Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the Den City Council.

Happy New Year.

It's first meeting back.

And today is Tuesday, January 13th, 2026.

It is 202 p.m.

We have a quorum call the meeting to order.

And first thing is in person for regular consent agenda.

So anyone in person wishing to speak on uh consent agenda items.

Nope.

That takes us to uh in person.

Okay, got it.

Citizen comments rather is what I should have said, and then request for clarification agenda items on this agenda for the public hearing and individual consideration.

So request for clarification on public hearing and individual consideration.

Seeing none takes us to our first work session.

Uh and I will make everyone aware we only have one closed session.

Item A was a placeholder, so we don't need that.

Item D on the work session has been postponed.

So we'll go A through C, D is postponed, A we're we don't need, and we'll go into B and closed, and then we'll go into our individual consideration because we will transfer to the chambers to vote and take that up straight away.

So that takes us to our first work session 3A ID 252363.

Receive report hold discussion regarding the key focus areas for the city of Denton, including pursuing organizational excellence and collaborative respectful leadership, enhancing infrastructure and mobility.

A quick point of clarification if I'm a stage point of clarification.

Thank you.

So uh to repeat and make sure I'm clear in the um item D work session items is postponed.

Yeah, the the presenters uh under the weather.

Copy that, and then in the closed meeting, uh item A, we continue with item B is no the opposite.

Yes.

Item A was just a close placeholder just in case we needed it.

So we'll skip that.

We wasn't called upon.

That takes us to item B.

And anything pulled from the consent agenda today, Mayor.

Item F was pulled.

Sorry, for individual.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

That completes my uh point of clarification.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

Amy Caslight Chief Strategic Officer.

We're going to start today's presentation with a video highlighting some of the city's uh many accomplishments last fiscal year.

We'll then focus the rest of the presentation on providing a bit more detail about all of the amazing things that we were able to achieve.

Reflecting on the city's collective accomplishments is an opportunity to celebrate our progress as a community.

As we look back on fiscal year 2024-25, Denton's steady growth brought challenges.

Yet our dedicated workforce rose to the occasion and delivered outstanding results.

Our focus on completing projects within the city council's key focus areas demonstrates our shared commitment to aligning goals with the community's needs and expectations.

The foundation for the City of Denton's strategic plan is six long-term key focus areas.

Pursue organizational excellence and collaborative and respectful leadership.

Enhance infrastructure and mobility, foster economic opportunity and affordability, strengthen community and quality of life, support healthy and safe communities, promote sustainability and the environment.

Conducted employee survey to strengthen workplace culture and drive organizational growth.

Earned all six transparency stars from Texas Comptroller, demonstrating excellence in financial transparency.

Develop popular annual financial report to make complex financial data more accessible and understandable for residents and stakeholders.

Implemented zero-based budgeting to align department funding with current needs and strategic priorities.

Launch Denton 311 for streamlined city service access and improve community engagement.

By the numbers, 99% employees committed to the organization's success.

94% employees rated Denton a great place to work.

947,403 social media engagements.

3,955,713 website views.

We have invested in essential infrastructure and transportation improvements to support Denton's continued growth and to ensure our community remains connected and accessible.

Enhanced traffic signal infrastructure to improve mobility and efficiency.

Expanded ADA compliance across six city facilities, reinforcing Denton's commitment to inclusive public spaces.

Delivered 149 million dollars in infrastructure improvements, creating a stronger roadway network and enhanced utility system for our community.

Completed improvements at Lake Louisville Water Treatment Plant to maintain efficiency, safeguarding both public health and operational resilience, updated property maintenance code to strengthen community standards and safety, preserving the integrity of our neighborhoods.

By the numbers, 8,592 curb mile streets swept, 1,888 potholes filled.

Denton remains dedicated to supporting economic growth and promoting affordability, helping both families and businesses thrive in an environment of stability and opportunity.

Drove major economic impact through 31 days of Halloween programming, highlighting the power of creative engagement to drive economic growth.

Secured over 750,000 square feet in leases to advance aviation development at the Denton Enterprise Airport.

Recognized by Governor Greg Abbott as Stalls USA announces a significant facility upgrade and the creation of 200 new jobs in Denton.

Refocus Denton Community Shelter Services to prioritize stability and self-sufficiency for individuals experiencing homelessness.

Expanded access to grants and infrastructure improvements, supporting the downtown master plan.

By the numbers, 135,000 value of downtown reinvestment grants, 214,731,354 value of commercial permits, $615,994 expended on affordable housing assistance programs, 1,878,78 expended on homelessness programs.

Our community-centered initiatives honor Denton's distinctive character while enhancing parks, public spaces, and amenities that enrich daily life for residents.

Updated short-term rental regulations to balance neighborhood integrity and property rights, ensuring ongoing compliance.

Achieved accreditation through the Texas State Library Commission, affirming the Denton Library's commitment to community, revitalized playground equipment to enhance safety and recreation at North Point Park, maintaining high quality recreational spaces, completed key safety and aesthetics renovations at Waterworks Park, ensuring a better experience for visitors.

By the numbers, 1,0278 visitors at park facilities, 2,608 programs offered at recreation centers, 495,927 visitors at library branches, 1,19,555 library materials checked out.

We have reinforced public safety and community resilience through strategic programs and initiatives that prioritize the well-being of everyone who calls Denton home.

Advanced pedestrian safety measures around key corridors and campuses to improve walkability and protect pedestrians.

Receive full accreditation and a perfect score for emergency medical services reflecting the Denton Fire Department's commitment to excellence.

Achieved ISO Class 1 rating for Fire Protection Excellence, the highest possible designation, which positively influences insurance rates for residents and businesses.

Built leadership development and succession program to strengthen career pathways at the police department, enhancing promotional readiness.

By the numbers, 4-minute 15-second average fire response time.

Denton remains committed to preserving natural resources and advancing environmental sustainability.

Advanced water resource planning through development of one water master plan.

Positioning the city for sustainable utility management.

Expanded trash abatement program to prevent nearly 10,000 pounds of debris from entering waterways, supporting long-term watershed health.

Entering into contracts for additional wind generation, and the first battery storage resource to meet Denton Municipal Electric's growing energy needs.

Establish Denton as a national leader in recycling through sustained efforts to reduce contamination, placing Denton among the top municipalities nationwide for effective and high quality waste management.

By the numbers, $823,032 in green sense rebates processed.

28.4% residential waste diverted from the landfill.

405,333 tons of waste accepted at the landfill.

Many of our accomplishments were recognized at the state and national levels, including awards for sustainability, economic development, and financial excellence.

As we look back on this remarkable year, we extend our heartfelt gratitude to the residents, businesses, and employees who made these achievements possible.

Through our shared commitment and collaboration, we've not only met the City of Denton's goals and objectives, but we've also strengthened the foundation of a community we are proud to call home.

Together, we continue to build a Denton that reflects the very best of who we are.

So before I get started, I do want to take a moment to thank Marcom, particularly Billy Matthews and Steve Forsyth for doing a great job at putting this video together.

Really, I think just gives us the opportunity to stop, take a breath, and reflect on all of the work that we have been able to achieve over the last year with employees across the organization dedicated to moving our key focus areas forward.

So here are our six key focus areas which were established by council in July of 2022.

There are over a hundred initiatives being tracked within this organization again to move those key focus areas forward.

So before I go any further, on this slide and the slides that follow, you will not only see highlighted accomplishments, you'll also see reference to council priorities, and you'll hear about the work that we're doing to progress these priority items throughout the presentation.

So I'm going to start with how we strengthen our organization and how we support employees who do the work every day.

Showing how better systems lead to better outcomes.

Next, I'll highlight how we invest in mobility and the infrastructure systems that keep the city moving.

This year we delivered major roadway investments, including the design and award of Bonnie Bray Phase 6, and continue to shift towards maintaining existing streets.

We upgraded traffic systems and accessibility by installing new systems, uh, new signals, rebuilding older ones, and completing ADA improvements across city facilities.

We strengthened water and wastewater reliability by improving treatment facilities, updating maintenance programs, and expanding lift station capacity to meet the needs of growing areas.

We secured key properties to support infrastructure delivery, including land for libraries, fire stations, water facilities, and roadway projects.

We improve stormwater and asset management through more efficient inspections and better data, helping staff plan maintenance more effectively.

Finally, we updated the development code and modernized the development review process by working directly with our stakeholders through the planning and development advisory alliance to reduce review times and improve services.

So this next session focuses on how we support growth while keeping affordability front and center.

We activated downtown through events and placemaking, including a full month of Halloween programming that increased visitors and helped us support local businesses.

We attracted business investments and job growth through targeted incentives and major projects, including landmark by Hillwood and HEB, and expansions by advanced manufacturers, including stolts, for which we received recognition from the governor's office.

At the Dent Enterprise Airport, we expanded development through new leases and completed a financial review to guide long-term sustainability.

Definitely want to take a moment to recognize the airport staff for their work in this area.

Their efforts and achievements again are really helping us to stabilize your airport funds, so that's certainly commendable work by that team.

We supported music, film, and the creative economy by working with local venues and welcoming a wide range of film productions.

We advanced affordable housing by establishing a public facility corporation, strengthening Denton's capacity to support affordable housing and public facility development through strategic collaborations.

We also strengthen housing stability by refocusing shelter services on long-term housing solutions and improving coordinated response to unsheltered needs.

Finally, we invest in community development grants to support human services, housing, and public facility improvements.

This section focuses on how we support the places and services that shape daily life in Denton.

We increase transparency and planning by launching public-facing dashboards for the design downtown Denton Plan and the Southeast Denton Area Plan, making progress easier to track and understand.

We protected neighborhood character by updating short-term rental rules and property standards while maintaining alignment with state law.

We expanded public art and cultural expression through new installations, community art projects, and partnerships with local artists.

We also enhance Denton's visual appeal through beautification projects.

We invested in parks, trails, and recreation by purchasing land and completing design plans to connect our parks through our trail systems.

We upgraded playgrounds and completed improvements to our waterworks park.

Our library system continued to evolve through early programming, early learning spaces, family place programming and service updates to improve access while supporting families and early childhood development through caregiver education and early literacy programs.

Our fire and emergency services earned top-tier national recognition, including CAS accreditation for our emergency medical services and an ISO class one rating.

We're working to enhance emergency response capacity by completing design for fire stations five and six.

Within the police department, we strengthen communication, I'm sorry, recruitment and professional leadership development.

We also deployed new technologies, including real-time data resources, drones, and virtual reality training platforms.

We advanced community risk reduction strategies using using data to guide education and outreach.

And we strengthen our mental health response by aligning that work with community services, allowing staff to better support people in crisis and those experiencing homelessness through coordinated community-based care.

So, next I'm going to share how we advance sustainability and environmental stewardship.

We completed the one water master plan to guide long-term planning for water, wastewater and reuse with an emphasis on reliability and resilience.

We strengthen renewal renewable energy efforts by updating our renewable resource plan and launching new generation and battery storage work.

We expanded our clean fleet initiatives through electric vehicles and the state's first ever electric fire truck.

We improved waste aversion and recycling quality, cutting contamination to record lows, and we expanded specialty recycling programs.

We enhanced environmental monitoring through new air quality tools and public dashboards that make data easier to understand.

We protected biodiversity through habitat projects, native plantings, and bird city certification.

Finally, we launched a public climate action plan dashboard to track progress to our net zero goals and to keep the community informed.

So at the end of fiscal year 2025, again, we had well over a hundred initiatives in support of council's key focus areas being tracked.

Progress at that point was it 67%, with nearly one third of the initiatives underway during the fiscal year being completed.

As a reminder, you can learn more about the work that's going on across the city, whether that has to do with council's key focus areas, one of our other key planning documents, or if you want to learn more about our performance data by visiting the city strategic plan dashboard.

And with that, any questions?

Thank you very much.

Questions for for staff.

This term question comes in the um under the um fire safety, the safety aspect.

Could you clarify our work and what year that was?

I'm not sure if it was completed this year.

Um in regards to our uh not fire, but law enforcement uh with the uh ISDs having to do the SROs and our role and how we were able to assist them in that process.

Is that completed with us or are we still working with them?

We um the school district was um you know in dire straits financially, uh so they requested to go with one SRO, which would be a police department, and then they would hire uh an officer that they would hire at their because the city has certain amount of money we committed, and so we agreed to do that in this the different schools.

So it's completed, and and we still work with them very closely.

As a matter of fact, Tony Solas was texting me today.

We're still we're all we're very prominent on the campuses and work with students that may need some additional help or maybe a little bit of uh coaching.

Uh so um we're still working with them.

They have one officer that not really an officer, uh I um I don't even know what they they refer to them, but they have one person that they have on staff that they've hired under a um supervisor, and then we have our staff that's there.

So it's two still one of theirs and one of ours, and then we still work with them to provide training and those kinds of things.

But it's it's worked quite well, and everything seems to be going really well.

So this can be an ongoing relationship.

Yes, and it will be because we want we want our resource officers in the schools, at least one in the school to help students.

Um they work with them.

Sometimes they're out there serving as a crossing guard.

Uh they would just want to make sure that they see that they see students see the officers in a different light instead of just someone that has their lights on, but someone that cares about them.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions?

Representative from District 2.

Thank you.

Um so uh I noticed that do you have the slide where it has the the um the general progress on our deliverables?

And and while you go there, let me let me lead off with um really great job on increasing the grant coordination.

I know that you led with that slide, but I know the transportation services in general has really really uh done an amazing job of pursuing and and getting outside funding.

So really really great for Dr.

Butt and the rest of the other staff that have applied for external funding.

We've got some of the other directors here that got you know water and wastewater.

Really really good job on that.

That's I really commend staff for for seeking that outside those outside monies.

Um, but to my question, um notice that if you kind of add up the yellows and reds, we we've got 25-30 percent in some form of disruption.

Is there particular you know barriers, especially ones that are cross-cutting that are that are getting in our way of getting more of those reds and yellows into greens and blues?

Um is there general trends that you've observed in your analysis?

I have to look at that a little bit further, but sometimes it's a resource issue, sometimes it's an external factor, um, an external entity that we're working with that causes a disruption.

Um, but in general, it's between resources and then external disruptions as well.

Oh so say that for me a different way.

I I think I heard you say things outside the city's control in terms of the external resources, but and and then having having access to resources and probably that mostly means funding.

Am I resources and sometimes it's staffing, sometimes there are staffing issues that just will slow down some of our initiatives?

Uh sometimes it's external forces.

Um we've you know, we have a lot of discussion with uh with those owners of initiatives because I will say at first everyone's very and this happens any I I've implemented a system like this for where everybody's like we're gonna get this done, we're gonna get it all done in a year, and then then reality sets in where well I mean it's just it's just the truth of it.

So I look to have conversations with people around that, and is it is there truly a disruption?

If there is, what is that disruption been?

And and it and it is just a lot of it is resource-driven.

And and when the reason I asked that, and and I'll I'll wrap up here, Mr.

Mayor.

But that is sort of like what what are we targeting to generally to get through some of those barriers so we again we can move these things to green and blue?

Yeah, I mean, is there general?

I mean, and maybe that's a management question, but what are we targeting in general to get through some of those barriers?

Um, I think that's just that's discussion conversation, honestly.

Whenever whenever directors are sitting down with their ACMs to go over their their business plans, um, to go over their performance metrics, what are those barriers that we need to remove?

And and it's a conversation, and it may be then part of the budget discussion and being able to move things forward.

Um, and then sometimes it is it's simply that I left this one out, but other priorities take place and bubble up, and those things need to move move forward faster than maybe something that that's existing.

Okay, so shifting priorities as well.

Um, yeah, I appreciate that.

Uh if there's um particular things, I know you you tend to report it, but if there's particular things that we're um losing track of that are on their their way to get to go into black, um I I'm sure you'll let us know.

Yes.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Representative district four.

Thank you.

Um though the holes were very small, they had to count them all.

So I appreciate your your counting uh counting all the potholes in town.

That was very impressive.

No, I'm serious, that's very impressive.

Uh I'm wondering about the first electric fire truck in Texas.

Is and and and you may not know this, but is it performing the way we had hoped it would?

Absolutely.

Um I got a chance to write in it.

It's very quiet.

You don't even know it's actually running, but um it is supplying it's certainly not provided putting out that much of emissions like it would normally if it was a regular fire truck.

It is more expensive, and that's why we have one.

But we are the first in the state of Texas, but it also is just as uh runs just as well as as a regular diesel.

Uh the good news about this one is is if we have trouble with the electric or we seem to be out on a site where the electricity is running lower, we can switch to diesel.

But the whole the whole idea is that it's running on electric the whole time it's being used, and uh all the different firefighters that have been in in the vehicle say it's great, they love it, and it goes just as quickly, gets up and goes, it doesn't have any performance issues whatsoever.

You you bring up a point that I hadn't considered.

Um I know that the firefighters wear ear protection devices.

Do they have to wear that in that truck?

They won't if it's on electric, but they're so used to doing it that they do most of the time, and if they have to switch it to diesel, uh they'll do that automatically.

It's it's it can be dual uh purpose those seamless.

It's it's it's a seamless operation, but it actually is a very good running vehicle, and um hopefully the price will go down if more if more cities buy and counties buy them.

Very good.

Thank you.

That was a very, very pro presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Representative district six.

Uh thank you, Councilperson Jester.

Not a question, just um thank you very much.

It is very helpful to see in a very quick uh very much bird's eye view summary of what has been accomplished by uh everyone.

Uh and so I think it's very helpful not only for us but for uh the citizens to have such an easy place, such a user-friendly place to go on the web and see where we are.

So just uh a big thank you to everyone.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Where is the um where's it gonna be located on the website?

How do you get to the website to see this information?

News flash news flash front page, yeah.

I'm sorry, I didn't have to do that.

Uh news flash, and then Dustin said he'll send it out.

Dustin said he will send it out, yes, and then we'll put it on our news flash.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Great job.

Great job.

Uh takes us to work session B ID 252310, receive porthole discussion, gift staff direction regarding recent naming applications for civic center day labor site and Juneteenth Softball tournament.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

I'm Alison Wing, interim director of parks and recreation.

We'll be discussing the parks naming applications.

This naming policy for city buildings, property, and land has been in place since council adopt council adoption in 2020.

In April 2021, council gave direction that the parks recreation and beautification board should serve as the committee that reviews these applications and serves as an opportunity for public input.

Um a quick policy review.

Naming applications can come from any individual group.

Once reviewed by the city manager's office, these items have been routed to Parks and Recreation, who takes them to the park board once or twice a year, depending on volume of requests.

City Council makes the final decision for any naming applications.

This policy states that council must appoint a seven-member committee to review naming applications, and that two of those members must come from an affected board or commission.

We'll review the three requests that we have received over the past year or so.

The first application was submitted by Councilmember Byrd, and the proposed name for consideration for the Denton Civic Center is Quaker Town Civic Center.

The Parks Recreation and Beautification Board unanimous unanimously recommended approving this request.

The next application was submitted by Dr.

Rudy Rodriguez, former Denton ISD trustee and professor at TWU and UNT.

And the proposed name for consideration is the currently unnamed day labor site is the Popo Gonzalez Day Labor site.

The Parks Recreation and Beautification Board unanimously recommended approving this naming request.

The final application was submitted by David Martin of the North Texas Umpire Association, and the proposed name for the Juneteenth softball tournament is the John Royster Juneteenth Softball Tournament.

There is not a provision in the naming policy for naming programs or events, which is why the Parks Recreation and Beautification Board unanimously recommended denying this naming request.

When we brought these items to council on November 18th, 2025, direction was given to staff to solicit additional public input for the three naming applications.

Since that date, staff created a discussed denton page, emailed all known neighborhood groups, posted a citywide next door post, a post to the Parks and Recreation Facebook page, a news flash press release on the city's website.

Um the Denton Record Chronicle uh published an article to spread awareness, and staff held an additional public meeting on December 15th.

The resulting engagement tallied together for the Civic Center is 34 in favor and 13 opposed.

For the day labor site, there were 34 in favor favor and 11 opposed, and for the Juneteenth tournament, 19 were in favor and 19 opposed staff recommends approving the naming applications for both the civic center and the day labor site and denying the naming application for the softball tournament.

Staff also requests clarification from council recar regarding the ad hoc naming committee.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Questions for staff representative from district four.

The thank you.

The first or second slide, could you go back to that?

What you said is not what the graphic said.

The name of the uh Civic Center for the Civic Center.

Oops.

That was it.

No, right there.

Yes.

Now, what is what is the proposed name of what I call the Civic Center?

The proposed name is the Quaker Town Civic Center.

That's not what it says.

The second sentence.

The second sentence.

Councilmember Byrd amended her request.

Yes.

Okay.

Read the full thing.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Representative District 2.

Um thank you.

So just to add a little clarity on the third item, the the major objection, because it was it was more mixed.

People attending boards and commissions and council had sort of one recommendation against, and then uh when you took it online and did a more of a community service, the the numbers went up a little bit and it's it seemed very mixed.

Uh do we have any can staff provide color on you know some of that mixed results and you said and I'm asking you to repeat it sort of the rationale of the parks board um for the event structure?

Yes, because the naming policy is for permanent structures, um buildings, land, parks, and not for programs or events because programs or events could be discontinued at any time, and so there's hesitancy to name the to memorialize a person.

That makes sense.

And what was that the the primary pushback from from some of the people that that uh were in person and didn't want to see it um uh I mean I wasn't able to review the the testimony to parks board and whatnot.

Sure, because the there was there was some pushback because the policy does not have a provision for naming an event or a program, um, but also the Juneteenth softball tournament event organizers or the Juneteenth celebration event organizers were opposed to changing the name of that event within the larger event because it would somehow change the focus of it or they say okay, okay, okay.

All right.

Uh I appreciate that.

Thank you, Alison.

Thank you, Ms.

Mayor.

Any other questions?

One more.

Yep, Representative District 4.

Do you do you have an idea of what the cost of these changes will be?

I do.

Um the there is only one place that the Denton Civic Center is is written on any signage at all, and that is on the marquee.

Um it just so happens coincidentally that this year is the year that we were budgeted to make improvements and renovate the marquee.

So it if this were to be approved, um there would be no additional cost other than what was already expected to be spent this year.

Okay, and and that and that is not mentioned on business cards or stationary or vehicles, anything like that.

And the uh the day labor site uh it would potentially be um a simple sign erected at the site, yes, sir.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Okay, any other questions?

Uh then I I would ask I I read somewhere I can't put my finger on it, but is there a policy position that says we shouldn't rename things they're already named or something?

I saw that I read that somewhere.

Where's that written?

In the policy, it states if something has already been named after an individual, then we shouldn't rename it again.

Got it.

Okay.

And what's the as I read the application for the request for the Civic Center?

