WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.290 Planning and zoning commission work session for February 00:00:03.290 --> 00:00:03.859 the 8th 00:00:04.500 --> 00:00:08.429 This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum 00:00:08.429 --> 00:00:11.900 present and I'm gonna call our meeting to order at 434 00:00:12.699 --> 00:00:16.620 Our first order business will be to receive clarification 00:00:16.620 --> 00:00:18.140 of agenda items 00:00:18.579 --> 00:00:22.280 And I will turn that over to Shandria for presentation. 00:00:22.280 --> 00:00:23.260 Okay. Good evening 00:00:24.100 --> 00:00:26.820 The first item that we'll go through is the approval of 00:00:26.820 --> 00:00:29.739 minutes for January 25th 2017 00:00:30.000 --> 00:00:33.159 If anybody has any discussion on that we'll open it up 00:00:34.119 --> 00:00:36.119 If not, we can move on 00:00:36.679 --> 00:00:40.439 All right, we have three items work on the consent agenda 00:00:40.439 --> 00:00:41.899 three final plaques 00:00:42.640 --> 00:00:45.359 one for the HEB site at the corner of 00:00:46.960 --> 00:00:48.960 West University and Bundy Bray 00:00:49.240 --> 00:00:52.380 We have another one at the at the corner of North Loop and 00:00:52.380 --> 00:00:55.640 Stewart Road and then a site on Pacon Creek 00:00:56.039 --> 00:00:58.740 If there's any questions about that we can bring up the 00:00:58.740 --> 00:01:00.759 case managers. If not, we'll move on 00:01:02.479 --> 00:01:04.480 Okay 00:01:05.200 --> 00:01:08.909 Under items for individual consideration there's two both 00:01:08.909 --> 00:01:10.840 of them have to deal with the 00:01:11.760 --> 00:01:14.640 establishment and nominations for a P&Z subcommittee 00:01:15.400 --> 00:01:18.890 For the didn't development code rewrite project and so we 00:01:18.890 --> 00:01:22.060 can discuss that if you need to but we'll have to actually 00:01:22.060 --> 00:01:22.359 take 00:01:22.760 --> 00:01:24.760 action on those items in regular session 00:01:25.640 --> 00:01:27.640 Okay 00:01:29.439 --> 00:01:31.439 Any questions on either of those 00:01:34.439 --> 00:01:36.280 Okay, okay 00:01:36.280 --> 00:01:41.280 On the public hearing we have three items a final reply for 00:01:42.040 --> 00:01:45.519 DISD property at North Locust and Second Street and I'll 00:01:45.519 --> 00:01:48.519 invite Julie white white up to discuss 00:01:53.519 --> 00:01:56.129 Good evening, Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of 00:01:56.129 --> 00:01:59.879 Denton and we'll just take a look at the plot 00:02:01.560 --> 00:02:05.200 You're probably familiar with this property you've you've 00:02:05.200 --> 00:02:06.519 seen it this is 00:02:08.639 --> 00:02:11.319 The Denton ISD administration 00:02:12.840 --> 00:02:14.639 Location they are 00:02:14.639 --> 00:02:19.080 Proposing this replat in order to abandon this public alley 00:02:19.659 --> 00:02:22.759 So there's the DISD and then also there's a religious 00:02:22.759 --> 00:02:25.909 institution on this on this side. So I'll answer any 00:02:25.909 --> 00:02:26.599 questions 00:02:28.159 --> 00:02:30.159 Commissioner back. Thank you chair 00:02:30.680 --> 00:02:33.569 Currently st. Barnabas the physical church sitting there. 00:02:33.569 --> 00:02:36.699 So is that going away or they just going to convert their 00:02:36.699 --> 00:02:37.599 building into 00:02:38.680 --> 00:02:42.389 No, sir. It is actually it is it is it's going to remain 00:02:42.389 --> 00:02:44.919 and it will remain on its on its own property 00:02:44.919 --> 00:02:46.919 so this is really just to 00:02:47.599 --> 00:02:49.599 Just to abandon this 00:02:49.719 --> 00:02:52.819 Public alley that's not not really used so that they can 00:02:52.819 --> 00:02:55.060 develop the side or redevelop the side 00:02:55.060 --> 00:02:58.770 So there's notions of things in the future. They got you. 00:02:58.770 --> 00:02:59.759 Thank you sure 00:03:01.560 --> 00:03:03.840 Commissioner was out. Thank you chair. Can you walk me 00:03:03.840 --> 00:03:06.919 through the process to abandon a public? 00:03:07.840 --> 00:03:08.919 Street 00:03:08.919 --> 00:03:12.020 Is that it's like if you own the property around the street 00:03:12.020 --> 00:03:12.159 ? 00:03:12.159 --> 00:03:13.680 You can just say we don't need it anymore 00:03:13.680 --> 00:03:16.520 How does that work this alley could be abandoned by the 00:03:16.520 --> 00:03:19.560 plot because all of the property owners who were affected 00:03:19.560 --> 00:03:20.439 by that alley 00:03:20.439 --> 00:03:22.439 joined in on this plot I 00:03:23.479 --> 00:03:27.849 This Gary Street was abandoned and it had to be it had to 00:03:27.849 --> 00:03:28.060 be 00:03:28.759 --> 00:03:31.860 Done by ordinance that had to be approved by City Council. 00:03:31.860 --> 00:03:32.000 So 00:03:32.919 --> 00:03:35.800 The the right away that Gary Street's a little different 00:03:35.800 --> 00:03:37.419 than the than the alley 00:03:38.439 --> 00:03:40.439 Thank you. Sure 00:03:40.919 --> 00:03:44.680 Mr. Ellis, thank you chair. Hi Julie. Hi Gary Street 00:03:45.639 --> 00:03:48.780 Doesn't exist though anymore. Correct? Correct. It was a 00:03:48.780 --> 00:03:49.000 bit 00:03:49.000 --> 00:03:52.699 I believe it was approved in December and if you recall if 00:03:52.699 --> 00:03:53.060 just 00:03:53.599 --> 00:03:55.400 in in the 00:03:55.400 --> 00:03:59.180 proposed rezoning that DISD brought forward before you they 00:03:59.180 --> 00:03:59.879 're going to 00:04:00.479 --> 00:04:02.840 Turn this into that pedestrian connection 00:04:08.800 --> 00:04:11.240 Okay, and Julie oh 00:04:12.879 --> 00:04:16.589 You're here for the next one. Yeah, that means it was only 00:04:16.589 --> 00:04:18.319 for blue beacon 00:04:21.920 --> 00:04:23.920 Okay 00:04:26.680 --> 00:04:31.319 All right, so this is z-16 18 blue beacon truck wash 00:04:33.839 --> 00:04:37.079 All right the location of the property it is adjacent to 00:04:37.079 --> 00:04:38.220 the I 35 00:04:39.680 --> 00:04:42.000 Service Road, it's it's north of 00:04:43.199 --> 00:04:45.519 Barthold or Bartle that 00:04:46.560 --> 00:04:50.490 in this location it is situated in a fairly north part of 00:04:50.490 --> 00:04:51.800 the city and 00:04:52.279 --> 00:04:55.610 The subject property does have six hundred thirty seven 00:04:55.610 --> 00:04:57.800 feet of frontage along I 35 00:04:58.639 --> 00:05:01.790 And so the request before you for this location is to 00:05:01.790 --> 00:05:03.439 consider a rezoning 00:05:04.360 --> 00:05:06.360 from RCR one 00:05:06.360 --> 00:05:09.230 Regional Center residential wine to employment center 00:05:09.230 --> 00:05:12.209 commercial the ECC district the subject property is about 00:05:12.209 --> 00:05:12.839 five acres 00:05:14.000 --> 00:05:16.389 So we'll just look at what's currently out there the zoning 00:05:16.389 --> 00:05:18.079 as well as the development 00:05:18.079 --> 00:05:20.730 So here's the subject property right here gets a little 00:05:20.730 --> 00:05:22.519 lost in the picture, but here it is 00:05:23.519 --> 00:05:26.839 It's got that RCR one. It's that lavender color. There's 00:05:26.839 --> 00:05:29.759 also some undeveloped RCR one to the north as 00:05:30.480 --> 00:05:33.579 Well as all of the property that doesn't have a color on it 00:05:33.579 --> 00:05:36.800 . That's in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. That's 00:05:36.800 --> 00:05:37.839 outside of the city limits 00:05:38.639 --> 00:05:41.740 And that that's undeveloped as well as this property that 00:05:41.740 --> 00:05:43.100 has the hatch marks 00:05:43.680 --> 00:05:45.680 That's undeveloped and that is 00:05:46.360 --> 00:05:51.310 RD 5x that's our rural residential minimum five acre zoning 00:05:51.310 --> 00:05:51.639 district 00:05:51.639 --> 00:05:53.980 That's that place holding zoning district that all 00:05:53.980 --> 00:05:56.319 properties get when they get annexed into the city 00:05:56.980 --> 00:06:00.430 To the south of the property you have some existing ECC 00:06:00.430 --> 00:06:01.720 district 00:06:01.839 --> 00:06:04.430 That is being redeveloped with a commercial use with a 00:06:04.430 --> 00:06:05.399 Travel Center use 00:06:06.360 --> 00:06:12.949 There's also some RCC in across Barthold and RCC in across 00:06:12.949 --> 00:06:15.720 I 35 and that's undeveloped as well 00:06:16.399 --> 00:06:18.399 There's a Travel Center use 00:06:20.439 --> 00:06:22.439 South of Elm 00:06:22.639 --> 00:06:26.449 Across I 35 it's RCC D and it's as I said, it's a 00:06:26.449 --> 00:06:28.839 commercial use. It's a Travel Center use 00:06:29.000 --> 00:06:31.519 So that's what's surrounding the property. That's the 00:06:31.519 --> 00:06:32.519 character of the area 00:06:33.839 --> 00:06:37.610 The future land use of the property is business innovation. 00:06:37.610 --> 00:06:39.759 I know we've seen business innovation a lot 00:06:40.639 --> 00:06:44.629 recently and just to just to refresh your memory business 00:06:44.629 --> 00:06:45.759 innovation is 00:06:46.279 --> 00:06:49.319 It's intended to encourage employment uses 00:06:49.879 --> 00:06:53.470 things like R&D or light manufacturing or large-scale 00:06:53.470 --> 00:06:56.879 office parks and also the supporting use the 00:06:57.120 --> 00:06:59.120 supporting retail uses such as 00:07:00.360 --> 00:07:04.100 Restaurants or hotels or and even some residential is 00:07:04.100 --> 00:07:04.839 encouraged 00:07:04.839 --> 00:07:08.269 So mainly employment with some commercial uses in order to 00:07:08.269 --> 00:07:10.180 support those employment areas 00:07:13.240 --> 00:07:15.279 So the considerations we looked at when we analyze this 00:07:15.279 --> 00:07:18.120 proposal is first we looked at 00:07:20.000 --> 00:07:23.139 Section 35 3 4 B in the Denton Development Code and that's 00:07:23.139 --> 00:07:26.740 the criteria for approval for rezoning cases 00:07:26.740 --> 00:07:29.319 And the first is does it conform to the future land use? 00:07:30.000 --> 00:07:34.949 In this case ECC district has a really diverse set of 00:07:34.949 --> 00:07:36.199 commercial uses 00:07:36.199 --> 00:07:39.899 It also integrates some of those employment uses and those 00:07:39.899 --> 00:07:43.120 industrial uses like light manufacturing and some 00:07:43.439 --> 00:07:43.439 Warehouse uses so it does conform to that business 00:07:43.439 --> 00:07:48.959 innovation future land use designation 00:07:49.399 --> 00:07:52.500 And then we also it has to have adequate provision of 00:07:52.500 --> 00:07:54.459 infrastructure in this in this case 00:07:54.459 --> 00:07:57.560 It does and any additional infrastructure needs would be 00:07:57.560 --> 00:07:58.399 addressed at platting 00:07:58.399 --> 00:08:01.250 So the request does meet the criteria for approval in the 00:08:01.250 --> 00:08:02.639 Denton Development Code 00:08:03.060 --> 00:08:05.959 We also looked at the character the area. We always do that 00:08:05.959 --> 00:08:09.279 just to do a little deeper dive on the analysis and 00:08:09.879 --> 00:08:12.720 When we look at at at this area 00:08:13.879 --> 00:08:15.680 the the major 00:08:15.680 --> 00:08:19.600 The major element to this property is that I 35 corridor. 00:08:19.600 --> 00:08:21.000 It's it's a pretty 00:08:21.879 --> 00:08:23.879 it stands out and 00:08:24.160 --> 00:08:26.839 And when we look at how this area is going to develop we 00:08:26.839 --> 00:08:28.889 anticipate we're going to see a lot of commercial uses 00:08:28.889 --> 00:08:29.720 along I 35 00:08:29.720 --> 00:08:33.220 Take care take advantage of that access and the visibility 00:08:33.220 --> 00:08:34.519 that I 35 provides 00:08:34.840 --> 00:08:37.500 But then it's going to transition to those employment uses. 00:08:37.500 --> 00:08:39.120 There's some very large tracks 00:08:40.279 --> 00:08:43.379 To the west of this property and so we we anticipate that 00:08:43.379 --> 00:08:46.649 it's going to be commercial toward I 35 transitioning to 00:08:46.649 --> 00:08:47.759 those employment uses 00:08:48.399 --> 00:08:51.120 And ECC is consistent with this because it does permit 00:08:51.120 --> 00:08:54.100 those commercial uses and print some at a scale 00:08:54.100 --> 00:08:57.200 That's appropriate for highway development, but then also 00:08:57.200 --> 00:09:00.429 folds in some of those employment uses so it provides that 00:09:00.429 --> 00:09:01.500 nice transition area 00:09:03.200 --> 00:09:07.000 The current zoning designation of RCR 1 it does permit 00:09:07.000 --> 00:09:08.000 commercial uses 00:09:08.080 --> 00:09:10.759 But it really does permit them at a scale that aren't 00:09:10.759 --> 00:09:13.789 something you would typically see it on the highway. It has 00:09:13.789 --> 00:09:14.840 those limitations 00:09:16.799 --> 00:09:19.720 ECC district would expand the number of commercial uses 00:09:19.720 --> 00:09:23.049 industrial uses and it would also enlarge that building 00:09:23.049 --> 00:09:23.519 envelope 00:09:23.519 --> 00:09:26.059 So it would allow that development that is consistent with 00:09:26.059 --> 00:09:27.620 what you typically see on highways 00:09:28.120 --> 00:09:31.830 And then and then just ECC is the logical continuation of 00:09:31.830 --> 00:09:33.360 that existing ECC 00:09:33.360 --> 00:09:35.399 And I believe that was his only case that came before you 00:09:35.399 --> 00:09:36.080 in 2015 00:09:36.519 --> 00:09:38.960 So it's just a continuation of what's existing 00:09:40.080 --> 00:09:42.080 Public notification was sent out 00:09:42.720 --> 00:09:44.779 There's not many people who live out there, so there weren 00:09:44.779 --> 00:09:46.669 't many that were sent out and we haven't received any 00:09:46.669 --> 00:09:47.240 responses 00:09:47.840 --> 00:09:49.860 So based upon the criteria for approval and the 00:09:49.860 --> 00:09:53.509 considerations I've listed we staff recommends approval, 00:09:53.509 --> 00:09:54.960 and I'll stand for any questions 00:09:56.120 --> 00:09:59.409 Commissioner back. Thank you chair. It seems like we're 00:09:59.409 --> 00:10:02.519 heading in the direction for this area for big trucks 00:10:03.039 --> 00:10:05.610 It's gonna appeal to big trucks, and that's fine. Don't 00:10:05.610 --> 00:10:07.639 have a problem. It's a good area for that 00:10:08.360 --> 00:10:12.279 One concern I might have is as further development goes on 00:10:13.840 --> 00:10:15.840 Heavy big 00:10:15.840 --> 00:10:18.899 Semis going up and down those service roads is that gonna 00:10:18.899 --> 00:10:19.639 be a little intimidating 00:10:20.559 --> 00:10:22.690 For smaller passenger cars as we develop those kind of 00:10:22.690 --> 00:10:26.000 businesses that would appeal to them is that 00:10:26.879 --> 00:10:28.240 consideration 00:10:28.240 --> 00:10:31.950 That is a good question. It's not it wasn't a consideration 00:10:31.950 --> 00:10:32.399 in this case 00:10:32.399 --> 00:10:36.159 We you know text dots will design the roads to accommodate 00:10:36.159 --> 00:10:39.399 all all users the large trucks as well as the smaller 00:10:39.399 --> 00:10:39.679 trucks 00:10:39.720 --> 00:10:42.440 So it wasn't actually something that we considered in this 00:10:42.440 --> 00:10:46.440 especially since this proposal did meet the future land use 00:10:48.080 --> 00:10:50.080 The other thing I'd like to bring up was something 00:10:50.080 --> 00:10:52.700 Commissioner Roselle touched on when we were talking about 00:10:52.700 --> 00:10:55.360 that Travel Center. That's just south of it 00:10:56.279 --> 00:10:58.399 If you've got these big 00:10:59.240 --> 00:11:00.720 five six 00:11:00.720 --> 00:11:04.360 Wheel axle trucks coming from heading north 00:11:05.480 --> 00:11:07.480 And they want to go to that 00:11:08.879 --> 00:11:11.590 They're gonna have our time negotiating that turn you've 00:11:11.590 --> 00:11:14.639 got that narrow turn right there that doesn't allow a lot 00:11:14.639 --> 00:11:15.240 of room and 00:11:15.679 --> 00:11:18.620 Then not only that then they've got a cut back to a hard 00:11:18.620 --> 00:11:21.480 right and that's a two lane service road 00:11:22.000 --> 00:11:25.740 Correct our whole road. No the service road right there is 00:11:25.740 --> 00:11:26.679 to learn or two way 00:11:26.840 --> 00:11:30.759 Well, and and that's gonna all come in when we when we go 00:11:30.759 --> 00:11:32.399 through the site plan 00:11:32.399 --> 00:11:36.759 I know that the applicant is actually this is this property 00:11:37.320 --> 00:11:40.419 adjacent to it is in the ETJ and they're actually looking 00:11:40.419 --> 00:11:40.559 at 00:11:41.840 --> 00:11:44.679 Potentially doing an annexation and a rezoning for that in 00:11:44.679 --> 00:11:48.080 order to expand the site to provide that kind of 00:11:49.559 --> 00:11:50.960 Turning 00:11:50.960 --> 00:11:54.220 Motions that are desired. Well, but the problem is not 00:11:54.220 --> 00:11:56.080 gonna be there so much. It's that narrow 00:11:56.879 --> 00:11:58.080 tunnel 00:11:58.080 --> 00:12:01.460 That goes under 35. Yeah under 35 or 00:12:03.480 --> 00:12:06.700 Well Barthold Barthold Road is actually gonna be a real 00:12:06.700 --> 00:12:10.440 igned so it's going to this is these two 00:12:11.200 --> 00:12:14.299 Roads are actually gonna meet so there isn't gonna have to 00:12:14.299 --> 00:12:15.799 be that little no, sir 00:12:15.799 --> 00:12:19.230 Oh, and then and then if if they can develop the site and 00:12:19.230 --> 00:12:20.000 once again 00:12:20.000 --> 00:12:23.100 this is gonna be a site planning issue or potential cases 00:12:23.100 --> 00:12:24.480 that come before you with a 00:12:25.360 --> 00:12:27.639 rezoning for for annexed property I 00:12:28.960 --> 00:12:31.500 Think their intent or what they would really like to do is 00:12:31.500 --> 00:12:33.399 take access off of 00:12:33.759 --> 00:12:38.710 Barthold Road and not I 35 in order to get those turnings 00:12:38.710 --> 00:12:40.840 turning radiuses that they like and that that makes it 00:12:40.840 --> 00:12:41.519 easier for the end 00:12:41.519 --> 00:12:44.159 User. Okay. So in other words, you'd have a straight shot 00:12:44.159 --> 00:12:44.879 of 77 00:12:45.879 --> 00:12:49.480 When I went and put the signs out I missed that little turn 00:12:49.480 --> 00:12:52.879 Yeah, little cheat turn and I had to go I went all the way 00:12:52.879 --> 00:12:53.080 around 00:12:53.240 --> 00:12:57.159 So yes, you're right. It when when Barthold is connects it 00:12:57.159 --> 00:13:00.269 will okay. It will be a lot easier to access. Okay. Thank 00:13:00.269 --> 00:13:00.440 you 00:13:01.799 --> 00:13:04.509 Mr. Roselle, thank you chair. You mentioned something in 00:13:04.509 --> 00:13:05.100 your presentation 00:13:05.100 --> 00:13:08.990 You said that in the business innovation commercial use is 00:13:08.990 --> 00:13:11.220 to support employment centers 00:13:11.220 --> 00:13:15.529 Mm-hmm, and you feel that a big rig truck washing supports 00:13:15.529 --> 00:13:17.080 employment centers 00:13:17.240 --> 00:13:20.799 Well when we look at a rezoning, we can't look at what is 00:13:21.480 --> 00:13:23.480 We're not looking at what the actual 00:13:24.519 --> 00:13:27.720 Proposed development is for that site what we have to look 00:13:27.720 --> 00:13:30.299 at is what the uses are within that zoning district 00:13:30.299 --> 00:13:33.549 And so when we look at ECC, I mean you're I I hear what you 00:13:33.549 --> 00:13:37.580 're saying about about this particular user is it 00:13:38.320 --> 00:13:41.070 Doesn't import support employment uses but what we have to 00:13:41.070 --> 00:13:43.340 look at when we analyze the zoning case is what are the 00:13:43.340 --> 00:13:44.399 permitted uses within? 00:13:44.399 --> 00:13:47.120 That zoning district we look at it much more broadly than 00:13:47.120 --> 00:13:50.519 just this this this user when we look at business 00:13:50.519 --> 00:13:51.299 innovation 00:13:51.559 --> 00:13:54.460 The ECC and the EC eyes only districts are the ones that 00:13:54.460 --> 00:13:57.279 most closely align with business innovation 00:13:57.600 --> 00:14:00.700 ECC being the more commercial of the two and EC ECI being 00:14:00.700 --> 00:14:02.539 the more industrial of the two 00:14:02.539 --> 00:14:05.059 So so yeah, I hear what you're saying, but but we have to 00:14:05.059 --> 00:14:07.490 look at it a little more broadly when we're talking about a 00:14:07.490 --> 00:14:08.100 zoning case 00:14:08.100 --> 00:14:11.470 Yeah, I know we've we've talked about this in the dais all 00:14:11.470 --> 00:14:14.700 the time about looking at a zoning case rather than the 00:14:14.700 --> 00:14:15.720 actual use of it 00:14:16.360 --> 00:14:19.590 But there is still the tension that this is being this is 00:14:19.590 --> 00:14:23.139 an application for rezoning by the person who wants to 00:14:23.139 --> 00:14:23.399 build 00:14:23.679 --> 00:14:27.320 The use sure so yes, they could get it 00:14:27.840 --> 00:14:30.590 Rezoned and then back out then you have this free zone and 00:14:30.590 --> 00:14:32.080 that we certainly it's taking consideration 00:14:32.080 --> 00:14:35.629 But to Commissioner Beck's point, I'm wondering if to the 00:14:35.629 --> 00:14:37.580 West where all the tracks of lands are and what's supposed 00:14:37.580 --> 00:14:38.519 to be business innovation 00:14:38.559 --> 00:14:40.570 When I think about that, I think about like corporate 00:14:40.570 --> 00:14:44.320 headquarters type type things may be coming to Denton and 00:14:44.320 --> 00:14:46.120 their insurance on Barthold 00:14:46.360 --> 00:14:47.519 is 00:14:47.519 --> 00:14:50.769 Through a truck park and so I'm wondering if that's a deter 00:14:50.769 --> 00:14:53.220 rent from future businesses if we have 00:14:53.399 --> 00:14:57.389 Trying to sell a corporation to come and build on this land 00:14:57.389 --> 00:14:59.000 and we go for the tour 00:14:59.440 --> 00:15:03.519 It's a truck stop on the left a little sliver of a big rig 00:15:03.919 --> 00:15:07.169 Truck washing that apparently wants to expand even bigger. 00:15:07.169 --> 00:15:10.169 I'm wondering about the impact we have on the future 00:15:10.169 --> 00:15:10.919 employment 00:15:12.879 --> 00:15:15.080 That we would like to bring in in the business innovation 00:15:15.080 --> 00:15:16.240 district 00:15:16.960 --> 00:15:21.100 additionally in the last point I have is when Barthold gets 00:15:21.100 --> 00:15:22.879 realigned to 77 00:15:22.879 --> 00:15:25.220 Is there gonna be construction to redo the underpass 00:15:25.220 --> 00:15:28.070 because Commissioner Beck's right. Although those streets 00:15:28.070 --> 00:15:29.480 might line that underpass is 00:15:30.440 --> 00:15:32.120 tiny 00:15:32.120 --> 00:15:34.120 I'm gonna call Earl Escobar 00:15:38.480 --> 00:15:40.029 Earl Escobar engineering unfortunately since it's a textile 00:15:40.029 --> 00:15:43.080 highway, there are no plans to 00:15:44.759 --> 00:15:47.039 To I guess to widen the underpass 00:15:47.039 --> 00:15:50.450 I know there's some limitations on the number of lanes that 00:15:50.450 --> 00:15:52.879 you can squeeze between the piers that support the 00:15:53.559 --> 00:15:57.279 Highway lanes itself. So and unfortunately, this is not 00:15:57.279 --> 00:15:58.039 part of the 00:15:58.879 --> 00:16:02.600 I-35 widening plans right the winding stops at 380. So 00:16:04.039 --> 00:16:07.279 But there are some signal modifications being done on 00:16:08.039 --> 00:16:10.840 part hold and 35 as well as 00:16:12.720 --> 00:16:17.480 I-35 and 77 on either end of the underpass to 00:16:18.480 --> 00:16:21.580 accommodate those larger vehicles in terms of timing and 00:16:21.580 --> 00:16:23.840 trying to maximize the number of vehicles that can pass 00:16:23.840 --> 00:16:25.039 through that underpass without any 00:16:25.039 --> 00:16:27.399 complex so and I assume that when 00:16:28.200 --> 00:16:30.440 Like an underpass is looked at they look at turn radiuses 00:16:30.440 --> 00:16:33.440 of an 18 wheel truck and make sure all those clearances 00:16:34.000 --> 00:16:36.870 Are good right in terms of stopping distance within the 00:16:36.870 --> 00:16:37.879 underpass that 00:16:38.919 --> 00:16:40.000 say 00:16:40.000 --> 00:16:43.100 You have a semi truck heading north and want to turn left 00:16:43.100 --> 00:16:46.440 towards the either the car wash or the loves 00:16:47.879 --> 00:16:51.820 The stopping point underneath the highway is set back so 00:16:51.820 --> 00:16:54.399 that the trucks can maneuver 00:16:55.120 --> 00:16:57.120 Okay. Thank you 00:16:57.120 --> 00:16:59.120 mixture 00:17:00.600 --> 00:17:03.120 Commissioner back. Thank you chair. I did have one other 00:17:03.120 --> 00:17:03.480 question 00:17:03.480 --> 00:17:06.000 I just didn't look at my notes a little concerned about the 00:17:06.000 --> 00:17:07.839 wastewater for this facility 00:17:08.000 --> 00:17:11.150 Well current drainage infrastructure accommodated and if 00:17:11.150 --> 00:17:11.920 not 00:17:12.519 --> 00:17:15.880 Will it have to be enhanced and if so who pays for that? 00:17:16.279 --> 00:17:19.829 Well, the applicant the developer would have to ensure that 00:17:19.829 --> 00:17:21.160 their development 00:17:22.319 --> 00:17:25.829 can can be accommodated so they would have to make sure 00:17:25.829 --> 00:17:26.519 that all of the 00:17:26.920 --> 00:17:29.440 Public infrastructure is there and in place in order for 00:17:29.440 --> 00:17:31.839 them to okay the applicants here today 00:17:31.880 --> 00:17:34.759 He is so he'll be here this evening to discuss. I have 00:17:34.759 --> 00:17:37.200 another question for him, but I'll wait till the clock here 00:17:37.200 --> 00:17:37.680 . Thank you 00:17:38.000 --> 00:17:40.000 Okay 00:17:44.799 --> 00:17:46.440 Thank you Julie 00:17:46.440 --> 00:17:49.759 So the next item is an ordinance amendment related to annex 00:17:49.759 --> 00:17:53.319 ation criteria and I'll invite run me Gita up for a 00:17:53.319 --> 00:17:54.200 presentation 00:17:57.359 --> 00:18:03.000 Thank You Sharon again pull up my presentation real quick 00:18:08.000 --> 00:18:10.000 Chair members of the Commission 00:18:10.359 --> 00:18:13.200 brought forward to you for your consideration as a code 00:18:13.200 --> 00:18:14.559 amendment to 00:18:15.079 --> 00:18:19.000 Bring in some annexation criteria that is 00:18:19.720 --> 00:18:23.430 Currently in our code of ordinances our code of ordinances 00:18:23.430 --> 00:18:26.680 is a separate document that separate from the DC 00:18:27.680 --> 00:18:30.519 So a little bit of background of how we got here 00:18:31.839 --> 00:18:33.680 several 00:18:33.680 --> 00:18:38.109 Months ago we we heard and we've seen applications come in 00:18:38.109 --> 00:18:39.880 that are in our ETJ 00:18:40.200 --> 00:18:44.150 But really haven't had any clear criteria direction on if 00:18:44.150 --> 00:18:47.200 those of those properties should be annexed 00:18:47.640 --> 00:18:49.640 again, we do have those 00:18:49.759 --> 00:18:53.460 annexation criteria that are in our code of ordinances, 00:18:53.460 --> 00:18:54.000 however 00:18:54.720 --> 00:18:58.069 it's not clear if those code ordinances, I'm sorry those 00:18:58.069 --> 00:18:59.319 annexation criteria are 00:19:00.559 --> 00:19:05.319 Usable because back in 2002 when we created the DDC 00:19:06.200 --> 00:19:08.200 those annexation criteria 00:19:08.759 --> 00:19:11.960 Were supposed to be repealed but they were never so it's a 00:19:11.960 --> 00:19:15.039 it's a conflict. It's there but it's it is it applicable 00:19:15.559 --> 00:19:17.559 so to clear up the 00:19:18.400 --> 00:19:20.480 confusion we're proposing to 00:19:21.319 --> 00:19:25.289 repeal expressive expressively those annexation criteria 00:19:25.289 --> 00:19:27.400 from the code of ordinances and 00:19:28.240 --> 00:19:31.339 Bring them in to the development code and that's why we're 00:19:31.339 --> 00:19:33.440 having this public hearing in front of planning zone 00:19:33.440 --> 00:19:36.039 Commission because you all review and 00:19:37.440 --> 00:19:41.380 administer the then development code so as outlined here in 00:19:41.380 --> 00:19:45.200 this slide again, I'm gonna repeat just a couple things 00:19:45.200 --> 00:19:45.680 that 00:19:46.920 --> 00:19:48.920 the recommendation that were 00:19:49.119 --> 00:19:51.640 requesting from the Commission to the plan and to the City 00:19:51.640 --> 00:19:52.079 Council is 00:19:53.119 --> 00:19:54.319 regarding 00:19:54.319 --> 00:19:55.519 expressively 00:19:55.519 --> 00:19:59.220 Repealing the section in the code of ordinances and that's 00:19:59.220 --> 00:20:02.180 34 - 35 36 and 37 00:20:02.960 --> 00:20:06.369 while doing so we're also requesting that we amend the DEM 00:20:06.369 --> 00:20:09.319 development code and add the 00:20:09.640 --> 00:20:14.099 development annexation criteria within section 35 3 of the 00:20:14.099 --> 00:20:14.480 DDC 00:20:17.160 --> 00:20:19.039 Those sections that are currently again in the code of 00:20:19.039 --> 00:20:24.359 ordinances talk about annexation policy procedure and fees 00:20:25.039 --> 00:20:27.039 Those will be repealed 00:20:28.160 --> 00:20:29.480 Because 00:20:29.480 --> 00:20:32.339 Again, we're wanting to bring it into the DDC. It's 00:20:32.339 --> 00:20:36.480 currently not in the DDC the annexation criteria 00:20:36.480 --> 00:20:40.099 and again, there was no language back in 2002 when we 00:20:40.839 --> 00:20:42.839 Created the DDC. So 00:20:42.880 --> 00:20:45.509 Again, we're trying to clean it up and bring it into the D 00:20:45.509 --> 00:20:46.599 EM development code 00:20:48.480 --> 00:20:52.319 Chapter that is going to go into is sub chapter 35 3 00:20:52.319 --> 00:20:53.319 procedures 00:20:53.799 --> 00:20:57.650 Under this section, which will be a new section 35 3 13 and 00:20:57.650 --> 00:21:00.599 it'll be under the heading of periphery development annex 00:21:00.599 --> 00:21:01.440 ation criteria 00:21:02.079 --> 00:21:05.799 In this section you we will have a criteria to determine 00:21:05.799 --> 00:21:08.460 when to annex or when not to annex 00:21:09.000 --> 00:21:12.319 but also and also it will have a list of 00:21:13.079 --> 00:21:15.079 thresholds which we will use as a 00:21:16.200 --> 00:21:19.910 Point for our staff review. It will also include procedures 00:21:19.910 --> 00:21:23.240 and a conditional use clause and those 00:21:24.119 --> 00:21:27.640 Are in your backup as exhibit to I believe in the draft 00:21:27.640 --> 00:21:30.640 ordinance that staff has prepared 00:21:34.039 --> 00:21:35.289 So really that's what we're looking for and seeking from 00:21:35.289 --> 00:21:40.039 the planning zone Commission is your recommendation and 00:21:40.440 --> 00:21:42.440 staff recommends approval of this 00:21:43.039 --> 00:21:46.380 For the reasons of we're going to be clarifying the 00:21:46.380 --> 00:21:49.839 property when a property should be annexed 00:21:49.920 --> 00:21:52.630 We're also making it more efficient as far as procedures 00:21:52.630 --> 00:21:55.420 for annexation. And again, it's consistent when the 00:21:55.420 --> 00:21:56.319 development plan 00:21:57.359 --> 00:22:00.640 Commissioner back. Thank you chair. So to be clear here 00:22:01.319 --> 00:22:05.059 The language that's in the code of ordinance. Right nothing 00:22:05.059 --> 00:22:07.960 to be in changes just being shifted over to the DDC 00:22:07.960 --> 00:22:10.549 Oh, there's is there's some there's some changes some 00:22:10.549 --> 00:22:11.380 slight changes 00:22:11.880 --> 00:22:12.920 Okay 00:22:12.920 --> 00:22:16.019 But if you read is it more streamlined if a little bit more 00:22:16.019 --> 00:22:17.160 streamlined, that's correct 00:22:17.160 --> 00:22:20.319 And it's it's for its proposed specifically just for that 00:22:20.319 --> 00:22:23.309 reason to be able to get annexations through in a more 00:22:23.309 --> 00:22:24.200 timely manner 00:22:24.480 --> 00:22:27.150 But if you look at it, it's it's essentially the same if 00:22:27.150 --> 00:22:28.880 you look at the criteria and again 00:22:28.880 --> 00:22:32.390 You have both of those as part of your backup. Okay. Thank 00:22:32.390 --> 00:22:32.660 you 00:22:33.079 --> 00:22:35.680 Commissioner Alice. Thank you chair. Hi Ron 00:22:36.519 --> 00:22:38.519 Okay, so when I read 00:22:38.799 --> 00:22:42.720 The ordinance that that were repealing and then read read 00:22:42.720 --> 00:22:44.539 the new draft ordinance 00:22:45.440 --> 00:22:49.579 Are we removing the procedure that an annexation comes 00:22:49.579 --> 00:22:51.880 before PNC and City Council? 00:22:52.400 --> 00:22:55.799 It goes to City Council. I did I did notice that 00:22:56.400 --> 00:22:59.839 Yes, the annexation will not come through the planning 00:22:59.839 --> 00:23:01.259 zoning Commission 00:23:01.599 --> 00:23:04.980 However, obviously the zoning will but correct you are 00:23:04.980 --> 00:23:07.000 correct. The annexation will not come through the planning 00:23:07.000 --> 00:23:08.359 zoning Commission. Okay 00:23:09.079 --> 00:23:11.859 Wherein it does it talk about it going to City Council? 00:23:12.400 --> 00:23:16.539 It's per state law and it should be the very last bullet of 00:23:16.539 --> 00:23:17.079 the 00:23:17.799 --> 00:23:19.799 procedure section it does not 00:23:20.240 --> 00:23:22.119 State it but that's 00:23:22.119 --> 00:23:24.480 Something that we follow through again the Texas local 00:23:24.480 --> 00:23:26.339 government code state law 00:23:32.559 --> 00:23:35.200 It's it did where it says all public hearing notification 00:23:35.200 --> 00:23:37.960 procedures will be in accordance with state law, right? 00:23:37.960 --> 00:23:41.059 We know it correct. It will go through that process and all 00:23:41.059 --> 00:23:43.559 annexation. It's a fairly lengthy process 00:23:44.200 --> 00:23:47.930 Timely manner as far as taking it through the planning. I'm 00:23:47.930 --> 00:23:49.119 sorry through the City Council 00:23:49.119 --> 00:23:52.059 There's two public hearings and then two readings of the 00:23:52.059 --> 00:23:52.680 ordinance 00:23:58.319 --> 00:24:01.450 Okay, my confusion is because all that was spelled out in 00:24:01.450 --> 00:24:03.599 the ordinance that were repealing and 00:24:04.039 --> 00:24:06.569 That it was completely removed from this new draft 00:24:06.569 --> 00:24:09.880 ordinance. We did that on purpose. Okay, just as point of 00:24:09.880 --> 00:24:10.720 order because 00:24:12.039 --> 00:24:15.319 The statutes change and we have four bills 00:24:15.319 --> 00:24:17.980 I think pending in the legislature right now that are 00:24:17.980 --> 00:24:19.640 affecting annexation 00:24:19.880 --> 00:24:22.630 So we went ahead and kept it general and just referred to 00:24:22.630 --> 00:24:23.220 state law 00:24:24.000 --> 00:24:28.950 For that reason it's a very complex procedure on the notice 00:24:28.950 --> 00:24:31.319 provisions and the publication provisions and 00:24:31.720 --> 00:24:34.200 the initial readings and everything of that nature 00:24:35.839 --> 00:24:39.000 And really the the first version did not cover at all 00:24:44.480 --> 00:24:48.490 Have another question is that okay? Thanks. I noticed added 00:24:48.490 --> 00:24:50.740 in this draft ordinance was 00:24:51.720 --> 00:24:54.279 location and intensity of gas well drilling in production 00:24:54.279 --> 00:24:56.500 which I know is not on 00:24:57.079 --> 00:25:00.210 In the ordinance that were repealing. Can you just kind of 00:25:00.210 --> 00:25:02.200 explain that a little bit how that's 00:25:03.319 --> 00:25:05.039 What that actually means and how that's taken into 00:25:05.039 --> 00:25:06.839 consideration? I? 00:25:07.720 --> 00:25:11.079 Think that's just another type of development that we know 00:25:11.079 --> 00:25:14.160 we have some of those type of developments west of town 00:25:14.160 --> 00:25:16.160 and so if those are 00:25:16.799 --> 00:25:18.400 considered 00:25:18.400 --> 00:25:21.299 potential impact that's something that's the City Council 00:25:21.299 --> 00:25:22.880 or City staff can 00:25:23.440 --> 00:25:27.480 move forward for those reasons specifically as a way of 00:25:28.480 --> 00:25:31.309 mitigating some of the potential impacts that that gas well 00:25:31.309 --> 00:25:34.880 or potential gas well could bring to adjacent properties 00:25:41.759 --> 00:25:44.319 I'm more notes. Sorry continue. Thank you. Thank you 00:25:45.559 --> 00:25:48.559 On that same the line under that 00:25:49.880 --> 00:25:52.990 Number six property that is contiguous to the city limits 00:25:52.990 --> 00:25:56.079 and is necessary to the annexation of another property 00:25:56.599 --> 00:26:00.309 Yes, I was having a hard time in my brain following that so 00:26:00.309 --> 00:26:03.880 I what I noted there was an example of that sure sure there 00:26:03.880 --> 00:26:03.880 is 00:26:03.960 --> 00:26:05.960 a property that is 00:26:06.559 --> 00:26:09.809 Per state law in order to annex a property it has to be 00:26:09.809 --> 00:26:11.980 contiguous to the city limits 00:26:12.200 --> 00:26:16.000 so if there is a property that's not contiguous and that 00:26:16.640 --> 00:26:21.000 Is something that fits the other criteria that's listed 00:26:21.000 --> 00:26:22.039 above those? 00:26:22.920 --> 00:26:26.930 the property between the city limits and subject property 00:26:26.930 --> 00:26:29.200 would be part of that annexation 00:26:30.759 --> 00:26:32.759 Does that come into play if I a 00:26:33.400 --> 00:26:37.000 private property owner requests annexation that you 00:26:37.480 --> 00:26:39.480 If they you know in one of those 00:26:39.799 --> 00:26:43.049 It can leapfrog right and we can't we can't annex a 00:26:43.049 --> 00:26:46.200 property unless it's contiguous with the city limits 00:26:46.640 --> 00:26:49.200 We still have to go after the property in the middle and 00:26:49.200 --> 00:26:51.200 build a block unless it's agricultural 00:27:02.480 --> 00:27:05.079 Okay, sorry, I'm following my notes here 00:27:06.359 --> 00:27:08.660 With regard where it talks about the procedure the staff 00:27:08.660 --> 00:27:10.799 following staff determination 00:27:11.519 --> 00:27:13.519 That the property should be considered 00:27:14.400 --> 00:27:16.400 The owner will be notified 00:27:17.400 --> 00:27:20.559 To do a voluntary petition of the city for annexation 00:27:22.400 --> 00:27:24.700 Talk about cost at that point if you're requesting that the 00:27:24.700 --> 00:27:26.200 property owner do it 00:27:26.559 --> 00:27:29.079 Cost was mentioned again in the ordinances, but it isn't 00:27:29.079 --> 00:27:31.160 mentioned here again, right, right? 00:27:31.759 --> 00:27:33.759 We're working on 00:27:34.519 --> 00:27:37.619 Currently the cost is I believe it's seven hundred fifty 00:27:37.619 --> 00:27:40.799 dollars plus notification, which is 220 00:27:41.240 --> 00:27:44.769 That's for someone that's submitting a petition for annex 00:27:44.769 --> 00:27:45.240 ation 00:27:46.240 --> 00:27:49.039 We're currently all actually working on our development 00:27:49.039 --> 00:27:49.839 review fees as well 00:27:49.839 --> 00:27:52.940 So that is something that we'll be looking into but that's 00:27:52.940 --> 00:27:55.559 that's the current cost as we speak as of today 00:27:55.799 --> 00:27:59.119 Does that need to be written of who's paying that or is 00:27:59.119 --> 00:28:01.839 that referring to state law again or? 00:28:02.559 --> 00:28:06.519 How does someone know what if you're petitioning them to? 00:28:07.359 --> 00:28:09.079 to be annexed 00:28:09.079 --> 00:28:12.200 There's no mention of what the cost will be well 00:28:12.200 --> 00:28:15.619 Well, well, obviously during that petition submittal will 00:28:15.619 --> 00:28:16.240 be able to 00:28:16.759 --> 00:28:19.529 Assess what that cost is and provide that during their 00:28:19.529 --> 00:28:21.079 review of that petition 00:28:21.079 --> 00:28:23.599 So that will be part of the development review process 00:28:23.920 --> 00:28:27.460 So we'll have fees presented to them or provided to them at 00:28:27.460 --> 00:28:28.240 that point 00:28:31.000 --> 00:28:33.000 Is to wait for them 00:28:33.440 --> 00:28:36.319 If they don't want to pay it they just wait and do nothing 00:28:36.319 --> 00:28:37.359 and then we annex them 00:28:37.640 --> 00:28:40.220 Yeah, I guess my question comes was do we need to have that 00:28:40.220 --> 00:28:41.720 in writing about who's paying fees? 00:28:42.319 --> 00:28:44.319 Because we're repealing that 00:28:45.079 --> 00:28:48.180 So right now it's in a separate ordinance. We have fees 00:28:48.180 --> 00:28:51.079 associated with the development reviews 00:28:52.480 --> 00:28:55.160 Just to interject when I'm all done. We already have an 00:28:55.160 --> 00:28:59.349 adopted ordinance that outlines our fee schedule in that 00:28:59.349 --> 00:29:00.440 fee schedule 00:29:00.440 --> 00:29:02.769 We have specific project types and one of them is a 00:29:02.769 --> 00:29:05.640 voluntary and the other one is an involuntary annexation 00:29:05.960 --> 00:29:09.059 So that being said and depending on what course that 00:29:09.059 --> 00:29:12.640 project or the annex the proposed annexation project takes 00:29:12.640 --> 00:29:13.400 we would do that 00:29:13.400 --> 00:29:17.109 So in the case if it becomes city initiated in involuntary 00:29:17.109 --> 00:29:20.000 and then obviously the fees would not be assessed in many 00:29:20.000 --> 00:29:20.200 cases 00:29:20.400 --> 00:29:23.900 Given certain developments you have pockets of annexed of 00:29:23.900 --> 00:29:25.279 ETJ property 00:29:25.279 --> 00:29:28.559 That's not annexed but in order to facilitate development 00:29:28.559 --> 00:29:30.660 they acquire them that becomes part and parcel of their 00:29:30.660 --> 00:29:33.039 overall program to then cumulatively 00:29:33.759 --> 00:29:36.160 Annex the property and then develop it comprehensively 00:29:36.640 --> 00:29:39.519 So we do have a fee schedule the reason why the fees are 00:29:39.519 --> 00:29:42.519 not specified there is because your fee schedule has to be 00:29:43.519 --> 00:29:45.000 routinely reviewed 00:29:45.000 --> 00:29:47.759 Assessed against whether these fees are indeed applicable 00:29:47.759 --> 00:29:50.640 should there be decreased should they be increased and that 00:29:51.400 --> 00:29:53.680 Transparency measure is deliberately then identified in a 00:29:53.680 --> 00:29:54.779 separate ordinance 00:29:56.759 --> 00:29:59.079 And I think my last question with regard to that is so if 00:29:59.079 --> 00:30:02.160 they if they don't annex voluntarily 00:30:04.759 --> 00:30:06.289 And you're saying they have to do that within ten calendar 00:30:06.289 --> 00:30:10.390 days is is that a reasonable it that doesn't seem like very 00:30:10.390 --> 00:30:11.599 much time to me 00:30:13.480 --> 00:30:16.279 So I guess how did you come up with the ten days well 00:30:17.240 --> 00:30:19.359 Ten days is some other 00:30:20.240 --> 00:30:22.319 Ordinances that we have that refers to ten days 00:30:23.160 --> 00:30:26.599 We actually want to make sure we act quickly and so 00:30:27.440 --> 00:30:29.440 If it's the Commission's 00:30:30.119 --> 00:30:32.119 direction or recommendation 00:30:32.240 --> 00:30:36.079 We can obviously in increase that to a certain date 00:30:36.079 --> 00:30:40.029 But ten days is a typical that we use for return for any 00:30:40.029 --> 00:30:40.880 request 00:30:53.319 --> 00:30:55.319 Commissioner back. Thank you chair 00:30:57.160 --> 00:31:00.119 Going back to the comment that Commissioner Ellis 00:31:01.000 --> 00:31:03.000 guess will really production 00:31:04.920 --> 00:31:07.079 When would the city actually want to annex 00:31:07.759 --> 00:31:10.440 That kind of property and how would we benefit by annexing 00:31:10.440 --> 00:31:11.960 that kind of property? 00:31:12.720 --> 00:31:14.720 Let's try to explain earlier 00:31:15.200 --> 00:31:19.559 We do have some obviously EGJ on the east or I'm sorry the 00:31:19.559 --> 00:31:23.440 west side of the city and if there is a proposed 00:31:23.839 --> 00:31:25.640 gas well 00:31:25.640 --> 00:31:27.640 production site that is 00:31:27.720 --> 00:31:31.240 going to impact adjacent properties and we feel that 00:31:31.640 --> 00:31:35.609 It's going to create some impact as far as wastewater or 00:31:35.609 --> 00:31:37.079 any utilities and any 00:31:37.759 --> 00:31:38.759 potential 00:31:38.759 --> 00:31:41.279 Adverse impacts to adjacent properties. That's that's 00:31:41.279 --> 00:31:44.259 another reason why would we could go for and those that's 00:31:44.259 --> 00:31:45.039 just one criteria 00:31:45.039 --> 00:31:47.240 And that's one of the reasons why we would want to move 00:31:47.240 --> 00:31:48.440 forward with an annexation 00:31:49.079 --> 00:31:52.210 It's a potential impact to adjacent properties. So that 00:31:52.210 --> 00:31:55.160 would give the city some control over that property 00:31:56.400 --> 00:31:59.500 That's correct. I mean, of course the EGJ we we don't have 00:31:59.500 --> 00:32:00.880 any control as far as juice 00:32:00.880 --> 00:32:03.400 So that that would be one of the reasons why we would move 00:32:03.400 --> 00:32:06.319 forward with an annexation. Okay. Thanks 00:32:07.640 --> 00:32:10.559 On a guess we'll see would then collect taxes also then 00:32:10.559 --> 00:32:13.660 correct, right? If it's in the state and they are she 00:32:13.660 --> 00:32:14.359 following a different 00:32:15.119 --> 00:32:17.119 taxation 00:32:25.319 --> 00:32:28.420 Commissioner Ellis, thank you chair. I think this is this 00:32:28.420 --> 00:32:31.599 is just a typo and probably question for legal 00:32:33.359 --> 00:32:37.309 The last paragraph on the large paragraph which spells out 00:32:37.309 --> 00:32:38.599 what we're repealing 00:32:40.079 --> 00:32:42.079 It says whereas 00:32:42.160 --> 00:32:46.109 After noticed published it should that be notice published. 00:32:46.109 --> 00:32:48.440 Yes. Okay. Thank you. Sorry 00:32:53.000 --> 00:32:55.000 Thank you 00:32:55.319 --> 00:32:57.319 I 00:33:00.279 --> 00:33:02.279 Thank you 00:33:03.720 --> 00:33:05.269 Commissioner Ellis, thank you chair. I'm gonna ask one more 00:33:05.269 --> 00:33:08.920 question. Okay, just please give me 00:33:10.039 --> 00:33:13.880 The reason for for removing this from the PNZ platform 00:33:14.960 --> 00:33:17.319 the planning zone for the annexation 00:33:19.559 --> 00:33:22.980 One it's not required for the state law to bring it to the 00:33:22.980 --> 00:33:24.200 planning zone Commission 00:33:24.519 --> 00:33:27.400 The other is that we talked a little bit about it is to 00:33:27.400 --> 00:33:30.599 streamline the annexation to move forward 00:33:30.599 --> 00:33:32.599 So it goes straight to City Council 00:33:34.680 --> 00:33:38.440 And run I'm not too well versed in annexation 00:33:38.440 --> 00:33:42.190 But I think I remember that the local government code has a 00:33:42.190 --> 00:33:43.000 strict timeline 00:33:43.359 --> 00:33:46.940 For when the notices have to go and when the hearing at the 00:33:46.940 --> 00:33:49.440 public hearing at the City Council has to be held 00:33:49.440 --> 00:33:52.039 And I don't know that that accommodates the two 00:33:52.960 --> 00:33:56.119 The dual public hearing process so there may be why 00:33:56.720 --> 00:33:58.880 We're going in that direction too 00:33:59.400 --> 00:34:02.480 Right again, just to quickly for annexation 00:34:02.680 --> 00:34:05.779 There's two public hearings with City Council gives the 00:34:05.779 --> 00:34:08.420 opportunity for property owners and other 00:34:09.000 --> 00:34:12.469 individuals to come in and then following that there are 00:34:12.469 --> 00:34:15.619 two readings and they all have to fit in within a 00:34:16.079 --> 00:34:17.320 45 00:34:17.320 --> 00:34:19.320 Time period and so scheduling all those 00:34:19.760 --> 00:34:23.320 Could jeopardize meeting those those sets 00:34:23.960 --> 00:34:25.119 timeframes 00:34:25.119 --> 00:34:29.429 Okay, and on that same note then it is is the city staff 00:34:29.429 --> 00:34:30.079 doing 00:34:30.480 --> 00:34:33.579 All of the prelim work and determining that it needs to be 00:34:33.579 --> 00:34:35.750 annexed and then it's going to council for the public 00:34:35.750 --> 00:34:36.219 hearings 00:34:36.800 --> 00:34:39.420 Whereas now the procedure is do you get direction from 00:34:39.420 --> 00:34:43.079 council on annexation right before you determine something 00:34:43.079 --> 00:34:43.679 is annexed 00:34:43.679 --> 00:34:46.260 Well, yeah, we that's the other reason why we're bringing 00:34:46.260 --> 00:34:48.840 it forward to is there was no clear procedure 00:34:48.840 --> 00:34:53.360 So we would as we do the development review of these 00:34:53.360 --> 00:34:56.159 projects start to develop the you know 00:34:56.639 --> 00:34:58.969 Review the criteria develop some considerations and then 00:34:58.969 --> 00:35:01.559 bring it forward to City Council for their direction 00:35:02.239 --> 00:35:04.980 Yeah, and I guess just my concern lies with I just want to 00:35:04.980 --> 00:35:07.739 make sure we've got the right checks and balances sure in 00:35:07.739 --> 00:35:08.099 place 00:35:08.519 --> 00:35:10.519 for annex land because it can be a 00:35:10.880 --> 00:35:14.590 You know a contentious situation in some regard and I know 00:35:14.590 --> 00:35:16.400 at the City Council meeting yesterday 00:35:16.920 --> 00:35:20.000 when you were asking for direction on a couple of 00:35:21.719 --> 00:35:25.679 Parcels right that I mean you didn't have unanimous, you 00:35:25.679 --> 00:35:26.119 know 00:35:26.800 --> 00:35:30.510 Approval there with the way to go. So I'm trying to figure 00:35:30.510 --> 00:35:33.000 out if we're going to run into issues as a city 00:35:35.320 --> 00:35:36.659 If we're removing some checks and balances that way so that 00:35:36.659 --> 00:35:39.960 's what I'm trying to wrap my head around okay 00:35:44.840 --> 00:35:47.679 And just as an aside and so that everyone is aware 00:35:48.280 --> 00:35:52.460 We've been annexing property since 2010 under a different 00:35:52.460 --> 00:35:56.480 procedure. And so that's why he said that it was it was 00:35:57.159 --> 00:35:59.239 expressly or not expressly repealed but 00:36:00.199 --> 00:36:03.119 It was implied that it was repealed. So we're just final 00:36:03.119 --> 00:36:06.559 izing that but we have not taken any of our annexation since 00:36:06.559 --> 00:36:07.900 2010 through PNC 00:36:07.900 --> 00:36:09.900 It's gone straight to council 00:36:11.039 --> 00:36:13.880 So it's just matching what what it is that we're doing 00:36:13.880 --> 00:36:14.260 currently 00:36:14.840 --> 00:36:16.840 Okay 00:36:21.719 --> 00:36:23.719 Thank you Ron 00:36:23.760 --> 00:36:27.309 All right, and I see that you guys have cheated so I'm 00:36:27.309 --> 00:36:29.920 gonna bring hey lit up and we're gonna hold the 00:36:30.719 --> 00:36:33.000 Report and hold a discussion on the tree code 00:36:33.880 --> 00:36:36.400 We've learned when we get these stacks of paper. We better 00:36:36.400 --> 00:36:36.639 start 00:36:44.840 --> 00:36:46.840 Good afternoon commissioners 00:36:58.039 --> 00:36:59.320 Thank you 00:36:59.320 --> 00:37:02.659 again for allowing me the audience to actually bring this 00:37:02.659 --> 00:37:06.400 item before you with regards to revisions to 00:37:07.400 --> 00:37:10.010 The tree preservation and landscape requirements of the 00:37:10.010 --> 00:37:11.639 Denton Development Code 00:37:15.840 --> 00:37:19.639 So, you know objective here today is simply to 00:37:20.239 --> 00:37:22.909 Receive report hold discussion regarding adoption of an 00:37:22.909 --> 00:37:25.239 ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas 00:37:25.880 --> 00:37:27.880 amending sub chapters 00:37:28.039 --> 00:37:30.639 35.3 procedures sub chapter 00:37:31.639 --> 00:37:36.280 35.13 site design standards and sub chapter 35 point 23 00:37:36.800 --> 00:37:36.800 definitions in terms of the Denton Development Code as 00:37:36.800 --> 00:37:43.079 relates to tree preservation and landscaping requirements 00:37:44.599 --> 00:37:48.539 So just a little bit of background on this item. This was 00:37:48.539 --> 00:37:50.719 actually started out as 00:37:51.559 --> 00:37:54.639 direction from City Council back in the fall of 00:37:55.280 --> 00:37:58.079 2014 staff was directed to 00:37:59.519 --> 00:38:02.000 update the existing tree code 00:38:03.440 --> 00:38:06.320 Since then staff has had numerous meetings with the City 00:38:06.320 --> 00:38:09.360 Council PNC and various stakeholders 00:38:10.280 --> 00:38:15.340 With regards to the update to this this part of the tree 00:38:15.340 --> 00:38:15.880 code of the code 00:38:17.480 --> 00:38:21.010 There have been multiple continuous postponements due to 00:38:21.010 --> 00:38:22.440 concerns about this item 00:38:23.800 --> 00:38:25.800 That resulted in meetings 00:38:26.719 --> 00:38:28.599 with various 00:38:28.599 --> 00:38:31.920 stakeholders including the Denton Developers Alliance 00:38:32.599 --> 00:38:34.599 Keep Denton Beautiful 00:38:34.920 --> 00:38:36.920 represents from UNT, TWU 00:38:37.159 --> 00:38:41.710 We also had a outreach to just the general citizens of Dent 00:38:41.710 --> 00:38:41.960 on 00:38:42.320 --> 00:38:46.480 Through a visual preference survey to gain the public's 00:38:46.480 --> 00:38:47.760 perception on 00:38:48.760 --> 00:38:50.760 trees in Denton 00:38:52.280 --> 00:38:55.800 We've also most recently received data from the state of 00:38:55.800 --> 00:38:58.480 Denton urban forestry forest report 00:38:59.159 --> 00:39:00.400 which 00:39:00.400 --> 00:39:04.159 Has been incorporated into the update 00:39:04.840 --> 00:39:08.679 Believe that's also an attachment into in your packet. This 00:39:08.679 --> 00:39:10.760 report was was completed 00:39:11.440 --> 00:39:13.199 just this past 00:39:13.199 --> 00:39:15.960 Fall and presented to City Council in December 00:39:16.719 --> 00:39:20.559 Just some of the quick findings of that report was that 00:39:20.559 --> 00:39:23.679 Denton has 30% tree canopy 00:39:24.440 --> 00:39:26.559 the value of the trees in Denton is 00:39:27.360 --> 00:39:30.559 estimated to be two point zero six billion dollars as 00:39:30.559 --> 00:39:31.739 billion with a B 00:39:32.639 --> 00:39:34.639 the environmental 00:39:34.840 --> 00:39:36.199 benefits 00:39:36.199 --> 00:39:39.800 Annually are estimated to be 69.8 million 00:39:41.679 --> 00:39:45.849 One of the other key things to this report was that it was 00:39:45.849 --> 00:39:50.179 revealed that 46% of Denton's tree canopy 00:39:50.960 --> 00:39:53.199 Is located on undeveloped land 00:39:53.760 --> 00:39:58.940 So 46% of that 30% is on properties that is subject to 00:39:58.940 --> 00:40:00.400 future development 00:40:05.800 --> 00:40:07.800 So 00:40:07.800 --> 00:40:11.079 Our objectives when we started out with this project was to 00:40:11.079 --> 00:40:13.960 streamline the code to make it more user-friendly 00:40:14.880 --> 00:40:17.159 align city standards with industry best management 00:40:17.159 --> 00:40:20.900 practices of the American National Standards Institute and 00:40:20.900 --> 00:40:22.800 the International Society of 00:40:23.039 --> 00:40:26.989 Abora culture and to provide a more robust code that will 00:40:26.989 --> 00:40:27.639 expand 00:40:29.000 --> 00:40:31.000 expand and protect tree canopy 00:40:31.400 --> 00:40:35.710 Consistent with the Denton plan 2030 and the city of Denton 00:40:35.710 --> 00:40:37.159 strategic plan goals 00:40:40.039 --> 00:40:42.219 So now I'm going to shift gears a little bit and I'm going 00:40:42.219 --> 00:40:45.280 to begin with the end in mind here 00:40:46.800 --> 00:40:50.610 This slide here basically represents what this tree code 00:40:50.610 --> 00:40:53.280 means what the results of this tree code means 00:40:54.440 --> 00:40:59.079 for preserving trees on undeveloped properties, so 00:40:59.960 --> 00:41:01.960 70% of the trees 00:41:02.519 --> 00:41:06.320 The developer is able to remove without any mitigation 00:41:06.320 --> 00:41:08.800 whatsoever 70% off the top 00:41:10.000 --> 00:41:12.320 10% of that existing canopy 00:41:12.960 --> 00:41:14.960 would have to be 00:41:14.960 --> 00:41:17.670 mitigated either through replanting of trees on site or 00:41:17.670 --> 00:41:19.639 payment into the city's tree fund and 00:41:21.880 --> 00:41:26.829 20% of the canopy is what must which is the bare minimum 00:41:26.829 --> 00:41:28.219 that must be left on site 00:41:29.000 --> 00:41:31.420 Based on what we are proposing here today 00:41:32.880 --> 00:41:36.179 So just to go back to this this 10% here 00:41:37.300 --> 00:41:41.480 one of the the recommendations that we have in this code is 00:41:41.480 --> 00:41:42.360 to allow for 00:41:43.239 --> 00:41:46.960 trees that are planted for mitigation to count towards 00:41:47.679 --> 00:41:51.530 Required landscape trees. So any trees are required by the 00:41:51.530 --> 00:41:54.719 landscape provisions of the ordinance where the street 00:41:54.719 --> 00:41:55.119 trees 00:41:55.599 --> 00:41:57.599 parking lot trees 00:41:57.599 --> 00:42:00.800 Whatever trees are required the same trees that you 00:42:00.800 --> 00:42:01.400 mitigate 00:42:02.039 --> 00:42:04.840 By planning can can count for those trees also 00:42:11.400 --> 00:42:13.400 So what does this look like so 00:42:14.760 --> 00:42:17.440 Our goals for for mitigation is 30% 00:42:17.920 --> 00:42:21.929 So on a site that's up for development is 30% of the trees 00:42:21.929 --> 00:42:23.119 are preserved 00:42:24.599 --> 00:42:26.599 Requirements are met. There's no further 00:42:27.719 --> 00:42:31.190 Need for mitigation or any other payments with regard to 00:42:31.190 --> 00:42:32.840 tree preservation 00:42:33.360 --> 00:42:34.920 however, if 00:42:34.920 --> 00:42:37.639 30% 30% goal cannot be met 00:42:38.239 --> 00:42:40.239 what we're proposing allows for 00:42:41.440 --> 00:42:44.800 dropping that 30% down to 20% preserved and 00:42:45.719 --> 00:42:46.880 10% 00:42:46.880 --> 00:42:47.920 mitigated 00:42:47.920 --> 00:42:51.090 So how does that look as far as when we calculate our 00:42:51.090 --> 00:42:54.320 payment into a tree fund or a number of trees that are 00:42:54.320 --> 00:42:55.280 planning? 