Feb 08, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2017-02-08 4:30 PM

Planning and zoning commission work session for February the 8th This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and I'm gonna call our meeting to order at 434 Our first order business will be to receive clarification of agenda items And I will turn that over to Shandria for presentation. Okay. Good evening The first item that we'll go through is the approval of minutes for January 25th 2017 If anybody has any discussion on that we'll open it up If not, we can move on All right, we have three items work on the consent agenda three final plaques one for the HEB site at the corner of West University and Bundy Bray We have another one at the at the corner of North Loop and Stewart Road and then a site on Pacon Creek If there's any questions about that we can bring up the case managers. If not, we'll move on Okay Under items for individual consideration there's two both of them have to deal with the establishment and nominations for a P&Z subcommittee For the didn't development code rewrite project and so we can discuss that if you need to but we'll have to actually take action on those items in regular session Okay Any questions on either of those Okay, okay On the public hearing we have three items a final reply for DISD property at North Locust and Second Street and I'll invite Julie white white up to discuss Good evening, Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and we'll just take a look at the plot You're probably familiar with this property you've you've seen it this is The Denton ISD administration Location they are Proposing this replat in order to abandon this public alley So there's the DISD and then also there's a religious institution on this on this side. So I'll answer any questions Commissioner back. Thank you chair Currently st. Barnabas the physical church sitting there. So is that going away or they just going to convert their building into No, sir. It is actually it is it is it's going to remain and it will remain on its on its own property so this is really just to Just to abandon this Public alley that's not not really used so that they can develop the side or redevelop the side So there's notions of things in the future. They got you. Thank you sure Commissioner was out. Thank you chair. Can you walk me through the process to abandon a public? Street Is that it's like if you own the property around the street ? You can just say we don't need it anymore How does that work this alley could be abandoned by the plot because all of the property owners who were affected by that alley joined in on this plot I This Gary Street was abandoned and it had to be it had to be Done by ordinance that had to be approved by City Council. So The the right away that Gary Street's a little different than the than the alley Thank you. Sure Mr. Ellis, thank you chair. Hi Julie. Hi Gary Street Doesn't exist though anymore. Correct? Correct. It was a bit I believe it was approved in December and if you recall if just in in the proposed rezoning that DISD brought forward before you they 're going to Turn this into that pedestrian connection Okay, and Julie oh You're here for the next one. Yeah, that means it was only for blue beacon Okay All right, so this is z-16 18 blue beacon truck wash All right the location of the property it is adjacent to the I 35 Service Road, it's it's north of Barthold or Bartle that in this location it is situated in a fairly north part of the city and The subject property does have six hundred thirty seven feet of frontage along I 35 And so the request before you for this location is to consider a rezoning from RCR one Regional Center residential wine to employment center commercial the ECC district the subject property is about five acres So we'll just look at what's currently out there the zoning as well as the development So here's the subject property right here gets a little lost in the picture, but here it is It's got that RCR one. It's that lavender color. There's also some undeveloped RCR one to the north as Well as all of the property that doesn't have a color on it . That's in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. That's outside of the city limits And that that's undeveloped as well as this property that has the hatch marks That's undeveloped and that is RD 5x that's our rural residential minimum five acre zoning district That's that place holding zoning district that all properties get when they get annexed into the city To the south of the property you have some existing ECC district That is being redeveloped with a commercial use with a Travel Center use There's also some RCC in across Barthold and RCC in across I 35 and that's undeveloped as well There's a Travel Center use South of Elm Across I 35 it's RCC D and it's as I said, it's a commercial use. It's a Travel Center use So that's what's surrounding the property. That's the character of the area The future land use of the property is business innovation. I know we've seen business innovation a lot recently and just to just to refresh your memory business innovation is It's intended to encourage employment uses things like R&D or light manufacturing or large-scale office parks and also the supporting use the supporting retail uses such as Restaurants or hotels or and even some residential is encouraged So mainly employment with some commercial uses in order to support those employment areas So the considerations we looked at when we analyze this proposal is first we looked at Section 35 3 4 B in the Denton Development Code and that's the criteria for approval for rezoning cases And the first is does it conform to the future land use? In this case ECC district has a really diverse set of commercial uses It also integrates some of those employment uses and those industrial uses like light manufacturing and some Warehouse uses so it does conform to that business innovation future land use designation And then we also it has to have adequate provision of infrastructure in this in this case It does and any additional infrastructure needs would be addressed at platting So the request does meet the criteria for approval in the Denton Development Code We also looked at the character the area. We always do that just to do a little deeper dive on the analysis and When we look at at at this area the the major The major element to this property is that I 35 corridor. It's it's a pretty it stands out and And when we look at how this area is going to develop we anticipate we're going to see a lot of commercial uses along I 35 Take care take advantage of that access and the visibility that I 35 provides But then it's going to transition to those employment uses. There's some very large tracks To the west of this property and so we we anticipate that it's going to be commercial toward I 35 transitioning to those employment uses And ECC is consistent with this because it does permit those commercial uses and print some at a scale That's appropriate for highway development, but then also folds in some of those employment uses so it provides that nice transition area The current zoning designation of RCR 1 it does permit commercial uses But it really does permit them at a scale that aren't something you would typically see it on the highway. It has those limitations ECC district would expand the number of commercial uses industrial uses and it would also enlarge that building envelope So it would allow that development that is consistent with what you typically see on highways And then and then just ECC is the logical continuation of that existing ECC And I believe that was his only case that came before you in 2015 So it's just a continuation of what's existing Public notification was sent out There's not many people who live out there, so there weren 't many that were sent out and we haven't received any responses So based upon the criteria for approval and the considerations I've listed we staff recommends approval, and I'll stand for any questions Commissioner back. Thank you chair. It seems like we're heading in the direction for this area for big trucks It's gonna appeal to big trucks, and that's fine. Don't have a problem. It's a good area for that One concern I might have is as further development goes on Heavy big Semis going up and down those service roads is that gonna be a little intimidating For smaller passenger cars as we develop those kind of businesses that would appeal to them is that consideration That is a good question. It's not it wasn't a consideration in this case We you know text dots will design the roads to accommodate all all users the large trucks as well as the smaller trucks So it wasn't actually something that we considered in this especially since this proposal did meet the future land use The other thing I'd like to bring up was something Commissioner Roselle touched on when we were talking about that Travel Center. That's just south of it If you've got these big five six Wheel axle trucks coming from heading north And they want to go to that They're gonna have our time negotiating that turn you've got that narrow turn right there that doesn't allow a lot of room and Then not only that then they've got a cut back to a hard right and that's a two lane service road Correct our whole road. No the service road right there is to learn or two way Well, and and that's gonna all come in when we when we go through the site plan I know that the applicant is actually this is this property adjacent to it is in the ETJ and they're actually looking at Potentially doing an annexation and a rezoning for that in order to expand the site to provide that kind of Turning Motions that are desired. Well, but the problem is not gonna be there so much. It's that narrow tunnel That goes under 35. Yeah under 35 or Well Barthold Barthold Road is actually gonna be a real igned so it's going to this is these two Roads are actually gonna meet so there isn't gonna have to be that little no, sir Oh, and then and then if if they can develop the site and once again this is gonna be a site planning issue or potential cases that come before you with a rezoning for for annexed property I Think their intent or what they would really like to do is take access off of Barthold Road and not I 35 in order to get those turnings turning radiuses that they like and that that makes it easier for the end User. Okay. So in other words, you'd have a straight shot of 77 When I went and put the signs out I missed that little turn Yeah, little cheat turn and I had to go I went all the way around So yes, you're right. It when when Barthold is connects it will okay. It will be a lot easier to access. Okay. Thank you Mr. Roselle, thank you chair. You mentioned something in your presentation You said that in the business innovation commercial use is to support employment centers Mm-hmm, and you feel that a big rig truck washing supports employment centers Well when we look at a rezoning, we can't look at what is We're not looking at what the actual Proposed development is for that site what we have to look at is what the uses are within that zoning district And so when we look at ECC, I mean you're I I hear what you 're saying about about this particular user is it Doesn't import support employment uses but what we have to look at when we analyze the zoning case is what are the permitted uses within? That zoning district we look at it much more broadly than just this this this user when we look at business innovation The ECC and the EC eyes only districts are the ones that most closely align with business innovation ECC being the more commercial of the two and EC ECI being the more industrial of the two So so yeah, I hear what you're saying, but but we have to look at it a little more broadly when we're talking about a zoning case Yeah, I know we've we've talked about this in the dais all the time about looking at a zoning case rather than the actual use of it But there is still the tension that this is being this is an application for rezoning by the person who wants to build The use sure so yes, they could get it Rezoned and then back out then you have this free zone and that we certainly it's taking consideration But to Commissioner Beck's point, I'm wondering if to the West where all the tracks of lands are and what's supposed to be business innovation When I think about that, I think about like corporate headquarters type type things may be coming to Denton and their insurance on Barthold is Through a truck park and so I'm wondering if that's a deter rent from future businesses if we have Trying to sell a corporation to come and build on this land and we go for the tour It's a truck stop on the left a little sliver of a big rig Truck washing that apparently wants to expand even bigger. I'm wondering about the impact we have on the future employment That we would like to bring in in the business innovation district additionally in the last point I have is when Barthold gets realigned to 77 Is there gonna be construction to redo the underpass because Commissioner Beck's right. Although those streets might line that underpass is tiny I'm gonna call Earl Escobar Earl Escobar engineering unfortunately since it's a textile highway, there are no plans to To I guess to widen the underpass I know there's some limitations on the number of lanes that you can squeeze between the piers that support the Highway lanes itself. So and unfortunately, this is not part of the I-35 widening plans right the winding stops at 380. So But there are some signal modifications being done on part hold and 35 as well as I-35 and 77 on either end of the underpass to accommodate those larger vehicles in terms of timing and trying to maximize the number of vehicles that can pass through that underpass without any complex so and I assume that when Like an underpass is looked at they look at turn radiuses of an 18 wheel truck and make sure all those clearances Are good right in terms of stopping distance within the underpass that say You have a semi truck heading north and want to turn left towards the either the car wash or the loves The stopping point underneath the highway is set back so that the trucks can maneuver Okay. Thank you mixture Commissioner back. Thank you chair. I did have one other question I just didn't look at my notes a little concerned about the wastewater for this facility Well current drainage infrastructure accommodated and if not Will it have to be enhanced and if so who pays for that? Well, the applicant the developer would have to ensure that their development can can be accommodated so they would have to make sure that all of the Public infrastructure is there and in place in order for them to okay the applicants here today He is so he'll be here this evening to discuss. I have another question for him, but I'll wait till the clock here . Thank you Okay Thank you Julie So the next item is an ordinance amendment related to annex ation criteria and I'll invite run me Gita up for a presentation Thank You Sharon again pull up my presentation real quick Chair members of the Commission brought forward to you for your consideration as a code amendment to Bring in some annexation criteria that is Currently in our code of ordinances our code of ordinances is a separate document that separate from the DC So a little bit of background of how we got here several Months ago we we heard and we've seen applications come in that are in our ETJ But really haven't had any clear criteria direction on if those of those properties should be annexed again, we do have those annexation criteria that are in our code of ordinances, however it's not clear if those code ordinances, I'm sorry those annexation criteria are Usable because back in 2002 when we created the DDC those annexation criteria Were supposed to be repealed but they were never so it's a it's a conflict. It's there but it's it is it applicable so to clear up the confusion we're proposing to repeal expressive expressively