WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.660
 Good afternoon, and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting

00:00:06.660 --> 00:00:11.120
 for Wednesday, January 24th, 2024.

00:00:11.120 --> 00:00:15.640
 This is our work session, and with the quorum present, I will call us to order at 510 p.m.

00:00:15.640 --> 00:00:21.600
 Let the record show that Commissioners Cole and Thagard are absent at this time.

00:00:21.600 --> 00:00:27.600
 First item on our agenda is clarification for tonight's regular meeting.

00:00:27.600 --> 00:00:34.720
 First we have the minutes from January 10th, any questions, problems, okay.

00:00:34.720 --> 00:00:41.480
 That will take us to consent agenda, any questions, issues there, okay.

00:00:41.480 --> 00:00:45.240
 Items for individual consideration, we did have some emails come in, I don't know if

00:00:45.240 --> 00:00:51.600
 everyone saw that, so I'll go ahead and call up Mia, oh, Haley's going to be here for Mia,

00:00:51.600 --> 00:00:57.880
 number 4A, FP23-0036, hi Haley.

00:00:57.880 --> 00:01:09.800
 Good evening, yes, so this item, you did receive an extension request emailed this morning,

00:01:09.800 --> 00:01:15.960
 if granted that extension could be to February 14th, there are just a few remaining items

00:01:15.960 --> 00:01:20.040
 to be worked out on the plan, most of them are fairly simple in nature relating to just

00:01:20.040 --> 00:01:24.160
 labeling of things and depicting easements correctly, so we are hopeful that they could

00:01:24.160 --> 00:01:27.480
 get this to an approval state by the next meeting if the extension were granted, and

00:01:27.480 --> 00:01:34.960
 this would be a second extension, great, any questions, thanks Haley, you're going to stay

00:01:34.960 --> 00:01:42.460
 up here for 4B, absolutely, okay, FP23-0033, yes, and you also received an update on this

00:01:42.460 --> 00:01:48.960
 plat, this is the Hickory Grove project formerly known as Legends Ranch, if that rings any

00:01:48.960 --> 00:01:53.560
 bells for anyone, this has been changed to a recommendation of approval, as they were

00:01:53.560 --> 00:01:59.520
 able to work through the outstanding items since the packet posted last week, and that

00:01:59.520 --> 00:02:07.640
 final plat was submitted in email this afternoon, yes, okay, thank you Haley, last item for

00:02:07.640 --> 00:02:17.960
 items of individual consideration is 4C, FP24-0002, hi Erin, good evening, bless you, Erin Stanley

00:02:17.960 --> 00:02:25.700
 Assistant Planner, this is FP24-0002, this is a final plat for the Denton Shady Shores

00:02:25.700 --> 00:02:34.200
 Edition located east of South I-35E, yeah, a lot of directions there, they have a few

00:02:34.200 --> 00:02:38.920
 items to work through, it's mostly checklist items as well, and adding some easements that

00:02:38.920 --> 00:02:44.320
 are required, they have requested an extension request which could be granted to a date certain

00:02:44.320 --> 00:02:52.440
 of February 14th, thank you, any questions for Erin, okay, thank you very much, we've

00:02:52.440 --> 00:03:16.320
 got one public hearing this evening, that's 5A HL23-0002, hi Cameron, good evening Commissioners,

00:03:16.320 --> 00:03:20.760
 Cameron Robertson, Historic Preservation Officer, this is for a historic landmark designation

00:03:20.760 --> 00:03:26.720
 of 314 Marietta Street, so I'm sure some of you all have seen some designations in the

00:03:26.720 --> 00:03:30.520
 past, but a lot of y'all are new to this process, so I'm going to take you through a little

00:03:30.520 --> 00:03:34.800
 bit of background of what a historic landmark is, and what are some of the benefits, and

00:03:34.800 --> 00:03:37.320
 then give you a quick summary.

00:03:37.320 --> 00:03:42.200
 So what is a historic landmark, it is a building, district, object or site or structure that

00:03:42.200 --> 00:03:47.680
 is officially recognized by the City of Denton, the state or the United States, and it's for

00:03:47.680 --> 00:03:54.120
 outstanding architectural, archaeological, cultural, social, economic, ethic or political

00:03:54.120 --> 00:04:01.160
 historical significance, currently the City of Denton does have 64 local historic landmark

00:04:01.160 --> 00:04:07.640
 designations, and it is a zoning action, so that is why it's in front of PNZ this evening,

00:04:07.640 --> 00:04:13.840
 it first goes to the Historic Landmark Commission who then recommends approval which comes to

00:04:13.840 --> 00:04:18.000
 the Planning and Zoning Commission and then on the City Council.

00:04:18.000 --> 00:04:21.840
 So what are the benefits of a historic landmark, obviously I think there's lots of benefits

00:04:21.840 --> 00:04:28.080
 of a historic landmark, but there are property owner benefits, it does, there are studies

00:04:28.080 --> 00:04:33.480
 showing that historically designated properties do appreciate a greater rate, properties are

00:04:33.480 --> 00:04:37.640
 eligible for local historic tax exemption, in this case for the City of Denton that is

00:04:37.640 --> 00:04:44.680
 a 50% assessed property value for up to 10 years and then they can reapply.

00:04:44.680 --> 00:04:49.120
 They also protect the investment of owners and residents from incompatible development,

00:04:49.120 --> 00:04:54.960
 you get the historic landmark plaque, so that is some visible recognition there, but also

00:04:54.960 --> 00:05:00.060
 some of the community benefits are it does protect from swift demolition, it would have

00:05:00.060 --> 00:05:05.480
 to go in front of the Historic Landmark Commission, it does help with neighborhood revitalization

00:05:05.480 --> 00:05:10.280
 and it does discourage sprawl among some other benefits.

00:05:10.280 --> 00:05:15.480
 So the summary is that it is a request for historic landmark designation at 314 Marietta,

00:05:15.480 --> 00:05:21.720
 it is zoned OR3, so and that's due to the fact that it's in the West Oak Area Historic

00:05:21.720 --> 00:05:27.600
 District, which is highlighted there by the yellow border, it is compliant with our goals

00:05:27.600 --> 00:05:32.960
 in our Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan, so our Community Character Goal 2, as well as

00:05:32.960 --> 00:05:39.600
 our 2019 Historic Preservation Plan, our goal number 1, policy 1.3, so staff is recommending

00:05:39.600 --> 00:05:45.960
 approval as it complies with our criteria for historic landmark designation 2.9.4B in

00:05:45.960 --> 00:05:49.880
 the Denton Development Code, as well as those two plans.

00:05:49.880 --> 00:05:50.880
 Any questions?

00:05:50.880 --> 00:05:51.880
 Thank you.

00:05:51.880 --> 00:05:52.880
 Questions?

00:05:52.880 --> 00:05:53.880
 Commissioner Smith?

00:05:53.880 --> 00:05:59.160
 Oh I couldn't find the backup, Cameron, was how many other HLCs, or Historic Landmark

00:05:59.160 --> 00:06:04.040
 designation, sorry, are in that area right there, on the West Oak Historic District?

00:06:04.040 --> 00:06:06.640
 Oh in the West Oak?

00:06:06.640 --> 00:06:13.120
 So the, I believe it is around approximately 60 properties, I can look that up so I can

00:06:13.120 --> 00:06:18.160
 present that later during the public hearing session, but I think it is around 60 properties.

00:06:18.160 --> 00:06:19.160
 I can confirm that.

00:06:19.160 --> 00:06:23.360
 And you're going to go through in the full presentation the reasoning and the processing?

00:06:23.360 --> 00:06:24.360
 Correct.

00:06:24.360 --> 00:06:25.360
 Yes.

00:06:25.360 --> 00:06:26.360
 Cool.

00:06:26.360 --> 00:06:27.360
 That's all.

00:06:27.360 --> 00:06:28.360
 Thanks.

00:06:28.360 --> 00:06:33.520
 So the HLC is undergoing renovation, right, or is going to go under renovation?

00:06:33.520 --> 00:06:37.160
 So their building permit is presently on hold.

00:06:37.160 --> 00:06:43.440
 No building permits can be approved and given to the applicants at this time due to the

00:06:43.440 --> 00:06:46.200
 fact that they want to go through the designation process.

00:06:46.200 --> 00:06:51.360
 That COA, because it is in the West Oak Area Historic District, that certificate of appropriateness

00:06:51.360 --> 00:06:56.440
 was approved back in November by the Historic Landmark Commission due to the fact that they

00:06:56.440 --> 00:07:02.760
 felt that it met the West Oak Area design standards as well as the Secretary of Interior

00:07:02.760 --> 00:07:04.480
 standards for new additions.

00:07:04.480 --> 00:07:05.480
 Okay.

00:07:05.480 --> 00:07:08.040
 So then that's on hold until this process?

00:07:08.040 --> 00:07:10.800
 Until the designation process is complete.

00:07:10.800 --> 00:07:15.920
 So once it goes to City Council, whether it's approved or denied at that point, then they

00:07:15.920 --> 00:07:23.480
 can proceed with that building permit process.

00:07:23.480 --> 00:07:25.280
 So this is in addition to.

00:07:25.280 --> 00:07:27.480
 So it is already in the Historic District.

00:07:27.480 --> 00:07:31.120
 It is a contributing property to our local Historic District, but they're just looking

00:07:31.120 --> 00:07:33.040
 for individual landmark designation.

00:07:33.040 --> 00:07:34.040
 Got it.

00:07:34.040 --> 00:07:35.040
 Okay.

00:07:35.040 --> 00:07:36.040
 And I think.

00:07:36.040 --> 00:07:37.040
 Oh, go ahead.

00:07:37.040 --> 00:07:38.040
 Oh, yeah.

00:07:38.040 --> 00:07:42.160
 And I think is that what you were asking Commissioner Smith is how many were actually designated,

00:07:42.160 --> 00:07:43.160
 right?

00:07:43.160 --> 00:07:44.160
 Correct.

00:07:44.160 --> 00:07:45.160
 Yeah.

00:07:45.160 --> 00:07:46.160
 Okay.

00:07:46.160 --> 00:07:47.160
 How many have a designation in that?

00:07:47.160 --> 00:07:48.160
 Because they're all in the historical district.

00:07:48.160 --> 00:07:49.160
 Correct.

00:07:49.160 --> 00:07:50.160
 Yeah.

00:07:50.160 --> 00:07:51.160
 Oh, so locally we have 64.

00:07:51.160 --> 00:07:52.160
 How many?

00:07:52.160 --> 00:07:53.160
 How many?

00:07:53.160 --> 00:07:54.160
 In this area.

00:07:54.160 --> 00:07:55.160
 Yeah.

00:07:55.160 --> 00:07:56.160
 Oh, I'm so sorry.

00:07:56.160 --> 00:07:57.160
 Okay.

00:07:57.160 --> 00:07:58.160
 I think you meant how many.

00:07:58.160 --> 00:07:59.160
 Cool.

00:07:59.160 --> 00:08:00.160
 I mean, I don't know why we would not do this.

00:08:00.160 --> 00:08:01.160
 Okay.

00:08:01.160 --> 00:08:02.160
 Sorry.

00:08:02.160 --> 00:08:03.800
 I thought you meant how many properties are in this historic district specifically right

00:08:03.800 --> 00:08:04.800
 now.

00:08:04.800 --> 00:08:08.280
 But let me look at how many I think that's more closer to like one or two.

00:08:08.280 --> 00:08:09.280
 Yeah.

00:08:09.280 --> 00:08:10.280
 Hold the designation.

00:08:10.280 --> 00:08:11.280
 Yeah.

00:08:11.280 --> 00:08:12.280
 Understood.

00:08:12.280 --> 00:08:13.280
 Okay.

00:08:13.280 --> 00:08:14.280
 Yeah.

00:08:14.280 --> 00:08:15.280
 And then that was kind of the reason, the follow-up question.

00:08:15.280 --> 00:08:16.280
 Sorry.

00:08:16.280 --> 00:08:18.600
 The reason I had the follow-up question was going through the process was just if there

00:08:18.600 --> 00:08:22.840
 are, however, I was going to guess there was between 50 and 100 properties in that area,

00:08:22.840 --> 00:08:28.920
 I just know in the area, but how does this one compare to the one or two that we've already

00:08:28.920 --> 00:08:29.920
 approved, right?

00:08:29.920 --> 00:08:30.920
 Gotcha.

00:08:30.920 --> 00:08:31.920
 So that's it.

00:08:31.920 --> 00:08:32.920
 Okay.

00:08:32.920 --> 00:08:33.920
 But I was like, if there's already 60 there, I mean, yeah, sure.

00:08:33.920 --> 00:08:34.920
 I'm going to put one on the pile.

00:08:34.920 --> 00:08:37.920
 Tina, were you going to add something to that?

00:08:37.920 --> 00:08:38.920
 Yes.

00:08:38.920 --> 00:08:41.600
 Just, and Cameron, correct me if I'm wrong, but just kind of a follow-up to your question

00:08:41.600 --> 00:08:42.600
 as well.

00:08:42.600 --> 00:08:46.400
 So, you know, as Cameron pointed out, because they've chosen, the applicant has chosen to

00:08:46.400 --> 00:08:51.040
 go through this designation process, it does put those building permits on hold.

00:08:51.040 --> 00:08:55.880
 They could have gone completely through building permits, since they have their certificate

00:08:55.880 --> 00:08:59.240
 of appropriateness approved, they could have gone completely through the building permit

00:08:59.240 --> 00:09:03.680
 review, had done the building addition and finished that process, and then come back

00:09:03.680 --> 00:09:06.160
 after the fact and requested the designation.

00:09:06.160 --> 00:09:07.160
 Correct.

00:09:07.160 --> 00:09:12.440
 But in this case, the applicant has chosen to pause their construction or their permit

00:09:12.440 --> 00:09:15.320
 review and hold off until they get the designation first.

00:09:15.320 --> 00:09:20.320
 So just, I want you to understand that it was up to the applicant as to when they submitted

00:09:20.320 --> 00:09:24.440
 this designation request, because we had that conversation with them, but they were wanting

00:09:24.440 --> 00:09:26.360
 to go ahead and proceed with it at this time.

00:09:26.360 --> 00:09:30.200
 And I guess that was the reason for my question, because I've not seen it in this order before.

00:09:30.200 --> 00:09:31.200
 Right.