00:42:55.280 --> 00:42:58.400 That we have to plant so tree fund payment 00:42:59.039 --> 00:43:02.980 Would be based on the the number of square feet that you 00:43:02.980 --> 00:43:04.719 would be mitigated for 00:43:05.519 --> 00:43:06.559 times 00:43:06.559 --> 00:43:10.699 $2.84 and you may say where does that $2.84 come from? 00:43:10.920 --> 00:43:14.019 Well, I go back to the state of Denton urban forest report 00:43:14.019 --> 00:43:17.800 and the value that was given for the trees and Denton and 00:43:17.800 --> 00:43:18.000 the 00:43:18.000 --> 00:43:20.360 environmental benefits that are received from those trees 00:43:21.320 --> 00:43:23.800 So am I too far away? Okay 00:43:24.960 --> 00:43:27.440 So that that $2.84 00:43:28.599 --> 00:43:31.239 basically represents the 00:43:32.480 --> 00:43:36.619 what the square foot of tree canopy costs and then based on 00:43:36.619 --> 00:43:36.920 the 00:43:37.880 --> 00:43:39.880 structural value of the trees and 00:43:40.400 --> 00:43:42.639 addition to 10 years of 00:43:43.480 --> 00:43:45.679 Environmental benefits that we're receiving from those 00:43:45.679 --> 00:43:50.079 trees that would be removed that is where the $2.84 comes 00:43:50.079 --> 00:43:50.519 to 00:43:51.760 --> 00:43:53.760 so if we are 00:43:53.760 --> 00:43:55.760 mitigating via planting 00:43:56.079 --> 00:43:58.760 We are recommending a one to six ratio 00:43:58.760 --> 00:44:01.860 I know at the previous meeting the ratio was one to four 00:44:01.860 --> 00:44:04.659 and else, you know some pushback and there was an item of 00:44:04.659 --> 00:44:05.360 concern 00:44:06.360 --> 00:44:08.360 mentioned by some of the 00:44:09.400 --> 00:44:12.219 Developers and some on the Commission here. Well after 00:44:12.219 --> 00:44:15.880 looking at the numbers and actually comparing 00:44:16.880 --> 00:44:18.719 that one to six 00:44:18.719 --> 00:44:22.150 To where we are now from with the current code and and what 00:44:22.150 --> 00:44:23.119 we're proposing 00:44:24.000 --> 00:44:27.099 Converting it, you know looking at canopy compared to 00:44:27.099 --> 00:44:31.369 diameter inch. I feel real confident and where that one to 00:44:31.369 --> 00:44:31.760 six 00:44:32.519 --> 00:44:34.670 Ratio lies and and I'll get to that in a minute. But if you 00:44:34.670 --> 00:44:37.940 're calculating the number of trees, you're going to plant 00:44:38.719 --> 00:44:41.519 You would have your your square footage of canopy that you 00:44:41.519 --> 00:44:42.559 're mitigating 00:44:43.239 --> 00:44:45.480 times six divided by 00:44:46.719 --> 00:44:48.719 1256 the 00:44:48.880 --> 00:44:52.800 1256 square feet that is the value that our code gives to 00:44:52.800 --> 00:44:56.659 the canopy of a of a mature large tree here in Denton 00:44:57.000 --> 00:44:59.840 So you plug your numbers in there and you would get your 00:44:59.840 --> 00:45:01.320 number of trees 00:45:02.199 --> 00:45:04.000 planted for the site 00:45:04.000 --> 00:45:07.239 So you may say how does this look with real numbers? So I 00:45:07.239 --> 00:45:09.320 have some real numbers in here 00:45:09.599 --> 00:45:13.460 So again all percentages here are based on the original 00:45:14.199 --> 00:45:17.929 Our existing total tree canopy on the site and for sake of 00:45:17.929 --> 00:45:20.199 this example and round us 00:45:20.599 --> 00:45:23.260 We're saying that the the total tree canopy is a hundred 00:45:23.260 --> 00:45:25.300 thousand square feet for this site 00:45:25.519 --> 00:45:30.469 So if 30% or 30,000 square feet is preserved you're done. 00:45:30.469 --> 00:45:31.679 Nothing else is needed or 00:45:32.840 --> 00:45:37.019 You can preserve as low as 20,000 square feet and mitigate 00:45:37.019 --> 00:45:39.059 for the 10,000 square feet 00:45:39.400 --> 00:45:41.480 so plug in those numbers into 00:45:43.159 --> 00:45:48.159 The formula you would multiply the 10,000 times 284 and 00:45:48.159 --> 00:45:49.800 your tree fund payment would be 00:45:51.599 --> 00:45:53.599 $28,400 00:45:54.000 --> 00:45:56.000 Plug in that same number into 00:45:56.599 --> 00:45:58.159 your 00:45:58.159 --> 00:46:00.159 ratio for tree planting 00:46:00.719 --> 00:46:03.820 you would do the 10,000 times six divided by 00:46:05.480 --> 00:46:09.980 1256 and your number of trees to plant for mitigation would 00:46:09.980 --> 00:46:11.360 be 48 trees and 00:46:11.880 --> 00:46:15.400 Again, keep in mind those 48 trees can also count towards 00:46:15.400 --> 00:46:17.480 the trees that you are required 00:46:17.840 --> 00:46:20.980 By the landscape code to plant on the site street trees 00:46:20.980 --> 00:46:22.639 parking lot trees other 00:46:23.159 --> 00:46:25.280 Landscape trees buffers what have you? 00:46:26.000 --> 00:46:28.210 So you may want to say I know and I know this came up at 00:46:28.210 --> 00:46:31.280 the last meeting was what does this look like on a real 00:46:31.280 --> 00:46:34.280 site, so we did a case study and 00:46:35.320 --> 00:46:39.460 This picture may look familiar. This was presented back in 00:46:39.460 --> 00:46:40.920 back in July 00:46:41.280 --> 00:46:43.280 So this is a before 00:46:43.679 --> 00:46:46.340 Development picture and an after development picture on 00:46:46.340 --> 00:46:48.800 this particular site 00:46:48.800 --> 00:46:51.900 This was a residential development the majority of the 00:46:51.900 --> 00:46:55.920 trees you see the cursor was preserved in this section here 00:46:56.000 --> 00:46:58.699 Which they actually did make it into a melody for the 00:46:58.699 --> 00:47:00.639 neighborhood. There's a little walking trail 00:47:00.639 --> 00:47:01.920 I think maybe a bench in there 00:47:01.920 --> 00:47:04.760 So it is something that's usable for the residents of this 00:47:04.760 --> 00:47:07.760 neighborhood and there were a few other trees 00:47:07.920 --> 00:47:11.019 That was saved on site and this picture doesn't show up if 00:47:11.019 --> 00:47:13.840 there's a couple others on the south side of the road 00:47:13.840 --> 00:47:16.300 That's also included in this development 00:47:17.239 --> 00:47:18.840 Yes 00:47:18.840 --> 00:47:21.599 Commissioner back. Thank you chair. So the trees were seen 00:47:21.599 --> 00:47:22.960 in the second picture 00:47:23.159 --> 00:47:28.320 There is the 30% that were allowed to remain no 00:47:28.320 --> 00:47:32.610 This is what was preserved under the existing code. Okay, 00:47:32.610 --> 00:47:34.519 and I'm going to get to that. Okay, okay 00:47:34.920 --> 00:47:39.039 Real quick, yes the 10% you were talking about I you know 00:47:39.039 --> 00:47:42.739 The fact that we let them actually clear out 70% of the 00:47:42.739 --> 00:47:43.800 trees bothers me 00:47:43.800 --> 00:47:47.239 But and maybe you're gonna address this later to that 10% 00:47:48.239 --> 00:47:49.840 rather than 00:47:49.840 --> 00:47:53.360 Removing them we could count those existing trees as part 00:47:53.360 --> 00:47:55.480 of their landscape requirement 00:47:55.480 --> 00:47:57.880 Is that correct or am I jumping the gun here? 00:47:57.880 --> 00:48:01.380 No any trees any any trees that are preserved on the site 00:48:01.380 --> 00:48:03.760 can also count towards the 00:48:04.000 --> 00:48:07.570 Landscape require trees on the site. So conceivably we 00:48:07.570 --> 00:48:11.000 could keep that 30% if we could get them to 00:48:11.679 --> 00:48:12.840 keep 00:48:12.840 --> 00:48:15.940 You know if they were thinking about you know knocking it 00:48:15.940 --> 00:48:18.679 down to 20% if we could get them to you know 00:48:18.679 --> 00:48:22.269 Keep that extra 10% and make it a total 30% and as part of 00:48:22.269 --> 00:48:23.639 their landscape page 00:48:24.039 --> 00:48:27.250 It's possible just kind of depends on you know, the site, 00:48:27.250 --> 00:48:31.000 you know specifics of the site and how it's laid out. Okay. 00:48:31.000 --> 00:48:31.320 Thanks 00:48:33.519 --> 00:48:35.079 Okay, so 00:48:35.079 --> 00:48:38.519 This is what this site looks like as far as what was 00:48:39.639 --> 00:48:43.139 Surveyed as canopy tree canopy on the site. So that light 00:48:43.139 --> 00:48:43.440 green 00:48:44.079 --> 00:48:48.019 Actually represents the canopy that was on that site prior 00:48:48.019 --> 00:48:49.320 to development 00:48:51.360 --> 00:48:55.119 So the total area of the site was you know, just over 25 00:48:55.119 --> 00:48:55.480 acres 00:48:56.000 --> 00:49:00.239 The total tree canopy of this site was just over 11 acres 00:49:02.480 --> 00:49:05.699 So on this map here what is showing this is what was 00:49:05.699 --> 00:49:09.079 actually shown to be preserved 00:49:09.920 --> 00:49:12.639 For this development. This is what was approved with 00:49:13.320 --> 00:49:15.519 this particular development the 00:49:16.119 --> 00:49:18.559 Shaded SS kind of a yellowish color there 00:49:19.840 --> 00:49:23.280 That pretty much represents the canopy that was preserved 00:49:24.599 --> 00:49:26.599 so 00:49:26.840 --> 00:49:30.239 The area of that area of canopy that was preserved was 00:49:31.320 --> 00:49:33.760 Just under a half acre and it amounted to 00:49:34.679 --> 00:49:39.010 Just over two thousand square feet of canopy and that was 00:49:39.010 --> 00:49:41.539 code compliant under the current code 00:49:44.079 --> 00:49:47.230 So if we you know say well what does 20% look like under 00:49:47.230 --> 00:49:50.000 what we're proposing if they were mitigating also 00:49:50.440 --> 00:49:53.920 Well, the reddish pink area here that's showing 00:49:54.699 --> 00:49:58.070 What additional tree canopy could have possibly been 00:49:58.070 --> 00:50:01.559 preserved to meet the requirements under the proposed? 00:50:02.159 --> 00:50:04.280 revision to the tree code so 00:50:05.239 --> 00:50:07.800 The pink here and a lot of this is along the backs of the 00:50:07.800 --> 00:50:10.440 properties. This is what's representing 00:50:10.880 --> 00:50:13.719 What 20% would look like on this development? 00:50:15.280 --> 00:50:18.840 So that 20% would amount to two point two four acres 00:50:19.960 --> 00:50:21.639 just under 00:50:21.639 --> 00:50:23.639 98 thousand square feet of 00:50:25.079 --> 00:50:27.079 preservation 00:50:27.679 --> 00:50:30.019 So when you're looking at if they were going to go full 00:50:30.019 --> 00:50:33.250 compliance how that would look like on the site the purple 00:50:33.250 --> 00:50:33.760 adds in 00:50:34.880 --> 00:50:38.619 What 30% would look like on this site and again that would 00:50:38.619 --> 00:50:42.840 increase the about three point three acres of trees 00:50:44.199 --> 00:50:47.920 And just under 150,000 square feet of canopy 00:50:48.800 --> 00:50:52.750 Hey, we just go back to that last slide to clarify they don 00:50:52.750 --> 00:50:56.960 't have to actually preserve this the trees in that location 00:50:56.960 --> 00:50:59.519 it's pretty much up to the developer where the 00:51:00.480 --> 00:51:02.780 The stands would be preserved, but that's just an example 00:51:02.780 --> 00:51:05.679 of where they could preserve it correct correct 00:51:05.679 --> 00:51:09.179 Yeah, this is just you know an example. That was you know 00:51:09.179 --> 00:51:09.820 that made it 00:51:10.639 --> 00:51:13.809 Convenient for our GIS guy Cody he did an excellent job 00:51:13.809 --> 00:51:14.440 with these maps 00:51:15.079 --> 00:51:18.780 So we can show what was preserved what 20% looked like and 00:51:18.780 --> 00:51:21.800 what 30% looks like on this particular site 00:51:23.119 --> 00:51:25.639 Commissioner Tyler. Thank you chair. Yeah 00:51:26.320 --> 00:51:29.920 Could you go back one more slide or one though this one? No 00:51:29.920 --> 00:51:34.019 the one with the total canopy had indicated this one 00:51:34.019 --> 00:51:35.800 so in this one 00:51:35.800 --> 00:51:40.239 This isn't species specific is it no it's not and so 00:51:40.880 --> 00:51:42.880 Is it hackberry juniper? 00:51:43.559 --> 00:51:45.559 Locust boat arc 00:51:45.719 --> 00:51:48.199 Etc none of those would have counted either 00:51:48.840 --> 00:51:51.940 Is that correct well this would pick up all trees on the 00:51:51.940 --> 00:51:55.500 site right, but I'm saying so the new ordinance 00:51:56.199 --> 00:52:00.480 says you can you can ignore the species list right of 00:52:01.280 --> 00:52:03.280 right and if 00:52:03.280 --> 00:52:05.280 Say in this particular case if 00:52:06.679 --> 00:52:08.679 The developer was looking to 00:52:09.800 --> 00:52:12.920 Reduce his total number of canopy based on those species 00:52:12.920 --> 00:52:16.940 what I would require was would be for the preparer of this 00:52:16.940 --> 00:52:17.559 survey 00:52:18.000 --> 00:52:21.570 To provide an estimate of how much what the percentage of 00:52:21.570 --> 00:52:24.960 those trees were and then we would take a deduction 00:52:25.239 --> 00:52:28.559 accordingly and so in this case if if if this was like half 00:52:29.559 --> 00:52:32.440 You know hackberry and juniper and boat arc and so forth 00:52:33.800 --> 00:52:35.869 They could they would have to do a little more work on the 00:52:35.869 --> 00:52:36.360 survey 00:52:36.360 --> 00:52:39.780 you know go out and identify species mix or use like the 00:52:39.780 --> 00:52:43.039 four band satellite to pick up species by color and 00:52:43.800 --> 00:52:47.500 Then this all these calculations on the next page would all 00:52:47.500 --> 00:52:49.079 just be cut in half basically 00:52:49.079 --> 00:52:52.400 Yeah, depending on on the percentage of those exempt trees 00:52:52.400 --> 00:52:54.019 that is correct or another way 00:52:54.019 --> 00:52:56.269 I guess they could do it is they could go ahead and clear 00:52:56.269 --> 00:52:58.000 all unprotected species 00:52:59.119 --> 00:53:01.119 first and then 00:53:01.840 --> 00:53:05.380 Then only have to count the protected species that are 00:53:05.380 --> 00:53:06.000 remaining 00:53:06.360 --> 00:53:08.679 That would not be allowed they can't they can't remove hack 00:53:08.679 --> 00:53:11.079 berry not not on a site that's up for development 00:53:11.679 --> 00:53:14.320 Because the danger with that is that you get someone out 00:53:14.320 --> 00:53:17.079 there with the bulldozer or the chainsaw 00:53:17.280 --> 00:53:19.880 That's cutting trees and you know next thing you know they 00:53:19.880 --> 00:53:20.840 have trees that are 00:53:21.280 --> 00:53:23.989 covered under the ordinance that are on the ground and then 00:53:23.989 --> 00:53:25.679 you know they're dealing with 00:53:27.039 --> 00:53:28.800 You know the the 00:53:28.800 --> 00:53:31.590 Legal ramifications of that so okay, so so they can't they 00:53:31.590 --> 00:53:33.800 really they really absolutely can't clear 00:53:35.440 --> 00:53:38.239 unprotected species until until the surveys complete 00:53:38.239 --> 00:53:39.559 correct correct 00:53:39.559 --> 00:53:42.760 There is a you know allowance if if there's you know if 00:53:42.760 --> 00:53:44.559 they need to to actually use 00:53:45.599 --> 00:53:48.119 Chainsaws to cut through to actually make it through the 00:53:48.119 --> 00:53:51.619 site because some sites is so thick or to do other ground 00:53:51.619 --> 00:53:52.000 work 00:53:52.719 --> 00:53:56.179 You know top typo topo surveys and what-have-you they are 00:53:56.179 --> 00:53:57.099 allowed to do that 00:53:57.099 --> 00:53:59.619 But not to just go in and say let's cut down everything 00:53:59.619 --> 00:54:00.599 that doesn't count 00:54:01.039 --> 00:54:04.679 And I know I've seen that it might be later in the process 00:54:04.679 --> 00:54:06.639 where a develop a site 00:54:06.639 --> 00:54:08.590 Especially like when it's covered in privet or something 00:54:08.590 --> 00:54:11.360 like that at some point pretty early in the process 00:54:11.360 --> 00:54:13.349 They go in and they clear out all the privets so they can 00:54:13.349 --> 00:54:16.599 count the trees stuff like that so okay, so 00:54:17.760 --> 00:54:21.449 So that this even this example though doesn't include the 00:54:21.449 --> 00:54:25.800 potential for a lot of mixed canopy areas 00:54:25.800 --> 00:54:27.800 I mean there are some areas that are solid oak 00:54:28.199 --> 00:54:31.300 That's that's not very common. It's only kind of a few rid 00:54:31.300 --> 00:54:32.559 ges in South Denton and 00:54:33.079 --> 00:54:35.440 You know most neighborhoods and most areas especially in 00:54:35.440 --> 00:54:37.800 the north. There's a lot of mesquite a lot of hackberry 00:54:38.039 --> 00:54:40.880 You know mixed in cedar and some areas are a lot of boat 00:54:40.880 --> 00:54:43.079 arc and so in that case 00:54:43.559 --> 00:54:45.559 There's a pretty good chance that 00:54:45.840 --> 00:54:49.840 this you know half 50% canopy might only be 00:54:51.119 --> 00:54:56.000 25% protected canopy could be yes, it's all site specific 00:54:56.800 --> 00:54:58.800 Thank you. You're welcome 00:55:00.880 --> 00:55:02.880 So 00:55:03.440 --> 00:55:06.000 Okay, so what I did was I did a comparison 00:55:07.039 --> 00:55:10.510 For that specific site and what their mitigation was under 00:55:10.510 --> 00:55:13.070 the current code and what it would look like under the 00:55:13.070 --> 00:55:13.760 proposed code 00:55:13.960 --> 00:55:15.960 so under the current code 00:55:16.000 --> 00:55:20.940 they preserve 618 diameter inches of trees which amounted 00:55:20.940 --> 00:55:21.039 to 00:55:22.000 --> 00:55:24.000 4.2 percent of the of the 00:55:24.559 --> 00:55:26.559 canopy of the site 00:55:26.800 --> 00:55:29.320 Under the proposed code they would have to preserve a bare 00:55:29.320 --> 00:55:32.400 minimum of 20% of the canopy on the site 00:55:33.880 --> 00:55:36.980 The tree fund payment for this particular site was two 00:55:36.980 --> 00:55:39.599 hundred and two thousand dollars and some change 00:55:40.800 --> 00:55:43.369 Under the proposed code if they opted to pay into the tree 00:55:43.369 --> 00:55:46.829 fund their tree fund payment would be a hundred and thirty 00:55:46.829 --> 00:55:47.519 eight thousand 00:55:48.360 --> 00:55:50.360 eight hundred dollars 00:55:51.239 --> 00:55:53.800 If they were mitigating under the 00:55:54.519 --> 00:55:57.619 Current code they would have to plant eight hundred and 00:55:57.619 --> 00:55:58.679 nine trees in 00:55:59.480 --> 00:56:02.769 Addition to any required landscaping trees which for the 00:56:02.769 --> 00:56:05.639 neighborhoods are generally going to be your street trees 00:56:07.440 --> 00:56:11.380 Under the proposed code at that one to six ratio they would 00:56:11.380 --> 00:56:15.119 have to plant two hundred and thirty four trees to mitigate 00:56:17.360 --> 00:56:20.869 So the number of lots as the site was developed under the 00:56:20.869 --> 00:56:23.099 current code was a hundred and three lots 00:56:23.920 --> 00:56:27.630 The proposed code to get that 20% preservation they lose a 00:56:27.630 --> 00:56:31.420 lot and a half basically so counting it as a hundred and 00:56:31.420 --> 00:56:32.320 one lots 00:56:34.480 --> 00:56:37.980 So under the current code based on you know 00:56:38.840 --> 00:56:41.099 Looking at some of the aerials and knowing what they 00:56:41.099 --> 00:56:41.679 planted 00:56:42.440 --> 00:56:45.360 Just counting the street trees and at least one tree per 00:56:45.360 --> 00:56:46.300 lot 00:56:46.880 --> 00:56:50.380 They planted an estimated 236 trees 00:56:52.360 --> 00:56:55.679 So what that really amounts to above what 00:56:56.760 --> 00:56:59.400 Would be required under the proposed code would be an 00:56:59.400 --> 00:57:03.079 addition of 13 trees and that's with that one to six ratio 00:57:03.280 --> 00:57:05.280 which is very important because 00:57:05.360 --> 00:57:06.760 the 00:57:06.760 --> 00:57:08.639 234 trees 00:57:08.639 --> 00:57:11.389 They're able to count towards their street trees the trees 00:57:11.389 --> 00:57:14.139 that they plant in the yards can also be a mitigation tree 00:57:15.079 --> 00:57:19.269 You know the goal is not to you know make it more difficult 00:57:19.269 --> 00:57:20.400 for developers 00:57:20.559 --> 00:57:25.500 You know my goal is you know a to make the 30% preservation 00:57:25.500 --> 00:57:27.500 if you can't make the 30% preservation 00:57:28.000 --> 00:57:31.400 Make at least a 20% and plant trees back on site 00:57:32.039 --> 00:57:34.760 Payment into the tree funds should really be the last 00:57:34.760 --> 00:57:36.320 option which means you know 00:57:36.320 --> 00:57:39.030 I can't put any additional trees on the site, and I didn't 00:57:39.030 --> 00:57:41.199 meet my preservation requirements 00:57:41.320 --> 00:57:44.360 But you know I see payment into the tree fund 00:57:44.360 --> 00:57:47.039 It is really a signal that you know we failed 00:57:47.280 --> 00:57:50.380 We failed to protect trees and we failed to put trees back 00:57:50.380 --> 00:57:54.619 on the site so for me that should always be the last option 00:57:57.079 --> 00:57:58.679 Question for you move on yes 00:57:58.679 --> 00:58:02.380 How did you do your calculation on the lot numbers they 00:58:02.380 --> 00:58:06.139 exactly the same size lots because if the 20% canopy on? 00:58:07.199 --> 00:58:10.960 11 acres is going to be two and a half 00:58:11.760 --> 00:58:15.090 Versus I think it was less than a half you got two more 00:58:15.090 --> 00:58:17.000 acres that you're losing 00:58:17.599 --> 00:58:20.679 I basically counted the lots in the neighborhood 00:58:22.239 --> 00:58:24.239 The only ones if I'm thinking 00:58:24.480 --> 00:58:27.599 That I may have missed with there was like maybe three or 00:58:27.599 --> 00:58:30.719 four that was south of of the the main street there 00:58:31.239 --> 00:58:34.389 But I basically went on the number of lots that that was 00:58:34.389 --> 00:58:38.360 that without were developed as it sits in the field today 00:58:39.119 --> 00:58:42.219 That's that I'm just doing the math in my mind from the 00:58:42.219 --> 00:58:42.800 previous 00:58:43.679 --> 00:58:47.380 Versus 20% of the 11 acres is going to be roughly two and 00:58:47.380 --> 00:58:49.840 almost two and a half acres 00:58:50.119 --> 00:58:52.119 so you got two acres less of 00:58:52.840 --> 00:58:55.610 property put lots on and those lots are probably going to 00:58:55.610 --> 00:58:55.840 be 00:58:56.639 --> 00:58:58.840 three to four lots an acre, so I'm just 00:58:59.639 --> 00:59:03.590 Curious how it works out with less acreage to develop that 00:59:03.590 --> 00:59:07.400 you get almost the same lot count and the second part that 00:59:08.159 --> 00:59:12.110 Dollar analogy doesn't take into account the acreage. That 00:59:12.110 --> 00:59:16.199 's now an undevelopable. That's not calculated in that those 00:59:16.199 --> 00:59:16.800 costs 00:59:17.679 --> 00:59:20.550 We're just talking about trees only we're not counting any 00:59:20.550 --> 00:59:21.760 of the other infrastructure 00:59:22.360 --> 00:59:25.639 Land purchase costs any of those types of things well 00:59:26.039 --> 00:59:28.369 I'm gonna pull this this slide back up because this may 00:59:28.369 --> 00:59:31.440 help to clarify what I did with looking at the 20% 00:59:32.000 --> 00:59:35.940 So on this side here. This is the two lots that were lost 00:59:35.940 --> 00:59:37.840 everything else remained 00:59:38.159 --> 00:59:41.699 As far as lots based on what is actually existing on the 00:59:41.699 --> 00:59:46.119 site this red color. That's your tree canopy so where this 00:59:47.599 --> 00:59:51.039 Tree camp is located is what would be in the back short 00:59:51.039 --> 00:59:56.119 backyards of these properties so along the west north 00:59:56.719 --> 01:00:00.170 The south side this is this this acreage that's counted for 01:00:00.170 --> 01:00:02.940 tree canopy isn't taking up acres that 01:00:03.840 --> 01:00:05.840 away from from 01:00:06.320 --> 01:00:09.420 Lots that were built with exception of the one and a half 01:00:09.420 --> 01:00:12.639 that I counted as two on this part of the property 01:00:12.800 --> 01:00:16.809 So that's where you know that acres is spread out so some 01:00:16.809 --> 01:00:19.679 of that is overlapping the lots 01:00:21.760 --> 01:00:23.760 In this example 01:00:24.199 --> 01:00:26.199 I'm just looking at the 01:00:26.760 --> 01:00:30.900 Site that you presented there were 11 acres and something 01:00:30.900 --> 01:00:33.159 of tree canopy if you've got to preserve 01:00:34.280 --> 01:00:39.230 20% minimum the ideal is 30, but a minimum is 20 on that 01:00:39.230 --> 01:00:41.320 site. You've got to then preserve at least two 01:00:42.880 --> 01:00:45.539 Two and a quarter two and a half acres of yes, that's what 01:00:45.539 --> 01:00:47.079 I calculated I understand 01:00:47.599 --> 01:00:50.849 It works out good in this example that you're able to do 01:00:50.849 --> 01:00:53.909 that because there's trees on the outside edge in this 01:00:53.909 --> 01:00:54.719 example 01:00:54.719 --> 01:00:57.559 But if the trees are in the center of the property 01:00:58.199 --> 01:01:01.500 You don't get that overhang in that fringe benefit 01:01:02.320 --> 01:01:04.860 You're gonna end up with a spot in the center there of two 01:01:04.860 --> 01:01:06.360 and a quarter two and a half acres 01:01:06.639 --> 01:01:10.119 That has to be preserved and it's not going to be overhang 01:01:10.119 --> 01:01:12.159 or whatever it is like it is 01:01:12.679 --> 01:01:15.230 Nicely in this example where it's around the edge is that 01:01:15.230 --> 01:01:15.559 make 01:01:16.199 --> 01:01:18.199 my explaining what my 01:01:18.559 --> 01:01:20.780 Looking at this and comparing to just any other site 01:01:20.780 --> 01:01:22.280 because it's around the edge 01:01:23.239 --> 01:01:26.340 It benefits this site versus this in the center of the site 01:01:26.340 --> 01:01:29.460 . It's very different. It's it's all site specific 01:01:29.460 --> 01:01:32.969 I understand and and and what it depends on is is you know, 01:01:32.969 --> 01:01:35.929 because what we what we require doesn't dictate how you 01:01:35.929 --> 01:01:36.380 know 01:01:36.380 --> 01:01:39.480 The development is laid out whether it's residential 01:01:39.480 --> 01:01:42.239 commercial. So it's it's basically, you know 01:01:42.760 --> 01:01:46.460 Being creative to a certain extent with you know, how the 01:01:46.460 --> 01:01:50.150 the subdivision is laid out to achieve, you know those 01:01:50.150 --> 01:01:50.539 numbers 01:01:51.280 --> 01:01:53.280 Okay 01:01:54.480 --> 01:01:56.000 Commissioner Zell 01:01:56.000 --> 01:01:58.000 Thank you chair. I'm not sure 01:01:58.619 --> 01:02:01.449 Who would best answer this and my the chair might be able 01:02:01.449 --> 01:02:02.880 to provide insight to this 01:02:04.480 --> 01:02:07.000 Why did the developer take down the perimeter trees to 01:02:07.000 --> 01:02:10.880 begin with when that add value to the property? I'm I'm 01:02:10.880 --> 01:02:12.159 trying to 01:02:12.880 --> 01:02:14.880 Just understand in this situation 01:02:15.440 --> 01:02:17.440 Why any of those red trees? 