Dec 17, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2025-12-17 5:00 PM

>> Good afternoon at 5.04 p.m. this Wednesday, December 17th, and with a quorum present, I will call this meeting of the work session of our Denton Planning and Zoning Commission to order. Our first order of business is comments by citizens on the consent agenda, not seeing anybody. We'll move on to the clarification of agenda items listed. So there's several things on the consent agenda, no changes this week as far as delaying or modifications to approve. Any questions on those items? Okay. It moves us to items for individual consideration for a FP250028C. >> Chair and members of the commission, give me two seconds here. This is a final plat for the reserves at brush creek. It is a plan development for 42 single family homes. At this time, staff is recommending denial as they do not meet all of our criteria for approval but have no objection to the requested extension which could be granted to January 14th, 26. Happy to answer any questions you all may have. >> I have an offhanded question. They have satisfied the majority of staff's comments. We're working through getting to final civil engineering plan approval which is required to approve the final plat. Some of that in part is due to working through an agreement as it relates to the construction of brush creek road. So they're working with the adjacent commercial lot to come to an agreement regarding the timing and funding of that road. Once that's approved, the civils can be approved and then the plat can be approved. >> Thank you. >> Anything else? I don't see anything. Thank you, Angie. Next item is 4BPP25-0005. >> Good evening, chair and commissioners. Cameron Robertson presenting on behalf of Sean Jacobson. This is a preliminary plat for approximately 6.5-acre parcel just east of the existing south Bonnie bray and west of future south Bonnie bray. The staff is currently recommending denial of this preliminary plat as it does not comply with the established criteria but staff has no objection to a requested extension to a date starting January 14th, 2026 and this would be the second extension. >> I have a question on this one. If you could fill me in on sort of the plans for the old Bonnie bray there that I had heard some things from parks on trails plans and other things and then I know so is this it looks like notwithstanding the things that they need to fix that this would plan to connect to that roadway and so that roadway would be not abandoned and stay where it is? Is that the plan right now? >> Yes, it's my understanding that roadway is not going to be abandoned and would stay in place but more of a local street rather than serving as the arterial than Bonnie bray will. >> Okay. Any other questions? Not seeing any. Thank you, Cameron. Brings us to our public hearings 5A is sorry. Is it easier to do these two or three together probably? So we'll do 5A, B and C the comprehensive plan amendment mobility plan amendment and the zoning item. >> Yes, thank you chair, evening chair, members of the commission, senior planner, yes you read my mind, my idea for presenting this is to do it all three applications at the same time, hopefully open all three public hearings at the same time and then of course each of them will need individual action. So these three requests are one is a comprehensive plan amendment to change from agricultural flume to regional mixed use, the second is a mobility thoroughfare map amendment to remove the future extension of sea wolf road between U.S. 380 and Jackson road as identified there on the image at the bottom right and then the last request is rezoning from RR and R2 to mixed use regional. The property itself is about 16 and a half acres located just north of university drive approximately 2800 feet west of golden hoof drive. This property was anticipated to host multifamily development as a part of the hickory grove legends ranch municipal utility district. I provide a little bit of background from that or about that in your backup and I do plan to cover that just briefly in the full presentation. Since the creation of that mud this property was excluded and annexed into the city in anticipation of that same land use multifamily development and so the applicant is or applicants are going through the process of getting their comprehensive plan, future land use designation, zoning and mobility situation underway. Brief history just so you have this in mind and we can answer any questions within this work session related to the background. The existing land use for the property is undeveloped or the didn't plan 2030 designated this area and the entire hickory grove legends ranch mud area as rural areas. With the update of the didn't 2040 we did designate the hickory grove and legends ranch single family area portion of the mud as low residential but we didn't really address the portion along US 380 even though with the mud this came forward as multifamily and future commercial uses. So now we're taking that step and establishing the appropriate or seeking to establish the appropriate future land use designation, zoning and thoroughfare map. That pretty much concludes the highlight of the presentation like I said I do have a more detailed presentation in the work session and your details are provided in your backup but I will happily answer any questions that you have at this time. Commissioner Dyer. So you alluded that this was not the zoning was not changed when the when the mud was put through. Why why is that like why would they if they already knew that there is multifamily going in here why not just do it all at that time. I'm not sure it looks like like I said the single family residential piece was anticipated and it could be possible that that use land use hadn't been completely figured out yet what was going along US 380. I will also add though that all of this was a part of the E.T.J. at first and we do not control zoning in the E.T.J. The change of that was the future land use designation in the comp plan and it looks like Charlie may have something to add. Good evening Commission. Charlie Rosendahl interim director of development services. So when the Hickory Grove well when the legends ranch which is now Hickory Grove mud first came to the city it was planned that that multifamily would be with included with the mud and not a part of the city. Subsequently after that they approached the city about increasing the number of units in the multifamily and a different comp concept plan. City Council approved at that point an amendment to the mud which required them to come in and annex a portion of that multifamily development. And so the reason for that is they would have to annex the property first and then come back for the rezoning which is why it's coming before you today. Thank you. Anything else? Yeah. Mr. Riggs. So I was looking at I think your first slide and it looked like a lot of this property is encumbered by a floodplain. So I guess they're good with doing some kind of loamer or something on that. They do have a clomer working for the development of the it was submitted and approved for the development of that single family portion to the north. This is actually the floodplain buffer area that's encumbering this property so they would just have to design it in accordance with that minimum flood finish floor elevation. So there is a clomer that removed some portions of the floodplain out and then they have to fill in the area up to the finish floor elevation for this site. Thank you. Commissioner Dyer. For us non-city employees or for those of us who do not work with city employees can you please explain what a clomer is? Sorry. So you know I'm very disappointed in Commissioner Riggs and like using high level language here. Conditional letter of map revision. So that is the conditional letter of map revision or a loamer is a letter of map revision that is submitted to and approved by the federal emergency management FEMA and essentially addresses when a flood is on a floodplain is on a property if there's an opportunity to revise that map and either redirect the flood or treat it and hold it somewhere else then that's what happens in that point. Thank you. Commissioner McAduff. Yes just a question on process I guess I was I think we were in this very room our last meeting and we had kind of the same strategy going I put a note on my proposal's triple threat or is this a groundhog day where I'm seeing the same three all together I'm just asking for is this something we might continue to see? I will look to Haley maybe to answer that I do know that the comprehensive plan is probably at a point now where there has been some changes over the years. So some of these changes are making sense and as we're noticing some changes around the area but I'll look to Haley to see how that plays out moving forward. So hopefully there they go I knew they'd work their magic from the back. So with respect to the three applications coming forward all at once I would say it's not uncommon it's not one of our more frequent things to do is amend all three documents at the same time but if someone does come in with a substantive area that they were seeking a zoning change for we will encourage them to update the comprehensive plan as a part of that process to make sure we're keeping it current as we go along. So I would say more often you'll see a comp plan and a zoning change kind of running concurrently sometimes a zoning and an SUP running concurrently because we do just try to keep things all grouped together so that you all see the full picture if someone is going to need multiple applications. Well I appreciate looking at the big picture but I was just maybe having some PTSD of what we heard last time around Chair Pruitt and so I was just asking that question out loud and I have a second part to that question. When is the comprehensive plan up for review? So we are at this time working through a grant application process to try to seek funding for a comp plan and mobility plan update possibly also parks and trails master plan update to work all three of those concurrently typically it's not on a like every five to seven years is what a city would would target so we're coming up on that time frame so we're trying to get ahead and make sure we have the funding in place to do that in the next year or so. I guess I don't remember schedules and timing perfectly but to your to your point about when do we do all three of these together versus not there was a what was it that that potential development for love first community village or love something out northwest of here that staff brought a comprehensive plan amendment work session to this body but I don't think many of these people saw it and so I'm just trying to understand like what is how does the determination between whether to do that before you move ahead with all three hearings or whether to just go forward and do them all at the same time yes. So I believe the one if I'm remembering correctly that there is a plan development proposed in that area and as part of looking at that application staff thought there was opportunity to maybe do a broader update to that to an area of the comprehensive plan not just the one specific property so that's why we brought that forward with the work session to see if the commission felt that they would support staff spending our time and energy on doing a broader comp plan amendment that particular application since we didn't do that when it's PD comes forward we'll have a comp plan amendment associated with it as a companion application so they'll they'll do that change on a personal specific basis rather than what we were looking at was potentially a broader area of the city okay okay thank you any other questions on this item I don't see any thank you Mia that brings us to 5d z25-15 for Craver Ranch again good evening chair members of the commission again Mia Heinz senior planner this item is a straight zoning request from for to just under 225 acres from rr to r1 to allow for the development of single-family residential lots the acre the applicant has stated that their intent is to develop this for one acre lots the r1 zoning district does allow for a minimum lot area of 32,000 square feet the property is located just southwest of the FM 2153 bend this is FM 2153 here and as you can see it kind of bends from north to south to east to west just adjacent to this property just to give you an orientation this is on the northern edge of the city relative or adjacent to the Craver Ranch development that we heard at the last meeting I believe and the development isn't consistent is consistent with the Denton 2040 plan future land use designation of agriculture and helps achieve the overall goals of policies including serving as an adequate land use transition from that development that we discussed last week our last meeting to the compact or rural development within the city's ETJ around Lake Ray Roberts with that staff is recommending approval and I will happily answer any questions that you have at this time. Go ahead if you had a question. I'm just going to keep asking this when I see this type of edge development because our comp plan is is pretty specific in several places that the types of development that we want in these areas is more clustered development more preservation that sort of thing like like not one and five acre lots but very small lots surrounded by tons of preserved land so is this just a conversation that is not coming up with developers or is this something that you are sharing with the development community and there are specific reasons why they say no we can't do that with your current regulations. Oh yeah so it's it's it's brought up with the the our cluster development techniques and styles and things that come along with that and of course it is ultimately up to the applicant and what their request is and how that serves their purpose. I will add that the R1 I guess this doesn't preclude them from being able to do a cluster development and for smaller lots in the future if there is environmentally sensitive areas on this property as I think there is a potentially a portion of it that would have to be assessed and then confirmed but they would have to avoid that Haley anything to add. No I would just add staff does make developers aware of those regulations when we think there is a possible fit for it with respect to floodplain or ESA on their properties I would I can think of one development that sort of utilize the tool I don't think it's a development style that is popular and in this area would be my most honest answer because I have not seen anyone actually take significant interest in utilizing that tool in our toolbox. So completely understand and agree it's not popular it's not common but I think our comp plan is very specific that this is what we want to see so I'd be interested in the future better understanding what it would take to make that financially viable for development because whatever it is right now is not doing it. Yeah. Right. So that's a revisit into what the actual DDC requires for cluster development and some of the instances that they offer for that absolutely yeah we can do that so okay any other questions Commissioner Mcduff. Yes Ms. Hines I'm not going to call you down in the front by first name like I saw on the video last week but I will say thank you for your work on the Krabur Ranch and I appreciate all that that was a lot good thinking but my question on this proposal is how is this related to the larger Krabur Ranch project were they ready were they ready to sell and then waiting on the Krabur Ranch to go. Yeah I can fill in a little bit and Hillary correct me if I'm getting off posting but for the history on this one I do know that it was owner or retained by the owner the original owner of Krabur and they did want to do something a little different than make it a part of the plan development this area isn't included in the municipal management district for Krabur so it is a separate kind of parcel of land in itself and again their stated intent is to do one acre lots for this property whereas the Krabur property has a sort of mixture of R4 and R7 within it. Commissioner Riggs. That actually made me think of another question and it might go to your point Eric so if they're they're not in the in the district I assume they won't have sewer service. So they would Charlie but I believe they would be able to benefit from the improvement some of the capital improvements that will be occurring in that area with regard to the utility line extensions there because I was gonna say one of the reasons they may want to go with one acre is for septic systems you have to one acre minimum. Well that brings up a good question for me to learn something because I'm aware that at least in Denton County there's a one acre for a well and two acres for a septic or it might be flipped is that correct so and the question would be is sure if somebody wanted to do it in the city do we have those same requirements because we defer to the county or how does that I'm not sure of the county specific regulation should they have any that are different from ours I know state law TCEQ sets minimums I believe theirs is actually a half acre to have either well or septic one acre to do both the city expanded that and requires one acre to do either a well or a septic system or two acres if you wish to do both on the same property okay Commissioner McDuff sorry I'll get you second yes just as a follow-up are there other properties ready to go after this other proposals coming forward in this area mm-hmm I have not received any other applications for zoning related items in this area thank you Commissioner Dyer you know sometimes we talk about transition of what's being built out there and when you look at what's along 2153 and burger road like this will be a nice transition from all of the current you know one to thirty some acre lots in that area into a plan development where you're going to have smaller lots and a little bit higher density so this essentially will kind of be that northeast corner of Craver Ranch and so it does to me it does fit a transition of development and to that note I do have a little a little bit information about the Lake Ray Roberts provided in the backup but there is a zoning district that's within the county that kind of ensures a certain lot size in the county as well so it would maintain or continue to serve as that transition for the foreseeable future anything else thank you man brings us to five e SD 25 - one good evening chair and commissioners Cameron Robertson and principal planner give me one moment this is a request for a special sign district of an approximately 120 acre commercial area parcel located along that northwest corner of ropes and ranch and interstate 35 West the purpose of this special sign district is for some ground sign sizing locations and numbers as well as some additional sign types and definitions that do not currently meet our chapter 33 regulations but section 33.18 of the denton sign code does allow creation of special sign districts to deviate from those regulations as long as there's a comprehensive sign plan in place stuff is recommending approval as it complies with our criteria I do have a lot of information in my presentation later this evening that I'm going to be covering in terms of sizing and some of the backup material in terms of the numbers terminology but I can answer any questions and I do have some background on the denton sign code in general if you all want me to cover that during work session questions I think my my question Cameron is I'm not familiar with whether the boundaries of hunter MMC or MPC and the landmark interests are the same or not and I'm trying to understand this is not the entire frontage of 35 within hunter so why it's a large area but it's not all of it it's I would I would expect like either all of it or a smaller area than this can you help me understand of course so the hunter ranch MPC is still known as the hunter ranch MPC but now it has been formally renamed to landmark so it's still same the same boundaries as the hunter ranch MPC the new name is just landmark so there's some of that confusion there but in terms of this commercial area this property as we very much well know it's going to be developed in phases this is kind of that first commercial area along that 35 frontage that's going to be developed so they're looking specifically especially because there is a grocery store anchor that is planning to be located in this area that this is going to be the first commercial area that kind of takes off in terms of mixed use office space additional tenants and commercial uses so looking just here first and then moving as the phases progress okay thank you any other questions commissioner Dyer I don't really have a question but I have kind of a comment do you happen to have the slide where it shows the notification boundary yes so Haley tell me if I'm wrong but in the development code review committee we're about ready to talk about notifications right it wasn't that on an upcoming agenda item so for the three of us that sit in you know out of this committee that sits on that committee the owner is notifying the owner like when you look at you know who this is going to affect maybe that's something that we I know it fits within the boundaries that they're supposed to notify but essentially three quarters of that they're notifying themselves with the exception of maybe one neighbor and this is you know this will affect future homeowners that right now don't exist and it will affect another community west of that on the south side of the road and another community west of that that's in Denton city limits on the north side of ropes and ranch road and it affects you know the other commercial spaces and everything over there like maybe when we're talking about these notifications because I noticed that even on some of it was some of the other ones that we had at the last meeting that the neighbors that really get notified are really sometimes not that many when you're looking at something like this sure so I would I'll let Angie jump in on the DC RC piece in a second I would just say there's a reason we do multiple layers of notification because the signs that were posted all along the property do serve as that notice to anyone that is in the broader area our notices are compliant with state law and go above and beyond so it would have to be counsel direction for us to change that policy and thus far they have direct us that 500 feet is as far beyond the state law minimum that they would like something I you know I noticed it especially in this case where the majority of that's you know it's all the honor the developer hi Angie Mingler I just wanted to touch on the code notification piece to public hearings and actually it's very timely because we'll talk a little bit about that in our work session here later this evening we did talk briefly about some of the public hearing changes that would be coming forward as a result to changes that were made this legislative session as part of state law they were approved by City Council last night actually I believe they came before this body possibly in November and so and again to just reiterate what Haley is saying we really just updated those to match what state law says because they kind of dictate how that goes but we will talk more about it later in this work session just about those specific changes and what we do to notify the public because this is really us requiring the developer like it's it's the onus is on the developer to send out the notices right remember that correctly the city the city prepares the notices and sends them out the developers is the cause they have to put the signs and they're responsible for the signs but we tell them the frequency the size and the content of those signs okay okay thank you I guess to follow up on that and this came up last month as well with these applications that are near to encore serviced electric areas or or in it do we have a consistent process for doing the 500 foot address poles when it's outside of DME serviced area and how does that work to my knowledge this is DME service area looking at Charlie to see if he knows any different than that and you know just in general I just want to make sure that staff is not having to manually look through 1980s phone books to find addresses right no so we do pull I believe from parcel addresses as well as those utility billing addresses and correlate one list from those two different sources to try to capture everyone but okay yeah Haley is correct in that so the 200 foot notice go to the property owner based on the latest certified tax roll and the 500 foot notices go out to the residents within 500 feet and so that data is by either the address or if we have additional addresses in the example of an apartment complex where there may be a single address in DCADS information but we have multiple units within our utility billing system so that would go out to those additional addresses though so we combine all of that information and send those notices out okay so so in other words leasy addresses either for a commercial development or a multifamily or something like that would be only known to us if they are DME serviced customer is that right no so it would go out to the property so the owner gets a notification and then the property gets a notification okay regardless of that owner is off-site or on-site and then in addition to that we take in the utility billing information so that that's an extra thing so if we don't we don't have the utility billing information outside of our service area but they would still get a notification to that property yeah the owner or the manager of the property would get it but the the residents or or businesses that lease there only get it if they're DME customers that's what it sounds like is that correct no no sorry it would go to the mailbox on the property so if you if you had an address there then it would go to you so if it's unit a then they would go to that person even if they're leasing that property okay so we have a sorry if I'm just slow but we have a database of all the mailing addresses when there's multiple addresses per parcel even if it's not in our utility service area no okay I see what you're saying so it would go to the parcel unless that parcel had multiple addresses on it through DCAT okay yeah okay Commissioner Riggs yeah I think also you're not just pulling from DME you're also