WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.160 >> Good afternoon at 5.04 p.m. this Wednesday, December 17th, and with a quorum present, 00:00:10.160 --> 00:00:16.720 I will call this meeting of the work session of our Denton Planning and Zoning Commission 00:00:16.720 --> 00:00:18.320 to order. 00:00:18.320 --> 00:00:31.880 Our first order of business is comments by citizens on the consent agenda, not seeing 00:00:31.880 --> 00:00:32.880 anybody. 00:00:32.880 --> 00:00:39.060 We'll move on to the clarification of agenda items listed. 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 00:00:47.680 --> 00:00:51.980 or modifications to approve. 00:00:51.980 --> 00:00:56.280 Any questions on those items? 00:00:56.280 --> 00:00:57.280 Okay. 00:00:57.280 --> 00:01:06.880 It moves us to items for individual consideration for a FP250028C. 00:01:06.880 --> 00:01:17.400 >> Chair and members of the commission, give me two seconds here. 00:01:17.400 --> 00:01:23.400 This is a final plat for the reserves at brush creek. 00:01:23.400 --> 00:01:27.080 It is a plan development for 42 single family homes. 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 00:01:30.920 --> 00:01:35.040 approval but have no objection to the requested extension which could be granted to January 00:01:35.040 --> 00:01:36.040 14th, 26. 00:01:36.040 --> 00:01:42.520 Happy to answer any questions you all may have. 00:01:42.520 --> 00:01:48.720 >> I have an offhanded question. 00:01:48.720 --> 00:01:52.120 They have satisfied the majority of staff's comments. 00:01:52.120 --> 00:01:56.260 We're working through getting to final civil engineering plan approval which is required 00:01:56.260 --> 00:01:58.420 to approve the final plat. 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 00:02:05.400 --> 00:02:07.320 of brush creek road. 00:02:07.320 --> 00:02:12.120 So they're working with the adjacent commercial lot to come to an agreement regarding the 00:02:12.120 --> 00:02:13.880 timing and funding of that road. 00:02:13.880 --> 00:02:16.920 Once that's approved, the civils can be approved and then the plat can be approved. 00:02:16.920 --> 00:02:17.920 >> Thank you. 00:02:17.920 --> 00:02:18.920 >> Anything else? 00:02:18.920 --> 00:02:19.920 I don't see anything. 00:02:19.920 --> 00:02:20.920 Thank you, Angie. 00:02:20.920 --> 00:02:21.920 Next item is 4BPP25-0005. 00:02:21.920 --> 00:02:22.920 >> Good evening, chair and commissioners. 00:02:22.920 --> 00:02:37.180 Cameron Robertson presenting on behalf of Sean Jacobson. 00:02:37.180 --> 00:02:44.360 This is a preliminary plat for approximately 6.5-acre parcel just east of the existing 00:02:44.360 --> 00:02:48.360 south Bonnie bray and west of future south Bonnie bray. 00:02:48.360 --> 00:02:53.320 The staff is currently recommending denial of this preliminary plat as it does not comply 00:02:53.320 --> 00:02:59.080 with the established criteria but staff has no objection to a requested extension to a 00:02:59.080 --> 00:03:07.560 date starting January 14th, 2026 and this would be the second extension. 00:03:07.560 --> 00:03:09.600 >> I have a question on this one. 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 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 00:03:24.960 --> 00:03:31.040 looks like notwithstanding the things that they need to fix that this would plan to connect 00:03:31.040 --> 00:03:36.200 to that roadway and so that roadway would be not abandoned and stay where it is? 00:03:36.200 --> 00:03:39.840 Is that the plan right now? 00:03:39.840 --> 00:03:45.040 >> Yes, it's my understanding that roadway is not going to be abandoned and would stay 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 00:03:50.120 --> 00:03:51.120 will. 00:03:51.120 --> 00:03:52.120 >> Okay. 00:03:52.120 --> 00:03:54.520 Any other questions? 00:03:54.520 --> 00:03:55.520 Not seeing any. 00:03:55.520 --> 00:03:57.760 Thank you, Cameron. 00:03:57.760 --> 00:04:07.280 Brings us to our public hearings 5A is sorry. 00:04:07.280 --> 00:04:12.120 Is it easier to do these two or three together probably? 00:04:12.120 --> 00:04:17.920 So we'll do 5A, B and C the comprehensive plan amendment mobility plan amendment and 00:04:17.920 --> 00:04:19.520 the zoning item. 00:04:19.520 --> 00:04:26.680 >> Yes, thank you chair, evening chair, members of the commission, senior planner, yes you 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 00:04:33.200 --> 00:04:37.800 same time, hopefully open all three public hearings at the same time and then of course 00:04:37.800 --> 00:04:40.720 each of them will need individual action. 00:04:40.720 --> 00:04:46.640 So these three requests are one is a comprehensive plan amendment to change from agricultural 00:04:46.640 --> 00:04:52.560 flume to regional mixed use, the second is a mobility thoroughfare map amendment to remove 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 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 00:05:04.080 --> 00:05:05.800 to mixed use regional. 00:05:05.800 --> 00:05:11.360 The property itself is about 16 and a half acres located just north of university drive 00:05:11.360 --> 00:05:16.000 approximately 2800 feet west of golden hoof drive. 00:05:16.000 --> 00:05:22.600 This property was anticipated to host multifamily development as a part of the hickory grove 00:05:22.600 --> 00:05:24.880 legends ranch municipal utility district. 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 00:05:30.200 --> 00:05:36.000 plan to cover that just briefly in the full presentation. 00:05:36.000 --> 00:05:41.120 Since the creation of that mud this property was excluded and annexed into the city in 00:05:41.120 --> 00:05:47.080 anticipation of that same land use multifamily development and so the applicant is or applicants 00:05:47.080 --> 00:05:53.000 are going through the process of getting their comprehensive plan, future land use designation, 00:05:53.000 --> 00:06:00.160 zoning and mobility situation underway. 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 00:06:04.340 --> 00:06:06.880 work session related to the background. 00:06:06.880 --> 00:06:12.520 The existing land use for the property is undeveloped or the didn't plan 2030 designated 00:06:12.520 --> 00:06:19.160 this area and the entire hickory grove legends ranch mud area as rural areas. 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 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 00:06:30.440 --> 00:06:36.920 portion along US 380 even though with the mud this came forward as multifamily and future 00:06:36.920 --> 00:06:38.680 commercial uses. 00:06:38.680 --> 00:06:47.960 So now we're taking that step and establishing the appropriate or seeking to establish the 00:06:47.960 --> 00:06:53.880 appropriate future land use designation, zoning and thoroughfare map. 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 00:06:57.040 --> 00:07:02.680 detailed presentation in the work session and your details are provided in your backup 00:07:02.680 --> 00:07:07.240 but I will happily answer any questions that you have at this time. 00:07:07.240 --> 00:07:10.160 Commissioner Dyer. 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 00:07:15.720 --> 00:07:18.720 put through. 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 00:07:23.120 --> 00:07:25.160 in here why not just do it all at that time. 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 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 00:07:35.080 --> 00:07:37.440 what was going along US 380. 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 00:07:42.360 --> 00:07:44.920 control zoning in the E.T.J. 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 00:07:49.480 --> 00:07:55.680 Charlie may have something to add. 00:07:55.680 --> 00:07:56.680 Good evening Commission. 00:07:56.680 --> 00:07:59.520 Charlie Rosendahl interim director of development services. 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 00:08:05.600 --> 00:08:10.360 came to the city it was planned that that multifamily would be with included with the 00:08:10.360 --> 00:08:12.640 mud and not a part of the city. 00:08:12.640 --> 00:08:17.880 Subsequently after that they approached the city about increasing the number of units 00:08:17.880 --> 00:08:21.880 in the multifamily and a different comp concept plan. 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 00:08:28.560 --> 00:08:31.920 and annex a portion of that multifamily development. 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 00:08:36.480 --> 00:08:43.400 back for the rezoning which is why it's coming before you today. 00:08:43.400 --> 00:08:46.960 Thank you. 00:08:46.960 --> 00:08:47.960 Anything else? 00:08:47.960 --> 00:08:48.960 Yeah. 00:08:48.960 --> 00:08:49.960 Mr. Riggs. 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 00:08:55.200 --> 00:08:57.200 is encumbered by a floodplain. 00:08:57.200 --> 00:09:01.320 So I guess they're good with doing some kind of loamer or something on that. 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 00:09:07.360 --> 00:09:10.160 development of that single family portion to the north. 00:09:10.160 --> 00:09:18.160 This is actually the floodplain buffer area that's encumbering this property so they would 00:09:18.160 --> 00:09:25.520 just have to design it in accordance with that minimum flood finish floor elevation. 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 00:09:33.240 --> 00:09:37.560 fill in the area up to the finish floor elevation for this site. 00:09:37.560 --> 00:09:40.400 Thank you. 00:09:40.400 --> 00:09:41.960 Commissioner Dyer. 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 00:09:47.600 --> 00:09:50.840 you please explain what a clomer is? 00:09:50.840 --> 00:09:51.840 Sorry. 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. 00:09:57.200 --> 00:10:01.720 Conditional letter of map revision. 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 00:10:05.880 --> 00:10:16.600 is submitted to and approved by the federal emergency management FEMA and essentially 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 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 00:10:27.360 --> 00:10:30.120 then that's what happens in that point. 00:10:30.120 --> 00:10:33.600 Thank you. 00:10:33.600 --> 00:10:34.600 Commissioner McAduff. 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 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 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 00:10:53.360 --> 00:10:59.440 asking for is this something we might continue to see? 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 00:11:04.020 --> 00:11:07.200 at a point now where there has been some changes over the years. 00:11:07.200 --> 00:11:12.240 So some of these changes are making sense and as we're noticing some changes around 00:11:12.240 --> 00:11:17.160 the area but I'll look to Haley to see how that plays out moving forward. 00:11:17.160 --> 00:11:27.000 So hopefully there they go I knew they'd work their magic from the back. 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 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 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 00:11:40.240 --> 00:11:44.080 seeking a zoning change for we will encourage them to update the comprehensive plan as a 00:11:44.080 --> 00:11:47.520 part of that process to make sure we're keeping it current as we go along. 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 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 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. 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 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 00:12:15.040 --> 00:12:20.280 and I have a second part to that question. 00:12:20.280 --> 00:12:25.000 When is the comprehensive plan up for review? 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 00:13:15.320 --> 00:13:24.640 potential development for love first community village or love something out northwest of 00:13:24.640 --> 00:13:33.640 here that staff brought a comprehensive plan amendment work session to this body but I 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 00:13:40.840 --> 00:13:45.800 is how does the determination between whether to do that before you move ahead with all 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. 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 00:13:57.680 --> 00:14:01.560 in that area and as part of looking at that application staff thought there was opportunity 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 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 00:14:08.900 --> 00:14:14.160 if the commission felt that they would support staff spending our time and energy on doing 00:14:14.160 --> 00:14:18.520 a broader comp plan amendment that particular application since we didn't do that when 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 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 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 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 00:14:52.840 --> 00:14:59.080 Ranch again good evening chair members of the commission again Mia Heinz senior planner 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 00:15:08.840 --> 00:15:13.240 to allow for the development of single-family residential lots the acre the applicant has 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:15:54.680 --> 00:15:59.960 with the Denton 2040 plan future land use designation of agriculture and helps achieve 00:15:59.960 --> 00:16:04.880 the overall goals of policies including serving as an adequate land use transition from that 00:16:04.880 --> 00:16:10.780 development that we discussed last week our last meeting to the compact or rural development 00:16:10.780 --> 00:16:16.200 within the city's ETJ around Lake Ray Roberts with that staff is recommending approval and 00:16:16.200 --> 00:16:25.580 I will happily answer any questions that you have at this time. 00:16:25.580 --> 00:16:28.760 Go ahead if you had a question. 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 00:16:34.200 --> 00:16:40.400 our comp plan is is pretty specific in several places that the types of development that 00:16:40.400 --> 00:16:46.040 we want in these areas is more clustered development more preservation that sort of thing like 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 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 00:17:01.460 --> 00:17:05.720 that you are sharing with the development community and there are specific reasons why 00:17:05.720 --> 00:17:08.520 they say no we can't do that with your current regulations. 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 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 00:17:21.960 --> 00:17:25.640 the applicant and what their request is and how that serves their purpose. 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 00:17:33.280 --> 00:17:37.740 development and for smaller lots in the future if there is environmentally sensitive areas 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 00:17:42.040 --> 00:17:53.160 and then confirmed but they would have to avoid that Haley anything to add. 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 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 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 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 00:18:16.080 --> 00:18:20.220 anyone actually take significant interest in utilizing that tool in our toolbox. 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 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 00:18:30.820 --> 00:18:36.880 better understanding what it would take to make that financially viable for development 00:18:36.880 --> 00:18:39.240 because whatever it is right now is not doing it. 00:18:39.240 --> 00:18:40.240 Yeah. 00:18:40.240 --> 00:18:41.240 Right. 00:18:41.240 --> 00:18:44.380 So that's a revisit into what the actual DDC requires for cluster development and some 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 00:18:48.840 --> 00:18:51.920 other questions Commissioner Mcduff. 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 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 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 00:19:08.840 --> 00:19:15.920 related to the larger Krabur Ranch project were they ready were they ready to sell and 00:19:15.920 --> 00:19:19.040 then waiting on the Krabur Ranch to go. 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 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 00:19:28.600 --> 00:19:32.760 original owner of Krabur and they did want to do something a little different than make 00:19:32.760 --> 00:19:38.440 it a part of the plan development this area isn't included in the municipal management 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 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 00:19:53.080 --> 00:19:59.740 sort of mixture of R4 and R7 within it. 00:19:59.740 --> 00:20:00.740 Commissioner Riggs. 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 00:20:05.960 --> 00:20:11.040 they're not in the in the district I assume they won't have sewer service. 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 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 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 00:20:26.920 --> 00:20:35.200 acre is for septic systems you have to one acre minimum. 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 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 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 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 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 00:20:59.540 --> 00:21:03.960 are different from ours I know state law TCEQ sets minimums I believe theirs is actually 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 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 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 00:21:22.960 --> 00:21:29.120 as a follow-up are there other properties ready to go after this other proposals coming 00:21:29.120 --> 00:21:36.360 forward in this area mm-hmm I have not received any other applications for zoning related 00:21:36.360 --> 00:21:45.760 items in this area thank you Commissioner Dyer you know sometimes we talk about transition 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 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 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 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 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 00:22:22.560 --> 00:22:26.920 a little a little bit information about the Lake Ray Roberts provided in the backup but 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 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 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 00:23:06.760 --> 00:23:19.360 evening chair and commissioners Cameron Robertson and principal planner give me one moment 00:23:19.360 --> 00:23:24.480 this is a request for a special sign district of an approximately 120 acre commercial area 00:23:24.480 --> 00:23:31.840 parcel located along that northwest corner of ropes and ranch and interstate 35 West 00:23:31.840 --> 00:23:37.560 the purpose of this special sign district is for some ground sign sizing locations and 00:23:37.560 --> 00:23:42.500 numbers as well as some additional sign types and definitions that do not currently meet 00:23:42.500 --> 00:23:49.320 our chapter 33 regulations but section 33.18 of the denton sign code does allow creation 00:23:49.320 --> 00:23:54.160 of special sign districts to deviate from those regulations as long as there's a comprehensive 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 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 00:24:07.920 --> 00:24:14.360 in terms of sizing and some of the backup material in terms of the numbers terminology 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:25:11.020 --> 00:25:16.440 been formally renamed to landmark so it's still same the same boundaries as the hunter 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 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 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 00:25:31.360 --> 00:25:35.920 going to be developed so they're looking specifically especially because there is a grocery store 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 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 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 00:25:56.160 --> 00:26:01.760 other questions commissioner Dyer I don't really have a question but I have kind of 00:26:01.760 --> 00:26:12.320 a comment do you happen to have the slide where it shows the notification boundary yes 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 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 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 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 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 00:26:48.500 --> 00:26:56.040 three quarters of that they're notifying themselves with the exception of maybe one neighbor and 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 00:27:04.080 --> 00:27:09.840 another community west of that on the south side of the road and another community west 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:27:43.960 --> 00:27:47.720 of notification because the signs that were posted all along the property do serve as 00:27:47.720 --> 00:27:52.560 that notice to anyone that is in the broader area our notices are compliant with state 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 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 00:28:02.680 --> 00:28:07.000 that they would like something I you know I noticed it especially in this case where 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 00:28:14.400 --> 00:28:19.100 wanted to touch on the code notification piece to public hearings and actually it's very 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 00:28:23.640 --> 00:28:27.900 we did talk briefly about some of the public hearing changes that would be coming forward 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 00:28:33.400 --> 00:28:38.360 were approved by City Council last night actually I believe they came before this body possibly 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 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 00:28:48.680 --> 00:28:52.680 will talk more about it later in this work session just about those specific changes 00:28:52.680 --> 00:29:00.280 and what we do to notify the public because this is really us requiring the developer 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:30:12.480 --> 00:30:17.240 addresses as well as those utility billing addresses and correlate one list from those 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 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 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 00:30:36.920 --> 00:30:44.880 the address or if we have additional addresses in the example of an apartment complex where 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 00:30:52.560 --> 00:30:56.160 billing system so that would go out to those additional addresses though so we combine 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 00:31:05.080 --> 00:31:10.960 either for a commercial development or a multifamily or something like that would be only known 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 00:31:17.840 --> 00:31:23.960 so the owner gets a notification and then the property gets a notification okay regardless 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 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 00:31:34.760 --> 00:31:38.920 billing information outside of our service area but they would still get a notification 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:32:33.440 --> 00:32:37.840 also pulling from water and trash service and sewer service yeah our utility service 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 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 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 00:33:22.800 --> 00:33:28.000 Angie mingler assistant planning director this is a specific use permit request for 00:33:28.000 --> 00:33:34.720 approximately 4.06 acres of land situated approximately 1800 feet south of Jim Crystal 00:33:34.720 --> 00:33:42.400 Road and east of Western Boulevard adjacent to the RD well substation property has a little 00:33:42.400 --> 00:33:47.420 bit of split zoning it is predominantly zoned public facilities with a portion of heavy 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 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 00:33:59.620 --> 00:34:07.360 modular data center might have include eight modular data center pods and is consistent 00:34:07.360 --> 00:34:11.440 with the prior approved lease agreement and power purchase agreement with that municipal 00:34:11.440 --> 00:34:17.200 electric for this parcel of land the area is zoned industrial and the proposed use is 00:34:17.200 --> 00:34:23.400 consistent with the future land use of industrial commerce for this site staff is recommending 00:34:23.400 --> 00:34:28.520 approval of the SUP there are several conditions associated with it that were included in your 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 00:34:33.440 --> 00:34:40.140 you may have at this moment. 