WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.679 Zoning Commission meeting for February 7th 2018. This 00:00:04.679 --> 00:00:05.759 meeting has been duly 00:00:05.759 --> 00:00:09.830 posted and we do have a quorum present and I will call us 00:00:09.830 --> 00:00:12.400 to order at 5 o 1. We 00:00:12.400 --> 00:00:15.039 are going to go into our work session and our first order 00:00:15.039 --> 00:00:16.039 of business will be 00:00:16.039 --> 00:00:21.530 to receive clarification of agenda items listed on our 00:00:21.530 --> 00:00:24.879 meeting this evening. Does 00:00:24.879 --> 00:00:28.109 anybody have I guess just to start kind of at the beginning 00:00:28.109 --> 00:00:29.079 and then we'll come back 00:00:29.079 --> 00:00:33.090 to our work session reports. Does anybody have any comments 00:00:33.090 --> 00:00:34.880 changes on our minutes 00:00:34.880 --> 00:00:45.679 of our last meeting? How about plats on the consent agenda? 00:00:48.079 --> 00:00:56.969 All right we're gonna make good time this evening. Public 00:00:56.969 --> 00:01:00.280 hearings item A. So 00:01:00.280 --> 00:01:03.729 Rayser investments by Shandrian. Anybody have questions on 00:01:03.729 --> 00:01:09.280 this item? This is a 00:01:09.280 --> 00:01:14.670 parcel up on I think on University for some restaurant pads 00:01:14.670 --> 00:01:14.680 . 00:01:18.120 --> 00:01:20.480 Questions? 00:01:21.680 --> 00:01:31.599 Nope? Okay. Then we've got 4B, Denture Search Care. It's 00:01:31.599 --> 00:01:34.879 the apartments. 00:01:36.480 --> 00:01:41.280 You have some questions on that? Okay. 00:01:48.359 --> 00:01:51.590 Do you all want to do let me back up do we want to to do 00:01:51.590 --> 00:01:54.239 like a small 00:01:54.239 --> 00:01:57.439 presentation on these items whether we have questions or 00:01:57.439 --> 00:01:58.640 not or just kind of go 00:01:58.640 --> 00:02:06.040 through? Do? Okay. Do y'all want to want to back up and 00:02:06.040 --> 00:02:08.680 then on 4A and have 00:02:08.680 --> 00:02:12.419 Shandrian just do an initial presentation on the the Rayser 00:02:12.419 --> 00:02:13.719 or are you okay with 00:02:13.719 --> 00:02:18.120 that being pretty straightforward and going on here to 4B? 00:02:18.120 --> 00:02:20.280 I am on that one. Okay. 00:02:20.280 --> 00:02:24.180 Well let's stay on 4B with Haley and we'll do presentation 00:02:24.180 --> 00:02:27.120 on on this one. 00:02:29.520 --> 00:02:33.120 Okay together. So we can go through both of those. Just for 00:02:33.120 --> 00:02:33.800 clarification we'll 00:02:33.800 --> 00:02:39.719 take those as two separate votes. So yes. Yeah one 00:02:39.719 --> 00:02:39.719 presentation with two votes. Okay. 00:02:39.879 --> 00:02:43.449 All right so there are two requests for this property. The 00:02:43.449 --> 00:02:44.840 rezoning is a request 00:02:44.840 --> 00:02:47.599 to change from community mixed-use general to neighborhood 00:02:47.599 --> 00:02:48.240 residential 00:02:48.240 --> 00:02:51.800 mixed-use and that is for the entire 11.4 acres that's 00:02:51.800 --> 00:02:53.280 outlined in red on the 00:02:53.280 --> 00:02:57.409 map. The SUP request is to allow for a multifamily use and 00:02:57.409 --> 00:02:59.080 it is only for 10.6 00:02:59.080 --> 00:03:01.750 8 out of that total acreage so that's the yellow boundary 00:03:01.750 --> 00:03:03.159 you see. It is 00:03:03.159 --> 00:03:06.150 excluding a medical office that is existing down in the 00:03:06.150 --> 00:03:07.280 southeast corner of 00:03:07.280 --> 00:03:10.539 the property. And just to give you a reference this is I-35 00:03:10.539 --> 00:03:11.360 here on the north, 00:03:11.360 --> 00:03:16.280 Sandbass Boulevard on the west, and Londonderry Drive on 00:03:16.280 --> 00:03:18.520 the south. So the 00:03:18.520 --> 00:03:21.500 rezoning as I mentioned would be from CMG to NRMU so here's 00:03:21.500 --> 00:03:22.319 a look of what 00:03:22.319 --> 00:03:25.819 that would look like on the zoning map. For rezoning as you 00:03:25.819 --> 00:03:26.780 know there's two 00:03:26.780 --> 00:03:29.599 criteria for approval. Consistency with the future land use 00:03:29.599 --> 00:03:31.199 plan and then the 00:03:31.199 --> 00:03:35.099 facilitation of public infrastructure. The future land use 00:03:35.099 --> 00:03:36.180 for this area is 00:03:36.180 --> 00:03:38.770 community mixed-use which is intended to provide a mixture 00:03:38.770 --> 00:03:39.479 of commercial 00:03:39.479 --> 00:03:42.969 residential and service uses. The NRMU district does fit 00:03:42.969 --> 00:03:44.120 within that. It 00:03:44.120 --> 00:03:47.969 provides for a variety of residential uses as well as 00:03:47.969 --> 00:03:49.639 commercial uses that 00:03:49.639 --> 00:03:52.229 are at a similar scale to CMG so lot coverage building 00:03:52.229 --> 00:03:53.120 height things like 00:03:53.120 --> 00:03:57.090 that are generally the same between the two districts. 00:03:57.090 --> 00:03:58.639 Looking at infrastructure 00:03:58.639 --> 00:04:01.680 in the area there are our water and sewer immediately 00:04:01.680 --> 00:04:02.280 available to the 00:04:02.280 --> 00:04:05.710 property. The red lines on the map being existing sewer and 00:04:05.710 --> 00:04:06.639 blue being the water 00:04:06.639 --> 00:04:10.599 lines. Both Sandbass and Londonderry are currently two lane 00:04:10.599 --> 00:04:12.000 undivided roads. 00:04:12.000 --> 00:04:14.969 They're both collector streets so they're intended to say 00:04:14.969 --> 00:04:16.680 two lane undivided with 00:04:16.680 --> 00:04:19.120 sidewalks. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. When you say 00:04:19.120 --> 00:04:21.560 two lane undivided it's 00:04:21.560 --> 00:04:24.990 designed just for one car each way? Yes sir yeah just one 00:04:24.990 --> 00:04:26.040 lane of traffic each 00:04:26.040 --> 00:04:29.720 way with no median in between. I went by there today but it 00:04:29.720 --> 00:04:30.680 seems like it's wide 00:04:30.680 --> 00:04:36.079 enough where you could actually create two lanes each way. 00:04:36.079 --> 00:04:37.600 Is that considering all the 00:04:37.600 --> 00:04:40.009 traffic we've got over there and are fixing to generate 00:04:40.009 --> 00:04:42.889 more. I'm just wondering if that's a...and this may not be 00:04:42.889 --> 00:04:46.600 the time to raise it but is that something to consider? 00:04:46.600 --> 00:04:48.480 These type of streets are typically designed wide enough to 00:04:48.480 --> 00:04:50.360 have one lane of traffic going each way with 00:04:50.360 --> 00:04:53.790 parking and sidewalks on each side would be the ultimate 00:04:53.790 --> 00:04:55.120 intent for that roadway. 00:04:55.120 --> 00:05:00.560 Okay okay thanks. Commissioner Sanchez. Yes I was looking 00:05:00.560 --> 00:05:01.240 at the what it says 00:05:01.240 --> 00:05:04.800 upland habitat area of minimum of 10 acres in size and 00:05:04.800 --> 00:05:06.160 contains remnants of 00:05:06.160 --> 00:05:09.879 cross timber habitat. How much when it says remnants is a 00:05:09.879 --> 00:05:13.639 percentage of upland 00:05:13.639 --> 00:05:16.319 habitat which I'm assuming because we're in cross timbers 00:05:16.319 --> 00:05:18.040 it would be a mixture 00:05:18.040 --> 00:05:23.019 of cross oak and blackjack oaks is that I was trying to 00:05:23.019 --> 00:05:24.040 figure that out. 00:05:24.040 --> 00:05:28.040 To my knowledge there's no upland habitat on this property. 00:05:28.040 --> 00:05:29.959 Okay because I went up 00:05:29.959 --> 00:05:32.850 there I drove by there and there's a little that whole top 00:05:32.850 --> 00:05:34.759 area is a lot of 00:05:34.759 --> 00:05:41.439 blackjack and post oaks and and that's to me upland habitat 00:05:41.439 --> 00:05:43.279 for the cross 00:05:43.279 --> 00:05:47.899 timbers. What do you all define upland habitat? For it to 00:05:47.899 --> 00:05:48.839 be upland habitat it 00:05:48.839 --> 00:05:52.519 has to be I believe that's 10 contiguous acres so this 00:05:52.519 --> 00:05:54.199 entire property would have 00:05:54.199 --> 00:05:56.449 had to been covered in that for it to even possibly be 00:05:56.449 --> 00:05:57.399 considered upland 00:05:57.399 --> 00:06:00.029 habitat so there are a large amount of trees and they will 00:06:00.029 --> 00:06:00.839 have to meet the 00:06:00.839 --> 00:06:03.860 city's tree preservation requirements but it doesn't meet 00:06:03.860 --> 00:06:04.759 that 10 acre 00:06:04.759 --> 00:06:10.060 contiguous lump of you know habitat to be qualified as up 00:06:10.060 --> 00:06:11.720 land. Okay because what 00:06:11.720 --> 00:06:15.279 it says a minimum of 10 acres in size that contains 00:06:15.279 --> 00:06:18.680 remnants so the whole 10 00:06:18.680 --> 00:06:25.490 acres or is it remnants within those 10 acres? Please come 00:06:25.490 --> 00:06:29.720 on up to the mic Bob. 00:06:29.720 --> 00:06:32.920 When it's talking about remnants it's talking about the 00:06:32.920 --> 00:06:34.120 whole eco region of 00:06:34.120 --> 00:06:37.810 the cross timbers region which goes up from Oklahoma down 00:06:37.810 --> 00:06:38.959 into Texas we have 00:06:38.959 --> 00:06:41.149 remnants of it in this area. Right right. It's not talking 00:06:41.149 --> 00:06:42.639 about remnants within 00:06:42.639 --> 00:06:46.889 that 10 acres it's got to be a 10 contiguous acre block of 00:06:46.889 --> 00:06:47.680 the post oak 00:06:47.680 --> 00:06:50.920 and blackjack. Correct. Okay that's and if you look at that 00:06:50.920 --> 00:06:52.600 area right there that 00:06:52.600 --> 00:06:56.920 north side from that's pretty contiguous and I mean it's 00:06:56.920 --> 00:06:59.279 not large oaks but they 00:06:59.279 --> 00:07:03.279 are post oak and blackjack oaks. I'm not disagreeing with 00:07:03.279 --> 00:07:04.439 you. No I'm a tree 00:07:04.439 --> 00:07:07.529 guy. I wish I was things were written a little different 00:07:07.529 --> 00:07:08.600 but the way our ESA 00:07:08.600 --> 00:07:12.089 regulations are written it's got to be a 10 contiguous acre 00:07:12.089 --> 00:07:13.240 block. Okay. So it 00:07:13.240 --> 00:07:15.519 doesn't fall on our map if we pull up our ESA map it won't 00:07:15.519 --> 00:07:16.879 fall in there. Okay 00:07:16.879 --> 00:07:19.160 okay. 00:07:25.480 --> 00:07:28.620 So looking at the compatibility of the request as I 00:07:28.620 --> 00:07:30.720 mentioned NRMU and CMG are 00:07:30.720 --> 00:07:33.480 very similar they're consistent in terms of lot coverage 00:07:33.480 --> 00:07:34.759 landscaping requirements 00:07:34.759 --> 00:07:36.800 and the lot dimensions and building height that would be 00:07:36.800 --> 00:07:37.560 permitted there so 00:07:37.560 --> 00:07:41.160 it's going to be a fairly comparable product in either 00:07:41.160 --> 00:07:42.560 zoning district. The 00:07:42.560 --> 00:07:45.509 proposed use is permitted under CMG but there is a 00:07:45.509 --> 00:07:47.240 limitation that would require 00:07:47.240 --> 00:07:50.670 ground floor commercial uses be developed on both Sam Bass 00:07:50.670 --> 00:07:52.000 and Londonderry. 00:07:52.000 --> 00:07:55.899 Given this area and how well established it is with multif 00:07:55.899 --> 00:07:56.879 amily and then the 00:07:56.879 --> 00:08:00.680 industrial use across Sam Bass we felt like commercials not 00:08:00.680 --> 00:08:01.639 likely to survive 00:08:01.639 --> 00:08:03.910 on the ground floor there it's not a very compact walkable 00:08:03.910 --> 00:08:04.759 environment where 00:08:04.759 --> 00:08:08.810 you would typically get that type of product. So staff is 00:08:08.810 --> 00:08:09.920 recommending 00:08:09.920 --> 00:08:12.079 approval of the request it is consistent with the goals and 00:08:12.079 --> 00:08:12.800 objectives of the 00:08:12.800 --> 00:08:17.250 Denton plan 2030 and then moving into the second aspect of 00:08:17.250 --> 00:08:17.920 their request and 00:08:17.920 --> 00:08:20.550 the reason for the rezoning would be to me Commissioner 00:08:20.550 --> 00:08:21.560 Roselle. Thank you chair 00:08:21.560 --> 00:08:26.360 real fast Haley. Yeah. And the backup it has that 00:08:26.360 --> 00:08:27.680 recommendation for the 00:08:27.680 --> 00:08:33.179 rezoning has a condition of the SUP being approved. Did my 00:08:33.179 --> 00:08:34.159 page print out 00:08:34.159 --> 00:08:39.039 weird or I don't think there's a condition on the rezoning 00:08:39.039 --> 00:08:39.360 but it does 00:08:39.360 --> 00:08:43.700 say staff recommends approval the SUP and I don't know if 00:08:43.700 --> 00:08:44.960 that was just a... It 00:08:44.960 --> 00:08:50.200 might be a trying to get to that page. 00:08:51.840 --> 00:08:54.090 Yeah so the recommendation is just kind of lumped together 00:08:54.090 --> 00:08:55.279 because we did it as 00:08:55.279 --> 00:08:57.379 one report so the rezoning recommendation is with no 00:08:57.379 --> 00:08:57.960 conditions 00:08:57.960 --> 00:09:00.879 and then the SUP is a recommendation with a condition. Okay 00:09:00.879 --> 00:09:03.639 gotcha thank you. 00:09:03.919 --> 00:09:07.450 Yeah so the SUP would be for a straight multifamily use 00:09:07.450 --> 00:09:08.840 with no associated 00:09:08.840 --> 00:09:12.360 commercial development. Our criteria for approval of an SUP 00:09:12.360 --> 00:09:13.039 is kind of a 00:09:13.039 --> 00:09:15.850 compatibility analysis between the requested use and the 00:09:15.850 --> 00:09:16.519 surrounding 00:09:16.519 --> 00:09:18.879 properties to ensure it wouldn't impede development of 00:09:18.879 --> 00:09:20.039 other properties, wouldn't 00:09:20.039 --> 00:09:23.789 generate any nuisances and would be generally compatible. 00:09:23.789 --> 00:09:25.820 So looking at the 00:09:25.820 --> 00:09:28.970 site plan for this what they've proposed here is kind of a 00:09:28.970 --> 00:09:30.080 second phase of the 00:09:30.080 --> 00:09:32.870 existing Coventry departments or apartments. They're 00:09:32.870 --> 00:09:33.679 currently accessible 00:09:33.679 --> 00:09:37.200 off of I-35. Here on this map they would be located just on 00:09:37.200 --> 00:09:38.360 the top side here so 00:09:38.360 --> 00:09:40.940 you can see there is a drive that would be connecting 00:09:40.940 --> 00:09:41.759 between the two 00:09:41.759 --> 00:09:44.120 developments so that amenities could be shared between them 00:09:44.120 --> 00:09:45.759 . They're proposing 00:09:45.759 --> 00:09:49.639 right now at 283 units that puts them at about 26 units per 00:09:49.639 --> 00:09:51.159 acre so below the 30 00:09:51.159 --> 00:09:54.440 maximum for NRMU. It would be a mixture of one two and 00:09:54.440 --> 00:09:55.799 three bedroom units. 00:09:55.799 --> 00:09:58.970 They're proposing a total of six buildings they'd be a 00:09:58.970 --> 00:09:59.899 mixture of three 00:09:59.899 --> 00:10:02.250 and four stories in height. I believe the four stories 00:10:02.250 --> 00:10:04.080 would be here along Sam Bass 00:10:04.080 --> 00:10:07.940 and the site would maintain a total of about 38% landsca 00:10:07.940 --> 00:10:09.559 ping. You can see the 00:10:09.559 --> 00:10:11.879 way they've configured them as L-shaped buildings that each 00:10:11.879 --> 00:10:12.519 have their own 00:10:12.519 --> 00:10:18.120 courtyard. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. You said the 00:10:18.120 --> 00:10:20.960 density was 30 per 00:10:20.960 --> 00:10:25.620 acre for residents for an NRMU but aren't we switching it 00:10:25.620 --> 00:10:26.720 to an NRMU? We want to go 00:10:26.720 --> 00:10:32.120 from a CMG to an NRMU 12 which would have a lower density. 00:10:32.120 --> 00:10:33.919 The request 00:10:33.919 --> 00:10:40.080 is for NRMU not NRMU 12. Okay then what's on here is wrong. 00:10:40.080 --> 00:10:42.360 Yeah the request is for NRMU. 00:10:42.360 --> 00:10:46.519 Okay okay. Yeah so CMG doesn't actually have a maximum 00:10:46.519 --> 00:10:47.960 density so they are 00:10:47.960 --> 00:10:51.629 imposing with this rezoning a maximum of 30 units per acre 00:10:51.629 --> 00:10:53.039 on the property. Now by 00:10:53.039 --> 00:10:55.799 unit excuse me just follow up by unit we're talking about 00:10:55.799 --> 00:10:57.440 each apartment? Yes. 00:10:57.440 --> 00:11:02.590 Okay thank you. So we found that the request for this use 00:11:02.590 --> 00:11:04.559 is consistent with the 00:11:04.559 --> 00:11:08.519 Benton plan 2030. It does call for the provision of higher 00:11:08.519 --> 00:11:09.440 density housing in 00:11:09.440 --> 00:11:12.019 areas that won't impact established single-family 00:11:12.019 --> 00:11:13.200 neighborhoods with this 00:11:13.200 --> 00:11:15.830 being an area that has a mixture of existing multifamily 00:11:15.830 --> 00:11:16.519 and even some 00:11:16.519 --> 00:11:18.570 industrial across the street there would be no 00:11:18.570 --> 00:11:20.600 neighborhoods affected by this 00:11:20.600 --> 00:11:24.049 higher density there. The development would be consistent 00:11:24.049 --> 00:11:24.860 with the existing 00:11:24.860 --> 00:11:27.649 land use pattern and it would be required to comply with 00:11:27.649 --> 00:11:28.200 all other 00:11:28.200 --> 00:11:31.169 provisions of the DDCs parking landscaping tree 00:11:31.169 --> 00:11:32.679 preservation and all of 00:11:32.679 --> 00:11:35.580 our site design requirements and the use would generally be 00:11:35.580 --> 00:11:37.120 unlikely to generate 00:11:37.120 --> 00:11:39.309 any nuisances that you know things that aren't already in 00:11:39.309 --> 00:11:40.039 the area with the 00:11:40.039 --> 00:11:44.059 existing multifamily development. We did send notification 00:11:44.059 --> 00:11:45.639 for the request before 00:11:45.639 --> 00:11:47.740 the meeting I passed out the one response that we'd 00:11:47.740 --> 00:11:48.600 received which was a 00:11:48.600 --> 00:11:51.830 favorable request from the former property owner here on 00:11:51.830 --> 00:11:52.679 the south side. 00:11:52.679 --> 00:11:56.110 I believe the transaction was recent so he received that 00:11:56.110 --> 00:11:57.279 notice and let us know 00:11:57.279 --> 00:11:59.860 that he was in support of it. The applicant did hold a 00:11:59.860 --> 00:12:00.480 neighborhood meeting 00:12:00.480 --> 00:12:03.240 this past Monday. I attended the meeting and there were 00:12:03.240 --> 00:12:04.240 representatives from two 00:12:04.240 --> 00:12:06.809 adjoining apartment complexes that came just to see what 00:12:06.809 --> 00:12:07.759 the proposal was they 00:12:07.759 --> 00:12:12.429 didn't voice any opinions either way about it. And staff is 00:12:12.429 --> 00:12:13.200 recommending 00:12:13.200 --> 00:12:17.059 approval of the SUP with the condition that this site plan 00:12:17.059 --> 00:12:17.799 we saw here tonight 00:12:17.799 --> 00:12:20.450 would be considered conditional so a full site plan submitt 00:12:20.450 --> 00:12:21.279 al would still be 00:12:21.279 --> 00:12:24.879 conceptual. They would still do the full site plan submitt 00:12:24.879 --> 00:12:25.919 al just to make 00:12:25.919 --> 00:12:28.500 sure they comply with all aspects of the DDC and that it's 00:12:28.500 --> 00:12:29.480 generally conforming 00:12:29.480 --> 00:12:33.269 to what was presented here tonight. And I can stand for any 00:12:33.269 --> 00:12:35.120 other questions. 00:12:35.519 --> 00:12:38.809 Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. I was just curious just 00:12:38.809 --> 00:12:39.960 as an item of interest 00:12:39.960 --> 00:12:43.480 I'm sure everybody noticed that this area was zoned this 00:12:43.480 --> 00:12:44.039 whole area is 00:12:44.039 --> 00:12:48.600 zoned CMG and I asked you about you know evidently these 00:12:48.600 --> 00:12:49.279 apartments that are 00:12:49.279 --> 00:12:51.710 there now don't have commercial properties underneath them 00:12:51.710 --> 00:12:52.639 because they 00:12:52.639 --> 00:12:55.960 were built prior to that but when I look at the future land 00:12:55.960 --> 00:12:56.960 use map and seeing 00:12:56.960 --> 00:13:00.200 what we had there why wasn't it considered to change it at 00:13:00.200 --> 00:13:01.000 that time from 00:13:01.000 --> 00:13:06.080 CMG to NRMU knowing that we had pretty much that condition 00:13:06.080 --> 00:13:07.639 there already? 00:13:07.639 --> 00:13:10.700 All the other zonings occurred at the with the citywide rez 00:13:10.700 --> 00:13:12.720 oning in 2002 and 00:13:12.720 --> 00:13:15.090 as you mentioned all those apartments that are there did 00:13:15.090 --> 00:13:16.480 predate that rezoning 00:13:16.480 --> 00:13:19.460 and CMG is generally considered the most directly 00:13:19.460 --> 00:13:20.960 compatible with community 00:13:20.960 --> 00:13:23.970 mixed-use but there are as with all of our future land use 00:13:23.970 --> 00:13:25.000 destinations there's 00:13:25.000 --> 00:13:27.639 multiple districts that could fall into that. I suspect 00:13:27.639 --> 00:13:29.120 just given the the close 00:13:29.120 --> 00:13:32.549 proximity to the highway and the mix of uses in that area 00:13:32.549 --> 00:13:33.879 that they felt CMG was 00:13:33.879 --> 00:13:40.769 probably appropriate for it. Okay thanks. Commissioner Ros 00:13:40.769 --> 00:13:43.879 sell. You sure? Go ahead. 