pulling from water and trash service and sewer service yeah our utility service billing yeah no yes 100% sorry for my rabbit trailing we'll we'll have opportunities to talk about that soon any other question on this item for Cameron don't see any thanks Cameron brings us to 5f SUP for a modular data center good evening chair members of the Commission Angie mingler assistant planning director this is a specific use permit request for approximately 4.06 acres of land situated approximately 1800 feet south of Jim Crystal Road and east of Western Boulevard adjacent to the RD well substation property has a little bit of split zoning it is predominantly zoned public facilities with a portion of heavy industrial zoning it I'm sorry just lost my train of thought it is surrounded by heavy industrial uses as well as a DME substation and the purpose of this SUP is to permit a modular data center might have include eight modular data center pods and is consistent with the prior approved lease agreement and power purchase agreement with that municipal electric for this parcel of land the area is zoned industrial and the proposed use is consistent with the future land use of industrial commerce for this site staff is recommending approval of the SUP there are several conditions associated with it that were included in your backup and will be shown during regular session but I'm happy to answer any immediate questions you may have at this moment. Commissioner McTuffin yes Angie could you comment on the noise and vibration assessment sure so that's a requirement set forth in the use specific standards and there's kind of two different tiers to that for this particular one given its location in an industrial zoning area and it's not adjacent to any residential land uses they're required to submit an initial assessment which was included in the backup of what the ambient noise is at different points along the property upon installation of the modular data centers they're responsible for verifying that these modular data center pods do not exceed do not create additional noise above I think it's an additional three decibels at those same measurement points so they took initial measurements and their plan shows to be compliant upon installation of everything and once it's up and running they are responsible for submitting verification that they are compliant with that given its use it is sandwiched between an electrical substation and the Peter belt manufacturing in their parking lot it does appear that it's going to be compliant but they're responsible for demonstrating that to us upon completion of their installation thank you I have another one share Eric also and you would you comment on the water supply and known the cooling it seems to me that there's no need for additional water or wastewater that it's self-contained can you talk about that please for our understanding it to the best of my ability I can talk about it yes and so where this site is situated there there is not currently water immediately available to the site in working with you know our fire department as well as landscape I'm sorry I'm not good at multitasking here okay here we go they are providing a water storage tank on site to help establish that landscaping they are using drought tolerant materials as well as fire department did ensure that this could meet their needs should a situation ever arise on site this is not a continually manned site so there won't be you know restroom facilities out there there is a little you know modular office that they'll use predominantly for repairs so this was this explanation was provided to me by the applicant but it is on a closed loop cooling system where these servers do sit in a in a fluid which is circulated through dry coolers and eventually it returns to the tank so it is not a continual water supply source but rather there though the fluid that is in there will be circulated outside through these coolers and then back through reducing the need for continual water supply to the site that's the best I can explain it I'm sorry thank you any other questions Commissioner Dyer when you're looking at this particular overlay that we're doing do you guys all talk about you know I know Commissioner Macduff talked about you know the water needed but what about like all of the power and the energy because data centers do require that I mean yes it's great next to the substation but will that affect any of the surrounding businesses or any like how self-sufficient will they be in there for their energy needs sure they will be able to be supplied without detracting from you know surrounding businesses so Denton municipal electric after our first data center was was approved and constructed out by the main energy center did start to receive several requests from different providers who were wanting to install a data center adjacent to other substations so to make the selection process fair DME did prepare a request for proposals to to outline what they were wanting and solicited that and then this this user was ultimately selected and was determined that they can meet all of the needs of the site and that DME could could supply them within reason and so that that's how we have ultimately got here today okay thank you maybe I'm reading the map wrong is this the old outdoor firing range that is a little bit further to the west okay on the other side of I think western okay it's in the vicinity though got it thank you any other questions thank you Angie all right brings us to 5g our last public hearing for Angie and Julie on ADU and townhome standards yes good evening again I'll be giving kind of a the work session overview but if you have any specific questions of Julia myself happy to answer them but this is a code amendment related to missing middle housing specifically to amendments to townhomes and accessory dwelling units so just a little bit of a summary the purpose of this request is to update several sections of the Denton development code to clarify and refine regulations surrounding missing middle housing as they relate to townhome and accessory dwelling units to facilitate these types of developments as well as remove some of the barriers to entry this is in support of several of our housing goals as outlined in the comprehensive plan the affordable housing toolkit southeast Denton area plan as well as the design downtown Denton plan this does help support a variety of housing needs to meet the community's need for affordable housing choice and neighborhood investment several of these amendments are designed to remove conflicting or complicated language as it relates to streamlining these permitting processes the amendments are consistent with direction received from the planning and zoning commission as it relates to townhomes as well as the development code review committee as it relates to accessory dwelling units overall it does increase opportunity for missing middle housing in the city of Denton and staff is recommending approval of the criteria because it meets the criteria now I know only some of you are on the development code review committee so it did want to provide I'm sorry a little bit of background as well as just an overview of what ADUs and townhomes are so again this purpose is to facilitate townhome and ADU development in the city staff initially presented the townhome amendments to planning and zoning commission as part of a work session the ADUs were workshopped through the development code review committee over several meetings in the spring took a little bit of a break for the legislative session to wrap up and to conduct community engagement we did community engagement for both of these topics together throughout three community meetings that were held in August two of those were in person one was virtual and then a survey was posted following that for about three weeks overall the survey results we received approximately 54 55 responses and the reason for that discrepancy is not every person answered every question but there was general support for the amendments as they were presented so ADUs just again a little bit of a brief overview these are defined as a subordinate dwelling unit that are either added to or created within a single family residential unit it does provide basic requirements for living that includes cooking as well as sanitation HUD code manufactured homes are not ADUs we do currently allow them in all of our residential districts so our R through R7 and in MN is that also permits single family dwellings as it is today on lots that are greater than 10,000 square feet ADUs can be up to a maximum of 50 percent of the primary structure on lots that are less than 10,000 square feet ADUs may be up to 50 percent of the primary dwelling structure however they cannot exceed a thousand square feet and these are some examples just of ADUs as they exist in the city this is a detached one so you can kind of see in the rear you have a portion of that ADU peeking out and then this is actually an attached ADU where this portion has been remodeled to be an accessory dwelling unit that's attached to the primary. Town homes are different they are 3 to 8 attached single family dwelling units each of which is on its own lot so they're separate households they're on their own lot they are currently allowed in the MD, MN, MR, R6 and R7 zoning districts no changes are being proposed as part of these amendments to where town homes are permitted and then town homes are also allowed in the R4 district with an SUP some of the amendments that we're considering as part of this is the lot size the maximum number of units and then open space requirements related to town homes and this is coming out of the work session you all had earlier this year and then also some of the public engagement that we held over the summer. The full presentation will have a little bit more detail into what each of these code amendments are changing and how they may different but staff is recommending approval of these as they meet our criteria and advance missing middle housing goals. I'm happy to answer any questions and Julie is also here. Commissioner Riggs. So you forward us on a letter or email from Mrs. Oldner can you kind of talk to some of the concerns she shared in that letter? Sure. The main concern that a resident had submitted regarding an NADU in the neighborhood was its height and scale as it related to her home and the surrounding homes. Height was not a topic that the DCRC initially looked at and those concerns had been brought up during our discussions and we did look at height and ADUs and as they exist in single family neighborhoods. So and that was the primary concern was the height and if there's something else you're wanting me to elaborate I'm happy to. From the height standpoint as it is today there is no height regulation different from what is allowed in the zoning district for accessory structures meaning in all of our residential zoning districts the maximum height is 40 feet. So an ADU could be up to 40 feet in height. We did talk about at development code review committee a variety of options and never really came to a consensus and so we took it to the public. There were a couple different suggestions that came about. One would be limiting the ADU to the height of that primary structure so if you have a 20 foot tall home you can have a 20 foot tall ADU. Another would be because we have some differing setbacks that could be allowed for accessory structures limiting the height within the primary setbacks for the home to 20 feet but 15 feet if you took advantage of some of the reduced setback options and then the other was no change so continuing to allow the height of the zoning district. The survey results did show most people were okay with the height of the zoning district and that particular circumstance you know that ADU I know we're not here to talk about the specifics of it but just for context did meet all of our requirements it is approximately 19 and a half feet tall. It is taller than the main home but it is within the zoning district and it is situated behind the home and is otherwise architecturally compatible. So and just for for all PNZ's sake but one of the things that we did talk about in DCRC was the possibility of having a garage with a living area above the garage too and that would be taller than the obviously a one-story home so. Any other questions Commissioner MacDuff? Just a comment I'm not sure that I got that letter from Ms. Zoltner. Yeah I believe it was distributed to the Development Code Review Committee because that's what it was asked for. Oh you did get it. No I didn't I said I meant I understand. Got it. Yes she specifically asked I forward it to that committee. I got it I understand but I do have a question short question thanks. On the parking we are and could you comment on the accessory dwelling unit parking on table 7.9.1? Absolutely parking for accessory dwelling units as it is today is one parking space per bedroom. That is I don't want to tier things but I would say it is one of the bigger barriers to entry for individuals looking to add an ADU if you have a two-bedroom ADU also trying to site parking within that it becomes increasingly difficult. It was a recommendation out of I believe the Southeast Dentinary Plan as well as our affordable housing toolkit to look at those parking regulations. So the way it is written today is no additional parking would be required however if you are removing parking that was required for that primary structure to build your ADU you do have to put it back and that is consistent with how we treat parking with single family today when new permits come in. Okay. Commissioner Dyer. In looking at the updated language that the development code review committee came out with do you remember what the vote was when we voted on all that like was it a unanimous vote? For consensus? Yeah. It is because I remember there was some back and forth. Sure and I tried to call out that specifically in the staff I'm sorry the AIS. I will say it is difficult because we don't take votes in DCRC but we reached consensus. Everything did have overwhelming consensus to move forward. The one spot we did get a little bit of dialogue on was this is just going to be easier if I can show you. Trying to talk off the top of my head. But allowing ADUs to be accessory to other structures was where some of the there wasn't as clear consensus and let me rephrase that. When these initially went through the development code review committee we were looking at how can we expand options for people who maybe have a town home and want to renovate their garage or possibly have a duplex on a slightly larger lot. There was quite a bit of back and forth but we did get to a point of consensus of allowing ADUs for lots where it works. Now just because you allow it doesn't mean every lot is going to work but for town homes, duplexes and triplexes one per unit was generally acceptable and the community found that to be the case as well. 70% of individuals said they were okay with it and then some others either disagreed or didn't have an opinion one way or the other. Coming back to DCRC we did have some additional dialogue about what if we allowed and this was your recommendation so if I get it wrong correct me but I think it was one ADU per unit within a duplex so possibly one duplex could have two ADUs and that did spark some additional dialogue. I tried to call it all out and highlight it in the AIS. The language that is included in your ordinance is the one per principal dwelling unit because that's what we did receive consensus on and public direction on but noting that if a separate recommendation for that was wanted I tried to lay out the different discussions that were had at that time. Yeah tell me commissioners if I am not remembering this correctly but I think we were talking about you know a duplex or a triplex or a fourplex and how many ADUs we were going to allow that's where the big conversation of the parking kind of came in. I think we did have some conversation about parking at that time and so I do want to clarify one thing. It would be one ADU for those structures it was duplexes we were looking at possibly allowing up to two one per side and the reason the other ones would be limited is because once you get five or more units on a lot we classify that as multifamily and so we're no longer in the realm of ADUs we've actually we've kind of gone into our multifamily definition so it wouldn't work in some of the other situations. Okay thank you. So just one question so that I understand what the the red line text the final text means when we talk about per principal dwelling unit are there one or two principal dwelling units on a lot with a duplex? That is a that may need to be wordsmithed a little bit but my understanding would be you could have one ADU for your duplex the duplex being that structure with two units within it but I take your point that could maybe be wordsmithed a little bit to clarify. Okay. You can have you may have one per structure. Okay so that's that staff's recommendation. Yes that's staff's recommendation. And I we'll talk about it more in the in the hearing. I'd appreciate if you could go back and double check I think DCRC's consensus on that was to allow one per dwelling unit on duplexes. We did not reach consensus and the direction was to to try and highlight that and I I tried to in the AIS as best I could. Got it. But and and that was where things did start to get a little less clear on where we all were that was your recommendation. Okay. And so the direction was to. It was split so we get to talk about it some more. Try and talk about it some more. Sounds great. So I kept the language as we saw it originally but it is open to a you know discussion. Okay. Any other questions? I don't see any thank you. Brings us to our work session item. Let's yeah we got 30 minutes let's let's take a eight minute pause because that's how many minutes it took last time grab food and come back and do the the work session item on notifications. So at five fifty seven we'll take eight minute recess. Good afternoon at six oh six p.m. We will reconvene the planning and zoning work session and we are taking our item three a work session report PZ twenty five dash two thirty six engagement and then we're going to bring Angie in. So so you'll have two on this one time. So what tonight we're going to be talking about just a brief review of our notification and protest procedures some public engagement types and strategies some lessons learned and then also best practices for commissioners when engaging with residents or developers. So first we're going to talk about public notification and protest procedures. We thought this was a good time to talk about this because of the recent legislative changes. So we're just going to talk briefly about about what that means and how it affects how we move forward with these projects. So when is public notification required for your purposes. Public notification is required for any of those comprehensive plan amendments and zoning amendments that could be both map rezoned a PD or text specific use permits and then alternative ESA plans. Public notification is also required for annexation and historic and conservation district designations. So the first legislation I want to talk about was in twenty twenty three and it was it established the nine to nine notice. You don't see this one very often but it is intended to notify relevant parties that a proposed change in zoning map or text might cause their current existing use to become nonconforming. There have been a couple of them in the last couple of years. The one I remember is we had an amendment to our elderly housing regulations. It made one facility in the city nonconforming. So the city sent a notice not only to the property owner but also all residents who lived in that facility. Recently you heard in November and council approved last night state law changes to notification from this year and it created some categories of zoning change for notification. One is a comprehensive zoning change and that's any city initiated zoning change right zoning regulation change that would allow more housing to be built. It could also include adoption of a new zoning code or map that applies to the entire city and adoption of an overlay that would add more housing but is also on a major roadway. And then the other categories that relates to notification is just all of their zoning changes. So how are those treated with notification. Well for the comprehensive zoning change the notification requirement is to publish in the newspaper and then also publish online. No written notification is required. For zoning cases that would render current use nonconforming that's that nine to nine notice. We would use all of our typical notices and that is published in the newspaper published on our website a letter to property owners within two hundred feet and then a letter to residents within five hundred feet plus a sign on the property. The nine to nine notice would take it a little further and that we would need to send a letter to both to both the property owners as well as any tenants or residents for both the planning and zoning commission and city council informing them that the proposal might make their use nonconforming. And the state legislature was very specific and what had to go in that notice and that that language needed to be in fourteen point type and bold. So our notices had to tend to reflect that. And then all other zoning cases would would really just follow our typical standards where there is a small change is that the city of Denton has has a policy related to signs signs to be posted on the property and they were fairly large signs. I don't remember the exact size two by three I think and they have to be put every five hundred feet along rights of way. The state legislature changed that size to twenty four inches long by 40 48 inches wide. So that increases them by six inches essentially. So it's still a large sign but slightly larger than what the city of Denton required prior to when it comes to protest. Twenty twenty three didn't have any changes to protest but twenty twenty five did have those changes to protest and it included those categories of zoning change with one one additional. First you got the comprehensive zoning change the the adding more housing that the item that would apply to all the entire city or or on a major roadway zoning changes which would allow additional housing or meet specific standards for mixed use development and that would be limitations on commercial industrial development. That could be property property owner initiated and then all other zoning changes. So we have three types for protest. So how do that how do those work. So the comprehensive zoning change that is exempt from the protest procedure. So of course residents can can speak it at any public hearing provide any written protest or any written feedback to that but it would not trigger any additional voting requirements in order to approve it. Those zoning changes which allow additional housing or meet those specific standards for mixed use development those protest procedures changed in that if the city receives written protest from owners of at least 60 percent of the lots or land within two hundred feet of the request that would require a majority of all city council members to vote in the affirmative to approve it. So what does that mean. Well the city has seven city council members so it would require four regardless of how many were sitting on the dais. So if you have all seven you just have a simple majority. If you only have five there you have to have four out of five. That makes sense. And then all other zoning cases really follow our previous practice and that is if if we receive written opposition from owners of any land of 20 percent of the property 200 feet from sorry if you we receive written opposition from owners of any lots of land within 200 feet of the property if that if that equals 20 percent then it would require a super majority of city council members and that is six out of seven. So what does that look like in terms of that increase in residential housing or mixed use. That 60 percent it would be 60 percent of the area between the yellow line and the red line. It's not 60 percent of the lots. It is 60 percent of the area. All other zoning cases it would require 20 percent of between the yellow line and the red streets are counted toward that area. And if the red line bisects a lot say there is a a lot right on them on that line. Only that portion that is between the yellow and red lines would count. There is one other thing that also comes out fairly frequently and that is notification to the extraterritorial jurisdiction. That property is outside of city limits. The state attorney general has issued a a opinion on on whether cities need to notify people within the E.T.J. And it is because it is outside of the city's jurisdiction and taxable boundaries. Cities are not required to notify property owners within the E.T.J. If you're accurate I want to add a little bit of legal color. So this opinion was in response to a city asking a question about hey do we have to notice the E.T.J. And so the opinion is just an interpretation of the existing statute and confirms that Denton is on the right track and doing everything correctly. Now we often hear from community members who are in the E.T.J. And of course they can come and speak with the planning and zoning commission or provide feedback to staff which will provide to the planning and zoning commission. But any any feedback or written notice that they provide to us cannot go toward that 20 percent opposition or that 60 percent opposition that that would require that additional voting regulation. Does that make sense. So we can hear from them but but it doesn't go toward that super majority requirement. And here's just all of our public notification materials. Here's what they look like. We have a sign. We also post on the Web site here looks like that. This is the postcard that sent to property owner or sorry residents within 500 feet newspaper notice here in the center. This is our nine to nine notice with that 14 point bold in a red box to see kind of what it looks like. And then we have our typical letter that we send to property owners within 200 feet. Finally the planning and zoning commission. Those agendas are posted online and the city allows for e-comments. So you probably get those from Kathy before the meeting. And here's what