Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[Development Services Committee on February 21, 2022.]

[00:00:02]

HELLO, AND WELCOME TO THE FEBRUARY 21ST, 2022 MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE.

UM, CHAIRMAN DYLAN HEDRICK WITH ME, I HAVE CANCELED LADY MORRIS AND COUNCILMAN BASS, AS WELL AS SOME OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF HERE.

THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 31ST, 2022 MEETING.

MR. CHAIR, I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE AND MOTION TO APPROVE.

AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BATH, ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE.

ALL RIGHT.

THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

THE FIRST ITEM WE HAVE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION IS THE GARLAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATION ON CELL PHONE TOWERS.

AND MR. GARREN, YOU HAVE SOMETHING FOR US? YES, SIR.

DO YOU MEAN COMMITTEE MEMBERS OR AFTERNOON? WHATEVER THIS IS? UM, I BELIEVE THE LAST ACTION ITEM FROM THE LAST MEETING, UH, TO TODAY WAS, UM, YOU ALL WANTED TO SEE THE, UM, KIND OF COMPARISONS WITH OTHER CITIES, BUT IN A MORE ORGANIZED KIND OF ONE PLACE VERSUS, UM, KIND OF THUMBING THROUGH SLIDES.

SO, UM, I'VE DONE THAT.

OF COURSE YOU'VE HEARD FROM MR. HUBINGER, UM, WHO REPRESENTED THE CELL PHONE OR CELL TOWER INDUSTRY.

SO, UM, PUT THIS TOGETHER.

THIS IS JUST STRICTLY BASED ON THE SLIDES.

IT MAY BE A LITTLE OVER SIMPLISTIC IN SOME AREAS.

SO FOR INSTANCE, UM, GARLAND ROAD, NO HERE ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL, BUT THERE ARE OF COURSE SOME EXCEPTIONS ON LOCATING ON EXISTING UTILITY TOWERS AND STEALTH DESIGN AND THE LIKE, BUT, UM, BUT THIS JUST KIND OF GIVES A, UM, AN IDEA OF, UM, SOME COMPARISONS.

SO JUST TO KIND OF, AS A REMINDER, GARLAND, UM, AS FAR AS WHETHER A FREESTANDING CELLULAR TOWERS ARE ALLOWED A NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, UM, UH, YES, BUT ONLY BY SUP IF IT EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT, UH, OF THAT ZONING DISTRICT, UM, NOT ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL WITH, OF COURSE SOME EXCEPTIONS, WE DO HAVE THE MINIMUM 5,000 FEET, IF THERE IS A NEW, UH, CELLULAR TOWER, UM, IT'S GOT THE 5,000 FOOT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FROM OTHER FREESTANDING CELLULAR CELLULAR TOWERS, WHICH INTERESTINGLY, MOST OF THE OTHER CITIES ON THIS LIST HAVE A VERY SIMILAR REQUIREMENT, UM, ONE MILE, WHICH IS VERY CLOSE TO 5,000 FEET.

UM, BUT THEY HAVE A THRESHOLD THAT SAYS FOR THOSE ABOVE 180 FEET IN HEIGHT, WHICH IS QUITE TALL, UM, PLANO HAS A 1500 FOOT, UM, UH, DISTANCE REQUIREMENT BETWEEN MONOPOLES THAT ARE OVER 75 FEET.

SO A LITTLE MORE LENIENT, UH, RICHARDSON DOES NOT HAVE A MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN CELL TOWERS.

IRVING'S GOT THE 5,000 FOOT, UH, JUST PERIOD SIMILAR TO GARLAND AND, UH, GRAND PRAIRIE'S IS ONE MILE FOR THOSE ABOVE 180 FEET IN HEIGHT.

AND GOING BACK TO ZONING DISTRICTS, UM, A NUMBER OF OTHER CITIES HAVE A SIMILAR, UH, SUP REQUIREMENT IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

UM, BUT AGAIN, THEY, THEY HAVE A, UM, KIND OF A THRESHOLD SIMILAR TO THEIR DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS.

SO IN ARLENE TENANTS FOR, UH, TOWERS THAT ARE OVER 75 FEET AND DETONATES 85 FEET AND PLANO IT'S OVER 60 FEET, UM, RICHARDSON, THEY'RE JUST SIMPLY, UM, ALLOWED THEY'RE SUBJECT TO SOME SETBACKS AND WHATNOT, BUT THEY ARE ALLOWED IN NON-RESIDENTIAL, UH, ZONING DISTRICTS.

HOWEVER, THE BIG KIND OF ASTERIX WITH RICHARDSON IS THEY ARE STILL SUBJECT TO THE HEIGHT MAXIMUM OF THAT ZONING DISTRICT.

UM, BUT THEY DO HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE-RELATED ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ARE, THEY ALLOW UP TO, I BELIEVE 125 OR 130 FOOT IN HEIGHT TO KIND OF ACCOUNT FOR TALL OFFICE BUILDINGS.

AND LIKE, SO, UM, PERHAPS THEY KIND OF STEER THEM TOWARDS THOSE AREAS.

UM, AND THEN THEY'RE ALLOWED IN RICHARDSON IN SOME RESIDENTIAL, UM, ZONING DISTRICTS, UM, AGAIN, SUBJECT TO HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND WHATNOT.

UM, IRVING THEY'RE ALLOWED, UM, THEY'RE POTENTIALLY ALLOWED REALLY ANYWHERE IN THE CITY, BUT THEY'RE SUBJECT TO WHAT THEY CALL AN SP ONE PLAN, WHICH IS A VERY SIMILAR TO OUR DETAILED PLANS THAT GO IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL.

SO THEY'RE KIND OF JUST A CASE BY CASE, UM, PUBLIC HEARING REVIEW BASIS AND IN GRAND PRAIRIE, THEY, UM, ALLOW HIM BY SUP UM, IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, IF THEY'RE OVER 85 FEET IN HEIGHT AND THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS SIMILAR TO GARLAND.

SO, UM, WITH THAT, UM, OH, IN IRVING HAS A SIMILAR, UM, MAXIMUM HEIGHT.

WE'RE JUST KIND OF CAPS AS RICHARDSON.

UM, THEY'RE SUBJECT TO THESE RESTRICTIONS, BUT THEY DO, UM, KEEP THEM WITHIN 120 FEET MAXIMUM.

SO, UH, WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN ON, ALL RIGHT.

ANY QUESTIONS MR. GARREN? NO, NO QUESTIONS.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE PRETTY MUCH IN LINE WITH WHAT EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING AND DON'T RECALL IS YOUR MICROPHONE NOT IN YOU? THERE WE GO.

SORRY.

YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE PRETTY MUCH IN LINE WITH WHAT EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING.

AND IF I RECALL, UM, MR. HUBINGER, UM, DIDN'T REALLY POINT OUT ANY AREAS OF CONCERN TOO MUCH FOR US, HE WOULD JUST GIVE HIS OPINION REALLY ON LIKE WHERE THEY LIKE, HOW THEY LIKED THE ITEM.

RIGHT.

SO, OKAY.

I MEAN, I, I DON'T KNOW, HONESTLY, I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED TO TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANYTHING.

DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON WHAT WE'VE SEEN? OH, I JUST WANTED TO SCROLL BACK ACROSS THE COMPARISON OF, UM, ALLOWED

[00:05:01]

IN RESIDENTIAL.

OKAY.

WHERE WE ARE.

UH, NO, SURE.

I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE WHOLE SCREEN HERE.

SO, SO WE SAY NOT AT ALL.

I SEE ARLINGTON YES.

WITHIN SUP DENTON, NO PLANO.

YES.

UNLESS THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS USED FOR, SO AFTER PLANO, UH, YES.

IT'S ALLOWED THAT PART IS ALL OVER THE MAP.

YEAH.

YEAH.

THE OTHER PLACES AREN'T CONSISTENT.

YEAH.

YEAH.

AND, AND ALMOST ALL RIGHT.

IS GRAND PRAIRIE THE LAST OR YES, IT IS.

YES MA'AM.

OKAY.

SO REALLY WE ARE IN SAYING JUST, JUST A FLAT, NO, IN RESIDENTIAL, ARE WE STANDING ALONE OR ALMOST ALONE WITH YEAH, IT DIDN'T AND THEN GRAND PRE-WRITTEN AND GROUPER AGAIN.

UM, THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS OF, YOU KNOW, UTILITY, UM, UM, TAILWATER WATER TOWERS AND THE LIKE A STEALTH DESIGN CAN BE APPROVED, UM, IN RESIDENTIAL.

SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A HARD, NO, FOR ANY TYPE OF CELLULAR TOWER, BUT, UH, BUT AS FAR AS YOUR TRADITIONAL, UH MONOPOLE, THAT'S OBVIOUSLY A MONOPOLE NON-ENTITY SORT OF STEALTH DESIGN.

UM, YEAH, THE ANSWER IS NO.

OKAY.

SO ARE, ARE WE, ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH JUST KEEPING, KEEPING OUR KNOW AND NO IN THAT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS? YEAH.

BUT LIKE, WE'LL SET.

I MEAN, IT'S NOT REALLY A HARD, NO.

IF IT WERE, LIKE YOU SAID, STEALTH OR A WATER TOWER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT'S JUST, YEAH.

I MEAN, I DON'T, I'M, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH IT.

I'M OPEN TO CHANGE IT TO IF WE ALLOW IT IN RESIDENCE CHURCH WITH AN SUP AND THEN AT LEAST IT GOES THROUGH PLAN COMMISSION AND REVIEW PROCESS FORM REVIEW.

IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE.

UM, I KNOW OUR CONSULTANT WASN'T TOO HIGH ON THE STEALTH DESIGN, JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T GET THE NUMBER OF ANTENNAS ON THE TOWER THAT YOU YOU'D LIKE.