01:02:18.079 --> 01:02:20.719 Apart from the ones taking up the two lots 01:02:21.360 --> 01:02:24.010 Were even taken down and I don't know if there's an answer 01:02:24.010 --> 01:02:24.960 to be had by that 01:02:25.960 --> 01:02:28.630 Because it just seems like it was unnecessary to begin with 01:02:28.630 --> 01:02:31.820 if that if it didn't impact the building of those homes to 01:02:31.820 --> 01:02:32.500 begin with 01:02:33.679 --> 01:02:35.119 Is there 01:02:35.119 --> 01:02:37.119 Jared do you know what would be? 01:02:37.760 --> 01:02:41.300 Pure speculation, but why they would take the perimeter 01:02:41.300 --> 01:02:41.940 trees down 01:02:42.360 --> 01:02:46.369 Pure speculation is that when you look at a site that's as 01:02:46.369 --> 01:02:47.960 tight for most? 01:02:48.119 --> 01:02:50.230 developments that are in the city of Denton by the time you 01:02:50.230 --> 01:02:52.480 meet all the grading criteria on the lots 01:02:52.920 --> 01:02:56.019 The swales where the water has to go to the side yards and 01:02:56.019 --> 01:02:57.760 from the backyards to the front 01:02:58.199 --> 01:03:02.150 It's very difficult just to say we're gonna not touch part 01:03:02.150 --> 01:03:04.199 of it on a deal like that 01:03:04.199 --> 01:03:06.679 By the time you cut the streets and grade the pads 01:03:08.039 --> 01:03:11.280 If it's a home warranty subdivision, they typically have 01:03:11.280 --> 01:03:13.579 exclusions that you can't have any trees within so many 01:03:13.579 --> 01:03:15.159 feet of houses 01:03:15.159 --> 01:03:17.920 I think it's at least 10 feet or they don't extend coverage 01:03:18.280 --> 01:03:22.840 So I can't I'm gonna speculate sir all those things go into 01:03:22.840 --> 01:03:25.280 what makes it really difficult and 01:03:25.920 --> 01:03:29.760 Kind of what's been my concern on the tree preservation 01:03:30.400 --> 01:03:34.760 Is it's very difficult to do because of the density on 01:03:34.760 --> 01:03:35.800 these sites? 01:03:37.920 --> 01:03:40.260 To save the trees that's what I was kind of thinking I was 01:03:40.260 --> 01:03:43.210 just looking at this and and it does seem that you're 01:03:43.210 --> 01:03:44.280 presenting a 01:03:44.960 --> 01:03:47.269 Solution that would be workable for this but in my mind I 01:03:47.269 --> 01:03:49.119 was saying there had to have been a reason 01:03:51.079 --> 01:03:54.659 Logistically why why it wouldn't have happened it maybe the 01:03:54.659 --> 01:03:58.079 presentation is is maybe better in theory 01:03:58.840 --> 01:04:02.550 In terms of ease and cost to the actual development and so 01:04:02.550 --> 01:04:04.179 I appreciate you. Let me 01:04:04.840 --> 01:04:08.269 Think through that sure and I can't speak specifically to 01:04:08.269 --> 01:04:08.840 this site 01:04:08.840 --> 01:04:13.360 I can say that I've had had the opportunity to work with a 01:04:14.000 --> 01:04:17.920 developer on a different residential site where initially 01:04:17.920 --> 01:04:21.079 they weren't meeting the current tree code requirements and 01:04:21.559 --> 01:04:24.659 and meeting with the engineer that was laying out the site 01:04:24.659 --> 01:04:24.960 and 01:04:25.840 --> 01:04:28.679 Their contractor that was actually doing the on-site 01:04:28.679 --> 01:04:29.320 grading 01:04:29.920 --> 01:04:31.920 We were able to preserve 01:04:32.000 --> 01:04:34.400 additional trees to where they didn't have to 01:04:36.760 --> 01:04:38.199 Mitigate through 01:04:38.199 --> 01:04:41.300 Payment into the tree fund and and and a large part it 01:04:41.300 --> 01:04:44.679 ended up similar to this where they were trees around the 01:04:44.679 --> 01:04:44.880 perimeter 01:04:44.880 --> 01:04:46.880 That ends up in the backyards 01:04:47.239 --> 01:04:51.489 But you know like the commission strange mentioned a lot of 01:04:51.489 --> 01:04:54.039 its real site specific how is existing 01:04:55.199 --> 01:04:58.599 You know the existing slopes and everything are on the land 01:04:58.599 --> 01:04:59.679 so it it's all 01:05:00.519 --> 01:05:02.880 You know very specific to the individual site 01:05:03.480 --> 01:05:05.639 Understood. Thank you. I'll take one additional 01:05:06.199 --> 01:05:09.829 Point as we move forward in the presentation and further 01:05:09.829 --> 01:05:10.679 discussion 01:05:11.719 --> 01:05:14.369 Is there going to be some kind of an adjustment in the 01:05:14.369 --> 01:05:16.519 development code that if you? 01:05:16.719 --> 01:05:19.559 Preserve these trees you get some kind of density transfer 01:05:19.559 --> 01:05:20.679 or it's that density 01:05:21.199 --> 01:05:25.539 Lost what how's that work? There's not a density transfer 01:05:26.280 --> 01:05:29.650 There is as mentioned earlier. There's credit that's given 01:05:29.650 --> 01:05:32.199 towards required landscape canopy 01:05:32.480 --> 01:05:36.400 So you do get you know credit for those trees? 01:05:36.559 --> 01:05:39.699 Towards what you're required to to have on your site 01:05:41.360 --> 01:05:43.659 So if you end up with a site that you've got ten acres of 01:05:43.659 --> 01:05:47.039 preservation as long as it's in in the zoning 01:05:47.719 --> 01:05:50.059 You can preserve that you just may have to make your lot 01:05:50.059 --> 01:05:53.239 smaller and tighter to get your same lot count 01:05:54.840 --> 01:05:56.840 That's goes beyond my expertise 01:05:57.840 --> 01:06:00.559 Okay, yeah, well, I'd be interested to hear how that 01:06:01.400 --> 01:06:03.400 gets factored in 01:06:03.440 --> 01:06:05.440 As this goes forward 01:06:08.559 --> 01:06:10.559 Commissioner has been signed there was a question somewhere 01:06:10.559 --> 01:06:13.280 . I apologize. Thank you. So before it's too late 01:06:13.280 --> 01:06:15.590 So first I want to own a comminute. Hey, we're on a few 01:06:15.590 --> 01:06:16.480 different things 01:06:17.159 --> 01:06:20.500 So I'm I'm a static that we've been talking 01:06:21.119 --> 01:06:24.829 Lot size right because that that means you've stepped out 01:06:24.829 --> 01:06:27.760 of your normal role and understanding 01:06:28.280 --> 01:06:31.869 This this citizen we're serving and and kind of hey, I'm 01:06:31.869 --> 01:06:34.480 reaching out. I don't understand it, but I'm trying to 01:06:35.119 --> 01:06:38.670 At least purport to your lingo and and take that in 01:06:38.670 --> 01:06:39.599 consideration 01:06:39.599 --> 01:06:42.699 I think that's great and I and I wish that would happen 01:06:42.699 --> 01:06:43.079 more often 01:06:43.639 --> 01:06:46.219 And I'm gonna say this just because I don't know for what a 01:06:46.219 --> 01:06:46.719 slot is 01:06:46.719 --> 01:06:49.880 But but I'm saying I'm a static that we've gotten this far 01:06:49.880 --> 01:06:50.760 and we hadn't talked about 01:06:51.079 --> 01:06:53.599 This other city's doing this that or the other, you know 01:06:53.599 --> 01:06:56.460 that it's homegrown and it's home developed and that is 01:06:56.460 --> 01:06:57.400 encouraging to me 01:06:58.559 --> 01:07:00.559 and then 01:07:00.880 --> 01:07:03.400 There's precious few things that I've dealt with in the 01:07:03.400 --> 01:07:03.960 city that 01:07:04.920 --> 01:07:06.739 Aren't looking for money, you know 01:07:06.739 --> 01:07:09.579 So that that too is a positive that you're trying to serve 01:07:09.579 --> 01:07:11.679 a community understand that community 01:07:11.920 --> 01:07:14.530 Understand the challenges that face that community and we 01:07:14.530 --> 01:07:15.860 're not trying to you know 01:07:17.400 --> 01:07:19.539 Take their money and build a statue with it, you know, 01:07:19.539 --> 01:07:22.920 whatever so that's I'm just excited about all that 01:07:23.400 --> 01:07:25.400 And I think it's important to say 01:07:26.239 --> 01:07:27.400 before 01:07:27.400 --> 01:07:30.340 whatever else but I just think that's really a good thing 01:07:30.340 --> 01:07:34.280 to try to look into that world and then I 01:07:37.800 --> 01:07:39.800 Do 01:07:40.280 --> 01:07:42.480 For what it's worth I just think I don't know 01:07:43.840 --> 01:07:48.280 This this lays out pretty well to me, but I would ask that 01:07:49.079 --> 01:07:51.889 I'd asked I guess those have been on the panel a little 01:07:51.889 --> 01:07:55.280 longer on the Commission a little longer has a 01:07:55.920 --> 01:07:57.920 home developer ever come 01:07:58.159 --> 01:08:01.420 Do a work session do it because I mean I mean you rattle 01:08:01.420 --> 01:08:01.619 off 01:08:01.960 --> 01:08:03.519 I understand what a padside is 01:08:03.519 --> 01:08:06.059 I understand grading understand all that but if you gave me 01:08:06.059 --> 01:08:08.840 a blank piece of paper and said go beginning to end on a 01:08:08.840 --> 01:08:09.280 building 01:08:09.280 --> 01:08:12.670 Process I'd start at one with you start building and end it 01:08:12.670 --> 01:08:14.300 to you in building, you know 01:08:14.300 --> 01:08:17.050 So I think it's important that we have a developer of some 01:08:17.050 --> 01:08:17.359 sort 01:08:17.359 --> 01:08:18.439 I don't know if you've ever had it 01:08:18.439 --> 01:08:21.340 But I'd like to request that as a some sort of work session 01:08:21.340 --> 01:08:22.199 that a developer 01:08:22.199 --> 01:08:24.760 Maybe a commercial developer and a home developer two 01:08:24.760 --> 01:08:28.220 different times come just give us a give us a day in the 01:08:28.220 --> 01:08:28.619 life 01:08:29.159 --> 01:08:31.840 You know just say talk to us. What what do you do? What are 01:08:31.840 --> 01:08:33.520 you looking at? Well? Here's an example 01:08:33.520 --> 01:08:36.270 Here's how we get from a to B. Here's we have to consider. 01:08:36.270 --> 01:08:37.920 Here's the here's the bumps in the road 01:08:37.920 --> 01:08:40.729 I mean no different than any other presentation we get I 01:08:40.729 --> 01:08:42.060 think that's that's good insight 01:08:47.439 --> 01:08:50.800 Okay, I think I have maybe a couple of more slides here let 01:08:50.800 --> 01:08:53.439 me get back to where it was at so 01:08:55.760 --> 01:08:57.329 As a part of this process, you know, we solicited as I 01:08:57.329 --> 01:09:01.680 mentioned earlier input from the community via a 01:09:03.199 --> 01:09:05.199 Visual preference survey and 01:09:05.319 --> 01:09:08.439 These are some of the the main takeaways that that we got 01:09:08.439 --> 01:09:09.600 from that survey 01:09:09.880 --> 01:09:12.760 Was that the city should work to preserve and grow more 01:09:12.760 --> 01:09:14.680 trees that are well maintained 01:09:16.359 --> 01:09:18.359 Tree plantings should be 01:09:19.239 --> 01:09:21.939 Tree plantings should maintain clear line of sight and 01:09:21.939 --> 01:09:25.319 visibility of business addresses and signage 01:09:26.800 --> 01:09:29.369 nighttime pedestrian safety on sidewalks and parking lots 01:09:29.369 --> 01:09:32.760 should be a consideration with new plantings and 01:09:33.840 --> 01:09:36.279 Parking lots should be designed to provide shade 01:09:36.800 --> 01:09:40.060 But deter bird populations that nest in trees that last 01:09:40.060 --> 01:09:42.659 part you know, it's kind of a tricky one 01:09:44.600 --> 01:09:46.600 Yeah, so 01:09:51.319 --> 01:09:53.319 Yeah 01:09:54.239 --> 01:09:57.840 So at this time what I wanted to do was actually go through 01:09:58.560 --> 01:10:02.479 the proposed ordinance I put some handouts out there and 01:10:02.479 --> 01:10:04.199 what I'm going to do is just 01:10:05.479 --> 01:10:08.670 Hit the highlights of the areas that are significantly 01:10:08.670 --> 01:10:12.079 different from the previous the tree the previous code 01:10:12.520 --> 01:10:17.210 You have a red line version. Yes, I think I know we have 01:10:17.210 --> 01:10:18.079 food tonight 01:10:18.239 --> 01:10:20.000 Okay, would it now be a good time for us? 01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:22.520 Maybe take a five minute break get some food and we can 01:10:22.520 --> 01:10:24.960 just work on through till we run out of time 01:10:25.199 --> 01:10:29.960 Yes, good with that. I'm gonna call a recess at 545 and let 01:10:29.960 --> 01:10:31.359 's try to get back in here at 01:10:32.079 --> 01:10:34.079 550 and continue 01:10:42.520 --> 01:10:44.520 I 01:10:46.960 --> 01:10:49.479 Gonna call our planning is on the Commission work session 01:10:49.479 --> 01:10:52.000 back in order at 552 01:10:56.840 --> 01:11:00.329 Okay, so what I like to do now is basically do a page turn 01:11:00.329 --> 01:11:02.319 through the proposed 01:11:04.439 --> 01:11:08.449 Tree code that that we are put in fourth and what I'm going 01:11:08.449 --> 01:11:12.140 to highlight is are the things that are the major 01:11:12.840 --> 01:11:15.199 changes from the existing 01:11:16.239 --> 01:11:18.039 tree code 01:11:18.039 --> 01:11:21.140 So everyone should have a handout in front of you and the 01:11:21.140 --> 01:11:23.939 one I'm going for miss the one that's the black and white 01:11:23.939 --> 01:11:24.579 copy here 01:11:28.039 --> 01:11:29.159 So 01:11:29.159 --> 01:11:32.489 One of the things that we did with this is we looked at our 01:11:32.489 --> 01:11:35.479 definition sections as you see on page two here 01:11:36.079 --> 01:11:37.560 to 01:11:37.560 --> 01:11:38.479 actually 01:11:38.479 --> 01:11:41.079 Revise some of these definitions to be more 01:11:41.920 --> 01:11:43.479 in sync with 01:11:43.479 --> 01:11:46.140 definitions by the International Society of Abora culture 01:11:46.760 --> 01:11:50.310 Felt it was very important to not just have definitions 01:11:50.310 --> 01:11:52.319 that you know that that we feel are 01:11:54.279 --> 01:11:58.199 Unique to Denton but to have definitions that would be 01:11:59.199 --> 01:12:02.359 Universal for those who are coming in and actually having 01:12:02.359 --> 01:12:05.840 to read our code and look at the language in the code 01:12:09.159 --> 01:12:12.069 So just had you know, let's say just a few of those 01:12:12.069 --> 01:12:13.520 definitions some that 01:12:14.720 --> 01:12:18.399 Were changed the definition in here for public utilities 01:12:18.399 --> 01:12:21.909 We moved it out and are going to use the the definition in 01:12:21.909 --> 01:12:25.140 the code that's used elsewhere for basic utility 01:12:26.640 --> 01:12:31.039 The definition for qualified professional we removed that 01:12:33.000 --> 01:12:36.539 Requirement out for a qualified professional and just 01:12:36.539 --> 01:12:38.619 stated an ISA certified obris 01:12:39.159 --> 01:12:42.960 The reason being we went to the ISA certified obris was 01:12:42.960 --> 01:12:44.800 again as an international 01:12:45.600 --> 01:12:46.760 certification 01:12:46.760 --> 01:12:48.840 And it's something that I can verify 01:12:50.199 --> 01:12:53.199 Through their website if the person's credentials are 01:12:54.279 --> 01:12:55.600 valid 01:12:55.600 --> 01:12:59.560 Under the current code is really no way for me to validate 01:13:00.199 --> 01:13:04.189 Someone's credentials when they sent when they send in true 01:13:04.189 --> 01:13:06.319 preservation code short of you know 01:13:06.319 --> 01:13:08.640 Requiring them to send in a copy of their degree 01:13:09.159 --> 01:13:11.159 So 01:13:13.279 --> 01:13:15.279 Moving down 01:13:15.520 --> 01:13:19.680 Get into section a of the code we have 01:13:22.119 --> 01:13:24.800 That this mic seems to be turned down low 01:13:26.359 --> 01:13:28.359 Okay, so 01:13:28.600 --> 01:13:31.119 What we decide to do is for some of the definitions that 01:13:31.119 --> 01:13:33.119 are specific to the tree code 01:13:33.520 --> 01:13:36.619 Was we put those in at the beginning of this particular sub 01:13:36.619 --> 01:13:37.119 section? 01:13:37.960 --> 01:13:39.960 To make it you know a little more user-friendly 01:13:40.279 --> 01:13:43.380 For someone that's going through the code and you know they 01:13:43.380 --> 01:13:46.039 come across the definitions and they want to look at you 01:13:46.039 --> 01:13:46.079 know 01:13:46.079 --> 01:13:49.760 What that definition means so we added in? 01:13:51.119 --> 01:13:53.119 You know definition for 01:13:53.960 --> 01:13:55.960 cross-timbers forest here 01:13:55.960 --> 01:13:57.960 developer exempt trees 01:13:58.199 --> 01:14:02.159 Yes, why do we have developer instead of property owner? 01:14:04.439 --> 01:14:07.880 Commonplace most of the time whenever you know someone 01:14:07.880 --> 01:14:10.460 comes to the city is you know the developer that's 01:14:10.460 --> 01:14:12.840 representing the property owner that we deal with 01:14:13.680 --> 01:14:16.779 Through the development process in some instances. We may 01:14:16.779 --> 01:14:18.159 not even see the property owner 01:14:19.920 --> 01:14:23.479 Of who is being represented by the developer well 01:14:24.479 --> 01:14:26.510 Because I think it states that you know whether it's a 01:14:26.510 --> 01:14:27.880 representative or not in the code 01:14:27.880 --> 01:14:31.380 I guess my concern about this is that it somewhat misleads 01:14:31.380 --> 01:14:32.119 the public 01:14:32.560 --> 01:14:35.409 Because this tree code now doesn't just apply to property 01:14:35.409 --> 01:14:38.319 being developed it now applies to every piece of property 01:14:38.319 --> 01:14:39.239 in the city that 01:14:39.720 --> 01:14:42.880 Whether it's a single-family existing lot, so if somebody 01:14:42.880 --> 01:14:44.399 wants to 01:14:45.479 --> 01:14:47.479 put swimming pool in 01:14:47.680 --> 01:14:49.880 Make an addition to their home, and they've got to cut down 01:14:50.880 --> 01:14:52.560 two or three 01:14:52.560 --> 01:14:56.479 Protected trees 18 inch trees they will now have to follow 01:14:56.479 --> 01:14:57.640 this they'll have to pay 01:14:58.159 --> 01:15:00.680 Whatever four or five thousand dollars a tree for each one 01:15:00.680 --> 01:15:01.199 of those 01:15:02.319 --> 01:15:04.319 That's not totally accurate 01:15:04.960 --> 01:15:07.479 Straighten out me out where I'm not correct under the 01:15:07.479 --> 01:15:08.239 existing code 01:15:08.960 --> 01:15:11.340 And it's a little bit. You know confusing because they 01:15:11.340 --> 01:15:14.539 state that there's an exempt them for single-family and 01:15:15.680 --> 01:15:18.560 Duplex properties, but if you go under the permitting 01:15:18.560 --> 01:15:19.060 section 01:15:19.060 --> 01:15:22.199 It says that those same properties are required to have a 01:15:22.199 --> 01:15:24.199 permit to remove five or more trees 01:15:24.479 --> 01:15:28.760 So they had a partial exemption under the current code 01:15:29.399 --> 01:15:31.399 But not a full exemption 01:15:31.560 --> 01:15:33.560 in order right yeah and 01:15:33.720 --> 01:15:37.420 Second if it's five or more under the current code, but it 01:15:37.420 --> 01:15:38.319 doesn't specify 01:15:38.600 --> 01:15:43.140 You know five trees today five trees this week five trees 01:15:43.720 --> 01:15:46.439 You know a year. It just says five trees is very 01:15:48.199 --> 01:15:51.640 Very gray area you know when trying to actually enforce 01:15:52.600 --> 01:15:56.539 That particular section of the code as far as you're right 01:15:56.539 --> 01:15:58.439 every property would be 01:15:59.039 --> 01:16:01.039 under this existing tree code 01:16:02.000 --> 01:16:04.600 Requiring a property owner to receive to get a permit to 01:16:04.600 --> 01:16:07.520 remove a tree that's large than five inches 01:16:08.520 --> 01:16:10.520 Does a couple of things? 01:16:10.520 --> 01:16:14.750 It gives me or you know the city a chance to actually you 01:16:14.750 --> 01:16:15.439 know 01:16:15.880 --> 01:16:17.819 Work with the property owner on what they're doing in the 01:16:17.819 --> 01:16:19.680 case if they're building a swimming pool 01:16:20.760 --> 01:16:24.130 You know that request is going to come in with their you 01:16:24.130 --> 01:16:27.149 know excavation permit to actually put that pool in they 01:16:27.149 --> 01:16:27.720 will now 01:16:28.600 --> 01:16:31.699 Even under the existing code that request would come in it 01:16:31.699 --> 01:16:34.180 was five or less if it was five or less 01:16:35.079 --> 01:16:38.399 Inevitably the the question would come up about trees 01:16:39.600 --> 01:16:41.810 But what I was getting to is it gives me the chance to talk 01:16:41.810 --> 01:16:43.880 with the homeowner in some cases 01:16:44.960 --> 01:16:46.960 and I had a 01:16:47.600 --> 01:16:51.489 Request from one of our senior residents here in town where 01:16:51.489 --> 01:16:52.000 she was 01:16:53.439 --> 01:16:56.140 Was was told that the tree in her backyard need to be cut 01:16:56.140 --> 01:16:58.800 down that you know it had some issues you know about the 01:16:58.800 --> 01:17:01.199 Tree guy that she had look at it well 01:17:01.199 --> 01:17:04.050 I went out to the site and I looked up looked at the tree 01:17:04.050 --> 01:17:08.239 inspected the tree for and I didn't see any 01:17:09.439 --> 01:17:11.680 Justification to cut that tree down 01:17:12.199 --> 01:17:17.159 So by requiring a permit in some cases as this you know it 01:17:17.159 --> 01:17:19.960 gives that homeowner a little bit extra protection some 01:17:20.319 --> 01:17:24.020 Unbiased eyes to look at this tree not just the guy that 01:17:24.020 --> 01:17:26.899 wants to remove the tree and make you know 01:17:27.119 --> 01:17:29.000 A thousand bucks fifteen hundred bucks or whatever they're 01:17:29.000 --> 01:17:29.359 charging 01:17:30.079 --> 01:17:32.079 in other instances 01:17:32.319 --> 01:17:34.319 You know I had a local 01:17:34.920 --> 01:17:38.199 Commercial site you know the owners of the building came in 01:17:38.199 --> 01:17:40.199 and they wanted to remove the tree 01:17:40.199 --> 01:17:40.720 So I said well 01:17:40.720 --> 01:17:42.520 Let me come out to the site and look at the tree see 01:17:42.520 --> 01:17:44.939 exactly what you're talking about and their concern was 01:17:44.939 --> 01:17:45.319 mainly 01:17:45.359 --> 01:17:48.220 To do with visibility they had a new tenant coming in they 01:17:48.220 --> 01:17:50.279 want to make sure the sign was visible 01:17:50.279 --> 01:17:53.500 So I met with them on the site and they had you know it's 01:17:53.500 --> 01:17:54.840 two nice live oak trees 01:17:54.840 --> 01:17:57.729 And you know I pointed out to him. I was like really you 01:17:57.729 --> 01:17:57.960 can 01:17:58.720 --> 01:18:02.439 You can prune off you know these branches and accomplish 01:18:02.439 --> 01:18:05.409 the same thing without the added expense of actually 01:18:05.409 --> 01:18:06.439 removing the tree 01:18:06.800 --> 01:18:08.800 so it's really 01:18:09.439 --> 01:18:12.619 You know twofold is this you know to to have a chance to 01:18:12.619 --> 01:18:15.920 interact with the public and educate them on on their trees 01:18:16.560 --> 01:18:20.020 But and also to give them you know a second opinion that 01:18:20.020 --> 01:18:22.199 they may have received from 01:18:22.680 --> 01:18:26.109 You know a tree service that you know just like to come in 01:18:26.109 --> 01:18:27.199 and cut down their tree 01:18:27.359 --> 01:18:30.479 When the tree really doesn't need to be removed 01:18:30.479 --> 01:18:33.630 I don't have a problem with either of those examples, and 01:18:33.630 --> 01:18:36.539 that's not really what my point is my point is that we 01:18:36.539 --> 01:18:37.439 define 01:18:38.079 --> 01:18:41.529 Anybody as a developer versus as a property owner so when 01:18:41.529 --> 01:18:44.800 you read it it almost makes it seem like it's these guys 01:18:44.800 --> 01:18:45.479 over here 01:18:45.479 --> 01:18:47.279 We're not really land developers 01:18:47.279 --> 01:18:50.829 So this kind of doesn't apply and really it does apply 01:18:50.829 --> 01:18:53.760 because anybody that owns property in the city of Denton if 01:18:53.760 --> 01:18:54.319 you want to cut 01:18:54.319 --> 01:18:57.239 Down any tree in the city of Denton whether it's on a 01:18:57.239 --> 01:18:57.920 single family 01:18:58.520 --> 01:19:02.020 Larry which I know wouldn't want to cut down a tree larger 01:19:02.020 --> 01:19:03.840 than five inches on this property 01:19:04.319 --> 01:19:07.119 This applies to him he has to come in and get a permit 01:19:07.399 --> 01:19:10.500 If it's larger, and it's one of these larger trees, and he 01:19:10.500 --> 01:19:12.600 has to pay into the tree fund to do that 01:19:12.600 --> 01:19:15.920 So it applies to every citizen that lives in our city 01:19:16.279 --> 01:19:19.430 Not just a guy that's going out and doing 25 acres worth of 01:19:19.430 --> 01:19:20.420 land development 01:19:20.760 --> 01:19:23.619 Correct this new code correct, and that's why I don't think 01:19:23.619 --> 01:19:25.319 developer is a correct 01:19:25.920 --> 01:19:27.920 term to put versus 01:19:28.560 --> 01:19:29.640 citizen 01:19:29.640 --> 01:19:32.560 Property owner because it's going to apply to everybody 01:19:33.199 --> 01:19:36.449 Most most people are not going to consider themselves to be 01:19:36.449 --> 01:19:37.800 a developer 01:19:37.800 --> 01:19:40.720 and that's why we actually include the definition because 01:19:41.199 --> 01:19:44.569 Even though even with the mom and pop develop property 01:19:44.569 --> 01:19:46.399 owner when they enter 01:19:47.399 --> 01:19:50.199 When they start