what that area of the Web site looks like. The city also goes one step further and that residents or interested people may may register to get notifications if something is happening. So I a resident can can go to the Web site and fill out this form provide their name email address and then and then show a location on a map and what kind of buffer they want from the map so that they would get notification if any project was coming in in that area. So it's kind of nice. Feel free to encourage people to sign up. So that ends for notification. And now we're going to talk about public engagement types and strategies. We're going to kind of shift gears and that the notification really is something that you you comes into play with when when a request is coming before you or there there is a change. The public engagement types and strategies are are often when when they are when they are done by the city staff or are sort of an affirmative planning like is this what the community wants to see. Is it a long range planning. Is it it's some sort of change in the regulation. So it's a little bit different. Our general goals for public engagement. First of all we want to listen to the community. We want to hear what the community has to say. We'd love to maximize participation from area or topic stakeholders or ensure that representation or participation is from a representative sample. Of course we want to inform the community members about what's going on as well as educate about planning practices and and and issues. We want to build relationships. So much of our area planning and comprehensive planning efforts go out or are about meeting people in the community and forming those relationships. Capture feedback to apply to a project. And of course we always want to stay within a budget. We're going to talk about several types of public engagement and I've got them grouped into four categories. So this first category is pop up event or intercept surveys. And for those of y'all who weren't on the planning and zoning commission when we went forward with the design downtown Denton or the southeast end area plan you may not be as familiar with this technique but it's essentially going out in the community where where the people are. So you can kind of you can stand in front of a restaurant and ask people questions if they want to participate. You could talk to community members at events be there and and be able to provide information or get feedback. We've gone to rec centers. We've gone to elementary schools. We've done the parking day on the square. So there are a lot of different opportunities and and there's probably no one right way to do it. We just try to think of ways that we could get out in front of people. So this strategy what are the advantages or what are the disadvantages and pitfalls advantages. You can capture groups that would typically not come to a community meeting. Not everybody has time to come to the community meeting or or visioning or feedback session so you can kind of get people where they are. They could be inexpensive pretty easy to do straightforward preparation clipboard a table maybe some boards. You don't have to market it. You don't have to send out postcards because you're just you're going to be out in the community. You could capture qualitative data. You could talk to people and then there's also just those happy accidents where you can meet the right person or you can find out something about the community that you wouldn't have otherwise known. There are disadvantages. I would say probably it's third on the list but probably wind is one of the biggest problems especially if you're outside and you have boards. We also it can be difficult to ensure that the respondents or participants are actually those stakeholders within the question we're asking. While it can be very inexpensive inexpensive it can also get expensive depending on how how you structure your pop up. Location is important. If we are trying to reach a certain community or stakeholder we need to think really hard about where those groups are going to be and that's where we need to be. You don't want to go to a senior center to talk about something some playground. Right. So you want to make sure that you match your your location with your group. And these are great for strategy for plans or questions that really have broad interest. Once again because we can't necessarily control who's who's giving feedback. We also have online surveys. We did these with we did them with townhomes and missing middle. We've also done them with the area plans. These are really convenient. They're convenient to put together. They're convenient for for residents to fill out. They can do it in their pajamas. They're inexpensive. Pretty turnkey. The results are really easy to tabulate. It's called it's quantitative data low barrier to entry. Easy to do. And we get we can formalize those messages. The disadvantages once again hard to determine if the respondents are actually those stakeholders on that question on the platform may skew results. They're not everybody is is wants to take surveys online. We want to make sure we write good survey questions right. We want to make sure we get the right information. It is hard to capture those that qualitative data. We're not getting the stories from the community right. We're not making those connections and forming those relationships. The the the next engagement strategy are those community meetings. Those can take the form of visioning workshops and formal presentations. We can do preference surveys. We can report findings back to the community. These are are these are those typical community meetings that that that we're all familiar with where we invite residents or or stakeholders to to a big room and we all talk. These are the bread and butter. These are the historically used engagement activity. You often attract those passionate participants because think about it they had to get dressed and they had to drive somewhere and they had to take time out of their time of their schedule. And so they want to be there. You could get qualitative data. You could talk to people. You can understand where they're coming from. It is a great strategy for specific projects. You can make sure that your community meeting is in the right spot and invite the right people right. And once again develop relationships as as with online surveys. It's but it's a little bit different. It can sometimes skew those results because you attract a different type of of community member someone who maybe isn't a parent or a student or who works normal business hours right. It's really hard for people for parents or people who work shift work to come to community meetings. They don't have the time. Once again you also have those passionate participants so that could be a good thing and a bad thing. You have people who are really really interested but you don't hear from those people who who you know might have an opinion or might have some insight but they're just not passionate about the idea. Quantitative data is harder to measure. You're not you're not necessarily making tallies not necessarily representative sample. You have to use marketing so that budget comes into play intensive preparation for staff. You're putting together you're you're doing postcards. You're you're putting door hangers out. You're doing all those things and then you're putting together presentations and then finally small groups. That's where we're getting you to focus groups steering committees stakeholder interviews and design Tourette's. So these are probably the most intensive engagement activity when you're asking a community member stakeholder resident to participate. Again you get those passionate participants. Think about it if you're on a steering committee for a project you want to be there because you're going to be there many times. It ensures participation from a specific group or or topic or area. If you know you want to talk to people who ride bikes you can invite people who ride bikes right. You get qualitative data and that deeper understanding. You don't have to market. You just have to call people or invite people. You could develop relationships. It can be inexpensive. Once again you gotta have participants who are are dedicated to the project and could give that time. It can be intensive to prepare. Once again quantitative data can be hard to find. You're not you're not you know it's not a survey or a poll. And you can you want to make sure you have the right people there. You want you want to make sure all stakeholders all represented groups are at the table to ensure that your data adequately captures what you want to capture. So with that I'm going to turn it over to Angie. She's going to talk faster. Luckily we really gave Julie most of the speaking. So I'll be quick. So we just want to go over some of the lessons learned and then I'll cover best practices from commissioners. So as you saw over the last couple of years I think particularly end of twenty two into twenty three we did a lot of public engagement. So we have some lessons learned mistrust and misinformation kind of that kind of sometimes go hand in hand. It just depends on who you're talking to in the communities that you're in. There may just be some some mistrust in the community of what is the city's intentions. Maybe you've had a bad experience and that's something that you it's a barrier that exists. We're aware of it. And so that's why a lot of our engagement efforts are just relation building and just listening to people. Misinformation especially in you know the age of the Internet is easy to to come across and it's easy to perpetuate going hand in hand with some of those things as some fear change is sometimes difficult. So when you see you're being invited to a community meeting to talk about as you know a city initiated project it could create some fear. I think more than that we see apathy kind of like Julie mentioned you do get you're very interested in passionate community members but those who maybe have great ideas there's just not as much interest in coming. Likewise getting some of your your younger population to participate in things can be difficult and then budget you know if we could throw a pizza party every other week and get a couple hundred people out that would be great but it's just sometimes not the reality. So you do have to start to think a little bit creatively. We have learned an awful lot and ways to overcome some of these barriers. One is tailoring your community engagement to your audience and your project goals. Once you have kind of your you know your stakeholders making sure you're updating people regularly on those project status types. We really find discussed and has been helpful specifically as we work through some of our bigger code amendments as well as area plans. Your silent community validators can really be your biggest champions you know your people who are invested in the community and building relationships with them can be really important. Likewise so is just spending time in the community becoming a face that they know and recognize. Words matter and along with that education is important as we saw tonight like planners are pretty guilty of using jargon or acronyms all the time like clomer or lomer making sure we're using words that everybody understands or educating them on what it is that we're talking about. Creativity and variety are also super important we are sometimes not the most creative group but when we do show a little bit it does go a long way. I'm trying to find ways to be interactive also ways to encourage families to come out by providing you know activities specific for children. Branding it was super important for the downtown plan as you can see at the bottom here we had these little coasters with their logo on it you see you still see stickers around town it gave people like some stake in that project and then no matter what you do at the end of the day you can't and you won't please everybody. That's just something that we as staff know and it's just kind of how it goes sometimes. That's a lot about public engagement. I do want to talk just a little bit it'll be it'll be brief I know we're close to time on just some of the best practices when engaging with residents and or developers. These are mostly just reminders for you all as communicating and engaging in dialogue is going to be largely an individual choice. When in doubt ask your council member what their expectations are for you but should you choose to engage in dialogue either with residents or developers. These are some of our tips and best practices. First use your city email especially when communicating with the public or developers about city business or anything related to you as a commissioner. Just remember the Texas Open Meetings Act so that keeps all of your city things in one email and it keeps your personal email personal and separate from all of that. If you do choose to meet with a developer filling out this little handy disclosure form is great and we encourage it. It is optional. Alternatively you can also disclose at the dais you know during public hearing and deliberation hey I met with Mr. Smith these are the things we talked about just so everybody on the commission does know that you did meet and kind of what you talked about to be as transparent as possible. Also if you gleaned anything that might be of benefit it's being shared transparently. Neighborhood meetings they're optional you may sometimes be asked to attend. Staff does attend to just keep notes on what was talked about. If you do attend we ask that you please be mindful of quorum so if you see four or more of you we would ask that maybe you self-moderate and somebody can recuse themselves otherwise if staff is present we might be like hey sorry you're the last one here we have a quorum and then likewise be mindful of inadvertently creating situations which might be a walking quorum. So good ways to avoid that is try not to reply all to any emails especially if it includes all of you. We as staff when we communicate with you do try to blind copy you at all times so that's not an option but if a resident emails be mindful of that replying all likewise try not to daisy chain emails and so if I email Commissioner Pruitt he's like hey this is super cool I'm gonna send it to Commissioner Dyer and then we send it to Commissioner McDuff and we've created this like we've created a walking quorum. So those are things to be mindful of just when manning your email as well as when you when you talk to people but again largely an individual choice these are just some of our suggestions for how to handle things if you do choose to engage again with the public or with developers biggest takeaway city email is your friend but not forwarding it to your other commissioners. We will be sure to share this presentation with you all it was a lot of information but can answer any immediate questions or I don't know how you want to handle it I know we're close on time. Yeah I mean I think it's an important topic so I want to make sure questions are answered. Just to kick it off I recall one of the work sessions that council had on developer notifications of meetings and this sort of thing that set the policy framework for that voluntary disclosure and at the time our city manager who is Todd Heilman at the time you know he said that different cities do it a lot of different ways and in his opinion the private meeting between a city council member or in this case a commissioner and a developer opens up the opportunity for you know things that may be partial truths or things that may not be said in open to be shared his suggestion at the time was that the best way to protect that if you do feel like it would be beneficial to your deliberations to meet with a developer is to ask a staff member to come along who can then be there take notes and hit city manager Heilman's description of that was that it just changes the conversation in the sense that everybody kind of knows it's being recorded from a note taking perspective and and there's a check there on are we saying the right things and then that can more easily be distributed to the rest of the commission so I guess my question is obviously that was a past city manager this is not council policy is that sort of thing something that staff would be willing to provide as a service if if there is development interest that reaches out to commission members in the future sure and if I get completely off base Haley can you know cut me off but I think if you all are in a situation where you are wanting to have a meeting with a developer and feel more comfortable if a staff person would attend I you know provided we're able to accommodate that time I think we'd be more than happy to do that and sit in on it yeah I don't have anything else I think yeah that's something if if it's ever desired I think either Haley or myself or the planner assigned could find time to make it okay any other questions all right thank you very much we'll send this to you all thank you at 6 34 p.m. that concludes our work sessions we will reconvene in a few minutes in council chambers for the regular session thank you good evening at 6 41 p.m. on Wednesday December 17th we will call this meeting of the Denton Planning and Zoning Commission to order with a quorum present our first order of business is to stand and say the pledge of allegiance to the US and Texas flags honor the Texas flag I pledge allegiance to be Texas one state under God one indivisible that brings us to item to consider approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes from November 19th do we have a motion oh I am logged in but I don't see the motion button okay I haven't hit the button but I'll go ahead and make a motion okay I'm happy to second that motion okay yeah give it a few seconds here and then we'll it's just easier to compile the minutes and everything okay we'll take a motion by unanimous consent raise your hand if I see unanimous consent for that item that brings us to our that passes six zero that brings us to item three the consent agenda I do have one card that was filled out for a consent agenda plat the the way our our work session and regular session is split up comments on the consent agenda items are typically taken at the work session as opposed to at the regular session so I'm sorry if this person Kimberly Helston did not understand that if you would still like to speak we we could see if the commission is willing to suspend the rules so that you could speak about it but it's also it's up to you would you like that or yeah okay understood so just from the commission I'll take if anybody's interested in that I'll take a motion to suspend the rules so that we can take comment I'll make a motion to suspend the rules for the for the comment I'll second that okay motion by Commissioner Dyer second by Commissioner Kitches said hand vote again I that that passes six zero so I will invite miss Kimberly Helston up to speak on item FP 25 - 32 if you're following in on your agenda that's also 3b you have three minutes thank you so I am here in response to the final plat request for I think approval of the what I believe is going to be the Denton County Family Justice Center there at Rainey Road and Bonnie Bray that area or that land shares and or is very close I would say less than a thousand feet from the elementary school there so that is what I'm here to speak about according to the Texas statute of the local government code regulation of land use structures businesses and related activities and I then we've got unless municipal consent is granted under section 244.025 a person may not construct or operate a shelter for homeless individuals within 1,000 feet of another shelter for homeless individuals or primary or secondary school so I called the state of Texas and inquired like is there a definition of a homeless shelter with this qualify and I guess there were three things that came under there one was transitional housing this I think is more of a transitional housing situation I had also called the city to find out if there were any special use permits requested for this property and I did not and they said that the only permit request was them or the zoning request was to do the R7 looking at the R7 allowed uses community homes group homes those both require the special use permit so I might ask is or I guess my question and ask is how is this homeless shelter group home transitional housing going in without the notifications that it is in fact that type of housing and within 1,000 feet of a primary school and before y'all approve the plan I just wanted that to be you know brought up sure yeah thank you for for reading and bringing that to our attention is there a staff member that's familiar with this application that could speak to this Julie Wyatt principal planner that that project required approval of a plan development in order to develop on this property so our seven is that base zoning district it does have those additional approvals with the plan development district and are there any state required notifications for that type of land use or is it purely it needs approval and the zoning change satisfies that I am not aware I'm looking at Hillary we did have to provide notification in order to move forward with the rezoning that 200 and 500 feet the school district was also part of that of that notification as well okay any questions from the commission on this item yeah commissioner Kutcher said and that plan development has already passed is that correct correct it was approved maybe this time last year I think okay thank you yeah commissioner Garland so just to confirm the plan is to put a transitional housing unit for the unhoused within a thousand feet of a school it is actually for members of the community who are victims of domestic violence so it will have offices as well as some housing and all services related to that community need so it's not just specific to no nurses that are experiencing homelessness no no yeah I'd also like to very much think the public commenter for bringing that section of local government code to my attention just a little thing to distinguish is that I believe this section talks about oh dear I scrolled away from it it talks about giving notice for correctional or rehabilitative facilities and that is different than the presently approved use under the PD okay commissioner Dyer did you have a question okay okay all right with that I'll take oh we have motion buttons commissioner Macduff if I've made that motion or it just appeared okay well I'll pretend that you're not there but if you would like to make a motion on our consent agenda certainly well yes I would I'm trying to be quick on my feet here I'd like to make a motion for the approval of our item is on our our consent agenda okay sir second I will second that okay seconded by Commissioner Dyer just one comment I'll ask that staff could maybe give the contact information of the Denny County Friends of the Family who will be operating that facility so that people can talk and we can understand together how what are the concerns are and that's the thing to the public commenter we have a motion and a second any other questions seeing none I'll ask for we'll just start doing roll call votes from from you on down Commissioner Macduff approve Commissioner Riggs approve chair is an aye Commissioner Ketchers said approve Commissioner Duff I'm sorry Commissioner Dyer approve Commissioner Garland approve very good the consent agenda there passes six to zero that brings us to our items for individual consideration for a FP 25-28 good evening chair members of the Commission Angie Manglars assistant planning director here to present FP 250028 this is a final plan for the reserves at Brush Creek generally located at the northeast intersection of US 377 and Brush Creek Road at the time staff has recommended denial of this final plot as it does not meet our established criteria for approval however staff has no objection to the requested extension which could be granted to a date certain of January 14th 2026 I'm happy to answer any questions Commissioner Riggs if nobody has any questions I go ahead and make a motion make a motion to to extend to date certain January 14th 2026 Commissioner Garland and I will second that motion seeing no discussion or questions call for a roll call vote Commissioner Macduff Commissioner Riggs aye chair is an aye Commissioner Ketchers said aye Commissioner Dyer aye and Commissioner Garland aye very good that passes six zero brings us to our second item for individual consideration item for BP 25-5 good evening chair and Commissioners Cameron Robertson principal planner this is a preliminary plot for approximately 6.5 acre parcel located north of Rose on Drive just east of South Bonnie Bay Street in the west of future South Bonnie Bay Street at this time the staff is recommending denial for the preliminary plot it does not mean our established criteria for approval staff has no objection to the requested extension of January 14th 2026 and this is the second extension any questions or a motion I'll make a motion Commissioner Dyer I'll second to approve or to go ahead and approve the extension yes okay and second by Commissioner Riggs seeing no comments call for a roll call Commissioner my mouth is going to go crazy by the end of tonight Commissioner Macduff aye Commissioner Riggs aye chair is an aye Commissioner Ketchers said aye Commissioner Dyer aye Commissioner Garland aye that passes six zero brings us to our first public hearing we're going to call three of these items together because they impact each other but then after the public hearings are closed we will vote one by one so the first item is 5A CA 25-3 5B MPA 25-4 and 5C Z25-14 yeah and I'll go ahead and open the public hearing at this time evening chair members of the Commission Mia Heinz senior planner here to present like you stated the Hickory Grove related application specifically a comprehensive plan amendment mobility plan amendment and a zoning change an overview of course this is three requests as I just mentioned the property itself is about sixteen and a half acres located north of US 380 approximately twenty eight hundred feet west of Thomas Goldenhove Drive the existing future land use designation for the property is agriculture the proposed future land use designation for the property is mixed use regional the existing zoning for the property is rural residential and R2 as shown in this exhibit here and the proposed