1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:03,290 Planning and zoning commission work session for February 2 00:00:03,290 --> 00:00:03,859 the 8th 3 00:00:04,500 --> 00:00:08,429 This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum 4 00:00:08,429 --> 00:00:11,900 present and I'm gonna call our meeting to order at 434 5 00:00:12,699 --> 00:00:16,620 Our first order business will be to receive clarification 6 00:00:16,620 --> 00:00:18,140 of agenda items 7 00:00:18,579 --> 00:00:22,280 And I will turn that over to Shandria for presentation. 8 00:00:22,280 --> 00:00:23,260 Okay. Good evening 9 00:00:24,100 --> 00:00:26,820 The first item that we'll go through is the approval of 10 00:00:26,820 --> 00:00:29,739 minutes for January 25th 2017 11 00:00:30,000 --> 00:00:33,159 If anybody has any discussion on that we'll open it up 12 00:00:34,119 --> 00:00:36,119 If not, we can move on 13 00:00:36,679 --> 00:00:40,439 All right, we have three items work on the consent agenda 14 00:00:40,439 --> 00:00:41,899 three final plaques 15 00:00:42,640 --> 00:00:45,359 one for the HEB site at the corner of 16 00:00:46,960 --> 00:00:48,960 West University and Bundy Bray 17 00:00:49,240 --> 00:00:52,380 We have another one at the at the corner of North Loop and 18 00:00:52,380 --> 00:00:55,640 Stewart Road and then a site on Pacon Creek 19 00:00:56,039 --> 00:00:58,740 If there's any questions about that we can bring up the 20 00:00:58,740 --> 00:01:00,759 case managers. If not, we'll move on 21 00:01:02,479 --> 00:01:04,480 Okay 22 00:01:05,200 --> 00:01:08,909 Under items for individual consideration there's two both 23 00:01:08,909 --> 00:01:10,840 of them have to deal with the 24 00:01:11,760 --> 00:01:14,640 establishment and nominations for a P&Z subcommittee 25 00:01:15,400 --> 00:01:18,890 For the didn't development code rewrite project and so we 26 00:01:18,890 --> 00:01:22,060 can discuss that if you need to but we'll have to actually 27 00:01:22,060 --> 00:01:22,359 take 28 00:01:22,760 --> 00:01:24,760 action on those items in regular session 29 00:01:25,640 --> 00:01:27,640 Okay 30 00:01:29,439 --> 00:01:31,439 Any questions on either of those 31 00:01:34,439 --> 00:01:36,280 Okay, okay 32 00:01:36,280 --> 00:01:41,280 On the public hearing we have three items a final reply for 33 00:01:42,040 --> 00:01:45,519 DISD property at North Locust and Second Street and I'll 34 00:01:45,519 --> 00:01:48,519 invite Julie white white up to discuss 35 00:01:53,519 --> 00:01:56,129 Good evening, Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of 36 00:01:56,129 --> 00:01:59,879 Denton and we'll just take a look at the plot 37 00:02:01,560 --> 00:02:05,200 You're probably familiar with this property you've you've 38 00:02:05,200 --> 00:02:06,519 seen it this is 39 00:02:08,639 --> 00:02:11,319 The Denton ISD administration 40 00:02:12,840 --> 00:02:14,639 Location they are 41 00:02:14,639 --> 00:02:19,080 Proposing this replat in order to abandon this public alley 42 00:02:19,659 --> 00:02:22,759 So there's the DISD and then also there's a religious 43 00:02:22,759 --> 00:02:25,909 institution on this on this side. So I'll answer any 44 00:02:25,909 --> 00:02:26,599 questions 45 00:02:28,159 --> 00:02:30,159 Commissioner back. Thank you chair 46 00:02:30,680 --> 00:02:33,569 Currently st. Barnabas the physical church sitting there. 47 00:02:33,569 --> 00:02:36,699 So is that going away or they just going to convert their 48 00:02:36,699 --> 00:02:37,599 building into 49 00:02:38,680 --> 00:02:42,389 No, sir. It is actually it is it is it's going to remain 50 00:02:42,389 --> 00:02:44,919 and it will remain on its on its own property 51 00:02:44,919 --> 00:02:46,919 so this is really just to 52 00:02:47,599 --> 00:02:49,599 Just to abandon this 53 00:02:49,719 --> 00:02:52,819 Public alley that's not not really used so that they can 54 00:02:52,819 --> 00:02:55,060 develop the side or redevelop the side 55 00:02:55,060 --> 00:02:58,770 So there's notions of things in the future. They got you. 56 00:02:58,770 --> 00:02:59,759 Thank you sure 57 00:03:01,560 --> 00:03:03,840 Commissioner was out. Thank you chair. Can you walk me 58 00:03:03,840 --> 00:03:06,919 through the process to abandon a public? 59 00:03:07,840 --> 00:03:08,919 Street 60 00:03:08,919 --> 00:03:12,020 Is that it's like if you own the property around the street 61 00:03:12,020 --> 00:03:12,159 ? 62 00:03:12,159 --> 00:03:13,680 You can just say we don't need it anymore 63 00:03:13,680 --> 00:03:16,520 How does that work this alley could be abandoned by the 64 00:03:16,520 --> 00:03:19,560 plot because all of the property owners who were affected 65 00:03:19,560 --> 00:03:20,439 by that alley 66 00:03:20,439 --> 00:03:22,439 joined in on this plot I 67 00:03:23,479 --> 00:03:27,849 This Gary Street was abandoned and it had to be it had to 68 00:03:27,849 --> 00:03:28,060 be 69 00:03:28,759 --> 00:03:31,860 Done by ordinance that had to be approved by City Council. 70 00:03:31,860 --> 00:03:32,000 So 71 00:03:32,919 --> 00:03:35,800 The the right away that Gary Street's a little different 72 00:03:35,800 --> 00:03:37,419 than the than the alley 73 00:03:38,439 --> 00:03:40,439 Thank you. Sure 74 00:03:40,919 --> 00:03:44,680 Mr. Ellis, thank you chair. Hi Julie. Hi Gary Street 75 00:03:45,639 --> 00:03:48,780 Doesn't exist though anymore. Correct? Correct. It was a 76 00:03:48,780 --> 00:03:49,000 bit 77 00:03:49,000 --> 00:03:52,699 I believe it was approved in December and if you recall if 78 00:03:52,699 --> 00:03:53,060 just 79 00:03:53,599 --> 00:03:55,400 in in the 80 00:03:55,400 --> 00:03:59,180 proposed rezoning that DISD brought forward before you they 81 00:03:59,180 --> 00:03:59,879 're going to 82 00:04:00,479 --> 00:04:02,840 Turn this into that pedestrian connection 83 00:04:08,800 --> 00:04:11,240 Okay, and Julie oh 84 00:04:12,879 --> 00:04:16,589 You're here for the next one. Yeah, that means it was only 85 00:04:16,589 --> 00:04:18,319 for blue beacon 86 00:04:21,920 --> 00:04:23,920 Okay 87 00:04:26,680 --> 00:04:31,319 All right, so this is z-16 18 blue beacon truck wash 88 00:04:33,839 --> 00:04:37,079 All right the location of the property it is adjacent to 89 00:04:37,079 --> 00:04:38,220 the I 35 90 00:04:39,680 --> 00:04:42,000 Service Road, it's it's north of 91 00:04:43,199 --> 00:04:45,519 Barthold or Bartle that 92 00:04:46,560 --> 00:04:50,490 in this location it is situated in a fairly north part of 93 00:04:50,490 --> 00:04:51,800 the city and 94 00:04:52,279 --> 00:04:55,610 The subject property does have six hundred thirty seven 95 00:04:55,610 --> 00:04:57,800 feet of frontage along I 35 96 00:04:58,639 --> 00:05:01,790 And so the request before you for this location is to 97 00:05:01,790 --> 00:05:03,439 consider a rezoning 98 00:05:04,360 --> 00:05:06,360 from RCR one 99 00:05:06,360 --> 00:05:09,230 Regional Center residential wine to employment center 100 00:05:09,230 --> 00:05:12,209 commercial the ECC district the subject property is about 101 00:05:12,209 --> 00:05:12,839 five acres 102 00:05:14,000 --> 00:05:16,389 So we'll just look at what's currently out there the zoning 103 00:05:16,389 --> 00:05:18,079 as well as the development 104 00:05:18,079 --> 00:05:20,730 So here's the subject property right here gets a little 105 00:05:20,730 --> 00:05:22,519 lost in the picture, but here it is 106 00:05:23,519 --> 00:05:26,839 It's got that RCR one. It's that lavender color. There's 107 00:05:26,839 --> 00:05:29,759 also some undeveloped RCR one to the north as 108 00:05:30,480 --> 00:05:33,579 Well as all of the property that doesn't have a color on it 109 00:05:33,579 --> 00:05:36,800 . That's in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. That's 110 00:05:36,800 --> 00:05:37,839 outside of the city limits 111 00:05:38,639 --> 00:05:41,740 And that that's undeveloped as well as this property that 112 00:05:41,740 --> 00:05:43,100 has the hatch marks 113 00:05:43,680 --> 00:05:45,680 That's undeveloped and that is 114 00:05:46,360 --> 00:05:51,310 RD 5x that's our rural residential minimum five acre zoning 115 00:05:51,310 --> 00:05:51,639 district 116 00:05:51,639 --> 00:05:53,980 That's that place holding zoning district that all 117 00:05:53,980 --> 00:05:56,319 properties get when they get annexed into the city 118 00:05:56,980 --> 00:06:00,430 To the south of the property you have some existing ECC 119 00:06:00,430 --> 00:06:01,720 district 120 00:06:01,839 --> 00:06:04,430 That is being redeveloped with a commercial use with a 121 00:06:04,430 --> 00:06:05,399 Travel Center use 122 00:06:06,360 --> 00:06:12,949 There's also some RCC in across Barthold and RCC in across 123 00:06:12,949 --> 00:06:15,720 I 35 and that's undeveloped as well 124 00:06:16,399 --> 00:06:18,399 There's a Travel Center use 125 00:06:20,439 --> 00:06:22,439 South of Elm 126 00:06:22,639 --> 00:06:26,449 Across I 35 it's RCC D and it's as I said, it's a 127 00:06:26,449 --> 00:06:28,839 commercial use. It's a Travel Center use 128 00:06:29,000 --> 00:06:31,519 So that's what's surrounding the property. That's the 129 00:06:31,519 --> 00:06:32,519 character of the area 130 00:06:33,839 --> 00:06:37,610 The future land use of the property is business innovation. 131 00:06:37,610 --> 00:06:39,759 I know we've seen business innovation a lot 132 00:06:40,639 --> 00:06:44,629 recently and just to just to refresh your memory business 133 00:06:44,629 --> 00:06:45,759 innovation is 134 00:06:46,279 --> 00:06:49,319 It's intended to encourage employment uses 135 00:06:49,879 --> 00:06:53,470 things like R&D or light manufacturing or large-scale 136 00:06:53,470 --> 00:06:56,879 office parks and also the supporting use the 137 00:06:57,120 --> 00:06:59,120 supporting retail uses such as 138 00:07:00,360 --> 00:07:04,100 Restaurants or hotels or and even some residential is 139 00:07:04,100 --> 00:07:04,839 encouraged 140 00:07:04,839 --> 00:07:08,269 So mainly employment with some commercial uses in order to 141 00:07:08,269 --> 00:07:10,180 support those employment areas 142 00:07:13,240 --> 00:07:15,279 So the considerations we looked at when we analyze this 143 00:07:15,279 --> 00:07:18,120 proposal is first we looked at 144 00:07:20,000 --> 00:07:23,139 Section 35 3 4 B in the Denton Development Code and that's 145 00:07:23,139 --> 00:07:26,740 the criteria for approval for rezoning cases 146 00:07:26,740 --> 00:07:29,319 And the first is does it conform to the future land use? 147 00:07:30,000 --> 00:07:34,949 In this case ECC district has a really diverse set of 148 00:07:34,949 --> 00:07:36,199 commercial uses 149 00:07:36,199 --> 00:07:39,899 It also integrates some of those employment uses and those 150 00:07:39,899 --> 00:07:43,120 industrial uses like light manufacturing and some 151 00:07:43,439 --> 00:07:43,439 Warehouse uses so it does conform to that business 152 00:07:43,439 --> 00:07:48,959 innovation future land use designation 153 00:07:49,399 --> 00:07:52,500 And then we also it has to have adequate provision of 154 00:07:52,500 --> 00:07:54,459 infrastructure in this in this case 155 00:07:54,459 --> 00:07:57,560 It does and any additional infrastructure needs would be 156 00:07:57,560 --> 00:07:58,399 addressed at platting 157 00:07:58,399 --> 00:08:01,250 So the request does meet the criteria for approval in the 158 00:08:01,250 --> 00:08:02,639 Denton Development Code 159 00:08:03,060 --> 00:08:05,959 We also looked at the character the area. We always do that 160 00:08:05,959 --> 00:08:09,279 just to do a little deeper dive on the analysis and 161 00:08:09,879 --> 00:08:12,720 When we look at at at this area 162 00:08:13,879 --> 00:08:15,680 the the major 163 00:08:15,680 --> 00:08:19,600 The major element to this property is that I 35 corridor. 164 00:08:19,600 --> 00:08:21,000 It's it's a pretty 165 00:08:21,879 --> 00:08:23,879 it stands out and 166 00:08:24,160 --> 00:08:26,839 And when we look at how this area is going to develop we 167 00:08:26,839 --> 00:08:28,889 anticipate we're going to see a lot of commercial uses 168 00:08:28,889 --> 00:08:29,720 along I 35 169 00:08:29,720 --> 00:08:33,220 Take care take advantage of that access and the visibility 170 00:08:33,220 --> 00:08:34,519 that I 35 provides 171 00:08:34,840 --> 00:08:37,500 But then it's going to transition to those employment uses. 172 00:08:37,500 --> 00:08:39,120 There's some very large tracks 173 00:08:40,279 --> 00:08:43,379 To the west of this property and so we we anticipate that 174 00:08:43,379 --> 00:08:46,649 it's going to be commercial toward I 35 transitioning to 175 00:08:46,649 --> 00:08:47,759 those employment uses 176 00:08:48,399 --> 00:08:51,120 And ECC is consistent with this because it does permit 177 00:08:51,120 --> 00:08:54,100 those commercial uses and print some at a scale 178 00:08:54,100 --> 00:08:57,200 That's appropriate for highway development, but then also 179 00:08:57,200 --> 00:09:00,429 folds in some of those employment uses so it provides that 180 00:09:00,429 --> 00:09:01,500 nice transition area 181 00:09:03,200 --> 00:09:07,000 The current zoning designation of RCR 1 it does permit 182 00:09:07,000 --> 00:09:08,000 commercial uses 183 00:09:08,080 --> 00:09:10,759 But it really does permit them at a scale that aren't 184 00:09:10,759 --> 00:09:13,789 something you would typically see it on the highway. It has 185 00:09:13,789 --> 00:09:14,840 those limitations 186 00:09:16,799 --> 00:09:19,720 ECC district would expand the number of commercial uses 187 00:09:19,720 --> 00:09:23,049 industrial uses and it would also enlarge that building 188 00:09:23,049 --> 00:09:23,519 envelope 189 00:09:23,519 --> 00:09:26,059 So it would allow that development that is consistent with 190 00:09:26,059 --> 00:09:27,620 what you typically see on highways 191 00:09:28,120 --> 00:09:31,830 And then and then just ECC is the logical continuation of 192 00:09:31,830 --> 00:09:33,360 that existing ECC 193 00:09:33,360 --> 00:09:35,399 And I believe that was his only case that came before you 194 00:09:35,399 --> 00:09:36,080 in 2015 195 00:09:36,519 --> 00:09:38,960 So it's just a continuation of what's existing 196 00:09:40,080 --> 00:09:42,080 Public notification was sent out 197 00:09:42,720 --> 00:09:44,779 There's not many people who live out there, so there weren 198 00:09:44,779 --> 00:09:46,669 't many that were sent out and we haven't received any 199 00:09:46,669 --> 00:09:47,240 responses 200 00:09:47,840 --> 00:09:49,860 So based upon the criteria for approval and the 201 00:09:49,860 --> 00:09:53,509 considerations I've listed we staff recommends approval, 202 00:09:53,509 --> 00:09:54,960 and I'll stand for any questions 203 00:09:56,120 --> 00:09:59,409 Commissioner back. Thank you chair. It seems like we're 204 00:09:59,409 --> 00:10:02,519 heading in the direction for this area for big trucks 205 00:10:03,039 --> 00:10:05,610 It's gonna appeal to big trucks, and that's fine. Don't 206 00:10:05,610 --> 00:10:07,639 have a problem. It's a good area for that 207 00:10:08,360 --> 00:10:12,279 One concern I might have is as further development goes on 208 00:10:13,840 --> 00:10:15,840 Heavy big 209 00:10:15,840 --> 00:10:18,899 Semis going up and down those service roads is that gonna 210 00:10:18,899 --> 00:10:19,639 be a little intimidating 211 00:10:20,559 --> 00:10:22,690 For smaller passenger cars as we develop those kind of 212 00:10:22,690 --> 00:10:26,000 businesses that would appeal to them is that 213 00:10:26,879 --> 00:10:28,240 consideration 214 00:10:28,240 --> 00:10:31,950 That is a good question. It's not it wasn't a consideration 215 00:10:31,950 --> 00:10:32,399 in this case 216 00:10:32,399 --> 00:10:36,159 We you know text dots will design the roads to accommodate 217 00:10:36,159 --> 00:10:39,399 all all users the large trucks as well as the smaller 218 00:10:39,399 --> 00:10:39,679 trucks 219 00:10:39,720 --> 00:10:42,440 So it wasn't actually something that we considered in this 220 00:10:42,440 --> 00:10:46,440 especially since this proposal did meet the future land use 221 00:10:48,080 --> 00:10:50,080 The other thing I'd like to bring up was something 222 00:10:50,080 --> 00:10:52,700 Commissioner Roselle touched on when we were talking about 223 00:10:52,700 --> 00:10:55,360 that Travel Center. That's just south of it 224 00:10:56,279 --> 00:10:58,399 If you've got these big 225 00:10:59,240 --> 00:11:00,720 five six 226 00:11:00,720 --> 00:11:04,360 Wheel axle trucks coming from heading north 227 00:11:05,480 --> 00:11:07,480 And they want to go to that 228 00:11:08,879 --> 00:11:11,590 They're gonna have our time negotiating that turn you've 229 00:11:11,590 --> 00:11:14,639 got that narrow turn right there that doesn't allow a lot 230 00:11:14,639 --> 00:11:15,240 of room and 231 00:11:15,679 --> 00:11:18,620 Then not only that then they've got a cut back to a hard 232 00:11:18,620 --> 00:11:21,480 right and that's a two lane service road 233 00:11:22,000 --> 00:11:25,740 Correct our whole road. No the service road right there is 234 00:11:25,740 --> 00:11:26,679 to learn or two way 235 00:11:26,840 --> 00:11:30,759 Well, and and that's gonna all come in when we when we go 236 00:11:30,759 --> 00:11:32,399 through the site plan 237 00:11:32,399 --> 00:11:36,759 I know that the applicant is actually this is this property 238 00:11:37,320 --> 00:11:40,419 adjacent to it is in the ETJ and they're actually looking 239 00:11:40,419 --> 00:11:40,559 at 240 00:11:41,840 --> 00:11:44,679 Potentially doing an annexation and a rezoning for that in 241 00:11:44,679 --> 00:11:48,080 order to expand the site to provide that kind of 242 00:11:49,559 --> 00:11:50,960 Turning 243 00:11:50,960 --> 00:11:54,220 Motions that are desired. Well, but the problem is not 244 00:11:54,220 --> 00:11:56,080 gonna be there so much. It's that narrow 245 00:11:56,879 --> 00:11:58,080 tunnel 246 00:11:58,080 --> 00:12:01,460 That goes under 35. Yeah under 35 or 247 00:12:03,480 --> 00:12:06,700 Well Barthold Barthold Road is actually gonna be a real 248 00:12:06,700 --> 00:12:10,440 igned so it's going to this is these two 249 00:12:11,200 --> 00:12:14,299 Roads are actually gonna meet so there isn't gonna have to 250 00:12:14,299 --> 00:12:15,799 be that little no, sir 251 00:12:15,799 --> 00:12:19,230 Oh, and then and then if if they can develop the site and 252 00:12:19,230 --> 00:12:20,000 once again 253 00:12:20,000 --> 00:12:23,100 this is gonna be a site planning issue or potential cases 254 00:12:23,100 --> 00:12:24,480 that come before you with a 255 00:12:25,360 --> 00:12:27,639 rezoning for for annexed property I 256 00:12:28,960 --> 00:12:31,500 Think their intent or what they would really like to do is 257 00:12:31,500 --> 00:12:33,399 take access off of 258 00:12:33,759 --> 00:12:38,710 Barthold Road and not I 35 in order to get those turnings 259 00:12:38,710 --> 00:12:40,840 turning radiuses that they like and that that makes it 260 00:12:40,840 --> 00:12:41,519 easier for the end 261 00:12:41,519 --> 00:12:44,159 User. Okay. So in other words, you'd have a straight shot 262 00:12:44,159 --> 00:12:44,879 of 77 263 00:12:45,879 --> 00:12:49,480 When I went and put the signs out I missed that little turn 264 00:12:49,480 --> 00:12:52,879 Yeah, little cheat turn and I had to go I went all the way 265 00:12:52,879 --> 00:12:53,080 around 266 00:12:53,240 --> 00:12:57,159 So yes, you're right. It when when Barthold is connects it 267 00:12:57,159 --> 00:13:00,269 will okay. It will be a lot easier to access. Okay. Thank 268 00:13:00,269 --> 00:13:00,440 you 269 00:13:01,799 --> 00:13:04,509 Mr. Roselle, thank you chair. You mentioned something in 270 00:13:04,509 --> 00:13:05,100 your presentation 271 00:13:05,100 --> 00:13:08,990 You said that in the business innovation commercial use is 272 00:13:08,990 --> 00:13:11,220 to support employment centers 273 00:13:11,220 --> 00:13:15,529 Mm-hmm, and you feel that a big rig truck washing supports 274 00:13:15,529 --> 00:13:17,080 employment centers 275 00:13:17,240 --> 00:13:20,799 Well when we look at a rezoning, we can't look at what is 276 00:13:21,480 --> 00:13:23,480 We're not looking at what the actual 277 00:13:24,519 --> 00:13:27,720 Proposed development is for that site what we have to look 278 00:13:27,720 --> 00:13:30,299 at is what the uses are within that zoning district 279 00:13:30,299 --> 00:13:33,549 And so when we look at ECC, I mean you're I I hear what you 280 00:13:33,549 --> 00:13:37,580 're saying about about this particular user is it 281 00:13:38,320 --> 00:13:41,070 Doesn't import support employment uses but what we have to 282 00:13:41,070 --> 00:13:43,340 look at when we analyze the zoning case is what are the 283 00:13:43,340 --> 00:13:44,399 permitted uses within? 284 00:13:44,399 --> 00:13:47,120 That zoning district we look at it much more broadly than 285 00:13:47,120 --> 00:13:50,519 just this this this user when we look at business 286 00:13:50,519 --> 00:13:51,299 innovation 287 00:13:51,559 --> 00:13:54,460 The ECC and the EC eyes only districts are the ones that 288 00:13:54,460 --> 00:13:57,279 most closely align with business innovation 289 00:13:57,600 --> 00:14:00,700 ECC being the more commercial of the two and EC ECI being 290 00:14:00,700 --> 00:14:02,539 the more industrial of the two 291 00:14:02,539 --> 00:14:05,059 So so yeah, I hear what you're saying, but but we have to 292 00:14:05,059 --> 00:14:07,490 look at it a little more broadly when we're talking about a 293 00:14:07,490 --> 00:14:08,100 zoning case 294 00:14:08,100 --> 00:14:11,470 Yeah, I know we've we've talked about this in the dais all 295 00:14:11,470 --> 00:14:14,700 the time about looking at a zoning case rather than the 296 00:14:14,700 --> 00:14:15,720 actual use of it 297 00:14:16,360 --> 00:14:19,590 But there is still the tension that this is being this is 298 00:14:19,590 --> 00:14:23,139 an application for rezoning by the person who wants to 299 00:14:23,139 --> 00:14:23,399 build 300 00:14:23,679 --> 00:14:27,320 The use sure so yes, they could get it 301 00:14:27,840 --> 00:14:30,590 Rezoned and then back out then you have this free zone and 302 00:14:30,590 --> 00:14:32,080 that we certainly it's taking consideration 303 00:14:32,080 --> 00:14:35,629 But to Commissioner Beck's point, I'm wondering if to the 304 00:14:35,629 --> 00:14:37,580 West where all the tracks of lands are and what's supposed 305 00:14:37,580 --> 00:14:38,519 to be business innovation 306 00:14:38,559 --> 00:14:40,570 When I think about that, I think about like corporate 307 00:14:40,570 --> 00:14:44,320 headquarters type type things may be coming to Denton and 308 00:14:44,320 --> 00:14:46,120 their insurance on Barthold 309 00:14:46,360 --> 00:14:47,519 is 310 00:14:47,519 --> 00:14:50,769 Through a truck park and so I'm wondering if that's a deter 311 00:14:50,769 --> 00:14:53,220 rent from future businesses if we have 312 00:14:53,399 --> 00:14:57,389 Trying to sell a corporation to come and build on this land 313 00:14:57,389 --> 00:14:59,000 and we go for the tour 314 00:14:59,440 --> 00:15:03,519 It's a truck stop on the left a little sliver of a big rig 315 00:15:03,919 --> 00:15:07,169 Truck washing that apparently wants to expand even bigger. 316 00:15:07,169 --> 00:15:10,169 I'm wondering about the impact we have on the future 317 00:15:10,169 --> 00:15:10,919 employment 318 00:15:12,879 --> 00:15:15,080 That we would like to bring in in the business innovation 319 00:15:15,080 --> 00:15:16,240 district 320 00:15:16,960 --> 00:15:21,100 additionally in the last point I have is when Barthold gets 321 00:15:21,100 --> 00:15:22,879 realigned to 77 322 00:15:22,879 --> 00:15:25,220 Is there gonna be construction to redo the underpass 323 00:15:25,220 --> 00:15:28,070 because Commissioner Beck's right. Although those streets 324 00:15:28,070 --> 00:15:29,480 might line that underpass is 325 00:15:30,440 --> 00:15:32,120 tiny 326 00:15:32,120 --> 00:15:34,120 I'm gonna call Earl Escobar 327 00:15:38,480 --> 00:15:40,029 Earl Escobar engineering unfortunately since it's a textile 328 00:15:40,029 --> 00:15:43,080 highway, there are no plans to 329 00:15:44,759 --> 00:15:47,039 To I guess to widen the underpass 330 00:15:47,039 --> 00:15:50,450 I know there's some limitations on the number of lanes that 331 00:15:50,450 --> 00:15:52,879 you can squeeze between the piers that support the 332 00:15:53,559 --> 00:15:57,279 Highway lanes itself. So and unfortunately, this is not 333 00:15:57,279 --> 00:15:58,039 part of the 334 00:15:58,879 --> 00:16:02,600 I-35 widening plans right the winding stops at 380. So 335 00:16:04,039 --> 00:16:07,279 But there are some signal modifications being done on 336 00:16:08,039 --> 00:16:10,840 part hold and 35 as well as 337 00:16:12,720 --> 00:16:17,480 I-35 and 77 on either end of the underpass to 338 00:16:18,480 --> 00:16:21,580 accommodate those larger vehicles in terms of timing and 339 00:16:21,580 --> 00:16:23,840 trying to maximize the number of vehicles that can pass 340 00:16:23,840 --> 00:16:25,039 through that underpass without any 341 00:16:25,039 --> 00:16:27,399 complex so and I assume that when 342 00:16:28,200 --> 00:16:30,440 Like an underpass is looked at they look at turn radiuses 343 00:16:30,440 --> 00:16:33,440 of an 18 wheel truck and make sure all those clearances 344 00:16:34,000 --> 00:16:36,870 Are good right in terms of stopping distance within the 345 00:16:36,870 --> 00:16:37,879 underpass that 346 00:16:38,919 --> 00:16:40,000 say 347 00:16:40,000 --> 00:16:43,100 You have a semi truck heading north and want to turn left 348 00:16:43,100 --> 00:16:46,440 towards the either the car wash or the loves 349 00:16:47,879 --> 00:16:51,820 The stopping point underneath the highway is set back so 350 00:16:51,820 --> 00:16:54,399 that the trucks can maneuver 351 00:16:55,120 --> 00:16:57,120 Okay. Thank you 352 00:16:57,120 --> 00:16:59,120 mixture 353 00:17:00,600 --> 00:17:03,120 Commissioner back. Thank you chair. I did have one other 354 00:17:03,120 --> 00:17:03,480 question 355 00:17:03,480 --> 00:17:06,000 I just didn't look at my notes a little concerned about the 356 00:17:06,000 --> 00:17:07,839 wastewater for this facility 357 00:17:08,000 --> 00:17:11,150 Well current drainage infrastructure accommodated and if 358 00:17:11,150 --> 00:17:11,920 not 359 00:17:12,519 --> 00:17:15,880 Will it have to be enhanced and if so who pays for that? 360 00:17:16,279 --> 00:17:19,829 Well, the applicant the developer would have to ensure that 361 00:17:19,829 --> 00:17:21,160 their development 362 00:17:22,319 --> 00:17:25,829 can can be accommodated so they would have to make sure 363 00:17:25,829 --> 00:17:26,519 that all of the 364 00:17:26,920 --> 00:17:29,440 Public infrastructure is there and in place in order for 365 00:17:29,440 --> 00:17:31,839 them to okay the applicants here today 366 00:17:31,880 --> 00:17:34,759 He is so he'll be here this evening to discuss. I have 367 00:17:34,759 --> 00:17:37,200 another question for him, but I'll wait till the clock here 368 00:17:37,200 --> 00:17:37,680 . Thank you 369 00:17:38,000 --> 00:17:40,000 Okay 370 00:17:44,799 --> 00:17:46,440 Thank you Julie 371 00:17:46,440 --> 00:17:49,759 So the next item is an ordinance amendment related to annex 372 00:17:49,759 --> 00:17:53,319 ation criteria and I'll invite run me Gita up for a 373 00:17:53,319 --> 00:17:54,200 presentation 374 00:17:57,359 --> 00:18:03,000 Thank You Sharon again pull up my presentation real quick 375 00:18:08,000 --> 00:18:10,000 Chair members of the Commission 376 00:18:10,359 --> 00:18:13,200 brought forward to you for your consideration as a code 377 00:18:13,200 --> 00:18:14,559 amendment to 378 00:18:15,079 --> 00:18:19,000 Bring in some annexation criteria that is 379 00:18:19,720 --> 00:18:23,430 Currently in our code of ordinances our code of ordinances 380 00:18:23,430 --> 00:18:26,680 is a separate document that separate from the DC 381 00:18:27,680 --> 00:18:30,519 So a little bit of background of how we got here 382 00:18:31,839 --> 00:18:33,680 several 383 00:18:33,680 --> 00:18:38,109 Months ago we we heard and we've seen applications come in 384 00:18:38,109 --> 00:18:39,880 that are in our ETJ 385 00:18:40,200 --> 00:18:44,150 But really haven't had any clear criteria direction on if 386 00:18:44,150 --> 00:18:47,200 those of those properties should be annexed 387 00:18:47,640 --> 00:18:49,640 again, we do have those 388 00:18:49,759 --> 00:18:53,460 annexation criteria that are in our code of ordinances, 389 00:18:53,460 --> 00:18:54,000 however 390 00:18:54,720 --> 00:18:58,069 it's not clear if those code ordinances, I'm sorry those 391 00:18:58,069 --> 00:18:59,319 annexation criteria are 392 00:19:00,559 --> 00:19:05,319 Usable because back in 2002 when we created the DDC 393 00:19:06,200 --> 00:19:08,200 those annexation criteria 394 00:19:08,759 --> 00:19:11,960 Were supposed to be repealed but they were never so it's a 395 00:19:11,960 --> 00:19:15,039 it's a conflict. It's there but it's it is it applicable 396 00:19:15,559 --> 00:19:17,559 so to clear up the 397 00:19:18,400 --> 00:19:20,480 confusion we're proposing to 398 00:19:21,319 --> 00:19:25,289 repeal expressive expressively those annexation criteria 399 00:19:25,289 --> 00:19:27,400 from the code of ordinances and 400 00:19:28,240 --> 00:19:31,339 Bring them in to the development code and that's why we're 401 00:19:31,339 --> 00:19:33,440 having this public hearing in front of planning zone 402 00:19:33,440 --> 