submitting those applications they do in 01:19:50.199 --> 01:19:53.399 fact become a developer and that doesn't change so they 01:19:53.720 --> 01:19:56.079 They do assume their role, and that's why we wanted to make 01:19:56.079 --> 01:19:57.319 it clear in the ordinance 01:20:00.159 --> 01:20:03.760 Well, I may be the only lone wolf here that has a problem 01:20:03.760 --> 01:20:06.279 with with it saying developer because I think it's 01:20:06.279 --> 01:20:07.880 misleading to the general public 01:20:08.560 --> 01:20:11.319 Because most people are not going to consider themselves to 01:20:11.319 --> 01:20:14.159 be developer when they read this they think 01:20:14.840 --> 01:20:17.939 All the way through here it refers to developer they have 01:20:17.939 --> 01:20:20.880 to come back and read what the city's definition is 01:20:21.680 --> 01:20:25.630 Versus that they are a private individual and if they want 01:20:25.630 --> 01:20:28.680 to cut down a tree on their property greater than five this 01:20:28.680 --> 01:20:30.039 applies to them not 01:20:31.399 --> 01:20:34.609 Developer I don't think anybody in a neighborhood that 01:20:34.609 --> 01:20:37.420 lives there when they read developer thinks well that 01:20:37.420 --> 01:20:38.119 applies to me 01:20:39.399 --> 01:20:42.010 Commissioner Taylor, thank you chair. I was wondering I 01:20:42.010 --> 01:20:42.720 feel like 01:20:43.479 --> 01:20:46.779 The word developer is not a common noun used in development 01:20:46.779 --> 01:20:49.520 code would something like applicants 01:20:50.239 --> 01:20:52.520 Or property owner, and then you can define property owners 01:20:52.520 --> 01:20:54.079 property owner or their agent 01:20:55.039 --> 01:20:57.590 What be more kind of in line with what most of the 01:20:57.590 --> 01:20:59.840 development code it says? 01:21:01.880 --> 01:21:05.569 Note that as a recommendation as we move forward with the 01:21:05.569 --> 01:21:06.720 ordinance 01:21:08.640 --> 01:21:10.640 Okay 01:21:11.439 --> 01:21:15.500 So moving on just gonna just briefly go through some of the 01:21:15.500 --> 01:21:17.720 additional definitions 01:21:18.279 --> 01:21:21.739 We added another definition for the International Society 01:21:21.739 --> 01:21:23.000 of Bar Culture ISA 01:21:23.680 --> 01:21:24.920 in 01:21:24.920 --> 01:21:28.840 specific relation to the requirement for an ISA certified 01:21:28.840 --> 01:21:31.119 arborist to prepare or sign off on 01:21:31.680 --> 01:21:34.640 tree preservation and tree mitigation plans 01:21:35.479 --> 01:21:37.479 with this proposed revision 01:21:38.560 --> 01:21:40.560 Actually 01:21:41.079 --> 01:21:43.960 We had in here and this should have been taken out the 01:21:43.960 --> 01:21:47.270 definition for landscape architect was in there specific to 01:21:47.270 --> 01:21:48.760 when we had qualified 01:21:48.880 --> 01:21:50.880 professionals, but that it actually should 01:21:51.640 --> 01:21:53.640 Not be in there 01:21:54.920 --> 01:21:59.869 We added in general definitions for pruning the structural 01:21:59.869 --> 01:22:01.119 value of urban of 01:22:01.760 --> 01:22:04.159 Urban forests or the urban forest structural value 01:22:05.159 --> 01:22:08.310 We had in the definition for tree oddly enough. There was 01:22:08.310 --> 01:22:10.880 not a definition for a tree in the current code 01:22:12.239 --> 01:22:16.159 We added in tree canopy tree preservation plan 01:22:16.840 --> 01:22:20.789 tree protection zone tree survey urban forestry and urban 01:22:20.789 --> 01:22:21.680 forester 01:22:26.600 --> 01:22:29.399 Okay moving on to the next page page five here 01:22:30.760 --> 01:22:33.279 The purpose and intent for the most part 01:22:34.479 --> 01:22:37.579 Stayed the same. It was reworked a little bit from the 01:22:37.579 --> 01:22:37.960 current 01:22:38.520 --> 01:22:43.760 Code the addition of adding in the expansion of tree canopy 01:22:45.720 --> 01:22:48.720 Towards one of the goals of the regulation was added 01:22:52.000 --> 01:22:54.359 Under the objectives again a lot of this was in the 01:22:54.359 --> 01:22:56.119 existing code 01:22:57.520 --> 01:22:59.520 We reworked some of the language 01:23:00.399 --> 01:23:02.399 to include in 01:23:02.920 --> 01:23:04.479 line B 01:23:04.479 --> 01:23:07.000 Through the preservation and mitigation of planting of 01:23:07.000 --> 01:23:07.199 trees 01:23:08.960 --> 01:23:12.840 We added in to promote the preservation of the remnants of 01:23:12.840 --> 01:23:15.039 of the cross timbers forests and 01:23:15.720 --> 01:23:18.890 We added in to preserve the public health and safety and 01:23:18.890 --> 01:23:21.239 general welfare of the citizens 01:23:23.239 --> 01:23:27.829 Okay, so under the applicability section which this section 01:23:27.829 --> 01:23:31.199 was worked out was reworked a lot up until today 01:23:33.479 --> 01:23:37.239 Commissioner Taylor, yes under applicability a 01:23:39.279 --> 01:23:43.119 IID yes, just just a nitpick on the word 01:23:43.359 --> 01:23:45.880 It's it's like it's about a triple negative and I think it 01:23:45.880 --> 01:23:48.960 actually excludes something. It's not supposed to exclude 01:23:49.920 --> 01:23:52.770 Governmental property that is located within the city 01:23:52.770 --> 01:23:55.680 limits unless the property is as follows 01:23:56.239 --> 01:23:58.340 Public utilities and infrastructure constructed during new 01:23:58.340 --> 01:24:00.079 development, but not reconstruction 01:24:00.920 --> 01:24:03.199 Must comply with street tree requirements only 01:24:05.079 --> 01:24:07.909 Reconstruction isn't mentioned so and it's not in the 01:24:07.909 --> 01:24:11.670 exclusion list. So that seems like reconstruction then 01:24:11.670 --> 01:24:12.640 would 01:24:13.199 --> 01:24:15.199 not be excluded I 01:24:15.680 --> 01:24:18.550 Think the goal is to exclude reconstruction altogether and 01:24:18.550 --> 01:24:21.119 new construction has to meet the street trees only 01:24:21.359 --> 01:24:23.800 All right, just a just a nitpick on the wording 01:24:30.920 --> 01:24:32.920 Not reconstruction for the public infrastructure 01:24:33.840 --> 01:24:37.680 Yes, so maybe split that into two like to say 01:24:38.520 --> 01:24:39.640 public 01:24:39.640 --> 01:24:42.750 Utilities as part of reconstruction fully excluded public 01:24:42.750 --> 01:24:45.659 utilities for new construction shall comply with street 01:24:45.659 --> 01:24:47.920 tree requirements only something like that 01:24:51.279 --> 01:24:53.640 Okay, I have a question under 01:24:54.359 --> 01:24:59.310 Building yes under a one. What is what what is the 01:24:59.310 --> 01:25:02.439 definitive part of what defines development? 01:25:02.439 --> 01:25:05.439 Is it making an application is it out there moving dirt? 01:25:06.399 --> 01:25:08.520 What what is the trigger that defines? 01:25:09.199 --> 01:25:11.199 one year or more prior to development 01:25:17.600 --> 01:25:20.699 Development is the filing of an application that's required 01:25:20.699 --> 01:25:22.800 by the government body in order to pursue 01:25:23.399 --> 01:25:25.399 So it's actual paper 01:25:26.279 --> 01:25:28.840 Filing rather than work. Okay 01:25:32.279 --> 01:25:34.279 Thank you 01:25:38.760 --> 01:25:42.640 Okay, so this section was basically reworked to 01:25:43.760 --> 01:25:46.960 Put everything under under the ability instead of having 01:25:46.960 --> 01:25:49.359 the applicability section and then a separate exemptions 01:25:49.359 --> 01:25:50.560 section 01:25:52.119 --> 01:25:56.069 So there were many things under the exemption section that 01:25:56.069 --> 01:25:57.199 you know really 01:25:59.840 --> 01:26:02.560 Could be handled by administrative decision, you know a 01:26:02.560 --> 01:26:04.199 tree farm does not need 01:26:04.560 --> 01:26:07.520 To as you know, the code does not apply to a tree farm 01:26:07.520 --> 01:26:11.470 The code does not apply to a dead tree or a tree that's 01:26:11.470 --> 01:26:12.000 hazardous 01:26:12.000 --> 01:26:15.829 You know those you know basic situation that if someone 01:26:15.829 --> 01:26:18.770 came in and you know, I say no, you know, it's dead cut it 01:26:18.770 --> 01:26:19.079 down 01:26:19.079 --> 01:26:21.079 No, you don't need to count dead trees 01:26:21.359 --> 01:26:24.760 In your survey or hazardous trees or disease trees 01:26:24.760 --> 01:26:28.710 So things like that and it balled back down to Dylan, you 01:26:28.710 --> 01:26:31.640 know mainly with the applicability to 01:26:33.359 --> 01:26:35.960 Government owned or city owned properties 01:26:37.119 --> 01:26:39.119 And what have you 01:26:40.600 --> 01:26:42.600 So on the next page here 01:26:44.079 --> 01:26:46.079 Preservation requirements and incentives 01:26:47.399 --> 01:26:51.279 Again this is totally brand new section here 01:26:52.359 --> 01:26:54.600 letter I through 01:26:55.560 --> 01:26:56.880 IV 01:26:56.880 --> 01:27:00.210 And this basically still spills out the 30% preservation 01:27:00.210 --> 01:27:03.350 requirements based on square footage of pre-development 01:27:03.350 --> 01:27:03.840 canopy 01:27:05.880 --> 01:27:11.210 It's calling out a minimum of of 20% preservation on new 01:27:11.210 --> 01:27:13.079 agricultural 01:27:14.199 --> 01:27:16.899 Development or activities on to a site and that's that 01:27:16.899 --> 01:27:20.560 covers a site that's currently not in agriculture 01:27:20.720 --> 01:27:23.750 But they come to the city and they want to do you know, say 01:27:23.750 --> 01:27:26.140 a vineyard or an aquaponics or greenhouses 01:27:26.779 --> 01:27:29.239 Set up that's what that provision 01:27:30.359 --> 01:27:34.079 Goes for that that type of agricultural development the 01:27:34.079 --> 01:27:35.020 next 01:27:36.560 --> 01:27:38.560 section 01:27:39.680 --> 01:27:41.680 III or three here 01:27:43.000 --> 01:27:46.359 Deals with property that is switching from 01:27:47.760 --> 01:27:48.880 agricultural 01:27:48.880 --> 01:27:52.770 Use to you know a subdivision or commercial development. 01:27:52.770 --> 01:27:53.680 Sorry Commissioner Sullivan 01:27:57.840 --> 01:27:59.760 Since 01:27:59.760 --> 01:28:02.529 Chairman strange brought this up. I'm looking at this in a 01:28:02.529 --> 01:28:03.840 different light. So 01:28:04.760 --> 01:28:06.920 under four preservation requirements 01:28:07.520 --> 01:28:10.920 If I substitute the word developer to homeowner 01:28:14.560 --> 01:28:16.560 Our homeowners going to be required 01:28:17.359 --> 01:28:19.359 to get the 01:28:20.640 --> 01:28:23.680 Whatever that designation is arborist I 01:28:24.960 --> 01:28:28.239 SA certified arborist to come out to 01:28:29.720 --> 01:28:33.909 To make a survey and to do all these things if it again 01:28:33.909 --> 01:28:36.340 somebody used the example putting in a pool 01:28:37.239 --> 01:28:40.340 They have to hire this arborist certified arborist to come 01:28:40.340 --> 01:28:42.760 out and look at the canopy and do all this work and 01:28:42.960 --> 01:28:45.600 And all this stuff to determine whether or not 01:28:46.720 --> 01:28:48.720 They're going to maintain that 30% 01:28:49.880 --> 01:28:53.819 Canopy to put in a pool. No for a residential homeowner 01:28:53.819 --> 01:28:55.720 putting in a pool or adding on to a 01:28:57.399 --> 01:29:00.500 Patio or deck and they you know have to take out a tree. 01:29:00.500 --> 01:29:03.880 They wouldn't be required to submit, you know a full 01:29:05.000 --> 01:29:07.000 survey for that type of 01:29:08.439 --> 01:29:10.680 You know addition to their property 01:29:11.600 --> 01:29:12.960 and 01:29:12.960 --> 01:29:15.340 That's typically handled when the 01:29:16.239 --> 01:29:19.340 Whole subdivision is developed up front. So that's 01:29:19.340 --> 01:29:21.930 something that's already taken care of before they actually 01:29:21.930 --> 01:29:22.680 purchased a lot 01:29:23.439 --> 01:29:25.439 Does that make sense? 01:29:25.439 --> 01:29:28.689 Yes, but I'm just saying that if again if the if the 01:29:28.689 --> 01:29:30.779 definition is the property owner 01:29:31.479 --> 01:29:34.890 That's the homeowner and after they bought the house ten 01:29:34.890 --> 01:29:35.720 years ago 01:29:36.319 --> 01:29:38.319 trees of all 01:29:38.359 --> 01:29:41.000 Have done what they're going to do and now I decided I want 01:29:41.000 --> 01:29:41.920 to put in the pool 01:29:42.520 --> 01:29:46.470 And I've got to now have somebody come out to tell me how 01:29:46.470 --> 01:29:50.079 much canopy I have and how much how many trees I can or 01:29:50.079 --> 01:29:52.079 Can I take down? 01:29:54.119 --> 01:29:57.560 Section four though says prior to develop mission was oh, 01:29:57.560 --> 01:29:58.060 thank you 01:29:58.119 --> 01:30:00.239 It says prior to the development of a lot. So in your 01:30:00.239 --> 01:30:02.489 situation, Commissioner Sullivan, the lots already been 01:30:02.489 --> 01:30:04.659 developed. So before wouldn't be 01:30:05.920 --> 01:30:08.220 applicable to someone who already owns a constructed home 01:30:08.220 --> 01:30:11.270 putting in a pool. I have to make an application for a 01:30:11.270 --> 01:30:11.600 permit 01:30:12.520 --> 01:30:15.399 Rather than the tree survey and preservation plan 01:30:16.479 --> 01:30:18.479 Would they wouldn't have to do that? 01:30:20.439 --> 01:30:21.930 Specific for I don't know what other permits they need but 01:30:21.930 --> 01:30:25.640 a tree survey and tree preservation plan wouldn't be needed 01:30:26.479 --> 01:30:29.609 As far as the wording is if you look at the last sentence, 01:30:29.609 --> 01:30:31.560 I think it's it answers your question 01:30:37.560 --> 01:30:39.560 Gosh 01:30:40.319 --> 01:30:42.649 I said several questions. I don't mean to take the floor. 01:30:42.649 --> 01:30:43.079 No, that's okay 01:30:43.600 --> 01:30:45.979 I'm just trying to figure out you know 01:30:46.600 --> 01:30:50.079 If just a regular kind of guy goes out and says hey, I want 01:30:50.079 --> 01:30:50.159 to 01:30:51.119 --> 01:30:53.119 put in a pool and 01:30:53.439 --> 01:30:55.729 Now I've got to do all this, you know jump through all 01:30:55.729 --> 01:30:56.319 these other hoops 01:30:56.319 --> 01:30:59.649 I'm just trying to decide if if the if the word developer 01:30:59.649 --> 01:31:02.619 means what it means throughout this whole 01:31:03.279 --> 01:31:05.279 thing or if possibly 01:31:06.079 --> 01:31:07.359 property owner 01:31:07.359 --> 01:31:10.750 Should be designated whenever it is already an established 01:31:10.750 --> 01:31:13.140 home and it's in addition to something 01:31:14.319 --> 01:31:17.210 You know just for the very reason that you know some 01:31:17.210 --> 01:31:20.960 homeowners gonna say I'm not a developer. Well, maybe is 01:31:20.960 --> 01:31:21.840 maybe is it? 01:31:21.840 --> 01:31:25.789 I don't know. Yeah, and you know the intent of this is not 01:31:25.789 --> 01:31:28.680 to you know, put any undue burden on to someone 01:31:28.680 --> 01:31:30.720 You know an existing, you know property owner 01:31:32.199 --> 01:31:35.300 You know as far as you know proving up their trees on their 01:31:35.300 --> 01:31:35.680 site 01:31:35.680 --> 01:31:37.680 That's not the intent of this 01:31:38.359 --> 01:31:40.720 Generally when we speak of you know developer or 01:31:40.720 --> 01:31:44.050 development we're talking either a site that's being you 01:31:44.050 --> 01:31:44.340 know 01:31:44.340 --> 01:31:48.289 That's you know brand new that is you know coming online or 01:31:48.289 --> 01:31:49.319 a site 01:31:49.319 --> 01:31:51.960 That's you know, it may be an old site and it's being rede 01:31:51.960 --> 01:31:52.479 veloped 01:31:52.479 --> 01:31:54.689 You know, you're raising the site and you're starting from 01:31:54.689 --> 01:31:57.520 scratch again. That's you know, the 01:31:58.399 --> 01:32:02.180 Generally what what the intent is when we state developer 01:32:02.180 --> 01:32:03.319 here is not to mean 01:32:03.600 --> 01:32:06.640 You know you as a homeowner that wants to put in a pool or 01:32:06.640 --> 01:32:09.000 a pack of your deck 01:32:09.399 --> 01:32:11.399 So so just a basic homeowner 01:32:12.079 --> 01:32:14.079 That need to worry about it 01:32:14.319 --> 01:32:17.279 As far as that goes. Yeah, I mean, of course, you know 01:32:17.279 --> 01:32:20.079 There's a requirement in for a permit and even you know a 01:32:20.079 --> 01:32:21.640 permit for a homeowner 01:32:21.800 --> 01:32:24.979 Like says really more so to have that that added point of 01:32:24.979 --> 01:32:25.579 contact 01:32:27.000 --> 01:32:29.359 There won't be it'll be really be a 01:32:30.479 --> 01:32:34.430 Non fee permit just to show okay, you know, they are, you 01:32:34.430 --> 01:32:36.239 know approved to do this 01:32:38.119 --> 01:32:40.640 Every now that I get calls from people, you know, this 01:32:40.640 --> 01:32:42.060 person's cutting down trees in their yard 01:32:42.060 --> 01:32:43.079 Are they okay to do that? 01:32:43.079 --> 01:32:46.779 I mean this allows that person to have a permit for their 01:32:46.779 --> 01:32:49.250 you know professional that's doing or whether they're doing 01:32:49.250 --> 01:32:49.840 say no see 01:32:50.239 --> 01:32:53.449 I'm okay, you know to do this the same as if they were you 01:32:53.449 --> 01:32:53.880 know 01:32:53.880 --> 01:32:56.710 Installing the fence and they you know require a permit for 01:32:56.710 --> 01:32:59.260 that or an irrigation system requires a permit 01:32:59.260 --> 01:33:02.689 There will be something along that line, but without the 01:33:02.689 --> 01:33:03.439 field hashed 01:33:05.159 --> 01:33:10.109 If I could interject he would so that everybody is clear on 01:33:10.109 --> 01:33:11.859 page 10 at the top 01:33:12.600 --> 01:33:14.890 Where it talks about the tree protection plan is where it 01:33:14.890 --> 01:33:18.359 would have said the ISA certified arborist 01:33:18.359 --> 01:33:21.460 And you still have qualified tree professional in there. 01:33:21.460 --> 01:33:25.319 Yeah, I saw that after it went to print that it still said 01:33:25.319 --> 01:33:26.119 qualified true 01:33:26.319 --> 01:33:29.460 Since that's the place where it is. It's gonna be anywhere 01:33:29.460 --> 01:33:32.149 that requires a tree protection plan. You would have to 01:33:32.149 --> 01:33:32.319 hire 01:33:32.840 --> 01:33:36.010 That professional so that would be excluding any kind of 01:33:36.010 --> 01:33:38.279 existing development for single family 01:33:38.920 --> 01:33:41.510 Yeah, there's there's two sections that was I saw that 01:33:41.510 --> 01:33:42.760 after I had already sent 01:33:43.479 --> 01:33:47.430 well, I had a clarification where it says building permit 01:33:47.430 --> 01:33:48.100 application 01:33:49.479 --> 01:33:52.579 We have a universal permit that you will 01:33:53.239 --> 01:33:55.920 Submit that's going to be a building permit. So then it 01:33:55.920 --> 01:33:56.659 does apply to 01:33:57.960 --> 01:34:00.340 Existing single-family homes if you want to do an addition 01:34:00.340 --> 01:34:04.210 or do a swimming pool am I correct about that or incorrect? 01:34:04.210 --> 01:34:04.279 I 01:34:05.720 --> 01:34:08.529 Think originally it says you still have universal permits 01:34:08.529 --> 01:34:11.460 for building. Okay, because we don't have them for regular 01:34:11.460 --> 01:34:12.520 projects. Okay 01:34:13.279 --> 01:34:15.399 So then it then it does apply 01:34:17.439 --> 01:34:20.760 So the Commissioner Sullivan's point if you want to do a 01:34:20.760 --> 01:34:23.119 swimming pool and you're gonna fill out a building permit 01:34:23.479 --> 01:34:24.640 application 01:34:24.640 --> 01:34:27.890 Which you have to do currently the universal then you have 01:34:27.890 --> 01:34:31.239 to do a tree protection plan for an individual homeowner 01:34:31.239 --> 01:34:34.949 Is that am I not reading this correctly originally? It said 01:34:34.949 --> 01:34:37.279 if required on the tree protection plan 01:34:38.039 --> 01:34:40.600 Yeah, I don't know how that came out 01:34:42.000 --> 01:34:44.239 Yeah, I have to go back and read through that but I'm 01:34:44.239 --> 01:34:46.039 letting finish and then 01:34:46.680 --> 01:34:48.770 Yeah, but you know like again, you know, that's not the 01:34:48.770 --> 01:34:51.399 intent. You know when those permits come through 01:34:52.359 --> 01:34:54.970 You know building permit could be you know, the property's 01:34:54.970 --> 01:34:55.399 already 01:34:56.680 --> 01:34:59.359 Been planted and you know, it's just being developed and 01:34:59.359 --> 01:35:00.600 they go straight to building permit 01:35:03.399 --> 01:35:07.520 That actually excludes single-family dwellings from the 01:35:08.520 --> 01:35:09.880 protection plan 01:35:09.880 --> 01:35:13.270 And what is the other one the tree survey? Yeah, we can add 01:35:13.270 --> 01:35:16.069 an affirmative provision that does that so there's no 01:35:16.069 --> 01:35:16.600 question 01:35:16.600 --> 01:35:18.300 I think that's good 01:35:18.300 --> 01:35:20.500 I think the other part of it is that people need to 01:35:20.500 --> 01:35:23.180 understand that this applies to them on the individual 01:35:23.180 --> 01:35:25.180 If you want to cut down a five inch tree or larger 01:35:26.039 --> 01:35:29.989 This this applies it doesn't apply now if you're taking out 01:35:29.989 --> 01:35:31.000 five trees or less 01:35:31.000 --> 01:35:34.439 But it will apply now if you're taking out tree five inches 01:35:35.159 --> 01:35:37.840 Or greater. I mean that's pretty small 01:35:39.439 --> 01:35:41.119 Commissioner Tiller 01:35:41.119 --> 01:35:43.760 Thank you for waiting. Thank you chair just to just 01:35:44.800 --> 01:35:47.420 Continue on in this vein. I wonder if so 01:35:48.300 --> 01:35:50.300 4a 5 01:35:50.520 --> 01:35:54.380 Has comments about site plans and plotting and then page 10 01:35:54.380 --> 01:35:59.039 also talks about plotting if and and it does require the 01:35:59.800 --> 01:36:01.399 the minimum 01:36:01.399 --> 01:36:04.279 tree canopy preservation to be added to 01:36:05.359 --> 01:36:07.359 the plat for each lot 01:36:07.920 --> 01:36:10.880 Yeah, so so I wonder if it might be good to 01:36:11.680 --> 01:36:13.680 split this into 01:36:14.079 --> 01:36:18.579 Kind of pre plotting and then on a plotted residential lot 01:36:19.319 --> 01:36:21.119 Kind of have simpler 01:36:21.119 --> 01:36:24.000 Simpler rules. So so if you're so if the homeowner on a 01:36:24.000 --> 01:36:26.340 plotted residential lot that already has a house on it 01:36:26.680 --> 01:36:29.779 Then they don't have to have you know, a qualified tree 01:36:29.779 --> 01:36:31.800 survey and all this kind of stuff 01:36:32.039 --> 01:36:34.319 They sought to have a you know, the tree removal permit or 01:36:34.319 --> 01:36:34.800 whatever 01:36:35.520 --> 01:36:38.840 but if you're developing if you're if you're plotting a 01:36:39.600 --> 01:36:42.479 Subdivision or plotting a commercial lot or something like 01:36:42.479 --> 01:36:45.100 that then have the requirements there that might be a way 01:36:45.100 --> 01:36:45.500 to split it 01:36:46.439 --> 01:36:50.390 excluding single-family residences do pre plotting versus 01:36:50.390 --> 01:36:52.399 an existing plotted lot I 01:36:54.239 --> 01:36:55.720 Think that's good 01:36:55.720 --> 01:36:58.529 Commissioner Taylor it kind of dovetails. I was preparing 01:36:58.529 --> 01:37:01.000 today to talk about the urban forest report 01:37:01.359 --> 01:37:04.460 And I don't want to get off the topic and I want to come 01:37:04.460 --> 01:37:06.760 back to this because when you read the report 01:37:07.000 --> 01:37:10.100 The vast majority of the trees that we have in the city of 01:37:10.100 --> 01:37:11.920 Denton are on single-family lots 01:37:13.680 --> 01:37:17.880 Existing 46% is located on undeveloped property the other 01:37:18.880 --> 01:37:20.319 pretty high 01:37:20.319 --> 01:37:25.060 54% would be you know other properties and single families 01:37:25.060 --> 01:37:26.560 I think by percentage wise 01:37:26.960 --> 01:37:28.960 They may have a higher 01:37:29.319 --> 01:37:31.479 Percentage of canopy that is correct 01:37:32.359 --> 01:37:34.699 So anyway, I don't want to get off though. I do want to 01:37:34.699 --> 01:37:37.239 spend some time talking about that. We may not get to it 01:37:37.239 --> 01:37:39.239 This evening because when you read the report 01:37:39.720 --> 01:37:42.079 That's when a lot of these things really begin to make 01:37:42.079 --> 01:37:45.159 sense this stuff if we're truly trying to preserve trees 01:37:45.439 --> 01:37:48.640 Where are the trees what type of property on are they on? 01:37:49.000 --> 01:37:52.100 And what is the canopy coverage not only currently in the 01:37:52.100 --> 01:37:53.720 city but also in the ETG? 01:37:53.720 --> 01:37:56.819 And where is the tree canopy actually coming from and most 01:37:56.819 --> 01:37:57.880 of it's coming from? 01:37:58.520 --> 01:38:01.460 Single family homes outside of undeveloped property its 01:38:01.460 --> 01:38:04.880 single family homes. So that's why I think it's important 01:38:04.880 --> 01:38:07.090 We need to figure out and everybody needs to understand how 01:38:07.090 --> 01:38:09.239 this is actually going to apply to 01:38:10.239 --> 01:38:12.449 Single family homeowners in the city of Denton going 01:38:12.449 --> 01:38:14.720 forward because it's gonna be very different than what 01:38:14.720 --> 01:38:16.479 people are accustomed to today 01:38:16.479 --> 01:38:19.760 I think we still need to clarify that that like 01:38:20.359 --> 01:38:22.359 Commissioner Taylor was 01:38:22.600 --> 01:38:24.600 into in his comment that 01:38:25.359 --> 01:38:27.880 there's a there's a difference between a 01:38:28.439 --> 01:38:31.140 single-family developed lot that you purchase from a 01:38:31.140 --> 01:38:32.960 developer and then one that's being 01:38:33.720 --> 01:38:37.670 The a single-family subdivision that's being developed and 01:38:37.670 --> 01:38:40.479 I think we can make that clearer in the code that would 01:38:40.479 --> 01:38:40.840 help 01:38:41.840 --> 01:38:44.640 but the intent is though that 01:38:45.159 --> 01:38:48.039 The city this ordinance applies to the city as a whole 01:38:48.039 --> 01:38:49.600 including homeowners 01:38:50.399 --> 01:38:54.829 developers in the lake so we can make those we can clear up 01:38:54.829 --> 01:38:55.159 the 01:38:55.880 --> 01:38:58.979 discrepancies with the definitions but we would like we 01:38:58.979 --> 01:39:01.399 wanted the intent of tonight was to go through the 01:39:01.399 --> 01:39:03.039 ordinance so that you can see 01:39:03.739 --> 01:39:06.039 What we have changed what we are proposing 01:39:06.760 --> 01:39:10.399 to be able to make a better decision our hope is to 01:39:11.399 --> 01:39:13.399 Show you what the work that we've done so that we can 01:39:13.399 --> 01:39:15.960 continue to move this project forward 01:39:16.399 --> 01:39:19.170 Because this has been a request from the City Council has 01:39:19.170 --> 01:39:22.600 been and out seeing an item for us for about three years 01:39:22.600 --> 01:39:22.840 now 01:39:22.840 --> 01:39:24.800 and so we would like to 01:39:24.800 --> 01:39:29.140 Move this forward to tonight and then the next meeting what 01:39:29.140 --> 01:39:31.359 we would like to have from you guys are 01:39:31.720 --> 01:39:33.720 Recommendations on the ordinance that has been prepared 01:39:35.119 --> 01:39:38.220 Any changes that you would like to forward on to the City 01:39:38.220 --> 01:39:41.359 Council to be incorporated or to be considered? 