The justification was its location or proximity to Quaker Town Park or the Quaker Town Historical Area?

Yes, sir.

What about Emily Fowler Library?

Same park, same location.

The answer is yes.

Correct.

Civic center pool.

Same location.

Women's building.

Same location.

City hall.

Yes, sir.

So I don't understand, I understand the request, but it's here where I'd renew my thought that we have an individual in our community that lived in Quaker Town, being Alma Carr, who works with the county and with Miss Mohair that does the uh education of Quakertown and historian in the black museum.

I that's where I'm struggling to use as a justification, a geographic location, and also the senior center as well.

All those things touch the same thing.

And so either we universally just everything that touches the park gets a new name, but I don't understand the one off approach to it.

And then I did re research um how we got there.

Thank you, staff, for the historical information.

If those that didn't get a chance to read the uh follow up.

This was voted on in 1992 by the council.

And here's the council members, then if you hadn't had a chance to look it up.

Mayor Bob Castleberry, publisher Clearing House winner, uh, for what it's worth.

Awesome story.

It's an awesome story.

Um so Mayor Bob Castleberry, Jane Hopkins, Margaret Smith, Reverend Mark Chu, Dr.

Harold Perry, Jack Miller, and Dr.

Eulene Brock.

And so that's the other thing.

If if I'm going to get on board withurping that decision amongst that, I mean those those are some key people to me in the history of Denton, and to oh to overlay that for just the geographic, because the park's already named.

The entire area is named Quaker Town, a building that intentionally was, they they specifically I went back and looked at the minutes.

They specifically were talking about naming that building, that name, that group, that history in Denton.

I now again, if we're talking about someone that lived there, who lived that and is doing great work in our community, Alma Clark, I think that adds to it.

But this just puts a it's arbitrary to me, and so that that's where I struggle with this.

Um so I it's a work session, I'm putting that forward, and um I intentionally did not go to the full disclosure.

I did not go to the community meetings because I don't believe that's the right thing to do.

I think the community should be heard and have an opportunity on that's that's their opportunity, that's their forum to have that conversation.

So if there's a question as to why that approach, that's just my long practice approach.

I I try not to try to go in and use that to manipulate people and tell people, oh, say this, do that.

I wanted to have organic read of it.

I wanted to have the uh historical information, and the historical information proves very quite compelling, and I I don't understand how we have a policy, we would put forward a policy or a change when we have five, six other buildings that touch that same geographic area and they're not affected.

So that that to me doesn't, if I'm going back and explaining to someone, we changed this because it touched the park, then I don't have an answer for why the other buildings didn't that touch the park all the same, don't have a different name.

So um Mr.

Mayor, I'm not I'm done done.

Uh and so that's that's what I'm hoping um we can we can do is add some specificity to it and have that circulate that conversation.

But this is the work sessions, my first opportunity to to have that discussion.

Uh but I that's that's where I fall.

And any thoughts on the other buildings, other geographic things from from staff we are only talking about this one item because we received an application.

Okay, got it.

Okay.

Uh representative from District Warren.

Sure, thank you.

I thought I'd just add a little light uh on to uh the question of the mayor.

Uh I put that application in there um for the greater good of the community, um very centric in quality of life.

I'm um, you know, uh uh in favor of um respect, being respectful.

And two years ago, uh year and a half ago, too, uh the uh community of Quaker Town was being celebrated for its 100th year.

And I uh and there were many celebrations in that in the in the in the community for that.

And I um spoke with the community.

I am you know a representative of a of district one, and uh as we know, ancestors of Quaker Town are still very relevant in this community right now.

You talked about uh Alma Clark and some other notable people like that.

Um but what I wanted to do was to pay homage collectively as a whole to that history.

It's not about the location, it's about the history and to connect it with that 100 year anniversary and with those community members over there, who I told that I would be doing this for them as something that I can do as a council member of this city.

It's uh it's it's uh it's a privilege to be able to uh really truly connect yourself with your community and to I didn't necessarily promise it to them, but I told them I would definitely work on it.

Now, if you go into the civic center and you look up before you get to the stairs, it has Quaker Town on there as big as life.

Um so it may not necessarily be the facility itself.

We're not gonna rename Emily Fowler because we don't rename names of people that have names on them in any other area here where a building is already dedicated to a person.

This building wasn't dedicated to a person.

This building was dedicated to history, otherwise it wouldn't have the big Quaker town thing on the you know in the front as you enter into the building.

So um I will hope that my peers would uh really um understand how I personally uh as a person of like nobody that was a nobody and now I have an opportunity to have a bit of privilege to do this.

Anybody could have done it anyway, um, but to bring it before the council and ask my peers to see through um the the light shallow part and um really look at how we are uh amending we're making some amending things um that could go on into that history that that story by the way the Den Black Film Festival is gonna be telling that story in a documentary here on the 29th, and so to have this and to have that and to have that those celebrations already.

We're gonna be seeing Alma Clark and the crew again.

Um, you know, with all of that, I think that it would make us really shine.

It's a shining moment.

Now I don't know.

I could be a generalized citizen, or I can also put in something for the pool.

Let's have Quaker Town pool.

It could be Quaker Town Senior Citizen Center, but I wanted to start with the Civic Center and could compromise on the name because there's a history of it being called a community center.

It was called community center at one point.

So uh but to compromise on that civic center part, why not?

As long as we know why it's here.

And the mayor asks why.

And so this is why it's the connectivity from the people that can do something about something to the people that needs something done and it actually happening.

Okay, so that's I'm gonna leave that right there, and I would hope that you all could agree to some of that.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Do you do you do you anticipate the need uh not the need, the the desire to to rename other buildings that touch uh Quakertown Park?

I don't I don't anticipate anything from anyone other than myself.

So I don't know.

I can't answer that.

Okay, I can say I I can't say no, and I can't really say yes.

Okay, because I don't have that much vested interest in anything of then what I'm doing.

Thank you at this point.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Representative district two.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, that or or staff or whoever can answer it, is is are these uh we're we're needing direction to go to a resolution or the resolution uh the process is already in play.

I'm just looking at the slide trying to understand the the flow of events.

Are we already going to put vote on a resolution or or we're not?

I that's all I'm trying to understand before I continue my question or my direction.

We will bring resolution before council at a later council date.

Okay.

Yeah, that's what I was gonna say.

Do we need direction here?

That's that's just the clarity I want.

So I think we either get to say move it forward or not move it forward, but it would have to come back to council in the form of a resolution or no Alison's correct Christine Taylor Assistant City Manager.

When we brought the item forward, we looked at the uh change in the policy, what indicated the city manager would bring them forward to council.

Um so we're bringing this forward for direction.

Staff is recommending the two go forward on a resolution to approve and one to deny.

So looking for consensus on council on those three applications, and then clarification if park boards should remain as the ad hoc or if we'd like to go a different direction.

So she needs clarification on four items.

So if if you will, Christine, the the right.

We will have a uh a thing to vote on on the third.

Yes, we want to bring them forward on the next agenda, but we're bringing them forward.

Our recommendation was to approve the civic center, approve the Pobo Gonzalez site, and deny um the naming of the tournament.

So we're looking for how to word those resolutions, and then again the fourth is the clarification on the ad hoc.

Okay, no, I I appreciate that.

Then um my direction on the first three items is to follow the staff recommendation um on those um the naming convention.

I I especially um appreciate uh everybody's efforts in the community on on the public Gonzalez.

It's it's uh about time to draw attention to that sort of thing so that we can take next steps for for the day labor center, and then for the question of um clarification on direction of ad hoc committee.

Alison, um does do most of the naming requests end up going before parks?

Yes or are at this point essentially all of them?

The requests that we've received to this point have all had something to do with a park or a park facility.

And in general, when we've named things, I know we've we've got you know streets that we rename and and things like that, but for the most part of the are the lion's share of those f naming efforts seen by the parks board, yes, sir.

So then my my direction is since we already have a uh board um of the appropriate configuration that has been reviewing those things and making a recommendation to council.

I I propose we continue that as the board that recommends uh makes a recommendation to council for for the naming conventions.

So those are my two directions or four directions.

Okay.

Um I have a process question.

First information, the the brick was added in I'm seeing 2000 and eight, so much later, right?

I mean, I I don't expect you to know that, but that's just what internet says.

So it's it's it's I think it that's about right.

I I just I know it was much later.

Uh but then two uh process question because this is not named after an individual, someone could come back with another application, let's say a year from now with a different council and submit a name for a change again for an individual, and it and it change again, and then that name would be locked in because the policy suggests not changing names.

So I I just say that to say I'm just making sure I understand the the the policy right.

Policy says if we continue to name it not someone using an individual's name, it can continually be changed until someone puts forward a name, then it would foreclose from being the policy would suggest it not be changed.

Yes, sir.

That's how the policy reads.

Okay, got it.

Representative district four.

No three.

Uh I looking at the the public engagement and the feedback that was gathered from the public engagement.

I I see, especially in the the public meetings that there was strong support for the civic center chain name change.

I mean, even more support for that one than the day labor site naming.

Um so looking at the public feedback, I'm comfortable with stack right staff recommendation of um the civic center day labor site and then uh of moving those forward and uh denying the Juneteenth renaming, and then I am uh I support us keeping the parks board as the ad hoc committee for uh renaming.

Thank you.

Okay, anyone else direction representative district five mayor, can you clarify your comments to me?

Um wanting to your idea was to rename it for Ms.

Clark rather than just break your tones.

Are you saying basically?

Yes.

So based on the policy that would have to have an application, right?

And that could be done at any time, right?

Yes.

Okay.

Um I'm fine with staff recommendation.

I appreciate your leadership on this, and and I think uh Dr.

Rodriguez and Parks can stay as ad hoc.

Thank you.

Anyone else direction representative district one?

Uh yes, sir.

Uh go with the uh approval of the recommendations, and I'll show the parks board being the uh ad hoc.

Thank you.

Okay, anyone else?

Anyone else?

Representative from district six.

Uh Councilperson Jester, thank you.

Um I didn't hear any suggestions of alternatives to uh the status quo as far as the naming process.

Was there any other suggested process or uh stack staff recommended change before I give there's not okay with that?

Uh my uh my direction is to follow staff recommendations in the matter set forth in this item.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Okay, so that's support for staff recommendation and to keep the but I want to make sure understood that keep ad hoc means they would also those things would come back to us for work session like this.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And before you go, we have uh we have a we'll present for you.

Well done.

Yes.

Thank you.

I don't know.

So congratulations on your position and thank you for presenting and doing a great job.

And that's a total kind of uh we'll get a picture here.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Yeah, thank you.

Well, okay, that takes takes us to our uh our next work session.

Which is uh item C, ID 25340, receive report whole discussion, give staff direction regarding audit project 044 park management and planning.

Yep.

Big day.

Uh hi, I'm Madison Rorshaw, Denton City Auditor.

I'm here to present our findings from uh our audit of the city's park management and planning processes.

So to begin, parks play a crucial role in urban environments by providing green spaces that promote physical activity, improve mental health, enhance community cohesion, and contribute to economic development.

In general, there are four park use categories differentiated by service area, extensive development, and typical amenities, including community parks with larger service areas and higher development, neighborhood parks with smaller service areas and higher development, natural parks with citywide service areas and low development, and unique parks with citywide service areas and development for specific uses.

This audit evaluated the city's park management and planning processes, including park planning, uh parkland acquisition and development funding, and park maintenance, including vendor management.

So I'll begin by discussing the city's park planning efforts.

The National Recreation and Park Association, uh, through which the city is accredited, has developed standards related to park planning, including one having a parks planning function that's involved in local planning efforts, uh, like the community's comprehensive plan, two having a parks and recreation system master plan and strategic plan that involved uh the community and its development their development, and three conducting feasibility studies and creating site plans for individual parks.

In addition, Trust for Public Land, a national nonprofit that works with communities to create parks and protect public land has developed a park score index that measures how well cities are meeting their communities' need for parks using five characteristics acreage, access, investment, amenities, and equity.

Based on discussions with the city's parks and recreation staff, park is uh sorry, parks has established a parks planning division that was involved in developing the city's comprehensive plan and other planning documents like the mobility plan and the 2040 area plans.

In addition, the city uses feasibility studies and creates site plans for each park development project and solicits community input.

Lastly, the city adopted a parks recreation and trail system master plan in 2022 to guide the development of parks recreation and trails in Denton through 2040.

This master plan identified 12 park system service level metrics and established performance goals for every five years beginning in 2025 and continuing to 2040.

To simplify analysis, audit identified one metric that most closely aligned with the trust for public land metric types from those 12.

Um and these are shown on the slide.

Based on this evaluation, the city has only established uh playground related amenities goals and has not established any equity related park service level goals.

Um as you can see, the audit also found that the city is generally not meeting its 2025 service level goals for the park system, except for the access metric, uh though the amenities metric has improved.

Still, the 2040 acreage goal is likely not feasible with current resources.

As you can see, the city has adopted a goal to have 17 and a half acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents by 2040.

At the time that this goal was adopted, the city had about eight acres of parkland per thousand residents.

To estimate if the city is on track to meet the goal.

We estimated the amount of parkland that would be acquired through parkland dedication based on the comprehensive plans uh forecasting assumptions and assume that currently undeveloped parkland would be developed by 2040.

And based on this, the city's developed parkland would increase by about a thousand acres um by 2040.

But due to population increases, this would create a service level of only about one acre per parkland uh per 1,000 residents.

So for that reason, we don't believe that the 17 and a half acre goal is feasible.

For these reasons, we recommended that the city uh one reevaluate its long-term acreage goal, two establish level of service goals for key park amenities and formalize a process for evaluating how new development projects will impact these goals.

And three, consider establishing level of service resource distribution fairness goals.

Still, the city appears to generally be providing uh uh despite not meeting the 2025 master plan goals, the city appears to generally be providing expected park service levels compared to pure cities.

Uh specifically, we evaluated Denton based on Trust for Public Lands park service uh park serve methodology and compared the city's level of service to similar cities where possible.

Um, based on the estimated park service score, Denton's park service quality is about average.

However, I'll discuss kind of each of the five characteristics in turn.

So beginning with acreage, according to the National Recreation and Park Association, communities with 100,000 to 250,000 residents like Denton had about 10 acres of developed parkland per thousand residents on average, with one to two of these acres being neighborhood parks and five to eight being community parks.

Based on review of the city's current developed parkland, these acreage goals are generally being met for community parks citywide and for neighborhood parks and zones A and B of the city's five park zones.

Further, compared to population peer cities, Denton has the second highest percentage of its residents that live within a 10-minute walk of a park at 57%.

Though it should be noted that Denton's geographic peers have a slightly higher average level of access at 64%.

To evaluate these metrics together, audit calculated a parkland availability metric for each census block within the city.

Based on the this metric, almost half of the city's developed census blocks have access to adequate parkland based on their population, as outlined in the table on the left of the slide.

In addition, Denton's investment in parks and recreation has been increasing over the last three years from about 150 dollars per resident in uh fiscal year 2022 to almost 200 in fiscal year 2024.

For amenities, Denton provides similar or higher access to amenities like tennis and pickleball courts, sports fields, dog parks, volleyball nets, playground, and playgrounds than other Texas cities average.

Um but there are three amenities restrooms, splash pads, and basketball hoops that have lower levels of service than the average, um, as shown in the figure on the right of the slide.

In addition, some amenities, including playgrounds, sports fields, restrooms, hoops, and community garden sites appear to have smaller service areas based on the number of residents that they typically serve.

For that reason, it may be appropriate to establish zone-specific service level goals for these amenities, um, as the service levels kind of vary of these five amenity types vary widely by park zone.

Lastly, uh citywide residents of color and white residents uh and low-income households and high-income households have similar levels of access to parkland.

Using the parkland availability metric, audit also evaluated the the resource resource distribution differences across these demographic groups by census block.

Based on this analysis, we found that census blocks primarily housing residents of color and census blocks primarily housing white residents were similarly likely to have adequate uh inadequate parkland access, but census blocks with primarily low-income households were more likely to have inadequate access to parkland than other census blocks.

Clarification where is this codified in city ordinances policies, et cetera, so that I can look at the look that up while you're finishing your what part codified all that the census block as it relates to evaluating against parks.

Like it because we're looking at goals, so where is this goal so that I can as I mentioned on the previous slide, the city does not have a goal related to looking at uh access or distribution access across uh race or income.

So I'm gonna get in front of my comments and say I don't understand your role in this discussion.

This is information.

Well, that's not what the auditor does, in my estimation.

I'll I'll look up your your job, post your your site and and what you but you evaluate what how we're performing based on what our goals are, is my understanding.

This is out of line in my estimation, and and I'm intentionally stopping here, and I'm gonna have more to say after you're finished.

But I need you to I need to be clear when I communicate I do not do not understand.

Because how can our staff hit a target that we've not identified?

And then for you as the auditor to come and report that as though they're missing the mark or they have some area they need to grow in, having not established that as a goal, a metrics or anything is a problem for me.

And I need the park staff and management to understand that I don't believe in them having to hit a target or aim for something that is unbeknownst to anyone, and I can't find it anywhere.

Uh so I it and if you're just pointing out general information, then that's a bigger problem, and we can talk about that later.

But I I'm just letting you know non-plussed uh with this and what it how it how it shades the the parks department because they they're in my mind they're getting blindsided.

So go right ahead.

But I I just needed to put a book bookmark there because I did not want to wait because anyone watching this needs to understand that's not uh and I'll I'll look up the the what the city auditor does, and I'll have more comments later.

Thank you.

Like other public works, new park construction, including land acquisition and park development are generally funded through tax-backed debt because they are seen to benefit the community as a whole.

However, municipalities have also adopted parkland dedication ordinances that require new developments to contribute land and money to support the need for new parks created by the expected population growth.

According to best practices, there are generally three requirements that a parkland dedication ordinance must meet.

Uh, one, levied fees must be proportional to the need created by the new development.

Two, there must be a geographic connection between the development that pays the fees and the park created with the fees, and three, there must be a reasonable time limit set to expend the fees to ensure the development receives the benefit.

The city of Denton first adopted a parkland dedication ordinance in 1998, which was next updated in 2022.

Both ordinances generally comply with the best practices outlined in the table on the left of the slide.

However, we found that the 2022 ordinances methodology for calculating the fee in lieu does not provide proportional resources for two reasons.

One, the calculation uses appraised values instead of fair market value, which may require the city to make up the difference to actually acquire the parkland.

And two, the calculation uses the value of residential parcels to approximate the cost of acquiring parkland.

Because a residential parcel generally includes about one-third of an acre of land, using this value instead of the cost per acre makes it makes it significantly cheaper for a developer to pay the fee in lieu when compared to actually dedicating land.

For this reason, we recommended the city use the average acreage value instead of parcel value to calculate the fee in lieu during the next ordinance update and consider using fair market value instead of the appraised value.

Further, the 2022 park development fee was based on the estimated cost to develop a four-acre neighborhood park and a 12 and a half acre community park.

While this cost estimate is based on empirical details as suggested by best practices, it is it likely underestimates the actual cost to develop these parks for two reasons.

One, it more heavily weighs the cheaper cost per acre of a neighborhood park, despite neighborhood parks being smaller.

And two, the assumed acreage of each park type is significantly smaller than the actual average acreage of each of those parks.

Specifically, when the ordinance was adopted, the city's community parks were about 40 acres large, and the neighborhood parks were about eight and a half acres on average.

Larger parks generally require more funds to develop, so the estimated costs may not be adequate to fund a new community or neighborhood park the size uh the similar size to parks across the city.

Still, based on review of six developer applications and plans, all parkland dedication and development fees were accurately calculated per the ordinance and were generally paid appropriately.

The one payment was delayed by about two years.

For this reason, we recommended that the parks work with development services to establish a process to verify that all levied fees are collected.

While all parkland development fees appear to have been used uh per the relevant ordinances geographic restrictions, there's about eight million dollars in unused fees uh that may be refunded to the corresponding developer if not used timely due to the 1998 ordinances geographic restrictions.

In addition, the commission for accreditation of park and recreation agencies standards who requires parks and recreation agencies to establish written procedures for acquiring new parkland or developing existing green spaces.

The city has created a park acquisition strategy document that provides high-level guidance for prioritizing new park acquisitions, but a written procedure identifying the legal basis for acquiring parkland or detailing how parks planning employees should identify available funds for acquiring acquiring parkland has not been established.

Similarly, the department has created design standards for the park's recreation and trail system and an areas and facilities development procedure.

The design standards do provide some guidance for determining what and how many amenities should be included when developing a parkland, but they have not been finalized and are missing some details.

While the development procedures do outline the general process to develop parkland, they do not outline the detailed steps to be followed by a park's planning employee during the development project.

Lastly, Dent's parks and recreation expenditures appear to be subsidized by general taxes at lower rates than peer cities with similar service levels as outlined in the table on the right.

Specifically, Denton spent about $24 less per resident than pure cities with medium park access levels while generally bringing in higher user fees.

Once acquired, the city's parks must be maintained, which is generally the responsibility of parks maintenance division.

Maintenance process generally includes four steps.

One, identify needed maintenance activities, which usually requires a complete inventory of assets with regular standardized condition assessments.

Two, prioritize needed maintenance based on service level goals, which usually requires adopting service level standards and determining the most cost-effective method of meeting those goals through long-range planning.

Three, plan maintenance projects based on available resources, which requires an understanding of time, labor, equipment, and material costs by project type and size compared to available resources such as staff, equipment, and money to optimize the resource usage in the short term.

And four, perform maintenance activities, which requires documentation of who, what, when, where, how, and why work was performed, typically through a work order system and appropriate oversight to ensure quality and timeliness standards were met.

Undeveloped parks have limited assets aside from green spaces or the land and vegetation in a park, as well as some wayfinding aids like signs and sidewalks.

However, developed parks typically also include additional assets like play equipment, like playgrounds, basketball hoops, or tennis courts, structures such as pavilions or restrooms, and mechanical systems like irrigation systems or water fountains.

The parks and recreation department maintains an inventory of city-owned parks and irrigation systems, as well as a list of these types of the types of assets that are available at each park.

However, historically, this list did not include comprehensive information about each asset's condition or age or even how many of the asset was located each park.

So, for example, the list showed that there were basketball hoops at South Lakes Park, but not how old or how many hoops were located there.

Parks did complete an asset inventory in December of 2025, so this information is now available.

Still, parks and recreation has adopted service level standards for almost all park assets, though some additional clarification is needed on how these standards should be operationalized.

Specifically, the standards generally outlined four maintenance service levels, two for open spaces and two for amenities.

Further classifications, including AA, B, C, and D have been created for green spaces.

However, we found that these maintenance classifications have not been clearly associated with each park or asset in a centralized inventory.

In addition, the maintenance standards do not address splash pads or community gardens, likely because they have not been updated since those assets were added to the park system.

