Feb 15, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2017-02-15 4:00 PM

Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in regards to the tree and landscape ordinance this meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and we will call the meeting to order at 4 0 5 and I will turn over to Chandra in for presentations Good afternoon afternoon Figured today we will pick up where we left off here get right back into the page turn So we stopped Okay, so again we're here looking at revisions to the city 's tree preservation and landscape requirements collectively or officially referred to as the tree code here in Denton under the Denton development requirements At our last meeting we went over, you know kind of the on overview of of what the Changes meant and we left off basically doing a page turn of the proposed changes to the ordinance So where we stopped at before was on page six of the proposed revisions At section 4 B The section pertaining to credit for preserve tree canopy Yes commissioner back thank you chair one quick question for you back up today on IV Says any subsequent redevelopment of property must preserve the minimum percentage of square footage of the pre-develop ment tree Canopy is indicated by the initial tree survey. So they can never come in and redevelop. They can never go below the initial Canopy correct correct on in cases where you know, they may not develop all of the site and they have all their trees in one area That's designed to protect those trees that were initially Preserved yes, say it's 15 years later though, and you've got some new growth So and you've got more than 30% canopy. Does that mean they can come in if they need to And cut some of those down but say at the 30% overall Yes based on the percent overall or and you know more specifically the trees that were actually preserved and set aside for that first You know initial development. Okay. Okay, but overall regardless what they got they've got to stay at 30% Right, okay. They have to have that that minimum that they were that they preserved initially. Great. Thank you Well, I'll follow up on that How does that work if it's been developed and then it's been sold as say for example individual lots and they have multiple property owners And you get growth and they want to cut down on one tree They can't ever if their lot had 30% coverage on it. They can't take a tree out then you know on a residential development or You know in a residential development if this lot a tree that's in someone's yard and you know for some some reason they want to Have that tree removed that that would be permitted. They would have to get a permit for that Because we recognize that you know for someone to have the full enjoyment of their property You know, they may want to add, you know a pool or deck or you know Some other feature to their yard that may necessitate that that need But if they're for example if their lot had a preserved tree on it, that's what the purpose is So it has a large post oak on it and it's part of the 30% Can they or can they not remove that tree? Yeah, because because remember is going back to the the overall canopy on the site that that site can't go below that You know that that canopy that was initially preserved dealing with residential areas You know, it's a little bit different than dealing with the commercial sites. Sure, and then we recognize that Okay, I think I know I may want to If I may I think I understood the question to be a little different and I'm trying to be productive with this conversation tonight Your question is if we have a lot of record That has the 30% canopy coverage on it approved and we have an approved tree preservation mitigation plan What happens if that property is further subdivided and sold? No, if it's just Somebody comes in and one of those in the tree plan. There was one tree that was preserved. It's on that lot And then I wanted to take it out And can they take it because it's part of the 30% that was the overall say it was a 25 acre development Now it's a hundred lots their individual lot had one of the 30% canopy trees can they remove that or not because it was identified specifically in the Preservation plan I get you. So here's my question that I think I'm trying to understand so that I can answer your question We have an overall site We approve the 30% on it and then it's a hundred acre site that is then subdued subdivided into one acre lots as an example One of those one acre lots has one of those preserved trees on it. I want to typically if you have a large development of this scale You would have it come in as subdivided so that you knew what was happening with it or only a portion of it would come In so you would address it specific to that in my opinion. Am I correct? He would so do you see what I'm trying to explain? So we have a hundred We have a hundred square foot hundred acre site. We divided into one acre lots So typically when someone comes in for a PDM and then they submit an application Those lots would already be reflected in a preliminary stage anyway So we would have had the opportunity to understand what that canopy coverage is Now the bigger question in my mind then is and we need to make sure it's in encapsulated in here is What happens if let's say it was just a hundred acre site It was not subdivided and it was intended for whatever development But that was the full extent of it and the 30% canopy cover was there someone else comes in and decides to redevelop it Which impacts the 30% canopy cover then what happens I? Think is the bigger question to answer I think that's fair Thank you. Yeah looking at that that statement number number five there It says the notation shall limit any future unauthorized land disturbing activities or construction That would impact or damage the trees to be preserved So the idea there is is you can't come in and you know further have new development on that site as Far as you know something brand new to the site which would go beyond what you would typically find for residential You know on a residential situation a residential situation . You'll really be looking at you know adding Basically an alteration to the property or an amenity to the property so that's kind of the difference there When we talk about redevelopment that basically triggers a new application so the new Development would go through the same Review as any new development anything that triggers our expansion applicability table or anything that triggers The new application would follow the guidelines that are set forth and ordinance so when you talk about 30% This is why we actually went to this type of methodology because 30% is 30% No matter if it's one acre or if it's a hundred acres and so it's easier to do to Translate and do that calculation regardless of the size of the parcel does that make sense? Yeah Okay, I understand if it's redeveloped, and I think we in the example that when all gave I think it kind of went from my question into a development type question and I Don't want to spend all evening going around in a circle So we need to get through this So I'm gonna go back to my original question if you had a 25 acre subdivision It's divided into hundred lots kind of along the lines of the Example you presented to us our work session, and you have 30% of the trees to be preserved one of those lots because the idea is to preserve the trees has one of those trees on the plan and it's located on that lot and Somebody comes in and says I want to put a swimming pool Or I want to put a backyard Addition or attitude car garage and they have to remove that tree because it's right in the place where it goes It's identified on here that that is a preserved tree. It has to stay there So what is the mechanism for a homeowner if they want to do that? And comply with the code to be able to do an addition a pool or whatever with a tree that was identified in the overall Site on the plan on one lot to be able to do that That basically would be reviewed with their permit application whether it's for a pool or you know Whatever application they have in that's when that would be reviewed But in that particular instance like say this this clause really has to do with you know Development or further development on the site not really alterations to the site Well, no, and I'm trying to take it to the very practical level of how do you go from a? Document obviously you all have spent a tremendous amount of time on we got it less than Roughly a week ago change lots of other people are just getting it trying to say okay How do we take this document and put it in the matrix of what we deal with on a day by day in the scenarios? And how does this affect? residents In the community to be able to do what they want to do with their property people that are in the development or building Business or whatever how does this work? And so I'm just taking that one example as to From the code the way it reads it states that that tree has to be preserved and if you have to take it out What's the mechanism to do that? I have a lot of other questions that are probably much bigger questions in this detail But we kind of started there and so I was curious while we 're talking about it how it actually would work in that one situation So can you take the tree out or not? Yeah, it would be reviewed with their with their application for whatever they're they're doing They wouldn't be held to that for a single family lot However, if it was a commercial property sure you know this you know different situation You know that they would be held to that because that was preserved for that development You know again, you know that 30% for that residential is spread out across the site So it's not looking at each individual. You know lot in that in that area but this statement doesn't you know preclude them from the Ability to remove that tree or have approval to remove that tree. It just says that it limits You know future unauthorized land disturbing activities and construction by them coming through the development process That's where they you know get their authorization In the way we want to address it when we do the full rewrite is to include Open space requirements for residential developments so that The issue that you have with the site with the full development going into non-compliance would be moved because they would have trees Preserved in trails and other open space areas in the development So we wouldn't necessarily have to depend on whether the homeowner wants to keep the tree or not We'd have them in different areas. So we are thinking about that. It's not reflected in this particular tree code But as we do the as we look at the full DDC rewrite and the full Development standards that complement that we will capture it Well, I want to recognize Commissioner Sullivan and I'm gonna come back to that cuz that's one of the comments that I've received from people is we're doing a piece of this and there are several other pieces that this plays into and they're very uncomfortable about modifying one part without having a clear understanding of how all Three or four of these items work together so that you can lay it out and go I see how this works versus when you read this you go. I don't see how this works practically But there may be other areas with I'll have to get some of my other notes and things I present some of the site design criteria manuals and checklists and things that go into these deals to see How overall it works versus we're looking at one piece and it doesn't work with some of the other pieces And how is it gonna make sense? So Commissioner Sullivan's thank you for your patience Thank you I'm confused because I don't see anywhere in here that this limits the term developer The term developer says a person who owns property now we all Assumed I assumed anyway that that meant those money grub and hungry Developer a present company excluded of course, of course Of course, you know, we're talking about Developers, however, it says a person who owns property And then I go through and I'm sure we'll get to number six a tree Permit removal permit is required for trees less than Or back up any person must obtain a tree removal permit from the city prior to removal of any tree in the city I'm a person I've got four trees on my lot about a year old The diameter is about the size of this charger, which is less than six inches And less than five inches DBH has to get an approval or it does not need a less than five This is more than five all four of mine are more than five inches. I Have to complete an application with the applicable applicable fees submit a plan Must be prepared by an ISA certified arborist. I have to post a tree protection signage. I Would then if I don't do all those things if I move one of those four trees Then a tree without the complying requirements Of this subsection or owns part of all the land. This