WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.000
 >> Good afternoon.

00:00:03.000 --> 00:00:09.560
 At 5.01 p.m. this Wednesday, February 25th, with the quorum present, I will call this

00:00:09.560 --> 00:00:14.760
 work session of the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission to order.

00:00:14.760 --> 00:00:20.880
 Our first order of business is citizen comments on the consent agenda items.

00:00:20.880 --> 00:00:29.480
 I don't see anyone, so that brings us to clarification of the agenda this evening.

00:00:29.480 --> 00:00:37.360
 Any question on the one consent agenda item?

00:00:37.360 --> 00:00:39.160
 No?

00:00:39.160 --> 00:00:41.080
 Okay.

00:00:41.080 --> 00:00:48.520
 Items for individual consideration, I believe both of these have now been requested to be

00:00:48.520 --> 00:00:55.980
 postponed, or not postponed, but the extension granted, right?

00:00:55.980 --> 00:00:59.560
 Are there any questions on either one of those?

00:00:59.560 --> 00:01:02.120
 Given that, okay.

00:01:02.120 --> 00:01:03.480
 Brings us to our public hearing.

00:01:03.480 --> 00:01:11.400
 First one is 5A S25-1A.

00:01:11.400 --> 00:01:17.520
 >> Good evening, commission, Bryce Van Arsdale, assistant planner.

00:01:17.520 --> 00:01:27.840
 This is S25-0001A, a request for an automotive fuel sales use on approximately 2.46 acres

00:01:27.840 --> 00:01:28.840
 of land.

00:01:28.840 --> 00:01:33.360
 This is located just south of East McKinney Street and on the west side, excuse me, east

00:01:33.360 --> 00:01:37.080
 side of Glengarry Way.

00:01:37.080 --> 00:01:40.480
 This proposal is consistent with the moderate residential future land use designation as

00:01:40.480 --> 00:01:45.200
 well as the goals and policies so forth in the comprehensive plan.

00:01:45.200 --> 00:01:49.640
 For this specific use permit, we do ask that the applicant goes above and beyond the typical

00:01:49.640 --> 00:01:56.400
 standards in order to mitigate potentially adverse effects as well as ensure compatibility

00:01:56.400 --> 00:01:57.400
 with the surrounding area.

00:01:57.400 --> 00:02:01.280
 And a couple ways that we did that is the first is to locate the building as far away

00:02:01.280 --> 00:02:06.360
 from Glengarry Way as possible, as well as as north as possible to East McKinney Street

00:02:06.360 --> 00:02:10.000
 in order to separate it from the single family residences in the area.

00:02:10.000 --> 00:02:14.000
 Additionally, through a neighborhood meeting, we heard that there was interest in a community

00:02:14.000 --> 00:02:20.760
 garden and we located that here in the southwestern corner.

00:02:20.760 --> 00:02:26.640
 Additionally, on the west side of the property along this Glengarry Way area, we wouldn't

00:02:26.640 --> 00:02:30.880
 typically require a buffer as the adjacency requirement is typically met by that right

00:02:30.880 --> 00:02:31.880
 of way.

00:02:31.880 --> 00:02:35.360
 But we asked the applicant to put this buffer in which includes street trees, ornamental

00:02:35.360 --> 00:02:37.880
 trees as well as some shrubs.

00:02:37.880 --> 00:02:45.920
 I do have a longer presentation for the public hearing but I'm open to any questions.

00:02:45.920 --> 00:02:46.920
 Commissioner Riggs.

00:02:46.920 --> 00:02:51.120
 Hey, Bryce, remind me again, but haven't we already heard this?

00:02:51.120 --> 00:02:52.120
 No.

00:02:52.120 --> 00:02:56.320
 So this was noticed at first for the meeting which got canceled due to inclement weather.

00:02:56.320 --> 00:02:57.320
 Okay.

00:02:57.320 --> 00:02:58.320
 Thank you.

00:02:58.320 --> 00:02:59.320
 Commissioner Dyer.

00:02:59.320 --> 00:03:07.720
 Did I, I can't remember, did I read in here that they were thinking of having a

00:03:07.720 --> 00:03:09.500
 car wash in with this?

00:03:09.500 --> 00:03:13.760
 There was something in the caveats like if you put this in, you have to do that.

00:03:13.760 --> 00:03:14.760
 Correct.

00:03:14.760 --> 00:03:18.520
 So this building down on the southern property line right here is a car wash and within the

00:03:18.520 --> 00:03:22.720
 conditions of the specific use permit, we put in hours of operation that are allowed.

00:03:22.720 --> 00:03:23.720
 Okay.

00:03:23.720 --> 00:03:28.580
 I was trying, I was like racking my brain to figure out where everything was.

00:03:28.580 --> 00:03:36.880
 So on the left side there, is that just green space all in that area?

00:03:36.880 --> 00:03:37.880
 In this area right here?

00:03:37.880 --> 00:03:38.880
 Yeah.

00:03:38.880 --> 00:03:39.880
 Yes, ma'am.

00:03:39.880 --> 00:03:42.200
 So it'll be, it's basically turf grass today and it's proposed for future development,

00:03:42.200 --> 00:03:43.760
 but there's no specific plans at the moment.

00:03:43.760 --> 00:03:44.760
 Okay.

00:03:44.760 --> 00:03:47.400
 So something could be like another building, another business.

00:03:47.400 --> 00:03:48.400
 Correct.

00:03:48.400 --> 00:03:49.400
 Okay.

00:03:49.400 --> 00:03:50.400
 Thank you.

00:03:50.400 --> 00:03:51.400
 Okay.

00:03:51.400 --> 00:03:52.400
 Oh, sorry.

00:03:52.400 --> 00:03:53.400
 Commissioner McDade.

00:03:53.400 --> 00:03:54.400
 Excuse my voice, guys.

00:03:54.400 --> 00:03:55.400
 No worries.

00:03:55.400 --> 00:04:03.720
 There's a gas station, where's the parking around the gas station?

00:04:03.720 --> 00:04:08.560
 So the parking's located here on the western side, I suppose, of that building and there's

00:04:08.560 --> 00:04:13.560
 also a little bit right here along the access way and the actual gas pumps are located right

00:04:13.560 --> 00:04:16.080
 here with where the cursor is.

00:04:16.080 --> 00:04:21.720
 And forgive me, but do they need to dig for and put the pumps and the gas underneath the

00:04:21.720 --> 00:04:22.880
 ground, correct?

00:04:22.880 --> 00:04:23.880
 I would assume so.

00:04:23.880 --> 00:04:27.240
 I don't know a lot about the infrastructure of fuel sales, but yes, ma'am, I believe that's

00:04:27.240 --> 00:04:31.740
 pretty typical.

00:04:31.740 --> 00:04:35.560
 So the city does have some requirements regarding things like that, right?

00:04:35.560 --> 00:04:37.000
 I'm certain that we do.

00:04:37.000 --> 00:04:41.080
 I would also imagine it goes back to the state level with TCEQ as well as all those environmental

00:04:41.080 --> 00:04:42.080
 standards.

00:04:42.080 --> 00:04:43.080
 On all those compliances?

00:04:43.080 --> 00:04:44.080
 Yes, ma'am.

00:04:44.080 --> 00:04:45.080
 Would be the state?

00:04:45.080 --> 00:04:47.120
 I believe it would mostly be the state.

00:04:47.120 --> 00:04:49.800
 Haley can maybe fill that in a little bit.

00:04:49.800 --> 00:04:54.640
 Yes, to my knowledge, the city has very limited ability to enforce anything like that because

00:04:54.640 --> 00:04:58.480
 underground storage tanks are regulated by TCEQ.

00:04:58.480 --> 00:05:06.360
 Yes, sorry, Commissioner Ketchersid?

00:05:06.360 --> 00:05:14.680
 When we do a gas station so close to residential properties, do we look at current evidence

00:05:14.680 --> 00:05:21.600
 of potential exposure, risk to the residents around it?

00:05:21.600 --> 00:05:24.320
 Exposure in the sense of dangerous chemicals and things like that, I would say.

00:05:24.320 --> 00:05:25.320
 VLCs, things like that.

00:05:25.320 --> 00:05:26.320
 Sure.

00:05:26.320 --> 00:05:29.560
 I don't know that we do that through our specific use permit review, but that is something,

00:05:29.560 --> 00:05:33.560
 again, that's regulated by the state with TCEQ as well as any of those environmental

00:05:33.560 --> 00:05:34.560
 agencies.

00:05:34.560 --> 00:05:35.560
 Okay.

00:05:35.560 --> 00:05:46.680
 Well, I was curious, so I took it upon myself to look, and I did find many studies in different

00:05:46.680 --> 00:05:56.120
 journals that say that within 300 feet of a property is a higher increase of things

00:05:56.120 --> 00:05:58.000
 like leukemia and things like that.

00:05:58.000 --> 00:06:06.960
 So do we look at, even though it's regulated by the state, do we ever look at those types

00:06:06.960 --> 00:06:07.960
 of things?

00:06:07.960 --> 00:06:10.380
 No, that would be outside our purview as the city.

00:06:10.380 --> 00:06:14.680
 So the state does have regulations in certain areas that meet certain air quality standards,

00:06:14.680 --> 00:06:19.320
 do have higher, like the standards where you see the additional covers on the pumps to

00:06:19.320 --> 00:06:23.000
 reduce emissions and things of that sort, but that is all regulated by the state.

00:06:23.000 --> 00:06:25.000
 We would not have that ability.

00:06:25.000 --> 00:06:26.000
 Okay.

00:06:26.000 --> 00:06:27.000
 Thank you.

00:06:27.000 --> 00:06:30.920
 Commissioner Dyer.

00:06:30.920 --> 00:06:35.280
 Getting back to Commissioner McDade's questions about the parking lot.

00:06:35.280 --> 00:06:43.160
 So the two-story building, is that where a convenience store gas station will be on the

00:06:43.160 --> 00:06:45.240
 first level and something else above it?

00:06:45.240 --> 00:06:46.240
 Correct.

00:06:46.240 --> 00:06:47.680
 So it'll be a general office above.

00:06:47.680 --> 00:06:54.680
 So basically everybody's got to go through cars pumping gas to access the building because

00:06:54.680 --> 00:06:59.040
 there's only one, two, three, it looks like there's only five parking spots in front of

00:06:59.040 --> 00:07:00.040
 the building.

00:07:00.040 --> 00:07:01.040
 Correct.

00:07:01.040 --> 00:07:04.960
 So there's a crosswalk that leads through those gas pumping areas, but the general office,

00:07:04.960 --> 00:07:09.160
 as far as I'm aware from the applicant, will be for the applicant themselves, not a rented

00:07:09.160 --> 00:07:10.160
 space.

00:07:10.160 --> 00:07:15.320
 Is it normal that the city is okay with a setup like this for pedestrian traffic?

00:07:15.320 --> 00:07:20.560
 It does meet all of our code requirements.

00:07:20.560 --> 00:07:24.680
 Okay.

00:07:24.680 --> 00:07:31.280
 I have one, I'm trying to read the arrows correctly and it looks like there's two parallel

00:07:31.280 --> 00:07:35.360
 out drive aisles on the east side of the building, is that correct?

00:07:35.360 --> 00:07:36.360
 Correct.

00:07:36.360 --> 00:07:38.640
 Is this proposed to be a drive-through use?

00:07:38.640 --> 00:07:40.720
 There is a drive-through use that is associated.

00:07:40.720 --> 00:07:42.320
 It's going to be a fast food restaurant.

00:07:42.320 --> 00:07:43.320
 Okay.

00:07:43.320 --> 00:07:45.280
 And will that be covered in the full public meeting?

00:07:45.280 --> 00:07:50.960
 Because I believe we require an SUP for a drive-through in the MN zoning district as

00:07:50.960 --> 00:07:55.240
 well, right?

00:07:55.240 --> 00:08:03.120
 I'm going to lean on Haley for that one.

00:08:03.120 --> 00:08:05.640
 Okay.

00:08:05.640 --> 00:08:08.360
 Microphone's not working.

00:08:08.360 --> 00:08:14.760
 Yes, so food sales is one of those uses that is allowed to be incidental to the automotive

00:08:14.760 --> 00:08:15.760
 sales use.

00:08:15.760 --> 00:08:16.760
 Sure.

00:08:16.760 --> 00:08:17.760
 So those are all being considered under the same umbrella.

00:08:17.760 --> 00:08:21.960
 But yes, if it was a standalone drive-through restaurant, that would require an SUP.

00:08:21.960 --> 00:08:27.120
 But in this case, there's uses customary to fuel sales that are lumped into that definition

00:08:27.120 --> 00:08:29.440
 of fuel sales and considered accessory uses to it.

00:08:29.440 --> 00:08:34.360
 So it's not uncommon to see a setup like this where there might be a Sonic or a coffee

00:08:34.360 --> 00:08:38.920
 shop or something associated with a fuel sales station.

00:08:38.920 --> 00:08:39.920
 Okay.

00:08:39.920 --> 00:08:46.560
 So the specific reason trigger, I guess, for this requiring an SUP is different, but normally

00:08:46.560 --> 00:08:51.760
 we would see SUP requests with drive-throughs in this zoning district.

00:08:51.760 --> 00:08:56.800
 I am 90% sure I can look that up for you, but yes, I do believe MN requires an SUP for

00:08:56.800 --> 00:08:57.800
 drive-through use.

00:08:57.800 --> 00:08:58.800
 Okay.

00:08:58.800 --> 00:09:00.360
 Thank you.

00:09:00.360 --> 00:09:07.480
 Any other questions, helpful information that we could scrounge before the hearing from

00:09:07.480 --> 00:09:08.480
 anybody?

00:09:08.480 --> 00:09:09.480
 Yeah.

00:09:09.480 --> 00:09:11.680
 Commissioner Riggs.

00:09:11.680 --> 00:09:15.920
 So it may be preliminary, but have we done any kind of TIAs or anything?

00:09:15.920 --> 00:09:16.920
 Absolutely.

00:09:16.920 --> 00:09:17.920
 Yeah.

00:09:17.920 --> 00:09:18.920
 Okay.

00:09:18.920 --> 00:09:19.920
 So there is one.

00:09:19.920 --> 00:09:20.920
 It's actually on the sheet.

00:09:20.920 --> 00:09:21.920
 It's kind of zoomed into the landscape.

00:09:21.920 --> 00:09:24.880
 Our engineering reviewed that, approved that, as well as our transportation department.

00:09:24.880 --> 00:09:29.880
 I have a couple of those numbers if you'd like to hear them, but I don't have the full

00:09:29.880 --> 00:09:32.040
 breadth of the TIA with me at the moment.

00:09:32.040 --> 00:09:33.040
 Yeah, sure.

00:09:33.040 --> 00:09:34.040
 I'd like to hear them.

00:09:34.040 --> 00:09:35.040
 Sure.

00:09:35.040 --> 00:09:44.360
 So just for the trip generation and what came out of the TIA was roughly 3,362 weekday trips.

00:09:44.360 --> 00:09:47.540
 Fast food and that associated use had 608.

00:09:47.540 --> 00:09:57.800
 The convenience store had 2,121, and the car wash had an estimated 780.

00:09:57.800 --> 00:10:00.940
 And there's no issues with that entering onto McKinney right there?

00:10:00.940 --> 00:10:01.940
 No.

00:10:01.940 --> 00:10:05.560
 So one thing that we did do on our transportation requirement was that they install a right

00:10:05.560 --> 00:10:08.520
 turn in to the property from McKinney Street.

00:10:08.520 --> 00:10:09.520
 Okay.

00:10:09.520 --> 00:10:11.600
 Thank you.

00:10:11.600 --> 00:10:12.760
 Okay.

00:10:12.760 --> 00:10:17.880
 I'm not seeing anything else.

00:10:17.880 --> 00:10:19.880
 Thank you, Bryce.

00:10:19.880 --> 00:10:28.640
 That brings us to our second public hearing, 5B, Z25-25A.

00:10:28.640 --> 00:10:46.000
 Good evening, Commission, Matt Burdine, Assistant Planner.

00:10:46.000 --> 00:10:53.720
 This is, as I mentioned, a rezoning case, Z25-25A, calarcamima.

00:10:53.720 --> 00:11:01.040
 This was opened at the last P&Z, but the applicant requested it to be the actual IS presentation

00:11:01.040 --> 00:11:04.940
 and stuff be done today, so hence today.

00:11:04.940 --> 00:11:10.640
 In summary, this is a request to rezone just a little over five acres from rural residential

00:11:10.640 --> 00:11:18.000
 to general office district, is located on Barthold Road, which is in the northwest part

00:11:18.000 --> 00:11:25.560
 of town, just west of I-35, up in that section of the city.

00:11:25.560 --> 00:11:30.240
 With this request, they're proposing to develop various commercial uses.

00:11:30.240 --> 00:11:35.560
 Staff did find that this request is consistent with the definition of both the general office

00:11:35.560 --> 00:11:41.040
 zoning district as well as with that future land use map designation of light industrial.

00:11:41.040 --> 00:11:45.200
 Additionally, noted that there has been significant and will continue to be significant growth

00:11:45.200 --> 00:11:53.580
 in the area, in part due to tech stop expansion projects that are currently underway.

00:11:53.580 --> 00:11:57.760
 Staff is recommending approval, have a longer presentation in the meeting, but I'm here

00:11:57.760 --> 00:12:04.320
 to answer any questions.

00:12:04.320 --> 00:12:06.480
 Any questions?

00:12:06.480 --> 00:12:16.800
 I just wanted to tie the agenda sheet mention about the frontage along Barthold with tech

00:12:16.800 --> 00:12:18.840
 stop to this map.

00:12:18.840 --> 00:12:28.040
 Is that 150 feet deep equivalent to the green portion that is not under rezoning request

00:12:28.040 --> 00:12:29.040
 for the CD?

00:12:29.040 --> 00:12:30.040
 Yes.

00:12:30.040 --> 00:12:31.040
 Yeah.

00:12:31.040 --> 00:12:32.040
 So, I failed to mention that.

00:12:32.040 --> 00:12:38.960
 That little green strip on the north of Barthold Road has already been dedicated to tech stop.

00:12:38.960 --> 00:12:43.720
 It's not included with this rezoning request as the property owner is no longer on that

00:12:43.720 --> 00:12:46.320
 street and it's going to become a future roadway.

00:12:46.320 --> 00:12:47.320
 Okay.

00:12:47.320 --> 00:12:51.440
 So, this parcel essentially has direct access to the right of way of Barthold Road.

00:12:51.440 --> 00:12:52.440
 Yes.

00:12:52.440 --> 00:12:53.440
 Yeah.

00:12:53.440 --> 00:12:55.760
 It currently does and will continue to do so after the road widening.

00:12:55.760 --> 00:12:56.760
 Okay.

00:12:56.760 --> 00:12:57.760
 Thank you.

00:12:57.760 --> 00:12:58.760
 Any other questions?

00:12:58.760 --> 00:12:59.760
 I don't see any.

00:12:59.760 --> 00:13:00.760
 Thanks, Matt.

00:13:00.760 --> 00:13:02.240
 Okay.

00:13:02.240 --> 00:13:09.320
 That brings us to our work sessions, which we have plenty of healthy time for, so get

00:13:09.320 --> 00:13:10.800
 your questions ready.

00:13:10.800 --> 00:13:18.280
 First one is 3A PZ26-34, Receiver Report Holder Discussion on how the city's fiscal impact

00:13:18.280 --> 00:13:25.480
 tools applied to the review process.

00:13:25.480 --> 00:13:26.480
 Good evening, Commission.

00:13:26.480 --> 00:13:30.960
 I'm Charlie Rosendahl, Interim Director of Development Services.

00:13:30.960 --> 00:13:36.960
 This was an item that was on the Commission's matrix to discuss just a little bit about

00:13:36.960 --> 00:13:42.400
 how the fiscal impact tool that we use that's included as part of your agenda backup works,

00:13:42.400 --> 00:13:47.480
 and then also just talk about one of the questions was staffing availability and who attends

00:13:47.480 --> 00:13:48.480
 PNC.

00:13:48.480 --> 00:13:52.600
 So, I wanted to have those conversations with the Commission.

00:13:52.600 --> 00:13:59.240
 So, just a little bit of background on how the fiscal impact tool that we use came to

00:13:59.240 --> 00:14:00.240
 be.

00:14:00.240 --> 00:14:07.280
 So, with the new development code when it was adopted in 2019, we added a fiscal impact

00:14:07.280 --> 00:14:12.360
 as an approval criteria as part of that, and then with that coming forward, City Council

00:14:12.360 --> 00:14:18.480
 requested staff to develop that model and then include that as part of projects coming

00:14:18.480 --> 00:14:19.480
 forward.

00:14:19.480 --> 00:14:27.280
 So, in July of 2020, we issued an RFP, a Request for Proposal, and AECOM was the firm

00:14:27.280 --> 00:14:32.360
 that was selected to help create this fiscal impact tool for us.

00:14:32.360 --> 00:14:38.280
 It is an Excel-based tool that was developed shortly after that, and you'll see that this

00:14:38.280 --> 00:14:43.000
 presentation was given to this body, I think, in September 2022.

00:14:43.000 --> 00:14:48.840
 So, a lot of this is similar information to what was given then, but I know that some

00:14:48.840 --> 00:14:51.680
 of you weren't in attendance at that point.

00:14:51.680 --> 00:14:58.640
 So, just a refresher of how this came to be, yeah, most of you.

00:14:58.640 --> 00:15:06.680
 And then one big, this slide is just one big asterisk that the fiscal impact tool is meant

00:15:06.680 --> 00:15:13.760
 to be one of 13 approval criteria when this body is considering a project.

00:15:13.760 --> 00:15:19.640
 There was a lot of discussion at that point that this shouldn't be the sole deciding factor

00:15:19.640 --> 00:15:23.180
 for whether a project should move forward or not.

00:15:23.180 --> 00:15:30.640
 Just a reminder that these projects come forward individually, but we think of this as a holistic

00:15:30.640 --> 00:15:36.400
 view of the city, and so while you may have some projects that are net positive or net

00:15:36.400 --> 00:15:43.120
 negative, that there's a mix throughout the city, and the goal is to have a balance citywide

00:15:43.120 --> 00:15:47.520
 for all of that.

00:15:47.520 --> 00:15:52.200
 So again, just here, this is a tool to understand the costs and benefits of each project that's

00:15:52.200 --> 00:15:59.840
 being proposed, and a way for us to look at a 40-year perspective of these projects and

00:15:59.840 --> 00:16:06.720
 make data-driven decisions on city revenues and general fund impacts for these various

00:16:06.720 --> 00:16:07.720
 projects.

00:16:07.720 --> 00:16:11.880
 And also, we'll talk about roadway maintenance a little bit, but that is a consideration

00:16:11.880 --> 00:16:16.200
 that's contemplated as part of this tool.

00:16:16.200 --> 00:16:19.080
 So really, how the tool was created.

00:16:19.080 --> 00:16:27.200
 So we have a base layer of GIS information that's on a parcel-by-parcel basis throughout

00:16:27.200 --> 00:16:34.120
 the entire city, and then we take some assumptions from a future development, and then we use

00:16:34.120 --> 00:16:41.200
 a mix of effective rates based on historical information, and then actual rates where we

00:16:41.200 --> 00:16:47.940
 can, such as fees and things that we know are going to be the actual rates for these

00:16:47.940 --> 00:16:56.360
 different developments, and then that's how we come up with the future impact to the city.

00:16:56.360 --> 00:17:00.880
 So here on the revenue side, you can see the mix of revenues included here and how they're

00:17:00.880 --> 00:17:06.200
 calculated and whether they're actual, effective, or a mix of both.