00:34:40.140 --> 00:34:45.320 Commissioner McTuffin yes Angie could you comment on the noise and vibration assessment 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 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 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 00:35:02.320 --> 00:35:06.920 assessment which was included in the backup of what the ambient noise is at different 00:35:06.920 --> 00:35:12.440 points along the property upon installation of the modular data centers they're responsible 00:35:12.440 --> 00:35:18.800 for verifying that these modular data center pods do not exceed do not create additional 00:35:18.800 --> 00:35:23.360 noise above I think it's an additional three decibels at those same measurement points 00:35:23.360 --> 00:35:29.960 so they took initial measurements and their plan shows to be compliant upon installation 00:35:29.960 --> 00:35:36.180 of everything and once it's up and running they are responsible for submitting verification 00:35:36.180 --> 00:35:40.440 that they are compliant with that given its use it is sandwiched between an electrical 00:35:40.440 --> 00:35:46.880 substation and the Peter belt manufacturing in their parking lot it does appear that it's 00:35:46.880 --> 00:35:51.360 going to be compliant but they're responsible for demonstrating that to us upon completion 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 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 00:36:09.120 --> 00:36:15.440 additional water or wastewater that it's self-contained can you talk about that please 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 00:36:22.800 --> 00:36:30.040 this site is situated there there is not currently water immediately available to the site in 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 00:36:35.760 --> 00:36:43.160 at multitasking here okay here we go they are providing a water storage tank on site 00:36:43.160 --> 00:36:48.760 to help establish that landscaping they are using drought tolerant materials as well as 00:36:48.760 --> 00:36:52.880 fire department did ensure that this could meet their needs should a situation ever arise 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 00:36:58.120 --> 00:37:01.720 out there there is a little you know modular office that they'll use predominantly for 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 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 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 00:37:19.880 --> 00:37:26.240 source but rather there though the fluid that is in there will be circulated outside through 00:37:26.240 --> 00:37:31.400 these coolers and then back through reducing the need for continual water supply to the 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 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 00:37:51.880 --> 00:37:56.320 about you know I know Commissioner Macduff talked about you know the water needed but 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 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 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 00:38:14.280 --> 00:38:21.000 will be able to be supplied without detracting from you know surrounding businesses so Denton 00:38:21.000 --> 00:38:26.360 municipal electric after our first data center was was approved and constructed out by the 00:38:26.360 --> 00:38:30.920 main energy center did start to receive several requests from different providers who were 00:38:30.920 --> 00:38:36.400 wanting to install a data center adjacent to other substations so to make the selection 00:38:36.400 --> 00:38:42.560 process fair DME did prepare a request for proposals to to outline what they were wanting 00:38:42.560 --> 00:38:46.800 and solicited that and then this this user was ultimately selected and was determined 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 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 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 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 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 00:39:28.120 --> 00:39:37.560 our last public hearing for Angie and Julie on ADU and townhome standards yes good evening 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 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 00:39:47.240 --> 00:39:53.400 housing specifically to amendments to townhomes and accessory dwelling units so just a little 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 00:39:57.280 --> 00:40:02.360 development code to clarify and refine regulations surrounding missing middle housing as they 00:40:02.360 --> 00:40:08.400 relate to townhome and accessory dwelling units to facilitate these types of developments 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 00:40:14.720 --> 00:40:19.580 housing goals as outlined in the comprehensive plan the affordable housing toolkit southeast 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 00:40:24.800 --> 00:40:28.360 of housing needs to meet the community's need for affordable housing choice and neighborhood 00:40:28.360 --> 00:40:33.080 investment several of these amendments are designed to remove conflicting or complicated 00:40:33.080 --> 00:40:38.880 language as it relates to streamlining these permitting processes the amendments are consistent 00:40:38.880 --> 00:40:43.080 with direction received from the planning and zoning commission as it relates to townhomes 00:40:43.080 --> 00:40:48.000 as well as the development code review committee as it relates to accessory dwelling units overall 00:40:48.000 --> 00:40:52.640 it does increase opportunity for missing middle housing in the city of Denton and staff is 00:40:52.640 --> 00:40:58.640 recommending approval of the criteria because it meets the criteria now I know only some 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 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 00:41:13.280 --> 00:41:19.160 so again this purpose is to facilitate townhome and ADU development in the city staff initially 00:41:19.160 --> 00:41:23.440 presented the townhome amendments to planning and zoning commission as part of a work session 00:41:23.440 --> 00:41:27.440 the ADUs were workshopped through the development code review committee over several meetings 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 00:41:31.240 --> 00:41:36.360 to conduct community engagement we did community engagement for both of these topics together 00:41:36.360 --> 00:41:39.720 throughout three community meetings that were held in August two of those were in person 00:41:39.720 --> 00:41:45.400 one was virtual and then a survey was posted following that for about three weeks overall 00:41:45.400 --> 00:41:50.720 the survey results we received approximately 54 55 responses and the reason for that discrepancy 00:41:50.720 --> 00:41:55.320 is not every person answered every question but there was general support for the amendments 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 00:42:01.720 --> 00:42:08.120 defined as a subordinate dwelling unit that are either added to or created within a single 00:42:08.120 --> 00:42:14.320 family residential unit it does provide basic requirements for living that includes cooking 00:42:14.320 --> 00:42:20.360 as well as sanitation HUD code manufactured homes are not ADUs we do currently allow them 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 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 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 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 00:42:42.580 --> 00:42:47.560 however they cannot exceed a thousand square feet and these are some examples just of ADUs 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 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 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. 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 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 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 00:43:25.320 --> 00:43:29.920 part of these amendments to where town homes are permitted and then town homes are also 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 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 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 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 00:43:50.600 --> 00:43:55.500 will have a little bit more detail into what each of these code amendments are changing 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 00:44:00.200 --> 00:44:04.540 and advance missing middle housing goals. I'm happy to answer any questions and Julie 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 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 00:44:26.920 --> 00:44:31.880 that a resident had submitted regarding an NADU in the neighborhood was its height and 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 00:44:42.680 --> 00:44:47.600 initially looked at and those concerns had been brought up during our discussions and 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 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 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 00:45:06.200 --> 00:45:11.560 regulation different from what is allowed in the zoning district for accessory structures 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 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 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 00:45:28.840 --> 00:45:33.760 a couple different suggestions that came about. One would be limiting the ADU to the height 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 00:45:37.520 --> 00:45:42.360 ADU. Another would be because we have some differing setbacks that could be allowed for 00:45:42.360 --> 00:45:48.080 accessory structures limiting the height within the primary setbacks for the home to 20 feet 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 00:45:52.240 --> 00:45:57.480 other was no change so continuing to allow the height of the zoning district. The survey 00:45:57.480 --> 00:46:01.600 results did show most people were okay with the height of the zoning district and that 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 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 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 00:46:19.400 --> 00:46:25.680 and it is situated behind the home and is otherwise architecturally compatible. So and 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 00:46:31.400 --> 00:46:35.520 the possibility of having a garage with a living area above the garage too and that 00:46:35.520 --> 00:46:46.840 would be taller than the obviously a one-story home so. Any other questions Commissioner MacDuff? 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 00:46:54.200 --> 00:46:58.320 was distributed to the Development Code Review Committee because that's what it was asked 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 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 00:47:12.400 --> 00:47:20.080 question thanks. On the parking we are and could you comment on the accessory dwelling 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 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 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 00:47:41.680 --> 00:47:46.280 have a two-bedroom ADU also trying to site parking within that it becomes increasingly 00:47:46.280 --> 00:47:51.040 difficult. It was a recommendation out of I believe the Southeast Dentinary Plan as 00:47:51.040 --> 00:47:55.280 well as our affordable housing toolkit to look at those parking regulations. So the 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 00:48:00.800 --> 00:48:05.440 parking that was required for that primary structure to build your ADU you do have to 00:48:05.440 --> 00:48:11.840 put it back and that is consistent with how we treat parking with single family today 00:48:11.840 --> 00:48:22.720 when new permits come in. Okay. Commissioner Dyer. In looking at the updated language that 00:48:22.720 --> 00:48:28.600 the development code review committee came out with do you remember what the vote was 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 00:48:39.000 --> 00:48:43.600 remember there was some back and forth. Sure and I tried to call out that specifically 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 00:48:50.120 --> 00:48:55.520 in DCRC but we reached consensus. Everything did have overwhelming consensus to move forward. 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 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 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 00:49:17.840 --> 00:49:24.680 rephrase that. When these initially went through the development code review committee we were 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 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 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 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 00:49:44.880 --> 00:49:53.220 homes, duplexes and triplexes one per unit was generally acceptable and the community 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 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 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 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 00:50:15.280 --> 00:50:20.200 a duplex so possibly one duplex could have two ADUs and that did spark some additional 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 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 00:50:32.400 --> 00:50:37.800 consensus on and public direction on but noting that if a separate recommendation for that 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 00:50:42.920 --> 00:50:48.240 tell me commissioners if I am not remembering this correctly but I think we were talking 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:52:53.760 --> 00:53:00.920 saw it originally but it is open to a you know discussion. Okay. Any other questions? 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:54:02.440 --> 00:54:08.800 about just a brief review of our notification and protest procedures some public engagement 00:54:08.800 --> 00:54:13.160 types and strategies some lessons learned and then also best practices for commissioners 00:54:13.160 --> 00:54:18.940 when engaging with residents or developers. So first we're going to talk about public 00:54:18.940 --> 00:54:24.640 notification and protest procedures. We thought this was a good time to talk about this because 00:54:24.640 --> 00:54:31.000 of the recent legislative changes. So we're just going to talk briefly about about what 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 00:54:36.480 --> 00:54:41.960 notification required for your purposes. Public notification is required for any of those 00:54:41.960 --> 00:54:49.240 comprehensive plan amendments and zoning amendments that could be both map rezoned a PD or text 00:54:49.240 --> 00:54:54.840 specific use permits and then alternative ESA plans. Public notification is also required 00:54:54.840 --> 00:55:02.800 for annexation and historic and conservation district designations. So the first legislation 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 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 00:55:13.880 --> 00:55:19.700 that a proposed change in zoning map or text might cause their current existing use to 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 00:55:24.640 --> 00:55:30.800 I remember is we had an amendment to our elderly housing regulations. It made one facility 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 00:55:36.160 --> 00:55:43.840 also all residents who lived in that facility. Recently you heard in November and council 00:55:43.840 --> 00:55:50.960 approved last night state law changes to notification from this year and it created some categories 00:55:50.960 --> 00:55:56.640 of zoning change for notification. One is a comprehensive zoning change and that's any 00:55:56.640 --> 00:56:03.200 city initiated zoning change right zoning regulation change that would allow more housing 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 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 00:56:14.200 --> 00:56:19.000 a major roadway. And then the other categories that relates to notification is just all of 00:56:19.000 --> 00:56:24.200 their zoning changes. So how are those treated with notification. Well for the comprehensive 00:56:24.200 --> 00:56:30.480 zoning change the notification requirement is to publish in the newspaper and then also 00:56:30.480 --> 00:56:36.840 publish online. No written notification is required. For zoning cases that would render 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 00:56:43.180 --> 00:56:49.960 notices and that is published in the newspaper published on our website a letter to property 00:56:49.960 --> 00:56:55.760 owners within two hundred feet and then a letter to residents within five hundred feet 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 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 00:57:06.840 --> 00:57:12.400 tenants or residents for both the planning and zoning commission and city council informing 00:57:12.400 --> 00:57:18.320 them that the proposal might make their use nonconforming. And the state legislature was 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 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 00:57:30.960 --> 00:57:36.640 cases would would really just follow our typical standards where there is a small change is 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:58:21.240 --> 00:58:26.140 those categories of zoning change with one one additional. First you got the comprehensive 00:58:26.140 --> 00:58:31.920 zoning change the the adding more housing that the item that would apply to all the 00:58:31.920 --> 00:58:39.080 entire city or or on a major roadway zoning changes which would allow additional housing 00:58:39.080 --> 00:58:44.200 or meet specific standards for mixed use development and that would be limitations on commercial 00:58:44.200 --> 00:58:49.600 industrial development. That could be property property owner initiated and then all other 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. 00:58:56.980 --> 00:59:03.680 So the comprehensive zoning change that is exempt from the protest procedure. So of course 00:59:03.680 --> 00:59:09.520 residents can can speak it at any public hearing provide any written protest or any written 00:59:09.520 --> 00:59:15.840 feedback to that but it would not trigger any additional voting requirements in order 00:59:15.840 --> 00:59:22.280 to approve it. Those zoning changes which allow additional housing or meet those specific 00:59:22.280 --> 00:59:28.400 standards for mixed use development those protest procedures changed in that if the 00:59:28.400 --> 00:59:34.120 city receives written protest from owners of at least 60 percent of the lots or land 00:59:34.120 --> 00:59:39.960 within two hundred feet of the request that would require a majority of all city council 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 00:59:46.160 --> 00:59:50.760 city council members so it would require four regardless of how many were sitting on the 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 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 01:00:01.520 --> 01:00:08.640 follow our previous practice and that is if if we receive written opposition from owners 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 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 01:00:25.000 --> 01:00:29.360 that equals 20 percent then it would require a super majority of city council members and 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 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 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. 01:00:52.880 --> 01:00:59.200 All other zoning cases it would require 20 percent of between the yellow line and the 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 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 01:01:12.840 --> 01:01:20.640 red lines would count. There is one other thing that also comes out fairly frequently 01:01:20.640 --> 01:01:26.920 and that is notification to the extraterritorial jurisdiction. That property is outside of 01:01:26.920 --> 01:01:37.000 city limits. The state attorney general has issued a a opinion on on whether cities need 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 01:01:43.460 --> 01:01:53.000 and taxable boundaries. Cities are not required to notify property owners within the E.T.J. 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 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 01:02:04.880 --> 01:02:10.960 the opinion is just an interpretation of the existing statute and confirms that Denton 01:02:10.960 --> 01:02:17.040 is on the right track and doing everything correctly. Now we often hear from community 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 01:02:22.040 --> 01:02:25.480 and zoning commission or provide feedback to staff which will provide to the planning 01:02:25.480 --> 01:02:30.800 and zoning commission. But any any feedback or written notice that they provide to us 01:02:30.800 --> 01:02:38.040 cannot go toward that 20 percent opposition or that 60 percent opposition that that would 01:02:38.040 --> 01:02:43.240 require that additional voting regulation. Does that make sense. So we can hear from 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 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 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 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 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. 