WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.560
 Good afternoon and welcome to the, I will call to order the planning and zoning work

00:00:09.560 --> 00:00:17.560
 session here at 5.03 p.m., or 5.02 p.m. on February 12th, 2025.

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.

00:00:44.080 --> 00:00:46.640
 I do see some members of the public here.

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

00:00:50.520 --> 00:00:53.880
 on consent agenda items.

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

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.

00:01:12.920 --> 00:01:17.480
 So if you want to be very brief and just, just hit the highlights, I think.

00:01:17.480 --> 00:01:21.160
 I can do that.

00:01:21.160 --> 00:01:24.400
 Mostly the whys are we seeing this, because it's kind of strange.

00:01:24.400 --> 00:01:25.880
 It is a little strange.

00:01:25.880 --> 00:01:29.080
 Julie Wyatt, principal planner with the City of Denton.

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.

00:01:36.800 --> 00:01:41.800
 It was originally four lots, they are replating into three lots.

00:01:41.800 --> 00:01:44.120
 It does meet all the technical requirements.

00:01:44.120 --> 00:01:48.080
 So staff is recommending approval of this replat.

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

00:01:54.000 --> 00:01:58.020
 why this is on the public hearing, and that it is a residential replat.

00:01:58.020 --> 00:02:05.800
 So the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 212, states that properties that were zoned

00:02:05.800 --> 00:02:13.320
 where no more than two dwelling units per lot are considered residential replats.

00:02:13.320 --> 00:02:20.700
 There's a public notification provision to these residential replats.

00:02:20.700 --> 00:02:25.320
 Normally we do that, that public notification after they have been considered and approved

00:02:25.320 --> 00:02:27.360
 by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

00:02:27.360 --> 00:02:29.800
 The Texas law allows that.

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

00:02:36.920 --> 00:02:37.920
 of this.

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

00:02:43.680 --> 00:02:46.040
 to meet the minimum zoning.

00:02:46.040 --> 00:02:50.320
 It went to the Zoning Board of Adjustment in December, and the Zoning Board of Adjustment

00:02:50.320 --> 00:02:56.720
 did approve that variance for the lot width for this lot 5R here.

00:02:56.720 --> 00:03:01.280
 And so per Texas Local Government Code, we did have to send out notification prior to

00:03:01.280 --> 00:03:02.940
 the Planning and Zoning Commission.

00:03:02.940 --> 00:03:07.760
 So it really is just that formality related to that.

00:03:07.760 --> 00:03:11.640
 And so we have sent out the notification, and we are recommending approval tonight.

00:03:11.640 --> 00:03:14.280
 I'll be happy to answer any questions.

00:03:14.280 --> 00:03:17.280
 Any questions?

00:03:17.280 --> 00:03:18.280
 Seeing none.

00:03:18.280 --> 00:03:19.280
 Okay.

00:03:19.280 --> 00:03:20.280
 Thank you, Julie.

00:03:20.280 --> 00:03:21.280
 Thank you.

00:03:21.280 --> 00:03:23.840
 So next we'll move to our work session reports.

00:03:23.840 --> 00:03:33.160
 First item is 3A-PZ25053 report and hold a discussion regarding updates to the residential

00:03:33.160 --> 00:03:37.800
 development and rental housing data presented end of last year.

00:03:37.800 --> 00:03:40.200
 Good evening, Commission.

00:03:40.200 --> 00:03:43.120
 Haley Zygursky, Assistant Planning Director.

00:03:43.120 --> 00:03:47.960
 Let me get the presentation pulled up here.

00:03:47.960 --> 00:03:55.760
 So this will look familiar to most of you.

00:03:55.760 --> 00:03:57.620
 So I did want to provide an update.

00:03:57.620 --> 00:04:03.320
 After we had our December work session where we went through the multifamily and single

00:04:03.320 --> 00:04:07.800
 family housing data, a question was raised that did make us realize that there was a

00:04:07.800 --> 00:04:11.200
 fairly significant error in our data, so we want to revisit this and make sure everyone

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.

00:04:17.040 --> 00:04:20.320
 So what has changed in the presentation is fairly limited.

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

00:04:24.720 --> 00:04:27.520
 and the data that we originally pulled from DCAD.

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

00:04:31.640 --> 00:04:34.640
 quoted as 4,550.

00:04:34.640 --> 00:04:35.680
 Turns out there was an error.

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

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

00:04:45.880 --> 00:04:47.620
 the data set.

00:04:47.620 --> 00:04:51.080
 So we went to find a different source that would not create that issue for us.

00:04:51.080 --> 00:04:56.360
 Thankfully, Economic Development helped us out, and they pointed us to COSTAR, which

00:04:56.360 --> 00:05:02.240
 is a commercial real estate database, so we have fairly high confidence in that data.

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

00:05:07.720 --> 00:05:13.720
 existed in 2020, so fairly significant change in that part of the data only.

00:05:13.720 --> 00:05:17.800
 Anything else related to single family, rental rates, and things of that nature is all the

00:05:17.800 --> 00:05:22.080
 same, so that will look very familiar to you.

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

00:05:26.560 --> 00:05:30.840
 it all into one presentation to give to you all that covers all these various questions

00:05:30.840 --> 00:05:35.760
 related to our current rental housing, multifamily development, and how it compares to what the

00:05:35.760 --> 00:05:40.480
 comprehensive plan anticipates that we need, and then this presentation will be shared

00:05:40.480 --> 00:05:44.280
 with city council as well.

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,

00:05:50.200 --> 00:05:53.640
 it might look a little bit different because our permit and project data is fluid, depending

00:05:53.640 --> 00:05:57.320
 on what's been submitted, what's been approved.

00:05:57.320 --> 00:06:02.400
 The housing data that you'll see comes from various sources, and they all differ pretty

00:06:02.400 --> 00:06:05.600
 significantly in some cases in their estimates.

00:06:05.600 --> 00:06:09.080
 You'll find that we mostly rely upon Denton County Appraisal District and American Community

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

00:06:14.000 --> 00:06:17.200
 look into this yourself and how people classify those land uses.

00:06:17.200 --> 00:06:21.960
 For example, multifamily, our code considers five units or more on one lot, many sources

00:06:21.960 --> 00:06:25.360
 consider that three units or more, so there are some of those discrepancies, not everything

00:06:25.360 --> 00:06:28.600
 can be compared apples to apples.

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

00:06:33.480 --> 00:06:35.800
 changes from what you saw in December.

00:06:35.800 --> 00:06:42.400
 Again, the comprehensive plan in 2020, we were at just under 140,000 people, that plan

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.

00:06:50.920 --> 00:06:54.520
 What we're seeing through the American Community Survey is much higher than that.

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

00:07:00.440 --> 00:07:01.440
 published.

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

00:07:09.480 --> 00:07:14.160
 three-year period, so again, that would be a 4.4% growth rate annually.

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

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.

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,

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.

00:07:35.760 --> 00:07:40.080
 The comp plan also gave us projections as to how many housing units of various types

00:07:40.080 --> 00:07:43.360
 we would need by 2040 to keep pace with that 3% growth rate.

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

00:07:47.560 --> 00:07:53.000
 detached units would be needed, just over 11,000 multi-family units would be needed.

00:07:53.000 --> 00:07:57.040
 If we apply that higher growth rate, those numbers grow significantly, so you'd see that

00:07:57.040 --> 00:08:03.840
 would change to 34,000 single-family detached and just under 20,000 multi-family units.

00:08:03.840 --> 00:08:09.480
 Again, this information has not changed from what you all saw previously.

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

00:08:12.920 --> 00:08:18.160
 growing because we know that does have a huge impact on our housing across the city.

00:08:18.160 --> 00:08:23.680
 So both UNT and NCTC have seen relatively steady growth over a four-year period.

00:08:23.680 --> 00:08:29.000
 TWU has had some slight decreases, but relatively stable populations on all of those campuses

00:08:29.000 --> 00:08:37.300
 and overall, it averages to a 13% growth in a four-year period.

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

00:08:43.720 --> 00:08:45.440
 highlights do show you what's changed.

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.

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

00:08:56.080 --> 00:09:03.340
 to 2023 decreased slightly, went from 62% of our housing being single-family to 58%.

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.

00:09:13.440 --> 00:09:20.040
 That same information just presented graphically for those that prefer bar charts to a table.

00:09:20.040 --> 00:09:25.040
 And then just looking at that analysis slightly differently, the percent increase over that

00:09:25.040 --> 00:09:27.480
 time for single-family was 10%.

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

00:09:32.920 --> 00:09:35.960
 stock that it really isn't as drastic as it seems.

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

00:09:40.680 --> 00:09:43.600
 units from 2020 to 2023.

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

00:09:46.920 --> 00:09:50.760
 with what's in the queue.

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

00:09:55.440 --> 00:09:57.180
 we seem to have a lot of multi-family.

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.

00:10:03.560 --> 00:10:06.720
 So again, we've used American Community Survey to look at that.

00:10:06.720 --> 00:10:12.040
 And we found that from 2010 to 2023, we've stayed relatively constant.

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

00:10:18.240 --> 00:10:22.120
 homes, townhomes, apartments, any type of rental unit.

00:10:22.120 --> 00:10:26.960
 So for comparison to see, is that an abnormal number, we looked at other college cities

00:10:26.960 --> 00:10:30.900
 across Texas, and that's the table that's shown here in orange.

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

00:10:36.440 --> 00:10:43.620
 from 49% to 71% with San Marcos having that higher end of the spectrum.

00:10:43.620 --> 00:10:49.240
 So now looking at housing projects that are in the development queue or in construction.

00:10:49.240 --> 00:10:52.820
 Starting with multi-family, the map here just shows you the locations of those projects

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

00:10:57.560 --> 00:10:59.160
 those that are in review somewhere.

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

00:11:03.560 --> 00:11:08.200
 that is vested somehow under state law that we presume will continue moving forward.

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.

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

00:11:16.140 --> 00:11:21.180
 fruition with the unit counts that we have in review today.

00:11:21.180 --> 00:11:27.240
 So again, just revisiting those numbers from COSTAR, 17,000 multi-family units in 2020,

00:11:27.240 --> 00:11:29.800
 in 2023 that increased to 22,000.

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

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

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.

00:11:46.520 --> 00:11:53.820
 So that would be a 96% increase, so fairly substantial growth in the multi-family sector.

00:11:53.820 --> 00:11:59.260
 So revisiting the comp plan briefly before we tie all this together at the end.

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,

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

00:12:07.800 --> 00:12:12.460
 because our permit data under the building code lumps those uses as multi-family, we

00:12:12.460 --> 00:12:18.060
 would have needed about 14,262 multi-family units at a 3% growth rate.

00:12:18.060 --> 00:12:22.180
 If you apply the current higher growth rate that we're seeing, we would anticipate needing

00:12:22.180 --> 00:12:25.420
 24,680.

00:12:25.420 --> 00:12:30.180
 To verify how accurate those might be, we looked at another source, which was the 2021

00:12:30.180 --> 00:12:34.540
 affordable housing needs assessment, which was a very targeted look at the city's current

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

00:12:39.900 --> 00:12:42.580
 and the horizon up to 2040.

