1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:10,160
 >> Good afternoon at 5.04 p.m. this Wednesday, December 17th, and with a quorum present,

2
00:00:10,160 --> 00:00:16,720
 I will call this meeting of the work session of our Denton Planning and Zoning Commission

3
00:00:16,720 --> 00:00:18,320
 to order.

4
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:31,880
 Our first order of business is comments by citizens on the consent agenda, not seeing

5
00:00:31,880 --> 00:00:32,880
 anybody.

6
00:00:32,880 --> 00:00:39,060
 We'll move on to the clarification of agenda items listed.

7
00:00:39,060 --> 00:00:47,680
 So there's several things on the consent agenda, no changes this week as far as delaying

8
00:00:47,680 --> 00:00:51,980
 or modifications to approve.

9
00:00:51,980 --> 00:00:56,280
 Any questions on those items?

10
00:00:56,280 --> 00:00:57,280
 Okay.

11
00:00:57,280 --> 00:01:06,880
 It moves us to items for individual consideration for a FP250028C.

12
00:01:06,880 --> 00:01:17,400
 >> Chair and members of the commission, give me two seconds here.

13
00:01:17,400 --> 00:01:23,400
 This is a final plat for the reserves at brush creek.

14
00:01:23,400 --> 00:01:27,080
 It is a plan development for 42 single family homes.

15
00:01:27,080 --> 00:01:30,920
 At this time, staff is recommending denial as they do not meet all of our criteria for

16
00:01:30,920 --> 00:01:35,040
 approval but have no objection to the requested extension which could be granted to January

17
00:01:35,040 --> 00:01:36,040
 14th, 26.

18
00:01:36,040 --> 00:01:42,520
 Happy to answer any questions you all may have.

19
00:01:42,520 --> 00:01:48,720
 >> I have an offhanded question.

20
00:01:48,720 --> 00:01:52,120
 They have satisfied the majority of staff's comments.

21
00:01:52,120 --> 00:01:56,260
 We're working through getting to final civil engineering plan approval which is required

22
00:01:56,260 --> 00:01:58,420
 to approve the final plat.

23
00:01:58,420 --> 00:02:05,400
 Some of that in part is due to working through an agreement as it relates to the construction

24
00:02:05,400 --> 00:02:07,320
 of brush creek road.

25
00:02:07,320 --> 00:02:12,120
 So they're working with the adjacent commercial lot to come to an agreement regarding the

26
00:02:12,120 --> 00:02:13,880
 timing and funding of that road.

27
00:02:13,880 --> 00:02:16,920
 Once that's approved, the civils can be approved and then the plat can be approved.

28
00:02:16,920 --> 00:02:17,920
 >> Thank you.

29
00:02:17,920 --> 00:02:18,920
 >> Anything else?

30
00:02:18,920 --> 00:02:19,920
 I don't see anything.

31
00:02:19,920 --> 00:02:20,920
 Thank you, Angie.

32
00:02:20,920 --> 00:02:21,920
 Next item is 4BPP25-0005.

33
00:02:21,920 --> 00:02:22,920
 >> Good evening, chair and commissioners.

34
00:02:22,920 --> 00:02:37,180
 Cameron Robertson presenting on behalf of Sean Jacobson.

35
00:02:37,180 --> 00:02:44,360
 This is a preliminary plat for approximately 6.5-acre parcel just east of the existing

36
00:02:44,360 --> 00:02:48,360
 south Bonnie bray and west of future south Bonnie bray.

37
00:02:48,360 --> 00:02:53,320
 The staff is currently recommending denial of this preliminary plat as it does not comply

38
00:02:53,320 --> 00:02:59,080
 with the established criteria but staff has no objection to a requested extension to a

39
00:02:59,080 --> 00:03:07,560
 date starting January 14th, 2026 and this would be the second extension.

40
00:03:07,560 --> 00:03:09,600
 >> I have a question on this one.

41
00:03:09,600 --> 00:03:18,200
 If you could fill me in on sort of the plans for the old Bonnie bray there that I had heard

42
00:03:18,200 --> 00:03:24,960
 some things from parks on trails plans and other things and then I know so is this it

43
00:03:24,960 --> 00:03:31,040
 looks like notwithstanding the things that they need to fix that this would plan to connect

44
00:03:31,040 --> 00:03:36,200
 to that roadway and so that roadway would be not abandoned and stay where it is?

45
00:03:36,200 --> 00:03:39,840
 Is that the plan right now?

46
00:03:39,840 --> 00:03:45,040
 >> Yes, it's my understanding that roadway is not going to be abandoned and would stay

47
00:03:45,040 --> 00:03:50,120
 in place but more of a local street rather than serving as the arterial than Bonnie bray

48
00:03:50,120 --> 00:03:51,120
 will.

49
00:03:51,120 --> 00:03:52,120
 >> Okay.

50
00:03:52,120 --> 00:03:54,520
 Any other questions?

51
00:03:54,520 --> 00:03:55,520
 Not seeing any.

52
00:03:55,520 --> 00:03:57,760
 Thank you, Cameron.

53
00:03:57,760 --> 00:04:07,280
 Brings us to our public hearings 5A is sorry.

54
00:04:07,280 --> 00:04:12,120
 Is it easier to do these two or three together probably?

55
00:04:12,120 --> 00:04:17,920
 So we'll do 5A, B and C the comprehensive plan amendment mobility plan amendment and

56
00:04:17,920 --> 00:04:19,520
 the zoning item.

57
00:04:19,520 --> 00:04:26,680
 >> Yes, thank you chair, evening chair, members of the commission, senior planner, yes you

58
00:04:26,680 --> 00:04:33,200
 read my mind, my idea for presenting this is to do it all three applications at the

59
00:04:33,200 --> 00:04:37,800
 same time, hopefully open all three public hearings at the same time and then of course

60
00:04:37,800 --> 00:04:40,720
 each of them will need individual action.

61
00:04:40,720 --> 00:04:46,640
 So these three requests are one is a comprehensive plan amendment to change from agricultural

62
00:04:46,640 --> 00:04:52,560
 flume to regional mixed use, the second is a mobility thoroughfare map amendment to remove

63
00:04:52,560 --> 00:04:57,800
 the future extension of sea wolf road between U.S. 380 and Jackson road as identified there

64
00:04:57,800 --> 00:05:04,080
 on the image at the bottom right and then the last request is rezoning from RR and R2

65
00:05:04,080 --> 00:05:05,800
 to mixed use regional.

66
00:05:05,800 --> 00:05:11,360
 The property itself is about 16 and a half acres located just north of university drive

67
00:05:11,360 --> 00:05:16,000
 approximately 2800 feet west of golden hoof drive.

68
00:05:16,000 --> 00:05:22,600
 This property was anticipated to host multifamily development as a part of the hickory grove

69
00:05:22,600 --> 00:05:24,880
 legends ranch municipal utility district.

70
00:05:24,880 --> 00:05:30,200
 I provide a little bit of background from that or about that in your backup and I do

71
00:05:30,200 --> 00:05:36,000
 plan to cover that just briefly in the full presentation.

72
00:05:36,000 --> 00:05:41,120
 Since the creation of that mud this property was excluded and annexed into the city in

73
00:05:41,120 --> 00:05:47,080
 anticipation of that same land use multifamily development and so the applicant is or applicants

74
00:05:47,080 --> 00:05:53,000
 are going through the process of getting their comprehensive plan, future land use designation,

75
00:05:53,000 --> 00:06:00,160
 zoning and mobility situation underway.

76
00:06:00,160 --> 00:06:04,340
 Brief history just so you have this in mind and we can answer any questions within this

77
00:06:04,340 --> 00:06:06,880
 work session related to the background.

78
00:06:06,880 --> 00:06:12,520
 The existing land use for the property is undeveloped or the didn't plan 2030 designated

79
00:06:12,520 --> 00:06:19,160
 this area and the entire hickory grove legends ranch mud area as rural areas.

80
00:06:19,160 --> 00:06:24,600
 With the update of the didn't 2040 we did designate the hickory grove and legends ranch

81
00:06:24,600 --> 00:06:30,440
 single family area portion of the mud as low residential but we didn't really address the

82
00:06:30,440 --> 00:06:36,920
 portion along US 380 even though with the mud this came forward as multifamily and future

83
00:06:36,920 --> 00:06:38,680
 commercial uses.

84
00:06:38,680 --> 00:06:47,960
 So now we're taking that step and establishing the appropriate or seeking to establish the

85
00:06:47,960 --> 00:06:53,880
 appropriate future land use designation, zoning and thoroughfare map.

86
00:06:53,880 --> 00:06:57,040
 That pretty much concludes the highlight of the presentation like I said I do have a more

87
00:06:57,040 --> 00:07:02,680
 detailed presentation in the work session and your details are provided in your backup

88
00:07:02,680 --> 00:07:07,240
 but I will happily answer any questions that you have at this time.

89
00:07:07,240 --> 00:07:10,160
 Commissioner Dyer.

90
00:07:10,160 --> 00:07:15,720
 So you alluded that this was not the zoning was not changed when the when the mud was

91
00:07:15,720 --> 00:07:18,720
 put through.

92
00:07:18,720 --> 00:07:23,120
 Why why is that like why would they if they already knew that there is multifamily going

93
00:07:23,120 --> 00:07:25,160
 in here why not just do it all at that time.

94
00:07:25,160 --> 00:07:29,680
 I'm not sure it looks like like I said the single family residential piece was anticipated

95
00:07:29,680 --> 00:07:35,080
 and it could be possible that that use land use hadn't been completely figured out yet

96
00:07:35,080 --> 00:07:37,440
 what was going along US 380.

97
00:07:37,440 --> 00:07:42,360
 I will also add though that all of this was a part of the E.T.J. at first and we do not

98
00:07:42,360 --> 00:07:44,920
 control zoning in the E.T.J.

99
00:07:44,920 --> 00:07:49,480
 The change of that was the future land use designation in the comp plan and it looks like

100
00:07:49,480 --> 00:07:55,680
 Charlie may have something to add.

101
00:07:55,680 --> 00:07:56,680
 Good evening Commission.

102
00:07:56,680 --> 00:07:59,520
 Charlie Rosendahl interim director of development services.

103
00:07:59,520 --> 00:08:05,600
 So when the Hickory Grove well when the legends ranch which is now Hickory Grove mud first

104
00:08:05,600 --> 00:08:10,360
 came to the city it was planned that that multifamily would be with included with the

105
00:08:10,360 --> 00:08:12,640
 mud and not a part of the city.

106
00:08:12,640 --> 00:08:17,880
 Subsequently after that they approached the city about increasing the number of units

107
00:08:17,880 --> 00:08:21,880
 in the multifamily and a different comp concept plan.

108
00:08:21,880 --> 00:08:28,560
 City Council approved at that point an amendment to the mud which required them to come in

109
00:08:28,560 --> 00:08:31,920
 and annex a portion of that multifamily development.

110
00:08:31,920 --> 00:08:36,480
 And so the reason for that is they would have to annex the property first and then come

111
00:08:36,480 --> 00:08:43,400
 back for the rezoning which is why it's coming before you today.

112
00:08:43,400 --> 00:08:46,960
 Thank you.

113
00:08:46,960 --> 00:08:47,960
 Anything else?

114
00:08:47,960 --> 00:08:48,960
 Yeah.

115
00:08:48,960 --> 00:08:49,960
 Mr. Riggs.

116
00:08:49,960 --> 00:08:55,200
 So I was looking at I think your first slide and it looked like a lot of this property

117
00:08:55,200 --> 00:08:57,200
 is encumbered by a floodplain.

118
00:08:57,200 --> 00:09:01,320
 So I guess they're good with doing some kind of loamer or something on that.

119
00:09:01,320 --> 00:09:07,360
 They do have a clomer working for the development of the it was submitted and approved for the

120
00:09:07,360 --> 00:09:10,160
 development of that single family portion to the north.

121
00:09:10,160 --> 00:09:18,160
 This is actually the floodplain buffer area that's encumbering this property so they would

122
00:09:18,160 --> 00:09:25,520
 just have to design it in accordance with that minimum flood finish floor elevation.

123
00:09:25,520 --> 00:09:33,240
 So there is a clomer that removed some portions of the floodplain out and then they have to

124
00:09:33,240 --> 00:09:37,560
 fill in the area up to the finish floor elevation for this site.

125
00:09:37,560 --> 00:09:40,400
 Thank you.

126
00:09:40,400 --> 00:09:41,960
 Commissioner Dyer.

127
00:09:41,960 --> 00:09:47,600
 For us non-city employees or for those of us who do not work with city employees can

128
00:09:47,600 --> 00:09:50,840
 you please explain what a clomer is?

129
00:09:50,840 --> 00:09:51,840
 Sorry.

130
00:09:51,840 --> 00:09:57,200
 So you know I'm very disappointed in Commissioner Riggs and like using high level language here.

131
00:09:57,200 --> 00:10:01,720
 Conditional letter of map revision.

132
00:10:01,720 --> 00:10:05,880
 So that is the conditional letter of map revision or a loamer is a letter of map revision that

133
00:10:05,880 --> 00:10:16,600
 is submitted to and approved by the federal emergency management FEMA and essentially

134
00:10:16,600 --> 00:10:21,840
 addresses when a flood is on a floodplain is on a property if there's an opportunity

135
00:10:21,840 --> 00:10:27,360
 to revise that map and either redirect the flood or treat it and hold it somewhere else

136
00:10:27,360 --> 00:10:30,120
 then that's what happens in that point.

137
00:10:30,120 --> 00:10:33,600
 Thank you.

138
00:10:33,600 --> 00:10:34,600
 Commissioner McAduff.

139
00:10:34,600 --> 00:10:41,680
 Yes just a question on process I guess I was I think we were in this very room our last

140
00:10:41,680 --> 00:10:48,840
 meeting and we had kind of the same strategy going I put a note on my proposal's triple

141
00:10:48,840 --> 00:10:53,360
 threat or is this a groundhog day where I'm seeing the same three all together I'm just

142
00:10:53,360 --> 00:10:59,440
 asking for is this something we might continue to see?

143
00:10:59,440 --> 00:11:04,020
 I will look to Haley maybe to answer that I do know that the comprehensive plan is probably

144
00:11:04,020 --> 00:11:07,200
 at a point now where there has been some changes over the years.

145
00:11:07,200 --> 00:11:12,240
 So some of these changes are making sense and as we're noticing some changes around

146
00:11:12,240 --> 00:11:17,160
 the area but I'll look to Haley to see how that plays out moving forward.

147
00:11:17,160 --> 00:11:27,000
 So hopefully there they go I knew they'd work their magic from the back.

148
00:11:27,000 --> 00:11:31,000
 So with respect to the three applications coming forward all at once I would say it's

149
00:11:31,000 --> 00:11:35,840
 not uncommon it's not one of our more frequent things to do is amend all three documents

150
00:11:35,840 --> 00:11:40,240
 at the same time but if someone does come in with a substantive area that they were

151
00:11:40,240 --> 00:11:44,080
 seeking a zoning change for we will encourage them to update the comprehensive plan as a

152
00:11:44,080 --> 00:11:47,520
 part of that process to make sure we're keeping it current as we go along.

153
00:11:47,520 --> 00:11:52,360
 So I would say more often you'll see a comp plan and a zoning change kind of running concurrently

154
00:11:52,360 --> 00:11:57,360
 sometimes a zoning and an SUP running concurrently because we do just try to keep things all grouped

155
00:11:57,360 --> 00:12:01,960
 together so that you all see the full picture if someone is going to need multiple applications.

156
00:12:01,960 --> 00:12:08,640
 Well I appreciate looking at the big picture but I was just maybe having some PTSD of what

157
00:12:08,640 --> 00:12:15,040
 we heard last time around Chair Pruitt and so I was just asking that question out loud

158
00:12:15,040 --> 00:12:20,280
 and I have a second part to that question.

159
00:12:20,280 --> 00:12:25,000
 When is the comprehensive plan up for review?

160
00:12:25,000 --> 00:12:30,400
 So we are at this time working through a grant application process to try to seek funding

161
00:12:30,400 --> 00:12:37,600
 for a comp plan and mobility plan update possibly also parks and trails master plan update to

162
00:12:37,600 --> 00:12:42,280
 work all three of those concurrently typically it's not on a like every five to seven years

163
00:12:42,280 --> 00:12:46,000
 is what a city would would target so we're coming up on that time frame so we're trying

164
00:12:46,000 --> 00:12:51,080
 to get ahead and make sure we have the funding in place to do that in the next year or so.

165
00:12:51,080 --> 00:13:03,960
 I guess I don't remember schedules and timing perfectly but to your to your point about

166
00:13:03,960 --> 00:13:15,320
 when do we do all three of these together versus not there was a what was it that that

167
00:13:15,320 --> 00:13:24,640
 potential development for love first community village or love something out northwest of

168
00:13:24,640 --> 00:13:33,640
 here that staff brought a comprehensive plan amendment work session to this body but I

169
00:13:33,640 --> 00:13:40,840
 don't think many of these people saw it and so I'm just trying to understand like what

170
00:13:40,840 --> 00:13:45,800
 is how does the determination between whether to do that before you move ahead with all

171
00:13:45,800 --> 00:13:51,680
 three hearings or whether to just go forward and do them all at the same time yes.

172
00:13:51,680 --> 00:13:57,680
 So I believe the one if I'm remembering correctly that there is a plan development proposed

173
00:13:57,680 --> 00:14:01,560
 in that area and as part of looking at that application staff thought there was opportunity

174
00:14:01,560 --> 00:14:06,120
 to maybe do a broader update to that to an area of the comprehensive plan not just the

175
00:14:06,120 --> 00:14:08,900
 one specific property so that's why we brought that forward with the work session to see

176
00:14:08,900 --> 00:14:14,160
 if the commission felt that they would support staff spending our time and energy on doing

177
00:14:14,160 --> 00:14:18,520
 a broader comp plan amendment that particular application since we didn't do that when

178
00:14:18,520 --> 00:14:22,140
 it's PD comes forward we'll have a comp plan amendment associated with it as a companion

179
00:14:22,140 --> 00:14:27,680
 application so they'll they'll do that change on a personal specific basis rather than what

180
00:14:27,680 --> 00:14:32,680
 we were looking at was potentially a broader area of the city okay okay thank you any other

181
00:14:32,680 --> 00:14:52,840
 questions on this item I don't see any thank you Mia that brings us to 5d z25-15 for Craver

182
00:14:52,840 --> 00:14:59,080
 Ranch again good evening chair members of the commission again Mia Heinz senior planner

183
00:14:59,080 --> 00:15:08,840
 this item is a straight zoning request from for to just under 225 acres from rr to r1

184
00:15:08,840 --> 00:15:13,240
 to allow for the development of single-family residential lots the acre the applicant has

185
00:15:13,240 --> 00:15:21,760
 stated that their intent is to develop this for one acre lots the r1 zoning district does

186
00:15:21,760 --> 00:15:27,280
 allow for a minimum lot area of 32,000 square feet the property is located just southwest

187
00:15:27,280 --> 00:15:35,800
 of the FM 2153 bend this is FM 2153 here and as you can see it kind of bends from north

188
00:15:35,800 --> 00:15:42,400
 to south to east to west just adjacent to this property just to give you an orientation

189
00:15:42,400 --> 00:15:47,800
 this is on the northern edge of the city relative or adjacent to the Craver Ranch development

190
00:15:47,800 --> 00:15:54,680
 that we heard at the last meeting I believe and the development isn't consistent is consistent

191
00:15:54,680 --> 00:15:59,960
 with the Denton 2040 plan future land use designation of agriculture and helps achieve

192
00:15:59,960 --> 00:16:04,880
 the overall goals of policies including serving as an adequate land use transition from that

193
00:16:04,880 --> 00:16:10,780
 development that we discussed last week our last meeting to the compact or rural development

194
00:16:10,780 --> 00:16:16,200
 within the city's ETJ around Lake Ray Roberts with that staff is recommending approval and

195
00:16:16,200 --> 00:16:25,580
 I will happily answer any questions that you have at this time.

196
00:16:25,580 --> 00:16:28,760
 Go ahead if you had a question.

197
00:16:28,760 --> 00:16:34,200
 I'm just going to keep asking this when I see this type of edge development because

198
00:16:34,200 --> 00:16:40,400
 our comp plan is is pretty specific in several places that the types of development that

199
00:16:40,400 --> 00:16:46,040
 we want in these areas is more clustered development more preservation that sort of thing like

200
00:16:46,040 --> 00:16:54,620
 like not one and five acre lots but very small lots surrounded by tons of preserved land

201
00:16:54,620 --> 00:17:01,460
 so is this just a conversation that is not coming up with developers or is this something

202
00:17:01,460 --> 00:17:05,720
 that you are sharing with the development community and there are specific reasons why

203
00:17:05,720 --> 00:17:08,520
 they say no we can't do that with your current regulations.

204
00:17:08,520 --> 00:17:17,480
 Oh yeah so it's it's it's brought up with the the our cluster development techniques

205
00:17:17,480 --> 00:17:21,960
 and styles and things that come along with that and of course it is ultimately up to

206
00:17:21,960 --> 00:17:25,640
 the applicant and what their request is and how that serves their purpose.

207
00:17:25,640 --> 00:17:33,280
 I will add that the R1 I guess this doesn't preclude them from being able to do a cluster

208
00:17:33,280 --> 00:17:37,740
 development and for smaller lots in the future if there is environmentally sensitive areas

209
00:17:37,740 --> 00:17:42,040
 on this property as I think there is a potentially a portion of it that would have to be assessed

210
00:17:42,040 --> 00:17:53,160
 and then confirmed but they would have to avoid that Haley anything to add.

211
00:17:53,160 --> 00:17:57,280
 No I would just add staff does make developers aware of those regulations when we think there

212
00:17:57,280 --> 00:18:03,820
 is a possible fit for it with respect to floodplain or ESA on their properties I would I can think

213
00:18:03,820 --> 00:18:10,720
 of one development that sort of utilize the tool I don't think it's a development style

214
00:18:10,720 --> 00:18:16,080
 that is popular and in this area would be my most honest answer because I have not seen

215
00:18:16,080 --> 00:18:20,220
 anyone actually take significant interest in utilizing that tool in our toolbox.

216
00:18:20,220 --> 00:18:25,720
 So completely understand and agree it's not popular it's not common but I think our comp

217
00:18:25,720 --> 00:18:30,820
 plan is very specific that this is what we want to see so I'd be interested in the future

218
00:18:30,820 --> 00:18:36,880
 better understanding what it would take to make that financially viable for development

219
00:18:36,880 --> 00:18:39,240
 because whatever it is right now is not doing it.

220
00:18:39,240 --> 00:18:40,240
 Yeah.

221
00:18:40,240 --> 00:18:41,240
 Right.

222
00:18:41,240 --> 00:18:44,380
 So that's a revisit into what the actual DDC requires for cluster development and some

223
00:18:44,380 --> 00:18:48,840
 of the instances that they offer for that absolutely yeah we can do that so okay any

224
00:18:48,840 --> 00:18:51,920
 other questions Commissioner Mcduff.

225
00:18:51,920 --> 00:18:56,480
 Yes Ms. Hines I'm not going to call you down in the front by first name like I saw on the

226
00:18:56,480 --> 00:19:02,520
 video last week but I will say thank you for your work on the Krabur Ranch and I appreciate

227
00:19:02,520 --> 00:19:08,840
 all that that was a lot good thinking but my question on this proposal is how is this

228
00:19:08,840 --> 00:19:15,920
 related to the larger Krabur Ranch project were they ready were they ready to sell and

229
00:19:15,920 --> 00:19:19,040
 then waiting on the Krabur Ranch to go.

230
00:19:19,040 --> 00:19:24,120
 Yeah I can fill in a little bit and Hillary correct me if I'm getting off posting but

231
00:19:24,120 --> 00:19:28,600
 for the history on this one I do know that it was owner or retained by the owner the

232
00:19:28,600 --> 00:19:32,760
 original owner of Krabur and they did want to do something a little different than make

233
00:19:32,760 --> 00:19:38,440
 it a part of the plan development this area isn't included in the municipal management

234
00:19:38,440 --> 00:19:45,880
 district for Krabur so it is a separate kind of parcel of land in itself and again their

235
00:19:45,880 --> 00:19:53,080
 stated intent is to do one acre lots for this property whereas the Krabur property has a

236
00:19:53,080 --> 00:19:59,740
 sort of mixture of R4 and R7 within it.

237
00:19:59,740 --> 00:20:00,740
 Commissioner Riggs.

238
00:20:00,740 --> 00:20:05,960
 That actually made me think of another question and it might go to your point Eric so if they're

239
00:20:05,960 --> 00:20:11,040
 they're not in the in the district I assume they won't have sewer service.

240
00:20:11,040 --> 00:20:15,640
 So they would Charlie but I believe they would be able to benefit from the improvement some

241
00:20:15,640 --> 00:20:21,000
 of the capital improvements that will be occurring in that area with regard to the utility line

242
00:20:21,000 --> 00:20:26,920
 extensions there because I was gonna say one of the reasons they may want to go with one

243
00:20:26,920 --> 00:20:35,200
 acre is for septic systems you have to one acre minimum.

244
00:20:35,200 --> 00:20:39,200
 Well that brings up a good question for me to learn something because I'm aware that

245
00:20:39,200 --> 00:20:44,400
 at least in Denton County there's a one acre for a well and two acres for a septic or it

246
00:20:44,400 --> 00:20:51,160
 might be flipped is that correct so and the question would be is sure if somebody wanted

247
00:20:51,160 --> 00:20:55,400
 to do it in the city do we have those same requirements because we defer to the county

248
00:20:55,400 --> 00:20:59,540
 or how does that I'm not sure of the county specific regulation should they have any that

249
00:20:59,540 --> 00:21:03,960
 are different from ours I know state law TCEQ sets minimums I believe theirs is actually

250
00:21:03,960 --> 00:21:08,760
 a half acre to have either well or septic one acre to do both the city expanded that

251
00:21:08,760 --> 00:21:13,740
 and requires one acre to do either a well or a septic system or two acres if you wish

252
00:21:13,740 --> 00:21:22,960
 to do both on the same property okay Commissioner McDuff sorry I'll get you second yes just

253
00:21:22,960 --> 00:21:29,120
 as a follow-up are there other properties ready to go after this other proposals coming

254
00:21:29,120 --> 00:21:36,360
 forward in this area mm-hmm I have not received any other applications for zoning related

255
00:21:36,360 --> 00:21:45,760
 items in this area thank you Commissioner Dyer you know sometimes we talk about transition

256
00:21:45,760 --> 00:21:52,360
 of what's being built out there and when you look at what's along 2153 and burger road

257
00:21:52,360 --> 00:21:59,160
 like this will be a nice transition from all of the current you know one to thirty some

258
00:21:59,160 --> 00:22:04,600
 acre lots in that area into a plan development where you're going to have smaller lots and

259
00:22:04,600 --> 00:22:12,640
 a little bit higher density so this essentially will kind of be that northeast corner of Craver

260
00:22:12,640 --> 00:22:22,560
 Ranch and so it does to me it does fit a transition of development and to that note I do have

261
00:22:22,560 --> 00:22:26,920
 a little a little bit information about the Lake Ray Roberts provided in the backup but

262
00:22:26,920 --> 00:22:31,240
 there is a zoning district that's within the county that kind of ensures a certain lot

263
00:22:31,240 --> 00:22:36,820
 size in the county as well so it would maintain or continue to serve as that transition for

264
00:22:36,820 --> 00:23:06,760
 the foreseeable future anything else thank you man brings us to five e SD 25 - one good

265
00:23:06,760 --> 00:23:19,360
 evening chair and commissioners Cameron Robertson and principal planner give me one moment

266
00:23:19,360 --> 00:23:24,480
 this is a request for a special sign district of an approximately 120 acre commercial area

267
00:23:24,480 --> 00:23:31,840
 parcel located along that northwest corner of ropes and ranch and interstate 35 West

268
00:23:31,840 --> 00:23:37,560
 the purpose of this special sign district is for some ground sign sizing locations and

269
00:23:37,560 --> 00:23:42,500
 numbers as well as some additional sign types and definitions that do not currently meet

270
00:23:42,500 --> 00:23:49,320
 our chapter 33 regulations but section 33.18 of the denton sign code does allow creation

271
00:23:49,320 --> 00:23:54,160
 of special sign districts to deviate from those regulations as long as there's a comprehensive

272
00:23:54,160 --> 00:24:02,260
 sign plan in place stuff is recommending approval as it complies with our criteria I do have

273
00:24:02,260 --> 00:24:07,920
 a lot of information in my presentation later this evening that I'm going to be covering

274
00:24:07,920 --> 00:24:14,360
 in terms of sizing and some of the backup material in terms of the numbers terminology

275
00:24:14,360 --> 00:24:19,920
 but I can answer any questions and I do have some background on the denton sign code in

276
00:24:19,920 --> 00:24:29,600
 general if you all want me to cover that during work session questions I think my my question

277
00:24:29,600 --> 00:24:44,760
 Cameron is I'm not familiar with whether the boundaries of hunter MMC or MPC and the landmark

278
00:24:44,760 --> 00:24:50,920
 interests are the same or not and I'm trying to understand this is not the entire frontage

279
00:24:50,920 --> 00:25:00,000
 of 35 within hunter so why it's a large area but it's not all of it it's I would I would

280
00:25:00,000 --> 00:25:03,920
 expect like either all of it or a smaller area than this can you help me understand

281
00:25:03,920 --> 00:25:11,020
 of course so the hunter ranch MPC is still known as the hunter ranch MPC but now it has

282
00:25:11,020 --> 00:25:16,440
 been formally renamed to landmark so it's still same the same boundaries as the hunter

283
00:25:16,440 --> 00:25:21,200
 ranch MPC the new name is just landmark so there's some of that confusion there but in

284
00:25:21,200 --> 00:25:25,760
 terms of this commercial area this property as we very much well know it's going to be

285
00:25:25,760 --> 00:25:31,360
 developed in phases this is kind of that first commercial area along that 35 frontage that's

286
00:25:31,360 --> 00:25:35,920
 going to be developed so they're looking specifically especially because there is a grocery store

287
00:25:35,920 --> 00:25:42,080
 anchor that is planning to be located in this area that this is going to be the first commercial

288
00:25:42,080 --> 00:25:49,080
 area that kind of takes off in terms of mixed use office space additional tenants and commercial

289
00:25:49,080 --> 00:25:56,160
 uses so looking just here first and then moving as the phases progress okay thank you any

290
00:25:56,160 --> 00:26:01,760
 other questions commissioner Dyer I don't really have a question but I have kind of

291
00:26:01,760 --> 00:26:12,320
 a comment do you happen to have the slide where it shows the notification boundary yes

292
00:26:12,320 --> 00:26:18,000
 so Haley tell me if I'm wrong but in the development code review committee we're about ready to

293
00:26:18,000 --> 00:26:24,400
 talk about notifications right it wasn't that on an upcoming agenda item so for the three

294
00:26:24,400 --> 00:26:35,160
 of us that sit in you know out of this committee that sits on that committee the owner is notifying

295
00:26:35,160 --> 00:26:42,660
 the owner like when you look at you know who this is going to affect maybe that's something

296
00:26:42,660 --> 00:26:48,500
 that we I know it fits within the boundaries that they're supposed to notify but essentially

297
00:26:48,500 --> 00:26:56,040
 three quarters of that they're notifying themselves with the exception of maybe one neighbor and

298
00:26:56,040 --> 00:27:04,080
 this is you know this will affect future homeowners that right now don't exist and it will affect

299
00:27:04,080 --> 00:27:09,840
 another community west of that on the south side of the road and another community west

300
00:27:09,840 --> 00:27:15,360
 of that that's in Denton city limits on the north side of ropes and ranch road and it affects

301
00:27:15,360 --> 00:27:21,500
 you know the other commercial spaces and everything over there like maybe when we're talking about

302
00:27:21,500 --> 00:27:24,920
 these notifications because I noticed that even on some of it was some of the other ones

303
00:27:24,920 --> 00:27:32,040
 that we had at the last meeting that the neighbors that really get notified are really sometimes

304
00:27:32,040 --> 00:27:38,160
 not that many when you're looking at something like this sure so I would I'll let Angie jump

305
00:27:38,160 --> 00:27:43,960
 in on the DC RC piece in a second I would just say there's a reason we do multiple layers

306
00:27:43,960 --> 00:27:47,720
 of notification because the signs that were posted all along the property do serve as

307
00:27:47,720 --> 00:27:52,560
 that notice to anyone that is in the broader area our notices are compliant with state

308
00:27:52,560 --> 00:27:57,600
 law and go above and beyond so it would have to be counsel direction for us to change that

309
00:27:57,600 --> 00:28:02,680
 policy and thus far they have direct us that 500 feet is as far beyond the state law minimum

310
00:28:02,680 --> 00:28:07,000
 that they would like something I you know I noticed it especially in this case where

311
00:28:07,000 --> 00:28:14,400
 the majority of that's you know it's all the honor the developer hi Angie Mingler I just

312
00:28:14,400 --> 00:28:19,100
 wanted to touch on the code notification piece to public hearings and actually it's very

313
00:28:19,100 --> 00:28:23,640
 timely because we'll talk a little bit about that in our work session here later this evening

314
00:28:23,640 --> 00:28:27,900
 we did talk briefly about some of the public hearing changes that would be coming forward

315
00:28:27,900 --> 00:28:33,400
 as a result to changes that were made this legislative session as part of state law they

316
00:28:33,400 --> 00:28:38,360
 were approved by City Council last night actually I believe they came before this body possibly

317
00:28:38,360 --> 00:28:44,800
 in November and so and again to just reiterate what Haley is saying we really just updated

318
00:28:44,800 --> 00:28:48,680
 those to match what state law says because they kind of dictate how that goes but we

319
00:28:48,680 --> 00:28:52,680
 will talk more about it later in this work session just about those specific changes

320
00:28:52,680 --> 00:29:00,280
 and what we do to notify the public because this is really us requiring the developer

321
00:29:00,280 --> 00:29:05,800
 like it's it's the onus is on the developer to send out the notices right remember that

322
00:29:05,800 --> 00:29:11,520
 correctly the city the city prepares the notices and sends them out the developers is the cause

323
00:29:11,520 --> 00:29:15,320
 they have to put the signs and they're responsible for the signs but we tell them the frequency

324
00:29:15,320 --> 00:29:25,720
 the size and the content of those signs okay okay thank you I guess to follow up on that

325
00:29:25,720 --> 00:29:36,200
 and this came up last month as well with these applications that are near to encore serviced

326
00:29:36,200 --> 00:29:49,200
 electric areas or or in it do we have a consistent process for doing the 500 foot address poles

327
00:29:49,200 --> 00:29:55,960
 when it's outside of DME serviced area and how does that work to my knowledge this is

328
00:29:55,960 --> 00:30:02,880
 DME service area looking at Charlie to see if he knows any different than that and you

329
00:30:02,880 --> 00:30:07,120
 know just in general I just want to make sure that staff is not having to manually look

330
00:30:07,120 --> 00:30:12,480
 through 1980s phone books to find addresses right no so we do pull I believe from parcel

331
00:30:12,480 --> 00:30:17,240
 addresses as well as those utility billing addresses and correlate one list from those

332
00:30:17,240 --> 00:30:22,520
 two different sources to try to capture everyone but okay yeah Haley is correct in that so

333
00:30:22,520 --> 00:30:27,920
 the 200 foot notice go to the property owner based on the latest certified tax roll and

334
00:30:27,920 --> 00:30:36,920
 the 500 foot notices go out to the residents within 500 feet and so that data is by either

335
00:30:36,920 --> 00:30:44,880
 the address or if we have additional addresses in the example of an apartment complex where

336
00:30:44,880 --> 00:30:52,560
 there may be a single address in DCADS information but we have multiple units within our utility

337
00:30:52,560 --> 00:30:56,160
 billing system so that would go out to those additional addresses though so we combine

338
00:30:56,160 --> 00:31:05,080
 all of that information and send those notices out okay so so in other words leasy addresses

339
00:31:05,080 --> 00:31:10,960
 either for a commercial development or a multifamily or something like that would be only known

340
00:31:10,960 --> 00:31:17,840
 to us if they are DME serviced customer is that right no so it would go out to the property

341
00:31:17,840 --> 00:31:23,960
 so the owner gets a notification and then the property gets a notification okay regardless

342
00:31:23,960 --> 00:31:29,040
 of that owner is off-site or on-site and then in addition to that we take in the utility

343
00:31:29,040 --> 00:31:34,760
 billing information so that that's an extra thing so if we don't we don't have the utility

344
00:31:34,760 --> 00:31:38,920
 billing information outside of our service area but they would still get a notification

345
00:31:38,920 --> 00:31:47,040
 to that property yeah the owner or the manager of the property would get it but the the residents

346
00:31:47,040 --> 00:31:52,360
 or or businesses that lease there only get it if they're DME customers that's what it

347
00:31:52,360 --> 00:31:57,200
 sounds like is that correct no no sorry it would go to the mailbox on the property so

348
00:31:57,200 --> 00:32:03,400
 if you if you had an address there then it would go to you so if it's unit a then they

349
00:32:03,400 --> 00:32:08,760
 would go to that person even if they're leasing that property okay so we have a sorry if I'm

350
00:32:08,760 --> 00:32:14,360
 just slow but we have a database of all the mailing addresses when there's multiple addresses

351
00:32:14,360 --> 00:32:21,800
 per parcel even if it's not in our utility service area no okay I see what you're saying

352
00:32:21,800 --> 00:32:27,160
 so it would go to the parcel unless that parcel had multiple addresses on it through DCAT

353
00:32:27,160 --> 00:32:33,440
 okay yeah okay Commissioner Riggs yeah I think also you're not just pulling from DME you're

354
00:32:33,440 --> 00:32:37,840
 also pulling from water and trash service and sewer service yeah our utility service

355
00:32:37,840 --> 00:32:57,800
 billing yeah no yes 100% sorry for my rabbit trailing we'll we'll have opportunities to

356
00:32:57,800 --> 00:33:07,780
 talk about that soon any other question on this item for Cameron don't see any thanks

357
00:33:07,780 --> 00:33:22,800
 Cameron brings us to 5f SUP for a modular data center good evening chair members of the Commission

358
00:33:22,800 --> 00:33:28,000
 Angie mingler assistant planning director this is a specific use permit request for

359
00:33:28,000 --> 00:33:34,720
 approximately 4.06 acres of land situated approximately 1800 feet south of Jim Crystal

360
00:33:34,720 --> 00:33:42,400
 Road and east of Western Boulevard adjacent to the RD well substation property has a little

361
00:33:42,400 --> 00:33:47,420
 bit of split zoning it is predominantly zoned public facilities with a portion of heavy

362
00:33:47,420 --> 00:33:54,640
 industrial zoning it I'm sorry just lost my train of thought it is surrounded by heavy

363
00:33:54,640 --> 00:33:59,620
 industrial uses as well as a DME substation and the purpose of this SUP is to permit a

364
00:33:59,620 --> 00:34:07,360
 modular data center might have include eight modular data center pods and is consistent

365
00:34:07,360 --> 00:34:11,440
 with the prior approved lease agreement and power purchase agreement with that municipal

366
00:34:11,440 --> 00:34:17,200
 electric for this parcel of land the area is zoned industrial and the proposed use is

367
00:34:17,200 --> 00:34:23,400
 consistent with the future land use of industrial commerce for this site staff is recommending

368
00:34:23,400 --> 00:34:28,520
 approval of the SUP there are several conditions associated with it that were included in your

369
00:34:28,520 --> 00:34:33,440
 backup and will be shown during regular session but I'm happy to answer any immediate questions

370
00:34:33,440 --> 00:34:40,140
 you may have at this moment.