00:17:06.200 --> 00:17:12.280
 Some of the ones like property taxes, we can get actual.

00:17:12.280 --> 00:17:14.000
 We know what the property tax rate is.

00:17:14.000 --> 00:17:18.400
 We know what the future value, or we have an estimate of what the future value will

00:17:18.400 --> 00:17:19.400
 be.

00:17:19.400 --> 00:17:21.840
 Same with permitting fees.

00:17:21.840 --> 00:17:24.160
 Some things are blended, like development fees.

00:17:24.160 --> 00:17:30.720
 We have some fees that, like civil engineering plan review, that is based on an hourly rate.

00:17:30.720 --> 00:17:37.120
 So we had to make some assumptions in the model based on size of what that future revenue

00:17:37.120 --> 00:17:44.040
 would be for that, and then also some things like mixed beverage tax and retail sales tax

00:17:44.040 --> 00:17:50.740
 was using historical information to put to a per unit basis and project out into the future

00:17:50.740 --> 00:17:53.740
 for these.

00:17:53.740 --> 00:17:58.160
 And again, I mentioned it a little bit, but really what we're looking at is a parcel-by-parcel

00:17:58.160 --> 00:18:03.460
 basis, and that includes not only the information that we would get from the county appraisal

00:18:03.460 --> 00:18:09.920
 district, but it includes historical information that we have from utility data.

00:18:09.920 --> 00:18:17.960
 So the tool goes in and assigns a per unit cost, if it's a multifamily, for example.

00:18:17.960 --> 00:18:23.780
 It says, "This multifamily has this much in water and wastewater fees, and it has this

00:18:23.780 --> 00:18:30.600
 many units," so then we're making assumptions on units to project out to what those revenues

00:18:30.600 --> 00:18:33.560
 would be for the future.

00:18:33.560 --> 00:18:34.560
 This is an example.

00:18:34.560 --> 00:18:41.000
 So the parcel-level data goes into roadway impact fee zones, wastewater, water impact

00:18:41.000 --> 00:18:47.720
 fee zones, and the point that I'm trying to make here is that, really, a staff member

00:18:47.720 --> 00:18:52.640
 will input a parcel number, and then it gives all of those attributes to that parcel that

00:18:52.640 --> 00:19:00.720
 then uses to build the future costs and revenues for that parcel.

00:19:00.720 --> 00:19:08.840
 So as far as costs go, they're based on the city's annual financial report, our historical

00:19:08.840 --> 00:19:17.320
 expenses, and then it projects it based on a population and commuter number, and then

00:19:17.320 --> 00:19:22.600
 so we're taking that number when we get a new project and estimating the future residents

00:19:22.600 --> 00:19:30.120
 and future commuters based on that project to project out to future costs.

00:19:30.120 --> 00:19:40.740
 It has a growth factor of 2.4% based on historical growth, and then it's discussed here, marginal

00:19:40.740 --> 00:19:42.760
 cost for providing city services.

00:19:42.760 --> 00:19:47.680
 It's really based on density, so we do have a density factor in here that I'll show an

00:19:47.680 --> 00:19:57.160
 example of later that if you have more lots on a single parcel, then your per-person cost

00:19:57.160 --> 00:20:01.280
 goes down for that.

00:20:01.280 --> 00:20:03.420
 And then roadways.

00:20:03.420 --> 00:20:10.220
 So what we've done with roadways specifically for this model is look at two things.

00:20:10.220 --> 00:20:16.520
 So there's the impact of new residents on existing roadway networks.

00:20:16.520 --> 00:20:19.760
 So that's done through the roadway impact fees.

00:20:19.760 --> 00:20:27.860
 The assumption is that that captures the expansion of roadways required for those new residents,

00:20:27.860 --> 00:20:32.240
 and then specifically we've included maintenance costs in this.

00:20:32.240 --> 00:20:37.240
 You'll be familiar when I'll point it out when I show the example where we have roadway

00:20:37.240 --> 00:20:42.360
 maintenance at the bottom that factors into the future long-term costs, and that goes

00:20:42.360 --> 00:20:47.080
 into whether it's an asphalt roadway or concrete roadway and the lane miles associated with

00:20:47.080 --> 00:20:56.020
 the new development to project out to a 40-year future cost for maintenance of that roadway.

00:20:56.020 --> 00:20:58.440
 So here's a little bit of the backend.

00:20:58.440 --> 00:21:01.240
 So this is what it looks like on the staff side.

00:21:01.240 --> 00:21:07.360
 So what we're doing here, and I'll point to it on the screen, is we're putting in use

00:21:07.360 --> 00:21:08.360
 types.

00:21:08.360 --> 00:21:09.520
 We take up to five use types.

00:21:09.520 --> 00:21:16.080
 So if it's even a multi-use parcel, we could have apartments, retail.

00:21:16.080 --> 00:21:23.220
 We factor in buildings, tenants to come up with a total building area.

00:21:23.220 --> 00:21:29.280
 And then how we assume the future property tax value of that is shown here on the right.

00:21:29.280 --> 00:21:35.480
 So the way it calculates future revenues, at least for ad valorem property tax for the

00:21:35.480 --> 00:21:40.720
 city, is that it takes the current value of the property and then it looks at the uplift.

00:21:40.720 --> 00:21:45.960
 So post-construction, what is the future value going to be?

00:21:45.960 --> 00:21:56.160
 So that is baseline using international building code costs and then associating that with

00:21:56.160 --> 00:21:59.880
 the building area.

00:21:59.880 --> 00:22:02.840
 And that's how we come up with this future appraised value.

00:22:02.840 --> 00:22:06.120
 That's also how we calculate our permitting fees.

00:22:06.120 --> 00:22:13.080
 But it also gives the option for staff to override if something were to come in and

00:22:13.080 --> 00:22:20.240
 say our building code assumes that it'll be a $15 million value.

00:22:20.240 --> 00:22:25.240
 We're hearing from the developer that they estimate that construction at the point that

00:22:25.240 --> 00:22:28.520
 it's built out that it'll have a $20 million value.

00:22:28.520 --> 00:22:37.480
 So not an often used option, but it is there for us to do that if we need to.

00:22:37.480 --> 00:22:44.200
 And then down below you can just see the variety and types of uses that we have available as

00:22:44.200 --> 00:22:49.000
 we build these out.

00:22:49.000 --> 00:22:53.000
 This one is what the commission would be familiar with.

00:22:53.000 --> 00:22:57.720
 So this is the fiscal summary that gets included in your agenda back up.

00:22:57.720 --> 00:23:01.920
 So I'll just take some time to walk you all through what this is.

00:23:01.920 --> 00:23:08.560
 So here on this left-hand side, you're going to see all of the projected revenues in the

00:23:08.560 --> 00:23:14.600
 top here and then the projected expenses.

00:23:14.600 --> 00:23:21.760
 So these are 40-year totals and then that along with the roadway maintenance costs,

00:23:21.760 --> 00:23:29.120
 this one doesn't have any, but if there were to be let's say subdivisions putting in roughly

00:23:29.120 --> 00:23:34.980
 two lane miles of roadway, then there would be a negative cost here that would factor

00:23:34.980 --> 00:23:39.500
 into the overall net impact here on the right.

00:23:39.500 --> 00:23:45.080
 Now this other fund revenue information is put up here.

00:23:45.080 --> 00:23:54.600
 This is more just informational on what the other wastewater utilities, electric, are

00:23:54.600 --> 00:23:56.640
 going to receive.

00:23:56.640 --> 00:24:01.520
 We've made assumptions here that those would be expense to the same rate since enterprise

00:24:01.520 --> 00:24:03.800
 funds balance each other out.

00:24:03.800 --> 00:24:06.800
 This doesn't go into the overall net impact.

00:24:06.800 --> 00:24:13.080
 This is only looking at the general fund net impact.

00:24:13.080 --> 00:24:15.160
 This is just a density example.

00:24:15.160 --> 00:24:20.760
 I mentioned earlier that right here in this very last line where it says cost of municipal

00:24:20.760 --> 00:24:27.960
 services per resident, this is just to show this body that as we increase density on a

00:24:27.960 --> 00:24:37.120
 particular parcel, so this is ran on a single parcel to just show what happens if it develops

00:24:37.120 --> 00:24:38.120
 in different ways.

00:24:38.120 --> 00:24:43.920
 So this is if you have one large parcel with a single unit or if you had the same parcel

00:24:43.920 --> 00:24:46.360
 with 14 units.

00:24:46.360 --> 00:24:51.720
 Even though the municipal service cost goes up, because that's based on per resident,

00:24:51.720 --> 00:24:57.640
 the actual cost per resident goes down.

00:24:57.640 --> 00:25:06.400
 Because the assumption is that to send a fire truck to that one unit is going to have a

00:25:06.400 --> 00:25:12.480
 cost of that roughly three residents to the house.

00:25:12.480 --> 00:25:19.720
 That same cost going to the same parcel will have increased but not at the same rate.

00:25:19.720 --> 00:25:28.200
 So even though it's three people to a single house, if you had 10 units, that's 30 people,

00:25:28.200 --> 00:25:32.600
 it's not going to cost the same to send that one fire truck to 30 people that it would

00:25:32.600 --> 00:25:35.160
 be decreased.

00:25:35.160 --> 00:25:40.440
 I'm just using the fire truck example, but that goes for library services or police services,

00:25:40.440 --> 00:25:41.440
 things like that.

00:25:41.440 --> 00:25:49.040
 So that was based on a study done that is incorporated in this model that shows a drop

00:25:49.040 --> 00:25:55.520
 in municipal costs for a single parcel based on density.

00:25:55.520 --> 00:26:02.160
 And then here's just a few more project examples to show the commission just the overall value

00:26:02.160 --> 00:26:06.440
 and net impact of different development types.

00:26:06.440 --> 00:26:12.680
 This is nothing in particular, just ones that we had pulled in from recent pasts.

00:26:12.680 --> 00:26:21.760
 And so 156 single family residential subdivision of roughly these number of units.

00:26:21.760 --> 00:26:28.880
 And then if the size goes up, then the value, the net impact goes up.

00:26:28.880 --> 00:26:36.360
 So if we're putting it 250 units at 2,500, and then you can see here with the change

00:26:36.360 --> 00:26:41.400
 with single family, multifamily and light industrial.

00:26:41.400 --> 00:26:45.500
 And then chair, if you're okay with it, I can stop and take questions on the fiscal

00:26:45.500 --> 00:26:48.960
 impact information before I move on to the staff attendance portion.

00:26:48.960 --> 00:26:49.960
 Sure.

00:26:49.960 --> 00:26:55.560
 I guess I'd defer to Commissioner Riggs because he's the one that asked about the staff attendance.

00:26:55.560 --> 00:26:59.500
 Do you view these as related where we should listen to both before we launch the discussion

00:26:59.500 --> 00:27:00.500
 or separate?

00:27:00.500 --> 00:27:01.500
 No.

00:27:01.500 --> 00:27:02.720
 So I think this is very helpful.

00:27:02.720 --> 00:27:08.960
 I think one of the things that I attended a council meeting, particularly not necessarily

00:27:08.960 --> 00:27:15.320
 P&Z, but a council meeting where we had a 2,000 acre development come in and there was

00:27:15.320 --> 00:27:18.600
 a lot of misunderstanding about the financial model.

00:27:18.600 --> 00:27:23.080
 And so I really thought it would be good to run through, particularly with this body that

00:27:23.080 --> 00:27:27.320
 just give us some basic understanding of what it is.

00:27:27.320 --> 00:27:31.160
 And so one of the questions I have for you, Charlie, is, you know, we're projecting out

00:27:31.160 --> 00:27:32.720
 for 40 years.

00:27:32.720 --> 00:27:37.240
 Are we also projecting out how much we think property values are going to increase, what

00:27:37.240 --> 00:27:43.400
 the tax rate or what, you know, property taxes income is going to be, or particularly like

00:27:43.400 --> 00:27:45.600
 roads, road maintenance, you know?

00:27:45.600 --> 00:27:50.320
 And I know trying to project out 40 years, I think about 40 years and like that was when

00:27:50.320 --> 00:27:52.640
 I was listening to cassette tapes in my car.

00:27:52.640 --> 00:27:53.640
 So there's a lot of technology.

00:27:53.640 --> 00:27:56.440
 There's a lot of things that change over 40 years and I understand this.

00:27:56.440 --> 00:27:58.060
 It's a projection, right?

00:27:58.060 --> 00:27:59.920
 But I'd like your input on that.

00:27:59.920 --> 00:28:00.920
 Yeah.

00:28:00.920 --> 00:28:06.980
 So the way the model handles it, it's a hard coded increase, annual increase.

00:28:06.980 --> 00:28:13.820
 So I had mentioned the 2.4% for the general fund costs annually increasing.

00:28:13.820 --> 00:28:19.720
 We have a similar number for the property value increases and some of the other revenue

00:28:19.720 --> 00:28:22.360
 increases as well.

00:28:22.360 --> 00:28:29.280
 And those were based on history and one of the things I failed to mention in this is

00:28:29.280 --> 00:28:33.480
 we do go through annually and update the city's budgeted costs within the model.

00:28:33.480 --> 00:28:39.360
 We update the parcel data that's in the model to get the latest certified parcel numbers

00:28:39.360 --> 00:28:41.480
 and costs associated with it.

00:28:41.480 --> 00:28:47.000
 And then also the inflation factors is part of that.

00:28:47.000 --> 00:28:53.760
 But I'll be honest, 40 years it's a complete, you know, it's just making assumptions based

00:28:53.760 --> 00:28:57.920
 on history and there's no way to tell what those are like.

00:28:57.920 --> 00:29:03.920
 And then if you will, if I may, there's one thing you brought up that I do want to mention.

00:29:03.920 --> 00:29:13.040
 On the 2,000 acre development that you mentioned, this model is really good at single sites

00:29:13.040 --> 00:29:14.920
 and analyzing them.

00:29:14.920 --> 00:29:19.680
 The reason we don't use this for something like a Craver Ranch or a Hunter and Cole Ranch

00:29:19.680 --> 00:29:25.560
 is because this was never intended to incorporate that level of a development because they have

00:29:25.560 --> 00:29:35.000
 a mix, a lot of mix of uses, not the maybe level of parcel detail that we have here.

00:29:35.000 --> 00:29:41.120
 And so each of those did have their own independent fiscal impact model.

00:29:41.120 --> 00:29:45.800
 And we have a lot more detailed costs associated with those as well.

00:29:45.800 --> 00:29:50.760
 We know what the engineering costs are going to be or the projected infrastructure costs

00:29:50.760 --> 00:29:52.720
 are going to be for those.

00:29:52.720 --> 00:29:57.960
 Actually, if I can, I just wanted to follow up to that.

00:29:57.960 --> 00:30:02.680
 So is that financial model for those large developments like that that are obviously

00:30:02.680 --> 00:30:09.120
 a little bit more complex, is that something that the developer contracts or the developer

00:30:09.120 --> 00:30:12.440
 pays the city to use, someone we choose?

00:30:12.440 --> 00:30:13.440
 Yeah.

00:30:13.440 --> 00:30:19.080
 So in both instances that we've done that, we set up escrow agreements with the developer

00:30:19.080 --> 00:30:24.400
 where they cover the costs of not just the fiscal study, but other studies that have

00:30:24.400 --> 00:30:28.680
 to be done so the city can ensure that we're making good decisions about those developments.

00:30:28.680 --> 00:30:34.320
 So in short, yeah, the city selects and hires the consultant that we choose and they reimburse

00:30:34.320 --> 00:30:35.320
 the cost for that.

00:30:35.320 --> 00:30:39.720
 Okay, yeah, I think that was some confusion maybe during that meeting too.

00:30:39.720 --> 00:30:40.720
 Yeah.

00:30:40.720 --> 00:30:45.280
 And I will tell you that this fiscal impact model and other fiscal impact models aren't

00:30:45.280 --> 00:30:50.360
 looking at any of economic factors.

00:30:50.360 --> 00:30:56.320
 And so a lot of times you'll get a fiscal impact model that will come in and they'll

00:30:56.320 --> 00:31:02.680
 look at multiplier effects where you bring in a new resident and then that resident's

00:31:02.680 --> 00:31:06.400
 going to spend sales tax dollars and that's going to create new jobs and then that person's

00:31:06.400 --> 00:31:09.400
 going to spend sales tax dollars.

00:31:09.400 --> 00:31:14.600
 These look at like one level, the fiscal impact models we've done, including this one, look

00:31:14.600 --> 00:31:21.880
 at like one level of information to say either this much new retail will generate this much

00:31:21.880 --> 00:31:28.960
 sales tax or this property value will generate this much sales tax, but nothing into like

00:31:28.960 --> 00:31:32.480
 this is going to bring new jobs and those people are going to bring sales tax.

00:31:32.480 --> 00:31:36.520
 But if you were to see an economic model, that would include some of those things.

00:31:36.520 --> 00:31:42.160
 And that was one of the things that came up with the Craver Ranch also is they brought

00:31:42.160 --> 00:31:48.200
 an economic model that did look at multipliers.

00:31:48.200 --> 00:31:51.080
 But that was someone we hired essentially and they reimbursed?

00:31:51.080 --> 00:31:53.400
 No, no, our model didn't look at that.

00:31:53.400 --> 00:31:56.080
 So we had a model that was done by AECOM.

00:31:56.080 --> 00:32:02.840
 They had their own fiscal economic model that they included as part of the backup to that.

00:32:02.840 --> 00:32:10.200
 So there was two separate models or studies that were shown in that one.

00:32:10.200 --> 00:32:14.600
 Commissioner McDade?

00:32:14.600 --> 00:32:15.600
 Thank you.

00:32:15.600 --> 00:32:21.520
 I was just going to clarify my understanding of what you were saying, but if you said something

00:32:21.520 --> 00:32:26.120
 about the city would contract for this study and then the developer would reimburse the

00:32:26.120 --> 00:32:32.360
 city for the study in some cases, but in that case, they brought their own economic study?

00:32:32.360 --> 00:32:34.720
 Yeah, they did their own economic study.

00:32:34.720 --> 00:32:35.720
 Okay.

00:32:35.720 --> 00:32:42.600
 But just to be super clear, we did our own study that we contracted with AECOM on that

00:32:42.600 --> 00:32:45.280
 particular development.

00:32:45.280 --> 00:32:51.800
 They independently, they also did a study, there was an economic study that they provided.

00:32:51.800 --> 00:32:58.320
 So there was two separate studies done, one contracted by the city, reimbursed by the

00:32:58.320 --> 00:32:59.320
 developer.

00:32:59.320 --> 00:33:06.240
 My other question was regarding your comment regarding the density per person reduces the

00:33:06.240 --> 00:33:12.000
 like resident services costs, is that what you were saying?

00:33:12.000 --> 00:33:18.440
 Okay, thank you.

00:33:18.440 --> 00:33:20.280
 Commissioner Dyer?

00:33:20.280 --> 00:33:25.160
 Can we look at the fiscal summary page that you had up there?

00:33:25.160 --> 00:33:26.160
 Yes.

00:33:26.160 --> 00:33:32.840
 So when I'm looking at the expenses that the city has, it says neighborhood, public safety,

00:33:32.840 --> 00:33:35.800
 transportation, administration and community services.

00:33:35.800 --> 00:33:42.200
 Can you give us examples of each of those categories and what those expenses look like?

00:33:42.200 --> 00:33:49.400
 Yeah, so this is just the way to break down our current budget into different categories.

00:33:49.400 --> 00:33:57.340
 So like administration and community services might be the city's like finance department,

00:33:57.340 --> 00:34:04.800
 city manager's office, community improvement services, code enforcement, things like that.

00:34:04.800 --> 00:34:09.000
 neighborhood, our departments would fall into the neighborhood category.

00:34:09.000 --> 00:34:14.960
 Public safety would be like police and fire, some examples of those.

00:34:14.960 --> 00:34:21.680
 And then transportation would be the streets department, some of those expenses.

00:34:21.680 --> 00:34:26.880
 So these are basically all the city offices and departments that have their hands on a

00:34:26.880 --> 00:34:28.520
 particular project.

00:34:28.520 --> 00:34:33.520
 So this is like salaries and administrative costs and all of that that you are adding

00:34:33.520 --> 00:34:36.920
 up over a 40 year period.

00:34:36.920 --> 00:34:38.360
 Yes.

00:34:38.360 --> 00:34:43.920
 So the way it works on the expense side is we've taken the city's entire budget and these

00:34:43.920 --> 00:34:48.840
 are then in the categories you're seeing are just ways to categorize those things.

00:34:48.840 --> 00:34:51.340
 So we've taken the entire city's entire budget.

00:34:51.340 --> 00:34:58.960
 And then this 800 new residents right here, it's saying there's a certain cost per resident.

00:34:58.960 --> 00:35:05.160
 And then we attribute that cost to those 800 residents and then project that out 40 years.

00:35:05.160 --> 00:35:10.960
 >> So when I look at this, because for two of the items that are on our agenda for

00:35:10.960 --> 00:35:15.200
 tonight, this report is actually included in both of those.

00:35:15.200 --> 00:35:21.160
 And so if you look at the general fund total revenue,

00:35:21.160 --> 00:35:27.240
 subtract out the general fund total expenses, which those four categories fall into that.

00:35:27.240 --> 00:35:30.200
 Then you have this net impact.

00:35:30.200 --> 00:35:35.240
 What are we looking at like those of us that sit on this board or city council,

00:35:35.240 --> 00:35:39.840
 like what do we want to look at when we want to see that this is a good project?

00:35:39.840 --> 00:35:47.760
 I mean, I know this is just one aspect that you guys are presenting to us.

00:35:47.760 --> 00:35:54.240
 But what if we see time and time again that the net impact is very low,

00:35:54.240 --> 00:36:01.000
 like the revenue that's brought in, like the expenses on the city is way higher.

00:36:01.000 --> 00:36:07.400
 And we're seeing a lopsided or maybe our net impact is not as great as what we want it to be.

00:36:07.400 --> 00:36:12.040
 Like, sometimes not all projects are a good project for the city.

00:36:12.040 --> 00:36:16.800
 And so how do we know that we should be like, this might not be good.

00:36:16.800 --> 00:36:22.640
 Like, do you guys, are you the first line of defense on that before you even bring it to us?

00:36:22.640 --> 00:36:24.680
 And you're like, yeah, this isn't adding up?

00:36:24.680 --> 00:36:28.360
 Or do we use a report like this to help us in making a decision?

00:36:28.360 --> 00:36:32.520
 >> Yeah, I think it all goes into staff recommendation.

00:36:32.520 --> 00:36:37.480
 And then it's up to the commission on what kind of weight you would give this.

00:36:37.480 --> 00:36:44.200
 But I would say if I were to be in your shoes and you look at a project and

00:36:44.200 --> 00:36:48.720
 you're seeing in your mind of those 13 categories,

00:36:48.720 --> 00:36:54.440
 like you think it doesn't match on the fiscal side, it's not fiscally beneficial to the city.

00:36:54.440 --> 00:36:59.240
 And then there's like three or four more of those items than it weighs into your mind, right?

00:36:59.240 --> 00:37:02.120
 Like maybe I shouldn't be approving this.

00:37:02.120 --> 00:37:08.600
 But what I was mentioning in the beginning is maybe, or not maybe,

00:37:08.600 --> 00:37:14.240
 the fiscal impact shouldn't be the only deciding factor of whether this is good or not.

00:37:14.240 --> 00:37:20.600
 But I would say in totality with the other factors within a given project,

00:37:20.600 --> 00:37:22.720
 that's what you would make your decision on.

