1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:09,560
 Good afternoon and welcome to the, I will call to order the planning and zoning work

2
00:00:09,560 --> 00:00:17,560
 session here at 5.03 p.m., or 5.02 p.m. on February 12th, 2025.

3
00:00:17,560 --> 00:00:44,080
 Our first item of business is, is any, I think there is no, there is no consent agenda.

4
00:00:44,080 --> 00:00:46,640
 I do see some members of the public here.

5
00:00:46,640 --> 00:00:50,520
 Is there any, there's no consent agenda items, so I don't think there's any public comment

6
00:00:50,520 --> 00:00:53,880
 on consent agenda items.

7
00:00:53,880 --> 00:01:00,920
 So any, any questions, clarification for the one item that we do have on our regular session

8
00:01:00,920 --> 00:01:12,920
 for, I think, well, what's giving me pause is we have a lot of work session items.

9
00:01:12,920 --> 00:01:17,480
 So if you want to be very brief and just, just hit the highlights, I think.

10
00:01:17,480 --> 00:01:21,160
 I can do that.

11
00:01:21,160 --> 00:01:24,400
 Mostly the whys are we seeing this, because it's kind of strange.

12
00:01:24,400 --> 00:01:25,880
 It is a little strange.

13
00:01:25,880 --> 00:01:29,080
 Julie Wyatt, principal planner with the City of Denton.

14
00:01:29,080 --> 00:01:36,800
 You have on your public hearings tonight and a replat of a, of the, of high school addition.

15
00:01:36,800 --> 00:01:41,800
 It was originally four lots, they are replating into three lots.

16
00:01:41,800 --> 00:01:44,120
 It does meet all the technical requirements.

17
00:01:44,120 --> 00:01:48,080
 So staff is recommending approval of this replat.

18
00:01:48,080 --> 00:01:54,000
 You don't normally see replats on public hearing items, and there's a really specific reason

19
00:01:54,000 --> 00:01:58,020
 why this is on the public hearing, and that it is a residential replat.

20
00:01:58,020 --> 00:02:05,800
 So the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 212, states that properties that were zoned

21
00:02:05,800 --> 00:02:13,320
 where no more than two dwelling units per lot are considered residential replats.

22
00:02:13,320 --> 00:02:20,700
 There's a public notification provision to these residential replats.

23
00:02:20,700 --> 00:02:25,320
 Normally we do that, that public notification after they have been considered and approved

24
00:02:25,320 --> 00:02:27,360
 by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

25
00:02:27,360 --> 00:02:29,800
 The Texas law allows that.

26
00:02:29,800 --> 00:02:36,920
 This one is a little different, and it's that a variance was needed in order to seek approval

27
00:02:36,920 --> 00:02:37,920
 of this.

28
00:02:37,920 --> 00:02:43,680
 Due to the age of the lot, the deed history of the lot, one of the lots is not wide enough

29
00:02:43,680 --> 00:02:46,040
 to meet the minimum zoning.

30
00:02:46,040 --> 00:02:50,320
 It went to the Zoning Board of Adjustment in December, and the Zoning Board of Adjustment

31
00:02:50,320 --> 00:02:56,720
 did approve that variance for the lot width for this lot 5R here.

32
00:02:56,720 --> 00:03:01,280
 And so per Texas Local Government Code, we did have to send out notification prior to

33
00:03:01,280 --> 00:03:02,940
 the Planning and Zoning Commission.

34
00:03:02,940 --> 00:03:07,760
 So it really is just that formality related to that.

35
00:03:07,760 --> 00:03:11,640
 And so we have sent out the notification, and we are recommending approval tonight.

36
00:03:11,640 --> 00:03:14,280
 I'll be happy to answer any questions.

37
00:03:14,280 --> 00:03:17,280
 Any questions?

38
00:03:17,280 --> 00:03:18,280
 Seeing none.

39
00:03:18,280 --> 00:03:19,280
 Okay.

40
00:03:19,280 --> 00:03:20,280
 Thank you, Julie.

41
00:03:20,280 --> 00:03:21,280
 Thank you.

42
00:03:21,280 --> 00:03:23,840
 So next we'll move to our work session reports.

43
00:03:23,840 --> 00:03:33,160
 First item is 3A-PZ25053 report and hold a discussion regarding updates to the residential

44
00:03:33,160 --> 00:03:37,800
 development and rental housing data presented end of last year.

45
00:03:37,800 --> 00:03:40,200
 Good evening, Commission.

46
00:03:40,200 --> 00:03:43,120
 Haley Zygursky, Assistant Planning Director.

47
00:03:43,120 --> 00:03:47,960
 Let me get the presentation pulled up here.

48
00:03:47,960 --> 00:03:55,760
 So this will look familiar to most of you.

49
00:03:55,760 --> 00:03:57,620
 So I did want to provide an update.

50
00:03:57,620 --> 00:04:03,320
 After we had our December work session where we went through the multifamily and single

51
00:04:03,320 --> 00:04:07,800
 family housing data, a question was raised that did make us realize that there was a

52
00:04:07,800 --> 00:04:11,200
 fairly significant error in our data, so we want to revisit this and make sure everyone

53
00:04:11,200 --> 00:04:17,040
 has the most up-to-date and accurate information, and then we will pass this along to City Council.

54
00:04:17,040 --> 00:04:20,320
 So what has changed in the presentation is fairly limited.

55
00:04:20,320 --> 00:04:24,720
 It only affected a few of the slides, and it was specific to the multifamily unit counts

56
00:04:24,720 --> 00:04:27,520
 and the data that we originally pulled from DCAD.

57
00:04:27,520 --> 00:04:31,640
 The 2020 multifamily number that was kind of used as the base for the analysis, we originally

58
00:04:31,640 --> 00:04:34,640
 quoted as 4,550.

59
00:04:34,640 --> 00:04:35,680
 Turns out there was an error.

60
00:04:35,680 --> 00:04:41,560
 When we paired that data with our GIS, anything that didn't match on an address or a complex

61
00:04:41,560 --> 00:04:45,880
 name got booted out, and we did not realize that those were just totally taken out of

62
00:04:45,880 --> 00:04:47,620
 the data set.

63
00:04:47,620 --> 00:04:51,080
 So we went to find a different source that would not create that issue for us.

64
00:04:51,080 --> 00:04:56,360
 Thankfully, Economic Development helped us out, and they pointed us to COSTAR, which

65
00:04:56,360 --> 00:05:02,240
 is a commercial real estate database, so we have fairly high confidence in that data.

66
00:05:02,240 --> 00:05:07,720
 The new 2020 starting count that you'll see in this presentation now is 17,459 units that

67
00:05:07,720 --> 00:05:13,720
 existed in 2020, so fairly significant change in that part of the data only.

68
00:05:13,720 --> 00:05:17,800
 Anything else related to single family, rental rates, and things of that nature is all the

69
00:05:17,800 --> 00:05:22,080
 same, so that will look very familiar to you.

70
00:05:22,080 --> 00:05:26,560
 So again, this request was kind of multi-part from PNZ and council, so we wanted to roll

71
00:05:26,560 --> 00:05:30,840
 it all into one presentation to give to you all that covers all these various questions

72
00:05:30,840 --> 00:05:35,760
 related to our current rental housing, multifamily development, and how it compares to what the

73
00:05:35,760 --> 00:05:40,480
 comprehensive plan anticipates that we need, and then this presentation will be shared

74
00:05:40,480 --> 00:05:44,280
 with city council as well.

75
00:05:44,280 --> 00:05:50,200
 Just reminders about the data, you will see if we totally reran this in a month or two,

76
00:05:50,200 --> 00:05:53,640
 it might look a little bit different because our permit and project data is fluid, depending

77
00:05:53,640 --> 00:05:57,320
 on what's been submitted, what's been approved.

78
00:05:57,320 --> 00:06:02,400
 The housing data that you'll see comes from various sources, and they all differ pretty

79
00:06:02,400 --> 00:06:05,600
 significantly in some cases in their estimates.

80
00:06:05,600 --> 00:06:09,080
 You'll find that we mostly rely upon Denton County Appraisal District and American Community

81
00:06:09,080 --> 00:06:14,000
 Survey for most of that data, and you'll also find some distinctions if you go trying to

82
00:06:14,000 --> 00:06:17,200
 look into this yourself and how people classify those land uses.

83
00:06:17,200 --> 00:06:21,960
 For example, multifamily, our code considers five units or more on one lot, many sources

84
00:06:21,960 --> 00:06:25,360
 consider that three units or more, so there are some of those discrepancies, not everything

85
00:06:25,360 --> 00:06:28,600
 can be compared apples to apples.

86
00:06:28,600 --> 00:06:33,480
 So we'll start just with the city population growth, so this, again, this slide has no

87
00:06:33,480 --> 00:06:35,800
 changes from what you saw in December.

88
00:06:35,800 --> 00:06:42,400
 Again, the comprehensive plan in 2020, we were at just under 140,000 people, that plan

89
00:06:42,400 --> 00:06:50,920
 projected that we would have a 3.19% growth rate and have about 229,000 people by 2040.

90
00:06:50,920 --> 00:06:54,520
 What we're seeing through the American Community Survey is much higher than that.

91
00:06:54,520 --> 00:07:00,440
 We're seeing a 4.4% growth rate from 2020 to their latest 2023 numbers that they've

92
00:07:00,440 --> 00:07:01,440
 published.

93
00:07:01,440 --> 00:07:09,480
 So as of 2023, we're at 158,000, so that's actually an 18,000% increase just in that

94
00:07:09,480 --> 00:07:14,160
 three-year period, so again, that would be a 4.4% growth rate annually.

95
00:07:14,160 --> 00:07:18,080
 If you project that out to 2030, if we would keep going at that pace, that would put us

96
00:07:18,080 --> 00:07:24,300
 at just over 331,000 people, which is a 73% change from what the comp plan anticipated.

97
00:07:24,300 --> 00:07:29,440
 So likely we're somewhere in between that, hopefully we don't go much higher than that,

98
00:07:29,440 --> 00:07:35,760
 but that is where it looks like we're at today based on the American Community Survey.

99
00:07:35,760 --> 00:07:40,080
 The comp plan also gave us projections as to how many housing units of various types

100
00:07:40,080 --> 00:07:43,360
 we would need by 2040 to keep pace with that 3% growth rate.

101
00:07:43,360 --> 00:07:47,560
 So you see there the table from the comp plan, they projected about 20,000 single-family

102
00:07:47,560 --> 00:07:53,000
 detached units would be needed, just over 11,000 multi-family units would be needed.

103
00:07:53,000 --> 00:07:57,040
 If we apply that higher growth rate, those numbers grow significantly, so you'd see that

104
00:07:57,040 --> 00:08:03,840
 would change to 34,000 single-family detached and just under 20,000 multi-family units.

105
00:08:03,840 --> 00:08:09,480
 Again, this information has not changed from what you all saw previously.

106
00:08:09,480 --> 00:08:12,920
 This is just to give you a snapshot of our college and universities and how those are

107
00:08:12,920 --> 00:08:18,160
 growing because we know that does have a huge impact on our housing across the city.

108
00:08:18,160 --> 00:08:23,680
 So both UNT and NCTC have seen relatively steady growth over a four-year period.

109
00:08:23,680 --> 00:08:29,000
 TWU has had some slight decreases, but relatively stable populations on all of those campuses

110
00:08:29,000 --> 00:08:37,300
 and overall, it averages to a 13% growth in a four-year period.

111
00:08:37,300 --> 00:08:43,720
 So looking at the total of housing just in that same period from 2020 to 2023, the red

112
00:08:43,720 --> 00:08:45,440
 highlights do show you what's changed.

113
00:08:45,440 --> 00:08:49,800
 So that's the row that has the new data that we pulled from COSTAR as opposed to DCAD.

114
00:08:49,800 --> 00:08:56,080
 So you can see with single-family, the percentage of our city's composition of housing in 2020

115
00:08:56,080 --> 00:09:03,340
 to 2023 decreased slightly, went from 62% of our housing being single-family to 58%.

116
00:09:03,340 --> 00:09:13,440
 Multi-family did increase from 35% of our housing composition in 2020 to 37% as of 2023.

117
00:09:13,440 --> 00:09:20,040
 That same information just presented graphically for those that prefer bar charts to a table.

118
00:09:20,040 --> 00:09:25,040
 And then just looking at that analysis slightly differently, the percent increase over that

119
00:09:25,040 --> 00:09:27,480
 time for single-family was 10%.

120
00:09:27,480 --> 00:09:32,920
 Duplex looks high at 125%, but if you can see here, that's such a small percent of our housing

121
00:09:32,920 --> 00:09:35,960
 stock that it really isn't as drastic as it seems.

122
00:09:35,960 --> 00:09:40,680
 But that does change from what was previously quoted to be a 26% increase in multi-family

123
00:09:40,680 --> 00:09:43,600
 units from 2020 to 2023.

124
00:09:43,600 --> 00:09:46,920
 So that's a snapshot of what's built and on the ground, and then we'll build upon that

125
00:09:46,920 --> 00:09:50,760
 with what's in the queue.

126
00:09:50,760 --> 00:09:55,440
 Before we do that, one of the questions that council had asked is how, their thought was

127
00:09:55,440 --> 00:09:57,180
 we seem to have a lot of multi-family.

128
00:09:57,180 --> 00:10:03,560
 How does our rental rate in the city compare to other college towns is what we see abnormal.

129
00:10:03,560 --> 00:10:06,720
 So again, we've used American Community Survey to look at that.

130
00:10:06,720 --> 00:10:12,040
 And we found that from 2010 to 2023, we've stayed relatively constant.

131
00:10:12,040 --> 00:10:18,240
 As of now, 52% of our housing is renter-occupied units, and that could be single-family detached

132
00:10:18,240 --> 00:10:22,120
 homes, townhomes, apartments, any type of rental unit.

133
00:10:22,120 --> 00:10:26,960
 So for comparison to see, is that an abnormal number, we looked at other college cities

134
00:10:26,960 --> 00:10:30,900
 across Texas, and that's the table that's shown here in orange.

135
00:10:30,900 --> 00:10:36,440
 You can see we're on the low to moderate end of that spectrum at 52%, with the range being

136
00:10:36,440 --> 00:10:43,620
 from 49% to 71% with San Marcos having that higher end of the spectrum.

137
00:10:43,620 --> 00:10:49,240
 So now looking at housing projects that are in the development queue or in construction.

138
00:10:49,240 --> 00:10:52,820
 Starting with multi-family, the map here just shows you the locations of those projects

139
00:10:52,820 --> 00:10:57,560
 that are either in construction, and those are the kind of peach color on the map, or

140
00:10:57,560 --> 00:10:59,160
 those that are in review somewhere.

141
00:10:59,160 --> 00:11:03,560
 So the teal are those projects that have some sort of approval, so they have some project

142
00:11:03,560 --> 00:11:08,200
 that is vested somehow under state law that we presume will continue moving forward.

143
00:11:08,200 --> 00:11:12,860
 The purple are those that may or may not happen, they don't yet have any form of approval.

144
00:11:12,860 --> 00:11:16,140
 But for the sake of this analysis, we're just going to assume that all of those come to

145
00:11:16,140 --> 00:11:21,180
 fruition with the unit counts that we have in review today.

146
00:11:21,180 --> 00:11:27,240
 So again, just revisiting those numbers from COSTAR, 17,000 multi-family units in 2020,

147
00:11:27,240 --> 00:11:29,800
 in 2023 that increased to 22,000.

148
00:11:29,800 --> 00:11:34,360
 If we add together all of those that are in construction and in review, you would see

149
00:11:34,360 --> 00:11:39,140
 we'd add 4,000 units roughly in construction, 8,000 in review, that would be an increase

150
00:11:39,140 --> 00:11:46,520
 of 16,672 total units since 2020, since our comp plan took that initial look at our population.

151
00:11:46,520 --> 00:11:53,820
 So that would be a 96% increase, so fairly substantial growth in the multi-family sector.

152
00:11:53,820 --> 00:11:59,260
 So revisiting the comp plan briefly before we tie all this together at the end.

153
00:11:59,260 --> 00:12:03,960
 The units that were estimated to need by 2020, again, the comp plan with that 3% growth,

154
00:12:03,960 --> 00:12:07,800
 if you add in triplex and fourplex to that multi-family count to make it more comparable

155
00:12:07,800 --> 00:12:12,460
 because our permit data under the building code lumps those uses as multi-family, we

156
00:12:12,460 --> 00:12:18,060
 would have needed about 14,262 multi-family units at a 3% growth rate.

157
00:12:18,060 --> 00:12:22,180
 If you apply the current higher growth rate that we're seeing, we would anticipate needing

158
00:12:22,180 --> 00:12:25,420
 24,680.