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

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

00:12:55.740 --> 00:12:56.820
 demands.

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.

00:13:01.060 --> 00:13:05.180
 Again, just a map showing you where these projects are at in the city.

00:13:05.180 --> 00:13:09.020
 The yellow dots indicate those that are actually under construction, so they have lots, the

00:13:09.020 --> 00:13:13.900
 plat's been approved and infrastructure or houses are being constructed.

00:13:13.900 --> 00:13:18.340
 And then the blue dots tell you the projects that are in development.

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

00:13:24.940 --> 00:13:29.420
 the comp plan started looking at this and projecting our needs.

00:13:29.420 --> 00:13:33.100
 In 2023, that had grown to 36,000.

00:13:33.100 --> 00:13:35.540
 We have 7,041 lots in construction.

00:13:35.540 --> 00:13:40.700
 Again, that means the lots are platted and available for someone to build a home on.

00:13:40.700 --> 00:13:42.840
 The timeline of when those get built is anyone's best guess.

00:13:42.840 --> 00:13:46.060
 Some subdivisions take several years, some move really quickly.

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

00:13:51.440 --> 00:13:55.500
 equal another 26,090 single family lots.

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

00:14:01.680 --> 00:14:06.080
 units since 2020.

00:14:06.080 --> 00:14:11.280
 So that demand projection for single family, again, the comp plan's base for just single

00:14:11.280 --> 00:14:13.380
 family was just under 20,000.

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,

00:14:18.340 --> 00:14:22.820
 that would have put us at a need of 22,800 units by 2040.

00:14:22.820 --> 00:14:30.100
 Applying the higher growth rates, we would anticipate needing 39,500 single family detached

00:14:30.100 --> 00:14:32.660
 townhome or duplexes by 2040.

00:14:32.660 --> 00:14:36.820
 Again, we went to that affordable housing needs assessment just to vet the data, see

00:14:36.820 --> 00:14:39.900
 how close we were to the target that they anticipated.

00:14:39.900 --> 00:14:44.740
 And for ownership units, they anticipated that we would need roughly 50,000 units by

00:14:44.740 --> 00:14:48.900
 2040 to meet the city's demand.

00:14:48.900 --> 00:14:52.400
 So that actually quite a bit higher than what we would anticipate with the current growth

00:14:52.400 --> 00:14:58.180
 rate based on the trends that they were seeing when they did that assessment.

00:14:58.180 --> 00:15:03.180
 So comparing all of that now to see how is the current development meeting those needs

00:15:03.180 --> 00:15:06.420
 that we anticipated with the comp plan.

00:15:06.420 --> 00:15:10.980
 For multi-family, again, we've had that 16,000 or so units of growth.

00:15:10.980 --> 00:15:16.780
 That is 117% of what the comp plan anticipated we would need by 2040.

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

00:15:20.320 --> 00:15:22.400
 would need.

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

00:15:25.740 --> 00:15:30.340
 met so far and 66% of what the housing needs assessment called for.

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.

00:15:36.100 --> 00:15:43.220
 For single-family, with roughly 14,000 units that have been added or are in development

00:15:43.220 --> 00:15:47.420
 since 2020, we're at 61% of the need called for in the comp plan.

00:15:47.420 --> 00:15:52.460
 41% if you apply the comp plan's numbers with that higher growth rate.

00:15:52.460 --> 00:15:55.180
 But only 28% if you look at the housing needs assessment.

00:15:55.180 --> 00:15:59.300
 So that tells us that we're on par with that number for single-family.

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

00:16:03.340 --> 00:16:04.340
 looking at.

00:16:04.340 --> 00:16:05.340
 We're at 28%.

00:16:05.340 --> 00:16:07.740
 Hey Haley, can I stop you just for a second?

00:16:07.740 --> 00:16:08.740
 Yeah, absolutely.

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

00:16:13.740 --> 00:16:17.140
 lower number, the lower base number too, is that?

00:16:17.140 --> 00:16:20.260
 The comp plan just applied a 3% growth rate across the board.

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

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.

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

00:16:32.460 --> 00:16:35.900
 much higher demand for rental housing in the city.

00:16:35.900 --> 00:16:39.940
 But since our numbers were off initially, was that split already kind of below?

00:16:39.940 --> 00:16:43.460
 So the number that was off was the units that were actually on the ground.

00:16:43.460 --> 00:16:46.540
 The comp plan's numbers were based purely on the American Community Survey.

00:16:46.540 --> 00:16:49.060
 So it did not affect the comp plan base numbers.

00:16:49.060 --> 00:16:53.600
 Okay, thanks.

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

00:16:58.420 --> 00:17:02.820
 data points that we collected is obviously we're growing and so is our student population.

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

00:17:06.060 --> 00:17:09.980
 continue to affect the rental housing around the city.

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

00:17:13.380 --> 00:17:17.780
 of multi-family development or rental housing development in the city because we are comparable

00:17:17.780 --> 00:17:22.340
 with other university towns and how we serve our student population.

00:17:22.340 --> 00:17:26.420
 Again, we saw varying widely those growth rate projections.

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

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

00:17:34.020 --> 00:17:36.860
 to be closer to the truth.

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

00:17:42.180 --> 00:17:44.420
 units, so we need to keep monitoring that.

00:17:44.420 --> 00:17:47.820
 And we know that based on the comp plan and that needs assessment and our development

00:17:47.820 --> 00:17:54.120
 trends, we should be on track to meet or exceed those unless something completely unexpected

00:17:54.120 --> 00:17:58.460
 happens that really would skyrocket that demand.

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

00:18:02.420 --> 00:18:06.900
 and our university population growing and the needs assessment telling us we really

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

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

00:18:15.620 --> 00:18:20.220
 more of that units available for ownership opportunity to help meet that need as well

00:18:20.220 --> 00:18:23.060
 as the rental need.

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

00:18:26.180 --> 00:18:29.700
 continuing to be thoughtful in our consideration of all our applications to ensure that we

00:18:29.700 --> 00:18:33.780
 are seeing a diverse housing stock being developed to, again, provide for that ownership and

00:18:33.780 --> 00:18:35.900
 rental opportunity.

00:18:35.900 --> 00:18:40.100
 When we are considering new multifamily entitlements, paying close attention to how those align

00:18:40.100 --> 00:18:44.260
 with the comprehensive plan's recommendations and whether or not they're really in locations

00:18:44.260 --> 00:18:48.860
 that would help foster continued neighborhood growth and have adequate services versus some

00:18:48.860 --> 00:18:52.940
 of the requests we see sometimes that are a little like isolated, one-off, not likely

00:18:52.940 --> 00:18:56.620
 to develop into a neighborhood over time that would have the services and the compatible

00:18:56.620 --> 00:18:59.620
 uses around it.

00:18:59.620 --> 00:19:03.300
 Continuing to monitor those trends, like I said, this really shows us that we probably

00:19:03.300 --> 00:19:07.500
 need to consider updates to our comprehensive plan and our housing needs assessment over

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

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

00:19:16.260 --> 00:19:20.180
 anticipated needs and our goals for the future.

00:19:20.180 --> 00:19:23.540
 Continuing to look at ways to incentivize and remove barriers to infill development

00:19:23.540 --> 00:19:24.540
 will be critical.

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

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,

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.

00:19:37.500 --> 00:19:41.900
 And then continuing to encourage housing near the universities, obviously that student housing

00:19:41.900 --> 00:19:46.140
 population isn't going anywhere and is likely to keep growing, so ensuring that they have

00:19:46.140 --> 00:19:50.140
 rental opportunities closer to the university would potentially help us provide ownership

00:19:50.140 --> 00:19:54.140
 opportunities elsewhere in the city in our single-family neighborhoods.

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

00:19:57.060 --> 00:19:59.380
 and you have seen this before.

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.

00:20:04.940 --> 00:20:05.940
 Any questions?

00:20:05.940 --> 00:20:06.940
 Commissioner Patron?

00:20:06.940 --> 00:20:15.460
 Haley, just to clarify, the student population growth, is that based on enrollment data?

00:20:15.460 --> 00:20:16.460
 Yes.

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

00:20:20.720 --> 00:20:21.840
 not living in the city.

00:20:21.840 --> 00:20:23.740
 We were not provided that breakdown from the university.

00:20:23.740 --> 00:20:27.500
 Okay, so just overall enrollment data for fall or is it by semester?

00:20:27.500 --> 00:20:32.500
 I believe that was annual enrollment data, so we don't actually have 2024 data yet.

00:20:32.500 --> 00:20:36.100
 Okay, thank you.

00:20:36.100 --> 00:20:38.380
 All right.

00:20:38.380 --> 00:20:39.380
 Thank you, Haley.

00:20:39.380 --> 00:20:40.380
 You're welcome.

00:20:40.380 --> 00:20:41.380
 I do have a couple of questions.

00:20:41.380 --> 00:20:42.380
 I'll try to make them short.

00:20:42.380 --> 00:20:43.380
 Oh, sure.

00:20:43.380 --> 00:20:48.860
 So one, on the enrollment data, is that full-time or all students?

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

00:20:54.460 --> 00:20:55.460
 students.

00:20:55.460 --> 00:20:56.460
 I believe.

00:20:56.460 --> 00:20:57.740
 Yeah, I don't have any notes for myself saying.

00:20:57.740 --> 00:21:00.620
 My understanding is that is all students annual enrollment.

00:21:00.620 --> 00:21:03.620
 Okay, thank you.

00:21:03.620 --> 00:21:10.580
 I guess one question I have is on the growth of the multifamily versus single family.

00:21:10.580 --> 00:21:17.540
 I think over the past five years we've seen especially single family home costs spike

00:21:17.540 --> 00:21:22.820
 dramatically and incomes have not risen at that same pace.

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?

00:21:31.260 --> 00:21:32.260
 Possibly.

00:21:32.260 --> 00:21:37.900
 I don't know for sure, but I would say from discussions with our community development

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

00:21:42.340 --> 00:21:44.900
 has probably also seen a comparable increase over time.

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.

00:21:49.020 --> 00:21:50.020
 Okay.

00:21:50.020 --> 00:21:51.020
 Tina may have more to add on that subject.

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

00:21:55.340 --> 00:21:59.340
 work on trying to make sure we've got diverse housing stock opportunities, because we also

00:21:59.340 --> 00:22:02.900
 people or we also realize that people are in different stages of their life in terms

00:22:02.900 --> 00:22:05.460
 of what they want for their housing.

00:22:05.460 --> 00:22:10.620
 So just making sure that we provide those balanced housing opportunities.

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

00:22:20.660 --> 00:22:26.940
 mostly some of these horizontal multifamily type developments that we did and not necessarily

00:22:26.940 --> 00:22:29.380
 individually plotted lots.

00:22:29.380 --> 00:22:35.380
 I'm just trying to understand as far as rental availability versus flexibility toward small

00:22:35.380 --> 00:22:37.180
 or homeownership opportunities, right?

00:22:37.180 --> 00:22:42.340
 So the horizontal multifamily product is still considered multifamily since they're all on

00:22:42.340 --> 00:22:44.340
 a single lot.

