[1:07] Recording in progress.
[1:10] » Welcome to the city council meeting of
[1:13] the city of Lewisville,
[1:15] July [clears throat] 28th, 2026.
[1:18] Would you please take a roll call vote
[1:20] or roll call uh not a vote
[1:24] yet?
[1:26] » Council member Hefner.
[1:27] » Yes. Council member Kurt present.
[1:31] » Council member Fehey
[1:32] » Here.
[1:34] » Mayor Prom Hamington
[1:35] » Yes.
[1:36] » Council member Cooperman
[1:37] » Here.
[1:38] » Council member Dickinson
[1:40] » Yes.
[1:40] » Mayor Lee
[1:43] » Here.
[1:44] » Oh, it did not pass. [laughter]
[1:46] » I know you wanted me to say yours.
[1:48] » Yes or no. All right. [clears throat] Uh
[1:51] please join with me in the pledge of
[1:52] allegiance.
[1:56] » Aliance to the flag. of the United
[1:58] States of America and to the republic
[2:01] for which it stands. One nation under
[2:04] God, indivisible, with liberty and
[2:07] justice for all.
[2:11] » We get a motion for approval of
[2:13] tonight's agenda.
[2:14] » So moved.
[2:16] » Second.
[2:18] » Any discussion?
[2:20] All in favor?
[2:22] » Any opposed?
[2:24] Right. Um, do we have any public comment
[2:29] tonight on items not on the agenda?
[2:33] We're on the consent agenda, right?
[2:36] Seeing none, can we get a motion to
[2:38] approve the consent agenda?
[2:40] » So moved.
[2:41] » Second.
[2:43] » All in favor?
[2:44] » I. Any opposed? All right. Do we have
[2:48] any
[2:49] um council members withformational
[2:53] items
[2:54] to report tonight?
[3:00] Okay, seeing none,
[3:02] what's uh city manager reports next?
[3:05] » Uh nothing to report tonight. Thank you.
[3:08] » Right. First item of regular business is
[3:11] ordinance number 1936
[3:14] series 2026 an ordinance amending title
[3:17] 17 of the Lewisville Municipal Code
[3:21] regarding
[3:23] um inclusionary housing [snorts]
[3:25] first reading to set the public hearing.
[3:29] Um tonight we're [clears throat] going
[3:31] to be hearing the staff report on the
[3:33] ordinance. We will not
[3:36] be opening the public hearing or taking
[3:38] public comment. Council may ask
[3:40] questions. Uh we're not going to discuss
[3:43] the matter. Um we can suggest briefly
[3:48] amendments for second reading or we can
[3:51] discuss staff's returning with
[3:53] additional information. Can we get the
[3:55] staff report? Mr. Hurt?
[3:57] » Yes. Thank you. So Jeff Hurt with
[3:59] community development. I'm here to
[4:01] present the first reading for targeted
[4:03] updates to the inclusionary housing
[4:05] ordinance. The overarching purpose being
[4:08] sort of near-term improvements to better
[4:11] ensure that we actually get affordable
[4:13] units built as part of the ordinance.
[4:15] Um, and as a reminder, this is in
[4:16] advance of the broader development code
[4:18] update that is going to begin very soon
[4:21] where we'll actually have a housing
[4:22] policy expert on our consulting team
[4:24] that will be fully dissecting the
[4:26] ordinance and making um additional
[4:28] improvements as well.
[4:30] So, bit of context. I don't need to get
[4:32] into the affordability issue as much.
[4:34] That's been um discussed a lot, but
[4:37] certainly continues to be an issue in
[4:38] terms of the lack of affordability in
[4:40] the community. Happy to dive more into
[4:42] that as a reminder of what our existing
[4:45] inclusionary housing ordinance framework
[4:47] says. So it essentially says that any
[4:48] new residential development has to set
[4:50] aside 12% of its units for deed
[4:53] restricted permanently affordable um on
[4:56] site with the option of fee and loo or
[4:58] other alternative compliance options.
[5:00] And of those 12% of the units the
[5:02] current ordinance says that half of them
[5:04] need to be affordable to households
[5:05] earning less than 60% of area median
[5:08] income and the other half less than 80%
[5:11] of area median income. That's one of the
[5:12] adjustments we're looking at for tonight
[5:14] related to AMI. a lot of policy context
[5:17] and a lot of policy foundation
[5:19] supporting these changes and the
[5:20] specific changes in front of you. Happy
[5:22] to get into that more if you would like.
[5:24] In terms of why update now versus wait
[5:26] for the broader code update, I think
[5:28] there's a few big reasons. One, first of
[5:30] all, there's been zero units produced in
[5:33] about the 5-year history of this
[5:35] ordinance. So, obviously something is
[5:37] not working. Um the other big sort of
[5:39] catalyst is as you all know the recently
[5:41] adopted comp plan sort of shifts the
[5:43] land use focus toward supporting more
[5:45] residential and so we expect to see and
[5:47] we are already are seeing uh interest
[5:50] and applications for more residential.
[5:52] So, um, we are bringing something
[5:54] forward in advance of the development
[5:56] code update, which is a year or two out
[5:57] from seeing an actual ordinance, um, to,
[6:01] uh, sort of get ahead of some of that in
[6:02] terms of maximizing our ability to, uh,
[6:05] get affordable housing units built.
[6:08] So, I'm going to walk through the
[6:09] elements of the proposal here. I know
[6:11] there's other elements that um, council
[6:13] would like to discuss, and we're we're
[6:14] certainly happy to do that. Um, the
[6:16] first being changes to the area median
[6:18] income ranges. So, I'll walk through
[6:20] that. some of the incentives that are in
[6:22] the proposed ordinance related to
[6:23] density and building heights, uh
[6:25] reductions in parking requirements,
[6:27] development fee waiverss, and then
[6:28] certainly updating the fee and L amounts
[6:30] to reflect current market data. So, I'll
[6:32] walk through all of that. In terms of
[6:34] the proposed ordinance related to area
[6:36] immediate income, again, the current
[6:39] ordinance says half of the half of the
[6:40] units have to be less than 60% AMI, the
[6:43] other half less than 80% AMI. This
[6:45] proposal would broaden that and better
[6:47] reflect current market conditions and
[6:48] sort of our peer communities best
[6:50] practices. Um, you may not all know, for
[6:52] example, that in order to afford a home
[6:54] in Lewisville, you need about 140 to
[6:57] 150% area immediate income just to
[6:59] afford a single family home. So, these
[7:01] ranges better reflect sort of current
[7:02] market conditions. The proposal is for
[7:06] um 12% of all the rental units to be set
[7:09] aside for households earning 80% or less
[7:11] of AMI. So instead of divvying it up
[7:13] half and half by AMI, this proposal will
[7:16] divvy it up by tenure. So rental versus
[7:18] owner. Um and the other component
[7:21] related to ownership units. So 12% of
[7:24] those units would need to be set aside
[7:26] to households earning less than 120%
[7:28] area immediate income. That was a tweak
[7:30] that was made to the ordinance actually
[7:32] today. It previously said between 80 and
[7:34] 120. The modification, which we think
[7:37] was a good suggestion, was just to say
[7:38] simply up to 120%. So, we wouldn't
[7:41] preclude someone from coming in at 60%
[7:43] AMI, which would be unlikely, but we
[7:44] didn't want to preclude that. Um, the we
[7:47] could get into the analysis, but
[7:48] essentially the overarching goal of this
[7:50] whole ordinance is to help close the gap
[7:52] of feasibility. So, this graphic up
[7:55] here, which I know is hard to read,
[7:56] basically says that, you know, the
[7:58] market rate that that a developer could
[8:00] get for a unit, whether to rent it or
[8:03] sell it relative to the the affordable
[8:06] rate. That's the gap between those two
[8:08] that this ordinance is is trying to
[8:10] close that gap in terms of making some
[8:12] of these projects more feasible. And AMI
[8:14] is a big part of that. So these
[8:16] incentives
[8:18] related to density the proposal um and I
[8:21] should say this tracks with council
[8:23] direction it's been over a year now but
[8:25] council did provide uh direction about a
[8:28] year ago over a year ago now um that is
[8:31] reflected in this ordinance but the
[8:33] ordinance would allow and it's a may may
[8:36] allow explicitly at city council's
[8:38] discretion a 20% density bonus for
[8:41] projects that provide on-site affordable
[8:43] housing in compliance with the
[8:45] inclusionary housing ordinance, a 20%
[8:47] increase in lot coverage um for those
[8:50] same types of projects. The ordinance
[8:52] also has an enhanced density bonus. So,
[8:54] if you do 100% on-site affordable at a
[8:57] deeper affordability level, then you get
[8:59] a 30% density bonus, and I'll walk
[9:01] through how that might play out here.