00:37:22.720 --> 00:37:26.920
 >> Because I'm looking at this one in particular for tonight and

00:37:26.920 --> 00:37:32.920
 fortunately it's almost 16 million of revenue and only 3 million of expenses.

00:37:32.920 --> 00:37:39.600
 So it's a good bet, it's 12 million left over that the city is going to be left with.

00:37:39.600 --> 00:37:46.000
 But I'm looking at this one and it's like the expenses almost outweigh the total revenue that's going to be brought in.

00:37:46.000 --> 00:37:52.920
 So I don't know what the project that was, but that project there would kind of catch me off guard a little bit,

00:37:52.920 --> 00:38:00.040
 that maybe that's not a good project if the city is having to spend more over a 40 year period than what it's going to bring in.

00:38:00.040 --> 00:38:06.320
 >> Yeah, even this one over a 40 year period would still be a net positive to the city, small given that.

00:38:06.320 --> 00:38:12.040
 But if you were to only see projects like this, the city would still be based on the model,

00:38:12.040 --> 00:38:15.600
 a net positive if we did ten of these projects.

00:38:15.600 --> 00:38:21.200
 I think that's kind of what I was going back to in the beginning is you're going to see,

00:38:21.200 --> 00:38:26.040
 I don't know how many projects come through this commission, 50 or 75 a year maybe.

00:38:26.040 --> 00:38:35.520
 And it's really how do you weigh in if 20% of those are negative net impact to the city and

00:38:35.520 --> 00:38:40.920
 80% of them are positive, but we need all different types of housing in the city.

00:38:40.920 --> 00:38:43.200
 It doesn't really help with your decision.

00:38:43.200 --> 00:38:49.800
 >> So there's not really a standard that you can say, we want to see these types of projects that have like,

00:38:49.800 --> 00:38:56.600
 math is not my strong suit, I'm trying to do math on this one where you got

00:38:56.600 --> 00:39:02.480
 almost 16 million and almost 13 million difference, so what is that?

00:39:04.240 --> 00:39:10.440
 One to four, I don't know, I can't do the math, it's not my strong suit.

00:39:10.440 --> 00:39:15.920
 But when I look at that and I think, wow, over 40, yes, I get it's still,

00:39:15.920 --> 00:39:19.600
 you're still in the green where you're getting 2.3 million.

00:39:19.600 --> 00:39:23.920
 But I'm thinking, the city is losing $40 million.

00:39:23.920 --> 00:39:27.520
 They're having to spend $40 million for that project.

00:39:27.520 --> 00:39:30.400
 That's only bringing in 43 million.

00:39:30.400 --> 00:39:35.600
 But no, I'll tell you from a staff perspective,

00:39:35.600 --> 00:39:38.600
 there's a lot more that goes into it than just the fiscal impact.

00:39:38.600 --> 00:39:45.440
 And just generally, anecdotally about these developments is the more dense a development.

00:39:45.440 --> 00:39:49.320
 If it's a commercial development, it'll be a greater net impact to the city.

00:39:49.320 --> 00:39:57.080
 We're not going to have to provide the same level of services we would to this one that has 800 new residents.

00:39:57.080 --> 00:40:02.240
 If it's a industrial type facility, we'll collect more property tax because it's higher value.

00:40:02.240 --> 00:40:08.920
 But then those people need jobs, so that place needs workers and

00:40:08.920 --> 00:40:10.560
 those workers need somewhere to live.

00:40:10.560 --> 00:40:12.360
 And so that might go into a subdivision,

00:40:12.360 --> 00:40:16.080
 which will have more of this $2 million net fiscal impact.

00:40:16.080 --> 00:40:21.080
 Or if it's a large lot subdivision, it may even have a worse net fiscal impact.

00:40:21.080 --> 00:40:26.440
 If they choose to live in multifamily, I think it's different.

00:40:26.440 --> 00:40:30.160
 So that's what I'm talking about, a balance of different housing types and different projects.

00:40:30.160 --> 00:40:31.400
 >> Okay, thank you.

00:40:31.400 --> 00:40:35.600
 >> I would just add to that, a general rule of thumb for planners is residential development

00:40:35.600 --> 00:40:38.640
 is hardly ever going to be financially beneficial to a city.

00:40:38.640 --> 00:40:42.760
 But we still need housing of all types, to Charlie's point, to make the city function as it should.

00:40:42.760 --> 00:40:45.480
 So just something to keep in mind that even when it shows a negative,

00:40:45.480 --> 00:40:50.000
 that does not necessarily equate to it being a bad project that we wouldn't want in the city of Denton.

00:40:50.000 --> 00:40:52.400
 >> Thank you.

00:40:54.840 --> 00:40:57.440
 >> Commissioner Hutcherson.

00:40:57.440 --> 00:41:00.560
 >> Does someone keep track of the net impact throughout the year?

00:41:00.560 --> 00:41:03.960
 As far as negatives, positive impact?

00:41:03.960 --> 00:41:07.360
 >> We do not. >> To make sure that we end up positive every year?

00:41:07.360 --> 00:41:11.760
 >> No, we don't keep track of the totality of the projects coming forward.

00:41:11.760 --> 00:41:17.240
 And I will also say that there are projects that don't come before this body either,

00:41:17.240 --> 00:41:22.000
 that the staff just go through and it's built by right.

00:41:22.000 --> 00:41:26.120
 And those have their own impact to the city.

00:41:26.120 --> 00:41:30.800
 I think the city as a whole looks at that information, right?

00:41:30.800 --> 00:41:34.360
 Like what is the new property tax revenue coming in each year?

00:41:34.360 --> 00:41:36.840
 And that's part of the budgeting process overall.

00:41:36.840 --> 00:41:39.120
 >> Okay, thank you.

00:41:39.120 --> 00:41:42.280
 >> Commissioner Garland, did you?

00:41:42.280 --> 00:41:42.780
 Okay.

00:41:42.780 --> 00:41:45.060
 Sorry.

00:41:45.060 --> 00:41:50.880
 >> Yeah, no, I really appreciate talking through this slide.

00:41:50.880 --> 00:41:55.640
 Because this is most of what we see and there's lots of numbers and sections.

00:41:55.640 --> 00:41:58.480
 Just have a couple of clarifying questions.

00:41:58.480 --> 00:42:05.120
 So the right 60% of this is general fund impact summary.

00:42:05.120 --> 00:42:09.000
 So is it correct to say that that does not include revenue or

00:42:09.000 --> 00:42:13.600
 expenses from the other fund revenues section that's listed in the table?

00:42:13.600 --> 00:42:16.080
 >> That's correct, except for roadway maintenance at the bottom.

00:42:16.080 --> 00:42:19.520
 >> Okay, got it.

00:42:19.520 --> 00:42:23.760
 So the roadway maintenance which comes from the road maintenance fund as opposed

00:42:23.760 --> 00:42:27.080
 to the general fund is included in the costs on the right side?

00:42:27.080 --> 00:42:31.000
 >> It is included in the cost on the right side.

00:42:31.000 --> 00:42:35.880
 It's not because it comes from a specific fund, but it's because the model is set up

00:42:35.880 --> 00:42:40.680
 to calculate the projected future actual cost of maintenance of that roadway.

00:42:40.680 --> 00:42:42.800
 >> Okay, no thank you, that helps.

00:42:42.800 --> 00:42:47.360
 And I've never really known this, but

00:42:47.360 --> 00:42:50.000
 within that roadway maintenance calculation.

00:42:50.000 --> 00:42:58.880
 Are we using maintenance values that our

00:42:58.880 --> 00:43:05.400
 roadway maintenance staff manage within?

00:43:05.400 --> 00:43:08.180
 Sorry, I'm getting, let me start over.

00:43:08.180 --> 00:43:12.280
 >> No, I think I know- >> There's a certain number of lane miles in the city.

00:43:12.280 --> 00:43:17.160
 Some of those are so far gone that we don't maintain them.

00:43:17.840 --> 00:43:19.040
 That's what I've heard from staff before.

00:43:19.040 --> 00:43:23.840
 Some of them are better than that.

00:43:23.840 --> 00:43:27.280
 And therefore, those are quote unquote in our maintenance plan.

00:43:27.280 --> 00:43:32.360
 So the roadway, what's the name of the department?

00:43:32.360 --> 00:43:36.200
 I don't remember, Ethan and- >> Streets, the streets department?

00:43:36.200 --> 00:43:37.240
 >> The streets department, thank you.

00:43:37.240 --> 00:43:40.520
 They have a program where they say, okay,

00:43:40.520 --> 00:43:47.240
 here's all of the 685 lane miles that we maintain right now, right?

00:43:47.240 --> 00:43:52.720
 We're not pending a future CIP to replace them or widen them.

00:43:52.720 --> 00:43:54.480
 We're responsible to maintain them, right?

00:43:54.480 --> 00:44:02.520
 And we have a certain amount of cost, but they also have a model where they generate

00:44:02.520 --> 00:44:05.600
 what they believe is the amortized average cost for

00:44:05.600 --> 00:44:09.760
 maintaining a lane mile of road over its lifetime.

00:44:09.760 --> 00:44:14.080
 So first of all, am I describing that correctly?

00:44:15.120 --> 00:44:20.160
 >> I honestly don't know if they, what kind of cost information that they have or

00:44:20.160 --> 00:44:21.400
 have done in the past.

00:44:21.400 --> 00:44:25.840
 I know specifically that this was a study done that was completed by

00:44:25.840 --> 00:44:30.320
 Fries and Nichols when the city lasted their roadway funding strategy work

00:44:30.320 --> 00:44:36.880
 session with city council, and then that's attributed a weak

00:44:36.880 --> 00:44:42.040
 subgrade and a strong subgrade cost per lane mile over a 40 year period.

00:44:43.240 --> 00:44:48.080
 The city worked to maintain those roadways based on a certain schedule.

00:44:48.080 --> 00:44:51.760
 And then that is how this roadway maintenance cost is built.

00:44:51.760 --> 00:44:55.920
 So not based on our current dollar spent for roadway maintenance, but

00:44:55.920 --> 00:45:00.880
 based on a projected cost, depending on asphalt or concrete,

00:45:00.880 --> 00:45:02.920
 based on that study from Fries and Nichols.

00:45:02.920 --> 00:45:04.640
 >> Okay, no, that's helpful.

00:45:05.800 --> 00:45:13.000
 And then for that first 40 years, right, for a new development,

00:45:13.000 --> 00:45:18.960
 if it puts in new lane miles of streets, the developer is paying for it and

00:45:18.960 --> 00:45:23.400
 then rolling it into the mortgage on whatever sort of properties they're

00:45:23.400 --> 00:45:26.280
 selling essentially, that cost flows through to that.

00:45:26.280 --> 00:45:31.280
 Who pays for rebuilding the roadway after 40 years?

00:45:31.280 --> 00:45:33.200
 >> The city would pay for the rebuild.

00:45:33.200 --> 00:45:41.240
 >> Okay, and so which revenues here, which captured revenues here are and

00:45:41.240 --> 00:45:45.160
 expenses are accounting for that rebuild?

00:45:45.160 --> 00:45:51.280
 >> So the Fries and Nichols studies said that based on a maintenance schedule,

00:45:51.280 --> 00:45:54.520
 a concrete roadway would last a little over 50 years.

00:45:54.520 --> 00:45:57.800
 I don't remember the exact, it's somewhere between 50 and 55.

00:45:57.800 --> 00:46:01.920
 So that is not included in this 40 year outlook.

00:46:01.920 --> 00:46:04.440
 >> Okay, so the- >> So reconstruction isn't considered?

00:46:04.440 --> 00:46:06.160
 >> The reconstruction isn't considered.

00:46:06.160 --> 00:46:12.760
 I believe our comprehensive plan says to consider the cost to maintain and

00:46:12.760 --> 00:46:16.920
 reconstruct the roadways in these fiscal tools.

00:46:16.920 --> 00:46:25.480
 Okay, and then I guess this is a little bit more minor, but

00:46:25.480 --> 00:46:28.880
 I've always been confused, the service fees and

00:46:28.880 --> 00:46:32.440
 license permits, those are all one time revenue, right?

00:46:32.440 --> 00:46:38.920
 >> Generally, yes, like swimming pool inspections,

00:46:38.920 --> 00:46:42.280
 if you have a commercial swimming pool, you pay fees annually.

00:46:42.280 --> 00:46:42.780
 >> Okay.

00:46:42.780 --> 00:46:48.880
 >> Grocery, restaurant, if this had any of that, those are annual fees also.

00:46:48.880 --> 00:46:52.160
 >> Okay, but the ones that we see in this example anyway,

00:46:52.160 --> 00:46:55.880
 they're the high dollar ones, electrical, plumbing, development fees,

00:46:55.880 --> 00:47:00.280
 planned review fees, those are a one time revenue source.

00:47:00.280 --> 00:47:01.040
 >> Yep.

00:47:01.040 --> 00:47:05.320
 >> And then in the expense side, I think you described that really what we're doing

00:47:05.320 --> 00:47:10.400
 is we're taking the general fund and splitting it up into the four buckets of

00:47:10.400 --> 00:47:15.280
 neighborhood, public safety, transportation, and admin, and community service.

00:47:15.280 --> 00:47:15.960
 >> Yep.

00:47:15.960 --> 00:47:20.680
 >> So help me understand if we have a one time

00:47:24.120 --> 00:47:27.560
 fee collection, right, that's a result of the development.

00:47:27.560 --> 00:47:32.060
 But then we're taking the expenses of those departments divided over

00:47:32.060 --> 00:47:37.960
 the whole city, how does that equate to the same thing?

00:47:37.960 --> 00:47:38.760
 Does that make sense?

00:47:38.760 --> 00:47:43.080
 >> I think I'm following you.

00:47:43.080 --> 00:47:46.680
 >> Like, I'm sorry, my presentation got confusing again.

00:47:46.680 --> 00:47:48.440
 >> No, no, I understand what you're saying.

00:47:48.440 --> 00:47:51.840
 >> The thing I'm trying to get to is that we've had

00:47:51.840 --> 00:47:56.760
 development fee service discussions more counsel than us in the past.

00:47:56.760 --> 00:48:00.320
 And they're, at least within my tenure here,

00:48:00.320 --> 00:48:06.560
 there's always been some sort of a subsidy, right, from tax revenue

00:48:06.560 --> 00:48:11.080
 into some of the development fee work, right?

00:48:11.080 --> 00:48:16.320
 Because the fee studies we've done say that the cost to the city to do

00:48:16.320 --> 00:48:22.400
 the inspections and that sort of thing are higher than the fees we charge, right?

00:48:22.400 --> 00:48:30.080
 >> So we collect our costs, our fees are based on cost recovery.

00:48:30.080 --> 00:48:35.560
 So we're not recovering 100% of our total departmental fees.

00:48:35.560 --> 00:48:42.120
 But there are things like GIS, for instance, that have been, or

00:48:42.120 --> 00:48:46.160
 historic preservation, this is a better example, that have been designated as

00:48:46.160 --> 00:48:47.520
 having a city-wide benefit.

00:48:47.520 --> 00:48:51.960
 So not all of that position's costs are development-related.

00:48:51.960 --> 00:48:55.880
 So I guess my answer would be, we are recovering our development-related costs,

00:48:55.880 --> 00:48:59.560
 but there are some things in the department that have been identified as having

00:48:59.560 --> 00:49:05.560
 a community benefit, and that's why you see less than 100%

00:49:05.560 --> 00:49:07.120
 when we do a cost of service study.

00:49:07.120 --> 00:49:11.240
 >> Okay, thank you.

00:49:14.880 --> 00:49:21.760
 And I guess just to give the commission an idea, say it was a subdivision with

00:49:21.760 --> 00:49:29.880
 50 lane miles of concrete streets, do we have any idea how much that would cost

00:49:29.880 --> 00:49:35.920
 to reconstruct that hypothetical subdivision at 50 years, like you said?

00:49:35.920 --> 00:49:37.680
 >> I don't know what the reconstruction cost would be.

00:49:37.680 --> 00:49:42.920
 I don't know, somebody would know, but I don't know at this point in time.

00:49:42.920 --> 00:49:45.080
 That's something I can bring back to the commission.

00:49:45.080 --> 00:49:48.120
 >> Yeah, I'd appreciate an update with that information,

00:49:48.120 --> 00:49:52.360
 cuz it sounds like that's not, I mean, that is a cost to the city, and

00:49:52.360 --> 00:49:55.400
 it's not necessarily reflected within these summaries.

00:49:55.400 --> 00:49:56.400
 Is that a fair statement?

00:49:56.400 --> 00:49:57.320
 >> That's correct.

00:49:57.320 --> 00:49:59.880
 >> Okay, any other questions?

00:49:59.880 --> 00:50:03.640
 Yeah, Commissioner Riggs.

00:50:03.640 --> 00:50:09.480
 >> I might be able to clarify, and Charlie, tell me if I'm off base.

00:50:09.480 --> 00:50:12.320
 But you basically have your franchise utility funds, and

00:50:12.320 --> 00:50:17.880
 then you have your general fund, and your general fund funds street maintenance.

00:50:17.880 --> 00:50:22.560
 It funds street, well, unless you go for bond, it funds street reconstruction,

00:50:22.560 --> 00:50:26.320
 police, fire, all the other general services.

00:50:26.320 --> 00:50:32.880
 And so that's essentially funded by property taxes to the biggest extent.

00:50:32.880 --> 00:50:36.440
 So whenever you're talking about how are you going to reconstruct a street,

00:50:36.440 --> 00:50:38.600
 it's gonna go to your property taxes.

00:50:38.600 --> 00:50:41.600
 And so one of the things that I think we need to consider too is what the state's

00:50:41.600 --> 00:50:46.320
 doing on their level of basically decreasing

00:50:46.320 --> 00:50:51.120
 the city's ability to raise those rates in order to fund those different projects.

00:50:51.120 --> 00:50:53.840
 And so you're constantly competing with the two.

00:50:53.840 --> 00:50:57.760
 And Charlie, I think we have a dedicated sales tax for street maintenance.

00:50:57.760 --> 00:51:00.920
 >> I don't think so.

00:51:00.920 --> 00:51:04.440
 We do have franchise, I think, that goes into the street improvement fund.

00:51:04.440 --> 00:51:05.400
 >> Okay. >> Yeah.

00:51:05.400 --> 00:51:12.280
 And so basically, your water and sewer are basically funded by your fees, right?

00:51:12.280 --> 00:51:14.440
 And so we don't have a street fee.

00:51:14.440 --> 00:51:16.840
 So it's all based on taxes.

00:51:16.840 --> 00:51:19.160
 And so that's kind of where all that comes in.

00:51:19.160 --> 00:51:20.920
 And so to reconstruct any kind of street,

00:51:20.920 --> 00:51:23.800
 it's gonna be based on what you can bring in through your tax rate.

00:51:23.800 --> 00:51:28.640
 >> Yeah, I appreciate that.

00:51:28.640 --> 00:51:32.560
 I just want to make sure I'm understanding, though, on these summaries.

00:51:32.560 --> 00:51:37.400
 This includes all the future property tax revenue of the development,

00:51:37.400 --> 00:51:38.280
 is that correct?

00:51:38.280 --> 00:51:40.680
 >> Correct. >> And it does not include the cost of

00:51:40.680 --> 00:51:42.440
 reconstructing the roadways, is that correct?

00:51:42.440 --> 00:51:46.640
 >> It does not, because we're looking at a 40 year time frame.

00:51:46.640 --> 00:51:50.000
 If we were to project out to a future replacement or

00:51:50.000 --> 00:51:53.720
 reconstruction time frame, then we would extend this out further.

00:51:53.720 --> 00:51:57.840
 We would include the additional property tax revenue over that time frame, and

00:51:57.840 --> 00:52:00.000
 then the reconstruction costs as well.

00:52:00.000 --> 00:52:01.240
 >> Okay.

00:52:01.240 --> 00:52:05.280
 >> I'd say too, the other thing too is it's funded by the impact fees.

00:52:05.280 --> 00:52:07.280
 And so what you gather in impact fees too.

00:52:07.280 --> 00:52:10.480
 And so if council decides not to fund, or

00:52:10.480 --> 00:52:14.800
 not to charge 100% of impact fees, then you're already starting on a deficit.

00:52:14.800 --> 00:52:19.000
 >> Commissioner McDade?

00:52:19.000 --> 00:52:21.880
 >> I think I was swallowing a bird, probably.

00:52:21.880 --> 00:52:27.840
 >> [LAUGH]

00:52:27.840 --> 00:52:28.920
 >> My apologies.

00:52:28.920 --> 00:52:31.920
 Apparently, I'm the one calling people out for.

00:52:31.920 --> 00:52:32.560
 >> [LAUGH]

00:52:32.560 --> 00:52:33.540
 >> [INAUDIBLE]

00:52:33.540 --> 00:52:36.840
 >> Okay, all right, anything else?

00:52:36.840 --> 00:52:47.820
 Is, you mentioned that if we were to do this model out to the reconstruction,

00:52:47.820 --> 00:52:51.800
 to include one of the reconstructions so that we have a full life cycle,

00:52:51.800 --> 00:52:55.000
 essentially, of that expected time frame.

00:52:55.000 --> 00:53:00.080
 Is that something our existing model could be easily modified to do?

00:53:00.080 --> 00:53:02.880
 Or is that something that we'd have to start back from scratch and

00:53:02.880 --> 00:53:04.020
 create a whole new model?

00:53:04.020 --> 00:53:11.840
 >> I think it would be difficult to do with the way the existing model is set up.

00:53:11.840 --> 00:53:18.920
 >> Are there any streets that do last exactly 40 years?

00:53:18.920 --> 00:53:19.440
 >> [LAUGH]

00:53:19.440 --> 00:53:20.560
 >> So that it would be easier?

00:53:22.560 --> 00:53:27.440
 >> Yeah, I mean, obviously, not the way we've discussed the way that this fiscal

00:53:27.440 --> 00:53:28.520
 impact model is set up.

00:53:28.520 --> 00:53:30.800
 >> Okay.

00:53:30.800 --> 00:53:31.300
 >> Yeah.

00:53:31.300 --> 00:53:32.720
 >> Okay, no, I appreciate that.

00:53:32.720 --> 00:53:39.080
 I think if we could just in a AIS or something, no need for

00:53:39.080 --> 00:53:43.360
 another presentation to understand the reconstruction cost for

00:53:43.360 --> 00:53:47.760
 a concrete and an asphalt lane mile, cuz we see those in different types of

00:53:47.760 --> 00:53:50.760
 applications, that would be helpful.

00:53:50.760 --> 00:53:53.560
 >> Yeah, and I'll just mention too one other thing, I guess,

00:53:53.560 --> 00:53:59.420
 when you start projecting out into these more long term things is if we're in 50,

00:53:59.420 --> 00:54:03.920
 55 year territory, then depending on the development type,

00:54:03.920 --> 00:54:09.240
 we could be talking about maybe even reconstruction of the property at that

00:54:09.240 --> 00:54:14.040
 point, depending on what the structural conditions are.

00:54:16.240 --> 00:54:20.840
 >> Would that be 1970 for us today if we were looking at that time frame?

00:54:20.840 --> 00:54:25.000
 >> So maybe this is more of a planning question, but

00:54:25.000 --> 00:54:30.840
 when we have an aged building that somebody wants to reconstruct, but

00:54:30.840 --> 00:54:37.440
 it exists on an already platted lot next to city streets, are they responsible for

00:54:37.440 --> 00:54:40.920
 completely reconstructing those streets when they do those building improvements?

00:54:44.440 --> 00:54:47.200
 >> Not necessarily, I mean, it would depend on the condition of the roadway and

00:54:47.200 --> 00:54:50.440
 the things that we've identified that might be like immediate needs.