person will be guilty upon conviction of a misdemeanor In charged $500 a day until that tree gets looked back where it's supposed to be now I Don't see anywhere in here that it says Individual homeowners are exempted from this policy Is that something that we want to add as a recommendation as the ordinance goes forward? well, I thought that's what we talked about last week and developers still means a person not a company or a hundred acre minimum or Or individual lots are exempted. Okay talks about how the city is exempted and all the DMV they're all exempted Well, this is what I'll do. I'll start keep I'll keep a t ally of the recommendations that you guys want to carry forward to the City Council And then we'll make sure that that Gets attached to the document that goes forward I just want to make sure that when my wife says I want to move this tree because it interferes with my view or something I don't want to have to go get an arborist to tell me I can move the dang tree Okay so the if I can restate it we would like to exempt the single-family property owner from a any-size-lot Okay from This whole thing from the tree ordinance. Yes, okay Because I don't see the problem with individual homeowners going out and harvesting a bunch of trees for firewood They take it down for a pool But it's their property their tree Let them do what they want to do with it Okay So we have that as a recommendation correct. So why don't we do that? Why don't we amass as many comments as we can today and if we need to meet again, we can do that, too Let's identify that the goal is not to compromise anybody's ability The goal is not to compromise anybody's ability to To use their home to use their land The intent of this ordinance is not to make things difficult if you compare the current ordinance Versus what we're proposing I can guarantee you in comparison to other communities to that. This is a model ordinance But we need to understand our a couple of things one is Staff is not trying to force this ordinance through the PNC number one We look to the PNC as a recommending body That's what you're here for and we do take notice of what is it what it is You're telling us in the instances where we might not agree We would try and explain why it is we don't agree and that 's where your condition or recommendation would come in that is in in in That is different from that of staffs. So when we I Really want to emphasize that this truly is a collaborative effort and we are unable to and cannot That our mission is not to make one Element of the community happy the goal is to see how this ordinance works how it plays out and what its impact is on current and future development on Existing development on existing parcels. So we are not here to Deliberately make things or lives difficult for anybody We are here to ensure that at the end of the day after we have realized what our canopy coverage is What we need to do to maintain and enhance to some degree that canopy coverage Our goal is to make sure that we have sustainable communities that we have legacies within the city of Denton Many a time we have heard. Well, it's just Denton. So who cares from development community members Then we have the community that says this is not enough You must do more and so watch our task is to make sure that what we can do Actually brings us in the middle of the road where it works for everybody in some instances or some sections of it will and in some sections It will not But we as staff it is our ethical obligation to give to the PNZ and ultimately the City Council what we think is best from a subject matter expertise from a discipline expertise Arena so I do Want to emphasize that we are working very diligently on this one of the things that you mentioned Jim is Well, this is in absence of so many other elements associated with this ordinance So let me back up and give you some preface to that the goal was to come in cumulatively Comprehensively with the entire ordinance. We wanted to tackle the tree code element and the landscaping requirements together However, as we started moving forward We knew that there were some components of it where we needed to make sure that we were in line with our internal stakeholders as well so that conversation is still continuing and that's why we broke this apart and we broke it apart for two reasons one is Council had given us a directive to go ahead and proceed with the tree code amendment and that was merely because at one point I believe in 2014 15 Council said what are we doing with our tree fund? And as we started looking into that we actually came up with criteria on how to use that tree fund Where should the trees go? Why should they go where they're going? What are the criteria? What are the parameters associated with that? And then they said but wait a minute. We think this ordinance is too complicated Let's work on it and let's fix this aspect of this component of the ordinance and we said we would love to do that However, we also have the landscaping screening and landsca ping as I call it We need to bring it together which goes back to Shandrian's point. We're looking at this in isolation. So Our view is not myopic Unfortunately, what happens is when you're looking at this this ordinance independently of everything else your view does become myopic and we're trying to Ensure that that does not happen because we do have other elements that will be occurring in step and in line with this ordinance We also have engaged the clarion Initiative as I call it which would look at the Denton Development Code in in a comprehensive manner as well so if we do have challenges with this ordinance, I Personally request that we if there any questions or any issues, let's write them down send us emails We'll look at it whatever changes from a legal perspective from a planning perspective from a land use perspective We will insert those where we have some hesitation to do we would like to come and discuss those with you. So We've been working on this for two years now Prior to this there was a big charge to work on the tree code in the past now if Again, we need to understand from your side or your arena Do you really want an ordinance as well so that we can understand where we need to go? We this this This was created as a result of a City Council initiative we did want to tackle it, but we wanted to tackle it comprehensively and We will but we felt breaking it up might be a little easier to digest Yet it's caused us some minor complications associated with it. So please do rest assured that our mission is not to Push something through it's not to Not provide the accurate information or make it convoluted We would hate for it to be convoluted because we're the ones who have to implement it and enforce it So bear with us and we will work together Like we've always worked together and try and get there together with some I believe Conditions attached to it. So as it relates to the ordinance, so You know, we'll write everything down We'll take in all comment and we'll take it to the next step which might be meeting again next week or what have you? Okay. Well, I would agree with that and I'll concur I don't and I'm gonna recognize it just second I think it's obviously for the people that are here. I know my email and phone have Been well used in the week since this came before us There are people that are interested in it And I think because they're here because of the feedback that I mean they would like to get something Resolved and I think the concern is from what I can gather from the folks that have contacted me is We'll make sure the input that they're bringing is taken not only just heard but Possibly if so implemented in here what their concerns are versus Kind of I guess the commission see we made some comments the other night. It's still the same place And I know I had a copy of the ordinance last fall. I made some comments on it I'm not gonna say that And expect everything that went in there I don't know how many of the things that I marked in there actually went in and actually some of them that concerned about Went the other way. So the mitigation rates that I thought were high They're not actually higher than where they were when I first saw the ordinance So to me, I'm concerned a little bit about the direction that we're going when we ask people to take their time And give feedback and input That it doesn't show up in here and currently It's scheduled for us for next week and for a vote and I think a lot of people are very concerned Or at least that's what I'm hearing is It got tabled indefinitely about I think about six months ago, right? And now it's here and we're trying to move it forward It seemed like in a fairly quick pace and yet there hasn't been some of the feedback that I think has been given Incorporated in the ordinance and I think that's where the the disconnect from my point of view is When we ask for feedback and we give it it doesn't go in here people I think feel like Their view is not then taken seriously or we're not going to pay any attention to it We're going to move it forward the way that it is. So I would respond to your comment I think that's why Some of the stakeholders to your point that may be in the development property owner sign are having a little more issue with this It's because they're the ones that are going to have the greatest impact financially and on their investments and their projects With how this is going. I know there are other stakeholders that would like to see a lot of trees preserve I don't have a problem with that and I don't think there's a lot of developers that don't have a problem with Saving some trees. I think it's when they're the person that has to bear all of that responsibility For the public good That's where I think there's a disconnect with some of our stakeholders and why we're getting quite so much pushback on this So I don't know if you will respond to that or if you want to get Commissioner So I might be able to feel both. Let me ask Commissioner Sullivan. I recognize you. Please make your comments. We'll Continue the dialogue. Okay. Thank you Would it be I mean my humble suggestion would be simply to identify a homeowner Developers one definition homeowner is a different definition So that we don't have a homeowner being held to the same standards as a developer I think that would clear up a lot of men this time And perhaps having the opportunity where you say new development and redevelopment on what the criteria are there if we can keep it succinct and simple Why not? Let's look at that Avenue as well Going back to the concern Jim that you've mentioned and Commissioner Sullivan, I agree with you. We will clean that up. Yes, and it might not have been reflected right now But we will clean that up and we will meet again and we will do a page turn or we will sit and talk and discuss this thoroughly but as it relates to what we have heard from members of the development community To you know saying that this really it's we just shouldn't have to do or we shouldn't have to comply Again, that's one end of it But what we're trying to do and what we've heard from a lot of our development community that we've had an opportunity to meet with Is work with us they we've worked together really really well We might not agree on everything which was the first thing we discussed, but we will agree on something so That being said I think if I'm not mistaken and if we need a refresher course, we will do that I just from a perspective of moving forward one of the stigmas that we have Born I guess is the best word to use is we never move forward with anything So with your guidance and with your input I would like for us to move forward I just doesn't mean next Wednesday is when the public hearing is going to occur But we would if we can amass everybody's comments the planning and zoning Commission's comments this week And we can look at those and see where they need to go we can sit with our legal team Envision what needs to happen and from there come back to you and discuss Why and why not sure let me give you one direct example. I pulled the current Development code the mitigation and just for some of my fellow commissioners Currently we are one to a half one to one Then it goes to one to one and a half and one to two and what currently I believe right now At least according to this chart of my understanding the greatest is one to two on mitigation rates Go ahead and and so we're now the original ordinance that came out in the fall was one to four. Yes And I'll be totally I marked it when I had an opportunity to review it and made it back to because it was the highest Mitigation that we currently have and I thought you know what? Just from my point of view there's a lot of other people to give a point I think that's probably pushing it but you know what we currently have it at one to two at the very highest rate