[9:04] The analysis on that front is
[9:06] essentially related to project
[9:07] feasibility. Again, there's specific
[9:09] policies calling for this change. uh the
[9:12] enhanced bonus structure actually aligns
[9:14] with current what's called income
[9:16] averaging approaches for like
[9:18] low-inccome housing tax credit. So um
[9:20] the 80% or less average of 60% AMI is
[9:24] aligned with what how chaffa and
[9:27] low-inccome housing tax credits
[9:29] currently work. So that's the deeper
[9:30] affordability bonus. Um, also important
[9:33] to note that this these density bonuses,
[9:36] we'll talk about potential height
[9:37] bonuses, they certainly don't trump the
[9:39] other requirements in the code. So, all
[9:41] things related to neighborhood
[9:43] compatibility,
[9:44] um, traffic analysis, utilities, those
[9:46] would all still apply and this would be
[9:48] sort of considered on the same
[9:50] wavelength as those
[9:52] in terms of how the density bonus could
[9:54] apply in an example. So, if you look at
[9:56] a project that currently has 100 units
[9:59] entitled by zoning, if they were to prov
[10:03] provide on-site affordable housing, the
[10:05] unit cap would go up to 120. So, you'd
[10:07] be allowed 120 units under this
[10:09] scenario. And so, you take that amount,
[10:11] and this is where the feasibility comes
[10:13] into play. So, if you do the math on a
[10:15] 100 unit project, for example, with that
[10:18] bonus, the city would see three
[10:20] additional affordable housing units. the
[10:23] developer would also see about 17
[10:25] additional market rate units. So that's
[10:26] where it really helps sort of their
[10:28] bottom line and their feasibility and
[10:30] that's one of the intents of this
[10:31] ordinance obviously. So in terms of
[10:33] other incentives, so there are parking
[10:35] reductions built into the ordinance as
[10:37] well that go beyond sort of the current
[10:40] and most recent parking um minimum uh
[10:43] sort of waiverss that we have in our
[10:44] ordinance where there's essentially no
[10:46] minimum parking required for projects
[10:48] that have on-site affordable housing. Um
[10:51] the ordinance also calls for identifies
[10:53] u uh waving zoning related development
[10:56] review fees. So that's the fee you pay
[10:57] for like a PUD subdivision reszoning. Um
[11:01] and again this is all about trying to
[11:03] improve the feasibility of um of these
[11:05] projects.
[11:08] In terms of the fee and loo uh this is
[11:10] something that will get a deeper dive
[11:11] with the broader development code update
[11:12] but what we did as staff was just use
[11:15] the exact same methodology that we've
[11:17] used in the past and update the inputs
[11:19] that go into the fee calculation. So
[11:21] updated market data. We have the most
[11:23] recent HUD household income data from
[11:26] this year that was put into the model as
[11:28] were current market sale prices and
[11:30] rental prices. Um, and so the fee
[11:32] actually strangely about stays the same
[11:35] with the rental, which we reran the
[11:38] number several times to confirm that was
[11:40] the case, but the fee stays pretty flat
[11:42] with rental, but it does jump quite a
[11:44] bit with the owner units. It goes more
[11:45] than double, and we'll sort of walk
[11:47] through the analysis around that. So,
[11:50] one of the key uh discussion points from
[11:52] council last year was getting a better
[11:54] understanding of how that fee and loo
[11:56] increase impacts overall feasibility in
[11:59] terms of both the affordable units and
[12:00] the market rate units. And so what our
[12:03] analysis has shown and and we'll have
[12:05] housing policy experts with our code
[12:06] update do a deeper dive on this, but um
[12:09] essentially I think that the there's an
[12:12] inclination to think that that fee is
[12:14] just going to automatically be passed
[12:15] down sort of directly 100% to the tenant
[12:18] or on the sale price. That's not the
[12:21] case from our perspective and our
[12:22] analysis. There is some of that but you
[12:26] know we could get into this further if
[12:27] you'd like but the market will only
[12:29] support a certain rent level or housing
[12:31] price level. So as a result of that
[12:34] things adjust around that. So the
[12:35] developer would look at value sort of
[12:38] adjustments around design things like
[12:39] that. Um the land value we found tends
[12:42] to adjust over time to account for these
[12:44] fee changes. There is potential for
[12:46] reduced profits from the developer. So
[12:48] there is a partial pass through but the
[12:50] impact isn't sort of like one for one as
[12:53] um a lot of folks might think
[12:56] regarding building height. So, uh, staff
[12:58] is proposing for council consideration
[13:01] sort of based on recent council
[13:03] discussions around this very issue. Um,
[13:05] the potential at city council's
[13:07] discretion, again, this is a may, that
[13:10] if a project provides on-site affordable
[13:12] housing in compliance with this
[13:14] ordinance, they could get up to a
[13:16] one-story or 15 foot height increase as
[13:18] part of that development proposal. And
[13:21] so again, it would need to be consistent
[13:22] with all the other requirements and
[13:23] policies that we have, but this is one
[13:25] tool in sort of the toolkit that we're
[13:27] putting on the table for consideration
[13:30] um and for discussion. And so
[13:32] importantly um it does not as written
[13:35] apply in the I'll have a map up here,
[13:36] but it does not apply in the Oldtown
[13:38] overlay for example. So in the
[13:40] residential area in around downtown, no
[13:43] height increases would be allowed. Um
[13:45] same thing for the downtown core. Um and
[13:47] I'll show a map here in a second of what
[13:49] that means.
[13:50] But again, this is about trying to
[13:52] improve the feasibility of these
[13:53] projects, allowing more design
[13:55] flexibility. If a developer can go up,
[13:57] they may be able to get more units, but
[13:59] it's more about being able to address
[14:01] utilities, traffic, access, circulation,
[14:03] things of like like that for more
[14:05] flexibility. And again, this is would be
[14:07] at council's discretion on sort of a
[14:09] case-byase uh basis. And so this map
[14:12] here shows just zooming in on downtown
[14:15] how the building height incentives are
[14:16] written. So essentially the as written
[14:19] the areas in cross-hatched red those are
[14:21] called the transition areas of downtown
[14:24] those are the areas that would be
[14:25] eligible for a onetory or 15t height
[14:28] increase. So the base height there is
[14:30] two stories and so this ordinance would
[14:33] enable at council's discretion still to
[14:35] go up to three stories for affordable
[14:38] housing projects. And then the area in
[14:40] the middle is where there are no height
[14:43] allowances as part of this ordinance in
[14:44] the core area.
[14:47] or height incentive allowances.
[14:50] So again, very consistent with our
[14:51] adopted plans in terms of the ordinance
[14:54] before you tonight. Planning commission
[14:56] did vote uh unanimously to recommend
[14:59] approval of the ordinance back in May.
[15:01] Um one of their comments was that um we
[15:04] would like they would like to see more
[15:05] flexibility in the ordinance for us to
[15:08] administratively update the fee in lie
[15:10] without having to change the ordinance
[15:11] each time. So, the fee being baked into
[15:13] the ordinance has created a challenge
[15:15] for us. Um, and so the way it's written
[15:18] on the proposed ordinance, um, we would
[15:20] or the city manager would have the
[15:22] ability to, um, update the fee using the
[15:25] exact same methodology and just with new
[15:26] market inputs. And so that would be a
[15:28] possibility under the ordinance.
[15:32] And again, just wanted to reiterate,
[15:34] planning commission did not consider the
[15:36] building height incentive as part of
[15:38] their package. And so that's something
[15:40] that we as staff opted to put on the
[15:42] table for consideration by council just
[15:44] given the recent discussions around this
[15:47] specific issue. Um recently
[15:51] there were a few refinements made
[15:52] actually today um based on some good um
[15:54] input from council member some
[15:56] clarification. So I mentioned that um
[15:59] previously said that the owner units had
[16:02] to be between 80 and 120% AMI. We opted
[16:05] to go just up to 120% AMI. staff agreed
[16:08] with that. Um and there's some other
[16:10] clarifications just um to state that um
[16:13] for example the way the ordinance was
[16:14] written. One could sort of extrapolate
[16:17] that if you put one affordable housing
[16:19] unit on the site then you get all these
[16:20] bonuses. So there's some sort of
[16:22] tightening up of the language to ensure
[16:24] that any of those incentives would only
[16:26] be available if the project fully
[16:28] complied with the on-site affordable
[16:30] requirement.