00:09:31.200 --> 00:09:38.520
 That, you know, that they would be in the middle of, or certainly wanting to, you know,

00:09:38.520 --> 00:09:40.400
 Designate in the middle of the term.

00:09:40.400 --> 00:09:41.400
 Yeah.

00:09:41.400 --> 00:09:46.040
 So it just is a little bit, it was a little bit confusing to me as to the order of things.

00:09:46.040 --> 00:09:50.440
 Was there any, like, why are they doing it that way?

00:09:50.440 --> 00:09:55.600
 Well, initially, just to give you some background on the certificate of appropriateness application

00:09:55.600 --> 00:10:01.040
 that we reviewed in November, they had come to me back in July wanting to demo the property.

00:10:01.040 --> 00:10:08.280
 They wanted to build a craftsman style residence, which we kind of went through the education

00:10:08.280 --> 00:10:13.080
 process of what a true craftsman style residence is.

00:10:13.080 --> 00:10:18.800
 And I explained to them why it is important to preserve our current fabric that we have

00:10:18.800 --> 00:10:22.480
 in that neighborhood, because it allows us to tell kind of that story of that development

00:10:22.480 --> 00:10:26.000
 north of University of North Texas.

00:10:26.000 --> 00:10:33.200
 So we were able to work on this design process, probably over four months, about four months,

00:10:33.200 --> 00:10:35.240
 and then they took it forward.

00:10:35.240 --> 00:10:38.880
 And then after that, they decided that they were really interested in actually designating

00:10:38.880 --> 00:10:43.320
 the process, because they really appreciated kind of the process that we went through in

00:10:43.320 --> 00:10:44.320
 terms of education.

00:10:44.320 --> 00:10:45.320
 Okay.

00:10:45.320 --> 00:10:46.320
 Thank you.

00:10:46.320 --> 00:10:47.320
 Yeah.

00:10:47.320 --> 00:10:48.320
 Any other questions?

00:10:48.320 --> 00:10:49.320
 Okay.

00:10:49.320 --> 00:10:50.320
 Look forward to the full presentation.

00:10:50.320 --> 00:10:51.320
 It was just one?

00:10:51.320 --> 00:10:52.320
 Okay.

00:10:52.320 --> 00:10:53.320
 Okay.

00:10:53.320 --> 00:10:54.320
 Oh.

00:10:54.320 --> 00:10:55.320
 I was close.

00:10:55.320 --> 00:10:56.320
 I said one or two.

00:10:56.320 --> 00:10:57.320
 Not 60.

00:10:57.320 --> 00:10:58.320
 I misunderstood.

00:10:58.320 --> 00:10:59.320
 I wish it was 60.

00:10:59.320 --> 00:11:00.320
 That would be great.

00:11:00.320 --> 00:11:01.320
 Thank you, Cameron.

00:11:01.320 --> 00:11:02.320
 Look forward to seeing you later.

00:11:02.320 --> 00:11:03.320
 Okay.

00:11:03.320 --> 00:11:11.400
 That is the end of the agenda.

00:11:11.400 --> 00:11:13.160
 So that will take us to our work session report.

00:11:13.160 --> 00:11:14.840
 We've got one this evening.

00:11:14.840 --> 00:11:18.640
 It is 2A PZ 24-011.

00:11:18.640 --> 00:11:19.640
 Receive a report.

00:11:19.640 --> 00:11:23.720
 Hold a discussion regarding demographic and housing data, as well as City of Denton's

00:11:23.720 --> 00:11:25.440
 affordable housing needs assessment.

00:11:25.440 --> 00:11:26.440
 Hello.

00:11:26.440 --> 00:11:27.440
 Hi.

00:11:27.440 --> 00:11:28.440
 Good morning.

00:11:28.440 --> 00:11:29.440
 Cameron is taller than I am.

00:11:29.440 --> 00:11:30.440
 All right.

00:11:30.440 --> 00:11:33.780
 I said good morning, didn't I?

00:11:33.780 --> 00:11:34.780
 You did.

00:11:34.780 --> 00:11:35.780
 You did.

00:11:35.780 --> 00:11:36.780
 Has it been one of those days?

00:11:36.780 --> 00:11:37.780
 Yeah.

00:11:37.780 --> 00:11:38.780
 Thank you.

00:11:38.780 --> 00:11:39.780
 Well, good evening, commissioners.

00:11:39.780 --> 00:11:40.780
 Hi.

00:11:40.780 --> 00:11:42.120
 It's definitely morning somewhere.

00:11:42.120 --> 00:11:43.120
 My name is Leah Atkinson.

00:11:43.120 --> 00:11:46.800
 I serve as the housing program's coordinator on the community services team.

00:11:46.800 --> 00:11:51.960
 A while ago, there was a request for some demographic data and housing stock data from

00:11:51.960 --> 00:11:53.200
 the commission.

00:11:53.200 --> 00:11:57.560
 And around the same time, an affordable housing bond was passed by the Denton voters.

00:11:57.560 --> 00:12:02.240
 And so the planning team and community services team collaborated to create this two-part

00:12:02.240 --> 00:12:09.160
 work session, going over that demographic and housing stock data, as well as the affordable

00:12:09.160 --> 00:12:14.880
 housing needs assessment and strategic plan going hand-in-hand.

00:12:14.880 --> 00:12:18.400
 So today, we'll go over a brief history of affordable housing in Denton, followed by

00:12:18.400 --> 00:12:23.760
 that demographic information and housing stock data, which ties really nicely into our affordable

00:12:23.760 --> 00:12:25.480
 housing needs assessment.

00:12:25.480 --> 00:12:27.240
 Those go hand-in-hand.

00:12:27.240 --> 00:12:32.120
 And then next time we meet, February 14th, we'll go over the affordable housing strategic

00:12:32.120 --> 00:12:36.660
 toolkit and its strategies, many of which will be coming for your consideration pretty

00:12:36.660 --> 00:12:41.760
 soon here.

00:12:41.760 --> 00:12:45.840
 Getting straight into that timeline, in January of 2021, the affordable housing needs assessment

00:12:45.840 --> 00:12:49.520
 and market value analysis was initially completed.

00:12:49.520 --> 00:12:54.120
 In February of 2022, as a result of that, city council did adopt the affordable housing

00:12:54.120 --> 00:12:56.400
 strategic plan.

00:12:56.400 --> 00:13:01.320
 In that same year, in November, the first housing programs coordinator was hired.

00:13:01.320 --> 00:13:06.040
 And then in April of 2023, public facility corporation bylaws were presented to city

00:13:06.040 --> 00:13:07.040
 council.

00:13:07.040 --> 00:13:11.040
 You may remember those tied 3-3 at the time and did not pass, but they are coming back

00:13:11.040 --> 00:13:15.000
 around for city council consideration shortly.

00:13:15.000 --> 00:13:20.000
 And that same month, the first housing programs coordinator completed the first GIS map for

00:13:20.000 --> 00:13:25.500
 city Dentonites only of vacant or underutilized properties, assessed for their viability as

00:13:25.500 --> 00:13:30.800
 an affordable housing development, essentially so that we can assess those potential projects.

00:13:30.800 --> 00:13:37.600
 And then most recently, in November of 2023, last fall, voters approved a $15 million bond

00:13:37.600 --> 00:13:43.520
 for affordable housing.

00:13:43.520 --> 00:13:47.020
 Jumping into that demographic information, the city of Denton is a majority white city

00:13:47.020 --> 00:13:48.400
 at 60%.

00:13:48.400 --> 00:13:51.560
 This is higher than the state average.

00:13:51.560 --> 00:13:57.880
 Only 11% of Denton residents identify as black or African American, while smaller percentages,

00:13:57.880 --> 00:14:03.120
 approximately 5%, identify as Asian or indigenous of some kind.

00:14:03.120 --> 00:14:10.400
 And then a rough 20-ish percent identify as two or more of those races or some other race

00:14:10.400 --> 00:14:13.500
 not listed and identified by the census.

00:14:13.500 --> 00:14:17.640
 If you're interested in change over time, those two categories, some other race not

00:14:17.640 --> 00:14:22.360
 listed and two or more races, are where you've seen the most growth and change in the past

00:14:22.360 --> 00:14:23.600
 10 years or so.

00:14:23.600 --> 00:14:25.040
 Additionally, oh, yes.

00:14:25.040 --> 00:14:34.480
 Sorry, do we have a breakdown of what percentage of the white population is Latino?

00:14:34.480 --> 00:14:37.680
 That's the information I believe I could get from the census as well.

00:14:37.680 --> 00:14:43.200
 However, it does also say Hispanic, any race is about 25%, so a quarter of Denton residents.

00:14:43.200 --> 00:14:48.160
 Yeah, of any race, a quarter of residents are Hispanic or Latino.

00:14:48.160 --> 00:14:49.160
 Thanks.

00:14:49.160 --> 00:14:51.560
 Commissioner Villarreal, next time, raise your hand, please.

00:14:51.560 --> 00:14:54.840
 And then also, you'll need to turn your mic on when you want to talk to him.

00:14:54.840 --> 00:14:56.280
 So that's all right.

00:14:56.280 --> 00:14:57.480
 I'm just reminding you.

00:14:57.480 --> 00:14:58.480
 No, that's my fault.

00:14:58.480 --> 00:14:59.480
 I just...

00:14:59.480 --> 00:15:00.480
 That's my fault.

00:15:00.480 --> 00:15:03.480
 I just really love questions.

00:15:03.480 --> 00:15:06.920
 All right, thanks.

00:15:06.920 --> 00:15:10.200
 So where Denton does start to set itself apart is age.

00:15:10.200 --> 00:15:14.960
 You might have guessed that having some major universities in our city affects our age demographics

00:15:14.960 --> 00:15:15.960
 a little bit.

00:15:15.960 --> 00:15:21.200
 Namely, our population of 20-somethings, actually a quarter of our population, 25%, is between

00:15:21.200 --> 00:15:28.360
 the ages of 20 and 29 in comparison to 14% of Texas residents overall being between those

00:15:28.360 --> 00:15:30.480
 age ranges of 20 to 29.

00:15:30.480 --> 00:15:34.800
 On this chart up here, you can see that Denton being the bottom row broken down and Texas

00:15:34.800 --> 00:15:38.680
 overall being the top, 20 to 29-year-olds are in dark blue.

00:15:38.680 --> 00:15:44.920
 So you can see we are taking up a much larger portion of the population in Denton than Texas

00:15:44.920 --> 00:15:47.560
 overall.

00:15:47.560 --> 00:15:52.640
 Directly tied to this and pretty majorly affecting our housing stock are household type.

00:15:52.640 --> 00:15:58.040
 In Denton, 41% of households are what the census considers non-family households, which

00:15:58.040 --> 00:15:59.640
 means that they either is a single...

00:15:59.640 --> 00:16:04.400
 That's either a single adult living alone or living with roommates who are not related

00:16:04.400 --> 00:16:07.080
 by blood or marriage.

00:16:07.080 --> 00:16:13.040
 So that's 41% of Denton residents in comparison to 31% of Texas residents as a baseline.

00:16:13.040 --> 00:16:17.480
 Again, you can see that broken down, Denton being the bottom bar and Texas being the top

00:16:17.480 --> 00:16:19.800
 bar, and we're again looking at that dark blue.

00:16:19.800 --> 00:16:24.480
 So you see non-family households taking up a larger portion, which affects our housing

00:16:24.480 --> 00:16:25.480
 needs.

00:16:25.480 --> 00:16:28.760
 Do I have questions about this or the race demographics before?

00:16:28.760 --> 00:16:30.080
 Commissioner Pruitt.

00:16:30.080 --> 00:16:31.480
 Thank you, Chair.

00:16:31.480 --> 00:16:33.720
 What is other family?

00:16:33.720 --> 00:16:39.320
 I looked this up and now it's left my brain.

00:16:39.320 --> 00:16:46.560
 That would essentially be, if I'm not mistaken, that would be like a adult and a child in

00:16:46.560 --> 00:16:53.880
 the household who is related by blood or adoption, or two adults who are not related by marriage

00:16:53.880 --> 00:16:57.480
 but are co-parenting a child or things like that.

00:16:57.480 --> 00:17:02.760
 Also like two siblings or a parent and child living together, adult child.

00:17:02.760 --> 00:17:04.160
 So other situations like that.

00:17:04.160 --> 00:17:06.360
 Does that answer that appropriately?

00:17:06.360 --> 00:17:07.840
 Anybody else?

00:17:07.840 --> 00:17:08.840
 Good.

00:17:08.840 --> 00:17:09.840
 Okay.

00:17:09.840 --> 00:17:10.840
 Thank you.

00:17:10.840 --> 00:17:11.840
 All right.

00:17:11.840 --> 00:17:12.840
 Thank you.

00:17:12.840 --> 00:17:13.840
 Okay.

00:17:13.840 --> 00:17:17.000
 So this can look a little bit confusing at first, so if you'll allow me to walk through

00:17:17.000 --> 00:17:18.600
 it.

00:17:18.600 --> 00:17:25.080
 56% of housing units in Denton are single-family homes.

00:17:25.080 --> 00:17:29.920
 So essentially if we rounded up 100 Denton residents and said, "Hey, how many units,

00:17:29.920 --> 00:17:34.080
 how many homes are in the building that you live in," 56 would say, "I live in a single-family

00:17:34.080 --> 00:17:35.080
 home."

00:17:35.080 --> 00:17:36.080
 It's only us.

00:17:36.080 --> 00:17:44.240
 Smaller percentages, about 10% of our units are in duplexes or triplexes or quadplexes.

00:17:44.240 --> 00:17:50.280
 Additionally, about 9% are in buildings with five or nine units.

00:17:50.280 --> 00:17:54.680
 Approximately 8% are in buildings with 10 or 19 units.

00:17:54.680 --> 00:17:59.280
 Approximately 7% are in buildings with 20 to 49 units.

00:17:59.280 --> 00:18:03.720
 And then only 6% are in buildings with 50 or more units.

00:18:03.720 --> 00:18:07.080
 4% of units are mobile homes in Denton.

00:18:07.080 --> 00:18:11.720
 You can see that in comparison, Denton is in the light green in comparison to the lighter

00:18:11.720 --> 00:18:15.600
 blue of Dallas and the darker blue of Texas.

00:18:15.600 --> 00:18:21.160
 So as you might expect, Texas has a much larger proportion of single-family homes, whereas

00:18:21.160 --> 00:18:24.920
 Dallas has a much smaller proportion of single-family homes than Denton.