those annexation criteria from the code of ordinances and Bring them in to the development code and that's why we're having this public hearing in front of planning zone Commission because you all review and administer the then development code so as outlined here in this slide again, I'm gonna repeat just a couple things that the recommendation that were requesting from the Commission to the plan and to the City Council is regarding expressively Repealing the section in the code of ordinances and that's 34 - 35 36 and 37 while doing so we're also requesting that we amend the DEM development code and add the development annexation criteria within section 35 3 of the DDC Those sections that are currently again in the code of ordinances talk about annexation policy procedure and fees Those will be repealed Because Again, we're wanting to bring it into the DDC. It's currently not in the DDC the annexation criteria and again, there was no language back in 2002 when we Created the DDC. So Again, we're trying to clean it up and bring it into the D EM development code Chapter that is going to go into is sub chapter 35 3 procedures Under this section, which will be a new section 35 3 13 and it'll be under the heading of periphery development annex ation criteria In this section you we will have a criteria to determine when to annex or when not to annex but also and also it will have a list of thresholds which we will use as a Point for our staff review. It will also include procedures and a conditional use clause and those Are in your backup as exhibit to I believe in the draft ordinance that staff has prepared So really that's what we're looking for and seeking from the planning zone Commission is your recommendation and staff recommends approval of this For the reasons of we're going to be clarifying the property when a property should be annexed We're also making it more efficient as far as procedures for annexation. And again, it's consistent when the development plan Commissioner back. Thank you chair. So to be clear here The language that's in the code of ordinance. Right nothing to be in changes just being shifted over to the DDC Oh, there's is there's some there's some changes some slight changes Okay But if you read is it more streamlined if a little bit more streamlined, that's correct And it's it's for its proposed specifically just for that reason to be able to get annexations through in a more timely manner But if you look at it, it's it's essentially the same if you look at the criteria and again You have both of those as part of your backup. Okay. Thank you Commissioner Alice. Thank you chair. Hi Ron Okay, so when I read The ordinance that that were repealing and then read read the new draft ordinance Are we removing the procedure that an annexation comes before PNC and City Council? It goes to City Council. I did I did notice that Yes, the annexation will not come through the planning zoning Commission However, obviously the zoning will but correct you are correct. The annexation will not come through the planning zoning Commission. Okay Wherein it does it talk about it going to City Council? It's per state law and it should be the very last bullet of the procedure section it does not State it but that's Something that we follow through again the Texas local government code state law It's it did where it says all public hearing notification procedures will be in accordance with state law, right? We know it correct. It will go through that process and all annexation. It's a fairly lengthy process Timely manner as far as taking it through the planning. I'm sorry through the City Council There's two public hearings and then two readings of the ordinance Okay, my confusion is because all that was spelled out in the ordinance that were repealing and That it was completely removed from this new draft ordinance. We did that on purpose. Okay, just as point of order because The statutes change and we have four bills I think pending in the legislature right now that are affecting annexation So we went ahead and kept it general and just referred to state law For that reason it's a very complex procedure on the notice provisions and the publication provisions and the initial readings and everything of that nature And really the the first version did not cover at all Have another question is that okay? Thanks. I noticed added in this draft ordinance was location and intensity of gas well drilling in production which I know is not on In the ordinance that were repealing. Can you just kind of explain that a little bit how that's What that actually means and how that's taken into consideration? I? Think that's just another type of development that we know we have some of those type of developments west of town and so if those are considered potential impact that's something that's the City Council or City staff can move forward for those reasons specifically as a way of mitigating some of the potential impacts that that gas well or potential gas well could bring to adjacent properties I'm more notes. Sorry continue. Thank you. Thank you On that same the line under that Number six property that is contiguous to the city limits and is necessary to the annexation of another property Yes, I was having a hard time in my brain following that so I what I noted there was an example of that sure sure there is a property that is Per state law in order to annex a property it has to be contiguous to the city limits so if there is a property that's not contiguous and that Is something that fits the other criteria that's listed above those? the property between the city limits and subject property would be part of that annexation Does that come into play if I a private property owner requests annexation that you If they you know in one of those It can leapfrog right and we can't we can't annex a property unless it's contiguous with the city limits We still have to go after the property in the middle and build a block unless it's agricultural Okay, sorry, I'm following my notes here With regard where it talks about the procedure the staff following staff determination That the property should be considered The owner will be notified To do a voluntary petition of the city for annexation Talk about cost at that point if you're requesting that the property owner do it Cost was mentioned again in the ordinances, but it isn't mentioned here again, right, right? We're working on Currently the cost is I believe it's seven hundred fifty dollars plus notification, which is 220 That's for someone that's submitting a petition for annex ation We're currently all actually working on our development review fees as well So that is something that we'll be looking into but that's that's the current cost as we speak as of today Does that need to be written of who's paying that or is that referring to state law again or? How does someone know what if you're petitioning them to? to be annexed There's no mention of what the cost will be well Well, well, obviously during that petition submittal will be able to Assess what that cost is and provide that during their review of that petition So that will be part of the development review process So we'll have fees presented to them or provided to them at that point Is to wait for them If they don't want to pay it they just wait and do nothing and then we annex them Yeah, I guess my question comes was do we need to have that in writing about who's paying fees? Because we're repealing that So right now it's in a separate ordinance. We have fees associated with the development reviews Just to interject when I'm all done. We already have an adopted ordinance that outlines our fee schedule in that fee schedule We have specific project types and one of them is a voluntary and the other one is an involuntary annexation So that being said and depending on what course that project or the annex the proposed annexation project takes we would do that So in the case if it becomes city initiated in involuntary and then obviously the fees would not be assessed in many cases Given certain developments you have pockets of annexed of ETJ property That's not annexed but in order to facilitate development they acquire them that becomes part and parcel of their overall program to then cumulatively Annex the property and then develop it comprehensively So we do have a fee schedule the reason why the fees are not specified there is because your fee schedule has to be routinely reviewed Assessed against whether these fees are indeed applicable should there be decreased should they be increased and that Transparency measure is deliberately then identified in a separate ordinance And I think my last question with regard to that is so if they if they don't annex voluntarily And you're saying they have to do that within ten calendar days is is that a reasonable it that doesn't seem like very much time to me So I guess how did you come up with the ten days well Ten days is some other Ordinances that we have that refers to ten days We actually want to make sure we act quickly and so If it's the Commission's direction or recommendation We can obviously in increase that to a certain date But ten days is a typical that we use for return for any request Commissioner back. Thank you chair Going back to the comment that Commissioner Ellis guess will really production When would the city actually want to annex That kind of property and how would we benefit by annexing that kind of property? Let's try to explain earlier We do have some obviously EGJ on the east or I'm sorry the west side of the city and if there is a proposed gas well production site that is going to impact adjacent properties and we feel that It's going to create some impact as far as wastewater or any utilities and any potential Adverse impacts to adjacent properties. That's that's another reason why would we could go for and those that's just one criteria And that's one of the reasons why we would want to move forward with an annexation It's a potential impact to adjacent properties. So that would give the city some control over that property That's correct. I mean, of course the EGJ we we don't have any control as far as juice So that that would be one of the reasons why we would move forward with an annexation. Okay. Thanks On a guess we'll see would then collect taxes also then correct, right? If it's in the state and they are she following a different taxation Commissioner Ellis, thank you chair. I think this is this is just a typo and probably question for legal The last paragraph on the large paragraph which spells out what we're repealing It says whereas After noticed published it should that be notice published. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Sorry Thank you I Thank you Commissioner Ellis, thank you chair. I'm gonna ask one more question. Okay, just please give me The reason for for removing this from the PNZ platform the planning zone for the annexation One it's not required for the state law to bring it to the planning zone Commission The other is that we talked a little bit about it is to streamline the annexation to move forward So it goes straight to City Council And run I'm not too well versed in annexation But I think I remember that the local government code has a strict timeline For when the notices have to go and when the hearing at the public hearing at the City Council has to be held And I don't know that that accommodates the two The dual public hearing process so there may be why We're going in that direction too Right again, just to quickly for annexation There's two public hearings with City Council gives the opportunity for property owners and other individuals to come in and then following that there are two readings and they all have to fit in within a 45 Time period and so scheduling all those Could jeopardize meeting those those sets timeframes Okay, and on that same note then it is is the city staff doing All of the prelim work and determining that it needs to be annexed and then it's going to council for the public hearings Whereas now the procedure is do you get direction from council on annexation right before you determine something is annexed Well, yeah, we that's the other reason why we're bringing it forward to is there was no clear procedure So we would as we do the development review of these projects start to develop the you know Review the criteria develop some considerations and then bring it forward to City Council for their direction Yeah, and I guess just my concern lies with I just want to make sure we've got the right checks and balances sure in place for annex land because it can be a You know a contentious situation in some regard and I know at the City Council meeting yesterday when you were asking for direction on a couple of Parcels right that I mean you didn't have unanimous, you know Approval there with the way to go. So I'm trying to figure out if we're going to run into issues as a city If we're removing some checks and balances that way so that 's what I'm trying to wrap my head around okay And just as an aside and so that everyone is aware We've been annexing property since 2010 under a different procedure. And so that's why he said that it was it was expressly or not expressly repealed but It was implied that it was repealed. So we're just final izing that but we have not taken any of our annexation since 2010 through PNC It's gone straight to council So it's just matching what what it is that we're doing currently Okay Thank you Ron All right, and I see that you guys have cheated so I'm gonna bring hey lit up and we're gonna hold the Report and hold a discussion on the tree code We've learned when we get these stacks of paper. We better start Good afternoon commissioners Thank you again for allowing me the audience to actually bring this item before you with regards to revisions to The tree preservation and landscape requirements of the Denton Development Code So, you know objective here today is simply to Receive report hold discussion regarding adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas amending sub chapters 35.3 procedures sub chapter 35.13 site design standards and sub chapter 35 point 23 definitions in terms of the Denton Development Code as relates to tree preservation and landscaping requirements So just a little bit of background on this item. This was actually started out as direction from City Council back in the fall of 2014 staff was directed to update the existing tree code Since then staff has had numerous meetings with the City Council PNC and various stakeholders With regards to the update to this this part of the tree code of the code There have been multiple continuous postponements due to concerns about this item That resulted in meetings with various stakeholders including the Denton Developers Alliance Keep Denton Beautiful represents from UNT, TWU We also had a outreach to just the general citizens of Dent on Through a visual preference survey to gain the public's perception on trees in Denton We've also most recently received data from the state of Denton urban forestry forest report which Has been incorporated into the update Believe that's also an attachment into in your packet. This report was was completed just this past Fall and presented to City Council in December Just some of the quick findings of that report was that Denton has 30% tree canopy the value of the trees in Denton is estimated to be two point zero six billion dollars as billion with a B the environmental benefits Annually are estimated to be 69.8 million One of the other key things to this report was that it was revealed that 46% of Denton's tree canopy Is located on undeveloped land So 46% of that 30% is on properties that is subject to future development So Our objectives when we started out with this project was to streamline the code to make it more user-friendly align city standards with industry best management practices of the American National Standards Institute and the International Society