01:39:41.359 --> 01:39:43.979 That's what we are hoping to get from you tonight and then 01:39:43.979 --> 01:39:44.960 at the next meeting 01:39:48.239 --> 01:39:50.239 Commissioner back 01:39:50.640 --> 01:39:52.640 Commissioner has been yeah, I'll be brief I 01:39:54.239 --> 01:39:56.840 Think we're getting a little bogged down in naming be it 01:39:56.840 --> 01:40:00.159 applicant be it developer be it because okay 01:40:00.159 --> 01:40:02.300 So I don't turn in the application so it doesn't apply to 01:40:02.300 --> 01:40:03.859 me right it does 01:40:04.479 --> 01:40:07.000 You're required to turn an application and the fact that 01:40:07.000 --> 01:40:09.430 you don't call yourself an applicant because you subvert 01:40:09.430 --> 01:40:09.960 the process 01:40:10.560 --> 01:40:13.079 Doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you. So I mean do we boil 01:40:13.079 --> 01:40:14.699 it down and just put human in there 01:40:14.699 --> 01:40:17.800 I mean, you know me there takes a little bit of just hey, 01:40:17.800 --> 01:40:19.720 you know the rules and if you're trying to subvert the 01:40:19.720 --> 01:40:20.000 rules 01:40:20.000 --> 01:40:21.479 You're gonna subvert them 01:40:21.479 --> 01:40:25.310 And just hey everybody that's breathing oxygen fill out a 01:40:25.310 --> 01:40:28.039 form, you know, I mean it could get really really 01:40:28.560 --> 01:40:30.760 Boiled down and I don't think that's that's that's 01:40:30.760 --> 01:40:31.399 necessary 01:40:32.279 --> 01:40:35.920 If you define what it is, maybe highlight it whatever it is 01:40:35.920 --> 01:40:39.859 But I mean, I think again you you you give me any title and 01:40:39.859 --> 01:40:42.659 I can give you the opposite of why it doesn't apply to me 01:40:42.659 --> 01:40:45.479 In my little mind, right? I mean, so I just think 01:40:46.239 --> 01:40:49.520 You you have to take it on its merits take the individual 01:40:49.520 --> 01:40:52.720 on their merits if you're if it's called a developer 01:40:52.720 --> 01:40:54.699 Maybe you're developing something if you're applicant, 01:40:54.699 --> 01:40:55.680 maybe you're applying for something 01:40:56.359 --> 01:40:59.239 Whatever the terminology, but I mean if we've we've 01:41:00.439 --> 01:41:02.000 Taken about 01:41:02.000 --> 01:41:05.869 Ten minutes on something that that's not ironclad. I mean, 01:41:05.869 --> 01:41:06.600 you're not gonna get it 01:41:06.600 --> 01:41:09.699 I mean you can't lock it down enough to where someone can't 01:41:09.699 --> 01:41:11.479 use their imagination and subvert it 01:41:11.479 --> 01:41:15.199 So I just it's a lot of time. We're on page six 01:41:16.119 --> 01:41:20.319 And and we're talking about a title that's not gonna stick 01:41:21.560 --> 01:41:23.560 Well, I'm gonna make a comment on that 01:41:24.359 --> 01:41:26.119 Okay 01:41:26.119 --> 01:41:28.119 I'm gonna say that I bet you 01:41:29.000 --> 01:41:31.520 most people sitting this commission they read it and it 01:41:31.520 --> 01:41:33.439 says developer move right on to 01:41:34.319 --> 01:41:37.119 developing property and not that it actually applies to 01:41:37.119 --> 01:41:39.989 single-family individual homeowners and that if you're 01:41:39.989 --> 01:41:41.520 gonna cut down a tree on it this 01:41:41.520 --> 01:41:44.619 Applies to you too versus a guy that's out doing 25 acres 01:41:44.619 --> 01:41:46.920 and I think it is a substantial difference 01:41:47.199 --> 01:41:49.880 To make sure that everybody understands that this is a very 01:41:49.880 --> 01:41:53.640 significant change from what our current tree code is 01:41:54.239 --> 01:41:57.800 very significant and it applies to everybody now not just 01:41:58.600 --> 01:42:00.319 developers 01:42:00.319 --> 01:42:02.989 Everyone in the city and then wants to cut down a tree five 01:42:02.989 --> 01:42:05.199 inches greater has to get a permit 01:42:05.199 --> 01:42:08.069 And if it's a larger tree you will mitigate it and you will 01:42:08.069 --> 01:42:08.479 pay for it 01:42:08.479 --> 01:42:11.579 And I bet most property owners in the city of Denton if you 01:42:11.579 --> 01:42:14.359 ask them that are not going to understand it 01:42:14.359 --> 01:42:16.619 And they're probably aren't gonna be happy that they have 01:42:16.619 --> 01:42:19.000 to pay three or four thousand dollars to go cut down two or 01:42:19.000 --> 01:42:19.479 three big 01:42:19.479 --> 01:42:22.640 Post oak trees if they want to put a pool and put a garage 01:42:22.640 --> 01:42:25.840 or build a house in the back for mom to take care of 01:42:25.840 --> 01:42:28.880 I deal with that on a pretty frequent basis 01:42:29.640 --> 01:42:31.930 That's a significant change that most people don't deal 01:42:31.930 --> 01:42:32.560 with today 01:42:32.560 --> 01:42:35.909 I don't I don't disagree but I also heard them say several 01:42:35.909 --> 01:42:36.279 times 01:42:36.279 --> 01:42:38.939 It's one it's a draft and two that that's not the intent of 01:42:38.939 --> 01:42:40.760 it that they're gonna go back and fix it and then third 01:42:40.760 --> 01:42:43.119 There's a there's a whole legal aspect that I'm sure 01:42:43.119 --> 01:42:45.479 Jennifer could take a whole entire work session 01:42:45.479 --> 01:42:47.720 Let's talk about the difference between property owners of 01:42:47.720 --> 01:42:50.359 individual home in the laws that are supported there 01:42:50.640 --> 01:42:53.739 Versus a developer and the laws to support that developer 01:42:53.739 --> 01:42:56.140 and then the potential homeowner that hadn't bought the 01:42:56.140 --> 01:42:57.079 home yet in their law 01:42:57.079 --> 01:42:59.949 I mean there's a I mean again. It's just a rabbit hole, but 01:42:59.949 --> 01:43:00.380 I think 01:43:01.039 --> 01:43:03.720 They they've said a few different times that hey that those 01:43:03.720 --> 01:43:05.720 examples of the pool does not apply 01:43:06.439 --> 01:43:09.609 On the on its merits now, there's there's areas where it 01:43:09.609 --> 01:43:13.000 does and they can iron that out. But again, I 01:43:13.640 --> 01:43:17.000 Your point may be valid, but I don't I just don't I 01:43:18.279 --> 01:43:20.920 Don't know that it's worth the of the 01:43:22.000 --> 01:43:24.520 40 minutes we had to discuss this. I don't know if it 01:43:24.520 --> 01:43:25.979 require a quarter of it 01:43:26.640 --> 01:43:30.000 If I could just chime in here so I can put this to bed. I 01:43:31.119 --> 01:43:34.220 Don't have a problem with changing developer to property 01:43:34.220 --> 01:43:36.930 owner and defining property owner as the owner of the 01:43:36.930 --> 01:43:38.119 property or a 01:43:38.880 --> 01:43:41.260 representative of the owner of the property including 01:43:41.260 --> 01:43:42.239 someone doing development 01:43:43.239 --> 01:43:46.939 Because the enforcement provisions are for any person. It's 01:43:46.939 --> 01:43:49.199 not exactly to a developer. So 01:43:49.920 --> 01:43:52.779 You know somebody might come on someone's property and we 01:43:52.779 --> 01:43:55.819 're illegally removed trees and they're also going to be 01:43:55.819 --> 01:43:56.979 subject to enforcement 01:43:57.319 --> 01:44:01.899 So I think that that would be an okay change provided. Hey, 01:44:01.899 --> 01:44:03.079 what is is okay with that? 01:44:03.079 --> 01:44:05.189 But from a legal standpoint, I think that would be fine. 01:44:05.189 --> 01:44:06.239 Yeah, I don't I don't have a 01:44:10.760 --> 01:44:13.960 Commissioner Roselle, thank you chair. I know Commissioner 01:44:13.960 --> 01:44:14.500 Beck was speak 01:44:14.500 --> 01:44:16.430 I've been waiting since Commissioner Sullivan asked a 01:44:16.430 --> 01:44:18.720 question on a pool 20 minutes ago and then added to the 01:44:18.720 --> 01:44:19.520 four that 01:44:19.880 --> 01:44:23.430 Mr. Hutz was wanted to continue with so let me say I have 01:44:23.430 --> 01:44:24.920 to statement and a question 01:44:25.880 --> 01:44:28.979 First statement there's no reason not to clarify it to 01:44:28.979 --> 01:44:29.359 include 01:44:29.880 --> 01:44:31.760 Citizen because I'm right there with with chair I read 01:44:31.760 --> 01:44:33.560 developer. I'm like, I'm not developer move on 01:44:33.760 --> 01:44:37.140 there's no reason not to make an easy change to clarify 01:44:37.140 --> 01:44:39.930 because I didn't read the definitions when I was going 01:44:39.930 --> 01:44:40.840 through this and if they 01:44:41.159 --> 01:44:43.159 citizen was referred to 01:44:43.159 --> 01:44:45.159 they said you need to go to for a 01:44:45.920 --> 01:44:47.859 Four this applies to you citizens. You'd be like a 01:44:47.859 --> 01:44:51.560 developer must that's not me. So it's a no-brainer change 01:44:51.560 --> 01:44:51.720 it 01:44:51.720 --> 01:44:53.319 Thank you for the clarification 01:44:53.319 --> 01:44:56.649 Jennifer I do have a question though for a three it says 01:44:56.649 --> 01:44:59.039 aerial images are from the last 24 months 01:44:59.680 --> 01:45:02.409 Correct. Is there any requirements like not to take that in 01:45:02.409 --> 01:45:02.880 winter? 01:45:02.960 --> 01:45:05.539 Like how does that work out in terms of looking at a canopy 01:45:05.539 --> 01:45:07.000 ? It would have to be leaf on 01:45:08.640 --> 01:45:11.380 Aerials not you know when the trees are defoliated. Is that 01:45:11.380 --> 01:45:15.359 an assumption or should that be more codified? I 01:45:16.760 --> 01:45:18.760 Can add that in there? 01:45:20.600 --> 01:45:22.600 That's all I got thank you all 01:45:23.479 --> 01:45:25.920 Commissioner Sullivan just to be perfectly clear 01:45:27.079 --> 01:45:29.159 So if somebody bought a house ten years ago, and they want 01:45:29.159 --> 01:45:32.250 to do something they're not going to be this is not going 01:45:32.250 --> 01:45:33.600 to be a restriction 01:45:34.239 --> 01:45:37.460 No, I have a problem saying okay. I bought this lot. It's a 01:45:37.460 --> 01:45:38.199 wooded lot 01:45:38.199 --> 01:45:42.159 I love trees and now five years six years later 01:45:42.159 --> 01:45:45.100 I want to make a change and all of a sudden the law has 01:45:45.100 --> 01:45:47.159 changed since I bought the lot and 01:45:47.760 --> 01:45:50.479 I've got to spend all this extra money to do things that 01:45:51.079 --> 01:45:54.180 Wasn't applicable back when I bought the lot to begin with 01:45:54.180 --> 01:45:54.880 otherwise 01:45:54.880 --> 01:45:58.279 I might have bought a bald lot and planted my own trees 01:45:58.279 --> 01:46:00.600 correct and and that is correct 01:46:00.600 --> 01:46:03.479 That's not the intent and let me go back to something that 01:46:03.479 --> 01:46:05.640 was mentioned as far as a single-family 01:46:06.680 --> 01:46:09.859 Exceed oh yeah, where does it say it's not if that's not 01:46:09.859 --> 01:46:10.399 the intent 01:46:11.239 --> 01:46:14.159 Again, we're going back to the definition. I'm just it's it 01:46:14.159 --> 01:46:14.600 's gone 01:46:14.600 --> 01:46:17.189 It's this somatics with you know who's considered a 01:46:17.189 --> 01:46:20.039 developer and we can include that 01:46:20.640 --> 01:46:24.560 renovation into the ordinance so if you if what I'm hearing 01:46:24.560 --> 01:46:27.100 is that you would like to see that reflected in the 01:46:27.100 --> 01:46:27.680 ordinance 01:46:28.000 --> 01:46:31.449 Will reflect it in the ordinance correct, okay? Thank you. 01:46:31.449 --> 01:46:32.119 Yeah and 01:46:34.199 --> 01:46:37.159 Just a point of clarification before I lose this 01:46:38.760 --> 01:46:42.479 If a single-family property owner, you know as we're moving 01:46:42.479 --> 01:46:42.880 a tree 01:46:42.880 --> 01:46:45.399 You know obviously it's not an intent to charge them a 01:46:45.399 --> 01:46:48.920 permit fee or to have them to go through a tree 01:46:49.039 --> 01:46:52.239 You know survey and what have you and we're going to you 01:46:52.239 --> 01:46:52.600 know 01:46:53.279 --> 01:46:56.130 Make the appropriate adjustments to clarify that but if 01:46:56.130 --> 01:47:00.199 that person comes in to build that their their pool 01:47:00.199 --> 01:47:03.920 And they have you know a tennis tree or 15 inch tree 01:47:04.159 --> 01:47:07.319 They get the permit to remove the tree for the improvement 01:47:07.319 --> 01:47:08.699 they're trying to make to their property 01:47:08.760 --> 01:47:12.579 Which is more an improvement not really a new development, 01:47:12.579 --> 01:47:14.560 but when you look at the mitigation section 01:47:14.640 --> 01:47:16.760 It calls out mitigation and the cases 01:47:17.840 --> 01:47:22.789 Dealing with the pre development canopy not you know in a 01:47:22.789 --> 01:47:24.079 situation where you're you know 01:47:24.079 --> 01:47:26.079 Basically enhancing what's already there 01:47:26.359 --> 01:47:30.310 So there isn't a requirement for a single-family property 01:47:30.310 --> 01:47:30.520 owner 01:47:30.520 --> 01:47:32.829 That's you know has to take out a tree to put in their deck 01:47:32.829 --> 01:47:35.399 or patio to mitigate for that tree 01:47:35.800 --> 01:47:38.899 There's not there's not that requirement under the 01:47:38.899 --> 01:47:40.680 mitigation section of what we're proposing 01:47:43.119 --> 01:47:45.119 Okay, we'll get it fixed 01:47:48.239 --> 01:47:50.239 Commissioner back 01:47:50.680 --> 01:47:52.930 Thank You chair just real quick there was something I 01:47:52.930 --> 01:47:55.520 wanted to address here I discussed with Shandrin 01:47:55.920 --> 01:47:58.149 Hey with her, but are we carrying this conversation into 01:47:58.149 --> 01:48:00.399 the public hearing or is this it for tonight? 01:48:00.840 --> 01:48:03.939 Tonight is just discussion on the 22nd. We'll do another 01:48:03.939 --> 01:48:06.840 workshop, and then we'll do a public hearing okay 01:48:06.840 --> 01:48:09.640 But I wanted to make a comment about dealing with who's 01:48:10.159 --> 01:48:10.159 authorized to approve variances as we discuss that should I 01:48:10.159 --> 01:48:16.399 mention that here so it's connected to a 01:48:16.840 --> 01:48:20.199 Recommendation yes, okay, so the recommendation is that? 01:48:20.960 --> 01:48:24.670 the authority to allow variances stay with the City Council 01:48:24.670 --> 01:48:27.479 as opposed to going to the ZBA or 01:48:27.960 --> 01:48:29.960 even our good friend Haywood here 01:48:30.880 --> 01:48:34.430 You have a specific provision you're referencing. Thank you 01:48:34.430 --> 01:48:35.479 referring to 01:48:36.399 --> 01:48:38.199 number 7c 01:48:38.199 --> 01:48:40.479 specifically the appeal that's the section that 01:48:41.159 --> 01:48:44.289 Previously it was actually another part of the code that we 01:48:44.289 --> 01:48:46.039 pulled into the tree code 01:48:46.840 --> 01:48:51.600 But that was a part that went from City Council to the ZBA 01:48:52.119 --> 01:48:54.880 The administrative modifications is something that was 01:48:54.880 --> 01:48:58.560 added in to what we're proposing to allow for me to 01:48:59.439 --> 01:49:02.539 Have some flexibility to work with developers on you know 01:49:02.539 --> 01:49:02.960 sites 01:49:03.520 --> 01:49:07.100 That you know may be difficult based on site constraints to 01:49:07.100 --> 01:49:09.939 meet the letter of of the code 01:49:13.479 --> 01:49:17.189 I trust they would complete completely, but it's just there 01:49:17.189 --> 01:49:17.800 's there's other 01:49:19.000 --> 01:49:22.100 So all I'm suggesting is that we don't remove this 01:49:22.100 --> 01:49:25.359 automatically that it gets discussed further, okay? 01:49:25.960 --> 01:49:28.680 And we'll make that as a recommendation to City Council 01:49:28.680 --> 01:49:31.239 because they may not want to have those projects come to 01:49:31.239 --> 01:49:32.560 them right okay 01:49:32.560 --> 01:49:34.560 Thank you 01:49:37.560 --> 01:49:39.560 Okay, so 01:49:40.000 --> 01:49:42.810 We're I don't know how much time we have for this work 01:49:42.810 --> 01:49:44.560 session with the regular 01:49:44.560 --> 01:49:47.350 I don't know how many people we have in there and somebody 01:49:47.350 --> 01:49:48.279 wants to tell us we want to just 01:49:50.079 --> 01:49:52.079 Go ahead and close 01:50:03.880 --> 01:50:06.989 In the meantime Commissioner Tyler would it be possible to 01:50:06.989 --> 01:50:09.840 get okay the draft electronically? 01:50:09.840 --> 01:50:12.619 ahead of time because I was gonna say we'll go ahead and 01:50:12.619 --> 01:50:15.380 send out another draft and then if you have any comments 01:50:15.380 --> 01:50:17.140 just send them to 01:50:17.600 --> 01:50:21.979 Shandrian or Haywood directly and they can take that into 01:50:21.979 --> 01:50:24.039 account when we meet the next time 01:50:24.039 --> 01:50:26.079 We'll have some sort of workable solution for you 01:50:39.840 --> 01:50:41.840 I 01:50:49.960 --> 01:50:52.520 Would ask that whatever comments that we get the final 01:50:52.520 --> 01:50:53.760 draft 01:50:54.800 --> 01:50:57.899 Ahead of time so we have all time to review another 01:50:57.899 --> 01:50:59.520 stakeholders that are here that want to view it 01:50:59.520 --> 01:51:01.520 It's really hard at least for me 01:51:01.800 --> 01:51:05.300 To get something the day of the meeting and then vote on it 01:51:05.300 --> 01:51:08.279 the same day when there's a lot of questions and so 01:51:09.840 --> 01:51:11.840 I 01:51:13.720 --> 01:51:15.720 Thank you 01:51:17.199 --> 01:51:21.090 With that at 633 I'm going to close our work session, and 01:51:21.090 --> 01:51:23.600 we'll reconvene as quickly as we can in council chambers 01:51:33.119 --> 01:51:35.920 Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning a 01:51:35.920 --> 01:51:39.079 zoning Commission meeting for February the 8th 01:51:39.600 --> 01:51:42.699 This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum 01:51:42.699 --> 01:51:45.279 present and I'm gonna call our meeting to order at 01:51:46.119 --> 01:51:49.829 642 our first order of business will be to stand and give 01:51:49.829 --> 01:51:51.640 the pledge the US and the Texas flag 01:52:09.600 --> 01:52:11.600 I 01:52:33.560 --> 01:52:36.310 Next item on our agenda this evening will be to consider 01:52:36.310 --> 01:52:38.800 approval of the planning and zoning Commission meeting 01:52:39.239 --> 01:52:41.239 minutes of our last meeting 01:52:41.880 --> 01:52:44.680 Chair would entertain a motion for January 25th 01:52:45.600 --> 01:52:47.600 2017 minutes 01:52:52.000 --> 01:52:55.100 Commissioner Ellis, thank you chair. I will move to approve 01:52:55.100 --> 01:52:57.000 minutes from January 25th 01:52:57.920 --> 01:52:59.760 Commissioner Sullivan 01:52:59.760 --> 01:53:02.640 We have a first and a second for approval 01:53:03.680 --> 01:53:05.680 Commissioner Beck 01:53:07.239 --> 01:53:11.439 Okay, be abstain okay any other discussion 01:53:14.000 --> 01:53:16.000 Seeing none will call for a vote on the board 01:53:29.960 --> 01:53:32.880 Motion carries 6-0 with one recuse 01:53:34.960 --> 01:53:37.239 That will move us to our consent agenda 01:53:43.159 --> 01:53:45.159 Commissioner back 01:53:48.479 --> 01:53:50.479 I move we approve consent agenda 01:53:52.479 --> 01:53:53.960 Commissioner Zell 01:53:53.960 --> 01:53:57.250 Second we have a first and a second for approval of the 01:53:57.250 --> 01:54:00.159 consent agenda any discussion 01:54:04.560 --> 01:54:07.079 Seeing none I will call for a vote on the board 01:54:20.239 --> 01:54:25.189 Motion carries 7-0. I will move us to our items for an 01:54:25.189 --> 01:54:27.239 individual consideration 01:54:30.920 --> 01:54:34.170 Our first item will be item a consider an act on creation 01:54:34.170 --> 01:54:38.000 of a subcommittee of the planning and zoning Commission 01:54:38.359 --> 01:54:40.600 for the DDC amendment project 01:54:47.039 --> 01:54:48.560 Commissioner Taylor I 01:54:48.560 --> 01:54:51.130 Move we form a subcommittee of the planning and zoning 01:54:51.130 --> 01:54:53.949 Commission for the purpose of the Denton Development Code 01:54:53.949 --> 01:54:55.020 amendment project 01:54:58.000 --> 01:55:00.800 Commissioner Ellis, thank you chair. I will second that 01:55:00.800 --> 01:55:04.960 okay. We have a first and a second to form the subcommittee 01:55:04.960 --> 01:55:06.479 any discussion 01:55:11.560 --> 01:55:13.560 Seeing none we'll call for a vote on board 01:55:21.239 --> 01:55:23.239 Motion carries 7-0 01:55:25.079 --> 01:55:28.779 I'm gonna move for consider nominations to this newly 01:55:28.779 --> 01:55:30.560 created subcommittee and 01:55:33.159 --> 01:55:34.840 Just as a point of order how many members will we 01:55:34.840 --> 01:55:40.300 ultimately be appointing to this Commission three, okay 01:55:50.119 --> 01:55:53.220 Commissioner Taylor, thank you chair. I would like to nom 01:55:53.220 --> 01:55:54.920 inate Commissioner Ellis for this committee 01:55:55.800 --> 01:55:57.800 Okay 01:56:00.159 --> 01:56:02.159 Commissioner back 01:56:03.239 --> 01:56:05.760 Thank you, I would like to nominate Commissioner Hudson for 01:56:05.760 --> 01:56:06.760 this committee 01:56:09.920 --> 01:56:11.670 It's a point of order should we take these as individuals 01:56:11.670 --> 01:56:14.560 or do them all at the same time? 01:56:20.359 --> 01:56:21.939 I think if we can get a consensus and discussion that we 01:56:21.939 --> 01:56:24.960 can do it as one motion 01:56:25.119 --> 01:56:26.680 Okay 01:56:26.680 --> 01:56:28.680 We have one more member to a point 01:56:34.680 --> 01:56:38.119 I'll make a motion to appoint Commissioner Roselle 01:56:45.119 --> 01:56:48.279 Commissioner husband so I 01:56:49.960 --> 01:56:51.960 Don't think I'm a good fit 01:56:51.960 --> 01:56:53.680 because I'm 01:56:53.680 --> 01:56:57.630 Have future aspirations, so I'm going to but I would 01:56:57.630 --> 01:56:58.520 suggest 01:57:00.920 --> 01:57:03.479 Another member if that's if sure I do that absolutely if 01:57:03.479 --> 01:57:05.800 you'd like to withdraw so yes, so 01:57:06.279 --> 01:57:10.250 Commissioner Taylor big good fit. I believe if time allows 01:57:10.250 --> 01:57:10.560 I 01:57:11.600 --> 01:57:13.600 Was going to ask that 01:57:14.000 --> 01:57:17.960 How long is this subcommittee supposed to be working for? 01:57:22.680 --> 01:57:24.680 May of 2018 01:57:27.840 --> 01:57:32.539 I'm sorry, I respectfully decline because of my short 01:57:32.539 --> 01:57:34.680 remaining time on the Commission. Thank you 01:57:38.920 --> 01:57:41.510 Commissioner Ellis, I would like to nominate Commissioner 01:57:41.510 --> 01:57:42.100 Beck 01:57:52.680 --> 01:57:54.680 under 01:58:05.460 --> 01:58:06.250 Under advisement of legal legal is going to recommend that 01:58:06.250 --> 01:58:11.560 we do these as individuals 01:58:13.119 --> 01:58:15.319 So we have currently three 01:58:16.239 --> 01:58:18.239 nominees so we'll be taking these 01:58:18.680 --> 01:58:22.079 Individually and if we need to do by chance another one 01:58:22.079 --> 01:58:22.479 then we will 01:58:22.960 --> 01:58:27.010 Next okay, so currently I have nominations now for 01:58:27.010 --> 01:58:28.880 Commissioner Ellis 01:58:29.560 --> 01:58:32.560 Commissioner Roselle and Commissioner back 01:58:33.279 --> 01:58:37.250 So if we would look for I guess a motion for Commissioner 01:58:37.250 --> 01:58:38.560 Ellis to begin 01:58:44.479 --> 01:58:44.670 Commissioner Zell I motion that Commissioner Ellis be 01:58:44.670 --> 01:58:49.500 nominated and placed on the didn't development code 01:58:49.500 --> 01:58:52.279 amendment project, okay 01:58:53.520 --> 01:58:55.020 Commissioner back 01:58:55.020 --> 01:58:57.020 Okay, I second that motion 01:58:57.319 --> 01:59:00.949 Okay, we have a first and a second for nomination of 01:59:00.949 --> 01:59:02.600 Commissioner Ellis 01:59:03.199 --> 01:59:05.199 any discussion 01:59:05.960 --> 01:59:07.960 Okay, sir 01:59:10.800 --> 01:59:12.800 Just make sure you're okay to serve 01:59:14.359 --> 01:59:17.520 Okay to serve thank you okay all right any further 01:59:17.520 --> 01:59:18.720 discussion 01:59:21.680 --> 01:59:23.760 Seeing none we will call for a vote on board 01:59:36.640 --> 01:59:38.640 Motion carries seven to zero 01:59:50.079 --> 01:59:54.000 Chair is going to motion for nomination of Commissioner 01:59:54.000 --> 01:59:56.100 Roselle to this subcommittee 01:59:57.199 --> 02:00:00.159 Commissioner Ellis I will second that okay 02:00:00.960 --> 02:00:03.880 We have a first and a second any discussion 02:00:10.399 --> 02:00:12.399 Seeing none we'll call for a vote on the board 02:00:21.079 --> 02:00:23.079 I 02:00:23.079 --> 02:00:25.079 Motion carries seven to zero 02:00:29.279 --> 02:00:33.079 Commissioner Ellis I will motion to approve Larry back as a 02:00:33.760 --> 02:00:35.659 Appointment to the planning and zoning Commission sub 02:00:35.659 --> 02:00:38.710 committee for the denton development code amendment project, 02:00:38.710 --> 02:00:39.000 okay 02:00:40.880 --> 02:00:40.880 Commissioner Sullivan I second okay, we have a first and a 02:00:40.880 --> 02:00:47.960 second for Commissioner back any discussion 02:00:50.079 --> 02:00:52.079 I 02:00:55.199 --> 02:00:57.199 Think now we will call for a vote on board 02:01:05.520 --> 02:01:07.520 Motion carries seven zero 02:01:08.720 --> 02:01:10.930 Congratulations Commissioner Ellis Commissioner Roselle and 02:01:10.930 --> 02:01:13.840 Commissioner back on your appointments. Thank you 02:01:15.600 --> 02:01:18.250 That will move us to our public hearing section this 02:01:18.250 --> 02:01:19.039 evening 02:01:20.079 --> 02:01:24.039 At this time I'm going to open the public hearing for item 02:01:24.039 --> 02:01:25.880 a fr 16 - 02:01:27.359 --> 02:01:30.920 0003 and call on Julie white for presentation 02:01:38.119 --> 02:01:39.050 Julie Wyatt senior planner at the city of Denton and I'm 02:01:39.050 --> 02:01:42.600 presenting to you a 02:01:43.560 --> 02:01:48.869 Replat of a piece of property. It's fr 16 3 is a replat in 02:01:48.869 --> 02:01:51.500 order to abandon a public alley 02:01:51.500 --> 02:01:53.840 And I'll stand for any questions 02:01:57.239 --> 02:01:59.239 Any questions for staff 02:02:02.039 --> 02:02:04.039 Thank You Julie 02:02:05.720 --> 02:02:08.630 This is a public hearing so anyone who would like to come 02:02:08.630 --> 02:02:12.840 forward and speak on this item at this time, please do so 02:02:13.560 --> 02:02:15.560 I 02:02:18.039 --> 02:02:21.140 Seeing no one we will close the public here on this item 02:02:21.140 --> 02:02:24.359 and open the floor for motion or discussion Commissioner 02:02:24.359 --> 02:02:24.640 back 02:02:25.600 --> 02:02:27.600 Thank you chair. I move we approve 02:02:28.000 --> 02:02:30.899 the for 16 - 0003 02:02:32.640 --> 02:02:35.159 Commissioner Solomon I second that motion. Okay, I have a 02:02:35.159 --> 02:02:38.319 first and a second for approval any discussion 02:02:42.720 --> 02:02:44.720 Seeing no we'll call for a vote on board 02:02:55.800 --> 02:02:57.800 Motion carries seven zero 02:03:00.319 --> 02:03:04.760 Move us to item B public hearings. I'm going to open the 02:03:04.760 --> 02:03:05.680 public hearing for 02:03:06.600 --> 02:03:08.600 z16 - 02:03:08.840 --> 02:03:12.600 0018 a and call on Julie white for presentation 02:03:13.720 --> 02:03:15.720 All right, good evening 02:03:18.760 --> 02:03:21.600 Would you like to go through the full presentation or the 02:03:21.600 --> 02:03:23.039 summary full 02:03:25.159 --> 02:03:27.159 Okay, all right 02:03:27.319 --> 02:03:32.270 Okay, so this is a this request is z 16 18 blue beacon 02:03:32.270 --> 02:03:33.000 truck wash 02:03:34.760 --> 02:03:38.529 The location of the request is adjacent to I 35 and north 02:03:38.529 --> 02:03:40.039 of Barthol road 02:03:40.199 --> 02:03:44.840 It's in the north part of the city just to let you know 02:03:44.840 --> 02:03:49.789 There's approximately 637 feet of frontage of along I 35 on 02:03:49.789 --> 02:03:50.760 this property 02:03:51.920 --> 02:03:55.930 So the request concerning this location is to consider a 02:03:55.930 --> 02:03:57.520 rezoning on approximately 02:03:58.399 --> 02:04:02.319 5.3 acres from regional center residential one to 02:04:02.319 --> 02:04:05.180 employment center commercial district 02:04:09.039 --> 02:04:13.729 So the the the area is is currently undeveloped the site is 02:04:13.729 --> 02:04:16.779 currently undeveloped and it is will go 02:04:17.319 --> 02:04:20.479 Over what's surrounding it with the character of the area. 02:04:20.479 --> 02:04:21.640 So if you will look 02:04:22.520 --> 02:04:25.229 Just to the west of it. You have a property that doesn't 02:04:25.229 --> 02:04:27.359 have any it doesn't have a color on it 02:04:27.359 --> 02:04:30.020 That's because it's in our extraterritorial jurisdiction. 