00:18:24.920 --> 00:18:29.640
 If you look over here to 50 or more units, you'll see Denton and Texas overall actually

00:18:29.640 --> 00:18:34.040
 have about the same proportion of units, 50 or more.

00:18:34.040 --> 00:18:38.420
 I believe you pointed this out when we went over it, Tina, in comparison to Dallas, which

00:18:38.420 --> 00:18:42.640
 has a much larger proportion of buildings with 50 or more units in it.

00:18:42.640 --> 00:18:43.640
 Does this make sense to everybody?

00:18:43.640 --> 00:18:44.640
 Do I have questions?

00:18:44.640 --> 00:18:45.640
 Commission for it?

00:18:45.640 --> 00:18:48.640
 Thank you, Chair.

00:18:48.640 --> 00:18:54.880
 And so this is existing housing units within the city right now, right?

00:18:54.880 --> 00:18:55.880
 Correct.

00:18:55.880 --> 00:18:56.880
 Existing housing units.

00:18:56.880 --> 00:19:00.720
 And if I recall, I'm sorry if I'm asking someone who wasn't close to the data, but if I recall

00:19:00.720 --> 00:19:07.280
 from our mid-year update, it was something around a 50/50 split between single-family

00:19:07.280 --> 00:19:13.520
 homes constructed in the previous calendar year versus multifamily and I think all but

00:19:13.520 --> 00:19:18.200
 one of those projects with 50 plus units, something like that.

00:19:18.200 --> 00:19:21.420
 That's my recollection, anyway.

00:19:21.420 --> 00:19:24.280
 If somebody wants to correct me, that's fine.

00:19:24.280 --> 00:19:30.640
 But I'm just trying to get a concept of what we have historically versus what we're building.

00:19:30.640 --> 00:19:31.640
 Okay.

00:19:31.640 --> 00:19:32.640
 Yeah.

00:19:32.640 --> 00:19:35.360
 Unfortunately, I was not with the city at that time, but I would love to dig into that

00:19:35.360 --> 00:19:37.120
 data and get back to you with it.

00:19:37.120 --> 00:19:38.120
 Okay.

00:19:38.120 --> 00:19:39.120
 Cool.

00:19:39.120 --> 00:19:40.120
 Thanks.

00:19:40.120 --> 00:19:41.720
 Yeah.

00:19:41.720 --> 00:19:44.760
 A few other data points about our housing stock in Denton.

00:19:44.760 --> 00:19:49.840
 A very, very slight majority, about 51% of our units in Denton are renter occupied.

00:19:49.840 --> 00:19:52.240
 So the household living there is renting.

00:19:52.240 --> 00:19:55.400
 They do not own the place, but it's a pretty slim majority.

00:19:55.400 --> 00:20:01.920
 Additionally, in Denton, 3% of housing units are studios or efficiencies with no bedroom.

00:20:01.920 --> 00:20:09.060
 15% are one bedrooms, and the vast majority at 60% are two or three bedrooms.

00:20:09.060 --> 00:20:11.400
 That's the majority of our housing stock.

00:20:11.400 --> 00:20:15.680
 An additional 22% of our units have four or more bedrooms.

00:20:15.680 --> 00:20:23.600
 And then kind of lastly on this slide, just talking about the age, kind of to your point, of housing units in Denton.

00:20:23.600 --> 00:20:34.000
 A pretty slim 9% were built before 1960, 55% were built between the years of 1960 and 1999, so that's the bulk of our housing stock.

00:20:34.000 --> 00:20:41.640
 If you actually look a little bit closely, between the years of 2000 and 2019, 37% of our housing stock was built.

00:20:41.640 --> 00:20:45.520
 Which by itself is a pretty large chunk, but also, you might note,

00:20:45.520 --> 00:20:50.600
 is larger than any other 20 year period indicated on this chart.

00:20:50.600 --> 00:20:56.840
 Kind of just speaking to that exponential growth we've had in the 20 years prior to 2020.

00:20:56.840 --> 00:20:57.480
 Any questions here?

00:20:57.480 --> 00:21:00.640
 >> Commissioner Pruitt.

00:21:00.640 --> 00:21:01.440
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:21:01.440 --> 00:21:05.200
 If you're going to get through this in a minute, then just say wait.

00:21:05.200 --> 00:21:12.560
 But the renter occupied versus owner occupied, that's occupation of the unit, not number of people, right?

00:21:12.560 --> 00:21:15.040
 >> Correct. >> Do we have data on number of residents?

00:21:15.040 --> 00:21:16.600
 >> Individuals broken down by renter.

00:21:16.600 --> 00:21:19.880
 I do not have that at this time.

00:21:19.880 --> 00:21:23.520
 My understanding is that that's not how the census asks that question.

00:21:23.520 --> 00:21:26.480
 In the American Community Survey, that's where the stat is being pulled from.

00:21:26.480 --> 00:21:29.640
 But I can certainly, again, go back and double check and look for that.

00:21:29.640 --> 00:21:30.320
 >> Okay, thanks.

00:21:31.440 --> 00:21:37.280
 >> So touching on transportation.

00:21:37.280 --> 00:21:41.000
 The average commute for a Denton resident who does not work from home is 26 minutes.

00:21:41.000 --> 00:21:47.840
 50%, so half of Denton residents do work in Denton, which I think is pretty cool.

00:21:47.840 --> 00:21:50.160
 13% of those are working from home.

00:21:50.160 --> 00:21:55.760
 And then if you'll allow me to touch on vehicles before I get into transportation costs,

00:21:55.760 --> 00:22:00.000
 4% of Denton households have no vehicle available to them.

00:22:01.840 --> 00:22:07.800
 35% of Denton households have one vehicle, 41% have two vehicles available to them.

00:22:07.800 --> 00:22:10.640
 Again, this is household, not individual.

00:22:10.640 --> 00:22:16.040
 And then lastly, 20% of households have three or more vehicles available to them.

00:22:16.040 --> 00:22:20.880
 But again, that can be one of those non-family households, three roommates,

00:22:20.880 --> 00:22:24.120
 possibly in college, living together each with their own vehicle.

00:22:26.560 --> 00:22:33.840
 Lastly here, the Center for Neighborhood Technology has what they call the Housing and Transportation Cost Index.

00:22:33.840 --> 00:22:39.480
 It's essentially their way of saying, if housing is supposed to take up no more than 30% of a household's budget,

00:22:39.480 --> 00:22:45.480
 then housing and transportation combined should take up no more than 45% of a household's expenses.

00:22:45.480 --> 00:22:54.280
 This is kind of their way of measuring the difference between urban household costs versus suburban or rural household costs.

00:22:54.280 --> 00:23:04.160
 In Denton, 42% of residents do spend more than 45% of their income on housing.

00:23:04.160 --> 00:23:10.920
 You can see that in comparison to Denton County overall and Dallas itself.

00:23:10.920 --> 00:23:12.060
 Do I have any questions about this?

00:23:12.060 --> 00:23:17.120
 Yeah, 45% of Denton residents, sorry.

00:23:17.120 --> 00:23:23.920
 I mixed my percentages up, 42% of Denton residents spend more than 45% of their income on housing.

00:23:23.920 --> 00:23:26.980
 I have to do a lot of math, and I'm so sorry.

00:23:26.980 --> 00:23:28.720
 >> It's housing and transportation, right?

00:23:28.720 --> 00:23:30.520
 >> Yes, on housing and transportation combined.

00:23:30.520 --> 00:23:34.360
 >> Thank you, and sorry, Chair, I did not.

00:23:34.360 --> 00:23:35.360
 >> You're good.

00:23:35.360 --> 00:23:40.920
 >> All right, and if you're interested in more information about that,

00:23:40.920 --> 00:23:44.640
 the Center for Neighborhood Technology has a really great data explorer on their website.

00:23:44.640 --> 00:23:50.400
 So rent, it's gone up a bit.

00:23:52.200 --> 00:23:57.840
 As you may be able to see here, between the years of 2015 to about 2020, rent was pretty steady.

00:23:57.840 --> 00:24:00.680
 It was increasing, but slightly and slowly.

00:24:00.680 --> 00:24:12.400
 And then something happened between the years of 2021 and 23, so January 21 to January of 23, rent rose about $300 on average.

00:24:12.400 --> 00:24:20.600
 You may see on here, it stayed off a little bit after that, which is the trend we're kind of expected to see moving forward.

00:24:20.600 --> 00:24:26.720
 And it's not necessarily continuing to increase at that steep incline, but also not returning to pre-pandemic levels.

00:24:26.720 --> 00:24:34.040
 >> These numbers are average, is that what you're taking some kind of median?

00:24:34.040 --> 00:24:37.720
 >> Yes, not broken down by size of unit, just average overall.

00:24:37.720 --> 00:24:43.960
 There's a similar story with home sales price.

00:24:43.960 --> 00:24:45.880
 This data does go back a bit further.

00:24:45.880 --> 00:24:56.640
 Between the years of 2000 to, you know, 2010, 2015, home sales prices were fairly average, were holding fairly steady.

00:24:56.640 --> 00:25:01.520
 And then they start to go up a little bit in 2015 to 2020, debt is growing.

00:25:01.520 --> 00:25:05.280
 And so home prices go up a little bit, and then something happened.

00:25:05.280 --> 00:25:15.160
 And between the years of January 2020, from January to 2023, home prices on average rose about $100,000.

00:25:16.400 --> 00:25:23.600
 You can see again, those kind of studying off towards the end there, not returning to pre-pandemic levels, but not continuing to increase at the same rate.

00:25:23.600 --> 00:25:26.400
 Do I have any questions on these last two slides?

00:25:26.400 --> 00:25:29.420
 Okay.

00:25:29.420 --> 00:25:35.560
 All right, so here's where it gets a little complicated.

00:25:35.560 --> 00:25:40.800
 So, Danny and I are asked pretty frequently, what is affordable housing?

00:25:40.800 --> 00:25:41.920
 What does that even mean?

00:25:41.920 --> 00:25:44.040
 And I will answer that question, I promise you.

00:25:45.440 --> 00:25:52.520
 That a architect who's working on affordable housing development in Denton right now recently rephrased that question as for

00:25:52.520 --> 00:25:58.040
 whom is housing affordable, which I think is a pretty good lens of looking at this.

00:25:58.040 --> 00:26:04.200
 Housing is considered affordable if a household is spending no more than 30% of their income on their housing.

00:26:04.200 --> 00:26:12.040
 So from a development perspective, if I want to build affordable housing, I'm building housing that is

00:26:12.040 --> 00:26:20.240
 affordable at that metric, 30% of your income or less, for a household that's living at 80% area median income or lower.

00:26:20.240 --> 00:26:29.200
 Area median income is how the US Department of Housing and Urban Development measures income and also qualifies for their housing programs.

00:26:29.200 --> 00:26:35.660
 Subsequently, that's also how the city of Denton measures income and qualifies for our federally funded housing programs.

00:26:35.660 --> 00:26:38.120
 So this is an important metric for us.

00:26:38.120 --> 00:26:43.640
 It is measured at the regional level, so Denton falls into the greater DFW region, which affects these numbers.

00:26:43.640 --> 00:26:49.720
 And that median is considered $105,600.

00:26:49.720 --> 00:26:55.920
 HUD sets that as for a family of four, and then breaks it down further by household size.

00:26:55.920 --> 00:27:01.400
 So a household at 100% of the area median income for

00:27:01.400 --> 00:27:07.000
 a family of four is $105,600 collectively each year.

00:27:08.120 --> 00:27:09.720
 Is everyone tracking so far?

00:27:09.720 --> 00:27:14.800
 Okay, so if I am a four person household and

00:27:14.800 --> 00:27:24.040
 we're living at the 80% area median income mark, we're making $82,500 together collectively each year and so on.

00:27:24.040 --> 00:27:31.920
 At that extremely low income, 30% of the median income mark, we're making $30,000 and $950 each year.

00:27:33.600 --> 00:27:38.400
 Now that extremely low income category is where we see the most vulnerability when we talk about housing.

00:27:38.400 --> 00:27:42.280
 At that level, it gets extremely difficult to afford housing.

00:27:42.280 --> 00:27:48.520
 For example, for that family of four, if we're making $30,950 each annually,

00:27:48.520 --> 00:27:53.600
 that comes down to about $2,600 each month.

00:27:53.600 --> 00:27:59.680
 So 30% of that means that we have $775 to spend on housing.

00:28:00.960 --> 00:28:06.320
 I don't know if any of us are renters in this room, but you would have an incredibly difficult time

00:28:06.320 --> 00:28:09.520
 finding a studio for that price, much less housing for a family of four.

00:28:09.520 --> 00:28:13.880
 In Denton, this breaks down a little bit differently.

00:28:13.880 --> 00:28:20.560
 48% of Denton residents actually do live below that 80% area median income mark.

00:28:20.560 --> 00:28:27.200
 So a different way to say that is about half of Denton residents could potentially qualify for affordable housing.

00:28:29.200 --> 00:28:32.200
 We estimate there's approximately 57,000, I shouldn't say we.

00:28:32.200 --> 00:28:40.520
 The census estimates, much more reputable source, estimates about 57,000 households in Denton.

00:28:40.520 --> 00:28:47.160
 So about 27,000 are living below that 80% area median income mark struggling with housing.

00:28:47.160 --> 00:28:56.200
 Of those, 18% are at the low income level, so they're between 50 and 80%, AMI.

00:28:58.480 --> 00:29:00.040
 Between those two, the mic doesn't follow me.

00:29:00.040 --> 00:29:06.080
 Between those two lines, and then 14% are very low income,

00:29:06.080 --> 00:29:10.920
 living between those two, the light blue and the green lines, in terms of their household income.

00:29:10.920 --> 00:29:16.160
 And then 16%, about 9,000 households are extremely low income and

00:29:16.160 --> 00:29:20.400
 living with incomes below this chart, lower than the chart.

00:29:20.400 --> 00:29:23.320
 Do I have any questions?

00:29:23.320 --> 00:29:25.280
 There's a lot here, it's so much.

00:29:25.280 --> 00:29:26.680
 >> Commissioner Perrett.

00:29:26.680 --> 00:29:30.240
 >> There's a lot, you've done an extremely good job laying this out.

00:29:30.240 --> 00:29:35.560
 I have a related question that will help me interpret all the data.

00:29:35.560 --> 00:29:37.080
 >> Yeah.