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 01:03:19.100 --> 01:03:23.820 the planning and zoning commission. Those agendas are posted online and the city allows 01:03:23.820 --> 01:03:29.380 for e-comments. So you probably get those from Kathy before the meeting. And here's 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 01:03:36.480 --> 01:03:44.280 and that residents or interested people may may register to get notifications if something 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 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 01:03:58.000 --> 01:04:02.800 buffer they want from the map so that they would get notification if any project was 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. 01:04:10.640 --> 01:04:15.300 So that ends for notification. And now we're going to talk about public engagement types 01:04:15.300 --> 01:04:19.260 and strategies. We're going to kind of shift gears and that the notification really is 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 01:04:25.540 --> 01:04:31.740 there there is a change. The public engagement types and strategies are are often when when 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 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 01:04:42.680 --> 01:04:48.520 sort of change in the regulation. So it's a little bit different. Our general goals 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 01:04:51.640 --> 01:04:56.640 what the community has to say. We'd love to maximize participation from area or topic 01:04:56.640 --> 01:05:01.760 stakeholders or ensure that representation or participation is from a representative 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 01:05:07.160 --> 01:05:13.460 about planning practices and and and issues. We want to build relationships. So much of 01:05:13.460 --> 01:05:19.080 our area planning and comprehensive planning efforts go out or are about meeting people 01:05:19.080 --> 01:05:23.800 in the community and forming those relationships. Capture feedback to apply to a project. And 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 01:05:29.680 --> 01:05:35.240 types of public engagement and I've got them grouped into four categories. So this first 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 01:05:41.160 --> 01:05:45.200 planning and zoning commission when we went forward with the design downtown Denton or 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 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 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 01:06:00.440 --> 01:06:06.360 to community members at events be there and and be able to provide information or get 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 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 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 01:06:20.240 --> 01:06:26.420 in front of people. So this strategy what are the advantages or what are the disadvantages 01:06:26.420 --> 01:06:31.980 and pitfalls advantages. You can capture groups that would typically not come to a community 01:06:31.980 --> 01:06:38.360 meeting. Not everybody has time to come to the community meeting or or visioning or feedback 01:06:38.360 --> 01:06:43.360 session so you can kind of get people where they are. They could be inexpensive pretty 01:06:43.360 --> 01:06:50.000 easy to do straightforward preparation clipboard a table maybe some boards. You don't have 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 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 01:06:57.560 --> 01:07:01.600 also just those happy accidents where you can meet the right person or you can find 01:07:01.600 --> 01:07:06.880 out something about the community that you wouldn't have otherwise known. There are disadvantages. 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 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 01:07:18.680 --> 01:07:23.920 that the respondents or participants are actually those stakeholders within the question we're 01:07:23.920 --> 01:07:30.880 asking. While it can be very inexpensive inexpensive it can also get expensive depending on how 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 01:07:37.520 --> 01:07:41.840 community or stakeholder we need to think really hard about where those groups are going 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 01:07:46.520 --> 01:07:53.080 about something some playground. Right. So you want to make sure that you match your 01:07:53.080 --> 01:07:59.080 your location with your group. And these are great for strategy for plans or questions 01:07:59.080 --> 01:08:02.960 that really have broad interest. Once again because we can't necessarily control who's 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 01:08:08.660 --> 01:08:15.280 townhomes and missing middle. We've also done them with the area plans. These are really 01:08:15.280 --> 01:08:19.320 convenient. They're convenient to put together. They're convenient for for residents to fill 01:08:19.320 --> 01:08:25.440 out. They can do it in their pajamas. They're inexpensive. Pretty turnkey. The results are 01:08:25.440 --> 01:08:31.120 really easy to tabulate. It's called it's quantitative data low barrier to entry. Easy 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 01:08:37.880 --> 01:08:43.080 if the respondents are actually those stakeholders on that question on the platform may skew 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 01:08:49.920 --> 01:08:54.920 we write good survey questions right. We want to make sure we get the right information. 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 01:08:58.740 --> 01:09:05.120 community right. We're not making those connections and forming those relationships. The the the 01:09:05.120 --> 01:09:12.240 next engagement strategy are those community meetings. Those can take the form of visioning 01:09:12.240 --> 01:09:18.080 workshops and formal presentations. We can do preference surveys. We can report findings 01:09:18.080 --> 01:09:25.160 back to the community. These are are these are those typical community meetings that 01:09:25.160 --> 01:09:32.400 that that we're all familiar with where we invite residents or or stakeholders to to 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 01:09:40.360 --> 01:09:48.000 used engagement activity. You often attract those passionate participants because think 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 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 01:09:56.480 --> 01:10:00.880 qualitative data. You could talk to people. You can understand where they're coming from. 01:10:00.880 --> 01:10:05.960 It is a great strategy for specific projects. You can make sure that your community meeting 01:10:05.960 --> 01:10:12.880 is in the right spot and invite the right people right. And once again develop relationships 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 01:10:17.480 --> 01:10:23.840 those results because you attract a different type of of community member someone who maybe 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 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 01:10:34.080 --> 01:10:40.160 have the time. Once again you also have those passionate participants so that could be a 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 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 01:10:48.320 --> 01:10:53.640 but they're just not passionate about the idea. Quantitative data is harder to measure. 01:10:53.640 --> 01:10:59.280 You're not you're not necessarily making tallies not necessarily representative sample. You 01:10:59.280 --> 01:11:05.760 have to use marketing so that budget comes into play intensive preparation for staff. 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 01:11:09.800 --> 01:11:14.920 out. You're doing all those things and then you're putting together presentations and 01:11:14.920 --> 01:11:19.000 then finally small groups. That's where we're getting you to focus groups steering committees 01:11:19.000 --> 01:11:26.480 stakeholder interviews and design Tourette's. So these are probably the most intensive engagement 01:11:26.480 --> 01:11:32.080 activity when you're asking a community member stakeholder resident to participate. Again 01:11:32.080 --> 01:11:35.480 you get those passionate participants. Think about it if you're on a steering committee 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 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 01:11:48.240 --> 01:11:53.480 to people who ride bikes you can invite people who ride bikes right. You get qualitative 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 01:11:57.560 --> 01:12:04.280 or invite people. You could develop relationships. It can be inexpensive. Once again you gotta 01:12:04.280 --> 01:12:10.520 have participants who are are dedicated to the project and could give that time. It can 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 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 01:12:21.480 --> 01:12:26.440 the right people there. You want you want to make sure all stakeholders all represented 01:12:26.440 --> 01:12:32.600 groups are at the table to ensure that your data adequately captures what you want to 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. 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 01:12:47.320 --> 01:12:50.560 some of the lessons learned and then I'll cover best practices from commissioners. So 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:13:19.040 --> 01:13:26.240 of our engagement efforts are just relation building and just listening to people. Misinformation 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 01:13:32.280 --> 01:13:38.160 perpetuate going hand in hand with some of those things as some fear change is sometimes 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 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 01:13:48.040 --> 01:13:52.760 kind of like Julie mentioned you do get you're very interested in passionate community members 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 01:13:59.540 --> 01:14:03.800 getting some of your your younger population to participate in things can be difficult 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 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 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 01:14:19.240 --> 01:14:23.780 some of these barriers. One is tailoring your community engagement to your audience and 01:14:23.780 --> 01:14:28.920 your project goals. Once you have kind of your you know your stakeholders making sure 01:14:28.920 --> 01:14:33.880 you're updating people regularly on those project status types. We really find discussed 01:14:33.880 --> 01:14:37.600 and has been helpful specifically as we work through some of our bigger code amendments 01:14:37.600 --> 01:14:43.780 as well as area plans. Your silent community validators can really be your biggest champions 01:14:43.780 --> 01:14:46.800 you know your people who are invested in the community and building relationships with 01:14:46.800 --> 01:14:52.040 them can be really important. Likewise so is just spending time in the community becoming 01:14:52.040 --> 01:14:59.440 a face that they know and recognize. Words matter and along with that education is important 01:14:59.440 --> 01:15:04.040 as we saw tonight like planners are pretty guilty of using jargon or acronyms all the 01:15:04.040 --> 01:15:08.880 time like clomer or lomer making sure we're using words that everybody understands or 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 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 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 01:15:23.800 --> 01:15:30.280 to come out by providing you know activities specific for children. Branding it was super 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:15:55.800 --> 01:16:02.280 the best practices when engaging with residents and or developers. These are mostly just reminders 01:16:02.280 --> 01:16:07.720 for you all as communicating and engaging in dialogue is going to be largely an individual 01:16:07.720 --> 01:16:13.720 choice. When in doubt ask your council member what their expectations are for you but should 01:16:13.720 --> 01:16:18.220 you choose to engage in dialogue either with residents or developers. These are some of 01:16:18.220 --> 01:16:24.320 our tips and best practices. First use your city email especially when communicating with 01:16:24.320 --> 01:16:29.140 the public or developers about city business or anything related to you as a commissioner. 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 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 01:16:38.120 --> 01:16:43.120 to meet with a developer filling out this little handy disclosure form is great and 01:16:43.120 --> 01:16:49.280 we encourage it. It is optional. Alternatively you can also disclose at the dais you know 01:16:49.280 --> 01:16:53.440 during public hearing and deliberation hey I met with Mr. Smith these are the things 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 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 01:17:02.000 --> 01:17:07.920 of benefit it's being shared transparently. Neighborhood meetings they're optional you 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 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 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 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 01:17:29.000 --> 01:17:34.920 and then likewise be mindful of inadvertently creating situations which might be a walking 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:18:11.080 --> 01:18:15.640 to people but again largely an individual choice these are just some of our suggestions 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 01:18:20.840 --> 01:18:28.040 biggest takeaway city email is your friend but not forwarding it to your other commissioners. 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 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 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 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 01:18:50.560 --> 01:18:57.120 on developer notifications of meetings and this sort of thing that set the policy framework 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 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 01:19:15.080 --> 01:19:22.000 the private meeting between a city council member or in this case a commissioner and 01:19:22.000 --> 01:19:32.080 a developer opens up the opportunity for you know things that may be partial truths or 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 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 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 01:19:50.760 --> 01:19:58.580 take notes and hit city manager Heilman's description of that was that it just changes 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 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 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 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 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 01:20:30.320 --> 01:20:35.960 interest that reaches out to commission members in the future sure and if I get completely 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:21:17.160 --> 01:21:26.640 in a few minutes in council chambers for the regular session thank you good evening at 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 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 01:21:40.800 --> 01:22:03.680 say the pledge of allegiance to the US and Texas flags 01:22:03.680 --> 01:22:20.120 honor the Texas flag I pledge allegiance to be Texas one state under God one indivisible 01:22:20.120 --> 01:22:25.120 that brings us to item to consider approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes 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 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 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 01:23:18.080 --> 01:23:38.440 easier to compile the minutes and everything okay we'll take a motion by unanimous consent 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 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 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 01:24:05.480 --> 01:24:13.160 is split up comments on the consent agenda items are typically taken at the work session 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:24:54.360 --> 01:25:05.960 by Commissioner Dyer second by Commissioner Kitches said hand vote again I that that passes 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 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 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 01:25:32.920 --> 01:25:41.560 County Family Justice Center there at Rainey Road and Bonnie Bray that area or that land 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 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 01:25:59.240 --> 01:26:07.720 government code regulation of land use structures businesses and related activities and I then 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 01:26:16.840 --> 01:26:22.160 or operate a shelter for homeless individuals within 1,000 feet of another shelter for homeless 01:26:22.160 --> 01:26:31.560 individuals or primary or secondary school so I called the state of Texas and inquired 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 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 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 01:26:48.920 --> 01:26:54.920 permits requested for this property and I did not and they said that the only permit 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 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 01:27:16.440 --> 01:27:23.240 I guess my question and ask is how is this homeless shelter group home transitional housing 01:27:23.240 --> 01:27:30.400 going in without the notifications that it is in fact that type of housing and within 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 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 01:27:42.120 --> 01:27:48.120 attention is there a staff member that's familiar with this application that could speak to 01:27:48.120 --> 01:28:06.360 this Julie Wyatt principal planner that that project required approval of a plan development 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 01:28:12.680 --> 01:28:19.440 have those additional approvals with the plan development district and are there any state 01:28:19.440 --> 01:28:28.600 required notifications for that type of land use or is it purely it needs approval and 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 01:28:36.080 --> 01:28:42.520 provide notification in order to move forward with the rezoning that 200 and 500 feet the 01:28:42.520 --> 01:28:51.440 school district was also part of that of that notification as well okay any questions from 01:28:51.440 --> 01:29:03.480 the commission on this item yeah commissioner Kutcher said and that plan development has 01:29:03.480 --> 01:29:10.840 already passed is that correct correct it was approved maybe this time last year I think 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 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 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 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 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 01:30:04.600 --> 01:30:11.280 the public commenter for bringing that section of local government code to my attention just 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 01:30:18.280 --> 01:30:24.820 away from it it talks about giving notice for correctional or rehabilitative facilities 01:30:24.820 --> 01:30:35.440 and that is different than the presently approved use under the PD okay commissioner Dyer did 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 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 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 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 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 01:31:27.640 --> 01:31:36.520 by Commissioner Dyer just one comment I'll ask that staff could maybe give the contact 01:31:36.520 --> 01:31:42.880 information of the Denny County Friends of the Family who will be operating that facility 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 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 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 01:32:07.720 --> 01:32:15.520 Commissioner Macduff approve Commissioner Riggs approve chair is an aye Commissioner 01:32:15.520 --> 01:32:25.440 Ketchers said approve Commissioner Duff I'm sorry Commissioner Dyer approve Commissioner 01:32:25.440 --> 01:32:34.900 Garland approve very good the consent agenda there passes six to zero that brings us to 01:32:34.900 --> 01:32:46.560 our items for individual consideration for a FP 25-28 good evening chair members of the 01:32:46.560 --> 01:32:52.200 Commission Angie Manglars assistant planning director here to present FP 250028 this is 01:32:52.200 --> 01:32:56.640 a final plan for the reserves at Brush Creek generally located at the northeast intersection 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 01:33:02.280 --> 01:33:06.880 plot as it does not meet our established criteria for approval however staff has no objection 01:33:06.880 --> 01:33:11.280 to the requested extension which could be granted to a date certain of January 14th 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 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 01:33:26.960 --> 01:33:36.120 Garland and I will second that motion seeing no discussion or questions call for a roll 01:33:36.120 --> 01:33:42.480 call vote Commissioner Macduff Commissioner Riggs aye chair is an aye Commissioner Ketchers 01:33:42.480 --> 01:33:49.240 said aye Commissioner Dyer aye and Commissioner Garland aye very good that passes six zero 01:33:49.240 --> 01:33:56.280 brings us to our second item for individual consideration item for BP 25-5 good evening 01:33:56.280 --> 01:34:00.480 chair and Commissioners Cameron Robertson principal planner this is a preliminary plot 01:34:00.480 --> 01:34:05.560 for approximately 6.5 acre parcel located north of Rose on Drive just east of South 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 01:34:11.680 --> 01:34:15.960 recommending denial for the preliminary plot it does not mean our established criteria 01:34:15.960 --> 01:34:21.160 for approval staff has no objection to the requested extension of January 14th 2026 and 01:34:21.160 --> 01:34:29.040 this is the second extension any questions or a motion I'll make a motion Commissioner 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 01:34:36.800 --> 01:34:44.880 by Commissioner Riggs seeing no comments call for a roll call Commissioner my mouth is going 01:34:44.880 --> 01:34:51.600 to go crazy by the end of tonight Commissioner Macduff aye Commissioner Riggs aye chair 01:34:51.600 --> 01:34:58.200 is an aye Commissioner Ketchers said aye Commissioner Dyer aye Commissioner Garland aye that passes 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 01:35:05.720 --> 01:35:15.640 because they impact each other but then after the public hearings are closed we will vote 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 01:35:33.640 --> 01:35:39.240 ahead and open the public hearing at this time evening chair members of the Commission 01:35:39.240 --> 01:35:44.960 Mia Heinz senior planner here to present like you stated the Hickory Grove related application 01:35:44.960 --> 01:35:49.240 specifically a comprehensive plan amendment mobility plan amendment and a zoning change 01:35:49.240 --> 01:35:54.320 an overview of course this is three requests as I just mentioned the property itself is 01:35:54.320 --> 01:35:59.680 about sixteen and a half acres located north of US 380 approximately twenty eight hundred 01:35:59.680 --> 01:36:06.640 feet west of Thomas Goldenhove Drive the existing future land use designation for the property 01:36:06.640 --> 01:36:10.880 is agriculture the proposed future land use designation for the property is mixed use 01:36:10.880 --> 01:36:16.200 regional the existing zoning for the property is rural residential and R2 as shown in this 01:36:16.200 --> 01:36:22.360 exhibit here and the proposed zoning is mixed use regional the purpose for this request 01:36:22.360 --> 01:36:26.640 is to entitle the property for anticipated multifamily development and I'll go over the 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 01:36:34.080 --> 01:36:39.680 the property it's currently undeveloped the property itself was designated for all rural 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 01:36:45.320 --> 01:36:49.720 residential designation towards the single family development that's occurring in the 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 01:36:56.280 --> 01:37:05.280 agricultural use in twenty twenty two a municipal utility district was created for it'll be 01:37:05.280 --> 01:37:12.920 referred to as legends ranch or Hickory Grove that mud was anticipated to create one thousand 01:37:12.920 --> 01:37:18.400 five hundred and fifty one single family residential units the amendment in August twenty twenty 01:37:18.400 --> 01:37:24.360 four came to add additional multifamily units to total six hundred and twenty five multifamily 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 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 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 01:37:42.480 --> 01:37:46.160 this property. 