[WORK SESSION]
          [00:00:05]
          GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE DENTON CITY COUNCIL. TODAY IS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22ND, 2024, AND IT'S 2 P.M. WE 201 AND WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, SO I'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. FIRST THING ON THE AGENDA, QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONSENT. ANY QUESTIONS? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO, I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM B FOR A SEPARATE VOTE. OKAY YES. 24503. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? SEEING. NONE. THAT'LL TAKE US TO OUR FIRST WORK SESSION. WHICH IS THREE A ID 242091 RECEIVED. REPORT, WHOLE DISCUSSION. GIVE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING THE CITY OF DENTON'S 80. NO, NO, THIS IS THE WRONG THING. LET ME GET THERE. 
          SORRY. THE RECEIVE REPORT. HOLD. DISCUSSION. GIVE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING THE PROPOSED 
          [A. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding proposed amendments to the City of Denton Code of Ordinances, Chapter 23, Article IV (Police Initiated Towing Services) and Article V (Non-Consent Towing), and Chapter 18, Article IV, Division 1, Section 18.104 (Impoundment of Standing or Parked Vehicles).
  [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 30 minutes]]
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF DENTO. CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 23, ARTICLE FOUR. POLICE INITIATED TOWING. ARTICLE FIVE NON CONSENT TOWING AND CHAPTER 18 ARTICLE FOUR. DIVISION ONE. SECTION 18 .104 IMPOUND STANDING IN PARKED VEHICLES. DID YOU GET ON HERE? OKAY. YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. BEAUTIFUL. HERE'S THAT. AWESOME. THANK YOU SIR. WELL GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL. HOW ARE YOU ALL TODAY? VERY WELL, THANK YOU. EXCELLENT. IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO BE IN FRONT OF YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. TODAY. I'M HERE TO DISCUSS THE TOWING ORDINANCE. PROPOSED UPDATE. I'M DEPUTY CHIEF DEREK BRADFORD, AND I'VE GOT MY SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS IN THE CORNER OF THE ROOM. SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN'T ANSWER FOR YOU, BUT WANTED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT SOME REALLY GREAT THINGS HAPPENING OVER AT THE PD REGARDING THE TOWING ORDINANCE. I KNOW THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT USUALLY PEOPLE GET EXCITED ABOUT, BUT HAVING COME TO THE TRAFFIC UNIT FAIRLY RECENTLY AND NOT KNOWING A LOT ABOUT IT, IT WAS ACTUALLY INTERESTING TO LEARN WHERE WE HAD SOME CHALLENGES AND GO THROUGH SOME STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATION. AND HOPEFULLY WE'RE GOING TO FIX IT. SO THE OVERVIEW OF TODAY'S LITTLE TALK IS WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, THE CHALLENGES THAT'S PRESENTED US, HOW WE CAME TOGETHER WITH ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS, THE BUSINESSES SOME COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTIONS THAT WE CAME TO TOGETHER. SO LET'S GET STARTED ON THE CURRENT ORDINANCE HADN'T BEEN UPDATED SINCE 2015. AND YOU ALL KNOW THE WORLD WE LIVE IN. THINGS CHANGE RAPIDLY. SO INSIDE THAT ORDINANCE IS A FEE SCHEDULE THAT HAS ALSO NOT CHANGED SINCE 2015. THE AMOUNTS ON THEM ARE $150. IS THE MAX TOW FEE THAT A WRECKER SERVICE CAN CHARGE FOR TOWING A VEHICLE IN THE CITY OF DENTON. 
          WHEN IT IS INITIATED BY POLICE AND WHAT WHAT THAT USED TO MEAN WAS THAT THEY HAD FEES THAT THEY COULD CHARGE SURCHARGES FOR. THEY BEING THE WRECKER SERVICES. EXCUSE ME? WHEN THEY WOULD COME UP WITH THESE FEES. THEN PRIOR TO 2015, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGISTRATION TDLR REGULATED THOSE FEES, INSPECTED THOSE FEES, AND SAID, YES, THESE ARE GOOD, NO, THESE ARE BAD, ETC. AND IN 2015, THEY MOVED AWAY FROM THAT. I'M GUESSING BECAUSE OF TIMING AND STAFFING. 
          LIKE MOST PLACES, THEY'RE REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF SERVICES THEY PROVIDED, AND NOW A COMPANY AS LONG AS THAT IS TRUE, THEY CAN HAVE A FEE FOR ANYTHING. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, SOME PEOPLE AND THEIR COMPANIES AND YES, THEY ARE NEEDING TO RUN A PROFIT. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THAT HAS LED TO WHERE A CITIZEN WHO IS INVOLVED IN A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT, TWO CARS TOWED FROM THE EXACT SAME SCENE AT AN ACCIDENT, GET CHARGED TWO DIFFERENT AMOUNTS. YES, THAT MAKES SENSE WHEN ONE IS MORE DAMAGED THAN THE OTHER, ETC. BUT WHEN IT'S ALL FACTORS ARE THE SAME DEPENDING ON WHICH WRECKER SERVICE SHOWED UP TO YOUR SCENE, YOU WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT FEE. 
          I FIND THAT PROBLEMATIC. I THINK THAT'S TAKING ADVANTAGE OF SOME CITIZENS, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO STAND FOR IN THE CITY. SO WITH LIEUTENANT ROSE'S HELP, WE DECIDED TO GATHER UP ALL THE PEOPLE AND TALK TO THEM ABOUT HOW WE CAN FIX THAT. SO THAT WAS THE AMOUNTS ON THE FEES THAT WERE A PROBLEM. THE STATE CURRENTLY LISTED AT $275. 272. 272. 50. 270. 250. THAT'S WHERE THE TWO AND THE FIVE ARE GETTING THERE. AND THEN AGAIN, THE REGULATIONS HAVE CHANGED FROM 
          [00:05:01]
TDLR. AND SO THAT IN MY MIND, PUTS A LITTLE BIT OF ONUS ON THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE OFFERING CORRECT AND APPLICABLE FEES. WE ONLY ALLOWS FOR THE CITY TO REMOVE THEM FROM OUR, WHAT WE CALL A RECORD ROTATION LIST. THE RECORD SERVICES IN TOWN ARE PUT ON A ROTATION SO THAT WHEN AN INCIDENT OCCURS FROM THE POLICE AND WE CALL A RECORD OF THE SCENE, THEY SHOW UP, TOW THEM AWAY, ETC. CURRENTLY, THE ONLY ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITY WE HAVE IS NOT RENEWING THEIR REGISTRATION OR THEIR APPLICATION FOR THE FALL FOR THE NEXT YEAR AND REMOVING THEM FROM THE RECORD ROTATION LIST. THAT'S, YOU KNOW, A VERY MINOR AMOUNT OF THE BUSINESS THAT THEY DO, AND NOT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GO AFTER THEM AND KEEP THEM FROM MAKING MONEY. BUT WE ALSO NEED SOME SORT OF TOOL TO SAY, HEY, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU FOLLOW THESE RULES BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IT'S THOSE RULES ARE THERE TO PROTECT THE CITIZEN. SO WE HAD SOME SOME ISSUES THERE, BOTH OF WHICH I'VE ALREADY MENTIONED IT BEFORE, BUT IT TIES INTO THE CITIZEN BEING VULNERABLE TO THE COMPANIES. SO WE TOOK A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH. NOT ONLY DID WE REVIEW THE OTHER MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES, THE MAIN THREE I ALWAYS HIGHLIGHT ARE CITY OF FORT WORTH, CITY OF AUSTIN, AND TEXAS CITY. INSIDE THE TRAFFIC SECTION, THEY REACHED OUT BACK AS TOP HITS. SO WE LOOKED AT WHAT THEY HAD. THEN WE ALSO HAD SOME MEETINGS WITH OUR LOCAL VENDORS. THE VERY FIRST ONE WAS JULY 10TH. WE BROUGHT WE INVITED EVERY WRECKER SERVICE TO COME. WE SAID, YOU CAN BRING WHOEVER YOU WANT AND WE FILLED UP THE COMMUNITY ROOM DOWN AT THE SUBSTATION. IT WAS A REALLY GREAT, REALLY, REALLY WELL ATTENDED EVENT. WHAT MADE ME HAPPY IS THAT EVEN SERVICES INSIDE OF THAT ROOM ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE THE SAME PROBLEMS THAT THE PD SAID, HEY, WE'VE GOT VENDORS THAT ARE CHARGING WAY TOO MANY FEES. IT'S GETTING A LITTLE OUT OF LINE, ETC. SO WE MET WITH THEM ON JULY 10TH. WE TOOK WE TOOK THOSE ISSUES THAT WE HAD BOTH IDENTIFIED. I WANT TO GIVE PRAISE TO LIEUTENANT ROSE FOR SETTING THAT UP AND THINKING TO LOOP IN THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT WERE IMPORTANT TO HAVE IN THIS CONVERSATION. AND WE WENT TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND WE YOU'VE SEEN THE DRAFT VERSION IN FRONT OF YOU. IT'S A LOT OF RED, BUT THAT'S INTENTIONAL. THE IDEA WAS TO MAKE IT JUST THE BEST THAT IT COULD BE. AND WE CAME BACK WITH WHAT WE BELIEVE IS GOING TO BE APPLICABLE AND MAKE IT LESS VULNERABLE FOR THE CITIZENS TO BE THERE. IN ADDITION TO THE JULY 10TH MEETING, WE MET ON AUGUST NO MAJOR CONCERNS WERE ADDRESSED OR BROUGHT UP BY EITHER PARTIES. WE DID DO A LITTLE BIT OF LANGUAGE CHANGE AND THEN BROUGHT THAT TO LEGAL, WHICH IS WHAT NOW SITS IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. THEY DID MEET YESTERDAY AS WELL, TO SEE THAT FINAL COPY THAT YOU ALL HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. SO THE COMPREHENSIVE, COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTIONS THAT WE'VE COME UP WITH WAS OBVIOUSLY WE NEEDED TO UPDATE THAT FEE SCHEDULE. 
          THERE'S A REFERENCE TO CHAPTER 18, AND WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE ALLOW THE STATE MAXIMUM FEE OF TWO 7250 TO BE THE FEE CHARGED FOR TOWING A VEHICLE. THIS LIMITS THE SURCHARGES THAT COMPANIES CAN, THAT WRECKER SERVICES CAN CHARGE SOLELY TO RECOVERY FEES OR EXCUSE ME, SUBMERGED FEES. SO LIKE IF A VEHICLE IS SUBMERGED EITHER PARTIALLY OR WHOLLY IN WATER, THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT MORE EFFORT TO TOW IT AWAY FROM THE SCENE OR ONE THAT'S BURNED. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH WITH A VEHICLE THAT'S BEEN BURNED. THEN ONE THAT WAS IDENTIFIED YESTERDAY THAT, YOU KNOW, AFTER WE GET YOUR FEEDBACK FROM TODAY, ONE THAT WE'LL BE ADDING IS WHEN A, WHEN A, WHEN A TOW IS ONE YOU HAVE PROPOSED IN FRONT OF YOU, AND WE'LL GET THAT UPDATED FOR THE FINAL DRAFT FOR Y'ALL'S CONSIDERATION. LIMITS TO THOSE SURCHARGES. SO THAT WAY YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THE EXTRANEOUS FEES THAT WERE THAT WERE COMING UP WITH. MY FAVORITE ONE WAS A BROOM FEE. IF A WRECKER SERVICE HAD TO BRING OUT A BROOM AND PUSH DEBRIS OFF THE ROADWAY, WHICH THEY'RE REQUIRED TO DO WHEN THEY TOW A VEHICLE THAT WAS, FOR INSTANCE, A SURCHARGE THAT SOME OF THE VENDORS WERE CHARGING. OUR CITIZENS. THERE IS, OF COURSE, A PROCESS FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY. IF IN THE ORDINANCE, YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IT. BUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE IS IF A VEHICLE LEAVES THE ROADWAY IS IN THE MUD, IS FLIPPED OVER 15 TIMES, THEN THE DEBRIS FIELD IS 100 YARDS LONG, AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE MORE THAN JUST YOUR NORMAL AVERAGE EVERYDAY AND PUTTING YOU UP ON A FLATBED AND DRIVING AWAY. THEY HAVE THE PROCESS IN THERE FOR THEM TO ASK FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY FEE. WE'RE ALSO REALIGNING HOW WE PERMIT COMPANIES. CURRENTLY THEY HAVE IN THE CITY ORDINANCE. IT'S SEPARATED FROM WHAT THE STATE CALLS INCIDENT MANAGEMENT TOWS AND CONSENT TOWS. AND WE ESTABLISHED ONE THAT WE JUST WE MADE UP A TERM CALLED POLICE INITIATED TOW. THAT'S NOT IN ANY OF PRIVATE PROPERTY TOWS, WHICH ARE NONCONSENT FROM PRIVATE PROPERTIES. YOU CAN PERMIT FOR INCIDENT MANAGEMENT CALLS LIKE WHEN POLICE CALL YOU TO SCENE, ETC. OR YOU CAN HAVE A COMBINED PERMIT AND WE WILL PERMIT BOTH THE VENDOR AND EACH INDIVIDUAL DRIVER WHO'S OPERATING A WRECKER VEHICLE. AND THEN THE RECOVERY FEES REGULATED RECOVERY IS WHEN 
          [00:10:03]
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LARGE VEHICLES THAT ARE OVER 26,000 POUNDS GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING. AND THEY WERE THE TERM WAS FLOODING THE SCENE WITH VEHICLES BECAUSE THE MORE VEHICLES YOU HAD ON SCENE, THE HIGHER CHARGE YOU COULD DO. WE'VE REDUCED THAT TO NOW SAY WHATEVER THE VEHICLES WEIGHT IS, IS WHAT THAT FEE IS GOING TO BE BASED ON. THAT'S HOW THE INDUSTRIES THAT WE'RE DOING IT, LIKE IN FORT WORTH AND ALL THE OTHER ONES THAT WERE SAID TO BE GOOD AND THAT MADE MORE SENSE TO US BECAUSE THEN REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY VEHICLES YOU DO, IT'S THE SERVICE YOU'RE PROVIDING. ANOTHER THING THIS UPDATES IS IMPOUNDMENTS FOR NO INSURANCE AND NO DRIVER'S LICENSE. IN 2015, THE TDLR ACTUALLY ASKED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO GIVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT A MUNICIPALITY COULD COULD TOW A VEHICLE FOR NO DEAL AND MINUTES TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. SO WHEN YOU HEAR THIS, I KNOW THAT SOMETIMES THIS IS A CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC. THIS ISN'T GIVING CARTE BLANCHE TO OFFICERS TO JUST GO OUT AND START TOWING A VEHICLE. WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE, THIS IS GIVING THE OFFICER THE OPPORTUNITY AND SHOULD THEY NEED IT, THE DISCRETION TO DO THAT. FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE MULTIPLE OFFENSES OF DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE, DRIVING WITH NO LICENSE, ETC. JUST HIGHLIGHTING THERE THAT AN OFFICER SHALL VERIFY INSURANCE STATUS IN THAT. IN THAT ORDINANCE, IT TALKS ABOUT IF THE PERSON DOESN'T HAVE IT ON THEM, THE OFFICER STILL HAS TO VERIFY EITHER THROUGH THE NCIC CHECK, ETC. AND DISPATCH AND THEN IT'S A DISCRETIONARY AND IT GIVES A LOT OF LEEWAY. A LOT OF FACTORS FOR THE OFFICER TO CONSIDER. LIKE, WELL, IS THIS A PARENT THAT'S GOT KIDS IN THE CAR ON THEIR WAY TO WORK? AND THE ONLY THING WE HAVE ON THEM IS NO DL. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. AND WE'RE NOT TELLING YOU TO GO IMPOUND THOSE VEHICLES. SO THAT'S THE THAT'S THERE IN THE DRAFT FOR YOU. SO ANOTHER THING I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT WE DON'T HAVE ANY REGULATIONS HERE IN THE CITY OF DENTON FOR BOOTING. WHEN I LEARNED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SO A VENDOR COULD CHOOSE TO BOOT A VEHICLE AND IT COST THE CITIZEN LESS. IF YOU'VE NOT HEARD OF A BARNACLE, I THOUGHT THIS WAS FASCINATING, SO I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT IT FOR YOU BECAUSE YOU MIGHT START SEEING BARNACLES ON CARS IF WE APPROVE THE BOOTING STATUTE HERE. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT ATTACHES TO THE WINDSHIELD VIA SUCTION. AND THOSE ARE NOW CAPABLE OF BLUETOOTH AND OR JUST KEY BUTTON ENTRY TO RELEASE. THE CITIZEN CAN PUT THAT IN THEIR CAR AND TAKE IT TO A DROP OFF BOX AT THE VENDOR, RATHER THAN HAVING THEIR CAR TOWED. THEY HAVE IT STILL THERE IN FRONT OF THEM, AND IT'S A LOT LESS THAN A TOW. THE MAXIMUM BOOTING FEE IS $80. I FEEL LIKE I MISSED AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE. MAYBE I'LL GET TO IT. I'M SORRY I GOT A LITTLE SCATTERBRAINED THERE. SO OVERVIEW OF SOME OF THESE BENEFITS. IMPROVED TRANSPARENCY FOR THE CITIZENS AND FOR THE VENDORS. YOU HAVE A CLEAR AND CONSISTENT FEE SCHEDULE SO THAT IT'S APPLICABLE OR A APPLICABLE TO EVERYONE. THE SAME FAIR TREATMENT ACROSS THE WAY, WHICH MEANS FAIR TREATMENT OF THE VEHICLE OWNERS, OTHERS, THE SUN. 
          AND THIS ALSO PROVIDES A FUNDING SOURCE FOR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT. EACH MANAGEMENT, PRIVATE PROPERTY, ETC. IS GOING TO INCUR A $15 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE. THE PLAN HERE IS THAT MIDYEAR SUPPLEMENTAL, THE PD WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A POSITION OF RTO ADMINISTRATOR, AND IT WILL BE FUNDED SIMPLY BY $15 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE FOR EVERY RTO. TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE NUMBERS THAT WE DO, RAN THE REPORT FROM JANUARY 1ST THROUGH AUGUST OR EXCUSE ME THROUGH OCTOBER 2ND. WE HAVE DONE ALMOST 13,000 PRIVATE PROPERTY. I SAY WE PRIVATE PROPERTY TOWS AND DENTON VENDORS INSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS HAVE DONE ALMOST 13,000 TOWS SOLELY FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY. NONCONSENT TOWS. SO THAT GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF JUST THE NUMBERS THAT WE'RE DOING YEARLY SOLELY FOR PRIVATE PROPERTIES. SO THE NEXT STEPS IS WE'RE GOING TO SAY WE WANT TO GET THE REST OF THE FINAL, FINAL DRAFT OF THE ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF YOU. HAVE YOU ALL APPROVED THAT? WE'LL BEGIN REVIEWING THE NEW APPLICATIONS FOR VENDORS THAT WANT TO STILL CONDUCT BUSINESS INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS? THEN WE'LL CONDUCT INSPECTIONS ON THOSE THAT ARE CURRENTLY PERMITTED, AND THEN WE'LL DO A PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGN FOR BOOTING, BECAUSE THAT'S A BIG CHANGE COMING UP TO YOU HAVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. ANY QUESTIONS? REPRESENTATIVE. DISTRICT SIX. COUNCIL PERSON. 
          CHESTER. I JUST WANT TO SAY HOW MUCH I APPRECIATE THE INITIATIVE THAT WAS TAKEN TO REVIEW THE LAST REVIEWED 2015 TOWING ORDINANCE. TOWING IS SOMETHING THAT IS A HOT EMOTIONAL TOPIC BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW SOMEONE THAT IT'S BEEN LATE AT NIGHT, MAYBE HAVE KIDS WITH THEM, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO FIND OUT WHERE THEIR CAR WENT AND NO ONE'S THERE TO RELEASE IT, ETC. SO I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE REVIEW AS WELL AS LOOKING AT THE INTERESTS OF 
          [00:15:01]
THOSE THAT MAY HAVE NOT SEEN THE TOWING SIGN VERSUS THE PROPERTY OWNERS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, AT MY OFFICE, WE HAVE TROUBLE WITH PEOPLE PARKING FOR THE VAPE SHOP. SO YOU KNOW, IT IS. IT IS ALSO AN ISSUE OF PROPERTY OWNERS. WOULD YOU TELL ME AGAIN WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF TOWING THAT YOU SAID FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT'S BEING DONE? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT NUMBER? YES. THE NUMBER I LOOKED UP WAS JANUARY 1ST OF THIS YEAR TO PRIVATE PROPERTY. OKAY. AND AS FAR AS THE AS OPPOSED TO THE BOOT THAT WE ARE USED TO ON THE TIRE, THIS NEW SUCTION ON BARNACLE. RIGHT. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE TOWING COMPANIES WOULD BE INVESTING IN AND PURCHASING? AND IS THAT DO WE HAVE ANY SAY IN WHAT THEY USE, WHETHER THEY USE THAT OR THE OLD FASHIONED BOOTING OR TOW? WE COULD. SO RIGHT NOW IT ALLOWS FOR ANY OF THE DEVICE. 
          I'VE GOT A HAND UP FROM MY SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT. I'LL LET HIM FIELD THAT QUESTION. THEN. 
          YOU COME ON. JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS IDEA, BUT DOES THIS MEAN THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE UTILIZED? AND I WILL BE WHAT LOVERS DO WE HAVE TO PULL? ABSOLUTELY. THE CITY DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE BOOTING. IT DOES GIVE THE OPTION FOR THE CITY TO DO IT. BUT THIS RIGHT HERE IS THE SPIRIT THAT THEY WOULD INVEST IN THIS TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY SHOULD THEY CHOOSE. 
          MEANING THE TOW COMPANIES. THANK YOU. SO CHAPTER 18 ACTUALLY OUTLINES CITY INITIATED BOOTING AND REGULATES THE CITY ITSELF, PARTICIPATING IN BOOTING TDLR HAS BACKED COMPLETELY OUT OF BOOTING. THERE IS AS FAR AS A PRIVATE VENDOR OR A PRIVATE DOING IT, AND THERE IS NO LONGER ANY STATE REGULATION ON IT. THE STATE HAS BACKED OUT AND LEFT IT COMPLETELY UP TO THE MUNICIPALITIES. SO RIGHT NOW IT IS COMPLETELY UNREGULATED. AS FAR AS THE FORM OF THE IMMOBILIZATION DEVICE IS WHAT THEY'RE CALLED. THAT'S GOING TO BE UP TO EACH INDIVIDUAL VENDOR. 
          MOST MOST OF THEM HAVE GONE TO A REMOTE SYSTEM WHERE THEY HAVE AN EMPLOYEE THAT WILL COME OUT AND PLACE THE BOOT. THEY HAVE TO DOCUMENT THAT THE BOOT WAS PLACED AND TAKE A PICTURE OF THE VEHICLE. THE REMOVAL IS DONE THROUGH AN APP WHERE THEY PAY REMOTELY AND IT'S SET UP. THERE IS ACTUALLY A DROP LOCATION AT, SAY, THE APARTMENT COMPLEX. SO THE PERSON PAYS, THEY GET A CODE, THEY'RE ABLE TO DO IT. DROP THE BOOT RIGHT THERE. IT IS A LIGHTWEIGHT BOOT. DROP IT INTO THE BIN AND THEY'RE DONE. SO IT'S ABOUT A 5 TO 7 MINUTE PROCESS. THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO WAIT IN MOST CASES FOR THE TOW COMPANY TO RESPOND. IF THEY'RE USING THE OLD FASHIONED BOOTS THAT BUT HE DOES HAVE A MAX OF AN HOUR TO RESPOND. IF THEY DON'T RESPOND WITHIN AN HOUR. THEY ARE FORBIDDEN. THEY ARE PROHIBITED FROM CHARGING ANY FEES AT ALL. 
          SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT REGULATIONS THE CITY CAN IMPOSE. FIRST OF ALL, ON ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND THEN PRIVATE PROPERTY. BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY THAT'S KIND OF GETTING INTO THE WEEDS AS FAR AS THIS FIRST STEP IN REVIEWING CHANGES THAT WE WANT TO MAKE. FIRST, JUST TO UPDATE TO TODAY'S DATE AS WELL AS INTRODUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES. DOES THAT SOUND FAIR? AND THIS DOESN'T REGULATE I'M SORRY. THIS DOESN'T REGULATE THE CITY. THIS DOESN'T REGULATE BOOTING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY THAT'S ALREADY A PART OF CHAPTER 18. AND PROBABLY ON THE LIST IN THE TOP FIVE OF ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT. IT'S A VERY CUMBERSOME LEGAL PROCESS TO GET TO THE APPLICATION OF THE BOOT THAT SOUNDS REALLY FUN, BUT THIS WILL REGULATE BOOTING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, AGAIN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR AND INPUT. DOING GOOD WORK FOR OUR CITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FIVE, THEN FOUR AND TWO. HOW ARE Y'ALL DOING? APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. I DEFINITELY NOTICED THE PICTURE OF THE TRUCK. I APPRECIATE YOU DOING THAT TO GOAD ME A LITTLE BIT. THANKS. MR. ROSE, WHAT YOU JUST SAID ABOUT THE TOW COMPANY HAVING A MAXIMUM OF AN HOUR TO RESPOND. CAN YOU GO INTO A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ABOUT THAT? SURE. THE. HOW DOES THAT WORK? THE COMPANIES ON A IN A BOOTING SITUATION, IF THEY HAVE A BOOT APPLIED AND THE PERSON CALLS IN FOR REMOVAL OF THE BOOT, IF THEY DON'T HAVE IT PROVIDED TO WHERE IT CAN BE UNLOCKED REMOTELY, THEY HAVE ONE HOUR TO RESPOND. 
          IF THEY DON'T RESPOND. THEY'RE PROHIBITED FROM CHARGING ANYTHING. UNDER THE ORDINANCE FOR THE BOOT, THEY HAVE TO REMOVE IT FOR FREE. THEY ARE ALSO IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE AND SUBJECT TO CITATION. HOW DOES THE HOW IS THAT ENFORCED FROM A CITIZEN'S STANDPOINT? LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY IT TAKES AN HOUR AND HOW DOES THE CITIZEN GO ABOUT 
          [00:20:06]
TAKING CARE OF THAT? SO IT SAME SITUATION THAT WE GET SOMETIMES NOW WITH THE VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITIES. THEY CAN CALL THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND HAVE A RESPONSE. IF THEY HAVEN'T, IF THE SERVICE HASN'T RESPONDED WITHIN THE HOUR. THERE'S ALSO DOCUMENTATION ON THE PHONE CALL OR WHATEVER APP THAT THEY USE. SO THERE'S EVIDENCE FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE TO BACK UP THE CLAIM OF THE CITIZEN THAT THEY MADE CONTACT AT THIS TIME, AND THE SERVICE HAS BEEN AND THEY WOULD WORK THROUGH THE PD FOR THAT, NOT NECESSARILY WITH THE TOW COMPANY. RIGHT. THEY JUST CALL YOU AND SAY, HEY, I CALLED AT THIS TIME. IT'S NOW OVER AN HOUR. THEY HAVEN'T BEEN HERE. 
          YOU ALL WOULD COME OUT AND DEAL WITH THEM. CORRECT. OKAY. I WANTED TO ASK ANOTHER QUESTION. 
          ARE WE SEEING IN THE CITY? ARE WE SEEING A HIGH NUMBER OF UNPAID TICKETS IN THE CITY AND WHERE I'M GOING WITH THAT IS SOME WOULD SAY THAT BOOTING IS A WAY TO HELP TOW COMPANIES WHO WORK ON THEIR END. WHY? I'M ASKING WHY THE NEED FOR THIS? THE BUILDING SPECIFICALLY. SO WHAT WE'RE SEEING WITH DEVELOPMENT, AND THIS IS KIND OF PART OF THIS, IS THINKING AHEAD WITH DEVELOPMENT OF SOME OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES. WE'RE SEEING SOME OF SOME MOVES TO PARKING GARAGES, WHICH ARE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE DEPENDING UPON THE DESIGN TO TOW FROM. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY COMING FROM SOME OF THOSE PROPERTIES. LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION. IF YOU CAN'T GET A TOW TRUCK INTO THE PARKING GARAGE, YOU CAN'T TOW THE VEHICLE THAT DOESN'T BELONG THERE OUT OF THERE. SO THE SOLUTION FOR THEM IS FOR BOOTING. WE ALSO SEE IT AS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR PLACES LIKE TO LOVES THE TRUCK STOPS THAT RENT OUT THOSE PARKING SPOTS. WE SEE IT ON HEAVY DUTY EQUIPMENT AS OPPOSED TO TOWING AN 18 WHEELER WITH THE TRAILER AND EVERYTHING ELSE THEY'LL BOOT TO GAIN COMPLIANCE ON THEIR PROPERTY AS WELL. SO AS FAR AS YOUR QUESTION IS ON ON TICKETS, THIS ORDINANCE ITSELF IS UNRELATED TO THE CITY ISSUANCE OF PARKING TICKETS AND COMPLETELY SEPARATE. ALL THAT'S UNDER CHAPTER 18 FOR THE CITY BOOTING. OKAY. REPRESENTATIVE. 
          REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR. THANK YOU. WAIT. ARE YOU. YOU KNOW, GO AHEAD, I MIGHT I NEED TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO FORM MY NEXT QUESTION. GO AHEAD. APPRECIATE IT. SURE. YEAH. THANK YOU GUYS. IN A PREVIOUS LIFE, I USED TO KNOW A LOT ABOUT TOWING TOW HEARINGS PARTICULARLY. AND NOTHING WILL FIRE UP A CITIZEN MORE THAN HAVING THEIR BUICK TOWED AWAY. BECAUSE THE FIRST THING THEY THINK IS THE FIRST THING THEY THINK IS THEIR CAR HAS BEEN STOLEN, AND THEY. AND THEY GO FROM 0 TO 60 INSTANTLY. SO HOW MANY TOW HOW MANY TOW COMPANIES ARE ON YOUR ROTATION? THERE ARE CURRENTLY EIGHT IN THE ROTATION. OKAY, I WOULD HAVE GUESSED MORE THAN THAT. THANK YOU. AND THE COST A NON CONSENT TOW VERSUS A POLICE INITIATED TOW. WHAT WHAT'S THE 72. 50. YES, SIR. OKAY. UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE OR UNDER THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE. OKAY. SOMETHING THAT'S ALWAYS INTRIGUED ME. MY SCENARIO IS THAT THAT A MOTORIST IS STOPPED FOR WHATEVER AN EXPIRED LICENSE PLATE. AND DURING THE INVESTIGATION, IT'S FOUND THAT THE MOTORIST DOES NOT HAVE INSURANCE. THE OFFICER MAKES THE CALL AT THE SCENE TO CITE BUT NOT TO BUT NOT TO TOW 100 YARDS DOWN THE ROAD. THIS MOTORIST IS INVOLVED IN AN AT FAULT ACCIDENT. THE POLICE OFFICER KNEW THIS GUY DIDN'T HAVE INSURANCE WHEN HE CUT HIM LOOSE. DOES THE CITY HAVE LIABILITY IN THAT SITUATION? YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING ON THIS? SO I THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR OUR LEGAL SCHOLARS IN THE HOUSE AS FAR AS BRANDON DIDN'T HAVE INSURANCE AND LET HIM LET HIM GO. AND HE CRACKED INTO MY CAR AND I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT THE CITY WOULD PROBABLY PREVAIL IN THOSE MATTERS, BUT IT WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE CHEAP TO PREVAIL IN THOSE MATTERS. IT'S PART PART OF THE DISCRETION. I DON'T DISAGREE BECAUSE I PUT MYSELF IN THE POSITION OF THE PERSON THAT THEY HIT 100 YARDS DOWN THE ROAD. 
          AFTER THE OFFICER RELEASED THEM, KNOWING THAT MY INSURANCE IS NOW GOING THROUGH THE ROOF BECAUSE 
          [00:25:04]
IT'S CLAIMED UNDER MY UN OR UNDERINSURED MOTORIST POLICY. THE PROBLEM AND YOU KNOW, WE USED TO DO THAT BEFORE THE CLARIFICATION CAME OUT FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT WE COULDN'T TOW. SO STATUTE SETS OUT FOR THE COURT TO ORDER THE SHERIFF TO TOW THE VEHICLE, BUT IT DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY AUTHORITY TO THE LOCAL TO THE MUNICIPALITY. PEACE OFFICERS TO TOW WITHOUT INSURANCE IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ORDINANCE. SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S INCLUDED IN THIS AS WELL, IS TO GIVE US THAT THAT AUTHORITY TO UNDER DISCRETION TOW FOR NO INSURANCE BECAUSE CURRENTLY WERE YOU GOING TO SAY SOMETHING? NO, NO, I. I THINK IT WAS A GOOD RESPONSE. I DON'T THINK THE CITY WOULD HAVE LIABILITY IN THAT SCENARIO. I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE TRUCK IN THE BARNACLE PHOTOGRAPH IS NOT A PETERBILT. I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. Y'ALL HAVE A SAFE IN DISTRICT TWO. IT'S A VOLVO. I DRIVE A VOLVO. THANK YOU. SO, TWO. TWO QUESTIONS. IT'S. I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY THAT EVERYONE HAS LEFT THE AREA IN TERMS OF LEGISLATION ON BOOTING. SO. AND THIS MIGHT BE A MACK QUESTION MORE THAN THE POLICE QUESTION. SO IF IT IS, PLEASE JUMP IN. BUT ARE WE AT RISK FOR NOT SETTING A STANDARD. SHOULD WE SET A STANDARD IF EVERYONE HAS LEFT THE AREA IN TERMS OF HAVING A BOOTING STANDARD, A GOOD QUESTION. MAYBE IS NOT A LEGAL WHAT'S THE IS IT A LEGAL QUESTION OF SHOULD WE OR NOT? I GUESS CAN WE IS REALLY WHAT I WOULD ANSWER. SHOULD WE IS SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL AND POLICE WOULD RATHER DIRECT. I GUESS IT'S MORE OF THE ARE WE EXPOSED TO RISK IF WE IF THERE'S NO LONGER ANY PRECEDENT STATE, COUNTY, IF WE'RE THE ONLY PRECEDENT SHOULD DOES THAT SORT OF NUDGE US IN THE DIRECTION OF SETTING A STANDARD? I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO DO THAT OR. OKAY, COUNSELOR, FOR CLARIFICATION, WE WOULDN'T BE THE ONLY ONES WAITING IN THAT. MANY, MANY MULTIPLE MUNICIPALITIES HAVE REGULATED IT BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF STATE REGULATION. SO THE STATES HAVE JUST RELEGATED THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO THE MUNICIPALITIES WITHOUT REGULATION, IT'S WIDE OPEN. A TOW COMPANY CAN COME OUT AND SA, WELL, I DIDN'T TELL THEM, I JUST BOOTED THEM. AND OUR BOOT FEE IS $500. AND LEGALLY WE DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO STAND. THAT BECOMES A CIVIL AND WE HAVE NO AVENUE TO ASSIST THE CITIZEN THERE. OKAY. I APPRECIATE BOTH THE INPUT AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION AND THE ONE THAT'S KIND OF FILTERED UP FROM, FROM SORT OF AN EDUCATION OUTREACH AND TRAINING FROM THE CITIZENRY TO ME AND I DON'T KNOW, THE ANSWER IS WHAT SORT OF REQUIREMENTS DO WE HAVE FOR NOTIFICATION? BECAUSE JUST AS COUNCILOR HOLLAND SAID, THE FIRST THING YOU DO WHEN YOU GET OUT THERE AND IT'S TOWED AND NOT IF IT'S BOOTED SO MUCH, BUT IF IT'S TOWED, YOU THINK IT'S STOLEN. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S YOUR NEXT STEP. AND THERE IS A CERTAIN DEGREE OF WHAT'S YOUR NEXT STEP. IF IT'S BOOTED, I ASSUME THERE'S INSTRUCTIONS ON THE BOOT DEVICE, BUT THEY'RE ACTUALLY REQUIRED AND IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE. THEY'RE REQUIRED TO POST A BILL, A STICKER TO THE WINDSHIELD OR THE DRIVER'S DOOR THAT OUTLINES ALL OF THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE BOOT. WITH CONTACT INFORMATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE. IT HAS TO BE AFFIXED. IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE THAT THE COMPANY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR, FOR NOT PLACING THAT STICKER. IT'S ALSO A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE FOR ANYBODY TO TAMPER WITH THAT STICKER. 
          BECAUSE THE VEHICLE IS STILL THERE. HOW ABOUT IN THE CASES OF TOWING? WHAT SORT OF NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITIZEN TO FIGURE OUT? OKAY, IF THERE'S A IF THERE'S A ROTATION OF TOWING AGENCIES, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW WHO HAS YOUR VEHICLE BOTH BY STATE LAW AND IT'S REITERATED IN THE ORDINANCE. THEY HAVE ONE HOUR. THE TOW COMPANY HAS ONE HOUR TO NOTIFY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN REMOVED WITH ALL THE PARTICULARS FOR THE VEHICLE. THAT WAY, IF THEY CALL US, WE KNOW WE CAN LOOK UP THE VEHICLE AND WE KNOW IT WAS TOWED. THIS IS THE TOW COMPANY THAT TOWED IT. IF WE DID NOT TAKE IN THE ORDINANCE AND GO BEYOND THE STATE REQUIREMENTS, WHAT WE DID WAS MAKE IT ENFORCEABLE FOR THE AVERAGE OFFICER ON THE STREET. ALL OF THESE REGULATIONS. AND YOU SEE, IT'S KIND OF A ROBUST ORDINANCE. 
          TOWING IS REGULATED BY THE OCCUPATIONS CODE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TDLR RULES 
          [00:30:06]
AND REGULATIONS, TRANSPORTATION CODE, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, IT AGENCIES THAT THAT CONTROL ALL THIS. RIGHT. SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE TOOK ALL OF THE KEY ELEMENTS TO THAT AND BROUGHT THAT INTO THE RTO ORDINANCE TO MAKE THE RTO ORDINANCE, ALTHOUGH ROBUST, CLEAR FOR THE CITIZENS TO UNDERSTAND AND CLEAR FOR THE OFFICERS TO UNDERSTAND. SO, BECAUSE IF THE OFFICERS DON'T UNDERSTAND IT OR HAVE TO GO TO ALL THESE DIFFERENT AREAS, IT MAKES IT HARD VERY CUMBERSOME TO ENFORCE AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE IT. AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WHEN WE MET WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS WAS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH YOU THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO TRY AND COME OUT WITH THE MOST MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL ORDINANCE AT THE TAIL END TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITIZENS ARE PROTECTED, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE STILL PROVIDE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THEY CAN RUN A PROFITABLE BUSINESS, NOT AN ABSURDLY PROFITABLE BUSINESS THAT SOME OF THEM MIGHT BE ENGAGED IN RIGHT NOW. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE ENFORCEMENT ELEMENTS HERE THAT ALLOW US TO ENFORCE THE ORDINANCE MORE EASILY AND MORE READILY TO GIVE EVERYBODY AN EVEN PLAYING I APPRECIATE THAT ACTUALLY ADDS A LOT OF CLARITY. AND FORGIVE ME. I'VE GOT, I'VE GOT I'VE GOT PAST A NOTE HERE ONE MORE TIME. 
          DO WE STILL HAVE TOE HEARINGS THAT ARE THAT ARE HEARD BY THE JP COURT. SO WE HAVE WE HAVE TOE HEARINGS THE FOR THE TOES THEMSELVES. THEY CAN FILE COMPLAINTS WITH TDLR AND THE JP HEARS THE TOE HEARING. THE JP ALSO HEARS BOOT HEARINGS. AS FAR AS THAT'S FOR VIOLATION OF THE TOE COMPANY ON ANYTHING WITH THE VEHICLE. FOR ANY ENFORCEMENT ANY HEARINGS ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THE CMO. ANYTHING RELATED TO THE PERMITS? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? REPRESENTATIVE? DISTRICT ONE. I'M STILL TRYING TO GET AROUND TO THIS ADMINISTRATIVE FEE FOR EVERY FOR EVERY TOW. AND THIS ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, IT HAS BEEN IT COULD BE ATTACHED TO THESE MY TOES ARE JUST CITY INITIATED TOES. ANY NONCONSENT TOE, WHICH WOULD BE PRIVATE PROPERTY OR INCIDENT MANAGEMENT FROM POLICE INITIATED. OKAY, AND THEN I HEARD YOU SAY SOMETHING IN REGARDS TO AN AND SOMETHING IN REGARDS TO HIRING SOMEONE TO DO SOMETHING. THE IDEA WAS A TOE ADMINISTRATOR IS JUST THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CALLING IT AT THE MOMENT. OKAY. THAT WOULD BE A CIVILIAN INSIDE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT RIGHT NOW. 
          THEORETICALLY WOULD HOUSE IT IN THE RECORDS DIVISION, AND THEY WOULD BE IN CHARGE OF PROCESSING ALL THE APPLICATIONS, PROCESSING ALL OF THE PAPERWORK FOR PEOPLE TO APPLY TO BE A WRECKER SERVICE DRIVER FOR THE COMPANIES. ESSENTIALLY, THEY WOULD DO ALL THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TOW PROGRAM INSIDE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE COST ASSOCIATED ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION FEES. AND I'M JUST GOING TO CONNECT THAT TO THE 13,000. SURE. THAT'S A FAIRLY SIZABLE AMOUNT OF HUNDRED AND 85,000. AND I'M I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT SOME OF THAT IS GOING TO GO TOWARDS THE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE TOLL PERSON'S SALARY AND BENEFITS. ABSOLUTELY. 
          AND WOULD WE SUSPECT THAT THIS WOULD BE A FULL TIME PERSON OR MAYBE A PART TIME? HAVE YOU ALL THOUGHT THAT FAR AHEAD AS WELL? YEAH, IT WOULD BE A FULL TIME, PROBABLY MORE SO PROBABLY MORE SO CURRENTLY HERE. GO OVER THERE TO THE BANK. SORRY. CURRENTLY IN OUR RECORDS DIVISION, THERE ARE FOUR FTES THAT SPLIT THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JUST THE BACKGROUND SIDE OF THINGS. 
          PULLING EVERYTHING TOGETHER WITH THE BACKGROUND CHECKS AND EVERYTHING FOR EACH OF THE DRIVERS, THE INSURANCE VERIFICATIONS AND EVERYTHING FOR THE COMPANIES. FOR EACH OF THE TRUCKS. EACH OF THE TRUCKS HAS INDIVIDUAL INSURANCE, AND ALL OF THOSE ARE LICENSED THROUGH THE STATE. SO MANAGING THAT IS A BIG DATA LOAD FOR THEM TO MANAGE AND TO PROCESS. SO IT'S FOUR RECORDS EMPLOYEES THAT ARE WORKING ON IT, ALONG WITH A RECORDS SUPERVISOR. AND THEN DEAL WITH RECORD COMPLAINTS, AND THAT'S USUALLY HOW I SPEND THE MORNING, IS DEALING WITH RECORD COMPLAINTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE WE'VE GOT NOW TO WHERE THERE'S SO MUCH ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT TO IT. IT HAS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRED OUR ABILITY TO DO ENFORCEMENT. THE 
          [00:35:07]
ORDINANCE ALLOWS US TO AUDIT THE TOW SERVICES. IT ALLOWS US TO AUDIT THE VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITIES. WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE TIME BECAUSE WE'RE TIGHT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE OF IT. 
          OKAY. YOU KNOW IT IS. ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE TO TRAIN OFFICERS. WE CURRENTLY HAVE TWO TRAINED COMMERCIAL VEHICLE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN DO THE INSPECTIONS ON THE TOW TRUCKS. AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 100 INSPECTIONS A YEAR. WOW. ON THOSE, ON THOSE TOW TRUCKS. SO THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN DO IT. WE'VE ONLY GOT TWO. IN ORDER TO GET SOMEBODY TRAINED UP TO THAT. IT'S THREE WEEKS OF HOTEL AND PER DIEM. AND EVERYTHING IN AUSTIN FOR EACH ONE OF THE OFFICERS. THEN WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM DUTY TIME TO DO 30 INSPECTIONS TO VERIFY THAT. SO THAT'S THERE'S GOING A FULL TIME RTO ADMINISTRATOR POSITION. THAT'S WHERE THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDING WOULD BE TARGETED WOULD BE TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY OF THE DEPARTMENT TO DO THE ENFORCEMENT. NOW, I HAVE MORE OF A STATEMENT THAN A QUESTION, BUT I THINK IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT STATEMENT. YOU KNOW, I'VE ALWAYS HAD A LITTLE BIT OF CONSTERNATION WITH THE TERM DISCRETION AND WE USED THAT TERM WHEN WE HAD OUR WHOLE BIG MARIJUANA THING GOING ON. THE DISCRETION OF THE OFFICER, THE DISCRETION OF THE OFFICER. AND, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT BEING SAID, WITH CERTAIN PEOPLE COMING UNDER PRESSURES, YOU KNOW, FROM THEIR EVERYDAY LIFE, AND THEN YOU HAVE OTHER CERTAIN PEOPLE THAT COME UNDER THOSE SAME KINDS OF PRESSURE. I WOULD CERTAINLY WOULD ASK THAT YOU ALL PLEASE BE MINDFUL WITH YOUR OFFICERS AS TO HOW THEY'RE TREATING PEOPLE OUT THERE. WE DON'T WANT TO COME BACK AND PULL SOME DATA AND LOOK THAT LOOK TO SEE THAT OUR OFFICERS ARE MISUSING THEIR POINT AND JUST, YOU KNOW, KIND OF DO MY THING. SO BE MINDFUL OF THAT, PLEASE. BUT. SO THE, THE DISCRETION THAT THE OFFICERS HAVE, IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS GIVING RIGHT NOW. IT DOESN'T SEEM IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S GIVING THEM A HIGH AMOUNT OF DISCRETION. SO WILL THERE BE SOME THINGS IN THERE THAT'S GOING TO RIGHT NOW? IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT TO ME, BUT WILL THERE BE SOME THINGS IN THERE THAT'S GOING TO SAY THAT. 