00:29:37.080 --> 00:29:41.960
 >> I've always been confused about how and

00:29:41.960 --> 00:29:46.840
 with what confidence the census and

00:29:46.840 --> 00:29:54.680
 ACS data incorporates all of this stuff from nine months student residents in the city of Denton.

00:29:57.600 --> 00:29:59.040
 >> How should I think of that?

00:29:59.040 --> 00:30:00.600
 >> Danny's coming up, because she's got more knowledge.

00:30:00.600 --> 00:30:05.760
 Danny Shaw, Director of Community Services.

00:30:05.760 --> 00:30:09.960
 So the census data on this calculation is actually two and a half years behind.

00:30:09.960 --> 00:30:13.120
 So it's actually not even current to what you're looking at, so

00:30:13.120 --> 00:30:16.080
 it does calculate older data to get to that average.

00:30:16.080 --> 00:30:21.040
 >> Sorry, maybe I asked it confusingly.

00:30:21.040 --> 00:30:22.840
 It's not so much how old is the data.

00:30:22.840 --> 00:30:28.760
 It's when they collect the data, do they intentionally try to capture

00:30:28.760 --> 00:30:33.640
 students who are here on April 1st of the census year, or ACS date?

00:30:33.640 --> 00:30:35.600
 >> Well, yeah, the ACS date, yes.

00:30:35.600 --> 00:30:39.600
 They'd be calculating that database on people who are responding in their surveys

00:30:39.600 --> 00:30:43.600
 based on whomever responds at the time at that date.

00:30:43.600 --> 00:30:49.800
 >> So under normal circumstances, we would expect the student population to be sampled for ACS reasons.

00:30:49.800 --> 00:30:51.840
 >> Yes. >> But at the 2020 census,

00:30:51.840 --> 00:30:53.800
 do you think we had a lower student population than normal?

00:30:53.800 --> 00:30:55.440
 >> We did have lower responses here, yes.

00:30:55.440 --> 00:31:00.800
 >> So we would assume at 2020 data to have a little dip just from sampling, perhaps.

00:31:00.800 --> 00:31:03.240
 >> I think you could make that statement, yeah.

00:31:03.240 --> 00:31:03.800
 >> All right, thank you.

00:31:03.800 --> 00:31:07.360
 >> Anybody else?

00:31:07.360 --> 00:31:10.880
 Okay, thank you all so much.

00:31:10.880 --> 00:31:17.320
 So to put a little bit more context to all that math, we gave you more math.

00:31:17.320 --> 00:31:21.040
 We actually, the community services team collaborated with the economic development

00:31:21.040 --> 00:31:22.800
 team to put this chart together.

00:31:22.800 --> 00:31:31.600
 This is showing some common occupations in Denton with 30% of their monthly income when set at the 25th percentile.

00:31:31.600 --> 00:31:36.960
 So for example, 30% of the typical child care

00:31:36.960 --> 00:31:42.880
 worker's income is going to be $568 and so forth.

00:31:42.880 --> 00:31:48.760
 In comparison, we have the median costs of a studio in the light green, one bedroom in the purple,

00:31:48.760 --> 00:31:52.920
 and a two bedroom in the teal in Denton for comparison.

00:31:52.920 --> 00:32:00.360
 So as you can see here, there's a lot of occupations that in general are really struggling to afford even a studio,

00:32:00.360 --> 00:32:05.880
 including our hairdressers, pharmacy technicians, restaurant cooks, and

00:32:05.880 --> 00:32:10.240
 child care workers who are non-profits are telling us are really essential and in deep need right now.

00:32:10.240 --> 00:32:17.000
 Furthermore, if you want to afford a one bedroom, there's a few more occupations that struggle to afford that,

00:32:17.000 --> 00:32:22.520
 such as librarians, electricians, and clergy, even though they studied for quite some time to do what they do.

00:32:22.520 --> 00:32:28.280
 And even our middle school teachers are struggling to be able to afford a two bedroom apartment.

00:32:28.280 --> 00:32:30.520
 Do I have any questions here?

00:32:30.520 --> 00:32:34.360
 Okay, thanks.

00:32:34.360 --> 00:32:40.640
 Breaking that math down a little bit further, just to go step by step.

00:32:40.640 --> 00:32:46.560
 If I want to rent a studio in Denton, the median cost for that is about $950.

00:32:46.560 --> 00:32:52.120
 So in order to afford that, on an annual basis, I have to make about $38,000.

00:32:52.120 --> 00:32:55.840
 Translated into wage, that is about $18 an hour.

00:32:55.840 --> 00:33:00.640
 So on average, you have to be making $18 an hour to afford a studio in Denton.

00:33:00.640 --> 00:33:05.040
 Here I've got that AMI chart from earlier broken down.

00:33:05.040 --> 00:33:10.440
 So you can see in the lighter colors are households that can afford that studio.

00:33:10.440 --> 00:33:11.600
 It's the majority, which is good.

00:33:12.920 --> 00:33:17.720
 But for those extremely low income households, and also some very low income households,

00:33:17.720 --> 00:33:20.120
 it can be difficult to afford even a studio.

00:33:20.120 --> 00:33:26.800
 Some occupations that are typically represented in that population are going to be our cashiers,

00:33:26.800 --> 00:33:31.360
 those child care workers, cleaners, substitute teachers, and school bus drivers.

00:33:31.360 --> 00:33:33.160
 Do I have any questions here?

00:33:33.160 --> 00:33:37.000
 Okay.

00:33:39.480 --> 00:33:43.320
 So for households that may need a two bedroom, possibly they have children in the household,

00:33:43.320 --> 00:33:46.640
 that situation increases a bit.

00:33:46.640 --> 00:33:51.440
 So the median cost for a two bedroom is going to be about $1,500.

00:33:51.440 --> 00:33:56.960
 On average, in order to afford that, a household would need to collectively make $61,000 annually.

00:33:56.960 --> 00:34:02.200
 As you can see, a lot more households really struggle with that.

00:34:03.920 --> 00:34:10.720
 So commonly represented in here are firefighters, electricians, plumbers, social workers,

00:34:10.720 --> 00:34:17.760
 vocational nurses, teachers, and welders are struggling to make rent for a two bedroom in Denton.

00:34:17.760 --> 00:34:19.280
 Do I have questions here?

00:34:19.280 --> 00:34:24.760
 Commissioner Pruitt.

00:34:24.760 --> 00:34:25.320
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:34:25.320 --> 00:34:30.320
 Sorry, just another interpretation question.

00:34:30.320 --> 00:34:37.200
 It strikes me that I may have been misinterpreting all of these charts of household sizes and AMIs in the past,

00:34:37.200 --> 00:34:39.200
 not just this presentation, but years past.

00:34:39.200 --> 00:34:40.240
 >> That's okay.

00:34:40.240 --> 00:34:48.080
 >> Because I noticed that, for instance, the 60% AMI for four person families is higher than the five person families.

00:34:48.080 --> 00:34:55.200
 That makes me think that this is all sampled data, as opposed to the --

00:34:55.200 --> 00:35:07.040
 >> I had assumed before -- sorry for my rambling, that the scaling from single person to multi persons was a scaling of cost of living.

00:35:07.040 --> 00:35:09.440
 And this doesn't appear to be like that.

00:35:09.440 --> 00:35:11.400
 Can you explain why it's not like that?

00:35:11.400 --> 00:35:13.240
 >> I'm going to let Danny take that one.

00:35:13.240 --> 00:35:14.880
 >> Sorry, I just -- I want to learn.

00:35:14.880 --> 00:35:17.880
 >> No, no, no, the little dip bothers me as well.

00:35:20.160 --> 00:35:26.760
 >> It is based on a formula calculation that incorporates poverty factors.

00:35:26.760 --> 00:35:31.440
 So at the four person household, it does have a variation in the calculation that HUD does.

00:35:31.440 --> 00:35:35.800
 The actual formula calculation is available on the HUD side if you're interested in learning the background.

00:35:35.800 --> 00:35:38.120
 But I can't answer if it's a sampling or not.

00:35:38.120 --> 00:35:39.640
 So I'm curious about that as well.

00:35:39.640 --> 00:35:41.520
 So I appreciate that question.

00:35:41.520 --> 00:35:49.600
 But it does -- the formula does change at the different income levels because of those poverty calculations and how they're calculated in different programs.

00:35:50.240 --> 00:35:51.800
 >> I will go have some fun with math.

00:35:51.800 --> 00:35:53.800
 >> Yes.

00:35:53.800 --> 00:35:56.000
 >> You can check it.

00:35:56.000 --> 00:35:58.120
 Yes, please do.

00:35:58.120 --> 00:36:00.160
 Any further questions here?

00:36:00.160 --> 00:36:01.280
 Okay.

00:36:01.280 --> 00:36:02.440
 Commissioner Smith.

00:36:02.440 --> 00:36:03.560
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:36:03.560 --> 00:36:09.880
 So let me just make sure I understand the data you've given me so far and not making a conjecture and more of just surmising.

00:36:09.880 --> 00:36:24.920
 What I've seen so far is that we have -- you said the number was -- we have the highest number of single adult, non-family, 41% are non-family, single adults are unrelated, something like that, right?

00:36:24.920 --> 00:36:25.680
 >> Correct, yes.

00:36:25.680 --> 00:36:36.880
 >> And that the further down the household size you go and the definition of affordability that we're using, the faster housing becomes unaffordable.

00:36:36.880 --> 00:36:37.920
 Is that correct?

00:36:37.920 --> 00:36:39.920
 >> Correct, yeah.

00:36:39.920 --> 00:36:49.320
 The -- you can -- the way to say it that I would say it is it's just increasingly difficult to afford housing alone is the best way I could fix it, yes.

00:36:49.320 --> 00:37:02.560
 >> And not all 41%, but from the measure we can have, there's 41% of population that is, if you want to say it correctly, at higher risk of being -- of being in that more susceptible population.

00:37:02.560 --> 00:37:03.560
 >> I would agree with that, yes.

00:37:03.560 --> 00:37:06.480
 >> Got it, understood.

00:37:06.480 --> 00:37:08.480
 >> Okay.

00:37:08.480 --> 00:37:10.480
 So what is the result of -- wait, was there an additional question?

00:37:10.480 --> 00:37:12.480
 >> Commissioner Haggard.

00:37:12.480 --> 00:37:14.480
 >> I apologize.

00:37:14.480 --> 00:37:16.480
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:37:16.480 --> 00:37:18.480
 Take the opportunity also to apologize for my tardiness.

00:37:18.480 --> 00:37:20.480
 Quick question, you may have already reviewed this.

00:37:20.480 --> 00:37:22.480
 Again, I'm also trying to understand the math.

00:37:22.480 --> 00:37:33.480
 When you're looking at combined household income, I guess, what are the opportunities where you may have like four electricians living together or where you may have three teachers living together?

00:37:33.480 --> 00:37:43.480
 >> I'm trying to understand because if the numbers you suggest is that we have a lot of people that are walking around and they don't have anywhere to live when obviously --

00:37:43.480 --> 00:37:45.480
 >> Right.

00:37:45.480 --> 00:37:53.480
 And a little bit we will go over that together, but it is actually pretty related to what we were saying before and that, yes, people live together.

00:37:53.480 --> 00:37:56.480
 I have two roommates, all of whom are -- all of us are working.

00:37:56.480 --> 00:37:59.480
 And so that -- we're a household of three and we're represented on here, right?

00:37:59.480 --> 00:38:01.480
 So I hope that answers that.

00:38:01.480 --> 00:38:03.480
 >> Okay, perfect.

00:38:03.480 --> 00:38:05.480
 Any other questions?

00:38:05.480 --> 00:38:07.480
 Okay.

00:38:07.480 --> 00:38:09.480
 >> Thank you.

00:38:09.480 --> 00:38:11.480
 >> So the result of this is cost burden.

00:38:11.480 --> 00:38:23.480
 If we've been saying that 30% of a household's income is the budget for housing, when a household is spending more than 30% of their income on housing, they are considered cost burdened.

00:38:23.480 --> 00:38:34.480
 In Denton, of the 48% who are living below that 80% area median income mark, 69% are cost burdened in some fashion.

00:38:34.480 --> 00:38:46.480
 In fact, the largest portion are severely cost burdened at 38%, which means that they're spending more than half of their income towards housing.

00:38:46.480 --> 00:38:49.480
 Do you have any questions on this before I move forward?

00:38:49.480 --> 00:38:53.480
 >> Could I just have you clarify because you keep saying towards housing, also transportation?

00:38:53.480 --> 00:38:54.480
 >> This is just housing specifically.

00:38:54.480 --> 00:38:55.480
 >> This is just housing?

00:38:55.480 --> 00:38:55.480
 >> Yes.

00:38:55.480 --> 00:38:56.480
 >> Okay.

00:38:56.480 --> 00:38:59.480
 >> Yeah, just on the one transportation slide where we're discussing housing and transportation together.

00:38:59.480 --> 00:39:00.480
 >> Understood.

00:39:00.480 --> 00:39:01.480
 Okay, thank you.

00:39:01.480 --> 00:39:02.480
 >> No, no, thank you.

00:39:02.480 --> 00:39:06.480
 All right.

00:39:06.480 --> 00:39:09.480
 But, of course, that cost burden is not dispersed equally.

00:39:09.480 --> 00:39:13.480
 We talked about our more vulnerable households that are extremely low income.

00:39:13.480 --> 00:39:20.480
 Of those extremely low income households in Denton, which again that's 16% of households, about 9,000,

00:39:20.480 --> 00:39:27.480
 88% are severely cost burdened and every single month paying more than half of their income towards their housing.

00:39:27.480 --> 00:39:44.480
 When our nonprofits talk about Alice households and households living paycheck to paycheck, unable to save for retirement or medical bills, this is a huge, huge part of that story.

00:39:44.480 --> 00:39:50.480
 In conclusion, we learned that the majority of units in Denton are single family homes.

00:39:50.480 --> 00:39:54.480
 About half of units in Denton are rented, not owned.

00:39:54.480 --> 00:40:02.480
 Both rents and home prices rose significantly between the months of January 2020 and December 2022.

00:40:02.480 --> 00:40:11.480
 Most, many, it's not most, many common occupations can't afford to rent a studio in Denton on the whole.

00:40:11.480 --> 00:40:21.480
 Of about the half of Denton residents who are considered low income, 69% are cost burdened and paying more than 30% of their income towards housing.