01:37:46.160 --> 01:37:50.520 So the first application for you to before you tonight is a comprehensive plan amendment 01:37:50.520 --> 01:37:57.240 again the existing future land use designation is agriculture and the proposed usually designation 01:37:57.240 --> 01:38:03.080 here is regional mixed use that regional mixed use flume designation is intended to apply 01:38:03.080 --> 01:38:08.680 to areas that serve as regional destinations within Denton so ideally those those areas 01:38:08.680 --> 01:38:13.000 located along like those regional corridors like we see here highlighted on the map I've 01:38:13.000 --> 01:38:19.200 shown US 380 University's banding sort of from east to west throughout the city and 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 01:38:24.040 --> 01:38:29.920 that we have throughout the city additionally this designation is intended to include residential 01:38:29.920 --> 01:38:35.120 commercial office and entertainment and other uses except industrial at the highest level 01:38:35.120 --> 01:38:40.360 of scale and density within the city and then finally the future development in regional 01:38:40.360 --> 01:38:48.160 mixed use areas is intended to complement the and embrace the existing uses in the area 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 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 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. 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 01:39:09.300 --> 01:39:15.100 we found that the regional planning and development trends within this area do reflect the need 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 01:39:19.120 --> 01:39:25.640 of slides additionally the compatible the proposed the proposal is compatible with existing and 01:39:25.640 --> 01:39:30.640 proposed development occurring both within the city limits and the city's ETJ and then 01:39:30.640 --> 01:39:35.120 finally that makes that regional mixed use zoning tended to encourage development at 01:39:35.120 --> 01:39:41.680 highest densities along regional corridors such as US 380 like we have here today. 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 01:39:45.680 --> 01:39:50.720 that's occurring within the region of the subject property the subject property on both 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 01:39:57.280 --> 01:40:02.120 some of the key sort of major developments that we were experiencing within proximity 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 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 01:40:12.840 --> 01:40:17.280 is a single family residential development that is occurring so you see you nothing was 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 01:40:23.200 --> 01:40:30.040 that area similarly in the city's ETJ 2 is another municipal utility district developing 01:40:30.040 --> 01:40:36.000 with single family residential so we do see residential density and residential units 01:40:36.000 --> 01:40:39.080 being of a demand within this corridor. 01:40:39.080 --> 01:40:44.960 We do have some anticipated commercial developments occurring along US 380 staff is actually in 01:40:44.960 --> 01:40:49.760 the middle of processing applications that would ultimately come before this body so 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 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 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 01:41:06.020 --> 01:41:10.560 for the most part they've added additional commercial they've added some medical facilities 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 01:41:14.960 --> 01:41:21.200 that are could potentially be driving residential demand in this area we've seen some commercial 01:41:21.200 --> 01:41:28.880 and industrial development occurring within this sort of corridor of US 380 and I-35 as 01:41:28.880 --> 01:41:32.480 shown on the blue in the blue areas there. 01:41:32.480 --> 01:41:36.160 So with that staff is recommending approval of the comprehensive plan amendment request 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. 01:41:44.140 --> 01:41:49.480 So the next request in the next application is mobility plan amendment this purpose of 01:41:49.480 --> 01:41:55.920 this amendment is to remove a and this is backwards on the screen my apologies this 01:41:55.920 --> 01:42:03.280 is the existing mobility plan amendment showing the proposed primary arterial the subject 01:42:03.280 --> 01:42:09.160 property is right here and this is the proposed mobility plan amendment showing the removal 01:42:09.160 --> 01:42:16.760 of that proposed primary arterial of course similarly we did put this request up against 01:42:16.760 --> 01:42:21.560 our criteria for approval and ultimately found that the request itself does consider flood 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 01:42:26.540 --> 01:42:32.920 of these areas and ultimately the removal of this roadway would remove redundancy while 01:42:32.920 --> 01:42:37.660 maintaining provision of sufficient roadway network appropriate for the area. 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 01:42:43.120 --> 01:42:49.640 primary arterial cuts straight through area that we have designated as floodplain ESA. 01:42:49.640 --> 01:42:55.720 Ultimately the floodplain is right here or shown along this corridor and that proposed 01:42:55.720 --> 01:43:00.720 primary arterial again would cut through that floodplain. 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 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 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 01:43:20.480 --> 01:43:25.680 and so with that of course we did or reviewed traffic impact analysis and traffic studies 01:43:25.680 --> 01:43:32.840 to ensure that adequate roadway would still be or is being provided on that collector 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 01:43:39.620 --> 01:43:43.220 the pending development in that area. 01:43:43.220 --> 01:43:48.120 So with that staff is recommending approval of the mobility plan to remove that primary 01:43:48.120 --> 01:43:55.600 arterial and the last application is the zoning change. 01:43:55.600 --> 01:44:02.840 So the map to the left is the current zoning reflecting a rural residential zoning district 01:44:02.840 --> 01:44:05.920 and a R2 zoning district that's on the property. 01:44:05.920 --> 01:44:10.840 If you recall this property was recently annexed into the city so that rural residential is 01:44:10.840 --> 01:44:15.900 more of that default placeholder zoning that is given or assigned to properties once they're 01:44:15.900 --> 01:44:24.440 annexed that R2 piece transition from a rural residential sort of designation with the update 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 01:44:32.160 --> 01:44:38.540 rezone the entire property from RR and R2 to MR. 01:44:38.540 --> 01:44:42.840 Ultimately we put this up against the criteria for approval ultimately found that proposal 01:44:42.840 --> 01:44:46.840 that the proposal intended is intended to allow the property to develop according to 01:44:46.840 --> 01:44:52.200 prior approvals on the subject property specifically the multifamily development that was anticipated 01:44:52.200 --> 01:44:54.720 in the mud district. 01:44:54.720 --> 01:44:58.200 Additionally the proposal is intended to allow development compatible with the surrounding 01:44:58.200 --> 01:45:00.400 development in the city's ETJ. 01:45:00.400 --> 01:45:05.640 Again speaking to the single the low to moderate residential to the north and the multifamily 01:45:05.640 --> 01:45:09.680 development that would occur to the west of the subject property again within the city's 01:45:09.680 --> 01:45:12.200 ETJ. 01:45:12.200 --> 01:45:15.800 The request is also generally consistent with the goals and policies of the proposed future 01:45:15.800 --> 01:45:22.560 land use map as the proposed amendment is coming before you this evening and then also 01:45:22.560 --> 01:45:27.440 the regional growth within the area as I pointed out with the comprehensive plan does reflect 01:45:27.440 --> 01:45:33.000 the need to allow for regional scale development on this property. 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 01:45:39.120 --> 01:45:40.120 difference here. 01:45:40.120 --> 01:45:46.800 I do want to highlight that again the Hickory Grove mud anticipated 1,551 single family 01:45:46.800 --> 01:45:52.960 residential units within this area so north of the floodplain essentially and then 299 01:45:52.960 --> 01:45:57.600 multifamily units are currently planned for this property here to the west of the subject 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. 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 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 01:46:16.960 --> 01:46:21.840 the mixed use regional zoning or the purpose for this rezoning is to develop multifamily 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 01:46:25.480 --> 01:46:31.080 allow for other commercial uses that could serve to benefit the growth within this area 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 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 01:46:41.720 --> 01:46:44.920 use regional district. 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 01:46:50.960 --> 01:46:56.600 within 200 feet or property owners within 200 feet and courtesy notice for residents 01:46:56.600 --> 01:47:02.200 within 500 feet as you can see around the property there are no residences but there 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 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 01:47:15.560 --> 01:47:18.160 of these requests. 01:47:18.160 --> 01:47:22.400 With that staff is recommending approval of the rezoning requests in conjunction with 01:47:22.400 --> 01:47:27.880 the other two requests the comprehensive plan amendment and the mobility plan amendment. 01:47:27.880 --> 01:47:32.720 This is a reminder that again this is three separate cases comprehensive plan amendment 01:47:32.720 --> 01:47:38.560 to from agricultural flume to regional mixed use flume a mobility plan amendment to remove 01:47:38.560 --> 01:47:43.480 the future extension of Seawolf Road between US 380 and Jackson Road and then a zoning 01:47:43.480 --> 01:47:50.240 change from rural residential and residential to to the mixed use regional in our district. 01:47:50.240 --> 01:47:53.640 That concludes my presentation I believe the applicants are here if you have any questions 01:47:53.640 --> 01:47:59.820 for them as well and I will happily take any questions at this time. 01:47:59.820 --> 01:48:04.440 Questions of staff from the commission at this time commissioner Dyer. 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 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 01:48:23.560 --> 01:48:29.920 to this area on 380. 01:48:29.920 --> 01:48:46.600 I am not sure does that cemetery sound familiar to anyone I think from cemetery. 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 01:48:52.080 --> 01:48:53.080 here. 01:48:53.080 --> 01:48:54.080 Thanks. 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 01:49:04.400 --> 01:49:12.300 loop 288 west extension is planned to intersect 380 just so we can get a bounds. 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. 01:49:26.640 --> 01:49:28.840 Thank you. 01:49:28.840 --> 01:49:40.240 Good evening commissioners Chandra city traffic engineer so more the loop 288 west connections 01:49:40.240 --> 01:49:49.800 and fall closer to the Denton Airport so you are looking at somewhere in this area. 01:49:49.800 --> 01:49:54.880 Thank you any other questions of staff commissioner Dyer. 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 01:50:08.320 --> 01:50:16.720 600 units for an apartment. 01:50:16.720 --> 01:50:26.480 This is crumb school district correct I am not pretty sure. 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 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 01:50:42.880 --> 01:50:55.080 routes how will the residents in this community both single family and the multi family will 01:50:55.080 --> 01:51:02.720 they be affected negatively with this arterial will that be enough with having to reroute 01:51:02.720 --> 01:51:03.720 it. 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 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 01:51:16.600 --> 01:51:20.800 and this proposed collector will also serve as the north south collector connecting to 01:51:20.800 --> 01:51:31.640 the future east west roadway and this flood plain that road we eliminated here would be 01:51:31.640 --> 01:51:38.440 offset by this north south internal roadway so we have plenty of connections and FM 156 01:51:38.440 --> 01:51:40.240 to the west. 01:51:40.240 --> 01:51:49.240 Thank you. 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 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 01:52:03.440 --> 01:52:13.120 that the mobility committee has been having about safety on these wider higher speed roads 01:52:13.120 --> 01:52:19.800 help me understand how this and other pieces that staff talked about is not turning this 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 01:52:26.040 --> 01:52:29.060 or is it basically doing that and we're just okay with that. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:53:28.880 --> 01:53:34.520 into consideration so they're saying that that hooded left turn median openings are 01:53:34.520 --> 01:53:40.920 safer than what alternative the traffic lights so with all the movements and are they safer 01:53:40.920 --> 01:53:47.840 than not having development adjacent to this for high speed highway not really they are 01:53:47.840 --> 01:53:54.920 making the developers build these right turn diesel lanes and acceleration lanes so in 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 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 01:54:09.160 --> 01:54:16.900 question about schools and everything okay yeah that's fine just want to quickly provide 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 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 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 01:54:36.320 --> 01:54:44.200 that ability you have actually affords up to 20 minutes between whoever would like to 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 01:54:49.440 --> 01:54:55.920 Sullivan with dr horton multifamily so originally when we started looking at this tract the 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 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 01:55:05.640 --> 01:55:11.800 originally and so last year we went back to the city and requested some additional units 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 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 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 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 01:55:29.840 --> 01:55:35.680 construction probably February and I think the start date on this one depending on how 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:56:16.680 --> 01:56:18.680 forward now. 01:56:18.680 --> 01:56:24.760 Okay thank you Commissioner Dyer I bet you have a question for our applicant. 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 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 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 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 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 01:56:55.720 --> 01:57:01.400 objection no for but it also basically showed that none of the homeowners that are currently 01:57:01.400 --> 01:57:09.360 there got a notice about the you know the planned apartment buildings did you guys you 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:57:36.680 --> 01:57:37.680 so. 01:57:37.680 --> 01:57:39.760 So your homeowners are knew that when they were buying. 01:57:39.760 --> 01:57:40.760 Yes. 01:57:40.760 --> 01:57:41.760 Okay. 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 01:57:53.060 --> 01:58:01.760 about like breaking like turning dirt doing a grading in first quarter twenty seven. 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 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 01:58:11.660 --> 01:58:15.280 that we're in that we've annexed into the city. 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 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. 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 01:58:32.200 --> 01:58:37.280 of the mud that's not adjacent to the first. 01:58:37.280 --> 01:58:40.160 And then phase two would be the subject parcel yes. 01:58:40.160 --> 01:58:41.800 Understood. 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. 01:58:50.000 --> 01:59:00.380 At what point during twenty twenty six what's the latest point that you could. 01:59:00.380 --> 01:59:07.780 Get the zoning change in order to stay on your preferred schedule of twenty twenty seven 01:59:07.780 --> 01:59:08.780 starting phase two. 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 01:59:13.760 --> 01:59:15.760 about a year to get through it. 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 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 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 01:59:30.820 --> 01:59:35.160 I anticipate phase two would take as well. 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 01:59:44.160 --> 01:59:49.320 those things that you can do concurrently with the zoning application or are they things 01:59:49.320 --> 01:59:55.000 that you can't start because of any requirements until you have the zoning. 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 01:59:59.800 --> 02:00:00.800 thank you. 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 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 02:00:13.640 --> 02:00:22.600 more than welcome to come down. 02:00:22.600 --> 02:00:26.800 Any other questions or discussion commissioner Riggs I'll make a motion to approve item five 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:02:14.360 --> 02:02:21.360 seven separate applications let's come back show what the future roadway network with 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:03:10.160 --> 02:03:14.160 approach and they're ready to move forward then we evaluate the applications according 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 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 02:03:25.220 --> 02:03:30.760 comprehensive plan amendment for example if I could stretch that I did one of the comments 02:03:30.760 --> 02:03:38.040 that I had for this comprehensive plan was to consider the that that longer court or 02:03:38.040 --> 02:03:41.520 the application that we have coming forward for the rest of that commercial piece and 02:03:41.520 --> 02:03:46.080 try to make this all as as one again they are different applicants they are different 02:03:46.080 --> 02:03:50.800 developers and so they're financing on their application side and that's between that's 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:05:06.800 --> 02:05:17.840 going to operate before there's confidence in that direction is that accurate I would 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:05:51.800 --> 02:05:59.520 what my concerns are I understand that the applicant is eager to get under construction 02:05:59.520 --> 02:06:09.080 I understand there was some prior agreement or understanding with the annexation agreement 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 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 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 02:06:33.360 --> 02:06:39.440 get things in the ground before you know or at least get things approved before interest 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 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 02:06:54.480 --> 02:07:00.800 plan amendment until an event certain where staff can come back with a more holistic comprehensive 02:07:00.800 --> 02:07:08.420 plan amendment that includes development within this corridor specifically from sort of the 02:07:08.420 --> 02:07:20.360 28 West intersection or interchange with 380 over to to this western terminus of our city 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 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 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 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 02:07:55.760 --> 02:08:03.720 a second I'll second to table it okay second by Commissioner Garland any other discussion 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 02:08:10.040 --> 02:08:20.800 make sure everybody kind of understands what people's positions are that make sense anything 02:08:20.800 --> 02:08:27.080 yes Commissioner Macduff I think it's time for a clarification since we have a second 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 02:08:33.640 --> 02:08:40.320 the comprehensive plan and is it your thought process and that the second and the third 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 02:08:49.080 --> 02:08:55.800 independently so I would be happy to take a motion on that certainly the zoning change 02:08:55.800 --> 02:09:03.320 could be moved on without the comprehensive plan amendment that's you know typically we 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 