00:13:43.879 --> 00:13:48.330 So if I understood you correctly apartments can be built in 00:13:48.330 --> 00:13:49.960 CMG and so 00:13:49.960 --> 00:13:53.899 I'm wondering if this agenda item is clear enough to 00:13:53.899 --> 00:13:56.240 understand what the 00:13:56.240 --> 00:13:59.539 SUP is for because the SUP just says to allow multifamily 00:13:59.539 --> 00:14:00.720 use but that's allowed 00:14:00.720 --> 00:14:05.840 in CMG correct? Yes so there are within CMG there are two 00:14:05.840 --> 00:14:07.659 limitations the L6 and 00:14:07.659 --> 00:14:11.799 L4 so it either has to be mixed use or have an SUP under L4 00:14:11.799 --> 00:14:12.919 and then L6 00:14:12.919 --> 00:14:16.350 requires specifically ground floor commercial so the rez 00:14:16.350 --> 00:14:17.000 oning is to 00:14:17.000 --> 00:14:21.639 eliminate L6 essentially because under NRMU L4 still 00:14:21.639 --> 00:14:22.639 applies so they still 00:14:22.639 --> 00:14:26.419 have to either do mixed use or obtain the SUP. It's just 00:14:26.419 --> 00:14:27.360 getting rid of that 00:14:27.360 --> 00:14:31.620 ground floor commercial requirement. I think I understand 00:14:31.620 --> 00:14:32.840 that I just I hope 00:14:32.840 --> 00:14:36.799 that the do we need to word that in our motion because it 00:14:36.799 --> 00:14:38.559 says staff recommends 00:14:38.559 --> 00:14:41.690 approval the rezoning request which I understand then it 00:14:41.690 --> 00:14:42.759 says staff recommends 00:14:42.759 --> 00:14:46.190 approval the SUP request the following conditions but that 00:14:46.190 --> 00:14:46.919 the condition 00:14:46.919 --> 00:14:51.480 doesn't necessarily address ground floor use or the L6 00:14:51.480 --> 00:14:52.840 requirement. I don't know 00:14:52.840 --> 00:14:55.600 if that's needed or not I'm just curious if I just read 00:14:55.600 --> 00:14:58.879 this I'm not sure that's 00:14:58.879 --> 00:15:03.539 stated as clearly as possible. The SUP could would only 00:15:03.539 --> 00:15:05.879 apply if the rezoning is 00:15:05.879 --> 00:15:08.460 obtained so once the rezoning is obtained L6 goes away and 00:15:08.460 --> 00:15:09.279 there would no longer 00:15:09.279 --> 00:15:11.929 be any requirement under the current zoning for ground 00:15:11.929 --> 00:15:13.039 floor commercial so we 00:15:13.039 --> 00:15:16.690 didn't feel the need to specify that. So any SUP regardless 00:15:16.690 --> 00:15:17.240 of what the 00:15:17.240 --> 00:15:20.700 SUP is for eliminates L6 on the property? Am I 00:15:20.700 --> 00:15:21.639 understanding that? The rezoning 00:15:21.639 --> 00:15:26.230 itself is what would eliminate limitation six because that 00:15:26.230 --> 00:15:26.879 only applies 00:15:26.879 --> 00:15:30.120 under CMG it doesn't apply under NRMU so if the first 00:15:30.120 --> 00:15:31.440 request is approved that 00:15:31.440 --> 00:15:38.389 limitation goes away. Gotcha thank you. That's along the 00:15:38.389 --> 00:15:39.759 lines of where my 00:15:39.759 --> 00:15:43.299 question was going and looking a little farther ahead on 00:15:43.299 --> 00:15:44.600 our agenda our agenda 00:15:44.600 --> 00:15:49.710 item E is going to be the repeal of the requirement of the 00:15:49.710 --> 00:15:52.519 L6 and so my question 00:15:52.519 --> 00:15:57.080 is do you still have to have an SUP and CMG to do multif 00:15:57.080 --> 00:15:59.480 amily or not? L4 would 00:15:59.480 --> 00:16:04.320 still be in place even if L6 is repealed so the it would 00:16:04.320 --> 00:16:05.039 either have to be a 00:16:05.039 --> 00:16:10.940 mixed-use development or obtain an SUP. Okay but then they 00:16:10.940 --> 00:16:12.080 are putting a 00:16:12.080 --> 00:16:15.509 limitation on themselves by essentially down zoning from CM 00:16:15.509 --> 00:16:16.960 G to NRMU as far as 00:16:16.960 --> 00:16:19.720 the number of units. Yes they're imposing that density 00:16:19.720 --> 00:16:20.799 limitation then. Where they 00:16:20.799 --> 00:16:24.950 don't have that in CMG. Yes. Are they aware that this item 00:16:24.950 --> 00:16:25.759 E is coming before 00:16:25.759 --> 00:16:28.980 us this evening on their zoning and they've decided just to 00:16:28.980 --> 00:16:30.039 continue forward? 00:16:30.039 --> 00:16:32.620 Yeah the timelines for the two requests we're gonna run 00:16:32.620 --> 00:16:33.759 concurrently so they 00:16:33.759 --> 00:16:36.379 decided just to go ahead and move forward with their 00:16:36.379 --> 00:16:37.679 request and see how it goes. 00:16:37.679 --> 00:16:46.110 Okay great thank you. Any other questions Commissioner Beck 00:16:46.110 --> 00:16:47.960 ? Thank you chair. Going 00:16:47.960 --> 00:16:54.100 back to the roads again it mentions in our material it 00:16:54.100 --> 00:16:54.759 doesn't have a page 00:16:54.759 --> 00:16:58.419 under site that it says commercial mixed-use collectors are 00:16:58.419 --> 00:16:59.200 intended to 00:16:59.200 --> 00:17:02.720 be two lane roadways with parking along each side and total 00:17:02.720 --> 00:17:04.279 73 be a driveway 00:17:04.279 --> 00:17:07.710 which is what you told me. This type of road is designed to 00:17:07.710 --> 00:17:09.319 handle between 1,000 00:17:09.319 --> 00:17:13.400 and 8,000 vehicles per day and it's full width. Do we know 00:17:13.400 --> 00:17:14.240 how close we are to 00:17:14.240 --> 00:17:18.480 that now? Again everything that's over there are we getting 00:17:18.480 --> 00:17:19.640 precariously close 00:17:19.640 --> 00:17:23.269 to that or we still got a long ways to go? I don't recall 00:17:23.269 --> 00:17:24.440 the exact width of that 00:17:24.440 --> 00:17:28.039 right away I could try to measure that. Well I'm just gonna 00:17:28.039 --> 00:17:29.799 know is with what's there 00:17:29.799 --> 00:17:34.059 can does it handle are we getting precariously close to 00:17:34.059 --> 00:17:37.680 that 8,000? Oh as far as the trips I 00:17:37.680 --> 00:17:41.109 haven't seen any trip calculations for this. To date I'm 00:17:41.109 --> 00:17:42.099 not sure what the 00:17:42.099 --> 00:17:46.680 current capacity or use of Londonderry or San Bas is. 00:17:46.680 --> 00:17:48.200 Should we be considering 00:17:48.200 --> 00:17:51.279 that considering that there's a lot of traffic over there 00:17:51.279 --> 00:17:52.460 these roads should be 00:17:52.460 --> 00:17:55.039 able to handle it but we're building some more would it be 00:17:55.039 --> 00:17:55.720 out of place to 00:17:55.720 --> 00:17:59.599 say let's take a look at it make sure we're not going over 00:17:59.599 --> 00:18:00.039 the limit you know how we 00:18:00.039 --> 00:18:02.960 run into these problems with people say there's too many 00:18:02.960 --> 00:18:04.400 cars on the road now 00:18:04.400 --> 00:18:09.799 and I wouldn't disagree with that but as a P&Z Commission 00:18:09.799 --> 00:18:11.000 could we could we ask 00:18:11.000 --> 00:18:15.140 for that to see where we're at with a traffic analysis on 00:18:15.140 --> 00:18:17.359 the existing roads now? 00:18:17.359 --> 00:18:24.380 I'll ask staff to address that. Yeah I don't think there's 00:18:24.380 --> 00:18:25.920 any just in our you know 00:18:25.920 --> 00:18:30.240 initial discussions there there in the near future there 00:18:30.240 --> 00:18:31.640 aren't any specific 00:18:31.640 --> 00:18:36.240 plans to widen it right now I know they are looking at the 00:18:36.240 --> 00:18:39.359 light on Teasley 00:18:39.359 --> 00:18:43.349 there's the light at Londonderry where traffic kind of gets 00:18:43.349 --> 00:18:44.640 congested with 00:18:44.640 --> 00:18:48.380 folks making the left in the morning school just to the 00:18:48.380 --> 00:18:50.160 school and then at 00:18:50.160 --> 00:18:53.589 before you get to Lillian for I guess when that transitions 00:18:53.589 --> 00:18:55.160 into right before 00:18:55.160 --> 00:18:58.160 35 in between the two apartment complexes there's another 00:18:58.160 --> 00:18:59.359 light so our 00:18:59.359 --> 00:19:02.890 engine engineering is is looking at the possibility of 00:19:02.890 --> 00:19:04.519 having that light taken 00:19:04.519 --> 00:19:09.140 out because of the timing issue because you have almost 00:19:09.140 --> 00:19:09.880 really three lights 00:19:09.880 --> 00:19:14.210 right in a row and and they net particularly in the morning 00:19:14.210 --> 00:19:14.799 and I go 00:19:14.799 --> 00:19:17.710 that way every morning it they're never timed correctly and 00:19:17.710 --> 00:19:18.819 so it really causes 00:19:18.819 --> 00:19:22.250 causes some some issues but in the very near future other 00:19:22.250 --> 00:19:24.039 than other than that 00:19:24.039 --> 00:19:27.759 it's if they're not at that at those levels yet and we don 00:19:27.759 --> 00:19:28.880 't think we need to 00:19:28.880 --> 00:19:32.930 do that now considering that we're fixing to add to that 00:19:32.930 --> 00:19:34.640 not at not at this 00:19:34.640 --> 00:19:38.630 time in a sense it's also it were also looking at it's sort 00:19:38.630 --> 00:19:40.640 of a down zone from 00:19:40.640 --> 00:19:44.690 from the most intense that they could do today by right 00:19:44.690 --> 00:19:46.640 okay again I just want to 00:19:46.640 --> 00:19:48.980 point out under the current zoning if they did develop they 00:19:48.980 --> 00:19:49.759 would be required 00:19:49.759 --> 00:19:51.839 to have that ground floor commercial which would further 00:19:51.839 --> 00:19:52.519 increase the traffic 00:19:52.519 --> 00:19:55.670 over what would be proposed here no no I you know I don't 00:19:55.670 --> 00:19:57.319 disagree going to an 00:19:57.319 --> 00:20:02.119 NRM you is okay I'm just saying the roads that are there 00:20:02.119 --> 00:20:02.839 are expected to 00:20:02.839 --> 00:20:05.140 handle between one and eight thousand vehicles per day at 00:20:05.140 --> 00:20:06.119 the full load and 00:20:06.119 --> 00:20:08.940 when you throw in the school traffic with people don't even 00:20:08.940 --> 00:20:09.839 live there you 00:20:09.839 --> 00:20:14.400 know or how how closer do we to that now and are we so 00:20:14.400 --> 00:20:17.440 close that by adding 30 00:20:17.440 --> 00:20:20.519 units per acre over there you know a few more with a lot 00:20:20.519 --> 00:20:21.720 more traffic are we 00:20:21.720 --> 00:20:25.859 gonna be bumping close to the limit are we still safe you 00:20:25.859 --> 00:20:26.640 need to worry about 00:20:26.640 --> 00:20:30.900 that in the future I guess is what I'm asking and you don't 00:20:30.900 --> 00:20:31.960 think we do rich 00:20:31.960 --> 00:20:36.910 no I think as we you know part of the problem we don't have 00:20:36.910 --> 00:20:38.079 a lot of traffic 00:20:38.079 --> 00:20:41.980 that unfortunately and I know that that pre-tem is working 00:20:41.980 --> 00:20:43.000 on getting that I 00:20:43.000 --> 00:20:46.559 was just trying to think just based on the current density 00:20:46.559 --> 00:20:47.519 whether or not we 00:20:47.519 --> 00:20:52.839 can determine just based on trips theoretically where they 00:20:52.839 --> 00:20:54.160 could be but we 00:20:54.160 --> 00:20:59.170 don't have any any current traffic traffic counts I'll step 00:20:59.170 --> 00:21:00.720 in here and kind 00:21:00.720 --> 00:21:04.839 of watch over me and help me under the current code the 00:21:04.839 --> 00:21:06.039 only thing that this 00:21:06.039 --> 00:21:10.029 development would be responsible for is where they actually 00:21:10.029 --> 00:21:11.440 attached to Sam Bass 00:21:11.440 --> 00:21:15.400 or Londonderry correct they don't have any responsibility 00:21:15.400 --> 00:21:16.119 from anything on 00:21:16.119 --> 00:21:18.170 Londonderry to the West and they don't have any 00:21:18.170 --> 00:21:19.759 responsibility on the Sam Bass 00:21:19.759 --> 00:21:24.319 southern portion correct so if to answer from my point of 00:21:24.319 --> 00:21:25.880 view your question the 00:21:25.880 --> 00:21:29.109 only thing that we have an ability to do something is in 00:21:29.109 --> 00:21:30.319 the width where they 00:21:30.319 --> 00:21:34.140 border Sam Bass or the width where they border London 00:21:34.140 --> 00:21:35.200 perimeter correct and it 00:21:35.200 --> 00:21:37.450 gets back to the same issue we've talked about the last 00:21:37.450 --> 00:21:39.079 several times is whose 00:21:39.079 --> 00:21:42.789 responsibility is to do that they'll have to do I assume a 00:21:42.789 --> 00:21:43.920 TIA based on the 00:21:43.920 --> 00:21:47.640 number of trips because of the number of units and then the 00:21:47.640 --> 00:21:48.799 city will decide 00:21:48.799 --> 00:21:52.619 whether they won't take the fees off of the number of units 00:21:52.619 --> 00:21:53.799 and whether we want 00:21:53.799 --> 00:21:56.359 to spend it and do improvements to Sam Bass and Londonderry 00:21:56.359 --> 00:21:57.079 or somewhere else 00:21:57.079 --> 00:22:01.079 within the area that this parcel those improvements have to 00:22:01.079 --> 00:22:02.079 be done in that 00:22:02.079 --> 00:22:04.900 area or where they're going to ask them to do perimeter 00:22:04.900 --> 00:22:06.200 improvements on their 00:22:06.200 --> 00:22:11.200 properties and that's my understanding of how that works 00:22:11.200 --> 00:22:14.619 correct and I don't disagree that I wasn't necessarily 00:22:14.619 --> 00:22:16.279 trying to dump this 00:22:16.279 --> 00:22:19.160 on the developer at all in fact I was kind of expecting the 00:22:19.160 --> 00:22:20.000 city to step in 00:22:20.000 --> 00:22:25.099 here and do this kind of analysis to see that if we're 00:22:25.099 --> 00:22:27.480 reaching the limit to what 00:22:27.480 --> 00:22:30.480 these roads can handle should we be building which I don't 00:22:30.480 --> 00:22:31.160 think we are but 00:22:31.160 --> 00:22:34.480 I just I'm curious to how close we are right now so I was 00:22:34.480 --> 00:22:35.720 really kind of 00:22:35.720 --> 00:22:38.299 expecting the city to take a look at this and not so much 00:22:38.299 --> 00:22:38.980 expecting the 00:22:38.980 --> 00:22:43.130 developer so that's that's that was where I was coming from 00:22:43.130 --> 00:22:43.759 my comment is 00:22:43.759 --> 00:22:47.279 there's a city will de facto they're going to require the 00:22:47.279 --> 00:22:48.000 developer to do a 00:22:48.000 --> 00:22:51.420 TIA and study the whole area and give the data to the city 00:22:51.420 --> 00:22:52.920 okay now we'll help 00:22:52.920 --> 00:22:56.069 or we'll pay for it now we'll help with the numbers to show 00:22:56.069 --> 00:22:57.440 where we're at that 00:22:57.440 --> 00:23:01.839 will give current traffic counts okay 00:23:03.920 --> 00:23:09.039 Commissioner yeah okay sure Commissioner Sullivan so let me 00:23:09.039 --> 00:23:10.720 get this straight 00:23:10.720 --> 00:23:15.519 we've got the numbers here is designed to handle a hundred 00:23:15.519 --> 00:23:16.480 a thousand eight 00:23:16.480 --> 00:23:20.549 thousand vehicles but we have no clue how many vehicles are 00:23:20.549 --> 00:23:21.819 there we have no 00:23:21.819 --> 00:23:26.839 clue who's going to be responsible if ever what's the point 00:23:26.839 --> 00:23:28.160 if we never have 00:23:28.160 --> 00:23:31.309 traffic surveys we never know how many cars are actually 00:23:31.309 --> 00:23:32.440 there we don't know 00:23:32.440 --> 00:23:36.490 how many cars are going to be added everybody's flying 00:23:36.490 --> 00:23:38.480 blind I guess I'm 00:23:38.480 --> 00:23:42.339 just baffled and bewildered over the fact that we even have 00:23:42.339 --> 00:23:43.519 the numbers in 00:23:43.519 --> 00:23:48.710 here because it makes no difference I think it kind of goes 00:23:48.710 --> 00:23:49.839 back to the fact 00:23:49.839 --> 00:23:55.529 that ironic right if they were to add more development to 00:23:55.529 --> 00:23:56.839 the site ie 00:23:56.839 --> 00:24:00.640 commercial which would be more even intensive than then 00:24:00.640 --> 00:24:01.759 additional 00:24:01.759 --> 00:24:05.509 residential units we wouldn't we wouldn't even be we wouldn 00:24:05.509 --> 00:24:06.440 't even be here today 00:24:06.440 --> 00:24:09.589 they would just be able to go in as of right and so that's 00:24:09.589 --> 00:24:10.519 sort of what we 00:24:10.519 --> 00:24:13.170 looked at it's really sort of a down zone of what they 00:24:13.170 --> 00:24:14.240 could potentially 00:24:14.240 --> 00:24:18.500 build it at the max I can't I mean we just don't have 00:24:18.500 --> 00:24:19.240 unfortunately we don't 00:24:19.240 --> 00:24:21.880 have that data to say you know right now the road is at a 00:24:21.880 --> 00:24:24.480 level of service C by 00:24:24.480 --> 00:24:29.039 adding X number of trips it's going to degrade it to you 00:24:29.039 --> 00:24:31.160 know whatever a D or 00:24:31.160 --> 00:24:36.349 it's going to maintain it at a C right now we don't we're 00:24:36.349 --> 00:24:37.480 in the process of 00:24:37.480 --> 00:24:42.049 putting all of that together I'm just confused where the 00:24:42.049 --> 00:24:43.559 planning comes into 00:24:43.559 --> 00:24:47.309 play we got planning and zoning we zone but we don't plan 00:24:47.309 --> 00:24:49.119 we're getting there 00:24:49.119 --> 00:24:53.029 don't play it because nobody does any studies to tell us 00:24:53.029 --> 00:24:54.480 where we are to find 00:24:54.480 --> 00:24:57.119 out whether or not all these apartments are going to add 00:24:57.119 --> 00:24:58.359 anything to the traffic 00:24:58.359 --> 00:25:00.940 load which we know they will and at the same time they're 00:25:00.940 --> 00:25:01.759 going to take away a 00:25:01.759 --> 00:25:05.609 light which is the only thing that controls it coming in 00:25:05.609 --> 00:25:06.240 and off of 00:25:06.240 --> 00:25:10.539 streets you know all of that together makes I have a hard 00:25:10.539 --> 00:25:11.119 time where the 00:25:11.119 --> 00:25:17.109 planning is involved if I might mr. chair sure Scott 00:25:17.109 --> 00:25:19.319 McDonald I'm just to 00:25:19.319 --> 00:25:21.440 touch on that we absolutely have been having the 00:25:21.440 --> 00:25:22.799 conversations about doing a 00:25:22.799 --> 00:25:26.890 traffic study and looking at the entire city we haven't we 00:25:26.890 --> 00:25:28.079 haven't taken a 00:25:28.079 --> 00:25:32.059 comprehensive approach to traffic management we're working 00:25:32.059 --> 00:25:32.839 site by site 00:25:32.839 --> 00:25:35.599 the numbers that you have before you ultimately are set up 00:25:35.599 --> 00:25:36.400 for what the road 00:25:36.400 --> 00:25:41.490 will handle as we propose this or the applicants proposing 00:25:41.490 --> 00:25:42.599 this it's a less 00:25:42.599 --> 00:25:46.619 intense use than what is eligible by right that's why staff 00:25:46.619 --> 00:25:47.359 s confident in the 00:25:47.359 --> 00:25:50.509 fact that this isn't going to create a burden it actually 00:25:50.509 --> 00:25:51.680 would lessen some 00:25:51.680 --> 00:25:55.250 potential burden and we will we will and have already had 00:25:55.250 --> 00:25:56.640 the conversations about 00:25:56.640 --> 00:26:00.069 how it is to take the approach to traffic management across 00:26:00.069 --> 00:26:00.759 the city so 00:26:00.759 --> 00:26:04.579 we've got some some steps that we need to take and some 00:26:04.579 --> 00:26:06.359 actions that we intend 00:26:06.359 --> 00:26:09.789 to take to look at that more comprehensively we recognize 00:26:09.789 --> 00:26:10.359 there's a 00:26:10.359 --> 00:26:14.089 deficiency in our traffic management it's just the steps to 00:26:14.089 --> 00:26:15.119 get there and as 00:26:15.119 --> 00:26:18.549 we take the steps and really trying to look at the overall 00:26:18.549 --> 00:26:19.660 zoning of the city 00:26:19.660 --> 00:26:23.130 and the planning and and tying it to the dent in 2030 that 00:26:23.130 --> 00:26:24.160 's a component of that 00:26:24.160 --> 00:26:27.119 that we will be looking at in the very very near future 00:26:27.119 --> 00:26:30.240 hope that helps 00:26:30.759 --> 00:26:49.480 any other questions on B or C for Haley on this item thank 00:26:49.480 --> 00:26:53.000 you Haley item D just 00:26:53.000 --> 00:26:58.849 for my clarification I assume we'll open this item and then 00:26:58.849 --> 00:27:00.119 we will do a vote to 00:27:00.119 --> 00:27:05.180 postpone to date certain of February 21st okay and leave 00:27:05.180 --> 00:27:07.359 open okay 00:27:14.680 --> 00:27:21.099 that will take us to E and Haley all right so very closely 00:27:21.099 --> 00:27:22.240 related to what we 00:27:22.240 --> 00:27:28.559 just talked about staff is proposing an amendment to the 00:27:28.559 --> 00:27:29.079 Denton Development 00:27:29.079 --> 00:27:32.869 Code to kind of provide some immediate relief for some some 00:27:32.869 --> 00:27:34.160 projects going on 00:27:34.160 --> 00:27:38.720 in here in town so the request is to consider making a 00:27:38.720 --> 00:27:39.519 recommendation to City 00:27:39.519 --> 00:27:42.640 Council regarding a proposed revision to subchapter 5 00:27:42.640 --> 00:27:43.640 specifically to our 00:27:43.640 --> 00:27:46.400 limitations that apply to mixed-use development 00:27:46.400 --> 00:27:47.079 requirements for 00:27:47.079 --> 00:27:50.509 multifamily so just a little bit of background that we kind 00:27:50.509 --> 00:27:50.960 of touched on 00:27:50.960 --> 00:27:53.839 with the last project we currently have two limitations 00:27:53.839 --> 00:27:55.000 that can apply to the 00:27:55.000 --> 00:27:59.140 multifamily use that impose mixed-use restrictions on them 00:27:59.140 --> 00:28:01.160 L4 requires in 00:28:01.160 --> 00:28:03.940 certain districts that multifamilies only permitted either 00:28:03.940 --> 00:28:04.720 with an SUP as we 00:28:04.720 --> 00:28:08.150 just saw or as part of a mixed-use development unless it 00:28:08.150 --> 00:28:08.720 can meet one of 00:28:08.720 --> 00:28:12.150 these other criteria that it very rarely can being part of 00:28:12.150 --> 00:28:12.839 a master plan 00:28:12.839 --> 00:28:17.140 development or if it received approval prior to 2005 or as 00:28:17.140 --> 00:28:18.400 part of a small area 00:28:18.400 --> 00:28:21.920 plan so really those top two are what is most often seen 00:28:21.920 --> 00:28:22.960 then the other 00:28:22.960 --> 00:28:26.920 limitation is limitation 6 that permits multifamily only on 00:28:26.920 --> 00:28:27.920 the second story and 00:28:27.920 --> 00:28:31.369 above when it has an office retail or other commercial use 00:28:31.369 --> 00:28:32.400 on the ground floor 00:28:32.400 --> 00:28:36.369 along any Avenue collector or arterial Street so other than 00:28:36.369 --> 00:28:37.200 neighborhood 00:28:37.200 --> 00:28:40.319 residential streets though that pretty much covers every 00:28:40.319 --> 00:28:41.400 street type that we 00:28:41.400 --> 00:28:45.990 would see in here in the city so just to look at how these 00:28:45.990 --> 00:28:47.160 apply across the code 00:28:47.160 --> 00:28:50.200 you can see L4 applies in all of our mixed-use districts 00:28:50.200 --> 00:28:50.720 from the 00:28:50.720 --> 00:28:53.480 neighborhood residential through the community mixed use 00:28:53.480 --> 00:28:54.240 and the regional 00:28:54.240 --> 00:29:00.250 mixed-use districts L6 supplies only in CMG CME RCCN and R 00:29:00.250 --> 00:29:02.079 CCD and then the only 00:29:02.079 --> 00:29:06.720 other limitation we have is within NRMU and SUP is required 00:29:06.720 --> 00:29:08.039 so regardless of 00:29:08.039 --> 00:29:11.809 the whether they did mixed use the SUP is required in that 00:29:11.809 --> 00:29:13.960 district so staff is 00:29:13.960 --> 00:29:16.720 proposing to remove L6 from all of those districts where it 00:29:16.720 --> 00:29:18.480 applies just within 00:29:18.480 --> 00:29:22.150 the past two years 2016 and 2017 we had five rezoning cases 00:29:22.150 --> 00:29:23.079 that were applied 00:29:23.079 --> 00:29:26.509 for we've had countless other projects that have come in as 00:29:26.509 --> 00:29:27.079 pre-development 00:29:27.079 --> 00:29:29.769 meetings or just as people calling and asking about 00:29:29.769 --> 00:29:31.079 property that have been 00:29:31.079 --> 00:29:34.160 squashed because of that ground floor commercial 00:29:34.160 --> 00:29:36.160 requirement looking at how 00:29:36.160 --> 00:29:39.019 this requirement applies across the city remember it 00:29:39.019 --> 00:29:40.160 applied in the community 00:29:40.160 --> 00:29:43.210 mixed use in the regional districts so essentially all of 00:29:43.210 --> 00:29:44.160 the the purple the 00:29:44.160 --> 00:29:46.240 kind of fuchsia color and then the light pink that you see 00:29:46.240 --> 00:29:47.000 on the map is where 00:29:47.000 --> 00:29:51.130 that L6 would apply just keeping in mind that our 00:29:51.130 --> 00:29:52.240 comprehensive plan does call 00:29:52.240 --> 00:29:54.640 for a mixture of housing types because we are a city with 00:29:54.640 --> 00:29:56.680 diverse housing needs 00:29:56.680 --> 00:30:00.789 and then looking at where this limitation applies on mostly 00:30:00.789 --> 00:30:01.279 on the 00:30:01.279 --> 00:30:04.759 outskirts of the city it doesn't make the most sense 00:30:04.759 --> 00:30:05.720 potentially for ground 00:30:05.720 --> 00:30:09.160 floor commercial to be in these areas. Commissioner Ellis. 