of Abora culture and to provide a more robust code that will expand expand and protect tree canopy Consistent with the Denton plan 2030 and the city of Denton strategic plan goals So now I'm going to shift gears a little bit and I'm going to begin with the end in mind here This slide here basically represents what this tree code means what the results of this tree code means for preserving trees on undeveloped properties, so 70% of the trees The developer is able to remove without any mitigation whatsoever 70% off the top 10% of that existing canopy would have to be mitigated either through replanting of trees on site or payment into the city's tree fund and 20% of the canopy is what must which is the bare minimum that must be left on site Based on what we are proposing here today So just to go back to this this 10% here one of the the recommendations that we have in this code is to allow for trees that are planted for mitigation to count towards Required landscape trees. So any trees are required by the landscape provisions of the ordinance where the street trees parking lot trees Whatever trees are required the same trees that you mitigate By planning can can count for those trees also So what does this look like so Our goals for for mitigation is 30% So on a site that's up for development is 30% of the trees are preserved Requirements are met. There's no further Need for mitigation or any other payments with regard to tree preservation however, if 30% 30% goal cannot be met what we're proposing allows for dropping that 30% down to 20% preserved and 10% mitigated So how does that look as far as when we calculate our payment into a tree fund or a number of trees that are planning? That we have to plant so tree fund payment Would be based on the the number of square feet that you would be mitigated for times $2.84 and you may say where does that $2.84 come from? Well, I go back to the state of Denton urban forest report and the value that was given for the trees and Denton and the environmental benefits that are received from those trees So am I too far away? Okay So that that $2.84 basically represents the what the square foot of tree canopy costs and then based on the structural value of the trees and addition to 10 years of Environmental benefits that we're receiving from those trees that would be removed that is where the $2.84 comes to so if we are mitigating via planting We are recommending a one to six ratio I know at the previous meeting the ratio was one to four and else, you know some pushback and there was an item of concern mentioned by some of the Developers and some on the Commission here. Well after looking at the numbers and actually comparing that one to six To where we are now from with the current code and and what we're proposing Converting it, you know looking at canopy compared to diameter inch. I feel real confident and where that one to six Ratio lies and and I'll get to that in a minute. But if you 're calculating the number of trees, you're going to plant You would have your your square footage of canopy that you 're mitigating times six divided by 1256 the 1256 square feet that is the value that our code gives to the canopy of a of a mature large tree here in Denton So you plug your numbers in there and you would get your number of trees planted for the site So you may say how does this look with real numbers? So I have some real numbers in here So again all percentages here are based on the original Our existing total tree canopy on the site and for sake of this example and round us We're saying that the the total tree canopy is a hundred thousand square feet for this site So if 30% or 30,000 square feet is preserved you're done. Nothing else is needed or You can preserve as low as 20,000 square feet and mitigate for the 10,000 square feet so plug in those numbers into The formula you would multiply the 10,000 times 284 and your tree fund payment would be $28,400 Plug in that same number into your ratio for tree planting you would do the 10,000 times six divided by 1256 and your number of trees to plant for mitigation would be 48 trees and Again, keep in mind those 48 trees can also count towards the trees that you are required By the landscape code to plant on the site street trees parking lot trees other Landscape trees buffers what have you? So you may want to say I know and I know this came up at the last meeting was what does this look like on a real site, so we did a case study and This picture may look familiar. This was presented back in back in July So this is a before Development picture and an after development picture on this particular site This was a residential development the majority of the trees you see the cursor was preserved in this section here Which they actually did make it into a melody for the neighborhood. There's a little walking trail I think maybe a bench in there So it is something that's usable for the residents of this neighborhood and there were a few other trees That was saved on site and this picture doesn't show up if there's a couple others on the south side of the road That's also included in this development Yes Commissioner back. Thank you chair. So the trees were seen in the second picture There is the 30% that were allowed to remain no This is what was preserved under the existing code. Okay, and I'm going to get to that. Okay, okay Real quick, yes the 10% you were talking about I you know The fact that we let them actually clear out 70% of the trees bothers me But and maybe you're gonna address this later to that 10% rather than Removing them we could count those existing trees as part of their landscape requirement Is that correct or am I jumping the gun here? No any trees any any trees that are preserved on the site can also count towards the Landscape require trees on the site. So conceivably we could keep that 30% if we could get them to keep You know if they were thinking about you know knocking it down to 20% if we could get them to you know Keep that extra 10% and make it a total 30% and as part of their landscape page It's possible just kind of depends on you know, the site, you know specifics of the site and how it's laid out. Okay. Thanks Okay, so This is what this site looks like as far as what was Surveyed as canopy tree canopy on the site. So that light green Actually represents the canopy that was on that site prior to development So the total area of the site was you know, just over 25 acres The total tree canopy of this site was just over 11 acres So on this map here what is showing this is what was actually shown to be preserved For this development. This is what was approved with this particular development the Shaded SS kind of a yellowish color there That pretty much represents the canopy that was preserved so The area of that area of canopy that was preserved was Just under a half acre and it amounted to Just over two thousand square feet of canopy and that was code compliant under the current code So if we you know say well what does 20% look like under what we're proposing if they were mitigating also Well, the reddish pink area here that's showing What additional tree canopy could have possibly been preserved to meet the requirements under the proposed? revision to the tree code so The pink here and a lot of this is along the backs of the properties. This is what's representing What 20% would look like on this development? So that 20% would amount to two point two four acres just under 98 thousand square feet of preservation So when you're looking at if they were going to go full compliance how that would look like on the site the purple adds in What 30% would look like on this site and again that would increase the about three point three acres of trees And just under 150,000 square feet of canopy Hey, we just go back to that last slide to clarify they don 't have to actually preserve this the trees in that location it's pretty much up to the developer where the The stands would be preserved, but that's just an example of where they could preserve it correct correct Yeah, this is just you know an example. That was you know that made it Convenient for our GIS guy Cody he did an excellent job with these maps So we can show what was preserved what 20% looked like and what 30% looks like on this particular site Commissioner Tyler. Thank you chair. Yeah Could you go back one more slide or one though this one? No the one with the total canopy had indicated this one so in this one This isn't species specific is it no it's not and so Is it hackberry juniper? Locust boat arc Etc none of those would have counted either Is that correct well this would pick up all trees on the site right, but I'm saying so the new ordinance says you can you can ignore the species list right of right and if Say in this particular case if The developer was looking to Reduce his total number of canopy based on those species what I would require was would be for the preparer of this survey To provide an estimate of how much what the percentage of those trees were and then we would take a deduction accordingly and so in this case if if if this was like half You know hackberry and juniper and boat arc and so forth They could they would have to do a little more work on the survey you know go out and identify species mix or use like the four band satellite to pick up species by color and Then this all these calculations on the next page would all just be cut in half basically Yeah, depending on on the percentage of those exempt trees that is correct or another way I guess they could do it is they could go ahead and clear all unprotected species first and then Then only have to count the protected species that are remaining That would not be allowed they can't they can't remove hack berry not not on a site that's up for development Because the danger with that is that you get someone out there with the bulldozer or the chainsaw That's cutting trees and you know next thing you know they have trees that are covered under the ordinance that are on the ground and then you know they're dealing with You know the the Legal ramifications of that so okay, so so they can't they really they really absolutely can't clear unprotected species until until the surveys complete correct correct There is a you know allowance if if there's you know if they need to to actually use Chainsaws to cut through to actually make it through the site because some sites is so thick or to do other ground work You know top typo topo surveys and what-have-you they are allowed to do that But not to just go in and say let's cut down everything that doesn't count And I know I've seen that it might be later in the process where a develop a site Especially like when it's covered in privet or something like that at some point pretty early in the process They go in and they clear out all the privets so they can count the trees stuff like that so okay, so So that this even this example though doesn't include the potential for a lot of mixed canopy areas I mean there are some areas that are solid oak That's that's not very common. It's only kind of a few rid ges in South Denton and You know most neighborhoods and most areas especially in the north. There's a lot of mesquite a lot of hackberry You know mixed in cedar and some areas are a lot of boat arc and so in that case There's a pretty good chance that this you know half 50% canopy might only be 25% protected canopy could be yes, it's all site specific Thank you. You're welcome So Okay, so what I did was I did a comparison For that specific site and what their mitigation was under the current code and what it would look like under the proposed code so under the current code they preserve 618 diameter inches of trees which amounted to 4.2 percent of the of the canopy of the site Under the proposed code they would have to preserve a bare minimum of 20% of the canopy on the site The tree fund payment for this particular site was two hundred and two thousand dollars and some change Under the proposed code if they opted to pay into the tree fund their tree fund payment would be a hundred and thirty eight thousand eight hundred dollars If they were mitigating under the Current code they would have to plant eight hundred and nine trees in Addition to any required landscaping trees which for the neighborhoods are generally going to be your street trees Under the proposed code at that one to six ratio they would have to plant two hundred and thirty four trees to mitigate So the number of lots as the site was developed under the current code was a hundred and three lots The proposed code to get that 20% preservation they lose a lot and a half basically so counting it as a hundred and one lots So under the current code based on you know Looking at some of the aerials and knowing what they planted Just counting the street trees and at least one tree per lot They planted an estimated 236 trees So what that really amounts to above what Would be required under the proposed code would be an addition of 13 trees and that's with that one to six ratio which is very important because the 234 trees They're able to count towards their street trees the trees that they plant in the yards can also be a mitigation tree You know the goal is not to you know make it more difficult for developers You know my goal is you know a to make the 30% preservation if you can't make the 30% preservation Make at least a 20% and plant trees back on site Payment into the tree funds should really be the last option which means you know I can't put any additional trees on the site, and I didn't meet my preservation requirements But you know I see payment into the tree fund It is really a signal that you know we failed We failed to protect trees and we failed to put trees back on the site so for me that should always be the last option Question for you move on yes How did you do your calculation on the lot numbers they exactly the same size lots because if the 20% canopy on? 11 acres is going to be two and a half Versus I think it was less than a half you got two more acres that you're losing I basically counted the lots in the neighborhood The only ones if I'm thinking That I may have missed with there was like maybe three or four that was south of of the the main street there But I basically went on the number of lots that that was that without were developed as it sits in the field today That's that I'm just doing the math in my mind from the previous Versus 20% of the 11 acres is going to be roughly two and almost two and a half acres so you got two acres less of property put lots on and those lots are probably going to be three to four lots an acre, so I'm just Curious how it works out with less acreage to develop that you get almost the same lot count and the second part that Dollar analogy doesn't take into account the acreage. That 's now an undevelopable. That's not calculated in that those costs We're just talking about trees only we're not counting any of the other infrastructure Land purchase costs any of those types of things well I'm gonna pull this this slide back up because this may help to clarify what I did with looking at the 20% So on this side here. This is the two lots that were lost everything else remained As far as lots based on what is actually existing on the site this red color. That's your tree canopy so where this Tree camp is located is what would be in the back short backyards of these properties so along the west north The south side this is this this acreage that's counted for tree canopy isn't taking up acres that away from from Lots that were built with exception of the one and a half that I counted as two on this part of the property So that's where you know that acres is spread out so some of that is overlapping the lots In this example I'm just looking at the Site that you presented there were 11 acres and something of tree canopy if you've got to preserve 20% minimum the ideal is 30, but a minimum is 20 on that site. You've got to then preserve at least two Two