[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.

City Council Meeting

Transcript