159
00:12:25,420 --> 00:12:30,180
 To verify how accurate those might be, we looked at another source, which was the 2021

160
00:12:30,180 --> 00:12:34,540
 affordable housing needs assessment, which was a very targeted look at the city's current

161
00:12:34,540 --> 00:12:39,900
 housing stock, the growth that we're seeing and how we anticipate we might need more housing

162
00:12:39,900 --> 00:12:42,580
 and the horizon up to 2040.

163
00:12:42,580 --> 00:12:47,660
 And that actually came in fairly close to where that 4.4% growth rate puts us with a

164
00:12:47,660 --> 00:12:55,740
 ballpark of 25,000 units for rental needed in the city by 2040 to meet our population

165
00:12:55,740 --> 00:12:56,820
 demands.

166
00:12:56,820 --> 00:13:01,060
 So we'll do the same glance at single family real quick before we tie it all together.

167
00:13:01,060 --> 00:13:05,180
 Again, just a map showing you where these projects are at in the city.

168
00:13:05,180 --> 00:13:09,020
 The yellow dots indicate those that are actually under construction, so they have lots, the

169
00:13:09,020 --> 00:13:13,900
 plat's been approved and infrastructure or houses are being constructed.

170
00:13:13,900 --> 00:13:18,340
 And then the blue dots tell you the projects that are in development.

171
00:13:18,340 --> 00:13:24,940
 So again, based on what DCAD tells us, we had 31,800 units starting out in 2020 when

172
00:13:24,940 --> 00:13:29,420
 the comp plan started looking at this and projecting our needs.

173
00:13:29,420 --> 00:13:33,100
 In 2023, that had grown to 36,000.

174
00:13:33,100 --> 00:13:35,540
 We have 7,041 lots in construction.

175
00:13:35,540 --> 00:13:40,700
 Again, that means the lots are platted and available for someone to build a home on.

176
00:13:40,700 --> 00:13:42,840
 The timeline of when those get built is anyone's best guess.

177
00:13:42,840 --> 00:13:46,060
 Some subdivisions take several years, some move really quickly.

178
00:13:46,060 --> 00:13:51,440
 And then the units that have a plat or an entitlement case or something in review would

179
00:13:51,440 --> 00:13:55,500
 equal another 26,090 single family lots.

180
00:13:55,500 --> 00:14:01,680
 So total, that's just under 14,000 units in increase or a 44% increase in single family

181
00:14:01,680 --> 00:14:06,080
 units since 2020.

182
00:14:06,080 --> 00:14:11,280
 So that demand projection for single family, again, the comp plan's base for just single

183
00:14:11,280 --> 00:14:13,380
 family was just under 20,000.

184
00:14:13,380 --> 00:14:18,340
 If we add in townhomes and duplexes to make it again more comparable with our permit data,

185
00:14:18,340 --> 00:14:22,820
 that would have put us at a need of 22,800 units by 2040.

186
00:14:22,820 --> 00:14:30,100
 Applying the higher growth rates, we would anticipate needing 39,500 single family detached

187
00:14:30,100 --> 00:14:32,660
 townhome or duplexes by 2040.

188
00:14:32,660 --> 00:14:36,820
 Again, we went to that affordable housing needs assessment just to vet the data, see

189
00:14:36,820 --> 00:14:39,900
 how close we were to the target that they anticipated.

190
00:14:39,900 --> 00:14:44,740
 And for ownership units, they anticipated that we would need roughly 50,000 units by

191
00:14:44,740 --> 00:14:48,900
 2040 to meet the city's demand.

192
00:14:48,900 --> 00:14:52,400
 So that actually quite a bit higher than what we would anticipate with the current growth

193
00:14:52,400 --> 00:14:58,180
 rate based on the trends that they were seeing when they did that assessment.

194
00:14:58,180 --> 00:15:03,180
 So comparing all of that now to see how is the current development meeting those needs

195
00:15:03,180 --> 00:15:06,420
 that we anticipated with the comp plan.

196
00:15:06,420 --> 00:15:10,980
 For multi-family, again, we've had that 16,000 or so units of growth.

197
00:15:10,980 --> 00:15:16,780
 That is 117% of what the comp plan anticipated we would need by 2040.

198
00:15:16,780 --> 00:15:20,320
 So in just a quarter of the time, we have exceeded what the comp plan anticipated we

199
00:15:20,320 --> 00:15:22,400
 would need.

200
00:15:22,400 --> 00:15:25,740
 If you apply the higher growth rate we're seeing though, we're only at 68% of that being

201
00:15:25,740 --> 00:15:30,340
 met so far and 66% of what the housing needs assessment called for.

202
00:15:30,340 --> 00:15:36,100
 So it seems like we're on pace to either meet or exceed the goals for multi-family.

203
00:15:36,100 --> 00:15:43,220
 For single-family, with roughly 14,000 units that have been added or are in development

204
00:15:43,220 --> 00:15:47,420
 since 2020, we're at 61% of the need called for in the comp plan.

205
00:15:47,420 --> 00:15:52,460
 41% if you apply the comp plan's numbers with that higher growth rate.

206
00:15:52,460 --> 00:15:55,180
 But only 28% if you look at the housing needs assessment.

207
00:15:55,180 --> 00:15:59,300
 So that tells us that we're on par with that number for single-family.

208
00:15:59,300 --> 00:16:03,340
 Because again, we're roughly a fourth of the way through the time period that it was

209
00:16:03,340 --> 00:16:04,340
 looking at.

210
00:16:04,340 --> 00:16:05,340
 We're at 28%.

211
00:16:05,340 --> 00:16:07,740
 Hey Haley, can I stop you just for a second?

212
00:16:07,740 --> 00:16:08,740
 Yeah, absolutely.

213
00:16:08,740 --> 00:16:13,740
 Could you explain a little bit more on the 117, is that, does the comp plan take that

214
00:16:13,740 --> 00:16:17,140
 lower number, the lower base number too, is that?

215
00:16:17,140 --> 00:16:20,260
 The comp plan just applied a 3% growth rate across the board.

216
00:16:20,260 --> 00:16:24,940
 So it looked at what housing we had in 2020, what percent of that was multi-family and

217
00:16:24,940 --> 00:16:29,480
 said, oh, we'll add 3% to that and that'll be the demand we anticipate by 2040.

218
00:16:29,480 --> 00:16:32,460
 So that's why it comes in on the lower end of that spectrum when we're actually seeing

219
00:16:32,460 --> 00:16:35,900
 much higher demand for rental housing in the city.

220
00:16:35,900 --> 00:16:39,940
 But since our numbers were off initially, was that split already kind of below?

221
00:16:39,940 --> 00:16:43,460
 So the number that was off was the units that were actually on the ground.

222
00:16:43,460 --> 00:16:46,540
 The comp plan's numbers were based purely on the American Community Survey.

223
00:16:46,540 --> 00:16:49,060
 So it did not affect the comp plan base numbers.

224
00:16:49,060 --> 00:16:53,600
 Okay, thanks.

225
00:16:53,600 --> 00:16:58,420
 So just to help us draw some conclusions from that, what we can tell from all of these various

226
00:16:58,420 --> 00:17:02,820
 data points that we collected is obviously we're growing and so is our student population.

227
00:17:02,820 --> 00:17:06,060
 So we know that student population being kind of fluid with the school year is going to

228
00:17:06,060 --> 00:17:09,980
 continue to affect the rental housing around the city.

229
00:17:09,980 --> 00:17:13,380
 We are comparable to other Texas cities, so it's not that we're seeing an inordinate amount

230
00:17:13,380 --> 00:17:17,780
 of multi-family development or rental housing development in the city because we are comparable

231
00:17:17,780 --> 00:17:22,340
 with other university towns and how we serve our student population.

232
00:17:22,340 --> 00:17:26,420
 Again, we saw varying widely those growth rate projections.

233
00:17:26,420 --> 00:17:30,260
 We know reality will probably be somewhere in between those, but it does tell us we need

234
00:17:30,260 --> 00:17:34,020
 to keep monitoring that over time to see which one of those trends is actually turning out

235
00:17:34,020 --> 00:17:36,860
 to be closer to the truth.

236
00:17:36,860 --> 00:17:42,180
 We know that there will continue to be this demand across the board in ownership and rental

237
00:17:42,180 --> 00:17:44,420
 units, so we need to keep monitoring that.

238
00:17:44,420 --> 00:17:47,820
 And we know that based on the comp plan and that needs assessment and our development

239
00:17:47,820 --> 00:17:54,120
 trends, we should be on track to meet or exceed those unless something completely unexpected

240
00:17:54,120 --> 00:17:58,460
 happens that really would skyrocket that demand.

241
00:17:58,460 --> 00:18:02,420
 One thing that we did note is that with the current rental rate being as high as it is

242
00:18:02,420 --> 00:18:06,900
 and our university population growing and the needs assessment telling us we really

243
00:18:06,900 --> 00:18:11,040
 need like twice as much housing for ownership as we do for rental, we may need to monitor

244
00:18:11,040 --> 00:18:15,620
 the types of projects that we're seeing and really, you'll hopefully be able to encourage

245
00:18:15,620 --> 00:18:20,220
 more of that units available for ownership opportunity to help meet that need as well

246
00:18:20,220 --> 00:18:23,060
 as the rental need.

247
00:18:23,060 --> 00:18:26,180
 So things that you all can do as the Planning and Zoning Commission and as the staff is

248
00:18:26,180 --> 00:18:29,700
 continuing to be thoughtful in our consideration of all our applications to ensure that we

249
00:18:29,700 --> 00:18:33,780
 are seeing a diverse housing stock being developed to, again, provide for that ownership and

250
00:18:33,780 --> 00:18:35,900
 rental opportunity.

251
00:18:35,900 --> 00:18:40,100
 When we are considering new multifamily entitlements, paying close attention to how those align

252
00:18:40,100 --> 00:18:44,260
 with the comprehensive plan's recommendations and whether or not they're really in locations

253
00:18:44,260 --> 00:18:48,860
 that would help foster continued neighborhood growth and have adequate services versus some

254
00:18:48,860 --> 00:18:52,940
 of the requests we see sometimes that are a little like isolated, one-off, not likely

255
00:18:52,940 --> 00:18:56,620
 to develop into a neighborhood over time that would have the services and the compatible

256
00:18:56,620 --> 00:18:59,620
 uses around it.

257
00:18:59,620 --> 00:19:03,300
 Continuing to monitor those trends, like I said, this really shows us that we probably

258
00:19:03,300 --> 00:19:07,500
 need to consider updates to our comprehensive plan and our housing needs assessment over

259
00:19:07,500 --> 00:19:11,940
 the next five years just to continue to monitor where we're at and which, you know, if their

260
00:19:11,940 --> 00:19:16,260
 growth rate is continuing as rapidly as it is at this moment, how that could affect those

261
00:19:16,260 --> 00:19:20,180
 anticipated needs and our goals for the future.

262
00:19:20,180 --> 00:19:23,540
 Continuing to look at ways to incentivize and remove barriers to infill development

263
00:19:23,540 --> 00:19:24,540
 will be critical.

264
00:19:24,540 --> 00:19:27,820
 You'll get a snapshot of that in our next work session as well and one of our initial

265
00:19:27,820 --> 00:19:32,220
 ideas on how to approach that, but that will come with potential updates to our comp plan,

266
00:19:32,220 --> 00:19:37,500
 the DDC, as well as other tools that we have for like economic incentives and impact fees.

267
00:19:37,500 --> 00:19:41,900
 And then continuing to encourage housing near the universities, obviously that student housing

268
00:19:41,900 --> 00:19:46,140
 population isn't going anywhere and is likely to keep growing, so ensuring that they have

269
00:19:46,140 --> 00:19:50,140
 rental opportunities closer to the university would potentially help us provide ownership

270
00:19:50,140 --> 00:19:54,140
 opportunities elsewhere in the city in our single-family neighborhoods.

271
00:19:54,140 --> 00:19:57,060
 So I know I went through that quickly, but you all have a lot on your work session agenda

272
00:19:57,060 --> 00:19:59,380
 and you have seen this before.

273
00:19:59,380 --> 00:20:04,940
 So happy to go back if we need to to touch on anything if you have any questions.

274
00:20:04,940 --> 00:20:05,940
 Any questions?

275
00:20:05,940 --> 00:20:06,940
 Commissioner Patron?

276
00:20:06,940 --> 00:20:15,460
 Haley, just to clarify, the student population growth, is that based on enrollment data?

277
00:20:15,460 --> 00:20:16,460
 Yes.

278
00:20:16,460 --> 00:20:20,720
 So I will say there's the caveat of we don't know how many of those students may be commuters

279
00:20:20,720 --> 00:20:21,840
 not living in the city.

280
00:20:21,840 --> 00:20:23,740
 We were not provided that breakdown from the university.

281
00:20:23,740 --> 00:20:27,500
 Okay, so just overall enrollment data for fall or is it by semester?

282
00:20:27,500 --> 00:20:32,500
 I believe that was annual enrollment data, so we don't actually have 2024 data yet.

283
00:20:32,500 --> 00:20:36,100
 Okay, thank you.

284
00:20:36,100 --> 00:20:38,380
 All right.

285
00:20:38,380 --> 00:20:39,380
 Thank you, Haley.

286
00:20:39,380 --> 00:20:40,380
 You're welcome.

287
00:20:40,380 --> 00:20:41,380
 I do have a couple of questions.

288
00:20:41,380 --> 00:20:42,380
 I'll try to make them short.

289
00:20:42,380 --> 00:20:43,380
 Oh, sure.

290
00:20:43,380 --> 00:20:48,860
 So one, on the enrollment data, is that full-time or all students?

291
00:20:48,860 --> 00:20:54,460
 Because I guess I would expect full-time students to be more in need of local housing than commuting

292
00:20:54,460 --> 00:20:55,460
 students.

293
00:20:55,460 --> 00:20:56,460
 I believe.

294
00:20:56,460 --> 00:20:57,740
 Yeah, I don't have any notes for myself saying.

295
00:20:57,740 --> 00:21:00,620
 My understanding is that is all students annual enrollment.

296
00:21:00,620 --> 00:21:03,620
 Okay, thank you.

297
00:21:03,620 --> 00:21:10,580
 I guess one question I have is on the growth of the multifamily versus single family.

298
00:21:10,580 --> 00:21:17,540
 I think over the past five years we've seen especially single family home costs spike

299
00:21:17,540 --> 00:21:22,820
 dramatically and incomes have not risen at that same pace.

300
00:21:22,820 --> 00:21:31,260
 So is a somewhat of a shift toward multifamily expected in that sort of an economic situation?

301
00:21:31,260 --> 00:21:32,260
 Possibly.

302
00:21:32,260 --> 00:21:37,900
 I don't know for sure, but I would say from discussions with our community development

303
00:21:37,900 --> 00:21:42,340
 team and just some of the developments that come in, I think the rental rate for multifamily

304
00:21:42,340 --> 00:21:44,900
 has probably also seen a comparable increase over time.

305
00:21:44,900 --> 00:21:49,020
 So I think it may all even out in terms of how much the housing is costing.

306
00:21:49,020 --> 00:21:50,020
 Okay.

307
00:21:50,020 --> 00:21:51,020
 Tina may have more to add on that subject.

308
00:21:51,020 --> 00:21:55,340
 I was going to say the only thing I was going to add was that all the more reason why we

309
00:21:55,340 --> 00:21:59,340
 work on trying to make sure we've got diverse housing stock opportunities, because we also

310
00:21:59,340 --> 00:22:02,900
 people or we also realize that people are in different stages of their life in terms

311
00:22:02,900 --> 00:22:05,460
 of what they want for their housing.

312
00:22:05,460 --> 00:22:10,620
 So just making sure that we provide those balanced housing opportunities.

313
00:22:10,620 --> 00:22:20,660
 And to that point on the duplex spike, I guess you would say in 2022, I'm guessing that's

314
00:22:20,660 --> 00:22:26,940
 mostly some of these horizontal multifamily type developments that we did and not necessarily

315
00:22:26,940 --> 00:22:29,380
 individually plotted lots.

316
00:22:29,380 --> 00:22:35,380
 I'm just trying to understand as far as rental availability versus flexibility toward small

317
00:22:35,380 --> 00:22:37,180
 or homeownership opportunities, right?

318
00:22:37,180 --> 00:22:42,340
 So the horizontal multifamily product is still considered multifamily since they're all on

319
00:22:42,340 --> 00:22:44,340
 a single lot.

320
00:22:44,340 --> 00:22:50,020
 Duplex under the zoning code means two units that are attached that can be on one lot or

321
00:22:50,020 --> 00:22:54,580
 on two separate lots if someone wanted to flat down the building line or the firewall

322
00:22:54,580 --> 00:22:57,240
 between the two halves of the building.