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

00:22:50.020 --> 00:22:54.580
 on two separate lots if someone wanted to flat down the building line or the firewall

00:22:54.580 --> 00:22:57.240
 between the two halves of the building.

00:22:57.240 --> 00:23:02.820
 And then permit data also considers that as a separate use because it follows under the

00:23:02.820 --> 00:23:04.380
 residential code instead of the building code.

00:23:04.380 --> 00:23:09.300
 So all of our data considers duplex separate from multifamily.

00:23:09.300 --> 00:23:13.700
 So the horizontal is firmly in the multifamily camp, so it shouldn't influence that data.

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

00:23:22.300 --> 00:23:23.540
 didn't go into those properties.

00:23:23.540 --> 00:23:28.660
 I don't believe the -- I don't believe our map breaks out duplexes.

00:23:28.660 --> 00:23:31.220
 I could try to get that more detailed information for you.

00:23:31.220 --> 00:23:32.220
 I can look it up later.

00:23:32.220 --> 00:23:33.220
 That's fine.

00:23:33.220 --> 00:23:38.060
 I'm trying to think of any large scale duplex projects, but none come to mind.

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.

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

00:23:48.260 --> 00:23:54.660
 lots or large properties just to confirm because of the IBC versus IRC and zoning thing.

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

00:23:59.660 --> 00:24:01.020
 the two units on it.

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

00:24:07.520 --> 00:24:12.180
 lots with more than one building, they would still get IRC permits.

00:24:12.180 --> 00:24:14.860
 Maybe I'm wrong as far as the process, but.

00:24:14.860 --> 00:24:19.140
 My understanding of the way our permit data does separate duplex as its own category,

00:24:19.140 --> 00:24:21.300
 so we're able to isolate that.

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

00:24:25.060 --> 00:24:27.900
 becomes multifamily.

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

00:24:31.260 --> 00:24:32.260
 permit type.

00:24:32.260 --> 00:24:33.260
 Okay.

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

00:24:36.820 --> 00:24:37.820
 to look at the projects.

00:24:37.820 --> 00:24:40.940
 Yeah, it doesn't have to be a big formal thing, but I'm curious.

00:24:40.940 --> 00:24:41.940
 Okay.

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

00:24:53.800 --> 00:25:00.280
 information a little bit more apparent to the public given the fact that there was some

00:25:00.280 --> 00:25:03.220
 press on the first release?

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

00:25:08.580 --> 00:25:10.920
 data.

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

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?

00:25:23.700 --> 00:25:27.900
 So we have kept the city management office and city council abreast of the fact that

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

00:25:32.180 --> 00:25:36.980
 up, this to city council, and then obviously wherever that goes from there.

00:25:36.980 --> 00:25:37.980
 Okay.

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

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

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

00:25:52.660 --> 00:25:54.940
 see from the corrected numbers, that is not the case.

00:25:54.940 --> 00:25:55.940
 No.

00:25:55.940 --> 00:25:56.940
 It's actually 96%.

00:25:56.940 --> 00:25:57.940
 96%.

00:25:57.940 --> 00:25:58.940
 Thank you.

00:25:58.940 --> 00:26:00.420
 Still significant, but not 300.

00:26:00.420 --> 00:26:01.420
 Right.

00:26:01.420 --> 00:26:02.420
 Not 300.

00:26:02.420 --> 00:26:03.420
 Okay.

00:26:03.420 --> 00:26:05.380
 That's all I have, but I see one more question from Commissioner Padron.

00:26:05.380 --> 00:26:06.380
 Sure.

00:26:06.380 --> 00:26:10.920
 Haley, on the point under the side said, given the uncertainties, it's encouraged to increase

00:26:10.920 --> 00:26:12.580
 housing near the universities.

00:26:12.580 --> 00:26:16.060
 How do you all define what near the universities mean?

00:26:16.060 --> 00:26:17.660
 Is it based on walking distance?

00:26:17.660 --> 00:26:22.420
 Is it based on a specific commute in a vehicle?

00:26:22.420 --> 00:26:23.620
 How's that defined?

00:26:23.620 --> 00:26:26.140
 We don't have, I would say, a firm definition.

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

00:26:29.940 --> 00:26:33.860
 a compatibility area where we would expect to see more of that student housing clustered,

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

00:26:37.100 --> 00:26:40.660
 category is kind of clouded around the university centers.

00:26:40.660 --> 00:26:41.660
 Okay.

00:26:41.660 --> 00:26:42.660
 Thank you.

00:26:42.660 --> 00:26:43.660
 All right.

00:26:43.660 --> 00:26:48.460
 One more from Commissioner Riggs.

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,

00:26:52.500 --> 00:26:58.140
 this kind of growth in multifamily, and even with the revised numbers, we're still seeing

00:26:58.140 --> 00:27:01.220
 growth in multifamily outpacing the single-family.

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

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

00:27:14.740 --> 00:27:16.020
 with the comp plan?

00:27:16.020 --> 00:27:17.020
 Sure.

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

00:27:21.260 --> 00:27:25.820
 our goal is to revisit this on a periodic basis.

00:27:25.820 --> 00:27:29.460
 Like we mentioned, we know we'll have to update the comprehensive plan, because clearly the

00:27:29.460 --> 00:27:32.500
 projections are off.

00:27:32.500 --> 00:27:35.860
 So that's one thing that we'll be keeping in mind as well.

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

00:27:43.660 --> 00:27:45.820
 as they come before you.

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

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

00:27:53.620 --> 00:27:55.060
 form of plats and things like that.

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

00:28:01.300 --> 00:28:04.900
 zoning entitlement, so really just applying a thoughtful analysis to those would be the

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

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

00:28:14.140 --> 00:28:17.380
 that it would have those neighborhood services and connections and things that would make

00:28:17.380 --> 00:28:22.020
 it a meaningful residential community in the future is probably the best we can do, but

00:28:22.020 --> 00:28:26.300
 happy to have Tina chime in on that with her thoughts, if her microphone allows.

00:28:26.300 --> 00:28:27.300
 There it goes.

00:28:27.300 --> 00:28:29.060
 I'm starting to make my hands warm.

00:28:29.060 --> 00:28:31.060
 So I concur with Haley's response.

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

00:28:35.820 --> 00:28:41.060
 of denying projects necessarily, because you're thinking that, well, we're already exceeding

00:28:41.060 --> 00:28:45.940
 what the comp plan might have initially recommended, because even we were having some challenges

00:28:45.940 --> 00:28:47.420
 with duplicating the data.

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,

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

00:28:56.100 --> 00:29:00.820
 was published in the 2030 data, so -- or as soon as the 2030 plan.

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

00:29:05.320 --> 00:29:11.220
 of land uses, where residential developments are seeking a zoning entitlement change?

00:29:11.220 --> 00:29:16.900
 Is it consistent with the plan's recommendation otherwise continuing to monitor where we're

00:29:16.900 --> 00:29:18.780
 seeing those growth patterns occurring?

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

00:29:25.900 --> 00:29:30.500
 encourage you look at it from the standpoint of could additional residential uses be added

00:29:30.500 --> 00:29:34.780
 to really form a neighborhood long-term occurring there, recognizing that it's going to have

00:29:34.780 --> 00:29:41.260
 to give the incremental growth, but -- because I think that that's important instead of having

00:29:41.260 --> 00:29:45.820
 isolated residential development, and to me it doesn't matter whether it's single-family

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

00:29:51.700 --> 00:29:57.260
 to any other services that could support people that are living within those areas.

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

00:29:59.980 --> 00:30:03.540
 the rooftops first and the residential units before you can attract commercial development

00:30:03.540 --> 00:30:05.580
 to certain areas.

00:30:05.580 --> 00:30:09.120
 So again, it just comes back to having that balanced perspective and being thoughtful

00:30:09.120 --> 00:30:13.340
 in your considerations, particularly when zoning entitlements are being requested.

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,

00:30:17.820 --> 00:30:21.980
 because obviously we know we do have housing demands and considerations that we're also

00:30:21.980 --> 00:30:25.300
 trying to balance, you know, particularly with the next item that we're going to talk

00:30:25.300 --> 00:30:29.580
 about of how we can encourage some additional townhome development happening within the community.

00:30:29.580 --> 00:30:33.700
 So I hope that helps.

00:30:33.700 --> 00:30:34.700
 Thank you.

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

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

00:30:47.180 --> 00:30:54.180
 going through permitting now is about 3,000 square feet, and the, you know, American Community

00:30:54.180 --> 00:31:00.700
 Survey and other sources show average family size continuing to go down.

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.

00:31:05.740 --> 00:31:07.540
 Any other questions?

00:31:07.540 --> 00:31:08.820
 All right.

00:31:08.820 --> 00:31:09.820
 Thank you, Haley.

00:31:09.820 --> 00:31:10.820
 Thank you.

00:31:10.820 --> 00:31:14.900
 I will ask, is dinner here?

00:31:14.900 --> 00:31:16.380
 Should we take a short break?

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

00:31:23.420 --> 00:31:42.100
 the regular meeting.

00:31:42.100 --> 00:31:49.500
 We will continue with item 3B, PZ25057, Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion, and Receive Direction

00:31:49.500 --> 00:31:56.540
 Regarding Townhome Development Regulations in the City of Denton.

00:31:56.540 --> 00:31:59.100
 Matt?

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

00:32:08.620 --> 00:32:09.620
 of us tonight.

00:32:09.620 --> 00:32:12.700
 Tonight, we're speaking of townhome regulations.

00:32:12.700 --> 00:32:16.780
 As a reminder, this is not a review of everything townhome.

00:32:16.780 --> 00:32:23.060
 This is a targeted approach with a few key requirements that we've observed have potentially

00:32:23.060 --> 00:32:27.420
 are hindering townhome development here in Denton.

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.

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

00:32:38.820 --> 00:32:45.140
 that that building can extend from one side lot line to the other side lot line.

00:32:45.140 --> 00:32:51.680
 So that has shared walls with adjacent townhome units, with the side yard setback being observed

00:32:51.680 --> 00:32:53.980
 on those end units.

00:32:53.980 --> 00:32:59.540
 These can come in groups of three to eight townhome lots.

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

00:33:05.540 --> 00:33:10.060
 can own the space or the unit, but not necessarily the land.

00:33:10.060 --> 00:33:11.300
 That is owned by the association.

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

00:33:18.480 --> 00:33:20.500
 that the townhome is on.

00:33:20.500 --> 00:33:27.020
 They typically have rear-entry garages with alleys to access in a public street, and they

00:33:27.020 --> 00:33:33.220
 generally require an HOA for maintenance of the shared building features, like the roof,

00:33:33.220 --> 00:33:35.220
 and any common lots.

00:33:35.220 --> 00:33:41.700
 And I'll turn it over to Julie.

00:33:41.700 --> 00:33:43.620
 >> All right.

00:33:43.620 --> 00:33:46.500
 So why are we talking about townhomes?

00:33:46.500 --> 00:33:51.340
 Haley teed this up flawlessly for us to talk about townhomes and that residential type

00:33:51.340 --> 00:33:52.340
 tonight.

00:33:52.340 --> 00:33:58.580
 But we also have policy support for this type of residential development.