Finally, despite having two park amenities service levels, there's generally no difference between these levels outlined and the maintenance standards located in different green space classes as shown in the table on the slide.

Further, while these maintenance standards have been established, they appear to be disconnected from actual maintenance practices.

Specifically, the park's maintenance division has created several schedules for routine upkeep and inspection activities that generally cover all types of park assets.

However, these schedules do not align with maintenance levels of service.

In particular, the primary parks maintenance function is the area check, which involves park maintenance staff completing numerous activities generally grouped into aesthetic upkeep or condition inspections that may lead to repair or replacement.

Because each park is not assigned a maintenance classification level, the appropriateness of the frequency of area checks could not be verified.

However, we found no clear link between the frequency of area checks and the number of people served by a developed park as illustrated in the figure on the left of the slide.

Still, most parks receive an area check at least weekly.

However, most inspection and routine upkeep activities do not require weekly performance for the maintenance standards, indicating resources may not be allocated economically or standards of service may not be accurate.

Still, parks maintenance has developed four different forms to help guide staff activities when on site at a park, as well as training manual a training manual that develop uh that provides information on visual quality expectations for all park assets.

These forms are effectively designed to record necessary work order information.

However, this information was not always uh recorded consistently as outlined in the table on the right of the slide.

In addition, park staff who apply pesticides must record several pieces of information per statute.

However, we found that 10 out of the 50 forms reviewed did not have all the required information documented.

Further, a standardized retention process for these forms has not been established, resulting in one forms being retained in different locations, including with parks employees in the parks manager's office or in the department's filing cabinet.

Two area ground check forms from before 2025 being disposed of, despite uh state retention requirements that they be kept longer, and three pesticide application forms uh being completed inconsistently by staff, including completing all forms at the end of the week versus as applications were completed.

Next, we found that quality assurance documentation for park maintenance activities, including supervisor reviews of standardized forms is limited.

Specifically, there did not appear to be a consistent process to record park maintenance management's review of completed area check trash route and large area mowing forms, and about 15% of playground inspection forms did not have evidence of review.

According to uh department staff documentation for park maintenance activities, um I'm sorry, according to department staff.

Documentation for park maintenance activities is reviewed for quality assurance on a sampling basis.

However, there's no written guidance for supervisors on how frequently quality assurance reviews should be completed or how these should be documented.

Lastly, while the parks maintenance division had a work order system, the city stopped renewing the contract for this system in 2022 in anticipation of the citywide asset management software project, which as of July of 2025 has been paused for at least two years due to budget cuts.

As the system has not been recently updated, it is not accessible on all devices.

So some employees, including park managers, cannot access the system.

For this reason, work order data is not comprehensive and is likely inaccurate.

Hindering tracking and analysis of resource usage data by crew and park.

Parks and recreation recently identified an existing city software system that has begun re-implementing an electronic work order system.

In addition, we found that the contract or management practices for the parks maintenance division should be revised to ensure the city is only paying for quality services at the agreed upon rates.

Additional details about these issues are available in the report.

In summary, we issued 15 recommendations, all of which the departments agreed with.

And based on that response, we believe the identified risks will be appropriately addressed and plan to perform on a follow-up review in fiscal year 2028, unless council would like to direct us to perform a review sooner.

Questions for staff representative district two.

Thank you.

Um the time I've been on office, it's it's been really clear that at least the practice out of the auditor's office was to describe best practice in the industry.

Um is that generally the approach that the auditor's office uses?

Yes.

Okay, so so it that's I found that very helpful over the last four or five years to hear what the best practices are so that council can set policy.

So I really appreciate the auditor's office doing that.

Um in general, it sounds to me based on your report that the um the activities are likely being done, but tracking is maybe a little sparse and hard to verify that it's all being done.

Is that a general takeaway message?

Yeah, and and because the some of the tracking is uh manual or not necessarily being done um consistently all the time, it makes it difficult to tell if resources are being used economically.

Um one of the things that that that caused me concern was um it looked like our our acreage per capita was falling behind off of our trends.

And did your analysis give you any clues to whether you know this is we're we're trying but failing to get the acreage, we're not trying to get the acreage.

Uh the growth is just so fast that it's impossible to get the acreage or all of the above.

Did you did your analysis give any clue to what's causing the negative trends?

Yeah, I think in part it is just some of the growth is so fast it's it's just as hard to get a land purchase deal done and then develop the park as quickly as we're getting new people in.

Um, in part the parkland dedication ordinance should be helping with that, um, but it still takes time to kind of do all of those things.

Um, and and I think uh there's we also just always need money, right?

And so the new ordinance has come in for the parkland development.

And so the new ordinance has come in for the parkland development, it'll it kind of opens up the city's ability to spend that money um within the park zone, but in a much broader area than the previous ordinance.

So but we just need more money to be able to continue buying that that land as well.

Um if that makes sense.

I don't know if that answered your question.

I think so.

I think I understand that that well it didn't I think council recognized that it's we've had it as a priority for years and years, land acquisition for various purposes, not just parks, but lots of things the city is engaged in.

We've we prioritize land acquisition.

Um but but to that point about the costs, um I noticed one of the things in your in your report was that uh fee and loo is it is this helping or hurting our ability to keep up with our park acquisition.

Because I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, one of the things you were your report said was that we may not it may not be adequately representing cost recovery.

Is that is that what I'm reading?

Yeah, so the way that the methodology um was the kind of implemented in 2022, it used um sorry, let me go back.

So the way that the parkland dedication ordinance generally works in best practices, right?

You're required to dedicate a certain amount of land based on how many people you expect your new development to create.

And does that make sense?

And so then based on that amount of land, if you're not gonna donate the land, you pay a fee in lieu um in theory, so that you can then the city can then go buy that land somewhere else to accommodate that new population growth, the service level.

If the if the way that you're kind of translating or converting that amount isn't proportional, then it creates it can create a um uh affordability issue, right?

So the city is using currently the average value of a parcel of residential parcel to approximate that cost of purchasing the land.

But a parcel and an acre are not equivalent.

So and in general, a residential parcel is about one third of an acre.

And so that means that when you're converting that, we're actually charging them a third of whatever the acreage cost would be.

I don't know if that I know that's a lot of math.

Uh so it's so we're charging the fee in lieu is less than we would in theory need to buy that land because of that kind of math.

Okay.

No, no, no, that that that's fair.

And and and uh parks is is suggesting that they're in agreement that they need to revise that approach.

Okay.

Um three three more, I I think um, and then I'll be done.

The um I noticed that one of the things that if you looked at your table on sort of amenities, and I don't know if that was in the presentation or in the audit.

Um but it looked like our secondary amenities were sort of um, you know, not crossing the 50% mark as it were, and in order to make us sort of be average with our peers.

Is did you identify any particular source of why it looked like restrooms and basketball hoops and one other that I can't remember.

Flash pads.

Flashpad, thank you.

Um we're definitely drifting backwards.

Is there is there something is that staffing?

Is that what what do you identify any sources for that amenity drift?

I I think that so we don't necessarily we mentioned at the beginning that the only real amenity-related service level goal we have is related to playgrounds.

And so I don't know that when we're and we have some design standards, but they haven't been formalized.

So I think that there's some work that needs to be done in well, where are we trying to be with these?

Because um commute different parts of the community don't necessarily you know, we don't need necessarily need a splash pad in every neighborhood.

Um our recommendation is to kind of try to get a little bit more community feedback on where we want those different things.

The granularity that you're mentioning.

Okay.

No, I I appreciate that, but but restrooms are for the most part at most of our facilities, and I guess probably hoops are at most of them.

Some of the others?

Yeah, the rest the restrooms are larger parks, so parks that um like community parks are generally have a restroom, but not neighborhood, because the assumption is that people who walk to a neighborhood park can go home.

Yeah.

Um and so uh and then hoops, yeah.

I think we there were I can't remember, I'd have to go look at the data, but we have hoops are generally there's at least one or two at most of the uh parks.

Is it do you think some of that is from the disconnect between the the work schedules and the maintenance schedules or not?

No, I I think the maintenance standards is all about once we have a park built, um, what they're doing after that.

So all of these uh minity distribution things are more about well, when we build a park or develop the park, what are we putting in it?

And that kind of I think goes back to these design standards that are beginning to be have been have begun to be fleshed out but are not um completely uh detailed out and are not implemented, um, especially if we continue trying to if we want to kind of um have developers start building some of our some of these amenities and parks, it would be great to have those standards so that they would know, okay, this is what we need uh to do and the standards we need to meet if uh to kind of get that for the city.

Uh my last question is I noticed that in the agreement there was you know hot ubiquity on agreement on on from staff uh about this, but one of my concerns is many of the responses were well, we're going to address this in our 2027 master planned updates, which is great.

It should be in all these things should be in the master plan, but I I guess it's it's a concern of mine, and I'll make a sort of comment to to the auditor's office and to to park staff that I'm I'm worried that these issues will drift over the next year, year and a half, because if if the master plan starts in 27, you won't finish it until the end of 27.

So you're really looking at more two years before some of these things, and I I encourage us not to let them drift for that long, and to the extent that they're able to pre pre-follow some of the recommendations, or at least whatever the will of council is on this.

Um, you know, I I don't I don't know that we can let things not you know uh not language because they're not languishing, but lose their effective use in the community over two years um if we're not careful.

So you know that's that's sort of my comment.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Miss City Manager.

I'm sorry, I trumped you.

You go ahead.

I just want to be clear.

What uh Madison mentioned it, but developers are play a very important role here, and we're starting to work harder before Gary left and I've talked to Allison, and we have someone here from Hunter.

Uh it's important that we not always have to be the ones that build these parks.

We don't have to be the ones that develop these parks, and we don't have to be the ones that maintain these parks.

Developers are developers are willing to take them on, develop them, build it, build it, maintain it, and manage it.

Same thing that's happening at Craver Ranch.

Every bit of that trails and everything else are being taken care of, and it lessens the burden on the taxpayers.

The other part of this is I asked staff to change this answers.

I said, change the answers on here about we will do this, we will do that, and put it more demonstrative that my expectations are we're going to address every bit of this immediately and uh formalize this stuff and not wait because we've had this draft response from the auditor's office for at least how much?

Two months?

At least I think we're and so there's no reason for us to not say we're working on this.

So I'm with you, uh Councilmember Beck.

I don't like saying we will, we will, we will.

We're good, we're doing it, we're doing it, we're doing it.

And so um it is my expectation, just so you know, that all of these things will be addressed.

And the one thing that's important we look at is when we work with developers, and I suggested this to Gary, is to create those formats for a neighborhood park, a community park, and then a large park.

Give those developers three choices of designs of quality amenities, uh, how you want them maintained, everything down to the trash bins, the restroom facilities, the benches, and everything else that comes through council for approval, and then you have that to hand to those developers and say these are approved by the community group of which this park will be built.

They have approved all three of these designs, and they like all three of them.

Here's what here's what the quality of these items are, and here's your choice.

Pick one.

They've liked they like all three.

This limits the problems that we experience with haphazard uh trash cans in there or a bench that doesn't match, doesn't look good for the neighborhood, and it's just a matter of coming up with those designs, sitting down with the neighborhood, getting their buy-in, and then bringing those back to council.

And so those kinds of things, and I know Allison's working on that.

Um, and Alison's only been here for a little while, so she's really uh gotten all over this.

But um I I want to make sure we don't forget our developers because in a time where we don't have enough park land, we can put that back on to ask the developer to set aside the land, build the infrastructure, and maintain and manage it for that neighborhood, but also keep it open to the general public, which they've been willing to do.

So I I don't want to lose that thought as well.

Thank you.

Okay, anyone else?

Representative for district four?

Yeah, right here.

Thank you.

Um, one of my favorite things about serving on the city council is that I've that I I see things that I've seen before, but I see them in a different way.

And and I'm intrigued, I think it's on slide four starts with despite goals.

It says bullet point four citywide, citywide, residents of color and low-income household have higher levels of access to parkland than white and high income residents.

I don't disagree with that, but I think that's intriguing.

What happened first?

Did parks were parks there and low income people are attracted to live near there, or was parkland was was land more available because it's low income.

I'm I'm just intrigued by that.

Yeah, I I can't speak to the history of of where we acquired the parks initially.

Um but yes, I think um I think some of that might just have to do with uh um the ability of like some of our parks are larger, and so they connect to multiple neighborhoods, and so it might be kind of that effect as well.

I don't know if that makes any sense.

But I the answer is I I don't know.

I don't have the history of what every park is developed.

So should I can't believe I'm gonna ask this.

Should more parks be developed with white residents and higher income households?

I think that we if we set a standard uh of this is the amount of parkland that we want every resident to be able to have access to, um, we should be trying to meet that standard.

Um, but it doesn't necessarily hurt to make sure that we aren't accidentally uh kind of further disenfranchising these communities, uh like low and like low income households.

Well, but it sounds like it sounds like we're doing exactly the opposite.

We're providing more parkland.

Yeah, according to that, and and and as I think of parks in my mind, I I'd I absolutely agree, but I just hadn't I hadn't put a point on it like that.

Yeah, I think it comes I think part of it goes back to um kind of the geographic nature of the ability to access parks, because um, you know, we can have a park that's in, you know, I don't know the park in Robeson Ranch, for example, right?

Uh that adds to the our uh the that adds to our the availability of parkland for the whole city as citywide, right?

Um, but realistically, only the people in Robeson Ranch can walk to that park.

Um, and so looking making sure that we're looking at um in these kind of pockets, looking at it by census track allows us to make sure we're not accidentally um leaving out uh access to these to parks for some neighborhoods and some people.

That makes sense.

I don't know.

I don't know either.

Um I I just think it's an intriguing observation.

Uh anyway, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh anyone else?

Representative from uh district uh six and in Mayor Pro 10.

Yeah, hi Council Person Jester.

I've got um a couple of questions.

So um there was uh a sentence in the slides as well as in the report about um that our city uh the parks are subsidized by general taxes at lower rates than peer cities with similar service levels.

Now I read that to say we're doing more with less, but can you tell me if that interpretation of that sentence is correct?

That's correct.

Yeah, so we're basically we're when we think about user fees or taxes, right?

Uh if it's uh we generally fund community assets with general taxes, uh, and then we want to fund um like things that are more specific, like uh if you're gonna go do a workout class, we want you to pay for that directly because it's not necessarily a community asset.

Um, and so what this is saying is that those kind of broad-based taxes were spending less of that money on the park to maintain the parks and kind of subsidizing it with these user fees, um, and still getting the same access.

So, yes, we're doing less with more with less, sorry.

Okay.

Um, and then uh can you talk to me a little bit about the um uh the investment versus revenue uh comparables and and what should it be?

You know, I I'm looking at it, but I I'm unclear as to is this good, is this bad?

I I really uh I'm not able to really interpret what what the differences and where we should be.

Do you mind talking about that first?

Yeah, certainly.

So um this table is intended to show to kind of back to what we were just talking about, right?

The the doing more with less, right?

These other cities are providing the same access to their residence level that we are, they're similar cities to us, um, and is in far as like they have similar populations, they're they're all in Texas, um, and they're funding their the they're spending more on parks with their general taxes than we are, but we have the we're getting the same, the residents are getting the same.

Does that make so like does that make sense?

I just wasn't sure if you were saying that we should not be getting that much revenue, that our user fee should be more.

I I just wasn't sure how it was to interpret it.

Is this yeah, no, I think uh when we're looking at bit uh there's not a a clear best practice, right?

Like there's not like every city should spend 200 on their per resident.

There's not nothing like that.

So we look at the benchmarks to say what are other cities doing and what are they getting for that value?

And so I mean, I think it's really a policy decision on yeah, we should this should be more funded by general taxes or not, but this is what is happening.

Okay, okay, fair enough.

And then as far as I I know we were discussing earlier the acreage value versus the appraised value.

Yes.

My my question is then, you know, just you know, not to just wordsmith, but then how do we determine the acreage values?

Is the idea that we get a different appraiser versus using uh say the appraisal district, is that the suggestion of how to determine what that is?

Yeah, I think I think the fair market versus appraised value thing is a difficult conversation.

That's a whole process of hiring someone and paying for that, and where does that end up?

So I was just wondering.

And that's why they moved to appraised value, I believe, in in 2022.

Um there it in and if it's just easier and that's the data, then that's fine.

I think the recommendation was to kind of see if there's a better way because we are likely having to make up the difference to actually buy land um because we're using appraised value.

If that's okay, if you know that's what I but you know, that's okay.

We can uh if we wanted to use fair market value, we could hire an appraiser, take a fair amount, you know, get the land value for whatever development um we're permitting at the time, right?

And then be like, okay, well, that's the value, so uh we want you to pay the fee in lieu of X number of acres, whatever, based on that value.

It is a more complicated process, right?

So if we are okay with, hey, we're gonna have to make up this value because we don't we don't want to spend it in this other way, or it just makes it more complicated, um, then that's all right.

And did you see what some of our peer cities do?

Yeah, so some of them do use kind of that method.

Some of them just say the method that they hire another appraisal because you're gonna need some kind of legal basis to show why you want someone to pay a lot of.

Yeah, some of them do use that method.

Um of them just kind of assume that there's a price and update that.

Uh and there maybe there is some method behind that, but I agree that we do need a legal basis, and so it is more ideal to have like to either use the appraised value or go with here's how we're gonna calculate fair market value and spell that out in the ordinance.

Okay.

Um and then you know, some of the discussion has revolved around the different types of neighborhoods in our community versus the census blocks.

And from what I understand, Denton is pretty spread out as far as the different uh races, some high income, low income, et cetera.

So what what is what is the reason to use neighborhoods versus census blocks?

And I'm assuming census blocks are determined by the federal government when they come in and do their census.

Um we use census blocks uh in the anal the geographic analysis because we have that population data because of the federal federal government, right?

So um you can say like I could like a neighborhood, right?

Like uh Southeast Denton, right, is actually two census blocks in its general boundaries, right?

So it it doesn't necessarily translate exactly to neighborhood.

Um so that it makes it a little just the language a little more difficult, but using the analysis, that's why we use census blocks, if that makes sense.

Okay, because I think we have lots of different types of neighborhoods within that census block.

So it's kind of it's well census blocks are usually smaller.

Well, it just depends.

It just depends, yeah.

Okay.

Um and then, you know, we have talked about uh the the purpose of the audits and that we really want to drill down on the fiscal responsibility uh within each of these departments.

Um and so I mean, just kind of the gist of it is my uh what I'm seeing from it is that uh the parks department continues to do better and to do more with less.

Uh you indicated that we have been putting more resources towards parks, trying to catch up to where the people before us wanted to see us in a number of years.

Can you just kind of give us the the fiscal bottom line on the audit?

Uh sure, yeah.

I think uh bottom line, I think it historically it seems like we've been spent we've been maintaining a similar uh access level to parkland than around our neighborhood, or sorry, around than our peer cities, right?

Um there are going forward, we are gonna just need more money to continue uh having a level of service that we well in one the level of service we said we want, I just don't know if that is feasible.

Um so we need to reevaluate that and determine if 17 and a half acres of land is just a lot of parkland, and we don't have that capacity unless we significantly invest in parks.

Um and so while, yes, historically we've been doing we've been doing a pretty good job.

Um if we want to continue having that level of service, we're we're probably gonna need more money, and there are ways that our ordinance could be adjusted to be more in line with best practices to get that, but also that's a policy decision on how much we do want to charge uh new residents for that park level, that service level.

Um then uh yeah, the on the maintenance side, we're doing we're we're probably doing the maintenance, and we could there's probably some room for efficiencies, but we're we're we're doing the maintenance that we need to be doing.

Okay, and um, yeah, just uh there were some interesting points about you know density in some neighborhoods or types of neighborhoods, meaning more you know, maybe apartments or just uh the units being closer together, just the lack of available availability of land to then acquire, but I also very much appreciate the city manager's comments in that I think that in the future moving forward we should include uh some of these master plan communities that are either already in progress, going to be in progress, et cetera, uh, to make sure that um we are utilizing to the best of our ability uh partners in in getting us to our goals so that it's not just on um taxes.

So anyways, thank you so much.

I know that was a lot.

Thank you.

Mayor Protoon.

Thank you.

I I just one question.

Um it is regarding the parkland dedication ordinance.

I see that we are currently updating it in the midst of updating it.

Do we have an estimated timeline maybe by quarter of when we might ex when this body might expect to see that come before us?

That is not something I have.

I'm always happy with ballpark, so if you don't know an exact predicting the future, that's okay.

Our goal is to have that done this calendar year.

Do you have it down to quarter by any chance?

Like quarter three, quarter four, quarter three, quarter four.

Okay, so towards the end of the year, not any time soon.

Okay, all right, that's enough.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions for staff okay.

Uh so I I did some looking.

Um page 40 of your report says review documentation to develop criteria including documented policies, industry standards, state of Texas regulations, city requirements, and best practices.

Can you then educate me as a as the auditor how you balance those things?

Because those those things don't always align.

So what's what what's your practice in balancing those things that you said are you are you identified on page 40 of your report?

Yeah, so generally uh if there's a federal regulation, that's the strongest criteria source that we have.

If there's federal guidance, that's kind of the second strongest, because it's not a legal requirement necessarily, but it's from the federal government.

Uh then we usually look at best practices, which come from kind of national associations that uh may accredit organizations or or most organizations look to.

In this case, we looked at uh the National Recreation and Park Association as well as trust for public land, and then we also look at then we look at industry standards, which are kind of going towards uh there's maybe several organizations that provide kind of uh general guidance in areas.

Um so not necessarily like uh this is the body that accredits everybody, but there's kind of two or three general organizations like SHERM uh would be an example, the human resources management um office would be an industry standard, and then uh and then we look at best practice uh benchmarking.

So then we would basically look at here's cities that are like us, what are they doing, and that would kind of be the least uh least the weakest criteria that we might pull because it's what other people are doing, but it's not necessarily endorsed by kind of a national organization or anything like that.

It's just what's going on out here.

And then as far as policies and procedures, um generally we look and see if the city's policies and procedures line up with those best practices.

Um, and if they don't, we may make a recommendation that they should.

Um, and then and then sometimes there isn't a policy procedure that exists, and so we just have to rely on the best practices that I just described to make recommendations.

Okay, and so I may have missed it, but you uh where does the state fall in that?

Because okay, and so the state has I mean it would be under federal, but right, yeah.

Yeah, and so the state has come out, state of Texas at least, has come out and said they're doing away with hub as it's as it was originally contemplated, and now they recognize hub certifications as veterans with disabilities of 20% or more visible disabilities.

They've done away with the characterizations residing in this report about ethnicity and gender.

Are you are you aware?

I wasn't looking at hub as part uh historically underly utilized businesses as part of this audit.