00:19:36,039 Commission because you all review and 403 00:19:37,440 --> 00:19:41,380 administer the then development code so as outlined here in 404 00:19:41,380 --> 00:19:45,200 this slide again, I'm gonna repeat just a couple things 405 00:19:45,200 --> 00:19:45,680 that 406 00:19:46,920 --> 00:19:48,920 the recommendation that were 407 00:19:49,119 --> 00:19:51,640 requesting from the Commission to the plan and to the City 408 00:19:51,640 --> 00:19:52,079 Council is 409 00:19:53,119 --> 00:19:54,319 regarding 410 00:19:54,319 --> 00:19:55,519 expressively 411 00:19:55,519 --> 00:19:59,220 Repealing the section in the code of ordinances and that's 412 00:19:59,220 --> 00:20:02,180 34 - 35 36 and 37 413 00:20:02,960 --> 00:20:06,369 while doing so we're also requesting that we amend the DEM 414 00:20:06,369 --> 00:20:09,319 development code and add the 415 00:20:09,640 --> 00:20:14,099 development annexation criteria within section 35 3 of the 416 00:20:14,099 --> 00:20:14,480 DDC 417 00:20:17,160 --> 00:20:19,039 Those sections that are currently again in the code of 418 00:20:19,039 --> 00:20:24,359 ordinances talk about annexation policy procedure and fees 419 00:20:25,039 --> 00:20:27,039 Those will be repealed 420 00:20:28,160 --> 00:20:29,480 Because 421 00:20:29,480 --> 00:20:32,339 Again, we're wanting to bring it into the DDC. It's 422 00:20:32,339 --> 00:20:36,480 currently not in the DDC the annexation criteria 423 00:20:36,480 --> 00:20:40,099 and again, there was no language back in 2002 when we 424 00:20:40,839 --> 00:20:42,839 Created the DDC. So 425 00:20:42,880 --> 00:20:45,509 Again, we're trying to clean it up and bring it into the D 426 00:20:45,509 --> 00:20:46,599 EM development code 427 00:20:48,480 --> 00:20:52,319 Chapter that is going to go into is sub chapter 35 3 428 00:20:52,319 --> 00:20:53,319 procedures 429 00:20:53,799 --> 00:20:57,650 Under this section, which will be a new section 35 3 13 and 430 00:20:57,650 --> 00:21:00,599 it'll be under the heading of periphery development annex 431 00:21:00,599 --> 00:21:01,440 ation criteria 432 00:21:02,079 --> 00:21:05,799 In this section you we will have a criteria to determine 433 00:21:05,799 --> 00:21:08,460 when to annex or when not to annex 434 00:21:09,000 --> 00:21:12,319 but also and also it will have a list of 435 00:21:13,079 --> 00:21:15,079 thresholds which we will use as a 436 00:21:16,200 --> 00:21:19,910 Point for our staff review. It will also include procedures 437 00:21:19,910 --> 00:21:23,240 and a conditional use clause and those 438 00:21:24,119 --> 00:21:27,640 Are in your backup as exhibit to I believe in the draft 439 00:21:27,640 --> 00:21:30,640 ordinance that staff has prepared 440 00:21:34,039 --> 00:21:35,289 So really that's what we're looking for and seeking from 441 00:21:35,289 --> 00:21:40,039 the planning zone Commission is your recommendation and 442 00:21:40,440 --> 00:21:42,440 staff recommends approval of this 443 00:21:43,039 --> 00:21:46,380 For the reasons of we're going to be clarifying the 444 00:21:46,380 --> 00:21:49,839 property when a property should be annexed 445 00:21:49,920 --> 00:21:52,630 We're also making it more efficient as far as procedures 446 00:21:52,630 --> 00:21:55,420 for annexation. And again, it's consistent when the 447 00:21:55,420 --> 00:21:56,319 development plan 448 00:21:57,359 --> 00:22:00,640 Commissioner back. Thank you chair. So to be clear here 449 00:22:01,319 --> 00:22:05,059 The language that's in the code of ordinance. Right nothing 450 00:22:05,059 --> 00:22:07,960 to be in changes just being shifted over to the DDC 451 00:22:07,960 --> 00:22:10,549 Oh, there's is there's some there's some changes some 452 00:22:10,549 --> 00:22:11,380 slight changes 453 00:22:11,880 --> 00:22:12,920 Okay 454 00:22:12,920 --> 00:22:16,019 But if you read is it more streamlined if a little bit more 455 00:22:16,019 --> 00:22:17,160 streamlined, that's correct 456 00:22:17,160 --> 00:22:20,319 And it's it's for its proposed specifically just for that 457 00:22:20,319 --> 00:22:23,309 reason to be able to get annexations through in a more 458 00:22:23,309 --> 00:22:24,200 timely manner 459 00:22:24,480 --> 00:22:27,150 But if you look at it, it's it's essentially the same if 460 00:22:27,150 --> 00:22:28,880 you look at the criteria and again 461 00:22:28,880 --> 00:22:32,390 You have both of those as part of your backup. Okay. Thank 462 00:22:32,390 --> 00:22:32,660 you 463 00:22:33,079 --> 00:22:35,680 Commissioner Alice. Thank you chair. Hi Ron 464 00:22:36,519 --> 00:22:38,519 Okay, so when I read 465 00:22:38,799 --> 00:22:42,720 The ordinance that that were repealing and then read read 466 00:22:42,720 --> 00:22:44,539 the new draft ordinance 467 00:22:45,440 --> 00:22:49,579 Are we removing the procedure that an annexation comes 468 00:22:49,579 --> 00:22:51,880 before PNC and City Council? 469 00:22:52,400 --> 00:22:55,799 It goes to City Council. I did I did notice that 470 00:22:56,400 --> 00:22:59,839 Yes, the annexation will not come through the planning 471 00:22:59,839 --> 00:23:01,259 zoning Commission 472 00:23:01,599 --> 00:23:04,980 However, obviously the zoning will but correct you are 473 00:23:04,980 --> 00:23:07,000 correct. The annexation will not come through the planning 474 00:23:07,000 --> 00:23:08,359 zoning Commission. Okay 475 00:23:09,079 --> 00:23:11,859 Wherein it does it talk about it going to City Council? 476 00:23:12,400 --> 00:23:16,539 It's per state law and it should be the very last bullet of 477 00:23:16,539 --> 00:23:17,079 the 478 00:23:17,799 --> 00:23:19,799 procedure section it does not 479 00:23:20,240 --> 00:23:22,119 State it but that's 480 00:23:22,119 --> 00:23:24,480 Something that we follow through again the Texas local 481 00:23:24,480 --> 00:23:26,339 government code state law 482 00:23:32,559 --> 00:23:35,200 It's it did where it says all public hearing notification 483 00:23:35,200 --> 00:23:37,960 procedures will be in accordance with state law, right? 484 00:23:37,960 --> 00:23:41,059 We know it correct. It will go through that process and all 485 00:23:41,059 --> 00:23:43,559 annexation. It's a fairly lengthy process 486 00:23:44,200 --> 00:23:47,930 Timely manner as far as taking it through the planning. I'm 487 00:23:47,930 --> 00:23:49,119 sorry through the City Council 488 00:23:49,119 --> 00:23:52,059 There's two public hearings and then two readings of the 489 00:23:52,059 --> 00:23:52,680 ordinance 490 00:23:58,319 --> 00:24:01,450 Okay, my confusion is because all that was spelled out in 491 00:24:01,450 --> 00:24:03,599 the ordinance that were repealing and 492 00:24:04,039 --> 00:24:06,569 That it was completely removed from this new draft 493 00:24:06,569 --> 00:24:09,880 ordinance. We did that on purpose. Okay, just as point of 494 00:24:09,880 --> 00:24:10,720 order because 495 00:24:12,039 --> 00:24:15,319 The statutes change and we have four bills 496 00:24:15,319 --> 00:24:17,980 I think pending in the legislature right now that are 497 00:24:17,980 --> 00:24:19,640 affecting annexation 498 00:24:19,880 --> 00:24:22,630 So we went ahead and kept it general and just referred to 499 00:24:22,630 --> 00:24:23,220 state law 500 00:24:24,000 --> 00:24:28,950 For that reason it's a very complex procedure on the notice 501 00:24:28,950 --> 00:24:31,319 provisions and the publication provisions and 502 00:24:31,720 --> 00:24:34,200 the initial readings and everything of that nature 503 00:24:35,839 --> 00:24:39,000 And really the the first version did not cover at all 504 00:24:44,480 --> 00:24:48,490 Have another question is that okay? Thanks. I noticed added 505 00:24:48,490 --> 00:24:50,740 in this draft ordinance was 506 00:24:51,720 --> 00:24:54,279 location and intensity of gas well drilling in production 507 00:24:54,279 --> 00:24:56,500 which I know is not on 508 00:24:57,079 --> 00:25:00,210 In the ordinance that were repealing. Can you just kind of 509 00:25:00,210 --> 00:25:02,200 explain that a little bit how that's 510 00:25:03,319 --> 00:25:05,039 What that actually means and how that's taken into 511 00:25:05,039 --> 00:25:06,839 consideration? I? 512 00:25:07,720 --> 00:25:11,079 Think that's just another type of development that we know 513 00:25:11,079 --> 00:25:14,160 we have some of those type of developments west of town 514 00:25:14,160 --> 00:25:16,160 and so if those are 515 00:25:16,799 --> 00:25:18,400 considered 516 00:25:18,400 --> 00:25:21,299 potential impact that's something that's the City Council 517 00:25:21,299 --> 00:25:22,880 or City staff can 518 00:25:23,440 --> 00:25:27,480 move forward for those reasons specifically as a way of 519 00:25:28,480 --> 00:25:31,309 mitigating some of the potential impacts that that gas well 520 00:25:31,309 --> 00:25:34,880 or potential gas well could bring to adjacent properties 521 00:25:41,759 --> 00:25:44,319 I'm more notes. Sorry continue. Thank you. Thank you 522 00:25:45,559 --> 00:25:48,559 On that same the line under that 523 00:25:49,880 --> 00:25:52,990 Number six property that is contiguous to the city limits 524 00:25:52,990 --> 00:25:56,079 and is necessary to the annexation of another property 525 00:25:56,599 --> 00:26:00,309 Yes, I was having a hard time in my brain following that so 526 00:26:00,309 --> 00:26:03,880 I what I noted there was an example of that sure sure there 527 00:26:03,880 --> 00:26:03,880 is 528 00:26:03,960 --> 00:26:05,960 a property that is 529 00:26:06,559 --> 00:26:09,809 Per state law in order to annex a property it has to be 530 00:26:09,809 --> 00:26:11,980 contiguous to the city limits 531 00:26:12,200 --> 00:26:16,000 so if there is a property that's not contiguous and that 532 00:26:16,640 --> 00:26:21,000 Is something that fits the other criteria that's listed 533 00:26:21,000 --> 00:26:22,039 above those? 534 00:26:22,920 --> 00:26:26,930 the property between the city limits and subject property 535 00:26:26,930 --> 00:26:29,200 would be part of that annexation 536 00:26:30,759 --> 00:26:32,759 Does that come into play if I a 537 00:26:33,400 --> 00:26:37,000 private property owner requests annexation that you 538 00:26:37,480 --> 00:26:39,480 If they you know in one of those 539 00:26:39,799 --> 00:26:43,049 It can leapfrog right and we can't we can't annex a 540 00:26:43,049 --> 00:26:46,200 property unless it's contiguous with the city limits 541 00:26:46,640 --> 00:26:49,200 We still have to go after the property in the middle and 542 00:26:49,200 --> 00:26:51,200 build a block unless it's agricultural 543 00:27:02,480 --> 00:27:05,079 Okay, sorry, I'm following my notes here 544 00:27:06,359 --> 00:27:08,660 With regard where it talks about the procedure the staff 545 00:27:08,660 --> 00:27:10,799 following staff determination 546 00:27:11,519 --> 00:27:13,519 That the property should be considered 547 00:27:14,400 --> 00:27:16,400 The owner will be notified 548 00:27:17,400 --> 00:27:20,559 To do a voluntary petition of the city for annexation 549 00:27:22,400 --> 00:27:24,700 Talk about cost at that point if you're requesting that the 550 00:27:24,700 --> 00:27:26,200 property owner do it 551 00:27:26,559 --> 00:27:29,079 Cost was mentioned again in the ordinances, but it isn't 552 00:27:29,079 --> 00:27:31,160 mentioned here again, right, right? 553 00:27:31,759 --> 00:27:33,759 We're working on 554 00:27:34,519 --> 00:27:37,619 Currently the cost is I believe it's seven hundred fifty 555 00:27:37,619 --> 00:27:40,799 dollars plus notification, which is 220 556 00:27:41,240 --> 00:27:44,769 That's for someone that's submitting a petition for annex 557 00:27:44,769 --> 00:27:45,240 ation 558 00:27:46,240 --> 00:27:49,039 We're currently all actually working on our development 559 00:27:49,039 --> 00:27:49,839 review fees as well 560 00:27:49,839 --> 00:27:52,940 So that is something that we'll be looking into but that's 561 00:27:52,940 --> 00:27:55,559 that's the current cost as we speak as of today 562 00:27:55,799 --> 00:27:59,119 Does that need to be written of who's paying that or is 563 00:27:59,119 --> 00:28:01,839 that referring to state law again or? 564 00:28:02,559 --> 00:28:06,519 How does someone know what if you're petitioning them to? 565 00:28:07,359 --> 00:28:09,079 to be annexed 566 00:28:09,079 --> 00:28:12,200 There's no mention of what the cost will be well 567 00:28:12,200 --> 00:28:15,619 Well, well, obviously during that petition submittal will 568 00:28:15,619 --> 00:28:16,240 be able to 569 00:28:16,759 --> 00:28:19,529 Assess what that cost is and provide that during their 570 00:28:19,529 --> 00:28:21,079 review of that petition 571 00:28:21,079 --> 00:28:23,599 So that will be part of the development review process 572 00:28:23,920 --> 00:28:27,460 So we'll have fees presented to them or provided to them at 573 00:28:27,460 --> 00:28:28,240 that point 574 00:28:31,000 --> 00:28:33,000 Is to wait for them 575 00:28:33,440 --> 00:28:36,319 If they don't want to pay it they just wait and do nothing 576 00:28:36,319 --> 00:28:37,359 and then we annex them 577 00:28:37,640 --> 00:28:40,220 Yeah, I guess my question comes was do we need to have that 578 00:28:40,220 --> 00:28:41,720 in writing about who's paying fees? 579 00:28:42,319 --> 00:28:44,319 Because we're repealing that 580 00:28:45,079 --> 00:28:48,180 So right now it's in a separate ordinance. We have fees 581 00:28:48,180 --> 00:28:51,079 associated with the development reviews 582 00:28:52,480 --> 00:28:55,160 Just to interject when I'm all done. We already have an 583 00:28:55,160 --> 00:28:59,349 adopted ordinance that outlines our fee schedule in that 584 00:28:59,349 --> 00:29:00,440 fee schedule 585 00:29:00,440 --> 00:29:02,769 We have specific project types and one of them is a 586 00:29:02,769 --> 00:29:05,640 voluntary and the other one is an involuntary annexation 587 00:29:05,960 --> 00:29:09,059 So that being said and depending on what course that 588 00:29:09,059 --> 00:29:12,640 project or the annex the proposed annexation project takes 589 00:29:12,640 --> 00:29:13,400 we would do that 590 00:29:13,400 --> 00:29:17,109 So in the case if it becomes city initiated in involuntary 591 00:29:17,109 --> 00:29:20,000 and then obviously the fees would not be assessed in many 592 00:29:20,000 --> 00:29:20,200 cases 593 00:29:20,400 --> 00:29:23,900 Given certain developments you have pockets of annexed of 594 00:29:23,900 --> 00:29:25,279 ETJ property 595 00:29:25,279 --> 00:29:28,559 That's not annexed but in order to facilitate development 596 00:29:28,559 --> 00:29:30,660 they acquire them that becomes part and parcel of their 597 00:29:30,660 --> 00:29:33,039 overall program to then cumulatively 598 00:29:33,759 --> 00:29:36,160 Annex the property and then develop it comprehensively 599 00:29:36,640 --> 00:29:39,519 So we do have a fee schedule the reason why the fees are 600 00:29:39,519 --> 00:29:42,519 not specified there is because your fee schedule has to be 601 00:29:43,519 --> 00:29:45,000 routinely reviewed 602 00:29:45,000 --> 00:29:47,759 Assessed against whether these fees are indeed applicable 603 00:29:47,759 --> 00:29:50,640 should there be decreased should they be increased and that 604 00:29:51,400 --> 00:29:53,680 Transparency measure is deliberately then identified in a 605 00:29:53,680 --> 00:29:54,779 separate ordinance 606 00:29:56,759 --> 00:29:59,079 And I think my last question with regard to that is so if 607 00:29:59,079 --> 00:30:02,160 they if they don't annex voluntarily 608 00:30:04,759 --> 00:30:06,289 And you're saying they have to do that within ten calendar 609 00:30:06,289 --> 00:30:10,390 days is is that a reasonable it that doesn't seem like very 610 00:30:10,390 --> 00:30:11,599 much time to me 611 00:30:13,480 --> 00:30:16,279 So I guess how did you come up with the ten days well 612 00:30:17,240 --> 00:30:19,359 Ten days is some other 613 00:30:20,240 --> 00:30:22,319 Ordinances that we have that refers to ten days 614 00:30:23,160 --> 00:30:26,599 We actually want to make sure we act quickly and so 615 00:30:27,440 --> 00:30:29,440 If it's the Commission's 616 00:30:30,119 --> 00:30:32,119 direction or recommendation 617 00:30:32,240 --> 00:30:36,079 We can obviously in increase that to a certain date 618 00:30:36,079 --> 00:30:40,029 But ten days is a typical that we use for return for any 619 00:30:40,029 --> 00:30:40,880 request 620 00:30:53,319 --> 00:30:55,319 Commissioner back. Thank you chair 621 00:30:57,160 --> 00:31:00,119 Going back to the comment that Commissioner Ellis 622 00:31:01,000 --> 00:31:03,000 guess will really production 623 00:31:04,920 --> 00:31:07,079 When would the city actually want to annex 624 00:31:07,759 --> 00:31:10,440 That kind of property and how would we benefit by annexing 625 00:31:10,440 --> 00:31:11,960 that kind of property? 626 00:31:12,720 --> 00:31:14,720 Let's try to explain earlier 627 00:31:15,200 --> 00:31:19,559 We do have some obviously EGJ on the east or I'm sorry the 628 00:31:19,559 --> 00:31:23,440 west side of the city and if there is a proposed 629 00:31:23,839 --> 00:31:25,640 gas well 630 00:31:25,640 --> 00:31:27,640 production site that is 631 00:31:27,720 --> 00:31:31,240 going to impact adjacent properties and we feel that 632 00:31:31,640 --> 00:31:35,609 It's going to create some impact as far as wastewater or 633 00:31:35,609 --> 00:31:37,079 any utilities and any 634 00:31:37,759 --> 00:31:38,759 potential 635 00:31:38,759 --> 00:31:41,279 Adverse impacts to adjacent properties. That's that's 636 00:31:41,279 --> 00:31:44,259 another reason why would we could go for and those that's 637 00:31:44,259 --> 00:31:45,039 just one criteria 638 00:31:45,039 --> 00:31:47,240 And that's one of the reasons why we would want to move 639 00:31:47,240 --> 00:31:48,440 forward with an annexation 640 00:31:49,079 --> 00:31:52,210 It's a potential impact to adjacent properties. So that 641 00:31:52,210 --> 00:31:55,160 would give the city some control over that property 642 00:31:56,400 --> 00:31:59,500 That's correct. I mean, of course the EGJ we we don't have 643 00:31:59,500 --> 00:32:00,880 any control as far as juice 644 00:32:00,880 --> 00:32:03,400 So that that would be one of the reasons why we would move 645 00:32:03,400 --> 00:32:06,319 forward with an annexation. Okay. Thanks 646 00:32:07,640 --> 00:32:10,559 On a guess we'll see would then collect taxes also then 647 00:32:10,559 --> 00:32:13,660 correct, right? If it's in the state and they are she 648 00:32:13,660 --> 00:32:14,359 following a different 649 00:32:15,119 --> 00:32:17,119 taxation 650 00:32:25,319 --> 00:32:28,420 Commissioner Ellis, thank you chair. I think this is this 651 00:32:28,420 --> 00:32:31,599 is just a typo and probably question for legal 652 00:32:33,359 --> 00:32:37,309 The last paragraph on the large paragraph which spells out 653 00:32:37,309 --> 00:32:38,599 what we're repealing 654 00:32:40,079 --> 00:32:42,079 It says whereas 655 00:32:42,160 --> 00:32:46,109 After noticed published it should that be notice published. 656 00:32:46,109 --> 00:32:48,440 Yes. Okay. Thank you. Sorry 657 00:32:53,000 --> 00:32:55,000 Thank you 658 00:32:55,319 --> 00:32:57,319 I 659 00:33:00,279 --> 00:33:02,279 Thank you 660 00:33:03,720 --> 00:33:05,269 Commissioner Ellis, thank you chair. I'm gonna ask one more 661 00:33:05,269 --> 00:33:08,920 question. Okay, just please give me 662 00:33:10,039 --> 00:33:13,880 The reason for for removing this from the PNZ platform 663 00:33:14,960 --> 00:33:17,319 the planning zone for the annexation 664 00:33:19,559 --> 00:33:22,980 One it's not required for the state law to bring it to the 665 00:33:22,980 --> 00:33:24,200 planning zone Commission 666 00:33:24,519 --> 00:33:27,400 The other is that we talked a little bit about it is to 667 00:33:27,400 --> 00:33:30,599 streamline the annexation to move forward 668 00:33:30,599 --> 00:33:32,599 So it goes straight to City Council 669 00:33:34,680 --> 00:33:38,440 And run I'm not too well versed in annexation 670 00:33:38,440 --> 00:33:42,190 But I think I remember that the local government code has a 671 00:33:42,190 --> 00:33:43,000 strict timeline 672 00:33:43,359 --> 00:33:46,940 For when the notices have to go and when the hearing at the 673 00:33:46,940 --> 00:33:49,440 public hearing at the City Council has to be held 674 00:33:49,440 --> 00:33:52,039 And I don't know that that accommodates the two 675 00:33:52,960 --> 00:33:56,119 The dual public hearing process so there may be why 676 00:33:56,720 --> 00:33:58,880 We're going in that direction too 677 00:33:59,400 --> 00:34:02,480 Right again, just to quickly for annexation 678 00:34:02,680 --> 00:34:05,779 There's two public hearings with City Council gives the 679 00:34:05,779 --> 00:34:08,420 opportunity for property owners and other 680 00:34:09,000 --> 00:34:12,469 individuals to come in and then following that there are 681 00:34:12,469 --> 00:34:15,619 two readings and they all have to fit in within a 682 00:34:16,079 --> 00:34:17,320 45 683 00:34:17,320 --> 00:34:19,320 Time period and so scheduling all those 684 00:34:19,760 --> 00:34:23,320 Could jeopardize meeting those those sets 685 00:34:23,960 --> 00:34:25,119 timeframes 686 00:34:25,119 --> 00:34:29,429 Okay, and on that same note then it is is the city staff 687 00:34:29,429 --> 00:34:30,079 doing 688 00:34:30,480 --> 00:34:33,579 All of the prelim work and determining that it needs to be 689 00:34:33,579 --> 00:34:35,750 annexed and then it's going to council for the public 690 00:34:35,750 --> 00:34:36,219 hearings 691 00:34:36,800 --> 00:34:39,420 Whereas now the procedure is do you get direction from 692 00:34:39,420 --> 00:34:43,079 council on annexation right before you determine something 693 00:34:43,079 --> 00:34:43,679 is annexed 694 00:34:43,679 --> 00:34:46,260 Well, yeah, we that's the other reason why we're bringing 695 00:34:46,260 --> 00:34:48,840 it forward to is there was no clear procedure 696 00:34:48,840 --> 00:34:53,360 So we would as we do the development review of these 697 00:34:53,360 --> 00:34:56,159 projects start to develop the you know 698 00:34:56,639 --> 00:34:58,969 Review the criteria develop some considerations and then 699 00:34:58,969 --> 00:35:01,559 bring it forward to City Council for their direction 700 00:35:02,239 --> 00:35:04,980 Yeah, and I guess just my concern lies with I just want to 701 00:35:04,980 --> 00:35:07,739 make sure we've got the right checks and balances sure in 702 00:35:07,739 --> 00:35:08,099 place 703 00:35:08,519 --> 00:35:10,519 for annex land because it can be a 704 00:35:10,880 --> 00:35:14,590 You know a contentious situation in some regard and I know 705 00:35:14,590 --> 00:35:16,400 at the City Council meeting yesterday 706 00:35:16,920 --> 00:35:20,000 when you were asking for direction on a couple of 707 00:35:21,719 --> 00:35:25,679 Parcels right that I mean you didn't have unanimous, you 708 00:35:25,679 --> 00:35:26,119 know 709 00:35:26,800 --> 00:35:30,510 Approval there with the way to go. So I'm trying to figure 710 00:35:30,510 --> 00:35:33,000 out if we're going to run into issues as a city 711 00:35:35,320 --> 00:35:36,659 If we're removing some checks and balances that way so that 712 00:35:36,659 --> 00:35:39,960 's what I'm trying to wrap my head around okay 713 00:35:44,840 --> 00:35:47,679 And just as an aside and so that everyone is aware 714 00:35:48,280 --> 00:35:52,460 We've been annexing property since 2010 under a different 715 00:35:52,460 --> 00:35:56,480 procedure. And so that's why he said that it was it was 716 00:35:57,159 --> 00:35:59,239 expressly or not expressly repealed but 717 00:36:00,199 --> 00:36:03,119 It was implied that it was repealed. So we're just final 718 00:36:03,119 --> 00:36:06,559 izing that but we have not taken any of our annexation since 719 00:36:06,559 --> 00:36:07,900 2010 through PNC 720 00:36:07,900 --> 00:36:09,900 It's gone straight to council 721 00:36:11,039 --> 00:36:13,880 So it's just matching what what it is that we're doing 722 00:36:13,880 --> 00:36:14,260 currently 723 00:36:14,840 --> 00:36:16,840 Okay 724 00:36:21,719 --> 00:36:23,719 Thank you Ron 725 00:36:23,760 --> 00:36:27,309 All right, and I see that you guys have cheated so I'm 726 00:36:27,309 --> 00:36:29,920 gonna bring hey lit up and we're gonna hold the 727 00:36:30,719 --> 00:36:33,000 Report and hold a discussion on the tree code 728 00:36:33,880 --> 00:36:36,400 We've learned when we get these stacks of paper. We better 729 00:36:36,400 --> 00:36:36,639 start 730 00:36:44,840 --> 00:36:46,840 Good afternoon commissioners 731 00:36:58,039 --> 00:36:59,320 Thank you 732 00:36:59,320 --> 00:37:02,659 again for allowing me the audience to actually bring this 733 00:37:02,659 --> 00:37:06,400 item before you with regards to revisions to 734 00:37:07,400 --> 00:37:10,010 The tree preservation and landscape requirements of the 735 00:37:10,010 --> 00:37:11,639 Denton Development Code 736 00:37:15,840 --> 00:37:19,639 So, you know objective here today is simply to 737 00:37:20,239 --> 00:37:22,909 Receive report hold discussion regarding adoption of an 738 00:37:22,909 --> 00:37:25,239 ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas 739 00:37:25,880 --> 00:37:27,880 amending sub chapters 740 00:37:28,039 --> 00:37:30,639 35.3 procedures sub chapter 741 00:37:31,639 --> 00:37:36,280 35.13 site design standards and sub chapter 35 point 23 742 00:37:36,800 --> 00:37:36,800 definitions in terms of the Denton Development Code as 743 00:37:36,800 --> 00:37:43,079 relates to tree preservation and landscaping requirements 744 00:37:44,599 --> 00:37:48,539 So just a little bit of background on this item. This was 745 00:37:48,539 --> 00:37:50,719 actually started out as 746 00:37:51,559 --> 00:37:54,639 direction from City Council back in the fall of 747 00:37:55,280 --> 00:37:58,079 2014 staff was directed to 748 00:37:59,519 --> 00:38:02,000 update the existing tree code 749 00:38:03,440 --> 00:38:06,320 Since then staff has had numerous meetings with the City 750 00:38:06,320 --> 00:38:09,360 Council PNC and various stakeholders 751 00:38:10,280 --> 00:38:15,340 With regards to the update to this this part of the tree 752 00:38:15,340 --> 00:38:15,880 code of the code 753 00:38:17,480 --> 00:38:21,010 There have been multiple continuous postponements due to 754 00:38:21,010 --> 00:38:22,440 concerns about this item 755 00:38:23,800 --> 00:38:25,800 That resulted in meetings 756 00:38:26,719 --> 00:38:28,599 with various 757 00:38:28,599 --> 00:38:31,920 stakeholders including the Denton Developers Alliance 758 00:38:32,599 --> 00:38:34,599 Keep Denton Beautiful 759 00:38:34,920 --> 00:38:36,920 represents from UNT, TWU 760 00:38:37,159 --> 00:38:41,710 We also had a outreach to just the general citizens of Dent 761 00:38:41,710 --> 00:38:41,960 on 762 00:38:42,320 --> 00:38:46,480 Through a visual preference survey to gain the public's 763 00:38:46,480 --> 00:38:47,760 perception on 764 00:38:48,760 --> 00:38:50,760 trees in Denton 765 00:38:52,280 --> 00:38:55,800 We've also most recently received data from the state of 766 00:38:55,800 --> 00:38:58,480 Denton urban forestry forest report 767 00:38:59,159 --> 00:39:00,400 which 768 00:39:00,400 --> 00:39:04,159 Has been incorporated into the update 769 00:39:04,840 --> 00:39:08,679 Believe that's also an attachment into in your packet. This 770 00:39:08,679 --> 00:39:10,760 report was was completed 771 00:39:11,440 --> 00:39:13,199 just this past 772 00:39:13,199 --> 00:39:15,960 Fall and presented to City Council in December 773 00:39:16,719 --> 00:39:20,559 Just some of the quick findings of that report was that 774 00:39:20,559 --> 00:39:23,679 Denton has 30% tree canopy 775 00:39:24,440 --> 00:39:26,559 the value of the trees in Denton is 776 00:39:27,360 --> 00:39:30,559 estimated to be two point zero six billion dollars as 777 00:39:30,559 --> 00:39:31,739 billion with a B 778 00:39:32,639 --> 00:39:34,639 the environmental 779 00:39:34,840 --> 00:39:36,199 benefits 780 00:39:36,199 --> 00:39:39,800 Annually are estimated to be 69.8 million 781 00:39:41,679 --> 00:39:45,849 One of the other key things to this report was that it was 782 00:39:45,849 --> 00:39:50,179 revealed that 46% of Denton's tree canopy 783 00:39:50,960 --> 00:39:53,199 Is located on undeveloped land 784 00:39:53,760 --> 00:39:58,940 So 46% of that 30% is on properties that is subject to 785 00:39:58,940 --> 00:40:00,400 future development 786 00:40:05,800 --> 00:40:07,800 So 787 00:40:07,800 --> 00:40:11,079 Our objectives when we started out with this project was to 788 00:40:11,079 --> 00:40:13,960 streamline the code to make it more user-friendly 789 00:40:14,880 --> 00:40:17,159 align city standards with industry best management 790 00:40:17,159 --> 00:40:20,900 practices of the American National Standards Institute and 791 00:40:20,900 --> 00:40:22,800 the International Society of 792 00:40:23,039 --> 00:40:26,989 Abora culture and to provide a more robust code that will 793 00:40:26,989 --> 00:40:27,639 expand 794 00:40:29,000 --> 00:40:31,000 expand and protect tree canopy 795 00:40:31,400 --> 00:40:35,710 Consistent with the Denton plan 2030 and the city of Denton 796 00:40:35,710 --> 00:40:37,159 strategic plan goals 797 00:40:40,039 --> 00:40:42,219 So now I'm going to shift gears a little bit and I'm going 798 00:40:42,219 --> 00:40:45,280 to begin with the end in mind here 799 00:40:46,800 --> 00:40:50,610 This slide here basically represents what this tree code 800 00:40:50,610 --> 00:40:53,280 means what the results of this tree code means 801 00:40:54,440 --> 00:40:59,079 for preserving trees on undeveloped properties, so 802 00:40:59,960 --> 00:41:01,960 70% of the trees 803 00:41:02,519 --> 00:41:06,320 The developer is able to remove without any mitigation 804 00:41:06,320 --> 00:41:08,800 whatsoever 70% off the top 805 00:41:10,000 --> 00:41:12,320 10% of that existing canopy 806 00:41:12,960 --> 00:41:14,960 would have to be 807 00:41:14,960 --> 00:41:17,670 mitigated either through replanting of trees on site or 808 00:41:17,670 --> 00:41:19,639 payment into the city's tree fund and 809 00:41:21,880 --> 00:41:26,829 20% of the canopy is what must which is the bare minimum 810 00:41:26,829 --> 00:41:28,219 that must be left on site 811 00:41:29,000 --> 00:41:31,420 Based on what we are proposing here today 812 00:41:32,880 --> 00:41:36,179 So just to go back to this this 10% here 813 00:41:37,300 --> 00:41:41,480 one of the the recommendations that we have in this code is 814 00:41:41,480 --> 00:41:42,360 to allow for 815 00:41:43,239 --> 00:41:46,960 trees that are planted for mitigation to count towards 816 00:41:47,679 --> 00:41:51,530 Required landscape trees. So any trees are required by the 817 00:41:51,530 --> 00:41:54,719 landscape provisions of the ordinance where the street 818 00:41:54,719 --> 00:41:55,119 trees 819 00:41:55,599 --> 00:41:57,599 parking lot trees 820 00:41:57,599 --> 00:42:00,800 Whatever trees are required the same trees that you 821 00:42:00,800 --> 00:42:01,400 mitigate 822 00:42:02,039 --> 00:42:04,840 By planning can can count for those trees also 823 00:42:11,400 --> 00:42:13,400 So what does this look like so 824 00:42:14,760 --> 00:42:17,440 Our goals for for mitigation is 30% 825 00:42:17,920 --> 00:42:21,929 So on a site that's up for development is 30% of the trees 826 00:42:21,929 --> 00:42:23,119 are preserved 827 00:42:24,599 --> 00:42:26,599 Requirements are met. There's no further 828 00:42:27,719 --> 00:42:31,190 Need for mitigation or any other payments with regard to 829 00:42:31,190 --> 00:42:32,840 tree preservation 830 00:42:33,360 --> 00:42:34,920 however, if 831 00:42:34,920 --> 00:42:37,639 30% 30% goal cannot be met 832 00:42:38,239 --> 00:42:40,239 what we're proposing allows for 833 00:42:41,440 --> 00:42:44,800 dropping that 30% down to 20% preserved and 834 00:42:45,719 --> 00:42:46,880 10% 835 00:42:46,880 --> 00:42:47,920 mitigated 836 00:42:47,920 --> 00:42:51,090 So how does that look as far as when we calculate our 837 00:42:51,090 --> 00:42:54,320 payment into a tree fund or a number of trees that are 838 00:42:54,320 --> 00:42:55,280 planning? 