00:54:50.440 --> 00:54:54.120
 But I mean, they would pay impact fees depending on what it is that would

00:54:54.120 --> 00:54:57.960
 contribute to those funds, but we wouldn't necessarily say the road that is in

00:54:57.960 --> 00:55:01.280
 serviceable condition needs to be rebuilt just in front of your property because

00:55:01.280 --> 00:55:03.360
 you're redeveloping the building on site.

00:55:03.360 --> 00:55:04.960
 It would be very situational.

00:55:04.960 --> 00:55:10.240
 >> Okay, all right, yeah, Commissioner Beeks?

00:55:10.240 --> 00:55:13.200
 >> Yeah, so I think one of the questions is whenever you're talking about your

00:55:13.200 --> 00:55:17.280
 general fund, and how do you increase funding to support these different things?

00:55:17.280 --> 00:55:21.800
 And this is where we take a measured approach, right, of what type of

00:55:21.800 --> 00:55:23.000
 development we want to see.

00:55:23.000 --> 00:55:27.880
 But ultimately, because of what the state's doing to the city's ability to tax,

00:55:27.880 --> 00:55:34.240
 the only way you increase income from property tax revenue is to increase density.

00:55:34.240 --> 00:55:37.160
 And basically add rooftops.

00:55:37.160 --> 00:55:41.240
 And so if you're not adding rooftops, then you're gonna constantly be going into a deficit.

00:55:44.160 --> 00:55:45.080
 >> Yeah, I appreciate that.

00:55:45.080 --> 00:55:51.560
 And I also appreciate, maybe I didn't understand you, but saying adding density.

00:55:51.560 --> 00:55:56.720
 Is that because other options are to add costs more than the revenues?

00:55:56.720 --> 00:56:00.440
 >> I think if you look at Charlie's model of basically how much you bring in from

00:56:00.440 --> 00:56:06.680
 property taxes based on density, you see that you bring in more property tax that way.

00:56:06.680 --> 00:56:11.160
 Now, that's where we decide, what do we want?

00:56:11.160 --> 00:56:14.880
 Do we want a super, super dense, or do we want not so dense?

00:56:14.880 --> 00:56:18.360
 Understanding what the financial impacts of that are, so.

00:56:18.360 --> 00:56:22.320
 >> Thank you.

00:56:22.320 --> 00:56:27.200
 I caught that that was not a hand, raised hand, so Commissioner Getcher said, good call.

00:56:27.200 --> 00:56:29.520
 Thank you, Charlie.

00:56:29.520 --> 00:56:31.960
 Is there any action or needed?

00:56:31.960 --> 00:56:33.120
 >> No. >> Okay.

00:56:33.120 --> 00:56:36.440
 Let's wrap up the staff attendance questions.

00:56:36.440 --> 00:56:39.600
 >> Yeah, I think this came along kind of the same lines.

00:56:39.600 --> 00:56:44.800
 There's a request, why don't we have other staff from other departments in attendance for these?

00:56:44.800 --> 00:56:47.040
 So just a little bit of our current process.

00:56:47.040 --> 00:56:53.680
 If we have an item that was gonna come before you that we think is gonna have a significant

00:56:53.680 --> 00:56:57.160
 area of discussion, a lot of times this will happen with transportation.

00:56:57.160 --> 00:57:00.560
 We do have staff in attendance to help answer those questions,

00:57:00.560 --> 00:57:06.520
 especially in some of those PD plan development cases.

00:57:06.520 --> 00:57:09.080
 I did wanna let the commission know, you can see here.

00:57:10.040 --> 00:57:14.760
 In the bottom, some of the staff that go into the review.

00:57:14.760 --> 00:57:21.360
 So before it comes to this commission, there's a lot of review that goes into these things.

00:57:21.360 --> 00:57:27.120
 Less so on the zoning because it's still speculative and not necessarily an exact concept.

00:57:27.120 --> 00:57:32.360
 But you can see if they do have a concept on a PD that we have all of these staff that are reviewing these.

00:57:32.360 --> 00:57:36.320
 So the planners will be familiar with the projects.

00:57:36.320 --> 00:57:38.640
 They'll have been in multiple rounds of review.

00:57:38.640 --> 00:57:45.760
 So we'll have these projects probably six months, I would assume, four to six months maybe.

00:57:45.760 --> 00:57:49.120
 We've been reviewing these projects before they come before this body.

00:57:49.120 --> 00:57:54.160
 And so we have staff from other departments reviewing them.

00:57:54.160 --> 00:58:00.080
 I will say if the commission's open to it and happy to have this discussion,

00:58:00.080 --> 00:58:03.400
 that we could follow a process similar to what we do with city council.

00:58:03.400 --> 00:58:09.960
 Where if you get and then are able to look at it and you have any specific questions.

00:58:09.960 --> 00:58:13.040
 If you could let us know, and you already do this.

00:58:13.040 --> 00:58:16.720
 But if you let us know by the end of the day, Monday, we can get a response back to you.

00:58:16.720 --> 00:58:19.640
 And then if you still feel like that response isn't sufficient,

00:58:19.640 --> 00:58:23.120
 then we can make sure that we have staff here to attend the meeting.

00:58:23.120 --> 00:58:28.800
 What we're trying to avoid is having a bunch of staff from other departments who may not be needed here.

00:58:28.800 --> 00:58:35.000
 But I'm definitely happy to bring somebody here to answer any of the questions so that you guys feel comfortable in the decisions that you're making.

00:58:35.000 --> 00:58:38.920
 >> Thoughts or questions on that?

00:58:38.920 --> 00:58:40.440
 Commissioner Riggs.

00:58:40.440 --> 00:58:43.800
 >> So that was one of the things that I brought up.

00:58:43.800 --> 00:58:47.560
 And it goes back to the 2000 acre development that we were talking about.

00:58:47.560 --> 00:58:53.720
 And one of the things that I felt is through the PNZ process,

00:58:53.720 --> 00:58:56.880
 we knew what a lot of the questions were gonna be.

00:58:56.880 --> 00:59:01.880
 And so when it got to council, I thought, actually one of the things for you,

00:59:01.880 --> 00:59:07.240
 whenever you're sitting there talking about a financial model, it might have been helpful if you had a CFO there.

00:59:07.240 --> 00:59:13.080
 Or whenever we're talking about the utilities and what's gonna happen with the utilities to have our utility director there.

00:59:13.080 --> 00:59:17.080
 Or even just a statement from TxDOT.

00:59:17.080 --> 00:59:22.000
 And so when it's something kind of big like that, I would think that we would

00:59:23.880 --> 00:59:29.920
 at least have a response to those kind of questions that we know are coming or have the staff there.

00:59:29.920 --> 00:59:36.880
 That's kind of- >> Yeah, and we do, like I said, a similar process.

00:59:36.880 --> 00:59:41.080
 We did get some of those questions in advance and responded to them.

00:59:41.080 --> 00:59:46.480
 But then also, you're right, a lot of times we could have the experts there.

00:59:46.480 --> 00:59:53.440
 And I think we do a lot of, we have transportation staff there that help assist in answering some of those questions.

00:59:54.840 --> 00:59:57.560
 I think our general manager of water utilities was there too.

00:59:57.560 --> 00:59:59.600
 This was a significant project for the city.

00:59:59.600 --> 01:00:05.200
 Okay, well, yeah, I hear you.

01:00:05.200 --> 01:00:15.280
 >> Any thoughts on the proposal for future,

01:00:15.280 --> 01:00:18.480
 especially the public hearings, cuz they're usually more in-depth?

01:00:22.480 --> 01:00:26.600
 >> Yeah, and I will point out, if we get any individual questions from committee members,

01:00:26.600 --> 01:00:32.640
 we'll share those with the whole committee in case anybody else is having those questions when we respond.

01:00:32.640 --> 01:00:35.440
 >> Yeah, I've always found staff to be very responsive and

01:00:35.440 --> 01:00:39.840
 helpful even when I have not provided them three days in advance.

01:00:39.840 --> 01:00:47.400
 So my apologies for that, but I think a little bit more expectation and

01:00:47.400 --> 01:00:50.400
 process might help guard their time.

01:00:50.400 --> 01:00:55.200
 Another thing I find that is sometimes helpful for council is that I believe

01:00:55.200 --> 01:01:00.920
 these questions and answers are then collated to just publish within the agenda.

01:01:00.920 --> 01:01:04.560
 And then it's updated on Granicus after the meeting, so

01:01:04.560 --> 01:01:10.440
 that the council members and the public can see what those questions and answers were.

01:01:10.440 --> 01:01:13.120
 Is that something you would propose in this, or is that?

01:01:13.120 --> 01:01:14.360
 >> It's something we can look into.

01:01:14.360 --> 01:01:19.240
 I'm not sure exactly how that happens on the back end, but it's something we can definitely consider.

01:01:19.240 --> 01:01:23.720
 >> Okay, yeah, I mean, I think it, yeah,

01:01:23.720 --> 01:01:29.080
 it would help me make sure I don't be mean to somebody, so, thank you.

01:01:29.080 --> 01:01:35.440
 >> The staff isn't recreating what they're already doing for council if you have anything for us.

01:01:35.440 --> 01:01:40.640
 >> Yeah, we'll have to get with the city secretary, so I honestly don't know what that process looks like, but-

01:01:40.640 --> 01:01:41.560
 >> Sure, sure.

01:01:41.560 --> 01:01:42.560
 >> Happy to look into it further.

01:01:42.560 --> 01:01:48.000
 >> Okay, yeah, I'm even thinking it might help council and staff in the sense that if we ask some

01:01:48.000 --> 01:01:53.440
 of the questions that council's wondering, they can just look up on the agenda and see the answers are already there.

01:01:53.440 --> 01:01:56.040
 You don't have to answer them twice, you know that kind of thing.

01:01:56.040 --> 01:01:57.160
 >> Yeah.

01:01:57.160 --> 01:02:02.160
 >> So, okay, I don't see any other questions, thank you very much, I appreciate that.

01:02:02.160 --> 01:02:10.000
 It is 603 now, let us take a five minute break and

01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:16.920
 grab some food so that we can listen about the updated housing report while we eat.

01:02:16.920 --> 01:02:20.160
 And then hopefully we'll be finished eating by the time we have questions.

01:02:20.160 --> 01:02:26.240
 So at 603, call a five minute recess and we'll be back at 608.

01:02:26.240 --> 01:02:26.740
 >> Yeah.

01:02:26.740 --> 01:02:30.400
 >> The Planning and Zoning Commission.

01:02:30.400 --> 01:02:36.120
 Our last work session report is 3B PZ 26-35.

01:02:36.120 --> 01:02:41.800
 Receive a report, hold a discussion on the housing memo provided the previous January.

01:02:43.120 --> 01:02:50.720
 Sorry, this January which was an update to the previous December/January/February, so come on up.

01:02:50.720 --> 01:03:07.360
 >> So I'm here tonight to present the undeveloped land analysis that kind of went into

01:03:07.360 --> 01:03:14.200
 finding what land was undeveloped in areas that were zoned for residential multifamily.

01:03:14.200 --> 01:03:18.800
 So just a quick overview of what is GIS.

01:03:18.800 --> 01:03:22.240
 GIS is an acronym, of course, for Geographic Information Systems.

01:03:22.240 --> 01:03:28.400
 You know, this is, people won't realize, but it's intertwined a ton into what we do every day.

01:03:28.400 --> 01:03:33.960
 You know, if you put it simply, it's where things are and what they're like there.

01:03:33.960 --> 01:03:39.280
 So it can be as simple as using your GPS to go to the store or

01:03:39.280 --> 01:03:45.000
 looking at your tax information on DCAD's website.

01:03:45.000 --> 01:03:47.400
 So we use GIS a lot.

01:03:47.400 --> 01:03:53.440
 So kind of to go some background into the data that we used.

01:03:53.440 --> 01:03:58.600
 The existing land use data set that we currently had

01:03:58.600 --> 01:04:03.640
 available to us was approximately five or six years old at this point.

01:04:03.640 --> 01:04:08.840
 So we determined that was not going to be a good candidate to determine if parcels are still

01:04:08.840 --> 01:04:11.000
 developed or undeveloped within the city.

01:04:11.000 --> 01:04:17.720
 For that, I turned to the National Land Cover Dataset, which is a data set that's

01:04:17.720 --> 01:04:24.520
 created from multiple federal agencies each now, each year starting in 2025.

01:04:24.520 --> 01:04:32.000
 And that is actually gathered from the Landsat satellite program, which takes a continuous,

01:04:32.000 --> 01:04:37.200
 takes a, or maps the earth out approximately every eight days.

01:04:37.200 --> 01:04:42.760
 And what that gets us is something that you would see here on the right, which has the 16

01:04:42.760 --> 01:04:50.320
 different classifications for the entire US down to what's a referred to as a 30 meter resolution.

01:04:50.320 --> 01:04:54.040
 So it's basically a 30 meter by 30 meter square.

01:04:54.040 --> 01:04:59.640
 And for reference, that 30 meter by 30 meter square would fit up about half the

01:04:59.640 --> 01:05:04.320
 courtyard in front of City Hall, just to give you all a kind of spatial reference for that.

01:05:04.320 --> 01:05:10.320
 Now, to determine these land uses, they do use deep learning models.

01:05:10.320 --> 01:05:15.240
 And how that kind of works is someone goes and looks on a map and draws a square and

01:05:15.240 --> 01:05:21.160
 says, hey, this is a road, you know, goes and does that for a while and then runs the

01:05:21.160 --> 01:05:25.320
 model and it sends back to the person like, hey, I think this is all the roads that I

01:05:25.320 --> 01:05:28.840
 found. And that person goes back and checks it and goes, well, this is a road.

01:05:28.840 --> 01:05:33.800
 This is a road and it goes back and forth until they're satisfied with the deep

01:05:33.800 --> 01:05:37.400
 learning model that they've created for the accuracy that they want.

01:05:37.400 --> 01:05:42.000
 And just clarify, this is not based on any of our permit data.

01:05:42.000 --> 01:05:48.040
 We purely used this NLCD data set for this.

01:05:48.040 --> 01:05:53.320
 So to go into the actual analysis part of it.

01:05:54.320 --> 01:06:01.240
 So each raster is basically that 30 by 30 square converted that into four equally

01:06:01.240 --> 01:06:07.520
 spaced points, which over the entire city equated just just short of a billion

01:06:07.520 --> 01:06:14.920
 points. And for that point, they have value of zero for developed or one for

01:06:14.920 --> 01:06:21.840
 undeveloped. Those came from reclassifying that initial data set and saying, you

01:06:21.840 --> 01:06:25.080
 know, this these are considered developed and the rest are pretty much

01:06:25.080 --> 01:06:29.000
 considered undeveloped and also took out any open water features.

01:06:29.000 --> 01:06:32.520
 So we weren't considering that as undeveloped.

01:06:32.520 --> 01:06:39.440
 And then for each parcel, we said counted the number of points and averaged them

01:06:39.440 --> 01:06:45.320
 out. So if that number was greater than point five, it was considered

01:06:45.320 --> 01:06:46.920
 undeveloped and was less than point five.

01:06:46.920 --> 01:06:52.000
 We considered it developed and we did that for all the parcels throughout the

01:06:52.000 --> 01:06:57.960
 city and then compared that to the zoning to get the numbers or to get those final

01:06:57.960 --> 01:06:58.880
 numbers that were sent to you.

01:06:58.880 --> 01:07:05.320
 Now, these next few slides, we're going to be going over just some examples so you

01:07:05.320 --> 01:07:12.000
 can see up here in the top left how the data set or what the data set showed

01:07:12.000 --> 01:07:15.080
 versus what was actually on the ground for these three time periods throughout

01:07:15.080 --> 01:07:18.600
 the year of January, June and October in twenty twenty four.

01:07:18.600 --> 01:07:23.320
 So for this one, this is the Lang yard multifamily.

01:07:23.320 --> 01:07:27.960
 We can see that the data set classified this as developed with high intensity,

01:07:27.960 --> 01:07:30.440
 which does reflect in the aerials.

01:07:30.440 --> 01:07:34.200
 We can see that that apartment building was being built throughout the year.

01:07:34.200 --> 01:07:41.560
 On this next one, this is the Sherman crossing apartments up off of the loop and

01:07:41.560 --> 01:07:43.080
 Sherman.

01:07:44.000 --> 01:07:51.240
 So this one, it shows it mostly as that developed open space and the apartment

01:07:51.240 --> 01:07:53.880
 started about halfway through this site.

01:07:53.880 --> 01:07:56.880
 I kind of dug into this side a little bit more specifically, and this site was

01:07:56.880 --> 01:08:01.000
 actually graded whenever the roads were built around it in twenty twenty.

01:08:01.000 --> 01:08:05.400
 So that's why this is considered that developed open space rather than just a

01:08:05.400 --> 01:08:09.640
 undeveloped land, because it was developed at some point just to this point.

01:08:09.640 --> 01:08:10.440
 And then they stopped.

01:08:13.480 --> 01:08:17.400
 And then this is example of something that is considered an undeveloped project,

01:08:17.400 --> 01:08:22.200
 prestigious made at Mayhill state as this undeveloped piece land throughout.

01:08:22.200 --> 01:08:24.360
 And it reflects that within the data set.

01:08:24.360 --> 01:08:33.600
 And then this is McKinney Oaks project, which was was under review at the time.

01:08:33.600 --> 01:08:37.600
 And you can see how it does reflect the mix within the neighborhood here.

01:08:37.600 --> 01:08:42.640
 Let's operate how it is showing it as a higher density developments and also with

01:08:42.640 --> 01:08:47.920
 the apartments here to the right and to the south or east and south, sorry.

01:08:47.920 --> 01:08:54.800
 So you can see it does get a pretty good coverage of the city and what it actually

01:08:54.800 --> 01:08:58.840
 is like on the ground at the resolution that it has.

01:08:58.840 --> 01:09:07.720
 And then this is the data that was provided to you in the study.

01:09:07.720 --> 01:09:11.640
 And at the site for the analysis.

01:09:12.640 --> 01:09:15.960
 And then I stand for any questions.

01:09:15.960 --> 01:09:22.160
 >> You went a little bit too fast.

01:09:22.160 --> 01:09:23.960
 >> Sorry, I see people still too.

01:09:23.960 --> 01:09:25.960
 >> No, [LAUGH] quite all right.

01:09:25.960 --> 01:09:26.600
 >> Commissioner Dyer.

01:09:26.600 --> 01:09:33.400
 >> So in trying to review the package that was emailed to us,

01:09:33.400 --> 01:09:40.280
 did you ever figure out how many total apartment units we currently have?

01:09:41.680 --> 01:09:46.400
 Of those units, how many are vacant or not vacant?

01:09:46.400 --> 01:09:49.640
 And then how many more are coming?

01:09:49.640 --> 01:09:52.880
 I mean, I know there's some projections and stuff in here.

01:09:52.880 --> 01:09:59.400
 But do we have an example of the apartments that we have now?

01:09:59.400 --> 01:10:01.440
 They're 75% capacity.

01:10:01.440 --> 01:10:07.440
 >> I'm going to refer to Haley for that.

01:10:09.920 --> 01:10:15.760
 So we don't have a unit by unit vacancy tracker for the city.

01:10:15.760 --> 01:10:21.080
 So in the memo we gave, the best data we have, which is from, I believe it's COSTAR,

01:10:21.080 --> 01:10:24.400
 which is a commercial real estate firm that issues kind of regional reports.

01:10:24.400 --> 01:10:27.040
 And there's one for the Denton region that our economic development team gets,

01:10:27.040 --> 01:10:29.440
 I believe on a monthly basis.

01:10:29.440 --> 01:10:33.800
 And that report's kind of a Denton sub market vacancy rate overall.

01:10:33.800 --> 01:10:37.760
 But we don't have a way of tracking development by development,

01:10:37.760 --> 01:10:42.280
 we don't know what their rental or vacancy rate is at any given time.

01:10:42.280 --> 01:10:51.560
 >> I guess my biggest concern is, it seems like a lot of the projects that get put in front of us are for multi-family.

01:10:51.560 --> 01:10:57.960
 And I see the chatter on social media that residents are

01:10:57.960 --> 01:11:03.560
 kind of upset about the number of multi-family units that we have.

01:11:03.560 --> 01:11:07.960
 And I know we have to balance that out with affordable housing.

01:11:07.960 --> 01:11:14.800
 A lot of people just automatically equate apartments to being affordable housing for people.

01:11:14.800 --> 01:11:17.600
 And it's not necessarily.

01:11:17.600 --> 01:11:26.040
 And I just remember sitting in a city council meeting months ago and

01:11:26.040 --> 01:11:32.000
 there was the discussion about these housing, Section 8 housing, this and that.

01:11:32.000 --> 01:11:40.200
 And just how Denton, our city, seems to have a higher percentage of all of that compared to some of the other cities.

01:11:40.200 --> 01:11:46.020
 And so I don't want to say that we should never do multifamily housing.

01:11:46.020 --> 01:11:51.000
 But I'm sure it's not this board that makes this decision.

01:11:51.000 --> 01:11:57.680
 But at what point does this board, does the city council kind of decide,

01:11:57.680 --> 01:12:02.900
 maybe we have a moratorium on future projects like this?

01:12:02.900 --> 01:12:07.080
 Because we have to fill up what we have.

01:12:07.080 --> 01:12:12.240
 And there's still some that are still being built, like the ones that are already in the pipeline that just haven't been built yet.

01:12:12.240 --> 01:12:22.280
 So that's just, I guess that's kind of one of the reasons why I was looking at this is because I was hoping to kind of get some clarity on just.

01:12:24.520 --> 01:12:30.120
 >> Is it what my perception, is my perception that I am gleaning,

01:12:30.120 --> 01:12:35.600
 correct, that we have an overabundance of apartments with more yet to come?

01:12:35.600 --> 01:12:41.240
 And do we, because I know we're in this balance legally between

01:12:41.240 --> 01:12:45.800
 having to accept some of these,

01:12:45.800 --> 01:12:51.840
 because you've got legal parameters that we are required to work within.

01:12:54.680 --> 01:12:56.600
 >> Sure, and Hillary, feel free to jump in.

01:12:56.600 --> 01:13:00.080
 >> I'm sorry, that was a lot, I'm sorry.

01:13:00.080 --> 01:13:07.840
 >> I was just going to say, based on the information available to us that was reported in the memo, our vacancy rate right now is around 16 and a half percent.

01:13:07.840 --> 01:13:13.080
 So that is up from historic averages for Denton, but it's not out of character with the broader DFW market.

01:13:13.080 --> 01:13:18.900
 So I can't speak any more specifically, unfortunately, to what that looks like.

01:13:18.900 --> 01:13:22.960
 To the question of when do we have enough, I would say that's going to be largely market driven.

01:13:22.960 --> 01:13:27.840
 We also have to be mindful of people's right to develop things that are permitted in their zoning.

01:13:27.840 --> 01:13:29.240
 >> It's absolutely a balance.

01:13:29.240 --> 01:13:34.680
 >> And any contemplation of the dreaded M word, I would say,

01:13:34.680 --> 01:13:38.120
 would be a city council decision that would have to be weighed with our legal team.

01:13:38.120 --> 01:13:43.040
 Because there are only very specific, nuanced parameters in which that can even be considered.

01:13:43.040 --> 01:13:45.440
 >> Did you say 16%?

01:13:45.440 --> 01:13:45.940
 >> Yes.

01:13:52.560 --> 01:13:55.520
 >> I apologize, I didn't bring the backup material.