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 02:09:16.480 --> 02:09:21.960 we could certainly have still three motions on those three independent items the staff 02:09:21.960 --> 02:09:31.840 of comments Charlie yeah thank you chair Charlie Rosendahl interim director of development 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 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 02:09:42.600 --> 02:09:47.800 go through the process of updating the comprehensive plan and then separately we're also working 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 02:09:52.320 --> 02:09:59.960 be coming forward before this council in the future yeah thank you for that reminder you 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 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 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 02:10:19.200 --> 02:10:24.400 speaks loudly yeah I understand I was just trying to point out that that that larger 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 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 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 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 02:10:50.240 --> 02:10:54.680 please correct me if I'm misstating but an accident essentially is agricultural and then 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:11:47.360 --> 02:11:52.800 wanting with a very comprehensive plan update we're essentially going to say people can't 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 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 02:12:03.480 --> 02:12:07.400 six months to get it through all the different committees so you're basically saying that 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 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 02:12:20.320 --> 02:12:27.600 this body the planning and zoning commission is not part of the annexation process so we 02:12:27.600 --> 02:12:33.720 didn't get an opportunity to hear or deliberate on those agreements that you're referring 02:12:33.720 --> 02:12:38.280 to right understand that those are conversations that happen between staff and the applicant 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 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 02:12:56.520 --> 02:13:02.640 questions I mean I agree with Commissioner Riggs when it goes through this process of 02:13:02.640 --> 02:13:07.560 like annexation and the different approvals you know whether it's our body or the city 02:13:07.560 --> 02:13:12.520 council it's kind of with that intention of what everybody knows is going to eventually 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 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 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 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 02:13:39.340 --> 02:13:49.080 concerns and you know especially this the new arterial that's going to go in around 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 02:13:56.120 --> 02:14:01.960 from that small community just east of this area about the concerns with traffic and busing 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:14:42.320 --> 02:14:49.400 satisfy them so these are the growing pains and these are the tough decisions that you 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 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 02:15:01.760 --> 02:15:10.400 point of clarification Steph Chandra I think I know for a fair distance 380 has already 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 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 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 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 02:15:35.200 --> 02:15:40.620 not a regional capacity thing that tech start is waiting on more development to do right 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 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 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 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 02:16:13.720 --> 02:16:21.920 comprehensive plan amendment which is item 5a until an event certain where staff can 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:17:52.360 --> 02:17:57.640 the comprehensive plan amendment that can I get clarification on what your motion was 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 02:18:02.200 --> 02:18:09.800 restate the motion basically I make a motion to recommend approval to council of item 5a 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 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 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 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 02:18:52.320 --> 02:19:04.720 a way that will kill people Commissioner Ketter said I Commissioner McDuff dire dire I will 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:19:49.840 --> 02:20:01.240 105b okay and any second I'll second that second by Commissioner Ketter said any discussion 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 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 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 02:20:24.960 --> 02:20:31.360 dollar bridges that the city needs to maintain after that Commissioner Ketter said I Commissioner 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:21:21.120 --> 02:21:30.880 I'll just say the the additional flexibility that would afford in my opinion would would 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 02:21:38.760 --> 02:21:42.720 light at the intersection have you seen how many people run the red lights these days 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 02:21:51.760 --> 02:21:58.560 a motion to recommend approval to council on item 5c motion by Commissioner Riggs do 02:21:58.560 --> 02:22:06.960 we have a second Commissioner McDuff I'll second that motion motion and a second any 02:22:06.960 --> 02:22:12.720 discussion not seeing any I'll call for a roll call vote Commissioner McDuff I Commissioner 02:22:12.720 --> 02:22:23.360 Riggs I chair is a nay Commissioner Ketchers said I Commissioner Dyer I and Commissioner 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 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 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 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 02:23:06.800 --> 02:23:12.200 the applicants stated intent one acre single-family residential lots the property is located at 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 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 02:23:24.320 --> 02:23:30.720 zoning is rural residential and the proposed zoning is r1 there are not much differences 02:23:30.720 --> 02:23:35.480 with regard to the primary land uses that are permitted within this these zoning districts 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 02:23:42.000 --> 02:23:47.940 and then r1 is typically strictly single-family residential as far as the differences with 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 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 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 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 02:24:10.320 --> 02:24:16.400 is consistent with the r1 purpose statement additionally the proposal is generally consistent 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 02:24:21.820 --> 02:24:27.560 2040 comprehensive plan the proposed zoning and development would be compatible with surrounding 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 02:24:33.460 --> 02:24:40.120 to generate significant adverse environmental infrastructure or fiscal impacts the existing 02:24:40.120 --> 02:24:46.420 agricultural flume designation and the request is compatible the r1 district is compatible 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 02:24:51.840 --> 02:24:57.080 of land and active agricultural uses for preservation including ranch landfill crops and other similar 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 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 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 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 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 02:25:25.820 --> 02:25:32.680 to develop one acre lots on this property this is also helping us achieve other goals 02:25:32.680 --> 02:25:38.600 to grow resourcefully given that the recently approved craver ranch development is coming 02:25:38.600 --> 02:25:44.000 with some utility improvements in this area as well as growing with balance establishing 02:25:44.000 --> 02:25:49.000 a land use designation that is responding to the needs and character specifications 02:25:49.000 --> 02:25:54.720 of the denton community we do see that with the craver ranch developments of the southwest 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 02:26:00.040 --> 02:26:05.720 and this would provide a completely different housing product that is a larger lot size 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 02:26:12.660 --> 02:26:19.200 to the city so this r1 or zoning district purpose statement is to preserve existing 02:26:19.200 --> 02:26:23.940 single-family neighborhoods ensure that any new development promotes conservation of scenic 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 02:26:30.540 --> 02:26:36.720 in the area and transitions between rural development and large residential neighborhoods so what 02:26:36.720 --> 02:26:41.720 i have shown here is that the craver ranch development to the southwest again was developed 02:26:41.720 --> 02:26:47.360 in the pd the approximate density and the phases adjacent to this area are ranged from 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 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 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 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 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 02:27:13.920 --> 02:27:18.640 to what the applicant is proposing with their development i mean then on the other side 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 02:27:23.440 --> 02:27:29.520 zoning so it is again that natural sort of serving as a transition between higher or 02:27:29.520 --> 02:27:35.080 mixed use of density here moderate low density here and then significantly lower rural kind 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:28:19.720 --> 02:28:25.020 will open the public hearing on this item any questions for staff before we hear from 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:29:23.620 --> 02:29:33.280 accurate or is there an issue here good evening commission charles rosen all interim director 02:29:33.280 --> 02:29:38.800 of development services the fiscal impact analysis that was done is using the fiscal 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 02:29:44.240 --> 02:29:52.780 to bring items before this commission since that time so so help me understand how it 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:30:45.160 --> 02:30:50.520 a very strong finance background probably diving into that okay yeah i don't think we 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:32:57.480 --> 02:33:02.480 wanted to go through a zoning case if the craver ranch master development was approved 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 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 02:33:23.680 --> 02:33:31.520 bit different because you're not necessarily developing the property um were you made aware 02:33:31.520 --> 02:33:39.000 of the provision or suggestion in our comp plan and our code to do conservation development 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:34:18.280 --> 02:34:23.640 when you read our comprehensive plan it talks about intentionally using lots much smaller 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 02:34:31.400 --> 02:34:39.160 any other questions of the applicant seeing none thank you any members of the public wishing 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:35:53.220 --> 02:36:02.000 floodplain or environmentally sensitive areas but just land um and it's not just for environmental 02:36:02.000 --> 02:36:06.800 and preservation reasons and habitat reasons but it's also for fiscal reasons because we 02:36:06.800 --> 02:36:16.200 can talk about um talk about lessening the length of utility and and roadways to service 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:37:18.960 --> 02:37:22.480 rural residential which is the larger lots and with the craver ranch i do think this 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 02:37:28.000 --> 02:37:32.400 larger lots i i totally understand your your thoughts on cluster development and i definitely 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 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 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 02:37:50.840 --> 02:37:57.280 money that the residents of that area would like more i guarantee you that the future 02:37:57.280 --> 02:38:01.560 developers of this property don't want to spend two million dollars a lane mile building 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 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 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 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 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 02:38:32.520 --> 02:38:39.960 any other discussion i'll call for a roll call vote commissioner mcduff aye commissioner 02:38:39.960 --> 02:38:47.880 riggs aye chair is a nay commissioner catcher said aye commissioner mcduff commissioner 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 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 02:39:06.760 --> 02:39:23.200 five e sd 25-1 good evening chair and commission cameron robertson principal planner um so 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 02:39:29.480 --> 02:39:36.180 known as hunter ranch uh the parcel is approximately 120 acres located on that northwest corner 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 02:39:42.960 --> 02:39:48.360 arterial um frontage along i-35 west frontage road robertson ranch road and then landmark 02:39:48.360 --> 02:39:54.240 trail um it will include a grocery um anchored store retail along with some other commercial 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 02:40:01.520 --> 02:40:07.840 easement constraints especially along that 35 west corridor um also being along i-35 02:40:07.840 --> 02:40:12.520 west um and just because of the phasing of this larger scale development uh landmark 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:40:47.080 --> 02:40:52.320 standards set within that uh special sign district um there are some maximum effective 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 02:40:58.760 --> 02:41:04.080 um but those are specifically located really along 35 west um specifically highlighting 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 02:41:09.240 --> 02:41:13.640 and then now lastly the request is looking at maximum height for temporary signs along 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 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 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 02:41:31.720 --> 02:41:36.640 here um but specifically first looking at the definitions uh you do see the introduction 02:41:36.640 --> 02:41:42.760 uh introduction of some new ground sign types um specifically multi-tenant sign um single 02:41:42.760 --> 02:41:49.840 tenant sign pedestrian um directory and directional signs um additionally as i stated in my previous 02:41:49.840 --> 02:41:55.640 slide there are some new permitted signs that are allowed um maximum effective area section 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 02:42:00.600 --> 02:42:05.320 um but then you do see those pedestrian directory and directional signs are actually smaller 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 02:42:11.280 --> 02:42:16.600 be a little bit larger along those primary arterials in the 35 west maximum height section 02:42:16.600 --> 02:42:22.000 um pedestrian and directional signs they're going to be shorter than what we see within 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 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 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 02:42:34.680 --> 02:42:41.920 the roadways uh minimum setback requirements um due to the textile right of way um specifically 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 02:42:46.960 --> 02:42:52.960 because there is those easements along 35 west and then lastly they do meet those number 02:42:52.960 --> 02:42:58.960 of ground signs um but they are asking for the additional um single tenant signs when 02:42:58.960 --> 02:43:05.160 there's a multi-tenant sign allowed um looking specifically at the comprehensive sign package 02:43:05.160 --> 02:43:10.840 and then compatibility um once again looking at that scale just making sure that there's 02:43:10.840 --> 02:43:15.440 visibility along that 35 west corridor and just making sure that there's numerous way 02:43:15.440 --> 02:43:20.800 finding signs to direct drivers and visitors um looking at color material and shapes it 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 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 02:43:32.040 --> 02:43:37.040 they are consistent in terms of in uniform with the commercial area being developed they 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 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 02:43:48.800 --> 02:43:54.280 um minus along 35 single tenants pedestrian directory and directional sign they all meet 02:43:54.280 --> 02:43:59.840 those minimum setback requirements within our chapter 33 ordinance um and then they 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 02:44:05.780 --> 02:44:10.200 to promote the commercial area and direct vehicular and pedestrian traffic um portable 02:44:10.200 --> 02:44:16.680 signs um the current regulations do prohibit portable signs if they're not properly registered 02:44:16.680 --> 02:44:22.000 um non-conforming portable signs as provided within our chapter 33 um specifically within 02:44:22.000 --> 02:44:27.160 the landmarks as special sign district it is providing some restrictive language um limiting 02:44:27.160 --> 02:44:33.640 that maximum effective area which is uh 12 square feet maximum maximum height which would 02:44:33.640 --> 02:44:41.120 be three feet six inches maximum and then only allowing two per business uh public outreach 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 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 02:44:53.800 --> 02:44:57.760 uh staff is recommending the approval of the request as it does comply with our criteria 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 02:45:06.880 --> 02:45:08.760 is here if you do have any questions for the applicant 02:45:08.760 --> 02:45:17.960 um any questions of staff commissioner dire 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 02:45:27.160 --> 02:45:31.440 you explain like what that exactly is going to look like 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:46:11.200 --> 02:46:18.480 hear i think kite or something like that but okay thank you 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 02:46:22.920 --> 02:46:29.240 when you were referring to the temporary signs and referring to our our code section there 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:47:36.520 --> 02:47:41.720 you know peppermints hot cocoa special today or something yeah although now you have to 02:47:41.720 --> 02:47:46.520 mount those up higher because eighty nine percent of the people are just going through 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:48:31.460 --> 02:48:37.880 on staff's recommendations i'll second motion by commissioner garland second by commissioner 02:48:37.880 --> 02:48:47.000 riggs seeing no further discussion call for a vote roll call vote commissioner mcduff 02:48:47.000 --> 02:48:54.360 commissioner riggs aye chair is an aye commissioner uh catcher said aye commissioner dire aye 02:48:54.360 --> 02:49:01.360 commissioner garland aye that item passes six zero brings us to our next public hearing 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 02:49:16.920 --> 02:49:21.880 angie manglares assistant planning director here to present s-twenty-five zero zero zero 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 02:49:27.140 --> 02:49:33.240 for a modular data center on approximately four point zero six four acres of land generally 02:49:33.240 --> 02:49:39.400 located 1800 feet south of jim crystal road west of western boulevard and adjacent to 02:49:39.400 --> 02:49:44.000 the rd wells substation a little bit of split zoning on this property it's predominantly 02:49:44.000 --> 02:49:48.880 zoned public facilities but there is some heavy industrial zoning as well both of these 02:49:48.880 --> 02:49:53.120 zoning districts do require a specific use permit for a modular data center which is 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 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 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 02:50:11.080 --> 02:50:16.400 surrounded by hi zoning consistent with that there's a variety of industrial manufacturing 02:50:16.400 --> 02:50:21.960 land uses surrounding the property this proposed modular data center is consistent with the 02:50:21.960 --> 02:50:26.920 approved lease and power purchase agreement with the dme for the operation of a modular 02:50:26.920 --> 02:50:33.080 data center staff did review the specific use permit against our criteria for approval 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 02:50:37.160 --> 02:50:41.800 comprehensive plan it is consistent with the specific standards as set forth for a modular 02:50:41.800 --> 02:50:47.560 data center and approval of this permit is not expected to generate any significant adverse 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 02:50:53.920 --> 02:51:00.640 commerce this area is generally found west of i-35w near the municipal airport it does 02:51:00.640 --> 02:51:07.640 include a mix of industrial uses light and heavy it can include manufacturing or assembly 02:51:07.640 --> 02:51:12.440 and it is important to consider any transitions to sensitive land uses when when reviewing 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 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 02:51:22.840 --> 02:51:28.120 generally compatible with the surrounding area there is a substation next door it is also 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 02:51:34.080 --> 02:51:39.000 given its location there's not anticipated to be any visual or auditory impacts it is 02:51:39.000 --> 02:51:43.280 situated off of the right-of-way sandwich between the arty well substation and peter 02:51:43.280 --> 02:51:48.840 belt and it's adequately spaced from any sensitive land uses the closest residential use would 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 02:51:55.520 --> 02:52:00.560 with the future land use purpose and goals we did conduct public notification in accordance 02:52:00.560 --> 02:52:05.160 with state law as well as our own code of ordinances have not received any responses 02:52:05.160 --> 02:52:12.200 back in favor neutral or in opposed staff does have a couple of conditions to associate 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 