Dec 09, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2015-12-09 5:00 PM

meeting it is December 9th 2015 and we are opening our meeting at 5 p.m. it's been posted in accordance to the Texas Open Meetings Act and our first item on the work on the agenda is clarification of agenda items listed on the agenda for this meeting and discussion of issues not briefed in the written backup materials. Thank You Commissioner Bruegel. We have a final plat for Redbird Ridge Edition. I'm going to ask Ross Culbertson to go ahead and make that presentation for us tonight. Thank You, Ms. Bruegel. We have a final plat for Redbird Ridge Estates or Redbird Ridge Edition. This is a 41 acre subject property that includes 19 one-point acre lots, one 17.9 acre lot, and two HOA lots within the ETJ. This is this property is off of Fincher Road in Oak Ridge Lane. There was a way I could give you a context with an aerial map if you need one. Cutting in between the triangle portion of the rural areas of Denton. The owner, the property owner has maintained a residential homestead in this location on the 40 acres and is now releasing part of the project for residential development. With that the project is split between a public section and a private homestead lot section here within the ETJ. The owner also is trying to consider a or is proposing a equestrian and greenbelt trail for public access onto the private lands and those items will be codified within upcoming HOA documents and greenbelt documents that kind of describe the maintenance and responsibilities of this eas ement and access for horse trails and access on to and off public and private properties. With that this plan has been reviewed by the county engineers and through the city's development review committee so staff is recommending approval submitted to you. If you have any questions I could try to answer. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you chair. I just have some clarification questions. You mentioned that there will be a private homestead on the large lot at the back of the property and then potentially a public access easement for equest rian trail and then you referred to the front half of the property as public access. Correct. So I mean those will be private lots. Is it the street that will be public access? Public Street with with private lots for for ownership yes. Okay and then but it's not a private development enclosed at the entry here it's a private development enclosed here for the private residents in the back. So really there's so basically it's not a gated community but there's a gate for one house at the back of the property and I was trying to understand the restrictions that you're talking about they sound a lot like what might be an indeed restriction. Are those applied through the plat or would those be applied through some other instrument? Applied with the plat and will be finalized before plat filing. Okay I'm now a process question this is pretty uncommon to have restrictions on the plat. Would that have basically the same force as a deed restriction and stay in place until the plat is amended? Yes. Okay thank you. Any other questions for this item? Okay moving on. Thank you Commissioner Bruegel. The next item is a final flat of perfect finished landscaping addition. Mike Bell would you please make this presentation for us tonight? Give me as I pull it up here. This is FB 1521 it's perfect land perfect finished landscaping addition we did see a preliminary plat for this several months ago. They want to do an office warehouse development off the fish trap road. It is located in an employment center industrial zoning districts which does support that use. As I pull the plat up here which you'll see it's a long narrow lot and there's a small portion of ESA on the background which they've dedicated some easement for. You can see it's a long narrow lot and towards the back is some floodplain and environmental sensitive area and they've dedicated eas ement for that and this is fish trap road along the front. Any questions? Thank you. We have on Mike you just you may want to just stay there. If you notice on your agenda item 3a is a final replant. This item has been withdrawn by the applicant at this time if you recall it was on your agenda last time too. The applicant is trying to make some decisions as it relates to whether she wants to pursue this or not so it's been withdrawn. The next item is an SUP for multifamily dwellings on property that's on NRMU 12 and I'm gonna ask Mike Bell to make this presentation tonight. This is S1512 for the Meadowview loss. It is an SUP request to allow multifamily development . It's they want 34 plexes but according to DDC that would be considered multifamily development on two properties at 609 and 612 Meadowview Court. The properties are outlined here in yellow. It is zoned neighborhood residential mixed use 12 which requires an SUP for multifamily development. Some background this site was originally a planned development it was PD8 approved in 1970 and this lot roughly here was approved for apartments but it was platted in 1972 in its current configuration which you see here. Ultimately in 1984 PD8 was amended to allow duplexes on these lots including the two subject properties excuse me four plexes on these properties. In 1985 you can see that five of them were built along Meadowview Court and these two the subject properties were never built even though they had approval of a site plan and the lot here in the middle was actually a pool at one point you can see kind of the outline where it was filled in. That pool pre-existed the four plexes on the site it's not included in this request and then in 2002 in citywide rezoning it was rezoned NRMU 12 which is that what triggered the SUP requirement and that's why we're here tonight. There's some photos to show you what's on the side you see the lots are just undeveloped with some some trees along the back property lines and to give you an idea what those existing four plexes look like these are the ones on the north side and this is the one on the south side of Meadowview Court roughly two stories four units each and here's a site plan what the applicant's proposing he wants the buildings running Meadowview Court when the original development they were originally gonna have all have access to a driveway in the back the easements were never dedicated for that purpose so now it's under different ownership he can't get access to those driveways so we're allowing him access from the front along Meadowview Court and ultimately he's proposing generally all brick facades some siding generally consistent with what's out there today. Some considerations in our recommendation it is it has been intended for multifamily since 1970 and four plexes since 1984 the other ones were built in 1985 the proposal is consistent scale the density of surrounding properties and it does comply with the criteria for approval in your backup I'd be happy to go through that if you have any questions about that and we did send notice to property owners we received one in opposition and one neutral and based on those considerations we do recommend approval this request with conditions first that the maximum density shall be four units each building shall have no greater than two stories in height and the development shall substantially comply with the attached site plan with that I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. The lot where it was a pool at one time it's filled over everything and there's a rickety old chain lead fence there now. Is that going to be kept isolated from the other lots? Yes when he originally came in we said we asked him is there way you could approach that owner maybe incorporate that in it makes a little more practical sense if that were included in the development he agreed and did approach the property owner but he wasn't willing to sell so ultimately it will kind of be isolated but not through the effects of this owner through the effects of previous owners. Will they keep the fence up? That I don't know. Okay and you mentioned that the newer ones are pretty much all brick? That's correct. It looked like the picture you're showing us of the old ones mainly siding. They were siding on the second floor and brick on the first floor. Okay okay and then one question for educational purposes in here it says the density of moderate residential which this area is should range between 4 to 12 units per acre so what are you calling a unit here you've got four plexes is that a unit or is each four plex considered a single unit? Each unit within the four plexes is a unit so four units would be a four plex. Okay okay. Thank you. Commissioner Hutzbeth. Thank you chair. Can you walk me through the easement I'm curious if you've given that any thought so you have this these two units you have access from the front and what are we talking years everyone's been able to you know I just I'm curious about that have you given that any thought and what was the your words they couldn't get an easement in the back and so help me understand. Okay the area will probably help me demonstrate that a little bit better but you'll see there are driveways on the back of the existing properties that's how they get their access and the original plan from 1984 showed this driveway wrapping all the way around the site but without any easements dedicated that these that a new owner could access through these properties he has no right to access through those driveways he'd have to purchase the easement that he can connect to his property in the back ultimately decided was he can have access from the front. So were those conversations so is it I don't understand how you can own the property maybe I'm missing something he owns that property but you're saying he doesn't have the right to drive he owns these two properties right he does not own these two properties got it and those two properties do not have an easement correct okay got it. Now Mike. Commission Jadowitz. As I look at the plant they'll have access from the front but actually they'll be parking in the side of the back that's correct that's just a drive that's correct requirement for that driveway in another sense of a homeowner having a driveway up to the side of the building. Okay. Commissioner Buck. The one opposition we got here is on Don ister. Is that that hat right there? Okay. Anyone else? Okay thank you Mike. The next item on the agenda is a consider a public hearing for a specific use permit or basic utility for a substation and I'm going to have Mike Bell make this presentation as well. All right this one is S1511 for the DME Locust substation. This request is an SUP for a basic utility or it's going to be eventually be a DME substation on 6.2 acres in the DCG zoning district. It's located on the southwest corner of Collins Street and Locust Street in the area shown in yellow. There's an existing substation south of the property. This is part of the DME's overall upgrade to their system requires upgrade to this substation. This is the site that 's been approved by City Council for the substation. Site photo is showing you what 's on site. This was in auto repair shop. It's been demolished and then undeveloped property on the north side. And this is the housing to the north side of Collins Street. You can see there's a house, one or two houses with this general style and then one house on the corner of Collins and Locust that has this metal fence. The zoning is DCG. It's located with an area that's intended to be kind of high-intensity central business district type development. It allows things like multifamily and commercial. This is the proposed site plan of the site. These are the interior drives of Collins and two off of Locust. They need these drives for the maneuvering of the large trucks that bring the transformers into the site. Very large trucks have a big turning radius. That's why there's so much area devoted to the driveways. There will be a 10-foot masonry wall as we've seen with all the substations that have come through here and they will maintain open space and the trees to the southern end of the lot. And then to protect the neighbor or the existing houses to the north, they provided enhanced landscaping and trees, street trees and sidewalk along Collins Street. This is an example of the masonry wall that they've done on other substations. And this is a section of what you'll see on the Collins side. The 10-foot masonry wall here, a three-foot planting area with a sidewalk, eight foot sidewalk and 10 foot, 10 and a half foot parkway with street trees in it to kind of relieve the starkness of that wall. Some of our considerations and our recommendation, subst ations are an essential component of the city's infrastructure and therefore when it's necessary to look at them in urban areas, the site should be created to create the least amount of impact on surrounding properties. To do that they 've provided the 10-foot masonry wall and enhanced landscaping as I've discussed to protect the existing single-family homes. We did send notice to residents within 200 feet and 79 feet . We did receive three in favor and then we received the one typewritten opposition letter that you received prior to the meeting. And the ones in favor were just these slivers here that are barely within the line, just in case you're curious. Mike, would you go back to that slide please? They are located along Forward Drive. You can see there's a slight bit of green. That fell, their property that counts in the percentage, that fell within 200 feet and there's a slide exactly right here. You can't really see it on this map but... And where's the opposition? The opposition was, I forget, it's one of these houses right here along Collins Street. Well it gives an address as Elm Street. I'm sorry, that's you. Okay, I'm sorry. 