zoning is mixed use regional the purpose for this request is to entitle the property for anticipated multifamily development and I'll go over the history of how that land use came about in a sec just now so the existing land use on the property it's currently undeveloped the property itself was designated for all rural areas and didn't twenty thirty plan didn't twenty forty plan was updated to show low residential designation towards the single family development that's occurring in the city's ETJ to the north but the subject property itself didn't have a designation beyond the agricultural use in twenty twenty two a municipal utility district was created for it'll be referred to as legends ranch or Hickory Grove that mud was anticipated to create one thousand five hundred and fifty one single family residential units the amendment in August twenty twenty four came to add additional multifamily units to total six hundred and twenty five multifamily units for this for the mud and as a part of that the portion that is on the topic for tonight's agenda was the idea for that was to annex that portion of the multifamily development into the city in order for the city to receive tax benefits and things of that nature for this property. So the first application for you to before you tonight is a comprehensive plan amendment again the existing future land use designation is agriculture and the proposed usually designation here is regional mixed use that regional mixed use flume designation is intended to apply to areas that serve as regional destinations within Denton so ideally those those areas located along like those regional corridors like we see here highlighted on the map I've shown US 380 University's banding sort of from east to west throughout the city and then of course I thirty five you see some some of the pockets of mixed use regional that we have throughout the city additionally this designation is intended to include residential commercial office and entertainment and other uses except industrial at the highest level of scale and density within the city and then finally the future development in regional mixed use areas is intended to complement the and embrace the existing uses in the area and as I stated the development of the mud district is occurring so what we're seeing here is a sort of low to moderate density residential to the north and then there will be multifamily as a part of that mud to the west of the subject property as well. So we did get this request and we put it up against the criteria for approval essentially we found that the regional planning and development trends within this area do reflect the need to plan for the development of this area beyond agriculture I'll get to that in the next couple of slides additionally the compatible the proposed the proposal is compatible with existing and proposed development occurring both within the city limits and the city's ETJ and then finally that makes that regional mixed use zoning tended to encourage development at highest densities along regional corridors such as US 380 like we have here today. So this is to show you sort of some of the changes in the regional or the development that's occurring within the region of the subject property the subject property on both of these exhibits is highlighted in or outlined or shown in black there and there and I highlighted some of the key sort of major developments that we were experiencing within proximity to the US 380 corridor so that low residential development as a part of the mud is occurring just north of this site and it is hard to see on this exhibit on your screen but there is a single family residential development that is occurring so you see you nothing was there in 2021 as of 2025 they've developed quite a couple or a couple of phases within that area similarly in the city's ETJ 2 is another municipal utility district developing with single family residential so we do see residential density and residential units being of a demand within this corridor. We do have some anticipated commercial developments occurring along US 380 staff is actually in the middle of processing applications that would ultimately come before this body so you'll see that coming forward in the future some of the other things I wanted to point out is the razor ranch development along US 380 just on the east side of I-35 has developed over the last four years I think they have maybe two or three sites left to develop but for the most part they've added additional commercial they've added some medical facilities over there as well as some additional residences and then finally some of the one of the things that are could potentially be driving residential demand in this area we've seen some commercial and industrial development occurring within this sort of corridor of US 380 and I-35 as shown on the blue in the blue areas there. So with that staff is recommending approval of the comprehensive plan amendment request as it complies with the criteria in section 2.4.5 and I will go on to the next application. So the next request in the next application is mobility plan amendment this purpose of this amendment is to remove a and this is backwards on the screen my apologies this is the existing mobility plan amendment showing the proposed primary arterial the subject property is right here and this is the proposed mobility plan amendment showing the removal of that proposed primary arterial of course similarly we did put this request up against our criteria for approval and ultimately found that the request itself does consider flood paint and ESA which I'll get into here in a second and it does to minimize disturbances of these areas and ultimately the removal of this roadway would remove redundancy while maintaining provision of sufficient roadway network appropriate for the area. So here is that to the left is the environmentally sensitive area as you can see the proposed primary arterial cuts straight through area that we have designated as floodplain ESA. Ultimately the floodplain is right here or shown along this corridor and that proposed primary arterial again would cut through that floodplain. What we've seen or what we have as provision or to ensure that we still have sufficient roadway in this area is as a part of the Legends Ranch or Hickory Grove single-family piece of the mud they are constructing a collector that would run from Jackson Road to US 380 and so with that of course we did or reviewed traffic impact analysis and traffic studies to ensure that adequate roadway would still be or is being provided on that collector and found that that is the case and that this primary arterial is no longer necessary with the pending development in that area. So with that staff is recommending approval of the mobility plan to remove that primary arterial and the last application is the zoning change. So the map to the left is the current zoning reflecting a rural residential zoning district and a R2 zoning district that's on the property. If you recall this property was recently annexed into the city so that rural residential is more of that default placeholder zoning that is given or assigned to properties once they're annexed that R2 piece transition from a rural residential sort of designation with the update of the code but that is also undeveloped in this area and the applicant is proposing to rezone the entire property from RR and R2 to MR. Ultimately we put this up against the criteria for approval ultimately found that proposal that the proposal intended is intended to allow the property to develop according to prior approvals on the subject property specifically the multifamily development that was anticipated in the mud district. Additionally the proposal is intended to allow development compatible with the surrounding development in the city's ETJ. Again speaking to the single the low to moderate residential to the north and the multifamily development that would occur to the west of the subject property again within the city's ETJ. The request is also generally consistent with the goals and policies of the proposed future land use map as the proposed amendment is coming before you this evening and then also the regional growth within the area as I pointed out with the comprehensive plan does reflect the need to allow for regional scale development on this property. The prior approval is just getting a little bit back into showing you again to the mud difference here. I do want to highlight that again the Hickory Grove mud anticipated 1,551 single family residential units within this area so north of the floodplain essentially and then 299 multifamily units are currently planned for this property here to the west of the subject property I think that's all I won't repeat all of that unless I need to later. Again I wanted to show this regional map showing you the growth from or what we've seen or what we saw on the ground in 2021 compared to now what we see in 2025 and say that although the mixed use regional zoning or the purpose for this rezoning is to develop multifamily and I do believe that that is the applicant's intent the mixed use regional district does allow for other commercial uses that could serve to benefit the growth within this area as well and as you all are aware with this being a straight rezoning they could ultimately come in and do any of those commercial or residential uses that are allowed in the mixed use regional district. So with all of these cases we did send out notifications to the members of the public within 200 feet or property owners within 200 feet and courtesy notice for residents within 500 feet as you can see around the property there are no residences but there are a few property owners that we did send out and as of the writing or preparation of this report and as of this evening we have not received any comments in response to either of these requests. With that staff is recommending approval of the rezoning requests in conjunction with the other two requests the comprehensive plan amendment and the mobility plan amendment. This is a reminder that again this is three separate cases comprehensive plan amendment to from agricultural flume to regional mixed use flume a mobility plan amendment to remove the future extension of Seawolf Road between US 380 and Jackson Road and then a zoning change from rural residential and residential to to the mixed use regional in our district. That concludes my presentation I believe the applicants are here if you have any questions for them as well and I will happily take any questions at this time. Questions of staff from the commission at this time commissioner Dyer. Oh okay anyone else commissioner Mcduff. Ms. Huns I have a question that I've written down that I didn't ask in our work session but where is the Jackson Cemetery and is it adjacent to this area on 380. I am not sure does that cemetery sound familiar to anyone I think from cemetery. No it is appears it's on Jackson Road adjacent to FM 156 so it would be further west from here. Thanks. Ms. Hines could you identify just on this map here where the outer loop not outer loop loop 288 west extension is planned to intersect 380 just so we can get a bounds. I don't think it would be in the let's see in fact we have someone here from transportation. Thank you. Good evening commissioners Chandra city traffic engineer so more the loop 288 west connections and fall closer to the Denton Airport so you are looking at somewhere in this area. Thank you any other questions of staff commissioner Dyer. Yes with the rerouting of that arterial route with what was it 1500 homes and the possible 600 units for an apartment. This is crumb school district correct I am not pretty sure. I just remember when one of the phases we voted on a few months ago and we had the people from the community just to the east of this where they were having issues with the bus routes how will the residents in this community both single family and the multi family will they be affected negatively with this arterial will that be enough with having to reroute it. The traffic study what they've done came back with the level of service C or better so they have Thomas Egan to the right and we are building a traffic signal at US 380 and Thomas Egan and this proposed collector will also serve as the north south collector connecting to the future east west roadway and this flood plain that road we eliminated here would be offset by this north south internal roadway so we have plenty of connections and FM 156 to the west. Thank you. When I look at this subject parcel it looks like it's access would be taking on off of 380 is that correct yes and can you remind us I think in our mobility plan and the discussion that the mobility committee has been having about safety on these wider higher speed roads help me understand how this and other pieces that staff talked about is not turning this corridor into a corridor very similar to one of those that we see on our high injury network or is it basically doing that and we're just okay with that. So we had a meeting with Techstart two weeks ago so they don't wanted many signals at this corridor so they are proposing R cut which is the restricted left turns in that way signals would be eliminated and then people making right turns will have to make a U turn to go so there will be median openings for these developments and that's a much safer option so they are proposing to have these new kind of median openings unlike you see east of here at marsh branch are 35 they're eliminating these traffic lights so they seem to claim Techstart much safer than how it is due to the high speeds the minute you cross marsh branch and closer to FM 156 it goes to 70 75 miles per hour so they are taking safety into consideration so they're saying that that hooded left turn median openings are safer than what alternative the traffic lights so with all the movements and are they safer than not having development adjacent to this for high speed highway not really they are making the developers build these right turn diesel lanes and acceleration lanes so in that way they slow down before they enter or exit okay but it's still a worse safety situation than what we have today yes okay thank you I don't want to get away from your question about schools and everything okay yeah that's fine just want to quickly provide you an answer yes it is crumb ISD that boundary extends over to marsh branch road I don't have a card this is a public hearing I will already open to the public hearing I don't have a card from the applicant but if you would like to speak the applicant does get that ability you have actually affords up to 20 minutes between whoever would like to speak but but the floor is yours just say your name and address and good evening trey Sullivan with dr horton multifamily so originally when we started looking at this tract the home builder you know they have plans for the 1500 single-family lots and we got brought into it you know a little bit later in the game but it was entitled for the 300 units originally and so last year we went back to the city and requested some additional units because the product type that we build you know it's a little bit more dense I think than what it was allowing it's a it's a bigger tract it's 41 acres and so I believe it was August of last year at City Council it got approved to give us the additional 325 units for phase two so we're currently in plans for phase one I think we'll probably start construction probably February and I think the start date on this one depending on how this and the City Council meeting goes but we'd probably look at that starting in q1 of 2027 and we do have plans for D cell lane for the first phase and we haven't gone through all the studies and everything yet just because of where we are in the process but you know I think there's been conversations about D cell lanes on phase two as well so you know I think as part of the process we had to we had to take this property out of the mud which was part of the development agreement from last year and then we had to annex it which we did last month and now we're going through the zoning process of this as well so it mimics kind of what we agreed to in the development agreement so we're just pushing the process forward now. Okay thank you Commissioner Dyer I bet you have a question for our applicant. I do so I understand that when you and the city are required to send notices that you know there are boundary guidelines that are you know put forth by the state and this is one of the things that's hard when you're developing and you're a developer is sometimes you are your own neighbor did you as a developer did you make any attempt for the homeowners there because you know it was stated that there was no object there was no nothing no objection no for but it also basically showed that none of the homeowners that are currently there got a notice about the you know the planned apartment buildings did you guys you know just out of courtesy to the community say hey this is in the plans and we're talking about this like yeah so the the 1,500 lots that are in question up there that's what D.R. Horton as well so they this has always been a master plan community you can see there's a little bit of parcel just to the south where the home builder is that scheduled for retail so that's that's not us that's a different group but it's always been a part of the plan to bring in multifamily to this area and so it's always been a part of the master plan so. So your homeowners are knew that when they were buying. Yes. Okay. Other questions I have one just on the timeline that you were talking about you were talking about like breaking like turning dirt doing a grading in first quarter twenty seven. That would be for the second phase there's two phases there's one that is in the mud and in the E.T.J. still so this this tract we're looking at here this is just the one that we're in that we've annexed into the city. So like we said earlier you know the city they wanted the impact fees taxes and so we agreed to get the additional density to annex it and then zone it into city of Denton. Okay so when you talk about phase one you're not talking about phase one remaining part of the mud that's not adjacent to the first. And then phase two would be the subject parcel yes. Understood. So I guess I'm trying to understand just so that we know what our flexibility is here. At what point during twenty twenty six what's the latest point that you could. Get the zoning change in order to stay on your preferred schedule of twenty twenty seven starting phase two. It's a tough question but I think you know going through phase one we've seen it takes about a year to get through it. So we we to get through the zoning no no no to get through the civil engineering to get through text dot approval so we're still not approved on phase one we probably kicked everything off in February March of last year so it's take us about twelve months so that's what I anticipate phase two would take as well. And of of the remaining items that you have to do other than the zoning application are those things that you can do concurrently with the zoning application or are they things that you can't start because of any requirements until you have the zoning. We would not start it until we have this okay just from a risk perspective yes sir okay thank you. Any other questions the applicant don't see any thank you very much this is a public hearing I do not have any cards on this item wishing to speak but if you would like to speak you're more than welcome to come down. Any other questions or discussion commissioner Riggs I'll make a motion to approve item five A B and C and I'll second that we sorry just a second we yeah yeah yeah sorry just to remind I'll ask that we withdraw those motions and move one by one but I have a question for staff just to set the the historical record here I think I am actually the one who suggested that we have to have some sort of plan for retail west of three eighty because if all when all these muds come in it it's already taking twenty minutes to go eastbound on three eighty at thirty five and get through that light and so there has to be something you mentioned that there's plans for future commercial here right now that's zoned R2 so I'm assuming that may be a an application that's forthcoming or already in the process we don't have visibility you know most of the land to the south of three eighty is ETJ I don't know if any of that is being annexed or not we just don't have visibility on this commission as to how all the pieces fit together right and so my question and I know this is going to be hard to answer I apologize is if it were staff's desire or direction to try to take a more holistic view of okay hold on instead of coming in for comp plan amendments for all these seven separate applications let's come back show what the future roadway network with two eighty eight west and everything else is going to be let's explain how we're going to mitigate safety issues with backage roads and other things and and let's show you where areas of commerce are going to be contiguous right I just don't see that now so if that were the the desire of the commission realistically how how long would it take staff to to put that together as a comp plan amendment and and bring that back I'll start and then look to Haley as she is the one that sets our priorities and things from a staff level so some of it is bearing the the at the rate that the applicants are ready to develop so if they're ready to develop in a time where staff isn't it isn't priority for staff to take on a comprehensive approach and they're ready to move forward then we evaluate the applications according to the time that they submit and are trying to move forward we try to work with them with their their timelines and things of that nature as far as I think taking on a more comprehensive comprehensive plan amendment for example if I could stretch that I did one of the comments that I had for this comprehensive plan was to consider the that that longer court or the application that we have coming forward for the rest of that commercial piece and try to make this all as as one again they are different applicants they are different developers and so they're financing on their application side and that's between that's between them we made that suggestion and we try to again work with them on the timing I believe that if it is the commission's direction that as we get if we get comprehensive plans we look at them holistically I think that we could take that on but I'll I'll point to Haley to answer that say to your question of how long that would take the more recent example of the east side of 380 I would say before that ever came to you all had a solid probably close to a year of staff analysis and thought put into it so it would be a lengthier process given that we don't have budget to hire a consultant to help us with the work for staff to take on the work of doing a broader analysis of this corridor and and taking that holistic approach to all of the west side of 380 if that's what you had in mind okay yeah no I appreciate that I yeah that helps I guess from my perspective it scares me a little that it would take a year for staff to do that because as you mentioned it would take additional analysis well what I hear when I hear that is we don't we haven't really put all the pieces together yet so we need to do that and we need to look at how it's going to operate before there's confidence in that direction is that accurate I would yes I think you're accurate on that I would say the commission has to be mindful we're a very high development city so staffs focus the majority of the time that we are in the office is on reviewing the applications that are before us and being able to react to those so to have the time to put into an independent study and analysis of that sort is why that would say I would say at least like eight to twelve months to get something of that sort done okay I understand that with that I think I've explained kind of three questions what my concerns are I understand that the applicant is eager to get under construction I understand there was some prior agreement or understanding with the annexation agreement but we only get the city that we want and that conforms to our plans when we actually do the planning before the development and like staff has said this is it's a it's a crazy time we've got a whole bunch of projects we've got applicants trying to speed up and get things in the ground before you know or at least get things approved before interest rates do something which they haven't really done much of yet in the last year and a half so I'm sensitive to those concerns but with that I'm going to move that we table the comprehensive plan amendment until an event certain where staff can come back with a more holistic comprehensive plan amendment that includes development within this corridor specifically from sort of the 28 West intersection or interchange with 380 over to to this western terminus of our city and we'll see if that gets a second in any interest so that's that's my motion I still stand by my motion to to pass 5a okay I'll second the motion to pass to adopt so there's a main motion on the table to to adopt the the motion to table is a subsidiary motion which if it gets a second then we would vote on that first so I'm just asking if there's a second I'll second to table it okay second by Commissioner Garland any other discussion or questions I don't want to waste time because we have other public hearings but I want to make sure everybody kind of understands what people's positions are that make sense anything yes Commissioner Macduff I think it's time for a clarification since we have a second I believe we're only voting to table the first proposal correct that is correct deals with the comprehensive plan and is it your thought process and that the second and the third we would vote on those I'm of the opinion that the mobility plan amendment kind of stands independently so I would be happy to take a motion on that certainly the zoning change could be moved on without the comprehensive plan amendment that's you know typically we like to have the comprehensive plan in agreement with that but that's why we do these these applications in this order but but yeah I mean I think the way the agenda is laid out we could certainly have still three motions on those three independent items the staff of comments Charlie yeah thank you chair Charlie Rosendahl interim director of