02:52:17.840 --> 02:52:25.360 on the noise assessment that must be submitted as well as just access specifications so staff 02:52:25.360 --> 02:52:29.720 is recommending approval with the inclusion of these conditions the next step would be 02:52:29.720 --> 02:52:34.000 city council tentatively scheduled for january 13th and i'm happy to answer any questions 02:52:34.000 --> 02:52:43.240 you may have any commissioner dire if you're recommending approval with a couple of conditions 02:52:43.240 --> 02:52:49.380 do they have to have those conditions like if we approve this and recommend this does 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 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 02:52:58.360 --> 02:53:03.240 things done sure so conditions with specific use permits are a little unique we're saying 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 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 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 02:53:17.560 --> 02:53:22.560 minor modifications to be approved by staff which is typical with any sup to account for 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:53:51.760 --> 02:53:55.280 anything that triggers you know above and beyond this we might have to do an amendment 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 02:53:59.320 --> 02:54:07.120 what needs to be done going forward thank you commissioner Garland do we know how close 02:54:07.120 --> 02:54:13.700 like the closest residential area like how close is the closest residential area or like 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 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 02:54:24.520 --> 02:54:46.240 a multifamily development closer to thirty five itself so this is the retreat dentin 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 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 02:54:58.060 --> 02:55:04.200 there is you know a significant amount of other activity that's occurring in the area 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 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 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 02:55:17.920 --> 02:55:22.840 those requirements to does forgive me for not knowing the term but like the builder 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 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 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 02:55:42.520 --> 02:55:49.760 sure there will be no additional lighting associated with this site and the applicant 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 02:55:53.480 --> 02:55:57.560 be pretty comparable to the other noises that are in the area given the manufacturing nature 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 02:56:08.200 --> 02:56:15.640 evening chair thank you council members Spencer Smith director of engineering at cumulus AI 02:56:15.640 --> 02:56:23.960 twenty one forty six Roswell Road Marietta Georgia in answer to your question we have 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 02:56:33.040 --> 02:56:40.640 and newer more efficient method of cooling the servers and it's done through liquid cooling 02:56:40.640 --> 02:56:48.000 so the graphic that Angie pulled up in the work session earlier kind of indicates that 02:56:48.000 --> 02:56:55.800 the only equipment running outside would be fans rejecting the heat so that is significantly 02:56:55.800 --> 02:57:03.120 cooler it's likened to basically the the heat rejection on top of industrial buildings for 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 02:57:12.240 --> 02:57:31.180 of the entire ten to twenty years at least okay thank you 02:57:31.180 --> 02:57:36.880 commission ricks I just have one question is this piece of property owned by the city 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:58:48.320 --> 02:58:52.320 concerned with are we adding like another data pod or something that would trigger changes 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 02:58:57.400 --> 02:59:05.640 through their DME and their various agreements with the operator okay any other questions 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 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 02:59:19.080 --> 02:59:26.160 impact or impact to wildlife or anything like that sorry sorry interrupt just so that we 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 02:59:31.360 --> 02:59:34.760 you could state your name and address just for the record and then address the question 02:59:34.760 --> 02:59:43.800 sure Spencer Smith director of engineering humans AI 2146 Roswell Road Mariana Georgia 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 02:59:51.720 --> 02:59:57.840 cooled and more traditional air cooled they are a bit louder but they are also located 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 03:00:09.520 --> 03:00:16.800 is dramatically quieter from a noise standpoint Angie mentioned the ambient noise at around 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 03:01:09.720 --> 03:01:15.960 liquid cooling technology uses a dielectric fluid similar to the fluid that is inside 03:01:15.960 --> 03:01:22.760 of electrical transformers so it's non-conductive the servers are submerged in the fluid that 03:01:22.760 --> 03:01:29.800 fluid warms up transitions outside rejects the heat and then circulates back in there 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 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 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 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 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 03:02:16.640 --> 03:02:22.960 had concerns about the noise and the vibration assessment we talked about that in our work 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 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 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 03:02:44.440 --> 03:02:51.980 it's not clearing and developing a greenfield site yet another greenfield site so I for 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 03:03:49.460 --> 03:03:58.560 high evaporative water use systems and noise that that keeps our water use down but also 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 03:04:05.120 --> 03:04:15.120 catcher said on Commissioner Dyer and Commissioner Garland I that passes six zero brings us to 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 03:04:26.840 --> 03:04:33.200 were failing somebody five G DCA twenty five dash one all right thank you chair members 03:04:33.200 --> 03:04:38.040 of the commission Angie manglaris assistant planning director I will tag in Julie Wyatt 03:04:38.040 --> 03:04:44.240 principal planner a little bit through this presentation but this is DCA twenty five one 03:04:44.240 --> 03:04:49.000 this is a code amendment related to missing middle housing so specifically this amendment 03:04:49.000 --> 03:04:53.800 is to amend several sections of the debt and development code which aim to clarify our 03:04:53.800 --> 03:04:58.160 regulations for missing middle housing types specifically townhome and accessory dwelling 03:04:58.160 --> 03:05:04.160 units this does support several of our goals in our comprehensive plan our affordable housing 03:05:04.160 --> 03:05:08.560 toolkit the southeast and area plan as well as the design downtown denton plan it does 03:05:08.560 --> 03:05:14.180 help to support a variety of housing options in the city these amendments are also intended 03:05:14.180 --> 03:05:19.440 to remove some conflicting or confusing language within the code these amendments are consistent 03:05:19.440 --> 03:05:24.620 with direction received from both this body as well as the development code review committee 03:05:24.620 --> 03:05:29.080 and does create additional options for missing middle housing within the city overall we 03:05:29.080 --> 03:05:33.820 are recommending approval as I said we have workshopped these code amendments through 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 03:05:40.840 --> 03:05:46.040 both in person meetings online meetings as well as an online survey generally there is 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 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 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 03:06:02.720 --> 03:06:08.480 where accessory dwelling units are currently allowed to expand that to MD and MR and really 03:06:08.480 --> 03:06:13.520 the reason for that is because we are also proposing that accessory dwelling units could 03:06:13.520 --> 03:06:18.640 be accessory to townhomes, duplexes, triplexes and they also live in these zoning districts 03:06:18.640 --> 03:06:24.360 so really just expanding the allowable uses to where the units that they could be attached 03:06:24.360 --> 03:06:30.780 to are located as it relates to general amendments related to just accessory structures in general 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 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 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 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 03:06:51.840 --> 03:06:59.000 amendments generally some amendments are clarifying ADUs can be attached or detached we do need 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 03:07:03.520 --> 03:07:10.180 be one ADU allowed per lot when looking at single-family detached townhomes duplexes 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 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 03:07:19.880 --> 03:07:26.080 support both from the community as well as when we were workshopping this to allow that 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 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 03:07:37.120 --> 03:07:40.560 duplex or triplex. 03:07:40.560 --> 03:07:45.560 Moving on to size some of these amendments were clarification again mostly for staffs 03:07:45.560 --> 03:07:50.880 benefit and reading and interpreting the code but clarifying measurement standards for ADUs 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 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 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 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 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 03:08:18.520 --> 03:08:23.240 our original amendments had that where your ADU would be quite small at like 350 square 03:08:23.240 --> 03:08:25.320 feet or something. 03:08:25.320 --> 03:08:29.880 So providing some flexibility again when we took this to the community and our surveys 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 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 03:08:42.040 --> 03:08:46.560 guaranteed 800 square feet regardless. 03:08:46.560 --> 03:08:51.280 When it comes to location and design there were a handful of amendments that were made 03:08:51.280 --> 03:08:56.760 here to clarify that a detached ADU could be allowed on the side yard but requiring 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 03:09:01.480 --> 03:09:07.120 main structure just to provide a little bit of visual relief and then also provide additional 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 03:09:14.480 --> 03:09:18.440 if you're constructing an ADU it does need to be determined to be architecturally compatible 03:09:18.440 --> 03:09:23.000 with the home with these amendments we are really specifying that it's ADUs that are 03:09:23.000 --> 03:09:27.240 visible from the public right-of-way that need to demonstrate architectural compatibility 03:09:27.240 --> 03:09:30.320 by meeting any two of these requirements here. 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 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 03:09:38.800 --> 03:09:43.000 right-of-way we would want to ensure continuity of community character and this could make 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. 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 03:09:53.040 --> 03:09:59.840 mechanism to allow separate ownership of the ADU from the main structure and I think we 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 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 03:10:09.320 --> 03:10:16.080 parking requirements the suggestion would be to remove the minimum but require any required 03:10:16.080 --> 03:10:21.480 space that is removed for the construction of an ADU to be replaced on site. 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 03:10:25.800 --> 03:10:31.400 the required parking you'd have to find a place elsewhere for it on site. 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 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 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 03:10:47.280 --> 03:10:48.280 on. 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 03:10:52.760 --> 03:11:01.360 Julie come and talk through some of those town home amendments for you all. 03:11:01.360 --> 03:11:07.420 Good evening Julie Wyatt I'm going to go over the proposed amendments to town homes. 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 03:11:13.080 --> 03:11:17.560 through some of these challenges that the city has with development of town homes and 03:11:17.560 --> 03:11:24.320 some of those design considerations which create barriers to developing town homes. 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 03:11:28.840 --> 03:11:34.680 mixed use districts as well as our six and our seven which are moderate density districts. 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. 03:11:40.720 --> 03:11:44.320 What we're talking about is are those design elements. 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 03:11:51.400 --> 03:11:58.000 feet a minimum width of 20 feet and a minimum depth of 60 feet. 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 03:12:03.500 --> 03:12:07.560 density the R6 R7 that works really well there. 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 03:12:12.600 --> 03:12:19.120 more walkable environments those lot sizes don't necessarily work and in fact we have 03:12:19.120 --> 03:12:22.560 town homes in our downtown area that don't meet that requirement. 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 03:12:28.240 --> 03:12:36.480 square feet allowing that additional flexibility for those areas to slot into the infill lots 03:12:36.480 --> 03:12:39.360 where where they can. 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 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 03:12:51.760 --> 03:12:57.880 know about town homes that they get those good references and then also clarify town 03:12:57.880 --> 03:13:03.720 home building coverage to make sure that in in those districts that allow greater building 03:13:03.720 --> 03:13:07.920 coverage that those town home lots could take advantage of that. 03:13:07.920 --> 03:13:14.240 Under our current requirements the maximum building coverage for town homes is 85 percent. 03:13:14.240 --> 03:13:19.120 But for instance in our M.D. district we allow 100 percent building coverage. 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 03:13:23.440 --> 03:13:26.640 use that would be developed in those districts. 03:13:26.640 --> 03:13:31.440 We feel like this is more consistent with the intent of our mixed use districts and 03:13:31.440 --> 03:13:36.760 allows more infill development consistent with our comprehensive plan as well as our 03:13:36.760 --> 03:13:38.480 our housing plans. 03:13:38.480 --> 03:13:43.000 We did talk to the community about this in our community meetings and online and they 03:13:43.000 --> 03:13:46.480 were in agreement with with this proposal. 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 03:13:53.160 --> 03:13:54.280 I'll be happy to answer them. 03:13:54.280 --> 03:14:00.080 So subchapter three in the Denton Development Code also has a provision for town homes that 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 03:14:05.120 --> 03:14:08.080 family homes that could be developed on that site. 03:14:08.080 --> 03:14:09.920 So what does that mean? 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 03:14:15.240 --> 03:14:16.320 for that zoning district. 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 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 03:14:27.280 --> 03:14:31.680 R4 requires a 7,000 square foot lot. 03:14:31.680 --> 03:14:36.360 So it would just it would create challenges for for getting that that those additional 03:14:36.360 --> 03:14:43.000 housing within those neighborhoods and really is a disincentive to to develop town homes. 03:14:43.000 --> 03:14:45.320 So we're proposing just to remove this altogether. 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 03:14:51.640 --> 03:14:56.600 create a disincentive for this housing type really kind of pushes development to other 03:14:56.600 --> 03:15:00.840 housing types which which don't have this type of limitation. 03:15:00.840 --> 03:15:04.960 We asked the community how they felt about this and they were in agreement that really 03:15:04.960 --> 03:15:09.400 we could just remove this provision altogether. 03:15:09.400 --> 03:15:12.520 And then the last item is open space. 03:15:12.520 --> 03:15:15.660 Open space is a great amenity to a lot of neighborhoods. 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 03:15:21.440 --> 03:15:28.660 fit in all contexts especially in those infill situations or smaller projects. 03:15:28.660 --> 03:15:35.600 The current code requires a minimum five percent open space for any development that is over 03:15:35.600 --> 03:15:41.260 10 units or more which which is really kind of a small area. 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 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 03:15:52.600 --> 03:15:59.920 three acres so that those smaller projects would be exempt from it and also exempt projects 03:15:59.920 --> 03:16:02.600 that are close to to city parks. 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 03:16:10.280 --> 03:16:14.120 that open space provide that exemption because there's already that existing open space. 03:16:14.120 --> 03:16:20.840 Those community recreation activities are already in place in those areas. 03:16:20.840 --> 03:16:26.640 We also as part of the proposal are adding design maintenance and management standards. 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 03:16:34.000 --> 03:16:38.920 that to this section to refine those standards to make sure it it fit. 03:16:38.920 --> 03:16:44.400 It was tailored toward these toward these types of missing middle housing types. 03:16:44.400 --> 03:16:45.400 We analyze this. 03:16:45.400 --> 03:16:51.160 We looked at it all different ways and what we really settled on was affordability. 03:16:51.160 --> 03:16:56.700 We already require park dedication for residential developments and we want to make sure any 03:16:56.700 --> 03:17:01.520 development that did provide open space gave usable open space. 03:17:01.520 --> 03:17:06.180 And for that that's how we arrived at the proposal. 03:17:06.180 --> 03:17:12.480 We asked the community how they felt about the exemption for for projects near city parks 03:17:12.480 --> 03:17:14.980 and they were in favor of that exemption. 03:17:14.980 --> 03:17:21.200 And then 50 percent of those who answered were in favor of exempting projects that were 03:17:21.200 --> 03:17:26.240 smaller than three acres so they were also in favor of that. 03:17:26.240 --> 03:17:32.360 So based upon the criteria for approval our policy documents that really speak to providing 03:17:32.360 --> 03:17:37.720 this diversity of housing these missing middle housing types in order to encourage infill 03:17:37.720 --> 03:17:44.560 development affordable development and just to serve all residents of the city of Denton. 03:17:44.560 --> 03:17:47.440 We are recommending approval of these code amendments. 03:17:47.440 --> 03:17:54.280 We'll be happy to answer any questions and thank you. 03:17:54.280 --> 03:17:59.900 Questions Commissioner Ketchers I have a question on the ADU. 03:17:59.900 --> 03:18:05.640 So on single family it's one per lot. 03:18:05.640 --> 03:18:06.640 Yes. 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 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 03:18:20.720 --> 03:18:22.680 should reflect one per lot. 03:18:22.680 --> 03:18:26.240 But if we wanted to talk more about that we could. 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 03:18:34.320 --> 03:18:40.720 situations attached but still have room for detached potentially things like that. 03:18:40.720 --> 03:18:45.680 Yeah and we did talk about that a little a little bit. 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 03:18:51.080 --> 03:18:56.840 casita where there's still a separate living area within the main home but really what 03:18:56.840 --> 03:19:02.400 differentiates it between an ADU and sort of just an expansion of your home is their 03:19:02.400 --> 03:19:04.160 open communication. 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 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 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 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 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 03:19:30.320 --> 03:19:32.040 want this ADU as well. 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 03:19:40.480 --> 03:19:45.480 with a specific use permit. 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 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 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 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 03:20:04.780 --> 03:20:09.720 initial thoughts is either SUP or pick some zoning districts you all are comfortable with. 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 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 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 03:20:33.640 --> 03:20:39.320 different but I think we were talking about potentially allowing two ADUs on lots that 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 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 03:20:53.920 --> 03:20:55.280 the council. 