Uh-huh, and it came back now. It's one to six. So I look here and go well Why do we go from these smaller rates the very highest one? We've already gone up we've tried to move it kind of back to what it is and it goes the other direction to one to six and I Guess everybody thinks that the condelment community and property owners. Okay. Well, that's okay I don't have an issue when we're going and making such a huge change from what they are now To one to six. So somebody may want to make a comment about that and we have an answer to that which perhaps Okay, I think we didn't iterate during the meeting. So I'm gonna turn it over to hey Me too. Okay on that one to six ratio. We got to keep in mind. We're we're moving from mitigating By diameter inch to mitigating by square foot of canopy. That's a big difference. Those two things are not apples to apples at all I did do a Comparison basically on every tree from I think I started with an eight inch size tree all the way up to Maybe it was up to like a 28 inch tree comparing what the mitigation would be under the existing code and what we're proposing and and Most of the cases what we're proposing is less than what's existing I didn't have that in the backup because it's on a big spreadsheet and you know, it's it's not an easy read at all Just to be you know, just frank with you The other big difference in the existing code and what we 're proposing even at that one to six Is that those trees that you're that you're planting for mitigation? Are also trees that you are required to plant, you know your mitigation trees can count Towards your landscape trees your buffer trees your street trees your parking lot trees That is a huge difference over where we were at, you know In fact after you know, I got and more into the comparison, you know Honestly, I could have justified a one to eight or one to ten without it being higher than where we're at right now In that last example that I had before us you saw mitigation through replanting on that site was around eight hundred and nine trees Under the under what we're proposing it was two hundred and thirty four trees if I'm not mistaken That's a huge difference. So don't let you know that six is that one to six is bigger than where it was before so, you know Diameter inch does not translate to To canopy at all, you know, you can have a 30 inch tree that has a smaller canopy than a 20 inch tree It all depends on where that tree is that is in slice stages. It's not it's not a constant as Canopy is so that's why I feel very confident with the one to six ratio, especially since we are giving credit for For you know require landscape trees and mitigation trees. You're basically counting them twice Okay Commissioner Ellis Thank you chair. Um, I guess going back to what when all was was stating What is the best way for us to to make this productive and move forward because I think we're going in circles again we're not getting any anywhere with this draft and and I Don't know what the best way is for us to collectively offer our opinions I mean I have an opinion which would be to go back to page one of the draft ordinance and not move beyond it until Everybody here gives their opinion you write it down You take it back to where you need to take it back to and look and see if any of them Should be addressed then we move to page two that to me would make sense. So we're We're getting stuck on things. We're going forward on things. I'm confused about even what we're talking about so far So I don't know how you guys could put anything together with our comments and and be able to move this forward We need a better tree code this Improve this is to improve our tree code. It's to preserve the 46% of Undisturbed tree canopy we have on and lots that that are not yet developed We need to do something with this and we need to get something You know pass through City Council. I'm just trying to figure out how we're going to get there because we're in this 35 minutes We're nowhere where I don't even know where we started in the ordinance and and it's kind of where we ended up last week When we just ran out of time, so I would love to right now set some kind of Organized way that we're going to be able to go through this collectively Offer our opinions because they're all going to be different because we all come from different mindsets different communities different You know we've got different people talking to us All of our opinions at least should be heard I don't know if all of our opinions will play into changing this this draft, but We need a way that I guess they can be heard and then have you guys be able to go through them and then bring it back to us and Eventually we whittle it down to something that everybody can live with and we move it along I'd love thoughts comments on anything If we can just get back to your point frame this discussion I don't the intent of us bringing this document to you is not for you guys to actually write it Because we had we have staff that's actually doing that we have legal staff That's reviewing it to make sure that it's defensible in that you know we're in order in that regard what we need from you guys is comment and feedback on the general concepts We broken down the tree code into I guess seven different or maybe five or six different areas That comprise the tree code if you go to page three on the staff memo it tells you what those are So we can start there Because that is the bulk of what you guys are Struggling with or I would need to comment on and then in addition to that I would recommend that we talk about The the legal aspects just because I know that's going to be a question for Enforcement and appeals and in different things like that But in general we would like feedback on those five different concepts that you see on page three of the memo and then any of The I guess conversation about the administrative side of it. We can maybe hold that to the end But to get to the meat of it is page three And that list that we provided Let's start there and possibly take your recommendations on what you want to see in there or taken out Page three of the staff memo. Yeah, I think I'm confused about what are you talking about? What staff memo are you addressing? The backup I'll just run quickly through what they are So the five components that we've identified in the tree code are the number of established tree designations which that is the The categories of trees that would be subject to the ordinance We have the minimum preservation percentage that's the 30% that hey would and Jim were just discussing should that be higher should it be lower? We have the tree mitigation ratios as well in Jim and Hay wood's previous discussion Is it one to four is it one to six is it one to ten? or lower What the tree fund payments should be right currently we have 125 perfect diameter or caliber is obviously we have to change that because the way we are proposing to Enforce the tree code is not based on the the diameter of the tree anymore is based on the canopy the square footage of the canopy so if we need to find a calculation that translates to canopy so we need your input on that and then Preservation incentives or what we proposing Enough incentive do you feel like it's too much? How do you want to fall in that area and then the other areas that I would? Suggest that we look at or how do we enforce it if the the criteria that we have for enforcement? You agree with it or not and then as far as how we administ rate the document. Are you okay with? Administrative appeals should it go to City Council? Those are the things that we are hoping to get input from you on in these meetings The document itself we have Requirements from our legal department that we have to stay within there's certain language It has to be written a certain way based on our council so We can't necessarily we can listen to your concerns on those but obviously we defer to our legal team for How that actually plays out? Okay moving forward what I would like to do and you know getting back to a panel with Commissioner Ellis was stating I would like to go on a page turn through the ordinance as we started out with at the last meeting and Initially what I was thinking was picking up where we left off Then if we need to circle back because I would like to at least get through this document Completely at least one time and then if we if we're able to do that We can circle back to the beginning and work back up to page six if that is is okay Because you know I want to have us jumping around from different pages Which makes it difficult for me to follow and everyone else to follow where we're at So back to where we stopped Which was preservation incentives? And this is a major change from the previous tree code credit for preserve tree canopy Under the existing code you only receive credit if you preserved above the minimum requirements towards your future landscape canopy what we're proposing is that you get credit for every tree that you preserve towards your landscape canopy requirements and that would be for our Protected trees which are trees 18 inches and diameter above you would get two times the credit Of what you preserve so if you preserve 10,000 square feet of tree canopy you would get credit for 20,000 square feet of tree canopy For trees that are less than 18 inches it would be a direct credit a one-to-one ratio So any any questions comments concerns about that section Okay, so the next section parking lot design is really a holdover from the previous code there was nothing changed with that section basically that allows some modifications to be made to parking lot requirements to preserve additional trees on the site or to preserve trees on site I'm sorry Commissioner Ellis apologize. Thank you Hey, but let me go back because I did have a quick note here Back to the incentives there. So where it states that the preserve chant canopy may be counted So is that a to be determined thing? It might be maybe I Was confused how that was written. I don't know if I'm allowed to say that because it's I'm not trying to rewrite it I'm confused the way it's written. It says the preserve tree canopy may be counted So my note says will it be or is that to be determined? Yeah, that it will be I mean that's a miss. I mean, you know Okay, so my thinking is the preserve tree canopy will be counted Yeah, making a note of that Because the idea is to you know for that to be just standard Yeah, because the waves when I read it it it almost looked like it was going to be determined on whether it was going to be counted or not And then the next line where it says a developer may receive credits, but you're saying they will receive credit . Okay, thanks Okay turning over to the next page mitigation Now this whole section here Basically one through three that's that's all new to the code Starting off if preservation can't reasonably achieve the mitigation may provide may be provided through replanting or payment into the tree fund The following mitigation shall apply so we're given you know up to 10% of the trees that are existing on site may be removed and mitigated through either payment into the tree fund or Replanting of trees on site again those trees that you're replanting Count towards your required landscape trees that you have to plant anyway And again that's at the one to six ratio which we just you know had some conversation about For payment into the tree fund what we're going to since we 're going to canopy is Basing the payment off of a square foot of canopy Again, that number is based on data that we received in our state of Denton urban forest report and it's basically Taking the the structural value plus ten years of of environmental benefits that we received from trees and Calculating you know how much that is worth per square foot of canopy that we have here in Denton Okay the next number here mitigation of tree canopy square footage may be counted towards total landscape canopy at a one-to-one ratio Again restating the credit this that's given Each mitigation tree must be three inch calipers measure six inches above grade Current code is two inches in caliper what we're finding is most developments are planting three inch caliper trees anyway So we didn't see that that would be You know really anything beyond what what we're seeing you know primarily going in in town on our landscape plans Any six inches above grade rather than four four feet six inch which is brush tithe Which is what we currently are doing you're going to change it to six inches above yes standard practice for measuring small trees You know trees coming out of the nursery is measuring cal iper inch which is six inches above grade once you get over You know generally About five or six inches I have to go back to look at the standard then you you move up to breast height which is four and a half feet above grade Okay, I know that's referred