yeah. I mean, just to follow up, that's -- I mean, to me, that's perfectly reasonable. I mean, as I said, I support anywhere since 1, 2, 6, and 7 were the ones that we were mostly focusing on, I was addressing that, but I, you know, I support, as I mentioned from the beginning, I feel we should be open to housing in any kind of area where housing could physically fit and then -- and matches the use, you know, if it's residential in use. And then you have, you know, not only the -- an SUP process for certain cases, but also there are, you know, historic districts where it wouldn't even apply, you know, there are areas that are already protected, you know? >> I mean, this is a great conversation, but ultimately, we need to allow for manufactured housing communities to exist in our community. >> Yeah. >> And we need to specify as to the where, and so that's how we've gotten to this point. And to the mayor's point that our outside council had instructed us that an SUP won't prevent someone from putting in a manufactured housing community, any zoning district that we allow them in, you're entitled to do that, you just have to meet certain conditions. So all we're trying to do is refine the fact of where it is that council would prefer to see a manufactured housing community. And it is truly just that. It's not a one-off. It's not that we're going to have three. When they come in, typically it's economies of scale. They have to put in all the infrastructure. It's all private, the roads, the sewer, the water, the gas, and then they have to have some other amenities that go along with it. We're just certainly needing to get the direction as to where we would prefer to see them, and if nothing else, at least to start that earliest conversation. And that's really how we ended up. Usually we had them in several zoning districts. It was narrowed down to the R1, R2. I don't know that we removed the R6, R7. It is that we have denied, well, we've had people that have asked to put manufactured housing communities in the community, they wanted to rezone, and the councils denied those rezonings. And I can't think of a couple of specific examples to give you. We certainly need to have some direction as to at least have a minimum place that we can start with. Yeah. And so just to clarify, so I've given my direction as far as me personally. I know you're talking about the larger picture, but I just want to clarify. So you shook your head at one point when I mentioned that certain historic areas are protected. Were you shaking your head at that point? The zoning district, whatever zoning district in which they're in, if there's an overlay, then that perhaps may. But what one might consider a historic district without an overlay, if it's in that zoning district, someone could put one on Oak Street if they chose. Yeah, yeah. So I should use the term overlay. Overlay. Yeah. Thank you. Council Member Duff? You know, I'm trying to wrap my head around all of this. I guess my thought is that, you know, whatever we come up with, we need to have a certain amount of flexibility so that future councils can make, you know, good decisions of where these things could be or could not be because, you know, it seems to me that, you know, but you're talking about R1s, R2s, R6s, you know, there's going to be some places to where they may have the right to go in there and put those in, and it's just not the right place to put them, you know, you understand what I'm saying? That's what's concerning me is, you know, whatever rules we set up, there's some places where a manufactured home is just not going to fit in there right, and I'm not sure I really know what the answer to this is. So I have a question, and this is to go back to our committee because I think I have a misunderstanding of our committee meeting when we had our committee meeting and we talked about this. I thought we talked about, I thought, John, you originally just wanted it in RR, and then we moved it to just R1 and R2 at the exclusion of R6 and R7, so I must be confused on something. Can somebody help me with my recollection of that? How do we end that? I may have misspoke that coming out of the committee meeting R1, R2, not the R6, R7. Right. That's what I thought. And I thought that's what you advocated for, so whatever you want to do is fine. I'm just trying to understand. As long as we have a minimum pad site, R1, R2 does make sense. My biggest concern was using the shoe horn as to how many you can fit on a piece of property. I did notice in some of our other types of uses that we have a minimum overall size. For example, in tiny homes, it's a minimum of a two-acre lot or two-acre development. So that might also be something that we can. That a manufacturing housing development has to have at least a certain amount of land. Yes. Okay. Did you hear his comment about the tiny home thing? I think that would help me with some of my concerns because I'm thinking of more established neighborhood developments that have an infill lot or two that would far exceed the development of the minimum lot footage. And so somebody could come in and ask for that, not whether the SEP gets granted or not, but you couldn't just say we're going to make this so onerous that the SEP is going to be denied because you can't comply. We could really be opening ourselves up for something that wouldn't be important. So this is a discussion -- obviously, I don't think there's clear direction. In fact, I'm just going to make the -- I think we need to come back and talk about this because you still have to take this to the PNZ, I think. Didn't we have to take that to the PNZ to discuss it because they hadn't really discussed what we're discussing now. And I think we need to really make sure that the public has an opportunity to weigh in on this because this could have -- depending on how it goes, it could surprise a lot of people. So -- and, you know, if there's already going to be surprises, we just want to make them as minimum as possible. Yes, Councilmember Martin. And can I ask that, you know, when that happens or before, that the -- I believe it's the new land acquisitions attorney who's done some advising and fair housing issues, is that correct, that they be invited maybe if they would -- she would want to -- or is this the person who you're consulting with? I know that there was somebody whose legal has been talking to you about fair housing issues. That if that person, if they could be there or just kind of issue kind of a general statement about, you know, things to keep in mind when making these considerations as far as fair housing is concerned. Are you referring to Brenda McDonald? I mean, I know Brenda McDonald -- I forget the name. I'm sorry. I think that might be -- If it's her, she's the outside attorney who we've hired to help us with this process since it is a very overwhelming project, do we need that extra assistance? Yes. Yeah, that would be great. I mean, if she can't be here, then, you know, maybe to just issue some thoughts, you know, things to consider from -- just from a fair housing point of view, that would be great. Councilmember Martin, could you help me understand, because you're bringing this up quite often, so help me understand really what the presenting question is, so that we can be precise. What is the question that you're concerned with? My question is, I would like to know what input this consulting attorney has, if it's not outside the scope of her job, and if she has suggestions for, you know, questions, issues to consider, you know, in layperson's terms. Okay. Well, that's -- I'm still not -- I don't hear a question in that, so let me take a stab at it. What I think I hear you saying is, is deciding where we allow manufactured home development, looking at the zoning class, whatever we decide, what, if any, are the fair housing implications in that decision? Is that right? Sure. Yeah, yeah. That would be -- that's a more specific way to put it. Yeah. Okay. I was trying to word it so to leave it open to whatever she would like to share on this issue, but sure, include -- I would say including, but not limited to that question. And we did have some of that conversation. Ultimately, municipalities have to allow for -- and we can revisit that with her. If I might ask a question, is council comfortable with the standards that exist today in the code, as it relates to manufactured housing communities? The standards, i.e. The zoning, excuse me, the zoning, the zoning districts where it exists today? Want to show us? Where are they? In the current code? Currently, manufactured home developments are permitted by right in the RD5 and the RC, which is RRR proposed. It's permitted by SUP and the NR2 and the NR6. That's only those four zoning districts where they're permitted. RR, I'm sorry, RD5X, RC, by right, NR2, NR6 with a specific use permit. Currently. Okay. All right. So the only reason that I asked that question, if in fact we're okay with it today, if we mimic that and take that forward to P and Z, which I think is similar to where we were at with the exception of they were permitted by right and R2. But if we keep it as an SUP with the caveats that we heard today, the pad minimum, the size and that they're all SUPs, that ultimately we kind of stay similar to where we're at today and we can move forward with at least a recommendation to P and Z rather than trying to get into the same conversation. So anyway, thank you for asking that question because I have a hard time creating map overlays in my mind and I actually prefer the new terms to the old ones. So with this-- so currently there is-- did you say if I heard that correctly, if I understand it correctly, there's one zoning district that-- zoning area that doesn't require an SUP and that is? There would be two which is the placeholder zoning which is RD5 and then an RC which would be an RR today and then SUP and NR2 and SUP and R6, NR6. OK. Yeah, thank you because-- and I appreciate that question because I had assumed that what we were discussing was kind of in addition to what we currently have, I don't support adding additional SUPs, you know, unless someone could convince me otherwise where there aren't any-- I don't want to impose additional restrictions on manufactured housing where there aren't any today. I want to-- as far as I'm concerned, me individually, I want to open it up, right? So-- and that might be a question that might best be answered with-- in a future discussion. But I want to make sure, you know, that when I'm saying I want, you know, that every-- I think every residential area where-- should be able to have this opportunity in some way, I want to make sure that if we're asking for an SUP, it's not in a zoning area, it's not overlapping with the zoning area where under the current codes, there is no SUP requirement. OK, thank you. So I would prefer whatever zoning classification we use that there be an SUP requirement. The question I have about your RDX and RC developments, those RDX is one structure per five acres. Is that correct? That's correct. That is correct. And so-- but then if by right, they can put in a manufactured housing development there, then they can exceed that one structure per five acres. That is correct. Now, the difference in that is what's shown on the map is RD5X, which is a placeholder, it's not a zoning. So when we make the conversion to an RR, that's a zoning district and so that it won't be the same. So it doesn't come in for a rezoning anyhow on the RD5X. That's correct. And just for example, the one off of McKinney, that was annexed into the city and it had the RD5 designation, they had to rezone that to an NR6, right? Then follow that up with an SUP, that's the process that that development went through. But the difference is, and this is I think, this is critical, I think this is the main issue of this issue, so I really want to encourage council members to make sure you understand this. Because that zoning classification that we had was NR6, that's six units per acre. Correct. All right. We've done away with that, all right, in this new code. So if you have an NR6 and you have a minimum lot size that meets that standard, and we say that a manufactured housing development can go there, then that means a manufacturing housing development can go there regardless of how many of those manufactured homes you put on the lot that exceeds the minimum lot size. That is a huge difference than interpreting something through an NR6 saying six units per acre. So whatever y'all want to do with your own individual opinions is fine, but I just want to make sure, sure, sure that we understand exactly how this is changing and where that means they can and cannot go and what the potential implications and unintended potential consequences will be. And it's just about gathering enough information and having a complete understanding of the situation. Yes, Council Member Meltzer. I support your earlier impulse to have like another session on it and part of what would help in that session just because I'm a human being and this is where my brain works better is some visualizations of what these, you know, what these areas look like and what the sort of maximum configuration might look like. I think that would help us a lot. Yes, Council Member Armitage. And I would add to that a, and I don't know if overlaying, you know, transposing, superimposing one map on another map would be the best, but to be able to compare or maybe a side by side comparison of here's the, under the current zoning, here's where this is allowed under the new, I'm sorry, under the current codes, right, and under the new codes, that would be great. Yes, Council Member Huston. Yeah. I, I think your point is valid. I think, I don't know how to focus the conversation to what activates that thought because if we have members that don't see a difference in manufactured home and stick-built home, where those go and the neighbors feel towards that, if we don't normalize that conversation, if we can't all get to some semblance of an agreement that there is a difference, then I think where it goes, you know, you're just, we're not going to be on the same page. So that's the trick to me and I don't know how to, you know, I took my shot at explaining that. So I do think an opportunity to reach out to our citizens during this break and then they can maybe articulate to individual members their feelings. I've met with people that we dealt with at Ryan High School after the fact, you know. So I've kind of, one, had that conversation then and then had subsequent conversations to have that very understanding because I'm not trying to, my neighborhood's fully built out. So I need to understand from others that have open space and just kind of understand the very views on it. But I think that's the problem, right? To get to your answer, I think this body has to acknowledge that there's a difference, if even conceptual, with other neighborhood, with other people in the neighborhood. You know, even if you individually don't understand that, I think there are neighborhoods that see it different. And so that's the trick and I don't know how to simulate that. How do you get someone to open up to that, to at least allow that concept to enter their mind? I don't know. Scott, and then we'll go to Council Member Briggs. I think if we can take another crack at trying to put together some material and try to vet this somewhat with the public, I think it's staff recommendation that we'd like to stick with the R1, R2 that gives the opportunity for others that have property zoned another way that they could come forward to council, ask for a rezoning, develop the property. It takes us to larger parcels. We'll incorporate the fact of a minimum pad size and work on some of those. Bring it back before you. But rather than, and I guess just to answer one portion of Councilperson Melcher's, or I'm sorry, Arbiter's comment about comparing today to the draft, because the RD5X is going to skew that, it will show a lot of placeholder property, so it won't be as clear. And I'm happy to sit with you individually and we can walk through it. But I think that it would be staff's recommendation. We'd like to move forward with R1, R2 and bring this back to council. And hopefully, maybe we can make this a little more concise for everyone and maybe some pros and cons to both. Council Member Briggs. With an SUP? With an SUP, yes. Absolutely. Thank you. Council Member Melcher. I'm sorry. Council Member Arbiter. Yeah, so I wasn't quite, you know, kind of keeping a tally count, but I just want to be sure. So did we have four or not four here who were in favor of five and six? You mean six and seven. I'm sorry, six and seven. Thank you. Yeah. We had three or four. I can answer that, but I didn't have one individual. And however, I had two individuals that had indicated both one and two and six and seven, two that had only six and seven, and two that had one and two only. So it was equally divided. But I didn't get Councilman Hutzpeth's take on, I don't know that he said it, but once I started capturing, I certainly didn't know what that was. I'm shy that way. No, six and seven is where I fall, right? Is that the question? Yes. Yes. But not one and two? Correct. So we don't have, I mean, that's what I'm saying. There's not a consensus on a true situation. So we've got to come back and try to get some additional help. So I mean, as far as staff recommendation, staff can recommend whatever they want. That doesn't mean Council is going to accept it or Planning Zoning is going to accept it. So we're going to wrap this up, but I want to make one comment to you Councilmember Hutzpeth. Just because a neighborhood is built out, depending on the lot size of a particular piece of property, you've got a single family home on a half acre or an acre lot, and it's zoned in a way that would allow multifamily housing, not multifamily, manufactured housing development, it may be more economical and a better investment rate of return to say, well, we're going to come in, and because we've got the right to do this, or we can do it with an SEP, we're going to try to get it rezoned, knock it down and come in. Now, that's going to be a whole conversation at Council. So just because you have structures that are on those lots, depending on their size and their potential investment rate of return for a different use, doesn't guarantee that they won't do that. That's just worst case scenario. Okay. So we've done with the manufacturer housing discussion. So we've got a whole another 300 pages to go through. But anyway, so y'all don't really have a presentation, you're asking, do we have any comments? Ron has some items to walk through. Okay, go ahead. Sure. But additionally, and I'll bring back this along with Tiny Homes, because it's a very parallel conversation, and we'll have some more details. And I think the request was to bring back some visual aids of maybe some lots of R1, R2, R6, R7, where are they, and just to show, practically speaking, how if this happens, what happens. We'll bring that back. Okay. Thank you. Yep. So we do have a lot of uses in this table. I've identified a couple of them. As you know, we have currently in our DDC list of uses. And the purpose, again, what we're trying to do with this update is really to provide the opportunity to include in this draft some of those uses that we often think about, well, what about this use? Where does this belong? So our consultants, through public input and through staff input, have added a number of uses. One, for example, almost mentioned, urban farms, right? Where does that belong? Currently we would say our agriculture. But if we had a specific use, or a use listed in this table, we can actually identify where they would be permitted and how they're approved. So that is really the goal of what I'm trying to achieve here today from Council. We've got a table of a list of uses. I've got a number of them that I'd like to talk to you about. But I want to hear from you all, too. If you don't have, I'm unprepared to discuss those. But I want to give you all the opportunity first before we move on. Councilmember Meltzer. So I don't mind going through my list, I had like a dozen, I think you've satisfactorily pre-answered a few. These are not all gigantic issues, I'll save the big one for last. But let's take urban farming. First of all, it's kind of an interesting pairing of words, I'm not 100% sure what it means. It's farming in an urban area, I get that. But I'm curious, it sounds like a good thing for someone to want to do. And I'm just curious why we, what aspects we might, of the public benefit we might be trying to protect by requiring an SUP, I mean, tomatoes, beets, what might the objection be that would make us want to restrict liberty on that? It's a, if I can address- Could you define what urban farming is? Yes. And just to be clear as well, each use that's proposed, or that's listed in this draft, there is a definition, which again, is something that we're incorporating, it may not always have been the case with the current code. So let me pull it real quick. Do you want to comment on the urban farm thing? Okay. Right. Is it okay for her? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, go ahead and then we'll come back to Councilmember- Yeah, because we had this discussion too, in our group, and so we have community garden, we were trying to establish the first community garden, urban farming, a farm is different than just a garden. So any homeowner, by right, can have a garden in their home, an urban farm may be, it's a larger development that might use farm equipment, from what I remember, and then the community gardens are going to be allowed now in other areas that they weren't before. So- So you're picturing like motorized equipment, that's sort of like a noise issue, potentially? In land space, it's a larger farm. So we're not saying that if somebody wants to have a backyard garden in their whole backyard, or a front yard, or a side yard, which used to not be allowed, but is now, they can. They can grow vegetables or whatever in their home, in their single family home. It's not, they don't have to come get an SUP for that. So is, I'm sorry, I probably read it, but I don't recall, the urban farming definition talks about use of motorized farm equipment, in which case that would answer my concern like, okay, I can see why you might want to require an SUP for that. It's the primary use of the land, so it's a private facility for the cultivation of fruits, flowers, vegetables, or ornamental plants. And then going to a community, a community garden is a facility for the cultivation of fruit, flowers, vegetables, ornamental plants by more than one person or family. So it's the use of the land, and it's very different than to the point that someone can have a garden on their own property. It's not the primary use. Just the primary use. - So there's instead of being a residence. - Correct. It's a single, it's just this lot that somebody has developed into a farm, a garden, and how it's being used. It's use of the land. - I mean, I don't personally feel a strong need to require an SUP for that, but that's just me. I mean, I'll keep going on my list if you want, or whatever you want to do. - Did you have a comment about that, or? - I had a question about that. - Yeah, so I wanted to take a kind of concrete example to ask about. So Cardo's Farm, if you remember. Yeah, so when they, they didn't need to apply for an SUP under the, is that correct? They just, they had the land. This is right on Mingo. - Right. And they were classified as agriculture. - Yeah, yeah. And so if they were to, if somebody wanted to, if Cardo's Farm were on the same property, you know, coming before council, PNZ, whatever, under the, if under this new definition, then they would have to apply for an SUP. - It would depend on their existing zoning, and I believe it's an MN, or something to that effect. So they would be permitted, and we'd have to verify what their existing zoning is and how it compares to our current zoning, our proposed zoning, and if it's permitted or permitted with SUP. So I can't answer that right now. But the idea is, if you look at the chart, for urban farm, mixed use districts, your MN, your MD, and MR, they're permitted by right. It's where they're permitted, or where they're proposed under the R1 through R7, they require a specific use permit. Again, trying to protect those established residential neighborhoods, they could potentially have heavy equipment, they could have parking requirements, there could be other impacts that we want to look at when you're talking about residential neighborhood. - Yeah, yeah. I wonder, I mean, you know, on the one hand, I like the idea, the thing I like about the idea, I'm kind of torn right now because I like the idea of having a classification because that it recognizes urban farms, but I don't like it if it's kind of placing restrictions on people who have property where that's possible. So I'm kind of leaning more towards not wanting to require an SUP, which also requires more money, right, because they have to pay to go through that, and time, unless someone can prove to me that this would actually help to support urban farmers in ways that I am not realizing. But for me, the best way to think about it is to think of an actual example, something like CARDOS, which is, but as you said, it would even under the new codes. - Right, depending on what the zoning is, and just to say what we already discussed earlier, specific use permit, I know they have to go through that same, that process, through the public hearing process, but as long as they meet the intent, it's just an added level of analysis for the neighborhoods to be able to address any potential impacts, if that's what that is. - Oh yes, yes, and I definitely don't, when I'm weighing, just in general, when I'm weighing, should this have an SUP or not, I definitely, I don't see SUP as an automatic no, otherwise we would, that's because no means no, SUP means SUP, but I'm thinking of the additional time and the cost, which is, for people who are experiencing that, it's more expensive, not just for the cost of the permits, because the time is money, so that's the length through which I'm thinking. - So I want to make sure I understand this, and then we're gonna get back to your list. We'll probably use your list as a springboard. So the difference between me having a garden and me having an urban farm is what? - The use of the land. You have a house, you have a residence, that's the use of the land, and urban farm is that someone who's gonna use that piece of ground for a farm exclusively. It's a private facility. - A commercial application. - Yes. - Well, it may or may not be commercial, but it is the use of the land, it's not residential. Now, and the SUP being that of, we may have equipment, we may have hazards, we may have chemicals. - This is what I'm talking about, so if you have an urban farm, whether it's commercial or not, somebody's got a half acre, an acre, if they wanna have a John Deere 3032 tractor out there at seven o'clock in the morning, if they wanna apply pesticides to their crops to help with the fertilization and those kinds of things, I mean, this is, let's not, I mean, when I hear urban farm, I hear someone who's wanting to produce goods for sale, and that's the primary use of the land, which means that they can, whatever a farmer uses out on a hundred acres, they may have the opportunity to use there. So I just wanna make sure that I'm understanding when I'm gonna allow this without an SUP or with an SUP that the phone call I'm gonna get at four o'clock or five o'clock in the morning, I mean, there's maybe work parameters on when you can start work, but this isn't just me going out, taking a tiller, doing some things. I mean, when you read the description, my thought was, well, it's a nursery or a farm. You're talking about ornamental plants, flowers, those kinds of things that, you know, a nursery, some commercial operation, so I just wanna, I mean, part of our duty here is, I mean, it sounds great, urban farm, I don't wanna preclude anybody from being able to grow their vegetables or to have farm-to-table kind of operations, which are very popular and very good, but we've also gotta consider all that we can think of, 'cause we're gonna miss 'em, the possible ramifications and unintended consequences on what these uses may entail, because once it's codified and once it's approved and somebody goes against something and we've missed something, it may not be that easy to fix it and it may really have some severe consequences for neighbors or neighborhoods or those kind of things. So that's my only encouragement, 'cause I don't know exactly what that means, except that I can be respectful of the people around me and just do things by hand, manual, great, or I can do whatever I need to do to maximize my crop production to further my business. And if I'm wrong in that perception, somebody please let me know, because-- - No, and that's very much the intent in the SUP, is that some of it may require even safeguarding the public, 'cause if you just think in terms of a farm, it's a farm. And so everything that you see on a farm, you can potentially see with this use. - All right, so I'm gonna go with Council Member Briggs and Mayor Pro Tem, and I don't see Council Member Husband, then we'll go back to Council Member, oh, and then we'll, this is all about the urban farm, 'cause we're still working on Council Member Meltzer's list, so yes. - So I am in favor of the SUP as I was before, and I'm glad that we do have the urban farming section in here, which we didn't before. So it allows for that opportunity for us to look at, and it gives our residents and citizens an opportunity to have one in which they didn't before, but it also gives us the oversight to see what the plans are for that space. We still have community gardens, so if somebody had a plot of land out by their house and it was open and they wanted to share it with the community, right, that would not need an SUP, would it? So right, so it's a community garden so that individuals can walk over, they can plant, they can till, they can, it's not heavily farmed, it's not, they can do what they want with the produce that they have, they can eat it, it can be farmed at table, it's a garden, it's not really a farm, which are different. So I'm okay with what we have. - Mayor Perkins, and then Council Member Hedges. - Well, and I'm okay with the SUP as well, but when I look at the differences between an urban farm and a community garden, on an urban farm it's a private facility for cultivation of this, that, and the other, and on community garden, a facility for the cultivation of this, that, and the other by more than one person or family. So that just means that I'd have to get an SUP if I want to do an urban farm by myself or I get my friend to say he's coming over and planting the tomatoes and now it's a community garden. So how are we going to distinguish between those two uses? - We certainly can attempt to refine that language, I think it's a great point, and really the intent of it is, is that it's just shared community space, smaller plots, and we can address something. - Sure. - Council Member Hudson, did you have anything to add? - Aaron, could you give us your insight or just what you understand to be the legal look at, better said, the city's liability when it comes to community gardens? So for example, I get a bad apple, what are kind of the legal looks at those? I just want to have that base of knowledge to understand then where it goes and that sort of thing. To me, all those kind of go together. - If I understood correctly, if somebody who has an urban farm is selling their produce to the local community and somebody gets sick is what you're saying, what is our liability as a city? It'd be no different than a restaurant here in town that we issue a permit or even a health inspection. There wouldn't be the liability on the city, it's against the private owner, so I think we're okay on that. - So we authorize a community garden, it's just that land use, per se, and how the management of that or just kind of how it functions falls on that individual land. So it's a community garden, but is there one owner that then kind of accepts responsibility in the eyes of the law? - It's really gonna depend on how that development is set up. The residential development, if it's part of an, if it's HOA-owned, and typically when the developer's built out, it transfers responsibility to the HOA, in that case that might be it. Is it a community garden that's in a subdivision where there's quite a big empty space and everybody gets together in the neighborhood and builds one and there's not an HOA, well then the argument would be the individual homeowners in that area who participated. It really depends on the structure of who owns it, who's responsible for it under certain legal documents, or who participated in it if there's not an HOA. There is no one clear-cut answer, but with the exception, it's not gonna be the city. - So my ask would be, could you give me a garden variety, just email me some scenarios, right, so it's if a HOA owns a property, if a private owner makes their property available, and then maybe another scenario where it's less clear who owns a property, but the community comes together and gardens there, if you can give me kind of those, lay those out for me, I just wanna understand that, how that is organized. - And this is just produce, or are you wanting, I think what's been left out in urban farming is like livestock, beekeeping, all that, do you want it to go that far, or do you just? - No, I think it's just produce, I think, you know, yes, I think because really where I see it is, and it could be scar tissue from when I was a PTA president, but I wouldn't let anybody bring anything, but I just wanna understand that kind of if something, if it's managed wrong, whatever, it's spoiled, it's kind of how does that liability filter out, just because if the question comes up, I wanna have the answer, not really guiding a lot on where it goes, 'cause I understand your answer helps me understand, you know, hey, where it can go, no problem, but then beyond that, I wanna understand that further, just kind of to understand how that process works, and then, so for me, I think on this particular level, where it goes, again, with the SUP, I think is, gives me the comfort that we can modify it enough to get to yes, so. - Okay, Council Member Armitage, do you have a, okay, all right, so from the standpoint, it sounds like we have a question about how do we distinguish between community garden and urban farm, but from what I'm hearing, you had said SUP's okay for urban farming, you had said SUP's okay for urban farming, if we get the question resolved on that, Council Member Armitage, I don't think you're okay with an SUP on urban farming, I mean. - Yeah, I'd rather not, yeah. - Okay, Council Member Dunn, all right, okay, so it sounds like pending, yeah, SUP, urban farming, but let's get some distinction between community garden and urban farming so we can nail that down a little bit, okay. - All right, so we have this very fast-- - I'm sorry, Kaylee, do you have a question? - Just one clarification on that, as far as gardens go, because there are some questions about gardens, or there were, like edible landscape for CIS, as far as sometimes weeds and things, and so I just wanna get clarification that a single family, if they want to put a garden in their front yard, their side yard, or their backyard, that is allowed. I'm just-- - Yeah, I don't know. - That's my understanding of this. - Cultivated vegetation. - Yes, okay. - And I think that that's consistent with state law. - Right. - The local government code, and so it's just a matter of if it's cultivated, then yes. - Okay, just wanted to wrap that up. - Thank you. - Appreciate that. - Thank you. - Yes. - Okay, number two. - Number two. - Yeah, all right, so I'm kinda gonna look at a couple things together. There's a fascinating description about paranormal consultation with terms that I haven't looked up yet, like cardomancy and chloromancy and all that, and then we have medical and dental office, but we don't explicitly have very common things like therapist, social worker office, that kind of thing, and it strikes me that in terms of the public interest in regulating where these things can and can't be, whether they're chiropractors or whatever, what they have in common is you gotta place people go to by appointment and they pay a fee, and why there's a public interest is it has implications for people coming to parking in and out, and whether there's signage, that's about all I can think of, like you can't have probably, I gave the example of like the neon, you know, fortune teller sign, you know, but someone might be able to just hang out a shingle, you know, MSW or something. So my inclination is not to be so hung up on kind of restricting people and making them decide whether they fit these categories, just if you're gonna have, I don't know what the term would be, an office where people come by appointment and pay fees, and then I think the restrictions would be, as I said, about on-street, off-street parking and about signage. I realize it's not all the way thought through, but it seems like it's unnecessarily thought through about necromancy or whatever these things are, you know. Yes, I think paranormal consultations should be allowed in an individual home if we have other things like the noise ordinance, sign ordinances, things like that that would prevent nuisance to