02:04:30.020 --> 02:04:31.199 It's outside of the city limits 02:04:31.880 --> 02:04:33.800 And it is undeveloped 02:04:33.800 --> 02:04:37.300 You also have property to the north here the hatch mark 02:04:37.300 --> 02:04:40.199 that has a zoning designation of RD 5x 02:04:40.199 --> 02:04:42.920 That's rural residential minimum 5 acres 02:04:43.079 --> 02:04:46.479 That's and that's actually kind of a place holding zoning 02:04:46.479 --> 02:04:49.560 for when property is recently annexed and that 02:04:50.119 --> 02:04:53.220 Much of that property is undeveloped just to the north of 02:04:53.220 --> 02:04:55.560 the property has that RCR one 02:04:56.199 --> 02:05:00.439 zoning designation is undeveloped to the south there is 02:05:01.119 --> 02:05:04.220 Existing ECC district and that property is currently being 02:05:04.220 --> 02:05:07.300 redeveloped with a commercial use with a travel center use 02:05:07.920 --> 02:05:09.920 There's also some RCC in 02:05:10.359 --> 02:05:11.880 adjacent to that 02:05:11.880 --> 02:05:16.359 RCC in across I 35 and then RCC D across 02:05:16.840 --> 02:05:20.630 35 south of Elm that is developed with the Travel Center 02:05:20.630 --> 02:05:21.840 with a commercial use 02:05:22.720 --> 02:05:27.220 And the applicant is proposing to rezone the property to E 02:05:27.220 --> 02:05:28.279 CC district 02:05:30.439 --> 02:05:33.960 The property is located in a future land use designation of 02:05:33.960 --> 02:05:35.199 business innovation 02:05:35.520 --> 02:05:38.460 Business innovation is intended for employment uses for 02:05:38.460 --> 02:05:41.960 office research and development light manufacturing 02:05:42.680 --> 02:05:46.170 As well as large office parks and also the supporting 02:05:46.170 --> 02:05:48.600 retail uses associated with that 02:05:49.600 --> 02:05:54.550 commercial uses hotels shops restaurants and some 02:05:54.550 --> 02:05:54.840 residential 02:05:57.439 --> 02:06:00.359 So considerations that we looked at when we analyzed this 02:06:00.359 --> 02:06:01.079 request were 02:06:01.600 --> 02:06:04.189 First the the criteria for approval there in the Denton 02:06:04.189 --> 02:06:07.960 Development Code and that's section 35 3 4 B 02:06:08.600 --> 02:06:11.760 the first criteria for approval is does it meet the 02:06:12.560 --> 02:06:16.939 The future land use designation in this case as I said, it 02:06:16.939 --> 02:06:17.800 's business innovation 02:06:18.319 --> 02:06:21.359 ECC district has quite a variety of 02:06:21.840 --> 02:06:25.220 Commercial uses within it and it also folds in some of 02:06:25.220 --> 02:06:28.159 those employment uses light manufacturing 02:06:29.800 --> 02:06:33.149 Warehouse so it's kind of got both of both of those 02:06:33.149 --> 02:06:34.520 elements and so 02:06:34.960 --> 02:06:38.159 ECC district does meet the intent of the business 02:06:38.159 --> 02:06:40.439 innovation future land use designation 02:06:40.439 --> 02:06:43.539 And then the second criteria for approval is is there 02:06:43.539 --> 02:06:47.079 adequate provision of public infrastructure and and the 02:06:47.079 --> 02:06:48.520 answer that is yes 02:06:49.000 --> 02:06:51.399 There may be additional requirements at platting 02:06:52.199 --> 02:06:54.439 And we also looked at the character of the area 02:06:55.319 --> 02:06:59.170 When when we look in this in this part of the city of Dent 02:06:59.170 --> 02:07:01.960 on we anticipate the growth to 02:07:02.880 --> 02:07:06.109 To kind of radiate out from that from that I 35 corridor 02:07:06.109 --> 02:07:08.520 with the commercial development 02:07:09.000 --> 02:07:11.619 Centering along that corridor it takes advantage of the 02:07:11.619 --> 02:07:14.600 visibility the access the the traffic that goes by it 02:07:14.600 --> 02:07:18.170 So we anticipate that the the commercial part of the E of 02:07:18.170 --> 02:07:21.680 the business innovation would would go more toward 02:07:21.680 --> 02:07:25.989 The 35 corridor within it transitioning to those employment 02:07:25.989 --> 02:07:28.880 uses as you go further west in those larger tracks 02:07:30.079 --> 02:07:32.079 the ECC the ECC 02:07:33.520 --> 02:07:36.039 Permitted uses are consistent with this 02:07:36.800 --> 02:07:39.409 Anticipated development pattern and then it does have the 02:07:39.409 --> 02:07:42.819 variety of commercial uses and it has and it permits them 02:07:42.819 --> 02:07:43.399 in a scale 02:07:43.560 --> 02:07:47.270 That is consistent with the type of development you see in 02:07:47.270 --> 02:07:48.399 that kind of corridor 02:07:48.840 --> 02:07:51.630 But a bit once again, it also does fold in some of those 02:07:51.630 --> 02:07:53.000 employment uses as well 02:07:54.520 --> 02:07:57.260 The current zoning of RC r1 is the commercial zoning 02:07:57.260 --> 02:08:00.380 district it does permit commercial uses, but it limits 02:08:00.380 --> 02:08:00.800 those 02:08:01.479 --> 02:08:04.020 Commercial uses in square footage and also in building 02:08:04.020 --> 02:08:04.699 envelopes 02:08:04.699 --> 02:08:07.430 So it's it's not exactly typical what the typical 02:08:07.430 --> 02:08:09.560 development pattern that you would see 02:08:09.960 --> 02:08:13.060 Or typical development scale that you would see on this 02:08:13.060 --> 02:08:14.600 type of highway corridor 02:08:15.600 --> 02:08:19.359 By rezoning to ECC district we would expand those permitted 02:08:19.359 --> 02:08:22.500 commercial uses and also enlarge that building envelope 02:08:22.600 --> 02:08:25.699 So that development could build to the scale that you 02:08:25.699 --> 02:08:29.880 typically see in this area and then ECC district 02:08:30.319 --> 02:08:34.630 The proposed ECC district is a logical continuation of that 02:08:34.630 --> 02:08:36.920 existing ECC to the south 02:08:39.119 --> 02:08:42.819 Public notification was sent out and we have not received 02:08:42.819 --> 02:08:44.359 any responses 02:08:46.520 --> 02:08:48.279 Based upon the criteria for approval staff recommend or 02:08:48.279 --> 02:08:52.119 criteria for approval staff does recommend approval 02:08:52.119 --> 02:08:55.220 I did want to add one other thing we discussed in work 02:08:55.220 --> 02:08:55.680 session 02:08:55.680 --> 02:08:58.819 I know it was brought up by Commissioner Roselle the use 02:08:58.819 --> 02:09:00.079 and and and although 02:09:00.640 --> 02:09:04.239 We we know what the proposed use is staff 02:09:05.720 --> 02:09:09.609 When we when staff looks at a rezoning case we have to look 02:09:09.609 --> 02:09:09.899 at 02:09:10.319 --> 02:09:12.600 That zoning district that proposed district in a more 02:09:12.600 --> 02:09:13.840 comprehensive fashion 02:09:14.399 --> 02:09:17.779 Of course, you could you will vote to recommend and you 02:09:17.779 --> 02:09:20.079 could look look at other factors 02:09:20.079 --> 02:09:21.920 You know the that use factor as well 02:09:21.920 --> 02:09:25.319 So I just wanted to point that out that although that wasn 02:09:25.319 --> 02:09:28.199 't a part of our analysis that it 02:09:29.119 --> 02:09:32.000 You could factor that in your recommendation. So 02:09:32.560 --> 02:09:35.119 I'll stand for any questions and the applicant is here. Do 02:09:35.119 --> 02:09:37.079 you have some questions? Commissioner Taylor? 02:09:38.039 --> 02:09:40.039 Thank You chair, so 02:09:42.760 --> 02:09:46.319 What use category is the expected development 02:09:47.159 --> 02:09:50.260 Going to be it would be a drive-through use a drive-through 02:09:50.260 --> 02:09:51.060 use. Okay 02:09:51.060 --> 02:09:53.180 So I was wondering like drive-through or quick vehicle serv 02:09:53.180 --> 02:09:55.439 icing or what what exactly it fell under it 02:09:55.439 --> 02:09:59.239 The definition of the drive-through use actually includes 02:09:59.239 --> 02:10:00.640 car washes. So I 02:10:01.279 --> 02:10:03.630 Was kind of looking at it both ways to use a quick vehicle 02:10:03.630 --> 02:10:06.920 serving but drive-through but but in the definition it 02:10:06.920 --> 02:10:07.920 actually has the 02:10:08.640 --> 02:10:09.880 the 02:10:09.880 --> 02:10:13.060 Car wash so would it be possible to bring back up the 02:10:13.060 --> 02:10:14.520 zoning map? 02:10:15.920 --> 02:10:17.920 so business innovation 02:10:19.359 --> 02:10:23.119 Has has been challenging for for this commission for a 02:10:23.119 --> 02:10:25.399 while and we have a similar area 02:10:25.399 --> 02:10:29.159 just actually straight down I 35 another mile or so where 02:10:29.159 --> 02:10:30.119 we 02:10:31.600 --> 02:10:35.909 There are great plans and we are just one parcel at a time 02:10:35.909 --> 02:10:37.960 rezoning as we go 02:10:39.880 --> 02:10:42.239 So I don't necessarily I don't feel that this is 02:10:42.239 --> 02:10:44.000 inappropriate here the ECC I 02:10:45.800 --> 02:10:47.710 Especially with the ECC immediately bordering it. I think 02:10:47.710 --> 02:10:51.640 it kind of makes them more cohesive the zoning than to have 02:10:52.439 --> 02:10:55.319 Ten acres there one five acres here or something else 02:10:55.960 --> 02:11:01.000 however, I do I do think that we're tending to put to re 02:11:01.000 --> 02:11:04.000 zone our business innovation district to 02:11:04.600 --> 02:11:07.380 EC employment center which tends toward lighter heavy 02:11:07.380 --> 02:11:08.960 industrial and 02:11:10.159 --> 02:11:13.680 I from what I can gather the purpose of our business in 02:11:13.680 --> 02:11:18.439 innovation district is really to be more office and 02:11:19.279 --> 02:11:22.829 We don't have an obvious straight office park zoning 02:11:22.829 --> 02:11:26.439 category. You can build an office in ECC 02:11:27.000 --> 02:11:30.300 You can also build an office in our like RCC 02:11:31.039 --> 02:11:35.989 that can also become more retail focused and I and I wonder 02:11:35.989 --> 02:11:36.279 if 02:11:37.119 --> 02:11:39.659 in the future as we build out our business innovation 02:11:39.659 --> 02:11:40.960 district basically from 02:11:41.800 --> 02:11:48.060 Here south if it wouldn't be better to aim for RCC D or RCC 02:11:48.060 --> 02:11:48.239 N 02:11:48.600 --> 02:11:50.359 so then you would have 02:11:50.359 --> 02:11:54.220 Retail and the ability to build smaller large office parks, 02:11:54.220 --> 02:11:56.640 but you wouldn't have industrial uses 02:11:57.479 --> 02:12:00.000 There's a really good point and we've kicked around a lot 02:12:00.000 --> 02:12:03.100 because business innovation. We don't have maybe a natural 02:12:03.600 --> 02:12:06.779 We've kind of looked at internally that the EC 02:12:07.159 --> 02:12:12.109 And ECI are probably the most natural fit fit for business 02:12:12.109 --> 02:12:12.960 innovation 02:12:12.960 --> 02:12:15.710 But yes, I could make an argument for the RCC D as well 02:12:15.710 --> 02:12:17.279 because it has a lot of those 02:12:18.199 --> 02:12:21.479 Comparable uses so just as a reminder we need to stick to 02:12:21.479 --> 02:12:22.739 the agenda item 02:12:22.960 --> 02:12:25.399 So we're going a little bit outside that well 02:12:25.399 --> 02:12:28.500 And I'm trying to I'm trying to apply this make sure that 02:12:28.500 --> 02:12:31.600 this zoning is consistent with our future land use map 02:12:32.079 --> 02:12:35.539 So as we look at the future land use map and the future 02:12:35.539 --> 02:12:38.680 land use that this parcels in that's why I'm talking about 02:12:38.680 --> 02:12:39.079 this now 02:12:39.560 --> 02:12:41.560 because I think this 02:12:42.239 --> 02:12:44.239 This is on the edge and 02:12:44.720 --> 02:12:48.260 We have to look holistically at the area around it 02:12:48.520 --> 02:12:51.840 So that's that's that's why I'm bringing this argument up 02:12:51.840 --> 02:12:55.159 now is if we continue to zone business innovation 02:12:55.880 --> 02:12:57.840 EC anything 02:12:57.840 --> 02:13:01.649 it will tend toward the heavier use the more industrial 02:13:01.649 --> 02:13:02.279 uses and 02:13:02.880 --> 02:13:05.079 that will be less appealing for 02:13:05.880 --> 02:13:06.960 the 02:13:06.960 --> 02:13:09.199 the office park uses and the retail uses 02:13:09.880 --> 02:13:14.720 So if we if we tend to make business innovation RCC D then 02:13:14.720 --> 02:13:15.159 the most 02:13:15.880 --> 02:13:18.789 Intense use that they could build would be an office park. 02:13:18.789 --> 02:13:19.640 Thank you 02:13:22.000 --> 02:13:24.560 Commissioner Mack thank you chair just quick question Julie 02:13:24.560 --> 02:13:27.399 that for clarification purposes again that frontage 02:13:27.840 --> 02:13:30.359 Slash service road that this is going to be sitting that's 02:13:30.359 --> 02:13:31.840 two-way traffic right there, right? 02:13:32.239 --> 02:13:37.739 The frontage no that is one way heading so access road goes 02:13:37.739 --> 02:13:39.279 south one way 02:13:39.279 --> 02:13:42.640 Yes, okay, somebody coming underneath I-35 could not make a 02:13:42.640 --> 02:13:44.159 right there. Well here 02:13:44.159 --> 02:13:48.479 They are as part as part of the development in this area 02:13:49.800 --> 02:13:53.789 Bartle Road will be realigned North El so that there will 02:13:53.789 --> 02:13:55.600 be an east-west connection 02:13:55.960 --> 02:13:58.539 Because you're right right now. It's sort of dead ends and 02:13:58.539 --> 02:14:01.000 there's this little little cut through 02:14:01.600 --> 02:14:05.119 Here, but that that will be changed 02:14:07.079 --> 02:14:09.079 Thank you sure 02:14:09.119 --> 02:14:11.119 Commissioner Sullivan 02:14:14.399 --> 02:14:18.029 Similar question I just want to chime in and address 02:14:18.029 --> 02:14:19.880 Commission Taylor's comment 02:14:20.439 --> 02:14:23.539 one of the things that hopefully this subcommittee the new 02:14:23.539 --> 02:14:25.680 subcommittee created will be looking into 02:14:26.199 --> 02:14:29.600 As part of the DDC amendment is to look at the zoning 02:14:30.720 --> 02:14:33.079 districts and in the uses with with regards to business 02:14:33.079 --> 02:14:36.859 innovation as Julie mentioned there is really not a natural 02:14:36.859 --> 02:14:37.880 fit obviously 02:14:38.279 --> 02:14:42.109 ECI or ECC is the closest but we certainly are going to be 02:14:42.109 --> 02:14:46.760 looking hopefully at creating or amending the EC to be more 02:14:47.520 --> 02:14:50.039 Towards what the business innovation is calling for in the 02:14:50.039 --> 02:14:51.359 data plan 2030 02:14:56.960 --> 02:14:58.960 Commissioner so 02:15:00.279 --> 02:15:02.279 Commissioner else thank you chair 02:15:03.119 --> 02:15:06.649 To Commissioner Beck's comment about the the extension this 02:15:06.649 --> 02:15:10.079 L meeting Bart hold is it that's a text-dot deal 02:15:10.119 --> 02:15:13.829 Yes, do we have any kind of timeline on that? I don't I don 02:15:13.829 --> 02:15:15.760 't have a timeline on that and oh 02:15:17.279 --> 02:15:19.640 Earl's here. I'll call Earl Escobar 02:15:26.479 --> 02:15:29.369 The realignment of Bart hold road with with Elm Street or 02:15:29.369 --> 02:15:33.840 77 across the street 02:15:33.840 --> 02:15:36.359 It's actually going to be done as part of the love Chuck 02:15:36.359 --> 02:15:37.920 stock development to the south 02:15:38.840 --> 02:15:40.840 I believe PNC approved that plot 02:15:41.600 --> 02:15:43.960 A couple sessions ago, so they're going through the 02:15:43.960 --> 02:15:45.680 contract process right now 02:15:46.199 --> 02:15:48.079 Followed by a pre-construction meeting then they'll 02:15:48.079 --> 02:15:49.199 commence construction 02:15:52.600 --> 02:15:54.600 Commissioner Ashworth 02:15:55.640 --> 02:15:57.640 Thank you 02:15:58.479 --> 02:16:00.479 So I 02:16:01.640 --> 02:16:03.640 Started to think listening to 02:16:05.119 --> 02:16:07.119 Commissioner Roselle's points and 02:16:09.680 --> 02:16:11.680 Starting the shift, but then I 02:16:12.079 --> 02:16:15.199 My question I guess is not necessary for staff, but I'd 02:16:15.199 --> 02:16:17.479 love to see what you think Commissioner Taylor on be 02:16:17.479 --> 02:16:17.960 familiar 02:16:18.479 --> 02:16:21.760 114 just by by proxy just you can see 114 02:16:22.439 --> 02:16:24.319 35w area 02:16:24.319 --> 02:16:28.050 So you have that truck that I would is that that's behind a 02:16:28.050 --> 02:16:28.680 quick trip 02:16:28.680 --> 02:16:31.399 There's like the little truck thing there, but then they 02:16:31.399 --> 02:16:33.719 have the apartments around it. You have some other 02:16:33.719 --> 02:16:35.079 corporate environments 02:16:35.079 --> 02:16:37.260 You have the farmers coffee there. That's kind of the 02:16:37.260 --> 02:16:38.079 environment. I'm 02:16:39.000 --> 02:16:42.100 Starting to see take place here, and so I'm just one. I'm 02:16:42.100 --> 02:16:42.860 just thinking out loud 02:16:42.860 --> 02:16:45.379 I'd love to get your thoughts on how you see this area 02:16:45.379 --> 02:16:47.809 developing because I did not think about the employment 02:16:47.809 --> 02:16:48.159 center 02:16:48.600 --> 02:16:51.819 Aspect of it. It's just always been the area where there's 02:16:51.819 --> 02:16:53.479 truck stops in the boot store there 02:16:53.479 --> 02:16:56.680 So as it's growing I'd love to see kind of get more 02:16:57.559 --> 02:17:00.790 How you see that going to make sure it just helps me 02:17:00.790 --> 02:17:02.020 process 02:17:03.600 --> 02:17:05.040 Commissioner time 02:17:05.040 --> 02:17:06.920 Thank You chair, so 02:17:06.920 --> 02:17:09.760 So I think the 114 area is a good example 02:17:10.479 --> 02:17:15.069 This the truck wash for example could be an RCC and or RCC 02:17:15.069 --> 02:17:15.260 D 02:17:15.959 --> 02:17:19.940 so you know that this use doesn't have to have the ec see 02:17:19.940 --> 02:17:21.319 and 02:17:22.920 --> 02:17:26.479 with ec I and ec see you you can get things like 02:17:27.200 --> 02:17:31.069 Heavy well ec see I you can get ec I you can get heavy 02:17:31.069 --> 02:17:34.440 industry like you know smelters or 02:17:34.879 --> 02:17:36.879 you know like 02:17:36.879 --> 02:17:40.719 things like that and and you don't want to have your office 02:17:40.719 --> 02:17:43.819 park next to a metal smelter or a 02:17:44.399 --> 02:17:46.399 hazardous waste disposal facility or 02:17:47.479 --> 02:17:50.700 You know something along those lines, so so I worry if we 02:17:50.700 --> 02:17:52.879 go ec the ec category is 02:17:53.920 --> 02:17:59.239 one or two of those heavier uses will drive away 02:18:00.239 --> 02:18:03.120 You know kind of office uses lighter uses 02:18:03.920 --> 02:18:07.079 So if we zone it where the heaviest intensity use is an 02:18:07.079 --> 02:18:08.040 office park 02:18:08.520 --> 02:18:11.360 You know the the fast food restaurant isn't going to drive 02:18:11.360 --> 02:18:13.920 away an office park or a little strip center 02:18:13.920 --> 02:18:16.280 Is it going to drive away an office park, but a metal pl 02:18:16.280 --> 02:18:19.159 ater or something like that might drive away an office park? 02:18:21.200 --> 02:18:24.299 I just want to add one clarification heavy manufacturing is 02:18:24.299 --> 02:18:25.879 not permitted in ec see your ec I 02:18:26.799 --> 02:18:28.799 Not ec. I just unlike manufacturing 02:18:29.520 --> 02:18:32.040 So I just want to clarify. I'm sorry. What's I thought it 02:18:32.040 --> 02:18:34.379 you see a thought you see I see I see G 02:18:34.379 --> 02:18:37.139 Yes, okay, sorry I misspoke about that, but it does it does 02:18:37.139 --> 02:18:40.520 permit life manufacturing. It does permit warehouse uses so 02:18:44.680 --> 02:18:46.680 Any other questions for staff 02:18:49.000 --> 02:18:51.000 Thank you 02:18:52.200 --> 02:18:57.819 This is a public hearing and I do have one card in support 02:18:57.819 --> 02:19:00.440 Dana Morse you would 02:19:03.600 --> 02:19:05.840 And did was to speak feel please give your name and address 02:19:05.840 --> 02:19:08.600 and you'll have four minutes 02:19:09.879 --> 02:19:11.879 My name is Dana Morse. I'm with Blue Beacon 02:19:12.719 --> 02:19:14.719 500 Grays Boulevard, Salina, Kansas 02:19:15.319 --> 02:19:17.319 Which is the home office for Blue Beacon? 02:19:21.200 --> 02:19:23.510 Think the main thing I want to talk about is if we're 02:19:23.510 --> 02:19:25.540 fortunate enough to get approval tonight 02:19:26.719 --> 02:19:31.559 In the ec see I guess to warn you we're going to come back 02:19:32.719 --> 02:19:35.059 When we started looking at this piece 02:19:35.840 --> 02:19:39.159 And we had to buy 21 acres so the piece to the 02:19:40.159 --> 02:19:42.040 to the west 02:19:42.040 --> 02:19:44.639 That doesn't have a car. Just kind of greenish color 02:19:45.280 --> 02:19:47.280 Is part of our contract? 02:19:47.879 --> 02:19:52.100 We had hoped to exit straight out onto Bartolt Road 02:19:52.639 --> 02:19:55.799 this is before we realized that there's a realignment and 02:19:56.760 --> 02:19:58.520 between our track 02:19:58.520 --> 02:20:02.840 Old Bartolt Road and new Bartolt Road is a no-man's land 02:20:03.559 --> 02:20:05.639 That we can't get on to 02:20:07.319 --> 02:20:10.399 Bartolt hold Bartolt Road realigned 02:20:11.280 --> 02:20:14.819 Another problem with that is in the preliminary designs 02:20:14.819 --> 02:20:16.500 that we're seeing from the city 02:20:17.040 --> 02:20:19.040 and from TxDOT 02:20:19.799 --> 02:20:22.430 There's a raised media in there so our trucks couldn't 02:20:22.430 --> 02:20:26.600 across that as they exit anyway, so we're going to have to 02:20:28.479 --> 02:20:32.950 Take our entrance and exit to the west to line up with the 02:20:32.950 --> 02:20:34.879 loves entrance and exit 02:20:35.479 --> 02:20:38.809 We understand what staffs telling us about that and I think 02:20:38.809 --> 02:20:42.200 for us and they in the long run that will be good for us 02:20:42.200 --> 02:20:43.680 And good for them 02:20:43.680 --> 02:20:46.000 It'll get us all the way from 02:20:47.040 --> 02:20:49.799 Far enough east that none of us are trying to exit on that 02:20:49.799 --> 02:20:53.440 curve if you can kind of remember how Bartolt Road is going 02:20:53.440 --> 02:20:53.899 to realign 02:20:55.000 --> 02:20:56.440 Excuse me 02:20:56.440 --> 02:21:00.319 So we've made application for annexation 02:21:01.200 --> 02:21:06.040 Of that entire 16 acres remaining 16 acres and for zoning 02:21:07.040 --> 02:21:11.739 To the to the ECC now honestly we don't care what we're z 02:21:11.739 --> 02:21:11.920 oned 02:21:12.559 --> 02:21:15.659 Letter wise we just want to zone that permits the truck 02:21:15.659 --> 02:21:15.879 wash 02:21:18.040 --> 02:21:20.040 We don't really want to back up either 02:21:20.680 --> 02:21:23.500 Obviously, I have some contractual time that I need to be 02:21:23.500 --> 02:21:26.799 careful of here, so but I want you to understand that 02:21:27.920 --> 02:21:30.309 If we're approved tonight, we're planning on coming back 02:21:30.309 --> 02:21:32.959 actually we have to to make this thing work 02:21:34.600 --> 02:21:36.659 There are a few questions about us that I want to want to 02:21:36.659 --> 02:21:40.370 just address real quickly, and I realize this is only 02:21:40.370 --> 02:21:41.000 matter 02:21:42.239 --> 02:21:45.340 Not really about our land use, but we don't mind certainly 02:21:45.340 --> 02:21:47.159 sharing what we do and how we do things 02:21:48.360 --> 02:21:50.360 We've been at this since 1972 02:21:51.399 --> 02:21:54.139 116 truck horses across the country so we we kind of know 02:21:54.139 --> 02:21:55.040 how to do this 02:21:57.239 --> 02:21:59.239 One thing about our traffic 02:22:01.680 --> 02:22:03.680 Wait oh wait see if I 02:22:08.120 --> 02:22:10.940 We're just clear fine since you've stopped I've made an 02:22:10.940 --> 02:22:13.479 error you are the applicant and you get ten minutes 02:22:13.479 --> 02:22:17.049 I didn't know from your card. Okay, the applicant I 02:22:17.049 --> 02:22:18.280 apologize so you get 02:22:25.799 --> 02:22:29.200 I'll slow down a little bit then our traffic is a meter 02:22:29.200 --> 02:22:29.979 traffic 02:22:30.399 --> 02:22:33.260 We're gonna start out with a double bay truck wash we can 02:22:33.260 --> 02:22:35.920 turn out a truck every 15 minutes out of those days 02:22:35.920 --> 02:22:38.559 So that's eight trucks an hour coming out of that wash 02:22:40.399 --> 02:22:45.579 Maximum 12 because on our dream plan we show three days, 02:22:45.579 --> 02:22:46.120 okay 02:22:47.159 --> 02:22:50.530 Our wastewater we've checked with the city of Denton we 02:22:50.530 --> 02:22:54.959 recycle 30 35 percent of our water our wastewater and 02:22:57.680 --> 02:22:58.639 Understanding that we're gonna have to pay some for water 02:22:58.639 --> 02:23:01.559 and sewer lines out there, but nonetheless 02:23:03.159 --> 02:23:06.260 We've not found any indication in the city that we're going 02:23:06.260 --> 02:23:09.680 to cause any problems in their plant for our discharge 02:23:10.239 --> 02:23:14.120 As far as metals oil and grease whatever we may discharge 02:23:20.000 --> 02:23:23.239 We employ about 50 to 60 people were 24/7 02:23:23.920 --> 02:23:27.020 And we'll have about 50 or 60 people only want bring in one 02:23:27.020 --> 02:23:29.280 outside person and that'll be the manager 02:23:32.079 --> 02:23:34.079 When you talk about compatibility of uses 02:23:34.559 --> 02:23:37.079 When I was making my notes back there the one that came to 02:23:37.079 --> 02:23:39.719 mind is I did a job for the company about 02:23:39.959 --> 02:23:42.879 three years ago in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and we built 02:23:42.879 --> 02:23:46.079 next to the country club in the swimming pool and 02:23:47.840 --> 02:23:50.600 We welcome anybody to call the country club and see what we 02:23:50.600 --> 02:23:51.239 are for neighbors 02:23:52.639 --> 02:23:56.200 You got six more minutes, okay, well, I don't think I 02:23:57.200 --> 02:24:00.059 Don't think I can ramble six more minutes and maybe maybe 02:24:00.059 --> 02:24:02.920 to tell you what a long drive it is from Kansas down here 02:24:05.079 --> 02:24:07.770 Unless you have questions to me, that's all I have do you 02:24:07.770 --> 02:24:08.760 have a question for you? 02:24:09.319 --> 02:24:11.639 Commissioner back. Thanks chair. Thank you. Mr 02:24:11.639 --> 02:24:13.879 More coming down speaking to us and you did answer my 02:24:13.879 --> 02:24:15.879 biggest question concerning wastewater 02:24:15.879 --> 02:24:17.879 So we don't have to worry about 02:24:18.360 --> 02:24:20.620 Oklahoma Roadkill everything getting Washington to our 02:24:20.620 --> 02:24:21.319 drainage system 02:24:21.840 --> 02:24:24.389 Just curious though. You said you were gonna have three b 02:24:24.389 --> 02:24:24.600 ays 02:24:25.639 --> 02:24:28.979 There's a potential of three. Okay. Yes roughly how much 02:24:28.979 --> 02:24:31.079 water does each wash? 02:24:31.079 --> 02:24:34.180 You do you know what the volume is? I can't tell you on a 02:24:34.180 --> 02:24:34.479 triple 02:24:34.479 --> 02:24:37.040 I can tell you on a double bay a busy double bay, which we 02:24:37.040 --> 02:24:38.239 think this is going to be 02:24:40.399 --> 02:24:43.760 It'll be in the top 20 of ours will take about 02:24:44.440 --> 02:24:47.799 18 to 20 thousand gallons a day now is this where they're 02:24:47.799 --> 02:24:49.940 sitting in the truck. They're not getting out with 02:24:51.520 --> 02:24:54.139 Good point. Let me tell you how we do this. Okay, my driver 02:24:54.139 --> 02:24:57.840 will circle around in a queuing lane and he'll pull in 02:24:58.360 --> 02:25:00.540 He has to get out of the truck. We won't let him sit in a 02:25:00.540 --> 02:25:02.719 truck. He goes in the office pays his bill 02:25:03.799 --> 02:25:05.799 Buys a soda goes to toilet, whatever he does 02:25:06.639 --> 02:25:09.909 In that 15 minutes, we have five to six guys washing that 02:25:09.909 --> 02:25:12.079 truck with high-pressure wands 02:25:13.440 --> 02:25:15.239 We don't wash 02:25:15.239 --> 02:25:18.280 Wash out tankers. We will not touch the inside of a tanker 02:25:19.319 --> 02:25:22.420 We'll wash the inside of a box trailer if it hasn't been 02:25:22.420 --> 02:25:22.959 placarded 02:25:24.040 --> 02:25:26.040 the load before 02:25:29.399 --> 02:25:31.600 That's about it we wash the outside of those trucks 02:25:31.600 --> 02:25:35.200 majority of them are tractor-trailer washes 02:25:37.719 --> 02:25:39.719 But they are we are staffed 02:25:40.159 --> 02:25:42.479 We call the driver back out. He gets in starts it up and 02:25:42.479 --> 02:25:44.360 leaves. We don't want to be parking 02:25:44.360 --> 02:25:47.299 We don't do any other business. There are three vending 02:25:47.299 --> 02:25:50.440 machines in the office and I would guess 90% of that 02:25:50.440 --> 02:25:51.680 business is employees 02:25:52.159 --> 02:25:54.159 Grabbing a snack when they get a break 02:25:56.479 --> 02:25:58.479 Okay, thank you miss 02:25:59.760 --> 02:26:01.760 No questions for the applicant 02:26:04.920 --> 02:26:08.020 Thank you, sir, appreciate your presentation. Thank you. 02:26:08.020 --> 02:26:09.719 This is a public hearing 02:26:09.840 --> 02:26:12.360 Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? 