          ABSOLUTELY. THIS ABSOLUTELY THIS ABSOLUTELY THIS, THIS AMOUNT OF DISCRETION ARE RIGHT NOW, ARE WE JUST, YOU KNOW, WIDE OPEN WITH THIS WHOLE DISCRETION. IF YOU HAVE A GOOD RESPONSE. SURE, SUR. 
          IN THE IN ARTICLE FIVE OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, WHICH COVERS THE NODAL AND THE FAILED TO MAINTAIN FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, WE WERE VERY DELIBERATE IN HOW THAT WAS CRAFTED. AND I THINK IF YOU IF YOU READ THROUGH THAT IN DETAIL, IT OUTLINES A LOT IN THERE OF THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE OFFICERS REASONABLY, AND THE REALITY IS, EVERY DAY WE PUT OUR OFFICERS OUT ON THE STREET WITH A DISCRETION THAT HOPEFULLY THEY'LL NEVER BE IN A POSITION TO HAVE TO USE, BUT REGRETTABLY, SOMETIMES DO. SO YOU KNOW, THE MOST GUIDANCE THAT WE CAN GIVE THEM, THE BETTER. AND I THINK WE'VE DONE THAT IN THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE, AND IT DEFINITELY LAYS THE FOUNDATION FOR ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT WHERE IF THE OFFICERS AREN'T FOLLOWING THAT, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THAT CHIEF WILL GIVE US FULL DISCRETION IN OUR POSITIONS TO HOLD THOSE OFFICERS ACCOUNTABLE, NOT JUST IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT IT'S UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE AND UNBECOMING CONDUCT ON TOP OF THAT. THANK YOU. AND I THINK IF YOU LOOK IN DETAIL AT THAT UNDER THE PROCEDURALLY UNDER ARTICLE FIVE OF THE PROPOSED, I THINK THAT MIGHT ALLEVIATE SOME CONCERNS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          WE'RE TEN MINUTES OVER JUST AND WE'RE FIVE QUESTIONS IN. SO ARE FIVE PEOPLE IN SO I'LL JUST IF WE CAN GET SHORTER ANSWERS, MORE SUCCINCT QUESTIONS. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT THREE. YES, MAYOR. AND I APPRECIATE THE REMINDER. THREE. THEN WE'LL COME BACK. I APOLOGIZE, THANK YOU. I MAKE THAT MISTAKE ALL THE TIME. I APPRECIATE THE INITIATIVE AND YOUR EFFORT TO KIND OF FILL THE SPACE. I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT IT FROM ALL SIDES JUST TO FEEL MY WAY AROUND IT. DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON WHY THE STATE PULLED BACK FROM REGULATING THIS? WHAT THE OBJECTIVE WAS? AND RELATEDL, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON WHY, WITH EIGHT COMPETITORS AND 
          [00:40:07]
SOCIAL MEDIA BEING WHAT IT IS, THAT COMPETITION WOULDN'T TAKE CARE OF BAD ACTORS, YOU KNOW, OR OUTLIER ACTORS? LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY. AT THE MAYOR'S REQUEST, I'LL TRY AND KEEP IT SIMPLE. COMPETITION. WHEN IT'S FAIR, TAKES CARE OF THE POOR PERFORMERS PLAYING FIELD FAIR. PEOPLE CAN PUT THEM IN POSITION, IN POSITION TO GAIN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE AND DESPITE BEING A SUBPAR PLAYER, CAN THRIVE PERSONALLY AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING WITH SOME OF THE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES ISSUES HERE. AS FAR AS THE BOOTING AND THE STATE GETTING OUT OF IT, THE STATE GOT OUT OF IT BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T CONTROL IT. THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE STAFFING TO ENFORCE ANYTHING THAT WAS IN PLACE ANYWAY. SO THE EASIEST THING FOR THEM TO DO IS TO PASS THE BUCK AND PASS IT DOWN TO YOU GUYS FOR THE REGULATION AND FOR THEM TO COMPLETELY STEP OUT OF IT. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET ANY LOVE FOR BOOTING AND BARNEY AND BARNACLES, BUT IT IS DEFINITELY BETTER THAN NOT KNOWING WHAT THAT IS. HONESTLY, WE EXPECT MINIMAL PARTICIPATION IN BOOTING BEYOND BEYOND THE PARKING GARAGES AND STUFF BECAUSE IT'S HONESTLY FOR THE VENDOR, IT'S NOT AS PROFITABLE. 
          AND FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S ASKING FOR THE TOW, IT DOESN'T SOLVE THEIR PROBLEM BECAUSE THE CAR IS STILL THERE. AND ONCE YOU BOOT IT, YOU CAN'T TOUCH IT FOR 24 HOURS. SO IT DOESN'T SOLVE THEIR PROBLEM. WE EIGHT. REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT SIX. THANK YOU. MAYOR. THE YOU DISCUSSED EARLIER THE $272.50 NEW LIMIT. DOES THAT INCLUDE THE STORAGE FEES? OUR STORAGE FEES INCLUDED IN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THESE NUMBERS. OR IS THAT A SEPARATE ADDITIONAL. AND DO WE HAVE ANY PURVIEW ON THAT. IS THAT ROLLED UP INTO WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING THAT IS SEPARATE AND ADDITIONAL THAT'S SET BY THE STATE? THE 22, THE 2285 MAXIMUM FOR THAT YOU GET INTO SOME HAIRY LEGAL GROUND WHEN YOU START WITH THE REGULATION OF VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITIES. WE'RE VERY LIMITED IN WHAT WE CAN DO WITH THE TWO 7250 DOES IS REMOVES ALL THE RANDOM STUFF. THE ROAD HAZARD FEE, THE BROOM FEE. WE HAVE COMPANIES THAT ONLY HAVE FLATBED TRUCKS, BUT THEY'LL CHARGE YOU A $40 FLATBED FEE. RIGHT. BECAUSE THERE IS NO REGULATION ON THOSE FEES. SO WHAT THIS DOES IS AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THEY'RE GOING TO BE TOWS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE MONEY ON AT TWO 7250. THEY'RE GOING TO BE TOWS THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. SO JUST ONE FOR ME. AND IT'S. DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO REGULATE THEM STAGING CARS. BECAUSE THEY'LL JUST GRAB THEM AND STAGE THEM AROUND THE CORNER AND THEN GO GRAB MORE, STAGE THEM AND THEN RUN THEM BACK. SO DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY, IF YOU PICK UP A CAR, YOU GOT TO TAKE IT BACK TO THE YARD. THAT IS THAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE. IT IS ENFORCEABLE AND IT IS ALSO GROUNDS FOR PERMIT SUSPENSION, NOT JUST OF INCIDENT MANAGEMENT TOWS, BUT PRIVATE PROPERTY TOWS. SO WE HAVE VERY LARGE TEETH IN BEING ABLE TO ENFORCE THAT. OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S A CRITICAL PART. SO IF I SEE SOMEONE STAGING A CAR DOWNTOWN JUST TAKE A PICTURE, SUBMIT IT. 
          WHAT DO WE DO THERE? EMAIL ME OKAY I'LL GET IT FIRST THING IN THE MORNING. AND THEY'LL BE SUSPENDED BY LUNCH. YEAH. SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT FROM A FROM JUST FROM EDUCATION COMPONENT WOULD BE WILL BE REALLY BIG TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE KNOW THEIR RIGHTS AND, YOU KNOW, BE OUR EYES AND EARS. IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, WE CAN'T SUSPEND ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY PERMITS, AND REGARDLESS OF WHAT A DRIVER DOES REPEATEDLY, WE CAN'T HOLD THE COMPANY ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT. IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, WE CAN HOLD THE COMPANY ACCOUNTABLE NOT JUST BY THEIR PERMIT, BUT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF EMPLOYEES CONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS BY THE COMPANY AND THE OWNERS THEMSELVES. SO IT PUTS AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM UP THE CHAIN FOR US AS WELL. GOOD. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GREAT PRESENTATION. AND IF ONE FOLLOW UP, IF YOU CAN EMAIL ME, THOSE GARAGES THAT CAN'T TOW, JUST SEND ME A LIST. NO JUST KIDDING. I CAN HAVE IT NOW. YEAH YEAH, YEAH. THANKS FOR THAT LIST. NO, NO, THE PARK ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TAKES US TO ITEM B. YES. ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GIVE DIRECTION ON THAT I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY DIRECTION, BUT AM I WRONG DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD? YEAH I THINK YEAH. THEY GOT DIRECTION TO MOVE THEY FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT. BUT 
          [B. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding amendments to the Denton Development Code related to Short-Term Rentals. 
    [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 45 minutes]]
          [00:45:06]
FEEL FREE TO FOLLOW UP IF YOU HAVE OTHER STUFF WITH THEM. TEXT ITEM B ID 241920. RECEIVE REPORT WHOLE DISCUSSION. GIVE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATED TO SHORT TERM RENTALS. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL ANGIE MANGLARES, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MANAGER. THERE ARE FEW THINGS SCARIER THAN THE CITY OF DENTON IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER. THEN THE CITY AND THE 31 DAYS OF HALLOWEEN. BUT SHORT TERM RENTALS DOES GIVE IT A RUN FOR ITS MONEY. BUT WE'RE GOING TO NAVIGATE THESE REGULATIONS TOGETHER. SO WITH THAT, THE PURPOSE OF THIS ITEM, IT'S BEEN SOME TIME SINCE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE SHORT TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS AND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AT HAND. THIS ITEM ACTUALLY STARTED BACK IN JANUARY OF 2023 TO ADDRESS RULINGS OUT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT THAT STATED THAT IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO REQUIRE THAT THE OWNER OF A IN LOOKING AT THIS REQUIREMENT, ALONG WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE, STAFF FOUND SEVERAL AREAS OF OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS THAT COULD STAND TO BE CLEANED UP FOR CLARITY AND CONSOLIDATION, AND MAKING THE ENFORCEMENT THE REGULATIONS MORE ENFORCEABLE. DURING THAT SAME TIME PERIOD, A PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED RELATING TO SHORT TERM RENTALS. APPROXIMATELY 224 INDIVIDUALS RESPONDED TO THAT SURVEY, AND THE RESULTS WERE VARIED AND REALLY DEMONSTRATED THAT SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE A POLARIZING TOPIC BETWEEN THOSE WHO WOULD PREFER TO SEE NONE ANYWHERE IN THE CITY AND THOSE WHO THINK THEY'RE GREAT. AND THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED EVERYWHERE IN THE CITY. SO THE TASK AT HAND IS TO REVIEW THE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE DDC AS IT RELATES TO SHORT TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS AND THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO THEM. THE PURPOSE OF THESE AMENDMENTS ARE TO BALANCE THE RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SURVEY THAT SHOWED THERE ARE CONCERNS RELATED TO THE IMPACT OF SHORT TERM RENTALS AS THEY RELATE TO THE ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY. THE AMENDMENTS ARE ALSO INTENDED TO CLARIFY AND CONSOLIDATE OUR EXISTING REGULATIONS TO ENHANCE THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE THOSE REGULATIONS. THE AMENDMENTS ARE ALSO DESIGNED TO OUR ENFORCEMENT OF OUR REGULATIONS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH HOT TAX COLLECTION. FINALLY, THE AMENDMENTS ARE DESIGNED TO PURSUE THE DCS GOAL OF IMPROVING AND ENHANCING THE HEALTH, LIFE AND SAFETY OF THE CITY OF DENTON AND ITS INHABITANTS. HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT, LET'S DIVE IN. CURRENT STATE OF SHORT TERM RENTALS. SO SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN ALL OF OUR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. THAT'S OUR R THROUGH R SEVEN AND THE NW ZONING DISTRICT. SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE CURRENTLY DEFINED AS THE RENTAL OF AN ENTIRE DWELLING UNIT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME LESS THAN 30 CONSECUTIVE DAYS. REGISTRATION IS CURRENTLY REQUIRED. WE'RE SITTING AT APPROXIMATELY 37 REGISTERED SHORT TERM RENTALS IN THE CITY. LOCAL EMERGENCY CONTACT IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED BY SHORT TERM RENTAL OPERATORS. THERE IS NO REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE CAP TODAY AND HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX IS REQUIRED. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. FIRST, THESE AMENDMENTS SEEK TO EXPAND THE DISTRICTS IN WHICH SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE ALLOWED IN. THAT WOULD EXPAND IT TO MD, MR. CHC AND GEO. THESE ARE ALL OF OUR ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USES, EITHER BY RIGHT OR WITHIN CIVIC STANDARDS RELATING TO MAXIMUM PERSONS OCCUPYING A DWELLING UNIT HAS BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT THAT THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO SHORT TERM RENTALS, WHICH IS COMPLIANT WITH RECENTLY ESTABLISHED LEGAL PRECEDENT SURROUNDING THE MATTER. SUBSECTION ONE OF THE SHORT TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS HAS BEEN AMENDED TO CLARIFY THAT A SHORT TERM RENTAL MAY TAKE PLACE IN AN ENTIRE DWELLING UNIT OR IN A BEDROOM. IN ADDITION, THE AMENDMENTS TO THIS SECTION ARE DESIGNED TO CLARIFY WHAT LOCAL EMERGENCY CONTACT IS AND SPECIFY THAT ITS DEFINITION, AS WELL AS WHEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE PROVIDE. SECTION TWO REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES IS A NEW PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE SHORT TERM RENTAL USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS. 
          IT'S DIVIDED INTO TWO CATEGORIES. THE FIRST CATEGORY IS RESIDENTIAL REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. SO THIS IS OUR RR THROUGH R7 ZONING DISTRICTS. 
          THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES INSTITUTING A THOUSAND UNIT SHORT TERM RENTAL REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE CAP IN ALL OF OUR REGISTERED. I'M SORRY. RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. IT WOULD PARCEL WITH 100 FOOT DISTANCE SEPARATION BETWEEN EXISTING SHORT TERM RENTALS MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE THAT IS READ. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ONLY. NON RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS SO ARE THROUGH GEO DISTRICTS. THE 1000 UNIT REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS SHORT TERM RENTALS IN THOSE AREAS. IN ADDITION, THESE SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE ALSO NOT SUBJECT TO THE 100 FOOT SEPARATION REQUIREMENT FOR ANY MULTIFAMILY 
          [00:50:05]
DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS FIVE OR MORE UNITS ON A SINGLE PARCEL. THOSE ARE LIMITED AT NO MORE THAN 10% OF THOSE UNITS IN THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT TO BE ALLOWED TO BE LISTED AS SHORT TERM RENTALS. SECTION FOUR WAS CLARIFIED. THE WRITTEN BRIEFING AND SAFETY FEATURES IS TO JUST SPECIFY WHAT INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED TO GUESTS IN WRITING. UPON REGISTERING TO UTILIZE A SHORT TERM RENTAL AND SECTION FIVE WAS MODIFIED TO CLARIFY WHEN NOTIFICATION OF AN APPROVED SHORT TERM RENTAL SHALL OCCUR AND WHAT INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED WITH THAT NOTIFICATION. SECTION SIX HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO IF I HAD TO CLARIFY THE TERMS UNDER WHICH AN INSPECTION OF A SHORT TERM RENTAL MAY OCCUR. MINIMUM. OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. THE PROPOSAL FOR THESE AMENDMENTS IS TO SPECIFY THAT THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF VEHICLES ALLOWED ON SHORT TERM RENTALS SHALL BE LIMITED TO WHAT'S AVAILABLE ON SITE. 
          MEANING, IF A SHORT TERM RENTAL HAS A TWO CAR GARAGE THAT COULD FIT TWO CARS AS WELL AS A TWO CAR DRIVEWAY, THEY CAN FIT FOUR SPACES ON SITE. FOR ADVERTISING THAT SHORT TERM RENTAL, THEY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO LIST HAVING ANY MORE PARKING ON SITE THAN THE FOUR SPACES THAT ARE THAT ARE AVAILABLE. SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS RELATING TO SHORT TERM RENTALS WERE ALSO PROPOSING MODIFICATIONS TO THIS LANGUAGE. THE DEFINITION OF SHORT TERM RENTAL ITSELF CLARIFYING THAT A BEDROOM AS WELL AS AN ENTIRE UNIT MAY BE UTILIZED AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL, AND THAT THE STAY SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 24 HOURS NOR GREATER THAN 29 CONSECUTIVE DAYS. FINALLY, A LOCAL EMERGENCY CONTACT. THIS DEFINITION PROPOSED TO AMEND TO JUST CLARIFY AND CONSOLIDATE THOSE REQUIREMENTS REGULATIONS. THE EXISTING AND THE PROPOSED. THERE ARE MANY CATEGORIES THAT ARE COVERED IN BOTH THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN THESE CATEGORIES IN THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS ARE DESIGNED TO CLARIFY, CONSOLIDATE AND ENHANCE THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE OUR SHORT TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS. THERE ARE ALSO SEVERAL PROPOSED ADDITIONS AS PART OF THE PROPOSED SHORT TERM RENTAL CODE AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD EXPAND THE AREAS IN WHICH SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE ALLOWED IN. THAT INCLUDES SPECIFYING THAT A SHORT TERM RENTAL COULD BE ALLOWED IN A BEDROOM, AS WELL AS EXPANDING THE ZONING DISTRICTS IN WHICH A SHORT TERM RENTAL MAY OCCUR IN THE THREE THAT YOU SEE AT THE BOTTOM, THE THOUSAND UNIT CAP, THE 100 FOOT SEPARATION REQUIREMENT, AND THE 10% LIMITATION ON MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS. OUR PROPOSED REGULATIONS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO NAVIGATE THE SOMEWHAT POLARIZING RESULTS WE SAW IN OUR SHORT TERM RENTAL SURVEY. THESE AMENDMENTS ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, WHILE ALSO ALLOWING FOR GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN SOME OF OUR COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. HAVING SAID THAT, THE PURPOSE OF THIS ITEM IS TO DISCUSS THE SHORT TERM RENTAL AT PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT SIX. THANK YOU. HI, COUNCILPERSON JESTER, I JUST WANT TO SAY HOW BRAVE YOU ARE. HOW BRAVE TO BE IN HALLOWEEN, TEXAS DISCUSSING SHORT TERM RENTALS DURING THIS TIME. I MEAN, I'M SCARED AND I'VE GOT A DESK BETWEEN US. NO, BUT I ALSO WANT TO SAY HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO BALANCE THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THOSE THAT OWN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THOSE THAT OWN PROPERTY AROUND IT. AND THAT IS, IT'S A IT'S A GRAY AREA. I WANTED TO DISCUSS A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST, I WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WERE OTHER OPTIONS THAT WERE CONSIDERED OR KNOWN ABOUT. ANOTHER WAY TO MITIGATE REGULATING THE AMOUNT WITHIN A CERTAIN AREA, AND I'M SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE 100FT REQUIREMENT. DID COMING UP WITH THIS AND IN FORMING WHAT WAS PROPOSED, ANY OTHER MECHANISMS BESIDES THAT ONE TO ADDRESS THIS TOPIC? AND I'VE GOT, I'VE GOT MORE AFTER THIS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SURE. IN EXPLORING TRYING TO TACKLE SORT OF THE DENSITY QUESTION AND SEPARATION IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, THERE WERE SEVERAL DIFFERENT METHODS OF LOOKING AT DENSITY THAT THAT WE EXPLORED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE, INCLUDING LIMITING THE NUMBER OF UNITS PER BLOCK OR BLOCK FACE BY A PERCENTAGE, AS WELL AS EXPLORING ADDITIONAL OVERLAY DISTRICTS THAT MIGHT ALLOW FOR SOME MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR AREAS AROUND THE DOWNTOWN OR THE UNIVERSITIES WHERE WE MIGHT EXPECT TO SEE A SLIGHTLY HIGHER AMOUNT OF SHORT TERM RENTALS. IN TRYING TO NAVIGATE THE DENSITY AND WHAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT, AND ALSO HOW TO ENFORCE THAT WHEN WE CRAFT ORDINANCE REGULATIONS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ARE TOP OF MIND 
          [00:55:06]
IS WHAT IS GOING TO BE ENFORCEABLE AND EASILY UNDERSTOOD, AND TRYING TO AGE WAS FOUND TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CUMBERSOME THAN MAYBE WE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO ADDRESS SORT OF THAT TRYING TO MITIGATE THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT TO SHORT TERM RENTALS. AND SO ULTIMATELY, IN EXPLORING THE DENSITY QUESTION WITH THE DKC STAFF AND THE COMMITTEE KIND OF CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE 100 FOOT SEPARATION REQUIREMENT WAS A WAY TO STILL ADDRESS PROVIDING SOME PROTECTIONS IN THERE WHILE HAVING A REGULATIONS THAT WERE GOING TO BE EASILY ENFORCEABLE AND UNDERSTOOD BY EVERYONE INVOLVED. SO IS THE THOUGHT THAT THERE WOULD NEED TO BE AN ADDITIONAL STAFF PERSON HIRED BECAUSE OF THE TIME NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE PERCENTAGE AND CERTAIN AREAS, OR WHERE IS THE CUMBERSOME PART COMING IN. THANK YOU. SURE. YEAH. I DON'T HAVE A GOOD DIAGRAM IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I COULD HAVE ONE NEXT WEEK FOR TO TALK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DEPTH, BUT IT'S MAKING SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE OF WHAT WHAT MAKES A BLOCK VERSUS A BLOCK FACE. SO THE FULL THE FULL BLOCK. AND JUST COMING TO A CONSENSUS ON THAT AND HAVING SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ONLY UNDERSTOOD BY STAFF, BUT ALSO IF YOU LIMITED THE BLOCK PERCENTAGE TO 8%, THOSE COULD ALL BE IN ONE AREA AND THE REST REMAIN UNCHANGED AND SO I DON'T KNOW THAT NECESSARILY. ANOTHER STAFF PERSON WOULD BE NEEDED, BUT IT WOULD BE IT WOULD BECOME CHALLENGING TO DIVIDE UP ALL OF THE CITY INTO THESE BLOCKS AND BLOCK FACES AND THEN DETERMINE HOW THOSE PERCENTAGES MIGHT APPLY TO THAT, THAT BLOCK AS KIND OF THE THOUGHT PROCESS THERE. AND THE THOUGHT WAS THAT IT NEEDED TO GO THAT DEEP IN VERSUS JUST SAYING, THIS DISTRICT CAN HAVE THIS MANY OR, YOU KNOW, DIVIDING IT UP THAT WAY, GOING BLOCK BY BLOCK. YES. 
          JUST HOW HOW KIND OF CITIES ARE LAID OUT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, RR COULD ONLY HAVE I DON'T KNOW, 10%. BUT THEN R7, I DON'T KNOW 20. I ASSUME THAT WHAT WE MEANT BY DISTRICT THE ZONING DISTRICTS. BECAUSE WHEN YOU RUN INTO TO A NEIGHBORHOOD, WHAT THEY'RE DEALING WITH IS THOSE THOSE BLOCKS THAT ARE ALREADY DIVIDED UP, NOT NECESSARILY THE DISTRICTS AT HAND. AND I GUESS I WAS REFERENCING AS OPPOSED TO THE ZONING IS NOT SO BLACK AND WHITE AS IN I HAVE ONE, SO YOU CAN'T HAVE ONE. NEXT DOOR OR ACROSS THE STREET. AND TRYING TO MAKE IT AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE. SO JUST TO LET YOU KNOW KIND OF WHERE I'M COMING FROM AND WHERE MY THOUGHT PROCESS IS, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO PLAY WITH, TO TRY TO FIND SOMETHING THAT WOULD ALLOW A BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY AND RECEIVE SOME INPUT. THAT ALSO SUGGESTED A WAY TO TRY TO LIMIT WHAT THEY CALLED A MONOPOLY BY CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD BE TO SAY THAT THE PRIORITY GIVEN TO A SHORT TERM RENTAL COULD ONLY BE SUSTAINED IF IT'S THE SAME APPLICANT, SO IT CAN'T OVEN SOMEONE ELSE APPLYING. THEY HAVE TO KIND OF GET IN BACK OF LINE WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT, CONSIDERED TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE. SURE. I THINK, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, BUT IF NOT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. YES. THANK YOU. WHO WOULD COUNT TOWARDS THE 1000 UNIT CAP. SO THOSE REGISTRATIONS ARE ON CALENDAR YEAR. SO JANUARY TO DECEMBER. THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY REGISTERED WOULD GET A FIRST PRIORITY TO RENEW STARTING IN NOVEMBER, WITH PEOPLE WHO AREN'T CURRENTLY REGISTERED. WOULD THEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN IN JANUARY SO THAT IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING SHORT TERM RENTAL, COME THE FIRST OF THE YEAR, YOU WOULDN'T LOSE IT. IF SOMEBODY ELSE IN THE AREA WAS ALSO WANTING IT, YOU KIND OF GET TO MAINTAIN THAT STATUS IN THE EVENT OF A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP. THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS THAT DOES REQUIRE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL RENEW AND UPDATE THAT INFORMATION WITH THE CORRECT OWNERSHIP INFORMATION, AS REQUIRED FOR THE LOCAL EMERGENCY CONTACT AND EVERYTHING TO MAINTAIN THAT VALID SHORT TERM RENTAL CERTIFICATE TO KIND OF CAPTURE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THERE IS A TURNOVER IN THAT CASE? OKAY. AND I'M NOT I'M NOT JUST THINKING OF THE 1000 CAP. I'M ALSO THINKING OF THE 100 FOOT IF SOMEONE'S ALREADY KIND OF. YES, YES, YES. THE FLAG THERE. CAN YOU JUST FOR US AND FOR THE AUDIENCE ALSO JUST DESCRIBE YES. THANK YOU. A PARCEL IS YOUR TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL LOT. SO YOU'VE GOT YOUR FOUR THAT MAKE UP. WE'LL JUST SAY IT'S A RECTANGLE. THE REASON FOR THE TWO MAXIMUM PER PARCEL IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IS SOME 
          [01:00:01]
INDIVIDUALS MAY HAVE AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. SO A SECONDARY INCIDENTAL HOME ON THEIR PROPERTY THAT THEY MAY LIKE TO LIST OUT, AS WELL AS POSSIBLY A BEDROOM IN THE MAIN STRUCTURE. SO IT WOULD ALLOW INDIVIDUALS TO UTILIZE THEIR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IF THEY HAPPEN TO HAVE ONE. AND THEN THE PARCEL IS YOUR PROPERTY LINE. AND SO THAT WOULD ALSO APPLY TO A DUPLEX. AND IS THERE AN INSTANCE WHERE I'M TRYING TO THINK OF WHY THAT EXISTS? WHY ARE WE PUTTING THE TWO LIMIT THERE IF WE'RE NOT REALLY ANTICIPATING ANYTHING MORE THAN A HOUSE AND AN ACCESSORY ACCESSORY UNIT OTHER THAN MULTIFAMILY? I'M JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND IT. WE IN SOME OF OUR NOT ALL OF OUR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, BUT SOME OF OUR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS DO ALLOW THINGS LIKE DUPLEXES AND TRIPLEXES BY RIGHT. THEY'RE NOT JUST ALLOWED IN THE M AND UP ZONING DISTRICTS. THERE'S SOME OVERLAP BETWEEN THE TWO. OKAY. 
          OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE RECEIVED VERY DETAILED COMPLAINTS REGARDING MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION. WE'RE NOT JUST TALKING PICKUP TRUCK, WE'RE TALKING CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES THAT ARE LINING NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS. YOU KNOW, IN VIOLATION OF OUR CITY RULES, BUT ALSO ARE A PART OF A OF A SHORT TERM RENTAL. SOME OF THE SUGGESTIONS WERE INCLUDING IN ANY ADS AND ANY MEMOS AND ANY LETTERS TO ANYONE THAT WOULD BE INTERESTED IN RENTING THE RESTRICTION REGARDING, YOU KNOW, EVEN WHAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS. AS FAR AS LIMITING WHAT YOU CAN PARK ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS. IS THAT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT MAYBE WAS CONSIDERED OR THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED? DO YOU THINK, TO TRY TO DISCOURAGE THAT? YEAH, WE TALKED ABOUT PARKING QUITE A BIT. IT'S ALWAYS A HOT TOPIC NO MATTER WHAT LAND USE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES DOES DICTATE WHAT IS, IS AND IS TRACTOR TRAILERS AND LARGE SCALE TRUCKS TO BE PARKED AS FAR AS WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR THE SHORT TERM RENTAL ADVERTISEMENTS. WE DID SPECIFY THAT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO LIST MORE SPACES THAN YOU CAN ACCOMMODATE ON SITE. 
          KNOWING THAT ANY ENCROACHMENT INTO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, SUCH AS HANGING OVER YOUR DRIVEWAY, ONTO A SIDEWALK, OR BLOCKING A FIRE HYDRANT OR IMPEDING SOMEONE'S DRIVEWAY ARE ALL THINGS THAT ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. LIKE ANY OTHER PROPERTY, MAINTENANCE VIOLATION AND COULD BE REPORTED IN THAT INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE WARNED AND CITED AS THAT PROCESS GOES. BUT GOING INTO THE DETAIL OF EVERY SINGLE PARKING VIOLATION WAS NOT NECESSARILY CONTEMPLATED AND INCLUDED IN THAT WRITTEN BRIEFING. APART FROM JUST SPECIFYING CLEARLY IDENTIFYING WHAT CAN BE ACCOMMODATED ON SITE TO HOPEFULLY DISCOURAGE SOME OF THE EXCESS VEHICLES THAT MIGHT BE BROUGHT. WELL, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR TIME, FOR ALL OF THE INFORMATION. IT'S BEEN VERY, VERY HELPFUL AND IT'S VERY APPRECIATED. I WOULD SAY FOR MYSELF, MY DIRECTION WOULD BE HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO REVISIT IN ANOTHER WORK SESSION. I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT ONE WHAT ALTERNATE MEANS? MAYBE OTHER CITIES UTILIZE TO LIMIT THE DENSITY BESIDES THE 100 FOOT REQUIREMENT AND WHAT THAT WOULD ENTAIL, AND WHETHER THAT'S WORTH CONSIDERING. AND SECOND, I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER WAYS THAT WE CAN, WHETHER IT BE IN THE POSTED MEMOS TO THOSE THAT ARE USING THE SHORT TERM RENTALS THAT WE DO LOOK AT WHAT CAN BE UTILIZED TO DISCOURAGE AND ENFORCE OUR CURRENT LAWS, BECAUSE, AS I'VE SAID, I HAVE HEARD FROM MULTIPLE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE ABUSE IN THIS WAY AND THE PROBLEMS WITH SO MANY PEOPLE IN ONE HOUSE AND ALL OF THEM WITH THEM, INCLUDING ALL OF THEIR CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES BLOCKING DRIVEWAYS, OVERFLOWING TRASH AND BINS AND ALL OF THAT WOULD BE MY DIRECTION. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          ANYONE ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR. THANK YOU. TO FOLLOW UP ON COUNCIL MEMBER JESTER'S CONCERN. AND I'M SURE MY COLLEAGUES GOT THE INQUIRY FROM A CITIZEN THAT HAD HAD PHOTOGRAPHS OF NOT TRACTOR TRAILERS BUT BUT BUT PLENTY BIG EQUIPMENT PARKED. PARDON ME. ON TOP OF A TRAILER THAT WAS PARKED IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. WHERE THE WHERE THE SHORT TERM RENTAL WAS BEING USED. AND I'M JUST WONDERING IS THERE IS THERE NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE TO. 
          [01:05:07]
TO DELINEATE BETWEEN BETWEEN A FAMILY VEHICLE, A PICKUP TRUCK, AN SUV, A SEDAN AND AN OBVIOUS WORK VEHICLE THAT COULD BE THAT COULD BE PARKED OFF SITE SOMEPLACE. AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE, BUT, YOU KNOW, BE SUCH A SUCH A, SUCH A BIG PIECE OF EQUIPMENT OR MULTI PIECES OF EQUIPMENT ON, ON THE PROPERTY. SURE. I DO KNOW THAT CHAPTER 18 OF OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES DOES COVER PARKING AND PARKING NUISANCES, AND THAT INCLUDES A LIST OF VEHICLES THAT THAT CAN'T BE ALLOWED TO BE PARKED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THAT DOES INCLUDE TRUCKS AND TRAILERS. AS FAR AS WHERE THAT THAT LINE IS, I DON'T I'M NOT SURE. OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, WHAT DELINEATES A SUV TRUCK FROM THE CONSTRUCTION TRAILER TRUCK? I DO KNOW THAT LEAVING A TRAILER ON A STREET NOT ATTACHED TO A TRUCK WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE, AND IS AN OFFENSE, BUT I CAN DEFINITELY LOOK MORE INTO WHERE THAT THAT LINE IS AS FAR AS IT COMES TO ENFORCING PARKING ON THE RIGHT OF WAY AND HAVE THAT PREPARED. THANK YOU. I'D APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND ALSO, IS THERE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TERM ON ON PAGE ALLOW FOR A BEDROOM TO BE A SHORT TERM RENTAL. ON PAGE NINE AND THE TERM AN ENTIRE DWELLING UNIT FOUND ON PAGE THREE IS THAT THAT SOUNDS LIKE A CONFLICT TO ME. IT'S INTENDED TO BE PERMISSIVE OF BOTH. SO A BEDROOM OR AN ENTIRE DWELLING UNIT. SO IF YOU IF SOMEBODY WERE WANTING TO LIST JUST A SPECIFIC BEDROOM IN A HOME THAT THEY OCCUPY AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED, WE DO REQUIRE THAT THE ENTIRE DWELLING UNIT BE BE LISTED, NOT JUST INDIVIDUAL BEDROOMS DEFINED AS RENTAL OF AN ENTIRE DWELLING UNIT. THAT IS HOW IT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED OR HOW IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN AS PART OF THE AMENDMENTS, THE DEFINITION IS PROPOSED TO BE UPDATED TO SPECIFY THAT IT MAY BE A BEDROOM AS ONLY DWELLING UNITS ARE PERMISSIBLE. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. MAYOR. REPRESENTATIVE. FROM DISTRICT TWO. THANK YOU. YEAH, I THINK WE WOULD DO WELL. I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONFUSION IN THE STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS ABOUT ON SITE PARKING VERSUS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PARKING. I'VE MENTIONED THAT TO YOU IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT MEETING CONTEXTS. SO I THINK WE WOULD DO WELL TO HIGHLIGHT IN OUR RENTAL REQUIREMENTS AND OUR, OUR WRITTEN GUIDELINES THAT THE OWNERS HAVE TO SPECIFY AND THAT THE, THE STR APPLICANTS HAVE TO AGREE TO FOLLOW. I THINK IT'S WORTH HIGHLIGHTING CHAPTER 18 SAYING YOU YOU MUST FILE. I MEA, I GUESS IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT YOU MUST FOLLOW OUR ORDINANCES, BUT SOMETIMES I THINK YOU DO NEED TO SAY JUST TO HIGHLIGHT THAT IT'S WHAT WHAT CAN YOU DO IF YOU'RE UTILIZING A PROPERTY. SO I, I ON THAT. AND SO I'M ENCOURAGING THAT IF WE DON'T ALREADY HAVE THAT ENVISIONED IN OUR IN OUR IN OUR APPROACH, JUST JUST TO SORT OF ANSWER AN OBLIQUE QUESTION FROM COUNCILOR JESTER, WE DID DISCUSS SORT OF OTHER DENSITY METRICS. I'M OKAY WITH TRYING TO FOLLOW THIS, THIS HUNDRED FOOT RULE FOR NOW, BUT I WAS A PROPONENT OF SOMETHING MORE BASED ON DENSITY. I THINK WE AS WE, AS WE MOVE FORWARD AND WE EVALUATE THESE CODES AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION GOING FORWARD, I THINK WE IT'S WORTH LOOKING AT HOW EFFECTIVE THEY ARE, WHETHER THEY'RE CAUSING PROBLEMS OR THEY'RE ACTUALLY FULFILLING ALL THE NEEDS THAT WE'VE WANTED IN TERMS OF GOAL ASSESSMENT. SO IN WHATEVER TIME PERIOD WE'RE GOING TO RE EXAMINE THESE, I'M ENCOURAGING US TO REALLY FOCUS HIGHLY ON THAT. I THINK AS A SORT OF A PILOT OF NEW CHANGES, WE COULD GO PEOPLE'S CONCERNS ABOUT HELPING 
          [01:10:07]
OR HURTING CLUSTERING AND WHETHER SOMETIMES CLUSTERING IS IMPORTANT. AND I THINK A DENSITY METRIC WOULD WOULD ALLOW MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THAT REALM. SO I ENCOURAGE US IN THE IN THE MONTHS AND YEARS TO COME TO, TO KEEP OUR EYE ON WHETHER WE'RE ACTUALLY ACHIEVING OUR GOALS OR CAUSING A PROBLEM. BUT MY, MY, MY DIRECTION WAS OTHER THAN MAKING IT CLEAR ON PARKING IS TO GO AHEAD WITH WHAT WE WORKED OUT IN THE P AND Z AND DXY. GOT IT. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FIVE I APPRECIATE HEARING THAT. WE WERE TOLD THAT DXY ALSO DISCUSSED OTHER WAYS OF DOING THIS OTHER THAN THE 100 FOOT RULE. I'D LIKE TO HEAR SOME DISCUSSION. WE'VE GOT THREE MEMBERS AT THIS TABLE. I'D LOVE TO HEAR SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE GOT TO THIS, AS OPPOSED TO THAT. WHY DID WE DECIDE TO GO AWAY FROM DENSITY AND GO TOWARD THE 100 FOOT RULE? DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO. ALL RIGHT. 
          I'M REPRESENTATIVE OF DISTRICT ONE. I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY PARTICULAR QUESTIONS, BUT I DO DEFINITELY WANT US TO MOVE FORWARD. FOR US GETTING THIS STARTED WITH OUR COMMUNITY. BUT TO ANSWER, COUNCILMEMBER MCGEE'S QUESTION, WE DID HAVE A LONG CONVERSATION IN REGARDS TO THE FAIRNESS OF IT ALL, BECAUSE SOME AREAS ARE DENSER THAN OTHER AREAS. BUT ALL AREAS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE THESE FACILITIES, YOU KNOW, IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. SO, YOU KNOW, JUST JUST STARTED TAKING PRECEDENCE ON ON THE NUMBER OF SMALLER UNITS IN A CORE, YOU KNOW, TOWARDS THE CENTER OF THE CITY, YOU HAVE MORE HOMES, SMALLER HOMES. THAT'S THE DENSITY PART VERSUS GOING OUT ON 428 AND GOING INTO ONE OF THOSE HAVING MORE SPACE. SO JUST LOOKING AT THE DENSITY PART, THAT'S WHERE IT ALL CAME TO PLAY FOR ME, SITTING ON ON THAT AREA. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCIL MEMBER BECK WANTED TO RECOLLECT RECOLLECT HOW WE CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION, BUT IT IT DID START WITH THE IDEA OF MORE APARTMENTS. AND WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT BEDROOMS, YOU KNOW, BEING A PART OF IT. SO THE CONVERSATION IS NOT LOST. IT'S JUST BEEN A WHILE AGO, BUT IT'S ALSO STILL VERY RELEVANT HERE AS WE SPEAK. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELS? LET'S SEE. OKAY. SO YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED DIRECTION WISE, JUST FROM WHAT YOU'VE HEARD THUS FAR. YES, SIR. GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FIVE. I HAVE YET TO GIVE DIRECTION. CAN I ASK MAYOR PRO TEM TO RESPOND TO. HE HEARD YOU. 
          I JUST OPTED NOT TO. I ASSUME THAT'S FINE. YEAH. REPRESENTATIVE A LOT OF OPTIONS WERE CONSIDERED. WHAT WAS DONE IN OTHER CITIES AND WHETHER THEY MAP ONTO OUR CITY OR NOT, YOU KNOW YOU'RE IN A DIFFICULT GRAY AREA. IT WOULD BE MUCH CLEANER TO SAY PRIVATE PROPERTY, DO ANYTHING OR THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T FIT IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. DO NOTHING. SO YOU'RE TRYING TO LIMIT SOMETHING, BUT NOT PROHIBIT IT. 
          SO HOWEVER, YOU'RE GOING TO DRAW THE LINE, YOU'RE GOING TO END UP AT SOME POINT WHERE YOU'RE SAYING YES TO SOMEBODY THAT THAT IS AND YOU'RE THEN IMPLICITLY SAYING NO TO THE NEXT PERSON. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, THE OBJECTIVE IS, AT LEAST FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF IT, IS FOR THE SIDE OF THE DEBATE THAT IS ABOUT NOT TURNING OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS OVER INTO BEING HOTEL DISTRICTS WAS TO NOT HAVE IT TURN INTO A HOTEL DISTRICT, JUST TO NOT HAVE IT BE DENSE. SO THIS IS A THIS PREVENTS SOUTHRIDGE OR SOUTHEAST END OR YOU NAME IT. SO I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT DON'T ALSO SAY YES TO SOMEBODY IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE DENSITY THING. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE OBJECTIVE OF PREVENTING NEIGHBORHOODS FROM TURNING OVER AND TURNING OVER IN HOTEL DISTRICTS, THEN THAT'S A DIFFERENT TOPIC. BUT IF YOU DO CARE ABOUT THAT, I DON'T THINK 
          [01:15:04]
THERE'S ANY APPROACH YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE SAYING YES TO SOMEBODY THAT'S GOING TO RESULT IN SAYING NO TO SOMEBODY ELSE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A TRICKY WATERS. I ABSOLUTELY SHARE THE SENTIMENT OF, LET'S TRY IT. LET'S MONITOR IT. LET'S SEE HOW IT GOES. YOU KNOW, THERE'S GOING TO STILL BE CITY COUNCILS MEETING AND, YOU KNOW, EVALUATION. AND WE'RE GOING TO LEARN PROBABLY CHANGE SOME THINGS IS MY GUESS. BUT I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE PLACE TO START GIVEN THE DIFFICULT CONFLICTING OBJECTIVES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE I'M AGAINST THE 1000 SDR REGISTRATION CAP BECAUSE IT'S ARBITRARY. IT WILL NEVER HIT IT, BUT WE JUST SHOULDN'T THROW OUT ARBITRARY NUMBERS. THEN THE 100 FOOT DISTANCE RESTRICTION I'M AGAINST THAT. AND I THINK IT'S NOT NOT RIGHT THAT YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR SOMEONE TO HAVE SDR. SO I CAN JUST FILL OUT AN APPLICATION, PAY THE FEE TO GUARANTEE NO ONE'S AROUND ME WITH IT, THAT THAT DOES NOT THAT VIOLATES THE SPIRIT OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. SO TO NOT HAVE SOMETHING THAT ADDRESSES THAT, I THINK IS, IS NOT NOT RIGHT. THE PARKING I DON'T THINK WE I THINK THAT NEEDS SOME WORDSMITHING BECAUSE THEY'RE PUBLIC STREETS. AND TO FEIGN AS THOUGH WE'RE GOING TO ENFORCE THAT ON PUBLIC STREETS AND THEN WE'RE NOT. THAT JUST GENERATES EMAILS LIKE, HEY, I THOUGHT Y'ALL WERE ENFORCING THIS. I THOUGHT THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT THERE. IT ADDS TO CONFUSION. SO I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. THAT WORDING, BECAUSE IT'S UNENFORCEABLE TO A DEGREE. THE ORDINANCE IN AND OF ITSELF IS ALREADY OUTDATED BECAUSE YOU DON'T PRIVATE POOLS FOR RENT. MY KIDS GO TO A BIRTHDAY, WENT TO A PARTY THERE. SO RIGHT NOW I CAN HAVE 15 KIDS DESCEND ON ANYWHERE AND WE DON'T EVEN SPEAK ON THAT, RIGHT? AND SO THAT'S A REAL THING RIGHT NOW. AND SO THEN SOMEONE SAYS, WELL, HAVE A BUNCH OF CARS HERE. THEY'RE ALL ON THE STREET. IT'S A SHORT TERM RENTAL. IT'S JUST A DAY. BUT THEY COULD RENT EVERY DAY. SO IT'S A NEW PARTY EVERY DAY. 