120 West Collins? Yeah. So it's just not filled? We got it this afternoon as before I made the presentation. I apologize for that. Based on the considerations and what you received in your backup, staff does recommend approval of this SUP subject to two conditions. One, that the substation shall provide the 10-foot masonry wall and that the substation comply with the attached site plan. These are the standard conditions we've applied to every substation that we've seen. And with that I'll answer any questions. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you, Chair. You mentioned large trucks needed for the construction. Two questions. Do large trucks come in on a continual basis or is that a one-time shot, build it and they leave? And second to that is last time I was on Collins and Locust, those streets are not in the greatest condition. In the current condition, do they support a one-time movement of big trucks or going back to the first point, multiple uses of big trucks? Let me answer the first question. The first question is they'll be there for the construction of the site to install the transformers and then if need be in an emergency event that one of those goes down and they need to restore power, that truck may have to come back for that. But other than that, the daily traffic would be one DME pickup truck going to check on the side every day. Okay. Secondly, the improvement of the road. There are agreements with engineering that they repair any damage done to the existing roads during construction. Okay. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair. I had a couple of questions about the site plan. So I'm just noticing that the southernmost portion is in the request, but it has no plans for improvement. Is that just to make sure that all of the DME- owned property is correctly permitted in case they expand or...? It was that and as well as meeting their tree code requirements, they had they preserved those trees. Okay, so I see part of the mitigation. My second question is the sidewalk along Collins is pretty great. The large parkway and the eight foot sidewalk. Is there any plan to do any kind of sidewalk along Locust? Is there just like any...? Yes, there will be a sidewalk, but there will not be landscaping per se. And that's the side facing the road runs. Okay, so it's not on the site plan, but it just will be required? It would be in the right way at this point. Yeah, just this one had limited space, so we may have to force the sidewalk back. Thank you. Commissioner Hunstead. Thank you, Chair. So near the train track, obviously the other substation is the same, but does that give any consideration to the same masonry wall next to a train track? Train comes off the rails, power issues? I mean, I'm just thinking that there is a distinct difference in one that's on Bonnie Bray isolated and if a car comes off the road, it hits the 10 foot wall that built the same versus a train coming off. And also there's that intersection there at, I guess that's Doherty that goes across the track, so hits a car and it's just a lot more at stake than just the small one. It's kind of set back. Did that warrant any consideration? Are you talking in terms of somebody crashing into the wall of the substation? Yes, the train coming off. And I have to ask DME if they've got any concerns with their engineering of that wall. We've had that question before about cars, but I don't know that it's happened with the train. Does DME have anything to offer on that? Phil Williams, General Manager, Dent Municipal Electric. So south of here is the existing substation that's been there for about 50 years with a cyclone fence. And so while certainly it'd be hard to stop a train, and that would be at risk, our greatest security for our substations is duplication of those substations having one to back up another one, which is why we have our expansion plan. And so we now instead of just a cyclone fence which surrounds the existing substation, we put a masonry wall and that's our future standard for all our substations to prevent drive-by shooting into substation and protect from it give us better protection from cars and things driving into a substation. As far as that preventing a train from driving in there, probably not. But I guess the greater security we have for it is having to back up substation that each of these substations are built to back up the other in case that kind of event. Okay. Thank you. Phil, I'm sorry, could you stay there for a second? I have a question, please. Recently DME brought a proposal to city council for a subst ation near UNT. I believe it was like Harvin Collins area and that was rejected by city council. I'm curious, is this a totally separate project or is this maybe the alternative to what you all were trying to do there? No, that's part of what we're trying to do for our overall capital program is both aging infrastructure replacement and growth. And so this is a little bit of both. It's addressing the 50 year old substation that we're trying to replace and upgrade from 69,000 volt substation to 138. And so but it's also bigger. And so it's addressing both those. It's replacing the aging infrastructure and growth. The additional substation, the Eagle substation that was proposed and council gave us direction to exclude consideration of one of the sites called the blue site that was involved 13, 14 homes and focus on other sites. That's in addition to this one. That was seen because of growth. Okay. It's just the additional growth at UNT and all the additional growth around downtown right now that load or part of that load is being carried by this local substation with the additional substation capacity to for now and for the future. Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a, do you have a doc? Obviously you do, but is there something that you could share that kind of captures what you just said that the loads and what stations do and what they're, you know, just a visual of where the backup is, where it needs to expand or how the system just functions. That would just be good for me to understand that better and the redundancy, that sort of thing. Just have a some sort of roadmap on how it all kind of works together. Certainly, Mr. We have a every year we file our capital improvement program and we review that with city management, then with our public utility board, which fits that and then ultimately with city council that approves that capital improvement program . And so involved in that capital improvement program is our capital plans for the next five years of all the substations we plan to build and and how they're related to each other and what the timing is of those. I believe we address those issues and we'd be glad to provide that. Okay, great. Thank you. And we have had, I think some new commissioners come on board since we last had DME come in before all the first five or six substations, it might be beneficial. We 've got a couple some of those, like you said, on Eagle and another on Hickory that are going to be closer to downtown, so maybe it might be beneficial if we have them back in to explain that process. Yes. Are there any other questions for this item? No? Okay, thanks Mike. So I believe we're moving on at this point. Yes, absolutely . Talk about our receiver report, item one, I'm sorry, item 2a, work session report. Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding proposed amendments to sub chapter 13 site design standards , section 35 13 7 tree preservation and landscape requirements of the debt and development code. Thank you Commissioner Birgel. Shandrin Jarvis will be presenting this item to us tonight. Thank you Shand rin. You're welcome. Good evening commissioners. I'm Shandrin Jarvis with the planning division. The next item is SI 1524. These are proposed amendments to the tree preservation and landscape requirements. As many of you know, staff is in the process of updating this section of the debt and development code and the intent of tonight's meeting is to give you a progress report, an update on our progress to date. We do intend to bring a full report with the final staff recommendations forward for consideration in the first part of 2016. So with that I will begin. The existing regulations were adopted in 2004 to promote tree preservation and to facilitate site design and construction that would allow for the long- term viability of trees. Over time the regulations have proved to be a bit complex. What we hear from our development community is that the regulations, there's so many variations in the regulations that it's often difficult to determine which standards to apply for a given project. From our tree advocates we hear that the existing regulations don't seem to be very effective because we're still losing a significant amount of tree cover. Between 2007 and 2013 there were multiple attempts to update this section of code and none have been successful because for the failure to reach a consensus on the proposed amendments. So there's still a need to provide clarity, sorry, in the section of code to facilitate future permitting and then to reach to achieve the goals that we've identified in the existing ordinance, in the comprehensive plan, and then in the city strategic plan. And this is part of the reason why council directed staff, well I understand it was before my time, to begin this latest update. So as a part of this effort staff identified the key task and milestones that you see on the screen. As you can see we've completed our research and benchmark analysis. We've wrapped up our internal stakeholders with the other city departments. We have kicked off our external stakeholder meetings. The first one we had last week was with the DIN Community Development Alliance which we received some very helpful feedback. We have another meeting scheduled for this week with Keep Dinnin' Beautiful and in addition to that we will be conducting a visual preference survey of the community. So all that with the goal of again coming back for full consideration at the beginning of next year. So in a few minutes. Commissioner Dudowitz, you have a question? I have a question. You want me to go back to the stakeholders. You're involving citizens. Have you had discussions with any of the developers within the city or anybody that has that side of the perspective? Yes, we actually met with the DIN Community Development Alliance last week. So in a minute you'll hear Haywood who's our urban forester present our initial staff recommendations. But first I wanted to go through what we did for the benchmark city analysis. We looked at 10 cities around the state, most of which have similar population sizes and growth projections to Dinnin'. And we focused on five key areas which were the established tree designations and these are the tree classifications that will be subject to the preservation ordinance. Minimum preservation percentages which is the percentage of existing trees on the site that would have to be preserved during site development. Tree mitigation ratios which would get applied when the minimum preservation percentages are not met. And then the tree fund or payment and loot option which these are fees that get collected if the... and Haywood, you'll have to help me out. When the minimum preservation percentages are not met and let me just go through this. Just a second. So these payments get collected when it's determined that the mitigation of tree removal by planting of trees on site is not feasible or desirable. And then we finally we have the preservation incentives which are inducements or encouragements for the developers to go above the minimum requirements. Commissioner Becker. Thank you, Chair. So if we're not going to get our minimum trees because of what they're building there and they have to fork over some money to put trees elsewhere, is that essentially what you're saying? They either they have the option to plant trees in other places on the site or they can pay into the funds to get... and Haywood will... he's much more vers ed in this than I am and he'll get into that in the next part of our presentation. Okay. So what we found was that DEN's tree and landscape code is probably one of the most complex of the ones that we've studied. We have seven tree designations compared to an average of three for the benchmark cities. And our 39 options for preservation which vary based on lot size, development type, and tree designations are significantly more than the benchmark cities. We also found that in terms of the preservation and mitigation standards themselves, we're trailing when compared to the other cities. For example, we have the lowest minimum tree preservation requirements. We have no requirement or incentive to save large trees or anything over 18 inches. And then we have the lowest mitigation rates for tree removal of the cities that we study. So again, I want to just want to reiterate that these the recommendations that you're about to hear are our initial first cut after we've done our research. We do intend to incorporate the feedback that we that we receive from the stakeholders before we get to the final recommendations. And unless you have any questions for me, I'm going to turn it over to Haywood. Commissioner Roselle. Thank you. You studied the 10 other cities. Is there a way or is it public information easy for me to access the tree preservation requirements in those 10 other cities so that maybe I can contextualize exactly what their requirements are currently? Yes. We actually do. We have the backup data for that and I believe we did a summary table for each of the cities that we can make available to you. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. I have a question. So we're comparing our tree code with 10 other benchmark cities. You said that we're trailing these other cities, but how are those cities doing? Are they increasing their tree canopy? Are they just maintaining it? Are they also losing it but at a slightly slower pace? How are they doing? In the cross section, it varies just based on where you are. And Haywood can speak to that. I'm not the tree expert. I'm sorry. That's fine. It's okay. Thank you. But we'll get into that. Yes ma'am. Thank you. In the next part. Okay. And just to iterate what Shandrin said, what we're doing is we want to work collaboratively with yourselves and start moving forward with discussing, for instance, the benchmarking. We 'll get you the summary table to that. But tonight's discussion is just for us to get the ball rolling, start getting your input. You will be seeing this item more and more through work sessions prior to any final recommendation. But from what we've seen when we start looking at the parameters associated with landscaping and tree preservation requirements, perhaps how we're viewing our mitigation requirements from caliper inch to caliper inch, or should it be looked at differently from a canopy cover perspective, all that will be brought to light. And we want to go through this very slowly and somewhat painstakingly just to make sure we're all on the same page. Commissioner Dutowitz. Yes. Let's talk about the benchmark cities in the list. How were those determined? What was the criteria for them? What was the methodology, I guess? We studied the , looked at the population size. So we wanted cities that were similar in size to what Den is and where we are going. They have some of the same components that we're dealing with. Some of them, most of them have universities and they're dealing with those different kind of issues. They're cities that, in a sense, we compete with for business. For what, please? Business and for, in terms of attracting growth and those different things. They're in a sense our competitors. Okay, because I'm looking at the list in South Lake, Mount Rock. I mean, these are different types of cities and yet we do have some close ones here, which is Fr isco and McKinney and Plano, but I would like to look at what Louisville is doing and or Flower Mountain because they're next door and they do compete with us for business purposes in homesteads and developments. And those cities, we did look and they're not included on this list, but we did look at those for ideas on how to write the code. They're just not listed. So we have taken some of their, the way they've organized the code and the way they're implementing the code for Flower Mountain. There was another couple of more cities that we didn't put on the official list, but they did inform the decision. Can I ask them that we look at those under the same criteria to see where they are in comparison to us? It'd be because they're in South of us and quite frankly a lot of our business issues and development issues are competitive with those to the South of us. Okay. I mean , we can add a couple more. I think they would be very helpful and they may be behind us, which is all right. I mean, we need to move on, but I just like to have a benchmark against what we're competing with in our growth development area, which is those two to the South of us. Okay. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Good evening. Heywood Morgan, Urban Forester Development Services Department. I'll be going over specifically what we're looking at as far as recommendations for changes to the current tree code. So, okay. So one of the things that Shandra mentioned is that, you know, we have the most tree categories out of the benchmark cities that we looked at. So what we're looking at is actually reducing that number from seven to three to include heritage trees, protected trees, and just general canopy trees. The heritage trees and protected trees will be trees above a certain diameter, inch, and size. The heritage trees will also be a specific listing of trees. Some of those characteristics of the cross tim bers, your oaks, your better species of trees, your high quality trees. Your protected trees will have that size requirement, but they'll be all the other trees that are not on that list. And canopy is just the general tree population on the specific site. The next thing we're looking at is allowing exempt trees to be removed without penalty. And what we looked at when we were looking at exempt trees are those trees that are right now categorized in our code as secondary trees. Your mesquite, which technically by definition, in Denton does not grow to be a tree. It's a rather large shrub. Definition of a tree, single stem woody plant, at least 15 feet in height. If you've seen mes quite around here, it's nowhere close to really meeting that definition. If you go further south in the state, you'll have mesquite that'll grow to a decent size tree, but not here in Denton. We're also looking at the locust, bowdark, trees that have negative characteristics, trees that you really wouldn't want to have in your backyard. The ones with the big thorns, the bowdark with the large fruit. So we'll have a list of trees that are less desirable for the landscape that we really wouldn't want to have included, you know, in areas of the city that we're developing to be removed without having penalty against developers. Yes. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. So it sounds like we're pretty much just considering its appearance value. Is that what I'm hearing? Well, it's appearance, but also the interaction with people. I mean, I don't know if you've, if you had much experience around locust trees, the common locusts that have the thorns or the bowd ark, things that, you know, if you left them in the landscape, would be considered a nuisance and in some case a hazard to pedestrians. You know, the trees, like the locusts in particular, you know, has the thorns. You wouldn't want your kids climbing those trees because, you know, those, I've been stuck by them. They're pretty, you know. The only thing I was thinking of was, has any consideration, any value been given to the root systems and stability it gives to the soil or anything like that? Do they have any value in that regard? Of course. Yeah. I mean, these trees, they have, you know, they provide us with benefits, soil stability. They provide benefits for cleaning the air. But when, you know, I'm looking at the urban forest as a whole, and, you know, my background is specifically urban forestry . So I look at the overall population of trees within a city. And so I'm looking at this, you know, long term, how are these trees going to perform in the landscape? How are they going to interact with people? Is this going to create, you know, an attractive nuisance for kids? You know, things along that line. So, you know, they provide those benefits, but is it a tree that we would go and plant in our backyard? Is it a tree that we would approve a developer to plant in a new development? We wouldn't permit those trees. So why should we have those trees preserved or have those required to be preserved if we're not even allowing those to be planted as a part of the new landscape ? So that's kind of the thinking and the rationale with having that, you know, specific list of exempt trees from tree protection. So the next thing we looked at is changing the mitigation ratios. Right now, our mitigation ratios and mitigation, and Sandra touched on it a bit earlier, mitigation is required when the developer cannot meet the minimum preservation requirements . So our code allows for the developer to remove this, say if the developer has to preserve, and right now it's in diameter, it's the developer has to preserve a thousand inches of trees and for some reason they can't meet that requirement. The code allows for half of those trees to be removed and mitigated either through replanting on site or payment into the city's tree fund. The mitigation ratio comes into play and currently our mitigation ratio goes from basically nothing to a one to a two ratio depending on the size of the property, the types of trees. So the mitigation ratio is basically a multiplying factor to mitigate those trees that, you know, were removed that should have been preserved and that's where mitigation comes into play. So we're looking at increasing that ratio from right now it's a maximum of one to two to a one to four ratio and, you know, again we're looking at, you know, we have that list of exempt trees so we're giving a little bit there but we're really trying to encourage developers to preserve the trees that are desirable in the landscape and that's why we're looking at increasing that ratio from, like I said, right now a maximum of one to two to one to four. Yes? Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. The trees that do replace, that get mitigated, that have to come in and replace them, are they going to be the same diameter or is that factored in? Do we lose a little bit in diameter if we're replacing trees? Well currently under the code once you figure out the diameter inches that you have to replace, you have to replace the same equivalent diameter. So if you cut down a 10-inch tree you don't have to replace a 10-inch tree but you may have to replace that 10-inch tree with five two- inch trees. So as long as the diameter inches add up to that mitigation amount you meet the requirement. You can plant, you know, the minimum size is two inch but you can plant up as much as your your pocketbook or the developer's pocketbook will allow them to. The larger the tree, you know, once you really get past probably a four inch in diameter it gets really, you know, a lot more costly to get, you know, those larger trees in. But generally developers will plant, you know, at least a two inch. They may go, you know, three inch or they get into the larger sizes if they are, you know, restricted with space on the site and so they'll plant in larger diameter trees to meet that requirement. And so, Heywood, so when we're changing the mitigation ratio from one, you gave a one-to-one example there. Now we're changing it to one to four so the developer would then be required to plant 22-inch trees? Yeah. If they can fit them all in there? I mean, how, where are they, where are they going to put all those trees? Do they plant them on that property that they're developing? Yes, it's either replanting on the site or payment into the tree fund under the current, under the current code. We are considering, you know, with the code and it's not really covered in this because this is mainly covered, the main issues, but we are considering maybe giving an option for possibly off-site mitigation or adjacent to the site to give, you know, more possibilities for replanting. Because, you know, ultimately I'd rather see the developer either A, preserve the trees on site, meet the code, you know, don't worry about payment into the tree fund or replanting, or B, if they have to mitigate to replant on site, I'd much rather receive trees in the ground versus a check in the bank. Yeah. Because, you know, they're there, the work is done, and the trees are growing. Yeah, and I would agree with that. I'm just, I was curious where they would put all those, those 22-inch trees on that site, but it sounds like you, you've thought of this and you're trying to think of other alternatives. If they can't meet that, they will have other options. Right, right. Cool, thank you. Yep, you're welcome. So next on our list, we have the base preservation minimum for tree canopy. We're looking at, instead of going by diameter inches and going to canopy cover, the reason behind, you know, this conversion, well, A, our landscape code is already currently in canopy cover. So it would actually make the preservation portion of the code parallel to what's already done and established with the landscape tree canopy code. And the landscape tree canopy is, are new trees that are required to be planted by the developer. It could be trees in the parking lot, along the street, or just in the landscape in general. So why go to canopy cover for preservation? Well, when we look at, and I'm looking, you know, industry-wide urban forestry as a whole, the benefits that we derive from trees are all related back to the canopy cover. When you look at studies that are done on the benefits of trees, it's all based on the percentage of canopy you have. So to be consistent with that and also to align with, you know, basically industry standards, we're recommending going to canopy cover as opposed to diameter inches. For example, you could have a 30-inch diameter tree, which is a nice large tree, and it basically , under the current codes, equates to, you know, three 10-inch trees. Well, those three 10-inch trees could quite possibly and likely have larger canopy cover than the one 30-inch tree. So when looking at the benefits that trees provide, and industry standards, we're looking to go to canopy cover as opposed to diameter inches. Okay, so this next map, and this is what we're currently looking at, is basing the preservation on the percentage of tree cover on the site pre-development . Currently, the amount that you preserve is based on a combination of things, one being the size of the property. It doesn't take into account, well, how many trees are on this site to start with. So what we're looking at is, you know, here your existing tree canopy percentage. So on a site that has a lower existing canopy percentage, your preservation percentage will actually be higher, because what we're looking at, you know, okay, you may have this 10-acre site and it's only 20% canopy. Well, to kind of even things out with the sites that are more heavily canopied, we're looking at having that percentage higher. It's really an inverse relation. So the lower your canopy cover existing, the higher your percentage of preservation. The higher canopy existing, the lower percentage of preservation. And like I say, it's all based on the