00:30:09.160 --> 00:30:10.119 Thank you Chair. 00:30:10.119 --> 00:30:13.650 So on that note when was this put into place because I was 00:30:13.650 --> 00:30:14.440 trying to get a 00:30:14.440 --> 00:30:17.660 context on you know when you look at that zoning map this 00:30:17.660 --> 00:30:18.920 limitation doesn't 00:30:18.920 --> 00:30:22.119 make any sense at all. It has been there since the code was 00:30:22.119 --> 00:30:24.240 adopted in 2002. 00:30:24.240 --> 00:30:28.630 Trying to get what was the intent because it just when you 00:30:28.630 --> 00:30:29.079 it just doesn't 00:30:29.079 --> 00:30:31.710 makes it makes great sense downtown when you when you you 00:30:31.710 --> 00:30:32.720 know when you've got 00:30:32.720 --> 00:30:36.019 those compact places but yeah boy that doesn't make any 00:30:36.019 --> 00:30:37.480 sense so yeah this is a 00:30:37.480 --> 00:30:41.859 good thing. So yeah now that you have an idea of where that 00:30:41.859 --> 00:30:42.920 applies looking a 00:30:42.920 --> 00:30:45.500 little more specifically like you just said we see this 00:30:45.500 --> 00:30:46.400 type of development 00:30:46.400 --> 00:30:50.960 where it is not required in downtown and compact walkable 00:30:50.960 --> 00:30:52.519 environments. So just 00:30:52.519 --> 00:30:55.089 some examples you know we have several of these downtown 00:30:55.089 --> 00:30:55.680 but you know on 00:30:55.680 --> 00:30:58.940 Hickory and Locust the two that are doing very well. It 00:30:58.940 --> 00:30:59.799 makes sense in those 00:30:59.799 --> 00:31:03.450 areas where people are out walking to get to these things 00:31:03.450 --> 00:31:04.640 and you see here on 00:31:04.640 --> 00:31:06.990 the bottom examples of where properties where this is 00:31:06.990 --> 00:31:08.519 specifically required on 00:31:08.519 --> 00:31:12.509 Brinker and then out on loop 288. Ground floor commercial 00:31:12.509 --> 00:31:13.359 isn't necessarily 00:31:13.359 --> 00:31:16.559 feasible in those places. The intent of that limitation 00:31:16.559 --> 00:31:17.680 wouldn't really be 00:31:17.680 --> 00:31:21.940 served well in those areas. Commissioner Beck. Thank you 00:31:21.940 --> 00:31:24.480 chair. Kind of pulling in 00:31:24.480 --> 00:31:29.779 on Commissioner Elst's comment and I agree that L6 is a 00:31:29.779 --> 00:31:31.359 pain in the butt you know 00:31:31.359 --> 00:31:35.970 in some areas but if we remove this the downtown area is a 00:31:35.970 --> 00:31:37.440 good area to use this. 00:31:37.440 --> 00:31:40.559 Do we lose it there too and they can just go ahead and 00:31:40.559 --> 00:31:42.000 build apartments in 00:31:42.000 --> 00:31:44.759 without the commercial development? That limitation does 00:31:44.759 --> 00:31:45.480 not apply in the 00:31:45.480 --> 00:31:48.319 downtown districts at all. So there's nothing requiring 00:31:48.319 --> 00:31:49.039 that that type of 00:31:49.039 --> 00:31:51.619 development occur there it just naturally does because of 00:31:51.619 --> 00:31:52.319 the environment. 00:31:52.319 --> 00:31:54.900 Okay so we don't have to worry about that. Yeah multi- 00:31:54.900 --> 00:31:56.400 family can go in with or without 00:31:56.400 --> 00:32:00.259 ground floor commercial in downtown. Can go in with or 00:32:00.259 --> 00:32:01.839 without? Yes. Ground floor? 00:32:01.839 --> 00:32:06.400 Okay. Yeah the use is permitted by right in our downtown 00:32:06.400 --> 00:32:08.279 districts. It just so 00:32:08.279 --> 00:32:11.839 happens that because of the nature of downtown we do see 00:32:11.839 --> 00:32:12.279 the ground floor commercial. 00:32:12.279 --> 00:32:17.240 Okay okay thank you. Haley if I make it's market driven the 00:32:17.240 --> 00:32:18.200 property owner decides 00:32:18.200 --> 00:32:20.440 whether they want to include that in their project or say 00:32:20.440 --> 00:32:21.079 you know what I 00:32:21.079 --> 00:32:23.119 don't think it's a viable option and we're just gonna do 00:32:23.119 --> 00:32:24.240 straight multi-family. 00:32:24.240 --> 00:32:28.559 Certainly. That correct? Certainly. Yeah and just to give 00:32:28.559 --> 00:32:29.359 you a little peace of 00:32:29.359 --> 00:32:32.019 mind if you remember back to the table L4 would still apply 00:32:32.019 --> 00:32:32.759 in all of these 00:32:32.759 --> 00:32:36.190 districts so the multi-family use itself would still either 00:32:36.190 --> 00:32:37.160 come before you and 00:32:37.160 --> 00:32:40.150 City Council as an SUP or it would be part of a larger 00:32:40.150 --> 00:32:41.799 mixed use development 00:32:41.799 --> 00:32:44.680 providing that it meets the definition of mixed use which 00:32:44.680 --> 00:32:45.599 is simply three or 00:32:45.599 --> 00:32:49.250 more interrelated and compatible uses on a property but it 00:32:49.250 --> 00:32:50.359 can be vertically or 00:32:50.359 --> 00:32:54.220 horizontally mixed. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you chair. 00:32:54.220 --> 00:32:55.759 I know you have listed 00:32:55.759 --> 00:32:58.839 here in the back of the different zones but remember serves 00:32:58.839 --> 00:32:59.680 me correctly multi- 00:32:59.680 --> 00:33:02.819 family is not allowed by right in any zoning classification 00:33:02.819 --> 00:33:03.440 in the city 00:33:03.440 --> 00:33:08.039 correct? All multi-family has to be SUP? No in the downtown 00:33:08.039 --> 00:33:09.119 districts it has a 00:33:09.119 --> 00:33:11.700 limitation but it's just a limitation related to density 00:33:11.700 --> 00:33:13.519 calculation. Okay. So it 00:33:13.519 --> 00:33:17.539 could occur in like the DCG district or in the DR2. All 00:33:17.539 --> 00:33:20.359 other areas has to come 00:33:20.359 --> 00:33:23.400 before us for the SUP or mixed use development. That is 00:33:23.400 --> 00:33:24.599 correct. Or the others. 00:33:24.599 --> 00:33:26.720 That is correct yeah. The downtown districts would be the 00:33:26.720 --> 00:33:27.720 only ones really 00:33:27.720 --> 00:33:33.569 excluded from this. Thanks. So yeah as I was saying you L4 00:33:33.569 --> 00:33:34.200 would still apply in 00:33:34.200 --> 00:33:36.029 all of these districts so there's still that extra level of 00:33:36.029 --> 00:33:36.680 scrutiny it either 00:33:36.680 --> 00:33:39.609 has to be meet the definition of mixed use which is very 00:33:39.609 --> 00:33:41.160 specific or it would 00:33:41.160 --> 00:33:45.210 have to come before you as an SUP. We did publish 00:33:45.210 --> 00:33:46.880 notification about the requests 00:33:46.880 --> 00:33:49.710 didn't receive any responses to it and we are recommending 00:33:49.710 --> 00:33:51.359 approval so can 00:33:51.359 --> 00:33:53.970 answer any questions. Commissioner Beck. Okay well I was 00:33:53.970 --> 00:33:54.920 confused and I was under 00:33:54.920 --> 00:33:57.680 the impression we were gonna get rid of L4 and L6 you're 00:33:57.680 --> 00:33:58.759 just wanting to remove 00:33:58.759 --> 00:34:11.760 L6. Just L6. Gotcha. Just on density NRMU allows 12 units 00:34:11.760 --> 00:34:15.639 per acre NRMU allows 30 00:34:15.639 --> 00:34:21.909 units per acre. So CMG what's the density on that? There is 00:34:21.909 --> 00:34:22.880 no maximum density in 00:34:22.880 --> 00:34:25.719 the community mixed use district so multifamily could 00:34:25.719 --> 00:34:26.800 develop on a site at 00:34:26.800 --> 00:34:29.619 whatever density it wanted so long as they could provide 00:34:29.619 --> 00:34:30.760 adequate parking for 00:34:30.760 --> 00:34:34.869 it. Parking would be the kind of natural limit. Yeah okay 00:34:34.869 --> 00:34:37.679 all right thanks. 00:34:39.719 --> 00:34:45.940 Any other questions for Haley on this item? Okay with that 00:34:45.940 --> 00:34:47.559 our item F is going 00:34:47.559 --> 00:34:55.639 to tie into the work session that we have on sub chapter 17 00:34:55.639 --> 00:34:57.480 and I'll just ask 00:34:57.480 --> 00:35:01.579 Deborah if you're getting ready I don't know how long you 00:35:01.579 --> 00:35:03.480 think your presentation 00:35:03.480 --> 00:35:06.309 will be if we should go ahead and break and get food and 00:35:06.309 --> 00:35:07.480 get started if you have 00:35:07.480 --> 00:35:12.199 quite a bit or if we... I have like two or three more 00:35:12.199 --> 00:35:15.760 slides to go. We left at the upland 00:35:15.760 --> 00:35:18.889 habitat discussion this time that's where we're going to 00:35:18.889 --> 00:35:19.639 retake the the 00:35:19.639 --> 00:35:23.500 discussion and then after that I believe will be the 00:35:23.500 --> 00:35:25.440 criteria for approval of 00:35:25.440 --> 00:35:30.489 alternative ESA plans. So you I can wait until you are you 00:35:30.489 --> 00:35:33.360 know ready to eat is 00:35:33.360 --> 00:35:38.280 completely up to you. I just want to take a break to eat or 00:35:38.280 --> 00:35:39.119 you want to press on 00:35:39.119 --> 00:35:41.730 through and see where we go and then we have to we may have 00:35:41.730 --> 00:35:43.480 to stop you at 615 00:35:43.480 --> 00:35:48.969 or something if we're running long and do a quick eat. Okay 00:35:48.969 --> 00:35:49.559 let's go and get 00:35:49.559 --> 00:35:52.639 started if you got don't mind. 00:36:03.360 --> 00:36:21.940 Good evening Commission my name is Deborah Vera I'm with 00:36:21.940 --> 00:36:22.519 the Environmental 00:36:22.519 --> 00:36:27.559 Services Department. Last time two weeks ago we started 00:36:27.559 --> 00:36:28.400 going over the 00:36:28.400 --> 00:36:33.510 changes made to or proposed changes to sub chapter 17. We 00:36:33.510 --> 00:36:34.719 stopped at the 00:36:34.719 --> 00:36:38.019 discussion of upland habitat and I'm going to resume with a 00:36:38.019 --> 00:36:38.800 definition 00:36:38.800 --> 00:36:42.300 because I believe there was some concerns about the changes 00:36:42.300 --> 00:36:42.960 and why would 00:36:42.960 --> 00:36:48.869 apply. Currently the definition of a of upland habitat is 00:36:48.869 --> 00:36:49.920 areas of minimum of 00:36:49.920 --> 00:36:53.449 10 acres in size that contain remnants of the Easter cross 00:36:53.449 --> 00:36:54.960 timber habitat. We 00:36:54.960 --> 00:36:58.920 have revised the definition just a little bit just to take 00:36:58.920 --> 00:36:59.880 out the eastern 00:36:59.880 --> 00:37:03.639 part of it and just have the entire cross timber habitat. 00:37:03.639 --> 00:37:05.280 However in 00:37:05.280 --> 00:37:10.260 practicality what you will see present in Denton would 00:37:10.260 --> 00:37:12.000 pretty much correspond to 00:37:12.000 --> 00:37:15.070 what is considered Easter cross timber. So we have not 00:37:15.070 --> 00:37:17.139 changed the species we 00:37:17.139 --> 00:37:21.079 have not changed the minimum area that is required so in 00:37:21.079 --> 00:37:22.360 that regard the 00:37:22.360 --> 00:37:25.909 definition stays the same. I believe Commissioner Sanchez 00:37:25.909 --> 00:37:26.719 was concerned about 00:37:26.719 --> 00:37:31.869 providing definition if you look into 17.5 we'll see all 00:37:31.869 --> 00:37:32.840 the four type of 00:37:32.840 --> 00:37:37.710 eases defined in that section including upland habitat. Yes 00:37:37.710 --> 00:37:37.920 sir. 00:37:37.920 --> 00:37:41.519 Commissioner Sanchez. Still reading that it says areas of 00:37:41.519 --> 00:37:43.039 minimum 10 acres in 00:37:43.039 --> 00:37:47.090 size okay you're talking about 10 acres that contain 00:37:47.090 --> 00:37:49.920 remnants so it's referring 00:37:49.920 --> 00:37:53.519 to the 10 acres the way I read it that refers to the 10 00:37:53.519 --> 00:37:54.480 acres it doesn't 00:37:54.480 --> 00:37:58.730 refer to as we were told earlier that a 10 acre remnant is 00:37:58.730 --> 00:38:00.119 we're looking at the 00:38:00.119 --> 00:38:05.079 whole cross timbers area we're looking at just these 10 00:38:05.079 --> 00:38:06.519 acres and it's kind of 00:38:06.519 --> 00:38:09.559 confusing the way it's at least for me it is okay because 00:38:09.559 --> 00:38:10.559 it's referring to the 00:38:10.559 --> 00:38:13.349 10 acres and the remnants are referring to the 10 acres it 00:38:13.349 --> 00:38:14.039 's not referring to 00:38:14.039 --> 00:38:17.559 the whole cross timbers okay so it should be clarified a 00:38:17.559 --> 00:38:18.079 little bit better. 00:38:18.079 --> 00:38:24.559 Sure we can we can rework that definition such as areas 00:38:24.559 --> 00:38:26.239 typically found or 00:38:26.239 --> 00:38:30.900 habitats are typically found in areas of the Easter cross 00:38:30.900 --> 00:38:32.960 timber habitat of a 10 00:38:32.960 --> 00:38:37.119 acres in size you want that definition to be reworks in 00:38:37.119 --> 00:38:38.079 that way will be clear. 00:38:38.079 --> 00:38:41.510 I think it'd be it helped to be a little bit clearer I mean 00:38:41.510 --> 00:38:42.920 I may be just 00:38:42.920 --> 00:38:45.679 as far as you know I may just not be understanding it but 00:38:45.679 --> 00:38:46.679 that's it seems to 00:38:46.679 --> 00:38:48.679 me it refers to the 10 acres when you're talking about 00:38:48.679 --> 00:38:49.679 remnants. 00:38:49.679 --> 00:38:54.829 Okay what we can do is I can rework the ordinance and when 00:38:54.829 --> 00:38:56.760 if you decide to make a 00:38:56.760 --> 00:39:00.760 recommendation we can add that amendment as a part of the 00:39:00.760 --> 00:39:01.719 of the motion is that 00:39:01.719 --> 00:39:07.119 something that you would like? Sure Commissioner Ellis. 00:39:07.119 --> 00:39:08.039 Thank You Chair I 00:39:08.039 --> 00:39:11.159 don't know that it has to be reworked that much but maybe I 00:39:11.159 --> 00:39:12.179 think Bob used the 00:39:12.179 --> 00:39:15.980 word contiguous I mean maybe you just need to add just a 00:39:15.980 --> 00:39:17.400 little bit clearer 00:39:17.400 --> 00:39:19.750 definition so that when someone reads it they have a 00:39:19.750 --> 00:39:21.000 picture in their mind that 00:39:21.000 --> 00:39:28.409 it's 10 acres of contiguous. Okay okay we can do that let 00:39:28.409 --> 00:39:29.719 us work out during the 00:39:29.719 --> 00:39:35.309 now on a hearing and we will provide some new language for 00:39:35.309 --> 00:39:40.400 you. So what one of 00:39:40.400 --> 00:39:44.039 the substantial changes is right now currently we require 00:39:44.039 --> 00:39:45.400 the preservation of 00:39:45.400 --> 00:39:48.980 upland habitat if you were to develop residential 00:39:48.980 --> 00:39:50.599 development meaning 00:39:50.599 --> 00:39:55.800 multifamily 2f single-family homes. Any non-residential 00:39:55.800 --> 00:39:57.480 development that will 00:39:57.480 --> 00:40:03.329 encroach into a upland area designated upland habitat they 00:40:03.329 --> 00:40:04.360 don't have to 00:40:04.360 --> 00:40:08.260 preserve the 50%. When we talk about the preservation of 00:40:08.260 --> 00:40:09.719 the upland habitat we 00:40:09.719 --> 00:40:12.480 not only look in the preservation of the tree canopy but we 00:40:12.480 --> 00:40:13.480 also look into the 00:40:13.480 --> 00:40:17.449 preservation of the habitat on the understory because 00:40:17.449 --> 00:40:19.079 ultimately we are 00:40:19.079 --> 00:40:22.719 looking to the preservation of the viability of the entire 00:40:22.719 --> 00:40:24.280 habitat ecosystem 00:40:24.280 --> 00:40:29.800 present. The proposed changes would maintain the 50% 00:40:29.800 --> 00:40:30.699 preservation of the 00:40:30.699 --> 00:40:35.559 residential as is currently stated in the code however we 00:40:35.559 --> 00:40:38.639 have staff and the 00:40:38.639 --> 00:40:43.239 COE have given the the direction to actually require the 00:40:43.239 --> 00:40:44.360 preservation the 00:40:44.360 --> 00:40:48.920 30% preservation of upland habitat for non-residential 00:40:48.920 --> 00:40:52.440 development. The 30% we 00:40:52.440 --> 00:40:57.000 kind of landed on the 30% because we were looking at what 00:40:57.000 --> 00:40:58.719 the new tree code 00:40:58.719 --> 00:41:02.789 was looking as a preservation and they agree and they were 00:41:02.789 --> 00:41:04.440 having the 30%. 00:41:04.440 --> 00:41:10.760 Previously two weeks ago we discussed the changes to the 00:41:10.760 --> 00:41:13.320 credit section and 00:41:13.320 --> 00:41:18.969 let's say that you have a non-residential development encro 00:41:18.969 --> 00:41:19.480 aching 00:41:19.480 --> 00:41:23.519 into an upland habitat if they were to preserve the 30% 00:41:23.519 --> 00:41:25.199 that will actually make 00:41:25.199 --> 00:41:28.949 them comply with the tree code anyway so the two will 00:41:28.949 --> 00:41:33.000 actually match. But 00:41:33.000 --> 00:41:36.510 definitely this is one of the major changes policy wise 00:41:36.510 --> 00:41:37.719 that the proposed 00:41:37.719 --> 00:41:44.530 changes are you know showing. Commissioner Roselle. Thank 00:41:44.530 --> 00:41:45.679 you chair if I 00:41:45.679 --> 00:41:49.280 understand this correctly a non-residential development 00:41:49.280 --> 00:41:50.960 there is no 00:41:50.960 --> 00:41:54.449 increased measure to protect upland habitat apart from any 00:41:54.449 --> 00:41:55.400 other standard 00:41:55.400 --> 00:41:59.650 trees on the property. Correct if right now somebody were 00:41:59.650 --> 00:42:00.679 to develop a 00:42:00.679 --> 00:42:04.619 non-residential development what they have to preserve is 00:42:04.619 --> 00:42:06.239 the tree based on 00:42:06.239 --> 00:42:09.760 the tree code okay and they can't they have a minimum 00:42:09.760 --> 00:42:11.519 percentage of preservation 00:42:11.519 --> 00:42:14.739 that could be further reduced if they pay into the tree 00:42:14.739 --> 00:42:17.599 fund okay but the 00:42:17.599 --> 00:42:21.929 habitat per se is not protected. What you are protecting 00:42:21.929 --> 00:42:23.159 under the tree code is 00:42:23.159 --> 00:42:28.760 actually the tree canopy not the habitat. So if I 00:42:28.760 --> 00:42:29.719 understand correctly if a 00:42:29.719 --> 00:42:33.039 residential element goes in they have to maintain 50% cont 00:42:33.039 --> 00:42:34.280 iguous. Correct they 00:42:34.280 --> 00:42:38.840 pick which part is contiguous we don't designate that. Well 00:42:38.840 --> 00:42:39.719 part is strongly 00:42:39.719 --> 00:42:44.679 encouraged. Correct. And then the non-residential upland 00:42:44.679 --> 00:42:45.079 habitat really 00:42:45.079 --> 00:42:48.360 doesn't even matter. Correct. Can you help me understand 00:42:48.360 --> 00:42:49.639 why a more intensive use 00:42:49.639 --> 00:42:53.800 of the property there's not a stronger inclination to 00:42:53.800 --> 00:42:55.199 protect the habitat? Yeah 00:42:55.199 --> 00:42:59.000 in 2002 when the code was first draft the City Council at 00:42:59.000 --> 00:43:00.280 the moment understood 00:43:00.280 --> 00:43:05.699 that when you buy a tree lot in a residential lot you most 00:43:05.699 --> 00:43:06.599 of the time you 00:43:06.599 --> 00:43:11.559 are paying a premium for it therefore they saw a direct 00:43:11.559 --> 00:43:13.199 compensation for the 00:43:13.199 --> 00:43:17.219 making the developer to preserve those areas because they 00:43:17.219 --> 00:43:19.639 will be somehow 00:43:19.639 --> 00:43:24.199 compensated economically because they will be paid a 00:43:24.199 --> 00:43:25.639 premium for it. In 00:43:25.639 --> 00:43:28.510 residential in commercial development that is a little bit 00:43:28.510 --> 00:43:29.320 different that 00:43:29.320 --> 00:43:35.599 doesn't play out differently. The other aspects that I 00:43:35.599 --> 00:43:37.320 remember be part of the 00:43:37.320 --> 00:43:41.880 conversation at that time was that sometimes developers 00:43:41.880 --> 00:43:43.159 come with a preset 00:43:43.159 --> 00:43:49.639 site plan that they would like to to to develop and not 00:43:49.639 --> 00:43:51.920 everybody it seems or 00:43:51.920 --> 00:43:56.480 what seem to be open to tweak those site plans to actually 00:43:56.480 --> 00:43:58.559 incorporate the ESA in 00:43:58.559 --> 00:44:03.880 it. So for those two factors the City Council at the time 00:44:03.880 --> 00:44:04.880 decided to 00:44:04.880 --> 00:44:08.699 only require the preservation the mandatory preservation to 00:44:08.699 --> 00:44:09.559 residential 00:44:09.559 --> 00:44:14.119 development. However I think that we all have seen 00:44:14.119 --> 00:44:16.920 successful commercial 00:44:16.920 --> 00:44:20.400 developers who have actually incorporated the trees as a 00:44:20.400 --> 00:44:21.039 part of the 00:44:21.039 --> 00:44:26.750 plan those side seems to be more aesthetically pleasing. I 00:44:26.750 --> 00:44:27.679 think that it 00:44:27.679 --> 00:44:32.239 adds value to it when you are working with a existing 00:44:32.239 --> 00:44:34.760 established area. So 00:44:34.760 --> 00:44:40.610 that's that's one of the reasons that I think we decided to 00:44:40.610 --> 00:44:42.559 just to take an 00:44:42.559 --> 00:44:46.280 approach. However in the same spirit to not to tax 00:44:46.280 --> 00:44:48.880 developers or tag them twice 00:44:48.880 --> 00:44:53.440 three tree code and upland habitat then we we are 00:44:53.440 --> 00:44:55.079 consistent on the percentage. 00:44:55.079 --> 00:44:59.719 By meeting the 30% of upland habitat they will also meet 00:44:59.719 --> 00:45:01.519 what the tree code 00:45:01.519 --> 00:45:07.369 is looking to to have to require. So personally have have 00:45:07.369 --> 00:45:08.760 some friction with 00:45:08.760 --> 00:45:12.780 that thought process but that that friction would probably 00:45:12.780 --> 00:45:13.519 be helped 00:45:13.519 --> 00:45:17.420 defined a little bit to know what is the overlay of upland 00:45:17.420 --> 00:45:19.199 habitat in our city to 00:45:19.199 --> 00:45:22.119 commercial uses. If there's not a lot of upland habitat in 00:45:22.119 --> 00:45:23.360 zoned commercial areas 00:45:23.360 --> 00:45:26.789 then this issue kind of solves itself and it might be an 00:45:26.789 --> 00:45:28.039 uphill battle I don't 00:45:28.039 --> 00:45:33.710 need to fight but it does create a little bit of concern in 00:45:33.710 --> 00:45:34.679 my mind that 00:45:34.679 --> 00:45:40.719 there's economic reasons for our developers remarketing or 00:45:40.719 --> 00:45:41.199 or whatever it 00:45:41.199 --> 00:45:43.449 is rather than actually protecting the environment. It 00:45:43.449 --> 00:45:44.320 seems like the upland 00:45:44.320 --> 00:45:50.460 habitat the the retention of that percentage of upland 00:45:50.460 --> 00:45:51.320 habitat should be 00:45:51.320 --> 00:45:54.519 for the purpose of maintaining the habitat not if a 00:45:54.519 --> 00:45:56.039 developer can market it 00:45:56.039 --> 00:45:58.480 at an increased price or if a commercial developer doesn't 00:45:58.480 --> 00:46:00.800 care about trees. 00:46:00.800 --> 00:46:03.670 It sounds like that was a motivating factor historically I 00:46:03.670 --> 00:46:04.519 don't think it 00:46:04.519 --> 00:46:07.090 should be going forward but again it might be a non-issue 00:46:07.090 --> 00:46:07.840 and so it might be 00:46:07.840 --> 00:46:12.880 helpful if there's a way to present or if you could tell me 00:46:12.880 --> 00:46:14.920 offline how many 00:46:14.920 --> 00:46:18.619 commercial properties have upland habitat to know if this 00:46:18.619 --> 00:46:19.639 is even an issue. 