SO THE TWO THINGS I TOOK FROM HIS CONVERSATION IS HE REALLY WASN'T A BIG FAN OF STEALTH.

AND HE SAID THE MORE HEIGHT, THE BETTER, BECAUSE THEN THAT THEORETICALLY WE'LL END UP WITH FEWER TOWERS.

RIGHT.

BECAUSE THEY'RE ABLE TO PUT MORE IN TENDERS ON THERE.

SO I'M UP TO ALLOWING IN RESIDENTIAL WITH AN SEP AND THEN POSSIBLY, UM, MODIFYING OUR HEIGHT RESTRICTION.

I KNOW RIGHT NOW WE HAVE SEP RICK SEES THE HEIGHT ZONING DISTRICT I'M FIND UP IN THAT LOOKS LIKE SOME OTHER CITIES ARE 8,000, TWO OR 120 FEET IN HEIGHT, OR SO, SO MAYBE SOME DISCUSSION AROUND IF WE DO ALLOW IT TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND THEN SUP IF IT WANTS TO GO ABOVE THAT.

AND MR. CHAIR, I AM IN AGREEMENT ON THE, THE, IN RESIDENTIAL, JUST MAKING IT WITH SUP, BECAUSE THAT MEANS WE STILL HAVE AN OPTION.

WE'RE NOT SIGNING A BLANK CHECK AND THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THAT MIGHT BE REASONABLE.

UM, SO THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE MY PREFERRED POSITION ON THAT AND THE HEIGHT.

UM, YEAH.

OKAY.

WELL, CAN I GET YOU TO SCROLL ACROSS SLOWLY AGAIN? UM, SO WITH, WITH US, IT'S THE HEIGHT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT THEN IT'S 75 FOOT, 85 FOOT, 60 FOOT.

OKAY.

WHAT'S AFTER PLANO.

UH, YES.

YES.

NON-RESIDENTIAL UM, OKAY.

ONLY WITH AN S P ONE PLAN, 85 FOOT.

THAT'S THE LAST ONE.

SO OUR NEIGHBORS ARE ALL OVER THE MAP ON THAT ONE, BUT OUR ZONING, HAVING IT LIMITED TO THE ZONING DISTRICT, WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, FOR THREE OR FOUR STORY APARTMENT BUILDING, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THOSE TYPE OF AREAS AND THAT'S GOING TO GET YOU 50 FEET MAXIMUM, PERHAPS.

SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT AFFECTS 45 OR 50 FEET, THE MAXIMUM SOME RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

IT'S ACTUALLY 40 AND 40.

YEAH.

I MEAN, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPERS COME TO US RECENTLY AND WANT UP THAT BECAUSE THEY WANT MORE DENSITY AND JUST THE NATURE OF THEIR SITE.

RIGHT.

UM, SO I'M FINE IF WE WANT, I MEAN, HAVING A BIG BUILDING FACADE IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN A SINGLE POLE STICKING UP IN THE AIR AS WELL.

SO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IF WE'RE LOOKING AT CHANGING THE HEIGHT.

WELL, I GUESS WE'LL, CAN YOU SCROLL BACK TO GARLAND? SO WE DO SEE 85 FEET, TWICE 85 SEEMS TO BE THE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S INTERESTING.

WHEN I, WHEN I BROUGHT THIS UP FOR DISCUSSION, THE REASON WAS I DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE KIND OF WANTED TO SEE THAT WE'RE IN LINE WITH WHAT OTHER PLACES ARE DOING SO THAT EVERY TIME A CELL PHONE COMPANY WANTS TO COME AND PUT UP A NEW TOWER, THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY HAVING TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS, BUT THE MORE I LOOK AT THIS, THE MORE I SEE THAT'S PROBABLY THE RIGHT THING TO DO, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, EVERY, EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE HAVING THEM, IF THEY'RE HAVING TO GO THROUGH STP PROCESS RIGHT NOW, IF IT'S ABOVE 40

[00:10:01]

FEET, UM, YOU KNOW, I GUESS MAYBE IT, MAYBE THE RIGHT THING IS TO JUST HAVE THE WHOLE THING, GO THROUGH THE SEP PROCESS.

AND I MEAN, AND I'D BE, I'D BE OKAY WITH, WITH IT, YOU KNOW, BEING ALLOWED THROUGH RESIDENT IN RESIDENTIAL, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE APPROVED, BUT I'M GOING AGAIN, JUST LIKE WITH THE HEIGHT, THAT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WE CAN'T REALLY JUST WRITE A LOT OF PIECE OF PAPER AND SAY, OKAY, EVERY CASE IS GOING TO BE LIKE THIS AND IT'S GOING TO BE FINE.

SO YEAH.

I MEAN, SEP REALLY, I GUESS BE THE WAY TO GO.

AND, BUT THAT BEING SAID, I'D ALSO BE OKAY, LEAVING IT THE WAY IT IS.

UM, WELL, LET'S PUT IT A TO BOTH THEN WE HAVE, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE ALLOW SUP AND RESIDENTIAL OR NOT.

AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION NEXT.

SO, UM, I'M HAPPY TO TAKING THIS DISCUSSION TO COUNCIL, TO IF WE WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.

I THINK MYSELF AND COUNSELOR MORRIS ARE IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING IT IN SUP.

SO, UM, TWO VOTES THERE FOR THAT AND THE COMMITTEE, I THINK WE SHOULD, THIS DESERVE THEN A DISCUSSION ON A LARGER DISCUSSION TO COUNCIL.

SO I'M HAPPY TAKING THAT VOTE TALLY TWO TO ONE WITH A SUP IN RESIDENTIAL TO COUNCIL AND THEN OPENING THE DISCUSSION UP FURTHER.

YEAH.

I'M GOOD WITH THAT.

YEAH.

THAT'S WHAT ALL RECOMMENDATIONS ARE.

IT GOES TO COUNCIL AND WE DISCUSS THEM ITEM BY ITEM, SO, YEP.

YEAH.

SO THE ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF YES.

WITH AN SUP AND ALLOWED A NON-RESIDENTIAL.

I WOULD PERSONALLY LOOKING AT THIS SAY, UM, AND SUP IF OVER 85 FEET IN HEIGHT, SINCE THAT SEEMS TO BE, OR 75, I MEAN, IT GOES FROM 60 TO 85.

SO WHAT DID, UM, WHAT DID MR. HUBINGER SAY THEY NEEDED FROM WHAT RECOMMENDED MINIMUM HEIGHT? BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS HIGHER THAN HIS I HAVE HERE IS DON'T BE SHY ON THE HEIGHT.

YEAH.

OKAY.

YEAH, BECAUSE I REMEMBER IT NOT BEING AS LOW AS ALL OF THESE ARE, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, HONESTLY ON THE NON-RESIDENTIAL, I'D PROBABLY SAY 85.

WE CAN GO WITH THAT.

THAT, THAT WORKS FOR ME THEN.

YEP.

ALRIGHT.

85 FEET.

WE'LL GO WITH 85 FOOT HEIGHT.

AND THE REASONING BEHIND THAT IS JUST LOOKING AT VARIOUS OTHER CITIES AROUND US.

NOPE.

AND THEN SUP IF IT EXCEEDS THAT CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, ACTUALLY MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S GREAT DIRECTION.

THANK YOU.

ONE MORE THING TO KIND OF THROW AT YOU WHILE WE'RE ON THE TOPIC OF CELL TOWERS AND SUP'S AND THE LIKES SOMETHING, UM, JED AND I, AND MR. ENGLAND HAD DISCUSSED ON THE OTHER DAY, BUT, UM, NOTICE SOME PECULIAR LANGUAGE IN THE GDC.

I'LL PULL UP HERE, UM, REGARDING SUP RENEWALS FOR CELL TOWERS.

UM, AND THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND NON RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE.

UM, BUT THIS LANGUAGE HERE, UM, RIGHT HERE AND BE ONE, UH, A SITE WITH A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED AND CURRENTLY ACTIVE SUP SHALL NOT REQUIRE A NEW SUP UNLESS THE HEIGHT OR FOOTPRINT OF THE ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE HAS CHANGED, UM, DISCUSS WITH BRIAN ENGLAND.

AND, AND HE SEEMS TO RECALL THAT THE INTENT WAS MOST LIKELY TO, UM, BASICALLY SAY THAT A CELL TOWER DOES NOT NEED A NEW SUP AS LONG AS THE HEIGHT AND IT'S NOT EXPANDING.

I THINK THE ONLY TRICKY LANGUAGE WHERE, UM, YOU FELT THE, THE LANGUAGE DOES NEED TO BE CLEANED UP IS, UM, REALLY THIS LANGUAGE HERE, UM, A SITE WITH A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED AND CURRENTLY ACTIVE SUP UM, LITTLE CONFUSION THERE AS TO WHETHER THAT USUALLY CUR CURRENTLY ACTIVE SUP MEANS THE TIME PERIOD AS AN EXPIRED.

AND, BUT THE INTENT MAY HAVE VERY WELL BEEN THAT, UM, IT SHOULD HAVE SENT A, UH, SITE WITH A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED SUP AND CURRENTLY ACTIVE USE OR ACTIVE SITE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE MUCH CLEARER DIRECTION.

SO, AND WE DON'T HAVE MR. ENGLAND HERE RIGHT NOW, BUT IS HE, AND DIDN'T SEE HIM, BUT, UM, COULD A CELL PHONE COMPANY COME TO US AND SAY, WE HAVE A NEW SITE FOR A TOWER.

WE WANT A ONE-YEAR SUP IN THIS LANGUAGE AFFECT LIVE GRANTS, THEM A SUP FOR FOREVER.

THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S PERFECT ACUITY, RIGHT? IT IS KIND OF INTERESTING LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT KIND OF DOES AWAY WITH THE TIME PERIOD.