development I do want to point out as we mentioned in the work session the city staff is intending to apply for a grant we've got an approval to apply for a grant that would allow us to go through the process of updating the comprehensive plan and then separately we're also working on a grant that would update the mobility plan so those items are in the works and will be coming forward before this council in the future yeah thank you for that reminder you know the reason I motioned that way is that I think it's important that we see the whole picture of this smaller region before we checkerboard it with the type of development that's happened east of Denton on 380 and I think the the the history of resident opposition to that speaks loudly yeah I understand I was just trying to point out that that that larger picture is is coming and is planned for it understood it's it's the order than I'm concerned with discussions or questions I'll just kind of say kind of kind of where I'm at on it is this was something that we knew was coming we we annexed it we annexed this property in and the first thing you do when you annex it in is we basically annex it in and somebody please correct me if I'm misstating but an accident essentially is agricultural and then it comes in and the zoning is given that matches basically what the plan is and so this has already gone through a lot of analysis and a lot of planning and this is just fulfilling that plan I I think no matter what you do along west west over here near 380 the traffic is in the going to end up on 380 no matter what whether it's got a direct connect to it or not and I think that's one of the reasons why we do have our mobility plan and we do have the city staff is sharing with text dot kind of how all that's supposed to kind of plan out I will say if we if we want to table the comprehensive plan I don't think it makes sense to do a zoning change because now we're we're basically making a zoning change that's not going to meet the comprehensive plan and so but in order to get kind of what you're wanting with a very comprehensive plan update we're essentially going to say people can't do anything with their property along 380 develop it sell it you know for a year and a half to say let's say it takes a year to get the comprehensive plan updated and takes six months to get it through all the different committees so you're basically saying that nobody can do anything with their property for two years that's I don't think that's right either yeah I mean I think I'm I'm sensitive to that it's unfortunate at the same time this body the planning and zoning commission is not part of the annexation process so we didn't get an opportunity to hear or deliberate on those agreements that you're referring to right understand that those are conversations that happen between staff and the applicant and with council but this is our first bite of the apple yeah I mean my again I just think the order is important so any other questions before we call for a roll call not really questions I mean I agree with Commissioner Riggs when it goes through this process of like annexation and the different approvals you know whether it's our body or the city council it's kind of with that intention of what everybody knows is going to eventually happen I don't really like the fact that tech start is coming back and saying you have to have these decel lanes and all of this because in my mind when you look at 35 and everything going west on 380 my guess is 10 years from now 20 years from now it's going to mirror the east side of 380 and there are stoplights along the way because of traffic and safety concerns and you know especially this the new arterial that's going to go in around the floodplain that's going to be a major bus route commuter route and we already heard from that small community just east of this area about the concerns with traffic and busing and those kids basically being dropped off on 380 to walk on that sidewalk and this is what's hard is because it is it's the chicken and the egg thing text that won't come until there's houses and retail houses and retail sometimes won't come until there's major roads and so somebody has to just make the move first and if we table it and wait a year and a half then that's just going to prevent tech start you know coming in with the roads which everybody complains about as you get these houses but yet you don't have the roads to satisfy them so these are the growing pains and these are the tough decisions that you know this this body has to make and then on to the City Council I would agree you know with Commissioner Riggs and let's just move forward and do a vote okay thank you just point of clarification Steph Chandra I think I know for a fair distance 380 has already been widened to six lanes out here six lanes in this corner so it's so it's all the way out to where we're talking about so there's not a in other words that that roadway is already widened so as far as a capacity concern there it's more the access things that the developer would do to build diesel lanes and that sort of thing for the development it's not a regional capacity thing that tech start is waiting on more development to do right okay thank you all right seeing no more discussion or questions at this time since nobody has come down I will close the public hearing and at this time I'll call for a roll call vote because we still don't have buttons Commissioner McDuff okay so I'm a nice table I'm sorry yeah the what we're voting on is the the motion to table this to an event sort of table the comprehensive plan amendment which is item 5a until an event certain where staff can bring back a more micro regional plan of this area between the 288 West 380 corridor yes and to repeat I'm a native table but I do so in support of a study a comprehensive study but today this evening I'd like to move forward with this but I am in full support I'll say that for the record of a comprehensive study for the 380 corridor West okay so you vote nay nay Commissioner Riggs I vote nay also but I do want to echo what Commissioner McDuff said I do think it's important to do the comprehensive plan and I totally support that but I we can't just shut everything down at the same time while we're waiting for that okay chair is an eye Commissioner Ketter said nay Commissioner Duff I'm gonna vote nay but I agree we need to have there's so much growth and as you can see with landmark and coal ranch and Craver Ranch we've got so much development that I think it's time that the comprehensive plan needs to have a full a full review and update and Commissioner Carlin and I'm I okay that motion fails 2 to 4 so now we're back to the the primary motion which is to approve the the comprehensive plan amendment that can I get clarification on what your motion was because I think it's cleaner from a staff perspective if we do one at a time yeah I'll restate the motion basically I make a motion to recommend approval to council of item 5a I yeah okay not see any and Commissioner Ketter said I need to second sure okay I do second thank you not seeing any discussion I'll call for a vote Commissioner McDuff aye and Commissioner Griggs Griggs I the chair is a nay and I'll just say that's because at this point I I don't think the community wants another 380 East and I will not vote to build things in a way that will kill people Commissioner Ketter said I Commissioner McDuff dire dire I will vote I very good and Commissioner Garland and I will vote nay that motion passes 4 to 2 so the comprehensive plan amendment is approved Eric two more items I just want to echo your sentiments to I don't want to prove anything that's going to cause people to die we heard from staff that building this will result in a less safe quarter than what we have today so do we have a motion or any questions or discussion on on the second item mobility plan amendment I'll make a motion to approve item 5b or to recommend approval to council 105b okay and any second I'll second that second by Commissioner Ketter said any discussion or questions seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board Commissioner McDuff aye Commissioner Griggs aye chair is an aye again because I don't think that the presence of that arterial really impacts the safety along the corridor and and we don't want to build 300 million dollar bridges that the city needs to maintain after that Commissioner Ketter said I Commissioner McDuff tire I am sorry Commissioner I'm going to vote I but I I hope that somehow the developer in the city can convince tax dot to let cars go right and left out of that on to 380 instead of having to go right and then go to the next intersection and do a u-turn for those individuals leaving that community that would like to head east on 380 I don't know how you have that I don't know how you make that happen but that would be the safer route a street light intersection normal okay and Commissioner Garland I okay that item passes 6-0 yeah I'll I'll just say the the additional flexibility that would afford in my opinion would would create more injuries and more deaths it's it's a hard thing to do but you think a street light at the intersection have you seen how many people run the red lights these days okay that brings us to do we have a motion on the zoning change item item 5c I'll make a motion to recommend approval to council on item 5c motion by Commissioner Riggs do we have a second Commissioner McDuff I'll second that motion motion and a second any discussion not seeing any I'll call for a roll call vote Commissioner McDuff I Commissioner Riggs I chair is a nay Commissioner Ketchers said I Commissioner Dyer I and Commissioner Garland I okay that item passes 5-1 brings us to our next public hearing item 5d z 25-15 you need again chair members of the commission Mia Heinz senior planner this item is a zoning change for the estates at Craver Ranch z 25-0015 the property is just under 225 acres and the request is to rezone the property from rr to r1 to allow for the development of per the applicants stated intent one acre single-family residential lots the property is located at the southwest bend of FM 2153 as you can see that County Road bends from north to south here to east to west and the property is located sort of at the southwest corner the current zoning is rural residential and the proposed zoning is r1 there are not much differences with regard to the primary land uses that are permitted within this these zoning districts rr is intended to be a little bit more leaning towards agriculture and farm and ranch land and then r1 is typically strictly single-family residential as far as the differences with regard to dimensions rr requires a minimum five acre lots and r1 does allow for the development of s lots as small as 32,000 acres again the applicant has stated that their intent is to develop this in accordance or is to develop one acre lots on this property so we received this request and put it up against our criteria for approval and found that the proposed zoning is consistent with the r1 purpose statement additionally the proposal is generally consistent with the goals and policies of the flume the agriculture flume in this area for the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan the proposed zoning and development would be compatible with surrounding contacts both within the city and the cities in ttj and then the zoning is not expected to generate significant adverse environmental infrastructure or fiscal impacts the existing agricultural flume designation and the request is compatible the r1 district is compatible with that the intent for this flume is to is to denote areas that have large tracts of land and active agricultural uses for preservation including ranch landfill crops and other similar agricultural areas but it does allow for a maximum of one unit per 10 acres but also may allow for lots as small as one acres which again has stated as the applicant's intent the city's does not have a zoning district that has a minimum district or a lot size of one acre it jumps from five acres to 32,000 square feet so the r1 district is as basically as as less intensity of a district residential district that they could go to still be able to develop one acre lots on this property this is also helping us achieve other goals to grow resourcefully given that the recently approved craver ranch development is coming with some utility improvements in this area as well as growing with balance establishing a land use designation that is responding to the needs and character specifications of the denton community we do see that with the craver ranch developments of the southwest there's incoming a mix of housing types and densities that i'll get into here in a second and this would provide a completely different housing product that is a larger lot size a larger home while still being a density in a number of lots that would be beneficial to the city so this r1 or zoning district purpose statement is to preserve existing single-family neighborhoods ensure that any new development promotes conservation of scenic and rural areas in open space the r1 is intended to be compatible with existing land use patterns in the area and transitions between rural development and large residential neighborhoods so what i have shown here is that the craver ranch development to the southwest again was developed in the pd the approximate density and the phases adjacent to this area are ranged from about 4.5 dwelling units per acre to about 5.2 dwelling units per acre the subject property of course the intent is to develop with one acre lots but they can jump down to 32,000 if this is approved as a straight rezoning and then i wanted to point out some of the other zoning that we see within the city's etj via the lake ray roberts zoning here so what we're seeing just adjacent to the property is a minimum one acre lot size again similar to what the applicant is proposing with their development i mean then on the other side of the property we see a minimum four acre lot sizes per the ray roberts lake ray roberts zoning so it is again that natural sort of serving as a transition between higher or mixed use of density here moderate low density here and then significantly lower rural kind of density within the city's etj so we did put this up against the or we did send out a notification for this property some of the property that the city of butts is or that abuts this property is within the city's etj but we did send out public hearing notices and received none in response for with regard to this case as of this evening with that stuff is recommending approval of the zoning change from r1 or from rr to r1 as it complies with the criteria and i will happily answer any questions that you have at this time the applicants are also here if you would like to ask them questions okay at this time i will open the public hearing on this item any questions for staff before we hear from applicant in the public i have one the does staff believe there's any errors in the fiscal analysis provided on this item i do not believe so okay i when considering larger lot homes the idea of getting what it says 88.5 million dollars over 40 years sounds excessive when i compare that to the impact fee roadway impact fee expected revenue it sounds like the number of homes we're expecting is about 78 and so the average home value in this area would have to be five and a half million dollars in order to make the math work so is that accurate or is there an issue here good evening commission charles rosen all interim director of development services the fiscal impact analysis that was done is using the fiscal impact tool that we've been using since 2020 that was developed by a com has been used to bring items before this commission since that time so so help me understand how it gets to 88 million over 40 years i mean we're talking about two and a half but 2.1 and one five million per year on 78 homes yeah i'm not sure i don't know the details of fiscal impact is specifically related to this development i'd have to go back and look at it further but as i stated this has been the tool that we've been using for quite some time i will add we we too initially questioned it so we did rerun the numbers several times to verify that all the inputs were correct and that is the output that was given our best assumption is it's just assuming that probably higher home value based on the lot sizes okay thank you maybe it's something that we request our cfo to come up and explain that because we've had the question now and these financial analyses and i feel like we should have somebody with a very strong finance background probably diving into that okay yeah i don't think we have anybody from staff here of that qualification right now but just wanted to to see what what the thought was thank you for the the background that helps um not seeing any more questions of staff oh yes i'm sorry um it looks like in the um maybe the the summary that was provided was an error um in my report i have the correct number which is closer to about 2.3 million over for 40 years so i'll have to get that um that sounds more like the right number to me i'll have to get that get that back to you i don't i'm not sure what happened i think maybe the wrong summary um a screenshot was added but i do know that the the tool that we when we ran reran the the numbers for the tool um what's provided in the staff analysis that number that 2.3 um i'm sorry that not the staff exhibit two is the staff analysis correct yes um that that number is the more accurate number okay so i do apologize for that no i'm just trying to understand so thank you that helps um okay uh this is a public hearing so at this time i don't have any cards the applicant is certainly willing to come speak if you would like to um or anybody other members of the public at this time if you'd like to um just does the applicant wish to speak or just here for if there's any questions okay any questions of the applicant i guess i'm just curious is my quick napkin math to show the 88 million work would would require like four it was either four and a half or five and a half million dollar homes is that the target price or is that not the target price uh alexa night the dekey law 322 west wall that's the lineup um we are not privy to to the home prices this is a separate um it's owned by the landowner and they just wanted to go through a zoning case if the craver ranch master development was approved um if that they are looking at about 115 single-family homes one acre lots okay thank you um that helps me understand what's going on uh i mentioned this at the work session um it it's a little bit different because you're not necessarily developing the property um were you made aware of the provision or suggestion in our comp plan and our code to do conservation development uh in in the rural areas uh yes and that's one thing that we took in into account when we looked at the 2500 acre master plan really trying to cluster that and leave as much open space as possible um even though it wasn't required with this there was a land plan that was done and they did leave all the floodplain and the issa area alone um we did take into account the 115 lots and the tdm and the and the drainage analysis so it's the one acre lots are as clustered as they can be um outside of the floodplain in the issa area okay i think when you read our comprehensive plan it talks about intentionally using lots much smaller than one acre uh for that purpose right okay but but i understand yeah thank you yeah uh any other questions of the applicant seeing none thank you any members of the public wishing to speak on this item not seeing any sudden movement i will close the public hearing um and open the floor for discussion or a motion i'll motion to approve okay motion to recommend approval by commissioner ketter said is there a second i'll second that's second by commissioner dyer any other questions or discussion i'll just say to me here's another example of we have a comprehensive plan it's very specific about what the community's vision for or was for the rural areas i won't belabor the the point of of what that text is because we went over that last month um and in an area like this where normally you'd have one acre lots it's how do we provide a different type of living than the rest of the dfw area is providing it's how do we cluster these homes to preserve as much land as possible but not just the floodplain or environmentally sensitive areas but just land um and it's not just for environmental and preservation reasons and habitat reasons but it's also for fiscal reasons because we can talk about um talk about lessening the length of utility and and roadways to service the development if the if the homes are clustered closer than one acre lots um you know finally i'll say uh i appreciate commissioner riggs point that that maybe in the future we could dig into this some more um but as is if if the real number is about 2.3 million instead of the 88 million then um sorry pull it up real quick here then the the 40 year um ending total right instead of being 95 million dollars positive which seems crazy um it's it's more like i guess it would be slightly positive but uh it's a very different answer so any other questions or comments yeah i would just say that i think with the with it being zoned rural residential which is the larger lots and with the craver ranch i do think this does to commissioner dyer's point and work session it is a nice buffer to those other larger lots i i totally understand your your thoughts on cluster development and i definitely am total agreement with you that they're needed and i don't know about the financial part of of your thoughts but i do think they definitely have a purpose you know i think it when we look about it there are other ways of developing areas especially in a rural fringe that save money that the residents of that area would like more i guarantee you that the future developers of this property don't want to spend two million dollars a lane mile building concrete roadways that are going to get four cars a day on them but that's what our code requires and then the city gets that roadway and we have to maintain it we have to rebuild it um you can build narrower streets you can build asphalt you can build gravel you can build bar ditches that are a whole lot cheaper than manhole drainage and in areas where there's very low impervious coverage it works great but our code doesn't allow that so not seeing any other discussion i'll call for a roll call vote commissioner mcduff aye commissioner riggs aye chair is a nay commissioner catcher said aye commissioner mcduff commissioner dire aye we're sister's girl commissioner garland nay you're both two people away from me okay that item passes four to two brings us to our next public hearing which is item five e sd 25-1 good evening chair and commission cameron robertson principal planner um so uh this is a request this evening for a special uh signed district for the landmark formerly known as hunter ranch uh the parcel is approximately 120 acres located on that northwest corner of i-35 west and robertson ranch road um as you can see on the map there are they do have arterial um frontage along i-35 west frontage road robertson ranch road and then landmark trail um it will include a grocery um anchored store retail along with some other commercial uses and residential use uh uses uh due to the parcel size specifically um and the perimeter easement constraints especially along that 35 west corridor um also being along i-35 west um and just because of the phasing of this larger scale development uh landmark really does have to rely on larger signs um and have that visibility to support its tenants so the request this evening specifically um just kind of to dive in um is looking at nine multi-tenant ground signs which are highlighted there by the stars on the map um there are some additional new ground sign types um which were provided in your backup and i'm going to go into further detail on the next slide um it will um does allow uh wind devices wall signs portable signs and menu boards um to not be permitted unless they don't meet the standards set within that uh special sign district um there are some maximum effective areas for multi-tenant signs and temporary signs that don't meet the um chapter 33 ordinance um but those are specifically located really along 35 west um specifically highlighting looking at that big green star there that's that for effective area 400 square feet um and then now lastly the request is looking at maximum height for temporary signs along 35 west um once again because there is that large easement um along 35 west um and looking just for some larger um height signs so this is a lot of information i know there's a lot of information in your backup so i'm going to just kind of give you some of the key highlights here um but specifically first looking at the definitions uh you do see the introduction uh introduction of some new ground sign types um specifically multi-tenant sign um single tenant sign pedestrian um directory and directional signs um additionally as i stated in my previous slide there are some new permitted signs that are allowed um maximum effective area section uh specifically along that 35 west we're going to see those larger um effective area signs um but then you do see those pedestrian directory and directional signs are actually smaller than what is permitted um within our uh ordinance um and temporary signs as well are going to be a little bit larger along those primary arterials in the 35 west maximum height section um pedestrian and directional signs they're going to be shorter than what we see within our chapter 33 ordinance um and then we'll see a little bit taller for those temporary signs because as i stated this is a phase development and it's going to develop over a long period of time so we want to make sure that there's just a high visibility along the roadways uh minimum setback requirements um due to the textile right of way um specifically there uh the special sign district is asking for that minimum setback of zero feet um just because there is those easements along 35 west and then lastly they do meet those number of ground signs um but they are asking for the additional um single tenant signs when there's a multi-tenant sign allowed um looking specifically at the comprehensive sign package and then compatibility um once again looking at that scale just making sure that there's visibility along