and a quarter two and a half acres of yes, that's what I calculated I understand It works out good in this example that you're able to do that because there's trees on the outside edge in this example But if the trees are in the center of the property You don't get that overhang in that fringe benefit You're gonna end up with a spot in the center there of two and a quarter two and a half acres That has to be preserved and it's not going to be overhang or whatever it is like it is Nicely in this example where it's around the edge is that make my explaining what my Looking at this and comparing to just any other site because it's around the edge It benefits this site versus this in the center of the site . It's very different. It's it's all site specific I understand and and and what it depends on is is you know, because what we what we require doesn't dictate how you know The development is laid out whether it's residential commercial. So it's it's basically, you know Being creative to a certain extent with you know, how the the subdivision is laid out to achieve, you know those numbers Okay Commissioner Zell Thank you chair. I'm not sure Who would best answer this and my the chair might be able to provide insight to this Why did the developer take down the perimeter trees to begin with when that add value to the property? I'm I'm trying to Just understand in this situation Why any of those red trees? Apart from the ones taking up the two lots Were even taken down and I don't know if there's an answer to be had by that Because it just seems like it was unnecessary to begin with if that if it didn't impact the building of those homes to begin with Is there Jared do you know what would be? Pure speculation, but why they would take the perimeter trees down Pure speculation is that when you look at a site that's as tight for most? developments that are in the city of Denton by the time you meet all the grading criteria on the lots The swales where the water has to go to the side yards and from the backyards to the front It's very difficult just to say we're gonna not touch part of it on a deal like that By the time you cut the streets and grade the pads If it's a home warranty subdivision, they typically have exclusions that you can't have any trees within so many feet of houses I think it's at least 10 feet or they don't extend coverage So I can't I'm gonna speculate sir all those things go into what makes it really difficult and Kind of what's been my concern on the tree preservation Is it's very difficult to do because of the density on these sites? To save the trees that's what I was kind of thinking I was just looking at this and and it does seem that you're presenting a Solution that would be workable for this but in my mind I was saying there had to have been a reason Logistically why why it wouldn't have happened it maybe the presentation is is maybe better in theory In terms of ease and cost to the actual development and so I appreciate you. Let me Think through that sure and I can't speak specifically to this site I can say that I've had had the opportunity to work with a developer on a different residential site where initially they weren't meeting the current tree code requirements and and meeting with the engineer that was laying out the site and Their contractor that was actually doing the on-site grading We were able to preserve additional trees to where they didn't have to Mitigate through Payment into the tree fund and and and a large part it ended up similar to this where they were trees around the perimeter That ends up in the backyards But you know like the commission strange mentioned a lot of its real site specific how is existing You know the existing slopes and everything are on the land so it it's all You know very specific to the individual site Understood. Thank you. I'll take one additional Point as we move forward in the presentation and further discussion Is there going to be some kind of an adjustment in the development code that if you? Preserve these trees you get some kind of density transfer or it's that density Lost what how's that work? There's not a density transfer There is as mentioned earlier. There's credit that's given towards required landscape canopy So you do get you know credit for those trees? Towards what you're required to to have on your site So if you end up with a site that you've got ten acres of preservation as long as it's in in the zoning You can preserve that you just may have to make your lot smaller and tighter to get your same lot count That's goes beyond my expertise Okay, yeah, well, I'd be interested to hear how that gets factored in As this goes forward Commissioner has been signed there was a question somewhere . I apologize. Thank you. So before it's too late So first I want to own a comminute. Hey, we're on a few different things So I'm I'm a static that we've been talking Lot size right because that that means you've stepped out of your normal role and understanding This this citizen we're serving and and kind of hey, I'm reaching out. I don't understand it, but I'm trying to At least purport to your lingo and and take that in consideration I think that's great and I and I wish that would happen more often And I'm gonna say this just because I don't know for what a slot is But but I'm saying I'm a static that we've gotten this far and we hadn't talked about This other city's doing this that or the other, you know that it's homegrown and it's home developed and that is encouraging to me and then There's precious few things that I've dealt with in the city that Aren't looking for money, you know So that that too is a positive that you're trying to serve a community understand that community Understand the challenges that face that community and we 're not trying to you know Take their money and build a statue with it, you know, whatever so that's I'm just excited about all that And I think it's important to say before whatever else but I just think that's really a good thing to try to look into that world and then I Do For what it's worth I just think I don't know This this lays out pretty well to me, but I would ask that I'd asked I guess those have been on the panel a little longer on the Commission a little longer has a home developer ever come Do a work session do it because I mean I mean you rattle off I understand what a padside is I understand grading understand all that but if you gave me a blank piece of paper and said go beginning to end on a building Process I'd start at one with you start building and end it to you in building, you know So I think it's important that we have a developer of some sort I don't know if you've ever had it But I'd like to request that as a some sort of work session that a developer Maybe a commercial developer and a home developer two different times come just give us a give us a day in the life You know just say talk to us. What what do you do? What are you looking at? Well? Here's an example Here's how we get from a to B. Here's we have to consider. Here's the here's the bumps in the road I mean no different than any other presentation we get I think that's that's good insight Okay, I think I have maybe a couple of more slides here let me get back to where it was at so As a part of this process, you know, we solicited as I mentioned earlier input from the community via a Visual preference survey and These are some of the the main takeaways that that we got from that survey Was that the city should work to preserve and grow more trees that are well maintained Tree plantings should be Tree plantings should maintain clear line of sight and visibility of business addresses and signage nighttime pedestrian safety on sidewalks and parking lots should be a consideration with new plantings and Parking lots should be designed to provide shade But deter bird populations that nest in trees that last part you know, it's kind of a tricky one Yeah, so Yeah So at this time what I wanted to do was actually go through the proposed ordinance I put some handouts out there and what I'm going to do is just Hit the highlights of the areas that are significantly different from the previous the tree the previous code You have a red line version. Yes, I think I know we have food tonight Okay, would it now be a good time for us? Maybe take a five minute break get some food and we can just work on through till we run out of time Yes, good with that. I'm gonna call a recess at 545 and let 's try to get back in here at 550 and continue I Gonna call our planning is on the Commission work session back in order at 552 Okay, so what I like to do now is basically do a page turn through the proposed Tree code that that we are put in fourth and what I'm going to highlight is are the things that are the major changes from the existing tree code So everyone should have a handout in front of you and the one I'm going for miss the one that's the black and white copy here So One of the things that we did with this is we looked at our definition sections as you see on page two here to actually Revise some of these definitions to be more in sync with definitions by the International Society of Abora culture Felt it was very important to not just have definitions that you know that that we feel are Unique to Denton but to have definitions that would be Universal for those who are coming in and actually having to read our code and look at the language in the code So just had you know, let's say just a few of those definitions some that Were changed the definition in here for public utilities We moved it out and are going to use the the definition in the code that's used elsewhere for basic utility The definition for qualified professional we removed that Requirement out for a qualified professional and just stated an ISA certified obris The reason being we went to the ISA certified obris was again as an international certification And it's something that I can verify Through their website if the person's credentials are valid Under the current code is really no way for me to validate Someone's credentials when they sent when they send in true preservation code short of you know Requiring them to send in a copy of their degree So Moving down Get into section a of the code we have That this mic seems to be turned down low Okay, so What we decide to do is for some of the definitions that are specific to the tree code Was we put those in at the beginning of this particular sub section? To make it you know a little more user-friendly For someone that's going through the code and you know they come across the definitions and they want to look at you know What that definition means so we added in? You know definition for cross-timbers forest here developer exempt trees Yes, why do we have developer instead of property owner? Commonplace most of the time whenever you know someone comes to the city is you know the developer that's representing the property owner that we deal with Through the development process in some instances. We may not even see the property owner Of who is being represented by the developer well Because I think it states that you know whether it's a representative or not in the code I guess my concern about this is that it somewhat misleads the public Because this tree code now doesn't just apply to property being developed it now applies to every piece of property in the city that Whether it's a single-family existing lot, so if somebody wants to put swimming pool in Make an addition to their home, and they've got to cut down two or three Protected trees 18 inch trees they will now have to follow this they'll have to pay Whatever four or five thousand dollars a tree for each one of those That's not totally accurate Straighten out me out where I'm not correct under the existing code And it's a little bit. You know confusing because they state that there's an exempt them for single-family and Duplex properties, but if you go under the permitting section It says that those same properties are required to have a permit to remove five or more trees So they had a partial exemption under the current code But not a full exemption in order right yeah and Second if it's five or more under the current code, but it doesn't specify You know five trees today five trees this week five trees You know a year. It just says five trees is very Very gray area you know when trying to actually enforce That particular section of the code as far as you're right every property would be under this existing tree code Requiring a property owner to receive to get a permit to remove a tree that's large than five inches Does a couple of things? It gives me or you know the city a chance to actually you know Work with the property owner on what they're doing in the case if they're building a swimming pool You know that request is going to come in with their you know excavation permit to actually put that pool in they will now Even under the existing code that request would come in it was five or less if it was five or less Inevitably the the question would come up about trees But what I was getting to is it gives me the chance to talk with the homeowner in some cases and I had a Request from one of our senior residents here in town where she was Was was told that the tree in her backyard need to be cut down that you know it had some issues you know about the Tree guy that she had look at it well I went out to the site and I looked up looked at the tree inspected the tree for and I didn't see any Justification to cut that tree down So by requiring a permit in some cases as this you know it gives that homeowner a little bit extra protection some Unbiased eyes to look at this tree not just the guy that wants to remove the tree and make you know A thousand bucks fifteen hundred bucks or whatever they're charging in other instances You know I had a local Commercial site you know the owners of the building came in and they wanted to remove the tree So I said well Let me come out to the site and look at the tree see exactly what you're talking about and their concern was mainly To do with visibility they had a new tenant coming in they want to make sure the sign was visible So I met with them on the site and they had you know it's two nice live oak trees And you know I pointed out to him. I was like really you can You can prune off you know these branches and accomplish the same thing without the added expense of actually removing the tree so it's really You know twofold is this you know to to have a chance to interact with the public and educate them on on their trees But and also to give them you know a second opinion that they may have received from You know a tree service that you know just like to come in and cut down their tree When the tree really doesn't need to be removed I don't have a problem with either of those examples, and that's not really what my point is my point is that we define Anybody as a developer versus as a property owner so when you read it it almost makes it seem like it's these guys over here We're not really land developers So this kind of doesn't apply and really it does apply because anybody that owns property in the city of Denton if you want to cut Down any tree in the city of Denton whether it's on a single family Larry which I know wouldn't want to cut down a tree larger than five inches on this property This applies to him he has to come in and get a permit If it's larger, and it's one of these larger trees, and he has to pay into the tree fund to do that So it applies to every citizen that lives in our city Not just a guy that's going out and doing 25 acres worth of land development Correct this new code correct, and that's why I don't think developer is a correct term to put versus citizen Property owner because it's going to apply to everybody Most most people are not going to consider themselves to be a developer and that's why we actually include the definition because Even though even with the mom and pop develop property owner when they enter When