01:13:55.520 --> 01:14:03.740
 But I recall seeing a study from, I believe it was Texas A&M on specifically Texas cities and

01:14:03.740 --> 01:14:13.880
 their vacancy rates related to whether rents grow faster than inflation or go down with respect to inflation.

01:14:13.880 --> 01:14:23.320
 I think it was somewhere around 10 to 11% where the median rent growth was at inflation.

01:14:23.320 --> 01:14:30.720
 Such that if you had higher vacancy than that, prices would tend to trend down in the future, excuse me.

01:14:30.720 --> 01:14:33.560
 And lower vacancy than that, they would tend to go up.

01:14:33.560 --> 01:14:40.680
 So as far as a healthy vacancy percentage, that's what I'm familiar with within the state of Texas.

01:14:40.680 --> 01:14:44.880
 >> Well, and rents, there's a lot that goes into it, more than just vacancies.

01:14:44.880 --> 01:14:51.320
 Because you have property taxes, you have insurance, you have kind of what the market is demanding.

01:14:51.320 --> 01:14:58.960
 If you have, when there's less supply and demand,

01:14:58.960 --> 01:15:03.360
 when you have less supply in the market and

01:15:03.360 --> 01:15:09.600
 a high demand of people needing apartments or even rental houses, then you also see the rents go up.

01:15:09.600 --> 01:15:16.760
 So it's, as in everything in life, there is not an easy answer to this situation.

01:15:16.760 --> 01:15:21.320
 >> Other questions?

01:15:21.320 --> 01:15:26.200
 Yeah, Commissioner Biggs.

01:15:26.200 --> 01:15:28.640
 >> Can you go back to the table summary that you had?

01:15:28.640 --> 01:15:29.140
 >> Sure.

01:15:29.140 --> 01:15:35.520
 >> So if you could summarize kind of what this is telling us.

01:15:39.600 --> 01:15:42.720
 Haley, you want, sorry.

01:15:42.720 --> 01:15:45.520
 >> Sure, and I will admit it's been a bit since I've looked at this.

01:15:45.520 --> 01:15:52.600
 But it does tabulate by zoning district the various scenarios in which single and

01:15:52.600 --> 01:15:56.920
 multi-family uses are permitted either by right or with an SUP.

01:15:56.920 --> 01:16:03.360
 And just provides that breakdown of the number of acres that are undeveloped outside the floodplain.

01:16:03.360 --> 01:16:08.120
 So we tried to net out land that generally, I mean, you can do things to develop in a floodplain, we all know that.

01:16:08.120 --> 01:16:11.640
 But generally, those pieces that could be developed and

01:16:11.640 --> 01:16:16.480
 shows citywide that we have about 20,000 acres, it looks like,

01:16:16.480 --> 01:16:20.760
 that could have some sort of residential development on it.

01:16:20.760 --> 01:16:26.000
 I would just caution that all of these districts, with the exception of the R districts, and

01:16:26.000 --> 01:16:29.040
 even some of those, also permit a variety of other uses.

01:16:29.040 --> 01:16:32.840
 That's not to say we're going to have another 20,000 acres of housing developed in the city of Denton.

01:16:32.840 --> 01:16:38.560
 So I would say it's purely there for just informational purposes for you all.

01:16:38.560 --> 01:16:45.000
 I wouldn't take a whole lot of assumptions from it and say, we're going to have this much multi-family coming across the city, or anything like that.

01:16:45.000 --> 01:16:49.960
 I don't know, Angie, if you wanted to add more to it, because you kind of worked on this while I was out on leave.

01:16:49.960 --> 01:16:57.880
 >> It's been a second.

01:16:57.880 --> 01:17:00.400
 You covered most of what I was going to say.

01:17:00.400 --> 01:17:08.360
 I would just kind of wanted to add some clarity as it relates to trying to project out ultimate single family homes.

01:17:08.360 --> 01:17:13.720
 We took the minimum lot size that was allowed for each zoning district, but

01:17:13.720 --> 01:17:19.080
 tried to net out 0.2 for possible roadway acquisition or right of way that may be needed.

01:17:19.080 --> 01:17:24.760
 And then also tried to net out what's in the floodplain to just give you a realistic picture of the number of lots.

01:17:24.760 --> 01:17:32.680
 And then for our master plan communities and the Craver Ranch development,

01:17:32.680 --> 01:17:39.440
 we took the maximum number of single family homes that they could develop and plugged those in for the ultimate total number of units.

01:17:39.440 --> 01:17:45.920
 So again, to that point, that 46,936 possible single family homes is really just that.

01:17:45.920 --> 01:17:46.840
 It's a possibility.

01:17:46.840 --> 01:17:52.600
 We're projecting the absolute maximums and not really taking into account.

01:17:52.600 --> 01:17:56.440
 R7 allows for a variety of commercial uses.

01:17:56.440 --> 01:18:00.920
 The master plan communities may not develop that full, what they're allowed.

01:18:00.920 --> 01:18:04.720
 But we did take the assumption of what could be possibly done.

01:18:04.720 --> 01:18:07.880
 And so does that clarify?

01:18:07.880 --> 01:18:09.640
 >> Yes, very helpful.

01:18:09.640 --> 01:18:14.120
 >> Yeah, Commissioner Garland.

01:18:14.120 --> 01:18:20.680
 >> I think maybe to kind of piggyback off what Commissioner Dreier was saying was I think sometimes the concern is

01:18:21.880 --> 01:18:28.840
 if you have a developer and they invest in a piece of property and they can, these are their options of what they can develop it with.

01:18:28.840 --> 01:18:33.360
 And I think sometimes the perception is the easiest flip for the most.

01:18:33.360 --> 01:18:39.520
 >> Bank for your buck is apartments.

01:18:39.520 --> 01:18:44.280
 >> And so I guess the question would be, do we ever go back and kind of challenge that?

01:18:44.280 --> 01:18:49.520
 Because I do think it's a healthy balance where we're bringing in all of this residential,

01:18:49.520 --> 01:18:54.680
 no matter if it's multi-family or what, but also having a strong economic

01:18:54.680 --> 01:18:59.840
 development that's going to provide jobs for all of these people.

01:18:59.840 --> 01:19:05.000
 Because that's kind of, as a commuter that drives an hour each day,

01:19:05.000 --> 01:19:10.680
 I think that is kind of also on a lot of people's minds is we see apartments and houses and

01:19:10.680 --> 01:19:18.040
 apartments and houses, but we're not really seeing the commercial economic development that matches that pace.

01:19:18.040 --> 01:19:20.720
 So how do we kind of balance that?

01:19:20.720 --> 01:19:25.800
 >> Sure, and I think I can try to answer that, because when you all see requests for

01:19:25.800 --> 01:19:29.000
 multi-family, it's usually because a zoning change is needed or an SUP.

01:19:29.000 --> 01:19:34.760
 And that's because multi-family is really, really allowed by right in a handful of districts and everything else is SUP or not allowed.

01:19:34.760 --> 01:19:42.440
 And so it does feel like maybe sometimes you see a lot of those requests, like do we ever push back?

01:19:42.440 --> 01:19:47.560
 I would say you all really only ever see the projects that ultimately get to a state where

01:19:47.560 --> 01:19:50.200
 staff feels comfortable recommending approval.

01:19:50.200 --> 01:19:55.720
 There are a number of projects where maybe somebody's seeking, not even just multi-family, but any land use.

01:19:55.720 --> 01:20:00.120
 Where we really find that in that location, it may not be feasible,

01:20:00.120 --> 01:20:04.960
 be it because of future land use designation or surrounding conditions.

01:20:04.960 --> 01:20:09.160
 And so a lot of that back and forth between is this really right or

01:20:09.160 --> 01:20:13.760
 is this the appropriate use for this location comes well before it ever gets to you.

01:20:13.760 --> 01:20:19.440
 And ultimately, most people choose not to take an application with the recommendation of denial forward.

01:20:19.440 --> 01:20:22.000
 And so they just kind of filter out before they get to you.

01:20:22.000 --> 01:20:30.240
 >> Sorry, I'd looked halfway through the hand motion.

01:20:30.240 --> 01:20:31.280
 Was that a hand or not?

01:20:31.280 --> 01:20:38.680
 Okay, just shortly, I think when I looked at this data,

01:20:38.680 --> 01:20:45.200
 it looked like as far as buy right, like land where you could buy right, build multi-family.

01:20:45.200 --> 01:20:52.520
 It's roughly the 278 and a half acres under the MN district and

01:20:52.520 --> 01:20:57.280
 then a 50.8 acres of the MRMD district, right?

01:20:57.280 --> 01:21:00.520
 Is that a fair assessment?

01:21:00.520 --> 01:21:02.880
 So we're talking about 330 acres?

01:21:02.880 --> 01:21:04.400
 >> Yes.

01:21:04.400 --> 01:21:06.560
 >> I apologize for not having the slide number, but

01:21:06.560 --> 01:21:11.640
 I believe there was an assessment of roughly 20 units to an acre was typical density

01:21:11.640 --> 01:21:15.720
 that you see with multi-family when this was done last January.

01:21:15.720 --> 01:21:24.840
 And so in my mind, that equates 20 times 330, you're talking about 6,600 units, rough or take.

01:21:24.840 --> 01:21:29.760
 Is that a fair assumption of what we could build on land that's known for that right now?

01:21:29.760 --> 01:21:35.120
 >> That's a fair assumption that obviously doesn't take into account if any land area

01:21:35.120 --> 01:21:37.760
 that needs to be set aside for roadway improvements or utilities.

01:21:37.760 --> 01:21:40.200
 But if we assume absolute max, then yes.

01:21:40.200 --> 01:21:43.840
 >> Okay, so we would expect it to be that or less, typically?

01:21:43.840 --> 01:21:44.880
 >> Typically, yes.

01:21:44.880 --> 01:21:49.560
 >> Okay, and then in the multi-family projects in development,

01:21:49.560 --> 01:21:54.560
 there were 4,000 units in construction and 8,000 units in review.

01:21:54.560 --> 01:22:01.040
 The in construction, I appreciate that that came from 2024, so that's relatively recent.

01:22:01.040 --> 01:22:04.400
 You would expect projects that have broken ground, certainly vertical, but

01:22:04.400 --> 01:22:08.480
 even some of the flat work, it looked like that may have picked that up as developed.

01:22:08.480 --> 01:22:17.520
 But the 8,000 in review, I'm assuming that would be currently undeveloped MN property or MR property.

01:22:17.520 --> 01:22:19.160
 Is it a lot of that?

01:22:19.160 --> 01:22:20.480
 Is that correct?

01:22:20.480 --> 01:22:25.280
 Or does this include zoning changes and other things that might come before us in the future?

01:22:25.280 --> 01:22:27.000
 >> I'm going to look at Haley.

01:22:27.000 --> 01:22:30.040
 >> If I'm remembering correctly, because it's been a little bit since we did that analysis,

01:22:30.040 --> 01:22:33.520
 that did include those projects that would also be coming before this body.

01:22:33.520 --> 01:22:37.400
 So things that would need a zoning change or a specific use permit, but

01:22:37.400 --> 01:22:41.520
 we knew their intent was to work with some sort of multi-family.

01:22:41.520 --> 01:22:47.520
 >> So from a high level view, it looks to me like if nobody asked for

01:22:47.520 --> 01:22:53.440
 another zoning change, there's a decent portion of

01:22:53.440 --> 01:23:02.880
 the currently zoned mixed use land is in a process, in the pre-development stage.

01:23:02.880 --> 01:23:12.240
 Whereas the majority of single family, R1 through R7 zoned land is vacant at this point.

01:23:12.240 --> 01:23:14.400
 Is that a correct high level assessment?

01:23:14.400 --> 01:23:19.720
 >> I believe that's accurate, just looking over everything.

01:23:19.720 --> 01:23:21.520
 That's a good generalization.

01:23:21.520 --> 01:23:24.520
 >> Okay, yeah, and I'm intentionally trying to not get into the numbers too much.

01:23:24.520 --> 01:23:25.600
 >> Sure, yeah, I appreciate that, yeah.

01:23:25.600 --> 01:23:26.520
 >> They're going to change.

01:23:26.520 --> 01:23:28.360
 >> Yes.

01:23:28.360 --> 01:23:30.040
 >> Yeah, I appreciate all the comments.

01:23:30.040 --> 01:23:33.040
 I think it's important.

01:23:33.040 --> 01:23:35.640
 But yeah, any other questions?

01:23:35.640 --> 01:23:38.000
 Okay, thank you very much.

01:23:38.000 --> 01:23:40.440
 Yes, Commissioner McDade.

01:23:40.440 --> 01:23:44.520
 >> Excuse me all, just a clarification too.

01:23:44.520 --> 01:23:52.160
 The all multi-family housing is a section eight housing or affordable housing.

01:23:52.160 --> 01:23:54.240
 The majority of it is not.

01:23:54.240 --> 01:23:58.320
 There is no section eight housing to be built.

01:23:58.320 --> 01:24:02.040
 The section eight is a program that assists families with their rent.

01:24:02.040 --> 01:24:05.240
 So, private landlords own those homes and houses.

01:24:05.240 --> 01:24:07.280
 They're building them or buying them.

01:24:07.280 --> 01:24:10.720
 They're renting them to those families.

01:24:10.720 --> 01:24:16.800
 We do build and do affordable housing in partnership with private developers.

01:24:16.800 --> 01:24:20.440
 But it's, you know, we have quite a few and quite a bit.

01:24:20.440 --> 01:24:24.040
 And we're just trying to build something that's affordable.

01:24:24.040 --> 01:24:29.680
 In the city of Denton, there is a lack of affordable housing.

01:24:29.680 --> 01:24:32.080
 We saw that during COVID time.

01:24:32.080 --> 01:24:33.480
 There were not enough units.

01:24:33.480 --> 01:24:34.760
 There were not enough housing.

01:24:34.760 --> 01:24:39.480
 Even with the city, the state, and the federal government paying rents for families,

01:24:39.480 --> 01:24:42.720
 there was not enough apartments for people to move into.

01:24:42.720 --> 01:24:45.600
 And certainly not any single family homes.

01:24:45.600 --> 01:24:52.240
 The majority of our section eight voucher holders, the majority do live here in the city.

01:24:52.240 --> 01:24:56.480
 But a whole lot of them do not even live here in the city.

01:24:56.480 --> 01:25:00.280
 They take their voucher and they move outside of the city of Denton.

01:25:00.280 --> 01:25:05.280
 So, if any clarification for tonight, it's multifamily, affordable housing,

01:25:05.280 --> 01:25:07.880
 and section eight housing, there's a whole lot of difference.

01:25:07.880 --> 01:25:09.880
 And it can be all of those things.

01:25:09.880 --> 01:25:17.200
 And you would be surprised to find that one of my section eight families may be living next door

01:25:17.200 --> 01:25:22.520
 to some of you, just so you know.

01:25:22.520 --> 01:25:23.360
 >> Yeah, I appreciate that.

01:25:23.360 --> 01:25:25.960
 Thank you.

01:25:25.960 --> 01:25:30.080
 I won't go into more detail, but thank you.

01:25:30.080 --> 01:25:35.280
 Okay, with that, at 635, we will break and reconvene the meeting.

01:25:35.280 --> 01:25:39.040
 Council, do your best for the meeting.

01:25:39.040 --> 01:25:40.120
 >> Good evening.

01:25:40.120 --> 01:25:42.160
 It's 641.

01:25:42.160 --> 01:25:44.920
 This Wednesday, February 25th, with the quorum present.

01:25:44.920 --> 01:25:50.400
 And we'll call this regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of Denton, Texas, to order.

01:25:50.400 --> 01:25:56.680
 Our first item is to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag.

01:25:56.680 --> 01:26:05.880
 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic

01:26:05.880 --> 01:26:15.320
 for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

01:26:15.320 --> 01:26:17.400
 >> Honor the Texas flag.

01:26:17.400 --> 01:26:24.280
 I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one indivisible.

01:26:24.280 --> 01:26:30.160
 >> Thank you, everyone.

01:26:30.160 --> 01:26:33.840
 And I apologize to the public for us being 10 minutes late here.

01:26:33.840 --> 01:26:38.400
 We'll try to get to your items as soon as possible.

01:26:38.400 --> 01:26:47.360
 Next is item 2A, consider approval of the February 11th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission minutes.

01:26:47.360 --> 01:26:50.000
 Commissioner Getcher said.

01:26:50.000 --> 01:26:52.840
 >> I motion to approve the meetings, minutes.

01:26:52.840 --> 01:26:55.400
 >> And Commissioner McDade?

01:26:55.400 --> 01:26:57.320
 >> I second that motion.

01:26:57.320 --> 01:26:59.240
 >> Motion and second on the board.

01:26:59.240 --> 01:27:07.480
 Not seeing any discussion, we'll call for a vote on the board.

01:27:07.480 --> 01:27:16.640
 That item passes 6-0, moves us to our consent agenda.

01:27:16.640 --> 01:27:19.480
 Entertain a motion or discussion on this.

01:27:19.480 --> 01:27:21.760
 Commissioner Garland?

01:27:21.760 --> 01:27:24.760
 >> Motion to approve the consent agenda.

01:27:24.760 --> 01:27:27.560
 >> And Commissioner Dyer?

01:27:27.560 --> 01:27:29.240
 >> I will second that motion.

01:27:29.240 --> 01:27:30.720
 >> Motion and second.

01:27:30.720 --> 01:27:33.800
 Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.

01:27:33.800 --> 01:27:43.120
 That item passes 6-0.

01:27:43.120 --> 01:27:46.080
 Brings us to items for individual consideration.

01:27:46.080 --> 01:27:49.000
 First one is 4A, FP26-2.

01:27:57.560 --> 01:28:11.000
 >> Good evening, Commissioner Matt Bodine, I'm standing in place of Mia, who's a plan

01:28:11.000 --> 01:28:13.080
 reviewer on this.

01:28:13.080 --> 01:28:21.040
 This is a final plot for Hickory Grove Phase 5, it's about an 88 acre site located in the

01:28:21.040 --> 01:28:26.400
 ETJ, being developed for a single family residential development.

01:28:26.400 --> 01:28:31.240
 It does not meet our criteria for approval at this time, however, staff has no objection

01:28:31.240 --> 01:28:39.040
 to the extension requested to date certain of March 18th, 2026.

01:28:39.040 --> 01:28:40.040
 >> Commissioner Dyer?

01:28:40.040 --> 01:28:44.920
 >> I would like to make a motion that we go ahead and grant the extension to March 18th,

01:28:44.920 --> 01:28:45.920
 2026.

01:28:45.920 --> 01:28:50.360
 >> Okay, motion to approve the extension request.

01:28:50.360 --> 01:28:51.360
 Commissioner Garland?

01:28:51.360 --> 01:28:54.720
 >> And I'll second that motion.

01:28:54.720 --> 01:29:04.320
 Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.

01:29:04.320 --> 01:29:08.520
 That item passes 6-0, brings us to 4B, FP26-3.

01:29:08.520 --> 01:29:18.880
 >> Hello again, so this here is a final plot for Hickory Grove Phase 6, a 67 acre development

01:29:18.880 --> 01:29:25.640
 in the ETJ, residential home development, as said, does not meet our criteria for approval,

01:29:25.640 --> 01:29:32.240
 but once again, we have no objection to the request extension to March 18th.

01:29:32.240 --> 01:29:33.920
 >> Understood.

01:29:33.920 --> 01:29:36.640
 Commissioner Dyer?

01:29:36.640 --> 01:29:42.440
 >> I would like to make a motion that we go ahead and grant the extension on this item

01:29:42.440 --> 01:29:44.320
 until March 18th.

01:29:44.320 --> 01:29:45.320
 >> And Commissioner Garland?

01:29:45.320 --> 01:29:47.440
 >> No, I'll second that motion.

01:29:47.440 --> 01:29:58.400
 >> With the motion and second, seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.

01:29:58.400 --> 01:29:59.720
 That passes 6-0.

01:29:59.720 --> 01:30:01.920
 Thank you, Matt.

01:30:01.920 --> 01:30:10.720
 Brings us to our first public hearing of the evening, this is 5A, S25-1.

01:30:10.720 --> 01:30:11.920
 Good evening, Bryce.

01:30:11.920 --> 01:30:19.880
 >> Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Bryce Van Arsdale, assistant planner.

01:30:19.880 --> 01:30:26.600
 This is S25-001A, related to a request for a specific use permit for an automotive fuel

01:30:26.600 --> 01:30:30.900
 sales use on approximately 2.46 acres of land.

01:30:30.900 --> 01:30:35.160
 This property is located on the south side of East McKinney and on the west side, excuse

01:30:35.160 --> 01:30:37.520
 me, east side of Glengarry Way.

01:30:37.520 --> 01:30:41.640
 The surrounding area is predominantly residential zoning with a mixture of R2 and R3 in the

01:30:41.640 --> 01:30:47.320
 area and is across the street from a commercial property as well as Billy Ryan High School.

01:30:47.320 --> 01:30:51.320
 This proposal does meet our criteria for approval as it is consistent with the goals and policies

01:30:51.320 --> 01:30:54.920
 of the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan as well as the future land use map.

01:30:54.920 --> 01:31:00.180
 It is also consistent with the use specific standards for automotive fuel sales.

01:31:00.180 --> 01:31:04.360
 The future land use map designates this area as moderate residential, which typically applies

01:31:04.360 --> 01:31:10.360
 to the central areas of Denton as well as some transition areas and adjacent key corridors.

01:31:10.360 --> 01:31:14.840
 This district does typically consist of uses that are residential, but allows for some

01:31:14.840 --> 01:31:19.780
 residential supportive uses such as neighborhood scaled commercial at arterial and collector

01:31:19.780 --> 01:31:21.600
 street corners.

01:31:21.600 --> 01:31:24.800
 This proposed use is once again an automotive fuel sales use.

01:31:24.800 --> 01:31:29.440
 We believe it is compatible with the surrounding area and supports the neighborhood in the

01:31:29.440 --> 01:31:30.440
 area.

01:31:30.440 --> 01:31:34.600
 This is an example of the landscape plan, which staff has reviewed and approved.

01:31:34.600 --> 01:31:38.320
 With specific use permits, we do ask that the applicant goes above and beyond the typical

01:31:38.320 --> 01:31:40.800
 standards which are in the Denton development code.

01:31:40.800 --> 01:31:45.360
 A couple ways that that has been done is by placing the building as far to the east as

01:31:45.360 --> 01:31:50.640
 possible and as far north as possible in order to separate it from these uses.

01:31:50.640 --> 01:31:55.880
 Additionally, at the first neighborhood meeting, Esper Community Garden, which has been located

01:31:55.880 --> 01:32:02.080
 in the southwest corner of the lot and along the western side of Glengarry Way, the buffer

01:32:02.080 --> 01:32:05.840
 is not a requirement per the Denton development code, but in order to mitigate some of the

01:32:05.840 --> 01:32:10.640
 light and maybe some of the sound, the applicant has installed a buffer including some street

01:32:10.640 --> 01:32:15.760
 trees as well as shrubs and ornamental trees in this area.

01:32:15.760 --> 01:32:20.520
 The city has been notified in accordance with state statute and we received three letters

01:32:20.520 --> 01:32:22.140
 in opposition.

01:32:22.140 --> 01:32:26.000
 The applicant held two neighborhood meetings in which we heard from the community at the

01:32:26.000 --> 01:32:30.160
 first, but we did not have any attendees at the second meeting.

01:32:30.160 --> 01:32:33.720
 Staff does recommend approval of the specific use permit with the several conditions.

01:32:33.720 --> 01:32:38.960
 The first being that this will substantially comply with the site plan that's been presented

01:32:38.960 --> 01:32:44.040
 to you and only minor modifications are allowed administratively through staff.