839 00:42:55,280 --> 00:42:58,400 That we have to plant so tree fund payment 840 00:42:59,039 --> 00:43:02,980 Would be based on the the number of square feet that you 841 00:43:02,980 --> 00:43:04,719 would be mitigated for 842 00:43:05,519 --> 00:43:06,559 times 843 00:43:06,559 --> 00:43:10,699 $2.84 and you may say where does that $2.84 come from? 844 00:43:10,920 --> 00:43:14,019 Well, I go back to the state of Denton urban forest report 845 00:43:14,019 --> 00:43:17,800 and the value that was given for the trees and Denton and 846 00:43:17,800 --> 00:43:18,000 the 847 00:43:18,000 --> 00:43:20,360 environmental benefits that are received from those trees 848 00:43:21,320 --> 00:43:23,800 So am I too far away? Okay 849 00:43:24,960 --> 00:43:27,440 So that that $2.84 850 00:43:28,599 --> 00:43:31,239 basically represents the 851 00:43:32,480 --> 00:43:36,619 what the square foot of tree canopy costs and then based on 852 00:43:36,619 --> 00:43:36,920 the 853 00:43:37,880 --> 00:43:39,880 structural value of the trees and 854 00:43:40,400 --> 00:43:42,639 addition to 10 years of 855 00:43:43,480 --> 00:43:45,679 Environmental benefits that we're receiving from those 856 00:43:45,679 --> 00:43:50,079 trees that would be removed that is where the $2.84 comes 857 00:43:50,079 --> 00:43:50,519 to 858 00:43:51,760 --> 00:43:53,760 so if we are 859 00:43:53,760 --> 00:43:55,760 mitigating via planting 860 00:43:56,079 --> 00:43:58,760 We are recommending a one to six ratio 861 00:43:58,760 --> 00:44:01,860 I know at the previous meeting the ratio was one to four 862 00:44:01,860 --> 00:44:04,659 and else, you know some pushback and there was an item of 863 00:44:04,659 --> 00:44:05,360 concern 864 00:44:06,360 --> 00:44:08,360 mentioned by some of the 865 00:44:09,400 --> 00:44:12,219 Developers and some on the Commission here. Well after 866 00:44:12,219 --> 00:44:15,880 looking at the numbers and actually comparing 867 00:44:16,880 --> 00:44:18,719 that one to six 868 00:44:18,719 --> 00:44:22,150 To where we are now from with the current code and and what 869 00:44:22,150 --> 00:44:23,119 we're proposing 870 00:44:24,000 --> 00:44:27,099 Converting it, you know looking at canopy compared to 871 00:44:27,099 --> 00:44:31,369 diameter inch. I feel real confident and where that one to 872 00:44:31,369 --> 00:44:31,760 six 873 00:44:32,519 --> 00:44:34,670 Ratio lies and and I'll get to that in a minute. But if you 874 00:44:34,670 --> 00:44:37,940 're calculating the number of trees, you're going to plant 875 00:44:38,719 --> 00:44:41,519 You would have your your square footage of canopy that you 876 00:44:41,519 --> 00:44:42,559 're mitigating 877 00:44:43,239 --> 00:44:45,480 times six divided by 878 00:44:46,719 --> 00:44:48,719 1256 the 879 00:44:48,880 --> 00:44:52,800 1256 square feet that is the value that our code gives to 880 00:44:52,800 --> 00:44:56,659 the canopy of a of a mature large tree here in Denton 881 00:44:57,000 --> 00:44:59,840 So you plug your numbers in there and you would get your 882 00:44:59,840 --> 00:45:01,320 number of trees 883 00:45:02,199 --> 00:45:04,000 planted for the site 884 00:45:04,000 --> 00:45:07,239 So you may say how does this look with real numbers? So I 885 00:45:07,239 --> 00:45:09,320 have some real numbers in here 886 00:45:09,599 --> 00:45:13,460 So again all percentages here are based on the original 887 00:45:14,199 --> 00:45:17,929 Our existing total tree canopy on the site and for sake of 888 00:45:17,929 --> 00:45:20,199 this example and round us 889 00:45:20,599 --> 00:45:23,260 We're saying that the the total tree canopy is a hundred 890 00:45:23,260 --> 00:45:25,300 thousand square feet for this site 891 00:45:25,519 --> 00:45:30,469 So if 30% or 30,000 square feet is preserved you're done. 892 00:45:30,469 --> 00:45:31,679 Nothing else is needed or 893 00:45:32,840 --> 00:45:37,019 You can preserve as low as 20,000 square feet and mitigate 894 00:45:37,019 --> 00:45:39,059 for the 10,000 square feet 895 00:45:39,400 --> 00:45:41,480 so plug in those numbers into 896 00:45:43,159 --> 00:45:48,159 The formula you would multiply the 10,000 times 284 and 897 00:45:48,159 --> 00:45:49,800 your tree fund payment would be 898 00:45:51,599 --> 00:45:53,599 $28,400 899 00:45:54,000 --> 00:45:56,000 Plug in that same number into 900 00:45:56,599 --> 00:45:58,159 your 901 00:45:58,159 --> 00:46:00,159 ratio for tree planting 902 00:46:00,719 --> 00:46:03,820 you would do the 10,000 times six divided by 903 00:46:05,480 --> 00:46:09,980 1256 and your number of trees to plant for mitigation would 904 00:46:09,980 --> 00:46:11,360 be 48 trees and 905 00:46:11,880 --> 00:46:15,400 Again, keep in mind those 48 trees can also count towards 906 00:46:15,400 --> 00:46:17,480 the trees that you are required 907 00:46:17,840 --> 00:46:20,980 By the landscape code to plant on the site street trees 908 00:46:20,980 --> 00:46:22,639 parking lot trees other 909 00:46:23,159 --> 00:46:25,280 Landscape trees buffers what have you? 910 00:46:26,000 --> 00:46:28,210 So you may want to say I know and I know this came up at 911 00:46:28,210 --> 00:46:31,280 the last meeting was what does this look like on a real 912 00:46:31,280 --> 00:46:34,280 site, so we did a case study and 913 00:46:35,320 --> 00:46:39,460 This picture may look familiar. This was presented back in 914 00:46:39,460 --> 00:46:40,920 back in July 915 00:46:41,280 --> 00:46:43,280 So this is a before 916 00:46:43,679 --> 00:46:46,340 Development picture and an after development picture on 917 00:46:46,340 --> 00:46:48,800 this particular site 918 00:46:48,800 --> 00:46:51,900 This was a residential development the majority of the 919 00:46:51,900 --> 00:46:55,920 trees you see the cursor was preserved in this section here 920 00:46:56,000 --> 00:46:58,699 Which they actually did make it into a melody for the 921 00:46:58,699 --> 00:47:00,639 neighborhood. There's a little walking trail 922 00:47:00,639 --> 00:47:01,920 I think maybe a bench in there 923 00:47:01,920 --> 00:47:04,760 So it is something that's usable for the residents of this 924 00:47:04,760 --> 00:47:07,760 neighborhood and there were a few other trees 925 00:47:07,920 --> 00:47:11,019 That was saved on site and this picture doesn't show up if 926 00:47:11,019 --> 00:47:13,840 there's a couple others on the south side of the road 927 00:47:13,840 --> 00:47:16,300 That's also included in this development 928 00:47:17,239 --> 00:47:18,840 Yes 929 00:47:18,840 --> 00:47:21,599 Commissioner back. Thank you chair. So the trees were seen 930 00:47:21,599 --> 00:47:22,960 in the second picture 931 00:47:23,159 --> 00:47:28,320 There is the 30% that were allowed to remain no 932 00:47:28,320 --> 00:47:32,610 This is what was preserved under the existing code. Okay, 933 00:47:32,610 --> 00:47:34,519 and I'm going to get to that. Okay, okay 934 00:47:34,920 --> 00:47:39,039 Real quick, yes the 10% you were talking about I you know 935 00:47:39,039 --> 00:47:42,739 The fact that we let them actually clear out 70% of the 936 00:47:42,739 --> 00:47:43,800 trees bothers me 937 00:47:43,800 --> 00:47:47,239 But and maybe you're gonna address this later to that 10% 938 00:47:48,239 --> 00:47:49,840 rather than 939 00:47:49,840 --> 00:47:53,360 Removing them we could count those existing trees as part 940 00:47:53,360 --> 00:47:55,480 of their landscape requirement 941 00:47:55,480 --> 00:47:57,880 Is that correct or am I jumping the gun here? 942 00:47:57,880 --> 00:48:01,380 No any trees any any trees that are preserved on the site 943 00:48:01,380 --> 00:48:03,760 can also count towards the 944 00:48:04,000 --> 00:48:07,570 Landscape require trees on the site. So conceivably we 945 00:48:07,570 --> 00:48:11,000 could keep that 30% if we could get them to 946 00:48:11,679 --> 00:48:12,840 keep 947 00:48:12,840 --> 00:48:15,940 You know if they were thinking about you know knocking it 948 00:48:15,940 --> 00:48:18,679 down to 20% if we could get them to you know 949 00:48:18,679 --> 00:48:22,269 Keep that extra 10% and make it a total 30% and as part of 950 00:48:22,269 --> 00:48:23,639 their landscape page 951 00:48:24,039 --> 00:48:27,250 It's possible just kind of depends on you know, the site, 952 00:48:27,250 --> 00:48:31,000 you know specifics of the site and how it's laid out. Okay. 953 00:48:31,000 --> 00:48:31,320 Thanks 954 00:48:33,519 --> 00:48:35,079 Okay, so 955 00:48:35,079 --> 00:48:38,519 This is what this site looks like as far as what was 956 00:48:39,639 --> 00:48:43,139 Surveyed as canopy tree canopy on the site. So that light 957 00:48:43,139 --> 00:48:43,440 green 958 00:48:44,079 --> 00:48:48,019 Actually represents the canopy that was on that site prior 959 00:48:48,019 --> 00:48:49,320 to development 960 00:48:51,360 --> 00:48:55,119 So the total area of the site was you know, just over 25 961 00:48:55,119 --> 00:48:55,480 acres 962 00:48:56,000 --> 00:49:00,239 The total tree canopy of this site was just over 11 acres 963 00:49:02,480 --> 00:49:05,699 So on this map here what is showing this is what was 964 00:49:05,699 --> 00:49:09,079 actually shown to be preserved 965 00:49:09,920 --> 00:49:12,639 For this development. This is what was approved with 966 00:49:13,320 --> 00:49:15,519 this particular development the 967 00:49:16,119 --> 00:49:18,559 Shaded SS kind of a yellowish color there 968 00:49:19,840 --> 00:49:23,280 That pretty much represents the canopy that was preserved 969 00:49:24,599 --> 00:49:26,599 so 970 00:49:26,840 --> 00:49:30,239 The area of that area of canopy that was preserved was 971 00:49:31,320 --> 00:49:33,760 Just under a half acre and it amounted to 972 00:49:34,679 --> 00:49:39,010 Just over two thousand square feet of canopy and that was 973 00:49:39,010 --> 00:49:41,539 code compliant under the current code 974 00:49:44,079 --> 00:49:47,230 So if we you know say well what does 20% look like under 975 00:49:47,230 --> 00:49:50,000 what we're proposing if they were mitigating also 976 00:49:50,440 --> 00:49:53,920 Well, the reddish pink area here that's showing 977 00:49:54,699 --> 00:49:58,070 What additional tree canopy could have possibly been 978 00:49:58,070 --> 00:50:01,559 preserved to meet the requirements under the proposed? 979 00:50:02,159 --> 00:50:04,280 revision to the tree code so 980 00:50:05,239 --> 00:50:07,800 The pink here and a lot of this is along the backs of the 981 00:50:07,800 --> 00:50:10,440 properties. This is what's representing 982 00:50:10,880 --> 00:50:13,719 What 20% would look like on this development? 983 00:50:15,280 --> 00:50:18,840 So that 20% would amount to two point two four acres 984 00:50:19,960 --> 00:50:21,639 just under 985 00:50:21,639 --> 00:50:23,639 98 thousand square feet of 986 00:50:25,079 --> 00:50:27,079 preservation 987 00:50:27,679 --> 00:50:30,019 So when you're looking at if they were going to go full 988 00:50:30,019 --> 00:50:33,250 compliance how that would look like on the site the purple 989 00:50:33,250 --> 00:50:33,760 adds in 990 00:50:34,880 --> 00:50:38,619 What 30% would look like on this site and again that would 991 00:50:38,619 --> 00:50:42,840 increase the about three point three acres of trees 992 00:50:44,199 --> 00:50:47,920 And just under 150,000 square feet of canopy 993 00:50:48,800 --> 00:50:52,750 Hey, we just go back to that last slide to clarify they don 994 00:50:52,750 --> 00:50:56,960 't have to actually preserve this the trees in that location 995 00:50:56,960 --> 00:50:59,519 it's pretty much up to the developer where the 996 00:51:00,480 --> 00:51:02,780 The stands would be preserved, but that's just an example 997 00:51:02,780 --> 00:51:05,679 of where they could preserve it correct correct 998 00:51:05,679 --> 00:51:09,179 Yeah, this is just you know an example. That was you know 999 00:51:09,179 --> 00:51:09,820 that made it 1000 00:51:10,639 --> 00:51:13,809 Convenient for our GIS guy Cody he did an excellent job 1001 00:51:13,809 --> 00:51:14,440 with these maps 1002 00:51:15,079 --> 00:51:18,780 So we can show what was preserved what 20% looked like and 1003 00:51:18,780 --> 00:51:21,800 what 30% looks like on this particular site 1004 00:51:23,119 --> 00:51:25,639 Commissioner Tyler. Thank you chair. Yeah 1005 00:51:26,320 --> 00:51:29,920 Could you go back one more slide or one though this one? No 1006 00:51:29,920 --> 00:51:34,019 the one with the total canopy had indicated this one 1007 00:51:34,019 --> 00:51:35,800 so in this one 1008 00:51:35,800 --> 00:51:40,239 This isn't species specific is it no it's not and so 1009 00:51:40,880 --> 00:51:42,880 Is it hackberry juniper? 1010 00:51:43,559 --> 00:51:45,559 Locust boat arc 1011 00:51:45,719 --> 00:51:48,199 Etc none of those would have counted either 1012 00:51:48,840 --> 00:51:51,940 Is that correct well this would pick up all trees on the 1013 00:51:51,940 --> 00:51:55,500 site right, but I'm saying so the new ordinance 1014 00:51:56,199 --> 00:52:00,480 says you can you can ignore the species list right of 1015 00:52:01,280 --> 00:52:03,280 right and if 1016 00:52:03,280 --> 00:52:05,280 Say in this particular case if 1017 00:52:06,679 --> 00:52:08,679 The developer was looking to 1018 00:52:09,800 --> 00:52:12,920 Reduce his total number of canopy based on those species 1019 00:52:12,920 --> 00:52:16,940 what I would require was would be for the preparer of this 1020 00:52:16,940 --> 00:52:17,559 survey 1021 00:52:18,000 --> 00:52:21,570 To provide an estimate of how much what the percentage of 1022 00:52:21,570 --> 00:52:24,960 those trees were and then we would take a deduction 1023 00:52:25,239 --> 00:52:28,559 accordingly and so in this case if if if this was like half 1024 00:52:29,559 --> 00:52:32,440 You know hackberry and juniper and boat arc and so forth 1025 00:52:33,800 --> 00:52:35,869 They could they would have to do a little more work on the 1026 00:52:35,869 --> 00:52:36,360 survey 1027 00:52:36,360 --> 00:52:39,780 you know go out and identify species mix or use like the 1028 00:52:39,780 --> 00:52:43,039 four band satellite to pick up species by color and 1029 00:52:43,800 --> 00:52:47,500 Then this all these calculations on the next page would all 1030 00:52:47,500 --> 00:52:49,079 just be cut in half basically 1031 00:52:49,079 --> 00:52:52,400 Yeah, depending on on the percentage of those exempt trees 1032 00:52:52,400 --> 00:52:54,019 that is correct or another way 1033 00:52:54,019 --> 00:52:56,269 I guess they could do it is they could go ahead and clear 1034 00:52:56,269 --> 00:52:58,000 all unprotected species 1035 00:52:59,119 --> 00:53:01,119 first and then 1036 00:53:01,840 --> 00:53:05,380 Then only have to count the protected species that are 1037 00:53:05,380 --> 00:53:06,000 remaining 1038 00:53:06,360 --> 00:53:08,679 That would not be allowed they can't they can't remove hack 1039 00:53:08,679 --> 00:53:11,079 berry not not on a site that's up for development 1040 00:53:11,679 --> 00:53:14,320 Because the danger with that is that you get someone out 1041 00:53:14,320 --> 00:53:17,079 there with the bulldozer or the chainsaw 1042 00:53:17,280 --> 00:53:19,880 That's cutting trees and you know next thing you know they 1043 00:53:19,880 --> 00:53:20,840 have trees that are 1044 00:53:21,280 --> 00:53:23,989 covered under the ordinance that are on the ground and then 1045 00:53:23,989 --> 00:53:25,679 you know they're dealing with 1046 00:53:27,039 --> 00:53:28,800 You know the the 1047 00:53:28,800 --> 00:53:31,590 Legal ramifications of that so okay, so so they can't they 1048 00:53:31,590 --> 00:53:33,800 really they really absolutely can't clear 1049 00:53:35,440 --> 00:53:38,239 unprotected species until until the surveys complete 1050 00:53:38,239 --> 00:53:39,559 correct correct 1051 00:53:39,559 --> 00:53:42,760 There is a you know allowance if if there's you know if 1052 00:53:42,760 --> 00:53:44,559 they need to to actually use 1053 00:53:45,599 --> 00:53:48,119 Chainsaws to cut through to actually make it through the 1054 00:53:48,119 --> 00:53:51,619 site because some sites is so thick or to do other ground 1055 00:53:51,619 --> 00:53:52,000 work 1056 00:53:52,719 --> 00:53:56,179 You know top typo topo surveys and what-have-you they are 1057 00:53:56,179 --> 00:53:57,099 allowed to do that 1058 00:53:57,099 --> 00:53:59,619 But not to just go in and say let's cut down everything 1059 00:53:59,619 --> 00:54:00,599 that doesn't count 1060 00:54:01,039 --> 00:54:04,679 And I know I've seen that it might be later in the process 1061 00:54:04,679 --> 00:54:06,639 where a develop a site 1062 00:54:06,639 --> 00:54:08,590 Especially like when it's covered in privet or something 1063 00:54:08,590 --> 00:54:11,360 like that at some point pretty early in the process 1064 00:54:11,360 --> 00:54:13,349 They go in and they clear out all the privets so they can 1065 00:54:13,349 --> 00:54:16,599 count the trees stuff like that so okay, so 1066 00:54:17,760 --> 00:54:21,449 So that this even this example though doesn't include the 1067 00:54:21,449 --> 00:54:25,800 potential for a lot of mixed canopy areas 1068 00:54:25,800 --> 00:54:27,800 I mean there are some areas that are solid oak 1069 00:54:28,199 --> 00:54:31,300 That's that's not very common. It's only kind of a few rid 1070 00:54:31,300 --> 00:54:32,559 ges in South Denton and 1071 00:54:33,079 --> 00:54:35,440 You know most neighborhoods and most areas especially in 1072 00:54:35,440 --> 00:54:37,800 the north. There's a lot of mesquite a lot of hackberry 1073 00:54:38,039 --> 00:54:40,880 You know mixed in cedar and some areas are a lot of boat 1074 00:54:40,880 --> 00:54:43,079 arc and so in that case 1075 00:54:43,559 --> 00:54:45,559 There's a pretty good chance that 1076 00:54:45,840 --> 00:54:49,840 this you know half 50% canopy might only be 1077 00:54:51,119 --> 00:54:56,000 25% protected canopy could be yes, it's all site specific 1078 00:54:56,800 --> 00:54:58,800 Thank you. You're welcome 1079 00:55:00,880 --> 00:55:02,880 So 1080 00:55:03,440 --> 00:55:06,000 Okay, so what I did was I did a comparison 1081 00:55:07,039 --> 00:55:10,510 For that specific site and what their mitigation was under 1082 00:55:10,510 --> 00:55:13,070 the current code and what it would look like under the 1083 00:55:13,070 --> 00:55:13,760 proposed code 1084 00:55:13,960 --> 00:55:15,960 so under the current code 1085 00:55:16,000 --> 00:55:20,940 they preserve 618 diameter inches of trees which amounted 1086 00:55:20,940 --> 00:55:21,039 to 1087 00:55:22,000 --> 00:55:24,000 4.2 percent of the of the 1088 00:55:24,559 --> 00:55:26,559 canopy of the site 1089 00:55:26,800 --> 00:55:29,320 Under the proposed code they would have to preserve a bare 1090 00:55:29,320 --> 00:55:32,400 minimum of 20% of the canopy on the site 1091 00:55:33,880 --> 00:55:36,980 The tree fund payment for this particular site was two 1092 00:55:36,980 --> 00:55:39,599 hundred and two thousand dollars and some change 1093 00:55:40,800 --> 00:55:43,369 Under the proposed code if they opted to pay into the tree 1094 00:55:43,369 --> 00:55:46,829 fund their tree fund payment would be a hundred and thirty 1095 00:55:46,829 --> 00:55:47,519 eight thousand 1096 00:55:48,360 --> 00:55:50,360 eight hundred dollars 1097 00:55:51,239 --> 00:55:53,800 If they were mitigating under the 1098 00:55:54,519 --> 00:55:57,619 Current code they would have to plant eight hundred and 1099 00:55:57,619 --> 00:55:58,679 nine trees in 1100 00:55:59,480 --> 00:56:02,769 Addition to any required landscaping trees which for the 1101 00:56:02,769 --> 00:56:05,639 neighborhoods are generally going to be your street trees 1102 00:56:07,440 --> 00:56:11,380 Under the proposed code at that one to six ratio they would 1103 00:56:11,380 --> 00:56:15,119 have to plant two hundred and thirty four trees to mitigate 1104 00:56:17,360 --> 00:56:20,869 So the number of lots as the site was developed under the 1105 00:56:20,869 --> 00:56:23,099 current code was a hundred and three lots 1106 00:56:23,920 --> 00:56:27,630 The proposed code to get that 20% preservation they lose a 1107 00:56:27,630 --> 00:56:31,420 lot and a half basically so counting it as a hundred and 1108 00:56:31,420 --> 00:56:32,320 one lots 1109 00:56:34,480 --> 00:56:37,980 So under the current code based on you know 1110 00:56:38,840 --> 00:56:41,099 Looking at some of the aerials and knowing what they 1111 00:56:41,099 --> 00:56:41,679 planted 1112 00:56:42,440 --> 00:56:45,360 Just counting the street trees and at least one tree per 1113 00:56:45,360 --> 00:56:46,300 lot 1114 00:56:46,880 --> 00:56:50,380 They planted an estimated 236 trees 1115 00:56:52,360 --> 00:56:55,679 So what that really amounts to above what 1116 00:56:56,760 --> 00:56:59,400 Would be required under the proposed code would be an 1117 00:56:59,400 --> 00:57:03,079 addition of 13 trees and that's with that one to six ratio 1118 00:57:03,280 --> 00:57:05,280 which is very important because 1119 00:57:05,360 --> 00:57:06,760 the 1120 00:57:06,760 --> 00:57:08,639 234 trees 1121 00:57:08,639 --> 00:57:11,389 They're able to count towards their street trees the trees 1122 00:57:11,389 --> 00:57:14,139 that they plant in the yards can also be a mitigation tree 1123 00:57:15,079 --> 00:57:19,269 You know the goal is not to you know make it more difficult 1124 00:57:19,269 --> 00:57:20,400 for developers 1125 00:57:20,559 --> 00:57:25,500 You know my goal is you know a to make the 30% preservation 1126 00:57:25,500 --> 00:57:27,500 if you can't make the 30% preservation 1127 00:57:28,000 --> 00:57:31,400 Make at least a 20% and plant trees back on site 1128 00:57:32,039 --> 00:57:34,760 Payment into the tree funds should really be the last 1129 00:57:34,760 --> 00:57:36,320 option which means you know 1130 00:57:36,320 --> 00:57:39,030 I can't put any additional trees on the site, and I didn't 1131 00:57:39,030 --> 00:57:41,199 meet my preservation requirements 1132 00:57:41,320 --> 00:57:44,360 But you know I see payment into the tree fund 1133 00:57:44,360 --> 00:57:47,039 It is really a signal that you know we failed 1134 00:57:47,280 --> 00:57:50,380 We failed to protect trees and we failed to put trees back 1135 00:57:50,380 --> 00:57:54,619 on the site so for me that should always be the last option 1136 00:57:57,079 --> 00:57:58,679 Question for you move on yes 1137 00:57:58,679 --> 00:58:02,380 How did you do your calculation on the lot numbers they 1138 00:58:02,380 --> 00:58:06,139 exactly the same size lots because if the 20% canopy on? 1139 00:58:07,199 --> 00:58:10,960 11 acres is going to be two and a half 1140 00:58:11,760 --> 00:58:15,090 Versus I think it was less than a half you got two more 1141 00:58:15,090 --> 00:58:17,000 acres that you're losing 1142 00:58:17,599 --> 00:58:20,679 I basically counted the lots in the neighborhood 1143 00:58:22,239 --> 00:58:24,239 The only ones if I'm thinking 1144 00:58:24,480 --> 00:58:27,599 That I may have missed with there was like maybe three or 1145 00:58:27,599 --> 00:58:30,719 four that was south of of the the main street there 1146 00:58:31,239 --> 00:58:34,389 But I basically went on the number of lots that that was 1147 00:58:34,389 --> 00:58:38,360 that without were developed as it sits in the field today 1148 00:58:39,119 --> 00:58:42,219 That's that I'm just doing the math in my mind from the 1149 00:58:42,219 --> 00:58:42,800 previous 1150 00:58:43,679 --> 00:58:47,380 Versus 20% of the 11 acres is going to be roughly two and 1151 00:58:47,380 --> 00:58:49,840 almost two and a half acres 1152 00:58:50,119 --> 00:58:52,119 so you got two acres less of 1153 00:58:52,840 --> 00:58:55,610 property put lots on and those lots are probably going to 1154 00:58:55,610 --> 00:58:55,840 be 1155 00:58:56,639 --> 00:58:58,840 three to four lots an acre, so I'm just 1156 00:58:59,639 --> 00:59:03,590 Curious how it works out with less acreage to develop that 1157 00:59:03,590 --> 00:59:07,400 you get almost the same lot count and the second part that 1158 00:59:08,159 --> 00:59:12,110 Dollar analogy doesn't take into account the acreage. That 1159 00:59:12,110 --> 00:59:16,199 's now an undevelopable. That's not calculated in that those 1160 00:59:16,199 --> 00:59:16,800 costs 1161 00:59:17,679 --> 00:59:20,550 We're just talking about trees only we're not counting any 1162 00:59:20,550 --> 00:59:21,760 of the other infrastructure 1163 00:59:22,360 --> 00:59:25,639 Land purchase costs any of those types of things well 1164 00:59:26,039 --> 00:59:28,369 I'm gonna pull this this slide back up because this may 1165 00:59:28,369 --> 00:59:31,440 help to clarify what I did with looking at the 20% 1166 00:59:32,000 --> 00:59:35,940 So on this side here. This is the two lots that were lost 1167 00:59:35,940 --> 00:59:37,840 everything else remained 1168 00:59:38,159 --> 00:59:41,699 As far as lots based on what is actually existing on the 1169 00:59:41,699 --> 00:59:46,119 site this red color. That's your tree canopy so where this 1170 00:59:47,599 --> 00:59:51,039 Tree camp is located is what would be in the back short 1171 00:59:51,039 --> 00:59:56,119 backyards of these properties so along the west north 1172 00:59:56,719 --> 01:00:00,170 The south side this is this this acreage that's counted for 1173 01:00:00,170 --> 01:00:02,940 tree canopy isn't taking up acres that 1174 01:00:03,840 --> 01:00:05,840 away from from 1175 01:00:06,320 --> 01:00:09,420 Lots that were built with exception of the one and a half 1176 01:00:09,420 --> 01:00:12,639 that I counted as two on this part of the property 1177 01:00:12,800 --> 01:00:16,809 So that's where you know that acres is spread out so some 1178 01:00:16,809 --> 01:00:19,679 of that is overlapping the lots 1179 01:00:21,760 --> 01:00:23,760 In this example 1180 01:00:24,199 --> 01:00:26,199 I'm just looking at the 1181 01:00:26,760 --> 01:00:30,900 Site that you presented there were 11 acres and something 1182 01:00:30,900 --> 01:00:33,159 of tree canopy if you've got to preserve 1183 01:00:34,280 --> 01:00:39,230 20% minimum the ideal is 30, but a minimum is 20 on that 1184 01:00:39,230 --> 01:00:41,320 site. You've got to then preserve at least two 1185 01:00:42,880 --> 01:00:45,539 Two and a quarter two and a half acres of yes, that's what 1186 01:00:45,539 --> 01:00:47,079 I calculated I understand 1187 01:00:47,599 --> 01:00:50,849 It works out good in this example that you're able to do 1188 01:00:50,849 --> 01:00:53,909 that because there's trees on the outside edge in this 1189 01:00:53,909 --> 01:00:54,719 example 1190 01:00:54,719 --> 01:00:57,559 But if the trees are in the center of the property 1191 01:00:58,199 --> 01:01:01,500 You don't get that overhang in that fringe benefit 1192 01:01:02,320 --> 01:01:04,860 You're gonna end up with a spot in the center there of two 1193 01:01:04,860 --> 01:01:06,360 and a quarter two and a half acres 1194 01:01:06,639 --> 01:01:10,119 That has to be preserved and it's not going to be overhang 1195 01:01:10,119 --> 01:01:12,159 or whatever it is like it is 1196 01:01:12,679 --> 01:01:15,230 Nicely in this example where it's around the edge is that 1197 01:01:15,230 --> 01:01:15,559 make 1198 01:01:16,199 --> 01:01:18,199 my explaining what my 1199 01:01:18,559 --> 01:01:20,780 Looking at this and comparing to just any other site 1200 01:01:20,780 --> 01:01:22,280 because it's around the edge 1201 01:01:23,239 --> 01:01:26,340 It benefits this site versus this in the center of the site 1202 01:01:26,340 --> 01:01:29,460 . It's very different. It's it's all site specific 1203 01:01:29,460 --> 01:01:32,969 I understand and and and what it depends on is is you know, 1204 01:01:32,969 --> 01:01:35,929 because what we what we require doesn't dictate how you 1205 01:01:35,929 --> 01:01:36,380 know 1206 01:01:36,380 --> 01:01:39,480 The development is laid out whether it's residential 1207 01:01:39,480 --> 01:01:42,239 commercial. So it's it's basically, you know 1208 01:01:42,760 --> 01:01:46,460 Being creative to a certain extent with you know, how the 1209 01:01:46,460 --> 01:01:50,150 the subdivision is laid out to achieve, you know those 1210 01:01:50,150 --> 01:01:50,539 numbers 1211 01:01:51,280 --> 01:01:53,280 Okay 1212 01:01:54,480 --> 01:01:56,000 Commissioner Zell 1213 01:01:56,000 --> 01:01:58,000 Thank you chair. I'm not sure 1214 01:01:58,619 --> 01:02:01,449 Who would best answer this and my the chair might be able 1215 01:02:01,449 --> 01:02:02,880 to provide insight to this 1216 01:02:04,480 --> 01:02:07,000 Why did the developer take down the perimeter trees to 1217 01:02:07,000 --> 01:02:10,880 begin with when that add value to the property? I'm I'm 1218 01:02:10,880 --> 01:02:12,159 trying to 1219 01:02:12,880 --> 01:02:14,880 Just understand in this situation 1220 01:02:15,440 --> 01:02:17,440 Why any of those red trees? 