02:26:12.360 --> 02:26:13.819 Please come forward at this time 02:26:14.360 --> 02:26:16.360 I 02:26:18.559 --> 02:26:22.260 Sing none close the public hearing on this item and open 02:26:22.260 --> 02:26:26.239 the dais for a motion or discussion commissioner Ozone 02:26:27.079 --> 02:26:29.079 Thank you chair. I motion to approve 02:26:30.479 --> 02:26:32.479 agenda items Z 02:26:32.840 --> 02:26:35.180 1600 18a for approval 02:26:36.959 --> 02:26:38.959 Commissioner Beck second that motion 02:26:41.520 --> 02:26:43.520 Have a first and a second for approval 02:26:44.399 --> 02:26:46.399 any discussion 02:26:50.799 --> 02:26:52.799 Seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board 02:27:01.280 --> 02:27:03.280 Motion carries seven to zero 02:27:05.600 --> 02:27:09.290 Will move us to item C and I'm going to open the public 02:27:09.290 --> 02:27:12.040 hearing for DCA 17 02:27:12.520 --> 02:27:17.049 - zero zero zero four and looks like Ron McGee to will make 02:27:17.049 --> 02:27:18.120 the presentation 02:27:19.600 --> 02:27:21.600 Thank you chair members of the Commission 02:27:27.479 --> 02:27:31.010 Before I begin with the former president just a quick 02:27:31.010 --> 02:27:32.760 background of why we're here today 02:27:34.159 --> 02:27:36.920 Several years, you know through the development review 02:27:37.479 --> 02:27:40.930 Process we we see a lot of developments that come in that 02:27:40.930 --> 02:27:43.500 are in the ETJ and the reason they come in 02:27:43.840 --> 02:27:46.600 Is because we have an interlocal agreement with the county 02:27:46.600 --> 02:27:49.879 to plot properties that are in the ETJ 02:27:50.040 --> 02:27:53.139 We the city did not have any jurisdiction as far as zoning 02:27:53.139 --> 02:27:53.799 or land use 02:27:54.360 --> 02:27:57.440 so with that staff has always 02:27:58.040 --> 02:28:00.680 Questioned if property should be annexed or not 02:28:01.479 --> 02:28:05.719 We had an excision criteria in the code of ordinances 02:28:05.920 --> 02:28:09.549 But back in 2002 when the DDC the development code was 02:28:09.549 --> 02:28:13.700 created those annexation criteria were meant to be repealed 02:28:14.079 --> 02:28:16.079 however, when they were 02:28:16.879 --> 02:28:19.079 created when the DDC was created a 02:28:19.959 --> 02:28:23.360 Ordinance that was with it did not expressly repealed those 02:28:23.360 --> 02:28:25.000 annexation criteria 02:28:25.879 --> 02:28:27.959 so to clear up the 02:28:28.959 --> 02:28:31.879 Question or where the annexation our criteria are we are 02:28:31.879 --> 02:28:33.920 proposing to 02:28:34.600 --> 02:28:38.020 Repeal those sections in den code of ordinances and apply 02:28:38.020 --> 02:28:41.319 those annexation criteria not forbidden 02:28:41.319 --> 02:28:44.079 There are some changes to the criteria into the den 02:28:44.079 --> 02:28:45.239 development code 02:28:45.239 --> 02:28:49.379 So not only the staff know what the criteria are and what 02:28:49.379 --> 02:28:50.639 the procedure is 02:28:51.680 --> 02:28:55.989 So will the applicants and property owners that are looking 02:28:55.989 --> 02:28:58.000 to develop in the ETJ 02:29:00.600 --> 02:29:03.950 The sections that were repealing refer to annexation 02:29:03.950 --> 02:29:07.719 policies procedures and fees and as stated earlier 02:29:07.719 --> 02:29:13.219 They do not are not in the DDC and again back in 2002. They 02:29:13.219 --> 02:29:13.399 weren't 02:29:14.319 --> 02:29:16.319 expressly repealed 02:29:16.920 --> 02:29:20.360 What we're proposing is to create those annexation criteria 02:29:20.360 --> 02:29:24.280 as part of sub chapter 35 3 procedures under this section 02:29:24.280 --> 02:29:27.079 Which will be a new section referred to as the prefery 02:29:27.479 --> 02:29:31.190 Preferry for referee development annexation criteria that 02:29:31.190 --> 02:29:34.469 is and we will have criteria as to when properties will be 02:29:34.469 --> 02:29:35.200 annexed as 02:29:35.680 --> 02:29:37.680 Well as a staff review 02:29:37.879 --> 02:29:41.399 threshold requirements procedures that will 02:29:42.239 --> 02:29:44.239 outline when 02:29:44.520 --> 02:29:46.520 annexations will move forward to 02:29:46.520 --> 02:29:50.340 City Council most of those procedures are covered under our 02:29:50.340 --> 02:29:51.959 Texas local government code 02:29:53.040 --> 02:29:56.860 We the city can be more restrictive. However, we follow 02:29:57.520 --> 02:30:00.350 the state local government code if nothing is in our den 02:30:00.350 --> 02:30:01.559 development code 02:30:01.559 --> 02:30:05.719 So that's almost as of a default in that reference 02:30:07.079 --> 02:30:12.030 with that staff recommends approval of the amendment and 02:30:12.030 --> 02:30:13.399 the repeal of 02:30:13.920 --> 02:30:15.479 the sections 02:30:15.479 --> 02:30:16.879 reference here 02:30:16.879 --> 02:30:20.659 for the reasons of clarifying when property should be annex 02:30:20.659 --> 02:30:21.479 ed as well as 02:30:21.920 --> 02:30:24.600 Creating a more efficient procedure for annexation 02:30:25.159 --> 02:30:28.090 per state local government code and again as this 02:30:28.090 --> 02:30:30.700 requirement or this annexation criteria is 02:30:31.159 --> 02:30:34.069 Consistent with our damn plan 2030 that concludes my 02:30:34.069 --> 02:30:36.920 presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions 02:30:40.159 --> 02:30:42.600 Commissioner else. Thank you chair. Hi Ron 02:30:43.280 --> 02:30:46.600 Okay, so as I'm trying to wrap my head around this there 02:30:46.600 --> 02:30:47.559 since there was confusion 02:30:47.920 --> 02:30:50.459 That we're not really just taking it out of ordinances and 02:30:50.459 --> 02:30:53.420 putting it into the development cone. It's kind of been re 02:30:53.420 --> 02:30:53.799 written 02:30:54.280 --> 02:30:58.639 So can you in a nutshell tell me since it seems proced 02:30:58.639 --> 02:30:59.440 urally? 02:31:00.040 --> 02:31:03.159 There's a lot less involved in the new rewrite 02:31:04.120 --> 02:31:06.120 What is different? 02:31:06.639 --> 02:31:10.069 With this new thing going forward that we I understand that 02:31:10.069 --> 02:31:12.799 this ordinance that we're repealing was already repealed 02:31:12.799 --> 02:31:14.059 and you're really not following it 02:31:14.059 --> 02:31:17.799 Anyway, so tell me the way we are currently right now doing 02:31:17.799 --> 02:31:20.319 this and what this is going to 02:31:21.159 --> 02:31:23.159 specifically change as 02:31:24.760 --> 02:31:26.760 We discuss in the work session 02:31:27.520 --> 02:31:30.120 Because of the annexation criteria back 02:31:31.040 --> 02:31:35.979 Prior to 2002 this was in place. However, because it was 02:31:35.979 --> 02:31:37.360 never repealed or we 02:31:38.120 --> 02:31:40.809 Implicitly consider it to be repealed. We didn't 02:31:40.809 --> 02:31:42.120 technically have 02:31:42.760 --> 02:31:45.469 Criteria so there's a little confusion there. So we 02:31:45.469 --> 02:31:48.829 followed from then on the Texas local government code 02:31:48.829 --> 02:31:49.799 requirements 02:31:49.920 --> 02:31:51.920 Which is basically 02:31:52.200 --> 02:31:54.799 Establishing public hearing dates having those public 02:31:54.799 --> 02:31:57.959 hearings and then readings first and second readings that 02:31:58.600 --> 02:32:02.159 Ultimately adopts the annexation of said property the as I 02:32:02.159 --> 02:32:05.319 compared the two and as we discussed 02:32:05.840 --> 02:32:07.840 in work session 02:32:07.840 --> 02:32:10.879 The main thing that I saw different between the two 02:32:11.840 --> 02:32:15.000 procedures not the criteria but the procedures is that the 02:32:15.840 --> 02:32:17.840 prior procedures or 02:32:17.879 --> 02:32:19.239 criteria 02:32:19.239 --> 02:32:20.280 section 02:32:20.280 --> 02:32:22.579 Reference bringing it forward to the planning zoning 02:32:22.579 --> 02:32:23.159 Commission 02:32:23.920 --> 02:32:27.760 That is not what is being proposed with the new procedures 02:32:27.760 --> 02:32:30.440 as one difference 02:32:31.079 --> 02:32:33.540 the other thing is the 02:32:34.719 --> 02:32:37.159 procedures in the old section does 02:32:37.920 --> 02:32:41.760 go step by step as far as when it goes to City Council what 02:32:41.760 --> 02:32:42.680 they do and 02:32:44.120 --> 02:32:47.440 When a formal annexation proceeding can move forward 02:32:48.079 --> 02:32:50.680 That I can tell you is not 02:32:51.559 --> 02:32:55.360 Is in the new code or in the new procedure section. However 02:32:55.360 --> 02:32:59.000 , that is covered under a 02:32:59.840 --> 02:33:02.940 Texas local government code procedure, which we follow so 02:33:02.940 --> 02:33:05.440 it may not be in the proposed 02:33:06.200 --> 02:33:08.899 Procedures, but again, it's covered under Texas local 02:33:08.899 --> 02:33:10.000 government code 02:33:19.079 --> 02:33:21.079 Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you 02:33:22.239 --> 02:33:24.120 Okay, so 02:33:24.120 --> 02:33:27.950 When it says here that staff will determine does staff now 02:33:27.950 --> 02:33:30.360 determine make that determination 02:33:31.200 --> 02:33:35.510 That something will be annexed either voluntarily or invol 02:33:35.510 --> 02:33:40.479 untary. Yes. We we just prepare an analysis of the 02:33:41.920 --> 02:33:44.639 capacity of our public utilities our 02:33:45.120 --> 02:33:48.760 Land uses and we bring that forward to City Council for 02:33:48.760 --> 02:33:51.620 their direction seeking their direction to move forward 02:33:51.620 --> 02:33:53.000 with an annexation or not 02:33:53.000 --> 02:33:56.239 So yes, we do determine and bring it forward to City 02:33:56.239 --> 02:33:59.440 Council for ultimately their decision on the annexation 02:34:00.040 --> 02:34:02.940 That's what you're doing now, correct, but that's not what 02:34:02.940 --> 02:34:04.479 you're gonna do with this, right? 02:34:04.879 --> 02:34:08.100 No, you will have already made the decision. We still bring 02:34:08.100 --> 02:34:08.799 forward a 02:34:10.159 --> 02:34:12.159 recommendation to the City Council 02:34:13.479 --> 02:34:16.420 It is still it is still City Council's discretion to move 02:34:16.420 --> 02:34:18.299 forward with an annexation or not 02:34:21.559 --> 02:34:24.659 Because I mean the way I read this is I read it as the 02:34:24.659 --> 02:34:28.239 staff is determining that annexation will happen 02:34:28.920 --> 02:34:33.059 then you'll go to the property owner and and request them 02:34:33.059 --> 02:34:33.399 to 02:34:34.319 --> 02:34:37.200 Request to be annexed and within 10 days if they do not 02:34:37.200 --> 02:34:39.879 then you will impose involuntary annexation 02:34:40.799 --> 02:34:45.750 And staff right so I don't see any I see only City Council 02:34:45.750 --> 02:34:46.360 coming up 02:34:46.479 --> 02:34:49.000 When there's just a public hearing to have on what you've 02:34:49.000 --> 02:34:50.319 already decided is 02:34:50.760 --> 02:34:54.520 Prior to public hearing and that's that's I appreciate the 02:34:54.520 --> 02:34:57.020 the comment prior to public hearings 02:34:57.440 --> 02:34:59.559 We present to the City Council 02:35:00.600 --> 02:35:05.739 the proposed annexation and ask for them to prove public 02:35:05.739 --> 02:35:06.959 hearing dates and 02:35:07.280 --> 02:35:10.379 It is at that time they will determine if we need if they 02:35:10.379 --> 02:35:13.479 should we should go forward with those public hearings 02:35:15.399 --> 02:35:19.719 It is not and I agree it is not clearly stated in the new 02:35:20.159 --> 02:35:22.479 right because I mean my issue just with the way it's 02:35:22.479 --> 02:35:23.559 written is it just 02:35:24.719 --> 02:35:27.200 And and I mean I love staff 02:35:27.200 --> 02:35:30.010 I this is not to go against staff and how hard you work and 02:35:30.010 --> 02:35:31.639 and the knowledge that you have 02:35:31.799 --> 02:35:33.940 I'm just trying to make sure that 02:35:34.879 --> 02:35:38.049 You know we still have the checks and balances and City 02:35:38.049 --> 02:35:41.500 Council's there for a reason to represent that you know 02:35:42.120 --> 02:35:44.120 the city as a whole 02:35:44.159 --> 02:35:47.750 I'm just wondering if it if it needs to be in procedure 02:35:47.750 --> 02:35:51.200 because nowhere in this what would this 02:35:51.760 --> 02:35:55.750 Rewrite in this ordinance. Well is City Council mentioned 02:35:55.750 --> 02:35:58.840 what what I what we what I can do is work with our 02:35:59.440 --> 02:36:01.440 Jennifer to Curtis and add 02:36:01.760 --> 02:36:03.760 under procedures those 02:36:04.280 --> 02:36:07.379 Checks and balances that you're referring to and present 02:36:07.379 --> 02:36:08.540 that to City Council 02:36:15.760 --> 02:36:17.760 Commissioner so thank you 02:36:18.440 --> 02:36:21.280 To be clear. This is really more what I would consider 02:36:21.280 --> 02:36:24.090 housecleaning is that right since this is the procedure 02:36:24.090 --> 02:36:25.239 that y'all follow now 02:36:25.719 --> 02:36:27.920 That you just didn't codify it 02:36:28.840 --> 02:36:30.440 back whenever 02:36:30.440 --> 02:36:34.149 The changes made it's a little bit a little bit where we 02:36:34.149 --> 02:36:34.600 had it 02:36:34.840 --> 02:36:38.100 It was never brought forward with the den development code 02:36:38.100 --> 02:36:41.200 So there was a question or confusion as to what do we have 02:36:41.200 --> 02:36:42.219 what do we don't have? 02:36:42.559 --> 02:36:47.270 We recognize that the old or the prior annexation criteria 02:36:47.270 --> 02:36:50.020 was worth bringing forward. So that's the criteria manual 02:36:50.020 --> 02:36:52.959 I'm sorry the criteria doesn't really change. We've kind of 02:36:52.959 --> 02:36:53.559 updated the 02:36:54.079 --> 02:36:57.790 procedures to reflect a little bit more on what we're doing 02:36:57.790 --> 02:36:58.159 today 02:36:58.319 --> 02:37:01.950 We've certainly cut it down a little bit because of some 02:37:01.950 --> 02:37:05.159 legislation that we're having with the the Texas 02:37:06.600 --> 02:37:09.639 You know folks so we are trying to be as 02:37:10.280 --> 02:37:13.649 General, but I do understand the concern of how it goes to 02:37:13.649 --> 02:37:16.879 City Council and making sure that they've been given the 02:37:16.879 --> 02:37:18.100 proper notification 02:37:18.100 --> 02:37:20.100 I guess if I mean I 02:37:20.719 --> 02:37:24.139 think one of the big differences is that now this allows 02:37:24.139 --> 02:37:25.120 for a 02:37:25.440 --> 02:37:28.049 Moment where they could voluntarily annex was which is a 02:37:28.049 --> 02:37:30.440 shorter procedure. So they won't have to go through 02:37:31.239 --> 02:37:34.450 The dual public hearing process and the two readings that 02:37:34.450 --> 02:37:37.280 are outlined in the statute 02:37:37.319 --> 02:37:40.219 So the voluntary petition is very important for some 02:37:40.219 --> 02:37:41.559 property owners 02:37:41.559 --> 02:37:44.899 So it allows that time and it also allows us time to send 02:37:44.899 --> 02:37:46.799 out an intent to annex letter 02:37:46.799 --> 02:37:50.280 Which starts the clock ticking on some of those scheduling? 02:37:50.920 --> 02:37:54.020 Issues that are outlined in the statute and so that's 02:37:54.020 --> 02:37:57.579 something that we didn't have before that this will do for 02:37:57.579 --> 02:37:57.760 us 02:37:57.760 --> 02:38:01.600 So not only does it repeal and replace so that everything's 02:38:01.600 --> 02:38:04.840 efficient and just kind of put back to what we're doing now 02:38:05.040 --> 02:38:07.879 But it allows this procedure that we didn't have before 02:38:08.799 --> 02:38:10.799 and like one says the 02:38:11.159 --> 02:38:14.260 The calling the public hearing and all of that is in the 02:38:14.260 --> 02:38:15.239 statute itself 02:38:15.520 --> 02:38:19.489 So I don't know to what extent we really need to put it in 02:38:19.489 --> 02:38:19.959 here 02:38:20.920 --> 02:38:24.020 Unless the the Commission feels like it needs to be more 02:38:24.020 --> 02:38:24.840 instructive 02:38:27.120 --> 02:38:28.139 Because it's not something that the citizens will be 02:38:28.139 --> 02:38:31.360 following it's something staff will be following 02:38:31.959 --> 02:38:35.059 So this is everything they need to know. I I guess is the 02:38:35.059 --> 02:38:37.319 way to put it. I don't know if that's helpful 02:38:44.440 --> 02:38:46.440 More questions for staff 02:38:50.120 --> 02:38:52.120 Thank you Ron 02:38:53.799 --> 02:38:57.030 And this is a public hearing if there was anyone who would 02:38:57.030 --> 02:38:59.420 like to speak on this item, please come forward at this 02:38:59.420 --> 02:38:59.739 time 02:39:03.239 --> 02:39:05.260 Seeing none we will close the public hearing and we will 02:39:05.260 --> 02:39:09.440 open the floor for discussion or emotion 02:39:16.200 --> 02:39:18.200 Commissioner Hutz with 02:39:19.239 --> 02:39:21.239 noting 02:39:22.959 --> 02:39:26.040 Commissioner Ellis's concerns and 02:39:28.079 --> 02:39:31.790 Legal representations explanation I'm going to move for 02:39:31.790 --> 02:39:37.159 approval as written because I think it is something that 02:39:41.000 --> 02:39:44.969 Is worded as needed to for those that participate in it day 02:39:44.969 --> 02:39:48.600 in day out enough to give me peace with it 02:39:49.840 --> 02:39:51.840 I 02:39:52.120 --> 02:39:56.280 Second we have first and a second for approval 02:39:58.120 --> 02:40:00.120 Commissioner Ellis 02:40:00.959 --> 02:40:04.559 Okay, and I assume what we're voting on is is the draft 02:40:05.920 --> 02:40:07.719 Recommendation to City Council with the draft as is and if 02:40:07.719 --> 02:40:10.879 you have requests and want to make a friendly amendment, 02:40:10.879 --> 02:40:12.280 you're welcome to do so 02:40:13.399 --> 02:40:17.319 Yeah, I think I have support to make a friendly amendment. 02:40:17.319 --> 02:40:20.079 So I think I'm just I just can't support it 02:40:20.079 --> 02:40:22.079 I think there's too many holes in it as written 02:40:26.440 --> 02:40:28.440 Any other just Commissioner Tyler 02:40:33.719 --> 02:40:37.440 Thank You chair so so this 02:40:39.719 --> 02:40:41.979 Have been trying to figure out exactly what we've been 02:40:41.979 --> 02:40:43.799 doing in the past and so I'm going through 02:40:44.639 --> 02:40:47.440 previous years City Council minutes over here and 02:40:49.440 --> 02:40:50.760 I 02:40:50.760 --> 02:40:53.340 Lie I prefer when things are spelled out like I don't 02:40:53.340 --> 02:40:54.059 really like that 02:40:54.639 --> 02:40:57.440 Voluntary and like the voluntary annexation process is is 02:40:57.440 --> 02:40:59.559 not really mentioned in the new ordinance 02:40:59.799 --> 02:41:03.399 Obviously it exists and it defaults to I guess state law 02:41:03.399 --> 02:41:05.840 which allows the the fast track on voluntary 02:41:05.959 --> 02:41:07.959 But that we don't even it's not a criteria 02:41:08.760 --> 02:41:12.389 It's not you know, it's not in the list of reasons to 02:41:12.389 --> 02:41:14.000 approve or recommend 02:41:15.520 --> 02:41:17.120 And 02:41:17.120 --> 02:41:19.219 Then I was trying to figure out whether or not we're 02:41:19.219 --> 02:41:22.520 already following the old 34 section 34 or 02:41:23.760 --> 02:41:26.520 Or we have you know, have we been acting like it's repealed 02:41:26.520 --> 02:41:28.709 and then we realized we haven't completely technically repe 02:41:28.709 --> 02:41:29.040 aled it 02:41:29.159 --> 02:41:31.719 And it does look like I found I found these annexations 02:41:31.719 --> 02:41:35.280 from 2015 and it did not go to planning and zoning 02:41:35.479 --> 02:41:39.399 It followed the state law process and I'm guessing going 02:41:39.399 --> 02:41:41.319 back further like the 2010 02:41:41.760 --> 02:41:43.649 Annexations involuntary annexations would have been done 02:41:43.649 --> 02:41:45.040 the same way. So 02:41:46.760 --> 02:41:48.760 So it isn't necessarily the cleanest 02:41:49.799 --> 02:41:52.940 Thing it kind of falls back to state law. This is one page 02:41:52.940 --> 02:41:56.120 and state law is probably a chapter or two 02:41:57.239 --> 02:42:00.340 But it is consistent and state law changes so much and has 02:42:00.340 --> 02:42:01.799 so many requirements in this area 02:42:02.120 --> 02:42:05.500 that I I think it is a good idea to just default to state 02:42:05.500 --> 02:42:06.319 law so that 02:42:06.680 --> 02:42:10.040 If we require 30 days and they require a minimum of 45 days 02:42:10.040 --> 02:42:11.799 and we're in a bind where you know 02:42:11.799 --> 02:42:14.709 Our ordinance has to be ignored because it you know 02:42:14.709 --> 02:42:16.000 conflicts or so forth 02:42:16.959 --> 02:42:20.280 Anyway, so I'm as I'm as I'm talking talking a lot here 02:42:20.719 --> 02:42:23.899 I'm I'm I've been trying to figure out how I what I think 02:42:23.899 --> 02:42:25.139 about this and I do think that 02:42:28.000 --> 02:42:30.559 That it's not extremely clear but that this is the best 02:42:30.559 --> 02:42:33.799 option it's the way we've been doing it for 15 years and 02:42:34.479 --> 02:42:36.479 It does make it consistent with state law 02:42:38.520 --> 02:42:41.520 I'm a comment as well. I think in our work session 02:42:42.760 --> 02:42:45.889 Legal counsel may mention that there are I think four bills 02:42:45.889 --> 02:42:49.600 currently pending at state that are maybe affecting this 02:42:49.600 --> 02:42:50.319 and I think 02:42:51.879 --> 02:42:54.479 Because of that to give our city 02:42:55.280 --> 02:42:58.879 The flexibility for whatever changes happen at the state 02:42:58.879 --> 02:43:01.760 level without having to come back and change your ordinance 02:43:01.879 --> 02:43:05.319 I'm comfortable leaving it more vague and referring to 02:43:05.319 --> 02:43:08.469 whatever the current state law or wherever it has changed 02:43:08.469 --> 02:43:08.879 to is 02:43:09.760 --> 02:43:12.440 The appropriate thing at this time, so I'll be supporting 02:43:12.440 --> 02:43:14.200 this motion 02:43:17.000 --> 02:43:20.000 Any other discussion for a call for a vote on the board 02:43:24.639 --> 02:43:27.000 Seeing none we're going to call for a vote on the board 02:43:27.000 --> 02:43:30.100 We have a first and second for approval with the language 02:43:30.100 --> 02:43:32.760 as it currently exists presented before us 02:43:44.079 --> 02:43:46.680 Motion is going to carry six to one 02:43:49.079 --> 02:43:51.079 That will move us to our 02:43:51.719 --> 02:43:53.000 final 02:43:53.000 --> 02:43:57.420 Item on our agenda this evening is the project mate matrix 02:44:01.000 --> 02:44:03.000 Commissioner Ellis, thank you chair 02:44:03.719 --> 02:44:07.090 Make a request that when we are hearing a zoning change 02:44:07.090 --> 02:44:08.159 case is it possible? 02:44:09.079 --> 02:44:13.020 For staff to in our material to put a side-by-side 02:44:13.020 --> 02:44:15.500 comparison of what we're looking at 02:44:17.360 --> 02:44:20.729 Now included is like what the zoning the current zoning 02:44:20.729 --> 02:44:24.149 allows and what and then in another document is what the 02:44:24.149 --> 02:44:25.040 proposed zoning 02:44:25.120 --> 02:44:27.700 It would be super helpful because I end up doing this 02:44:27.700 --> 02:44:30.840 myself with with documents on my my own personal computer 02:44:30.840 --> 02:44:32.040 and put them side-by-side 02:44:32.479 --> 02:44:35.139 If it's not too much trouble is that something we can do 02:44:37.280 --> 02:44:39.280 In a doubt in a single document 02:44:41.319 --> 02:44:45.700 The zoning criteria the uses the uses okay the permitted 02:44:45.700 --> 02:44:47.280 use the cyber, correct, okay 02:44:48.239 --> 02:44:50.239 Okay, thank you 02:44:51.000 --> 02:44:53.000 Commissioner Hedgman 02:44:53.079 --> 02:44:57.020 Thank you chair, I would like to renew my request from the 02:44:57.020 --> 02:45:00.280 work session that I would like to select a 02:45:01.840 --> 02:45:05.200 Commercial and a residential builder to 02:45:06.200 --> 02:45:08.200 present to us at some point in in 02:45:08.719 --> 02:45:10.719 work session giving us a 02:45:11.200 --> 02:45:14.000 Just an overview day in the life. This is this is the 02:45:14.000 --> 02:45:15.280 process as we see it 02:45:15.840 --> 02:45:19.260 Those different type steps just to have a build a notebook 02:45:19.260 --> 02:45:22.879 of those things to consider as we're affecting them daily 02:45:22.879 --> 02:45:26.590 I'd like to know from their perspective with what they see 02:45:26.590 --> 02:45:27.760 the process to be 02:45:34.200 --> 02:45:36.200 Anybody else 02:45:37.600 --> 02:45:41.090 I'd like to thank staff for getting me the update on the I- 02:45:41.090 --> 02:45:43.079 35 and mail. So 02:45:43.879 --> 02:45:47.040 Appreciate that you can cross that one off the list. So 02:45:47.040 --> 02:45:47.680 thank you 02:45:50.000 --> 02:45:53.920 And with that I'm going to close our 02:45:55.120 --> 02:45:57.120 meeting this evening at 02:45:58.520 --> 02:46:00.520 737 thank you everyone