NOW, I SUPPOSE IF THE SUP IS STILL, UM, IF IT'S THE SITE STILL HAS AN ORDINANCE FOR AN SUP, IT'S STILL SUBJECT TO ANY CONDITIONS, IF SAY THE COUNCIL, UM, YOU KNOW, IF THE SEP CONDITIONS HAD A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF WHATEVER THAT MAY BE 75 FEET OR A HUNDRED FEET, UM, WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THAT AND GET A NEW COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR A NEW SUP IF THEY EXTEND THAT HEIGHT.

BUT, UH, BUT YES, IT DOES APPEAR THAT IT KIND OF DOES AWAY WITH A TIME PERIOD ASPECT.

RIGHT.

UM, MR. CHAIR, IF I CAN JUST ADD TO THAT WILL I THINK OUR PRACTICE,

[00:15:01]

HOWEVER, HAS BEEN THAT WHEN THERE'S A TIME PERIOD ASSOCIATED WITH A CELL PHONE TOWER, SUP THAT WE STILL BRING IT BACK, UH, EVEN IF THEY WERE TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT, OUR PRACTICE HAS BEEN THAT WE BRING THAT BACK TO COUNCIL.

WAS THAT, WAS THAT RIGHT? IF IT'S EXPIRED OR IF THEY'RE MAKING CHANGES, UH, IF IT'S EXPIRED JUST SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE 20 YEARS RUNS OUT, WHAT DO WE DO WITH IT? THAT'S CORRECT.

YUP.

OKAY.

HAVE SOME MORE IN THE QUEUE THAT GOT NOTICES THAT, THAT OUR SUP IS EXPIRED OR GETTING READY TO EXPIRE.

SO, UM, UM, AND CURRENTLY ACTIVE SP IS THAT THE ONLY PART THAT MR. ENGLAND WOULD HAVE WISHES TO STRIKE FROM THAT? I THINK THAT WAS THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS GIVEN THE MOST HEARTBURN.

I THINK IF IT SAID, IF THE INTENT IS TO KIND OF DO AWAY WITH THE TIME PERIOD AND NOT REQUIRE IT TO COME BACK TO THE HEARING PROCESS, AGAIN, AS LONG AS THE HEIGHT OR FOOTPRINT IS NOT CHANGING.

UM, YES, SIR.

I THINK THE, IF IT SAID SOMETHING LIKE A SITE WITH A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED, UM, SUP AND CURRENTLY ACTIVE SITE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I'D PROBABLY DEFER TO MR. ENGLAND ON THE EXACT WORDING, BUT YEAH, LET'S, UH, AND KEEP THIS ITEM ON THERE AND YOU COULD BRING IT FOR THE NEXT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WITH THE EXACT LANGUAGE YOU'D LIKE TO SEE.

AND, UM, THESE TYPES OF THINGS TYPICALLY AREN'T, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH A GAS STATION OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT, I MEAN, IT'S NOT EVEN, THERE'S NO STRUCTURE OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE TOWER ON IT.

SO THERE'S REALLY, NO, I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUE WITH HAVING THESE MANDATED FOR, YOU KNOW, PERPETUITY, IF THAT'S WHAT THE, IF, AS LONG AS THEY'RE BEING USED FOR THAT PURPOSE, THEN I'M FINE WITH THAT.

IF WE WANT TO LOOK AT WHAT MR. ENGLAND COMES BACK WITH LANGUAGE, THEN WE'LL GO, THAT'S ALL I HAD ON THAT ITEM.

YES, SIR.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. GREEN, WE CAN THEN MOVE ON TO ITEM TWO B IT'S URBAN STYLE MULTIFAMILY ADDITIONS.

YES, SIR.

THIS WAS, UM, THIS WAS REGARDING, I BELIEVE THE TASK HERE WAS TO, UH, LOOK AT DENSITY AND HEIGHT AND SOME PREVIOUS PROJECTS, UH, TO HAVE THAT RIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES.

OKAY, GREAT.

WE HAVE A SIMILAR SPREADSHEET HERE AND, UH, TOOK SOME EXAMPLES OF, UM, SOME PREVIOUSLY PROVED AND IN SOME CASES DENIED, UM, MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS BROKEN OUT BETWEEN URBAN VERSUS GARDEN STYLE.

AND, UM, I NOTED THE HEIGHT, THE DENSITY, UM, THAT WAS APPROVED.

UM, AND THEN I KIND OF CALCULATED OUT THE AVERAGES OF, OF THOSE PROJECTS.

SO IT'S PRETTY TELLING, UM, WHEN, UH, KIND OF COMPARING HOW THEY RELATE TO THE GDC.

YEAH.

SO JUST TO KIND OF TAKE YOU THROUGH IT REAL QUICK, THE DOMAIN PHASE ONE, I'LL KIND OF START WITH THE URBAN STYLE PROJECTS.

I BELIEVE I TOOK ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN THAT WERE APPROVED IN THE LAST, LAST FEW YEARS.

SO URBAN STYLE, THE HEIGHT APPROVED THERE.

AND IN SOME CASES THAT THERE MAY BE MULTIPLE BUILDINGS OF DIFFERENT HEIGHT, BUT I TOOK THAT AT LEAST A MAXIMUM, I TOOK THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT THAT WAS APPROVED FOR THE SITE.

UH, SO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WAS 44 FEET.

AS A REMINDER, THE GDCS MAXIMUM IS 40 FEET FOR JUST YOUR STANDARD MULTIFAMILY BASED ZONING.

UM, AND THEN THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT, OR EXCUSE ME, DENSITY FOR STRAIGHT MULTI-FAMILY ZONING IS 18 UNITS PER ACRE.

SO, UM, YOU'LL FIND THAT A BELIEF, ALL OF THESE URBAN STYLE HAD A DEVIATION FOR BOTH HEIGHT AND DENSITY.

SO A DOMAIN PHASE ONE HAD, UM, ABOUT 28, ALMOST 29 UNITS PER ACRE.

UH, THE DOMAIN PHASE TWO JUST RIGHT NEXT DOOR, ALSO 44 FEET IN HEIGHT.

THAT WAS ABOUT 30 UNITS PER ACRE MILLENNIUM VILLAGE.

THIS WAS THE ONE, UM, IN DISTRICT SEVEN, UH, NEAR, UM, UH, BELTLINE ROAD, NORTH CARLIN.

THANK YOU.

URBAN STYLE, VERY, UH, CLEARLY URBAN STYLE.

UH, THAT'S THE NEW ONE.

THIS IS THE NEW ONE.

THAT'S UM, THE SOUTH OUTSIDE THERE.

SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BELTLINE AND NORTH GARLAND.

OKAY.

YEP.

YEP.

JUST APPROVED BY COUNCIL A FEW, FEW MONTHS AGO, UM, THAT, UH, THE TALLEST BUILDING HAD A HEIGHT OF 40, OR EXCUSE ME, 59 FEET.

UM, AND THE DENSITY WAS 44 UNITS PER ACRE.

UH, THE FIREWALL LOFTS, UM, WHICH HAVE BEEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION FOR SOME TIME ON THE EAST SIDE OF FIREWALL PARKWAY, JUST EAST OF THE TOWN CENTER.

UM, ANOTHER URBAN STYLE PROJECT, 44 FEET IN HEIGHT.

AND THAT WAS ABOUT 27 UNITS PER ACRE.

COUPLE MORE URBAN STYLE, ALTA FARWELL.

THIS IS THE ONE THAT WAS JUST DIRECTLY NORTH OF FARWELL OFFS THAT WAS APPROVED VERY RECENTLY BY COUNCIL, UM, THAT HAD A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 53 FEET AND A DENSITY OF, UH, 25 AND A HALF UNITS PER ACRE AND PALLADIUM EMBRY EAST SIDE.

UH, WE CONSIDER THAT, UM, URBAN, UM, THAT HAD ABOUT A 40 F UH, 45 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND 26 UNITS PER ACRE DENSITY.

AND THEN FINALLY, UH, THE DRAPER, UH, THIS COURSE IS, UM, DOWNTOWN.

UH, SO DEFINITELY MORE OF AN URBAN STYLE, WHICH THE DOWNTOWN FORM-BASED CODE REALLY, UH, KIND OF CALLS FOR VERSUS YOUR STANDARD MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT, BUT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, IT WAS, UM, CERTAINLY A PROJECT THAT WAS WELL SUPPORTED AND, AND WAS APPROVED.

SO THAT HAD A MAXIMUM HEIGHT.

UM, AND THIS IS PHASE ONE, SO THIS IS NOT THE ACTUAL CHASE BUILDING, BUT THESE ARE THE NEW MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS

[00:20:01]

THAT ARE GOING TO BE BUILT, UM, FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, UH, 47 FEET IN HEIGHT AND 40 UNITS PER ACRE, MOVING ON TO THE GARDEN STYLE, I FOUND, UM, TWO THAT WERE APPROVED AND, UH, KIND OF SOMEWHAT RECENT HISTORY AND THEN TWO THAT WERE DENIED.

UM, SO ONE IS THE PLAYDIUM , THIS IS, UM, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TOWARDS THE KIND OF SOUTHWESTERN PORTION OF THE CITY LIMITS.

UM, THEY ADHERED TO THE MAXIMUM DDC HEIGHT OF 40 FEET AND, UM, THEY FELL JUST RIGHT UNDER THE MAXIMUM DENSITY IS ABOUT 17 UNITS PER ACRE.

AND THAT DID NOT GO THROUGH A HEARING PROCESS THAT WAS ALREADY ZONED MULTI-FAMILY.

SO THAT KIND OF SHOWS YOU AN EXAMPLE OF, UM, A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT THAT ADHERED TO ALL THE MULTI-FAMILY STANDARDS AND WAS PERMITTED BY RIGHT ADMINISTRATIVELY, UM, MARVIN LOVING.

UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A, THERE MAY BE A MORE OFFICIAL NAME, BUT SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL LAST YEAR THERE WAS A, UM, MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPROVED KIND OF NEAR THE, UH, HARBOR POINT PENINSULA.

UM, IT NEEDED A PD FOR A COUPLE OF DEVIATIONS, BUT IT ACTUALLY WAS ALREADY ZONED MULTIFAMILY, UM, CONSIDER THAT MORE GARDEN STYLE.

UM, IT HAD A 39 FEET, UM, BUILDING HEIGHT AND THEY ACTUALLY DID, UH, NEEDED, UH, DEVIATION FOR DENSITY IS ABOUT 24, ALMOST 25 UNITS, AN ACRE IT'S A VERY SMALL SITE.

THEY HAD TWO BUILDINGS.

SO, UH, WITH THE SMALLNESS OF THE SITE, IT KIND OF RAISED THE DENSITY A LITTLE, BUT, UH, DESIGN WISE, I FELT IT WAS REALLY MORE OF A GARDEN STYLE, UM, WHICH FOR THE MOST PART WAS CONSISTENT WITH HOW, UM, OTHER COMPLEXES ARE IN THAT AREA.

UM, AND THEN FINALLY TWO THAT WERE DENIED A VANTAGE BUNKER HILL.

THIS WAS ALONG BUNKER HILL ROAD.

UM, THIS WAS PROBABLY THREE, MAYBE FOUR YEARS AGO.

UM, THIS, UH, PROPOSAL WAS MUCH MORE OF A GARDEN STYLE LAYOUT.

UM, THE BUILDINGS WERE MUCH MORE SPREAD OUT, A LOT OF SURFACE PARKING AND WHATNOT.

THEY ADHERED TO THE 40 FOOT MAXIMUM AND THE DENSITY WAS 17, UH, UNITS PER ACRE.

AND THAT WAS ACTUALLY TAKING THE NET DENSITY.

UM, THAT'S NOT ACCOUNTING FOR A VAST AMOUNT OF FLOOD PLAIN AND OPEN SPACE THEY HAD, WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE IT MORE LIKE SIX UNITS PER ACRE, BUT FOR AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON, IT WAS REALLY ABOUT 17 UNITS PER ACRE.

UH, AND THEN A RESERVE AT MARYWOOD RANCH.

THIS IS, UM, DISTRICT THREE, UM, ALONG MILLER ROAD, UH, JUST EAST OF CENTERVILLE, I BELIEVE.

UM, IT WAS, UH, ACTUALLY A TAX CREDIT, UH, PROPOSAL AND THEY WERE GOING THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS.

UM, IT WAS, UH, PRESENTED AS A STRAIGHT ZONING, UH, CASE IT WAS DENIED, UH, BUT THEY DID PROVIDE US SOME, UH, DETAILS OF WHAT THEY HAD IN MIND AT LEAST.

AND THEIR PLAN WAS, UM, THAT IT WOULD ADHERE TO THE, UM, GDC MAXIMUM OF 40 FEET IN HEIGHT AND, UM, HAVE A DENSITY OF ABOUT 13 UNITS PER ACRE.

SO INTERESTINGLY, I REALLY, WITH ALL THESE GARDEN STYLE APARTMENTS, UM, ONLY THE MARVIN LOVING, UH, NEEDED, UH, A DEVIATION FOR, UH, DENSITY, BUT OTHERWISE, UM, THEY'RE REALLY COMPLIANT WITH THOSE TWO PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS.

WHEREAS THE URBAN STYLE ONES, DEFINITELY THE COMMON THEME THERE IS, UM, THEY REQUESTED ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AND DENSITY.

SO HOW THAT ALL AVERAGES OUT, UH, FOR THE URBAN STYLE, UM, COMPLEXES FOR THESE THAT ARE PRESENTED HERE, THE AVERAGE HEIGHT IS 48 FEET AND AVERAGE DENSITY IS 31.66 UNITS PER ACRE.

AND FOR THE GARDEN STYLE AT AVERAGE HEIGHT WAS, UH, JUST UNDER 40 FEET, 39.7, FIVE FEET HIGH AND AVERAGE DENSITY WAS 17.97 UNITS PER ACRE THAT MR. CHAIRMAN I'LL KIND OF STOP THERE.

ANY QUESTIONS MS. GARREN? NO, IT'S ALL VERY CLEAR.

OKAY.

WELL JUST, JUST TO COMMENT.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE EITHER ALL OF OUR GARDEN STYLE DEVELOPERS LOOK AT OUR REQUIREMENTS AND JUST COMPLY WITH THEM, OR, UM, OUR REQUIREMENTS SEEM TO BE TAILORED MORE TO CATER TO GARDEN STYLE APARTMENTS, WHICH FOR YEARS PAST, UM, WAS THE TREND.

YEAH.

SO, UM, THIS, THIS IS VERY GOOD WORK WELL, AND THANK, THANK YOU FOR IT.

SO, UM, SO I GUESS MY, MY FIRST QUESTION IS LET'S SAY WE, WE CHANGE OUR REQUIREMENTS TO BETWEEN URBAN AND GARDEN AND WE GIVE MORE GENEROUS, UM, HEIGHT AND DENSITY LIMITS FOR URBAN STYLE.

IS THAT, ARE WE WANTING TO, UM, ARE WE WANTING TO ENCOURAGE MORE URBAN STYLE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS BECAUSE THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT THE EFFECT WILL BE JUST AS IN TIMES PAST THE EFFECT WAS TO ENCOURAGE MORE GARDEN STYLE AND LOOKING INTO ALL THE YEARS IN THE FUTURE.

IS THIS JUST GOING TO BE ANOTHER, UM, WAY THAT WE KIND OF DIRECTED DEVELOPMENT IN A CERTAIN

[00:25:01]

WAY THAT YEARS FROM NOW WE'LL LOOK BACK AND GO, WHY DID WE DO THAT OR OTHER PEOPLE AFTER WE'RE GONE WELL? SO I GUESS MY, MY MAIN QUESTION WITH THIS IS IF WE WANT TO SPLIT OFF, UM, THE URBAN STYLE, UM, REQUIREMENTS AND MAKE THAT DIFFERENT, UM, WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF US DOING THAT? AND IS THAT A CONSEQUENCE THAT WE'RE COGNIZANT OF AND HAPPY WITH DOING SO THAT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE AN ANSWER, BUT THAT I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD CONSIDER.

WELL, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

IF WE DO MODIFY AND MAKE THE REQUIREMENTS DIFFERENT FOR URBAN STYLE THAN GARDEN STYLE, THE NET EFFECT IS GOING TO BE JUST URBAN STYLE DEVELOPMENT.

WELL, I MEAN, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY EITHER, OR I THINK YOU CAN HAVE THE DEVELOPER MAKE A DECISION AT THE BEGINNING.

DO YOU WANT TO FOLLOW THIS PATH FOR, YOU KNOW, FOLLOW THIS PATH A OR PATH B AND THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE.

AND THEN THEY'LL OBVIOUSLY WHAT WE'RE SEEING, ESPECIALLY WITH THE GARDEN STYLE IS THAT WHATEVER OUR REGULATIONS ARE, THEY'RE GOING TO DESIGN TO IT, THE HEIGHT AND THE DENSITY AM MY NORMAL OFF, DEAD ON, ON BOTH OF THOSE URBAN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A LITTLE MORE TRICKY JUST FOR GIVEN THE SITE.

IT LOOKS LIKE 45 FEET BETWEEN 40 AND 50 FEET IS KIND OF THE SWEET SPOT FOR THE HEIGHT ON THOSE AND THE UNITS BREAK, OR, I MEAN, GOSH, SOME ARE VERY DENSE.

OF COURSE, OTHERS ARE NOT ALMOST DOUBLY AS DENSE AS OUR AVERAGE DENSITY RIGHT NOW, OR THE MAXIMUM DENSITY WE'RE ALLOWED RIGHT NOW.

BUT QUESTION I HAVE THEN IF WE WANT TO FOLLOW AND MAKE THEM CHOOSE THESE PATHS, IF THERE'S TWO PATHS, ARE THERE ONLY TWO PATHS, ARE THERE THREE PATHS THERE, A THIRD TYPE OF APARTMENT DESIGN THAT WE'RE MAYBE NOT AWARE OF? I DON'T KNOW.

MR. GUERIN, DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S A THIRD OPTION FOR BEYOND, UH, URBAN AND, AND GARDEN STYLE APARTMENTS? HAVE YOU SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT OR WE'RE KIND OF SEEING BOTH AND KIND OF EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN.

I MEAN, WE HAVE THE, THE SINGLE-FAMILY RENTALS, WHICH ARE MULTIFAMILY, BUT IN A HORIZONTAL STYLE WHERE WE'RE HEARING, WE'RE GOING TO SEE MORE OF THOSE.

IT'S MORE OF A NORM IN THE MARKET, UM, IN THE DFW AREA, ESPECIALLY WITH THE HOUSING DEMAND BEING SO GREAT.

UM, WE'RE SEEING, UH, COURSE THAT WAS PART OF THE, UM, MILLENNIUM VILLAGE.

UH, IT WAS URBAN STYLE, BUT THERE WAS A TOWNHOUSE STYLE UNIT COMPONENT, UH, WITHIN THAT.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S ALSO MULTIFUNCTIONAL ON THAT ONE THAT NIGHT.

I DON'T REMEMBER OFFHAND, BUT THOSE 44 UNITS PER ACRES THAT INCLUDE JUST THE MAIN BUILDING OR IS THAT ALSO THE TOWNHOME TYPE DEVELOP THAT WAS ALSO THE TOWN.

I WAS THE ENTIRE SITE ONCE YOU CALCULATE THE DENSITY, BUT THE DENSITY OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING IS LIVING GREATER, RIGHT? YEAH.

OKAY.