01:32:44.040 --> 01:32:47.860
 Anything larger than that will require a specific use permit amendment, which does have to come

01:32:47.860 --> 01:32:50.400
 back before this body as well as city council.

01:32:50.400 --> 01:32:53.900
 Additionally, one thing to note is that the accessory car wash use will be limited to

01:32:53.900 --> 01:32:56.920
 operating hours between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.

01:32:56.920 --> 01:33:00.840
 The next step would be city council at the April 7th meeting, and I'm happy to stand

01:33:00.840 --> 01:33:07.480
 for any questions.

01:33:07.480 --> 01:33:08.480
 Thank you.

01:33:08.480 --> 01:33:13.400
 At this time I will open the public hearing on this item and ask the commission for questions

01:33:13.400 --> 01:33:23.320
 of staff before we hear from the public, if any.

01:33:23.320 --> 01:33:28.400
 Just one, just to get you thinking about this since I did not mention it during the work

01:33:28.400 --> 01:33:37.880
 session, I'm interested to understand what the capability of the city to control the

01:33:37.880 --> 01:33:43.640
 design and crossing treatments of McKinney in this area are based on whether it's TxDOT

01:33:43.640 --> 01:33:50.980
 or City of Denton, and also if there are any planned pedestrian crossings between this

01:33:50.980 --> 01:33:57.080
 and the north side of the road within this vicinity.

01:33:57.080 --> 01:33:58.480
 Not seeing any other questions.

01:33:58.480 --> 01:34:01.160
 This is a public hearing.

01:34:01.160 --> 01:34:12.160
 I have a few cards to speak.

01:34:12.160 --> 01:34:20.280
 First one I have is from Ms. Isabella Sample or Sample?

01:34:20.280 --> 01:34:21.280
 Sample.

01:34:21.280 --> 01:34:22.280
 Okay.

01:34:22.280 --> 01:34:27.040
 If you could come forward and state your name and address, you'll have four minutes to speak.

01:34:27.040 --> 01:34:35.880
 My name is Isabella Sample, and I live at 5304 Polly Drive, Denton, Texas.

01:34:35.880 --> 01:34:40.960
 In reviewing the plan for that lot specifically, I've lived in that neighborhood almost all

01:34:40.960 --> 01:34:45.880
 20 years of my life, and a couple years ago they installed the Dollar General right across

01:34:45.880 --> 01:34:51.960
 the street from the lot in question, and I think despite what they thought when they

01:34:51.960 --> 01:34:56.200
 installed it, it is not beneficial for our community, it has caused more problems in

01:34:56.200 --> 01:34:57.660
 our neighborhood than good.

01:34:57.660 --> 01:35:00.720
 I witness people almost getting into accidents every single day.

01:35:00.720 --> 01:35:05.560
 I witness kids from Billy Ryan High School where my brother did attend running across

01:35:05.560 --> 01:35:09.240
 the McKinney instead of using the crosswalk.

01:35:09.240 --> 01:35:15.740
 People park and block the general road from where we enter off of McKinney onto Glengarry,

01:35:15.740 --> 01:35:20.160
 and I think that building this kind of establishment in the open lot is only going to make these

01:35:20.160 --> 01:35:25.280
 problems worse, especially with what I've noticed around town that things like gas stations

01:35:25.280 --> 01:35:32.240
 do tend to attract a certain type of clientele outside, and while I have no issue with that,

01:35:32.240 --> 01:35:36.280
 I do have an issue with it being so close to the school and to the neighborhood where

01:35:36.280 --> 01:35:38.440
 we do have several kids.

01:35:38.440 --> 01:35:42.640
 There are three on my street alone that are under the age of 10, and I think that this

01:35:42.640 --> 01:35:48.040
 would pose a safety problem for members of this neighborhood.

01:35:48.040 --> 01:35:51.660
 In general, I also think it's just going to make traffic a lot worse for all of us.

01:35:51.660 --> 01:35:55.840
 I know many people in my neighborhood, on my street specifically, we all work nine to

01:35:55.840 --> 01:36:00.080
 five jobs that already have to deal with the traffic coming from Billy Ryan High School,

01:36:00.080 --> 01:36:04.920
 so adding something like a gas station with a car wash is only going to make the problem

01:36:04.920 --> 01:36:05.920
 worse.

01:36:05.920 --> 01:36:08.260
 That's all I have.

01:36:08.260 --> 01:36:11.360
 Thank you.

01:36:11.360 --> 01:36:13.680
 Thank you.

01:36:13.680 --> 01:36:23.360
 The next card I have is from Mr. Travis Sample, same drill, name and address.

01:36:23.360 --> 01:36:27.960
 Travis Sample, 5304, Pauley Drive, Denton, Texas, 76208.

01:36:27.960 --> 01:36:33.640
 Yeah, Mr. Pruitt, I think you were prescient in your remark about asking about the crosswalk

01:36:33.640 --> 01:36:35.140
 situation.

01:36:35.140 --> 01:36:40.120
 The nearest crosswalk is in front of Billy Ryan, where their main entrance, T-Bonson,

01:36:40.120 --> 01:36:46.840
 to McKinney on the north side, and whereas that is the place to cross, humans are lazy,

01:36:46.840 --> 01:36:49.640
 kids are triply so, and none of them use it.

01:36:49.640 --> 01:36:55.920
 They all cross there, right in front of our subdivision, which is a terrible place because

01:36:55.920 --> 01:37:03.840
 there's also a hill heading east on McKinney there, which is a bad sight line, and so also

01:37:03.840 --> 01:37:09.680
 the gas station sitting on the east is going to interfere with that same sight line of

01:37:09.680 --> 01:37:13.920
 you being able to tell when people are coming over, and we already have a problem where

01:37:13.920 --> 01:37:19.760
 with the Dollar General, people don't want to go all the way, because people are lazy,

01:37:19.760 --> 01:37:24.640
 they don't want to go all the way into the parking lot, so they just park right up to

01:37:24.640 --> 01:37:29.280
 McKinney, which then when you're out on the street, you have a problem with your sight

01:37:29.280 --> 01:37:37.520
 line going into the subdivision, and so you wind up having to slow way more than you would,

01:37:37.520 --> 01:37:42.000
 which again, okay, well you're doing that, you're being slow, but the people behind

01:37:42.000 --> 01:37:47.600
 you who want to be in a hurry will then whip out so that they can cross in the left lane

01:37:47.600 --> 01:37:54.060
 instead of the lane that you're in, which is them making rash decisions where, as I

01:37:54.060 --> 01:37:58.920
 mentioned before, kids are crossing because already they were going to the Dollar General,

01:37:58.920 --> 01:38:04.280
 now they're also going to the gas station, proposed gas station.

01:38:04.280 --> 01:38:08.760
 It's just in general, it's the front of a neighborhood, it's not where you need this

01:38:08.760 --> 01:38:15.000
 sort of thing, as Isabella pointed out, certain elements will definitely be attracted to hanging

01:38:15.000 --> 01:38:22.680
 out there, this is a family neighborhood, I've lived there, I'm intimate with the dynamics

01:38:22.680 --> 01:38:29.780
 of the traffic in that area, I've lived there, not five, not 10, 25 years, I've been a five

01:38:29.780 --> 01:38:35.760
 year old child for 20 years, I've been a full grown adult for 25 years.

01:38:35.760 --> 01:38:40.040
 The Dollar General was not a good addition to our neighborhood, this gas station is not

01:38:40.040 --> 01:38:44.800
 going to be a good addition to our neighborhood, and not only that, McKinney going east is

01:38:44.800 --> 01:38:51.120
 a dead end, I don't know what you're trying to serve, there's a Valero less than one

01:38:51.120 --> 01:38:57.860
 mile to the west, another half mile and you'll find a 7-Eleven and a Murphy's.

01:38:57.860 --> 01:39:06.480
 This is served, it does not need another one there, so that's all I have to say.

01:39:06.480 --> 01:39:19.020
 Thank you, Travis, I have a question if you don't mind, when you mentioned, sorry, it's

01:39:19.020 --> 01:39:22.080
 coming back, it's somewhere in there.

01:39:22.080 --> 01:39:25.480
 Was it about your pressures?

01:39:25.480 --> 01:39:35.040
 No, it was, sorry, it was about the parking on the street question, I just want to make

01:39:35.040 --> 01:39:39.560
 sure we understand specifically what location you're talking about.

01:39:39.560 --> 01:39:46.680
 In that case, that's the Dollar General, on the west side of Glengarry, and their parking

01:39:46.680 --> 01:39:52.160
 is, if I'm looking at it with you, so here's Glengarry and here it is, the parking area

01:39:52.160 --> 01:39:58.040
 is back here, their front door is all the way up at Glengarry, so people do not wish

01:39:58.040 --> 01:40:02.600
 to walk around the whole building, because literally their parking is in the back, and

01:40:02.600 --> 01:40:08.460
 the back left side of their building is not even up towards the front, and there's none

01:40:08.460 --> 01:40:14.320
 in front, only there is, there's even a fire hydrant there, and they still park in front

01:40:14.320 --> 01:40:20.160
 of that, and somebody went out there and painted red, don't park here, but I don't think that

01:40:20.160 --> 01:40:24.120
 was an official city, it does not look like an official city job, I think that was just

01:40:24.120 --> 01:40:29.680
 one of us that went out there and decided to try, and they still just park there anyway,

01:40:29.680 --> 01:40:34.080
 and like I said, that limits the sight line coming in, you wind up having to be very slow

01:40:34.080 --> 01:40:38.640
 and worse, you'll start to pull in, and then all of a sudden somebody's opening that driver

01:40:38.640 --> 01:40:39.640
 door.

01:40:39.640 --> 01:40:46.280
 Yeah, sorry, my concern is really to understand specifically where people, if it's consistent,

01:40:46.280 --> 01:40:50.920
 are parking for five minutes to run into the store, is this inside the parking lot once

01:40:50.920 --> 01:40:52.920
 they turn in, or is this on Glengarry?

01:40:52.920 --> 01:40:56.880
 No, this is Glengarry, and this is McKinney, they are parking here.

01:40:56.880 --> 01:40:57.880
 On Glengarry?

01:40:57.880 --> 01:40:58.880
 Correct.

01:40:58.880 --> 01:41:03.120
 Heading, or pointing the vehicle southbound, instead of turning into the parking lot?

01:41:03.120 --> 01:41:04.120
 Correct.

01:41:04.120 --> 01:41:05.120
 Okay, thank you.

01:41:05.120 --> 01:41:08.720
 And I mean, that's consistent, I mean, please.

01:41:08.720 --> 01:41:09.720
 Appreciate that, thank you.

01:41:09.720 --> 01:41:10.720
 No problem.

01:41:10.720 --> 01:41:13.200
 Any other questions from the commission, Commissioner Dyer?

01:41:13.200 --> 01:41:16.520
 I have two, I have questions for our two speakers.

01:41:16.520 --> 01:41:21.200
 So I'm always curious, and I get it, you live in this neighborhood and something new comes

01:41:21.200 --> 01:41:26.240
 along and you're like, oh, not that, we don't want that, like, what would you guys like

01:41:26.240 --> 01:41:32.880
 to see the person that purchased that lot put in there if you don't want a gas station

01:41:32.880 --> 01:41:33.880
 there?

01:41:33.880 --> 01:41:37.080
 Do you want to see nothing there, is there something else you would rather see?

01:41:37.080 --> 01:41:44.360
 Yeah, go ahead on that one, I'll have to think about that to give you a good answer.

01:41:44.360 --> 01:41:48.000
 So I kind of have a little bit of insight into this, as someone that lived there as

01:41:48.000 --> 01:41:52.640
 a child, and I'm also an education major at Texas Women's.

01:41:52.640 --> 01:41:57.400
 I would honestly prefer to see some sort of community-based development be put there.

01:41:57.400 --> 01:42:00.680
 We have a lot of kids in the neighborhood, and I myself played in that field growing

01:42:00.680 --> 01:42:01.680
 up.

01:42:01.680 --> 01:42:07.400
 So in the plot map that they showed, they put the gas station as far north and east

01:42:07.400 --> 01:42:08.400
 as possible.

01:42:08.400 --> 01:42:11.800
 If they would develop something like a park or a community center there, that would be

01:42:11.800 --> 01:42:15.680
 far more beneficial for the students of Billy Ryan, for the kids that live in that neighborhood.

01:42:15.680 --> 01:42:16.680
 Well, that's not a business.

01:42:16.680 --> 01:42:20.960
 I think she was saying for the people that bought it to get a return on their investment.

01:42:20.960 --> 01:42:27.200
 So usually, this is what's very hard when we sit up here, is because we have to balance

01:42:27.200 --> 01:42:33.520
 like your rights as the neighbors, but also balance between the property owner's rights

01:42:33.520 --> 01:42:35.880
 and what they want to put in there.

01:42:35.880 --> 01:42:40.200
 I'm sure they've looked at all different things and due diligence and where they're going

01:42:40.200 --> 01:42:48.280
 to make the most profit, and they talk about their ROI, their rate of return and everything.

01:42:48.280 --> 01:42:51.520
 So it's always really hard, because I get it.

01:42:51.520 --> 01:42:58.120
 I've had this in my area too, like, "Oh, I don't want to see that," type of thing.

01:42:58.120 --> 01:43:02.560
 And so we sit up here and have to make these decisions, and so I'm just kind of curious

01:43:02.560 --> 01:43:07.680
 that I get it's residential and I get it's across from the school, and I get the concern

01:43:07.680 --> 01:43:14.280
 about a gas station, but there's also going to be potentially a food portion in there

01:43:14.280 --> 01:43:17.200
 with a drive-through window.

01:43:17.200 --> 01:43:21.040
 There's an upstairs, so there's going to be more offices, so it's going to be a little

01:43:21.040 --> 01:43:28.280
 bit more than just this, and there's even the potential on the portion closest to Glengarry

01:43:28.280 --> 01:43:31.720
 that there could be another structure built sometime down the road.

01:43:31.720 --> 01:43:38.120
 So I'm just trying to gauge what would you like to see in there if we voted no for this.

01:43:38.120 --> 01:43:43.520
 I think what I came up with, just again, not having long to think about it, but I'd love

01:43:43.520 --> 01:43:45.400
 to see a daycare going there.

01:43:45.400 --> 01:43:47.640
 That would really serve the populations that are there.

01:43:47.640 --> 01:43:52.840
 Right down the street is a very large trailer park.

01:43:52.840 --> 01:43:58.000
 I'm quite sure that most of those folks have to work a lot of jobs, so I'm sure that they

01:43:58.000 --> 01:44:00.920
 need quite a bit of daycare just right off the top of my head.

01:44:00.920 --> 01:44:07.060
 But second, to address the idea that you have to balance, and I know something new and it

01:44:07.060 --> 01:44:12.360
 seems scary, in a vacuum for us, it's not exactly something theoretical for us.

01:44:12.360 --> 01:44:14.760
 Instead, it's something we've already tested.

01:44:14.760 --> 01:44:19.680
 We had the Dollar General put in at the front of our neighborhood, and we know how it goes.

01:44:19.680 --> 01:44:25.960
 I was trying to demonstrate our experience with that and how it has been not positive

01:44:25.960 --> 01:44:26.960
 at all.

01:44:26.960 --> 01:44:29.720
 It has attracted the kids to run across from Billy Ryan.

01:44:29.720 --> 01:44:36.380
 It has attracted the people to park in an illegal way and create traffic problems and

01:44:36.380 --> 01:44:38.800
 potential accidents all the time.

01:44:38.800 --> 01:44:43.360
 So for us, it's not theoretical.

01:44:43.360 --> 01:44:44.360
 It's practical.

01:44:44.360 --> 01:44:45.440
 You've had some experience.

01:44:45.440 --> 01:44:50.760
 We have practical experience with businesses being on that corner, not being good for our

01:44:50.760 --> 01:44:51.760
 neighborhood.

01:44:51.760 --> 01:44:57.200
 So a question for staff and maybe the owner, if the owner is here, have there been any

01:44:57.200 --> 01:45:02.800
 neighborhood meetings with the community, whether it's the school or whether it's this

01:45:02.800 --> 01:45:06.480
 particular neighborhood that this is going to sit next to?

01:45:06.480 --> 01:45:07.480
 Thank you, Travis.

01:45:07.480 --> 01:45:09.640
 To get their input, so the owner could get their input.

01:45:09.640 --> 01:45:10.640
 Sure.

01:45:10.640 --> 01:45:14.520
 So the neighborhood meetings were held, and that was with that 500 radius that we would

01:45:14.520 --> 01:45:15.520
 typically notice.

01:45:15.520 --> 01:45:19.920
 We had, I believe, two or three different groups of attendees at the first one, families,

01:45:19.920 --> 01:45:23.080
 households, and I don't believe anybody showed to the second meeting.

01:45:23.080 --> 01:45:24.080
 Okay.

01:45:24.080 --> 01:45:27.080
 I guess we're not as done as 500 feet, but we're still in the neighborhood.

01:45:27.080 --> 01:45:28.080
 So we found it hard to find information on this.

01:45:28.080 --> 01:45:29.080
 Okay.

01:45:29.080 --> 01:45:30.080
 Three residents showed up for the second meeting, and there was no meeting.

01:45:30.080 --> 01:45:31.080
 Okay.

01:45:31.080 --> 01:45:47.840
 We'll get to that in a minute, but there is one more card here wishing to speak.

01:45:47.840 --> 01:45:52.480
 Ms. Adriana Sample, welcome to come forward.

01:45:52.480 --> 01:45:58.000
 Adriana Sample, 5304 Poly Drive, Denton, Texas.

01:45:58.000 --> 01:46:02.720
 My husband and my daughter pretty much covered all of it, something I really want to point

01:46:02.720 --> 01:46:07.080
 out and why it's critical that this does not go in there.

01:46:07.080 --> 01:46:12.280
 The entrance and exit to Dollar General is on Glengarry.

01:46:12.280 --> 01:46:18.120
 One of the proposed entrances and exits for this facility, one's on Glengarry and one

01:46:18.120 --> 01:46:20.240
 is on McKinney.

01:46:20.240 --> 01:46:23.480
 Our neighborhood only has one exit and entrance.

01:46:23.480 --> 01:46:26.520
 There's no other way out of our neighborhood.

01:46:26.520 --> 01:46:31.960
 We're increasing traffic to the one area that we go in and out of.

01:46:31.960 --> 01:46:38.280
 We have kids crossing in between cars because they're parking illegally, we're making the

01:46:38.280 --> 01:46:43.360
 turn off McKinney, and all of a sudden there's this kid bolting between cars to get to the

01:46:43.360 --> 01:46:47.160
 car across the street where the parents have parked because they didn't want to park on

01:46:47.160 --> 01:46:49.680
 the side.

01:46:49.680 --> 01:46:54.900
 When the plan for Dollar General was done, I think that wasn't considered that really

01:46:54.900 --> 01:47:00.600
 that entrance and exit should not have been onto Glengarry but maybe onto McKinney, so

01:47:00.600 --> 01:47:04.200
 we're just exacerbating the problem that's already there.

01:47:04.200 --> 01:47:09.000
 But they, like I said, covered most of the other issues.

01:47:09.000 --> 01:47:14.720
 I just want that looked at also because we have no other way out of that neighborhood.

01:47:14.720 --> 01:47:15.720
 Thank you.

01:47:15.720 --> 01:47:18.960
 I don't see any questions.

01:47:18.960 --> 01:47:24.880
 This is a public hearing, so anyone else, if there's anyone else present that would like

01:47:24.880 --> 01:47:29.200
 to speak on this item, you're welcome to come up.

01:47:29.200 --> 01:47:34.440
 One, two, if that's all right.

01:47:34.440 --> 01:47:38.480
 I'll just ask that after you finish speaking if you could fill out a card so that the secretary

01:47:38.480 --> 01:47:39.480
 has record of it.

01:47:39.480 --> 01:47:45.400
 My name is Marjane Vesuas, 5908 Woodwind Drive in Plano.

01:47:45.400 --> 01:47:48.400
 I'm the architect for the project.

01:47:48.400 --> 01:47:55.160
 We had the first meeting, the first neighborhood meeting, and we tried to incorporate everything

01:47:55.160 --> 01:47:58.040
 that was given to us by the neighbors.

01:47:58.040 --> 01:48:09.720
 We have a community garden for them to enjoy and very close to in the Glengarry area.

01:48:09.720 --> 01:48:21.280
 We also have made a traffic impact analysis to make sure that there is no traffic impact

01:48:21.280 --> 01:48:28.200
 coming into the gas station through East McKinney.

01:48:28.200 --> 01:48:37.400
 In Glengarry, we do have an exit there, but it's only for the fire trucks, it's not as

01:48:37.400 --> 01:48:41.840
 a main entrance or exit.

01:48:41.840 --> 01:48:47.200
 We needed an extra exit, and that's why we had to put it there, but it's not intended

01:48:47.200 --> 01:48:55.200
 for people to come in through that area.

01:48:55.200 --> 01:48:58.760
 The owner wants to be a good neighbor.

01:48:58.760 --> 01:49:04.520
 They have listened to the neighborhood and incorporated everything that the neighbors

01:49:04.520 --> 01:49:06.680
 said during that first meeting.

01:49:06.680 --> 01:49:15.200
 In the second meeting, you said that there were three people, but I don't know if there

01:49:15.200 --> 01:49:21.240
 was no one that showed up when they were there in that meeting.

01:49:21.240 --> 01:49:28.440
 I don't know if there was a miscommunication about the timing, but we really tried to incorporate

01:49:28.440 --> 01:49:32.440
 all the concerns from the neighborhood.

01:49:32.440 --> 01:49:38.120
 Thank you, Commissioner Garland, you have a question.

01:49:38.120 --> 01:49:44.760
 Can I ask what led you guys to decide to do a gas station there with just knowing there

01:49:44.760 --> 01:49:53.120
 were already a couple in such close proximity, and then was there any other development considered?

01:49:53.120 --> 01:50:06.920
 The gas station is an acceptable occupancy type for this particular zoning, so the ones

01:50:06.920 --> 01:50:17.240
 that we're here for is the car wash, which is a single person, a small one, like 7-Eleven

01:50:17.240 --> 01:50:24.480
 type, and the drive-thru, but everything else is allowed in that area.

01:50:24.480 --> 01:50:25.480
 Okay.

01:50:25.480 --> 01:50:28.040
 Thank you.

01:50:28.040 --> 01:50:34.480
 Thank you.

01:50:34.480 --> 01:50:41.360
 I think there's one, yeah, one more speaker.

01:50:41.360 --> 01:50:45.840
 Good evening.

01:50:45.840 --> 01:50:48.080
 Thank you for having us here tonight.

01:50:48.080 --> 01:50:49.600
 My name is Neil Harkrider.

01:50:49.600 --> 01:50:52.960
 I'm at 5224 Tartan Circle.

01:50:52.960 --> 01:50:59.360
 My office window actually overlooks this lot that we're talking about.

01:50:59.360 --> 01:51:03.600
 A couple different things that were pointed out by other people, and I loved some of the

01:51:03.600 --> 01:51:05.040
 comments that they made.

01:51:05.040 --> 01:51:11.200
 The Valero is, like was mentioned, very close by, and then Murphy's is right there, and

01:51:11.200 --> 01:51:14.840
 right next to Murphy's is a car wash.

01:51:14.840 --> 01:51:22.400
 So it's being served, what they're dishing up is being served in a very close proximity.

01:51:22.400 --> 01:51:28.280
 I think the point of, it's a residential street, Glengarry Way is a residential street,

01:51:28.280 --> 01:51:31.680
 so you're putting this business on a residential street.