1221 01:02:18,079 --> 01:02:20,719 Apart from the ones taking up the two lots 1222 01:02:21,360 --> 01:02:24,010 Were even taken down and I don't know if there's an answer 1223 01:02:24,010 --> 01:02:24,960 to be had by that 1224 01:02:25,960 --> 01:02:28,630 Because it just seems like it was unnecessary to begin with 1225 01:02:28,630 --> 01:02:31,820 if that if it didn't impact the building of those homes to 1226 01:02:31,820 --> 01:02:32,500 begin with 1227 01:02:33,679 --> 01:02:35,119 Is there 1228 01:02:35,119 --> 01:02:37,119 Jared do you know what would be? 1229 01:02:37,760 --> 01:02:41,300 Pure speculation, but why they would take the perimeter 1230 01:02:41,300 --> 01:02:41,940 trees down 1231 01:02:42,360 --> 01:02:46,369 Pure speculation is that when you look at a site that's as 1232 01:02:46,369 --> 01:02:47,960 tight for most? 1233 01:02:48,119 --> 01:02:50,230 developments that are in the city of Denton by the time you 1234 01:02:50,230 --> 01:02:52,480 meet all the grading criteria on the lots 1235 01:02:52,920 --> 01:02:56,019 The swales where the water has to go to the side yards and 1236 01:02:56,019 --> 01:02:57,760 from the backyards to the front 1237 01:02:58,199 --> 01:03:02,150 It's very difficult just to say we're gonna not touch part 1238 01:03:02,150 --> 01:03:04,199 of it on a deal like that 1239 01:03:04,199 --> 01:03:06,679 By the time you cut the streets and grade the pads 1240 01:03:08,039 --> 01:03:11,280 If it's a home warranty subdivision, they typically have 1241 01:03:11,280 --> 01:03:13,579 exclusions that you can't have any trees within so many 1242 01:03:13,579 --> 01:03:15,159 feet of houses 1243 01:03:15,159 --> 01:03:17,920 I think it's at least 10 feet or they don't extend coverage 1244 01:03:18,280 --> 01:03:22,840 So I can't I'm gonna speculate sir all those things go into 1245 01:03:22,840 --> 01:03:25,280 what makes it really difficult and 1246 01:03:25,920 --> 01:03:29,760 Kind of what's been my concern on the tree preservation 1247 01:03:30,400 --> 01:03:34,760 Is it's very difficult to do because of the density on 1248 01:03:34,760 --> 01:03:35,800 these sites? 1249 01:03:37,920 --> 01:03:40,260 To save the trees that's what I was kind of thinking I was 1250 01:03:40,260 --> 01:03:43,210 just looking at this and and it does seem that you're 1251 01:03:43,210 --> 01:03:44,280 presenting a 1252 01:03:44,960 --> 01:03:47,269 Solution that would be workable for this but in my mind I 1253 01:03:47,269 --> 01:03:49,119 was saying there had to have been a reason 1254 01:03:51,079 --> 01:03:54,659 Logistically why why it wouldn't have happened it maybe the 1255 01:03:54,659 --> 01:03:58,079 presentation is is maybe better in theory 1256 01:03:58,840 --> 01:04:02,550 In terms of ease and cost to the actual development and so 1257 01:04:02,550 --> 01:04:04,179 I appreciate you. Let me 1258 01:04:04,840 --> 01:04:08,269 Think through that sure and I can't speak specifically to 1259 01:04:08,269 --> 01:04:08,840 this site 1260 01:04:08,840 --> 01:04:13,360 I can say that I've had had the opportunity to work with a 1261 01:04:14,000 --> 01:04:17,920 developer on a different residential site where initially 1262 01:04:17,920 --> 01:04:21,079 they weren't meeting the current tree code requirements and 1263 01:04:21,559 --> 01:04:24,659 and meeting with the engineer that was laying out the site 1264 01:04:24,659 --> 01:04:24,960 and 1265 01:04:25,840 --> 01:04:28,679 Their contractor that was actually doing the on-site 1266 01:04:28,679 --> 01:04:29,320 grading 1267 01:04:29,920 --> 01:04:31,920 We were able to preserve 1268 01:04:32,000 --> 01:04:34,400 additional trees to where they didn't have to 1269 01:04:36,760 --> 01:04:38,199 Mitigate through 1270 01:04:38,199 --> 01:04:41,300 Payment into the tree fund and and and a large part it 1271 01:04:41,300 --> 01:04:44,679 ended up similar to this where they were trees around the 1272 01:04:44,679 --> 01:04:44,880 perimeter 1273 01:04:44,880 --> 01:04:46,880 That ends up in the backyards 1274 01:04:47,239 --> 01:04:51,489 But you know like the commission strange mentioned a lot of 1275 01:04:51,489 --> 01:04:54,039 its real site specific how is existing 1276 01:04:55,199 --> 01:04:58,599 You know the existing slopes and everything are on the land 1277 01:04:58,599 --> 01:04:59,679 so it it's all 1278 01:05:00,519 --> 01:05:02,880 You know very specific to the individual site 1279 01:05:03,480 --> 01:05:05,639 Understood. Thank you. I'll take one additional 1280 01:05:06,199 --> 01:05:09,829 Point as we move forward in the presentation and further 1281 01:05:09,829 --> 01:05:10,679 discussion 1282 01:05:11,719 --> 01:05:14,369 Is there going to be some kind of an adjustment in the 1283 01:05:14,369 --> 01:05:16,519 development code that if you? 1284 01:05:16,719 --> 01:05:19,559 Preserve these trees you get some kind of density transfer 1285 01:05:19,559 --> 01:05:20,679 or it's that density 1286 01:05:21,199 --> 01:05:25,539 Lost what how's that work? There's not a density transfer 1287 01:05:26,280 --> 01:05:29,650 There is as mentioned earlier. There's credit that's given 1288 01:05:29,650 --> 01:05:32,199 towards required landscape canopy 1289 01:05:32,480 --> 01:05:36,400 So you do get you know credit for those trees? 1290 01:05:36,559 --> 01:05:39,699 Towards what you're required to to have on your site 1291 01:05:41,360 --> 01:05:43,659 So if you end up with a site that you've got ten acres of 1292 01:05:43,659 --> 01:05:47,039 preservation as long as it's in in the zoning 1293 01:05:47,719 --> 01:05:50,059 You can preserve that you just may have to make your lot 1294 01:05:50,059 --> 01:05:53,239 smaller and tighter to get your same lot count 1295 01:05:54,840 --> 01:05:56,840 That's goes beyond my expertise 1296 01:05:57,840 --> 01:06:00,559 Okay, yeah, well, I'd be interested to hear how that 1297 01:06:01,400 --> 01:06:03,400 gets factored in 1298 01:06:03,440 --> 01:06:05,440 As this goes forward 1299 01:06:08,559 --> 01:06:10,559 Commissioner has been signed there was a question somewhere 1300 01:06:10,559 --> 01:06:13,280 . I apologize. Thank you. So before it's too late 1301 01:06:13,280 --> 01:06:15,590 So first I want to own a comminute. Hey, we're on a few 1302 01:06:15,590 --> 01:06:16,480 different things 1303 01:06:17,159 --> 01:06:20,500 So I'm I'm a static that we've been talking 1304 01:06:21,119 --> 01:06:24,829 Lot size right because that that means you've stepped out 1305 01:06:24,829 --> 01:06:27,760 of your normal role and understanding 1306 01:06:28,280 --> 01:06:31,869 This this citizen we're serving and and kind of hey, I'm 1307 01:06:31,869 --> 01:06:34,480 reaching out. I don't understand it, but I'm trying to 1308 01:06:35,119 --> 01:06:38,670 At least purport to your lingo and and take that in 1309 01:06:38,670 --> 01:06:39,599 consideration 1310 01:06:39,599 --> 01:06:42,699 I think that's great and I and I wish that would happen 1311 01:06:42,699 --> 01:06:43,079 more often 1312 01:06:43,639 --> 01:06:46,219 And I'm gonna say this just because I don't know for what a 1313 01:06:46,219 --> 01:06:46,719 slot is 1314 01:06:46,719 --> 01:06:49,880 But but I'm saying I'm a static that we've gotten this far 1315 01:06:49,880 --> 01:06:50,760 and we hadn't talked about 1316 01:06:51,079 --> 01:06:53,599 This other city's doing this that or the other, you know 1317 01:06:53,599 --> 01:06:56,460 that it's homegrown and it's home developed and that is 1318 01:06:56,460 --> 01:06:57,400 encouraging to me 1319 01:06:58,559 --> 01:07:00,559 and then 1320 01:07:00,880 --> 01:07:03,400 There's precious few things that I've dealt with in the 1321 01:07:03,400 --> 01:07:03,960 city that 1322 01:07:04,920 --> 01:07:06,739 Aren't looking for money, you know 1323 01:07:06,739 --> 01:07:09,579 So that that too is a positive that you're trying to serve 1324 01:07:09,579 --> 01:07:11,679 a community understand that community 1325 01:07:11,920 --> 01:07:14,530 Understand the challenges that face that community and we 1326 01:07:14,530 --> 01:07:15,860 're not trying to you know 1327 01:07:17,400 --> 01:07:19,539 Take their money and build a statue with it, you know, 1328 01:07:19,539 --> 01:07:22,920 whatever so that's I'm just excited about all that 1329 01:07:23,400 --> 01:07:25,400 And I think it's important to say 1330 01:07:26,239 --> 01:07:27,400 before 1331 01:07:27,400 --> 01:07:30,340 whatever else but I just think that's really a good thing 1332 01:07:30,340 --> 01:07:34,280 to try to look into that world and then I 1333 01:07:37,800 --> 01:07:39,800 Do 1334 01:07:40,280 --> 01:07:42,480 For what it's worth I just think I don't know 1335 01:07:43,840 --> 01:07:48,280 This this lays out pretty well to me, but I would ask that 1336 01:07:49,079 --> 01:07:51,889 I'd asked I guess those have been on the panel a little 1337 01:07:51,889 --> 01:07:55,280 longer on the Commission a little longer has a 1338 01:07:55,920 --> 01:07:57,920 home developer ever come 1339 01:07:58,159 --> 01:08:01,420 Do a work session do it because I mean I mean you rattle 1340 01:08:01,420 --> 01:08:01,619 off 1341 01:08:01,960 --> 01:08:03,519 I understand what a padside is 1342 01:08:03,519 --> 01:08:06,059 I understand grading understand all that but if you gave me 1343 01:08:06,059 --> 01:08:08,840 a blank piece of paper and said go beginning to end on a 1344 01:08:08,840 --> 01:08:09,280 building 1345 01:08:09,280 --> 01:08:12,670 Process I'd start at one with you start building and end it 1346 01:08:12,670 --> 01:08:14,300 to you in building, you know 1347 01:08:14,300 --> 01:08:17,050 So I think it's important that we have a developer of some 1348 01:08:17,050 --> 01:08:17,359 sort 1349 01:08:17,359 --> 01:08:18,439 I don't know if you've ever had it 1350 01:08:18,439 --> 01:08:21,340 But I'd like to request that as a some sort of work session 1351 01:08:21,340 --> 01:08:22,199 that a developer 1352 01:08:22,199 --> 01:08:24,760 Maybe a commercial developer and a home developer two 1353 01:08:24,760 --> 01:08:28,220 different times come just give us a give us a day in the 1354 01:08:28,220 --> 01:08:28,619 life 1355 01:08:29,159 --> 01:08:31,840 You know just say talk to us. What what do you do? What are 1356 01:08:31,840 --> 01:08:33,520 you looking at? Well? Here's an example 1357 01:08:33,520 --> 01:08:36,270 Here's how we get from a to B. Here's we have to consider. 1358 01:08:36,270 --> 01:08:37,920 Here's the here's the bumps in the road 1359 01:08:37,920 --> 01:08:40,729 I mean no different than any other presentation we get I 1360 01:08:40,729 --> 01:08:42,060 think that's that's good insight 1361 01:08:47,439 --> 01:08:50,800 Okay, I think I have maybe a couple of more slides here let 1362 01:08:50,800 --> 01:08:53,439 me get back to where it was at so 1363 01:08:55,760 --> 01:08:57,329 As a part of this process, you know, we solicited as I 1364 01:08:57,329 --> 01:09:01,680 mentioned earlier input from the community via a 1365 01:09:03,199 --> 01:09:05,199 Visual preference survey and 1366 01:09:05,319 --> 01:09:08,439 These are some of the the main takeaways that that we got 1367 01:09:08,439 --> 01:09:09,600 from that survey 1368 01:09:09,880 --> 01:09:12,760 Was that the city should work to preserve and grow more 1369 01:09:12,760 --> 01:09:14,680 trees that are well maintained 1370 01:09:16,359 --> 01:09:18,359 Tree plantings should be 1371 01:09:19,239 --> 01:09:21,939 Tree plantings should maintain clear line of sight and 1372 01:09:21,939 --> 01:09:25,319 visibility of business addresses and signage 1373 01:09:26,800 --> 01:09:29,369 nighttime pedestrian safety on sidewalks and parking lots 1374 01:09:29,369 --> 01:09:32,760 should be a consideration with new plantings and 1375 01:09:33,840 --> 01:09:36,279 Parking lots should be designed to provide shade 1376 01:09:36,800 --> 01:09:40,060 But deter bird populations that nest in trees that last 1377 01:09:40,060 --> 01:09:42,659 part you know, it's kind of a tricky one 1378 01:09:44,600 --> 01:09:46,600 Yeah, so 1379 01:09:51,319 --> 01:09:53,319 Yeah 1380 01:09:54,239 --> 01:09:57,840 So at this time what I wanted to do was actually go through 1381 01:09:58,560 --> 01:10:02,479 the proposed ordinance I put some handouts out there and 1382 01:10:02,479 --> 01:10:04,199 what I'm going to do is just 1383 01:10:05,479 --> 01:10:08,670 Hit the highlights of the areas that are significantly 1384 01:10:08,670 --> 01:10:12,079 different from the previous the tree the previous code 1385 01:10:12,520 --> 01:10:17,210 You have a red line version. Yes, I think I know we have 1386 01:10:17,210 --> 01:10:18,079 food tonight 1387 01:10:18,239 --> 01:10:20,000 Okay, would it now be a good time for us? 1388 01:10:20,000 --> 01:10:22,520 Maybe take a five minute break get some food and we can 1389 01:10:22,520 --> 01:10:24,960 just work on through till we run out of time 1390 01:10:25,199 --> 01:10:29,960 Yes, good with that. I'm gonna call a recess at 545 and let 1391 01:10:29,960 --> 01:10:31,359 's try to get back in here at 1392 01:10:32,079 --> 01:10:34,079 550 and continue 1393 01:10:42,520 --> 01:10:44,520 I 1394 01:10:46,960 --> 01:10:49,479 Gonna call our planning is on the Commission work session 1395 01:10:49,479 --> 01:10:52,000 back in order at 552 1396 01:10:56,840 --> 01:11:00,329 Okay, so what I like to do now is basically do a page turn 1397 01:11:00,329 --> 01:11:02,319 through the proposed 1398 01:11:04,439 --> 01:11:08,449 Tree code that that we are put in fourth and what I'm going 1399 01:11:08,449 --> 01:11:12,140 to highlight is are the things that are the major 1400 01:11:12,840 --> 01:11:15,199 changes from the existing 1401 01:11:16,239 --> 01:11:18,039 tree code 1402 01:11:18,039 --> 01:11:21,140 So everyone should have a handout in front of you and the 1403 01:11:21,140 --> 01:11:23,939 one I'm going for miss the one that's the black and white 1404 01:11:23,939 --> 01:11:24,579 copy here 1405 01:11:28,039 --> 01:11:29,159 So 1406 01:11:29,159 --> 01:11:32,489 One of the things that we did with this is we looked at our 1407 01:11:32,489 --> 01:11:35,479 definition sections as you see on page two here 1408 01:11:36,079 --> 01:11:37,560 to 1409 01:11:37,560 --> 01:11:38,479 actually 1410 01:11:38,479 --> 01:11:41,079 Revise some of these definitions to be more 1411 01:11:41,920 --> 01:11:43,479 in sync with 1412 01:11:43,479 --> 01:11:46,140 definitions by the International Society of Abora culture 1413 01:11:46,760 --> 01:11:50,310 Felt it was very important to not just have definitions 1414 01:11:50,310 --> 01:11:52,319 that you know that that we feel are 1415 01:11:54,279 --> 01:11:58,199 Unique to Denton but to have definitions that would be 1416 01:11:59,199 --> 01:12:02,359 Universal for those who are coming in and actually having 1417 01:12:02,359 --> 01:12:05,840 to read our code and look at the language in the code 1418 01:12:09,159 --> 01:12:12,069 So just had you know, let's say just a few of those 1419 01:12:12,069 --> 01:12:13,520 definitions some that 1420 01:12:14,720 --> 01:12:18,399 Were changed the definition in here for public utilities 1421 01:12:18,399 --> 01:12:21,909 We moved it out and are going to use the the definition in 1422 01:12:21,909 --> 01:12:25,140 the code that's used elsewhere for basic utility 1423 01:12:26,640 --> 01:12:31,039 The definition for qualified professional we removed that 1424 01:12:33,000 --> 01:12:36,539 Requirement out for a qualified professional and just 1425 01:12:36,539 --> 01:12:38,619 stated an ISA certified obris 1426 01:12:39,159 --> 01:12:42,960 The reason being we went to the ISA certified obris was 1427 01:12:42,960 --> 01:12:44,800 again as an international 1428 01:12:45,600 --> 01:12:46,760 certification 1429 01:12:46,760 --> 01:12:48,840 And it's something that I can verify 1430 01:12:50,199 --> 01:12:53,199 Through their website if the person's credentials are 1431 01:12:54,279 --> 01:12:55,600 valid 1432 01:12:55,600 --> 01:12:59,560 Under the current code is really no way for me to validate 1433 01:13:00,199 --> 01:13:04,189 Someone's credentials when they sent when they send in true 1434 01:13:04,189 --> 01:13:06,319 preservation code short of you know 1435 01:13:06,319 --> 01:13:08,640 Requiring them to send in a copy of their degree 1436 01:13:09,159 --> 01:13:11,159 So 1437 01:13:13,279 --> 01:13:15,279 Moving down 1438 01:13:15,520 --> 01:13:19,680 Get into section a of the code we have 1439 01:13:22,119 --> 01:13:24,800 That this mic seems to be turned down low 1440 01:13:26,359 --> 01:13:28,359 Okay, so 1441 01:13:28,600 --> 01:13:31,119 What we decide to do is for some of the definitions that 1442 01:13:31,119 --> 01:13:33,119 are specific to the tree code 1443 01:13:33,520 --> 01:13:36,619 Was we put those in at the beginning of this particular sub 1444 01:13:36,619 --> 01:13:37,119 section? 1445 01:13:37,960 --> 01:13:39,960 To make it you know a little more user-friendly 1446 01:13:40,279 --> 01:13:43,380 For someone that's going through the code and you know they 1447 01:13:43,380 --> 01:13:46,039 come across the definitions and they want to look at you 1448 01:13:46,039 --> 01:13:46,079 know 1449 01:13:46,079 --> 01:13:49,760 What that definition means so we added in? 1450 01:13:51,119 --> 01:13:53,119 You know definition for 1451 01:13:53,960 --> 01:13:55,960 cross-timbers forest here 1452 01:13:55,960 --> 01:13:57,960 developer exempt trees 1453 01:13:58,199 --> 01:14:02,159 Yes, why do we have developer instead of property owner? 1454 01:14:04,439 --> 01:14:07,880 Commonplace most of the time whenever you know someone 1455 01:14:07,880 --> 01:14:10,460 comes to the city is you know the developer that's 1456 01:14:10,460 --> 01:14:12,840 representing the property owner that we deal with 1457 01:14:13,680 --> 01:14:16,779 Through the development process in some instances. We may 1458 01:14:16,779 --> 01:14:18,159 not even see the property owner 1459 01:14:19,920 --> 01:14:23,479 Of who is being represented by the developer well 1460 01:14:24,479 --> 01:14:26,510 Because I think it states that you know whether it's a 1461 01:14:26,510 --> 01:14:27,880 representative or not in the code 1462 01:14:27,880 --> 01:14:31,380 I guess my concern about this is that it somewhat misleads 1463 01:14:31,380 --> 01:14:32,119 the public 1464 01:14:32,560 --> 01:14:35,409 Because this tree code now doesn't just apply to property 1465 01:14:35,409 --> 01:14:38,319 being developed it now applies to every piece of property 1466 01:14:38,319 --> 01:14:39,239 in the city that 1467 01:14:39,720 --> 01:14:42,880 Whether it's a single-family existing lot, so if somebody 1468 01:14:42,880 --> 01:14:44,399 wants to 1469 01:14:45,479 --> 01:14:47,479 put swimming pool in 1470 01:14:47,680 --> 01:14:49,880 Make an addition to their home, and they've got to cut down 1471 01:14:50,880 --> 01:14:52,560 two or three 1472 01:14:52,560 --> 01:14:56,479 Protected trees 18 inch trees they will now have to follow 1473 01:14:56,479 --> 01:14:57,640 this they'll have to pay 1474 01:14:58,159 --> 01:15:00,680 Whatever four or five thousand dollars a tree for each one 1475 01:15:00,680 --> 01:15:01,199 of those 1476 01:15:02,319 --> 01:15:04,319 That's not totally accurate 1477 01:15:04,960 --> 01:15:07,479 Straighten out me out where I'm not correct under the 1478 01:15:07,479 --> 01:15:08,239 existing code 1479 01:15:08,960 --> 01:15:11,340 And it's a little bit. You know confusing because they 1480 01:15:11,340 --> 01:15:14,539 state that there's an exempt them for single-family and 1481 01:15:15,680 --> 01:15:18,560 Duplex properties, but if you go under the permitting 1482 01:15:18,560 --> 01:15:19,060 section 1483 01:15:19,060 --> 01:15:22,199 It says that those same properties are required to have a 1484 01:15:22,199 --> 01:15:24,199 permit to remove five or more trees 1485 01:15:24,479 --> 01:15:28,760 So they had a partial exemption under the current code 1486 01:15:29,399 --> 01:15:31,399 But not a full exemption 1487 01:15:31,560 --> 01:15:33,560 in order right yeah and 1488 01:15:33,720 --> 01:15:37,420 Second if it's five or more under the current code, but it 1489 01:15:37,420 --> 01:15:38,319 doesn't specify 1490 01:15:38,600 --> 01:15:43,140 You know five trees today five trees this week five trees 1491 01:15:43,720 --> 01:15:46,439 You know a year. It just says five trees is very 1492 01:15:48,199 --> 01:15:51,640 Very gray area you know when trying to actually enforce 1493 01:15:52,600 --> 01:15:56,539 That particular section of the code as far as you're right 1494 01:15:56,539 --> 01:15:58,439 every property would be 1495 01:15:59,039 --> 01:16:01,039 under this existing tree code 1496 01:16:02,000 --> 01:16:04,600 Requiring a property owner to receive to get a permit to 1497 01:16:04,600 --> 01:16:07,520 remove a tree that's large than five inches 1498 01:16:08,520 --> 01:16:10,520 Does a couple of things? 1499 01:16:10,520 --> 01:16:14,750 It gives me or you know the city a chance to actually you 1500 01:16:14,750 --> 01:16:15,439 know 1501 01:16:15,880 --> 01:16:17,819 Work with the property owner on what they're doing in the 1502 01:16:17,819 --> 01:16:19,680 case if they're building a swimming pool 1503 01:16:20,760 --> 01:16:24,130 You know that request is going to come in with their you 1504 01:16:24,130 --> 01:16:27,149 know excavation permit to actually put that pool in they 1505 01:16:27,149 --> 01:16:27,720 will now 1506 01:16:28,600 --> 01:16:31,699 Even under the existing code that request would come in it 1507 01:16:31,699 --> 01:16:34,180 was five or less if it was five or less 1508 01:16:35,079 --> 01:16:38,399 Inevitably the the question would come up about trees 1509 01:16:39,600 --> 01:16:41,810 But what I was getting to is it gives me the chance to talk 1510 01:16:41,810 --> 01:16:43,880 with the homeowner in some cases 1511 01:16:44,960 --> 01:16:46,960 and I had a 1512 01:16:47,600 --> 01:16:51,489 Request from one of our senior residents here in town where 1513 01:16:51,489 --> 01:16:52,000 she was 1514 01:16:53,439 --> 01:16:56,140 Was was told that the tree in her backyard need to be cut 1515 01:16:56,140 --> 01:16:58,800 down that you know it had some issues you know about the 1516 01:16:58,800 --> 01:17:01,199 Tree guy that she had look at it well 1517 01:17:01,199 --> 01:17:04,050 I went out to the site and I looked up looked at the tree 1518 01:17:04,050 --> 01:17:08,239 inspected the tree for and I didn't see any 1519 01:17:09,439 --> 01:17:11,680 Justification to cut that tree down 1520 01:17:12,199 --> 01:17:17,159 So by requiring a permit in some cases as this you know it 1521 01:17:17,159 --> 01:17:19,960 gives that homeowner a little bit extra protection some 1522 01:17:20,319 --> 01:17:24,020 Unbiased eyes to look at this tree not just the guy that 1523 01:17:24,020 --> 01:17:26,899 wants to remove the tree and make you know 1524 01:17:27,119 --> 01:17:29,000 A thousand bucks fifteen hundred bucks or whatever they're 1525 01:17:29,000 --> 01:17:29,359 charging 1526 01:17:30,079 --> 01:17:32,079 in other instances 1527 01:17:32,319 --> 01:17:34,319 You know I had a local 1528 01:17:34,920 --> 01:17:38,199 Commercial site you know the owners of the building came in 1529 01:17:38,199 --> 01:17:40,199 and they wanted to remove the tree 1530 01:17:40,199 --> 01:17:40,720 So I said well 1531 01:17:40,720 --> 01:17:42,520 Let me come out to the site and look at the tree see 1532 01:17:42,520 --> 01:17:44,939 exactly what you're talking about and their concern was 1533 01:17:44,939 --> 01:17:45,319 mainly 1534 01:17:45,359 --> 01:17:48,220 To do with visibility they had a new tenant coming in they 1535 01:17:48,220 --> 01:17:50,279 want to make sure the sign was visible 1536 01:17:50,279 --> 01:17:53,500 So I met with them on the site and they had you know it's 1537 01:17:53,500 --> 01:17:54,840 two nice live oak trees 1538 01:17:54,840 --> 01:17:57,729 And you know I pointed out to him. I was like really you 1539 01:17:57,729 --> 01:17:57,960 can 1540 01:17:58,720 --> 01:18:02,439 You can prune off you know these branches and accomplish 1541 01:18:02,439 --> 01:18:05,409 the same thing without the added expense of actually 1542 01:18:05,409 --> 01:18:06,439 removing the tree 1543 01:18:06,800 --> 01:18:08,800 so it's really 1544 01:18:09,439 --> 01:18:12,619 You know twofold is this you know to to have a chance to 1545 01:18:12,619 --> 01:18:15,920 interact with the public and educate them on on their trees 1546 01:18:16,560 --> 01:18:20,020 But and also to give them you know a second opinion that 1547 01:18:20,020 --> 01:18:22,199 they may have received from 1548 01:18:22,680 --> 01:18:26,109 You know a tree service that you know just like to come in 1549 01:18:26,109 --> 01:18:27,199 and cut down their tree 1550 01:18:27,359 --> 01:18:30,479 When the tree really doesn't need to be removed 1551 01:18:30,479 --> 01:18:33,630 I don't have a problem with either of those examples, and 1552 01:18:33,630 --> 01:18:36,539 that's not really what my point is my point is that we 1553 01:18:36,539 --> 01:18:37,439 define 1554 01:18:38,079 --> 01:18:41,529 Anybody as a developer versus as a property owner so when 1555 01:18:41,529 --> 01:18:44,800 you read it it almost makes it seem like it's these guys 1556 01:18:44,800 --> 01:18:45,479 over here 1557 01:18:45,479 --> 01:18:47,279 We're not really land developers 1558 01:18:47,279 --> 01:18:50,829 So this kind of doesn't apply and really it does apply 1559 01:18:50,829 --> 01:18:53,760 because anybody that owns property in the city of Denton if 1560 01:18:53,760 --> 01:18:54,319 you want to cut 1561 01:18:54,319 --> 01:18:57,239 Down any tree in the city of Denton whether it's on a 1562 01:18:57,239 --> 01:18:57,920 single family 1563 01:18:58,520 --> 01:19:02,020 Larry which I know wouldn't want to cut down a tree larger 1564 01:19:02,020 --> 01:19:03,840 than five inches on this property 1565 01:19:04,319 --> 01:19:07,119 This applies to him he has to come in and get a permit 1566 01:19:07,399 --> 01:19:10,500 If it's larger, and it's one of these larger trees, and he 1567 01:19:10,500 --> 01:19:12,600 has to pay into the tree fund to do that 1568 01:19:12,600 --> 01:19:15,920 So it applies to every citizen that lives in our city 1569 01:19:16,279 --> 01:19:19,430 Not just a guy that's going out and doing 25 acres worth of 1570 01:19:19,430 --> 01:19:20,420 land development 1571 01:19:20,760 --> 01:19:23,619 Correct this new code correct, and that's why I don't think 1572 01:19:23,619 --> 01:19:25,319 developer is a correct 1573 01:19:25,920 --> 01:19:27,920 term to put versus 1574 01:19:28,560 --> 01:19:29,640 citizen 1575 01:19:29,640 --> 01:19:32,560 Property owner because it's going to apply to everybody 1576 01:19:33,199 --> 01:19:36,449 Most most people are not going to consider themselves to be 1577 01:19:36,449 --> 01:19:37,800 a developer 1578 01:19:37,800 --> 01:19:40,720 and that's why we actually include the definition because 1579 01:19:41,199 --> 01:19:44,569 Even though even with the mom and pop develop property 1580 01:19:44,569 --> 01:19:46,399 owner when they enter 1581 01:19:47,399 --> 01:19:50,199 When they start submitting those applications they do in 1582 01:19:50,199 --> 01:19:53,399 fact become a developer and that doesn't change so they 1583 01:19:53,720 --> 01:19:56,079 They do assume their role, and that's why we wanted to make 1584 01:19:56,079 --> 01:19:57,319 it clear in the ordinance 1585 01:20:00,159 --> 01:20:03,760 Well, I may be the only lone wolf here that has a problem 1586 01:20:03,760 --> 01:20:06,279 with with it saying developer because I think it's 1587 01:20:06,279 --> 01:20:07,880 misleading to the general public 1588 01:20:08,560 --> 01:20:11,319 