MR. CHAIR, IF I CAN ADD A LITTLE BIT OF FLAVOR TOO, TO THIS DISCUSSION, BECAUSE IF YOU KIND OF OVERLAY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE WITH OUR REDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES, UH, WHAT YOU, WHAT WE FIND IN TALKING TO MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPERS IS THAT, UH, THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, URBAN OR GARDEN STYLE HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE LAND THEY'RE WORKING WITH.

SO I, I SUSPECT THE MILLENNIUM VILLAGE FOLKS DID THEIR MATH AND SAID, THIS IS ONLY A, WHAT IS IT, A FIVE OR SIX ACRE SITE.

I WANT TO SAY IT'S FOUR POINT SOMETHING.

SO SMALL SITE, THEY'RE PROBABLY PAYING A LOT PER SQUARE FOOT FOR THE LAND BECAUSE IT'S IN A, IT'S IN A GREAT LOCATION.

AND, UM, NOT UNCOMMON IN GARLAND.

WE HAVE A LOT OF FOUR TO FIVE ACRE PIECES JUST RANDOMLY SCATTERED THROUGHOUT.

SO THEY'RE PAYING A LOT FOR THE LAND.

THEY HAVE TO BUILD IN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS TO MAKE THE PROJECT WORK.

AND SO I THINK HAVING FLEXIBILITY'S A GOOD THING FOR DEVELOPERS, BECAUSE IF THEY DO WANT TO DO A, SAY A GARDEN STYLE, CAUSE THEY HAVE MORE LAND TO SPREAD OUT AND, AND THERE'S A MARKET FOR THAT, UH, THAT THAT WOULD DRIVE THAT DECISION.

BUT ALSO, UH, AND KNOW NOW CONSIDER, OKAY, WE TALKED ABOUT KIND OF A VACANT INFILL LOT.

WELL, WHAT ABOUT A OLD COMMERCIAL CORNER THAT WE WANT TO REDEVELOP? AND SO THEY THEY'RE COMING IN, THEY'RE BUYING THE LAND, THEY'RE TEARING THE BUILDINGS DOWN.

THERE'S A TREMENDOUS DEVELOPMENT COST UPFRONT TO THAT.

AND SO THEY NEED TO SOMEHOW BE REWARDED ON THE BACK END WITH DENSITY.

THAT'S GOING TO MAKE THAT REDEVELOPMENT POSSIBLE.

AND SO AGAIN, JUST TRYING TO LAY WHAT WAS THE DISCUSSION YOU'RE HAVING AGAINST SOME OF OUR OTHER GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, WHICH ARE REDEVELOPMENT AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THE MIXED USE PART OF THIS TOO, WHICH IS POSSIBLE IF YOU GET AGAIN, MORE DENSE, URBAN TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IN CERTAIN AREAS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE, UH, YOU CAN ALSO ADD OR HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO ADD IN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE SOME FIRST FLOOR RETAIL OR OTHER MIXED MIXED USES IN THERE.

SO AGAIN, JUST KIND OF SHARING WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE MARKET PERSPECTIVE.

AND, UH, AS WE WE'VE TALKED TO A LOT OF MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPERS AND TRY TO GET THEM TO DO THESE REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS, AND IT'S REALLY TOUGH UNLESS THEY

[00:30:01]

CAN GET THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN THERE THAT THEY NEED.

AND YES, MA'AM GO AHEAD.

OH, GIVEN GARLAND, I MEAN NOT MANY, NOT MUCH VACANT LAND LEFT.

SO I THINK DENSITY IS THE PRETTY MUCH THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO GROW AT THIS POINT.

SO I'M ALL FOR UPPING OUR, YOU KNOW, THIS TWO PATH OPTION.

THEN IF THERE IS A STILL MARGARET FOR, UM, AND LAND THAT'S ZONED ALREADY FOR THE GARDEN STYLE APARTMENTS, THEN I'M FINE WITH KEEPING THOSE REGULATIONS.

THEY ARE, THEY SEEM TO BE WORKING A COUPLE OF PROJECTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED THAT WAY, BUT I'M FINE UP IN THE HEIGHT FOR URBAN STYLE, EVEN, YOU KNOW, 50 FEET AND PEOPLE WANT TO SAY 35 UNITS OR AN ACRE AS A STARTING POINT.

WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AND SEE WHAT THE, AND OF COURSE WE'VE APPROVED BEYOND THAT.

IF THEY STILL WANT TO COME TO US FOR A, YOU KNOW, AN EXCEPTION, THEN I'M FINE WITH LOOKING AT COUNCIL AND THEN COME IN WITH AN SUP TO IF THAT'S NOT OUR BASE ZONING FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY.

BUT COMMITTEE'S THOUGHTS ON THAT.

I GUESS FOR ME, ONE THING I WANT TO LOOK AT IS, YOU KNOW, DO WE, DO WE HAVE A NEED TO CHANGE THINGS? SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE GOT THESE PROJECTS THROUGH DOMAIN AND MILLENNIUM VILLAGE AND SUCH WITH VARIANCES, BUT WHEN THE DEVELOPERS COME IN, I MEAN, HAVE WE HAD AN ISSUE WHERE DEVELOPERS COME IN AND THEY SAY, OH, YOU KNOW, GARLAND'S LIMITED.

DO YOU KNOW, 40 AND 18? YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO BOTHER TALKING TO THEM.

WE'LL JUST MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CITY.

OR IS THERE ALWAYS A CONVERSATION ABOUT, HEY, ARE YOU GUYS OPEN TO VARIANCES? AND RIGHT, TYPICALLY IN MY EXPERIENCE IT DOESN'T MAKE THEM AUTOMATICALLY, YOU KNOW, UNLESS THERE'S SOME WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT, OF COURSE THEY DON'T CALL US.

THEY JUST LOOK IN THE CODE AND SAY, NEVERMIND.

BUT, UH, TYPICALLY WHEN THEY COME TO US AND ASK THOSE QUESTIONS ARE COMING FOR A MIDDLEMAN, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, UM, THEY'LL SEE OUR REGULATIONS AND THEY'LL ASK, THEY'LL SAY, WELL, HERE'S KIND OF WHAT I WANT TO DO.

AND THEY'LL USUALLY ASK, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE MY CHANCES? UM, YOU KNOW, IF I WANT 50 FEET, IS THERE ANY WAY COUNCIL WILL APPROVE THAT? OR IS THERE ANY WAY STAFF WILL SUPPORT THAT? THAT'S USUALLY WHERE THEY, THAT'S USUALLY KINDA WHERE THAT, OKAY.

AND THEN WITH, I MEAN, JUST THE DENSITY IS JUST SO CRAZY.

I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING, YOU KNOW, GDC SAYS 18 AND WE'RE LIKE AT 44.

SO WHY IS THERE, DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHY THEY'RE, I MEAN, WHILE WE'RE SO LOW ON THAT, WHY ARE WE SO STUCK ON SUCH A LOW DENSITY GARDEN STYLE APARTMENTS ARE TYPICALLY JUST TWO, THREE STORIES WITH SURFACE PARKING, BUT THE MINUTE MILLENNIUM FOR INSTANCE, HAS TO HAVE THAT DENSITY TO SUPPORT A PARKING STRUCTURE, WHICH IS PARKING GARAGE, THEY'RE EXPENSIVE AND THEY WANT TO GO HIGHER TO SUPPORT THAT TYPE OF, AND LIKE MR X WAS SAYING, IT'S, THEY'RE PUTTING THE MONEY UP TO INVEST IN IT UPFRONT.

THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO GET A RETURN.

IT LOOKS LIKE THESE 18 UNITS BREAK OR AREN'T, AREN'T ALLOWING THEM.

I DO THAT WELL, AND I UNDERSTAND IT.

AND THEN I'M, I'M, I MEAN, I'M FINE WITH HIGHER DENSITY BECAUSE OF COURSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE PARKING.

SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY WE'RE WE'RE HAVE BEEN SO LOW IN THE PAST, YOU KNOW, WHY IS THAT LIMITATION JUST, I MEAN, ALMOST A THIRD OF WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED.

IT JUST SEEMS CRAZY THAT IT'S THE WE'RE AT 18 TO BEGIN WITH.

HE WAS UPDATED FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO AND THEN JUST GARDEN STYLES.

OKAY.

AT THAT TIME.

YEAH.

OKAY.

I MEAN, I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH A TWO-PRONGED APPROACH.

AND LIKE THE CHAIR MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THIS MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY BE EVERYTHING THAT'S OUT THERE COMING DOWN THE PIPE, SO, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER WE DO, RIGHT.

IT NEEDS TO BE OPEN TO OTHER STYLES AS WELL.

WHATEVER THOSE MAY BE THAT OF COURSE WE CAN'T FORESEE.

OKAY.

SORRY.

I WAS GOING TO ADD SOMETHING ELSE TO THAT I JUST THOUGHT OF, BUT, UM, AGAIN, TO PUT A CARROT OUT THERE FOR DEVELOPERS AND TO HELP OUR REDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE TO, UM, HAVE REALLY TWO THRESHOLDS? SO KIND OF A BASIC THRESHOLD IN TERMS OF DENSITY FOR, UM, REGULAR PROJECTS THAT JUST WANT TO COME IN AND KIND OF RUBBER STAMP, UH, WHAT THEY DO IN EVERY OTHER COMMUNITY HERE AND THEN MAYBE A HIGHER STANDARD, IF THEY'RE A REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIO.

AND THEY, I THINK, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT AT LEAST I THOUGHT COUNCIL LOOKED AT WITH MILLENNIUM VILLAGE WAS, HEY, OKAY, IT'S A HIGH DENSITY, BUT THEY HAD A HUGE AMENITY PACKAGE IF YOU'LL RECALL ROOFTOP POOL, NICE CLUBHOUSE.

I MEAN, THEY HAD A LOT OF DESIGN ASPECTS THAT I THINK MADE IT EASIER, EASIER TO SWALLOW.