here in the ordinance at the beginning, but that's the first place. I've seen it six inch I didn't know if it was a mistake or I mean an over look. Yeah, that's how Whenever you purchase a tree from the nursery you know that 's where they're measuring from so if you're expecting a six inch at breast height It's going to be smaller or three inches at breast height is going to be a smaller tree Correct, then no, okay. What's stated here? Thank you. Okay Any other questions on this mitigation section comments concerns Commissioner Ellis, thank you. Um so just to clarify it's up to 10% right correct That's the maximum correct that they can pay into the fund correct Commissioner back. Thank you. They would On mitigation we didn't get to it yet, but number four their IV Gaswell operators Down there says the applicant shall mitigate the removal by paying established tree mitigation fee for 35% of the total square canopy so they're getting a discount it sounds like Not exactly Guess what development is a little bit type different type of development than what you have with your traditional You know with when you're if you're developing residential commercial, so this is actually in the existing ordinance and what Gaswell providers required to do under existing is basically mitigate through payment Based on what they take out because a lot of times they're there You know having their access rolled in and a pad site and the site may be you know, 100 acres The the only change to this is that you know, I think on the existing code is 25% Under what we're proposing is 35% of the canopy Okay We can come back and look at if we need to yeah. Thank you. Mm-hmm Can you make there's 35 instead of the 30? Yes, it's well, that's not they're not required to preserve 30% or 35% what they are required to do is mitigate for 35% of what they take out. So if they take out 100,000 square feet of canopy where they mitigate for 35, 000 square feet of canopy That's how that works Okay Okay, next section is about the tree fun Which there wasn't well, there was some rewording recently discovered in and in section a of the of how it was written, but the meaning is the same I Want to go back over that again visit that section with our legal staff Just because of you know, how was written is not as I don't think it's direct as it was initially I'm not sure why the changes were recommended for that one section But basically this section eight talks about the city administering the tree fun The types of purchases or uses that can be made with the tree fun to purchase plant maintain trees preserve wooded property There remains in a naturalistic state and perpetuity To perform and maintain a city-wide tree inventory and to educate citizens and developers on the preservation care and maintenance benefits and value of trees within the city of Denton and This next line was something that was changed Amended last well as was in the summer of 2015 The tree the tree fun may also be used to support programs for the public purpose of increasing the tree canopy Within the city of Denton as approved by the City Council and that was a request from City Council To make changes to the uses of the tree fun to allow us to provide trees to be planted on private property prior to that The trees had to be planted on public property. And so that that's what allowed basically the funds or the programs that Were running through KDB to actually happen because a lot of those programs are providing trees that can go on on private properties Commissioner back. Thank you chair Back up there where you said to preserve wooded property remaining in a natural state in Perttuity does this go to the heart of the city actually buying large segments say we're talking about land was a lot of trees and We want to preserve them because the developers do come in we're going to lose a lot of trees So we don't want the property owner to suffer Would we use the funding here then say okay? This is going to cost a lot as far as losing trees. Would we buy that area then to preserve those trees? Yes, that's what we're going to be developed. It would be kept in perpetuity Right. Okay. Yeah, that's what that allows us. Okay. Okay. Yes, exactly. That's what I need to clarify. Thank you Okay number letter B here proceeds of the tree fund should not be Should not be used to meet any requirements for preservation mitigation landscape buffering streetscape in the other some other similar requirements in the development code and the develop the Denton code of ordinances So basically that section says that you know a developer can't or any site that's being developed Can't apply for one of these programs that we have for planting trees on private property to meet their required landscape requirements pertaining to trees So the next section basically states the applicant shall pay fees established by the City Council published in the development review fee schedule the application criteria manual Which may from time to time be amended. It's just stating where that fee will be Published and one thing and even with the existing code. We don't have the mitigation fee in the code We have it in areas where you know when whenever it needs to be adjusted. It's a you know, a little bit more efficient process to get that done Commissioner Ellis, yeah, thank you. This is sort of tongue -in-cheek From one of the last codes we tried to rewrite There's a lot of shells in this and we were redlining through that in the last discussion we had I think about parking So I'm just gonna throw that out there. There's several shells in that paragraph. Oh, yeah, I'm gonna be must or Yeah, yeah, that's one of those sections Also because it was revised a couple, you know just in 2015 I didn't even really look at that to take those out, but I 'll I'll make that note to to get the shells out Or replace the shells Okay letter D the applicant must pay fees contributing to the tree fund Prior to the issuance of a gas well development plat a gas well site plan or the following of a final plat in the Denton County Court County clerk's office for a single residential subdivision clearing and grading permit clearing and grubbing permit or building permit on all commercial industrial or multifamily residential developments Would not be issued until Would not be issued prior to this payment. So basically that's just stating when that payment is due So that everyone is clear that you know It goes you know with those permits because what we want to do is have those fees paid prior to trees actually being removed and This was that section. I thought it was a but it was D that kind of got reworked and I'm not sure why it was reworked but It doesn't flow I think as well as it should Any questions or any additional questions or comments on that section dealing with the tree fund Commissioner Ellis, thank you chair. I just on that comment . I think I emailed you this that paragraph I found really confusing just the way it was worded. It just It had to be reread many many times. So I think I sent An opinion about that, but I'll send it again if you don't have it. Okay The only comment I'll make is I'm gonna echo Commissioner Beck's point Which I know I've brought up prior to these meetings recently is The city taking the role on purchasing these properties and doing the preservation My opinion is still the same and I think it's feared by a lot of private property owners if this is public opinion For the city of Dent public policy tree preservation. I think it's the city's Responsibility to take care of that procure the property Plant the trees and I don't think it needs to be pushed off on the individual property owners We can call them developers or whatever that for the city's good The trees that are on your property You have to do certain things with them for the overall good of our community and I just have a philosophical Opinion about that. So I'm all in favor of the city taking the lead on this and doing it rather than forcing private property owners and individuals to be the one that bear the burden of the implementation of this for the public good so I'm in favor of the perpetuity of it and In city buying properties and are paying You want to take the 20% and buy it from the gentleman? They say you can't cut it down and we'll pay you for it Well, that's a whole different deal than requiring them to keep the 20% and that's out of their pocket So I think there would be a lot more buy-in from stakeholders This is gonna be public policy and we're going to require you to do it and we'll preserve a certain amount. We'll buy it And we'll buy the preserve the trees that we're requiring you to preserve the city will buy it and maintain it It doesn't have to be a private homeowner association doesn 't have to have private GL policies covering it It's private property that the public can't go to I think city needs to buy that stuff and and bear the burden for it if it's public policy So that's gonna be my comment on that section Okay So the next section removal of trees and this section here was reworked quite a bit From the previous code. So I'm gonna start off with a number one any person Must obtain a tree removal permit from the city prior to a removal of any tree in the city The tree removal permit is not required for Exempt trees actually that's I'm not even sure how that got in I think that came from another section because the idea is not to allow I mean In fact scratch that number two out of there Because Even for an exempt tree the exempt trees are exempt from preservation requirements But you will still need to obtain a permit and it gets back to I can't remember who was mentioned in the last meeting about You know someone going in on a undeveloped site and removing, you know, all the exempt trees prior to development Yes, Commissioner Tyler. Yeah, so yeah So, you know, we don't want to get into that situation. It gets very difficult to police You know just having someone allowed to go out on you know 30 acre track and start removing trees thinking that they 're exempt and they may not be exempt Which can result into you know, quite a bit of fines For removal, yes, yes, they are exempt from being required for preservation but not from having a permit to remove them Commissioner Beck Thank you chair. Let me make another suggestion. Maybe streamline this one section here a little bit So you want to get rid of two is that what you said? Yes. Okay If you took one in three and made it one deal, let me read it out the way it seems like it sounds better Starting with number one any person must obtain a tree removal permit from the city prior to the removal of any tree in the city And then add the words except for and they go down here for trees less than five inches DBH that are looking blah blah blah Is that possible? We could just make that one full since because it sounds like you're saying a person like you're saying they do have to pay Obtain a tree permit and then you come down here say well, no, not really for this So if that were all like one sentence would that make it simpler? It seems like Yeah, are you with me? Hey, what are doing which I'm looking at the language here I can be confusing sometimes I know I see what you're saying. I'm okay. We can we can definitely look like I mean make it all one thing make it all one You know concise that'll work you think I? Think so, you know, we'll okay, you know take a look at it It all runs through through legal just to make sure that okay from their perspective it makes sense to run it through legal. Yeah Commissioner else Thank you chair. Yeah, and just in that same I guess area I guess is where we would want to to put something to protect the single-family homeowner that we're trying not to get Hamstrung by this. I mean, I know they still require a tree permit But I guess going back to our earlier discussion with Commissioner Sullivan and and and chair I would think that Whatever we're gonna add this would be the place where we need to add it to have that protection correct or But what protection specifically are you talking about for a single-family homeowner? Well, that's a good question. What that what are we talking about for the protection of a single-family homeowner? So Yeah, no right and I mean we started with the tree that was originally preserved and then I know Commissioner Sullivan brought up if he's He wants to move a tree on his property. I mean, how do we? because we're really not doing this this code to Not allow Commissioner Sullivan necessarily to remove a tree and put in a deck or something But but how do we how do we put it in words here? that you know, and I don't I don't I guess I don't have the words right at this moment, but something it would seem would need to be crafted here to to To better describe who's required to get a permit and go through the removal process back up a Step here under the current code single-family and