371
00:34:40,140 --> 00:34:45,320
 Commissioner McTuffin yes Angie could you comment on the noise and vibration assessment

372
00:34:45,320 --> 00:34:49,040
 sure so that's a requirement set forth in the use specific standards and there's kind

373
00:34:49,040 --> 00:34:56,640
 of two different tiers to that for this particular one given its location in an industrial zoning

374
00:34:56,640 --> 00:35:02,320
 area and it's not adjacent to any residential land uses they're required to submit an initial

375
00:35:02,320 --> 00:35:06,920
 assessment which was included in the backup of what the ambient noise is at different

376
00:35:06,920 --> 00:35:12,440
 points along the property upon installation of the modular data centers they're responsible

377
00:35:12,440 --> 00:35:18,800
 for verifying that these modular data center pods do not exceed do not create additional

378
00:35:18,800 --> 00:35:23,360
 noise above I think it's an additional three decibels at those same measurement points

379
00:35:23,360 --> 00:35:29,960
 so they took initial measurements and their plan shows to be compliant upon installation

380
00:35:29,960 --> 00:35:36,180
 of everything and once it's up and running they are responsible for submitting verification

381
00:35:36,180 --> 00:35:40,440
 that they are compliant with that given its use it is sandwiched between an electrical

382
00:35:40,440 --> 00:35:46,880
 substation and the Peter belt manufacturing in their parking lot it does appear that it's

383
00:35:46,880 --> 00:35:51,360
 going to be compliant but they're responsible for demonstrating that to us upon completion

384
00:35:51,360 --> 00:36:01,160
 of their installation thank you I have another one share Eric also and you would you comment

385
00:36:01,160 --> 00:36:09,120
 on the water supply and known the cooling it seems to me that there's no need for

386
00:36:09,120 --> 00:36:15,440
 additional water or wastewater that it's self-contained can you talk about that please

387
00:36:15,440 --> 00:36:22,800
 for our understanding it to the best of my ability I can talk about it yes and so where

388
00:36:22,800 --> 00:36:30,040
 this site is situated there there is not currently water immediately available to the site in

389
00:36:30,040 --> 00:36:35,760
 working with you know our fire department as well as landscape I'm sorry I'm not good

390
00:36:35,760 --> 00:36:43,160
 at multitasking here okay here we go they are providing a water storage tank on site

391
00:36:43,160 --> 00:36:48,760
 to help establish that landscaping they are using drought tolerant materials as well as

392
00:36:48,760 --> 00:36:52,880
 fire department did ensure that this could meet their needs should a situation ever arise

393
00:36:52,880 --> 00:36:58,120
 on site this is not a continually manned site so there won't be you know restroom facilities

394
00:36:58,120 --> 00:37:01,720
 out there there is a little you know modular office that they'll use predominantly for

395
00:37:01,720 --> 00:37:09,360
 repairs so this was this explanation was provided to me by the applicant but it is on a closed

396
00:37:09,360 --> 00:37:15,040
 loop cooling system where these servers do sit in a in a fluid which is circulated through

397
00:37:15,040 --> 00:37:19,880
 dry coolers and eventually it returns to the tank so it is not a continual water supply

398
00:37:19,880 --> 00:37:26,240
 source but rather there though the fluid that is in there will be circulated outside through

399
00:37:26,240 --> 00:37:31,400
 these coolers and then back through reducing the need for continual water supply to the

400
00:37:31,400 --> 00:37:41,520
 site that's the best I can explain it I'm sorry thank you any other questions Commissioner

401
00:37:41,520 --> 00:37:51,880
 Dyer when you're looking at this particular overlay that we're doing do you guys all talk

402
00:37:51,880 --> 00:37:56,320
 about you know I know Commissioner Macduff talked about you know the water needed but

403
00:37:56,320 --> 00:38:00,520
 what about like all of the power and the energy because data centers do require that I mean

404
00:38:00,520 --> 00:38:07,760
 yes it's great next to the substation but will that affect any of the surrounding businesses

405
00:38:07,760 --> 00:38:14,280
 or any like how self-sufficient will they be in there for their energy needs sure they

406
00:38:14,280 --> 00:38:21,000
 will be able to be supplied without detracting from you know surrounding businesses so Denton

407
00:38:21,000 --> 00:38:26,360
 municipal electric after our first data center was was approved and constructed out by the

408
00:38:26,360 --> 00:38:30,920
 main energy center did start to receive several requests from different providers who were

409
00:38:30,920 --> 00:38:36,400
 wanting to install a data center adjacent to other substations so to make the selection

410
00:38:36,400 --> 00:38:42,560
 process fair DME did prepare a request for proposals to to outline what they were wanting

411
00:38:42,560 --> 00:38:46,800
 and solicited that and then this this user was ultimately selected and was determined

412
00:38:46,800 --> 00:38:51,440
 that they can meet all of the needs of the site and that DME could could supply them

413
00:38:51,440 --> 00:38:59,880
 within reason and so that that's how we have ultimately got here today okay thank you maybe

414
00:38:59,880 --> 00:39:06,020
 I'm reading the map wrong is this the old outdoor firing range that is a little bit

415
00:39:06,020 --> 00:39:11,040
 further to the west okay on the other side of I think western okay it's in the vicinity

416
00:39:11,040 --> 00:39:28,120
 though got it thank you any other questions thank you Angie all right brings us to 5g

417
00:39:28,120 --> 00:39:37,560
 our last public hearing for Angie and Julie on ADU and townhome standards yes good evening

418
00:39:37,560 --> 00:39:42,680
 again I'll be giving kind of a the work session overview but if you have any specific questions

419
00:39:42,680 --> 00:39:47,240
 of Julia myself happy to answer them but this is a code amendment related to missing middle

420
00:39:47,240 --> 00:39:53,400
 housing specifically to amendments to townhomes and accessory dwelling units so just a little

421
00:39:53,400 --> 00:39:57,280
 bit of a summary the purpose of this request is to update several sections of the Denton

422
00:39:57,280 --> 00:40:02,360
 development code to clarify and refine regulations surrounding missing middle housing as they

423
00:40:02,360 --> 00:40:08,400
 relate to townhome and accessory dwelling units to facilitate these types of developments

424
00:40:08,400 --> 00:40:14,720
 as well as remove some of the barriers to entry this is in support of several of our

425
00:40:14,720 --> 00:40:19,580
 housing goals as outlined in the comprehensive plan the affordable housing toolkit southeast

426
00:40:19,580 --> 00:40:24,800
 Denton area plan as well as the design downtown Denton plan this does help support a variety

427
00:40:24,800 --> 00:40:28,360
 of housing needs to meet the community's need for affordable housing choice and neighborhood

428
00:40:28,360 --> 00:40:33,080
 investment several of these amendments are designed to remove conflicting or complicated

429
00:40:33,080 --> 00:40:38,880
 language as it relates to streamlining these permitting processes the amendments are consistent

430
00:40:38,880 --> 00:40:43,080
 with direction received from the planning and zoning commission as it relates to townhomes

431
00:40:43,080 --> 00:40:48,000
 as well as the development code review committee as it relates to accessory dwelling units overall

432
00:40:48,000 --> 00:40:52,640
 it does increase opportunity for missing middle housing in the city of Denton and staff is

433
00:40:52,640 --> 00:40:58,640
 recommending approval of the criteria because it meets the criteria now I know only some

434
00:40:58,640 --> 00:41:06,320
 of you are on the development code review committee so it did want to provide I'm sorry

435
00:41:06,320 --> 00:41:13,280
 a little bit of background as well as just an overview of what ADUs and townhomes are

436
00:41:13,280 --> 00:41:19,160
 so again this purpose is to facilitate townhome and ADU development in the city staff initially

437
00:41:19,160 --> 00:41:23,440
 presented the townhome amendments to planning and zoning commission as part of a work session

438
00:41:23,440 --> 00:41:27,440
 the ADUs were workshopped through the development code review committee over several meetings

439
00:41:27,440 --> 00:41:31,240
 in the spring took a little bit of a break for the legislative session to wrap up and

440
00:41:31,240 --> 00:41:36,360
 to conduct community engagement we did community engagement for both of these topics together

441
00:41:36,360 --> 00:41:39,720
 throughout three community meetings that were held in August two of those were in person

442
00:41:39,720 --> 00:41:45,400
 one was virtual and then a survey was posted following that for about three weeks overall

443
00:41:45,400 --> 00:41:50,720
 the survey results we received approximately 54 55 responses and the reason for that discrepancy

444
00:41:50,720 --> 00:41:55,320
 is not every person answered every question but there was general support for the amendments

445
00:41:55,320 --> 00:42:01,720
 as they were presented so ADUs just again a little bit of a brief overview these are

446
00:42:01,720 --> 00:42:08,120
 defined as a subordinate dwelling unit that are either added to or created within a single

447
00:42:08,120 --> 00:42:14,320
 family residential unit it does provide basic requirements for living that includes cooking

448
00:42:14,320 --> 00:42:20,360
 as well as sanitation HUD code manufactured homes are not ADUs we do currently allow them

449
00:42:20,360 --> 00:42:26,680
 in all of our residential districts so our R through R7 and in MN is that also permits

450
00:42:26,680 --> 00:42:32,160
 single family dwellings as it is today on lots that are greater than 10,000 square feet

451
00:42:32,160 --> 00:42:37,800
 ADUs can be up to a maximum of 50 percent of the primary structure on lots that are

452
00:42:37,800 --> 00:42:42,580
 less than 10,000 square feet ADUs may be up to 50 percent of the primary dwelling structure

453
00:42:42,580 --> 00:42:47,560
 however they cannot exceed a thousand square feet and these are some examples just of ADUs

454
00:42:47,560 --> 00:42:52,640
 as they exist in the city this is a detached one so you can kind of see in the rear you

455
00:42:52,640 --> 00:42:57,400
 have a portion of that ADU peeking out and then this is actually an attached ADU where

456
00:42:57,400 --> 00:43:05,880
 this portion has been remodeled to be an accessory dwelling unit that's attached to the primary.

457
00:43:05,880 --> 00:43:12,880
 Town homes are different they are 3 to 8 attached single family dwelling units each of which

458
00:43:12,880 --> 00:43:17,740
 is on its own lot so they're separate households they're on their own lot they are currently

459
00:43:17,740 --> 00:43:25,320
 allowed in the MD, MN, MR, R6 and R7 zoning districts no changes are being proposed as

460
00:43:25,320 --> 00:43:29,920
 part of these amendments to where town homes are permitted and then town homes are also

461
00:43:29,920 --> 00:43:35,020
 allowed in the R4 district with an SUP some of the amendments that we're considering as

462
00:43:35,020 --> 00:43:39,280
 part of this is the lot size the maximum number of units and then open space requirements

463
00:43:39,280 --> 00:43:44,380
 related to town homes and this is coming out of the work session you all had earlier this

464
00:43:44,380 --> 00:43:50,600
 year and then also some of the public engagement that we held over the summer. The full presentation

465
00:43:50,600 --> 00:43:55,500
 will have a little bit more detail into what each of these code amendments are changing

466
00:43:55,500 --> 00:44:00,200
 and how they may different but staff is recommending approval of these as they meet our criteria

467
00:44:00,200 --> 00:44:04,540
 and advance missing middle housing goals. I'm happy to answer any questions and Julie

468
00:44:04,540 --> 00:44:13,880
 is also here. Commissioner Riggs. So you forward us on a letter or email from Mrs. Oldner can

469
00:44:13,880 --> 00:44:26,920
 you kind of talk to some of the concerns she shared in that letter? Sure. The main concern

470
00:44:26,920 --> 00:44:31,880
 that a resident had submitted regarding an NADU in the neighborhood was its height and

471
00:44:31,880 --> 00:44:42,680
 scale as it related to her home and the surrounding homes. Height was not a topic that the DCRC

472
00:44:42,680 --> 00:44:47,600
 initially looked at and those concerns had been brought up during our discussions and

473
00:44:47,600 --> 00:44:56,400
 we did look at height and ADUs and as they exist in single family neighborhoods. So and

474
00:44:56,400 --> 00:45:00,360
 that was the primary concern was the height and if there's something else you're wanting

475
00:45:00,360 --> 00:45:06,200
 me to elaborate I'm happy to. From the height standpoint as it is today there is no height

476
00:45:06,200 --> 00:45:11,560
 regulation different from what is allowed in the zoning district for accessory structures

477
00:45:11,560 --> 00:45:18,360
 meaning in all of our residential zoning districts the maximum height is 40 feet. So an ADU could

478
00:45:18,360 --> 00:45:25,000
 be up to 40 feet in height. We did talk about at development code review committee a variety

479
00:45:25,000 --> 00:45:28,840
 of options and never really came to a consensus and so we took it to the public. There were

480
00:45:28,840 --> 00:45:33,760
 a couple different suggestions that came about. One would be limiting the ADU to the height

481
00:45:33,760 --> 00:45:37,520
 of that primary structure so if you have a 20 foot tall home you can have a 20 foot tall

482
00:45:37,520 --> 00:45:42,360
 ADU. Another would be because we have some differing setbacks that could be allowed for

483
00:45:42,360 --> 00:45:48,080
 accessory structures limiting the height within the primary setbacks for the home to 20 feet

484
00:45:48,080 --> 00:45:52,240
 but 15 feet if you took advantage of some of the reduced setback options and then the

485
00:45:52,240 --> 00:45:57,480
 other was no change so continuing to allow the height of the zoning district. The survey

486
00:45:57,480 --> 00:46:01,600
 results did show most people were okay with the height of the zoning district and that

487
00:46:01,600 --> 00:46:06,800
 particular circumstance you know that ADU I know we're not here to talk about the specifics

488
00:46:06,800 --> 00:46:12,000
 of it but just for context did meet all of our requirements it is approximately 19 and

489
00:46:12,000 --> 00:46:19,400
 a half feet tall. It is taller than the main home but it is within the zoning district

490
00:46:19,400 --> 00:46:25,680
 and it is situated behind the home and is otherwise architecturally compatible. So and

491
00:46:25,680 --> 00:46:31,400
 just for for all PNZ's sake but one of the things that we did talk about in DCRC was

492
00:46:31,400 --> 00:46:35,520
 the possibility of having a garage with a living area above the garage too and that

493
00:46:35,520 --> 00:46:46,840
 would be taller than the obviously a one-story home so. Any other questions Commissioner MacDuff?

494
00:46:46,840 --> 00:46:54,200
 Just a comment I'm not sure that I got that letter from Ms. Zoltner. Yeah I believe it

495
00:46:54,200 --> 00:46:58,320
 was distributed to the Development Code Review Committee because that's what it was asked

496
00:46:58,320 --> 00:47:05,960
 for. Oh you did get it. No I didn't I said I meant I understand. Got it. Yes she specifically

497
00:47:05,960 --> 00:47:12,400
 asked I forward it to that committee. I got it I understand but I do have a question short

498
00:47:12,400 --> 00:47:20,080
 question thanks. On the parking we are and could you comment on the accessory dwelling

499
00:47:20,080 --> 00:47:29,240
 unit parking on table 7.9.1? Absolutely parking for accessory dwelling units as it is today

500
00:47:29,240 --> 00:47:36,320
 is one parking space per bedroom. That is I don't want to tier things but I would say

501
00:47:36,320 --> 00:47:41,680
 it is one of the bigger barriers to entry for individuals looking to add an ADU if you

502
00:47:41,680 --> 00:47:46,280
 have a two-bedroom ADU also trying to site parking within that it becomes increasingly

503
00:47:46,280 --> 00:47:51,040
 difficult. It was a recommendation out of I believe the Southeast Dentinary Plan as

504
00:47:51,040 --> 00:47:55,280
 well as our affordable housing toolkit to look at those parking regulations. So the

505
00:47:55,280 --> 00:48:00,800
 way it is written today is no additional parking would be required however if you are removing

506
00:48:00,800 --> 00:48:05,440
 parking that was required for that primary structure to build your ADU you do have to

507
00:48:05,440 --> 00:48:11,840
 put it back and that is consistent with how we treat parking with single family today

508
00:48:11,840 --> 00:48:22,720
 when new permits come in. Okay. Commissioner Dyer. In looking at the updated language that

509
00:48:22,720 --> 00:48:28,600
 the development code review committee came out with do you remember what the vote was

510
00:48:28,600 --> 00:48:39,000
 when we voted on all that like was it a unanimous vote? For consensus? Yeah. It is because I

511
00:48:39,000 --> 00:48:43,600
 remember there was some back and forth. Sure and I tried to call out that specifically

512
00:48:43,600 --> 00:48:50,120
 in the staff I'm sorry the AIS. I will say it is difficult because we don't take votes

513
00:48:50,120 --> 00:48:55,520
 in DCRC but we reached consensus. Everything did have overwhelming consensus to move forward.

514
00:48:55,520 --> 00:49:03,400
 The one spot we did get a little bit of dialogue on was this is just going to be easier if

515
00:49:03,400 --> 00:49:11,600
 I can show you. Trying to talk off the top of my head. But allowing ADUs to be accessory

516
00:49:11,600 --> 00:49:17,840
 to other structures was where some of the there wasn't as clear consensus and let me

517
00:49:17,840 --> 00:49:24,680
 rephrase that. When these initially went through the development code review committee we were

518
00:49:24,680 --> 00:49:28,960
 looking at how can we expand options for people who maybe have a town home and want to renovate

519
00:49:28,960 --> 00:49:34,280
 their garage or possibly have a duplex on a slightly larger lot. There was quite a bit

520
00:49:34,280 --> 00:49:40,880
 of back and forth but we did get to a point of consensus of allowing ADUs for lots where

521
00:49:40,880 --> 00:49:44,880
 it works. Now just because you allow it doesn't mean every lot is going to work but for town

522
00:49:44,880 --> 00:49:53,220
 homes, duplexes and triplexes one per unit was generally acceptable and the community

523
00:49:53,220 --> 00:49:58,800
 found that to be the case as well. 70% of individuals said they were okay with it and

524
00:49:58,800 --> 00:50:03,840
 then some others either disagreed or didn't have an opinion one way or the other. Coming

525
00:50:03,840 --> 00:50:09,660
 back to DCRC we did have some additional dialogue about what if we allowed and this was your

526
00:50:09,660 --> 00:50:15,280
 recommendation so if I get it wrong correct me but I think it was one ADU per unit within

527
00:50:15,280 --> 00:50:20,200
 a duplex so possibly one duplex could have two ADUs and that did spark some additional

528
00:50:20,200 --> 00:50:26,920
 dialogue. I tried to call it all out and highlight it in the AIS. The language that is included

529
00:50:26,920 --> 00:50:32,400
 in your ordinance is the one per principal dwelling unit because that's what we did receive

530
00:50:32,400 --> 00:50:37,800
 consensus on and public direction on but noting that if a separate recommendation for that

531
00:50:37,800 --> 00:50:42,920
 was wanted I tried to lay out the different discussions that were had at that time. Yeah

532
00:50:42,920 --> 00:50:48,240
 tell me commissioners if I am not remembering this correctly but I think we were talking

533
00:50:48,240 --> 00:50:54,480
 about you know a duplex or a triplex or a fourplex and how many ADUs we were going to

534
00:50:54,480 --> 00:51:01,760
 allow that's where the big conversation of the parking kind of came in. I think we did

535
00:51:01,760 --> 00:51:06,440
 have some conversation about parking at that time and so I do want to clarify one thing.

536
00:51:06,440 --> 00:51:11,320
 It would be one ADU for those structures it was duplexes we were looking at possibly allowing

537
00:51:11,320 --> 00:51:16,900
 up to two one per side and the reason the other ones would be limited is because once

538
00:51:16,900 --> 00:51:22,120
 you get five or more units on a lot we classify that as multifamily and so we're no longer

539
00:51:22,120 --> 00:51:27,840
 in the realm of ADUs we've actually we've kind of gone into our multifamily definition

540
00:51:27,840 --> 00:51:35,280
 so it wouldn't work in some of the other situations. Okay thank you. So just one question so that

541
00:51:35,280 --> 00:51:42,960
 I understand what the the red line text the final text means when we talk about per principal

542
00:51:42,960 --> 00:51:52,080
 dwelling unit are there one or two principal dwelling units on a lot with a duplex? That

543
00:51:52,080 --> 00:51:56,280
 is a that may need to be wordsmithed a little bit but my understanding would be you could

544
00:51:56,280 --> 00:52:02,240
 have one ADU for your duplex the duplex being that structure with two units within it but

545
00:52:02,240 --> 00:52:07,800
 I take your point that could maybe be wordsmithed a little bit to clarify. Okay. You can have

546
00:52:07,800 --> 00:52:13,240
 you may have one per structure. Okay so that's that staff's recommendation. Yes that's staff's

547
00:52:13,240 --> 00:52:19,500
 recommendation. And I we'll talk about it more in the in the hearing. I'd appreciate

548
00:52:19,500 --> 00:52:27,760
 if you could go back and double check I think DCRC's consensus on that was to allow one

549
00:52:27,760 --> 00:52:33,500
 per dwelling unit on duplexes. We did not reach consensus and the direction was to to try

550
00:52:33,500 --> 00:52:39,720
 and highlight that and I I tried to in the AIS as best I could. Got it. But and and that

551
00:52:39,720 --> 00:52:44,160
 was where things did start to get a little less clear on where we all were that was your

552
00:52:44,160 --> 00:52:49,760
 recommendation. Okay. And so the direction was to. It was split so we get to talk about

553
00:52:49,760 --> 00:52:53,760
 it some more. Try and talk about it some more. Sounds great. So I kept the language as we

554
00:52:53,760 --> 00:53:00,920
 saw it originally but it is open to a you know discussion. Okay. Any other questions?

555
00:53:00,920 --> 00:53:12,680
 I don't see any thank you. Brings us to our work session item. Let's yeah we got 30 minutes

556
00:53:12,680 --> 00:53:18,720
 let's let's take a eight minute pause because that's how many minutes it took last time

557
00:53:18,720 --> 00:53:25,240
 grab food and come back and do the the work session item on notifications. So at five

558
00:53:25,240 --> 00:53:35,320
 fifty seven we'll take eight minute recess. Good afternoon at six oh six p.m. We will

559
00:53:35,320 --> 00:53:44,780
 reconvene the planning and zoning work session and we are taking our item three a work session

560
00:53:44,780 --> 00:53:55,920
 report PZ twenty five dash two thirty six engagement and then we're going to bring Angie

561
00:53:55,920 --> 00:54:02,440
 in. So so you'll have two on this one time. So what tonight we're going to be talking

562
00:54:02,440 --> 00:54:08,800
 about just a brief review of our notification and protest procedures some public engagement

563
00:54:08,800 --> 00:54:13,160
 types and strategies some lessons learned and then also best practices for commissioners

564
00:54:13,160 --> 00:54:18,940
 when engaging with residents or developers. So first we're going to talk about public

565
00:54:18,940 --> 00:54:24,640
 notification and protest procedures. We thought this was a good time to talk about this because

566
00:54:24,640 --> 00:54:31,000
 of the recent legislative changes. So we're just going to talk briefly about about what

567
00:54:31,000 --> 00:54:36,480
 that means and how it affects how we move forward with these projects. So when is public

568
00:54:36,480 --> 00:54:41,960
 notification required for your purposes. Public notification is required for any of those

569
00:54:41,960 --> 00:54:49,240
 comprehensive plan amendments and zoning amendments that could be both map rezoned a PD or text

570
00:54:49,240 --> 00:54:54,840
 specific use permits and then alternative ESA plans. Public notification is also required

571
00:54:54,840 --> 00:55:02,800
 for annexation and historic and conservation district designations. So the first legislation

572
00:55:02,800 --> 00:55:07,840
 I want to talk about was in twenty twenty three and it was it established the nine to

573
00:55:07,840 --> 00:55:13,880
 nine notice. You don't see this one very often but it is intended to notify relevant parties

574
00:55:13,880 --> 00:55:19,700
 that a proposed change in zoning map or text might cause their current existing use to

575
00:55:19,700 --> 00:55:24,640
 become nonconforming. There have been a couple of them in the last couple of years. The one

576
00:55:24,640 --> 00:55:30,800
 I remember is we had an amendment to our elderly housing regulations. It made one facility

577
00:55:30,800 --> 00:55:36,160
 in the city nonconforming. So the city sent a notice not only to the property owner but

578
00:55:36,160 --> 00:55:43,840
 also all residents who lived in that facility. Recently you heard in November and council

579
00:55:43,840 --> 00:55:50,960
 approved last night state law changes to notification from this year and it created some categories

580
00:55:50,960 --> 00:55:56,640
 of zoning change for notification. One is a comprehensive zoning change and that's any

581
00:55:56,640 --> 00:56:03,200
 city initiated zoning change right zoning regulation change that would allow more housing

582
00:56:03,200 --> 00:56:08,680
 to be built. It could also include adoption of a new zoning code or map that applies to

583
00:56:08,680 --> 00:56:14,200
 the entire city and adoption of an overlay that would add more housing but is also on

584
00:56:14,200 --> 00:56:19,000
 a major roadway. And then the other categories that relates to notification is just all of

585
00:56:19,000 --> 00:56:24,200
 their zoning changes. So how are those treated with notification. Well for the comprehensive

586
00:56:24,200 --> 00:56:30,480
 zoning change the notification requirement is to publish in the newspaper and then also

587
00:56:30,480 --> 00:56:36,840
 publish online. No written notification is required. For zoning cases that would render

588
00:56:36,840 --> 00:56:43,180
 current use nonconforming that's that nine to nine notice. We would use all of our typical

589
00:56:43,180 --> 00:56:49,960
 notices and that is published in the newspaper published on our website a letter to property

590
00:56:49,960 --> 00:56:55,760
 owners within two hundred feet and then a letter to residents within five hundred feet

591
00:56:55,760 --> 00:57:00,440
 plus a sign on the property. The nine to nine notice would take it a little further and

592
00:57:00,440 --> 00:57:06,840
 that we would need to send a letter to both to both the property owners as well as any

593
00:57:06,840 --> 00:57:12,400
 tenants or residents for both the planning and zoning commission and city council informing

594
00:57:12,400 --> 00:57:18,320
 them that the proposal might make their use nonconforming. And the state legislature was

595
00:57:18,320 --> 00:57:24,000
 very specific and what had to go in that notice and that that language needed to be in fourteen

596
00:57:24,000 --> 00:57:30,960
 point type and bold. So our notices had to tend to reflect that. And then all other zoning

597
00:57:30,960 --> 00:57:36,640
 cases would would really just follow our typical standards where there is a small change is

598
00:57:36,640 --> 00:57:45,520
 that the city of Denton has has a policy related to signs signs to be posted on the property

599
00:57:45,520 --> 00:57:50,640
 and they were fairly large signs. I don't remember the exact size two by three I think

600
00:57:50,640 --> 00:57:54,800
 and they have to be put every five hundred feet along rights of way. The state legislature

601
00:57:54,800 --> 00:58:00,960
 changed that size to twenty four inches long by 40 48 inches wide. So that increases them

602
00:58:00,960 --> 00:58:06,620
 by six inches essentially. So it's still a large sign but slightly larger than what the

603
00:58:06,620 --> 00:58:13,940
 city of Denton required prior to when it comes to protest. Twenty twenty three didn't have

604
00:58:13,940 --> 00:58:21,240
 any changes to protest but twenty twenty five did have those changes to protest and it included

605
00:58:21,240 --> 00:58:26,140
 those categories of zoning change with one one additional. First you got the comprehensive

606
00:58:26,140 --> 00:58:31,920
 zoning change the the adding more housing that the item that would apply to all the

607
00:58:31,920 --> 00:58:39,080
 entire city or or on a major roadway zoning changes which would allow additional housing

608
00:58:39,080 --> 00:58:44,200
 or meet specific standards for mixed use development and that would be limitations on commercial

609
00:58:44,200 --> 00:58:49,600
 industrial development. That could be property property owner initiated and then all other

610
00:58:49,600 --> 00:58:56,980
 zoning changes. So we have three types for protest. So how do that how do those work.

611
00:58:56,980 --> 00:59:03,680
 So the comprehensive zoning change that is exempt from the protest procedure. So of course

612
00:59:03,680 --> 00:59:09,520
 residents can can speak it at any public hearing provide any written protest or any written

613
00:59:09,520 --> 00:59:15,840
 feedback to that but it would not trigger any additional voting requirements in order

614
00:59:15,840 --> 00:59:22,280
 to approve it. Those zoning changes which allow additional housing or meet those specific

615
00:59:22,280 --> 00:59:28,400
 standards for mixed use development those protest procedures changed in that if the

616
00:59:28,400 --> 00:59:34,120
 city receives written protest from owners of at least 60 percent of the lots or land

617
00:59:34,120 --> 00:59:39,960
 within two hundred feet of the request that would require a majority of all city council

618
00:59:39,960 --> 00:59:46,160
 members to vote in the affirmative to approve it. So what does that mean. Well the city has seven

619
00:59:46,160 --> 00:59:50,760
 city council members so it would require four regardless of how many were sitting on the

620
00:59:50,760 --> 00:59:55,820
 dais. So if you have all seven you just have a simple majority. If you only have five there

621
00:59:55,820 --> 01:00:01,520
 you have to have four out of five. That makes sense. And then all other zoning cases really

622
01:00:01,520 --> 01:00:08,640
 follow our previous practice and that is if if we receive written opposition from owners

623
01:00:08,640 --> 01:00:18,960
 of any land of 20 percent of the property 200 feet from sorry if you we receive written

624
01:00:18,960 --> 01:00:25,000
 opposition from owners of any lots of land within 200 feet of the property if that if

625
01:00:25,000 --> 01:00:29,360
 that equals 20 percent then it would require a super majority of city council members and

626
01:00:29,360 --> 01:00:38,600
 that is six out of seven. So what does that look like in terms of that increase in residential

627
01:00:38,600 --> 01:00:45,480
 housing or mixed use. That 60 percent it would be 60 percent of the area between the yellow

628
01:00:45,480 --> 01:00:52,880
 line and the red line. It's not 60 percent of the lots. It is 60 percent of the area.

629
01:00:52,880 --> 01:00:59,200
 All other zoning cases it would require 20 percent of between the yellow line and the

630
01:00:59,200 --> 01:01:05,600
 red streets are counted toward that area. And if the red line bisects a lot say there

631
01:01:05,600 --> 01:01:12,840
 is a a lot right on them on that line. Only that portion that is between the yellow and

632
01:01:12,840 --> 01:01:20,640
 red lines would count. There is one other thing that also comes out fairly frequently

633
01:01:20,640 --> 01:01:26,920
 and that is notification to the extraterritorial jurisdiction. That property is outside of

634
01:01:26,920 --> 01:01:37,000
 city limits. The state attorney general has issued a a opinion on on whether cities need

635
01:01:37,000 --> 01:01:43,460
 to notify people within the E.T.J. And it is because it is outside of the city's jurisdiction

636
01:01:43,460 --> 01:01:53,000
 and taxable boundaries. Cities are not required to notify property owners within the E.T.J.

637
01:01:53,000 --> 01:01:59,000
 If you're accurate I want to add a little bit of legal color. So this opinion was in

638
01:01:59,000 --> 01:02:04,880
 response to a city asking a question about hey do we have to notice the E.T.J. And so

639
01:02:04,880 --> 01:02:10,960
 the opinion is just an interpretation of the existing statute and confirms that Denton

640
01:02:10,960 --> 01:02:17,040
 is on the right track and doing everything correctly. Now we often hear from community

641
01:02:17,040 --> 01:02:22,040
 members who are in the E.T.J. And of course they can come and speak with the planning

642
01:02:22,040 --> 01:02:25,480
 and zoning commission or provide feedback to staff which will provide to the planning

643
01:02:25,480 --> 01:02:30,800
 and zoning commission. But any any feedback or written notice that they provide to us

644
01:02:30,800 --> 01:02:38,040
 cannot go toward that 20 percent opposition or that 60 percent opposition that that would

645
01:02:38,040 --> 01:02:43,240
 require that additional voting regulation. Does that make sense. So we can hear from

646
01:02:43,240 --> 01:02:49,320
 them but but it doesn't go toward that super majority requirement. And here's just all

647
01:02:49,320 --> 01:02:55,400
 of our public notification materials. Here's what they look like. We have a sign. We also

648
01:02:55,400 --> 01:03:00,640
 post on the Web site here looks like that. This is the postcard that sent to property

649
01:03:00,640 --> 01:03:07,120
 owner or sorry residents within 500 feet newspaper notice here in the center. This is our nine

650
01:03:07,120 --> 01:03:13,700
 to nine notice with that 14 point bold in a red box to see kind of what it looks like.

651
01:03:13,700 --> 01:03:19,100
 And then we have our typical letter that we send to property owners within 200 feet. Finally

652
01:03:19,100 --> 01:03:23,820
 the planning and zoning commission. Those agendas are posted online and the city allows

653
01:03:23,820 --> 01:03:29,380
 for e-comments. So you probably get those from Kathy before the meeting. And here's

654
01:03:29,380 --> 01:03:36,480
 what what that area of the Web site looks like. The city also goes one step further

655
01:03:36,480 --> 01:03:44,280
 and that residents or interested people may may register to get notifications if something

656
01:03:44,280 --> 01:03:52,440
 is happening. So I a resident can can go to the Web site and fill out this form provide

657
01:03:52,440 --> 01:03:58,000
 their name email address and then and then show a location on a map and what kind of

658
01:03:58,000 --> 01:04:02,800
 buffer they want from the map so that they would get notification if any project was

659
01:04:02,800 --> 01:04:10,640
 coming in in that area. So it's kind of nice. Feel free to encourage people to sign up.