          LET'S SAY IT'S A REALLY COOL POOL. THAT'S 29 DAYS OF PARTYIN. THEY'RE MAKING A FORTUNE AND WE DON'T SPEAK TO IT. SO I JUST, I WONDER IF WE'RE NOT BETTER SERVED BY ZEROING IN ON WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, WHICH IS ENFORCEMENT, WHICH JUST IT TOUCHES ON ENFORCEMENT. IT DOESN'T ANSWER ENFORCEMENT. SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE TO YOU, IF SOMEONE CALLS, WHAT IS THIS ORDINANCE? SAY IF SOMEONE IF I CALL SOMEONE CALLS AT 11:00 AT NIGHT AFTER BUSINESS HOURS AND COMPLAINS ABOUT STR, WHO GOES OUT IF IT'S A NOISE VIOLATION OR YES HOURS AND IN VIOLATION OF OUR OF OUR NOISE ORDINANCE IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. MY UNDERSTANDING IS A POLICE OFFICER WOULD BE SENT TO LOOK INTO THOSE MATTERS. YEAH. AND SO THERE. AND IT'S GOING TO BE PRIORITIZED APPROPRIATELY. RIGHT. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE RIGHT AWAY. IT MAY BE THE NEXT MORNING. THE PEOPLE ARE CHECKING OUT POTENTIALLY. AND SO NOW YOU HAVE THIS. THE CULPRIT. THE PEOPLE THAT GENERATED THE NOISE ARE GONE. THE HOMEOWNER IS THERE. 
          AND YOU KNOW, HOW ARE WE ENFORCING THAT. SO FOR ME THAT'S ANOTHER PROBLEM, IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. THAT WOULD BE IMMEDIATE SOME. AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE POLICE OFFICERS THERE JUST NEEDS TO ANTICIPATE THAT THERE IS A CALL THAT'S GOING TO BE AFTER 5:00, AFTER 6:00, AND WE DON'T NEED TO BURDEN OUR POLICE OFFICERS WITH MORE TO DO IN THIS SPACE. I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE A SEPARATE ENFORCEMENT GROUP, IF YOU WILL, VOLUNTEERS OR SOMETHING TO THEN DOCUMENT OR CAPTURE COMPLAINTS OR DOCUMENT NAMES BECAUSE I'D REALLY MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION WOULD BE OR TRY TO. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LAWS SAY ABOUT THAT. THAT WHOLE PROCESS. THAT'S NOT TO BE SOLVED TODAY, BUT JUST TO SAY THE ORDINANCE IS SILENT ON ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM OTHER THAN WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE AND WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE, I THINK IS DEFICIENT IN THIS SPACE WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO BE ACTIVATED FASTER. SO I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. AND SO IF THAT CAN BE REMEDIED OR SOMETHING CAN BE PUT FORWARD TO ADDRESS THOSE AFTER HOURS OR CONCERNS AND OR AND ALSO TAKING THAT RESPONSIBILITY OFF THE POLICE OFFICERS, I JUST DON'T LIKE THAT THAT APPROACH AT ALL. THERE NEEDS TO BE A STAND UP, ANOTHER GROUP THAT DOES THOSE THINGS AND NO DIFFERENT THAN AND SOMEONE WOULD NEED TO EXPLAIN TO ME FURTHERMORE, ON THAT TOPIC, BECAUSE I HAVE SEVERAL COMPLAINTS THAT I 
          [01:20:04]
RECEIVE ABOUT MAINTENANCE ISSUES AT CURRENT HOMEOWNERS, AND THERE'S THIS LONG PROCESS BY WHERE THEY CAN COME IN AND YOU KNOW, THEY CAN THEN GET INTO, I CAN'T THINK OF THE WORD, BUT THEY CAN GET BACK INTO INTO THE SPECS, IF YOU SO THEN THE HOMEOWNER SAYS, WELL, YES, THERE WAS A NOISE ISSUE LAST NIGHT. WE MITIGATED THAT. THOSE PEOPLE CHECKED OUT, CLOSED THE CASE. NEW CASE OPENS, THEY MOVE OUT OR THEY NO LONGER RENTING. CLOSE THAT CASE. SO I JUST I NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT BECAUSE I'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO CONFIDENTLY ANSWER THE EMAILS THAT SAYS, HEY, SORRY, NO ONE CAME OUT. AND YOU KNOW, THAT HAPPENED OR THIS HAPPENED. SO ALL IN ALL, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE NUMBER OF THE ENHANCING OF THE, THE AREAS. SO THE ZONING AREAS THAT YOU TOUCHED ON ARE. YES. NOT ZONING. THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT WORD. BUT YOU I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING. THE ADDING THE AREAS TO THE ZONING DISTRICTS. I'M OKAY WITH THAT. I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. AND THEN THE OTHER STUFF I'M AGAINST, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND ENFORCEMENT BEFORE I CAN VOTE ON IT. I JUST DON'T I NEED TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION. SO JUST I'M GLAD WE HAD THIS WORK SESSION. THOSE ARE MY THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS THAT WOULD GUIDE MY DECISION TO SUPPORT THAT TAKES US TO ITEM C, ID 
          [C. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding providing the Board of Ethics with a scope, timeline, and format for developing potential guidance for interacting with petitioners, applicants, partners, and developers per the Ethics Ordinance.
    [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 30 minutes]]
241832. RECEIVE REPORT, WHOLE DISCUSSION AND GIVE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING PROVIDING THE BOARD OF ETHICS WITH A SCOP, TIMELINE AND FORMAT FOR DEVELOPING POTENTIAL GUIDANCE FOR INTERACTING WITH PETITIONERS, APPLICANTS, PARTNERS AND DEVELOPERS PER THE ETHICS ORDINANCE. MAYOR AND COUNCIL ON MADISON. RORSCHACH DENTON, CITY AUDITOR AND THE STAFF LIAISON TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS. I'M HERE TODAY TO RECEIVE DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL ON A PREVIOUS TWO MINUTE PITCH. SO THIS REQUEST WAS INITIATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BECK. THROUGH A TWO MINUTE PITCH GIVEN ON JUNE 18TH. THAT DAY, THE COUNCIL GAVE DIRECTION TO HOLD A WORK SESSION TO SET THE SCOPE AND TIMELINE FOR THE BOARD OF ETHICS TO DELIVER GUIDANCE ON COUNCIL INTERACTIONS WITH PETITIONERS, APPLICANTS AND PARTNERS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DEVELOPERS. HISTORICALLY, THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NOT PROVIDED EXPLICIT DIRECTION TO BOARD OF ETHICS. INSTEAD, THEY BROUGHT PROPOSALS FOR AMENDMENTS TO ETHICS ORDINANCE TO THE COUNCIL. 
          SO JUST GOT SOME WAYS TO LAY REVIEW. THIS REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE IS POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE TO SEVEN SECTIONS OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED ON THE SLIDE. SO BASICALLY, JUST IN DETERMINING THE SCOPE, WOULD YOU LIKE THE BOARD TO PROVIDE DIRECTION ON INTERACTING, INTERACTING WITH PETITIONERS, APPLICANTS, PARTNERS AND DEVELOPERS ON ALL OF THESE SECTIONS OR ONLY SOME OF THEM? THAT'S REALLY THE BIG QUESTION FOR TODAY. YEAH, I, I TRULY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. I HAVE NO IDEA. SO I WILL HANG UP AND LISTEN AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THIS IS. BUT ON ITS FACE, WE'RE BEING ASKED TO TELL THE ETHICS BOARD WHAT TO DO. YEAH. MY UNDERSTANDING IS TO GIVE THEM DIRECTION TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON POTENTIAL WAYS FOR THE WAY COUNCIL SHOULD INTERACT WITH APPLICANTS, PETITIONERS, DEVELOPERS, POTENTIALLY. HOW THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE ORDINANCE PROHIBITION SECTIONS. THAT HELPS AT ALL. 
          REPRESENTATIVE FROM I THOUGHT I WOULD LEAD OFF WITH TRYING TO GET A LITTLE CLARITY FOR THERE. THERE WAS AT THE TIME SOME DISCUSSION AMONGST US AND IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT HOW DOES ONE ENGAGE WITH THAT GROUP. I'M NOT GOING TO KEEP REPEATING IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. LET'S JUST SAY APPLICANTS FOR SAKE OF EASE AND YOU KNOW HOW MUCH DISCLOSURE SHOULD GO ON. SHOULD YOU, YOU KNOW, COMPLETELY REJECT ALL FORMS OF COMMUNICATION? SHOULD YOU ENGAGE IN COMMUNICATION BUT DISCLOSE? SHOULD YOU ENGAGE IN COMMUNICATION VERSUS NOT DISCLOSE? THAT WAS ALL OVER THE MAP AND THERE WERE DIFFERENT VIEWS IN THE COUNCIL. THERE WERE DIFFERENT VIEWS IN THE COMMUNITY AND SO I THOUGHT AND THERE WAS AGREEMENT TOO, THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE BOARD OF ETHICS SORT OF REVIEW BEST PRACTICES FOR WHAT'S TYPICAL. AND I FLOATED SOME SOME MODEL CODE FROM THE CITY MANAGERS ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER ETHICAL BODIES AS, AS POTENTIAL AVENUES, NOT TRYING TO LIMIT THE 
          [01:25:05]
WHAT? WHAT IS THE BEST PRACTICES IN TERMS OF COMMUNICATION AND DISCLOSURE OF COMMUNICATION WITH PEOPLE THAT COME BEFORE COUNCIL? SO THAT THEN ONCE WE HAD A SET OF POLICIES THAT WE ALL AGREED ON, IF WE CHOSE TO MAKE ANY CHANGES, IF WE THEN THAT WOULD FORESTALL SOME OF THE HEARTBURN IN THE COMMUNITY AND AMONGST COUNCIL THAT WE ARE BEING IMPROPER OR NOT IMPROPER BECAUSE WE'D AGREED TO A COMMON FRAMEWORK, A COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE. AND SO RATHER THAN, THAN NECESSARILY HAVING US DO THAT DEEP DIVE, WHICH WE COULD DO, WE'VE DONE DEEP DIVES BEFORE, I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE BETTER. AND I THREW IT TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS TO REVIEW VARIOUS MODEL CODES, FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE BEST PRACTICES AND THEN COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT SORT OF THING. SO IN A SENSE, A LOT OF IT IS GOING TO BE MORE TWO, SEVEN, TWO C AND 273D AND E. IT COULD BE ANY OF THOSE I GUESS. BUT I'M NOT TRYING TO LIMIT OUR OR COUNSEL AND IF WE AS A BODY CAN GIVE DIRECTION AND MOVE FORWARD BUT BUT SORT OF GET GET A COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR HOW WE ARE TO INTERACT WITH PEOPLE THAT COME BEFORE COUNCIL. ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYONE ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT SIX AND THEN THREE. IF IT IS APPROPRIATE, MAY I ASK REPRESENTATIVE BECK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS REGARDING THE INTENT. SURE. THANK YOU. SO IS THE CONCERN. AND I'M JUST TRYING TO KIND OF GET AN IDEA. SO IT'S NOT UP HERE. IT'S MORE DOWN HERE. 
          AND DOABLE IS THE CONCERN THAT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE RECEIVING BASICALLY BRIBES? IS THAT THE ACCUSATION OR IS IT THAT THE FEAR IS THAT A CITY COUNCIL PERSON WILL MAKE CERTAIN REPRESENTATIONS, AS IN, OH, THAT'S NO PROBLEM, WE'LL GRANT A VARIANCE AND THEN THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. LIKE SPEAKING OUT OF TURN AS OPPOSED TO THE BODY. I GUESS WHAT WHAT IS THE CONCERN THAT WE ARE TRYING TO CLARIFY? AND THEN ALSO, I GUESS MY CONCERN IS WHAT IF I'VE GONE TO DINNER WITH SOMEONE NOT KNOWING THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, A YEAR FROM NOW, HAVE AN APPLICATION OR TWO YEARS AGO HAD ONE. I'M JUST A LITTLE I WANT TO PLAY BY THE RULES. AND SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS IT EXACTLY WE'D BE ASKING FOR? THANK YOU. YEAH. NO, I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION, IS TO SET THE FRAMEWORK AND ALL AGREE TO OPERATE OR TO HAVE A BOARD OF ETHICS IN MY PROPOSAL SET THE FRAMEWORK. BUT IT'S ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE US THAT APPROVES THE FRAMEWORK. SO SET A FRAMEWORK FOR WHAT IS WHAT IS APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR AND WHAT IS NOT. I THINK THE BIGGEST THING THAT I WAS RESPONDING TO FROM STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT WAS THERE ARE SOME AND I DON'T ACTUALLY SHARE THIS BELIEF, BUT I'M GOING TO DESCRIBE IT THAT DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD NOT ENGAGE WITH APPLICANTS, PERIOD. YOU SHOULD HEAR EVERYTHING AT THE DAIS. YOU SHOULD HAVE YOU SHOULD HAVE NO DISCUSSION AT ALL. THAT THAT IS A NON-TRIVIAL AMOUNT OF PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY. THERE ARE SOME THAT SAY, NO, YOU SHOULD HIGHLY ENGAGE SO THERE ARE THOSE THAT SAY, WELL, IF YOU DO HARDLY ENGAGE, THEN THE EXACT POINTS THAT YOU BROUGHT UP, YOU KNOW, WE ALREADY HAVE RULES ABOUT INFLUENCE. WE ALREADY HAVE RULES ABOUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST, YOU KNOW, GIFTS AND WHATNOT. THOSE SHOULD ALREADY COVER UNDUE INFLUENCE. I WOULD THINK. SO. I THINK WE WOULD MOSTLY BE DISCUSSING THESE ISSUES OF AND SAYING THAT WE AS A BODY OR BOARD OF ETHICS COMBINED, ARE RECOMMENDING YOU DO OR DO NOT LIMIT THE WAY YOU COMMUNICATE WITH APPLICANTS AND SET THE FRAMEWORK. IS IT ONE YEAR? IS IT ONE MONTH? IS IT FIVE YEARS? IS IT NO TIME FRAME THESE ARE THESE ARE ALL THE THINGS I WANTED TO HAVE THEM DISCUSS BECAUSE AND THEN COME BACK TO US HOPEFULLY FROM OTHER MODEL CODES WHERE THIS HAS BEEN WELL VETTED AND WELL THOUGHT OUT AND NOT HAVE US WORDSMITH AND CRAFT HERE AT AT THE WORK SESSION DAIS, BUT ACTUALLY COME BACK AND SEE WHAT WHAT DO OTHER CITIES COMMENTING YES OR NO? AND IF THE ANSWER COULD BE FROM ALL THESE THINGS COULD BE. NOPE. NO CHANGES. BUT YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS A IF THERE IS A BEST PRACTICE, THAT'S SORT OF WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO. OKAY. AND IS THERE A CHANGE THAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND TO OUR CURRENT ETHICS ORDINANCE? I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT STATE OF THINGS. OKAY. I WAS MORE 
          [01:30:03]
RESPONDING TO THE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT. OKAY. I'M JUST MAKING SURE I KIND OF UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S ONE PARTICULAR THING THAT I HAVE MISSED OR WHAT HAVE YOU. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT THREE. YEAH, IT WASN'T SUPER CLEAR TO ME EITHER, SO I APPRECIATE THAT. SO THE FOCUS IS ON ASKING THE BOARD OF ETHICS TO HELP RECOMMEND GUARDRAILS OR GUIDELINES FOR INTERACTING WITH APPLICANTS. RIGHT. THAT'S THE FOCUS AND. AND THEN IF I'M IF I MAY ASK THE IS. WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY NEED FROM US OTHER THAN FOR US TO SA, GO FORWARD? FIGURE. HELP US. YOU KNOW, STUDY THIS AND COME BACK WITH A SUGGESTION. OR IS THERE MORE BEYOND THAT THAT YOU THINK IS NEEDED IN THIS CONVERSATION? YEAH. NO. GO. GO. RIGHT AHEAD. THIS IS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. NO, I THINK THAT ABSOLUTELY MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO HEAR, HEAR THE GUIDANCE FROM THIS DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW. I MEAN, IF THE IF THIS BODY COMES BACK AND SAYS, I MEAN, AT THE END OF THIS DISCUSSION, THAT WE DON'T THINK ANYTHING IS NECESSARY, I THINK THAT WILL BE CLEAR. AND WE SHOULD DO NOTHING. ALL RIGHT. IF THE BODY COMES BACK AND SAYS, YEAH, NO, WE SHOULD WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE MODEL CODE AND THAT MODEL CODE IS FROM THESE CITIES, THESE CITIES, THESE CITIES, AND IT GOVERNS, YOU KNOW, NOTIFICATION, DISCLOSURE, COMMUNICATION. AND IN THESE WAYS THAT THAT'S SORT OF WHERE I'M I'M GOING WITH THAT BECAUSE THEN IT PREVENTS THE WEAPONIZATION OF ACCUSATION AND, AND FALSE FALSE WELL, NO. WE ADOPTED AN ETHICAL FRAMEWORK AND WE'RE FOLLOWING THAT. SO RATHER THAN LEAVE IT NEBULOUS, I. OKAY. SO MY DIRECTION IS I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW IF THERE ARE BEST PRACTICES. IT IS A REALLY SQUIRMY THING. YOU KNOW, IT'S A VERY UNCOMFORTABLE SITUATION WHEN THE THINGS YOU WANT TO KNOW THERE'S BENEFITS TO HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS. BUT YOU KNOW, YOU ALSO DON'T WANT TO BE UNDULY INFLUENCED IN A WAY THAT ISN'T IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC. SO I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE CLEARER RULES OF THE ROAD TO GO BY. IF SOMEONE HAS ALREADY SORTED THIS OUT, AND THEN WE WOULD ALL AGREE TO, YOU KNOW, GO BY THOSE PRACTICES. SO I'M WAY OPEN TO HAVING THEM INVESTIGATE THIS. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT ONE. AND THEN FOR I AM GOING TO JUST DITTO WHAT I WAS GOING TO CALL YOU REVEREND. SORRY I JUST REVEREND MELTON COUNCIL MEMBER MELTZER SAID DO THIS. IT CAN ONLY BE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BRING OUT, YOU KNOW, THE POSITIVE NATURE OF WHO WE ARE. IF WE, YOU KNOW, DO TELL THE WORLD THAT WE DO HAVE BOUNDARIES. AND IT'S ALSO TELLING OUR CONSTITUENTS THAT THEY'RE THEY'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING UP THE BEST PEOPLE TO SPEAK FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY CAN AGREE TO, YOU KNOW, A SET OF BOUNDARIES AND WHICH I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD. SO MY DIRECTION WOULD BE, ABSOLUTELY. LET'S LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT IT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. 
          REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT FOUR. I THINK THIS IS REMARKABLY BROAD. JUST JUST REMARKABLY BROAD TO BE IN THIS POSITION. ANY ELECTED POSITION, YOU GOT TO KNOW A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND YOU'VE GOT RELATIONSHIPS IN YOUR, IN YOUR, IN YOUR FAMILY, IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD CLUB ACTIVITIES, CHURCH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS THAT MAYBE GO BACK YEARS, DECADES. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT TO BENEFIT. PROBABLY FINANCIALLY DIRECTLY. THAT THAT THAT THAT'S THE ONLY THAT SHOULD BE THE ONLY GUARDRAIL. YOU KNOW, IF I SELL THIS. WELL, IF I, IF I AGREE TO WE'RE GOING TO DEVELOP THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, I WILL I WILL BE BETTER OFF FINANCIALLY THEN I THINK THAT'S THE PLACE FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBER TO, TO STEP UP AND SAY, I'M GOING TO, I'M GOING TO, TO SIT THIS ONE OUT AND LET MY COLLEAGUES DECIDE IT. BUT I THINK IT'S JUST SO CRAZY BROAD THAT THAT WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET A HANDLE ON THIS. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. THAT IT? OKAY, THEN I'M GOING ON. I WAS INTERESTED IN HEARING YOUR THOUGHTS BEFORE I COMMENT. YOU 
          [01:35:06]
DON'T WANT MINE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK, YOU NEED TO GO AHEAD, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO WRAP IT UP AND GO TO THE NEXT THING. SO IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. WHAT'S THE CURRENT DIRECTION, YEAH, SURE. WHY NOT? THIS. IF THE ETHICS BOARD WANTS TO KICK THIS AROUND, I'M HAPPY TO. TO ENTERTAIN THIS. THIS HAS NO BEARING ON ON WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DECIDE BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IT'S GOING TO COME BACK TO US. SO SURE. OKAY. AND SO YOU HAVE YOUR DIRECTION. MY QUESTION IS THE ETHICS BOARD HAS VOICED THEIR FRUSTRATION WITH WITH YOU ABOUT BRINGING FORWARD SUGGESTIONS TO THIS COUNCIL. AND THEN NOT ACTING ON THOSE. RIGHT? CORRECT. AND SO THIS IN ITS OF ITS NATURE IS THEM DOING MORE WORK, BRINGING IT BACK TO US THAT WE MAY NOT ADOPT. SAME THING POTENTIALLY. YEAH. SO I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. JUST LISTENING. RIGHT. JUST LISTENING TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS AND BEING SENSITIVE TO THEIR CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS AND TRYING TO ADDRESS THOSE THINGS. SO FOR THAT REASON, I'M NOT GOING TO DIS WE SET THEM UP FOR THE EXACT SAME THING. SO I CAN'T GET ON BOARD WITH THAT. AND THEN PEOPLE DON'T FOLLOW OUR CURRENT ETHICS DECISIONS. SO ABSENT ANYTHING BINDING THEN, AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. I CAN'T GET THERE. AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS THAT I WANT TO THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR THOUGHT I WANT TO AND I READ AND I QUOTE THE BOARD OF ETHICS WITH A SCOPE, TIMELINE AND FORMAT DEVELOPING POTENTIAL GUIDANCE FOR INTERACTING WITH PETITIONERS, APPLICANTS, PARTNERS AND DEVELOPERS PER ETHICS. AND IT TALKS ABOUT AND IT GOES ON TO SAY, EVEN AND BEYOND THAT. RIGHT. SO IT SAYS THESE THINGS AND BEYOND. AND SO THAT THAT'S THAT'S EVERYONE. IT SAYS NOT LIMITED TO AND IS THE EXACT WORDING, BUT IT SAYS YEAH. 
          SO HERE YOU GO. SEE IF THIS IS IT. YEAH. SO THIS IS IN THE EYES JUST SO PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE I FALL. COUNCIL DIRECT THE BOARD OF ETHICS TO DEVELOP GUIDANCE ON HOW MEMBERS INTERACT WITH APPLICANTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PETITIONERS, PARTNERS AND DEVELOPERS AND IT SAYS, AND IT'S NOT LIMITED TO THOSE THINGS SO UNLIMITED. SO IT'S UNLIMITED DISCUSSION ABOUT INTERACTIONS WITH UNLIMITED PEOPLE AT ITS BROADEST INTERPRETATION. AND THE BOARD OF ETHICS IS ALREADY FRUSTRATED WITH THE COMMUNICATION THAT WE'VE GOT THAT WE HAVE OR DISAGREEMENT WITH HOW WE DO THINGS. AND SO NOW WE'RE GIVING THEM A WHOLE BUNCH MORE WORK. THE MAJORITY HAS DECIDED TO GIVE THEM A WHOLE BUNCH OF MUCH MORE WORK TO COME BACK. THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACTED UPON. SO I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE. BUT THANK YOU VERY 
          [D. Hold a discussion regarding the suspension of City Council Rules of Procedure to allow for a vote on the appointment of Erica Garland to the Planning and Zoning Commission on the Regular Meeting Consent Agenda Item 4B. ID 24-503.]
MUCH. TAKES US TO ITEM D, HOLD A HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SUSPENSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE TO ALLOW FOR A VOTE ON APPOINTMENT OF ERICA GARLAND TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON THE REGULAR MEETING CONSENT AGENDA ITEM FOUR B I'D 24503. AND SO THERE'S NOT A STAFF PRESENTATION. AND SO, MR. CITY ATTORNEY, HELP ME UNDERSTAND. CAN'T VOTE IN HERE. 
          SO JUST LOOKING FOR DIRECTION. IS THAT WHAT IT IS. SO, MAYOR, THIS WAS PUT ON PER YOUR REQUEST. THE WAY THAT THIS IS GOING TO GO IS IF ALSO ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, WHICH WAS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA, THE NOMINATION OF MERRICK GARLAND, WHO YOU'VE NOMINATED TO THE P AND Z. THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD BASED ON COUNCIL'S RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH REQUIRE SIX MONTHS TIMEFRAME. AND THAT'S BEEN WELL DISCUSSED AMONGST COUNCIL. THERE IS A CAVEAT THAT SAYS IF COUNCIL CHOOSES TO SUSPEND ITS RULES, THEN THAT ACTION COULD BE TAKEN UP SO THIS ITEM WAS PUT ON FOR YOUR DIRECTION AS A WORK SESSION TO, I THINK TO DISCUSS THAT IN ADVANCE OF TONIGHT BECAUSE IT COULD CHEW UP SOME TIME TONIGHT POTENTIALLY. BUT REALLY YOU JUST NEED TO GET DIRECTION OR GIVE YOUR THOUGHTS TO THE COUNCIL ON WHAT YOU WERE PLANNING TO DO TONIGHT AND, AND GET ANY FEEDBACK BASED ON THAT. YES. SO I'M LOOKING FOR SUPPORT TO SUSPEND THE RULES BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN IT WILL BE FIVE MONTHS NEXT MONTH. I MEAN SIX MONTHS NEXT MONTH. SO IT'S NOT EARLY BY AND LARGE BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY A NUMBER OF P AND Z MEETINGS LEFT. 
          AND SO TO MAKE SURE THE FIRST VOTE TO THIS IS I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, 5.25 MONTHS. AND SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MATTER OF WEEKS, BUT IT GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A 
          [01:40:04]
PERSON TO SERVE ON THE COMMITTEE, UNDERSTAND THINGS BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR, BECAUSE WE'RE THAT'S RAPIDLY APPROACHING BY THE TIME WE VOTE. THEN THERE'S THE PROCESS OF PAPERWORK, ALL THOSE THINGS. THEN TO GET THEM SITUATED WHERE THEY GET THEIR IPAD, PHONE, ETC. 
          I THINK THIS IS IT'S ONLY FAIR TO GIVE THEM TIME TO GET SITUATED. AND SO THIS IS THE PROCESS. IF I'M TRYING NOT TO HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN IN THREE WEEKS, DOESN'T GIVE THEM ENOUGH TIME TO GET ACCLIMATED THIS YEAR. AND SO THAT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. THAT'S THE ASK. SO SEEKING FOR THOSE THAT ARE WILLING TO GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO SO THAT THEY CAN PLAN TONIGHT TO WHAT SUSPEND OUR PROCEDURES AGAIN FOR I MEAN I CAN DO THE MATH, BUT I THINK IT'S REALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT I WOULD SUPPORT SUCH DIRECTION. ANYONE ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR. I TOO WOULD SUPPORT THE SUSPENSION. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. THEN I WILL. 
          WE'LL. IT'S BEEN PULLED. I'LL TAKE THAT UP AT THE DAIS. BUT THERE'S NO DIRECTION THAT TAKES 
          [E. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction on pending City Council requests for: 
1.)	Amending the Downtown Master Plan to include renovating the Civic Center Pool.
2.)	Increasing Denton’s tree canopy by 5% by 2040 and using the tree fund for additional staff.
    [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 30 minutes]]
US TO ITEM E. ID 241494. RECEIVED. REPORT. WHOLE DISCUSSION. GIVE STAFF DIRECTION ON PENDING. CITY COUNCIL REQUEST. FIRST ONE. WELL, YOU HAVE THAT. YEAH. THERE'S TWO. 
          YEAH. MAYOR AND COUNCIL JESSE KHAN, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER. WE'VE GOT TWO, TWO, TWO MINUTE PITCHES. AS A REMINDER, WE'VE GOT OUR OUR NEW TWO MINUTE PITCH PROCESS. THE WORK SESSION PORTION OF THIS HASN'T CHANGED, BUT WE'VE GOT THAT FOLLOW ON PIECE WHERE WE DO AN ISR AND ROUTE IT THROUGH THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE PROCESS. OUR FIRST ITEM IS AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN MASTER YES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I PUT THIS PITCH FORWARD IN RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. I'M NOT GOING TO I'M NOT GOING TO REREAD EVERYTHING. HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY READ IT IN THE BACKGROUND, BUT I'LL JUST SUMMARIZE TO SAY THAT I'VE RECEIVED ZERO SUPPORT FOR REMOVING THE CIVIC CENTER POOL AND AN OVERWHELMING REJECTION OF THAT. SO I'M ASKING US TO GO AHEAD AND DO ONE OF THE FIRST OF PROBABLY WHAT WILL AMOUNT TO MANY SUBTLE CHANGES TO OUR DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN AND AQUATICS PLAN TO KEEP THAT CIVIC CENTER POOL ITS CONDITION OF, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN ISSUE OF CENTRALITY AND EQUITY FOR CENTRAL AND SOUTHEAST DENTON. 
          THERE'S THE POTENTIAL FOR HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION IN THE O'NEILL FORD AREA. AND SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO AHEAD AND AT LEAST SUPPORT THIS, BECAUSE WITH THE NEW PROCESS, IT GOES TO AN ISR. THAT MIGHT BE THE END OF IT GOES TO AN ISR AND A COMMITTEE MEETING. 
          THAT MIGHT WORK ITS WAY FORWARD FOR THIS REMOVAL. SO I'M ASKING FOR SUPPORT TO TAKE THIS OUT OF THE DOWNTOWN AND MASTER PLAN, THE AQUATICS PLAN. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT THREE AND THEN SIX. YEAH, THERE ARE TWO IMPULSES THAT ARE SORT OF AT ODDS IN RECENT ACTIONS. THE DESIGN DOWNTOWN PLAN. AND THEN SOME OF THESE ELEMENTS THAT THE PART THAT PEOPLE, I THINK ARE REALLY CHEERING PRETTY UNIVERSALLY THAT I'VE WATCHED IS THE INVESTMENT INTO DOWNTOWN, MAKING DOWNTOWN YOU KNOW, INCREASINGLY VIBRANT AND USED. AND THEN THERE'S THIS SORT OF IDEA THAT THE SERVICES THAT PEOPLE GO TO ON A REGULAR BASIS THAT ARE IN DOWNTOWN OUGHT TO BE MOVED OUT TO WHERE OTHER POPULATIONS ARE. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHER COMMUNITIES YOU COULD POINT TO THAT HAVE HOLLOWED OUT THEIR DOWNTOWNS AND ARE KIND OF SOULLESS SUBURBS, AND DENTON DOESN'T WANT TO BE THAT. SO I THINK IF IN FACT, THE ULTIMATE PLAN IS FOR THERE TO IS TAKE SOMETHING OUT. THAT'S VALUED VERSUS NOTHING IN PARTICULAR THAT THEY VALUE MORE. 
          HOW WOULD YOU EXPECT THEM TO SUPPORT IT? SO I DO THINK SOME WORDSMITHING WOULD BE CALLED FOR. SO REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT SIX, I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS. I'VE HEARD CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM AS WELL. HOWEVER, I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ON THE OTHER SIDE. AS FAR AS THE COST THAT WOULD BE NEEDED. AND DO WE WANT THAT INVESTMENT THERE VERSUS ONE OF THE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE 
          [01:45:05]
DOWNTOWN PLAN? SO ESPECIALLY WITH THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE NOW TO HAVE ONE OF OUR RELEVANT COMMITTEES LOOK AT THE PRICE OF KEEPING IT VERSUS WHAT ELSE COULD BE THERE. WHAT IS THE DRAW WITHOUT IT? YOU KNOW, WHAT CAN BE THERE INSTEAD VERSUS THE VALUE IN KEEPING IT? I'M IN FAVOR. SO YEAH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR. I'M IN FAVOR OF KEEPING IT REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR. FIVE. SUPPORT. YES, I SAID SUPPORT. OKAY. GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE DIRECTION. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. NEXT. NEXT ITEM IS INCREASING DENTON'S TREE CANOPY BY 5% BY 2040. AND USING THE TREE FUND FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MAGEE. ALL RIGHT. I, I TRUST YOU ALL HAVE HAVE READ WHAT? WHAT'S IN YOUR BACKUP HERE? I'VE BEEN TEEING THIS UP FOR A LONG TIME. I'M THANKFUL TO SERVE ON THE COMMITTEE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, AND I KNOW THE THREE OF US HAVE SEEN THIS PRESENTATION. I WANT TO BRING THIS FULL PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL BECAUSE IT REALLY WILL HELP US. I BELIEVE, DRASTICALLY AND DRAMATICALLY INCREASE OUR TREE CANOPY TREES DO A LOT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. 
          OBVIOUSLY THEY PULL CO2 OUT OF THE OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE AND ALSO TREES CAN COOL THE AREA UNDERNEATH THE TREE IN THE SHADED AREA BY MORE THAN PLANTING TREES IN THE CITY. BUT MOST NOTABLY, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF MONEY IN OUR TREE FUND. THE MONEY'S JUST SITTING THERE AND THERE'S NO TIME LIKE THE PRESENT TO GET STARTED ON THAT. WITH THAT, I THINK THAT IT'S PRETTY CLEAR WHAT WE NEED TO DO. I THINK IF WE SET IF WE SET A GOAL AND A SPECIFIC GOAL OF INCREASING, NOW WE CAN ACHIEVE THIS GOAL RELATIVELY EASILY. BY BY THE TIME THAT I SET FORWARD IN 2040. SO WITH THAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR? MY SISTER WAS ONE OF THE FIRST TWO WOMEN TO GRADUATE FROM STEPHEN BOSTON UNIVERSITY WITH A DEGREE IN FORESTRY. I SUPPORT THIS. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO. YEAH, I THINK IT JUST MAKES IT REALLY TARGETED THAT WE SUPPORT OUR URBAN FORESTER AND HIS HIS GOALS FOR THE CITY. SO I SUPPORT THIS. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT THREE. BACK WHEN WE HAD A RETREAT IN THE BACKUP, IT WAS IT WAS LAID BE REMEMBERING THE NUMBERS WRONG. MAYBE IT WAS 24%. WERE 19 AND THERE'S BEEN NO MOVEMENT FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS. SO LET'S LOOK AT THIS. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT SIX. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF LEARNING MORE ABOUT IT. AND POTENTIALLY ADOPTING. THANK YOU. THANKS. OKAY. I FEEL IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAY SO. I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEEN THE PITCH BE VETTED OR SUPPLY DETAIL. WE ONLY GET ONE MINUTE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR CURRENT CANOPY RATE IS, I DON'T KNOW. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INCREASING IT BY 5%. INCREASE IN WHAT PERCENTAGE? SO JUST A YOU KNOW A SMART GOAL HAS THOSE LEVELS OF DETAIL THAT YOU PROVIDE. THIS TO ME IS I JUST HAVE TO SAY IT. IT'S POSTURING. 
          IT'S. LAYING THIS OUT THERE WE'RE PASSIONATE ABOUT TREES, BUT IT HAS NO DETAIL, NO SPECIFICITY, AND I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN THAT STUFF BE RESEARCHED AND THEN BROUGHT TO US AND THEN GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE SUPPORTING. SO I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION T. 
          I STARTED A CONVERSATION WITH HAYWARD WHEN I SAW THIS, BUT THERE'S NO DETAIL HERE FOR ME TO GIVE DIRECTION. OKAY. THAT TAKES US TO OUR CLOSED SESSION. WE'LL SET THE ROOM. 
          THE. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW AT 3:51 P.M, CONVENE IN CLOSED MEETING TO DELIBERATE THE CLOSED 
          [1. Closed Meeting:]
          [01:50:01]
MEETING ITEM SET FORTH ON THE AGENDA, WHICH INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING A ID 241936. 
          DELIBERATIONS REGARDING ECONOMIC 87. ITEM B, ID 242018. DELIBERATIONS REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UNDER TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.087 AND ITEM C. ID 242119. 
          DELIBERATIONS REGARDING 
          [AFTER DETERMINING THAT A QUORUM IS PRESENT, THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL WILL CONVENE AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL, 215 E. MCKINNEY STREET, DENTON, TEXAS AT WHICH THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE CONSIDERED:]
          [2. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS]
          [3. PRESENTATIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC]
          [4. CONSENT AGENDA]
          [B. Consider nominations/appointments to the City’s Boards, Commissions, and Committees:  Community Services Advisory Committee, Planning and Zoning Commission, Public Art Committee, Sustainability Framework Advisory Committee, and Zoning Board of Adjustment.]
          [02:34:27]
REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FIVE. MOTION TO APPROVE. YES. THERE YOU GO. 
          [02:34:41]
A SECOND FOR EVERYONE ON ITEM B, BUT FOR ERICA GARLAND, ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S 
          [02:34:50]
VOTE ON THE SCREEN. OKAY. AND THAT PASSES SEVEN ZERO. ITEM B JUST IT'S LISTED ON THE AGENDA. 
          [02:35:06]
ERICA GARLAND THAT WAS I WAS SEEKING TO FOR THOSE TRACKING ALONG THE AGENDA, I WAS SEEKING 
          [02:35:11]
TO HAVE A SUSPENSION OF THE COUNCIL RULES. THAT'S WHY SHE'S LISTED THERE, BECAUSE WE HAD 
          [02:35:19]
EARLIER CONVERSATION AND THAT REQUEST WAS DID NOT GAIN SUPPOR. SO THAT WILL SHE'LL CONTINUE TO 
          [02:35:26]
WAIT UNTIL SHE CAN BE VOTED ON TO SERVE ON PLANNING AND ZONING AT THE SIX MONTH MARK. THAT'S 
          [02:35:33]
OUR COUNCIL BUT I WILL SAY THIS I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT THAT'S THE 
          [02:35:43]
CASE. AND I BELIEVE EVERYONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SERVE. MY DAD IS HARD CHARGING AND THE COUNTY APPOINTED HIM TO SERVE. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE ERICA CAN SERVE. AND I HAVE WAITED THE SAME SIX MONTHS. I'LL WAIT, BUT I'LL SIGN AND IT'S AVAILABLE TO SIGN. THERE'S A PETITION TO RECALL HER OPPONENT, WHO CONTINUES TO BLOCK HER VOTE, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SIGNING THAT PETITION THIS EVENING. AND IF ANYONE ELSE IS INTERESTED IN SIGNING THE RECALL PETITION, PLEASE SEE ME. THAT TAKES US TO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. STRIKE THAT. 
          [A. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas regarding a Municipal Services Agreement, pursuant to Tex. Loc. Govt Code Sec. 43.0672, between the City of Denton and Huebner, Jeffrey & Erin for the provision of city services to approximately 0.039 acres of land, generally located west of Teasley Lane and approximately 170 feet north of Leatherwood Lane; approving a schedule of annexation; authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement; and providing an effective date. (A24-0003, 5702 Teasley Lane, Mia Hines)
Body]
TAKES US TO ITEM FIVE, A, WHICH IS IS REGARDING A MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 43.062. BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND HUEBNER, GEOFFREY AND ERIC IN THE PROVISION OF THE CITY. SERVICES. APPROXIMATELY 0.039 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED WEST OF TEASLEY LANE AND APPROXIMATELY 170. FEET NORTH OF LEATHERWOOD LANE. APPROVING A SCHEDULE OF AN ANNEXATION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE. AGREEMENT AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. JUST THIS ONE. GOOD EVENING. MAYOR. 
          MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. MIA HINES, SENIOR PLANNER. THIS ITEM IS STATED IN THE CAPTION IS FOR THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED OR APPROXIMATELY 0.039 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF TEASLEY LANE AND APPROXIMATELY 170FT NORTH OF LEATHERWOOD LANE, THE THE FIRST. THE ITEM FOR YOUR ACTION THIS EVENING IS A MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND AN ANNEXATION SCHEDULE. SO, AS STATED IN THE CAPTION IN THE BACK OR THE APPLICANT HERE ARE JEFFREY AND ERIN HUEBNER. THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE APPLICANT HAS SHARED THAT THEY ENVISION A COMMERCIAL, SMALL SCALE COMMERCIAL USE FOR THIS PROPERTY, BUT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE SUBMITTED NO PLANS TO CHANGE THE EXISTING USE OR REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY. ADDITIONALLY, ABUTTING THIS PROPERTY IS T.C. LANE FM 2181 TO THE EAST, AND THAT IS A TXDOT SIX LANE DIVIDED PRIMARY ARTERIAL WITHIN THIS CORRIDOR. 
          SO WE DID RUN THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AS WELL AS THE ANNEXATION THROUGH OUR DEPARTMENTS TO CONFIRM THAT THERE WAS NO ISSUES WITH THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT. 
          AND PROVIDING SERVICES AND UTILITIES TO THIS AREA. FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING, LIKE I SAID, IS THE ALSO THE ANNEXATION SCHEDULE WITH THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT. 
          THIS IS FOLLOWING THIS, WE WILL PUBLISH THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE IN THE NEWSPAPER AS WELL AS HAVE A SECOND READING FOR THE ORDINANCE ON NOVEMBER 19TH. WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, AND I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO. THANK YOU. ME, I KNOW WE PROVIDED SOME OF THE INFORMATION, BUT WOULD YOU MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ANNEXATION OF THE SMALL LITTLE SLIVER IN THE IN THE DOCUMENT IS DESIGNED TO, TO COVER AND B WHAT WHY ARE WHY ARE WE ANNEXING THIS THIS ONE TINY LITTLE CHUNK? SURE. SO THIS IS A POINT 039 PORTION OF A LARGER PARCEL. 
          MAJORITY OF THE PARCEL IS CURRENTLY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS SIMPLY EXPRESSED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO ANNEX THEIR ENTIRE PROPERTY INTO THE CITY. PERFECT. 
          THANK YOU. SO MUCH. YES, SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. WE DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER. 
          MR. CHARLES LEE, IF YOU COULD COME UP AND GIVE YOUR NAME, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES, RIGHT? INDIVIDUAL IS HOW. HOW ARE YOU DOING? YES. MY NAME IS CHARLES LEE. 
          [02:40:12]
LIKE I SAID, I'M AGAINST IT. I THINK DENTON IS BIG ENOUGH. WE DON'T NEED TO GROW THE CITY ANYMORE. WE'RE ALREADY DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY AS IT IS, AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO BRING IN MORE PEOPLE. IT'S JUST GOING TO ADD TO THAT DYSFUNCTION. AND I TOLD YOU BEFORE, I'M ALL ABOUT LIMITING GOVERNMENT. I'M NOT TRYING TO GROW GOVERNMENT. AND I'M STICKING TO THAT. AND I'M TRYING MY BEST TO KEEP YOU GUYS FROM BLOWING UP THE GOVERNMENT LARGER THAN IT ALREADY IS. AND I'M JUST GOING TO HOLD TO IT. AND I'M AGAINST ALL ANNEXATION. AND THAT'S I HAVE A NICE NIGHT. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MIA, DID YOU SAY THERE'S ANOTHER READING OF THIS? DO WE VOTE ON THIS ONE OR NO? SO THIS FOLLOWS THE GENERAL PROCESS OF ANNEXATION. 
          YOU'LL VOTE ON THIS ITEM AS THE MSA AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. AND THEN A FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE ALSO THIS EVENING. PERFECT. THANK YOU. LOOKING FOR A MOTION? IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO. I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE ITEM AS INDICATED BY STAFF REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT ONE. I'LL SECOND. MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S VOTE THAT PASSES 7 TO 0, TAKES US TO 
          [A. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas amending the Denton Development Code Subchapter 2. Administration and Procedures and Creating Section 2.12 Affordable Housing Development Incentive Program; waiving, modifying, and establishing requirements; providing a severability clause and an effective date. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted [4-0] to recommend approval of the amendment. Motion for approval by Vice-Chair Pruett and second by Commissioner Cole. (DCA24-0010, Affordability Incentives, Leia Atkinson).]
OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING. THAT IS SIX A DC, A240010A HOLD, A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE SUBSECTION SUBCHAPTER TWO, ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES AND CREATING A SECTION 2.12 AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. MY NAME IS LEAH ATKINSON. I SERVE AS THE HOUSING PROGRAMS COORDINATOR ON THE COMMUNITY SERVICES TEAM. I'M HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE, INTRODUCING AFFORDABILITY INCENTIVES. IN SUMMARY, THE PROPOSAL TODAY IS TO UPDATE THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE, ALSO KNOWN AS THE DDC, TO INTRODUCE SECTION 212 AFFORDABILITY INCENTIVE PROCEDURES. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD INTRODUCE NINE DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES, EACH OF WHICH OFFERS SLIGHT DEVIATION FROM THE OPTION TO UTILIZE ONE OR MORE OF THESE INCENTIVES IN EXCHANGE FOR INCLUDING AFFORDABILITY. WITHIN THAT DEVELOPMENT. TODAY'S PROPOSAL IS PRESENTED IN ALIGNMENT WITH A FEW DIFFERENT STRATEGIC PLANNING DOCUMENTS. FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGIC TOOLKIT, OF WHICH THIS IS ACTIVITY THREE B. ADDITIONALLY, CITY COUNCIL'S PRIORITY TO FOSTER ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND AFFORDABILITY, AS WELL AS THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN, ESPECIALLY POLICY THREE TWO HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND THE DENTON 2040 PLAN, OF WHICH WE'RE ALIGNED WITH A FEW DIFFERENT POLICIES, BUT ESPECIALLY POLICY SEVEN TO EXPAND THE AVAILABILITY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CHOICES. THE INCENTIVES INTRODUCED WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS A 20% DEVIATION FROM MINIMUM YARD AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FROM MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, DEPTH AND AREA REQUIREMENTS AS THREE SEPARATE INCENTIVES FROM A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM UNIT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, A TEN POINT REDUCTION FROM AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNIT. IN EXCHANGE, THAT DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE COMMITTED TO PROVIDING SOME OF ITS HOMES TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AT RATES THAT ARE AFFORDABLE TO THEM. THAT AMOUNT OF AFFORDABILITY WOULD SCALE UP WITH THE NUMBER OF INCENTIVES USED. IF THREE OR FEWER INCENTIVES ARE UTILIZED, A MINIMUM OF 20% OF THE HOMES IN THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE COMMITTED TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AT AFFORDABLE RATES. 