323
00:22:57,240 --> 00:23:02,820
 And then permit data also considers that as a separate use because it follows under the

324
00:23:02,820 --> 00:23:04,380
 residential code instead of the building code.

325
00:23:04,380 --> 00:23:09,300
 So all of our data considers duplex separate from multifamily.

326
00:23:09,300 --> 00:23:13,700
 So the horizontal is firmly in the multifamily camp, so it shouldn't influence that data.

327
00:23:13,700 --> 00:23:22,300
 Okay, well, I'll have to go look at the map again to see where 1800 units went if they

328
00:23:22,300 --> 00:23:23,540
 didn't go into those properties.

329
00:23:23,540 --> 00:23:28,660
 I don't believe the -- I don't believe our map breaks out duplexes.

330
00:23:28,660 --> 00:23:31,220
 I could try to get that more detailed information for you.

331
00:23:31,220 --> 00:23:32,220
 I can look it up later.

332
00:23:32,220 --> 00:23:33,220
 That's fine.

333
00:23:33,220 --> 00:23:38,060
 I'm trying to think of any large scale duplex projects, but none come to mind.

334
00:23:38,060 --> 00:23:40,700
 But we can look into that if that's something you'd like to know more about.

335
00:23:40,700 --> 00:23:48,260
 I guess just if there's a way to double check whether the majority of those were on individual

336
00:23:48,260 --> 00:23:54,660
 lots or large properties just to confirm because of the IBC versus IRC and zoning thing.

337
00:23:54,660 --> 00:23:59,660
 For it to be considered as duplex, it would have had to have been an individual lot with

338
00:23:59,660 --> 00:24:01,020
 the two units on it.

339
00:24:01,020 --> 00:24:07,520
 And I understand that from a zoning perspective, but I think when you pull permit data, those

340
00:24:07,520 --> 00:24:12,180
 lots with more than one building, they would still get IRC permits.

341
00:24:12,180 --> 00:24:14,860
 Maybe I'm wrong as far as the process, but.

342
00:24:14,860 --> 00:24:19,140
 My understanding of the way our permit data does separate duplex as its own category,

343
00:24:19,140 --> 00:24:21,300
 so we're able to isolate that.

344
00:24:21,300 --> 00:24:25,060
 It's where you get into the triplexes and up that it, under the building codes, all

345
00:24:25,060 --> 00:24:27,900
 becomes multifamily.

346
00:24:27,900 --> 00:24:31,260
 So I think we have pretty accurate data in there because they are able to isolate that

347
00:24:31,260 --> 00:24:32,260
 permit type.

348
00:24:32,260 --> 00:24:33,260
 Okay.

349
00:24:33,260 --> 00:24:36,820
 But yeah, if you're curious about where those are located, I can certainly go back and try

350
00:24:36,820 --> 00:24:37,820
 to look at the projects.

351
00:24:37,820 --> 00:24:40,940
 Yeah, it doesn't have to be a big formal thing, but I'm curious.

352
00:24:40,940 --> 00:24:41,940
 Okay.

353
00:24:41,940 --> 00:24:53,800
 Lastly, I know I'm taking up time here, but is staff interested in trying to make this

354
00:24:53,800 --> 00:25:00,280
 information a little bit more apparent to the public given the fact that there was some

355
00:25:00,280 --> 00:25:03,220
 press on the first release?

356
00:25:03,220 --> 00:25:08,580
 I don't know what would be appropriate, but it's a pretty big revision to the multifamily

357
00:25:08,580 --> 00:25:10,920
 data.

358
00:25:10,920 --> 00:25:17,660
 I don't want to suggest something that would be problematic, but if there's a desire to

359
00:25:17,660 --> 00:25:23,700
 say, hey, here's a correction in case that was nervous to you, does that make sense?

360
00:25:23,700 --> 00:25:27,900
 So we have kept the city management office and city council abreast of the fact that

361
00:25:27,900 --> 00:25:32,180
 we were making changes to this, and our plan is to issue, as part of a Friday report coming

362
00:25:32,180 --> 00:25:36,980
 up, this to city council, and then obviously wherever that goes from there.

363
00:25:36,980 --> 00:25:37,980
 Okay.

364
00:25:37,980 --> 00:25:41,900
 Well, it's nice to say we can always talk to the city manager's office to see whether

365
00:25:41,900 --> 00:25:48,100
 or not we want to issue any news release because I believe the headline was something along

366
00:25:48,100 --> 00:25:52,660
 the lines that we've had a 303% increase in our multifamily development, and as you can

367
00:25:52,660 --> 00:25:54,940
 see from the corrected numbers, that is not the case.

368
00:25:54,940 --> 00:25:55,940
 No.

369
00:25:55,940 --> 00:25:56,940
 It's actually 96%.

370
00:25:56,940 --> 00:25:57,940
 96%.

371
00:25:57,940 --> 00:25:58,940
 Thank you.

372
00:25:58,940 --> 00:26:00,420
 Still significant, but not 300.

373
00:26:00,420 --> 00:26:01,420
 Right.

374
00:26:01,420 --> 00:26:02,420
 Not 300.

375
00:26:02,420 --> 00:26:03,420
 Okay.

376
00:26:03,420 --> 00:26:05,380
 That's all I have, but I see one more question from Commissioner Padron.

377
00:26:05,380 --> 00:26:06,380
 Sure.

378
00:26:06,380 --> 00:26:10,920
 Haley, on the point under the side said, given the uncertainties, it's encouraged to increase

379
00:26:10,920 --> 00:26:12,580
 housing near the universities.

380
00:26:12,580 --> 00:26:16,060
 How do you all define what near the universities mean?

381
00:26:16,060 --> 00:26:17,660
 Is it based on walking distance?

382
00:26:17,660 --> 00:26:22,420
 Is it based on a specific commute in a vehicle?

383
00:26:22,420 --> 00:26:23,620
 How's that defined?

384
00:26:23,620 --> 00:26:26,140
 We don't have, I would say, a firm definition.

385
00:26:26,140 --> 00:26:29,940
 We do have in our future land use map kind of the area around those that's considered

386
00:26:29,940 --> 00:26:33,860
 a compatibility area where we would expect to see more of that student housing clustered,

387
00:26:33,860 --> 00:26:37,100
 so that would be our first line of looking at that, is just where that future land use

388
00:26:37,100 --> 00:26:40,660
 category is kind of clouded around the university centers.

389
00:26:40,660 --> 00:26:41,660
 Okay.

390
00:26:41,660 --> 00:26:42,660
 Thank you.

391
00:26:42,660 --> 00:26:43,660
 All right.

392
00:26:43,660 --> 00:26:48,460
 One more from Commissioner Riggs.

393
00:26:48,460 --> 00:26:52,500
 So the comp plan kind of spelled out like we should have this kind of growth in single-family,

394
00:26:52,500 --> 00:26:58,140
 this kind of growth in multifamily, and even with the revised numbers, we're still seeing

395
00:26:58,140 --> 00:27:01,220
 growth in multifamily outpacing the single-family.

396
00:27:01,220 --> 00:27:07,660
 So if we want to meet the plan's goals and monitor that and then us as a board, what

397
00:27:07,660 --> 00:27:14,740
 are some things that we can do in order to monitor that and, I guess, keep more in line

398
00:27:14,740 --> 00:27:16,020
 with the comp plan?

399
00:27:16,020 --> 00:27:17,020
 Sure.

400
00:27:17,020 --> 00:27:21,260
 I would say for monitoring purposes, now that we have kind of this baseline, I would imagine

401
00:27:21,260 --> 00:27:25,820
 our goal is to revisit this on a periodic basis.

402
00:27:25,820 --> 00:27:29,460
 Like we mentioned, we know we'll have to update the comprehensive plan, because clearly the

403
00:27:29,460 --> 00:27:32,500
 projections are off.

404
00:27:32,500 --> 00:27:35,860
 So that's one thing that we'll be keeping in mind as well.

405
00:27:35,860 --> 00:27:43,660
 I would say for you all, it's just applying a thoughtful analysis to all those projects

406
00:27:43,660 --> 00:27:45,820
 as they come before you.

407
00:27:45,820 --> 00:27:49,900
 With single-family, we have a lot of single-family zoning in the city, so a lot of those don't

408
00:27:49,900 --> 00:27:53,620
 necessarily have to come for zoning entitlements, but you can see those on the agendas in the

409
00:27:53,620 --> 00:27:55,060
 form of plats and things like that.

410
00:27:55,060 --> 00:28:01,300
 But more often than not, multifamily does come before an SUP or a PD or some sort of

411
00:28:01,300 --> 00:28:04,900
 zoning entitlement, so really just applying a thoughtful analysis to those would be the

412
00:28:04,900 --> 00:28:08,140
 best thing this body could do, I think, and making sure that, like I said, it's going

413
00:28:08,140 --> 00:28:14,140
 in a place that the comp plan recommends and it's not going somewhere where we don't anticipate

414
00:28:14,140 --> 00:28:17,380
 that it would have those neighborhood services and connections and things that would make

415
00:28:17,380 --> 00:28:22,020
 it a meaningful residential community in the future is probably the best we can do, but

416
00:28:22,020 --> 00:28:26,300
 happy to have Tina chime in on that with her thoughts, if her microphone allows.

417
00:28:26,300 --> 00:28:27,300
 There it goes.

418
00:28:27,300 --> 00:28:29,060
 I'm starting to make my hands warm.

419
00:28:29,060 --> 00:28:31,060
 So I concur with Haley's response.

420
00:28:31,060 --> 00:28:35,820
 The only other thing I would ask is that the commission not look at this data from a standpoint

421
00:28:35,820 --> 00:28:41,060
 of denying projects necessarily, because you're thinking that, well, we're already exceeding

422
00:28:41,060 --> 00:28:45,940
 what the comp plan might have initially recommended, because even we were having some challenges

423
00:28:45,940 --> 00:28:47,420
 with duplicating the data.

424
00:28:47,420 --> 00:28:51,740
 We did use the American Community Survey data, but even we -- Haley, correct me if I'm wrong,

425
00:28:51,740 --> 00:28:56,100
 but we were looking at a comparison of the data in the comp plan for 2040 versus what

426
00:28:56,100 --> 00:29:00,820
 was published in the 2030 data, so -- or as soon as the 2030 plan.

427
00:29:00,820 --> 00:29:05,320
 But again, it goes back to, you know, what does the Conference of Plan recommend in terms

428
00:29:05,320 --> 00:29:11,220
 of land uses, where residential developments are seeking a zoning entitlement change?

429
00:29:11,220 --> 00:29:16,900
 Is it consistent with the plan's recommendation otherwise continuing to monitor where we're

430
00:29:16,900 --> 00:29:18,780
 seeing those growth patterns occurring?

431
00:29:18,780 --> 00:29:25,900
 I think Haley's point earlier about when residential uses are being introduced in an area, I would

432
00:29:25,900 --> 00:29:30,500
 encourage you look at it from the standpoint of could additional residential uses be added

433
00:29:30,500 --> 00:29:34,780
 to really form a neighborhood long-term occurring there, recognizing that it's going to have

434
00:29:34,780 --> 00:29:41,260
 to give the incremental growth, but -- because I think that that's important instead of having

435
00:29:41,260 --> 00:29:45,820
 isolated residential development, and to me it doesn't matter whether it's single-family

436
00:29:45,820 --> 00:29:51,700
 or multi-family or one of the duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, if it's been isolated and not related

437
00:29:51,700 --> 00:29:57,260
 to any other services that could support people that are living within those areas.

438
00:29:57,260 --> 00:29:59,980
 You also have to balance that with -- keep in mind is that you typically have to have

439
00:29:59,980 --> 00:30:03,540
 the rooftops first and the residential units before you can attract commercial development

440
00:30:03,540 --> 00:30:05,580
 to certain areas.

441
00:30:05,580 --> 00:30:09,120
 So again, it just comes back to having that balanced perspective and being thoughtful

442
00:30:09,120 --> 00:30:13,340
 in your considerations, particularly when zoning entitlements are being requested.

443
00:30:13,340 --> 00:30:17,820
 But again, I would ask you not use the data from a standpoint of cooling the development,

444
00:30:17,820 --> 00:30:21,980
 because obviously we know we do have housing demands and considerations that we're also

445
00:30:21,980 --> 00:30:25,300
 trying to balance, you know, particularly with the next item that we're going to talk

446
00:30:25,300 --> 00:30:29,580
 about of how we can encourage some additional townhome development happening within the community.

447
00:30:29,580 --> 00:30:33,700
 So I hope that helps.

448
00:30:33,700 --> 00:30:34,700
 Thank you.

449
00:30:34,700 --> 00:30:39,140
 Yeah, and I'll just add -- feel free to correct me, please, Haley, if my data is old, but

450
00:30:39,140 --> 00:30:47,180
 I think I heard from some other staff that the average single-family home size that's

451
00:30:47,180 --> 00:30:54,180
 going through permitting now is about 3,000 square feet, and the, you know, American Community

452
00:30:54,180 --> 00:31:00,700
 Survey and other sources show average family size continuing to go down.

453
00:31:00,700 --> 00:31:05,740
 So we've got a little bit of a hole in the middle there that we can plug with something.

454
00:31:05,740 --> 00:31:07,540
 Any other questions?

455
00:31:07,540 --> 00:31:08,820
 All right.

456
00:31:08,820 --> 00:31:09,820
 Thank you, Haley.

457
00:31:09,820 --> 00:31:10,820
 Thank you.

458
00:31:10,820 --> 00:31:14,900
 I will ask, is dinner here?

459
00:31:14,900 --> 00:31:16,380
 Should we take a short break?

460
00:31:16,380 --> 00:31:23,420
 Let's take a five-minute recess and grab food so that we can do a working dinner here before

461
00:31:23,420 --> 00:31:42,100
 the regular meeting.

462
00:31:42,100 --> 00:31:49,500
 We will continue with item 3B, PZ25057, Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion, and Receive Direction

463
00:31:49,500 --> 00:31:56,540
 Regarding Townhome Development Regulations in the City of Denton.

464
00:31:56,540 --> 00:31:59,100
 Matt?

465
00:31:59,100 --> 00:32:08,620
 Julie Wyatt, principal planner, is also presenting on this topic, and so you'll hear from both

466
00:32:08,620 --> 00:32:09,620
 of us tonight.

467
00:32:09,620 --> 00:32:12,700
 Tonight, we're speaking of townhome regulations.

468
00:32:12,700 --> 00:32:16,780
 As a reminder, this is not a review of everything townhome.

469
00:32:16,780 --> 00:32:23,060
 This is a targeted approach with a few key requirements that we've observed have potentially

470
00:32:23,060 --> 00:32:27,420
 are hindering townhome development here in Denton.

471
00:32:27,420 --> 00:32:31,460
 So to begin, we want to get everyone on the same page of what is a townhome.

472
00:32:31,460 --> 00:32:38,820
 So we define a townhome as essentially a single-family home, like any other here in the Denton, except

473
00:32:38,820 --> 00:32:45,140
 that that building can extend from one side lot line to the other side lot line.

474
00:32:45,140 --> 00:32:51,680
 So that has shared walls with adjacent townhome units, with the side yard setback being observed

475
00:32:51,680 --> 00:32:53,980
 on those end units.

476
00:32:53,980 --> 00:32:59,540
 These can come in groups of three to eight townhome lots.

477
00:32:59,540 --> 00:33:05,540
 And just as a reminder, they are different from condos, in that a condo is owned -- someone

478
00:33:05,540 --> 00:33:10,060
 can own the space or the unit, but not necessarily the land.

479
00:33:10,060 --> 00:33:11,300
 That is owned by the association.

480
00:33:11,300 --> 00:33:18,480
 While in a townhome, the owner of the townhome lot owns both the land and the dwelling unit

481
00:33:18,480 --> 00:33:20,500
 that the townhome is on.

482
00:33:20,500 --> 00:33:27,020
 They typically have rear-entry garages with alleys to access in a public street, and they

483
00:33:27,020 --> 00:33:33,220
 generally require an HOA for maintenance of the shared building features, like the roof,

484
00:33:33,220 --> 00:33:35,220
 and any common lots.

485
00:33:35,220 --> 00:33:41,700
 And I'll turn it over to Julie.

486
00:33:41,700 --> 00:33:43,620
 >> All right.

487
00:33:43,620 --> 00:33:46,500
 So why are we talking about townhomes?

488
00:33:46,500 --> 00:33:51,340
 Haley teed this up flawlessly for us to talk about townhomes and that residential type

489
00:33:51,340 --> 00:33:52,340
 tonight.