660
01:04:10,640 --> 01:04:15,300
 So that ends for notification. And now we're going to talk about public engagement types

661
01:04:15,300 --> 01:04:19,260
 and strategies. We're going to kind of shift gears and that the notification really is

662
01:04:19,260 --> 01:04:25,540
 something that you you comes into play with when when a request is coming before you or

663
01:04:25,540 --> 01:04:31,740
 there there is a change. The public engagement types and strategies are are often when when

664
01:04:31,740 --> 01:04:38,680
 they are when they are done by the city staff or are sort of an affirmative planning like

665
01:04:38,680 --> 01:04:42,680
 is this what the community wants to see. Is it a long range planning. Is it it's some

666
01:04:42,680 --> 01:04:48,520
 sort of change in the regulation. So it's a little bit different. Our general goals

667
01:04:48,520 --> 01:04:51,640
 for public engagement. First of all we want to listen to the community. We want to hear

668
01:04:51,640 --> 01:04:56,640
 what the community has to say. We'd love to maximize participation from area or topic

669
01:04:56,640 --> 01:05:01,760
 stakeholders or ensure that representation or participation is from a representative

670
01:05:01,760 --> 01:05:07,160
 sample. Of course we want to inform the community members about what's going on as well as educate

671
01:05:07,160 --> 01:05:13,460
 about planning practices and and and issues. We want to build relationships. So much of

672
01:05:13,460 --> 01:05:19,080
 our area planning and comprehensive planning efforts go out or are about meeting people

673
01:05:19,080 --> 01:05:23,800
 in the community and forming those relationships. Capture feedback to apply to a project. And

674
01:05:23,800 --> 01:05:29,680
 of course we always want to stay within a budget. We're going to talk about several

675
01:05:29,680 --> 01:05:35,240
 types of public engagement and I've got them grouped into four categories. So this first

676
01:05:35,240 --> 01:05:41,160
 category is pop up event or intercept surveys. And for those of y'all who weren't on the

677
01:05:41,160 --> 01:05:45,200
 planning and zoning commission when we went forward with the design downtown Denton or

678
01:05:45,200 --> 01:05:50,520
 the southeast end area plan you may not be as familiar with this technique but it's essentially

679
01:05:50,520 --> 01:05:56,120
 going out in the community where where the people are. So you can kind of you can stand

680
01:05:56,120 --> 01:06:00,440
 in front of a restaurant and ask people questions if they want to participate. You could talk

681
01:06:00,440 --> 01:06:06,360
 to community members at events be there and and be able to provide information or get

682
01:06:06,360 --> 01:06:12,120
 feedback. We've gone to rec centers. We've gone to elementary schools. We've done the

683
01:06:12,120 --> 01:06:16,360
 parking day on the square. So there are a lot of different opportunities and and there's

684
01:06:16,360 --> 01:06:20,240
 probably no one right way to do it. We just try to think of ways that we could get out

685
01:06:20,240 --> 01:06:26,420
 in front of people. So this strategy what are the advantages or what are the disadvantages

686
01:06:26,420 --> 01:06:31,980
 and pitfalls advantages. You can capture groups that would typically not come to a community

687
01:06:31,980 --> 01:06:38,360
 meeting. Not everybody has time to come to the community meeting or or visioning or feedback

688
01:06:38,360 --> 01:06:43,360
 session so you can kind of get people where they are. They could be inexpensive pretty

689
01:06:43,360 --> 01:06:50,000
 easy to do straightforward preparation clipboard a table maybe some boards. You don't have

690
01:06:50,000 --> 01:06:52,980
 to market it. You don't have to send out postcards because you're just you're going to be out

691
01:06:52,980 --> 01:06:57,560
 in the community. You could capture qualitative data. You could talk to people and then there's

692
01:06:57,560 --> 01:07:01,600
 also just those happy accidents where you can meet the right person or you can find

693
01:07:01,600 --> 01:07:06,880
 out something about the community that you wouldn't have otherwise known. There are disadvantages.

694
01:07:06,880 --> 01:07:12,800
 I would say probably it's third on the list but probably wind is one of the biggest problems

695
01:07:12,800 --> 01:07:18,680
 especially if you're outside and you have boards. We also it can be difficult to ensure

696
01:07:18,680 --> 01:07:23,920
 that the respondents or participants are actually those stakeholders within the question we're

697
01:07:23,920 --> 01:07:30,880
 asking. While it can be very inexpensive inexpensive it can also get expensive depending on how

698
01:07:30,880 --> 01:07:37,520
 how you structure your pop up. Location is important. If we are trying to reach a certain

699
01:07:37,520 --> 01:07:41,840
 community or stakeholder we need to think really hard about where those groups are going

700
01:07:41,840 --> 01:07:46,520
 to be and that's where we need to be. You don't want to go to a senior center to talk

701
01:07:46,520 --> 01:07:53,080
 about something some playground. Right. So you want to make sure that you match your

702
01:07:53,080 --> 01:07:59,080
 your location with your group. And these are great for strategy for plans or questions

703
01:07:59,080 --> 01:08:02,960
 that really have broad interest. Once again because we can't necessarily control who's

704
01:08:02,960 --> 01:08:08,660
 who's giving feedback. We also have online surveys. We did these with we did them with

705
01:08:08,660 --> 01:08:15,280
 townhomes and missing middle. We've also done them with the area plans. These are really

706
01:08:15,280 --> 01:08:19,320
 convenient. They're convenient to put together. They're convenient for for residents to fill

707
01:08:19,320 --> 01:08:25,440
 out. They can do it in their pajamas. They're inexpensive. Pretty turnkey. The results are

708
01:08:25,440 --> 01:08:31,120
 really easy to tabulate. It's called it's quantitative data low barrier to entry. Easy

709
01:08:31,120 --> 01:08:37,880
 to do. And we get we can formalize those messages. The disadvantages once again hard to determine

710
01:08:37,880 --> 01:08:43,080
 if the respondents are actually those stakeholders on that question on the platform may skew

711
01:08:43,080 --> 01:08:49,920
 results. They're not everybody is is wants to take surveys online. We want to make sure

712
01:08:49,920 --> 01:08:54,920
 we write good survey questions right. We want to make sure we get the right information.

713
01:08:54,920 --> 01:08:58,740
 It is hard to capture those that qualitative data. We're not getting the stories from the

714
01:08:58,740 --> 01:09:05,120
 community right. We're not making those connections and forming those relationships. The the the

715
01:09:05,120 --> 01:09:12,240
 next engagement strategy are those community meetings. Those can take the form of visioning

716
01:09:12,240 --> 01:09:18,080
 workshops and formal presentations. We can do preference surveys. We can report findings

717
01:09:18,080 --> 01:09:25,160
 back to the community. These are are these are those typical community meetings that

718
01:09:25,160 --> 01:09:32,400
 that that we're all familiar with where we invite residents or or stakeholders to to

719
01:09:32,400 --> 01:09:40,360
 a big room and we all talk. These are the bread and butter. These are the historically

720
01:09:40,360 --> 01:09:48,000
 used engagement activity. You often attract those passionate participants because think

721
01:09:48,000 --> 01:09:51,800
 about it they had to get dressed and they had to drive somewhere and they had to take

722
01:09:51,800 --> 01:09:56,480
 time out of their time of their schedule. And so they want to be there. You could get

723
01:09:56,480 --> 01:10:00,880
 qualitative data. You could talk to people. You can understand where they're coming from.

724
01:10:00,880 --> 01:10:05,960
 It is a great strategy for specific projects. You can make sure that your community meeting

725
01:10:05,960 --> 01:10:12,880
 is in the right spot and invite the right people right. And once again develop relationships

726
01:10:12,880 --> 01:10:17,480
 as as with online surveys. It's but it's a little bit different. It can sometimes skew

727
01:10:17,480 --> 01:10:23,840
 those results because you attract a different type of of community member someone who maybe

728
01:10:23,840 --> 01:10:28,920
 isn't a parent or a student or who works normal business hours right. It's really hard for

729
01:10:28,920 --> 01:10:34,080
 people for parents or people who work shift work to come to community meetings. They don't

730
01:10:34,080 --> 01:10:40,160
 have the time. Once again you also have those passionate participants so that could be a

731
01:10:40,160 --> 01:10:43,720
 good thing and a bad thing. You have people who are really really interested but you don't

732
01:10:43,720 --> 01:10:48,320
 hear from those people who who you know might have an opinion or might have some insight

733
01:10:48,320 --> 01:10:53,640
 but they're just not passionate about the idea. Quantitative data is harder to measure.

734
01:10:53,640 --> 01:10:59,280
 You're not you're not necessarily making tallies not necessarily representative sample. You

735
01:10:59,280 --> 01:11:05,760
 have to use marketing so that budget comes into play intensive preparation for staff.

736
01:11:05,760 --> 01:11:09,800
 You're putting together you're you're doing postcards. You're you're putting door hangers

737
01:11:09,800 --> 01:11:14,920
 out. You're doing all those things and then you're putting together presentations and

738
01:11:14,920 --> 01:11:19,000
 then finally small groups. That's where we're getting you to focus groups steering committees

739
01:11:19,000 --> 01:11:26,480
 stakeholder interviews and design Tourette's. So these are probably the most intensive engagement

740
01:11:26,480 --> 01:11:32,080
 activity when you're asking a community member stakeholder resident to participate. Again

741
01:11:32,080 --> 01:11:35,480
 you get those passionate participants. Think about it if you're on a steering committee

742
01:11:35,480 --> 01:11:42,520
 for a project you want to be there because you're going to be there many times. It ensures

743
01:11:42,520 --> 01:11:48,240
 participation from a specific group or or topic or area. If you know you want to talk

744
01:11:48,240 --> 01:11:53,480
 to people who ride bikes you can invite people who ride bikes right. You get qualitative

745
01:11:53,480 --> 01:11:57,560
 data and that deeper understanding. You don't have to market. You just have to call people

746
01:11:57,560 --> 01:12:04,280
 or invite people. You could develop relationships. It can be inexpensive. Once again you gotta

747
01:12:04,280 --> 01:12:10,520
 have participants who are are dedicated to the project and could give that time. It can

748
01:12:10,520 --> 01:12:16,400
 be intensive to prepare. Once again quantitative data can be hard to find. You're not you're

749
01:12:16,400 --> 01:12:21,480
 not you know it's not a survey or a poll. And you can you want to make sure you have

750
01:12:21,480 --> 01:12:26,440
 the right people there. You want you want to make sure all stakeholders all represented

751
01:12:26,440 --> 01:12:32,600
 groups are at the table to ensure that your data adequately captures what you want to

752
01:12:32,600 --> 01:12:41,320
 capture. So with that I'm going to turn it over to Angie. She's going to talk faster.

753
01:12:41,320 --> 01:12:47,320
 Luckily we really gave Julie most of the speaking. So I'll be quick. So we just want to go over

754
01:12:47,320 --> 01:12:50,560
 some of the lessons learned and then I'll cover best practices from commissioners. So

755
01:12:50,560 --> 01:12:55,080
 as you saw over the last couple of years I think particularly end of twenty two into

756
01:12:55,080 --> 01:13:01,160
 twenty three we did a lot of public engagement. So we have some lessons learned mistrust and

757
01:13:01,160 --> 01:13:06,160
 misinformation kind of that kind of sometimes go hand in hand. It just depends on who you're

758
01:13:06,160 --> 01:13:11,080
 talking to in the communities that you're in. There may just be some some mistrust in

759
01:13:11,080 --> 01:13:15,120
 the community of what is the city's intentions. Maybe you've had a bad experience and that's

760
01:13:15,120 --> 01:13:19,040
 something that you it's a barrier that exists. We're aware of it. And so that's why a lot

761
01:13:19,040 --> 01:13:26,240
 of our engagement efforts are just relation building and just listening to people. Misinformation

762
01:13:26,240 --> 01:13:32,280
 especially in you know the age of the Internet is easy to to come across and it's easy to

763
01:13:32,280 --> 01:13:38,160
 perpetuate going hand in hand with some of those things as some fear change is sometimes

764
01:13:38,160 --> 01:13:42,200
 difficult. So when you see you're being invited to a community meeting to talk about as you

765
01:13:42,200 --> 01:13:48,040
 know a city initiated project it could create some fear. I think more than that we see apathy

766
01:13:48,040 --> 01:13:52,760
 kind of like Julie mentioned you do get you're very interested in passionate community members

767
01:13:52,760 --> 01:13:59,540
 but those who maybe have great ideas there's just not as much interest in coming. Likewise

768
01:13:59,540 --> 01:14:03,800
 getting some of your your younger population to participate in things can be difficult

769
01:14:03,800 --> 01:14:08,840
 and then budget you know if we could throw a pizza party every other week and get a couple

770
01:14:08,840 --> 01:14:12,920
 hundred people out that would be great but it's just sometimes not the reality. So you

771
01:14:12,920 --> 01:14:19,240
 do have to start to think a little bit creatively. We have learned an awful lot and ways to overcome

772
01:14:19,240 --> 01:14:23,780
 some of these barriers. One is tailoring your community engagement to your audience and

773
01:14:23,780 --> 01:14:28,920
 your project goals. Once you have kind of your you know your stakeholders making sure

774
01:14:28,920 --> 01:14:33,880
 you're updating people regularly on those project status types. We really find discussed

775
01:14:33,880 --> 01:14:37,600
 and has been helpful specifically as we work through some of our bigger code amendments

776
01:14:37,600 --> 01:14:43,780
 as well as area plans. Your silent community validators can really be your biggest champions

777
01:14:43,780 --> 01:14:46,800
 you know your people who are invested in the community and building relationships with

778
01:14:46,800 --> 01:14:52,040
 them can be really important. Likewise so is just spending time in the community becoming

779
01:14:52,040 --> 01:14:59,440
 a face that they know and recognize. Words matter and along with that education is important

780
01:14:59,440 --> 01:15:04,040
 as we saw tonight like planners are pretty guilty of using jargon or acronyms all the

781
01:15:04,040 --> 01:15:08,880
 time like clomer or lomer making sure we're using words that everybody understands or

782
01:15:08,880 --> 01:15:14,040
 educating them on what it is that we're talking about. Creativity and variety are also super

783
01:15:14,040 --> 01:15:18,360
 important we are sometimes not the most creative group but when we do show a little bit it

784
01:15:18,360 --> 01:15:23,800
 does go a long way. I'm trying to find ways to be interactive also ways to encourage families

785
01:15:23,800 --> 01:15:30,280
 to come out by providing you know activities specific for children. Branding it was super

786
01:15:30,280 --> 01:15:33,140
 important for the downtown plan as you can see at the bottom here we had these little

787
01:15:33,140 --> 01:15:37,200
 coasters with their logo on it you see you still see stickers around town it gave people

788
01:15:37,200 --> 01:15:41,880
 like some stake in that project and then no matter what you do at the end of the day you

789
01:15:41,880 --> 01:15:46,560
 can't and you won't please everybody. That's just something that we as staff know and it's

790
01:15:46,560 --> 01:15:51,980
 just kind of how it goes sometimes. That's a lot about public engagement. I do want to

791
01:15:51,980 --> 01:15:55,800
 talk just a little bit it'll be it'll be brief I know we're close to time on just some of

792
01:15:55,800 --> 01:16:02,280
 the best practices when engaging with residents and or developers. These are mostly just reminders

793
01:16:02,280 --> 01:16:07,720
 for you all as communicating and engaging in dialogue is going to be largely an individual

794
01:16:07,720 --> 01:16:13,720
 choice. When in doubt ask your council member what their expectations are for you but should

795
01:16:13,720 --> 01:16:18,220
 you choose to engage in dialogue either with residents or developers. These are some of

796
01:16:18,220 --> 01:16:24,320
 our tips and best practices. First use your city email especially when communicating with

797
01:16:24,320 --> 01:16:29,140
 the public or developers about city business or anything related to you as a commissioner.

798
01:16:29,140 --> 01:16:32,600
 Just remember the Texas Open Meetings Act so that keeps all of your city things in one

799
01:16:32,600 --> 01:16:38,120
 email and it keeps your personal email personal and separate from all of that. If you do choose

800
01:16:38,120 --> 01:16:43,120
 to meet with a developer filling out this little handy disclosure form is great and

801
01:16:43,120 --> 01:16:49,280
 we encourage it. It is optional. Alternatively you can also disclose at the dais you know

802
01:16:49,280 --> 01:16:53,440
 during public hearing and deliberation hey I met with Mr. Smith these are the things

803
01:16:53,440 --> 01:16:57,840
 we talked about just so everybody on the commission does know that you did meet and kind of what

804
01:16:57,840 --> 01:17:02,000
 you talked about to be as transparent as possible. Also if you gleaned anything that might be

805
01:17:02,000 --> 01:17:07,920
 of benefit it's being shared transparently. Neighborhood meetings they're optional you

806
01:17:07,920 --> 01:17:12,420
 may sometimes be asked to attend. Staff does attend to just keep notes on what was talked

807
01:17:12,420 --> 01:17:17,640
 about. If you do attend we ask that you please be mindful of quorum so if you see four or

808
01:17:17,640 --> 01:17:23,220
 more of you we would ask that maybe you self-moderate and somebody can recuse themselves otherwise

809
01:17:23,220 --> 01:17:29,000
 if staff is present we might be like hey sorry you're the last one here we have a quorum

810
01:17:29,000 --> 01:17:34,920
 and then likewise be mindful of inadvertently creating situations which might be a walking

811
01:17:34,920 --> 01:17:40,960
 quorum. So good ways to avoid that is try not to reply all to any emails especially

812
01:17:40,960 --> 01:17:45,000
 if it includes all of you. We as staff when we communicate with you do try to blind copy

813
01:17:45,000 --> 01:17:50,080
 you at all times so that's not an option but if a resident emails be mindful of that replying

814
01:17:50,080 --> 01:17:56,520
 all likewise try not to daisy chain emails and so if I email Commissioner Pruitt he's

815
01:17:56,520 --> 01:18:00,520
 like hey this is super cool I'm gonna send it to Commissioner Dyer and then we send it

816
01:18:00,520 --> 01:18:05,520
 to Commissioner McDuff and we've created this like we've created a walking quorum. So those

817
01:18:05,520 --> 01:18:11,080
 are things to be mindful of just when manning your email as well as when you when you talk

818
01:18:11,080 --> 01:18:15,640
 to people but again largely an individual choice these are just some of our suggestions

819
01:18:15,640 --> 01:18:20,840
 for how to handle things if you do choose to engage again with the public or with developers

820
01:18:20,840 --> 01:18:28,040
 biggest takeaway city email is your friend but not forwarding it to your other commissioners.

821
01:18:28,040 --> 01:18:33,800
 We will be sure to share this presentation with you all it was a lot of information but

822
01:18:33,800 --> 01:18:38,120
 can answer any immediate questions or I don't know how you want to handle it I know we're

823
01:18:38,120 --> 01:18:42,240
 close on time. Yeah I mean I think it's an important topic so I want to make sure questions

824
01:18:42,240 --> 01:18:50,560
 are answered. Just to kick it off I recall one of the work sessions that council had

825
01:18:50,560 --> 01:18:57,120
 on developer notifications of meetings and this sort of thing that set the policy framework

826
01:18:57,120 --> 01:19:03,080
 for that voluntary disclosure and at the time our city manager who is Todd Heilman at the

827
01:19:03,080 --> 01:19:15,080
 time you know he said that different cities do it a lot of different ways and in his opinion

828
01:19:15,080 --> 01:19:22,000
 the private meeting between a city council member or in this case a commissioner and

829
01:19:22,000 --> 01:19:32,080
 a developer opens up the opportunity for you know things that may be partial truths or

830
01:19:32,080 --> 01:19:38,760
 things that may not be said in open to be shared his suggestion at the time was that

831
01:19:38,760 --> 01:19:45,000
 the best way to protect that if you do feel like it would be beneficial to your deliberations

832
01:19:45,000 --> 01:19:50,760
 to meet with a developer is to ask a staff member to come along who can then be there

833
01:19:50,760 --> 01:19:58,580
 take notes and hit city manager Heilman's description of that was that it just changes

834
01:19:58,580 --> 01:20:04,520
 the conversation in the sense that everybody kind of knows it's being recorded from a note

835
01:20:04,520 --> 01:20:12,360
 taking perspective and and there's a check there on are we saying the right things and

836
01:20:12,360 --> 01:20:16,320
 then that can more easily be distributed to the rest of the commission so I guess my question

837
01:20:16,320 --> 01:20:22,760
 is obviously that was a past city manager this is not council policy is that sort of

838
01:20:22,760 --> 01:20:30,320
 thing something that staff would be willing to provide as a service if if there is development

839
01:20:30,320 --> 01:20:35,960
 interest that reaches out to commission members in the future sure and if I get completely

840
01:20:35,960 --> 01:20:41,560
 off base Haley can you know cut me off but I think if you all are in a situation where

841
01:20:41,560 --> 01:20:45,200
 you are wanting to have a meeting with a developer and feel more comfortable if a staff person

842
01:20:45,200 --> 01:20:50,320
 would attend I you know provided we're able to accommodate that time I think we'd be more

843
01:20:50,320 --> 01:20:57,320
 than happy to do that and sit in on it yeah I don't have anything else I think yeah that's

844
01:20:57,320 --> 01:21:01,760
 something if if it's ever desired I think either Haley or myself or the planner assigned

845
01:21:01,760 --> 01:21:09,720
 could find time to make it okay any other questions all right thank you very much we'll

846
01:21:09,720 --> 01:21:17,160
 send this to you all thank you at 6 34 p.m. that concludes our work sessions we will reconvene

847
01:21:17,160 --> 01:21:26,640
 in a few minutes in council chambers for the regular session thank you good evening at

848
01:21:26,640 --> 01:21:35,080
 6 41 p.m. on Wednesday December 17th we will call this meeting of the Denton Planning and

849
01:21:35,080 --> 01:21:40,800
 Zoning Commission to order with a quorum present our first order of business is to stand and

850
01:21:40,800 --> 01:22:03,680
 say the pledge of allegiance to the US and Texas flags

851
01:22:03,680 --> 01:22:20,120
 honor the Texas flag I pledge allegiance to be Texas one state under God one indivisible

852
01:22:20,120 --> 01:22:25,120
 that brings us to item to consider approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes

853
01:22:25,120 --> 01:22:44,080
 from November 19th do we have a motion oh I am logged in but I don't see the motion

854
01:22:44,080 --> 01:23:00,720
 button okay I haven't hit the button but I'll go ahead and make a motion okay I'm happy

855
01:23:00,720 --> 01:23:18,080
 to second that motion okay yeah give it a few seconds here and then we'll it's just

856
01:23:18,080 --> 01:23:38,440
 easier to compile the minutes and everything okay we'll take a motion by unanimous consent

857
01:23:38,440 --> 01:23:48,640
 raise your hand if I see unanimous consent for that item that brings us to our that passes

858
01:23:48,640 --> 01:23:55,620
 six zero that brings us to item three the consent agenda I do have one card that was

859
01:23:55,620 --> 01:24:05,480
 filled out for a consent agenda plat the the way our our work session and regular session

860
01:24:05,480 --> 01:24:13,160
 is split up comments on the consent agenda items are typically taken at the work session

861
01:24:13,160 --> 01:24:17,800
 as opposed to at the regular session so I'm sorry if this person Kimberly Helston did

862
01:24:17,800 --> 01:24:23,760
 not understand that if you would still like to speak we we could see if the commission

863
01:24:23,760 --> 01:24:29,840
 is willing to suspend the rules so that you could speak about it but it's also it's up

864
01:24:29,840 --> 01:24:44,000
 to you would you like that or yeah okay understood so just from the commission I'll take if anybody's

865
01:24:44,000 --> 01:24:48,120
 interested in that I'll take a motion to suspend the rules so that we can take comment I'll

866
01:24:48,120 --> 01:24:54,360
 make a motion to suspend the rules for the for the comment I'll second that okay motion

867
01:24:54,360 --> 01:25:05,960
 by Commissioner Dyer second by Commissioner Kitches said hand vote again I that that passes

868
01:25:05,960 --> 01:25:16,140
 six zero so I will invite miss Kimberly Helston up to speak on item FP 25 - 32 if you're following

869
01:25:16,140 --> 01:25:25,960
 in on your agenda that's also 3b you have three minutes thank you so I am here in response

870
01:25:25,960 --> 01:25:32,920
 to the final plat request for I think approval of the what I believe is going to be the Denton

871
01:25:32,920 --> 01:25:41,560
 County Family Justice Center there at Rainey Road and Bonnie Bray that area or that land

872
01:25:41,560 --> 01:25:47,600
 shares and or is very close I would say less than a thousand feet from the elementary school

873
01:25:47,600 --> 01:25:59,240
 there so that is what I'm here to speak about according to the Texas statute of the local

874
01:25:59,240 --> 01:26:07,720
 government code regulation of land use structures businesses and related activities and I then

875
01:26:07,720 --> 01:26:16,840
 we've got unless municipal consent is granted under section 244.025 a person may not construct

876
01:26:16,840 --> 01:26:22,160
 or operate a shelter for homeless individuals within 1,000 feet of another shelter for homeless

877
01:26:22,160 --> 01:26:31,560
 individuals or primary or secondary school so I called the state of Texas and inquired

878
01:26:31,560 --> 01:26:37,680
 like is there a definition of a homeless shelter with this qualify and I guess there were three

879
01:26:37,680 --> 01:26:43,120
 things that came under there one was transitional housing this I think is more of a transitional

880
01:26:43,120 --> 01:26:48,920
 housing situation I had also called the city to find out if there were any special use

881
01:26:48,920 --> 01:26:54,920
 permits requested for this property and I did not and they said that the only permit

882
01:26:54,920 --> 01:27:05,440
 request was them or the zoning request was to do the R7 looking at the R7 allowed uses

883
01:27:05,440 --> 01:27:16,440
 community homes group homes those both require the special use permit so I might ask is or

884
01:27:16,440 --> 01:27:23,240
 I guess my question and ask is how is this homeless shelter group home transitional housing

885
01:27:23,240 --> 01:27:30,400
 going in without the notifications that it is in fact that type of housing and within

886
01:27:30,400 --> 01:27:36,300
 1,000 feet of a primary school and before y'all approve the plan I just wanted that

887
01:27:36,300 --> 01:27:42,120
 to be you know brought up sure yeah thank you for for reading and bringing that to our

888
01:27:42,120 --> 01:27:48,120
 attention is there a staff member that's familiar with this application that could speak to

889
01:27:48,120 --> 01:28:06,360
 this Julie Wyatt principal planner that that project required approval of a plan development

890
01:28:06,360 --> 01:28:12,680
 in order to develop on this property so our seven is that base zoning district it does

891
01:28:12,680 --> 01:28:19,440
 have those additional approvals with the plan development district and are there any state

892
01:28:19,440 --> 01:28:28,600
 required notifications for that type of land use or is it purely it needs approval and

893
01:28:28,600 --> 01:28:36,080
 the zoning change satisfies that I am not aware I'm looking at Hillary we did have to

894
01:28:36,080 --> 01:28:42,520
 provide notification in order to move forward with the rezoning that 200 and 500 feet the

895
01:28:42,520 --> 01:28:51,440
 school district was also part of that of that notification as well okay any questions from

896
01:28:51,440 --> 01:29:03,480
 the commission on this item yeah commissioner Kutcher said and that plan development has

897
01:29:03,480 --> 01:29:10,840
 already passed is that correct correct it was approved maybe this time last year I think

898
01:29:10,840 --> 01:29:20,240
 okay thank you yeah commissioner Garland so just to confirm the plan is to put a transitional

899
01:29:20,240 --> 01:29:29,420
 housing unit for the unhoused within a thousand feet of a school it is actually for members

900
01:29:29,420 --> 01:29:40,440
 of the community who are victims of domestic violence so it will have offices as well as

901
01:29:40,440 --> 01:29:50,080
 some housing and all services related to that community need so it's not just specific to

902
01:29:50,080 --> 01:30:04,600
 no nurses that are experiencing homelessness no no yeah I'd also like to very much think

903
01:30:04,600 --> 01:30:11,280
 the public commenter for bringing that section of local government code to my attention just

904
01:30:11,280 --> 01:30:18,280
 a little thing to distinguish is that I believe this section talks about oh dear I scrolled

905
01:30:18,280 --> 01:30:24,820
 away from it it talks about giving notice for correctional or rehabilitative facilities

906
01:30:24,820 --> 01:30:35,440
 and that is different than the presently approved use under the PD okay commissioner Dyer did

907
01:30:35,440 --> 01:30:48,640
 you have a question okay okay all right with that I'll take oh we have motion buttons commissioner

908
01:30:48,640 --> 01:31:07,360
 Macduff if I've made that motion or it just appeared okay well I'll pretend that you're

909
01:31:07,360 --> 01:31:13,600
 not there but if you would like to make a motion on our consent agenda certainly well

910
01:31:13,600 --> 01:31:18,200
 yes I would I'm trying to be quick on my feet here I'd like to make a motion for the approval

911
01:31:18,200 --> 01:31:27,640
 of our item is on our our consent agenda okay sir second I will second that okay seconded

912
01:31:27,640 --> 01:31:36,520
 by Commissioner Dyer just one comment I'll ask that staff could maybe give the contact

913
01:31:36,520 --> 01:31:42,880
 information of the Denny County Friends of the Family who will be operating that facility

914
01:31:42,880 --> 01:31:49,280
 so that people can talk and we can understand together how what are the concerns are and

915
01:31:49,280 --> 01:32:00,200
 that's the thing to the public commenter we have a motion and a second any other questions

916
01:32:00,200 --> 01:32:07,720
 seeing none I'll ask for we'll just start doing roll call votes from from you on down

917
01:32:07,720 --> 01:32:15,520
 Commissioner Macduff approve Commissioner Riggs approve chair is an aye Commissioner

918
01:32:15,520 --> 01:32:25,440
 Ketchers said approve Commissioner Duff I'm sorry Commissioner Dyer approve Commissioner

919
01:32:25,440 --> 01:32:34,900
 Garland approve very good the consent agenda there passes six to zero that brings us to

920
01:32:34,900 --> 01:32:46,560
 our items for individual consideration for a FP 25-28 good evening chair members of the

921
01:32:46,560 --> 01:32:52,200
 Commission Angie Manglars assistant planning director here to present FP 250028 this is

922
01:32:52,200 --> 01:32:56,640
 a final plan for the reserves at Brush Creek generally located at the northeast intersection

923
01:32:56,640 --> 01:33:02,280
 of US 377 and Brush Creek Road at the time staff has recommended denial of this final

924
01:33:02,280 --> 01:33:06,880
 plot as it does not meet our established criteria for approval however staff has no objection

925
01:33:06,880 --> 01:33:11,280
 to the requested extension which could be granted to a date certain of January 14th

926
01:33:11,280 --> 01:33:20,200
 2026 I'm happy to answer any questions Commissioner Riggs if nobody has any questions I go ahead

927
01:33:20,200 --> 01:33:26,960
 and make a motion make a motion to to extend to date certain January 14th 2026 Commissioner

928
01:33:26,960 --> 01:33:36,120
 Garland and I will second that motion seeing no discussion or questions call for a roll

929
01:33:36,120 --> 01:33:42,480
 call vote Commissioner Macduff Commissioner Riggs aye chair is an aye Commissioner Ketchers

930
01:33:42,480 --> 01:33:49,240
 said aye Commissioner Dyer aye and Commissioner Garland aye very good that passes six zero

931
01:33:49,240 --> 01:33:56,280
 brings us to our second item for individual consideration item for BP 25-5 good evening

932
01:33:56,280 --> 01:34:00,480
 chair and Commissioners Cameron Robertson principal planner this is a preliminary plot

933
01:34:00,480 --> 01:34:05,560
 for approximately 6.5 acre parcel located north of Rose on Drive just east of South

934
01:34:05,560 --> 01:34:11,680
 Bonnie Bay Street in the west of future South Bonnie Bay Street at this time the staff is

935
01:34:11,680 --> 01:34:15,960
 recommending denial for the preliminary plot it does not mean our established criteria

936
01:34:15,960 --> 01:34:21,160
 for approval staff has no objection to the requested extension of January 14th 2026 and

937
01:34:21,160 --> 01:34:29,040
 this is the second extension any questions or a motion I'll make a motion Commissioner

938
01:34:29,040 --> 01:34:36,800
 Dyer I'll second to approve or to go ahead and approve the extension yes okay and second

939
01:34:36,800 --> 01:34:44,880
 by Commissioner Riggs seeing no comments call for a roll call Commissioner my mouth is going

940
01:34:44,880 --> 01:34:51,600
 to go crazy by the end of tonight Commissioner Macduff aye Commissioner Riggs aye chair

941
01:34:51,600 --> 01:34:58,200
 is an aye Commissioner Ketchers said aye Commissioner Dyer aye Commissioner Garland aye that passes

942
01:34:58,200 --> 01:35:05,720
 six zero brings us to our first public hearing we're going to call three of these items together

943
01:35:05,720 --> 01:35:15,640
 because they impact each other but then after the public hearings are closed we will vote

944
01:35:15,640 --> 01:35:33,640
 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

945
01:35:33,640 --> 01:35:39,240
 ahead and open the public hearing at this time evening chair members of the Commission

946
01:35:39,240 --> 01:35:44,960
 Mia Heinz senior planner here to present like you stated the Hickory Grove related application

947
01:35:44,960 --> 01:35:49,240
 specifically a comprehensive plan amendment mobility plan amendment and a zoning change

948
01:35:49,240 --> 01:35:54,320
 an overview of course this is three requests as I just mentioned the property itself is

949
01:35:54,320 --> 01:35:59,680
 about sixteen and a half acres located north of US 380 approximately twenty eight hundred

950
01:35:59,680 --> 01:36:06,640
 feet west of Thomas Goldenhove Drive the existing future land use designation for the property

951
01:36:06,640 --> 01:36:10,880
 is agriculture the proposed future land use designation for the property is mixed use

952
01:36:10,880 --> 01:36:16,200
 regional the existing zoning for the property is rural residential and R2 as shown in this

953
01:36:16,200 --> 01:36:22,360
 exhibit here and the proposed zoning is mixed use regional the purpose for this request

954
01:36:22,360 --> 01:36:26,640
 is to entitle the property for anticipated multifamily development and I'll go over the

955
01:36:26,640 --> 01:36:34,080
 history of how that land use came about in a sec just now so the existing land use on

956
01:36:34,080 --> 01:36:39,680
 the property it's currently undeveloped the property itself was designated for all rural

957
01:36:39,680 --> 01:36:45,320
 areas and didn't twenty thirty plan didn't twenty forty plan was updated to show low

958
01:36:45,320 --> 01:36:49,720
 residential designation towards the single family development that's occurring in the

959
01:36:49,720 --> 01:36:56,280
 city's ETJ to the north but the subject property itself didn't have a designation beyond the

960
01:36:56,280 --> 01:37:05,280
 agricultural use in twenty twenty two a municipal utility district was created for it'll be

961
01:37:05,280 --> 01:37:12,920
 referred to as legends ranch or Hickory Grove that mud was anticipated to create one thousand

962
01:37:12,920 --> 01:37:18,400
 five hundred and fifty one single family residential units the amendment in August twenty twenty

963
01:37:18,400 --> 01:37:24,360
 four came to add additional multifamily units to total six hundred and twenty five multifamily

964
01:37:24,360 --> 01:37:31,100
 units for this for the mud and as a part of that the portion that is on the topic for

965
01:37:31,100 --> 01:37:37,220
 tonight's agenda was the idea for that was to annex that portion of the multifamily development

966
01:37:37,220 --> 01:37:42,480
 into the city in order for the city to receive tax benefits and things of that nature for

967
01:37:42,480 --> 01:37:46,160
 this property.

968
01:37:46,160 --> 01:37:50,520
 So the first application for you to before you tonight is a comprehensive plan amendment

969
01:37:50,520 --> 01:37:57,240
 again the existing future land use designation is agriculture and the proposed usually designation

970
01:37:57,240 --> 01:38:03,080
 here is regional mixed use that regional mixed use flume designation is intended to apply

971
01:38:03,080 --> 01:38:08,680
 to areas that serve as regional destinations within Denton so ideally those those areas

972
01:38:08,680 --> 01:38:13,000
 located along like those regional corridors like we see here highlighted on the map I've

973
01:38:13,000 --> 01:38:19,200
 shown US 380 University's banding sort of from east to west throughout the city and

974
01:38:19,200 --> 01:38:24,040
 then of course I thirty five you see some some of the pockets of mixed use regional

975
01:38:24,040 --> 01:38:29,920
 that we have throughout the city additionally this designation is intended to include residential

976
01:38:29,920 --> 01:38:35,120
 commercial office and entertainment and other uses except industrial at the highest level

977
01:38:35,120 --> 01:38:40,360
 of scale and density within the city and then finally the future development in regional

978
01:38:40,360 --> 01:38:48,160
 mixed use areas is intended to complement the and embrace the existing uses in the area

979
01:38:48,160 --> 01:38:53,040
 and as I stated the development of the mud district is occurring so what we're seeing

980
01:38:53,040 --> 01:38:57,600
 here is a sort of low to moderate density residential to the north and then there will

981
01:38:57,600 --> 01:39:04,880
 be multifamily as a part of that mud to the west of the subject property as well.

982
01:39:04,880 --> 01:39:09,300
 So we did get this request and we put it up against the criteria for approval essentially

983
01:39:09,300 --> 01:39:15,100
 we found that the regional planning and development trends within this area do reflect the need

984
01:39:15,100 --> 01:39:19,120
 to plan for the development of this area beyond agriculture I'll get to that in the next couple

985
01:39:19,120 --> 01:39:25,640
 of slides additionally the compatible the proposed the proposal is compatible with existing and

986
01:39:25,640 --> 01:39:30,640
 proposed development occurring both within the city limits and the city's ETJ and then

987
01:39:30,640 --> 01:39:35,120
 finally that makes that regional mixed use zoning tended to encourage development at

988
01:39:35,120 --> 01:39:41,680
 highest densities along regional corridors such as US 380 like we have here today.

989
01:39:41,680 --> 01:39:45,680
 So this is to show you sort of some of the changes in the regional or the development

990
01:39:45,680 --> 01:39:50,720
 that's occurring within the region of the subject property the subject property on both

991
01:39:50,720 --> 01:39:57,280
 of these exhibits is highlighted in or outlined or shown in black there and there and I highlighted

992
01:39:57,280 --> 01:40:02,120
 some of the key sort of major developments that we were experiencing within proximity

993
01:40:02,120 --> 01:40:08,400
 to the US 380 corridor so that low residential development as a part of the mud is occurring

994
01:40:08,400 --> 01:40:12,840
 just north of this site and it is hard to see on this exhibit on your screen but there

995
01:40:12,840 --> 01:40:17,280
 is a single family residential development that is occurring so you see you nothing was

996
01:40:17,280 --> 01:40:23,200
 there in 2021 as of 2025 they've developed quite a couple or a couple of phases within

997
01:40:23,200 --> 01:40:30,040
 that area similarly in the city's ETJ 2 is another municipal utility district developing

998
01:40:30,040 --> 01:40:36,000
 with single family residential so we do see residential density and residential units

999
01:40:36,000 --> 01:40:39,080
 being of a demand within this corridor.