UM, SO THAT, THAT COULD BE AN OPTION TO, AGAIN, HERE'S A BASELINE DENSITY THAT WE, WE CAN ALLOW, OR WE'LL GO UP TO 45 UNITS PER WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS.

IF YOU'RE DOING A HEAVY AMENITY PACKAGE OR IT'S A TEAR DOWN REBUILD SCENARIO THAT WE WANT TO KIND OF INCENTIVIZE THEM TO PURSUE, AGAIN, JUST THROWING THAT OUT

[00:35:01]

AS, AS A THOUGHT, AND WE CAN, YOU KNOW, STAFF COULD KIND OF VET THROUGH THAT TO GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, BUT MAY HELP, UM, KIND OF ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHEN DO WE MAKE THE DENSITY AND THEN DEVELOPERS, AREN'T CHOOSING ARB FROM THE BEGINNING, THEY'RE CHOOSING A, AND THEN GOING PAST THAT TO BEYOND.

SO I LIKE THAT I WROTE YOUR LOT.

I I'M A BIG FAN OF ANYTHING THAT INCENTIVIZES REHABILITATION.

YES.

YEAH.

AMEN.

SO, UH, YES SIR.

I WAS TRYING TO WAIT TILL IT WENT AROUND.

UM, SO, SO A COUPLE OF THINGS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE APPROACH, THIS IS WHAT I'M THINKING.

THERE'S, THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE THAN TWO.

SO RIGHT NOW IN MY DISTRICT AND JED IS AWARE WE'VE GOT, ARE BONNIE YARD HOMES, UM, WHICH ARE HORIZONTAL.

OKAY.

DIFFERENT ANIMAL, NOT SOMETHING WE HAVE IN THE CITY YET, AND THIS WON'T BE THE LAST OF THE NEW CONCEPTS COMING IN.

SO AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, STAYING AWAY LIKE, UM, I'M KIND OF NOT LIKING THE GARDEN STYLE URBAN TO PRO I DON'T LIKE THAT BECAUSE, UM, IT'LL BECOME DATED AS SOON AS THE INK IS DRY, YOU KNOW, THEORETICALLY.

SO, UM, EITHER, EITHER JUST SETTING STANDARDS THAT WE THINK ARE REASONABLE FOR AND, AND LETTING DEVELOPERS COME IN AND WORK WITHIN THOSE, UM, AND NOT MAKING THEM PICK A PATH THAT MAY BECOME DATED IN 18 MONTHS.

UM, YOU KNOW, MY OTHER CONCERN IS IF WE, IF WE JUST TAKE THE UPPER NUMBERS AND SAY, THESE ARE OUR NEW REQUIREMENTS, ANYTHING UNDER THAN THIS, YOU'RE GOOD TO FLY.

UM, PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, PROJECT CREEP.

IT IS A NATURAL THING FOR DEVELOPERS TO COME IN INTO TO LOOK AT, UM, LOOK AT THE MAXES AND SAY, WELL, CAN I, CAN I GET A VARIANCE TO GO EVEN HIGHER, EVEN MORE DENSE? AND WE JUST DEALT WITH A DEVELOPER WHO IN MY DISTRICT WHO ABSOLUTELY WAS WANTING TO GO BONKERS WITH BOTH HEIGHT AND DENSITY.

AND IT'S LIKE, NO, IT WASN'T A GOOD FIT.

SO, UM, PROJECT CREEP, UM, WITH OUR STANDARDS THAT WE SET IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.

UM, SO LIKE SPEED LIMITS, YOU KNOW, IS IT REALLY 70, OR IS IT REALLY LIKE 78? BECAUSE WHATEVER LIMIT, THEY'RE NOT REALLY MEANING IT.

SO I, I'M NOT, NOT SURE HOW WE SHOULD BEST APPROACH THAT, BUT I, I'M NOT HAPPY WITH THE, THE CONCEPT OF, OF JUST OFFERING TWO WAYS, TWO PRONGS TO PROGRAMS. SO WOULD IT MAKE MORE SENSE JUST TO, TO NAME, UM, HEIGHT AND DENSITY, MAXES THAT SEEM REASONABLE, UM, AND LET DEVELOPERS COME IN AND, AND MAKE THAT CALL ANYTHING THERE OR UNDER, WELL THEN DO WE HAVE, UM, SO THEN THE QUESTION IS IF WE JUST MAKE ONE, LET'S SAY WHATEVER 45 AND 30, THEN HOW DOES THAT AFFECT GARDEN STYLE? ARE WE NOW GOING TO HAVE GARDEN STYLE? THAT'S GOING TO BE TOO DENSE, OR I'M NOT, I'M NOT SUPER FAMILIAR WITH APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, SO I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN THAT STUFF.

THEY STILL HAVE TO HAVE QUANTITY OF PARKING TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE FOR THE NUMBER OF UNITS.

SO THERE'S PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO HAVE COVERED PARKING.

AND SO THERE'S OTHER RESTRICTIONS THAT, ALL THAT COUNT SETBACKS AND THAT KIND OF THING.

I KNOW ANOTHER THING WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT YET IS BUILDING SETBACKS IS ON THE, OH, ADJUSTING THAT, RIGHT.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I THINK IT'S A 20 FOOT SETBACK FOR, WELL, BY FAMILY.

IF WE WANT THESE STREET FRONTAGE TYPE BUILDING IMMEDIATELY ON THE PROPERTY LINE, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK AT TO THAT.

AND THAT ALLOWS THE DENSITY.

IF YOU GET 20 MORE FEET THAT'S RIGHT.

ROOM TO BUILD.

I MEAN, I, YOU KNOW, I THINK JUST HAVING ONE, ONE SET OF NUMBERS REALLY HELPS US AS OPPOSED TO MAKING THEM CHOOSE GARDENER URBAN.

AND I MEAN, IF YOU GUYS DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ISSUE WITH, YOU KNOW, SOMEHOW SOMEBODY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF A HIGHER DENSITY, URBAN, I MEAN, A GARDEN.

UM, AND YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M GREAT WITH THAT.

W ONE THING ABOUT THE, IF WE HAVE ANY, I JUST MENTIONED THE SETBACKS.

IF WE GO THIS ONE NUMBER TYPE APPROACH, I WOULD WANT TO LEAVE THE SETBACK THERE JUST BECAUSE THEN THEY CAN COME TO US AND SAY, I WANT MORE SPACE, BUT THAT'S A TOUGH ONE BECAUSE YOU'RE, THEN YOU'RE TRYING TO LIMIT, YOU WANT TO PROMOTE THIS URBAN STYLE, BUT WE'RE NOT MAKING AN URBAN STYLE CATEGORY AT THE SAME TIME.

SO, WELL, WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE, WHAT'S THE DANGER IN HAVING A 10% SETBACK ON A GARDEN STYLE PROPERTY? WHAT'S THE DANGER.

YEAH.

WELL, RIGHT, RIGHT.

YEAH.

WELL, I MEAN, RIGHT NOW IT'S 20 FEET.

WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE MAKING IT 10 FEET WHERE WHERE'S THE DRAWBACK TO THAT

[00:40:01]

YOU BEEN TAKING IT UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

WE LIKE, WE, LIKE, I LIKE TO SEE URBAN STYLE, YOU KNOW, IT'S CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE IS INCREASE THAT STREET FURNITURE THAT YOU KIND OF THAT URBAN LANDSCAPE, RIGHT.

OR ALONG THE STREET FURNITURE, BUT I WOULDN'T WANT A GARDEN STYLE APARTMENT.

SAME THAT ARCHITECTURE PUSHED TO THE STREET PROBABLY BECAUSE IT JUST DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO IT URBAN TYPE STREET SCAPE.

WELL, IN THAT CASE, THEN YOU COULD KEEP IT AT 20 AND THEN THEY'D HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, CAUSE SOMEONE WANTED TO URBAN STYLE, THEN IT'S GOING TO BE A VARIANCE.

YEAH.

I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE GRANTING VETERANS THESE FOR THAT CURRENTLY.

YEAH.

WELL, I'VE GOT A PROJECT IN THE WORKS RIGHT NOW IN MY DISTRICT AND THIS, BUT THIS IS, UM, THIS ISN'T MULTI-FAMILY, THESE ARE THE TOWNHOMES.

AND SO, UM, I'M JUST THINKING THE, THE SET REQUIRED SETBACK FOR THEM IS, IS CREATING A MAJOR MIGRAINE, UM, NOT JUST BECAUSE OF DESIGN, BUT BECAUSE TO GET THE DENSITY THAT THEY NEED TO MAKE THIS FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE.

SO, AND THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING, CAUSE THAT'S NOT LIKE A GARDEN STYLE APARTMENT.

I JUST WANT TO GET OUT OF THINKING GARDEN AND URBAN GARDEN AND URBAN BECAUSE WHATEVER COMES NEXT COULD, COULD START ALL US ALL.

SO, UM, YEAH, IF WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT SPECIFIC GARDEN STYLE APARTMENTS, WHICH ARE RIGHT NOW KIND OF GOING OUT OF VOGUE FOR THE MOST PART.

UM, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY WON'T CIRCLE BACK AROUND THEN LEAVING, LEAVING IT AND LETTING THAT BE A JUDGMENT CALL FOR EACH PROJECT, UM, MIGHT BE THE CLEANEST AND SIMPLEST.

MAYBE IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE ARE HAVING A PROBLEM.

JUST LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS OF THERE, THE NUMBER URBAN STYLES THAT HAVE BEEN IMPROVED VERSUS GARDEN.

THE ONLY FEAR IS LIKE MR. KAREN SAID, HE DOESN'T KNOW THE PEOPLE WHO'VE LOOKED AT IT AND NOT REACHED OUT TO THE OFFICE AT THE SAME TIME FOR, BECAUSE OUR REGULATIONS ARE SO LOW, BUT IF WE WANT TO TAKE NO ACTION AT THIS POINT, THEN THAT MAY BE THE BEST.