490
00:33:52,340 --> 00:33:58,580
 But we also have policy support for this type of residential development.

491
00:33:58,580 --> 00:34:03,740
 The Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the Design Downtown Denton, and the Affordable Housing

492
00:34:03,740 --> 00:34:13,940
 Strategic Toolkit, all identify townhomes as an important residential and housing type

493
00:34:13,940 --> 00:34:18,520
 to meet our residential goals and our housing goals within the city of Denton.

494
00:34:18,520 --> 00:34:23,700
 They fit well in infill areas, they contribute to neighborhood vibrancy, and they can provide

495
00:34:23,700 --> 00:34:31,400
 an affordable option for home buyers.

496
00:34:31,400 --> 00:34:37,020
 We also have support within the City Council's strategic initiatives.

497
00:34:37,020 --> 00:34:42,100
 Within those initiatives, they also talk about infill development, which townhomes can fit

498
00:34:42,100 --> 00:34:47,460
 well within, as well as building capacity for developers and property owners to increase

499
00:34:47,460 --> 00:34:51,340
 their ability to produce affordable housing.

500
00:34:51,340 --> 00:34:56,340
 And then finally, all of those funnel into our regulatory documents, our Denton Development

501
00:34:56,340 --> 00:34:57,340
 Code.

502
00:34:57,340 --> 00:35:02,580
 The DDC allows townhomes in a variety of zoning districts.

503
00:35:02,580 --> 00:35:08,500
 It allows it in our moderate density residential districts, as well as our mixed use districts,

504
00:35:08,500 --> 00:35:13,980
 and even in one of our lower density districts, our four with a specific use permit.

505
00:35:13,980 --> 00:35:17,340
 We also have some townhome specific DDC requirements.

506
00:35:17,340 --> 00:35:23,340
 And as Matt said, this really is just a limited discussion, kind of targeted discussion.

507
00:35:23,340 --> 00:35:28,060
 We believe that the zoning districts which allow townhomes are appropriate at this time.

508
00:35:28,060 --> 00:35:31,820
 And what we're really going to be talking about tonight is some of those design considerations,

509
00:35:31,820 --> 00:35:34,060
 and we'll go over those in just a minute.

510
00:35:34,060 --> 00:35:37,900
 Now we're going to bring Matt back, and then I'll take us home.

511
00:35:37,900 --> 00:35:47,140
 All right, so we're going to get more into the benefits of a townhome that Julie introduced

512
00:35:47,140 --> 00:35:48,500
 for us.

513
00:35:48,500 --> 00:35:54,700
 So for the individual, the benefit of a townhome is that it's an alternative form of homeownership

514
00:35:54,700 --> 00:35:57,740
 to the typical single family detached home.

515
00:35:57,740 --> 00:36:04,000
 That's because it offers a ownership option for those at different stages of life, such

516
00:36:04,000 --> 00:36:10,120
 as new home buyers that are trying to get their way into owning their own home, because

517
00:36:10,120 --> 00:36:17,040
 it's an entry option, a more affordable option for them there, as well as a viable downsizing

518
00:36:17,040 --> 00:36:23,080
 option for the more experienced homeowner who still wants to own their dwelling, their

519
00:36:23,080 --> 00:36:27,500
 residence, but don't need as much house or don't want as much house to take care of and

520
00:36:27,500 --> 00:36:30,140
 still stay in the same neighborhood.

521
00:36:30,140 --> 00:36:35,820
 For us at the city, the benefits of a townhome is that this is a suitable land use type in

522
00:36:35,820 --> 00:36:38,380
 a variety of contexts.

523
00:36:38,380 --> 00:36:45,300
 With the right design requirements and features, townhomes can work well in urban areas like

524
00:36:45,300 --> 00:36:47,860
 our downtown, as well as our suburban areas.

525
00:36:47,860 --> 00:36:53,820
 So those residential neighborhoods are more of the outlying areas here in Denton.

526
00:36:53,820 --> 00:36:59,580
 Another benefit that Julie mentioned is that townhomes are an excellent option for infill.

527
00:36:59,580 --> 00:37:05,780
 So those vacant lots in our existing neighborhoods that can't quite support single family detached

528
00:37:05,780 --> 00:37:11,420
 homes are a great option to support townhomes.

529
00:37:11,420 --> 00:37:16,180
 And the benefit there, an additional benefit there to the city, is that any existing utilities,

530
00:37:16,180 --> 00:37:19,500
 water, sewer, electricity, are already there in place.

531
00:37:19,500 --> 00:37:25,740
 So nothing new has to be built there, nor does the city have to be responsible for maintenance

532
00:37:25,740 --> 00:37:30,720
 of any new things, because utilities are already in place.

533
00:37:30,720 --> 00:37:36,300
 So when we look at what is actually getting built in regards to townhomes, we see a different

534
00:37:36,300 --> 00:37:40,420
 picture to the support and benefits that we just talked about.

535
00:37:40,420 --> 00:37:45,940
 So as a city, we'll meet with anyone that has an idea for building or redeveloping something

536
00:37:45,940 --> 00:37:47,940
 here in town.

537
00:37:47,940 --> 00:37:51,060
 Those meetings are called pre-application conferences.

538
00:37:51,060 --> 00:37:58,060
 And so since 2020, so the last five years, we've had about 25 of these pre-application

539
00:37:58,060 --> 00:38:00,860
 conferences regarding townhomes.

540
00:38:00,860 --> 00:38:07,100
 Yet when we look at what gets built, we've only had in that same period two projects

541
00:38:07,100 --> 00:38:12,660
 meet the requirements and regulations that we currently have in place for townhomes under

542
00:38:12,660 --> 00:38:17,740
 the base zoning districts, or about 177 units.

543
00:38:17,740 --> 00:38:23,060
 Really, when we compare that to other housing types that are built in the city that Haley

544
00:38:23,060 --> 00:38:28,900
 talked about in length, single family and multi-family get built in a substantial amount

545
00:38:28,900 --> 00:38:30,660
 here in the city.

546
00:38:30,660 --> 00:38:37,620
 And so the requirements of those are working and working for us.

547
00:38:37,620 --> 00:38:41,860
 Do you want to keep in mind that as we think about townhomes, the comprehensive plan, as

548
00:38:41,860 --> 00:38:49,120
 Haley pointed out, does call for over 10,000 projects in need of over 10,000 units of middle

549
00:38:49,120 --> 00:38:55,940
 housing types, of which townhomes is included over the next 15 years.

550
00:38:55,940 --> 00:39:00,140
 So overall, this paints a picture of that there is an interest in building townhomes

551
00:39:00,140 --> 00:39:07,060
 here in the city of Datton, but our regulations are shown to be getting impeding the development

552
00:39:07,060 --> 00:39:08,580
 of these types of housing.

553
00:39:08,580 --> 00:39:15,940
 And so now Julie will kick it off with what we're going to be going into specifically.

554
00:39:15,940 --> 00:39:23,100
 Okay, so as I mentioned, we're just going to talk about a few design considerations

555
00:39:23,100 --> 00:39:28,980
 related to townhomes, specifically townhome lot size, maximum number of units in open

556
00:39:28,980 --> 00:39:29,980
 space.

557
00:39:29,980 --> 00:39:34,880
 And we're going to come back with some recommended actions and have a discussion.

558
00:39:34,880 --> 00:39:39,280
 As we were preparing this presentation and looking at the information, we really had

559
00:39:39,280 --> 00:39:44,100
 a couple of questions that framed how we were thinking about this.

560
00:39:44,100 --> 00:39:51,180
 First is what is the minimum number of townhomes or development area that would be needed to

561
00:39:51,180 --> 00:39:56,400
 require a common open space for that development?

562
00:39:56,400 --> 00:40:01,860
 And then also, should the project location impact the types of open space we see on these

563
00:40:01,860 --> 00:40:08,320
 projects, whether it be a common private open space or private just on an individual lot?

564
00:40:08,320 --> 00:40:11,460
 So those are kind of what we were thinking about when we were putting this together,

565
00:40:11,460 --> 00:40:14,780
 and now we'll get into it.

566
00:40:14,780 --> 00:40:18,700
 So as I mentioned, we have a lot of zoning districts which do allow townhomes.

567
00:40:18,700 --> 00:40:22,540
 We've got our moderate density residential as well as our mixed use.

568
00:40:22,540 --> 00:40:27,620
 You could see by the colors on the screen that reflect all of these different zoning

569
00:40:27,620 --> 00:40:28,620
 districts.

570
00:40:28,620 --> 00:40:33,820
 We allow townhomes from a zoning perspective in a lot of different areas within the city.

571
00:40:33,820 --> 00:40:36,380
 And that's a good thing.

572
00:40:36,380 --> 00:40:40,580
 We do have a lot of opportunities here.

573
00:40:40,580 --> 00:40:46,340
 But some of our regulations seem to be getting in the way of that development.

574
00:40:46,340 --> 00:40:49,100
 So first of all, I'm going to talk about the lot size.

575
00:40:49,100 --> 00:40:54,180
 Right now, the Denton Development Code requires that all townhome lots be a minimum of 2,000

576
00:40:54,180 --> 00:40:55,540
 square feet.

577
00:40:55,540 --> 00:41:01,260
 As we're looking at this, we've realized that's kind of a one size fits all approach.

578
00:41:01,260 --> 00:41:02,400
 But Denton is diverse.

579
00:41:02,400 --> 00:41:08,060
 We have a lot of different types of areas, a lot of different types of neighborhoods.

580
00:41:08,060 --> 00:41:10,740
 We have suburban areas and we have urban areas.

581
00:41:10,740 --> 00:41:17,980
 Suburban, think low density, maybe cul-de-sac streets, distinctive neighborhoods, separated

582
00:41:17,980 --> 00:41:19,860
 land uses.

583
00:41:19,860 --> 00:41:23,500
 We also have urban or mixed use areas where we've got higher densities.

584
00:41:23,500 --> 00:41:32,100
 We've got a mix of uses, walkable environments, and uses closer together.

585
00:41:32,100 --> 00:41:35,060
 And Denton has infill opportunities throughout the city.

586
00:41:35,060 --> 00:41:42,620
 So both in our urban and suburban context, we have opportunities for that infill development

587
00:41:42,620 --> 00:41:48,500
 that is called for in our planning documents.

588
00:41:48,500 --> 00:41:55,780
 So I want to look at the lot size related to the two different contexts.

589
00:41:55,780 --> 00:41:59,620
 So on the left side of the screen is a townhome development.

590
00:41:59,620 --> 00:42:02,420
 It's a great townhome development within the city of Denton.

591
00:42:02,420 --> 00:42:09,300
 It's on the north side of town, so it's a little bit outside of our main urban area.

592
00:42:09,300 --> 00:42:14,500
 And the lot sizes are about 2,100 square feet per townhome.

593
00:42:14,500 --> 00:42:20,180
 And you could see that the picture on the bottom of the screen that the townhome lots

594
00:42:20,180 --> 00:42:24,980
 have the little front yards for that private open space.

595
00:42:24,980 --> 00:42:30,500
 We also have the other end of the spectrum where we've got near our downtown, near our

596
00:42:30,500 --> 00:42:37,140
 downtown square on the right side where we have lot sizes that range from 900 to 1,650

597
00:42:37,140 --> 00:42:39,100
 square feet.

598
00:42:39,100 --> 00:42:47,100
 And these have very limited private open space, in that the building takes up the entire lot.

599
00:42:47,100 --> 00:42:50,380
 But it's within that downtown walkable context.

600
00:42:50,380 --> 00:42:56,420
 And so that private open space isn't necessarily needed for those lots.

601
00:42:56,420 --> 00:42:57,860
 And then we have a mixture.

602
00:42:57,860 --> 00:43:02,160
 We have another townhome development on the south side of town that has a great mix of

603
00:43:02,160 --> 00:43:03,620
 lot sizes.

604
00:43:03,620 --> 00:43:06,580
 It's also nested within a single-family neighborhood.

605
00:43:06,580 --> 00:43:10,100
 So it's kind of that development we want to see.

606
00:43:10,100 --> 00:43:16,020
 But there are some lots, the ones with the red dots, are less than 2,000 square feet.

607
00:43:16,020 --> 00:43:19,620
 And so they would not be able to be built today because they don't meet that minimum

608
00:43:19,620 --> 00:43:20,900
 standard.

609
00:43:20,900 --> 00:43:26,140
 So given the variety of Denton's neighborhoods, this one-size-fits-all approach is something

610
00:43:26,140 --> 00:43:30,180
 that we feel like is limiting our townhome development.

611
00:43:30,180 --> 00:43:34,780
 And so we're going to have some recommendations for that.

612
00:43:34,780 --> 00:43:37,220
 Also want to talk about maximum units.

613
00:43:37,220 --> 00:43:43,860
 This is within our Denton development code, and it can be sometimes a challenge to apply.

614
00:43:43,860 --> 00:43:48,540
 And that requirement is the maximum number of townhomes allowed on a site can be no more

615
00:43:48,540 --> 00:43:52,420
 than the number of single-family homes that could be developed on that site.

616
00:43:52,420 --> 00:43:58,740
 Now, keep in mind as we're talking about this, townhomes often have other fixed costs that

617
00:43:58,740 --> 00:44:05,860
 maybe single-family doesn't have, things like alleys or fire suppression systems if the

618
00:44:05,860 --> 00:44:07,020
 building is large enough.

619
00:44:07,020 --> 00:44:12,420
 So it can often maybe increase those costs.

620
00:44:12,420 --> 00:44:15,780
 So we're going to do an exercise, and there's two ways we're going to approach this.

621
00:44:15,780 --> 00:44:17,180
 And I hope I explain this well.

622
00:44:17,180 --> 00:44:19,540
 If I don't, give me some questions.

623
00:44:19,540 --> 00:44:26,540
 So we're going to look at an exercise, some examples of the project size.

624
00:44:26,540 --> 00:44:32,220
 So we've got a three-quarters of an acre development, a one-acre development, and a three-acre

625
00:44:32,220 --> 00:44:33,220
 development.

626
00:44:33,220 --> 00:44:38,780
 When we apply that 2,000 square foot minimum lot size, which is what the code requires,

627
00:44:38,780 --> 00:44:45,540
 to that gross acreage, we could get 16 lots out of the three-quarters acre, 21 lots out

628
00:44:45,540 --> 00:44:49,080
 of the one acre, and 65 lots out of the three acre.

629
00:44:49,080 --> 00:44:58,060
 But when we apply that maximum density requirement, those numbers in red show how that limitation

630
00:44:58,060 --> 00:45:00,500
 affects those developments.

631
00:45:00,500 --> 00:45:08,200
 And that, for example, in an R6 right here, on a three-quarter acre development in R6,

632
00:45:08,200 --> 00:45:11,140
 you could only build five townhomes.

633
00:45:11,140 --> 00:45:16,740
 So you're leaving essentially 11 townhomes on the table.

634
00:45:16,740 --> 00:45:20,980
 And you can see, for those of us who like maps, we also have it mapped out here where

635
00:45:20,980 --> 00:45:27,840
 we've got the four units in R4, five units in R6, and eight units in R7.

636
00:45:27,840 --> 00:45:30,780
 And this is a three-quarter acre site here.

637
00:45:30,780 --> 00:45:33,820
 So you could kind of see how that would play out.

638
00:45:33,820 --> 00:45:35,100
 What does that mean?

639
00:45:35,100 --> 00:45:40,580
 Well, this is limiting, just limiting the number of possible units, and that reduces

640
00:45:40,580 --> 00:45:43,980
 our capacity to build this housing type.

641
00:45:43,980 --> 00:45:46,900
 It has a greater impact in infill areas.

642
00:45:46,900 --> 00:45:51,540
 When we were looking at this presentation, we were kind of talking about, well, what

643
00:45:51,540 --> 00:45:54,220
 do people do with that remainder area?

644
00:45:54,220 --> 00:45:59,220
 Because if you're in R4 and you can only build four units and three-quarters of an acre,

645
00:45:59,220 --> 00:46:00,580
 what do you do with the rest of it?

646
00:46:00,580 --> 00:46:03,580
 Well, the code doesn't prescribe that.

647
00:46:03,580 --> 00:46:08,500
 But one could imagine that it could be potentially used for open space, or if it's in a larger

648
00:46:08,500 --> 00:46:13,320
 development, something like streets and alleys, or maybe detention area.

649
00:46:13,320 --> 00:46:18,020
 So the code doesn't necessarily prescribe the area, but it does impact that number of

650
00:46:18,020 --> 00:46:19,020
 units.

651
00:46:19,020 --> 00:46:24,980
 And it's often a greater impact in our infill areas, because especially maybe a lot that

652
00:46:24,980 --> 00:46:27,620
 doesn't need to extend a street.