00:46:19.639 --> 00:46:24.730 Well the issue would be it we one thing is develop 00:46:24.730 --> 00:46:27.480 commercial okay and other 00:46:27.480 --> 00:46:33.329 thing is vacant land that is zoned for zoning district or 00:46:33.329 --> 00:46:34.480 category that allows 00:46:34.480 --> 00:46:39.989 some sort of commercial district so those are two separate. 00:46:39.989 --> 00:46:41.159 I will have to 00:46:41.159 --> 00:46:45.719 probably go back and try to overlay the two to give you a 00:46:45.719 --> 00:46:47.000 estimate of how much 00:46:47.000 --> 00:46:54.059 is that. I will tell you that most of the upland habitat it 00:46:54.059 --> 00:46:55.599 will be on the eastern 00:46:55.599 --> 00:47:00.960 part if you take I-35W corridor most of the cross timbers 00:47:00.960 --> 00:47:02.480 are in the east part 00:47:02.480 --> 00:47:07.039 of town when you move across the western part of it the 00:47:07.039 --> 00:47:09.440 actually acreage and art 00:47:09.440 --> 00:47:14.840 prairies so you don't see a lot of trees in that area for 00:47:14.840 --> 00:47:16.719 that reason so and 00:47:16.719 --> 00:47:20.739 that's the areas of town that are more ripe for development 00:47:20.739 --> 00:47:21.719 at this point 00:47:21.719 --> 00:47:24.909 especially industrial and things like that so it will be 00:47:24.909 --> 00:47:26.599 zoning districts that 00:47:26.599 --> 00:47:31.639 allow some sort of commercial use that we have a whole slew 00:47:31.639 --> 00:47:33.199 of those that are 00:47:33.199 --> 00:47:40.980 pretty much east of I-35 corridor. And I can look as well 00:47:40.980 --> 00:47:41.599 it seems like the 00:47:41.599 --> 00:47:46.719 Mayhill reconstruction east of Mayhill is where we've seen 00:47:46.719 --> 00:47:47.400 historically there's 00:47:47.400 --> 00:47:50.190 the neighborhood behind the Ford dealership that had an up 00:47:50.190 --> 00:47:51.639 land habitat in 00:47:51.639 --> 00:47:55.920 that neighborhood I just and maybe between meetings I can 00:47:55.920 --> 00:47:56.559 look to see what 00:47:56.559 --> 00:48:02.409 the upland habitat is over on that side so those are my 00:48:02.409 --> 00:48:02.679 thoughts. 00:48:02.679 --> 00:48:06.969 Yeah I can probably look into the interactive map and turn 00:48:06.969 --> 00:48:07.840 the ESA layer 00:48:07.840 --> 00:48:12.400 for you and then see if in that way you have an idea of 00:48:12.400 --> 00:48:14.159 where they are. Thank you. 00:48:14.159 --> 00:48:18.280 Commissioner Beck. Yeah thank you chair and this is 00:48:18.280 --> 00:48:19.840 probably kind of self evident but 00:48:19.840 --> 00:48:23.659 when you say that non-residential development when it encro 00:48:23.659 --> 00:48:24.679 aches upland 00:48:24.679 --> 00:48:30.199 habitat it has to preserve 30%. 50%? Non-residential. 00:48:30.199 --> 00:48:36.679 Okay. Yes. It would be great if it was. Okay. So we're 00:48:36.679 --> 00:48:39.519 talking about just say you've got a 10 00:48:39.519 --> 00:48:42.300 acre track of upland habitat but they're only going to 00:48:42.300 --> 00:48:43.800 affect a thousand square 00:48:43.800 --> 00:48:48.360 feet so the 30% they're expected is going to be brought 00:48:48.360 --> 00:48:50.079 roughly 300 square feet 00:48:50.079 --> 00:48:54.190 in or are we taking in to consideration that whole 10 acre 00:48:54.190 --> 00:48:55.880 track? No you're 00:48:55.880 --> 00:48:59.900 assuming that the entire 10 acres is in their site and that 00:48:59.900 --> 00:49:01.000 's something that we 00:49:01.000 --> 00:49:04.860 have to clarify. The 10 acres doesn't have to be in one 00:49:04.860 --> 00:49:06.139 parcel owned by one 00:49:06.139 --> 00:49:10.039 owner. Those are tree stands that might be spread out about 00:49:10.039 --> 00:49:11.719 multiple land owners. 00:49:11.719 --> 00:49:17.159 Okay let's say that they are 10 acres for owners equally 00:49:17.159 --> 00:49:19.559 distributed 2.5 okay 00:49:19.559 --> 00:49:22.719 let's say that I'm owner number one I'm going in and I'm 00:49:22.719 --> 00:49:24.719 going to do 00:49:24.719 --> 00:49:29.329 resident non-residential. So what what are the calculation 00:49:29.329 --> 00:49:30.880 is going to be based 00:49:30.880 --> 00:49:36.059 on how much of the upland habitat is in my parcel? That 00:49:36.059 --> 00:49:38.940 will be 2.5 and then the 00:49:38.940 --> 00:49:46.639 2. it will be 30% out of that 2.5 acres. So that's what you 00:49:46.639 --> 00:49:49.599 will be required to do. 00:49:49.599 --> 00:49:55.019 So hopefully the theory behind it is if everyone develops 00:49:55.019 --> 00:49:56.280 at the same 00:49:56.280 --> 00:50:00.199 type of development residential and all are subject to 30% 00:50:00.199 --> 00:50:01.840 after everybody 00:50:01.840 --> 00:50:06.960 preserve their 30% overall we will have three acres of up 00:50:06.960 --> 00:50:08.440 land habitat left from 00:50:08.440 --> 00:50:12.280 the original 10. So it's only 30% of the trees that you're 00:50:12.280 --> 00:50:13.719 directly going to 00:50:13.719 --> 00:50:19.800 impact. Correct. Of what is on your property. Right right 00:50:19.800 --> 00:50:20.199 thank you. 00:50:20.199 --> 00:50:24.579 Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. I actually wanted to 00:50:24.579 --> 00:50:25.320 ask Commissioner 00:50:25.320 --> 00:50:28.280 Rozelle a question with regard to what we were just 00:50:28.280 --> 00:50:29.719 discussing. What's the 00:50:29.719 --> 00:50:33.440 percentage that you have in your mind when you ask the 00:50:33.440 --> 00:50:35.320 question that you do? I 00:50:35.320 --> 00:50:40.400 mean if we're non-residential I would think you'd be equal. 00:50:40.400 --> 00:50:41.960 It's hard for me 00:50:41.960 --> 00:50:49.099 to see why a non-invasive neighborhood that's homes that 00:50:49.099 --> 00:50:50.199 they're gonna put bird 00:50:50.199 --> 00:50:52.619 feeders up and they actually would probably help with the 00:50:52.619 --> 00:50:53.639 underlying habitat 00:50:53.639 --> 00:50:57.170 more than commercial would have a steeper regulation than 00:50:57.170 --> 00:50:58.760 commercial that 00:50:58.760 --> 00:51:02.530 might not be as inclined to keep the habitat intact apart 00:51:02.530 --> 00:51:03.679 from the canopy. 00:51:03.679 --> 00:51:07.110 Because it seems residential has to be contiguous has to be 00:51:07.110 --> 00:51:08.559 50% and they're 00:51:08.559 --> 00:51:10.989 they have the same encouragement but on the non-residential 00:51:10.989 --> 00:51:12.000 it's 30% is that to 00:51:12.000 --> 00:51:15.199 be contiguous it just keep the tree canopy and so I'm just 00:51:15.199 --> 00:51:15.840 curious about 00:51:15.840 --> 00:51:19.320 what are we trying to protect and why the different 00:51:19.320 --> 00:51:20.719 standards based on 00:51:20.719 --> 00:51:24.019 development if if we're worried about the the birds and the 00:51:24.019 --> 00:51:25.519 critters I think 00:51:25.519 --> 00:51:28.099 it should be zoned the agnostic in terms of protecting that 00:51:28.099 --> 00:51:29.760 that habitat. I guess 00:51:29.760 --> 00:51:33.039 I understand then but it's probably because a commercial 00:51:33.039 --> 00:51:33.559 development is 00:51:33.559 --> 00:51:37.380 gonna have a bigger footprint overall it might impede the 00:51:37.380 --> 00:51:38.000 development all 00:51:38.000 --> 00:51:41.860 together if you require the same just because residential 00:51:41.860 --> 00:51:42.719 and commercial 00:51:42.719 --> 00:51:46.050 they're just not the same type of development so. Totally 00:51:46.050 --> 00:51:46.880 understand it it 00:51:46.880 --> 00:51:51.440 just seems to me that I don't want to use language 00:51:51.440 --> 00:51:52.400 inappropriate but it's a 00:51:52.400 --> 00:51:56.190 it's a it's a weak protection of the upland habitat if 00:51:56.190 --> 00:51:57.400 depending on what the 00:51:57.400 --> 00:52:00.090 use is if you want to put an office park in don't worry 00:52:00.090 --> 00:52:00.960 about the habitat we don't 00:52:00.960 --> 00:52:02.960 we don't care about if you want an office park if you want 00:52:02.960 --> 00:52:03.880 houses we do care 00:52:03.880 --> 00:52:06.989 about the habitat that's what it's it's communicating to me 00:52:06.989 --> 00:52:08.039 and again it might 00:52:08.039 --> 00:52:11.599 be inconsequential to the amount of development that overl 00:52:11.599 --> 00:52:12.559 aps non-residential 00:52:12.559 --> 00:52:16.460 and upland but it doesn't it doesn't seem to be speaking 00:52:16.460 --> 00:52:17.400 the same voice from 00:52:17.400 --> 00:52:19.980 the city's perspective of what we want to protect if there 00:52:19.980 --> 00:52:21.000 's a dual standard 00:52:21.000 --> 00:52:27.239 based on use. Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you. What is the 00:52:27.239 --> 00:52:28.360 what definition are we 00:52:28.360 --> 00:52:32.179 using for residential development in other words is this 00:52:32.179 --> 00:52:33.840 more than ten houses 00:52:33.840 --> 00:52:38.469 more than 20 houses or a single house? It could be a single 00:52:38.469 --> 00:52:39.900 house the use is 00:52:39.900 --> 00:52:43.329 residential so it could be single-family it could be multi- 00:52:43.329 --> 00:52:44.599 family or it could be 00:52:44.599 --> 00:52:47.400 two-f. Those are pretty much. What I'm saying is if an 00:52:47.400 --> 00:52:50.880 individual comes in and buys a lot in a 00:52:50.880 --> 00:52:54.400 neighborhood that's pretty well built out they're gonna be 00:52:54.400 --> 00:52:55.159 treated as a 00:52:55.159 --> 00:52:59.119 developer rather than the fact that they bought the lot 00:52:59.119 --> 00:53:00.360 they bought the trees 00:53:00.360 --> 00:53:03.840 there way too many trees because the lot's not big enough 00:53:03.840 --> 00:53:04.960 to hold the house 00:53:04.960 --> 00:53:09.139 they want and so they're gonna be held to this 50% cont 00:53:09.139 --> 00:53:10.880 iguous as a developer 00:53:10.880 --> 00:53:14.420 was which I'm sure was intended to not come in and clear- 00:53:14.420 --> 00:53:16.559 cut 20 acres of trees 00:53:16.559 --> 00:53:22.480 to put in the houses. I'm curious as to where does the home 00:53:22.480 --> 00:53:23.440 owner you know the 00:53:23.440 --> 00:53:28.840 landowner rights come into play versus again this are 00:53:28.840 --> 00:53:30.239 arbitrary contiguous 00:53:30.239 --> 00:53:34.840 50% number. Okay well in this scenario that you that you 00:53:34.840 --> 00:53:36.199 are playing you are 00:53:36.199 --> 00:53:41.320 it there's an existing neighborhood so we are talking a inf 00:53:41.320 --> 00:53:42.199 ield almost an 00:53:42.199 --> 00:53:45.619 infield situation okay where they have been one big tract 00:53:45.619 --> 00:53:46.679 skipped from 00:53:46.679 --> 00:53:51.309 development. The chances are that there's a tree that there 00:53:51.309 --> 00:53:53.280 's a large parcel ten 00:53:53.280 --> 00:54:00.679 acres or more who is covered you know inch for inch of tree 00:54:00.679 --> 00:54:02.639 it is not very 00:54:02.639 --> 00:54:08.800 often I will not rule out the possibility but it is very 00:54:08.800 --> 00:54:10.519 unlikely. If 00:54:10.519 --> 00:54:16.119 you are just building one house for example you can clear 00:54:16.119 --> 00:54:18.559 50% of that 00:54:18.559 --> 00:54:25.980 habitat by right that should give you enough if you have a 00:54:25.980 --> 00:54:28.039 ten acre tract 00:54:28.039 --> 00:54:31.500 cover with trees and you are in time. I'm not talking about 00:54:31.500 --> 00:54:32.960 ten acre I'm talking about a quarter acre or 00:54:32.960 --> 00:54:36.110 half acre. Well I'm talking about it in you know in a 00:54:36.110 --> 00:54:38.199 residential area in a 00:54:38.199 --> 00:54:41.840 development that's already been developed for several years 00:54:41.840 --> 00:54:42.800 but there's 00:54:42.800 --> 00:54:45.760 three or four scattered lots and they happen to have a 00:54:45.760 --> 00:54:46.920 bunch of trees on it 00:54:46.920 --> 00:54:50.820 people like to have a bunch of trees around their house. 00:54:50.820 --> 00:54:53.119 Yeah I see that the 00:54:53.119 --> 00:54:58.090 possibility however I think that if you are on a quarter 00:54:58.090 --> 00:55:00.440 lot and you are entitled 00:55:00.440 --> 00:55:06.440 to clear 50% of the upland habitat by right that chances 00:55:06.440 --> 00:55:06.880 are that 00:55:06.880 --> 00:55:10.559 will be enough for you to be able to accommodate your 00:55:10.559 --> 00:55:13.039 building footprint, your 00:55:13.039 --> 00:55:16.679 driveway, your sidewalk. You may have some upland habitat 00:55:16.679 --> 00:55:18.719 on your backyard that 00:55:18.719 --> 00:55:25.039 possibility exists but because the 50% that you have to 00:55:25.039 --> 00:55:26.840 clear that should give 00:55:26.840 --> 00:55:36.199 you enough area for a house. So basically the city owns 50% 00:55:36.199 --> 00:55:36.679 of my lot 00:55:36.679 --> 00:55:41.860 when I buy this single quarter acre lot to put in the 3,000 00:55:41.860 --> 00:55:43.320 square foot house 00:55:43.320 --> 00:55:52.929 and a pool I am I've got to keep 50% contiguous canopy 00:55:52.929 --> 00:55:55.039 coverage trees on my 00:55:55.039 --> 00:55:59.889 lot even though I want to put in a pool. You're gonna tell 00:55:59.889 --> 00:56:00.840 me oh sorry Mr. 00:56:00.840 --> 00:56:05.119 Salvin you're you know you've taken down 60% you can't do 00:56:05.119 --> 00:56:07.320 that. Yeah well the 00:56:07.320 --> 00:56:11.579 city will not own it because that is not the the upland 00:56:11.579 --> 00:56:13.000 habitat is not dedicated 00:56:13.000 --> 00:56:18.360 to the city or given a fee simple so you still own the up 00:56:18.360 --> 00:56:21.119 land habitat is yours. 00:56:21.119 --> 00:56:27.090 The option let's say that you would like to clear more than 00:56:27.090 --> 00:56:28.239 the 50%. 00:56:28.239 --> 00:56:31.190 There's a mechanism that you that you could go and it's 00:56:31.190 --> 00:56:32.360 called the alternative 00:56:32.360 --> 00:56:36.099 ASA plan. The alternative ASA plan you can look at it 00:56:36.099 --> 00:56:37.079 almost like a variance 00:56:37.079 --> 00:56:42.079 process. Then look at the facts you know what it is this is 00:56:42.079 --> 00:56:43.519 the last remainder 00:56:43.519 --> 00:56:49.010 making lot so on and so forth and then you can provide some 00:56:49.010 --> 00:56:51.280 mitigation if for 00:56:51.280 --> 00:56:55.119 the to it in exchange of the encroachment. So there is a 00:56:55.119 --> 00:56:56.000 mechanism 00:56:56.000 --> 00:57:00.559 where developers who actually find themselves as or 00:57:00.559 --> 00:57:01.400 consider the 00:57:01.400 --> 00:57:04.369 preservation of the upland habitat as a hardship they can 00:57:04.369 --> 00:57:06.400 pursue that option. 00:57:06.400 --> 00:57:10.300 And we will discuss the next item is the is the criteria 00:57:10.300 --> 00:57:11.840 for the alternative ASA 00:57:11.840 --> 00:57:15.309 plan so we will you will be able to see what we are looking 00:57:15.309 --> 00:57:16.400 . I just have a 00:57:16.400 --> 00:57:19.179 problem with an individual landowner being treated as a 00:57:19.179 --> 00:57:20.199 developer that's 00:57:20.199 --> 00:57:26.440 that's my concern. They're all being treated the same and 00:57:26.440 --> 00:57:28.199 they're not the same. 00:57:28.199 --> 00:57:34.440 Thank you. I think staff want to make a clarification. Just 00:57:34.440 --> 00:57:35.199 for clarification 00:57:35.199 --> 00:57:37.889 this would not apply to anything under 10 acres right 00:57:37.889 --> 00:57:39.360 because it would in order 00:57:39.360 --> 00:57:41.610 to you would need to have that 10 contiguous acres for it 00:57:41.610 --> 00:57:42.199 to qualify as 00:57:42.199 --> 00:57:45.630 cross timbers. The possible scenario is that you have an 00:57:45.630 --> 00:57:46.960 existing subdivision 00:57:46.960 --> 00:57:50.449 that had that preserved the tempers that had some of the up 00:57:50.449 --> 00:57:51.960 land habitat that 00:57:51.960 --> 00:57:57.920 preserved the 50% that they were responsible for and then 00:57:57.920 --> 00:57:58.800 you have this 00:57:58.800 --> 00:58:03.500 additional and let's let's let's say that they end up 00:58:03.500 --> 00:58:05.320 having to preserve 00:58:05.320 --> 00:58:11.309 9.75 acres. Okay you have this small owner to have one 00:58:11.309 --> 00:58:12.719 quarter of an 00:58:12.719 --> 00:58:18.570 acre and all together makes the 10 acre tree stand minimum 00:58:18.570 --> 00:58:20.079 size. That that would 00:58:20.079 --> 00:58:26.039 be the situations. Most of the time that's when I see that 00:58:26.039 --> 00:58:26.639 as scenario 00:58:26.639 --> 00:58:31.679 playing out. It's just somebody already preserved 9.75 00:58:31.679 --> 00:58:32.840 acres of upland 00:58:32.840 --> 00:58:36.739 habitat and then this is adjacent to a part of the tree 00:58:36.739 --> 00:58:38.320 stand and it still 00:58:38.320 --> 00:58:50.079 makes the 10 acre cut out. I see it differently. Kind of 00:58:50.079 --> 00:58:51.280 tying into the tree 00:58:51.280 --> 00:58:55.250 code since that's not before us but I know it's coming. My 00:58:55.250 --> 00:58:56.679 understanding of how 00:58:56.679 --> 00:58:58.789 the tree code has been written is once you make the 00:58:58.789 --> 00:59:00.840 preservation those trees 00:59:00.840 --> 00:59:03.440 whether they're in upland or any other those are 00:59:03.440 --> 00:59:05.480 permanently identified that 00:59:05.480 --> 00:59:09.929 those have to be preserved. So to Commissioner Sullivan's 00:59:09.929 --> 00:59:10.559 point which is 00:59:10.559 --> 00:59:14.260 I know he and I have been having sharing some of the same 00:59:14.260 --> 00:59:15.320 concerns about this is 00:59:15.320 --> 00:59:18.349 once that designation is put there the individual property 00:59:18.349 --> 00:59:19.800 owner can't remove 00:59:19.800 --> 00:59:26.750 those. Am I correct in my understanding of that? There are 00:59:26.750 --> 00:59:27.679 provisions on 00:59:27.679 --> 00:59:32.480 on nine oh I'm sorry on 17 for the removal of trees within 00:59:32.480 --> 00:59:33.679 upland habitat 00:59:33.679 --> 00:59:39.400 for this for this health of the trees okay but beyond any 00:59:39.400 --> 00:59:41.559 clearing that is 00:59:41.559 --> 00:59:45.380 advisable to preserve the health of the trees and habitat 00:59:45.380 --> 00:59:47.519 then yes that would be 00:59:47.519 --> 00:59:50.949 they would have to go through some sort of alternative ASA 00:59:50.949 --> 00:59:53.199 plan. Correct. Sure. 00:59:53.199 --> 00:59:57.760 You wanna call legal for clarification. I just want the 00:59:57.760 --> 00:59:59.360 Commission to 00:59:59.360 --> 01:00:04.079 understand and and I'm sure you guys are but just for just 01:00:04.079 --> 01:00:05.400 reminding the 01:00:05.400 --> 01:00:10.480 Commission again is you have the ESSA ordinance and then 01:00:10.480 --> 01:00:11.199 you have the 01:00:11.199 --> 01:00:15.460 tree code ordinance and so what I think there was reminding 01:00:15.460 --> 01:00:16.400 us are these 01:00:16.400 --> 01:00:21.039 regulations for ESSAs and I think a lot of the comments 01:00:21.039 --> 01:00:23.599 will be addressed today 01:00:23.599 --> 01:00:28.159 will be addressed under the tree code revisions but my 01:00:28.159 --> 01:00:29.519 question maybe to Deborah 01:00:29.519 --> 01:00:33.510 is these requirements mirror those requirements in the tree 01:00:33.510 --> 01:00:34.199 code is that 01:00:34.199 --> 01:00:38.760 correct? The proposed tree code so what we are we have been 01:00:38.760 --> 01:00:39.840 talking about be 01:00:39.840 --> 01:00:43.380 consistent making the regulation consistent throughout last 01:00:43.380 --> 01:00:44.360 time that I 01:00:44.360 --> 01:00:48.179 checked the tree code that was the 30% let's put that 01:00:48.179 --> 01:00:51.079 caveat out there and what 01:00:51.079 --> 01:00:56.190 we are trying to do is just to be consistent throughout and 01:00:56.190 --> 01:00:57.239 to provide 01:00:57.239 --> 01:01:01.880 opportunities for developers to meet multiple requirements 01:01:01.880 --> 01:01:03.000 at once and not 01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:09.480 double tag the developers with multiple preservations of 01:01:09.480 --> 01:01:11.280 things so that's what 01:01:11.280 --> 01:01:17.159 staff was trying to attain when we crafted the language. So 01:01:17.159 --> 01:01:17.840 just one more 01:01:17.840 --> 01:01:22.679 time that these revisions would make the ESSA ordinance 01:01:22.679 --> 01:01:24.019 consistent with a tree 01:01:24.019 --> 01:01:28.320 ordinance. Correct. I'm gonna backtrack because we're 01:01:28.320 --> 01:01:29.119 getting kind of down in the 01:01:29.119 --> 01:01:33.909 weeds and I want to come back to the substantive changes 01:01:33.909 --> 01:01:35.519 that we're making 01:01:35.519 --> 01:01:38.190 and I just want to make sure I'm correct on what we 01:01:38.190 --> 01:01:39.800 currently have and what we're 01:01:39.800 --> 01:01:44.360 proposing to do. Currently my understanding on residential 01:01:44.360 --> 01:01:44.840 development 01:01:44.840 --> 01:01:49.940 and upland habitat if you have the 10 acre site you have to 01:01:49.940 --> 01:01:52.079 preserve 50% of it 01:01:52.079 --> 01:01:55.900 but you also then have the option if you need to to make 01:01:55.900 --> 01:01:57.960 your project work design 01:01:57.960 --> 01:02:01.269 whatever that is you have the opportunity to mitigate up to 01:02:01.269 --> 01:02:03.000 50% or 01:02:03.000 --> 01:02:07.050 half of that five acres is that correct you end up 01:02:07.050 --> 01:02:09.519 preserving 25% and 01:02:09.519 --> 01:02:13.309 mitigating paying into the tree fund or planting trees that 01:02:13.309 --> 01:02:14.320 25% you need to 01:02:14.320 --> 01:02:18.960 remove yeah you are talking about the tree code you are 01:02:18.960 --> 01:02:20.440 preserving the 01:02:20.440 --> 01:02:25.960 individual trees okay now the habitat now the understory 01:02:25.960 --> 01:02:27.719 okay so if you were 01:02:27.719 --> 01:02:33.920 to have 10 acres on the upland habitat okay let's play this 01:02:33.920 --> 01:02:34.559 now that is not 01:02:34.559 --> 01:02:38.320 upland okay you can go in you preserve your percentage your 01:02:38.320 --> 01:02:39.480 minimum percentage 01:02:39.480 --> 01:02:43.280 and you can go in and you can clear the understory okay 01:02:43.280 --> 01:02:44.300 because the tree code 01:02:44.300 --> 01:02:48.860 what is the preservation of it is the tree canopy okay let 01:02:48.860 --> 01:02:51.079 's add a wrinkle to 01:02:51.079 --> 01:02:55.639 it and let's call that 10 acres in upland habitat okay the 01:02:55.639 --> 01:02:57.320 50% preservation 01:02:57.320 --> 01:03:02.510 is not only the trees the canopy itself but also the under 01:03:02.510 --> 01:03:04.480 story that comes with 01:03:04.480 --> 01:03:09.889 it