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 03:21:03.640 --> 03:21:09.880 did our recap of how everything went where we presented one per lot regardless of the 03:21:09.880 --> 03:21:15.480 unit the question was brought up did staff have a problem with possibly allowing two 03:21:15.480 --> 03:21:20.520 for duplexes meaning you know each each duplex essentially or each side of the duplex got 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 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 03:21:33.840 --> 03:21:38.120 be rather difficult to achieve there are some older duplex lots where possibly there's the 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 03:21:45.600 --> 03:21:53.000 could be complicated it depends where that went with the DCRC was very split and because 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 03:21:59.080 --> 03:22:03.000 that with the acknowledgment though that this conversation would occur probably at this 03:22:03.000 --> 03:22:11.440 body and council any other questions before Commissioner Garland I had one I don't know 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 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 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 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 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 03:22:44.800 --> 03:22:52.480 their neighbors backyard like are we going to is there any kind of curtailing that like 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 03:23:56.320 --> 03:24:01.640 add-on features for architectural purposes we'll split the difference and take that midpoint 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 03:26:01.400 --> 03:26:11.880 about the city's lack of concern for our established neighborhoods and the monstrosities that are 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 03:29:29.800 --> 03:29:38.960 brand richter I live at 1804 Linden Drive I attended both of the public meetings that 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 03:30:24.520 --> 03:30:30.360 and it frustrates me that when I hear people talk about these types of more approachable 03:30:30.360 --> 03:30:36.160 housing options that are within my price point as a prospective homeowner be outside of the 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 03:30:41.440 --> 03:30:46.600 at potentially limiting or restricting some of these affordability options that open up 03:30:46.600 --> 03:30:51.480 more access to home ownership in an affordable price point for people who really want to 03:30:51.480 --> 03:30:58.200 stay here so I'm encouraged that staff is seeing that community feedback and seeing 03:30:58.200 --> 03:31:03.300 that there is an appetite for reducing those home ownership barriers by adopting these 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 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 03:31:14.240 --> 03:31:23.000 an additional structure and additional people being able to afford those places to live. 03:31:23.000 --> 03:31:27.480 My neighborhood alone it's again one of those older established neighborhoods it has some 03:31:27.480 --> 03:31:33.520 property lots that are nearly an acre in size I hear some commissioners speaking earlier 03:31:33.520 --> 03:31:37.600 about how some of those might be appropriate for additional structures if it's suitable 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 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 03:31:46.000 --> 03:31:53.540 code presented does meet that box while allowing some flexibility from the homeowner. 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 03:31:57.080 --> 03:32:02.440 for more affordable housing and not being too terribly onerous or prescriptive about 03:32:02.440 --> 03:32:08.040 how that happens to the homeowner and that by pulling back some of these barriers we 03:32:08.040 --> 03:32:12.000 open up those potentials for people who do want to stick around. 03:32:12.000 --> 03:32:18.540 So I do hope that the commissioners thoroughly reviewed staff's recommendations and see 03:32:18.540 --> 03:32:27.560 it as a very constructive and common sense way forward to change these homeownership 03:32:27.560 --> 03:32:28.560 codes. 03:32:28.560 --> 03:32:29.560 Thank you. 03:32:29.560 --> 03:32:31.600 Thank you. 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 03:32:37.040 --> 03:32:47.160 down and share your thoughts on the ADU and townhome amendments. 03:32:47.160 --> 03:32:49.840 Anyone else? 03:32:49.840 --> 03:32:50.840 Not seeing any. 03:32:50.840 --> 03:32:59.920 I will close the public hearing. 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 03:33:06.040 --> 03:33:07.040 after that. 03:33:07.040 --> 03:33:16.240 I've been waiting for this to come forward since about 2016. 03:33:16.240 --> 03:33:24.360 I really appreciated Commissioner Ketchersed's concept of hey could there be a little bit 03:33:24.360 --> 03:33:36.840 more flexibility with an SUP perhaps, how does that work? 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 03:33:42.000 --> 03:33:46.680 work it out and then we'll change it as needed. 03:33:46.680 --> 03:33:56.960 So I'm going to move to recommend approval with the following modifications to basically 03:33:56.960 --> 03:34:05.120 copy Commissioner Ketchersed's suggestion where you get plus one ADU if you do an SUP 03:34:05.120 --> 03:34:17.000 subject to the four dwelling units per lot maximum for reasons of definitions and like 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 03:34:24.720 --> 03:34:33.480 square that that SUP would not be required and that's basically just large enough to 03:34:33.480 --> 03:34:40.400 incorporate the areas around UNT and our universities and that sort of thing. 03:34:40.400 --> 03:34:44.600 Let me explain my thinking behind that. 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, 03:34:55.560 --> 03:35:02.280 I had the privilege of sitting over there in Commissioner Garland's seat and next to 03:35:02.280 --> 03:35:06.560 me in Commissioner Dyer's seat was Tim Smith. 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 03:35:12.640 --> 03:35:18.600 on the commission as we were considering some challenges that Denton was having on affordable 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 03:35:23.440 --> 03:35:28.920 bad like twice as expensive, more than twice as bad. 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 03:35:36.640 --> 03:35:47.480 era that they took on sort of the combination of affordability and pressures, development 03:35:47.480 --> 03:35:55.360 pressures near the universities and if you're familiar with Leadership Denton it's a pretty 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 03:36:03.920 --> 03:36:09.640 digging into problems on a city level, right? 03:36:09.640 --> 03:36:14.120 And they came back and said we need ADUs, right? 03:36:14.120 --> 03:36:23.360 At the time our code allowed the building but functionally you couldn't live there. 03:36:23.360 --> 03:36:29.120 It was barred from any long term lease contracts officially. 03:36:29.120 --> 03:36:35.600 Now unofficially we probably had 30 or 40 buildings that were leasing things out but 03:36:35.600 --> 03:36:39.400 if you asked to build one then the answer would be no. 03:36:39.400 --> 03:36:45.880 We fixed a lot of those problems with the 2019 code. 03:36:45.880 --> 03:36:54.880 Very large refresh so they became buildable without having an SUP and we've seen some 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 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 03:37:14.080 --> 03:37:16.680 built together, right? 03:37:16.680 --> 03:37:22.140 Which affords a lot more flexibility in how you lay out the site. 03:37:22.140 --> 03:37:32.840 As staff said, there's lots of planning as we talked about earlier this year, tonight, 03:37:32.840 --> 03:37:38.720 in the small area plan with Southeast Denton to understand what are the barriers. 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 03:37:53.000 --> 03:37:58.760 a policy call about what is the more pressing need in our community. 03:37:58.760 --> 03:38:08.000 Right now we are requiring parking that prevents homes from being built. 03:38:08.000 --> 03:38:14.520 Which essentially means we're saying availability of parking regardless of how many cars there 03:38:14.520 --> 03:38:23.520 are is more important than housing people and I believe that to be morally and ethically 03:38:23.520 --> 03:38:30.560 suspect. 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 03:38:37.820 --> 03:38:41.960 to see where the discussion goes. 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 03:38:47.200 --> 03:38:54.920 stuff possible economically and feasible on lots where it makes sense already just from 03:38:54.920 --> 03:38:57.320 a location perspective. 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 03:39:07.720 --> 03:39:18.440 who is a graduate student, a foreign graduate student who because of the cost of housing 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 03:39:27.280 --> 03:39:31.040 one bedroom apartment. 03:39:31.040 --> 03:39:38.400 When housing is expensive, restricting the number of homes that can be built doesn't 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 03:39:44.960 --> 03:39:51.760 it does is squeeze people into an overcrowded situation. 03:39:51.760 --> 03:40:00.360 And so I think that these amendments will allow the lowest impact type of development 03:40:00.360 --> 03:40:09.200 to go into our core neighborhoods and start alleviating that pressure. 03:40:09.200 --> 03:40:16.320 The more of these we build, the fewer four story huge cube apartment complexes are going 03:40:16.320 --> 03:40:18.680 to come by. 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 03:40:28.000 --> 03:40:38.280 change is equally objectionable and therefore we would prefer to wait until applicants come 03:40:38.280 --> 03:40:45.720 with deep pockets and rezone properties right next to neighborhoods because all change is 03:40:45.720 --> 03:40:48.240 equally objectionable. 03:40:48.240 --> 03:40:49.240 I don't believe that's true. 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, 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. 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 03:41:14.840 --> 03:41:24.040 of seeing more change, but realization that adding a building behind a home is not as 03:41:24.040 --> 03:41:29.640 big of a change as building a four story apartment complex behind somebody's backyard. 03:41:29.640 --> 03:41:30.640 So that's my motion. 03:41:30.640 --> 03:41:31.640 Yeah, Steph. 03:41:31.640 --> 03:41:38.680 I just want to make sure I can restate your motion and that we captured it. 03:41:38.680 --> 03:41:45.360 So your motion was to recommend approval of the staff recommendation with two modifications, 03:41:45.360 --> 03:41:50.800 the first to allow one additional accessory dwelling unit per lot with a specific use permit 03:41:50.800 --> 03:41:56.260 required provided that additional ADU could not be allowed if the lot would have more 03:41:56.260 --> 03:42:01.320 than four dwelling units, and the second modification being an exemption to that SUP requirement 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 03:42:05.960 --> 03:42:06.960 square. 03:42:06.960 --> 03:42:07.960 Is that correct? 03:42:07.960 --> 03:42:08.960 That's correct, yes. 03:42:08.960 --> 03:42:11.160 So is there a second on that? 03:42:11.160 --> 03:42:12.960 Well, I just want to clarify something. 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 03:42:16.960 --> 03:42:21.200 it all as one, is staff recommending us all as one? 03:42:21.200 --> 03:42:22.200 It's all one item. 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 03:42:32.240 --> 03:42:34.120 the amendment was only to the ADU. 03:42:34.120 --> 03:42:37.440 I just need clarification, thank you. 03:42:37.440 --> 03:42:38.440 Commissioner Garland? 03:42:38.440 --> 03:42:41.360 I will second that we approve the motion. 03:42:41.360 --> 03:42:45.640 I would like to say I'm actually really happy that we're doing this. 03:42:45.640 --> 03:42:49.840 I feel like housing diversity and different options is something that our community's 03:42:49.840 --> 03:42:56.640 needed for a long time, and as the economy just continues to squeeze families, a lot 03:42:56.640 --> 03:43:02.000 of families are in that position of aging parents and adult children that can't afford 03:43:02.000 --> 03:43:08.480 a three-bedroom, two-bath brick home, and also, coincidentally, cannot afford a one-bedroom 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 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 03:43:20.180 --> 03:43:27.220 sense financially for them, so I'm happy to support those. 03:43:27.220 --> 03:43:28.220 Commissioner Riggs? 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. 03:43:33.040 --> 03:43:36.160 First, Ms. Oltner, we were forwarded your email. 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 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. 03:43:47.000 --> 03:43:54.760 I think we all understand ... Well, and I think we all understand that the different 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 03:44:04.280 --> 03:44:12.280 to live on a street where essentially all of the garages were converted into basically 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 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 03:44:23.720 --> 03:44:30.840 to say that people's concerns about parking is morally and ethically suspect, I don't 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 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? 03:44:42.620 --> 03:44:45.360 Is that still allowed from what we're voting on? 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 03:44:51.240 --> 03:44:55.720 question ... I'm sorry, can you rephrase it? 03:44:55.720 --> 03:44:56.720 Or can you say it again? 03:44:56.720 --> 03:44:57.720 I totally blank. 03:44:57.720 --> 03:44:59.960 It was just, did it meet code? 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 03:45:05.080 --> 03:45:06.080 the other one? 03:45:06.080 --> 03:45:07.080 Yes. 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 03:45:13.800 --> 03:45:16.080 current regulations. 03:45:16.080 --> 03:45:21.200 It's within the allowable height and meets the setback requirements, as well as the size 03:45:21.200 --> 03:45:22.200 requirements. 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 03:45:27.200 --> 03:45:30.840 on top of a garage unit. 03:45:30.840 --> 03:45:37.640 So with these requirements that are up here, consistency in color and roof pitch, are those 03:45:37.640 --> 03:45:41.000 applied to that specific one? 03:45:41.000 --> 03:45:45.160 So these are suggestions that are specific to this amendment. 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 03:45:50.720 --> 03:45:54.120 compatible and that is left a little open ended. 03:45:54.120 --> 03:45:57.840 However, it was determined to meet those criteria. 03:45:57.840 --> 03:46:02.480 We are attempting with these amendments to specify it a bit more and when it applies, 03:46:02.480 --> 03:46:05.080 but it was compliant with those requirements. 03:46:05.080 --> 03:46:06.080 Okay. 03:46:06.080 --> 03:46:09.480 But now with these new requirements that you're proposing, that structure would look different 03:46:09.480 --> 03:46:11.040 than it does today? 03:46:11.040 --> 03:46:14.160 I can't say that for certain without doing a detailed review. 03:46:14.160 --> 03:46:19.000 It may end up being the same. 03:46:19.000 --> 03:46:20.880 Okay. 03:46:20.880 --> 03:46:24.600 Commissioner McTuff? 03:46:24.600 --> 03:46:30.860 Understand all these things and the need for changes and certainly affordable housing and 03:46:30.860 --> 03:46:34.120 agree with several things that have been said this evening. 03:46:34.120 --> 03:46:37.080 Ms. Zolter, I think we hear you. 03:46:37.080 --> 03:46:40.040 We did not get that email. 03:46:40.040 --> 03:46:46.720 The Planning and Zoning Commissioner Riggs forwarded that to me this evening, but I can 03:46:46.720 --> 03:46:51.960 tell you that we are concerned about established neighborhoods. 03:46:51.960 --> 03:46:54.840 We do, I for one live in an established neighborhood. 03:46:54.840 --> 03:47:04.600 I've lived in all kinds of housing in Denton, Texas as a student and forward. 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 03:47:10.520 --> 03:47:16.340 building around the corner and many times there are six cars lined up in the driveway 03:47:16.340 --> 03:47:19.880 and numerous work trucks on the street. 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 03:47:29.120 --> 03:47:30.640 and I said, "Where are you going? 03:47:30.640 --> 03:47:33.460 What are you doing?" 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 03:47:38.960 --> 03:47:46.060 about not to take into account the parking issue for the ADU. 03:47:46.060 --> 03:47:49.640 It's not a good thing. 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. 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 03:48:07.000 --> 03:48:15.720 about these other types of dwellings for health and safety. 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 03:48:24.300 --> 03:48:34.000 comment was not in any way to suggest that parking availability becomes a challenge in 03:48:34.000 --> 03:48:35.000 certain neighborhoods. 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. 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 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 03:48:56.480 --> 03:49:01.160 there are two or three more cars on most streets. 03:49:01.160 --> 03:49:02.160 That's really what we're talking about. 03:49:02.160 --> 03:49:07.240 This is the type of change that evolves over decades. 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 03:49:13.360 --> 03:49:14.360 ownership. 03:49:14.360 --> 03:49:15.360 I just wanted to clarify that. 03:49:15.360 --> 03:49:19.320 No, and I think that's one of the things that, particularly where I think sometimes 03:49:19.320 --> 03:49:26.000 you and I disagree is more of at what pendulum of swing do we go? 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. 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 03:49:37.440 --> 03:49:39.240 and where do we go. 03:49:39.240 --> 03:49:40.760 I did have another question too. 03:49:40.760 --> 03:49:47.640 Is there any worry about adding ADUs on properties, particularly say like new developments, that 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? 03:49:52.600 --> 03:49:53.600 No. 03:49:53.600 --> 03:49:56.920 With new developments specifically? 03:49:56.920 --> 03:49:58.560 I guess comment to both. 03:49:58.560 --> 03:49:59.560 Sure. 03:49:59.560 --> 03:50:07.920 Well, it gets tricky when dealing with single-family homes and tree preservation in our established 03:50:07.920 --> 03:50:12.840 neighborhoods due to state law and some of the limitations we have there. 03:50:12.840 --> 03:50:17.680 When it comes to new developments, so green field development, they are required to submit 03:50:17.680 --> 03:50:23.520 that tree preservation plan up front, and those that do pre-plan their ADUs, and it 03:50:23.520 --> 03:50:25.440 is something I've seen a little bit more of. 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 03:50:28.600 --> 03:50:32.300 so they're still required to meet those minimums as they're lot planning. 03:50:32.300 --> 03:50:37.600 There's no sort of carve out for the ADU situation there. 03:50:37.600 --> 03:50:39.560 Then I do have one more question. 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 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 03:50:56.240 --> 03:50:57.240 be more? 03:50:57.240 --> 03:51:01.200 I just feel like I need clarification. 03:51:01.200 --> 03:51:12.880 Yeah, so the motion is exactly as staff presented with the addition of Commissioner Ketcherset's 03:51:12.880 --> 03:51:19.240 suggestion, which says if you want one more ADU than what staff has presented, you have 03:51:19.240 --> 03:51:22.760 the option of asking for an SUP for that. 03:51:22.760 --> 03:51:33.480 Then as Hilary Haley ... I'm sorry. 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 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 03:51:49.960 --> 03:51:50.960 one. 03:51:50.960 --> 03:51:51.960 Yeah. 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 03:51:56.480 --> 03:51:57.480 those situations. 03:51:57.480 --> 03:51:58.480 Correct? 03:51:58.480 --> 03:51:59.480 Yes. 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, 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 03:52:13.280 --> 03:52:14.280 use. 03:52:14.280 --> 03:52:15.280 Okay. 03:52:15.280 --> 03:52:16.880 Yes, I would agree with that. 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 03:52:20.920 --> 03:52:22.000 her presentation. 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? 03:52:27.600 --> 03:52:28.600 Yes. 03:52:28.600 --> 03:52:29.760 I think that's much more clear. 03:52:29.760 --> 03:52:30.760 Thank you. 03:52:30.760 --> 03:52:35.600 Regular people who read the code can understand that, and I thank Commissioner Ketcher-Sedd 03:52:35.600 --> 03:52:42.480 for the simple additional request, because I think that's all much more understandable 03:52:42.480 --> 03:52:49.080 than anything I've thought before this evening. 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 03:52:52.200 --> 03:52:53.200 come back to you. 03:52:53.200 --> 03:52:54.200 Commissioner Dyer. 03:52:54.200 --> 03:52:56.560 I have a couple things. 03:52:56.560 --> 03:53:03.880 Real quick on the townhouses, you talked about the square footage going down to 1,000. 03:53:03.880 --> 03:53:05.840 So that's the lot size. 03:53:05.840 --> 03:53:07.220 Correct. 03:53:07.220 --> 03:53:11.560 What are we looking at for a square footage of a unit then, like the home? 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. 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 03:53:25.240 --> 03:53:26.240 down to 1,000? 03:53:26.240 --> 03:53:28.520 2,000 down to 1,000, yes. 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 03:53:35.280 --> 03:53:41.000 square foot lots, and they were actually, the size of the building was comparable, because 03:53:41.000 --> 03:53:47.840 the 1,000 square foot would go up. 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 03:53:55.940 --> 03:53:57.800 any modifications to that. 03:53:57.800 --> 03:54:01.980 So that minimum square footage of a townhome would remain. 03:54:01.980 --> 03:54:05.960 So even at a minimum, is there a maximum? 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? 03:54:12.040 --> 03:54:14.740 You'd really have to, if it fits within the building envelope. 03:54:14.740 --> 03:54:21.720 So it depends on building coverage, meeting parking, meeting any front and rear setbacks, 03:54:21.720 --> 03:54:23.360 and then building height. 03:54:23.360 --> 03:54:27.020 So here's where I'm going with this. 03:54:27.020 --> 03:54:32.240 We have all the tree stuff, the tree canopy. 03:54:32.240 --> 03:54:39.720 I'm thinking of green space, because when you're looking at affordability, housing affordability, 03:54:39.720 --> 03:54:45.920 ADU's is one little puzzle piece, townhouses was one little puzzle piece, single family, 03:54:45.920 --> 03:54:53.340 it's all multifamily apartment, that's all little puzzle pieces to the affordability issue. 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 03:55:00.440 --> 03:55:03.040 to buy a townhouse. 03:55:03.040 --> 03:55:08.520 And it could be a young family with one, maybe two children. 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 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 03:55:20.360 --> 03:55:27.960 and a dog can play, or is it absolutely going to give them no green space? 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 03:55:35.600 --> 03:55:38.480 could be flexibility for that. 03:55:38.480 --> 03:55:45.040 So in terms of green space, townhomes could potentially afford that backyard or that green 03:55:45.040 --> 03:55:52.600 space, but it would depend on the specific project, maybe what that family is looking 03:55:52.600 --> 03:55:54.200 for in terms of it. 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 03:56:01.160 --> 03:56:06.080 because those are kind of those more moderate density, and those would likely have maybe 03:56:06.080 --> 03:56:09.560 larger backyards or front yards. 03:56:09.560 --> 03:56:16.800 But getting that smaller lot size in our downtown because that encourages that more walkable 03:56:16.800 --> 03:56:20.800 development, that more compact development pattern. 