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 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