other neighborhoods, and I think when we start listing all these with work from home being more common, anyway, so I'm glad that you brought that up, because I mean I do think that working from home is more common now, and we don't want to be as restrictive if the parking, if there's other things that we can control with other ordinances, that would be a nuisance. I don't think we should be very, you know, as restrictive. I mean, you know, I'm not sure about, you know, certain things in the homes, but we did, last year I think, allow for music studios because of that fact that we had noise ordinances and parking and things like that that would be helpful if there were encounters with issues. So just. Councilmember Romer. I agree with those comments made by Councilmember Meltzer and Councilmember Briggs on, precisely for those reasons. I just want to make a comment here. It really depends, in my opinion, as far as, I mean, you will use therapists as an example. Is the level, right, is it a person that's. We'll say lawyer just to keep Aaron interested. Okay. That's easy. So, I mean, if it's an office where you have a lot of traffic, a lot of, you know, clients and this and that, to me, that's more under the professional offices, right. However, if you have a more, less number of, you know, I guess clients, and you're dealing with them on a personal level, at a home, that can fall under a home occupation, right? So it just depends on what level you want. And if you want signs, you want parking, then you're going to go to professional offices and where they're permitted. If you don't want signs, if you don't want parking, and you just want to provide that client service, then you can have it at your home as a home occupation. Again, it depends on the level. I like where you're going. In other words, you know, and home occupation is not particularly zoned or restricted. I mean, that's. There are requirements, again, like no parking, no signage, all of that. So. You're not going to do parking and signage. Correct. You do what you want to do in your home. Correct. And that's where I think we should think about. Okay. Yep. Okay. So what I'm hearing is it sort of stays the way it's presented because there's a way that they could be. They have an accommodation through a home business for the situation that you were talking about and the situations that you were talking about. Is that my understanding? I felt like I reached a different conclusion from the same discussion that they wouldn't need this separate category because it's kind of covered under home office. But the uses described, you know, the ones that you're talking about, which are under certain zoning classifications, they wouldn't need that if they're going to do a home occupation business. But if it's an office, they can't have an office that has signage, multiple clients maybe on a regular basis, parking, those kind of things. Just covered under professional office. Right. Yep. But I'm for an absolute ban on lithomancy, whatever it is. So I'm ready to move on. Yes, no. Someone who has stayed in B&Bs, I'm curious to hear what others' opinions are on whether we need to exclude B&Bs in some of the less dense R zones. It just strikes me that around the country, they're kind of anywhere houses are usually. On the grid, you're only permitting them in the higher density neighborhoods. But I don't think that's generally the case about where they're located in America. That's a fair comment. Looking at this, we can consider, I mean, the council can direct and consider maybe a specific use plan, but the intent of why we kept it out of the R1, R2, and R3 and allowing it in the R4, R6, and R7 with a specific use permit is really to protect those established neighborhoods, existing established neighborhoods, and locating them more in more of the denser urban areas. I'm happy to hear what others think. I'm not compelled by that. Go ahead. Does that apply to Airbnb as well? We have a separate category for that, and that's under short-term rental. Okay. Yeah. I mean, a bed and breakfast could be a pretty intense use. So I mean, it could be just one or two beds, or it could be three or four or five, or six, or I mean, it's a business. I mean, it's basically a small hotel, for better lack of a word. And I think that putting those in areas that are typically predominantly your standard what we would consider standard neighborhood configurations, in my opinion, would be inappropriate. So I think what you're describing, I'm okay with, because it gives more protection to the neighborhood. Yeah. Go ahead. And I agree with that. Hold on a second. It's time to take a break. Awesome. Yeah, no, I agree. I mean, I think when you're talking about just protections for the neighborhood, because I think, like every business, I want them to be successful here. And if you're successful, that amount of traffic in those, just kind of looking at, okay, if they're doing great, then I could see them and be okay with them as prescribed, and be okay with that traffic. Anybody else? Council Member? Did you have one? Okay, so it sounds like... All right, you're all okay with it? I think we've been going about an hour and 30, 45 minutes since the last break. So let's take a break. Let's try to give this about another 45 minutes if we need it. And then we've got some other issues. And we've got some pretty heavy, I think, potentially closed sessions coming up as far as time goes. So let's take about a five-minute break. Welcome, everybody, back to this meeting of the Denton City Council. I don't even know if I did that the last time we came in from a break. It is Tuesday, March 19, 2019. It is 2/52. Before we get started again, I just really want to thank the council members for just the attention to detail and the good questions, because the legal consultant in the committee has expressed on more than one occasion her appreciation for the depth that the committee and that the council and the Planning and Zoning Commission is looking at this code, because she says it's unlike anything she's seen before. And I think that will help us to really mitigate those unintended consequences. So I really do appreciate your questions and your analysis and your insight, because working together, I think we can get something that really is workable for the community and provides the best outcome. So I just want to really thank you for that. Okay. Council Member Meltzer speaking up. All right. So next. Yeah. And I appreciate the sort of creativity in trying to identify new uses of land. But work-live, there's a lot of description or regulation of size and location about what percent should be work, what percent should be live, what should be in the front, what should be in the back. And it's got to be 400 square feet minimum residential. Why do we need to torment people about this? I mean, why do we care? What percent? What's in the front? What's in the back? What's the public benefit in that? There are a number, there's a series of codes that relate to work-live. They're reasonably new. So when we talk about building codes, fire codes, as well as then our zoning ordinance. So what we want to ensure is we're being more flexible. We're allowing more uses. We're allowing people to have a live work unit. We just want to make certain as to compatibility as to where they're at. And then from a fire safety standpoint, the way that they're designed. So there's two pieces to that. And this is melding, I think, most of that. So is there a fire safety component to whether the tea kettle is in the front or in the back of the building? You don't like that the work has got to be here, that the live is here, like we would need to send an inspector in to check that? Do you see where I'm coming from? Yeah, yes. So I'm just sort of, you know, heightening the point. No, no, no. We appreciate that. We appreciate the comment. The intent here is that, as you can see, it says work-live, right? Yeah. And the idea is that the work is going to be seen first, the live is in the back. And so that's intentionally, so when you have an area that, I can't think of an area that would fit work-live, we don't have a lot of those. Maybe the downtown is probably the closest, where you have a lot of the commercial uses, the non-residential uses, be the primary or be the front, and then all the residential component is either in the rear or above. So that's the real intent, to make sure that the cohesiveness, the compatibility of the area is still work and then the live is provided at. Because you're picturing it, and this is helpful to me, you're picturing it in a commercial area. Correct. Like living behind the store, so you don't want the bedroom in the front. Correct, correct. I accept that. That's the intent. I'm willing to move on if-- Any questions on that? Okay. Group Home, my question is just, has this been run by the Committee on the Disabled, which we're fortunate enough to have now to help review. I think you have a comment on that. That's going to be forthcoming as a separate item. Okay. Good. The very scintillating subject W. You all know what I'm talking about? That probably doesn't hardly even exist anymore because of the internet, but I think you agree that Sections 1 and 2 can really be deleted that has all this sort of justification for why it's regulated. I mean, we regulate laundromats for goodness sake, and I think we really need to be all that explicit justifying why we put peep shows in some places and not others. Like I said, I don't even think-- What is the W you're talking about? Sexually-related businesses or some sexually-oriented businesses. There's a lot of really unusual sections of the code that aren't there for any other thing, any other category where it's justifying why it's regulated. It's to provide the city the proper legal defense in the event of a challenge. Okay. I just note that somebody on staff agreed that Sections 1 and 2 should be deleted, so maybe you all want to discuss that. So I'm willing to move on unless people want to talk about that. I just totally, I'm not sure exactly what we were just talking about. When you say W, so you're talking about sexually-oriented-- Sexually-oriented businesses and that was a staff error on 1 and 2. That wasn't the intent. Okay. So the question was, how it's being-- Okay, I got you. All right. Yeah. I mean, where it is that we wouldn't necessarily have this in any other place. This is a zoning matter, and so this is our zoning ordinance, and that's why it's there, and it's very traditional in, I don't know if it's every Texas city, but-- So let me move on to the two most substantive items I have since we have other things to cover today, too, and I'm not even sure this is in the same part, the substations, like electrical substations, 5.3.7A, and what I want to propose here is that we consider at least building in, as an ideal, where plausible, the idea of having architectural facades for substations rather than the current practice, which is just these low walls that don't really conceal anything. They're still pretty ugly. The walls are expensive. I suppose they serve at least a minimum security benefit, but if we're talking about appearance barriers, and I know that there was at least a citizens committee that resulted in an architectural facade proposal for the substation coming on Hickory and Bonnie Bray. Is that not something we might want to build in as at least an ideal where feasible? Is that requiring an SCP? I'm trying to pull this up. I can't remember. Are substations requiring an SCP? Certain districts, yes. So I think an SCP would cover what you're describing, and that is it would allow counsel to have that ability to do that. Now the substation you're talking about, the corner of, is it Bonnie Bray and Hickory? That's a GI. I think that's a gas-insulated substation, which is a whole different animal than the air-insulated ones in far as how they look and so forth. So my preference would be to leave that at the discretion of the counsel as far as at that time, the body being able to decide, especially if it's an SCP, do we want to do a gas-insulated? Do we want to do an air? If you do an air, do you want a cinder block wall? Do you want a concrete-looking fence, I mean, 10-foot? Are you saying just make that deliberation just part of the process? No, it's part of the code to express as an ideal that we're feasible, you know, an architectural facade compatible with the neighborhood as desirable. Oh, so you're saying make that as a code requirement? Well, I put it in softer language, because I'm guessing it might not be feasible everywhere in every case. Go ahead. So I just want to just point of clarification. The table does not state that it requires a specific use permit, but there is a use specific standard that refers to if the city meets all the requirements, including the wall screening and whatever requirements they are, then they would be permitted. However, they do not meet any of those standards, then a specific use permit would be required. So back in 2016, the council approved an ordinance where we determined, we the city determined that there are certain design standards that these substations, whatever switch stations they are, are required to provide some sort of screening. We established those standards, we're carrying that forward with this code. If the city does not want to meet those standards, then you have to go through a specific use permit. That was to avoid a specific use permit, because we have those standards embedded in the code currently. And are those standards sort of what you were... Well, what I standardly see are the 10-foot walls with a lot of guts hanging out. Yeah, that's those air-insulated. Not attractive to anybody. Right. But it's possible and is done in other communities to put that all within an architectural facade so it looks like a building. Well, that's a GIS substation. And that's... Again, we're feasible, right? Yeah. Well, they're feasible. It's more of a cost factor, because they're about three or four times, I think, more than a regular substation. And if I can interrupt real quickly, I believe the reason why we went with the one off of Bonnie and Bray and Hickory the way it is, it was just before this code, before this ordinance was adopted, and because it's right there adjacent to a historic district. So we came up with more higher standards before we actually incorporated those standards that we have currently. Understood. Look, I'm throwing it out, I'm happy to hear responses. I think that that's a direction that would improve the look of Denton. Yeah, I'm trying to find those standards, those 455 in the, but is it in the back? That's in the backup, right? Under comparison of allowed use tables, or is it general regulations? Page 232. I didn't bring my, well, I'm not even sure what I'm looking at here. There's a cross-reference where it references 6.13, the development standards related to 436. It says standards in this subsection require basic level of architectural variety, compatible scale and mitigation of negative impacts. Is that what you're talking about? When you flip over to the next page, it discusses screening. It discusses the different ones, screening wall, yeah, because he's talking about it just requires a 10-foot masonry wall. That was a code update, or not a code update, but a code amendment that was included or incorporated as part of that ordinance that was approved back in 2016. Because these are for air-insulated, I mean, this is basically written for air-insulated substations, so I mean, I'm okay with this. I would prefer if there was an SUP, because I think if they just do this, then there's no, the council has no input into that, like it would solve the issue of, hey, can we do something better given the circumstances in the neighborhood, given the architectural compatibility of the neighborhood, and you're saying if they don't meet this is the only time they get an SUP. Correct, and if I can provide some sort of background, my understanding is that the reason why we went through this route and not require an SUP is because when DME looks at properties, they need to be able to act, and going through an SUP changes things, is how I understand why we went this route. Okay. All right. Okay. Council Member Husband. So my understanding from previous conversations is general manager specific, because there's one philosophy to put evergreens around there, brings animals, brings, so it screens it, but then it brings headaches, and then there's not having those, then allows not having evergreens, that sort of thing, as a screening, allows one better visibility to make sure no one's playing around the wall, that sort of thing, and also safety components, less animals, less eating through wires, et cetera, et cetera. So I think there's just kind of an approach to how they function as well that goes in there that just, I think the SUP probably is the best way to kind of at least give you options to make it location specific. So what I understood you to say, and this is gonna be reading a lot in, so correct me if I'm wrong, that DME, when they're deciding on a location, that they wanted a set of criteria that they, if they adhered to, that they would be allowed to move forward with that, whether it be a rezoning or the purchase through third-party contract, I mean, arms-link transaction contracting or eminent domain, whereas an SUP, I'm just gonna put it out there, where an SUP may make that process more difficult at best and may be disapproved at worst, which would, it gives them more predictability to develop the grid in a way that's the most efficient. That may be reading a lot in there, but is that what I'm sort of hearing? - That's generally my similar understanding, yes, sir. - Okay, all right. Let's get their comments in, Council Member Armitage and then Mayor Pro Tem. - So we're talking about substations, right? Yeah, I mean, I would prefer for substations to come before, to have an SUP and require an SUP so that the public has the opportunity to weigh in. It's also a great way to educate the public, and it's essentially a neighborhood, just like we have these neighborhood meetings for the developer, except this is different, 'cause this is actually the same space in which the decision gets made by Council. But I think that's really important, and given controversies that we've had about substations in the past and where communities have come together and organized to try to have input, this way, we're holding ourselves, we the city, holding ourselves to similar standards that a private entity wanting to build something would be responsible for. And also just for the simple fact that we're a public utility and the residents of Denton are the owners of that public utility. And the smaller percentage we have who aren't on DME, you're still citizen-owned. So anyway, I feel pretty strongly about requiring the public input on that. - Council Member, I mean, Mayor Pro Tem, Ryan. - Thank you, Mayor. As I look through the procedures of review on page 232, it requires an SUP unless the following requirements can be met, which are the uses in association with Capital Improvement Project that's been approved by the City Council and a public hearing was held by the Council for the site selection, which requires all the notification, the 200-foot and the sign on the location, and a 15-day neighborhood meeting 15 days prior to the public hearing. So we're going through the same process as an SUP to select the site is a way around getting an SUP. So you would be doubling up if you require an SUP on top of that. You're gonna have to have two public meetings, one for site selection and another one for the SUP. So I'm good with it as it sits, 'cause this basically says if you are some other entity other than the city coming in and wanting to put in a substation, you would still have to go through the SUP process. Yes? Let me see if you all would accept this, that where a public meeting is required, that where feasible an option be presented to the public as a requirement that has an architectural facade. So in other words, hey public, this is coming, it could look like this or it could look like that, and this one costs a lot more. That's what I would suggest. Okay. Yes. Did you have any Councilmembers? Okay, Councilmember Maltzer. So I prefer what Councilmember Maltzer just suggested to what is in there now. I would prefer even more than that to have just an SUP regard for all substations regardless of whether or not it meets the requirement for the reason that the site selection, and I understand your point, Councilmember Ryan, and it's a good point, but one could also argue that site selection is one issue, and then actually then issues such as what it looks like, architectural details, that's a different matter, that can be dealt with separately, and that is for private entities in certain situations dealt with separately. So again, so just to make that clear, so I would prefer ideally to require an SUP even if it does meet those specifications, but if there's not consensus for that, then I would support what Councilmember Maltzer was suggesting to at least require that the public be presented in the hearing with some sort of presentation about here's what it's going to look like and that the public be able to weigh in on that. Okay, go ahead, Scott. I was just going to recommend, I can get with our DME with the general manager and see if I can get maybe a little bit of guidance from him and maybe we can raise the standards some and at least maybe he has some ideas that we can bring back. I would just suggest from my experience, if you don't show that an architectural facade is possible, people don't think it's possible. Well, I've got to say I disagree with that. An architectural facade is possible no matter what, it just depends on how much it costs. So I mean, it's not a matter of not showing it. I think he said he's going to try to get with the general manager to see if there's some other language that we can put in, and depending on when that capital program comes to us, at site selection is one thing, but I think sometimes if we have to approve something else or at site selection, if that's a public hearing, then the council can always decide at that time to come back, say, look, we'd like to see some architectural renderings to make this look different. That's at the discretion of this body, and so I want to hear what the DME has to say about it. I'm not precluding accepting your suggestion, I just want to hear what they have to say about it. Yeah, because as I've learned, all that comes at the cost of the rate payer, right? And so even if you lay out a design and you don't put a, and there's no way to give a, you can give an estimated cost, but you don't know how much it costs until you get into it. And so you give an estimated cost and you're not telling individual rate payers, you're saying, hey, here's what it looks like, and you're not educating them on, hey, everyone's bill is going up, you know, 20 bucks, so that we can, so I think that's a flawed thought to say, here's what you could look like, and it looks aesthetically great, now is it worth 20 bucks to you, is the second part of that conversation, per person, across the city. There's no buffer. And so then we're talking about reducing rates and trying to help the rate payers, and at the same time, aesthetically costing them more. I think there's some, there's, I would not agree with that notification, just because I think I lean more with the mayor that, hey, as an individual council person, you can do that same thing and probably better, or at least be active about it and generate that information and circulate it via social media versus a myriad of other formats. But also, I think it lacks the detail to say, it's not just an aesthetic decision, it's a financial decision that costs every rate payer money, and so in that instance, you have to be clear, concise to say, hey, we don't know exactly how much it's going to cost, here's the ballpark, depends on the weather, depends on materials, depends on market at the time we get the building, and everyone, best guess is going to have to pay an extra 20 bucks a month and then make a decision. So, that component is problematic for me. Okay. Yes, Councilmember Armitage. I'll just comment that, you know, I had just, I mean, I agree that, so obviously the financial, you know, how it will affect, would affect rates and what the cost is, is crucial, and I had just assumed that that would kind of be part of the conversation anyway. So, you know, I don't see it as an either or situation. I don't, you know, that decisions can't be made about what something should look like without, you know, I mean, if it's being funded by the city, whether through the rates or general fund in the case of DME, it's rates, you know, without talking about the cost. So I see them as inseparable, you know, you're talking about one, you've got to talk about the other, and the public will be concerned about the cost issues, how it will impact their rates, and so would Council. Okay. So you're going to talk to DME and bring that information back as we bring back some of the other information we talked about. Correct. Okay. Yes. Yep. Yep. Yeah. I'll do an easy one quick, and then the thorniest one. Home occupations, there's a list of excluded occupations, and one is antique sales. And I asked why, and the answer is it's considered retail. So why not just say retail? Why do we care about the age of the items that they're selling? I just thought that was kind of a little silly. So you want to say, help me understand the distinction between antique and then if somebody has a distribution business that they, you know, a home distribution business that they do. I think that's a fair comment. The intent there again was to limit the impact to the neighborhoods, you know, by having more of a retail establishment such as antique, you can't really, you know, control some of the aspects to having sales, right? Antique sales. The objection is not the age of the items, right? No, no. It's really the impact to the neighborhood and the customers that are generated by that type of use. Okay. I just want to say that I agree completely, and thank you for noticing that. I agree, you know, in general, in the spirit of this comment and also goes with the, it's in the same spirit of the, Council Member Meltzer, your comment about, you know, why I specifically mentioned the paranormal advisor person when the point is about parking and signage and lighting. So I support, as a general principle, focusing on the impacts, you know, and not the, exactly, what is it, the use of, yeah, exactly, exactly, you know, someone selling, someone can sell Mary Kay out of their house, but they can't sell antiques to be that, you know, that doesn't make sense. But it does make sense to just, to be specific about parking and impacts. So retail? Yes. We'll look into that. Yes. Okay. All right. Get ready to throw something. We got ten minutes on the Thornish one. Go ahead. Yeah, yeah. Get ready to throw something at me. You ready? Not really. Go ahead. All right. I'm going to say it. Gas well setbacks. Okay. All right. It's in here. We have, I haven't spent a long time getting the familiar arguments that the setback and the reverse setback are contradictory. Right. I guess, I guess my thought is we've got, we've got that on our agenda or on the matrix to talk about gas well setback specifically. So I don't want to use just this code as being something that sort of moves that into there. I mean, this is. I actually hadn't noticed. Do we do have that on? Well, no. It's on the matrix as far as, you know, so we each can rate it. And so I don't think we're prepared to have a gas well setback discussion on what they should or shouldn't be at this time. So that's, that's my thought on it. Yes. Go ahead. Yeah. I wanted to, and sorry to interrupt Council Member Meltzer, but I know you've got this, this list. There was one thing I had a question of. Oh, there it is. That was the last item. Okay. Well, great. I had a question about, so under subchapter six, development standards, and I'm looking, I'm looking at the, at the presentation, exterior lighting, you know, if, if you could speak briefly to, you know, for the benefit of the public about what the exterior lighting requirements are, just kind of sum it up. And I'll let you know, the reason I'm asking is because of, I know that it's, it's a concern for public lighting, which is not what this is addressing, right, but this is focusing on, on, on, on private use, but, you know, there's a concern about light pollution and overly bright, you know, those LED lights that can be overly bright. You know, the, I think they're called like the, the dark sky as, yeah, and then I had, you know, heard, heard from a constituent about this issue and emailed about it. So anyway, so what are the, you know, how, how would you describe what, what the restrictions are on exterior lighting and do they prevent, is there anything in there to prevent, you know, light that would be so, so bright and glaring that it would, it would, it would interfere with surrounding. Yes, yes, all, all the above, right. So this is, applies to private, you know, development, development code. It also applies to the public sector as well. We want to protect, you know, adjacent neighborhoods or adjacent neighbors per se. We have standards in here that limit the flood, the lights directed towards adjacent properties. There's glare shieldings, there's minimum foot candles at property lines, but still providing the necessary lighting for pedestrians and that sort of thing. So it's all covered there, it's more or less a carryover from what we currently have in our development code. And it's enhanced to make sure that we have best practices as well to address any future, you know, impacts to vision, to lighting. Okay, yeah, so, and so the question of LED lighting specifically. Councilman Armitage, what I would, if I can propose at our next meeting, which we're going to be discussing the development standards, I've asked our technical staff to attend and I'd rather have maybe them respond to that question than me trying to pretend to know what I'm talking about. Yeah, excellent. So that's what I would recommend and we can certainly bring that up at our next work session. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Councilmember Briggs? Yeah, and just to that, because I did have a constituent have an issue, their neighbor had a light that was so bright and it shined in their back window and I don't know that there was anything that they could do. So I don't know if there's a certain wattage or something that for use in neighborhoods to prevent that. There are lighting standards that we have today that we can, if that came in as a complaint, we can certainly address that through our zoning officers process. But then you also have a lot of car break-ins and people, it's like, well, you need to light your property. So you light your property and it's almost daylight outside, but it does affect the neighbor. So it's kind of... So there are, yeah, I said earlier, there are minimum foot candles at property lines with exceptions of walkways and sidewalks. But as we do upgrade to LED, those light candles would need to, I guess, be adjusted because of the brightness of the LED lighting. Right. And again, members of the technical staff will be present next week to be able to more explain what that might be. I have a question about on the sub-chapter five use regulations. There's the section that says significant changes, outdoor storage and then accessory outdoor storage. Could you just talk about that a little bit and is that something that is restricted for homeowners that CIS sites for or is this something different? That's something different. Okay. What we're talking about as far as outside storage, we currently do not have that use in the development code. That use per se is, we use Peter Betto as an example, having an outside storage as a particular use. What we're proposing is that they would be allowed that in certain zoning districts. The accessory is a little different and that does not pertain to a residential outside storage. It's more or less for the non-residential areas. Okay. So when I have someone call me and say they got cited for having a broom and a mop on their porch because it's outside storage, that's not what this is pertaining to. This would be a different conversation for us to have. Correct. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions on the code? I know we're going to have another work session on this. Yes. When we come back, or I can get with you offline, I want to understand the parking category a little better. So I'll sit down with you and hash out some questions, but I just want to understand do's and don'ts on a parking lot as principle use 64, that kind of line item, just kind of understand what goes into that because it's such a big deal for us. I just want to understand, make sure I'm clear on it. Will do. If I have two minutes, I just want to kind of sum it up and present what we're going to be discussing next work session. So again, as you can tell, there's a lot under this sub-chapter, sub-chapter five, and this is one reason why we wanted to bring it back to you all because it's an important sub-chapter. It covers a lot, and we want to make sure we, as the mayor said, address and discuss it so that we have a better product. Moving forward, we can continue to have this discussion on sub-chapter five, but moving forward, we will be talking about development standards in subdivisions, which is scheduled for next week. So if you have questions or comments in advance, certainly provide that to us. We will have the opportunity to respond, but also be able to respond here at the next work session, members of the technical staff will be present and be here to answer those questions as well. So just for that. And additionally, we'll continue to work with the development review committee, so P&Z and council members, to flush out some of these other details as they arise or questions that may come up. Okay. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Appreciate it. Yep, you bet. Thank you all. Great job. All right, we'll move on to our next agenda item, our last one for the open work sessions, which will be agenda item 3D, receive report, hold discussion and provide staff direction regarding Senate bill 1156, which was recently introduced in the 86th Texas legislature and would require the Texas rural commission to hold public hearings on certain gas well permit applications. Good afternoon, mayor, city council, Sarah Keuchler, director of public affairs. Staff was asked to give a brief presentation today on Senate bill 1156, which was recently introduced in Austin. So Senate bill 1156 was filed on February 26th by Senator Judith Zerfini. She is a senator from Laredo, Texas. The full text of the bill was in your backup as exhibit three. But for our quick summary, the bill would require that the Texas railroad commission require that an applicant for a gas well permit indicate on their application whether that proposed site is located within 1500 feet of a property line of a child care facility, private school or primary or secondary public school. The Texas railroad commission could not grant an application where it has been indicated where it's 1500 feet of that property line unless they hold a public hearing in the county in which the proposed wall site is located to receive public comments on that application and that the Texas railroad commission considers those comments when determining if they should grant that application. So the Senate bill, just a quick update on its status, it has been referred to the Senate Natural Resources and Economic Development Committee on March 7th. A hearing has not been scheduled yet on the bill and the Senate committee. A companion bill has been filed in the House, that is House Bill 2920, and it was filed on March 1st by Representative Chris Turner from Arlington, Texas, and that has been referred to the House Energy Resources Committee on March 12th. And again, a hearing has not been scheduled yet on that House bill either. By way of history, this bill was introduced in the prior legislative session in 2017, Senate Bill 1868 by the same Senator Zafini, and it was referred to a committee, but it did not receive a hearing in the last legislative session. Should council want to take a position on this bill, staff could draft a resolution that you could consider at your council meeting next week. - Yeah, Council Member Briggs and Council Member Robert. - I would be in favor of a resolution supporting this, because for me, all it does is it's just transparency, and it's just about the process, and so it's something that we normally do with zoning, and especially with a use as industrial as this. I think it would be really good for the public to be able to weigh in, especially if it's near a child care facility where someone sends their child every day for several hours a day. - Yes, Member Armitage. - Yeah, I too support this, and obviously I had asked that this be included in a timely fashion, really grateful for, and I'm guessing I'm probably not the only one who asked you, I'm really grateful for what the staff has done to put this together, so thank you. Yeah, I support this very strongly. To me, as Council Member Briggs said, it's pretty modest in what it's asking for, which is, and she puts it really well, it's transparency, it could be seen as even helping the Railroad Commission make their decision, and I think that a resolution in support of this, and the companion bill, and thank you for including that in this description, because I believe that companion bill, it was proposed, the proposed after I had made the request that this be included, or maybe I just only heard about it afterwards, but anyway, thank you for including that, they're kind of a, being talked about now as a twin package, so I would like to see a resolution on both of these, they're very, very modest, and it's not a, as far as I know anyway, doesn't, triggering HB 40, this is all about things that can be regulated, so I strongly support it. It's a very modest bill, that's all, and together with the companion piece. Okay. Anybody else comment? Council Member Milton. It might surprise you to know that I support this, and I would suggest that if, that we pass a resolution expressing our support and forward that to the, our legislators, as well as to the relevant committee chairs. Anybody else? Make sure I understand this. This is just requiring a public hearing, the 1,500 foot is just a number they had to put in there, it's not saying that the setback's 1,500, we're not saying the setback's 1,500, this is saying if there's a well within 1,500 feet of child care facility, private school, primary or secondary public school, that they're required to have a public hearing in front of the Railroad Commission, or does the Railroad Commission administer the public hearing? Who runs the public hearing? It would be administered by the Texas Railroad Commission, so they have to set, if this bill passes, they have to set rules to administer this hearing process, so that might be part of their consideration of when they're developing the rules for what this public hearing process looks like. So they're just, yeah, I mean I don't have any issue with this, I mean it's simply asking for a public hearing, whatever number you want to put in there, they're just saying hey, if there's a gas well within, in this particular instance, 1,500 feet of these facilities, let's at least notify the public and have a public hearing, I don't have an issue with that. Anybody else? No, I don't have any issue with this at all. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. It seems like we've got enough to put it on the agenda. Yeah. Okay. We'll develop that for next week. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. With that in reports, public work testing reports, I will now convene the closed session at 3.33 p.m. on Tuesday, March the 19th, 2019. We will be considering the following items, consultation with attorneys under Texas Government Code Section 551.071, deliberations regarding real property under Texas Government Code Section 551.072, and deliberations regarding certain public power utilities competitive matters under Texas Government Code Section 551.086. Welcome everybody to this meeting of the Denton City Council. It is Tuesday, March the 19th, 2019. It is about 6.30. If you would, our first agenda item is Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Flag. Please stand if you're able. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I gladly support this. This is the least that we can do, not just from a monetary perspective, but from a perspective of support from your community and what you've been able to support in this community as well, as you've all been both involved so much in the community. So thank you for that, and I just want to acknowledge, I know how difficult it was, but to see you standing here on the brink of reopening really just speaks volumes to just your character and your heart and your strength. So thank you so much for that. Thank you, Mayor. Okay, Councilmember Hudspeth. I move approval. Mayor Pro Tem. Second. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. All right, we'll move on to items for individual consideration. Agenda item 5A, consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton authorizing the city manager or designee to execute a physical gas transaction confirmation for the purchase of natural gas under the terms and conditions of base contract, et cetera. Mayor and City Council, good evening. Thank you. I'm glad I could be here tonight for those three good news stories in the downtown area, and I'm bringing you another good news story. We have a contract extension for your consideration for natural gas for the Denton Energy Center. The current agreement expires at the end of the month, so this new one would take place April 1st. It's with a very capable, qualified supplier that we have a lot of experience with, enterprise products, operating LLC, and we did talk to you a little bit earlier on some of the business terms related to this agreement. So here for any questions, but asking for your approval of an ordinance to authorize this agreement. Any questions for staff? I see no cards for public comment. Council Member Husspeth. I move approval. Council Member Duff. Second. We have a motion and a second for Agenda Item 5A. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries, 5 to 2. We'll move on to Agenda Item 5B, and this is -- I just want to make sure that anybody -- this is an item for individual consideration, so if you're wanting to speak on Agenda Item 5B, which is the Affordable Housing Fee Grant Program, if you would, please fill out a blue card. Just wanted to make sure -- I make that announcement because sometimes people get a little confused on public hearings and items for individual consideration. So we're going to go ahead and call the item, Agenda Item 5B, consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, approving the Denton Affordable Housing Fee Grant Program, establishing the guidelines for the program and provisions for enforcement thereof, establishing an annual budget, and declaring an effective date. Good evening, Mayor, Council. We're bringing forward a proposal for an ordinance for your approval for this fee grant program. We did present to you this program on December 18th, and at that time, Council did give direction and some discussion that allowed us to revise the draft program guidelines and draft an ordinance for your approval this evening for your consideration. Just as a reminder, the key elements of the program, it is to assist a nonprofit, single-family housing developers, and homeowners participating in city housing programs with building fees, permits, utility fees, including water and wastewater impact fees. We are proposing required -- there's an execution of an agreement that will ensure compliance in areas like the eligibility requirements that will be sold, and apologies, rented should be removed from that. It will determine compliance period for a minimum number of years and set forth a process for how the nonprofits will seek the grant. We'll establish some monitoring requirements for how long we will make sure that they're in compliance with the grant, if they should receive it, and then require them to submit reports to us so that we can maintain compliance and monitoring. So some of the items that Council had discussed and given direction on, we had four things we wanted to bring forward to indicate where we edited and revised the draft. The first is eligible programs. We just wanted to make sure that it was clear that we are proposing nonprofit, single-family housing developers, and homeowners participating in the city housing programs through CDBG and HOME. We do recommend that our programs be included because it does help us with our match for our home investment partnership grant program that requires a 25% match on an annual basis. And then also the recommendation that it start with this limited scope, and this was a recommendation that we heard from you to help us with the monitoring compliance and to make sure we had adequate staff resources to manage the program since it is new. I don't know if I should just keep going or I'll let you comment. We do have four different items. Councilmember Armitage has a question. Actually, I wanted to wait until the end of the presentation. I was just getting in line. Thank you. There's also the affordability requirement. Council did ask questions about what would be the affordability. We did recommend the 80% AMI. This would allow thresholds for our CDBG and HOME programs to be eligible. I did want to point out, though, that Habitat, their qualification is 60% of AMI. And I guess I should also point out that in each of these, there's an alternative that we are offering up that was based on your comments. And then there's the geographic limitation question. We reviewed this with legal significantly. We wanted to make sure we were conscious of the fair housing issues that may come into play. So we did recommend a situation where we were just asking anyone who's participating in this grant program to demonstrate that they've made all reasonable attempts to deconcentrate, to locate projects in and around the entire city, but no specific limitation other than that. We did recommend that because of the fair housing conversation we had, but also because of the limited availability of land options. This program would be affected significantly if we were to put some sort of limitation on it currently. And then the final one was just the agreement authority. We are recommending that city managers designate have the authority because of the small amount of this current grant. It's really $12,000 limit on each project. And the maximum is $75,000. That's consistent with our programs and community development as well. All right, we'll go ahead and start with the questions and if that's okay. Councilmember Armitage. Okay, so first of all, I'm really excited about this program. I had brought it forward with someone had shown me the McKinney ordinance and said, hey, they do this, why can't we? And it made so much sense. And so I'm thrilled about it and I'm going to vote yes. And that I wish it was even better, as you know. And I know that can happen. I know this is just the beginning. But I want to say and I want to make clear that, you know, what I had originally envisioned was a waiver, not a fund, but a waiver like McKinney has, of course, one you'd have to apply to, that would apply across the board to nonprofits providing affordable housing of all kinds. And McKinney's probably more restrictive than that, you know. But it was kind of that was my inspiration. And because, as you know, when one is in need of housing, a home is a home. And it's great for someone to be a homeowner. And I love what an organization like Habitat for Humanity does. I'm a huge fan and we have someone from Habitat here. It would be wonderful if everyone could be a homeowner. But so I do, I oppose, I want to make clear, I'm going to vote yes to this, you know, but I'm sad that we're limiting it for now just to single family homes that are owned by the occupant. And I'm wondering if, as staff continues to, because you had mentioned in responses to questions from council, that we got from you via email, that an assessment of our comprehensive city housing needs is underway and that that will be, and that when that's finished, that will be a factor in considering to expand this program. Can I clarify, we're not currently doing an assessment? It's not underway, okay. I just wanted to make that clear, that in order to make determinations on a larger scale, we would probably need a larger assessment of the entire city's need for affordable housing before we could even make determinations like that. Okay, so that's not underway? Okay. Not currently underway, no, ma'am. Because as you know, I had, as you know, that's something that I believe. Other than our general assessments and the consolidated plan. Yeah, so that's something I feel we're really in need of and would really help us to understand the potential for a program like this. But this is a great start and I approve it. Anyway, I do want to see and will, after others have a chance to speak, to make a friendly amendment that at the very least that this could include homes, single-family homes that are rented. But I will, I'll let others speak first and do that later. Thank you. Sure. Council Member Briggs. So I'm in favor and I think it's a great start from nothing to something. And the only request or consideration I would have to add to this would be Section 2A under grant program guidelines that we add tree mitigation funds as a possibility. And I sent a question in to that. We're going to talk about that later on tonight. Like once a preservation is met, that this may be an option to get a grant for so that the affordability of those projects stays affordable. That would be my request as an option. I think we could look at that as a separate item from this particular proposal, but we can look at that as a grant. Yeah. As a grant for those? Yeah, to apply for a grant in order to make that happen. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that recommendation. Thank you. Council Member Hudson. Thank you. This is so very disappointed about the geographic lack of restriction. For those that are here and those that are listening, I want to be very clear. 99.99% of every one of these houses is in one area. And you'll hear my colleagues say a lot about how important it is. And I think today indicates a lack thereof of how important it is to diversify our city and for our city to be engaging and active in making sure we incentivize different areas to look different. So very hurtful to see that today. And for Mr. City Attorney, understanding your guidance as the genesis of this, I want to explore that further briefly. So as I understand it, the city sets guidelines for what can be developed where in its normal course of business weekly. Am I correct? Sets guidelines in terms of zoning. Correct. Yes. Okay. So then what helped me educate me on the difference between a -- and for those that are looking and for the record as I reference this going forward, I had suggested a 10-mile restriction. So once a year, so not excluding anyone, but saying if the city is going to participate and waive fees and treat this development different than any other development, we'll do it once a year in a 10-mile radius. Understanding 10 miles is almost like parks, right? So we have parks every 10-minute walking distance. So kind of trying to pair the two to make it palatable to say -- not saying you have to do it on a different part of town, but saying you just need to stagger it at some point and not have every house built on top of each other in one block. And so I proposed that. And so that's what she's referencing that was not accepted. So my question is I'm asking you to educate me on the difference in zoning and those restrictions and this. Can I clarify? We were working on this item with legal. There is an alternative that we could put geographic restrictions if council wished to on this program. What we had suggested was that it be one per city council district. We could look at an alternative as well that could be a per-mile radius. And what that per-mile radius is, we would just need more time to know what that suggestion of mile radius is if council is interested in that. We did reference with legal this afternoon on that. So we did put one option forward for geographic limitations as an alternative should council want to consider that. But to be clear, that would limit the number. We wouldn't need the $75,000 to do the program. You'd probably be looking at one project a year instead of -- Well, I disagree. I think it would incentivize people to do what they say is important and make it happen, right? Because I think it's important. And I make suggestions to every developer that I talk to to say, hey, you should do this in lieu of trying to build an inferior home, you should dedicate property to Habitat for Humanity in that particular area to develop there. So I think it would motivate people to not be lazy and make it happen, which I think is supremely important. So yeah, for me, I'm going to absolutely vote no because I'm not for compacting everyone in the same area just for expediency. So if someone wants to present something to me, the language, and then if there's three other people that are in favor for that, then I'll change my perspective. But I want to say they do great work. I'm just not going to sit here and incentivize and treat them different than any other developer, and they're going to continue to compartmentalize people. I just -- I am absolutely adamant that people say what they say they need to do. >> Thank you for those comments. >> Okay. Councilmember Melzer. >> You know, I do share your objective, and incidentally, Habitat houses are great houses and should be welcome anywhere. But when I read this and I read preference will be given to projects that promote deconcentration of affordable housing opportunities, I thought I was addressing that, and maybe you could describe to what extent it does or doesn't, and I would be very open to hearing Councilmember Hutzpah's response because I absolutely share your concern. >> It would be a matter of if we were looking at competing projects, we would prioritize those that were in other areas of the city. Not concentrated in one area. That would be one way we would enforce that. The other would be in the application process to make sure that the organization documented how it sought other resources in other areas of the community in order to develop single family affordable. So we would just do it in the application process as well. It is really just an incentive. It is just an encouragement to meet this requirement. There isn't any other. >> Well, he's requested to speak. Let me get to Councilmember Armitage and then we'll come back to you. Councilmember Armitage. >> So a couple things. So first I wanted to acknowledge, you know, even though I'm voting yes to this with -- again, I'm going to attempt to modify it, I recognize and agree with Councilmember Hutzpah's concern that we don't want -- at least I don't want to, and I know that in the spirit, I believe it's an objective statement to say, in the spirit of HUD and the Fair Housing Act, the idea is to spread affordable housing all throughout the city, as you acknowledged. And so I don't want to see, you know, affordable housing condensed only in one area, you know, not because -- well, I won't mention why not, but I'll just say because, you know, HUD was created -- at the time it was created, one of the intentions wasn't just about housing people, it was about desegregation, and that was the express purpose of HUD and the Affordable Housing Act, and when we, you know, agree to, as a city, to take CDBG funds, we're agreeing to the principle of affirmatively -- >> Furthering -- >> Yeah, affirmatively -- >> Furthering fair housing. >> Furthering -- furthering fair -- that's almost a tongue twister -- affirmatively furthering fair housing, which means, by definition, under the Fair Housing Act, part of it is that distribution. So I think that, you know, part of the problem is that because it's so limited to single-family homes owned by the occupant, and because the budget is limited, I mean, I feel like that's what prevents it from being expanded really fully to other parts of town. So I really hope to see, in the future, it expanded both in scope and in budget so that we can truly -- so that we don't end up with affordable housing being built only on the other side of the tracks, and that's not to -- no disrespect to Habitat and the amazing things that they do to help beautify and make people homeowners is wonderful. I want to see more Habitat all over town is what I'm saying. So I would like to request a staff -- on a related note, staff report on what city-owned properties we have that could -- you know, in residential areas that could potentially be used for affordable housing, if any. >> Councilmember Hussbett. >> Thank you. And so, Councilmember Meltzer, to answer your question, there's -- it's historical knowledge, right? There's seven or eight acres right next to the rail trail that were donated to them. And the first thing I anticipate is going to happen is this is going to be applied in that area only for expediency. And I just don't think that's the right thing to do. I don't think it's right to take this area and say, hey, this is the land we have, we need to act on it, and we're going to apply these funds to that. And it is just eight acres right on top of each other, not even a block apart. And I get it, and I understand the need, and I get it that it's a great product. I just don't want to incentivize that behavior. I just -- and so that's my vision for what's going to happen is if this passes. >> Councilmember Meltzer, you had a request to speak? >> Yeah, I'd like to -- and if he's amenable, I'd like to invite the Executive Director of Habitat -- >> We've got some speakers. He's one of them. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. So I'll just comment that perhaps he can address how -- respond to this issue when he speaks. >> All right. Staff presentation? Do you have more? >> No, sir. >> Okay. All right. Good. Okay. I see no more questions. We'll call the speakers. Michelle Conner, if you'll come down and state your name and address, your time will begin. >> My name is Michelle Conner, and I actually live in Argyle, but I listed the Denton business address. I'm the CEO of Grace Lightgrain here in Denton. And I am very much in favor of the fees -- or having assistance for the fees for nonprofits that are developing and building affordable housing. So I'll start by saying that. I would also like to see it include the possibility of new construction for rental properties. And the reason being is -- well, one, I'm passing out right now. We just acquired 16 acres of land through a gift from a community member that we plan to develop probably around between 50 to 60 individual homes between two to four-bedroom homes. And the purpose of this is to build affordable rental homes between 450 to 550 a month, so very, very affordable for our families to come in and live with a graduated case management plan of up to about five years. And the hope is that when a family comes in, they're working with a case manager, they're working on budgeting, they're working on life skills, and they're graduating through this program in the hopes that in the future they're becoming homeowners, because they've been given five years of a very affordable rent rate with case management and financial planning so that they can hopefully take 10 -- in reality, they could hopefully save between 10 to $20,000 over the five years that they can turn around and invest into homeownership and be set up in a better place to be able to own a home. So basically, I'm very much in favor of it, but I wanted to put this in front of you because I do believe that rental properties would be great to just be included in the fact that they will lead to homeownership in the future. Councilmember Armitage. So as I understand it, so 60 homes, around 60 homes, and these are not -- you're not talking about a big skyscraper apartment building. These are homes. Yes, so they are individual homes, anywhere between 800 to 1,300 square foot, two-bedroom, one-bath, three-bedroom, two-bath, and four-bedroom, two-bath. And I was wondering, could you speak to -- and maybe you don't know off the top of your head, but, you know, what the -- or roughly what the cost of total costs are per home of the permits that you're going to be paying? I wish I could speak to that. I can't yet. We were just gifted the land about two weeks ago, and so we are -- we should have a site plan for this particular site by the beginning of April, and then hopefully moving forward with pricing and all that on the individual homes and developing it out into phases so that we have better development costs in the next couple of months. So we were working on another piece of property, but this one came into play. Yeah, and congratulations, by the way, and that's a wonderful gift, whoever made it. And I'm glad you came out to speak, because I don't know if you could speak to the amount of time you think that it might take to kind of acquire the money that you need to get this rolling, or are you still totally understandable? You've just been given this gift. We've just been given this gift. We've been talking about it for about three years, though, and so we are building traction. We've only been around for three years, and we've grown substantially in three years, so I know that anything's possible. But I would say three to five years, ten, depending on how many phases, but I would say we would have a good substantial amount, 30 to 40 homes, within the next three to five years. Yeah. Excellent. Thank you so much, and congratulations. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. John Montoya, if you'll come down, state your name and address. Your time will begin. Good evening, and John Montoya, address 3113 Briery Trace Court, Denton, Texas. First of all, I'd just like to thank counsel for really going through and doing the hard work and getting into this, and your passion for really moving forward and serving families that are struggling right now to find affordable housing is immense, and I've worked with you individually and discussed this with you, and I really feel like this is something that is just the start of something great, this initial step, and just very grateful, and I speak for many families and say thank you for what you're doing. And just like to address any questions or concerns, first of all, with regard to the centralization or focus of housing and what the impact of that is, and actually, you know, there's a question that I have is really as to what's the concern with the centralization or focus of housing? Is that with regard to the houses themselves, or are there other issues that can be resolved, like say in the design of homes, maybe varying designs of homes, maybe, you know, structurally, we can probably develop a system that would potentially solve the issue if there is a problem with centralization beyond just a total block toward, you know, developing any number of homes in a certain area, and I've had the opportunity to take you through and tour one of our homes, and I really enjoyed that, by the way, Councilman Huntsman, and I really want to stress the fact that we are building quality homes that are going to withstand 140-mile-per-hour winds that are going to be there for many, many years for these families. We have yet to have a foundation issue with any of our homes. That's because we put a lot of work into those foundations, and that's really the essence of what we do figuratively and literally. We build foundations for families to build on and build a future for. So, and I know you're in support of the mission, and I just want to understand what the concern is about centralization, so if we can potentially resolve that, you know, I believe it's something that we could resolve. I just need to know what the main issue is with regard to the centralization of those homes. I'll let you speak, and then I'll push the button and get in there. Okay, okay. And essentially, I just want to make sure and stress the fact that if we were limited with regard to the centralization factor, if we were limited and not able to build in certain areas over others, the cost would be astronomical if we had to move outside, and there would be essentially no way for us to afford to build these homes if we had to build in other parts of Denton or in more costly parts of Denton. So we would not be able to access most of these funds, if not all of these funds, if we were really forced to restrict our area. All right. Thank you. And we've got another public speaker, so I want to run through the public speaker before we take staff questions. Thank you so much. Thank you, John. The next speaker is Daniel Gillen? Gillen. Gillen, okay. Come on down and state your name and address, and your time will begin, Daniel. My name is Dan Gillen, and I'm at 525 Fort Worth Drive in Texas, and I'm new to Habitat for Humanity as far as donating and volunteering my time, but I went to their groundbreaking today, and it moved me. Seeing the families, seeing their support, I don't think it's like every other development, I don't think it should be treated like every other development. I think they're doing, as I get from a construction standpoint, they're doing solid work. I think the homes would be, you know, addition to any neighborhood and add quality to it. So I just, you know, invite you all to go out and see it, because I saw it today, and it changed my whole night. I ended up here. So I think it will change y'all's day if you all go out and see what they're doing for the community. I think it's adding a big plus no matter where you build these houses, and I think they deserve a little extra break from all the other developers, because, you know, they're helping -- they have a good cause. It's not like they're just after a paycheck. They're here to help the community, you know. Buying a house nowadays is hard. The market's expensive, you know. So I think it's hard for anybody, and I think everybody deserves a home. So if you can help them in any way, it would, you know, mean a lot to me. It means a lot to these families. I think you all should come out and see it if you haven't, you know. So just wanted to be here to support them. Are there any questions for Daniel? Okay. Thank you. Well, I didn't know if -- you have a question for -- okay, go ahead. Yeah, so you mentioned -- so you do roofing. Mm-hmm. And so, you know, if you could just comment on what in particular you've noticed, because I know I've noticed when I've been in habitat homes, one in the heat of summer, and I forget what number home it was in '97, '90, something like that, but the Central AC hadn't even been put in yet. Mm-hmm. I think there was a ceiling fan going, and you could just feel how well insulated it is. Mm-hmm. So if you could -- I don't know if you could comment on, you know, maybe kind of one detail of something you've noticed, because I noticed, wow, this is better insulated than my -- Yeah. -- my home. And I think, you know, I'm not up to par with all their specs on their building, you know, because I am new to their program, but, I mean, I think if you just see the love that they put into it, they're obviously thinking of the homeowner in mind, and they're thinking of, you know, keeping the cost of the utilities down and everything. I mean, we're trying to build homes for people to afford them, so you obviously have to have them properly insulated and stuff, you know, to be able to do that. And that's just something of the future. Insulation and everything is going up as well in code. So, I mean, homes are better insulated now. It's keeping the cost of living down. I think it's just a great all-around organization to help better -- I've lived in Dent my entire life, and this is my first city council meeting and first time to get involved with Habitat for Humanity, so it's really changed, you know, my perspective on a lot of things. So I think it would change a lot of people's, too, give a lot of people opportunities as well. Well, thanks for coming in. And I'm really moved that you decided to come and prompt you and speak. And thank you. Thank you. It's been a lot. Any other questions for the speaker? Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you, Dan. You bet. Those are all the cards that I have, so we'll go ahead and take staff, I mean, council discussion and then move forward from there. Council Member Hesbeth. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah. So succinctly -- and can I invite John back up? Is that okay or is it closed? No, no, yeah, that's fine. I'll take your guidance on that. Yeah, no, it's fine. I guess what I want to try to understand is if there's going to be some kind of negotiation here at the dais and at the podium about what would make you feel comfortable, I would really like for that to maybe occur -- hear some of it, but most of that to maybe occur offline, just because this is obviously a very long, detailed conversation that the two of you could have in general. And we've got a motion in a second. I don't know what that means. So yeah, if you just want to make a couple of big points, then that would be something that he could be able to talk about or to think about and then y'all get together. Certainly. Yeah, and I'm certain -- I have a hunch I'm outside looking in, you know, and that's fine. I just have a different look at it. Born and raised in that neighborhood. And so to answer the question, I think the houses are outstanding. I think they're well-built. I think the love that goes into them is identifiable. I think it's a knowledge base. I think that's the biggest thing that goes missed is if you're looking to do work at your home, you can volunteer at Habitat and have -- build and learn a knowledge base to make your individual home better. And so it serves in that capacity as well. Succinctly. I think everyone talks about how important diversity is and everyone to a person has come up and said how great the houses are, but yet 99.99% of them are in one neighborhood. So if they're great, then why aren't they everywhere? And I think that is the essence. And I think the people you serve as your -- that community should be shared throughout the community. And so I'll put it in a story best I can that I've been telling the story. It stuck with me since I got my driver's license. So I'll leave it with you and we'll talk offline. But I don't want it to ever be personal. It's not show friends, it's show business. And so I want you to know you're doing great things. I think you're still going to get your grant. I think I'm still going to have 99.99% of your product in my neighborhood. Happy to have it. But I want to explain to you where I'm coming from because I think you deserve it. So when I went to go take my driver's license test back at, you know, 16, 17, went to UPS -- went to DPS there and we drive around the neighborhood around there off of Luke 28. And we come to an intersection, four-way intersection. The officer -- the trooper that is with me, you know, we get back, we go through there, we get back and he explains that he took off points for that four-way intersection. So he said you made a complete stop and there was no stop sign. So he was biased against me. Not malicious, just biased. And it was because his neighborhood, I assume, wasn't different, right? And so here's the story. I went to that intersection. I know the rule. The rule is no stop sign, it's a yield. But where I grew up, stop sign used to be there, someone stole it and it's in their house. The neighborhood he grew up in, it's purposely left off. He's grading me based on his experience. His experience was not diversified. Mine, I've seen a ton of stop signs in people's houses. And so I'm getting negatively affected because of his life experience. And I think everyone deserves to experience the clientele you serve. And this dais talks about how important it is to be diversified. But they don't -- I absolutely agree with you. It would be costly. And I'm telling you right now, you hold me accountable. One, you can talk to any developer I've talked to and they'll tell you I mention you all the time. But in addition to that, the budget's coming up. I'll give you money. I'll give you money to put it in a different area. Because I think it's important. Now, I don't know if you can find four people to say that, but I'm telling you as one, I absolutely agree with you and I'll absolutely run over that barrier and vote to allocate extra money to help you find property, do a land swap, whatever it takes. But I'm trying to tell you, if you want to know the answer, it's because when I was 16, something happened to me that just stuck with me to this day. >> Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Briggs. >> I have a question for Danny or Sarah about this. We heard Michelle from Grace Lake Rain speaking. I've been going through the different sections of the requirements and the guidelines, and I see where it talks about homeowners for CDBG and home funds, which was the added thing, but I don't see where it would prohibit a non-profit developer from building transitional houses as long as it wasn't multi-family. Am I missing something? >> No, we're using home ownership as the definition, though, so it would not include transitional, temporary, or any kind of rental at this point. >> Even though it's a non-profit developing houses? >> Right. We had previously included it as a consideration for Denton Affordable Housing Corp as well, but because of the scope and our ability to manage the scope of compliance on all of those properties and your recommendations to keep it limited scope as well from the budget you were able to provide, it just made more sense to limit it at this point until we can get a better handle on what it's going to take capacity-wise to manage that. >> So we heard maybe development two years to three years, so do you think a year of this program, as is May, would be good enough to understand what you could add and what you couldn't? >> Yes, we would have an understanding of how many people or how many organizations considering it's probably just habitat to take advantage of it and how many houses we could monitor and comply with over that because we're recommending a 10-year period, so we're adding additional contracts that we would have to monitor over that long term, so that is new work that our department would have to manage. >> Okay. >> But we would be able to give you an idea of what we can manage with current capacity and propose additional should you want to expand the program. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Mayor Pro Tem. >> Thank you, Mayor. As I recall from when we had the work session on this, we had the discussion about nonprofits and the potential of helping them and the discussion was we have limited budget at this point in time. I was all in favor of allowing nonprofits to do it for rental property that would stay under their control. I would ask that the motioner, when they do make their motion, if they would accept a somewhat of a friendly amendment to bring this back to us in one year with the data that has happened over the course of that year so we can evaluate it at that time. As far as the concerns of one of my fellow council members of diversity, obviously that's going to be in play for ranking, so to speak, but for any developer, any individual nonprofit who gets a parcel of land, eight acres, 16 acres, what have you, just like a for-profit developer, you're not going to develop two homes here and then start another project over here. You're going to finish out that area, then get your next project. So I'm fine with the way that it is currently with us, but I would ask that we do revisit this in a year when we have some more data on it. >> Thank you. >> Councilmember Armitage. >> Yeah, so I wanted to kind of follow up on Councilmember Hudspeth's comment and synthesize that with Councilmember Ryan's, because I agree with both the imperative of putting quality affordable housing throughout the city, which I think we have to agree to that because it's a condition of being a recipient of CDBG funds, and I agree with what you said, and what the representative from Habitat has said that the barrier is the cost of it for a nonprofit. And to go back to, I wanted to thank Councilmember Hudspeth for mentioning that the city can provide that funding if we choose to do so. Obviously, that's not what's being decided today, but I'm mentioning this because this is part of my consideration in thinking about the potential for a plan like this moving forward. As you mentioned before, what would have to be done for that is an assessment of our housing needs citywide, which I had been under the, I guess, false impression that that had been happening already. I look forward to that happening. I'm going to request that again, but I hope that moving forward that we think about what we, the city, can do to remove other obstacles to affordable housing, these permits and fees. I mean, it's a big part of it, but again, I mean, Habitat, just to use as an example, doesn't have the money. I mean, it costs so much just to build the homes, right, on the land that you are going to all build them on this property that you have. It would, I think, take a gesture. Somebody like the city, an anonymous benefactor, you know, but we, the city, can do what these anonymous, maybe not anonymous, anonymous to me anyway, benefactors are doing. We can, and I think that I learned so much from watching our nonprofits and seeing what they do for affordable housing. And for me, it's an example for us. We, the city, can follow and take their lead and can do what they do. We certainly, we have a lot more money than they do. We own a lot more land than they do. So I hope moving forward that we start thinking in this way. Okay. Yeah. Just for historical context, we had a program similar to this before 2008 recession hit. We sort of just dropped it. I mean, it just never got reallocated, is that correct? Yeah, we're actually not quite sure of what happened along the way. It's been so long. But there was no additional request at some point, and so it was not refunded. Okay. This is a great start. I mean, this is something that we didn't have before, and I understand the concern with rental housing, but I think what's important is we can look at this in a year because when you open it up to that, it's not just limited to one or two. You've got a lot of organizations that can come in, and so it's going to take a very intentional deliberation on our part to understand all the data and all the facts, but I think we're taking a great first step here to do something. And every good thing, every great thing starts with the first step. So I appreciate staff's work on this. I appreciate all the comments here regarding all the different issues. So I will recognize Councilmember Meltzer. Yeah, I see this also as a first step. I don't see waiting a year. I'll be asking for a work session on a comprehensive low-income housing strategy, and we can start from our known waiting lists for low-income housing as a proxy for demand, looking at all of the potential tools in the toolbox to borrow staff's phrase, potentially even including land swaps to achieve deconcentration. So that having been said, I motion approval of this first step. Councilmember Briggs. I'll second. We have a motion and a second on the board. Councilmember Barmintra, we're going to go ahead and close the discussion. We're going to go ahead and vote on the board. I was going to make my friends, is this where I make my friendly amendment? Oh, this friendly amendment, yes, go ahead. Yeah, so I wanted to make a friendly amendment to include homes that are for rent. The reason that I'm moving for this as it is, is it's been vetted and sized. I'm absolutely for evaluating all of the items that we've discussed, but it's not on the fly. We need to know what do they cost, and that's what I'm saying. I'm not for waiting a year, but if you want to move it as an amendment to vote on, that's fine. Yeah, and obviously the budget would need to be expanded accordingly, but that could be decided on later. So my friendly amendment stands. Okay, well, what I've heard was Councilmember Meltzer would not accept your friendly amendment, is that correct? Right, not accept it as a friendly amendment, in other words, but if you want to move it as an amendment to be voted on, that's another option. Okay, so now your option is? Yeah, so then I withdraw what I say, I withdraw the friendly amendment and move. Yeah, you would make an amendment to the motion as you stated, and then someone would have to second it, and then we would vote on it. Yeah, so I move for an amendment as stated, do I need to repeat that? Yeah, as to include rental homes by non-profits, affordable rental homes by non-profits, and to, at a later date, increase the budget accordingly. Okay, we have a motion, is there a second? Is there a second on the amendment? One more call, is there a second on the amendment? The amendment dies for lack of a second. We have a motion and a second for approval of agenda item, I forgot what it was, 5B, as presented by staff, is that correct? Yes. And you did second it, didn't you, Council Member Briggs, you did state the second? I did, as a first step with the intention to take this discussion further. Okay, you bet. Okay, let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries, 6-1. Let's take a quick five or ten minute break. Welcome back, everyone, to this meeting of the Denton City Council on March the 19th, 2019. It is about 8.15. We're moving through our, I think we're now on our public hearing agenda. Let me get to that. All right, our first item for public hearings is agenda item 6A, hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton adopting standards of care for recreational care programs administered by Denton's Park and Recreation Department as required by Texas Human Resource Code Section 42.041. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Caroline Seward. I'm the program area manager for Denton Parks and Rec. This year, the Texas Department of Regulatory Services requires municipalities to adopt an ordinance approving the standards of care for specific types of programming. The standards of care are requirements that either meet or exceed the state daycare licensing requirements. And we use these for the operation of our summer camps and after school programs. Wow. I think every public hearing is going to be this quick. Thank you so much. There's no questions Councilmember Briggs. I move to approve. Mayor Pro Tem. Did we open and close the public? No, we didn't. So never mind. So I got so excited about it being such a quick presentation. I failed to open the public hearing. So I will open the public hearing on agenda item 6A. Is there anybody wishing to speak on agenda item 6A? You do not have to fill out a card. So anybody wishing to speak on agenda item 6A, come on down and state your name and address and your time will begin. Anybody wishing to speak? Okay, I will now close the public hearing. Thank you so much, Mayor Pro Tem, for that reminder. Mayor Pro Tem, recognize you? I will second. All right. We have a motion and a second for agenda item 6A. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries, 7-0. Thank you very much. All right, we'll move on to agenda item 6B, which is hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance approving a specific use permit to allow for an accessory dwelling unit behind an existing residence on approximately .5374 of an acre. The property is generally located on the south side of Robert Street. And so I don't make the same mistake again. I will now open the public hearing and we'll have staff presentation and then public comments. All right. Good evening, Mayor and members of council. My name is Sean Jacobson, Assistant Planner. The project before you tonight is S19-0001. This is a request for a specific use permit for an accessory dwelling unit behind an existing residence on roughly .5 acre at 606 Robert Street. The project in question is a cabana behind a residence next to a pool. And because it has living, sleeping, eating, cooking quarters, it qualifies as an accessory dwelling unit, which in the NR3 zoning district requires a specific use permit. We have approval criteria for a specific use permit. It looks at does it meet the zoning standards in the area, which in this case you can have an ADU if you have that SUP in the NR3 zoning district. And then the remaining criteria relate to compatibility. Does what's being proposed match the building it's next to, the property it's on, and the neighborhood? We have assessed this proposal against all of those criteria and it has met them. And I'll specifically note that the design of the cabana was very much in keeping with the home in front of it. And it also fit the neighborhood well. Accessory buildings are common in the neighborhood. This fits the pattern there. We also sent out letters to the 200-foot radius and courtesy postcards to the 500-foot radius. At this time, we've received four responses, all in support. And you'll note on the map there, they're the neighbors on each side adjacent. So the four folks most directly affected support this. The applicant also hosted a neighborhood meeting, which I attended. The neighbors present all strongly supported this. One neighbor even said this will enhance our neighborhood. P&Z voted 7-0 to recommend approval, and because it does meet our criteria, staff recommends approval. With that, any questions? And I believe the applicant is here as well. Okay, you bet. Councilmember Armitage. So first of all, I want to comment that I was just flipping through the photographs of this home and what a gorgeous, really special, modern home. I'm totally in support of this, but I want to add, I think it's silly that we even have to go through this process for an accessory dwelling unit. I wish that the property owner didn't have to go through all this just to put a structure in their yard. And I hope, you know, moving forward, I look forward as we move forward with the new codes to see people not having to go through such hurdles. You know, it just so happens that this is a gorgeous home, and it was a pleasure for me to look through it. But I can probably guess it probably wasn't so much a pleasure for, you know, to have to go through all this process just to do something in their own backyard that they own. So I just wanted to comment on that. And that's all really. All right. Councilmember Husband. Yeah, just briefly along the same lines. I just appreciate the homeowner going through the process. I mean, that means a lot. You know, there's, there's, so I'll just leave it at that. I'm grateful. Absolutely. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Thank you. Appreciate it. We do have a card wishing to speak. Lee Allison says you're the applicant. But not the owner. Right. Come down and state your name and address. Your time will begin. Let me figure out how to get out of here. Okay. All right. Good evening. Lee Allison with Allison Engineering Group 2415 North Elm Street, Denton, Texas. With me this evening are the property owners, Frank Early and Anthony Marks. And they've asked that I make an opening statement. And I'm going to start by going to a photograph from 1950, the very front of the house. And they have indicated that in 2016, they commissioned a Denton-born Dallas-based architect, Michael Gooden, and his firm, M. Gooden Design, to imagine a project for the property, the goals of which were to add a third bedroom and additional outdoor entertaining space. And to do so, while complementing the original 1950 home without impinging on its structure. Mr. Gooden, an award-winning young architect in the mold of the home's original designers, answered with a striking plan for a new pool, deck, and guest house. As one neighbor testified at the planning and zoning hearing for the SUP, it is as if the master plan of that lot has finally been revealed, 70 years after the main house was built. Sean gave a great job explaining the background and technical information. And I wanted to have a little fun, because when I went to the neighborhood meeting and walked up to the front door, I thought, wow, this is exactly like the rendering of what the pool house looks like. And this is what I saw. And you can see a beautiful entry. Everything is essentially the same as what the original was, except for maybe some additional landscaping. And I came in a little closer and saw the sconces that were added, much like we see here at the city hall. Then we go to the backyard, the same thing continuing again. They've added the pool. They've put rectangular stripes around there that match kind of the theme of the house and the way it's done. Then this is the architect's rendering. And you can see the light theme continuing forward. The architect saves the same, which helps maintain the integrity and the character of this particular lot, as it has been in this neighborhood since 1950. I do want to point out that as an accessory building, it is allowed to go within five feet of the back fence. Yet there's no windows on the back, so you can't see out to the neighbors. And there's no second story for someone to get out and look down. Interestingly, they could have come in and built an attached suite to the house and not had to go through this process. But that would have affected the integrity of the external architecture of the existing building. This preserved it, extended it further, and as I mentioned earlier, it kind of completes the master plan for this. And I know it's long, and this is a good fun one, but we'll just go on to any questions if you might have them. And I appreciate your time this evening. Any questions? Seeing none. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And this is a public hearing. No card is required. Anybody else wishing to speak? Come on down and state your name and address. Your time will begin. Anybody else wishing to speak? Okay. We'll now close the public hearing. Councilmember Briggs. It's a beautiful house with a beautiful dwelling unit, and so I move approval. Councilmember Meltzer, did you have a comment? I just want to know if I can rent the ARU. Let me know later. Okay. Councilmember Husspeth. Second. We have a motion and a second. Before we vote, Sean, was this your first presentation before, Council? Great job. Fantastic. Wonderful job. Thank you. Okay. So we have a motion and a second for approval. Let's vote on the board, please. Passes 7-0. Thank you very much. Thank you. You bet. We'll move on to agenda item 6C, hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, approving a specific use permit to allow for a vehicle repair use on approximately .57 acre site, generally located on the south side of East McKinney Street, approximately 135 feet west of Oakland. And I will now open the public hearing, and we'll have a staff presentation and then take any questions, and then move to public comment. All right. Good evening. Haley Zagorski with the Planning Department. So the request before you is to consider adoption of an ordinance to allow a specific use permit for a vehicle repair use. The property is actually located just across the street from City Hall on the south side of McKinney Street. It's just over a half acre in size. The zoning of this property is DCG, so the auto repair use is only permitted with a specific use permit in that district. This request is a little unique and actually initiated as a code violation case for a business operating without a certificate of occupancy. So over the past year and a half or so, staff has worked with the applicant to determine what could be done to bring the site more into compliance with the code and to move this SUP forward. So there are a few items that the site currently doesn't comply with in our zoning code, the use requirement being for most of those. Next would be screening at the right-of-way. They do have a vehicle storage area, as you see on their site plan, that we'll look at in a moment, so they're not in compliance with the screening requirements for storage from the right-of-way. They are proposing a wood fence in front of that storage area that would bring them into compliance. The site is required a minimum of 15 percent landscape area per the zoning. They currently don't have that, but with the addition of a landscape buffer that they're proposing on the southern side of the property, they would come in at 16.8 percent. There's also a minimum 20 percent tree canopy requirement in the DCG district. Currently, there are no trees on site, so with what they're proposing to plant in their buffer, they would come closer to that and be at approximately 10 percent. And then finally, there are no street trees on the property. As I'm sure you're aware, there's existing sidewalk and paving up to the street there, so they're not proposing any street trees at this time. As Sean went through, there are extensive criteria for approval for an SUP generally related to compatibility with surrounding properties, so I won't enumerate these, but they are outlined here in case we need to go through them. So looking at their site plan, the area in blue is the portion of the property that this use occupies. It's about 600 square feet, located behind the new taco shop that you are probably familiar with there. As I mentioned, they are proposing a fence to help screen the vehicle storage area that's outlined in orange on this map, and then they are proposing to add a type C buffer. This is required between commercial and residential uses. There's multi-family to the south, so they're willing to install that buffer to come into compliance. Staff additionally recommends that that buffer be extended up the eastern property line due to complaints voiced by the neighbors regarding noise and just general kind of nuisances from the property. So we felt that over time, the addition of those trees could help screen that for that use as well. Looking at the future land use for this area, downtown Denton calls for a high-density residential mixed-use area. Although this use may not be the one you would typically see in downtown, it is necessary for a full-service area for people that want to live, work, and play all in downtown. Some other analysis, staff did dig into the history of this site to see if it could be deemed a non-conforming use or a special exception. It did not meet those criteria because the use hasn't been in continual operation, although as far as we could tell, it did first serve as a gas station back in the '70s. So it's been similar uses over time, just not consistently. There is no additional parking required on the site, since this is within our central business district. The site in total has nine spaces for the three uses that are there, secondhand sports, the auto repair use, and the restaurant. Two of those are called out on the site plan specifically for this use, as well as the large storage area for the vehicles that are being worked on. So as I mentioned, the site today may not be entirely compatible with surrounding uses, but some of the improvements they're proposing and that staff is recommending would bring the site further into compliance with the code. Notification was sent out. We did receive three responses, two in opposition, one in favor. The opposition totals 12%. The applicant did not hold a neighborhood meeting in this case. So staff is recommending approval with several conditions that the Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended. So the first of those is that the use be limited to the 600 square feet shown on the site plan. The second be that all customer vehicles located at this facility and stored either for repair or pickup following repair be kept behind that wood fence within the gravel storage area indicated on the plan. Third being that the six foot wood screening fence shown on the plan be installed and maintained so long as this use is located on the property, unless the vehicle storage area is paved and striped to bring it into compliance with our parking lot regulations. Fourth be that the type C landscape buffer shown on the site plan along the southern property line be installed and maintained in accordance with our landscape code. In addition, that that landscape buffer be installed also along the eastern property line along the existing wood fence up to the southern edge of that building. And then additionally, within that buffer, we are proposing that the deciduous ornamental trees that they show on the plan be replaced with either medium or large canopy trees from our site design criteria manual to further add to the tree canopy on site and bring them closer to that 20% requirement. Fifth, no storage or inoperable vehicles be located on the property. And then finally, that failure to adhere to these conditions would result in revocation of the SUP. And with that, I'm happy to stand for any questions. Councilmember Riggs. Sorry, I'm trying to see the the opposition, did they the the people that opposed, did they give any reason why or was it just one of the oppositions was the the property here to the east of them expressed concerns about noise coming from the property. The other opposition at the corner of Austin and McKinney did not provide any explanation on their response. Okay. And it's my understanding that you said this came out of a zoning issue or not come? Yes, it was a code compliance case for operating without a CEO. Do we know how long they were operating with a CEO? I believe it's been about a year and a half, a year and a half. Yeah, that case originated in 2017. Okay. But did I see in the backup and the questions that a process did begin, though, for a CEO or an SUP or something? Correct. After they were aware of the violation, they applied for a CEO. But we couldn't issue that without the SUP being in place. So over the last year and a half, there have been a couple of SUP applications that haven't been followed through with. This is the third attempt. And finally, we're here tonight. So we're finishing it up. Okay. Thank you. I was going to ask about the opposition, too, but will we be hearing from the applicant? Well, we're fixing to call the public speaker. So yeah, if they're here, then we'll hear from them. Okay. My question is for the applicant. Yeah. Okay. All right. Any other questions for staff? All right. Thank you. So this is a public hearing. I don't have any cards, which is okay. You don't have to have a card. But this is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak, just come on down, state your name and address and your time will begin. Is there anybody here representing the project? Is there anybody here representing the project? All right. Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no movement, we will now close the public hearing. Any questions for staff? Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mayor. I did have a question on the recommendations number three. If they do put up the fence, the wooden fence, why would we say if you pave it, now you can take it down? I mean, to me, it's a nice screening aspect to that area to just require. If it were paved and striped as a parking lot, screening would not technically be required by the code. It's only because it's an unimproved gravel surface and that they're storing vehicles there rather than it actually being an improved and landscaped parking lot that the screening is required. Okay. And was the applicant okay with that aspect of it? In other words, if we struck the second half of that unless they pave it and just had it as a permanent item that they were required to keep that in place? Yeah. It's my understanding that they fully intend to construct the fence and keep it there. We did talk through within the options of paving the parking lot and they didn't seem interested in doing that. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Meltzer? Yeah, the question I originally had for the applicant, because I don't know if we have the insight really, is just whether we learned anything about the SUP process itself with all the stop and starts, whether there's something onerous or unclear that made it difficult for the applicant to follow through that maybe can help us improve the process, if that sounds like too far off topic. Well, do you have any brief, I think we can ask for some historical context of this project as far as the SUP process and if there were things that created those obstacles. Certainly. So I did provide a brief timeline in your backup. I don't recall the exact dates. I can pull those up. The first SUP application came soon after the violation, and at that point they initiated the application online but never provided documents for us to review, so eventually we closed that and informed them that they would have to start over. The second application, they submitted documents. We gave comments and never received response to those and weren't able to get in contact with them. So after the 45-day period that state law allows, we informed them that we were closing the application due to inactivity. So I don't want to be the dead horse, but is it possible that it's not as clear as we think that you have to provide documents? We know and maybe it says it, but you know what I mean? I get the feeling of miscommunication opportunities that we think are clear and maybe aren't clear to the applicant, like that you have to provide documents, that this is the only case I've ever seen like this, so maybe I'm off base, but it just seems like an opportunity to ask. It's not unusual, and I don't think we can really question their motivation, but there have been other cases like this throughout the city and we've generally worked with folks to get them into compliance, and there's probably been three or four of these in the last year. This is just one of them that had to go through the SUP process, but typically we will run across folks that just go into a building, don't get the CO, we don't know they're there until somebody turns them in, they're in an improperly zoned area, and we try to work with them the best we can to make sure that they know what the rules are. I don't think we're able right now to articulate on their motivations and whether they understand things. Yeah, that's what I'd hope to ask them. Thanks. Councilman Barmichael? I'll just mention that cost of the CO application, you need to put down money to apply, so maybe that was an issue too, was there a payment made until now? I'm guessing no, or was there previously? There is a fee for an SUP application, so they did pay that fee, I believe in the last two instances. I don't think they ever paid for the first initial application. Okay, yes, yes, okay, thanks. Mr. City Manager, it bothers me that they're not here, so I'll get that out there, so whenever they watch this, so they'll know, but what is your sense of their engagement or work with staff? Because then, projecting forward, if future neighborhood complaints arise, do you find them to be responsive, or does it give you concern? Because I don't want to move forward and kind of authorize something that then becomes problematic down the road. While we have their complete attention is the time to address that. Again, I'm not sure, it appears they've been cooperative at this point, there's lots of questions about whether these businesses will stay in the place they're in, we've seen occasions where folks don't own the buildings, and they're rented out, not complying with the zoning process or obtaining the proper COs, so there's so many variables, Council Member Hadsworth, I really don't think that we could accurately portray the situation, but I will just tell you that there's just times we run across instances where the property owners are running out to tenants and they don't really think about the zoning issue, they just want the client in there, and then it'll typically come across because one of the neighbors will bring it to our attention, and we'll follow up almost every time we get compliance from the property owners. Okay, thank you. - Council Member Armitage. - Question, procedural question, would it be possible, I'm just curious about the possibility to postpone until the applicant could be here to answer questions, just asking. - You can absolutely do that if you want. - Yeah, then I would like to move to postpone to a date when the applicant can be here, so we don't have to play detective, and it would help us make our decision, certainly. - City manager, we'll make a motion to postpone, city manager, city attorney, sorry. I'm not sure if that's, nevermind. Do we need to, how do we do, we got a choice between a date certain and an event certain, is that correct? - Yes, that is correct. - And if we're asking that the applicant be here, it seems like it would be easier to give them a date certain, in other words, we're going to postpone to this date, and we would like for you to be here, is that, because what would the event be? I don't know what the event would be, they show up, but we don't know if they're gonna show up. - It would probably be, you're correct, I think actually tying to a specific date that we can at least let the applicant know that this is the date to show up, and that would be a little bit more definitive than whenever he or she, the applicant decides that they want to show up to a meeting. - And we certainly can communicate to them that there were some questions of the applicant, and since they weren't present, we postponed it and would highly encourage them to be here, it would be very helpful. So council member Armitter, is it okay to do it to a date certain, and if so, what date would you like? - Yeah, I don't have a particular date in mind, I mean, I would hope that, I mean, if the date we happen to choose is a date that they have a wedding to go to, you know, I would hate for something like that to happen, so I'll leave that to somebody else to suggest it, and someone could pick a date at random, and I'll agree. - Next week, if there's room, then next week, next Tuesday, whatever the date is, if there's room on the agenda. - We could certainly place on the agenda next week, and if there's, they're unable to make it, I suppose we can defer this to the attorney or continue another week. - It really depends, I mean, we can certainly do that, I guess the only question I'm going to have with this is, and before a vote is taken, because it's been first and seconded, is the public hearing going to be closed so that this just becomes an IC item, as opposed to continuing the public hearing? - I think I close the public hearing. - Okay, that answers my question. - Close the public hearing. - Okay, so we had a motion from Council Member Armitage to postpone this to a date certain, which is next week, which the date of that is? What is that? - Tuesday. - The 26th. - March 26th, Tuesday, March 26th. I don't think I've recognized the second, seconder, that's an interesting word, but Council Member Hussbett. - Yes, I'll second that. - Okay. Mayor Pro Tem? - Thank you, Mayor. I believe next Tuesday would be a non-630 meeting, it'll be a continuation. So I would probably recommend that we went to an April 2nd where they have a specific time that we would probably be hearing the item. - Okay. - Okay. - Council Member Armitage, is that okay with you? - Yeah, that's a good point, so I change that to April 2nd. - All right. All right. Council Member Hussbett? - No, yeah. - Okay. I'll take him from the seconder and let's see if there's anybody else that wants to do it. Okay, we have a motion in a second to postpone to a date certain of April 2nd, I believe. Council Member Briggs? - Is the business able to operate while this process is going on, or have they? - They are currently operating. Staff wants to get them into compliance ASAP, so yeah, we have moved forward with them in good faith, I think is the best way to put it. - Okay. Thank you. - Okay. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries. - Point of order. We're not really voting on what it says. - Yeah, we're voting for a motion to postpone. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Agenda item 6D, hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance regarding a detailed plan for a 2.96 acre parcel located within the Plan Development Zoning District or PD 176. - All right. - And I will go ahead and open the public hearing. - All right. Very good. All right. So the request before you is to consider adoption of an ordinance for a detailed plan within Plan Development 176, otherwise known as Wheeler Ridge. The detailed plan is to depict a storage warehouse or self-storage use on a parcel that is just under three acres. You can see the property outlined in yellow on the map. It's located on the west side of FM 2499. So as I mentioned, the current property of the zoning is PD 176. This PD was first approved in October of 1999. At that time, the PD ordinance dictated that it would contain a maximum of 628 residential units and designated two tracks within the property for a total of 16 acres of commercial development. So PDs are a two-step process in the city of Denton. The first is the approval of a concept plan that determines what can go where within the PD. That was approved in 1999 with that initial ordinance. The second step to that process is the detailed plan that dictates how those particular uses will be developed. So that's site design, landscaping, and building elevation. So that's what we're looking at tonight. So jumping into that, the site plan that you see before you shows four buildings with a total of just under 85,000 square feet. Within this plan outlined in red is the small parking area, so they're only proposing five parking spaces. That would be for the office. There is out shaded in gray, other vehicular maneuvering area, loading and unloading zones within the development in between the buildings. This development, you see one driveway there that would be shared with the car wash that you recently saw. So just the one point of access off of 2499, with that turning lanes on 2499 already having been approved by TxDOT. As I mentioned, all of the driveways are internal to the site, so there's no external risk of glare or anything into the surrounding neighborhoods. The applicant is proposing fencing in the area shown in orange. That would be an eight-foot masonry wall in between the buildings in this short span here, as well as along here with wrought iron gates at these locations to access this landscape area, as well as wrought iron on the northern end around the detention pond. These are the proposed building elevations. We'll look a little more specifically at the elevations, but that's the color rendering of what it would look like as you pull into the site. So looking more specifically, you can see your kind of a material palette of what they've proposed. The PD specifically permits glass, stone, stucco, tile, concrete, wood, or similar materials. So what they've proposed is a combination of brick and stone veneers with some use of ephus in the corners and upper portions of the building. So all of those fall within that range of materials permitted in the PD. The PD also permits a maximum of three stories. It defines a story as 11 and a half feet. The highest point of any of these buildings is here at the entry, and that's at 32 and a half feet. The buildings go down as low as 13 feet. So looking at the other sides of the building, what you see here along the bottom is what would be seen from the residential side. So you can see these areas where there's fencing in between the buildings to create that solid wall along the back of the property line. So now looking at the landscape plan, landscaping for this particular PD falls under the 1998 landscape regulations. So that required 15 trees per acre. So what that worked out to is 45 trees required for this site. The landscape plan does show a total of 50 trees. Seventeen of those are new trees to be planted along the back wall behind that fence to kind of break up the facade there as well as to provide additional screening for the residences that are on the opposite side of this large easement. There's a total of 27% landscape area and 21% new tree canopy proposed on the site. There are very few existing trees on the property. They're mostly on this northern end around the detention pond, but they did work with staff to meet the current tree preservation requirements and exceed those. So they're proposing just over 40% of both quality and secondary trees. So looking at the criteria for approval, these are outlined again in our 1991 code. The first is that the plan comply with the general concept plan or development plan approved for the property. What you see here is the concept plan that was approved in 1999. As I mentioned, it had roughly three designations. So the central portion called track two was the residential. There's a small tract of commercial at the corner up along Teasley and Robinson and then the other commercial tract is this triangular parcel that we see before us tonight. So the use and the development standards as I've described them here are in conformance with the regulations of this PD. The second criteria is that the plan provide for compatible arrangements of buildings and land uses that wouldn't adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods or properties outside of the PD. So this development is in line with what we would typically see on a road like 2499. It is substantially set back from the residences. Not only the 25 foot landscape set back that they're providing on their site, there's also roughly 150 feet of easement separating them from the closest residential use. Site lighting and signage are not addressed in the PD. So staff is recommending a couple of conditions just to ensure compliance with our current regulations in that sense. The third criteria is the provision of adequate and safe circulation for vehicular traffic. As you saw, they do have that one point of access. That drive has been approved by TxDOT for this use to share with the car wash to the south and all of the drives on the site are internal to the buildings. So they're screened appropriately from the residential uses. Fourth is that the plan be in substantial compliance with landscaping, signs, subdivision, the regulations of the city, or offer some benefit if not. We did find that this was in substantial compliance with all the city regulations. Notification was sent regarding this request. We did receive one response in favor. That's not shown here on the map. It was actually from the former property owner of this tract. The applicant didn't hold a single neighborhood meeting. Instead, they met with each of the HOAs individually. The Wheeler Ridge and then two Oakmont HOAs across 2499 from them. I was able to attend one of those meetings and they seemed kind of mixed feedback as you would expect with concerns about traffic on 2499 being the chief negative feedback that I heard. So staff is recommending approval of this request with two conditions. The first be that no exterior lighting on the building face any single family residential use. If such lighting is proposed, it be screened from the view of the residential properties and that a photometric plan be provided with their building permit application to demonstrate compliance with our site lighting requirements in DDC 351312. The second criteria being that due to their close proximity to single family residences and the majority of this PD being residential and lacking sign regulations, that the property comply with the code of ordinances sign requirements for our non-residential districts as well as the specific limitation that there not be illuminated wall signs facing any adjoining single family use. And the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval seven to zero. I'm happy to stand for any questions. Any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. I have a card from Mr. Rick Jones. Mr. Jones, if you'll come down and state your name and address, your time will begin. Good evening. