Mar 23, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2016-03-23 4:30 PM

Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission work session. Time is 432. Our meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present. I call our meeting to order and our first item in our work session will be to receive reports on clarification of agenda items. I'll turn over to Manal for presentation of those items. Thank you Chairperson Strange. Do we have any questions regarding the plats tonight? If so we can do quick presentations on those else we'll jump straight into the regular meeting items. Commissioner Bruegel. Thank you Chair. I just had a quick question about the Buc-E's plat. I'm wondering how how voting on that might affect our discussion later for the ESA and vice versa. A couple of things that I... Come on up Julia. One item that I do want to mention that there is a most recent revised plat for Buc-E's on your table and that was just to clean up of some language as it relates to easements. With respect to the plat, the plat is in order as submitted. All the technical requirements have been addressed so there should not be any conflict between the two. Okay. Julie why don't we just run through the plat really quickly . Okay to address the the ADP that's before you tonight. There is in that in the plat that was delivered to your tables there is a note, note 13, that does address that approval of the alternative ESA that it is that approval from City Council is required for this plat. So that gives that little caveat in that note. Seeing none other we can dive straight into the other item. The first item for discussion is the alternative ESA for Buc-E's. Julie why don't we come into that. All right. So right now I'm presenting ADP 16-2 to you, the Buc-E's Travel Center Alternative Development Plan. The request before you is to consider an alternative environmentally sensitive area plan to allow the proposed commercial development to encroach into an existing environmentally sensitive area. Just to give you some context of where the property is, it is located along I-35. There's frontage along I-35. It's between the L illian Miller and Wind River. The zoning of the property is Regional Center Commercial Downtown. You can see here it here in the purple. Just to let you know all the uses that are proposed with the Buc-E's development are permitted within the the existing zoning. And then just to give you a little a little overview of what the environmental conditions are on the site. You can see the the area here in red. That was that environmentally sensitive area designation was removed during a an ESA assessment in 2008. So although it's it's shown on the map that is no longer no longer has the ESA designation. The the portion of the property that we're really looking at today is up here. It is the existing rip arian buffer and it goes it goes northward from the pond toward I-35. And just to walk you through the concept plan that Buc-E's has. Now this is something that was looked at last fall when the City Council looked at the economic development package for the Buc-E's. And so this is just conceptual. It is not a site plan that's been submitted with a building permit. But it does show you approximately what they're proposing. So here's I-35 along the north side or along the top part of this aerial photograph. This is Brinker. The proposed Buc-E's would have a connection going underneath I-35 and that would become Buc- E's Boulevard. I believe is what the name is. So that would that would become Buc-E's Boulevard. And then if this is if the ADP goes forward and it goes forward in this manner then there would be a road along this this area of the site. It would provide access to these out parcels. It would what it would do is it would sort of limit access to the site to these one two three areas and allow access for the parcels from an internal road system. This and then the anchor store would be would be in this area. Julie can I ask a question? Sure. If it's going to be internal will those parcels three four five six seven eight did not have their own egress off of the service road? No sir not not according to the plat that was before you tonight and and then the concept plan that's been submitted by Buc-E's. That would be access would be from this internal road system. And to take that one step further if for discussion purposes this roadway is not approved those parcels then do have to have access off of 35 then. They would have to have access in some manner. Okay so that's kind of the trade-off is they either have the back entrance way or we end up with five or six more curb cuts on the service road. Potentially. Question. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you. To that point couldn't they still have Buc-E's Boulevard tee off and still right there left and right? So it doesn't necessarily have to go back to the service road right? They could still potentially come in to Buc-E's Boulevard and then still come in from the back way or is it if this doesn't get approved that the conclusion would be access road access? Well I think I understand your thought to sort of stop this this road right in this area. There is a proposed lot right here and so the intent would be to provide access to all of those lots from this internal drive aisle. The applicant is here and I'm sure tonight he can speak to what their concept is. But in drilling down a little further at what the what the question before you tonight is . This so here if you recall that that riparian buffer that goes north from the pond here it is in red and then this white hatch mark is the part of the property we're really talking about tonight. This is a riparian buffer that a proposed road would would impact. As part of that disturbance of that of that ESA it would potentially remove vegetation for the crossing of vehicles. Water and sewer would then would then be installed in this area. Due to this it would remove approximately 13,134 square feet of riparian habitat and within that it would remove 24 trees. Commissioner Beck. Okay so the 13,000 plus square feet entails the road coming off of the service road and all the way across the riparian buffer. It's really it's really in this part because these these two elements the riparian buffer and the road converge in in this spot right here. So this is really the part we're talking about. The other parts of the riparian buffer per the code could not be impacted without approval by City Council through the public hearing process and we go before you as well. So we're really talking about the limits of this of this area right here and I think we 'll look Debra is going to show it to you a little more closely when we look at the ESA mitigation plan. So but this is just sort of an overview of how it fits into their their proposed concept. Did that answer your question? Get close? Okay she's the technical expert. So so within that it would remove 24 existing trees. Once again just this is also reflected on the on the plat in front of you. Here's where we're showing that area as well. So now I'm going to turn the the presentation over to Debra. She's our technical expert on on the environmental matters and so she's going to explain further. Good evening Commissioners. My name is Debra Vieira. I'm with the environmental services and sustainability. Some of you have seen me before about talking and training you about environmental sensitive areas. It's my understanding that some of you are new to the board so bear with me. We will do a quick introduction about what ESAs are, riparian buffers and we 'll take it from there. So pretty much riparian buffer is one of the four type of environmental sensitive areas that the city provide protection to. They are we have two types. We either have the one that the total width is 100 from back to back or the 200. Those are areas that of sort of vegetation that runs creeks alone and they provide a different type of services from a habitat conservation to water quality to floodplain management and so on. The width of those protected areas will depend on how much drainage area goes through them. The more area, the more drainage area goes through them, the wider the protection is. The smaller area that they have, the narrower the protection is. Most of the time riparian buffers are inside floodplains but not every single case. In this particular case, in both cases, one of those exceptions where we have a riparian buffer without having a or being nested inside a floodplain . Yes sir. You're saying it's not inside a floodplain. Commissioner Detovit, sorry. Yes correct. We don't have a hundred-year floodplain designation for this property. So you're going to explain to us later why we even have a riparian buffer there? Yes, riparian buffer they exist. First, not all the streams have designated floodplains by FEMA. Our floodplain ESA is defined by the 100-year flood plain by FEMA. Those streams that doesn't have floodplain designated by FEMA, they will not have a floodplain ESA designation associated with it. However, the streams are there, the riparian habitats are there, and that's why protections are given even though they might not be inside floodplain. We applied the protection of riparian buffers to any parcels within the city limits. So what do we get out of riparian buffers? They definitely improve the water quality because they are the last barrier to catch sediments pollut ants and nutrients. They provide stream bank stability because all that vegetation what is doing is holding the sediments in place. Okay, so otherwise we will have a very eroded channels and when a channel erodes all that sediment being end up at Lake Louisville. And definitely they provide a habitat and refuge for wildlife. It is known for those riparian buffers to be kind of the pathway for wildlife to travel from point A to point B. Those serious images pretty much shows how a riparian buffer will look when you are actually inside of it and the bottom picture will show you how they look from a aerial photograph. So when we have environmental sensitive areas, the applicants have the the option of assessing them or requesting staff to assess them . How the ESA map was originally created? It is a computer model that we use by incorporating information from different sources. Wetland, stream, floodplain, vegetation cover, topography and so on. So when we put all that layers of information together into the computer using geographic information system and we told them the program run this based on this parameters, then a map is created. Okay, it is because it's based on information that have been obtained from other sources. It's not 100% accurate but it's a very close approximation of what is out there. In this case like what Julie showed, originally there was a riparian buffer around the pond but when fill assessment was done on the property, it was found that those conditions that needs to be there to actually have a riparian buffer were not. So that's why in those instances fill assessment allows staff to remove those ESA designation from it and the property owners are no longer required to meet those conditions for the protection of environmental sensitive area. In 2008, the riparian buffer was assessed by a third-party consultant. It was found to be of good quality. When we go to the field, somebody goes to the field, they have to look for the presence of certain conditions to determine that the habitat is there. Mainly we look for hydrology, we look for vegetation indicating that there is a water related or riparian buffer habitat and we look for soil characteristic that tell us that it is true. There's one there. When we confirm the existence, then the next step is scoring the quality of the of the habitat and we have four classifications that range from poor to excellent. In this particular case, this habitat was rated as a good. Even though the assessment was done in 2008, the conditions have not changed and I'm going to show you a chronology of aerial photographs showing that the riparian buffer have been there. The riparian buffer fill assessment was done in summer of 2008. We have 2009 at the top, 2011, 2013 and 2015 showing that nothing either within the stream buffer or in the vicinity of the stream buffer have changed. So we maintain the position that the stream buffer still they are having the same quality. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. To allay some concerns that I had and you got me through that earlier, but one of our people have written a letter about the fact that it's a good quality and you're saying it's probably not any better than that. Does this make any difference one way or the other? Whether it's poor or excellent. Actually the ESA regulations requires mitigation disregard what quality of the stream buffer is. If the stream buffer is there, you must provide some sort of mitigation if you are applying to impact. So let's apply the scenario that the riparian buffer have been impacted since 2008. And let's play the scenario that now we go and we rate it that is as poor quality, the applicant will still be subject to go through the alternative ESA plan and provide mitigation from it. So the end result is doesn't matter what quality is, as long as it is, mitigation will be required. So we went to the site and we took pictures of it . At the first picture you will see when you are actually approaching into the rip arian buffer. The middle picture is actually looking downstream of the creek and the last picture is actually looking upstream of the creek. So we have confirmed that the riparian buffer is still there with a visual inspection. Also through the tree survey that the applicant did for the site, the tree show is still showing heavily vegetated. So we have confirmed this information from it using different sources. Yes. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you. Can you where does this creek originate? Okay well where's it coming from? I'm looking at an aerial map and it's either the Goodwill store or the highway. I'm not sure how the creek works. It starts right here. And it's just runoff rainwater that's forming it? Well it is. The other, this area right here where Hobby Lobby is, kind of a mount, it is an outcrop area and there is some spring coming down from that hill. So it could be a combination of sources of water. For example if you go to a Phoenix parking lot, it's always wet and they have been trying to fix it. Well there's no way to fix it because it 's just a spring that comes from that outcrop that actually drains out. So that area probably is a combination of a rain surface and spring. Thank you. So Commissioner Dedowitz. Follow-up, thank you. If it's a spring is that is what feeding that pond? How is that pond filled? Right now I have a picture of 1984 that I was able to locate on and that's the earliest picture, aerial photograph that I have of the site. And that pond was there in 1984. Okay so I don't know if they supplement the pond with water. It could be supplemented. I don't know if they have a water well. That information I don't have how that pond is supplemented. Because without let's say during a drought time evaporation would cause the water level to actually decrease. So they could either be fed by a water well, it could be fed by spring, or it could be supplemented by them bringing water. During our drought period a couple years back, do we have pictures of that pond being lower or is it the same level? Well actually even in 2000 in 2007 we have a major rain event that actually was more than a hundred year rain event for the city. So this is two years after and pretty much the band was still looking the same. 2011 is hard to tell. Which year? 2013-2014. Yeah that's what I thought. And 2013 is pretty much there. Yeah. So the applicant have used the approach of proposed mitigation that deals in two ways. They will provide a green solution and a gray solution. We're going to discuss the green solution first. The green solution will be by actually mitigating by providing new trees to the site, plant new trees, to actually set aside an area containing 10 existing trees and set them aside in perpetuity to mitigate for the habitat that there will be otherwise impact. Just keep in mind that the habitat that we are impacting is water related or water driven, okay? And the habitat that they are offering for mitigation is upland, which means that it stays dry. They are not apples to apples, however we have tried to find a common currency between the two habitats and the way that we do it is based on trees. There are trees inside the stream buffer, there are trees in the mitigation area that they are proposing. So pretty much from my area standpoint there will be removing a little bit over 13,000 square feet. That very similar area will be set aside for mitigation and I will show you where that mitigation area is going to be on the next slide . Within the disturbance area they will be removing 24 trees and they are proposing 18 total as a mitigation. 10 that currently exist on those on the mitigation area plus 8 new trees. Caliper inches, they will be removing a total of 311 caliper inches. They will be actually submitting or providing 196 at planting and I wanted to make a distinction here. When they are, when they plant the trees you usually plant a small trees because they that improve the chances for the tree to adapt and to actually to thrive. So even though those inches might not look equal eventually those trees will grow and eventually those inches will increase and the total canopy that we will have is actually be greater than what they will be removing. For example the tree canopy that they will be removing is a little bit over 10,000 and you will tell me Debra the sound kind of odd because you are removing 311 trees and your canopy is only 10,000 square feet is in the way that the trees are in the riparian buffer is very heavily dense the canopy is overlapping so therefore you are not getting the benefit of the full canopy if they were planting in a very space manner. So just keep in mind but when the tree canopy, when the mitigation of the tree canopy matures we should have double the amount of the tree canopy that will otherwise be removed. Any questions? Commissioner Bruegel. Thank you chair. So I was looking and I'm gonna talk about this more when we I guess when we talk about our changing the tree ordinance because I don't really like that word mitigation when we're looking at both mitigation and preservation right so they're removing 24 trees and then we have mitigation 18 we think well that's only only six trees but really when you look at it it's significantly more because they're only planting eight like those ten trees that they 're not cutting down are already there like they're just promising not to disturb them and so I guess I don't really like that language when you when you really look at it you really are losing 180 caliber inches you know they're just promising not to is this making sense I'm so sorry it's been a very long day with my children but I guess my my point is that I when you look at the numbers it really doesn't seem less like a significant give from the applicant when they're disturbing a wetland habitat and then promising not to cut down trees in a dry land habitat that's my concern the mitigation that they are proposing if above and beyond what all there was they will need to meet for the tree code okay so they are not double deep in in that regards whatever they are proposed and required to do to me the tree code will be in above and beyond of what this mitigation is okay so in that regard they will not be required if they choose to cut down those three because they have other trees to mitigate and meet the tree code they could however through this mitigation process that area will be set aside so it is a mitigate technically it is a mitigation because they are not using those to meet the tree code have you has the applicant talked at all about adding to the wetland habitat instead of just adding to the dry land one is there any are there any trees or or habitat that could be restored or repaired or well the the habitat is right now fairly it is good okay and is heavily danced when you go to mitigate a habitat like that you look for areas that where erosion is happening where decay the channel is unstable and they make it they could make it a stable or where the vegetation is sparse and you can actually add to it they can also look into the possibility of going and remove any exotic like private and things that will otherwise improve the the habitat of that area that option is always there from a tree standpoint the they're really working with a very very dense repair and buffer then you start looking into how viable planting new trees will be because those trees are competing for sunlight okay sunlight is probably the limiting factor so you will need to start looking to can they actually improve this making it better or are we talking about removing exotics and invasive species or looking into the hydraulics of the of the channel and making it better but from a vegetation standpoint it is quite dense so that's and the other the other thing that they're using is the repairing buffer will provide protection based on drainage area hundred or two hundred it doesn't means that the habitat and the vegetation stops at those boundaries okay those are kind of arbitrary boundaries that we have established so if you if you see the the area photograph this upland vegetation is a continuation is a gradient from a water related closer to the stream and that is transition is transition to an up land so what they're doing is just a continuity preserving an area that is part of the gradient vegetation wise existing in that facility in that aside yes sir commissioner Dudowitz I think what you're explaining is what I would call selective pruning to enhance the vegetation as long as it gets so compacted everybody competes and it stunts the growth of everything so what you're suggesting here at maturity is twice as much the tree canopy yeah is that five years or ten years well all the they have they have you they have selected large tree species from the city tree list okay and it might be pertinent to show where those locations are going to be okay the hatch area is the area that will be disturbed okay this is the area where the existing trees are the ten trees and this this and this are the new trees that they're going to plant what they're doing is they're using an existing gap where trees could be planted they have determined that a large tree will be the right amount of trees for that area so in that way the trees will have a chance to actually grow and expand so that's the areas that they're doing right now there is a gap right here so they are closing that gap with those new trees that's what they're doing and what's the caliper of those trees at the planting will be two inches and eventually when they will grow and be mature so um I'm not a tree expert but my understanding is when you plant trees the smaller you plant them the better chances they have to adapt to the soils on the condition and to thrive commissioner Taylor thank you chair so this arithmetic is really interesting because we have 13, 000 square feet that's going to provide 19,000 square feet of canopy so I'm really fascinated by that you know this is this reminds me of the 30% lot coverage at the Kroger parking lot up here where there's a tree every hundred parking spots and I know that this is based on oh we're going to plant a chinkapin and at a hundred years of age a chinkapin can you know maximum can provide you know 5 ,000 square feet of canopy or 2,000 square feet of canopy or whatever it is so therefore this two inch chinkapin qualifies us for 5,000 square feet of canopy removal what kind of species are currently in the ESA that are being removed there a combination of elms let me pull that information quickly there are Oaks , Elms, we have honeysuckle we have mulberries, elms, cedar elms and post o aks okay so it sounds like this was kind of cross timbers red red sand soil with cross timbers type yeah well just keep in mind from a ecoregion standpoint the eastern part of Denton it falls within the eastern cross timber ec oregion habitat and then the other half is within the Grand Prairie ecoreg ion so pretty much we're in that middle where it is a transition of a little bit of the two and I've noticed in the description that the pond is going to become a water feature with storm water mitigation above the low trend with the tension above normal pool elevation as it puts it this might be a question for for planning more than you but I was curious if the increased elevation during during detention would have any impact to the existing trees it's my understanding that they they will use this as a water as an amenity feature for the site and they will have to meet the detention requirements using a separate pond so that in on the side will be potentially two ponds one that will be used for the for the water features and then there will be one for drainage purposes is that reflected on the plot what you have before you with regard to the plan it's just a preliminary plot that shows your basic easements in terms of full schematic for drainage that will come forward with your final plotting process Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. We've been talking about the trees and that is important I'm glad that was brought up but we haven't addressed the repairing buffer on the ground which is an accumulation of debris that takes years to do so we're going to lose that for a long period of time and as we see this new ESA is going to be right in front of this pond so I'm kind of concerned that that will take much longer time to revitalize or rejuvenate or whatever you want to say then the trees should we be concerned about that and so is there something we can do to move it along a little bit quicker? Well the the understory is as important as the trees are because they feed from each other okay and it's a cycle. What are you calling it? The understory? Understory. Understory vegetation which is everything that goes underneath the tree canopy of the trees okay so because we're talking about separate different type of habitats the area where the the mitigation is going to happen could be could be first be not do any type of management when I say management most people think about moldy area mold lawns very manic ured type of settings in that area that type of management will not be appropriate just to let that however we can also supplement that area and I don't want to put words on the applicant at this point but technically speaking you can actually plant other species grasses and so forth that could actually start kind of giving a head start of that area to improve the quality of that understory however as nature goes you let them take its own course and eventually we will get there but it could be it takes some time so you're definitely right. Any other questions? Commissioner Bruegel. Thank you Chair. Maybe you're going to get to this slide later but I'm curious how that road will affect any wildlife that's going to be affected by the understory. Wildlife that lives north and south trying to get to and from the pond maybe for hatching or is how are we addressing that? At this point the applicant is proposing to put to make that crossing they will put some culverts underneath the road to support the road so those are big pipelines pipes that goes underneath so during low water regimes the species will be able to travel underneath the road. Species they found their way there's born and they will use those culverts as a connection from upstream and downstream. Any other questions? Okay. Commissioner Beck. Animal species the information you sent Julia mentioned talked about the red snake and the spiny lizard. What other species are in there? Well those were pictures that when we went to the site back in 2008 we were surprised about how prevalent wildlife was there. You know when they well wildlife tend to go away to hide when they feel human presence. So when we were on the site back in 2008 it was quite interesting to see actually see wildlife there. So that makes us believe that it is heavily used. Okay. We didn't make a survey about wildlife species we just assume that they are there from rodents to vertebrates to amphibians and so on. So there will be a little bit of everything. Will we lose those for a while or permanently do we know that? Well if the entire riparian buffer were to be eliminated I will say yes because then even for migratory birds they will not have that chance to kind of stop by. On that stretch because it is a localized disturbance I will say that we will still have the possibility of the wildlife to stay there. How much traffic it goes you know that might scare some species some birds to actually nest in that area or to go. That's something that it is a reality but I think that having the riparian buffer upstream and downstream we will not lose all the wildlife that we are having there. Perhaps in time it will build back up. Thank you. I have one question before you move on from that slide. I think you stated earlier that the pond as it exists is not going to be for detention there's going to probably be a separate area for detention. That's my understanding. And that will come back. So I mean, technically, the applicant could if they want to fill the pond and since it 's not going to be for detention. They're preserving that and making a water feature out of it. And then also maintaining all this riparian buffer. Correct. So if another use came in, possibly that pond since it's not being used for detention. There's no riparian buffer around it, it could be filled in completely for example like the little pond at the corner of Hickory Creek and 2181. I can understand. I can answer that from planning. The rez oning for this property in 2008. That ordinance that rezoned it did require that the pond stay. So thank you. That pond would stay. Also, it's my understanding that as a part of that zoning overlay, they have to leave the vegetation. Did you see this line that goes kind of diagonally? That's the separation that they must keep vegetated as a part of the zoning condition. All of the riparian buffer as it curves down encroaching into that area. So that stretch of vegetation, even when it 's outside the riparian buffer, will have to be preserved. Okay. Commissioner Taylor. So following up on that point, there's a piece of that that looks like it's going to be rowed. Wouldn't that not be vegetated? Right at the top corner. Keep going to your right. Keep going to your right. Looks like, is that like the 30? Well. Up and across. Keep going. That little dashed corner line is what, yes. So if that's the, whatever it is, 30 or 40 foot buffer off the. Are you talking about this, probably this triangle right here? Yes. Potentially, yes. But the other thing is, that will be something that the applicant will have, could check if twe aking the geometry of the road could actually avoid that area. If not, they will have to get creative. So I guess I have some concerns just about how this is going right now. We have a lot of backup material. Like the ESA mitigation plan that indicates that the pond is going to be a detention pond as well as a water feature. And then we have information about an overlay requirement that says that an area must be vegetated, but it's inside of the 50 foot private drive area and appears to be planned to be paved. We know that we don't, we have a preliminary plat that we don't know, that will depend on the outcome of the ESA, alternate ESA approval. And then we know that the final plat will be quite different from the drawings we're being presented. Is there any way to get more consistent information about the plans so that we can have a plan and not five competing plans to approve? I'll ask staff to address that. Thank you. The intent of the final plat is to provide guidance as far as the lot layout is concerned and your basic easements that are associated with it. Hand in hand, the applicant has submitted civil drawings for review, which are in very good shape. That being said, what you have before you, the schematic drawing reflecting the impact on the riparian