existing canopy on the site. The map that we have here is actually an existing site that our GIS looked at and, you know, calculated the canopy cover on this site. And this is a site right down on McKin ney. McKinney is actually the majestic apartment site. You've probably seen this configuration, but this is what their existing canopy looks like. So with this example, the total acreage of the site is 11.39 acres. The percentage of canopy is 49.7% canopy. So they're falling into the range of 50% canopy cover. The area with the red outline represents canopy. The area with the green outline represents canopy. The red are trees that they could remove under the code and develop. The green is areas that would have to be preserved. This is only for example purposes, just an illustration to show what that looks like on an exact, on a, on a, an actual site. The configuration of where the trees are preserved is totally up to the developer. As long as you reach out to, you meet that 50% preservation of the existing canopy. Question to Rosalyn. Thank you. I hope I can word this in an appropriate way. If they are replacing a tree that they're taking down for mitigation, that's still going to be measured by diameter inches or that be canopy as well? It will, it will be canopy based on the, the, the mature canopy size of a large, small, and medium-sized tree which is already established within the landscape portion of the code. There's a formula that I've been working on to, to convert that to make, you know, to make it accurate. And, and what my goal is, is to basically have it, have a spreadsheet, an Excel spreadsheet where the developer can plug in his information and it spits out what he has to preserve to make it, you know, easier on the calculation. Right now, you know, everyone is doing their calculations manually. I have to check over manually. For me, it makes sense to do it in an Excel spreadsheet. My site is this big. My canopy cover is this much. How much do I have to preserve? So the idea would be to know potentially what that tree canopy would be sometime in the future? Correct. And plant that. Secondly, and, and only somewhat related, is this putting a preference on the trees that would be grown in our city based on I mean the cheapest tree that has the most canopy? Is it, is it incorrectly putting a, a premium, like maybe not on a pine tree, but on a pecan tree? Does that make sense? Yeah, I understand what you're saying. And, and actually when you go on price trees in a nursery, you know, it's based on either the, if it's a container tree, it's, you know, by the gallon size of the containers grown in, or by the caliper inches, the diameter of that actual tree. And what our code currently does is, you know, it basically categorizes those as large, medium, and small, regardless of, you know, what species and desirability they are. But, you know, you can have an oak tree, for example, is in the large category, the same as a pecan would be in the large category. One more question, I apologize. This is out of ignorance. Are there such things as really big, cheap, ugly trees? Well, big, cheap, ugly. Well, there's a difference aesthetics, you know, for tree. And if it's just a matter of what a satellite image says on, on how much it's covering, then if I'm a developer, I'm going to look for the cheapest. Well, it's still what we would approve to be replaced is still subject to our approved tree list. So you may find some trees that are less desirable, say cottonwood. There's, there's actually a variety of cotton less cottonwood. But it's still a fast growing tree. It's still a tree that, you know, I wouldn't recommend for the long term for the landscape. But that would actually be covered in our recommended or require, you know, our approved tree list. Thank you. Commissioner Back. Thank you, Chair. That kind of raised a question for me, then. Are we going to try and maintain then what's native to this area? In other words, we're not going to lose so many of a certain type of tree that we really want to do the developer. Are we going to try and maintain the percentage of oaks and ash and other trees native to this area? Or is that even a consideration in the plan? Well, what I recommend is a planting of native and adopted trees. One of the things when you look at managing the population of trees is you want to have a good distribution of species types, but also age types of trees. There are trees that will grow here that are not necessarily native here, but there's nothing wrong with the tree. It's, you know, perfectly good tree. So, some of those trees are on the list, but they're not the only trees on the list. Because if we did that, we'd end up with, you know, a lot of oak trees. And when you get a high population of one species of tree, history has shown us with the American elm and Dutch elm disease, you had, you know, cities that had trees, street, tree-lined streets that were American elms, beautiful streets. The bug came and what happened, you end up clear cutting entire neighborhoods. Some cities are still recovering from Dutch elm disease that hit in the 1960s and 70s. Currently, we're dealing with emerald ash borer in parts of the country, which ash is one of the trees that actually removed from the recommended list. Because currently, the emerald ash borer is only about 300 miles away from Denton, Texas, in Louisiana and Arkansas. It's not a matter of if it's get here, it's more so when it gets here. With the highway system, a lot of times it travels with firewood or on vehicles even, and you know, it'll be here sooner or later. Okay, thanks. Yeah. And Heywood, I have some feedback. I don't know, I can't speak for the rest of the commission, but this, I understand the reasoning. You know, if you have zero to 20% tree canopy, you've got a lot of room to work with. So let's preserve 70% of those trees. I feel really uneasy with that last number, 80 to 100%, only preserving 30% of the trees. I would like to see that number increased. I know it could hinder development in that area, but it could also create a really creative development idea because it's, it's, we're really preserving a lot of our trees. If our focus is, is to preserve as much of the trees as possible, then I would think we would put a higher emphasis on the lots that are already heavily forested and make sure that we're really preserving as many of those trees as possible. So I would like for staff to, to work with that, that 30% and see how we can increase that, maybe compare that to what other cities are doing and maybe show us some examples of what that might look like 30% versus 35 versus 40%. Yeah, I actually, yeah, our GIS guy, when I gave him these percentages, he actually threw it all into an Excel spreadsheet to show, you know, how much would be preserved of the existing trees throughout these distributions. And amazingly, the percentage or the amount is fairly even across it. It kind of zigzags like a, like a saw. You know, if you, you know, look at a zigzag motion, that's kind of how the distribution looks. But that's something, you know, we can, you know, consider. Like as Chandra mentioned , this is just kind of our first, you know, look at and that's, you know, one of the reasons we're here to get feedback and to look at, you know, the feasibility of making adjustments or even looking at this as a whole. Thank you. Commissioner Hudson. So I'm not an outside guy at all. Like if I'm outside, I'm walking to my car. But I have a question. So how transferable are trees? And I ask that for part B of the question, and that is, is there a, and I'm going to use a word that probably doesn't exist. Is there like a tree craigslist for, so for example, we have buckies that's going in and it's 40 acres or so, and it's somewhat forested. And so they're going to cut those trees down. Are those trees able to be harvested in a network of people talking and developers talking and saying almost like you have landfill dirt that, hey, we'll take it if you have it type thing? I mean, I don't know how that works. And if they would survive the transfer, if it's worth it, it may not be worth it. I'm just, I'm learning. Trees can be transplanted. Even under the current code, one of the methods of preserving trees will allow for trees to be relocated on that existing site. The biggest limiting factor on that, and there are companies that'll move trees 20, 30 inches in diameter, but it's really the biggest limiting factor is cost and where you're going to move that tree to. Because the larger you get in size, you really kind of limit your distance where you can actually move that tree to. But for trees that are, I would say, in that eight inches in diameter, 10 inches range, they're relatively easy to transplant. But I haven't heard of the correct list for trees per se. Well, I mean, but I think maybe if I incentivize, because obviously, contractors talk and developers talk. And so there may be a way to, I've got to get rid of these, and I need these, and they work together and as a city somehow incentivize them to build that communication because it's already successful. I mean, because otherwise you have a tree that may or may not make it, may or may not have issues that's planted that we got to go back and double check on, that sort of thing. I know that risk never goes away, but I'm just saying if we have something that's already here, that there's a way that we can incentivize developers to talk and have those conversations and see what it produces or see if there's a way to build a community, if you will. So just a thought. Okay. Yeah. Within the plan, is there regulations or stipulations of how we protect the current trees on the property from soil compaction because of construction? I know we do sometimes put barriers around fences, but I'm wondering if it's maintained properly in the sense of how far out they have to go to protect that drip line and that canopy because I 've seen some sites where we have some beautiful trees and yet they're only protected minimally. And then I know over time, bulldozers and whatnot, that soil gets compacted and those trees end up losing limbs and dying because of that. Is there going to be something within the plan that says, okay, if we're going to preserve these trees, you must maintain a certain boundary, a protection boundary? Yes. Currently, our code requires and what I require is basically tree protection out to the drip line of the tree as far out as the branches go. And, you know, typically that's the orange construction fence metal T-pose, something that's visible so that, you know, the guy that's on the bulldozer doing his work, you know, it's easily, you know, visible for him to see. Additionally, what I'm looking at aligning with to maybe make adjustments to that is looking at, you know, best management industry standards. There's standards for tree protection that, you know, are basically industry standards nationwide. And so, you know, I'll compare what we currently do to those best management practice and make adjustments where, you know, I feel necessary. And follow up, who follows up and who monitors that? That would be I. So you're monitoring all the sites under current... when I can get out of the office from, you know, doing reviews and tree code work. I just want to decide it because I'm seeing where I don't think they're following that drip line situation. And those trees are going to... they 're going to see the worst of it in five to six years, you know that. So we need to, I guess, find a way to bolster that up if we're going to look to preserve as much as we can. Right, yeah. As much as I can get out there, about there. And, you know, on days like today it makes it really easy, but even today I wasn't able to get out as much as I would like to. Was that... let me follow up again. I mean, obviously there's on-site code enforcement. There's city people, employees, they look at the ordinances and whatnot that are being followed or if they meet code or whatever, we can ask them to also be part of that process, I would assume. That may be a possibility. It just kind of depends on, you know, I don't like to commit other people's... I understand. ...people, but right now it's... So we can write that into our... Yes. ...our codes, you know. Yeah. That's what we're here for. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I have a few questions. Yes. I'm assuming you're basically done with your slides. I have one more slide, but... Is it the any questions slide or... Not yet. I have a few more and then I'll still stand for, you know, any additional questions with that slide. So... Okay, well then I'll let you finish. Okay, sure. Okay, so also what we're looking at is incentivizing and encouraging preservation of designated trees. So for the trees that fall within that heritage tree category, we're looking at giving an incentive to protect that tree. And let me back up just one step to, you know, the first bullet. Under our current tree code, the trees that are saved or preserved on the site don't count towards the total canopy requirements for the site. What we're proposing is allowing the tree canopy to count for the total canopy of the site because that's really what our measuring is if we're being successful, especially when we look at establishing a tree canopy goal for the entire city. So, you know, currently it's only when they preserve beyond the minimum. So under our suggestions, what we're recommending is what they preserve counts toward their landscape canopy requirement. They still will be required to do the street trees, parking lot trees, but they also have the benefit of these trees counting towards that requirement. With that, we're looking at the trees that are on that heritage tree list, giving them more credit. And those are our larger trees because a lot of times, you know, we see sites and, you know, they meet the code requirement, but there are a lot of big trees. Well, under the current code, there is no incentive to preserve large trees. It's just preserve it if you can. If you can't, you mitigate for it. You pay into the tree fund. So what we're looking at is incentivizing that and, you know, also on the way to encourage, you know, preservation of those larger trees on new developments. The last point I have here is recommending that we review the tree mitigation payment on a two-year cycle. The tree mitigation payment, which is currently $125 per diameter inch, is supposed to be based on the market value of what it would cost to plant a two-inch caliper tree and maintain it for three years. Well , trees are a commodity. The prices of trees fluctuate just like any other commodity. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it go down. So what we're recommending is actually reviewing that on a regular basis to ensure that our tree mitigation payment amount is, you know, aligned with what the actual costs are in the marketplace. And this is my final slide. I'll stand for any additional questions. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair. So I like the cleaning up of the code. I think the current version of the tree ordinance was modified from another very complex ordinance that first introduced all this kind of counting and then certain ones were 1.5 and 1.25 and then there were six or seven mitigation options and every single development always just ended up paying into the fund because it was easier than trying to figure out the other six options. So the simpl ification I think is really good. And like you said, we have these, you know, we already have these quality definitions and all of these other definitions and it equates to a 0.25 difference in mitigation. There's no real incentive to preserve. So I like the idea of having that incentive to preserve especially like over 12 or over 18 inch diameter quality species. I think that's a really good thing to include. You know, I'd rather they keep that 20 inch oak that might be not in the optimal position on that acreage than that stand of four and six inch oaks, you know, over in the corner. You can argue habitat quality but I think just for an aesthetic reason I think and the history of that 90 or 100 year old tree being preserved over those 15 or 20 year old trees being preserved. My concerns lie in the math in the details of math. Right now the DBH requirements, if you cut down an 18 inch oak, you can replace it with, you know, six three inch oaks or, you know, nine two inch oaks. So you're cutting down a 90 year old or 80 year old tree and you're replacing it with a bunch of seven or eight year old trees perhaps, maybe 10 year old trees. And that those are equivalent that always bothered me and the fact that it costs if you cut down, you know, three six inch trees that has the same value as cutting down an 18 inch tree that is 50 years older. I think that maybe a surface area instead of diameter or maybe the canopy function can can do that. So like I said, I want to value those larger diameter much older trees more than just by diameter , you know, that that 18 inches diameter equals 18 inches diameter. I want to understand that minimum you showed with the chart of how much you could remove. If you if the development can't meet that requirement, is there then mitigation after that point? Yes, yes. If they can't meet the minimum preservation requirement and let me find that slide so I can get back to it. And this is this is probably good enough just to see it. Okay. So in this case, for example, they're putting in apartments and they're planning on having, you know, most of the area covered in construction and parking lot and they're going to have to cut into that green area as well, then they would have to mitigate the additional area they remove. Right, right, up to 50% of of the minimum requirement. Okay, so they would have to keep 50%. This is the minimum and they would have to keep so the minimum minimum is half of the minimum. Right, okay. Right, because, you know, and some sites, I mean, you know, they get into where they they've done what they can and, you know, they just they can't meet it. So we have to, you know, have some some adjustment there, some leeway. So that's kind of the idea of of allowing them to kind of dip below the the state at minimum. And so then like that that minimum minimum part there, they'd have to mitigate those. Correct. And that could that mitigation could potentially be on-site mitigation or otherwise it's something like tree fund, tree trust, something like that. Yeah, payment into the tree fund or replanting on-site. Okay, and then are we going to keep our tree canopy cover requirements based on zoning? That's something that we we haven't specifically dove into. What I would kind of like to eventually get into is contact specific tree canopy requirements. So in a downtown area, your tree canopy requirement may not be as much or won't be as much as, say, a residential area simply based on the available planting space. And, you know, the amount of tree canopies, that's really what it boils down to is the available planting space you have in, you know, a downtown area or retail area or residential area. And I guess another thing to keep in mind, I'm sure you're probably aware of this, is when you're going out in cow pastures, and there really is there are some areas that that have no trees at all right now, no no canopy. And so would there be a landscape requirement that they would have to come in and provide some amount of, you know, correct forestation? Correct. And right now I think that is dictated basically by zoning like that they need a 45% canopy cover. Right. And so my final concern is in the canopy calculation. We've over the years seen a lot of discussion about parking lot trees and 20% canopy coverage and things like crepe myrtles qualify for a fair amount of canopy and arguments about, well, it says 20% canopy coverage, but even whenever everything's fully established in 20 years, you're only going to have about 5% of that parking lot covered in shade. So I would like to make sure, just so everybody understands what canopy calculations, what those canopy calculations will look like, and how it might not actually be shadow on the ground kind of canopy. Just so everybody's aware that 40% canopy coverage, that sounds like it's going to be a heavily wooded area. Well, depending on how the math works out, and depending on what the species lists and so forth are, you know, you could have parking lots that approach 40% canopy coverage that really only have about maybe 10 or 15% shade. Yeah, that's very, very possible because the canopy covers are all based on the maximum, you know, size of the tree. And if the tree doesn't reach as potential, you don't have as much canopy. Thank you. I've got a question too about, so this is what we're requiring developers to adhere to. Do we require ourselves to adhere to the same standards? So like when the city has a drainage project or a new substation and some trees are going to be cut down, do are we held to the same standard as far as mitigation and preservation is concerned? Depends on the type of project. If it is the construction of a building, they have the same requirements. If it's a part of infrastructure, utilities projects, then they are exempt from the requirement. And utilities, if it's a part of their master plan, DME has their master plan for upgrading their substations, their, you know, right of ways. They have certain federal guidelines that they have to adhere to as far as clearance from those facilities. So they are exempt from the tree code. If a developer is required to expand a street, even for residential commercial development, if there's, if engineers, an engineer tells them to expand the street, widen the street for that development, then any trees that lie in there, they're exempt from the tree code because we're telling them you have to require this for your project to move on. So if the city were to build a new library somewhere, any trees that would be cut down would still, we would still adhere to the same. Correct. I understand. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Are there any other questions? Real quickly, and I know we're running short of time. You don't have to elaborate on this, but maybe this isn't the place to do it. But part of the concern here, of course, is canopy and aesthetics. The other part of keeping trees clean is the air. It helps preserve the ecology of the place. So where we can't plant trees, say there is a lot of building, have been in consideration for rooftop vegetation to take up that slack to compensate for that loss. It's, it's an option for any any development to do a green roof, basically. But it's, it's not a requirement. Is that something though that we can look at and maybe see if we could put in the plan? I'm not sure if it'll fit in with this part of the plan. It may be, you know, larger, you know, development or DDC requirement or, you know, option. But it wouldn't necessarily fit in with the tree preservation aspect of it. Okay. So you wouldn't want to factor in the other value that trees have other than canopy? Well, those, those , those are all, the other values that trees have all relate back to the canopy. So that's why we're focusing on canopy. I would like to, to do an i-tree eco study, which will give us, you know, specifically the structural value of our trees. It'll give us the dollar amount that we're benefiting from storm water mitigation, CO2 uptake, nitrogen uptake, all the benefits that we know trees do. Well, there's actually ways to put dollar values on those, those benefits. And that's, you know, one of my goals is to get one of those studies done here and then so that when we say we value trees, we can actually show, you know, the value that they provide and the structural value of the trees. Yes. So, well, so before you ask that question, commissioner Rosal, we do have one more presentation. It's 6 15 and there's some food to get. I'm wondering, are you, are you okay holding onto this question and asking Haywood after the meeting or emailing him or is it pressing? Do you need to ask it now or? Definitely. I'm sorry to cut you off, but in the interest of staying on time, I'd like to move on. And I think we've given staff some really good suggestions and ideas and asked some good questions. This is coming back to us again. Absolutely. So we'll have another opportunity to speak on this. So, so thank you, commissioner Rosal for yielding the floor. So if we could take just a very quick recess and grab some food and then we'll return back to our next agenda item. So I'm going to pause our meeting. Yes. At 6 18 and we will reconvene in just a few minutes. Thank you. Willing, willing to sell the imminent domain process may take even longer. And so ultimately at the end, what we see in this commission is that the final product ends up being the SUP to get the substation approved. Well, from the time that the public hearing for PEB and council to buy the site, we have to engineer it, design it, bring it to us two or three months of staff review. It may be months or even years before that is that SUP gets before this commission and back to city council. And what staffs observe and y'all probably observe yourself on these substations is that we get, well, while staff's trying to solicit feedback about buffers and screening and setbacks, things like that to improve the site design and condition the SUP, we're hearing a lot of feedback frankly that about the signing of that substation that it shouldn't be there. And frankly, that's a little late in the conversation and it puts us a little bit awkward position to say, well, you know, council's already approved this. Can we really talk about screening and landscaping? And so what we like to do is really move that public input process that we have with the SUP and move it up to the very beginning so that those conversations can be had. The public is more aware of a final site of a decision before council even approves the purchase of it. And that's what that's going to require is a code amendment. Currently it's the SUP process . So what you will be seeing, and we're in the very, very early stages, so I don't know exactly when, but you will be seeing some type of code amendment coming forward discussing that type of process. And if in the end we can agree on some, the SUP process being earlier in the system, then there's some criteria that these facilities can follow that's vetted through the public that we all can agree upon. So I just want to give you a heads up that that was coming and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to take them. And if I can just piggyback on Mike's presentation just now, and the discussion that we're having, I want everybody to keep in their mind two things. One, if you recall, everybody's been talking about substations. We also have to broaden our mind a little bit and think about the CIP program that, for instance, DME has and what the future is for those developments, those types of other programs that they might have. Also the city council has taken a lead and is charging that we reevaluate certain processes as it relates to the infrastructure needs that DME has. That being said, the only reason we wanted to highlight this to you is we are making an effort with all our programs that we bring before you, is that we've started thinking about something. We're vet ting that with you. We're moving forward. Could the scope change? Potentially yes, but we want you to be involved from the onset. I appreciate Mike and his team, Ross and Beverly, taking the initiative on this, and we'll keep moving forward and providing you insight and data as to the progress. And eventually there will be a code amendment, but we