Because most people are not going to consider themselves to 1589 01:20:11,319 --> 01:20:14,159 be developer when they read this they think 1590 01:20:14,840 --> 01:20:17,939 All the way through here it refers to developer they have 1591 01:20:17,939 --> 01:20:20,880 to come back and read what the city's definition is 1592 01:20:21,680 --> 01:20:25,630 Versus that they are a private individual and if they want 1593 01:20:25,630 --> 01:20:28,680 to cut down a tree on their property greater than five this 1594 01:20:28,680 --> 01:20:30,039 applies to them not 1595 01:20:31,399 --> 01:20:34,609 Developer I don't think anybody in a neighborhood that 1596 01:20:34,609 --> 01:20:37,420 lives there when they read developer thinks well that 1597 01:20:37,420 --> 01:20:38,119 applies to me 1598 01:20:39,399 --> 01:20:42,010 Commissioner Taylor, thank you chair. I was wondering I 1599 01:20:42,010 --> 01:20:42,720 feel like 1600 01:20:43,479 --> 01:20:46,779 The word developer is not a common noun used in development 1601 01:20:46,779 --> 01:20:49,520 code would something like applicants 1602 01:20:50,239 --> 01:20:52,520 Or property owner, and then you can define property owners 1603 01:20:52,520 --> 01:20:54,079 property owner or their agent 1604 01:20:55,039 --> 01:20:57,590 What be more kind of in line with what most of the 1605 01:20:57,590 --> 01:20:59,840 development code it says? 1606 01:21:01,880 --> 01:21:05,569 Note that as a recommendation as we move forward with the 1607 01:21:05,569 --> 01:21:06,720 ordinance 1608 01:21:08,640 --> 01:21:10,640 Okay 1609 01:21:11,439 --> 01:21:15,500 So moving on just gonna just briefly go through some of the 1610 01:21:15,500 --> 01:21:17,720 additional definitions 1611 01:21:18,279 --> 01:21:21,739 We added another definition for the International Society 1612 01:21:21,739 --> 01:21:23,000 of Bar Culture ISA 1613 01:21:23,680 --> 01:21:24,920 in 1614 01:21:24,920 --> 01:21:28,840 specific relation to the requirement for an ISA certified 1615 01:21:28,840 --> 01:21:31,119 arborist to prepare or sign off on 1616 01:21:31,680 --> 01:21:34,640 tree preservation and tree mitigation plans 1617 01:21:35,479 --> 01:21:37,479 with this proposed revision 1618 01:21:38,560 --> 01:21:40,560 Actually 1619 01:21:41,079 --> 01:21:43,960 We had in here and this should have been taken out the 1620 01:21:43,960 --> 01:21:47,270 definition for landscape architect was in there specific to 1621 01:21:47,270 --> 01:21:48,760 when we had qualified 1622 01:21:48,880 --> 01:21:50,880 professionals, but that it actually should 1623 01:21:51,640 --> 01:21:53,640 Not be in there 1624 01:21:54,920 --> 01:21:59,869 We added in general definitions for pruning the structural 1625 01:21:59,869 --> 01:22:01,119 value of urban of 1626 01:22:01,760 --> 01:22:04,159 Urban forests or the urban forest structural value 1627 01:22:05,159 --> 01:22:08,310 We had in the definition for tree oddly enough. There was 1628 01:22:08,310 --> 01:22:10,880 not a definition for a tree in the current code 1629 01:22:12,239 --> 01:22:16,159 We added in tree canopy tree preservation plan 1630 01:22:16,840 --> 01:22:20,789 tree protection zone tree survey urban forestry and urban 1631 01:22:20,789 --> 01:22:21,680 forester 1632 01:22:26,600 --> 01:22:29,399 Okay moving on to the next page page five here 1633 01:22:30,760 --> 01:22:33,279 The purpose and intent for the most part 1634 01:22:34,479 --> 01:22:37,579 Stayed the same. It was reworked a little bit from the 1635 01:22:37,579 --> 01:22:37,960 current 1636 01:22:38,520 --> 01:22:43,760 Code the addition of adding in the expansion of tree canopy 1637 01:22:45,720 --> 01:22:48,720 Towards one of the goals of the regulation was added 1638 01:22:52,000 --> 01:22:54,359 Under the objectives again a lot of this was in the 1639 01:22:54,359 --> 01:22:56,119 existing code 1640 01:22:57,520 --> 01:22:59,520 We reworked some of the language 1641 01:23:00,399 --> 01:23:02,399 to include in 1642 01:23:02,920 --> 01:23:04,479 line B 1643 01:23:04,479 --> 01:23:07,000 Through the preservation and mitigation of planting of 1644 01:23:07,000 --> 01:23:07,199 trees 1645 01:23:08,960 --> 01:23:12,840 We added in to promote the preservation of the remnants of 1646 01:23:12,840 --> 01:23:15,039 of the cross timbers forests and 1647 01:23:15,720 --> 01:23:18,890 We added in to preserve the public health and safety and 1648 01:23:18,890 --> 01:23:21,239 general welfare of the citizens 1649 01:23:23,239 --> 01:23:27,829 Okay, so under the applicability section which this section 1650 01:23:27,829 --> 01:23:31,199 was worked out was reworked a lot up until today 1651 01:23:33,479 --> 01:23:37,239 Commissioner Taylor, yes under applicability a 1652 01:23:39,279 --> 01:23:43,119 IID yes, just just a nitpick on the word 1653 01:23:43,359 --> 01:23:45,880 It's it's like it's about a triple negative and I think it 1654 01:23:45,880 --> 01:23:48,960 actually excludes something. It's not supposed to exclude 1655 01:23:49,920 --> 01:23:52,770 Governmental property that is located within the city 1656 01:23:52,770 --> 01:23:55,680 limits unless the property is as follows 1657 01:23:56,239 --> 01:23:58,340 Public utilities and infrastructure constructed during new 1658 01:23:58,340 --> 01:24:00,079 development, but not reconstruction 1659 01:24:00,920 --> 01:24:03,199 Must comply with street tree requirements only 1660 01:24:05,079 --> 01:24:07,909 Reconstruction isn't mentioned so and it's not in the 1661 01:24:07,909 --> 01:24:11,670 exclusion list. So that seems like reconstruction then 1662 01:24:11,670 --> 01:24:12,640 would 1663 01:24:13,199 --> 01:24:15,199 not be excluded I 1664 01:24:15,680 --> 01:24:18,550 Think the goal is to exclude reconstruction altogether and 1665 01:24:18,550 --> 01:24:21,119 new construction has to meet the street trees only 1666 01:24:21,359 --> 01:24:23,800 All right, just a just a nitpick on the wording 1667 01:24:30,920 --> 01:24:32,920 Not reconstruction for the public infrastructure 1668 01:24:33,840 --> 01:24:37,680 Yes, so maybe split that into two like to say 1669 01:24:38,520 --> 01:24:39,640 public 1670 01:24:39,640 --> 01:24:42,750 Utilities as part of reconstruction fully excluded public 1671 01:24:42,750 --> 01:24:45,659 utilities for new construction shall comply with street 1672 01:24:45,659 --> 01:24:47,920 tree requirements only something like that 1673 01:24:51,279 --> 01:24:53,640 Okay, I have a question under 1674 01:24:54,359 --> 01:24:59,310 Building yes under a one. What is what what is the 1675 01:24:59,310 --> 01:25:02,439 definitive part of what defines development? 1676 01:25:02,439 --> 01:25:05,439 Is it making an application is it out there moving dirt? 1677 01:25:06,399 --> 01:25:08,520 What what is the trigger that defines? 1678 01:25:09,199 --> 01:25:11,199 one year or more prior to development 1679 01:25:17,600 --> 01:25:20,699 Development is the filing of an application that's required 1680 01:25:20,699 --> 01:25:22,800 by the government body in order to pursue 1681 01:25:23,399 --> 01:25:25,399 So it's actual paper 1682 01:25:26,279 --> 01:25:28,840 Filing rather than work. Okay 1683 01:25:32,279 --> 01:25:34,279 Thank you 1684 01:25:38,760 --> 01:25:42,640 Okay, so this section was basically reworked to 1685 01:25:43,760 --> 01:25:46,960 Put everything under under the ability instead of having 1686 01:25:46,960 --> 01:25:49,359 the applicability section and then a separate exemptions 1687 01:25:49,359 --> 01:25:50,560 section 1688 01:25:52,119 --> 01:25:56,069 So there were many things under the exemption section that 1689 01:25:56,069 --> 01:25:57,199 you know really 1690 01:25:59,840 --> 01:26:02,560 Could be handled by administrative decision, you know a 1691 01:26:02,560 --> 01:26:04,199 tree farm does not need 1692 01:26:04,560 --> 01:26:07,520 To as you know, the code does not apply to a tree farm 1693 01:26:07,520 --> 01:26:11,470 The code does not apply to a dead tree or a tree that's 1694 01:26:11,470 --> 01:26:12,000 hazardous 1695 01:26:12,000 --> 01:26:15,829 You know those you know basic situation that if someone 1696 01:26:15,829 --> 01:26:18,770 came in and you know, I say no, you know, it's dead cut it 1697 01:26:18,770 --> 01:26:19,079 down 1698 01:26:19,079 --> 01:26:21,079 No, you don't need to count dead trees 1699 01:26:21,359 --> 01:26:24,760 In your survey or hazardous trees or disease trees 1700 01:26:24,760 --> 01:26:28,710 So things like that and it balled back down to Dylan, you 1701 01:26:28,710 --> 01:26:31,640 know mainly with the applicability to 1702 01:26:33,359 --> 01:26:35,960 Government owned or city owned properties 1703 01:26:37,119 --> 01:26:39,119 And what have you 1704 01:26:40,600 --> 01:26:42,600 So on the next page here 1705 01:26:44,079 --> 01:26:46,079 Preservation requirements and incentives 1706 01:26:47,399 --> 01:26:51,279 Again this is totally brand new section here 1707 01:26:52,359 --> 01:26:54,600 letter I through 1708 01:26:55,560 --> 01:26:56,880 IV 1709 01:26:56,880 --> 01:27:00,210 And this basically still spills out the 30% preservation 1710 01:27:00,210 --> 01:27:03,350 requirements based on square footage of pre-development 1711 01:27:03,350 --> 01:27:03,840 canopy 1712 01:27:05,880 --> 01:27:11,210 It's calling out a minimum of of 20% preservation on new 1713 01:27:11,210 --> 01:27:13,079 agricultural 1714 01:27:14,199 --> 01:27:16,899 Development or activities on to a site and that's that 1715 01:27:16,899 --> 01:27:20,560 covers a site that's currently not in agriculture 1716 01:27:20,720 --> 01:27:23,750 But they come to the city and they want to do you know, say 1717 01:27:23,750 --> 01:27:26,140 a vineyard or an aquaponics or greenhouses 1718 01:27:26,779 --> 01:27:29,239 Set up that's what that provision 1719 01:27:30,359 --> 01:27:34,079 Goes for that that type of agricultural development the 1720 01:27:34,079 --> 01:27:35,020 next 1721 01:27:36,560 --> 01:27:38,560 section 1722 01:27:39,680 --> 01:27:41,680 III or three here 1723 01:27:43,000 --> 01:27:46,359 Deals with property that is switching from 1724 01:27:47,760 --> 01:27:48,880 agricultural 1725 01:27:48,880 --> 01:27:52,770 Use to you know a subdivision or commercial development. 1726 01:27:52,770 --> 01:27:53,680 Sorry Commissioner Sullivan 1727 01:27:57,840 --> 01:27:59,760 Since 1728 01:27:59,760 --> 01:28:02,529 Chairman strange brought this up. I'm looking at this in a 1729 01:28:02,529 --> 01:28:03,840 different light. So 1730 01:28:04,760 --> 01:28:06,920 under four preservation requirements 1731 01:28:07,520 --> 01:28:10,920 If I substitute the word developer to homeowner 1732 01:28:14,560 --> 01:28:16,560 Our homeowners going to be required 1733 01:28:17,359 --> 01:28:19,359 to get the 1734 01:28:20,640 --> 01:28:23,680 Whatever that designation is arborist I 1735 01:28:24,960 --> 01:28:28,239 SA certified arborist to come out to 1736 01:28:29,720 --> 01:28:33,909 To make a survey and to do all these things if it again 1737 01:28:33,909 --> 01:28:36,340 somebody used the example putting in a pool 1738 01:28:37,239 --> 01:28:40,340 They have to hire this arborist certified arborist to come 1739 01:28:40,340 --> 01:28:42,760 out and look at the canopy and do all this work and 1740 01:28:42,960 --> 01:28:45,600 And all this stuff to determine whether or not 1741 01:28:46,720 --> 01:28:48,720 They're going to maintain that 30% 1742 01:28:49,880 --> 01:28:53,819 Canopy to put in a pool. No for a residential homeowner 1743 01:28:53,819 --> 01:28:55,720 putting in a pool or adding on to a 1744 01:28:57,399 --> 01:29:00,500 Patio or deck and they you know have to take out a tree. 1745 01:29:00,500 --> 01:29:03,880 They wouldn't be required to submit, you know a full 1746 01:29:05,000 --> 01:29:07,000 survey for that type of 1747 01:29:08,439 --> 01:29:10,680 You know addition to their property 1748 01:29:11,600 --> 01:29:12,960 and 1749 01:29:12,960 --> 01:29:15,340 That's typically handled when the 1750 01:29:16,239 --> 01:29:19,340 Whole subdivision is developed up front. So that's 1751 01:29:19,340 --> 01:29:21,930 something that's already taken care of before they actually 1752 01:29:21,930 --> 01:29:22,680 purchased a lot 1753 01:29:23,439 --> 01:29:25,439 Does that make sense? 1754 01:29:25,439 --> 01:29:28,689 Yes, but I'm just saying that if again if the if the 1755 01:29:28,689 --> 01:29:30,779 definition is the property owner 1756 01:29:31,479 --> 01:29:34,890 That's the homeowner and after they bought the house ten 1757 01:29:34,890 --> 01:29:35,720 years ago 1758 01:29:36,319 --> 01:29:38,319 trees of all 1759 01:29:38,359 --> 01:29:41,000 Have done what they're going to do and now I decided I want 1760 01:29:41,000 --> 01:29:41,920 to put in the pool 1761 01:29:42,520 --> 01:29:46,470 And I've got to now have somebody come out to tell me how 1762 01:29:46,470 --> 01:29:50,079 much canopy I have and how much how many trees I can or 1763 01:29:50,079 --> 01:29:52,079 Can I take down? 1764 01:29:54,119 --> 01:29:57,560 Section four though says prior to develop mission was oh, 1765 01:29:57,560 --> 01:29:58,060 thank you 1766 01:29:58,119 --> 01:30:00,239 It says prior to the development of a lot. So in your 1767 01:30:00,239 --> 01:30:02,489 situation, Commissioner Sullivan, the lots already been 1768 01:30:02,489 --> 01:30:04,659 developed. So before wouldn't be 1769 01:30:05,920 --> 01:30:08,220 applicable to someone who already owns a constructed home 1770 01:30:08,220 --> 01:30:11,270 putting in a pool. I have to make an application for a 1771 01:30:11,270 --> 01:30:11,600 permit 1772 01:30:12,520 --> 01:30:15,399 Rather than the tree survey and preservation plan 1773 01:30:16,479 --> 01:30:18,479 Would they wouldn't have to do that? 1774 01:30:20,439 --> 01:30:21,930 Specific for I don't know what other permits they need but 1775 01:30:21,930 --> 01:30:25,640 a tree survey and tree preservation plan wouldn't be needed 1776 01:30:26,479 --> 01:30:29,609 As far as the wording is if you look at the last sentence, 1777 01:30:29,609 --> 01:30:31,560 I think it's it answers your question 1778 01:30:37,560 --> 01:30:39,560 Gosh 1779 01:30:40,319 --> 01:30:42,649 I said several questions. I don't mean to take the floor. 1780 01:30:42,649 --> 01:30:43,079 No, that's okay 1781 01:30:43,600 --> 01:30:45,979 I'm just trying to figure out you know 1782 01:30:46,600 --> 01:30:50,079 If just a regular kind of guy goes out and says hey, I want 1783 01:30:50,079 --> 01:30:50,159 to 1784 01:30:51,119 --> 01:30:53,119 put in a pool and 1785 01:30:53,439 --> 01:30:55,729 Now I've got to do all this, you know jump through all 1786 01:30:55,729 --> 01:30:56,319 these other hoops 1787 01:30:56,319 --> 01:30:59,649 I'm just trying to decide if if the if the word developer 1788 01:30:59,649 --> 01:31:02,619 means what it means throughout this whole 1789 01:31:03,279 --> 01:31:05,279 thing or if possibly 1790 01:31:06,079 --> 01:31:07,359 property owner 1791 01:31:07,359 --> 01:31:10,750 Should be designated whenever it is already an established 1792 01:31:10,750 --> 01:31:13,140 home and it's in addition to something 1793 01:31:14,319 --> 01:31:17,210 You know just for the very reason that you know some 1794 01:31:17,210 --> 01:31:20,960 homeowners gonna say I'm not a developer. Well, maybe is 1795 01:31:20,960 --> 01:31:21,840 maybe is it? 1796 01:31:21,840 --> 01:31:25,789 I don't know. Yeah, and you know the intent of this is not 1797 01:31:25,789 --> 01:31:28,680 to you know, put any undue burden on to someone 1798 01:31:28,680 --> 01:31:30,720 You know an existing, you know property owner 1799 01:31:32,199 --> 01:31:35,300 You know as far as you know proving up their trees on their 1800 01:31:35,300 --> 01:31:35,680 site 1801 01:31:35,680 --> 01:31:37,680 That's not the intent of this 1802 01:31:38,359 --> 01:31:40,720 Generally when we speak of you know developer or 1803 01:31:40,720 --> 01:31:44,050 development we're talking either a site that's being you 1804 01:31:44,050 --> 01:31:44,340 know 1805 01:31:44,340 --> 01:31:48,289 That's you know brand new that is you know coming online or 1806 01:31:48,289 --> 01:31:49,319 a site 1807 01:31:49,319 --> 01:31:51,960 That's you know, it may be an old site and it's being rede 1808 01:31:51,960 --> 01:31:52,479 veloped 1809 01:31:52,479 --> 01:31:54,689 You know, you're raising the site and you're starting from 1810 01:31:54,689 --> 01:31:57,520 scratch again. That's you know, the 1811 01:31:58,399 --> 01:32:02,180 Generally what what the intent is when we state developer 1812 01:32:02,180 --> 01:32:03,319 here is not to mean 1813 01:32:03,600 --> 01:32:06,640 You know you as a homeowner that wants to put in a pool or 1814 01:32:06,640 --> 01:32:09,000 a pack of your deck 1815 01:32:09,399 --> 01:32:11,399 So so just a basic homeowner 1816 01:32:12,079 --> 01:32:14,079 That need to worry about it 1817 01:32:14,319 --> 01:32:17,279 As far as that goes. Yeah, I mean, of course, you know 1818 01:32:17,279 --> 01:32:20,079 There's a requirement in for a permit and even you know a 1819 01:32:20,079 --> 01:32:21,640 permit for a homeowner 1820 01:32:21,800 --> 01:32:24,979 Like says really more so to have that that added point of 1821 01:32:24,979 --> 01:32:25,579 contact 1822 01:32:27,000 --> 01:32:29,359 There won't be it'll be really be a 1823 01:32:30,479 --> 01:32:34,430 Non fee permit just to show okay, you know, they are, you 1824 01:32:34,430 --> 01:32:36,239 know approved to do this 1825 01:32:38,119 --> 01:32:40,640 Every now that I get calls from people, you know, this 1826 01:32:40,640 --> 01:32:42,060 person's cutting down trees in their yard 1827 01:32:42,060 --> 01:32:43,079 Are they okay to do that? 1828 01:32:43,079 --> 01:32:46,779 I mean this allows that person to have a permit for their 1829 01:32:46,779 --> 01:32:49,250 you know professional that's doing or whether they're doing 1830 01:32:49,250 --> 01:32:49,840 say no see 1831 01:32:50,239 --> 01:32:53,449 I'm okay, you know to do this the same as if they were you 1832 01:32:53,449 --> 01:32:53,880 know 1833 01:32:53,880 --> 01:32:56,710 Installing the fence and they you know require a permit for 1834 01:32:56,710 --> 01:32:59,260 that or an irrigation system requires a permit 1835 01:32:59,260 --> 01:33:02,689 There will be something along that line, but without the 1836 01:33:02,689 --> 01:33:03,439 field hashed 1837 01:33:05,159 --> 01:33:10,109 If I could interject he would so that everybody is clear on 1838 01:33:10,109 --> 01:33:11,859 page 10 at the top 1839 01:33:12,600 --> 01:33:14,890 Where it talks about the tree protection plan is where it 1840 01:33:14,890 --> 01:33:18,359 would have said the ISA certified arborist 1841 01:33:18,359 --> 01:33:21,460 And you still have qualified tree professional in there. 1842 01:33:21,460 --> 01:33:25,319 Yeah, I saw that after it went to print that it still said 1843 01:33:25,319 --> 01:33:26,119 qualified true 1844 01:33:26,319 --> 01:33:29,460 Since that's the place where it is. It's gonna be anywhere 1845 01:33:29,460 --> 01:33:32,149 that requires a tree protection plan. You would have to 1846 01:33:32,149 --> 01:33:32,319 hire 1847 01:33:32,840 --> 01:33:36,010 That professional so that would be excluding any kind of 1848 01:33:36,010 --> 01:33:38,279 existing development for single family 1849 01:33:38,920 --> 01:33:41,510 Yeah, there's there's two sections that was I saw that 1850 01:33:41,510 --> 01:33:42,760 after I had already sent 1851 01:33:43,479 --> 01:33:47,430 well, I had a clarification where it says building permit 1852 01:33:47,430 --> 01:33:48,100 application 1853 01:33:49,479 --> 01:33:52,579 We have a universal permit that you will 1854 01:33:53,239 --> 01:33:55,920 Submit that's going to be a building permit. So then it 1855 01:33:55,920 --> 01:33:56,659 does apply to 1856 01:33:57,960 --> 01:34:00,340 Existing single-family homes if you want to do an addition 1857 01:34:00,340 --> 01:34:04,210 or do a swimming pool am I correct about that or incorrect? 1858 01:34:04,210 --> 01:34:04,279 I 1859 01:34:05,720 --> 01:34:08,529 Think originally it says you still have universal permits 1860 01:34:08,529 --> 01:34:11,460 for building. Okay, because we don't have them for regular 1861 01:34:11,460 --> 01:34:12,520 projects. Okay 1862 01:34:13,279 --> 01:34:15,399 So then it then it does apply 1863 01:34:17,439 --> 01:34:20,760 So the Commissioner Sullivan's point if you want to do a 1864 01:34:20,760 --> 01:34:23,119 swimming pool and you're gonna fill out a building permit 1865 01:34:23,479 --> 01:34:24,640 application 1866 01:34:24,640 --> 01:34:27,890 Which you have to do currently the universal then you have 1867 01:34:27,890 --> 01:34:31,239 to do a tree protection plan for an individual homeowner 1868 01:34:31,239 --> 01:34:34,949 Is that am I not reading this correctly originally? It said 1869 01:34:34,949 --> 01:34:37,279 if required on the tree protection plan 1870 01:34:38,039 --> 01:34:40,600 Yeah, I don't know how that came out 1871 01:34:42,000 --> 01:34:44,239 Yeah, I have to go back and read through that but I'm 1872 01:34:44,239 --> 01:34:46,039 letting finish and then 1873 01:34:46,680 --> 01:34:48,770 Yeah, but you know like again, you know, that's not the 1874 01:34:48,770 --> 01:34:51,399 intent. You know when those permits come through 1875 01:34:52,359 --> 01:34:54,970 You know building permit could be you know, the property's 1876 01:34:54,970 --> 01:34:55,399 already 1877 01:34:56,680 --> 01:34:59,359 Been planted and you know, it's just being developed and 1878 01:34:59,359 --> 01:35:00,600 they go straight to building permit 1879 01:35:03,399 --> 01:35:07,520 That actually excludes single-family dwellings from the 1880 01:35:08,520 --> 01:35:09,880 protection plan 1881 01:35:09,880 --> 01:35:13,270 And what is the other one the tree survey? Yeah, we can add 1882 01:35:13,270 --> 01:35:16,069 an affirmative provision that does that so there's no 1883 01:35:16,069 --> 01:35:16,600 question 1884 01:35:16,600 --> 01:35:18,300 I think that's good 1885 01:35:18,300 --> 01:35:20,500 I think the other part of it is that people need to 1886 01:35:20,500 --> 01:35:23,180 understand that this applies to them on the individual 1887 01:35:23,180 --> 01:35:25,180 If you want to cut down a five inch tree or larger 1888 01:35:26,039 --> 01:35:29,989 This this applies it doesn't apply now if you're taking out 1889 01:35:29,989 --> 01:35:31,000 five trees or less 1890 01:35:31,000 --> 01:35:34,439 But it will apply now if you're taking out tree five inches 1891 01:35:35,159 --> 01:35:37,840 Or greater. I mean that's pretty small 1892 01:35:39,439 --> 01:35:41,119 Commissioner Tiller 1893 01:35:41,119 --> 01:35:43,760 Thank you for waiting. Thank you chair just to just 1894 01:35:44,800 --> 01:35:47,420 Continue on in this vein. I wonder if so 1895 01:35:48,300 --> 01:35:50,300 4a 5 1896 01:35:50,520 --> 01:35:54,380 Has comments about site plans and plotting and then page 10 1897 01:35:54,380 --> 01:35:59,039 also talks about plotting if and and it does require the 1898 01:35:59,800 --> 01:36:01,399 the minimum 1899 01:36:01,399 --> 01:36:04,279 tree canopy preservation to be added to 1900 01:36:05,359 --> 01:36:07,359 the plat for each lot 1901 01:36:07,920 --> 01:36:10,880 Yeah, so so I wonder if it might be good to 1902 01:36:11,680 --> 01:36:13,680 split this into 1903 01:36:14,079 --> 01:36:18,579 Kind of pre plotting and then on a plotted residential lot 1904 01:36:19,319 --> 01:36:21,119 Kind of have simpler 1905 01:36:21,119 --> 01:36:24,000 Simpler rules. So so if you're so if the homeowner on a 1906 01:36:24,000 --> 01:36:26,340 plotted residential lot that already has a house on it 1907 01:36:26,680 --> 01:36:29,779 Then they don't have to have you know, a qualified tree 1908 01:36:29,779 --> 01:36:31,800 survey and all this kind of stuff 1909 01:36:32,039 --> 01:36:34,319 They sought to have a you know, the tree removal permit or 1910 01:36:34,319 --> 01:36:34,800 whatever 1911 01:36:35,520 --> 01:36:38,840 but if you're developing if you're if you're plotting a 1912 01:36:39,600 --> 01:36:42,479 Subdivision or plotting a commercial lot or something like 1913 01:36:42,479 --> 01:36:45,100 that then have the requirements there that might be a way 1914 01:36:45,100 --> 01:36:45,500 to split it 1915 01:36:46,439 --> 01:36:50,390 excluding single-family residences do pre plotting versus 1916 01:36:50,390 --> 01:36:52,399 an existing plotted lot I 1917 01:36:54,239 --> 01:36:55,720 Think that's good 1918 01:36:55,720 --> 01:36:58,529 Commissioner Taylor it kind of dovetails. I was preparing 1919 01:36:58,529 --> 01:37:01,000 today to talk about the urban forest report 1920 01:37:01,359 --> 01:37:04,460 And I don't want to get off the topic and I want to come 1921 01:37:04,460 --> 01:37:06,760 back to this because when you read the report 1922 01:37:07,000 --> 01:37:10,100 The vast majority of the trees that we have in the city of 1923 01:37:10,100 --> 01:37:11,920 Denton are on single-family lots 1924 01:37:13,680 --> 01:37:17,880 Existing 46% is located on undeveloped property the other 1925 01:37:18,880 --> 01:37:20,319 pretty high 1926 01:37:20,319 --> 01:37:25,060 54% would be you know other properties and single families 1927 01:37:25,060 --> 01:37:26,560 I think by percentage wise 1928 01:37:26,960 --> 01:37:28,960 They may have a higher 1929 01:37:29,319 --> 01:37:31,479 Percentage of canopy that is correct 1930 01:37:32,359 --> 01:37:34,699 So anyway, I don't want to get off though. I do want to 1931 01:37:34,699 --> 01:37:37,239 spend some time talking about that. We may not get to it 1932 01:37:37,239 --> 01:37:39,239 This evening because when you read the report 1933 01:37:39,720 --> 01:37:42,079 That's when a lot of these things really begin to make 1934 01:37:42,079 --> 01:37:45,159 sense this stuff if we're truly trying to preserve trees 1935 01:37:45,439 --> 01:37:48,640 Where are the trees what type of property on are they on? 1936 01:37:49,000 --> 01:37:52,100 And what is the canopy coverage not only currently in the 1937 01:37:52,100 --> 01:37:53,720 city but also in the ETG? 1938 01:37:53,720 --> 01:37:56,819 And where is the tree canopy actually coming from and most 1939 01:37:56,819 --> 01:37:57,880 of it's coming from? 1940 01:37:58,520 --> 01:38:01,460 Single family homes outside of undeveloped property its 1941 01:38:01,460 --> 01:38:04,880 single family homes. So that's why I think it's important 1942 01:38:04,880 --> 01:38:07,090 We need to figure out and everybody needs to understand how 1943 01:38:07,090 --> 01:38:09,239 this is actually going to apply to 1944 01:38:10,239 --> 01:38:12,449 Single family homeowners in the city of Denton going 1945 01:38:12,449 --> 01:38:14,720 forward because it's gonna be very different than what 1946 01:38:14,720 --> 01:38:16,479 people are accustomed to today 1947 01:38:16,479 --> 01:38:19,760 I think we still need to clarify that that like 1948 01:38:20,359 --> 01:38:22,359 Commissioner Taylor was 1949 01:38:22,600 --> 01:38:24,600 into in his comment that 1950 01:38:25,359 --> 01:38:27,880 there's a there's a difference between a 1951 01:38:28,439 --> 01:38:31,140 single-family developed lot that you purchase from a 1952 01:38:31,140 --> 01:38:32,960 developer and then one that's being 1953 01:38:33,720 --> 01:38:37,670 The a single-family subdivision that's being developed and 1954 01:38:37,670 --> 01:38:40,479 I think we can make that clearer in the code that would 1955 01:38:40,479 --> 01:38:40,840 help 1956 01:38:41,840 --> 01:38:44,640 but the intent is though that 1957 01:38:45,159 --> 01:38:48,039 The city this ordinance applies to the city as a whole 1958 01:38:48,039 --> 01:38:49,600 including homeowners 1959 01:38:50,399 --> 01:38:54,829 developers in the lake so we can make those we can clear up 1960 01:38:54,829 --> 01:38:55,159 the 1961 01:38:55,880 --> 01:38:58,979 discrepancies with the definitions but we would like we 1962 01:38:58,979 --> 01:39:01,399 wanted the intent of tonight was to go through the 1963 01:39:01,399 --> 01:39:03,039 ordinance so that you can see 1964 01:39:03,739 --> 01:39:06,039 What we have changed what we are proposing 1965 01:39:06,760 --> 01:39:10,399 to be able to make a better decision our hope is to 1966 01:39:11,399 --> 01:39:13,399 Show you what the work that we've done so that we can 1967 01:39:13,399 --> 01:39:15,960 continue to move this project forward 1968 01:39:16,399 --> 01:39:19,170 Because this has been a request from the City Council has 1969 01:39:19,170 --> 01:39:22,600 been and out seeing an item for us for about three years 1970 01:39:22,600 --> 01:39:22,840 now 1971 01:39:22,840 --> 01:39:24,800 and so we would like to 1972 01:39:24,800 --> 01:39:29,140 Move this forward to tonight and then the next meeting what 1973 01:39:29,140 --> 01:39:31,359 we would like to have from you guys are 1974 01:39:31,720 --> 01:39:33,720 Recommendations on the ordinance that has been prepared 1975 01:39:35,119 --> 01:39:38,220 Any changes that you would like to forward on to the City 1976 01:39:38,220 --> 01:39:41,359 Council to be incorporated or to be considered? 