they start submitting those applications they do in fact become a developer and that doesn't change so they They do assume their role, and that's why we wanted to make it clear in the ordinance Well, I may be the only lone wolf here that has a problem with with it saying developer because I think it's misleading to the general public Because most people are not going to consider themselves to be developer when they read this they think All the way through here it refers to developer they have to come back and read what the city's definition is Versus that they are a private individual and if they want to cut down a tree on their property greater than five this applies to them not Developer I don't think anybody in a neighborhood that lives there when they read developer thinks well that applies to me Commissioner Taylor, thank you chair. I was wondering I feel like The word developer is not a common noun used in development code would something like applicants Or property owner, and then you can define property owners property owner or their agent What be more kind of in line with what most of the development code it says? Note that as a recommendation as we move forward with the ordinance Okay So moving on just gonna just briefly go through some of the additional definitions We added another definition for the International Society of Bar Culture ISA in specific relation to the requirement for an ISA certified arborist to prepare or sign off on tree preservation and tree mitigation plans with this proposed revision Actually We had in here and this should have been taken out the definition for landscape architect was in there specific to when we had qualified professionals, but that it actually should Not be in there We added in general definitions for pruning the structural value of urban of Urban forests or the urban forest structural value We had in the definition for tree oddly enough. There was not a definition for a tree in the current code We added in tree canopy tree preservation plan tree protection zone tree survey urban forestry and urban forester Okay moving on to the next page page five here The purpose and intent for the most part Stayed the same. It was reworked a little bit from the current Code the addition of adding in the expansion of tree canopy Towards one of the goals of the regulation was added Under the objectives again a lot of this was in the existing code We reworked some of the language to include in line B Through the preservation and mitigation of planting of trees We added in to promote the preservation of the remnants of of the cross timbers forests and We added in to preserve the public health and safety and general welfare of the citizens Okay, so under the applicability section which this section was worked out was reworked a lot up until today Commissioner Taylor, yes under applicability a IID yes, just just a nitpick on the word It's it's like it's about a triple negative and I think it actually excludes something. It's not supposed to exclude Governmental property that is located within the city limits unless the property is as follows Public utilities and infrastructure constructed during new development, but not reconstruction Must comply with street tree requirements only Reconstruction isn't mentioned so and it's not in the exclusion list. So that seems like reconstruction then would not be excluded I Think the goal is to exclude reconstruction altogether and new construction has to meet the street trees only All right, just a just a nitpick on the wording Not reconstruction for the public infrastructure Yes, so maybe split that into two like to say public Utilities as part of reconstruction fully excluded public utilities for new construction shall comply with street tree requirements only something like that Okay, I have a question under Building yes under a one. What is what what is the definitive part of what defines development? Is it making an application is it out there moving dirt? What what is the trigger that defines? one year or more prior to development Development is the filing of an application that's required by the government body in order to pursue So it's actual paper Filing rather than work. Okay Thank you Okay, so this section was basically reworked to Put everything under under the ability instead of having the applicability section and then a separate exemptions section So there were many things under the exemption section that you know really Could be handled by administrative decision, you know a tree farm does not need To as you know, the code does not apply to a tree farm The code does not apply to a dead tree or a tree that's hazardous You know those you know basic situation that if someone came in and you know, I say no, you know, it's dead cut it down No, you don't need to count dead trees In your survey or hazardous trees or disease trees So things like that and it balled back down to Dylan, you know mainly with the applicability to Government owned or city owned properties And what have you So on the next page here Preservation requirements and incentives Again this is totally brand new section here letter I through IV And this basically still spills out the 30% preservation requirements based on square footage of pre-development canopy It's calling out a minimum of of 20% preservation on new agricultural Development or activities on to a site and that's that covers a site that's currently not in agriculture But they come to the city and they want to do you know, say a vineyard or an aquaponics or greenhouses Set up that's what that provision Goes for that that type of agricultural development the next section III or three here Deals with property that is switching from agricultural Use to you know a subdivision or commercial development. Sorry Commissioner Sullivan Since Chairman strange brought this up. I'm looking at this in a different light. So under four preservation requirements If I substitute the word developer to homeowner Our homeowners going to be required to get the Whatever that designation is arborist I SA certified arborist to come out to To make a survey and to do all these things if it again somebody used the example putting in a pool They have to hire this arborist certified arborist to come out and look at the canopy and do all this work and And all this stuff to determine whether or not They're going to maintain that 30% Canopy to put in a pool. No for a residential homeowner putting in a pool or adding on to a Patio or deck and they you know have to take out a tree. They wouldn't be required to submit, you know a full survey for that type of You know addition to their property and That's typically handled when the Whole subdivision is developed up front. So that's something that's already taken care of before they actually purchased a lot Does that make sense? Yes, but I'm just saying that if again if the if the definition is the property owner That's the homeowner and after they bought the house ten years ago trees of all Have done what they're going to do and now I decided I want to put in the pool And I've got to now have somebody come out to tell me how much canopy I have and how much how many trees I can or Can I take down? Section four though says prior to develop mission was oh, thank you It says prior to the development of a lot. So in your situation, Commissioner Sullivan, the lots already been developed. So before wouldn't be applicable to someone who already owns a constructed home putting in a pool. I have to make an application for a permit Rather than the tree survey and preservation plan Would they wouldn't have to do that? Specific for I don't know what other permits they need but a tree survey and tree preservation plan wouldn't be needed As far as the wording is if you look at the last sentence, I think it's it answers your question Gosh I said several questions. I don't mean to take the floor. No, that's okay I'm just trying to figure out you know If just a regular kind of guy goes out and says hey, I want to put in a pool and Now I've got to do all this, you know jump through all these other hoops I'm just trying to decide if if the if the word developer means what it means throughout this whole thing or if possibly property owner Should be designated whenever it is already an established home and it's in addition to something You know just for the very reason that you know some homeowners gonna say I'm not a developer. Well, maybe is maybe is it? I don't know. Yeah, and you know the intent of this is not to you know, put any undue burden on to someone You know an existing, you know property owner You know as far as you know proving up their trees on their site That's not the intent of this Generally when we speak of you know developer or development we're talking either a site that's being you know That's you know brand new that is you know coming online or a site That's you know, it may be an old site and it's being rede veloped You know, you're raising the site and you're starting from scratch again. That's you know, the Generally what what the intent is when we state developer here is not to mean You know you as a homeowner that wants to put in a pool or a pack of your deck So so just a basic homeowner That need to worry about it As far as that goes. Yeah, I mean, of course, you know There's a requirement in for a permit and even you know a permit for a homeowner Like says really more so to have that that added point of contact There won't be it'll be really be a Non fee permit just to show okay, you know, they are, you know approved to do this Every now that I get calls from people, you know, this person's cutting down trees in their yard Are they okay to do that? I mean this allows that person to have a permit for their you know professional that's doing or whether they're doing say no see I'm okay, you know to do this the same as if they were you know Installing the fence and they you know require a permit for that or an irrigation system requires a permit There will be something along that line, but without the field hashed If I could interject he would so that everybody is clear on page 10 at the top Where it talks about the tree protection plan is where it would have said the ISA certified arborist And you still have qualified tree professional in there. Yeah, I saw that after it went to print that it still said qualified true Since that's the place where it is. It's gonna be anywhere that requires a tree protection plan. You would have to hire That professional so that would be excluding any kind of existing development for single family Yeah, there's there's two sections that was I saw that after I had already sent well, I had a clarification where it says building permit application We have a universal permit that you will Submit that's going to be a building permit. So then it does apply to Existing single-family homes if you want to do an addition or do a swimming pool am I correct about that or incorrect? I Think originally it says you still have universal permits for building. Okay, because we don't have them for regular projects. Okay So then it then it does apply So the Commissioner Sullivan's point if you want to do a swimming pool and you're gonna fill out a building permit application Which you have to do currently the universal then you have to do a tree protection plan for an individual homeowner Is that am I not reading this correctly originally? It said if required on the tree protection plan Yeah, I don't know how that came out Yeah, I have to go back and read through that but I'm letting finish and then Yeah, but you know like again, you know, that's not the intent. You know when those permits come through You know building permit could be you know, the property's already Been planted and you know, it's just being developed and they go straight to building permit That actually excludes single-family dwellings from the protection plan And what is the other one the tree survey? Yeah, we can add an affirmative provision that does that so there's no question I think that's good I think the other part of it is that people need to understand that this applies to them on the individual If you want to cut down a five inch tree or larger This this applies it doesn't apply now if you're taking out five trees or less But it will apply now if you're taking out tree five inches Or greater. I mean that's pretty small Commissioner Tiller Thank you for waiting. Thank you chair just to just Continue on in this vein. I wonder if so 4a 5 Has comments about site plans and plotting and then page 10 also talks about plotting if and and it does require the the minimum tree canopy preservation to be added to the plat for each lot Yeah, so so I wonder if it might be good to split this into Kind of pre plotting and then on a plotted residential lot Kind of have simpler Simpler rules. So so if you're so if the homeowner on a plotted residential lot that already has a house on it Then they don't have to have you know, a qualified tree survey and all this kind of stuff They sought to have a you know, the tree removal permit or whatever but if you're developing if you're if you're plotting a Subdivision or plotting a commercial lot or something like that then have the requirements there that might be a way to split it excluding single-family residences do pre plotting versus an existing plotted lot I Think that's good Commissioner Taylor it kind of dovetails. I was preparing today to talk about the urban forest report And I don't want to get off the topic and I want to come back to this because when you read the report The vast majority of the trees that we have in the city of Denton are on single-family lots Existing 46% is located on undeveloped property the other pretty high 54% would be you know other properties and single families I think by percentage wise They may have a higher Percentage of canopy that is correct So anyway, I don't want to get off though. I do want to spend some time talking about that. We may not get to it This evening because when you read the report That's when a lot of these things really begin to make sense this stuff if we're truly trying to preserve trees Where are the trees what type of property on are they on? And what is the canopy coverage not only currently in the city but also in the ETG? And where is the tree canopy actually coming from and most of it's coming from? Single family homes outside of undeveloped property its single family homes. So that's why I think it's important We need to figure out and everybody needs to understand how this is actually going to apply to Single family homeowners in the city of Denton going forward because it's gonna be very different than what people are accustomed to today I think we still need to clarify that that like Commissioner Taylor was into in his comment that there's a there's a difference between a single-family developed lot that you purchase from a developer and then one that's being The a single-family subdivision that's being developed and I think we can make that clearer in the code that would help but the intent is though that The city this ordinance applies to the city as a whole including homeowners developers in the lake so we can make those we can clear up the discrepancies with the definitions but we would like we wanted the intent of tonight was to go through the ordinance so that you can see What we have changed what we are proposing to be able to make a better decision our hope is to Show you what the work that we've done so that we can continue to move this project forward Because this has been a request from the City Council has been and out seeing an item for us for about three years now and so we would like to Move this forward to tonight and then the next meeting what we would like to have from you guys are Recommendations on the ordinance that has been prepared Any changes that you would like to forward on to the City Council to be incorporated or to be considered? That's what we are hoping to get from you