I MEAN, ON, ON THE THREE THINGS, SETBACK, DENSITY, AND HEIGHT, UH, I MEAN, I THINK SETBACK, LIKE YOU SAID, YOU WANT SOME CONTROL OVER THE GARDEN STYLE, SO LEAVE THAT AS IT IS.

AND I MEAN, I'D BE OKAY UP IN THE HEIGHTENED, THE DENSITY, SINCE IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE DOING THAT FOR EVERY SINGLE THING THAT'S COMING THROUGH ANYWAY.

NOW, UM, QUESTION FOR YOU WILL, SO ON THE, THE NEW COMMUNITIES WHERE THEY'RE BUILDING THE, BASICALLY THE SINGLE FAMILY RENTAL COMMUNITIES, THOSE DOES THAT FALL UNDER MULTIFAMILY.

IT DOES.

AND YOU KNOW, EVERY CITY IS KIND OF SCRAMBLED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO, YOU KNOW, UM, MAKE THAT FIT, YOU KNOW, IS IT MULTI-FAMILY, IS IT SINGLE FAMILY? WE'VE BEEN STARTING WITH THE BASE OF MULTI-FAMILY BECAUSE IT IS ALL ONE SINGLE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND THAT'S WHAT IT IS, MULTIFAMILY THEY'RE RENTALS, AND IT'S ALL UNDER ONE PROPERTY, ONE PLANTED LOT.

UM, BUT THEN IT DEVIATES FROM THOSE STANDARDS.

UM, AND, AND IT'S A LOT WHEN IT ADDED UP, CAUSE THEY'RE REALLY FALLING MORE OF A SINGLE FAMILY KIND OF STYLE.

UM, SO IT'S KIND OF AN INTERESTING SORT OF REVIEW PROCESS.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, NOW WE'RE PROBABLY A LITTLE MORE PREPARED FOR, IS THAT LOOSE.

WE KIND OF KNOW BETTER NOW VERSUS IN THE PAST WHAT THESE ARE, I WILL SAY AS A SIDE NOTE, I DON'T KNOW WHICH CITIES OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S ONE OR TWO CITIES THAT HAVE BEGUN TO CREATE, UM, A ZONING DISTRICT OR STANDARD FOR THESE STYLE DEVELOPMENTS.

UM, SO THAT MAY BE SOMETHING WE LOOK AT, UM, YOU KNOW, IF NOT NOW, THEN DOWN THE ROAD, IF ONE OR TWO OF THESE GET APPROVED THROUGH GARLAND, BUT, UM, THAT'S SOMETHING CERTAINLY TO CONSIDER WHERE IT'S KIND OF THAT ADDITIONAL PATH VERSUS JUST YOUR URBAN VERSUS GARDEN STYLE MULTIFAMILY.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM.

CAUSE I KNOW YOU'VE SAID YOU HAD ONE INQUIRY, I'VE HAD ONE INQUIRY IN MY DISTRICT AS WELL ALREADY FOR THAT.

SO I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS THAT AT A FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETING.

YEAH.

CAUSE I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ANIMAL.

NO, COULD WE, MR. CHAIR, COULD WE, UH, JUST LOOKING AT THIS, I WOULD BE KIND OF INTERESTED, INTERESTED IN OUR SURROUNDING CITIES, HEIGHT AND DENSITY AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS JUST BY AS A COMPARISON POINT OR DO YOU, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THOSE OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD FOR HEIGHTENED? I'M SORRY, NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, NO.

AND SETBACK.

SO I JUST, I IMAGINED JUST, JUST THOSE THREE THINGS.

I WOULD JUST KIND OF LIKE TO SEE WHAT EVERYBODY AROUND US IS DOING JUST TO, UM, JUST TO KIND OF SEE WHERE, WHERE THEIR THOUGHT PROCESSES HAVE LED THEM FOR COMPARISON.

I FIND THAT HELPFUL A LOT OF TIMES AND DO THEY REQUIRE THEIR BUILDINGS

[00:45:01]

TO BE ANGLED AWAY FROM THE STREET? WE ARE.

WE'RE REALLY WEIRD WITH THAT.

IT MIGHT BE ON AN ISLAND THERE, BUT I'M FINE TABLING THAT THIS DISCUSSION, I THINK THESE NUMBERS ARE GREAT LOOKING AT THIS PERSON.

SO I'D SAY KEEP THAT SPREADSHEET FOR OUR NEXT MEETING, BUT ALSO LET'S LOOK AT THE OTHER CITIES THEN WE CAN COMPARE AND SEE IF WE NEED TO TAKE ANY ACTION AT THAT POINT.

ALL RIGHT.

GREAT.

ALL RIGHT.

WE CAN MOVE ON THEN TO OUR THIRD ITEM IS THE MULTI-FAMILY PARKING STANDARDS.

THANK YOU, MR. BARKER IS GOING TO JOIN US UP HERE.

ALL RIGHT.

OKAY.

YEAH, SURE.

IS THIS WORKING? YES.

YES.

HERE.

WELL, I'M NOT SURE IF SHE'S WITH THIS OR NOT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR COMMITTEE, UH, RICK BARKER CODE COMPLIANCE.

UM, AS YOU RECALL, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE ASKED TO DO FROM THE LAST MEETING WAS TO REACH OUT TO THE APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, UH, IN THE MANSIONS AND NAMING FOREST STREET AREAS, UH, JUST TO GET SOME IDEAS AND THOUGHTS ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES AND CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE, UH, FOR THE PARKING, UH, WE WERE ABLE TO REACH OUT TO ALL THREE COMMUNITIES, EXCUSE ME.

AND PRETTY MUCH THE, THE UNANIMOUS ANSWER WAS THAT THEY, EACH COMMUNITY FELT LIKE THEY HAD ADEQUATE PARKING.

UH, CURRENTLY, UM, THE STREET PARKING THAT IS OCCURRING, UH, IS PRIMARILY DUE TO CONVENIENCE PARKING THAT WAS AS DISCUSSED BEFORE.

UH, AND THEN THEY ALSO, UM, TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE AREAS THAT, UH, THE STREET PARKING IS OCCURRING.

IT IS A SAFETY CONCERN.

UM, AS YOU, AS YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE, UM, THERE, THERE WAS SOME ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ADDED, UH, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, UH, TO THAT AREA, UH, TO, UH, ALLEVIATE SOME PARKING CONCERNS.

AND THEY FELT LIKE MAYBE THAT MAY NOT BE, UH, AT THIS TIME BEING ENFORCED, UH, VERY MUCH.

UH, SO THAT, THAT'S ONE THING THAT WE COULD PROBABLY LOOK AT, UH, DOWN THE ROAD IS, UH, ENFORCING SOME OF THAT, NO PARKING ON THE STREETS, UM, WHERE THAT ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE HAS BEEN ADDED.

BUT, UH, BUT PRIMARILY, UM, AGAIN, THEY FELT LIKE THERE WAS ADEQUATE PARKING, UH, THAT WAS DURING THE, DURING THE DEVELOPMENT, UH, AND THAT PRIMARILY THE, THE, THE STREET PARKING IS, IS DUE TO, UH, CONVENIENCE.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY, UM, THE INFORMATION THAT WE GOT BY, BY TALKING TO THEM, THEY WERE, THEY WERE VERY, UH, APPRECIATIVE OF THE COMMITTEE'S EFFORTS AND, AND DISCUSSING THIS BECAUSE THEY HAVE SEEN A, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT OF A SAFETY CONCERN OUT THERE WITH SOME OF THE STREET PARKING THAT'S OCCURRING.

SO THEY WERE VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THE, OF THE WORK AND THE EFFORT THAT THE COMMITTEE IS MOVING ON, UH, TO TRY TO ACCOMPLISH THIS.

SO JUST WANTED TO PASS THAT ALONG AS WELL.

YEAH.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM NOW? I CAN JUST SAY I'VE HAD MR. BEDS, HIS MARSHALS GO OUT THERE MANY TIMES OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS TO ENFORCE THAT.

IT'S JUST, THOSE SIGNS ARE RELATIVELY NEW WITHIN THE PAST MONTH OR SO.

SO IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE TIME TO EDUCATE THE PEOPLE PARKING ALONG THE STREETS, THAT THOSE ARE INDEED NO PARKING ZONES AROUND THE CORNERS THAT ARE SAFETY CONCERNS AROUND THE STOP SIGNS AND DRIVEWAYS OF THE COMMUNITY.

SO EXACTLY.

UM, I THINK WE CAN, IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE COMMITTEE, REPORT THIS OUT TO THE COUNCIL, THEN I THINK WE WERE GOING TO TAKE NO ACTION WITH TRYING TO ADJUST OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING ON THESE AT THIS TIME.

SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MISS BARBARA FOR REACHING OUT TO THOSE COMMUNITIES LIKE YOU'RE READY.

ALL RIGHT.

OUR LAST ITEM THEN IS ITEM TWO D MEANING THE GDC TO ALLOW FOOD, TRUCK PARKS.

ALL RIGHT.

LET ME JUST GARREN HAS A PRESENTATION FOR US.

YES.

JUST A VERY BRIEF, UM, TOOK JUST KIND OF A QUICK LOOK AT, 'EM DO AN EXTRA STEP HERE.

UM, TOOK A LOOK AT A COUPLE OF OTHER CITIES OR THREE OTHER CITIES IN THE REGION THAT DO ALREADY HAVE A LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR, UH, FOOD, TRUCK PARKS.

UH, THE GDC DOES NOT, IT MAKES NO MENTION OF FOOD TRUCKS.

THEY'RE JUST HANDLED THE COURSE THROUGH PERMITTING THROUGH HEALTH AND, AND WHATNOT.