1977 01:39:41,359 --> 01:39:43,979 That's what we are hoping to get from you tonight and then 1978 01:39:43,979 --> 01:39:44,960 at the next meeting 1979 01:39:48,239 --> 01:39:50,239 Commissioner back 1980 01:39:50,640 --> 01:39:52,640 Commissioner has been yeah, I'll be brief I 1981 01:39:54,239 --> 01:39:56,840 Think we're getting a little bogged down in naming be it 1982 01:39:56,840 --> 01:40:00,159 applicant be it developer be it because okay 1983 01:40:00,159 --> 01:40:02,300 So I don't turn in the application so it doesn't apply to 1984 01:40:02,300 --> 01:40:03,859 me right it does 1985 01:40:04,479 --> 01:40:07,000 You're required to turn an application and the fact that 1986 01:40:07,000 --> 01:40:09,430 you don't call yourself an applicant because you subvert 1987 01:40:09,430 --> 01:40:09,960 the process 1988 01:40:10,560 --> 01:40:13,079 Doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you. So I mean do we boil 1989 01:40:13,079 --> 01:40:14,699 it down and just put human in there 1990 01:40:14,699 --> 01:40:17,800 I mean, you know me there takes a little bit of just hey, 1991 01:40:17,800 --> 01:40:19,720 you know the rules and if you're trying to subvert the 1992 01:40:19,720 --> 01:40:20,000 rules 1993 01:40:20,000 --> 01:40:21,479 You're gonna subvert them 1994 01:40:21,479 --> 01:40:25,310 And just hey everybody that's breathing oxygen fill out a 1995 01:40:25,310 --> 01:40:28,039 form, you know, I mean it could get really really 1996 01:40:28,560 --> 01:40:30,760 Boiled down and I don't think that's that's that's 1997 01:40:30,760 --> 01:40:31,399 necessary 1998 01:40:32,279 --> 01:40:35,920 If you define what it is, maybe highlight it whatever it is 1999 01:40:35,920 --> 01:40:39,859 But I mean, I think again you you you give me any title and 2000 01:40:39,859 --> 01:40:42,659 I can give you the opposite of why it doesn't apply to me 2001 01:40:42,659 --> 01:40:45,479 In my little mind, right? I mean, so I just think 2002 01:40:46,239 --> 01:40:49,520 You you have to take it on its merits take the individual 2003 01:40:49,520 --> 01:40:52,720 on their merits if you're if it's called a developer 2004 01:40:52,720 --> 01:40:54,699 Maybe you're developing something if you're applicant, 2005 01:40:54,699 --> 01:40:55,680 maybe you're applying for something 2006 01:40:56,359 --> 01:40:59,239 Whatever the terminology, but I mean if we've we've 2007 01:41:00,439 --> 01:41:02,000 Taken about 2008 01:41:02,000 --> 01:41:05,869 Ten minutes on something that that's not ironclad. I mean, 2009 01:41:05,869 --> 01:41:06,600 you're not gonna get it 2010 01:41:06,600 --> 01:41:09,699 I mean you can't lock it down enough to where someone can't 2011 01:41:09,699 --> 01:41:11,479 use their imagination and subvert it 2012 01:41:11,479 --> 01:41:15,199 So I just it's a lot of time. We're on page six 2013 01:41:16,119 --> 01:41:20,319 And and we're talking about a title that's not gonna stick 2014 01:41:21,560 --> 01:41:23,560 Well, I'm gonna make a comment on that 2015 01:41:24,359 --> 01:41:26,119 Okay 2016 01:41:26,119 --> 01:41:28,119 I'm gonna say that I bet you 2017 01:41:29,000 --> 01:41:31,520 most people sitting this commission they read it and it 2018 01:41:31,520 --> 01:41:33,439 says developer move right on to 2019 01:41:34,319 --> 01:41:37,119 developing property and not that it actually applies to 2020 01:41:37,119 --> 01:41:39,989 single-family individual homeowners and that if you're 2021 01:41:39,989 --> 01:41:41,520 gonna cut down a tree on it this 2022 01:41:41,520 --> 01:41:44,619 Applies to you too versus a guy that's out doing 25 acres 2023 01:41:44,619 --> 01:41:46,920 and I think it is a substantial difference 2024 01:41:47,199 --> 01:41:49,880 To make sure that everybody understands that this is a very 2025 01:41:49,880 --> 01:41:53,640 significant change from what our current tree code is 2026 01:41:54,239 --> 01:41:57,800 very significant and it applies to everybody now not just 2027 01:41:58,600 --> 01:42:00,319 developers 2028 01:42:00,319 --> 01:42:02,989 Everyone in the city and then wants to cut down a tree five 2029 01:42:02,989 --> 01:42:05,199 inches greater has to get a permit 2030 01:42:05,199 --> 01:42:08,069 And if it's a larger tree you will mitigate it and you will 2031 01:42:08,069 --> 01:42:08,479 pay for it 2032 01:42:08,479 --> 01:42:11,579 And I bet most property owners in the city of Denton if you 2033 01:42:11,579 --> 01:42:14,359 ask them that are not going to understand it 2034 01:42:14,359 --> 01:42:16,619 And they're probably aren't gonna be happy that they have 2035 01:42:16,619 --> 01:42:19,000 to pay three or four thousand dollars to go cut down two or 2036 01:42:19,000 --> 01:42:19,479 three big 2037 01:42:19,479 --> 01:42:22,640 Post oak trees if they want to put a pool and put a garage 2038 01:42:22,640 --> 01:42:25,840 or build a house in the back for mom to take care of 2039 01:42:25,840 --> 01:42:28,880 I deal with that on a pretty frequent basis 2040 01:42:29,640 --> 01:42:31,930 That's a significant change that most people don't deal 2041 01:42:31,930 --> 01:42:32,560 with today 2042 01:42:32,560 --> 01:42:35,909 I don't I don't disagree but I also heard them say several 2043 01:42:35,909 --> 01:42:36,279 times 2044 01:42:36,279 --> 01:42:38,939 It's one it's a draft and two that that's not the intent of 2045 01:42:38,939 --> 01:42:40,760 it that they're gonna go back and fix it and then third 2046 01:42:40,760 --> 01:42:43,119 There's a there's a whole legal aspect that I'm sure 2047 01:42:43,119 --> 01:42:45,479 Jennifer could take a whole entire work session 2048 01:42:45,479 --> 01:42:47,720 Let's talk about the difference between property owners of 2049 01:42:47,720 --> 01:42:50,359 individual home in the laws that are supported there 2050 01:42:50,640 --> 01:42:53,739 Versus a developer and the laws to support that developer 2051 01:42:53,739 --> 01:42:56,140 and then the potential homeowner that hadn't bought the 2052 01:42:56,140 --> 01:42:57,079 home yet in their law 2053 01:42:57,079 --> 01:42:59,949 I mean there's a I mean again. It's just a rabbit hole, but 2054 01:42:59,949 --> 01:43:00,380 I think 2055 01:43:01,039 --> 01:43:03,720 They they've said a few different times that hey that those 2056 01:43:03,720 --> 01:43:05,720 examples of the pool does not apply 2057 01:43:06,439 --> 01:43:09,609 On the on its merits now, there's there's areas where it 2058 01:43:09,609 --> 01:43:13,000 does and they can iron that out. But again, I 2059 01:43:13,640 --> 01:43:17,000 Your point may be valid, but I don't I just don't I 2060 01:43:18,279 --> 01:43:20,920 Don't know that it's worth the of the 2061 01:43:22,000 --> 01:43:24,520 40 minutes we had to discuss this. I don't know if it 2062 01:43:24,520 --> 01:43:25,979 require a quarter of it 2063 01:43:26,640 --> 01:43:30,000 If I could just chime in here so I can put this to bed. I 2064 01:43:31,119 --> 01:43:34,220 Don't have a problem with changing developer to property 2065 01:43:34,220 --> 01:43:36,930 owner and defining property owner as the owner of the 2066 01:43:36,930 --> 01:43:38,119 property or a 2067 01:43:38,880 --> 01:43:41,260 representative of the owner of the property including 2068 01:43:41,260 --> 01:43:42,239 someone doing development 2069 01:43:43,239 --> 01:43:46,939 Because the enforcement provisions are for any person. It's 2070 01:43:46,939 --> 01:43:49,199 not exactly to a developer. So 2071 01:43:49,920 --> 01:43:52,779 You know somebody might come on someone's property and we 2072 01:43:52,779 --> 01:43:55,819 're illegally removed trees and they're also going to be 2073 01:43:55,819 --> 01:43:56,979 subject to enforcement 2074 01:43:57,319 --> 01:44:01,899 So I think that that would be an okay change provided. Hey, 2075 01:44:01,899 --> 01:44:03,079 what is is okay with that? 2076 01:44:03,079 --> 01:44:05,189 But from a legal standpoint, I think that would be fine. 2077 01:44:05,189 --> 01:44:06,239 Yeah, I don't I don't have a 2078 01:44:10,760 --> 01:44:13,960 Commissioner Roselle, thank you chair. I know Commissioner 2079 01:44:13,960 --> 01:44:14,500 Beck was speak 2080 01:44:14,500 --> 01:44:16,430 I've been waiting since Commissioner Sullivan asked a 2081 01:44:16,430 --> 01:44:18,720 question on a pool 20 minutes ago and then added to the 2082 01:44:18,720 --> 01:44:19,520 four that 2083 01:44:19,880 --> 01:44:23,430 Mr. Hutz was wanted to continue with so let me say I have 2084 01:44:23,430 --> 01:44:24,920 to statement and a question 2085 01:44:25,880 --> 01:44:28,979 First statement there's no reason not to clarify it to 2086 01:44:28,979 --> 01:44:29,359 include 2087 01:44:29,880 --> 01:44:31,760 Citizen because I'm right there with with chair I read 2088 01:44:31,760 --> 01:44:33,560 developer. I'm like, I'm not developer move on 2089 01:44:33,760 --> 01:44:37,140 there's no reason not to make an easy change to clarify 2090 01:44:37,140 --> 01:44:39,930 because I didn't read the definitions when I was going 2091 01:44:39,930 --> 01:44:40,840 through this and if they 2092 01:44:41,159 --> 01:44:43,159 citizen was referred to 2093 01:44:43,159 --> 01:44:45,159 they said you need to go to for a 2094 01:44:45,920 --> 01:44:47,859 Four this applies to you citizens. You'd be like a 2095 01:44:47,859 --> 01:44:51,560 developer must that's not me. So it's a no-brainer change 2096 01:44:51,560 --> 01:44:51,720 it 2097 01:44:51,720 --> 01:44:53,319 Thank you for the clarification 2098 01:44:53,319 --> 01:44:56,649 Jennifer I do have a question though for a three it says 2099 01:44:56,649 --> 01:44:59,039 aerial images are from the last 24 months 2100 01:44:59,680 --> 01:45:02,409 Correct. Is there any requirements like not to take that in 2101 01:45:02,409 --> 01:45:02,880 winter? 2102 01:45:02,960 --> 01:45:05,539 Like how does that work out in terms of looking at a canopy 2103 01:45:05,539 --> 01:45:07,000 ? It would have to be leaf on 2104 01:45:08,640 --> 01:45:11,380 Aerials not you know when the trees are defoliated. Is that 2105 01:45:11,380 --> 01:45:15,359 an assumption or should that be more codified? I 2106 01:45:16,760 --> 01:45:18,760 Can add that in there? 2107 01:45:20,600 --> 01:45:22,600 That's all I got thank you all 2108 01:45:23,479 --> 01:45:25,920 Commissioner Sullivan just to be perfectly clear 2109 01:45:27,079 --> 01:45:29,159 So if somebody bought a house ten years ago, and they want 2110 01:45:29,159 --> 01:45:32,250 to do something they're not going to be this is not going 2111 01:45:32,250 --> 01:45:33,600 to be a restriction 2112 01:45:34,239 --> 01:45:37,460 No, I have a problem saying okay. I bought this lot. It's a 2113 01:45:37,460 --> 01:45:38,199 wooded lot 2114 01:45:38,199 --> 01:45:42,159 I love trees and now five years six years later 2115 01:45:42,159 --> 01:45:45,100 I want to make a change and all of a sudden the law has 2116 01:45:45,100 --> 01:45:47,159 changed since I bought the lot and 2117 01:45:47,760 --> 01:45:50,479 I've got to spend all this extra money to do things that 2118 01:45:51,079 --> 01:45:54,180 Wasn't applicable back when I bought the lot to begin with 2119 01:45:54,180 --> 01:45:54,880 otherwise 2120 01:45:54,880 --> 01:45:58,279 I might have bought a bald lot and planted my own trees 2121 01:45:58,279 --> 01:46:00,600 correct and and that is correct 2122 01:46:00,600 --> 01:46:03,479 That's not the intent and let me go back to something that 2123 01:46:03,479 --> 01:46:05,640 was mentioned as far as a single-family 2124 01:46:06,680 --> 01:46:09,859 Exceed oh yeah, where does it say it's not if that's not 2125 01:46:09,859 --> 01:46:10,399 the intent 2126 01:46:11,239 --> 01:46:14,159 Again, we're going back to the definition. I'm just it's it 2127 01:46:14,159 --> 01:46:14,600 's gone 2128 01:46:14,600 --> 01:46:17,189 It's this somatics with you know who's considered a 2129 01:46:17,189 --> 01:46:20,039 developer and we can include that 2130 01:46:20,640 --> 01:46:24,560 renovation into the ordinance so if you if what I'm hearing 2131 01:46:24,560 --> 01:46:27,100 is that you would like to see that reflected in the 2132 01:46:27,100 --> 01:46:27,680 ordinance 2133 01:46:28,000 --> 01:46:31,449 Will reflect it in the ordinance correct, okay? Thank you. 2134 01:46:31,449 --> 01:46:32,119 Yeah and 2135 01:46:34,199 --> 01:46:37,159 Just a point of clarification before I lose this 2136 01:46:38,760 --> 01:46:42,479 If a single-family property owner, you know as we're moving 2137 01:46:42,479 --> 01:46:42,880 a tree 2138 01:46:42,880 --> 01:46:45,399 You know obviously it's not an intent to charge them a 2139 01:46:45,399 --> 01:46:48,920 permit fee or to have them to go through a tree 2140 01:46:49,039 --> 01:46:52,239 You know survey and what have you and we're going to you 2141 01:46:52,239 --> 01:46:52,600 know 2142 01:46:53,279 --> 01:46:56,130 Make the appropriate adjustments to clarify that but if 2143 01:46:56,130 --> 01:47:00,199 that person comes in to build that their their pool 2144 01:47:00,199 --> 01:47:03,920 And they have you know a tennis tree or 15 inch tree 2145 01:47:04,159 --> 01:47:07,319 They get the permit to remove the tree for the improvement 2146 01:47:07,319 --> 01:47:08,699 they're trying to make to their property 2147 01:47:08,760 --> 01:47:12,579 Which is more an improvement not really a new development, 2148 01:47:12,579 --> 01:47:14,560 but when you look at the mitigation section 2149 01:47:14,640 --> 01:47:16,760 It calls out mitigation and the cases 2150 01:47:17,840 --> 01:47:22,789 Dealing with the pre development canopy not you know in a 2151 01:47:22,789 --> 01:47:24,079 situation where you're you know 2152 01:47:24,079 --> 01:47:26,079 Basically enhancing what's already there 2153 01:47:26,359 --> 01:47:30,310 So there isn't a requirement for a single-family property 2154 01:47:30,310 --> 01:47:30,520 owner 2155 01:47:30,520 --> 01:47:32,829 That's you know has to take out a tree to put in their deck 2156 01:47:32,829 --> 01:47:35,399 or patio to mitigate for that tree 2157 01:47:35,800 --> 01:47:38,899 There's not there's not that requirement under the 2158 01:47:38,899 --> 01:47:40,680 mitigation section of what we're proposing 2159 01:47:43,119 --> 01:47:45,119 Okay, we'll get it fixed 2160 01:47:48,239 --> 01:47:50,239 Commissioner back 2161 01:47:50,680 --> 01:47:52,930 Thank You chair just real quick there was something I 2162 01:47:52,930 --> 01:47:55,520 wanted to address here I discussed with Shandrin 2163 01:47:55,920 --> 01:47:58,149 Hey with her, but are we carrying this conversation into 2164 01:47:58,149 --> 01:48:00,399 the public hearing or is this it for tonight? 2165 01:48:00,840 --> 01:48:03,939 Tonight is just discussion on the 22nd. We'll do another 2166 01:48:03,939 --> 01:48:06,840 workshop, and then we'll do a public hearing okay 2167 01:48:06,840 --> 01:48:09,640 But I wanted to make a comment about dealing with who's 2168 01:48:10,159 --> 01:48:10,159 authorized to approve variances as we discuss that should I 2169 01:48:10,159 --> 01:48:16,399 mention that here so it's connected to a 2170 01:48:16,840 --> 01:48:20,199 Recommendation yes, okay, so the recommendation is that? 2171 01:48:20,960 --> 01:48:24,670 the authority to allow variances stay with the City Council 2172 01:48:24,670 --> 01:48:27,479 as opposed to going to the ZBA or 2173 01:48:27,960 --> 01:48:29,960 even our good friend Haywood here 2174 01:48:30,880 --> 01:48:34,430 You have a specific provision you're referencing. Thank you 2175 01:48:34,430 --> 01:48:35,479 referring to 2176 01:48:36,399 --> 01:48:38,199 number 7c 2177 01:48:38,199 --> 01:48:40,479 specifically the appeal that's the section that 2178 01:48:41,159 --> 01:48:44,289 Previously it was actually another part of the code that we 2179 01:48:44,289 --> 01:48:46,039 pulled into the tree code 2180 01:48:46,840 --> 01:48:51,600 But that was a part that went from City Council to the ZBA 2181 01:48:52,119 --> 01:48:54,880 The administrative modifications is something that was 2182 01:48:54,880 --> 01:48:58,560 added in to what we're proposing to allow for me to 2183 01:48:59,439 --> 01:49:02,539 Have some flexibility to work with developers on you know 2184 01:49:02,539 --> 01:49:02,960 sites 2185 01:49:03,520 --> 01:49:07,100 That you know may be difficult based on site constraints to 2186 01:49:07,100 --> 01:49:09,939 meet the letter of of the code 2187 01:49:13,479 --> 01:49:17,189 I trust they would complete completely, but it's just there 2188 01:49:17,189 --> 01:49:17,800 's there's other 2189 01:49:19,000 --> 01:49:22,100 So all I'm suggesting is that we don't remove this 2190 01:49:22,100 --> 01:49:25,359 automatically that it gets discussed further, okay? 2191 01:49:25,960 --> 01:49:28,680 And we'll make that as a recommendation to City Council 2192 01:49:28,680 --> 01:49:31,239 because they may not want to have those projects come to 2193 01:49:31,239 --> 01:49:32,560 them right okay 2194 01:49:32,560 --> 01:49:34,560 Thank you 2195 01:49:37,560 --> 01:49:39,560 Okay, so 2196 01:49:40,000 --> 01:49:42,810 We're I don't know how much time we have for this work 2197 01:49:42,810 --> 01:49:44,560 session with the regular 2198 01:49:44,560 --> 01:49:47,350 I don't know how many people we have in there and somebody 2199 01:49:47,350 --> 01:49:48,279 wants to tell us we want to just 2200 01:49:50,079 --> 01:49:52,079 Go ahead and close 2201 01:50:03,880 --> 01:50:06,989 In the meantime Commissioner Tyler would it be possible to 2202 01:50:06,989 --> 01:50:09,840 get okay the draft electronically? 2203 01:50:09,840 --> 01:50:12,619 ahead of time because I was gonna say we'll go ahead and 2204 01:50:12,619 --> 01:50:15,380 send out another draft and then if you have any comments 2205 01:50:15,380 --> 01:50:17,140 just send them to 2206 01:50:17,600 --> 01:50:21,979 Shandrian or Haywood directly and they can take that into 2207 01:50:21,979 --> 01:50:24,039 account when we meet the next time 2208 01:50:24,039 --> 01:50:26,079 We'll have some sort of workable solution for you 2209 01:50:39,840 --> 01:50:41,840 I 2210 01:50:49,960 --> 01:50:52,520 Would ask that whatever comments that we get the final 2211 01:50:52,520 --> 01:50:53,760 draft 2212 01:50:54,800 --> 01:50:57,899 Ahead of time so we have all time to review another 2213 01:50:57,899 --> 01:50:59,520 stakeholders that are here that want to view it 2214 01:50:59,520 --> 01:51:01,520 It's really hard at least for me 2215 01:51:01,800 --> 01:51:05,300 To get something the day of the meeting and then vote on it 2216 01:51:05,300 --> 01:51:08,279 the same day when there's a lot of questions and so 2217 01:51:09,840 --> 01:51:11,840 I 2218 01:51:13,720 --> 01:51:15,720 Thank you 2219 01:51:17,199 --> 01:51:21,090 With that at 633 I'm going to close our work session, and 2220 01:51:21,090 --> 01:51:23,600 we'll reconvene as quickly as we can in council chambers 2221 01:51:33,119 --> 01:51:35,920 Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning a 2222 01:51:35,920 --> 01:51:39,079 zoning Commission meeting for February the 8th 2223 01:51:39,600 --> 01:51:42,699 This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum 2224 01:51:42,699 --> 01:51:45,279 present and I'm gonna call our meeting to order at 2225 01:51:46,119 --> 01:51:49,829 642 our first order of business will be to stand and give 2226 01:51:49,829 --> 01:51:51,640 the pledge the US and the Texas flag 2227 01:52:09,600 --> 01:52:11,600 I 2228 01:52:33,560 --> 01:52:36,310 Next item on our agenda this evening will be to consider 2229 01:52:36,310 --> 01:52:38,800 approval of the planning and zoning Commission meeting 2230 01:52:39,239 --> 01:52:41,239 minutes of our last meeting 2231 01:52:41,880 --> 01:52:44,680 Chair would entertain a motion for January 25th 2232 01:52:45,600 --> 01:52:47,600 2017 minutes 2233 01:52:52,000 --> 01:52:55,100 Commissioner Ellis, thank you chair. I will move to approve 2234 01:52:55,100 --> 01:52:57,000 minutes from January 25th 2235 01:52:57,920 --> 01:52:59,760 Commissioner Sullivan 2236 01:52:59,760 --> 01:53:02,640 We have a first and a second for approval 2237 01:53:03,680 --> 01:53:05,680 Commissioner Beck 2238 01:53:07,239 --> 01:53:11,439 Okay, be abstain okay any other discussion 2239 01:53:14,000 --> 01:53:16,000 Seeing none will call for a vote on the board 2240 01:53:29,960 --> 01:53:32,880 Motion carries 6-0 with one recuse 2241 01:53:34,960 --> 01:53:37,239 That will move us to our consent agenda 2242 01:53:43,159 --> 01:53:45,159 Commissioner back 2243 01:53:48,479 --> 01:53:50,479 I move we approve consent agenda 2244 01:53:52,479 --> 01:53:53,960 Commissioner Zell 2245 01:53:53,960 --> 01:53:57,250 Second we have a first and a second for approval of the 2246 01:53:57,250 --> 01:54:00,159 consent agenda any discussion 2247 01:54:04,560 --> 01:54:07,079 Seeing none I will call for a vote on the board 2248 01:54:20,239 --> 01:54:25,189 Motion carries 7-0. I will move us to our items for an 2249 01:54:25,189 --> 01:54:27,239 individual consideration 2250 01:54:30,920 --> 01:54:34,170 Our first item will be item a consider an act on creation 2251 01:54:34,170 --> 01:54:38,000 of a subcommittee of the planning and zoning Commission 2252 01:54:38,359 --> 01:54:40,600 for the DDC amendment project 2253 01:54:47,039 --> 01:54:48,560 Commissioner Taylor I 2254 01:54:48,560 --> 01:54:51,130 Move we form a subcommittee of the planning and zoning 2255 01:54:51,130 --> 01:54:53,949 Commission for the purpose of the Denton Development Code 2256 01:54:53,949 --> 01:54:55,020 amendment project 2257 01:54:58,000 --> 01:55:00,800 Commissioner Ellis, thank you chair. I will second that 2258 01:55:00,800 --> 01:55:04,960 okay. We have a first and a second to form the subcommittee 2259 01:55:04,960 --> 01:55:06,479 any discussion 2260 01:55:11,560 --> 01:55:13,560 Seeing none we'll call for a vote on board 2261 01:55:21,239 --> 01:55:23,239 Motion carries 7-0 2262 01:55:25,079 --> 01:55:28,779 I'm gonna move for consider nominations to this newly 2263 01:55:28,779 --> 01:55:30,560 created subcommittee and 2264 01:55:33,159 --> 01:55:34,840 Just as a point of order how many members will we 2265 01:55:34,840 --> 01:55:40,300 ultimately be appointing to this Commission three, okay 2266 01:55:50,119 --> 01:55:53,220 Commissioner Taylor, thank you chair. I would like to nom 2267 01:55:53,220 --> 01:55:54,920 inate Commissioner Ellis for this committee 2268 01:55:55,800 --> 01:55:57,800 Okay 2269 01:56:00,159 --> 01:56:02,159 Commissioner back 2270 01:56:03,239 --> 01:56:05,760 Thank you, I would like to nominate Commissioner Hudson for 2271 01:56:05,760 --> 01:56:06,760 this committee 2272 01:56:09,920 --> 01:56:11,670 It's a point of order should we take these as individuals 2273 01:56:11,670 --> 01:56:14,560 or do them all at the same time? 2274 01:56:20,359 --> 01:56:21,939 I think if we can get a consensus and discussion that we 2275 01:56:21,939 --> 01:56:24,960 can do it as one motion 2276 01:56:25,119 --> 01:56:26,680 Okay 2277 01:56:26,680 --> 01:56:28,680 We have one more member to a point 2278 01:56:34,680 --> 01:56:38,119 I'll make a motion to appoint Commissioner Roselle 2279 01:56:45,119 --> 01:56:48,279 Commissioner husband so I 2280 01:56:49,960 --> 01:56:51,960 Don't think I'm a good fit 2281 01:56:51,960 --> 01:56:53,680 because I'm 2282 01:56:53,680 --> 01:56:57,630 Have future aspirations, so I'm going to but I would 2283 01:56:57,630 --> 01:56:58,520 suggest 2284 01:57:00,920 --> 01:57:03,479 Another member if that's if sure I do that absolutely if 2285 01:57:03,479 --> 01:57:05,800 you'd like to withdraw so yes, so 2286 01:57:06,279 --> 01:57:10,250 Commissioner Taylor big good fit. I believe if time allows 2287 01:57:10,250 --> 01:57:10,560 I 2288 01:57:11,600 --> 01:57:13,600 Was going to ask that 2289 01:57:14,000 --> 01:57:17,960 How long is this subcommittee supposed to be working for? 2290 01:57:22,680 --> 01:57:24,680 May of 2018 2291 01:57:27,840 --> 01:57:32,539 I'm sorry, I respectfully decline because of my short 2292 01:57:32,539 --> 01:57:34,680 remaining time on the Commission. Thank you 2293 01:57:38,920 --> 01:57:41,510 Commissioner Ellis, I would like to nominate Commissioner 2294 01:57:41,510 --> 01:57:42,100 Beck 2295 01:57:52,680 --> 01:57:54,680 under 2296 01:58:05,460 --> 01:58:06,250 Under advisement of legal legal is going to recommend that 2297 01:58:06,250 --> 01:58:11,560 we do these as individuals 2298 01:58:13,119 --> 01:58:15,319 So we have currently three 2299 01:58:16,239 --> 01:58:18,239 nominees so we'll be taking these 2300 01:58:18,680 --> 01:58:22,079 Individually and if we need to do by chance another one 2301 01:58:22,079 --> 01:58:22,479 then we will 2302 01:58:22,960 --> 01:58:27,010 Next okay, so currently I have nominations now for 2303 01:58:27,010 --> 01:58:28,880 Commissioner Ellis 2304 01:58:29,560 --> 01:58:32,560 Commissioner Roselle and Commissioner back 2305 01:58:33,279 --> 01:58:37,250 So if we would look for I guess a motion for Commissioner 2306 01:58:37,250 --> 01:58:38,560 Ellis to begin 2307 01:58:44,479 --> 01:58:44,670 Commissioner Zell I motion that Commissioner Ellis be 2308 01:58:44,670 --> 01:58:49,500 nominated and placed on the didn't development code 2309 01:58:49,500 --> 01:58:52,279 amendment project, okay 2310 01:58:53,520 --> 01:58:55,020 Commissioner back 2311 01:58:55,020 --> 01:58:57,020 Okay, I second that motion 2312 01:58:57,319 --> 01:59:00,949 Okay, we have a first and a second for nomination of 2313 01:59:00,949 --> 01:59:02,600 Commissioner Ellis 2314 01:59:03,199 --> 01:59:05,199 any discussion 2315 01:59:05,960 --> 01:59:07,960 Okay, sir 2316 01:59:10,800 --> 01:59:12,800 Just make sure you're okay to serve 2317 01:59:14,359 --> 01:59:17,520 Okay to serve thank you okay all right any further 2318 01:59:17,520 --> 01:59:18,720 discussion 2319 01:59:21,680 --> 01:59:23,760 Seeing none we will call for a vote on board 2320 01:59:36,640 --> 01:59:38,640 Motion carries seven to zero 2321 01:59:50,079 --> 01:59:54,000 Chair is going to motion for nomination of Commissioner 2322 01:59:54,000 --> 01:59:56,100 Roselle to this subcommittee 2323 01:59:57,199 --> 02:00:00,159 Commissioner Ellis I will second that okay 2324 02:00:00,960 --> 02:00:03,880 We have a first and a second any discussion 2325 02:00:10,399 --> 02:00:12,399 Seeing none we'll call for a vote on the board 2326 02:00:21,079 --> 02:00:23,079 I 2327 02:00:23,079 --> 02:00:25,079 Motion carries seven to zero 2328 02:00:29,279 --> 02:00:33,079 Commissioner Ellis I will motion to approve Larry back as a 2329 02:00:33,760 --> 02:00:35,659 Appointment to the planning and zoning Commission sub 2330 02:00:35,659 --> 02:00:38,710 committee for the denton development code amendment project, 2331 02:00:38,710 --> 02:00:39,000 okay 2332 02:00:40,880 --> 02:00:40,880 Commissioner Sullivan I second okay, we have a first and a 2333 02:00:40,880 --> 02:00:47,960 second for Commissioner back any discussion 2334 02:00:50,079 --> 02:00:52,079 I 2335 02:00:55,199 --> 02:00:57,199 Think now we will call for a vote on board 2336 02:01:05,520 --> 02:01:07,520 Motion carries seven zero 2337 02:01:08,720 --> 02:01:10,930 Congratulations Commissioner Ellis Commissioner Roselle and 2338 02:01:10,930 --> 02:01:13,840 Commissioner back on your appointments. Thank you 2339 02:01:15,600 --> 02:01:18,250 That will move us to our public hearing section this 2340 02:01:18,250 --> 02:01:19,039 evening 2341 02:01:20,079 --> 02:01:24,039 At this time I'm going to open the public hearing for item 2342 02:01:24,039 --> 02:01:25,880 a fr 16 - 2343 02:01:27,359 --> 02:01:30,920 0003 and call on Julie white for presentation 2344 02:01:38,119 --> 02:01:39,050 Julie Wyatt senior planner at the city of Denton and I'm 2345 02:01:39,050 --> 02:01:42,600 presenting to you a 2346 02:01:43,560 --> 02:01:48,869 Replat of a piece of property. It's fr 16 3 is a replat in 2347 02:01:48,869 --> 02:01:51,500 order to abandon a public alley 2348 02:01:51,500 --> 02:01:53,840 And I'll stand for any questions 2349 02:01:57,239 --> 02:01:59,239 Any questions for staff 2350 02:02:02,039 --> 02:02:04,039 Thank You Julie 2351 02:02:05,720 --> 02:02:08,630 This is a public hearing so anyone who would like to come 2352 02:02:08,630 --> 02:02:12,840 forward and speak on this item at this time, please do so 2353 02:02:13,560 --> 02:02:15,560 I 2354 02:02:18,039 --> 02:02:21,140 Seeing no one we will close the public here on this item 2355 02:02:21,140 --> 02:02:24,359 and open the floor for motion or discussion Commissioner 2356 02:02:24,359 --> 02:02:24,640 back 2357 02:02:25,600 --> 02:02:27,600 Thank you chair. I move we approve 2358 02:02:28,000 --> 02:02:30,899 the for 16 - 0003 2359 02:02:32,640 --> 02:02:35,159 Commissioner Solomon I second that motion. Okay, I have a 2360 02:02:35,159 --> 02:02:38,319 first and a second for approval any discussion 2361 02:02:42,720 --> 02:02:44,720 Seeing no we'll call for a vote on board 2362 02:02:55,800 --> 02:02:57,800 Motion carries seven zero 2363 02:03:00,319 --> 02:03:04,760 Move us to item B public hearings. I'm going to open the 2364 02:03:04,760 --> 02:03:05,680 public hearing for 2365 02:03:06,600 --> 02:03:08,600 z16 - 2366 02:03:08,840 --> 02:03:12,600 0018 a and call on Julie white for presentation 2367 02:03:13,720 --> 02:03:15,720 All right, good evening 2368 02:03:18,760 --> 02:03:21,600 Would you like to go through the full presentation or the 2369 02:03:21,600 --> 02:03:23,039 summary full 2370 02:03:25,159 --> 02:03:27,159 Okay, all right 2371 02:03:27,319 --> 02:03:32,270 Okay, so this is a this request is z 16 18 blue beacon 2372 02:03:32,270 --> 02:03:33,000 truck wash 2373 02:03:34,760 --> 02:03:38,529 The location of the request is adjacent to I 35 and north 2374 02:03:38,529 --> 02:03:40,039 of Barthol road 2375 02:03:40,199 --> 02:03:44,840 It's in the north part of the city just to let you know 2376 02:03:44,840 --> 02:03:49,789 There's approximately 637 feet of frontage of along I 35 on 2377 02:03:49,789 --> 02:03:50,760 this property 2378 02:03:51,920 --> 02:03:55,930 So the request concerning this location is to consider a 2379 02:03:55,930 --> 02:03:57,520 rezoning on approximately 2380 02:03:58,399 --> 02:04:02,319 5.3 acres from regional center residential one to 2381 02:04:02,319 --> 02:04:05,180 employment center commercial district 2382 02:04:09,039 --> 02:04:13,729 So the the the area is is currently undeveloped the site is 2383 02:04:13,729 --> 02:04:16,779 currently undeveloped and it is will go 2384 02:04:17,319 --> 02:04:20,479 Over what's surrounding it with the character of the area. 2385 02:04:20,479 --> 02:04:21,640 So if you will look 2386 02:04:22,520 --> 02:04:25,229 Just to the west of it. You have a property that doesn't 2387 02:04:25,229 --> 02:04:27,359 have any it doesn't have a color on it 2388 02:04:27,359 --> 02:04:30,020 That's because it's in our extraterritorial jurisdiction. 