that 35 west corridor and just making sure that there's numerous way finding signs to direct drivers and visitors um looking at color material and shapes it is controlled by ccrs which are operated by hunter ranch um it's just and they'll have a design board that essentially reviews each of those signs that come in to make sure that they are consistent in terms of in uniform with the commercial area being developed they will have to meet the mpc sections for landscaping so the street trees and that additional screening from the right of way um in terms of traffic safety and traffic circulation um multi-tenants um minus along 35 single tenants pedestrian directory and directional sign they all meet those minimum setback requirements within our chapter 33 ordinance um and then they aren't proposing any unlimited ground signs um they aren't um and it's just as i stated to promote the commercial area and direct vehicular and pedestrian traffic um portable signs um the current regulations do prohibit portable signs if they're not properly registered um non-conforming portable signs as provided within our chapter 33 um specifically within the landmarks as special sign district it is providing some restrictive language um limiting that maximum effective area which is uh 12 square feet maximum maximum height which would be three feet six inches maximum and then only allowing two per business uh public outreach was um done in november and the signs were posted in early december uh those mail notices for the 200 foot and that courtesy notice for 500 feet and we did not receive any responses uh staff is recommending the approval of the request as it does comply with our criteria section 33.18.4 for our um special sign district um i can answer any questions and uh the applicant is here if you do have any questions for the applicant um any questions of staff commissioner dire um in one of the things that they are wanting to um possibly have it said wind devices can you explain like what that exactly is going to look like so um in terms of wind devices that would be like a banner on a pole like a white pole so um in your backup packet in the exhibit a i'm gonna pull it up here oh wait no it's not here my apologies um so my best example would be if you're driving down carol boulevard you see some of the um notifications of just uh denton halloween or for tw so kind of those banner signs that you see on light poles as you're driving so like the ones that look like this and they're kind of correct so not like a kite like when i hear wind device i hear i think kite or something like that but okay thank you i have a question maybe it's because i just didn't follow everything but i thought you when you were referring to the temporary signs and referring to our our code section there you said something about 12 square feet um yes so in your back backup packet for temporary signs um or no portable signs that'd be an effective area of 12 square feet okay can you explain what a portable sign is so that would be like a sandwich board sign okay the thought i have is just many of our local election signs that go in more visible areas are more than 12 square feet i want to make sure that we're not inadvertently creating a speech issue there does that make sense yes i'm going to pass it to hayley well so i think the 12 square feet is for the portable signs which would not be the same as like a temporary political sign yes got it thank you portable like i can pick it up and stick it in the closet yes without pulling it out of the ground correct okay i took those as like those a frame signs that like you know sometimes like a starbucks will have and it'll say like um you know peppermints hot cocoa special today or something yeah although now you have to mount those up higher because eighty nine percent of the people are just going through the drive-thru okay at this point i will open the public hearing i do not have any cards on this item wishing to speak but it is a public hearing you certainly may come down and speak if you'd like to uh is the applicant here okay just available for questions if there are any are there any questions of the applicant from the commission i don't see any okay at this point i will close oh sorry okay i'll close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion uh commissioner garland i will make a motion to approve based on staff's recommendations i'll second motion by commissioner garland second by commissioner riggs seeing no further discussion call for a vote roll call vote commissioner mcduff commissioner riggs aye chair is an aye commissioner uh catcher said aye commissioner dire aye commissioner garland aye that item passes six zero brings us to our next public hearing of the evening item 5f s-twenty-five dash seven good evening chair members of the commission angie manglares assistant planning director here to present s-twenty-five zero zero zero seven this is denton 20 a little bit about this this is a specific use permit request for a modular data center on approximately four point zero six four acres of land generally located 1800 feet south of jim crystal road west of western boulevard and adjacent to the rd wells substation a little bit of split zoning on this property it's predominantly zoned public facilities but there is some heavy industrial zoning as well both of these zoning districts do require a specific use permit for a modular data center which is why we are before you this evening the site is currently it's unimproved there is some gravel on the site it is accessed only by way of an access easement off of jim crystal road it's previously been used as sort of a storage area for dme it is predominantly surrounded by hi zoning consistent with that there's a variety of industrial manufacturing land uses surrounding the property this proposed modular data center is consistent with the approved lease and power purchase agreement with the dme for the operation of a modular data center staff did review the specific use permit against our criteria for approval do you find it is consistent with the goals in the future land use designation and the comprehensive plan it is consistent with the specific standards as set forth for a modular data center and approval of this permit is not expected to generate any significant adverse impacts to the city again this is the future land use map it is designated as industrial commerce this area is generally found west of i-35w near the municipal airport it does include a mix of industrial uses light and heavy it can include manufacturing or assembly and it is important to consider any transitions to sensitive land uses when when reviewing applications in this area a little bit more about this use and how it relates to that this is situated west of i-35w and is immediately adjacent to the arty well substation it's generally compatible with the surrounding area there is a substation next door it is also adjacent to the peter belt manufacturing into the south as tetra pack as well as a gas well given its location there's not anticipated to be any visual or auditory impacts it is situated off of the right-of-way sandwich between the arty well substation and peter belt and it's adequately spaced from any sensitive land uses the closest residential use would be some multi-family it's further to the east closer to i-35 itself so the use is consistent with the future land use purpose and goals we did conduct public notification in accordance with state law as well as our own code of ordinances have not received any responses back in favor neutral or in opposed staff does have a couple of conditions to associate with a specific use permit binding them to the site plan that you all see today it touches on the noise assessment that must be submitted as well as just access specifications so staff is recommending approval with the inclusion of these conditions the next step would be city council tentatively scheduled for january 13th and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have any commissioner dire if you're recommending approval with a couple of conditions do they have to have those conditions like if we approve this and recommend this does the applicant have to have those conditions met by the time it goes in front of the city council or is it still kind of carries on they will approve it but you got to get these things done sure so conditions with specific use permits are a little unique we're saying we're fine with the use and we're fine as we saw it in it's attached as exhibit eight for you all so really condition one is calling out that the site needs to comply with the site plan that we've seen so we'll look for that at building permit and does allow for minor modifications to be approved by staff which is typical with any sup to account for you know anything that may come in when you're actually on the ground again no more than five percent change in landscape area or parking which for this site is going to be very minimal it does also refer back to that noise assessment that's required and it's just a reminder that when this is built it does need to be provided to staff and then also some specifications about access because it's only accessed off of an access easement and then the other is about making sure the zoning map matches so these are things that will live with the sup anything that triggers you know above and beyond this we might have to do an amendment so it's really more for staff than anybody else to keep track of what was approved and what needs to be done going forward thank you commissioner Garland do we know how close like the closest residential area like how close is the closest residential area or like home a map will be more helpful if you can give me a moment it is greater than a thousand feet away and the closest would be a there is a I think it's called the retreat it is a multifamily development closer to thirty five itself so this is the retreat dentin here and then this is the subject site that we're talking about here so as the crow flies I think when I measured it was close to twelve hundred feet or so just rough estimate but there is you know a significant amount of other activity that's occurring in the area with this use again we're most concerned about noise and so they can't increase the decibels by more than the ambient by more than three their initial studies do show that they can be consistent with that but they are required to verify that when it's installed it is meeting those requirements to does forgive me for not knowing the term but like the builder or the individual that's that's doing this do they have other data centers and other places that they could kind of tell us what is comparable with regards to you know noise and light emissions and just general well-being of the community and how they feel about it sure there will be no additional lighting associated with this site and the applicant is here and they can talk about if they have any more but it's seventy decibels it should be pretty comparable to the other noises that are in the area given the manufacturing nature but if you like to hear more about their other ones I can call them up that would be great evening chair thank you council members Spencer Smith director of engineering at cumulus AI twenty one forty six Roswell Road Marietta Georgia in answer to your question we have other data centers they are of basically an air-cooled nature most of them this is a unique and newer more efficient method of cooling the servers and it's done through liquid cooling so the graphic that Angie pulled up in the work session earlier kind of indicates that the only equipment running outside would be fans rejecting the heat so that is significantly cooler it's likened to basically the the heat rejection on top of industrial buildings for AC units okay and then what is like and forgive me what is the lifespan on one of these things of the entire ten to twenty years at least okay thank you commission ricks I just have one question is this piece of property owned by the city and this is essentially a lease agreement between the data center and yes I've got one I trust staff so so I imagine the answer is it's all taken care of I just have to make sure it talks about a 20 megawatt target is is that lease agreement or some sort of business agreement define that so that if there's a change in that number it's the this SUP is flexible enough to allow that to change without a zoning change but DME still gets to approve whether we have the capacity at that substation I can only speak high level to that and I can I can circle back with more detail just so you know I did look through the the agreements that were approved and DME does have the ultimate like flexibility to determine yes we can still serve you all or not from the planning and land use standpoint we're going to be most concerned with are we adding like another data pod or something that would trigger changes to that SUP but from the actual supplying of energy side that that's really all handled through their DME and their various agreements with the operator okay any other questions commissioner Garland I just have a couple more can I ask you so the other sites that you currently have have you had any feedback when it comes to residents or like like residential impact or impact to wildlife or anything like that sorry sorry interrupt just so that we can have it on the record especially since we're a little bit anti-computer tonight if you could state your name and address just for the record and then address the question sure Spencer Smith director of engineering humans AI 2146 Roswell Road Mariana Georgia so the other sites that we have like I said are of a differing technology so being air cooled and more traditional air cooled they are a bit louder but they are also located in very rural areas typically this is as I said before a liquid cooled data center which is dramatically quieter from a noise standpoint Angie mentioned the ambient noise at around sixty two to sixty three DB so what is that complete give me an example of what else would sound that loud because I don't really speak that language what so the ambient level in that area it's it's basically halfway between I-35 and the airport so you have a lot of road noise you have air traffic noise as well as the industrial noise around it it's it's basically the sound of a busy road okay effectively okay and then you mentioned like how it's liquid cold obviously we know kind of just through other you know so what does that mean exactly like how much water does it use does it recycle the water where does the water come from how often does it need to replace things like that it's a great question this liquid cooling technology uses a dielectric fluid similar to the fluid that is inside of electrical transformers so it's non-conductive the servers are submerged in the fluid that fluid warms up transitions outside rejects the heat and then circulates back in there is no water usage okay thank you that's a that's a novel technology that's actually just gaining traction over the last five to ten years all right thank you any other questions or discussion or a motion I'll make a motion to approve motion by commissioner I'll second second by commissioner catcher said not seeing any more discussion I'll call for a vote by roll call commissioner McDuff yes I'm going to support this but I will share that I have had concerns about the noise and the vibration assessment we talked about that in our work session but here this evening and just in data centers in general in the use of utilities inordinate use of utilities and the cooling system which I think we do have we did get addressed the one thing that saves me on this is that it is utilizing city property and it's not clearing and developing a greenfield site yet another greenfield site so I for that reason I'm voting aye on this commissioner Riggs yeah I'm voting I'll go ahead and state reasons I think so too is one it's pretty much just gravel on the ground right now so I don't think there'd be any environmental impacts and it is sandwiched between the airport and Peterbilt so I don't think there's there's going to be any increase in noise but yeah in the sport I yeah I'll just say I'm very proud of the work that the past development code review committee and and PNZ and council did to to establish the the noise and other requirements that we have to be able to be flexible on a site basis but really encourage these types of centers that come in with low water use because there's a correlation between high evaporative water use systems and noise that that keeps our water use down but also is is sensitive to the the impacts from a noise perspective so the chair is an eye commissioner catcher said on Commissioner Dyer and Commissioner Garland I that passes six zero brings us to our last public hearing of the evening item five F G okay I was getting worried that we were failing somebody five G DCA twenty five dash one all right thank you chair members of the commission Angie manglaris assistant planning director I will tag in Julie Wyatt principal planner a little bit through this presentation but this is DCA twenty five one this is a code amendment related to missing middle housing so specifically this amendment is to amend several sections of the debt and development code which aim to clarify our regulations for missing middle housing types specifically townhome and accessory dwelling units this does support several of our goals in our comprehensive plan our affordable housing toolkit the southeast and area plan as well as the design downtown denton plan it does help to support a variety of housing options in the city these amendments are also intended to remove some conflicting or confusing language within the code these amendments are consistent with direction received from both this body as well as the development code review committee and does create additional options for missing middle housing within the city overall we are recommending approval as I said we have workshopped these code amendments through both this body as well as the DC RC public engagement was held in a variety of forums both in person meetings online meetings as well as an online survey generally there is support for these amendments and what we are going to do is just kind of walk through these main changes talk a little bit about them we will do ADUs and then we will do townhomes as well so first amendment here would be to amend the table of allowed uses to expand where accessory dwelling units are currently allowed to expand that to MD and MR and really the reason for that is because we are also proposing that accessory dwelling units could be accessory to townhomes, duplexes, triplexes and they also live in these zoning districts so really just expanding the allowable uses to where the units that they could be attached to are located as it relates to general amendments related to just accessory structures in general we do currently have a conflict in the code in this section it had previously said no structures whatsoever in the side yard and then the ADU standards go on to say well ADUs can be in the side yard so this removes that conflict and just kind of cleans that language up makes it easier for staff as well as residents so going on and touching back on some of these amendments generally some amendments are clarifying ADUs can be attached or detached we do need to talk through this a little bit I believe I got my red line a little confused it should be one ADU allowed per lot when looking at single-family detached townhomes duplexes and triplexes so expanding the uses the intent was only to allow one per lot so that would be something we'll need to talk through at the motion just to flag that but there was support both from the community as well as when we were workshopping this to allow that flexibility to expand the uses in which ADUs could be accessory to so as a reminder today just single-family homes but this could allow if the lot fits it an ADU with a townhome duplex or triplex. Moving on to size some of these amendments were clarification again mostly for staffs benefit and reading and interpreting the code but clarifying measurement standards for ADUs and creating one standard for all ADUs for maximum size so the way that would work would be any ADU could be a minimum of 800 square feet regardless of the size of the principal dwelling unit it does allow up to a maximum of 75% of the square footage of the main structure what we're doing by setting that minimum guarantee of 800 square feet is that was aimed largely at some of our older homes that may only be you know seven or eight hundred square feet our original amendments had that where your ADU would be quite small at like 350 square feet or something. So providing some flexibility again when we took this to the community and our surveys 52% did find that that increase in size was appropriate as did the DCRC and we looked at a variety of different sizing options and ultimately landed on the 75% or 800 but you're guaranteed 800 square feet regardless. When it comes to location and design there were a handful of amendments that were made here to clarify that a detached ADU could be allowed on the side yard but requiring that that if that were the case that that ADU be offset at least three feet from the main structure just to provide a little bit of visual relief and then also provide additional clarity on when ADUs need to demonstrate architectural compatibility so as it is today at any time if you're constructing an ADU it does need to be determined to be architecturally compatible with the home with these amendments we are really specifying that it's ADUs that are visible from the public right-of-way that need to demonstrate architectural compatibility by meeting any two of these requirements here. So what this does is for an ADU that's generally situated in somebody's backyard that nobody else can see we won't be as focused on that but those that are visible from the public right-of-way we would want to ensure continuity of community character and this could make it a little bit easier for those looking to construct an ADU to do so if they so chose. And then ownership requirements this is something we talked quite a bit about at DCRC is their mechanism to allow separate ownership of the ADU from the main structure and I think we determined that a condo association is really the best way to do that and so this would allow for that provided that that not be severed from the home by way of a plat and then the parking requirements the suggestion would be to remove the minimum but require any required space that is removed for the construction of an ADU to be replaced on site. So if you were to retrofit a garage to become an attached ADU and you're removing some of the required parking you'd have to find a place elsewhere for it on site. This had a wide range of public opinion there was some support for yes did feel that that was appropriate and then it kind of bounced around for others felt it was still a little too restrictive and others felt it was a little too relaxed but this is the language we settled on. And that is ADUs at a high level kind of hitting those main amendments and I'm going to let Julie come and talk through some of those town home amendments for you all. Good evening Julie Wyatt I'm going to go over the proposed amendments to town homes. This didn't go through the DCRC it did come to this body in February of this year to talk through some of these challenges that the city has with development of town homes and some of those design considerations which create barriers to developing town homes. So first of all as Angie mentioned in the work session town homes are allowed in our mixed use districts as well as our six and our seven which are moderate density districts. We're not proposing as part of this to modify where town homes would be allowed in the city. What we're talking about is are those design elements. So under current regulations this town home lot size has a one size fits all 2000 square feet a minimum width of 20 feet and a minimum depth of 60 feet. And that is a really good lot size for one of our more suburban context or that moderate density the R6 R7 that works really well there. But when we're talking about our mixed use districts where we want more fine grain development more walkable environments those lot sizes don't necessarily work and in fact we have town homes in our downtown area that don't meet that requirement. So we are proposing to reduce that town home lot size for our mixed use districts to 1000 square feet allowing that additional flexibility for those areas to slot into the infill lots where where they can. We're also as as as part of this is we're proposing to clarify the applicability note for all districts to make sure that when when a developer or a community member wants to know about town homes that they get those good references and then also clarify town home building coverage to make sure that in in those districts that allow greater building coverage that those town home lots could take advantage of that. Under our current requirements the maximum building coverage for town homes is 85 percent. But for instance in our M.D. district we allow 100 percent building coverage. So we want to make sure that we wouldn't treat town homes any differently than any other use that would be developed in those districts. We feel like this is more consistent with the intent of our mixed use districts and allows more infill development consistent with our comprehensive plan as well as our our housing plans. We did talk to the community about this in our community meetings and online and they were in agreement with with this proposal. The second one is a little difficult to explain so I'll do my best and if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them. So subchapter three in the Denton Development Code also has a provision for town homes that the maximum number of town homes allowed on a site can be no more than the number of single family homes that could be developed on that site. So what does that mean? That means that you would divide the gross square feet of a site by the minimum lot size for that zoning district. So for instance if somebody wanted to pursue town homes in the R4 district with an SUP it would it would restrict the number of town homes that they that you could build because R4 requires a 7,000 square foot lot. So it would just it would create challenges for for getting that that those additional housing within those neighborhoods and really