00:40:21.480 --> 00:40:34.480
 And of that 16%, that 9,000 Denton households who are extremely low income, 88% are extremely cost burdened and spend more than half of their monthly income on housing.

00:40:34.480 --> 00:40:43.480
 It's a bit of a downer, but this is the findings that our affordable housing needs assessment presented to us in 2021.

00:40:43.480 --> 00:40:56.480
 And this is why city council chose to approve our affordable housing strategic toolkit in 2022, and ultimately I believe this is why Denton residents voted to approve the affordable housing bond last fall.

00:40:56.480 --> 00:41:06.480
 I'm really looking forward to seeing you all next time and talking about solutions and what will be coming your way for consideration in the upcoming few years.

00:41:06.480 --> 00:41:08.480
 Do I have any questions?

00:41:08.480 --> 00:41:10.480
 >> Questions as we finish out?

00:41:10.480 --> 00:41:12.480
 Commissioner Smith?

00:41:12.480 --> 00:41:26.480
 >> I know we're talking about solutions on the 14th, but just a question that came up in my mind earlier was when we talk about affordable housing initiatives coming from the bond package as approved, essentially that's bond money.

00:41:26.480 --> 00:41:30.480
 So it's going to be city initiated, city led.

00:41:30.480 --> 00:41:38.480
 Are some of those solutions including working with developers that we've already seen come into the city before with affordable housing?

00:41:38.480 --> 00:41:47.480
 Okay, I didn't know what percentage was going to be that, or it's going to be, I'm just thinking of solutions that are probably not as feasible as working with private sector.

00:41:47.480 --> 00:41:50.480
 >> I'm going to let Danny talk to you because she's excited.

00:41:50.480 --> 00:41:57.480
 >> Danny, I'm just looking at it as like, if the city could go build $15 million of housing and run a city owned housing project.

00:41:57.480 --> 00:41:58.480
 >> It wouldn't be a very big one.

00:41:58.480 --> 00:41:59.480
 >> No, it wouldn't be.

00:41:59.480 --> 00:42:01.480
 No, and it wouldn't be very effective.

00:42:01.480 --> 00:42:11.480
 >> No, I think that's what I'm most proud of in our toolkit and the strategies that were developed there because it really is looking at how we incentivize the private market to be the partner in this because we can't.

00:42:11.480 --> 00:42:20.480
 It's $15 million at $275,000 per unit is not going to build very many units, so it's absolutely important for us to be working through strategies.

00:42:20.480 --> 00:42:26.480
 So you'll be looking at incentive packages that are designed to incentivize that behavior from developers.

00:42:26.480 --> 00:42:31.480
 We can't mandate it, state law ties our hands there, but we can incentivize that.

00:42:31.480 --> 00:42:39.480
 So we say, we're going to offer you some incentives, if you all approve those, that will allow developers to get a little bit of bonuses in what they're doing in exchange for affordability.

00:42:39.480 --> 00:42:42.480
 And not just short term, but long term affordability over time.

00:42:42.480 --> 00:42:46.480
 And those funds will help us with those incentives drastically.

00:42:46.480 --> 00:42:47.480
 >> I'm going to put you on the spot here, Danny.

00:42:47.480 --> 00:42:48.480
 >> Yeah.

00:42:48.480 --> 00:42:50.480
 >> I know how it works on bond committees.

00:42:50.480 --> 00:42:51.480
 >> Yeah.

00:42:51.480 --> 00:42:56.480
 >> When you guys came in with this idea to the bond committee, was 15 your target?

00:42:56.480 --> 00:42:58.480
 >> No, we came in at 10 million.

00:42:58.480 --> 00:43:00.480
 >> Oh, wow, okay, cool.

00:43:00.480 --> 00:43:02.480
 >> The bond committee was nice enough to say.

00:43:02.480 --> 00:43:03.480
 >> I was, yeah.

00:43:03.480 --> 00:43:04.480
 >> Okay.

00:43:04.480 --> 00:43:05.480
 >> We'll give you a couple more dollars.

00:43:05.480 --> 00:43:11.480
 >> I didn't know if it was, you know, you guys came in with 30, and they said, look, all we can really do together is 15.

00:43:11.480 --> 00:43:14.480
 And that just kind of helps me with scope and understanding, but they did a 50% increase.

00:43:14.480 --> 00:43:19.480
 >> No, they felt like we maybe came in low and offered that we could have some additional money to put towards that effort.

00:43:19.480 --> 00:43:23.480
 >> We thought we could make an impact with 10, but now we're going to make even more of 15 is what we got.

00:43:23.480 --> 00:43:24.480
 >> Yeah, yeah.

00:43:24.480 --> 00:43:25.480
 We'll do what we can with it.

00:43:25.480 --> 00:43:26.480
 >> Cool.

00:43:26.480 --> 00:43:27.480
 Thanks, Danny.

00:43:27.480 --> 00:43:28.480
 >> Yeah, thank you.

00:43:28.480 --> 00:43:29.480
 >> Anybody else?

00:43:29.480 --> 00:43:30.480
 Commissioner Perot.

00:43:30.480 --> 00:43:31.480
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:43:31.480 --> 00:43:33.480
 First of all, just thank you for this overview.

00:43:33.480 --> 00:43:36.480
 I would like to ask if we could have a copy of this.

00:43:36.480 --> 00:43:41.480
 I know it's just a snapshot in time, but sometimes we don't always get a copy of the work session presentations.

00:43:41.480 --> 00:43:54.480
 I think this would be a very helpful one to look back on.

00:43:54.480 --> 00:43:57.480
 And I guess just a couple of questions.

00:43:57.480 --> 00:44:02.480
 If there are more things that we'll cover in the part two, that's fine.

00:44:02.480 --> 00:44:14.480
 Commissioner Thaggart brought up the concept of co-housing and how people mitigate these challenges.

00:44:14.480 --> 00:44:28.480
 I imagine the data is incredibly hard to get, but I would appreciate if you could at least introduce the concepts of sort of the difference in the housing speak of

00:44:28.480 --> 00:44:36.480
 over-crowdedness versus density of families and how that works.

00:44:36.480 --> 00:44:40.480
 And then -- yeah, sorry, if you want to say something.

00:44:40.480 --> 00:44:42.480
 >> Just to answer that very quickly.

00:44:42.480 --> 00:44:48.480
 We can and we actually include that in our five-year consolidated plan, so that data is relatively available as well.

00:44:48.480 --> 00:44:49.480
 >> Okay.

00:44:49.480 --> 00:44:50.480
 That's great.

00:44:50.480 --> 00:44:54.480
 And then -- uh-oh.

00:44:54.480 --> 00:44:55.480
 This is dangerous.

00:44:55.480 --> 00:44:56.480
 I should have taken notes.

00:44:56.480 --> 00:44:57.480
 >> You should have taken notes.

00:44:57.480 --> 00:44:58.480
 I'm sorry.

00:44:58.480 --> 00:44:59.480
 You're all --

00:44:59.480 --> 00:45:00.480
 >> I got a question.

00:45:00.480 --> 00:45:01.480
 You can think about it.

00:45:01.480 --> 00:45:02.480
 >> Hang on.

00:45:02.480 --> 00:45:03.480
 Commissioner Pruitt has the floor.

00:45:03.480 --> 00:45:04.480
 Are you truly stuck at the moment?

00:45:04.480 --> 00:45:05.480
 >> I'll take a break, yes.

00:45:05.480 --> 00:45:06.480
 >> Okay.

00:45:06.480 --> 00:45:07.480
 Okay.

00:45:07.480 --> 00:45:08.480
 Anybody on this side?

00:45:08.480 --> 00:45:09.480
 Yes?

00:45:09.480 --> 00:45:10.480
 Okay.

00:45:10.480 --> 00:45:11.480
 Commissioner Smith.

00:45:11.480 --> 00:45:12.480
 >> Thanks.

00:45:12.480 --> 00:45:13.480
 >> Okay.

00:45:13.480 --> 00:45:14.480
 You're next.

00:45:14.480 --> 00:45:24.480
 >> It was slightly mentioned in the presentation, but there was nothing really explicitly in the data that was presented that was directly student-related in looking at -- I mean,

00:45:24.480 --> 00:45:34.480
 outside of the percentage of folks between 20 and 29, which we can correlate to student or most recently was student, right?

00:45:34.480 --> 00:45:47.480
 Was there any data that came from the census that we could extrapolate that could help our understanding a little bit more about housing and the impact of being a heavily student population housing area?

00:45:47.480 --> 00:45:48.480
 >> I'll answer that.

00:45:48.480 --> 00:45:50.480
 And if Dani has follow-up, yeah.

00:45:50.480 --> 00:45:56.480
 I would be surprised if we were able to confidently extrapolate that from the census.

00:45:56.480 --> 00:46:01.480
 However, we can look at internal data and see if there's anything there.

00:46:01.480 --> 00:46:03.480
 Do you have anything to add to that?

00:46:03.480 --> 00:46:04.480
 Yeah.

00:46:04.480 --> 00:46:11.480
 >> I only ask that we -- Leadership Denton, which was almost eight years ago that I was on Leadership Denton, affordable housing was our project.

00:46:11.480 --> 00:46:19.480
 And we wanted to address variables that hadn't been addressed by other organizations and entities in the city already.

00:46:19.480 --> 00:46:31.480
 And our focus was on the impact of student housing, or student housing, the impact that students and housing students -- I don't want to say student housing, but housing students makes on the city.

00:46:31.480 --> 00:46:41.480
 And so I didn't know, and as comprehensive as this is, if there was data that was related to that, to show that as an interesting and significant point.

00:46:41.480 --> 00:46:46.480
 >> No, but we can use the university data on enrollment in the housing in those areas.

00:46:46.480 --> 00:46:51.480
 We can also look at a couple of other parameters in that discussion to see.

00:46:51.480 --> 00:46:58.480
 Because we do know that Denton is unique also in that we don't have as much naturally occurring affordable housing because it is taken up by students.

00:46:58.480 --> 00:47:06.480
 And also the larger housing product is not available to families as frequently here because students are taking up larger housing because they're co-housing.

00:47:06.480 --> 00:47:09.480
 So we can try to pull some more definitive data.

00:47:09.480 --> 00:47:12.480
 Those are just anecdotal statements based on what we know from the numbers.

00:47:12.480 --> 00:47:16.480
 But we'll see if we can get it to be something that you can be more confident in.

00:47:16.480 --> 00:47:18.480
 >> Gotcha. Thanks, Danny.

00:47:18.480 --> 00:47:19.480
 >> Anything else?

00:47:19.480 --> 00:47:22.480
 >> Commissioner Thacker.

00:47:22.480 --> 00:47:23.480
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:47:23.480 --> 00:47:27.480
 I had the privilege of seeing Danny's presentation on the bond where I served.

00:47:27.480 --> 00:47:29.480
 It was a beautiful presentation.

00:47:29.480 --> 00:47:33.480
 A couple of questions, and I believe, Danny, I may have asked you this one when I served on bond.

00:47:33.480 --> 00:47:41.480
 Do you guys have data on the folks that are in long-term versus short-term housing, sort of like maybe a breakdown of what those families look like?

00:47:41.480 --> 00:47:46.480
 And also the tenure that they are in both long-term and short-term.

00:47:46.480 --> 00:47:47.480
 >> Yeah, and I appreciate that question.

00:47:47.480 --> 00:47:53.480
 We have the tenure of the housing stock, but not of the people who are in it that we can pull.

00:47:53.480 --> 00:48:01.480
 But thank you for clarifying exactly what context you were looking for there because let us look at that to see if there's some way we can identify that.

00:48:01.480 --> 00:48:04.480
 Because I think it would be important in our rental conversations for assistance, too.

00:48:04.480 --> 00:48:05.480
 So thank you.

00:48:05.480 --> 00:48:06.480
 >> I believe, yeah.

00:48:06.480 --> 00:48:08.480
 Thank you.

00:48:08.480 --> 00:48:09.480
 >> Commissioner Perutt.

00:48:09.480 --> 00:48:10.480
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:48:10.480 --> 00:48:13.480
 I have recollected my thoughts.

00:48:13.480 --> 00:48:17.480
 These may be just hopeful requests for part two.

00:48:17.480 --> 00:48:34.480
 I think one thing that we haven't really talked about is specifically with the LIHTC, sorry, Low Income Housing Tax Credit, WordSoup, the federal program that gives us -- gives private developers money when they offer affordable housing.

00:48:34.480 --> 00:48:50.480
 The projects -- I think there's something called the Qualified Census Districts that changes the rules of that program and to some degree influences where those location -- or where those projects get requested.

00:48:50.480 --> 00:48:52.480
 I think that would be helpful for us to see.

00:48:52.480 --> 00:49:07.480
 And then just some more information about, you know, we talk about transportation data, some kind of staff suggestion of how we should think about location in terms of land uses for these types of things.

00:49:07.480 --> 00:49:09.480
 I know that's a huge concept.

00:49:09.480 --> 00:49:10.480
 >> It's not.

00:49:10.480 --> 00:49:13.480
 It's something we already have completed, but I'm going to let Dani say it because it's her brainchild.

00:49:13.480 --> 00:49:14.480
 >> Yeah.

00:49:14.480 --> 00:49:16.480
 Well, and I just wanted to kind of qualify.

00:49:16.480 --> 00:49:19.480
 There's a couple of reasons why those census districts are important.

00:49:19.480 --> 00:49:28.480
 There was a Supreme Court ruling in Dallas around the scoring and how it concentrated, inadvertently concentrated folks in certain areas.

00:49:28.480 --> 00:49:33.480
 We're already experiencing that just by virtue of the way land costs are.

00:49:33.480 --> 00:49:35.480
 So it's a good question.

00:49:35.480 --> 00:49:40.480
 Let's let us, like, sit like that with the other things, too.

00:49:40.480 --> 00:49:49.480
 >> I was thinking through -- because the qualified census track does incentivize, right, because there are people who are low mod income.

00:49:49.480 --> 00:49:52.480
 Our goal is to diversify that, right?

00:49:52.480 --> 00:49:58.480
 And so we're not prioritizing that in ours, but the state prioritizes it in the qualified action plan, the QAP.

00:49:58.480 --> 00:50:03.480
 So that's how it actually happens through the state.

00:50:03.480 --> 00:50:06.480
 >> Would you also want to throw in there information about our GIS?