that's the major difference between tree code and upland 01:03:09.889 --> 01:03:12.480 habitat and the 01:03:12.480 --> 01:03:15.630 other thing is a tree code allows you to further reduce 01:03:15.630 --> 01:03:17.079 your percentage by 01:03:17.079 --> 01:03:22.000 paying into the tree fund the ESA the only mechanism that 01:03:22.000 --> 01:03:23.239 will allow you to 01:03:23.239 --> 01:03:26.969 reduce your preservation would be going through an 01:03:26.969 --> 01:03:29.639 alternative ESA plan okay so 01:03:29.639 --> 01:03:34.690 back to my my question and forgive me whether I'm back and 01:03:34.690 --> 01:03:35.760 forth between the 01:03:35.760 --> 01:03:39.619 tree code or the upland habitat if you've got upland 01:03:39.619 --> 01:03:41.480 habitat 10 acres on 01:03:41.480 --> 01:03:46.360 your parcel contiguous currently you can take up to half of 01:03:46.360 --> 01:03:46.880 it out in a 01:03:46.880 --> 01:03:50.630 residential use and then if you need to take out more than 01:03:50.630 --> 01:03:51.719 that you can take 01:03:51.719 --> 01:03:55.769 another half of that but you have to mitigate it and then 01:03:55.769 --> 01:03:57.519 if I can finish my 01:03:57.519 --> 01:04:01.969 point under this you can just go to the 50% now you can't 01:04:01.969 --> 01:04:02.960 mitigate the other 01:04:02.960 --> 01:04:08.690 portion if you needed to I think the current language doesn 01:04:08.690 --> 01:04:10.280 't tell you that 01:04:10.280 --> 01:04:16.320 you cannot reduce below the 50% it tells you that you will 01:04:16.320 --> 01:04:17.360 have to do that 01:04:17.360 --> 01:04:21.920 through a alternative ESA mechanism let's say that you have 01:04:21.920 --> 01:04:23.039 you preserve your 01:04:23.039 --> 01:04:27.889 50 but you want to actually reduce it to 10% get rid of the 01:04:27.889 --> 01:04:29.079 40% that you are 01:04:29.079 --> 01:04:32.829 required to do if you go through there through the 01:04:32.829 --> 01:04:34.519 alternative ESA plan and 01:04:34.519 --> 01:04:39.440 then you get a final approval from City Council you are 01:04:39.440 --> 01:04:41.559 entitled to clear that 01:04:41.559 --> 01:04:46.940 40% because you have vetted that request through planning 01:04:46.940 --> 01:04:47.800 and sorting Commission 01:04:47.800 --> 01:04:54.489 and City Council so there's no cap on on how much encro 01:04:54.489 --> 01:04:56.519 achment you can have as 01:04:56.519 --> 01:05:01.079 long as if you go below the 50% you do it through an 01:05:01.079 --> 01:05:04.440 alternative ESA plan 01:05:04.760 --> 01:05:09.320 currently or with this correct you can do it currently or 01:05:09.320 --> 01:05:11.039 with this mechanism 01:05:11.039 --> 01:05:14.550 correct so we are not changing we are not changing that the 01:05:14.550 --> 01:05:15.599 only thing that 01:05:15.599 --> 01:05:23.000 we are changing is we are adding non-residential 01:05:23.000 --> 01:05:26.639 development be subject 01:05:26.639 --> 01:05:29.860 to preservation of Oakland habitat that's the only process 01:05:29.860 --> 01:05:30.480 that we are 01:05:30.480 --> 01:05:35.159 changing okay well I'm gonna call on Commissioner Sullivan 01:05:35.159 --> 01:05:36.000 and he's being 01:05:36.000 --> 01:05:41.599 patient I have this similar concern with the direction that 01:05:41.599 --> 01:05:42.400 this is going the 01:05:42.400 --> 01:05:47.460 same concern that we've talked about with the tree cone the 01:05:47.460 --> 01:05:49.159 concern I have is 01:05:49.159 --> 01:05:52.309 we all throw the term developer out but that's that guy 01:05:52.309 --> 01:05:53.719 over here that's going 01:05:53.719 --> 01:05:57.110 to take care of that and really it's the individual 01:05:57.110 --> 01:05:58.639 property owners that own 01:05:58.639 --> 01:06:02.150 these properties that are the ones that bear the burden of 01:06:02.150 --> 01:06:03.400 these code changes 01:06:03.400 --> 01:06:07.219 that we make and we are making city policy for the good of 01:06:07.219 --> 01:06:08.320 the public and 01:06:08.320 --> 01:06:12.179 private individuals are bearing the burden of the cost of 01:06:12.179 --> 01:06:14.679 these and that's 01:06:14.679 --> 01:06:17.250 just the fact of the way that works and so people can say 01:06:17.250 --> 01:06:18.079 it's a developer 01:06:18.079 --> 01:06:20.840 that's not how that really works the developer says it's 01:06:20.840 --> 01:06:21.880 got 10 acres of 01:06:21.880 --> 01:06:25.309 upland habitat on it that they can't do anything with or I 01:06:25.309 --> 01:06:27.440 can only use half not 01:06:27.440 --> 01:06:31.159 going to offer to pay for that portion your property is now 01:06:31.159 --> 01:06:32.239 worth X because 01:06:32.239 --> 01:06:38.239 that property is not usable it's for the good of the public 01:06:38.239 --> 01:06:39.920 the person that owns 01:06:39.920 --> 01:06:42.940 that property that has a designation on there suffers a 01:06:42.940 --> 01:06:44.360 financial loss because 01:06:44.360 --> 01:06:47.500 it has a designation that's put on their property for the 01:06:47.500 --> 01:06:48.840 good of the public that 01:06:48.840 --> 01:06:51.860 they're going to bear privately and I have a concern about 01:06:51.860 --> 01:06:52.639 that I don't think 01:06:52.639 --> 01:06:56.929 it's fair to people to ask them for the good of the public 01:06:56.929 --> 01:06:58.719 and the community and 01:06:58.719 --> 01:07:01.320 all of these things and the benefits and the reasons why we 01:07:01.320 --> 01:07:02.320 're preserving them 01:07:02.320 --> 01:07:06.900 for individual people to bear those burdens and cost I don 01:07:06.900 --> 01:07:08.199 't know what the 01:07:08.199 --> 01:07:12.809 right mechanism is to preserve these things and to be fair 01:07:12.809 --> 01:07:14.480 to private property 01:07:14.480 --> 01:07:17.909 owners and the city of Denton benefits I don't know how to 01:07:17.909 --> 01:07:19.119 solve that problem I 01:07:19.119 --> 01:07:22.889 get to serve for a few hours every two weeks and a few 01:07:22.889 --> 01:07:24.599 hours before to try to 01:07:24.599 --> 01:07:27.420 read and prepare all you know for a meeting and have a 01:07:27.420 --> 01:07:28.599 hopefully a logical 01:07:28.599 --> 01:07:32.329 discussion and bring up some points and then look to city 01:07:32.329 --> 01:07:33.800 staff with the 13 01:07:33.800 --> 01:07:36.239 months of however long y'all have worked on it to go 01:07:36.239 --> 01:07:37.440 through all of those 01:07:37.440 --> 01:07:41.400 discussions to say how do we equitably solve this problem 01:07:41.400 --> 01:07:43.039 and to go a step 01:07:43.039 --> 01:07:47.599 further there's no consideration to what the values are so 01:07:47.599 --> 01:07:48.679 if you have a 01:07:48.679 --> 01:07:54.530 commercial corner maybe it's worth $30 a square foot I don 01:07:54.530 --> 01:07:56.760 't know a million to 01:07:56.760 --> 01:08:00.909 maybe there's 10 acres it's on a corner just like this that 01:08:00.909 --> 01:08:01.880 's the same value 01:08:01.880 --> 01:08:05.900 there's no consideration to how much money does our city 01:08:05.900 --> 01:08:08.199 lose in potential 01:08:08.199 --> 01:08:11.630 property taxes and all the revenues that come off of that 01:08:11.630 --> 01:08:13.239 site versus if it's in 01:08:13.239 --> 01:08:16.279 the very back corner and it's worth a dollar a square foot 01:08:16.279 --> 01:08:17.159 there's no 01:08:17.159 --> 01:08:21.960 mechanism for there to be flexibility to say well we have a 01:08:21.960 --> 01:08:23.359 track right here in 01:08:23.359 --> 01:08:27.109 our city that our city could have a million dollars in 01:08:27.109 --> 01:08:28.840 property taxes off of 01:08:28.840 --> 01:08:32.579 but the one back here in the back that we get twenty twenty 01:08:32.579 --> 01:08:33.279 thousand dollars 01:08:33.279 --> 01:08:37.260 off of there's no consideration of what does this really 01:08:37.260 --> 01:08:38.239 cost us how do we 01:08:38.239 --> 01:08:41.119 figure out well gosh the property owners should be able to 01:08:41.119 --> 01:08:42.560 be able to make a 01:08:42.560 --> 01:08:46.239 decision and say I want to pay into the tree fund or I want 01:08:46.239 --> 01:08:47.640 to go buy a site and 01:08:47.640 --> 01:08:52.720 give you a we don't call it a tree bank or an upland cavity 01:08:52.720 --> 01:08:54.920 habitat bank and I 01:08:54.920 --> 01:08:57.489 can buy that piece of property for a much different price 01:08:57.489 --> 01:08:58.239 and preserve that 01:08:58.239 --> 01:09:01.529 and here's a prime piece of property those are the concerns 01:09:01.529 --> 01:09:02.479 that I have when 01:09:02.479 --> 01:09:05.760 we bring these things up we don't spend any time on this 01:09:05.760 --> 01:09:06.680 commission talking 01:09:06.680 --> 01:09:09.850 about those we talk about go through this right quick and 01:09:09.850 --> 01:09:10.880 put it into place 01:09:10.880 --> 01:09:13.949 and there's not a conversation of what does this really 01:09:13.949 --> 01:09:15.159 mean when we put this 01:09:15.159 --> 01:09:18.159 in place how does it affect our city how does it affect 01:09:18.159 --> 01:09:19.199 individual property 01:09:19.199 --> 01:09:24.500 owners and those are the concerns that I have that I'd like 01:09:24.500 --> 01:09:26.359 to have some further 01:09:26.359 --> 01:09:31.149 discussion about how we address those things and what's 01:09:31.149 --> 01:09:32.520 what's reasonable and 01:09:32.520 --> 01:09:36.130 fair to individual property owners and what's in the best 01:09:36.130 --> 01:09:37.000 interest of the city 01:09:37.000 --> 01:09:42.600 and how do those two things equitably get put into place 01:09:42.600 --> 01:09:44.039 commissioner Sullivan 01:09:44.039 --> 01:09:48.600 and then I'll tell you commissioner Sanchez this is if I 01:09:48.600 --> 01:09:49.119 understand this 01:09:49.119 --> 01:09:54.800 this is for 10 acres or more is that the intent of this how 01:09:54.800 --> 01:09:57.079 many how many 01:09:57.079 --> 01:10:02.399 parcels of land within the city of Denton are undeveloped 01:10:02.399 --> 01:10:04.279 that comprise 10 01:10:04.279 --> 01:10:07.279 acres or more 01:10:34.279 --> 01:10:40.260 and so are we making much to do about nothing I mean is 01:10:40.260 --> 01:10:42.159 that if we're talking 01:10:42.159 --> 01:10:47.020 about you know 10 acres you know is the the big you know 01:10:47.020 --> 01:10:48.760 the cutoff point you 01:10:48.760 --> 01:10:51.550 know anything over 10 acres or more I believe you just 01:10:51.550 --> 01:10:52.079 nailed it I think 01:10:52.079 --> 01:10:54.659 we're beating a horse here that doesn't need to be beat 01:10:54.659 --> 01:10:55.640 because there's not a 01:10:55.640 --> 01:10:58.210 lot left in the city now when you get to the tree code that 01:10:58.210 --> 01:10:59.119 's a different issue 01:10:59.119 --> 01:11:01.460 okay because the tree code is going to be concerned with 01:11:01.460 --> 01:11:02.520 individual trees we're 01:11:02.520 --> 01:11:06.010 talking about contiguous stand of trees 10 acres that are 01:11:06.010 --> 01:11:07.359 together there's very 01:11:07.359 --> 01:11:10.430 few left on there and there is a mechanism it's called an 01:11:10.430 --> 01:11:11.239 alternative 01:11:11.239 --> 01:11:14.920 visa you can put in it for an alternative environmental and 01:11:14.920 --> 01:11:15.399 it'll go 01:11:15.399 --> 01:11:18.010 through the process just like through a zoning change 01:11:18.010 --> 01:11:19.239 whereas if you want to go 01:11:19.239 --> 01:11:22.989 in there develop it we had a project that came in today it 01:11:22.989 --> 01:11:24.600 had every ESA that 01:11:24.600 --> 01:11:27.359 the city has it on the piece property we did not tell that 01:11:27.359 --> 01:11:28.399 developer he couldn't 01:11:28.399 --> 01:11:31.090 do it he's just got extra hurdles he's got a run through to 01:11:31.090 --> 01:11:31.960 make his project 01:11:31.960 --> 01:11:36.079 happen this is not going to stop a developer okay it may 01:11:36.079 --> 01:11:37.039 cause him part to 01:11:37.039 --> 01:11:40.500 pause for a little bit and rethink his plan but it's not 01:11:40.500 --> 01:11:41.520 going to stop him I'd 01:11:41.520 --> 01:11:45.970 like to stop right there and if you let me just kind of 01:11:45.970 --> 01:11:48.359 thought those parcels 01:11:48.359 --> 01:11:53.020 of land how is all this going to be conveyed to them as to 01:11:53.020 --> 01:11:54.439 what they're now 01:11:54.439 --> 01:11:57.409 what the property has been designated how it's going to 01:11:57.409 --> 01:11:58.520 affect them what's 01:11:58.520 --> 01:12:02.119 going to happen who's going to talk to these people about 01:12:02.119 --> 01:12:03.319 that or is all you're 01:12:03.319 --> 01:12:08.359 just gonna kind of get it done and sneak away in the middle 01:12:08.359 --> 01:12:09.920 of the night the 01:12:09.920 --> 01:12:13.560 designation of upland habitat we are not changing okay 01:12:13.560 --> 01:12:14.920 whatever is showing on the 01:12:14.920 --> 01:12:18.119 map as upland habitat have been shown on the map since 2002 01:12:18.119 --> 01:12:19.399 when the ESA map was 01:12:19.399 --> 01:12:23.470 created so this is not a new information why would it be 01:12:23.470 --> 01:12:26.079 new information if this 01:12:26.079 --> 01:12:31.000 changes were to be approved okay it is that if they were 01:12:31.000 --> 01:12:32.399 marketing their site 01:12:32.399 --> 01:12:36.300 for commercial development they may have that and I may 01:12:36.300 --> 01:12:37.760 have a potential solution 01:12:37.760 --> 01:12:41.199 for the mechanism that we can discuss when we talk about 01:12:41.199 --> 01:12:42.720 the alternative ESA 01:12:42.720 --> 01:12:48.869 plan let me allow me to entertain that that idea so right 01:12:48.869 --> 01:12:52.560 now we are not putting 01:12:52.560 --> 01:12:56.890 or designated new areas of upland habitat we are not what 01:12:56.890 --> 01:12:58.039 we are doing is 01:12:58.039 --> 01:13:03.149 that if those areas were to be developed for non-resident 01:13:03.149 --> 01:13:05.800 ial purposes then they 01:13:05.800 --> 01:13:09.819 will be subject to 30% preservation of but the designation 01:13:09.819 --> 01:13:10.359 we are not 01:13:10.359 --> 01:13:15.920 designated new upland habitats on people's property is not 01:13:15.920 --> 01:13:17.359 the other issue 01:13:17.359 --> 01:13:22.750 that is another wrinkle to it is the tempers the 10 acre 01:13:22.750 --> 01:13:24.920 tree stand could be 01:13:24.920 --> 01:13:30.960 spread among multiple parcels okay so for for us to do an 01:13:30.960 --> 01:13:32.439 analysis to say 01:13:32.439 --> 01:13:37.869 which parcels include at least 10 acres of open habitat on 01:13:37.869 --> 01:13:40.279 it we will be further 01:13:40.279 --> 01:13:43.520 reducing that because that's not very common chances are 01:13:43.520 --> 01:13:44.920 those are tree stand 01:13:44.920 --> 01:13:49.720 that they don't they don't stop a property property lines 01:13:49.720 --> 01:13:50.359 they they can 01:13:50.359 --> 01:13:54.550 they continue and spread out among so the analysis is a 01:13:54.550 --> 01:13:56.520 little bit challenging 01:13:56.520 --> 01:14:01.079 in that regard because we are not talking about three ten 01:14:01.079 --> 01:14:02.319 acres on one 01:14:02.319 --> 01:14:08.170 single parcel because then we will be further reducing the 01:14:08.170 --> 01:14:09.680 amount of areas 01:14:09.680 --> 01:14:14.239 that have good habitat good upland habitat that should be 01:14:14.239 --> 01:14:15.319 preserved just 01:14:15.319 --> 01:14:22.199 because we are limited to one ownership 10 acres come back 01:14:22.199 --> 01:14:23.119 I know there's a 01:14:23.119 --> 01:14:25.909 number of parcels that have more than that I've looked at 01:14:25.909 --> 01:14:27.100 them familiar with 01:14:27.100 --> 01:14:29.960 it and I guess the other point I want to bring up and kind 01:14:29.960 --> 01:14:31.279 of respond to Bob is 01:14:31.279 --> 01:14:34.369 that what you what you do when you do an alternative visa 01:14:34.369 --> 01:14:35.800 plan it becomes a 01:14:35.800 --> 01:14:38.979 political issue then it comes before this Commission it 01:14:38.979 --> 01:14:40.159 becomes before City 01:14:40.159 --> 01:14:43.170 Council and I've sat on this Council or Commission before 01:14:43.170 --> 01:14:44.319 and those things are 01:14:44.319 --> 01:14:46.899 voted down we're not going to allow an alternative visa for 01:14:46.899 --> 01:14:47.760 this particular 01:14:47.760 --> 01:14:51.579 site in a discussion so there's all kinds of great ways to 01:14:51.579 --> 01:14:52.119 talk about will 01:14:52.119 --> 01:14:56.449 you have a process well if it works that's great but I've 01:14:56.449 --> 01:14:57.359 seen on countless 01:14:57.359 --> 01:15:00.670 occasions where it comes before us and so we want to do an 01:15:00.670 --> 01:15:02.720 alternative no we're 01:15:02.720 --> 01:15:06.680 not gonna allow you to go do that that property there's not 01:15:06.680 --> 01:15:07.640 a mechanism there 01:15:07.640 --> 01:15:10.659 that mechanism although it sounds like it's an option may 01:15:10.659 --> 01:15:11.800 not work and it 01:15:11.800 --> 01:15:14.770 doesn't provide any relief and that's the concern I have 01:15:14.770 --> 01:15:15.800 when we talk about 01:15:15.800 --> 01:15:18.380 changing these things and say well you can go through that 01:15:18.380 --> 01:15:19.359 process well when it 01:15:19.359 --> 01:15:24.279 comes back no well okay you're gonna preserve 30% or 50% 01:15:24.279 --> 01:15:25.720 into question we're 01:15:25.720 --> 01:15:31.380 not going to approve that so those are the concerns that I 01:15:31.380 --> 01:15:33.159 have in in moving 01:15:33.159 --> 01:15:36.840 these forward I want you to get through your presentation 01:15:36.840 --> 01:15:38.560 we're out of time and 01:15:38.560 --> 01:15:41.520 one of the other things that I have a concern and what's 01:15:41.520 --> 01:15:42.600 going to get to the 01:15:42.600 --> 01:15:47.609 very end is the application when you go back at 35-17-2 it 01:15:47.609 --> 01:15:48.699 says within the 01:15:48.699 --> 01:15:52.960 corporate limits of the city but then further on when you 01:15:52.960 --> 01:15:55.319 read through this 01:15:55.319 --> 01:16:02.090 it says the official maps and 35-17-6 it says the official 01:16:02.090 --> 01:16:03.319 map that identifies 01:16:03.319 --> 01:16:10.340 areas designated as ESA I don't know where that map is but 01:16:10.340 --> 01:16:11.840 when it me for my 01:16:11.840 --> 01:16:15.060 purview and preparing for the meeting I just went to the 01:16:15.060 --> 01:16:16.279 city website pull up 01:16:16.279 --> 01:16:20.350 the interactive map and turn on ESA's and not only is it in 01:16:20.350 --> 01:16:21.560 the city a limit 01:16:21.560 --> 01:16:26.199 city limits of Denton it's all out in the ETJ so my 01:16:26.199 --> 01:16:28.800 question is when we do 01:16:28.800 --> 01:16:33.399 this and it says see limits limits but then it's on the map 01:16:33.399 --> 01:16:34.039 does this also 01:16:34.039 --> 01:16:39.760 apply out in the ETJ also because it shows on our map the 01:16:39.760 --> 01:16:42.220 only ESA that we 01:16:42.220 --> 01:16:45.970 have jurisdiction outside the ETJ and that is granted by 01:16:45.970 --> 01:16:47.199 the ETJ or city 01:16:47.199 --> 01:16:52.159 limits outside the city limits in the ETJ okay so in the ET 01:16:52.159 --> 01:16:54.119 J okay so the only type 01:16:54.119 --> 01:16:57.039 of ESA that the city have jurisdiction for the protection 01:16:57.039 --> 01:16:58.079 and that protection 01:16:58.079 --> 01:17:00.979 is granted to the city by the Texas Local Government Code 01:17:00.979 --> 01:17:01.960 is for floodplain 01:17:01.960 --> 01:17:07.270 ESAS the riparian buffer the water related and the upland 01:17:07.270 --> 01:17:08.640 habitat outside 01:17:08.640 --> 01:17:14.489 the city limits we don't have a make it out if they were to 01:17:14.489 --> 01:17:16.159 be encroached clear 01:17:16.159 --> 01:17:21.649 we cannot protect those the only ESA that we have some say 01:17:21.649 --> 01:17:23.720 to it is for 01:17:23.720 --> 01:17:27.149 floodplain and the reason why is a protect as a protection 01:17:27.149 --> 01:17:27.720 of water 01:17:27.720 --> 01:17:31.470 resources and that is granted by the state of Texas to the 01:17:31.470 --> 01:17:33.000 cities so to 01:17:33.000 --> 01:17:35.649 answer the question I assess for clarification not only 01:17:35.649 --> 01:17:36.760 does this apply in 01:17:36.760 --> 01:17:40.579 the city limits of Denton it also is going to apply in the 01:17:40.579 --> 01:17:41.920 ETJ for those 01:17:41.920 --> 01:17:49.039 particular items correct and that is outlined in I'm sorry 01:17:49.039 --> 01:17:53.039 17.2 B floodplain 01:17:53.039 --> 01:17:55.869 standard of this sub chapter shall apply to all land and 01:17:55.869 --> 01:17:57.359 all development with the 01:17:57.359 --> 01:18:00.560 extra territorial jurisdiction of the city that's the only 01:18:00.560 --> 01:18:01.680 one that we would 01:18:01.680 --> 01:18:05.760 have a say I'll have some more questions about that I know 01:18:05.760 --> 01:18:07.119 we're out of time and 01:18:07.119 --> 01:18:11.300 everybody probably wants to get a quick bite I'm gonna call 01:18:11.300 --> 01:18:13.119 a recess at 620 and 01:18:13.119 --> 01:18:16.069 let's get something to eat and then we'll start again at 6 01:18:16.069 --> 01:18:17.079 30 in council 01:18:17.079 --> 01:18:21.640 chambers and I guess we'll have to continue this at our 01:18:21.640 --> 01:18:22.680 next meeting 01:18:37.680 --> 01:18:39.159 are we voting on this tonight supposed to be it's on our 01:18:39.159 --> 01:18:45.119 agenda as a vote for 01:18:45.119 --> 01:18:50.479 City Council as is okay so based 01:19:07.119 --> 01:19:09.119 on the 01:19:24.960 --> 01:19:26.329 good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and 01:19:26.329 --> 01:19:29.039 zoning Commission 01:19:29.039 --> 01:19:34.189 meeting for February 7th 2018 this meeting has been duly 01:19:34.189 --> 01:19:35.199 posted and we do 01:19:35.199 --> 01:19:40.250 have a quorum present and I will call us to order at 643 I 01:19:40.250 --> 01:19:41.000 'm sorry we ran a 01:19:41.000 --> 01:19:43.819 little long and work session our first order of business 01:19:43.819 --> 01:19:44.840 will be to stand and 01:19:44.840 --> 01:19:48.720 give the pledge the US and the Texas flags 01:20:05.199 --> 01:20:12.279 Texas flag I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under 01:20:12.279 --> 01:20:13.640 God one 01:20:24.520 --> 01:20:26.930 our next item on our agenda will be to consider approval of 01:20:26.930 --> 01:20:29.800 our minutes 01:20:29.800 --> 01:20:34.359 Commissioner Roselle I move to approve the minutes from 01:20:34.359 --> 01:20:35.840 January 24th okay 01:20:35.840 --> 01:20:38.840 thank you chair I second we have a first and a second for 01:20:38.840 --> 01:20:40.239 approval any further 01:20:40.239 --> 01:20:46.760 discussion seeing none call for a vote on the board 01:20:51.800 --> 01:21:00.050 motion carries six to