tonight and then at the next meeting Commissioner back Commissioner has been yeah, I'll be brief I Think we're getting a little bogged down in naming be it applicant be it developer be it because okay So I don't turn in the application so it doesn't apply to me right it does You're required to turn an application and the fact that you don't call yourself an applicant because you subvert the process Doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you. So I mean do we boil it down and just put human in there I mean, you know me there takes a little bit of just hey, you know the rules and if you're trying to subvert the rules You're gonna subvert them And just hey everybody that's breathing oxygen fill out a form, you know, I mean it could get really really Boiled down and I don't think that's that's that's necessary If you define what it is, maybe highlight it whatever it is But I mean, I think again you you you give me any title and I can give you the opposite of why it doesn't apply to me In my little mind, right? I mean, so I just think You you have to take it on its merits take the individual on their merits if you're if it's called a developer Maybe you're developing something if you're applicant, maybe you're applying for something Whatever the terminology, but I mean if we've we've Taken about Ten minutes on something that that's not ironclad. I mean, you're not gonna get it I mean you can't lock it down enough to where someone can't use their imagination and subvert it So I just it's a lot of time. We're on page six And and we're talking about a title that's not gonna stick Well, I'm gonna make a comment on that Okay I'm gonna say that I bet you most people sitting this commission they read it and it says developer move right on to developing property and not that it actually applies to single-family individual homeowners and that if you're gonna cut down a tree on it this Applies to you too versus a guy that's out doing 25 acres and I think it is a substantial difference To make sure that everybody understands that this is a very significant change from what our current tree code is very significant and it applies to everybody now not just developers Everyone in the city and then wants to cut down a tree five inches greater has to get a permit And if it's a larger tree you will mitigate it and you will pay for it And I bet most property owners in the city of Denton if you ask them that are not going to understand it And they're probably aren't gonna be happy that they have to pay three or four thousand dollars to go cut down two or three big Post oak trees if they want to put a pool and put a garage or build a house in the back for mom to take care of I deal with that on a pretty frequent basis That's a significant change that most people don't deal with today I don't I don't disagree but I also heard them say several times It's one it's a draft and two that that's not the intent of it that they're gonna go back and fix it and then third There's a there's a whole legal aspect that I'm sure Jennifer could take a whole entire work session Let's talk about the difference between property owners of individual home in the laws that are supported there Versus a developer and the laws to support that developer and then the potential homeowner that hadn't bought the home yet in their law I mean there's a I mean again. It's just a rabbit hole, but I think They they've said a few different times that hey that those examples of the pool does not apply On the on its merits now, there's there's areas where it does and they can iron that out. But again, I Your point may be valid, but I don't I just don't I Don't know that it's worth the of the 40 minutes we had to discuss this. I don't know if it require a quarter of it If I could just chime in here so I can put this to bed. I Don't have a problem with changing developer to property owner and defining property owner as the owner of the property or a representative of the owner of the property including someone doing development Because the enforcement provisions are for any person. It's not exactly to a developer. So You know somebody might come on someone's property and we 're illegally removed trees and they're also going to be subject to enforcement So I think that that would be an okay change provided. Hey, what is is okay with that? But from a legal standpoint, I think that would be fine. Yeah, I don't I don't have a Commissioner Roselle, thank you chair. I know Commissioner Beck was speak I've been waiting since Commissioner Sullivan asked a question on a pool 20 minutes ago and then added to the four that Mr. Hutz was wanted to continue with so let me say I have to statement and a question First statement there's no reason not to clarify it to include Citizen because I'm right there with with chair I read developer. I'm like, I'm not developer move on there's no reason not to make an easy change to clarify because I didn't read the definitions when I was going through this and if they citizen was referred to they said you need to go to for a Four this applies to you citizens. You'd be like a developer must that's not me. So it's a no-brainer change it Thank you for the clarification Jennifer I do have a question though for a three it says aerial images are from the last 24 months Correct. Is there any requirements like not to take that in winter? Like how does that work out in terms of looking at a canopy ? It would have to be leaf on Aerials not you know when the trees are defoliated. Is that an assumption or should that be more codified? I Can add that in there? That's all I got thank you all Commissioner Sullivan just to be perfectly clear So if somebody bought a house ten years ago, and they want to do something they're not going to be this is not going to be a restriction No, I have a problem saying okay. I bought this lot. It's a wooded lot I love trees and now five years six years later I want to make a change and all of a sudden the law has changed since I bought the lot and I've got to spend all this extra money to do things that Wasn't applicable back when I bought the lot to begin with otherwise I might have bought a bald lot and planted my own trees correct and and that is correct That's not the intent and let me go back to something that was mentioned as far as a single-family Exceed oh yeah, where does it say it's not if that's not the intent Again, we're going back to the definition. I'm just it's it 's gone It's this somatics with you know who's considered a developer and we can include that renovation into the ordinance so if you if what I'm hearing is that you would like to see that reflected in the ordinance Will reflect it in the ordinance correct, okay? Thank you. Yeah and Just a point of clarification before I lose this If a single-family property owner, you know as we're moving a tree You know obviously it's not an intent to charge them a permit fee or to have them to go through a tree You know survey and what have you and we're going to you know Make the appropriate adjustments to clarify that but if that person comes in to build that their their pool And they have you know a tennis tree or 15 inch tree They get the permit to remove the tree for the improvement they're trying to make to their property Which is more an improvement not really a new development, but when you look at the mitigation section It calls out mitigation and the cases Dealing with the pre development canopy not you know in a situation where you're you know Basically enhancing what's already there So there isn't a requirement for a single-family property owner That's you know has to take out a tree to put in their deck or patio to mitigate for that tree There's not there's not that requirement under the mitigation section of what we're proposing Okay, we'll get it fixed Commissioner back Thank You chair just real quick there was something I wanted to address here I discussed with Shandrin Hey with her, but are we carrying this conversation into the public hearing or is this it for tonight? Tonight is just discussion on the 22nd. We'll do another workshop, and then we'll do a public hearing okay But I wanted to make a comment about dealing with who's authorized to approve variances as we discuss that should I mention that here so it's connected to a Recommendation yes, okay, so the recommendation is that? the authority to allow variances stay with the City Council as opposed to going to the ZBA or even our good friend Haywood here You have a specific provision you're referencing. Thank you referring to number 7c specifically the appeal that's the section that Previously it was actually another part of the code that we pulled into the tree code But that was a part that went from City Council to the ZBA The administrative modifications is something that was added in to what we're proposing to allow for me to Have some flexibility to work with developers on you know sites That you know may be difficult based on site constraints to meet the letter of of the code I trust they would complete completely, but it's just there 's there's other So all I'm suggesting is that we don't remove this automatically that it gets discussed further, okay? And we'll make that as a recommendation to City Council because they may not want to have those projects come to them right okay Thank you Okay, so We're I don't know how much time we have for this work session with the regular I don't know how many people we have in there and somebody wants to tell us we want to just Go ahead and close In the meantime Commissioner Tyler would it be possible to get okay the draft electronically? ahead of time because I was gonna say we'll go ahead and send out another draft and then if you have any comments just send them to Shandrian or Haywood directly and they can take that into account when we meet the next time We'll have some sort of workable solution for you I Would ask that whatever comments that we get the final draft Ahead of time so we have all time to review another stakeholders that are here that want to view it It's really hard at least for me To get something the day of the meeting and then vote on it the same day when there's a lot of questions and so I Thank you With that at 633 I'm going to close our work session, and we'll reconvene as quickly as we can in council chambers Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning a zoning Commission meeting for February the 8th This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and I'm gonna call our meeting to order at 642 our first order of business will be to stand and give the pledge the US and the Texas flag I Next item on our agenda this evening will be to consider approval of the planning and zoning Commission meeting minutes of our last meeting Chair would entertain a motion for January 25th 2017 minutes Commissioner Ellis, thank you chair. I will move to approve minutes from January 25th Commissioner Sullivan We have a first and a second for approval Commissioner Beck Okay, be abstain okay any other discussion Seeing none will call for a vote on the board Motion carries 6-0 with one recuse That will move us to our consent agenda Commissioner back I move we approve consent agenda Commissioner Zell Second we have a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda any discussion Seeing none I will call for a vote on the board Motion carries 7-0. I will move us to our items for an individual consideration Our first item will be item a consider an act on creation of a subcommittee of the planning and zoning Commission for the DDC amendment project Commissioner Taylor I Move we form a subcommittee of the planning and zoning Commission for the purpose of the Denton Development Code amendment project Commissioner Ellis, thank you chair. I will second that okay. We have a first and a second to form the subcommittee any discussion Seeing none we'll call for a vote on board Motion carries 7-0 I'm gonna move for consider nominations to this newly created subcommittee and Just as a point of order how many members will we ultimately be appointing to this Commission three, okay Commissioner Taylor, thank you chair. I would like to nom inate Commissioner Ellis for this committee Okay Commissioner back Thank you, I would like to nominate Commissioner Hudson for this committee It's a point of order should we take these as individuals or do them all at the same time? I think if we can get a consensus and discussion that we can do it as one motion Okay We have one more member to a point I'll make a motion to appoint Commissioner Roselle Commissioner husband so I Don't think I'm a good fit because I'm Have future aspirations, so I'm going to but I would suggest Another member if that's if sure I do that absolutely if you'd like to withdraw so yes, so Commissioner Taylor big good fit. I believe if time allows I Was going to ask that How long is this subcommittee supposed to be working for? May of 2018 I'm sorry, I respectfully decline because of my short remaining time on the Commission. Thank you Commissioner Ellis, I would like to nominate Commissioner Beck under Under advisement of legal legal is going to recommend that we do these as individuals So we have currently three nominees so we'll be taking these Individually and if we need to do by chance another one then we will Next okay, so currently I have nominations now for Commissioner Ellis Commissioner Roselle and Commissioner back So if we would look for I guess a motion for Commissioner Ellis to begin Commissioner Zell I motion that Commissioner Ellis be nominated and placed on the didn't development code amendment project, okay Commissioner back Okay, I second that motion Okay, we have a first and a second for nomination of Commissioner Ellis any discussion Okay, sir Just make sure you're okay to serve Okay to serve thank you okay all right any further discussion Seeing none we will call for a vote on board Motion carries seven to zero Chair is going to motion for nomination of Commissioner Roselle to this subcommittee Commissioner Ellis I will second that okay We have a first and a second any discussion Seeing none we'll call for a vote on the board I Motion carries seven to zero Commissioner Ellis I will motion to approve Larry back as a Appointment to the planning and zoning Commission sub committee for the denton development code amendment project, okay Commissioner Sullivan I second okay, we have a first and a second for Commissioner back any discussion I Think now we will call for a vote on board Motion carries seven zero Congratulations Commissioner Ellis Commissioner Roselle and Commissioner back on your appointments. Thank you That will move us to our public hearing section this evening At this time I'm going to open the public hearing for item a fr 16 - 0003 and call on Julie white for presentation Julie Wyatt senior planner at the city of Denton and I'm presenting to you a Replat of a piece of property. It's fr 16 3 is a replat in order to abandon a public alley And I'll stand for any questions Any questions for staff Thank You Julie This is a public hearing so anyone who would like to come forward and speak on this item at this time, please do so I Seeing no one we will close the public here on this item and open the floor for motion or discussion Commissioner back Thank you chair. I move we approve the for 16 - 0003 Commissioner Solomon I second that motion. Okay, I have a first and a second for approval any discussion Seeing no we'll call for a vote on board Motion carries seven zero Move us to item B public hearings. I'm going to open the public hearing for z16 - 0018 a and call on Julie white for presentation All right, good evening Would you like to go through the full presentation or the summary full Okay, all right Okay, so this is a this request is z 16 18 blue beacon truck wash The location of the request is adjacent to I 35 and north of Barthol road It's in the north part of the city just to let you know There's approximately 637 feet of frontage of along I 35 on