[16:33] So staff is recommending approval of the
[16:35] ordinance um based on the consistency
[16:38] with adopted plans and from our
[16:40] perspective improvements related to
[16:41] feasibility. Um and happy to answer any
[16:44] questions that council has.
[16:46] » Okay. Um we're going to take questions.
[16:49] I want to just [clears throat] in light
[16:50] of some
[16:52] um
[16:54] information that's been um
[16:57] exchanged uh this week around the first
[17:01] or
[17:03] first reading. I'm gonna bear down on
[17:07] not talking about the substance
[17:10] um because we really can't do that
[17:13] without a public hearing and I want to
[17:15] be real careful of not doing that um
[17:17] especially tonight. There are ways that
[17:20] we can adjust that but not tonight
[17:22] because it's on the agenda that there
[17:23] will be no public comment. So um
[17:28] with that in mind, what questions do
[17:30] council members have to ask?
[17:35] None.
[17:36] » There's one here. Oh, [laughter]
[17:39] » Council Member Cooperman.
[17:42] » Uh, thank you for the presentation. Um,
[17:45] could you remind us? So, there's the
[17:47] downtown core, but then there's also the
[17:49] Oldtown Overlay. So, what exactly I'm
[17:52] just not remembering exactly where the
[17:54] Oldtown Overlay covers?
[17:56] » Yeah. And apologies, I don't have a map
[17:58] teed up here, but the Oldtown overlay
[18:00] covers um basically all the residential
[18:02] areas surrounding the core commercial
[18:04] area.
[18:04] » Okay, that was my what I thought. Okay.
[18:06] And then one little clarification. So on
[18:10] the the dots on the east side of the
[18:12] railroad tracks,
[18:15] um is that sort of slanting line like a
[18:19] a well- definfined or is it is it sort
[18:21] of just meant to capture the break
[18:23] between where there are houses and where
[18:25] they're not?
[18:26] I believe and I to confirm I believe
[18:28] that's the boundary of downtown
[18:30] Lewisville cottified and so um it would
[18:34] be part of the core area quote unquote
[18:36] what you're referring to. Yeah.
[18:37] » Okay. Um
[18:40] let's see. Um one other clarification.
[18:44] So right now our parking requirements
[18:48] um could you just remind us I so I
[18:50] thought for multif family we do not have
[18:53] any requirements currently but for other
[18:56] types of housing we do still have some.
[18:58] Is that correct?
[19:00] » Yeah I believe and I'd have to confirm
[19:02] this to you but I believe the recent
[19:04] ordinance it was a state law compliance
[19:06] thing that we kind of went went further
[19:07] on it. Um, I believe it was four
[19:09] projects with more than half affordable
[19:12] are are exempt from requiring parking.
[19:15] The state law said it had to be within
[19:17] transit areas and I believe uh council
[19:19] decided to expand it citywide. This
[19:21] would this would go further than that in
[19:24] that it would be for anything that
[19:25] requires on-site units. It could be 12%.
[19:27] Yeah. Yeah.
[19:28] » Okay. Thank you. Um,
[19:34] and so another question. So, our a
[19:36] current ordinance um it has
[19:40] um
[19:42] well, I I guess it just has AMI uh sort
[19:46] of maximum, right? It says you have to
[19:48] build 6% of the units for 60% or below
[19:52] um and 6% for 80% or below. Um
[19:57] so, we yeah, so we're not trying to do
[19:59] any averaging sort of within a range.
[20:01] Um, and I guess with the changes that
[20:03] we've made for tonight, we're not trying
[20:06] to do any averaging in a range of AMIs.
[20:09] Is that correct? Or enforce some kind of
[20:11] averaging for what gets built.
[20:14] » Yeah. I don't know if we ever sort of
[20:16] administered as averaging the current.
[20:17] It's just sort of half and half. um
[20:19] which I guess you could get to an
[20:21] average from that of course, but um the
[20:23] proposed ordinance would not have
[20:25] averaging as far as the baseline
[20:28] compliance, but there would be if you
[20:30] wanted to do the enhanced density bonus,
[20:32] there would be an averaging with that.
[20:34] Um that's actually what Yeah. Yeah.
[20:36] » Okay. No, that's fine. Um
[20:41] Okay. Couple other questions. Um,
[20:44] so right now I guess the ordinance says
[20:47] we could either grant an extra story or
[20:49] 15 feet extra height. Do you think there
[20:52] is room in that 15 ft to sort of abuse
[20:56] the idea of adding one more story? You
[20:58] know, could you get that extra 15 ft and
[21:00] then shrink the other ones and get more
[21:03] or I I don't know. Just kind of curious
[21:05] about that.
[21:05] » It's it's it's fair for sure. I believe
[21:07] it's written whichever is less. So we
[21:10] would have the ability to look at, you
[21:12] know, how we define a story versus the
[21:14] 15 ft. And if it if someone was trying
[21:16] to squeeze in two stories, I think there
[21:19] would be a conflict with the way the
[21:20] ordinance is written. Yeah. That we
[21:21] could clearly point to. Yeah. Okay.
[21:23] » But we could check on that. Yeah. Make
[21:24] sure cleaned up.
[21:26] » Okay. Um and then maybe one more for
[21:29] now. I forget if did we talk at all
[21:31] about sort of codifying an accelerated
[21:34] timeline for review if they're going to
[21:37] include on-site affordable housing?
[21:40] Yeah. So, um we didn't propose that as
[21:43] part of this, but that is something
[21:44] we're working um as part of a
[21:47] proposition 123 actually compliance
[21:50] thing. We have the fasttrack compliance
[21:51] thing. So, that's on a separate track.
[21:53] Um but it would align with this. Yeah.
[21:54] » Okay.
[21:55] » Yeah.
[21:55] » Thank you very much.
[21:58] » Other questions? Yes. Council member
[22:00] Hefner.
[22:01] » Yeah. First of all, thanks for all the
[22:02] edits um in the draft. I think they're
[22:05] really good. Um
[22:07] the the question I have is about the fee
[22:11] calculation on the rental units and 60
[22:14] verse 80.
[22:15] » Yes.
[22:16] » And so I was looking at the table in the
[22:19] fee calculation
[22:22] and it it looks like and you tell me if
[22:24] this is wrong. We calculated the fee in
[22:27] L based on production of a 60% AMI
[22:30] rental unit and that's how we got $4.73.
[22:34] But if we calculate the fee based on an
[22:36] 80% AMI unit, which is what we're
[22:40] actually requiring, the fee flips
[22:42] negative and theoretically only we would
[22:45] owe them $9 per square foot.
[22:49] » Yeah, that's right. So, and something I
[22:51] should have called more attention to in
[22:52] the presentation. So, that's a couple
[22:55] things there. one that's what the model
[22:57] says and we sort of confirm that and it
[22:59] it basically says the market has changed
[23:01] to where 80% AMI and market rate are are
[23:04] getting close more closely aligned in
[23:06] terms of the rental rates currently and
[23:08] so um our proposal is to keep it tied to
[23:12] 60% um because that's well one that's
[23:16] the only way there would be an actual
[23:17] fee but also it addresses that deeper
[23:19] affordability metric. So from a sort of
[23:21] a policy perspective, staff's
[23:24] recommendation is to keep it tied to 60
[23:26] um even though the model um you know and
[23:29] we need to look at that model as part of
[23:31] the broader code update to refine it but
[23:33] using the existing methodology it
[23:35] illuminates that 80% and market rate are
[23:39] um fairly aligned right now. Um which is
[23:42] interesting. Yeah. So, and I'm not
[23:45] suggesting this, but would would it be
[23:48] one possible reasonable conclusion that
[23:51] the market is producing affordable
[23:54] housing at least at the 80% level for
[23:56] rentals and maybe we don't necessarily
[23:59] need this program for rentals if 80% is
[24:01] our goal?