653
00:46:27,620 --> 00:46:34,000
 You still could not build those additional units on that lot.

654
00:46:34,000 --> 00:46:40,700
 We also looked at, in R4, R4 also allows duplexes with a specific use permit.

655
00:46:40,700 --> 00:46:45,820
 So if you obtained a specific use permit for duplexes in R4, you could potentially get

656
00:46:45,820 --> 00:46:51,340
 more dwelling units for a duplex than you could a townhome in R4.

657
00:46:51,340 --> 00:46:52,780
 So what does that mean?

658
00:46:52,780 --> 00:46:57,500
 It really is a disincentive to build townhomes versus other residential land use types.

659
00:46:57,500 --> 00:47:04,380
 Because one could get additional units with some other residential use type, like a duplex

660
00:47:04,380 --> 00:47:07,020
 or maybe an MN, a multifamily.

661
00:47:07,020 --> 00:47:13,500
 All right, and then finally we want to talk about open space.

662
00:47:13,500 --> 00:47:19,980
 The code requires that any development of 10 or more townhomes must set aside 5% of

663
00:47:19,980 --> 00:47:23,620
 the land area for common open space.

664
00:47:23,620 --> 00:47:28,580
 When we look to see how that applies, we've got an example here on your screen.

665
00:47:28,580 --> 00:47:34,580
 This is that urban townhome development that we've looked at earlier in the project or

666
00:47:34,580 --> 00:47:38,100
 in the presentation.

667
00:47:38,100 --> 00:47:42,020
 The development area is a little over 21,000 square feet.

668
00:47:42,020 --> 00:47:47,300
 And when you do the math, it's about 1,000 square feet that they would have to have had

669
00:47:47,300 --> 00:47:49,220
 as part of common open space.

670
00:47:49,220 --> 00:47:52,880
 And that's about the size of that green block there.

671
00:47:52,880 --> 00:47:58,780
 What that tells us is that smaller projects really don't yield enough usable -- enough

672
00:47:58,780 --> 00:48:04,220
 space in that 5% to really be usable.

673
00:48:04,220 --> 00:48:10,460
 We did another illustration to see if we could kind of show what those -- that space would

674
00:48:10,460 --> 00:48:11,860
 look like.

675
00:48:11,860 --> 00:48:18,640
 So we've got -- we did an example of 10 townhomes, 50 townhomes, and 100 townhomes.

676
00:48:18,640 --> 00:48:24,880
 So thinking about the land area that one would need in order to build these types of developments,

677
00:48:24,880 --> 00:48:33,340
 we anticipate that 10 townhomes would need about 6/10 of an acre, which would yield about

678
00:48:33,340 --> 00:48:37,360
 1,380 square feet of required open space.

679
00:48:37,360 --> 00:48:40,780
 And that's about the size of that red square here.

680
00:48:40,780 --> 00:48:49,100
 And just to give you a comparison of scale, this entire area is about 2.6 acres.

681
00:48:49,100 --> 00:48:56,540
 So just to kind of show you about what size area we're looking at, 50 units would yield

682
00:48:56,540 --> 00:48:58,660
 about 6,900 square feet.

683
00:48:58,660 --> 00:49:03,380
 That's a little more usable space, that area in blue.

684
00:49:03,380 --> 00:49:10,220
 And then 100 units would yield about 1,400 square feet.

685
00:49:10,220 --> 00:49:14,560
 So what we observe in this is that for those small developments, that open space really

686
00:49:14,560 --> 00:49:17,700
 is just too small to be usable.

687
00:49:17,700 --> 00:49:23,580
 Also, when you have open space that is commonly owned by the townhome development, it has

688
00:49:23,580 --> 00:49:26,700
 to be maintained by the homeowners.

689
00:49:26,700 --> 00:49:33,220
 And so with the fewer number of homeowners, those maintenance costs increase per homeowner.

690
00:49:33,220 --> 00:49:38,820
 We don't require open space for single-family developments, only for these middle-housing

691
00:49:38,820 --> 00:49:40,220
 developments.

692
00:49:40,220 --> 00:49:46,100
 And once again, like our other regulations, it does limit our ability to develop infill

693
00:49:46,100 --> 00:49:48,740
 lots.

694
00:49:48,740 --> 00:49:55,700
 I also want you to keep in mind that open space can be a really vital part of any development.

695
00:49:55,700 --> 00:49:59,100
 So I don't want to say open space is bad.

696
00:49:59,100 --> 00:50:05,580
 But that project design considers not only the site characteristics, but also the location.

697
00:50:05,580 --> 00:50:13,100
 So we also looked at our parks 10-minute walk to a park standard.

698
00:50:13,100 --> 00:50:21,340
 So we have a standard within the city of Denton that parks wants all residents within our community

699
00:50:21,340 --> 00:50:25,540
 to be able to walk to a park within 10 minutes.

700
00:50:25,540 --> 00:50:33,180
 They have a map in their parks plan that shows those buffer areas of the parts of our community

701
00:50:33,180 --> 00:50:39,480
 that have a 10-minute walk to a park.

702
00:50:39,480 --> 00:50:45,580
 So we can see that a lot of the areas in yellow, which do meet that standard, are within our

703
00:50:45,580 --> 00:50:46,940
 infill environment.

704
00:50:46,940 --> 00:50:54,480
 They are within the parts of our city that we want to encourage that additional infill.

705
00:50:54,480 --> 00:50:59,700
 So that is where that location comes into play.

706
00:50:59,700 --> 00:51:04,580
 There is a time and a place for amenitized open space for developments.

707
00:51:04,580 --> 00:51:07,500
 But we want to make sure that it's in the right place.

708
00:51:07,500 --> 00:51:14,340
 And often our infill environment is not necessarily the most appropriate spot.

709
00:51:14,340 --> 00:51:19,220
 So just to remind you of those framing questions and what we were thinking about, we were thinking

710
00:51:19,220 --> 00:51:29,460
 about the open space, not only for what size of development or community should have that

711
00:51:29,460 --> 00:51:35,460
 open space requirement, but also that overall project location and how that affects where

712
00:51:35,460 --> 00:51:36,780
 we want our open space.

713
00:51:36,780 --> 00:51:41,340
 And so now I want to talk about our recommendations.

714
00:51:41,340 --> 00:51:45,580
 So broken it up, first talk about lot sizes.

715
00:51:45,580 --> 00:51:51,440
 We are proposing to decrease the minimum townhome lot size in our mixed-use zoning districts

716
00:51:51,440 --> 00:51:57,220
 to 1,000 square feet with those associated reduced dimensions.

717
00:51:57,220 --> 00:52:02,660
 And that would allow, given where our mixed-use districts are and the types of context and

718
00:52:02,660 --> 00:52:07,380
 development patterns we want to encourage in our mixed-use district, we feel that the

719
00:52:07,380 --> 00:52:14,240
 1,000 square foot lot size is more consistent with that type of development pattern and

720
00:52:14,240 --> 00:52:18,260
 that more fine-grained development.

721
00:52:18,260 --> 00:52:21,800
 This supports our policy documents and it supports infill development.

722
00:52:21,800 --> 00:52:23,960
 It also can increase our neighborhood vibrancy.

723
00:52:23,960 --> 00:52:26,500
 It makes more walkable areas, right?

724
00:52:26,500 --> 00:52:28,140
 And it would build capacity.

725
00:52:28,140 --> 00:52:35,500
 It would allow more infill townhome development, particularly in our downtown areas as opposed

726
00:52:35,500 --> 00:52:39,180
 to the 2,000 square foot lots.

727
00:52:39,180 --> 00:52:44,540
 We're also proposing in terms of density to just go ahead and remove that limit to the

728
00:52:44,540 --> 00:52:48,340
 maximum number of units allowed in townhome developments.

729
00:52:48,340 --> 00:52:52,540
 It's not a regulation that we apply to any other residential development within the city

730
00:52:52,540 --> 00:52:59,580
 of Denton, and we feel like it's just working against our policy goals to build that capacity

731
00:52:59,580 --> 00:53:04,760
 for townhome development and promote affordability.

732
00:53:04,760 --> 00:53:10,740
 And then, finally, with open space, we're proposing to modify that regulation to require

733
00:53:10,740 --> 00:53:16,040
 open space for projects of three acres or more with an exemption for those larger sites

734
00:53:16,040 --> 00:53:21,060
 within half a mile of a public park or open space.

735
00:53:21,060 --> 00:53:25,660
 As I said, open space can be a really vital part of a project, and especially some of

736
00:53:25,660 --> 00:53:31,540
 our larger projects, we would want to see how that open space could be used as an amenity

737
00:53:31,540 --> 00:53:38,560
 for residents, but we also want to make sure that we put it in the right places.

738
00:53:38,560 --> 00:53:45,160
 And so having that exemption within a half a mile of the park would still allow our community

739
00:53:45,160 --> 00:53:51,200
 members to have that recreation and social space, which is what we want in those open

740
00:53:51,200 --> 00:54:00,760
 space in the communities, while still also encouraging those infill sites to be developed.

741
00:54:00,760 --> 00:54:07,240
 And with that, I will be happy to answer any questions and get any feedback from you on

742
00:54:07,240 --> 00:54:10,420
 the proposal.

743
00:54:10,420 --> 00:54:14,600
 Thank you, Julie and Matt.

744
00:54:14,600 --> 00:54:20,680
 Yeah, thank you.

745
00:54:20,680 --> 00:54:28,040
 Questions, lots of information there, questions about the proposal and/or the previous regulations

746
00:54:28,040 --> 00:54:34,600
 and what we've seen, Commissioner Prado-Crujillo?

747
00:54:34,600 --> 00:54:37,300
 So I like what you're saying.

748
00:54:37,300 --> 00:54:48,080
 With this last one, the open space and having an exemption with half a mile of walking distance,

749
00:54:48,080 --> 00:54:56,200
 how would we take into consideration the actual walkability of that half mile, like sidewalks,

750
00:54:56,200 --> 00:55:00,160
 intersections, you know what I mean, it's great if there's a really great park across

751
00:55:00,160 --> 00:55:04,560
 the street, but if I have to cross four lanes and there's no sidewalks.

752
00:55:04,560 --> 00:55:08,480
 So how can we take that into consideration as well?

753
00:55:08,480 --> 00:55:10,240
 That is a tough challenge.

754
00:55:10,240 --> 00:55:15,680
 When we look at it, our proposal was really just looking at it as the crow flies and less

755
00:55:15,680 --> 00:55:24,080
 taking into consideration those real site-specific elements just to allow it to be applied more

756
00:55:24,080 --> 00:55:26,200
 evenly.

757
00:55:26,200 --> 00:55:30,120
 But I'm certainly open to any suggestions or recommendations.

758
00:55:30,120 --> 00:55:32,600
 Tina may also want to chime in.

759
00:55:32,600 --> 00:55:40,680
 I'll pull up the map.

760
00:55:40,680 --> 00:55:45,040
 I think that's a great question.

761
00:55:45,040 --> 00:55:49,880
 I think some of the market aspect might also influence where somebody acquires property

762
00:55:49,880 --> 00:55:54,620
 and is interested in building that infill development, if they're relying upon that

763
00:55:54,620 --> 00:55:59,440
 open space, then they may be looking at, okay, what infrastructure improvements are there

764
00:55:59,440 --> 00:56:01,640
 today?

765
00:56:01,640 --> 00:56:07,720
 If there are voids within that infrastructure, then for our purposes, from the city's perspective,

766
00:56:07,720 --> 00:56:10,560
 then we would look to say, okay, especially if we're starting to have quite a bit of residential

767
00:56:10,560 --> 00:56:15,240
 development, what can we do to fill those voids and getting that on our sidewalk repair

768
00:56:15,240 --> 00:56:16,240
 program?

769
00:56:16,240 --> 00:56:17,240
 Okay.

770
00:56:17,240 --> 00:56:21,800
 But it's no different than the challenges that we have today, right?

771
00:56:21,800 --> 00:56:27,520
 So somebody comes in and is interested in doing a residential development.

772
00:56:27,520 --> 00:56:32,280
 They like the property because of its proximity to a public park, but there are voids within

773
00:56:32,280 --> 00:56:34,920
 the existing sidewalk network that are there.

774
00:56:34,920 --> 00:56:40,040
 So the residential project, if the zoning is in place, then is in place, then they're

775
00:56:40,040 --> 00:56:42,280
 able to go ahead and move forward with that.

776
00:56:42,280 --> 00:56:44,440
 But again, we have the voids there.

777
00:56:44,440 --> 00:56:49,700
 So we just, we work to fill those in, so it'd be no different than the status quo.

778
00:56:49,700 --> 00:57:00,000
 I think my only concern is that if we're doing this measure specifically as a affordability,

779
00:57:00,000 --> 00:57:07,160
 you know, yeah, just to make it more affordable, like we're saying, townhomes are more affordable.

780
00:57:07,160 --> 00:57:12,840
 It's a starter home for families that are starting or they can't afford these bigger

781
00:57:12,840 --> 00:57:18,560
 homes that we don't impact a certain demographic more so than another.

782
00:57:18,560 --> 00:57:22,840
 So just to keep that in mind.

783
00:57:22,840 --> 00:57:24,960
 Commissioner Roox.

784
00:57:24,960 --> 00:57:31,320
 So just to follow up on that is, so with an exemption, would an exemption have to be given

785
00:57:31,320 --> 00:57:36,920
 by council or did it just automatically go?

786
00:57:36,920 --> 00:57:37,920
 You want to address that?

787
00:57:37,920 --> 00:57:41,000
 Well, I'll try and you can grab your.

788
00:57:41,000 --> 00:57:45,640
 So tonight's really just a work session, just to kind of get your feedback to start this

789
00:57:45,640 --> 00:57:47,800
 discussion.

790
00:57:47,800 --> 00:57:53,680
 If the commission feels comfortable, we can start working on those actual changes to the

791
00:57:53,680 --> 00:57:55,360
 debt and development code.

792
00:57:55,360 --> 00:57:58,640
 And at that point, we would just write that into the code.

793
00:57:58,640 --> 00:58:04,440
 So if a project met these specific guidelines, then that exemption would automatically be

794
00:58:04,440 --> 00:58:06,440
 given.

795
00:58:06,440 --> 00:58:07,440
 I would agree.

796
00:58:07,440 --> 00:58:09,600
 And other communities that I've worked in, especially where we've tried to encourage

797
00:58:09,600 --> 00:58:13,240
 infill development, we've written those exemptions within there.

798
00:58:13,240 --> 00:58:18,440
 Yeah, because where I was going with this, if it had to be approved, then we could maybe

799
00:58:18,440 --> 00:58:24,160
 do a walkability analysis to go with it.

800
00:58:24,160 --> 00:58:25,920
 Commissioner Pugon.

801
00:58:25,920 --> 00:58:32,840
 I just want to second what Commissioner Badoe-Carrillo said about like considering the walkability.

802
00:58:32,840 --> 00:58:37,560
 The half mile, is that equivalent to the 10 minute walk?

803
00:58:37,560 --> 00:58:40,360
 It's probably a little larger than the 10 minute to a walk.

804
00:58:40,360 --> 00:58:43,080
 It probably depends on how you walk.

805
00:58:43,080 --> 00:58:46,280
 Probably not a 10 minute walk for me.

806
00:58:46,280 --> 00:58:47,280
 But it's average.

807
00:58:47,280 --> 00:58:48,280
 Yes.

808
00:58:48,280 --> 00:58:49,280
 Okay.

809
00:58:49,280 --> 00:58:51,280
 And then I have a second question.

810
00:58:51,280 --> 00:58:54,920
 So with the reduction from the 2000 square feet to the 1000 square feet, can you go over

811
00:58:54,920 --> 00:59:00,640
 again approximately how many lots that could fit or how many units that could fit?

812
00:59:00,640 --> 00:59:04,720
 You know, it would depend on the project.

813
00:59:04,720 --> 00:59:11,000
 So it would -- I mean, we can -- let's take a look at our little infill example.

814
00:59:11,000 --> 00:59:17,720
 I think this is -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.

815
00:59:17,720 --> 00:59:25,480
 This is 14 lots and about 21,000 square feet.

816
00:59:25,480 --> 00:59:29,480
 And it would -- you know, the end unit lots would always be a little bit larger just because

817
00:59:29,480 --> 00:59:31,320
 they have to meet those setbacks.

818
00:59:31,320 --> 00:59:38,560
 So there still would be other requirements like setbacks, like fire, you know, all of

819
00:59:38,560 --> 00:59:41,280
 those other regulations would still be in place.

820
00:59:41,280 --> 00:59:46,320
 I just have one more.

821
00:59:46,320 --> 00:59:49,080
 Go ahead.