          WITHIN THAT 20%. THERE ARE SUBCATEGORIES AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE THAT DIFFERENT INCOME CATEGORIES ARE SERVED. 5% WOULD NEED TO BE FOR EXTREMELY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. 
          10% WOULD NEED TO BE FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AND THE REMAINING FIVE OF THAT 20% COULD BE FOR ANY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD. AS MENTIONED, THAT SCALES UP WITH THE NUMBER OF INCENTIVES USED WITH A MAXIMUM OF 65% OF THE HOMES AS AFFORDABLE. IF 8 OR 9 INCENTIVES ARE USED. NO MATTER HOW MANY INCENTIVES ARE UTILIZED, THE DURATION OF THAT AFFORDABILITY IS 30 YEARS. 
          FOR AFFORDABILITY INCENTIVES THROUGHOUT THE TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. FROM THERE, THE DEVELOPMENT GOES THROUGH THE NORMAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. JUST WITH THIS APPLICATION ATTACHED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMITS BEING ISSUED, BOTH THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER SIGN AN AFFORDABILITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM AGREEMENT, WHICH IS WHEN BOTH THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER 
          [02:45:06]
BECOME LEGALLY LOCKED IN TO THE AGREEMENT. IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO MONITOR THAT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE FULL 30 YEAR COMPLIANCE PERIOD. SO YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES HERE TO WALK YOU THROUGH. THESE ARE REAL EXAMPLES IN DENTON. THIS IS THE SHERMAN CROSSING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. LIKE ALL MULTIFAMILY IT IS BEHOLDEN TO THE LANDSCAPING AREA. POINT SYSTEM. THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT CHOSE TO TAKE TWO ELEMENTS EACH FROM SECTIONS A, B AND C TO SATISFY THEIR REQUIREMENTS. IF THIS DEVELOPMENT WERE TO TAKE THAT REDUCTION TO THE LANDSCAPING AREA POINT SYSTEM INCENTIVE, THEY COULD REMOVE TWO ELEMENTS EVERY TEN SPACES, WHICH YOU CAN SEE HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN, AND THE REQUIREMENT TO HAVE TREES THAT ARE FOUR CALIBER INCHES OR WIDER. AT THE TIME OF PLANTING, NOT THE TREES THEMSELVES, JUST THE SIZE OF THE TREES AT THE TIME OF THEIR PLANTING. IN EXCHANGE, 20% OF THE HOMES IN THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE COMMITTED TO BEING LEASED TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AT RENTS THAT WERE AFFORDABLE TO THEM. THIS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT HAS 294 HOMES IN IT, SO 59 OF THOSE HOMES WOULD BE AFFORDABLE, 15 OF WHICH WOULD BE FOR EXTREMELY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND 29 OF WHICH WOULD BE FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. THESE INCENTIVES CAN ALSO BE UTILIZED IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENTS. THIS IS THE STELLA HILLS DEVELOPMENT JUST ZOOMED INTO ONE PARTICULAR BLOCK. IN THIS SCENARIO, IF THEY WERE TO UTILIZE THE LOT WIDTH INCENTIVE, THEY COULD SEE A TEN FOOT REDUCTION TO THEIR MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS DOWN FROM 50FT TO 40FT. ON THE LEFT YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING BLOCK WITH ITS LOT LINES HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. WE REIMAGINED. IF IT HAD 40 FOOT WIDE LOTS. INSTEAD. IN THIS SCENARIO, 20 LOTS CAN BE FIT ON THE SAME BLOCK, WHICH PREVIOUSLY HELD 1,620% OF THESE HOMES WOULD NEED TO BE SOLD TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AT PRICES AFFORDABLE TO THEM. THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD IS 316 HOMES, SO 63 WOULD NEED TO BE AFFORDABLE, 15 FOR EXTREMELY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND 32 SOLD TO HOUSEHOLDS WHO ARE VERY LOW INCOME. STAFF DID CONDUCT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT REGARDING THIS AMENDMENT. A TOWN HALL WAS HELD ON AUGUST 5TH. IT HAD APPROXIMATELY 30 ATTENDEES, WHICH WAS A HEALTHY MIX OF LOCAL DEVELOPERS AND RESIDENTS. 
          ADDITIONALLY, THERE WAS AN ONLINE FEEDBACK FORM THAT WAS AVAILABLE FOR THE WEEKS PRECEDING THAT TOWN HALL. THE PRIMARY FEEDBACK RECEIVED DURING THAT TIME WAS AN INTEREST IN SEEING A STRONGER INCENTIVES THAT WOULD INCREASE DEVELOPER BUY IN. IN RESPONSE TO THAT FEEDBACK, STAFF ADJUSTED THE AMOUNT OF AFFORDABILITY REQUIRED FOR A NUMBER OF INCENTIVES AND ADDITIONALLY STANDARDIZED THE WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN THE PROPOSAL, WHICH WAS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. ON AUGUST 28TH AND IS THEREFORE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. THERE ARE FOUR OPTIONS TODAY. FIRST, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE. SECOND, TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS THREE TO DENY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND FOUR TO POSTPONE TO A DATE CERTAIN. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS THE ORDINANCE MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR CODE AMENDMENTS OUTLINED IN DDC SECTION 274D. I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR CONSIDERATION. WHAT QUESTIONS CAN I ANSWER? GREAT. THANK YOU. 
          I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING SO I DON'T FORGET. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT SIX. THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON JESTER. THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION. AND ALL THE WORK THAT'S GONE INTO IT. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. FIRST, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT BUILDING COVERAGE AS ONE OF THE LEVERS THERE, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE REQUIRED INSURANCE BUILDING COVERAGE? NO, IT'S ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF THE LOT THAT IS COVERED BY THE BUILDING PHYSICALLY. BUT IF THERE'S MORE MY CONCERN IS THAT, AS YOU KNOW, NOT EVERY DEVELOPMENT IS APPROPRIATE TO EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WITH WITH THE CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE THAT IS CURRENTLY BEFORE US, EACH OF THESE WOULD STILL COME THROUGH COUNCIL. SO WE COULD SAY, HEY, THEY WANT TO GO HIGHER THAN WE NORMALLY ALLOW APARTMENTS IN THIS AREA. THIS LOOKS LIKE A GOOD SPOT FOR IT OR THIS DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A GOOD SPOT FOR IT. AM I CORRECT IT WOULD STILL EACH OF THESE WOULD STILL GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS. THEY WOULD GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS AS BEFORE. NOT EVERY DEVELOPMENT COMES BEFORE COUNCIL. IF THEY'RE NOT SEEKING A ZONING CHANGE OR AN SP OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE IN THAT CASE, THESE SPECIFICALLY ARE APPROVED AT THE STAFF LEVEL OR DENIED AT THE STAFF LEVEL. 
          BUT IF ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE NINE INCENTIVES THAT WERE OUTLINED HERE WAS GOING TO BE 
          [02:50:03]
SOUGHT, THAT WOULD COME TO CITY COUNCIL. OKAY. WELL, THAT THAT'S PROBABLY MY BIGGEST CONCERN. I DEFINITELY WANT TO INCENTIVIZE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. HOWEVER, I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE THESE STANDARDS FOR A REASON AND TO GO AROUND THEM WITHOUT LOOKING TO SEE IF IT'S AN APPROPRIATE SPOT FOR IT. I'M A LITTLE I'M A LITTLE HESITANT, BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO THIS IS MY COLLEAGUE. HI EVERYONE. ANGIE MENGELE'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MANAGER. AS IT RELATES TO THINGS SUCH AS HEIGHT, WHICH IS USUALLY A TALKING POINT. THIS WOULD NOT NEGATE ANY OF OUR OTHER PROVISIONS WITHIN THE DDC, WHICH REQUIRE WE HAVE WHAT WE CALL HEIGHTENED TRANSITION ZONES. SO REGARDLESS OF IF THIS IS AN AFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENT OR A NORMAL DEVELOPMENT OR, YOU KNOW, TYPICAL IN MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH ALLOWS UP TO 65FT WHEN ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. WE HAVE CERTAIN PROVISIONS PUT IN PLACE TO MITIGATE HOW TALL THOSE BUILDINGS CAN BE COMPARED TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. 
          SO IF THAT BUILDING IS WITHIN 50FT OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, IT CANNOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THAT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. AND THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD NOT NEGATE THAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS WOULD STILL STAND. IF YOU HAD AN RN BUILDING ON A CORRIDOR LIKE LOOP 288, NO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS AROUND, THEY COULD BE 65FT IN HEIGHT BY RIGHT. WITH THESE INCENTIVES, IF THEY WERE GIVEN THAT THEY'RE NOT ADJACENT TO ANY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS THAT WOULDN'T TRIGGER ANYTHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO COME BEFORE YOU, THE SAME AS ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT. SO THIS DOESN'T NEGATE ANY OF THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS AS IT RELATES TO HEIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO TOUCH ON THAT, IF THAT HELPS. THANKS. OKAY. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO. THANK YOU. FIRST, LET ME LET ME SAY I REALLY THINK IT'S SMART OF STAFF AND, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH KIND OF INTANGIBLE INCENTIVES TO HELP WITH THE WHOLE AFFORDABILITY THING. AND I KNOW THAT AS DEPENDING ON WHETHER THESE ARE ADOPTED TONIGHT BY COUNCIL OR NOT, Y'ALL WILL BE MONITORING THEIR IMPACTS. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE SEE IN THE MONTHS AND YEARS TO COME. I WILL SAY ONE OF THE ITEMS HAPPENS TO BE A PET FOCUS OF MINE, BUT IT STANDS OUT THE LANDSCAPING GOAL. SO AT FIRST MAYBE WALK ME THROUGH THE LANDSCAPING POINT OF THE AUDIENCE AND THEN I'LL, I'LL COVER ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS AND MAYBE SOMEBODY CAN ANSWER THAT THIS IS ANOTHER PLACE WHERE OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE PLANNING TEAM ARE GOING TO SAY IT BETTER. 
          HEY, LANDSCAPING POINT SYSTEM FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS APART FROM YOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING ARE HELD TO A 30 POINT LANDSCAPE SYSTEM AND THAT POINT SYSTEM IS BROKEN OUT INTO A TABLE OF THREE CATEGORIES. WE HAVE WHAT WE CALL SECTION A, SECTION B, AND SECTION C. 
          SECTION A IS SPECIFIC TO RIGHT OF WAY SCREENING. SO WHEN YOU HAVE PARKING BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE STREET, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE TWO ELEMENTS OUT OF SECTION A AND SECTION B IS PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING. THAT WOULD INCLUDE THINGS LIKE LANDSCAPED ISLANDS AS WELL AS END CAPS. AND THEN THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL PROVISION WHERE YOU COULD GET POINTS FOR AN ENHANCED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN THAT RUNS THE LENGTH OF A PARKING AISLE. SECTION C WILL AFFECTIONATELY FOR TONIGHT CALL IT JUST OTHER. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A RIGHT OF WAY OR INTERNAL LANDSCAPING, BUT IT RELATES TO THE AMOUNT OF DROUGHT. DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS. YOU MAY MINIMUM REQUIRED TREE CANOPY AND LANDSCAPE COVERAGE BY A CERTAIN PERCENT. YOU HAVE TO ADD UP TO 30 POINTS AT THE END OF THE DAY. SO WITH THESE INCENTIVES THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED, SOMEONE COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT AND PROVIDE 20 POINTS INSTEAD OF THE 30, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE A BIT OF A COST SAVINGS TO THAT DEVELOPER. NO, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU REMINDING EVERYONE AND THAT THAT JIBES WITH MY RECOLLECTION FROM WHEN I WAS ON PNC AND SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WE PUT IN. I GUESS MY CONCERN IS, UNLIKE ALL THE OTHER RESTRICTIONS, THE LANDSCAPING CRITERIA SERVICE OTHER GOALS FOR DEVELOPMENT THAN THAN DO SETBACKS AND HEIGHT AND WHATNOT. THOSE THOSE OTHER CATEGORIES ARE ARE PREDOMINANTLY FOR THE BUILDING AND STRUCTURE AND THE WAY THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING IS ON A PARCEL. BUT THE LANDSCAPING CATEGORIES ARE FOR THINGS OUTSIDE OF THE PARCEL AND FOR MITIGATING OTHER, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST VIEWSHED, WHICH IS WHAT WE THINK OF AS LANDSCAPING, BUT BUT ALSO HEAT ISLAND EFFECTS. ALSO OTHER OTHER INTANGIBLE DEVELOPMENT ABOUT HOW REDUCTIONS IN THAT WILL REDUCE THE QUALITY OF ANY 
          [02:55:06]
GIVEN DEVELOPMENT. AND I DON'T WANT AFFORDABLE HOMES TO BE LOWER QUALITY. SO MAYBE IF SOMEONE COULD TALK ABOUT THAT. ONLY AT A VERY, VERY HIGH LEVEL. I SUPPOSE. BUT I DID WANT TO CLARIFY THAT ALLOWING SOMEONE TO TAKE THE TEN POINT REDUCTION FROM THE LANDSCAPE TABLE IS SEPARATE FROM OUR THE OTHER TABLE WE HAVE IN THE LANDSCAPE SECTION OF THE CODE THAT REQUIRES YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, 20% LANDSCAPE COVERAGE AND 40% TREE CANOPY COVERAGE. THOSE THOSE NUMBERS WOULDN'T, WOULDN'T CHANGE. SO THEY'D STILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET MINIMUM TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA, MINIMUM TOTAL TREE CANOPY COVERAGE AREA. IT WOULD BE FROM THE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS THAT WE REQUIRE TO BE PUT IN PLACE THAT THOSE REDUCTIONS COULD COME FROM, NOT THE TOTAL LANDSCAPING PORTIONS. OKAY. NO, THAT'S THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL. I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I GUESS I WAS LUMPING THOSE ALL TOGETHER. SO WE DO HAVE TWO SEPARATE. WE HAVE SEVERAL TABLES IN THE LANDSCAPING SECTION, ONE THAT SPECIFIES WHERE YOU HAVE TO GET YOUR 30 POINTS FROM, AND THEN A SEPARATE TABLE THAT SPECIFIES BUFFER REQUIREMENTS IF YOU ARE IN ADJACENCY USE. SO THE POINT REDUCTION IS ONLY TO THAT THAT TABLE THAT LISTS OUT THE THREE CATEGORIES. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU ANDY I APPRECIATE YOU. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT ONE. I JUST WANT TO JUST LET THE COMMUNITY KNOW AND REMIND THE COMMUNITY THAT WHEN WE HEAR THESE KINDS OF DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE ANSWERING THE CALL OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY TO, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND WE ARE APPARENTLY A VERY CONCERNED AFFORDABLE HOUSING TYPE COMMUNITY. AND SO, YOU KNOW, JUST WANT TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT HERE'S A CALL. SO HERE'S THE DISCUSSION. AND SO WE WANT TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT COMES OUT OF THIS. I AM GOING TO GO AHEAD AND TALK KIND OF THE HIGH REQUIREMENTS. I WOULD SEE THAT AS A CONDITION THAT I THINK SHOULD PROBABLY PROBABLY BE REMOVED FROM THESE PARTICULAR KINDS OF EFFORTS. BECAUSE WHEN I'M THINKING ABOUT THE AREA THAT I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR, I JUST CAN'T IMAGINE ANYTHING GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND. 
          BUT I ALSO WANT TO LET THE COMMUNITY KNOW THAT WE DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH DEVELOPERS. I CAN CLARIFY, I NEED SOME CONFIRMATION IF OF THESE TYPE OF DEVELOPERS THAT WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH. THEY DO WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE THINK. AND SO WHENEVER SOMETHING'S, YOU KNOW, ON THE BOOKS OR PROPOSED TO COME UP, IT WOULDN'T BE OUT OF THE ORDINARY FOR A DEVELOPER TO WANT TO GIVE ME A CALL AND SAY, HEY, WHAT'S GOING ON IN YOUR COMMUNITY? WE WANT TO PARTNER WITH YOU ALL AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE STAYING WITHIN WHAT YOU ALL ARE THINKING, THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE IN YOUR COMMUNITY. SO THAT'S A REAL THING TO, YOU KNOW, LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR US TO MEET WITH ON. I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE HEIGHT OF THE VARIANCE. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE. THE SLIGHT DEVIATION OF WHAT YOU KNOW, OF, OF HEIGHT IN TERMS OF HEIGHT WISE. CAN YOU TALK TO ME A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS TO US? YEAH, TO BE SPECIFIC. AND THIS WILL BE A LITTLE BIT PIGGYBACKING ON WHAT ANGIE SAID EARLIER, THAT SPECIFICALLY A 20% INCREASE IN THE HEIGHT THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THAT DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO THEIR ZONING. AND ALSO, AGAIN, NOT WAIVING THE EXEMPTION FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND TRANSITION AREAS. THAT'S ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE ORDINANCE THAT IT DOES NOT NEGATE THAT REQUIREMENT WHATSOEVER. SO THIS WOULD BE AGAIN, LIKE JUST 20, FORGIVE ME, 20% OF THE WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE AVAILABLE BASED ON THAT ZONING. OKAY. AND SO WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER THAT FILLED OUT A CARD THAT DOESN'T OR ONE CARD WISHING NOT TO SPEAK. AND I MAY SAY THE WRONG NAME, WRONG NAME, WRONG CARRIE MANGUS. ANYWAY, THERE'S ONE PERSON SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OR SUBMITTED A CARD IN CAN COME DOWN. GIVE YOUR NAME. 
          YOU WILL HAVE FOUR MINUTES. HELLO, MY NAME IS LIAM WAKEFIELD. I'M OFF OF PONDER AVENUE. I'M COMING OUT HERE TO SUPPORT FOR THIS. THESE TOOLS TO HELP GET AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          BECAUSE WE OBVIOUSLY NEED IT. WE'RE ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING AREAS IN THE COUNTRY, AND WE GOT 
          [03:00:02]
TWO UNIVERSITIES, A COLLEGE AND AN ART SCENE THAT WE THAT WE TRY TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN. BUT THAT IS A SIDE EFFECT IS LIKE WHEN WE MAKE AN AWESOME PLACE, PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE HERE. SO IF WE CAN GET LIKE IF WE CAN MAKE THIS A WIN WIN WITH DEVELOPERS, LIKE WE GET AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT THEY ALSO GET THE ABILITY TO HAVE MORE PEOPLE TO SET ACROSS THE SET OF COST OF THE BUILDING. 
          I, I DON'T SEE WHY WE SHOULDN'T DO THAT, ALTHOUGH THERE IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD DISCUSS. I WAS DISCUSSING WITH THE DEVELOPERS THAT HAS A BIGGER IMPACT THAN THE I KNOW IT'S SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC, BUT SINCE I WAS AT THE MEETING THERE IT WAS WHAT IT SAYS BECAUSE LIKE WITH THE IMPACT FEES, IT MAKES IT HARD TO DO SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SPREAD THE COST AMONG THE UNITS. SO I DO THINK IN THE FUTURE TO BUILD OFF OF THIS, THE WORK DONE HERE, THE GOOD WORK DONE HERE, WE SHOULD AS A CITY LOOK INTO HOW WE DO OUR IMPACT FEES, LIKE ESPECIALLY IN AN AREA THAT HAS ALREADY DEVELOPED INFRASTRUCTURE. THANK YOU. I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. KRISTEN BRAY, IF YOU CAN COME DOWN, YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES AND GIVE YOUR NAME. YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES. ALL RIGHTY. HELLO, COUNCIL. I WANT TO SUPPORT THIS ITEM. I WAS AT THE MEETING. I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING PART OF THE DISCUSSION. I WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WAS SUGGESTING THAT WE SHOULD MAKE THIS MORE GENEROUS. THERE'S REALLY KIND OF TWO OUTCOMES HERE, RIGHT? NUMBER ONE IS WE DIDN'T MAKE IT GENEROUS ENOUGH. OR TWO. WE MAKE IT GENEROUS ENOUGH THAT IT GETS USED RIGHT, AND THEN WE GET AFFORDABILITY OUT OF THAT. NOW, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT OUR CURRENT HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS IS HAPPENING UNDER THE CONTEXT IS SHAPED BY OUR CURRENT RULES. SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE OUR CURRENT RULES TO GET DIFFERENT RESULTS. WE CAN'T GET DIFFERENT RESULTS WITHOUT CHANGING THINGS, SO WE HAVE TO BE WILLING TO CHANGE THINGS. SO I SUPPORT THIS CHANGE AND I HOPE YOU WILL TOO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS CHARLES LEE. YOU CAN COME DOWN AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES. YES, MY NAME IS CHARLES LEE, AND I'M. I'M AGAINST THIS PLAN. THIS IS THIS IS BASICALLY SOCIALISM. YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS, TAKING FROM ONE PERSON, GIVING IT TO ANOTHER, WHICH IS INHERENTLY UNEQUAL. IT'S NOT EQUAL. IT'S UNEQUAL. AND THIS IS JUST GOING TO BREED MORE DIVISIONS IN THE COMMUNITY. AND IT'S JUST NOT A VERY GOOD PLAN AT ALL. AND THE NEXT TIME THEY NOT A GOOD PLAN AT ALL. YOU'RE JUST CREATING MORE DIVISIONS AND YOU'RE NOT CREATING ANY KIND OF UNITY AND IT'S JUST GOING TO CREATE THE MORE DIVISIONS AND DYSFUNCTION IN THE COMMUNITY. 
          AND IT'S NOT A GOOD PLAN AT ALL. AND I'M AGAINST IT FOR THAT REASON. AT ALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AMANDA CONWAY, YOU CAN COME DOWN AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES. YES, MY NAME IS AMANDA CONWAY. I'M A DENTON RESIDENT, AND I WANTED TO SPEAK TO YOU IN SUPPORT OF THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVE PROGRAM THAT'S BEEN DESIGNED BY THE CITY. WE HAPPEN TO LIVE NEAR THE QUAKERTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SOME LARGER DEVELOPMENTS, ESPECIALLY LIKE CONCERNS OF JUST GIANT PLACES THAT WOULDN'T FIT IN. MY HOPE IS THAT THIS WILL ALSO ENCOURAGE NEIGHBORS TO HELP NEIGHBORS. AND USE THESE INCENTIVES TO ADD NEIGHBORS TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. WHILE ALL TYPES OF THE HOUSING MARKET ARE NECESSARY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHAT I REALLY CARE ABOUT IS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD NOT HAVING SO MANY OPEN LOTS. HOMES THAT IT'S KIND OF UNCLEAR RIGHT NOW WHO REALLY OWNS IT, WHAT KIND OF SHAPE IT'S IN, SOMEONE'S POSSIBLY MOST LIKELY NOT LIVING THERE, AND THAT THAT COULD BE USED IN A BETTER WAY TO MAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR FOLKS LIKE US. AND NEW NEIGHBORS AND PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY IN DENTON LIKE US. WELL, THANK THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE. THANK YOU. THAT'S FANTASTIC. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS. ALL RIGHT. SUZANNE MOOR, YOU CAN COME GIVE YOUR. IF YOU 
          [03:05:01]
CAN GIVE YOUR NAME. YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. HI, EVERYBODY. I'M SUZANNE MOORE. I LIVE ON CRESCENT STREET. I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM. SO DENTON HAS REGULATIONS THAT MAKE HOUSING IS RELAXING, RELAXING THOSE A LITTLE BIT IN EXCHANGE FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE. WE NEED MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I'M PROBABLY IN THE 60% AMI RANGE. SOME OF THESE ARE JUST TARGETED AT 80%. I'M ONLY AT 60%. YOU KNOW, JUST BASED ON MY INCOME. WHAT'S EXCITING ABOUT THIS IS IT'S CREATING POTENTIAL FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE, BRINGING THE COST DOWN A LITTLE BIT WITHOUT REALLY COSTING US MUCH MONEY AT ALL. 
          WE'RE JUST RELAXING THE REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE THAT MAKE HOUSING MORE EXPENSIVE. SO I WAS AT THE PUBLIC INPUT MEETING. I APPRECIATE STAFF FOR TRYING TO MAKE THE INCENTIVES A LITTLE BIT BETTER, BECAUSE DEVELOPERS CAN'T LOSE MONEY ON A PROJECT. WE CAN'T ASK FARMERS TO LOSE MONEY WHEN THEY MAKE OUR FOOD. THEY STILL HAVE TO MAKE SOME KIND OF MONEY TO DO THESE PROJECTS. SO WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM A GOOD ENOUGH DEAL THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO GIVE US HOUSING THAT IS AFFORDABLE FOR MORE PEOPLE. AND I THINK THIS WILL HELP. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT THE ONLY SOLUTION. WE NEED A WHOLE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS. WE NEED TO THROW THIS IS ONE SMALL STEP WE CAN TAKE. HOPEFULLY IN THE FUTURE WE CAN ACTUALLY BEEF THIS UP A LITTLE BIT, BUT I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS WILL SUPPORT IT. THE 20% HEIGHT THING IS NOT EVEN GOING TO BE A FULL STORY. IN MOST CASES. IT'S JUST LIKE SLIGHTLY BIGGER. NOT EVEN A FULL STORY. 
          SO I HOPE YOU GUYS WILL PASS THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS TAMMY ELKIN. YOU CAN GIVE YOUR NAME. YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. HI. MY NAME IS TAMMY ELKIN AND I JUST RECENTLY MET THIS. THE PLANNING GROUP. I OWN A PROPERTY ON AVENUE F AND I WAS DOING SOME RESEARCH FOR MY SONS ABOUT READY TO GRADUATE COLLEGE. AND WHAT SHOULD I DO WITH A LOT. ENDED UP BUYING THE LOT NEXT TO IT. SO I'M THE LANDOWNER, NOT THE DEVELOPER. AND THIS IS THE RESEARCH THAT I BECAME PASSIONATE ABOUT, ABOUT LOW INCOME HOUSING AVAILABILITY IN DENTON, TEXAS. AND SO I'D JUST LIKE TO GIVE YOU GUYS SOME FACTS. SO THE AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING IN ECONOMIC STABILITY WITHIN A COMMUNITY. SO IT'S A DIRECT INDICATION OF HOW STRONG YOUR ECONOMY IS IN THE IN THE COMMUNITY. SO DENTON, TEXAS HAS 12 AVAILABLE RENTAL UNITS PER 100 LOW INCOME HOUSING. 12 PER 100. TEXAS STATEWIDE HAS 25 PER 100, AND THE NATIONAL AVERAGE IS 35 PER 100. SO DENTON IS SO FAR BEHIND IN MAKING UNITS AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF LOW INCOME AND WHICHEVER WHEREVER THEY FALL IN THE RANGE. AND THE HUGE IMPACT IS THE NATIONAL AVERAGE. PEOPLE WITH LOW INCOME SPEND 30% ON HOUSING BECAUSE THE AVAILABILITY IN DENTON, PEOPLE SPEND UP TO 45% OF THEIR INCOME ON HOUSING. AND THEY THEY'RE THE SAME LOW INCOME RATE AS EVERYBODY ELSE. I GREW UP IN LOW INCOME HOUSING AND I PROMISE YOU, I WAS NOT WORRIED ABOUT HOW THE LANDSCAPING LOOKED. I WAS I WAS WORRIED ABOUT HAVING A BED TO SLEEP IN. I WAS NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE HEIGHT. IT'S. AND I'VE STUDIED THIS. IT'S NOT THE HEIGHT. LIKE IT'S NOT STORIES. I GET AN EIGHT FOOT CEILING VERSUS A SEVEN FOOT CEILING. RIGHT? I DO GET A BETTER QUALITY OF LIVING. JUST LIKE I CAN AFFORD TODAY. SO I JUST WANT TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE. WHAT? WE'RE ALL TRYING TO GET APPROVED TODAY IS PEOPLE THAT DESPERATELY NEED IT AND DIDN'T DESPERATELY NEEDS IT FROM AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE, NOT JUST FROM A DOING THE RIGHT THING. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL THE SPEAKERS I HAVE. IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING. YOU CAN COME DOWN AND SPEAK, BUT I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SHORTLY. SO IF YOU CARE TO SPEAK, MOVE, MAKE A SUDDEN MOVEMENT. THERE YOU GO. I DIDN'T SIGN UP. NO WORRIES. WE'LL WE'LL WE'LL SCAN YOUR WE'LL I'M LYNN CLARK. I'VE LIVED IN DENTON FOR ABOUT 50 YEARS, AND THE TWO LADIES THAT ARE WITH ME HAVE BEEN LIVING HERE FOR 70 OR 80 YEARS, AND WE'VE SEEN IT GROW. WE'VE SEEN ALL OF IT GO. WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITIES ALL OF THESE IDEAS 
          [03:10:04]
OF EVERYBODY WANTING TO DEVELOP. DENTON IS ALL FINE AND DANDY, BUT LAST MONTH IN MY BILL, IT SAID THAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO CONSERVE MY WATER BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A WASTE SYSTEM TO CARRY ALL OF THIS GROWTH. AND WHEN I CALLED THE CITY, THEY HAVE NO PLANS TO EVEN WANT TO BUILD A WASTE SYSTEM. WE NEED SOME MONEY, PERMITS, MONEY THAT THEY PUT ALL OF THIS GROWTH AND THAT WE CAN HAVE WASTE SYSTEMS SO THAT ALL OF THIS CAN CAN MOVE. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT OUR CONCERN IS. WE'VE WE'VE LIVED HERE FOR ALL FOREVER. AND LANDSCAPING. WE CAN'T WATER. SO WHAT DOES THE LANDSCAPING IF WE DON'T HAVE WATER? THAT IS OUR BIGGEST THING OF ALL OF THIS THAT'S GOING ON. 
          SO THAT WAS MY IS A CONCERN OF OURS THAT THE GROWTH I MEAN, WE I'VE NEVER SEEN DENTON GROW SO BIG. I'VE BEEN HERE ALL MY LIFE. CARRIED MAIL 25 YEARS. I MEAN, IT'S THIS IS CRAZY. I'VE NEVER SEEN DRIVERS SUCH IDIOT DRIVERS IN ALL MY LIFE. YOU KNOW, I HAVE A LITTLE CHART ON MY CAR, AND IT SAYS EVERY TIME SOMEBODY DOES A WRONG MOVE ON THE CITY, I GO, WELL, CHUNK, YOU KNOW, AND YOU GO, THEY'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY ON THE STREET, OR THEY'RE CUTTING IN FRONT OF YOU AND YOU'RE SITTING AT THEM AT THE LIGHT GOING, YEAH, THERE YOU GO. 
          AND THEY'RE JUST LIKE PASSING YOU BY. BUT THE GROWTH IS A CONCERN. BUT THE WATER AND THE WASTEWATER THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF BIGGER SYSTEM, THE MONEY, WHEREVER THE MONEY IS IN THE TOWN, THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOT TO GO, BECAUSE ALL OF THIS GROWTH IS GOING TO HAVE SEPTIC SYSTEMS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS OKAY. YES, PLEASE. HI, MY NAME IS OLIVER AND I ACTUALLY WORK FOR DENTON AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND SO I ANSWER OUR PHONES ON THE DAILY AND I GET DOZENS UPON DOZENS OF CALLS OF PLEASE, CAN I RENT? I NEED SOMETHING I'M ABOUT TO BE EVICTED. I'VE BEEN HOMELESS. I NEED ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN GIVE TO ME. AND WE HAVE. I'VE WATCHED AS THESE DEVELOPED, AS WE'VE SEEN WHAT WHAT THESE COULD DO. 
          AND WE WOULD BE ABLE TO CREATE SO MUCH MORE TO GIVE TO THE PEOPLE OF DENTON WITH WITH THESE AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE EVERY DAY I HAVE TO TELL PEOPLE I'M SO SORRY, WE DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING AVAILABLE. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY UNITS THAT ARE COMING OPEN BECAUSE IT IS ALL FULL AND WE DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE MORE RAIN NOW BECAUSE THE REGULATIONS ARE SO STRICT. WITH THESE AMENDMENTS. WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SO MUCH MORE FOR DENTON, WHICH WE WANT TO DO SO DESPERATELY. SO PLEASE, I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT IF WE COULD PASS THIS. THANK YOU. OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. ANY ANY OTHER SPEAKERS SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF. REALLY QUICK. WITH THIS, WITH THE AFFORDABLE GEOGRAPHICALLY RESTRICTED, MEANING DENTON RESIDENTS GET PRIORITY OR ANYTHING LIKE IS THERE IS THERE A METHODOLOGY TO DO THAT FROM A FAIR HOUSING PERSPECTIVE? I DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. THAT'S MY CONCERN AS WELL. SO THAT IS I MEAN, I'M SUPPORTIVE, BUT I NEED PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT'S THE CHALLENGE, THAT IT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SOMEONE THAT LIVES IN FRISCO, THAT WANTS TO MOVE TO DENTON TO GET AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ALL THOSE THINGS. WE CAN'T SEQUESTER THAT HOUSING FOR DENTON RESIDENTS. AND THAT'S THE CHALLENGE. SO IT IT JUST ALSO PUTS PRESSURE WHEN THE SURROUNDING AREAS ARE MORE EXPENSIVE AND HAVE LESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IT PUTS PRESSURE FOR THEM TO COME HERE AND THEN JUST DRIVE WHERE THEY NEED TO GO. BUT OUR HANDS ARE TIED THAT WAY. WE CAN'T WE CAN'T RESTRICT THAT. SO THAT IS A CONCERN. BUT SUPPORTIVE, GENERALLY REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FIVE. PEOPLE. PEOPLE SHOW UP BEFORE THIS BODY FOR A LOT IS IN THIS COMMUNITY. WE HAVE PEOPLE SHOWING UP ASKING US TO SUPPORT WAYS TO ACHIEVE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE COMMUNITY. I HOPE THAT WHEN THE STORY IS WRITTEN OF TONIGHT, THEY WILL SAY THAT THE PEOPLE SHOWED UP AND DEMANDED THAT THE COUNCIL DO WHAT THE STAFF HAD SUGGESTED, AND THAT IS MAKE SOME AMENDMENTS SO THAT WE CAN DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. THE THING THAT STRUCK ME THE MOST TONIGHT WAS SURPRISE, SURPRISE. ONCE AGAIN, MISS BRAY, IF YOU WANT A DIFFERENT RESULT, YOU GOT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. HAPPY TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM. 
          REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT THREE. YEAH. THIS IS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING. THIS COUNCIL HAS 
          [03:15:01]
BEEN AIMING THAT ARROW IN DIALOG WITH YOU FOR SEVERAL YEARS. AND I'M REALLY HAPPY TO BE ABLE TO BE HERE ON THE NIGHT WHEN WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO APPROVE SOME REALLY CREATIVE WORK. AND I'M GOING TO SECOND IT. AND I HOPE YOU GET GREAT RESULTS. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. DISCUSSION REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO. THANK YOU. YEAH I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THIS. I HAD SOME INITIAL QUALMS THAT TALKED TO ME AT THE BEGINNING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SOME I THINK IF THERE'S IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, LIKE I AM IN COVERAGE AND THE ENVIRONMENT, THERE'S NOTHING THAT YOU CAN DO BETTER THAN INCREASE THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS TO MAKE A SMALLER FOOTPRINT SO THAT YOU HAVE MORE PERMEABLE SURFACE, MORE TREES, MORE LANDSCAPING. I KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT PEOPLE ARE USED TO, BUT THAT IS THE WAY THAT YOU PRESERVE LAND FOR THE SAME UNIT VOLUME. SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S VOTE ON THE SCREEN. THAT PASSES SEVEN ZERO. TAKES US TO ITEM B, WHICH IS PD 
          [B. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas regarding a change in the zoning district and use classification on approximately 25.96 acres of land from a Residential 2 (R2) district to a Planned Development (PD) with Mixed-Use Neighborhood (PD-MN) and Public Facilities (PD-PF) base zoning districts. The site is generally located at the northwest corner of the intersection of North Elm Street and North Locust Street in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas; adopting an amendment to the City’s official zoning map; providing for a penalty in the maximum amount of $2,000.00 for violations thereof; providing for severability and an effective date. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted [3-2] to recommend approval. Motion for approval by Commissioner Pruett and second by Chair Ellis. (PD24-0002a, Jefferson North Elm, Ashley Ekstedt)]
240002A. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS REGARDING A CHANGE IN ZONING, DISTRICT AND USE CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 25.96 ACRES OF LAND FROM RESIDENTIAL R-2 TO DISTRICT PLAN PD WITH A MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD. PD M MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. ASHLEY ECKSTEIN, ASSOCIATE PLANNER. 
          THIS IS PD 2042 JEFFERSON NORTH ELM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM A RESIDENTIAL TWO ZONING DISTRICT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, BASE ZONING DISTRICTS TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF 450 MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS AND PARK DEDICATION. THE EXISTING ZONING IS R2 AND THE FUTURE LAND USE IS NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE. TO GO OVER THE PD, OVER OVERALL THAT WILL HAVE TWO SEPARATE SUBDISTRICTS SUBDISTRICT A, WHICH WILL BE THE MULTIFAMILY USE AND THAT WILL BE 15.76 ACRES. AND SUBDISTRICT B, WHICH WILL BE THE PARK DEDICATION AND THAT WILL BE 10.2 ACRES. AND OVERALL, THE OVERALL TREE CANOPY WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 47%. OVERALL LANDSCAPE AREA 61%. OPEN SPACE 41%. AND THE PLANS CURRENTLY SHOW 52%. TREE PRESERVATION. THE PD DOES ALLOW FOR A MINIMUM OF 40% PRESERVATION JUST TO ALLOW FOR IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PARK, SUCH AS THE TRAIL, BUT THE INTENT IS TO NOT 150 DWELLING UNITS THROUGHOUT FOUR BUILDINGS APPROXIMATELY 54FT TALL. THESE BUILDINGS ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED ON THE SCREEN AND THEY ARE MOSTLY ALONG ELM AND LOCUST, AND THERE IS ONE BUILDING INTERNAL TO THE SITE. 
          THERE WILL BE 765 VEHICLE PARKING SPACES AND 40 BICYCLE PARKING SPACES. THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE ENTRANCES, ONE OFF LOCUST AND ONE OFF ELM, AND THOSE ARE BOTH CIRCLED HERE IN GREEN. THE ENTRANCE OFF LOCUST WILL INCLUDE A LEFT TURN LANE. THERE IS PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION THROUGHOUT, AND THERE IS THREE ENTRANCES TO THE PARK FROM THE MULTI-FAMILY USE, AND THOSE ARE ALL HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SCREEN IN BLUE. AND THERE WILL ALSO BE A TEN FOOT SIDE PATH CONSTRUCTED ALONG BOTH LOCUST AND ELM. AMENITIES WITHIN THE MULTI-FAMILY INCLUDE A CLUBHOUSE, OUTDOOR POOL, TRAIL AND OUTDOOR SEATING. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY USE THEY'LL HAVE 39% LANDSCAPE AREA AND 43% TREE CANOPY COVER. THERE WILL BE DETENTION POND LANDSCAPING THAT INCLUDES TREES AND A NATIVE POND PLANTING MIX. IN THAT AREA IS CIRCLED HERE IN GREEN STREET. TREES ARE ALSO PLACED SIDE PATH AND THE STREET, AND THOSE LOCATIONS ARE CIRCLED HERE IN RED. THERE'S PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING, INCLUDING END CAPS, MEDIANS AND ISLANDS, AND SOME OF THOSE LOCATIONS ARE CIRCLED HERE IN YELLOW. THERE'S ALSO SEVERAL BUTTERFLY GARDENS THROUGHOUT THE SITE, WITH THE LARGEST OF WHICH IS CIRCLED HERE IN BLUE. AND THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE LANDSCAPE BURNS PLANTED WITHIN THE 20 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG BOTH RIGHTS OF WAY. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS. THIS IS THE BUILDING AT THE CORNER OF LOCUST AND ELM. AS STATED, THESE ARE FOUR STORIES, APPROXIMATELY 54FT TALL. THE PARK DEDICATION THIS AS OF NOW THE PARK DESIGN IS CONCEPTUAL AND THIS WILL BE 10.2 ACRES. THE APPLICANT WILL WORK WITH PARKS AND DO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON THE DESIGN AND FEATURES OF THE PARK. AND THE APPLICANT DID BEGIN THOSE EFFORTS AT THEIR LAST NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WILL EVENTUALLY GO TO THE PARK BOARD AND THIS BODY FOR APPROVAL. THE EXISTING HOME THAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE SITE WILL BE REMOVED, AND 
          [03:20:03]
IN THE IN THAT PLACE WILL BE A MEMORIAL AND EDUCATION AREA. IN THAT LOCATION IS SHOWN HERE ON THE SCREEN AND TRAILS. PARKING WILL BE AT EVERS PARK TO THE NORTH, AND A HAWK SIGNAL HAS BEEN DISCUSSED TO ASSIST WITH CROSSING WINDSOR IN. THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THAT IS SHOWN HERE ON THE SCREEN IN BLUE, AND THERE IS ALSO AN EXISTING TRAIL TO THE NORTH, ADJACENT TO EVERS PARK AND THAT TRAIL WOULD BE CONTINUED THROUGH THIS PROPERTY. IT DOES MEET THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. IT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY WITH LAND USES CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE. IT ALSO MINIMIZES ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS BY DEDICATING A PARK AND EXCEEDING THE MINIMUM TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS, AND ALSO IT PROVIDES A GREATER LEVEL OF COMMUNITY AMENITIES AND CONNECTIVITY THAN WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED IF THE PROJECT WERE NOT TO BE DEVELOPED WITH THE PD. AS STATED, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE FUTURE LAND USE OF NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE. THESE AREAS ARE DESIGNATED WHERE THE PREDOMINANT USE IS RESIDENTIAL, WITH A DIVERSE MIX OF HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITIES. THESE AREAS ALSO RAISE THE STANDARD OF DESIGN TO INCREASE CONNECTIVITY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS, AND CREATE A SENSE OF PLACE TO SERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S ALSO CONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE COORDINATING THE ACQUISITION OF PARKS WITH GOALS FOR MOBILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, ENSURING THE PROTECTION OF DENTON'S TREE CANOPY, AND DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING A HOUSING STOCK THAT IS AFFORDABLE AND MEETS THE NEEDS OF ALL RESIDENTS. THERE ARE COMPETING INTERESTS WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF LAND AND TREE PRESERVATION VERSUS DEVELOPMENT THAT IS SCALED TO FIT IN WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. THIS PROJECT WILL CLUSTER THE DENSITY AND SCALE ON A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO CREATE A SMALLER DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT. IN ORDER TO CONSERVE MORE LAND AND MORE TREES. WITH THIS, THE BUILDING HEIGHTS AND SCALE COULD BE CONSIDERED OUT OF SCALE WITH THE SURROUNDING EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. IF SHORTER BUILDINGS WERE PROPOSED, THE LARGER DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT WOULD COME AT A COST OF LESS LAND AND LESS TREE PRESERVATION. AND JUST TO NOTE, THIS PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED ON THE PREFERRED LAND PRESERVATION MAP OR WILDLIFE CORRIDOR MAP, WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN HERE ON THE LEFT. AND ADDITIONALLY, THE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN IS SHOWN HERE ON THE SCREEN ON THE RIGHT. TO GIVE AN IDEA OF THE QUANTITY OF TREES LOCATED ON THIS PROPERTY, PUBLIC OUTREACH WAS DONE AND WE MAILED NOTICES TO EVERYONE WITHIN 500FT. WITHIN 200FT. IN RED FOR A TOTAL OF 8.03% IN ONE IN FAVOR SHOWN HERE IN GREEN, FOR A TOTAL OF 5.41%. THE APPLICANT ALSO HELD FOUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS BEGINNING IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS IT SEEKS TO ACHIEVE THE PRESERVATION OF LAND AND TREES. WHILE CLUSTERING THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE BALANCE OF THE PROPERTY. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL THREE TWO, AND THERE IS A NEW COPY OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS REVISED EARLIER TODAY. AND YOU SHOULD HAVE A HARD COPY IN FRONT OF YOU NOW. AND THE ONLY CHANGE WAS ADDING SECTION THREE, WHICH REQUIRES THE PARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO BE APPROVED BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENT PLANS ARE APPROVED. AND THAT WAS THE ONLY CHANGE TO THE ORDINANC. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE WITH THE PRESENTATION. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING JUST IN CASE I FORGET. SO MAKE SURE I DO THAT. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE THE APPLICANT PRESENTS. SEEING NONE. AND IS IT APPLICANT PRESENTATION, WHICH I. OKAY, THAT'D BE 2020. YEAH, BUT I PROMISE WE WON'T TAKE IT ALL. 