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Council. My name is Rick Jones. My address is 3317 Princeton in Dallas, and I'm principal with Advantage Storage. Haley's done an excellent job of going through this, so I'll go through my part as quickly as I can. I just want to tell you really a little bit about Advantage. Advantage is a local developer and operator since 1996. I built my first facility in Sherman, Texas in 1996. We develop, we construct, and we have a management company that manages our assets. And so we've developed from the ground up here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area about 40 facilities, including one here in the Denton Market we did back in 2009. We focus on high-quality developments. We currently own and manage 32 facilities with about 2 million square feet. Most people don't, but a few objectors to storage, they think of some pretty nasty storage out there when actually the asset class has evolved quite a bit. This is a four-story, it's a tall building, but it just shows you the type of quality and the type of architecture that has become more common. This is our facility on Parkwood near the shops at Legacy in Plano. Haley's really covered these four criteria that we believe meet the criteria for the approval of the detailed site plan. I'm not going to go over those again. Self-storage use is allowed under the PD and it produces very low traffic. That was one of the concerns, really one of the primary concerns that I heard, particularly from the folks east of the property. Self-storage, when you take almost three acres in commercial and use any other use in there, you're going to develop a whole lot more traffic than what storage does. So if we have anything to brag about, it's the fact that we can do architecture that's compatible to a neighborhood because you can put any facade on a storage building and we create very, very low traffic. And compared to other forms of retail and commercial use, we're really a good buffer for residences because everything is oriented internal. Almost all the other commercial uses have a fire lane around the perimeter, so traffic is around the perimeter of the building instead of being internal to the complex itself. Haley's sort of covered the site plan. I would just point out here with my arrow, if I -- well, I'm going to go to the next slide here, the 150-foot power line, it's buffered from the car wash to residence, 150-foot power line easement to the residence to the west. There's undevelopable land down in the flood plain to the north and then 24.99 on the east, so it really is buffered pretty well from the residential neighbors. And one of the things that we did is we oriented this large building here along 24.99 intentionally. That's the two-story building. It's about 25 feet tall. It's got one component that does go up to about 32 feet. But if you notice, this driveway that comes in from the median break swings around this building. We did that intentionally. And then this is the entrance into the drive. If you've been to a storage facility, you know that from the gate, you can look in and see all those doors. We didn't want that to face directly towards 24.99, so we strategically sort of created this buffer, if you will, so that it's hidden from public view. This is the architecture that Haley showed you earlier. This slide does show we had this made, particularly for the Wheater Ranch folks. This is an accurate view. If you were standing on the property line of one of the homes there to the west and looking back, that's what you would see. >> Is this across the utility easement? >> Yeah. You're looking across 150-foot open utility easement. And this is the architecture, stone brick, as Haley's covered. I did want to show you a few slides. This is a project that is similar scale. This is on McDermott Road near Independence in Plano. That building is the front building. It's the same height scale, if you will, of what we're proposing, all masonry. That's the kind of quality that it's a little different architecture, but it's the type of quality. This is inside that project looking out. And this actually sets one pad side off of McDermott, so you're looking at a vacant pad there in front of the office. This is in the case of the Denton project, this would be around the end of the building hidden from the 2499 view corridor, but this would be looking in through the gate. You can see two-story buildings scaled on the left and the single-story buildings on the right would be very similar to what we propose here. This is another shot of the internal storage drive, if you will, in the loading area for the two-story building. That's the loading area of the two-story building. That would be very similar to what we propose here. This is another two-story -- I include this slide to just show that, you know, we can put almost any variety of architecture on a storage building. This was in Prosper and specifically was in an area that required this old town, a town center sort of architecture, which we were able to comply with. As a developer, I'm always sensitive that we propose pre-photos and renderings and some guys do a good job of following through on that, others maybe not quite as good as you would wish for. So this is going back many years, in 2006, I believe, we proposed this for a project on more Parkway and Frisco, and this was the property that we delivered. We still own and operate that property. Similarly, this was a rendering we proposed for a match playing community in McKinney of Craig Ranch, and this is the property that we delivered. We still own and operate that facility. This was a project that we proposed recently. It's an unusual architecture, I would say. We met -- it actually took us about a year to meet with Homer's Association. This is in the Lake Highlands neighborhood in Dallas. And they wanted it to be mid-sixties modern. They wanted something unusual. They wanted it to be quirky to match the neighborhoods, so we engaged their architect to work with ours and came up with that design, and this was a photo of the final result of that. And so with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Councilmember Briggs. >> I'm looking at the site plan, and you may have addressed it, but is there -- there's room for large moving vans to get it, because it looks really tight in here. >> Oh, yes, no, we have our site planning and the civil engineer, and they design all the radius turns so that those trucks can make that, yeah. >> Okay. >> The big moving vans really don't occur that often. We've actually done some checking on our existing facilities, and it occurs two, three times a month on average, so it's not like those big trucks are coming in every day, but it is important that they can make the turns, and they can. >> Okay. Just a few questions, and it's a pretty large building, and I'm just curious about if you do anything regarding energy efficiency, because I believe probably the inside's heated and cooled 24 hours. >> Yes, it is. The large building. >> And then the light. >> It is. And now, we generally haven't, and we don't propose for this to be a LEED-certified building, but, you know, LED lighting, very high energy efficiency on the air conditioning, and of course the new energy code, the building has to meet the new energy code, and so it complies with the increased wall insulation, ceiling and roof insulation. >> Okay. That's good. >> They're quite a bit more efficient than they were when I started 20 years ago. >> And you mentioned LED lighting. We had a conversation earlier about lighting and with the residential being around. So do you, do you don't see any issues with compliance with the lighting regulations being low, because I know that you need bright lighting around your facility, but you don't see it harming the neighbors around? >> Really, we have no problem with the conditions that staff has put on this. We, I mean, they suggested that and we said that'd be great. We don't do that anyway. We won't put any lighting on the perimeter that faces the residences, and the internal lighting is going to be, we'll have a photometric plan, but the new lighting fixtures, the dark sky, it shines down and it, they're not the kind of wall pack lights that glare directly out like they used to be. So I think there'd be no problem complying with the photometric requirements. >> Thank you very much. >> Real quick question I have is the site plan that has been shown, is that, I mean, I know we're at a zoning change, is that correct? We're asking for the PD, but is the site plan part of the approval, in other words, it will be developed as rendered here? >> Correct. That detail plan essentially becomes the guiding zoning document for the property. >> Just want to make sure, yeah, because we don't do very many PDs, so sometimes we have to figure that out. >> No, that's correct. >> Good. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Seeing none. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. This is a public hearing. Anybody else wishing to speak, please come down, state your name and address, and your time will begin. Anybody wishing to speak? Seeing none, we will now close the public hearing, and this is on agenda item 6D. Mayor Pro Tem. >> I move approval. >> Councilmember Meltzer. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. For agenda item 6D, let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. We'll move on to agenda item 6D. >> Mayor, can I make one comment? Ten seconds. >> Well, we've closed the item out. >> Okay. It's not on the item. I was just going to congratulate you on the quality of your staff. >> Oh, sure. >> Working with the Denton staff. The change from the last time that we came through was remarkable. Haley is, I deal with these planners all the time, she's one of the best I've dealt with. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. You bet. Thank you so much for those comments. We work hard to make progress, so thank you very much. All right, so this is agenda item 6E. I'll tell you, we're at 9 o'clock, we're about an hour since we've been going. This is probably going to be a fairly potentially lengthy presentation. Anybody need a break? Yes? Okay. Let's take a five-minute. >> It's going to be quick. >> Welcome back to this meeting of the Denton City Council on March the 19th, 2019. It is 9.13 p.m. We're on agenda item 6E. Hold a public hearing. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, submitting the Denton Development Code. Yep. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing as well. >> Good evening, Mayor, Council, Richard Canone, Development Services Department. What I wanted to do, and you probably remember this slide from one of the previous work sessions back in November, I just wanted to highlight a couple of some historical dates with respect to our current tree ordinance. It was initially adopted in 2004. 2005, there was a Citizens Tree Committee created and recommended tightening the current tree ordinance. And so the draft that you have tonight in front of you, for the most part, has really been 14 years in the making. So we went through P&Z last week or on the -- I'm sorry, on the 6th. And so that's really what we're bringing forward tonight. But I just wanted to kind of frame it in that historical background. >> Real quick question. The Exhibit A that we have, is this an addition -- what is this? >> The Exhibit A that was passed out at work session, there were some slight changes that had to be made. And that's really what it was when there was -- as we were updating the ordinance, we had eliminated a section on enforcement because it was already covered in a component -- already within the DDC. And what happened is it didn't auto-update the numbering. And so we had to really adjust references of I to H and vice versa. >> Okay. So nothing is substantive. It's more just sort of form. >> It was just a cleanup, correct. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. And so just again to give a little bit of background, we started really about a -- almost a year ago, we had a policy discussion back in April and May, both with council and the Committee on the Environment, really looking at unifying the approach to this code, ensuring that we comply with local government code 212905, look at limiting clear-cutting and increasing preservation, require mitigation for all trees removed, guiding priorities towards preserving larger and quality trees, tree stands and habitat, again, looking at increasing tree canopy citywide and balancing trees with -- tree preservation with reasonable development. We started really focusing on outreach in November as we worked through a number of the drafts. I just want to highlight a couple items we did meet. We initially started with Denton County Ag Master Gardeners, and then from there we went Keep Denton Beautiful, North Texas Urban Forestry Council, American Society Landscape Architects, Dallas-Fort Worth Chapter, the Denton Community Developers Alliance. That 218, that was a meeting with the group as a whole, but after that we did have subsequent meetings with various members. Dallas Builders Association, while we had some initial email correspondence from them, they did come to the P&Z hearing, expressed some concerns. Scott and I did meet with them actually yesterday at their offices over in Plano with representatives from the association as well as some of their members to go over the draft ordinance, explain in detail and kind of walk them through just how the mechanics of it worked. I don't believe we've received any letter of objection from them. We also didn't receive a letter of support, so I'll take that as neutral. We did have other discussions with members of the public at the various community workshops for the DDC update, and again just a variety of individual meetings and phone calls with citizens. So where are we going? This was a slide again that we had from that March 5th work session, but just wanted to again sort of frame this in the context of where we are now and sort of where we're going with the goal of 30 percent citywide, 40 percent east of 35, 20 percent west of 35. And what we did is we really looked at, you know, can we actually get to that number? And so we looked really at undeveloped, our current undeveloped land, if that became developed. I think a good example was an item that we just had in front of us where that was really an undeveloped parcel that's now being developed, and you see that increase in canopy. So they were even higher than what our initial projections were on that site. So we really looked at what it would take based on our current standards of the new code, which is equivalent of about 13 trees per acre, so it kind of worked out well that you saw the PD at 15 units an acre. And so that gets us to about 30 percent, I'm sorry, 36 percent citywide. We'll probably get that number higher, but just on private development, we think we can ultimately get to that number, and then we can start to, again, adjust our goals as we move forward. One thing I thought was interesting as we started to just try to look to see how much we can begin to track some of the changes based upon preservation and even just planting, and we thought this was an interesting example right around the park north of University. In 1942, and this is really telling as we begin to grow further out west, where you don't have heavily tree properties, where a lot of it really was farmland. And so just this area alone from 1942 went from 6 percent canopy coverage to 33 percent in 2017 numbers. And again, that really was just a result of our landscape code and planting. And so now we're really getting into that, how do we preserve and better protect some of these neighborhoods. And so where are we today? And again, this is very similar to the presentation on March 5th work session, but I wanted to use it as sort of a guide so you can see the changes that were made as a result. We had that last work session, 3/5. Prior to that, we had about 14, I think, different work session and committee meetings, a variety of drafts that we went through, and ultimately got to a point where at that, at the 3/5, we had presented some items for consideration, and that's really what we're focusing on today. And so modifications from that meeting, really there were four. Two were really a result of dialogue or direction that we got at that work session, one being the applicability where we added language, and I'll get into the actual language, but just as a summary where we added language addressing single-family teardowns and land assembly and how we can deal with that issue. We added ash trees to secondary trees. This was a result of a recommendation that we received from our urban forester, and I believe I included that memo as backup. This has to do with the emerald ash borer that, I guess, has now been detected in Tarrant County, and so the concern was making sure that that's not a species that we want to promote to be planted, and so rather than just put it on the exempt list of trees or non-protected trees, we included it as a secondary. So if you do tear it down, or I'm sorry, if you do cut it down, you just have to replace it with two replacement trees. Preservation, this was something that we had modified. As we talked about, if there were no heritage or quality trees, so we adjusted it that if there are no heritage or quality, you would have to preserve the secondary trees on site, and we suggested that that be at 20 percent. And then within the landscape section, we included some minimum landscape areas for both the front and rear yards for single-family and duplex, and this really was to address paving the entire front yard, which we've seen on one or two properties, and just wanted to make sure that we address that now as we move forward. And so the draft that was presented to planning and zoning on 3/6 included all of those, with the exception of the ash that was added after. However, P&Z did recommend approval 551 based upon that draft. And so I'll get a little bit more in detail. Again, I wanted to just follow through with, well, I have, I think, 33 slides. I won't hit on every single one of them, but certainly stop me if there's a question or clarification. And so applicability, if you remember, we had just an exemption section in applicability, and so what had happened was we were getting to the point where we were adding the single-family teardown issue. As we were addressing it, we were actually having an exemption, an exception to an exemption. And so rather than have an exception to an exemption, we just created an applicability section and then included the exemptions based upon there. And so the text that you see highlighted on the screen in red and blue really is the change as to what it's applicable to. So really the only thing that changed had to do with C. We did include, we tightened some language after discussing it with legal on A and B, but really C is what was added to address that concern, and it was any existing single-family or two-family property applying for demolition permit for the primary structure. And so if you were coming in for a demo permit, then it would be a set for the primary structure. Then you would have to comply with the tree preservation requirements. As opposed to just exempting single-family altogether. So if you were coming in to demo the, you know, if you were assembling land or demoing the primary structure, then it would comply. And we did include the language that the minimum DBH for protected trees shall be 10 inches or greater. And again, that's that, the requirement from the local government code. Sure. Okay. All right. Great. Yes. Oh, yeah. It's on the point being discussed. No, no, go ahead. Sure. You bet. So, you know, I want to make sure I understand. If somebody acquires single-family property, they can clear cut it, but if they later request to demolish those properties, then they have to preserve. Correct. Okay. So I perceive that as a loophole. So maybe it'll come in the form of a motion to amend, I guess, later. But the thought would be to specify owner domiciled single and two-family. You know where I'm coming from on this, that our sense is people don't tend to clear cut their own property. I guess someone could. But it's sort of not a very serious concern. We know they buy trees to put on their own property, but, you know, what I'm concerned about is the loophole of providing an opportunity for somebody who later wants to demo to buy single-family and two-family and clear cut. Okay, go ahead. The only other item that we added in, we do have some tree preservation and tree survey plans that have trees designated as preservation on single-family lots. There are notations on plats identifying those lots. And so we just wanted to make sure that didn't get lost. And we also included there that unless they're otherwise exempt by local government code. So if they did preserve a 6-inch tree, again, we're sort of preempted with the 10 inches or greater. Under the tree types, the four protected trees, again, as I mentioned, the only thing that changed here really was adding an ash tree to the secondary tree list. Nothing changed on the non-protected. If you recall, we went with the replacement rates with the minimum 30 percent for heritage and quality, two and a half per one inch for heritage, two inches per inch for quality, and then for secondary trees, there's no minimum, but you do have to preserve, I'm sorry, you do have to replace at two replacement trees or four inches. Again, this was the same that was presented on the fifth. There was that additional flexibility, if you recall. You could go down to 20 percent provided that 10 percent that you reduced, there was sort of an upcharge, if you will, where they went up to 2.75 and 2.25. And so that remained the same. With respect to the alternative tree preservation plan, what we changed in here had to do with the secondary trees. You can see the strike through and underline. One, we wanted to make sure the mitigation was just put into the mitigation section where both quality and heritage were included, but did include the language that where there are quality and heritage trees located on a property, there would be no minimum preservation for secondary. However, if there were not any quality or heritage, then the minimum would be 20 percent of those secondary trees would be required to be preserved. Credits and incentives, again, this remained the same. These were right from the local government code 2 and 2905. And then again, same for the credits for the, again, focusing on preserving, giving more of a credit towards those heritage trees. And then again, allowing, if you hit that 30 percent still allowing, if you decided to preserve some quality trees, allowing it at that half inch per inch up to 50 percent. Again, this all stayed the same, nothing changed. The payment in lieu, again, while that fee number is not included within this ordinance, we will be coming back with a fee change to increase that, to recommend it, to increase it to $200 an inch. >> You said it's not in the ordinance? >> It's not in the ordinance because it's part of a separate. >> Separately structured ordinance, okay. >> And then with respect to the tree fund, we had added the line about conducting maintenance on conservation easements dedicated in accordance with this subsection. Again, that was nothing changed from the work session. I do have the examples that we went through. I could go through all of them with respect to the changes that were made. It had no effect on any of these, but I did include it just in case we needed, you wanted me to walk through those, walk through those again. >> Not unless somebody, anybody wanted to walk through those again? Okay. >> And really it's, if you see the difference preserving, still requiring that 30 percent preservation, preserving at that heritage, obviously it's less mitigation. If it's the reverse, 75 percent quality, 25 percent heritage, obviously because of the way the credits work, mitigation is much higher. This is that 20 percent preservation with that upcharge. So you see, again, on the same property, the difference where it can go, seven mitigation trees to 121, up to 346, again, depending on the scenario that an individual could choose. And again, these are based on two-inch trees. Obviously, if they planted a little bit of a larger tree, it would be slightly less. And with that, I'll turn it to Haley to go over the landscape portion, unless there are any questions. >> One question, because I've asked this for you several times, and you've told me, and I just forgot. So when you're talking about someone is subject to the tree code, whether it's our current one or our proposed one, that there's something about if the tree is under a certain DBH, I forgot what, is it, like, if it's under four inches or something like that, what's the, how does that, how's that handled? >> On the tree type, we had, the current code has seven different types. >> Right. >> Down to four. >> Okay. >> And so we had heritage, quality, and secondary. And it might be on the heritage trees. And on a prior draft, prior to the March 5th work session, that draft that was published in February, we had both post oak and blackjack oak in there. And the minimum, while the minimum for quality tree is six inches to 18, again, that's in the current code, we had post oaks as a heritage tree at, down to four inches, four inches for, I'm sorry, for post oak and blackjack oak. As a result of the input that we received and some of the concerns from the development community, we eliminated the blackjack oak from being a heritage tree unless it's 18 inches or greater, then it's still counted as a heritage tree. Post oaks are still counted as a quality tree, but it's if they're six inches or greater. >> Right. >> Now, we did include, if you recall, we included in the alternative preservation plan, we did include language in there to allow for the smaller, so it didn't really make sense if you had an area that you were going to preserve to take out four inch trees to plant them with a three inch tree. And so that's where that stayed within that. >> So then on the secondary trees, you're showing six inches. >> In secondary trees, we didn't make a distinction between secondary and large secondary, which were under the current code, they follow the same as quality or heritage, that's six inch to 18. And so for secondary trees, they're all counted, all counted the same, six inches or greater. >> And those are the ones you have to pay the mitigation fee, mitigate it two to one? >> You cut down a tree, you have two replacement trees. >> Right. And that's for if it's over six inches or it doesn't matter how big it is? >> If it's over six inches. >> Okay. All right. Okay. >> Where it gets a little tricky is on those existing single family, actually should say on any existing residential. So whether it's an existing multi-family or existing single family, the way the local government code is, they don't draw a distinction between owner or renter. So if you're residential and it's 10 inches or less, then you're exempt under 2 and 2.905. >> Okay. All right. Okay. >> That's why we addressed that in that. >> Thank you. Appreciate that. >> In this applicability section. >> Okay. >> There's a lot of parts. >> Yep. Yep. Okay. Thank you. >> Mayor? >> Yeah. I can't see my -- yeah. Go ahead. >> Do we need to ask questions now about the tree part or just finish it all and then ask questions? >> No. No. This looks like it's a pretty clear line. We've got the tree part and then we've got landscaping trees and buffers. So let's go ahead and ask the questions on this part. >> Yeah, if you could go back to that, just for clarification, just because I'm -- >> The tree types. >> The tree types and the diameter. Because at one time it was less than -- it was 18 and then we moved it down. It was 15, I think, or it had gone to 12 and then 15 and now it's back up to 18 inches. And so just -- so it's a larger tree now that has to be -- count as preserved. So and then at the second one, quality tree, if you could just help me understand it, it says except post oak. So all healthy non-secondary trees except post oak that measures between 6 inches and up to 18 inches. So if anything under 18 inches that's not preserved has to be mitigated? Or what if it -- if it's, you know, 2 inches or 4 inches, is it -- what happens to that tree if we have a baby pecan tree or something? If it's 2 inches -- anything 6 inches, any non-secondary tree, so any heritage or quality tree, 6 inches or greater, either needs to be preserved or needs to be mitigated. At one point we did have -- for post oaks we had modified those numbers. And where we brought the 18 inches down was where we had a distinction between secondary and large secondary. And so as we got input from the development community and we worked through just kind of going through the various scenarios, that's where we just -- we weren't requiring a minimum preservation of the large secondary. And so we just grouped them -- we grouped them all together. And so for the post oaks we did still keep -- we did still add a value, if you will, to it by including if they're 6 inches or greater, they're counted as a heritage tree. And so if you remove -- if you remove that, then it's sort of a larger -- you have a larger multiplier. But if you preserve it, you also get a larger credit. And so that's where that focus still stayed on the 6 inches. But part of the outcry that we had from a number of folks were the taking it below 6 inches. And so as a way to kind of address it, that's where we adjusted that language in the alternate tree preservation plan to allow for those smaller trees to count in those certain circumstances, where if you were going to plant it already, why take out an established tree. >> Okay. And then I have just a question, and we talked about loopholes earlier. So -- and I didn't notice it here, but -- so there's property that is for sale and somebody purchased it, and then they have to comply with the tree code, right? So what happens if they clear -- they preserve their 30% and cut everything else down, what happens if they sell it again? Does the other person have to only preserve 30% of the 30%, or how do we eliminate that process from going over and over again to where there's nothing left? >> And that's something that we've currently even updated in our own processes, making sure that when we have that tree preservation plan and mitigation plan that it's included as part of that plat. And so if trees are preserved or where they are preserved now, there's a notation on the plat that identifies. If it's a single family lot, it identifies where those trees are. And so that way that sort of accounting, if you will, is always there. And so as we move forward, what we -- even with this draft, what we've anticipated is because we've had so many different types of submittals on how people calculate their trees, we've worked with -- we've brought in Cody, our GIS master is also a master at spreadsheets, to actually just come up with a fillable form. And so everybody's submitting the same form. Sort of the math is locked, if you will. And so we're able then to check it and have a little bit better control and idea. But also the same -- it's submitted the same for every project, so we don't have to -- it takes our guesswork out of it, if you will, of whether they're meeting it or something's hidden or they're classifying a tree as something else. It's either a quality, a heritage, or a secondary, or a nonprotected tree. So in the situation that I -- it won't happen? It will not happen. Okay. It should not happen. Okay, yeah. Is there any mention -- I glanced through it, but I didn't see mention of our cross-timbers forest and preservation of remnants of it. Do we specify that in this ordinance anywhere, or do we just talk about the different types of trees? The only place where it's sort of incorporated is because it's part of that ESA language. And so as long as it's not part of that development impact area, so if that ESA area is staying intact, then it's really -- it's not counted for them, it's not counted against them. The only exception -- and I think we talked about this on March 5th -- if you have an ESA and it is a natural buffer to an abutting property owner, what we thought is it didn't make sense to have -- if you have this preservation area as part of an ESA, why are we going to require then a 10-foot buffer on the ESA? And so that we allowed to count for buffer requirements. But where the cross-timbers would come in is if they go to adjust any part of that as part of an alternative ESA, that's when the tree preservation component would kick in. Okay. And we have in our ordinance the replacement in ratio, like one to one or one to two. But do we specify or designate -- I know that we have an approved tree list, but if we take out a heritage tree, do we have to replace it with a heritage tree, or can we replace it with a secondary tree? Like do we designate species? We do. And interestingly, even in our current criteria manual, we don't allow for -- we discourage secondary trees from even being planted. And so that was part of it. As we started to go through this, we looked at what are we really promoting to be planted. And so if we're not allowing you to have credit for planting a secondary tree, why are we putting so much weight on preserving those? And so really, that would remain. And so the focus really is to have at least 50 percent of trees being native of the area. Okay. I think native or adapted. Okay. May I have one more question? Someone brought up the issue or just question. So if you have a homeowner, and in the new developments, we're requiring a street tree, I think, but then