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.