this property So the request concerning this location is to consider a rezoning on approximately 5.3 acres from regional center residential one to employment center commercial district So the the the area is is currently undeveloped the site is currently undeveloped and it is will go Over what's surrounding it with the character of the area. So if you will look Just to the west of it. You have a property that doesn't have any it doesn't have a color on it That's because it's in our extraterritorial jurisdiction. It's outside of the city limits And it is undeveloped You also have property to the north here the hatch mark that has a zoning designation of RD 5x That's rural residential minimum 5 acres That's and that's actually kind of a place holding zoning for when property is recently annexed and that Much of that property is undeveloped just to the north of the property has that RCR one zoning designation is undeveloped to the south there is Existing ECC district and that property is currently being redeveloped with a commercial use with a travel center use There's also some RCC in adjacent to that RCC in across I 35 and then RCC D across 35 south of Elm that is developed with the Travel Center with a commercial use And the applicant is proposing to rezone the property to E CC district The property is located in a future land use designation of business innovation Business innovation is intended for employment uses for office research and development light manufacturing As well as large office parks and also the supporting retail uses associated with that commercial uses hotels shops restaurants and some residential So considerations that we looked at when we analyzed this request were First the the criteria for approval there in the Denton Development Code and that's section 35 3 4 B the first criteria for approval is does it meet the The future land use designation in this case as I said, it 's business innovation ECC district has quite a variety of Commercial uses within it and it also folds in some of those employment uses light manufacturing Warehouse so it's kind of got both of both of those elements and so ECC district does meet the intent of the business innovation future land use designation And then the second criteria for approval is is there adequate provision of public infrastructure and and the answer that is yes There may be additional requirements at platting And we also looked at the character of the area When when we look in this in this part of the city of Dent on we anticipate the growth to To kind of radiate out from that from that I 35 corridor with the commercial development Centering along that corridor it takes advantage of the visibility the access the the traffic that goes by it So we anticipate that the the commercial part of the E of the business innovation would would go more toward The 35 corridor within it transitioning to those employment uses as you go further west in those larger tracks the ECC the ECC Permitted uses are consistent with this Anticipated development pattern and then it does have the variety of commercial uses and it has and it permits them in a scale That is consistent with the type of development you see in that kind of corridor But a bit once again, it also does fold in some of those employment uses as well The current zoning of RC r1 is the commercial zoning district it does permit commercial uses, but it limits those Commercial uses in square footage and also in building envelopes So it's it's not exactly typical what the typical development pattern that you would see Or typical development scale that you would see on this type of highway corridor By rezoning to ECC district we would expand those permitted commercial uses and also enlarge that building envelope So that development could build to the scale that you typically see in this area and then ECC district The proposed ECC district is a logical continuation of that existing ECC to the south Public notification was sent out and we have not received any responses Based upon the criteria for approval staff recommend or criteria for approval staff does recommend approval I did want to add one other thing we discussed in work session I know it was brought up by Commissioner Roselle the use and and and although We we know what the proposed use is staff When we when staff looks at a rezoning case we have to look at That zoning district that proposed district in a more comprehensive fashion Of course, you could you will vote to recommend and you could look look at other factors You know the that use factor as well So I just wanted to point that out that although that wasn 't a part of our analysis that it You could factor that in your recommendation. So I'll stand for any questions and the applicant is here. Do you have some questions? Commissioner Taylor? Thank You chair, so What use category is the expected development Going to be it would be a drive-through use a drive-through use. Okay So I was wondering like drive-through or quick vehicle serv icing or what what exactly it fell under it The definition of the drive-through use actually includes car washes. So I Was kind of looking at it both ways to use a quick vehicle serving but drive-through but but in the definition it actually has the the Car wash so would it be possible to bring back up the zoning map? so business innovation Has has been challenging for for this commission for a while and we have a similar area just actually straight down I 35 another mile or so where we There are great plans and we are just one parcel at a time rezoning as we go So I don't necessarily I don't feel that this is inappropriate here the ECC I Especially with the ECC immediately bordering it. I think it kind of makes them more cohesive the zoning than to have Ten acres there one five acres here or something else however, I do I do think that we're tending to put to re zone our business innovation district to EC employment center which tends toward lighter heavy industrial and I from what I can gather the purpose of our business in innovation district is really to be more office and We don't have an obvious straight office park zoning category. You can build an office in ECC You can also build an office in our like RCC that can also become more retail focused and I and I wonder if in the future as we build out our business innovation district basically from Here south if it wouldn't be better to aim for RCC D or RCC N so then you would have Retail and the ability to build smaller large office parks, but you wouldn't have industrial uses There's a really good point and we've kicked around a lot because business innovation. We don't have maybe a natural We've kind of looked at internally that the EC And ECI are probably the most natural fit fit for business innovation But yes, I could make an argument for the RCC D as well because it has a lot of those Comparable uses so just as a reminder we need to stick to the agenda item So we're going a little bit outside that well And I'm trying to I'm trying to apply this make sure that this zoning is consistent with our future land use map So as we look at the future land use map and the future land use that this parcels in that's why I'm talking about this now because I think this This is on the edge and We have to look holistically at the area around it So that's that's that's why I'm bringing this argument up now is if we continue to zone business innovation EC anything it will tend toward the heavier use the more industrial uses and that will be less appealing for the the office park uses and the retail uses So if we if we tend to make business innovation RCC D then the most Intense use that they could build would be an office park. Thank you Commissioner Mack thank you chair just quick question Julie that for clarification purposes again that frontage Slash service road that this is going to be sitting that's two-way traffic right there, right? The frontage no that is one way heading so access road goes south one way Yes, okay, somebody coming underneath I-35 could not make a right there. Well here They are as part as part of the development in this area Bartle Road will be realigned North El so that there will be an east-west connection Because you're right right now. It's sort of dead ends and there's this little little cut through Here, but that that will be changed Thank you sure Commissioner Sullivan Similar question I just want to chime in and address Commission Taylor's comment one of the things that hopefully this subcommittee the new subcommittee created will be looking into As part of the DDC amendment is to look at the zoning districts and in the uses with with regards to business innovation as Julie mentioned there is really not a natural fit obviously ECI or ECC is the closest but we certainly are going to be looking hopefully at creating or amending the EC to be more Towards what the business innovation is calling for in the data plan 2030 Commissioner so Commissioner else thank you chair To Commissioner Beck's comment about the the extension this L meeting Bart hold is it that's a text-dot deal Yes, do we have any kind of timeline on that? I don't I don 't have a timeline on that and oh Earl's here. I'll call Earl Escobar The realignment of Bart hold road with with Elm Street or 77 across the street It's actually going to be done as part of the love Chuck stock development to the south I believe PNC approved that plot A couple sessions ago, so they're going through the contract process right now Followed by a pre-construction meeting then they'll commence construction Commissioner Ashworth Thank you So I Started to think listening to Commissioner Roselle's points and Starting the shift, but then I My question I guess is not necessary for staff, but I'd love to see what you think Commissioner Taylor on be familiar 114 just by by proxy just you can see 114 35w area So you have that truck that I would is that that's behind a quick trip There's like the little truck thing there, but then they have the apartments around it. You have some other corporate environments You have the farmers coffee there. That's kind of the environment. I'm Starting to see take place here, and so I'm just one. I'm just thinking out loud I'd love to get your thoughts on how you see this area developing because I did not think about the employment center Aspect of it. It's just always been the area where there's truck stops in the boot store there So as it's growing I'd love to see kind of get more How you see that going to make sure it just helps me process Commissioner time Thank You chair, so So I think the 114 area is a good example This the truck wash for example could be an RCC and or RCC D so you know that this use doesn't have to have the ec see and with ec I and ec see you you can get things like Heavy well ec see I you can get ec I you can get heavy industry like you know smelters or you know like things like that and and you don't want to have your office park next to a metal smelter or a hazardous waste disposal facility or You know something along those lines, so so I worry if we go ec the ec category is one or two of those heavier uses will drive away You know kind of office uses lighter uses So if we zone it where the heaviest intensity use is an office park You know the the fast food restaurant isn't going to drive away an office park or a little strip center Is it going to drive away an office park, but a metal pl ater or something like that might drive away an office park? I just want to add one clarification heavy manufacturing is not permitted in ec see your ec I Not ec. I just unlike manufacturing So I just want to clarify. I'm sorry. What's I thought it you see a thought you see I see I see G Yes, okay, sorry I misspoke about that, but it does it does permit life manufacturing. It does permit warehouse uses so Any other questions for staff Thank you This is a public hearing and I do have one card in support Dana Morse you would And did was to speak feel please give your name and address and you'll have four minutes My name is Dana Morse. I'm with Blue Beacon 500 Grays Boulevard, Salina, Kansas Which is the home office for Blue Beacon? Think the main thing I want to talk about is if we're fortunate enough to get approval tonight In the ec see I guess to warn you we're going to come back When we started looking at this piece And we had to buy 21 acres so the piece to the to the west That doesn't have a car. Just kind of greenish color Is part of our contract? We had hoped to exit straight out onto Bartolt Road this is before we realized that there's a realignment and between our track Old Bartolt Road and new Bartolt Road is a no-man's land That we can't get on to Bartolt hold Bartolt Road realigned Another problem with that is in the preliminary designs that we're seeing from the city and from TxDOT There's a raised media in there so our trucks couldn't across that as they exit anyway, so we're going to have to Take our entrance and exit to the west to line up with the loves entrance and exit We understand what staffs telling us about that and I think for us and they in the long run that will be good for us And good for them It'll get us all the way from Far enough east that none of us are trying to exit on that curve if you can kind of remember how Bartolt Road is going to realign Excuse me So we've made application for annexation Of that entire 16 acres remaining 16 acres and for zoning To the to the ECC now honestly we don't care what we're z oned Letter wise we just want to zone that permits the truck wash We don't really want to back up either Obviously, I have some contractual time that I need to be careful of here, so but I want you to understand that If we're approved tonight, we're planning on coming back actually we have to to make this thing work There are a few questions about us that I want to want to just address real quickly, and I realize this is only matter Not really about our land use, but we don't mind certainly sharing what we do and how we do things We've been at this since 1972 116 truck horses across the country so we we kind of know how to do this One thing about our traffic Wait oh wait see if I We're just clear fine since you've stopped I've made an error you are the applicant and you get ten minutes I didn't know from your card. Okay, the applicant I apologize so you get I'll slow down a little bit then our traffic is a meter traffic We're gonna start out with a double bay truck wash we can turn out a truck every 15 minutes out of those days So that's eight trucks an hour coming out of that wash Maximum 12 because on our dream plan we show three days, okay Our wastewater we've checked with the city of Denton we recycle 30 35 percent of our water our wastewater and Understanding that we're gonna have to pay some for water and sewer lines out there, but nonetheless We've not found any indication in the city that we're going to cause any problems in their plant for our discharge As far as metals oil and grease whatever we may discharge We employ about 50 to 60 people were 24/7 And we'll have about 50 or 60 people only want bring in one outside person and that'll be the manager When you talk about compatibility of uses When I was making my notes back there the one that came to mind is I did a job for the company about three years ago in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and we built next to the country club in the swimming pool and We welcome anybody to call the country club and see what we are for neighbors You got six more minutes, okay, well, I don't think I Don't think I can ramble six more minutes and maybe maybe to tell you what a long drive it is from Kansas down here Unless you have questions to me, that's all I have do you have a question for you? Commissioner back. Thanks chair. Thank you. Mr More coming down speaking to us and you did answer my biggest question concerning wastewater So we don't have to worry about Oklahoma Roadkill everything getting Washington to our drainage