is a disincentive to to develop town homes. So we're proposing just to remove this altogether. It's confusing it's difficult to say it's difficult to explain and it really just does create a disincentive for this housing type really kind of pushes development to other housing types which which don't have this type of limitation. We asked the community how they felt about this and they were in agreement that really we could just remove this provision altogether. And then the last item is open space. Open space is a great amenity to a lot of neighborhoods. It really is something that we want to see in in good urban design but it doesn't always fit in all contexts especially in those infill situations or smaller projects. The current code requires a minimum five percent open space for any development that is over 10 units or more which which is really kind of a small area. So we're proposing to refine that to still maintain open space because we do think it's a it's a vital thing for some projects to increase that to a minimum of projects over three acres so that those smaller projects would be exempt from it and also exempt projects that are close to to city parks. So projects that are closer than one half mile from a city park would not have to provide that open space provide that exemption because there's already that existing open space. Those community recreation activities are already in place in those areas. We also as part of the proposal are adding design maintenance and management standards. We do have those and our current code references those in our multifamily section but we added that to this section to refine those standards to make sure it it fit. It was tailored toward these toward these types of missing middle housing types. We analyze this. We looked at it all different ways and what we really settled on was affordability. We already require park dedication for residential developments and we want to make sure any development that did provide open space gave usable open space. And for that that's how we arrived at the proposal. We asked the community how they felt about the exemption for for projects near city parks and they were in favor of that exemption. And then 50 percent of those who answered were in favor of exempting projects that were smaller than three acres so they were also in favor of that. So based upon the criteria for approval our policy documents that really speak to providing this diversity of housing these missing middle housing types in order to encourage infill development affordable development and just to serve all residents of the city of Denton. We are recommending approval of these code amendments. We'll be happy to answer any questions and thank you. Questions Commissioner Ketchers I have a question on the ADU. So on single family it's one per lot. Yes. So and to clarify that that is the intent is that for any use right now what is allowed today is one per single family lot being proposed we're looking at adding uses that language should reflect one per lot. But if we wanted to talk more about that we could. OK because I think there are some situations where more than one could be useful for some situations attached but still have room for detached potentially things like that. Yeah and we did talk about that a little a little bit. One one thing we see somewhat commonly it's not all the time but it's kind of like a casita where there's still a separate living area within the main home but really what differentiates it between an ADU and sort of just an expansion of your home is their open communication. So if you're attaching an ADU but you can't get from the main structure to the ADU without leaving and going around we would call it an attached ADU but say you were to just do an add on and there's a door between the two that still kind of counts as the primary structure so that that is one option that individuals could pursue and is something I've seen done before where you know possibly you have aging family you'd like them to be close but you want this ADU as well. Could we add a line on the table of allowed uses that just says additional accessory dwelling with a specific use permit. That's an option if we were wanting to explore that route I suppose that's one way we could go or if we wanted to if you felt like some of the larger lot sizes like our our one maybe that's fine right we could maybe add an initial qualifier I'd love to hear from everybody else obviously if that would be something we'd want to consider but those would be my two initial thoughts is either SUP or pick some zoning districts you all are comfortable with. Okay okay thank you thank you I yeah Commissioner Garland okay um I want to get to the public here shortly but but to set that stage I want to follow up on Commissioner Ketchers-Edds point just help me recount at DCRC it wasn't specifically this proposal this is a little different but I think we were talking about potentially allowing two ADUs on lots that had a duplex currently refresh my mind how that went what the breakdown was as well as whether staff would be in support of that if that was the will of this commission or the council. Sure I'll do my best to recount so following our public feedback input when we kind of did our recap of how everything went where we presented one per lot regardless of the unit the question was brought up did staff have a problem with possibly allowing two for duplexes meaning you know each each duplex essentially or each side of the duplex got an ADU I think the answer from from staff's perspective is I don't necessarily see an issue with that again we classify multifamilies five or more I think in most cases it would be rather difficult to achieve there are some older duplex lots where possibly there's the room so going down to like can something happen yes but can it logistically be designed it could be complicated it depends where that went with the DCRC was very split and because we had already taken the one per lot idea forward kind of just planning to stick with that with the acknowledgment though that this conversation would occur probably at this body and council any other questions before Commissioner Garland I had one I don't know if you can go back to the slide that talked about the square footage size and then like roof pitch I know it mentioned those two things but maybe I'm wrong maybe I just missed it but does it is there are we able to kind of cap how high like the height of the roof because I guess my concern is if somebody built something say on top of a detached garage in their back yard and then this thing went you know just straight up to where it's peering down into their neighbors backyard like are we going to is there any kind of curtailing that like as far as height sure so for that it goes it goes to the zoning district requirements and so but to your specific example when we're measuring buildings with a with an extremely steep pitched roof the way that's taken is we kind of take where the actual structure stops and where that ultimate peak is of the roof and so you have your slant here there's really great graphic in the DDC but for now I'm going to use my hands if it's too confusing let me know thank you so we take the midpoint between these two and that's where the measurement is is from and so let's say this was like 20 feet and this was 10 mm-hmm the midpoint probably about 15 feet so that's where the height would be now granted most of this space is not habitable it is like right man I'm losing my words I'm sorry it's just for architectural purposes but for structures that are a flat roof like that we do measure to the highest point so if somebody just wanted to build straight on top and it's extremely tall and that is all habitable space we're measuring from that top point but when you're doing add-on features for architectural purposes we'll split the difference and take that midpoint for height and so that's that's kind of how all of those height measurements are spelled out in the the DDC and that's really how any structure in the city is measured okay all right thank you okay at this point I'll open the public hearing I do have one card to speak Miss Dana Zoltner you're welcome to come down state your name and address and you'll have four minutes Dana Zoltner 610 Emory and all of this looks good in terms of ADU however when it talks about consistency of color roof pitch who who gets to make sure that happens because across the street from me we had this flat roofed little house with a huge warehouse behind it and the excuse is there's a storage shed below with the ADU on top you can see it over the house you can it's it's an eyesore and we had an opportunity to get it stopped even before even even before the permits were issued we asked about that and they went ahead and said oh you're allowed a storage shed I've got a picture if you all want to look on my phone and see what it looks like but working on how many you're tearing up neighborhoods is what you're doing when you try to get as much as possible I just I just am really concerned about the city's lack of concern for our established neighborhoods and the monstrosities that are going that are that get built because they're entitled to a storage shed if you could put it in that little center circle yeah then the the special camera that I've never been able to find exists somewhere yes we will see if the camera there it is okay there's what's across the street yeah if you could step back in front of the mic that way it won't feed back you just yeah thank you that's what's across the street it's a very nice cat by the way that's that's from the side that's on Coit Street and you can see I mean bear it it shadows that the little house that's I took that picture in the afternoon and it it just totally the little I mean you can't even see the little house because it's so shaded by this warehouse there's another one like that on 1107 Broadway now that's been permitted as a quote tool shed it's and it's not consistent it's those houses are brick this is frame the house I've been by there several times different times of the day there are a minimum of four cars in the driveway three on the street and they're saying it's a tool shed maybe it is I don't I mean I don't know if I lived in that neighborhood I'd be I'd be asking code enforcement to take a look at it but it concerns me in established neighborhoods there's no oversight and and you all really don't seem to particularly care when we talked about when we called and went and had a meeting and it's oh well they can have a they're allowed to have a storage shed well you can get one a whole lot cheaper that looks really cute from Home Depot and not spend the kind of money that got spent across the street so I you know I it looks good on paper but where's the enforcement going where's the oversight where you all should take care of us thank you is it a question for the commenter okay just if we can hold it I don't have any more cards on this item but this is a public hearing you're welcome to come down and speak and just state your name and address and then you can get a card to the secretary afterwards you'll have four minutes hello my name is brand richter I live at 1804 Linden Drive I attended both of the public meetings that Angie and Julie held over the ADU in town home code amendment changes and was very impressed to see the way that they synthesized a lot of that public feedback so I really appreciate the time that staff took putting that together I grew up here in Denton in a 3,300 square foot home on a huge acre lot that was awesome for me and my the six members of my family and I've lived in Denton for you know still and the home that I'm in now I'm with it's me and it's the four of us in there and it's in I believe the same neighborhood as our previous speaker in one of our older neighborhoods just north of campus for me as a young working person who's also single that's kind of the only choice that I have in this community and it frustrates me that when I hear people talk about these types of more approachable housing options that are within my price point as a prospective homeowner be outside of the preference of a person who already owns a home it's deeply frustrating that we are looking at potentially limiting or restricting some of these affordability options that open up more access to home ownership in an affordable price point for people who really want to stay here so I'm encouraged that staff is seeing that community feedback and seeing that there is an appetite for reducing those home ownership barriers by adopting these really clean and easy to interpret code changes that allow you know maybe it's my current landowner who wants to put something in our nearly 0.8 acre lot which could easily fit an additional structure and additional people being able to afford those places to live. My neighborhood alone it's again one of those older established neighborhoods it has some property lots that are nearly an acre in size I hear some commissioners speaking earlier about how some of those might be appropriate for additional structures if it's suitable for the lot and I believe that that's a decision that we should at least allow those property owners to make so long as it's not causing any public nuisances and I believe that the code presented does meet that box while allowing some flexibility from the homeowner. So I do believe it's in the city's interest to open up these housing options and allow for more affordable housing and not being too terribly onerous or prescriptive about how that happens to the homeowner and that by pulling back some of these barriers we open up those potentials for people who do want to stick around. So I do hope that the commissioners thoroughly reviewed staff's recommendations and see it as a very constructive and common sense way forward to change these homeownership codes. Thank you. Thank you. This is a public hearing so if anyone else would like to speak you're welcome to come down and share your thoughts on the ADU and townhome amendments. Anyone else? Not seeing any. I will close the public hearing. As chair I'm going to go ahead and make a motion but I expect us to have lots of discussion after that. I've been waiting for this to come forward since about 2016. I really appreciated Commissioner Ketchersed's concept of hey could there be a little bit more flexibility with an SUP perhaps, how does that work? And so like I said I'm going to make a motion and I expect us to have good discussion to work it out and then we'll change it as needed. So I'm going to move to recommend approval with the following modifications to basically copy Commissioner Ketchersed's suggestion where you get plus one ADU if you do an SUP subject to the four dwelling units per lot maximum for reasons of definitions and like I said we may amend this but I'm also going to say within a mile and a half of the downtown square that that SUP would not be required and that's basically just large enough to incorporate the areas around UNT and our universities and that sort of thing. Let me explain my thinking behind that. When I first got on this commission in 2020, 2021 something like that, I think it was 2021, I had the privilege of sitting over there in Commissioner Garland's seat and next to me in Commissioner Dyer's seat was Tim Smith. I don't know if you know Tim but I learned a lot from him and pretty soon after I got on the commission as we were considering some challenges that Denton was having on affordable housing little did we know that in the next six years it would literally get twice as bad like twice as expensive, more than twice as bad. And he mentioned to me that when he went through the Leadership Denton program in the 2016-17 era that they took on sort of the combination of affordability and pressures, development pressures near the universities and if you're familiar with Leadership Denton it's a pretty large 30 to 40 person group, they meet monthly for a whole year, people that really enjoy digging into problems on a city level, right? And they came back and said we need ADUs, right? At the time our code allowed the building but functionally you couldn't live there. It was barred from any long term lease contracts officially. Now unofficially we probably had 30 or 40 buildings that were leasing things out but if you asked to build one then the answer would be no. We fixed a lot of those problems with the 2019 code. Very large refresh so they became buildable without having an SUP and we've seen some since then but primarily and I'll ask staff to confirm this after I'm done, primarily I believe we've seen them on newer construction lots where the main home and an ADU are being built together, right? Which affords a lot more flexibility in how you lay out the site. As staff said, there's lots of planning as we talked about earlier this year, tonight, in the small area plan with Southeast Denton to understand what are the barriers. I understand concerns about parking, I'll just say we have to make a judgment call and a policy call about what is the more pressing need in our community. Right now we are requiring parking that prevents homes from being built. Which essentially means we're saying availability of parking regardless of how many cars there are is more important than housing people and I believe that to be morally and ethically suspect. So I think we have an opportunity here to really move the ball forward and I'm excited to see where the discussion goes. There's other things I think we need to do, this is just a first step toward making this stuff possible economically and feasible on lots where it makes sense already just from a location perspective. I'll just share one anecdote, I had the pleasure a couple years ago to meet a gentleman here who is a graduate student, a foreign graduate student who because of the cost of housing in Denton was living in a one bedroom apartment and there were five students living in this one bedroom apartment. When housing is expensive, restricting the number of homes that can be built doesn't get you less people, doesn't get you less cars, doesn't get you less congestion, all it does is squeeze people into an overcrowded situation. And so I think that these amendments will allow the lowest impact type of development to go into our core neighborhoods and start alleviating that pressure. The more of these we build, the fewer four story huge cube apartment complexes are going to come by. So that's really the trade off is do we embrace these small changes or do we say, well, all change is equally objectionable and therefore we would prefer to wait until applicants come with deep pockets and rezone properties right next to neighborhoods because all change is equally objectionable. I don't believe that's true. I think while there's concerns that we need to take seriously, we need to look at enforcement, we need to understand how this develops and look at it next year, see how are we doing. I think when you have this public input and that sort of thing, what you'll see is nervousness of seeing more change, but realization that adding a building behind a home is not as big of a change as building a four story apartment complex behind somebody's backyard. So that's my motion. Yeah, Steph. I just want to make sure I can restate your motion and that we captured it. So your motion was to recommend approval of the staff recommendation with two modifications, the first to allow one additional accessory dwelling unit per lot with a specific use permit required provided that additional ADU could not be allowed if the lot would have more than four dwelling units, and the second modification being an exemption to that SUP requirement for the additional ADU per lot for any property within one and a half miles of the downtown square. Is that correct? That's correct, yes. So is there a second on that? Well, I just want to clarify something. Are we just dealing with ADUs now and then we'll talk about the townhouse or are we doing it all as one, is staff recommending us all as one? It's all one item. I think we can still amend the townhome proposal if need be, but my motion was for both, but the amendment was only to the ADU. I just need clarification, thank you. Commissioner Garland? I will second that we approve the motion. I would like to say I'm actually really happy that we're doing this. I feel like housing diversity and different options is something that our community's needed for a long time, and as the economy just continues to squeeze families, a lot of families are in that position of aging parents and adult children that can't afford a three-bedroom, two-bath brick home, and also, coincidentally, cannot afford a one-bedroom apartment, and so I think that this will open up a lot of flexibility and a lot of options for people that are looking for a way to kind of bring their family in and do what makes sense financially for them, so I'm happy to support those. Commissioner Riggs? Yeah, I'd like to do a little bit more discussion before we go to a vote. First, Ms. Oltner, we were forwarded your email. Thank you for sending that in, and I think she has a legitimate concern, and I guess one of the things I'd ... Yeah, no, and I don't think any of us are. I think we all understand ... Well, and I think we all understand that the different needs for different housing is very real and didn't, but I also do want to say that I used to live on a street where essentially all of the garages were converted into basically more living space, and so everybody parked on the street, and I would not let my kids play out in the front yard, because everybody had to basically neck down, and so I think to say that people's concerns about parking is morally and ethically suspect, I don't think it's fair, so I think that's a legitimate concern, but the other thing I would like to know from staff, in the case of Mrs. Oltner's referencing, did that go in according to code? Is that still allowed from what we're voting on? Yeah, and I'll trust Hillary will stop me if we get off posting, but in answer to that question ... I'm sorry, can you rephrase it? Or can you say it again? I totally blank. It was just, did it meet code? So the ADU code about the one structure there on Emory Street that's I guess powering over the other one? Yes. It did go through permit review and was also assigned to Planner to verify it against the current regulations. It's within the allowable height and meets the setback requirements, as well as the size requirements. It is built on top of a storage building, similar to if somebody were to build a home on top of a garage unit. So with these requirements that are up here, consistency in color and roof pitch, are those applied to that specific one? So these are suggestions that are specific to this amendment. We do have a blanket statement that any ADU, visible or not from the right of way, be architecturally compatible and that is left a little open ended. However, it was determined to meet those criteria. We are attempting with these amendments to specify it a bit more and when it applies, but it was compliant with those requirements. Okay. But now with these new requirements that you're proposing, that structure would look different than it does today? I can't say that for certain without doing a detailed review. It may end up being the same. Okay. Commissioner McTuff? Understand all these things and the need for changes and certainly affordable housing and agree with several things that have been said this evening. Ms. Zolter, I think we hear you. We did not get that email. The Planning and Zoning Commissioner Riggs forwarded that to me this evening, but I can tell you that we are concerned about established neighborhoods. We do, I for one live in an established neighborhood. I've lived in all kinds of housing in Denton, Texas as a student and forward. Where I am living now in Southridge, we do have an issue with parking from an accessory building around the corner and many times there are six cars lined up in the driveway and numerous work trucks on the street. Just the other day I saw a young man wheeling in a baby stroller, the baby of the family and I said, "Where are you going? What are you doing?" I was very fearful for that young man, so I'm going to echo Commissioner Riggs' comment about not to take into account the parking issue for the ADU. It's not a good thing. I will say that I don't have issues with the parking that's being recommended with this. Yes, I for one, but I think we do need to take into account the parking when we talk about these other types of dwellings for health and safety. Just to clarify, because I went long-winded, I may have not stated it correctly, the parking comment was not in any way to suggest that parking availability becomes a challenge in certain neighborhoods. It wasn't to suggest that this shouldn't be an issue that we look to resolve. What I was saying is that the housing affordability and lack of housing in the places and the types and the sizes that we need is a much more pressing manner right now than whether there are two or three more cars on most streets. That's really what we're talking about. This is the type of change that evolves over decades. Property on the block is not going to build an ADU next year, because we have distributed ownership. I just wanted to clarify that. No, and I think that's one of the things that, particularly where I think sometimes you and I disagree is more of at what pendulum of swing do we go? Sometimes I think you're here and I'm about here, which we're still on the same page. I think that's one of the things that we're here to talk about is talk about what is reasonable and where do we go. I did have another question too. Is there any worry about adding ADUs on properties, particularly say like new developments, that doesn't have any kind of issue with our tree ordinance and tree canopy goals, does it? No. With new developments specifically? I guess comment to both. Sure. Well, it gets tricky when dealing with single-family homes and tree preservation in our established neighborhoods due to state law and some of the limitations we have there. When it comes to new developments, so green field development, they are required to submit that tree preservation plan up front, and those that do pre-plan their ADUs, and it is something I've seen a little bit more of. We don't see them all the time, but they do have to account for it at that time, and so they're still required to meet those minimums as they're lot planning. There's no sort of carve out for the ADU situation there. Then I do have one more question. Just for clarification, with the motion that's on the floor, are we saying that you can have plus one ADU if it'll fit so that we have a maximum of two ADUs on a lot, or can there be more? I just feel like I need clarification. Yeah, so the motion is exactly as staff presented with the addition of Commissioner Ketcherset's suggestion, which says if you want one more ADU than what staff has presented, you have the option of asking for an SUP for that. Then as Hilary Haley ... I'm sorry. My left-right brain has flipped tonight, apparently, as Haley stated that if you are within a mile and a half of the downtown square, that SUP would not be required in order for the plus one. Yeah. So where I was looking for clarification is there would only be a max of two in any of those situations. Correct? Yes. I think the second part to that would be, so for a triplex, once you have your one ADU, you cannot get the SUP for the second, because then you have five, and you've become a new use. Okay. Yes, I would agree with that. I did want to clarify, Chair, Angie had made one point of correction at the beginning of her presentation. Are you accepting that as well, that it was the one per lot, not one per dwelling? Yes. I think that's much more clear. Thank you. Regular people who read the code can understand that, and I thank Commissioner Ketcher-Sedd for the simple additional request, because I think that's all much more understandable than anything I've thought before this evening. We haven't heard from Commissioner Dyer in a while, so I'm going to take her and then come back to you. Commissioner Dyer. I have a couple things. Real quick on the townhouses, you talked about the square footage going down to 1,000. So that's the lot size. Correct. What are we looking at for a square footage of a unit then, like the home? I mean, I know it could be different, because you could have three or four levels on there. So what is City staff envisioning when you're recommending going down from, is it 2,000 down to 1,000? 