822
00:59:49,080 --> 00:59:56,120
 So of the 25 that you guys have had, like the pre-application meetings that you mentioned,

823
00:59:56,120 --> 01:00:01,840
 only two built, like were there any other barriers other than the three that you're

824
01:00:01,840 --> 01:00:07,200
 proposing recommendations for that kept those others from actually building?

825
01:00:07,200 --> 01:00:09,480
 Just curious if there's other things that they listed.

826
01:00:09,480 --> 01:00:11,640
 That is a great -- and this -- that's a great question.

827
01:00:11,640 --> 01:00:15,080
 And this is going to be an ongoing conversation.

828
01:00:15,080 --> 01:00:21,000
 You know, we are -- right now these are the really targeted ones that seem to be the biggest

829
01:00:21,000 --> 01:00:27,800
 barriers, but we're always continuing to look to refine our codes and make sure that they

830
01:00:27,800 --> 01:00:29,480
 meet the needs of the community.

831
01:00:29,480 --> 01:00:36,320
 So this may not be our last time to talk about it, but we're just -- this was a -- taking

832
01:00:36,320 --> 01:00:42,320
 a scalpel to it and taking out the thing that was probably most problematic.

833
01:00:42,320 --> 01:00:48,360
 Go ahead.

834
01:00:48,360 --> 01:00:54,060
 Is it possible to see, as far as affordability, what the pricing differences could possibly

835
01:00:54,060 --> 01:00:55,360
 look like on an average?

836
01:00:55,360 --> 01:01:03,360
 So for example, single-family home on average would be this pricing structure, but by comparison

837
01:01:03,360 --> 01:01:06,600
 we could kind of take a look at what a townhome would be.

838
01:01:06,600 --> 01:01:12,120
 I think we discussed, you know, what affordability actually means, and so it would be great to

839
01:01:12,120 --> 01:01:14,080
 kind of delve into that a little bit more.

840
01:01:14,080 --> 01:01:15,080
 Sure.

841
01:01:15,080 --> 01:01:16,080
 Sure.

842
01:01:16,080 --> 01:01:20,480
 Go ahead, Commissioner Riggs.

843
01:01:20,480 --> 01:01:25,360
 So like, for instance, looking at these pre-application conferences, we had 25.

844
01:01:25,360 --> 01:01:30,660
 Was something else able to be built, just the townhomes didn't work in that situation?

845
01:01:30,660 --> 01:01:36,600
 Sometimes it's -- the lot may just be a really challenging piece of property.

846
01:01:36,600 --> 01:01:43,120
 Often something else does get built, maybe -- or a different developer, maybe that developer

847
01:01:43,120 --> 01:01:47,800
 goes away because they build townhomes, so it's going to go somewhere else or go to someone

848
01:01:47,800 --> 01:01:50,280
 else and they'll build it with something else.

849
01:01:50,280 --> 01:01:56,000
 Because I just have to say, I kind of like the 2,000-square-foot minimum, and going down

850
01:01:56,000 --> 01:02:00,500
 to 1,000, I'd like for there to just be something so you don't just have a whole bunch of tiny

851
01:02:00,500 --> 01:02:06,280
 little lots everywhere, you know.

852
01:02:06,280 --> 01:02:13,160
 So I have a few questions, as you can probably imagine.

853
01:02:13,160 --> 01:02:21,480
 One, I think the Commissioner Riggs question about 2,000 versus 1,000 kind of blends well

854
01:02:21,480 --> 01:02:28,200
 with the question of what is the pricing difference between those, you know, how many square foot

855
01:02:28,200 --> 01:02:33,120
 of a two- or three-story townhome do you usually see on a 2,000-square-foot lot, for instance,

856
01:02:33,120 --> 01:02:37,120
 that sort of thing.

857
01:02:37,120 --> 01:02:46,680
 But to get some questions and some direction from me, I think, in general, the proposals,

858
01:02:46,680 --> 01:02:50,220
 I think, look fine.

859
01:02:50,220 --> 01:02:52,720
 It's been a long time coming, and I really appreciate this.

860
01:02:52,720 --> 01:02:59,440
 I remember asking staff about the townhome requirements in the 2019 code before we passed

861
01:02:59,440 --> 01:03:06,760
 the 2019 code when I was not on this commission, and it's always rubbed me a little bit problematic,

862
01:03:06,760 --> 01:03:12,840
 so glad we're taking a look at it.

863
01:03:12,840 --> 01:03:20,120
 So questions on open space.

864
01:03:20,120 --> 01:03:25,480
 I understand the concern of is it really accessible to a park and that sort of thing.

865
01:03:25,480 --> 01:03:30,360
 I don't know that it makes sense to write it in the code this way, but for instance,

866
01:03:30,360 --> 01:03:39,200
 the Trust for Public Lands park map, right, that Gary's team on parks uses to assess location

867
01:03:39,200 --> 01:03:48,560
 ability of new parks, it does pull sidewalk locations from OpenStreetData and do some

868
01:03:48,560 --> 01:03:54,860
 of that assessment, so it's not just a blanket circle around each park, essentially.

869
01:03:54,860 --> 01:04:03,880
 Like I said, I'd be fine with some code that gave staff some flexibility in, hey, look,

870
01:04:03,880 --> 01:04:11,080
 this is half a mile away, but you have to walk across I-35, so no, right, versus us

871
01:04:11,080 --> 01:04:17,680
 needing to get into the weeds on every application.

872
01:04:17,680 --> 01:04:25,920
 The other thing with open space, maybe this is opening too much of a bag of worms, but

873
01:04:25,920 --> 01:04:31,120
 to me, to that question of will this area develop into a walkable area, regardless of

874
01:04:31,120 --> 01:04:35,080
 whether Connecting Sidewalks is there today, and maybe they come in in a few years with

875
01:04:35,080 --> 01:04:41,540
 CIPs, there are different ways you can build a townhome, right?

876
01:04:41,540 --> 01:04:46,840
 Many of them can be alley access, other times they can be front access, and that creates

877
01:04:46,840 --> 01:04:55,800
 a very different walkable vibe and expectation, so if it makes sense, maybe there's a way

878
01:04:55,800 --> 01:05:06,120
 to work in, hey, if it's rear-loaded, then you get some relief from open space as well,

879
01:05:06,120 --> 01:05:12,120
 and/or because of our drainage requirements, maybe we even start thinking about, hey, you

880
01:05:12,120 --> 01:05:17,720
 can have rear-loaded alleys that are somewhat permeable, right, or swales, or something

881
01:05:17,720 --> 01:05:23,520
 like that, to reduce the drainage access issues, and then maybe the people just have to wheel

882
01:05:23,520 --> 01:05:28,920
 their carts down to the street from the alley so that we don't have the 20-ton trash truck

883
01:05:28,920 --> 01:05:29,920
 problem.

884
01:05:29,920 --> 01:05:32,480
 I'm just thinking out loud, right?

885
01:05:32,480 --> 01:05:37,360
 I'm not saying that that's a specific thing I want to see, but I know I've heard in the

886
01:05:37,360 --> 01:05:44,080
 past that rear-loading is a challenge because of our detention and drainage requirements.

887
01:05:44,080 --> 01:05:47,000
 And then a couple questions on sort of the zoning.

888
01:05:47,000 --> 01:05:56,040
 I understand staff said that right now you feel like the locations of where we allow

889
01:05:56,040 --> 01:05:59,560
 townhomes is sufficient.

890
01:05:59,560 --> 01:06:04,280
 I'm going to disagree a little bit, just to help the commission think through this, and

891
01:06:04,280 --> 01:06:07,160
 I'd like to hear some thoughts from the commissioners.

892
01:06:07,160 --> 01:06:18,080
 And this somewhat touches on the concern for impact to existing communities being equitable.

893
01:06:18,080 --> 01:06:24,960
 So first of all, am I correct in thinking that prior to the 2019 code, we actually allowed

894
01:06:24,960 --> 01:06:30,040
 townhomes by right in NR4, which was transitioned to R4?

895
01:06:30,040 --> 01:06:33,280
 It's just it had site-specific standards.

896
01:06:33,280 --> 01:06:40,040
 I'm looking to Haley because I've forgotten parts of the 2002 code she's looking.

897
01:06:40,040 --> 01:06:41,680
 It's a good question, I don't know.

898
01:06:41,680 --> 01:06:45,280
 So I appreciate hearing a follow-up from that.

899
01:06:45,280 --> 01:06:50,440
 I may have looked at it wrong, but that was my impression when I read the old code.

900
01:06:50,440 --> 01:06:55,080
 So in my view, part of the reason that we haven't seen as many is that we eliminated

901
01:06:55,080 --> 01:06:58,160
 a lot of the land in the city that allowed them, right?

902
01:06:58,160 --> 01:07:05,320
 And that was what is now R4.

903
01:07:05,320 --> 01:07:11,280
 A nitpicky thing that we may want to look at is the minimum lot depth, because I think

904
01:07:11,280 --> 01:07:21,240
 for a 1,000-square-foot lot in, say, R7, that would be 12.5 feet wide with the 80-foot minimum

905
01:07:21,240 --> 01:07:22,240
 lot depth.

906
01:07:22,240 --> 01:07:27,600
 I'm not sure that's exactly the form and function that you're going for.

907
01:07:27,600 --> 01:07:33,320
 So maybe just look at that particular requirement and see if that needs to be adjusted.

908
01:07:33,320 --> 01:07:41,520
 And then I guess getting back to the R4 thing here, so R4 is in blue, correct?

909
01:07:41,520 --> 01:07:42,520
 Correct.

910
01:07:42,520 --> 01:07:43,520
 Okay.

911
01:07:43,520 --> 01:07:49,240
 So when I look at this map, if we're going to say, yeah, disallowing them without a SUP

912
01:07:49,240 --> 01:07:58,200
 in R4 was a mistake, then most of the land area in the walkable core of the city is southeast

913
01:07:58,200 --> 01:08:03,560
 Denton and east of downtown.

914
01:08:03,560 --> 01:08:06,080
 That's a problem.

915
01:08:06,080 --> 01:08:15,920
 Likewise, there's a lot of land near walkable areas, be it the universities or future walkable

916
01:08:15,920 --> 01:08:24,280
 areas along Elm and Locust north of university that is not even R4, it's R3.

917
01:08:24,280 --> 01:08:29,700
 And I would think that we would want to see more townhomes in those areas that are relatively

918
01:08:29,700 --> 01:08:36,760
 close to parks, relatively close to businesses, et cetera, whereas most of our existing R6

919
01:08:36,760 --> 01:08:41,880
 and R7 land is not close to the core, right?

920
01:08:41,880 --> 01:08:48,360
 It's the newer subdivisions that have come in the last 15 years.

921
01:08:48,360 --> 01:08:54,620
 So I'd be interested in potentially expanding it to R3 just because I don't want to set

922
01:08:54,620 --> 01:09:03,480
 a bad or put together a set of restrictions that results in a concentrated redevelopment

923
01:09:03,480 --> 01:09:12,200
 of an area simply because the other areas near desirable walkable areas are not R4 or

924
01:09:12,200 --> 01:09:13,200
 better.

925
01:09:13,200 --> 01:09:21,880
 >> SUP and R3 and -- okay, SUP and R3 and R4.

926
01:09:21,880 --> 01:09:22,880
 >> Okay.

927
01:09:22,880 --> 01:09:25,880
 I must have read that wrong, then.

928
01:09:25,880 --> 01:09:26,880
 I apologize.

929
01:09:26,880 --> 01:09:31,980
 Still, the concept goes, right?

930
01:09:31,980 --> 01:09:39,200
 The difficulty of getting an SUP versus getting a zoning change is not too much different.

931
01:09:39,200 --> 01:09:46,840
 You pay $8,000 less when you're paying $100,000 to your lawyer anyway, and the public hearing

932
01:09:46,840 --> 01:09:49,080
 process is very much similar.

933
01:09:49,080 --> 01:09:57,840
 So functionally, when I look at this map of where they would go, with no by right in R4,

934
01:09:57,840 --> 01:10:02,200
 we take out all the blue area, and we won't get them in the core of Denton.

935
01:10:02,200 --> 01:10:06,480
 We'll get them in the outskirts, right?

936
01:10:06,480 --> 01:10:11,040
 And then I think if we include the blue area, then we need to look at including the R3 for

937
01:10:11,040 --> 01:10:12,840
 equity concerns.

938
01:10:12,840 --> 01:10:15,000
 So those are my thoughts.

939
01:10:15,000 --> 01:10:19,600
 Sorry, I talked a lot, but -- >> No, I want one follow-up.

940
01:10:19,600 --> 01:10:27,400
 So as we're proposing, we would only recommend reducing the minimum lot size down to 1,000

941
01:10:27,400 --> 01:10:28,400
 square feet.

942
01:10:28,400 --> 01:10:32,960
 In our mixed-use districts, that's MN, MD, and MR.

943
01:10:32,960 --> 01:10:39,800
 So leaving the R6, R7, and R4 at the 2,000 square feet, because those are typically found

944
01:10:39,800 --> 01:10:42,980
 in more suburban contexts.

945
01:10:42,980 --> 01:10:48,600
 And just, you know, our mixed-use districts are intended for more of that fine-grain,

946
01:10:48,600 --> 01:10:56,400
 walkable environment, which is why we're recommending that reduced lot size in those districts, particularly

947
01:10:56,400 --> 01:11:04,880
 also if you can see, it is kind of small, but the MD is this bright green, the MN is

948
01:11:04,880 --> 01:11:10,740
 the olive green, and we've got a lot of what we probably all consider downtown in areas

949
01:11:10,740 --> 01:11:17,240
 that are actually in our design downtown plan that are MN.

950
01:11:17,240 --> 01:11:20,760
 So that's why we included that, and then MR, because once again, those are supposed to

951
01:11:20,760 --> 01:11:23,400
 be those regional walkable areas.

952
01:11:23,400 --> 01:11:27,080
 So just -- and you are correct.

953
01:11:27,080 --> 01:11:34,160
 If this is the direction that we go and we do reduce -- it is approved that reduction

954
01:11:34,160 --> 01:11:35,160
 in lot size.

955
01:11:35,160 --> 01:11:41,760
 There would have to be associated lot dimensions modified, too, because 20 by 60, which is

956
01:11:41,760 --> 01:11:43,960
 what we require, does not equal 1,000.

957
01:11:43,960 --> 01:11:47,320
 So Matt had to point that out to me.

958
01:11:47,320 --> 01:11:53,920
 Thank you, yeah, I really appreciate that, and the clarification of the thousand square

959
01:11:53,920 --> 01:11:58,960
 feet for the mixed-use zoning districts, maybe that alleviates some of the concern, makes

960
01:11:58,960 --> 01:12:02,080
 sense to me.

961
01:12:02,080 --> 01:12:08,760
 In similar way to Commissioner Padron asking for what does the price difference look like,

962
01:12:08,760 --> 01:12:13,740
 one of the reasons I think we don't see townhomes right now in MN districts is because any time

963
01:12:13,740 --> 01:12:18,560
 you find an MN plot of land, if you can squeeze an apartment complex on it that's three or

964
01:12:18,560 --> 01:12:20,880
 four stories, that will make you more money.

965
01:12:20,880 --> 01:12:27,680
 So I'd like to see a pro forma between what a townhome development would make versus what

966
01:12:27,680 --> 01:12:34,320
 a garden style or urban apartment complex, depending on the context, would make, just

967
01:12:34,320 --> 01:12:38,680
 to make sure that we're not aiming at the wrong target, if that makes sense.

968
01:12:38,680 --> 01:12:40,280
 So that's all.

969
01:12:40,280 --> 01:12:41,280
 Anybody else have additional?

970
01:12:41,280 --> 01:12:44,520
 Well, and I guess if I can just add a follow-up real quick.

971
01:12:44,520 --> 01:12:48,040
 We can look to see, I'm not sure if we've got the skill set though available internally

972
01:12:48,040 --> 01:12:50,120
 to be able to do a formal pro forma.

973
01:12:50,120 --> 01:12:54,000
 Again, our whole goal with this was to take a very targeted approach.

974
01:12:54,000 --> 01:12:56,800
 Understand your concerns regarding the zoning districts.

975
01:12:56,800 --> 01:13:01,360
 One of the reasons why we did not make any recommendations on changing zoning districts

976
01:13:01,360 --> 01:13:05,240
 to either increase the liability of townhome or address SEP requirements or anything of

977
01:13:05,240 --> 01:13:09,600
 that nature is because we know later on the Development Code Review Committee is on their

978
01:13:09,600 --> 01:13:12,640
 wish list is to be able to talk about missing middle housing.

979
01:13:12,640 --> 01:13:15,900
 And so we figured there would be a more comprehensive approach addressed at that.