          HOW ABOUT THAT? OKAY. AND AMY BISSET, 97, LAND COMPANY, 109 NORTH ELM, DENTON 76201. MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, I APPRECIATE BEING HERE TONIGHT AND I'M GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE DIFFERENT TACT THAN I NORMALLY WOULD IN FRONT OF YOU. AND SHARE SOME PERSONAL HISTORY WITH THIS PROPERTY. 18 YEARS AGO I WORKED FOR KEEP DENTON BEAUTIFUL, WHICH WAS A PART OF THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME, AND I DROVE BY THIS PROPERTY EVERY DAY. MY OFFICE WAS NEAR NORTH LAKES PARK, AND IT'S BEAUTIFUL. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL HILL THAT IS HEAVILY TREED WITH POST OAKS. AND I FELL IN LOVE WITH IT. AND I IMMEDIATELY WANTED TO FIND A WAY TO HELP THE CITY PRESERVE IT. HAVING THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING A PART OF THE PARKS LEADERSHIP TEAM AT THE TIME, I STARTED TO ADVOCATE FOR PARKS ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AND REALLY WANTED TO LOOK AT FUNDING OPTIONS AND WAYS TO TRY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS, I, AS I REMAINED ON CITY STAFF FOR PUBLIC USE AND TO PRESERVE IT PERMANENTLY. UNFORTUNATELY, DUE TO THE FACT THAT EVERS PARK 
          [03:25:06]
IS A VERY NICE PARK AMENITY THAT EXISTS TODAY THAT SERVES THE NEIGHBORS IN THAT AREA, ALLOCATING DOLLARS TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL PARK PROPERTY AND ADDITIONAL AMENITIES IN AN AREA WHERE THEY ALREADY EXISTED DIDN'T MEET THE TOP PRIORITIES FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. THE PARKS DEPARTMENT HAS GOALS TO HAVE PARK AMENITIES WITHIN A TEN MINUTE WALK OF EVERY RESIDENT IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THAT, THEY REALLY NEEDED TO FOCUS ON PROPERTY OR AREAS THAT DID NOT HAVE THE KINDS OF AMENITIES THAT EVERS PARK HAD AT THE TIME. AND SINCE THAT TIME, I, AS A ZONING CONSULTANT, I HAVE FIELDED SEVERAL CALLS FROM DEVELOPERS AND ENGINEERS AND BROKERS ASKING ABOUT THIS SITE AND ASKING ABOUT REZONING IT, AND TO BE HONEST, I WOULDN'T TOUCH IT WITH A TEN FOOT POLE. I TOLD EVERY ONE OF THEM, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO PERSONALLY. HOWEVER, MY CLIENT JP CAME ALONG AND THE FIRST CONCEPT THAT THEY SHOWED ME HAD THEY HAD MAXIMIZED PRESERVATION OF THE PROPERTY TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT I'M HERE TODAY WILLING TO REPRESENT THEM AND STAND BEHIND THE ZONING CASE. I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER FOR A MOMENT WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY PROPOSING. THEY ARE BUYING 25 ACRES OF PROPERTY IN THE HEART OF DENTON, AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TO GIFT BACK TEN ACRES OF THAT TO THE CITY'S PARKS DEPARTMENT. THAT IS FIVE TIMES WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED OF THEM THROUGH PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS. AND THEY'RE PAYING FOR THAT LAND. AND THEN GIFTING IT BACK. IT'S 40% OF THE DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY, AND IT'S THE 40% THAT IS MOST HEAVILY TREED. SO THEY'RE BASICALLY WILLING TO BUY THIS PROPERTY TO SERVE THE PUBLIC GOOD. AND IN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NOBODY HAS BEEN CAPABLE OR WILLING TO DO PRIOR TO TOUCH ON THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF THE HOME ON THE SITE. I KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THAT SITE, AND I CAN I CAN SAY THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS EXPLORED EXTENSIVELY WITH THE CITY THE OPPORTUNITY OR THE POSSIBILITY OF PRESERVING THAT HOME, AND RAN INTO TWO ISSUES. THE FIRST ONE IS THAT IT'S BEEN SO HEAVILY MODIFIED THAT IT'S BEEN DEEMED TO BE NO LONGER HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT. AND SECONDLY, IT'S ON THE TEN ACRES THAT WOULD BE DONATED TO THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, WHICH THE CITY'S MAINTENANCE OF THAT PROPERTY LONG TERM WAS FOUND TO BE PROBLEMATIC. AND I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT I'VE PERSONALLY WATCHED AND ADVOCATED FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THIS SITE FOR 18 YEARS. AND TO DATE, NOT A SINGLE PRESERVATION OPPORTUNITY HAS PRESENTED ITSELF BEFORE NOW. AND I DO GENUINELY BELIEVE THAT THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS THE BEST OPPORTUNITY WE WILL HAVE TO PRESERVE A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THIS SITE, THE HEAVILY TREED PORTION OF THIS SITE, TO PUT SOME HISTORIC RECOGNITION TO THE SITE AND BE WITH THAT, I DO WANT TO SHARE A FEW THINGS ABOUT HOW THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THEN I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO RICH JARROW WITH JPI, WHO WILL GO INTO MORE DETAIL. SO WITHIN THE 2040 COMP PLAN, ONE ELEMENT THAT YOU HEAR ABOUT ALL THE WAY THROUGH IS THE THEME OF CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT. AND AT A BROAD LEVEL, CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT IS ESSENTIALLY CLUSTERING UNITS. RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF PERMANENT PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE. AND THAT'S EXACTLY THE INTENT HERE. COMPACT DEVELOPMENT IS ALSO A THEME THAT YOU HEAR THROUGHOUT THE COMP PLAN. AS WELL AS HOUSING CHOICE AND AFFORDABILITY. YOU JUST APPROVED DENSITY INCENTIVES RIGHT BEFORE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND THE DENSITY INCENTIVES THAT YOU APPROVED. MANY OF THEM HAVE BEEN PRACTICED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PLAN. DEVELOPMENT ALREADY. AND THESE UNITS ARE A MIX OF MARKET AND AFFORDABLE UNITS. AND WITH THAT, I'M AND LET HIM FINISH UP THE PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. THANKS. 
          SO WE'LL GIVE HIM, LIKE 14. I GUESS THE REMAINDER. YEAH. GOOD EVENING. MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBERS. THANK YOU, ASHLEY, FOR YOUR WONDERFUL PRESENTATION. THANK YOU, AMY, FOR YOUR 
          [03:30:05]
WONDERFUL PRESENTATION. A LOT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID, SO I'M GOING TO KEEP IT SHORT. I PROMISE I WILL NOT TAKE UP ALL 14 MINUTES. OUT OF RESPECT FOR EVERYONE, IN THE TIME THAT WE'VE ALREADY BEEN HERE. BLESS YOU. SO I'LL JUST START BY WHO WE ARE. SO WHO IS JP? WE'RE A TOP TEN LARGEST DEVELOPER IN THE NATION. WE'VE BEEN AROUND SINCE 1989. WE HAVE 35 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. IN THOSE 35 YEARS, WE'VE DEVELOPED IN 141 CITIES AND BUILT 373 COMMUNITIES LOCALLY, JUST IN THE AND THAT IS THROUGHOUT 14 CITIES WITHIN DFW. SO THAT ALSO TELLS YOU THAT WE'RE DOING A LOT OF REPEAT BUSINESS IN THE CITIES THAT WE'RE DOING BUSINESS IN, AND THAT IS BECAUSE OF WHO WE ARE AND THE REPUTATION THAT WE HAVE AS A MARKET LEADER. AS A MARKET LEADER, WE WANT TO BUILD THE NICEST PRODUCT IN EVERY CITY THAT WE GO, BECAUSE WE WANT TO DO THAT FOR THE CITY AND FOR THE RESIDENTS, AND WE THINK THAT IS THE BEST WAY TO PUT OUR BEST FOOT FORWARD AND CONTINUE TO BE THE LARGEST DEVELOPER IN THE NATION. WE'RE ALSO A ONE STOP SHOP. WE FIND THE SITE, WE CONSTRUCT THE SITE, WE DEVELOP THE SITE. WE MANAGE THE SITE ALL IN HOUSE THAT IS ALSO HELPS WITH OUR REPEAT BUSINESS IN EVERY CITY THAT WE WORK IN BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS IN-HOUSE. SO YOU'RE DEALING WITH ONE COMPANY THE ENTIRE TIME. HERE'S A LITTLE EXAMPLES OF PRODUCT THAT WE BUILD. SO DOUBLE VOLUME CEILINGS. THIS IS A LOBBY IN ONE OF OUR APARTMENTS. DOUBLE VOLUME CEILINGS. WE LIKE TO MAKE IT WARM AND INVITING AND ALLOW AREA FOR PEOPLE TO CONGREGATE TOGETHER. BECAUSE WE WANT OUR COMMUNITIES TO BE JUST THAT. WE WANT IT TO BE COMMUNITIES. WE WANT YOU TO KNOW YOUR NEIGHBOR. WE WANT YOU TO HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO GO DOWN HERE AND RENT OUT THESE EVENT SPACES, TO HAVE PERSONAL EVENTS. WE ALSO THIS IS ONE OF OUR FITNESS CENTERS. ALL OF OUR FITNESS CENTERS ARE STATE OF THE ART. WE STAY ON TOP OF ALL OF THE TRENDS THAT ARE OUT THERE. CARDIO CROSSFIT. YOGA. WE HAVE MIRROR CONTRAPTIONS IN THE YOGA ROOMS FOR NEW WORKOUT EQUIPMENT. AND THEN THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF OUR UNITS. SO GRANITE COUNTERTOPS, HIGH CEILINGS, STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES. JUST AGAIN, IT'S ALL OF OUR STUFF IS ABOUT HIGH QUALITY. SO GOING INTO THE PROJECT, AMY AND ASHLEY ALREADY TOUCHED ON IT A BIT. ONE THING I DO WANT TO ADD TO THIS IS WE WEREN'T THE HIGHEST BIDDER FOR THIS PROJECT. WE WENT THROUGH AN INTERVIEW PROCESS WITH THE SELLERS, MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH THE SELLERS BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT WHAT THEY HAD WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE CITY OF DENTON BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION THAT IT'S IN. WE HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH THEM AND WITH US NOT BEING THE HIGHEST BIDDER, THEY STILL SELECTED US BECAUSE OF OUR ORIGINAL PLAN. WE CAME IN WITH OUR BEST FOOT FORWARD. WE KNEW THAT TREES WERE IMPORTANT. WE KNEW THAT PRESERVATION WAS IMPORTANT. SO THAT'S WHY WE SHOW TEN AND A HALF ACRES BEING PRESERVED AND CONSOLIDATING THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          THAT SOUTHEAST CORNER, WHICH IS ABOUT ZONING WITH FUTURE LAND USES, SO I'LL SKIP OVER THAT. HERE'S ANOTHER. SITE PLAN I WANTED TO SHOW YOU. THIS IS COLORIZED SITE PLAN, SO IT SHOWS THE DENSITY OF THE TREES AND IT SHOWS HOW THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONSOLIDATED IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER. AMY AND ASHLEY BOTH WENT OVER WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IN THE PARK. ALSO WITHIN THE PARK THAT WAS NOT MENTIONED IS WE HAVE 3500FT OF TRAILS, MEANDERING TRAILS JUST WITHIN THE PARK ITSELF. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE 4400FT OF TRAILS SURROUNDING THE ENTIRE PARK. SO THAT WILL GO ACROSS THE BOY SCOUT AREA AS WELL. AND WE'LL ALSO HAVE A TRAIL CONNECTION TO THE NORTH, BECAUSE THERE IS A TRAIL ON THE MASTER PLAN THAT WILL HAVE A TRAIL CONNECTION TO, AND THEN IT WILL ALSO HELP WITH THE WALKABILITY OF THE AREA. ALSO, AS MENTIONED, WE'VE HAD FOUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS. IN OUR LAST NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, WE TOOK THAT AS A TIME TO REITERATE WHAT OUR PLANS WERE WITH THE HOUSE, AND THAT THE HOUSE WAS NO LONGER BEING PRESERVED, BUT WE WANTED TO GET AS MUCH NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT AS WE COULD ON THAT HOUSE AND HOW WE CAN BEST MEMORIALIZE THE HISTORY OF THAT PROPERTY AND THE EVERS FARM. SO THIS IS JUST SOME EXAMPLES. THE BOTTOM LEFT THAT IS WAS AN IDEA THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. SO YOU CAN STILL HAVE A COMMUNITY AREA A LITTLE CONGREGATION PAVILION AREA. AND THEN TO THE RIGHT IS HAMPTON PLANTATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA. SO IN MEMORIAL TO THE PLANTATION HOUSE THERE, THEY LEFT THE FOUNDATION. AND THAT LITTLE PICTURE FRAME ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAS AN ENGRAVED RENDERING OF WHAT THAT HOUSE LOOKED LIKE. SO IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THE PICTURE FRAME, THAT RENDERING SHOWS UP EXACTLY ON THE FOUNDATION. SO THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE FEW CREATIVE IDEAS THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM NEIGHBORS. WE'VE HAD MORE THAT KEEP COMING ALONG. AND DURING THIS TIME WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH PARKS DEPARTMENT POST ZONING, WE WILL ALSO HAVE MANY NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT MEETINGS TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THE NEIGHBORS WANT AND WHAT THE CITY WANTS, SO WE CAN PUT THIS PARK TO THE BEST USE POSSIBLE. THIS IS AGAIN MENTIONING THE TRAIL 
          [03:35:03]
AROUND THE ENTIRE BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY. AND THIS IS KIND OF REITERATING WHAT WAS ALREADY DONE IN THE LAST CASE, TALKING ABOUT THE DRESSING IT, SO THIS PROJECT FITS THE NEED FOR NOT JUST ATTAINABLE HOUSING, BUT HIGH QUALITY HOUSING BECAUSE OF WHO WE ARE AND BECAUSE OF OUR REPUTATION. WE'VE ALREADY PARTNERED WITH THE DENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND WE HAVE AN EXECUTED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THEM. AND WHAT THAT AGREEMENT SAYS IS THAT 225 OF THE UNITS WILL BE SERVING MARKET RATE RESIDENTS. THE OTHER 225 UNITS WILL BE SERVING 50% AMI 10% OF THOSE WILL BE 50% AMI, AND 40% OF THOSE WILL BE SERVING THE 80% AMI. SO THE GOAL THERE IS TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF POLICEMEN, FIREMEN, NURSES, UNIVERSITY WORKERS, POST-GRAD STUDENTS, ETC. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO LIVE IN DENTON IN A HIGH QUALITY NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THE AMENITIES THAT ARE AROUND THIS AREA. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WE HAVE HAD FOUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS AND IN EACH NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING I WON'T GET INTO THE DETAILS BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING CLOSE TO TIME AND AGAIN. 
          I KNOW TIME IS IMPORTANT, BUT IN THE FIRST NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING OVERALL FEELING OF SUPPORT, WE DID TAKE RESIDENTS CONCERNS WITH PRESERVATION OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE ORIGINALLY I WAS CONCERNS MOVED EVERYTHING TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER. IT ACTUALLY CREATED A MORE OPEN SPACE, LAND AND MORE PRESERVATION OF THE HOUSE. SO WE SHOWED THAT IN THE SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING IN FEBRUAR, AGAIN PRESENTED THE UPDATED PLAN, SHIFTED THE BUILDINGS, INCREASED PRESERVED AREA AGAIN, OVERALL FEELING OF SUPPORT. WE HAD A SIDEWALK WITH THE PREVIOUS OWNER, MIKE REED. HE GAVE US A HISTORY AND RUNDOWN OF EVERYTHING THAT HAD BEEN DONE TO THAT HOUSE SINCE HE WAS THE OWNER. SOME THINGS WERE ADDED AS EARLY AS EARLY 2000. THEN WE HAD A SIDEWALK WITH STAFF, PARKS DEPARTMENT'S PLANNING STAFF AND THE HISTORIC COMMISSION OFFICER TO GO THROUGH AND FIGURE OUT WHAT EXACTLY WE WANT TO DO WITH THAT PARK, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KNEW THE AREAS TO WHERE WE WERE GOING TO PUT THOSE MEANDERING TRAILS SO THAT WE DID NOT TAKE OUT ANY ADDITIONAL TREES. WE ALSO HAD THE HISTORIC COMMISSION OFFICER WALK THROUGH THE HOUSE AS WELL, SO SHE COULD PUT HER EYES ON IT AND UNDERSTAND KIND OF WHAT WE WERE DEALING WITH. 
          AND SO WHAT WE DECIDED AS A COLLABORATION THAT INSTEAD OF PRESERVING THE HOUSE, THE BEST WAY TO PRESERVE THE HISTORY OF THE SITE, BECAUSE IT IS BEST WAY TO DO THAT IS TO GET THE INPUT FROM THE NEIGHBORS AND SO IN THE THIRD AND FOURTH NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, WE HAD TO BECAUSE THE THIRD MEETING, ONLY ABOUT FIVE PEOPLE SHOWED UP. BUT WE HAD A FOURTH MEETING TO REITERATE THAT WE WERE NO LONGER PRESERVING THE HOUSE. BUT AGAIN, ASK THE ATTENDEES TO GIVE US AS MUCH INPUT AS POSSIBLE. IN THAT FOURTH MEETING, WE HAD ABOUT 30 PEOPLE SHOW UP AS WELL. SO AGAI, OVERALL FEELING OF SUPPORT AT THOSE MEETINGS AND WE FELT LIKE WE HAD THE BEST PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD, TO PRESENT TO YOU ALL. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR TONIGHT. THIS IS A 3D RENDERING OF OUR SITE, LOOKS SLIGHTLY BETTER THAN THE 2D RENDERING, SO HERE WE GO. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT TONIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          APPRECIATE IT. AND THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO WE HAVE QUITE A FEW CARDS. SO WE'LL GET TO THAT. AND THEN WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS AT THE END. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES PLEASE. AND THANK YOU LIAM WAKEFIELD WAKEFIELD. IF YOU CAN COME DOWN YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES AFTER YOU GIVE YOUR NAME. HELLO, MY NAME IS LIAM. GONE. WAKEFIELD. PONDER AROUND DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT PRESERVES THE MOST AMOUNT OF TREES. IT GIVES US MORE PARK SPACE IN THE CITY, WHICH IS ALWAYS HARD TO COME ACROSS. IT HELPS PRESERVE PART OF THE HISTORY OF THE CITY, WHICH AND AS COUNCILMAN BECK SAID EARLIER, THE WAY YOU PRESERVE LAND IS YOU HAVE A HIGHER YOU AND HAVE A SMALLER FOOTPRINT OF BUILDINGS IS BY BUILDING HIGHER. THIS DOES THAT. WE IF THIS IF THIS DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T GO THROUGH, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT WE GET ANY OF THIS ANY OF THESE TREES PRESERVED. IT'S LIKE IF THIS IS A IF THIS TURNS INTO MORE SINGLE FAMILY THERE IN ORDER TO GET THE UNITS FOR THIS TO PENCIL OUT, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE MORE LAND TURNED IN, PAVED OVER, TREES CUT DOWN, AND THERE'S NO GUARANTEE OF THE AMOUNT OF SPACE PRESERVED OR THE LOCATION PRESERVED. AND ALSO THIS IS BY A BUS, A BUS ROUTE THAT HAS RECENTLY HAD AN INCREASE IN SERVICE, BOTH IN TIME OF DAY FROM 7 TO 9. AND ALSO IT'S 20 MINUTES EVERY DAY. IT SO THERE'S NO THERE IS NO LIKE IT IS 1 IN 1 OF THE BEST AREAS TO DEVELOP TO REDUCE OUR DEPENDANCE ON CARS. BECAUSE IF WE DON'T DEVELOP INSIDE OUR DENSER AREAS, WE'RE JUST GOING 
          [03:40:01]
TO SPRAWL OUT INTO LESS DENSE AREAS LIKE NORTHEAST DENTON. SO HOW PEOP DEMAND FOR HOUSING IS GOING TO COME? IT'S NOT IT'S NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THEN ANNA HARRINGTON YOU CAN COME AND GIVE YOUR NAME. YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES. HELLO, MY NAME IS ANNA HARRINGTON. I GREW UP IN THE IVAR'S FARMHOUSE AT 2900 NORTH ELM STREET. FROM 1988 TO 1999. SO THIS PROPERTY IS VERY CLOSE TO MY HEART. WE KNOW THAT JEFFERSON PLAN IS TO CONSTRUCT APARTMENTS ON THE SOUTHEAST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, AND DONATE THE REST TO THE CITY FOR A PARK. I AM NOT HERE TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THAT PLAN. I, ALONG WITH MY FAMILY, MANY OTHER CONCERNED LAND IN SUBDISTRICT B. 
          CURRENTLY, THE PARKS DEPARTMENT PLANS TO REMOVE THE HOUSE AND OTHER STRUCTURES IN FAVOR OF INSTALLING A PLAQUE ABOUT THE HISTORIC HOME AND FAMILY IN THE AREA. SORRY, I HAD A SLIDE SHOW, BUT I DIDN'T GET TO BRING IT. THE COUNCIL'S EXHIBIT TEN PAGE TWO NOTE SEVEN STATES THE PARK DEDICATION LOT DESIGN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND WILL BE FINALIZED THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROCESS. WE WANT TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS PROCESS. WE PROPOSE THE HISTORIC FARMHOUSE, WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1900, OVER 100 YEARS AGO, NOT BE REMOVED, BUT INSTEAD PRESERVED IN ITS WITH ITS CURRENT ADDITIONS, WHICH THE ADDITION IS ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. IT'S NOT ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, AND ADDITIONS SHOULDN'T BE A REASON FOR NOT SAYING IT'S HISTORIC. WE WANT TO SEE IT USED AS A WILDLIFE GARDEN, AN EDUCATION CENTER, A PLACE WHERE MEETINGS, CLASSES, WORKSHOPS AND DEMONSTRATIONS RELATED TO GARDENING, WILDLIFE AND HISTORY COULD TAKE PLACE. THE HOUSE, WITH ITS WATER TOWER, WINDMILL AND BARN, WOULD ALSO SERVE AS AN EXAMPLE, WOULD ALSO SERVE AS AS A PART OF A 1996 CITYWIDE HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY, WHICH SHOWED THE HOUSE HAD HIGH PRIORITY STATUS AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK AND THAT IT WAS ELIGIBLE EVEN THOUGH IT HAD BEEN MODIFIED. WE ARE CURRENTLY IN DISCUSSION WITH LOCAL GROUPS WHO ALREADY WORK WITH THE CITY OF DENTON, SUCH AS THE DENTON COUNTY MASTER GARDENER ASSOCIATION AND WITH OTHERS WHO WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS POSSIBILITY OF AN EDUCATION CENTER, INCLUDING THE TEXAS NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY'S TRINITY FORKS CHAPTER. THE TEXAS MASTER NATURALIST ELM FORKS CHAPTER, AND THE PETAL PROJECT. I'M PRESENTING EACH OF YOU WITH A SPREADSHEET CONTAINING 304 NAMES, 300 AND 273 OF WHICH ARE FROM DENTON RESIDENTS WHO SIGNED A PETITION SUPPORTING OUR EFFORTS TO REPURPOSE THE IRIS FARM AS A COMMUNITY GARDEN AND EDUCATION CENTER. MANY OF THEM LEFT COMMENTS AS WELL. THE DENTON PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT'S VISION, AS STATED ON THEIR WEBSITE, INCLUDES EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES THAT SUPPORT GOOD STEWARDSHIP OF THE ENVIRONMENT. OUR PROPOSED USE AND PUBLIC GARDENS IN THE DFW AREA HAVE BUILDINGS FOR EDUCATION OR AT LEAST A VISITOR'S CENTER. THIS PROPERTY HAS A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING THAT IS A PIECE OF DENTON'S HISTORY AND IS READY FOR USE. A COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUE WILL NOT DO ANYTHING NEW FOR DENTON. A WILDLIFE AND GARDEN EDUCATION CENTER WOULD BRING A UNIQUE OUTDOOR ATTRACTION TO DENTON, AND WE DON'T HAVE A SPACE LIKE THIS CURRENTLY. IN CLOSING, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE HISTORIC EVERS FARMHOUSE BE RECONSIDERED. THANK YOU. WE ALSO ASK FOR A SCHEDULED VISIT WITH THE INTERESTED ORGANIZATIONS AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, TO THE PARK AREA IN ORDER TO ASSESS THE LAND AND ITS CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURES FOR THE PROPOSED EDUCATION CENTER. OKAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHRISTINE BRAY. IF YOU CAN COME DOWN AND GIVE YOUR NAME, YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. HELLO. CHRISTINE BRAY AGAIN TO THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS POINT. I RECALL THAT RECENTLY THERE WAS A DESIGNATED HISTORIC PROPERTY. IT RECEIVED ITS HISTORIC DESIGNATION BECAUSE THE OWNER WANTED TO TEAR IT DOWN SO SPECIFICALLY SO THAT HE WOULD HAVE SOME INCENTIVE TO INSTEAD DO AN ADDITION. SO IT SEEMS THAT PREVIOUSLY WE'VE BEEN CHILL WITH THE IDEA OF A HISTORIC STRUCTURE GETTING AN ADDITION JUST TO SUPPORT THAT IDEA. YEAH, I WANT TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. THIS IS AS PREVIOUS SPEAKERS AND THE DEVELOPER HAVE MENTIONED, VERY WELL SITUATED, RIGHT? WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE USING OUR BIKE LANES. WE'VE GOT A BIKE LANE ON WINDSOR. I ASSUME WE PUT THAT IN WITH THE INTENTION THAT PEOPLE WOULD USE IT. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A NICE PUBLIC AMENITY. WHAT IF WE PUT PEOPLE NEARBY IT SO THAT THEY COULD USE IT? WE'VE GOT THE PARKS THERE. WHAT IF WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO LIVE THERE SO THEY COULD USE IT? WE'VE GOT THE 
          [03:45:04]
LIBRARY RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. RIGHT. WE HAVE ALL OF THESE PUBLIC AMENITIES IN THIS AREA. 
          WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO WALK OR BIKE OR TAKE THE BUS SO THAT THEY'RE NOT GENERATING TRAFFIC. SO THAT THEY'RE NOT GENERATING THE EMISSIONS AND THE HAZARDS THAT COME WITH TRAFFIC. 
          THIS PARCEL IS NOT, YOU KNOW, PERFECTLY SITUATED FOR THAT, BUT IT'S INCREDIBLY WELL SITUATED. 
          IT HAS THE DOLLAR GENERAL, WHICH IS AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD, YOU KNOW, ALLOW LOTS OF PEOPLE TO GET THE BENEFITS FROM THAT RATHER THAN PUSHING THEM OUT ONTO THE OUTSKIRTS OF TOWN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JACOB WHITE, COME DOWN AND GIVE YOUR NAME. YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. HELLO. HI, EVERYONE. JACOB WHITE I LIVE AT 119 GABLE COURT. MY WIFE AND I BOUGHT A HOUSE MOVED FROM THE. I GUESS, FORT WORTH AREA UP TO HERE IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR. AS SOON AS WE MOVED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE NOTICED A COUPLE OTHER HOUSES GOING UP FOR SALE AND WE THOUGHT, WELL, THAT'S KIND OF ODD. AND UPON FURTHER TALKING, I THINK WE REALIZED THAT A LOT OF THESE HOUSES, THREE OUT OF THE 12 ON GABLE COURT, SOLD AS A RESULT OR SOON AFTER THAT, THIS I GUESS, PROJECT WAS FIRST ANNOUNCED. ULTIMATELY, AND I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING, I'M NOT AGAINST. I DON'T THINK MANY PEOPLE ARE AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY. IT'S JUST THE BIG THING APPLE MAPS SEARCH WITHIN A 1 TO 2 MILE RADIUS OF THE AREA. YOU ALREADY HAVE TEN APARTMENTS, SO BUILDING ANOTHER APARTMENT KIND OF WHERE'S THE END OF THAT? I KNOW THERE MIGHT BE ANOTHER PROPOSED ONE JUST SOUTH OF THE HIGHWAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE IN THE IN THE COMING MONTHS. SO JUST AS A RESIDENT, WHY MORE APARTMENTS? I THINK IT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY COULD BE USED IN A MUCH DIFFERENT WAY GOING OVER WITH THE ATTAINABLE HOUSING, ATTAINABLE HOUSING GOAL. I GUESS IF THAT IS THE GOAL, WHICH I THINK IT IS A NOBLE GOAL, AND MAYBE THIS THIS IS BEING DONE, WHY AREN'T THE OTHER APARTMENTS KIND OF PHASING INTO THIS HALF MARKET RATE THE OTHER AS ATTAINABLE HOUSING? I FEEL LIKE IF YOU GOT TEN PLUS OTHER APARTMENTS IN THE LOCAL AREA, INSTEAD OF JUST BUILDING NEW ONES, WHY CAN'T WE UTILIZE THOSE THOSE AS WELL WITH OUR NEIGHBOR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THOSE THOSE HOUSES SELLING LIKE, LIKE OURS HAVE? I THINK YOU'RE BUILDING THESE APARTMENTS. YOU'RE YOU'RE PUSHING OUT PEOPLE THAT HAVE THAT HAVE BEEN IN THEIR A BUILDING, YOU KNOW, SINGLE FAMILY COMMUNITIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AN ATTAINABLE COMMUNITY, WHICH I CAN UNDERSTAND. YOU'RE NOW KIND OF TAILORING IT OVER TO JUST MORE TRANSIENT PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, COMING AND LEAVING EVERY YEAR TO SIX MONTHS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A THERE'S A PUSH TO GROW THE CITY. 
          AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT EVERY CITY WANTS TO GROW. AND I KNOW DENTON'S DOING AN AMAZING JOB OF THAT. BUT BY APPROVING ZONING CHANGES LIKE THIS, YOU'RE PUSHING HOMEOWNERS OUT. AND ONCE AGAIN, YOU'RE JUST EXCHANGING THEM FOR TRANSIENT PEOPLE THAT AREN'T. ULTIMATELY, I DON'T BELIEVE BUILDING THE COMMUNITY. IT KIND OF BOILS DOWN TO THIS, IS THAT IF I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU ALL LIVE, I'M SURE YOU LIVE IN AMAZING PLACES. BUT IF THERE WAS A FOUR STORY MASSIVE APARTMENT COMPLEX GOING NEXT DOOR TO YOU ALL, I DON'T THINK YOU'D WANT IT TO BE THERE AS WELL. LAST THING I GUESS I'LL SAY IS I'M SURE THIS IS GOING TO PASS TONIGHT. IF IT DOES PASS TONIGHT, IF WE COULD BE PROACTIVE ABOUT THE INCREASING THE ROADS OR INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE ROADS BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE, THAT WOULD BE HUGE, HUGE, HUGE THING FOR OUR LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ANY OTHER SURROUNDING AREAS. SO I OF THE DAY. TRAFFIC IS ALREADY AN ISSUE. IF YOU'RE BRINGING 450 MORE APARTMENTS WORTH OF PEOPLE INTO THE AREA, IT'S JUST GOING TO GET WORSE. SO IF THIS DOES PASS TONIGHT, I JUST ASK THAT IF THERE'S ANY POSSIBLE WAY AND I KNOW THAT'S OVER IN TXDOT STUFF, BUT CAN WE BE PROACTIVE ABOUT DOING THIS AND MAYBE FIX THE ROADS BEFORE, YOU KNOW, THE STUFF GOES IN? SO I APPRECIATE YOU ALL AND HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. JUST ONE. IS THIS A QUESTION FOR THE SPEAKER? OKAY. YEAH. ONE QUESTION REALLY QUICK. WELCOME TO TOWN. I APPRECIATE IT. THANKS FOR COMING. SO THE WAY THIS WORKS NORMALLY SOMEONE OWNS LAND AND THEY SELL IT TO A DEVELOPER. THE CITY. WE DON'T BUILD ANYTHING. 
          SURE, WE HAVE CONTROL OVER ZONING CHANGES. YES, BUT SOMEONE WHO OWNS THE LAND, THEY SELL IT TO A DEVELOPER. DEVELOPERS ARE BUILDING THINGS THAT THEY KNOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LIVE IN. WE JUST HAD A CONVERSATION A LITTLE BIT AGO. WE TALKED ABOUT THE GREAT NEED FOR HOUSING. SO I'M SPEAKING TO LET YOU KNOW THERE IS NO PUSH FROM THE CITY OF IS CHEAPER HERE THAN IT IS IN A 
          [03:50:04]
LOT OF OTHER PLACES. THAT'S WHAT GOT US HERE. SO AND ALSO OF NOTE, AS I'VE DONE MANY, MANY TIMES IN THIS, AS YOU ALL KNOW, I WILL CAUTION YOU, PEOPLE IN APARTMENTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY MORE TRANSIENT THAN OTHER PEOPLE. I LIVE IN AN APARTMENT. I PRETTY WELL SAY I'M NOT. I'M NOT TRANSIENT. THIS IS MY HOME. I LIVE IN THE CITY AND I PLAN ON STAYING HERE, SO WE SHOULD ALL EXERCISE AS MUCH CAUTION AND RESPECT AS POSSIBLE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN APARTMENTS BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN APARTMENTS FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS. I MYSELF LIVE IN AN APARTMENT BECAUSE I'M DIVORCED AND I HAVE NO NEED TO STEP UP AND BUY A HOME. A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE ME LIVING IN APARTMENTS APPRECIATE YOU FOCUSED ON THAT OR NO. OKAY. AND IS THIS A QUESTION FOR THE SPEAKER? YES. OKAY. QUICKLY, PLEASE. YES. SO HOW ARE HOW ARE YOU ENJOYING ENJOYING YOUR TIME HERE IN DENTON? YOU'VE BEEN HERE SINCE APRIL? YEAH. YES, MA'AM. 
          LOVING IT. AND YOU'RE LOVING IT. YEAH. AND SO WELCOME TO OUR COMMUNITY. APPRECIATE IT. WE ARE WE'RE WE'RE ESSENTIALLY ARE ARE PUSHING WE'RE HAVING. WE'RE HAVING TO ADJUST FOR ALL OF THAT, AND ALL OF US ARE PAYING THE PRICE FOR THAT. I'M USING THE WORD TRANSITION. TRANSITIONING. THAT'S PART OF OUR, YOU KNOW, MANTRA HERE IN A CITY LIKE OURS THAT HAVE TWO MAJOR UNIVERSITIES IN IT. SO WE, WE, WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE THOUSANDS OF UNITS BEHIND. WE'RE BEHIND IN KEEPING UP WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING IN OUR CITY. WE'RE ASKING FOR COMPANIES TO COME HERE AND MOVE HERE AND PROVIDE JOBS. SO THAT'S ALSO PART OF IT. SO APPRECIATE YOU COMING HERE. AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AS WE ALL KIND OF GET THROUGH ALL OF THIS. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY I THOUGHT THERE WAS A QUESTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME I APPRECIATE IT. YES. ULTIMATELY IT BOILS DOWN TO IF WE COULD JUST ADD SOMETHING. I LIVE IN AN APARTMENT. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THERE'S NOTHING BAD ABOUT PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN APARTMENTS. IT'S JUST ONE OF THE BIG REASONS WHY WE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE IS THERE'S A BEAUTIFUL AREA WITH COWS IN IT THAT MY ONE YEAR OLD DAUGHTER CAN GO LOOK AT COWS AND SHE CAN SEE THAT RIGHT NOW, WHAT THAT WAS PROPOSED WITH THE WILDLIFE CENTER. I THINK THAT'S A FANTASTIC IDEA. ANYWAYS, LARRY BELL. COME DOWN AND GIVE YOUR NAME. YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS LARRY BELL. I'M A NEW RESIDENT OF DENTON, AND I THANK THE COUNCIL FOR THE TIME TO ALLOW ME TO SPEAK. I MOVED HERE IN JULY AND I WANT TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO THE PROGRAM. THERE ARE MANY, MANY QUESTIONS WHICH I DON'T FEEL I HAVE ADEQUATE ANSWERS FOR. THE FIRST QUESTION IS, IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE AND ACCEPTABLE? FOUR STORY TALL APARTMENT FOR THE RESIDENCES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? ON ALL SIDES, THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. 
          YES, THERE'S NICE TREES. THE SECOND QUESTION, MANY QUESTIONS. I HAVE IS WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THIS POPULATION DENSITY INCREASE TO THAT AREA? YOU'RE HAVING 750 APARTMENTS, 750 PARKING SPACES, CONCEIVABLY A THOUSAND PEOPLE MOVING IN TO I'VE NOT HEARD AN ADEQUATE EXPLANATION HOW WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS THE TRAFFIC ISSUES OF THE TWO SCHOOLS, THE PARKS AND THE LIBRARY AND THE EXISTING RESIDENCES. NOW, I REALIZE THIS IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT, BUT I WOULD EXPECT A LARGE FIRM LIKE THIS FIRM HERE WITH MUCH EXPERIENCE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF EXPERIENCE AND EXPRESS TO US HOW IT'S GOING TO WORK. THAT'S ALL. HOW IS IT GOING TO WORK IF THEY'VE NEVER DONE IT? TELL US HOW YOU PLAN ON MAKING IT WORK. HOW IS THIS GOING TO IMPACT THE PROPERTY VALUES THAT THE CURRENT RESIDENTS HAVE? GOOD OR BAD, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A FOUR STORY APARTMENT CROSSING ACROSS FROM YOUR HOUSE. OKAY. DO MY VALUES GO UP? DO THEY GO DOWN? DO THEY INCREASE? YOU KNOW. HOW DOES IT AFFECT MY QUALITY OF LIFE? I UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING. MEDIUM IMPACT HOUSING? THAT'S AN ACCEPTABLE GIVEN FOR DENTON. THE WAY IT GROWS. HOW DOES THAT IMPACT ME? I'VE NOT HEARD THOSE ANSWERS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I APPRECIATE IT, OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR IT, BUT I DO. I THINK YOU YOU I FOLLOW UP WITH YOU. PLEASE EMAIL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WE'LL FOLLOW UP. BUT I'LL TELL YOU THIS. IT'S RARE THAT YOU'D HAVE A DEVELOPMENT NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF TWO STATE HIGHWAYS. MOST OF US ARE TRAPPED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO STATE HIGHWAYS, AND I WOULD KILL FOR SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF MY HOUSE THAT COULD LET ME GO ABOUT 35 OR 
          [03:55:04]
40. SO IT'S PLACED WELL, AND IT'S CATTY CORNER FROM ANOTHER MULTIFAMILY UNIT. SO BUT EMAIL ME, WE CAN WE CAN GO INTO DETAIL. I DON'T WANT TO PROLONG THE MEETING ANY ANY LONGER. BUT BUT FAIR QUESTIONS. BUT I THINK THERE'S AN ANSWER. CHARLES LEE, IF YOU COULD COME UP, YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. YEAH. MY NAME IS CHARLES LEE. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT MAYBE IF YOU GUYS DIDN'T SQUANDER SO MUCH MONEY AND RAISE THE TAXES ON PROPERTY OWNERS, THAT MAYBE WE WOULD HAVE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE CITY. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY WHAT? I HEARD HIM IN THE WORK SESSION, HE SAID VERY DEROGATORY STATEMENTS ABOUT SUBURBAN SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I WANT EVERY AMERICAN CHILD TO HAVE A MIDDLE CLASS SUBURBAN LIFESTYLE. AND I FIND IT VERY OFFENSIVE THAT THEY'RE TALKING ALL THIS NEGATIVITY ABOUT URBAN SPRAWL. I WANT URBAN SPRAWL. I WANT URBAN SPRAWL ALL THE WAY OUT AS FAR AS IT CAN GO. THIS BUILDING DOES NOT NEED TO BE BUILT. I FIND IT GREAT OFFENSE. THIS HISTORICAL LANDMARK BOARD, I BELIEVE EVERYBODY ON THAT BOARD NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED AND THROWN OFF THAT BOARD. IF THEY'RE JUST ALLOWING SOME LETTING, ALLOWING THIS, THIS TYPE OF PROJECT JUST TO KNOCK DOWN A 100 YEAR OLD BUILDINGS. 
          BUT THEN YOU'RE GIVING HISTORICAL DESIGNATION TO THESE HOUSES THAT ARE ONLY 50 YEARS OLD BECAUSE YOU BECAUSE THEY HAVE POLITICAL CONNECTIONS. IT'S ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING. I THINK STAFF NEEDS TO BE FIRED ON THIS TOO, BECAUSE THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE. THIS PROJECT DOES NOT NEED TO BE GOING THROUGH BECAUSE IF YOU REALLY WANT TO DO SOMETHING AND PRESERVE SOMETHING, YOU COULD DO EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAKE THE PROPERTY OVER AND BUILD A PARK OUT OF THE WHOLE THING. BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE YOUR HANDS IN THE POCKET. WELL, NOW, THAT'S WHY I DON'T REALLY TRUST POLITICIANS, BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL SOLD OUT TO SOME KIND OF SPECIAL INTEREST. 
          THEY'RE GETTING THEIR MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS, AND THEY'RE EVERYBODY. THE PEOPLE. THESE PEOPLE ONLY WANT THIS TO DO ONE THING BECAUSE THEY WANT TO MAKE MONEY. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO ABOUT THE ESTHETICS OF THE COMMUNITY. THE COMMUNITY 360 DEGREES. BECAUSE I LIVE BY THERE. THIS IS IN MY COMMUNITY NOW. THE COMMUNITY 365 AROUND IT IS A MIDDLE CLASS SUBURBAN HOMES, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THIS BIG MONOLITH RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE. IT'S ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING HOW YOU'RE DOING THIS, THIS WHOLE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION THAT YOU'RE DOING. IT NEEDS TO BE REVAMPED. IT NEEDS TO REALLY ANYTHING THAT'S HISTORIC REALLY NEEDS TO GO ON THE BALLOT OF THE COMMUNITY. BECAUSE IF IT'S UP TO A POLITICIAN, JUST BECAUSE THEY WON ONE ELECTION WITH A 1% TURNOUT, THEY WANT TO BUILD ALL KIND OF MONUMENTS TO THEMSELVES. THAT'S WHY I DON'T PUT NOTHING PAST POLITICIAN, BECAUSE ALL THEY REALLY ARE IS A BUNCH OF PIMPS. AND THAT'S REALLY ALL. BECAUSE THEY'LL TELL YOU ANYTHING THAT I HAVE A CARD FOR. IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU CARE TO SPEAK, YOU CAN COME DOWN AND SUSIE MOORE, IF YOU'LL COME DOW, GIVE YOUR NAME. YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. HELLO AGAIN. SUSIE MOORE LIVE ON CRESCENT STREET. I'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM I GOT HERE IN DENTON IN 2006. I WAS A RENTER UNTIL 2018 AND I AM STILL HERE. I AM NOW A HOMEOWNER BECAUSE I AM LUCKY THAT I HAVE TWO INCOMES TO WORK WITH. OTHERWISE I WOULD BE ABOUT 60% AMI. AND SO THIS HAS LIKE 10% OF THE UNITS WILL BE 50% AMI. BUT ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN TO ANY OF US. ANY OF US COULD LOSE A SPOUSE. WE COULD GET DIVORCED. SOMETHING COULD GO WRONG WITH OUR MEDICAL BILLS. THINGS CAN HAPPEN TO US AND WE NEED A VARIETY OF OPTIONS AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE IF THEY MAYBE THEY CAN'T AFFORD THEIR HOME ANYMORE BECAUSE SOMETHING HUGE HAS HAPPENED IN THEIR LIFE. SO THIS IS PROVIDING SOME OF THAT. BUT WHAT I'M EXCITED ABOUT WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, IT IS IT'S NEAR A LIBRARY LIKE WALKING DISTANCE, SUPER CLOSE TO A LIBRARY. IT IS NEAR TWO SCHOOLS, WALKING DISTANCE OF TWO SCHOOLS. IT IS CLOSE QUITE A LOT OF THINGS. IT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST CONNECTED BIKE ROUTES WE HAVE IN DENTON. IT IS NEAR A BUS ROUTE. SO WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT THIS IS IT GIVES PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET AROUND WITHOUT A CAR FOR EVERY SINGLE TRIP. MAYBE THEY DRIVE SOMETIMES, LIKE THERE'S NOT REALLY A GROCERY STORE OVER HERE. THEY PROBABLY HAVE TO GO AND DRIVE TO THE GROCERY STORE. 