2389 02:04:30,020 --> 02:04:31,199 It's outside of the city limits 2390 02:04:31,880 --> 02:04:33,800 And it is undeveloped 2391 02:04:33,800 --> 02:04:37,300 You also have property to the north here the hatch mark 2392 02:04:37,300 --> 02:04:40,199 that has a zoning designation of RD 5x 2393 02:04:40,199 --> 02:04:42,920 That's rural residential minimum 5 acres 2394 02:04:43,079 --> 02:04:46,479 That's and that's actually kind of a place holding zoning 2395 02:04:46,479 --> 02:04:49,560 for when property is recently annexed and that 2396 02:04:50,119 --> 02:04:53,220 Much of that property is undeveloped just to the north of 2397 02:04:53,220 --> 02:04:55,560 the property has that RCR one 2398 02:04:56,199 --> 02:05:00,439 zoning designation is undeveloped to the south there is 2399 02:05:01,119 --> 02:05:04,220 Existing ECC district and that property is currently being 2400 02:05:04,220 --> 02:05:07,300 redeveloped with a commercial use with a travel center use 2401 02:05:07,920 --> 02:05:09,920 There's also some RCC in 2402 02:05:10,359 --> 02:05:11,880 adjacent to that 2403 02:05:11,880 --> 02:05:16,359 RCC in across I 35 and then RCC D across 2404 02:05:16,840 --> 02:05:20,630 35 south of Elm that is developed with the Travel Center 2405 02:05:20,630 --> 02:05:21,840 with a commercial use 2406 02:05:22,720 --> 02:05:27,220 And the applicant is proposing to rezone the property to E 2407 02:05:27,220 --> 02:05:28,279 CC district 2408 02:05:30,439 --> 02:05:33,960 The property is located in a future land use designation of 2409 02:05:33,960 --> 02:05:35,199 business innovation 2410 02:05:35,520 --> 02:05:38,460 Business innovation is intended for employment uses for 2411 02:05:38,460 --> 02:05:41,960 office research and development light manufacturing 2412 02:05:42,680 --> 02:05:46,170 As well as large office parks and also the supporting 2413 02:05:46,170 --> 02:05:48,600 retail uses associated with that 2414 02:05:49,600 --> 02:05:54,550 commercial uses hotels shops restaurants and some 2415 02:05:54,550 --> 02:05:54,840 residential 2416 02:05:57,439 --> 02:06:00,359 So considerations that we looked at when we analyzed this 2417 02:06:00,359 --> 02:06:01,079 request were 2418 02:06:01,600 --> 02:06:04,189 First the the criteria for approval there in the Denton 2419 02:06:04,189 --> 02:06:07,960 Development Code and that's section 35 3 4 B 2420 02:06:08,600 --> 02:06:11,760 the first criteria for approval is does it meet the 2421 02:06:12,560 --> 02:06:16,939 The future land use designation in this case as I said, it 2422 02:06:16,939 --> 02:06:17,800 's business innovation 2423 02:06:18,319 --> 02:06:21,359 ECC district has quite a variety of 2424 02:06:21,840 --> 02:06:25,220 Commercial uses within it and it also folds in some of 2425 02:06:25,220 --> 02:06:28,159 those employment uses light manufacturing 2426 02:06:29,800 --> 02:06:33,149 Warehouse so it's kind of got both of both of those 2427 02:06:33,149 --> 02:06:34,520 elements and so 2428 02:06:34,960 --> 02:06:38,159 ECC district does meet the intent of the business 2429 02:06:38,159 --> 02:06:40,439 innovation future land use designation 2430 02:06:40,439 --> 02:06:43,539 And then the second criteria for approval is is there 2431 02:06:43,539 --> 02:06:47,079 adequate provision of public infrastructure and and the 2432 02:06:47,079 --> 02:06:48,520 answer that is yes 2433 02:06:49,000 --> 02:06:51,399 There may be additional requirements at platting 2434 02:06:52,199 --> 02:06:54,439 And we also looked at the character of the area 2435 02:06:55,319 --> 02:06:59,170 When when we look in this in this part of the city of Dent 2436 02:06:59,170 --> 02:07:01,960 on we anticipate the growth to 2437 02:07:02,880 --> 02:07:06,109 To kind of radiate out from that from that I 35 corridor 2438 02:07:06,109 --> 02:07:08,520 with the commercial development 2439 02:07:09,000 --> 02:07:11,619 Centering along that corridor it takes advantage of the 2440 02:07:11,619 --> 02:07:14,600 visibility the access the the traffic that goes by it 2441 02:07:14,600 --> 02:07:18,170 So we anticipate that the the commercial part of the E of 2442 02:07:18,170 --> 02:07:21,680 the business innovation would would go more toward 2443 02:07:21,680 --> 02:07:25,989 The 35 corridor within it transitioning to those employment 2444 02:07:25,989 --> 02:07:28,880 uses as you go further west in those larger tracks 2445 02:07:30,079 --> 02:07:32,079 the ECC the ECC 2446 02:07:33,520 --> 02:07:36,039 Permitted uses are consistent with this 2447 02:07:36,800 --> 02:07:39,409 Anticipated development pattern and then it does have the 2448 02:07:39,409 --> 02:07:42,819 variety of commercial uses and it has and it permits them 2449 02:07:42,819 --> 02:07:43,399 in a scale 2450 02:07:43,560 --> 02:07:47,270 That is consistent with the type of development you see in 2451 02:07:47,270 --> 02:07:48,399 that kind of corridor 2452 02:07:48,840 --> 02:07:51,630 But a bit once again, it also does fold in some of those 2453 02:07:51,630 --> 02:07:53,000 employment uses as well 2454 02:07:54,520 --> 02:07:57,260 The current zoning of RC r1 is the commercial zoning 2455 02:07:57,260 --> 02:08:00,380 district it does permit commercial uses, but it limits 2456 02:08:00,380 --> 02:08:00,800 those 2457 02:08:01,479 --> 02:08:04,020 Commercial uses in square footage and also in building 2458 02:08:04,020 --> 02:08:04,699 envelopes 2459 02:08:04,699 --> 02:08:07,430 So it's it's not exactly typical what the typical 2460 02:08:07,430 --> 02:08:09,560 development pattern that you would see 2461 02:08:09,960 --> 02:08:13,060 Or typical development scale that you would see on this 2462 02:08:13,060 --> 02:08:14,600 type of highway corridor 2463 02:08:15,600 --> 02:08:19,359 By rezoning to ECC district we would expand those permitted 2464 02:08:19,359 --> 02:08:22,500 commercial uses and also enlarge that building envelope 2465 02:08:22,600 --> 02:08:25,699 So that development could build to the scale that you 2466 02:08:25,699 --> 02:08:29,880 typically see in this area and then ECC district 2467 02:08:30,319 --> 02:08:34,630 The proposed ECC district is a logical continuation of that 2468 02:08:34,630 --> 02:08:36,920 existing ECC to the south 2469 02:08:39,119 --> 02:08:42,819 Public notification was sent out and we have not received 2470 02:08:42,819 --> 02:08:44,359 any responses 2471 02:08:46,520 --> 02:08:48,279 Based upon the criteria for approval staff recommend or 2472 02:08:48,279 --> 02:08:52,119 criteria for approval staff does recommend approval 2473 02:08:52,119 --> 02:08:55,220 I did want to add one other thing we discussed in work 2474 02:08:55,220 --> 02:08:55,680 session 2475 02:08:55,680 --> 02:08:58,819 I know it was brought up by Commissioner Roselle the use 2476 02:08:58,819 --> 02:09:00,079 and and and although 2477 02:09:00,640 --> 02:09:04,239 We we know what the proposed use is staff 2478 02:09:05,720 --> 02:09:09,609 When we when staff looks at a rezoning case we have to look 2479 02:09:09,609 --> 02:09:09,899 at 2480 02:09:10,319 --> 02:09:12,600 That zoning district that proposed district in a more 2481 02:09:12,600 --> 02:09:13,840 comprehensive fashion 2482 02:09:14,399 --> 02:09:17,779 Of course, you could you will vote to recommend and you 2483 02:09:17,779 --> 02:09:20,079 could look look at other factors 2484 02:09:20,079 --> 02:09:21,920 You know the that use factor as well 2485 02:09:21,920 --> 02:09:25,319 So I just wanted to point that out that although that wasn 2486 02:09:25,319 --> 02:09:28,199 't a part of our analysis that it 2487 02:09:29,119 --> 02:09:32,000 You could factor that in your recommendation. So 2488 02:09:32,560 --> 02:09:35,119 I'll stand for any questions and the applicant is here. Do 2489 02:09:35,119 --> 02:09:37,079 you have some questions? Commissioner Taylor? 2490 02:09:38,039 --> 02:09:40,039 Thank You chair, so 2491 02:09:42,760 --> 02:09:46,319 What use category is the expected development 2492 02:09:47,159 --> 02:09:50,260 Going to be it would be a drive-through use a drive-through 2493 02:09:50,260 --> 02:09:51,060 use. Okay 2494 02:09:51,060 --> 02:09:53,180 So I was wondering like drive-through or quick vehicle serv 2495 02:09:53,180 --> 02:09:55,439 icing or what what exactly it fell under it 2496 02:09:55,439 --> 02:09:59,239 The definition of the drive-through use actually includes 2497 02:09:59,239 --> 02:10:00,640 car washes. So I 2498 02:10:01,279 --> 02:10:03,630 Was kind of looking at it both ways to use a quick vehicle 2499 02:10:03,630 --> 02:10:06,920 serving but drive-through but but in the definition it 2500 02:10:06,920 --> 02:10:07,920 actually has the 2501 02:10:08,640 --> 02:10:09,880 the 2502 02:10:09,880 --> 02:10:13,060 Car wash so would it be possible to bring back up the 2503 02:10:13,060 --> 02:10:14,520 zoning map? 2504 02:10:15,920 --> 02:10:17,920 so business innovation 2505 02:10:19,359 --> 02:10:23,119 Has has been challenging for for this commission for a 2506 02:10:23,119 --> 02:10:25,399 while and we have a similar area 2507 02:10:25,399 --> 02:10:29,159 just actually straight down I 35 another mile or so where 2508 02:10:29,159 --> 02:10:30,119 we 2509 02:10:31,600 --> 02:10:35,909 There are great plans and we are just one parcel at a time 2510 02:10:35,909 --> 02:10:37,960 rezoning as we go 2511 02:10:39,880 --> 02:10:42,239 So I don't necessarily I don't feel that this is 2512 02:10:42,239 --> 02:10:44,000 inappropriate here the ECC I 2513 02:10:45,800 --> 02:10:47,710 Especially with the ECC immediately bordering it. I think 2514 02:10:47,710 --> 02:10:51,640 it kind of makes them more cohesive the zoning than to have 2515 02:10:52,439 --> 02:10:55,319 Ten acres there one five acres here or something else 2516 02:10:55,960 --> 02:11:01,000 however, I do I do think that we're tending to put to re 2517 02:11:01,000 --> 02:11:04,000 zone our business innovation district to 2518 02:11:04,600 --> 02:11:07,380 EC employment center which tends toward lighter heavy 2519 02:11:07,380 --> 02:11:08,960 industrial and 2520 02:11:10,159 --> 02:11:13,680 I from what I can gather the purpose of our business in 2521 02:11:13,680 --> 02:11:18,439 innovation district is really to be more office and 2522 02:11:19,279 --> 02:11:22,829 We don't have an obvious straight office park zoning 2523 02:11:22,829 --> 02:11:26,439 category. You can build an office in ECC 2524 02:11:27,000 --> 02:11:30,300 You can also build an office in our like RCC 2525 02:11:31,039 --> 02:11:35,989 that can also become more retail focused and I and I wonder 2526 02:11:35,989 --> 02:11:36,279 if 2527 02:11:37,119 --> 02:11:39,659 in the future as we build out our business innovation 2528 02:11:39,659 --> 02:11:40,960 district basically from 2529 02:11:41,800 --> 02:11:48,060 Here south if it wouldn't be better to aim for RCC D or RCC 2530 02:11:48,060 --> 02:11:48,239 N 2531 02:11:48,600 --> 02:11:50,359 so then you would have 2532 02:11:50,359 --> 02:11:54,220 Retail and the ability to build smaller large office parks, 2533 02:11:54,220 --> 02:11:56,640 but you wouldn't have industrial uses 2534 02:11:57,479 --> 02:12:00,000 There's a really good point and we've kicked around a lot 2535 02:12:00,000 --> 02:12:03,100 because business innovation. We don't have maybe a natural 2536 02:12:03,600 --> 02:12:06,779 We've kind of looked at internally that the EC 2537 02:12:07,159 --> 02:12:12,109 And ECI are probably the most natural fit fit for business 2538 02:12:12,109 --> 02:12:12,960 innovation 2539 02:12:12,960 --> 02:12:15,710 But yes, I could make an argument for the RCC D as well 2540 02:12:15,710 --> 02:12:17,279 because it has a lot of those 2541 02:12:18,199 --> 02:12:21,479 Comparable uses so just as a reminder we need to stick to 2542 02:12:21,479 --> 02:12:22,739 the agenda item 2543 02:12:22,960 --> 02:12:25,399 So we're going a little bit outside that well 2544 02:12:25,399 --> 02:12:28,500 And I'm trying to I'm trying to apply this make sure that 2545 02:12:28,500 --> 02:12:31,600 this zoning is consistent with our future land use map 2546 02:12:32,079 --> 02:12:35,539 So as we look at the future land use map and the future 2547 02:12:35,539 --> 02:12:38,680 land use that this parcels in that's why I'm talking about 2548 02:12:38,680 --> 02:12:39,079 this now 2549 02:12:39,560 --> 02:12:41,560 because I think this 2550 02:12:42,239 --> 02:12:44,239 This is on the edge and 2551 02:12:44,720 --> 02:12:48,260 We have to look holistically at the area around it 2552 02:12:48,520 --> 02:12:51,840 So that's that's that's why I'm bringing this argument up 2553 02:12:51,840 --> 02:12:55,159 now is if we continue to zone business innovation 2554 02:12:55,880 --> 02:12:57,840 EC anything 2555 02:12:57,840 --> 02:13:01,649 it will tend toward the heavier use the more industrial 2556 02:13:01,649 --> 02:13:02,279 uses and 2557 02:13:02,880 --> 02:13:05,079 that will be less appealing for 2558 02:13:05,880 --> 02:13:06,960 the 2559 02:13:06,960 --> 02:13:09,199 the office park uses and the retail uses 2560 02:13:09,880 --> 02:13:14,720 So if we if we tend to make business innovation RCC D then 2561 02:13:14,720 --> 02:13:15,159 the most 2562 02:13:15,880 --> 02:13:18,789 Intense use that they could build would be an office park. 2563 02:13:18,789 --> 02:13:19,640 Thank you 2564 02:13:22,000 --> 02:13:24,560 Commissioner Mack thank you chair just quick question Julie 2565 02:13:24,560 --> 02:13:27,399 that for clarification purposes again that frontage 2566 02:13:27,840 --> 02:13:30,359 Slash service road that this is going to be sitting that's 2567 02:13:30,359 --> 02:13:31,840 two-way traffic right there, right? 2568 02:13:32,239 --> 02:13:37,739 The frontage no that is one way heading so access road goes 2569 02:13:37,739 --> 02:13:39,279 south one way 2570 02:13:39,279 --> 02:13:42,640 Yes, okay, somebody coming underneath I-35 could not make a 2571 02:13:42,640 --> 02:13:44,159 right there. Well here 2572 02:13:44,159 --> 02:13:48,479 They are as part as part of the development in this area 2573 02:13:49,800 --> 02:13:53,789 Bartle Road will be realigned North El so that there will 2574 02:13:53,789 --> 02:13:55,600 be an east-west connection 2575 02:13:55,960 --> 02:13:58,539 Because you're right right now. It's sort of dead ends and 2576 02:13:58,539 --> 02:14:01,000 there's this little little cut through 2577 02:14:01,600 --> 02:14:05,119 Here, but that that will be changed 2578 02:14:07,079 --> 02:14:09,079 Thank you sure 2579 02:14:09,119 --> 02:14:11,119 Commissioner Sullivan 2580 02:14:14,399 --> 02:14:18,029 Similar question I just want to chime in and address 2581 02:14:18,029 --> 02:14:19,880 Commission Taylor's comment 2582 02:14:20,439 --> 02:14:23,539 one of the things that hopefully this subcommittee the new 2583 02:14:23,539 --> 02:14:25,680 subcommittee created will be looking into 2584 02:14:26,199 --> 02:14:29,600 As part of the DDC amendment is to look at the zoning 2585 02:14:30,720 --> 02:14:33,079 districts and in the uses with with regards to business 2586 02:14:33,079 --> 02:14:36,859 innovation as Julie mentioned there is really not a natural 2587 02:14:36,859 --> 02:14:37,880 fit obviously 2588 02:14:38,279 --> 02:14:42,109 ECI or ECC is the closest but we certainly are going to be 2589 02:14:42,109 --> 02:14:46,760 looking hopefully at creating or amending the EC to be more 2590 02:14:47,520 --> 02:14:50,039 Towards what the business innovation is calling for in the 2591 02:14:50,039 --> 02:14:51,359 data plan 2030 2592 02:14:56,960 --> 02:14:58,960 Commissioner so 2593 02:15:00,279 --> 02:15:02,279 Commissioner else thank you chair 2594 02:15:03,119 --> 02:15:06,649 To Commissioner Beck's comment about the the extension this 2595 02:15:06,649 --> 02:15:10,079 L meeting Bart hold is it that's a text-dot deal 2596 02:15:10,119 --> 02:15:13,829 Yes, do we have any kind of timeline on that? I don't I don 2597 02:15:13,829 --> 02:15:15,760 't have a timeline on that and oh 2598 02:15:17,279 --> 02:15:19,640 Earl's here. I'll call Earl Escobar 2599 02:15:26,479 --> 02:15:29,369 The realignment of Bart hold road with with Elm Street or 2600 02:15:29,369 --> 02:15:33,840 77 across the street 2601 02:15:33,840 --> 02:15:36,359 It's actually going to be done as part of the love Chuck 2602 02:15:36,359 --> 02:15:37,920 stock development to the south 2603 02:15:38,840 --> 02:15:40,840 I believe PNC approved that plot 2604 02:15:41,600 --> 02:15:43,960 A couple sessions ago, so they're going through the 2605 02:15:43,960 --> 02:15:45,680 contract process right now 2606 02:15:46,199 --> 02:15:48,079 Followed by a pre-construction meeting then they'll 2607 02:15:48,079 --> 02:15:49,199 commence construction 2608 02:15:52,600 --> 02:15:54,600 Commissioner Ashworth 2609 02:15:55,640 --> 02:15:57,640 Thank you 2610 02:15:58,479 --> 02:16:00,479 So I 2611 02:16:01,640 --> 02:16:03,640 Started to think listening to 2612 02:16:05,119 --> 02:16:07,119 Commissioner Roselle's points and 2613 02:16:09,680 --> 02:16:11,680 Starting the shift, but then I 2614 02:16:12,079 --> 02:16:15,199 My question I guess is not necessary for staff, but I'd 2615 02:16:15,199 --> 02:16:17,479 love to see what you think Commissioner Taylor on be 2616 02:16:17,479 --> 02:16:17,960 familiar 2617 02:16:18,479 --> 02:16:21,760 114 just by by proxy just you can see 114 2618 02:16:22,439 --> 02:16:24,319 35w area 2619 02:16:24,319 --> 02:16:28,050 So you have that truck that I would is that that's behind a 2620 02:16:28,050 --> 02:16:28,680 quick trip 2621 02:16:28,680 --> 02:16:31,399 There's like the little truck thing there, but then they 2622 02:16:31,399 --> 02:16:33,719 have the apartments around it. You have some other 2623 02:16:33,719 --> 02:16:35,079 corporate environments 2624 02:16:35,079 --> 02:16:37,260 You have the farmers coffee there. That's kind of the 2625 02:16:37,260 --> 02:16:38,079 environment. I'm 2626 02:16:39,000 --> 02:16:42,100 Starting to see take place here, and so I'm just one. I'm 2627 02:16:42,100 --> 02:16:42,860 just thinking out loud 2628 02:16:42,860 --> 02:16:45,379 I'd love to get your thoughts on how you see this area 2629 02:16:45,379 --> 02:16:47,809 developing because I did not think about the employment 2630 02:16:47,809 --> 02:16:48,159 center 2631 02:16:48,600 --> 02:16:51,819 Aspect of it. It's just always been the area where there's 2632 02:16:51,819 --> 02:16:53,479 truck stops in the boot store there 2633 02:16:53,479 --> 02:16:56,680 So as it's growing I'd love to see kind of get more 2634 02:16:57,559 --> 02:17:00,790 How you see that going to make sure it just helps me 2635 02:17:00,790 --> 02:17:02,020 process 2636 02:17:03,600 --> 02:17:05,040 Commissioner time 2637 02:17:05,040 --> 02:17:06,920 Thank You chair, so 2638 02:17:06,920 --> 02:17:09,760 So I think the 114 area is a good example 2639 02:17:10,479 --> 02:17:15,069 This the truck wash for example could be an RCC and or RCC 2640 02:17:15,069 --> 02:17:15,260 D 2641 02:17:15,959 --> 02:17:19,940 so you know that this use doesn't have to have the ec see 2642 02:17:19,940 --> 02:17:21,319 and 2643 02:17:22,920 --> 02:17:26,479 with ec I and ec see you you can get things like 2644 02:17:27,200 --> 02:17:31,069 Heavy well ec see I you can get ec I you can get heavy 2645 02:17:31,069 --> 02:17:34,440 industry like you know smelters or 2646 02:17:34,879 --> 02:17:36,879 you know like 2647 02:17:36,879 --> 02:17:40,719 things like that and and you don't want to have your office 2648 02:17:40,719 --> 02:17:43,819 park next to a metal smelter or a 2649 02:17:44,399 --> 02:17:46,399 hazardous waste disposal facility or 2650 02:17:47,479 --> 02:17:50,700 You know something along those lines, so so I worry if we 2651 02:17:50,700 --> 02:17:52,879 go ec the ec category is 2652 02:17:53,920 --> 02:17:59,239 one or two of those heavier uses will drive away 2653 02:18:00,239 --> 02:18:03,120 You know kind of office uses lighter uses 2654 02:18:03,920 --> 02:18:07,079 So if we zone it where the heaviest intensity use is an 2655 02:18:07,079 --> 02:18:08,040 office park 2656 02:18:08,520 --> 02:18:11,360 You know the the fast food restaurant isn't going to drive 2657 02:18:11,360 --> 02:18:13,920 away an office park or a little strip center 2658 02:18:13,920 --> 02:18:16,280 Is it going to drive away an office park, but a metal pl 2659 02:18:16,280 --> 02:18:19,159 ater or something like that might drive away an office park? 2660 02:18:21,200 --> 02:18:24,299 I just want to add one clarification heavy manufacturing is 2661 02:18:24,299 --> 02:18:25,879 not permitted in ec see your ec I 2662 02:18:26,799 --> 02:18:28,799 Not ec. I just unlike manufacturing 2663 02:18:29,520 --> 02:18:32,040 So I just want to clarify. I'm sorry. What's I thought it 2664 02:18:32,040 --> 02:18:34,379 you see a thought you see I see I see G 2665 02:18:34,379 --> 02:18:37,139 Yes, okay, sorry I misspoke about that, but it does it does 2666 02:18:37,139 --> 02:18:40,520 permit life manufacturing. It does permit warehouse uses so 2667 02:18:44,680 --> 02:18:46,680 Any other questions for staff 2668 02:18:49,000 --> 02:18:51,000 Thank you 2669 02:18:52,200 --> 02:18:57,819 This is a public hearing and I do have one card in support 2670 02:18:57,819 --> 02:19:00,440 Dana Morse you would 2671 02:19:03,600 --> 02:19:05,840 And did was to speak feel please give your name and address 2672 02:19:05,840 --> 02:19:08,600 and you'll have four minutes 2673 02:19:09,879 --> 02:19:11,879 My name is Dana Morse. I'm with Blue Beacon 2674 02:19:12,719 --> 02:19:14,719 500 Grays Boulevard, Salina, Kansas 2675 02:19:15,319 --> 02:19:17,319 Which is the home office for Blue Beacon? 2676 02:19:21,200 --> 02:19:23,510 Think the main thing I want to talk about is if we're 2677 02:19:23,510 --> 02:19:25,540 fortunate enough to get approval tonight 2678 02:19:26,719 --> 02:19:31,559 In the ec see I guess to warn you we're going to come back 2679 02:19:32,719 --> 02:19:35,059 When we started looking at this piece 2680 02:19:35,840 --> 02:19:39,159 And we had to buy 21 acres so the piece to the 2681 02:19:40,159 --> 02:19:42,040 to the west 2682 02:19:42,040 --> 02:19:44,639 That doesn't have a car. Just kind of greenish color 2683 02:19:45,280 --> 02:19:47,280 Is part of our contract? 2684 02:19:47,879 --> 02:19:52,100 We had hoped to exit straight out onto Bartolt Road 2685 02:19:52,639 --> 02:19:55,799 this is before we realized that there's a realignment and 2686 02:19:56,760 --> 02:19:58,520 between our track 2687 02:19:58,520 --> 02:20:02,840 Old Bartolt Road and new Bartolt Road is a no-man's land 2688 02:20:03,559 --> 02:20:05,639 That we can't get on to 2689 02:20:07,319 --> 02:20:10,399 Bartolt hold Bartolt Road realigned 2690 02:20:11,280 --> 02:20:14,819 Another problem with that is in the preliminary designs 2691 02:20:14,819 --> 02:20:16,500 that we're seeing from the city 2692 02:20:17,040 --> 02:20:19,040 and from TxDOT 2693 02:20:19,799 --> 02:20:22,430 There's a raised media in there so our trucks couldn't 2694 02:20:22,430 --> 02:20:26,600 across that as they exit anyway, so we're going to have to 2695 02:20:28,479 --> 02:20:32,950 Take our entrance and exit to the west to line up with the 2696 02:20:32,950 --> 02:20:34,879 loves entrance and exit 2697 02:20:35,479 --> 02:20:38,809 We understand what staffs telling us about that and I think 2698 02:20:38,809 --> 02:20:42,200 for us and they in the long run that will be good for us 2699 02:20:42,200 --> 02:20:43,680 And good for them 2700 02:20:43,680 --> 02:20:46,000 It'll get us all the way from 2701 02:20:47,040 --> 02:20:49,799 Far enough east that none of us are trying to exit on that 2702 02:20:49,799 --> 02:20:53,440 curve if you can kind of remember how Bartolt Road is going 2703 02:20:53,440 --> 02:20:53,899 to realign 2704 02:20:55,000 --> 02:20:56,440 Excuse me 2705 02:20:56,440 --> 02:21:00,319 So we've made application for annexation 2706 02:21:01,200 --> 02:21:06,040 Of that entire 16 acres remaining 16 acres and for zoning 2707 02:21:07,040 --> 02:21:11,739 To the to the ECC now honestly we don't care what we're z 2708 02:21:11,739 --> 02:21:11,920 oned 2709 02:21:12,559 --> 02:21:15,659 Letter wise we just want to zone that permits the truck 2710 02:21:15,659 --> 02:21:15,879 wash 2711 02:21:18,040 --> 02:21:20,040 We don't really want to back up either 2712 02:21:20,680 --> 02:21:23,500 Obviously, I have some contractual time that I need to be 2713 02:21:23,500 --> 02:21:26,799 careful of here, so but I want you to understand that 2714 02:21:27,920 --> 02:21:30,309 If we're approved tonight, we're planning on coming back 2715 02:21:30,309 --> 02:21:32,959 actually we have to to make this thing work 2716 02:21:34,600 --> 02:21:36,659 There are a few questions about us that I want to want to 2717 02:21:36,659 --> 02:21:40,370 just address real quickly, and I realize this is only 2718 02:21:40,370 --> 02:21:41,000 matter 2719 02:21:42,239 --> 02:21:45,340 Not really about our land use, but we don't mind certainly 2720 02:21:45,340 --> 02:21:47,159 sharing what we do and how we do things 2721 02:21:48,360 --> 02:21:50,360 We've been at this since 1972 2722 02:21:51,399 --> 02:21:54,139 116 truck horses across the country so we we kind of know 2723 02:21:54,139 --> 02:21:55,040 how to do this 2724 02:21:57,239 --> 02:21:59,239 One thing about our traffic 2725 02:22:01,680 --> 02:22:03,680 Wait oh wait see if I 2726 02:22:08,120 --> 02:22:10,940 We're just clear fine since you've stopped I've made an 2727 02:22:10,940 --> 02:22:13,479 error you are the applicant and you get ten minutes 2728 02:22:13,479 --> 02:22:17,049 I didn't know from your card. Okay, the applicant I 2729 02:22:17,049 --> 02:22:18,280 apologize so you get 2730 02:22:25,799 --> 02:22:29,200 I'll slow down a little bit then our traffic is a meter 2731 02:22:29,200 --> 02:22:29,979 traffic 2732 02:22:30,399 --> 02:22:33,260 We're gonna start out with a double bay truck wash we can 2733 02:22:33,260 --> 02:22:35,920 turn out a truck every 15 minutes out of those days 2734 02:22:35,920 --> 02:22:38,559 So that's eight trucks an hour coming out of that wash 2735 02:22:40,399 --> 02:22:45,579 Maximum 12 because on our dream plan we show three days, 2736 02:22:45,579 --> 02:22:46,120 okay 2737 02:22:47,159 --> 02:22:50,530 Our wastewater we've checked with the city of Denton we 2738 02:22:50,530 --> 02:22:54,959 recycle 30 35 percent of our water our wastewater and 2739 02:22:57,680 --> 02:22:58,639 Understanding that we're gonna have to pay some for water 2740 02:22:58,639 --> 02:23:01,559 and sewer lines out there, but nonetheless 2741 02:23:03,159 --> 02:23:06,260 We've not found any indication in the city that we're going 2742 02:23:06,260 --> 02:23:09,680 to cause any problems in their plant for our discharge 2743 02:23:10,239 --> 02:23:14,120 As far as metals oil and grease whatever we may discharge 2744 02:23:20,000 --> 02:23:23,239 We employ about 50 to 60 people were 24/7 2745 02:23:23,920 --> 02:23:27,020 And we'll have about 50 or 60 people only want bring in one 2746 02:23:27,020 --> 02:23:29,280 outside person and that'll be the manager 2747 02:23:32,079 --> 02:23:34,079 When you talk about compatibility of uses 2748 02:23:34,559 --> 02:23:37,079 When I was making my notes back there the one that came to 2749 02:23:37,079 --> 02:23:39,719 mind is I did a job for the company about 2750 02:23:39,959 --> 02:23:42,879 three years ago in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and we built 2751 02:23:42,879 --> 02:23:46,079 next to the country club in the swimming pool and 2752 02:23:47,840 --> 02:23:50,600 We welcome anybody to call the country club and see what we 2753 02:23:50,600 --> 02:23:51,239 are for neighbors 2754 02:23:52,639 --> 02:23:56,200 You got six more minutes, okay, well, I don't think I 2755 02:23:57,200 --> 02:24:00,059 Don't think I can ramble six more minutes and maybe maybe 2756 02:24:00,059 --> 02:24:02,920 to tell you what a long drive it is from Kansas down here 2757 02:24:05,079 --> 02:24:07,770 Unless you have questions to me, that's all I have do you 2758 02:24:07,770 --> 02:24:08,760 have a question for you? 2759 02:24:09,319 --> 02:24:11,639 Commissioner back. Thanks chair. Thank you. Mr 2760 02:24:11,639 --> 02:24:13,879 More coming down speaking to us and you did answer my 2761 02:24:13,879 --> 02:24:15,879 biggest question concerning wastewater 2762 02:24:15,879 --> 02:24:17,879 So we don't have to worry about 2763 02:24:18,360 --> 02:24:20,620 Oklahoma Roadkill everything getting Washington to our 2764 02:24:20,620 --> 02:24:21,319 drainage system 2765 02:24:21,840 --> 02:24:24,389 Just curious though. You said you were gonna have three b 2766 02:24:24,389 --> 02:24:24,600 ays 2767 02:24:25,639 --> 02:24:28,979 There's a potential of three. Okay. Yes roughly how much 2768 02:24:28,979 --> 02:24:31,079 water does each wash? 2769 02:24:31,079 --> 02:24:34,180 You do you know what the volume is? I can't tell you on a 2770 02:24:34,180 --> 02:24:34,479 triple 2771 02:24:34,479 --> 02:24:37,040 I can tell you on a double bay a busy double bay, which we 2772 02:24:37,040 --> 02:24:38,239 think this is going to be 2773 02:24:40,399 --> 02:24:43,760 It'll be in the top 20 of ours will take about 2774 02:24:44,440 --> 02:24:47,799 18 to 20 thousand gallons a day now is this where they're 2775 02:24:47,799 --> 02:24:49,940 sitting in the truck. They're not getting out with 2776 02:24:51,520 --> 02:24:54,139 Good point. Let me tell you how we do this. Okay, my driver 2777 02:24:54,139 --> 02:24:57,840 will circle around in a queuing lane and he'll pull in 2778 02:24:58,360 --> 02:25:00,540 He has to get out of the truck. We won't let him sit in a 2779 02:25:00,540 --> 02:25:02,719 truck. He goes in the office pays his bill 2780 02:25:03,799 --> 02:25:05,799 Buys a soda goes to toilet, whatever he does 2781 02:25:06,639 --> 02:25:09,909 In that 15 minutes, we have five to six guys washing that 2782 02:25:09,909 --> 02:25:12,079 truck with high-pressure wands 2783 02:25:13,440 --> 02:25:15,239 We don't wash 2784 02:25:15,239 --> 02:25:18,280 Wash out tankers. We will not touch the inside of a tanker 2785 02:25:19,319 --> 02:25:22,420 We'll wash the inside of a box trailer if it hasn't been 2786 02:25:22,420 --> 02:25:22,959 placarded 2787 02:25:24,040 --> 02:25:26,040 the load before 2788 02:25:29,399 --> 02:25:31,600 That's about it we wash the outside of those trucks 2789 02:25:31,600 --> 02:25:35,200 majority of them are tractor-trailer washes 2790 02:25:37,719 --> 02:25:39,719 But they are we are staffed 2791 02:25:40,159 --> 02:25:42,479 We call the driver back out. He gets in starts it up and 2792 02:25:42,479 --> 02:25:44,360 leaves. We don't want to be parking 2793 02:25:44,360 --> 02:25:47,299 We don't do any other business. There are three vending 2794 02:25:47,299 --> 02:25:50,440 machines in the office and I would guess 90% of that 2795 02:25:50,440 --> 02:25:51,680 business is employees 2796 02:25:52,159 --> 02:25:54,159 Grabbing a snack when they get a break 2797 02:25:56,479 --> 02:25:58,479 Okay, thank you miss 2798 02:25:59,760 --> 02:26:01,760 No questions for the applicant 2799 02:26:04,920 --> 02:26:08,020 Thank you, sir, appreciate your presentation. Thank you. 2800 02:26:08,020 --> 02:26:09,719 This is a public hearing 2801 02:26:09,840 --> 02:26:12,360 Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? 