00:33:58.580 --> 00:34:03.740
 The Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the Design Downtown Denton, and the Affordable Housing

00:34:03.740 --> 00:34:13.940
 Strategic Toolkit, all identify townhomes as an important residential and housing type

00:34:13.940 --> 00:34:18.520
 to meet our residential goals and our housing goals within the city of Denton.

00:34:18.520 --> 00:34:23.700
 They fit well in infill areas, they contribute to neighborhood vibrancy, and they can provide

00:34:23.700 --> 00:34:31.400
 an affordable option for home buyers.

00:34:31.400 --> 00:34:37.020
 We also have support within the City Council's strategic initiatives.

00:34:37.020 --> 00:34:42.100
 Within those initiatives, they also talk about infill development, which townhomes can fit

00:34:42.100 --> 00:34:47.460
 well within, as well as building capacity for developers and property owners to increase

00:34:47.460 --> 00:34:51.340
 their ability to produce affordable housing.

00:34:51.340 --> 00:34:56.340
 And then finally, all of those funnel into our regulatory documents, our Denton Development

00:34:56.340 --> 00:34:57.340
 Code.

00:34:57.340 --> 00:35:02.580
 The DDC allows townhomes in a variety of zoning districts.

00:35:02.580 --> 00:35:08.500
 It allows it in our moderate density residential districts, as well as our mixed use districts,

00:35:08.500 --> 00:35:13.980
 and even in one of our lower density districts, our four with a specific use permit.

00:35:13.980 --> 00:35:17.340
 We also have some townhome specific DDC requirements.

00:35:17.340 --> 00:35:23.340
 And as Matt said, this really is just a limited discussion, kind of targeted discussion.

00:35:23.340 --> 00:35:28.060
 We believe that the zoning districts which allow townhomes are appropriate at this time.

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,

00:35:31.820 --> 00:35:34.060
 and we'll go over those in just a minute.

00:35:34.060 --> 00:35:37.900
 Now we're going to bring Matt back, and then I'll take us home.

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

00:35:47.140 --> 00:35:48.500
 for us.

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

00:35:54.700 --> 00:35:57.740
 to the typical single family detached home.

00:35:57.740 --> 00:36:04.000
 That's because it offers a ownership option for those at different stages of life, such

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

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

00:36:17.040 --> 00:36:23.080
 option for the more experienced homeowner who still wants to own their dwelling, their

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

00:36:27.500 --> 00:36:30.140
 still stay in the same neighborhood.

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

00:36:35.820 --> 00:36:38.380
 a variety of contexts.

00:36:38.380 --> 00:36:45.300
 With the right design requirements and features, townhomes can work well in urban areas like

00:36:45.300 --> 00:36:47.860
 our downtown, as well as our suburban areas.

00:36:47.860 --> 00:36:53.820
 So those residential neighborhoods are more of the outlying areas here in Denton.

00:36:53.820 --> 00:36:59.580
 Another benefit that Julie mentioned is that townhomes are an excellent option for infill.

00:36:59.580 --> 00:37:05.780
 So those vacant lots in our existing neighborhoods that can't quite support single family detached

00:37:05.780 --> 00:37:11.420
 homes are a great option to support townhomes.

00:37:11.420 --> 00:37:16.180
 And the benefit there, an additional benefit there to the city, is that any existing utilities,

00:37:16.180 --> 00:37:19.500
 water, sewer, electricity, are already there in place.

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

00:37:25.740 --> 00:37:30.720
 of any new things, because utilities are already in place.

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

00:37:36.300 --> 00:37:40.420
 picture to the support and benefits that we just talked about.

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

00:37:45.940 --> 00:37:47.940
 here in town.

00:37:47.940 --> 00:37:51.060
 Those meetings are called pre-application conferences.

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

00:37:58.060 --> 00:38:00.860
 conferences regarding townhomes.

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

00:38:07.100 --> 00:38:12.660
 meet the requirements and regulations that we currently have in place for townhomes under

00:38:12.660 --> 00:38:17.740
 the base zoning districts, or about 177 units.

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

00:38:23.060 --> 00:38:28.900
 talked about in length, single family and multi-family get built in a substantial amount

00:38:28.900 --> 00:38:30.660
 here in the city.

00:38:30.660 --> 00:38:37.620
 And so the requirements of those are working and working for us.

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

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

00:38:49.120 --> 00:38:55.940
 housing types, of which townhomes is included over the next 15 years.

00:38:55.940 --> 00:39:00.140
 So overall, this paints a picture of that there is an interest in building townhomes

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

00:39:07.060 --> 00:39:08.580
 of these types of housing.

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.

00:39:15.940 --> 00:39:23.100
 Okay, so as I mentioned, we're just going to talk about a few design considerations

00:39:23.100 --> 00:39:28.980
 related to townhomes, specifically townhome lot size, maximum number of units in open

00:39:28.980 --> 00:39:29.980
 space.

00:39:29.980 --> 00:39:34.880
 And we're going to come back with some recommended actions and have a discussion.

00:39:34.880 --> 00:39:39.280
 As we were preparing this presentation and looking at the information, we really had

00:39:39.280 --> 00:39:44.100
 a couple of questions that framed how we were thinking about this.

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

00:39:51.180 --> 00:39:56.400
 require a common open space for that development?

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

00:40:01.860 --> 00:40:08.320
 projects, whether it be a common private open space or private just on an individual lot?

00:40:08.320 --> 00:40:11.460
 So those are kind of what we were thinking about when we were putting this together,

00:40:11.460 --> 00:40:14.780
 and now we'll get into it.

00:40:14.780 --> 00:40:18.700
 So as I mentioned, we have a lot of zoning districts which do allow townhomes.

00:40:18.700 --> 00:40:22.540
 We've got our moderate density residential as well as our mixed use.

00:40:22.540 --> 00:40:27.620
 You could see by the colors on the screen that reflect all of these different zoning

00:40:27.620 --> 00:40:28.620
 districts.

00:40:28.620 --> 00:40:33.820
 We allow townhomes from a zoning perspective in a lot of different areas within the city.

00:40:33.820 --> 00:40:36.380
 And that's a good thing.

00:40:36.380 --> 00:40:40.580
 We do have a lot of opportunities here.

00:40:40.580 --> 00:40:46.340
 But some of our regulations seem to be getting in the way of that development.

00:40:46.340 --> 00:40:49.100
 So first of all, I'm going to talk about the lot size.

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

00:40:54.180 --> 00:40:55.540
 square feet.

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.

00:41:01.260 --> 00:41:02.400
 But Denton is diverse.

00:41:02.400 --> 00:41:08.060
 We have a lot of different types of areas, a lot of different types of neighborhoods.

00:41:08.060 --> 00:41:10.740
 We have suburban areas and we have urban areas.

00:41:10.740 --> 00:41:17.980
 Suburban, think low density, maybe cul-de-sac streets, distinctive neighborhoods, separated

00:41:17.980 --> 00:41:19.860
 land uses.

00:41:19.860 --> 00:41:23.500
 We also have urban or mixed use areas where we've got higher densities.

00:41:23.500 --> 00:41:32.100
 We've got a mix of uses, walkable environments, and uses closer together.

00:41:32.100 --> 00:41:35.060
 And Denton has infill opportunities throughout the city.

00:41:35.060 --> 00:41:42.620
 So both in our urban and suburban context, we have opportunities for that infill development

00:41:42.620 --> 00:41:48.500
 that is called for in our planning documents.

00:41:48.500 --> 00:41:55.780
 So I want to look at the lot size related to the two different contexts.

00:41:55.780 --> 00:41:59.620
 So on the left side of the screen is a townhome development.

00:41:59.620 --> 00:42:02.420
 It's a great townhome development within the city of Denton.

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.

00:42:09.300 --> 00:42:14.500
 And the lot sizes are about 2,100 square feet per townhome.

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

00:42:20.180 --> 00:42:24.980
 have the little front yards for that private open space.

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

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

00:42:37.140 --> 00:42:39.100
 square feet.

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.

00:42:47.100 --> 00:42:50.380
 But it's within that downtown walkable context.

00:42:50.380 --> 00:42:56.420
 And so that private open space isn't necessarily needed for those lots.

00:42:56.420 --> 00:42:57.860
 And then we have a mixture.

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

00:43:02.160 --> 00:43:03.620
 lot sizes.

00:43:03.620 --> 00:43:06.580
 It's also nested within a single-family neighborhood.

00:43:06.580 --> 00:43:10.100
 So it's kind of that development we want to see.

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.

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

00:43:19.620 --> 00:43:20.900
 standard.

00:43:20.900 --> 00:43:26.140
 So given the variety of Denton's neighborhoods, this one-size-fits-all approach is something

00:43:26.140 --> 00:43:30.180
 that we feel like is limiting our townhome development.

00:43:30.180 --> 00:43:34.780
 And so we're going to have some recommendations for that.

00:43:34.780 --> 00:43:37.220
 Also want to talk about maximum units.

00:43:37.220 --> 00:43:43.860
 This is within our Denton development code, and it can be sometimes a challenge to apply.

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

00:43:48.540 --> 00:43:52.420
 than the number of single-family homes that could be developed on that site.

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

00:43:58.740 --> 00:44:05.860
 maybe single-family doesn't have, things like alleys or fire suppression systems if the

00:44:05.860 --> 00:44:07.020
 building is large enough.

00:44:07.020 --> 00:44:12.420
 So it can often maybe increase those costs.

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.

00:44:15.780 --> 00:44:17.180
 And I hope I explain this well.

00:44:17.180 --> 00:44:19.540
 If I don't, give me some questions.

00:44:19.540 --> 00:44:26.540
 So we're going to look at an exercise, some examples of the project size.

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

00:44:32.220 --> 00:44:33.220
 development.

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,

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

00:44:45.540 --> 00:44:49.080
 of the one acre, and 65 lots out of the three acre.

00:44:49.080 --> 00:44:58.060
 But when we apply that maximum density requirement, those numbers in red show how that limitation

00:44:58.060 --> 00:45:00.500
 affects those developments.

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,

00:45:08.200 --> 00:45:11.140
 you could only build five townhomes.

00:45:11.140 --> 00:45:16.740
 So you're leaving essentially 11 townhomes on the table.

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

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.

00:45:27.840 --> 00:45:30.780
 And this is a three-quarter acre site here.

00:45:30.780 --> 00:45:33.820
 So you could kind of see how that would play out.

00:45:33.820 --> 00:45:35.100
 What does that mean?

00:45:35.100 --> 00:45:40.580
 Well, this is limiting, just limiting the number of possible units, and that reduces

00:45:40.580 --> 00:45:43.980
 our capacity to build this housing type.

00:45:43.980 --> 00:45:46.900
 It has a greater impact in infill areas.

00:45:46.900 --> 00:45:51.540
 When we were looking at this presentation, we were kind of talking about, well, what

00:45:51.540 --> 00:45:54.220
 do people do with that remainder area?

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,

00:45:59.220 --> 00:46:00.580
 what do you do with the rest of it?

00:46:00.580 --> 00:46:03.580
 Well, the code doesn't prescribe that.

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

00:46:08.500 --> 00:46:13.320
 development, something like streets and alleys, or maybe detention area.