[24:02] Yeah, I mean that's it's it's a big
[24:05] statement and a fair statement that you
[24:08] know the market is changing the rental
[24:09] market in particular and I think doing
[24:11] this analysis has highlighted that but
[24:14] um I mean the fact remains that at 60%
[24:16] AMI there's still a significant gap and
[24:19] the fee reflects that um but from our
[24:21] perspective you know there's a lot of
[24:23] work that could be done to this
[24:24] ordinance to better calibrate it to the
[24:26] market but the 80%
[24:28] um you know having that as the rental
[24:31] max AMI high um and having the market
[24:34] getting closer to alignment is would
[24:37] help make projects a lot more feasible
[24:39] for a developer if they can say that
[24:41] they can deed restrict that at a rate
[24:43] that is pretty closely aligned to the
[24:45] market so that gap is smaller if that
[24:47] makes sense.
[24:51] » Yeah. So, let me just put that a
[24:53] different way, which is we would expect
[24:55] based on market conditions
[24:57] pretty much any project to come in and
[24:59] do on site because they're bas they're
[25:01] going to at 80% they're already meeting
[25:03] on site. All they have to do is add the
[25:05] deed restriction and they get all these
[25:07] additional benefits.
[25:09] » It's a big hypothetical. I mean, it
[25:10] completely depends on the unit types and
[25:12] what you know um as a speaking in
[25:15] generalities 80% is getting pretty
[25:18] closely aligned. we learned through this
[25:20] analysis. But um as we all know there's
[25:23] a huge range of unit types of all kinds
[25:25] of price points. So um it's a big
[25:27] hypothetical and an unknown.
[25:29] » But assuming somebody came in with units
[25:31] that sort of match the assumptions in
[25:34] the chart,
[25:36] it would be a benefit to them to get the
[25:38] additional density and height and what
[25:40] have you. And all they would have to do
[25:43] is deed restrict something that it
[25:45] wouldn't change your economics that much
[25:46] to deed restrict it. I think it's
[25:48] important to know that we're talking
[25:49] about a point in time too. So did
[25:51] restrict something at 80% AMI. We don't
[25:54] know if a year from now or five years
[25:55] from now the market could change and
[25:57] there could be more of a disparity. So
[25:58] that's a point in time analysis too to
[26:00] keep
[26:01] » Okay, that's really helpful.
[26:05] Others questions
[26:08] yes m thanks. Um, so one of the things
[26:11] that I did not see brought up in this
[26:14] um, and I was curious if you had um,
[26:17] given any thought or work into it at all
[26:19] and just didn't include it is about
[26:22] changing the like forlike requirements
[26:25] that are part of our inclusionary
[26:26] housing which um, seems like a pretty
[26:29] substantial reason based on what
[26:31] projects that have come before us in the
[26:32] past is the reason for something not
[26:34] being feasible. It's not around height
[26:37] or other things. And I was curious if
[26:39] that was something that we had looked
[26:40] into because I think that might make a
[26:42] sooner or more immediate change.
[26:45] » Yeah. And and you know, we're open to
[26:47] council direction on this. I think first
[26:49] and foremost, just to reiterate, this is
[26:50] intended to be really targeted just
[26:52] about, you know, just about seeing if we
[26:54] could facilitate more units. Um that was
[26:58] not a deliberate omission. That wasn't
[27:00] something we looked at and said, we
[27:01] analyzed this. We as staff decided it's
[27:04] not a good idea. So, um, and it and also
[27:07] a reminder that the broader code update
[27:09] is coming. There'll be an opportunity to
[27:10] revisit this. Um, you know, I think
[27:13] there's a few things in there that are
[27:15] valuable. So, if you're talking about um
[27:18] amenities and access to amenities, like
[27:20] those provisions, we're talking about
[27:22] design and materials specifically. So, I
[27:24] think from staff's perspective, we're
[27:26] open to alternate ways to get to the
[27:28] same sort of objective um if we wanted
[27:30] to look at that language. But, it wasn't
[27:31] a deliberate omission. Certainly, we we
[27:33] know it's an issue and know there's a
[27:35] lot of things that could be fixed with
[27:36] this. U and the last thing I'll say is,
[27:38] you know, we look back pretty closely on
[27:40] the council feedback provided. It was
[27:42] over a year ago now, but in terms of the
[27:44] decision point of what the framework uh
[27:47] direction was from council um and it may
[27:50] be something I missed personally, but
[27:52] that was not that as part of that
[27:54] specific framework, although I know it's
[27:55] been discussed since then. And the other
[27:57] question is um the height allowance is
[28:01] that something that is already it's
[28:04] rhetorical in a way but that is already
[28:06] an option for council if if we're saying
[28:08] that this is not going to be a guarantee
[28:10] portion of the policy like you meet them
[28:12] the low-inccome housing requirements
[28:14] you're guaranteed to get more height
[28:16] more density but instead it's just an
[28:18] option that is is that currently an
[28:20] option that can come to the council
[28:21] anyway they can ask for
[28:23] » Yeah I mean the there are you as we know
[28:25] there's waiverss to a lot of our
[28:27] standards. So building heights, density,
[28:29] those are all waiverss that can be
[28:30] requested. This is more about being more
[28:32] explicit about what the toolkit is and
[28:34] calling attention to it that that is an
[28:36] op like an explicit tool. So technically
[28:39] I believe you're correct that option
[28:40] already exists, but it's about being
[28:42] more direct about it. I think with the
[28:43] ordinance sort of signaling that these
[28:47] are the tools available. And how would
[28:50] that relate to areas where we have zoned
[28:52] where we're we're very carefully
[28:53] limiting this to two h to two stories
[28:56] other than the downtown Lewisville?
[28:59] » Yeah, I mean I think a lot of it comes
[29:01] back to um the comp plan for example and
[29:04] so that's where we really had a lot of
[29:06] community discussion and a lot of
[29:07] focused analysis and discussion around
[29:09] what specific heights are appropriate
[29:10] for what areas of the community. We
[29:12] wanted to make sure that was explicit in
[29:13] the comp plan. That's our touchstone and
[29:15] what everything would sort of pivot back
[29:17] to. So if something is if if someone has
[29:20] on-site affordable and they're
[29:21] requesting a building height increase
[29:22] and it's inconsistent with the comp
[29:24] plan, then that is the foundational sort
[29:27] of way for us to say no, this is not
[29:29] appropriate. Yeah.
[29:30] » Okay. And is that sort of how the
[29:31] density works as well? Because we've
[29:33] sort of laid out in the comp plan ideas
[29:35] for um density in specific areas. So
[29:37] let's say that the maximum density is
[29:39] 100 uh you actually what would it be
[29:42] like 30 units an acre or something? Oh
[29:44] my god.
[29:45] » So if we allowed for the greater
[29:46] density, [clears throat] is there So
[29:49] there's two ways for them to get greater
[29:50] density. Um allowing more lot coverage
[29:54] or allowing more height. Those would be
[29:56] the only two ways to allow for more
[29:58] density or are there other options that
[30:01] » You could get. So the um 20% would be
[30:04] additional units. So you So lot coverage
[30:06] is like how big your building footprint
[30:08] could be. You can go up by 20%. Building
[30:10] height obviously you can go up. And then
[30:11] there's the density bonus for the units
[30:13] themselves. You can get 20% more units
[30:15] than like your base zoning would allow.
[30:18] » Is so is the thought that the third way
[30:20] is just encouraging them to make smaller
[30:22] units to make more of them and smaller
[30:24] within the same square footage because
[30:26] I'm thinking the only two ways to get
[30:27] more square footage is to either have
[30:29] more ground taken up or go higher unless
[30:32] you make each unit smaller. That's the
[30:33] only third way that I can think of that
[30:35] you can add more units and greater
[30:37] density. Yeah, it's it's sort of like
[30:40] all the tools that we can think of from
[30:41] a zoning perspective that would have
[30:44] that flexibility. So, yeah,
[30:47] unit size, all of that is case by case
[30:49] and variable, but you're right. Yeah.
[30:51] Yeah.