2802 02:26:12,360 --> 02:26:13,819 Please come forward at this time 2803 02:26:14,360 --> 02:26:16,360 I 2804 02:26:18,559 --> 02:26:22,260 Sing none close the public hearing on this item and open 2805 02:26:22,260 --> 02:26:26,239 the dais for a motion or discussion commissioner Ozone 2806 02:26:27,079 --> 02:26:29,079 Thank you chair. I motion to approve 2807 02:26:30,479 --> 02:26:32,479 agenda items Z 2808 02:26:32,840 --> 02:26:35,180 1600 18a for approval 2809 02:26:36,959 --> 02:26:38,959 Commissioner Beck second that motion 2810 02:26:41,520 --> 02:26:43,520 Have a first and a second for approval 2811 02:26:44,399 --> 02:26:46,399 any discussion 2812 02:26:50,799 --> 02:26:52,799 Seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board 2813 02:27:01,280 --> 02:27:03,280 Motion carries seven to zero 2814 02:27:05,600 --> 02:27:09,290 Will move us to item C and I'm going to open the public 2815 02:27:09,290 --> 02:27:12,040 hearing for DCA 17 2816 02:27:12,520 --> 02:27:17,049 - zero zero zero four and looks like Ron McGee to will make 2817 02:27:17,049 --> 02:27:18,120 the presentation 2818 02:27:19,600 --> 02:27:21,600 Thank you chair members of the Commission 2819 02:27:27,479 --> 02:27:31,010 Before I begin with the former president just a quick 2820 02:27:31,010 --> 02:27:32,760 background of why we're here today 2821 02:27:34,159 --> 02:27:36,920 Several years, you know through the development review 2822 02:27:37,479 --> 02:27:40,930 Process we we see a lot of developments that come in that 2823 02:27:40,930 --> 02:27:43,500 are in the ETJ and the reason they come in 2824 02:27:43,840 --> 02:27:46,600 Is because we have an interlocal agreement with the county 2825 02:27:46,600 --> 02:27:49,879 to plot properties that are in the ETJ 2826 02:27:50,040 --> 02:27:53,139 We the city did not have any jurisdiction as far as zoning 2827 02:27:53,139 --> 02:27:53,799 or land use 2828 02:27:54,360 --> 02:27:57,440 so with that staff has always 2829 02:27:58,040 --> 02:28:00,680 Questioned if property should be annexed or not 2830 02:28:01,479 --> 02:28:05,719 We had an excision criteria in the code of ordinances 2831 02:28:05,920 --> 02:28:09,549 But back in 2002 when the DDC the development code was 2832 02:28:09,549 --> 02:28:13,700 created those annexation criteria were meant to be repealed 2833 02:28:14,079 --> 02:28:16,079 however, when they were 2834 02:28:16,879 --> 02:28:19,079 created when the DDC was created a 2835 02:28:19,959 --> 02:28:23,360 Ordinance that was with it did not expressly repealed those 2836 02:28:23,360 --> 02:28:25,000 annexation criteria 2837 02:28:25,879 --> 02:28:27,959 so to clear up the 2838 02:28:28,959 --> 02:28:31,879 Question or where the annexation our criteria are we are 2839 02:28:31,879 --> 02:28:33,920 proposing to 2840 02:28:34,600 --> 02:28:38,020 Repeal those sections in den code of ordinances and apply 2841 02:28:38,020 --> 02:28:41,319 those annexation criteria not forbidden 2842 02:28:41,319 --> 02:28:44,079 There are some changes to the criteria into the den 2843 02:28:44,079 --> 02:28:45,239 development code 2844 02:28:45,239 --> 02:28:49,379 So not only the staff know what the criteria are and what 2845 02:28:49,379 --> 02:28:50,639 the procedure is 2846 02:28:51,680 --> 02:28:55,989 So will the applicants and property owners that are looking 2847 02:28:55,989 --> 02:28:58,000 to develop in the ETJ 2848 02:29:00,600 --> 02:29:03,950 The sections that were repealing refer to annexation 2849 02:29:03,950 --> 02:29:07,719 policies procedures and fees and as stated earlier 2850 02:29:07,719 --> 02:29:13,219 They do not are not in the DDC and again back in 2002. They 2851 02:29:13,219 --> 02:29:13,399 weren't 2852 02:29:14,319 --> 02:29:16,319 expressly repealed 2853 02:29:16,920 --> 02:29:20,360 What we're proposing is to create those annexation criteria 2854 02:29:20,360 --> 02:29:24,280 as part of sub chapter 35 3 procedures under this section 2855 02:29:24,280 --> 02:29:27,079 Which will be a new section referred to as the prefery 2856 02:29:27,479 --> 02:29:31,190 Preferry for referee development annexation criteria that 2857 02:29:31,190 --> 02:29:34,469 is and we will have criteria as to when properties will be 2858 02:29:34,469 --> 02:29:35,200 annexed as 2859 02:29:35,680 --> 02:29:37,680 Well as a staff review 2860 02:29:37,879 --> 02:29:41,399 threshold requirements procedures that will 2861 02:29:42,239 --> 02:29:44,239 outline when 2862 02:29:44,520 --> 02:29:46,520 annexations will move forward to 2863 02:29:46,520 --> 02:29:50,340 City Council most of those procedures are covered under our 2864 02:29:50,340 --> 02:29:51,959 Texas local government code 2865 02:29:53,040 --> 02:29:56,860 We the city can be more restrictive. However, we follow 2866 02:29:57,520 --> 02:30:00,350 the state local government code if nothing is in our den 2867 02:30:00,350 --> 02:30:01,559 development code 2868 02:30:01,559 --> 02:30:05,719 So that's almost as of a default in that reference 2869 02:30:07,079 --> 02:30:12,030 with that staff recommends approval of the amendment and 2870 02:30:12,030 --> 02:30:13,399 the repeal of 2871 02:30:13,920 --> 02:30:15,479 the sections 2872 02:30:15,479 --> 02:30:16,879 reference here 2873 02:30:16,879 --> 02:30:20,659 for the reasons of clarifying when property should be annex 2874 02:30:20,659 --> 02:30:21,479 ed as well as 2875 02:30:21,920 --> 02:30:24,600 Creating a more efficient procedure for annexation 2876 02:30:25,159 --> 02:30:28,090 per state local government code and again as this 2877 02:30:28,090 --> 02:30:30,700 requirement or this annexation criteria is 2878 02:30:31,159 --> 02:30:34,069 Consistent with our damn plan 2030 that concludes my 2879 02:30:34,069 --> 02:30:36,920 presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions 2880 02:30:40,159 --> 02:30:42,600 Commissioner else. Thank you chair. Hi Ron 2881 02:30:43,280 --> 02:30:46,600 Okay, so as I'm trying to wrap my head around this there 2882 02:30:46,600 --> 02:30:47,559 since there was confusion 2883 02:30:47,920 --> 02:30:50,459 That we're not really just taking it out of ordinances and 2884 02:30:50,459 --> 02:30:53,420 putting it into the development cone. It's kind of been re 2885 02:30:53,420 --> 02:30:53,799 written 2886 02:30:54,280 --> 02:30:58,639 So can you in a nutshell tell me since it seems proced 2887 02:30:58,639 --> 02:30:59,440 urally? 2888 02:31:00,040 --> 02:31:03,159 There's a lot less involved in the new rewrite 2889 02:31:04,120 --> 02:31:06,120 What is different? 2890 02:31:06,639 --> 02:31:10,069 With this new thing going forward that we I understand that 2891 02:31:10,069 --> 02:31:12,799 this ordinance that we're repealing was already repealed 2892 02:31:12,799 --> 02:31:14,059 and you're really not following it 2893 02:31:14,059 --> 02:31:17,799 Anyway, so tell me the way we are currently right now doing 2894 02:31:17,799 --> 02:31:20,319 this and what this is going to 2895 02:31:21,159 --> 02:31:23,159 specifically change as 2896 02:31:24,760 --> 02:31:26,760 We discuss in the work session 2897 02:31:27,520 --> 02:31:30,120 Because of the annexation criteria back 2898 02:31:31,040 --> 02:31:35,979 Prior to 2002 this was in place. However, because it was 2899 02:31:35,979 --> 02:31:37,360 never repealed or we 2900 02:31:38,120 --> 02:31:40,809 Implicitly consider it to be repealed. We didn't 2901 02:31:40,809 --> 02:31:42,120 technically have 2902 02:31:42,760 --> 02:31:45,469 Criteria so there's a little confusion there. So we 2903 02:31:45,469 --> 02:31:48,829 followed from then on the Texas local government code 2904 02:31:48,829 --> 02:31:49,799 requirements 2905 02:31:49,920 --> 02:31:51,920 Which is basically 2906 02:31:52,200 --> 02:31:54,799 Establishing public hearing dates having those public 2907 02:31:54,799 --> 02:31:57,959 hearings and then readings first and second readings that 2908 02:31:58,600 --> 02:32:02,159 Ultimately adopts the annexation of said property the as I 2909 02:32:02,159 --> 02:32:05,319 compared the two and as we discussed 2910 02:32:05,840 --> 02:32:07,840 in work session 2911 02:32:07,840 --> 02:32:10,879 The main thing that I saw different between the two 2912 02:32:11,840 --> 02:32:15,000 procedures not the criteria but the procedures is that the 2913 02:32:15,840 --> 02:32:17,840 prior procedures or 2914 02:32:17,879 --> 02:32:19,239 criteria 2915 02:32:19,239 --> 02:32:20,280 section 2916 02:32:20,280 --> 02:32:22,579 Reference bringing it forward to the planning zoning 2917 02:32:22,579 --> 02:32:23,159 Commission 2918 02:32:23,920 --> 02:32:27,760 That is not what is being proposed with the new procedures 2919 02:32:27,760 --> 02:32:30,440 as one difference 2920 02:32:31,079 --> 02:32:33,540 the other thing is the 2921 02:32:34,719 --> 02:32:37,159 procedures in the old section does 2922 02:32:37,920 --> 02:32:41,760 go step by step as far as when it goes to City Council what 2923 02:32:41,760 --> 02:32:42,680 they do and 2924 02:32:44,120 --> 02:32:47,440 When a formal annexation proceeding can move forward 2925 02:32:48,079 --> 02:32:50,680 That I can tell you is not 2926 02:32:51,559 --> 02:32:55,360 Is in the new code or in the new procedure section. However 2927 02:32:55,360 --> 02:32:59,000 , that is covered under a 2928 02:32:59,840 --> 02:33:02,940 Texas local government code procedure, which we follow so 2929 02:33:02,940 --> 02:33:05,440 it may not be in the proposed 2930 02:33:06,200 --> 02:33:08,899 Procedures, but again, it's covered under Texas local 2931 02:33:08,899 --> 02:33:10,000 government code 2932 02:33:19,079 --> 02:33:21,079 Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you 2933 02:33:22,239 --> 02:33:24,120 Okay, so 2934 02:33:24,120 --> 02:33:27,950 When it says here that staff will determine does staff now 2935 02:33:27,950 --> 02:33:30,360 determine make that determination 2936 02:33:31,200 --> 02:33:35,510 That something will be annexed either voluntarily or invol 2937 02:33:35,510 --> 02:33:40,479 untary. Yes. We we just prepare an analysis of the 2938 02:33:41,920 --> 02:33:44,639 capacity of our public utilities our 2939 02:33:45,120 --> 02:33:48,760 Land uses and we bring that forward to City Council for 2940 02:33:48,760 --> 02:33:51,620 their direction seeking their direction to move forward 2941 02:33:51,620 --> 02:33:53,000 with an annexation or not 2942 02:33:53,000 --> 02:33:56,239 So yes, we do determine and bring it forward to City 2943 02:33:56,239 --> 02:33:59,440 Council for ultimately their decision on the annexation 2944 02:34:00,040 --> 02:34:02,940 That's what you're doing now, correct, but that's not what 2945 02:34:02,940 --> 02:34:04,479 you're gonna do with this, right? 2946 02:34:04,879 --> 02:34:08,100 No, you will have already made the decision. We still bring 2947 02:34:08,100 --> 02:34:08,799 forward a 2948 02:34:10,159 --> 02:34:12,159 recommendation to the City Council 2949 02:34:13,479 --> 02:34:16,420 It is still it is still City Council's discretion to move 2950 02:34:16,420 --> 02:34:18,299 forward with an annexation or not 2951 02:34:21,559 --> 02:34:24,659 Because I mean the way I read this is I read it as the 2952 02:34:24,659 --> 02:34:28,239 staff is determining that annexation will happen 2953 02:34:28,920 --> 02:34:33,059 then you'll go to the property owner and and request them 2954 02:34:33,059 --> 02:34:33,399 to 2955 02:34:34,319 --> 02:34:37,200 Request to be annexed and within 10 days if they do not 2956 02:34:37,200 --> 02:34:39,879 then you will impose involuntary annexation 2957 02:34:40,799 --> 02:34:45,750 And staff right so I don't see any I see only City Council 2958 02:34:45,750 --> 02:34:46,360 coming up 2959 02:34:46,479 --> 02:34:49,000 When there's just a public hearing to have on what you've 2960 02:34:49,000 --> 02:34:50,319 already decided is 2961 02:34:50,760 --> 02:34:54,520 Prior to public hearing and that's that's I appreciate the 2962 02:34:54,520 --> 02:34:57,020 the comment prior to public hearings 2963 02:34:57,440 --> 02:34:59,559 We present to the City Council 2964 02:35:00,600 --> 02:35:05,739 the proposed annexation and ask for them to prove public 2965 02:35:05,739 --> 02:35:06,959 hearing dates and 2966 02:35:07,280 --> 02:35:10,379 It is at that time they will determine if we need if they 2967 02:35:10,379 --> 02:35:13,479 should we should go forward with those public hearings 2968 02:35:15,399 --> 02:35:19,719 It is not and I agree it is not clearly stated in the new 2969 02:35:20,159 --> 02:35:22,479 right because I mean my issue just with the way it's 2970 02:35:22,479 --> 02:35:23,559 written is it just 2971 02:35:24,719 --> 02:35:27,200 And and I mean I love staff 2972 02:35:27,200 --> 02:35:30,010 I this is not to go against staff and how hard you work and 2973 02:35:30,010 --> 02:35:31,639 and the knowledge that you have 2974 02:35:31,799 --> 02:35:33,940 I'm just trying to make sure that 2975 02:35:34,879 --> 02:35:38,049 You know we still have the checks and balances and City 2976 02:35:38,049 --> 02:35:41,500 Council's there for a reason to represent that you know 2977 02:35:42,120 --> 02:35:44,120 the city as a whole 2978 02:35:44,159 --> 02:35:47,750 I'm just wondering if it if it needs to be in procedure 2979 02:35:47,750 --> 02:35:51,200 because nowhere in this what would this 2980 02:35:51,760 --> 02:35:55,750 Rewrite in this ordinance. Well is City Council mentioned 2981 02:35:55,750 --> 02:35:58,840 what what I what we what I can do is work with our 2982 02:35:59,440 --> 02:36:01,440 Jennifer to Curtis and add 2983 02:36:01,760 --> 02:36:03,760 under procedures those 2984 02:36:04,280 --> 02:36:07,379 Checks and balances that you're referring to and present 2985 02:36:07,379 --> 02:36:08,540 that to City Council 2986 02:36:15,760 --> 02:36:17,760 Commissioner so thank you 2987 02:36:18,440 --> 02:36:21,280 To be clear. This is really more what I would consider 2988 02:36:21,280 --> 02:36:24,090 housecleaning is that right since this is the procedure 2989 02:36:24,090 --> 02:36:25,239 that y'all follow now 2990 02:36:25,719 --> 02:36:27,920 That you just didn't codify it 2991 02:36:28,840 --> 02:36:30,440 back whenever 2992 02:36:30,440 --> 02:36:34,149 The changes made it's a little bit a little bit where we 2993 02:36:34,149 --> 02:36:34,600 had it 2994 02:36:34,840 --> 02:36:38,100 It was never brought forward with the den development code 2995 02:36:38,100 --> 02:36:41,200 So there was a question or confusion as to what do we have 2996 02:36:41,200 --> 02:36:42,219 what do we don't have? 2997 02:36:42,559 --> 02:36:47,270 We recognize that the old or the prior annexation criteria 2998 02:36:47,270 --> 02:36:50,020 was worth bringing forward. So that's the criteria manual 2999 02:36:50,020 --> 02:36:52,959 I'm sorry the criteria doesn't really change. We've kind of 3000 02:36:52,959 --> 02:36:53,559 updated the 3001 02:36:54,079 --> 02:36:57,790 procedures to reflect a little bit more on what we're doing 3002 02:36:57,790 --> 02:36:58,159 today 3003 02:36:58,319 --> 02:37:01,950 We've certainly cut it down a little bit because of some 3004 02:37:01,950 --> 02:37:05,159 legislation that we're having with the the Texas 3005 02:37:06,600 --> 02:37:09,639 You know folks so we are trying to be as 3006 02:37:10,280 --> 02:37:13,649 General, but I do understand the concern of how it goes to 3007 02:37:13,649 --> 02:37:16,879 City Council and making sure that they've been given the 3008 02:37:16,879 --> 02:37:18,100 proper notification 3009 02:37:18,100 --> 02:37:20,100 I guess if I mean I 3010 02:37:20,719 --> 02:37:24,139 think one of the big differences is that now this allows 3011 02:37:24,139 --> 02:37:25,120 for a 3012 02:37:25,440 --> 02:37:28,049 Moment where they could voluntarily annex was which is a 3013 02:37:28,049 --> 02:37:30,440 shorter procedure. So they won't have to go through 3014 02:37:31,239 --> 02:37:34,450 The dual public hearing process and the two readings that 3015 02:37:34,450 --> 02:37:37,280 are outlined in the statute 3016 02:37:37,319 --> 02:37:40,219 So the voluntary petition is very important for some 3017 02:37:40,219 --> 02:37:41,559 property owners 3018 02:37:41,559 --> 02:37:44,899 So it allows that time and it also allows us time to send 3019 02:37:44,899 --> 02:37:46,799 out an intent to annex letter 3020 02:37:46,799 --> 02:37:50,280 Which starts the clock ticking on some of those scheduling? 3021 02:37:50,920 --> 02:37:54,020 Issues that are outlined in the statute and so that's 3022 02:37:54,020 --> 02:37:57,579 something that we didn't have before that this will do for 3023 02:37:57,579 --> 02:37:57,760 us 3024 02:37:57,760 --> 02:38:01,600 So not only does it repeal and replace so that everything's 3025 02:38:01,600 --> 02:38:04,840 efficient and just kind of put back to what we're doing now 3026 02:38:05,040 --> 02:38:07,879 But it allows this procedure that we didn't have before 3027 02:38:08,799 --> 02:38:10,799 and like one says the 3028 02:38:11,159 --> 02:38:14,260 The calling the public hearing and all of that is in the 3029 02:38:14,260 --> 02:38:15,239 statute itself 3030 02:38:15,520 --> 02:38:19,489 So I don't know to what extent we really need to put it in 3031 02:38:19,489 --> 02:38:19,959 here 3032 02:38:20,920 --> 02:38:24,020 Unless the the Commission feels like it needs to be more 3033 02:38:24,020 --> 02:38:24,840 instructive 3034 02:38:27,120 --> 02:38:28,139 Because it's not something that the citizens will be 3035 02:38:28,139 --> 02:38:31,360 following it's something staff will be following 3036 02:38:31,959 --> 02:38:35,059 So this is everything they need to know. I I guess is the 3037 02:38:35,059 --> 02:38:37,319 way to put it. I don't know if that's helpful 3038 02:38:44,440 --> 02:38:46,440 More questions for staff 3039 02:38:50,120 --> 02:38:52,120 Thank you Ron 3040 02:38:53,799 --> 02:38:57,030 And this is a public hearing if there was anyone who would 3041 02:38:57,030 --> 02:38:59,420 like to speak on this item, please come forward at this 3042 02:38:59,420 --> 02:38:59,739 time 3043 02:39:03,239 --> 02:39:05,260 Seeing none we will close the public hearing and we will 3044 02:39:05,260 --> 02:39:09,440 open the floor for discussion or emotion 3045 02:39:16,200 --> 02:39:18,200 Commissioner Hutz with 3046 02:39:19,239 --> 02:39:21,239 noting 3047 02:39:22,959 --> 02:39:26,040 Commissioner Ellis's concerns and 3048 02:39:28,079 --> 02:39:31,790 Legal representations explanation I'm going to move for 3049 02:39:31,790 --> 02:39:37,159 approval as written because I think it is something that 3050 02:39:41,000 --> 02:39:44,969 Is worded as needed to for those that participate in it day 3051 02:39:44,969 --> 02:39:48,600 in day out enough to give me peace with it 3052 02:39:49,840 --> 02:39:51,840 I 3053 02:39:52,120 --> 02:39:56,280 Second we have first and a second for approval 3054 02:39:58,120 --> 02:40:00,120 Commissioner Ellis 3055 02:40:00,959 --> 02:40:04,559 Okay, and I assume what we're voting on is is the draft 3056 02:40:05,920 --> 02:40:07,719 Recommendation to City Council with the draft as is and if 3057 02:40:07,719 --> 02:40:10,879 you have requests and want to make a friendly amendment, 3058 02:40:10,879 --> 02:40:12,280 you're welcome to do so 3059 02:40:13,399 --> 02:40:17,319 Yeah, I think I have support to make a friendly amendment. 3060 02:40:17,319 --> 02:40:20,079 So I think I'm just I just can't support it 3061 02:40:20,079 --> 02:40:22,079 I think there's too many holes in it as written 3062 02:40:26,440 --> 02:40:28,440 Any other just Commissioner Tyler 3063 02:40:33,719 --> 02:40:37,440 Thank You chair so so this 3064 02:40:39,719 --> 02:40:41,979 Have been trying to figure out exactly what we've been 3065 02:40:41,979 --> 02:40:43,799 doing in the past and so I'm going through 3066 02:40:44,639 --> 02:40:47,440 previous years City Council minutes over here and 3067 02:40:49,440 --> 02:40:50,760 I 3068 02:40:50,760 --> 02:40:53,340 Lie I prefer when things are spelled out like I don't 3069 02:40:53,340 --> 02:40:54,059 really like that 3070 02:40:54,639 --> 02:40:57,440 Voluntary and like the voluntary annexation process is is 3071 02:40:57,440 --> 02:40:59,559 not really mentioned in the new ordinance 3072 02:40:59,799 --> 02:41:03,399 Obviously it exists and it defaults to I guess state law 3073 02:41:03,399 --> 02:41:05,840 which allows the the fast track on voluntary 3074 02:41:05,959 --> 02:41:07,959 But that we don't even it's not a criteria 3075 02:41:08,760 --> 02:41:12,389 It's not you know, it's not in the list of reasons to 3076 02:41:12,389 --> 02:41:14,000 approve or recommend 3077 02:41:15,520 --> 02:41:17,120 And 3078 02:41:17,120 --> 02:41:19,219 Then I was trying to figure out whether or not we're 3079 02:41:19,219 --> 02:41:22,520 already following the old 34 section 34 or 3080 02:41:23,760 --> 02:41:26,520 Or we have you know, have we been acting like it's repealed 3081 02:41:26,520 --> 02:41:28,709 and then we realized we haven't completely technically repe 3082 02:41:28,709 --> 02:41:29,040 aled it 3083 02:41:29,159 --> 02:41:31,719 And it does look like I found I found these annexations 3084 02:41:31,719 --> 02:41:35,280 from 2015 and it did not go to planning and zoning 3085 02:41:35,479 --> 02:41:39,399 It followed the state law process and I'm guessing going 3086 02:41:39,399 --> 02:41:41,319 back further like the 2010 3087 02:41:41,760 --> 02:41:43,649 Annexations involuntary annexations would have been done 3088 02:41:43,649 --> 02:41:45,040 the same way. So 3089 02:41:46,760 --> 02:41:48,760 So it isn't necessarily the cleanest 3090 02:41:49,799 --> 02:41:52,940 Thing it kind of falls back to state law. This is one page 3091 02:41:52,940 --> 02:41:56,120 and state law is probably a chapter or two 3092 02:41:57,239 --> 02:42:00,340 But it is consistent and state law changes so much and has 3093 02:42:00,340 --> 02:42:01,799 so many requirements in this area 3094 02:42:02,120 --> 02:42:05,500 that I I think it is a good idea to just default to state 3095 02:42:05,500 --> 02:42:06,319 law so that 3096 02:42:06,680 --> 02:42:10,040 If we require 30 days and they require a minimum of 45 days 3097 02:42:10,040 --> 02:42:11,799 and we're in a bind where you know 3098 02:42:11,799 --> 02:42:14,709 Our ordinance has to be ignored because it you know 3099 02:42:14,709 --> 02:42:16,000 conflicts or so forth 3100 02:42:16,959 --> 02:42:20,280 Anyway, so I'm as I'm as I'm talking talking a lot here 3101 02:42:20,719 --> 02:42:23,899 I'm I'm I've been trying to figure out how I what I think 3102 02:42:23,899 --> 02:42:25,139 about this and I do think that 3103 02:42:28,000 --> 02:42:30,559 That it's not extremely clear but that this is the best 3104 02:42:30,559 --> 02:42:33,799 option it's the way we've been doing it for 15 years and 3105 02:42:34,479 --> 02:42:36,479 It does make it consistent with state law 3106 02:42:38,520 --> 02:42:41,520 I'm a comment as well. I think in our work session 3107 02:42:42,760 --> 02:42:45,889 Legal counsel may mention that there are I think four bills 3108 02:42:45,889 --> 02:42:49,600 currently pending at state that are maybe affecting this 3109 02:42:49,600 --> 02:42:50,319 and I think 3110 02:42:51,879 --> 02:42:54,479 Because of that to give our city 3111 02:42:55,280 --> 02:42:58,879 The flexibility for whatever changes happen at the state 3112 02:42:58,879 --> 02:43:01,760 level without having to come back and change your ordinance 3113 02:43:01,879 --> 02:43:05,319 I'm comfortable leaving it more vague and referring to 3114 02:43:05,319 --> 02:43:08,469 whatever the current state law or wherever it has changed 3115 02:43:08,469 --> 02:43:08,879 to is 3116 02:43:09,760 --> 02:43:12,440 The appropriate thing at this time, so I'll be supporting 3117 02:43:12,440 --> 02:43:14,200 this motion 3118 02:43:17,000 --> 02:43:20,000 Any other discussion for a call for a vote on the board 3119 02:43:24,639 --> 02:43:27,000 Seeing none we're going to call for a vote on the board 3120 02:43:27,000 --> 02:43:30,100 We have a first and second for approval with the language 3121 02:43:30,100 --> 02:43:32,760 as it currently exists presented before us 3122 02:43:44,079 --> 02:43:46,680 Motion is going to carry six to one 3123 02:43:49,079 --> 02:43:51,079 That will move us to our 3124 02:43:51,719 --> 02:43:53,000 final 3125 02:43:53,000 --> 02:43:57,420 Item on our agenda this evening is the project mate matrix 3126 02:44:01,000 --> 02:44:03,000 Commissioner Ellis, thank you chair 3127 02:44:03,719 --> 02:44:07,090 Make a request that when we are hearing a zoning change 3128 02:44:07,090 --> 02:44:08,159 case is it possible? 3129 02:44:09,079 --> 02:44:13,020 For staff to in our material to put a side-by-side 3130 02:44:13,020 --> 02:44:15,500 comparison of what we're looking at 3131 02:44:17,360 --> 02:44:20,729 Now included is like what the zoning the current zoning 3132 02:44:20,729 --> 02:44:24,149 allows and what and then in another document is what the 3133 02:44:24,149 --> 02:44:25,040 proposed zoning 3134 02:44:25,120 --> 02:44:27,700 It would be super helpful because I end up doing this 3135 02:44:27,700 --> 02:44:30,840 myself with with documents on my my own personal computer 3136 02:44:30,840 --> 02:44:32,040 and put them side-by-side 3137 02:44:32,479 --> 02:44:35,139 If it's not too much trouble is that something we can do 3138 02:44:37,280 --> 02:44:39,280 In a doubt in a single document 3139 02:44:41,319 --> 02:44:45,700 The zoning criteria the uses the uses okay the permitted 3140 02:44:45,700 --> 02:44:47,280 use the cyber, correct, okay 3141 02:44:48,239 --> 02:44:50,239 Okay, thank you 3142 02:44:51,000 --> 02:44:53,000 Commissioner Hedgman 3143 02:44:53,079 --> 02:44:57,020 Thank you chair, I would like to renew my request from the 3144 02:44:57,020 --> 02:45:00,280 work session that I would like to select a 3145 02:45:01,840 --> 02:45:05,200 Commercial and a residential builder to 3146 02:45:06,200 --> 02:45:08,200 present to us at some point in in 3147 02:45:08,719 --> 02:45:10,719 work session giving us a 3148 02:45:11,200 --> 02:45:14,000 Just an overview day in the life. This is this is the 3149 02:45:14,000 --> 02:45:15,280 process as we see it 3150 02:45:15,840 --> 02:45:19,260 Those different type steps just to have a build a notebook 3151 02:45:19,260 --> 02:45:22,879 of those things to consider as we're affecting them daily 3152 02:45:22,879 --> 02:45:26,590 I'd like to know from their perspective with what they see 3153 02:45:26,590 --> 02:45:27,760 the process to be 3154 02:45:34,200 --> 02:45:36,200 Anybody else 3155 02:45:37,600 --> 02:45:41,090 I'd like to thank staff for getting me the update on the I- 3156 02:45:41,090 --> 02:45:43,079 35 and mail. So 3157 02:45:43,879 --> 02:45:47,040 Appreciate that you can cross that one off the list. So 3158 02:45:47,040 --> 02:45:47,680 thank you 3159 02:45:50,000 --> 02:45:53,920 And with that I'm going to close our 3160 02:45:55,120 --> 02:45:57,120 meeting this evening at 3161 02:45:58,520 --> 02:46:00,520 737 thank you everyone