duplex Properties or required a permit for removal for five or more trees on their property So the fact of them having a permit is not something that's totally new is just based on the number of trees that they are removing What we were trying to do because saying five or more permit five or more trees It doesn't say per year per week per day. It's just very open. So What our intent was just to require a permit for removing trees that are? Are less than five inches in diameter a five inch diameter tree is it's a nice size tree But it's something that you know a homeowner, you know can you know, probably safely remove If you price that tree at a nursery, you're talking, you know a tree that's you know over a thousand dollars planted So it's not you know, just small You know tree that That we're talking about here Yeah, I guess I'm just trying for more clarity there because I honestly don't really in my mind know what a five inch Well DBH I think is different though, right no, that's not That's the conference diameter is your cross-section so Five inch diameter is going to be you know, probably about this So if you take a ruler and you measure five inches, you're measuring five inches straight through the trunk of the tree So and you're measuring at a certain height correct when you're doing that? Yes. Yes. Okay, that's four and a half Feet above above ground that five six inches is where you break off from measuring caliper to diameter So it's a decent sized tree That we're talking about here to capture Commissioner Sullivan and Ellis's comment about the homeowner We may need to make to write that the recommendation is to exempt the homeowner from the preservation and mitigation requirements So we'll do that and that's actually found at the beginning of the document Commissioner back. Thank you chair. Again, don't get bogged down in this but Just lose my train of thought I Did I'll come back to it sorry buzz back in Yeah, and the other Reason for requiring those permits was because under the current code there is somewhat of a loophole Because of that, you know only five trees on a single family or a duplex lot If someone is coming in to redevelop that property the current code doesn't state, you know It has to be occupied property or if it's vacant so, you know Technically if there's a single family house on a 10 acre property, you know They can they can remove, you know five or more trees a day and be under the code Commissioner back. Thank you chair. I remember I'm not opposed to individuals Family single family being required to get a tree permit to remove a tree. I think it Does the big benefit it's not necessarily going to be a bad thing if you're going out there and looking at or somebody's going out there looking at offering suggestions that Might preserve that tree and it'd be up to the homeowner You're not it's not gonna be a mandate But if they're having a problem with it for such and such a reason that you can say well Here's how we can modify that rather than take the whole tree out I would be for a permit just for educational purposes to have somebody like hey would go out and kind of explain things to And if it's not gonna meet their criteria, they really need that tree moved in Okay, but it serves that benefit of nothing else. It just it's an educational tool right up and even Since being in here and didn't I've had that opportunity to meet with you know, at least a few property owners that you know, initially you know, they want to take out a tree and I talked to them find out what they're what they're really trying to accomplish and and in most cases pruning can't accomplish, you know what they Trying to accomplish by taking out the entire tree at a lower cost Commissioner Ellis Thank you chair. Yeah, I guess what I was trying to to clarify in there too like with the old code Which I know has holes in all but but for a typical home owner Thinking about removing five trees or more. Oh, okay, then there's a versus okay, how you know, what is the height and what is the you know, the the Inch around and now do I need a permit? I mean easier for them to wrap their head around something that was just more simply explained Which that one they could wrap their head around. Oh if I'm taking out more than five. Okay, I need to call the city So I guess that's what I'm looking for. Just more more clarity and for a typical homeowner to understand What is required of them? Commissioner Sullivan, thank you any idea what the cost is for the application fee An ISA certified arborist's preservation plan and the protection signage What is the cost to a homeowner if they were wanting to? Remove a tree. Well a homeowner would not be required to have a tree survey to you know, take out You know a tree You know That's not what's stated here. Yeah, I mean if they're just doing a small project that's different I mean that that language for you know, the the survey that 's really geared towards, you know your new development Putting in a swimming pool isn't classified as new development. It's really classified as a as a modification to the existing property So it's a different type of a permit that you would have for that versus, you know If you're building something from the ground up so they would not be required to you know Have a full survey now if it was, you know Single-family lot and they were building a new house on that lot Then you know, they would be required to to have that survey just as any other development So this one was areas that we get cleared up when we design ate the difference between developer and homeowner Gotcha On a follow-up on Commissioner Sells. Do we have a cost of what it is for the people that it won't apply to? It will apply to others. So how much does that cost? Well, just recently I received two part two estimates from two different companies on Tree surveys for a 38 acre site and I have them to give me basically five different options One option was a hundred percent inventory of the entire site One option the second option was an inventory of just the area that was being developed The third option was a sample inventory of the entire site The fourth option was a sample inventory of just the part that was being developed and the fifth option was basically a tree canopy type analysis of the property on the high end Having the hundred percent inventory, which is what we require either the hundred percent inventory Or the sample inventory is acceptable under the current code My quotes were between ten and fifteen thousand dollars for that hundred percent inventory for that Analysis of just a canopy I was looking at around 2500 to 3500 so, you know, we're talking the savings of about you know anywhere from You know 70 to you know 35% or so based on you know that quote that I received so the cost the cost is quite a bit less In fact, a lot of the work can be done remotely the the person that survey and would only really need to visit the site just to verify that What their imagery is showing us is accurate? And in some instances, you know, it just kind of depends on who's doing it There's a technology to fly drone over property to do canopy Assessments and you know fees straight into the the common, you know our GIS program So, you know cost wise it's a lot less You know time wise it's a lot less Okay So true removal Permit review and approval process. So this is where we get into new development here and the requirements for you know , new development or redevelopment so a developer must submit a complete application along with applicable fees as determined by the most recent fee ordinance a developer must submit a tree survey and Tree preservation plan if required as stated here in With the tree removal permit application and the tree survey or tree preservation plan must be prepared or certified by an ISA certified arborist so the big difference in this section is Under the existing code there was a list of individuals There was you know lists of botanists an urban forester a landscape architect a forester a surveyor with 10 hours of of tree ID experience was was qualified to provide this survey It was good because it provided variety but from my perspective and reviewing those applications I had no way of really verifying those credentials short of Requiring them to send me, you know a degree or some type of certificate that they actually you know had some experience or training That qualified them to do this type of work with the ISA certification I can verify their credentials through the ISA website You know just simply be requiring them to have their Certified arborist number on the application when they sign off just as you would you know for you know license Engineer or any other licensed professional So the next section Is what's left unchanged the tree permits if it's just for tree permit is good for 180 days if it's attached to Building permits site plan clearing grade clearing grubbing gas will plat glass will site plan It runs as long as that those Permits are active so it could be go beyond the hundred and eighty days in those instances Okay, so after true removal permit is issued the developer must This section has changed to from reading this right I have a backup for just a second or three Is there a mention of a final plat? Or why is a final plat not included in that because that's at the point that the The survey and all that stuff is done is that correct yeah, but even after you final plat these the permits that are listed You know typically come after the final plat So after your final plat, you know if you're going, you know straight to building you have your building permit Or if you you know are getting a clearing grade prior to the building you would have that clearing grade So it would run with those applicable permits Okay Yeah, otherwise You would be required to put up your tree protection when you got your final plant Okay, which you know a lot of times, you know, the final plant is approved and issued you know, it could be a year before you come out to the site so and Then you may not be ready to put up tree protection if you do by the time you actually there to develop you may have To put it up again. Well, I'm trying to make I've got a lot of notes and some of these is just when you do the surveys that are required in the beginning part that they don't expire and you have to come back and do them again before you get to these steps, so I don't know if there's an exploration or not on The ISA approved Plan that you're doing I'm sorry. I don't have all the language. You're great turn to me red lines on this Yeah, and that that that would go along with your site plan once this approved it's approved So your your tree Preservation plan mitigation plan would be approved Either which are your site plan or your final plat Just kind of depends on on what track you're going on with with your development But once that is approved for that development is approved. It doesn't expire now if you Didn't get your your project approved at that time and it was left open and you know you come back You know two years or more later, then you'll be required to redo that That survey because you know trees grow they get bigger or trees die. There may be less out there. So That's how that that would run. Okay Thank you. Mm-hmm So the next section number four After the tree removal permit is issued developer must obtain tree protection signs from the city That actually is changing and it didn't make this change to where we're you know, basically gonna Have the template for the sign available, but you know, that would be Something that the developer would would provide Versus, you know the city providing those signs Commissioner Ellis Thank you. You know, I have a legal question Since our quorum has is gone at the moment. Do we need to halt or are we good? I Didn't notice he had stepped out. I Apologize no that I didn't that's a question. I don't I don 't really know the answer that are we good? I'm gonna assume that we're good because we're not taking a vote or taking any action that requires a quorum. Right? Yeah, we're oh no, I figured he was yeah. No, we're still in session and so long as you're not actually Having to make take an action on something. We're okay. Very good. Thank you for answering that but hey what on that that Line item there that we were discussing Where it says that you're posting the signage at any location? What does that mean? That means in the areas where you're protecting trees you may have you know multiple tree protection Areas and so you'd be required to have postings on those tree protection areas so that's where and I know it's kind of not as specific or The way is stated but that's that's basically what it means that in your tree protection zone, you'll have signage So at all locations on on it or yes So if you may have you know a 30 acre site and you're preserving trees in four different areas Well, each one of