1000
01:40:39,080 --> 01:40:44,960
 We do have some anticipated commercial developments occurring along US 380 staff is actually in

1001
01:40:44,960 --> 01:40:49,760
 the middle of processing applications that would ultimately come before this body so

1002
01:40:49,760 --> 01:40:53,760
 you'll see that coming forward in the future some of the other things I wanted to point

1003
01:40:53,760 --> 01:41:00,200
 out is the razor ranch development along US 380 just on the east side of I-35 has developed

1004
01:41:00,200 --> 01:41:06,020
 over the last four years I think they have maybe two or three sites left to develop but

1005
01:41:06,020 --> 01:41:10,560
 for the most part they've added additional commercial they've added some medical facilities

1006
01:41:10,560 --> 01:41:14,960
 over there as well as some additional residences and then finally some of the one of the things

1007
01:41:14,960 --> 01:41:21,200
 that are could potentially be driving residential demand in this area we've seen some commercial

1008
01:41:21,200 --> 01:41:28,880
 and industrial development occurring within this sort of corridor of US 380 and I-35 as

1009
01:41:28,880 --> 01:41:32,480
 shown on the blue in the blue areas there.

1010
01:41:32,480 --> 01:41:36,160
 So with that staff is recommending approval of the comprehensive plan amendment request

1011
01:41:36,160 --> 01:41:44,140
 as it complies with the criteria in section 2.4.5 and I will go on to the next application.

1012
01:41:44,140 --> 01:41:49,480
 So the next request in the next application is mobility plan amendment this purpose of

1013
01:41:49,480 --> 01:41:55,920
 this amendment is to remove a and this is backwards on the screen my apologies this

1014
01:41:55,920 --> 01:42:03,280
 is the existing mobility plan amendment showing the proposed primary arterial the subject

1015
01:42:03,280 --> 01:42:09,160
 property is right here and this is the proposed mobility plan amendment showing the removal

1016
01:42:09,160 --> 01:42:16,760
 of that proposed primary arterial of course similarly we did put this request up against

1017
01:42:16,760 --> 01:42:21,560
 our criteria for approval and ultimately found that the request itself does consider flood

1018
01:42:21,560 --> 01:42:26,540
 paint and ESA which I'll get into here in a second and it does to minimize disturbances

1019
01:42:26,540 --> 01:42:32,920
 of these areas and ultimately the removal of this roadway would remove redundancy while

1020
01:42:32,920 --> 01:42:37,660
 maintaining provision of sufficient roadway network appropriate for the area.

1021
01:42:37,660 --> 01:42:43,120
 So here is that to the left is the environmentally sensitive area as you can see the proposed

1022
01:42:43,120 --> 01:42:49,640
 primary arterial cuts straight through area that we have designated as floodplain ESA.

1023
01:42:49,640 --> 01:42:55,720
 Ultimately the floodplain is right here or shown along this corridor and that proposed

1024
01:42:55,720 --> 01:43:00,720
 primary arterial again would cut through that floodplain.

1025
01:43:00,720 --> 01:43:07,440
 What we've seen or what we have as provision or to ensure that we still have sufficient

1026
01:43:07,440 --> 01:43:14,240
 roadway in this area is as a part of the Legends Ranch or Hickory Grove single-family piece

1027
01:43:14,240 --> 01:43:20,480
 of the mud they are constructing a collector that would run from Jackson Road to US 380

1028
01:43:20,480 --> 01:43:25,680
 and so with that of course we did or reviewed traffic impact analysis and traffic studies

1029
01:43:25,680 --> 01:43:32,840
 to ensure that adequate roadway would still be or is being provided on that collector

1030
01:43:32,840 --> 01:43:39,620
 and found that that is the case and that this primary arterial is no longer necessary with

1031
01:43:39,620 --> 01:43:43,220
 the pending development in that area.

1032
01:43:43,220 --> 01:43:48,120
 So with that staff is recommending approval of the mobility plan to remove that primary

1033
01:43:48,120 --> 01:43:55,600
 arterial and the last application is the zoning change.

1034
01:43:55,600 --> 01:44:02,840
 So the map to the left is the current zoning reflecting a rural residential zoning district

1035
01:44:02,840 --> 01:44:05,920
 and a R2 zoning district that's on the property.

1036
01:44:05,920 --> 01:44:10,840
 If you recall this property was recently annexed into the city so that rural residential is

1037
01:44:10,840 --> 01:44:15,900
 more of that default placeholder zoning that is given or assigned to properties once they're

1038
01:44:15,900 --> 01:44:24,440
 annexed that R2 piece transition from a rural residential sort of designation with the update

1039
01:44:24,440 --> 01:44:32,160
 of the code but that is also undeveloped in this area and the applicant is proposing to

1040
01:44:32,160 --> 01:44:38,540
 rezone the entire property from RR and R2 to MR.

1041
01:44:38,540 --> 01:44:42,840
 Ultimately we put this up against the criteria for approval ultimately found that proposal

1042
01:44:42,840 --> 01:44:46,840
 that the proposal intended is intended to allow the property to develop according to

1043
01:44:46,840 --> 01:44:52,200
 prior approvals on the subject property specifically the multifamily development that was anticipated

1044
01:44:52,200 --> 01:44:54,720
 in the mud district.

1045
01:44:54,720 --> 01:44:58,200
 Additionally the proposal is intended to allow development compatible with the surrounding

1046
01:44:58,200 --> 01:45:00,400
 development in the city's ETJ.

1047
01:45:00,400 --> 01:45:05,640
 Again speaking to the single the low to moderate residential to the north and the multifamily

1048
01:45:05,640 --> 01:45:09,680
 development that would occur to the west of the subject property again within the city's

1049
01:45:09,680 --> 01:45:12,200
 ETJ.

1050
01:45:12,200 --> 01:45:15,800
 The request is also generally consistent with the goals and policies of the proposed future

1051
01:45:15,800 --> 01:45:22,560
 land use map as the proposed amendment is coming before you this evening and then also

1052
01:45:22,560 --> 01:45:27,440
 the regional growth within the area as I pointed out with the comprehensive plan does reflect

1053
01:45:27,440 --> 01:45:33,000
 the need to allow for regional scale development on this property.

1054
01:45:33,000 --> 01:45:39,120
 The prior approval is just getting a little bit back into showing you again to the mud

1055
01:45:39,120 --> 01:45:40,120
 difference here.

1056
01:45:40,120 --> 01:45:46,800
 I do want to highlight that again the Hickory Grove mud anticipated 1,551 single family

1057
01:45:46,800 --> 01:45:52,960
 residential units within this area so north of the floodplain essentially and then 299

1058
01:45:52,960 --> 01:45:57,600
 multifamily units are currently planned for this property here to the west of the subject

1059
01:45:57,600 --> 01:46:05,760
 property I think that's all I won't repeat all of that unless I need to later.

1060
01:46:05,760 --> 01:46:11,080
 Again I wanted to show this regional map showing you the growth from or what we've seen or

1061
01:46:11,080 --> 01:46:16,960
 what we saw on the ground in 2021 compared to now what we see in 2025 and say that although

1062
01:46:16,960 --> 01:46:21,840
 the mixed use regional zoning or the purpose for this rezoning is to develop multifamily

1063
01:46:21,840 --> 01:46:25,480
 and I do believe that that is the applicant's intent the mixed use regional district does

1064
01:46:25,480 --> 01:46:31,080
 allow for other commercial uses that could serve to benefit the growth within this area

1065
01:46:31,080 --> 01:46:36,560
 as well and as you all are aware with this being a straight rezoning they could ultimately

1066
01:46:36,560 --> 01:46:41,720
 come in and do any of those commercial or residential uses that are allowed in the mixed

1067
01:46:41,720 --> 01:46:44,920
 use regional district.

1068
01:46:44,920 --> 01:46:50,960
 So with all of these cases we did send out notifications to the members of the public

1069
01:46:50,960 --> 01:46:56,600
 within 200 feet or property owners within 200 feet and courtesy notice for residents

1070
01:46:56,600 --> 01:47:02,200
 within 500 feet as you can see around the property there are no residences but there

1071
01:47:02,200 --> 01:47:08,520
 are a few property owners that we did send out and as of the writing or preparation of

1072
01:47:08,520 --> 01:47:15,560
 this report and as of this evening we have not received any comments in response to either

1073
01:47:15,560 --> 01:47:18,160
 of these requests.

1074
01:47:18,160 --> 01:47:22,400
 With that staff is recommending approval of the rezoning requests in conjunction with

1075
01:47:22,400 --> 01:47:27,880
 the other two requests the comprehensive plan amendment and the mobility plan amendment.

1076
01:47:27,880 --> 01:47:32,720
 This is a reminder that again this is three separate cases comprehensive plan amendment

1077
01:47:32,720 --> 01:47:38,560
 to from agricultural flume to regional mixed use flume a mobility plan amendment to remove

1078
01:47:38,560 --> 01:47:43,480
 the future extension of Seawolf Road between US 380 and Jackson Road and then a zoning

1079
01:47:43,480 --> 01:47:50,240
 change from rural residential and residential to to the mixed use regional in our district.

1080
01:47:50,240 --> 01:47:53,640
 That concludes my presentation I believe the applicants are here if you have any questions

1081
01:47:53,640 --> 01:47:59,820
 for them as well and I will happily take any questions at this time.

1082
01:47:59,820 --> 01:48:04,440
 Questions of staff from the commission at this time commissioner Dyer.

1083
01:48:04,440 --> 01:48:15,920
 Oh okay anyone else commissioner Mcduff. Ms. Huns I have a question that I've written down

1084
01:48:15,920 --> 01:48:23,560
 that I didn't ask in our work session but where is the Jackson Cemetery and is it adjacent

1085
01:48:23,560 --> 01:48:29,920
 to this area on 380.

1086
01:48:29,920 --> 01:48:46,600
 I am not sure does that cemetery sound familiar to anyone I think from cemetery.

1087
01:48:46,600 --> 01:48:52,080
 No it is appears it's on Jackson Road adjacent to FM 156 so it would be further west from

1088
01:48:52,080 --> 01:48:53,080
 here.

1089
01:48:53,080 --> 01:48:54,080
 Thanks.

1090
01:48:54,080 --> 01:49:04,400
 Ms. Hines could you identify just on this map here where the outer loop not outer loop

1091
01:49:04,400 --> 01:49:12,300
 loop 288 west extension is planned to intersect 380 just so we can get a bounds.

1092
01:49:12,300 --> 01:49:26,640
 I don't think it would be in the let's see in fact we have someone here from transportation.

1093
01:49:26,640 --> 01:49:28,840
 Thank you.

1094
01:49:28,840 --> 01:49:40,240
 Good evening commissioners Chandra city traffic engineer so more the loop 288 west connections

1095
01:49:40,240 --> 01:49:49,800
 and fall closer to the Denton Airport so you are looking at somewhere in this area.

1096
01:49:49,800 --> 01:49:54,880
 Thank you any other questions of staff commissioner Dyer.

1097
01:49:54,880 --> 01:50:08,320
 Yes with the rerouting of that arterial route with what was it 1500 homes and the possible

1098
01:50:08,320 --> 01:50:16,720
 600 units for an apartment.

1099
01:50:16,720 --> 01:50:26,480
 This is crumb school district correct I am not pretty sure.

1100
01:50:26,480 --> 01:50:34,760
 I just remember when one of the phases we voted on a few months ago and we had the people

1101
01:50:34,760 --> 01:50:42,880
 from the community just to the east of this where they were having issues with the bus

1102
01:50:42,880 --> 01:50:55,080
 routes how will the residents in this community both single family and the multi family will

1103
01:50:55,080 --> 01:51:02,720
 they be affected negatively with this arterial will that be enough with having to reroute

1104
01:51:02,720 --> 01:51:03,720
 it.

1105
01:51:03,720 --> 01:51:08,600
 The traffic study what they've done came back with the level of service C or better so they

1106
01:51:08,600 --> 01:51:16,600
 have Thomas Egan to the right and we are building a traffic signal at US 380 and Thomas Egan

1107
01:51:16,600 --> 01:51:20,800
 and this proposed collector will also serve as the north south collector connecting to

1108
01:51:20,800 --> 01:51:31,640
 the future east west roadway and this flood plain that road we eliminated here would be

1109
01:51:31,640 --> 01:51:38,440
 offset by this north south internal roadway so we have plenty of connections and FM 156

1110
01:51:38,440 --> 01:51:40,240
 to the west.

1111
01:51:40,240 --> 01:51:49,240
 Thank you.

1112
01:51:49,240 --> 01:51:53,200
 When I look at this subject parcel it looks like it's access would be taking on off of

1113
01:51:53,200 --> 01:52:03,440
 380 is that correct yes and can you remind us I think in our mobility plan and the discussion

1114
01:52:03,440 --> 01:52:13,120
 that the mobility committee has been having about safety on these wider higher speed roads

1115
01:52:13,120 --> 01:52:19,800
 help me understand how this and other pieces that staff talked about is not turning this

1116
01:52:19,800 --> 01:52:26,040
 corridor into a corridor very similar to one of those that we see on our high injury network

1117
01:52:26,040 --> 01:52:29,060
 or is it basically doing that and we're just okay with that.

1118
01:52:29,060 --> 01:52:35,720
 So we had a meeting with Techstart two weeks ago so they don't wanted many signals at this

1119
01:52:35,720 --> 01:52:45,400
 corridor so they are proposing R cut which is the restricted left turns in that way signals

1120
01:52:45,400 --> 01:52:51,160
 would be eliminated and then people making right turns will have to make a U turn to

1121
01:52:51,160 --> 01:52:58,440
 go so there will be median openings for these developments and that's a much safer option

1122
01:52:58,440 --> 01:53:06,840
 so they are proposing to have these new kind of median openings unlike you see east of

1123
01:53:06,840 --> 01:53:14,480
 here at marsh branch are 35 they're eliminating these traffic lights so they seem to claim

1124
01:53:14,480 --> 01:53:21,120
 Techstart much safer than how it is due to the high speeds the minute you cross marsh

1125
01:53:21,120 --> 01:53:28,880
 branch and closer to FM 156 it goes to 70 75 miles per hour so they are taking safety

1126
01:53:28,880 --> 01:53:34,520
 into consideration so they're saying that that hooded left turn median openings are

1127
01:53:34,520 --> 01:53:40,920
 safer than what alternative the traffic lights so with all the movements and are they safer

1128
01:53:40,920 --> 01:53:47,840
 than not having development adjacent to this for high speed highway not really they are

1129
01:53:47,840 --> 01:53:54,920
 making the developers build these right turn diesel lanes and acceleration lanes so in

1130
01:53:54,920 --> 01:54:01,920
 that way they slow down before they enter or exit okay but it's still a worse safety

1131
01:54:01,920 --> 01:54:09,160
 situation than what we have today yes okay thank you I don't want to get away from your

1132
01:54:09,160 --> 01:54:16,900
 question about schools and everything okay yeah that's fine just want to quickly provide

1133
01:54:16,900 --> 01:54:24,000
 you an answer yes it is crumb ISD that boundary extends over to marsh branch road I don't

1134
01:54:24,000 --> 01:54:30,840
 have a card this is a public hearing I will already open to the public hearing I don't

1135
01:54:30,840 --> 01:54:36,320
 have a card from the applicant but if you would like to speak the applicant does get

1136
01:54:36,320 --> 01:54:44,200
 that ability you have actually affords up to 20 minutes between whoever would like to

1137
01:54:44,200 --> 01:54:49,440
 speak but but the floor is yours just say your name and address and good evening trey

1138
01:54:49,440 --> 01:54:55,920
 Sullivan with dr horton multifamily so originally when we started looking at this tract the

1139
01:54:55,920 --> 01:55:01,060
 home builder you know they have plans for the 1500 single-family lots and we got brought

1140
01:55:01,060 --> 01:55:05,640
 into it you know a little bit later in the game but it was entitled for the 300 units

1141
01:55:05,640 --> 01:55:11,800
 originally and so last year we went back to the city and requested some additional units

1142
01:55:11,800 --> 01:55:15,120
 because the product type that we build you know it's a little bit more dense I think

1143
01:55:15,120 --> 01:55:20,980
 than what it was allowing it's a it's a bigger tract it's 41 acres and so I believe it was

1144
01:55:20,980 --> 01:55:25,560
 August of last year at City Council it got approved to give us the additional 325 units

1145
01:55:25,560 --> 01:55:29,840
 for phase two so we're currently in plans for phase one I think we'll probably start

1146
01:55:29,840 --> 01:55:35,680
 construction probably February and I think the start date on this one depending on how

1147
01:55:35,680 --> 01:55:40,560
 this and the City Council meeting goes but we'd probably look at that starting in q1

1148
01:55:40,560 --> 01:55:47,560
 of 2027 and we do have plans for D cell lane for the first phase and we haven't gone through

1149
01:55:47,560 --> 01:55:52,400
 all the studies and everything yet just because of where we are in the process but you know

1150
01:55:52,400 --> 01:55:57,800
 I think there's been conversations about D cell lanes on phase two as well so you know

1151
01:55:57,800 --> 01:56:04,200
 I think as part of the process we had to we had to take this property out of the mud which

1152
01:56:04,200 --> 01:56:08,480
 was part of the development agreement from last year and then we had to annex it which

1153
01:56:08,480 --> 01:56:12,840
 we did last month and now we're going through the zoning process of this as well so it mimics

1154
01:56:12,840 --> 01:56:16,680
 kind of what we agreed to in the development agreement so we're just pushing the process

1155
01:56:16,680 --> 01:56:18,680
 forward now.

1156
01:56:18,680 --> 01:56:24,760
 Okay thank you Commissioner Dyer I bet you have a question for our applicant.

1157
01:56:24,760 --> 01:56:31,720
 I do so I understand that when you and the city are required to send notices that you

1158
01:56:31,720 --> 01:56:39,680
 know there are boundary guidelines that are you know put forth by the state and this is

1159
01:56:39,680 --> 01:56:44,640
 one of the things that's hard when you're developing and you're a developer is sometimes

1160
01:56:44,640 --> 01:56:51,800
 you are your own neighbor did you as a developer did you make any attempt for the homeowners

1161
01:56:51,800 --> 01:56:55,720
 there because you know it was stated that there was no object there was no nothing no

1162
01:56:55,720 --> 01:57:01,400
 objection no for but it also basically showed that none of the homeowners that are currently

1163
01:57:01,400 --> 01:57:09,360
 there got a notice about the you know the planned apartment buildings did you guys you

1164
01:57:09,360 --> 01:57:14,320
 know just out of courtesy to the community say hey this is in the plans and we're talking

1165
01:57:14,320 --> 01:57:18,920
 about this like yeah so the the 1,500 lots that are in question up there that's what

1166
01:57:18,920 --> 01:57:25,440
 D.R. Horton as well so they this has always been a master plan community you can see there's

1167
01:57:25,440 --> 01:57:29,120
 a little bit of parcel just to the south where the home builder is that scheduled for retail

1168
01:57:29,120 --> 01:57:33,040
 so that's that's not us that's a different group but it's always been a part of the plan

1169
01:57:33,040 --> 01:57:36,680
 to bring in multifamily to this area and so it's always been a part of the master plan

1170
01:57:36,680 --> 01:57:37,680
 so.

1171
01:57:37,680 --> 01:57:39,760
 So your homeowners are knew that when they were buying.

1172
01:57:39,760 --> 01:57:40,760
 Yes.

1173
01:57:40,760 --> 01:57:41,760
 Okay.

1174
01:57:41,760 --> 01:57:53,060
 Other questions I have one just on the timeline that you were talking about you were talking

1175
01:57:53,060 --> 01:58:01,760
 about like breaking like turning dirt doing a grading in first quarter twenty seven.

1176
01:58:01,760 --> 01:58:06,440
 That would be for the second phase there's two phases there's one that is in the mud

1177
01:58:06,440 --> 01:58:11,660
 and in the E.T.J. still so this this tract we're looking at here this is just the one

1178
01:58:11,660 --> 01:58:15,280
 that we're in that we've annexed into the city.

1179
01:58:15,280 --> 01:58:20,680
 So like we said earlier you know the city they wanted the impact fees taxes and so we

1180
01:58:20,680 --> 01:58:27,320
 agreed to get the additional density to annex it and then zone it into city of Denton.

1181
01:58:27,320 --> 01:58:32,200
 Okay so when you talk about phase one you're not talking about phase one remaining part

1182
01:58:32,200 --> 01:58:37,280
 of the mud that's not adjacent to the first.

1183
01:58:37,280 --> 01:58:40,160
 And then phase two would be the subject parcel yes.

1184
01:58:40,160 --> 01:58:41,800
 Understood.

1185
01:58:41,800 --> 01:58:50,000
 So I guess I'm trying to understand just so that we know what our flexibility is here.

1186
01:58:50,000 --> 01:59:00,380
 At what point during twenty twenty six what's the latest point that you could.

1187
01:59:00,380 --> 01:59:07,780
 Get the zoning change in order to stay on your preferred schedule of twenty twenty seven

1188
01:59:07,780 --> 01:59:08,780
 starting phase two.

1189
01:59:08,780 --> 01:59:13,760
 It's a tough question but I think you know going through phase one we've seen it takes

1190
01:59:13,760 --> 01:59:15,760
 about a year to get through it.

1191
01:59:15,760 --> 01:59:22,760
 So we we to get through the zoning no no no to get through the civil engineering to get

1192
01:59:22,760 --> 01:59:26,640
 through text dot approval so we're still not approved on phase one we probably kicked everything

1193
01:59:26,640 --> 01:59:30,820
 off in February March of last year so it's take us about twelve months so that's what

1194
01:59:30,820 --> 01:59:35,160
 I anticipate phase two would take as well.

1195
01:59:35,160 --> 01:59:44,160
 And of of the remaining items that you have to do other than the zoning application are

1196
01:59:44,160 --> 01:59:49,320
 those things that you can do concurrently with the zoning application or are they things

1197
01:59:49,320 --> 01:59:55,000
 that you can't start because of any requirements until you have the zoning.

1198
01:59:55,000 --> 01:59:59,800
 We would not start it until we have this okay just from a risk perspective yes sir okay

1199
01:59:59,800 --> 02:00:00,800
 thank you.

1200
02:00:00,800 --> 02:00:07,640
 Any other questions the applicant don't see any thank you very much this is a public hearing

1201
02:00:07,640 --> 02:00:13,640
 I do not have any cards on this item wishing to speak but if you would like to speak you're

1202
02:00:13,640 --> 02:00:22,600
 more than welcome to come down.

1203
02:00:22,600 --> 02:00:26,800
 Any other questions or discussion commissioner Riggs I'll make a motion to approve item five

1204
02:00:26,800 --> 02:00:43,680
 A B and C and I'll second that we sorry just a second we yeah yeah yeah sorry just to remind

1205
02:00:43,680 --> 02:00:50,960
 I'll ask that we withdraw those motions and move one by one but I have a question for

1206
02:00:50,960 --> 02:01:02,760
 staff just to set the the historical record here I think I am actually the one who suggested

1207
02:01:02,760 --> 02:01:10,000
 that we have to have some sort of plan for retail west of three eighty because if all

1208
02:01:10,000 --> 02:01:18,640
 when all these muds come in it it's already taking twenty minutes to go eastbound on three

1209
02:01:18,640 --> 02:01:24,480
 eighty at thirty five and get through that light and so there has to be something you

1210
02:01:24,480 --> 02:01:31,120
 mentioned that there's plans for future commercial here right now that's zoned R2 so I'm assuming

1211
02:01:31,120 --> 02:01:38,720
 that may be a an application that's forthcoming or already in the process we don't have visibility

1212
02:01:38,720 --> 02:01:42,960
 you know most of the land to the south of three eighty is ETJ I don't know if any of

1213
02:01:42,960 --> 02:01:49,480
 that is being annexed or not we just don't have visibility on this commission as to how

1214
02:01:49,480 --> 02:01:55,480
 all the pieces fit together right and so my question and I know this is going to be hard

1215
02:01:55,480 --> 02:02:08,560
 to answer I apologize is if it were staff's desire or direction to try to take a more

1216
02:02:08,560 --> 02:02:14,360
 holistic view of okay hold on instead of coming in for comp plan amendments for all these

1217
02:02:14,360 --> 02:02:21,360
 seven separate applications let's come back show what the future roadway network with

1218
02:02:21,360 --> 02:02:25,800
 two eighty eight west and everything else is going to be let's explain how we're going

1219
02:02:25,800 --> 02:02:33,280
 to mitigate safety issues with backage roads and other things and and let's show you where

1220
02:02:33,280 --> 02:02:38,880
 areas of commerce are going to be contiguous right I just don't see that now so if that

1221
02:02:38,880 --> 02:02:47,040
 were the the desire of the commission realistically how how long would it take staff to to put

1222
02:02:47,040 --> 02:02:52,240
 that together as a comp plan amendment and and bring that back I'll start and then look

1223
02:02:52,240 --> 02:02:58,880
 to Haley as she is the one that sets our priorities and things from a staff level so some of it

1224
02:02:58,880 --> 02:03:04,640
 is bearing the the at the rate that the applicants are ready to develop so if they're ready to

1225
02:03:04,640 --> 02:03:10,160
 develop in a time where staff isn't it isn't priority for staff to take on a comprehensive

1226
02:03:10,160 --> 02:03:14,160
 approach and they're ready to move forward then we evaluate the applications according

1227
02:03:14,160 --> 02:03:17,440
 to the time that they submit and are trying to move forward we try to work with them with

1228
02:03:17,440 --> 02:03:25,220
 their their timelines and things of that nature as far as I think taking on a more comprehensive

1229
02:03:25,220 --> 02:03:30,760
 comprehensive plan amendment for example if I could stretch that I did one of the comments

1230
02:03:30,760 --> 02:03:38,040
 that I had for this comprehensive plan was to consider the that that longer court or

1231
02:03:38,040 --> 02:03:41,520
 the application that we have coming forward for the rest of that commercial piece and

1232
02:03:41,520 --> 02:03:46,080
 try to make this all as as one again they are different applicants they are different

1233
02:03:46,080 --> 02:03:50,800
 developers and so they're financing on their application side and that's between that's

1234
02:03:50,800 --> 02:03:54,680
 between them we made that suggestion and we try to again work with them on the timing

1235
02:03:54,680 --> 02:04:01,080
 I believe that if it is the commission's direction that as we get if we get comprehensive plans

1236
02:04:01,080 --> 02:04:04,240
 we look at them holistically I think that we could take that on but I'll I'll point

1237
02:04:04,240 --> 02:04:10,600
 to Haley to answer that say to your question of how long that would take the more recent

1238
02:04:10,600 --> 02:04:16,280
 example of the east side of 380 I would say before that ever came to you all had a solid

1239
02:04:16,280 --> 02:04:21,400
 probably close to a year of staff analysis and thought put into it so it would be a lengthier

1240
02:04:21,400 --> 02:04:25,620
 process given that we don't have budget to hire a consultant to help us with the work

1241
02:04:25,620 --> 02:04:30,880
 for staff to take on the work of doing a broader analysis of this corridor and and taking that

1242
02:04:30,880 --> 02:04:35,940
 holistic approach to all of the west side of 380 if that's what you had in mind okay

1243
02:04:35,940 --> 02:04:46,520
 yeah no I appreciate that I yeah that helps I guess from my perspective it scares me a

1244
02:04:46,520 --> 02:04:55,160
 little that it would take a year for staff to do that because as you mentioned it would

1245
02:04:55,160 --> 02:05:02,760
 take additional analysis well what I hear when I hear that is we don't we haven't really

1246
02:05:02,760 --> 02:05:06,800
 put all the pieces together yet so we need to do that and we need to look at how it's

1247
02:05:06,800 --> 02:05:17,840
 going to operate before there's confidence in that direction is that accurate I would

1248
02:05:17,840 --> 02:05:21,840
 yes I think you're accurate on that I would say the commission has to be mindful we're

1249
02:05:21,840 --> 02:05:27,960
 a very high development city so staffs focus the majority of the time that we are in the

1250
02:05:27,960 --> 02:05:32,160
 office is on reviewing the applications that are before us and being able to react to those

1251
02:05:32,160 --> 02:05:37,120
 so to have the time to put into an independent study and analysis of that sort is why that

1252
02:05:37,120 --> 02:05:40,520
 would say I would say at least like eight to twelve months to get something of that

1253
02:05:40,520 --> 02:05:51,800
 sort done okay I understand that with that I think I've explained kind of three questions

1254
02:05:51,800 --> 02:05:59,520
 what my concerns are I understand that the applicant is eager to get under construction

1255
02:05:59,520 --> 02:06:09,080
 I understand there was some prior agreement or understanding with the annexation agreement

1256
02:06:09,080 --> 02:06:17,960
 but we only get the city that we want and that conforms to our plans when we actually

1257
02:06:17,960 --> 02:06:28,160
 do the planning before the development and like staff has said this is it's a it's a

1258
02:06:28,160 --> 02:06:33,360
 crazy time we've got a whole bunch of projects we've got applicants trying to speed up and

1259
02:06:33,360 --> 02:06:39,440
 get things in the ground before you know or at least get things approved before interest

1260
02:06:39,440 --> 02:06:46,600
 rates do something which they haven't really done much of yet in the last year and a half

1261
02:06:46,600 --> 02:06:54,480
 so I'm sensitive to those concerns but with that I'm going to move that we table the comprehensive

1262
02:06:54,480 --> 02:07:00,800
 plan amendment until an event certain where staff can come back with a more holistic comprehensive

1263
02:07:00,800 --> 02:07:08,420
 plan amendment that includes development within this corridor specifically from sort of the

1264
02:07:08,420 --> 02:07:20,360
 28 West intersection or interchange with 380 over to to this western terminus of our city

1265
02:07:20,360 --> 02:07:27,640
 and we'll see if that gets a second in any interest so that's that's my motion I still

1266
02:07:27,640 --> 02:07:41,120
 stand by my motion to to pass 5a okay I'll second the motion to pass to adopt so there's

1267
02:07:41,120 --> 02:07:48,000
 a main motion on the table to to adopt the the motion to table is a subsidiary motion

1268
02:07:48,000 --> 02:07:55,760
 which if it gets a second then we would vote on that first so I'm just asking if there's

1269
02:07:55,760 --> 02:08:03,720
 a second I'll second to table it okay second by Commissioner Garland any other discussion

1270
02:08:03,720 --> 02:08:10,040
 or questions I don't want to waste time because we have other public hearings but I want to

1271
02:08:10,040 --> 02:08:20,800
 make sure everybody kind of understands what people's positions are that make sense anything

1272
02:08:20,800 --> 02:08:27,080
 yes Commissioner Macduff I think it's time for a clarification since we have a second

1273
02:08:27,080 --> 02:08:33,640
 I believe we're only voting to table the first proposal correct that is correct deals with

1274
02:08:33,640 --> 02:08:40,320
 the comprehensive plan and is it your thought process and that the second and the third

1275
02:08:40,320 --> 02:08:49,080
 we would vote on those I'm of the opinion that the mobility plan amendment kind of stands

1276
02:08:49,080 --> 02:08:55,800
 independently so I would be happy to take a motion on that certainly the zoning change

1277
02:08:55,800 --> 02:09:03,320
 could be moved on without the comprehensive plan amendment that's you know typically we

1278
02:09:03,320 --> 02:09:09,640
 like to have the comprehensive plan in agreement with that but that's why we do these these

1279
02:09:09,640 --> 02:09:16,480
 applications in this order but but yeah I mean I think the way the agenda is laid out

1280
02:09:16,480 --> 02:09:21,960
 we could certainly have still three motions on those three independent items the staff

1281
02:09:21,960 --> 02:09:31,840
 of comments Charlie yeah thank you chair Charlie Rosendahl interim director of development

1282
02:09:31,840 --> 02:09:37,120
 I do want to point out as we mentioned in the work session the city staff is intending

1283
02:09:37,120 --> 02:09:42,600
 to apply for a grant we've got an approval to apply for a grant that would allow us to

1284
02:09:42,600 --> 02:09:47,800
 go through the process of updating the comprehensive plan and then separately we're also working

1285
02:09:47,800 --> 02:09:52,320
 on a grant that would update the mobility plan so those items are in the works and will

1286
02:09:52,320 --> 02:09:59,960
 be coming forward before this council in the future yeah thank you for that reminder you

1287
02:09:59,960 --> 02:10:04,600
 know the reason I motioned that way is that I think it's important that we see the whole

1288
02:10:04,600 --> 02:10:12,220
 picture of this smaller region before we checkerboard it with the type of development that's happened

1289
02:10:12,220 --> 02:10:19,200
 east of Denton on 380 and I think the the the history of resident opposition to that

1290
02:10:19,200 --> 02:10:24,400
 speaks loudly yeah I understand I was just trying to point out that that that larger

1291
02:10:24,400 --> 02:10:29,960
 picture is is coming and is planned for it understood it's it's the order than I'm concerned

1292
02:10:29,960 --> 02:10:38,920
 with discussions or questions I'll just kind of say kind of kind of where I'm at on it

1293
02:10:38,920 --> 02:10:44,560
 is this was something that we knew was coming we we annexed it we annexed this property

1294
02:10:44,560 --> 02:10:50,240
 in and the first thing you do when you annex it in is we basically annex it in and somebody

1295
02:10:50,240 --> 02:10:54,680
 please correct me if I'm misstating but an accident essentially is agricultural and then

1296
02:10:54,680 --> 02:11:01,120
 it comes in and the zoning is given that matches basically what the plan is and so this has

1297
02:11:01,120 --> 02:11:06,160
 already gone through a lot of analysis and a lot of planning and this is just fulfilling

1298
02:11:06,160 --> 02:11:13,400
 that plan I I think no matter what you do along west west over here near 380 the traffic

1299
02:11:13,400 --> 02:11:17,440
 is in the going to end up on 380 no matter what whether it's got a direct connect to

1300
02:11:17,440 --> 02:11:22,600
 it or not and I think that's one of the reasons why we do have our mobility plan and we do

1301
02:11:22,600 --> 02:11:28,960
 have the city staff is sharing with text dot kind of how all that's supposed to kind of

1302
02:11:28,960 --> 02:11:35,120
 plan out I will say if we if we want to table the comprehensive plan I don't think it makes

1303
02:11:35,120 --> 02:11:41,160
 sense to do a zoning change because now we're we're basically making a zoning change that's

1304
02:11:41,160 --> 02:11:47,360
 not going to meet the comprehensive plan and so but in order to get kind of what you're

1305
02:11:47,360 --> 02:11:52,800
 wanting with a very comprehensive plan update we're essentially going to say people can't

1306
02:11:52,800 --> 02:11:58,680
 do anything with their property along 380 develop it sell it you know for a year and

1307
02:11:58,680 --> 02:12:03,480
 a half to say let's say it takes a year to get the comprehensive plan updated and takes

1308
02:12:03,480 --> 02:12:07,400
 six months to get it through all the different committees so you're basically saying that

1309
02:12:07,400 --> 02:12:11,520
 nobody can do anything with their property for two years that's I don't think that's

1310
02:12:11,520 --> 02:12:20,320
 right either yeah I mean I think I'm I'm sensitive to that it's unfortunate at the same time

1311
02:12:20,320 --> 02:12:27,600
 this body the planning and zoning commission is not part of the annexation process so we

1312
02:12:27,600 --> 02:12:33,720
 didn't get an opportunity to hear or deliberate on those agreements that you're referring

1313
02:12:33,720 --> 02:12:38,280
 to right understand that those are conversations that happen between staff and the applicant

1314
02:12:38,280 --> 02:12:48,200
 and with council but this is our first bite of the apple yeah I mean my again I just think

1315
02:12:48,200 --> 02:12:56,520
 the order is important so any other questions before we call for a roll call not really

1316
02:12:56,520 --> 02:13:02,640
 questions I mean I agree with Commissioner Riggs when it goes through this process of

1317
02:13:02,640 --> 02:13:07,560
 like annexation and the different approvals you know whether it's our body or the city

1318
02:13:07,560 --> 02:13:12,520
 council it's kind of with that intention of what everybody knows is going to eventually

1319
02:13:12,520 --> 02:13:18,720
 happen I don't really like the fact that tech start is coming back and saying you have to

1320
02:13:18,720 --> 02:13:26,040
 have these decel lanes and all of this because in my mind when you look at 35 and everything

1321
02:13:26,040 --> 02:13:32,960
 going west on 380 my guess is 10 years from now 20 years from now it's going to mirror

1322
02:13:32,960 --> 02:13:39,340
 the east side of 380 and there are stoplights along the way because of traffic and safety

1323
02:13:39,340 --> 02:13:49,080
 concerns and you know especially this the new arterial that's going to go in around

1324
02:13:49,080 --> 02:13:56,120
 the floodplain that's going to be a major bus route commuter route and we already heard

1325
02:13:56,120 --> 02:14:01,960
 from that small community just east of this area about the concerns with traffic and busing

1326
02:14:01,960 --> 02:14:08,880
 and those kids basically being dropped off on 380 to walk on that sidewalk and this is

1327
02:14:08,880 --> 02:14:16,080
 what's hard is because it is it's the chicken and the egg thing text that won't come until

1328
02:14:16,080 --> 02:14:25,880
 there's houses and retail houses and retail sometimes won't come until there's major roads

1329
02:14:25,880 --> 02:14:30,880
 and so somebody has to just make the move first and if we table it and wait a year and

1330
02:14:30,880 --> 02:14:37,500
 a half then that's just going to prevent tech start you know coming in with the roads which

1331
02:14:37,500 --> 02:14:42,320
 everybody complains about as you get these houses but yet you don't have the roads to

1332
02:14:42,320 --> 02:14:49,400
 satisfy them so these are the growing pains and these are the tough decisions that you