00:50:06.480 --> 00:50:15.480
 >> Yeah, I was going to say also additionally in that GIS map that was mentioned earlier, that is our internal assessment of vacant properties or underutilized properties.

00:50:15.480 --> 00:50:19.480
 We are really looking directly at how close is this to a bus stop?

00:50:19.480 --> 00:50:23.480
 Is this in walking distance of a school or a library or a potential workplace?

00:50:23.480 --> 00:50:25.480
 And that's one of our major factors.

00:50:25.480 --> 00:50:27.480
 So, yes.

00:50:27.480 --> 00:50:31.480
 >> So it's really good to know that all that analysis is getting done.

00:50:31.480 --> 00:50:36.480
 I understand why all that needs to keep -- stay in house.

00:50:36.480 --> 00:50:51.480
 If there were some way of including relative scoring of projects where we have land use decisions on to give us an idea of is this sort of above median or below compared to other hopes, that would really help me.

00:50:51.480 --> 00:50:53.480
 >> Yeah, that's definitely what we're trying to do.

00:50:53.480 --> 00:51:03.480
 And additionally, in the presentation as we have it scheduled for next time, we do go over the market value analysis and the kind of regions that they outlined, and that's all public data.

00:51:03.480 --> 00:51:09.480
 And so kind of just discussing what characterizes each district and what we're hoping for that area.

00:51:09.480 --> 00:51:14.480
 >> Yeah, I lay ahead and nail on the head just to go one step further, though.

00:51:14.480 --> 00:51:19.480
 Our goal is to make sure we are making those recommendations in the future as you look at projects.

00:51:19.480 --> 00:51:23.480
 Why is it being recommended on our side for these incentives?

00:51:23.480 --> 00:51:25.480
 Because it does score this way.

00:51:25.480 --> 00:51:27.480
 And so that's exactly where we're headed.

00:51:27.480 --> 00:51:28.480
 Yes.

00:51:28.480 --> 00:51:30.480
 >> Thank you.

00:51:30.480 --> 00:51:31.480
 >> Any additional questions?

00:51:31.480 --> 00:51:34.480
 Anybody else?

00:51:34.480 --> 00:51:35.480
 >> Okay.

00:51:35.480 --> 00:51:36.480
 Thank you very much.

00:51:36.480 --> 00:51:37.480
 Outstanding.

00:51:37.480 --> 00:51:38.480
 Look forward to the part two.

00:51:38.480 --> 00:51:39.480
 >> Just a shout out to Lea.

00:51:39.480 --> 00:51:41.480
 This is really -- she's only been with us a few months.

00:51:41.480 --> 00:51:43.480
 And so as you can see, she's amazing.

00:51:43.480 --> 00:51:44.480
 Great team.

00:51:44.480 --> 00:51:45.480
 And so she did a great job.

00:51:45.480 --> 00:51:49.480
 So this is our first presentation in front of the city group.

00:51:49.480 --> 00:51:51.480
 >> You did great.

00:51:51.480 --> 00:51:54.480
 Thank you very much.

00:51:54.480 --> 00:51:55.480
 Okay.

00:51:55.480 --> 00:51:56.480
 That concludes our work session.

00:51:56.480 --> 00:51:59.480
 So I'll go ahead and adjourn us at 6.01 p.m.

00:51:59.480 --> 00:52:10.480
 We will reconvene in council chambers at 6.30 for our regular meeting.

00:52:10.480 --> 00:52:17.480
 Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning commission meeting for Wednesday, January 24th, 2024.

00:52:17.480 --> 00:52:20.480
 With a quorum present, I will call us to order at 6.30 p.m.

00:52:20.480 --> 00:52:26.480
 First item on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags.

00:52:26.480 --> 00:52:39.480
 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

00:52:39.480 --> 00:52:42.480
 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

00:52:42.480 --> 00:52:43.480
 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

00:52:43.480 --> 00:52:44.480
 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

00:52:44.480 --> 00:52:45.480
 >> Thank you.

00:52:45.480 --> 00:53:05.480
 First order of business is the consider approval of our minutes from our January 10th meeting.

00:53:05.480 --> 00:53:07.480
 Are we having technical difficulties?

00:53:07.480 --> 00:53:08.480
 Okay.

00:53:08.480 --> 00:53:11.480
 We are going to have to do hands then.

00:53:11.480 --> 00:53:12.480
 Commissioner Thaggard.

00:53:12.480 --> 00:53:14.480
 >> I make a motion to accept the minutes.

00:53:14.480 --> 00:53:15.480
 >> Okay.

00:53:15.480 --> 00:53:16.480
 Commissioner Villarreal.

00:53:16.480 --> 00:53:17.480
 >> Second.

00:53:17.480 --> 00:53:18.480
 >> Okay.

00:53:18.480 --> 00:53:19.480
 We've got a first and a second for approval.

00:53:19.480 --> 00:53:22.480
 We'll go ahead and vote via roll call.

00:53:22.480 --> 00:53:23.480
 Commissioner Cole.

00:53:23.480 --> 00:53:24.480
 >> Aye.

00:53:24.480 --> 00:53:25.480
 >> Commissioner Thaggard.

00:53:25.480 --> 00:53:26.480
 >> Aye.

00:53:26.480 --> 00:53:27.480
 >> Commissioner Villarreal.

00:53:27.480 --> 00:53:28.480
 >> Aye.

00:53:28.480 --> 00:53:29.480
 >> Commissioner Smith.

00:53:29.480 --> 00:53:30.480
 >> Aye.

00:53:30.480 --> 00:53:31.480
 >> Commissioner Perrett.

00:53:31.480 --> 00:53:32.480
 >> Aye.

00:53:32.480 --> 00:53:33.480
 >> Chair is also an aye.

00:53:33.480 --> 00:53:34.480
 That motion carries 6-0.

00:53:34.480 --> 00:53:39.480
 We'll move to our consent agenda for this evening.

00:53:39.480 --> 00:53:41.480
 Commissioner Perrett.

00:53:41.480 --> 00:53:45.480
 >> I'll move to adopt the consent agenda.

00:53:45.480 --> 00:53:46.480
 >> Commissioner Villarreal.

00:53:46.480 --> 00:53:47.480
 >> Second.

00:53:47.480 --> 00:53:52.480
 >> We've got a first and a second for approval of our consent agenda this evening.

00:53:52.480 --> 00:53:53.480
 Questions?

00:53:53.480 --> 00:53:54.480
 Okay.

00:53:54.480 --> 00:53:55.480
 Let's do roll call vote.

00:53:55.480 --> 00:53:56.480
 Commissioner Perrett.

00:53:56.480 --> 00:53:57.480
 >> Aye.

00:53:57.480 --> 00:53:58.480
 >> Commissioner Smith.

00:53:58.480 --> 00:53:59.480
 >> Aye.

00:53:59.480 --> 00:54:00.480
 >> Commissioner Villarreal.

00:54:00.480 --> 00:54:01.480
 >> Aye.

00:54:01.480 --> 00:54:02.480
 >> Commissioner Thaggard.

00:54:02.480 --> 00:54:03.480
 >> Aye.

00:54:03.480 --> 00:54:04.480
 >> Commissioner Thaggard.

00:54:04.480 --> 00:54:05.480
 >> Second.

00:54:05.480 --> 00:54:06.480
 >> Chair is also an aye.

00:54:06.480 --> 00:54:07.480
 That motion carries 6-0.

00:54:07.480 --> 00:54:12.560
 That will take us to our items for individual consideration.

00:54:12.560 --> 00:54:17.320
 Our first is 4A, FP230036.

00:54:17.320 --> 00:54:19.240
 Haley is here for presentation.

00:54:19.240 --> 00:54:25.000
 >> Good evening, Chair, members of the commission.

00:54:25.000 --> 00:54:27.480
 Haley Zagorski, Assistant Planning Director.

00:54:27.480 --> 00:54:31.760
 The plat before you this evening is the final plat for the Denton West Joint Ventures.

00:54:31.760 --> 00:54:36.700
 You may recall this property in the last year has gone through a zoning change for plan

00:54:36.700 --> 00:54:40.200
 development with a suburban corridor based zoning located at the corner of Teasley and

00:54:40.200 --> 00:54:41.640
 Ryan Road.

00:54:41.640 --> 00:54:45.240
 At this time, staff is recommending denial of the plat as there are still some outstanding

00:54:45.240 --> 00:54:47.120
 comments that need to be cleared.

00:54:47.120 --> 00:54:51.040
 However, we have no objection to the requested extension to February 14th, 2024.

00:54:51.040 --> 00:54:53.680
 I'm happy to answer any questions.

00:54:53.680 --> 00:54:54.680
 >> Thank you, Haley.

00:54:54.680 --> 00:54:55.680
 Any questions for Haley?

00:54:55.680 --> 00:54:56.680
 Okay.

00:54:56.680 --> 00:54:57.680
 Thanks, Haley.

00:54:57.680 --> 00:54:58.680
 Commissioner Smith.

00:54:58.680 --> 00:55:03.480
 >> I make a motion to approve the extension of date certain to February 14th, 2024.

00:55:03.480 --> 00:55:04.480
 >> Thank you.

00:55:04.480 --> 00:55:05.480
 Commissioner Thaggard.

00:55:05.480 --> 00:55:06.480
 >> I'll second.

00:55:06.480 --> 00:55:09.400
 >> We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of

00:55:09.400 --> 00:55:12.280
 February 14th, 2024.

00:55:12.280 --> 00:55:13.280
 Any questions?

00:55:13.280 --> 00:55:14.280
 Okay.

00:55:14.280 --> 00:55:15.280
 Commissioner Cole.

00:55:15.280 --> 00:55:16.280
 >> Aye.

00:55:16.280 --> 00:55:17.280
 >> Commissioner Thaggard.

00:55:17.280 --> 00:55:18.280
 >> Aye.

00:55:18.280 --> 00:55:19.280
 >> Commissioner Villarreal.

00:55:19.280 --> 00:55:20.280
 >> Aye.

00:55:20.280 --> 00:55:21.280
 >> Commissioner Smith.

00:55:21.280 --> 00:55:22.280
 >> Aye.

00:55:22.280 --> 00:55:23.280
 >> Commissioner Pruitt.

00:55:23.280 --> 00:55:24.280
 >> Aye.

00:55:24.280 --> 00:55:25.280
 >> Chair, is an aye.

00:55:25.280 --> 00:55:26.280
 That's 6-0.

00:55:26.280 --> 00:55:32.480
 >> In favor of that extension request, next item is 4B, FP230033.

00:55:32.480 --> 00:55:34.320
 Hello again, Haley.

00:55:34.320 --> 00:55:35.320
 >> Yes.

00:55:35.320 --> 00:55:36.320
 Good evening.

00:55:36.320 --> 00:55:39.500
 So this is a final plot for Phase 1B of the Hickory Grove addition.

00:55:39.500 --> 00:55:43.800
 This property is located in the city's ETJ on the just west of the city limits along

00:55:43.800 --> 00:55:45.920
 University Drive.

00:55:45.920 --> 00:55:49.160
 At this time, staff is recommending approval of this plot as they've managed to clear all

00:55:49.160 --> 00:55:51.120
 of their comments since the agenda was posted.

00:55:51.120 --> 00:55:53.280
 I'm happy to answer any questions.

00:55:53.280 --> 00:55:54.280
 >> Thanks, Haley.

00:55:54.280 --> 00:55:55.280
 Any questions for Haley?

00:55:55.280 --> 00:55:56.280
 >> No.

00:55:56.280 --> 00:55:57.280
 >> Okay.

00:55:57.280 --> 00:55:58.280
 Thank you very much.

00:55:58.280 --> 00:55:59.280
 Commissioner Smith.

00:55:59.280 --> 00:56:02.280
 >> Make a motion to approve.

00:56:02.280 --> 00:56:03.960
 >> Commissioner Pruitt.

00:56:03.960 --> 00:56:04.960
 >> Second.

00:56:04.960 --> 00:56:07.040
 >> And a first and a second for approval.

00:56:07.040 --> 00:56:08.040
 Any discussion?

00:56:08.040 --> 00:56:09.040
 Okay.

00:56:09.040 --> 00:56:11.400
 Let's vote via roll call.

00:56:11.400 --> 00:56:12.400
 Commissioner Pruitt.

00:56:12.400 --> 00:56:13.400
 >> Aye.

00:56:13.400 --> 00:56:14.400
 >> Commissioner Smith.

00:56:14.400 --> 00:56:15.400
 >> Aye.

00:56:15.400 --> 00:56:16.400
 >> Commissioner Villarreal.

00:56:16.400 --> 00:56:17.400
 >> Aye.

00:56:17.400 --> 00:56:18.400
 >> Commissioner Thaggard.

00:56:18.400 --> 00:56:19.400
 >> Aye.

00:56:19.400 --> 00:56:20.400
 >> Commissioner Cole.

00:56:20.400 --> 00:56:21.400
 >> Aye.

00:56:21.400 --> 00:56:22.400
 >> Chair, is an aye.

00:56:22.400 --> 00:56:23.400
 That motion carries 6-0.

00:56:23.400 --> 00:56:25.560
 The second is 4C, FP 240002.

00:56:25.560 --> 00:56:27.520
 Hi, Erin.

00:56:27.520 --> 00:56:28.520
 >> Hello.

00:56:28.520 --> 00:56:29.520
 Let's see.

00:56:29.520 --> 00:56:38.680
 Good evening, Chair and members of the commission, Erin Stanley, assistant planner.

00:56:38.680 --> 00:56:44.640
 This is FP 23000 -- oh, that one's not it.

00:56:44.640 --> 00:56:48.520
 This one, 240002.

00:56:48.520 --> 00:56:51.840
 This is a final plot for the Denton Shady Shores edition.

00:56:51.840 --> 00:57:02.160
 This is east of I-35E and north of Shady Shores Road Street, I'm not sure.

00:57:02.160 --> 00:57:06.400
 And at this time, staff is recommending denial of the final plot as it does not meet all

00:57:06.400 --> 00:57:08.440
 of our criteria for approval.

00:57:08.440 --> 00:57:14.520
 They have requested an extension which could be granted to the date of February 14th, 2024.

00:57:14.520 --> 00:57:15.920
 >> Thanks, Erin.

00:57:15.920 --> 00:57:17.560
 Any questions for Erin?

00:57:17.560 --> 00:57:18.560
 Okay.

00:57:18.560 --> 00:57:19.560
 Thank you.