I understand.

More to say the state of Texas is not recognized is moving away from recognizing those characteristics that you identified in your report and moving towards some other.

I'm not I'm not advocating one way or another, I'm just saying that's a climate.

And and so uh to me that's noteworthy uh because we you know we would be applying for state funds or grants and that sort of thing, and our policies have to put us in the best position to to win those, I would think.

Uh but and then uh so you answer that question.

That question um I I would also go to your your site references the um so you uh you you mentioned in the FAQs uh of the audit department, you mentioned that you are based on the government auditing standard to use 2018 24 2024 is available now.

So I I use that, and it's is 3.09 talks about integrity, objective, uh fact base, nonpartisan, and non-audiological um views on things, and so uh that's another concern I have is just I even as we talk about it, there's just a lot of confusion, and I don't know that uh I'm okay with an audit that doesn't give us actionable things, and it's just ambiguous to me.

Uh and and so I I'm gonna ask you a question, I'm gonna ask the legal question, I'm gonna get out of the way.

Uh for you, are you recommending that we use census?

Is that a recommendation from you that we use since we begin to, we're not you doing it currently, begin to start using census data and race in our park selection the goal the uh recommendation was to consider looking at the way that resources are just distributed geographically, yes, uh as part of uh our park acquisition and development process.

Right, but but then you you list the data on slide four.

Are you I mean, and so to be more pointed on on slide four, are you recommending we begin to make decisions based on um if the people of color, etc.

You are just the title, uh census block.

Yeah, that's what you titled it.

So are you are you recommending how many people are in a census block compared to how much parkland they can access and then make decisions on where a park should be based based on the amount of park that we as a city have decided our residents should have access to versus how much they actually have access to right now at a geographic level?

Okay, follow-up to that.

Are you then you also say primarily residents of color?

Should we make decisions based on primary res primarily resident on color?

I think that's uh information that is good to have as part of the I'm asking for your recommendation.

That I don't believe that's what the recommendation says.

I'm asking you, do you recommend that?

Then no, that's not what the recommendation says.

Okay.

Well, then I don't understand why that's in here.

I and so I'll just leave it at that.

And and and Mac, as a le you're you're in charge of our legal department, so I ask you, should we use census block data based on example the what's provided in this report uh on on slide four?

Should we use residents of color, resident white residents, income levels to make decisions based on parks or inform park policies?

It's a very complicated question, Mayor, that would require a very complicated answer and a lot of detailed information.

Obviously, um we would follow all laws when we were making these decisions.

Um the law, especially as interpreted by administration, state, federal, and otherwise, are a part of that analysis that we'd look into to say, like you mentioned before, does that put us at risk of losing potential funding, depending on which decision we make one way or the other?

So it's hard to answer and give you a definitive answer.

Um obviously there is federal and state and local law here that says we shouldn't discriminate based on certain things.

So we would all we would want to comply with all those things at the same time, whatever the city's goals are, initiatives-wise and otherwise, we would have to look at those and weigh all those in the balance.

The council will have to make a hard decision, and we'd give legal advice on where we think that we could be safe in those within those parameters.

So I know it's kind of a non-answer, but that's that's a very complex question.

I can't give you a a clear answer, like on the spot related to that.

Well, then I'll I'll I'll I'll conclude with this.

Before we put it in a report that's archived forever and in public record, let's make sure management, legal, other council appointees are all aligned, and that we're making good decisions and not putting ourselves in harm's way unnecessarily, uh, from losing things, you know, because uh there's there's been grants that have been frozen based on just terminology, right?

And so now all of a sudden we if we I listen to you all the time.

Settle down.

Um, and so with that that that would just be my ask.

Thank you.

The city council will now at uh three 53 p.m.

Convene and close meeting to deliberate the closed meeting items set forth on the agenda, which include the following item B, ID 252284, deliberations regarding personnel matters under Texas Government Code 551.074 consultation with attorneys under Texas Government Code 551.071 good afternoon or good evening and welcome back to this meeting and city council is now at 544 p.m.

reconvened from closed session, and no official action was taken.

That takes us to oh let me do it, let me take two.

City council is now at 5 44 p.m.

reconvene from closed session, and city council will now take official action.

And I move to direct the move to direct the city manager to bring an ordinance forward appointing Cassie Ogden as interim city manager effective April 1st, 2026.

And so uh I'll take that's a motion.

Is there second second by uh council member?

So motion by Mayor Hudson, second by councilmember McGee.

Any discussion.

Seeing none vertical.

What's that?

Can we do it verbal?

Sure.

Uh well, it's I think they got it dialed in now.

And so uh again, congratulations to uh Cassie Ogden.

Thank you, uh Ms.

City Manager and Assistant City Managers for helping us uh kind of guide us through this transition and uh looking forward to it.

So really exciting times.

Vote on the screen.

Awesome.

That passes 7-0.

Thank you very much.

Again, congratulations.

Okay, that takes us to that that takes us to uh our consent agenda.

I'll take a motion but for item F representative from district two.

I move approval of the consent agenda accepting item F.

Representative from District 6.

Second.

We have a motion and a second uh for the consent agenda, but for item F.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, let's vote on the screen.

That passes 7 that 0.

Takes us to item F, which is ID 252309.

Consider approval of a resolution of the city council of the city of Denton, Texas, supporting the listing of Little Chapel in the Woods located at 415 Chapel Drive in Denton, Texas on the National Register of Historic Places, and providing providing an effective date.

Uh, and let the record reflect that Mayor Pro Tem has uh recused from this item.

And oh uh Council Jester.

Councilmember Jester as well.

And so that takes, let's see.

So representative from district two.

Uh long overdue to for us to formally recognize little chapel in the woods.

I happily uh motion approval.

Representative district five.

Second, we have a motion and a second, any other discussion.

Let's vote on the screen.

And that passes five to zero, and that takes us to our items for individual consideration, and we will start our public hearings right at 6 30 or as close as possible.

So that takes us to 3A2502 C.

Conduct the second of two readings and consider adoption of ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas, annexing approximately 4.47 acres of land, generally located on the south side of Hartley Field Road, approximately 580 feet east of Sherman Drive into the City of Denton.

Good evening, Mayor, members of council.

Ashley Ecstead, associate planner.

This is A252C, the second reading for Denton Stryker.

This request is to conduct the second of two readings to annex approximately 4.47 acres of land into the city.

The property is located on the south side of Hartley Field Road, east of East Sherman Drive.

The applicant is Kinley Horn on behalf of the owner, Denton Double Down LLC.

The property is currently undeveloped, and it is part of a larger tract of land that is already within the city limits.

Following the annexation schedule, the first three items were before this body back in November.

We then published the annexation ordinance in the newspaper.

And this is the final item on the schedule, the second reading and adoption of the annexation ordinance, and action is required on this item tonight.

I'll now read the caption into the record.

An ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas, annexing approximately 4.47 acres of land, generally located on the south side of Hartley Field Road, approximately 580 feet east of East Sherman Drive into 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.

Staff does recommend approval as it complies with the criteria for approval, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Questions for staff, any questions?

Seeing none, Mayor Pro Tem.

I'd like to motion for approval.

Okay.

Is there a second representative district four?

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second.

Any other discussion?

Seeing none, let's uh vote on the screen.

Oh, yeah.

And that passes 70.

The then that takes us to items B, C, and D.

There's one presentation for them, so I will call all of these together.

So bear with me.

It's item B, ID 262396, consider adoption of ordinance of the city of Denton authorizing the execution of the third amendment to Hunter Ranch project agreement clarifying the binding obligation as it relates to the develop developer and future developers and other related matters.

And then item C, ID 262397, consider adoption of the ordinance of the city of Denton authorizing execution of a second amendment to Hunter Ranch operating agreement relative to funding and improvement projects and adding definitions.

And then item D, ID 252102, consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton authorizing execution of cost sharing agreement between the city, HR 3200 LP, Hunter Ranch Improvement District Number 1, Denton County Coal Ranch Development LP, Coal Ranch Improvement District Number 1, Denton County for the construction of Rourke Branch Waterwork or Wastewater Trunk Maine, authorizing an escrow agreement and expenditure of funds for the city allocated share of improvement cost and providing an effective date.

And if anyone's tracking along, Hunter Ranch is also known as uh landmark for those that that may not know.

So uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh good evening, uh Mayor and City Council, Charlie Rosadal, Interim Director of Development Services.

Um, as the mayor mentioned, this item before you today is actually three separate items.

Uh it's for a cost-sharing agreement between the city hunter ranch and the coal ranch development, uh second amendment to the operating agreement for Hunter Ranch and a third amendment to the project agreement for Hunter Ranch.

Um, a little background on the development is a 3167-acre master plan community on the west side of town.

Um you can see here that's 6,500 single family units, 3250 multifamily units, and uh 365 commercial acres.

Um, this item originally came to city council in 2020.

Um, we've had uh amendments to the operating and project agreement in 2024 and a second amendment to the project agreement that came before city council in December.

Um you can see here the structure of the agreements.

Uh so the city of Denton has a project agreement with the developer Hillwood, an operating agreement with the district.

Um, and then the developer has a reimbursement agreement between itself and the district.

Um cost sharing agreements.

Um, the Rourke Branch Interceptor was an improvement project identified in the original 2020 agreements.

Um, the developer provided notice to the city in accordance with that agreement of their intents uh to start design of that, and the city responded with an intent to oversize.

For this improvement project.

So as far as the proportionality for the cost sharing agreement, the original section of the operating agreement defined the language and the process for oversizing these facilities.

So two of the ways that it could be looked at was the traditional oversizing method, which we do with some developments where we increase the size of an existing line, typically on smaller lines for those types of developments.

However, the city does contribute approximately 45% of the flows to the overall line.

So that's where we had a discussion on the benefits received methodology for splitting costs out on this.

So based on benefits received, the city would pay for its proportionate share of the flows being contributed to the line overall.

So this the funding would happen is through an escrow agreement.

So that's part of the cost sharing agreement.

The city and coal ranch would fund an escrow agreement that then uh Hillwood would draw down as the uh construction of the line commences.

Um you can hear see here the cost share breakdown.

So the city would pay approximately $13 million.

Um Huntshore Ranch would pay uh 11 and a half million, and the coal ranch would pay four and a half million.

Um so some of the cost sharing uh considerations it allows for the facility to be sized in a way uh the city can accommodate future uh developments um upstream of this development, including some of the MUDs that we have agreements for.

We anticipated the construction of this line when we entered into agreements with the MUDs and in our discussions with the town of Ponder and the possibility of being a regional provider for them as well.

Um additional consideration that if we were not to increase the size of this line, the city would be required to go back and put another line in the future.

Um we don't know the exact cost of what that would be, but it would be between 13 and 20 million dollars, and that would happen sometime in the next 10 years that we'd be required to go in and put a second line in and maintain a second line in the future.

Um so moving on to the operating agreements.

Um there's a few changes in here uh in the operating agreement.

One of those is the definition of developer.

Um so this is to clarify what is meant by developer in the operating agreement, and you'll see in the associated project agreement as well.

Um, and it's to clarify that any future buyer of a platted property on the development is not considered developer under these agreements.

So this came up with HEB where there was some confusion about whether they were a developer under this agreement.

Um the intent of this change is to clarify that.

Um this also uh changes to where supplemental projects currently in the agreements are only allowed to be funded after an improvement project is paid for.

Um, this would allow them uh to do improvement projects or supplementals under the taxing authority that they have.

Um this would also establish how we use the methodology for splitting cost sharing out on wastewater projects in the future, um, and then just some ministerial um uh changes to reflect that the contract has been approved for roar and that the uh construction has started on the single family residential.

Um, and then the project agreement amendment, like I said, is to clarify uh what a developer is in the project agreement.

Um so with that staff's recognition uh recommending approval of the cost sharing agreements, the uh amendment to the operating agreement and the amendment to the project agreement.

And I'll take any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Questions for staff.

Representative from district two.

Mr.

Mayor, do you you want the questions for the three items all together or separate?

All together, it's fine.

All together.

Okay.

Um so thanks, Charlie.

Uh can you can you help me just for the sake of education?

Not because I I particularly have a qualm, but what what's the what's the um why why the the buffer on encumbrance making it clear who's encumbered and who's not encumbered.

What what's the advantage to the various folks that that conveys?

So the the in buyer, uh, there's certain things that the developers required to do under those agreements, um, and to to remove any confusion about the the future buyer not being required to do those same improvements under the agreement.

So they're required to make infrastructure projects like the the Rourke branch interceptor being one of them, right?

Is like a the construction of that project.

We're not expecting the future buyer of a platted lot to be um encumbered with that same requirement.

For for the rest of the property, okay.

No, okay.

That uh that's clear.

Um for um the the flexible the the flexibility that's being asked for in the expansion where you you don't have to wait till one project finishes before you start another project.

Does that expose the city to additional risk if both projects then failing?

That's the point of of serializing them was so if one starts and fails or for or there was some problem that you're not on the hook for a second project, but now you're we're asking for flexibility to where they both could put you know it's unlikely, but they both could potentially have a problem.

What what's our what's what protects us from that happening?

Anything well, really the the change is more related to the the ability to be a reimbursed for the projects and and right now under the agreements they have the ability to add improvement projects um in the agreement or risk, I would say because they can they can add improvement projects as it as it sits now.

Okay, no, that's that's clear.

Um, and that that was the end of mine.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions for staff?

Seeing none, I'll take a motion for item B first.

Representative from district six.

Uh I move approval uh as presented.

Representative from district one.

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second for item B.

Uh any discussion?

Seeing none, let's vote on the screen.

That passes seven zero.

Um I'll take a motion for item C.

Mayor, so move.

Motion by representative from district four.

Is there a second by representative from district five?

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, let's vote on the screen.

That passes seven to zero.

That'll take us to the last item, item D.

I'll take a motion.

Uh Mayor Pro Tim.

I'll motion to approve.

And is there a second representative from District 4?

I second.

We have a motion and a second.

Any of the other discussion?

Seeing none, let's vote on the screen.

And that passes seven to zero.

Thank you.

Takes us to item E, ID 25216, consider adoption of the ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas, Home Rule Rule Municipal Corporation authorizing the city manager to execute a contract with integrated integrated power company for transmission line construction and maintenance for capital improvement plan projects for Denton Municipal Electric.

Good evening, Mark Zemmer, DME Engineering.

Uh DME has many CIP projects that require transmission line construction services, which include construction transmission pole foundations, erecting still transmission poles, and installing transmission inductor.

So this contract will be used for these services and for services required to restore transmission lines due to uh damage from storms and lightning and other things, uh emergency situations.

Uh on this slide is listing of CIP projects used to develop the contract amount for the next five years.

These projects are grouped by DME, TMPA, and Tex DOT.

Uh the cost for these projects listed as DME will be recovered through the TCOS program, and the cost for projects listed as TMPA and Text OP will be recovered by those agencies.

DME developed an RFP to solicit these services, and three proposals were received.

Uh these three proposals were evaluated based on safety record, quality, schedule, and price based on these criteria.

Evaluated the highest.

And based on the results of this RFP DME recommends a contract with integrated power company.

Okay, thank you very much.

Representative from District 2.

Yeah, uh it was a little unclear to me how much of the cost recovery uh is gonna come from T cost?

Is it 100%?

100% of the transmission line costs for DME coverable.

Yes, sir.

And I'll I'll have a similar question on the next item.

And I'm a s I'll just well, I'll wait till the next slide.

Okay, any other questions?

Seeing none, I'll take a motion.

Mayor Pro Tim.

Motion approval.

Representative from District 2.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Any other discussion?

Seeing none, let's vote on the screen.

That passes 7 to 0.

Takes us to item F, ID 2522, I think.

Consider adoption of the ordinance of the City of Denton, a Texas Home Rule Communicial Corporation authorizing a city manager to execute a contract with Stewart C.

Erby company LLC and purchase of high voltage circuit breakers for Denton Municipal Electric providing for the expenditure for funds there for.

Is that high voltage?

Is that associated with the price or no?

No, sir.

Well, that's it.

Man, yeah, it's it's both.

Go right ahead.

Sorry.

Yes, sir.

Uh high voltage circuit breakers are used in all DME substations to interrupt a flow of fault current, typically caused by lightning strikes on power lines, animals, uh, failed equipment, and other causes.

Circuit breakers are required equipment in our substations uh because they limit the damage caused by fault current and are needed to isolate equipment for outages and and other reasons.

Um this slide shows typical lead times of of two to four years for domestically manufactured circuit breakers, and in case and indicates the level of planning DME is required to do to meet our project timelines.

DME developed an RFP to solicit a unit cost contract to purchase high voltage circuit breakers from two domestic manufacturers.

Two proposals were received, and Stuart Irby was evaluated the highest.

On this slide is a listing of the types of circuit breakers DME uses for our projects and the maximum quantities of each.

Uh this contract does not require any minimum expenditure and purchase orders will be issued as needed for projects.

Uh so based on this staff recommends a contract with Stewart Earth.

Thank you.

Representative from District 2.

Same question as last item.

Is it 100% cost recovery on this one?

And and then I'll also ask um, like that's two to four years, and and y'all have told us this before, but you know, for from our perspective, that's super risky.

We don't know what's gonna happen in four years.

How do we mitigate that risk to for us given that you know we've got these lead times that are crazy?

Sure.

We do we do transmission planning yearly to identify these long-term needs like this.

So we do our planning, we identify the need, we get capital projects approved by you guys and budget for them, and then we order through these type of contracts so that we can do them in time.

And I guess more the the 10% contingency is enough to cover what we guess the fluctuations in the market rate might be for these things.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Representative from district five, two to four year wait time.

Yes, sir.

So if I remember correctly, um three years ago we included um transformers in our federal legislative action plan.

Why would these not be considered in our plan this year?

I don't remember discussing this back in October when our federal representatives when our lobbyists came in and spoke with us.

I believe these were different transformers, but my my boss, Jerry Fielder can speak.

No, yes, they are.

I'm saying why is this not included in this year's legislative agenda for our fellow representatives?

Jerry Fielder Division Engineering Manager for DME.

Um, I'm not quite sure I can find out.

Um, but yes, there should be some consideration for these long-term items also.

Yeah, we can say I remember we we when we went up to DC, we we lobbied for this, and I remember last year.

In fact, I remember the mayor uh spoke on this very um to Senator Cruz's office very well, thanking him for the work we helped us in in getting transformers quicker.

Would this not fit the criteria for doing the same thing as we go this year?

Yeah, we can certainly put this on our legislative agenda.

I think what we were able to do with the mayor's help and certainly the council was to um uh rally, particularly Senator Cruz, who uh worked with us uh to help uh expedite some of our the transformers that we needed.

We certainly do that again for this next 2027 legislative period.

Um and and I think it's that's why it's so critical to go ahead and order out two to four years because of development that may occur, or God forbid emergencies where we have to replace transformers.

Okay, thank you.

Representative district four.

How long do high voltage circuit breakers last?

Lifetime of substation, which is also about 30 to 40 years, they'll last about the same amount of time.

Okay, so so these are for these are for new construction.

New construction, or if uh our studies identify a need to replace a transformer due to uh a rating issue or something like that, then we'll we'll use them there too.

Okay, all right.

Thank you very much.

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Seeing none, representative from district one?

Move for approval.

Is there a second?

Representative district four.

A second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second for item F.

Any other discussion?

Seeing none, let's vote on the screen.

And that passes 7-0.

Takes us to item G.

Uh ID 252328.

Consider approval of a resolution of the city of Denton nominating a member to the board of directors of the Denton Central Appraisal District and providing an effective date.

Good evening, Mayor.

Members of Council, Matt Hamilton, interim director of finance.

Here tonight to seek a nomination for the central uh Denton Central Appraisal District Board of Directors.

So as background, uh the board of directors currently has a nine-member board with five members appointed by the taxing jurisdictions.

Uh three publicly elected members and one seat for the tax assessor.

Uh you may remember in December we had brought this item forward uh seeking uh nominations and votes for two board members, places four and seven.

Uh both of the incumbents, Ann Pomicle and Mike Hennefer were re-elected to serve on the board of directors.

Following that, we were notified by the uh DCAD that uh board member Rob Altman in place five has resigned, and the DCAD is now seeking nominations from the tax and jurisdictions to fill uh that vacancy from his resignation.

Mr.

Altman was an appointed member of the DCAD board of directors whose term end ends on December 31st, 2027.

The city council may nominate one individual to fill the unexpired term.

And once nominations are received by DCAD, the current board of directors uh shall appoint one of the nominees by majority vote to fill the vacancy.

So unlike a normal nomination and vote uh by the taxing jurisdiction, the city, uh, once we make our nomination, uh the board of directors will make that selection from the nominee list, so it won't come back for a vote.

And I'll stand for any questions.

Got it.

Yeah, thank you for that.

I I would uh it's thank you, staff for the answers.

So there's someone also that was considered that wasn't didn't receive any votes, so I would just put forward Devon English, but I'll take other nominations and we'll just take them in order.

Uh and I I don't know Devon.

They were he's put forward by Little Elm, but was on the list previously.

So and like you said, they're gonna select who they want, so it's it's not as particular.

Um so representative from district six.

Um council person just here, thank you.

Um I I just wanted to know if you had received any nominations or any uh communications asking for this body's nomination?

Uh we have not.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, anyone else?

Any other nominations?

Any other thoughts?

Representative from District 2.

Um, we we just very recently nominated someone.

Um I don't see why you wouldn't you wouldn't want to continue that forward again.

I I think that makes logical sense that that was the consensus opinion of this body.

Um so I I I guess I I'm recommending that we we include uh that former nominee Jordan Villarreal in the list um you Mac, do you know if that's a concern uh from uh candidacy standpoint?

Because he's I think this board allows council members to actually serve on it, so I don't think it's a constraint on the nominee.

Thank you remember um no, I don't remember, but I I'll take your word for it.

Okay, got it.

Uh okay.

Then I'll add that.

Okay, any other nominees?

Seeing none.

Uh so first is is representative district five.

Just a quick question.

Uh I I read the questions.

I just want to is everyone, all the taxing entities nominating someone, and then the board will choose of all the entire okay, all right.

Yes.

Thank you.

Representative district four.

I beg your pardon.

Um we are nominating four candidates.

One.

And and who is that candidate?

So there's the the two names that put forward are Devon English, who was a um he was put forward by the sit town of Little Elm, and then um Jordan Villale has been put forward as well.