it falls on the homeowner's responsibility to make sure it's watered and pruned and has irrigation. And if something happens to it, then the homeowner is punished for that? Can you explain this? And I feel like, but then we have also, as an exemption, we have single-family homeowners as an exemption from complying with this ordinance. So I'm confused by those two different -- On the street trees, they wouldn't be exempt since it's technically not on their property. Okay. I don't know if we have a slide in the landscape section on -- Let's hold that for the next section. Is that the next section? Okay. Yeah. So if we could, are there any other questions about this particular portion of the presentation on the trees? And if you've got some for landscape street trees buffers, we'll get to that. I don't see any. Okay. All right. So landscape street trees and buffers. Promise this part will be shorter. Oh, sure. No, it's fine. It's almost 10 o'clock, so it doesn't matter. All right. So as you all remember, there's really three main goals that we were reaching -- going towards as we rewrote the landscape code, maintaining our minimum percentages, introducing a point system to buffering as well as site landscaping to increase flexibility, and then enhancing our street tree requirements. So the only significant change from what you all have seen before, as Richard hinted to earlier, is for single-family and duplexes because they are exempted from the majority of our landscape requirements. In addition to the yard tree that we've discussed throughout this proposed update, we also added in a minimum yard requirements. That'd be a minimum of 30% in the front yard and 20% in the rear yard have to be maintained as landscaping to prevent paving of the entire yard and street frontage. I've got all the standard tables that we've looked at before for the buffer system. Unless you all have any questions, I'll kind of skip through those. It's the same thing that we've looked at a few times before. Really the only enhancement outlined in yellow, we did add in kind of some bonus credit, if you will, for preserving existing trees within a buffer. So that would allow some points as well now. In the landscape tables, we've also switched to a point system, as I mentioned. Again, no substantial changes here, just some clarifications, and I've highlighted those in yellow, but I won't speak to those specifically, unless you all have any questions about them. And then as we've talked about before, we are maintaining the flexibility of the alternative development plan for landscaping. We're also proposing, and I think you all have seen this before, but it is a significant change from where we are now, that if someone can't meet their minimum canopy, we could allow up to a 10% reduction in that minimum canopy be kind of mitigated by payment into the tree fund, rather than having to go through the ADP process. So that would be one fairly substantial change there in the flexibility standards. And I guess to speak to the street tree requirement, those trees are within right-of-way typically, so that wouldn't be on the single-family property. But maintenance, as it is in our current code, is first placed on the homeowner, and then of course the city maintains the right to step in if the tree's not being cared for and take care of it. So I don't know if that answers that question or not, but... - Council Member Briggs. - I'm sorry, I was listening to the tire squealing outside. I was afraid someone was about to hit the building. Did you? - No, on the street tree question, maintenance is first placed on the homeowner. That's been in our code since 2002, I believe, but the city also retains the right to take over maintenance of that street tree if it's not being cared for. But to Richard's point, that tree's not actually on the single-family lot. Those are typically within the right-of-way. - So can you just talk to me about irrigation requirements? So is it required to be irrigated, like part of the system of the homeowner? - Correct. There are irrigation requirements that the homebuilder would have to have an irrigation plan for their home. There are instances where the director can not require irrigation if the landscaping is designed in certain ways that it doesn't require it, but typically irrigation is required for all new plantings. - So this isn't anything different than what we've had in our code since 2002. It's just kind of the same thing where people have not been having to comply or had no idea what was in our code before and are just now learning about it. - Exactly. It's the same language. All that we've changed with street trees is the spacing, going from 45 feet down to 30 feet to require more street trees. - Okay. Thank you. - So I have a question then on when you said that if it wasn't being maintained, the city would step in. But if the city steps in, is that, whatever that cost is, do they pass that on to the homeowner? - I don't believe so. So let's take, for instance, a street tree that hangs over the street. You got to get it cleared up as 13 feet or 15 feet from the curb line or the bottom of the curb or something. So somebody doesn't do that. Well, first of all, you're going to be getting CIS community improvements, CIS notices. - Exactly. The property maintenance code would also apply. - But if they don't do it, so there seems to be, and this might be, I'll talk to you offline on this, but it seems to be there's an inconsistency or an inopposite kind of approach there. But we can deal with that later. That was a statement you made. I just want to make sure that I understand where that's coming from. So no problem. We'll talk about that later. - Okay. - Yep. Okay. Was that it on the tree? - That's it for landscape. - Okay. Okay. All right. Great. Yes, go ahead. So any questions? This is a public hearing. I have not opened the public hearing yet, but any more questions for staff? Seeing none. Okay. Now open the public hearing. I will start with the white cards and the white cards typically indicate the person who filled out the card's position on the agenda item, but the white cards represents that they do not wish to speak. So I'm going to read the white cards first. James Carr is in support. Is it Lydia Dodd? - Lindy. - Is that right? - Lindy. - Lindy. Okay. I'm sorry. Is in support. And I do have two blue cards, but you don't have to fill out a blue card to speak at a public hearing. So we'll go with the blue cards first, and then we'll take any other speakers. Jennifer Lane, if you'll come down, state your name and address, your time will begin. Jennifer Lane, 1526 Willowood Street. I have a student concert tonight, so I'm going back and forth trying to be here when you would open it, and also to be there. What I wanted to point out is that you need a code that preserves trees, not just mitigates against them. And many of the issues that have been raised are really loopholes that people keep seeking. And really, there needs to be a philosophy that's shared throughout this council and the city that we need to preserve all the trees that we can. And the 2030 plan has parks in it. I suggest that you take the areas that have the most trees and make them the parks and save those trees. And also, be thinking about sort of the maximum that you can do and not the minimum, but certainly pass this ordinance and then improve it if you need to. Don't try to sneak around it or anything like that. Just really, really use it and make it work. These are so much more than just beautiful and decorative. They are life-preserving elements of our community. Our wildlife is so adversely affected by the loss of all the tree cover that we've had recently. All the reports of coyotes and bobcats and so on and so forth, these guys have been here longer than we have. And they have every right to be here, and they need to take place to live where they will not wind up in people's yards and scaring people's pets and so on, perhaps even harming them. We need to think even personally and maybe even have an education campaign, how people can preserve their own trees. Think of their land as not something they need to be cutting down trees to put in manicured things, but leaving the trees alone and growing the trees. And the city already has a wonderful rebate program, which I've taken advantage of and many others have, that perhaps could be expanded, grown, developed, just sort of everyone. It might be an issue that, across so many sorts of things that might oftentimes divide, people like the little Girl Scouts that came, there was sort of nobody that didn't feel very good about having them here. There's no one that minds a tree. Everyone wants to have trees around them and have the clean air that they bring. So I strongly, strongly urge you to take the action that you can, the strongest action that you can, to pass this and to build on it and make Denton a place that people want to move to because it's a lovely place to live. Thank you so much. - Council Member Armitter. - I just wanted to thank you for speaking and to say I agree with everything you just said 100%. - Thank you. Thank you. If I weren't so distracted, I could think of more, but it doesn't matter. - Thank you. - Thank you, everybody. - All right. The next person to speak is Brandy Price. Come down and state your name and address. Your time will begin. - Hello. My name is Brandy Price. I live at 627 Bernard Street. This is my first time to speak. I can't believe I'm so relaxed. Let me be honest with you. I just want to say that I'm a member of the Denton County Citizens' Climate Lobby Group. I've been a member with CCL for five years. It is the only nonpartisan environmental group in the nation. You might want to look at the House bill and also the Senate bill that's up in Congress right now. That was all put together by CCL volunteers to get the House bill, and it is going to be for a carbon fee and dividend plan. It's also called the carbon fee and tax plan, but we want to actually have a dividend plan. I just want to say, I don't want to get in trouble if I say Councilwoman's name, but I just want to say thank you, Deb Armature, for meeting with me at least five months ago. You actually signed something as a city councilwoman, not just an independent person. I want to tell you, you signed that. You were the first person to sign that as a city councilperson for CCL to back the carbon fee and dividend plan north of Austin before the city of Dallas just adopted it. It would be nice that the city of Denton could get on board with that. I have tons of information. I just want to say, I think it's really cool that we have Charlotte here speaking. She's 15 years old. This impacts everybody. It impacts everybody, whether you're old, whether you're young. It's important to actually support trees. Trees are important. If you want to drive down 380 or University, go into Prosper, and look at the awful clear cutting on the massive subdivisions, do that. It's awful. If I had $400,000, I would not buy a house there. I would stick in Denton, where we have trees. It's important. It helps clean air. Also, it's important for the wildlife. It's important that we actually maintain and also preserve the canopy, not just looking at minimum standards. A lot of people like to move to areas because they have kids, and they want to actually have trees to play in. If I had $1 million, you cannot pay me to live in the clear cut developments all along University east of your city. There are no trees there. Also, we have 106, 110 degrees here in Texas. I'm a fourth generation Texan. I can tell you it is not fun in Texas in summers, and if you want to have something to help your property actually cool down with the AC bills going up to $400 a month, you might want to have some trees. I think we need to actually consider this as something that affects everyone, and I am totally supporting this. I think you should have a maximum fine of $2,000 or more. I actually attended the meeting that Awesome Councilwoman Briggs was at back in the summer. The nice gentleman from Development Services mentioned the information about the tree code, and I just want to say I think it's very interesting and thank you for actually firing people who are not holding people accountable and fining people who are not paying, mitigating the property in trees. You need to have staff that actually will uphold the ordinances that you as a council approves. That's basically the law. So if you have staff who are not doing that, get rid of them because it's not going to help your city one bit. And if you want to keep Denton unique, I think this is something that is very special because we actually are getting fought. People are actually getting attacked. Cities all over the state of Texas are getting basically attacked for anything to do with a tree ordinance and their agendas by the legislators. So I think this is the time to stand up and say this is important and support this. I could probably go on forever about this, but I know you're tired and I have to go to work tomorrow. And please vote for this. And I would actually ask the entire city council to vote and adopt what the city of Dallas did and the city of Austin did and actually say that you actually want lower CO2 emissions and actually support the tree ordinance and support the CCL plan. Thank you. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anybody else wishing to speak? No blue card is required. Please come down and state your name and address and your time will begin. My name is Lee Ann Todd. I live on 3316 Rosaline Drive. My time is beginning. Anyway, Denton, the tree city, are we going to keep it that way? I've seen a lot of devastation go on and I've had to fight personally for historic post oaks that I have on my property. They're over 100 years old and they don't grow anymore. And they're really a precious commodity because of the water tank that was going in behind my house. But fortunately, I had a sensible on-site manager who saved my trees, but I didn't have the protection of the ordinance. I really, I was lucky in that I had a reasonable person on site and those historical post oaks were not cut down. Another site to consider in the backyard, the Razor Poverty, 240 acres, historical post oaks there, it butts up to Deena Recreation Center and Boorman Elementary, is a perfect place for a city park making height bike trails and a nature center and observation. We are a part of nature. We have to connect with nature. That's what makes living here aesthetically pleasing. And without that, what are we? People have mentioned the environmental factors because of heat, soil retention, water collection. Just the beauty of having trees, the change of season and the connection with that. And we can't just think money, it can't be just about dollars and desolation. We have to think about future generations, kids to come, your kids, your kids' kids. It's not just us. And these trees have been here, how can you put a price on that? So I really encourage the preservation and less mitigation for the beautiful thing that we do have and maintain the reality that Denton is truly a tree city and that we can make it aesthetic. Let's not go like Dallas and make a Central Park after the fact, you know, let's do it now while we have it. Because you can't, you know, when they tear down, like on Dallas Drive, there were some live oaks, they were probably 35, 40 years old, and they cut them down because they got some money from Austin and put in some little sticks. What's the point of that? What is the point of that? We'd already had it going on. And more people are going to be drawn to something that shows beauty in nature and a cooler temperature. So I really encourage you to pass the preservation part and pass this bill. And I think it's progress, it's showing progress of Denton, of being environmentally aware, and maintaining the tree city. Thank you. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anybody else wishing to speak, come down, state your name and address, your time will begin. Hello. I'm Lindy Dodd, 612 Pearl, I filled out a white card, but I did want to go ahead and I want to thank you all for your civil service as being on the Denton City Council, and also I wholeheartedly, obviously, approve this tree code. I also just want to present the caveat that is moving forward with this plan that we remember as a part of the cross timbers ecosystem, which is what we're trying to preserve, especially with the heritage trees and the actual protections set forth for those, specifically highlighting post oaks. And I was sad to hear that blackjack oaks were no longer included, but as a specific species, but one of the other issues that I see moving forward is recruitment. The age of a post oak normally is around 150 years to 300 years. A six inch diameter post oak generally is around the age of 10 years, they don't start making acorns until like 25 years. So we will possibly, we are going to have an issue with recruitment moving forward because we do have an aging remnant of the cross timbers within the city, and so as we accumulate land to set aside for preservation of these trees, we do need to make sure that we are making sure that, and I believe it was already highlighted by one of the council members, that if you cut down a post oak, you plant a post oak, you don't plant a live oak, to preserve these key features of the cross timbers, and anyway, that's really all I had to say other than I fully support this tree code. I see a couple council members, council member Armitage. So thank you for speaking, I was wondering if staff could address an issue that you had raised about the blackjack oaks and could speak to why are blackjack oaks no longer protected? I mean, I know they're protected as far as like a quality tree, but they lost the specific designation. Yeah. Correct, and that came out of a result of an input that we had received from an individual in the city here that does a lot of tree surveys. He brought up the issue and had some examples of some older blackjack oaks on his property where they had, he explained the way the cellulose is with that plant and that they end up rotting with the tree and they end up rotting from the inside a lot, and so that was why it came off of the heritage for six inches or greater. It still is considered a quality tree and it still is considered a heritage tree if it's 18 inches or greater. It just didn't get that increase from six to 18. Thank you for explaining. Council member Briggs, did you have a question for the speaker? Well, thank you for coming to speak. We seem to know a lot about trees, and it was the post oaks were four inches and then with the developer input, it moved back up to six inches. And so I just wanted to get clarification on your concern. Is it because the, what was your concern? So it's about recruitment of new post oaks within the areas we preserve and then also with people's properties. If it takes ten years for a post oak to grow, and I'm putting some generalities out there, but about ten years for a post oak to grow to six inches, that means there's a ten year period of the time that the acorn germinated to when it could be removed, and so there's a lot of time right there to be removing smaller saplings that could otherwise be contributing to the canopy. So we're wiping out a species, basically, if we keep cutting down and killing all the younger trees? Basically, what you're saying. Yeah. I don't want to say that, but we're definitely reducing our post oak capability moving forward I guess. Thank you. Thank you for the thoughtful thought of that. So I appreciate your talk. Thank you. Council Member Armitter. Yes. I just wanted to follow up on something that Council Member Briggs just mentioned that surprised me and sorry to make the staff, it's actually a question for staff. Do you have a question for the speaker? I don't, if she's. Oh yeah, no. You can go sit down. Unless you like standing up there. Thank you. So sorry. So Council Member Briggs had mentioned something about a developer, one developer's input. So the person you mentioned with the post oaks on their property, this is a developer. Is this the same person? No, that was a blackjack oak he was talking about. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That's what I meant. Blackjack oaks. This is a developer? I don't know if he's an actual developer. He was at the Developers Alliance. I know he, in fact, I think he actually chaired the very first committee in 2005 for updating the tree code. And so I know he's been a long time Denton resident, but he does conduct a lot of the tree surveys from my understanding also within the city. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other? This is a public hearing. Anybody else wishing to speak? Come down, state your name and address, and your time will begin. Anybody else wishing to speak one more time? All right, we will now close the public hearing. Council members? Council Member Briggs. I did watch the P&Z meeting and I believe that the P&Z commissioner in my seat did want to hear about Blackjack oaks from our tree guy, and if you're here, Heywood, could you come down and talk about that a little bit just to follow up on the comments that were made by the individual, and if moving that to secondary is -- I don't think that's what we -- I don't think that's what -- no, come on down, because I'm trying to understand what -- first, I thought the Blackjack oaks were removed from something, the whole list, or put down to secondary trees, but what I thought I heard you say was that they're still listed as a quality tree based upon the diameters, they're just not listed as a heritage tree if they're a certain size or are they? So I'm not so sure that they've been deleted off of a quality tree list, so I want to make sure we have a real clear understanding of the facts here. Obviously the easiest way to put it is it's at the same as a pecan, so if it's between 6 and 18, it's a quality, if it's 18 or greater, then it's a heritage, and so the only difference is post-oaks, 6 inches and up is considered a heritage tree. Okay, so we're saying we're not putting the Blackjack oak at the same level of species as the post-oak, but it is -- Between 6 and 18. Right. Okay. If it's 18 or greater -- Right. -- then it's the same. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That helps me, so go ahead. I'm sorry, Councilmember. Well, I'm just curious if you could elaborate on that a little bit, and I guess Blackjack oaks and post-oaks are different, if you could, to speak to that, and then the rotting from the inside that the gentleman spoke about at the PNC meeting, and also what is the normal size of a post-oak and a Blackjack oak? Like does a Blackjack oak, how large do they get in diameter, generally? Okay, so I did speak to the individual that made the comment about the Blackjack oaks, and he was deriving, I think, a large part of his conclusion from about 5 or 6 trees on his own property. What I would say is that's a relatively small sample to make a generalization about all the trees, Blackjack oaks, around town. With any tree in general, it can receive damage when it's a small tree, and it'll cause that little rot on the inside. The tree does have mechanisms for walling that off so that it doesn't continue to spread as the tree grow. Just doing a little bit of research, I didn't see anything in particular that stood out to me that Blackjack oaks had issues. As far as the size of post-oaks and Blackjack oaks, I know with post-oaks they can get relatively large if they're given enough space. A lot of times we'll see those trees and they're growing so close that they don't get to the large size, but some of those trees, it looks like a small tree, 12 inches that diameter, but the tree may be 50 or 60 years old just based on the slow growth weight of them and how close they're growing together. I think the value of lumping post-oaks and Blackjack oaks together is that they are not a tree that you can buy in the nursery, generally speaking. I've seen them as whips online, just no saplings basically. If you go to your garden center, you're not going to find, generally, a two-inch or three-inch diameter or caliper post-oak or Blackjack oak, so I hope that helps. Go ahead. Can I just get you to follow up on the conversation before about the difference between a four-inch and a six-inch post-oak? Do you think, just with your special knowledge, that by eliminating and allowing to cut down four-inch post-oaks, that it would be harmful to the population in the future, or six-inch? If you could just speak. You heard the comments. I think it would have an effect. It would be wrong to say that it wouldn't have an effect, but by also preserving some of the larger trees and stands, those trees are still producing acorns and they're still producing new seedlings. I've been out on some sites where I've seen young post-oaks growing, so there's still a natural regeneration cycle going on. There is an effect, but the large ones that we are saving helps to continue the cycle also. So as long as they're in a stand, in a tree stand? Yes. They're in a tree stand. Generally, you'll have that natural regeneration going on there. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Haywood, for that insight. I'm going to propose, when it comes to making the motion, that we return blackjack oaks to the same category. I get the numbers all mixed up, but undemoted, move it up to the same category as the post-oak. All right. Any other questions? Councilmember Meltzer. I'd like to move adoption as presented with two changes. One is moving the blackjack oaks into the same category as post-oaks, as was just described. The second is on the single and two-family exemption to insert the word "owner domiciled." Well, two words to the hyphen, "owner domiciled." Help me understand that when the state doesn't make a distinction between that. Help me understand that. Is your fear that somebody will come in and assemble property and then cut all the trees down and then come in and make an application? Exactly. Have we had that experience? I can tell you right now, if people were cutting down clear-cutting trees, I think people get a phone call. So have we had any verifiable experience of that happening? I know people have cut them down after they've come for an application against the order, but . . . Well, I'll listen for the answer and then I have a comment. I don't recall, again, I haven't been here just within a year, but one thing to point out, single families are currently exempt anyways under the current code, but I don't recall having too many . . . I can't think of one call or complaint where an existing plot a lot was clear-cutting, unless Hailey or we can think of . . . So we're creating a new incentive. So whether we've had that experience in the past, it doesn't make a difference to me because that's not responsive to this new incentive that we're creating, potentially. It's just a loophole in my mind that we're closing, but to the question of have we seen owners clear-cut property or let's say cut lots of trees on property down and then later apply for development and we don't know what happened in between, but trees are missing, I know that's true. I came up recently with the fireside development. So the idea that someone could do something in between, kind of a regulatory scrutiny . . . That's different. Fireside development. Was that a single-family home or a single-family lot? No, no, no. I'm not contending that it was. I'm just saying that people respond to incentives. But you're saying that single-family homes that are one single-family home on a platted lot and a duplex, that if they want to remove a tree for whatever reason, if it's dead, dying or something, that they've got to comply with this, and it's very difficult for me to support that, because your fear is that they're going to do it for assemblage and for redevelopment. Yes. Now, if you want to add maybe an acreage limitation on that, that if you have a lot that's over an acre or two or whatever, I can understand that. Because then there's much more of a . . . I don't know if incentive is the right word. Opportunity or possibility, maybe, depending on where it's located. Because to single that . . . How does the local government code deal with single-family and duplex, whether it's owner-occupied or not? And we probably need to go with . . . I don't know if domicile is going to get you where you need to go. That's a very . . . Well, I chose the word specifically . . . Okay. All right. . . . for a specific reason. And I want to hear the rationale for that, too, because my understanding of that word is, I think, different than what you're intending. I'll find that exact language, but I do know that they don't draw a distinction between . . . They just mentioned residential and non-residential. And within the definition . . . And that's for mitigation? That's for the amount of mitigation, like a 50 percent or 40 percent or something like that? Correct. And then the applicability with respect to the 10 inches or where they're exempt if it's less than 10 inches at DBH, and that's just for residential. They don't draw a distinction between single family or rental. So my question becomes, are we preempted? I just don't understand if our code goes beyond in some areas that the state has occupied a regulatory framework. Are we preempted? I just don't know the answer to that question. We would have to take a look into that and give this council a report at a later date, because I'm looking at the statute and I'm trying to make the analysis as we speak. So if I may ask, if the motion goes . . . I'm happy to have more discussion, but if the motion does go as I expressed it, and we later find out that that specific element is preempted, what would the consequences be? I guess that's a loaded question. At the local level? At our level? It's a sincere question. I'm also thinking about state level action as well. But at the local level, what we're looking at is a provision that would not be enforceable, legally enforceable. A provision, but would it sort of undo the whole thing or . . . No, no, no. We typically put a section . . . We typically put a paragraph in each adopted ordinance that if any section is struck down by a court, it doesn't exactly . . . It's a severability clause. So let me, if I may . . . No, I'm good with that. . . . respond to your question about the domiciles, why I chose that word. So the exemption idea came about after Committee on the Environment meetings and so on, out of the discussion with the developers, which by the way I think was a great thing to have done, to make sure that all elements of the community are kind of weighing this and making sure it's livable. But it was new information to me and so I met with staff and asked what were the changes explained. And the rationale was that it goes a little bit just to property rights purely, like it's my tree. You know, you're telling people what to do with their own property and I'm sympathetic to that. But it was explicitly discussed in terms of homeowner behavior that people don't tend to cut their own trees anyway, that in fact we've got businesses here that sell trees and people buy them, they put them on. So the intent was clearly about people . . . was about leaving people alone to the extent we can in terms of enjoying their own home and trusting that that behavior kind of works in this direction anyway. But I observe, as you very accurately put together, that possible loophole where, okay it's single family, but it's not really the phenomenon that was described to me, that it's really an investment, kind of a commercial application, but presents an opportunity that's outside of what we intend for commercial development. And domiciled goes specifically to that it's really your home, not just could owner-occupied be gained. Like, well, nobody else lives there, you know, domiciled indicates kind of primary residence. It's where your cats are, so to speak. Okay, I have a different understanding of that word. So what I'm hearing you say is that in the meeting with the developers, it seemed that what came out of that was this exemption, but that this information . . . and I don't know so you can answer this for me, or staff or somebody. So what you're proposing, has that been something that's been run by the groups that we've used to vet this as well, you know, the group that y'all said y'all had a great developer meeting about, because I think what I'm hearing you say is that out of that meeting came this single family and duplex exemption, sort of, kind of. There are a number of . . . You know what, I'm going to put an end to this discussion real quick. I don't have an issue with it, because if it's preempted, it's not going to be enforceable anyway. So I'm good with that, yeah, I'm good with that, absolutely. Yeah, I was just going to . . . I don't recall that conversation from the meeting. My understanding of this exemption was just for that, for single family homeowners, instead of doing the state law, just going ahead and exempting them. So if they had a dead tree in their backyard, or in their front yard, or they wanted to plant a tree, or that they wouldn't have to go through the process of getting a permit of all of that information. So for me, the key word is development, and the single family commercial development, which is applicable . . . I'm having a hard time with that word . . . to this ordinance. It's not necessarily the homeowner. So that was my distinction, and I didn't necessarily think that somebody who was developing property could use the single family exemption. That's not the intention. So I don't know . . . I'm having a hard time understanding the loophole. Can you explain it to me? Well, may I respond? Because I specifically asked . . . Don't go away. I asked you during the presentation, would it be possible for someone to acquire single family homes, clear cut them, and subsequently ask to put them together and develop them, and then at that point the ordinance would apply, and I understood you to reply that that was possible. That's the loophole that I see, that I'm hoping to close. I don't think it's the biggest thing, but if we can do it, I'd prefer to. Just to give a little . . . kind of wind it back just a little bit. The slide that's here, let me just pull it up so you can see it on TV, number two, where you see the strike through, that was the initial language, where we had existing single family with trees under ten inches. There were a number of residents that had a concern with . . . where they're currently exempt under the current code now being required to do . . . So that's really where that changed. It just happened to be around that same time. Oh, okay. So it came from a different source than I thought. And so there was just a feedback coming in. The way we tried to address it on . . . with the language that's included now under that applicability section is while the assembly could happen, if you're in a single family district, you're still going to have to build a single family. So the likelihood of assembling it to build a multi-family, you're going to have to go through some zoning change or some other mechanism. And so I don't know how the likelihood of clearing all of that out, demoing structures, and then coming and asking for a zoning change. So really we looked at it as how can we best sort of grab it at the appropriate time. And that's where the language came about. If you were going to apply for a demo permit, they're more likely probably to demo a structure before they . . . especially if it's heavily treed, just with the cost of cutting trees down, if that makes any sense. - And there is also a section in the ordinance that says that you have to come in and get a plat before you can do anything on the property, correct? - Correct. Correct. So if you're going to redevelop, it would have to be platted unless you're going to just build back on that lot. But in order to do that, you have to have the zoning in order to have the plat for anything other than what would be there. And in this case, it would only be single family and duplex. Multi-family, we've addressed any non-residential and multi-family. And so the only exemption there is if you're doing an interior alteration. But if you're demoing it, redeveloping a multi-family or non-residential, then you're absolutely going to have to comply with all of it. - Would the insertion of the language, as I moved, prevent anything that you envisioned the ordinance doing? - Just so I'm clear on the insertion, it would be under existing... - Part of the word single family, it would be the insertion of owner-domiciled. - Was intended to apply to single family and two family. - On the exemption. I can't... Again, just off the top of my head, I don't think it's much of an issue. - So I want to make sure I understand from the state code. I think what I heard you say is that if it's under 10 inches and it's residential, well, I think you said there's no distinction between residential or non-residential. If it's under 10 inches and it's residential, it doesn't make a distinction between owner-occupied or rental. - They define residential structure, of course it timed out, they define it as either a mobile home as defined under the occupational code, a detached one or two family dwelling, including accessory structures, multiple single family dwellings, more than three stories in height with a separate means of entry, and then any other multifamily structure. So it's really any residential, there's not a distinction between... - So yeah, we'll just get a report from legal on