01:51:31.680 --> 01:51:32.920
 Okay.

01:51:32.920 --> 01:51:37.040
 But it is one entrance and exit for the entire subdivision.

01:51:37.040 --> 01:51:41.000
 It's 143 families in that subdivision.

01:51:41.000 --> 01:51:44.520
 It's already difficult enough to get on to McKinney.

01:51:44.520 --> 01:51:46.600
 This is going to exasperate it significantly.

01:51:46.600 --> 01:51:51.040
 I love the fact that maybe it's for a fire only, but the fact of the matter is there's

01:51:51.040 --> 01:51:56.240
 an entrance and exit being proposed onto the residential street.

01:51:56.240 --> 01:52:01.520
 Not to mention, again, theoretical versus reality, the lights and the noise and all

01:52:01.520 --> 01:52:04.160
 this, and a 24/7 business.

01:52:04.160 --> 01:52:07.720
 How exciting at the one entrance to our subdivision.

01:52:07.720 --> 01:52:10.880
 A question was asked, what would you rather have?

01:52:10.880 --> 01:52:13.360
 Certainly, I'm pro-business, absolutely so.

01:52:13.360 --> 01:52:15.600
 Been that way for my whole career.

01:52:15.600 --> 01:52:22.120
 That said, I would think if you're going to nest this into a residential neighborhood,

01:52:22.120 --> 01:52:24.440
 make it an eight to five job.

01:52:24.440 --> 01:52:29.080
 Make it an eight to five clinic, an eight to five business, something like that.

01:52:29.080 --> 01:52:36.320
 Not something that's going to be there all day, all night, lights, music, action.

01:52:36.320 --> 01:52:41.040
 The Valero, if you happen to be, because you guys are all, I'm sure, residents of Denton,

01:52:41.040 --> 01:52:48.060
 if you drive by the Valero there on the corner of Mayhill and McKinney, there's a significant

01:52:48.060 --> 01:52:55.200
 presence of what I would say is a homeless character type of thing.

01:52:55.200 --> 01:53:01.680
 It's very significant, and there's a high number that hang out at that Valero.

01:53:01.680 --> 01:53:07.040
 I can imagine now that we're going to have this high population hanging out right in

01:53:07.040 --> 01:53:09.160
 front of our houses.

01:53:09.160 --> 01:53:13.560
 That's hard enough in Denton, with that particular issue.

01:53:13.560 --> 01:53:20.720
 Don't put it right there at our front door.

01:53:20.720 --> 01:53:21.720
 Thank you.

01:53:21.720 --> 01:53:22.720
 Thank you.

01:53:22.720 --> 01:53:27.640
 This is a public hearing, so if anyone else would like to speak, you're more than welcome

01:53:27.640 --> 01:53:31.280
 to.

01:53:31.280 --> 01:53:39.640
 I do not see anyone else.

01:53:39.640 --> 01:53:43.400
 I think we get the gist, unless there's a completely new ...

01:53:43.400 --> 01:53:44.400
 It is.

01:53:44.400 --> 01:53:45.400
 Okay.

01:53:45.400 --> 01:53:51.760
 I'll permit, but you'll have to come up to the mic just very briefly, if you can.

01:53:51.760 --> 01:53:52.760
 Just the idea.

01:53:52.760 --> 01:53:59.360
 I know the circle, but I saw 500 feet, whatever, who had to be contacted for the initial meetings

01:53:59.360 --> 01:54:04.040
 meets some sort of definition, but when you actually look at that map and see that, as

01:54:04.040 --> 01:54:08.840
 my wife pointed out, that's the only road in, that circle should really have been extended

01:54:08.840 --> 01:54:12.640
 to include us, so that we would have been at those first meetings, rather than having

01:54:12.640 --> 01:54:17.320
 to wait until that sign went up, and little tiny sign, and then for us to go figure out

01:54:17.320 --> 01:54:19.440
 how to get to this meeting.

01:54:19.440 --> 01:54:24.440
 I think I would have preferred that perhaps the entire neighborhood which is affected

01:54:24.440 --> 01:54:26.200
 would have been consulted.

01:54:26.200 --> 01:54:29.640
 Thank you very much.

01:54:29.640 --> 01:54:30.640
 Yes.

01:54:30.640 --> 01:54:31.640
 Commissioner McDade?

01:54:31.640 --> 01:54:38.560
 Sir, do you have a homeowners association or a neighborhood association over there?

01:54:38.560 --> 01:54:41.380
 Thank you.

01:54:41.380 --> 01:54:43.480
 Okay.

01:54:43.480 --> 01:54:47.120
 With that, I will close the public hearing.

01:54:47.120 --> 01:54:54.660
 I will ask staff to come up and just try to address a few things that I heard.

01:54:54.660 --> 01:55:00.200
 The crossing, general questions, if you have any information on that, as well as just for

01:55:00.200 --> 01:55:05.400
 the benefit of the public, if you could explain what our process is for notification, I understand

01:55:05.400 --> 01:55:12.880
 it's not necessarily encompassing that, but also pointing to the online capabilities that

01:55:12.880 --> 01:55:17.440
 we have for subscribing to additional notifications, if one would wish.

01:55:17.440 --> 01:55:18.440
 Sure.

01:55:18.440 --> 01:55:23.880
 First, to address the crossing, East McKinney is a text dot right of way, so I'm not sure

01:55:23.880 --> 01:55:28.000
 maybe Haley can speak to the ability of our transportation department to work with text

01:55:28.000 --> 01:55:31.280
 dot and how willing they are to work with us on getting crosswalks like that established.

01:55:31.280 --> 01:55:34.600
 I'm not sure if there's a certain separation that needs to be met between crosswalks or

01:55:34.600 --> 01:55:39.120
 anything like that, but that is why there's not, or one of the reasons there may not be

01:55:39.120 --> 01:55:45.600
 a crosswalk there is because it's a text dot right of way and not the city of Denton.

01:55:45.600 --> 01:55:46.600
 Thank you.

01:55:46.600 --> 01:55:48.200
 And as far as the notification questions.

01:55:48.200 --> 01:55:49.200
 Sure.

01:55:49.200 --> 01:55:53.440
 So for the notification, the city of Denton, so state statute mandates a 200 foot notice

01:55:53.440 --> 01:55:55.680
 for these public hearings.

01:55:55.680 --> 01:56:00.400
 The city of Denton has extended that to a 500 foot courtesy notice where we mail these

01:56:00.400 --> 01:56:05.960
 out to a larger, so it was a larger area than what would typically be included and captured

01:56:05.960 --> 01:56:09.120
 within those state mandated notices.

01:56:09.120 --> 01:56:12.760
 As Commissioner Peruzzi said, there are some additional ways through our website that you

01:56:12.760 --> 01:56:15.400
 can sign up for those notifications and things like that.

01:56:15.400 --> 01:56:20.800
 We also did publish a notice in the Denton Record Chronicle as well as our city website

01:56:20.800 --> 01:56:24.320
 which maintains these notices.

01:56:24.320 --> 01:56:27.160
 I believe that answers your question and I don't miss anything.

01:56:27.160 --> 01:56:28.240
 No, that's it.

01:56:28.240 --> 01:56:33.480
 I think it's always hard when we're doing notifications because you have to have some

01:56:33.480 --> 01:56:36.000
 sort of process.

01:56:36.000 --> 01:56:43.280
 At the same time, we've had applicants who've come in and chosen to notify more than just

01:56:43.280 --> 01:56:47.620
 the 500 required, especially for the neighborhood meetings.

01:56:47.620 --> 01:56:57.320
 Can you just explain to us so that we understand ... I understand we can't require an applicant

01:56:57.320 --> 01:57:00.200
 to notify additional residents.

01:57:00.200 --> 01:57:05.560
 Is there any sort of general process that we have for suggesting, "Hey, if you want

01:57:05.560 --> 01:57:10.480
 to involve the community so you don't have a surprise, we would recommend this?"

01:57:10.480 --> 01:57:11.480
 Sure.

01:57:11.480 --> 01:57:15.400
 As far as I'm aware of, what we typically rely on will be those HOAs and neighborhood

01:57:15.400 --> 01:57:19.120
 organizations that are going to fall within that 500-foot buffer.

01:57:19.120 --> 01:57:22.920
 We do send the mailing list out to the applicant.

01:57:22.920 --> 01:57:26.200
 We do include that 500-foot list rather than the 200-foot list.

01:57:26.200 --> 01:57:29.840
 The difference in those two, just for the sake of the public, is that the 200-foot list

01:57:29.840 --> 01:57:34.520
 is able to register opposition and the 500-foot is just a courtesy notice.

01:57:34.520 --> 01:57:35.520
 Okay.

01:57:35.520 --> 01:57:36.520
 Thank you.

01:57:36.520 --> 01:57:42.160
 Any ... No, because our public hearing is closed.

01:57:42.160 --> 01:57:48.440
 I think we understand ... We've heard many times from others, as well as you, notification

01:57:48.440 --> 01:57:54.680
 is always a challenge, but we understand that it would have been nice to know about the

01:57:54.680 --> 01:57:57.320
 neighborhood meetings beforehand.

01:57:57.320 --> 01:57:59.760
 Any other questions of staff of the commission?

01:57:59.760 --> 01:58:00.760
 Oh, sorry.

01:58:00.760 --> 01:58:01.760
 Commissioner Riggs.

01:58:01.760 --> 01:58:02.760
 Yeah, Bryce.

01:58:02.760 --> 01:58:03.760
 Thank you.

01:58:03.760 --> 01:58:10.600
 One of the things that was said was that a gas station could go here by right, by the

01:58:10.600 --> 01:58:11.680
 current zoning.

01:58:11.680 --> 01:58:12.680
 Is that the case?

01:58:12.680 --> 01:58:13.680
 That's not correct.

01:58:13.680 --> 01:58:17.360
 There are a litany of uses allowed within the MN zoning district, such as hotels and

01:58:17.360 --> 01:58:21.080
 multi-family that are allowed by right, but the gas station itself is why we're here with

01:58:21.080 --> 01:58:22.080
 a specific use permit.

01:58:22.080 --> 01:58:23.080
 Okay.

01:58:23.080 --> 01:58:24.080
 I just wanted to clarify that.

01:58:24.080 --> 01:58:32.400
 Then with regards to the entrance onto Glengarry, is that a requirement by a fire marshal?

01:58:32.400 --> 01:58:33.880
 I don't believe it's by the fire marshal.

01:58:33.880 --> 01:58:39.960
 I could be incorrect in that, but any development over 30,000 square feet will require two entrances.

01:58:39.960 --> 01:58:44.920
 There's also different distances and separations from intersections, which is why we ended up

01:58:44.920 --> 01:58:49.280
 with one on Glengarry, one on East McKinney, rather than two on East McKinney.

01:58:49.280 --> 01:58:50.280
 Okay.

01:58:50.280 --> 01:58:51.280
 Thank you.

01:58:51.280 --> 01:58:52.280
 Sure.

01:58:52.280 --> 01:58:53.280
 Commissioner McDade.

01:58:53.280 --> 01:59:02.640
 Could you put the map back up, the drawing showing the fire lane or onto the street?

01:59:02.640 --> 01:59:08.160
 That's what I was trying to understand, the difference between an entrance and exit and

01:59:08.160 --> 01:59:09.720
 a fire lane.

01:59:09.720 --> 01:59:11.800
 Is it an entrance and exit?

01:59:11.800 --> 01:59:14.600
 It can be used as an entrance and exit, yes, ma'am.

01:59:14.600 --> 01:59:15.600
 Okay.

01:59:15.600 --> 01:59:16.600
 Thank you.

01:59:16.600 --> 01:59:22.360
 Commissioner Catreson.

01:59:22.360 --> 01:59:29.400
 Are the trees and the fence, are those supposed to be mitigation for odor for the gasoline?

01:59:29.400 --> 01:59:34.440
 I believe that just knowing the ecology of trees, I suppose, there's some level of that,

01:59:34.440 --> 01:59:37.360
 but I don't believe that it'll be from a perspective of mitigation.

01:59:37.360 --> 01:59:45.680
 Then the approval for HUP also requires mitigation for things such as noise, odors, things like

01:59:45.680 --> 01:59:46.680
 that.

01:59:46.680 --> 01:59:47.680
 So I was just making sure.

01:59:47.680 --> 01:59:48.680
 Correct.

01:59:48.680 --> 01:59:50.760
 The lights and the noise will be mitigated by those trees, but I'm not sure about the

01:59:50.760 --> 01:59:53.680
 odor aspect of that.

01:59:53.680 --> 01:59:55.160
 Okay.

01:59:55.160 --> 01:59:58.320
 Commissioner Dyer.

01:59:58.320 --> 02:00:04.640
 Just getting back to notification, I get that the city and the applicant follow to the full

02:00:04.640 --> 02:00:12.680
 extent of the law that it requires it to, but we see this time and time again where

02:00:12.680 --> 02:00:19.600
 sometimes your neighbor is a couple people, where it really affects more than that, but

02:00:19.600 --> 02:00:27.200
 because of the size of that radius, it only falls in with a select few.

02:00:27.200 --> 02:00:31.640
 This is where it would be really nice if staff did work with the applicant and say, "Hey,

02:00:31.640 --> 02:00:38.400
 yes, legally you are required to notify between the 200 and a 500-foot zone," but in this

02:00:38.400 --> 02:00:43.600
 instance, you have a whole neighborhood, and when you have those neighborhood meetings,

02:00:43.600 --> 02:00:46.920
 you really should send it out.

02:00:46.920 --> 02:00:51.360
 What is it, just 100 more houses that they're really having to send a postcard to to say,

02:00:51.360 --> 02:00:54.160
 "Hey, we're going to have these couple of things."

02:00:54.160 --> 02:01:00.320
 It just would be a courtesy and a respect thing to the neighbors so that they, at that

02:01:00.320 --> 02:01:06.520
 time, can have a say of, "Hey, this is what we experienced with Dollar General, and we

02:01:06.520 --> 02:01:12.480
 don't want to see this happen," and there can be that back and forth between it showing

02:01:12.480 --> 02:01:14.560
 up here.

02:01:14.560 --> 02:01:22.520
 Just on an unrelated note, just looking at the Dollar General, maybe staff can go back

02:01:22.520 --> 02:01:26.680
 and look, because it looks like at the parking lot, you could almost put another entrance

02:01:26.680 --> 02:01:32.040
 onto McKinney to avoid people pulling in and parking on the street, but that's just a,

02:01:32.040 --> 02:01:35.560
 "If you all want to check that out," type of thing.

02:01:35.560 --> 02:01:37.720
 Other questions?

02:01:37.720 --> 02:01:43.000
 Yeah, Commissioner Ketch is it?

02:01:43.000 --> 02:01:49.220
 I would also like to add, I did a quick little Google search before coming up here, and there

02:01:49.220 --> 02:01:56.400
 are seven gas stations within a three-mile area from Billy Ryan High School, just FYI.

02:01:56.400 --> 02:01:57.400
 Yes?

02:01:57.400 --> 02:01:58.400
 Please.

02:01:58.400 --> 02:02:07.760
 I just wanted to add a little clarification on the access to McKinney Street.

02:02:07.760 --> 02:02:11.600
 Since the Dollar General has developed, we do now have that two points of access requirement

02:02:11.600 --> 02:02:13.080
 in our code.

02:02:13.080 --> 02:02:16.560
 That did not exist when Dollar General was developed, and we do not allow access to an

02:02:16.560 --> 02:02:20.400
 arterial street, which McKinney is, if you have access via another street.

02:02:20.400 --> 02:02:23.600
 They could not have access to McKinney when that developed.

02:02:23.600 --> 02:02:27.320
 The parking location that was brought up by the neighbors, and why that's not facing McKinney

02:02:27.320 --> 02:02:31.400
 is because of the MN zoning, which prohibits parking in front of the building.

02:02:31.400 --> 02:02:37.720
 Just some things for you all to keep in mind.

02:02:37.720 --> 02:02:39.040
 Commissioner Ketch is it?

02:02:39.040 --> 02:02:40.040
 Sorry.

02:02:40.040 --> 02:02:46.520
 I might add that as far as the parking goes, if you will put that on the Denton 311 app,

02:02:46.520 --> 02:02:50.720
 that might help in taking care of that for you.

02:02:50.720 --> 02:02:53.520
 Thank you.

02:02:53.520 --> 02:02:57.720
 Other discussion or questions at this time?

02:02:57.720 --> 02:02:58.720
 Yes.

02:02:58.720 --> 02:03:01.240
 Please do.

02:03:01.240 --> 02:03:08.840
 While we're not posted for an overall discussion on sufficiency of notifications, I do just

02:03:08.840 --> 02:03:18.680
 want to confirm for everyone's benefit that notification followed state law and our DVC

02:03:18.680 --> 02:03:19.680
 procedures.

02:03:19.680 --> 02:03:22.680
 Thank you for that.

02:03:22.680 --> 02:03:23.680
 Yes.

02:03:23.680 --> 02:03:27.840
 At some point, we'll stop adding things.

02:03:27.840 --> 02:03:31.160
 I also did want to point out, I know it's been a while since we've discussed notifications

02:03:31.160 --> 02:03:35.820
 for the commission, but the neighborhood meetings are also an optional thing, so we can't dictate

02:03:35.820 --> 02:03:38.080
 how an applicant chooses to hold or not hold those.

02:03:38.080 --> 02:03:41.840
 We can just recommend and give them the minimum notification standards for it if they choose

02:03:41.840 --> 02:03:43.240
 to have one.

02:03:43.240 --> 02:03:44.240
 Okay.

02:03:44.240 --> 02:03:49.080
 Thank you.

02:03:49.080 --> 02:03:50.080
 Commissioner Riggs.

02:03:50.080 --> 02:03:53.160
 So, Bryce, I know we're talking about a SUP.

02:03:53.160 --> 02:03:59.000
 Could you talk about maybe just a quick brief summary of what some allowed uses would be

02:03:59.000 --> 02:04:00.000
 in the mixed residential?

02:04:00.000 --> 02:04:01.000
 Sure.

02:04:01.000 --> 02:04:04.680
 I do have the use table on my hidden slides as well if you'd like to go over that, but

02:04:04.680 --> 02:04:10.120
 a couple that I have written down as possible uses would be most of your residential uses,

02:04:10.120 --> 02:04:15.080
 single family, townhome, duplex, triplex, fourplex, but it does also include the multifamily.

02:04:15.080 --> 02:04:17.480
 There are use specific standards that come with that.

02:04:17.480 --> 02:04:22.200
 Some other options would be, as previously mentioned, the daycare is an option, schools,

02:04:22.200 --> 02:04:29.440
 medical office, restaurant, private club, personal service general, tattoo parlor, hotel,

02:04:29.440 --> 02:04:33.040
 as well as some very minor industrial uses, which would be allowed by Wrighton's zoning

02:04:33.040 --> 02:04:34.040
 district.

02:04:34.040 --> 02:04:38.040
 And so any of those could go in today without any specific use permit?

02:04:38.040 --> 02:04:39.040
 Correct.

02:04:39.040 --> 02:04:41.400
 They'll not be coming to public hearing if they would like to go through any of those

02:04:41.400 --> 02:04:42.400
 uses.

02:04:42.400 --> 02:04:43.400
 Okay.

02:04:43.400 --> 02:04:44.400
 Thank you.

02:04:44.400 --> 02:05:03.680
 Yeah, I'll say many things about this area of town and the application really to me tell

02:05:03.680 --> 02:05:18.960
 the story of how we allow the need for conveyance of vehicles to drive the land use decision

02:05:18.960 --> 02:05:22.560
 instead of the other way around.

02:05:22.560 --> 02:05:25.840
 It's a textile roadway, so we have limited control.

02:05:25.840 --> 02:05:31.440
 Therefore, whatever we choose about what we build there is going to impact the choices

02:05:31.440 --> 02:05:34.280
 people make.

02:05:34.280 --> 02:05:46.280
 And so in my mind, the choice of what we allow there within the zoning rules directly impacts

02:05:46.280 --> 02:05:50.000
 the safety of the community.

02:05:50.000 --> 02:05:58.040
 Any other questions or discussion from the commission?

02:05:58.040 --> 02:06:01.840
 Or a motion?

02:06:01.840 --> 02:06:04.120
 Oh, sorry.

02:06:04.120 --> 02:06:07.320
 Commissioner Ketcham said.

02:06:07.320 --> 02:06:16.240
 So not only due to opposition, but I feel like I've given also reasons to motion for

02:06:16.240 --> 02:06:28.080
 denial for this SUP based on odor mitigation, potential health risks.

02:06:28.080 --> 02:06:32.240
 We've talked about traffic risks.

02:06:32.240 --> 02:06:38.400
 And even though they do have the right to build whatever they want on their property,

02:06:38.400 --> 02:06:43.800
 this is an SUP, so they're asking for extra rights as well.

02:06:43.800 --> 02:06:50.320
 So I motion to deny.

02:06:50.320 --> 02:06:51.320
 Commissioner McDade?

02:06:51.320 --> 02:06:56.080
 I whole second that motion to deny.

02:06:56.080 --> 02:07:01.320
 Any other discussion points?

02:07:01.320 --> 02:07:09.360
 Yeah, I'll just add that I think I'll be supporting this motion.

02:07:09.360 --> 02:07:15.440
 And I fully understand that there are other by-right uses that can go here.

02:07:15.440 --> 02:07:25.480
 Again, I'm chiefly concerned about the safety and how this impacts an area that will see

02:07:25.480 --> 02:07:28.560
 increased car traffic over the next several years.

02:07:28.560 --> 02:07:34.480
 There's a couple of subdivisions east of here that are going in, right?

02:07:34.480 --> 02:07:46.440
 And while other things can be built here, in my judgment, those things are likely to

02:07:46.440 --> 02:07:54.920
 induce less darting across the street, as we've seen, which is really just people wanting

02:07:54.920 --> 02:07:59.680
 to get to the other side of the road and not take a 18 minute detour to walk down to the

02:07:59.680 --> 02:08:04.040
 traffic light.

02:08:04.040 --> 02:08:05.040
 Commissioner Riggs?

02:08:05.040 --> 02:08:11.880
 Yeah, I will say, you know, whether this passes or not, I do appreciate the applicant's willingness

02:08:11.880 --> 02:08:14.080
 to move the building as far away.

02:08:14.080 --> 02:08:17.800
 I do think most of the traffic is probably going to, because of the way you situated

02:08:17.800 --> 02:08:22.520
 that building, is going to necessarily be on McKinney and not Glengarry.

02:08:22.520 --> 02:08:25.320
 So just wanted to make that point.

02:08:25.320 --> 02:08:27.760
 Thank you.

02:08:27.760 --> 02:08:31.360
 I have an echo of that.

02:08:31.360 --> 02:08:36.920
 Often, we see applications that come before us that staff and applicants have worked very

02:08:36.920 --> 02:08:44.520
 diligently on to attempt to mitigate the things that they know are a challenge within the

02:08:44.520 --> 02:08:50.520
 constraints of the site and what roads we have control over.

02:08:50.520 --> 02:08:58.800
 And I think in this case, it's just a challenging place that it's hard to complete all that

02:08:58.800 --> 02:09:03.920
 mitigation.

02:09:03.920 --> 02:09:08.800
 Not that it in any way will probably affect UL's decision here, but I did want to correct

02:09:08.800 --> 02:09:10.240
 one thing on the record.

02:09:10.240 --> 02:09:13.220
 We did find additional information.

02:09:13.220 --> 02:09:17.640
 While Bryce is correct, McKinney used to be a textile roadway up until very recently.

02:09:17.640 --> 02:09:22.200
 It was handed over to the city for maintenance just in the last couple of years.