980
01:13:15,900 --> 01:13:21,760
 We were just, this was something that we're seeing that, why are we not getting more townhome

981
01:13:21,760 --> 01:13:22,760
 developments?

982
01:13:22,760 --> 01:13:25,800
 We felt like the existing open space requirement in that 2,000 square foot, particularly in

983
01:13:25,800 --> 01:13:29,880
 those MN, MR, and MD districts were problematic.

984
01:13:29,880 --> 01:13:32,580
 So hence why we were trying to be more focused.

985
01:13:32,580 --> 01:13:37,180
 So I would just ask that we not, maybe not lose sight of what we're trying to accomplish

986
01:13:37,180 --> 01:13:40,920
 in the short term and being able to address some of those bigger picture items in terms

987
01:13:40,920 --> 01:13:45,900
 of what zoning districts that these uses are allowed in, in considering expansion of those

988
01:13:45,900 --> 01:13:50,160
 when we look at all housing types, if you don't mind.

989
01:13:50,160 --> 01:13:51,160
 Thanks.

990
01:13:51,160 --> 01:13:52,160
 Commissioner Prada-Crea.

991
01:13:52,160 --> 01:14:00,600
 I'm hearing what you just said, but before that, I was gonna just say that I would be

992
01:14:00,600 --> 01:14:09,040
 curious how many more, how much more could be built out if we did include R4 and R3 in

993
01:14:09,040 --> 01:14:13,320
 terms of affordability in those, in those areas.

994
01:14:13,320 --> 01:14:16,760
 So kind of just echoing what both of y'all said, but I understand what you're saying,

995
01:14:16,760 --> 01:14:17,760
 Tina.

996
01:14:17,760 --> 01:14:18,760
 Mr. Riggs.

997
01:14:18,760 --> 01:14:39,920
 I guess, can you go back to the initial recommendations from staff?

998
01:14:39,920 --> 01:14:49,520
 And then what was the last one?

999
01:14:49,520 --> 01:14:52,840
 Actually with the clarification, sorry, with the clarification, I'm actually good with

1000
01:14:52,840 --> 01:14:59,760
 all three of those, but obviously addressing the concerns everyone else has.

1001
01:14:59,760 --> 01:15:01,680
 I know we're running up against time here.

1002
01:15:01,680 --> 01:15:06,320
 Can we just get a quick read of the room and on those three proposals?

1003
01:15:06,320 --> 01:15:11,440
 Sounds like we're mostly in agreement that we would support those, but if there's any

1004
01:15:11,440 --> 01:15:16,900
 of those three staff recommendations that you have issue with, please just go down the

1005
01:15:16,900 --> 01:15:19,520
 line and highlight them or say no issue.

1006
01:15:19,520 --> 01:15:21,800
 So Commissioner Carrillo.

1007
01:15:21,800 --> 01:15:23,960
 I don't have issue with any of them.

1008
01:15:23,960 --> 01:15:24,960
 Okay.

1009
01:15:24,960 --> 01:15:28,800
 And I'm fine with the recommended changes, Commissioner Petrone.

1010
01:15:28,800 --> 01:15:34,620
 I'm fine with the recommended changes as well.

1011
01:15:34,620 --> 01:15:35,620
 Thank you, Julie.

1012
01:15:35,620 --> 01:15:37,160
 Thank you.

1013
01:15:37,160 --> 01:15:40,360
 All right.

1014
01:15:40,360 --> 01:15:46,240
 At 6.28 PM, I will conclude the work session portion of our meeting and we will reconvene

1015
01:15:46,240 --> 01:15:48,600
 in council chambers in two minutes.

1016
01:15:48,600 --> 01:15:57,120
 Thank you.

1017
01:15:57,120 --> 01:15:58,120
 Good evening.

1018
01:15:58,120 --> 01:16:02,080
 At 6.34 this evening, I will reconvene us.

1019
01:16:02,080 --> 01:16:05,200
 We did have one work session item that was still pending.

1020
01:16:05,200 --> 01:16:06,200
 It's a short one.

1021
01:16:06,200 --> 01:16:12,960
 So without objection, I'm going to continue that to the end of the regular meeting after

1022
01:16:12,960 --> 01:16:15,640
 concluding items.

1023
01:16:15,640 --> 01:16:17,800
 Okay.

1024
01:16:17,800 --> 01:16:22,480
 Our first order of business is the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Flag.

1025
01:16:22,480 --> 01:16:23,480
 If you stand.

1026
01:16:23,480 --> 01:16:32,480
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for

1027
01:16:32,480 --> 01:16:40,720
 which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

1028
01:16:40,720 --> 01:16:55,400
 Under the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one, indivisible.

1029
01:16:55,400 --> 01:16:59,400
 First item is item 2A, PZ25051.

1030
01:16:59,400 --> 01:17:05,600
 Under approval of the January 29th planning and zoning minutes, Commissioner Patron?

1031
01:17:05,600 --> 01:17:11,400
 I move to approve the minutes of the January 29th planning and zoning meeting.

1032
01:17:11,400 --> 01:17:14,280
 And Commissioner Riggs?

1033
01:17:14,280 --> 01:17:16,160
 Second.

1034
01:17:16,160 --> 01:17:26,640
 Let's vote on the board, please.

1035
01:17:26,640 --> 01:17:29,200
 That passes 4-0.

1036
01:17:29,200 --> 01:17:35,240
 The next item is one of our one public hearing.

1037
01:17:35,240 --> 01:17:38,240
 Item 3A, AFP24-0011.

1038
01:17:38,240 --> 01:17:40,040
 Julie?

1039
01:17:40,040 --> 01:17:45,840
 Good evening, Julie Wyatt.

1040
01:17:45,840 --> 01:17:48,780
 And I am presenting AFP2411.

1041
01:17:48,780 --> 01:17:53,800
 This is a replat of four lots in the high school addition.

1042
01:17:53,800 --> 01:17:57,620
 It is replatting those four lots into three lots.

1043
01:17:57,620 --> 01:18:03,680
 This is a residential replat, so it is a public hearing, and it does comply with all of our

1044
01:18:03,680 --> 01:18:05,800
 requirements, and so staff is recommending approval.

1045
01:18:05,800 --> 01:18:17,800
 I'll be happy to answer any questions.

1046
01:18:17,800 --> 01:18:22,960
 Now we'll go ahead and open the public hearing, just so I don't forget.

1047
01:18:22,960 --> 01:18:23,960
 Any questions?

1048
01:18:23,960 --> 01:18:24,960
 Okay.

1049
01:18:24,960 --> 01:18:31,680
 This is a public hearing, so if you have something to say or any questions of staff or the Commission

1050
01:18:31,680 --> 01:18:36,360
 for this replat, you're welcome to come down to the front.

1051
01:18:36,360 --> 01:18:38,440
 If you didn't fill out a blue card, that's fine.

1052
01:18:38,440 --> 01:18:44,120
 Just fill out one afterwards with the secretary just having your name and address for the

1053
01:18:44,120 --> 01:18:47,120
 record.

1054
01:18:47,120 --> 01:18:50,720
 Hi.

1055
01:18:50,720 --> 01:18:51,720
 My name is Kira.

1056
01:18:51,720 --> 01:18:56,340
 I'm just kind of wondering why there is a need to replat it as, what was it, two plots

1057
01:18:56,340 --> 01:18:58,880
 instead of three?

1058
01:18:58,880 --> 01:18:59,880
 Sure.

1059
01:18:59,880 --> 01:19:04,680
 Can we get an answer?

1060
01:19:04,680 --> 01:19:06,720
 Yes.

1061
01:19:06,720 --> 01:19:11,600
 So the property owner, one of the lots was never actually developed.

1062
01:19:11,600 --> 01:19:16,240
 So this lot in this area has a long history.

1063
01:19:16,240 --> 01:19:19,760
 It was originally platted in 1917.

1064
01:19:19,760 --> 01:19:27,080
 Very quickly after it was originally platted, the lot boundaries were changed by deed.

1065
01:19:27,080 --> 01:19:31,240
 So all the lot boundaries are actually by meets and bounds.

1066
01:19:31,240 --> 01:19:37,680
 It originally had one lot here, one lot here, and then two lots right here.

1067
01:19:37,680 --> 01:19:39,740
 Well, I can show you the original plat.

1068
01:19:39,740 --> 01:19:42,120
 So this is the original plat.

1069
01:19:42,120 --> 01:19:46,560
 But this lot five was never actually developed, and it became the part of the backyard of

1070
01:19:46,560 --> 01:19:49,760
 lots four and three.

1071
01:19:49,760 --> 01:19:54,760
 And then part of lot six became part of lots one and two.

1072
01:19:54,760 --> 01:20:01,000
 So they are just really replatting to get the lot boundaries to be configured correctly

1073
01:20:01,000 --> 01:20:03,200
 with the deed boundaries, essentially.

1074
01:20:03,200 --> 01:20:05,960
 So not really changing any developed lots.

1075
01:20:05,960 --> 01:20:13,500
 It really is just kind of cleaning up what's happened over the years.

1076
01:20:13,500 --> 01:20:17,440
 And Julie, is this a common owner between these lots?

1077
01:20:17,440 --> 01:20:18,440
 Yes.

1078
01:20:18,440 --> 01:20:21,520
 It is one owner who owns all of the lots.

1079
01:20:21,520 --> 01:20:23,120
 Yes, sir.

1080
01:20:23,120 --> 01:20:24,120
 Yes, correct.

1081
01:20:24,120 --> 01:20:25,120
 Oh, no.

1082
01:20:25,120 --> 01:20:26,120
 Sorry.

1083
01:20:26,120 --> 01:20:27,120
 One and two.

1084
01:20:27,120 --> 01:20:28,120
 Those are different owners.

1085
01:20:28,120 --> 01:20:29,120
 Sorry about that.

1086
01:20:29,120 --> 01:20:31,800
 Yes.

1087
01:20:31,800 --> 01:20:34,040
 Any other questions or comments?

1088
01:20:34,040 --> 01:20:36,560
 This is a public hearing.

1089
01:20:36,560 --> 01:20:45,120
 Anybody to entertain or listen to the resident's feedback or answer questions on the process

1090
01:20:45,120 --> 01:20:48,240
 of platting?

1091
01:20:48,240 --> 01:20:51,600
 OK.

1092
01:20:51,600 --> 01:20:54,960
 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing.

1093
01:20:54,960 --> 01:21:01,160
 Any questions or a motion from the commission?

1094
01:21:01,160 --> 01:21:04,160
 Commissioner Pedron?

1095
01:21:04,160 --> 01:21:05,960
 Move approval.

1096
01:21:05,960 --> 01:21:06,960
 Commissioner Riggs?

1097
01:21:06,960 --> 01:21:07,960
 Second.

1098
01:21:07,960 --> 01:21:08,960
 OK.

1099
01:21:08,960 --> 01:21:23,240
 With that, I will call for a vote on the board.

1100
01:21:23,240 --> 01:21:26,180
 And that item passes 4-0.

1101
01:21:26,180 --> 01:21:33,520
 With our abbreviated meeting agenda this evening, that takes us to item four, planning and zoning

1102
01:21:33,520 --> 01:21:34,520
 commission matrix.

1103
01:21:34,520 --> 01:21:35,520
 Tina?

1104
01:21:35,520 --> 01:21:36,520
 Thank you, Chair.

1105
01:21:36,520 --> 01:21:41,120
 So, with respect to the matrix that's included in your packet, so we added an item and I

1106
01:21:41,120 --> 01:21:45,800
 think hopefully by the end of our work session, we'll be able to remove this, but at the end

1107
01:21:45,800 --> 01:21:50,720
 of your matrix, or I guess on the first page, discussion regarding applicable statutory

1108
01:21:50,720 --> 01:21:54,560
 procedures and administrative implications when quorum is not achieved, so we will actually

1109
01:21:54,560 --> 01:21:59,400
 have that on our agenda this evening and take care of that after our regular meeting.

1110
01:21:59,400 --> 01:22:04,680
 I also added, oh, one other thing you'll note is, and we're going to go ahead and keep this

1111
01:22:04,680 --> 01:22:10,760
 language on our agenda, but for this evening, if you were to look at page two of your agenda

1112
01:22:10,760 --> 01:22:14,480
 at the end of work session reports, we did add the language in the event the commission

1113
01:22:14,480 --> 01:22:17,960
 does not finish their work session prior to 6.30 p.m. that you have the ability to return

1114
01:22:17,960 --> 01:22:18,960
 to work session.

1115
01:22:18,960 --> 01:22:21,320
 So, we're going to just keep that as standard language on your agenda.

1116
01:22:21,320 --> 01:22:23,560
 So, just wanted to bring that to your attention.

1117
01:22:23,560 --> 01:22:27,040
 That way, if we have items on the work session that we need to make sure that we need to

1118
01:22:27,040 --> 01:22:30,280
 get through and if we've got a short regular meeting, then we'll just tack those on the

1119
01:22:30,280 --> 01:22:34,400
 end and be able to keep our work program moving forward.

1120
01:22:34,400 --> 01:22:39,680
 In terms of council action, there were no zoning cases or projects that required council

1121
01:22:39,680 --> 01:22:44,640
 action that this board has, or excuse me, that the commission has seen previously, so

1122
01:22:44,640 --> 01:22:46,400
 I have no report on that.

1123
01:22:46,400 --> 01:22:47,680
 And that concludes my report.

1124
01:22:47,680 --> 01:22:50,600
 Thank you.

1125
01:22:50,600 --> 01:22:52,760
 Thank you.

1126
01:22:52,760 --> 01:22:57,320
 Any additions to the matrix requested from the commission?

1127
01:22:57,320 --> 01:22:58,680
 No?

1128
01:22:58,680 --> 01:22:59,980
 Okay.

1129
01:22:59,980 --> 01:23:02,240
 Any concluding items?

1130
01:23:02,240 --> 01:23:03,480
 No?

1131
01:23:03,480 --> 01:23:04,480
 Okay.

1132
01:23:04,480 --> 01:23:14,240
 Well, then with that, I will pick up off the table the work session report item 3C, PZ25-054

1133
01:23:14,240 --> 01:23:19,840
 receiver report and hold discussion on the statutory procedures and administrative implications

1134
01:23:19,840 --> 01:23:23,400
 for the Planning and Zoning Commission.

1135
01:23:23,400 --> 01:23:28,680
 I will also close that public hearing and close the regular meeting.

1136
01:23:28,680 --> 01:23:33,440
 So, you're welcome to stay if you'd like to, but the regular meeting portion has

1137
01:23:33,440 --> 01:23:34,440
 concluded.

1138
01:23:34,440 --> 01:23:35,440
 That's 642.

1139
01:23:35,440 --> 01:23:36,440
 All right.

1140
01:23:36,440 --> 01:23:40,720
 Good evening and welcome back to work session.

1141
01:23:40,720 --> 01:23:45,240
 So this item, as you noted, is just to go over some of the procedures related to what

1142
01:23:45,240 --> 01:23:48,600
 happens when we do not have a quorum for the commission.

1143
01:23:48,600 --> 01:23:51,960
 Seems timely since we are down a couple of members at the moment to review that with

1144
01:23:51,960 --> 01:23:52,960
 everyone.

1145
01:23:52,960 --> 01:23:59,120
 So, just a reminder, as we see tonight, a quorum is four out of seven PNZ members present

1146
01:23:59,120 --> 01:24:00,120
 for the meeting.

1147
01:24:00,120 --> 01:24:06,240
 So, we'll go over procedures as it relates to PLATs and then entitlement cases.

1148
01:24:06,240 --> 01:24:10,800
 So for PLATs, as you've probably heard us refer to numerous times now, there is a state

1149
01:24:10,800 --> 01:24:16,360
 statute in Chapter 212 of the Local Government Code that requires action either to approve

1150
01:24:16,360 --> 01:24:20,080
 or deny the PLAT be taken within 30 days of its submittal.

1151
01:24:20,080 --> 01:24:24,200
 There is an allowance for an extension to be granted for administrative PLATs that can

1152
01:24:24,200 --> 01:24:25,560
 be done by staff.

1153
01:24:25,560 --> 01:24:29,800
 For PLATs that require PNZ's ultimate approval, that extension does have to come before you

1154
01:24:29,800 --> 01:24:30,800
 all.

1155
01:24:30,800 --> 01:24:37,240
 So, if we are not able to take action due to whatever factor, whether that's we mess

1156
01:24:37,240 --> 01:24:40,920
 something up or there's not quorum for a meeting or whatever the reason, regardless,

1157
01:24:40,920 --> 01:24:43,160
 that PLAT becomes automatically approved.

1158
01:24:43,160 --> 01:24:45,960
 That doesn't matter if there's any errors on the PLAT.