those areas will have to be posted with the signage Okay, so I would probably say to clean that up just because it it looks like you can post it on any location and not all locations and so I was confused at that Thanks Okay Any other questions or comments on this section? Okay Our next section Administration administrative remedy and this is a totally new section relied heavily on our legal to to craft this This section So any person who removes or intentionally destroys a tree preserved or plan on the subchapter under subchapter 35 13 7 While the tree is alive shall mitigate each tree at two times the rate stated in the subchapter each replacement tree shall meet the Standards that stated in this subchapter and as approved by the city urban forester So basically this has to do with you know, someone that's Willfully damaging a tree that was slated to be preserved in their tree preservation plan the next section each tree preserved under subchapter that dies within three years of Approval share mitigate shall be mitigated by the property owner as stated in this subchapter So, you know, we don't want the development some trees they take a while, you know after construction damage to actually You know so signs are to die So this is to capture those trees that that may not make make it through the the construction process Question on that. Is there a time frame on that three years is That referring back in which section does it say three years? Number two right here each tree preserved under sub chapter 35 13 7 that dies within three years of The approval shall be mitigated by the I'm sorry. I'm on number three. I apologize I'll skip ahead it just says dies and it doesn't say within three years up on that to me Okay. Yeah. Well the next section doesn't have a time limit It's each tree planted under the sub chapter that dies shall be replanted With an approved tree on the and the appropriate planting season by the property owner It's indefinite. Yes, why is it indefinite instead of three years? Because we want to maintain the Landscaping that's being put back on these sites You know the idea is not to just put something there and you know, then it died in you know Two years and then it not be replaced the idea is to to put it on there and to have That site continuing to meet their landscape canopy requirements for the site Well, I think we need to have some more conversation about that I mean Indefinite is forever and it goes to the spirit just like the pre-tree preservation So if we preserve trees and they die It's kind of saying we're losing tree canopy there, but those trees don't have to be replanted. So planted trees have to be Done indefinitely preserve trees do not Yeah, and the idea is you know as trees die we want them to be replaced so that we don't end up with You know a property that You know five years after a built, you know, there's you know, beautiful landscapes and 15 years after it's built, you know You have you know some event or something that causes, you know the trees to die and then you just leave the site dev oid of trees So it's it's you know protecting or actually providing for a continual landscape for you know for the properties Does this apply to homeowners in so if a person buys a property or a commercial property and they have a planted tree that dies they For whoever owns it 20 years after that was originally built. They have to replant that tree. I Think we probably need to clarify that especially when we go back and look at Separating out what applies to the homeowner and then what applies to commercial development. So let's take a look at that I can see three years that it's just like the other but indefinite is forever Okay, thank you Okay, I'm sorry Commissioner back thank you chair. Yeah in addition to that it does say property owner so That makes you think that five years later dies the person that's been living there for five years now Do we go back to the developer? Is he the property owner? We're talking about or are we talking about the property owner? One that's actually living Now if the tree dies under conditions, you know acts of God that doesn't count correct I mean if it's if it wasn't planted right or there's something but there's some things that people can't control tornado rips it out They're still expected to replace it If the tornado ripped the roof off that was required. Are you respected to replace it? It's an apple and oranges thing I mean, I understand the need to keep the 30% Canopy I really do and I'm for that I support that but in certain conditions It seems like that may be an area where the tree fun could come in and help a little bit Oh, here comes no. Yeah, and let me give one what one quick sound bite before my know gets to the mic Keep them beautiful gives way trees every year to homeowners for planting on their private property at their annual giveaway Say it again. I'm sorry start even beautiful has an annual tree giveaway Okay, or free trees are given away to homeowners to plant on their private property So they may have to replace that tree, but it may not be necessarily at a cost to them. Okay If I can seek some clarification and then I'll make a statement I Think what we need to and Chandran has referred to it is go ahead and compartmentalize For the lack of a better word this ordinance as it relates to we talked about new development redevelopment Let's talk about residential and non-residential development. It also goes to the whole discussion on the overall comprehensive ordinance as it relates to Landscaping and the tree code the tree code that we're discussing tonight Which goes back to a thought that I would like to a seed that I would like to plant in the commissioners minds is In other communities that I have had the opportunity to work in not necessarily the right thing But just to see that I'm planting When a non-residential development is developed it complies with specific landscaping and screening requirements During the life of that Non-residential development That landscaping is enforced through zoning enforcement officers, for example. So if there if there is landscaping that needs to be replaced per the requirements that were adopted as part of the Site plan and the landscape plan and what have you that follows the life of that program if the use changes hands Again, we go back to the tree the landscaping ordinance in terms of if it's a non-residential use then the landscaping is pretty much Similar to what you have there unless it changes to an industrial use where perhaps if you had succinct code your parking lot Landscaping requirement would be different. So just to see that I'm planting If you want to respond whether you think favorably of something like that or not I want to stick to the three years just a thought that I wanted to plant there, but For the most part from what I'm understanding the questions are relatively directed towards it seems that the ordinance is too jumbled and not separated enough as it relates to specificity of commercial non-residential residential redevelopment and new development I Think that's some of them and the time frame on your end up I appreciate the clarification. I brought up the commercial I started with residential and went to the commercial I can see the difference and understand the commercial has a different permit and applicability The residential does not and this would apply to both residential and commercial in this situation well just to clarify Residential has two sub components and then you have commercial so you have the residential that's developed as a residential subdivision, and then you have the individual property owner that's maintaining their property and what we want to do is classify the residential subdivision that's being developed as Hold them to the same standards as the commercial development, but the homeowner who's maintaining their site gets relief relief they don't have to do the preservation and mitigation because That's ideally I really accounted for before they purchased the lot That's the thought and we haven't done a good job of making that clear But we will go back and fix that the sections that we will modify and where we can modify is under applicability Exemptions and then we'll clean up the area about the permit so those that's where you look for those changes that Commissioner Ellis, thank you. Yeah, and on this the same subject. I think it's it's just the real real life day-to- day Thinking that I think that we're referring to with the home owner I mean what happens if the tree gets struck by lightning you lose half of it And you're really trying to keep it together, and you just might not be able to keep it together You know is that really something that you're? That you're trying to do here with this code, and I think we're trying to To yeah clear that up in the real world of the everyday life of a homeowner I'm gonna take it a step further This example that it's one tree We've got a very high mitigation right now. There's only gonna be certain locations that you can and I won't get too far off topic There's only gonna be certain locations You're gonna be able to plant these mitigation trees can't play them in all the streets So they'll be on private at some point. They're gonna be on private property Residential areas does have a street tree requirements Yeah I know but I when I'm I said don't get too far off that if they have a heavily treed site And they have to then mitigate it one to six They may have we may have an issue and don't talk about that Let me get through here of being able to mitigate all of those trees are required in that particular development by the time you take out building sites for the homes and the driveways and swimming pools and all that you're gonna be limited to a fairly small area that's ability to have a tree still on that lot and So you may end up having some of these lots that have five six ten whatever trees and if something happens to them They're not just replacing one. They're doing Ten they have to unless they are going to be excluded. So I think it's a That's why I think in the practicals and you go to the all the way out It can get to be a pretty big burden on somebody. So I'm glad to see it be excluded on the single-family Commissioner Sullivan, I'm curious. How is all this going to be enforced? There could be drones flying around everybody's property with pictures and maps of when they were first built or what's How's this all going to be enforced? And what is the cost of that gonna be? That's that's you know, that's a good question You know the idea, you know as far as you know residential subdivision You know, they will be required to have a street tree plan So you would have a documentation of street trees that you know are required to be to be planted When whenever the the CEO is issued for the house, you know our building inspectors, you know They you know inspect for those things also I'm referring to like five years later Somebody gonna knock out of the door say we need your tree papers Just thinking about development as a whole what typically happens with any of these ordinances be it trees be parking Whatever the most vigilant Enforcers are your other property owners so they will call the city and say my neighbors cutting down trees in this backyard Does he have a permit for that? So that's pretty much how we The bulk of how we manage enforcement, but we also do have a dedicated zoning enforcement Division and the inspectors as they do construction And just looking at mitigating and replanting on a residential in a residential area Going back to that example. I had at the last PNC that one neighborhood Mitigating through planning would have amounted to 13 additional trees planted on the site because I was counting all the street trees all the trees They were planted in the yards and I just counted one per house. I didn't even visit the site There could have been more than one tree planted per house But it wasn't a situation to be complied to that was requiring You know more than two trees, maybe three trees on the corner lots or four trees on corner lots Yeah, I appreciate the explanation. I'm gonna try to stay on the agenda here and to do what your wish is to go through here The only thing I'm gonna throw out on that is what I would like to when we come back to it and make note Is that there is some kind of a provision that trees can be mitigated out on other properties That might be a way to look at doing that as well in areas that it becomes an issue that you can't mitigate on The site specific that there is a provision that you can mitigate in another area as a possibility. So You're going to for and keep going Yes Okay, so Next section is just saying these mitigation remedies are in addition to enforcement Provisions in section 9 of this sub chapter. So section 9 goes into basically more And we'll get to section 9 Hopefully tonight, but that goes