zero will take us to our consent 01:21:00.050 --> 01:21:01.239 agenda 01:21:02.960 --> 01:21:08.560 Commissioner Beck I move we approve consent agenda okay 01:21:08.880 --> 01:21:12.899 Commissioner Rizel second okay we have a first and a second 01:21:12.899 --> 01:21:14.720 for approval any 01:21:14.720 --> 01:21:21.680 further discussion seeing none will call for a vote on the 01:21:21.680 --> 01:21:28.640 board and we'll move 01:21:28.640 --> 01:21:32.289 us to our public hearing section this evening our first 01:21:32.289 --> 01:21:34.520 item will be item a 01:21:34.520 --> 01:21:40.069 and I will open the public hearing to Z 17 - 0 0 2 7 a and 01:21:40.069 --> 01:21:41.279 I will call on 01:21:41.279 --> 01:21:52.810 Shandrin for presentation good evening commissioners Shand 01:21:52.810 --> 01:21:53.640 rin Jarvis with 01:21:53.640 --> 01:21:59.489 development services the next item is Z 1727 is a rezoning 01:21:59.489 --> 01:22:00.479 request for property 01:22:00.479 --> 01:22:05.779 located along University Boulevard the request is to resign 01:22:05.779 --> 01:22:06.560 approximately two 01:22:06.560 --> 01:22:10.840 acres from a neighborhood residential mixed use 12 district 01:22:10.840 --> 01:22:11.840 to a community 01:22:11.840 --> 01:22:15.460 mixed use general district the property is located here 01:22:15.460 --> 01:22:17.560 along West University 01:22:17.560 --> 01:22:22.350 razor elementary is here on this tract and then just to 01:22:22.350 --> 01:22:23.560 give you some 01:22:23.560 --> 01:22:27.489 reference Malone Street is here and then Fulton Street is 01:22:27.489 --> 01:22:29.720 here the property is 01:22:29.720 --> 01:22:35.750 currently undeveloped and it's not platted again when we 01:22:35.750 --> 01:22:37.399 look at rezoning 01:22:37.399 --> 01:22:41.850 requests we typically consider two criteria does it meet 01:22:41.850 --> 01:22:42.680 the future land 01:22:42.680 --> 01:22:47.399 use plan and does it facilitate the provision of public 01:22:47.399 --> 01:22:50.039 infrastructure when 01:22:50.039 --> 01:22:55.090 we looked at the future land use plan we noticed that this 01:22:55.090 --> 01:22:56.600 request does is 01:22:56.600 --> 01:23:00.539 consistent with the future land use plan for this area it's 01:23:00.539 --> 01:23:01.800 designated for 01:23:01.800 --> 01:23:05.399 commercial use which is intended to promote regional 01:23:05.399 --> 01:23:06.800 community and neighbor 01:23:06.800 --> 01:23:11.359 neighborhood shopping centers CMG which is what the 01:23:11.359 --> 01:23:12.840 applicant is requesting 01:23:12.840 --> 01:23:16.319 would be a logical extension of the existing CMG districts 01:23:16.319 --> 01:23:17.640 that are located 01:23:17.640 --> 01:23:22.510 along the north side of University and also to the east of 01:23:22.510 --> 01:23:24.600 the property and it 01:23:24.600 --> 01:23:31.149 would promote a cohesive development pattern and then just 01:23:31.149 --> 01:23:32.960 to take another 01:23:32.960 --> 01:23:37.520 look at the existing zoning districts again you see the CMG 01:23:37.520 --> 01:23:38.800 along the north 01:23:38.800 --> 01:23:43.920 side of University on the south there's some inner in our 01:23:43.920 --> 01:23:45.239 three neighborhood 01:23:45.239 --> 01:23:50.539 residential three on the south this area and I intended to 01:23:50.539 --> 01:23:52.479 update the map this is 01:23:52.479 --> 01:23:58.760 primarily flat plane and so it's not really developable 01:23:58.760 --> 01:23:59.760 with developable at 01:23:59.760 --> 01:24:04.800 this point there's some NRMU 12 here on the east and this 01:24:04.800 --> 01:24:06.000 is mostly developed 01:24:06.000 --> 01:24:10.829 with offices so basically the area the this area is 01:24:10.829 --> 01:24:14.319 primarily commercial in in 01:24:14.319 --> 01:24:17.930 use and the applicant is actually requesting this zoning 01:24:17.930 --> 01:24:18.920 change in order 01:24:18.920 --> 01:24:23.880 to facilitate retail and restaurant development on the site 01:24:23.880 --> 01:24:25.760 when we look at 01:24:25.760 --> 01:24:29.270 the available public infrastructure there's water and 01:24:29.270 --> 01:24:30.840 wastewater utility in 01:24:30.840 --> 01:24:36.989 the right away of West University and obviously if when 01:24:36.989 --> 01:24:38.960 this does develop the 01:24:38.960 --> 01:24:42.130 property would need to do some extensions into the site but 01:24:42.130 --> 01:24:42.560 that is 01:24:42.560 --> 01:24:48.229 available as far as access West University is currently a 01:24:48.229 --> 01:24:49.119 six lane 01:24:49.119 --> 01:24:52.869 divided in the mobility plan calls for a six lane divided 01:24:52.869 --> 01:24:54.239 with bike lanes and 01:24:54.239 --> 01:24:57.840 sidewalks so any dedication or perimeter street 01:24:57.840 --> 01:25:00.840 improvements would be collected 01:25:00.840 --> 01:25:07.390 at the subdivision stage as I mentioned there's floodplain 01:25:07.390 --> 01:25:08.760 easter on the 01:25:08.760 --> 01:25:14.789 southwest corner of the site but there's no existing tree 01:25:14.789 --> 01:25:15.600 canopy 01:25:17.479 --> 01:25:22.039 according in accordance with the local government code we 01:25:22.039 --> 01:25:25.359 issued 11 letters to 01:25:25.359 --> 01:25:29.920 property owners within 200 feet of the subject property we 01:25:29.920 --> 01:25:32.199 received one and we 01:25:32.199 --> 01:25:37.649 actually issued 26 courtesy notices to properties within 01:25:37.649 --> 01:25:39.560 500 feet and we 01:25:39.560 --> 01:25:44.859 received one response in favor of the of the request which 01:25:44.859 --> 01:25:46.800 that fell in the 500 01:25:46.800 --> 01:25:50.939 foot buffer the applicant didn't did not hold the 01:25:50.939 --> 01:25:51.960 neighborhood meeting but they 01:25:51.960 --> 01:25:58.310 did contact the area HOA's who had no objections to the 01:25:58.310 --> 01:26:01.439 request so in summary 01:26:01.439 --> 01:26:05.239 CMG we filled CMG is consistent with the goals and 01:26:05.239 --> 01:26:07.439 objectives of the den 20 2030 01:26:07.439 --> 01:26:11.550 plan it's compatible with the surrounding property in terms 01:26:11.550 --> 01:26:11.840 of 01:26:11.840 --> 01:26:15.020 permitted density in the uses that would be allowed and 01:26:15.020 --> 01:26:16.000 therefore we recommend 01:26:16.000 --> 01:26:19.170 approval so that concludes my presentation and I will stand 01:26:19.170 --> 01:26:19.319 for 01:26:19.319 --> 01:26:21.600 questions 01:26:23.319 --> 01:26:27.920 I don't see any questions thank you okay this is a public 01:26:27.920 --> 01:26:29.279 hearing anyone who would 01:26:29.279 --> 01:26:31.869 like to speak on this item please come forward at this time 01:26:31.869 --> 01:26:34.079 I do not have any 01:26:34.079 --> 01:26:36.899 cards wishing to speak but again this is a public hearing 01:26:36.899 --> 01:26:38.039 anyone who would like 01:26:38.039 --> 01:26:42.670 to speak on this item please come forward seeing none will 01:26:42.670 --> 01:26:43.399 close the 01:26:43.399 --> 01:26:47.960 public hearing and open the floor for discussion or emotion 01:26:47.960 --> 01:26:48.880 Commissioner Ellis 01:26:48.880 --> 01:26:55.510 thank you chair I move approval of a z 1727 a Commissioner 01:26:55.510 --> 01:26:57.199 Sanchez okay I have 01:26:57.199 --> 01:27:02.560 a first and a second for approval any further discussion 01:27:02.560 --> 01:27:04.600 seeing none I'll call 01:27:04.600 --> 01:27:07.359 for a vote on the board 01:27:12.359 --> 01:27:14.939 that motion will carry six to zero we'll move us to our 01:27:14.939 --> 01:27:17.760 next item on our agenda 01:27:17.760 --> 01:27:24.319 I'm going to open the public hearing for z 17 - 0 0 0 3 a 01:27:24.319 --> 01:27:26.439 we'll call on Haley for 01:27:26.439 --> 01:27:29.159 presentation 01:27:41.119 --> 01:27:41.260 good evening and as we did at work session I'll do one 01:27:41.260 --> 01:27:45.119 presentation for 01:27:45.119 --> 01:27:48.039 both the rezoning and the SUP request but it would require 01:27:48.039 --> 01:27:49.159 two separate motions 01:27:49.159 --> 01:27:55.010 and votes all right so this is case z 17 3 and s 17 11 for 01:27:55.010 --> 01:27:55.699 the Coventry two 01:27:55.699 --> 01:27:59.720 apartments as I mentioned there are two separate requests 01:27:59.720 --> 01:28:00.640 the first being a 01:28:00.640 --> 01:28:03.649 rezoning from community mixed-use general to neighborhood 01:28:03.649 --> 01:28:04.359 residential 01:28:04.359 --> 01:28:07.579 mixed-use district and the second aspect of the request if 01:28:07.579 --> 01:28:08.239 the rezoning is 01:28:08.239 --> 01:28:10.819 approved would be for a specific use permit to allow for 01:28:10.819 --> 01:28:11.520 multifamily 01:28:11.520 --> 01:28:14.770 residential use on the property you can see two boundaries 01:28:14.770 --> 01:28:15.920 outlined here on the 01:28:15.920 --> 01:28:18.609 map the red boundary is the boundary of the rezoning so it 01:28:18.609 --> 01:28:20.239 's 11.42 acres and 01:28:20.239 --> 01:28:24.689 then the yellow boundary within that is the 10.68 acres for 01:28:24.689 --> 01:28:25.760 the SUP requests 01:28:25.760 --> 01:28:27.989 which excludes an existing office building on the south 01:28:27.989 --> 01:28:28.479 side of the 01:28:28.479 --> 01:28:33.039 property and for reference we have I 35 to the north of the 01:28:33.039 --> 01:28:34.000 property Sam bass 01:28:34.000 --> 01:28:38.560 forms the western boundary and Londonderry Lane is on the 01:28:38.560 --> 01:28:40.340 south side to 01:28:40.340 --> 01:28:42.920 look at the rezoning request first we have the existing 01:28:42.920 --> 01:28:43.920 zoning map on the left 01:28:43.920 --> 01:28:47.430 you see it's the whole area is primarily zone CMG and then 01:28:47.430 --> 01:28:48.319 on the right would be 01:28:48.319 --> 01:28:52.880 the proposed zoning map if this request for NRM you is 01:28:52.880 --> 01:28:54.760 approved there are two 01:28:54.760 --> 01:28:56.859 criteria for approval isn't of an SUP as Shandrian 01:28:56.859 --> 01:28:58.039 mentioned the first being 01:28:58.039 --> 01:29:00.279 conformance with the future land use plan and the second 01:29:00.279 --> 01:29:00.760 being the 01:29:00.760 --> 01:29:05.140 facilitation of public infrastructure looking at the first 01:29:05.140 --> 01:29:05.800 of those two 01:29:05.800 --> 01:29:08.560 components the future land use for this area is community 01:29:08.560 --> 01:29:09.520 mixed-use which is 01:29:09.520 --> 01:29:12.369 intended to promote a mixture of commercial residential and 01:29:12.369 --> 01:29:13.039 service uses 01:29:13.039 --> 01:29:16.470 NRM you we found to be generally consistent with this it's 01:29:16.470 --> 01:29:16.739 very 01:29:16.739 --> 01:29:19.560 comparable to CMG in terms of the scale of development as 01:29:19.560 --> 01:29:20.520 well as the type of 01:29:20.520 --> 01:29:22.750 development there it allows for a wide mixture of 01:29:22.750 --> 01:29:24.119 residential and commercial 01:29:24.119 --> 01:29:29.430 uses looking at the existing public infrastructure there 01:29:29.430 --> 01:29:30.920 there are existing 01:29:30.920 --> 01:29:32.880 water and sewer lines in the area that would be available 01:29:32.880 --> 01:29:33.680 for the development 01:29:33.680 --> 01:29:37.819 with possibly some internal extensions required Sam bass 01:29:37.819 --> 01:29:39.159 and Londonderry are 01:29:39.159 --> 01:29:42.729 both currently two lane undivided roads they are commercial 01:29:42.729 --> 01:29:44.000 mixed-use collectors 01:29:44.000 --> 01:29:47.310 which means that they're intended to stay two lane undivid 01:29:47.310 --> 01:29:48.220 ed but with the 01:29:48.220 --> 01:29:50.899 availability for parking and sidewalks on the side of the 01:29:50.899 --> 01:29:51.560 roads and any 01:29:51.560 --> 01:29:54.449 dedications or improvements for this development would be 01:29:54.449 --> 01:29:55.399 done either at the 01:29:55.399 --> 01:29:57.979 time that they replat that if they replat the property or 01:29:57.979 --> 01:29:58.680 when they get to 01:29:58.680 --> 01:30:04.340 site plan looking at some other compatibility factors here 01:30:04.340 --> 01:30:04.619 as I 01:30:04.619 --> 01:30:07.289 mentioned we did find NRM you to be consistent with the 01:30:07.289 --> 01:30:08.279 existing zoning in 01:30:08.279 --> 01:30:11.039 many ways a lot coverage building height landscaping 01:30:11.039 --> 01:30:12.399 requirements are all the 01:30:12.399 --> 01:30:15.720 same between these two districts and I also wanted to point 01:30:15.720 --> 01:30:16.479 out that the 01:30:16.479 --> 01:30:19.439 proposed use for multifamily is permitted under the current 01:30:19.439 --> 01:30:20.039 zoning the 01:30:20.039 --> 01:30:23.029 intent of the request is to get rid of a limitation that 01:30:23.029 --> 01:30:24.279 exists within CMG that 01:30:24.279 --> 01:30:27.300 requires ground floor commercial development ground floor 01:30:27.300 --> 01:30:27.939 commercial 01:30:27.939 --> 01:30:30.630 would probably be tricky in this location given how far it 01:30:30.630 --> 01:30:31.119 is off the 01:30:31.119 --> 01:30:34.189 freeway and the existing development pattern because we 01:30:34.189 --> 01:30:35.199 have multifamily on 01:30:35.199 --> 01:30:38.359 almost all sides and then industrial with the Acme brick 01:30:38.359 --> 01:30:39.420 plant on the 01:30:39.420 --> 01:30:44.319 opposite side of Sam Bass with that staff is recommending 01:30:44.319 --> 01:30:45.239 approval of the 01:30:45.239 --> 01:30:47.670 rezoning request because of this consistency with the goals 01:30:47.670 --> 01:30:47.880 and 01:30:47.880 --> 01:30:52.439 objectives of the Denton plan 2030 the second aspect of the 01:30:52.439 --> 01:30:53.039 request then 01:30:53.039 --> 01:30:55.609 pending approval of the rezoning would be for the specific 01:30:55.609 --> 01:30:56.359 use permit for the 01:30:56.359 --> 01:31:00.329 multifamily use when we look at an SUP request we look for 01:31:00.329 --> 01:31:00.960 general 01:31:00.960 --> 01:31:03.619 compatibility between the use that's proposed and the 01:31:03.619 --> 01:31:04.960 surrounding property in 01:31:04.960 --> 01:31:08.569 terms of no impediments to development of other properties 01:31:08.569 --> 01:31:09.520 in the area and 01:31:09.520 --> 01:31:14.079 nuisance generation potential and things of that nature so 01:31:14.079 --> 01:31:15.960 this is the concept 01:31:15.960 --> 01:31:18.529 plan that's been proposed for this development this would 01:31:18.529 --> 01:31:19.119 be the second 01:31:19.119 --> 01:31:22.210 phase of an existing apartment complex it's to the east of 01:31:22.210 --> 01:31:23.159 the property for 01:31:23.159 --> 01:31:26.659 reference on this map it would be here on the the top side 01:31:26.659 --> 01:31:27.880 so you can see this 01:31:27.880 --> 01:31:30.939 existing driveway would allow connectivity between the two 01:31:30.939 --> 01:31:31.439 phases of 01:31:31.439 --> 01:31:36.390 the apartment complex this plan shows 283 units a mixture 01:31:36.390 --> 01:31:37.439 of one two and three 01:31:37.439 --> 01:31:41.550 bedrooms that puts it at around 26 dwelling units per acre 01:31:41.550 --> 01:31:42.399 for density 01:31:42.399 --> 01:31:45.239 which is well below that maximum of 30 that they would have 01:31:45.239 --> 01:31:46.399 under NRM you if 01:31:46.399 --> 01:31:49.520 the rezoning is approved you can see six buildings laid out 01:31:49.520 --> 01:31:50.760 here mixture of three 01:31:50.760 --> 01:31:53.649 and four stories in height one of the key features of the 01:31:53.649 --> 01:31:54.840 site being that each 01:31:54.840 --> 01:31:58.800 one of these buildings is designed in an L shape with a 01:31:58.800 --> 01:32:00.119 common area with 01:32:00.119 --> 01:32:02.399 landscaping and a kind of a courtyard effect for each 01:32:02.399 --> 01:32:03.520 building so they do have 01:32:03.520 --> 01:32:09.159 about 38% landscaping overall as it's proposed we found 01:32:09.159 --> 01:32:09.800 this request to be 01:32:09.800 --> 01:32:12.739 consistent with the Denton plan 2030 both for that future 01:32:12.739 --> 01:32:13.760 land use designation 01:32:13.760 --> 01:32:17.479 and for the fact that our our comprehensive plan calls for 01:32:17.479 --> 01:32:17.840 higher 01:32:17.840 --> 01:32:21.270 density housing to be provided in areas that don't impact 01:32:21.270 --> 01:32:22.399 existing single-family 01:32:22.399 --> 01:32:24.720 neighborhoods and as we saw with this one that it's 01:32:24.720 --> 01:32:26.239 surrounded by like uses 01:32:26.239 --> 01:32:28.819 there wouldn't be any direct connectivity with single- 01:32:28.819 --> 01:32:29.720 family so it 01:32:29.720 --> 01:32:32.869 would limit any impacts that could occur there the use is 01:32:32.869 --> 01:32:34.319 consistent with the 01:32:34.319 --> 01:32:37.319 existing development pattern in the area and the site would 01:32:37.319 --> 01:32:38.399 be required to comply 01:32:38.399 --> 01:32:40.979 with all other components of the DDC in terms of tree 01:32:40.979 --> 01:32:42.279 preservation landscaping 01:32:42.279 --> 01:32:45.039 parking site lighting and those types of things and it 01:32:45.039 --> 01:32:46.079 would be generally 01:32:46.079 --> 01:32:48.840 unlikely to generate any nuisances because of its 01:32:48.840 --> 01:32:50.000 consistency with the 01:32:50.000 --> 01:32:54.560 surrounding development pattern notices were sent for this 01:32:54.560 --> 01:32:55.520 request for the local 01:32:55.520 --> 01:32:58.699 government code we received one response in favor from the 01:32:58.699 --> 01:32:59.960 former property owner 01:32:59.960 --> 01:33:02.859 for the southern portion of the tract and the applicant did 01:33:02.859 --> 01:33:03.199 hold a 01:33:03.199 --> 01:33:05.350 neighborhood meeting this past Monday and they had 01:33:05.350 --> 01:33:06.479 representatives from two 01:33:06.479 --> 01:33:11.079 nearby complexes that attended to see what the proposal was 01:33:11.079 --> 01:33:12.239 staff is 01:33:12.239 --> 01:33:15.430 recommending approval of the SUP with the condition that 01:33:15.430 --> 01:33:16.479 the site plan we saw 01:33:16.479 --> 01:33:19.409 tonight be considered conceptual in nature so they would 01:33:19.409 --> 01:33:19.760 still go through 01:33:19.760 --> 01:33:22.649 the full site plan submittal where all of the specifics of 01:33:22.649 --> 01:33:23.600 the site would be 01:33:23.600 --> 01:33:26.359 be nailed down to ensure compliance with the net and 01:33:26.359 --> 01:33:27.800 development code and with 01:33:27.800 --> 01:33:34.279 that I can stand for any questions any questions for having 01:33:34.279 --> 01:33:36.840 there you go 01:33:36.840 --> 01:33:41.989 Commissioner back thank you just as the owner here the 01:33:41.989 --> 01:33:43.600 applicant here and gonna 01:33:43.600 --> 01:33:47.720 speak to us tonight yes the applicant is here thank you 01:33:47.720 --> 01:33:52.279 have any other questions thank you having this is a public 01:33:52.279 --> 01:33:53.760 hearing so anyone 01:33:53.760 --> 01:33:56.119 who would like to speak on this item please come forward at 01:33:56.119 --> 01:33:56.760 this time I do 01:33:56.760 --> 01:34:02.609 not have any cards currently so believe it was stay the 01:34:02.609 --> 01:34:03.720 applicants here if the 01:34:03.720 --> 01:34:07.319 applicants here would you like to speak on this item 01:34:16.479 --> 01:34:21.199 I'm Josh I'm with Western Securities we've been here in 01:34:21.199 --> 01:34:23.439 Denton for since 2001 01:34:23.439 --> 01:34:28.000 we actually did a project called Coventry we love that 01:34:28.000 --> 01:34:29.079 project we really 01:34:29.079 --> 01:34:31.739 want to improve Denton as well it's we feel like this 01:34:31.739 --> 01:34:32.920 projects is going to 01:34:32.920 --> 01:34:36.500 improve the neighborhood around the existing project and we 01:34:36.500 --> 01:34:37.399 feel like this 01:34:37.399 --> 01:34:41.960 is a catalyst for us to be able to help develop the entire 01:34:41.960 --> 01:34:43.680 area as well do you 01:34:43.680 --> 01:34:47.199 have one question for you Commissioner Beck hey you chair 01:34:47.199 --> 01:34:48.159 Josh thanks for coming 01:34:48.159 --> 01:34:50.920 down and speaking and I like what I'm seeing pretty much 01:34:50.920 --> 01:34:52.319 too I'm one of those 01:34:52.319 --> 01:34:54.930 though that always hates to see trees go and I noticed in 01:34:54.930 --> 01:34:56.039 your conceptual plan 01:34:56.039 --> 01:34:59.779 you've got some big courtyards there so I'm just kind of 01:34:59.779 --> 01:35:01.279 hoping that when you 01:35:01.279 --> 01:35:04.539 come back with a site plans final that we'll see a lot a 01:35:04.539 --> 01:35:05.720 lot of areas there 01:35:05.720 --> 01:35:07.659 that you can salvage a lot of those trees I went over and 01:35:07.659 --> 01:35:08.439 looked at them today 01:35:08.439 --> 01:35:11.520 most of them are post oak they're native trees so what's 01:35:11.520 --> 01:35:12.840 your sentiment on that 01:35:12.840 --> 01:35:16.539 if you don't mind asking this this is not our first entry 01:35:16.539 --> 01:35:18.520 into a large tree 01:35:18.520 --> 01:35:22.270 saving community we actually believe in saving as many 01:35:22.270 --> 01:35:23.479 trees as possible I want 01:35:23.479 --> 01:35:28.579 to try and create a feeling of being in a park and not 01:35:28.579 --> 01:35:30.800 having where you can see 01:35:30.800 --> 01:35:34.390 from one unit to another across the street I want to 01:35:34.390 --> 01:35:35.439 actually create that 01:35:35.439 --> 01:35:40.869 that feeling of seeing life so that's something that I 01:35:40.869 --> 01:35:43.119 really try and strive 01:35:43.119 --> 01:35:49.479 to protect ultimately that's not really viable in every 01:35:49.479 --> 01:35:50.520 situation but I want to 01:35:50.520 --> 01:35:54.020 try and do as best I can for that yes good luck to you on 01:35:54.020 --> 01:35:56.199 that thank you I 01:35:56.199 --> 01:35:59.880 don't see any other questions thank you sir appreciate you 01:35:59.880 --> 01:36:01.479 again this is a public 01:36:01.479 --> 01:36:03.689 hearing anyone who would like to speak on this item please 01:36:03.689 --> 01:36:04.479 come forward at this 01:36:04.479 --> 01:36:10.520 time seeing none I'll close the public hearing and open the 01:36:10.520 --> 01:36:11.640 floor for discussion 01:36:11.640 --> 01:36:14.159 or emotion 01:36:16.479 --> 01:36:20.810 Commissioner Roselle I motion to approve the zoning agenda 01:36:20.810 --> 01:36:25.199 item Z 17 - 0 0 3 a 01:36:25.199 --> 01:36:29.239 Commissioner Beck second okay the first and the second for 01:36:29.239 --> 01:36:30.479 approval any other 01:36:30.479 --> 01:36:37.520 discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board 01:36:45.800 --> 01:36:51.939 motions going to carry six to zero that item passes and we 01:36:51.939 --> 01:36:54.000 have a Richard at 01:36:54.000 --> 01:36:56.569 staff would like to make an announcement on C before I open 01:36:56.569 --> 01:36:57.119 it and make some 01:36:57.119 --> 