1159
01:24:45,960 --> 01:24:49,280
 It is approved in the form that it was at at that time.

1160
01:24:49,280 --> 01:24:52,560
 That's why if you look on our website, you'll see we have submittal schedules that tell

1161
01:24:52,560 --> 01:24:56,320
 you down to the day when you can submit a PLAT, when you can resubmit a PLAT, and all

1162
01:24:56,320 --> 01:24:59,280
 of those are built around the calendar that you all approve for yourselves each year so

1163
01:24:59,280 --> 01:25:03,160
 that we make sure we can always get PLATs to you all within 30 days, and we try to also

1164
01:25:03,160 --> 01:25:07,200
 account for as close to 30 days as we can when someone gets an extension to give them

1165
01:25:07,200 --> 01:25:09,760
 ample time to work through issues.

1166
01:25:09,760 --> 01:25:14,360
 So if quorum is not achieved, PLATs that were on your agenda as consent items with a recommendation

1167
01:25:14,360 --> 01:25:19,000
 for approval, we really wouldn't have to take any action in those cases because the PLAT

1168
01:25:19,000 --> 01:25:20,240
 was going to be approved regardless.

1169
01:25:20,240 --> 01:25:24,640
 So those we don't worry too much about, we can go ahead and send those an approval letter

1170
01:25:24,640 --> 01:25:28,580
 the next day saying due to lack of quorum, your PLAT is automatically approved.

1171
01:25:28,580 --> 01:25:33,240
 If there was a PLAT that was recommended for denial or that had requested an extension,

1172
01:25:33,240 --> 01:25:37,000
 you will find us scrambling in the office on the day that we don't have quorum, calling

1173
01:25:37,000 --> 01:25:40,760
 the applicants and talking to them about the pros and cons of withdrawing their PLAT so

1174
01:25:40,760 --> 01:25:43,480
 that it does not have automatic action taken on it.

1175
01:25:43,480 --> 01:25:47,680
 So some of those considerations that we would go over with the applicant would be if there

1176
01:25:47,680 --> 01:25:52,120
 were errors on the PLAT, they would find themselves having to pay for a survey or to go do a replat,

1177
01:25:52,120 --> 01:25:55,360
 then pay for submitting that replat to us and going back through the process all over

1178
01:25:55,360 --> 01:25:58,880
 again to correct the errors that could have been fixed had they withdrawn the PLAT and

1179
01:25:58,880 --> 01:26:01,600
 let it come back to you all at your next meeting.

1180
01:26:01,600 --> 01:26:06,800
 So that's increased cost and increased time on the applicant's part as well as staff's

1181
01:26:06,800 --> 01:26:07,800
 time.

1182
01:26:07,800 --> 01:26:11,320
 We also keep in mind that the approved PLAT does vest the development.

1183
01:26:11,320 --> 01:26:15,240
 Under state statute, there's vesting provisions that once you have that approved document,

1184
01:26:15,240 --> 01:26:18,000
 you can build what's on that approved document basically.

1185
01:26:18,000 --> 01:26:21,280
 So if it's a residential subdivision and there were lots on there that didn't meet

1186
01:26:21,280 --> 01:26:23,520
 dimensional requirements, they would be vested.

1187
01:26:23,520 --> 01:26:26,720
 They could proceed and develop those lots, but then they'd get to building permit and

1188
01:26:26,720 --> 01:26:28,600
 what if the houses don't meet setbacks?

1189
01:26:28,600 --> 01:26:31,440
 Or what if someone tries to get financing for their lot and then it's a nonconforming

1190
01:26:31,440 --> 01:26:35,440
 lot and the financing company is like, "We're not comfortable with that."

1191
01:26:35,440 --> 01:26:39,960
 So there's a lot of considerations that we try to help people think through to encourage

1192
01:26:39,960 --> 01:26:43,840
 them to withdraw their PLATs if they choose to do so so that we don't have those automatic

1193
01:26:43,840 --> 01:26:47,040
 approvals when there are errors on the PLAT.

1194
01:26:47,040 --> 01:26:52,440
 So again, all of that just comes down to delays in the project timeline which does impact financing.

1195
01:26:52,440 --> 01:26:57,520
 So more often than not, financing for projects is tied to getting a PLAT approval.

1196
01:26:57,520 --> 01:27:00,240
 So the applicants really do want that approved PLAT.

1197
01:27:00,240 --> 01:27:02,320
 They don't want those delays associated with replatting.

1198
01:27:02,320 --> 01:27:05,680
 So more often than not, they'll agree with us, withdraw their application, they send

1199
01:27:05,680 --> 01:27:09,220
 us something in writing and we consider the PLAT withdrawn and then they can resubmit

1200
01:27:09,220 --> 01:27:13,840
 it to us for your next meeting.

1201
01:27:13,840 --> 01:27:18,760
 For zoning or just any form of entitlement case, so zoning, specific use permit, plan

1202
01:27:18,760 --> 01:27:24,840
 development, alternative ESA plans and comp plan amendments, not being able to hear something

1203
01:27:24,840 --> 01:27:30,280
 on the date that we've noticed it for creates pretty significant delays related to notifications.

1204
01:27:30,280 --> 01:27:35,120
 Our notifications for the city include a letter to everyone within 200 feet, postcards to

1205
01:27:35,120 --> 01:27:39,920
 everyone within 500 feet, posting in the newspaper and signs posted on the property.

1206
01:27:39,920 --> 01:27:43,200
 The signs can presumably stay where they're at but the rest of that process gets redone

1207
01:27:43,200 --> 01:27:46,640
 if we have to re-notice because we weren't able to meet.

1208
01:27:46,640 --> 01:27:51,760
 So those newspaper notices have a 17-day lead time, well actually more like 20 if you account

1209
01:27:51,760 --> 01:27:57,080
 for the time to get it to the newspaper and then to process it but the state code says

1210
01:27:57,080 --> 01:28:00,640
 something kind of wacky to the effect of you have to post it the day before, the day before,

1211
01:28:00,640 --> 01:28:05,560
 the 15th day before that results in us calculating that as 17 days.

1212
01:28:05,560 --> 01:28:08,160
 So typically if you look at your calendar, that's going to push someone back to meeting

1213
01:28:08,160 --> 01:28:09,160
 dates.

1214
01:28:09,160 --> 01:28:11,700
 So it is a pretty significant delay on their timeline.

1215
01:28:11,700 --> 01:28:16,400
 There is again money associated with that, notification cost by our ordinance are passed

1216
01:28:16,400 --> 01:28:20,960
 along to the applicant so they get a little frustrated when they pay for those notifications

1217
01:28:20,960 --> 01:28:21,960
 more than once.

1218
01:28:21,960 --> 01:28:25,520
 It's also going to push back their city council date and there are some months if you look

1219
01:28:25,520 --> 01:28:29,760
 at council, they only meet once so it can cause pretty significant delays if we hit

1220
01:28:29,760 --> 01:28:34,240
 that summer timeframe or around the holidays where they might be waiting a month or two

1221
01:28:34,240 --> 01:28:37,280
 more to get to council than what they would have had.

1222
01:28:37,280 --> 01:28:42,120
 So again, just inconvenience on the applicant's part but also the citizens if you think about

1223
01:28:42,120 --> 01:28:45,200
 receiving a second letter telling you about a case that you may not have understood the

1224
01:28:45,200 --> 01:28:49,980
 first time or if you came out to, drove to city hall and tried to attend the meeting

1225
01:28:49,980 --> 01:28:52,320
 to find out that it wasn't going to be heard.

1226
01:28:52,320 --> 01:28:56,680
 Just that public convenience factor there that we would want to take into consideration.

1227
01:28:56,680 --> 01:28:57,680
 That's really all I have for you all.

1228
01:28:57,680 --> 01:29:02,360
 It's a pretty quick report, happy to answer any questions and we can, we do have a series

1229
01:29:02,360 --> 01:29:05,540
 of boot camps planned for you all just in the coming months that we'll go into more

1230
01:29:05,540 --> 01:29:09,560
 detail about the procedures and stuff related to these processes but just wanted to cover

1231
01:29:09,560 --> 01:29:13,260
 this one specific facet tonight.

1232
01:29:13,260 --> 01:29:14,920
 Any questions?

1233
01:29:14,920 --> 01:29:15,920
 Commissioner Riggs?

1234
01:29:15,920 --> 01:29:18,440
 So you're saying it's kind of important for us to have quorum?

1235
01:29:18,440 --> 01:29:21,120
 It's very important.

1236
01:29:21,120 --> 01:29:25,600
 Do we know who we're at on filling the other two spots?

1237
01:29:25,600 --> 01:29:28,680
 No.

1238
01:29:28,680 --> 01:29:35,960
 The most recent nomination to the commission was not approved.

1239
01:29:35,960 --> 01:29:42,240
 I have one question and whoever from staff feels qualified to answer it.

1240
01:29:42,240 --> 01:29:48,560
 I think sometimes we understand delays but as members of the community serving on this

1241
01:29:48,560 --> 01:29:56,800
 board we haven't gone through the process of obtaining a construction loan or an option

1242
01:29:56,800 --> 01:29:59,880
 on a property and certain rate locks.

1243
01:29:59,880 --> 01:30:01,240
 That's all foreign to us.

1244
01:30:01,240 --> 01:30:08,320
 Can you just summarize how impactful those delays can be if they miss one of those financing

1245
01:30:08,320 --> 01:30:09,320
 deadlines?

1246
01:30:09,320 --> 01:30:16,080
 Not in the number of dollars but just in what the process is.

1247
01:30:16,080 --> 01:30:23,480
 It can be significant delays for them, right, because if there are, so for example, if they

1248
01:30:23,480 --> 01:30:29,720
 were locked in at a certain percentage rate with their financing institution anticipating

1249
01:30:29,720 --> 01:30:37,080
 that they would be closing on X date but then come to find, and they needed that plat approved

1250
01:30:37,080 --> 01:30:44,800
 but come to find out that plat is not approved and therefore it's going to delay them to

1251
01:30:44,800 --> 01:30:52,040
 Y date and oh by the way the interest rate has gone up and so they're, so then they're

1252
01:30:52,040 --> 01:30:56,520
 subject to that increased interest rate and having to lock in at that rate.

1253
01:30:56,520 --> 01:31:02,240
 I mean that's an example of where there's implications to the applicant from that standpoint

1254
01:31:02,240 --> 01:31:06,040
 not to mention if they're having to pay any additional fees to have the paperwork completely

1255
01:31:06,040 --> 01:31:09,760
 redone, work with the title company that's probably involved.

1256
01:31:09,760 --> 01:31:20,320
 So that's why we're always very conscientious of making sure that we can achieve quorum

1257
01:31:20,320 --> 01:31:27,200
 because we know that there are financial implications much bigger than the notice implications,

1258
01:31:27,200 --> 01:31:32,720
 the fees that we might assess some money so we're always sensitive to that.

1259
01:31:32,720 --> 01:31:39,880
 Even when if we as staff make an error in a notice, we hate when that occurs.

1260
01:31:39,880 --> 01:31:45,320
 We feel about yay big when that occurs and so because we realize that there is potential

1261
01:31:45,320 --> 01:31:50,800
 implications and costs to the applicant so we do all we can to try and minimize any additional

1262
01:31:50,800 --> 01:31:55,920
 costs or increase as a result of an administrative error that might have taken place.

1263
01:31:55,920 --> 01:32:00,440
 So hopefully that helps address some, I mean you were great kind of framing that up from

1264
01:32:00,440 --> 01:32:02,120
 your perspective.

1265
01:32:02,120 --> 01:32:04,080
 Thank you, I appreciate that.

1266
01:32:04,080 --> 01:32:07,560
 Just one other question because I'm not aware.

1267
01:32:07,560 --> 01:32:13,920
 You talked about the automatic approvals that happen, is there any difference as far as

1268
01:32:13,920 --> 01:32:20,240
 how those plats are filed with the county that could impact the applicant in the future

1269
01:32:20,240 --> 01:32:24,080
 so it still gets the same stamp, same signing, everything's the same?

1270
01:32:24,080 --> 01:32:26,760
 Yeah, everything would proceed as normal.

1271
01:32:26,760 --> 01:32:28,840
 Okay, thank you.

1272
01:32:28,840 --> 01:32:33,040
 With no more questions, Commissioner Padron?

1273
01:32:33,040 --> 01:32:36,800
 I feel like in the past we may have had some sort of discussion regarding contemplating

1274
01:32:36,800 --> 01:32:39,360
 virtual participation.

1275
01:32:39,360 --> 01:32:45,880
 Is there any movement with that or if that would be a possibility in the near future?

1276
01:32:45,880 --> 01:32:50,320
 So I'm going to answer that very brief because we're probably getting off topic for our posting

1277
01:32:50,320 --> 01:32:54,960
 but that has not been completed yet so it's still in the works.

1278
01:32:54,960 --> 01:32:59,000
 But I do believe under state statute virtual participation wouldn't help with a quorum

1279
01:32:59,000 --> 01:33:00,000
 for the meeting anyway.

1280
01:33:00,000 --> 01:33:01,000
 Oh, thank you.

1281
01:33:01,000 --> 01:33:02,000
 Yes, thank you.

1282
01:33:02,000 --> 01:33:03,000
 You're correct.

1283
01:33:03,000 --> 01:33:04,000
 Thank you.

1284
01:33:04,000 --> 01:33:11,980
 And just one more point on this item, I will say given our two open seats, if the commission

1285
01:33:11,980 --> 01:33:17,680
 could go through your calendar invites because that's an easy way for the city secretary

1286
01:33:17,680 --> 01:33:23,760
 to track expected attendance and make sure that those are updated for all of your dates.

1287
01:33:23,760 --> 01:33:40,840
 The more, as Hailey said, that the last minute nature of this really puts a strain on staff.

1288
01:33:40,840 --> 01:33:47,060
 So the earlier that we can give them advance notice about a potential issue that we may

1289
01:33:47,060 --> 01:33:52,840
 have, even if it's just a tardiness issue, the easier we can move around times or try

1290
01:33:52,840 --> 01:33:57,120
 to adjust something on the way.

1291
01:33:57,120 --> 01:33:58,600
 Anything else on this item?

1292
01:33:58,600 --> 01:33:59,600
 No?

1293
01:33:59,600 --> 01:34:00,600
 Okay.

1294
01:34:00,600 --> 01:34:09,560
 I will also say I'll take the liberty to pick up item 3B from our work session just to clarify

1295
01:34:09,560 --> 01:34:16,280
 because I was trying to get out of the work session room to get over here not having people

1296
01:34:16,280 --> 01:34:17,440
 waiting too long.

1297
01:34:17,440 --> 01:34:26,000
 I will clarify that my hopes to see are just that, their future hopes to see.

1298
01:34:26,000 --> 01:34:31,460
 I don't want that in any way to slow down the process of making the recommended changes

1299
01:34:31,460 --> 01:34:33,620
 by staff.

1300
01:34:33,620 --> 01:34:38,680
 And I wanted to check specifically with Commissioner Padrone because I know you had asked for affordability

1301
01:34:38,680 --> 01:34:50,880
 data, and I had asked similarly for some pro forma needs between the townhome and multifamily.

1302
01:34:50,880 --> 01:34:54,980
 And so I just want to understand, is that something that we need to see before staff

1303
01:34:54,980 --> 01:34:59,600
 moves forward to craft the language, or is that something that we'd like to see at a

1304
01:34:59,600 --> 01:35:04,280
 future date as we assess further changes to make townhomes more accessible?

1305
01:35:04,280 --> 01:35:08,680
 I think for me, it would be fine to see that at a future date to talk specifically about

1306
01:35:08,680 --> 01:35:10,760
 the accessibility of townhomes.

1307
01:35:10,760 --> 01:35:16,400
 We did receive public outreach regarding support in townhomes, and one of the reasons that

1308
01:35:16,400 --> 01:35:20,000
 was listed was affordability and access to home ownership.

1309
01:35:20,000 --> 01:35:22,960
 And so it is something that I would like to see in the future, but it's not necessary

1310
01:35:22,960 --> 01:35:23,960
 for this first step.

1311
01:35:23,960 --> 01:35:24,960
 Okay.

1312
01:35:24,960 --> 01:35:25,960
 Thank you for clarifying.

1313
01:35:25,960 --> 01:35:27,720
 Any other comments on that?

1314
01:35:27,720 --> 01:35:28,720
 Okay.

1315
01:35:28,720 --> 01:35:35,560
 With that, I will close the work session of the Planning and Zoning Commission at 6.54

1316
01:35:35,560 --> 01:35:36,560
 p.m.

1317
01:35:36,560 --> 01:35:36,960
 Thank you all.