All the taxing entities nominating someone and then the board will choose of all the entire okay all right yes thank you representative district four I beg your pardon um we are nominating four candidates one and and who is that candidate so there's the the two names that put forward are Devon English who was a um he was put forward by the city town of Little Elm and then um Jordan Villarreal has been put forward as well so we'll vote in order on on one or the other of those candidates correct thank you yeah so if you're supportive of the other you'd vote no um of the one you're not supportive of okay any other questions any other nominees I'll close that out and first before us is Devon English uh I have a motion is there a second representative of district four I second that nomination okay we have a motion and a second any any discussion uh I I would just say it it'd be uh I again don't know them not personally but I I do I will not I hope this is successful because it's a neutral party my concern about someone that's going to be on the ballot and announce they're gonna be on the ballot getting some sort of advantage by then saying oh I was the council voted me on this I I just don't I want to avoid those things uh and stay out of the political process understanding this is not a cumulative vote the it's really going to be a selection process and so I think we just need I'm advocating we keep it clean and and not get involved in the the pending elections so motion in the second any other discussion the vote is for Devon English vote on the screen certainly me second by council member Holland and that fails five two next is motion by council member Beck for Jordan Villarreal is there a second second oh okay I guess not should go ahead sorry she go representative from district one second okay we have a motion and a second uh any other discussion I I will just again I'll reiterate if this is obviously I can read how the vote's gonna go and I just would ask those that are supportive to make a phone call and and let's not make this some political moon maneuver to say or publish or use it as a qualification or all those things I I just would rather uh try to impress upon the the importance of not doing that um but it's only a request but I want it document it that I'm concerned about that have a motion and second any other discussions passes 52 takes us to our um what is that that's G H ID 25 2298 consider adoption of ordinance of the city of Denton off ordering an election for place five place six and mayor uh to place seven and the special election for filing a filling a vacancy of district one and district two for the unexpired term ending in May 2027 to be held on May 2nd 2026 if required a runoff election to be held on June 13th 2026 prescribing the time matter and conduct of the election in accordance with the joint election agreement and contract for election services with the election administrators office good evening mayor and council Ingrid Rick City Secretary here to present ordinance 25-2298 ordering the general and special election for May 2026 the general election will be held to elect at large city council members for places five and six and for the mayor in place seven for full terms which will end in May 2028 the special election will be held to elect city council members to fill vacancies for districts one and two for unexpired terms which will end in May 2027 early voting will be held on Monday April the 20th and from Wednesday April the 22nd through Tuesday April the 28th with the exception of Tuesday April the 21st which is a Texas state holiday San Jacinto day election day will take place on Saturday May the 2nd 2026 and will be followed by the election canvas on Tuesday May the 12th if a runoff election is needed it will be ordered on the same day as the election canvas to be held on Saturday June the 13th the resignation of council members

Election Day will take place on Saturday, May the 2nd, 2026, and will be followed by the election canvas on Tuesday, May the 12th.

If a runoff election is needed, it will be ordered on the same day as the election canvas to be held on Saturday, June the 13th.

The resignation of council members.

Ordering the special election early allows the filing date to coincide with the January 14th filing date for the general election.

The City of Denton contracts with Denton County Elections admin to run the city's May election.

So polling locations are not being presented at this time as they can only be determined once Denton County Elections Administrator knows who the joint election participants are.

But staff will coordinate with DISD on shared polling locations.

Once determined by the Denton County Elections Administration, staff will present an ordinance to council at the February 3rd, 2026 meeting for approval of the general and special elections contract, which will include polling locations.

So our next steps are that we will present an ISR to council regarding polling locations on January the 23rd, 2026, based on what we have determined.

And then on February the 3rd, staff will present ordinance 26-2430 to approve the agreement with Denton County Elections Administration, and that will include the polling locations for early voting and for election day voting.

And with that, I say any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Any any questions for for staff?

Seeing none, I I just wanted to confirm and make sure everyone's tracking along.

The special elections for seat one and two are one-year terms.

Traditionally two-year terms, but so they'll that seat will run again in 27.

Yeah, got it.

Okay.

Uh any other questions for staff?

Seeing none, Mayor Pro Tem.

I'd like to motion approval.

Representative from District 2.

Uh I'll I'll second, and I want to thank staff really for all the help they have uh in giving me instructions on the the cheapest and most effective way to do what I did.

So I appreciate that staff.

Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Um before we vote on the screen, I'm gonna I'm gonna come down uh figure this one before.

So it's your first presentation, so yeah, thank you very much.

Appreciate you.

Great job.

Yes, yeah.

Thank you very much.

Here we go.

Awesome.

Thank you very much.

Ingrid.

Do you know what San Jacento Day commemorates?

The winning of the battle against uh the very good.

Very good.

Very good.

Thank you.

I'll tell you afterwards.

Okay, let's uh vote on the screen.

And that passes 7-0.

That so our regular meeting starts at uh 6 30, but we have time.

So let's do concluding items so that we can finish our public hearings and leave promptly thereafter.

Concluding items representative from district four.

Thank you.

Um mayor, February 8th is Boy Scout Day, February January 24th is peanut butter day.

I am embarrassed to tell everyone that this past Friday was law enforcement appreciation day.

And frankly, I didn't know, and I'm embarrassed about that.

Of all the things that we celebrate, and of all the things that we don't celebrate, I can't think of anything more important than saluting the men and women who who uh work 24 hours a day, seven days a week to keep us safe.

And and I and I appreciate them, and uh I wish them God speed and and a safe day.

And if you'd please join me in a round of applause for the men and women of law enforcement.

Mayor Pro Tim.

Thank you.

Um, can I get the images?

I'm I'm trying images for the first time.

So um this past weekend, I got a tour of the Texas Veterans uh Hall of Fame, which is located in the Golden Triangle Mall.

So there's me getting a tour from Gary.

That's Jerry there on the right.

So Jerry was there for part of it.

Um so highly recommend people stopping in, uh, taking a look at it, uh, reading some of these stories.

There were really interesting stories in here.

Um, could you go to the next one?

There's also a an area for kids.

So this is showing in in Vietnam.

There were um some soldiers of the Viet Cong that started um sort of uh they created tunnels so that they could hide from the U.S.

soldiers, and so they were kind of living down there, and U.S.

soldiers started going down there to battle them.

Um so in this museum, they have a place where kids can crawl through the tunnel.

Next slide.

Um, when the kid crawled through the tunnel, I discovered I could fit.

So I did the whole tunnel.

There's uh little fake rats, fake uh scorpions, fake bats.

I I barely fit at the end there, but um when you're done, you get this cool uh certificate that you are an official tunnel rat, which is what they call the U.S.

soldiers who went down there and did battle.

Um so um if you know a veteran or you know the story of a veteran, a Texas veteran, um, stop by here, see if they're in the database that these guys are keeping, and if there's stories not in there, if they're not in there, ask how to get them added so that we can remember their stories.

Um there's a lot of great work they're doing in there.

All right, thank you.

Excellent, thank you.

Uh representative from district one.

Yes, I also want to remind you all that the uh engaged citizen engaged uh Ditton has now gone to 311.

You all plug call, please call 311 for all of your needs now, okay.

And then the discuss Denton has moved to City of Didden slash discussditon.com.

So this is uh area where you're gonna keep up with all the latest happenings uh that's going on in Dinn and may even ask answer some of those questions that you uh may have uh before maybe you call you city council member that answer may be there first, all right.

So um thank you all.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Uh representative from District Five.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um, it's important for me to lift up the name of Renee Good.

Renee Good who was murdered by ICE a few days ago.

Um oftentimes the people who are murdered at the hands of police violence look like me.

But it's important to note that anyone can be murdered by by law enforcement.

So I want to make sure that we lift up her name and think about her and her family and our thoughts and prayers and resolve to do better in our community.

We have done better in Dinn.

I hope that what we do in Dinn spreads throughout the country.

Okay, any anyone else concluding items.

Okay.

I'll say this.

I I want to start off.

Uh I'm just heartbroken about this.

But so Bo Rosell was 21.

He is the his uh I think it's a it would be his uncle is on our fire force.

Uh his uh grandma uh would be uh the Diane Hubener who helped us with the green fire truck and has been uh a tremendous uh corporate citizen, amazing entrepreneur, just a great person, great family of faith.

Uh so to Zach and Leanne, uh I am heartbreaking broken about their their loss.

I send my condolences.

His um services will be at the village church at 1030 on the 17th.

Then uh I want to say that if you don't have it regularly to support TW gymnastics, I'd encourage you to do that.

There's some amazing programs they're bringing in the town, amazing uh economic development from uh hotels and restaurants and all that.

They they're bringing in some some big time schools here.

Uh and and so really uh what time?

Friday at seven.

There you go.

Yeah, it uh at the here at McGee Kitty McGee um gymnasium.

So you can be there, support them.

And then uh on an again on another sad note, uh Mayor, former Mayor Perry McNeil, dear friend, his services are on the 17th uh as well.

He passed away.

Um, and so I'll I'll be there to support his family.

Uh and then United Way is Saturday evening.

If you've not gotten your tickets already, it's uh they're they're dancing with the stars event is Saturday evening.

So uh please plan to be there.

And then lastly, on Monday, the holiday the 19th at 10 o'clock, there's the MLK Junior uh hit his program at the Martin Luther King Junior Centers, 1300 Wilson Street.

Uh and there's some there's a there's a walk, and then there's some programs uh uh events that happen inside there.

So and I think they normally have like some kind of business fair or health fair in there as well.

So a lot of great programming, uh family friendly.

So please plan to attend that if you can.

And so with that, we'll take a two-minute break.

We'll be back at 6 30 to take up our public our public hearing items and that and then we'll that will conclude our meetings after that.

So two minute break, 6 30, we'll get started.

Thank you.

And welcome back to this meeting of the Denton City Council.

We are now to our public hearing portion.

It is 6 32.

We do have a quorum, so I'll call the meeting back to order.

First item is item 2A, DCA 25001, hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas regarding proposed revision to the accessory dwelling unit and townhome uh standards of Denton Development Code amendments include but are not limited to Table 5.2a et al.

Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt.

Um, and I'm presenting DCA 251, a missing middle housing.

So uh the proposal in front of you is to update the denton development code to clarify and refine some regulations related to missing middle house housing, in particular um townhomes and accessory dwelling units.

Uh the purpose of this is to support our housing goals and in our comprehensive plan and our uh affordable housing toolkit, also the Southeast Denton Area Plan and the Design Downtown Denton Plan to pursue to uh support the construction of a variety of housing types within our neighborhoods uh to remove some complicated and difficult language that's in the code right now.

Um both of these items were um have been workshopped and created over the last year.

So townhomes went before the planning and zoning commission about this time last year, I think it was in February, um, as a discussion item.

Uh the ADU development regulations, the proposal has been workshopped with the DCRC over the last year.

We also did some neighborhood engagement in August with three community meetings, two in person, one virtually, and then we had an online survey that was open for a month.

Um, and uh we heard we got we heard from about 54 to 55 uh people in that survey, so respondents, and um uh generally the community was in favor of what of what is being proposed.

So, with that, we're gonna talk about townhomes first and then accessory dwelling units after that.

Um, with townhomes, there are really three topics we want to talk about lot um lot size, maximum units, and then open space.

So we'll start with lot size.

Under the current um dent development code, the minimum lot size for town homes is two thousand square feet, um, regardless of where it is in the city.

Um we are proposing to reduce that to a thousand square feet in our mixed-use districts.

We're also proposing to clarify some applicability notes as well as some reference notes to make sure the community who uses the dent development code can find the regulations.

Um, and then also clarify uh the townhome building coverage to permit greater um coverage in those districts which allow it.

Um staff analyz our townhome regulations and particularly in the um lot sizes and determine that you know our mixed-use districts are intended for more compact walkable development.

That thousand square feet is more appropriate for these districts, and in fact, in our downtown area, we we have a townhome development that has a minimum lot size of about 900 to 1,000 square feet.

So it's consistent with what we have in our mixed-use districts already, and once again, it's consistent with what we want to see in our mixed use districts.

Um, this would not change our our other districts which allow townhomes.

That 2,000 feet would remain in place.

Um, we're also proposing to modify the maximum units.

Under current regulations, the maximum number of townhomes allowed on a site cannot be any more than the number of unit single family units that could be developed on the site.

How do we apply that?

Um we divide the gross square feet of a site by the minimum lot size for the zoning district, and in that we get the maximum number of units.

We are proposing to remove this completely.

Um, it's difficult to apply, it's kind of difficult to understand, difficult to explain.

Um, it also creates a disincentive for townhomes because this is the townhomes of the only residential use type where this would apply.

Um, and instead, just rely on things that typically limit our residential um developments, things like lot dimensions, um, any right-of-way dedication, drainage infrastructure or other easements.

Um, those often can limit the number of units, and we're proposing to just really treat townhomes like we do other residential types.

And then finally, open space.

Open space can be a really important part of design of neighborhoods.

But we want to make sure we have it for the right projects and in the right place.

Under current regulations, any duplex townhome, triplex, or fourplex development that has 10 or more units must dedicate 5% of the land area for open space.

We find that that is really just kind of too small to create usable open space.

We want to make sure that we've got appropriate open space so people can enjoy it and use it to play or for recreation.

We are also proposing to exempt so we're proposing that any any development over three acres would be required to dedicate that 5% open space.

So exempting all projects under that three acres.

We're also proposing to exempt projects that are within a half mile of a city-owned park or open space.

What that allows us, it allows us to get meaningful, usable open space in areas where there isn't a public park.

So allowing those developments that still are requiring those developments that are maybe on the outskirts of town or a little bit larger to provide that open space, but exempting those other projects that maybe are in fill or have fewer lots from that requirement.

So with that, I've concluded townhomes.

I'll bring up ADUs now, unless you have any questions on townhomes now.

Any questions on town homes?

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Good evening.

Angie Manglaris, assistant planning director here to talk to you a little bit about accessory dwelling units or ADUs today.

As Julie mentioned, these amendments were largely worked through the development code review committee over several months before taking it to public feedback.

The amendments are primarily designed to make ADUs easier to construct within the city of Denton by removing some of the known barriers to entry, as well as exploring areas in which we do allow ADUs.

So starting off, we are looking at amending the table of allowed uses.

ADUs are actually already allowed in all of our residential zoning districts and the MN zoning district, which permits single family by right.

The reason we're proposing to add it as a permitted use in MD and MR is because as part of these amendments, ADUs would be allowed with a town home, a duplex, or a triplex.

In addition, in some of the general standards for accessory structures, there is some cleanup of this existing language.

We do have a conflict in this part of the code, it says AD any accessory structure cannot be allowed in the side yard.

When we get into the ADU specific standards, it says ADUs could be.

So we're removing that conflict in our general standards.

Moving on to the specific standards related to ADUs.

These amendments are predominantly designed to clarify ADUs can be attached or detached from the primary structure.

One ADU may be permitted per lot, and ADUs may be accessory to single family detached townhomes, duplexes, and triplexes.

The reason fourplexes is not included in this is because we define multifamily as five units or more on a lot, and so fourplexes doesn't work within this equation, but everything below it does.

Furthermore, we cleaned up some of our language relating to how we measure ADUs and created one standard for the maximum size for ADUs across all lots.

Currently, we divide our regulations for lots over 10,000 square feet and lots under.

This sets the same standard across the board.

It guarantees all ADUs may have a minimum of 800 square feet, regardless of the size of the principal dwelling unit, but it could allow somebody with a larger home to explore up to 75% of that primary dwelling unit.

And really what this does is it allows some of those with smaller homes to have additional flexibility when considering an ADU on their lot.

So misentry modern ADU or something like that.

The amendments also further clarify that ADUs could be you could have separate ownership via a condominium association.

Currently, we don't allow it at all.

This would provide the option for those who would like to explore it to do so, and also removes the minimum parking requirement for ADUs, but does specify that if you are to remove a required parking space for the principal unit, you do have to replace it back.

So for example, you have four parking spaces for your single family home and perhaps you do a garage conversion and now you don't have two of those parking spaces, you would be required to replace those.

But if you were to construct an ADU elsewhere on site that keeps all of the required parking it it's fine as is and really the reason is parking is one of the bigger barriers to entry people face when looking at constructing ADUs on their lot.

This did go to the planning and zoning commission the town home and ADU amendments as you see before you this evening the planning and zoning commission did recommend approval of their quest with the following modification and that modification is an additional ADU may be allowed per lot with the approval of a specific use permit.

So as it is written today one ADU is allowed per lot P and Z added the clarification that you could have an additional one with the approval of an SUP unless that property is within a mile and a half of the downtown square district in which case that additional ADU could be allowed by right.

However in no case shall that additional ADU create any more than four dwelling units on any lot because again once we get into five or more that's when we start um having conflicts of definitions and so that was the the recommendation that came out of planning and zoning commission this map before you just kind of helps illustrate what that mile and a half buffer could look like staff is recommending approval of the amendments it does support several of our goals and strategies both in the comprehensive plan, the affordable housing toolkit as well as several of our small area plans these amendments are designed to move remove conflicting and complicated language is consistent with the direction received from the DCRC and Planning and Zoning Commission and does create some additional opportunities for missing middle housing within the city of Denton.

I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have thank you very much and I'll open the public hearing any questions for staff representative from district two thank you um I was only able to partially review a planning and zonings what was the the rationale for the the radius around MD.

This map helps just a little bit oh wrong way and and I guess the context that you pull that up is is um why why limit it to this area around MD what why why not elsewhere sure I I believe um some of the conversation around this was they were looking for additional um ways in which those lots which could take advantage of having two units or more would be able to do so without needing the SUP and the thought was that this mile and a half would capture most of sort of this the city's inner inner core okay all right representative from district four thank you um is it it if one were to build an ADU on the the back part of the property is it permitted to have a separate electric and water meter for the for that for that unit for that new unit.

Sure so as it relates to to metering of um water we don't allow additional taps into that main line but submetering is permitted um so they could submeter off of that main meter and they could have a separate electric meter.

In discussing with our utilities um there is the ability for if for some reason the main home had their water service cut off we do have several accounts that are specific to ADUs where they're not affected by that but it's not a separate tap into the main line it is a submeter.

But but a a standalone electric and water water meter is permitted the water meter is submeter but electric they're able to serve as well yes thank you representative district five mayor just got a couple and if you don't mind I'll ask the rest after public comments.

Yep.

What is submetering I mean I know we already have this conversation please explain something in general terms because I'm not the water meter expert it is not going to be a separate line a lateral line running from the street to that ADU specifically there is a main meter to the home and they're able to put in a submeter to that to serve that specific structure but to limit the amount of of taps it's not going to be its own lateral line independent completely from the the main one.

What's the barrier to a separate line is it simply cost um I believe in my discussions with with utility some of that comes down to state law where one line is serving a residential lot in addition um it is it is a safety thing it reduces just the number of access points into the main line and the opportunity for something to go wrong um but in talking with um customer service and how the billing goes it does seem like that's possible to have at least a separate account with that submeter.

Um last thing I'll say is just help me walk through how one would troubleshoot this.

Um I own a property and council member Holland here rents an ADU in the back.

And if I decide for whatever reason not to pay my water bill, does his water get shut off?

Since I own the main house.

So in my conversations, and it was it was um late last week, there is the ability to set up the ADU account that is not going to be impacted by the main meter or the main user of the account paying it.

So if the if the main home has its water shut off for payment issues, it does sound like there's the ability to have that submeter independent of it so they don't lose their water connection.

Would that would that or would there be an additional cost um for the person in the ADU to get that set up?

I I'm sure there's an additional cost for the initial um installation of the submeter.

I I don't know what all that would entail though.

Am I correct in assuming that's the minus will cost more administrative, it's not too big a deal, it's not a barrier to entry for anything.

I wouldn't think that that would be the case, but I I would need to look and maybe I can do that during public comment.

If you don't mind, I'd love for someone to just text Stephen.

I'm just I'm I'm thinking about the barriers between making this uh feasible and not feasible.

Thank you very much.

Uh Mayor Prochem.

Peggy backing on the the water question.

Um if we could just get some sort of, I guess, written clarification or commentary after after this vote after tonight, um, regarding confirmation that if the front house, if their water was shut off for some reason, that the ADU could still have water, especially if we're talking about possibly giving um the ADU occupant ownership of that building of the ADU.

Um that's especially important in that case.

So just confirmation that there would be a way for them to keep their water on if the main structure um were to be turned off.

Um and then did we look at thinking still about the ownership potential that we might be opening up?

Um did we look at allowing um the post office to decide how it the address works on it?

Because right now the address is ADU, right?

It's not C or B or you know two yes, we were actually able to connect with them today just to confirm everything.

Let me double check my notes.

Um they they don't recognize separate addresses.

So the the main address for the home is what the post office goes by, and that's where their delivery system is.

And so um they're not in favor of um distinguishing a separate address nor a separate mailbox um in order to avoid any sort of confusion and and missed delivery of of mail.

If there were two ADUs in a let's say if somebody had a really huge yard and they had two ADUs, how do we know how that would work?

ADU.

And it would they both be ADU or I don't have a great answer for that.

Um it could be yeah, A and B or ADU and ADU one or something like that.

Some things, just some things to think about probably after tonight.

So I'll reserve the rest of my comments and questions for after the public comment.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions for staff?

Uh so I uh a lot of the questions I was gonna ask have been addressed, but one of the one of the questions that was brought to me was the value, and we talked about the the value of the two mile radius, which encumber it covers uh UNT.

So I just want to clearly communicate.

I've I'm I'm not gonna make a motion yet, but when I do, it's going to be to expand that out to two miles so that it covers that, but to require SUP for all of them, because is there a height restriction for ADUs?

It's the same as what the zoning district allows, so in single family 40 feet.

Okay.

And is that single story, two story?

Um it would typically be two-story.

Yeah.

And so that's my concern is in any of this.

I'm not at trying to add a barrier, but if someone's gonna put a unit behind my house or next to my house, I should it's just a notification thing, unless you can tell me that the process where it's where it's uh it's titled, I I close the presentation, but it's uh it's with let me get there.

Does the with special with specific standards apply, does that require a hearing or notice to your neighbors?

Um the you specific standards are sort of just design details within the DDC.

It's the SUP that would require that public notice, typical of a zoning case.

Yeah, and that that to me is so for example, if we're gonna if someone's gonna close down the street, no nothing permanent, they uh my understanding is they have to go to their neighbors, the neighboring businesses, and and get them to sign off saying, Hey, are you okay with me uh with us having an event on the street?

Is that right?

That sounds correct, but I'll admit I'm not the street.

Who who can answer that?

Who can confirm?

If you're requesting to close a street.

Anyone take my word for it.

Uh so um, but that's that's a temporary thing, right?

It's a temporary road closure, and you have to go to get approval from your from your um the surrounding businesses.

So if you're gonna put a permanent structure that overlooks potentially your fence, I I would think we'd want at least uh feedback.

It doesn't have to be cumbersome, it just has to be an opportunity for the uh your neighbors to be heard on that.

And so that to me is important.

So I want to expand the range.

You give and you you take, right?

