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