over basically Legal Legal enforcement for people that illegally Remove trees or damage trees within the city So next section 7 tree preservation plan and amendments tree preservation plan criteria True preservation plan consists and this this is all new here the next section the tree preservation plan shall consist of a tree survey and such information required by the items on the tree preservation plan checklist as Maintained for inspection in the Department of Development service doing regular business hours The city urban forest under the under the direction of the director of development service must review the tree preservation plan and any amendments There to in order to determine whether it complies with the standards of this sub chapter the didn't development code and other applicable laws So it's just basic saying, you know, you have to provide it out. The city forest is the one who's going to Review it for your your project Administrative modification and This section is new the city urban forest or with the approval of the director of development service Has the authorization to approve amendments to the true preservation plan so long as it meets the purpose and intent of this ordinance and Applicant and an applicant has made a good-faith effort to comply with the with this ordinance So what this allows for me to do is to work with the developer that has You know Maybe a small infield site that has one or two trees on it that are right in the middle of the property well, if you know your two trees are right in the middle of the property and is Preventing development that gives me the opportunity to say okay. I understand your situation We can you know Remove those trees and you know handle and mitigate them through replanting on site or whatever The developer and I you know agree upon So, you know that was put in basically to give some some flexibility Without having to go through a formal process and extend the the process of development Commissioner back. Thank you chair and I agree with this. I like this I would just like it to be clear that it will be you and there won't be a designee or somebody you're certified You're qualified to do that. If for some reason you're not here. I Don't feel comfortable with it being passed on to somebody else who doesn't have that qualification. So can we? Clarify that in there too that there is no substitute that it has to be you a Certified arborist If it wasn't myself, it will be someone with similar qualifications I mean, you know say five or ten years from now We have may have three or four people that have my same background That would be you know fit those those qualifications and if they've got your thinking I'm all for this If they've got your thinking on this, I'm all for that. Yeah. Okay. All right. Yeah, they have to be certified Not just somebody who's an assistant to you or something like that. Yeah, okay Yeah, they would they would have proper credentials if I say if I was on vacation and something had to go through and be worked out You know, you know, we wouldn't want to hold up the process sure To give you a little bit more comfort with it Let's go ahead and bullet out specific criteria that you're gonna use to do your administrative approval So we'll come up with the list of check basically a checklist that you have to go through in order to approve the alternative plan Just so that we can alleviate that concern We can talk about it yeah, we'll talk about the exact I don't want to get us into a situation to where we're putting something in writing and then that's the goal that people try to Meet, you know, well, no, I'm not saying I'm just saying that you in your mind You got to go they have to meet these specific criteria for you On your side in order for you to be able to say yes to With the alternative. Yeah, it's what we want to do is have at least some minimum checkpoints For you or the future whoever is going to hold that position to make that analysis before they agree to an administrative change Then okay because that that lets everybody know that if I'm if you're gonna approve an alternative on that site, they had to meet this level of They at least have to meet these minimum qualifications or standards So I think we're gonna this this actually came up when we met with the development code review I mean the committee on the environment So I think that's something that the City Council may want to see yeah And I think they were the committee on environment really was looking at that appeal section C. Okay, but it's the same concept. Yeah So any other questions comments concerns on that section Okay, so the appeal section Is basically under the current code the appeal was was to the City Council in an effort to align with other parts of the development code we put that appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustments If the developer and I can't come to consensus on something then they have someone to you know appeal that decision to Commissioner back. Thank you chair, and I have a problem with that too. It's ZBA great people anything about against them, but they're not environmentalist their focus is not necessarily on the whole concept of tree preservation So seems like we either keep it with the City Council or what was this committee mentioned the environmental Committee is that a standing committee? Yes Would that be a more logical group to go to on something like this? Rather than ZBA that I would have to consult with legal to see you know that would be Okay, no shaking her head City council already so we would have to set up something outside of that in the ZBA is already delegated by the City Council as well, so Correct Shandrin the These ordinances are incorporated in dental development code the Denton Development Code has specific appeals and variance procedures and Alliance to whatever board and Commission is pertinent to that when it comes to any amendments associated with development Criteria such as these those are always Reviewed by the zoning Board of Adjustment and recommendations made through that body There are ways to do it differently where you know you can have Variances that come to the planning and zoning Commission for example, but that's not iterated in the ordinance right now We can however move this where it stays with the council and that has been the request slash Recommendation of the ad hoc committee for the committee of the environment. I beg your pardon So in terms of who can look at it, it's either ideally, it's the zoning Board of Adjustment given the makeup of the Denton Development Code or you can Request that the City Council review this through now again public hearing. Okay, and I like that also I guess what bothers me about this EBA is it's It's not out there as much it's kind of you know, it's almost an obscure Again, I don't mean to think anybody one of the most it's the most powerful board as it relates to variance procedures Anyway, public notice though would go out. Okay. Okay, and the appeal process to a denial is very very different Okay, so if they approved a change to it and there was still some disagreement You could carry it to the City Council No, no if the zoning it goes to the Court of Appeal District Court Okay. Yes, if after ZBA if you were appealing a ZBA determination, correct. Okay. Thanks Okay So we'll move on to the next section here true protection requirements during construction Basically true protection plan must be submitted with the preliminary plat final plat site plan building permit application It must be perfect. Yeah, excuse me must be prepared By or certified by an ISA certified arborist And again You know just going back to being able to verify those credentials is why you know just stuck with the ISA certified arborist here True protection standards shall be in accordance with the standards and the city's criteria manual as amended at the time and As required by the city's urban forester with site design criteria manual the developer must place Tree question for you on that one. Yes, I had a comment from someone is there a tree care criteria manual currently on the website Or does this exist? No, it's not not I think That was Was Cross-referenced the same as the site design criteria manual. It'll be in probably in one location Okay. So yeah, it's a typo. We're gonna still call the typo for now. Yeah Okay Okay, so the developer must place true protection very round entire sure Ellis. Yeah Yes Sorry about that. He would question back to the ISA certified arborist How many are there? Within a hundred miles of Denton. There's a hundred and thirty nine. Oh The Texas chapter of ISA is one of the fastest growing chapters of ISA Not in the country in the world because I say is this an international organization and the other thing is With this new process. It doesn't necessarily mean that the person has to be here to do that that work A lot of this can be done You know remotely because of the technology that's involved Okay, so The developer must place true protection Berry around the entire true protection zone as stated in the site design Criteria manual and as approved by the city urban forester The developer must not engage in construction activities until the city's urban forester verifies the installation of A tree protection very round the tree protection zone for all trees designated for preservation So this section basically is you know my final inspection Before the permit is released Any any other questions on this section? The only one I'm gonna back up to I And I think I'm just gonna make a blanket statement. I think we're gonna be cleaning up where it is with single family Because you have this under building permit applications. I think I brought it up last time about our current building permit applications are universal applications So technically if someone wants to do an addition or a model or whatever they are going to fall back under this So I think that still needs to get cleaned up. Yeah, actually the there's one of the applications is universal But there are some other applications everything isn't on one application but even though the application is as universal the permit itself is specific so if you go in for you may sign up this universal application But you know for residential is you know new construction addition interior remodel tenant finish out. So When you get the permit is only for what you're actually applying for so you may use this one form But when you actually get the permit if it's you know an interior remodel well, it's a permit for an interior rem odel Okay. Well it says building permit application Not the permanent cell so if you make an application It's going to be officially a building permit and it's a universal form. So anyway, I think we've Designated enough. I won't beat a dead horse on the thing Okay, yeah moving on to the to the next section on enforcement here so section 9 enforcement and This section here is for the most part what's in the existing code I think some of the things were pulled in here specifically because in the existing code is referring to a different section that stated the same requirements so Don't hear the city urban forester and the building official have the authority to place a stop-work order on activities involving the removal of any heritage or protected tree or on any activity that may adversely endanger any tree contrary to the provisions of sub chapter 35 13 7 and Applicable criteria manual the building official may design may deny all permits and submit certificate of occupancy For any site which is not in compliance with with sub chapter 35 13 7 The applicable applicable criteria and applicable criteria manual, excuse me For the purpose of enforcement section 35 1.10 of the Dent Development Code is incorporated by referencing here in and as amended in the future So, you know basically this has to do with Activity that may be going on on a site that you know, it's not permitted And sometimes, you know, I think Chandra mentioned earlier a lot of times this, you know The residents in the area they'll see something going on and you know, they'll get on the phone They'll start calling do you know what's going on? But does this have a permit so this you know, and this is in the existing code But it allows me to go out on the site or someone under the building inspection department to actually issue a stop- work order For the work that's going on until you know, the proper permits are received So the next section here for person removes cuts down tops destroys I'm sorry Commissioner Ellis Thank You. Thank You chair. Hey what going back to that first? paragraph So the city's urban forester and the building official should it say and or just for clarity because I mean is it It's either one of you who could do it. You don't need both of you to stop the permit or do you have to be both? It can be and or I mean I was just curious at how you