system Just curious though. You said you were gonna have three b ays There's a potential of three. Okay. Yes roughly how much water does each wash? You do you know what the volume is? I can't tell you on a triple I can tell you on a double bay a busy double bay, which we think this is going to be It'll be in the top 20 of ours will take about 18 to 20 thousand gallons a day now is this where they're sitting in the truck. They're not getting out with Good point. Let me tell you how we do this. Okay, my driver will circle around in a queuing lane and he'll pull in He has to get out of the truck. We won't let him sit in a truck. He goes in the office pays his bill Buys a soda goes to toilet, whatever he does In that 15 minutes, we have five to six guys washing that truck with high-pressure wands We don't wash Wash out tankers. We will not touch the inside of a tanker We'll wash the inside of a box trailer if it hasn't been placarded the load before That's about it we wash the outside of those trucks majority of them are tractor-trailer washes But they are we are staffed We call the driver back out. He gets in starts it up and leaves. We don't want to be parking We don't do any other business. There are three vending machines in the office and I would guess 90% of that business is employees Grabbing a snack when they get a break Okay, thank you miss No questions for the applicant Thank you, sir, appreciate your presentation. Thank you. This is a public hearing Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Please come forward at this time I Sing none close the public hearing on this item and open the dais for a motion or discussion commissioner Ozone Thank you chair. I motion to approve agenda items Z 1600 18a for approval Commissioner Beck second that motion Have a first and a second for approval any discussion Seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board Motion carries seven to zero Will move us to item C and I'm going to open the public hearing for DCA 17 - zero zero zero four and looks like Ron McGee to will make the presentation Thank you chair members of the Commission Before I begin with the former president just a quick background of why we're here today Several years, you know through the development review Process we we see a lot of developments that come in that are in the ETJ and the reason they come in Is because we have an interlocal agreement with the county to plot properties that are in the ETJ We the city did not have any jurisdiction as far as zoning or land use so with that staff has always Questioned if property should be annexed or not We had an excision criteria in the code of ordinances But back in 2002 when the DDC the development code was created those annexation criteria were meant to be repealed however, when they were created when the DDC was created a Ordinance that was with it did not expressly repealed those annexation criteria so to clear up the Question or where the annexation our criteria are we are proposing to Repeal those sections in den code of ordinances and apply those annexation criteria not forbidden There are some changes to the criteria into the den development code So not only the staff know what the criteria are and what the procedure is So will the applicants and property owners that are looking to develop in the ETJ The sections that were repealing refer to annexation policies procedures and fees and as stated earlier They do not are not in the DDC and again back in 2002. They weren't expressly repealed What we're proposing is to create those annexation criteria as part of sub chapter 35 3 procedures under this section Which will be a new section referred to as the prefery Preferry for referee development annexation criteria that is and we will have criteria as to when properties will be annexed as Well as a staff review threshold requirements procedures that will outline when annexations will move forward to City Council most of those procedures are covered under our Texas local government code We the city can be more restrictive. However, we follow the state local government code if nothing is in our den development code So that's almost as of a default in that reference with that staff recommends approval of the amendment and the repeal of the sections reference here for the reasons of clarifying when property should be annex ed as well as Creating a more efficient procedure for annexation per state local government code and again as this requirement or this annexation criteria is Consistent with our damn plan 2030 that concludes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions Commissioner else. Thank you chair. Hi Ron Okay, so as I'm trying to wrap my head around this there since there was confusion That we're not really just taking it out of ordinances and putting it into the development cone. It's kind of been re written So can you in a nutshell tell me since it seems proced urally? There's a lot less involved in the new rewrite What is different? With this new thing going forward that we I understand that this ordinance that we're repealing was already repealed and you're really not following it Anyway, so tell me the way we are currently right now doing this and what this is going to specifically change as We discuss in the work session Because of the annexation criteria back Prior to 2002 this was in place. However, because it was never repealed or we Implicitly consider it to be repealed. We didn't technically have Criteria so there's a little confusion there. So we followed from then on the Texas local government code requirements Which is basically Establishing public hearing dates having those public hearings and then readings first and second readings that Ultimately adopts the annexation of said property the as I compared the two and as we discussed in work session The main thing that I saw different between the two procedures not the criteria but the procedures is that the prior procedures or criteria section Reference bringing it forward to the planning zoning Commission That is not what is being proposed with the new procedures as one difference the other thing is the procedures in the old section does go step by step as far as when it goes to City Council what they do and When a formal annexation proceeding can move forward That I can tell you is not Is in the new code or in the new procedure section. However , that is covered under a Texas local government code procedure, which we follow so it may not be in the proposed Procedures, but again, it's covered under Texas local government code Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you Okay, so When it says here that staff will determine does staff now determine make that determination That something will be annexed either voluntarily or invol untary. Yes. We we just prepare an analysis of the capacity of our public utilities our Land uses and we bring that forward to City Council for their direction seeking their direction to move forward with an annexation or not So yes, we do determine and bring it forward to City Council for ultimately their decision on the annexation That's what you're doing now, correct, but that's not what you're gonna do with this, right? No, you will have already made the decision. We still bring forward a recommendation to the City Council It is still it is still City Council's discretion to move forward with an annexation or not Because I mean the way I read this is I read it as the staff is determining that annexation will happen then you'll go to the property owner and and request them to Request to be annexed and within 10 days if they do not then you will impose involuntary annexation And staff right so I don't see any I see only City Council coming up When there's just a public hearing to have on what you've already decided is Prior to public hearing and that's that's I appreciate the the comment prior to public hearings We present to the City Council the proposed annexation and ask for them to prove public hearing dates and It is at that time they will determine if we need if they should we should go forward with those public hearings It is not and I agree it is not clearly stated in the new right because I mean my issue just with the way it's written is it just And and I mean I love staff I this is not to go against staff and how hard you work and and the knowledge that you have I'm just trying to make sure that You know we still have the checks and balances and City Council's there for a reason to represent that you know the city as a whole I'm just wondering if it if it needs to be in procedure because nowhere in this what would this Rewrite in this ordinance. Well is City Council mentioned what what I what we what I can do is work with our Jennifer to Curtis and add under procedures those Checks and balances that you're referring to and present that to City Council Commissioner so thank you To be clear. This is really more what I would consider housecleaning is that right since this is the procedure that y'all follow now That you just didn't codify it back whenever The changes made it's a little bit a little bit where we had it It was never brought forward with the den development code So there was a question or confusion as to what do we have what do we don't have? We recognize that the old or the prior annexation criteria was worth bringing forward. So that's the criteria manual I'm sorry the criteria doesn't really change. We've kind of updated the procedures to reflect a little bit more on what we're doing today We've certainly cut it down a little bit because of some legislation that we're having with the the Texas You know folks so we are trying to be as General, but I do understand the concern of how it goes to City Council and making sure that they've been given the proper notification I guess if I mean I think one of the big differences is that now this allows for a Moment where they could voluntarily annex was which is a shorter procedure. So they won't have to go through The dual public hearing process and the two readings that are outlined in the statute So the voluntary petition is very important for some property owners So it allows that time and it also allows us time to send out an intent to annex letter Which starts the clock ticking on some of those scheduling? Issues that are outlined in the statute and so that's something that we didn't have before that this will do for us So not only does it repeal and replace so that everything's efficient and just kind of put back to what we're doing now But it allows this procedure that we didn't have before and like one says the The calling the public hearing and all of that is in the statute itself So I don't know to what extent we really need to put it in here Unless the the Commission feels like it needs to be more instructive Because it's not something that the citizens will be following it's something staff will be following So this is everything they need to know. I I guess is the way to put it. I don't know if that's helpful More questions for staff Thank you Ron And this is a public hearing if there was anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time Seeing none we will close the public hearing and we will open the floor for discussion or emotion Commissioner Hutz with noting Commissioner Ellis's concerns and Legal representations explanation I'm going to move for approval as written because I think it is something that Is worded as needed to for those that participate in it day in day out enough to give me peace with it I Second we have first and a second for approval Commissioner Ellis Okay, and I assume what we're voting on is is the draft Recommendation to City Council with the draft as is and if you have requests and want to make a friendly amendment, you're welcome to do so Yeah, I think I have support to make a friendly amendment. So I think I'm just I just can't support it I think there's too many holes in it as written Any other just Commissioner Tyler Thank You chair so so this Have been trying to figure out exactly what we've been doing in the past and so I'm going through previous years City Council minutes over here and I Lie I prefer when things are spelled out like I don't really like that Voluntary and like the voluntary annexation process is is not really mentioned in the new ordinance Obviously it exists and it defaults to I guess state law which allows the the fast track on voluntary But that we don't even it's not a criteria It's not you know, it's not in the list of reasons to approve or recommend And Then I was trying to figure out whether or not we're already following the old 34 section 34 or Or we have you know, have we been acting like it's repealed and then we realized we haven't completely technically repe aled it And it does look like I found I found these annexations from 2015 and it did not go to planning and zoning It followed the state law process and I'm guessing going back further like the 2010 Annexations involuntary annexations would have been done the same way. So So it isn't necessarily the cleanest Thing it kind of falls back to state law. This is one page and state law is probably a chapter or two But it is consistent and state law changes so much and has so many requirements in this area that I I think it is a good idea to just default to state law so that If we require 30 days and they require a minimum of 45 days and we're in a bind where you know Our ordinance has to be ignored because it you know conflicts or so forth Anyway, so I'm as I'm as I'm talking talking a lot here I'm I'm I've been trying to figure out how I what I think about this and I do think that That it's not extremely clear but that this is the best option it's the way we've been doing it for 15 years and It does make it consistent with state law I'm a comment as well. I think in our work session Legal counsel may mention that there are I think four bills currently pending at state that are maybe affecting this and I think Because of that to give our city The flexibility for whatever changes happen at the state level without having to come back and change your ordinance I'm comfortable leaving it more vague and referring to whatever the current state law or wherever it has changed to is The appropriate thing at this time, so I'll be supporting this motion Any other discussion for a call for a vote on the board Seeing none we're going to call for a vote on the board We have a first and second for approval with the language as it currently exists presented before us Motion is going to carry six to one That will move us to our final Item on our agenda this evening is the project mate matrix Commissioner Ellis, thank you chair Make a request that when we are hearing a zoning change case is it possible? For staff to in our material to put a side-by-side comparison of what we're looking at Now included is like what the zoning the current zoning allows and what and then in another document is what the proposed zoning It would be super helpful because I end up doing this myself with with documents on my my own personal computer and put them side-by-side If it's not too much trouble is that something we can do In a doubt in a single document The zoning criteria the uses the uses okay the permitted use the cyber, correct, okay Okay, thank you Commissioner Hedgman Thank you chair, I would like to renew my request from the work session that I would like to select a Commercial and a residential builder to present to us at some point in in work session giving us a Just an overview day in the life. This is this is the process as we see it Those different type steps just to have a build a notebook of those things to consider as we're affecting them daily I'd like to know from their perspective with what they see the process to be Anybody else I'd like to thank staff for getting me the update on the I- 35 and mail. So Appreciate that you can cross that one off the list. So thank you And with that I'm going to close our meeting this evening at 737 thank you everyone