03:56:20.800 --> 03:56:25.760 So where individual green space may not be as important in our downtown because you've 03:56:25.760 --> 03:56:35.240 got the square and you've got other community assets, whereas that private open space, green 03:56:35.240 --> 03:56:41.320 space might be really important in an area outside of our downtown area because there 03:56:41.320 --> 03:56:44.920 aren't those walkable places to go to. 03:56:44.920 --> 03:56:46.960 So it really is depending on that context. 03:56:46.960 --> 03:56:52.760 Okay, I would just encourage city staff if this passes tonight just to kind of think 03:56:52.760 --> 03:57:01.360 about that when you're working with developers, just to make sure that for the affordability 03:57:01.360 --> 03:57:08.920 factor that you're also meeting the needs of that single parent or that young family 03:57:08.920 --> 03:57:14.680 that may have the children that need a little bit of extra space. 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 03:57:20.560 --> 03:57:23.800 that some may care and some may not. 03:57:23.800 --> 03:57:26.800 So that's what I wanted to say on that. 03:57:26.800 --> 03:57:27.800 Did you want to add anything? 03:57:27.800 --> 03:57:28.800 No, no, no. 03:57:28.800 --> 03:57:29.800 Okay. 03:57:29.800 --> 03:57:33.120 I do have something on the ADU situation. 03:57:33.120 --> 03:57:44.300 I have to say I did not like your comment, Chair, about prioritizing parking spaces over 03:57:44.300 --> 03:57:49.440 the affordability factor because that was one of the things I think I brought up when 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 03:57:54.400 --> 03:57:59.120 things if there is a garage, the garage could technically be converted, whether it's an 03:57:59.120 --> 03:58:05.400 attached garage or a detached garage to an ADU to a little apartment. 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 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 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 03:58:24.840 --> 03:58:31.240 to get ambulances, fire trucks, all of that down the street. 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 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 03:58:46.600 --> 03:58:53.400 to downtown area of Denton talk about the crowded streets, you know, the ones especially 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 03:59:28.560 --> 03:59:35.840 offset the cost of their mortgage but also, you know, provide that housing for, you know, 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 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 03:59:49.200 --> 03:59:55.600 of little facets about this and hopefully when we are giving our reasoning for voting 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 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 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 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 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 04:00:29.760 --> 04:00:37.640 down the street the first responders with ambulance and fire when we are, I mean, I 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, 04:00:42.760 --> 04:00:46.440 this doesn't really affect HOA unless you're working with the development to allow that 04:00:46.440 --> 04:00:49.380 in their bylaws for future developments. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:01:25.480 --> 04:01:30.040 tried to get back towards center and made the language as you see it today consistent 04:01:30.040 --> 04:01:34.400 with how we do other uses for single family or renovations and that is essentially if 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 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 04:01:44.560 --> 04:01:50.340 to be relocated somewhere else on site or that parking area does have to be provided 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 04:01:55.280 --> 04:01:59.800 not everybody uses their garage for their cars, I'm guilty of that sometimes and we 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 04:02:03.960 --> 04:02:04.960 where we are. 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, 04:02:08.640 --> 04:02:14.200 everything's bigger in Texas but the garages and they build them, like these builders build 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 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 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 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 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 04:02:41.760 --> 04:02:43.560 very complicated. 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. 04:02:47.640 --> 04:02:52.680 I just wanted to add that the on street spaces cannot count towards those requirements so 04:02:52.680 --> 04:02:57.000 that they do have to put them back within the lot somewhere. 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 04:03:01.240 --> 04:03:03.520 home towards that required parking. 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 04:03:10.320 --> 04:03:17.280 of Denton, like we, we are entrusting that you guys will make the best decisions when 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, 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 04:03:33.440 --> 04:03:37.760 going to have some hiccups and you're going to unfortunately have some residents that, 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 04:03:42.680 --> 04:03:46.320 but hopefully those are few and far between. 04:03:46.320 --> 04:03:48.640 It won't be perfect. 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 04:03:53.760 --> 04:03:55.840 changes to things. 04:03:55.840 --> 04:03:59.240 Did we over correct or did we not correct enough? 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 04:04:03.760 --> 04:04:07.760 into just consistent issues, it is something staff would be keeping track of and could 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. 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 04:04:16.600 --> 04:04:19.560 it benefits the citizens of the community. 04:04:19.560 --> 04:04:21.520 Thank you. 04:04:21.520 --> 04:04:29.040 Before we go to Commissioner McDuff, can you real quick address the open space, green space 04:04:29.040 --> 04:04:30.040 question? 04:04:30.040 --> 04:04:38.680 I believe the reduced 2,000 square foot lot size is contingent on a certain proximity 04:04:38.680 --> 04:04:43.120 to some public open space, is that correct? 04:04:43.120 --> 04:04:45.240 No, that would be the open space. 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 04:04:52.200 --> 04:04:53.940 square feet for our mixed use district. 04:04:53.940 --> 04:05:00.080 So MD, MN, MR, those are intended for those mixed use walkable environments. 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 04:05:06.920 --> 04:05:09.880 lot size. 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, 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, 04:05:25.360 --> 04:05:29.200 they must be within a certain proximity of a park, is that correct? 04:05:29.200 --> 04:05:30.200 Correct. 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, 04:05:36.600 --> 04:05:42.280 you have to provide 5% open space for town homes, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. 04:05:42.280 --> 04:05:47.680 We're proposing to modify that to projects under three acres. 04:05:47.680 --> 04:05:52.560 So those smaller infill projects would be exempt. 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 04:05:57.080 --> 04:06:01.200 of a park essentially, you would also be exempt. 04:06:01.200 --> 04:06:10.860 And that public open space, common area to that private open space for the development, 04:06:10.860 --> 04:06:15.080 private common open space, does that make sense? 04:06:15.080 --> 04:06:19.280 That was mostly just to, did that make sense, Commissioner Dyer? 04:06:19.280 --> 04:06:20.280 Yeah. 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 04:06:25.760 --> 04:06:29.680 to have so much open space for a community development. 04:06:29.680 --> 04:06:32.200 I just couldn't. 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 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. 04:06:43.760 --> 04:06:44.760 Yeah. 04:06:44.760 --> 04:06:45.760 Okay. 04:06:45.760 --> 04:06:46.760 Commissioner MacDuff? 04:06:46.760 --> 04:06:47.760 Yes. 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 04:06:54.320 --> 04:06:56.040 to call for the question. 04:06:56.040 --> 04:06:57.960 Very good. 04:06:57.960 --> 04:06:58.960 Yes. 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 04:07:07.240 --> 04:07:09.440 a roll call vote. 04:07:09.440 --> 04:07:10.440 Commissioner MacDuff? 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 04:07:16.000 --> 04:07:23.560 with the amendments and also based on our discussion this evening with the presentation 04:07:23.560 --> 04:07:26.760 by our good staff. 04:07:26.760 --> 04:07:27.760 Commissioner Griggs? 04:07:27.760 --> 04:07:28.760 Aye. 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 04:07:36.120 --> 04:07:43.140 on and if we're not quite there yet, making more steps, I think. 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 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 04:07:57.220 --> 04:08:01.320 always scary, especially to the mom. 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 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 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 04:08:22.920 --> 04:08:29.640 of the concerns that Commissioner Dyer had about the parking situation in different contexts. 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 04:08:35.720 --> 04:08:42.000 that study, but I think as it's presented to the various bodies, we definitely need 04:08:42.000 --> 04:08:50.120 a representative of the fire department to come explain what challenges they actually 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 04:08:57.440 --> 04:09:06.040 parking management so that we can improve those safety situations today instead of waiting 04:09:06.040 --> 04:09:12.360 for areas to be redeveloped when the development code would apply, but chairs and I, sorry 04:09:12.360 --> 04:09:15.200 for taking a long time. 04:09:15.200 --> 04:09:17.820 Commissioner Ketchur said aye. 04:09:17.820 --> 04:09:18.820 Commissioner Dyer? 04:09:18.820 --> 04:09:19.820 Aye. 04:09:19.820 --> 04:09:20.820 Commissioner Barland? 04:09:20.820 --> 04:09:21.820 Aye. 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. 04:09:35.680 --> 04:09:40.480 All right. 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, 04:09:43.880 --> 04:09:49.040 so you'll see those changes reflected with our next packet. 04:09:49.040 --> 04:09:54.580 Just to give you some updates from recent city council actions since our November meeting, 04:09:54.580 --> 04:09:58.080 at the beginning of December, we did have the Craver Ranch items that were approved 04:09:58.080 --> 04:10:02.960 by council as well as the specific use permit for that relocation of an installation business 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 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 04:10:12.680 --> 04:10:19.360 in the Southridge neighborhood, the addition of the 20 acres to the landmark, MPC, and 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 04:10:23.520 --> 04:10:24.520 months ago actually. 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 04:10:29.360 --> 04:10:31.160 updates I have from council. 04:10:31.160 --> 04:10:37.840 I did want to note the item on your matrix regarding the multifamily data and recirculating 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. 04:10:44.400 --> 04:10:45.880 Thank you. 04:10:45.880 --> 04:10:48.280 Any additions to the matrix? 04:10:48.280 --> 04:10:49.280 Commissioner McDuff. 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 04:10:55.880 --> 04:11:02.000 for the record, and that would be further discussion on Denton 2040 comprehensive plan 04:11:02.000 --> 04:11:08.560 review and update. 04:11:08.560 --> 04:11:11.640 Commissioner Tyer. 04:11:11.640 --> 04:11:13.800 I have a couple. 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. 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 04:11:33.240 --> 04:11:40.340 rural residential with the SUP and all that, they probably had been talking about -- that 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 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. 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 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 04:12:12.120 --> 04:12:15.880 everything boom, boom, boom, boom? 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 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 04:12:29.040 --> 04:12:37.440 discussion and maybe two years ago if that had been changed from rural residential, I 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 04:12:43.400 --> 04:12:49.520 limits and everybody knew that it was going to be residences, you forget. 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 04:12:52.960 --> 04:12:54.400 think about it and didn't forget. 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 04:12:59.200 --> 04:13:00.680 moments. 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 04:13:08.080 --> 04:13:15.000 like that, especially on these big developments, that those things, you know, when you know 04:13:15.000 --> 04:13:20.960 that it's happening to have that as step number one, change that zoning. 04:13:20.960 --> 04:13:25.680 Yes, I want to make sure I understand what you're asking. 04:13:25.680 --> 04:13:30.280 So were you saying for properties that are annexed to have the zoning occur sooner after 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 04:13:34.920 --> 04:13:38.760 to you all to give you an FYI ahead of time? 04:13:38.760 --> 04:13:39.760 I'm trying to... 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 04:13:43.960 --> 04:13:45.880 know what that was going to look like. 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 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? 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 04:14:02.480 --> 04:14:05.080 of zoning for that. 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. 04:14:10.440 --> 04:14:14.960 I'm thinking a lot of your concern, I think, stems from the annexation process itself, 04:14:14.960 --> 04:14:19.080 which has changed since 2008 because back then the city forcibly annexed them. 04:14:19.080 --> 04:14:20.240 It was not done voluntarily. 04:14:20.240 --> 04:14:24.180 The owners were not ready to zone and were veering into discussion. 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 04:14:29.040 --> 04:14:31.520 and that might help address your concern. 04:14:31.520 --> 04:14:33.760 And zoning, like, yeah. 04:14:33.760 --> 04:14:34.760 Just the process in general? 04:14:34.760 --> 04:14:35.760 Maybe. 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 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. 04:14:50.080 --> 04:14:51.080 I mean, a little bit. 04:14:51.080 --> 04:14:54.960 There was other things, you know, that -- valid concerns. 04:14:54.960 --> 04:14:58.720 But maybe that would just be one little thing that would have, you know, helped. 04:14:58.720 --> 04:14:59.720 Cool. 04:14:59.720 --> 04:15:00.720 Yeah. 04:15:00.720 --> 04:15:03.120 Let's go ahead and put that on the matrix. 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. 04:15:09.920 --> 04:15:10.920 Thanks. 04:15:10.920 --> 04:15:11.920 Sorry. 04:15:11.920 --> 04:15:13.640 I just felt like that was a good example. 04:15:13.640 --> 04:15:14.640 Okay. 04:15:14.640 --> 04:15:19.760 The other thing, I know we've talked about this. 04:15:19.760 --> 04:15:25.160 Apartment buildings, multifamily, and we talked about vacancy levels and getting some sort 04:15:25.160 --> 04:15:26.840 of a report. 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 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 04:15:41.000 --> 04:15:47.480 buildings, but have -- these are all the different apartment buildings and this is how many units 04:15:47.480 --> 04:15:50.720 they have and this is what their vacancy level is. 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 04:15:56.840 --> 04:16:01.960 be coming, especially since, you know, we have a lot of different development happening 04:16:01.960 --> 04:16:05.860 right now. 04:16:05.860 --> 04:16:08.960 Because I'm very curious, like, the occupancy rate. 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 04:16:15.960 --> 04:16:24.220 are occupied and, again, by units, like, this unit has this many available, but this many 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%, 04:16:29.680 --> 04:16:33.120 you know, because you're going to probably see some that are, like, closer to 100. 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 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, 04:16:44.880 --> 04:16:45.880 that's it. 04:16:45.880 --> 04:16:48.680 So, you know, but that's understandable because they just opened their doors. 04:16:48.680 --> 04:16:52.360 But then I thought it would be interesting also to see by, like, our districts, like, 04:16:52.360 --> 04:16:58.760 District 1 has this many apartment units and this is their vacancy rate. 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 04:17:02.320 --> 04:17:06.200 to see where these apartment buildings are concentrated at. 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? 04:17:13.200 --> 04:17:15.000 I will be completely transparent. 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 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 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 04:17:29.040 --> 04:17:31.040 that we could. 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 04:17:37.360 --> 04:17:40.400 we have in the city and what's projected to be built? 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 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 04:17:47.400 --> 04:17:48.400 on vacancy. 04:17:48.400 --> 04:17:49.400 Okay. 04:17:49.400 --> 04:17:50.400 Was that prior to February? 04:17:50.400 --> 04:17:51.400 Yes. 04:17:51.400 --> 04:17:52.960 I believe it was in January. 04:17:52.960 --> 04:17:53.960 Yeah. 04:17:53.960 --> 04:17:54.960 I think you just missed it. 04:17:54.960 --> 04:17:55.960 Yeah. 04:17:55.960 --> 04:17:56.960 I just missed that one. 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 04:18:04.120 --> 04:18:13.520 for a work session on annexation and zoning and how that relates to the process. 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 04:18:23.800 --> 04:18:29.520 amendments and zoning all at the same time is concerning to residents. 04:18:29.520 --> 04:18:39.880 I would like that work session to include a broader discussion about whether this body 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 04:18:48.680 --> 04:18:57.520 done larger than just the same parcel or subdivision area that's being requested to rezone. 04:18:57.520 --> 04:19:01.960 In other words, I don't want to get into it, but does that make sense? 04:19:01.960 --> 04:19:05.840 Do you think that would help the understanding? 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? 04:19:10.800 --> 04:19:27.560 Absolutely, it just was interesting when on a previous development before this board that 04:19:27.560 --> 04:19:31.480 city staff had to have known that this was going to be required. 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. 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." 04:19:42.720 --> 04:19:45.200 There's a whole process. 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 04:19:52.640 --> 04:19:55.640 things? 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 04:20:02.440 --> 04:20:06.360 commission and saying, "Hey, we're working with this development. 04:20:06.360 --> 04:20:09.720 We need to go ahead and change this zoning. 04:20:09.720 --> 04:20:12.280 This is not zoned appropriately for what's about to happen." 04:20:12.280 --> 04:20:13.280 Okay. 04:20:13.280 --> 04:20:19.400 Commissioner Riggs, I remember something about the fiscal tool. 04:20:19.400 --> 04:20:21.800 I don't know if you were interested in putting that on the matrix. 04:20:21.800 --> 04:20:22.800 No, absolutely. 04:20:22.800 --> 04:20:23.800 That was one of the things I was going to recommend. 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 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 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 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 04:20:53.880 --> 04:20:54.880 ago. 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 04:21:02.280 --> 04:21:08.440 we have concerns, and we're hearing concerns from residents about tech stock, about water 04:21:08.440 --> 04:21:14.840 availability, about financial viability, about all these things, why when we're having a 04:21:14.840 --> 04:21:21.040 council meeting are the finance people not here, the utility people not here. 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 04:21:26.240 --> 04:21:33.000 meetings to talk about it and actually talk in depth about their specific profession. 04:21:33.000 --> 04:21:38.720 Did you get that? 04:21:38.720 --> 04:21:39.720 Thank you. 04:21:39.720 --> 04:21:40.720 Anyone else? 04:21:40.720 --> 04:21:41.720 Okay. 04:21:41.720 --> 04:21:48.000 That brings us to our last item, which is concluding items. 04:21:48.000 --> 04:21:49.680 I have a short one. 04:21:49.680 --> 04:21:51.360 Thank you, everyone, for your patience. 04:21:51.360 --> 04:22:00.020 I know the meetings in the last two months have been mentally and eating and drinking 04:22:00.020 --> 04:22:06.920 and getting rid of fluids challenging, so I just thank you for everybody's attention 04:22:06.920 --> 04:22:08.960 to detail. 04:22:08.960 --> 04:22:15.560 I'm really encouraged to see how everyone on this commission, as we gain more experience, 04:22:15.560 --> 04:22:22.120 is digging into slightly different things so that we don't leave any stone unturned, 04:22:22.120 --> 04:22:26.400 but I hope everybody has a wonderful holiday time and hopefully you get some more time 04:22:26.400 --> 04:22:32.400 with your family and we'll hit the ground running in January. 04:22:32.400 --> 04:22:33.400 Commissioner Riggs? 04:22:33.400 --> 04:22:36.520 I do have one closing idea to their statement. 04:22:36.520 --> 04:22:40.780 Tonight, Fredmore High School has a graduating class, and so I just want to say congratulations 04:22:40.780 --> 04:22:43.720 to all the new Fredmore graduates. 04:22:43.720 --> 04:22:46.040 Very good, and Commissioner McTuff? 04:22:46.040 --> 04:22:49.080 Yes, I have a thank you. 04:22:49.080 --> 04:22:53.240 Someone that helped me this week, our staff member, Matt Underwood, a special thanks to 04:22:53.240 --> 04:22:59.080 Matt Underwood, Senior Support Services Specialist in our Technology Services of Denton. 04:22:59.080 --> 04:23:04.280 It's always good to have a good staff member to call and get good help. 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 04:23:12.360 --> 04:23:14.360 of year. 04:23:14.360 --> 04:23:17.360 Anything else? 04:23:17.360 --> 04:23:19.440 Commissioner Dyer? 04:23:19.440 --> 04:23:24.520 I just wanted to wish city staff, residents, and my fellow commissioners happy Hanukkah 04:23:24.520 --> 04:23:26.480 and Merry Christmas. 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, 04:23:33.560 --> 04:23:39.160 so Angie will be with you all for your January and possibly first February meeting. 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 04:23:49.800 --> 04:23:55.520 17th, with no objection, I will call this meeting adjourned.