01:37:00.939 clarifications if there is a recommendation to approve this 01:37:00.939 --> 01:37:01.880 item based 01:37:01.880 --> 01:37:04.829 on the condition I just wanted to add a sentence at the end 01:37:04.829 --> 01:37:06.600 just so there's it's 01:37:06.600 --> 01:37:10.829 clear moving forward and that would be but shall be in 01:37:10.829 --> 01:37:11.760 conformance with the 01:37:11.760 --> 01:37:14.029 concept plan as presented I think there was a there's a 01:37:14.029 --> 01:37:15.159 discussion last night at 01:37:15.159 --> 01:37:17.789 City Council as as to whether or not they're required to 01:37:17.789 --> 01:37:18.800 comply with with the 01:37:18.800 --> 01:37:21.050 concept plan that was always our intent but we just wanted 01:37:21.050 --> 01:37:21.680 to get it on the 01:37:21.680 --> 01:37:27.859 record so so it's clear that's all thank you for that 01:37:27.859 --> 01:37:30.920 clarification condition if 01:37:30.920 --> 01:37:34.189 we get to that point and with that I'm going to open the 01:37:34.189 --> 01:37:35.560 public hearing for s 01:37:35.560 --> 01:37:42.319 17 - 0 0 11 a we'll call on Haley for if we do a 01:37:42.319 --> 01:37:43.760 presentation or if we just take 01:37:43.760 --> 01:37:50.539 a vote on the SUP portion if there's anything you'd like me 01:37:50.539 --> 01:37:50.880 to run back 01:37:50.880 --> 01:37:56.539 through on the presentation I can okay all right well thank 01:37:56.539 --> 01:37:58.279 you for that and I 01:37:58.279 --> 01:38:01.710 will ask if there's any additional comments this is a 01:38:01.710 --> 01:38:02.760 public hearing I 01:38:02.760 --> 01:38:05.840 don't have any cards on this item so if there's anyone who 01:38:05.840 --> 01:38:07.000 would like to speak 01:38:07.000 --> 01:38:10.659 or if the applicant would like to address the additional 01:38:10.659 --> 01:38:11.920 clarification on 01:38:11.920 --> 01:38:15.060 the condition if there's any questions about that we happy 01:38:15.060 --> 01:38:15.840 to entertain that 01:38:15.840 --> 01:38:19.590 with you no okay with that I'm gonna close the public 01:38:19.590 --> 01:38:21.159 hearing and I will open 01:38:21.159 --> 01:38:25.279 the floor for discussion or motion 01:38:26.720 --> 01:38:30.149 Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I move approval of s 17 01:38:30.149 --> 01:38:31.800 11 a with staff's 01:38:31.800 --> 01:38:36.720 condition as stated so the condition we have in our agenda 01:38:36.720 --> 01:38:37.560 along with the 01:38:37.560 --> 01:38:41.399 clarification by Richard okay great Commissioner Sullivan 01:38:41.399 --> 01:38:42.760 okay we have a 01:38:42.760 --> 01:38:48.359 first and a second for approval any further discussion 01:38:48.359 --> 01:38:50.479 seeing now call for a 01:38:50.479 --> 01:38:53.079 vote on board 01:38:58.840 --> 01:39:05.369 motions going to carry six to zero that will move us to our 01:39:05.369 --> 01:39:07.800 item D and I'm 01:39:07.800 --> 01:39:13.649 going to open the public hearing for z 18 - 0 0 0 1 and 01:39:13.649 --> 01:39:15.800 this is the item that we 01:39:15.800 --> 01:39:20.159 will need a motion to continue and leave open 01:39:23.279 --> 01:39:28.680 Commissioner Roselle I motion to move agenda z 1 8 - 0 0 0 01:39:28.680 --> 01:39:30.039 1 postponed to a 01:39:30.039 --> 01:39:33.899 date certain of February 21st 2018 okay Commissioner Ellis 01:39:33.899 --> 01:39:34.680 thank you chair 01:39:34.680 --> 01:39:38.539 second we have a first and a second on this item and we are 01:39:38.539 --> 01:39:39.319 going to leave it 01:39:39.319 --> 01:39:44.119 open and I will call for a vote on board 01:39:48.840 --> 01:39:54.689 this motion is going to carry six to zero move us to item E 01:39:54.689 --> 01:39:56.159 we'll open the 01:39:56.159 --> 01:40:03.939 public hearing for DCA 18 - 0 0 0 1 we'll call on Haley for 01:40:03.939 --> 01:40:06.239 this presentation 01:40:15.479 --> 01:40:20.920 good evening this is case DCA 18 1 it's a proposed code 01:40:20.920 --> 01:40:22.880 update so the request 01:40:22.880 --> 01:40:25.020 before you is to hold a public hearing and consider making 01:40:25.020 --> 01:40:25.760 a recommendation 01:40:25.760 --> 01:40:28.659 to the City Council regarding a proposed revision to the 01:40:28.659 --> 01:40:29.760 Denton development code 01:40:29.760 --> 01:40:33.279 specifically to amend the limitations in subchapter 5 as it 01:40:33.279 --> 01:40:34.479 relates to mixed use 01:40:34.479 --> 01:40:38.590 development requirements for multifamily uses to give you a 01:40:38.590 --> 01:40:39.119 little 01:40:39.119 --> 01:40:42.300 background there are two limitations in the development 01:40:42.300 --> 01:40:43.520 code today that would 01:40:43.520 --> 01:40:46.439 apply to multifamily uses within our mixed use districts 01:40:46.439 --> 01:40:47.439 the first of those 01:40:47.439 --> 01:40:51.890 is limitation 4 which allows multifamily with either a 01:40:51.890 --> 01:40:53.199 specific use permit as 01:40:53.199 --> 01:40:55.779 part of a mixed use development or if it meets one of the 01:40:55.779 --> 01:40:57.000 other three criteria 01:40:57.000 --> 01:41:00.149 being part of a master plan development or previously 01:41:00.149 --> 01:41:01.399 approved as part of a 01:41:01.399 --> 01:41:05.779 small area plan the second limitation that applies along 01:41:05.779 --> 01:41:07.079 with L4 and several 01:41:07.079 --> 01:41:10.810 districts is limitation 6 that permits multifamily uses 01:41:10.810 --> 01:41:11.840 only on the second 01:41:11.840 --> 01:41:14.989 story and above when office retail or other permitted 01:41:14.989 --> 01:41:16.239 commercial uses are 01:41:16.239 --> 01:41:19.140 provided on the ground floor along any Avenue collector or 01:41:19.140 --> 01:41:21.439 arterial street if 01:41:21.439 --> 01:41:24.340 you have looked at our mobility plan those are our primary 01:41:24.340 --> 01:41:25.159 street types other 01:41:25.159 --> 01:41:28.270 than you know residential streets within subdivisions so 01:41:28.270 --> 01:41:30.239 this would apply in many 01:41:30.239 --> 01:41:35.600 locations so looking at how these two often apply together 01:41:35.600 --> 01:41:36.760 you'd see here that 01:41:36.760 --> 01:41:39.670 L4 applies in all of the mixed use districts so anywhere 01:41:39.670 --> 01:41:40.520 multifamily is 01:41:40.520 --> 01:41:45.079 permitted outside of the downtown districts L4 applies 01:41:45.079 --> 01:41:46.399 limitation 6 is 01:41:46.399 --> 01:41:49.239 added in four of the districts the community mixed use 01:41:49.239 --> 01:41:50.319 districts and then 01:41:50.319 --> 01:41:55.109 our regional center neighborhood and downtown districts as 01:41:55.109 --> 01:41:56.920 well what staff is 01:41:56.920 --> 01:42:00.350 proposing is to remove L6 from all four of those districts 01:42:00.350 --> 01:42:01.119 we're not proposing 01:42:01.119 --> 01:42:04.270 any changes to L4 it would remain in place L6 we would like 01:42:04.270 --> 01:42:05.000 to strike from 01:42:05.000 --> 01:42:08.609 all four districts where it currently applies in the past 01:42:08.609 --> 01:42:10.119 two years in 2016 and 01:42:10.119 --> 01:42:13.050 2017 we had five rezoning request as a result of this 01:42:13.050 --> 01:42:14.479 limitation we saw one of 01:42:14.479 --> 01:42:17.239 them here tonight but there have been countless other 01:42:17.239 --> 01:42:18.159 projects that haven't 01:42:18.159 --> 01:42:21.279 moved forward because of the requirement for ground floor 01:42:21.279 --> 01:42:23.239 commercial just to look 01:42:23.239 --> 01:42:25.819 at how this applies across the city it applies in our 01:42:25.819 --> 01:42:27.039 community mixed use in our 01:42:27.039 --> 01:42:30.350 regional center districts on the map here that would be the 01:42:30.350 --> 01:42:31.439 purple colors the 01:42:31.439 --> 01:42:34.550 kind of fuchsia colors and then the areas of light pink so 01:42:34.550 --> 01:42:35.800 you can see here 01:42:35.800 --> 01:42:39.090 out on the freeway and the loop we have a large area of 01:42:39.090 --> 01:42:40.439 this we have CMG along 01:42:40.439 --> 01:42:43.270 McKinney and University and then other pockets of the 01:42:43.270 --> 01:42:44.680 regional district here on 01:42:44.680 --> 01:42:47.699 the north side of the city primarily along the loop in the 01:42:47.699 --> 01:42:49.359 interstate our 01:42:49.359 --> 01:42:51.979 comprehensive plans and notes that we have a strong need 01:42:51.979 --> 01:42:52.880 for a diversity of 01:42:52.880 --> 01:42:55.850 housing types in Denton multifamily being a key one of 01:42:55.850 --> 01:42:56.880 those especially with 01:42:56.880 --> 01:43:00.939 our universities here and requiring ground floor commercial 01:43:00.939 --> 01:43:02.039 that would work 01:43:02.039 --> 01:43:05.079 best in walkable compact environments and areas out on the 01:43:05.079 --> 01:43:05.680 loop or on the 01:43:05.680 --> 01:43:10.239 freeway is a bit onerous and not always feasible for these 01:43:10.239 --> 01:43:12.079 developments so 01:43:12.079 --> 01:43:15.079 looking at how these apply I mentioned in the downtown 01:43:15.079 --> 01:43:16.119 multifamilies permitted by 01:43:16.119 --> 01:43:19.000 right but we do often see the type of development that L6 01:43:19.000 --> 01:43:19.640 is trying to 01:43:19.640 --> 01:43:23.390 achieve ground floor commercial as a market decision works 01:43:23.390 --> 01:43:24.000 well in the 01:43:24.000 --> 01:43:27.500 downtown where you have that compact urban environment so 01:43:27.500 --> 01:43:28.840 you see a couple of 01:43:28.840 --> 01:43:31.739 examples here on the right of how we have that development 01:43:31.739 --> 01:43:32.720 in downtown today 01:43:32.720 --> 01:43:35.350 on the bottom of the screen just to give you an example or 01:43:35.350 --> 01:43:37.199 a couple of sites one 01:43:37.199 --> 01:43:40.279 zone CMG that's on the loop and another one's own RC CD out 01:43:40.279 --> 01:43:41.279 on Brinker where 01:43:41.279 --> 01:43:44.039 the ground floor commercial would be required you can tell 01:43:44.039 --> 01:43:44.600 these are 01:43:44.600 --> 01:43:47.539 primarily auto oriented areas where people are not likely 01:43:47.539 --> 01:43:48.399 to be walking along 01:43:48.399 --> 01:43:52.850 the sidewalk going shopping at their neighborhood stores 01:43:52.850 --> 01:43:54.039 further wanted to 01:43:54.039 --> 01:43:57.039 point out as I mentioned earlier that L4 would still apply 01:43:57.039 --> 01:43:57.800 in all of these 01:43:57.800 --> 01:44:00.149 districts in any of our mixed-use districts there would 01:44:00.149 --> 01:44:00.840 still either be 01:44:00.840 --> 01:44:04.289 the requirement for multifamily to be part of mixed use so 01:44:04.289 --> 01:44:05.039 to be part of a 01:44:05.039 --> 01:44:07.800 larger development with three or more uses of which multif 01:44:07.800 --> 01:44:08.600 amily can only be 01:44:08.600 --> 01:44:12.710 one so commercial would be a requirement there or it would 01:44:12.710 --> 01:44:13.800 be required to have an 01:44:13.800 --> 01:44:16.239 SUP is like the case we saw before this so there would 01:44:16.239 --> 01:44:17.479 still be that high level 01:44:17.479 --> 01:44:21.380 of scrutiny on multifamily development in most of the city 01:44:21.380 --> 01:44:22.760 we did publish 01:44:22.760 --> 01:44:25.689 notification in the newspaper for this request and received 01:44:25.689 --> 01:44:26.560 no responses and 01:44:26.560 --> 01:44:30.810 staff is recommending approval and with that I can stand 01:44:30.810 --> 01:44:33.720 for any questions any 01:44:33.720 --> 01:44:38.609 questions for having I'll make a comment I'm glad to see 01:44:38.609 --> 01:44:39.960 this come before us 01:44:39.960 --> 01:44:43.229 because to your point we've had a lot of instances over the 01:44:43.229 --> 01:44:44.359 only the last year 01:44:44.359 --> 01:44:47.319 but prior to this on this item and I think it's a good 01:44:47.319 --> 01:44:48.720 change and I'm glad to 01:44:48.720 --> 01:44:52.979 see us clean this up and make life easier for everybody on 01:44:52.979 --> 01:44:53.720 this particular 01:44:53.720 --> 01:44:57.680 item so thank you for bringing this to us 01:44:59.199 --> 01:45:04.350 no more questions thank you Haley this is a public hearing 01:45:04.350 --> 01:45:05.199 so anyone who would 01:45:05.199 --> 01:45:07.789 like to speak on this item please come forward at this time 01:45:07.789 --> 01:45:09.439 I do not have any 01:45:09.439 --> 01:45:14.590 carts here before me to call on someone so again this is a 01:45:14.590 --> 01:45:16.159 public hearing 01:45:16.960 --> 01:45:20.479 seeing none I'll close the public hearing and open the 01:45:20.479 --> 01:45:21.520 floor for discussion 01:45:21.520 --> 01:45:26.560 or emotion Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I will 01:45:26.560 --> 01:45:28.680 happily move approval of DCA 01:45:28.680 --> 01:45:33.829 18 1 Commissioner back I agree this is a good move I second 01:45:33.829 --> 01:45:35.159 the motion we have a 01:45:35.159 --> 01:45:40.460 first and a second for approval any further discussion 01:45:40.460 --> 01:45:42.800 seeing none we'll call 01:45:42.800 --> 01:45:45.600 for a vet on the board 01:45:49.840 --> 01:45:54.630 motions going to carry six to zero that will take us to 01:45:54.630 --> 01:45:57.319 item F at this time I'm 01:45:57.319 --> 01:46:03.300 going to open the public hearing for DCA 17 - 0 0 1 1 and 01:46:03.300 --> 01:46:05.399 we'll call on Deborah 01:46:05.399 --> 01:46:08.600 here for presentation 01:46:17.359 --> 01:46:19.750 good evening Commission my name is Deborah beer and with 01:46:19.750 --> 01:46:20.920 the environmental 01:46:20.920 --> 01:46:24.619 services tonight we are bringing forward as a public 01:46:24.619 --> 01:46:25.640 hearing the proposed 01:46:25.640 --> 01:46:30.199 revisions to sub chapter 17 and for the past two pence 01:46:30.199 --> 01:46:31.520 meetings we have been 01:46:31.520 --> 01:46:35.350 having a discussion in details about what they are my 01:46:35.350 --> 01:46:36.760 presentation tonight is 01:46:36.760 --> 01:46:40.859 going to be you know that the general concepts behind and 01:46:40.859 --> 01:46:42.159 then we will zoom 01:46:42.159 --> 01:46:46.720 in into the proposed changes to the alternative ESA plan 01:46:46.720 --> 01:46:47.960 approval criteria 01:46:47.960 --> 01:46:50.920 if that's okay with the Commission sure just a question are 01:46:50.920 --> 01:46:51.880 we going to do like 01:46:51.880 --> 01:46:55.590 a page turn of the actual ordinance is that part of your 01:46:55.590 --> 01:46:57.840 presentation no no 01:46:57.840 --> 01:47:01.500 well what I was planning and just to go over the why the 01:47:01.500 --> 01:47:02.720 changes are needed and 01:47:02.720 --> 01:47:06.239 so forth then highlights the substantial changes and naming 01:47:06.239 --> 01:47:07.399 one by one and then 01:47:07.399 --> 01:47:15.239 discuss in detail the last one perfect okay sure thank you 01:47:20.520 --> 01:47:25.460 so if you excuse me sometimes I would kind of skip between 01:47:25.460 --> 01:47:26.720 slides but 01:47:26.720 --> 01:47:30.439 hopefully you can bear with me currently the development 01:47:30.439 --> 01:47:31.800 code provides protection 01:47:31.800 --> 01:47:35.020 for four type of environmental sensitivities area those are 01:47:35.020 --> 01:47:35.399 flood 01:47:35.399 --> 01:47:38.939 plains which are further classifying to develop and unde 01:47:38.939 --> 01:47:40.840 veloped riparian buffers 01:47:40.840 --> 01:47:44.689 a water-related habitats and upland habitats the first 01:47:44.689 --> 01:47:45.880 three type of ESAs 01:47:45.880 --> 01:47:48.819 they tend to co-locate or be nested inside each other 01:47:48.819 --> 01:47:50.199 because the three are 01:47:50.199 --> 01:47:53.720 dependent on the presence for some period of time of water 01:47:53.720 --> 01:47:55.039 upland habitat 01:47:55.039 --> 01:48:04.720 those are more dry land driven habitat so why do we protect 01:48:04.720 --> 01:48:07.359 the ESAs first it 01:48:07.359 --> 01:48:12.039 really helps the city to actually meet the where MS4 permit 01:48:12.039 --> 01:48:13.239 MS4 stands for 01:48:13.239 --> 01:48:17.800 municipal separate storm sewer system that deals with the 01:48:17.800 --> 01:48:19.439 management of runoff 01:48:19.439 --> 01:48:22.989 and some water into the city having those areas that 01:48:22.989 --> 01:48:25.760 actually protects the 01:48:25.760 --> 01:48:30.319 the water bodies that filter all that pollution it is 01:48:30.319 --> 01:48:31.920 actually part of our MS 01:48:31.920 --> 01:48:38.319 MS4 permit with TCEQ that also allow us to meet our 01:48:38.319 --> 01:48:39.680 construction general permit 01:48:39.680 --> 01:48:43.739 with TCEQ when you have ESAs in your construction site and 01:48:43.739 --> 01:48:44.319 you preserve 01:48:44.319 --> 01:48:48.909 those you can actually use them as a best management 01:48:48.909 --> 01:48:51.399 practices the protection 01:48:51.399 --> 01:48:55.380 of ESAs especially the floodplain ESAs actually give us 01:48:55.380 --> 01:48:56.960 some points in the 01:48:56.960 --> 01:49:00.390 national floodplain insurance program those are program 01:49:00.390 --> 01:49:01.720 that based on how well 01:49:01.720 --> 01:49:06.279 the city managed the floodplain we can provide discounts 01:49:06.279 --> 01:49:07.720 towards the floodplain 01:49:07.720 --> 01:49:13.220 insurance owner so the better we do managing our floodplain 01:49:13.220 --> 01:49:14.239 the better 01:49:14.239 --> 01:49:17.630 insurance rate they can get so it is something that 01:49:17.630 --> 01:49:20.199 everybody benefits and 01:49:20.199 --> 01:49:26.720 the protection of ESAs is important for obtaining the sewer 01:49:26.720 --> 01:49:28.640 level ice wind city 01:49:28.640 --> 01:49:35.659 designation that we obtained in 2016 why are we proposing 01:49:35.659 --> 01:49:38.039 the revisions to sub 01:49:38.039 --> 01:49:42.600 chapter 17 first of all when the development code was 01:49:42.600 --> 01:49:43.920 written originally 01:49:43.920 --> 01:49:50.159 in 2002 many of the sub chapters had some sort of overlap 01:49:50.159 --> 01:49:51.119 and or hinges on 01:49:51.119 --> 01:49:54.029 the environmental sensitive area many of those chapters 01:49:54.029 --> 01:49:55.520 have been already revised 01:49:55.520 --> 01:50:00.310 however the correspond the citations and references were 01:50:00.310 --> 01:50:01.600 not carried through so 01:50:01.600 --> 01:50:05.779 right now we have some inconsistencies between sub chapter 01:50:05.779 --> 01:50:07.319 17 and other sections 01:50:07.319 --> 01:50:13.520 of the development code the development community have 01:50:13.520 --> 01:50:16.760 indicated to us that the 01:50:16.760 --> 01:50:20.189 code could benefit from improving the wording and phrasing 01:50:20.189 --> 01:50:21.079 so in that way is 01:50:21.079 --> 01:50:27.039 more understandable understandable is lacking clarity in 01:50:27.039 --> 01:50:29.680 some instances with 01:50:29.680 --> 01:50:34.539 that with the implementation of with the approval of the D 01:50:34.539 --> 01:50:39.439 DC back in 2002 the ESA 01:50:39.439 --> 01:50:43.239 were the first attempt policy wise to the protection of 01:50:43.239 --> 01:50:44.920 those areas many of 01:50:44.920 --> 01:50:48.989 those policies that were written at the time were not given 01:50:48.989 --> 01:50:49.479 clear 01:50:49.479 --> 01:50:54.039 implementation of it so one one example is the clustering 01:50:54.039 --> 01:50:54.960 development it is 01:50:54.960 --> 01:51:00.000 permitted but there's so much guidance on how to go by it 01:51:00.000 --> 01:51:04.239 have been over 15 16 01:51:04.239 --> 01:51:08.689 years since the adoption of the DDC it's time for all for 01:51:08.689 --> 01:51:09.960 us to revaluate those 01:51:09.960 --> 01:51:13.500 policies are they are they making sense do we need to 01:51:13.500 --> 01:51:15.239 change them or do we need 01:51:15.239 --> 01:51:19.010 to keep them and definitely we need to start considering 01:51:19.010 --> 01:51:20.159 new policies if 01:51:20.159 --> 01:51:24.470 necessary so it have been you know we have a fair try and 01:51:24.470 --> 01:51:25.720 if they are not 01:51:25.720 --> 01:51:30.529 working or their new things why not to consider those so 01:51:30.529 --> 01:51:33.479 this process of 01:51:33.479 --> 01:51:38.039 writing changes was better through the committee on the 01:51:38.039 --> 01:51:39.000 environment which is a 01:51:39.000 --> 01:51:42.989 subcommittee from the City Council we spent approximately 01:51:42.989 --> 01:51:44.560 13 months with the 01:51:44.560 --> 01:51:50.100 committee going step-by-step changes changes changes we 01:51:50.100 --> 01:51:52.119 organize all the 01:51:52.119 --> 01:51:57.640 co-revisions in four different categories corrections those 01:51:57.640 --> 01:51:58.420 were typos 01:51:58.420 --> 01:52:04.960 grammatical errors or simple references that were outdated 01:52:04.960 --> 01:52:06.640 the second was 01:52:06.640 --> 01:52:10.699 language clarification and the third was language addition 01:52:10.699 --> 01:52:11.640 the difference between 01:52:11.640 --> 01:52:15.069 the two is language clarification is the policies there we 01:52:15.069 --> 01:52:15.960 are not making changes 01:52:15.960 --> 01:52:19.460 to the policy whatsoever we are adding to what is out there 01:52:19.460 --> 01:52:20.079 to make it more 01:52:20.079 --> 01:52:23.979 clear code language additions we are not changing policy 01:52:23.979 --> 01:52:26.000 either but the initial 01:52:26.000 --> 01:52:30.880 wording have no go-by whatsoever so we are adding new 01:52:30.880 --> 01:52:32.279 language however the 01:52:32.279 --> 01:52:40.970 policy is intact and voices changes during this time we 01:52:40.970 --> 01:52:43.399 have vetted these 01:52:43.399 --> 01:52:49.359 changes through different platform medias we have sent 01:52:49.359 --> 01:52:51.279 emails to the 01:52:51.279 --> 01:52:56.239 development code through the web page we I did 01:52:56.239 --> 01:52:58.199 presentations when Clarion was 01:52:58.199 --> 01:53:03.600 doing the open house meetings about the rewrite of the DDC 01:53:03.600 --> 01:53:04.720 I partnered with 01:53:04.720 --> 01:53:08.399 them so in that way everybody had the opportunity to to see 01:53:08.399 --> 01:53:09.479 the two going 01:53:09.479 --> 01:53:15.840 together we also sent a email through the project doc so 01:53:15.840 --> 01:53:17.119 anybody who has been an 01:53:17.119 --> 01:53:20.590 applicant through the development process should have gone 01:53:20.590 --> 01:53:21.560 an email about 01:53:21.560 --> 01:53:26.979 the changes and inviting them to provide comments and we I 01:53:26.979 --> 01:53:28.920 have solicited input 01:53:28.920 --> 01:53:33.479 from local and out-of-town developers consultants and so 01:53:33.479 --> 01:53:35.319 forth at this point we 01:53:35.319 --> 01:53:40.680 have got up I believe 61 comments total from the different 01:53:40.680 --> 01:53:43.000 different people so 01:53:43.000 --> 01:53:49.579 and this public hearing