02:09:22.200 --> 02:09:25.160
 So just wanted to correct the record on that and make sure you all knew that it is a city

02:09:25.160 --> 02:09:26.880
 street at this point.

02:09:26.880 --> 02:09:27.880
 Thank you.

02:09:27.880 --> 02:09:30.040
 I appreciate that.

02:09:30.040 --> 02:09:36.040
 I also am confused.

02:09:36.040 --> 02:09:41.720
 Some areas, there are text out streets that we have an understanding to do the maintenance

02:09:41.720 --> 02:09:42.720
 on.

02:09:42.720 --> 02:09:45.600
 So you're saying this is a city, right?

02:09:45.600 --> 02:09:47.480
 It's been turned back to the city already?

02:09:47.480 --> 02:09:48.480
 Yes.

02:09:48.480 --> 02:09:50.880
 Our maps were recently updated and show it now as a city-owned road.

02:09:50.880 --> 02:09:55.320
 I believe it's just been in the last couple of years that TextDOT completed whatever obligations

02:09:55.320 --> 02:09:59.800
 they had for maintenance after the reconstruction projects that were done and now it has been

02:09:59.800 --> 02:10:01.120
 handed over to the city.

02:10:01.120 --> 02:10:05.200
 But you are right, it is very confusing and nuanced and there are many roads where I would

02:10:05.200 --> 02:10:09.400
 question whether what I was telling you is accurate or not because of those agreements

02:10:09.400 --> 02:10:11.280
 that we have with TextDOT for maintenance.

02:10:11.280 --> 02:10:12.280
 Okay.

02:10:12.280 --> 02:10:18.040
 No, I very much appreciate that.

02:10:18.040 --> 02:10:21.880
 I'll try to move to this quickly so we don't waste any more time.

02:10:21.880 --> 02:10:29.520
 I mean, not that we've wasted time, but that we are expedient.

02:10:29.520 --> 02:10:37.720
 Given that information, I'm going to move to table this until an event certain when

02:10:37.720 --> 02:10:45.080
 the city can come back with information on whether safety improvements are planned and

02:10:45.080 --> 02:10:54.360
 possible here, as that's an allowable motion on the main motion.

02:10:54.360 --> 02:10:59.320
 Commissioner, we already have a motion on the floor.

02:10:59.320 --> 02:11:00.320
 Yes there is.

02:11:00.320 --> 02:11:05.160
 However, my understanding is that's a main motion and that the motion to postpone would

02:11:05.160 --> 02:11:06.160
 be a...

02:11:06.160 --> 02:11:08.400
 I will look to Hillary on that.

02:11:08.400 --> 02:11:12.000
 I believe you're correct, but I can't say for certain.

02:11:12.000 --> 02:11:14.600
 I'm Googling that real quick, I'm so sorry.

02:11:14.600 --> 02:11:16.640
 That's quite all right.

02:11:16.640 --> 02:11:19.480
 Commissioner Kutcher said, did you have something to add?

02:11:19.480 --> 02:11:24.280
 Does that change your decision?

02:11:24.280 --> 02:11:31.400
 It would change my decision on whether to support it, but again, if there's not interest

02:11:31.400 --> 02:11:35.560
 in the commission, then this motion would either not get a second or fail and then we

02:11:35.560 --> 02:11:44.120
 can vote on the main motion, which is perfectly fine, but let's take a little one minute with

02:11:44.120 --> 02:11:48.600
 Jeopardy music while we're confirming.

02:11:48.600 --> 02:11:51.840
 Question for Haley.

02:11:51.840 --> 02:12:07.280
 If we do pass the motion that's currently in front of us to deny, they have to go back

02:12:07.280 --> 02:12:08.280
 and...

02:12:08.280 --> 02:12:12.760
 Oh no, does it still move on to city council and then what happens at the city council

02:12:12.760 --> 02:12:13.760
 level?

02:12:13.760 --> 02:12:18.680
 So they could choose either to go back to the drawing board and see if they can come

02:12:18.680 --> 02:12:22.240
 up with another idea or they could choose to proceed to city council.

02:12:22.240 --> 02:12:27.240
 It would require a super majority vote at council if you all have recommended denial.

02:12:27.240 --> 02:12:33.680
 Motion to table can intervene.

02:12:33.680 --> 02:12:42.320
 Okay, so that's my motion is to continue to an event certain when the city can come back

02:12:42.320 --> 02:12:48.920
 with a plan for crossing McKinney if there is one or just confirm that there's not one.

02:12:48.920 --> 02:12:54.520
 And for the public's benefit, the reason I'm making that motion this way is just that we

02:12:54.520 --> 02:13:00.080
 don't have our transportation staff here because this was not necessarily anticipated, mostly

02:13:00.080 --> 02:13:01.080
 my fault.

02:13:01.080 --> 02:13:07.960
 So don't think anything badly of staff, but this is a way that I see if there is a reasonable

02:13:07.960 --> 02:13:13.200
 plan in place already that would allow the applicant to continue with this application

02:13:13.200 --> 02:13:20.520
 and address this issue and still move forward, whereas a motion to denial, to deny would

02:13:20.520 --> 02:13:22.040
 trigger the other things that you've heard.

02:13:22.040 --> 02:13:24.380
 So that's my reasoning.

02:13:24.380 --> 02:13:29.000
 Is there a second?

02:13:29.000 --> 02:13:31.240
 Not at this time.

02:13:31.240 --> 02:13:32.240
 Yeah.

02:13:32.240 --> 02:13:33.240
 I understand.

02:13:33.240 --> 02:13:35.800
 Can we have some quiet?

02:13:35.800 --> 02:13:36.800
 I understand.

02:13:36.800 --> 02:13:38.160
 I'm just trying to express myself.

02:13:38.160 --> 02:13:44.820
 This is the way these meetings go, ask that you would trust the parliamentary procedure

02:13:44.820 --> 02:13:47.440
 and that we would get through this.

02:13:47.440 --> 02:13:51.480
 I don't see anybody, Commissioner Riggs.

02:13:51.480 --> 02:13:57.760
 I just have a comment, and this is just my own personal thinking without having transportation

02:13:57.760 --> 02:14:02.760
 staff here, but the only way I think you could possibly make a safe crossing across McKinney

02:14:02.760 --> 02:14:05.640
 is by putting in a traffic signal.

02:14:05.640 --> 02:14:10.560
 I don't think the city has any plans of doing that anytime soon, nor would this development.

02:14:10.560 --> 02:14:16.720
 So that wouldn't change my vote if we were to table it.

02:14:16.720 --> 02:14:19.000
 I think my vote would still be the same.

02:14:19.000 --> 02:14:20.000
 Understood.

02:14:20.000 --> 02:14:23.840
 And I don't see a second to that at all, so that motion fails.

02:14:23.840 --> 02:14:31.120
 We're back to the main motion, which is a motion to deny with a motion and a second.

02:14:31.120 --> 02:14:32.480
 Any other discussion?

02:14:32.480 --> 02:14:43.600
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

02:14:43.600 --> 02:14:46.100
 That item passes 6-0 to deny.

02:14:46.100 --> 02:14:52.560
 So as Haley mentioned, the next step for this application is the applicant will decide whether

02:14:52.560 --> 02:14:58.660
 to continue to counsel for a public hearing or whether they would like to go back and

02:14:58.660 --> 02:15:00.520
 rework the application.

02:15:00.520 --> 02:15:02.280
 Thank you.

02:15:02.280 --> 02:15:05.280
 Any other ... Okay.

02:15:05.280 --> 02:15:08.680
 That brings us to our last public hearing of the night.

02:15:08.680 --> 02:15:34.680
 This is 5BZ25-25.

02:15:34.680 --> 02:15:40.840
 Good evening, Planned Zoning Commission.

02:15:40.840 --> 02:15:43.200
 My name is Matt Bourdine, Assistant Planner.

02:15:43.200 --> 02:15:51.600
 I'm here to present the rezoning case Z25-0025A, ARCA MIMA.

02:15:51.600 --> 02:15:59.600
 So this is a request to rezone approximately 5.4 acres from the Rural Residential Zoning

02:15:59.600 --> 02:16:02.640
 District to the General Office District.

02:16:02.640 --> 02:16:09.560
 This is located in the northwest part of town, with access off of Barthold Road.

02:16:09.560 --> 02:16:14.960
 Currently there is a home on the site and some accessory structures.

02:16:14.960 --> 02:16:19.400
 The surrounding area is largely undeveloped and is a mix of rural residential and light

02:16:19.400 --> 02:16:23.240
 industrial zoning.

02:16:23.240 --> 02:16:28.800
 This request was reviewed against our criteria for approval and was found to be in compliant

02:16:28.800 --> 02:16:32.160
 with them, and so a little bit more into that.

02:16:32.160 --> 02:16:37.280
 And with the General Office District, so this zoning district is intended for a variety

02:16:37.280 --> 02:16:44.360
 of workplaces and those complementary uses, such as commercial, which is being proposed

02:16:44.360 --> 02:16:51.400
 on the site, and is generally encouraged in areas that are near commercial centers of

02:16:51.400 --> 02:16:54.680
 the city and employment areas.

02:16:54.680 --> 02:17:02.000
 This geo-zoning district on top of office does allow for various commercial uses and

02:17:02.000 --> 02:17:07.240
 is located near the I-35 corridor.

02:17:07.240 --> 02:17:12.280
 The future land use designation for this area is light industrial.

02:17:12.280 --> 02:17:17.880
 This was found to be in compliance with that designation, as is intended for light industrial

02:17:17.880 --> 02:17:25.280
 activity, but also associated supporting uses, such as office, retail, as is being proposed

02:17:25.280 --> 02:17:26.280
 here.

02:17:26.280 --> 02:17:30.080
 Additionally, found it compliant with the economic goal of the city to ensure there

02:17:30.080 --> 02:17:38.840
 is land available for development to ensure future economic growth.

02:17:38.840 --> 02:17:43.960
 Another criteria for approval is that we do see there has been significant change in this

02:17:43.960 --> 02:17:48.520
 area, ongoing as well as into the future.

02:17:48.520 --> 02:17:54.720
 There's been certainly industrial development just south of here, as well as textile projects

02:17:54.720 --> 02:18:04.440
 to expand I-35, as well as realign and expand our hold road.

02:18:04.440 --> 02:18:09.320
 This request was notified according to city and state standards to the public.

02:18:09.320 --> 02:18:14.920
 In addition, the applicant did hold public meetings or notified for public meetings no

02:18:14.920 --> 02:18:15.920
 one attended.

02:18:15.920 --> 02:18:23.760
 In addition, the staff has not received any responses for or against this request.

02:18:23.760 --> 02:18:28.760
 Staff is recommending approval of the request of rezoning to the Geo District here to answer

02:18:28.760 --> 02:18:31.760
 any questions.

02:18:31.760 --> 02:18:34.400
 Any questions for staff at this time?

02:18:34.400 --> 02:18:38.440
 I don't see any, so I will open the public hearing.

02:18:38.440 --> 02:18:44.520
 I forgot to mention applicant is here and they do have some slides they'd like to present.

02:18:44.520 --> 02:18:46.640
 Oh, I'm sorry, I misspoke.

02:18:46.640 --> 02:18:51.480
 The hearing is still open from this item being continued from our previous meeting.

02:18:51.480 --> 02:18:59.160
 I do have one card from the applicant representative, Ms. Amy Bissett from McAdams, and thank you

02:18:59.160 --> 02:19:03.880
 for putting the new company name on the card so I remember it and don't misspoke.

02:19:03.880 --> 02:19:04.880
 You're welcome.

02:19:04.880 --> 02:19:07.840
 Good evening, Chair Pruitt, commissioners.

02:19:07.840 --> 02:19:10.600
 I appreciate the opportunity to be in front of you this evening.

02:19:10.600 --> 02:19:12.640
 I will be quick.

02:19:12.640 --> 02:19:18.760
 I do want to start by saying that our client, the homeowner, is with us this evening.

02:19:18.760 --> 02:19:22.840
 Art and Kathy Smucker in the audience, in case you do have some questions specifically

02:19:22.840 --> 02:19:24.680
 for them.

02:19:24.680 --> 02:19:28.560
 This is their homestead today.

02:19:28.560 --> 02:19:34.920
 Just to give you a little bit of context on this property, I'm not going to rehash what

02:19:34.920 --> 02:19:39.160
 Matt has already shared with you, but I do want to zoom out a little bit and just give

02:19:39.160 --> 02:19:44.640
 you kind of the aerial context of the changes in this part of town.

02:19:44.640 --> 02:19:52.360
 First of all, as you're all aware, the northwest side of Denton, on the west side of I-35,

02:19:52.360 --> 02:20:00.680
 is designated in our comp plan as our future industrial area.

02:20:00.680 --> 02:20:06.760
 As you can see on this aerial when you zoom out, it is adjacent to I-35 and we're seeing

02:20:06.760 --> 02:20:13.160
 some of those types of development on the west side of 35, including Primoris on the

02:20:13.160 --> 02:20:14.440
 north end.

02:20:14.440 --> 02:20:17.600
 There's a cold storage facility south of that.

02:20:17.600 --> 02:20:23.800
 The property immediately to the east of the Smuck property has been resoned, has been

02:20:23.800 --> 02:20:27.520
 annexed and rezoned for future industrial.

02:20:27.520 --> 02:20:32.680
 Then there's the significant industrial development on the south as well.

02:20:32.680 --> 02:20:39.120
 I do want to address, Chair Pruitt, you asked the question in work session about why we're

02:20:39.120 --> 02:20:41.840
 only rezoning the piece.

02:20:41.840 --> 02:20:46.840
 There's a large strip that's being left rural residential and that has already been acquired

02:20:46.840 --> 02:20:53.340
 by TxDOT for the realignment and expansion of 1173 in the future, so it is not owned

02:20:53.340 --> 02:21:02.000
 by our client and will eventually be right away on the future land use map.

02:21:02.000 --> 02:21:06.240
 We did make a decision to go with general office over light industrial and wanted to

02:21:06.240 --> 02:21:08.600
 share our reasoning behind that.

02:21:08.600 --> 02:21:14.040
 The two zoning districts are very similar in terms of allowable land uses.

02:21:14.040 --> 02:21:19.360
 A lot of overlap, including light industrial uses, can go in the general office zoning

02:21:19.360 --> 02:21:20.360
 district.

02:21:20.360 --> 02:21:27.520
 However, this is an entrance into Denton and general office zoning has more enhanced commercial

02:21:27.520 --> 02:21:32.480
 design standards and we felt like that would be appropriate for this area.

02:21:32.480 --> 02:21:37.000
 The home itself is intended to be repurposed.

02:21:37.000 --> 02:21:42.880
 It sits up on a hill and it overlooks a beautiful floodplain and also overlooks a nice industrial

02:21:42.880 --> 02:21:53.280
 park and I-35 and could be repurposed into a restaurant or jazz lounge.

02:21:53.280 --> 02:21:57.720
 There's a number of things where it would have a really nice view and be a good lunch

02:21:57.720 --> 02:22:01.720
 location for employees of this area.

02:22:01.720 --> 02:22:05.600
 Because of the size of this site, we were also proposing, again, this is just concept

02:22:05.600 --> 02:22:09.160
 at this time and we do not have a developer with us today.

02:22:09.160 --> 02:22:12.480
 This is the property owner who's initiating the zoning change.

02:22:12.480 --> 02:22:19.240
 We've also envisioned a boutique hotel here as well as some inline retail.

02:22:19.240 --> 02:22:22.840
 We did notice two virtual neighborhood meetings.

02:22:22.840 --> 02:22:26.760
 We did have one person RSVP, but they did not attend.

02:22:26.760 --> 02:22:29.940
 They are the property owner to the north and west of this site.

02:22:29.940 --> 02:22:35.200
 We did follow up with them and share the information and make ourselves available if they have questions

02:22:35.200 --> 02:22:37.480
 in the future.

02:22:37.480 --> 02:22:39.000
 And that is all I have for you this evening.

02:22:39.000 --> 02:22:40.720
 I'm happy to answer any questions.

02:22:40.720 --> 02:22:41.720
 Thank you.

02:22:41.720 --> 02:22:42.720
 Thank you.

02:22:42.720 --> 02:22:45.760
 Any questions from the commission?

02:22:45.760 --> 02:22:51.540
 I don't see any, thank you.

02:22:51.540 --> 02:22:52.540
 This is a public hearing.

02:22:52.540 --> 02:23:01.800
 If you'd like to speak on this item, you are certainly welcome to come down.

02:23:01.800 --> 02:23:02.800
 Not seeing any.

02:23:02.800 --> 02:23:08.480
 We will close the public hearing, open the floor for discussion or a motion or questions

02:23:08.480 --> 02:23:13.000
 of staff.

02:23:13.000 --> 02:23:15.200
 Commissioner Ketcherset?

02:23:15.200 --> 02:23:21.320
 A motion to approve this item.

02:23:21.320 --> 02:23:23.640
 Commissioner Garland?

02:23:23.640 --> 02:23:26.560
 And I'll second approval.

02:23:26.560 --> 02:23:28.280
 Okay.

02:23:28.280 --> 02:23:33.160
 Any discussion?

02:23:33.160 --> 02:23:39.120
 Sorry, were you?

02:23:39.120 --> 02:23:41.760
 Okay.

02:23:41.760 --> 02:23:46.040
 For the public, we're having a little bit of a humorous night this evening where Chair

02:23:46.040 --> 02:23:52.240
 Pruitt is very good at misinterpreting arm and hand signals, so feel free to laugh at

02:23:52.240 --> 02:23:53.240
 my expense.

02:23:53.240 --> 02:24:04.560
 Yeah, I'll just say I appreciate the unknown future of a situation like this.

02:24:04.560 --> 02:24:12.640
 I acknowledge that this is probably not the future that you saw 20, 30 years ago, whenever

02:24:12.640 --> 02:24:15.400
 it was.

02:24:15.400 --> 02:24:28.000
 We frequently get people who are surprised at that and can't find a path forward, so

02:24:28.000 --> 02:24:36.440
 I appreciate that the applicant was able to work with staff and with the representative

02:24:36.440 --> 02:24:49.300
 to find a way to move forward and give this area a potential for future use that does

02:24:49.300 --> 02:24:58.080
 have enhanced right-of-way design standards and allows the current property owner to walk

02:24:58.080 --> 02:25:03.360
 away not completely empty, so thank you for that.

02:25:03.360 --> 02:25:08.200
 Any other discussion?

02:25:08.200 --> 02:25:11.000
 Okay.

02:25:11.000 --> 02:25:14.880
 Good.

02:25:14.880 --> 02:25:20.400
 Not seeing any with a motion in a second.

02:25:20.400 --> 02:25:22.520
 Any questions at the end there?

02:25:22.520 --> 02:25:23.840
 We're good?

02:25:23.840 --> 02:25:24.840
 Okay.

02:25:24.840 --> 02:25:25.840
 I like looking at maps.

02:25:25.840 --> 02:25:28.640
 We had the GIS guide earlier tonight.

02:25:28.640 --> 02:25:30.440
 It's a very interesting area.

02:25:30.440 --> 02:25:39.440
 I commend you for pivoting on ... I mean, that's good that you have foresight because I'm looking

02:25:39.440 --> 02:25:42.840
 at ... It looks like the tiny home community is supposed to be built there.

02:25:42.840 --> 02:25:49.880
 A church is just south of you, the convention center to the north, so to think futuristically

02:25:49.880 --> 02:25:58.600
 and to come up with a different use, not many people would do that, so congratulations.

02:25:58.600 --> 02:26:01.680
 Not seeing any more discussion with the motion in a second.

02:26:01.680 --> 02:26:08.640
 I'll call for a vote on the board.

02:26:08.640 --> 02:26:11.200
 That item passes 6-0.

02:26:11.200 --> 02:26:22.240
 That brings us to our last item on the agenda, which is the matrix, I believe.

02:26:22.240 --> 02:26:23.240
 Sorry.

02:26:23.240 --> 02:26:25.960
 Navigated away.

02:26:25.960 --> 02:26:33.200
 Yes, 6-A, the planning and zoning matrix.

02:26:33.200 --> 02:26:37.360
 Yes, just a couple of updates for you all on items that you've heard that have recently

02:26:37.360 --> 02:26:39.200
 gone to council.

02:26:39.200 --> 02:26:45.720
 At their February 17th meeting, they did vote favorably for the comprehensive plan amendment

02:26:45.720 --> 02:26:50.360
 and zoning for the commercial portion of the Hickory Grove development that's out west

02:26:50.360 --> 02:26:52.600
 of town on 380.

02:26:52.600 --> 02:26:56.920
 They've also considered a handful of annexation cases, those don't come before you all, but

02:26:56.920 --> 02:27:03.320
 the city has initiated annexation of properties that have expired non-annexation agreements

02:27:03.320 --> 02:27:07.560
 that have been lingering for a while, so we will be working with council on that, so you

02:27:07.560 --> 02:27:12.240
 might anticipate some of those coming before you all in the future.

02:27:12.240 --> 02:27:16.960
 With respect to the matrix itself, we will be, I believe, removing three or four items

02:27:16.960 --> 02:27:21.560
 that we accomplished at work session this evening, so I'm happy to make any other changes

02:27:21.560 --> 02:27:23.960
 that you all might like to see.

02:27:23.960 --> 02:27:28.640
 Any questions or additions to the matrix from the commission?

02:27:28.640 --> 02:27:35.880
 Yeah, just appreciate the expediency from some of the recent requests and turning around

02:27:35.880 --> 02:27:36.880
 that GIS analysis.

02:27:36.880 --> 02:27:42.720
 I know that's not an easy task.

02:27:42.720 --> 02:27:44.640
 I don't see any additions to the matrix.

02:27:44.640 --> 02:27:47.800
 That will bring us to item 7, concluding items.

02:27:47.800 --> 02:27:52.000
 Anyone on the dais have concluding items?

02:27:52.000 --> 02:27:54.920
 I just have a couple short ones.

02:27:54.920 --> 02:28:04.560
 It is the March, which we're not in March, primary election season, early voting is ongoing,

02:28:04.560 --> 02:28:10.080
 as well as I want to highlight, especially because several of our planning staff have

02:28:10.080 --> 02:28:17.160
 been involved in this in the past, the Denton Evening Rotary is holding their winter warmer

02:28:17.160 --> 02:28:27.760
 fundraiser for laptops for students this next Friday, March the 6th, to be aware of that.

02:28:27.760 --> 02:28:28.760
 Anything else?

02:28:28.760 --> 02:28:29.760
 Commissioner Dyer?

02:28:29.760 --> 02:28:39.240
 I would like to thank the city staff and the county of Denton County for their ability

02:28:39.240 --> 02:28:45.780
 to listen to the residents that live out in my area off of Robeson Ranch Road.

02:28:45.780 --> 02:28:54.160
 We had some new traffic signal go in and it caused quite the stir and it may have gone

02:28:54.160 --> 02:28:59.840
 in a little prematurely and I think it was the city that went in and kind of changed

02:28:59.840 --> 02:29:06.680
 it so they took out the left turn only lane and for right now, I'm sure it will get changed

02:29:06.680 --> 02:29:13.020
 once HEB is finished and all of that, but thank you to the city staff and those powers

02:29:13.020 --> 02:29:17.360
 that listen to the community.

02:29:17.360 --> 02:29:20.200
 Very good.

02:29:20.200 --> 02:29:25.140
 Not seeing any others at 7.45 p.m.

02:29:25.140 --> 02:29:31.000
 With no objection, I will conclude and adjourn our meeting this Wednesday, February 25th.

02:29:31.000 --> 02:29:31.200
 Thank you.