buffer, that ESA component, and the mitigation in terms of square footage, that is indeed accurate. In terms of how would they offset, and Deborah mentioned it 's not a comparison of apples to apples to a great extent because you've got two mechanisms, a wet one and then you 've got a gray mechanism as well that's associated with this . The other thing that I do want to emphasize is as it stands with what we have received in terms of the civil drawings. And what you see on these schematic drawings that have been provided to you for illustrative purposes to give you a visual perspective on what is going on and what would be perceived once that, should that alternative ESA be approved, then at final plotting time, all the specificity related to the infrastructure would be reflected on your final plot. In this case, what we're looking at is purely to look at and narrow in into this component of the request, which is an alternative ESA. And based on the parameters that they've provided, which is they would like to provide a common access/private drive to be able to access the rear of those lots, which from a circulation standpoint is a sensible route. But we also know in order for them to do that, they would be impacting that ESA. How much of the ESA would they be impacting, which we've provided. Now, would things change? Can things change? Absolutely. What if there's a significant civil issue that needs, engineering issue that needs to be addressed? That could change and the ESA would have to come before you to be revisited. So from what we've received thus far, from the civil drawings that we've received, we're fairly confident with the material that we've received that those would be your mitigation areas or parameters. Now you've pointed out, and justly so, that there's a corner that shows that it needs to be protected. We also have an overlay district that has specifics related to screening mechanisms around the boundary or perimeter of this property. But at final plat stage, all the pertinent infrastructure would be provided and reflected on the plat, which would be consistent with what's reflected on this drawing. And if it were not and the ESA were changed or the limits or the boundaries of that were changed, you would see another, you would see a variance request or an alternative ESA come before you. Another alternative ESA. So is, and this would be null and void. So the final plat is, has been submitted? It will be submitted imminently. Okay. And what is the, this is the first I've heard of the overlay. I don't know if it was in the backup, I missed it. Could we go over what the overlay entails? Julie, would you just talk about just the specifics associated, which is primarily the water amenity of the water feature that we've discussed, and then having landscaping around the boundary of the property within a 50 foot landscape buffer? Yes. I'm going to speak from memory here. The, the 2008 overlay required that, we'll just look here. That's the best example. That this pond remain. There would be a 50 foot landscape buffer between any development and the adjacent residential along this area as well as, as well as this area, which is in excess of what the code would typically require between a commercial development and a single family residential development. Also, to protect the views of the pond, a wrought iron fence is required on this side of the development. And then a masonry fence will be required on this side, not per that ordinance, but per the Denton development code requirements that fencing would be required along this side . So, so those are, those are what the ordinance added to as far as site design for the property. Were there any other portions of the overlay? I can, I can pull up a copy of it and I can provide that to you at regular session. I did not bring a copy of it with me today, but I can certainly provide that to you. Commissioner Roselle. Thank you. Just for my identification, those houses cannot put up a privacy fence. They have to have a wrought iron back fence. Per the ordinance, a wrought iron fence in order to, the previous project that was before, before city council was, they were concerned about the views for the pond because they really enjoy the pond and the views that it provided. And so they wanted to protect those views. So that's, that's why the wrought iron was part of that is my understanding. As a side note, it might be worthwhile looking into now that their views are Buc-ee's. What we can do to update that and give them some freedom there. That's a side note I know, but that might be. And that's a fair comment. Also that 50 foot landscape buffer is intended to, to mitigate some of those visual nuisances. But, but I know that the neighbors are concerned and are, are providing us feedback for what they're. Sure. Okay. Menal, did you have something you wanted to add? I was going to call on Commissioner Dudle. Before I do, I'm mindful of the clock. I know we have another item as well. So, want as much discussion as we can, but also want to try to keep it as best we can, confirmed to the ESA question that we have on this so that we can get through this. And I know we have another very important item to go over as well. Sure. Commissioner Dudlewicz. Any significant question, but the homeowners are allowed to put up whatever fence in their property line as they wish, right? If they meet the DENT development code requirements for perimeter fence. Okay. So if they were concerned, they would put something up. Thank you. And just to point out, the concept plan had the dried attention in this area. Okay. I'll let Deborah. Commissioner Bruegel. Thank you, Chair. Sorry, can you go back to that slide that you just. Actually, you know what, go back. That one works too. Okay. So I understand Buc-E's would like to build a road to give back access to these other lots in the front. What's this curb cut on the left side there? I think in your concept plan, it looked like it was going to go, no, keep going to that right there. That right there? That's lot two. Yeah. That is lot two. But that's outside the riparian habitat. So if they wanted to build, they would just have to meet the tree code when they're cutting down all those trees. Correct. So the requirements of the tree code, the mitigation and preservation requirements as it relates to the development of the site when they go vertical, applies, still applies. That is, the ESA mitigation that you see is just the ESA mitigation. Any other mitigation associated with the development of the site would be required. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'm sorry. You're good. Well, do we have any other question about the green mitigation? Let's move with the gray. Okay. What is shown in pink is the drainage area. Right now, the applicant is proposing to provide two stump scepters. Stump scepters are a stone water controls to actually treat the quality of the run-up. In the city of Denton, we have separated a sanitary sewer system, meaning that the storm water is not treated. It goes into the storm drain, into the pipe, is discharged to the nearest creek or lake, and that water is not treated . Okay. With the proposal of the two stump scepters, the applicant is proposing to attain the same filtrating capabilities that riparian buffers provide by retaining sediments, nutrients, and so forth. Okay. So the two pink areas right here, this would be one drainage area. The other drainage area would be right here. Okay. So what they will do, they will put the stump scepters at the lowest point to be able to capture that water, process it, and then release it. So in that way, when it released, it is in better quality than when it was first captured. When we are going through what a stump scepter is, we have a cool animation for you. I'm very proud. What a stump scepter is, this is the inside of a stump scep ter. Pretty much water comes, okay, by a vortex. All the sediments, water and sediments and floatables and grass and fat, they are send it to the bottom of the container. The sediments will actually set it out of solution because they are heavier than water. Therefore, they accumulate in the bottom. The oils and fats, they tend to float. This barrier right here would be -- am I moving this? Where's my pointer? Okay. So this barrier right here would be able to take care of the fat and oils, anything that floats on top of the water. And then water by the head of the pressure, it will come out. Where's my pointer again? I lost it. Water will come out and then get going. I think staff came in that's doing video. They're having a hard time hearing if you're not right in front of the mic. Sorry. They're missing what you're saying. So I'll just state that. This is how it looks when the actual storm scepter is filled with water. This is the vortex. This is how the outside of the storm scepter looks like and how it would be actually buried into the ground to be able to get all the water. And hopefully we can -- this is just a quick animation of how a storm scepter works. I'm going to use a heavy rainfall event. Okay. I'm going to start adding -- you will see how the water -- the runoff start filling in. This is the vortex. I'm going to start adding the oil and I'm going to start adding the sediments that washes off with that runoff. Okay. So you can see how the sediments will be collected on the bottom of the side and how the oil -- you see this line right here? This is supposed to be the layer of oil and fat that will start accumulating. So pretty much when the water goes through that cycle, what it comes out through here, it will be a cleaner water that will be discharged into the creek. And that's how they are proposing to mitigate for the loss of the filtration capabilities that that stretch of repair and buffer is providing. Commissioner Bruegel. Thank you, Chair. Can you show me again on the map where they're going to place those storm scepters? Are there only two of them? Yes. Is that right? Let me go here. Okay. What they're showing right now are the two drainage areas. So they will put it in the lowest point because that's what they want to do to capture all that water, water moved by gravity into those two sides. And then it will be treated and then discharged. Where the storm drains are going to be, that will be something that will be defined during the final plot, okay? The same as the sizing of those two devices. Are we going to size it to deal with the first inch and a half of runoff or we are going to discharge for the rainy event equivalent to 25 years? Those are the details that during the final plot, staff will be able to discuss and decide in conjunction with the applicant. So a follow up question then. So there's going to be some culverts underneath the road to connect the water runoff from the north side to the south side. Are there any storm scepters planned for one of those cul verts, for example, because you're going to get runoff from I-35. You're going to get runoff from the development on the other side of the highway. That's all going to dump right into the north side. And if there's nothing to, and we've disturbed now more of that riparian habitat, which would act as a further filtration system. Now we're going to get more polluted water just running directly into. >> Okay, well the drainage area that the applicant have identified going into those points, pretty much this is the frontage of the lot. So pretty much it will be this area. During the final platting, that's where the location would be optimized. Okay, and then they will have to determine where that storm scepter will be able to do the greater good. Okay, so at that time, we will be able to pinpoint the locations and to be able to size it. We know that at this point what the applicant is proposing is to provide two storm scepters. One coming on each direction. And however, the sizing of the storm sector and the ultimate location that have not been determined yet. >> Is there a way to build a culvert that also can act as a , like I'm thinking, you know, at Razor Ranch, those cool curb cuts that they have with all those plants in between to kind of filter the waters that runs across the parking lot. Like so the parking lot, there's a filtration system built into the parking lot. Is there any sort of system that can be built into a cul vert to- >> Well- >> Like there's 96 gas pumps there and there's a highway on the other side. I want to make sure that we keep our water clean. >> Okay, the runoff from the travel center itself will not be towards this location, okay? We are pretty much dealing with the runoff that will be generated by the out parcels, okay? So we are not dealing with the runoff coming out of the pumps. We're just coming, dealing with the runoff from here, from those two parcels. For example, if, and we are not there yet. One of the reasons that Razor Ranch put all those controls is because the amount of parking, excess parking that they were putting, okay? If this development were to propose excess parking, which we have not discussed at this point. We don't know if that's the case. But if they were to go that route, then staff will bring an alternative development plan before you and we will discuss those possibilities. This is just to mitigate for the loss of the ESA, nothing more. At that time, any other deviation that they might be considering will have to be mitigated and assessed at that time. >> It seems like this would be the right time to be talking about more filtration since we're talking about an alternative ESA, right? And I guess my concern is now we're cutting out a chunk of this riparian habitat, which would have worked as a further filtration system from the properties on either side and the highway. And it seems like this would be a good time to talk about how can we construct a culvert system that could act also as a filtration system. >> There are controls where you can, and I think Chuy's might be having that. The storm, they call it the skirt, if I'm not mistaken. You put that, it's a piece of fabric that uses a filtration device. It needs to be replaced every so often as a part of the maintenance, where anything that goes through the culvert actually is filtered by that piece of fabric. At this point, the applicant has chosen to use the storm s cepter as the most viable solution for them. And that's what we are presenting to you. >> And do the storm scepters, how do we know if they're working or if they need to be replaced or repaired? >> Like any other controls, they come with a maintenance program. And because this is going to be privately maintained, it will be the responsibility of the owner of the parcel where the storm sector sits or some sort of business association if they choose to go that route to actually maintain those. During the final plan, staff were required to provide a maintenance plan for those devices. So whenever somebody buys it from the developer, they will know we have this device. These are my maintenance requirements to keep that. >> And they have to submit that to the city to say, yes, they are indeed working. We had it checked by a- >> Most of the time, if they are not being maintained, we will start seeing some changes, okay? And then we will be able to go back and say, you are not in compliance with your alternative development plan. And one of the conditions for the approval is actually the production of that maintenance document. So if the storm sector were to fail due to lack of maintenance, then the staff will be able to go back and say, you are not in compliance with your ADP. You need to take care of it. >> Thank you. >> Real quick- >> Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Chair. >> Will there be somebody from Buc-E's at the public meeting that we can direct a lot of these questions? >> I believe the applicant will be represented by their engineer. >> Can you answer questions about these? >> I believe he will be able to answer those. >> I have a clarification. You presented a green and a gray. >> Correct. >> Is it either or or in addition? >> It's a combination of the two. >> Okay, so it's both of them working together. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Commissioner Detowitz. >> One last question. What other alternative visas have we approved that have come before us or in the past? >> We have bountiful property in loop in 380 and loop 288. Magnolia Apartments on Nottingham and Mingo. Beaver Creek is a subdivision north of loop 288 and Sher bourne. It's more residential in nature, but they went through an alternative ESA plan. Unicorn Lake is also. Thank you. >> How does this compare in relative to disturbance? >> Well, each one is different. For example, Beaver Creek, the nature of the development is residential versus this. It's a little bit different. >> What Unicorn Lake then? >> The Unicorn Lake, they removed repair and buffer. They removed a lot of upland habitat. That was one of the major removals. So those were the two. >> I believe Unicorn Lake were larger, way larger in scale than this one. >> I think we've had a couple of these before us as well on city projects. I think the city had one of these on Kings Row and Loop 288 on the electric substation. I think there was also one done with the -- I think it was a wastewater treatment plant over off of 1830, just west of 1830. The plant was built on the east side of the creek and the sewer line was on the west side. And I think there was a crossing through there too. >> Yeah. They didn't have to go through an alternative ESA plan for the pipeline because the purpose of the pipe and the storage tank is just to alleviate a compliance issue with TCQ. And the code provides for those type of activity to be allowed by right measures. >> It still went through ESA and effectively it's the same kind of thing. >> My point is this is not unusual? >> It's not. >> No, we have a fair amount of alternative ESA plans. >> Private? >> They've been mitigated to the point of satisfaction? >> Different techniques and different approaches but all of them have been -- have provided some sort of mitigation. >> Thank you for a great presentation. >> Julie is going to wrap it up. >> Okay. >> I'll try to move quickly. Just to answer your question, Commissioner Taylor, there is a 50-foot buffer adjacent to the residential that's required that has to have landscaping in it. No building within 100 feet of the residential development can be over 40 feet. No removal of the pond. And then the 8-foot wrought iron fence next to South Ridge Estates, I believe. So those were the issues with the overlay. >> And is -- >> Commissioner Taylor. >> Is the road construction in that 50-foot buffer going to be a problem? >> Well, right now they're just in the preliminary plat. It has a 50-foot access easement. So the road, you know, would need to stay within -- it would have to stay within that access easement but also stay out of that buffer. So that's something that we will look at as it moves forward. But it does need to stay outside of that 50-foot buffer. >> Good catch. >> Okay. So when we looked at the considerations for the request, first of all, as I think we've been over, they are requesting to impact approximately 13,000. Approximately 13,000 square feet of a riparian buffer. In order to do so, you have to have an alternative environmentally sensitive area plan that is approved. And the criteria for approval for that in subchapter 17 states that it has to be a high quality development that meets the intent of subchapter 17, which is the subchapter that deals with environmentally sensitive areas. As Deborah, I think, went over, we'll just touch on quickly . There were -- when we talked to the applicant and what they offered as mitigation, I had sort of two components, a green component, which includes preserving an equal amount of area as to what they would be impacting. And also adding trees. We don't have an exact location of those trees because we want them to be in an area -- they may be outside of that preservation area a little bit. Because we want them to make -- we want to make sure that they meet their maximum canopy potential. So those were conversations that we had internally that we didn't want to clump them because we wanted them to reach their maximum height and canopy. The gray solution is the two storm scepters. That's using technology to mimic what a riparian buffer does naturally, and that is to filter that water within the drainage area so that those -- that sediment oils doesn't go into the pond. So just to wrap up, the preserved area, the tree plantings, and the storm scepter are intended to imitate what a natural riparian buffer would do. And that it does meet the goals of the Denton Plan 2030 because it uses an integrated approach to environmental management that creates -- that is hopefully a creative solution to protect our environment and allow the riparian buffer in the pond to do what they 're supposed to do. We did send out a public notification. I know you all got some letters. Some of them were in the 200-foot boundary, and I believe a couple weren't, but we have received two letters in opposition within 200 feet. So based upon the considerations and the talk we've had today, staff does recommend approval of the request with the conditions that the eight trees need to be planted to mitigate the removal of the trees in the ESA. They have to be from the large tree list. And there are provisions within the recommendation of what would happen if that tree would die and the maintenance of those trees. The storm scepters would be installed, and the water -- and those water quality facilities would be maintained. And then if there were any problems that would exist that the owner would -- the owner would maintain them. If they did not, then the city would have the right to maintain those and recover the cost from the owner. And Judy, just to add to that, that as part of this recommendation, we also want to tie the site plan, the alternative ESA site plan that is associated with this. Yes, yes, and also tie the -- Those four criteria. Just the specific -- it's five criteria, but on the specific diagram. So do you all have any questions regarding -- The applicant is here, so he will speak tonight, the engineer for the applicant is here, he'll speak tonight regarding the project. Great. Thank you for a great presentation, very thorough. It is 540, and we're going to take a short recess for food, and we'll come back here and start our next item, which is going to be, I believe, the update for the tree code. Welcome back, it is 545, and I will call our work session back into order. Thank you. I think our next item on our agenda is a presentation of the tree code. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Chandrin, go ahead. Good evening, commissioners, I'm Chandrin Jervis with the planning division. The next item is DCA 1601. These are proposed amendments to the city's -- to subch apter 35137, which is the city's tree preservation and landscape requirements. I'm going to ask, because there's a lot of information to cover in this presentation, if we could hold the questions to the end, and I promise I'll make sure that everything's addressed. So thank you. You know us well, we'll do our best. Yes. You can tear me apart at the end. The request is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to city council regarding the adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas, amending subch apter 353 procedures, subchapter 3513 site design standards, and subchapter 3523 definitions and terms of the Denton development code as it relates to tree preservation and landscape requirements. To begin, the existing tree code was adopted in 2004 to promote the preservation of trees and to allow for the long -term viability of trees during site design and construction . While this ordinance has been somewhat effective, more is needed to further protect and expand the tree canopy and to provide clear guidance for tree preservation and mitigation during site development. Between 2007 and 2013, there were multiple attempts to update this section of the code. However, none have been successful because of the lack of consensus on the proposed revisions. That's why the current tree code hasn't been updated since it was adopted. And part of the reason why in the fall of 2014, city council directed staff to proceed with a new update. The proposed revisions to the tree code would accomplish the following objectives. It would streamline the code to make it more user-friendly, align city standards with best management practices of the American National Standards Institute and the International Society of Boreculture. And it would also provide a more robust code that would expand and protect tree canopy and help build the city's green infrastructure network, as we've identified in our comprehensive plan. As a part of this effort, staff identified several key task ing milestones. You'll notice on the screen, we got the green light from council in the fall of 2004 to begin the update. We've completed our benchmark, our research and benchmark analysis in the fall of 2015, as well as we wrapped up the city, the work sessions with the other city departments. Although our coordination with those departments is still ongoing. We also held several external stakeholder meetings, particularly with the DEN Community Development Alliance and Keep DEN Beautiful, from which we received some very helpful feedback that informed the development of this revision. In December, last December, you remember that we did provide a briefing of the core components that we were proposing to change at that time. So with the promise that we would come back now to present the full report. At the beginning of this year, we conducted a community visual preference survey to gauge the public's interest in trees in the public spaces. We actually, we did part in-person surveys and then we launched an online survey from which in total we received about 1200 comments back. Most of them were positive. So in a few minutes, I'll start talking about the proposed revisions, but I want to talk a little bit about the benchmark analysis that we conducted. Since that was the basis for a lot of the recommendations that we made. We looked at ten cities around the state. Most of them have similar population sizes and projected growth rates to DEN. And we tried to find those codes, those cities that had codes that were well constructed and effective. And had ordinances that were something that we could replicate here at DEN. Practices that we could use and inform our tree code update . As we looked at those ordinances, we focused on five areas. Established tree designations, which are the trees that would be subject to the ordinance. Minimum preservation percentages, which are the percentage of existing trees on a site. That would be required to be preserved during development. Tree mitigation ratios, which would be applied when the minimum preservation procedures can't be met. And then the tree fund payments or the payments in lieu, which get collected if it's determined that tree mitigation by planting on a site isn't feasible or desirable. And then finally preservation incentives, which are intended to encourage the developers to do more than the minimum requirements. So what we found was Denton's tree and landscape code is one of the most complex of all the cities that we looked at . We identified seven tree designations in our code compared to an average of three for the benchmark cities. And our 39 options for preservation, which vary based on lot size, tree species, and the type of development is significantly more than what we've seen around the state. We also noticed that we're trailing in the preservation and mitigation standards themselves. We have the lowest minimum tree preservation requirements. We have no requirement or incentive to save large trees or anything over 18 inches. And we have the lowest mitigation rates for tree removal. So in your backup, I provided a summary table of the proposed changes. It's arranged by procedures, standards, and the requirements. So under the procedures and standards sections, we're proposing to align city definitions and terms with industry standards. As I mentioned, the ANSI and the ISA earlier. We want to reduce the number of tree designations from seven to three. So we would now have the heritage trees, the protected trees, and the canopy trees. So the heritage trees would be any healthy tree that's over 18 inches and designated as heritage by the urban forester. The protected tree would be any healthy tree that's over 18 inches that's not a heritage tree. And then the canopy tree would be any healthy tree that's under 18 inches. We would also establish an exempt trees list, and these trees could be removed without penalty. And we would reduce the number of exempt properties and projects. Also in your backup is a table that compares the current exemptions in the tree code with what we're proposing. The most significant changes are what we're requiring of the service providers, the city's utility providers. So you'll notice that that list has almost been cut in half . And in the requirement section, we are proposing to require tree removal permits for all sites, including residential. However, the single family and the two family residential sites or owners would only need to come in for trees if they want to remove trees that are over five inches. And that permit would be a complimentary permit from the city, but it would give us an opportunity to consult with them and maybe identify other options to accomplish their goals. We also want to base the minimum preservation on existing tree canopy instead of the diameter at breast height inches . So that's an improvement over the existing code. And we want to establish a flat mitigation ratio for tree removal of a one to four ratio instead of right now I think we range from zero to about 1.25. Got it. And then finally, base the tree farm payment on the fair market value of materials and labor at the time of planting . And this would also include the cost of irrigation and maintenance to get the tree established for, I guess, on average, a time period of about three years. Under preservation incentives, we're proposing to allow tree canopy to count towards landscape canopy requirements. So a tree is a tree on the site. And we're offering a one to two credit for preserving heritage trees that would count towards the landscape canopy requirements. And then the last bullet is actually a current incentive in the existing code to allow for modification in parking lot and subdivision designs when trees are preserved over the minimum required. So we measured our proposal for the tree code update against the city's guidance documents. And as far as the comprehensive plan is concerned, the proposed revisions support the following goals and objectives of the DIN Plan 2030. And I won't read through those, but they're on the screen for you. The first goal is from the parks conservation and environmental goal. And then under that is an action item that aligns with that . And then when we looked at the DIN strategic plan, we identified that the proposed revisions most closely align with the key focus area of sustainable and environmental stewardship. And then the goal to manage land use and preserve open and natural space. So with all of those considerations, staff is recommending approval of this update and I will open it up for questions . Commissioner Bruegel. Chair. I've got a couple of questions on the exemptions list. Okay. One noted exemption was for agriculture uses. My question with that is specific to a case that we saw recently in the corner of Windsor and Hinkle. There's like a big data retirement community that we had approved a few months ago. What, 15, 20 years ago, that was a forest. And I had asked, Julie may remember this because she brought back all these pictures of this dwindling forest to the point where it's now just, it's a field. And I recall maybe four or five years ago, there were some post oaks on that property that were all removed. And as far as city staff could tell when I was requesting information about that particular case, there were no penalties about that. Because what they did was for the next couple of years, use that field for agricultural uses. Right. But they just ended up flipping it. And now there's going to be a development there. And there was no penalty whatsoever for removing the hundreds of trees over the last decade or so. Right. And especially those last few post oaks that were remaining . So can you talk to me more about these agriculture uses? Like what is the length of time that that property must be used for agriculture before it can be turned into a gated retirement community? Or even type of development? Yeah, can we just talk a little bit more about that? And then I've got another question about the exemptions too . Okay. The ag use exemption is basically a state requirement . And we don't really have a lot of leverage when it comes to exempting that use. The exemption, I believe, is in effect for five years. Well, it has to be ag for five years to qualify for the exemption. To qualify for the exemption. So once they've designated as agricultural use, it needs to be in that state for five years. And that's a state law? So anyone could really cut down a bunch of trees and then just turn it into a corn field for a couple of years and then anyone can do that. And that's at the state level. Yes. Well, that stinks. Okay. My next question is about the residential permits. So am I to understand that if someone wanted to like build a back porch or expand a kitchen window or add on to their driveway or something like that, and that would require the removal of a healthy tree, that they would then need to go to the city to get a permit for that? Yes. And actually that would already be under review because our urban forester reviews those other permits. So it would be already a consideration. Okay. And what about a tree that's not dead yet, but it's dying? It might be a risk to my property or to people walking on the street. Would I need a permit to remove the tree then? If it's over five acres, then yes. Okay. And what is the cost of that? That would be a complimentary permit. So no cost. Okay. But it's just a way for the city to be able to track essentially what's going on. Yes. All right. Thanks. So that when we get a call, like this tree has come down or a tree is coming down, what's going on, we would already know through our track kit system that there was a complimentary permit issued for this reason. And the property owner, so the property owner would be responsible for getting that or the tree removal company that's taking care of it, or they could do it on the behalf of the property owner. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Beck. [inaudible] Okay. And those are actually speaking to two separate incentives that we are proposing to offer in the code. And I'm actually going to ask Nona Elaine Muncie to come up and explain the landscape part. Okay. She's the resident expert. Okay. I'm Nona Elaine Muncie. The landscape code is in addition to the tree code. The tree code has to be met first and that's in inches. The landscape code is in canopy coverage. We are proposing to have a total tree canopy where you preserve the number of trees that you're required. Any additional trees may go toward what's required by the landscape code. Sometimes there's not enough room to plant trees back on site and that's where we're going. Okay. And did she have any questions about the parking lot modification? That's basically, it's not to reduce the number of spaces, but rather to allow the design, the layout of the park and to vary to preserve trees. To preserve trees. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Bruegel. Thank you. So a question for staff is are we, we're looking at either approving or rejecting these proposed changes. Are we going to get a chance to see the final ordinance before we pass that on to city council? What happens next? Because I would like to see how it all lays out and language and definitions. I'm kind of channeling Commissioner Bentley here like I don 't want to send something on to city council without being able to read it first. So where, so what happens at this point once we vote on this? Actually the proposed language is in the backup. It's in your backup. And that's what we'll get adopted by council. The ordinance itself is more of the legal terms that we need to proceed the actual text. I'm so sorry I missed that. Yes, I see it. My apologies. No problem. Okay, thank you. I look like a fool. All right. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair. I also had trouble finding the backup because it's labeled proposed amendments, not revised ordinance or something like that. So I'm actually just reading through it now. I had some questions on some mitigation. Now all fees will be set in a criteria manual so it can be more readily updated as costs shift. Is that? Oh, do you mean the tree fund payment? Yeah, under the mitigation section. Okay. Is that correct? I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? Yeah, so mitigation costs will now be in a criteria manual? No, those costs get established by city council by the whole, the review fee ordinance that they would act on. Is that an annual process or every fund? Well, we have a fee schedule that's adopted by ordinance. And now and again, we do have to amend it. It's typical to evaluate it once a year and make sure that your fees are consistent with other communities when you benchmark. And if there's some errors or there's some other fees that need to be added, that's when we use that opportunity. And I noticed there, so you can do on-site mitigation or on -site credit, whatever that's called if it's not mitigation. Can you do off-site mitigation? Can you say, I'm doing a 40-acre development over here. I've got 10 acres on the other side of town that I will preserve, you know, put an easement on or something like that. I don't believe that that's currently included in the ordinance. The only off-site mitigation that is allowed for is through the tree fund at this point to make the contributions to the tree fund through the payments in lieu. If I'm not correct, okay. >> And the intent of that was to make sure that the canopy cover is enhanced, retained, maintained for whatever reason specific to the site so that you had a domino effect as it comes to enhancing that canopy cover and making sure that if you had a corridor, for instance, that was being revitalized that you had that opportunity there, just as an example. The off-site requirement then can become, sometimes you can 't do it through deed restriction or what have you anyway. So it would compromise other developability potentially. >> Yeah, so the last revision was 2007, is that correct? >> 2004. >> 2004. So in the 2004 revisions, I believe there was a provision where you could off-site. And there were some ideas that never really got rolling, but they were to basically take areas that are heavily wood ed, but not necessarily prime real estate development projects. But the owner could want to preserve it and allocate 100 acres and then basically sell it piece by piece to developers. And so whenever they've mitigated their 100 acres, there's 100 acres that are permanently preserved. And it would perhaps be in a different neighborhood, but tree fund monies will also be spent in a different neighborhood. >> Yes. I thought that was a really novel and a good method. Instead of replanting a bunch of two inch trees that in 50 years will create shade, we could preserve existing timber, existing canopy cover that exists inside the city. >> Okay. >> And we have one of two options. One is, and Commissioner Bruegel, you had asked, do we have to approve this or deny this? You have the option to postpone the item. You have the option to approve it with specific conditions or parameters. So you have those opportunities available to yourselves if you want to add some conditions or considerations to what's before you and you'd like for it to go to council, we can do that too. >> I have a couple questions. On the tree fund, I know there's been a lot paid in. Do we have any information on how much money that has been spent that's come out of the tree fund? >> I'm going to ask Haley to address that. >> Okay, I'm going just off of memory here. But for the current fiscal year, if I'm not mistaken, for tree planting specifically through parks, we have allocated just over $500,000 for new plantings in public areas. There's also been an allocation that was approved through K DB for the Denton Tree Initiatives. I can't remember the exact dollar figures on those programs . But they included the tree rebate program, the trees mean business, which is trees for existing businesses where they actually will go out and plant the tree for the business owner. They have to submit a business proposal on how they're going to maintain the trees. And then there's starting this fall, there'll be a neighborhood tree giveaway, which the idea is to actually have the neighborhood organize their tree giveaway for their residents. And the trees will be delivered on site and they can distribute the trees to those individuals that have space for planting new trees. >> Do you remember how much is in the tree fund? How much has been paid in versus what we've spent out of it ? Off the top of your head, it's great. >> Paid into the tree fund, I want to say it probably has to be close to $3 million right now. Paid out, I would say probably around $150,000, $200,000, just rough guessing without looking at the numbers. >> Okay. A lot's gone in and not a lot so far. >> Right, yeah. We just started, just received approval to start utilizing that fund last spring. And so, you know, that was kind of midway the year. And so the idea is now that we'll have regular allocations of fundings to go towards tree plantings from now on into the future as long as there's funding available. >> Okay. Second question. In the past, the tree code, I think single individual lots, individual property owners' lots were exempt. Has there been an issue in some kind of compliance or a lot of trees being cut down as to now we want to include individual property owners that you can't go cut down a tree on your own property without getting a permit? >> Well, even for single family lots, whenever I review those plans, you know, and most people that are building the house, they want to save as many of the trees on site as they can. The main thing is for houses that are already built where someone wants to remove trees, having that permit requirement, as Sandra mentioned earlier, gives me the opportunity to talk to them and find out what's really the issue. Because sometimes the issue that they're having can be remedied a lot less expensive than actually having someone cut down a tree. Depending on the size of the tree, you can easily spend a couple thousand dollars depending on the location and obstacles that the contractor has to work around. In some cases, the tree really just needs a good pruning, and it'll really solve the issues that they're having. So it's really that opportunity for me to interact with them to find out what the issue is and maybe find them a more cost-effective solution. >> Okay, but they would, under this, they would have to come get a permit, and if they decided they do want to cut down some trees for whatever reason it is, then they're going to be subject to this as far as either having to mitigate those or pay into the tree fund. >> No. >> They're exempt from mitigation. >> Right. >> And paying into the tree. We're using this as a value-add service so that our community gets to know our urban foresters, so that our community gets to understand the ordinances that are in place and to involve our community. And it also becomes a bit of a quantitative research tool for us to know what's going on with our canopy cover as we get more built out, we'll have an opportunity to see that. So oftentimes, Haywood gets a call, you know, I have a tree and I want to cut it down, or my tree is dead. And Haywood has the opportunity to visit with them and explain actually what, if the tree is indeed diseased or the tree is a safety issue. We had that just a couple of weeks ago where there was a hazardous tree and we knew we had to get it down, but the homeowners, well, I really like this shade. But Haywood had to explain, well, look at the consequences, what could happen. So we want to use this as a value-add, but there is no mitigation or penalty associated with that. >> And so all they have to do then is fill out a permit and they can take it down and they don't have to pay it. >> And it's a complimentary permit, yes. >> Even under the current code, the way the language states in this is not really pinned down well, but a homeowner is allowed to remove up to five trees without a permit. So if they're removing 10 trees or 12 trees, they have to come in for a permit and it's at a cost under the current code. So it's really just to have that added point of contact to see what's really going on. >> Great, thank you. >> Yeah. >> Commissioner Haps. >> Yeah. >> Commissioner Rossell. >> This might be a question for Haywood, but just so I understand the tree fund, there's new trees planted on Southlake's Rain Trail. Is that what the tree fund's used for, like to go plant trees at parks and stuff? >> Yes, currently the tree code can be used to plant trees on public and private property. The amendment to allow on private property was just done last year and that's how we're able to do the various programs that we're funding through KDB. But those in Southlake's parks are definitely funded through the tree fund. >> Okay. >> So parks, any city-owned properties, any public properties basically. >> Gotcha, thank you. >> Commissioner Hapsbeth. >> Thank you, Chair. So I'm curious, those funds are those, the tree in and of itself or trees and the maintenance to put it in, the water ? Is it everything around putting the tree in, maintaining the tree? >> Yes. >> Okay, got it. Thank you. >> Commissioner Tyler. >> So a couple of follow up questions regarding the single family dwelling. >> Okay. >> I was just reading that clause and I lost it. Is it possible to, it doesn't seem to have any kind of acre age requirement or anything like that. So if I own 500 acres and I have a house on it, I can come apply for a permit to remove trees and that's free. >> Yes. >> And then I can remove all the trees I need to remove and then I can do whatever I want with that land afterward. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And so this also goes back to the agricultural exemption . The case at Windsor where those post oaks were removed, they had to keep the land in agriculture for two years or they would have to pay tree removal fees. I don't see any kind of clauses about a period of time or a number of acres or anything like that in this ordinance at all. So it seems like this is my hay field, I'm going to cut down the trees. October comes, now I'm ready to build houses because I cut my hay in September. So I feel like we know that whatever the limits of the words of the law are, those cases are going to occur. Because that's what's exactly happened, within a few months of that two year clock, the plot came in. And we see that all the time. So I think I'm concerned about the little edges and the little details of any lot with a single family home or single or two family, I think is how it's worded. And then no acreage requirements. One of the ideas that we've been going back and forth on is possibly instituting a rollback feature so that if after a period of time it does get developed or it does change uses , basically if they're using it as a loophole they will be caught further down the line. We can look into that further. I think that's kind of what you're suggesting. Yeah, either a rollback feature or hard limits on what, like a single family home on less than an acre or less than two acres. I'm going to chime in just a second. I think we need a clarification from staff about whether a fine was paid on that property or not. With regard to the property on Windsor, there was a fine. They did cut down the trees without a permit. They were required to have a permit for that. Now, when we talk about do we need to create thresholds so that we ensure that our mitigation parameters or someone can't clear cut the site. Obviously that still happens even when we have ordinances in place where we say you cannot do this without a permit and then they will go clear cut the site and say well, we didn't know. So we will regardless whether this ordinance, whether we have thresholds or whether we keep the existing one, we will continue to have that issue. But we can try and stem that to a certain extent. I think what Shandrin is alluding to after hearing you and Commissioner Bruegel is perhaps we can create some thresholds as it relates to, should we do it by acreage and eliminate the fact of a use, but then we've got the ag exemption issue as well that we need to bring up. I think Jennifer, you had raised your hand. Yes. Yeah, I just wanted to make a point that even though it is state law, we are allowed to be more restrictive than state law. So we can add those limitations on it if that's what you choose to do and you can suggest that our direct staff to do that and then table the item and have it brought back. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you. You mentioned a rollback, like a retroactive. I don't know if that's a good idea. I wouldn't be a proponent of that. Because if I own property, I cleared it out for a good reason, then for whatever reason, I had a hardship, I need to sell the land. I sell it, the bill comes in, they develop it, then it looks like I purposely tried to make the system, which might not be the case at all, but now I might actually have a penalty. So I don't know if the rollback is helpful if there was not mal intent to begin with. Okay. Yeah, that's just one idea. Yeah. Commissioner Bruegel. Thank you, Chair. Going back again to that property on Windsor and Hinkle, I recall, Munal, that we did talk about there were some fines that were paid later. But I also recall that whatever fines they paid were a small fraction of what they should have been paying either into the tree fund or whatever other mitigation. It was tiny. It was laughable. And I want to make sure that we are preventing that so they can't just be like, oops, I didn't know, and then just write us a check for whatever. There needs to be some sort of loophole protection system in place. And Commissioner Bruegel, I agree with you that the fine in comparison to what came down, yes, there was no comparison. I understand that. However, we have to follow certain parameters as it relates to citations and fines and procedure. Right, Jennifer? Well, let's make- A violation of this code would be a Class C misdemeanor. And so you're capped at $2,000 per violation, which technically, if we calculate it correctly, you would think that each tree would be a separate violation. Right. So that would be up to $2,000 for each tree removed. Right. And I just want to make sure that whatever penalties are put in place for people who maybe didn't know the law or maybe were trying to get around the law are more extreme than what they would have been charged had they just followed the law in the first place. Does that make sense? Yes, and we did. We've done that with the- We have, in the proposed ordinance, we are proposing stric ter standards for violations. Good. Commissioner Beck? Thank you, Chair. Have we done anything to enhance our enforcement capabilities? Yes. Such as? Again- Have we hired more people? Oh, you mean- Oh, that. And staff laughs in unison, right? Well, not in that sense. We don't have more boots on the ground. Haywood is our- Our boot. He's our boot. I think our first inclination would be to work with the property owner to try to get it resolved, right? I agree. I mean, at the end of the day, you don't want to just charge a fine if something can be done about it, right? If they could mitigate it. But what staff did and what I helped them with in this particular change in this amendment, we sort of crafted the language where it's a little bit stricter on when violations are occurring because it was unclear in the first code. Yes. And so now it's just clarified you will, if you violate this section, be responsible this way. And so we've really laid that out and now Haywood has an option where if he has somebody who's really recalcitrant, then he can go and give him the hard sell. No. But it's easier to enforce. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions on this item? Seeing none. Thank you very much. I'm going to close our work session at 622. And hopefully we can reconvene as close to 630 as possible. I think we're going to have a pretty full house tonight. Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission for March 23rd. It is 635 and our meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and I call our meeting to order at this time. Our first order of business is to stand to give the pledge to the U.S. and the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state under God, one individual. I have one item that's not on our agenda. I want to get out of the way first. Is there a representative from Ignite here to speak? If not, I'm just going to give them a shout out. They are an organization from UNT and they're a nonprofit organization that aims to empower and recruit women to run and participate in politics. So you are there. Great. Well, a shout out to you guys. Thanks for coming. Appreciate your support and being a part of our process here. The next item that is posted on our agenda is to consider approval of our minutes for March the 9th. The chair would entertain a motion on the minutes. Commissioner Dudowitz. I motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Beck. Second. I have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 7-0. Our next item is our consent agenda. Commissioner Dudowitz. I motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Hussbuth. Second. I have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 7-0. That moves us to our public hearing section. At this time, I will open the public hearing for item A, AD P 16-0002C. I would ask the applicant to come forward and present your project at this time. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Scott Radcliffe. I'm with Radcliffe Engineering Services. I'm representing Buc-E's. I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you all today. I just wanted to reiterate this is for the environmentally sensitive area ADP, alternative development plan for the 37 acres being considered for Buc-E's development. Just a little bit of background and snapshot on what the B uc-E's program and what they offer to the community. This particular project is going to bring in approximately 52,000 square foot facility, 92 fueling positions, about 150 jobs. We are noted throughout the U.S. as being one of the clean est places to use on your travel destination. We appreciate that recommendation for having the cleanest bathrooms in the world. Just a little bit of background on the site. You all are probably familiar with this, but what we are looking at is a Buc-E's anchor facility and some padlocks along the front, which is the internal connector road which provides the opportunity for utilities to serve the greater public as well as this development. This is just kind of a snapshot of artist rendering of what the project's invention would look like. The Buc-E's facility being the primary anchor seen there in the background. Okay, what is the -- why ESA ADP? Why is this important to this particular project? We are looking at offsetting the mitigation area with a proposed good quality upland area. In addition to this, it will house additional trees to be planted of high quality large specimens from the city tree list. It also is a larger area than what was being disturbed. Bringing in the great component of this, which is the innovative or technology aspect of our proposed plan, which is to bring in storm scepters, which are a mechanical means of separating sediment and debris from the rain water runoff associated with development related to this project, specifically those of the upland area draining to this low point in this public connecting road. Also, this is bringing in public utilities, a key utility connection is being completed for the city. We are tying stub lines that go all the way back to the subdivisions in the back of us providing water, potable water and fire demand requirements. Also, wastewater is being extended into this parcel and other key utility components are being completed with this project. Also bringing in traffic impacts to improve the mobility within this area. We are working with the city on improving Brinker Road and putting in an overpass for 35 so the Brinker will be a full under and overpass, providing key connections back to the north and to the south to provide interconnectivity, flow and to reduce traffic congestion. In addition to the crossing, we are proposing to oversize the storm sewer culvert which goes underneath the roadway. This will enable the waters that transition down this emb ankment to pass safely underneath the water, underneath the road with minimal velocity increases and also provide the ability for your bugs and your bees and your bunnies and everybody to have safe passage underneath the road. Two large 48 inch culverts are proposed in order to make this crossing which exceeds the requirements for this type of development and also for the demands hydraulically for this particular channel section. We are also proposing one of those things that happens with any type of channelizing or funneling of water is you do increase the water velocity. What we are proposing is to provide energy dissipators in a stilling basin in order to return that water back to its original state. So it comes into the culverts and then exits the culverts in a similar condition. Not introducing any new pollutant loads because of the interceptors that will be there and then also returning the water back to its original state. Preserving the uplands habitat is important to us as well as it is to the community. We believe in having a good looking product and we pride ourselves on being the top notch. Preserving this uplands area is part of our goals and our ambitions for this project. To make a nice attractive area for the citizenry that currently view this area as well as those that would be traveling past it. Preserving the existing neighborhood mentality and the existing neighborhood look. Providing a quality development that fits the character of Denton by providing additional modes for transportation as well as for infrastructure. Focusing new development in an area that is designated for that in order to reduce urban sprawl this tract is designated for this particular use. Associates development keeping it all channeled and funnel ed in one particular location providing that. And also looking at providing the highest quality standards as it pertains to Chapter 13 of the development code to the city of Denton. I appreciate the opportunity and if you have any questions I'll be more than happy to answer those at the appropriate time. Commissioner back. Thank you chair. Thank you Mr. Radcliffe . Yes sir. For coming down and speaking with us. Obviously I think the biggest concern for me and everyone here especially if you're a strong preservation is for natural ecological areas. The fact that we've got to do some dramatic changes to this ESA this repairing buffer. Were there not any other options you could choose to accommodate your needs to get a flow through. Location wise or just construction wise that would avoid going in and doing a lot of damage to this one section. We're actually if you look at these sections we're actually crossing at one of the narrow portions that relates to the tree canopy and develop tree growth that's there. So we selected it for that matter. We're also trying to stay away from the residents that are behind us separating that infrastructure and development from the citizenry behind us. So this met the goals and objectives of that as well as keeping us off of the frontage road not having a parallel road. And so that's why we chose this selection. Okay. But again minimal damage seems like it could have been achieved if and I'm just throwing this out. Let me know why this is going to be a problem for you. My thought was probably running an entrance way coming from I guess it's the west or the north depending on how you look at it. And cutting in between lots three and four put your road in there and then following the path that you got there now. You would bypass the repairing buffer. Yes I can clarify that really easily. There's a ramp that's there. Text out ramp and there's certain safety criteria required with the speeds coming off of 35 require specific spacing distance. And so to have anything in that neck of the woods as it relates to a primary road connection would not be a safe location to do that. So this was chosen because it is passed or behind the ramp and provides safe ingress and egress for the patrons leaving. Oh really. Yes sir. The ramp comes off basically in this general location right here and there's a 460 foot what they call a weaving space that enables traffic to meander and shift lanes and get over whatever whichever direction they need to go. Whether to go around the future turn around at Brinker to turn at Brinker or go to Buckees or whatever the case may be. So that safety zone basically would permit would not permit that type of approach to be made. Okay so your hands are tied by text out essentially. Well text out I mean you can twist arms and stuff but we're more concerned about the safety. Right. And placing people into high velocity environments with vehicles moving at 50 to 70 miles an hour isn't preferable. Okay how about a section option here where you maintain the path you're going here. But rather than going in and again doing considerable damage here and paving over this area essentially. What about an elevated crossover type thing where you're allowing the natural flow to remain you can put some peers or columns in there to support your overpass. And we're not talking about a real high just enough to where from the 100 foot distance from one side of the repairing buffer to the other. Did anybody look at that possibility. Yes in order to do that type of development you would still have to get in there and tear it up. Because in order to get the vehicles in there to make the drillings and to do the prep for making that crossing also there's utilities that are crossing there is going to be disturbed. What we tried to do is put the utility corridor and the road corridor in the same location. So as a minimize that disturbance. Okay. Thank you. Yes. More questions. Commissioner Burgo. Thank you chair. Commissioner Beckham going to piggyback off of what you were asking. That was one of my questions too. Why is it necessary to have that road to the west there. Couldn't you just enter the property through that main road right there in the center. We have found that having multiple connectivity points for reduces traffic and provides an easier flow for the patrons and for those utilizing these intersections. Having one certain one specific point of interest egress is problematic and introduces heavily congested areas. Okay. My next question is about the culvert system. Are there I understand we talked quite a bit. I'm not sure if you were in the work session or not but my back to the crowd. Yeah I was behind you. Okay. So you heard the conversation about the storm scep ters. You talked at length about that. And my question for staff at that time was what sort of filtration system might be in place for the culverts because as I understand for those who weren't in the work session the storm scepters are going to be there to kind of collect the runoff from the properties to the east and west of the of the ESA. Correct. But when you when you cut a road through riparian habitat and the only thing that you have underneath there is a culvert there's no sort of filtration system from the runoff coming whatever runoff isn't captured by the storm sectors and goes into that creek but also the runoff coming from I 35 and now you have now you have less of a natural filtration system to bring that to clean that water from the north as it enters into that pond in the south. So is there any filtration system in place that you are it 's something that you can add to the culvert system to further protect the quality of the water as it relates to the quality of the water that's coming underneath I 35. Your primary treatments going to occur in the first hundred , 200 feet of the riparian area which is entering into, and we are well past that. The area that we're disturbing is not adding anything in fact we're taking pollutants out with our storm scepters and so we're improving the water quality that would be entering in that as relates to some sort of large contamin ant or capturing device. You know, if the trees produced green backs, we'd be able to fund anything we wanted to but I don't know of any off the shelf type of prototype that would be able to fit that type of application and provide any additional treatment and what's already being provided by the natural riparian area north of the culverts. What are you going to do to prevent runoff from that that part right there with a road goes over, goes over the creek . I'm sorry so so I understand so when you say a lot of the filtration is going to happen in the first hundred feet or so from I 35 to the point of the right the existing runoff. Yeah. So, but what about the cars that cross over that and there 's going to be some runoff from the road and from some pollution from some of the cars and whatnot on this. Does that make sense that on our on the private road. Yeah, yeah, yeah, so all that was going to be captured by the storm scepters that are in that basin. There's okay there's I think staff had a map that showed with that base and look like I don't have that in my presentation, but it is picking up the area that would be contributing towards this ESA is being captured by the storm scepters that were proposing basically removing all the trash and debris from the stormwater introducing it in a controlled environment so as to try to minimize the road. And put water back into the environment at a city defined rate of three to six feet per second. Okay, thank you. Yes. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair. So, I'm looking at the road on the north end here. And if you look at an aerial map it. This road appears to line up with an existing kind of gravel pathway that goes to like the utilities and power line easement. And right now, people exit the interstate and cross the double white line to turn into that. So I do have a concern that we're, we're creating a situation where people will intentionally be taking this first turn to get to, you know, to cut across here, you have to cut across right there just cut across the double white line. Is there any plan to, to put up a barrier or, or some other device that would prevent people from taking that that cut across two lanes of traffic. Yes, sir. We've been working with text out in the city one on one on getting the improvements at 288 Brinker and May hill. And part of those improvements are just like you're talking about, making sure that these exits and entrance points aren't circumvented. And the new ramp is to be put to the discharge traffic pass this point. So they would have to drive through the grass and you know, the typical text out segment there from the ramp in order to try to jump across there and make any type of entryway. So you're saying that the text out ramp is actually moving south. Yes, it's being elongated in that section of front age road is actually being snaked a little bit in front of the Buc-E's proposed project here. We are actually developing the full fully developed text out section for this particular segment. So along this entire almost 2000 linear feet of frontage, it'll be the full build out for text. So this frontage road will be done. So it'll look like the frontage road, if you will. And so part of that is taking into consideration these things, which the city has noted as being concerns and trying to address those traffic needs with this project. And this this new drive on the north end, does it connect to the existing will it connect to the existing parking lot for the goodwill? Goodwill, gym, trampoline park. There is an existing it's classified as a right of way easement is what that that segment is a 50 foot wide swath that comes through there. The intent is to provide access to the gentleman that's behind the goodwill store. And so this will parallel that as it relates to prohibiting goodwill from tying to this road. I don't have the purview to be able to dictate that. But as we're proposing it right now, it's just a connection point that will allow them to connect as well as us to connect to this new frontage road. So your your plan will not well you'll keep the curb and there will be a curb between curb and gutter. Yeah, curb and gutter between you and the goodwill and sidewalk and landscaping and all those nice things. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Let me ask you a few questions about these storm scepters. I'm a little concerned I did a little quick survey on them and some questions were raised. So maybe you can allay my concerns to that. Again, going back. Can you get your microphone closer and tell you they can't hear you. How's that. Okay. Going back to my idea of an overpass rather than a road. Okay. Damage wise going to be the same. But the end product is going to be, you know, natural flow as opposed to using these storm scepters. And correct me if I'm wrong here. These units on average eliminate only 74% of the total suspended solids which are organic and inorganic materials that lower water quality in high concentrations over time. We're losing something there it seems like. Well, we're actually gaining quite a bit because the storm scepters actually function even in high velocity conditions. And one of the things in the proposed units that we're proposing is that you still get around a 50% removal rate even in a 100 year storm event. You have a 100 year storm event that comes through a normal channel, you end up having more erosion than you actually do have sediment deposits. And so by having the mechanical means you're actually basically giving a quantifiable means of removing pollutant load. Whereas the natural stream, if you have a winter, a hard winter and all your undergrowth story is dead and you have a hard rain it's not doing any good. If you have trees that die off due to attrition, they're, you know, they're not doing any good. They're not helping to hold. If your understory gets disturbed or destroyed during a large event, it's no longer being able to remove that. But in mechanical means is something that's got science behind it that's got a specific number. This gets a certain amount of flow, it's going to remove a certain amount. And in a natural environment, in an ideal situation in a low flow, yes, you're going to get a certain load removal. But as you increase your flow, you can't guarantee that you 're going to get that same removal because the water is moving faster and it's over a bigger disturbed area. Okay, again though, overtime is a big concern too. A lot of maintenance is going to be required here. These things will break down, replacement may be included. So again, it would take time to build this repair and buffer back up to where the natural elements could take care of this. And not worry about maintenance down the road and whether it's going to be done in a timely manner. And again, information I got says the storm scepters were not expected to provide significant nutrient or fecal coliform removal. Most of the survey are studied done in 2003. So my question would be, are they up to this task now? And it also begs the question too, that if the natural repair and buffers are capable of removing 60 to 65% of these nutrients, which they are, are these storm scepters less capable than this? Well, it's removing the fecal coliform is the reason they 're able to remove fecal coliforms because they're a living environment. And so also keeping in mind that there is this native repair and buffer that's being preserved that is south of this development. So the minor area, the 50 foot swath that we're removing, 50 foot wide swath has another 100, 150 feet worth of channel plus a pond down there that receive these nutrients and live off of these nutrients. So it's kind of like the whole antibacterial thing. You kill all the bugs, you don't have any good bugs too. So you 've got a system that's removing the eyesores, the heavy things, the fats and the oils, and you're putting them back into an environment which it can continue on its filtration system down into the pond and then eventually down into Lake Louisville. And so this is just part of the components and what we're trying to do is provide a means of getting, providing development and providing it in a rational, reasonable fashion so that not only can the environment thrive but also we can have something that's nice to look at. Having these pollutants in the existing stream, you have your styrofoam cups and your trash and all that stuff, that stuff you still see floating down the stream and you can go out there today and you can see that stuff sitting in that stream bed. What this does is all that stuff is picked up and stored underground and then it's able to become, become and pumped regularly, just like you would on a grease trap at a restaurant, and suck those fats and the sediments out of the system. It's designed for quick connect so that the system can come and think the average time is about five to ten minutes to suck one of these systems out and then it can operate again until the next cycle period. And so what we're trying to do is to improve what's visually there as well as what we can't see which is the birds and the bees and the bacterias and all those things. It seems like then that the critical thing is placement of these two and we're not really going to know that until most of the construction is done, is that correct? Well, the placement of those things is going to be to, and it was identified in our presentation to staff in our write -up, is that we're going to treat the runoff from the road segments that drain towards the ESA and then also the pad sites that drain towards the CSA. So what we're doing is we're effectively removing those areas that currently would be contributing water to the ESA and providing it into the environment in a controlled, clean manner. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Commissioner Hadsbeth. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your insight and your specific delivery. It makes it easy for me to process. Do you have a site for the statistic with respect to the 100 feet? That first 100 feet you mentioned, most of the filtration happens within that first 100 feet. Is there a specific study you're relying on? Where does that number come from? I'm just curious. That number, there's several research studies, and it's not necessarily 100. It depends on the geometry of the channel section as well as the hydraulics that are coming down. I was just trying to throw out information that you're getting a majority of your treatment in the first segment of the channel. Okay. I don't have any of my notes with me to tell you what study I'm pulling that from, just from what I've read over technical manuals and stuff in the past. Okay. And on the same lines. Obviously, we're going to -- I'm going to try to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Can you speak to what studies have been done? Obviously, this area has been looked at and you've developed a plan on how to least impact this area. What steps have been taken to identify this particular road or this particular segment? I know you've touched on some of the decisions made in the placement, but with respect to the keeping the area preserved as best as possible, have you done any research or have, and I say not you specifically, but Buc-E's or the organization done any study specifically on how to lessen the impact or anything along those lines? I'm not sure exactly what the question is, but we've looked at other opportunities and other placements for crossings in order to provide developable lots and to provide the necessary spacings for our patrons around us and our neighbors to the back of us. This was the ideal location in order to facilitate connecting with the existing right-of-way and providing an interconnecting route to avoid transportation issues with textiles. As it relates to the environmental, we just looked for a narrow section with the fewest amount of trees that aligned with those projections of keeping our traffic at a safe distance for our textile connection, as well as providing an opportunity for the utility cross ings. So all of those elements played into where we laid things out. And one last thing for me. So, and is it, my understanding is with the bridge extending Brinker, that will alleviate some of the issue with the southbound traffic on that service road, the need to cut across. Because traditionally in my mind if I look at it now, someone would go north on the service road, make a U-turn at Loop 288, and then come there. Or I just don't think that that's going to be a big issue because if you're coming south on I-35, you'll have signage , you'll exit in advance of that. And if you do miss it, then there's Brinker to kind of come back around and get there that way versus trying to navigate the whatever text dot exit and obstructions they 're going to put there. Yeah, as it relates to entering traffic on that northern connection point, it will primarily be exiting traffic because you're able to get out before the exit ramp, which is everybody's coming off the exit ramps, you're able to get off the slower traffic down the frontage road. So it provides an easier exit point. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Commissioner Bergman. Thank you, Chair. I forgot to ask a question about the storm scepters again. Sure. We were talking about a maintenance plan. These, you know, things break. So how do we know that these are going to be maintained to make sure that the water quality is as clean as it can possibly be? There's twofold. Part of the requirement with the city is that we're going to have to provide a plan for regular maintenance for those facilities. And also as, you know, as development comes online, we'll be able to gauge, okay, we pumped out five feet of sediment this week and then next week it's six and, well, okay, we need to pump it more regularly, those sort of things, in order to keep it within the manufacturer's recommended load that it can carry inside the belly of it, if you will. And so we'll be able to, you know, kind of guess without anybody built and kind of say, okay, let's start with every other month and see what the loads look like. And then as we progress, we may have to adjust that time frame in order to keep that system so it functions at the manufacturer's specified rate. Is there a checks and balances system in place? We're putting all of the proof that these things are working on the property owner, right? Is there, maybe this is a question for staff, is there a way that the city can go out and inspect that this maintenance plan is actually being adhered to? That these things are actually working and we're, I'd like to take your word for it, I would, but I just want to make sure, you know, how do we know that this is what they say it is? I'll call on Menal to answer that. Thank you. Commissioner Bruegel, I'm actually going to ask Deborah to step down and explain what measures we have in place to ensure that these storm sceptres are indeed in working condition and are maintained. Because this is going to be a private infrastructure, privately maintained, the burden of the maintenance would remain on the property owner, okay? If by any chance there's evidence that those storm sceptres are failing in treatment, we will see some indications of it. And then we will be able to go back to who is retaining the control over those storm sceptres. At this point, I'm not sure if that would be Bucky's or that would be some sort of business association that that might put together between the parcels and bucking themselves. But whatever mechanism they put, then we will go back to them and say, hey, this is failing. You need to take care because you are out of compliance of the alternative ESA plan. If they decide not to respond, then the city will have the ability to step in, do whatever maintenance needs to be done to either replace it or clean it, whatever is needed, at the cost. And we will pass the cost to the owner or the business association. It's very similar to what we have for Razor Ranch. Could you give me some examples, please, of what you would see should these storm sceptres fail? And at what point would you be seeing these things pop up? Well, most of the time you start seeing it is an encaps ulated site. And if we, for example, if we start seeing where those eff luent comes out of the storm scepter, if we start seeing a lot of debris accumulated there because it's overflowing, there will be a physical indication for us that we need to look into this. And is there a city inspector that would go out and look at this? That would be something that the Water Shield Protection as a part would be something that we would call. We have a stormwater inspectors in the city of Denton. And from time to time we get phone calls about complaints, about things not working properly. At that time, either it is right through the code enforcement department and code enforcement will contact Watershed, or it will be a phone call that we receive and then we will go to the site. And then we start looking into what options we have. Either contact the owner for them to take the initial step, or if there's no response, then the city will step in. So it's first the inspection happens after a complaint is called into the city? Do I understand that right? Most of the time we don't have eyes everywhere. And most of the time the residents are our best alarm sim ster. But if I may, I would imagine that a business model like B uckeyes is probably going to be attracting people from out of town. There would be some locals, right? But this is a pit stop along your way to Oklahoma City or Dallas or whatnot. So the out of towners wouldn't think to, I mean, who's going to take time to look up the city inspector when they 're trying to get up to Grandma's house? Yeah, the transient population would probably not take care because they don't have the time to look it up, a phone number, so when they're just on the way. But it is amazing what residents of Denton take pride on on their stream. And when they see something that they don't look that is normal, they really contact us. So we receive, we have a hotline, the water shore protection where people actually can call us and we will respond. So I think that for our experience as a staff, when we get a complaint or some sort of indication, we go out from time to time. We walk our streams as a part of our monetary programs. If we see something that is not as it should be, then we will start looking and trying to find the source of the problem. At that time, we will also go back to the whoever's retaining ownership of those devices. So it is a combination of when we are boots in the ground and when a resident make a phone call and we will respond to that. I think staff has a comment as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, Deborah, but would we not also require quarterly or annual reporting of the functionality of? We could. Something similar that we have done with Razor Ranch is that they supposed to do inspections on a regular basis. Most of this device is the manufacturer have put a maintenance program already and say this needs to be cleaned this often. And so on to maintain the effectiveness of the device itself. So probably they will get an indication from the manufacturer how often it needs to be done. If necessary, we can put something like we did in Razor Ranch where we put actually a reporting schedule where once a year you provide a copy of your inspection. Because most of the time there are maintenance activity that requires less activity and then on an annual basis that inspection will be more involved. So we can actually require some sort of reporting back to us if necessary. So those parameters could be inserted into the ordinance with the alternative so should it be approved? And that would be something similar to what Razor Ranch did . Correct. Thank you, Deborah. Thank you. I have one other. Commissioner Dadovitz. I didn't want her to go away because my question may be answered by you or Mr. Peterson. According to the plan, we're going to put two of these storm scepters in. Why two? And tell us how large these things are so we can get a perspective of the dimension and are they capable of handling what we're seeing or suggesting? The systems are designed with a, I think Deborah's program later has more information on it. Are you going to show that? Show your example of how the system works? On the animation? Yeah. We could. No, we've seen that. My question is why two and what is the size of these storm scepters? Why two? Is it four by four? Is it 18 by 20? I need a visual. They are, the ones we're proposing are big cylinders. They're about six foot in diameter and they range in size from, depending on how much storage volume you want, they go deeper because it's basically a wet well. And so you go deeper in order to provide that volume that you need. That exact volume depth has not been determined yet. We're still working on the plans. And so what we're providing, what we're proposing too is because we are trying to minimize the disturbance of water 's crossing or getting into the creek from both sides of the creek. So we've got one on either side of the creek in order to treat the left side and the right side of the creek. That way we don't have any water introducing into the creek before it goes through one of these devices. Now who's determined if two are enough versus three, four? Those devices come in different sizes depending on the volume that they want to treat. Okay, the larger the volume, the larger the device, the more expensive it is. They have systems where if necessary they can put multiples in line, like an in line system, a series system. At this point I don't think that will be necessary based on the drainage area that these devices will be collecting. However, during the final plan is when we start looking into all the drainage information, grading, runoff and all that. At that point, staff and the applicant will be better suited to determine the size of the devices. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. One last question here. Yes, sir. We had mentioned the impact that these 100-year rainfalls will have on this. And I'm not sure that they're going to be that infrequent anymore. We seem to get them more often. Is there, are there any types of heavy rainfalls like that that can overwhelm these storm scepters? What can't they handle? They can handle just about everything. The way the system works, though, is once you get above the desired treat volume, it starts to bypass the majority of the flows and only take the heavy solids out. And so the cyclone effect, the whirlpool as it will, is going to draw down your heavy solids and your soils and all the large contaminants. And the water during these large events will be able to pass through the system. So it doesn't necessarily create a bottleneck. It just is, it loses its efficiency than the larger events. It loses its efficiency. Yes, sir. All these things are curvilinear based upon what you're trying to treat and the allowable volume coming through the system. Okay. Okay. Thanks. I have no further questions. On the board. Thank you. At this time, we will call on Julie Wyatt for the staff presentation on this item. I'm just going to provide a summary to you. It's not quite one slide. It's a few slides, but I'll try to be quick about it. Okay. So this is an alternative development plan 16-2 for Buckeye 's Travel Center. A summary of the request is the request before you is to consider an alternative environmentally sensitive area plan to allow for commercial development to encroach into an existing ESA, environmentally sensitive area. The disturbance would include approximately 13,134 square feet of riparian habitat that would be impacted due to an internal road system that is proposed by the applicant. Within that riparian buffer, 24 trees would be removed. Those existing trees provide 10,087 square feet of tree canopy, which totals 311 caliper inches. The zoning of the property is RCCD. The mitigation that is proposed by the applicant in order to offset the impacts of the riparian buffer is to preserve approximately 3,149 square feet of upland habitat that's adjacent to the existing riparian buffer. Within that upland habitat, preserve 10 existing trees and also plant eight additional trees to increase the tree canopy, although the caliper inches will be smaller because of the new trees would be spread out. They would be allowed to reach their maximum height and canopy potential. So there would be an additional canopy, although there would be fewer trees. And also to add two storm scepters to treat the runoff, which I think you all have discussed. So I just want to go over the recommendation that staff has based upon the criteria for approval in subchapter 17 of the Denton Development Code. Staff does recommend approval of the request subject to the following conditions. And I believe this condition was left off in the work session, so I hurried in here and put it on. So the first condition, it's in your backup, is that an area equal to or greater than 13,149 square feet shall be preserved in accordance with the ESA mitigation plan that's provided in your backup. No land disturbing activity as defined by the Denton Development Code is permitted in this area to be preserved. Within that preservation area and directly adjacent to it, eight trees must be planted for the removal of the trees in the ESA. Each tree must be a large tree from the landscape plant list, and that is from the City of Denton's plant list. And the canopy size is 1256 square feet and a minimum of two inches in diameter at planting. The planted trees must be irrigated for a minimum of three years. If any tree that is planted is a part of this alternative E SA plan dies, that tree must be immediately removed and replaced with a large tree within the appropriate planting season. So for instance, if it dies in August, August may not be the best time for that tree to be planted, usually the cooler months are better times. So there could be a lag there, but that was the intent of that. And that the ESA mitigation trees are in addition to the percentage of tree canopy required by the governing zoning district. And that was really important to staff that we wanted to make sure this was in addition to what would be required for the zoning district. Two storm scepters shall be installed according to the manufacturer's recommendations in size for obtaining a minimum pollutant removal efficiencies recommended by the I -SWIM specifications. The sizing and location would be determined at the final plat stage of development due to the runoff calculations. And all water quality protection facilities shall be maintained by the property owner or maintenance entity established for that purpose. A description of the maintenance tasks, frequency of maintenance, responsible parties for maintenance, funding access, etc. shall be provided during the final plat stage of development. And then finally, where chronic or severe problems exist, the owner does not, and the owner does not provide maintenance or repairs, the city of Denton would have the right. But not the obligation to remedy the situation and recover the cost for the work from that property owner. And this authority would be established at the final plat. And I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you, Chair. Can I get a clarification on, excuse me, the staff recommendation point number two? Should there not be a geographical definition of where those eight trees belong? Well, we discussed that. And that was initially the way we wanted to go because we thought here's a mitigation preservation area. All of them should go in there. But then in looking at, because the existing riparian buffer has trees that are clustered very close together, they can't reach their maximum potential of canopy and height. So, you know, taking that cue, we thought, okay, let's get the canopy we need to get. But let's provide a little bit of flexibility on where those trees are going to go. They need to go around this area. But let's give a little flexibility on the exact location of those trees to make sure they are planted in an optimal location so that they can reach their maximum height and canopy. Sure. I just wonder if it would be appropriate to maybe put within or near the marked location. That's certainly something that you could add within your recommendation. Thank you. Commissioner Bruegel. Thank you, Chair. I know Commissioner Taylor was trying to ring in. No? Okay. Well, no, it's fine. I just wanted to see the concept plan again because unless I missed it, I didn't see that in our backup. And I wanted to look at that one more time. And you can ask your question, Devon, while I'm looking at this. Is that cool? Oh, darn it. Okay. Hold on. Just give me a second. Are there -- so are there two -- there's -- on this, we see three entrance and exit points. Is that correct? Yes. Here, here. Once again, this is from last fall. This is the information I had then. So there could be changes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Sure. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair. So in the work session, you showed a table of the proposed mitigations. Could you bring that up? Sure. Is this it? Yeah, this is the one. So I was looking at this, and I believe there was a comment earlier that mitigating more area than we're disturbing. And I just wanted to point out that that's approximately 0. 