So I I I think that's good to expand the range, but then also make sure we have a notice requirement tied to it for your for your neighbors.

Um and so then you answered you answered my the question I received about the post office.

You answered about the water meter, and then uh the curb cuts.

That that's that also is that's that can be requested, but that's not an that's not an ordinance issue, that's a request for development services, right?

Yes, all of our driveway spacing requirements are out of the criteria manual.

Um so if somebody wanted an additional driveway to their single family property, they'd have to meet that minimum 10 foot separation, not only from the driveway on the existing lot, but any adjacent ones.

Got it.

Okay, thank you for that.

Uh okay.

So we'll go.

Are these to speak again or no?

Okay.

You sure?

No.

Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you.

I just wanted to clarify that um my understanding of of the map or that motion at planning and zoning was um the before planning and zoning kind of um added modifications.

It was that two ADUs, if they meet all code and and all the other development standards would be allowed with the second one requiring an SUP.

And so what the modification was from planning and zoning was that that's true, except for in a one and a half mile radius around downtown, you could have up to two ADUs or backyard cottages without an SUP for the second one.

So that was the that's what the radius is about is um outside of it, you would need an SUP for the second.

Inside of it, you don't need an SUP for the second.

That was what the radius was about.

Yes, so the yes, the original the language that was presented to P and Z was one per lot with no consideration of a secondary.

Um so then the conversation was what if we allowed a second with an SUP, but then that's where the buffer came in too.

You're correct.

That with anything you see within the the blue area, the intent was that they could have their second ADU without the SUP, the remainder of the city would require that SUP.

And that that would be for the second unit only.

Right.

Yeah, no, I'm I'm I'm 100% clear.

I I don't I I just I'll listen to the comments and I'll listen to the day, but my I don't understand a world where I mean we make people go have neighborhood meetings for just about everything, and to have an established area that that different from the town homes to me, townhomes new construction.

I'm assuming you're you're you know you have to go in and and buy the lot and post or do whatever you have to do, pull a permanent, all those things, and so people can have notice.

This I just I'm against having giving your your neighbor no notice and putting something two stories tall in the backyard overlooking your backyard without at least giving you a say so like hey, here's what's about to happen right behind your house.

Like I because we'll all the things, right?

You can run into watershed issues where we've run into that in South Ridge all over the place, and so you're taking away surface area, you're not considering that, you're not considering runoff.

There's just there's just one-offs where I think we need to at least have neighbors heard to say, oh, by the way, I'm already having water flow issues.

Now they're putting in another, they're taking away surface area, and I I didn't know, and and we're gonna, I mean, we've I just think it's important to at least uh have those conversations.

It doesn't have to be uh super long, but I I think it's just the right thing to do.

Mayor, would you like to work through clarifying the your future potential motion now, or would you rather wait until later to clarify?

Yeah, no, we'll get we'll get uh I just wanted to communicate it before people spoke because they won't get to speak afterwards, and so I wanted to get full and uh anyway uh for people to consider as they're listening uh where where I'm leaning, and I didn't want to miss mislead anyone that I'm I'm good with it as is.

Yeah, so that's the thing.

So our first speaker is uh Isaiah is it Heck?

Thank you.

If you can come down and give your name, you'll have four minutes.

Hello, counsel.

Yeah, I'm Isaiah Heck.

Uh I don't have anything major to say just for this move.

I am pro this.

We have a housing crisis on our hands, and everything we can do to alleviate that crisis is a win for me.

So I would encourage all of all of you to vote for this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Kate Rose.

If you can give your name, you'll have four minutes.

Okay.

And I own rental homes.

And to echo it, he said, we have a housing crisis.

We don't have hardly any under a thousand square feet or a thousand dollars a month for a for a person or a couple.

I've got people that work for me that make $20 an hour living in RVs and trailers and driving further and further out.

So just I think missing middle is a term for a very valid reason, and we need duplexes and fourplexes and affordable walkable spaces.

So just pro a these changes to clarify.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

And uh Josh Taylor.

You can come down and give your name.

You have four minutes.

Good evening, Mayor and Council, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I'm here in support of the proposed amendments before you tonight to the Denton Development Code related to accessory dwelling units and townhome standards.

These changes reflect careful planning, broad professional input, and a clear commitment to expanding housing options in ways that are thoughtful, incremental, and compatible with existing neighborhoods.

At their core, these amendments helped Denton do something important, grow more wisely by allowing ADUs in more zoning districts, clarifying design standards, and removing unnecessary parking requirements.

We make it easier to add modest, well-designed housing within the neighborhoods we already have.

That matters because every time we make it impossible to add housing in the city, we push growth further out, fueling urban sprawl, longer commutes, higher infrastructure costs, and greater environmental impact.

The same is true of the townhome updates.

Clear modern dimensional standard, kind of missing middle housing that fits naturally into Denton's fabric.

Housing that is often more attainable, more efficient, and more accessible for first-time buyers, seniors, and working families.

These changes don't eliminate single-family neighborhoods, and they don't lower design expectations.

They simply provide more choice, more flexibility, and more responsible stewardship of land, all while aligning with the goals of Denton's comprehensive plan, and they have the unanimous recommendation of the planning and zoning commission.

In a moment when affordability, sustainability, and community character are all at stake.

This ordinance helps us hold those values together rather than treating them as competing priorities.

For those reasons, I encourage you to support these amendments.

Thank you so much for your time and for your service to the city.

Thank you.

Dana Zoltner, you can come down, you have four minutes.

Can we have the document camera, please?

Oh, I'm sorry.

What?

There you go.

Okay.

Hopefully it'll flip back and forth.

That you all can look at while I'm speaking.

Um I have four minutes.

Um less than three.

I want to address the people ahead of us.

Nobody mentioned the millions of apartments that are going up everywhere.

So affordable housing isn't quite that rigid as it people think it is.

Um this is Custer's last stand for me.

I followed this ADU process, beginning with the decimation of the house across my street.

Since the DCRC, PNZ, and now City Council seem to think that my protests are merely because I want to stop development and establish neighborhoods.

The picture before you is a result of what could have been a different outcome since the city was made aware of our worries even before the permits were issued.

I've listened to DCRC committee ponder what different types of roofs and looks that will be acceptable in new developments.

So I know it's possible to do a better job of making sure an ADU fits into an already established neighborhood.

Listening to P and Z's considerations for moving forward this ordinance, I was dismayed at their overwhelming commitment to infill backyards of established neighborhoods with alternative housing to the extent that they agreed to add two ADUs to backyards if requested, and a permit was agreed.

After all, this ordinance should apply to every single family residential area.

What sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

If city council votes to approve the ADU ordinance written, you will be setting up every neighborhood in Denton to have at least one of these in backyards.

Hopefully, you are not foolish enough to think not my neighborhood, because what you see is a very real possibility that you will not have a leg to stand on to refuse the permit.

This one, and I'm sorry because I thought it would continue.

This one, it's roof line and color.

Perhaps the city could take the time to figure out how not to pander to developers and make sure that an ADU is built that blends with actual houses and neighborhoods.

Please table this until you can assure your constituents that when that what goes into their neighbor's backyard conforms to the area.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Liam Garham Whitefield.

Come down and give your name.

You'll have four minutes.

Hello.

Uh my name is Liam Gon Wakefield.

I'm off 411 Ponder Avenue.

I'm coming to support uh come to speak in support of this.

And the main reason why is because especially the the by right, the two ADUs, that 1.5 mile, and I would not mind to see a two-mile circuit.

Uh sir.

Sorry.

Math words.

Um because every bureaucratic process adds cost.

And that cost is then either enough to stop people from building the that ADU, or it's passed on to the renter to pay for the extra cost.

It's time and cost because it's the it's construction anything.

Any a delay in time, it's delay in getting workers, is the delay in getting materials, and that it even if it's not that, even if it's a month, that adds easily thousands of dollars of cost to a construction project.

I don't know how much for a small one, but for a standard one, easily thousands of dollars.

And in that at least in the 1.5 circle, I mean, even in the two-mile circle.

A lot of those places are going to be where college students live instead of it.

It helps free up the housing demand and thus makes it makes landlords have to act better if there's more competition.

It it's the simple supply and demand.

And there's going to be two, especially on that northern end.

There's going to be a new bus route.

There's three bus routes currently, routes three, six, and seven, and you'll have Route 4.

I mean Route 2 up north.

And then with that two mile circle, it'll be even closer to route the new route four coming up this upcoming year in August.

And those that live in ADUs are more less likely to have cars.

And which is good because we want less people driving around.

It's safer for everybody, less pollution.

It's quieter.

Cars are loud.

Um, but also fundamentally, these ADUs will also bring in tax revenue for the city, be it sales tax for people that are actually able to live here instead of being forced to move out to either like Argyll or Sanger, or property tax because those that have properties that have ADUs are worth more and they had then have the income to pay those taxes.

Um the remainder of my time.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker is Briand, is that right?

Brand Richard Richard?

Sorry.

If you can give your name, you'll have four minutes.

Good evening, Council.

My name is Brand Richter.

I live at 1804 Linden Drive.

Uh I speak on support for the adoption of this proposal, and I appreciate your scheduling this public hearing.

Um I was able to attend both of the uh public meetings that planning department held.

Um thank you, Angie, and thank you, Julie, for very succinctly summarizing the community feedback that the attendees of those meetings had.

And I hope that you were able to read through or at least look at some of the notes for those meetings because what they were able to do is um a really common sense summarization of what the community was interested in seeing within our neighborhoods.

Um platforms of affordability.

You've heard for years uh about rising costs of of uh housing and the cost of living, and this is one of the easiest solutions that we can get uh to achieve that need to fix this problem.

And it is a really easy and simple fix by cleaning up this unclear code by making it simpler to understand for small scale developers, is a way to increase the accessibility of some of these housing models that are uh not currently within our portfolio of housing stock.

Uh so I just want council to consider even within existing neighborhoods where you heard Ms.

Holtner, for example, talk about um a neighborhood just north of UNT, where I share that neighborhood as well.

Um, a neighborhood that developed over a long time, 20, 30 years, those homes were being built.

Um, we have no necessarily uniform character.

I'd encourage council to consider that neighborhoods have to have the ability to adapt to meet the needs of today, uh, and that our current leak code reduces that accessibility by overcomplicating or increasing barriers that might be unnecessary uh to meet that need.

Um secondly, and I just have two recommendations for council to consider.

Um part of this was introduced in during PZ's hearing um, whenever that went to them a couple weeks ago.

Um, the townhome requirement doesn't consider every current residential zoning district that we have.

Um, some of our our three one, two, and three districts, I believe, um, are not under this proposal.

Uh that includes my neighborhood, again, which is just north of UNT, south of university.

Um, it also has some of the largest loss sizes in the city that have plenty of opportunity for additional housing where we really need it, where it's convenient, where it's accessible, where transportation is easy to access.

Those are places where we don't have to build new utilities, where we don't have to service new lines.

It all it does is buff up um the resident uh the locations where residents can live within our neighborhoods.

And then secondly, um I would encourage uh possibly this goes to planning staff to consider the adoption uh or the development of pre-permitted ADU designs.

Other cities within our region, including Louisville have already packaged these together based off of the recommendations of the AERP that essentially just puts together a uh buffet of options where the city says we like what this looks like, we have neighborhoods that look like this.

This could be really gently nested within those existing neighborhoods and allows um smaller scale developers or residents who want to add something to their lot, a really easy way to look through a slate of options and say this works for me, pass that over to planning, and we get a stamp there instead of going through a long and complicated design process.

Uh so thank you again for your time, and I'd encourage you to adopt this proposal.

Okay, thank you.

And then Chris G R I E my close.

Yeah, if you could please give your name, you'll have four minutes.

This is a public hearing.

You can fill out a card and speak on it, and then we're gonna close it here shortly.

So if you have a desire to speak, please do that.

Go right ahead.

Sure, thank you.

Uh my name is Chris Greeshauber.

Um I am a Denton resident, and I am a homeowner in one of these close-in blue-collar established residential neighborhoods that are in question that can be impacted by this um by these proposed amendments.

Um I'm speaking in support of these proposed amendments to the Denton Development Code to allow for the additional residential infill development, including the zoning changes, townhouse, ADU development by right, and removal of minimum parking requirements.

Um, as someone with roots in the community and friendships here within the creative arts industry, um, I have a long-standing concern regarding housing affordability and accessibility.

Um because of this, I am a supporter of increased urban density and believe that allowing this additional in-filled development is instrumental to support the vibrancy of our city and to help it grow sustainably and to manage that growth sustainably.

By allowing for this additional flexibility and infill development, we can increase our housing capacity through a variety of property types closer to the urban core.

ADUs in particular are often highly compatible with existing neighborhood character.

We have plenty of parking, land and demand, and we need this flexibility to be able to develop and deliver the sorely needed housing.

Currently, residential development tends to be expensive luxury market position units sprawling far from the city center and not serving the needs of this city.

I'm excited for the proposed changes for those who reside here, including me, to grow their investment in the city, contribute to missing middle housing, adapt and change the city with time, and lower the barriers for all who want to be able to live and work here.

Um I would also like to register my concern in particular about the special use permit commentary from this evening and wish to support these initiatives without uh SUP requirements because other property development tends to not require them.

And building code and zoning review already help control encroaching development in residential districts.

Broad requirement requirements of special use permits uh often throw up significant barriers and challenges to allowing homeowners to access what they might feel is the best use of their personal property, uh, potentially negating the purpose of this entire initiative.

Um, those are all my comments.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And then Lauren Penn.

You give your name, you have four minutes.

Good evening, counsel.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Lauren Penn.

I live at 2308 Georgetown Drive.

I've called Denton Home for 20 years, and I'm here in support of these updates to our ADU ordinance.

This update is about flexibility, dignity, and smart incremental growth.

First, this matters deeply for our aging neighbors.

Several elders and widows in my neighborhood on my street.

They want to downsize, but they don't want to leave our neighborhood where they've already built relationships and community.

And I tell them we don't want them to leave either.

ADUs give them options to age in place with independence support and dignity while allowing Denton to retain the people who give our neighborhoods continuity and care.

ADUs also support younger homeowners and families who are still recovering financially from the past 15 years.

It provides supplemental income that could help cover a mortgage or fund education.

According to the National Association of Realtors, 90% of Gen Z and millennial respondents said they'd pay more to live in a walkable community.

So this is just a reflection on the trends and how our neighborhoods and how our younger residents are wanting to live and move about our city.

From an economic standpoint, ADUs represent local investment.

These projects are typically built by small Denton-based contractors, electricians, plumbers, framers, and suppliers, and that means dollars stay in our local economy instead of flowing to large out-of-town developers associated with major apartment projects.

Speaking of big apartment complexes, a lot of Dentonites don't like them, but we do need to make room for more people for young professionals and families and retirees, and so adding housing within our already charming neighborhoods will deter the need for these large apartment complexes.

And finally, I want to mention that multi-generational living is on the rise as cost of living, child care, and elder care increases.

Many people looking to buy a home are searching specifically for properties that already have an EDU or it has potential to add one.

If I think of when we add the two possible ADUs, I think about our neighbors that may want to turn a garage into an ADU and still have room in their backyard to add a detached ADU.

So that in my mind, that's that's helpful when we think about adding the two per property.

And so if we've got uh places like Redfin and Zillow, if there's going to be an option to search for properties, a checkbox that says has an ADU on site.

If Denton already has a lot of those, that's only going to make our city more attractive.

I personally don't worry about the design of ADUs as far as blending in with our neighborhood.

I personally like that each property owner can kind of make their home and their property to what they want it to be.

I find that as part of the charm about Denton.

So in conclusion, I think this ordinance update supports our seniors, which um I believe is about 10% of our population.

Our families, our local businesses, and our long-term neighborhood stability.

It is, in my opinion, a thoughtful incremental step that makes Denton stronger economically, socially, and generation.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Stefan Shea.

Come down and give your name, and you'll have four minutes.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Stephen Shade.

Um, I am going to speak in favor um in support of this uh change.

Uh, just part perhaps a point of clarification on the addresses.

I own the property at on the corner of Bell Avenue and uh Woodland on the northwest corner, and there is what would be considered now an accessory dwelling unit.

It is a uh an apartment that sits on uh at the top floor of a two-story garage, which was built, I think in 1950.

Um, so it's been there, and I bring that up simply because it has a separate address.

That may be because it's on the corner and both are accessible, but that is an ADU that does have a separate address.

I don't know how the post office deals with that, but that's how that works.

Um we all know NIMBY, not in my backyard.

Um, what we're experiencing with some of the people who oppose this is um uh not in your backyard, uh, and I find that to be troublesome uh with how we choose to um address these issues that many people have brought up so eloquently tonight affordable housing.

Um, and uh I would just like to uh echo what they said because I thought they put it so brilliantly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Charles Woot.

Oh, would thank you.

If you can come down and give your name, you have four minutes.

All right, uh thank you, Mayor, and thank you, council.

And sorry for the bad handwriting.

Uh but uh I wanted to talk about uh my support for the ADU update.

Uh I think it provides uh common sense pathway to allow for a more efficient use of the land to increase the supply that matches the demand uh and thus reducing the prices uh for homes in Denton.

Uh I personally feel like a victim of it.

I live in uh Sanger and uh I do wish to live in Denton.

I went to school here.

I really love the community here, and I find myself hanging out here a lot.

And uh part of the reason that uh I live in Sanger is due to a lower housing cost, and I think that by increasing the supply through this ADU update would give um a common sense pathway to uh meet the supply.

I also know that uh it provides help for intergenerational living.

Uh, I've grown up where uh grandmothers have lived in my friend's backyard and they were able to stay together.

I've also known people who had Down syndrome who were able to live with their parents and their adult age and keeping the families together.

And I think that um ADUs provide a pathway to make it a more accessible housing for everyone in a common sense while also making a more efficient use of the land.

Um, and that's what I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Lenny McAdams.

If you can come down and give your name, you have four minutes mayor and members of the city council, thank you for this opportunity.

I want to speak in opposition to this proposal as it is currently.

Uh understanding that people in existing neighborhoods bought their houses in good faith, thinking it was one thing, and you're proposing to change it to something totally different.

Many of those houses have they don't have sidewalks in the neighborhood, and they have narrow streets.

When you add the additional parking, and there will be additional parking on the street.

And we unfortunately in our neighborhood experienced a young child.

When you have these neighborhoods with lots of people living there and lots of cars, people tend to park on the street, and that happened in our neighborhood.

And as a result, we had a child come out from behind a car, and she was killed on one of our fairly narrow streets in one of our neighborhoods with small houses.

And recently we had a situation where a house burned, and there were those connections to the other houses with meters and things like that, and they ran into problems.

So there is much more to this than is just changing the zoning and saying, okay, it needs a lot more study and a lot more comment from citizenry, who I suspect they don't really realize what's coming.

Without a newspaper, which we effectively don't have, you just don't get the news about what the city is planning the way you used to.

And I I'm not saying that this is a bad idea overall, but I just think we need more input, and we need to think in terms of those people who spent their life savings for a home, and they thought it was going to be one thing, and now they find it's going to be another.

All those things need careful thought and they need input from the citizens, and which they've that most people don't even realize this is coming.

And I think it they need to be notified.

Thank you.

And then Amanda Conway.

Yes.

Thank you for having me.

My name is Amanda Conway.

I'm a Denton resident.

And I also serve on the board of directors for I serve on the board of directors for Denton Affordable Housing Corporation.

I'm a small business owner, and I'm a former resident of District One here.

Uh when my daughter and I uh became just a family of two, I realized that a single family home was not the right thing for us anymore, and began looking for uh an ADU.

I I had I lived in one in uh graduate school, and it was great.

I got to live behind someone's fence, so my family felt great that I was in someone else's backyard.

I didn't have the vulnerability of a single family home or uh the large area of a major apartment complex.

Uh so I started looking for those uh that might suit me and my daughter, and there's just not a supply.

Um I support this.

Thanks.

Okay, thank you.

That concludes our cards, so I'll close the public hearing and I'll read that there are two cards in support that didn't register three in support that didn't wish to speak.

Um, and so I'll include those uh representative from district five.

Thank you, Mayor.

Umgie or Charlie or whoever.

How many how many meetings did staff have about this?

We held um three public meetings, uh, two in person and one virtually.

And then we um also established a dedicated discussed dent web page.

Um, and on that page, we ran our survey for about a month.

Um, roughly speaking, when was the first meeting about this?

Uh mid to early to mid-August.

Okay, uh, bless you.

Um, okay.

Thank you.

Oh, let's okay.

Some more questions.

You're going to stay right there.

Sure.

What exactly is an SUP?

Yes, of course, I know.

There's lots of interesting people watching.

Help me out.

What is an SUP?

An SUP is a specific use permit.

And what that is is um, you know, we have our table of allowed uses, we have permitted uses, we have uses that are not allowed, and SUP is sort of somewhere in between where we recognize this use may be appropriate in this location, but it requires some additional review in detail.

It is treated like a public hearing, so it does go to planning and zoning commission, and then ultimately to you all where you have the final um vote.

So I want to get an SUP.

Is there a cost associated with that?

Yes.

What is that cost on average?

We have two tiers of SUPs.

So when you have a larger scale development full-blown SUP, that's close to $9,000.

Uh, we do have a smaller one as well where it doesn't revol involve that detailed review and that's $601.

These ADUs would fall in that $601 categories.

There won't be engineering review and things like that associated with it.

Okay.

Um I want to get an SUP.

What's the time frame between the time I walk into development services and start the process to a time, you know, generally speaking when council greenlights it?

Obviously, I'm asking you to guess.

Yes, it's a very big it depends, and it is dependent upon the quality of the initial submittal.

Um, so best case scenario, you're looking at maybe two and a half months to get to city council, and that assumes a perfect application upon first submittal.

Typically, you might be looking at a three to four month time period to really get things into your meetings and things like that, but it is very situational.

What has been the pressure associated on staff with requests for ADU if you can quantify that?

Would you say there's generally there's lots of interest or there's not a lot of interest from people who want to have ADUs on their property?

I will accept, I don't know if you don't know because I'm putting you on the spot.

It it is not one of our more requested um review items.

It is it's not something we see in um very frequently.

We do see them, um, but not like we do other application types.

Based on your knowledge of the layout of the city of Denton, would you say there are a lot of properties that can fit a second ADU dwelling on their property?

I'll accept, I don't know.

I'm putting you on the spot.

It it um I don't know about a a lot.

Um I I do think there are there's certainly going to be some lots that are suited towards it.

It's going to depend on on several things.

Um so based on the zoning district that you're in, you have maximum building coverage percentages.

Um we also have to take into account setbacks from property lines, but as well as from other habitable structures, typically do link habitable structures have to be at least 10 feet apart unless you want to build a fire-rated wall.