marrying up those two and see how they're... - And again, just the other point I wanted just to make, part of it was too is again coming back in six months and sort of evaluating it as well. - So, you know, I move when I move. - Of course, of course, absolutely. Council Member Briggs. - I have an issue with the six months, and I don't know if that's what we're approving. I approve this ordinance and I feel like three months should be long enough to have the learning process. I am kind of afraid what could happen in six months. If our goal is to preserve and to implement this ordinance, then I am a little confused why we're not going to start it for six months. - Is that what you... I don't think that's what he meant. I think he said come back and review it in six months to see how it's working. - We're not going to make people comply with this ordinance for six months. - When are y'all proposing that it become effective? - Well, it's twofold. So we've got a development code currently that's ongoing and we hope to bring that forward. The tree and conservation ordinance will be a component of that code. So we're looking to have an effective date of six months. Ultimately, people are able to use that code today. They could use either code because our existing code is going to be in place still. So it was really just a means to allow the community to try and for us as staff to understand if it's working properly. I might just add a plat wouldn't really get through the process in less than 90 days anyhow. So I think there's a couple of things working in our favor as far as trying to get this and have truly a tool that we know whether it's functioning correctly or not. - So you're saying that our code update will more than likely be approved in six months and that this will just integrate into it as? - Our draft code today, the one that we're reviewing has the first version of the tree code incorporated into it. The landscape and conservation code is already incorporated into it. The next version of the code that you'll see is the adoption draft, which we wanted to insert this language into that code. So it would be a part of the code. So it's a comprehensive tool to be able to be used. - Well, when we did the ESA and the update on that, and so that was approved ahead of this and that was just going to be integrated into the code. So I've just, and we've been implementing that as items have come up before us. - That was an individual sub-chapter. We've incorporated the ESA, the landscape and the trees into a single document. So it's a little more challenging and I think we have a great advantage to do it this way. - Can I just follow up with just one last statement? Yeah. - This has been a really long process. So 2004 and then in between 2007 and 2013, many attempts were made and it didn't get past PNC. I mean, this is, it's pretty historic that we are where we are as far as where we're going. But I guess I'm just nervous about it because we fought, I mean, we have worked really hard to get here and then just to say, well, you know, six more months and for me, that just feels like a really long time for a lot of things to go wrong. - It would be an effective date though. It means that that law passed today, it gives us six months to make sure if we want to revisit anything we can, but we're going to have a whole code series that is changing. We're changing an entire community and so we haven't taken it lightly to say six months. We just want to make sure that we give everybody, we afford the opportunity for staff as well as the development community and our citizens the opportunity to understand what those changes are before they're in effect. It's a very daunting, challenging task and again, to your point, I mean, 14 years later, here we are. If it passes tonight, it is a law in six months. - Council Member Hudspeth. - I can't help it. I'm pretty pragmatic in my approach and so, Scott, can I help you, help me understand if someone's in there do well, if they're, hey, I'm just going to pay the fine and do bad things, what in this code preempts that? - I don't know that anything preempts that. Ultimately, if somebody does a bad thing, then ultimately they're going to end up with our municipal code and so that would be either a violation of $500 per day per occurrence or $2,000 per day per occurrence based on the severity of what it is. - Sure. Yeah. And so with that lens, that to me is really the just of it, right? I mean, for me, just pragmatic, we need to do business and educate people and motivate them to do right things, but whatever we're discussing here sets the guidelines for that, but it doesn't preempt, what preempts people is them being invested in our community, wanting to do things, wanting to create a great community, wanting to be good stewards of our property, our land, our citizens, et cetera. And so that's where I get hung up with this body in the implementation time. I think for me, the implementation time is so clear cut just because we have another ordinance that's getting torpedoed every day, so this body should clearly understand the need to reevaluate sooner than later because inevitably life happens between the time something's implemented and when it's put into practice and understand some fine tuning needs to happen. So I'm okay with the six months. I tell you, I'm trying my best because I understand the sensitivity of it, but I'll just say I'm frustrated that here we are again at the dais, crafting blackjack, no blackjack, we've had all these community meetings, you took time to sit with each individual council members, we had an opportunity to send in questions early this week, it just is perplexing why those opportunities are not advantaged or activated so that we can have something to review, something, and that's the thing, this body talks about the public being aware. Well, if the public's not listening from whatever that was, 9/45 to now, they have no idea that we're discussing to blackjack or not to blackjack and they have no opportunity to respond to that and that's a problem. So I just wish we would be better about taking events. So here's the thing, I hope we can move forward and vote, but if this goes too many more iterations of too many surprises, I'm going to try to see if we can find, if I can find three other people to postpone it so that people have an opportunity to be noticed, because right now there's a myriad of people that looked at the backup, that did their due diligence and did their research and thought okay, I'm okay with this and here we are re-crafting it again and so they're not able, the public that everyone talks about is not able to be made aware and so then you get some kind of, that's where the six months and the backlash and all that stuff comes in and again, credit to you, your organization for reaching out to us, meeting with us, sitting down with us, city manager staff says hey, do you have questions, get those to me and so we'll see how the next 15 or so minutes go. Thank you. Councilmember, Mayor Pro Tem Ryan. Thank you Mayor and I completely agree with Councilmember Husspeth on this. I'm fully prepared to take staff's recommendation for what we should pass along with PNZ's recommendation, blackjack, I can go either way on that, but I have a very difficult time voting for something that I know is quite likely preempted by state law and with that question, with that being part of this ordinance at this point, it's always been my feeling that you don't vote for something that you can't enforce because it makes no sense to waste the ink on it and that's where I sit right now so I have to weigh heavily as to which way I want to go on this. Again, I'm fully prepared to vote for it as it was presented by staff, as it was approved by PNZ, as it has been vetted by the public and blackjack or no blackjack doesn't matter, but adding something in there that clearly would be against what would be preempted by state law is something I cannot support. Councilmember Meltzer. Well we have an attorney here who said it isn't clear so I'm willing to find out if it's clear or not. I think I have a good reason for proposing it and I think we're well within our rights to have a process of discussion and deliberation and to make amendments, that's why we're here. So I'm interested in just understanding as part of the deliberation and with respect to Councilmember Briggs's concerns, why is the timing of it attached to the timing of the development code? I don't know if I have a feeling about it one way or the other, I just want to understand the argument. What's the magic of it being attached to that and that's got six months attached to it, right? It is a very complicated, the development code is very complicated, so this is not as simple as taking one section of the code and repealing it, it's multiple sections and because of timing we framed it with the development code so it's running parallel so the sections, the structure, the way that it functions is designed to work with the development code. For us to repeal those other sections of the code I think would be a challenge and maybe that's for legal if they have any opinion on that but I know it was our intent and again we've worked very diligently with all of our stakeholders to get the best understanding that we could from everyone, to get consensus where we could and there was also that need and desire from the development community for them to have an opportunity to truly try this and so it was part of how do we get past where we have been for the last 14 years and this was a component of that is trying to offer that we're trying to be transparent, we're trying to be obvious as to what we're trying to do, we're trying to preserve more trees and yet provide a more flexible tool for people to use and it just boils down to that it's the development code that really is a part of this and it just made the most sense. I can't say I have immense clarity on the timing issue, my inclination at the moment is I moved when I moved, if it gets a second it gets a second, if Council Member Briggs or someone else would like to move an amendment that can be voted on separately about changing the effective date, you know we can do that. I seconded. Yeah, you seconded. What I want to do is clear the board from people wanting to speak and then we can deal with the procedural aspects of the motions. The only one that I'm aware that hasn't spoken is Council Member Armitage, you've signed up to speak. Yeah. We haven't cleared the rest but I think Council Member Husspeth has and Paul you're talking now and so if Council Member Armitage if you'll go ahead. Yeah, so I just wanted to state my support of adding the domicile issue, weighing the pros and cons, worst case scenario turns out to be preempted and then it's just, someone put it away, just a little ink has been spent on something that didn't need to be there, worst case scenario, we've avoided a potential loophole so I really, so because I don't see the harm, it doesn't cost a dime or a dad, you know, another word or two in there. So I just wanted to add, since I hadn't spoken on that, that I support that. You know, as for the six months, well and I had previously expressed my opinion on the blackjack issue so that has worked into the motion as it stands now. So you know, about the six months, it's concerning for me too, I'm, I understand, at least I think I understand, you know, the point that you're making that it's kind of inseparable from the new ordinance, is it, I mean, sorry, the new codes as it stands now, I mean on its own, you can't, it's something that can't be taken out of its context without a lot of, unlike the ESA, is that what you're saying? Unlike the ESA, because Council Member Burke, she said, well what about, you know, the ESA, the changes to the ESA definition, that was passed earlier, this, you know, it would be like taking, like extracting a heart from a body, I mean it can't exist on its own, it needs to be part of the body, so you'd have to create some elaborate new, it would be too complicated to keep it alive on its own, is that, it's kind of a gross analogy, but. Basically, it's just, it wasn't set up in a context. The ESA was Chapter 17, Chapter 17 existed in the old, or the current code, it was just updated. This is a complete rewrite of three sections of our current municipal code, designed to go into what we're going to have for a updated development code, which is consolidated. Yeah, so it's not, it's not, it can't be extracted from the context and stand on its own. I wouldn't say that it couldn't, it's just going to be a lot of staff time, labor and energy for something that we're going to be adopting in a very short period of time. In a short, yeah, so yeah, I will, I'll go along with that, and with the understanding that, you know, we're going to continue the, with the new, the, to enforce the rules that we have, and in case anyone does violate the rules that they have, it's, they can't just do that with impunity, the rules that we have already. So people are, as long as people are still being held accountable, I'm okay with that. So I'm not going to be very popular right now. I'm just going to be honest, and I may lose, but we've worked hard over these last six months to incorporate all kinds of public input into this process, and I think that I can't support this right now without having it go back to some developers and present these changes. This whole effective date issue, I don't even know if people understand that or know anything about it. The blackjack issue, no offense to blackjack oaks. I don't even know if I'd know one when I saw it, but I've been on council for 11 years, and all that I've heard in a tree code and all I've heard about the great trees that need to be preserved in this city that are above all and all other trees are post oaks. This is the first time I've heard that we're going to put, and to me it's inconsequential, but it's a larger picture of what we're doing tonight on something that we've worked 14 years on, and so now we're trying to craft something up here based upon loopholes and all this kind of stuff that in some ways are we going to betray the people that we've talked to before about, hey, we think we've got it worked out. Here's what we think it has. So I'm going to make a motion to postpone to a date certain of April the 2nd, which is the, is that a council meeting? And that way it gives us a chance to talk with the people, gives us a chance to explain the six months, it gives us a chance to decide if we want to do that, because this is too important to be haphazard with preemption, with effective date, with other trees. So I mean, Council Member Briggs, I know you're disappointed, but this is what happens. I mean, this, when you talk about what's the possibilities of something happening, it's all of a sudden we start creating all these different kinds of things that we've not talked about that we've not talked about with the public. I mean, I've sat down with you for several meetings, I understand that you all sat down with the developers, we've had developers call. If people thought that we were talking about what we're talking about now, I don't know whether there would be more people in here or not, there may be. So and that motion may fail, and I'm prepared to vote on this, if it does fail. But I think given it two weeks, given the things that have surfaced during this discussion, I don't think that's too much to ask. So I'm going to make a motion to postpone to, yes, go ahead. >> Could I just ask one question, and just because staff has tirelessly worked on this, if in fact, if council's okay with the six months, as we've publicly said this, in that six month window would be the same opportunity if we felt that it was important to add blackjack oaks in there, or if we needed to add domicile. Why couldn't we look at that in the same fashion, to say we have a code that's in place today, we're adopting a code that's going to have an effective date in six months, can we move forward with the code that we have and look for those items that we have to fix during that six month window, which we've told to the developers? >> I don't have a problem with that, and what you're saying is, can we pass the code that has been passed by P and Z, recommended by staff, vetted through the public, and these other issues of blackjack oaks being treated the same as post oaks, this loophole that has allegedly been identified, that we can have enough time to get a preemption ruling on that, and if it's not, then we can come back and make some kind of amendment to it, and so if that's what you're saying, that it's six months, that it's the staff recommendation, it's the P and Z recommendation, and that that gives us time to come back and address these issues that have been part of the motion, I'm okay with that. >> I am, Mayor. I'm asking the body, just from the staff time that's been put into this. >> The only way to find out is to, and if we want to do that, I will draw my motion to postpone, and we'll just go with the motion and the second, and we'll vote on it, and then if it is denied, then we're back to square one. So go ahead, Councilmember. Is anybody signed up like we, I see Armitage Briggs and Mayor Pro Tem, go ahead. >> I'm okay with that, I've seconded with hesitation, I don't even know if I've officially seconded. >> You haven't. You haven't. >> Yeah, because I was concerned about the, but if there is that time period where we can discuss those things, then that time period makes sense, and if the question I have though is, so the code update, if that code update gets pushed even further, because that's also been a long process, does this still go within that six months of getting passed? I don't want to get anywhere complicated, I'm just trying to figure out the process, because I'm okay with everything. I don't want to wait another day, honestly. >> Well, I'm glad that Scott said that, because the only reason this place isn't back tonight is we have been meeting the last several weeks with developers, assuring them that all this code is going to be, it's as transparent as it gets, if there's additional changes, we can talk to them, and we have all been having conversations the last two days. I was meeting with people last night, assuring them that if there was any additional changes to this code, they would know about it. If we take any other approach to what's recommended, it's going to look as if the staff has betrayed them, and there's going to be a lot of, so I'm okay if you want to approve the code, if there's a list that we can compile of additional research you want us to look at, we are happy to do that, but we have reached a point of equilibrium I don't think any of us thought we would be at right now this soon, and we've got their support from some of these groups as well, so I just really don't want to do anything to disrupt it, knowing that we still have another large section of the code to come through, we need to build that credibility that we're doing what we say we're going to do, and if there's changes here, then just let us vet it in front of them and then bring it back to you, that's fine. We're happy to do that. >> And the Councilman, sir. >> Before, and this is just a housekeeping measure, I need to clear off the request to speak, and then we're going to have people reenter, because I don't know who's on there, I mean, that's, go ahead, John, go ahead. >> I was next after. >> Okay. >> Sometimes people stay on, people stay off, I've got six names up here and I'm not sure who's on first and who's on second, so go ahead. >> To answer that question, in the ordinance, it's crafted an effective date of October 1st, 2019. >> Right. 2019, yes. >> Yeah, we are in 2019. >> I lost a year. >> We are still on track, despite this afternoon, we're still on track to have the code to Council by late April, mid-May, at the latest, so I don't think there's going to be anything that's going to derail the sixth month, but, you know, so, and we will do our best. I know Aaron and his staff are rushing to review it as well, it's become top priority, so we will get this to you, but the only way we get all these things through cleanly is to not restart a bunch of fights out there, and we've got a good communication flow going with our residents, with the development community, and finding a balance. I don't think anyone thought we'd be here a year ago, you know, and, but again, if there's additional questions, additional research, concerns about loopholes, please get them to us, we'll research them, we'll vet them, and we'll bring them back. >> Mayor Pro Tem. >> Thank you, Mayor. I guess it would be a friendly amendment that I'd be asking for to just offer this up as a clean, what has been passed by PNZ, what's been recommended by staff, and if that's not accepted, then I will make a motion to postpone it. >> Well, we haven't had the motion on the floor seconded yet, so we don't even have a live motion. I mean, there's a motion been made, but we don't have a motion that's been seconded. Councilmember Armitage. >> So I'll second that motion. I will say, you know, if this fails, I'm okay with the plan of passing it as is, and then having scheduled discussion. >> Okay. >> What? >> No, I'm just, it's just, we've had probably four council members, five council members say that they're opposed to the motion that's on the floor, and so we're going to go through this anyway. We'll go. >> Yeah, it's -- >> That's the process. Let's go. >> Exactly. And I respect the process. >> Okay. Let's go. >> So, yeah, I just wanted to say to let, you know, staff, this is not a -- I'm not rejecting your proposal. I thought it was a kind of reasonable proposal that, look, we passed this tonight. So, in other words, I support the addition of the Black Jack Oaks and Domicile, but if this doesn't pass, then I support just passing it as is, and then having these discussions over the six-month period. I think that's a totally reasonable idea. I will say, and I'm just kind of just putting this out there, that, you know, any developers who wanted to come could have come tonight knowing this was a public hearing. I don't -- you know, I'm new on council, but I don't see how, you know, anyone would have the authority, staff council, anybody to tell anybody, a developer or resident, you know, we assure you that there are not going to be any changes, because you never know -- I mean, you might be rooting and hoping that there won't be any changes, but you don't know what's going to happen. So, you know, I just wanted to put that out there and to say that this is what we can do at public hearings. We can make friendly amendments and things, and it's just -- that's the process. Excuse me. Councilmember Armitage, we understand the process. You've seconded the motion. We're going to need to take a break here pretty soon. I'd like to go ahead and continue to move forward. Okay. So I'll just finish in saying that I would appreciate it, just in the future, if developers not be made, you know, assurances that -- With all due respect, the developers have been made. No assurances. Oh, good. It's called working with the community and the public, which you advocate for on a daily basis. What we're saying is we don't want to tell them one thing, and then we come up here and do another, and we sort of blindside them. It doesn't matter who it is -- developer, residents -- it doesn't matter. Okay. I don't quite see the distinction there, but I guess we can talk about that later, but I just wanted to just put that out there. Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Duffin and Councilmember Hussbeth. I think -- Oh, I'm sorry. Councilmember Meltzer was on the queue. I can't tell who's on the queue. Okay. Just -- I just want to correct the misperception that, like, I sort of came up with this loophole thing tonight. I'm sure staff will back me up that I've communicated about this probably at least three times in person and in writing prior to tonight. I haven't been satisfied with seeing any response to it. That's why I introduced you tonight. Sure. But it's not -- I understand that. It's not that I'm coming up with it on the fly. I understand. Councilmember Duffin and Councilmember Hussbeth. I think we have a consensus here to vote on this as presented. I think we have four votes. Well, we just got to go through the process. Okay. We'll go through the process, but I think the four votes are there, and I think we need to get there. Okay. Councilmember Hussbeth. Yeah. So fair warning. I think that's terrible to not pragmatically take the approach of, hey, we can pass it clean versus having us vote to not pass it clean and then come back and pass it for whatever reason. I think it's bad to misstate what was said, so I want to have a clear record, because I think that is -- that anyone deserves that, and the city manager's often too nice to clarify, so I want to clarify in his stead, unprovoked. The statement was he communicated to the developers that if there were changes, we would bring those back to you. That does not preclude changes. That does not eliminate changes. That does not eliminate the process from going forward. That simply says, I give you my word that if there are changes, if life does happen, I will bring that back to you out of respect. So how it was characterized is incorrect, and I just wanted to set that straight. Now, I would ask the movement, out of respect for the city manager's request, out of request for staff, but if we're going to be here for gamesmanship, I'm game. A motion to postpone takes precedent over this motion. So if we're going to have this motion, the vote just to torpedo it, then during the discussion here in just a minute, if the movement doesn't withdraw his motion, understanding the reading of the tea leaves, then I'm going to move to postpone it, and that vote takes precedent. And that's the procedure. That procedure is absolutely dead on, and it's absolutely what no one wants, but it absolutely is what I will do. All right. I'm not sure who's queued up, quite honestly. Councilmember Armitage, you just, I don't know why your name just disappeared from the seconder. Yeah, because I just pressed it, because if that's what's going to happen, I mean, if it's true, and I think that's correct, that a motion to postpone takes precedent, I believe that's correct. Yes, it takes precedence over a motion. So I don't want to risk that. I hope the public understands what that means, what that would entail. So I'm going to have to withdraw my second, because I don't want to risk that, because we've gotten this far. So I'm sorry. All right. So do we have a motion on the floor? Do we have a second? I'll call one more time. Do we have a second for the motion on the floor? And correct me if I'm making any procedural missteps. Seeing no second, hearing no second, then the motion on the floor dies for a lack of a second. All right. So we're back to the table is clear. There's no active motion on the table. Council member Pro Tem. I move approval of the ordinance as presented by staff and approved by or recommended by P&Z. Okay. Council member Duff. I second. All right. We have a motion and a second on the board for agenda item six. Is that E? Yes, 6E. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. Let's take about a five-minute break. Thank you all. All right. Welcome, everybody, back to this meeting of the Dent City Council. We're on our last public hearing item, which is agenda item 6F, hold a public hearing of an ordinance of the City of Dent, Texas, regarding a change in the zoning district and use classification from neighborhood residential mixed use 12 to neighborhood residential mixed use, excuse me, NRMU. All right. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton, and I'm presenting Z1828B, Audre Heights, to you this evening. So as stated, the request is a proposed rezoning from neighborhood residential mixed use 12 to neighborhood residential mixed use district on approximately 8.7 acres of land. The subject property is outlined here in yellow. It is located between Bayfield, which is right here, and Loop 288 on the north side of Audre Lane. So the map here on the left is the current zoning map. The subject property is outlined in black, and you can see that shows that the current zoning of NRMU 12. It's that orange hatched. The surrounding zoning pattern includes NRMU 12 adjacent to the property. There's a town home, or I'm sorry, a duplex development here. Off to the west, you have some lower density single-family neighborhoods, and those have those zoning districts of NR3, NR2, and then NR4 to the south. As you move toward Loop 288 to the east, you have NRMU and NRMU 12. The proposed zoning map is on the right, and that shows an extension of that NRMU toward the west, and you can see it right here. So before we get into the zoning analysis, just want to take a quick moment to talk about the background of the property. So in the existing zoning, NRMU 12, the maximum lot coverage is 60%, and that includes all impervious surface, so any buildings, driveways, walkways, anything rain can't get through. There was a preliminary plat approved for a town home development on the site in 2017, and it's shown right here, and you can see there's a central spine road, and then the individually platted town homes on either side with an alleyway, and there are 87 town homes on this preliminary plat. This layout was based upon an actual misapplication of the Denton Development Code in subchapter 13, and that provision allowed pervious driveways to be counted toward landscape area instead of lot coverage, so it wouldn't go against that 60%. In early 2018, there was an analysis and an update of the City of Denton's parking regulations, and within that project, it was discovered that this provision within the Denton Development Code was misapplied, and in fact, didn't permit single-family uses and duplexes from taking advantage of this pervious driveway provision, and so that affects the potential development of this property, because in order to put an adequately sized home as well as a driveway, it would exceed that 60%, whereas prior to, they were going to construct those driveways with the pervious surface to meet that lot coverage. So the applicant is requesting to rezone to NRMU from NRMU 12 in order to increase the lot coverage from 60% to 80% in order to accommodate the development on the lots. So now we'll get into the criteria for approval for zoning. So subchapter 3 outlines the criteria for approval for rezoning, and first, does it conform to the future land use element of the Denton Plan 2030, and then does it facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer, schools, parks, and other public requirements? So first, we'll go over the future land use map. So this is in kind of a different position in that it really is on the cusp of two future land use designations, and so staff actually analyzed the proposal based upon both of those. So first, moderate residential, that future land use designation is a residential one of dwelling units between 4 and 12 dwelling units per acre. It encourages a diverse housing type, could be single-family detached on smaller lots, low-rise multi-family, and then also townhomes. As part of the development criteria, it does state that any development should maintain scale and style to complement the character of the surrounding area. Moderate mixed-use, which also affects the subject property, is one of our mixed-use future land use designations, and it encourages that variety of residential uses in addition to adding in retail and service uses to meet the day-to-day needs of surrounding neighborhoods. Once again, scale and development standards are also important considering the compatibility. And you can see in this map that moderate residential is this orange, and then it fades into that neighborhood mixed-use, and that's the pink, as you get toward LUT 288. So as we analyze the request, we looked at this area really as a transition area. And as you can see in this map, it shows how that transition is occurring. So transition areas are intended to allow development to gradually increase or decrease in intensity. So for instance, in this location, this low residential, that's that yellow, that reflects those single-family neighborhoods to the west. And if you follow that red line, you see the intensity increasing as you go toward LUT 288, which makes sense, because LUT 288 is one of those commercial corridors within the city. So you would expect development standard scale uses to gradually increase as you move toward LUT 288. And that's reflected in the future land use map with that low density residential moving to moderate and then moving to neighborhood mixed-use. It's also reflected in the zoning pattern that we looked at earlier. And this is intended to protect existing neighborhoods in both use and scale. Townhome use is consistent with both the future land use as well as permitted in the current zoning and the proposed zoning. But staff feels like that expansion of NRMU could potentially disrupt that progression of intensity by moving further toward the west. And although both NRMU 12 and NRMU could potentially be consistent with the future land use, we felt like NRMU was really more consistent with that neighborhood mixed-use part of it and less with that moderate residential part of it. And so we concluded that NRMU 12, that existing zoning, is really more consistent with both future land use designations, and that it allows that variety of housing types, some limited commercial, but at a reduced scale to maintain that transition area and the compatibility. So to further illustrate the compatibility, we have a couple of slides just looking at what developments on the ground. So these are pictures of the adjacent single-family neighborhoods. This is to the south, and this is further to the west. As I said, single-family residential, and they have the zoning designations of NR2, the NR3, and NR4. So that's kind of the beginning of that transition zone. On the other end of the transition zone, as you get toward Loop 288, and it's far off in the distance in this picture, although the land is not developed, you could foresee that there would be commercial development or some sort of use like that along Loop 288, because that's the type of development you typically see on arterials. So that would be that greater intensity side of that scale. And then when you look closer to the subject property, and in particular the duplex development adjacent to, it has the same zoning designation as the subject property currently has, that NRMU-12. Duplexes are permitted by right, and they were developed by right. They're on separately platted lots, and they meet the development standards, the 60 percent lot coverage. These are under single ownership, the whole neighborhood, as a rental community, and it includes 72 three-bedroom units, and the code allows up to four occupants per unit. Now, ownership is not part of our criteria for approval. So it's not something that is part of our analysis factors, but land use is. And so we looked at this property in terms of land use, and the compatibility of NRMU coming adjacent to this. And we felt like in both scale and use, NRMU was just too intense to be adjacent to this. Additionally, it would shrink that transition zone. It would shrink that, if approved, it would shrink that NRMU-12 to reduce that buffer and that gradual scaling of the use and intensity. Use comparison, your backup has all of the uses outlined, but we'll just pull out a couple of them to discuss. So for instance, NRMU-12 doesn't permit bars, whereas NRMU would permit bars with a limitation. NRMU-12 doesn't permit hotels, whereas NRMU would permit them. Restaurants aren't permitted under current zoning, NRMU would allow a restaurant. And then, when you get to that development scale, the development standards, NRMU-12 permits a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre, whereas NRMU permits a maximum of 30. That lot coverage is in the box. That's why we're here today, because it does increase the intensity of that lot coverage from 60% to 80%. And then, NRMU has a maximum building height of 65 feet, whereas the existing zoning is 40 feet. So the other criterion for approval is adequate public improvements. And so, although the proposal would not increase the development intensity relative to the public facilities, it would increase the intensity of development due to increased lot coverage. But we'll just go over those public facilities. First of all, transportation, the trips generated with that townhome use don't trigger that TIA requirement. And they would connect to the existing water and wastewater. Notification was sent out. We've received three responses in opposition. None of those are within that 200-foot buffer, however. Signs were posted on the site. The applicant did have a neighborhood meeting. I actually had a conflicting meeting that night, so I was only able to rush in at the end. So I don't know all of what transpired, but the applicant is here, and they could probably speak to that. So based upon the criteria for approval and the discussion on that comprehensive plan, staff has recommended denial of the request. This item was presented at the February 20th planning and zoning meeting for the first public hearing, and the commission expressed concerns regarding staff's recommendation. Since the property could be developed with the proposed use under current zoning, but they would have to shrink the building footprint and go taller in order to meet lot coverage. So it could be developed under current zoning with that configuration. Based upon that, the planning and zoning commission recommended approval of the request with some conditions to increase the compatibility, to restrict the permitted uses to just that townhome, the single family attached, and to limit the number of dwelling units to 12, and that's limitation 40 in the development code. Reduce the maximum building height to 40 feet. And then we also work with the applicant regarding a buffer area between the residential uses and Audre Lane to provide a screening wall there, as well as some landscape buffer, that if approved, it would allow just sort of a gateway into that development. And that's my presentation. I'll stand for any questions. >> Mayor Pro Tem. >> Thank you. And City Attorney, if I'm out of line on this, let me know, but I'm looking at on our proposed code, the NRMU 12 will go to MN, and NRMU will go to MN. So once we have approved our new zoning map, it will, this will basically be a mute point? Is that? >> Well, and we have, we've discussed that internally, and that, since that map is in draft form, that it hasn't been set in stone in terms of what that future. And so we were just, in our analysis of this, just kind of looking at what the facts were on the ground today regarding that. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff before we open the public hearing? So one question, just to summarize it, so I can get my head around it. So y'all were recommending denial because you didn't think that, just in two sentences? >> We just felt like that existing zoning meets the future land use, both that moderate residential as well as the neighborhood mixed use. >> Okay. Great. All right. Council Member Hussbeth. >> Thank you. How many units are proposed? >> They're proposed, the preliminary plat has 87. Oh, I'm sorry, 89, I'm sorry. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. So we're going to open the public hearing. I've got one card. And then Nancy Carson, Nancy, do you want the applicant to speak first so maybe you can hear their presentation if they have one before you speak or do you want to go ahead and speak first? Okay, yeah, if the applicant is here, just go ahead and state your name and address and your time will begin. >> Good evening, mayors, city councilmembers. My name is Earl Escobar with Cranall Engineering. Address is 2570 Justin Road in Highland Village. And just to elaborate a little bit more on the rezoning request, we are not -- this is not a speculative zoning. We have a final plat and a construction plan project that had been reviewed and approved by staff and, you know, given if we are approved with this rezoning request, we will pursue the final plot to be considered by PNZ at the next available session. The primary reason of this rezoning request is for lot coverage because the use -- town home use is allowed, is permitted under the current zoning that we're in and under the proposed zoning. And in terms of the restriction of 12 units per acre, we're fine with that because we're proposing an 8.6 lots per acre density, which makes us closer to NR6 zoning than it does to NRMU12. So in that definition of moderate residential at 8.6, that puts us in the middle between 4 and 12 units per acre under that definition. Some of the obstacles that we're experiencing with the townhome development in NRMU12 zoning is the definition of lot coverage. Denton considers lot coverage anything impervious, whether it's the structure, driveway, sidewalk, et cetera. And it's defined at 60% maximum. There's only one other city that defines lot coverage for townhome uses, and that's Fort Worth, and that percentage is at 85%, however. Other similar cities define lot coverage as just primarily the main structure and maybe -- and accessory structures. And you can see that cities range from 60% to 90% lot coverage for the primary and accessory buildings, and for our development, we're proposing -- if we were under that definition, we would be at 57.5%. Other criteria that are serving as obstacles to our development is the misapplication of Subchapter 13, where previous paving for driveways no longer would count towards our landscape area. It would actually count towards an impervious area, and it penalizes towards that. And so I wanted to show you a couple of examples that other developments that were also misapplied. One was the villages of Carmel, which, fortunately, they were built out before this misapplication was discovered. Another one was the Vista Del Arroyo off of Riney Road, and they are not built out at this time, but they did recently apply and got approved by the ZBA for an 80% lot coverage, and that was the reason why Julie could not make our neighborhood meeting, because she was presenting that case to ZBA at the time of our neighborhood meeting. And the last requirement was the recently passed parking requirement of requiring four parking spaces for townhome developments. That just means wider driveways, increased impervious area, and increased lot coverage. And I wanted to show you our development has 24-foot wide lots with 1380 square foot of structure, and so in order for our development to work, our lots would have to be 145 feet deep. The structures would have to be set back 65 feet from the street, and it just doesn't meet the intent of what a townhome should look like. A townhome should have minimal front yards. The majority of the lot should be the structure itself. And with our proposed rezoning request being approved, that would allow us to move the building towards the street, about 20 feet from the right of way, and only have 105 feet between structures. And as Julie mentioned before, in order to make our development work with the current lot configuration that we have in our plot, we'd have to go vertical. We'd have to go three stories high. We'd have to reduce the building footprint from 1380 to 900 square feet. But still, you'd still have a 40-foot front yard. You'd still have almost 150 feet between structures, and it just would not meet the intent of a townhome development. And I also wouldn't protect the scale of the existing neighborhood as well, going three stories. These are just renderings of the structures themselves. Each lot will have different distinct materials and colors so that they would look like single family units, as opposed to being consistent and look more like a multifamily structure. And this is the rear garage. And we understand Julie's recommendation for NRMU, but we do approve all the three conditions if you do choose to approve it with those conditions. >> Councilmember Riggs. >> Thank you. Just a couple of questions. So in the-- >> Councilmember, could you maybe put the mic up? >> Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm tired. >> No, no, I understand. I'm just having a hard time hearing you. >> Sleepy voice. >> So on one of the images, it showed the parking lot in front of the structure or the driveway, but there were room for like six vehicles, I think, in one of the images Julie showed in her presentation. So with the requested zoning or the proposed image that you showed that you want, how big are the driveways? Would they allow for that many vehicles to park or would those vehicles be forced onto the street? >> Well, we were required to provide four parking spaces, so we provided-- we're going to provide a two-car garage for each structure, so that's two parking spaces, and then we'd provide a 20 by 20 foot driveway pad behind the structure, which is adequate for two more parking spaces for your four total spaces. We couldn't-- we could not bring the structure closer to the street because the driveway would have to go with it in the backside, and that would penalize us with our lack of coverage. >> Okay. And on these, because I did watch the PNC meeting and there were some speakers that said that there's already a development like this behind that causes a lot of noise and issues, is this the same type of rental as the one that is right next behind it? Do you know like is this-- is this rent by the bed or is it-- >> No. >> Is it to be better? >> No. Austin Goode, 2717 Gold Lake. No, it's not rent by the bed. It's going to be targeted to young families, not students. >> Okay. So, I think the other ones are targeted towards students specifically, and that was I think the main concern. >> Okay. >> And a lot of that-- they don't have alleys, and they're pretty close together. And actually, if you replatted this for duplexes on the western half of the street, which is all you'd have to do since the lot line actually-- the where NRMU is now for the other side would actually make the eastern half allowed to build townhouses. So if we actually ended up having to replat, we would just replat the eastern half and we'd lose two units. And so we'd have-- so there's two options. We build three stories with 45 foot front yards, which is not ideal for anybody, I don't think. And the other option is to replat the western half of the street, lose two units, and have the eastern half townhouses and the western half duplexes, which I think is kind of silly to do. Really not saving any density or parking or traffic impact by, you know, by denying this. We're really just asking for what the city of Denton-- if you look at the city of Denton, all of the townhouses that have been approved in this zoning, which there are quite a few, they've all had impervious surfaces to, I guess, meet that coverage. But it wasn't only until right before we got our final plat comments back that we were told this, that the city has been mis-supplying the rules all along. And so it's kind of been-- I don't know, it's just kind of restrictive and silly, and it's kind of forcing us to do something that is really not in the best interest of anybody. But to answer your question, it's not a buy-the-bed, it's not a student housing deal, that's not our intent whatsoever. All right. Thank you. Yep. Councilmember Hussbett. Thank you. Yeah. So I'm going to-- Is this a question for the-- Yes. Yeah. So I'm going to disagree with you. OK. The change in enforcement, because I've driven what's there currently, and we have a new-- are you aware of the parking issue with people blocking the sidewalk? Are you talking about the development next door? Yes, sir. Or are you talking about-- OK. Yeah. Or are you-- you don't even have to-- let's not be development-specific. Are you aware-- the concern about blocking sidewalks for people with disabilities? That's a city-wide problem? Yes, sir. No, I'm not. OK. So that's a concern for me, is that our-- whatever we authorize is a-- people with disabilities are able to access sidewalks, utilize sidewalks, et cetera, et cetera. And so when I hear you say that it's, your words, silly, I think that staff going back and saying, hey, they're following our direction, right, and they're subject to that. And then also, they're going back and saying, we need to be ADA-compliant and make sure we put ourselves in the best possible situation so that someone with a wheelchair can access the sidewalk through and through. So I take exception to the word, but I understand where you're going. And then I just-- I guess my question would be, when I look-- help me understand the functionality of the-- closer to the street or not, what is the benefit to the citizens? Why does that matter to us? Your financial formulas make-- reconcile that to-- I get it why you want to do that. I absolutely, 100% with you. But what does that mean to the neighborhood? What's the benefit to the neighborhood? Well, I mean, if the neighborhood wants a two-story structure that transitions better than perhaps a three-story structure, I mean, these are not front-loaded, like the development you're talking about next door. So the parking in front, the problems about accessibility, I don't think that's really an issue on this one, because it's alley-loaded. And then I guess my last question, and then I'll listen, what is the price? You're selling them? No, this is going to be a upscale rental community for young families. So not selling them? Not planning on selling. OK. Thank you. OK. Anybody else? Questions for the applicant? Seeing none. All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you. Ms. Carson, if you'll just state your name and address, your time will begin. And again, thank you for being so patient with us tonight. My name is Nancy Carson, and I live at 2908 Oakshire. I'm here tonight representing a lot of people who couldn't come because they had to put their children to bed. They had to get a good night's sleep so they could be at work early in the morning. But really what I'm saying is a lot of people care about this. The most frequent complaint that I hear is that they don't really think you all listen because they think you want the tax money. And I disagree with that. And I'll tell people that I do because I genuinely think that you're concerned about our city and our people who live here. I hope you all have had time to read the look through the notebooks that I had left for you. I did that. I spent a lot of time putting those together. And I did that because I knew I wouldn't have time tonight to talk to you. Just to take a moment and we'll add your time back, when you say a notebook, what are you referring to? Yes, I had one for you too. What are you referring to? Because I don't see any notebooks up here. They were in your mailbox yesterday. Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay. All right. Yes. Okay. Well, my time is running short. So I'll go on. Well, no. We'll give you some time back because I interrupted you. I'm sorry. Okay. Let's see. Can I just lay the... Yes. If you'll lay it right there, they'll bring the overhead camera in. There you go. Okay. These are some of our neighborhood streets. I think one of them's mine, but you can't see my house, I'm further down. But this is kind of typical. A lot of the area is older, but they're all single family. A lot of them are new. There's homes less expensive, there's homes more expensive. This is Audre Heights. They have this tacky big sign out here, wooden sign. And I hope that most of y'all have seen these pictures there in your notebooks. But I'll give you a little overview here. Now this looks like the kids just left these outside, actually they've been there a few weeks and they have added more to them. Part of the problem here with Audre Heights is that there is no on-site management. If you want to see their townhouse, you have to call and make an appointment. This is the trashy end here, it has been picked up. I thought maybe someone saw me taking pictures of it, but then later I discovered Audre Heights is for sale. So I think they did that because they are trying to sell it, SDN is trying to sell it for them. A good example here of where you're supposed to bag your dog poo and put it in there and this is what happens. So there's bags of dog poop laying around on the ground. It really looks like a slum lord owns that place. It's just unbelievable that it would be that tacky and that disgusting. So what I really want you all to do is consider that these are the people or some of them who own that and you're going to have to nail their feet down to make sure they do what they're saying they're going to do and they do everything. This is the picture of the property, this is Audre Heights and this is the duplex is down here next to it where they plan to put the townhomes. Audre Heights, this new place should not be referred to as Audre Heights because as you can see, Audre Heights encompasses just those duplexes and that property next to them changed ownerships on June 22nd of 2018. It is now that property is Audre Townhomes. There's a couple of the same owners and there's someone who's different. So we have to realize we're not dealing with a company that's there that's going to build these. They are two different businesses. That bell was the time that I wanted to give you some extra time because I interrupted you but do you have some closing remarks that you would like to share? Well I just want to say that you need to watch these people real closely. I've read that Mr. Austin here has 17 businesses and he seems to be very well off but he apparently can't take care of everything. I wish you would put some ordinances in there that would require, and this is for everybody not just them, but up to a certain number of rentals that there would have to be a on-site property manager because you can't like they've got all these college students in there and you can't just turn all these people looser. That's what they make of a place just what you've seen. Anything else? Any questions for our speaker? Councilmember Armitage. Well it's a question that's related to something that our speaker just brought up. I like the idea of requiring an on-site property manager. I was just wondering since we have you here, since you waited all this time, even though that's not what we're voting on tonight, is that Mr. City Attorney to your knowledge, is there any legal restrictions to that possibility, is something like that prohibited? In general, you can impose that kind of condition, but I think that you would have to look at it and do further analysis and just that type of restriction you'd have to look at. Are the properties for sale for home ownership, are they for rent, if they're for rent, keeping track of that as long as they remain rental so that can involve staff time having to verify that. It can be done, it's just the devil is in the details on how to get there and just to make sure that we don't have any unintended consequences. I would like to say one more thing if I could. Very briefly, if you don't mind. They were talking about this being for young families. You do not see in their plant what young families require and need. There is no swimming pool, there is no park, there is no play area, there is no dog area. Young families need that, plus they need close elementary schools. Some of their ads say Audre Heights is one mile from elementary. It's actually 1.4 miles and young families look at those things and I just don't believe young families are going to live there. Council Member Husspeth, did you have a question for the speaker? I have a question for staff. Any more questions for the speaker? Thank you, ma'am. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Let me see if there's any more for the public hearing. This is a public hearing. Anybody else wishing to speak on this item? Anybody else wishing to speak? All right. We will now close the public hearing. Council Member Husspeth. Thank you. So if we could explore the zoning map, if you can pull that back up, please. Is this good? Yes, that's great. So my question becomes what Council -- pardon me -- what Mayor Pro Tem, John Ryan brought up. So if it's going to change, that's tentative, understanding that it's not done. So that could be -- the change could be changed is the question. Is that the proposed future zoning, could that be modified? Or is that projected zoning -- what's the process for that evaluation? I'm going to call Richard up for that discussion. Ironically, that's one of the items we have to discuss at DCRC on Friday, is when we have these applications, if the zoning is denied, for example, we want to make sure then that we automatically -- it automatically then just doesn't -- really that's really a policy discussion, is should it just be automatically then up-zoned as a part of the overall rezoning or kept down at where it's at today. But that's something I think we just need to vet out more at -- through the DCRC on Friday. And if I may? If that helps. Yes, of course. Let me hear you on the split there. Speak to that. All right, it might help if we look at this. So it may be a little difficult to see, but this shows this gray hatch line right here. That is actually the boundary between NRMU and NRMU-12 as it currently stands. So Chapter 2 of the Debt and Development Code speaks to when lots have split zoning. And essentially what the code says is that that boundary can be moved 20 feet, and then the greater portion of the lot we control. So the applicant is correct that under current zoning, these lots could be potentially developed under that existing -- under the existing NRMU. So if approved, this rezoning would extend that NRMU to really take in all of these lots as well as this bank of lots on the west side. Okay. Go ahead. And give me your, and you may have touched on this, the net difference between MRU units, net unit difference between MRU-12 and NRMU. So NRMU permits a maximum density of up to 30 dwelling units per acre. NRMU-12 permits maximum 12 dwelling units per acre. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. So I'm good. I have other comments, but I'm going to wait until after everyone speaks when I make the motion. Councilmember Armitage. Yeah. So Julie, sorry. Yeah. So I have a question for you, and this will really help me with my thinking through this, all this, and hopefully, not just me, hopefully it will help others as well. So we got your presentation, the staff recommendation, and that came, correct me if I'm wrong, that justification for the staff recommendation, that is from before the P&Z meeting and their decision, right? Correct. So in your presenting the same, this is the same presentation you gave to P&Z. Correct. And so now you've heard the P&Z response, and you've heard the applicant twice. I would love to hear, because it would help me think through this, what your response is to the kind of rebuttal, I guess, to the P&Z rationale and the applicants, and if you don't feel comfortable rebutting at P&Z, then just the applicants, but because I'm trying to weigh all these arguments against each other, and it's important to me to know your take on those other arguments that we've heard. Sure. I think I can give some more information. So just as a baseline, this isn't an easy case because of where it's sitting on the future land use map, that you have this blending of these future land use designations. So just at the outset, it's a little more complex, a little more nuanced, kind of have to thread the needle on this one. But in terms of any zoning request, I know that they're proposing townhomes, and yes, they could develop those townhomes and reconfiguring the development on the lot in order just to move forward. But with a rezoning case, we have to look at all factors within a rezoning, and that includes any permitted uses and any development scale, and so really that was kind of, we looked at the breadth of the zoning and less about that specific project. And so because we took a more comprehensive approach, that's how staff approached that. I understand where Planning and Zoning Commission is coming from because there is that consideration, but just based upon our criteria for approval and the fact that we look at the broad zoning district, that's how we arrived at our recommendation. Would it be fair to say, again, just from your perspective, that you've got basically a citywide, I'm forgetting the term you used for it, but the intensity of the flu, the transition area, that was a great description of that, and I understand it much more hearing you describe it than reading it, so that's great, but you've got this big picture view versus a site-specific view. Okay, thank you. Sure. Question. If, because you said that part of the recommendation for denial was the comprehensive approach to what uses could be there outside of the townhomes. If it were restricted to just, in other words, if this Council decided we're going to put a condition on that it's strictly, that it's restricted to the development as proposed with the eight units or so per acre with the townhomes and all that, would you feel more comfortable with that if the rest of those uses were taken out of the equation? And it's okay if you're not, I'm just based upon your comment, I just wanted to ask that. Well, and we actually factored that into our analysis because we realized the complexity and is threading the needle on this case is to say we recommend denial, we feel like it is inconsistent with the character of the area and the compatibility, but if you choose to move forward, these would be some recommended conditions in order to increase that compatibility. And those recommended conditions would be? These are yours, not the Planning and Zoning or these are the Planning and Zoning? We suggested them to our staff analysis with the Planning and Zoning Commission. There was a small change to the number three, that original condition had a common area lot, Planning and Zoning asked staff to work with the applicant to not do a common area lot, but to just provide that buffer, to provide some flexibility in how that buffer would happen. And so we worked with the applicant to try to add those buffer elements, the screening wall, the landscaping, but to add them some flexibility in either putting it on one of the townhome lots or if they chose to they could put it on a common area lot, it would be up to them. I just totally forgot that one restriction about to single family, so I apologize. No, you're fine. Council Member Briggs. So on the common area lot, is that like a lot of open space, like a lot that's open that could be used for children to play? Is that? Well, it would be our original suggestion for that condition would be to add that common area lot to contain that buffer, not necessarily a play area just because it would be next to Audra, it probably wouldn't be the most logical place. But just to add that gateway, that sense of arrival, so just to add those buffer elements with that wall, not necessarily just an open space. Okay, so that would be more, I was thinking like just in the back, like an open space lot, but… They are, just to let you see, they are proposing an open space in the back. So there is open space embedded within their proposal. Okay. Thank you. One last question, the applicant had mentioned that they were developing it at 8 point something units per acre, I believe. What is that exactly? 8 point, was it 8 units per acre or was it 8 point… 8.6. Okay, 8.6. I guess my question would be, I know the condition said 12 units per acre, but if they are deciding to do it at 8.6, would they be okay with that condition being 9 units per acre just to give some flexibility on, is that something? Okay. Okay. All right. Seeing no more questions, I think the system is broken. Council Member Hussbuth. Thank you. Julie, I am sorry, before you go, if you could pull up Google Maps for me and then I am good, but I don't have questions, I just want to reference it in that location, satellite view, and while you are doing that. So I am going to move denial per staff's suggestion for a few different reasons. I have concerns about the rental aspect of it and what that does to this area as far as traffic and the ability for these roads to handle that, and I will touch on that in detail here. I have concerns about this area generally, so if you can, yeah, so pan out just a little bit, if you would please. Perfect. Thank you. And so if you will recall, this body, we just had a knock down drag out with the neighborhood trying to go NR4 with the houses maybe two blocks down from here, and they were upset that it was NR6 across the street, single family homes that would be sold, and we had an audience full. And so then you compound that to go eight or nine, whatever that is, and it just becomes a problem for the neighborhood. And then I just want you to flow with me because here is where we get into trouble when you talk about Hickory Creek and traffic issues and building in advance of being able to support the traffic. And I get it that they can do it by right. That's their prerogative. I don't want to be as a council person complicit to this traffic issue. Look at that map. Where are you going to go? So you're going to go Audra to Loop 288, and you'll never get out of there to make a right-hand turn. We all know what that's like. And you have a 7-Eleven on the corner of 380 that's new, so that increases the kind of grouping of traffic coming from university down Loop 288 to make it even more difficult to make that right turn out of there. So then where do you go? You go Mockingbird and you wind around that brand-new road doing whatever speed, but you go by a park. That's where the individual was hit by the SUV. That's a problem road, and it's two lanes everywhere. Everywhere in this development, it's two lanes. And so now I have a brand-new development, and let's say it is single family. I don't believe it to be. I believe families can come in different shapes and sizes, and I don't believe for a minute that it's single family, but I'll take that. Where does a kid walk? There's no sidewalks. So we have a brand-new development of 89 homes with half a kid each. That's 40 kids. Where do they walk? And so that to me is a problem, because you're creating a mingo road issue. You're creating a Hickory Creek road issue, and I just don't want to be complicit in that. And so absolutely by right, if they decide to do that, they decide to do that. If they decide to build a three-story home, let that soak in. So the development you just built, you're going to put a three-story home behind it so that they can look down into their neighbor's backyard, hey, do whatever you want to do to your tenants. But I think they're going to be upset about that too, so that's less than great. And so it's maybe ahead of its time, or the city needs to modify Audra, but as a representative for District 1 that sat with an entire room full of people from the East Oaks neighborhood upset about NR4, two blocks from here, I'm absolutely not going to support NR anything above four, and absolutely not going to double that, and understanding distance as you may, I just would encourage all my fellow council members to research the code enforcement activity in that area, and you'll get all the answers you need as far as how well they play well with others. I've driven it for myself, looked at it for myself, block walking there this weekend, I get it, and the concerns are valid. So I'm going to move for denial at this point for the infrastructure issues, for the lack of compatibility issues, and just for the lack of infrastructure, and it doesn't fit right now. Thank you. - Okay, Council Member Nelson. - First point of order, our screens say motion to adopt, it's a motion to deny, and I'll second the motion to deny. - Okay, Council Member Briggs. - So if we could, or you could refresh my memory on what they could build by right, because the same thing happened with the park seven situation where there was something that had been worked out that seemed to be a little bit more digestible, and I am right there right now with you on denial, but I just want to make sure that everyone is aware of what can be built and what that would look like in this area, and just for the neighbor here to be aware as well the possibility of that if this is denied. - So townhomes are permitted at a maximum 12 dwelling units per acre. So as the site plan showing the arrangement of the lots and the streets in the alley, that could be developed. The tricky part is the development on each lot, and so they would have to meet that 60% lot coverage. They could go up to 40 feet in height in this undercurrent zoning. So that would allow a three-story building. And so yes, they could go higher in order to shrink that footprint in order to meet the lot coverage. Does that answer your question? - Okay, yeah, I'm just trying to get a better idea. So it would be how many three-story buildings? - The 89, it would be the full development. - Okay. - It could be if developed as proposed. - Okay, thank you. - Okay, we have a motion and a second to deny. Any other discussion? Let's vote on the board, please. The motion to deny is approved six to one. We'll now move into our concluding items. Council Member Briggs. - So I'm gonna bring this up. We talked about community gardens today earlier, and it reminded me of my request to turn the old Kingsrow substation into a children's garden or community garden in that area. So I'm just gonna bring that conversation back around and see. I think it's been a few years now, and I was told it'd be a few years, so possibility of that. Also I believe there was a bill passed for internet sales tax, and the city should be able to receive those. And so if we could get an update on what we need to do to start collecting internet sales tax, if that's a thing, that would be really great. And also just want to say thank you to Richard and Haley and Scott for working on the tree ordinance, I know that, or landscape entry conservation ordinance, I know it was a lot of work, and although there's still things that some want to work through, I feel like it was a big win for our city and for trees and everyone, so I just want to say thank you for that. I really appreciate it. Okay, two things, one I'd like to request a staff report on what it would take to come up with an ordinance ensuring that the property manager, that there be some management, building management, some sort of oversight on site at rentals of any kind, multi-family rental home complexes and mobile home complex, et cetera. And second, I wanted to request, in light of the tragedy of New Zealand and the way that it's affected and moved really everybody here in Denton, especially our Islamic community, and to request a resolution stating, or proclamation stating our support of the Denton's Islamic community and the contributions that they've made to and continue to make to the quality of life and culture, our economy, and also to kind of come out with a statement just affirming that Denton is an inclusive city and that we recognize the threats posed by Islamophobia, and I just wanted to mention by way of a brief anecdote affirming the necessity for this, that the day after the attack, I was at the Denton Islamic Center with a number of others just to show our support and protection. It was greatly appreciated, and I asked the imam and others how they would feel about such a resolution, people would really appreciate that, even though it's just words. People feel scared. Some people I talked to were scared to even show up that day, even though this occurred all the way overseas. - So you're requesting a resolution as the, I think the city manager's got that. - Great, great. - Okay. All right, Council Member Hudspeth. - Thank you. So I would ask, understanding Grace Lake Rain's potential proposal to develop that property across from Ryan, I'd like us to start talking about ways to get across the street now so that as that's developed, we can have something in place or have a cost projection for that, just kind of anticipating them. It's a good organization. I think they'll get the funding they need, and so I just kind of want to be prepared to help whatever kids or whatever across that, that's a busy road. And then, kind of on the heels of our conversation about the fire department, the test, I think it's more a marketing issue, so I would ask a staff to put together some sort of contract or vetting or cost to hire an ad agency to market our fire department, and then try to get more applicants that way, understanding, I think just based on the feedback we received, it's not so much a function issue. I think maybe it's a marketing thing, so maybe if we hired an ad agency, we could take that approach and see if that works, so just want to understand that cost. And then two other things, seeing in the paper that Red Development sold the razor ranch component, just like an email that explains what that does to the incentives, if anything. If it just leaves them static, that's fine, but if it changes something or if we have to go back, revisit, renegotiate, I just want to understand what that does. And then, lastly, you had helped me, Mr. City Manager, with the Providence Village community, and just a component of that, can we ask someone to contact them about energy audits? That was one of the things where the bills were higher. I think that, to me, prompts an individual tenant, maybe we can do them all one fatal swoop, schedule a day, and then that way they can know what they can do better to manage those costs. Thank you. - Council Member Meltzer. - Yes, I'd like to request a work session on developing a comprehensive low-income housing strategy, starting from known waiting lists as a proxy for demand, looking at all the potential tools in the toolbox, potentially including housing bonds, density bonuses, new market tax credits with principal forgiveness, grants to incentivize low-income multifamily rental, and even potentially including land swaps to achieve deconcentration. I sincerely encourage my colleagues to register high interest in having this discussion. Two, I'd like to request an informal staff report on the following topic. Georgetown was kind of the pioneer in Texas on moving toward 100 percent renewable energy, but they've experienced some trouble in their model, and I think it's concerning some citizens. I'd like a staff report that would help us understand and help explain the ways we've learned since their pioneering model that put us on a firmer financial footing on our path to 100 percent renewable. - I only have one staff report on what are the standards for autonomous vehicles in new road construction, so that as we rebuild our roads, what, if anything, do we need to add or reconfigure to help facilitate that? I mean, that may be far in the future, but it may just be just moving a sign back or putting stripes in a different way or with different material, just some kind of general information on that. Okay, seeing no others, we will stand adjourned at 12.08 on Wednesday morning. [BLANK_AUDIO]