00:46:13.320 --> 00:46:18.020
 So the code doesn't necessarily prescribe the area, but it does impact that number of

00:46:18.020 --> 00:46:19.020
 units.

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

00:46:24.980 --> 00:46:27.620
 doesn't need to extend a street.

00:46:27.620 --> 00:46:34.000
 You still could not build those additional units on that lot.

00:46:34.000 --> 00:46:40.700
 We also looked at, in R4, R4 also allows duplexes with a specific use permit.

00:46:40.700 --> 00:46:45.820
 So if you obtained a specific use permit for duplexes in R4, you could potentially get

00:46:45.820 --> 00:46:51.340
 more dwelling units for a duplex than you could a townhome in R4.

00:46:51.340 --> 00:46:52.780
 So what does that mean?

00:46:52.780 --> 00:46:57.500
 It really is a disincentive to build townhomes versus other residential land use types.

00:46:57.500 --> 00:47:04.380
 Because one could get additional units with some other residential use type, like a duplex

00:47:04.380 --> 00:47:07.020
 or maybe an MN, a multifamily.

00:47:07.020 --> 00:47:13.500
 All right, and then finally we want to talk about open space.

00:47:13.500 --> 00:47:19.980
 The code requires that any development of 10 or more townhomes must set aside 5% of

00:47:19.980 --> 00:47:23.620
 the land area for common open space.

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.

00:47:28.580 --> 00:47:34.580
 This is that urban townhome development that we've looked at earlier in the project or

00:47:34.580 --> 00:47:38.100
 in the presentation.

00:47:38.100 --> 00:47:42.020
 The development area is a little over 21,000 square feet.

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

00:47:47.300 --> 00:47:49.220
 as part of common open space.

00:47:49.220 --> 00:47:52.880
 And that's about the size of that green block there.

00:47:52.880 --> 00:47:58.780
 What that tells us is that smaller projects really don't yield enough usable -- enough

00:47:58.780 --> 00:48:04.220
 space in that 5% to really be usable.

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

00:48:10.460 --> 00:48:11.860
 look like.

00:48:11.860 --> 00:48:18.640
 So we've got -- we did an example of 10 townhomes, 50 townhomes, and 100 townhomes.

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,

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

00:48:33.340 --> 00:48:37.360
 1,380 square feet of required open space.

00:48:37.360 --> 00:48:40.780
 And that's about the size of that red square here.

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.

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

00:48:56.540 --> 00:48:58.660
 about 6,900 square feet.

00:48:58.660 --> 00:49:03.380
 That's a little more usable space, that area in blue.

00:49:03.380 --> 00:49:10.220
 And then 100 units would yield about 1,400 square feet.

00:49:10.220 --> 00:49:14.560
 So what we observe in this is that for those small developments, that open space really

00:49:14.560 --> 00:49:17.700
 is just too small to be usable.

00:49:17.700 --> 00:49:23.580
 Also, when you have open space that is commonly owned by the townhome development, it has

00:49:23.580 --> 00:49:26.700
 to be maintained by the homeowners.

00:49:26.700 --> 00:49:33.220
 And so with the fewer number of homeowners, those maintenance costs increase per homeowner.

00:49:33.220 --> 00:49:38.820
 We don't require open space for single-family developments, only for these middle-housing

00:49:38.820 --> 00:49:40.220
 developments.

00:49:40.220 --> 00:49:46.100
 And once again, like our other regulations, it does limit our ability to develop infill

00:49:46.100 --> 00:49:48.740
 lots.

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.

00:49:55.700 --> 00:49:59.100
 So I don't want to say open space is bad.

00:49:59.100 --> 00:50:05.580
 But that project design considers not only the site characteristics, but also the location.

00:50:05.580 --> 00:50:13.100
 So we also looked at our parks 10-minute walk to a park standard.

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

00:50:21.340 --> 00:50:25.540
 to be able to walk to a park within 10 minutes.

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

00:50:33.180 --> 00:50:39.480
 that have a 10-minute walk to a park.

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

00:50:45.580 --> 00:50:46.940
 infill environment.

00:50:46.940 --> 00:50:54.480
 They are within the parts of our city that we want to encourage that additional infill.

00:50:54.480 --> 00:50:59.700
 So that is where that location comes into play.

00:50:59.700 --> 00:51:04.580
 There is a time and a place for amenitized open space for developments.

00:51:04.580 --> 00:51:07.500
 But we want to make sure that it's in the right place.

00:51:07.500 --> 00:51:14.340
 And often our infill environment is not necessarily the most appropriate spot.

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

00:51:19.220 --> 00:51:29.460
 about the open space, not only for what size of development or community should have that

00:51:29.460 --> 00:51:35.460
 open space requirement, but also that overall project location and how that affects where

00:51:35.460 --> 00:51:36.780
 we want our open space.

00:51:36.780 --> 00:51:41.340
 And so now I want to talk about our recommendations.

00:51:41.340 --> 00:51:45.580
 So broken it up, first talk about lot sizes.

00:51:45.580 --> 00:51:51.440
 We are proposing to decrease the minimum townhome lot size in our mixed-use zoning districts

00:51:51.440 --> 00:51:57.220
 to 1,000 square feet with those associated reduced dimensions.

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

00:52:02.660 --> 00:52:07.380
 development patterns we want to encourage in our mixed-use district, we feel that the

00:52:07.380 --> 00:52:14.240
 1,000 square foot lot size is more consistent with that type of development pattern and

00:52:14.240 --> 00:52:18.260
 that more fine-grained development.

00:52:18.260 --> 00:52:21.800
 This supports our policy documents and it supports infill development.

00:52:21.800 --> 00:52:23.960
 It also can increase our neighborhood vibrancy.

00:52:23.960 --> 00:52:26.500
 It makes more walkable areas, right?

00:52:26.500 --> 00:52:28.140
 And it would build capacity.

00:52:28.140 --> 00:52:35.500
 It would allow more infill townhome development, particularly in our downtown areas as opposed

00:52:35.500 --> 00:52:39.180
 to the 2,000 square foot lots.

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

00:52:44.540 --> 00:52:48.340
 maximum number of units allowed in townhome developments.

00:52:48.340 --> 00:52:52.540
 It's not a regulation that we apply to any other residential development within the city

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

00:52:59.580 --> 00:53:04.760
 for townhome development and promote affordability.

00:53:04.760 --> 00:53:10.740
 And then, finally, with open space, we're proposing to modify that regulation to require

00:53:10.740 --> 00:53:16.040
 open space for projects of three acres or more with an exemption for those larger sites

00:53:16.040 --> 00:53:21.060
 within half a mile of a public park or open space.

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

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

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.

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

00:53:45.160 --> 00:53:51.200
 members to have that recreation and social space, which is what we want in those open

00:53:51.200 --> 00:54:00.760
 space in the communities, while still also encouraging those infill sites to be developed.

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

00:54:07.240 --> 00:54:10.420
 the proposal.

00:54:10.420 --> 00:54:14.600
 Thank you, Julie and Matt.

00:54:14.600 --> 00:54:20.680
 Yeah, thank you.

00:54:20.680 --> 00:54:28.040
 Questions, lots of information there, questions about the proposal and/or the previous regulations

00:54:28.040 --> 00:54:34.600
 and what we've seen, Commissioner Prado-Crujillo?

00:54:34.600 --> 00:54:37.300
 So I like what you're saying.

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,

00:54:48.080 --> 00:54:56.200
 how would we take into consideration the actual walkability of that half mile, like sidewalks,

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

00:55:00.160 --> 00:55:04.560
 the street, but if I have to cross four lanes and there's no sidewalks.

00:55:04.560 --> 00:55:08.480
 So how can we take that into consideration as well?

00:55:08.480 --> 00:55:10.240
 That is a tough challenge.

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

00:55:15.680 --> 00:55:24.080
 taking into consideration those real site-specific elements just to allow it to be applied more

00:55:24.080 --> 00:55:26.200
 evenly.

00:55:26.200 --> 00:55:30.120
 But I'm certainly open to any suggestions or recommendations.

00:55:30.120 --> 00:55:32.600
 Tina may also want to chime in.

00:55:32.600 --> 00:55:40.680
 I'll pull up the map.

00:55:40.680 --> 00:55:45.040
 I think that's a great question.

00:55:45.040 --> 00:55:49.880
 I think some of the market aspect might also influence where somebody acquires property

00:55:49.880 --> 00:55:54.620
 and is interested in building that infill development, if they're relying upon that

00:55:54.620 --> 00:55:59.440
 open space, then they may be looking at, okay, what infrastructure improvements are there

00:55:59.440 --> 00:56:01.640
 today?

00:56:01.640 --> 00:56:07.720
 If there are voids within that infrastructure, then for our purposes, from the city's perspective,

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

00:56:10.560 --> 00:56:15.240
 development, what can we do to fill those voids and getting that on our sidewalk repair

00:56:15.240 --> 00:56:16.240
 program?

00:56:16.240 --> 00:56:17.240
 Okay.

00:56:17.240 --> 00:56:21.800
 But it's no different than the challenges that we have today, right?

00:56:21.800 --> 00:56:27.520
 So somebody comes in and is interested in doing a residential development.

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

00:56:32.280 --> 00:56:34.920
 the existing sidewalk network that are there.

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

00:56:40.040 --> 00:56:42.280
 able to go ahead and move forward with that.

00:56:42.280 --> 00:56:44.440
 But again, we have the voids there.

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.

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,

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.

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

00:57:12.840 --> 00:57:18.560
 homes that we don't impact a certain demographic more so than another.

00:57:18.560 --> 00:57:22.840
 So just to keep that in mind.

00:57:22.840 --> 00:57:24.960
 Commissioner Roox.

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

00:57:31.320 --> 00:57:36.920
 by council or did it just automatically go?

00:57:36.920 --> 00:57:37.920
 You want to address that?

00:57:37.920 --> 00:57:41.000
 Well, I'll try and you can grab your.

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

00:57:45.640 --> 00:57:47.800
 discussion.

00:57:47.800 --> 00:57:53.680
 If the commission feels comfortable, we can start working on those actual changes to the

00:57:53.680 --> 00:57:55.360
 debt and development code.

00:57:55.360 --> 00:57:58.640
 And at that point, we would just write that into the code.

00:57:58.640 --> 00:58:04.440
 So if a project met these specific guidelines, then that exemption would automatically be

00:58:04.440 --> 00:58:06.440
 given.

00:58:06.440 --> 00:58:07.440
 I would agree.

00:58:07.440 --> 00:58:09.600
 And other communities that I've worked in, especially where we've tried to encourage

00:58:09.600 --> 00:58:13.240
 infill development, we've written those exemptions within there.

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

00:58:18.440 --> 00:58:24.160
 do a walkability analysis to go with it.

00:58:24.160 --> 00:58:25.920
 Commissioner Pugon.

00:58:25.920 --> 00:58:32.840
 I just want to second what Commissioner Badoe-Carrillo said about like considering the walkability.

00:58:32.840 --> 00:58:37.560
 The half mile, is that equivalent to the 10 minute walk?

00:58:37.560 --> 00:58:40.360
 It's probably a little larger than the 10 minute to a walk.

00:58:40.360 --> 00:58:43.080
 It probably depends on how you walk.