          BUT THEY COULD BIKE, THEY COULD WALK, THEY COULD TAKE THE BUS IN SOME CASES FOR SOME OF THEIR TRIPS. THIS IS HOW WE ARE ABLE TO REDUCE SOME OF THE TRAFFIC WE HAVE IN DENTON. HOW WE CAN REDUCE SOME OF THE EMISSIONS WE HAVE IN DENTON, AND THEN THE WEAR AND TEAR ON OUR ROADS, WHICH WE HAVE LEARNED RECENTLY IN THE MOBILITY COMMITTEE. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY RIGHT NOW FOR OUR ROADS. SO THIS IS A GREAT WAY TO REDUCE SOME OF THAT STRAIN BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. PEOPLE CAN SOMETIMES NOT DRIVE SOMETIMES FOR SOME OF THE TRIPS, WHEN WE 
          [04:00:01]
PUT SOMETHING LIKE THIS OUT IN THE PERIPHERY, IF WE PUT IT OUT ON LOOP TWO, 88 OR SOMETHING, THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO DRIVE FOR EVERY TRIP. THE CARS DON'T GO AWAY, WE JUST MOVED THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE. THAT IT MATCHES OUR OUR COMP PLAN THAT CALLS FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT WE ARE REDUCING SOME OF THIS SPRAWL THAT IS EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. WE CANNOT AFFORD ALL OF THIS SPRAWL. AND I KNOW THAT WE WANT TO PRESERVE NORTHEAST DENTON. 
          THIS HELPS US KEEP THE GROWTH IN THE CITY CORE INSTEAD OF JUST EXPANDING OUT INTO OUR RURAL AREAS AND DEVELOPING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANY OTHER? ANYONE ELSE CARE TO SPEA? OH, YES. IF YOU CAN GIVE YOUR NAME, YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES AND YOU CAN FILL OUT A CARD AFTERWARDS. HI. ISABEL ECCLES, I'M ANNA'S SISTER. I JUST QUICKLY WANT TO SAY THAT I REALLY HOPE YOU ALL CONSIDER PRESERVING THE HOME. IT'S MAGICAL. IT'S HISTORIC. IT'S A HUGE PART OF THE EVEREST FAMILY. EVERS HARDWARE, EVERS PARK, EVERS PARK ELEMENTARY. SO THERE'S LOTS OF INFORMATION ON THE HOUSE. AND I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO LOOK AT HER FARM IN BOERNE, TEXAS, AND SEE WHAT THEY DID WITH THAT FARMHOUSE. THANKS. THANK YOU. ALL GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ANNE HARRINGTON AND I LIVED IN THE HOUSE AND RAISED MY FAMILY THERE IN THE 80S, AND SECONDS. WHEN I THINK ABOUT DENTON, I THINK ABOUT A CITY THAT'S GROWING AND I WANT TO SEE IT GROW IN THE RIGHT WAY. IF THIS ZONING CHANGE IS APPROVED, I'M NOT SURE HOW THE PARK WILL BE DEVELOPED. I'M GLAD THAT IT'S STILL A CONCEPT AT THIS PART, BUT I WOULD REQUEST, AS ANNA MENTIONED, A SITE VISIT TO THE PARK TO ASSESS POSSIBLE ALTERNATE PLANS FOR THE BUILDING AND PROPERTY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD CARE TO SPEAK? OKAY, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND. ASHLEY, IS THERE SOMEONE THAT COULD SPEAK TO JUST SO THAT EVERYONE AND I KNOW YOU BRIEFLY TOUCHED ON THE EVALUATION OF THE HOME. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT CAN SPEAK TO THAT? OR AT LEAST TALK ABOUT. HOW THAT'S EVALUATED FROM A HISTORICAL STANDPOINT. I JUST WANT TO JUST WANT TO GIVE STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THAT, THAT CONCERN. SO THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY EVALUATION OF THE HOME AND HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST TO BRING IT UP TO A STANDARD THAT COULD BE WITHIN A PARK. BUT WE STAFF HAS WALKED IT AND KNOWS THAT IT WOULD BE PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE TO BRING IT UP TO THE STANDARDS, TO STAND UP TO THE PUBLIC WITHIN THE PARK. AND I HAVE SOME PHOTOS I CAN SHOW, AND MAYBE JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT. SO WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU'RE SAYING FOR PEOPLE, IT'S NOT IN A STATE WHERE PEOPLE CAN WALK IN IT. ET CETERA, ET CETERA. THOSE SORT OF THINGS. RIGHT, RIGHT. YEAH. AND SO THIS, THIS PHOTO KIND OF SHOWS THE ADDITION. SO THE PORTION ON THE BACK IS AN ADDITION. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THIS NEW PORTION ON THE FRONT THAT IS ALSO AN ADDITION. AND GARY PARK AND PARKS DIRECTOR IS HERE. AND HE COULD SPEAK MORE TO THE ISSUES THAT WOULD COME ABOUT IF THIS WERE TO STAY WITHIN THE PARK. 
          BUT JUST TO GIVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THE HOME NOT BE PRESERVED WITHIN THE PARK. OKAY. GOT IT. WELL, WE'LL SEE IF SOMEONE ELSE HAS THAT QUESTION. THAT'S FINE. JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ANSWERING THOSE? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT SIX. HI, COUNCILPERSON. JESTER, I'VE GOT A QUESTION. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM SOMEONE WITH P AND Z THAT ACTUALLY THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION REGARDING WHETHER THE HOUSE STAYS OR GOES, THAT THAT IS SEPARATE FROM WHAT WE VOTE ON TODAY. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE CONVERSATION WITH WITH PARKS. IF THIS PASSES TODAY. BUT THAT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT WE THAT THAT IS PART OF TODAY'S ORDINANCE. IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT. SO EVERYTHING WITHIN THE PARK IS CONCEPTUAL AT THIS POINT. SO THIS IS JUST THIS IS THE ZONING FOR THE MULTIFAMILY AND THE PARK DEDICATION. BUT THE PARK IS CONCEPTUAL. AND THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED WITH THE PARKS BOARD THROUGH PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. AND THEN BACK BEFORE THIS BODY. OKAY. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT VOTING IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM ON WHETHER OR NOT THE HOUSE IS GOING TO BE RETAINED BY THE CITY OR NOT, OR SOME OF THESE UP THERE TO UTILIZE THE PROPERTY. THAT COULD BE DEDICATED, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE. SURE, IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT VOTING TODAY ON THAT AND WANTED TO MAKE. SURE, I WAS CLEAR TO THANK YOU. YES, THANKS. DID I DID I HEAR YOU 
          [04:05:03]
WRONG WHEN YOU FIRST OPENED UP, YOU GAVE US THIS UPDATED SHEET AND I THOUGHT YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT IT. TALKED ABOUT THE HOUSES? NO. SO THAT. SO SECTION THREE IS THE NEW PORTION THAT WE REVISED IN THE ORDINANCE TODAY. AND SO IT JUST STATES THAT NO DEVELOPMENT PLANS CAN BE APPROVED BEFORE THE PARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS APPROVED. OKAY. THERE YOU GO. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. 
          REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT THREE. ACTUALLY, ACTUALLY, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU AS WELL. 
          AND I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PARK CONVERSATION COMES LATER. IF THIS IS APPROVED. BUT I WONDER HAVE YOU CONSIDERED OR EVEN CONCEPTUALLY LOOKED AT EXAMPLES OF PRESERVING THE FACADE AS PART OF A FUNDAMENTALLY OUTDOOR I WILL DEFER TO CAMERON ON WHAT SHE LOOKED AT WHEN SHE SAW THE HOUSE. WHEN SHE DID THE SIDEWAL. I'M SAYING I LIKE THE PORCH. THE APPEARANCE OF IT. GARY PACHON, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATIO. SO WE HAVE HAD SOME VERY GENERAL CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHETHER IT WOULD BE A FOOTPRINT, COULD BE OUTLINED, IF THE FACADE COULD BE PRESERVED TO MAKE IT SOME SORT OF GATHERING SPACE, SHELTER, PAVILION OF THAT SORT. NOTHING HAS BEEN FINALIZED. WHAT WE'RE WAITING FOR THIS PROCESS TO KIND OF UNFOLD, AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO PUBLIC INPUT AND DISCUSSION, GATHER FEEDBACK, AND THEN COME BACK TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ULTIMATE DIRECTION. GREAT. I THINK THAT'S GOING TO NEED A LOT OF CONVERSATION. YEAH. THANK YOU. I KNOW I'M I'M SATISFIED. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU KNOW, I CAME. GO AHEAD. NO, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. YEAH. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I KIND OF HALF INCLINED TOWARD TOWARD DENYING. I KNOW THE SENTIMENT AROUND IT. AND I AND FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE SINCE 2008. AND WHEN I DRIVE AROUND, PARTICULARLY EAST SIDE OF TOWN AND IT'S APARTMENT BUILDING AFTER APARTMENT BUILDING, I MEAN, IT'S ALREADY KIND OF UNRECOGNIZABLE. AND I CAN'T SAY ESTHETICALLY, LIKE, I LOVE THAT, BUT IT IS STILL THE CASE THAT WE'RE NOT DONE MEETING THE DEMAND FOR ALL KINDS OF HOUSING, INCLUDING SINGLE FAMILY. BUT, YOU KNOW, AND THE MISSING MIDDLE AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS. AND I AM PERSUADED BY WHAT I'VE HEARD TONIGHT THAT WE'RE UNLIKELY TO GET TO ACHIEVE THE KIND OF PRESERVATION THAT THIS PLAN REPRESENTS. ANOTHER WAY. AND IT'S REALLY HARD TO DO. 
          AND I DON'T THINK DENTON IF WE DON'T SUPPORT YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THIS WITH DENSER BUILDING, MORE PRESERVATION, HOPEFULLY. AND IT IS REALLY WELL LOCATED IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE DENSER HOUSING, IT IS REALLY WELL LOCATED. IT IS FOR NON-CAR USES AND ALSO FOR HIGHWAY ACCESS. SO IT KIND OF ULTIMATELY MAKES SENSE. AND I'M MOVING APPROVAL. I KNOW NOT EVERYONE'S GOING TO BE HAPPY ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT'S WHERE I LAND. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO. YEAH. MAYOR PRO TEM TOUCHED ON A LOT OF THESE THINGS. I AM THIS THIS IS A THIS IS A PARCEL THAT IS SORT OF IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE PRESERVATION GOALS THAT WE HAVE, THEN 50% TREE CANOPY PRESERVATION ISH. I FORGET THE EXACT PERCENTAGE IS THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE WANTED. AND LOCKING IT INTO PUBLIC FACILITY TO, TO GOVERNMENT LAND MEANS IT'S THAT WAY FOREVER. THE WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE LOCKED IT IN FOREVER, BUT I APPLAUD THEM FOR CONSIDERING A PARK FROM THE GET GO. BUT THIS IS THIS IS A MUCH BETTER DEAL. CONNECTS IT UP WITH WITH OTHER PARKS. CONNECTS IT UP WITH AMENITIES AND RESOURCES. THE WAY TO GET PRESERVATION OF THE KEY ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS IS, IS TO WORK ON THOSE ELEMENTS THAT ALLOW PRESERVATION TO HAPPEN. SO I'M HAPPY TO SECOND THIS ONE. CAN WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. 
          SEEING NONE ON THE SCREEN. PASSES SEVEN ZERO. LET'S TAKE A QUICK TEN MIN 
          [04:10:10]
AND WELCOME BACK TO THIS MEETIN. DETROIT CITY COUNCIL. IT IS 902. WE HAVE A QUORUM, SO I'LL CALL 
          [C. Hold a public hearing and consider a petition for voluntary annexation of approximately 0.039 acres of land, generally located west of Teasley Lane and approximately 170 feet north of Leatherwood Lane. (A24-0003a, 5702 Teasley Lane, Mia Hines)]
US BACK TO ORDER. NEXT ITEM ON THE PUBLIC HEARINGS IS ITEM C, A240003A. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING. 
          CONSIDER A PETITION OF VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 0.039 ACRES OF LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED WEST TEASLEY LANE AND APPROXIMATELY 170FT NORTH OF LEATHERWOOD LANE. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND FOR THOSE AT THE DESK, THERE'S NO ACTION FOR THIS ITEM. SO JUST A PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION. GO AHEAD. YEAH. GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, MIA HINES, SENIOR PLANNER. THIS ITEM, AS STATED IN THE CAPTION, IS JUST THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ANNEXATION PIECE. THIS IS THE SECOND OF THREE ITEMS REGARDING THIS PROPERTY. JUST TO REMIND YOU, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A 0.039 ACRE TRACT OF LAND LOCATED WEST OF TEASLEY LANE, APPROXIMATELY 170FT NORTH OF LEATHERWOOD LANE. JUST TO GIVE A LARGER PARENT TRACT, AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING ZONING WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. WITH REGARD TO THIS PARCEL IS R-2 OR FOR RESIDENTIAL TWO, LARGELY FOR THOSE SINGLE THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THIS AREA AND SURROUNDING AREAS IS A MIX OF MODERATE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNITY MIXED USE. AGAIN, A REMINDER THIS PARTICULAR ITEM REQUIRES NO ACTION AS THIS IS JUST THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE IS THIS. I WILL COME BACK BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING WITH ONE MORE. THAT IS THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE FOR THIS ANNEXATION. AND AGAIN, THIS WILL COME BACK BEFORE YOU BEFORE ON NOVEMBER 19TH FOR FINAL ACTION. WITH THAT, I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THAT YOU HAVE. OKAY. 
          AND THERE'S ONE CARD FILLED OUT, SO I'LL JUST GO STRAIGHT TO THAT. CHARLES LEE, YOU CAN COME UP AND GIVE YOUR NAME. YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. YEAH, I WILL KEEP IT BRIEF. I ALREADY EXPLAINED MY POINT OF VIEW. I'M AGAINST ALL ANNEXATION BECAUSE IT GROWS THE GROWTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND I'M AGAINST THIS. THANK YOU. CARE TO SPEAK? YOU CAN FILL OUT A CARD AFTER THE FACT. BUT ANYONE CARE TO SPEAK? OKAY. SURE. I SUPPORT THE OWNER'S RIGHTS TO THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THIS CASE. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE CARE TO SPEAK? IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. 
          SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. 
          [D. Conduct the first of two public hearings of the City of Denton, Texas regarding the adoption of a strategic partnership agreement between the City of Denton and Legends Ranch Municipal Utility District of Denton County.]
OKAY. THAT WILL TAKE US TO ITEM SIX D ID 241931. CONDUCT THE FIRST OF TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON LEGENDS RANCH, MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, DENTON COUNTY. GOOD AFTERNOON. MAYOR. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING THIS FAR, SO DON'T FORGET. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS CHARLIE ROSENTHAL WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TODAY IS THE FIRST OF TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT WITH THE LEGENDS MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT CREATED TO TAX FOR WATER, WASTEWATER AND OTHER DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. THE LEGENDS MUD WAS FIRST DISCUSSIONS HAPPENED IN 2019. THEY PETITIONED US, EXCUSE ME IN 2020 AND THEN CITY COUNCIL ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT IN 2022. THAT AGREEMENT WAS AMENDED IN AUGUST OF 2024, AND IN THAT AGREEMENT, IT REQUIRED US TO ACT WITH IN WITHIN 120 DAYS OF THIS WITH A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT. THAT'S THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TODAY. SO LEGENDS IS A 522 ACRE DEVELOPMENT, 1500 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AND 625 MULTIFAMILY UNITS THAT IS OFF OF WEST 380 NEAR THOMAS EGAN, JUST TO THE NORTH AND WEST OF 380, AND THOMAS EGA, SERVICES THEY'RE RECEIVING FROM DENVER WATER SEWER, FIRE AND PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. WHEN THE ITEM CAME BEFORE YOU IN AUGUST, THERE WERE SOME ADDITIONAL ITEMS INCLUDED THAT INCREASE THE MULTIFAMILY PACK FEES. SO A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS, AS I STATED BEFORE, WAS IN BOTH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. IT REQUIRES TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS BY BOTH THE CITY AND THE MUD. THE MUD HAS ALREADY COMPLETED THOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND THIS IS THE FIRST ONE FOR THE CITY OF DENTON. THE SECOND ONE WILL COME BEFORE YOU NEXT WEEK. THE AGREEMENT ALLOWS FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE ANNEXATION FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. CURRENTLY, 
          [04:15:06]
THERE IS NO PLANNED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE MUD ITSELF. THERE IS PLANNED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT'S WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS ON THE FRONTAGE OF US 380. SO AT THIS POINT WE DON'T THINK THAT WE'LL USE ANY LIMITED PURPOSE ANNEXATION. BUT IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, THAT WOULD COME BEFORE CITY COUNCIL. AND THEN THIS ALSO ALLOWS FOR THE FULL PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION AT THE TIME THAT ALL OF THE BONDS ARE PAID OFF. AND THE DEVELOPER IS FULLY REIMBURSED BY THE MUD. AND THAT WILL BE THE CITY COUNCIL'S DISCRETION AT THAT POINT AS WEL. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS? THIS IS A PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO. THANK YOU. CHARLIE. WITH THE. WITH THE PURPOSES BEING A COMBINATION OF POSSIBLE, PARTIAL AND POSSIBLE FULL ANNEXATION AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. I MEAN, A LOT OF THE REASONS WE GO INTO VARIOUS KINDS OF AGREEMENTS WITH MDS AND MUDS AND WHATNOT ON ON THE, THE PERIPHERY OF OUR, OF OUR OUR REGION IS. TO TRY TO MOVE THEM IN THE DIRECTION OF OUR STANDARDS. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION GOES TO WHERE IN THIS AGREEMENT, HOW IF WE'RE INTENDING IT SOME NEAR TERM TO BE DETERMINED LATER TO BE TAKING ON THIS THIS AREA AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE? HOW CLOSE ARE THEY CURRENTLY TO OUR STANDARDS? CAN SOMEBODY TALK ABOUT THAT? YEAH. SO WE INCLUDED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED. AND THEN ALSO AMENDED MOST RECENTLY IN AUGUST. AND SO THOSE STANDARDS INCLUDED THEY ALSO HAVE TO FOLLOW OUR STANDARD PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. SO THEY COME THROUGH US FOR DEVELOPMENT, REVIEW AND PERMITTING. AND THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENED IN MOST CASES. AND THEY WILL BEGIN CONSTRUCTION ON SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HERE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS. SO MAYBE THE INVERSE IS THE BETTER QUESTION. WHAT ARE THEY NOT DOING THAT WOULD THEY WOULD DO IF THEY WERE FULLY ANNEXED WITHIN OUR, OUR REGION. 
          SO THEY'RE FOLLOWING CITY OF DENTON DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITH INCREASED GAS. WELL SETBACKS AS WELL. SO THEY'RE NOT. SO THEY'RE NOT FOLLOWING ALL OF OUR CITY PROCEDURES. BUT WE'VE OUTLINED THEM WITHIN THE EXHIBIT OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. WELL, GREAT. SO I'M GOING TO PARAPHRASE THAT TO MEAN THAT, OKAY, THAT THEY ARE IN IN FOLLOWING, FOLLOWING ALL OUR OUR DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES THEN SO IN, IN A, IN A NUMBER OF YEARS WHEN IF WE WERE TO ANNEX THEM I GUESS THAT'S THE QUESTION. WHAT WHAT WOULD REMAIN TO BE THERE'S NO ZONING PROVISIONS IN THE COUNTY. SO THERE REALLY IS NONE OF OUR ZONING REGULATIONS APPLY TO THIS DEVELOPMENT. 
          PROBABLY IN SIMPLEST TERMS, WE'VE GOT ALL OF OUR CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. SO ROADWAY, WATER, WASTEWATER DRAINAGE. AND AGAIN, WE'LL WE'LL PERMIT AND INSPECT EVERYTHING OUT THERE. BUT OUR ZONING OUR ZONING REGULATIONS DON'T APPLY. SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND SOME OF THE PROVISIONS WE HAVE FOR ESTHETIC. ET CETERA. ET CETERA. DO NOT APPLY. OKAY. SO IT. YEAH. NO, I GOT IT. I WON'T BELABOR IT. THANK YOU. SCOTT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. SEEING NO SPEAKERS, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THEN I WILL. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I JUST HAVE ONE REQUEST. CHARLIE, CAN YOU SEND GET A ASK FOR THE MAIL THOSE TO ME. YEAH. I JUST WANT TO SEE THE MEETING. SEE ATTENDANCE, THAT SORT OF THING. 
          OKAY. YEAH. AND LOCATION. IT WAS HELD. RIGHT. SO WHERE IT WAS HELD, HOW MANY PEOPLE? MINUTES, 
          [E. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an Ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas regarding a change in the zoning district and use classification from Residential 3 (R3) District to a Planned Development with a base district of Residential 6 (PD-R6) on approximately 12.1 acres of land generally located north of East McKinney Street, south of Paisley Street, approximately 1,200 feet east of the intersection of East McKinney Street and Mack Drive, in the city of Denton, Denton County, Texas; adopting an amendment to the city’s official zoning map; providing for a penalty in the maximum amount of $2,000.00 for violations thereof; providing a severability clause and an effective date. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted (4-1) to recommend denial of the request. Motion for denial by Commissioner Villareal and second by Commissioner Padron. DUE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL, A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OF THE CITY COUNCIL IS REQUIRED TO APPROVE THIS ITEM. (PD24-0004b, Villages on McKinney, Julie Wyatt)]
PLEASE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. THAT CONCLUDES ITEM SIX. D TAKES US TO SIX E, WHICH IS PD 240004B. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, REGARDING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT AND USE CLASSIFICATIONS FROM RESIDENTIAL THREE R-3 DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH A BASIC DISTRICT OF RESIDENTIAL SIX ON APPROXIMATELY 12.1 ACRES OF LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF EAST MCKINNEY STREET AND SOUTH OF PAISLEY STREET. APPROXIMATELY 1200FT EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAST MCKINNEY. EAST MCKINNEY 
          [04:20:02]
STREET AND MACK DRIVE. GOOD EVENING, JULIE WYATT. I'M PRESENTING PD 24 FOUR VILLAGES ON MCKINNEY. SO THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM R3 DISTRICT THE INTENT OF THE PD IS TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF 119 ZERO LOT LINE DWELLINGS ON ABOUT 12 ACRES. ZERO LOT LINE DWELLINGS AREN'T SOMETHING WE TYPICALLY SEE IN THE IN THE CITY OF DENTON. WE DON'T HAVE THAT USE DEFINED IN THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE. BUT BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A SMALLER LOT WHERE ONE ONE SIDE OF THE HOME WOULD, WOULD BE PLACED ON ONE PROPERTY LINE, AND THEN THERE WOULD BE A, A SETBACK ON THE OTHER PROPERTY LINE. AND THAT GETS ME TO WHY ARE THEY PURSUING A PD ON THIS PROPERTY? AS YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR SCREEN IS A VERY NARROW PROPERTY. IT HAS SOME UNIQUE LOT DIMENSIONS AS WELL AS SOME ENCUMBRANCES ON THE LOT, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT. BUT ALSO THAT USE ONCE AGAIN, IT'S NOT A USE THAT WE REALLY DEFINE WITHIN THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND SO THAT'S WHY THE APPLICANT IS PURSUING THE PD. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED BETWEEN MCKINNEY TO THE SOUTH EAST, MCKINNEY TO THE SOUTH AND PAISLEY TO THE NORTH HERE. IT'S BETWEEN WOODROW AND LOOP 288. IT IS AN AREA THAT'S USE IN OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE AREA. IN PARTICULAR, YOU HAVE SOME MULTIFAMILY TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS TO THE SOUTHWEST. THERE'S ALSO SOME TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE AREA AND A SMALLER LOT SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTHWEST. AND THE ZONING REFLECTS THAT IN THE IN THE AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS I MENTIONED IS R3, BUT THERE'S A VARIETY OF ZONING DISTRICTS SURROUNDING IT. SO MORE PARTICULAR TO THE SITE BECAUSE AS I SAID, IT DOES HAVE SOME UNUSUAL CHARACTERISTICS TO THE SITE. AT ITS NARROWEST, IT'S ABOUT 250FT WIDE AND AT ITS WIDEST IT'S ABOUT 270FT WIDE. IT'S OVER 2000FT LONG. SO IT'S VERY NARROW AND LONG. IT ALSO HAS A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT THAT RUNS ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AND SORRY, I SHOULD PROBABLY DENOTE THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS, IS ON THIS SIDE OF THE SCREEN. AND THEN THE SOUTH SIDE ALONG MCKINNEY IS HERE. AND I HAVE SOME PICTURES ON YOUR SCREEN THAT KIND OF SHOW WHAT, WHAT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE IN THAT UTILITY EASEMENT. WE'VE GOT SOME OVERHEAD POWER LINES AS WELL AS SOME ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. THERE IS SOME DRAINAGE FACILITIES, AND THEN AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN, YOU'VE KIND OF SEE STANDING ON PAISLEY AND LOOKING TOWARD THE PROPERTY, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE HOW NARROW IT IS. SO AS I MENTIONED, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. AND WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, WE DO HAVE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN. IT SHOWS 119 ZERO LOT LINE DWELLINGS. THEY WOULD EACH BE ON INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED LOTS. AS PROPOSED THEY THEY WOULD HAVE FOUR PARKING SPACES PER LOT PLUS GUEST PARKING IN THE CENTRAL AREA OF THE DEVELOPMENT HERE. THEY ARE PROPOSING A 2100 FOOT LONG, TEN FOOT WIDE PUBLIC TRAIL WITHIN THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT THAT RUNS ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY BOUNDARY. AND YOU COULD SEE IT HERE. IT'S SHADED IN PURPLE ON YOUR SCREEN. AND THEY ARE PROPOSING MAXIMUM TWO STORY STRUCTURES ON YOUR ON ON YOUR SCREEN. YOU CAN SEE KIND OF A POTENTIAL CONCEPT OF WHAT WHAT THE HOUSES WOULD LOOK LIKE. OH ONE MORE THING I WANT TO MENTION. THEY ALSO HAVE SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY. ONE THING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IS BECAUSE OF THE NARROWER LOT SIZES, THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS AS MUCH UNINTERRUPTED SIDEWALK AS POSSIBLE. SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE ON YOUR SCREEN ON THAT TYPICAL LOT DETAIL. THE DRIVEWAY IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN THAT IT'S PINCHED WHEN YOU GET TOWARD THE SIDEWALK AND THE PROPERTY OR IN THE PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY. IT ALLOWS CARS TO STILL MANEUVER IN AND OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY, BUT IT DOES REDUCE THAT DRIVEWAY IMPACT ON THE SIDEWALK. THE PD DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALSO INCLUDES STREET DESIGN AND CONNECTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSAL. AS THEY'RE PROPOSING, THERE WOULD BE FOUR ACCESS POINTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT. IT WOULD IT WOULD SPAN MCKINNEY AND PAISLEY SO THAT THE PUBLIC STREET WOULD CONNECT MCKINNEY TO PAISLEY. IT WOULD ALSO CONNECT TO SOME STUB OUTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE EAST OF THE PROPERTY. AND YOU COULD SEE THAT THOSE THAT THOSE CONNECTIONS ARE HERE. SO THAT 
          [04:25:01]
WOULD BE FOUR CONNECTIONS IN. AND OUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT. BECAUSE IT IS LONG AND NARROW. 
          THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING SOME TRAFFIC CALMING TO REDUCE OR TO LIMIT SPEEDING ON THE IN THE SUBDIVISION. SO WE HAVE A SPEED CUSHION ON THE SOUTH SIDE, A ROUNDABOUT IN THE CENTRAL AREA AND THEN ANOTHER SPEED CUSHION JUST TO TRY TO LIMIT SPEEDING BEHAVIOR. THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES A 50 51FT WIDE SECTION OF RIGHT OF WAY. AND THAT WOULD FOR THAT PUBLIC STREET WITH PARKING RESTRICTED TO ONE SIDE. SO OUR TYPICAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET RIGHT OF WAY IS 55FT WIDE. THAT ALLOWS THEN A 33FT BACK OF CURB TO BACK OF CURB. DRIVING AREA. IT ALSO OUR TYPICAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET ALLOWS FOR PARKING ON EITHER SIDE. THEY ARE PROPOSING BECAUSE OF THE SITE CONSTRAINTS TO AN ALTERNATIVE STREET SECTION WHERE IT WOULD BE 51FT WIDE WITH 29FT BACK OF CURB TO BACK OF CURB PAVEMENT, BUT RESTRICTING THE PARKING TO JUST ONE SIDE OF THE STREET. THAT WOULD ALLOW ADEQUATE ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES OR OR RESIDENTS TO MOVE THROUGH THE COMMUNITY. I SHOULD NOTE THAT THAT 20 THE PROPOSED 29FT OF PAVEMENT IS ACTUALLY WIDER THAN WHAT WE OFTEN SEE IN SOME OF OUR OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON, BECAUSE UP UNTIL ABOUT 2018, OUR TYPICAL RIGHT OF WAY SECTION WAS 50FT WIDE, WHICH WOULD LEAVE 28FT BACK OF CURB TO BACK OF CURB. WE DID INCREASE THAT IN 2018 TO THE 55FT WIDE, SO IT WOULD LOOK MORE LIKE WHAT YOU WOULD TYPICALLY SEE IN ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, WHICH WAS DEVELOPED PRIOR TO THAT INCREASE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. THEY ARE ALSO PROPOSING A LEFT HAND TURN ON MCKINNEY INTO THE DEVELOPMEN. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALSO INCLUDES A LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH LANDSCAPE ENTRY FEATURES, BOTH ON MCKINNEY AS WELL AS PAISLEY, AND THEN A CENTRAL AREA FOR TREE PRESERVATION, AS WELL AS TREE PLANTING. THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN ALSO DEPICTS THAT THE TRAIL WITHIN THE EASEMENT. SO WE DID ANALYZE THE PROPOSAL AND DETERMINED THAT IT DOES MEET THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. AND I'M JUST GOING TO GO OVER SOME OF THOSE. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS. SO FIRST OF ALL, WE LOOKED AT AT THE GOAL, THE OVERALL GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND ONE OF THOSE IS INFILL. AND IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS EVENING. AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR INFILL GOALS. FIRST IT'S CONSISTENT WITH GOAL LU ONE. AND THAT WE WANT COMPACT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS WITH BALANCED LAND USES. WE WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF AREAS WHERE WE ALREADY HAVE ROADS AND WATER AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ABOUT ONE AND A HALF MILES FROM FROM DOWNTOWN, AND ABOUT THREE QUARTER OF A MILE FROM LOOP 288. SO IT'S WITHIN OUR OUR CORE OF DENTON. SO IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THAT INFILL. IT'S ALSO KIND OF A GAP IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FABRIC, IF YOU WILL. THE SURROUNDING AREA DEVELOPED STARTED IN THE 1970S AND DEVELOPED OVER THE DECADES. THIS LOT REMAINED UNDEVELOPED. AND SO THIS REALLY WOULD KIND OF CLOSE THAT GAP OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FABRIC. IT'S ALSO CONSISTENT WITH OUR GOAL LU THREE, AND THAT RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS THAT COULD BE SUITABLE IN INFILL, SUITABLE INFILL IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORS COULD INCLUDE THINGS LIKE TOWNHOMES, FOURPLEXES, DUPLEXES AND OTHER TYPES OF LOW TO MODERATE DENSITY HOUSING. THESE ARE ONCE AGAIN A RESIDENTIAL TYPE. WE DON'T SEE VERY OFTEN WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON, AND IT WOULD PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE HOUSING TYPE FOR PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT WANT A LARGE YARD, BUT BUT WANT A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOME. IT'S ALSO CONSISTENT WITH OUR HOUSING AND URBAN DESIGN GOALS. AND THAT IT DOES PROVIDE THAT THAT VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPE WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON. THE DEVELOPMENT IS DESIGNED IN A WAY THAT PRIORITIZES PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IN TERMS OF THAT OFF STREET. THAT OFF STREET TRAIL, AS WELL AS THE DRIVEWAY DESIGN TO MAXIMIZE THE UNINTERRUPTED SIDEWALKS ALONG THAT PUBLIC STREET. IT'S ALSO IMPROVING OUR CONNECTIVITY. IT'S ADDING ANOTHER CONNECTION BETWEEN MCKINNEY AND PAISLEY AS WELL AS CONNECTING TO THAT ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT THERE ARE COMPETING INTERESTS WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I DO WANT I DO WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF THE PROPERTY IS IN AN AREA IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT IS LOW RESIDENTIAL. TYPICALLY THAT IS, DWELLINGS UP TO FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND AT TEN DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THIS THIS PROPOSAL ISN'T CONSISTENT WITH THAT. THAT DENSITY. HOWEVER, ONCE AGAIN IT DOES CONFORM TO THOSE OTHER GOALS WITHIN THE WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS THAT HIGH 
          [04:30:05]
POLICY, HIGH LEVEL POLICY DIRECTION. IT'S THAT 30,000FT, AND IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT INDIVIDUAL LOT AND SITE CONSIDERATIONS. AND SO AND SO IT IT COULDN'T IT DOESN'T CAPTURE ALL OF THOSE ALL OF THOSE POSSIBILITIES WITHIN A SPECIFIC SITE. AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS ALWAYS KIND OF THE FIRST THING WE LOOK AT. AND IT'S IMPORTANT REFERENCE POINT. 
          BUT IT IS NOT THE ONLY CONSIDERATION IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND WE ALWAYS KEEP THAT IN MIND ON THE PLANNING STAFF IS TO DOES THIS FURTHER THOSE OVERALL GOALS. AND IN THIS INSTANCE IT DOES. PUBLIC OUTREACH WAS SENT OUT. WE HAVE RECEIVED 14 LETTERS IN OPPOSITION, WHICH IS 12% OR 12.44% OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT OF THE REQUEST. THE APPLICANT ALSO HELD TWO NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BECAUSE THEY RECOMMENDED DENIAL. IT WOULD REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY BY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST, AND THAT WOULD BE SIX OUT OF SEVEN. IN ORDER TO APPROVE THE REQUEST. STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AS OUR ANALYSIS DETERMINED THAT IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AND THE OVERALL GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION. THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND DOES HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE IS ONE CARD THAT WISHES DIDN'T WISH TO SPEAK BUT IS IN OPPOSITION. AND THEN. OKAY. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO. THANK YOU. JULIE, CAN YOU NOW LET ME LET ME MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY. THESE ARE THESE WILL THESE WILL BE TOWNHOMES FOR SALE, NOT FOR RENT. I MEAN, I GUESS A FUTURE OWNER CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT AFTER THEY'VE BOUGHT IT, BUT THE INTENT OF EACH ONE OF THESE IS FOR SALE. IS THAT CORRECT? IF APPROVED, THEY WOULD BE PLATTED AS INDIVIDUAL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THAT WOULD BE OWNED FEE SIMPLE. SO IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, ON A MULTIFAMILY, IT WOULD BE ALL ON ONE LOT. EACH, EACH UNIT, IF YOU WILL, WOULD BE PLATTED ON ITS OWN, SEPARATE LOT. I APPRECIATE THAT. CAN CAN YOU GIVE ME A FEEL FOR HOW FREQUENT THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT IS IN DENTON? IT FEELS LIKE WE MOSTLY DO MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY. 
          YOU KNOW, OUR OUR 3 OR 4 KIND OF THING. YOU KNOW, WE LOOKED AROUND AND I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE LAST TEN YEARS, BUT I DO KNOW THERE ARE SOME SOME DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON THAT THAT ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON SMALLER LOTS. SO THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT OFF OF HOBSON, I BELIEVE THERE'S ONE OFF OF HINKLE. THERE IS ONE OFF OF TEASLEY. SO WE HAVE THEM SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE, THE CITY. BUT BUT THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT OFTEN THAT WE SEE ONE. NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW, MR. MAYOR. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR. THANK YOU. HOW BIG ARE THE UNITS? DO YOU KNOW THE LIVING AREA? THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND MAY BE ABLE TO GIVE A BETTER A BETTER SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS. OKAY. I'D BE I'D BE INTERESTED IN THAT. IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S BEING A WHOLE LOT CRAMMED INTO A RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT OF SPACE. 119 UNITS. 
          THAT'S JUST. I MEAN, IT JUST LOOKS VERY, VERY TIGHT. IT I MEAN, IT IT WOULD LOOK AKIN TO SOMETHING LIKE A TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. SO IN FACT, ORIGINALLY THEY CONSIDERED DOING SOMETHING LIKE A TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT ENDED UP SPLITTING APART INTO THOSE INDIVIDUAL UNITS. SO IT IT WOULD LIKELY RESEMBLE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD SEE MORE OF A TOWNHOME TYPE DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EACH OF EACH UNIT AND THE LAYOUT OF EVERYTHING. AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT, I UNDERSTAND. WE'LL WAIT ON THE APPLICANT. THANKS, JULIE. SURE. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. IS IT ALEXA? IS THAT RIGHT? OKAY. JUST 1%. IS THAT TEN MINUTES FOR ONE? RIGHT? YEAH. SO YOU HAVE TEN MINUTES. I BELIEVE WE HAVE CO APPLICANTS AND HAVE 20 MINUTES AND COUNCIL I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG NIGHT. 
          [04:35:01]
WE'RE NOT GOING TO USE THE 20 MINUTES. LET ME JUST OPEN WITH THAT. WHO'S THE OTHER SPEAKER. 
          IT WILL ALSO BE ALEXA NIGHT AND POTENTIALLY OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR ENGINEERING TEAM. JENNIFER BUTCHER, AS WELL. OKAY. SO DO WE NEED. DO I NEED TO PUT ALL THEIR NAMES ON HERE? TEN MINUTES. 
          OKAY. GOT IT. OKAY. THERE YOU G. OKAY. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TONIGHT. COUNCIL. MY NAME IS ROB DICKEY. I AM A CIVIL ENGINEER AND A LAND USE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING MY CLIENT, ONE MARK DENTON, ON THIS PROJECT. I WANT TO TALK JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE LAND USE HERE. YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN USING THIS WORD FABRIC, AND I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT TERM FOR WHAT WE HAVE. WE'VE GOT AN INFILL PIECE OF PROPERTY. CERTAINLY HEAR SOME CONCERNS ABOUT DIMENSIONS. AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THOSE AND TRY AND CLARIFY AND MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS AN UNDERSTANDING OF EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. I DO WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION ON THE LAND USE SIDE TO THE FACT THAT ALONG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE SITE, A LITTLE UNDER HALF OF THE OF THE PROPERTY IS ABUTTED BY MULTIFAMILY. AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE REALLY LIKE HERE IS THIS IS A GOOD MID DENSITY TRANSITIONAL USE WHERE WE MOVE FROM THAT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY, WHICH IS, I'M GOING TO SAY 24, 26 UNITS TO THE ACRE, TO TEN UNITS TO THE ACRE ON OUR PROPERTY BEFORE TRANSITIONING TO THE EAST, TO A MORE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF FOUR. THE OTHER THING I'LL POINT TO AS AS MISS WYATT DESCRIBED HERE, IS WE HAVE A VERY NARROW SITE. IT'S DEEPLY CONSTRAINED. SO WE KNEW THAT WHEN OUR CLIENT FIRST ENGAGED US. SO THE FIRST THING WE DID WAS TAKE A LOOK AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SAY, WHAT DOES THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS? AND THANKFULLY, THERE'S SOME VERY CLEAR DIRECTION. WE WANT TO SEE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH. WE WANT TO SEE DIVERSE HOUSING CHOICES, WHICH IS WAS JUST DISCUSSED. THIS IS A FAIRLY RARE HOUSING CHOICE IN THIS COMMUNITY, AND COMPACT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS. AND THEN YOU'LL SEE IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND SIDE THERE. I WON'T READ ALL THIS IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, BUT YOU KNOW, THE CITY SHOULD TAKE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO ENSURE THAT AS GAPS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FABRIC OCCUR. AND THEN WE TALK ABOUT THE NEED FOR CERTAIN ATYPICAL LAND USES TO TRY AND FILL THESE INFILL AREAS. 
          WE'RE GOING TO TALK ON A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT SLIDES ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. ONE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES HERE IS CERTAINLY ABOUT NON-VEHICULAR TRANSPORTATION. ON THE 2022 MOBILITY PLAN AND THE SIDEWALK DOWNTOWN SIDEWALK CORE PLAN. THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS A LITTLE TOUGH TO SEE HERE, IT'S IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND SIDE. IT'S SHADED IN KIND OF A PINK. THIS PROPERTY PROJECT WOULD BRING WITH IT A TRAIL ACROSS THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MCKINNEY STREET, AS WELL AS CONNECTIVITY ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY BETWEEN PAISLEY AND MCKINNEY, AS WELL. IN TIME AS THIS WHOLE PLAN, IT TURNS INTO A REALITY. THIS WOULD PROVIDE FOR A WALKABLE ABILITY TO GET TO DOWNTOWN FROM THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          EXISTING CONDITIONS. JUST A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THESE CONSTRAINTS. YOU SEE, WE'VE GOT THE DME SUBSTATION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THE WHILE THE WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY AT ITS NARROWEST IS 250FT. THAT IS NOT 250 USABLE FEET, IN PART BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT A CONCRETE DRAINAGE CHANNEL THERE, AS WELL AS A HIGH TENSION DME POWER SYSTEM. ON OUR PROPERTY, ON THE EAST SIDE. AND LASTLY, A COMMENT ON THE THAT SLIDE THERE IN THE UPPER RIGHT, THE IMAGE IN THE UPPER RIGHT. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT AROUND A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT SITS VACANT LIKE THIS, WE TEND TO SEE THIS KIND OF ACTIVITY. AND SO WE REALLY FEEL LIKE ONE OF THE BENEFITS, AND WE THINK ONE OF THE REASONS THE COMMUNITY HAS LEANED INTO INFILL DEVELOPMENT SO HEAVILY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS TO TRY AND COMBAT THESE KINDS OF THINGS HAPPENING IN THE COMMUNITY. LAST POINT I'LL MAKE BEFORE I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE ALEX. TONIGHT IS THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE NUTS AND BOLTS. THIS IS ABOUT SOME VERY BIG IMPACTS ON THE COMMUNITY AT THE PRICE POINT WITH WHICH THESE PRODUCTS WILL COME IN. IF APPROVED, THIS IS A TRANSITION FOR FOLKS MOVING FROM RENTAL HOUSING TO THE FIRST TIME THEY'RE ABLE TO BUY A HOUSE. 
          IT'S ABOUT $350,000, AND I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M SAYING $350,000 AS A STARTING POINT. BUT THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY IN TODAY'S MARKET. PEOPLE IN THE RENTAL IN THE RENTAL ENVIRONMENT HAVE BEEN BEAT TO DEATH BY ECONOMIC FACTORS FAR OUTSIDE THEIR CONTROL. THE ONLY WAY TO CONTROL THE PRICING AND GET THIS TO WHERE FOLKS CAN GET IN ON THE FRONT LINE, IS TO PROVIDE SOME DENSITY. WE THINK THAT THE CONTEXT OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY LENDS ITSELF TO THE DENSITY AT THIS LOCATION. ADDITIONALLY, IT'S AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOL. WE DO A LOT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORK IN OUR FIRM, AND WE SEE ACROSS THE BOARD, WE HEAR IN COMMUNITY AFTER COMMUNITY AFTER COMMUNITY. THE SITE SELECTORS ARE STRUGGLING BECAUSE THERE'S NO HOUSING THAT EMPLOYEES CAN AFFORD. AND SO IT'S A VERY IT'S A VERY STRONG HEADWIND FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS WELL. SO I THINK IN LOOKING AT ALL OF THOSE, THIS IS A VERY APPROPRIATE USE. IT IS IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FLUM, WHICH WE CERTAINLY CONCEDE THIS IS NOT WHAT WAS ENVISIONED AT A LARGE 
          [04:40:03]
SCALE. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT A PARCEL BY PARCEL APPROACH, WE FEEL LIKE TEN UNITS TO THE ACRE IS THE RIGHT APPROACH HERE. THANK YOU ALL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS ALEXA KNIGHT. I WORK WITH LAW 322 WEST WALNUT STREET IN SALINA. I'M HERE THIS EVENING TO DISCUSS THE PD STANDARDS AND THE PRODUCT TYPE, AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS. THIS IS A GREAT PICTURE. WE THINK BECAUSE IT'S AN AERIAL AND IT DOES SHOW THE 119 UNITS AND IN COMPARISON TO ALL THE SINGLE FAMILY THAT IS SURROUNDING IT, WE HAVE THE SUBSTATION TO THE SOUTH OR THE LOWER PART OF THE SCREEN. WE HAVE THE MULTIFAMILY, WHICH ROB MENTIONED, WHICH IS TO THE WEST, OR LEFT SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE TOWNHOMES FURTHER EAST AND THEN ON THE NORTH SIDE, ON EITHER SIDE IS THE RESIDENTIAL. EVERYBODY HAS KIND OF TALKED THROUGH THESE BULLET POINTS AS FAR AS THE BUILDING HEIGHT, THE MAJORITY OF THE LOT SIZES ARE 2000FT■!S, WIH THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN THERE AND THEN THERE IT LOOKS LIKE A RECTANGULAR SITE, BUT THERE'S ACTUALLY A PINCH POINT TO THE SOUTH. IT'S KIND OF LIKE THIS. AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A MORE DENSE TRACT NEXT TO THE MULTIFAMILY IS THE PLACE TO HAVE THAT. WE ALSO DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT WE ARE USING THE PD R-6, AND WE'VE ACTUALLY LIMITED AS AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, WE CAME IN WITH A TOWNHOME PRODUCT ORIGINALLY IN ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, BUT WE'VE PARED THAT BACK AND ONLY HAVE THE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED. ALSO, WE WILL HAVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE. WE'LL UTILIZE CURBSIDE COLLECTION BINS FOR EACH LOT. ROB HAD MENTIONED THE PRICE. WE WILL BE STARTING AT $350,000, AND THE MEDIAN INCOME AND MEDIAN HOUSING PRICE IN DENTON IS JUST SHY OF 400,000. SO UNDERNEATH THAT, THE UNITS THAT THE QUESTION WAS ARE PROPOSED TO BE 3 TO 4 BEDROOMS, ANYWHERE FROM 1400 TO 2200FT■!S. AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE CONNECTIVITY THAT WE'RE PROPOSING WITH THIS, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO WE HAVE ON THE EAST SIDE OF IT, WE HAVE TWO ROADWAYS THAT DEAD END INTO THE STREET. WE HAVE TO CONNECT THOSE. WE HAVE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY NORTH, SOUTH THROUGH THE CENTER OF THE TRACT. THIS SORT OF PRODUCT WE HEARD A LOT THIS EVENING ABOUT INFILL, ABOUT BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE A DIFFERENT HOUSING PRODUCT FOR YOUR FOR THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. ALL THE UTILITIES ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. LET'S NOT CONTINUE THE URBAN SPRAWL. YOU HAVE A VACANT LOT HERE. THIS IS A GREAT PRODUCT. WE'RE A MILE AND A HALF FROM DOWNTOWN. WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT. WE HAVE THE SHARED BIKE PATH AND PEDESTRIAN PATH ALONG EAST MCKINNEY, WHICH THESE FOLKS WOULD BE ABLE TO UTILIZE. THIS IS A RENDERING OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN AT THE ENTRY. 