were presenting that line that first line. Okay, so it's either or of you can stop it Okay, so the next line here If a person removes cuts down tops destroys or moves or assist in the removal cutting down topping destroying or moving or causes the removal cutting down topping destroying or moving of a tree without complying with the requirements of the subsection or Owns part or all of the land where the violation occurs this person's shall be guilty upon conviction of remiss demeanor And so basically that you know goes back to you know trees that are being you know removed without a permit on you know undeveloped sites or on sites within the city Commissioner back. Thank you chair. And again, I go along with the intent behind this We want to keep people from flippantly just disregarding again. The critical thing here is tree preservation can't be the canopy preservation I just are there It draws a lot of people in here people who own the property but aren't actually involved in the actual removal they could be cited to Is there going to be an effort on the part of? this ordinance to Educate people well enough I know Ignorance of the laws no excuse, you know, but in some cases there could be some innocent bystander share get caught up there So as you know, well informed is well served and I just are we going to try and make an effort to get the word out? On this as much as possible these go in their monthly electric bills or something like that Yeah, we can look at you know the stuffers in the electric bill city website Press release, you know once everything is finalized to you know, let the general public know What the changes and the requirements are good good. Thank you I would like to echo that that was one of my comments is that if a piece of property is owned by a corporation Publicly traded company does everybody that don't stock in that company guilty Because they they're young I mean if that's the owner of the property Yeah, I mean they could be be guilty of it if that's a lot of $500 bills Per day Okay within reason I would support maybe one principle possibly two people But beyond that I think it's it needs to be cleaned up because it's too broad of a net for Partnerships corporations and things that trade in this for it to be every single that owns a piece or a part or whatever So yeah I think if it's in the if it's in the name of the corporation is LLC you'll probably be you know to that LLC not each individual persons, but as Participants in that LLC, you know, they are ultimately responsible But it wouldn't be it wouldn't be you know, if there's ten people in there each one of them gets you know A sighted up so it doesn't it's not confusing because that 's not the way it rates now Okay, we'll get the legal department to take a look at that . Yeah Okay, so the next section if any person performs grading on a moves any heavy equipment any heavy-duty vehicles specially designed for excavating construction tasks on any undeveloped property that contains trees subject to this subchapter without first obtaining true removal permit this person shall be guilty upon conviction of a misdemeanor and You know, that's basically, you know covering errors where? Prior to permits issue, you know, someone moves all and tree protection plan or tree protection up someone moves Equipment on the site that you know can can damage, you know the trees that you know are slated to be preserved Well, I got a comment on that too. I think this needs to be cleaned up somewhat because you're gonna have a lot of the innocent Bystanders possibly with this utility contractors that are working in right-of-ways that are pulling equipment on property leaving their equipment For example, so I think this needs to be visited some as well so that they're Those things don't happen And I think the the key here is heavy-duty vehicles specially designed for execute executing construction So it's talking about construction equipment Not you know some if you know utilities out there with a bucket truck to do pruning this No, I'm done. Nobody moves a backhoe on a piece of property to do utility work That technically they're in violation of this. Well, yeah, because if they're on there to do utility work, you know They should have a an excavation permit. So that's covered also under that permitting Section which is different from the true preservation. So they would have to have a permit to do that excavation Well, I get for eyes and bring tobacco in to work on their line and they park it on somebody's private piece of property And to work in them right away. That's the kind of things I 'm talking about. So however It needs to be addressed and just bring into that Okay Okay Okay moving on almost to the end here see if we can make it we got no it's almost four minutes to six So I'm gonna try to get through this last section This next line is existing in the current code if a person causes the death of a tree that has preserved a planet in compliance with this sub chapter through Neglect this person shall be guilty upon conviction of misd emeanor Sometimes trees are planted irrigation isn't turned on and trees die That's what we mean by neglect or if someone you know runs over with the lawnmower or what-have-you specific to the new trees Just gonna plot it like HOA's things like that. It would apply to any you know Develop property where trees were planted Under this this sub chapter. So the president of the HOA that's serving it volunteer in their time and these are planted in HOA and then to your point the sprinkler systems broke and the trees die the president of the HOA that serving voluntary is going to be Getting a ticket for 500 bucks for each could be if they are the legal Responsible person for the HOA. I guess it depends on how the HOA is set up That's how a lot of them are done. So they're typically run by the volunteers of the neighborhoods and so Anyway, I think some more of this thought I think I think my concern and we're about out of time I think a lot of these things are good There's a lot of vagueness and I think there's probably gonna be a lot of unintended people that get caught up in this By the way that it's written and I think a lot of it needs to get cleaned up and be very specific about intent and issues versus to my example there The poor guy that's vaultern is timer on the HOA is the guy that's in violation and you know, no good details unpunished serving for nothing, so Please continue Okay The city urban forest and building official may go out on any property subject to this up to this section With or without notice to the to the owner for the purpose of verifying compliance with this section or with any Open building permit. So this basically just gives me the authority to go out and do inspections on properties You know that are being constructed verify that the tree protection is being maintained and what-have-you Each tree and this is These next two are in the existing code each tree damage removed cut down topped destroyed Or moved in violation of this subject of this subchapter Shall constitute a distinct and separate offense It shall be an affirmative defense to prosecution under the subsection that the injury or destruction of the tree Was caused by natural disasters or other acts of God including but not limited to tornadoes straight line winds ice storms fire Floods hail and lightning strikes that answers your question It shall be an affirmative defense to prosecution under this subsection that the injury or destruction of the tree was caused by an independent unauthorized action of third parties who are not the developer of This property subject to this subsection and that's a new section that was added here so With that we're right on at time I don't want to get us kicked out, but I think we will be pretty soon Let's open up or any comments since we've got through the ordinance Now we're we're in work session Anybody else any other comments we're about out of time I think this is currently scheduled to come before us for next Wednesday for work session and a vote I Think it was just the work section next week. All right. Yeah Okay, I'm Mr. So I thought last weeks we were having it Okay I think that's wise. I know and I think I said earlier the media I've had I've got a stack of comments and papers and telephone calls And I think it'd be a really good idea for some of the stakeholders that have come out here For us to staff To get with them and address some of the comments and the questions that have been brought there I have an opportunity to present those this evening but I know they've written some letters and marked up a number of these and I think it'd be Very productive for the people that are the experts. I'm not the expert That deal with us in a daily basis I think that would be very productive to clean a lot of this stuff up before it comes back to Our Commission and probably save everybody a lot of time It's just a suggestion. I don't know if Anybody else has any comments before we close but those would be mine Commissioner Ellis, thank you chair So I mean will you have time in a week to take at least what we discussed today to be able to present us with something You know, maybe slightly altered from what we're discussing tonight or I mean does that is that reasonable or It'll be tight to get everything in there some of the main issues. We may be able to to revisit and clean up But because I guess what what is our goal for or maybe we don't have a goal yet for next week That's what I wanted to ask. What do you guys want to discuss next week next week? Do we want to continue through the ordinance again or? What would you like to see how would you like to use the work session for next time? Like to sit Commissioner back. Thank you. I would like to see it rewritten And let us review that Going back over this again as is any good. So once you major additions changes If we could review that by next Wednesday, is that possible ? Probably for you know, some of the major things and it's my understanding too that we'll have that work session But afterward there will be the public session where the public can give input to at that time. Is that correct? In the public the next one is going to be a work session And then when we notice for the public hearing that'll be the opportunity for this the community stakeholders That won't be next Wednesday following our work. Okay. Yes, of course if there's you know any questions that I could answer directly You know, I'm available To answer those questions and provide, you know a little bit more, you know clarification on what's written Your email address is on the website. I believe so. Yeah for everyone here Well, since you ask I I think that's a Good suggestion. I'd like to see the Ordinance get cleaned up the comments from last meeting the comments from tonight And I think it's prudent once it's cleaned up that it gets posted and that people have an opportunity to review it I'm not saying they need a month But I think asking people to to try to review these things in a few days to come and and make points Check with client whatever the case may be. I think we need a Minimum of a couple of weeks once the ordinance is completely finished To be able to do that and what I what I would like to also have at our next work session I think it's good that we got through the ordinance. I think there are at least from my point of view, I would like to spend a little time talking about the The urban forest survey that was done. There's a tremendous amount of information in here and then also from my point would like to Go through some of the assumptions in here about the mitigation rates the coverage rates The requirement for 20% if there's other ways to do that and then maybe possibly some philosophical ones about if we're going to do this that the city maybe bias some of the if It's going to be required the city may be purchased of some of those things and use the tree fund to do that and take it from private property owners and transfer it to Public ownership if it's public policy, I think that's a reasonable discussion for us to have as a board. So Those would be some of the things I would like to cover in our next work session Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair Yeah, and just to echo that I guess just whatever it will take to just kind of keep moving this forward I think you know, we offered some great opinion today and suggestions and Hopefully you'll have time to you know, maybe change some of this or come back and say why you can't you know address some of the concerns Just so whatever it is so that next week we can you know get to the next step because I mean this is all I mean, this is all This is great. We again to echo we need the tree croak code rewritten It's great for the city and it needs to be done. So we need to keep it going and get it done Okay Seeing no other comp work session at 6 o 5. Thank you