There's also easements and floodplains, and so there are a lot of encumbrances that could make that second ADU um more difficult to build.

I would think most lots could probably accommodate one, but when you get into two, you need a lot with um large area that's generally unencumbered.

Is it a reasonable assumption to make that if the the properties that are large enough to house a second ADU might not necessarily be in the city center, but might be pushing toward the outskirts of town because of lot size and whatnot?

Is that a reasonable assumption to make?

It's it's generally pretty accurate.

I would note we do have um some outliers throughout the city, um, as you would anywhere where you do have larger than typical lot sizes, particularly in some of our more um established neighborhoods, but generally those larger lots are not within that main core.

Um I appreciate your questions.

Um mayor, do you want to circle back to me before and let her buy a speaker or let me go ahead and get all of the way?

Well, yeah, I mean, but yeah, yeah, whatever you can do, whatever's fastest.

Um I'm I'm supportive of this.

I appreciate staff staff giving people the time to participate in this process.

I absolutely understand the need for neighborhood protection, and I I really want to thank Brand for uh highlighting that some cities are already ahead of us and giving prefab designs for ADUs.

Thank you for that.

That's absolutely the direction that I hope that that we will go.

My concern with this is as the mayor said also the the two mile radius.

The entire point of this for me is to make ADUs affordable housing more accessible.

SUPs for me, and SUP for this is a barrier to entry for a lot of people.

Um those of us who pay attention to what happens in the state legislative session, we will know that the local government committee has already looked at this, and although they didn't pass anything this past session, we know that legislation is coming on this, which is why I'm always encouraging staff to have more proactive conversations with our our state lobbyists so that they can give us feedback on what local government committee is is looking at.

The state is absolutely in line with us.

They also believe that we need to be doing everything we can to make homeownership and home dwelling more affordable.

I would like to see us get rid of the radius at all.

I don't understand the need for the radius.

We're gonna pass one set of rules for thee, but not for me, and vice versa.

The same rule should apply for everybody throughout the city.

The last question that I asked that I asked Angie essentially leads lends me to believe that most of the pressure for a second ADU is gonna come from outside of the radius from the city center.

So if I live, I happen to live outside of the city center, I'm gonna have to have an SUP, whereas the people inside the city sitter donate, it creates confusion for me.

How am I even going to know where I live within two miles or not within two miles?

I just don't think it's fair for everybody.

If we're gonna set up a set of rules for dentites to go by, the same rules need to apply to everybody.

So yeah, I will agree with the mayor and say a mile and a half is is restrictive, particularly because it doesn't cover the entire UNT campus.

But if we're going to do that, let's make it applicable for everybody.

There are people who need to afford to live in every single part of the city.

So um I don't know if you're gonna make a motion, Mayor, or you want me to make it, but I would like to see us move forward with this without any radius.

Yeah, no, I'm gonna make a motion.

So thank you.

Representative from district two.

Thank you.

I had a couple of questions for Angie, if you would please.

Um Angie, we had um uh full disclosure.

I uh on the development code review committee, and Angie didn't um we had a lot of discussion uh about a lot of these issues.

Um and in it we brought up um this idea of heights.

Um currently, if you own a property, you can you can go get a building permit and build up to the two-story residential height requirements.

Is that correct?

Correct.

So if I wanted to build up to a second story, I can already do that with the existing infrastructure with just regular building permits.

I don't have to go get an SUP or anything else like that, correct?

Correct.

And and so um if I had a garage, I could I could put a unit of my own, an attached garage up on on the top of it, just as an additional office space, just with a regular standard building permit, right?

Correct.

Um and then if that if that already existed, you you could and you could you did the building permit to make it have a separable entrance, then it it could be a completely conforming use and then suddenly turn into an ADU with without with completely bypassing any of these restrictions.

Is that is that also correct?

Well, well, I mean, not the not completely, but bypassing some of the height concerns that have been brought forward.

Show because you already had an existing height.

If you had in previously constructed building, yes.

Um and remind me which residential or which districts already allow ADUs?

All of our residential districts, so R R all the way through R7 plus the mixed-use neighborhood district.

And all we would be doing with these proposed changes that were one of the three or four changes was adding MD and MR.

Correct, because that's where we allow townhomes, duplexes, and um triplexes.

And and to something that Councillor McGee asked, um I know that there's been some ebbs and flows, and and when uh ADUs required permits, uh, I believe in the 2002 uh building code, we had we required SCPs for all ADUs.

Yes.

And did we uh what effect did we see on on the the uh import of or the building of um uh with that requirement of an SCP?

I I don't have the the raw numbers on that.

I know with the update of the 2019 DDC, we did make um ADUs permitted in any district that allows single family residential um since about 21 through 24, we saw roughly 45 permits, which I believe would be more than what we were seeing with the SUP rate.

So in some sense, would it be fair to say we had few to almost none?

And and since relaxing some of those codes a little bit and allowing them in residential districts as and as council McGee's in line with some of what's coming out of the state, we've we've now seen them coming back again.

We we have certainly seen them more frequently, yes.

Okay.

Um and uh the the last yeah that that's it, thank you, Angie.

Representative of district four.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yes, sir.

That was a rhetorical mayor.

Council, uh I cannot support this.

Um it seems to me that that when one buys property that you take kind of a middle picture, maybe a real picture of what the neighborhood looks like, and that's what you think it's gonna look like.

And and then all of a sudden people that you may or may not know that live right next to you start changing things in your neighborhood doesn't look the way it did when you bought it, that you expected it to weigh to look when you when you bought it.

Uh I was impressed with Ms.

Zoltner's photographs of the uh of the large of large house behind a relatively small house that just completely changed the character of everything.

Um I'm I'm a big I'm a big property rights guy, but uh if speaking only for myself, if if my my neighbors on either side of me built a built a house in the backyard, it it would it would at least disappoint me, it might anger me.

So uh I'm um I I cannot support this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative District One.

I just wanted to um bring a visual or some clarification for the radius.

As I understand, um I do represent one of the uh you know, district one is a community where there is a uh a lot of homes that were built in the 50s and you know in the 40s, and that's some sort uh cottagey type homes.

Um and there's a lot of in feel uh that needs to be done in those areas.

Uh and this notion of this particular radius really does demonstrate that there are neighborhoods whose backyards can handle these uh types of types of um dwellings, and so once you go outside of that neighborhood outside of that radius there that was shown, you'll start seeing some newer neighborhoods because our city is growing outward, it's not growing inward.

And so we're noticing that those uh larger uh neighborhoods that are coming in, those houses are practically sitting on top of each other.

A lot of HOA homes, and it's more a home, less yard, so you know some of this is not gonna even be applicable, it's not gonna even fit.

But uh to allow uh for you know, just start here with this radius, it really does demonstrate that the uh the mindfulness of why we would want to start there.

And I'm just of course thinking about um some of the other areas um closer to UNT, um you know, just spaces where you can put a little apartment complexes up, you know, and in in field spaces.

So uh just wanted to add that.

Of course, I'll be supporting this.

I want to um you know meet that missing middle.

We said we were gonna do that.

We said we were gonna do that, we said we were a community where we're gonna give everybody an opportunity, and if we can give everyone an opportunity to find their space to find their place, then we will have done uh what we said we were gonna do.

Thank you.

Mayor Preto.

Angie, I have just one question for you.

Um if I wanted to build a shed of some sort in my backyard, would that require an SUP?

Like a tool shed or storage?

Just a shed, yeah.

No.

What if it's two stories?

Does it need an SUP?

No.

What if I built two two sheds?

No, no SUP.

Okay, thank you.

Um most people under the age of 40 are priced out of owning a home.

Um I'm one of the rare folks that got lucky on my timing, and I am under 40 and I happen to own a home.

But most people are priced out, and that's the reality.

So we've got a lot of folks out there who are renting.

Um and one of my big campaign things was that uh right now Denton offers mostly two housing options.

We uh we offer single family homes and we offer large apartment complexes.

That's mostly what we've been building recently.

And people don't like the big apartment complexes, it's really disruptive.

You know, speaking of, you know, I bought a house here, and now there's this huge change that's happened.

So people don't like the big apartment complexes popping up near them.

Um, but also, especially near the universities, and I do live near one of the universities, pretty close to brand up there.

Um if there's not enough housing to meet demand for all the people that want to live near the campuses, what you have is either pressure for those giant apartment complexes that I have most people don't seem to like, or you have um a lot of single family homes being taken off the ownership market and converted to the rental market.

So there's fewer homes for people to purchase as well, and you've got a bunch of people living together in a home.

Um, that's what happens when there's not enough housing availability.

Um I did the first time I ever lived by myself, I lived in a garage apartment.

So basically a backyard cottage on top of a back on top of a garage.

That was the only thing that I could afford on my uh on my salary at the time.

And and it I liked being in the secure space of a backyard.

The owners lived in the front.

I felt secure living by myself for the first time, and I could afford it.

Um we need more people to have those options.

Um ADUs, backyard cottages is what I'm gonna call them now.

Um, they provide a lower cost and lower impact alternative to the large apartment complexes.

Again, we have people who can't afford to buy, so they're going to rent.

Do we want them in more and more large apartment complexes?

Do we want them taking owner-occupied homes off the market for rentals?

Or would we rather homeowners be able to provide this housing in a in a lower impact way that doesn't disrupt the neighborhoods as much to meet some of this demand?

And what I really like about backyard cottages is it also adds the flexibility of Charles didn't mention it.

I don't know if he's still in here.

You live in Sanger with your parents, correct?

So when you say it's a lower cost option, you are living with your parents because you cannot afford to move out right now.

And that's the case for a lot of people, including people older than you, who can't afford to live on their own.

And so giving the option for homeowners in Denton to maybe they have an aging parent that they want to move in, but they want to have a little privacy.

They can build a backyard cottage for their aging parent.

Um, maybe they have adult children who quite can't quite afford to live on their own just yet.

They build a backyard cottage for their adult child.

Or it also provides this flexibility that let's say you have an aging homeowner, they want to downsize, they want to age in place, stay in the neighborhood, even stay on their property, they build a backyard cottage for themselves, move into that and rent out the front.

Now they've got uh additional income to help with their probably fixed income so that they can stay in the neighborhood that they've been in for so long.

Um so anything we can do to lower the barriers to lower the cost to be able to build ADUs, we should be doing so that we're not creating pressure to build more large apartment complexes, so that we're not uh creating pressure for more rental homes, um, that hopefully more houses would be on the the purchasing market.

Um so this provides flexibility, uh, it provides a lower cost option.

Um I think I may have looked at the the girl the backyard cottage on Bell and Woodland.

Is it blue?

No.

No, okay, I didn't.

I saw one near there.

Um yes, I'm almost done, sir.

Um and you're not gonna hear a whole lot more from me tonight.

I've been reserving my my time for tonight for right now.

Um in summary, I if if it sounds like based on what uh Mr.

McGee's comments were, is that there's not really a lot of lots that could fit two ADUs anyway.

Um certainly a hundred percent of the lots that can fit an ADU are not going to put one there, or maybe not even put a single one on there, because you know, people may not want to build an ADU.

They may not want to build two backyard cottages, they may want zero.

Um, so there's no guarantee that every lot that can handle a backyard cottage is going to get one, and the homeowner may not be able to afford to build one or two.

Um so um I I would I would hope that we would allow up to two backyard cottages within the two mile radius, and then maybe an SUP outside of that for the second one, or maybe no radius.

I'm friendly to that idea as well.

Um I just hope that that we will support these options as a way to provide more housing for folks in a in a lower impact way than the two options we're providing right now, which is single-family homes and large apartment complexes.

Thank you for your patience.

Representative from District Six.

Thank you.

I'll try to go fast.

Uh, council person Jester, hi.

Uh, first of all, a quick thank you to not only the staff for all of the work that they have put in in reviewing what other cities are doing and coming up what they think are the best solutions for the problems we have here.

I also want to thank all of the separate boards and commissions that have spent their time discussing this and giving input.

And then I also, of course, want to thank all the people that participated in the survey as well as those people here tonight and my fellow council members that have given me a lot to think about about pros and cons uh with the proposal here tonight.

Um what I would say is we have a problem I think that everyone recognizes in the entire United States, which is affordable housing, and this is a partial solution to that problem.

Of course, it's not the entire solution to the problem, but it is a step forward.

Um what I would say is that I appreciate the suggestion that the mayor has made uh with the SUP at this time because I think this is one step forward, and this is something that we have not done before.

This will be something very new.

Uh in the past, there was a push for affordable housing, and so there was a big push for apartments.

And now our residents are saying it's too much.

Our schools are saying uh we have too much of an overload at once without uh a commensurate uh tax uh property tax increase uh payments.

So what I'm also looking at are any unintended consequences for trying to do the right thing in solving this problem.

Uh so with that, what I would say is in my opinion, if you're going to build something like an ADU, uh I I don't think that the $600 in a couple of months is going, in my opinion, to be cost prohibitive.

Therefore, what I would suggest tonight is I'm I'm in favor of what we have put forward here today.

However, I would vote in favor of uh a motion to include the SUPs at this time.

That doesn't mean that this is going to be forever.

We can revisit this next month.

We can revisit this in a year.

But what I would like to do is have this as a testing period as we introduce this type of housing to our community to make sure that we are being respectful of our neighbors of the existing uh parameters that are there, and that that way we've also got more of a handle on what is happening and what kind of steps we need to take.

Maybe we need to include you know three of the four different design factors uh so that the neighbors can feel like uh it's conducive to what they purchased and put their life savings in.

So it's it's kind of a it's a yes, but it's also a yes with a caveat that I think, at least at this point in time, it's something we can look at again at any point in time and take away that requirement for the SUP.

However, I think for this next step, which I think is a very big step and is going to be a big change, and I think a change for good, uh, my recommendation would be to accept uh a motion like the mayor has recommended for an SUP at this time, and then we can see what kind of demand it is, if it's something that doesn't seem to be a problem in neighborhoods, or if it's something that we see needs an adjustment.

I think it's something that we need to look at as we move forward.

But again, I just um so very much appreciate all of the input and everyone that spent their time here with us tonight, as well as all of those that have sent messages, emails, there are other types of communications we've all received as well, I'm sure.

Uh and anyways, I just wanted to say thank you, and those are my thoughts uh moving forward tonight.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

And I'm gonna just say what I know so I don't have to ask in question format so I can get through it faster.

I I do I do want to say, picking up where Councilmember Jester left off.

It I find it odd that to require SUP somehow has been couched as saying no.

And I find it odd that everyone that talked about affordability did not offer a prohibition on pricing or requirement and pricing, especially after just a few months ago, we with this body passed a Denton housing tax credit issue where we measure against the AMI.

This body said, hey, if you're building a new apartment and you want tax credits, we have established and understand the pricing that is Denton affordable.

So everyone that came up here is willing to have ADUs, and everyone that spoke in support is all of a sudden willing for ADUs with no strings attached to require funding.

No affordability component.

You can charge whatever the heck you want.

And I find it interesting that every example is positive.

I got an ail-ing grandma, I got a this, I got that.

There's no negative uh, which is the reality that it doesn't cut one way.

We have a habitat house that I get more complaints about because administratively they got required, they got accepted a two-car driveway, and they have six cars and one in the backyard.

So not all these things work out well, but no one mentions that.

I mean, we all get the emails, we all understand that, but somehow that gets omitted, and again, it's not no, it's we should we require meta fact on our website.

It says if you want to be click this button if you want to be notified of developments coming in your area.

So we're mindful of those things.

No one mentions except for, and it's it's a it's it's a strange day when when we agree, but it's it's one of those things where we have uh new multifamily units, new multifamily construction, 2,488 currently per our website.

New multifamily units in development, 2,674.

So imagine everything you see, and then add um basically 5,000 to that.

And so the and it's undeniable that the units we're hearing city manager and I and others are hearing regularly from apartments that are struggling 20 percent, 40 percent, and and so there is and and they're dropping the prices.

My neighbors were able to go rent a house because house rental prices are down.

You can't say that we have a shortage, and at the same time we're seeing the market respond to too much too much stock.

And so um I I'd be welcome if someone wants to tell me how we're gonna guarantee these ADUs are affordable.

I didn't hear any any comments on that.

None.

No restrictions, no requirements.

So, yes, you can build it cheaper, okay.

You passing that on, are you you written it at Airbnb and making a fortune?

We we don't know.

There's no restrictions.

We we don't we don't care.

And so that that to me is if you're saying it's a there's an affordability component, put that in writing.

It and and then I can't imagine a council that would not want to then say, hey neighbor, you at least have a right to be notified.

We we make and do no neighborhood meetings, we do all these things for notifications for transparency.

So I'm really shocked that that that's not uh again, it's not no, it's just saying you should tell your neighbor what you're doing, and it's not a shed.

I have I have uh a nine-year-old daughter that runs in the backyard.

We're not worried about sheds, we're worried about people walking the streets.

You talked about a safety component, other people talked about a safety component.

Well, if you have people don't live in sheds, people live in houses, and we have a number of instances of people recording and drones and all the concerns.

You know, we do have safety concerns as a city grows.

It's no longer a smaller city where we don't have to worry about those things.

So um and and then I I do I'm not gonna make staff come up here, but you you gotta just trust me on this.

If you have an existing home and you're going to add a second story structure to that, the cost would stun an elephant.

That that's not even a real thing.

Like, I get it that staff answered the question and they were super nice.

That's not a real thing.

No, no one does that and and to be affordable.

You have the the that has to be able to support, it has you got to rewire it, you gotta.

I mean, that that you gotta strengthen the floor is the the roof, the ceiling is not weight-bearing, so then you got to do all those things.

That that's not a real example.

It sounds great, but it's not a real example.

And so I I'm just talking about simple, yes, but in an established neighborhood, you lit need to let your neighbor know what you're doing so that they can be heard.

That's a simple thing.

So my motion is to approve all everything that that um PNZ is put forward with the addition of expanding the radius to miles, and requiring an SUP uh across the board for ADUs.

So that that's my and and that in that re in that radius.

So every as it pertains to this, what's put before us, that radius, it says right now you need an SUP for two ADUs.

I'm saying you need a SUP for one or two ADUs, and that is to give your neighbors in these established neighborhoods an opportunity to be heard.

That's my motion.

Is there a second?

I'll second that motion.

Yeah, you good you good with that?

I just wasn't sure if you're okay with it.

Okay, got it.

So we have a motion and a second uh as as indicated on the on the screen here.

Um discussion.

Representative from district five.

I just want to be clear, Mayor.

You said within the radius, you want an SUP for the first and the second ADU.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Yeah, um that for so I will be uh I will be voting against that motion.

What that proposal goes above and beyond what PNZ sent us.

If we're talking about barriers to entry and making things more unaffordable, then we should vote for this motion.

P and Z asked for an SUP for the second ADU within the radius.

You're asking for one for both of them.

We just heard about the time commitment and the cost associated with SUPs.

That makes it more unaffordable, that does not even begin to scratch the surface of fixing the problem.

So I'll be I'll be voting against this.

And I just want to remind us this is about making things more affordable.

So Mayor, listening to what you said, I appreciate what you said.

You're actually right.

No one offered any type of solution.

So let me offer the solution.

Um we are the council, we are the board of the city, we set the rules.

So my hope is that this motion will fail, and right after this, I will make an amended motion to what P and Z originally sent us with the caveat that if an ADU is rent controlled or is rent controlled to some degree, then they can bypass the cost of the SUP.

That's a way where we can meet the needs, but also not shift as much responsibility on the person who was trying to pay to get an SUP on so I guess I guess we'll we'll go with the motion and then we can talk about the legalities of that.

Yes, sounds good.

Mayor Pro Tim.

So th thank you for uh council member McGee for summarizing what happens inside the radius.

What I don't understand is what happens outside the radius in the current motion.

So SUP for all ADUs in the radius, first and second, what happens outside the radius.

It's it's that's not before us.

So come on up.

So right now, the first SUPs, a one SUP is or sorry, one backyard cottage does not require an SUP right now.

I'm sorry.

Um so I I did just want to clarify real quick.

As it is today in the city, one ADU is allowed by right in all of our residential zoning districts.

Um in the initial backup or in the initial amendments brought to P and Z, we retained that one ADU is permitted per lot.

The demant went on to specify that you may have an additional one anywhere in the city with that SUP, unless you're within this mile and a half buffer, in which case the SUP would be waived.

But as it is today in the city, any residentially zoned property by right can have one ADU.

I don't know if that clarifies anything.

So what's what's been what's been proposed to us today is this amendment in the radius area.

Yes, yes.

So what's being proposed as part of this PNZ would would be the consideration of the second with that SUP, but giving a pass for the SUP for what you see in blue.

Right.

So that's why I read it to say that you didn't break come before us and say you didn't go to PNZ and say, or you maybe did, but before us, the change is in the radius.

Yes.

Um sorry, maybe I could have been more clear on the initial presentation.

The the the change that PNZ recommended was related to this radius and the second ADU.

Right.

Without PNZ's change, we we still allow one ADU per lot.

Yes, and so that's why I focused in on the rate.

I'm happy I'm happy.

I'm happy to expand it out beyond what they recommended.

Uh but for me, I was just responding to the changes that were brought before us.

Yeah, that that's what I was responding to.

Um I have I have my concerns are the same, and I'm trying to be as considerate as possible, right?

And so those that understood that they can have an ADU now, I don't I'm not interested in changing that today.

Um yes, I'm gonna I'm gonna focus in and and and my peers can correct me, but I'm gonna I'm gonna focus in and say one or two in the two-mile radius because it's expanding the blue that you have here, so it expands that one or two in that expanded area would require SUP.

No, I the only um concern I have is I I think um we don't currently require an SUP for just one, and so this would make that more restrictive and could possibly create some nonconformities, in which case we are not posted, and we'd have to go back and do a 929.

Um and so let me let other people spoke speech, and and I take your point.

Thank you very much.

I that that's what I missed, the non-conformity.

Mayor Platinum.

Are you you good?

No, not yet.

Um so your motion right now is inside of the circle.

An SUP would be required for the first, which is more restrictive than current, and the second, which would be a new thing.

And I still don't know what happens outside of the circle.

Yeah, I'm gonna I'm gonna talk to Mac while you're uh again.

It's the concept is this.

You should tell your neighbors if you're gonna build a house that looks in their backyard.

So that's whatever that is, that that's in summary as you prepare your comments.

Are you are you not gonna you don't I just want to I don't want to I don't want to I want to keep it flowing and and I will circle back sure you you can I'm still not clear on on the motion but I can you can circle back.

Let me come back to you representative from district two yeah I um I won't be supporting uh any of that and I don't mean to be rude, but it's we're adding restrictions.

Um we're taking away what is already homeowners' rights to do in the city of Denton with the with the mayor's motion, and then we create a second class of citizens, which is something that Councillor McGee was protesting against, having these differential rules such that everyone outside the circle can freely do whatever they want, which is the current status quo, and we're at we're doubling down on restrictions in the the main body of this the city.