[30:51] » I was just the reason I'm asking is we
[30:53] specifically call out the density and
[30:55] the height and the lot coverage implying
[30:58] those are different things. So, I mean,
[31:01] and I'm thinking they they could I mean,
[31:05] I guess I'm just thinking that just the
[31:07] density itself would allow for height
[31:10] and and lot coverage because And you're
[31:12] saying you can get more lot coverage and
[31:14] more height even if you don't increase
[31:16] density.
[31:17] » Yes. Yeah. Yeah. It's like if you look
[31:19] at it as three tools, you can use all
[31:21] three. You can use one, two, as a may of
[31:24] course. And this was specifically to
[31:26] help because a lot of it reads like it's
[31:27] helping with the 100% affordable units,
[31:30] but this was specifically this program
[31:32] to be targeted around encouraging the
[31:35] 12% minimum inclusionary affordable into
[31:38] the properties and neighborhoods. Is
[31:40] that correct?
[31:41] » In terms of the incentives and the
[31:43] framework and Yeah.
[31:44] » Yeah. The whole the entire inclusionary
[31:46] housing program. I mean is it was it
[31:47] more targeted toward getting what we
[31:49] haven't been able to which is the 12% or
[31:52] more
[31:53] » In in a development that's market rate.
[31:55] » Yeah, that that's my understanding is a
[31:57] the policy decision that we want to
[31:59] encourage unit production with the fee
[32:01] and Lou as a as an option only at city
[32:04] council's discretion but on-site
[32:06] affordable units being built. Yes, the
[32:08] preference of course. Yeah.
[32:09] » Thank you.
[32:14] » Go ahead. Council member Dickson. Yeah,
[32:15] I appreciate those um questions, Council
[32:18] Member Kern, I think that clarifies
[32:20] [clears throat] it most for me. Um, you
[32:22] know, keeping it in in question form,
[32:27] you know, I think, right? So, what I'm
[32:30] understanding is because we haven't had
[32:32] units built on site. We're not changing,
[32:36] we're just trying to incentivize the
[32:37] on-site instead of fe. So the fee loo
[32:41] for purchase is going up and the
[32:44] incentives for building on site are
[32:47] going up and one of them being density.
[32:49] So you could just build more units,
[32:51] smaller units on the same footprint,
[32:53] same height, but you might want to go up
[32:56] » Or you might want to go out in order to
[32:58] accomplish more density. Um and as as
[33:01] you said, potentially all three. Um, and
[33:04] then you only get 30% density if the
[33:08] entire project is affordable, but not
[33:10] not 100% AMI. It's 100% affordable
[33:13] units. You can get a 30%.
[33:17] But they have to be
[33:19] So I'm reading all units are 80% or
[33:21] lower and the average is less than 60
[33:24] and that's the only way you get a 30%.
[33:27] » Yeah. Yeah. So, um
[33:28] » Really be looking at like 30 40 50% AMI
[33:31] units, maybe some up to 80.
[33:34] » Yeah.
[33:35] » Um curious if we why why do they all
[33:39] have to be under 80 if the average is
[33:41] under 60? Certainly
[33:44] many of them will be very very
[33:45] affordable. Why are we limiting? Like
[33:47] why can't it be 30 to 120
[33:50] as long as the average is I feel like it
[33:52] should be one or the other? Either all
[33:53] under 80 or the average is 60. But I
[33:56] don't know that I see what's the purpose
[33:57] of both of those.
[34:00] » Yeah, it's fair. And and uh to be clear,
[34:03] the the the purpose is to align again
[34:06] with the um the sort of the funding
[34:09] criteria and structures for low-inccome
[34:10] housing tax credits, which is exactly
[34:12] what's in there. So, so the um you know,
[34:16] if if we look to sort of the housing
[34:18] experts being Chaffa and all that,
[34:20] they've decided that that's a good
[34:22] enhanced sort of deep affordability
[34:23] metric. And so that was the alignment
[34:25] with that. In terms of your question
[34:26] about whether or not it could go above
[34:28] 80, like a project could go above 80. It
[34:30] just wouldn't qualify for those types of
[34:32] funding mechanisms, but I mean it's
[34:33] something we would be
[34:34] » Well, ours wouldn't qualify for the 30%
[34:36] density because they had some that went
[34:38] over 80.
[34:38] » Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[34:40] » Okay. Um
[34:42] » Changed. Yeah.
[34:43] » Yeah. Yeah, I mean I'd be interested
[34:44] maybe in
[34:46] in coming back with one that strikes the
[34:49] all units unless they I get that they
[34:51] might have to do that for other reasons,
[34:53] but I don't know if we might have an
[34:55] appetite for, you know, having average
[34:58] Well, I'm asking for something to
[35:00] potentially come back.
[35:02] » Okay.
[35:03] » Right. Um, so I'm asking for an option
[35:06] potentially to strike the all units less
[35:09] than 80 because I feel like all an
[35:12] average less than 60 would potentially
[35:14] be enough. But that'd be a pretty simple
[35:16] edit when it comes back to us.
[35:17] » Is that a question?
[35:21] » Just are you asking a question?
[35:23] » I was asking if that could come back
[35:25] that way. Yes.
[35:29] » All right.
[35:30] » Direction.
[35:34] » [clears throat]
[35:34] » Um, other questions.
[35:38] » Yep.
[35:40] » I'll just say I'm I'm interested in the
[35:42] same thing. I I had posed it in my
[35:44] written comments as doing the opposite
[35:46] of making it all under 80 and getting
[35:49] rid of the 60 average. But I don't know
[35:51] that I have a I I think your argument is
[35:53] equally valid and they probably get to a
[35:55] similar place. But both both does feel
[35:58] um maybe like overkill. Council
[36:03] member Kern.
[36:03] » Thanks. So, um, what I what I'm trying
[36:06] to understand then since this is opposed
[36:07] to the intention of the inclusionary
[36:09] housing policy is to assist with the
[36:11] inclusion in market rate housing of of
[36:14] non-market rate, right? So, if a if a
[36:17] building is 100% affordable, there's no
[36:21] inclusionary because there's no market
[36:22] rate. It's just affordable. So is it
[36:24] meant to be that it would be like that
[36:27] building would need to meet the needs of
[36:31] a 12% inclusionary for a different
[36:33] project affiliated with that same
[36:35] builder so that it is part of that
[36:38] like what's already being proposed for
[36:41] us. I'm not sure I 100% understand the
[36:44] qu the
[36:45] » So like the way that I look at it is
[36:46] normally we have you have you have 100
[36:48] units 12% of them need to be affordable
[36:51] need to be less than 80% for rental or
[36:54] less than 120 if it's going to be
[36:55] ownership and so that would be
[36:58] inclusionary we're including market rate
[37:00] and below market rate housing and we're
[37:03] asking them to do this um if it's 100%
[37:08] below 80% AMI for rental And it's 100%
[37:13] affordable. There's no market rate. So,
[37:14] it's not it's not it's not an
[37:16] inclusionary. It's it's its own separate
[37:18] lowincome affordable like housing uh
[37:22] complex or unit. It's not like part of
[37:25] our 12% unless that separate unit that's
[37:28] at 100% is part of counting as the 12%
[37:33] inclusionary for a different project.
[37:34] Does that make sense?
[37:36] » Yeah. I uh um I think the
[37:42] First thought is that like that's where
[37:44] that provision lives is when our
[37:45] inclusionary housing ordinance. It it
[37:47] you know ultimately it exceeds it
[37:50] exceeds the requirement. It just cuz
[37:52] it's parked in there. Maybe there's some
[37:53] confusion, but it probably still is the
[37:56] best place to park it because um as
[37:58] we've seen, there is the opportunity
[38:00] through alternative agreements and
[38:01] off-site agreements where you could find
[38:04] a way to have those units count toward.
[38:06] So, it's probably in the right home for
[38:08] that purpose. But to your question,
[38:10] yeah, it's goes beyond including uh
[38:13] being inclusionary. It fully exceeds the
[38:16] requirement. Um so it's it's a little
[38:18] confusing. Yeah. Yeah.
[38:20] » That was a clarifying. And then is there
[38:22] an option similar if it's not for rent,
[38:25] it's for purchase and all of them would
[38:27] be affordable. So for for people earning
[38:29] below 120% AMI indeed restricted.
[38:33] » Sorry, say that again.
[38:34] » So this would apply the the scale of the
[38:36] rental, right? And that's usually like a
[38:38] lot of the LITC funding works for that.