00:57:19.560 --> 00:57:22.640
 Commissioner Smith.

00:57:22.640 --> 00:57:26.600
 >> Make a motion to approve the extension to date certain February 14th, 2024.

00:57:26.600 --> 00:57:27.600
 >> Commissioner Cole.

00:57:27.600 --> 00:57:28.600
 >> Second.

00:57:28.600 --> 00:57:29.600
 >> Okay.

00:57:29.600 --> 00:57:31.800
 We've got a first and a second for approval of the extension request to a date certain

00:57:31.800 --> 00:57:34.960
 of February 14th, 2024.

00:57:34.960 --> 00:57:35.960
 Any questions?

00:57:35.960 --> 00:57:36.960
 Okay.

00:57:36.960 --> 00:57:39.160
 Let's vote via roll call.

00:57:39.160 --> 00:57:40.160
 Commissioner Cole.

00:57:40.160 --> 00:57:41.160
 >> Aye.

00:57:41.160 --> 00:57:42.160
 >> Commissioner Thaggard.

00:57:42.160 --> 00:57:43.160
 >> Aye.

00:57:43.160 --> 00:57:44.160
 >> Commissioner Villarreal.

00:57:44.160 --> 00:57:45.160
 >> Aye.

00:57:45.160 --> 00:57:46.160
 >> Commissioner Smith.

00:57:46.160 --> 00:57:47.160
 >> Aye.

00:57:47.160 --> 00:57:48.160
 >> Commissioner Pruitt.

00:57:48.160 --> 00:57:49.160
 >> Aye.

00:57:49.160 --> 00:57:50.160
 >> Is there a second?

00:57:50.160 --> 00:57:51.160
 I also an aye.

00:57:51.160 --> 00:57:52.160
 That motion carries 6-0.

00:57:52.160 --> 00:57:55.120
 That will take us to our public hearing portion for this evening.

00:57:55.120 --> 00:58:02.360
 We have one item there, it's 5A, HL230002.

00:58:02.360 --> 00:58:05.080
 Cameron is on her way up to make a presentation.

00:58:05.080 --> 00:58:07.360
 I'll open the public hearing.

00:58:07.360 --> 00:58:13.000
 >> Thank you, Chair and commission.

00:58:13.000 --> 00:58:16.200
 Okay.

00:58:16.200 --> 00:58:20.840
 As I said, this is Cameron Robertson, historic preservation officer.

00:58:20.840 --> 00:58:29.480
 This is HL23-002B and this is for historic landmark designation of 314 Marietta Street.

00:58:29.480 --> 00:58:33.280
 During the work session, I gave you all some background about what his historic landmark

00:58:33.280 --> 00:58:36.880
 designation was and what are some of the benefits, so I'm going to jump right into the background

00:58:36.880 --> 00:58:38.760
 information.

00:58:38.760 --> 00:58:42.920
 So this property is located on the east side of Marietta Street, just south of Houston

00:58:42.920 --> 00:58:45.080
 Place, so it's highlighted there in red.

00:58:45.080 --> 00:58:51.520
 The owners are Travis and Sarah Rigsby and the construction date is circa 1940.

00:58:51.520 --> 00:58:57.440
 Some of the building's history, it was originally constructed for Ms. Susie Shepard.

00:58:57.440 --> 00:59:01.040
 The architectural style is a minimal traditional style.

00:59:01.040 --> 00:59:06.760
 Since 1940, there have been 14 property owners and it has been used largely as a rental property

00:59:06.760 --> 00:59:11.580
 since the 1960s to present day.

00:59:11.580 --> 00:59:15.960
 So kind of referring back to that work session item, when we talked about that certificate

00:59:15.960 --> 00:59:20.080
 of appropriateness that was approved by the Historic Landmark Commission in November of

00:59:20.080 --> 00:59:26.280
 2023, the new addition that you can see highlighted in red, that was approved by the Historic

00:59:26.280 --> 00:59:31.000
 Landmark Commission due to the fact that it did meet the Secretary of Interior standards

00:59:31.000 --> 00:59:36.800
 as well as our West Oak Area Historic District design standards.

00:59:36.800 --> 00:59:40.160
 So the request is for that historic landmark designation.

00:59:40.160 --> 00:59:46.760
 You can see the property as it is today, and then that OR3 zoning.

00:59:46.760 --> 00:59:54.640
 This is the front west and that north facades along Marietta Street, and then the south

00:59:54.640 --> 01:00:03.360
 and rear east facades, and that rear facade shows the current sun porch, which is where

01:00:03.360 --> 01:00:06.660
 the new addition is being added.

01:00:06.660 --> 01:00:12.560
 This is a survey of the property there, and you see the original abstract.

01:00:12.560 --> 01:00:16.700
 But diving into staff analysis, I know there's a lot on this page right here, but we're focusing

01:00:16.700 --> 01:00:18.360
 on the areas highlighted in red.

01:00:18.360 --> 01:00:24.520
 So we're looking at A, J, K, and L, and this correlates to, when we're looking at the debt

01:00:24.520 --> 01:00:29.380
 and development code, that correlates to 1, 10, 11, and 12.

01:00:29.380 --> 01:00:31.720
 So I'm going to run through these.

01:00:31.720 --> 01:00:38.520
 So the first area of criteria that we're looking at in section 2.9.4B is that character, interest,

01:00:38.520 --> 01:00:43.200
 or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state,

01:00:43.200 --> 01:00:44.760
 or the United States.

01:00:44.760 --> 01:00:49.640
 The next one we're going to be focusing on is the location as the site of a significant

01:00:49.640 --> 01:00:51.980
 historic event.

01:00:51.980 --> 01:00:57.040
 Then K, looking at identification with a person who has significantly contributed to the culture

01:00:57.040 --> 01:01:02.040
 and development of the city, state, or the United States, and then lastly, a building

01:01:02.040 --> 01:01:06.320
 or structure that, because of its location, has become a value to the neighborhood, community

01:01:06.320 --> 01:01:09.400
 area, or the city.

01:01:09.400 --> 01:01:16.440
 So looking at that approval criteria A/1, much of the neighborhood north of the University

01:01:16.440 --> 01:01:22.340
 of North Texas was plotted during the 1920s and the early 1930s, but most of those residents

01:01:22.340 --> 01:01:25.840
 weren't built until the 1930s and the early 1940s.

01:01:25.840 --> 01:01:30.760
 So kind of on Marietta Street and some of those higher streets along Houston Place,

01:01:30.760 --> 01:01:33.560
 we do see a lot of minimal traditional house styles.

01:01:33.560 --> 01:01:39.480
 In some examples, you can see above that 314 Marietta circa 1940s photo.

01:01:39.480 --> 01:01:44.600
 These types of houses were intentionally designed to be simple, economical, and be mass produced,

01:01:44.600 --> 01:01:50.440
 especially during the Great Depression and following World War II.

01:01:50.440 --> 01:01:55.960
 And then as we kind of move through the 1940s, obviously we have a lot of servicemen returning

01:01:55.960 --> 01:02:01.640
 from war and their families, and as stated on the screen, the Federal Housing Administration

01:02:01.640 --> 01:02:05.920
 ensured long-term, low-interest home loans for these types of houses.

01:02:05.920 --> 01:02:10.000
 And then as you kind of move through the 1940s to the 1950s, that's when you start to see

01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:13.000
 the ranch style house come.

01:02:13.000 --> 01:02:21.400
 So moving on to Approval Criteria J/10, this is a Dens Le Leche League International Means

01:02:21.400 --> 01:02:27.320
 were originally hosted at 314 Marietta Street starting in the late 1960s.

01:02:27.320 --> 01:02:31.640
 One of the renters, Ms. Leroy Ball, she was the original leader of the group and was a

01:02:31.640 --> 01:02:38.160
 renter of 1314 Marietta Street from 1968 to approximately 1977, and one of the fun facts

01:02:38.160 --> 01:02:43.760
 was one of our historic landmark commissioners actually knew Ms. Leroy Ball, and so she said

01:02:43.760 --> 01:02:46.680
 this was really exciting to see.

01:02:46.680 --> 01:02:50.920
 Just to give you a little bit of background about the La Leche League International, it

01:02:50.920 --> 01:02:56.440
 is a non-governmental, non-profit organization that organizes advocacy, education, and training

01:02:56.440 --> 01:03:01.800
 related to breastfeeding, and it still exists today.

01:03:01.800 --> 01:03:08.440
 Moving on to Approval Criteria K/L, we did have two very significant families that did

01:03:08.440 --> 01:03:13.620
 occupy the house and were those owners of 314 Marietta Street.

01:03:13.620 --> 01:03:17.960
 We had the Shepard family, and that was Susie Shepard, who was the original owner.

01:03:17.960 --> 01:03:22.400
 Her family contributed largely to the education system in the North Texas region, both her

01:03:22.400 --> 01:03:27.520
 sons and her husband, as well as they owned a lot of multiple properties along Marietta

01:03:27.520 --> 01:03:32.460
 Street, which was pretty fascinating, and it's all in their backup, so I'm not trying

01:03:32.460 --> 01:03:36.920
 to go into too much detail, but if you want to learn more, feel free to check that out.

01:03:36.920 --> 01:03:39.220
 Also, there's the Hall family.

01:03:39.220 --> 01:03:42.520
 They were the fifth owners of 314 Marietta.

01:03:42.520 --> 01:03:44.920
 They were heavily involved at UNT and in Denton.

01:03:44.920 --> 01:03:49.120
 They did own a printing press that ran until the 1940s, and they were heavily involved

01:03:49.120 --> 01:03:53.960
 with the yearbook at University of North Texas.

01:03:53.960 --> 01:03:59.280
 They also were owners of more than one property along Marietta Street.

01:03:59.280 --> 01:04:06.480
 And then Approval Criteria L/12, this is actually one of the criteria that the Historic Landmark

01:04:06.480 --> 01:04:12.860
 Commission asked to be added before it came to P&Z.

01:04:12.860 --> 01:04:16.920
 They felt that this was really significant and that they felt that this property specifically

01:04:16.920 --> 01:04:22.560
 helped tell the story of development in Denton in the first half of the 20th century, specifically

01:04:22.560 --> 01:04:29.760
 as I said, the area north of UNT, as well as its connection with the La Leche League

01:04:29.760 --> 01:04:32.480
 and persons of interest to the community.

01:04:32.480 --> 01:04:37.440
 And as you can see kind of from the photo, from the sandborn map from 1921 to 1942, you

01:04:37.440 --> 01:04:45.120
 do see that large development moving west, so it is part of that kind of story.

01:04:45.120 --> 01:04:50.680
 In addition to staff's analysis, it is consistent with our 2019 Historic Preservation Plan,

01:04:50.680 --> 01:04:56.360
 specifically looking at Goal 1, Policy 1.3, which states we should prioritize and designate

01:04:56.360 --> 01:05:00.900
 eligible buildings and areas for potential landmarks and historic districts.

01:05:00.900 --> 01:05:05.840
 In addition, it is also consistent with our Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan, specifically

01:05:05.840 --> 01:05:10.400
 looking at Community Character Goal Number 2, which is preserve and maintain the unique

01:05:10.400 --> 01:05:15.800
 character of Denton for long-term sustainment of community character.

01:05:15.800 --> 01:05:17.760
 We did do public outreach.

01:05:17.760 --> 01:05:23.640
 We did post both the newspaper and websites in early January with a property sign posted

01:05:23.640 --> 01:05:25.640
 on January 11th.

01:05:25.640 --> 01:05:33.520
 We mailed notices to 19 within the 200 feet, 83 within the 500 feet, and then we did receive

01:05:33.520 --> 01:05:38.240
 one response in favor yesterday afternoon via email.

01:05:38.240 --> 01:05:43.160
 So staff is recommending approval of the request for the historic landmark designation at 314

01:05:43.160 --> 01:05:48.300
 Marietta Street, as it does meet our goals and objectives of the Denton 2040 Comprehensive

01:05:48.300 --> 01:05:53.220
 Plan and that 2019 Historic Preservation Plan, as well as meets that criteria for historic

01:05:53.220 --> 01:05:58.120
 landmark designation outlined in 2.9.4(b) of the DDC.

01:05:58.120 --> 01:06:02.120
 As I stated previously, Historic Landmark Commission did recommend approval with conditions

01:06:02.120 --> 01:06:06.880
 5-0, and that was with the addition of that criteria 12.

01:06:06.880 --> 01:06:12.600
 So next steps would be going to public area and city council meeting on February 6.

01:06:12.600 --> 01:06:13.600
 Any questions?

01:06:13.600 --> 01:06:14.600
 >> Thank you.

01:06:14.600 --> 01:06:18.560
 Any questions right now for Cameron?

01:06:18.560 --> 01:06:19.560
 Thank you very much.

01:06:19.560 --> 01:06:30.560
 I do have one card wishing to speak, and it is the property owner, Mr. Rigsby.

01:06:30.560 --> 01:06:31.560
 Good evening.

01:06:31.560 --> 01:06:32.560
 >> Good evening.

01:06:32.560 --> 01:06:34.000
 Thank you all for having me.

01:06:34.000 --> 01:06:42.460
 I don't exactly know all I should say, but it was great working with Cameron, and this

01:06:42.460 --> 01:06:43.800
 is David here.

01:06:43.800 --> 01:06:47.680
 He's the architect, and he's sitting in the back here.

01:06:47.680 --> 01:06:54.400
 And originally, my wife and I, we wanted to purchase the house and build on it because

01:06:54.400 --> 01:06:56.240
 we'd like to be closer to the campus.

01:06:56.240 --> 01:06:59.400
 I was a student at the University of North Texas.

01:06:59.400 --> 01:07:06.140
 I graduated in 2015 with an engineering degree, but during that time, I met a group of Christian

01:07:06.140 --> 01:07:15.200
 believers, and I wanted to be involved more with the Christian community in Denton, Texas.

01:07:15.200 --> 01:07:22.320
 And so buying this house and adding to it, I think, fulfills the Susie Shepard name to

01:07:22.320 --> 01:07:27.520
 shepherd some students in the community in Denton and give back in this way.

01:07:27.520 --> 01:07:33.800
 So I appreciate the time to be here, and thank you all for your consideration.

01:07:33.800 --> 01:07:34.800
 >> Thank you.

01:07:34.800 --> 01:07:36.680
 >> Do we have any questions for him?