          WE, AS PART OF THE ZONING APPLICATION, BECAUSE IT IS A PD, WE HAD TO DO A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN, AND THIS IS A RESULT OF THAT. THIS IS A ZONING PLAN THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE PD. WE'VE BEEN IN THE PROCESS FOR FIVE MONTHS WITH WORKING WITH CITY STAFF, AND WE'VE HAD TWO NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS. THERE'S A CP PLAN IN YOUR PACKET, SO I WON'T GO THROUGH WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE MEETINGS, BUT WE DID HAVE TWO MEETINGS AND WE HAD REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WERE AT THE MEETING, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I MENTIONED IN THE VERY FIRST NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WAS THE FACT THAT BE PROUD THAT YOU'RE A MEMBER AND RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF DENTON, BECAUSE WHEN YOU DO A PD, THEY REQUIRE A LOT OF THE DEVELOPER. AND SO TO GET TO THIS ZONING PROCESS TONIGHT, WE'VE DONE A TIA, WE'VE DONE A DRAINAGE ANALYSIS, AND WE'VE DONE A TREE PROTECTION PLAN. SO THE NEIGHBORS ARE CAN SEE WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED ON THE LOT. WE HAVE THE PEDESTRIAN WAYS THAT ARE BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT UNITS THERE. AND AGAIN WE'VE TAKEN AWAY THE TOWNHOME PRODUCT AND WE JUST HAVE THESE ZERO LOT LINE PRODUCTS. SO YOU DON'T HAVE THAT COMMON WALL WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR. IN ADDITION, HERE, BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORS, THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT PARKING. WE'VE ADDED THE PARKING, WHICH JULIE TOUCHED ON BOTH IN GUEST PARKING. WE HAVE THOSE 20 SPACES THERE, AND WE ALSO HAVE THE PARALLEL PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET, WHICH IS ANOTHER 25 SPACES. WE ARE DEDICATING AND AGREED TO PLATTING 10% OF OPEN SPACE. THAT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED PRODUCT. 
          WE ARE ALSO THE DEVELOPER WILL ALSO BE PAYING IN THE REALM OF $350,000 IN PARKLAND DEDICATION 
          [04:45:07]
FEES. AND THEN WE AGAIN, CONNECTIVITY. WE HAVE THE TEN FOOT WIDE TRAIL THAT WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA THAT RUNS FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH AND CONNECTS PAISLEY TO EAST MCKINNEY AND THEN THERE WILL BE THE SHARED BIKE PATH THAT WILL RUN EAST WEST ALONG MCKINNEY. 
          THIS IS A CROSS SECTION OF THE PRODUCT OF THE SITE. JULIE'S KIND OF TALKED THROUGH THAT. THE FACT THAT IT IS A VERY NARROW SITE, AND WE DO HAVE COMING OUT OF THAT SUBSTATION, WE HAVE A MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE TRACK THAT IS ON OUR PROPERTY, AND THEN JUST OFF THE PROPERTY IS ANOTHER TRANSMISSION LINE. THIS IS A RENDERING OF THE ELEVATION. WE ARE DOING INCREASED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PD. WE WERE AT P AND Z JUST LAST WEEK, AND THERE WERE NEIGHBORS IN OPPOSITION. AND SOME OF THE WE WERE NOT ABLE TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THOSE COMPLAINTS. SO WE'VE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE ON AND TRYING TO ANSWER THOSE, IN CASE YOU ALL HAVE THE SAME QUESTIONS OR SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS ARE IN THE AUDIENCE, THIS EVENING, ONE OF THE CONCERNS WAS WATER DEMAND. WE ALSO HEARD THAT THIS EVENING ABOUT THE CONSUMPTION, THE FACT THAT THE UTILITIES ARE ALREADY THERE AND SURROUNDING THE PROPERTIES IS A GOOD THING, BECAUSE THIS IS INFILL TRACT. THIS ARTICLE IS FROM THE NORTH TEXAS DAILY THAT DOES DISCUSS IN THERE THAT THE AVERAGE IRRIGATION CONSUMPTION IS 40% ON A LOT, ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT, AND CAN GO UP TO 70% DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS. WHAT THAT MEANS IS THIS SORT OF PRODUCT ON A ZERO LOT LINE THAT HAS A MUCH SMALLER LOT, HAS A REDUCED WATER CONSUMPTION, AND THAT ALSO MEETS THE CITY OF DENTON'S WATER CONSERVATION PLAN OBJECTIVE. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAD WAS, WELL, YOU KNOW, WITH THIS REDUCED RIGHT OF WAY, YOU HAVE PARKING ON ONE SIDE, WE FEEL THAT THERE WILL BE ILLEGAL PARKING ON THE OTHER SIDE. CAN EMS GET THROUGH THERE? SO WE HAD OUR ENGINEERS GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT. THE UPPER LEFT HAND CORNER SHOWS WHAT IS APPROVED. WHAT WOULD BE APPROVE, WHICH IS SEVEN FEET WORTH OF A PARALLEL PARKING SPACE ON THAT WEST SIDE. AND THEN TWO DRIVE LANES THERE AT 10.5FT, THE TYPICAL FIRE TRUCK IS EIGHT FOOT IN WIDTH, SO PLENTY OF ROOM THERE. THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER THAT SHOWS THE RED CAR THAT'S AN ILLEGALLY PARKED CAR, SO THAT IF SOMEBODY ILLEGALLY DOES PARK ON THAT SIDE, YOU ACTUALLY ARE LEFT WITH 14FT OF DRIVE AISLE IN THE MIDDLE. SO PLENTY OF ROOM FOR EMS TO GET THROUGH. THERE WAS A GENTLEMAN WHO WAS CONCERNED THAT THE CITY WAS SHOWING PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT AS FAR AS SETBACKS TO THIS PROJECT, AND WE JUST WANTED TO HIT ON THAT. THE PURPLE REPRESENTS THE DME EASEMENT. WHAT'S SHOWN ON THE LEFT SIDE IS THE WEST SIDE, WHERE THIS GENTLEMAN LIVED. AND HE ACKNOWLEDGED THE FACT THAT THERE IS AN EASEMENT AND A SETBACK. HE WAS CALLING WITH REGARD TO HIS BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP WITHIN 40FT. IT'S ACTUALLY 30FT ON ON HIS PROPERTY. SO THAT 30FT IS A DME EASEMENT AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT. THAT UTILITY LINE THAT'S SHOWN THERE AGAIN IS THE DME LINE THAT COMES THROUGH THERE. IT'S NOT CENTERED IN THAT EASEMENT. AND SO EVEN THOUGH THEY DO NOT DEEM DOES NOT HAVE AN EASEMENT ON OUR PROPERTY, IT AFFECTS OUR BUILD ABILITY ON THAT SIDE. SO DURING THIS PROCESS WHEN WE CAME THROUGH ON OUR PD, DME SAID WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FOOT EASEMENT ON YOUR PROPERTY. AND SO THE REAR SETBACK MATCHES THAT SAME FIVE FOOT ON THE EAST SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY. WE WERE ACTUALLY ENCUMBERED EVEN MORE THAN THESE RESIDENTS TO THE WEST BECAUSE THAT DME EASEMENT IS OVER 42.5FT WIDE. ORIGINALLY, WHEN WE CAME IN THROUGH STAFF, WE ASKED DME FOR A VARIANCE TO BE ABLE TO PUSH OUR BACKYARDS INTO THAT SO THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE WIDTH. THEY POLITELY SAID NO. SO WE HAVE THE 42.5FT EASEMENT. 
          THEN OUR PROPERTY LINE WHERE YOU COULD PUT A FENCE AND THEN OUR FIVE FOOT REAR. SO THAT'S HOW EVERYTHING GOT COMPACTED IN THE CENTER OF THE TRACT. ANOTHER THING THAT WE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORS WAS CONCERN OF OVERCROWDING OF THE SCHOOLS. WE HAVE ALEXANDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. THAT IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER, CLEARLY WALKING DISTANCE FOR ANYBODY WHO WOULD BE LIVING ON THE CHILDREN THAT WILL BE LIVING IN THE COMMUNITY. AND WHEN WE WENT TO P AND Z, I HAD LOOKED AT THE DISD PUBLICATION AND THEY HAD IT QUOTED AS 78% CAPACITY AT CAPACITY. SO UNDER 
          [04:50:07]
CAPACITY, ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS ASKED US TO GO BACK AND TALK TO THE PRINCIPAL. 
          WE DID SO WE GOT A RESPONSE TODAY, AND THIS IS ACTUALLY OUTDATED BASED UPON THE RESPONSE THAT WE GOT FROM THE SCHOOL. THEY ACTUALLY HAVE 571 STUDENTS ENROLLED. SO 77% UNDER CAPACITY OR CAPACITY OF THE SCHOOL. AND NOW I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO OUR TO OUR TRAFFIC CONSULTANT FROM WESTWOOD. THANK YOU. HOWDY. SO AS PART OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY, THIS ONE BARELY EVEN TIPPED THE SCALE FOR EVEN REQUIRING A TIA 119 HOMES WAS JUST BARELY ABOVE THAT. THE TRAFFIC ON MCKINNEY WAS ACTUALLY HAS BEEN DECREASED IN OVER FIVE YEARS, BUT OUR TRAFFIC STUDY ACTUALLY ASSUMED GROWTH JUST TO BE SUPER CONSERVATIVE. WE ARE ADDING A LEFT TURN LANE ON MCKINNEY FOR SAFETY. IT IS ACTUALLY NOT NEEDED BASED OFF VOLUMES, BUT AGAIN, ALWAYS TRYING TO LOOK TO SAFETY. FIRST. THE PEDESTRIAN TRAIL WE'VE ALREADY HEARD SAFET, ADDING THAT TEN FOOT TRAIL IS ADDING A PIECE OF THE SAFETY FOR THE CONTINUOUS PROJECT. SO SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAD FROM PRNS THE OTHER NIGHT WAS SITE DISTANCES ON THE STREETS. AS PART OF OUR TRAFFIC STUDY. WE HAD DONE A SITE DISTANCE ANALYSIS AND IT WAS APPROVED BY THE STAFF, BUT JUST FOR ADDED BACKUP. THIS IS KIND OF WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT. THESE ARE THE PICTURES ON PAISLEY STREET, WHICH WAS THE ONE OF THE LARGEST CONCERN BASED OFF OF AASHTO, WHICH IS ONE OF OUR NATIONAL STANDARDS. FOR A 30 MILE AN HOUR ROAD, WE NEED 335FT OR 295, 295, 290FT. IF YOU'RE TURNING RIGHT. 
          SO THOSE ARE FROM THE DRIVER'S PERSPECTIVE OF EACH OF THOSE VIEWS. YOU KNOW, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S A PRETTY STRAIGHT SHOT. YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE IT. IT PASSES ALL THE SITE DISTANCE REGULATIONS AGAIN FOR MCKINNEY STREET STRAIGHT SHOT. WE CAN CLEARLY SEE IF THERE'S SOMEONE OR A CAR OR SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO AVOID WHEN TURNING LEFT. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT IS WE'RE ADDING CARS. MCKINNEY STREET'S ALREADY BUSY. SO WHAT WE DID IS WE WENT AND LOOKED AND SAID, OKAY, DURING THE PEAK HOURS, HOW MANY CARS DO WE HAVE LEAVING ON MCKINNEY STREET FROM THE AASHTO GREEN BOOK? AGAIN, YOU CAN THEY TELL YOU HOW LONG IT TAKES TO CROSS A ROAD? SO FOR A PASSENGER CAR TO SEE THAT THERE IS A GAP TO UNDERSTAND THAT AND TO CROSS ONE LANE OF TRAFFIC, WHICH IS ALL THAT THEY NEED ACROSS. IT'S 7.5 SECONDS. 
          SO I SENT SOMEONE OUT THERE TO COUNT THIS PAST OR LAST WEEK DURING THE AM PEAK HOUR FROM 7 TO 8, AND AGAIN FROM 415 TO 515 IN THE EVENING. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE WAS ETIQUETTE QUIT GAPS EVERY 15 MINUTES TO COVER THE NUMBER OF CARS NEEDED IN ONE HOUR TO EXIT. NOW THIS IS BASED OFF THE LEFT TURNS. THE RIGHT TURNS ACTUALLY TAKE EVEN LESS TIME. SO EVEN WHEN YOU ADD THOSE IN, THERE'S PLENTY OF TIME. AND THEY ACTUALLY THERE WOULD EVEN BE MORE GAPS BECAUSE WE ONLY LOOKED AT THE GAPS THAT WERE GREATER THAN 7.5 SECONDS. SO QUESTIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO LET'S WE'LL HEAR FROM THEM AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO QUESTIONS LIAM WAKEFIELD YOU CAN COME DOWN GIVE YOUR NAME. YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. HELLO BACK AGAIN. MY NAME IS LIAM WAKEFIELD OFF OF PONDER AVENUE. THIS IS LITERALLY THE MIDDLE MISSING MIDDLE. THIS IS THE TIME WHERE THE CITY OF DENTON CAN PUT ITS MONEY, WHERE ITS MOUTH IS. DO WE REALLY WANT TO PUT ACTUALLY HAVE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING? LIKE THIS IS A PART OF THE HOUSING MARKET THAT IS NOT BEING FULFILLED LIKE, SURE, THEY'RE SMALL AND LIKE THEY'RE CLOSE TOGETHER, BUT THAT'S WHAT ALLOWS THEM TO BE MORE RELATIVELY AFFORDABLE. YOU EVERY PIECE OF LAND ADDED TO A HOUSING PROPERTY INCREASES ITS PRICE. THAT'S WHERE THE BULK OF THE HOUSING COST COMES FROM. IS THE VALUE OF THE LAND. AND LIKE THIS IS GOING AND THIS ISN'T JUST NEXT TO GOING TO HAVE LIKE NEW SIDEWALKS. ONCE THE WORK, GOOD WORK ON MCKINNEY GETS DONE. THIS IS ALSO AGAIN NEXT TO A BUS ROUTE THAT JUST HAD ITS SERVICE UPGRADED, AND IT'S 7 TO 9 20 MINUTES ALL DAY. THERE. THIS ALLOWS OPTIONS TO GET TO DOWNTOWN UNT T.W.U WITHOUT USING A CAR. THERE'S ALSO THE INDIAN GROCERY STORE DOWNTOWN AS WELL. IT'S LIKE THE THIS FULFILLS A SPACE LIKE I DON'T. MAYBE IT'S A LACK OF IMAGINATION ON MY PART, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE SORT OF DEVELOPMENT CAN REALLY FIT ON THIS. THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE. SORRY, IT'S JUST LONG NIGHT LIKE 
          [04:55:03]
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY. HERE IT IS. NEXT. IT IS NEXT TO MULTIFAMILY. IT'S NOT GOING TO STICK OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB. AND IT ALSO PROVIDES A WE'RE GOING TO GET ANOTHER TRAIL FROM THIS. 
          SO IT PROVIDES IT IT PROVIDES MORE ACCESS FOR PEOPLE TO GO WITHOUT A CAR, ESPECIALLY ONCE THE SIDEWALKS ON MCKINNEY GETS DONE. GET DONE. OH, SORRY. JUST. BUT THIS IS A VALUE OPPORTUNITY. 
          PLEASE DON'T LET IT GO BY. I CAN SEE THE REST OF MY TIME. THANK YOU. NEXT IS PATRICIA. PATRICIA WOULD YOU COME DOWN AND GIVE YOUR NAME? YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES. CAN I PUT MY PHONE ON THIS? YES. DO YOU NEED THE CAMERA? THERE? THAT'S OKAY. YES. IF WE CAN GET THE DOCUMENT. 
          CAMERA. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS PATRICIA WOOD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I'LL MAKE THIS BRIEF BECAUSE I'VE HAD A LONG DAY, AND I'M SURE YOU HAVE, TOO. I WENT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING LAST WEEK, VOICED MY CONCERNS ABOUT THIS. I HOPE YOU ALL WILL CONSIDER THEIR DECISION, BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS A VERY, VERY TIGHT DEVELOPMENT. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF SAFETY ISSUES CONCERNED. AS SHE POINTED OUT, WE VOICED A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT THE PARKING ON THE STREET. SHE SAID THAT ANJALI AS WELL, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO LIMIT THAT TO ONE SIDE OF THE STREET BEING PARKING AND THEN THE OTHER SIDE WILL BE RESTRICTED. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT I THINK THE POLICE OFFICERS IN THIS TOWN HAVE A LOT BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN WRITE TICKETS ON CARS PARKED ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE STREET. I DON'T THINK THEY'RE EVEN GOING TO CONSIDER THAT. IF WE DO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT. I'VE LIVED IN MY HOME 32 YEARS. I'M JUST ON THE OUTSIDE BOUNDARY OF THAT 500FT BOUNDARY. SO I WAS NOT INFORMED ABOUT THIS. SO IF COMING OUT. SO THEY'RE THEIR DRIVEWAY IS GOING TO COME OUT RIGHT HERE JUST TO THIS STREET. 
          RIGHT HERE IS YOUR SCHOOL DROP OFF AND PICKUP. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE THERE AROUND 3:00 IN THE AFTERNOON WHEN SCHOOL GETS OUT, THE LINE OF CARS STRETCHES WAY PAST THIS PROPOSED PROPERTY. 
          IT'S GRIDLOCK. I TOLD THE MEETING LAST WEEK THAT I GOT OFF WORK EARLY ONE DAY LAST WEEK, GOT OUT AND GOT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL THAT, AND I SAT THERE FOR 20 MINUTES AND I HAD TO TURN AROUND AND CUT THROUGH THE SIDE STREETS TO GET OUT OF THERE. AND I JUST LIVE RIGHT THERE. AND WITHIN 119 HOMES GOING IN RIGHT THERE. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S EVEN POSSIBLE. 
          ANOTHER CONCERN I HAVE BESIDES THE PARKING, THE DRIVEWAYS, I THINK WILL NEVER WORK BECAUSE OF THAT CUT IN. NOBODY'S GOING TO PARK TWO CARS THERE. THEY'RE GOING TO BE OUT IN THE STREET. 
          THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE EXITS ON WATER OAK JUST BEHIND THEM. IF YOU EVER DRIVEN DOWN WATER OAK, THEY GOT THOSE LITTLE TURNAROUNDS AND PEOPLE ARE PARKING RIGHT THERE AND YOU CAN BARELY GET A CAR THROUGH THERE. SO I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE FIVE TIMES WORSE. 119 HOMES IS A VERY, VERY, VERY TIGHT SQUEEZE. I'VE HEARD JULIE MENTION MULTIPLE TIMES THE CONSTRAINTS THEY HAD AND THEY HAD TO WORK AROUND. WELL, IF IT FITS THEIR THEIR LITTLE CONSTRAINTS, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S RIGHT. I AGREE WITH MISS JESTER ON WE DO NEED A MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          I $350,000 IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I THAT'S THAT'S TIGHT AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I DON'T THINK IT FITS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THE WAY IT WAS GOING WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY WITH THE MODERATE LOTS ARE A BETTER FIT FOR US. AND THE TWO STORY RIGHT UP AGAINST I MEAN, I'VE SEEN HOUSES IN SALINA PROSPER THAT HAVE A TEN FOOT EASEMENT AND THEY CAN BARELY GET THEIR OUTSIDE HVAC UNITS IN BETWEEN. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK. WHAT IF THERE'S A FIRE IN ONE OF THEM? IS IT GOING TO CATCH ON DOWN THE LINE ON THE 60, ON DOWN? I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. THEY SAY THEY ADDRESS THE FIRE TRUCK ISSUE GETTING IN AND OUT OF THERE. YOU GO DOWN WATER OAK ON THURSDAY WHEN WE HAVE TRASH PICKUP AND SEE HOW THEY'RE HANDLING IT. YOU GO UP PAISLEY UP BY THE SCHOOL AND SEE HOW THEY'RE HANDLING IT UP THERE. 
          THERE'S SO MANY CARS PARKED ON THE ON THE SIDE OF THE STREETS, SO I DON'T THINK THE DRIVEWAYS ARE GOING TO BE ACCESSIBLE AS WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. THEY'RE GOING TO BE PARKING OVER THE SIDEWALKS. I WALK MY DOGS EVERY DAY, AND ON A NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD, I'M WALKING IN THE STREET BECAUSE THERE'S NO ROOM ANYWAY, SO I HOPE YOU CONSIDER THE PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATION AND DENY THIS PROJECT. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS CHRIS CHRISTINE BRAY. IF YOU CAN GIVE YOUR NAME, YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. 
          [05:00:05]
CHRISTINE BRAY, I'LL JUST START BY SAYING THAT I BIKE DOWN BOULEVARD. GOSH, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES A WEEK BOULEVARD IS FOR MUCH OF ITS STRETCH PARKING ON ONE SIDE ONLY. I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT VIOLATED. SO FOR WHAT? THAT'S WORTH. ADDITIONALLY, YOU KNOW, I WORK AN ENTRY LEVEL PROFESSIONAL JOB. MY SPOUSE WORKS AT A SENIOR LEVEL PROFESSIONAL JOB. WE LOOKED AT BUYING A HOME RECENTL, JUST LIKE A CARBON COPY OF THE ONE THAT WE RENT, AND THAT WAS OUT OF OUR BUDGET. IT'S A 50 YEAR OLD HOME. THE CONCRETE FOUNDATION IS CRACKING LIKE THAT'S. IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT HOUSING IN DENTON DOES NOT COST WHAT IT COST. 20 OR 10 YEARS AGO. RIGHT. THIS IS THIS IS A PRODUCT THAT OR THESE ARE HOMES THAT ARE ON PAR WITH 50 YEAR OLD HOMES WITH CRACKING FOUNDATIONS. RIGHT. YOU KNOW, I LOOKED AT I LOOKED AT THIS. I SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED BUYING MY NEIGHBOR'S HOME ANYWAYS. SO ONE COMMENTER AT THE ZONING MEETING SUGGESTED THAT THESE HOMES WOULD BE TOO AFFORDABLE AND THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE KIND OF BEHAVIOR LIKE PARKING ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE STREETS, WHICH AGAIN, BOULEVARD IS THE SAME WAY AT THE PNC HEARING. AND I'M JUST GOING TO REHASH THIS BECAUSE THE REASON THAT YOU NEED SIX VOTES IS BECAUSE THIS WENT FOR ONE, THE PNC COMMISSIONER SUGGESTED THE OPPOSITE, THAT THESE WOULD BE TOO EXPENSIVE SO THEY WOULD GET TURNED INTO RENTALS. THAT WAS SOME OF THE THINKING THAT WENT INTO THE FOUR ONE DECISION. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT AND THE SUGGESTION THAT THESE COULD BE AFFORDABLE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES INSTEAD, IS THAT YOU DON'T MAKE HOUSING MORE AFFORDABLE BY REQUIRING IT TO HAVE MORE LAND AND BE LARGER THAT THAT IS WHAT YOU KNOW, HOUSING COSTS AREN'T JUST MADE UP. THERE'S LAND COSTS, THERE'S BUILDING COSTS. 
          IF WE MAKE THESE LARGER, IF WE MAKE THEM HAVE MORE LAND, THEY WILL BE EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE, RIGHT? THE ONLY REASON THAT THESE ARE AFFORDABLE AS THEY ARE IS BECAUSE THERE'S ZERO LOT LINE HOMES. IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, COMPRESSED LIKE THIS. THIS IS THE MISSING MIDDLE OF HOUSING. AND IT'S REALLY A SHAME THAT WE HAVE TO DO THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TO GET HOUSING LIKE THIS. RIGHT. THERE IS NO ZONING IN THE CITY OF DENTON THAT ALLOWS FOR MORE AFFORDABLE NEW TYPES OF HOUSING. I'LL SAY THAT AGAIN, THERE IS NO ZONING IN DENTON THAT ALLOWS FOR MORE AFFORDABLE TYPES OF HOUSING OTHER THAN THOSE MASSIVE MAMMOTH APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT GO UP ALONG THE HIGHWAY, AND THEIR KIDS WILL HAVE TWICE THE ASTHMA RATE. RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S CURRENTLY ALL WE ALLOW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO PLEASE VOTE YES ON THIS PD. BUT ALSO LET'S WORK TOWARDS A STATE WHERE WE DON'T NEED PDS. WE DON'T NEED CUSTOM ZONING FOR OBTAINING HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN THE CITY OF DENTON. RIGHT. THIS IS I MEAN, IF THESE HAD BEEN TOWNHOMES. TOWNHOMES ARE DEFINED BY NOT HAVING SPACE BETWEEN EACH OTHER. WHAT ELSE IS DEFINED BY NOT HAVING SPACE BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS? IT'S THE DENTON TOWN SQUARE, THE AREA THAT WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW THAT IS ONE OF ITS DEFINING ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERISTICS. RIGHT? WE HAVE BANNED THE HOUSING THAT MADE DENTON, DENTON THE DEVELOPMENT STYLES THAT MADE DENTON, DENTON. 
          AND IN THE PROCESS, WE'VE MADE IT MORE EXPENSIVE. WE'VE MADE IT SO THAT WE'RE WASTING ENERGY. 
          RIGHT. IF YOU PUSH WALLS UP AGAINST EACH OTHER, YOU DON'T GET HEAT BLEED. SO, YOU KNOW, PUSHING THESE APART, EVEN TO THE LIMITED EXTENT THAT THEY ARE, I, YOU KNOW, SQUASHING OUR ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS. AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST IT'S A SHAME THAT WE HAVE MADE THE KIND OF BUILDING THAT IS CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS CITY, OF THE HISTORIC AREAS OF THIS CITY. ILLEGAL, RIGHT? THE KIND OF HOUSING THAT WAS AFFORDABLE PREVIOUSLY THAT IS THE CORE OF THIS CITY IS NOW ILLEGAL. AND YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS ABSURD MONTHS LONG PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TO ACHIEVE IT. AND, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS PROCESS. IT'S NOT FREE FOR THEM TO DO THIS. 
          DEVELOPERS DON'T PAY FOR THINGS. DEVELOPERS ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE $350,000 OF PARKS MONEY. 
          IT'S THE TENANTS OR THE OWNERS OF THESE FUTURE PROPERTIES THAT ARE PAYING THOSE COSTS. RIGHT? SO THIS PROCESS IS NOT FREE. LET'S REDUCE THAT IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHARLES LEE. IF YOU CAN GIVE YOUR NAME, YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES. YES, MY NAME IS CHARLES LEE. AND I RECOMMEND FOLLOWING THE WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING. DID YOU KNOW THEY ACTUALLY MADE A GOOD DECISION OUT OF THIS? BECAUSE I THINK IT'S AN ACTUAL FIRE HAZARD, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET A FIRE TRUCK OR AN EMT OR SOMETHING DOWN A NARROW ROAD LIKE THAT, BECAUSE NOBODY'S GOING TO PARK RIGHT IN THAT BACK NEXT TO THE CURB. THEY'RE ALWAYS GOING TO MOVE IN AN INCH, IN A LITTLE BIT, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE A VERY TIGHT SPOT. YOU GOT 119 UNITS IN THERE. IT'S VERY NARROW. IT'S JUST NOT REALLY PRACTICAL AT ALL. AND YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE TRAFFIC AROUND THAT AREA. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT LEFT TURN GOING INTO MCKINNEY. THAT, THAT, THAT. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GOING TO YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A LEFT TURN GOING INTO MCKINNEY LIKE THAT. THAT'S GOING TO BE A DANGER TURN, A DANGEROUS TURN. I 
          [05:05:04]
THINK YOU SHOULD JUST FOLLOW THE PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATION. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. OKAY, MAN, I'M GOING TO GET THIS LAST SPEAKER IN SUSIE MOORE, IF YOU CAN COME DOWN. GIVE YOUR NAME. YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. HELLO AGAIN. SUSIE MOORE LIVE ON CRESCENT STREET. 
          SO I'VE LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD A COUPLE OF TIMES. I DON'T CURRENTLY, AND I DID BIKE TO WORK AT TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS FROM THIS LOCATION, SO IT IS POSSIBLE AT THIS LOCATION TO BIKE TO OTHER PARTS OF TOWN. WHAT'S COOL ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS THAT IT IS AGAIN IN WALKING DISTANCE OF CERTAIN THINGS. SO AGAIN, PEOPLE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE USE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION. THERE'S A BUS LINE THERE. SO THAT HELPS KEEP THE TRAFFIC DOWN VERSUS PUTTING THIS SOMEWHERE ELSE IN TOWN WHERE YOU'RE PUTTING ALL THE CARS FAR, FAR AWAY WHERE YOU'RE ONLY OPTION IS TO DRIVE. THAT'S WHAT CREATES OUR TRAFFIC, IS WHEN EVERYBODY IS DRIVING BY THEMSELVES IN A CAR. THAT'S WHAT CLOGS UP OUR ROADS. THAT'S WHAT TEARS UP OUR ROADS. THESE VERY HEAVY CARS IN TERMS OF THE COST OF THESE, I'VE BEEN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T DEVELOP I AM A LIBRARIAN. THAT'S ALL I DO. RIGHT? I'VE BEEN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSTRAINTS OF PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO I LIKE TO DO THESE LITTLE EXERCISES WHERE I FIND AN EMPTY PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF DENTON AND I'M LIKE, OKAY, WELL, WHAT'S THE MOST AFFORDABLE HOUSE I COULD BUILD ON THIS? AND REPEATEDLY THE PRICE IS LIKE FOUR, FIVE, $450,000 OR MORE. THERE'S A PROPERTY ON FRYE STREET RIGHT NOW. IT'S LIKE A HALF ACRE. IT'S GOING THEY'RE ASKING LIKE OVER $1 MILLION FOR THAT. THERE'S NOT A BUILDING ON IT. I'M LOOKING I'VE GOT ZILLOW UP RIGHT NOW. THERE'S PROPERTIES THAT HAVE NO BUILDING ON THEM GOING FOR $125,000. THERE'S NO BUILDING ON IT. THAT'S BEFORE YOU EVEN PUT A HOUSE ON IT. AND I'VE I'VE LEARNED THAT THE COST TO BUILD RESIDENTIAL RIGHT NOW IS AT LEAST $200 PER SQUARE FOOT. SO IF YOU'RE BUILDING A 1000 SQUARE FOOT HOME, WHICH WE DON'T REALLY DO ANYMORE, RIGHT? THERE TEND TO BE 1800 SQUARE FEET OR MORE. IF YOU BUILD A HOME FOR JUST 1000FT■!S AT $200 PER SQUARE FO, YOU'RE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT $200,000 FOR A LITTLE BITTY HOME. SO 350 IS A IS DOING OKAY. 
          I MEAN, IT SUCKS THAT THAT'S WHAT AFFORDABLE IS NOW, BUT THAT'S JUST KIND OF WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. IT COSTS A LOT OF MONEY. AND IF WE ARE ASKING TO BASICALLY TAKE UP MORE LAND PER HOME, WE ARE ASKING FOR THE PRICE OF THAT TO GO UP. SO IF 350, $350,000 IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WITH THESE PROPERTIES, IF WE SAY NO, NO, NO, WE WANT IT SPREAD OUT MORE, WE WANT YOU TO DEDICATE MORE ARG THAT PRICE TO GO UP AGAIN. FRY STREET, THEY ARE ASKING OVER $1 MILLION FOR A HALF ACRE. SO IF YOU'RE SAYING, OH, YOU CAN ONLY PUT TWO HOMES ON THAT, YOU ARE SAYING THAT HOME IS GOING TO BE $500,000 BEFORE YOU EVEN PUT A HOME ON IT. SO JUST KEEP IN MIND THIS IS ABOUT AS AFFORDABLE AS WE'RE GOING TO GET RIGHT NOW FOR HOME OWNER. LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUY A HOME, WE'RE NOT GOING TO REALLY DO A LOT BETTER THAN THIS, RIGHT NOW. SO WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT APARTMENTS AND RENTALS. WE DON'T WANT MORE APARTMENTS. THIS IS A OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO OWN A HOME. $350,000 IS A LOT. I DON'T KNOW THAT I COULD AFFORD THAT AT THIS POINT, BUT THAT'S THE BEST WE CAN DO RIGHT NOW. SO I HOPE THAT WE WON'T MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE PEOPLE WITH THE MOST AFFORDABLE THING WE KIND OF CAN, IN TERMS OF THEM BEING ABLE TO OWN IT AND NOT ONLY RENT. SO I HOPE WE WON'T MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY IF WE SPREAD IT OUT. IT'S JUST THE PRICE IS GOING TO GO UP. SO THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? ANYONE ELSE CARE TO SPEAK? OH COME DOWN AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOU'LL FILL OUT A CARD AFTERWARDS. BUT. HEY Y'ALL, I'M MATT MOROSKI. I LIVE OVER ON LONGMEADOW STREET RIGHT NEXT TO THIS PROPOSED PROPERTY. I'VE HEARD A LOT TONIGHT, AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STUCK WITH ME IS THAT NOT EVERY DEVELOPMENT FITS THE SPACE. WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT MCKINNEY EARLIER, TOO, AND KIND OF HOW DANGEROUS THAT ROAD IS GONE. JUST AS FAR AS WALKING OVER THERE. THIS PROPERTY IS BRINGING 119 UNITS. A LOT OF PEOPLE OVER THERE. I MEAN, I DRIVE FROM LONGMEADOW OVER TO FORT WORTH FOR WORK A LOT OF TIMES AND GETTING OUT IN THE MORNING, COMING BACK FROM WORK, THERE'S TRAFFIC ALL ON MCKINNEY STREET, ALL ON PAISLEY STREET. WHEN I COME BACK AND I HAPPEN TO GET OUT DURING SCHOOL TIME, THAT WHOLE AREA IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE IS JUST FULL WITH THE CAR PICKUP LINE, THE OVERFLOW PARKING. A LOT OF TIMES THE PEOPLE JUST WAITING TO PICK UP THEIR KIDS PARK IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS A LITTLE BIT FARTHER AWAY, LET THE KIDS WALK OVER THERE, AND THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM, BUT IT'S A KIND OF SOUNDS A LITTLE DANGEROUS. 
          [05:10:03]
WHENEVER YOU GET TO THE SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE BRINGING ALL THESE HOUSES OVER HERE AND HAVING MORE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WALK OVER THERE, MORE TRAFFIC. I'M A LITTLE BIT WORRIED ABOUT HOW AM I LOOKING TO MORNING TIM, EVEN TRYING TO GET PEOPLE OUT OF THIS AREA, GOING TO WORK OR EVEN COMING HOME. SOMETHING THAT KIND OF BRINGS UP IN THE IDEA FOR THIS, THIS PROPERTY TOO, IS I'M NOT OPPOSED TO LOWER INCOME HOUSING OR JUST CHEAPER HOUSES IN DENTON WHATSOEVER. I THINK WE'VE MADE THIS PLACE REALLY COOL AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO MOVE HERE. BUT I MEAN, BEING IN A REAL ESTATE ADJACENT JOB MYSELF, JUST EVEN LOOKING HALF A MILE AWAY FROM MY HOUSE OVER TO MOCKINGBIRD LANE, THERE IS MULTIPLE PROPERTIES UNDER 300,000 ON LARGER LOTS IN MY OWN HOUSE. SO I MEAN, I SAW ONE TODAY, $300,000 BUILT IN 1985, THIRD OF AN ACRE. I THINK IT'S DEFINITELY POSSIBLE TO GET SOMETHING THAT'S UNDER 350,000 AND STILL LIVE HERE IN AND BE ABLE TO MOVE HERE, BUT I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE PNC MEETING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, TOO, WAS IT'S AT $350,000 FOR A PROPERTY THAT, YES, THAT'S SOMEWHAT AFFORDABLE. I LIVED IN DENTON, GRADUATED UNT IN 2010, RENTED FOR A LONG TIME, WAS ABLE TO BUY MY HOUSE FOUR YEARS AGO, AND I PAID $100,000 LESS THAN THAT, WHICH IS AMAZING. I GOT REALLY LUCKY, BUT AT THAT PRICE POINT, AT $350,000 IN THIS AREA, THAT'S NOT FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS. THAT'S NOT PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO JUST I MEAN, MAYBE, BUT A LOT OF THAT'S GOING TO BE INVESTORS, A LOT OF THAT'S GOING TO BE RENTERS, A LOT OF THAT'S GOING TO BRING THAT INTO THIS AREA. AND WHY DO WE NEED SUCH HIGH DENSITY IN THIS SPECIFIC AREA? I MEAN, NOT OPPOSED TO HAVING TOWNHOMES, NOT HAVING JUST EVEN A FEW LESS, JUST LESS TRAFFIC AREA THERE. THERE'S ALREADY FUTURE LAND USE MAPS SHOWING THAT THIS IS A LOW DENSITY AREA. THIS IS TOTALLY APPROVED AND EVERYTHING'S OKAY THERE. BUT WHY DO WE NEED TO FIT SO MANY PROPERTIES HOUSES RIGHT THERE. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU GUYS OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE CARE TO SPEAK AS A PUBLIC HEARING. JUST NEED TO FILL OUT A CARD AFTER THE FACT. YEP. HI EVERYONE. MY NAME IS ALLISON MERAKI. THAT'S MY HUSBAND. I'VE NEVER SPOKEN AT ONE OF THESE, SO THIS IS FUN. SO I KIND OF JUST WANT TO REITERATE THE TRAFFIC. THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN. I JUST WANT TO REITERATE WHAT THAT LOVELY LADY SAID ABOUT THE PICKUP LINES AND DROP OFF. I'M NOT REALLY WORRIED ABOUT MCKINNEY STREET, ALTHOUGH THAT IS, I DON'T KNOW HOW PEOPLE WALK ON IT. IT'S CRAZY, BUT I'M MORE WORRIED ABOUT ON PAISLEY ALL DAY DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR, PEOPLE, STAFF AND TEACHERS PARK ALONG PAISLEY, SO IT'S KIND OF ALREADY DIFFICULT TO NAVIGATE THROUGH THAT AREA. SO I THINK BRINGING ON ANOTHER WAY FOR MORE CARS TO PARK THERE, ESPECIALLY DURING THAT DROP OFF PERIOD, IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GET OUT OF MY OWN DRIVEWAY. SO YEAH, THAT'S JUST MY BIGGEST CONCERN. IT'S A REALLY TIGHT SPOT, ESPECIALLY TOWARDS THE PAISLEY SIDE OF THAT, SO I DON'T YEAH, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW FEASIBLE THAT'S GOING TO BE WITH THE TRAFFIC. BUT YEAH, I'M OBVIOUSLY IN OPPOSITION. SO THANK YOU OKAY. THANK YOU. IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE ELSE CARE TO SPEAK. OH MAN. OKAY. YOU CAN GIVE YOUR NAME. YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. HI I'M JEN SANSING. I LIVE ON MCKINNEY. I ACTUALLY LIVE FAIRLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM WHERE THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE COMING IN, AND I SUPPORT IT. I MADE AN E-COMMENT IN SUPPORT OF IT, AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE HERE AS WELL. IT'S NOT VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE TOWNHOMES THAT WE ALREADY HAVE OVER THERE. WE HAVE A TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. THOSE HAVE THE WALLS RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, SO I DON'T SEE WHAT'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM THIS, EXCEPT THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF SPACE IN BETWEEN THE HOUSES. SO I DON'T SEE HOW THERE'S ANY MORE OF A FIRE HAZARD FOR THESE SEPARATE HOUSES THAN THERE WOULD BE FROM TOWNHOMES THAT SHARE THE WALLS. AND WE ALREADY SEE THE NUMBERS. 
          WE SEE THE FACTS THAT THE FIRE TRUCK WILL FIT. SO I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. AND WE HAVE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING WITH THE APARTMENTS. WE HAVE APARTMENTS ON ONE SIDE OF THE SUBSTATION. WE HAVE APARTMENTS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SUBSTATION. WE HAVE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THESE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES. SO I DON'T SEE THE ISSUE. I 
          [05:15:08]
DON'T SEE THE ISSUE AT ALL. WE'LL HAVE MORE STREETS TO ALLOW FOR BETTER TRAFFIC FLOW. WE'LL HAVE MORE PEDESTRIAN PATHS, SO WE'LL HAVE BETTER USE OF THAT EMPTY LOT WITH THAT DILAPIDATED HOUSE THAT'S BEEN ON THERE. SO I THINK IT'S A WIN WIN, AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO BEING ABLE TO BUY A HOUSE. I USED TO OWN A HOUSE BEFORE I MOVED HERE, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT TO BE ABLE TO BUY A HOUSE IN SUCH A CONVENIENT PLACE, BECAUSE I REALLY LIKE MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND I LIKE HOW CONVENIENT IT IS. SO I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS. AND WOULD BE VERY GLAD TO BE ABLE TO OWN A HOUSE HERE. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY IS A PUBLIC HEARING ANY OTHER SPEAKERS SEE SEEING. OH YES, MA'AM. I OWN LAND I'M SORRY, MY NAME IS BARBARA. YEAH. YOU CAN JUST SIT DOWN. THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS BARBARA WHITSON. I BOUGHT IN 2002 ON MCKINNEY STREET, NEXT TO THE PROPERTY THAT THEY WANT TO PUT THE TOWNHOUSES, AND I OPPOSED TO IT BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT A WALL RIGHT NEXT TO ME, TO MY HOUSE. AND YOU PUT 119 UNITS THERE. 
          THAT'S GOING TO BE A WALL. AND THEY WANT THEY SAID THAT THE TRAFFIC WON'T BE A PROBLEM. IT WILL BE A HUGE PROBLEM BECAUSE MOST AMERICANS, MOST PEOPLE LIVES HERE, HAS TWO VEHICLES PER FAMILY. IF THEY'VE GOT TEENAGERS, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE SO. I OPPOSE THE WHOLE DEAL. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE ELSE CARE TO SPEAK? OKAY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FIVE. QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPERS. ONE OF THE SPEAKERS RAISED AN INTERESTING POINT. CAN YOU. YES, SIR. CAN CAN YOU SPEAK TO ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE TO DE INCENTIVIZE INVESTORS COMING IN AND BUYING SEVERAL OF THE PROPERTIES AND LOCKING OUT REGULAR WORKING PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO MIGHT WANT TO BUY IN THIS AREA. YES, THAT'S A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION. AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN ON THE TABLE FOR SOME TIME WITH MY CLIENT. WE'VE BEEN DIRECTED TO THERE WILL BE AN HOA HERE AND THE CCNRS FOR THAT HOA WILL CAP THE MAXIMUM PERCENT OF RENTAL UNITS AT 15% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF STRUCTURES IN THE IN THE SUBDIVISION. SO THE WAY THAT WORKS IS IF YOU WANT TO LEASE YOUR PROPERTY, YOU HAVE TO APPROACH YOUR HOA BOARD. THEY WILL CHECK HOW MANY RENTALS ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE. IF YOUR LOT WOULD PUT IT OVER THE 15%, YOU GO ON A WAITING LIST UNTIL ONE OF THE CURRENTLY RENTED HOMES BECOME A FOR SALE HOME. AND THIS IS A BIT OF A BALANCING ACT. 