1333
02:14:49,400 --> 02:14:55,800
 know this this body has to make and then on to the City Council I would agree you know

1334
02:14:55,800 --> 02:15:01,760
 with Commissioner Riggs and let's just move forward and do a vote okay thank you just

1335
02:15:01,760 --> 02:15:10,400
 point of clarification Steph Chandra I think I know for a fair distance 380 has already

1336
02:15:10,400 --> 02:15:15,280
 been widened to six lanes out here six lanes in this corner so it's so it's all the way

1337
02:15:15,280 --> 02:15:21,680
 out to where we're talking about so there's not a in other words that that roadway is

1338
02:15:21,680 --> 02:15:30,480
 already widened so as far as a capacity concern there it's more the access things that the

1339
02:15:30,480 --> 02:15:35,200
 developer would do to build diesel lanes and that sort of thing for the development it's

1340
02:15:35,200 --> 02:15:40,620
 not a regional capacity thing that tech start is waiting on more development to do right

1341
02:15:40,620 --> 02:15:49,940
 okay thank you all right seeing no more discussion or questions at this time since nobody has

1342
02:15:49,940 --> 02:15:57,240
 come down I will close the public hearing and at this time I'll call for a roll call

1343
02:15:57,240 --> 02:16:05,840
 vote because we still don't have buttons Commissioner McDuff okay so I'm a nice table I'm sorry

1344
02:16:05,840 --> 02:16:13,720
 yeah the what we're voting on is the the motion to table this to an event sort of table the

1345
02:16:13,720 --> 02:16:21,920
 comprehensive plan amendment which is item 5a until an event certain where staff can

1346
02:16:21,920 --> 02:16:33,640
 bring back a more micro regional plan of this area between the 288 West 380 corridor yes

1347
02:16:33,640 --> 02:16:44,360
 and to repeat I'm a native table but I do so in support of a study a comprehensive study

1348
02:16:44,360 --> 02:16:51,720
 but today this evening I'd like to move forward with this but I am in full support I'll say

1349
02:16:51,720 --> 02:17:00,920
 that for the record of a comprehensive study for the 380 corridor West okay so you vote

1350
02:17:00,920 --> 02:17:08,280
 nay nay Commissioner Riggs I vote nay also but I do want to echo what Commissioner McDuff

1351
02:17:08,280 --> 02:17:13,880
 said I do think it's important to do the comprehensive plan and I totally support that but I we can't

1352
02:17:13,880 --> 02:17:19,400
 just shut everything down at the same time while we're waiting for that okay chair is

1353
02:17:19,400 --> 02:17:26,320
 an eye Commissioner Ketter said nay Commissioner Duff I'm gonna vote nay but I agree we need

1354
02:17:26,320 --> 02:17:32,560
 to have there's so much growth and as you can see with landmark and coal ranch and Craver

1355
02:17:32,560 --> 02:17:36,400
 Ranch we've got so much development that I think it's time that the comprehensive plan

1356
02:17:36,400 --> 02:17:44,720
 needs to have a full a full review and update and Commissioner Carlin and I'm I okay that

1357
02:17:44,720 --> 02:17:52,360
 motion fails 2 to 4 so now we're back to the the primary motion which is to approve the

1358
02:17:52,360 --> 02:17:57,640
 the comprehensive plan amendment that can I get clarification on what your motion was

1359
02:17:57,640 --> 02:18:02,200
 because I think it's cleaner from a staff perspective if we do one at a time yeah I'll

1360
02:18:02,200 --> 02:18:09,800
 restate the motion basically I make a motion to recommend approval to council of item 5a

1361
02:18:09,800 --> 02:18:22,040
 I yeah okay not see any and Commissioner Ketter said I need to second sure okay I do second

1362
02:18:22,040 --> 02:18:31,460
 thank you not seeing any discussion I'll call for a vote Commissioner McDuff aye and Commissioner

1363
02:18:31,460 --> 02:18:44,000
 Griggs Griggs I the chair is a nay and I'll just say that's because at this point I I

1364
02:18:44,000 --> 02:18:52,320
 don't think the community wants another 380 East and I will not vote to build things in

1365
02:18:52,320 --> 02:19:04,720
 a way that will kill people Commissioner Ketter said I Commissioner McDuff dire dire I will

1366
02:19:04,720 --> 02:19:12,000
 vote I very good and Commissioner Garland and I will vote nay that motion passes 4 to

1367
02:19:12,000 --> 02:19:20,920
 2 so the comprehensive plan amendment is approved Eric two more items I just want to echo your

1368
02:19:20,920 --> 02:19:27,540
 sentiments to I don't want to prove anything that's going to cause people to die we heard

1369
02:19:27,540 --> 02:19:36,760
 from staff that building this will result in a less safe quarter than what we have today

1370
02:19:36,760 --> 02:19:44,000
 so do we have a motion or any questions or discussion on on the second item mobility

1371
02:19:44,000 --> 02:19:49,840
 plan amendment I'll make a motion to approve item 5b or to recommend approval to council

1372
02:19:49,840 --> 02:20:01,240
 105b okay and any second I'll second that second by Commissioner Ketter said any discussion

1373
02:20:01,240 --> 02:20:10,400
 or questions seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board Commissioner McDuff aye Commissioner

1374
02:20:10,400 --> 02:20:18,640
 Griggs aye chair is an aye again because I don't think that the presence of that arterial

1375
02:20:18,640 --> 02:20:24,960
 really impacts the safety along the corridor and and we don't want to build 300 million

1376
02:20:24,960 --> 02:20:31,360
 dollar bridges that the city needs to maintain after that Commissioner Ketter said I Commissioner

1377
02:20:31,360 --> 02:20:41,720
 McDuff tire I am sorry Commissioner I'm going to vote I but I I hope that somehow the developer

1378
02:20:41,720 --> 02:20:49,720
 in the city can convince tax dot to let cars go right and left out of that on to 380 instead

1379
02:20:49,720 --> 02:20:54,720
 of having to go right and then go to the next intersection and do a u-turn for those individuals

1380
02:20:54,720 --> 02:20:59,080
 leaving that community that would like to head east on 380 I don't know how you have

1381
02:20:59,080 --> 02:21:05,160
 that I don't know how you make that happen but that would be the safer route a street

1382
02:21:05,160 --> 02:21:21,120
 light intersection normal okay and Commissioner Garland I okay that item passes 6-0 yeah I'll

1383
02:21:21,120 --> 02:21:30,880
 I'll just say the the additional flexibility that would afford in my opinion would would

1384
02:21:30,880 --> 02:21:38,760
 create more injuries and more deaths it's it's a hard thing to do but you think a street

1385
02:21:38,760 --> 02:21:42,720
 light at the intersection have you seen how many people run the red lights these days

1386
02:21:42,720 --> 02:21:51,760
 okay that brings us to do we have a motion on the zoning change item item 5c I'll make

1387
02:21:51,760 --> 02:21:58,560
 a motion to recommend approval to council on item 5c motion by Commissioner Riggs do

1388
02:21:58,560 --> 02:22:06,960
 we have a second Commissioner McDuff I'll second that motion motion and a second any

1389
02:22:06,960 --> 02:22:12,720
 discussion not seeing any I'll call for a roll call vote Commissioner McDuff I Commissioner

1390
02:22:12,720 --> 02:22:23,360
 Riggs I chair is a nay Commissioner Ketchers said I Commissioner Dyer I and Commissioner

1391
02:22:23,360 --> 02:22:44,520
 Garland I okay that item passes 5-1 brings us to our next public hearing item 5d z 25-15

1392
02:22:44,520 --> 02:22:50,200
 you need again chair members of the commission Mia Heinz senior planner this item is a zoning

1393
02:22:50,200 --> 02:22:59,000
 change for the estates at Craver Ranch z 25-0015 the property is just under 225 acres and

1394
02:22:59,000 --> 02:23:06,800
 the request is to rezone the property from rr to r1 to allow for the development of per

1395
02:23:06,800 --> 02:23:12,200
 the applicants stated intent one acre single-family residential lots the property is located at

1396
02:23:12,200 --> 02:23:18,840
 the southwest bend of FM 2153 as you can see that County Road bends from north to south

1397
02:23:18,840 --> 02:23:24,320
 here to east to west and the property is located sort of at the southwest corner the current

1398
02:23:24,320 --> 02:23:30,720
 zoning is rural residential and the proposed zoning is r1 there are not much differences

1399
02:23:30,720 --> 02:23:35,480
 with regard to the primary land uses that are permitted within this these zoning districts

1400
02:23:35,480 --> 02:23:42,000
 rr is intended to be a little bit more leaning towards agriculture and farm and ranch land

1401
02:23:42,000 --> 02:23:47,940
 and then r1 is typically strictly single-family residential as far as the differences with

1402
02:23:47,940 --> 02:23:53,960
 regard to dimensions rr requires a minimum five acre lots and r1 does allow for the development

1403
02:23:53,960 --> 02:23:59,120
 of s lots as small as 32,000 acres again the applicant has stated that their intent is

1404
02:23:59,120 --> 02:24:06,680
 to develop this in accordance or is to develop one acre lots on this property so we received

1405
02:24:06,680 --> 02:24:10,320
 this request and put it up against our criteria for approval and found that the proposed zoning

1406
02:24:10,320 --> 02:24:16,400
 is consistent with the r1 purpose statement additionally the proposal is generally consistent

1407
02:24:16,400 --> 02:24:21,820
 with the goals and policies of the flume the agriculture flume in this area for the Denton

1408
02:24:21,820 --> 02:24:27,560
 2040 comprehensive plan the proposed zoning and development would be compatible with surrounding

1409
02:24:27,560 --> 02:24:33,460
 contacts both within the city and the cities in ttj and then the zoning is not expected

1410
02:24:33,460 --> 02:24:40,120
 to generate significant adverse environmental infrastructure or fiscal impacts the existing

1411
02:24:40,120 --> 02:24:46,420
 agricultural flume designation and the request is compatible the r1 district is compatible

1412
02:24:46,420 --> 02:24:51,840
 with that the intent for this flume is to is to denote areas that have large tracts

1413
02:24:51,840 --> 02:24:57,080
 of land and active agricultural uses for preservation including ranch landfill crops and other similar

1414
02:24:57,080 --> 02:25:02,120
 agricultural areas but it does allow for a maximum of one unit per 10 acres but also

1415
02:25:02,120 --> 02:25:06,760
 may allow for lots as small as one acres which again has stated as the applicant's intent

1416
02:25:06,760 --> 02:25:11,600
 the city's does not have a zoning district that has a minimum district or a lot size

1417
02:25:11,600 --> 02:25:19,800
 of one acre it jumps from five acres to 32,000 square feet so the r1 district is as basically

1418
02:25:19,800 --> 02:25:25,820
 as as less intensity of a district residential district that they could go to still be able

1419
02:25:25,820 --> 02:25:32,680
 to develop one acre lots on this property this is also helping us achieve other goals

1420
02:25:32,680 --> 02:25:38,600
 to grow resourcefully given that the recently approved craver ranch development is coming

1421
02:25:38,600 --> 02:25:44,000
 with some utility improvements in this area as well as growing with balance establishing

1422
02:25:44,000 --> 02:25:49,000
 a land use designation that is responding to the needs and character specifications

1423
02:25:49,000 --> 02:25:54,720
 of the denton community we do see that with the craver ranch developments of the southwest

1424
02:25:54,720 --> 02:26:00,040
 there's incoming a mix of housing types and densities that i'll get into here in a second

1425
02:26:00,040 --> 02:26:05,720
 and this would provide a completely different housing product that is a larger lot size

1426
02:26:05,720 --> 02:26:12,660
 a larger home while still being a density in a number of lots that would be beneficial

1427
02:26:12,660 --> 02:26:19,200
 to the city so this r1 or zoning district purpose statement is to preserve existing

1428
02:26:19,200 --> 02:26:23,940
 single-family neighborhoods ensure that any new development promotes conservation of scenic

1429
02:26:23,940 --> 02:26:30,540
 and rural areas in open space the r1 is intended to be compatible with existing land use patterns

1430
02:26:30,540 --> 02:26:36,720
 in the area and transitions between rural development and large residential neighborhoods so what

1431
02:26:36,720 --> 02:26:41,720
 i have shown here is that the craver ranch development to the southwest again was developed

1432
02:26:41,720 --> 02:26:47,360
 in the pd the approximate density and the phases adjacent to this area are ranged from

1433
02:26:47,360 --> 02:26:52,680
 about 4.5 dwelling units per acre to about 5.2 dwelling units per acre the subject property

1434
02:26:52,680 --> 02:26:58,320
 of course the intent is to develop with one acre lots but they can jump down to 32,000

1435
02:26:58,320 --> 02:27:02,440
 if this is approved as a straight rezoning and then i wanted to point out some of the

1436
02:27:02,440 --> 02:27:09,080
 other zoning that we see within the city's etj via the lake ray roberts zoning here so

1437
02:27:09,080 --> 02:27:13,920
 what we're seeing just adjacent to the property is a minimum one acre lot size again similar

1438
02:27:13,920 --> 02:27:18,640
 to what the applicant is proposing with their development i mean then on the other side

1439
02:27:18,640 --> 02:27:23,440
 of the property we see a minimum four acre lot sizes per the ray roberts lake ray roberts

1440
02:27:23,440 --> 02:27:29,520
 zoning so it is again that natural sort of serving as a transition between higher or

1441
02:27:29,520 --> 02:27:35,080
 mixed use of density here moderate low density here and then significantly lower rural kind

1442
02:27:35,080 --> 02:27:42,400
 of density within the city's etj so we did put this up against the or we did send out

1443
02:27:42,400 --> 02:27:50,420
 a notification for this property some of the property that the city of butts is or that

1444
02:27:50,420 --> 02:27:55,520
 abuts this property is within the city's etj but we did send out public hearing notices

1445
02:27:55,520 --> 02:28:03,280
 and received none in response for with regard to this case as of this evening with that

1446
02:28:03,280 --> 02:28:09,000
 stuff is recommending approval of the zoning change from r1 or from rr to r1 as it complies

1447
02:28:09,000 --> 02:28:15,360
 with the criteria and i will happily answer any questions that you have at this time the

1448
02:28:15,360 --> 02:28:19,720
 applicants are also here if you would like to ask them questions okay at this time i

1449
02:28:19,720 --> 02:28:25,020
 will open the public hearing on this item any questions for staff before we hear from

1450
02:28:25,020 --> 02:28:38,980
 applicant in the public i have one the does staff believe there's any errors in the fiscal

1451
02:28:38,980 --> 02:28:52,520
 analysis provided on this item i do not believe so okay i when considering larger lot homes

1452
02:28:52,520 --> 02:29:03,120
 the idea of getting what it says 88.5 million dollars over 40 years sounds excessive when

1453
02:29:03,120 --> 02:29:10,840
 i compare that to the impact fee roadway impact fee expected revenue it sounds like the number

1454
02:29:10,840 --> 02:29:18,040
 of homes we're expecting is about 78 and so the average home value in this area would

1455
02:29:18,040 --> 02:29:23,620
 have to be five and a half million dollars in order to make the math work so is that

1456
02:29:23,620 --> 02:29:33,280
 accurate or is there an issue here good evening commission charles rosen all interim director

1457
02:29:33,280 --> 02:29:38,800
 of development services the fiscal impact analysis that was done is using the fiscal

1458
02:29:38,800 --> 02:29:44,240
 impact tool that we've been using since 2020 that was developed by a com has been used

1459
02:29:44,240 --> 02:29:52,780
 to bring items before this commission since that time so so help me understand how it

1460
02:29:52,780 --> 02:30:00,760
 gets to 88 million over 40 years i mean we're talking about two and a half but 2.1 and one

1461
02:30:00,760 --> 02:30:07,040
 five million per year on 78 homes yeah i'm not sure i don't know the details of fiscal

1462
02:30:07,040 --> 02:30:12,160
 impact is specifically related to this development i'd have to go back and look at it further

1463
02:30:12,160 --> 02:30:18,220
 but as i stated this has been the tool that we've been using for quite some time i will

1464
02:30:18,220 --> 02:30:24,400
 add we we too initially questioned it so we did rerun the numbers several times to verify

1465
02:30:24,400 --> 02:30:29,260
 that all the inputs were correct and that is the output that was given our best assumption

1466
02:30:29,260 --> 02:30:35,000
 is it's just assuming that probably higher home value based on the lot sizes okay thank

1467
02:30:35,000 --> 02:30:40,260
 you maybe it's something that we request our cfo to come up and explain that because we've

1468
02:30:40,260 --> 02:30:45,160
 had the question now and these financial analyses and i feel like we should have somebody with

1469
02:30:45,160 --> 02:30:50,520
 a very strong finance background probably diving into that okay yeah i don't think we

1470
02:30:50,520 --> 02:30:58,280
 have anybody from staff here of that qualification right now but just wanted to to see what what

1471
02:30:58,280 --> 02:31:04,020
 the thought was thank you for the the background that helps um not seeing any more questions

1472
02:31:04,020 --> 02:31:12,880
 of staff oh yes i'm sorry um it looks like in the um maybe the the summary that was provided

1473
02:31:12,880 --> 02:31:17,940
 was an error um in my report i have the correct number which is closer to about 2.3 million

1474
02:31:17,940 --> 02:31:26,120
 over for 40 years so i'll have to get that um that sounds more like the right number

1475
02:31:26,120 --> 02:31:29,080
 to me i'll have to get that get that back to you i don't i'm not sure what happened

1476
02:31:29,080 --> 02:31:34,520
 i think maybe the wrong summary um a screenshot was added but i do know that the the tool

1477
02:31:34,520 --> 02:31:39,400
 that we when we ran reran the the numbers for the tool um what's provided in the staff

1478
02:31:39,400 --> 02:31:46,040
 analysis that number that 2.3 um i'm sorry that not the staff exhibit two is the staff

1479
02:31:46,040 --> 02:31:53,400
 analysis correct yes um that that number is the more accurate number okay so i do apologize

1480
02:31:53,400 --> 02:32:04,640
 for that no i'm just trying to understand so thank you that helps um okay uh this is

1481
02:32:04,640 --> 02:32:10,280
 a public hearing so at this time i don't have any cards the applicant is certainly willing

1482
02:32:10,280 --> 02:32:17,680
 to come speak if you would like to um or anybody other members of the public at this time if

1483
02:32:17,680 --> 02:32:25,360
 you'd like to um just does the applicant wish to speak or just here for if there's any questions

1484
02:32:25,360 --> 02:32:37,440
 okay any questions of the applicant i guess i'm just curious is my quick napkin math to

1485
02:32:37,440 --> 02:32:42,520
 show the 88 million work would would require like four it was either four and a half or

1486
02:32:42,520 --> 02:32:46,240
 five and a half million dollar homes is that the target price or is that not the target

1487
02:32:46,240 --> 02:32:51,920
 price uh alexa night the dekey law 322 west wall that's the lineup um we are not privy

1488
02:32:51,920 --> 02:32:57,480
 to to the home prices this is a separate um it's owned by the landowner and they just

1489
02:32:57,480 --> 02:33:02,480
 wanted to go through a zoning case if the craver ranch master development was approved

1490
02:33:02,480 --> 02:33:12,000
 um if that they are looking at about 115 single-family homes one acre lots okay thank you um that

1491
02:33:12,000 --> 02:33:23,680
 helps me understand what's going on uh i mentioned this at the work session um it it's a little

1492
02:33:23,680 --> 02:33:31,520
 bit different because you're not necessarily developing the property um were you made aware

1493
02:33:31,520 --> 02:33:39,000
 of the provision or suggestion in our comp plan and our code to do conservation development

1494
02:33:39,000 --> 02:33:45,680
 uh in in the rural areas uh yes and that's one thing that we took in into account when

1495
02:33:45,680 --> 02:33:50,160
 we looked at the 2500 acre master plan really trying to cluster that and leave as much open

1496
02:33:50,160 --> 02:33:54,320
 space as possible um even though it wasn't required with this there was a land plan that

1497
02:33:54,320 --> 02:34:01,520
 was done and they did leave all the floodplain and the issa area alone um we did take into

1498
02:34:01,520 --> 02:34:08,280
 account the 115 lots and the tdm and the and the drainage analysis so it's the one acre

1499
02:34:08,280 --> 02:34:18,280
 lots are as clustered as they can be um outside of the floodplain in the issa area okay i think

1500
02:34:18,280 --> 02:34:23,640
 when you read our comprehensive plan it talks about intentionally using lots much smaller

1501
02:34:23,640 --> 02:34:31,400
 than one acre uh for that purpose right okay but but i understand yeah thank you yeah uh

1502
02:34:31,400 --> 02:34:39,160
 any other questions of the applicant seeing none thank you any members of the public wishing

1503
02:34:39,160 --> 02:34:48,560
 to speak on this item not seeing any sudden movement i will close the public hearing um

1504
02:34:48,560 --> 02:34:57,920
 and open the floor for discussion or a motion i'll motion to approve okay motion to recommend

1505
02:34:57,920 --> 02:35:02,880
 approval by commissioner ketter said is there a second i'll second that's second by commissioner

1506
02:35:02,880 --> 02:35:15,880
 dyer any other questions or discussion i'll just say to me here's another example of we

1507
02:35:15,880 --> 02:35:22,560
 have a comprehensive plan it's very specific about what the community's vision for or was

1508
02:35:22,560 --> 02:35:30,000
 for the rural areas i won't belabor the the point of of what that text is because we went

1509
02:35:30,000 --> 02:35:36,720
 over that last month um and in an area like this where normally you'd have one acre lots

1510
02:35:36,720 --> 02:35:44,960
 it's how do we provide a different type of living than the rest of the dfw area is providing

1511
02:35:44,960 --> 02:35:53,220
 it's how do we cluster these homes to preserve as much land as possible but not just the

1512
02:35:53,220 --> 02:36:02,000
 floodplain or environmentally sensitive areas but just land um and it's not just for environmental

1513
02:36:02,000 --> 02:36:06,800
 and preservation reasons and habitat reasons but it's also for fiscal reasons because we

1514
02:36:06,800 --> 02:36:16,200
 can talk about um talk about lessening the length of utility and and roadways to service

1515
02:36:16,200 --> 02:36:24,320
 the development if the if the homes are clustered closer than one acre lots um you know finally

1516
02:36:24,320 --> 02:36:30,240
 i'll say uh i appreciate commissioner riggs point that that maybe in the future we could

1517
02:36:30,240 --> 02:36:37,200
 dig into this some more um but as is if if the real number is about 2.3 million instead

1518
02:36:37,200 --> 02:36:54,160
 of the 88 million then um sorry pull it up real quick here then the the 40 year um ending

1519
02:36:54,160 --> 02:37:03,360
 total right instead of being 95 million dollars positive which seems crazy um it's it's more

1520
02:37:03,360 --> 02:37:11,360
 like i guess it would be slightly positive but uh it's a very different answer so any

1521
02:37:11,360 --> 02:37:18,960
 other questions or comments yeah i would just say that i think with the with it being zoned

1522
02:37:18,960 --> 02:37:22,480
 rural residential which is the larger lots and with the craver ranch i do think this

1523
02:37:22,480 --> 02:37:28,000
 does to commissioner dyer's point and work session it is a nice buffer to those other

1524
02:37:28,000 --> 02:37:32,400
 larger lots i i totally understand your your thoughts on cluster development and i definitely

1525
02:37:32,400 --> 02:37:36,240
 am total agreement with you that they're needed and i don't know about the financial part

1526
02:37:36,240 --> 02:37:41,840
 of of your thoughts but i do think they definitely have a purpose you know i think it when we

1527
02:37:41,840 --> 02:37:50,840
 look about it there are other ways of developing areas especially in a rural fringe that save

1528
02:37:50,840 --> 02:37:57,280
 money that the residents of that area would like more i guarantee you that the future

1529
02:37:57,280 --> 02:38:01,560
 developers of this property don't want to spend two million dollars a lane mile building

1530
02:38:01,560 --> 02:38:05,960
 concrete roadways that are going to get four cars a day on them but that's what our code

1531
02:38:05,960 --> 02:38:11,440
 requires and then the city gets that roadway and we have to maintain it we have to rebuild

1532
02:38:11,440 --> 02:38:17,800
 it um you can build narrower streets you can build asphalt you can build gravel you can

1533
02:38:17,800 --> 02:38:24,040
 build bar ditches that are a whole lot cheaper than manhole drainage and in areas where there's

1534
02:38:24,040 --> 02:38:32,520
 very low impervious coverage it works great but our code doesn't allow that so not seeing

1535
02:38:32,520 --> 02:38:39,960
 any other discussion i'll call for a roll call vote commissioner mcduff aye commissioner

1536
02:38:39,960 --> 02:38:47,880
 riggs aye chair is a nay commissioner catcher said aye commissioner mcduff commissioner

1537
02:38:47,880 --> 02:38:56,320
 dire aye we're sister's girl commissioner garland nay you're both two people away from

1538
02:38:56,320 --> 02:39:06,760
 me okay that item passes four to two brings us to our next public hearing which is item

1539
02:39:06,760 --> 02:39:23,200
 five e sd 25-1 good evening chair and commission cameron robertson principal planner um so

1540
02:39:23,200 --> 02:39:29,480
 uh this is a request this evening for a special uh signed district for the landmark formerly

1541
02:39:29,480 --> 02:39:36,180
 known as hunter ranch uh the parcel is approximately 120 acres located on that northwest corner

1542
02:39:36,180 --> 02:39:42,960
 of i-35 west and robertson ranch road um as you can see on the map there are they do have

1543
02:39:42,960 --> 02:39:48,360
 arterial um frontage along i-35 west frontage road robertson ranch road and then landmark

1544
02:39:48,360 --> 02:39:54,240
 trail um it will include a grocery um anchored store retail along with some other commercial

1545
02:39:54,240 --> 02:40:01,520
 uses and residential use uh uses uh due to the parcel size specifically um and the perimeter

1546
02:40:01,520 --> 02:40:07,840
 easement constraints especially along that 35 west corridor um also being along i-35

1547
02:40:07,840 --> 02:40:12,520
 west um and just because of the phasing of this larger scale development uh landmark

1548
02:40:12,520 --> 02:40:21,120
 really does have to rely on larger signs um and have that visibility to support its tenants

1549
02:40:21,120 --> 02:40:25,800
 so the request this evening specifically um just kind of to dive in um is looking at nine

1550
02:40:25,800 --> 02:40:31,000
 multi-tenant ground signs which are highlighted there by the stars on the map um there are

1551
02:40:31,000 --> 02:40:35,680
 some additional new ground sign types um which were provided in your backup and i'm going

1552
02:40:35,680 --> 02:40:41,880
 to go into further detail on the next slide um it will um does allow uh wind devices wall

1553
02:40:41,880 --> 02:40:47,080
 signs portable signs and menu boards um to not be permitted unless they don't meet the

1554
02:40:47,080 --> 02:40:52,320
 standards set within that uh special sign district um there are some maximum effective

1555
02:40:52,320 --> 02:40:58,760
 areas for multi-tenant signs and temporary signs that don't meet the um chapter 33 ordinance

1556
02:40:58,760 --> 02:41:04,080
 um but those are specifically located really along 35 west um specifically highlighting

1557
02:41:04,080 --> 02:41:09,240
 looking at that big green star there that's that for effective area 400 square feet um

1558
02:41:09,240 --> 02:41:13,640
 and then now lastly the request is looking at maximum height for temporary signs along

1559
02:41:13,640 --> 02:41:21,360
 35 west um once again because there is that large easement um along 35 west um and looking

1560
02:41:21,360 --> 02:41:27,480
 just for some larger um height signs so this is a lot of information i know there's a lot

1561
02:41:27,480 --> 02:41:31,720
 of information in your backup so i'm going to just kind of give you some of the key highlights

1562
02:41:31,720 --> 02:41:36,640
 here um but specifically first looking at the definitions uh you do see the introduction

1563
02:41:36,640 --> 02:41:42,760
 uh introduction of some new ground sign types um specifically multi-tenant sign um single

1564
02:41:42,760 --> 02:41:49,840
 tenant sign pedestrian um directory and directional signs um additionally as i stated in my previous

1565
02:41:49,840 --> 02:41:55,640
 slide there are some new permitted signs that are allowed um maximum effective area section

1566
02:41:55,640 --> 02:42:00,600
 uh specifically along that 35 west we're going to see those larger um effective area signs

1567
02:42:00,600 --> 02:42:05,320
 um but then you do see those pedestrian directory and directional signs are actually smaller

1568
02:42:05,320 --> 02:42:11,280
 than what is permitted um within our uh ordinance um and temporary signs as well are going to

1569
02:42:11,280 --> 02:42:16,600
 be a little bit larger along those primary arterials in the 35 west maximum height section

1570
02:42:16,600 --> 02:42:22,000
 um pedestrian and directional signs they're going to be shorter than what we see within

1571
02:42:22,000 --> 02:42:26,280
 our chapter 33 ordinance um and then we'll see a little bit taller for those temporary

1572
02:42:26,280 --> 02:42:30,520
 signs because as i stated this is a phase development and it's going to develop over

1573
02:42:30,520 --> 02:42:34,680
 a long period of time so we want to make sure that there's just a high visibility along

1574
02:42:34,680 --> 02:42:41,920
 the roadways uh minimum setback requirements um due to the textile right of way um specifically

1575
02:42:41,920 --> 02:42:46,960
 there uh the special sign district is asking for that minimum setback of zero feet um just

1576
02:42:46,960 --> 02:42:52,960
 because there is those easements along 35 west and then lastly they do meet those number

1577
02:42:52,960 --> 02:42:58,960
 of ground signs um but they are asking for the additional um single tenant signs when

1578
02:42:58,960 --> 02:43:05,160
 there's a multi-tenant sign allowed um looking specifically at the comprehensive sign package

1579
02:43:05,160 --> 02:43:10,840
 and then compatibility um once again looking at that scale just making sure that there's

1580
02:43:10,840 --> 02:43:15,440
 visibility along that 35 west corridor and just making sure that there's numerous way

1581
02:43:15,440 --> 02:43:20,800
 finding signs to direct drivers and visitors um looking at color material and shapes it

1582
02:43:20,800 --> 02:43:27,720
 is controlled by ccrs which are operated by hunter ranch um it's just and they'll have

1583
02:43:27,720 --> 02:43:32,040
 a design board that essentially reviews each of those signs that come in to make sure that

1584
02:43:32,040 --> 02:43:37,040
 they are consistent in terms of in uniform with the commercial area being developed they

1585
02:43:37,040 --> 02:43:43,120
 will have to meet the mpc sections for landscaping so the street trees and that additional screening

1586
02:43:43,120 --> 02:43:48,800
 from the right of way um in terms of traffic safety and traffic circulation um multi-tenants

1587
02:43:48,800 --> 02:43:54,280
 um minus along 35 single tenants pedestrian directory and directional sign they all meet

1588
02:43:54,280 --> 02:43:59,840
 those minimum setback requirements within our chapter 33 ordinance um and then they

1589
02:43:59,840 --> 02:44:05,780
 aren't proposing any unlimited ground signs um they aren't um and it's just as i stated

1590
02:44:05,780 --> 02:44:10,200
 to promote the commercial area and direct vehicular and pedestrian traffic um portable

1591
02:44:10,200 --> 02:44:16,680
 signs um the current regulations do prohibit portable signs if they're not properly registered

1592
02:44:16,680 --> 02:44:22,000
 um non-conforming portable signs as provided within our chapter 33 um specifically within

1593
02:44:22,000 --> 02:44:27,160
 the landmarks as special sign district it is providing some restrictive language um limiting

1594
02:44:27,160 --> 02:44:33,640
 that maximum effective area which is uh 12 square feet maximum maximum height which would

1595
02:44:33,640 --> 02:44:41,120
 be three feet six inches maximum and then only allowing two per business uh public outreach

1596
02:44:41,120 --> 02:44:48,000
 was um done in november and the signs were posted in early december uh those mail notices

1597
02:44:48,000 --> 02:44:53,800
 for the 200 foot and that courtesy notice for 500 feet and we did not receive any responses

1598
02:44:53,800 --> 02:44:57,760
 uh staff is recommending the approval of the request as it does comply with our criteria

1599
02:44:57,760 --> 02:45:06,880
 section 33.18.4 for our um special sign district um i can answer any questions and uh the applicant

1600
02:45:06,880 --> 02:45:08,760
 is here if you do have any questions for the applicant

1601
02:45:08,760 --> 02:45:17,960
 um any questions of staff commissioner dire

1602
02:45:17,960 --> 02:45:27,160
 um in one of the things that they are wanting to um possibly have it said wind devices can

1603
02:45:27,160 --> 02:45:31,440
 you explain like what that exactly is going to look like

1604
02:45:31,440 --> 02:45:38,680
 so um in terms of wind devices that would be like a banner on a pole like a white pole

1605
02:45:38,680 --> 02:45:46,080
 so um in your backup packet in the exhibit a i'm gonna pull it up here oh wait no it's

1606
02:45:46,080 --> 02:45:53,760
 not here my apologies um so my best example would be if you're driving down carol boulevard

1607
02:45:53,760 --> 02:46:01,800
 you see some of the um notifications of just uh denton halloween or for tw so kind of those

1608
02:46:01,800 --> 02:46:07,200
 banner signs that you see on light poles as you're driving so like the ones that look

1609
02:46:07,200 --> 02:46:11,200
 like this and they're kind of correct so not like a kite like when i hear wind device i

1610
02:46:11,200 --> 02:46:18,480
 hear i think kite or something like that but okay thank you

1611
02:46:18,480 --> 02:46:22,920
 i have a question maybe it's because i just didn't follow everything but i thought you

1612
02:46:22,920 --> 02:46:29,240
 when you were referring to the temporary signs and referring to our our code section there

1613
02:46:29,240 --> 02:46:36,600
 you said something about 12 square feet um yes so in your back backup packet for temporary

1614
02:46:36,600 --> 02:46:44,760
 signs um or no portable signs that'd be an effective area of 12 square feet okay can

1615
02:46:44,760 --> 02:46:51,880
 you explain what a portable sign is so that would be like a sandwich board sign okay the

1616
02:46:51,880 --> 02:47:01,400
 thought i have is just many of our local election signs that go in more visible areas are more

1617
02:47:01,400 --> 02:47:08,540
 than 12 square feet i want to make sure that we're not inadvertently creating a speech

1618
02:47:08,540 --> 02:47:15,760
 issue there does that make sense yes i'm going to pass it to hayley well so i think the 12

1619
02:47:15,760 --> 02:47:19,160
 square feet is for the portable signs which would not be the same as like a temporary

1620
02:47:19,160 --> 02:47:24,240
 political sign yes got it thank you portable like i can pick it up and stick it in the

1621
02:47:24,240 --> 02:47:31,000
 closet yes without pulling it out of the ground correct okay i took those as like those a

1622
02:47:31,000 --> 02:47:36,520
 frame signs that like you know sometimes like a starbucks will have and it'll say like um

1623
02:47:36,520 --> 02:47:41,720
 you know peppermints hot cocoa special today or something yeah although now you have to

1624
02:47:41,720 --> 02:47:46,520
 mount those up higher because eighty nine percent of the people are just going through

1625
02:47:46,520 --> 02:47:55,160
 the drive-thru okay at this point i will open the public hearing i do not have any cards

1626
02:47:55,160 --> 02:47:59,120
 on this item wishing to speak but it is a public hearing you certainly may come down

1627
02:47:59,120 --> 02:48:07,840
 and speak if you'd like to uh is the applicant here okay just available for questions if

1628
02:48:07,840 --> 02:48:15,960
 there are any are there any questions of the applicant from the commission i don't see

1629
02:48:15,960 --> 02:48:24,800
 any okay at this point i will close oh sorry okay i'll close the public hearing and open

1630
02:48:24,800 --> 02:48:31,460
 the floor for discussion or a motion uh commissioner garland i will make a motion to approve based

1631
02:48:31,460 --> 02:48:37,880
 on staff's recommendations i'll second motion by commissioner garland second by commissioner

1632
02:48:37,880 --> 02:48:47,000
 riggs seeing no further discussion call for a vote roll call vote commissioner mcduff

1633
02:48:47,000 --> 02:48:54,360
 commissioner riggs aye chair is an aye commissioner uh catcher said aye commissioner dire aye

1634
02:48:54,360 --> 02:49:01,360
 commissioner garland aye that item passes six zero brings us to our next public hearing

1635
02:49:01,360 --> 02:49:16,920
 of the evening item 5f s-twenty-five dash seven good evening chair members of the commission

1636
02:49:16,920 --> 02:49:21,880
 angie manglares assistant planning director here to present s-twenty-five zero zero zero

1637
02:49:21,880 --> 02:49:27,140
 seven this is denton 20 a little bit about this this is a specific use permit request

1638
02:49:27,140 --> 02:49:33,240
 for a modular data center on approximately four point zero six four acres of land generally

1639
02:49:33,240 --> 02:49:39,400
 located 1800 feet south of jim crystal road west of western boulevard and adjacent to

1640
02:49:39,400 --> 02:49:44,000
 the rd wells substation a little bit of split zoning on this property it's predominantly

1641
02:49:44,000 --> 02:49:48,880
 zoned public facilities but there is some heavy industrial zoning as well both of these

1642
02:49:48,880 --> 02:49:53,120
 zoning districts do require a specific use permit for a modular data center which is

1643
02:49:53,120 --> 02:49:59,280
 why we are before you this evening the site is currently it's unimproved there is some

1644
02:49:59,280 --> 02:50:04,680
 gravel on the site it is accessed only by way of an access easement off of jim crystal