UM, BUT MOSQUITOES, OUR NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH.

UM, THEY DO HAVE A DEFINITION, UH, MOBILE FOOD UNIT PARK.

UM, THEY DEFINED IT AS A FIXED COMMERCIAL LOCATION AND PERMANENT DEVELOPMENT DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE THREE OR MORE MOBILE FOOD UNITS, WHICH I BELIEVE HAS ITS OWN DEFINITION, UH, OFFERING FOOD AND OR BEVERAGES FOR SALE TO THE PUBLIC AS THE PRIMARY USE OF LAND.

UH, AND THEN AS FAR AS ZONING DISTRICTS, THEY ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL, UH, MIXED USE AND INDUSTRIAL, UH, ZONING DISTRICTS, UH, DENTON, UH, HAS A SIMILAR, UM, UH,

[00:50:01]

DEFINITION.

THEY CALL IT MOBILE FOOD COURTS.

UM, THEY'RE ONLY PERMITTED WITH AN SUP.

UH, THEY DO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SEP PROCESS AND GET APPROVAL FROM CITY COUNCIL.

UM, BUT THEY ARE, UM, UH, POSSIBLE, UH, BY SUP AND NON-RESIDENTIAL AND SOME MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS.

AND THEY DEFINE MOBILE MOBILE FOOD COURTS AS, UM, A LOT OR PARCEL WHERE MOBILE FOOD TRUCKS OR TRAILERS CAN BE LOCATED FOR THE BUSINESS OF SELLING FOOD.

AND THEN FINALLY, PLANO HAS A DEFINITION FOR FOOD TRUCK PARK, AN AREA DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE TWO OR MORE MOBILE FOOD UNITS AND OFFERING FOOD AND OR BEVERAGES FOR SALE TO THE PUBLIC AS THE PRIMARY USE OF THE PROPERTY.

UH, AND THOSE ARE ALLOWED BY, UM, SUP ONLY, UH, BUT IN MOST, UM, NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

SO, UM, A COUPLE OF, UH, STANDARDS TO CONSIDER, I LOOKED PARTICULARLY AT, UM, THE CITY OF MOSQUITO ORDINANCE, WHICH, UM, UH, WAS PRETTY, UM, COMPREHENSIVE, BUT ALSO VERY EASY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND, UM, THEY ADDRESSED, UH, THESE THINGS.

IT'S NOT JUST LIMITED TO THESE, UH, SEVEN ITEMS, BUT THESE ARE KIND OF SOME HIGHLIGHTS, A CERTIFICATE OR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS REQUIRED FOR THE ENTIRE SITE.

THEY HAVE TO GET A CEO FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

UM, THEY HAVE A MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

I NOTICED THAT'S IN PLANOS AS WELL.

I THINK, UM, DEPENDING ON THE CITY, YOU KNOW, 150 TO 200 FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES OR DWELLINGS, UM, HOURS OF OPERATION, UM, UH, NOTICE THE CITY OF MOSQUITO ORDINANCE HAS A SITE MANAGER, UH, REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO KIND OF BE IDENTIFIED AND REPORT IN WITH THE, UM, BUILDING DEPARTMENT AS PART OF THE CEO AND, UM, CONTACT INFORMATION, ALL THAT GOOD STUFF THEY HAVE TO BE, YOU KNOW, UM, BASICALLY KEEPING UP WITH THE SITE, MAINTAINING IT WELL, UM, ELECTRICITY HOOKUPS FOR EACH, UM, FOOD TRUCK AND OF COURSE, ACCESS TO POTABLE WATER.

UH, AND I'VE BEEN OF COURSE PARKING, YOU KNOW, NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PER FOOD TRUCK OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE AND, UM, SEATING.

UH, SO THOSE ARE JUST A FEW STANDARDS, UM, THAT COULD BE PART OF THIS ORDINANCE IF THE COMMITTEE MOVES IN THAT DIRECTION.

AND, UM, STAFF WOULD CERTAINLY BE HAPPY TO BRING SOMETHING BACK OR GO INTO MORE SPECIFICS ON, UM, SOME OF THESE ORDINANCES.

UM, SO I'LL JUST HAND IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.

OKAY.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.

UM, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

WELL, DO ANY OF THEM, IT SAYS CETERA.

DO ANY OF THEM MENTION SPECIFICALLY ACCESS TO RESTROOMS? I BELIEVE, YES.

YES.

THAT WAS ONE OF THEM.

THAT PART OF THE ETC.

I BELIEVE SO.

I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT MOSQUITOES, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THAT WAS ONE OF THEM HAVING, YEAH.

I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THAT SPECIFIC, UM, BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S A QUESTION THAT'S, THAT'S ARISEN.

UM, AND SO WITH DENTON, YOU SAID THAT, THAT THEY REQUIRE AN SUP AND IT'S IN NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE AND IT SAYS FOR A LOT OR A PARCEL.

SO, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST, I'M THINKING ABOUT SEVERAL, WELL, SOME SPECIFICS I'M THINKING ABOUT KELLY SAIGON MALL AND THINKING IF, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A NEW LAND USE DESIGNATION, UM, IT LOOKS LIKE THE FIRST ONE SAID IT HAS TO BE THE PRIMARY USE OF THE WHOLE SITE.

WHAT IF IT'S NOT A PRIMARY OF A WHOLE SITE? WHAT IF IT'S A SECONDARY USE OF A WHOLE SITE, BUT BEING USED, UM, FOR THREE OR MORE TWO OR MORE OR WHATEVER ULTIMATELY BECAME OUR STANDARD? UM, I THINK THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I WOULD HOPE TO SEE IS THAT WE WOULDN'T LIMIT IT TO A FOOD COURT HAVING TO BE THE PRIMARY USE OF AN ENTIRE SITE, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE.

WE HAVE A LOT OF SITES IN GARLAND WHERE WE HAVE ACRES OF UNUSED CONCRETE PARKING LOTS, AND I WOULD RATHER SEE THEM PUT TO A GOOD USE IN THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS WOULD BE A GOOD JUICE WITHOUT REQUIRING THE WHOLE SITE BECOMES, YOU KNOW, UH, THE WHOLE SITE BECOMES A FOOD COURT.

SO, UM, SO, UM, WITH DENTON, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHEN THEY SAY A LOT, OR LOT, OR LOT OR PARCEL WOULD BE THE SAME, THE SAME THING, BUT NONE OF THESE ARE SAYING A PORTION OF A LOT.

NONE OF THESE ARE DESIGNATED AS BEING A, A PORTION OF A LARGER LOT, BOTH PLANO AND MESQUITE SPECIFICALLY SAY, UH, THE PRIMARY USE OF LAND.

UM, I COULD FIND OUT A LITTLE MORE FROM THESE CITIES AND SEE IF THEY'RE BASICALLY REQUIRING THE LOT TO BE PLANTED FOR THIS PARTICULAR USE OR IF THEY EVER ALLOW IT AS A SECONDARY USE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, OR PORTIONAL A PROPORTIONATE USE

[00:55:01]

OF, AGAIN, I'M JUST THINKING WE HAVE, UM, ANOTHER EXAMPLE, DOWNTOWN FIFTH AVENUE, NUTRITION IS IN A SITE THAT USED TO BE, UH, A CAR LOT.

AND SO IT HAS A TINY LITTLE WHAT USED TO BE THE OFFICE AND A HUGE PARKING LOT.

AND I KNOW THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF HAVING, UM, GETTING ARRANGEMENTS TO HAVE, UH, FOOD TRUCKS COME THERE.

IT'S A WONDERFUL USE OF THAT LOT.

SO DEPENDING ON HOW THE ADJACENT, UM, ORDINANCE ENDS UP LOOKING, IT MAY BE THAT THAT WOULD CROSS THE LINE FROM A NORMAL, UM, FOOD TRUCK USE ON AS A SECONDARY USE THAT A LOT TO PERHAPS BEING LABELED AN AREA WITH A FOOD COURT.

I JUST WOULDN'T WANT TO, I WOULDN'T WANT TO RULE THAT OUT BY BEING TOO RESTRICTIVE IN THIS, IN THIS AREA.

I WOULD, SO THAT, I GUESS MY, MY MAIN QUESTION WOULD BE THAT, DO WE HAVE ANY EXAMPLES ANYWHERE OF, UM, FOOD COURTS THAT ARE DESIGNATED OFFICIALLY FOOD COURTS WITH FOOD COURT REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NOT ALL IN ONE LOTS? UM, I WOULD SAY YES, JUST LOOK AT, KELLY'S LIKE I'M ON MY DISTRICT THAT HAS A FOOD COURT IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THE, I DON'T THINK THE INDIVIDUAL, I THINK THERE'S LEASES FOR THE INDIVIDUAL STORES THROUGHOUT THE MALL.

I DON'T THINK THEY OWN THEIR OWN.

I'M SURE THEY DON'T OWN THEIR OWN STORES IS A LEASE A FOOD COURT, TIGHT LEASE.

AND MAYBE THAT'S THE KIND OF ARRANGEMENT WE'D BE LOOKING AT HERE IF YOU'RE LEASING AN AREA OF A LARGER AREA.

AND I THINK YOUR LOT OR PARCEL REALLY HAS TO DO WITH THE PLANNING OF THE LAND.

SO PARCELS WOULD BE UNPLATTED MOTS WOULD BE AFTER PLANTING.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE WOULD REQUIRE THIS USED TO BE PLANTED IF THERE'S AN UNPLANTED LOT THAT IS BEING DESIGNATED AS A FOOD PARK FOOD TRUCK PARK.

UM, TYPICALLY MR. GREEN DID REQUIRE PLATS FOR ALL LAND THAT IS BEING DEVELOPED THAT DOES NOT ALREADY HAVE A PLAT.

UM, WE DO THAT AS THE GENERAL REQUIREMENT FOR, UM, FOR A BUILDING