          YOU'VE HEARD A LOT FROM US TONIGHT ABOUT TRYING TO PROVIDE HOUSING. OUR CONTENTION IS WE ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE A FOR PURCHASE PROPERTY, WHICH IS WHY YOU SEE SEPARATELY PLATTED LOTS, AS MISS WYATT MENTIONED. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE IS AN INVESTOR CLASS OUT THERE AND THERE ARE RENTERS THAT ARE TRYING TO MAKE THE MOVE FROM AN APARTMENT TO A SINGLE FAMILY STANDING STANDALONE HOME AS WELL. SO WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE A MODICUM OF RENTAL PROPERTIES, BUT THIS WILL BE CAPPED AT NO MORE THAN 15%. AND TO BE CLEAR, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE WILL BE 15%. IT JUST MEANS IT CAN NEVER EXCEED 15%. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. 
          REPRESENTATIVE, FROM DISTRICT THREE. YES. MAYOR PRO TEM MELTZER, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. FORGIVE ME IF YOU ALREADY COVERED THIS, AND I JUST DIDN'T CATCH IT. BUT WHAT? WHAT IS THE FIRE? FIRE DEPARTMENT'S POINT OF VIEW ON THE SUITABILITY OF THIS ARRANGEMENT. SO I MET WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT AND TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THE STREET WIDTHS. TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THE LIMITATION OF THE PARKING ON THE ONE SIDE. AND THEY FELT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. ALSO TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THE SPEED CUSHIONS. THEY FELT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT DESIGN AS WELL. SO I WORKED WITH FIRE THROUGHOUT IT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY IN A IN A TIMELY MANNER AND MEET THEIR REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO. THANK YOU. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A HYPOTHETICAL BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T PASSED ANY STR ORDINANCES WITH WITH ANY SORT OF LIMITATIONS. BUT IF I'M HEARING 15% FROM THE HOA GUIDELINES IN 
          [05:20:06]
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, I'M REALLY GLAD YOU YOU ANSWERED THAT THAT THAT I WAS INTERESTED IN THAT. BUT AS A COUNTER POINT, IF THEY WERE TO BE STAYED UNDER THE HYPOTHETICAL STR GUIDELINES, SHOULD THEY PASS WITH A 100 FOOT RULE, IS IT IS IT PROPER TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE 2100FT LONG, DIVIDED BY 100 FOOT DIVIDED BY TWO? SINCE THERE'S TWO ROWS, IS THAT IS THAT THE RIGHT MATH? AND I'M ASKING TO GO TO THE IT GOES TO THE AMOUNT OF, OF POTENTIAL STR MAXIMUM STR POTENTIAL IN THIS REGION. I'M GOING TO TRY TO ANSWER IT, BUT I MAY CALL ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES UP. OR HERE COMES SCOTT. I THINK IF THEY PROPOSE SOMETHING IN THEIR HOA AND THEN WE COME UP WITH MORE RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENTS, THEN THEY'LL HAVE TO BE BOUND BY WHAT WE DO. SO IT WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING LESS THAN WHAT OUR REQUIREMENTS MAY BE. ALL RIGHT. NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL. 
          REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT ONE. I'LL JUST SAY THAT I'M CERTAINLY GOING TO SUPPORT THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DO THIS INFILL HERE. JUST SO HAPPENED I LIVE OVER IN THIS AREA AND I'M JUST VISUALIZING MYSELF BEING ABLE TO DRIVE DOWN THAT BEAUTIFUL CORRIDOR THERE. I AM VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE FACT THAT I JUST HAPPENED TO LOOK UP WHAT ZERO LOT LINE WOULD LOOK LIKE, AND IT TOOK ME TO THOSE HOUSES IN SAN FRANCISCO, THOSE FAMOUS HOUSES IN SAN FRANCISCO THAT ARE VERY COLORFUL AND THEY'RE JUST LINED UP RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER. BUT I CAN IMAGINE A COMMUNITY FEEL. WE DO KNOW THAT IF THEIR CHILDREN ARE LIVING ON THE STREET, THEY'RE ELEMENTARY AGE. THEY'RE GOING TO WALK TO SCHOOL BECAUSE THEY CAN LITERALLY SEE THE SCHOOL FROM FROM WHERE THEY ARE. I'M ENVISIONING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE MOBILITY. YOU KNOW, WHEN WE BECAUSE WE ARE WORKING ON THE MOBILITY PATH ON MCKINNEY STREET. I THINK THAT THAT'S KIND OF IN THE IN THE PIPELINES. WE'RE WE'RE GIVING THAT SOME ATTENTION AND BEING ABLE TO ADD MORE SIDEWALKS ON THAT NORTH SIDE BECAUSE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE VERY HELPFUL. I DO HEAR THE YOUNG LADY TALKING ABOUT THE UNITS THAT ARE JUST OVER A HALF A BLOCK OVER FOR THE HOMES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, BUTTED UP AGAINST EACH OTHER, THOSE TOWNHOMES, THEY'RE RIGHT THERE. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING FOR THAT INFILL. I DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT BROKE DOWN HOUSES IN JUST TREES. AND YOU KNOW WE KNOW THERE WE HAVE COMMUNITIES THAT LIVE IN TREES NOT NECESSARILY TRYING TO RUN THEM OUT FROM WHERE THEY LIVE, BUT I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, PUTTING THIS YOU KNOW, THIS ON THE ON THE MARKET FOR US TO GAIN MORE FUNDING FOR OUR CITY. YOU KNOW, HOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK OUT FOR US. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S A RIGHT THING TO DO, THING WE STILL HAVE MORE OPEN SPACES ON MCKINNEY THAT I'M SURE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ADDRESSING AT SOME POINT. 
          WHENEVER THEY WANT TO DEVELOP THAT AREA, BUT I'M RIPE FOR THAT. I THINK THAT THIS IS GOING TO HELP PUSH ALONG THAT MUCH NEEDED MOBILITY ON MCKINNEY STREET. HOPEFULLY THAT'LL HELP US COME TO A QUICKER DECISION AS TO HOW THAT CAN GET FUNDED IN GETTING THAT DONE FOR US. WE'VE BEEN DESPERATELY NEEDING MCKINNEY TO BE TAKEN CARE OF, SO IF THIS IS GOING TO BE HELPFUL TO THAT POINT, THEN I'LL CERTAINLY SUPPORT THAT. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT SIX. THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON JESTER. I UNFORTUNATELY, AFTER INPUT FROM PLANNING AND ZONING AND OTHER CONSTITUENTS, I JUST I FEEL THAT THE DENSITY IS TOO MUCH IN THIS PART OF TOWN AND WITH THE DANGER WE HAVE WITH MCKINNEY STREET AND THE ACCIDENTS THAT WE'RE ALREADY HAVING, AND MY FEAR IS THAT THE STACKED UP CARS AT PICKUP AND DROP OFF WITH THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN PARTICULAR FRIGHTENS ME AS FAR AS TRYING TO WALK ALONG THERE, OR CHILDREN TRYING TO WALK TO SCHOOL. SO I FOR ME, I THINK THAT EITHER A BIT LESS DENSITY AND IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE ACTUAL PROPERTY AND THE WIDTH. OR THAT WE HAVE WAITED UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT MCKINNEY STREET IS SAFER TO NAVIGATE. SO THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS. AND THAT'S I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN WHY I'LL BE VOTING THE WAY I'M VOTING. OKAY, 
          [05:25:02]
I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. WEL, FIRST, BEFORE WE DO THAT FOR THE APPLICANT, IF YOU CAN HELP ME, IS THE HOA WILLING TO HAVE A AN AGREEMENT WITH A TOW TRUCK COMPANY THAT SAYS IF THEY MONITOR THAT ONE SIDE? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. QUESTION FOR STAFF. AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS I HAVE A LIST OF CONCERNS. SOME OF THOSE AREN'T THE DUTY OR RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. RIGHT. IF JUST LIKE I WOULDN'T HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR CRIME STATISTICS IN THE AREA, THEY JUST CAN'T SOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS. THEY'RE NOT IN CHARGE OF PAISLEY. WE'VE WORKED HARD TO MODIFY PAISLEY. DO THOSE THINGS. THEY DIDN'T PUT THE SCHOOL THERE. I CAN'T DO THOSE THINGS. BUT I WILL ASK STAFF. SAME QUESTION ALONG THOSE LINES, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A VALID ISSUE THERE ON PAISLEY. ARE WE WILLING TO SAY NO PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET DURING SCHOOL HOURS? IS THAT IS THAT SOMETHING WE CONTROL AS A CITY? WHAT I COULD TALK WITH THE TRANSPORTATION, COULD TALK WITH THE TRANSPORTATION GROUP, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT CITY COUNCIL COULD, COULD APPROVE OR. OKAY. SO THAT PUTS PEOPLE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STREET AND THEY CAN WALK THE SIDEWALK AND COME ACROSS OR DO WHATEVER THEY NEED TO DO. BUT IT KEEPS THAT DEVELOPMENT SIDE OF THE STREET OPEN. OKAY. SO THE OTHER THING IS CAN YOU PULL UP GOOGLE MAPS FOR ME? AND I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU TO 1200. GOOD LANE. 1200 GOOD LANE. G O O D LANE. SO NOT EXACTLY ON ON POINT, BUT GENERALLY ON POINT. SAME AREA JUST NORTH OF WHERE IT IS SIMILAR TO PAISLEY CONSTRUCTION. ALL THOSE THINGS. THIS IS THE EXACT SAME THING. THERE'S NO SPACE BETWEEN THOSE HOMES. IF YOU GO STREET VIEW, THOSE ARE ALL CONNECTED AND SO WE'RE CURRENTLY FUNCTIONING WITH THAT. AND SO WHAT I'M WRESTLING WITH IS HOW DO I TELL THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. YES. AND TO DEVELOPING THE EXACT SAME THING, I DON'T KNOW THE DISTANCE AWAY, BUT IT'S CLOSE. YOU KNOW. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M WRESTLING WITH. 
          THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR IT IN THE AREA. AND SO THEN MY, MY OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE, JULIE, IF WE GO BACK TO THE PROJECT SITE, CAN YOU JUST IF YOU HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE MAP OR SOMETHING? WHEN I LOOKED AT IT, IT SAYS IT HAS R4 ALL AROUND IT, BUT IS THAT R4 ON THE GROUND OR IS THAT R FOR WHEN IT WAS R4? YOU KNOW, WHAT IS IT ON THE GROUND? THE HOUSES. SO I'VE DONE AN ANALYSIS OF THE OF THE DENSITIES AROUND IT. I DON'T I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHAT THE LOT SIZES WERE, BUT I CAN GIVE YOU. SO FOR THOSE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE SURROUNDING THE DENSITIES RANGE BETWEEN THREE AND A HALF TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THE TOWNHOMES ARE ARE CLOSER TO THAT TEN UNITS PER ACRE. AND THEN THE MULTIFAMILY IN THE AREA IS 16 TO 20 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS IF THAT GIVES YOU SO YEAH, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT THE TAN AREA IS LABELED R4, BUT IT FEELS LIKE R3. DID I HEAR YOU RIGHT. SOME OF IT. YEAH. SOME OF IT IS THREE AND A HALF DWELLING UNITS. AN ACRE TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. OKAY. GOT IT. OKAY. YEAH. 
          AND SO I'LL JUST SAY THAT THE SAFETY ISSUES I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT I AM COMFORTABLE TELLING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THEY DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THE HUNT. RIGHT. SO IF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SAYS IT WORKS I HAVE A HARD TIME TELLING THEM THEY'RE WRONG. I GET IT, IT. BUT THAT'S MY UNTRAINED EYE VERSUS THEY DO THIS EVERY DAY AND THEY DON'T HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN IT. IF IT DOESN'T WORK, THEY'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SAY IT DOESN'T WORK. AND SO AND I LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING AREA AND I TAKE THE POINT ON ITS R4. LET'S SAY. AND THEN WE'RE GOING R IS IT R6, R6. 
          RIGHT. BUT THEN THAT AREA WE LOOKED AT JUST NORTH OF THERE ON ARDRA IS R7 AND THAT'S APPROVED. 
          AND AGAIN, JUST A LEVEL OF CONSISTENCY TRYING TO BE EVENHANDED ABOUT IT. AND THAT'S WHERE I STRUGGLE IS TO. SO I HEAR THE CONCERNS I THINK THE TOWING ADDRESSES, THE ONE CONCERN I THINK THE PROHIBITION ON PARKING ON PAISLEY DRESSES. ANOTHER CONCERN I FROM A SAFETY 
          [05:30:07]
THING THAT I ALSO HEARD THAT I'M NOT WILLING TO GO AND TELL THE FIRE CHIEF, AND WHOEVER INVESTIGATES THOSE THINGS ARE WRONG. I THINK THEY HAVE A FAIR ASSESSMENT OF THAT. SO I'M OKAY WITH THE SAFETY COMPONENT, THE DRIVEWAYS I TAKE THOSE POINTS. BUT I THINK ALSO IF THERE'S A TOWING MECHANISM THERE THAT ADDRESSES THAT, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT PEOPLE WOULD USE THAT AS A CUT THROUGH, WHICH IS GREAT, RIGHT? WE DON'T WANT THEM CUTTING THROUGH. WE WANT WE'VE HAD PAISLEY IMPROVED FOR A REASON. SO OKAY, I. I THINK THAT ADDRESSES MY CONCERNS. 
          REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT ONE I ALSO JUST WANTED TO BRING IN THE CONCERN REGARDING THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THAT IS THERE, THAT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HAS BEEN THERE FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS. BOTH OF MY DAUGHTERS ATTENDED THAT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. AND I'M TELLING YOU, I'M A PARENT THAT PICKED UP AND DROPPED OFF, AND IT IS A MOMENT IN TIME. IT'S IN THE MORNING, IT'S IN THE AFTERNOON. I REMEMBER US KIND OF GOING THROUGH THE SAME CONVERSATION WITH THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THAT'S OVER THERE OFF OF KINGS ROAD DURING THE PANDEMIC TIME, AND IT WAS VERY CHAOTIC AT THAT TIME. AND THERE WERE A LOT OF CHANGES THAT WAS MADE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL OF THOSE CONCERNS. AND NOW SUDDENLY WE DON'T HEAR ANYTHING. SCHOOL HAS GOTTEN BACK TO NORMAL. PEOPLE ARE DOING NORMAL THINGS. THIS IS JUST A NORMAL ACTIVITY FOR WHAT GOES AROUND AT A SCHOOL. AND SO I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT THAT TO BE, YOU KNOW, THE MAIN HIGH FOCUS ON THAT BECAUSE PARENTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PICKING UP AND DROPPING OFF EARLY. I WAS A TEACHER AND HAD TO WORK THE CAR LINE AND SAW THOSE GRANDPARENTS COME IN AN HOUR BEFORE SCHOOL WAS OUT, JUST TO BE THE FIRST ONE IN LINE. SO THAT'S A NATURAL PART OF LIVING AROUND A SCHOOL. SO, YOU KNOW, JUST THAT PART. 
          BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S GOING TO BRING ANY MORE TRAFFIC AROUND THAT AREA BECAUSE AGAIN, THOSE KIDS THAT LIVE JUST A HALF A BLOCK FROM THE SCHOOL THAT LIVE OVER IN THAT AREA, THEY'RE GOING TO BE WALKING TO SCHOOL AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE SCHOOL AS THEY'RE GOING TO THE SCHOOL. THEY DON'T. THEY WON'T HAVE TO CROSS THE STREET. SO YEAH, I LIVE OVER OFF OF PAISLEY OVER IN THAT AREA. SO I KNOW THAT AREA VERY WELL. AND I WOULD DEFINITELY WANT US TO SUPPORT THIS. I THINK THIS IS, AGAIN, ALL THE SPEAK THAT WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT. I'M JUST THINK THAT WE THIS IS A GREAT IDEA FOR, YOU KNOW, SOME GOOD INFILL RIGHT HERE. AGAIN OVERALL FOR AUDRA PASS THROUGH THAT AREA HEADED TO 288. AND THERE IS THERE'S THIS SPACE HERE. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR FOR BRINGING IN THAT. AND IT'S FULL. AND I EVERY TIME I GO THROUGH THERE I JUST DON'T SEE THAT IMPACT THAT PEOPLE ARE CONSIDERING. SO I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE THAT OUR COMMUNITY WOULD DRIVE KIND OF DRIVE AROUND THROUGH THAT AREA OFF OF AUDRA. SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE MAYOR IS TALKING ABOUT. SO YEAH, I'M JUST HOPING THAT MY PEERS WOULD BE ABLE TO GO WITH THIS. LET'S GO WITH THIS AND LET'S FILL THIS AREA IN. AND WE HAVE A LOT OF INFILL TO WORK THROUGH. WE HAVE A LOT OF INFIELD TO WORK THROUGH TO THE CORE OF THE CITY, AND IT'S NOT VERY FAR FROM EVERYTHING. SO EVERYTHING'S WALKABLE HERE. I'D LIKE TO SEE THE DC TO GET CLOSER TO THE STORES. THAT'S MY ONLY THING. BUT I THINK THAT IT WILL WORK FOR US. THANK YOU, MAYOR, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. YEAH, SO IF THERE'S IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD, BUT I DO. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THOSE AT THE DAIS THAT, THAT, THAT ARE JUST AND FORGIVE ME, WE DON'T GET A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT THIS IN ADVANCE. BUT I DO NEED IF I OPEN THE FLOOR FOR SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN TO ME THE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT AM I MISSING AND GOOD LANE, IT'S THE SAME THING AS HERE, AND IT'S PROBABLY WORSE BECAUSE YOU GOT TO GET OFF ON AUDRA. AND IF WESTWOOD DID A STUDY ON MAKING A RIGHT TURN ONTO LOOP 288 HOLY SMOKES, YOU GOT AN ENTRANCE RAMP AND YOU GOT THOSE THREE LANES THAT ARE DOING ABOUT 80 IN EACH. SO IT'S MUCH WORSE THERE. YOU GOT TO TRAIN THE OTHER WAY. SO WHAT AM I MISSING? THIS DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SIDE OF THE AREA NORTH OF THE AREA THERE, IT SEEMS TO BE THE SAME THING TO ME. BUT I'M APPARENTLY MISSING SOMETHING AND I WANT TO UNDERSTAND. I'M HAPPY TO, TO CHANGE IF. BUT I'M NOT MAKING THE CONNECTION. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT SIX COUNCILPERSON CHESTER, SINCE I'M THE ONE THAT BROUGHT IT UP. I ASSUME I'M THE PERSON TO SPEAK TO WHAT I SEE AS THE DIFFERENCE 
          [05:35:03]
BETWEEN WHAT I SAW ON GOOD LANE VERSUS WHAT I'M SEEING IN THIS PROPOSAL. AND I COULD BE WRONG. 
          AND SO PLEASE CORRECT ME. THOSE THAT KNOW BETTER. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE WIDTH AVAILABLE ON THE STREET AND THEN THE SIDEWALKS THAT ARE THE STREET AND THE SIDEWALKS AVAILABLE ON GOOD LANE SEEMED MUCH LARGER AND THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION, SAFER THAN THE WIDTH THAT'S ALLOWED IN THE STREET. IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. BUT PLEASE DO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG AND MAYBE YOU CAN SPEAK AGAIN TO THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAD. SURE. 
          FAIR. AND THEN YOU WEREN'T ALONE IN YOUR CONCERN ABOUT DENSITY. SO I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK IT WAS POINTED TO YOU, BUT THAT THAT'S GOOD INSIGHT THAT. CAN ANYONE SPEAK TO THOSE TWO STREETS? GOOD LANE. AND WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED? I THINK MISS WYATT MAY BE LOOKING UP. GOOD LANE RIGHT NOW. I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT. I WILL OFFER FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. I'M GOING TO TAKE MY ATTORNEY HAT OFF AND PUT MY ENGINEER HAT ON FOR A MOMENT. WHEN WE HAVE GEOMETRY LIKE WE HAVE HERE, THAT REQUIRES ONE LONG STRAIGHT SHOT. THE THING YOU'RE ALWAYS CONCERNED ABOUT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS SPEED. AND SO, AS WAS MENTIONED, WE'VE DONE A COUPLE SPEED CUSHIONS AND WE'VE DONE A ROUNDABOUT AS WELL. I THINK THE GREAT WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SUGGESTS, THOUGH, AN EVEN MORE IMPACTFUL WAY OF DEALING WITH SPEEDS IS TO MAKE PEOPLE FEEL CONSTRAINED AND SO WE HAVE PLENTY OF WIDTH HERE TO COMPLY WITH EVERY CITY STANDARD THAT, AND NOT JUST CITY STANDARDS, NATIONAL STANDARDS. WE COMPLY OR EXCEED EVERY SINGLE STANDARD FROM A DESIGN COMPONENT. THE NARROWING HERE, I THINK, IS A FEATURE, NOT A BUG, BECAUSE IT DOES FEEL A LITTLE CONSTRAINED. IT'S A COUPLE EXTRA FEET, BUT THAT COUPLE EXTRA FEET IS IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THE PERCEPTION OF THE DRIVER. AND AS DRIVERS FEEL CONSTRAINED, THEY REGULATE THEIR SPEEDS ON THEIR OWN. WHEREAS IF WE'VE GOT A DRAG STRIP OUT THERE, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DRIVE FAST. SO OUR POSITION THAT WE OFFER FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS THAT'S ACTUALLY BENEFICIAL IN THIS CONTEXT OF ONE LONG STRAIGHT STREET. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND WHILE THEY'RE LOOKING REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR THANK YOU. THANK YOU AND RESPONDING TO YOU I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LANE IF WE COULD GET THAT BACK UP THERE. JULIE. THE DIFFERENCE THAT I SEE IS THAT GOOD LANE HAS REAR ENTRY GARAGES AND THIS PROJECT HAS FRONT ENTRY GARAGES. AND I SEE THAT AS A DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE IN THIS IN THIS PROJECT. THAT'S THAT'S THE THING THAT THAT STICKS OUT TO ME AND THAT'S AND YOU ASK THE DIFFERENCE. I THINK THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. YES. REAR ENTRY AND GOOD LANE IS ACTUALLY OUR COLLECTOR STREET SECTION. SO IT IS A WIDER STREET SECTION. IT'S 65FT OF RIGHT OF WAY AS OPPOSED TO WHAT OUR TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL STREET SECTION WOULD BE. NOW, THE ADJACENT STREET BAYFIELD IS 50FT OF RIGHT OF WAY. SO THIS THIS STREET IS OUR MORE STANDARD RESIDENTIAL SECTION WHERE THIS WAS DESIGNED AS COLLECTOR. AND I DON'T HAVE ANY ANSWER AS TO WHY THAT ONE WAS DESIGNED AS A COLLECTOR, BUT. AND WHAT IS THE PROPOSED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS WHAT, 50FT, 51FT OF RIGHT OF WAY? 51. SO IT'S AKIN TO BAYFIELD. IT'S MORE CONSISTENT WITH BAYFIELD. GOT IT. YES. OKA. AND THAT'S OUR SEVEN I THINK. 
          RIGHT. OR SEVEN. YES. YES SIR. SO IT'S ONE HOUSE PER ACRE MORE THAN BECAUSE IT'S PROPOSED ARE SIX RIGHT. CORRECT. YES. SO WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED FOR US IS, ARE SIX THAT ON THE GROUND IS OUR SEVEN CORRECT. YES. AND OUR SEVEN. SO OUR, OUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SEVEN. THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE I BELIEVE IS 4000FT■!S. OUR SIX 6000FT■!S IS TYPICAL. TOWNHOMES ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT. AND THAT WE DO WE DO HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR TOWNHOMES AND THAT THOSE ARE 2000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. AND THEN 20 BY 80 WOULD BE THOSE DIMENSIONS. OKAY. GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. WELL THAT'S THAT'S HELPFUL. SO THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT, IF YOU CAN I JUST WANT TO I WANT TO OFFER YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK AND DISCUSS DENSITY BECAUSE BEFORE WE VOTE, RIGHT. AS AS A COURTES, I UNDERSTAND. START THERE. BUT AS A COURTESY, I WANT TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH YOU BEFORE WE VOTE. SURE. A COUPLE THOUGHTS. THE FIRST ONE IS THIS QUESTION OF AFFORDABILITY. AND THERE'S A TENSION IN THESE INTERESTS. RIGHT. AND I THINK 
          [05:40:03]
THAT'S WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM EVERY SINGLE SPEAKER FROM THE PUBLIC TONIGHT IS THERE'S A TENSION IN THE INTEREST OF AFFORDABILITY. IF YOU HAVE TO PICK ONE VARIABLE, THAT'S THE SINGLE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO THE HOME PRICE, THAT IS THE COST OF THE RAW LAND. OF COURSE, CONSTRUCTION PRICES ARE ESCALATED. I DON'T MEAN TO DIMINISH THAT, BUT THE SINGLE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTOR IS THE COST OF THE RAW LAND. WELL, THERE'S NOTHING A CONSUMER CAN DO TO IMPACT THE ECONOMICS OF THAT RIGHT NOW. BUT WHAT A CONSUMER CAN DO IS BUY INTO A SUBDIVISION THAT HAS GREATER DENSITY. AND SO FOR ALL OF THE REASONS THAT WE'VE DESCRIBED THAT WE THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT FIT FOR THIS PROPERTY. WE HAVE TO HAVE THE DENSITY IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT PROJECT WORK. I WILL TELL YOU, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOSE A FEW UNITS. WE CAN LOSE FIVE UNITS AND WE CAN STILL MAKE THIS WORK. AND WE'D CERTAINLY BE PLEASED WITH EMOTION THAT INCLUDED THAT. WE CANNOT MAKE THE ECONOMICS WORK IF WE LOSE MORE THAN FIVE UNITS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU SIR, THAT DISCLOSURE AND THAT CANDID RESPONSE. SO WHAT IS THAT THAT PUTS A 100. IS THAT 114 114. LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. TEN WE'LL BE AND WELCOME BACK TO THIS MEETING OF THE DENTON CITY COUNCIL. IT IS 1049 AND WE ARE STILL ON ITEM SIX. E AND JUST LET ME MAKE A. GOT IT. OKAY. BASICALLY NO OKAY. IF THE APPLICANT CAN COME UP THAT I HAVE A QUESTION. YES, SIR. SO I WANT TO GET A FEEL FOR HOW YOU CAN. I MEAN, DENSITY IS THE ONLY ISSUE THAT WE CAN'T ADDRESS ALONE. I APPRECIATE YOUR YOU MENTIONING THE FIVE UNITS, BUT IS THERE. AND IF I MAY MAKE ONE ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON THAT, AFTER CONFERRING WITH MY CLIENT, I WAS AN ERROR. WE CAN ACTUALLY GIVE SIX, NOT FIVE, BUT SIX IS AS FAR AS WE CAN GO AND STILL MAKE THE NUMBERS WORK. GOT IT. OKAY, SO IF SIX UNITS IF THANK YOU. YES, SIR. THAT ADDRESSES SOME OF THE DENSITY CONCERNS THEN. AND I THINK JUST ME SPEAKING TOWARDS THE PAISLEY END THAT SEEMS TO BE LIKE IF MCKINNEY THERE'S ALREADY LOTS OF TRAFFIC THERE. THERE'S ALREADY TWO DUPLEXES FRONTED THAT WAY. SO FOR ON THAT, IF THERE'S RELIEF ON THE BACKSIDE OR TO LOOK AT, BUT THOSE THAT SEEMS TO BE THAT WOULD MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH THE LOOK AND FEEL AND NOT ABSOLUTE CONSISTENT. BUT THAT'S YES, I THINK, MOST EFFECTIVE. AND THEN YOU'RE OKAY WITH THE WITH THE HOA CONTRACTING WITH A TOWING COMPANY TO KEEP THAT ONE SIDE. 
          YES, SIR. FREE AND CLEAR. OKAY. AND THEN FOR THE CITY SIDE, JULIE, WHERE WOULD I MAKE IT? WOULD I PUT IT IN THE MOTION NOW TO ADDRESS THE NO PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PAISLEY? NO, THAT WOULD COME BACK AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING. SO THAT WOULD WOULD COME BACK AT A, AT A LATER STAGE AND THEN ALSO BECAUSE WE'RE INTRODUCING A NEW LANE OF TRAFFIC OUT, IF A STOP SIGN LIKE WE HAVE SOMETIMES LIKE A FLASHING SIGN OR SOMETHING THAT GETS PEOPLE'S ATTENTION BETTER AT PAISLEY, WOULD THAT IS THAT JUST A STAFF? DO I JUST GET WITH STAFF SEPARATE AND APART FROM THIS PROCESS? YES, SIR. OKAY, GREAT. THEN HEADS UP. I'M GOING TO EMAIL YOU ABOUT THAT OKAY. OKAY. SO FOR THIS THING FOR HAVE THAT HAVE THE VOTE. OKAY, SO REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I'M SORRY. FIVE. YES. THANK YOU. 
          I HEAR, I HEAR YOUR COMMENTS. IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME, GIVEN THAT THE APPLICANT CAN GIVE UP A FEW UNITS, I WOULDN'T MIND SEEING WHAT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. WHAT THAT'S GOING TO DO TO CHANGE. 
          WHERE ARE YOU GOING? TO REMOVE THE UNITS. AND WHAT SPACE YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE. SO IF IN ORDER, AS I TYPICALLY DONE FROM THIS DAIS A BUNCH OF TIMES, I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO DELAY TO GIVE THE APPLICANT TIME TO COME BACK AND SHOW US WHAT THIS IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. AND ALSO PERHAPS GET WITH THE NEIGHBORS. NEIGHBORS AND HAVE ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT THE CHANGES ARE GOING TO BE. THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING. IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU WERE 
          [05:45:04]
GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THOSE CHANGES. SO YES, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. 
          I APPRECIATE THEIR EFFORTS, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO AT THAT DENSITY COMPONENT RE. AND SO I IT'S WORTHY OF A OF A CONVERSATION A VOTE TODAY SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK SO THAT THEY CAN START WORKING ON TO JULIE'S POINT, THE PLOTTING, THE PLOTTING, THAT SORT OF THING. THIS IS REALLY JUST THE ZONING. IS THAT RIGHT? AND ANY OTHER RESTRICTIONS, AND THEN THEY'LL HAVE TO COME BACK WITH THOSE DESIGN COMPONENTS. AND SO WE'LL GET A LOOK AT THAT, HOW THEY LAY THAT OUT. AND SO AND THAT WOULD BE THE CASE IF, IF WE POSTPONE THE ZONING, THEY'D STILL HAVE THE ZONING. STILL HAVE TO COME BACK FOR PLANNING. SO IT DOESN'T BUY THEM ANY. THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN THAT TO GET TO THAT. WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE OKAY. SO HERE'S MY SO I MOVE APPROVAL OF STAFF WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADDING THAT THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE. ARE THEY HOA WILL PROVIDE TOWING SERVICES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT ON THE NO PARKING ON I FORGET WHICH SIDE OF THE STREET IT IS AND THEN THE APPLICANT WILL REDUCE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR PARKING. THAT THERE'S FLEXIBILITY THERE. 
          JUST CAN'T BE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. AND SO WITH THAT, I MOVE APPROVAL WITH THOSE WITH THOSE CONTINGENCIES. IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT ONE SECONDS. SO MOTION BY MAYOR HUDSPETH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BURT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT SIX. COUNCILPERSON. JESTER, I JUST WANT TO SAY I DO APPRECIATE SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, ADDRESSING SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT DOESN'T FIX THE PROBLEMS, BUT WITH THE BALANCING INTEREST AND THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, I DO PLAN TO VOTE IN FAVOR AND I APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS THESE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND STILL MAKE IT WORK. THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? LET'S VOTE ON THE SCREEN. AND THAT PASSES SIX ONE 
          [A. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton amending certain provisions of Chapter 17 of the Denton Property Maintenance Code including but not limited to Art. I. Sec. 17-2 definitions by incorporating or updating the definitions of “Appraised value,” “Approved,” “Building,” “Building official,” “Conviction,” “Chronic offender,” “Dangerous structure,” “Code enforcement officer,” “Demolish,” “Diligent effort,” “Minimum housing standards,” “Notice party(ties),” “Securing,” “Structure,” “Vacant” by repealing the definition “Code official”, and modifying Sections 17-2, 17-142, 17-143, 17-144, 17-158, 17-167, and 17-168 to remove references to “Code official;” and by amending Art. I. Sec. 17-3. Enforcement by replacing 17-3(a), and 17-3(b), and by creating 17-3(c); and creating 17-4, Penalties; and amending Article II. Noise and Odors by removing “and odors” and repealing Art. II. Sec. 17-21. Odors; and amending Article IV. Grass, Weeds, and Other Vegetation. Sec. 17-40.; and amending Art. VIII. Fences. Sec. 17-80. to repeal part (c); and by amending Section 17-101(a) Parking Nuisances to repeal (3); and by repealing and replacing Art. XIII. Buildings and Building Regulations. Division 3. Dangerous structures; providing for a severability clause; providing for a savings clause; providing for a penalty; providing for codification; and providing an effective date.]
TAKES US TO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. FIRST IS SEVEN A ID 241647. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17 OF THE DENTON PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE PART ONE, SECTION 17 TWO. DEFINITIONS. BY INCORPORATING AND UPDATING DEFINITIONS OF APPRAISED VALUE APPROVED BUILDING. BUILDING OFFICIALS CONVICTION. CHRONIC OFFENDER. ET CETERA ET CETERA. 
          TASTING WATER. NO. LISTEN, I'M JUST TOO TIRED TO SAY IT. NO. HAVEN'T MY EMAIL. YEAH. EMAIL IT IN. SO APOLOGIES, MAYOR. OUR PRESENTATION ISN'T LOADED. OKAY. NO PROBLEM. GIVE US A SECOND. 
          CAN WE GET STEVE TO ASSIST US SINCE WE GAVE IT TO HIM? OKAY. OKAY. OH, OKAY. SO. I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS. DID YOU SAY THAT? DO YOU THINK CONFIRMATION. I'M PULLING UP THE PUBLIC AGEND. 
          THE AGENDA PACKET THAT'S GOING TO BE. 
          [05:50:21]
RELEASED. OVER THESE TWO DAYS. I HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT MUCH. RESEARCH. 
          YOU SPECIAL. CONTENT IS TOO BIG. MY GOSH, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? ID UP THE ENTIRE THING. YES, I KNOW HERE WE GO. ALL THE WAY. BACK. OKAY. SO. 
          ALL RIGHT. APOLOGIES. OKAY. I'M JOSH ELLISON, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES MANAGER. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TODAY, WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING THE DENTON PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 17. THE KEY FOCUS AREA IS SUPPORT HEALTHY AND SAFE COMMUNITIES. THE LAST COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE DENTON PROPERTY MAINTENANCE COD, CHAPTER 17 WAS IN 2007. THERE HAVE BEEN SMALLER UPDATES SINCE, BUT NOT A COMPREHENSIVE DEEP DIVE, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE DONE OVER THE LAST YEAR. PLUS, CITY STAFF HAVE REVIEWED INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, TEXAS STATE STATUTES, AS WELL AS OUR NEIGHBORING MUNICIPALITIES TO SEE WHAT BEST PRACTICES AND STANDARDS ARE FOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODES, AND CAME UP WITH THIS PROPOSED PLAN AND 23 TO CURRENT. WE CONDUCTED FOUR PUBLIC MEETINGS FOR FEEDBACK. ONE PUBLIC HEARING LAST MONTH PARTICIPATED IN SIX CITY EVENTS TO PROMOTE AWARENESS OF OUR PROPOSED CHANGES, POSTED INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK FORM ON OUR WEBSITE FOR OVER A YEAR, PROVIDED PRESENTATIONS AND RECEIVED FEEDBACK AT SEVEN MEETINGS, WHICH WE DID GET THE RECOMMENDATION TO PROCEED AND THEN ENGAGED PROPERTY MANAGERS AND LEASING AGENTS THROUGH DENTON VIA IN-PERSON MEETINGS, EMAIL EXCHANGES AND PHONE CALLS. 
          CHAPTER 17 PROPOSED REVISIONS HAVE SEVEN MINOR UPDATES, MAINLY ADMINISTRATIVE. AND THEN THERE'S ONE SECTION BEING DELETED, WHICH IS THE ODOR, AND THEN ONE SUBSTANTIAL, WHICH IS THE DANGEROUS BUILDING LITTLE PIE CHART TO MAKE IT EASY. TODAY WE ARE COMING BACK FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION ONE TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED IN AS IS, OR TO REQUEST MODIFICATIONS TO THOSE PROPOSED UPDATES, OR THREE MAINTAIN THE CURRENT VERSION OF CHAPTER 17 WITH NO CHANGES. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. IF NO QUESTIONS, I'LL TAKE A MOTION. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO. I MOVE APPROVAL OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION. IS THERE A SECOND? REPRESENTATIVE. DISTRICT ONE. I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S VOTE ON THE SCREEN. PASSES SEVEN ZERO. TAKES US TO 
          [B. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton to declare the intent to reimburse capital program expenditures of General Government ($165,176,270), the Solid Waste Utility ($11,125,711), the Water Utility ($58,897,004), the Wastewater Utility ($71,672,868), and the Electric Utility ($74,977,730) with Tax-Preferred Obligations (Certificates of Obligation and General Obligation Bonds) with an aggregate maximum principal amount not to exceed $381,849,583; and providing an effective date.]
          [05:55:18]
ITEM SEVEN B ID 241662. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON. DECLARE THE INTENT TO. PROGRAM EXPENDITURES ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT OF $165,176,270. THE SOLID WASTE UTILITY OF $11,125,711. WATER UTILITY. $58,897,004. AND THE WASTEWATER UTILITY 71,070 $1,672,868. AND THE ELECTRIC UTILITY, $74,977,730 IN TAX PREFERRED OBLIGATIONS OR COS, WITH THE AGGREGATE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT TO NOT TO EXCEED $381,849,583. GOOD EVENING, RANDY KLINGLER, TREASURY MANAGER. I HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION FOR THIS ORDINANCE FOR YOU THIS EVENING. WE ARE DISCUSSING THE REIMBURSEMENT ORDINANCE, WHICH IS THE FIRST STEP IN OUR BOND PROCESS TO REIMBURSE OURSELVES WITH TAX EXEMPT BONDS TO BE ISSUED AT A FUTURE DATE. IF WE SPEND ANY CURRENT FUNDS BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GET THOSE BOND PROCEEDS, WE GENERALLY WILL HAVE THAT BOND SALE WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THIS DATE. WE DO LIKE TO HAVE IT BEFORE THE FISCAL YEAR END FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES, AND THE REIMBURSEMENT ORDINANCE IS ALLOWED BY THE DEBT POLICY. AND JUST A NOTE, THIS YEAR, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC AND YOU WERE AWARE OF, AS YOU ALREADY KNOW, THAT THIS DOES NOT OBLIGATE US TO ISSUE ALL THIS DEBT WHEN WE GO TO SELL IN JUNE. SO ON A HIGH LEVEL, I WILL NOTE AS WELL, IN THE BEGINNING THAT THE PROJECT LIST IS IN YOUR ORDINANCE AS EXHIBIT A, THE LAST 4 OR 5 PAGES, BUT I WILL NOT BE GOING OVER THE PROJECT LIST, BUT JUST GIVING YOU THE SUMMARY TOTALS. SO THE GEO BOND PROGRAMS FOR 2019 AND 2023 HAVE A TOTAL OF $74 MILLION, WHICH IS YOUR BUDGETED AMOUNT. EVERYTHING WILL BE GOING OVER IS YOUR BUDGETED AMOUNT THAT YOU JUST APPROVED IN SEPTEMBER. CO GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BUDGET FOR $91.1 MILLION. YOUR CO UTILITIES. ALL FOUR $6 MILLION, AND THE SUMMARY OF THE TOTAL ENTIRE REIMBURSEMENT ORDINANCE, WHICH IS THE TOTAL DEBT FUNDED BUDGET FOR YOUR BOND PROGRAM. ITEMS ARE $381 MILLION, 849,583. IS THAT OUT OF ORDER? DID I JUMP ONE AND GO THE WRONG WAY? THERE WE GO. NEXT STEP IN APRIL, I'LL COME BACK TO YOU FOR NOTICE OF INTENT. FOR THE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATIONS ONLY. AND THEN IN MAY, WE'LL BE BACK FOR A BOND PARAMETERS ORDINANCE. WE'LL HAVE THE FINAL DOLLARS THERE IN MAY. GO FOR SALE IN JUNE, AND THEN WE WILL RECEIVE ANY PROCEEDS FROM THE BOND SALE IN JULY. ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT THREE. YEAH. FIRST I'LL SAY I WISH THE SPEAKER WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE'S THE MONEY BEING SPENT ON WATER AND WASTEWATER THIS YEAR? I THINK I'M JUST SAYING THIS IN CASE ANYBODY IS STILL LISTENING, JUST TO UNDERSTAND, IS THERE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THIS PROCEDURE OR IS THIS SOMETHING WE DO ALL THE AND WE'RE BASICALLY JUST SAYING IF THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE SOME CASH RESERVES AND SOME AVAILABLE FUNDING WITHIN THE PROJECTS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN THEIR BUDGET, THEY COULD SPEND SOME OF THOSE NOW WITH THE APPROVAL PROCESS OF THE INTERNAL PROCESSES, AND THEN WE WILL BE RECEIVING CASH BOND PROCEEDS LATER. THAT WILL PAY THE CITY BACK. AND THIS DOESN'T ENABLE ANY DIFFERENT OR ADDITIONAL SPENDING THAN HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN THIS COUNCIL. YOU ARE CORRECT. THANK YOU SIR. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO. I MOVE APPROVAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR DISTRICT THREE. SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. DISCUSSION. SEEING NONE, LET'S VOTE ON THE SCREEN. PASSES SEVEN ZERO. THANK YOU. TAKES US TO OUR FINAL ITEM, AND I'M GOING TO ADJOURN AFTER THIS. WE'RE OUT OF HERE. THIS 
          [C. Conduct the first of two readings of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, annexing approximately 0.039 acres of land, generally located west of Teasley Lane and approximately 170 feet north of Leatherwood Lane to the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas; providing for a correction to the City map to include the annexed land; and providing for a savings clause and an effective date. (A24-0003b, 5702 Teasley Lane, Mia Hines)]
AND THIS REQUIRES NO ACTION. ITEM CA240003B CONDUCT THE FIRST OF TWO READINGS OF 
          [06:00:07]
039 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF TEASLEY LANE AND APPROXIMATELY 170FT NORTH OF LEATHERWOOD LANE TO THE CITY OF DENTON. DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS. GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MAYOR. CITY OF CITY COUNCIL. MIA HINES, SENIOR PLANNER. IT IS LATE. THIS IS THE THIRD ITEM REGARDING THIS ANNEXATION PIECE. JUST A REMINDER AGAIN, THIS IS A .039 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF TEASLEY, APPROXIMATELY 170FT SOUTH NORTH OF LEATHERWOOD LANE. THE APPLICANTS ARE JEFFREY AND AARON HUEBNER. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. AND THE TEXTILE RIGHT OR THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT TOUCHES THE PARENT TRACT OF. THAT IS THE LARGER PART OF THIS PIECE THAT'S BEING ANNEXED OR WANTING TO BE ANNEXED. TOUCHES. TEASLEY LANE IS A TXDOT HIGHWAY. SO AGAIN, THIS IS JUST THE FIRST READING OF THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE. AND WITH THAT, I WILL READ THIS CAPTION INTO YOUR HEARING. THIS IS AN GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF TEASLEY LANE AND APPROXIMATELY 170FT NORTH OF LEATHERWOOD LANE TO THE CITY OF DENTON. DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CONNECTION TO THE CITY MAP TO INCLUDE THE ANNEXED LAND AND PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WITH THAT, AGAIN, THERE IS NO ACTION REQUIRED ON THIS ITEM AS THIS IS JUST A FIRST READING, BUT I'LL BE GLAD TO HELP ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. THANK YOU. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT THREE? NO, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF AFTER I'D BE ABLE TO RECITE CERTAIN BIRTH DAYS. I'M JUST. I'M JUST. NEVER MIND. I'M JUST KIDDING. WE HAVE ONE CARD, MR. CHARLES LEE. YOU CAN COME UP. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. IT'S FUNNY, ACTUALLY, I WANTED TO SPEAK ON THE LAST THING, BUT I WAS JUST AGAINST IT. AGAINST IT BECAUSE I. IF WE'RE GOING TO SPEND MONEY ON THE CREDIT CARD, I THINK WE SHOULD ACTUALLY GET THE CREDIT CARD FIRST BEFORE WE ACTUALLY SPEND THE MONEY AND MAX IT OUT. I MEAN, THIS IS JUST BACKWARDS FINANCING. I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS IN MY LIFE THAT A BOND HEARING. AND THEN WHAT? GOD FORBID. AND WE'RE IN UNPRECEDENTED TIMES, TOO. WHAT IF NOBODY BUYS THE BONDS? THIS IS WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH IT. IT'S JUST ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. AND I ALSO WANT TO SAY, FOR HAVING THOSE 36, 37 SIGNS, THE CITY CAN BE FINED $1,500 A DAY UNTIL THEY'RE REMOVED. SO I HIGHLY SUGGEST YOU REMOVE THAT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR ANY MORE LAWSUITS. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE AT 1111 THAT ADJOURNS TONIGHT'S MEETING. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.