So I I don't know if there's confusion or or this is what the mayor intends, but I I won't be supporting adding uh restrictions um in that way um anywhere in the city of Denton for for the first ADU representative from district six.

Uh thank you.

I'm just wanting to make sure we're all on the same page as far as what we're voting on.

So it's my understanding that a first ADU in the entire city is allowable by right without any kind of SUP.

What we're recommending is for a second ADU or what the staff recommendation or the recommendations that's before us today is a second ADU has to go through an SUP except for what is in the radius here, which is no SUP.

Therefore, as far as what would happen outside of the radius, you're still allowed from what I understand, still allowed one ADU by right, but the second, you would need to get an SUP for that second.

That's not the motion.

I know, but I okay, I think we're not all on the same page, and so I just was trying to clarify.

So I am also clear on one what we're voting on, and two, what the motion is.

So um I I hope that was helpful.

I just wanted to get that out there.

Thank you.

And and can we can you clarify?

Is the parking parking standard downtown different than everywhere else in the city?

Um in MD when it's non non-residential, there's not a minimum parking requirement.

Okay, so so we're used to that.

We know how to handle that different zones get different things.

I was just making it.

We do, yes.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh so my question is though, come back.

Uh uh, so my question is uh on the notice for this.

Did we mail any notices for this meeting?

Um no, this was done through the website as well as um the newspaper.

This is a comprehensive zoning change that advances housing options within the city.

So we took advantage of some of those provisions within state law that allows that number.

Right.

So people affected in this area, not like normally we'll send out notice.

Oh, by the way, here's a hearing, put out signs.

Did we do what all we and I heard you talk about it before, but no physical signs went out saying in this area we're talking about ADUs.

Uh we didn't we didn't mail to people like we would do if we were developing something a developer would do.

Let's send out and say, hey, two hundred foot notice, oh, by the way, things are changing.

We didn't do any of those things.

Correct.

And that that's typical of a text amendment um versus a zoning change where we're changing the entire zoning district.

We're amending the the text and the use specific standards.

Right.

Yeah, and so the I just I just think that's an important distinction as we're talking about who we're representing people here, the voices, consideration, feedback, all those things.

I I I wouldn't, I would hazard the guess one law wouldn't let us two, we wouldn't we wouldn't be okay with just a similar notice for something being developed.

We would we would require them to mail and do all those things.

So that's it.

Uh I take your point, uh Councilmember Jester, Mayor for Temp.

And I and and talking illegal, I'm I'm I'm clear now.

My my concern is one, I thought we you know, I was hoping we'd notice people different, but I understand we didn't.

So but so one ADU by right cross the city.

My the options are to mail everyone in the city and say, oh, by the way, this is gonna change.

I think that's too much.

Uh so I I'm fine with that staying in place one ADU because that's the current rules currently.

Uh so the the what I would propose to modify my motion, and then uh we'll see if the the second or will second is that in that in the radius, expanding it or leaving it as is 1.5 miles.

Um a second ADU requires a SUP.

And so that keeps it current footprint and and and that, and um I I just don't I don't subscribe to it being um I don't I think that's a fair balance.

You get another unit that's not this, and I don't believe you can you can put rent control to it.

So and and everyone talks about if someone puts forward a lee a legal option to control the cost, other than just saying, hey, they're gonna control the cost because then I'll listen to that.

But otherwise, that that's my so the motion motion is modified to this 1.5 square miles in the blue area, second ADU with the SUP across the city.

You can already do uh on one ADU per property, so holding the line there.

That's that's my motion.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second to that modified motor uh motion.

Now, uh Mayor Pro Tim.

Let me repeat, just make sure I got it.

I think I'm on board now.

Um with so no second ADU, even with an SUP outside of the radius.

Is that the motion?

No, just took the margin of an SUP or any second ADU in the city.

Oh, so you got rid of the circle.

Yeah.

No, I didn't get rid of the circle.

Uh oh.

Nope, we're not there yet.

Can I propose something and see if it helps?

Yes.

What if we got rid of the circle?

Ignore the circle.

Any second ADU would require an SUP across the city.

That's the same.

Just ignore the circle.

Sure.

Love it.

That works?

Yeah, love it.

Okay.

Good.

That simplifies it a little bit.

Okay.

Yeah.

I'm good then.

Thank you.

Moving.

You I mean, seconder, you okay.

So for those tracking along, it would be first ADU is that that regulation would stay because and and my thought process is real simple.

I don't want to send mail to everybody in the city and have another hearing and have this conversation.

Uh that it's already an understanding that you have those those rights, okay.

The second ADU across the city, regardless of location, you would need an SUP.

So that's that's what's before us.

Uh the seconder is agreed.

So uh representative from District Five, you had a floor.

Thank you very much.

Um I will still be I will still be rising in opposition of this.

I will not be voting for this motion because again, it does not do what this was designed to do in the first place, and that is to make home ownership more attainable and affordable.

So, Mr.

City Attorney, um, going with what I said, is there a way to um propose some type of rent control structure in lieu of having to do an SUP legally in lieu of the SUP is a already a convoluted question, but I mean I uh I guess I would say this.

There's there's two kind of conflicting issues going on in the state.

So Texas doesn't allow for inclusionary zoning, which is imposing rent controls, basically is a condition of approval.

On the other side, you have the concept of a density bonus.

You are now allowing potentially someone to have more rights than they have today, and the state does allow for that kind of incentivized concept and time.

But I where I don't have real good answer right now is we'd really have to dig into it.

It would not be done tonight.

We would have to dig into uh where this falls in between those two and and how that would work.

You're killing Matt.

Okay.

So you said that the state state rules do allow for um some type of incentive for people to do in field development, such as building a second ADU, correct?

Potentially, yeah.

Yeah, that's right.

Um the density bonus, basically.

Um colleagues, I will still be I'll still be voting against this because uh because of the unclear here.

We're still requiring an SUP.

The SUP is the issue is the issue.

If we want to protect our neighbors and let them know what's going on on our property, we can simply accomplish that through rules.

We can simply say, hey, in order to do this, you don't have to have an SUP, but there's a notice requirement.

We don't have to require people to come and go through a two to six month process and pay a bunch of money that they might not have, therefore making things more unaffordable, not only just for the person building the SUP, also that cost is going to be passed on to the renter or the person who buys the SUP.

The original intention of this is to make things more affordable.

This does not make things more affordable.

Again, I am also concerned about impending state legislation.

If we're looking at the direction that things are going, the state doesn't like cities, and more importantly, the state doesn't like cities putting up arbitrary rules that make it more unaffordable.

There's a great potential that they're going to come and wipe this rule away anyway.

I would encourage us to vote down this motion and remember why we're doing this.

We're trying to make things more affordable.

So making every second every single second ADU in the city to require them as SUP makes things more unaffordable.

Thank you.

Representative district four, thank you.

And I hate beating this horse anymore.

Do I understand that your motion has no effect on the on the first auxiliary dwelling unit by right?

Correct.

That is the current that is currently available to the people today.

Your motion has no effect on that.

That alone.

Correct.

Thank you.

Yes.

Representative from District 2.

Thank you.

Um I know it took us a while, uh, and and there was some back and forth as people understood things, but um, I will be supporting the mayor's resolution.

Uh I so I'm I'm I'm supportive of where we finally got to.

Okay.

Anyone else?

It is uh before we uh so the motion before us is maintaining the status of the ability for anyone in the city that didn't have a single ADU by right, and then the second ADU require a SUP process.

That's what's before us.

Um, and then it captures any other uh provisions that the uh PNZ included in there.

I don't I don't want to go through all those particulars.

Representative from district two.

Is that yes, sir?

Uh thank you, and I'm just adding that also the other the other items that were also to be, you know, we we beat this one to death, but yes, we didn't have any disagreement on the others.

That's right.

Okay that is correct.

I'm just making sure that's in your motion.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh and yeah, thank you for the discussion.

Thank you for the help, Mayor Pro Tem and uh Councilman Jester and everyone.

Uh Councilman Bird, good good conversation.

Um Judge Holland, I'm sure you did something.

Thank you.

Let's vote.

Brutal.

And that passes six to one.

Uh that takes us to our second public hearing.

Uh item B, CA2503A, hold a public hearing, consider adoption of ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas regarding a comprehensive plan amendment from the uh agriculture future land use designation to regional mixed use future land use designation on approximately 16.524 acres, generally located north of West University, and approximately 280 2,800 feet west of Golden Hoof Hoof Drive.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the council.

Uh this item is accompanying um the following mobility plan item.

Um we have opened these up at the same time in the past.

Would you like to do that this evening as well?

Yeah, it's at that C.

The mobility plan, yes.

Yeah, okay.

Um this is and also I'll call item C MPA 25004.

Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas regarding a comprehensive plan amendment to modify the Theraper map of the 2020 22 2022 mobility plan, including but not limited to the removing the future extension of C Wolf Road between US 380 and Jackson Road.

All right.

Um senior planner.

Um, this item is for Hickory Grove, uh, multifamily, um, and it is a comprehensive plan amendment and a mobility plan amendment.

Um, me and Sahar, uh, our senior transportation planner will be uh teaming up on this presentation.

Um so again, this the uh total request is for there are two separate requests, but it's for a comprehensive plan amendment and a mobility plan thoroughfare map amendment.

There was a rezoning uh that was noticed for this agenda, but did not make this agenda, so that will become be coming before you on February 3rd.

Um the property itself is uh about 16 and a half acres.

The existing future land use designation is agriculture, um, and the proposed future land use designation um for this property is mixed use regional.

Um the purpose for this request or both of these requests is to entitle the property for anticipated development and association and related to the Legends Ranch Hickory Creek MU, mostly in the ETJ of the city.

So brief history, and you all are more familiar with this um history for this property.

Um currently it is undeveloped in the Denton Plan 2030, it was designated for rural areas and then updated um with the Denton 2040 plan to include agriculture uh and low residential future land use designations.

Um the Hickory Grove Multi Municipal Utility District came before this body um uh for consent for creation in 2022.

Uh they uh subsequently have been developing that municipal utility district just north uh and west of this subject property, and they've come forward with a few innex um um uh applications for the the necessary processes to develop that property according to the development agreements.

Um this particular track uh was called out in that mud agreement um and was subsequently annexed uh late last year, and the anticipated development for this property per the development agreement um and per the applicant was the uh is multifamily residences.

So again, I will just be covering the comprehensive plan amendment and uh um Sahar will join us for the mobility plan amendment piece.

Um here side by side is the existing future land use designation showing agriculture and a little bit of low residential at the north uh east corner there, and they are proposing to uh change the future land use designation to regional mixed use.

Um some things to consider is uh the regional mixed use flume designation as written in the comprehensive plan is intended to apply to areas that serve as regional destinations within the city of Denton.

Um this does include a mix of residential, commercial, office, entertainment, um, and other uses except for industrial at the highest level of scale and density within the city and along major corridors, which um the subject property is here along US 380.

Um, and I think that uh that that mixed use designation um or one of that is one of our major uh regional corridors and access points into the city of Denton from the east and west.

So we put this request up against um the criteria for approval and ultimately found that the regional planning and development trends in this area um does reflect the need to plan just uh for uh this property's development beyond agriculture.

Um additionally, the request is compatible with existing and proposed development occurring within the city uh and in the city's ETJ, and I have some slides that uh follow to uh sort of exhibit that.

Um and then finally the regional mixed use um future land use designation is intended to encourage development at the highest density along regional corridors such as uh West University Drive US 380.

So the area here, what I'm trying to show within this slide is the regional development that we've seen um within this area throughout the city and within the city's ETJ.

So this yellow area here are the um image to the left is an aerial from 2021.

The image to the right is an area from 2025.

Um we see a lot of MUDs being developed, mostly as single family residential properties within the ETJ one and two.

Um we also see a lot of um industrial and uh uh commercial commerce or industrial commerce and business commerce um being developed within this area south of university.

Um and then, of course, I'm sure we're all familiar with the Razor Ranch area on the north side of I-35, bringing in rooftops and residences, um, and uh ultimately contributing to the growth in this area.

So we are seeing changes from um uh mostly largely undeveloped land within the the corridor in the area west of I-35.

Um, and this is uh in keeping with that trend.

With that, the planning and zoning commission did recommend approval for two of the comprehensive plan amendment, and staff is also recommending approval of that um amendment as it is presented.

That concludes um the uh comprehensive plan analysis.

At this time, I would happily take questions, or we can go ahead and move on to the mobility plan and take questions after.

I'll leave it up to you, Mayor.

Uh yeah, let's see.

Well, first I'll open a public hearing.

And are there questions representative district two?

Yeah, uh, same thing I had before.

Are we covering all three at once, or you want to take them one at a time?

Uh you do you have you have another presentation, right?

Yes, there's mobility plan.

Yes, so if they're one at a time.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

So then um for this one, do you have the map of the floodway?

Um there is a map on the mobility.

I think we should get this one.

First or second slide where you had the property.

This is the overlapping.

Yeah, there you go.

So that I it's a little hard to see on this scale, but we you know you can see it better.

Um what what the um the light blue uh outside the floodplain itself.

Uh, what's what's the designation on that one?

That is shown on this map as the um annual chance no buffer, but it's largely the permit buffer that's the 200 foot permanent buffer that's required.

Right.

That's the as I recall that's the two percent chance of of flooding uh outside the the hundred year floodplain, which is the the one percent chance or half percent chance.

Right.

The red is the 0.2% annual chance, if that's what you're looking for.

So the red is the it's further down south in that corner there.

So um I I guess uh help me with my concern.

I I don't have a problem developing this corridor in the way that the staff is recommended.

What I have is that one element of that where um a low intensity use is is much more appropriate for potential flood hazard region, you know.

So west of there where it's outside the floodways, great.

Develop that as a as a 380 corridor.

North of it, yeah.

I think it's already coming in ETJ housing, and we don't control that or or we have partial control over plating or design of standards.

But but like that one, that one right there, that's the subject matter is right here in the floodway, and and help me understand how a higher intensity use is appropriate for floodway.

That's what I want to understand.

So, yeah, it it they'll still have to um of course meet all of our coverage requirements for overall property coverage.

Um, if this I believe a large of this is not actually in the flood uh plain, um, or the floodway, rather, it's in the floodplain.

So it that 200 or the the minimum uh finish for elevation buffer kicks in.

So it's it's properties have to be built up according to the minimum flood uh flood finished flood elevation.

Um and then the uh property area that regardless of whether it develops with low intensity or moderate intensity uses, um, would have to adhere to all of our drainage um and uh engineering standards in that aspect as well.

So if they are if they are and which a more intensive development would likely be uh um uh having or having a more non-permeable surface um than a less intense development, in this case they would have to engineer it accordingly.

So whether that comes with a um letter of map or uh uh letter of map revision or um uh additional drainage studies to where they have to put a detention pond or something to that effect on site, that will be accounted for within the engineering and drainage review, regardless of how the property what the land use is.

All right, I yeah, I I still have a lot of concerns.

I I think the developer, and I I'm I'm not gonna take the mayor's it's his right to run the meeting, but Mr.

Mayor, if you would let the uh developer speak to that when it's appropriate, thank you.

Sure.

Yeah, um representative district six.

Thank you.

Just a quick question.

So um with the map uh with the flood plain, uh it's my understanding that the entire tract is something like 24 acres.

Is that sound right?

I'm just trying to do this from memory.

And then they're actually only developing about 16 of that acres, and I assume that they are maximizing the area outside of that plane.

Would that be a safe assumption?

So the entire tract is it's it's odd right now because the where the property or it was this property was just annexed.

The property in question just for this evening is 16.

uh five acres.

Um the remainder of that 24 acres is this area that I'm kind of showing right here.

And that is within the city's ETJ.

It's it's a part of the mud, and they are proposed for development, but that's in the CD's ETJ, so different things apply.

Thank you for that clarification.

I appreciate it.

Okay.

Is the applicant here?

Yeah.

Yes.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

I'll take the make you official.

There you go.

Thank you.

Appreciate you.

Thomas Fletcher with Kimley Horn, 6160 Warren Parkway, Frisco, Texas.

Um, Councilmember Beck to um elaborate and answer your question about the floodplain.

The the overall development is part of the Legends Ranch uh development agreement and the mud.

Originally, this portion of the property was a part of the mud.

The original concept plan is part of the development agreement, had approximately 42 acres that are in this southwest corner.

A portion of that was going to remain developed within the mud, and then we came back and amended the development agreement, which increased the the multifamily units, and under that agreement, we agreed to annex zone and develop within the within the development as part of the development process when we went through and did the preliminary plat, we had to do as part of that um the downstream assessment, and because there's reclamation within the project, we had to do the conditional letter of map revision.

So when we did the the drainage studies, the clomer, we looked at it with how we intended to develop.

So we looked at and we um we use the appropriate runoff factors for multifamily for this tract.

Um we did all of the analysis as part of the development.

There are valley storage ponds.

So when you reclaim land and you fill in floodplain, you have to offset that loss of floodplain storage with with valley storage.

So we build ponds within the floodplain.

So the development has always been considered for the multifamily use within the drainage uh assessments and the clomer.

The clomer has been approved by the city, it has been approved by FEMA.

So all of the necessary approvals for this development regarding the floodplain and what is allowed to discharge into the floodplain has been approved.

The individual construction drawings for the site itself will have to go back through will go through the city's process, and they will confirm that everything that were proposed as far as runoff conditions meet all the conditions of the clomer.

You're welcome.

All right, thank you very much.

Um that you have a presentation.

Do we need to vote on that first?

Or you have any other questions on the comp plan for now?

Any questions?

No.

Thank you.

Um good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Uh components of um Hickory Group multifamily development.

The Hickory Grove multifamily development has requested an amendment uh to the city of uh Denton's uh mobility plan through fair map.

So they requested to remove the uh future extensions of uh seawolf uh between US 380 and Jackson Road, as you can see in the map to the right, which is highlighted with red dash.

The reasons behind this request is first, as you can see on the map to the right, the the proposed road uh situated uh within the floodplain zone of North Hickory Creek uh Creek, and uh if the road constructed, it would resulted in negative environmental impact.

Also, as you can see on the map to the left, uh these roads located between FM 156 as a primary road to the west and Thomas J.

Agin as a secondary arterial to the east, and also the adjacent uh development, the Huey Grove MUT established uh north-south connection to the uh you can see the dashed uh orange mod, the golden hoof drive.

Considering all of these alternatives, there will be enough road capacity to navigate the traffic in the absence of the target road.

So these proposal meets the criteria for approval, especially regarding to the comprehensive plan, mobility plan, and future land use map.

The planning and zoning commission recommended approval of this request will tell 6-0 staff also recommends approval of this request as it complies with the criteria in section 245e and 271d of uh DDC for approval of comprehensive plan amendments.

Thank you.

Any questions on mobility plan amendments?

Thank you.

Any questions regarding the mobility plan?

Seeing none.

Okay, thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

So back to item B.

Representative from District 6.

I move our approval as presented.

Mayor Pro Tim.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Any other discussion for item B.

Seeing none, let's vote on the screen.

And that passes five to two.

And then that takes us to item C.

I'll take a motion, Mayor Pro Tim.

Um move for approval as presented.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Representative from district two.

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second.

Any other discussion?

Seeing none, let's vote on the screen.

That passes 6-1.

Takes us to uh like I said, item D will come back to us at a later date.

Takes us to light item E, which is Z25015A, hold a public hearing, consider adoption of ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas regarding a change in zoning district and use classification from rural residential district to resurrect residential one district on approximately 224.9 acres of land.

Good evening again, Mayor, uh, members of the council, Mia Hines, senior planner.

Um, this item is stated in the caption is a request to rezone just under 225 acres from R R to R1.

Um, it's located at the southwest corner of WAIR FM2153s near the northernmost edge uh of the city.

Um, and the per purpose is to allow for the development of one acre single family residential lots.

Um, the current zoning as shown on the proper in the image to the left is uh that rural residential zoning uh and the requested zoning is R1.

As you can see, some of the surrounding zonings includes the uh Craver Ranch PD to the uh west and south of the subject property, um, and then some rural residential zoning um to the uh east.

Um we did uh put this request up against the criteria for approval and ultimately found that the proposed zoning is consistent with the R1 purpose statement.

Um the proposal is also generally consistent with the goals and policies of the future land use map of the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan.

Um the proposal or the proposed zoning and development uh would be compatible with surrounding contacts within the city and in the within the city's ETJ.

Um and then finally, the zoning is not expected to generate significant adverse um impacts to the city.

Um, with regard to the uh existing uh agricultural comprehensive plan, um, this future land use designation and the R1 uh requested zoning district is helping us achieve some of the goals uh with regard to that future land use designation as well as um growing resource flee um and then designing a fiscally advantageous land use pattern, um especially given the consideration of the um municipal management district and uh PD that is adjacent to this property.

Um the R1 or the uh consist R1 uh zoning purpose statement is intended to preserve existing single-family neighborhoods, um, ensure that any new development promotes conservative uh conservation of St.

Nick rural open spaces and to ensure some compatibility with existing land uses and patterns, um, which we significant we find um to be the case within uh this property.

Um I wanted to show this exhibit over here to the right to uh give you a little bit of the of an idea of what type of development is out there currently.

Um, of course, the uh we have the uh Kraver Ranch PD that was approved to the southwest, um, which proposes a uh density at about uh 4.5 dwelling units per acre just to the southwest there and within the city limits.

Um and then when we look into the city's ETJ, there is a uh Lake Ray Roberts zoning district that requires a minimum one acre lots uh just uh west of the subject property and then minimum four acre lots to the north of the subject property.

So with the subject property being uh proposed to rezone to R1, uh, which does allow for a minimum 32,000 square foot acre lot.

That would be an appropriate transition between uh what we have within this sort of uh moderate to high density uh Kraver Ranch PD, um, and then to what we see with the one to four acre properties within the city and around the ETJ.

Um we did put uh put out a notification as required by state law um for this zoning case, and as of this uh uh report have not received any responses uh in opposition or in favor of the request.

With that, staff is recommending approval of the zoning change requested uh to residential one and the planning and zoning commission also recommended approval of this item.

Okay, that concludes my presentation.

I'll answer any questions you have at this time.

Thank you.

I'll open a public hearing.

This is a public hearing.

If you care to speak, you can um just fill out a card.

Seeing no submit and movements, I'll close the public hearing and recog recognize member from district six.

Thank you, Council President Jester.

I think this is a very nice uh companion and compliment to what has already been approved as far as the housing in that area.

Um and so as well as what is surrounding, so I'm happy to uh move approval uh as presented.

Thank you.

Representative from district one.

I'll second representative from district four.