00:58:43.080 --> 00:58:46.280
 Probably not a 10 minute walk for me.

00:58:46.280 --> 00:58:47.280
 But it's average.

00:58:47.280 --> 00:58:48.280
 Yes.

00:58:48.280 --> 00:58:49.280
 Okay.

00:58:49.280 --> 00:58:51.280
 And then I have a second question.

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

00:58:54.920 --> 00:59:00.640
 again approximately how many lots that could fit or how many units that could fit?

00:59:00.640 --> 00:59:04.720
 You know, it would depend on the project.

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.

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.

00:59:17.720 --> 00:59:25.480
 This is 14 lots and about 21,000 square feet.

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

00:59:29.480 --> 00:59:31.320
 they have to meet those setbacks.

00:59:31.320 --> 00:59:38.560
 So there still would be other requirements like setbacks, like fire, you know, all of

00:59:38.560 --> 00:59:41.280
 those other regulations would still be in place.

00:59:41.280 --> 00:59:46.320
 I just have one more.

00:59:46.320 --> 00:59:49.080
 Go ahead.

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,

00:59:56.120 --> 01:00:01.840
 only two built, like were there any other barriers other than the three that you're

01:00:01.840 --> 01:00:07.200
 proposing recommendations for that kept those others from actually building?

01:00:07.200 --> 01:00:09.480
 Just curious if there's other things that they listed.

01:00:09.480 --> 01:00:11.640
 That is a great -- and this -- that's a great question.

01:00:11.640 --> 01:00:15.080
 And this is going to be an ongoing conversation.

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

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

01:00:27.800 --> 01:00:29.480
 meet the needs of the community.

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

01:00:36.320 --> 01:00:42.320
 a scalpel to it and taking out the thing that was probably most problematic.

01:00:42.320 --> 01:00:48.360
 Go ahead.

01:00:48.360 --> 01:00:54.060
 Is it possible to see, as far as affordability, what the pricing differences could possibly

01:00:54.060 --> 01:00:55.360
 look like on an average?

01:00:55.360 --> 01:01:03.360
 So for example, single-family home on average would be this pricing structure, but by comparison

01:01:03.360 --> 01:01:06.600
 we could kind of take a look at what a townhome would be.

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

01:01:12.120 --> 01:01:14.080
 kind of delve into that a little bit more.

01:01:14.080 --> 01:01:15.080
 Sure.

01:01:15.080 --> 01:01:16.080
 Sure.

01:01:16.080 --> 01:01:20.480
 Go ahead, Commissioner Riggs.

01:01:20.480 --> 01:01:25.360
 So like, for instance, looking at these pre-application conferences, we had 25.

01:01:25.360 --> 01:01:30.660
 Was something else able to be built, just the townhomes didn't work in that situation?

01:01:30.660 --> 01:01:36.600
 Sometimes it's -- the lot may just be a really challenging piece of property.

01:01:36.600 --> 01:01:43.120
 Often something else does get built, maybe -- or a different developer, maybe that developer

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

01:01:47.800 --> 01:01:50.280
 else and they'll build it with something else.

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

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

01:02:00.500 --> 01:02:06.280
 little lots everywhere, you know.

01:02:06.280 --> 01:02:13.160
 So I have a few questions, as you can probably imagine.

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

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

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,

01:02:33.120 --> 01:02:37.120
 that sort of thing.

01:02:37.120 --> 01:02:46.680
 But to get some questions and some direction from me, I think, in general, the proposals,

01:02:46.680 --> 01:02:50.220
 I think, look fine.

01:02:50.220 --> 01:02:52.720
 It's been a long time coming, and I really appreciate this.

01:02:52.720 --> 01:02:59.440
 I remember asking staff about the townhome requirements in the 2019 code before we passed

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,

01:03:06.760 --> 01:03:12.840
 so glad we're taking a look at it.

01:03:12.840 --> 01:03:20.120
 So questions on open space.

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.

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,

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

01:03:39.200 --> 01:03:48.560
 ability of new parks, it does pull sidewalk locations from OpenStreetData and do some

01:03:48.560 --> 01:03:54.860
 of that assessment, so it's not just a blanket circle around each park, essentially.

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,

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

01:04:11.080 --> 01:04:17.680
 needing to get into the weeds on every application.

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

01:04:25.920 --> 01:04:31.120
 to me, to that question of will this area develop into a walkable area, regardless of

01:04:31.120 --> 01:04:35.080
 whether Connecting Sidewalks is there today, and maybe they come in in a few years with

01:04:35.080 --> 01:04:41.540
 CIPs, there are different ways you can build a townhome, right?

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

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

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,

01:05:06.120 --> 01:05:12.120
 and/or because of our drainage requirements, maybe we even start thinking about, hey, you

01:05:12.120 --> 01:05:17.720
 can have rear-loaded alleys that are somewhat permeable, right, or swales, or something

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

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

01:05:28.920 --> 01:05:29.920
 problem.

01:05:29.920 --> 01:05:32.480
 I'm just thinking out loud, right?

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

01:05:37.360 --> 01:05:44.080
 past that rear-loading is a challenge because of our detention and drainage requirements.

01:05:44.080 --> 01:05:47.000
 And then a couple questions on sort of the zoning.

01:05:47.000 --> 01:05:56.040
 I understand staff said that right now you feel like the locations of where we allow

01:05:56.040 --> 01:05:59.560
 townhomes is sufficient.

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

01:06:04.280 --> 01:06:07.160
 I'd like to hear some thoughts from the commissioners.

01:06:07.160 --> 01:06:18.080
 And this somewhat touches on the concern for impact to existing communities being equitable.

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

01:06:24.960 --> 01:06:30.040
 townhomes by right in NR4, which was transitioned to R4?

01:06:30.040 --> 01:06:33.280
 It's just it had site-specific standards.

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.

01:06:40.040 --> 01:06:41.680
 It's a good question, I don't know.

01:06:41.680 --> 01:06:45.280
 So I appreciate hearing a follow-up from that.

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.

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

01:06:55.080 --> 01:06:58.160
 a lot of the land in the city that allowed them, right?

01:06:58.160 --> 01:07:05.320
 And that was what is now R4.

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

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

01:07:21.240 --> 01:07:22.240
 lot depth.

01:07:22.240 --> 01:07:27.600
 I'm not sure that's exactly the form and function that you're going for.

01:07:27.600 --> 01:07:33.320
 So maybe just look at that particular requirement and see if that needs to be adjusted.

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?

01:07:41.520 --> 01:07:42.520
 Correct.

01:07:42.520 --> 01:07:43.520
 Okay.

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

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

01:07:58.200 --> 01:08:03.560
 Denton and east of downtown.

01:08:03.560 --> 01:08:06.080
 That's a problem.

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

01:08:15.920 --> 01:08:24.280
 areas along Elm and Locust north of university that is not even R4, it's R3.

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

01:08:29.700 --> 01:08:36.760
 close to parks, relatively close to businesses, et cetera, whereas most of our existing R6

01:08:36.760 --> 01:08:41.880
 and R7 land is not close to the core, right?

01:08:41.880 --> 01:08:48.360
 It's the newer subdivisions that have come in the last 15 years.

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

01:08:54.620 --> 01:09:03.480
 a bad or put together a set of restrictions that results in a concentrated redevelopment

01:09:03.480 --> 01:09:12.200
 of an area simply because the other areas near desirable walkable areas are not R4 or

01:09:12.200 --> 01:09:13.200
 better.

01:09:13.200 --> 01:09:21.880
 >> SUP and R3 and -- okay, SUP and R3 and R4.

01:09:21.880 --> 01:09:22.880
 >> Okay.

01:09:22.880 --> 01:09:25.880
 I must have read that wrong, then.

01:09:25.880 --> 01:09:26.880
 I apologize.

01:09:26.880 --> 01:09:31.980
 Still, the concept goes, right?

01:09:31.980 --> 01:09:39.200
 The difficulty of getting an SUP versus getting a zoning change is not too much different.

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

01:09:46.840 --> 01:09:49.080
 process is very much similar.

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,

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.

01:10:02.200 --> 01:10:06.480
 We'll get them in the outskirts, right?

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

01:10:11.040 --> 01:10:12.840
 equity concerns.

01:10:12.840 --> 01:10:15.000
 So those are my thoughts.

01:10:15.000 --> 01:10:19.600
 Sorry, I talked a lot, but -- >> No, I want one follow-up.

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

01:10:27.400 --> 01:10:28.400
 square feet.

01:10:28.400 --> 01:10:32.960
 In our mixed-use districts, that's MN, MD, and MR.

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

01:10:39.800 --> 01:10:42.980
 in more suburban contexts.

01:10:42.980 --> 01:10:48.600
 And just, you know, our mixed-use districts are intended for more of that fine-grain,

01:10:48.600 --> 01:10:56.400
 walkable environment, which is why we're recommending that reduced lot size in those districts, particularly

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

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

01:11:10.740 --> 01:11:17.240
 that are actually in our design downtown plan that are MN.

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

01:11:20.760 --> 01:11:23.400
 be those regional walkable areas.

01:11:23.400 --> 01:11:27.080
 So just -- and you are correct.

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

01:11:34.160 --> 01:11:35.160
 in lot size.

01:11:35.160 --> 01:11:41.760
 There would have to be associated lot dimensions modified, too, because 20 by 60, which is

01:11:41.760 --> 01:11:43.960
 what we require, does not equal 1,000.

01:11:43.960 --> 01:11:47.320
 So Matt had to point that out to me.

01:11:47.320 --> 01:11:53.920
 Thank you, yeah, I really appreciate that, and the clarification of the thousand square

01:11:53.920 --> 01:11:58.960
 feet for the mixed-use zoning districts, maybe that alleviates some of the concern, makes

01:11:58.960 --> 01:12:02.080
 sense to me.

01:12:02.080 --> 01:12:08.760
 In similar way to Commissioner Padron asking for what does the price difference look like,

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

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

01:12:18.560 --> 01:12:20.880
 four stories, that will make you more money.

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

01:12:27.680 --> 01:12:34.320
 a garden style or urban apartment complex, depending on the context, would make, just

01:12:34.320 --> 01:12:38.680
 to make sure that we're not aiming at the wrong target, if that makes sense.

01:12:38.680 --> 01:12:40.280
 So that's all.

01:12:40.280 --> 01:12:41.280
 Anybody else have additional?

01:12:41.280 --> 01:12:44.520
 Well, and I guess if I can just add a follow-up real quick.

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

01:12:48.040 --> 01:12:50.120
 to be able to do a formal pro forma.

01:12:50.120 --> 01:12:54.000
 Again, our whole goal with this was to take a very targeted approach.

01:12:54.000 --> 01:12:56.800
 Understand your concerns regarding the zoning districts.

01:12:56.800 --> 01:13:01.360
 One of the reasons why we did not make any recommendations on changing zoning districts

01:13:01.360 --> 01:13:05.240
 to either increase the liability of townhome or address SEP requirements or anything of

01:13:05.240 --> 01:13:09.600
 that nature is because we know later on the Development Code Review Committee is on their

01:13:09.600 --> 01:13:12.640
 wish list is to be able to talk about missing middle housing.