need to look at the broader picture. So we just wanted to bring that to your attention. Anything else? Okay. Well with that, we are going to close our work session at 627. We will take a brief break and then we will reconvene in the council chambers around 6 35 or so. So thank you. Good evening and welcome to tonight's Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting. The time is 642. I'm sorry to those of you who are waiting for us. We did run a little bit long at our work session, so thank you for your patience. It is December 9th, 2015, and this meeting has been posted in accordance to the Texas Open Meetings Act. Our first order of business is the pledge to the U.S. and the Texas flags. For which it stands, one nation under God, one visible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Our next item of business is the consent agenda. Do I have a motion from anyone? Commissioner Taylor. I move approval of the consent agenda. Commissioner Dudowitz. I second the motion. Is there any discussion? Okay, then please vote on the board. That motion passes, six to zero. Our next item is public hearing. A bit of housekeeping. Item 3A has been withdrawn by the applicant, so we will not be hearing that case this evening. Yeah, it's FR150024, final replant of the Vasquez addition, lots 1R and 2R, block four. We will not be hearing this item tonight, so if you're here for that, I guess you're excused. And then our next item would be 3B, S150012, hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to city council regarding a specific use permit for multifamily dwellings on two properties, zone neighborhood residential mixed use 12, or NRMU 12. The subject properties are approximately .25 and .33 acres in size and are located at 609 and 612 Meadowview Court in Denton. This is S1512, the project name is Meadowview Lots. The request before you tonight is to consider a recommendation for a specific use permit or SUP to allow multifamily developments on properties in the NRMU 12 district. They're located at 609 and 612 Meadowview Court, shown here in yellow. The two properties in yellow at the end of Meadowview, at the cul-de-sac of Meadowview Court. As I said, they are within a neighborhood residential mixed use 12 district which requires the SUP for multifamily. A little bit of background on the side, in 1970 it was approved as a planned development. Apartments were shown on this whole block for Meadowview. In 1972 it was platted into this current configuration with these lots. Then 1984 PD-8 was amended to allow fourplexes on the site on seven of the eight lots. One of these lots was a pool that was pre-existing. In 1985 you can see that five of those fourplexes were constructed here and the two had approval for fourplexes but were never constructed. And then in 2002 the citywide rezoning rezoned it to the NR MU 12 that it is today and then triggered the SUP requirement. These are some photos of the site. These two sites you can see that they're undeveloped with some tree lines in the back. These are some photos of the other fourplexes on the street . You can see they're roughly two stories, four units each, brick on the bottom with siding on top. What the applicant is proposing to do is construct this site plan with the building shown here, driveway access off Meadow view Court, and the building here with another access off Meadowview Court with all parking to the side or rear of the property. These are generally the proposed elevations for the four plexes. They'll be generally brick construction, composition angle roof, similar to what's out there and the scale and size and architecture of what's currently existing on Meadowview Court. Some considerations and staff's recommendation. The property has always been intended for multiple families since 1970. And fourplexes were approved on it originally in 1984 and were built in 1985. The proposal is consistent with the scale and density of the surrounding properties and it complies with other criteria for approval and then development codes. Vowel on that in your backup. I'd be happy to go through it if you wish. We did send notice of this public hearing to 22 owners within 200 feet and 65 physical addresses within 500 feet. We received two responses, one in opposition, shown here in red, and one neutral, shown here in yellow. Based on the considerations presented and the requirements of the development code, staff does recommend approval of this SCP subject to the following conditions. One, that the maximum density of each lot shall be four units. Each building shall be no greater than two stories in height. And three, that the proposed development shall substantially comply with the attached site plan. And with that I'll stand for any questions. I believe the applicant is here to answer questions as well. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair. I have a question regarding the site plan . So it's kind of hard to see up on the screen here, but there are four grade areas in the driveway there. What are those? Those are previous pavers because they are above their lot coverage without previous pavement. Because the lot is so small for the zoning requirement. They're not parking spaces, they're just previous pavers. Okay, and were each of these lots considered individually or were they both considered together for the lot coverage? They're individually for the lot coverage. For density, it 's by subdivision, so it's not by individual lot. Okay, so in this case that's a slightly smaller parcel, needs more previous? Correct. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this moment? Okay. Is there anybody who can say anything about this? Yes, sir. That's my next step. You beat me to the punch. This is a public hearing and you're certainly welcome to, if you would like to speak to this item, to please approach the podium and state your name and address for the record please. And then when you're done, if you could just do us a favor and fill out a card and hand it to Athene. I'll fill that out outside, but okay. Okay, thank you. I'm Brent Duncan. I own property at 3106 Donner Road, which I've got basically 420 foot of property across. Quite a bit of this right here encroaches on my back property. I've been, I only bought the property in 2006. Since then, I've, you know, who owned the property? I've been maintaining the fence line, cutting boat arc trees and everything down since 2007, disposing of stuff. My problem is on that right there. We, you know, bought things, we got a nice property right there. I've got that one corner of my property, I've got a bunch of duplexes. I've got no problem with development. I'm a self- employed plumber, but the thing is on it right there, we've got, I get dirty diapers, everything thrown over the fence. I mean, it's, you know, it's, it's not been a good deal. We've had, it's kind of like a natural environment back there. Get along good, they're better than ever. My complaint, only thing about this is, we're putting, you know, two plexes up. I was looking at, I've owned two lots right there, got 2.5, 2, 3, 4 acres. I was looking at replatting it, putting a house back there. But, I mean, this right here changed my whole view of the face because I'm fixing it up with four plexes with upstairs viewing right back down on what's going to be in my backyard. You know, it's going to be one of my kids, my upper house. I was going to live back there. We put a shop, went to the city council, you know, planning and zoning, put up a shop, got back. I work on cars, some trucking. You know, it's not a bad thing. It's been like a residential neighborhood. We love everything. The only thing I've got is on that right there, you're putting two stories in that are backing up to property and the rest of them, none of the rest of the properties down, any of the property north of me are two, you know, four plexes that are two stories. You know, I can see it, you know, single story, two plexes going in, duplexes going in, you know, where I'm not just looking right down on me. I don't know, you know, it's going to go through. They marked the trees two months ago. They look, most of the trees they tagged were a bunch of boat arches, which are trash trees anywhere that are that big that I've been trimming since 2007. Yeah, but the only complaint I had was, I mean, it's going to go through. I know that. I know what the process and didn't does, how long it takes me to get permits and go through planning zoning. How long it took me to put up a accessory building and back my property took me three and a half months, three to three and a half months just to get approval and put it up. Went through the proper channels and did everything. Thing is I'm looking at, we had a nice residential neighborhood, we're fixing that four plex es looking down on it. And I think that would decrease the value of a property if what we want to do is build a house. I'm not going to want to have it with a bunch of four plexes looking right down on my property on a house that I'm looking at replatting and building a house on that's morning flight. But that's, you know, if they do decide to do it, put me a 10 foot proxy fence across there. I mean, you know, that way I'll keep my chicken hen coops and stuff away from there, not leaving their permit. Thank you. Thank you. If you could hand. Oh, pardon me, sir. I'm sorry. Looks like our commission, the commissioners have a couple of questions for you. Do you mind saying a question? So commissioner, that's that, please. Thank you. Sure. So my question simply is, so you touched on a few different things. Can you give me the, your top most important concern? Is it the, the, the vantage point or what's kind of most important to you? Well , the thing is I've got a couple, I've got a couple of grandkids, I brought in, they run back there and everything. We've had some duplexes stuff that are Jason, probably I'd say 40, I got like 420 foot across my back property. It's nice. I got probably 40 feet, I'd say roughly. I didn 't measure that or anything, but I've got a proxy fence there, but I got some duplexes that have mean dogs, try to shoot holes through the fence and everything else. I mean, you can't pick your neighbors. You know, I try to be nice to everybody, but at the same time, if these end up being some duplexes that are not, you know, I don't know, you know, I don't know. You can't, you get good neighbors, you get bad neighbors. I try to get along good with everybody. The thing is on it though, I'm just looking at the point where I'm thinking, you know, when I bought this thing, I looked at the lot, we drove around that area right there. I didn't think they'd ever built there. I didn't come, this first top meeting like this I've ever been to in my life. I just did not think, and I'm thinking it could kind of decrease my values and my property later on. But I don't know. It's just, it might increase it. I have no idea. But I was just looking at that . If they did build this thing right there, why don't they put up a nice fence across there so, you know, it doesn't encroach on my property near as much as what, you know, because I got barbed wire fence across there and chicken wire. I got a nice dog that cruises the back area, kills all the possums, try to get my hands, everything else. But at the same time, I'm just trying to keep the place nice, you know, because I got grandkids ride little cars and stuff around there and I try to just keep it clean and try to protect the area. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for coming down and speaking. The tree buffer, and I might have to get staff back up here to answer, are you aware that they're creating a buffer that's part of the, have you seen that? Are you aware? Well, those things, there's all kinds of, there's trees. The previous owners of my place had put a bunch of privet back there, which is a nasty invasive weed brought from China years ago, I don't like the name. It's kind of an invasive weed. They did that, I know why. They put a bunch of that across there to try to, you know, kind of buffer the area. If anything, I'm going to take that stuff out. I cleaned the fence line with hackberries and everything, you know, because hackberries grow up in the, in that basin barbwire fence all the way down through there, they'll ruin a fence. I keep my property, any tree that's within all my property line, which I think I've already seen on my plat and everything, it looks like my fence is basically just right inside that, it's barbwire. So I try to keep that cleaned up. The rest of trees on that property, I mean, I'm not going to make a complaint. I, you know, I have to m ow it all the time. So what I do is, I mean, all the tree branches hanging down, I cut them, take care of them. But the thing is, honestly, most of the trees that I did see about a month and a half ago, I guess, they came in and put the pink tags, there's one, those are Boad Ark trees. Once I come in there, take them out, put a good red up, live up, something that's going to, you know, be better. I'm at the trees, I'm not a tree hugger by any means, but I want at least nice trees. I mean, I could care less, that's on somebody else's property, you know. But the way I look at it though, is just, it'd be nice if they did decide to develop this thing right there, because it's going to probably go through. They've already spent a lot of money, invested their time in it. I don't hate to see anybody waste money, but if they're going to do that, at least put maybe a prophecy fence on that side. I don't have the money to go ahead and do it on my side, but I would help maintain it. But the thing is on it though, because I know how it is, having duplexes or apartments. Yeah, we bought this thing, there's a bunch of apartments back in there behind us. We had section 8 on one side, not really issues. I've just had, I talked to