01:07:36.680 --> 01:07:37.680
 >> Yeah.

01:07:37.680 --> 01:07:38.880
 Do you have any questions?

01:07:38.880 --> 01:07:43.080
 >> I do not see any.

01:07:43.080 --> 01:07:44.080
 Thank you very much.

01:07:44.080 --> 01:07:45.080
 >> Yes, ma'am.

01:07:45.080 --> 01:07:46.080
 >> Okay.

01:07:46.080 --> 01:07:51.680
 I don't have any other cards wishing to speak, but this is a public hearing.

01:07:51.680 --> 01:07:53.480
 Is there anyone else wishing to speak?

01:07:53.480 --> 01:07:54.480
 Okay.

01:07:54.480 --> 01:08:00.720
 I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion.

01:08:00.720 --> 01:08:02.680
 Commissioner Villarreal, the board is working again.

01:08:02.680 --> 01:08:03.680
 >> It's working.

01:08:03.680 --> 01:08:09.680
 >> I move approval of the -- sorry, I move approval of the recommendation.

01:08:09.680 --> 01:08:10.680
 >> Commissioner Cole?

01:08:10.680 --> 01:08:11.680
 >> Second.

01:08:11.680 --> 01:08:12.680
 >> Okay.

01:08:12.680 --> 01:08:13.680
 We've got a first and a second.

01:08:13.680 --> 01:08:18.400
 To be consistent, we're going to go ahead and vote via roll call.

01:08:18.400 --> 01:08:22.000
 Is there any discussion before we go ahead and vote?

01:08:22.000 --> 01:08:23.000
 Okay.

01:08:23.000 --> 01:08:24.000
 Commissioner Cole?

01:08:24.000 --> 01:08:25.000
 >> Aye.

01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:26.560
 >> Commissioner Thaggard?

01:08:26.560 --> 01:08:27.560
 >> Aye.

01:08:27.560 --> 01:08:28.560
 >> Commissioner Villarreal?

01:08:28.560 --> 01:08:29.560
 >> Aye.

01:08:29.560 --> 01:08:30.560
 >> Commissioner Smith?

01:08:30.560 --> 01:08:31.560
 >> Aye.

01:08:31.560 --> 01:08:32.560
 >> Commissioner Pruitt?

01:08:32.560 --> 01:08:33.560
 >> Aye.

01:08:33.560 --> 01:08:34.560
 >> All in favor?

01:08:34.560 --> 01:08:35.560
 >> Aye.

01:08:35.560 --> 01:08:36.560
 >> All in favor?

01:08:36.560 --> 01:08:37.560
 >> Aye.

01:08:37.560 --> 01:08:38.560
 >> All in favor?

01:08:38.560 --> 01:08:39.560
 >> Aye.

01:08:39.560 --> 01:08:40.560
 >> All in favor?

01:08:40.560 --> 01:08:41.560
 >> Aye.

01:08:41.560 --> 01:08:42.560
 >> All in favor?

01:08:42.560 --> 01:08:43.560
 >> Aye.

01:08:43.560 --> 01:08:44.560
 >> All in favor?

01:08:44.560 --> 01:08:45.560
 >> Aye.

01:08:45.560 --> 01:08:46.560
 >> All in favor?

01:08:46.560 --> 01:08:47.560
 >> Aye.

01:08:47.560 --> 01:08:48.560
 >> All in favor?

01:08:48.560 --> 01:08:49.560
 >> Aye.

01:08:49.560 --> 01:08:50.560
 >> All in favor?

01:08:50.560 --> 01:08:51.560
 >> Aye.

01:08:51.560 --> 01:08:52.560
 >> All in favor?

01:08:52.560 --> 01:08:53.560
 >> Aye.

01:08:53.560 --> 01:08:54.560
 >> All in favor?

01:08:54.560 --> 01:08:55.560
 >> Aye.

01:08:55.560 --> 01:08:56.560
 >> All in favor?

01:08:56.560 --> 01:08:57.560
 >> Aye.

01:08:57.560 --> 01:08:58.560
 >> All in favor?

01:08:58.560 --> 01:08:59.560
 >> Aye.

01:08:59.560 --> 01:09:00.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:00.560 --> 01:09:01.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:01.560 --> 01:09:02.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:02.560 --> 01:09:03.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:03.560 --> 01:09:04.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:04.560 --> 01:09:05.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:05.560 --> 01:09:06.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:06.560 --> 01:09:07.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:07.560 --> 01:09:08.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:08.560 --> 01:09:09.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:09.560 --> 01:09:10.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:10.560 --> 01:09:11.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:11.560 --> 01:09:12.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:12.560 --> 01:09:13.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:13.560 --> 01:09:14.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:14.560 --> 01:09:15.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:15.560 --> 01:09:16.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:16.560 --> 01:09:17.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:17.560 --> 01:09:18.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:18.560 --> 01:09:19.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:19.560 --> 01:09:20.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:20.560 --> 01:09:21.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:21.560 --> 01:09:22.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:22.560 --> 01:09:23.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:23.560 --> 01:09:24.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:24.560 --> 01:09:25.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:25.560 --> 01:09:26.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:26.560 --> 01:09:27.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:27.560 --> 01:09:28.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:28.560 --> 01:09:29.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:29.560 --> 01:09:30.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:30.560 --> 01:09:31.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:31.560 --> 01:09:32.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:32.560 --> 01:09:33.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:33.560 --> 01:09:34.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:34.560 --> 01:09:35.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:35.560 --> 01:09:36.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:36.560 --> 01:09:37.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:37.560 --> 01:09:38.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:38.560 --> 01:09:39.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:39.560 --> 01:09:40.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:40.560 --> 01:09:41.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:41.560 --> 01:09:42.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:42.560 --> 01:09:43.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:43.560 --> 01:09:44.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:44.560 --> 01:09:45.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:45.560 --> 01:09:46.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:46.560 --> 01:09:47.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:47.560 --> 01:09:48.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:48.560 --> 01:09:49.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:49.560 --> 01:09:50.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:50.560 --> 01:09:51.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:51.560 --> 01:09:52.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:52.560 --> 01:09:53.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:53.560 --> 01:09:54.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:54.560 --> 01:09:55.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:55.560 --> 01:09:56.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:56.560 --> 01:09:57.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:57.560 --> 01:09:58.560
 >> All in favor?

01:09:58.560 --> 01:09:59.560
 >> Aye.

01:09:59.560 --> 01:10:01.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:01.560 --> 01:10:02.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:02.560 --> 01:10:03.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:03.560 --> 01:10:04.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:04.560 --> 01:10:05.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:05.560 --> 01:10:06.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:06.560 --> 01:10:07.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:07.560 --> 01:10:08.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:08.560 --> 01:10:09.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:09.560 --> 01:10:10.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:10.560 --> 01:10:11.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:11.560 --> 01:10:12.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:12.560 --> 01:10:13.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:13.560 --> 01:10:14.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:14.560 --> 01:10:15.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:15.560 --> 01:10:16.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:16.560 --> 01:10:17.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:17.560 --> 01:10:18.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:18.560 --> 01:10:19.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:19.560 --> 01:10:20.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:20.560 --> 01:10:21.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:21.560 --> 01:10:22.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:22.560 --> 01:10:23.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:23.560 --> 01:10:24.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:24.560 --> 01:10:25.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:25.560 --> 01:10:26.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:26.560 --> 01:10:27.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:27.560 --> 01:10:29.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:29.560 --> 01:10:30.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:30.560 --> 01:10:31.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:31.560 --> 01:10:32.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:32.560 --> 01:10:33.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:33.560 --> 01:10:34.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:34.560 --> 01:10:35.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:35.560 --> 01:10:36.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:36.560 --> 01:10:37.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:37.560 --> 01:10:38.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:38.560 --> 01:10:39.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:39.560 --> 01:10:40.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:40.560 --> 01:10:41.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:41.560 --> 01:10:42.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:42.560 --> 01:10:43.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:43.560 --> 01:10:44.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:44.560 --> 01:10:45.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:45.560 --> 01:10:46.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:46.560 --> 01:10:47.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:47.560 --> 01:10:48.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:48.560 --> 01:10:49.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:49.560 --> 01:10:50.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:50.560 --> 01:10:51.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:51.560 --> 01:10:52.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:52.560 --> 01:10:53.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:53.560 --> 01:10:54.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:54.560 --> 01:10:55.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:55.560 --> 01:10:56.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:56.560 --> 01:10:57.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:57.560 --> 01:10:58.560
 >> All in favor?

01:10:58.560 --> 01:10:59.560
 >> Aye.

01:10:59.560 --> 01:11:00.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:00.560 --> 01:11:01.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:01.560 --> 01:11:02.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:02.560 --> 01:11:03.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:03.560 --> 01:11:04.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:04.560 --> 01:11:05.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:05.560 --> 01:11:06.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:06.560 --> 01:11:07.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:07.560 --> 01:11:08.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:08.560 --> 01:11:09.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:09.560 --> 01:11:10.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:10.560 --> 01:11:11.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:11.560 --> 01:11:12.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:12.560 --> 01:11:13.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:13.560 --> 01:11:14.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:14.560 --> 01:11:15.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:15.560 --> 01:11:16.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:16.560 --> 01:11:17.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:17.560 --> 01:11:18.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:18.560 --> 01:11:19.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:19.560 --> 01:11:20.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:20.560 --> 01:11:21.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:21.560 --> 01:11:22.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:22.560 --> 01:11:41.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:41.560 --> 01:11:42.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:42.560 --> 01:11:43.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:43.560 --> 01:11:44.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:44.560 --> 01:11:45.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:45.560 --> 01:11:46.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:46.560 --> 01:11:47.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:47.560 --> 01:11:48.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:48.560 --> 01:11:49.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:49.560 --> 01:11:50.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:50.560 --> 01:11:51.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:51.560 --> 01:11:52.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:52.560 --> 01:11:53.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:53.560 --> 01:11:54.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:54.560 --> 01:11:55.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:55.560 --> 01:11:56.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:56.560 --> 01:11:57.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:57.560 --> 01:11:58.560
 >> All in favor?

01:11:58.560 --> 01:11:59.560
 >> Aye.

01:11:59.560 --> 01:12:00.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:00.560 --> 01:12:01.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:01.560 --> 01:12:02.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:02.560 --> 01:12:03.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:03.560 --> 01:12:04.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:04.560 --> 01:12:05.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:05.560 --> 01:12:06.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:06.560 --> 01:12:07.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:07.560 --> 01:12:08.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:08.560 --> 01:12:09.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:09.560 --> 01:12:10.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:10.560 --> 01:12:11.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:11.560 --> 01:12:12.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:12.560 --> 01:12:13.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:13.560 --> 01:12:14.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:14.560 --> 01:12:15.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:15.560 --> 01:12:16.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:16.560 --> 01:12:17.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:17.560 --> 01:12:18.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:18.560 --> 01:12:21.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:21.560 --> 01:12:22.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:22.560 --> 01:12:23.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:23.560 --> 01:12:24.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:24.560 --> 01:12:25.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:25.560 --> 01:12:26.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:26.560 --> 01:12:27.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:27.560 --> 01:12:28.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:28.560 --> 01:12:29.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:29.560 --> 01:12:30.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:30.560 --> 01:12:31.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:31.560 --> 01:12:32.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:32.560 --> 01:12:33.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:33.560 --> 01:12:34.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:34.560 --> 01:12:35.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:35.560 --> 01:12:36.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:36.560 --> 01:12:37.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:37.560 --> 01:12:38.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:38.560 --> 01:12:39.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:39.560 --> 01:12:40.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:40.560 --> 01:12:41.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:41.560 --> 01:12:42.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:42.560 --> 01:12:43.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:43.560 --> 01:12:44.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:44.560 --> 01:12:45.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:45.560 --> 01:12:46.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:46.560 --> 01:12:47.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:47.560 --> 01:12:48.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:48.560 --> 01:12:49.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:49.560 --> 01:12:50.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:50.560 --> 01:12:51.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:51.560 --> 01:12:52.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:52.560 --> 01:12:53.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:53.560 --> 01:12:54.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:54.560 --> 01:12:55.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:55.560 --> 01:12:56.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:56.560 --> 01:12:57.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:57.560 --> 01:12:58.560
 >> All in favor?

01:12:58.560 --> 01:12:59.560
 >> Aye.

01:12:59.560 --> 01:13:00.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:00.560 --> 01:13:01.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:01.560 --> 01:13:02.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:02.560 --> 01:13:03.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:03.560 --> 01:13:04.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:04.560 --> 01:13:05.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:05.560 --> 01:13:06.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:06.560 --> 01:13:07.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:07.560 --> 01:13:08.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:08.560 --> 01:13:09.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:09.560 --> 01:13:10.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:10.560 --> 01:13:11.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:11.560 --> 01:13:17.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:17.560 --> 01:13:18.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:18.560 --> 01:13:19.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:19.560 --> 01:13:20.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:20.560 --> 01:13:21.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:21.560 --> 01:13:22.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:22.560 --> 01:13:23.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:23.560 --> 01:13:24.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:24.560 --> 01:13:25.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:25.560 --> 01:13:26.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:26.560 --> 01:13:27.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:27.560 --> 01:13:28.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:28.560 --> 01:13:29.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:29.560 --> 01:13:30.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:30.560 --> 01:13:31.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:31.560 --> 01:13:32.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:32.560 --> 01:13:33.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:33.560 --> 01:13:34.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:34.560 --> 01:13:35.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:35.560 --> 01:13:36.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:36.560 --> 01:13:37.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:37.560 --> 01:13:38.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:38.560 --> 01:13:39.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:39.560 --> 01:13:40.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:40.560 --> 01:13:41.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:41.560 --> 01:13:42.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:42.560 --> 01:13:43.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:43.560 --> 01:13:44.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:44.560 --> 01:13:45.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:45.560 --> 01:13:46.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:46.560 --> 01:13:47.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:47.560 --> 01:13:48.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:48.560 --> 01:13:49.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:49.560 --> 01:13:50.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:50.560 --> 01:13:51.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:51.560 --> 01:13:52.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:52.560 --> 01:13:53.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:53.560 --> 01:13:54.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:54.560 --> 01:13:55.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:55.560 --> 01:13:56.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:56.560 --> 01:13:57.560
 >> All in favor?

01:13:57.560 --> 01:13:58.560
 >> Aye.

01:13:58.560 --> 01:13:59.560
 >> All in favor?