01:13:12.640 --> 01:13:15.900
 And so we figured there would be a more comprehensive approach addressed at that.

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

01:13:21.760 --> 01:13:22.760
 developments?

01:13:22.760 --> 01:13:25.800
 We felt like the existing open space requirement in that 2,000 square foot, particularly in

01:13:25.800 --> 01:13:29.880
 those MN, MR, and MD districts were problematic.

01:13:29.880 --> 01:13:32.580
 So hence why we were trying to be more focused.

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

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

01:13:40.920 --> 01:13:45.900
 of what zoning districts that these uses are allowed in, in considering expansion of those

01:13:45.900 --> 01:13:50.160
 when we look at all housing types, if you don't mind.

01:13:50.160 --> 01:13:51.160
 Thanks.

01:13:51.160 --> 01:13:52.160
 Commissioner Prada-Crea.

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

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

01:14:09.040 --> 01:14:13.320
 terms of affordability in those, in those areas.

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,

01:14:16.760 --> 01:14:17.760
 Tina.

01:14:17.760 --> 01:14:18.760
 Mr. Riggs.

01:14:18.760 --> 01:14:39.920
 I guess, can you go back to the initial recommendations from staff?

01:14:39.920 --> 01:14:49.520
 And then what was the last one?

01:14:49.520 --> 01:14:52.840
 Actually with the clarification, sorry, with the clarification, I'm actually good with

01:14:52.840 --> 01:14:59.760
 all three of those, but obviously addressing the concerns everyone else has.

01:14:59.760 --> 01:15:01.680
 I know we're running up against time here.

01:15:01.680 --> 01:15:06.320
 Can we just get a quick read of the room and on those three proposals?

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

01:15:11.440 --> 01:15:16.900
 of those three staff recommendations that you have issue with, please just go down the

01:15:16.900 --> 01:15:19.520
 line and highlight them or say no issue.

01:15:19.520 --> 01:15:21.800
 So Commissioner Carrillo.

01:15:21.800 --> 01:15:23.960
 I don't have issue with any of them.

01:15:23.960 --> 01:15:24.960
 Okay.

01:15:24.960 --> 01:15:28.800
 And I'm fine with the recommended changes, Commissioner Petrone.

01:15:28.800 --> 01:15:34.620
 I'm fine with the recommended changes as well.

01:15:34.620 --> 01:15:35.620
 Thank you, Julie.

01:15:35.620 --> 01:15:37.160
 Thank you.

01:15:37.160 --> 01:15:40.360
 All right.

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

01:15:46.240 --> 01:15:48.600
 in council chambers in two minutes.

01:15:48.600 --> 01:15:57.120
 Thank you.

01:15:57.120 --> 01:15:58.120
 Good evening.

01:15:58.120 --> 01:16:02.080
 At 6.34 this evening, I will reconvene us.

01:16:02.080 --> 01:16:05.200
 We did have one work session item that was still pending.

01:16:05.200 --> 01:16:06.200
 It's a short one.

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

01:16:12.960 --> 01:16:15.640
 concluding items.

01:16:15.640 --> 01:16:17.800
 Okay.

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.

01:16:22.480 --> 01:16:23.480
 If you stand.

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

01:16:32.480 --> 01:16:40.720
 which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

01:16:40.720 --> 01:16:55.400
 Under the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one, indivisible.

01:16:55.400 --> 01:16:59.400
 First item is item 2A, PZ25051.

01:16:59.400 --> 01:17:05.600
 Under approval of the January 29th planning and zoning minutes, Commissioner Patron?

01:17:05.600 --> 01:17:11.400
 I move to approve the minutes of the January 29th planning and zoning meeting.

01:17:11.400 --> 01:17:14.280
 And Commissioner Riggs?

01:17:14.280 --> 01:17:16.160
 Second.

01:17:16.160 --> 01:17:26.640
 Let's vote on the board, please.

01:17:26.640 --> 01:17:29.200
 That passes 4-0.

01:17:29.200 --> 01:17:35.240
 The next item is one of our one public hearing.

01:17:35.240 --> 01:17:38.240
 Item 3A, AFP24-0011.

01:17:38.240 --> 01:17:40.040
 Julie?

01:17:40.040 --> 01:17:45.840
 Good evening, Julie Wyatt.

01:17:45.840 --> 01:17:48.780
 And I am presenting AFP2411.

01:17:48.780 --> 01:17:53.800
 This is a replat of four lots in the high school addition.

01:17:53.800 --> 01:17:57.620
 It is replatting those four lots into three lots.

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

01:18:03.680 --> 01:18:05.800
 requirements, and so staff is recommending approval.

01:18:05.800 --> 01:18:17.800
 I'll be happy to answer any questions.

01:18:17.800 --> 01:18:22.960
 Now we'll go ahead and open the public hearing, just so I don't forget.

01:18:22.960 --> 01:18:23.960
 Any questions?

01:18:23.960 --> 01:18:24.960
 Okay.

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

01:18:31.680 --> 01:18:36.360
 for this replat, you're welcome to come down to the front.

01:18:36.360 --> 01:18:38.440
 If you didn't fill out a blue card, that's fine.

01:18:38.440 --> 01:18:44.120
 Just fill out one afterwards with the secretary just having your name and address for the

01:18:44.120 --> 01:18:47.120
 record.

01:18:47.120 --> 01:18:50.720
 Hi.

01:18:50.720 --> 01:18:51.720
 My name is Kira.

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

01:18:56.340 --> 01:18:58.880
 instead of three?

01:18:58.880 --> 01:18:59.880
 Sure.

01:18:59.880 --> 01:19:04.680
 Can we get an answer?

01:19:04.680 --> 01:19:06.720
 Yes.

01:19:06.720 --> 01:19:11.600
 So the property owner, one of the lots was never actually developed.

01:19:11.600 --> 01:19:16.240
 So this lot in this area has a long history.

01:19:16.240 --> 01:19:19.760
 It was originally platted in 1917.

01:19:19.760 --> 01:19:27.080
 Very quickly after it was originally platted, the lot boundaries were changed by deed.

01:19:27.080 --> 01:19:31.240
 So all the lot boundaries are actually by meets and bounds.

01:19:31.240 --> 01:19:37.680
 It originally had one lot here, one lot here, and then two lots right here.

01:19:37.680 --> 01:19:39.740
 Well, I can show you the original plat.

01:19:39.740 --> 01:19:42.120
 So this is the original plat.

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

01:19:46.560 --> 01:19:49.760
 lots four and three.

01:19:49.760 --> 01:19:54.760
 And then part of lot six became part of lots one and two.

01:19:54.760 --> 01:20:01.000
 So they are just really replatting to get the lot boundaries to be configured correctly

01:20:01.000 --> 01:20:03.200
 with the deed boundaries, essentially.

01:20:03.200 --> 01:20:05.960
 So not really changing any developed lots.

01:20:05.960 --> 01:20:13.500
 It really is just kind of cleaning up what's happened over the years.

01:20:13.500 --> 01:20:17.440
 And Julie, is this a common owner between these lots?

01:20:17.440 --> 01:20:18.440
 Yes.

01:20:18.440 --> 01:20:21.520
 It is one owner who owns all of the lots.

01:20:21.520 --> 01:20:23.120
 Yes, sir.

01:20:23.120 --> 01:20:24.120
 Yes, correct.

01:20:24.120 --> 01:20:25.120
 Oh, no.

01:20:25.120 --> 01:20:26.120
 Sorry.

01:20:26.120 --> 01:20:27.120
 One and two.

01:20:27.120 --> 01:20:28.120
 Those are different owners.

01:20:28.120 --> 01:20:29.120
 Sorry about that.

01:20:29.120 --> 01:20:31.800
 Yes.

01:20:31.800 --> 01:20:34.040
 Any other questions or comments?

01:20:34.040 --> 01:20:36.560
 This is a public hearing.

01:20:36.560 --> 01:20:45.120
 Anybody to entertain or listen to the resident's feedback or answer questions on the process

01:20:45.120 --> 01:20:48.240
 of platting?

01:20:48.240 --> 01:20:51.600
 OK.

01:20:51.600 --> 01:20:54.960
 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing.

01:20:54.960 --> 01:21:01.160
 Any questions or a motion from the commission?

01:21:01.160 --> 01:21:04.160
 Commissioner Pedron?

01:21:04.160 --> 01:21:05.960
 Move approval.

01:21:05.960 --> 01:21:06.960
 Commissioner Riggs?

01:21:06.960 --> 01:21:07.960
 Second.

01:21:07.960 --> 01:21:08.960
 OK.

01:21:08.960 --> 01:21:23.240
 With that, I will call for a vote on the board.

01:21:23.240 --> 01:21:26.180
 And that item passes 4-0.

01:21:26.180 --> 01:21:33.520
 With our abbreviated meeting agenda this evening, that takes us to item four, planning and zoning

01:21:33.520 --> 01:21:34.520
 commission matrix.

01:21:34.520 --> 01:21:35.520
 Tina?

01:21:35.520 --> 01:21:36.520
 Thank you, Chair.

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

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

01:21:45.800 --> 01:21:50.720
 of your matrix, or I guess on the first page, discussion regarding applicable statutory

01:21:50.720 --> 01:21:54.560
 procedures and administrative implications when quorum is not achieved, so we will actually

01:21:54.560 --> 01:21:59.400
 have that on our agenda this evening and take care of that after our regular meeting.

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

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

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

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

01:22:17.960 --> 01:22:18.960
 to work session.

01:22:18.960 --> 01:22:21.320
 So, we're going to just keep that as standard language on your agenda.

01:22:21.320 --> 01:22:23.560
 So, just wanted to bring that to your attention.

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

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

01:22:30.280 --> 01:22:34.400
 end and be able to keep our work program moving forward.

01:22:34.400 --> 01:22:39.680
 In terms of council action, there were no zoning cases or projects that required council

01:22:39.680 --> 01:22:44.640
 action that this board has, or excuse me, that the commission has seen previously, so

01:22:44.640 --> 01:22:46.400
 I have no report on that.

01:22:46.400 --> 01:22:47.680
 And that concludes my report.

01:22:47.680 --> 01:22:50.600
 Thank you.

01:22:50.600 --> 01:22:52.760
 Thank you.

01:22:52.760 --> 01:22:57.320
 Any additions to the matrix requested from the commission?

01:22:57.320 --> 01:22:58.680
 No?

01:22:58.680 --> 01:22:59.980
 Okay.

01:22:59.980 --> 01:23:02.240
 Any concluding items?

01:23:02.240 --> 01:23:03.480
 No?

01:23:03.480 --> 01:23:04.480
 Okay.

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

01:23:14.240 --> 01:23:19.840
 receiver report and hold discussion on the statutory procedures and administrative implications

01:23:19.840 --> 01:23:23.400
 for the Planning and Zoning Commission.

01:23:23.400 --> 01:23:28.680
 I will also close that public hearing and close the regular meeting.

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

01:23:33.440 --> 01:23:34.440
 concluded.

01:23:34.440 --> 01:23:35.440
 That's 642.

01:23:35.440 --> 01:23:36.440
 All right.