[38:39] That's I understand the 80 and the 60
[38:41] because that's the exact language that's
[38:42] in a lot of the federal funding. What if
[38:45] this was not a rental 100% affordable?
[38:48] What if it was ownership? So let's say
[38:49] it was all like small homes or town
[38:52] houses or maybe we can fix the the condo
[38:55] issues with uh and um we can get some
[38:58] ownership instead of just rental. So, if
[39:00] it was an ownership and we're changing
[39:02] our internal policies to allow for
[39:04] ownership of below 120 versus just 80%.
[39:08] Is it would it be possible or have we
[39:10] thought about adding something that
[39:12] would be available for 100% affordable
[39:14] ownership and therefore it goes up to
[39:16] 120 AMI and maybe it's just changing the
[39:18] language to rental at 80 and below as
[39:22] already recommended and then 120 and
[39:24] below if it's ownership at 100%
[39:25] affordable
[39:26] » In terms of getting that like enhanced
[39:28] density bonus. Yeah, I mean that that um
[39:31] it's not in there currently. It's only
[39:33] for rental. I mean, that's something
[39:34] that we would be open to evaluating um
[39:37] and looking at any potential changes,
[39:38] but um yeah, the short answer is it's
[39:40] not in there. I mean, it would comply
[39:42] with the inclusionary housing ordinance
[39:43] and you could look at ways for that
[39:45] again for that to count offsite if you
[39:46] wanted to, but it it it's not eligible
[39:48] currently for the 30% bonus. Um I think
[39:51] we were more targeting rental units just
[39:52] because of the deeper affordability
[39:55] um considerations there, but um yeah,
[39:58] we're we're open to that certainly.
[39:59] That's what I was wondering too, like if
[40:00] if you guys had looked into um finding
[40:04] ways to make ownership more affordable
[40:07] versus just a lot of this focus seems to
[40:10] be around the the the rental units
[40:12] versus the afford the the ownership and
[40:16] uh I just wasn't sure if that was
[40:17] something that could come back to us too
[40:19] is some a little bit more thought in how
[40:20] we incentivize the the building of the
[40:22] less expensive owned properties. I think
[40:24] the the biggest sort of lever in here
[40:27] related to owner uh units is the
[40:30] broadening of the AMI. Um so that is
[40:32] where um there is a big gap currently.
[40:35] So if you're a household earning 100% of
[40:37] AMI, 120% of AMI, you're currently not
[40:40] in this ordinance or as part of this and
[40:42] so yet you cannot afford a house in
[40:44] Lewisville. Um that's the lever to
[40:47] address owner affordability and the
[40:49] density bonus and all that, but we
[40:50] didn't target the enhanced. Um, we just
[40:52] focus more on rental. Um, but um, I
[40:55] think there's always room for
[40:56] improvement in the ordinance. Certainly.
[40:57] » Thank you.
[40:58] » Yeah,
[40:59] » Council Member Hefner.
[41:02] » Just I just wanted to um briefly on your
[41:05] point about inclusionary I I've always
[41:08] understood it to be in contrast to
[41:11] exclusionary zoning like the zoning we
[41:13] have that makes it hard for low-income
[41:16] and minority residents to live here. And
[41:19] I've always understood the idea of
[41:21] inclusionary is like inclusionary to the
[41:23] community. Like we're not willing to fix
[41:25] our zoning, but we will give you this
[41:28] sort of program to let you live here
[41:30] even though we want to keep our
[41:31] exclusionary zoning.
[41:37] » Other questions? Yes, Council Member
[41:39] Cooperman.
[41:42] Um, so I'm wondering, do you think that
[41:45] the 30% density bonus is a sufficient
[41:48] incentive to actually get people to do
[41:50] 100% affordable projects?
[41:54] » I I don't know. I mean, I think um it's
[41:58] always about striking a balance between
[42:00] um you know, what what isn't a level
[42:04] that is not so high that it could
[42:07] potentially be inconsistent with
[42:09] neighborhood character. you know, we
[42:10] have all these density metrics within
[42:12] our zoning code and our comp plan fairly
[42:15] closely calibrated. And so, I don't
[42:17] think there's a magic number. I think
[42:18] it's just um providing a little bit more
[42:21] opportunity, but not going so far. And
[42:23] again, this is a policy decision from
[42:25] council, but um staff's recommendation
[42:27] was and then looking at other ordinances
[42:30] and sort of common practice, not that
[42:31] that makes it right, but um 20 to 30% is
[42:34] a pretty typical metric. Once you get
[42:36] into 40 50% I think that's just a you
[42:39] know a doubling of the density in a
[42:41] neighborhood is substantial enough to
[42:42] where that would be a concern
[42:43] potentially but again council decision
[42:45] obviously.
[42:46] » Okay. Um and then you know the city is
[42:51] party to this lofty goal of trying to
[42:53] get 12% of units across the county to be
[42:55] affordable by 2035.
[42:58] Um you know given that we only have like
[43:00] 3% of our units currently affordable. a
[43:03] 12% requirement is not going to get us
[43:05] there. And so the only thing that would
[43:07] help at least in this ordinance um is
[43:11] this right 30% bonus to try to
[43:13] incentivize 100% affordable. Um so I was
[43:18] wondering
[43:19] I think last time we discussed this I
[43:22] made a suggestion about having sort of
[43:23] tiers where you get a little bit more
[43:26] incentive if you go beyond the 12% and
[43:28] I'm wondering if staff discussed that
[43:30] option or not.
[43:32] » We did. Yeah. And I think, you know, for
[43:33] the purposes of of moving this forward
[43:36] and keeping it targeted, that's probably
[43:37] one example of something that, you know,
[43:40] um, you know, we would recommend looking
[43:42] at more broadly as part of the broader
[43:43] code update. But, um, and to try to keep
[43:47] it as simple as possible for this
[43:48] near-term purpose, but, um, so we looked
[43:51] at it, but did not propose it. No. Yeah.
[43:53] » Okay. Uh, so then I think one more
[43:55] question. Um,
[43:59] we reviewed the Dr. COG housing study um
[44:04] in order to come into compliance for
[44:06] some state requirement.
[44:08] Um and one thing that stood out in that
[44:12] um report was that the most need is for
[44:15] people who make less than 50% of AMI.
[44:18] And um our
[44:23] again as sort of aside from the uh 30%
[44:27] density bonus for an average of 60, we
[44:29] don't really try to address that where
[44:32] the most need is. Um I'm just wondering
[44:34] if staff had any thoughts on that
[44:37] particular point. Yeah, the enhanced
[44:40] density bonus was the one sort of lever
[44:43] to get at that specific issue.
[44:45] Recognizing that if you're doing an
[44:46] averaging at 60, for example, then
[44:49] you're going to have to go into that
[44:50] deeper affordability level, but not
[44:52] getting to the point of certainly not
[44:54] requiring it just because of the
[44:55] feasibility gap becomes so great. Um,
[44:58] but um there certainly could be other
[45:01] opportunities to further incentivize the
[45:02] deeper affordability. Yeah.
[45:04] » Okay. Thank you. Any
[45:07] other questions?
[45:11] I've I've got some uh is the bottom line
[45:15] with these changes that
[45:20] we're really
[45:22] to test them against
[45:26] um
[45:28] this
[45:30] sort of standard which is does it make
[45:32] it more likely the developer builds
[45:35] affordable units on the site rather than
[45:38] [clears throat] doing fee and loo.
[45:41] Yeah. Put even more simply is to try to
[45:44] make it make it better. Not we we're not
[45:46] trying, you know, we're not going to
[45:47] make it perfect. We're just trying to
[45:48] make it better, right?
[45:49] » Yeah. Um,
[45:52] do you think that
[45:55] increasing the speed which was asked
[45:58] about in the in a previous question
[46:00] would
[46:02] make a material difference in how
[46:08] much affordable housing gets built or
[46:12] you know whether that would um whether
[46:16] that would make it more likely that a
[46:18] developer builds. Sorry, I may have
[46:19] missed that. The speed of the approval.
[46:21] » Speed of the the approvals. Yeah.