1645
02:50:04,680 --> 02:50:11,080
 road it's previously been used as sort of a storage area for dme it is predominantly

1646
02:50:11,080 --> 02:50:16,400
 surrounded by hi zoning consistent with that there's a variety of industrial manufacturing

1647
02:50:16,400 --> 02:50:21,960
 land uses surrounding the property this proposed modular data center is consistent with the

1648
02:50:21,960 --> 02:50:26,920
 approved lease and power purchase agreement with the dme for the operation of a modular

1649
02:50:26,920 --> 02:50:33,080
 data center staff did review the specific use permit against our criteria for approval

1650
02:50:33,080 --> 02:50:37,160
 do you find it is consistent with the goals in the future land use designation and the

1651
02:50:37,160 --> 02:50:41,800
 comprehensive plan it is consistent with the specific standards as set forth for a modular

1652
02:50:41,800 --> 02:50:47,560
 data center and approval of this permit is not expected to generate any significant adverse

1653
02:50:47,560 --> 02:50:53,920
 impacts to the city again this is the future land use map it is designated as industrial

1654
02:50:53,920 --> 02:51:00,640
 commerce this area is generally found west of i-35w near the municipal airport it does

1655
02:51:00,640 --> 02:51:07,640
 include a mix of industrial uses light and heavy it can include manufacturing or assembly

1656
02:51:07,640 --> 02:51:12,440
 and it is important to consider any transitions to sensitive land uses when when reviewing

1657
02:51:12,440 --> 02:51:17,400
 applications in this area a little bit more about this use and how it relates to that

1658
02:51:17,400 --> 02:51:22,840
 this is situated west of i-35w and is immediately adjacent to the arty well substation it's

1659
02:51:22,840 --> 02:51:28,120
 generally compatible with the surrounding area there is a substation next door it is also

1660
02:51:28,120 --> 02:51:34,080
 adjacent to the peter belt manufacturing into the south as tetra pack as well as a gas well

1661
02:51:34,080 --> 02:51:39,000
 given its location there's not anticipated to be any visual or auditory impacts it is

1662
02:51:39,000 --> 02:51:43,280
 situated off of the right-of-way sandwich between the arty well substation and peter

1663
02:51:43,280 --> 02:51:48,840
 belt and it's adequately spaced from any sensitive land uses the closest residential use would

1664
02:51:48,840 --> 02:51:55,520
 be some multi-family it's further to the east closer to i-35 itself so the use is consistent

1665
02:51:55,520 --> 02:52:00,560
 with the future land use purpose and goals we did conduct public notification in accordance

1666
02:52:00,560 --> 02:52:05,160
 with state law as well as our own code of ordinances have not received any responses

1667
02:52:05,160 --> 02:52:12,200
 back in favor neutral or in opposed staff does have a couple of conditions to associate

1668
02:52:12,200 --> 02:52:17,840
 with a specific use permit binding them to the site plan that you all see today it touches

1669
02:52:17,840 --> 02:52:25,360
 on the noise assessment that must be submitted as well as just access specifications so staff

1670
02:52:25,360 --> 02:52:29,720
 is recommending approval with the inclusion of these conditions the next step would be

1671
02:52:29,720 --> 02:52:34,000
 city council tentatively scheduled for january 13th and i'm happy to answer any questions

1672
02:52:34,000 --> 02:52:43,240
 you may have any commissioner dire if you're recommending approval with a couple of conditions

1673
02:52:43,240 --> 02:52:49,380
 do they have to have those conditions like if we approve this and recommend this does

1674
02:52:49,380 --> 02:52:53,600
 the applicant have to have those conditions met by the time it goes in front of the city

1675
02:52:53,600 --> 02:52:58,360
 council or is it still kind of carries on they will approve it but you got to get these

1676
02:52:58,360 --> 02:53:03,240
 things done sure so conditions with specific use permits are a little unique we're saying

1677
02:53:03,240 --> 02:53:07,640
 we're fine with the use and we're fine as we saw it in it's attached as exhibit eight

1678
02:53:07,640 --> 02:53:13,360
 for you all so really condition one is calling out that the site needs to comply with the

1679
02:53:13,360 --> 02:53:17,560
 site plan that we've seen so we'll look for that at building permit and does allow for

1680
02:53:17,560 --> 02:53:22,560
 minor modifications to be approved by staff which is typical with any sup to account for

1681
02:53:22,560 --> 02:53:26,200
 you know anything that may come in when you're actually on the ground again no more than

1682
02:53:26,200 --> 02:53:31,320
 five percent change in landscape area or parking which for this site is going to be very minimal

1683
02:53:31,320 --> 02:53:36,560
 it does also refer back to that noise assessment that's required and it's just a reminder

1684
02:53:36,560 --> 02:53:42,040
 that when this is built it does need to be provided to staff and then also some specifications

1685
02:53:42,040 --> 02:53:46,720
 about access because it's only accessed off of an access easement and then the other is

1686
02:53:46,720 --> 02:53:51,760
 about making sure the zoning map matches so these are things that will live with the sup

1687
02:53:51,760 --> 02:53:55,280
 anything that triggers you know above and beyond this we might have to do an amendment

1688
02:53:55,280 --> 02:53:59,320
 so it's really more for staff than anybody else to keep track of what was approved and

1689
02:53:59,320 --> 02:54:07,120
 what needs to be done going forward thank you commissioner Garland do we know how close

1690
02:54:07,120 --> 02:54:13,700
 like the closest residential area like how close is the closest residential area or like

1691
02:54:13,700 --> 02:54:18,360
 home a map will be more helpful if you can give me a moment it is greater than a thousand

1692
02:54:18,360 --> 02:54:24,520
 feet away and the closest would be a there is a I think it's called the retreat it is

1693
02:54:24,520 --> 02:54:46,240
 a multifamily development closer to thirty five itself so this is the retreat dentin

1694
02:54:46,240 --> 02:54:52,280
 here and then this is the subject site that we're talking about here so as the crow flies

1695
02:54:52,280 --> 02:54:58,060
 I think when I measured it was close to twelve hundred feet or so just rough estimate but

1696
02:54:58,060 --> 02:55:04,200
 there is you know a significant amount of other activity that's occurring in the area

1697
02:55:04,200 --> 02:55:08,680
 with this use again we're most concerned about noise and so they can't increase the decibels

1698
02:55:08,680 --> 02:55:14,360
 by more than the ambient by more than three their initial studies do show that they can

1699
02:55:14,360 --> 02:55:17,920
 be consistent with that but they are required to verify that when it's installed it is meeting

1700
02:55:17,920 --> 02:55:22,840
 those requirements to does forgive me for not knowing the term but like the builder

1701
02:55:22,840 --> 02:55:28,500
 or the individual that's that's doing this do they have other data centers and other

1702
02:55:28,500 --> 02:55:34,920
 places that they could kind of tell us what is comparable with regards to you know noise

1703
02:55:34,920 --> 02:55:42,520
 and light emissions and just general well-being of the community and how they feel about it

1704
02:55:42,520 --> 02:55:49,760
 sure there will be no additional lighting associated with this site and the applicant

1705
02:55:49,760 --> 02:55:53,480
 is here and they can talk about if they have any more but it's seventy decibels it should

1706
02:55:53,480 --> 02:55:57,560
 be pretty comparable to the other noises that are in the area given the manufacturing nature

1707
02:55:57,560 --> 02:56:08,200
 but if you like to hear more about their other ones I can call them up that would be great

1708
02:56:08,200 --> 02:56:15,640
 evening chair thank you council members Spencer Smith director of engineering at cumulus AI

1709
02:56:15,640 --> 02:56:23,960
 twenty one forty six Roswell Road Marietta Georgia in answer to your question we have

1710
02:56:23,960 --> 02:56:33,040
 other data centers they are of basically an air-cooled nature most of them this is a unique

1711
02:56:33,040 --> 02:56:40,640
 and newer more efficient method of cooling the servers and it's done through liquid cooling

1712
02:56:40,640 --> 02:56:48,000
 so the graphic that Angie pulled up in the work session earlier kind of indicates that

1713
02:56:48,000 --> 02:56:55,800
 the only equipment running outside would be fans rejecting the heat so that is significantly

1714
02:56:55,800 --> 02:57:03,120
 cooler it's likened to basically the the heat rejection on top of industrial buildings for

1715
02:57:03,120 --> 02:57:12,240
 AC units okay and then what is like and forgive me what is the lifespan on one of these things

1716
02:57:12,240 --> 02:57:31,180
 of the entire ten to twenty years at least okay thank you

1717
02:57:31,180 --> 02:57:36,880
 commission ricks I just have one question is this piece of property owned by the city

1718
02:57:36,880 --> 02:57:55,680
 and this is essentially a lease agreement between the data center and yes I've got one

1719
02:57:55,680 --> 02:58:00,680
 I trust staff so so I imagine the answer is it's all taken care of I just have to make

1720
02:58:00,680 --> 02:58:12,300
 sure it talks about a 20 megawatt target is is that lease agreement or some sort of business

1721
02:58:12,300 --> 02:58:19,920
 agreement define that so that if there's a change in that number it's the this SUP is

1722
02:58:19,920 --> 02:58:27,280
 flexible enough to allow that to change without a zoning change but DME still gets to approve

1723
02:58:27,280 --> 02:58:33,760
 whether we have the capacity at that substation I can only speak high level to that and I

1724
02:58:33,760 --> 02:58:38,580
 can I can circle back with more detail just so you know I did look through the the agreements

1725
02:58:38,580 --> 02:58:43,800
 that were approved and DME does have the ultimate like flexibility to determine yes we can still

1726
02:58:43,800 --> 02:58:48,320
 serve you all or not from the planning and land use standpoint we're going to be most

1727
02:58:48,320 --> 02:58:52,320
 concerned with are we adding like another data pod or something that would trigger changes

1728
02:58:52,320 --> 02:58:57,400
 to that SUP but from the actual supplying of energy side that that's really all handled

1729
02:58:57,400 --> 02:59:05,640
 through their DME and their various agreements with the operator okay any other questions

1730
02:59:05,640 --> 02:59:12,920
 commissioner Garland I just have a couple more can I ask you so the other sites that

1731
02:59:12,920 --> 02:59:19,080
 you currently have have you had any feedback when it comes to residents or like like residential

1732
02:59:19,080 --> 02:59:26,160
 impact or impact to wildlife or anything like that sorry sorry interrupt just so that we

1733
02:59:26,160 --> 02:59:31,360
 can have it on the record especially since we're a little bit anti-computer tonight if

1734
02:59:31,360 --> 02:59:34,760
 you could state your name and address just for the record and then address the question

1735
02:59:34,760 --> 02:59:43,800
 sure Spencer Smith director of engineering humans AI 2146 Roswell Road Mariana Georgia

1736
02:59:43,800 --> 02:59:51,720
 so the other sites that we have like I said are of a differing technology so being air

1737
02:59:51,720 --> 02:59:57,840
 cooled and more traditional air cooled they are a bit louder but they are also located

1738
02:59:57,840 --> 03:00:09,520
 in very rural areas typically this is as I said before a liquid cooled data center which

1739
03:00:09,520 --> 03:00:16,800
 is dramatically quieter from a noise standpoint Angie mentioned the ambient noise at around

1740
03:00:16,800 --> 03:00:22,560
 sixty two to sixty three DB so what is that complete give me an example of what else would

1741
03:00:22,560 --> 03:00:29,320
 sound that loud because I don't really speak that language what so the ambient level in

1742
03:00:29,320 --> 03:00:36,280
 that area it's it's basically halfway between I-35 and the airport so you have a lot of

1743
03:00:36,280 --> 03:00:45,720
 road noise you have air traffic noise as well as the industrial noise around it it's it's

1744
03:00:45,720 --> 03:00:51,760
 basically the sound of a busy road okay effectively okay and then you mentioned like how it's

1745
03:00:51,760 --> 03:00:59,320
 liquid cold obviously we know kind of just through other you know so what does that mean

1746
03:00:59,320 --> 03:01:03,320
 exactly like how much water does it use does it recycle the water where does the water

1747
03:01:03,320 --> 03:01:09,720
 come from how often does it need to replace things like that it's a great question this

1748
03:01:09,720 --> 03:01:15,960
 liquid cooling technology uses a dielectric fluid similar to the fluid that is inside

1749
03:01:15,960 --> 03:01:22,760
 of electrical transformers so it's non-conductive the servers are submerged in the fluid that

1750
03:01:22,760 --> 03:01:29,800
 fluid warms up transitions outside rejects the heat and then circulates back in there

1751
03:01:29,800 --> 03:01:38,400
 is no water usage okay thank you that's a that's a novel technology that's actually

1752
03:01:38,400 --> 03:01:50,800
 just gaining traction over the last five to ten years all right thank you any other questions

1753
03:01:50,800 --> 03:02:02,320
 or discussion or a motion I'll make a motion to approve motion by commissioner I'll second

1754
03:02:02,320 --> 03:02:09,840
 second by commissioner catcher said not seeing any more discussion I'll call for a vote by

1755
03:02:09,840 --> 03:02:16,640
 roll call commissioner McDuff yes I'm going to support this but I will share that I have

1756
03:02:16,640 --> 03:02:22,960
 had concerns about the noise and the vibration assessment we talked about that in our work

1757
03:02:22,960 --> 03:02:29,920
 session but here this evening and just in data centers in general in the use of utilities

1758
03:02:29,920 --> 03:02:36,800
 inordinate use of utilities and the cooling system which I think we do have we did get

1759
03:02:36,800 --> 03:02:44,440
 addressed the one thing that saves me on this is that it is utilizing city property and

1760
03:02:44,440 --> 03:02:51,980
 it's not clearing and developing a greenfield site yet another greenfield site so I for

1761
03:02:51,980 --> 03:03:00,080
 that reason I'm voting aye on this commissioner Riggs yeah I'm voting I'll go ahead and state

1762
03:03:00,080 --> 03:03:05,200
 reasons I think so too is one it's pretty much just gravel on the ground right now so

1763
03:03:05,200 --> 03:03:09,900
 I don't think there'd be any environmental impacts and it is sandwiched between the airport

1764
03:03:09,900 --> 03:03:15,340
 and Peterbilt so I don't think there's there's going to be any increase in noise but yeah

1765
03:03:15,340 --> 03:03:25,760
 in the sport I yeah I'll just say I'm very proud of the work that the past development

1766
03:03:25,760 --> 03:03:33,600
 code review committee and and PNZ and council did to to establish the the noise and other

1767
03:03:33,600 --> 03:03:42,120
 requirements that we have to be able to be flexible on a site basis but really encourage

1768
03:03:42,120 --> 03:03:49,460
 these types of centers that come in with low water use because there's a correlation between

1769
03:03:49,460 --> 03:03:58,560
 high evaporative water use systems and noise that that keeps our water use down but also

1770
03:03:58,560 --> 03:04:05,120
 is is sensitive to the the impacts from a noise perspective so the chair is an eye commissioner

1771
03:04:05,120 --> 03:04:15,120
 catcher said on Commissioner Dyer and Commissioner Garland I that passes six zero brings us to

1772
03:04:15,120 --> 03:04:26,840
 our last public hearing of the evening item five F G okay I was getting worried that we

1773
03:04:26,840 --> 03:04:33,200
 were failing somebody five G DCA twenty five dash one all right thank you chair members

1774
03:04:33,200 --> 03:04:38,040
 of the commission Angie manglaris assistant planning director I will tag in Julie Wyatt

1775
03:04:38,040 --> 03:04:44,240
 principal planner a little bit through this presentation but this is DCA twenty five one

1776
03:04:44,240 --> 03:04:49,000
 this is a code amendment related to missing middle housing so specifically this amendment

1777
03:04:49,000 --> 03:04:53,800
 is to amend several sections of the debt and development code which aim to clarify our

1778
03:04:53,800 --> 03:04:58,160
 regulations for missing middle housing types specifically townhome and accessory dwelling

1779
03:04:58,160 --> 03:05:04,160
 units this does support several of our goals in our comprehensive plan our affordable housing

1780
03:05:04,160 --> 03:05:08,560
 toolkit the southeast and area plan as well as the design downtown denton plan it does

1781
03:05:08,560 --> 03:05:14,180
 help to support a variety of housing options in the city these amendments are also intended

1782
03:05:14,180 --> 03:05:19,440
 to remove some conflicting or confusing language within the code these amendments are consistent

1783
03:05:19,440 --> 03:05:24,620
 with direction received from both this body as well as the development code review committee

1784
03:05:24,620 --> 03:05:29,080
 and does create additional options for missing middle housing within the city overall we

1785
03:05:29,080 --> 03:05:33,820
 are recommending approval as I said we have workshopped these code amendments through

1786
03:05:33,820 --> 03:05:40,840
 both this body as well as the DC RC public engagement was held in a variety of forums

1787
03:05:40,840 --> 03:05:46,040
 both in person meetings online meetings as well as an online survey generally there is

1788
03:05:46,040 --> 03:05:50,360
 support for these amendments and what we are going to do is just kind of walk through these

1789
03:05:50,360 --> 03:05:55,000
 main changes talk a little bit about them we will do ADUs and then we will do townhomes

1790
03:05:55,000 --> 03:06:02,720
 as well so first amendment here would be to amend the table of allowed uses to expand

1791
03:06:02,720 --> 03:06:08,480
 where accessory dwelling units are currently allowed to expand that to MD and MR and really

1792
03:06:08,480 --> 03:06:13,520
 the reason for that is because we are also proposing that accessory dwelling units could

1793
03:06:13,520 --> 03:06:18,640
 be accessory to townhomes, duplexes, triplexes and they also live in these zoning districts

1794
03:06:18,640 --> 03:06:24,360
 so really just expanding the allowable uses to where the units that they could be attached

1795
03:06:24,360 --> 03:06:30,780
 to are located as it relates to general amendments related to just accessory structures in general

1796
03:06:30,780 --> 03:06:35,680
 we do currently have a conflict in the code in this section it had previously said no

1797
03:06:35,680 --> 03:06:40,200
 structures whatsoever in the side yard and then the ADU standards go on to say well ADUs

1798
03:06:40,200 --> 03:06:44,320
 can be in the side yard so this removes that conflict and just kind of cleans that language

1799
03:06:44,320 --> 03:06:51,840
 up makes it easier for staff as well as residents so going on and touching back on some of these

1800
03:06:51,840 --> 03:06:59,000
 amendments generally some amendments are clarifying ADUs can be attached or detached we do need

1801
03:06:59,000 --> 03:07:03,520
 to talk through this a little bit I believe I got my red line a little confused it should

1802
03:07:03,520 --> 03:07:10,180
 be one ADU allowed per lot when looking at single-family detached townhomes duplexes

1803
03:07:10,180 --> 03:07:15,680
 and triplexes so expanding the uses the intent was only to allow one per lot so that would

1804
03:07:15,680 --> 03:07:19,880
 be something we'll need to talk through at the motion just to flag that but there was

1805
03:07:19,880 --> 03:07:26,080
 support both from the community as well as when we were workshopping this to allow that

1806
03:07:26,080 --> 03:07:31,080
 flexibility to expand the uses in which ADUs could be accessory to so as a reminder today

1807
03:07:31,080 --> 03:07:37,120
 just single-family homes but this could allow if the lot fits it an ADU with a townhome

1808
03:07:37,120 --> 03:07:40,560
 duplex or triplex.

1809
03:07:40,560 --> 03:07:45,560
 Moving on to size some of these amendments were clarification again mostly for staffs

1810
03:07:45,560 --> 03:07:50,880
 benefit and reading and interpreting the code but clarifying measurement standards for ADUs

1811
03:07:50,880 --> 03:07:55,800
 and creating one standard for all ADUs for maximum size so the way that would work would

1812
03:07:55,800 --> 03:08:01,720
 be any ADU could be a minimum of 800 square feet regardless of the size of the principal

1813
03:08:01,720 --> 03:08:08,720
 dwelling unit it does allow up to a maximum of 75% of the square footage of the main structure

1814
03:08:08,720 --> 03:08:13,360
 what we're doing by setting that minimum guarantee of 800 square feet is that was aimed largely

1815
03:08:13,360 --> 03:08:18,520
 at some of our older homes that may only be you know seven or eight hundred square feet

1816
03:08:18,520 --> 03:08:23,240
 our original amendments had that where your ADU would be quite small at like 350 square

1817
03:08:23,240 --> 03:08:25,320
 feet or something.

1818
03:08:25,320 --> 03:08:29,880
 So providing some flexibility again when we took this to the community and our surveys

1819
03:08:29,880 --> 03:08:36,240
 52% did find that that increase in size was appropriate as did the DCRC and we looked

1820
03:08:36,240 --> 03:08:42,040
 at a variety of different sizing options and ultimately landed on the 75% or 800 but you're

1821
03:08:42,040 --> 03:08:46,560
 guaranteed 800 square feet regardless.

1822
03:08:46,560 --> 03:08:51,280
 When it comes to location and design there were a handful of amendments that were made

1823
03:08:51,280 --> 03:08:56,760
 here to clarify that a detached ADU could be allowed on the side yard but requiring

1824
03:08:56,760 --> 03:09:01,480
 that that if that were the case that that ADU be offset at least three feet from the

1825
03:09:01,480 --> 03:09:07,120
 main structure just to provide a little bit of visual relief and then also provide additional

1826
03:09:07,120 --> 03:09:14,480
 clarity on when ADUs need to demonstrate architectural compatibility so as it is today at any time

1827
03:09:14,480 --> 03:09:18,440
 if you're constructing an ADU it does need to be determined to be architecturally compatible

1828
03:09:18,440 --> 03:09:23,000
 with the home with these amendments we are really specifying that it's ADUs that are

1829
03:09:23,000 --> 03:09:27,240
 visible from the public right-of-way that need to demonstrate architectural compatibility

1830
03:09:27,240 --> 03:09:30,320
 by meeting any two of these requirements here.

1831
03:09:30,320 --> 03:09:34,360
 So what this does is for an ADU that's generally situated in somebody's backyard that nobody

1832
03:09:34,360 --> 03:09:38,800
 else can see we won't be as focused on that but those that are visible from the public

1833
03:09:38,800 --> 03:09:43,000
 right-of-way we would want to ensure continuity of community character and this could make

1834
03:09:43,000 --> 03:09:48,840
 it a little bit easier for those looking to construct an ADU to do so if they so chose.

1835
03:09:48,840 --> 03:09:53,040
 And then ownership requirements this is something we talked quite a bit about at DCRC is their

1836
03:09:53,040 --> 03:09:59,840
 mechanism to allow separate ownership of the ADU from the main structure and I think we

1837
03:09:59,840 --> 03:10:04,060
 determined that a condo association is really the best way to do that and so this would

1838
03:10:04,060 --> 03:10:09,320
 allow for that provided that that not be severed from the home by way of a plat and then the

1839
03:10:09,320 --> 03:10:16,080
 parking requirements the suggestion would be to remove the minimum but require any required

1840
03:10:16,080 --> 03:10:21,480
 space that is removed for the construction of an ADU to be replaced on site.

1841
03:10:21,480 --> 03:10:25,800
 So if you were to retrofit a garage to become an attached ADU and you're removing some of

1842
03:10:25,800 --> 03:10:31,400
 the required parking you'd have to find a place elsewhere for it on site.

1843
03:10:31,400 --> 03:10:36,880
 This had a wide range of public opinion there was some support for yes did feel that that

1844
03:10:36,880 --> 03:10:41,560
 was appropriate and then it kind of bounced around for others felt it was still a little

1845
03:10:41,560 --> 03:10:47,280
 too restrictive and others felt it was a little too relaxed but this is the language we settled

1846
03:10:47,280 --> 03:10:48,280
 on.

1847
03:10:48,280 --> 03:10:52,760
 And that is ADUs at a high level kind of hitting those main amendments and I'm going to let

1848
03:10:52,760 --> 03:11:01,360
 Julie come and talk through some of those town home amendments for you all.

1849
03:11:01,360 --> 03:11:07,420
 Good evening Julie Wyatt I'm going to go over the proposed amendments to town homes.

1850
03:11:07,420 --> 03:11:13,080
 This didn't go through the DCRC it did come to this body in February of this year to talk

1851
03:11:13,080 --> 03:11:17,560
 through some of these challenges that the city has with development of town homes and

1852
03:11:17,560 --> 03:11:24,320
 some of those design considerations which create barriers to developing town homes.

1853
03:11:24,320 --> 03:11:28,840
 So first of all as Angie mentioned in the work session town homes are allowed in our

1854
03:11:28,840 --> 03:11:34,680
 mixed use districts as well as our six and our seven which are moderate density districts.

1855
03:11:34,680 --> 03:11:40,720
 We're not proposing as part of this to modify where town homes would be allowed in the city.

1856
03:11:40,720 --> 03:11:44,320
 What we're talking about is are those design elements.

1857
03:11:44,320 --> 03:11:51,400
 So under current regulations this town home lot size has a one size fits all 2000 square

1858
03:11:51,400 --> 03:11:58,000
 feet a minimum width of 20 feet and a minimum depth of 60 feet.

1859
03:11:58,000 --> 03:12:03,500
 And that is a really good lot size for one of our more suburban context or that moderate

1860
03:12:03,500 --> 03:12:07,560
 density the R6 R7 that works really well there.

1861
03:12:07,560 --> 03:12:12,600
 But when we're talking about our mixed use districts where we want more fine grain development

1862
03:12:12,600 --> 03:12:19,120
 more walkable environments those lot sizes don't necessarily work and in fact we have

1863
03:12:19,120 --> 03:12:22,560
 town homes in our downtown area that don't meet that requirement.

1864
03:12:22,560 --> 03:12:28,240
 So we are proposing to reduce that town home lot size for our mixed use districts to 1000

1865
03:12:28,240 --> 03:12:36,480
 square feet allowing that additional flexibility for those areas to slot into the infill lots

1866
03:12:36,480 --> 03:12:39,360
 where where they can.

1867
03:12:39,360 --> 03:12:46,160
 We're also as as as part of this is we're proposing to clarify the applicability note

1868
03:12:46,160 --> 03:12:51,760
 for all districts to make sure that when when a developer or a community member wants to

1869
03:12:51,760 --> 03:12:57,880
 know about town homes that they get those good references and then also clarify town

1870
03:12:57,880 --> 03:13:03,720
 home building coverage to make sure that in in those districts that allow greater building

1871
03:13:03,720 --> 03:13:07,920
 coverage that those town home lots could take advantage of that.

1872
03:13:07,920 --> 03:13:14,240
 Under our current requirements the maximum building coverage for town homes is 85 percent.

1873
03:13:14,240 --> 03:13:19,120
 But for instance in our M.D. district we allow 100 percent building coverage.

1874
03:13:19,120 --> 03:13:23,440
 So we want to make sure that we wouldn't treat town homes any differently than any other

1875
03:13:23,440 --> 03:13:26,640
 use that would be developed in those districts.

1876
03:13:26,640 --> 03:13:31,440
 We feel like this is more consistent with the intent of our mixed use districts and

1877
03:13:31,440 --> 03:13:36,760
 allows more infill development consistent with our comprehensive plan as well as our

1878
03:13:36,760 --> 03:13:38,480
 our housing plans.

1879
03:13:38,480 --> 03:13:43,000
 We did talk to the community about this in our community meetings and online and they

1880
03:13:43,000 --> 03:13:46,480
 were in agreement with with this proposal.

1881
03:13:46,480 --> 03:13:53,160
 The second one is a little difficult to explain so I'll do my best and if you have any questions

1882
03:13:53,160 --> 03:13:54,280
 I'll be happy to answer them.

1883
03:13:54,280 --> 03:14:00,080
 So subchapter three in the Denton Development Code also has a provision for town homes that

1884
03:14:00,080 --> 03:14:05,120
 the maximum number of town homes allowed on a site can be no more than the number of single

1885
03:14:05,120 --> 03:14:08,080
 family homes that could be developed on that site.

1886
03:14:08,080 --> 03:14:09,920
 So what does that mean?

1887
03:14:09,920 --> 03:14:15,240
 That means that you would divide the gross square feet of a site by the minimum lot size

1888
03:14:15,240 --> 03:14:16,320
 for that zoning district.

1889
03:14:16,320 --> 03:14:22,360
 So for instance if somebody wanted to pursue town homes in the R4 district with an SUP

1890
03:14:22,360 --> 03:14:27,280
 it would it would restrict the number of town homes that they that you could build because

1891
03:14:27,280 --> 03:14:31,680
 R4 requires a 7,000 square foot lot.

1892
03:14:31,680 --> 03:14:36,360
 So it would just it would create challenges for for getting that that those additional

1893
03:14:36,360 --> 03:14:43,000
 housing within those neighborhoods and really is a disincentive to to develop town homes.

1894
03:14:43,000 --> 03:14:45,320
 So we're proposing just to remove this altogether.

1895
03:14:45,320 --> 03:14:51,640
 It's confusing it's difficult to say it's difficult to explain and it really just does

1896
03:14:51,640 --> 03:14:56,600
 create a disincentive for this housing type really kind of pushes development to other

1897
03:14:56,600 --> 03:15:00,840
 housing types which which don't have this type of limitation.

1898
03:15:00,840 --> 03:15:04,960
 We asked the community how they felt about this and they were in agreement that really

1899
03:15:04,960 --> 03:15:09,400
 we could just remove this provision altogether.

1900
03:15:09,400 --> 03:15:12,520
 And then the last item is open space.

1901
03:15:12,520 --> 03:15:15,660
 Open space is a great amenity to a lot of neighborhoods.

1902
03:15:15,660 --> 03:15:21,440
 It really is something that we want to see in in good urban design but it doesn't always

1903
03:15:21,440 --> 03:15:28,660
 fit in all contexts especially in those infill situations or smaller projects.

1904
03:15:28,660 --> 03:15:35,600
 The current code requires a minimum five percent open space for any development that is over

1905
03:15:35,600 --> 03:15:41,260
 10 units or more which which is really kind of a small area.

1906
03:15:41,260 --> 03:15:45,480
 So we're proposing to refine that to still maintain open space because we do think it's

1907
03:15:45,480 --> 03:15:52,600
 a it's a vital thing for some projects to increase that to a minimum of projects over

1908
03:15:52,600 --> 03:15:59,920
 three acres so that those smaller projects would be exempt from it and also exempt projects

1909
03:15:59,920 --> 03:16:02,600
 that are close to to city parks.

1910
03:16:02,600 --> 03:16:10,280
 So projects that are closer than one half mile from a city park would not have to provide

1911
03:16:10,280 --> 03:16:14,120
 that open space provide that exemption because there's already that existing open space.

1912
03:16:14,120 --> 03:16:20,840
 Those community recreation activities are already in place in those areas.

1913
03:16:20,840 --> 03:16:26,640
 We also as part of the proposal are adding design maintenance and management standards.

1914
03:16:26,640 --> 03:16:34,000
 We do have those and our current code references those in our multifamily section but we added

1915
03:16:34,000 --> 03:16:38,920
 that to this section to refine those standards to make sure it it fit.

1916
03:16:38,920 --> 03:16:44,400
 It was tailored toward these toward these types of missing middle housing types.

1917
03:16:44,400 --> 03:16:45,400
 We analyze this.

1918
03:16:45,400 --> 03:16:51,160
 We looked at it all different ways and what we really settled on was affordability.

1919
03:16:51,160 --> 03:16:56,700
 We already require park dedication for residential developments and we want to make sure any

1920
03:16:56,700 --> 03:17:01,520
 development that did provide open space gave usable open space.

1921
03:17:01,520 --> 03:17:06,180
 And for that that's how we arrived at the proposal.

1922
03:17:06,180 --> 03:17:12,480
 We asked the community how they felt about the exemption for for projects near city parks

1923
03:17:12,480 --> 03:17:14,980
 and they were in favor of that exemption.

1924
03:17:14,980 --> 03:17:21,200
 And then 50 percent of those who answered were in favor of exempting projects that were

1925
03:17:21,200 --> 03:17:26,240
 smaller than three acres so they were also in favor of that.

1926
03:17:26,240 --> 03:17:32,360
 So based upon the criteria for approval our policy documents that really speak to providing

1927
03:17:32,360 --> 03:17:37,720
 this diversity of housing these missing middle housing types in order to encourage infill

1928
03:17:37,720 --> 03:17:44,560
 development affordable development and just to serve all residents of the city of Denton.

1929
03:17:44,560 --> 03:17:47,440
 We are recommending approval of these code amendments.

1930
03:17:47,440 --> 03:17:54,280
 We'll be happy to answer any questions and thank you.

1931
03:17:54,280 --> 03:17:59,900
 Questions Commissioner Ketchers I have a question on the ADU.

1932
03:17:59,900 --> 03:18:05,640
 So on single family it's one per lot.

1933
03:18:05,640 --> 03:18:06,640
 Yes.

1934
03:18:06,640 --> 03:18:13,040
 So and to clarify that that is the intent is that for any use right now what is allowed

1935
03:18:13,040 --> 03:18:20,720
 today is one per single family lot being proposed we're looking at adding uses that language

1936
03:18:20,720 --> 03:18:22,680
 should reflect one per lot.

1937
03:18:22,680 --> 03:18:26,240
 But if we wanted to talk more about that we could.

1938
03:18:26,240 --> 03:18:34,320
 OK because I think there are some situations where more than one could be useful for some

1939
03:18:34,320 --> 03:18:40,720
 situations attached but still have room for detached potentially things like that.

1940
03:18:40,720 --> 03:18:45,680
 Yeah and we did talk about that a little a little bit.

1941
03:18:45,680 --> 03:18:51,080
 One one thing we see somewhat commonly it's not all the time but it's kind of like a

1942
03:18:51,080 --> 03:18:56,840
 casita where there's still a separate living area within the main home but really what

1943
03:18:56,840 --> 03:19:02,400
 differentiates it between an ADU and sort of just an expansion of your home is their

1944
03:19:02,400 --> 03:19:04,160
 open communication.

1945
03:19:04,160 --> 03:19:09,320
 So if you're attaching an ADU but you can't get from the main structure to the ADU without

1946
03:19:09,320 --> 03:19:15,760
 leaving and going around we would call it an attached ADU but say you were to just do

1947
03:19:15,760 --> 03:19:21,320
 an add on and there's a door between the two that still kind of counts as the primary structure

1948
03:19:21,320 --> 03:19:26,080
 so that that is one option that individuals could pursue and is something I've seen done

1949
03:19:26,080 --> 03:19:30,320
 before where you know possibly you have aging family you'd like them to be close but you

1950
03:19:30,320 --> 03:19:32,040
 want this ADU as well.

1951
03:19:32,040 --> 03:19:40,480
 Could we add a line on the table of allowed uses that just says additional accessory dwelling

1952
03:19:40,480 --> 03:19:45,480
 with a specific use permit.

1953
03:19:45,480 --> 03:19:50,040
 That's an option if we were wanting to explore that route I suppose that's one way we could

1954
03:19:50,040 --> 03:19:56,000
 go or if we wanted to if you felt like some of the larger lot sizes like our our one maybe

1955
03:19:56,000 --> 03:20:01,560
 that's fine right we could maybe add an initial qualifier I'd love to hear from everybody

1956
03:20:01,560 --> 03:20:04,780
 else obviously if that would be something we'd want to consider but those would be my two

1957
03:20:04,780 --> 03:20:09,720
 initial thoughts is either SUP or pick some zoning districts you all are comfortable with.

1958
03:20:09,720 --> 03:20:17,920
 Okay okay thank you thank you I yeah Commissioner Garland okay um I want to get to the public

1959
03:20:17,920 --> 03:20:23,720
 here shortly but but to set that stage I want to follow up on Commissioner Ketchers-Edds

1960
03:20:23,720 --> 03:20:33,640
 point just help me recount at DCRC it wasn't specifically this proposal this is a little

1961
03:20:33,640 --> 03:20:39,320
 different but I think we were talking about potentially allowing two ADUs on lots that

1962
03:20:39,320 --> 03:20:46,880
 had a duplex currently refresh my mind how that went what the breakdown was as well as

1963
03:20:46,880 --> 03:20:53,920
 whether staff would be in support of that if that was the will of this commission or

1964
03:20:53,920 --> 03:20:55,280
 the council.