people, tried to talk to them point blank, just say, "Hey, we're throwing your trash over the fence and it seems to stop." You just gotta be nice. On the fence, what were you looking for? A privacy fence? What's that, sir? You were talking about a fence, if we could put a fence up. Well, if they did something like that, you know, like we bought that thing because it's basically country living in the city. Everybody in our whole neighborhood, we get along. I mean, everybody looks out for each other. We mind our own business, but everybody gets along, you know, in our neighborhood. The old Don, it 's called the Don of the Old States. We're trying to improve our neighborhood and keep our houses up to standard. And, but the way I looked at it, just, you know, putting that back, it kind of ruined my aspect on replatting my, one of my plats and putting a house right there. I don't want to do it right back there because I thought it was just going to be tree property back there. I thought it was, I did not realize that we'd had truck, you know, fourplexes looking down on top of it. I've got no problem. I just don't like the fourplex idea. The duplexes, I got no problem with. But I mean, if y'all decide to do that, nothing I can say about it. I'm just kind of trying to voice my opinion on that. And my only thing is if they did do something like that and put four plexes up, it'd be nice to have a decent fence. So we're not seeing everything all the time. Okay. All right. Thank you. One, I would like to do a follow up probably with Mike on the barrier. Let's finish if we, yeah. Can we come back to that? Okay. Sure. On that thought. Yes. Commissioner Dottois, did you have a question? Mike, could you help, could you put up the site allocation, location aerial map and I could have some questions, some clarification. So I understand. Okay. Let's work. What do you want to lighten up? This is my two lots right here. Yes. I'm seeing a different photograph, which is a little bit larger. Let's try this one. Okay. There we go. And your property is ? Is the arrow here? Yes. I'm not, I don't know anything about a computer. I'm going to let Mike help you there. Yes. So that's your property, both those sites there and that building with the gray. With the blue roof, that is mine. What is that? That is my storage building. I got a 48 Ford super deluxe eight coupe in there. I've got some cars I'm working on. I've had for years. I'm trying to get worked on. So it's kind of a storage workout. I mean, a garage and cars. I see a number of vehicles there. Okay. And then where's your residence at please? My residence is, well, I can't do it. It's right here. The one with the blue roof. Oh, okay. Okay. That's the one I'm looking at. I was trying to, we were looking at replating this lot right here. The one that's kind of triangular zone and putting a house here. And that's, that was our whole intention. I grew up in, didn't love the area, but. Mike, you have a site photo that I saw you through because I could. Maybe it's my backup. Excuse me. I'm going to put. Okay. So I'm looking at your storage right there. And those are, I can see there's some boat arc trees there and some other things that you go back. Yeah. These, these, these trees all along there. Most of the majority of our bas ements are boat arc. Yeah. You know, I'm at. And so there's somewhat of a buffer there now. And Mike, are we looking at a, an additional trees in that site? Well, yeah, that's actually a part of the discussion. Now there is a 16 foot utility, utility easement back in there. So there are some issues with buffering trees there. So fence may be the better option. I don't want to speak for the African blue. That's something we're still kind of in the works with discussing. Thank you. There is that utility easement that, you know, it's kind of weird. I have never seen that on any of my flat drawings or anything when I bought the property. I did not even realize it was 16 foot utility easement back there. There's a lot of things and didn't goes on. I mean, I deal with city, you know, utility departments and everything else. And a lot of times you'll find stuff that you don't find on these flat drawings. So that's, you know, I think anybody else, any questions that helps. Thank you very much. And commissioner back. Did you have a question for staff? No, that that's essentially what I was going to ask Mike too. I would ask, is the developer here tonight? Okay. Would you care to speak, sir? He mentioned the, um, the two stories looking down on him. I don't have the rear. I just have the side in the front. Basically what I was going to show is that they're actually , um, sir, if you could approach the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Kevin Dean, architect, um, for the project. Um, and basically I was just going to show that, if you look at the site plan, the angle portion here has a window in it and then the, and it's actually on this, this side. So it's facing somewhat away from him. And then this side has one facing north, but none of the windows are directly facing his property. So hopefully that helps alleviate some of his concern. If there's any other questions. Could you, could you say that again into the microphone for the, so we can hear that? Any other questions? No, I'm sorry. Oh, the whole thing? Yeah. Start over. Yeah. Basically there are two windows. One faces due north and one faces kind of southwest, um, somewhat toward his property, but none of the, none of the facade facing his property has windows directly looking at that property line. Basically. Thank you. Oh, sorry. Commissioner Beck, you had a question? Thank you, chair. The idea about the fence, uh, any consideration on your part about putting a fence up there or privacy fence? I would assume you mentioned, um, helping with the maintenance of it. I think that would help, um, talk to the landowner and, uh, okay. So y'all could probably get together and work something out . I would think that would be, that'd be great. A feasible option. That one little lot in between where the pool was, how are you going to assimilate that into this? And basically we're just going to, it's, it's fairly well treed basically. And our idea was just to leave it alone and keep that green as it is. It's got that old rickety. We don't own it, so we actually can't do anything to it. Okay. That's right. Okay. Thank you. No problem. Commissioner Taylor? Thank you, chair. So a follow up question on the fence, uh, as, uh, in order to, to mitigate, you know, potential nuisance to the neighbors there, I think we're, we're probably leaning toward putting a requirement in to the SUP to require a fence. Do you have, uh, would you prefer a requirement for something like a masonry fence or a wooden privacy fence of a certain height or is there something that makes it easier for you to? The client's always going to go back to cost. What's most cost effective? And whether or not does that need to run the full 420 feet or is it just the extents of the building footprint? Is there some way to reduce that? Yeah, I think it would probably have to run at least along the parking segment and the building segment. So it would be, and it would probably end up just being the entire west, uh, boundary there just for, uh, to prevent, uh, misunderstanding in the writing of the SUP. So is that, would that be objectionable ? I would think he would consider that. Yeah. Okay. I didn't hear the answer. I would think that the client would, um, my client would consider that. Thank you, sir. This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to approach the dais and speak, or if you prefer not to speak, if you could fill out a card. Yes, I did. Could you, we would like to see that. Thank you . Good evening. My name is Paul King. I live at 3112 Donner Road, uh, next to Brent Duncan. My principal concern for coming here this evening is based on the increased population density that Fourplexes would bring to the behind my house as well as his. When it seems like right now, although I didn't do a survey before coming, that a lot of the properties are largely vacant. And right now, with Fourplexes leering over the fence, your own photographs showed how dilapidated the ones that are there are already, and they're being held to what a less standard is, I think, to the home that I live in. And that concerns me. They'll look all real pretty new and polished and freshly painted for ever so short of a period of time. And then they'll turn into the eyesores that the ones on the corner had become. And that concerns me. Uh, and those are my principal concerns. Okay. Any questions? I've lived there for 30 years. I'm the second owner in the home. And I've seen lots of things come and go in that area. And I just don't think this is the appropriate thing at this time. Is there a correct time for this to happen? I don't know. There may be a better plan to execute it possibly, but those are my concerns. Thank you. Okay. Looks like we've got a question for you too. Commissioner Huntsman. So just one quick question. Orient me. You are to the west north of his, of his, of his property. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. This is a public hearing. So you were certainly, if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this item, welcome to approach the dais, the podium rather. Anyone else? Okay. So this is my first time sitting in the seat. Do we close the public hearing now and then move on to discussion? Okay. At this time I will close the public hearing and we will open it up for discussion. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, chair. I have a question for staff. I believe we have a property owner within the 200 foot notification distance that is indicated opposition or potential opposition. So I'd like to just get perhaps from legal or from staff what that, what implication that might have on any vote for your city council. So there's only one property. I don 't have the actual percentage. I'm going to rely on Mike. If it surpasses the 20% threshold. Well, it was just presented tonight. I don't have that calculation. That will be super majority per council if it is over 20%. But I will clarify, we will need that written, it needs to be written response. So we will need to get that from the off, from the, the neighbor. And then we'll calculate that prior to council to determine if the super majority is required. Would it be possible for you to bring up the display of the notification zones? So if we , if we look at this, just so, so everybody is aware, the city ordinances require a super majority for any approval whenever there is a 20% or greater of the property and surrounding the project opposes it. And so that's, that's why I'm asking these questions. It would appear to my untrained eye that the property directly to the west probably accounts for more than 20% of the surrounding properties around the project. And I definitely understand the, the neighboring property owners concerns about pollution, you know, nu isance, you know, higher density and that can, that can bring a lot of different nuisances. So when you share a back fence with, you know, a much higher density property type. On the other hand, this area was zoned for apartments in 1975 or so, had, has had fourplexes on it since 1985, 30, 30 plus years. And so it's really hard to say that fourplexes are not a, you know, congruent use because it's in between two other fourplexes. But I do think that whatever reasonable steps we can take to mitigate any potential nuisance to the neighbors to the west is very important. So if, if the architect can speak on behalf of the developer and accept a modification of the SUP, or if we need to postpone for two weeks and or until our next meeting until the owner can, can speak on it. I think it is important for us to at least have a requirement for a fence on that west wall of a certain height and a certain construction. And again, whatever, whatever that would be that's most appropriate and protects the neighbors to the west while meeting the needs of the developer. Sure. I think my recommendation to staff would be that if you feel that offense is necessary, the architect has said that he may be comfortable with that. We do have time between now and council to meet with the actual owner. And we can represent this to council and let them know that this was a decision at P&Z. We did meet with the owner and then he objects to that condition at a later point. That way council can make that decision. The reason I, the reason I say that is because we do have a holiday coming up and that postpones the timeline of this project if we, if we table it. But certainly we could probably do that. Commissioner Hudspeth. I have a, a thought to the opposite of offense. I'm okay with a buffer. Here's my concern. Understanding the neighborhood, is it a privacy fence or is it somewhere to hide? You know, so I think for security reasons, I'm all for extra trees, extra density, something, a productive tree. But I, I, I would ask even the neighbor to the west to kind of contemplate that if I'm in those apartments and there's nowhere to hide, but for this fence, I'm going to go hide behind the fence. And so I think to have some level of visibility where he could then from the west shine a light so that he 's protecting his, I mean, because if I'm in an apartment, I've never seen a chicken before. So now I see a chicken, I can go grab it. I can hide behind the fence. I mean, it just, all kinds of bad things can happen. In my, you know, and so I really, I'm for the buffer, but I think maybe a tree or something is more fitting for this scenario. Commissioner Taylor. So seeing no more discussion, I'm, I'm ready to make a pretty flexible motion here. So I moved that the planning zoning commission recommend approval to city council with the added condition that a fence or appropriate vegetative barrier be added along the western side of the site in order to mitigate any potential nuisance to the homeowners to the west. And I understand that there's a utility easement that 's going to affect what can and can't be planted there or built there. And that there are potentially concerns from the developer and that in this case, the, the neighbors have a fair amount of power if they voice, formally voice opposition to the project, because it will require a super majority vote. So hopefully we can, all sides can come together and find an amenable solution. Part, sir. I'm so sorry. The public hearing has been closed at this point. Thank you. Um, sorry, my request to speak button does not work for some reason. I guess that's it. That's right. It's conspiracy here. I know it's been a while since I've been up here, but I just wanted to add, clarify the motion you made commissioner Taylor before. Does that also include staff's recommendation? You made a motion to recommend approval with that added condition. Yeah, with the added condition on top of staff's recommendation. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Taylor, were you done with your, okay. So commissioner Beck. I second commissioner Taylor's very detailed and lengthy motion. Is there any discussion? Yes. Commissioner Roselle. I have a question, maybe legal or staff can talk to this. Although I appreciate the, the motion, it seems really ambiguous to hold anyone to that standard and what mutually gets a relieving it to the client, the homeowner, what mutually is agreeable, because that might not be the, the best method. So I'm wondering if this is the most helpful thing to leave that barrier ambiguous for individuals to decide outside council or even outside this commission. I don't have an answer. I just, I'm concerned about the ambiguity. I, I didn't see in his, in his motion any ambiguity. What I , what he mentioned was the actual, the privacy fence that he once extended on the west side or he's recommending for approval. We have standards on how that privacy fence actually gets constructed. So, I know there was discussion early on about the both, you know, the, the homeowner who was up here along with the client that the architect is representing to have some private discussions on how maybe they can come up with some type of feasible, feasible solution to address those privacy concerns. That's for them to discuss privacy, privately outside this forum and they can do that. We're not bound to them, but if they come up with something, I'm, you as a board, as a commission or the city council would gladly like to hear that. But I, I guess I'm not, don't see the ambiguity that you might be referencing unless something else. I thought there was, there was an either or. Okay. Commissioner Taylor? Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I, I, in my motion I did say either a vegetative barrier or a fence and I, I wanted to do that. Normally we would specify, you know, m asonry fence eight feet tall or wooden fence seven feet tall or something like that. But in this case, if there are concerns, if, if a vegetative barrier solves a problem, so they basically have two choices, a fence or a vegetative barrier. And I was doing that. Normally we would vote on a specific recommendation, but since this is going to go to city council, I don't want to recommend narrowly a fence if they come to resolution on a vegetative barrier. Then maybe what you could do as part of that motion or as part of the discussion for staff to convey to council is that while you may recommend, let's say the privacy fence, you and the commission as a whole are not, you know, would also approve of this other type of a vegetative buffer if that, you know, if the applicant and the home and the neighbor come to that agreement. I, I, I see the, you know, the either or. You would have to recommend one and then, but there's nothing to prevent you from saying, but we also find acceptable the other. Can I clarify my motion or do I need to withdraw and rest ate the motion? And I wish to apologize for Commissioner Ros sell on that. Okay, so let's start over. Go ahead. Legal if you could walk me through what do I need to do? If I was a Commissioner making a motion I would suggest something along the lines of, I recommend a motion to recommend to City Council to approve this item with the following conditions. So I withdraw my original motion and I move that we recommend approval of this project to City Council with staff's conditions and with the additional condition that a privacy fence be constructed along the western boundary of the development site and with the stipulation that the commission would be amenable to a vegetative barrier in lieu of a fence. Commissioner Beck? I second that motion. Okay. We're all on board here with this. Okay. Is there any discussion about this before we vote? Okay. I guess then we're going to vote on the board. That motion passes 6-0. Thank you for your input tonight. Our next item is Public Hearing 3C. Hold a public hearing and consider a recommendation to City Council regarding a specific use permit to allow a basic utility, a Denton Municipal Electric substation on approximately 6.2 acres within a downtown commercial general DCG district. The subject property is generally located at the southwest corner of South Locust and West Collins in the city of Dent on. Thank you, Chair. Members of the commission, this is S1511 for DME Locust substation. As the Chair just stated, this is a request for an SUP to allow a DME substation on 6.2 acres. The site is located at the southwest corner of West Collins Street and South Locust Street, shown here in yellow. To the west, you have some commercial and industrial uses. To the north, there are some single family units. To the east is the railroad, and to the south is the existing substation on Locust Street. These are photos of the site as they exist today. To the left, there's a fence separating, runs roughly right here on the aerial. There's also what was an old auto repair shop that has been demolished on the side. To the north was the neighborhood I talked about. These are the typical homes that are on those plots, as well as on the corner of Locust and Collins. There is this site with the large fence facing Collins Street. The site is zoned Downtown Commercial General, as is the surrounding area, which generally permits a downtown type character, multi-family commercial, very high-intense uses. This is the proposed site plan of the substation. It will have two access points on Collins Street and two access points on Locust Street. As I said in the work session, the need for these drives are for large trucks that bring the transformers onto the site. They're very large trucks. They only come once for construction, and then if they have an outage, they may need to get the truck back in there, but it wouldn't be typical that that truck would be on site. And then as well, they will provide a 10-foot screening wall around the perimeter of the site and some additional landscaping along Collins. This is an example of the type of wall that they've built from other substations that would be used here. This is a section of the street on Collins. You can see they have a 10-foot wall, a 3-foot planning area, a 8-foot sidewalk, and a tree, and then the back of the curb. Considerations and staff recommendations is that subst ations are essential to our infrastructure, and when it's necessary to look at them in urban areas, we should consider site criteria that provide the least impact on surrounding properties. To do that, they provide a 10-foot masonry wall, as well as the enhanced landscaping. Staff did send notice to 25 property owners within 200 feet , and 79 notices to physical addresses within 500 feet. We received three responses in favor from these areas in green , this property and these two properties, and one that we received today from a property on Collins in opposition. Based on the considerations presented and what's in your backup and the criteria for approval in the DENT development code, staff does recommend approval of this SUP subject to the conditions that, one, substation shall be screened by a minimum 10-foot masonry screen wall, and two, that the substation shall comply with the attached site plan. And with that, I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you, Chair. I have two questions. First, the current substation located to the south, what's the future of that property? I don't think that's been determined at this point. Okay. The second question is, if I understand the topography of Denton, that's actually on a hill, an elevated area, but in the backup it mentions that the towers might be up to 95 feet tall. Is there already designs that they would be 95 feet above property, or is that 90? I mean, I'm just wondering if it will reach the capacity or if it will take into consideration current topography in terms of how high those towers would be. I think generally it would be 95 feet from wherever they're installed. If that's in a higher location, it would be higher than 95 feet. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. When they build the station, there will be more lighting on Collins Street, correct? Will they be adding lighting? No, typically the lighting that's provided on site is oriented inward. So there will be no additional lighting? All right. Okay. Other questions for staff? Okay. Thank you, Mike. This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to speak for or against this item, you're certainly welcome to approach the dais, rather the podium, sorry. Is there anyone that would like to speak for or against? Okay. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open it up for discussion among the commissioners. Commissioner Beck, did you want to speak again? No? Just hasn't gotten cleared off. Oh, sorry. Hey, Frank, down there. Commissioner Dudowitz. Yes, I would like to make a motion to approve as submitted by staff. Commissioner Rossell. I'd like to second the motion. We have a first and a second. So any further discussion? Okay, please vote on the board. That motion also passes six zero. Our next item is item four a the planning and zoning commission project matrix. Did you have something to add? Yes, I did. Thank you, Commissioner Bruegel. You have the planning and zoning matrix in your backup material. Unfortunately, we accidentally or inadvertently included a previous matrix. And if you recall, there were a couple of things that were brought up at the last meeting. I just wanted to apprise the commission that we will be providing a presentation regarding perimeter street. If you recall, that was a discussion that was raised by the commission as well. And also we will be having on January 26th, if I'm not mistaken, the bike and pedestrian mobility component will be presented to the planning and zoning commission, understanding how it will be implemented. And that will be done by the bike and pedestrian coordinator, Julie Anderson with the city. So we just wanted to apprise you of that. At the next meeting, you will see the revised matrix. Thank you. Thank you. And that brings us to our final item or last time, if anyone has any future agenda items they would like to address. The boards lighten up. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you, chair. It was mentioned in the work session that we could have DME come in and provide an update presentation to the new commissioners. So I'd like to put forth that just so that myself and other commissioners perhaps would be interested in understanding DME's work. We will coordinate a date with them to see when they can do that. Thank you. Commissioner Dedowitz. Yes, just some information here, please. When I was researching for another project, code of ordinance for the planning and zoning commission powers and duties, I ran across this, and I wasn't aware of this, but we are allowed to make and recommend plans for the clearance and rebuilding of any slum, districts or blighted areas within the city. I'd like to understand that process because I'm aware of two such properties that were gas stations that had been abandoned for 10 years and now are in blight. They're falling down. They are collecting debris and rodents and vagrancies. So I would like to know the process by which we as a commission address this and/or what else do we do in this situation? Because there are a number of other situations. There's another property on the loop 288 just north of Spencer. That house has been sitting there since that thing was -- and again, it's falling apart and whatnot. Thank you, Commissioner Dedowitz. A couple of things. One, I'll double check the code that you're reading and compare it to the DDC. The second thing is we also have a health and building standard commission that identifies if there are hazardous buildings and what the procedure is for that. We have a what, please? We have a commission. It's called HABSCO, Health and Building Standards Commission. They are charged with the responsibility if there is an unsafe structure to take it through the process to determine if it can be -- if the situation can be remedied. So I'll make sure that there's no conflict with what you've read to me tonight and with HABSCO, and I'll give you some detail on that too. Just a follow-up for the rest of the commissioners. Sure. My business property on Bonnie Bray and University was next door to an old restaurant called Captain D's. And we had issues with rodents and vagrancy there and made a complaint to the city, you know, seven, eight years ago, and that was knocked down. And now we have a better and a newer facility there. So that's what caught my eye when I read this. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Anything else? Okay. With that, I will close our meeting at 729 and thank you all for being here tonight.