2,000 down to 1,000, yes. So we actually did an analysis of existing townhomes on the smaller lots and on the 2,000 square foot lots, and they were actually, the size of the building was comparable, because the 1,000 square foot would go up. We have a minimum dwelling size of 900 square feet for a townhome, and we are not proposing any modifications to that. So that minimum square footage of a townhome would remain. So even at a minimum, is there a maximum? I mean, could you have a 4,000 square foot townhouse on a 1,000 square foot lot? You'd really have to, if it fits within the building envelope. So it depends on building coverage, meeting parking, meeting any front and rear setbacks, and then building height. So here's where I'm going with this. We have all the tree stuff, the tree canopy. I'm thinking of green space, because when you're looking at affordability, housing affordability, ADU's is one little puzzle piece, townhouses was one little puzzle piece, single family, it's all multifamily apartment, that's all little puzzle pieces to the affordability issue. And some of your first time homeowners are going to take advantage of a lower price point to buy a townhouse. And it could be a young family with one, maybe two children. But if it's on a 1,000 square foot lot, what kind of green space, what kind of backyard are they going to be able to have a little patio out there where they and their kids and a dog can play, or is it absolutely going to give them no green space? It would depend on the size, and remember the 1,000 would be the minimum, and there could be flexibility for that. So in terms of green space, townhomes could potentially afford that backyard or that green space, but it would depend on the specific project, maybe what that family is looking for in terms of it. We are proposing to maintain that 2,000 square feet, so those larger lots in the R6 and R7 because those are kind of those more moderate density, and those would likely have maybe larger backyards or front yards. But getting that smaller lot size in our downtown because that encourages that more walkable development, that more compact development pattern. So where individual green space may not be as important in our downtown because you've got the square and you've got other community assets, whereas that private open space, green space might be really important in an area outside of our downtown area because there aren't those walkable places to go to. So it really is depending on that context. Okay, I would just encourage city staff if this passes tonight just to kind of think about that when you're working with developers, just to make sure that for the affordability factor that you're also meeting the needs of that single parent or that young family that may have the children that need a little bit of extra space. It's not just going to be your fun and young 20 somethings or 30 or your empty nesters that some may care and some may not. So that's what I wanted to say on that. Did you want to add anything? No, no, no. Okay. I do have something on the ADU situation. I have to say I did not like your comment, Chair, about prioritizing parking spaces over the affordability factor because that was one of the things I think I brought up when we were in the Development Code Review Committee and talking about this is that one of the things if there is a garage, the garage could technically be converted, whether it's an attached garage or a detached garage to an ADU to a little apartment. And then that means that that homeowner who had the garage now is on the street and the person that's renting out the ADU is now on the street and to me it's not so much about parking spaces as it is your first responders and being able for safety reasons to be able to get ambulances, fire trucks, all of that down the street. I sat now in what, 10 months of meetings, 10, 11 months of meetings and we've had the things that have been brought before us, we've heard some people, you know, in the closer to downtown area of Denton talk about the crowded streets, you know, the ones especially the one issue where we were looking at a lot of her multifamily zoning and it was over by the Women's College and they were talking about the traffic patterns and how there's no parking and you can't get down the roads and you can't some, you know, both sides are taken and you can't even get through the roads and two cars can't pass and so to me it's not so much about the parking as it's the whole big picture and not only the big picture of that but there's the big picture of the affordability factor and there's the big picture of property, you know, a property owner's rights and if they want to add an ADU to help offset the cost of their mortgage but also, you know, provide that housing for, you know, somebody else, like it's, this is where we sit on this commission and we have complicated issues and it's not just a clear cut yes and it's not just a clear cut no, there's lots of little facets about this and hopefully when we are giving our reasoning for voting yes with some, hey, staff, can you make sure this happens, that, you know, staff is really listening to our concerns or if, you know, we do vote no, it's not that we are against the issue, it's we see all these other little things so I will probably vote yes just because I do feel that it is important but I do have a huge concern about the, what it's going to do to parking on the streets and the mobility of the community to be able to get up and down the street the first responders with ambulance and fire when we are, I mean, I get it's not happening overnight, it's going to happen over time and I'm assuming HOA, this doesn't really affect HOA unless you're working with the development to allow that in their bylaws for future developments. Right, and I do want to clarify a little bit on the parking and how we got to where we are today just to add some context for maybe everybody so I think when we took our first pass and it's been a while, we worked through ADUs at the beginning of this year and now it's Christmas and a lot has happened but initially we did look at having no parking requirement for ADUs and so, you know, currently today it's one space per bedroom and we kind of looked at swinging that pendulum the other way of none and not everybody on the committee was comfortable with that for some of the reasons you just stated and so we kind of tried to get back towards center and made the language as you see it today consistent with how we do other uses for single family or renovations and that is essentially if you're moving required spaces for the home, they do have to be put back and so in the example of I converted my garage and two of my required spaces were in there, they have to be relocated somewhere else on site or that parking area does have to be provided but when it comes to parking on public right of way, it's always a complicated issue because not everybody uses their garage for their cars, I'm guilty of that sometimes and we can't preclude people from parking on the public right of way so that's how we got to where we are. Well, it's very interesting because, you know, in my profession I always joke that, you know, everything's bigger in Texas but the garages and they build them, like these builders build these really small 20 by 20 garages and, you know, I came, you know, from, I lived in other states where we had basements and so you stored all your stuff in the basement and a lot of people here store their stuff in the garages so they don't park in the garages so, you know, you're going to have the, you know, the main resident people may or may not be using the garages and if you've got teenage drivers, you know, it just, it all gets, it's very complicated. It is very complicated and I was just going to touch on some of the parking requirements. I just wanted to add that the on street spaces cannot count towards those requirements so that they do have to put them back within the lot somewhere. We again can't control behavior but they can't count the street frontage in front of their home towards that required parking. This is, this is where as a commission and even as residents, you know, as a resident of Denton, like we, we are entrusting that you guys will make the best decisions when you're working with a homeowner or a developer that you will think about these things and, you know, I mean you just hope that when you make these decisions that everything, you're going to have some hiccups and you're going to unfortunately have some residents that, you know, yes it still falls within the guidelines but it's, it's an eyesore, it's this or that but hopefully those are few and far between. It won't be perfect. And I will add, sorry, I don't, just, we do keep a monitor especially when we've made changes to things. Did we over correct or did we not correct enough? And as we're seeing today, the Denton Development Code is amendable and so if we're really running into just consistent issues, it is something staff would be keeping track of and could bring back to this body to say hey we tried it, it didn't work, we need to fix it. And I think that shows a great relationship between staff and the board to make sure that it benefits the citizens of the community. Thank you. Before we go to Commissioner McDuff, can you real quick address the open space, green space question? I believe the reduced 2,000 square foot lot size is contingent on a certain proximity to some public open space, is that correct? No, that would be the open space. So the 2,000, the minimum lot size is based upon reducing that minimum lot size to 1,000 square feet for our mixed use district. So MD, MN, MR, those are intended for those mixed use walkable environments. The R4, R6 and R7, those would still have to comply with that 2,000 square foot minimum lot size. But in order to, if you have a full development coming in, a subdivision of town homes, right, and not just 1Z, 2Z, if they are going to not provide public open space for that subdivision, they must be within a certain proximity of a park, is that correct? Correct. So I would add that we are proposing currently the regulation is if you have 10 or more units, you have to provide 5% open space for town homes, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. We're proposing to modify that to projects under three acres. So those smaller infill projects would be exempt. Or if you were a larger project, but you were within a half mile, within a walking distance of a park essentially, you would also be exempt. And that public open space, common area to that private open space for the development, private common open space, does that make sense? That was mostly just to, did that make sense, Commissioner Dyer? Yeah. I knew that there was a discussion about, you know, at so many points, like you had to have so much open space for a community development. I just couldn't. The last few meetings, we've had a lot of information and try to keep track of what all was said when and with what little, you know, what action item and all that is. Yeah. Okay. Commissioner MacDuff? Yes. I was just, thank you for allowing Commissioner Dyer to speak, but I believe I'm in order to call for the question. Very good. Yes. We have a motion and a second and I'm not seeing any more discussion, so let's have a roll call vote. Commissioner MacDuff? I'll be supporting this proposal, I'll be saying aye, and I'll be supporting this proposal with the amendments and also based on our discussion this evening with the presentation by our good staff. Commissioner Griggs? Aye. Chair is an aye and I will say this is the first step toward reevaluating as things go on and if we're not quite there yet, making more steps, I think. It's been a few years since my toddler age where my kids learned to walk, but I remember being astounded how you learn to walk by trying to fall and then catching yourself and it's always scary, especially to the mom. So I trust that we're in a good spot with staff as we lean forward and lean into these challenges we have and that we make our first step and we don't stop there, but we reevaluate and we say what else can we do, what are the priorities, and I also just want to echo some of the concerns that Commissioner Dyer had about the parking situation in different contexts. When that parking study does come forward, I don't know if this would be included in that study, but I think as it's presented to the various bodies, we definitely need a representative of the fire department to come explain what challenges they actually see and how we can tailor those parking regulations not just for new development, but also for parking management so that we can improve those safety situations today instead of waiting for areas to be redeveloped when the development code would apply, but chairs and I, sorry for taking a long time. Commissioner Ketchur said aye. Commissioner Dyer? Aye. Commissioner Barland? Aye. With that, that motion passes 6-0 and that brings us to our planning and zoning matrix. All right. With tonight's work session, I believe we have two items we can mark off of the matrix, so you'll see those changes reflected with our next packet. Just to give you some updates from recent city council actions since our November meeting, at the beginning of December, we did have the Craver Ranch items that were approved by council as well as the specific use permit for that relocation of an installation business here in town, and then just last night, we had the legislative updates to the DDC that you all had recently heard approved as well as the group home SUP that had been requested in the Southridge neighborhood, the addition of the 20 acres to the landmark, MPC, and as well as the historic designation for the house on Rose Lawn that you all heard several months ago actually. That took a while to get to council due to the applicant traveling, but those are the updates I have from council. I did want to note the item on your matrix regarding the multifamily data and recirculating that earlier work session, I am working to get that out to you all fairly soon, hopefully. Thank you. Any additions to the matrix? Commissioner McDuff. Yes, from our discussion this evening, I'd like to add another item, please, on our matrix for the record, and that would be further discussion on Denton 2040 comprehensive plan review and update. Commissioner Tyer. I have a couple. I wanted to talk about rezoning an area, and I'm going to use Craver Ranch as an example. Last month when we had Craver Ranch in here and we were doing rezoning it off from the rural residential with the SUP and all that, they probably had been talking about -- that question came up is why are we just now doing it when it was put into the city limits back in 2008, and I'm sure that developer has been working with city staff for a year or two. Why not when they first come and you know this is going to happen have that rezoning brought in front of this board and then the city council way ahead of time instead of everything boom, boom, boom, boom? Because I think, you know, there was so much for us to have to cover, but even more so there was so much for the residents to have to really wrap their brain around of all that discussion and maybe two years ago if that had been changed from rural residential, I think even though you know, what was that, 17 years ago that that was changed to city limits and everybody knew that it was going to be residences, you forget. You go on with your life and you get busy and so everybody around there probably didn't think about it and didn't forget. And then it was a moment of panic when it was all brought, you know, with three different moments. So I don't know that it's a matrix item necessarily, but just maybe is that possible when things like that, especially on these big developments, that those things, you know, when you know that it's happening to have that as step number one, change that zoning. Yes, I want to make sure I understand what you're asking. So were you saying for properties that are annexed to have the zoning occur sooner after annexation or when we know there's a large scale zoning to bring like a work session to you all to give you an FYI ahead of time? I'm trying to... So like obviously in 2008, even though you knew it was going to be homes, you didn't know what that was going to look like. But then, you know, I mean, a year or two ago when the developer came to city staff and said, this is our plan, this is what we want to do, why not then change that zoning? Like, oh, you're going to need, you know, an SGP, like you're going to need this type of zoning for that. So and this may be something, Hilary, you just prefer we defer to a future work session. I'm thinking a lot of your concern, I think, stems from the annexation process itself, which has changed since 2008 because back then the city forcibly annexed them. It was not done voluntarily. The owners were not ready to zone and were veering into discussion. So I'm going to propose maybe we just do a future work session on annexation processes and that might help address your concern. And zoning, like, yeah. Just the process in general? Maybe. Like it's just, you know, in my mind, I just feel like had that zoning request been done a year or two ago, maybe it would have lessened the tension that we had last month. I mean, a little bit. There was other things, you know, that -- valid concerns. But maybe that would just be one little thing that would have, you know, helped. Cool. Yeah. Let's go ahead and put that on the matrix. And to the extent we can, let's avoid talking about projects we're not posted for. Thanks. Sorry. I just felt like that was a good example. Okay. The other thing, I know we've talked about this. Apartment buildings, multifamily, and we talked about vacancy levels and getting some sort of a report. I think it would be very, very interesting if in that report you can have, like, these are all -- and I don't know if you do it by, like, fourplex and above or if it's just apartment buildings, but have -- these are all the different apartment buildings and this is how many units they have and this is what their vacancy level is. Not only what is currently built, but even what is in the future that is supposed to be coming, especially since, you know, we have a lot of different development happening right now. Because I'm very curious, like, the occupancy rate. Like, the occupancy rate over all in the city, like, is it on average, like, 70% of our apartments are occupied and, again, by units, like, this unit has this many available, but this many is vacant, you know, or this many is full, so that leaves, you know -- they have 50%, you know, because you're going to probably see some that are, like, closer to 100. Like, I just went apartment hunting with my son last week, and there was one in razor ranch and they just opened, they had, like, 10 people, like, it's, you know, 10 units, that's it. So, you know, but that's understandable because they just opened their doors. But then I thought it would be interesting also to see by, like, our districts, like, District 1 has this many apartment units and this is their vacancy rate. District 2, District 3, District 4, I'm just kind of -- it would just be very interesting to see where these apartment buildings are concentrated at. And again, what's -- what we currently have and what is in the future for build-up? I will be completely transparent. I don't know if we have the ability to get that data because what I've found so far in trying to research this for you all is just, like, overall city-wide market data is what's available commercially, so I'll look and see if we can get that somehow, but I'm not sure that we could. Is there even any way to see a list of what is projected -- like, how many apartment units we have in the city and what's projected to be built? I think you'll find that that data is in the report that was given to the Commission earlier this year, and I'm going to circulate that with the report on what we're able to find on vacancy. Okay. Was that prior to February? Yes. I believe it was in January. Yeah. I think you just missed it. Yeah. I just missed that one. Correct me if I'm wrong because I don't want to put words in your mouth, but the request for a work session on annexation and zoning and how that relates to the process. I think we heard tonight and have heard previously that all of a sudden big comprehensive plan amendments and zoning all at the same time is concerning to residents. I would like that work session to include a broader discussion about whether this body likes the way that's happening or would like to see the future land use map revisions always done larger than just the same parcel or subdivision area that's being requested to rezone. In other words, I don't want to get into it, but does that make sense? Do you think that would help the understanding? As far as just opening that work session up to that, would you be in support of that? Absolutely, it just was interesting when on a previous development before this board that city staff had to have known that this was going to be required. It's not like they just knew it a few months ago because these developments take time. It's not just a developer shows up and says, "Hey, I want to be on your agenda next month." There's a whole process. I do actually understand that process, but it's why wait until we're doing all these things? If this is a two-year process, why not a year into it you're coming here in front of the commission and saying, "Hey, we're working with this development. We need to go ahead and change this zoning. This is not zoned appropriately for what's about to happen." Okay. Commissioner Riggs, I remember something about the fiscal tool. I don't know if you were interested in putting that on the matrix. No, absolutely. That was one of the things I was going to recommend. I was also going to recommend putting on the matrix basically a West 380 study that we all discussed earlier, and also if we could have some kind of explanation of staff's financial tool that they use, because I know the finances was a big thing, particularly with the development at the last council, or not the last council meeting, but a week or so, a couple weeks ago. I would also like to discuss whenever we have a development that is, say, 2,000 acres, and we have concerns, and we're hearing concerns from residents about tech stock, about water availability, about financial viability, about all these things, why when we're having a council meeting are the finance people not here, the utility people not here. I think that that would have gone so much smoother if we had all those players at those meetings to talk about it and actually talk in depth about their specific profession. Did you get that? Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. That brings us to our last item, which is concluding items. I have a short one. Thank you, everyone, for your patience. I know the meetings in the last two months have been mentally and eating and drinking and getting rid of fluids challenging, so I just thank you for everybody's attention to detail. I'm really encouraged to see how everyone on this commission, as we gain more experience, is digging into slightly different things so that we don't leave any stone unturned, but I hope everybody has a wonderful holiday time and hopefully you get some more time with your family and we'll hit the ground running in January. Commissioner Riggs? I do have one closing idea to their statement. Tonight, Fredmore High School has a graduating class, and so I just want to say congratulations to all the new Fredmore graduates. Very good, and Commissioner McTuff? Yes, I have a thank you. Someone that helped me this week, our staff member, Matt Underwood, a special thanks to Matt Underwood, Senior Support Services Specialist in our Technology Services of Denton. It's always good to have a good staff member to call and get good help. I got my iPad unlocked and ready to go again, so thanks to Matt during this special time of year. Anything else? Commissioner Dyer? I just wanted to wish city staff, residents, and my fellow commissioners happy Hanukkah and Merry Christmas. Yes, I just wanted to note, I will be out on family leave for a few weeks coming up, so Angie will be with you all for your January and possibly first February meeting. Well, I wish you the best in what you're facing, and seeing no more items, at 944 p.m. on December 17th, with no objection, I will call this meeting adjourned.