1965
03:20:55,280 --> 03:21:03,640
 Sure I'll do my best to recount so following our public feedback input when we kind of

1966
03:21:03,640 --> 03:21:09,880
 did our recap of how everything went where we presented one per lot regardless of the

1967
03:21:09,880 --> 03:21:15,480
 unit the question was brought up did staff have a problem with possibly allowing two

1968
03:21:15,480 --> 03:21:20,520
 for duplexes meaning you know each each duplex essentially or each side of the duplex got

1969
03:21:20,520 --> 03:21:28,120
 an ADU I think the answer from from staff's perspective is I don't necessarily see an

1970
03:21:28,120 --> 03:21:33,840
 issue with that again we classify multifamilies five or more I think in most cases it would

1971
03:21:33,840 --> 03:21:38,120
 be rather difficult to achieve there are some older duplex lots where possibly there's the

1972
03:21:38,120 --> 03:21:45,600
 room so going down to like can something happen yes but can it logistically be designed it

1973
03:21:45,600 --> 03:21:53,000
 could be complicated it depends where that went with the DCRC was very split and because

1974
03:21:53,000 --> 03:21:59,080
 we had already taken the one per lot idea forward kind of just planning to stick with

1975
03:21:59,080 --> 03:22:03,000
 that with the acknowledgment though that this conversation would occur probably at this

1976
03:22:03,000 --> 03:22:11,440
 body and council any other questions before Commissioner Garland I had one I don't know

1977
03:22:11,440 --> 03:22:17,960
 if you can go back to the slide that talked about the square footage size and then like

1978
03:22:17,960 --> 03:22:26,040
 roof pitch I know it mentioned those two things but maybe I'm wrong maybe I just missed it

1979
03:22:26,040 --> 03:22:34,280
 but does it is there are we able to kind of cap how high like the height of the roof because

1980
03:22:34,280 --> 03:22:39,880
 I guess my concern is if somebody built something say on top of a detached garage in their back

1981
03:22:39,880 --> 03:22:44,800
 yard and then this thing went you know just straight up to where it's peering down into

1982
03:22:44,800 --> 03:22:52,480
 their neighbors backyard like are we going to is there any kind of curtailing that like

1983
03:22:52,480 --> 03:22:58,720
 as far as height sure so for that it goes it goes to the zoning district requirements

1984
03:22:58,720 --> 03:23:04,720
 and so but to your specific example when we're measuring buildings with a with an extremely

1985
03:23:04,720 --> 03:23:10,240
 steep pitched roof the way that's taken is we kind of take where the actual structure

1986
03:23:10,240 --> 03:23:14,520
 stops and where that ultimate peak is of the roof and so you have your slant here there's

1987
03:23:14,520 --> 03:23:19,120
 really great graphic in the DDC but for now I'm going to use my hands if it's too confusing

1988
03:23:19,120 --> 03:23:23,600
 let me know thank you so we take the midpoint between these two and that's where the measurement

1989
03:23:23,600 --> 03:23:31,720
 is is from and so let's say this was like 20 feet and this was 10 mm-hmm the midpoint

1990
03:23:31,720 --> 03:23:35,360
 probably about 15 feet so that's where the height would be now granted most of this space

1991
03:23:35,360 --> 03:23:42,400
 is not habitable it is like right man I'm losing my words I'm sorry it's just for architectural

1992
03:23:42,400 --> 03:23:47,280
 purposes but for structures that are a flat roof like that we do measure to the highest

1993
03:23:47,280 --> 03:23:52,240
 point so if somebody just wanted to build straight on top and it's extremely tall and

1994
03:23:52,240 --> 03:23:56,320
 that is all habitable space we're measuring from that top point but when you're doing

1995
03:23:56,320 --> 03:24:01,640
 add-on features for architectural purposes we'll split the difference and take that midpoint

1996
03:24:01,640 --> 03:24:06,200
 for height and so that's that's kind of how all of those height measurements are spelled

1997
03:24:06,200 --> 03:24:11,160
 out in the the DDC and that's really how any structure in the city is measured okay all

1998
03:24:11,160 --> 03:24:23,240
 right thank you okay at this point I'll open the public hearing I do have one card to speak

1999
03:24:23,240 --> 03:24:31,520
 Miss Dana Zoltner you're welcome to come down state your name and address and you'll have

2000
03:24:31,520 --> 03:24:46,680
 four minutes Dana Zoltner 610 Emory and all of this looks good in terms of ADU however

2001
03:24:46,680 --> 03:24:56,680
 when it talks about consistency of color roof pitch who who gets to make sure that happens

2002
03:24:56,680 --> 03:25:06,880
 because across the street from me we had this flat roofed little house with a huge warehouse

2003
03:25:06,880 --> 03:25:15,920
 behind it and the excuse is there's a storage shed below with the ADU on top you can see

2004
03:25:15,920 --> 03:25:24,880
 it over the house you can it's it's an eyesore and we had an opportunity to get it stopped

2005
03:25:24,880 --> 03:25:35,680
 even before even even before the permits were issued we asked about that and they went ahead

2006
03:25:35,680 --> 03:25:41,840
 and said oh you're allowed a storage shed I've got a picture if you all want to look

2007
03:25:41,840 --> 03:25:50,400
 on my phone and see what it looks like but working on how many you're tearing up neighborhoods

2008
03:25:50,400 --> 03:26:01,400
 is what you're doing when you try to get as much as possible I just I just am really concerned

2009
03:26:01,400 --> 03:26:11,880
 about the city's lack of concern for our established neighborhoods and the monstrosities that are

2010
03:26:11,880 --> 03:26:21,600
 going that are that get built because they're entitled to a storage shed if you could put

2011
03:26:21,600 --> 03:26:28,160
 it in that little center circle yeah then the the special camera that I've never been

2012
03:26:28,160 --> 03:26:37,080
 able to find exists somewhere yes we will see if the camera there it is okay there's

2013
03:26:37,080 --> 03:26:42,960
 what's across the street yeah if you could step back in front of the mic that way it

2014
03:26:42,960 --> 03:26:53,360
 won't feed back you just yeah thank you that's what's across the street it's a very nice

2015
03:26:53,360 --> 03:27:01,640
 cat by the way that's that's from the side that's on Coit Street and you can see I mean

2016
03:27:01,640 --> 03:27:14,580
 bear it it shadows that the little house that's I took that picture in the afternoon and it

2017
03:27:14,580 --> 03:27:20,720
 it just totally the little I mean you can't even see the little house because it's so

2018
03:27:20,720 --> 03:27:30,920
 shaded by this warehouse there's another one like that on 1107 Broadway now that's been

2019
03:27:30,920 --> 03:27:40,920
 permitted as a quote tool shed it's and it's not consistent it's those houses are brick

2020
03:27:40,920 --> 03:27:48,920
 this is frame the house I've been by there several times different times of the day there

2021
03:27:48,920 --> 03:27:56,360
 are a minimum of four cars in the driveway three on the street and they're saying it's

2022
03:27:56,360 --> 03:28:04,480
 a tool shed maybe it is I don't I mean I don't know if I lived in that neighborhood I'd be

2023
03:28:04,480 --> 03:28:15,780
 I'd be asking code enforcement to take a look at it but it concerns me in established neighborhoods

2024
03:28:15,780 --> 03:28:23,080
 there's no oversight and and you all really don't seem to particularly care when we talked

2025
03:28:23,080 --> 03:28:30,320
 about when we called and went and had a meeting and it's oh well they can have a they're allowed

2026
03:28:30,320 --> 03:28:37,520
 to have a storage shed well you can get one a whole lot cheaper that looks really cute

2027
03:28:37,520 --> 03:28:45,920
 from Home Depot and not spend the kind of money that got spent across the street so

2028
03:28:45,920 --> 03:28:53,780
 I you know I it looks good on paper but where's the enforcement going where's the oversight

2029
03:28:53,780 --> 03:29:07,400
 where you all should take care of us thank you is it a question for the commenter okay

2030
03:29:07,400 --> 03:29:14,360
 just if we can hold it I don't have any more cards on this item but this is a public hearing

2031
03:29:14,360 --> 03:29:20,660
 you're welcome to come down and speak and just state your name and address and then

2032
03:29:20,660 --> 03:29:29,800
 you can get a card to the secretary afterwards you'll have four minutes hello my name is

2033
03:29:29,800 --> 03:29:38,960
 brand richter I live at 1804 Linden Drive I attended both of the public meetings that

2034
03:29:38,960 --> 03:29:45,360
 Angie and Julie held over the ADU in town home code amendment changes and was very impressed

2035
03:29:45,360 --> 03:29:49,240
 to see the way that they synthesized a lot of that public feedback so I really appreciate

2036
03:29:49,240 --> 03:29:55,440
 the time that staff took putting that together I grew up here in Denton in a 3,300 square

2037
03:29:55,440 --> 03:30:02,440
 foot home on a huge acre lot that was awesome for me and my the six members of my family

2038
03:30:02,440 --> 03:30:07,840
 and I've lived in Denton for you know still and the home that I'm in now I'm with it's

2039
03:30:07,840 --> 03:30:13,080
 me and it's the four of us in there and it's in I believe the same neighborhood as our

2040
03:30:13,080 --> 03:30:20,800
 previous speaker in one of our older neighborhoods just north of campus for me as a young working

2041
03:30:20,800 --> 03:30:24,520
 person who's also single that's kind of the only choice that I have in this community

2042
03:30:24,520 --> 03:30:30,360
 and it frustrates me that when I hear people talk about these types of more approachable

2043
03:30:30,360 --> 03:30:36,160
 housing options that are within my price point as a prospective homeowner be outside of the

2044
03:30:36,160 --> 03:30:41,440
 preference of a person who already owns a home it's deeply frustrating that we are looking

2045
03:30:41,440 --> 03:30:46,600
 at potentially limiting or restricting some of these affordability options that open up

2046
03:30:46,600 --> 03:30:51,480
 more access to home ownership in an affordable price point for people who really want to

2047
03:30:51,480 --> 03:30:58,200
 stay here so I'm encouraged that staff is seeing that community feedback and seeing

2048
03:30:58,200 --> 03:31:03,300
 that there is an appetite for reducing those home ownership barriers by adopting these

2049
03:31:03,300 --> 03:31:08,780
 really clean and easy to interpret code changes that allow you know maybe it's my current

2050
03:31:08,780 --> 03:31:14,240
 landowner who wants to put something in our nearly 0.8 acre lot which could easily fit

2051
03:31:14,240 --> 03:31:23,000
 an additional structure and additional people being able to afford those places to live.

2052
03:31:23,000 --> 03:31:27,480
 My neighborhood alone it's again one of those older established neighborhoods it has some

2053
03:31:27,480 --> 03:31:33,520
 property lots that are nearly an acre in size I hear some commissioners speaking earlier

2054
03:31:33,520 --> 03:31:37,600
 about how some of those might be appropriate for additional structures if it's suitable

2055
03:31:37,600 --> 03:31:42,440
 for the lot and I believe that that's a decision that we should at least allow those property

2056
03:31:42,440 --> 03:31:46,000
 owners to make so long as it's not causing any public nuisances and I believe that the

2057
03:31:46,000 --> 03:31:53,540
 code presented does meet that box while allowing some flexibility from the homeowner.

2058
03:31:53,540 --> 03:31:57,080
 So I do believe it's in the city's interest to open up these housing options and allow

2059
03:31:57,080 --> 03:32:02,440
 for more affordable housing and not being too terribly onerous or prescriptive about

2060
03:32:02,440 --> 03:32:08,040
 how that happens to the homeowner and that by pulling back some of these barriers we

2061
03:32:08,040 --> 03:32:12,000
 open up those potentials for people who do want to stick around.

2062
03:32:12,000 --> 03:32:18,540
 So I do hope that the commissioners thoroughly reviewed staff's recommendations and see

2063
03:32:18,540 --> 03:32:27,560
 it as a very constructive and common sense way forward to change these homeownership

2064
03:32:27,560 --> 03:32:28,560
 codes.

2065
03:32:28,560 --> 03:32:29,560
 Thank you.

2066
03:32:29,560 --> 03:32:31,600
 Thank you.

2067
03:32:31,600 --> 03:32:37,040
 This is a public hearing so if anyone else would like to speak you're welcome to come

2068
03:32:37,040 --> 03:32:47,160
 down and share your thoughts on the ADU and townhome amendments.

2069
03:32:47,160 --> 03:32:49,840
 Anyone else?

2070
03:32:49,840 --> 03:32:50,840
 Not seeing any.

2071
03:32:50,840 --> 03:32:59,920
 I will close the public hearing.

2072
03:32:59,920 --> 03:33:06,040
 As chair I'm going to go ahead and make a motion but I expect us to have lots of discussion

2073
03:33:06,040 --> 03:33:07,040
 after that.

2074
03:33:07,040 --> 03:33:16,240
 I've been waiting for this to come forward since about 2016.

2075
03:33:16,240 --> 03:33:24,360
 I really appreciated Commissioner Ketchersed's concept of hey could there be a little bit

2076
03:33:24,360 --> 03:33:36,840
 more flexibility with an SUP perhaps, how does that work?

2077
03:33:36,840 --> 03:33:42,000
 And so like I said I'm going to make a motion and I expect us to have good discussion to

2078
03:33:42,000 --> 03:33:46,680
 work it out and then we'll change it as needed.

2079
03:33:46,680 --> 03:33:56,960
 So I'm going to move to recommend approval with the following modifications to basically

2080
03:33:56,960 --> 03:34:05,120
 copy Commissioner Ketchersed's suggestion where you get plus one ADU if you do an SUP

2081
03:34:05,120 --> 03:34:17,000
 subject to the four dwelling units per lot maximum for reasons of definitions and like

2082
03:34:17,000 --> 03:34:24,720
 I said we may amend this but I'm also going to say within a mile and a half of the downtown

2083
03:34:24,720 --> 03:34:33,480
 square that that SUP would not be required and that's basically just large enough to

2084
03:34:33,480 --> 03:34:40,400
 incorporate the areas around UNT and our universities and that sort of thing.

2085
03:34:40,400 --> 03:34:44,600
 Let me explain my thinking behind that.

2086
03:34:44,600 --> 03:34:55,560
 When I first got on this commission in 2020, 2021 something like that, I think it was 2021,

2087
03:34:55,560 --> 03:35:02,280
 I had the privilege of sitting over there in Commissioner Garland's seat and next to

2088
03:35:02,280 --> 03:35:06,560
 me in Commissioner Dyer's seat was Tim Smith.

2089
03:35:06,560 --> 03:35:12,640
 I don't know if you know Tim but I learned a lot from him and pretty soon after I got

2090
03:35:12,640 --> 03:35:18,600
 on the commission as we were considering some challenges that Denton was having on affordable

2091
03:35:18,600 --> 03:35:23,440
 housing little did we know that in the next six years it would literally get twice as

2092
03:35:23,440 --> 03:35:28,920
 bad like twice as expensive, more than twice as bad.

2093
03:35:28,920 --> 03:35:36,640
 And he mentioned to me that when he went through the Leadership Denton program in the 2016-17

2094
03:35:36,640 --> 03:35:47,480
 era that they took on sort of the combination of affordability and pressures, development

2095
03:35:47,480 --> 03:35:55,360
 pressures near the universities and if you're familiar with Leadership Denton it's a pretty

2096
03:35:55,360 --> 03:36:03,920
 large 30 to 40 person group, they meet monthly for a whole year, people that really enjoy

2097
03:36:03,920 --> 03:36:09,640
 digging into problems on a city level, right?

2098
03:36:09,640 --> 03:36:14,120
 And they came back and said we need ADUs, right?

2099
03:36:14,120 --> 03:36:23,360
 At the time our code allowed the building but functionally you couldn't live there.

2100
03:36:23,360 --> 03:36:29,120
 It was barred from any long term lease contracts officially.

2101
03:36:29,120 --> 03:36:35,600
 Now unofficially we probably had 30 or 40 buildings that were leasing things out but

2102
03:36:35,600 --> 03:36:39,400
 if you asked to build one then the answer would be no.

2103
03:36:39,400 --> 03:36:45,880
 We fixed a lot of those problems with the 2019 code.

2104
03:36:45,880 --> 03:36:54,880
 Very large refresh so they became buildable without having an SUP and we've seen some

2105
03:36:54,880 --> 03:37:01,600
 since then but primarily and I'll ask staff to confirm this after I'm done, primarily

2106
03:37:01,600 --> 03:37:14,080
 I believe we've seen them on newer construction lots where the main home and an ADU are being

2107
03:37:14,080 --> 03:37:16,680
 built together, right?

2108
03:37:16,680 --> 03:37:22,140
 Which affords a lot more flexibility in how you lay out the site.

2109
03:37:22,140 --> 03:37:32,840
 As staff said, there's lots of planning as we talked about earlier this year, tonight,

2110
03:37:32,840 --> 03:37:38,720
 in the small area plan with Southeast Denton to understand what are the barriers.

2111
03:37:38,720 --> 03:37:53,000
 I understand concerns about parking, I'll just say we have to make a judgment call and

2112
03:37:53,000 --> 03:37:58,760
 a policy call about what is the more pressing need in our community.

2113
03:37:58,760 --> 03:38:08,000
 Right now we are requiring parking that prevents homes from being built.

2114
03:38:08,000 --> 03:38:14,520
 Which essentially means we're saying availability of parking regardless of how many cars there

2115
03:38:14,520 --> 03:38:23,520
 are is more important than housing people and I believe that to be morally and ethically

2116
03:38:23,520 --> 03:38:30,560
 suspect.

2117
03:38:30,560 --> 03:38:37,820
 So I think we have an opportunity here to really move the ball forward and I'm excited

2118
03:38:37,820 --> 03:38:41,960
 to see where the discussion goes.

2119
03:38:41,960 --> 03:38:47,200
 There's other things I think we need to do, this is just a first step toward making this

2120
03:38:47,200 --> 03:38:54,920
 stuff possible economically and feasible on lots where it makes sense already just from

2121
03:38:54,920 --> 03:38:57,320
 a location perspective.

2122
03:38:57,320 --> 03:39:07,720
 I'll just share one anecdote, I had the pleasure a couple years ago to meet a gentleman here

2123
03:39:07,720 --> 03:39:18,440
 who is a graduate student, a foreign graduate student who because of the cost of housing

2124
03:39:18,440 --> 03:39:27,280
 in Denton was living in a one bedroom apartment and there were five students living in this

2125
03:39:27,280 --> 03:39:31,040
 one bedroom apartment.

2126
03:39:31,040 --> 03:39:38,400
 When housing is expensive, restricting the number of homes that can be built doesn't

2127
03:39:38,400 --> 03:39:44,960
 get you less people, doesn't get you less cars, doesn't get you less congestion, all

2128
03:39:44,960 --> 03:39:51,760
 it does is squeeze people into an overcrowded situation.

2129
03:39:51,760 --> 03:40:00,360
 And so I think that these amendments will allow the lowest impact type of development

2130
03:40:00,360 --> 03:40:09,200
 to go into our core neighborhoods and start alleviating that pressure.

2131
03:40:09,200 --> 03:40:16,320
 The more of these we build, the fewer four story huge cube apartment complexes are going

2132
03:40:16,320 --> 03:40:18,680
 to come by.

2133
03:40:18,680 --> 03:40:28,000
 So that's really the trade off is do we embrace these small changes or do we say, well, all

2134
03:40:28,000 --> 03:40:38,280
 change is equally objectionable and therefore we would prefer to wait until applicants come

2135
03:40:38,280 --> 03:40:45,720
 with deep pockets and rezone properties right next to neighborhoods because all change is

2136
03:40:45,720 --> 03:40:48,240
 equally objectionable.

2137
03:40:48,240 --> 03:40:49,240
 I don't believe that's true.

2138
03:40:49,240 --> 03:40:56,840
 I think while there's concerns that we need to take seriously, we need to look at enforcement,

2139
03:40:56,840 --> 03:41:04,480
 we need to understand how this develops and look at it next year, see how are we doing.

2140
03:41:04,480 --> 03:41:14,840
 I think when you have this public input and that sort of thing, what you'll see is nervousness

2141
03:41:14,840 --> 03:41:24,040
 of seeing more change, but realization that adding a building behind a home is not as

2142
03:41:24,040 --> 03:41:29,640
 big of a change as building a four story apartment complex behind somebody's backyard.

2143
03:41:29,640 --> 03:41:30,640
 So that's my motion.

2144
03:41:30,640 --> 03:41:31,640
 Yeah, Steph.

2145
03:41:31,640 --> 03:41:38,680
 I just want to make sure I can restate your motion and that we captured it.

2146
03:41:38,680 --> 03:41:45,360
 So your motion was to recommend approval of the staff recommendation with two modifications,

2147
03:41:45,360 --> 03:41:50,800
 the first to allow one additional accessory dwelling unit per lot with a specific use permit

2148
03:41:50,800 --> 03:41:56,260
 required provided that additional ADU could not be allowed if the lot would have more

2149
03:41:56,260 --> 03:42:01,320
 than four dwelling units, and the second modification being an exemption to that SUP requirement

2150
03:42:01,320 --> 03:42:05,960
 for the additional ADU per lot for any property within one and a half miles of the downtown

2151
03:42:05,960 --> 03:42:06,960
 square.

2152
03:42:06,960 --> 03:42:07,960
 Is that correct?

2153
03:42:07,960 --> 03:42:08,960
 That's correct, yes.

2154
03:42:08,960 --> 03:42:11,160
 So is there a second on that?

2155
03:42:11,160 --> 03:42:12,960
 Well, I just want to clarify something.

2156
03:42:12,960 --> 03:42:16,960
 Are we just dealing with ADUs now and then we'll talk about the townhouse or are we doing

2157
03:42:16,960 --> 03:42:21,200
 it all as one, is staff recommending us all as one?

2158
03:42:21,200 --> 03:42:22,200
 It's all one item.

2159
03:42:22,200 --> 03:42:32,240
 I think we can still amend the townhome proposal if need be, but my motion was for both, but

2160
03:42:32,240 --> 03:42:34,120
 the amendment was only to the ADU.

2161
03:42:34,120 --> 03:42:37,440
 I just need clarification, thank you.

2162
03:42:37,440 --> 03:42:38,440
 Commissioner Garland?

2163
03:42:38,440 --> 03:42:41,360
 I will second that we approve the motion.

2164
03:42:41,360 --> 03:42:45,640
 I would like to say I'm actually really happy that we're doing this.

2165
03:42:45,640 --> 03:42:49,840
 I feel like housing diversity and different options is something that our community's

2166
03:42:49,840 --> 03:42:56,640
 needed for a long time, and as the economy just continues to squeeze families, a lot

2167
03:42:56,640 --> 03:43:02,000
 of families are in that position of aging parents and adult children that can't afford

2168
03:43:02,000 --> 03:43:08,480
 a three-bedroom, two-bath brick home, and also, coincidentally, cannot afford a one-bedroom

2169
03:43:08,480 --> 03:43:13,320
 apartment, and so I think that this will open up a lot of flexibility and a lot of options

2170
03:43:13,320 --> 03:43:20,180
 for people that are looking for a way to kind of bring their family in and do what makes

2171
03:43:20,180 --> 03:43:27,220
 sense financially for them, so I'm happy to support those.

2172
03:43:27,220 --> 03:43:28,220
 Commissioner Riggs?

2173
03:43:28,220 --> 03:43:33,040
 Yeah, I'd like to do a little bit more discussion before we go to a vote.

2174
03:43:33,040 --> 03:43:36,160
 First, Ms. Oltner, we were forwarded your email.

2175
03:43:36,160 --> 03:43:42,000
 Thank you for sending that in, and I think she has a legitimate concern, and I guess

2176
03:43:42,000 --> 03:43:47,000
 one of the things I'd ... Yeah, no, and I don't think any of us are.

2177
03:43:47,000 --> 03:43:54,760
 I think we all understand ... Well, and I think we all understand that the different

2178
03:43:54,760 --> 03:44:04,280
 needs for different housing is very real and didn't, but I also do want to say that I used

2179
03:44:04,280 --> 03:44:12,280
 to live on a street where essentially all of the garages were converted into basically

2180
03:44:12,280 --> 03:44:17,840
 more living space, and so everybody parked on the street, and I would not let my kids

2181
03:44:17,840 --> 03:44:23,720
 play out in the front yard, because everybody had to basically neck down, and so I think

2182
03:44:23,720 --> 03:44:30,840
 to say that people's concerns about parking is morally and ethically suspect, I don't

2183
03:44:30,840 --> 03:44:35,760
 think it's fair, so I think that's a legitimate concern, but the other thing I would like

2184
03:44:35,760 --> 03:44:42,620
 to know from staff, in the case of Mrs. Oltner's referencing, did that go in according to code?

2185
03:44:42,620 --> 03:44:45,360
 Is that still allowed from what we're voting on?

2186
03:44:45,360 --> 03:44:51,240
 Yeah, and I'll trust Hillary will stop me if we get off posting, but in answer to that

2187
03:44:51,240 --> 03:44:55,720
 question ... I'm sorry, can you rephrase it?

2188
03:44:55,720 --> 03:44:56,720
 Or can you say it again?

2189
03:44:56,720 --> 03:44:57,720
 I totally blank.

2190
03:44:57,720 --> 03:44:59,960
 It was just, did it meet code?

2191
03:44:59,960 --> 03:45:05,080
 So the ADU code about the one structure there on Emory Street that's I guess powering over

2192
03:45:05,080 --> 03:45:06,080
 the other one?

2193
03:45:06,080 --> 03:45:07,080
 Yes.

2194
03:45:07,080 --> 03:45:13,800
 It did go through permit review and was also assigned to Planner to verify it against the

2195
03:45:13,800 --> 03:45:16,080
 current regulations.

2196
03:45:16,080 --> 03:45:21,200
 It's within the allowable height and meets the setback requirements, as well as the size

2197
03:45:21,200 --> 03:45:22,200
 requirements.

2198
03:45:22,200 --> 03:45:27,200
 It is built on top of a storage building, similar to if somebody were to build a home

2199
03:45:27,200 --> 03:45:30,840
 on top of a garage unit.

2200
03:45:30,840 --> 03:45:37,640
 So with these requirements that are up here, consistency in color and roof pitch, are those

2201
03:45:37,640 --> 03:45:41,000
 applied to that specific one?

2202
03:45:41,000 --> 03:45:45,160
 So these are suggestions that are specific to this amendment.

2203
03:45:45,160 --> 03:45:50,720
 We do have a blanket statement that any ADU, visible or not from the right of way, be architecturally

2204
03:45:50,720 --> 03:45:54,120
 compatible and that is left a little open ended.

2205
03:45:54,120 --> 03:45:57,840
 However, it was determined to meet those criteria.

2206
03:45:57,840 --> 03:46:02,480
 We are attempting with these amendments to specify it a bit more and when it applies,

2207
03:46:02,480 --> 03:46:05,080
 but it was compliant with those requirements.

2208
03:46:05,080 --> 03:46:06,080
 Okay.

2209
03:46:06,080 --> 03:46:09,480
 But now with these new requirements that you're proposing, that structure would look different

2210
03:46:09,480 --> 03:46:11,040
 than it does today?

2211
03:46:11,040 --> 03:46:14,160
 I can't say that for certain without doing a detailed review.

2212
03:46:14,160 --> 03:46:19,000
 It may end up being the same.

2213
03:46:19,000 --> 03:46:20,880
 Okay.

2214
03:46:20,880 --> 03:46:24,600
 Commissioner McTuff?

2215
03:46:24,600 --> 03:46:30,860
 Understand all these things and the need for changes and certainly affordable housing and

2216
03:46:30,860 --> 03:46:34,120
 agree with several things that have been said this evening.

2217
03:46:34,120 --> 03:46:37,080
 Ms. Zolter, I think we hear you.

2218
03:46:37,080 --> 03:46:40,040
 We did not get that email.

2219
03:46:40,040 --> 03:46:46,720
 The Planning and Zoning Commissioner Riggs forwarded that to me this evening, but I can

2220
03:46:46,720 --> 03:46:51,960
 tell you that we are concerned about established neighborhoods.

2221
03:46:51,960 --> 03:46:54,840
 We do, I for one live in an established neighborhood.

2222
03:46:54,840 --> 03:47:04,600
 I've lived in all kinds of housing in Denton, Texas as a student and forward.

2223
03:47:04,600 --> 03:47:10,520
 Where I am living now in Southridge, we do have an issue with parking from an accessory

2224
03:47:10,520 --> 03:47:16,340
 building around the corner and many times there are six cars lined up in the driveway

2225
03:47:16,340 --> 03:47:19,880
 and numerous work trucks on the street.

2226
03:47:19,880 --> 03:47:29,120
 Just the other day I saw a young man wheeling in a baby stroller, the baby of the family

2227
03:47:29,120 --> 03:47:30,640
 and I said, "Where are you going?

2228
03:47:30,640 --> 03:47:33,460
 What are you doing?"

2229
03:47:33,460 --> 03:47:38,960
 I was very fearful for that young man, so I'm going to echo Commissioner Riggs' comment

2230
03:47:38,960 --> 03:47:46,060
 about not to take into account the parking issue for the ADU.

2231
03:47:46,060 --> 03:47:49,640
 It's not a good thing.

2232
03:47:49,640 --> 03:47:58,200
 I will say that I don't have issues with the parking that's being recommended with this.

2233
03:47:58,200 --> 03:48:07,000
 Yes, I for one, but I think we do need to take into account the parking when we talk

2234
03:48:07,000 --> 03:48:15,720
 about these other types of dwellings for health and safety.

2235
03:48:15,720 --> 03:48:24,300
 Just to clarify, because I went long-winded, I may have not stated it correctly, the parking

2236
03:48:24,300 --> 03:48:34,000
 comment was not in any way to suggest that parking availability becomes a challenge in

2237
03:48:34,000 --> 03:48:35,000
 certain neighborhoods.

2238
03:48:35,000 --> 03:48:43,160
 It wasn't to suggest that this shouldn't be an issue that we look to resolve.

2239
03:48:43,160 --> 03:48:49,120
 What I was saying is that the housing affordability and lack of housing in the places and the

2240
03:48:49,120 --> 03:48:56,480
 types and the sizes that we need is a much more pressing manner right now than whether

2241
03:48:56,480 --> 03:49:01,160
 there are two or three more cars on most streets.

2242
03:49:01,160 --> 03:49:02,160
 That's really what we're talking about.

2243
03:49:02,160 --> 03:49:07,240
 This is the type of change that evolves over decades.

2244
03:49:07,240 --> 03:49:13,360
 Property on the block is not going to build an ADU next year, because we have distributed

2245
03:49:13,360 --> 03:49:14,360
 ownership.

2246
03:49:14,360 --> 03:49:15,360
 I just wanted to clarify that.

2247
03:49:15,360 --> 03:49:19,320
 No, and I think that's one of the things that, particularly where I think sometimes

2248
03:49:19,320 --> 03:49:26,000
 you and I disagree is more of at what pendulum of swing do we go?

2249
03:49:26,000 --> 03:49:30,760
 Sometimes I think you're here and I'm about here, which we're still on the same page.

2250
03:49:30,760 --> 03:49:37,440
 I think that's one of the things that we're here to talk about is talk about what is reasonable

2251
03:49:37,440 --> 03:49:39,240
 and where do we go.

2252
03:49:39,240 --> 03:49:40,760
 I did have another question too.

2253
03:49:40,760 --> 03:49:47,640
 Is there any worry about adding ADUs on properties, particularly say like new developments, that

2254
03:49:47,640 --> 03:49:52,600
 doesn't have any kind of issue with our tree ordinance and tree canopy goals, does it?

2255
03:49:52,600 --> 03:49:53,600
 No.

2256
03:49:53,600 --> 03:49:56,920
 With new developments specifically?

2257
03:49:56,920 --> 03:49:58,560
 I guess comment to both.

2258
03:49:58,560 --> 03:49:59,560
 Sure.

2259
03:49:59,560 --> 03:50:07,920
 Well, it gets tricky when dealing with single-family homes and tree preservation in our established

2260
03:50:07,920 --> 03:50:12,840
 neighborhoods due to state law and some of the limitations we have there.

2261
03:50:12,840 --> 03:50:17,680
 When it comes to new developments, so green field development, they are required to submit

2262
03:50:17,680 --> 03:50:23,520
 that tree preservation plan up front, and those that do pre-plan their ADUs, and it

2263
03:50:23,520 --> 03:50:25,440
 is something I've seen a little bit more of.

2264
03:50:25,440 --> 03:50:28,600
 We don't see them all the time, but they do have to account for it at that time, and

2265
03:50:28,600 --> 03:50:32,300
 so they're still required to meet those minimums as they're lot planning.

2266
03:50:32,300 --> 03:50:37,600
 There's no sort of carve out for the ADU situation there.

2267
03:50:37,600 --> 03:50:39,560
 Then I do have one more question.

2268
03:50:39,560 --> 03:50:49,160
 Just for clarification, with the motion that's on the floor, are we saying that you can have

2269
03:50:49,160 --> 03:50:56,240
 plus one ADU if it'll fit so that we have a maximum of two ADUs on a lot, or can there

2270
03:50:56,240 --> 03:50:57,240
 be more?

2271
03:50:57,240 --> 03:51:01,200
 I just feel like I need clarification.

2272
03:51:01,200 --> 03:51:12,880
 Yeah, so the motion is exactly as staff presented with the addition of Commissioner Ketcherset's

2273
03:51:12,880 --> 03:51:19,240
 suggestion, which says if you want one more ADU than what staff has presented, you have

2274
03:51:19,240 --> 03:51:22,760
 the option of asking for an SUP for that.

2275
03:51:22,760 --> 03:51:33,480
 Then as Hilary Haley ... I'm sorry.

2276
03:51:33,480 --> 03:51:43,000
 My left-right brain has flipped tonight, apparently, as Haley stated that if you are within a mile

2277
03:51:43,000 --> 03:51:49,960
 and a half of the downtown square, that SUP would not be required in order for the plus

2278
03:51:49,960 --> 03:51:50,960
 one.

2279
03:51:50,960 --> 03:51:51,960
 Yeah.

2280
03:51:51,960 --> 03:51:56,480
 So where I was looking for clarification is there would only be a max of two in any of

2281
03:51:56,480 --> 03:51:57,480
 those situations.

2282
03:51:57,480 --> 03:51:58,480
 Correct?

2283
03:51:58,480 --> 03:51:59,480
 Yes.

2284
03:51:59,480 --> 03:52:07,840
 I think the second part to that would be, so for a triplex, once you have your one ADU,

2285
03:52:07,840 --> 03:52:13,280
 you cannot get the SUP for the second, because then you have five, and you've become a new

2286
03:52:13,280 --> 03:52:14,280
 use.

2287
03:52:14,280 --> 03:52:15,280
 Okay.

2288
03:52:15,280 --> 03:52:16,880
 Yes, I would agree with that.

2289
03:52:16,880 --> 03:52:20,920
 I did want to clarify, Chair, Angie had made one point of correction at the beginning of

2290
03:52:20,920 --> 03:52:22,000
 her presentation.

2291
03:52:22,000 --> 03:52:27,600
 Are you accepting that as well, that it was the one per lot, not one per dwelling?

2292
03:52:27,600 --> 03:52:28,600
 Yes.

2293
03:52:28,600 --> 03:52:29,760
 I think that's much more clear.

2294
03:52:29,760 --> 03:52:30,760
 Thank you.

2295
03:52:30,760 --> 03:52:35,600
 Regular people who read the code can understand that, and I thank Commissioner Ketcher-Sedd

2296
03:52:35,600 --> 03:52:42,480
 for the simple additional request, because I think that's all much more understandable

2297
03:52:42,480 --> 03:52:49,080
 than anything I've thought before this evening.

2298
03:52:49,080 --> 03:52:52,200
 We haven't heard from Commissioner Dyer in a while, so I'm going to take her and then

2299
03:52:52,200 --> 03:52:53,200
 come back to you.

2300
03:52:53,200 --> 03:52:54,200
 Commissioner Dyer.

2301
03:52:54,200 --> 03:52:56,560
 I have a couple things.

2302
03:52:56,560 --> 03:53:03,880
 Real quick on the townhouses, you talked about the square footage going down to 1,000.

2303
03:53:03,880 --> 03:53:05,840
 So that's the lot size.

2304
03:53:05,840 --> 03:53:07,220
 Correct.

2305
03:53:07,220 --> 03:53:11,560
 What are we looking at for a square footage of a unit then, like the home?

2306
03:53:11,560 --> 03:53:17,240
 I mean, I know it could be different, because you could have three or four levels on there.

2307
03:53:17,240 --> 03:53:25,240
 So what is City staff envisioning when you're recommending going down from, is it 2,000

2308
03:53:25,240 --> 03:53:26,240
 down to 1,000?

2309
03:53:26,240 --> 03:53:28,520
 2,000 down to 1,000, yes.

2310
03:53:28,520 --> 03:53:35,280
 So we actually did an analysis of existing townhomes on the smaller lots and on the 2,000

2311
03:53:35,280 --> 03:53:41,000
 square foot lots, and they were actually, the size of the building was comparable, because

2312
03:53:41,000 --> 03:53:47,840
 the 1,000 square foot would go up.

2313
03:53:47,840 --> 03:53:55,940
 We have a minimum dwelling size of 900 square feet for a townhome, and we are not proposing

2314
03:53:55,940 --> 03:53:57,800
 any modifications to that.

2315
03:53:57,800 --> 03:54:01,980
 So that minimum square footage of a townhome would remain.

2316
03:54:01,980 --> 03:54:05,960
 So even at a minimum, is there a maximum?

2317
03:54:05,960 --> 03:54:12,040
 I mean, could you have a 4,000 square foot townhouse on a 1,000 square foot lot?

2318
03:54:12,040 --> 03:54:14,740
 You'd really have to, if it fits within the building envelope.

2319
03:54:14,740 --> 03:54:21,720
 So it depends on building coverage, meeting parking, meeting any front and rear setbacks,

2320
03:54:21,720 --> 03:54:23,360
 and then building height.

2321
03:54:23,360 --> 03:54:27,020
 So here's where I'm going with this.

2322
03:54:27,020 --> 03:54:32,240
 We have all the tree stuff, the tree canopy.

2323
03:54:32,240 --> 03:54:39,720
 I'm thinking of green space, because when you're looking at affordability, housing affordability,

2324
03:54:39,720 --> 03:54:45,920
 ADU's is one little puzzle piece, townhouses was one little puzzle piece, single family,

2325
03:54:45,920 --> 03:54:53,340
 it's all multifamily apartment, that's all little puzzle pieces to the affordability issue.

2326
03:54:53,340 --> 03:55:00,440
 And some of your first time homeowners are going to take advantage of a lower price point

2327
03:55:00,440 --> 03:55:03,040
 to buy a townhouse.

2328
03:55:03,040 --> 03:55:08,520
 And it could be a young family with one, maybe two children.