[46:23] » Of the process. Um,
[46:27] » Yeah, I mean it definitely would. I
[46:28] mean, that's that's obviously a big
[46:30] hurdle toward feasibility. Time is
[46:32] money. Um, but you know, I think
[46:34] through, you know, we recently have
[46:37] adopted some, um,
[46:40] new codes that allow more expedited
[46:42] review. We have an expedited PUD review
[46:44] process now, for example, that allows,
[46:47] you know, cuts down from four public
[46:48] hearings to two. Um, and so we've tried
[46:52] to do that a little bit. Um, but I think
[46:54] from our perspective, the the bones
[46:56] might be there currently in our
[46:59] procedures to move things through pretty
[47:02] quickly. Um it's just a matter of
[47:04] [snorts] um you know there's so many
[47:07] things that happen in the development
[47:08] review process, the quality of the
[47:09] submitt, the responsiveness of the
[47:10] applicant, but um and again with Prop
[47:13] 123 um we'll be bringing you information
[47:18] to you soon about that in terms of how
[47:20] what we need to do for fasttrack
[47:21] compliance so that you you'll be seeing
[47:23] additional through a proposed resolution
[47:25] and potentially some targeted code
[47:26] amendments to further
[47:29] » Um fasttrack quote unquote projects like
[47:31] Yes. Yeah.
[47:32] » And I appreciate that. I That's a a good
[47:34] reminder. Um
[47:38] couple of other thoughts.
[47:41] Um,
[47:45] one of the things that I didn't see in
[47:47] that peer community review, which was
[47:51] pretty comprehensive, and I I do
[47:53] appreciate all the effort that went into
[47:55] that, is how successful those
[47:58] communities have been
[47:59] » In getting affordable housing actually
[48:02] built. Um, how hard is that? Is that
[48:06] very hard to come up with? Is that a you
[48:09] know it'd be nice to know the effect of
[48:12] each one of these various uh tools which
[48:16] is you know that's everybody's guess
[48:18] right but do you have a sense of uh how
[48:22] hard it would be to get that
[48:23] information?
[48:25] » It it would be we we have a really good
[48:28] partnership with our peer communities in
[48:29] Boulder County and we've actually got
[48:31] some pretty good um data sources that we
[48:33] share in terms of all of our
[48:35] percentages. So I think we could um we
[48:38] could get the numbers by community of
[48:40] afford how many affordable units
[48:42] percentage-wise. The challenge would be
[48:44] like can you tie that directly to the
[48:48] inclusionary ordinance certainly versus
[48:49] other factors but you could certainly
[48:51] look into getting that data and how we
[48:52] compare
[48:53] » Percentage wise. I do know that there's
[48:55] there's apples to apples problems all
[48:57] over the place and because other
[48:59] communities have approved a whole bunch
[49:02] of affordable units and they're not
[49:04] getting built. I know that that's u true
[49:07] of of Broomfield. It's just financing.
[49:10] They're waiting for
[49:12] that kind of stuff. So I Yeah, I I'd be
[49:15] interested though just to see because it
[49:18] it would be I mean maybe independent of
[49:20] all that, it would be nice to see which
[49:22] communities are actually making the
[49:24] biggest strides and then to work
[49:26] backwards and maybe ask why they why we
[49:29] think that's happening. [snorts]
[49:31] But um
[49:37] one of the things that occurred to me
[49:38] too is just ask uh that you maybe
[49:42] provide a kind of visual
[49:46] um a map or a table on the on the height
[49:50] piece.
[49:52] um about how that looks in, you know,
[49:55] how that would look based on
[49:58] the um the part of the um you know, the
[50:04] parcels and zones that we're looking at.
[50:07] » Yeah, we have a it's it's
[50:11] so rudimentary. I I have it as a hidden
[50:13] slide here. It's almost not helpful
[50:14] because the it's easy to map where like
[50:18] the residential medium zone districts
[50:20] are. That's straightforward. But the
[50:21] challenge is with general development
[50:23] plans. So the way the ordinance is
[50:24] written, if a general development plan
[50:26] allows residential, then it could be
[50:29] eligible for the height increase. So we
[50:31] can do a map of all the general
[50:33] development plan areas, but to figure
[50:35] out which ones specifically allow
[50:36] residential gets kind of messy and
[50:38] that's why that map didn't make it into
[50:40] your packet. But so a lot of the areas
[50:42] around Centennial Valley, for example,
[50:44] are a general development plan, but
[50:45] there's really only pockets that
[50:47] actually allow residential currently.
[50:49] And so, um, it needs to be, it's just a
[50:51] map we haven't prepared yet. I
[50:52] apologize.
[50:54] » Um, okay,
[50:56] other questions.
[51:00] » Yes, council member.
[51:01] » Actually, just think you brought up a
[51:02] good point, Mayor. And that would be a
[51:04] helpful tool, Jeff, is to have that come
[51:06] to us and I think it would be helpful to
[51:07] the public to see something like that
[51:09] where those where those where that is in
[51:11] in comparison to the comprehensive plan
[51:13] and and what we're thinking like where
[51:14] it is residential. I think you make a
[51:16] good point. That would be great. Thank
[51:17] you.
[51:18] Yeah, I mean I could I could show you
[51:21] just just so you can see. Um I think I
[51:24] have it as a hidden slide here.
[51:26] » It's it's you could see that I was
[51:28] physically going in and trying to X out
[51:30] the areas that don't allow residential
[51:32] currently. So with a grain of salt, if
[51:35] you look at this map, the RM areas in
[51:38] the orange are easy to map. That's areas
[51:41] that would be eligible. The the green
[51:43] cross-hatched area, that's the Oldtown
[51:45] overlay.
[51:47] And then this is the downtown area
[51:48] obviously, but all these other areas and
[51:50] sort of the teal color are general
[51:52] development plan areas. And so we need
[51:53] to sift through and figure out which
[51:55] ones currently allow residential. The
[51:57] red X is the areas that definitely don't
[51:59] allow residential, but it's reluctant to
[52:01] even share this, but is something we are
[52:04] working on. It's um it's fair that we
[52:06] need that information to evaluate the
[52:08] decision. Oops.
[52:12] » Thank you. That's that's helpful. Um do
[52:16] we um have a motion
[52:21] that perhaps incorporates
[52:24] any any s suggestions that have been
[52:28] kind of made through the question
[52:30] period?
[52:30] » Yes. Go ahead.
[52:31] » Yeah. I'd uh move that ordinance number
[52:34] 1936 series 2026 pass on first reading
[52:39] and the public hearing be set for
[52:41] Tuesday August 18, 2026 at 6:00 pm.
[52:46] » Second.
[52:48] » Any discussion?
[52:49] » Mayor, may I clarify? Um, council member
[52:52] Hefner, is your motion to approve the
[52:54] version that was revised?
[52:56] » The revised version that we have printed
[52:59] out.
[52:59] » Great. Thank you.
[53:00] » Thank you.
[53:03] Okay. Uh, all in favor?
[53:06] » I I
[53:07] » Any opposed?
[53:08] » Opposed? No.
[53:10] » All right.
[53:12] Um,
[53:14] so motion carries.
[53:17] [clears throat]
[53:18] Um, our next um item is an executive
[53:22] session on personnel matter. This is
[53:25] performance review of officials
[53:27] appointed by the city council.
[53:28] Lewisville charter section 52B and CRS
[53:33] section 246424F.
[53:36] Um the mayor is requesting city council
[53:40] convene an executive session for the
[53:41] purpose of discussion of the annual
[53:43] performance evaluations of the city
[53:45] manager and the city attorney.
[53:54] And mayor, prior to entertaining any
[53:56] motion, the city clerk will read a
[53:58] statement required by the city code.