01:23:36.440 --> 01:23:40.720
 Good evening and welcome back to work session.

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

01:23:45.240 --> 01:23:48.600
 happens when we do not have a quorum for the commission.

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

01:23:51.960 --> 01:23:52.960
 everyone.

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

01:23:59.120 --> 01:24:00.120
 for the meeting.

01:24:00.120 --> 01:24:06.240
 So, we'll go over procedures as it relates to PLATs and then entitlement cases.

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

01:24:10.800 --> 01:24:16.360
 statute in Chapter 212 of the Local Government Code that requires action either to approve

01:24:16.360 --> 01:24:20.080
 or deny the PLAT be taken within 30 days of its submittal.

01:24:20.080 --> 01:24:24.200
 There is an allowance for an extension to be granted for administrative PLATs that can

01:24:24.200 --> 01:24:25.560
 be done by staff.

01:24:25.560 --> 01:24:29.800
 For PLATs that require PNZ's ultimate approval, that extension does have to come before you

01:24:29.800 --> 01:24:30.800
 all.

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

01:24:37.240 --> 01:24:40.920
 something up or there's not quorum for a meeting or whatever the reason, regardless,

01:24:40.920 --> 01:24:43.160
 that PLAT becomes automatically approved.

01:24:43.160 --> 01:24:45.960
 That doesn't matter if there's any errors on the PLAT.

01:24:45.960 --> 01:24:49.280
 It is approved in the form that it was at at that time.

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

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

01:24:56.320 --> 01:24:59.280
 of those are built around the calendar that you all approve for yourselves each year so

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

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

01:25:07.200 --> 01:25:09.760
 ample time to work through issues.

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

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

01:25:19.000 --> 01:25:20.240
 was going to be approved regardless.

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

01:25:24.640 --> 01:25:28.580
 the next day saying due to lack of quorum, your PLAT is automatically approved.

01:25:28.580 --> 01:25:33.240
 If there was a PLAT that was recommended for denial or that had requested an extension,

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

01:25:37.000 --> 01:25:40.760
 the applicants and talking to them about the pros and cons of withdrawing their PLAT so

01:25:40.760 --> 01:25:43.480
 that it does not have automatic action taken on it.

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

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,

01:25:52.120 --> 01:25:55.360
 then pay for submitting that replat to us and going back through the process all over

01:25:55.360 --> 01:25:58.880
 again to correct the errors that could have been fixed had they withdrawn the PLAT and

01:25:58.880 --> 01:26:01.600
 let it come back to you all at your next meeting.

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

01:26:06.800 --> 01:26:07.800
 time.

01:26:07.800 --> 01:26:11.320
 We also keep in mind that the approved PLAT does vest the development.

01:26:11.320 --> 01:26:15.240
 Under state statute, there's vesting provisions that once you have that approved document,

01:26:15.240 --> 01:26:18.000
 you can build what's on that approved document basically.

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

01:26:21.280 --> 01:26:23.520
 dimensional requirements, they would be vested.

01:26:23.520 --> 01:26:26.720
 They could proceed and develop those lots, but then they'd get to building permit and

01:26:26.720 --> 01:26:28.600
 what if the houses don't meet setbacks?

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

01:26:31.440 --> 01:26:35.440
 lot and the financing company is like, "We're not comfortable with that."

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

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

01:26:43.840 --> 01:26:47.040
 approvals when there are errors on the PLAT.

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.

01:26:52.440 --> 01:26:57.520
 So more often than not, financing for projects is tied to getting a PLAT approval.

01:26:57.520 --> 01:27:00.240
 So the applicants really do want that approved PLAT.

01:27:00.240 --> 01:27:02.320
 They don't want those delays associated with replatting.

01:27:02.320 --> 01:27:05.680
 So more often than not, they'll agree with us, withdraw their application, they send

01:27:05.680 --> 01:27:09.220
 us something in writing and we consider the PLAT withdrawn and then they can resubmit

01:27:09.220 --> 01:27:13.840
 it to us for your next meeting.

01:27:13.840 --> 01:27:18.760
 For zoning or just any form of entitlement case, so zoning, specific use permit, plan

01:27:18.760 --> 01:27:24.840
 development, alternative ESA plans and comp plan amendments, not being able to hear something

01:27:24.840 --> 01:27:30.280
 on the date that we've noticed it for creates pretty significant delays related to notifications.

01:27:30.280 --> 01:27:35.120
 Our notifications for the city include a letter to everyone within 200 feet, postcards to

01:27:35.120 --> 01:27:39.920
 everyone within 500 feet, posting in the newspaper and signs posted on the property.

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

01:27:43.200 --> 01:27:46.640
 if we have to re-notice because we weren't able to meet.

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

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

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,

01:28:00.640 --> 01:28:05.560
 the 15th day before that results in us calculating that as 17 days.

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

01:28:08.160 --> 01:28:09.160
 dates.

01:28:09.160 --> 01:28:11.700
 So it is a pretty significant delay on their timeline.

01:28:11.700 --> 01:28:16.400
 There is again money associated with that, notification cost by our ordinance are passed

01:28:16.400 --> 01:28:20.960
 along to the applicant so they get a little frustrated when they pay for those notifications

01:28:20.960 --> 01:28:21.960
 more than once.

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

01:28:25.520 --> 01:28:29.760
 at council, they only meet once so it can cause pretty significant delays if we hit

01:28:29.760 --> 01:28:34.240
 that summer timeframe or around the holidays where they might be waiting a month or two

01:28:34.240 --> 01:28:37.280
 more to get to council than what they would have had.

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

01:28:42.120 --> 01:28:45.200
 receiving a second letter telling you about a case that you may not have understood the

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

01:28:49.980 --> 01:28:52.320
 to find out that it wasn't going to be heard.

01:28:52.320 --> 01:28:56.680
 Just that public convenience factor there that we would want to take into consideration.

01:28:56.680 --> 01:28:57.680
 That's really all I have for you all.

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

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

01:29:05.540 --> 01:29:09.560
 detail about the procedures and stuff related to these processes but just wanted to cover

01:29:09.560 --> 01:29:13.260
 this one specific facet tonight.

01:29:13.260 --> 01:29:14.920
 Any questions?

01:29:14.920 --> 01:29:15.920
 Commissioner Riggs?

01:29:15.920 --> 01:29:18.440
 So you're saying it's kind of important for us to have quorum?

01:29:18.440 --> 01:29:21.120
 It's very important.

01:29:21.120 --> 01:29:25.600
 Do we know who we're at on filling the other two spots?

01:29:25.600 --> 01:29:28.680
 No.

01:29:28.680 --> 01:29:35.960
 The most recent nomination to the commission was not approved.

01:29:35.960 --> 01:29:42.240
 I have one question and whoever from staff feels qualified to answer it.

01:29:42.240 --> 01:29:48.560
 I think sometimes we understand delays but as members of the community serving on this

01:29:48.560 --> 01:29:56.800
 board we haven't gone through the process of obtaining a construction loan or an option

01:29:56.800 --> 01:29:59.880
 on a property and certain rate locks.

01:29:59.880 --> 01:30:01.240
 That's all foreign to us.

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

01:30:08.320 --> 01:30:09.320
 deadlines?

01:30:09.320 --> 01:30:16.080
 Not in the number of dollars but just in what the process is.

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

01:30:23.480 --> 01:30:29.720
 were locked in at a certain percentage rate with their financing institution anticipating

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

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

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

01:30:52.040 --> 01:30:56.520
 subject to that increased interest rate and having to lock in at that rate.

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

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

01:31:06.040 --> 01:31:09.760
 redone, work with the title company that's probably involved.

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

01:31:20.320 --> 01:31:27.200
 because we know that there are financial implications much bigger than the notice implications,

01:31:27.200 --> 01:31:32.720
 the fees that we might assess some money so we're always sensitive to that.

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.

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

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

01:31:50.800 --> 01:31:55.920
 costs or increase as a result of an administrative error that might have taken place.

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

01:32:00.440 --> 01:32:02.120
 your perspective.

01:32:02.120 --> 01:32:04.080
 Thank you, I appreciate that.

01:32:04.080 --> 01:32:07.560
 Just one other question because I'm not aware.

01:32:07.560 --> 01:32:13.920
 You talked about the automatic approvals that happen, is there any difference as far as

01:32:13.920 --> 01:32:20.240
 how those plats are filed with the county that could impact the applicant in the future

01:32:20.240 --> 01:32:24.080
 so it still gets the same stamp, same signing, everything's the same?

01:32:24.080 --> 01:32:26.760
 Yeah, everything would proceed as normal.

01:32:26.760 --> 01:32:28.840
 Okay, thank you.

01:32:28.840 --> 01:32:33.040
 With no more questions, Commissioner Padron?

01:32:33.040 --> 01:32:36.800
 I feel like in the past we may have had some sort of discussion regarding contemplating

01:32:36.800 --> 01:32:39.360
 virtual participation.

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?

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

01:32:50.320 --> 01:32:54.960
 but that has not been completed yet so it's still in the works.

01:32:54.960 --> 01:32:59.000
 But I do believe under state statute virtual participation wouldn't help with a quorum

01:32:59.000 --> 01:33:00.000
 for the meeting anyway.

01:33:00.000 --> 01:33:01.000
 Oh, thank you.

01:33:01.000 --> 01:33:02.000
 Yes, thank you.

01:33:02.000 --> 01:33:03.000
 You're correct.

01:33:03.000 --> 01:33:04.000
 Thank you.

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

01:33:11.980 --> 01:33:17.680
 could go through your calendar invites because that's an easy way for the city secretary

01:33:17.680 --> 01:33:23.760
 to track expected attendance and make sure that those are updated for all of your dates.

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.

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

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

01:33:52.840 --> 01:33:57.120
 to adjust something on the way.

01:33:57.120 --> 01:33:58.600
 Anything else on this item?

01:33:58.600 --> 01:33:59.600
 No?

01:33:59.600 --> 01:34:00.600
 Okay.

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

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

01:34:16.280 --> 01:34:17.440
 waiting too long.

01:34:17.440 --> 01:34:26.000
 I will clarify that my hopes to see are just that, their future hopes to see.

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

01:34:31.460 --> 01:34:33.620
 by staff.

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

01:34:38.680 --> 01:34:50.880
 data, and I had asked similarly for some pro forma needs between the townhome and multifamily.

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

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

01:34:59.600 --> 01:35:04.280
 future date as we assess further changes to make townhomes more accessible?

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

01:35:08.680 --> 01:35:10.760
 the accessibility of townhomes.

01:35:10.760 --> 01:35:16.400
 We did receive public outreach regarding support in townhomes, and one of the reasons that

01:35:16.400 --> 01:35:20.000
 was listed was affordability and access to home ownership.

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

01:35:22.960 --> 01:35:23.960
 for this first step.

01:35:23.960 --> 01:35:24.960
 Okay.

01:35:24.960 --> 01:35:25.960
 Thank you for clarifying.

01:35:25.960 --> 01:35:27.720
 Any other comments on that?

01:35:27.720 --> 01:35:28.720
 Okay.

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

01:35:35.560 --> 01:35:36.560
 p.m.

01:35:36.560 --> 01:35:36.960
 Thank you all.