2329
03:55:08,520 --> 03:55:14,680
 But if it's on a 1,000 square foot lot, what kind of green space, what kind of backyard

2330
03:55:14,680 --> 03:55:20,360
 are they going to be able to have a little patio out there where they and their kids

2331
03:55:20,360 --> 03:55:27,960
 and a dog can play, or is it absolutely going to give them no green space?

2332
03:55:27,960 --> 03:55:35,600
 It would depend on the size, and remember the 1,000 would be the minimum, and there

2333
03:55:35,600 --> 03:55:38,480
 could be flexibility for that.

2334
03:55:38,480 --> 03:55:45,040
 So in terms of green space, townhomes could potentially afford that backyard or that green

2335
03:55:45,040 --> 03:55:52,600
 space, but it would depend on the specific project, maybe what that family is looking

2336
03:55:52,600 --> 03:55:54,200
 for in terms of it.

2337
03:55:54,200 --> 03:56:01,160
 We are proposing to maintain that 2,000 square feet, so those larger lots in the R6 and R7

2338
03:56:01,160 --> 03:56:06,080
 because those are kind of those more moderate density, and those would likely have maybe

2339
03:56:06,080 --> 03:56:09,560
 larger backyards or front yards.

2340
03:56:09,560 --> 03:56:16,800
 But getting that smaller lot size in our downtown because that encourages that more walkable

2341
03:56:16,800 --> 03:56:20,800
 development, that more compact development pattern.

2342
03:56:20,800 --> 03:56:25,760
 So where individual green space may not be as important in our downtown because you've

2343
03:56:25,760 --> 03:56:35,240
 got the square and you've got other community assets, whereas that private open space, green

2344
03:56:35,240 --> 03:56:41,320
 space might be really important in an area outside of our downtown area because there

2345
03:56:41,320 --> 03:56:44,920
 aren't those walkable places to go to.

2346
03:56:44,920 --> 03:56:46,960
 So it really is depending on that context.

2347
03:56:46,960 --> 03:56:52,760
 Okay, I would just encourage city staff if this passes tonight just to kind of think

2348
03:56:52,760 --> 03:57:01,360
 about that when you're working with developers, just to make sure that for the affordability

2349
03:57:01,360 --> 03:57:08,920
 factor that you're also meeting the needs of that single parent or that young family

2350
03:57:08,920 --> 03:57:14,680
 that may have the children that need a little bit of extra space.

2351
03:57:14,680 --> 03:57:20,560
 It's not just going to be your fun and young 20 somethings or 30 or your empty nesters

2352
03:57:20,560 --> 03:57:23,800
 that some may care and some may not.

2353
03:57:23,800 --> 03:57:26,800
 So that's what I wanted to say on that.

2354
03:57:26,800 --> 03:57:27,800
 Did you want to add anything?

2355
03:57:27,800 --> 03:57:28,800
 No, no, no.

2356
03:57:28,800 --> 03:57:29,800
 Okay.

2357
03:57:29,800 --> 03:57:33,120
 I do have something on the ADU situation.

2358
03:57:33,120 --> 03:57:44,300
 I have to say I did not like your comment, Chair, about prioritizing parking spaces over

2359
03:57:44,300 --> 03:57:49,440
 the affordability factor because that was one of the things I think I brought up when

2360
03:57:49,440 --> 03:57:54,400
 we were in the Development Code Review Committee and talking about this is that one of the

2361
03:57:54,400 --> 03:57:59,120
 things if there is a garage, the garage could technically be converted, whether it's an

2362
03:57:59,120 --> 03:58:05,400
 attached garage or a detached garage to an ADU to a little apartment.

2363
03:58:05,400 --> 03:58:12,080
 And then that means that that homeowner who had the garage now is on the street and the

2364
03:58:12,080 --> 03:58:17,240
 person that's renting out the ADU is now on the street and to me it's not so much about

2365
03:58:17,240 --> 03:58:24,840
 parking spaces as it is your first responders and being able for safety reasons to be able

2366
03:58:24,840 --> 03:58:31,240
 to get ambulances, fire trucks, all of that down the street.

2367
03:58:31,240 --> 03:58:40,640
 I sat now in what, 10 months of meetings, 10, 11 months of meetings and we've had the

2368
03:58:40,640 --> 03:58:46,600
 things that have been brought before us, we've heard some people, you know, in the closer

2369
03:58:46,600 --> 03:58:53,400
 to downtown area of Denton talk about the crowded streets, you know, the ones especially

2370
03:58:53,400 --> 03:58:58,600
 the one issue where we were looking at a lot of her multifamily zoning and it was over

2371
03:58:58,600 --> 03:59:03,880
 by the Women's College and they were talking about the traffic patterns and how there's

2372
03:59:03,880 --> 03:59:08,160
 no parking and you can't get down the roads and you can't some, you know, both sides are

2373
03:59:08,160 --> 03:59:13,280
 taken and you can't even get through the roads and two cars can't pass and so to me it's

2374
03:59:13,280 --> 03:59:19,320
 not so much about the parking as it's the whole big picture and not only the big picture

2375
03:59:19,320 --> 03:59:23,160
 of that but there's the big picture of the affordability factor and there's the big picture

2376
03:59:23,160 --> 03:59:28,560
 of property, you know, a property owner's rights and if they want to add an ADU to help

2377
03:59:28,560 --> 03:59:35,840
 offset the cost of their mortgage but also, you know, provide that housing for, you know,

2378
03:59:35,840 --> 03:59:43,040
 somebody else, like it's, this is where we sit on this commission and we have complicated

2379
03:59:43,040 --> 03:59:49,200
 issues and it's not just a clear cut yes and it's not just a clear cut no, there's lots

2380
03:59:49,200 --> 03:59:55,600
 of little facets about this and hopefully when we are giving our reasoning for voting

2381
03:59:55,600 --> 04:00:01,720
 yes with some, hey, staff, can you make sure this happens, that, you know, staff is really

2382
04:00:01,720 --> 04:00:07,900
 listening to our concerns or if, you know, we do vote no, it's not that we are against

2383
04:00:07,900 --> 04:00:14,600
 the issue, it's we see all these other little things so I will probably vote yes just because

2384
04:00:14,600 --> 04:00:21,000
 I do feel that it is important but I do have a huge concern about the, what it's going

2385
04:00:21,000 --> 04:00:29,760
 to do to parking on the streets and the mobility of the community to be able to get up and

2386
04:00:29,760 --> 04:00:37,640
 down the street the first responders with ambulance and fire when we are, I mean, I

2387
04:00:37,640 --> 04:00:42,760
 get it's not happening overnight, it's going to happen over time and I'm assuming HOA,

2388
04:00:42,760 --> 04:00:46,440
 this doesn't really affect HOA unless you're working with the development to allow that

2389
04:00:46,440 --> 04:00:49,380
 in their bylaws for future developments.

2390
04:00:49,380 --> 04:00:54,440
 Right, and I do want to clarify a little bit on the parking and how we got to where we

2391
04:00:54,440 --> 04:00:59,740
 are today just to add some context for maybe everybody so I think when we took our first

2392
04:00:59,740 --> 04:01:03,840
 pass and it's been a while, we worked through ADUs at the beginning of this year and now

2393
04:01:03,840 --> 04:01:09,640
 it's Christmas and a lot has happened but initially we did look at having no parking

2394
04:01:09,640 --> 04:01:15,920
 requirement for ADUs and so, you know, currently today it's one space per bedroom and we kind

2395
04:01:15,920 --> 04:01:21,660
 of looked at swinging that pendulum the other way of none and not everybody on the committee

2396
04:01:21,660 --> 04:01:25,480
 was comfortable with that for some of the reasons you just stated and so we kind of

2397
04:01:25,480 --> 04:01:30,040
 tried to get back towards center and made the language as you see it today consistent

2398
04:01:30,040 --> 04:01:34,400
 with how we do other uses for single family or renovations and that is essentially if

2399
04:01:34,400 --> 04:01:39,040
 you're moving required spaces for the home, they do have to be put back and so in the

2400
04:01:39,040 --> 04:01:44,560
 example of I converted my garage and two of my required spaces were in there, they have

2401
04:01:44,560 --> 04:01:50,340
 to be relocated somewhere else on site or that parking area does have to be provided

2402
04:01:50,340 --> 04:01:55,280
 but when it comes to parking on public right of way, it's always a complicated issue because

2403
04:01:55,280 --> 04:01:59,800
 not everybody uses their garage for their cars, I'm guilty of that sometimes and we

2404
04:01:59,800 --> 04:02:03,960
 can't preclude people from parking on the public right of way so that's how we got to

2405
04:02:03,960 --> 04:02:04,960
 where we are.

2406
04:02:04,960 --> 04:02:08,640
 Well, it's very interesting because, you know, in my profession I always joke that, you know,

2407
04:02:08,640 --> 04:02:14,200
 everything's bigger in Texas but the garages and they build them, like these builders build

2408
04:02:14,200 --> 04:02:19,760
 these really small 20 by 20 garages and, you know, I came, you know, from, I lived in other

2409
04:02:19,760 --> 04:02:24,880
 states where we had basements and so you stored all your stuff in the basement and a lot of

2410
04:02:24,880 --> 04:02:30,720
 people here store their stuff in the garages so they don't park in the garages so, you

2411
04:02:30,720 --> 04:02:36,160
 know, you're going to have the, you know, the main resident people may or may not be

2412
04:02:36,160 --> 04:02:41,760
 using the garages and if you've got teenage drivers, you know, it just, it all gets, it's

2413
04:02:41,760 --> 04:02:43,560
 very complicated.

2414
04:02:43,560 --> 04:02:47,640
 It is very complicated and I was just going to touch on some of the parking requirements.

2415
04:02:47,640 --> 04:02:52,680
 I just wanted to add that the on street spaces cannot count towards those requirements so

2416
04:02:52,680 --> 04:02:57,000
 that they do have to put them back within the lot somewhere.

2417
04:02:57,000 --> 04:03:01,240
 We again can't control behavior but they can't count the street frontage in front of their

2418
04:03:01,240 --> 04:03:03,520
 home towards that required parking.

2419
04:03:03,520 --> 04:03:10,320
 This is, this is where as a commission and even as residents, you know, as a resident

2420
04:03:10,320 --> 04:03:17,280
 of Denton, like we, we are entrusting that you guys will make the best decisions when

2421
04:03:17,280 --> 04:03:26,040
 you're working with a homeowner or a developer that you will think about these things and,

2422
04:03:26,040 --> 04:03:33,440
 you know, I mean you just hope that when you make these decisions that everything, you're

2423
04:03:33,440 --> 04:03:37,760
 going to have some hiccups and you're going to unfortunately have some residents that,

2424
04:03:37,760 --> 04:03:42,680
 you know, yes it still falls within the guidelines but it's, it's an eyesore, it's this or that

2425
04:03:42,680 --> 04:03:46,320
 but hopefully those are few and far between.

2426
04:03:46,320 --> 04:03:48,640
 It won't be perfect.

2427
04:03:48,640 --> 04:03:53,760
 And I will add, sorry, I don't, just, we do keep a monitor especially when we've made

2428
04:03:53,760 --> 04:03:55,840
 changes to things.

2429
04:03:55,840 --> 04:03:59,240
 Did we over correct or did we not correct enough?

2430
04:03:59,240 --> 04:04:03,760
 And as we're seeing today, the Denton Development Code is amendable and so if we're really running

2431
04:04:03,760 --> 04:04:07,760
 into just consistent issues, it is something staff would be keeping track of and could

2432
04:04:07,760 --> 04:04:11,800
 bring back to this body to say hey we tried it, it didn't work, we need to fix it.

2433
04:04:11,800 --> 04:04:16,600
 And I think that shows a great relationship between staff and the board to make sure that

2434
04:04:16,600 --> 04:04:19,560
 it benefits the citizens of the community.

2435
04:04:19,560 --> 04:04:21,520
 Thank you.

2436
04:04:21,520 --> 04:04:29,040
 Before we go to Commissioner McDuff, can you real quick address the open space, green space

2437
04:04:29,040 --> 04:04:30,040
 question?

2438
04:04:30,040 --> 04:04:38,680
 I believe the reduced 2,000 square foot lot size is contingent on a certain proximity

2439
04:04:38,680 --> 04:04:43,120
 to some public open space, is that correct?

2440
04:04:43,120 --> 04:04:45,240
 No, that would be the open space.

2441
04:04:45,240 --> 04:04:52,200
 So the 2,000, the minimum lot size is based upon reducing that minimum lot size to 1,000

2442
04:04:52,200 --> 04:04:53,940
 square feet for our mixed use district.

2443
04:04:53,940 --> 04:05:00,080
 So MD, MN, MR, those are intended for those mixed use walkable environments.

2444
04:05:00,080 --> 04:05:06,920
 The R4, R6 and R7, those would still have to comply with that 2,000 square foot minimum

2445
04:05:06,920 --> 04:05:09,880
 lot size.

2446
04:05:09,880 --> 04:05:16,240
 But in order to, if you have a full development coming in, a subdivision of town homes, right,

2447
04:05:16,240 --> 04:05:25,360
 and not just 1Z, 2Z, if they are going to not provide public open space for that subdivision,

2448
04:05:25,360 --> 04:05:29,200
 they must be within a certain proximity of a park, is that correct?

2449
04:05:29,200 --> 04:05:30,200
 Correct.

2450
04:05:30,200 --> 04:05:36,600
 So I would add that we are proposing currently the regulation is if you have 10 or more units,

2451
04:05:36,600 --> 04:05:42,280
 you have to provide 5% open space for town homes, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes.

2452
04:05:42,280 --> 04:05:47,680
 We're proposing to modify that to projects under three acres.

2453
04:05:47,680 --> 04:05:52,560
 So those smaller infill projects would be exempt.

2454
04:05:52,560 --> 04:05:57,080
 Or if you were a larger project, but you were within a half mile, within a walking distance

2455
04:05:57,080 --> 04:06:01,200
 of a park essentially, you would also be exempt.

2456
04:06:01,200 --> 04:06:10,860
 And that public open space, common area to that private open space for the development,

2457
04:06:10,860 --> 04:06:15,080
 private common open space, does that make sense?

2458
04:06:15,080 --> 04:06:19,280
 That was mostly just to, did that make sense, Commissioner Dyer?

2459
04:06:19,280 --> 04:06:20,280
 Yeah.

2460
04:06:20,280 --> 04:06:25,760
 I knew that there was a discussion about, you know, at so many points, like you had

2461
04:06:25,760 --> 04:06:29,680
 to have so much open space for a community development.

2462
04:06:29,680 --> 04:06:32,200
 I just couldn't.

2463
04:06:32,200 --> 04:06:37,680
 The last few meetings, we've had a lot of information and try to keep track of what

2464
04:06:37,680 --> 04:06:43,760
 all was said when and with what little, you know, what action item and all that is.

2465
04:06:43,760 --> 04:06:44,760
 Yeah.

2466
04:06:44,760 --> 04:06:45,760
 Okay.

2467
04:06:45,760 --> 04:06:46,760
 Commissioner MacDuff?

2468
04:06:46,760 --> 04:06:47,760
 Yes.

2469
04:06:47,760 --> 04:06:54,320
 I was just, thank you for allowing Commissioner Dyer to speak, but I believe I'm in order

2470
04:06:54,320 --> 04:06:56,040
 to call for the question.

2471
04:06:56,040 --> 04:06:57,960
 Very good.

2472
04:06:57,960 --> 04:06:58,960
 Yes.

2473
04:06:58,960 --> 04:07:07,240
 We have a motion and a second and I'm not seeing any more discussion, so let's have

2474
04:07:07,240 --> 04:07:09,440
 a roll call vote.

2475
04:07:09,440 --> 04:07:10,440
 Commissioner MacDuff?

2476
04:07:10,440 --> 04:07:16,000
 I'll be supporting this proposal, I'll be saying aye, and I'll be supporting this proposal

2477
04:07:16,000 --> 04:07:23,560
 with the amendments and also based on our discussion this evening with the presentation

2478
04:07:23,560 --> 04:07:26,760
 by our good staff.

2479
04:07:26,760 --> 04:07:27,760
 Commissioner Griggs?

2480
04:07:27,760 --> 04:07:28,760
 Aye.

2481
04:07:28,760 --> 04:07:36,120
 Chair is an aye and I will say this is the first step toward reevaluating as things go

2482
04:07:36,120 --> 04:07:43,140
 on and if we're not quite there yet, making more steps, I think.

2483
04:07:43,140 --> 04:07:48,720
 It's been a few years since my toddler age where my kids learned to walk, but I remember

2484
04:07:48,720 --> 04:07:57,220
 being astounded how you learn to walk by trying to fall and then catching yourself and it's

2485
04:07:57,220 --> 04:08:01,320
 always scary, especially to the mom.

2486
04:08:01,320 --> 04:08:09,640
 So I trust that we're in a good spot with staff as we lean forward and lean into these

2487
04:08:09,640 --> 04:08:16,480
 challenges we have and that we make our first step and we don't stop there, but we reevaluate

2488
04:08:16,480 --> 04:08:22,920
 and we say what else can we do, what are the priorities, and I also just want to echo some

2489
04:08:22,920 --> 04:08:29,640
 of the concerns that Commissioner Dyer had about the parking situation in different contexts.

2490
04:08:29,640 --> 04:08:35,720
 When that parking study does come forward, I don't know if this would be included in

2491
04:08:35,720 --> 04:08:42,000
 that study, but I think as it's presented to the various bodies, we definitely need

2492
04:08:42,000 --> 04:08:50,120
 a representative of the fire department to come explain what challenges they actually

2493
04:08:50,120 --> 04:08:57,440
 see and how we can tailor those parking regulations not just for new development, but also for

2494
04:08:57,440 --> 04:09:06,040
 parking management so that we can improve those safety situations today instead of waiting

2495
04:09:06,040 --> 04:09:12,360
 for areas to be redeveloped when the development code would apply, but chairs and I, sorry

2496
04:09:12,360 --> 04:09:15,200
 for taking a long time.

2497
04:09:15,200 --> 04:09:17,820
 Commissioner Ketchur said aye.

2498
04:09:17,820 --> 04:09:18,820
 Commissioner Dyer?

2499
04:09:18,820 --> 04:09:19,820
 Aye.

2500
04:09:19,820 --> 04:09:20,820
 Commissioner Barland?

2501
04:09:20,820 --> 04:09:21,820
 Aye.

2502
04:09:21,820 --> 04:09:35,680
 With that, that motion passes 6-0 and that brings us to our planning and zoning matrix.

2503
04:09:35,680 --> 04:09:40,480
 All right.

2504
04:09:40,480 --> 04:09:43,880
 With tonight's work session, I believe we have two items we can mark off of the matrix,

2505
04:09:43,880 --> 04:09:49,040
 so you'll see those changes reflected with our next packet.

2506
04:09:49,040 --> 04:09:54,580
 Just to give you some updates from recent city council actions since our November meeting,

2507
04:09:54,580 --> 04:09:58,080
 at the beginning of December, we did have the Craver Ranch items that were approved

2508
04:09:58,080 --> 04:10:02,960
 by council as well as the specific use permit for that relocation of an installation business

2509
04:10:02,960 --> 04:10:07,760
 here in town, and then just last night, we had the legislative updates to the DDC that

2510
04:10:07,760 --> 04:10:12,680
 you all had recently heard approved as well as the group home SUP that had been requested

2511
04:10:12,680 --> 04:10:19,360
 in the Southridge neighborhood, the addition of the 20 acres to the landmark, MPC, and

2512
04:10:19,360 --> 04:10:23,520
 as well as the historic designation for the house on Rose Lawn that you all heard several

2513
04:10:23,520 --> 04:10:24,520
 months ago actually.

2514
04:10:24,520 --> 04:10:29,360
 That took a while to get to council due to the applicant traveling, but those are the

2515
04:10:29,360 --> 04:10:31,160
 updates I have from council.

2516
04:10:31,160 --> 04:10:37,840
 I did want to note the item on your matrix regarding the multifamily data and recirculating

2517
04:10:37,840 --> 04:10:44,400
 that earlier work session, I am working to get that out to you all fairly soon, hopefully.

2518
04:10:44,400 --> 04:10:45,880
 Thank you.

2519
04:10:45,880 --> 04:10:48,280
 Any additions to the matrix?

2520
04:10:48,280 --> 04:10:49,280
 Commissioner McDuff.

2521
04:10:49,280 --> 04:10:55,880
 Yes, from our discussion this evening, I'd like to add another item, please, on our matrix

2522
04:10:55,880 --> 04:11:02,000
 for the record, and that would be further discussion on Denton 2040 comprehensive plan

2523
04:11:02,000 --> 04:11:08,560
 review and update.

2524
04:11:08,560 --> 04:11:11,640
 Commissioner Tyer.

2525
04:11:11,640 --> 04:11:13,800
 I have a couple.

2526
04:11:13,800 --> 04:11:26,760
 I wanted to talk about rezoning an area, and I'm going to use Craver Ranch as an example.

2527
04:11:26,760 --> 04:11:33,240
 Last month when we had Craver Ranch in here and we were doing rezoning it off from the

2528
04:11:33,240 --> 04:11:40,340
 rural residential with the SUP and all that, they probably had been talking about -- that

2529
04:11:40,340 --> 04:11:47,000
 question came up is why are we just now doing it when it was put into the city limits back

2530
04:11:47,000 --> 04:11:55,520
 in 2008, and I'm sure that developer has been working with city staff for a year or two.

2531
04:11:55,520 --> 04:12:02,560
 Why not when they first come and you know this is going to happen have that rezoning

2532
04:12:02,560 --> 04:12:12,120
 brought in front of this board and then the city council way ahead of time instead of

2533
04:12:12,120 --> 04:12:15,880
 everything boom, boom, boom, boom?

2534
04:12:15,880 --> 04:12:23,480
 Because I think, you know, there was so much for us to have to cover, but even more so

2535
04:12:23,480 --> 04:12:29,040
 there was so much for the residents to have to really wrap their brain around of all that

2536
04:12:29,040 --> 04:12:37,440
 discussion and maybe two years ago if that had been changed from rural residential, I

2537
04:12:37,440 --> 04:12:43,400
 think even though you know, what was that, 17 years ago that that was changed to city

2538
04:12:43,400 --> 04:12:49,520
 limits and everybody knew that it was going to be residences, you forget.

2539
04:12:49,520 --> 04:12:52,960
 You go on with your life and you get busy and so everybody around there probably didn't

2540
04:12:52,960 --> 04:12:54,400
 think about it and didn't forget.

2541
04:12:54,400 --> 04:12:59,200
 And then it was a moment of panic when it was all brought, you know, with three different

2542
04:12:59,200 --> 04:13:00,680
 moments.

2543
04:13:00,680 --> 04:13:08,080
 So I don't know that it's a matrix item necessarily, but just maybe is that possible when things

2544
04:13:08,080 --> 04:13:15,000
 like that, especially on these big developments, that those things, you know, when you know

2545
04:13:15,000 --> 04:13:20,960
 that it's happening to have that as step number one, change that zoning.

2546
04:13:20,960 --> 04:13:25,680
 Yes, I want to make sure I understand what you're asking.

2547
04:13:25,680 --> 04:13:30,280
 So were you saying for properties that are annexed to have the zoning occur sooner after

2548
04:13:30,280 --> 04:13:34,920
 annexation or when we know there's a large scale zoning to bring like a work session

2549
04:13:34,920 --> 04:13:38,760
 to you all to give you an FYI ahead of time?

2550
04:13:38,760 --> 04:13:39,760
 I'm trying to...

2551
04:13:39,760 --> 04:13:43,960
 So like obviously in 2008, even though you knew it was going to be homes, you didn't

2552
04:13:43,960 --> 04:13:45,880
 know what that was going to look like.

2553
04:13:45,880 --> 04:13:50,960
 But then, you know, I mean, a year or two ago when the developer came to city staff

2554
04:13:50,960 --> 04:13:58,040
 and said, this is our plan, this is what we want to do, why not then change that zoning?

2555
04:13:58,040 --> 04:14:02,480
 Like, oh, you're going to need, you know, an SGP, like you're going to need this type

2556
04:14:02,480 --> 04:14:05,080
 of zoning for that.

2557
04:14:05,080 --> 04:14:10,440
 So and this may be something, Hilary, you just prefer we defer to a future work session.

2558
04:14:10,440 --> 04:14:14,960
 I'm thinking a lot of your concern, I think, stems from the annexation process itself,

2559
04:14:14,960 --> 04:14:19,080
 which has changed since 2008 because back then the city forcibly annexed them.

2560
04:14:19,080 --> 04:14:20,240
 It was not done voluntarily.

2561
04:14:20,240 --> 04:14:24,180
 The owners were not ready to zone and were veering into discussion.

2562
04:14:24,180 --> 04:14:29,040
 So I'm going to propose maybe we just do a future work session on annexation processes

2563
04:14:29,040 --> 04:14:31,520
 and that might help address your concern.

2564
04:14:31,520 --> 04:14:33,760
 And zoning, like, yeah.

2565
04:14:33,760 --> 04:14:34,760
 Just the process in general?

2566
04:14:34,760 --> 04:14:35,760
 Maybe.

2567
04:14:35,760 --> 04:14:43,280
 Like it's just, you know, in my mind, I just feel like had that zoning request been done

2568
04:14:43,280 --> 04:14:50,080
 a year or two ago, maybe it would have lessened the tension that we had last month.

2569
04:14:50,080 --> 04:14:51,080
 I mean, a little bit.

2570
04:14:51,080 --> 04:14:54,960
 There was other things, you know, that -- valid concerns.

2571
04:14:54,960 --> 04:14:58,720
 But maybe that would just be one little thing that would have, you know, helped.

2572
04:14:58,720 --> 04:14:59,720
 Cool.

2573
04:14:59,720 --> 04:15:00,720
 Yeah.

2574
04:15:00,720 --> 04:15:03,120
 Let's go ahead and put that on the matrix.

2575
04:15:03,120 --> 04:15:09,920
 And to the extent we can, let's avoid talking about projects we're not posted for.

2576
04:15:09,920 --> 04:15:10,920
 Thanks.

2577
04:15:10,920 --> 04:15:11,920
 Sorry.

2578
04:15:11,920 --> 04:15:13,640
 I just felt like that was a good example.

2579
04:15:13,640 --> 04:15:14,640
 Okay.

2580
04:15:14,640 --> 04:15:19,760
 The other thing, I know we've talked about this.

2581
04:15:19,760 --> 04:15:25,160
 Apartment buildings, multifamily, and we talked about vacancy levels and getting some sort

2582
04:15:25,160 --> 04:15:26,840
 of a report.

2583
04:15:26,840 --> 04:15:36,800
 I think it would be very, very interesting if in that report you can have, like, these

2584
04:15:36,800 --> 04:15:41,000
 are all -- and I don't know if you do it by, like, fourplex and above or if it's just apartment

2585
04:15:41,000 --> 04:15:47,480
 buildings, but have -- these are all the different apartment buildings and this is how many units

2586
04:15:47,480 --> 04:15:50,720
 they have and this is what their vacancy level is.

2587
04:15:50,720 --> 04:15:56,840
 Not only what is currently built, but even what is in the future that is supposed to

2588
04:15:56,840 --> 04:16:01,960
 be coming, especially since, you know, we have a lot of different development happening

2589
04:16:01,960 --> 04:16:05,860
 right now.

2590
04:16:05,860 --> 04:16:08,960
 Because I'm very curious, like, the occupancy rate.

2591
04:16:08,960 --> 04:16:15,960
 Like, the occupancy rate over all in the city, like, is it on average, like, 70% of our apartments

2592
04:16:15,960 --> 04:16:24,220
 are occupied and, again, by units, like, this unit has this many available, but this many

2593
04:16:24,220 --> 04:16:29,680
 is vacant, you know, or this many is full, so that leaves, you know -- they have 50%,

2594
04:16:29,680 --> 04:16:33,120
 you know, because you're going to probably see some that are, like, closer to 100.

2595
04:16:33,120 --> 04:16:38,880
 Like, I just went apartment hunting with my son last week, and there was one in razor

2596
04:16:38,880 --> 04:16:44,880
 ranch and they just opened, they had, like, 10 people, like, it's, you know, 10 units,

2597
04:16:44,880 --> 04:16:45,880
 that's it.

2598
04:16:45,880 --> 04:16:48,680
 So, you know, but that's understandable because they just opened their doors.

2599
04:16:48,680 --> 04:16:52,360
 But then I thought it would be interesting also to see by, like, our districts, like,

2600
04:16:52,360 --> 04:16:58,760
 District 1 has this many apartment units and this is their vacancy rate.

2601
04:16:58,760 --> 04:17:02,320
 District 2, District 3, District 4, I'm just kind of -- it would just be very interesting

2602
04:17:02,320 --> 04:17:06,200
 to see where these apartment buildings are concentrated at.

2603
04:17:06,200 --> 04:17:13,200
 And again, what's -- what we currently have and what is in the future for build-up?

2604
04:17:13,200 --> 04:17:15,000
 I will be completely transparent.

2605
04:17:15,000 --> 04:17:19,480
 I don't know if we have the ability to get that data because what I've found so far in

2606
04:17:19,480 --> 04:17:23,760
 trying to research this for you all is just, like, overall city-wide market data is what's

2607
04:17:23,760 --> 04:17:29,040
 available commercially, so I'll look and see if we can get that somehow, but I'm not sure

2608
04:17:29,040 --> 04:17:31,040
 that we could.

2609
04:17:31,040 --> 04:17:37,360
 Is there even any way to see a list of what is projected -- like, how many apartment units

2610
04:17:37,360 --> 04:17:40,400
 we have in the city and what's projected to be built?

2611
04:17:40,400 --> 04:17:43,680
 I think you'll find that that data is in the report that was given to the Commission earlier

2612
04:17:43,680 --> 04:17:47,400
 this year, and I'm going to circulate that with the report on what we're able to find

2613
04:17:47,400 --> 04:17:48,400
 on vacancy.

2614
04:17:48,400 --> 04:17:49,400
 Okay.

2615
04:17:49,400 --> 04:17:50,400
 Was that prior to February?

2616
04:17:50,400 --> 04:17:51,400
 Yes.

2617
04:17:51,400 --> 04:17:52,960
 I believe it was in January.

2618
04:17:52,960 --> 04:17:53,960
 Yeah.

2619
04:17:53,960 --> 04:17:54,960
 I think you just missed it.

2620
04:17:54,960 --> 04:17:55,960
 Yeah.

2621
04:17:55,960 --> 04:17:56,960
 I just missed that one.

2622
04:17:56,960 --> 04:18:04,120
 Correct me if I'm wrong because I don't want to put words in your mouth, but the request

2623
04:18:04,120 --> 04:18:13,520
 for a work session on annexation and zoning and how that relates to the process.

2624
04:18:13,520 --> 04:18:23,800
 I think we heard tonight and have heard previously that all of a sudden big comprehensive plan

2625
04:18:23,800 --> 04:18:29,520
 amendments and zoning all at the same time is concerning to residents.

2626
04:18:29,520 --> 04:18:39,880
 I would like that work session to include a broader discussion about whether this body

2627
04:18:39,880 --> 04:18:48,680
 likes the way that's happening or would like to see the future land use map revisions always

2628
04:18:48,680 --> 04:18:57,520
 done larger than just the same parcel or subdivision area that's being requested to rezone.

2629
04:18:57,520 --> 04:19:01,960
 In other words, I don't want to get into it, but does that make sense?

2630
04:19:01,960 --> 04:19:05,840
 Do you think that would help the understanding?

2631
04:19:05,840 --> 04:19:10,800
 As far as just opening that work session up to that, would you be in support of that?

2632
04:19:10,800 --> 04:19:27,560
 Absolutely, it just was interesting when on a previous development before this board that

2633
04:19:27,560 --> 04:19:31,480
 city staff had to have known that this was going to be required.

2634
04:19:31,480 --> 04:19:37,840
 It's not like they just knew it a few months ago because these developments take time.

2635
04:19:37,840 --> 04:19:42,720
 It's not just a developer shows up and says, "Hey, I want to be on your agenda next month."

2636
04:19:42,720 --> 04:19:45,200
 There's a whole process.

2637
04:19:45,200 --> 04:19:52,640
 I do actually understand that process, but it's why wait until we're doing all these

2638
04:19:52,640 --> 04:19:55,640
 things?

2639
04:19:55,640 --> 04:20:02,440
 If this is a two-year process, why not a year into it you're coming here in front of the

2640
04:20:02,440 --> 04:20:06,360
 commission and saying, "Hey, we're working with this development.

2641
04:20:06,360 --> 04:20:09,720
 We need to go ahead and change this zoning.

2642
04:20:09,720 --> 04:20:12,280
 This is not zoned appropriately for what's about to happen."

2643
04:20:12,280 --> 04:20:13,280
 Okay.

2644
04:20:13,280 --> 04:20:19,400
 Commissioner Riggs, I remember something about the fiscal tool.

2645
04:20:19,400 --> 04:20:21,800
 I don't know if you were interested in putting that on the matrix.

2646
04:20:21,800 --> 04:20:22,800
 No, absolutely.

2647
04:20:22,800 --> 04:20:23,800
 That was one of the things I was going to recommend.

2648
04:20:23,800 --> 04:20:31,280
 I was also going to recommend putting on the matrix basically a West 380 study that we

2649
04:20:31,280 --> 04:20:40,400
 all discussed earlier, and also if we could have some kind of explanation of staff's financial

2650
04:20:40,400 --> 04:20:47,320
 tool that they use, because I know the finances was a big thing, particularly with the development

2651
04:20:47,320 --> 04:20:53,880
 at the last council, or not the last council meeting, but a week or so, a couple weeks

2652
04:20:53,880 --> 04:20:54,880
 ago.

2653
04:20:54,880 --> 04:21:02,280
 I would also like to discuss whenever we have a development that is, say, 2,000 acres, and

2654
04:21:02,280 --> 04:21:08,440
 we have concerns, and we're hearing concerns from residents about tech stock, about water

2655
04:21:08,440 --> 04:21:14,840
 availability, about financial viability, about all these things, why when we're having a

2656
04:21:14,840 --> 04:21:21,040
 council meeting are the finance people not here, the utility people not here.

2657
04:21:21,040 --> 04:21:26,240
 I think that that would have gone so much smoother if we had all those players at those

2658
04:21:26,240 --> 04:21:33,000
 meetings to talk about it and actually talk in depth about their specific profession.

2659
04:21:33,000 --> 04:21:38,720
 Did you get that?

2660
04:21:38,720 --> 04:21:39,720
 Thank you.

2661
04:21:39,720 --> 04:21:40,720
 Anyone else?

2662
04:21:40,720 --> 04:21:41,720
 Okay.

2663
04:21:41,720 --> 04:21:48,000
 That brings us to our last item, which is concluding items.

2664
04:21:48,000 --> 04:21:49,680
 I have a short one.

2665
04:21:49,680 --> 04:21:51,360
 Thank you, everyone, for your patience.

2666
04:21:51,360 --> 04:22:00,020
 I know the meetings in the last two months have been mentally and eating and drinking

2667
04:22:00,020 --> 04:22:06,920
 and getting rid of fluids challenging, so I just thank you for everybody's attention

2668
04:22:06,920 --> 04:22:08,960
 to detail.

2669
04:22:08,960 --> 04:22:15,560
 I'm really encouraged to see how everyone on this commission, as we gain more experience,

2670
04:22:15,560 --> 04:22:22,120
 is digging into slightly different things so that we don't leave any stone unturned,

2671
04:22:22,120 --> 04:22:26,400
 but I hope everybody has a wonderful holiday time and hopefully you get some more time

2672
04:22:26,400 --> 04:22:32,400
 with your family and we'll hit the ground running in January.

2673
04:22:32,400 --> 04:22:33,400
 Commissioner Riggs?

2674
04:22:33,400 --> 04:22:36,520
 I do have one closing idea to their statement.

2675
04:22:36,520 --> 04:22:40,780
 Tonight, Fredmore High School has a graduating class, and so I just want to say congratulations

2676
04:22:40,780 --> 04:22:43,720
 to all the new Fredmore graduates.

2677
04:22:43,720 --> 04:22:46,040
 Very good, and Commissioner McTuff?

2678
04:22:46,040 --> 04:22:49,080
 Yes, I have a thank you.

2679
04:22:49,080 --> 04:22:53,240
 Someone that helped me this week, our staff member, Matt Underwood, a special thanks to

2680
04:22:53,240 --> 04:22:59,080
 Matt Underwood, Senior Support Services Specialist in our Technology Services of Denton.

2681
04:22:59,080 --> 04:23:04,280
 It's always good to have a good staff member to call and get good help.

2682
04:23:04,280 --> 04:23:12,360
 I got my iPad unlocked and ready to go again, so thanks to Matt during this special time

2683
04:23:12,360 --> 04:23:14,360
 of year.

2684
04:23:14,360 --> 04:23:17,360
 Anything else?

2685
04:23:17,360 --> 04:23:19,440
 Commissioner Dyer?

2686
04:23:19,440 --> 04:23:24,520
 I just wanted to wish city staff, residents, and my fellow commissioners happy Hanukkah

2687
04:23:24,520 --> 04:23:26,480
 and Merry Christmas.

2688
04:23:26,480 --> 04:23:33,560
 Yes, I just wanted to note, I will be out on family leave for a few weeks coming up,

2689
04:23:33,560 --> 04:23:39,160
 so Angie will be with you all for your January and possibly first February meeting.

2690
04:23:39,160 --> 04:23:49,800
 Well, I wish you the best in what you're facing, and seeing no more items, at 944 p.m. on December

2691
04:23:49,800 --> 04:23:55,520
 17th, with no objection, I will call this meeting adjourned.