[54:01] » It is the policy of the city to conduct
[54:03] public business and meetings open to the
[54:05] public. While in executive session, it
[54:08] is inappropriate to take straw votes,
[54:10] keep minutes, or to make any final
[54:11] decisions. It is the duty of each member
[54:14] to ensure that executive sessions are
[54:16] conducted in strict compliance with this
[54:18] ordinance, state and federal law and any
[54:21] applicable provisions of the state and
[54:23] federal constitutions. If at any time
[54:26] the scope, nature or parameter of this
[54:28] executive session goes beyond the
[54:30] publicly stated topic, it is the
[54:32] responsibility of the council to
[54:34] terminate and cease any further
[54:36] deliberation within the executive
[54:38] session and return to the public
[54:40] meeting. Only those topics described in
[54:42] city ordinances may be discussed in an
[54:44] executive session. Those topics are
[54:47] summarized as follows. One, where
[54:49] federal or state law requires that the
[54:51] information being discussed remain
[54:53] confidential. Two, certain personnel
[54:55] matters involving only employees
[54:57] directly appointed by the council and
[55:00] other personnel matters upon request of
[55:02] the city manager or mayor. Three,
[55:05] consideration of water rates and real
[55:07] property acquisitions and dispositions,
[55:09] but only as to appraisals, value
[55:11] estimates, and strategy. Four, legal
[55:14] consultation with an attorney
[55:16] representing the city with respect to
[55:18] pending litigation. Regarding the
[55:20] authority for the executive session,
[55:22] section 5-2B of the home rule charter
[55:25] authorizes an executive session for the
[55:27] purpose of reviewing the performance of
[55:29] employees directly appointed by the city
[55:31] council. An executive session for this
[55:33] purpose is also authorized by the open
[55:35] meetings law section 2464024F
[55:38] of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The
[55:41] request involves evaluations for the
[55:43] city manager and city attorney um both
[55:46] of whom were directly appointed by the
[55:48] city council. With that, mayor, you may
[55:50] entertain a motion to go into executive
[55:52] session for consideration of performance
[55:54] reviews and evaluations.
[55:57] » Thank you. I move to go into executive
[55:59] session for the purpose of consideration
[56:01] performance review of employees directly
[56:03] appointed by the city council and that
[56:05] the executive session include Heidi
[56:08] Brinkman with Brinkman Consulting and
[56:11] City attorney Kathleen Kelly except for
[56:13] the portion regarding the performance
[56:15] review of the city attorney. Can we get
[56:18] » Second?
[56:19] » Any discussion? Can we get a roll call?
[56:23] » Council member Cooperman.
[56:25] » Yes.
[56:25] » Council member Fehee. Yes. Council
[56:28] member Hefner.
[56:29] » Yes.
[56:29] » Council member Dickinson.
[56:31] » Yes.
[56:31] » Council member Kern.
[56:32] » Yes.
[56:33] » Mayor Lei.
[56:34] » Yes.
[56:35] » Mayor Prom Hamington.
[56:37] » Yes.
[56:37] » Okay. Council will adjourn to executive
[56:40] session. There'll be a post on the
[56:44] screen during that time and we will
[56:46] return at the end for report by the um
[56:51] city attorney and close to the to our
[56:54] meeting. So, thank you very much.
[2:37:33] We are back on and I think um maybe I
[2:37:40] need to give the report or do you you
[2:37:43] can give the report that you know of
[2:37:45] what you know of it
[2:37:47] » Sorry about the executive session.
[2:37:49] » Yeah if you want to start with your
[2:37:50] statement.
[2:37:51] » Yeah. Uh the council met to discuss
[2:37:57] personnel evaluations of two folks who
[2:38:02] are directly appointed by council. That
[2:38:04] is the city manager and the city
[2:38:07] attorney and the evaluations were very
[2:38:12] very very positive um all the way
[2:38:15] around. uh staff and um and council
[2:38:19] members pretty much in agreement
[2:38:21] generally speaking and we're just
[2:38:24] delighted and wanted to share that with
[2:38:26] you right away in no uncertain terms and
[2:38:32] the unvarnished
[2:38:36] truth.
[2:38:38] If any other council members has
[2:38:40] anything to add apolog Isn't there a
[2:38:41] script we need to
[2:38:44] » She
[2:38:45] » Well she
[2:38:46] » Or I'm just confused on the order of
[2:38:48] things but
[2:38:49] » Well I'm giving a report on part of it
[2:38:51] and then Kathleen can do whatever
[2:38:54] » Yeah I think it's awkward because I
[2:38:55] usually give the report from the
[2:38:56] executive session but since I wasn't
[2:38:58] present during most of it um you know
[2:39:01] I'll I'll just say that the sess
[2:39:03] executive session was for the evaluation
[2:39:06] and performance review of the city
[2:39:07] manager manager and city attorney who
[2:39:08] are officials appointed by the city
[2:39:10] council and the council did discuss
[2:39:12] these annual performance reviews and
[2:39:15] that's the city attorney's report from
[2:39:16] the executive session that she did not
[2:39:19] attend most of
[2:39:20] » One final thing from council's
[2:39:22] perspective is that uh Heidi Brinkman is
[2:39:25] going to Heidi Brinkman yes going to uh
[2:39:30] contact each of you the city manager and
[2:39:33] city attorney to provide additional
[2:39:36] information. Um, and I I guess we
[2:39:40] probably ought to have a vote on that.
[2:39:42] I'm going to move that we um do
[2:39:46] [clears throat] that that we have Heidi
[2:39:49] be the person who's delivering that.
[2:39:52] » Second.
[2:39:53] » Uh, any discussion?
[2:39:55] All in favor?
[2:39:56] » I I Any opposed?
[2:39:58] » All right. Good. Um, upcoming agenda
[2:40:02] items and identification of future
[2:40:05] agenda items. Does anyone want to
[2:40:09] » I I just want to um briefly note so we
[2:40:12] all remember that we're we're going to
[2:40:13] follow up on the city manager's contract
[2:40:16] um subsequent to this discussion and
[2:40:19] delivery of the performance review and
[2:40:21] that should be a future agenda item for
[2:40:23] us.
[2:40:25] » Um
[2:40:25] » I agree. Also,
[2:40:28] um there were some there was some
[2:40:32] discussion tonight about items that may
[2:40:35] not be coming back to us specifically
[2:40:39] about the um um
[2:40:43] inclusive uh housing ordinance. And I
[2:40:47] don't know whether uh uh I'm thinking in
[2:40:52] in part about the um
[2:40:56] portion of uh the ordinance that talks
[2:40:59] about the quality relative quality of
[2:41:02] the
[2:41:04] um
[2:41:04] » The like forlike standards. Yeah, the
[2:41:06] like forl like standards and um I don't
[2:41:10] know and certainly we don't have to deal
[2:41:12] with that in the context of this next uh
[2:41:16] iteration of the ordinance but it I I
[2:41:19] would be interested in at some point in
[2:41:23] the future discussing that as an issue
[2:41:27] and there may be other issues relating
[2:41:29] to that as well.
[2:41:30] » I would actually agree but I think it
[2:41:31] should come next week. I think there
[2:41:34] should be more conversation about that.
[2:41:40] » I think we sent on for first. Well, I
[2:41:42] I'll leave it to staff to they cover
[2:41:45] what they want to on the
[2:41:48] » Yeah. With Director Zukaro not being
[2:41:49] here tonight, um we would like to talk
[2:41:52] to him and discuss the comments that
[2:41:55] were and feedback that was provided
[2:41:57] tonight by council and see the direction
[2:41:59] that he would recommend that we move
[2:42:01] forward with this ordinance. And so, um,
[2:42:04] we would like to talk to he and Jeff and
[2:42:06] then make a recommendation to council.
[2:42:09] » That's fair. I think another part of
[2:42:12] that was sort of the question of speed
[2:42:17] of of uh permitting and so forth. Um,
[2:42:21] that's something that we didn't
[2:42:23] necessarily
[2:42:25] u site as a an amendment. You can deal
[2:42:28] with it in the same way if you like. to
[2:42:30] have a discussion with Rob. But that's
[2:42:33] something for a future meeting
[2:42:35] regardless of whether it's the the
[2:42:38] second reading or otherwise that I'd
[2:42:42] like to put on the table for
[2:42:44] consideration.
[2:42:45] » Yeah. My understanding that's going to
[2:42:47] come to you as part of the Prop 123 um
[2:42:50] process and so that is being covered
[2:42:52] under an item. I don't know the time
[2:42:54] frame for that.
[2:42:55] » Can you let us know?
[2:42:56] » Yes.
[2:42:57] » Okay. Right. Um, do we have anything
[2:42:59] else?
[2:43:01] » Yeah. Oh,
[2:43:04] I guess we Yeah. Do we have any C
[2:43:06] attorney's report?
[2:43:07] » I have no report, but thank you.
[2:43:09] » Sorry, we just flipped those. Thank you,
[2:43:10] Deb. Um, do we have a motion to adjurnn?
[2:43:14] » So moved.
[2:43:14] » Second.
[2:43:15] » All in favor? I.
[2:43:16] » Any opposed?
[2:43:18] » Thank you and good night.