1% more area than we're disturbing. More area being mitigated than is being disturbed. And the 24 trees is being mitigated by 10 existing 8 two- inch trees will be planted. And this caliper inches, you know, it's -- we're reducing the caliper inches by, you know, a third or more. And then we have this really fun tree canopy calculation because we only have 13,000 square feet, but we're going to put 20,000 square feet of canopy in them because we're saying, when this tree gets full size, it'll have 1,200 or 1,600 square feet of canopy. But that's -- Well, and that -- and I think that speaks to, I think, Commissioner Roselle's comment that all of those trees aren't going to go specifically within that preservation area because they couldn't all fit and still meet their maximum potential. So they're going to be -- they aren't going to all fit within that preservation area. There may be some outside of it. So the canopy is actually -- the proposed canopy is actually bigger than the proposed mitigation area just due to that fact. And that would be at maturation. That would be in 40 or 50 years when the tree is 80 feet tall. So normally we see a few of these. And the one that comes to mind in this neighborhood was actually Unicorn Lake. And they had a similar situation they needed to put in a road. And their first proposal was about a three-to-one mitigation. So they were mitigating almost three times as much area as they were disturbing. You know, and a pretty common one, I think, is maybe a 50% additional mitigation. Was there any discussion with the applicant about preserving maybe a bank buffer along the lake or extending the mitigation area further southeast , you know, another 100 feet and adding another several -- you know, 1,000 square feet or something? We did have conversations. And because of their concept and their proposed development , they had limitations as to what they could preserve, which is why we talked to them about the green and gray solutions. Because we kind of looked at this as trying to use technology in order to mimic what a riparian buffer does. So we tried to look at it from that, not just the green, not just square footage, but what does it mean? And the storm scepters would work to facilitate to clean the water. >> So in this case, would the stormwater interception not be required except by this ESA? Like normally we would allow the parking lot to drain? >> No. >> Okay. That makes a little more sense. And I was also curious about -- right now I believe the plat has a 50-foot access easement, private road. >> I'm sorry. >> A 50-foot wide access easement? Is that the plan? >> Yes, sir. >> And it appears to have about a 32-foot wide roadway? Is that just by the schematic that's floated around, it's two lanes with the turn lane? >> You know, the engineer would probably be a better person to answer the exact because we're kind of looking at more just what's being dedicated. So he can probably talk to you better about what the design will be for that. >> Okay. And one final question I brought up in the work session. I just want to bring it up here. The -- there is a residential overlay protection on this. Could we zoom into that? >> Is that better? >> I think one of the ESA plan maps, I think, has it? >> Here we go. >> Here you go. >> Yes. >> For the overlay, there is a 50-foot landscape buffer that is required adjacent to the residential properties. This is, as you can see, it does go a little bit into that access easement. That access easement doesn't preclude them from meeting that ordinance requirement. >> So when you say that, you said access easement doesn't preclude them. Does pavement? >> They could not put pavement in that. They would have to have that -- meet that landscape buffer. So their road would have to be located within that access easement that still allows them to meet that buffer requirement. >> Yeah. So I look at this, and I wonder if we reduce -- if that access easement was reduced from 50 to roughly the size of the street, approximately 30 or 35, then there would -- you would gain a strip across the bottom several hundred feet wide, at least the width of -- is that lot three? And some of lot two over there? So I'm not comfortable with the .1% additional mitigation. And I think there's some problems just with this layout. We know that road is going to have to move. When it moves, it's going to change the number of square feet that need to be mitigated. >> And that's a really good question. We discussed that with the applicant because, you know, because this is very early in the process, which is if you can see, the disturbance area that they're actually showing is impacted is much greater than what they're showing is the road. So they wanted to make sure that they compensated for that at this time. If it does change, it would be required to come back and get approval from city council. So that is something that we have discussed with them and they're aware of that if anything on the property changes, it goes outside of the boundaries, then that would require another approval. >> So just to clarify, this map right here would be binding . And so the exact points on this map. And so as long as they stay within that disturbed area and out of -- and inside the access easement and out of that little corner of -- okay. >> Correct. Well, and also because I spoke with the applicant after work session and that access easement is also including sidewalk areas and so pedestrian facilities as well. So it's not just going to be road within that. It would be also pedestrian facilities and room for their, you know, trees and their landscape buffer. >> A question. >> Per your comment, just then, that's a maximum size that they can disturb. They can certainly disturb less if they don't need the space. So they've probably oversized that to give them working space and they may not need to disturb that much. >> Right. But if they did disturb more. >> Correct. And then to follow up, we've had a lot of questions and conversations about the storm interceptors. What is the function of the pond itself as a natural facility to do that same sort of process? >> I'm going to have to ask Deborah for her expertise on the ponds. >> Any time that you allow water to slow down in velocity, any -- any -- any sediments that are carried by water that slow down, that allows the sediment to get out of solution. So pretty much you will see that the sediments will get to the bottom of the pond and stay there. I don't see an outfall of this detention pond. I don't know. I'm sure that it would be designed to hold the water and empty if necessary. And I'm sure the time will come when they will have to do maintenance to that pond and remove those sediments to just maintain the capacity of the pond itself. But every time that you hold water, then that allows the settlements to settle out of solution and be at the bottom. >> So effectively on the pond, I know there's been some concerns if the storm interceptors don't work or they're overwhelmed, this pond is going to act as a natural backup system to those facilities. >> It will hold them. And the visual will be more evident because we will see, for example, we start seeing fat and oils that creates a surface sheen that will be visible at the pond. If we're going to start, if they are not able to collect the floatables, then the floatables will end up at that pond. So I think that for the sake of the aesthetic of the development and how pleased the users of the site, it will be for their own benefit to just to keep it clean and keep it maintained. >> And the capacity of that pond is going to be far in excess of what the capacity of those two storm scepters are . >> Probably so, yeah. Just remember, the storm scepters, they fill in and they're empty. They fill in and they're empty. So that's pretty much the process. >> Thank you. I've got a couple more questions. I don't know who will be staffed to address these. Commissioner Taylor. >> Thank you, Chair. I believe these questions, basically I'd like to follow up with the engineer if you could. So using this diagram here, this map here, if you know that you're going to have to shift the planned road slightly, 10 feet or whatever that is, would it be possible? I guess what I'd like to see, the final plan and the final amount of disturbed area and any additional area that would then be preserved to the southwest. So are you planning on moving the road or making the road narrower to clear that corner? >> Yeah, the road structure itself will be smaller in this segment. We have an oversized road section to provide maximum in front of our store. The other components of it, the pedestrian and the landsca ping would be thus increased in this area. But the disturbance is not just tied to the street. It's tied to the other utilities that are being placed in this area. And so those utilities will still be trenched through, if you will, laid and connected to the infrastructure of the city. So the disturbed area, what we've done is we have provided a little bit of a buffer, but that's just normal with the work zone because you don't know if Junior is going to jump over the fence or not. So you provide yourself with a little bit of a buffer, a safety zone. And so that's what we've done and that's what we're requesting. >> And could you address the sewer? I'm guessing just by looking at the utility map in this area, it looks like there's a sewer line that comes out kind of behind the Goodwill. And then there's a planned sewer line where the apartment complex to the south of you is. And it looks like we're not running this, the sewer wouldn 't run down I-35. It looks like it needs to run through the middle of your... >> Yes, sir. The route, that's part of what was in the earlier question that we had, is that this route was chosen for all those different factors. The sanitary sewer, which is relatively shallow on our south side, is where we're reconnecting behind my flooring America and bringing that system northbound, parallel, underneath this road, parallel to 35. The water system is pulling from a 12-inch sub that's coming from a dead end, and we're looping it back into the city system to provide for fire capacity as well as emergency provisions and providing a portable service to the entire system. >> That all runs under your plan to roadway here? >> Yes, sir. It's consolidated everything underneath there. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Commissioner Dudowitz. >> Deborah, I'm going to need you again. Deborah did a very good job in our work session to explain a couple of questions I think that the audience might have and we had also. And that is the last time an assessment was done of this area was 2008, and we have not done one since. And the question is why and what information do you have now to believe that it is what it is? >> Okay. In 2008, the city, the proposed development for this area requested a field assessment. It was done by a third party who did it. At that time, the field assessment reported that the habitat was of good quality. Okay. The city of Denton have a system of rating, repair and buffer. The rating goes from poor all the way to excellent. This being good since the second down. Since 2008, there have been no changes in that area. I'm going to show some aerial photograph so that way you will see that nothing in the adjacency of the repair and buffer, nothing upstream of the repair and buffer have changed that make us believe that the changes, there have been changes in the habitat. This is 2009, 2011 at the bottom. We're going across 2013 and 2015. The other important factor here is the ESA regulation doesn 't make distinction between a poor repair and buffer or an excellent repair and buffer when it comes down to mitigation. So let's say that the condition has changed to be poor. The applicant will still be required to go through this process and provide mitigation disregard of the quality of the repair and buffer. So that's why another assessment was not done. Staff went to the side. We did a visual which actually make us believe that the repair and buffer are still there performing their functions. The tree survey performed by the applicant still show a heavily vegetated area. So all those factors tells something about the existing condition and is those conditions have not changed to make us believe that we need to go and assess the area again. Thank you. At this time I don't see any other questions from our commissioners. This is a public hearing. At this time I have three cards requesting to speak. If anyone else besides, if you haven't filled out a card and you would like to speak, you will need to fill out a card. You'll have three minutes, excuse me, four minutes to speak on your item. And when you come up if you'll give your name and address as you begin your comments we would appreciate it. Our first comment will be from Pete Hammerly. He is in opposition and he will be followed by Lisa Rosen berg. Thank you very much. I appreciate all the efforts that this group has put into this project. I've been sitting in your seat times past. I know the personal sacrifice that you make. My name is Pete Hammerly and I own the house at 2817 Val encia. According to the map that I just saw and I admit I'm a little late to these discussions, my house backs up to what appears to be the car wash area. Now I'm assuming that of the 96 fuel pumps that some of those pumps are diesel. Is that correct? Can anybody here give me the answer to that? Yes. That's my point. You see I own a 40 foot diesel RV bus and I tow a Jeep Cher okee. You don't want me fueling up at this facility because when I come in it's a lot of noise, it's a lot of air brakes, it's a lot of fumes, but more importantly it's a lot of vibration. I can tell you that when I come in and I pass around the facility, people are going to feel it. Their windows are going to shake. Even glass in their showers are going to shake. And sometimes when we travel I'll actually spend the night there. I'll pull back around and put the air brake on, let the air out of the bags, and spend a couple of hours there. The only thing that means is at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning I'm starting all this back up. That's noise again. And people that live close by are really going to hear it, but even people that live further out, you're going to hear this. You're going to smell the fumes. You're going to feel the vibration. Now it's been said that of course a facility like this, that there are 18 wheelers that come in to service the facility. Right sir? Of course. I have had my motor home in the back of Sam's and/or Walmart. And what happens is it's an incredible amount of noise and activity 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. So I ask you to consider these functions. This is what happens. Even though they may say there's not going to be 18 wheel ers pulling in there, you're going to have RVs that are going to do that. And it's hard to keep them out. I thank you for your time, Curtis. Thank you. Our next card is Lisa Rosenberg. And she is in opposition. Hi. I too appreciate all that you do for the city. I've lived in this city since 1988 on and off and I love the city. And I have been a resident on Valencia since 2002. I was one of the first few people to move into the area. Lenore that built these homes did an amazing job of building these homes on a marsh. Since I have been living in my home, my backyard has sunk over a foot. I have now an embankment that comes from this property that 's being proposed. And everything that's on that side runs into my yard. Now, I wish I could use your map to show what I'm talking about. I'll call the staff to pull up the map. Absolutely. The one that has the yellow, that one. My house, if I'm not mistaken, is going to be this one right here, here. The house next to me has to put a sump pump here to pump water out of their backyard every time it rains. Because this area has sunk so much. Ninety-three pumps. I have a doctorate in biology. I have a doctorate actually in neurobiology. I work for the Department of Defense. One of the things that I did for a number of years when I was affiliated with Georgetown Medical School was test soil , air, and water contamination for neurological deficits. Caused by contaminants, I worked for the Department of Defense looking at things like petroleum, organophosphates that accumulate in water, what it would mean for our servicemen if they were to drink this water. I will tell you, ninety-three pumps in this area, giving off vapor, that's going to be a cesspool in no time. And what's going to happen to me and to my neighbor is as that water table carries that aquifer into my backyard, I'm going to be polluted. And my grandchild plays in that backyard. I don't want that. So, you know, it's nice that Buc-E's is going to offer us clean toilets. I work as a hospice nurse now. I can tell you where every clean toilet is. I have to stop at them. I don't stop at Buc-E's. I don't need Buc-E's. Go out to 114 and look at that. And then imagine it in our city. I'm sorry. I mean, I like Buc-E's nuts, but not enough that I'm willing to say, hey, we're safe living behind this. We're not. And I think you need to do a lot more testing to find out exactly what's going to happen to that pond and what happens to all those residents in about an eight-year time. Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Jerry Drake. He is in opposition, followed by, to be followed by Deborah , our mentor. >> Good evening. My name is Jerry Drake, and I'm sure most of you recognize that I'm an employee with the city, but I'm speaking to you tonight. I'm here only as a neighbor. If we could get the concept map back up, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to use it to refer to. One of the things that I heard here is that one of the just ifications for this ADP was to provide sort of an improved location to protect these neighborhoods. And I live in South Ridge Estates, this neighborhood over here. And the mention was made of the 50-foot landscape buffer that is part of the overlay zoning. And I believe there's also a requirement that wrought iron fences be placed along this side of South Ridge Estates. What that effectively means is that for all of these houses along here, they have an unrestricted view of the buckies and its parking lot and its gas pumps. And there's absolutely no sound mitigation whatsoever. And one of the reasons for that is that when this zoning was approved, what was put forward was multifamily housing. So when the buckies was proposed, there was really no opportunity for the neighborhood to speak regarding this incredible change of use between one of the less restrictive zoning districts and one of the most restrictive zoning districts here. And what I'm hearing tonight is that we're talking about an impact of 24 trees lost, 8 trees added. That sounds like you're down 16 trees to me. Maybe I'm not understanding it correctly, but I'd like to propose a simple alternative. And that would be to simply take this 50-foot landscape buffer, which is completely ineffective here because it's all water at this point. There's no place to plant anything. And to simply relocate it around this east perimeter of the pod. That would provide visual screening for the neighborhood. It would provide sound deadening for the neighborhood. It would enhance the environmental area here. And it would provide a number of benefits. Yes, it would perhaps take some of these trees that we were talking about out of this riparian area. But if you got 16 left over, it seems like they could be planted in here to provide some kind of screening for these homes along here. And aside from that, I really have no comment on the storm scepters or the technology that's being proposed by Buc-E's . I really have no comment about the nature of the Buc-E's establishment itself. I'm just trying to propose a way to improve this proposal by changing the tree plan. And maybe taking some of the buffer that's called out along here where it's completely ineffective. And relocating it over here using some of those trees and perhaps some other trees. It would be a very cheap fix for Buc-E's. Before you go, I need to get your address for the record. Yes, sir. 2504 Shiloh Road. Thank you. I see no questions. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. Our next speaker again will be Deborah Armentor. She is registered in opposition to be followed by Leanne Squire. Hi. Deborah Armentor, 2003 Mistywood Lane. And I'm speaking, as you said, in opposition to this item. I too want to thank you. I want to thank all of you for the work that you do on planning and zoning. I really appreciate it. And I know that it's your job to deal with and deliberate on whatever you're dealt. And you don't get to decide what you're dealt. So anyway, thank you. Thank you for doing what you do. I appreciate it. My problem with this Buc-E business from the very beginning has been primarily a problem with process and due diligence . I don't like the fact that neighborhoods were not contacted . In fact, Buc-E's was referred to by a code name, Project Cartoon, so that us regular folks, including the people who live in the adjacent neighborhoods , wouldn't know about it. To me, that's bad process. I realize you all weren't responsible for this, but it's part and parcel of this issue that we're dealing with now. In addition, there have been all these turns of the screw or wrenches thrown in or whatever metaphor you want to use by which this Buc-E's deal keeps changing and shifting as we go along. We found out when we first heard about it, we learned that these roads had already been decided on, this new road plan . And we also learned that even though there would be improvements to the traffic flow in this highly congested area, access to Denton Regional Hospital by fire and emergency services was still blocked. And that remains a problem. I was interested to hear and listening to a staff member showing precisely this map up here. She mentioned something to the extent of, well, this is the map we had from the fall, I think she said, from some time last year. But things may have changed since then or things may change since then. So that seemed highly problematic to me, but also typical of what we've seen so far. And this issue that we're dealing with today, this environmental issue, is yet another one of these cases where something that we didn't expect regarding this Buc-E 's deal suddenly comes up out of nowhere. So I object to this as just more of the same, yet another red flag that we're doing the wrong things by Buc-E's. And I would advise you all to not be afraid to vote no until you really feel with confidence that due diligence has been done. And I also don't think that the duty of this due diligence should be entirely up to you, planning and zoning commission. I think that the people who are proposing this project, including Buc-E's, the Buc-E's people, should be responsible for it. And by the way, as others have said, I too, I have no issue with Buc-E's, the brand. I've stopped in Buc-E's restroom with my family on big road trips. We're always happy to be there and eat there and use their bathrooms, et cetera. I just think it's badly placed and there's been poor process regarding this plan. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker will be Leanne Squire. She is in opposition. And at this time I have one further card behind. Looks like I believe it is Brett Chance would follow Ms. Squire. Hello. I am a native of Denton. And so I've lived here over 50 years. And one thing I'm really proud about regarding this city is its stance on environmental protection. Before you get started, will you state your name and address and record, please? Yes. Leanne Squire. Your time will start now. Okay. 2604 Valencia Lane. Backing up to the proposal here. So Denton has been really known to be an environmentally friendly city. And even more than that, I think one that sort of looks ahead and watches out to protect, you know, some native areas, some native species, and really just to look at the impact of development on the environment. And I know in some senses Denton has been known to be anti- business a little bit. There's been some, you know, rhetoric about that. But I'm proud to say that for the most part I feel like Denton has done the right thing in preserving, you know, the areas that like some of these under discussion today. So one thing I am concerned about after seeing the canopy issue, and I don't know if you can bring that back up, but seeing the replacement of the calipers and being, and really being told in 40 years we'll have our canopy back. And I'll be dead, I'm pretty sure, before we get our canopy back. So there's a lot of things that happen under a canopy. Things grow, things are flourished, and when you take that out, you really take away a protective environment. So I'd like to, you know, I'd like to hear more about what can be done to protect and to fully replace and go above and beyond, as you have said, mitigating the damage. The next thing, my question is, have wildlife assessments been made based on, like, any kind of wildlife that is on the property? Has that been done, not just the green, but the living, you know, creatures that might be there? I don't know if we can have staff address this particular issue. We'd address this in our work session, but would that be appropriate at this time? We will get that answer after our public comments before we take any action. Okay, awesome, awesome. Thank you for the question. I mean, there's just no telling. And I was kind of surprised to see that the last study was done in 2008. So it's been eight years since that area has really been looked at. That gives me a little bit of cause for concern. The next thing is I agree with what our neurobiologists said about the petrochemicals running off. And I'm not sure, you know, I don't have that problem in my backyard. I don't have to get a sump pump up after every rain. Thank goodness. We do have a drainage ditch behind our house. I don't know how that will be affected because the maps don 't really address that area. But there is, you know, just the reality is when you have that much concrete and you have petrochemicals on the concrete, when the rain comes, they're going to run off somewhere. And some of those will be fumes. Some will be, you know, they're going to go into the ground and into the water. So I am concerned about that. The other issue is have all, I'm sure, surely, I'm not an engineer, but all the calculations as far as how that much concrete, 600 plus spaces will affect the runoff, if you could address that. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker will be, I believe it is Brett Chance. It's not marked as in support or opposition, if you'll give your name and address when you come up, to be followed by Lee Evans. Again, this is a public hearing and anybody that would like to speak on this item, please fill out a blue card and we would like to hear from you. Thank you, sir. Yeah, Brett Chance. I live at 2409 Natchez Trace. You know, I guess really my first question is, is okay, you 're talking about taking away the tree canopy, but then replacing it and hoping it comes back in 40 to 50 years. My question is, what's the point of even doing that when we need the privacy right now? That's not going to do us any good until at that point. The other part of that is I realize it's still early in the process and all that, but still having that 50 foot buffer in between Southridge and even the other subdivision, that 's not enough of a buffer. So, you know, one of the things I like to see is going ahead and having some sort of a retaining wall or something like that eight foot concrete tilt wall that is on the other side of the pond in between the pond and Buc-E's. So that way that's giving us some sort of a break from all of the headlights coming in shining in our backyards and also as a noise buffer rather than just depending on trees. Even though, yes, you know, having environmental buffer, that's great, but having some sort of added protection at that point. And then also, you know, talking about the pond and all that with all the pollutants coming in there, you know, large airports have to have special environmental things in place with all the jet fuel and diesel fuel and all that that's coming off the tarmac to be able to help keep the pollutants coming in. So my question is why don't we have the same thing put in place for the pond to protect the environment and also the citizens, they're going to have to deal with that runoff so we don't have environmental toxins coming into our backyard . And I'm very much opposed to this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker will be Lee Evans in opposition. You'll state your name and address to be followed by Douglas Wooten. Hi, Lee Evans, 2400 Natchez trees. Can we have the tree canopy map up, please? My house is in this lot right here. And I'm very much against this thing. It looks like all of this is going to be taken out. Is that correct? The area impacted is this right here. So this is all not impacted. Okay. What about this part here? There's all manner of trees and things in here, too. That's outside of the environmentally sensitive area. So those trees don't get to count. How many of those are going to be taken out? I'm not sure. Okay. Also, we've talked about a 50-foot landscape buffer that would run down through here. Am I correct? That 50-foot, you can't put a landscape in there. That's a utility easement. They've already taken out all of the small trees there. From what I understand from the electric guys that came and chopped our trees out, that has to be clear for them to bring a truck down there any time they choose. So if you put a landscape in there, they're simply going to dig it up, getting to fix power lines and things like that. So that's not possible. So I ask that this please do not let them do this in that entrance. It'll be an absolute nightmare for us that live against that like that. You have to plant eight trees somewhere else, two-inch caliber, as opposed to these big, magnificent trees that are there, plus all these others that they're going to take out anyway . Our view will be nothing but the back of a restaurant. As far as being contacted about this, my house never received notice from the city, never received notice from Buc-E's, anything else. This is the first meeting I've known about, or I would have been here before. This has been done to us, not with us. They've let some people know. And I'm telling you, the stuff that they're telling you they will do, they cannot do. Your city's already zoned against it. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Again, this is a public hearing. At this time, I have one card left. Douglas Wooten, who wants to speak in support. So anyone else that would like to speak, please fill out a card or prepare to come forward, and then you can fill out a card after you give your comments. Douglas Wooten, 2701 Valencia Lane. I back up right to this site. My wife and I have been on all the council meetings that have taken place. We were at the original public hearing, albeit it was short notice, I agree. But we basically have put ourselves in the loop. We've been to the council meetings. We've heard what Buc-E's has proposed and what they've said . We've seen proposals in the past that put three stories of apartment buildings within 25 feet of my back fence. And if I'm not mistaken, the average is well over 300 feet for any of the residents to where the building is. They talk about a cement retaining wall that's been discussed and that he's going to put a cement retaining wall between our houses and his establishment. I just see it not really affecting us in traffic because most of it's going to be right on and back onto the freeway , off and on. And I live, I take Wind River and get on the freeway every morning. And this is going to be well north of that where it comes back in. And I just, I don't see it as a bad thing. I see it as progress and our city taking a step in the right direction. I know that the lake is back there. It's right behind my house. No one's ever there. Nothing ever goes on there. So just to wonder what it's going to do to it, well, nobody knows what's going on now. I mean, it's just basically out of the loop. Nothing's there. No one goes there. There's cattle that are out there. I've seen bobcats. I see squirrels all the time, skunks, possums. But as far as the buffer zone that they're speaking about, you know, like I said, it's well over 300 feet from myself. And they've talked about low-level lighting. There's been plenty of things that Buc-E's has talked about in concession to be a good neighbor. They're not going in there trying to bully us. They're not going in there saying this is what it is and live with it because this is what we're doing. They've taken input. They've asked, at least I've gotten input. I've talked with Mr. Beaver himself, Mr. Arpin, and he just seems concerned and he wants to do the right thing and he wants to do it the right way. And I just, for one resident in this area, just want to let you know that I'm not the only one. I may be the only one here tonight that's in favor of it, but there's a handful of us over there that see this as a good thing and see this as progress in the right direction. And they've worked with TechStat to get improvements done faster than the next eight years that it would have took to do it without this. So it's just, everything he's done has been first class and has been done the right way in my opinion. And these people that haven't been in the loop, I guess haven't tried to put themselves in the loop. Once I heard about it, I've been at, like I said, the council meetings, I've been to the public hearings, and I 've just made myself a part of this. And like I said, my house backs up right to it. I'm going to be affected more than most people because my backyard is going to be right there. But like I said, I think the steps that he's taken and the things he's done for us, in my opinion, are a good thing. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. At this time, again, this is a public hearing. Anyone else who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. Please come forward, sir. And after you give your comments, if you'll fill out a card , we would appreciate it. Please state your name and address for the record. My name is Norris Lewis, 2504 Shenandoah Trail. Boy, I live right in the center of the pond. I mean, you step in my backyard and there it is, my wife and the lady next door every morning at 9 o'clock feed the ducks. There's anywhere from 50 to 75 ducks just on the other side of our barbed wire fence. And in the meeting that the owner was there a few months ago, and I don't remember his name, but he gave some things that might be done with the pond. And one of them was he might give it to the city and the city could turn it into a park. We don't want that. That would put people out there. And we just it's nice. It's beautiful. Come into my backyard and look at it. It's beautiful place out there and the ducks would be run off. And it's just very nice. And that's my thought. Thank you for your comments, sir. Please fill out a card for us. Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. I did mention I just wanted to say my name is my brain. Please come forward to the mic. We'll give you the opportunity to make one final comment. My neighbor brought up that the lady that lives at 2604 brought up that she has a drainage system in her backyard because we have sunk. That whole area has sunk because originally it was supposed to be at the highest point the water would drain through everybody's yard to her drainage system. But because of the pond and the aquifers, we've sunk to the point that it no longer drains that way. So my husband and I at our own expense had to put in a drainage in our backyard that drains to the street, to the sewers. So whatever comes into our backyard, so ecologically, EPA- wise, whatever comes into our backyard through that water is going to end up in our sewer system. So I just want you guys to be aware of that. So as we're talking about contamination to water, it is going to end up in the sewage. Thank you for your additional comment. So public hearing, anyone else who would like to speak on this item or has a final comment before I close the public hearing? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing on this item. And before I open it up for discussion on the board, I want to make a couple of comments and observations of what we have before us as a commission. The particular use that we have on this property is allowed by right. That is not before this commission tonight. This use can go in there. Other uses can go in there. It is zoned properly for this use, so that's not before this commission. The second item is that the only item that we're going to be considering at this time is going to be this alternative ESA. After this commission votes on this, it will move forward on to city council. So for all of you all who have questions or concerns, I urge all of you to move on to city council and bring those things. And the number of items that have been brought up from a wildlife assessment, I will ask, I believe, either Deborah or Julie to address that. I believe there was a question about that. And then some of these other comments from buffers on the east side of the lake, the mason wall, and the viability of the 50-foot landscape buffer. Again, those are things that can be brought to the applicant and discussed, and those things can be handled all the way up until we have our final plat. And that, again, will come before this commission, and then it will go again before city council. So there is still opportunity for all of you all who have concerns or would like some additional items addressed to have those things brought back before this commission and also before city council. And I urge all of you all to use your opportunities to do that. With that said, I will call on, I don't know, who would like to come forward on the wildlife assessment to address that question, and then we'll open it up for discussion. As a part of the field assessment, when we found a creek that is actually running, flowing, the assessment will include a biological indicator, mainly the organism that lives in the water. Okay, the assessment that it was done in 2008 indicated that at that time the stream was not flowing, therefore there was not a biological assessment of the creatures that were in the water. When it comes down to wildlife, we're talking about mainly mammals, amphibians, and so on. That type of assessment, the assessment that the city performed or required from third party to be done doesn't include wildlife. But we do it when the, we do an assessment of the creatures in the water if the creek is actually flowing. Okay, great. Thank you for the comment and clarification on what we have studied up until this point. I'm now going to open it up for discussion on our commission, and I recognize Commissioner Beck first. Quick question for David. Sorry. Don't sit in the back row. Deborah, did you wear your Fitbit like me today because you 're getting all your steps in. You moved too quick. Sorry about that. How can I help? What is the possibility of doing some kind of assessment for wildlife there? I mean, a lot of people are concerned about it. How difficult would that be to? Well, that is not part of a typical field assessment. That would be something that the applicant can take it upon himself to do it. They will have to hire certified biologists to do that and to do it. It is not a requirement of a ESA field assessment at this point, but it is completely up to the applicant to provide that. We will certainly review it, and if we have any questions about the procedures, methodologies used, or so on, we will have that type of conversation. But it is completely up to the applicant. Okay. Thanks, Deborah. Commissioner Bruebel. Deborah, you might want to stay close by. I'm not sure who to direct this question to, but both Mr. Chance and Ms. Rosenberg had spoken about runoff from the parking lot. And I know, Deborah, we spoke a little bit about that in the work session about, for example, like Razor Ranch has those neat little cutouts to help clean their water as it moves through the parking lot. That was done because they had requested more parking, and so that was a mitigating factor that they -- whatever. So my question is, as we're looking at the water quality and we're looking at the fact that there are 96 gas pumps and a highway right next to a residential neighborhood, was talk of some sort of runoff into the -- there was like a dry retainment pond. So as I understand it, the parking lot is not going to be draining into the riparian habitat, which would then go into the pond so that these storm scepters would be filtering out the runoff from the parking lot. The water is not flowing that way. It's flowing directly south. But we're still talking about water quality, and we're talking about things that we can do if they're going to disturb this environmentally sensitive area. There are some mitigations that could be made to minimize the destruction to this area. Was there any talk at any point of creating some sort of filtration system coming off of that parking lot, since we 're losing some riparian habitat to the west? Maybe there's something that could be done to the south to protect the neighborhood from the runoff of the development . Most of the time when we look for mitigation, we're looking -- we analyze nexus, what have been disturbed, and where the mitigation is going to be. In this case, the applicant has proposed mitigation that will come from the affected area, from the parking lots of those out parcels into the stream buffer. In that case, we have the nexus right there. Request any water quality features for the impervious surface coming off the gas station. At this point, we don't have a requirement. However, if by any chance they deviate from any standards, for example, parking spaces for the gas station itself, then that will be an opportunity for staff to start the dialogue of what type of mitigation they will do in those instances. But at this point, I don't have a regulations that require gas station to provide any type of water quality features. That doesn't close the opportunity to have that discussion in the future if they decide to require excess parking or anything of that nature. So here's my counterpoint to that. It's twofold. One is that we're looking at the entire lot, the entire property. I imagine that other ESA mitigation alternative plans have been done when you look at the entire property, not just that one specific area. So there possibly could be something done somewhere else on the property. My second point is that when they're replacing some of these trees that they're cutting down, even you admitted in the work session, they're not putting that in the wetland habitat. They're putting them in a dryland habitat. So really, what's the difference if you move that, if you add another mitigation factor 200 feet to the east? I mean, you're still not replacing anything that we're losing in the wetland habitat, but you're hopefully improving the water quality from the entire property. Would that be, and just to be able to answer your question, would that be in addition to what is being proposed, mitigation or in exchange of? Well, I mean, I think Commissioner Taylor made a great point that we've seen other alternative ESAs that are a two to one or a three to one was done in Unicorn Lake. And this is almost a one to one mitigation factor. So I would like to see something significantly more than what's being proposed to us now. If this body does the desire of the body, I will say we will have to approach the applicant and see the viability of that. Definitely, whatever they can do for water quality, the staff will be able to sit down with them and discuss and brainstorm what they're proposing. But that will be something that it will have to come as a condition for approval at this point. Or would that be something that could come back to us so we could see what they proposed? We could postpone for a future date. Correct. And see what other mitigation factors they have included in their plan. That's definitely possible. Thank you. Commissioner Hatchbeth. Thank you, sir. I have a list. So bear with me. First, top of mind, I have to beg to differ on Unicorn Lake . That's not apples to apples at all. As far as the amount of land use, I mean, look at an area of Unicorn Lake and factor in the new addition that's going into the north of the movie theater there. There's absolutely zero green space for as far as the eye can see. And so to compare the mitigation to something that is solid cement to something to a developer that is made a consider ate -- so you're talking 300 feet, that's 100 yards. So that would be like saying sitting in the end zone or sitting a football field away from the end zone are good seats for a football game. You're so far away. And so I think it's an error to compare Unicorn Lake to this project when it comes to mitigation because they have built in 100 yards, to use football examples, worth of mitigation in advance of going one for one on what they're taking out. So I think your math is off to say that it's one for one. I think it's considerably much more based on the fact that they're not utilizing the entire property. And then I have to follow the chair's direction and zero in on what we're tasked with today. And so that's not to consider the gas pumps. That's to consider that small area that's the other side of the lake. So -- or the pond. So to think that something concerning that to the north of the pond would somehow make its way around the pond all the way to the back of the property, 300 yards down to the residents, to the drainage that's not being monitored in the neighborhood, I think that's a little onerous and I don 't think it's worth it. I don't think it's what we're tasked with today. And then we've had a hearty discussion. The citizens have spoke. There were, I count, nine people that came down. One plus, one for, eight against. Not one mention of what we're tasked with today, which is that area at the top north of the property. But for the canopy and the tree placement. I can give you a list of noise buffer, light buffer, 50 foot buffer, trees. And so there's a myriad. I won't read you the whole list, but I wrote it all down because it's all important. So I just think that we do need to refocus. I do think Mr. Rizal makes a great point, the trees, to add the language that it be in that particular area, in a certain area, determined in a certain area. But I just think it, for me, again, looking at aerial map, you can't get back on the highway before you reach Unicorn Lake. So if Unicorn Lake received an exception and we talk about consistency constantly, then I find it difficult to say, well, before you can get back on I-35, we're going to have a total different approach to this property that's using a lot less of the land. And whereas Unicorn Lake is continually filling in with cement. So that's my two cents worth. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair. So I will return to the -- we know that the road diagram is incorrect right now. We know that some things are going to have to change. And that road currently encroaches on that 50-foot buffer. I'm curious about the exact wording of the buffer because I would also assume there would be a radius on the buffer at the corner of the last residential lot to the very far north lot there. And that wasn't represented in the diagram we've seen. And I think that in the 13,000 square feet disturbed and the mitigation for that, that very well might be a much smaller number disturbed once the plan becomes finalized, especially if that end gets reduced to two lanes of traffic or shifted slightly or whatever may happen. But what we have in front of us, this .1% additional mitigation and lower canopy numbers, and I agree with Commissioner Briegel that mitigation anywhere in the area, if it's mitigation on the -- it's very hard because this is kind of north. North is to the left on this, but mitigation in the southeast side of the existing lake or additional ESA, up land ESA along the northeast side of the lake or any other possibility. There are a lot of possibilities here, and especially if you already have plans for some kind of landscape buffer, make it permanent and declared an ESA. And I do get a little more clarification about what the 50- foot landscape buffer will be. And if there are concerns, either from the applicant or from the neighborhood regarding the requirements of the overlay, I think we could look at the overlay at the same time if the applicant wants to do that. But I think we can't -- we don't know what the answer is going to be, and we're leaving a whole lot of wiggle room and without a lot of outcome -- without a lot of safeties. So for this reason, I would like to move to postpone this to date certain of our next meeting, and hopefully this can come forward with the final plat, because the final plat, you'll know where the road is and you'll know where that 50-foot buffer is. And we can nail down the square foot disturbed and any additional mitigation that gets added. I'm going to call on staff to ask if they have any timeline on the final plat before we entertain that. Thank you, Chairperson Strange. I was just trying to run the schedule in my mind. I do not know when the final plat will be submitted. That is something we would have to discuss with the applicant. So two weeks might be too premature. I do not know. But it's something we can maybe ask the applicant to tell us when they anticipate submitting, because we also have a review time associated with the final plat. So it wouldn't be just a couple of weeks. And I could adjust my motion to the correct date, whether it's four weeks, six weeks. Or if we could just seek legal counsel if we could say once final plat is submitted and ready to be placed on an agenda . I don't know. Excuse me. I think that would be just a motion to postpone indefinitely and set a four-date certain. And I would move to postpone indefinitely pending submission of the final plat. I have a first and. I'm trying to second, but my button's not on. I know. I'm waiting on you. Can I second that? Oh, Larry beat me to it. All right. You get credit this time. Well, I don't know on our board. I think we may have gotten out of turn. I think Devin just had a request to speak. And I think when you chimed in, you became the motioner rather than the seconder. So the board has now been corrected. Commissioner Taylor has made a motion and we have a second er of Commissioner Bruegel. If you'd like to make your recognized Commissioner Bruegel for a second. Oh, no. Sorry. Yes. No, I second that motion. Yes. Pardon. We have a. We have a first. I'm sorry, Chair. I did have a question, though. I'm going to open it for discussion. Okay. We have a first and second before us to table this item indefinitely pending a final plat. And I'm going to open it for discussion on this motion. Commissioner Beck. Okay. It wasn't on this motion, though. I was just curious. Mr. Evans made a good point. Why we're not counting tree mitigation with that part of the road just adjacent to the repairing buffer that we're going to be removing. As that road comes in there to the west of it, I guess it may. There are some trees there. Were they not part of the mitigation? Julie, would you please put up with my. I think what you're referring to when we talk about mitigation, I don't want to confuse mitigation as it relates to our tree code and as it relates to mitigation for development or to go vertical. But if we're specifically referring to the mitigation as it relates to the hatched area on that exhibit that you see on your screen, is that what you're referring to? Yes. We're obviously going to. Applicants obviously going to have to pull some trees out of there to bring that road through there. Yes. Were we addressing those trees, too, when we were talking? No. Not as part of this request. No. The request before you is to review the opportunity to create an alternative ESA, an alternative environmentally sensitive area. Because there is an area that is being impacted. The area that is being impacted is what would be mitigated. It would not be mitigated. And I'm going to, Deborah, use your term apples to apples, but it would be mitigated in a manner to achieve both types of elements such as gray and green. Okay. Okay. That's clarification. Thank you. Commissioner Roselle. Thank you, Chair. First, I want to thank everyone for coming out and staying late and providing input from the citizens perspective. We all have unique perspectives, so it's helpful to hear others. So I appreciate those concerns. I would try to steer the conversation back to where the Chair pointed us at the time of discussion. And I would just go on record, mimic a lot of what Commissioner Hudspeth said in terms of what we're charged with tonight. And a couple things that came to mind, as I noted, as Commissioner Taylor talked about the one-to-one mitigation not being enough compared to other potential ADPs that are approved. I haven't privy to other ADPs, so I don't know the nuances of other ADPs for ESA requirements, but I think it's worth noting that it's a one-to-one-ish mitigation on the trees. It's not on the maturity of canopy or on the gray solution they provided. So the mitigation is not just looking at trees to trees. It 's looking at the totality of what they're trying to mitigate with. And I think providing two massively, seemingly what looks like expensive mechanical operations to help with water clarity goes into that mitigation. So I don't think it's a one-to-one, and I think it's selling short what the applicant's trying to do to say it's just a one-for-one mitigation. And then second of all, we've had a lot of talk about what to do with the road, what to do with buffers, what to do with landscape, and I don't think any of that's relevant. And if their road on this map shows that it's crossing into a landscape buffer, then it's on them to come back with a solution. We've presented it to them graciously. We've provided them an error to their road, it seems like. But that's not what we're doing tonight. We're not saying that road can't go there. I don't think that has to -- it shouldn't play into this vote at all. And then maybe the last thing is that square footage of ESA to be removed seems pretty defined. And so I'm not sure where the language of wiggle room comes in in terms of approving this. We're approving a set geographic area in which they can remove trees with the provision that these five things are taken care of. And if we look just at that, and that's what we're charged at tonight, I'm opposed of postponing this because that's not what -- it seems like we're postponing it to bring other things that aren't ever on this agenda to be discussed for this agenda item. And it goes back to what we talked about last meeting in terms of bringing other things into the agenda that's not necessarily what we're looking at. This isn't a Buckeyes thing. This isn't a buffer. This is should we allow a road to cut through an environmentally sensitive area provided there's some mitigation? And so for that reason, I couldn't support postponing this to bring in extraneous items. >> Commissioner Hodgebuth. >> Again, same points I'll add to that. Again, for the sake of consistency, I just -- I don't think this -- and yet it 's absolutely on point with last week. So if we're going to approve a property just on its face and wait for the final clap, I think it's imperative that we show that consistency. And again, with the -- a proximity to Unicorn Lake to do for someone mere blocks away for someone and do it different here is -- sets a dangerous precedent. And to then say an applicant can no longer bifurcate how they present something to us is -- it just sets a dangerous precedent. And I think it's -- I don't think that's what's in front of us today. What's in front of us today is pretty clear. And so if the mover and the second wants to take issue with that specific issue, again, I have not heard anyone, not even a citizen, address that during the open discussion. There's no mention of the machinery to pump the new water. None of that was discussed. No issues with that were brought up during the public discussion. So I think for the task we have in front of us today to make a logical leap away from that task sets a dangerous precedent. I have the next request to speak. I'm going to echo the concerns of Commissioner Hussbuth and Roselle that I won't be supporting this motion and for the reason being is because the only item before us is the alternative ESA and that is the space that is defined. And if -- as has been pointed out to the applicant, if the road has to be moved and it falls outside the ESA, then they have to come back before us and revise their plan. And so that's their burden. I do believe also there are several other points of merit. I do believe the storm interceptors improve the existing water quality that's over there. Currently right now there is all the water that comes off of I-35 with all the pollutants come down. It is not filtered in any way and comes into that pond. I believe the storm interceptors will improve that as it is . I also like the layout having the road where it comes through the ESA because it is going to remove traffic off of the service road. And instead of having to have access points for each of these parcels and with an exit lane off of I-35, I'm very concerned about the safety of people coming off of I-35. And I think this is a good design and to have an ESA disturbed and then replaced over people's safety. I would put people's safety first that people have various points to access to this property versus multiple points on the service road. And then I also believe that currently the tree canopy is about 10,000 and the area as it is that's being added currently has a tree canopy of approximately 10,000 now. So it's almost a one-to-one now. And as those mature, it will double. It will be almost 20,000. So it will be a doubling of the tree canopy. And for those reasons, I will not support this motion. And I will recognize Commissioner Bruegel. Thank you, Chair. Got a couple of points. First, the Buc-E's can completely develop this property without needing to cross that riparian habitat because they do have that main road that cuts right through the middle. There's another road on the far end of the property. So you can still access all these lots without crossing the riparian habitat with the exception of lot two. But you could simply build that endpoint to lot two and then not connect it internally to these other ones. I could go back around. So you're still going to have the three access points to develop this property without needing all the curb cuts on the frontage road. Still, they are requesting to disturb a riparian habitat. And so I think that the city is obligated to ask for the best and highest development possible if they intend to disturb this. Commissioner Hutzpeth, I disagree with you when you said that no one had mentioned their concerns about this ESA. In fact, I counted four speakers this evening. Ms. Rosenberg talked about water quality. Mr. Drake talked about loss of trees. Ms. Squire talked about the need for more green space and that 40 years is too long for the canopy to be restored. Mr. Chance echoed a lot of those same comments. And so people were staying on point with regards to the ESA . And I think what we are tasked with here, I think, is exactly asking for more and more mitigation standards. I don't think planting eight trees and providing two storm scepters is frankly enough when you have a large development like this that's going to have a lot of runoff. And I think asking for more mitigation standards elsewhere on the property is a part and parcel of dealing with an alternative ESA design plan. So I do think that they can, that the Buc-E's can come back with something better. They have a lot of ingenuity. They've got a lot of creativity in their business model. They've got a lot of area to work with. I'm not opposed to this being there, but what's done is done. They're going to build, so let's make sure it's the best development we can get. And I think if we were to postpone this until they can come up with some more creative solutions on how to protect the water in that area and the land in that area, I think we owe that to the citizens to give Buc-E's another chance to go back to the drawing board and see what they can come up with. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair. So my main point in my motion to postpone was that we know this map is wrong. And we know that the outcome is going to be different than what's drawn. We know that road's moving. It might stay within the shaded area, and they might have to come back for a second ESA. They have said they're going to make the road smaller than it's on this drawing. So if we wait four weeks, we won't delay the project a day. And we can see have a better total, a better count of trees , a better total disturbed canopy, a better understanding of what the impact will actually be. And my other point was we don't have to mitigate within 100 feet of disturbed ground. We have a large area to mitigate on, anywhere around the pond, anywhere in the neighborhood, I think, already has basically a habitat corridor here with the riparian buffer in the lake. So it could go on the other side of the lake, and it would still be beneficial, still serve its environmental purpose. And the alternative environmentally sensitive plan shall demonstrate that the developer's alternative proposal results in a high quality development, meeting with the intention of the development code. And I think that's the point here is we don't have to rush into this. We can wait, and we can plant instead of 196 caliper inches to replace 300. They're already planning on planting more trees. Just put them in the plan, you know, extend that blue area another few hundred feet with six more trees or eight more trees, and get the final location of the road and know the actual disturbance that's going to be going in. And that's the reason why I think we should postpone this until the final plot is submitted, because then at least we 'll have a final plot to work with. Thank you. Commissioner Hedgbeth. Just renewing last week, we altered our plan based on a tim etable that the applicant set forth and did not require that entity to present its final plan. Same questions. Same questions as to location of building, location of parking. There's lots of uncertainty. There's even more. We don't even have a rendering, and this same body okayed that last week. And this week, a couple weeks later, we turn around and say we need everything certain, nailed down, when we don't have to have that area, if they change their plans, they don't have to come back. If they stay within that area that's approved tonight, they don't have to come back. And so I think it's just short-sighted on the business side of the business to treat one entity different than the other. I mean, that's just, to me, it is on point, and it is exactly the same thing. There are no plans for two weeks ago. There's not one drawing, not one rendering, and this same body approved that. And this, when asked to stay on task here, differing interpretations if we're on task, is now all of a sudden going to burden this applicant with final plans. And I just think that is, again, sets a dangerous precedent given the fact that it's in near proximity to another area where it's nothing but cement, and there's a green filter over the drain. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair. I believe Commissioner Hutspeth is referring to rezoning a piece of property. Is that the case you were referring to at our last meeting? No, sir. I'm referring to making a decision without a final plan in front of us. Simply that. Well, so we have different criteria for different cases that we hear. Zoning is the use of land. And in zoning, we don't want to consider what's proposed because zoning is permanent and stays with the land so we can get a nice pretty drawing. The minute they have it rezoned, they can do anything that 's allowed by the use. And so I think that's why there's a difference in considering zoning versus considering an alternative development plan. Commissioner Dudowitz. Question for staff. When we see a final plan on this property, what will we see? What will we see on that plan? We see a layout, centered to what the concept is? You'll see similar to the preliminary plan, however, there 'll be more detail as it relates to the easements or the infrastructure. And roads? Yes. All the road systems? All your common access easements. And the additional retaining pond will be on there? Your detention facilities will also be on there. The ditches and all the sewers and everything else. And landscape plan will come? Not with the final plan. Not with your landscape plan. But we will have the opportunity to see that later? No. No. Yes. Not the landscape plan. No. I'm sorry. I thought you asked about the final plan. You'll be able to see the final plan. You'll be able to see the final plan. In the final plan. Yes. Okay. So there's a series of documents that will come before us and we get to look at and get comments back from the-- Correct. Thank you. Just the final plan. Seeing no other request to speak, I'm going to call for a vote on the board. And again, the motion that will be before us will be to continue this item indefinitely until final plan. Have I restated your motion correctly? Thank you. I guess I'll call for a vote on the board. The motion fails 4-3. Chair would open the floor for further discussion or another motion. The recognized Commissioner Hussbuth for a motion. I move we approve. But I would ask that we add the language that Commissioner Roselle mentioned, that the trees be in that--in the area, at least in that same area that they were removed from. Okay. Could I get a clarification on, I believe, the motion that will be or the recommendation from staff have some--I think there were five criteria. Would you like to restate that and include? Yes. I would move approval of staff's recommendation with the addition of the language specifying the trees to remain in that area. So the five already existing conditions from staff and add a sixth one with Commissioner Roselle's language. That is correct. I think there was also a suggestion of another condition regarding monthly reporting or annual reporting. I believe that was from Commissioner Bruegel. And potentially inspections. And just to clarify, also to include the schematic or the site plan associated with this. So as Chair, I'll ask Commissioner Hussbuth if you'd like to restate your motion and get all of that. Okay. I didn't write that down. I got it. No. I would move that we accept with staff's five recommendations adding to that language regarding the trees to be located in the same area where they are being removed . Adding language that the pumping system be monitored and maintained and reporting. And then there be a site plan associated with that. I'm sorry. Did you say annual report or monthly report? Annual. Is that the right answer? Monthly. And when you say trees in that same area, what area are you talking about? The area that they're removed from, from the -- I don't know what they termed it. But they were shifted in that area so they could reach full maturity. But they're not going to go in the identical location. But I don't know how staff termed that area. Maybe we can clarify that. Yes. Proposed preservation area. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So that would be your sixth condition. I believe the seventh condition, maybe Commissioner Bruegel , if that would be appropriate, could clarify the monitoring of the storm interceptors. He had six. Seven. Seven, I think there were eight. There were seven. She'll be eight. She's clarifying the seventh. Yes. So my concern was I just wanted to make sure that the storm scepters are being maintained, that they're being reported to the city, and that they're being inspected on a regular basis. Monthly. Fill in the blank. I think you said annually, and I was giving you the opportunity for monthly. Monthly? No. Or annually. Annually. Annually sounds great. Okay. I just want to make sure that they're being maintained, right? Okay. So that was our seventh and I believe the eighth item to be put on this. Just to make sure we're all on the same page, Deborah might have a point of clarification when we're talking about monitoring. [INAUDIBLE] Plan put together by the manufacturer. Why don't we go by what is recommended by the manufacturer about how often those inspections needs to be and how detailed they need to be. I think that that would be in line with what the manufacturer would require. And that's between the manufacturer and the owner, and I think we're asking about the city coming in and having a second look at that. Correct. If I understand that correctly. So the applicant's responsibility is to follow the manufacturer's recommendations, and then we're asking for the city to be an extra pair of eyes to come in on an annual basis and review that. Can I amend that really quick? I'm going to eventually be voting against this entire thing because I think Buc-E's can do better, but as long as we're making my point. I would like to maybe see it twice annually during the rainy season. Come on out. I don't want it just inspected once in August and everything looks fine. So. Twice a year? Yeah. Semi-annually. One more friendly amendment. Let me get the eighth one and then we'll work on the ninth one. We had the eighth one, if you would help me with the wording on the eighth. I believe you had a point that you would like to make. The eighth one was to ensure receipt of the annual inspection twice a year. So really I'm confusing the seventh and the eighth. We have seven right now, and we're going to have a friendly amendment for one more. Just to expressly state that the access from the north end will not, will be physically blocked to prevent access from the interstate. So if the ramp moves, it's solved. And if the ramp doesn't move, then a ride in, ride out. Can you restate that? I'm sorry. The north entrance, I would like to expressly state that the north entrance have some barrier to prevent access directly from the interstate off ramp. So if they move the off ramp, problem solved. If they don't move the off ramp, make it a ride in, ride out curb. That's text on it. That's kind of, that's part of it. We may be preempted from adding that condition because of state law. Commissioner Hesbuth has a motion. I believe we've clarified we have seven items that are attached to that for approval. And have I stated your motion correctly? Yes, sir. Thank you. Just as one point to, someone mentioned a site plan, I don 't know what that's in reference to, but not that it matters . Everything else is, if that does not matter, we're good. Yes. I think we have your motion to approve with the seven conditions, and I think we've got the commission's work together to clarify the language. So thank you for giving us the opportunity to do that. And I'll recognize Commissioner Rosell as a seconder. I don't have to repeat the motion? No. I second the motion. We have a first and a second on the floor, and I'll call on Commissioner Detowitz for discussion. I'd like to have a clarification, please. With one of the adjustments, it was to leave the trees in the same area. I have a concern. I think that we had a presentation that our arborists and our landscape people suggested that we move them for the sake of the benefit of these new trees and of the current location, because it's so crowded there. That was one of the clarifications to move it to the proposed preserve. I must have missed it. It must have been .10, .12. It's not the same location. It is the identified area. It's in that same identified area? Yes. I want to make sure that we don't compromise any good suggestions for that. And that does not preclude them from planting other trees as a result from compliance with the Denton Development Code in other areas? Correct. Just so everyone's clear. Commissioner Tyler. Thank you, Chair. So I'm not opposed to the project necessarily. I am opposed to this mitigation as it's presented here. And it comes down to simple things. Caliper inches. I think the water quality is pretty well addressed with the storm drains and enough riparian buffer to have biological filtration. But whenever we're replacing 310 caliper inches of trees, which is 12 average diameter, or 24 average diameter of 13 inches trees with 8 2 inch trees basically, I think you could do better. And I know that you're planning on planting more trees on the property. So just that's why I think it's a really simple fix to expand this. And I would not oppose this with some minor adjustments or decreasing the square footage of the disturbed area when you know what your actual construction plan would be so that you're only knocking out 12 trees and replacing them or whatever. There are a lot of ways that I think this could go forward and I would approve it. But as it stands now, I can't approve the details of this. Commissioner Brueben. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Hutzpeth for including my storm s cepter thing. Yeah, in your multiple amendments there. But I'm going to echo Commissioner Taylor. I think that this could be much better. And though I'm grateful that you've included some of our thoughts in your motion, I'm going to be voting against this. I'm going to make a comment as well. I recognize Mathel Commissioner's concerns. And again, my view on this is we have the ESA only before us to consider. And I, as you know, as we move forward with this with the final plan, that there will be many more trees that are proposed. And so this site will only continue to get better than what it's being proposed for before us today. And so I'm comfortable with supporting it and moving it forward. It will go before City Council, so there will be another opportunity for anybody that has a concern to bring those again to City Council. And again, this will then come back to us again for final plan and then the City Council for final plan. So there are multiple more opportunities for any of you all to express your concerns, your questions, some of these items that you would like to have added to the proposal. Many more opportunities for you all to have those addressed , but also in regards to Buckees, I know they have a timeframe. And I think it's important for us to nail down the area they have to work for, work within and let them move forward with their project and continue to develop it and bring those things back to us for further consideration. So with that, we have no further discussion. I will call for a vote on the board for approval with the seven conditions. Motion carries four to three. I'd like to thank everybody for coming out this evening and giving us your feedback. And again, we encourage you to continue on to City Council and then back when this is before us for final plan before PNC. Thank you for your participation. We'll give the room a few minutes to clear before I call our next item. I've had a request that we take a short break. So at 854, we will take a short recess. Good evening and welcome back. It is 907 and I'm going to call us back into session and ask to make sure everybody after taking a recess that we have our mics back on. And I will open our next public hearing item, which is going to be DCA 16-0001. And I will call on Shandrian to make that presentation. Having a hard time hearing you. Okay. This next item is proposed amendments to the subch apter 35 13 7. Can you hear me? Get back there. Okay. Good. That deal with the city's tree preservation and landscape requirements. The request is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding the adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas, amending subch apter 35 3 procedures, subchapter 35 13 site design standards and subchapter 35 23 definitions and terms of the Denton development code as it relates to tree preservation and landscape requirements. To begin, the existing ordinance was adopted in 2004 to promote tree preservation and to facilitate the long term viability of trees during site construction. How this has been somewhat effective, but we recognize that more is needed to further protect and expand tree canopy and to provide clear guidance for tree preservation and mitigation during site development. Between 2007 and 2013, there were multiple attempts to update this section of the DDC. However, none were successful due to the lack of consensus on the proposed amendments and therefore the tree code has not been revised since it was adopted. And this is part of the reason why in the fall of 2014, City Council directed staff to proceed with this latest update. The proposed revisions to the tree code would accomplish the following objectives. It would streamline the code to make it more user friendly, align city standards with the best management practices of the American National Standards Institute and the International Society of Aboriculture. It would also provide a more robust code that would expand and protect tree canopy and help to build the city's green infrastructure network as identified in the comprehensive plan. As part of this effort, staff identified the following key tasks and milestones. You see on the slide that the City Council gave us the green light to proceed in the fall of 2014. We've conducted our research and benchmark analysis, which we completed in the fall of 2015. We also wrapped up city staff work sessions with the other departments, although that coordination does remain ongoing . We held several external stakeholder meetings that included talks with the DEN Community Developers Alliance and the Keep DEN Beautiful organization. And if you remember, in December of last year, we provided a briefing to the PNZ that gave you an overview of the core components of what we were proposing to change in the ordinance. And finally, at the beginning of this year, we conducted a visual preference survey of the community to gauge the public interest in trees in the public realm. We received about 1,200 responses to that survey, and most of it was positive. There was a huge interest in, if I can summarize, in seeing trees in the public spaces, but having them organized and well maintained. So I'll get into the proposed recommendations in a second, but I wanted to review our benchmark city analysis because it served as a basis for the recommendations that we're bringing forward to you tonight. We looked at 10 cities around the state. Most of them have similar population sizes and projected growth rates to the city of Denton. We chose these cities because they have well constructed and effective tree preservation ordinances and practices that we could benefit from as we update the city's tree code. So we focused our research on five areas, established tree designations, which are the tree species that will be subject to the ordinance, minimum preservation percentages, which is the percentage of existing trees on a site that would need to be retained during development, tree mitigation ratios, which get applied when the minimum preservation percentages are not met, and then tree fund payments that are collected when it's determined that mitigation by planting of trees on a site is not feasible or desirable. And then finally, we looked at preservation incentives, which are intended to encourage the developers to go above the minimum requirements. So what we found in our analysis is that Denton's tree and landscape code is one of the most complex of the cities that we looked at. We identified seven tree designations compared to an average of three for the other cities. And our 39 options for preservation is significantly more than what we've seen around the state. And we also noticed that we're trailing in preservation and mitigation standards. We have the lowest minimum tree preservation requirements, no requirement or incentive to save large trees or anything over 18 inches. And then we have the lowest mitigation rates for tree removal. In your backup, I provided a table that summarizes our proposed revisions and is organized into proposed changes to the procedures, the standards, and the requirements. Under the procedures and standards section, you'll find that we're proposing to align city definitions and terms with those of the industry, as we noted earlier, the ANSI standards and the ISA standards. We're also proposing to reduce the number of tree design ations from seven to three. So now you'll have heritage trees, protected trees, and canopy trees. The heritage trees are any healthy tree that's over 18 inches and designated by the urban forester. The protected trees are any healthy trees that are under over 18 inches and not designated as heritage. And the canopy would capture everything unhealthy that's under 18 inches. And we're also proposing to establish an exempt trees list, and these can be removed without penalty. And these trees are the ones that in the current code you find under the secondary tree list. So we would incorporate those as well as some additions that our forest or urban forester is recommending. We also are proposing to reduce the number of exempt properties and projects. If you look at the summary table that's included in your backup, you'll notice that we go from about 15 exemptions. We basically cut that number in half. And a lot of those have to deal with the city. You'll notice that there are city projects. And the thought behind that was that as a city we want to be an example for development. We want to be able to have those opportunities with our facilities to create a sense of place and to frame our streets. And so those street reconstruction projects, the subst ations, those are opportunities for us to sort of make, to create a presence with trees and landscaping. Under the requirements section, we're also proposing to remove tree removal permits. We're proposing to require tree removal permits for all sites, including residential. However, the residential sites would only need to come in, the residential owners, I should say, would only need to come in to request a tree removal permit for any tree that's over five inches. And that would be a complementary permit that would give us a chance to consult with them and maybe give them a little bit of advice of how to accomplish what they want to do in a different way. Or more effectively. We're also proposing to base the minimum preservation on the existing tree canopy instead of DBH inches. And to establish a flat mitigation ratio for tree removal of one to four. Currently our code, the range is from zero percent to one point, I think, 1.25. And then finally under the requirements, we are proposing to base the tree fund payments on fair market value of materials and labor at the time of planting. And we ran the numbers on that. And currently, if we were to make a recommendation today, that number would be about $175 per inch. Under preservation incentives, we are proposing to allow tree canopy to count towards landscape canopy requirements. We want to offer a one to two credit for preserving heritage trees that would also count toward the landscape requirement. And then we want to keep the existing allowance for modification of parking lot design and subdivision design when trees are preserved above the minimum required. And again, staff compared this proposal with our city's guidance documents, the comprehensive plan, the strategic plan. And we found as far as the comprehensive plan is concerned, the proposed revision will support these goals that you see on the screen. And then for the strategic plan, we see that it supports the key focus area of sustainable and environmental stewardship. And then the goal to manage land use and to preserve open and natural spaces. And with that, I'm going to conclude my presentation and open it up for questions. >> Commissioner Rossell. >> Thank you, Chair. I was reading through the draft language and I had a couple questions that maybe you can help clarify or maybe provide some insight to. >> Okay. >> Under exemptions, it says any development or capital improvement project awarded prior to November of 2004. Just for my edification, do we have a lot of outstanding projects that are sitting on like a bunch of treed lands that won't be subject to this? Do we know how many 12-year-old projects are just outstanding? >> I don't have a specific list, but there are a few. And so this was a provision in the existing code, and we didn't want to take that away because we didn't know what the status of those projects are to date. >> Sure. So the next question, I have two more. It says the removal of heritage trees, protected trees, or canopies, no person directly or indirectly should cut that down. And then later on for enforcement, it says a person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor for violation. Is the consequence the same for a canopy tree as it is a heritage tree? The punishment from the city, they see those equal? >> Yes, under the enforcement. In terms of violation, yes. >> Okay. Thank you. And then the last question that I might need a little help with here, and the mitigation says up to 50% of heritage trees, protected trees, and canopy trees required to be preserved may be removed and mitigated at 1 to 4 ratio. What happens if they go over 50%? I'm not sure. Can you help me understand that language? >> Yes. And actually, I'm going to ask Haywood Morgan, our forester , to come up. >> Okay. Thanks. >> So when you're looking at mitigation, the current code and the proposed code sets a threshold for what you have to preserve on site. >> Right. With the current code as what we're proposing with the existing code, you're allowed to remove up to half of what the preservation amount is and mitigate for it. You're not allowed to dip below that threshold of 50% of what you're required. So just using the plain example current code, if you're required to preserve 100 inches of trees, you would be allowed under the code to remove 50 of those inches and mitigate through either replanting on the site or payment into the city's tree fund. >> And if I was trying to remove 60 trees in that example, I would just get denied? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> I have just a single question. I guess one thing, just for my clarification, that we're moving away from the old tree code to the new is we did a lot of conversation was about caliper inches in the old tree code. And it seems to be now we're talking about canopy. Is that a major shift that we're doing as a city to move away from caliper to canopy? >> Yes. >> Address that. >> That provides more flexibility. It gives you better opportunity. We're also not, you know, we're using canopy cover, existing canopy cover to go towards your landscaping requirements as it relates to your canopy cover. So in our opinion, it's a more sensible way of addressing what the ultimate goal was anyway that was referenced in the original tree code and what we're proposing today is enhance our canopy cover. >> Yeah, in addition, when you look at the benefits that we derive from trees, everything relates back to the canopy. >> Correct. >> Diameter inches can be very misleading. You can have a tree that has a larger DBH or diameter, but actually have a smaller canopy than a smaller tree. So, you know, while we're putting that premium on the size, well, in actuality that tree, because the canopy is smaller , is not really providing the same benefit as a smaller diameter tree. So industry wide, whenever benefits are quantified, it's always based on the canopy. >> So for us as a commission going forward, assuming as we work through this update on the tree code, when things come before us, like for example, the item just before us with the ESA, and we had a lot of discussion between ourselves about caliber inches and canopy, we should be starting to look at what the canopy ultimately is going to be as these projects come forward. So that's how we're going to be, or from the city's point of view, which we represent, to look at canopy rather than caliber inches as all of these projects come before us, is to look at that particular criteria now as the more important factor for us ultimately rather than the caliber inches. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you for the clarification on the shift that we're now making in our tree code. Commissioner Rozelle. >> I have one more, Heywood, if I could, kind of piggyback ing off the idea of moving from caliber inches to canopy, can you walk me through the rationale that the heritage tree, the protected tree, are still defined by caliber inches? Why are we not defining a heritage tree by its canopy size, but remaining that one to be caliber inches? >> Well, the designation of heritage and protected being 18 inches and large was to give us an easier way to go out and actually identify those trees. In many instances, if you go on a site that's a fully tree site, it's kind of hard to distinguish the extent of the canopy without spending an extra amount of time. So by just doing the 18 inches and larger, it'll allow a professional to go out on site and pretty much eyeball which trees are going to fall within that category. >> Okay. Thank you. >> At this time, I see no other questions for staff. Okay. This is a public hearing, and I have at this time I have three cards requesting to speak. So as I will call our first speaker will be Lee Allison followed by Larry Reichart. Each of you will have four minutes to speak and if you will give your name and address when you come to the microphone. >> Good evening. I'm Larry Reichart from Allison with Allison engineering group, 4401 north 35, Denton, Texas. I'm actually here tonight representing the Denton Community Development Alliance, better known as often known as the DC DA. I'm not an indicated opposition, but I'd like to say that we have been the last few years trying to develop and I believe successfully developing a good working and improving and growing working relationship with the city of Denton. A number of meetings. Shondrian actually called and asked if they could have a meeting with the DCDA regarding this and came and gave a presentation. At that time, we felt like the staff was headed in right direction. We agreed generally with the way they were pursuing. I guess we didn't communicate well, but we had hoped after they got feedback from us as they developed recommendations , they would come back to us in a workshop so we could have an opportunity as our particular group that is involved with implementing these codes. You know, adhering to them, abiding by them, even living with them as consultants, as developers, as property managers. And unfortunately, we haven't had that opportunity, I think due to maybe some misunderstandings or miscommunications. And we're asking tonight that the commission postpone taking any action until we've had an opportunity to have such a workshop and we can present a responsible opinion paper. I'd be a liar if I said that we didn't want to dictate to the city how to write the code, but we know that's not practical and there's other interest groups with genuine interest. But we would like an opportunity to understand it, ask the kind of questions you've been asking this evening, and then to write a position paper. Maybe in doing so, we might help enlighten the staff on some other issues that they might want to bring back to you with a different perspective or light. And then maybe we may not change anything, but if anything, we could -- pardon me. I appreciate you indulging this nagging cough. It's been annoying to me and I'm sure it is to everyone else as well. But we'd like the opportunity to do that. Shondrin did rescind us the staff report last week. I was away on vacation. I made the assumption it was going to be another workshop with the commission, not a public hearing. Didn't get out to our group in a timely manner. We will be followed or I will be followed by two other speakers who will address some of the issues we've concerned about but don't necessarily well educated on. We hadn't even had a chance to get together and talk about them. You should have a number of cards up there also. I apologize. They should be white and not blue, but from DCDA members indicating opposition. And the main reason is we just want an opportunity to better understand this code and give some input and response and thoughts back to the staff and the commission and hopefully the city council. So we appreciate that. Thank you for the opportunity. I have one question for you. Sure. You mentioned you'd like to see this postponed. Do you have a time frame if the commission would entertain that that you would think is reasonable to give you an opportunity to review this and hash out whatever issues there may be between yourselves and your association staff? I would think at least a month. And the reason I say that is because we need to time schedule time when we can get our our group together. It wouldn't be our full group, but a reasonable number of representatives along with the staff and actually have a meeting and maybe a two or three hour workshop to go over this and understand it and see where we are. And then I think once we have that workshop, then I feel like I could pledge that within a week to 10 days, we could come up with a paper. And if we don't have something by then, we don't have it. And that's our fault. Well, I know that this item, I think it's been 2000, I think it's four since the last time that this has been addressed. So we're kind of 11 years so far to get it addressed and understand your concern. I want to make sure it's correct. Would 45 or 60 days give you time, you think? I would say yes. And I feel like our relationship with the staff is such that they would work with us so we can be quickly and get this taken care of. Pardon me. Great. Pardon me. Commissioner Dadovitz. Could you state the association again? Denton Community Development Alliance. Been around for about three years and may be effective for 30 minutes now, but we're getting there. One more question so far. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. And you mentioned that a couple of other people follow behind you and probably give us some reasons why you might object to this. But just top of your head, what would probably be the biggest thing that you've seen here? From my perspective, I know right now when we do due diligence for other developers, vacant land gets a pro. Trees gets a con. If I can find trees in the right location, three dimension ally, that's a super plus. But that's hard to do. And trees, unfortunately, can limit the marketability of a particular site just because of where they're located. And by the time we have to mitigate trees that are in proposed street right aways, if we have to deal with all the grading and the detention ponds, and the four to one slopes, and not be able to have multi- users, there's more to this site development part than just the trees. But by the time we meet everybody's requirements, particularly in a lot of what I do is in sites that I'm going to say are five acres or less. Give me 100 acres, I can do a lot with trees. Give me five acres or less, and it's very problematic what you can do to design around them and still have a market able site at the price that landowner wants for a site. That landowner wants for that piece of property. But you're not opposed to trees. I mean, would you agree that trees actually enhance the value of property too? You'd have to ask a developer then. Yes, if I can, again, if I can have the trees in the right location, three dimensionally, they greatly enhance the value of the property. But when I have to pay more to mitigate a tree than what the price of the land is per acre, that's a deterrent to the value of that property and to development. And those are just economic conditions that land developers have to consider when they're deciding what to do with a particular piece of property. Particularly older property that's in the city that's already geometrically set, particularly those that are already planted, makes it difficult. Okay. Thank you, sir. I'd like to speak to Commissioner Beck's question about developers' perspective on trees. I think trees add great value to projects. And I know probably some of the engineers here will speak that there's, I know, at least one tree in Denton in the middle of the street on Holland Park Circle. There's a reason why. And those things are hard to get done. And there's another one over on Tremont Circle that had to be a private street in this city to be able to have the curve data be outside of city spec to save probably a 24 hour day. Probably a 24 inch oak tree. So not all developers want to just clear cut everything and take it all away. But there is a point where not only from site design standpoint, but also where the trees are located on lots that make it where it is impossible to save them. Otherwise, they do add value and price appreciation to a lot's value. And so I would concur that I think it's a very important thing for us to do and to do very well to preserve as many trees as possible. I do have a project in the ETJ, Denton's ETJ, where we went to the county to get a variant so we could split the road to have trees and an island in between. And we got it approved, but it was a little bit of a battle to save trees in that case because of roads and maintenance and things of that nature. Any other questions for Mr. Allison? Thank you. Thank you. Next card is for Larry Reichart and he is speaking in opposition. Thank you. Larry Reichart, 2228 Jefferson Trail. I also represent DCDA. And to answer your question about trees, I was a practicing landscape architect for over 30 years. I don't do that now, so I've let my license expire so I can 't legally call myself a landscape architect. But for me, a tree in the wrong place is a weed. If it's in the wrong place, it's a weed and it needs to be removed and then replaced with other plant material. I mean, I love trees and they do give value if they're in the right location. And to go, I'm going to get in the weeds real quick, but to answer that question a little further, one of the concerns I have is the preservation requirements . And it's 20 to 40%. If you have a site that, I have a one acre site and it's covered by 20 to 40% trees, I use an example of 30%. When I get done the mitigation, I have to preserve 60% of those trees. That's almost 20% of my site that I have to preserve and not utilize. So when I'm going to buy that property, now I'm paying 20% less than I am for that property right next to it. Or it's going to cost me more and it's going to cost the new homeowner 20% more if I have to take those trees out. So it depends on where they are, like Lee said, and they can be a detriment. Trees should be a positive for almost every site. And one of the concerns I have is the amount of preservation credit you give for trees. The heritage tree gets a two for one credit. And again, it's based on DVD and not canopy. And I think that's a big problem with this code, going back and forth. If it's canopy, let's preserve canopy. It's really easy to calculate canopy with the aerials we have today. But on the canopy tree and the protected trees, I only get a one for one credit for preserving them. Where's my incentive? There is no incentive. I saved a tree, I saved a tree. If you really wanted to preserve existing canopy, give me some real credit for that tree towards my landscape requirements. And now I'm saving that tree instead of planting four new trees. So that's something in this code I think needs to be addressed. One of the bigger concerns I have is that there's the companion piece, the site design criteria manual that's identified in this code throughout, isn't prepared yet. We have no idea what that says. The existing criteria manual has examples from the existing code. Are there going to be examples how to calculate the canopy and everything? You know, the canopy tree being 18 inches and below, if I have a site filled with four inch trees, saplings, I have to preserve those, theoretically. I don't need a permit to cut them down, but now I have a canopy on the property and I'm going to have to preserve all those four inch trees. Is that what we're saying? That's what the code says. I'm not sure if that's what we're saying. In field development, if I have one tree on an infill land, I have to preserve that tree no matter where it is or pay into the tree fund. If it's an 18 inch tree, I'm paying over $12,000 into the tree fund to do infill development. I've just lost any affordability on that lot. It's not clear residential properties are exempt, but unde veloped residential properties? I don't know. Commissioner Taylor brought up something about the tree fund and one of the key things it was supposed to do with the tree fund money was to purchase property and save huge chunks. We've got, what was it, $3 million or more into the tree fund now. So it's just planting trees. We should be looking at purchasing properties that are right for development and just letting them, preserving them. And that was in there as an option that was never taken care of. One of my big pet peeves is that in the presentation, it was mentioned the city should lead the way. I agree. And why are we exempting the landfill, the airport, all utilities, road projects, and DME? That's absolutely nuts. That's half the trees that probably get cut down in this city. The one thing I loved in this is the new definition for topping, which is an inappropriate pruning technique. I hope it applies to DME as we go forward. A little sarcasm, sorry. Like the infill, there's a requirement that a note be placed on a plat regarding preservation trees. That tree is going to die eventually. And my question is, do I need to get an arborist to get a death certificate to bring into the city to amend that plat to remove that restriction when the tree dies? There shouldn't be a note on the plat regarding tree preservation of anything that will die. I can go on, but there's a, and don't get me wrong, I think the bones here are fabulous. Trying to simplify this. I think we need to stick to canopy instead of dropping back and forth between DBH and canopy and stuff like that. I think trying to simplify it, I think the steps they've taken have gotten, the bones are there. To me, it just needs a little bit of tweaking. I mean, I raised a lot of issues, but they can easily be addressed. There's a few other ones that I really would like to talk, like the opportunity to work with staff, and I know I've gone over my time. And again, if the canopy of the trees are so important, I think we should be sticking with canopy, regardless of the size of the tree. If we can preserve canopy, that's what we should be aiming to do. And not necessarily saving heritage trees and identifying certain diameters. If it's canopy, it's canopy. That's my two cents. Perfect time. Any questions? Got a question. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you, Chair. Just a quick question, again, just so I can try to frame an area in which I'm not familiar in, and those here seem to be experts. Do you work in any other jurisdictions that you could shed light on their incentives for tree preservation as compared to this one-to-one? I don't know what other jurisdictions. No, but I'm sure we can get them. I don't recall any offhand. I do work in a number, right now the majority of my projects are farther out in Ellis County right now and up in Grayson County. And they're not as sophisticated, quite honestly. I work with other folks that are working in Prosper and Fort Worth and other communities, and we can get that information. My personal feeling is that if you want to preserve, if you really want to impact tree canopy, you do it through your landscape requirements and give really good incentives to save existing trees. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Rod Zilke. And his card, your card's not marked in support or opposition. I am neither. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, my name's Rod Zilke. I'm with ZPS Consulting Engineers at 1111 South Main Street in Grapevine, Texas. For those of you who are new commissioners, you may not recognize me, our firm is currently representing, I'm going to say, six projects in Denton, multiphase projects, minimum of 20 acres, probably to 100 acres. So it's a little different perspective than you've gotten from Lee. And I'm not going to try and focus on the details like Larry did, but I'm here to support the concept of amending the ordinance that we have because it's so complicated and difficult to apply. But I'm also here to support DCDA and their request to postpone this consideration. Give you a different perspective on why I think you should consider postponing it. As an engineer, the first thing I did when I saw a draft of this earlier this week is I thought a good way to test anything is to try and apply it. I have, like I told you, multiple hundred acres of projects that we've been engaged with staff over the last couple years working out multiple issues with tree preservation, E SA. I feel like I'm somewhat of an expert on applying the current code and working with your current staff. And I'll tell you that when I picked up this ordinance and tried to apply it to our projects to see how it compared, you can't do it. There's not enough information here. The code, we frequently refer to the site design criteria manual for information in the code amendment, and that hasn 't been provided yet. Now, talking to staff, they may have done a scenario on a sample piece of property and assumed some of those criteria , but I can't advise you or give you my opinion because I can 't apply the ordinance the way it is. I'll give you a couple examples. The preservation rates under this current code seem high when you compare them to the existing code. Right now in the existing code, if I way oversimplify and just kind of apply them in general to our projects, we're in general preserving about 20% of the caliper inches of trees on a property. Well, the code now says that when I look at our properties that we might be required to preserve 60% to 70% of the canopy. Well, that sounds high, but it depends on the exempt tree list, and there is no exempt tree list provided yet. So maybe if you eliminate all the mesquite trees and cedar trees and everything and I apply it to my project, maybe 60 % is more comparable to 20%. I can't tell you. Another thing that seems out of whack is the mitigation ratio. Right now we're mitigating trees at about, again, it's very complicated ordinance and it varies, but on average one to one when we mitigate. Well, now we're going to one to four. Well, that's pretty extreme, but it depends on the rate that mitigation costs. And there's no, I mean, that's not provided yet. That's site design criteria information or site design criteria manual information that's yet to be determined. So, I mean, just to make it simple, if we went to a one to four ratio, but the rate was 25% of what the previous rate was, it'd be the same. So there's a lot of information missing here that I think it would be really beneficial for staff and the development community that has to apply this and work with it every day . I think it would be very beneficial for staff to get that perspective. I sure appreciate the effort they've put in. I recognize that they've structured this ordinance to be in line with other communities and have done that research, but I would encourage them to test the ordinance on more than one sample piece of property before they profess it's a good solution to our problem. Thank you. Thank you. See no questions. I have some cards with a note on it. That they do not wish to speak but would like their comments read in the record. I have a comment from Ryan Davenport at 1920 North Lake Trail and didn't. It's an opposition wish for this agenda item be postponed for consideration until such time didn't community development Alliance can review the item before and develop a response for this issue. I have a card from Chris Ross from at 2113 Emerson and didn 't. He's in opposition ordinance please delay action until the merits of the ordinance can be reviewed by many Dalton Allen at 111 Lexington. In opposition, would like to postpone acceptance of the tree orness until staff can meet with DC, da concerning the subject. Can't read the first name last name is stone at 6827 Freeman road crumb. Steve, okay, Steve stone. He's in opposition, always to request a postponement. Kent key at 2925 Country Club is in opposition. He has no comment. Richard Hayes at 819 West Oak is an opposition. He requests, continue the hearing to allow residents time to study and comment on proposals. Those are all the comment cards that we have on this item. I think everybody that's left in the room has either spoken or given a card. It is a public hearing I'll make a final call for anybody else who would like to speak on this particular item. Seeing none I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I guess maybe this question would go to Shondra. The delay is connected in part to a lack of criteria. How far away is staff from providing a criteria? Actually, the site design criteria manual already exists. I think what they're referring to is the exempt trees list, which currently is the secondary trees that's listed in the existing ordinance. We would just update that and include it into the site design criteria manual. We would also need to provide them eventually some education on how to do the calculations for preservation and mitigation. And we would include that in the manual as well. Could we bring all this up to speed, say, if we delayed it for 45, 60 days? Would that give you all enough time to do what you need to do? Possibly. If I can interject, what we will first do is actually go ahead and have a couple of workshops with DCDA so that we can walk through the ordinance and do a page turn with them , seek their input as well, and also give them our input. We do have individuals within our team that come with discipline from several communities, so that would be advantageous. And of course, we would use DCDA to our advantage and understand what our engineering community and our development community needs and what their obstacles and hurdles are when it comes to tree mitigation and preservation, generally speaking, and then drill down into what we need for the city of Denton. So we actually welcome that opportunity. We continue to foster our relationship with DCDA, and I think this would be one of the steps forward to enhance our relationship. In order to get to the point where we need to be as well as amend the design criteria manual, realistically speaking, and with our notification requirements and parameters, 60 days is not sufficient. 45 days is not sufficient. So if we're going to look at this opportunity, I would recommend, or I would suggest, let me rephrase, that we postpone this indefinitely until we come to some resolution with DCDA and with understanding the milestones associated with the design criteria manual. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. If this does get postponed, or maybe even it doesn't, I would like there to be some conversation, whether it's internally at the staff level or with DCDA about the preservation incentives. We just had a really lengthy conversation about how we're not necessarily fans of cutting down a tree and replacing it just with one. And so if there's a protected tree of 18 inches, there's not really an incentive for them to just cut it down and replace it with a sapling, which seemed like in earlier discussions is not necessarily what we'd like to see because of the maturity rate and those things brought up previously. So I would just encourage maybe increasing the incentives, if not increasing them across the board, at least change the protected incentive and the canopy incentive to be tier ed up or something. It just seems like if we are valuing the old trees that are here and existing, then maybe the incentives could be a little bit more generous. Okay. I have a comment as well. I would like to piggyback on that. I think it is important and I think it's come before this commission and there have been a lot of comments about preserving trees. And I'm surprised to see that it's a one-to-one. I agree if we're going to make it a priority to save them that, you know, it needs to be incentivized. Otherwise, there's not an incentive if it's in the way you move it and just replace it versus it's at least a two-to- one and maybe even more. And I think Mr. Reichart made a good point about if these are identified on the final plat and identified and ultimately they die, how that is to be handled. So I don't know if there's a procedure that will be put in place for that or how that gets addressed, but I see that coming back before us a bunch if that's going to be an issue. And those would be my comments. I just wanted to add on the incentives that we are including in the proposed code. Under the current code, the only incentive is if you preserve beyond the minimum. So even at a one-to-one ratio, getting credit from everything you preserve, it is still more than what is under the current code. So it's not that it's devaluing the canopy or saying that it's just a one-to-one, but going from where we were at, you know, it's more. That's an improvement, an increase to incentivize preserving trees. I think that's a good point. And if it's every 10 or 11 years before this comes before us, I'd like to move the bar even farther and incentivize it even more because it may be a while before it comes back before us. So with that, I recognize Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair. I don't quite understand that. So the mitigation is inch per inch? Is that what the replacement tree mitigation is, is caliper inch per caliper inch? Under the proposed? Yeah. I have to go through and actually create a calculation to get from diameter inches to a canopy. Right now, I don't have the data that I need to just have a value for what a square foot of canopy is actually worth in dense. And there are ways to get that information. Unfortunately, I don't have that data to provide that I've run that calculation using data from other cities. And, you know, it works out fine just having it as, you know, a certain amount per square foot of canopy. That's where I would eventually like to be. But right now that would be a mitigation fee per square foot of canopy. Is that what you mean? Yeah, as opposed to the, you know, right now, $125 per diameter inch. So I guess what I meant, not the each mitigation tree shall meet the most like two inch minimum caliper diameter measured six inches above grade. The replacement tree part of that. So I thought I understood it until we just talked about it. So I'm just trying to get caught up now. I get the kind of the fee if you want to pay a fee. But if you are replanting, you know, you're below that 70 percent of the 30 percent existing canopy on, you know, the lot. But you're above 50 percent. And so you reap you need to cut down the stream, you're replanting something over here. You're cutting down an eight inch oak. Is that for two inch oaks? Well, what it what it amounts to is when you when you're looking at that one to four ratio. So say if the one tree you cut down was a thousand square feet. Well, you would be required to mitigate for four thousand square feet of so you have your future canopy. Right. Right. And you know, the idea behind that is, well, you know, for that one tree to mature to that one thousand square feet may take X amount of years. But if you have four trees, it's going to cut that time down by fourth. And so to get back to a replacement of what you took down is NC 60 a canopy thing or a tree health thing? That's actually standards for the American national standards for nurserymen. So there are standards for the quality of trees, the types of trees. They're all graded. Is that where the canopy per maximum canopy comes from? Or is that a separate would that be a separate table? Well, in our existing code, we have recognized values for large trees, medium trees and small trees for what the mature canopy would be. So that's that's where we get that that information from. So so in this case, like going back to the example, I'm going to cut down this eight inch oak, which has seven hundred square feet of canopy or something like that. I can and I had to mitigate four to one. So I need twenty eight hundred square feet. So I can plant two two inch chinkapin oaks, which have a two thousand square foot canopy when they grow. Is that because I'm putting in four thousand square feet of future canopy in two two inch trees to cut down one eight inch tree. Roughly, I mean, something. Yeah. I mean, depending on what the numbers actually are per species. Right. OK. Now that I understand that, that's good. I do have a few items from our work session. I just want to bring up it looks like we're probably going to postpone this. So I would like to look at an offsite mitigation option. I think that that does provide some opportunity, especially in infill lots. You've got a half acre lot and you can't remove trees very well or you want to keep or you have to remove the one big tree in the center of the lot where you need to building site to be able to mitigate that in another in town lot that will be permanently preserved. Whether that's by easement or by tree trust or other structure, something like that. I'd just like to see what options there are that way. And then I would also like to clarify the occupied single family exemption clause. I would I would prefer that to have a maximum maximum acre age size because there could be a loophole on a hundred acre site that's planned for development and it has an old farm house on it. And so I can move into that farmhouse and I can clear out a whole bunch of trees and then I can file for plotting to build a subdivision there. And I would also like to be to more expressly indicate either a rollback or a fee structure for using one of the exemptions like the ag exemption. And then immediately after or shortly after I have an exemption on my hundred acres of tree covered land and I use that exemption to cut down most of the trees and then I come in and file file a plot to build a subdivision again. If it's like a two year or five year, maybe even a great like a step down every year, you pay less of the mitigation . And after five years, you don't have to pay any mitigation for the clearing that happened. So those are one, two, three, three, I guess major points I would like to see addressed in this. We have two of those already written down to so. Thanks. Another comment. Based on what Commissioner Taylor was just talking about on the four to one. Is there a point in the existing tree canopy and the requirements there that you would get to a point where you can't replace or can't do the four to one that the actual new canopy would encompass the whole site. Is there a cap somewhere that I don't know the math, but if you've got a 60% stand and you can only take a certain percentage out and then you've got to mitigate four to one that the canopy that is actually larger than the site that you have. So there probably needs to be if that's a correct analysis of where this goes that there's a cap that you can't be required to mitigate more than 50% of the side or 75 I don 't know the number, but that might be something that comes into play on the on the other side. And then also want to. If you have a comment on that. Well, just like under the current code. If you can't mitigate through replanting completely on site there's always option to do a combination of on site planting and payment into the tree fund. And that's what I was envisioning for the going forward would be the same scenario hadn't considered a maximum cap based on the site. Because you know again you know and one of the other reasons why putting that as at a one to four ratio was to you know provide some disincentive to take you know the easier route and say okay well I'll just cut this down and pay you know because it's not going to cost me that much. You know, so you have to provide some incentive I think and some disincentive to, you know, not meet that requirement. Okay. And to your point, did you bring off the off site. I think in our work session we talked about there's a roughly $3 million in in the front now. And I'm wondering how this would play out is if the city purchases a site can identify it and through our urban foresters and the expertise that we have in house to say that this 50 acre site or hundred acre site is a is a prime area for us to preserve it rather than. We have individual developers trying to pick sites that the city buys a block essentially, and then puts a value on that that then developers buy out replenish the fund back to the city and okay. We've got 50 or 100 acres that we have for sale developers buy it out money comes back in the city the city identifies that spot over there buys other blocks in it just as a perpetual circle that the city identifies prime places to preserve offers it as an opportunity for developers to buy those replace the funds so the city can pick that's another great side over there the city gets to determine it, rather than developers picking a site, and it 's going to help their shelter and all over so I don't know if that's a possibility. It's been done in other places, or what hurdles may be in place that preclude us from doing that but that might be something if it's possible for us to pursue. So I don't know if you'd have any comments or feedback on that as well. Well, in the existing code there was an option for tree trust, and it was something that, you know, I don't I don't even think we've ever, you know had anyone to take advantage of it or to use it in the areas where tree trust have been used successfully or areas where you have, you know, a greater concentration of war areas that you have naturally wooded forested land. Unfortunately, being we're in this situation we don't have the benefit of having, you know, really the natural resources that will really afford us to, you know, really make that a viable option. One other thing is, you know, it's a combination to get to where we want to be, you know, part of this preserving trees and the greater part of that is replanting trees. You know, we all are emotionally attached to the trees we see what's already in the environment. But for, you know, our kids and our kids kids, we have to plant trees because eventually, you know, the trees that we're preserving now they're going to die. You know, looking long term and holistically it has to be a combination of both to really get to where we actually increase, you know, our canopy cover. If we preserved 100% of the trees that are indenting right now, we still would have, you know, no net gain and canopy cover. So I guess the answer is that can't be done. We looked at it and, you know, and I was even, you know, considering having that as an option, the offsite. But there are, you know, so many variables with tracking where trees go and making sure they're maintained if they 're planted, you know, other places. Just logistically, I think it would be, you know, a difficult undertaking to accomplish. Well, I'd like to suggest that we take a look at it and see where that goes. I think, Jefferson Strange, what we'll do is we will revisit this option and try and see what we can establish as far as that's concerned. And I see we have a motion. Commissioner Rosell. Thank you, Chair. I motion to postpone agenda item DCA 1601 pertaining to tree preservation and landscape requirements indefinitely. Commissioner Begg. Second. I have a first and a second. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you . Would it be possible to just put a date on it? Let's put it on the agenda for 45 days and we can postpone it again if we need another 45. But when we table it indefinitely with no trigger for it to come back before us, it'll be a year before we see it again . Yeah, I totally agree. I think staff was suggesting otherwise just not knowing what the workshops would be. I was going off that direction. Right. Well, would it be possible to just put it up for 45 days and then you can say we're still doing workshops, come back in 30 or? Ideally, we would like this to come back within 30 days, but we know we have to coordinate. So the only reason we said indefinitely is not because, you know, we don't want it to take longer than 60 days. We have our own milestones and our project plan that we do have to hit. As a result of this, we will obviously have to miss our city council meeting that this was scheduled for. So why don't we pick the 45 days? That's fine by us. But anticipate that it would be a postponement again and it would be an item that would be reflected on the agenda. So it just we want to make sure that when we come back to you the next time that we are very well prepared and have comment from the CDA and include their comments within the draft ordinance. So we do need some lead time for that to be able to coordinate with their subcommittee. But it is the wish of the commission should they choose. Then can I postpone it to was the May 11th meeting? I'd like to throw out before we put a very short time frame . These gentlemen have been here now for almost three and a half hours to give their opportunity to speak. And I think in respect for their time, I think instead of having this again, 45 days, they're back here to make their comments and we're not ready. I think it would be more appropriate for their time and staff's time. If it's 90 days, it can come back before then. If it's ready and it's worked out, I'm sure it can come back before . I just see it's reposted and people are sitting out here staff time just so we can postpone it again. So I don't know if 90 days would be appropriate that this gets worked out and it can come back sooner. And if not, gentlemen, in 90 days, you can wait a few more hours and talk to us again. So would that be a reasonable time? Yes. So I'd like to offer a friendly amendment that we would postpone it for 90 days and then have it come back. That's fine with me. I'll amend my motion to a 90 day postp onement. I'll second that. Okay. I have a first and a second to postpone for 90 days. And I don't know if the board needs to be cleared or if Commissioner Taylor would like to be recognized to speak again. I still show Commissioner Taylor's request to speak. Okay. We have a first and a second to postpone for 90 days. Is there any further discussion or comment before I call for a vote on the board? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board with the motion at hand. Motion carries 7-0. That takes us to our project matrix and concluding items. Commissioner Beck. I have a concluding item. We were confronted once again with an issue that is a little troubling. And I'm not pointing a finger at anybody. I think it's a process. Can you speak into the mic, Rabbi Martin? We have been confronted once again with an issue that's a little troubling. And I don't want to point a finger at anybody. I think it's a process problem. But once again, once again, people within 200 feet of an area on an issue that we're going to talk about are saying they just simply aren't getting notification. Tonight we had 55 mailers go out and only two people responded to that. And in an area where you would have expected a lot more response. So I don't know. I don't know what the problem is. This is repeated too often. I'm concerned about it. And Commissioner Hudson and I, you know, we're talking about it. It's just an issue that seems like we need to address. Isn't it a certified letter? Yes. They're signed for. I mean, someone signed for it, I imagine. And that's what I think it needs. I think it's more just what do -- if a resident, if a homeowner comes and says, I didn't receive notice, where can I go to get that tracking number to get provided to them? Is that maintained in a spreadsheet somewhere? We follow, like I said, state requirement, Texas local government code. We send notifications, certified mail within 200 feet of the request. The list, the property owner list is derived or exported from DCAT, Tenant County Appraisal District. Because that's the only avenue we have to search the property ownership. We send out certified mail. We have heard even when we've done other mailings that we get them back. They come back to us. So if we don't have someone who's very interested in what's going on and doesn't check the web -- and checks the website or what have you, and wonders why they didn't receive a notification, then we can obviously resend them a notification. But at this point, we're following every avenue, every parameter that we have and follow a certain, you know, notification process. But is there -- is someone physically walking up there? There's a tracking number issue. If you pay with a credit card, let's say, they're going to give you a tracking number at the bottom of the receipt. If you're doing certified, the green card, they're giving you the -- one, two, three, four, 12 digit. Where is that? It's not maintained, I bet. So we use a service. We use click to mail. We send them our property address list. And from there, they do the mail service for us. Right. So anything that's returned, it comes back to us. And we do receive several returns. Or something is -- property owner receives their notification and doesn't do anything about it. So we are following all the parameters that are in our code and ordinances. Agreed. How can I see that? See what? I'd like to interject. This is off of our agenda. And we can ask for things to be put on agenda. But we're engaging in discussion of an item that hasn't been posted for public hearing. And this item has come up several times on this commission. And there have been a number of questions. And what I'd like to ask is, Chair, if anyone has a question or concern about how this is, I'd ask that please take the time. Get with staff. And if for some reason that item can't be addressed to your satisfaction one on one with them, then I'd ask if you'd like to tonight, let's put it on the matrix. And if it can't be handled one on one, then it's on the matrix. And then it can be brought up before us publicly to be discussed in work session or any other item. The public has received notice of it. I think that's a more appropriate way for us to hash this out to everybody's satisfaction that the system that we have in place or if it needs to be changed or amended, that gets addressed. And I think we need to follow legal advice on that at this time. Do we have another item that anyone would like to place on our matrix or future agenda items? Seeing none, it's late. It's 10 16. I'm going to make it the last minute. 10 16. And I will close our meeting tonight.