was also advertised through the 01:53:49.579 --> 01:53:51.720 newspaper so what 01:53:51.720 --> 01:53:56.520 what I have done is highlight what are the most substantial 01:53:56.520 --> 01:53:57.399 changes and I'm 01:53:57.399 --> 01:54:01.300 going quickly through them so stop me if you need to go 01:54:01.300 --> 01:54:03.680 over those we are 01:54:03.680 --> 01:54:07.840 proposing to create a new ESA criteria manual the ESA 01:54:07.840 --> 01:54:08.800 criteria manual is a 01:54:08.800 --> 01:54:12.880 hopefully will provide guidance to the homeowner who 01:54:12.880 --> 01:54:14.800 happens to have an ESA on 01:54:14.800 --> 01:54:19.359 site but doesn't know how to manage them and also it will 01:54:19.359 --> 01:54:20.680 provide some technical 01:54:20.680 --> 01:54:24.640 guidance for the scientists and the biologists and the one 01:54:24.640 --> 01:54:25.199 put in a 01:54:25.199 --> 01:54:30.289 restoration program for ESA so we are trying to see to to 01:54:30.289 --> 01:54:31.560 try to provide some 01:54:31.560 --> 01:54:36.600 some guidance those are common questions that we have come 01:54:36.600 --> 01:54:37.800 across over and over 01:54:37.800 --> 01:54:41.039 you know we have the homeowner that doesn't have not not 01:54:41.039 --> 01:54:42.520 much or really 01:54:42.520 --> 01:54:46.510 interested in doing the right thing and we have the more 01:54:46.510 --> 01:54:48.920 technical people we 01:54:48.920 --> 01:54:51.869 have increased and expanded the credits given by 01:54:51.869 --> 01:54:54.039 preservation of ESAs currently 01:54:54.039 --> 01:54:57.720 the code talks about giving you credits for the landscape 01:54:57.720 --> 01:54:58.920 and tree ordinance 01:54:58.920 --> 01:55:02.180 however we have expanded those credits to also give you 01:55:02.180 --> 01:55:03.119 credit for the 01:55:03.119 --> 01:55:07.180 preservation of trees we have increased the ratio on those 01:55:07.180 --> 01:55:08.920 and also because we 01:55:08.920 --> 01:55:12.739 acknowledge that Denton is within two ecoregions one on the 01:55:12.739 --> 01:55:13.640 eastern side is 01:55:13.640 --> 01:55:16.609 where you see the crust timbers on the western side is the 01:55:16.609 --> 01:55:17.600 prairie which are 01:55:17.600 --> 01:55:21.189 dominated for more herbaceous plant we also want to 01:55:21.189 --> 01:55:23.079 acknowledge that and give 01:55:23.079 --> 01:55:27.880 them credit if you are preserving those habitats as well 01:55:27.880 --> 01:55:28.920 establish an appeal 01:55:28.920 --> 01:55:32.819 process for the ESA staff determination in the past 15 01:55:32.819 --> 01:55:35.960 years we have not have a 01:55:35.960 --> 01:55:40.529 process for which a applicant can challenge the staff 01:55:40.529 --> 01:55:42.279 determination about 01:55:42.279 --> 01:55:46.920 the presence or absence of ESA these process these new 01:55:46.920 --> 01:55:47.920 mechanism would allow 01:55:47.920 --> 01:55:54.210 that the designation and depiction of developed and unde 01:55:54.210 --> 01:55:55.039 veloped floodplain 01:55:55.039 --> 01:56:00.409 habitats and this is one of the major concern when the ESA 01:56:00.409 --> 01:56:02.000 map map was created 01:56:02.000 --> 01:56:07.100 back I would say in 2000 the designation the floodplain 01:56:07.100 --> 01:56:08.880 were designated and when 01:56:08.880 --> 01:56:12.699 we go back and see those especially in the western part of 01:56:12.699 --> 01:56:13.960 town you see a lot 01:56:13.960 --> 01:56:17.390 of switch between developed undeveloped and there's no 01:56:17.390 --> 01:56:19.000 inconsistency throughout 01:56:19.000 --> 01:56:24.460 and when you see that from an aerial standpoint the 01:56:24.460 --> 01:56:26.279 developed designation 01:56:26.279 --> 01:56:29.079 doesn't correspond to what is in the ground so we are 01:56:29.079 --> 01:56:30.680 proposing to maintain 01:56:30.680 --> 01:56:34.579 the designation what we are doing is changing the map are 01:56:34.579 --> 01:56:35.239 calling it 01:56:35.239 --> 01:56:39.800 everything floodplain ESA when the development is ready to 01:56:39.800 --> 01:56:40.800 happen we have a 01:56:40.800 --> 01:56:44.270 development proposal in our hands a staff will go out and 01:56:44.270 --> 01:56:44.840 make the 01:56:44.840 --> 01:56:48.060 determination of what is currently out there the applicant 01:56:48.060 --> 01:56:49.199 will always have the 01:56:49.199 --> 01:56:52.630 options to hire the own consultant to do it that is up to 01:56:52.630 --> 01:56:53.840 them however what we 01:56:53.840 --> 01:57:00.550 are trying to do is just to be consistent throughout the 01:57:00.550 --> 01:57:03.319 exception of 01:57:03.319 --> 01:57:06.750 roadways identified in the city thoroughfare plan from the 01:57:06.750 --> 01:57:07.319 limits of 01:57:07.319 --> 01:57:12.960 unfilled and vegetation disturbance something that comes to 01:57:12.960 --> 01:57:14.119 to your mind 01:57:14.119 --> 01:57:19.560 probably is the Ryan Meadows development where they were 01:57:19.560 --> 01:57:20.760 required to extend 01:57:20.760 --> 01:57:24.409 Creekdale through the floodplain on the southern part of 01:57:24.409 --> 01:57:25.560 the development 01:57:25.560 --> 01:57:31.430 unfortunately they we didn't have a provision to allow that 01:57:31.430 --> 01:57:32.119 to happen 01:57:32.119 --> 01:57:35.550 without them going through an alternative ESA plan this 01:57:35.550 --> 01:57:36.439 Commission 01:57:36.439 --> 01:57:41.000 have spoken and have shown interest in for that to be 01:57:41.000 --> 01:57:42.840 changed and we have 01:57:42.840 --> 01:57:47.399 incorporated what we have done is we have floodplain and 01:57:47.399 --> 01:57:48.119 repair and buffers 01:57:48.119 --> 01:57:51.159 most of the time the repair and buffer are nested inside 01:57:51.159 --> 01:57:52.760 the floodplain so we 01:57:52.760 --> 01:57:56.510 have make sure that is considered that that allowance is 01:57:56.510 --> 01:57:57.720 not only consistent 01:57:57.720 --> 01:58:00.890 through the floodplain but also within the repair and 01:58:00.890 --> 01:58:02.319 buffer and water related 01:58:02.319 --> 01:58:07.770 so that there should be a smooth pathway mitigation will be 01:58:07.770 --> 01:58:09.520 required they will 01:58:09.520 --> 01:58:12.100 have to restore that area that have been the vegetation 01:58:12.100 --> 01:58:13.039 have been removed and 01:58:13.039 --> 01:58:18.640 make sure that the slopes are consistent and they're not 01:58:18.640 --> 01:58:20.199 will not end up or 01:58:20.199 --> 01:58:22.779 resulting in erosion so but that mitigation will be 01:58:22.779 --> 01:58:23.680 approved at staff 01:58:23.680 --> 01:58:28.739 level so that will expedite it would make the process run 01:58:28.739 --> 01:58:30.079 smoothly and faster 01:58:30.079 --> 01:58:35.960 for the applicant the non-residential development to 01:58:35.960 --> 01:58:37.279 preserve 30% of 01:58:37.279 --> 01:58:40.710 cross timber upland habitat this is a change this is a 01:58:40.710 --> 01:58:42.560 major change in policy 01:58:42.560 --> 01:58:46.720 currently the DDC requires the preservation of 50% of the 01:58:46.720 --> 01:58:47.239 upland 01:58:47.239 --> 01:58:50.670 habitat for residential uses that includes multi-family 01:58:50.670 --> 01:58:51.680 single-family and 01:58:51.680 --> 01:58:57.720 do bless it however if you were to develop any non-resident 01:58:57.720 --> 01:58:58.840 ial use you don't 01:58:58.840 --> 01:59:03.399 have to preserve the upland habitat upland habitat 01:59:03.399 --> 01:59:04.199 preservation is a little 01:59:04.199 --> 01:59:08.479 bit different from tree code preservation mainly because 01:59:08.479 --> 01:59:09.119 what we're 01:59:09.119 --> 01:59:12.390 looking is the preservation of the of the habitat as a 01:59:12.390 --> 01:59:13.960 entire as a unit we are 01:59:13.960 --> 01:59:16.960 interested in in the trees but we're also interested in the 01:59:16.960 --> 01:59:17.840 understory and 01:59:17.840 --> 01:59:21.859 everything that goes with it why because for preserving 01:59:21.859 --> 01:59:23.079 that if you remove the 01:59:23.079 --> 01:59:27.640 understory from a habitat the chances are that the vi 01:59:27.640 --> 01:59:29.560 ability of the habitat to to 01:59:29.560 --> 01:59:34.359 last longer the benches so that's the reason why we while 01:59:34.359 --> 01:59:35.000 we are moving and 01:59:35.000 --> 01:59:38.079 again you have species that they don't climb up to the to 01:59:38.079 --> 01:59:39.039 the to the tree 01:59:39.039 --> 01:59:42.079 canopy they live on the bottom of that area so we are 01:59:42.079 --> 01:59:43.760 providing how the 01:59:43.760 --> 01:59:49.289 protection of the habitat as a whole and finally we are 01:59:49.289 --> 01:59:51.600 providing a criteria for 01:59:51.600 --> 01:59:55.130 approving an alternative ASAP and this is where I want to 01:59:55.130 --> 01:59:56.159 delve into more 01:59:56.159 --> 02:00:08.470 detail if you allow me back in when the DDC was first 02:00:08.470 --> 02:00:12.840 drafted the alternative ESA 02:00:12.840 --> 02:00:17.289 plan were envisioned to run parallel on the same process as 02:00:17.289 --> 02:00:18.079 an alternative 02:00:18.079 --> 02:00:21.939 development plan nowadays the development the alternative 02:00:21.939 --> 02:00:22.439 development 02:00:22.439 --> 02:00:26.050 plan comes to the planning and zoning Commission and gets 02:00:26.050 --> 02:00:27.159 the final approval 02:00:27.159 --> 02:00:30.979 before that and I will say approximately eight years ago AD 02:00:30.979 --> 02:00:32.000 Ps required the 02:00:32.000 --> 02:00:34.689 approval of a planning and zoning Commission and the 02:00:34.689 --> 02:00:35.600 approval of City 02:00:35.600 --> 02:00:39.460 Council very similar to a zoning change request that have 02:00:39.460 --> 02:00:42.439 changed and the city 02:00:42.439 --> 02:00:47.090 decide to keep to change the process for alternative ESA 02:00:47.090 --> 02:00:49.399 plan but to maintain 02:00:49.399 --> 02:00:53.960 the process for the alternative ESA plan meaning that 02:00:53.960 --> 02:00:55.439 alternative ESA plan have 02:00:55.439 --> 02:00:57.380 to go through the planning and zoning Commission get a 02:00:57.380 --> 02:00:58.319 recommendation and then 02:00:58.319 --> 02:01:00.899 move forward for final approval through the City Council 02:01:00.899 --> 02:01:02.560 however when you 02:01:02.560 --> 02:01:07.119 separated the two there was no criteria for alternative ESA 02:01:07.119 --> 02:01:08.920 plan so at this point 02:01:08.920 --> 02:01:12.350 even though a staff provide some guidance to applicant and 02:01:12.350 --> 02:01:13.039 to this body 02:01:13.039 --> 02:01:17.640 and City Council on the merits of the alternative ESA plan 02:01:17.640 --> 02:01:18.520 we want to 02:01:18.520 --> 02:01:22.180 officialize to formalize that process in that way you have 02:01:22.180 --> 02:01:23.479 a clear guidance to 02:01:23.479 --> 02:01:31.840 judge a proposal by so this is a complete new new change so 02:01:31.840 --> 02:01:34.000 this is the 02:01:34.000 --> 02:01:37.489 approval process the alternative ESA plan provides an 02:01:37.489 --> 02:01:39.100 option to address the 02:01:39.100 --> 02:01:41.680 regulations were in a flexible discretionary process 02:01:41.680 --> 02:01:42.359 utilizing the 02:01:42.359 --> 02:01:47.279 zoning amendment procedure outlines of chapter 3.4 that 02:01:47.279 --> 02:01:48.239 language have no 02:01:48.239 --> 02:01:51.449 change is the same that we currently have what is different 02:01:51.449 --> 02:01:52.239 is the criteria 02:01:52.239 --> 02:01:57.239 for approval you have heard me multiple times when I come 02:01:57.239 --> 02:01:58.359 and present before you 02:01:58.359 --> 02:02:04.239 about how staff the preferences for staff on mitigation I 02:02:04.239 --> 02:02:05.279 have always tell 02:02:05.279 --> 02:02:09.010 you that you work with what you have if you have a repair 02:02:09.010 --> 02:02:10.279 and buffer that you 02:02:10.279 --> 02:02:13.520 going to partially encroach on but you have more of that 02:02:13.520 --> 02:02:14.960 habitat go and take a 02:02:14.960 --> 02:02:18.779 look and see if you can make that habitat better it might 02:02:18.779 --> 02:02:20.039 be chances are 02:02:20.039 --> 02:02:23.000 that they will be so invasive species that could be removed 02:02:23.000 --> 02:02:24.479 that you can plant 02:02:24.479 --> 02:02:28.119 more native on it maybe that channel is already eroding if 02:02:28.119 --> 02:02:29.119 you stabilize the 02:02:29.119 --> 02:02:33.020 channel you are you are improving the chat the the habitat 02:02:33.020 --> 02:02:34.520 as a whole so my 02:02:34.520 --> 02:02:39.170 own what my first approach is work what you have and that's 02:02:39.170 --> 02:02:40.560 number two 02:02:40.560 --> 02:02:43.319 mitigation goals are obtained by preserving environmental 02:02:43.319 --> 02:02:44.119 sensitive area 02:02:44.119 --> 02:02:47.689 above the minimum requirement exchanges between different 02:02:47.689 --> 02:02:49.479 type of ESO installing 02:02:49.479 --> 02:02:53.130 pollution prevention controls and implementing best 02:02:53.130 --> 02:02:54.399 management practices 02:02:54.399 --> 02:02:57.510 or any other approaches that result in the improvement of 02:02:57.510 --> 02:02:58.720 the environment being 02:02:58.720 --> 02:03:02.819 impacted so before this I don't know if you remember Magn 02:03:02.819 --> 02:03:03.680 olia an apartment 02:03:03.680 --> 02:03:08.239 complex on Nottingham and mingle they exchange they 02:03:08.239 --> 02:03:09.500 impacted a repair and 02:03:09.500 --> 02:03:13.489 buffer in exchange they mitigated with preserving more open 02:03:13.489 --> 02:03:14.640 habitat that one 02:03:14.640 --> 02:03:18.829 they needed even though we are not talking apples to apples 02:03:18.829 --> 02:03:20.399 we try to what 02:03:20.399 --> 02:03:23.390 I call to find a common currency between the two type of 02:03:23.390 --> 02:03:24.840 habitat in that case we 02:03:24.840 --> 02:03:27.710 use the amount of trees preserve how many trees were 02:03:27.710 --> 02:03:30.239 removed by encroaching 02:03:30.239 --> 02:03:32.909 into the repair and buffer how much additional trees you 02:03:32.909 --> 02:03:34.039 are preserving so 02:03:34.039 --> 02:03:37.939 as long as we have some nexus between the two I think that 02:03:37.939 --> 02:03:38.600 that's a viable 02:03:38.600 --> 02:03:44.189 option sometimes you don't have that the only ESA that you 02:03:44.189 --> 02:03:45.199 have on site is the 02:03:45.199 --> 02:03:51.050 one that you are encroaching so in those instances because 02:03:51.050 --> 02:03:52.479 all those eases they 02:03:52.479 --> 02:03:58.640 provide a pollution control mechanism sometimes those 02:03:58.640 --> 02:04:01.479 pollution benefits could 02:04:01.479 --> 02:04:06.779 be obtained by the implementation of best management 02:04:06.779 --> 02:04:07.840 practices or some water 02:04:07.840 --> 02:04:12.560 controls so those are the we wanted to provide as much 02:04:12.560 --> 02:04:14.880 possibility as we could 02:04:14.880 --> 02:04:21.109 for applicants to provide mitigation and the last areas 02:04:21.109 --> 02:04:22.840 offer as a mitigation are 02:04:22.840 --> 02:04:26.810 linked to existing or plan open space of conserved area to 02:04:26.810 --> 02:04:28.239 provide an overall 02:04:28.239 --> 02:04:32.800 open space that language is already in the code it is under 02:04:32.800 --> 02:04:35.840 section 17.10 so 02:04:35.840 --> 02:04:39.390 what we have done many any many of that language that was 02:04:39.390 --> 02:04:40.680 in that section have 02:04:40.680 --> 02:04:45.880 been moved into this new section and made a criteria for 02:04:45.880 --> 02:04:46.560 approving an 02:04:46.560 --> 02:04:49.979 alternative ESA plan so that language is it we're just 02:04:49.979 --> 02:04:51.479 changing the position 02:04:51.479 --> 02:04:56.270 where it is in the code development is arranged for maxim 02:04:56.270 --> 02:04:57.560 izing access and 02:04:57.560 --> 02:05:01.470 utilization of the environments sensitive area by citizen 02:05:01.470 --> 02:05:03.239 that code that 02:05:03.239 --> 02:05:06.680 language is already in our code areas offers a mitigation 02:05:06.680 --> 02:05:07.800 or place either on a 02:05:07.800 --> 02:05:10.880 lot lots that incorporate permanent conservation in that 02:05:10.880 --> 02:05:12.600 language is already 02:05:12.600 --> 02:05:15.760 in the code we're just using it as a criteria for approval 02:05:15.760 --> 02:05:16.680 and the 02:05:16.680 --> 02:05:21.239 alternative ESA plan shall demonstrate that the developers 02:05:21.239 --> 02:05:21.920 alternative proposal 02:05:21.920 --> 02:05:25.470 results in a high quality development meeting the intent of 02:05:25.470 --> 02:05:26.520 the standard of 02:05:26.520 --> 02:05:29.960 the development code that is the only language that you 02:05:29.960 --> 02:05:31.439 currently have for the 02:05:31.439 --> 02:05:35.409 approval of alternative ESA plan so as you say it was a 02:05:35.409 --> 02:05:37.720 combination of options 02:05:37.720 --> 02:05:43.159 that we are wanting to provide the developers when they're 02:05:43.159 --> 02:05:44.560 contemplating 02:05:44.560 --> 02:05:49.119 applying for a alternative ESA plus you just using current 02:05:49.119 --> 02:05:50.199 language that is 02:05:50.199 --> 02:05:54.020 already in the code I just use it as a criteria so with 02:05:54.020 --> 02:05:57.279 that said we are in the 02:05:57.279 --> 02:06:03.439 process of making of actually creating the a criteria 02:06:03.439 --> 02:06:04.960 mental for ESA is not 02:06:04.960 --> 02:06:10.000 finished yet many of the comments that we have received 02:06:10.000 --> 02:06:11.319 from the development 02:06:11.319 --> 02:06:16.920 community could go into that or could guide the cut that to 02:06:16.920 --> 02:06:17.880 to finalize the 02:06:17.880 --> 02:06:26.239 content of the criteria manual so at this point the staff 02:06:26.239 --> 02:06:27.000 you have received 02:06:27.000 --> 02:06:31.560 copy of the compilation of the of the public input received 02:06:31.560 --> 02:06:32.800 I'm very happy 02:06:32.800 --> 02:06:38.220 with the with the active participation of the public there 02:06:38.220 --> 02:06:40.880 's good good comments 02:06:40.880 --> 02:06:44.000 that I would like to incorporate some of them could go 02:06:44.000 --> 02:06:45.960 straight to the criteria 02:06:45.960 --> 02:06:51.090 manual one comment that struck me and I wish I would have 02:06:51.090 --> 02:06:52.399 thought about it when 02:06:52.399 --> 02:06:55.319 when I was drafting the comment was to actually the 02:06:55.319 --> 02:06:56.800 definition of a water 02:06:56.800 --> 02:07:01.359 related habitat I think that the water related habitat 02:07:01.359 --> 02:07:02.640 definition is not clear 02:07:02.640 --> 02:07:08.319 enough and this new definition I think will help the the 02:07:08.319 --> 02:07:09.119 applicants and 02:07:09.119 --> 02:07:14.649 professionals when assessing those if you were interested 02:07:14.649 --> 02:07:17.119 that would be if you 02:07:17.119 --> 02:07:29.920 bear with me common number 28 on the list so it's pretty 02:07:29.920 --> 02:07:32.159 much saying that we 02:07:32.159 --> 02:07:37.479 need to include clearly stated that bottomland hardwoods 02:07:37.479 --> 02:07:40.840 should be are 02:07:40.840 --> 02:07:44.300 considered water related and I think that that addition it 02:07:44.300 --> 02:07:45.520 really clarifies 02:07:45.520 --> 02:07:50.079 for everybody this is not something new we are not 02:07:50.079 --> 02:07:52.199 expanding this is currently 02:07:52.199 --> 02:07:56.760 when somebody does a is a field assessment or when staff 02:07:56.760 --> 02:07:57.600 perform those 02:07:57.600 --> 02:08:00.720 assessment bottomlands that meet that criteria would also 02:08:00.720 --> 02:08:01.600 be considered so 02:08:01.600 --> 02:08:06.170 this is just putting it right in something that we are 02:08:06.170 --> 02:08:07.680 currently doing 02:08:09.159 --> 02:08:13.800 with that that concludes my presentation I'm available to 02:08:13.800 --> 02:08:15.560 answer any questions 02:08:15.560 --> 02:08:18.680 that you might have Commissioner bed thank you chair 02:08:18.680 --> 02:08:20.199 Deborah can you go back 02:08:20.199 --> 02:08:25.500 one slide with the writing in red just once like now okay 02:08:25.500 --> 02:08:26.600 number five it says 02:08:26.600 --> 02:08:30.100 there is offered as a mitigation or placed either in a lot 02:08:30.100 --> 02:08:30.800 or lots that 02:08:30.800 --> 02:08:34.250 incorporate a permanent conservation easement restricted co 02:08:34.250 --> 02:08:35.319 venants so on so 02:08:35.319 --> 02:08:41.699 is this suggesting that if we can't preserve enough trees 02:08:41.699 --> 02:08:42.880 in the developed 02:08:42.880 --> 02:08:47.800 area that we can find another parcel of land either nearby 02:08:47.800 --> 02:08:48.920 or maybe in some other 02:08:48.920 --> 02:08:54.119 parts of the city so we can conserve a certain percentage 02:08:54.119 --> 02:08:56.319 of tree canopy and 02:08:56.319 --> 02:09:01.840 upland habitat is that what that's suggesting that leave 02:09:01.840 --> 02:09:03.359 the door open for 02:09:03.359 --> 02:09:08.039 that option to happen I have been doing development review 02:09:08.039 --> 02:09:09.439 for 18 years and 02:09:09.439 --> 02:09:14.000 doing is as for over 10 and we have had a couple of 02:09:14.000 --> 02:09:16.079 instances where developer 02:09:16.079 --> 02:09:21.279 have tried that this the size of the preservation area 02:09:21.279 --> 02:09:22.680 matters especially 02:09:22.680 --> 02:09:25.319 because you wanted to put some sort of in some sort of 02:09:25.319 --> 02:09:26.880 conservation easement so 02:09:26.880 --> 02:09:30.960 if you are talking about less than one acre chances are 02:09:30.960 --> 02:09:31.880 that you will find 02:09:31.880 --> 02:09:35.510 somebody who might be interested in do a conservation area 02:09:35.510 --> 02:09:36.760 for one acre will be 02:09:36.760 --> 02:09:42.920 hard so what I'm saying is given that the right conditions 02:09:42.920 --> 02:09:44.720 given the right 02:09:44.720 --> 02:09:49.689 layers it is a possibility have not been done however I 02:09:49.689 --> 02:09:52.920 will not try to exclude 02:09:52.920 --> 02:09:56.579 that option because have not happened yet but that 02:09:56.579 --> 02:09:58.800 provision leave the door 02:09:58.800 --> 02:10:02.619 open for that to happen and that would probably suggest 02:10:02.619 --> 02:10:03.520 that the city get 02:10:03.520 --> 02:10:09.380 involved financially to cover that causes that probably 02:10:09.380 --> 02:10:10.640 true to or are 02:10:10.640 --> 02:10:13.220 there other ways in other words if we're gonna you know 02:10:13.220 --> 02:10:14.760 well no I take that back 02:10:14.760 --> 02:10:18.579 the developer would come in to play their own part of that 02:10:18.579 --> 02:10:19.720 but we'd have to 02:10:19.720 --> 02:10:24.670 set some kind of areas aside that within the city that I 02:10:24.670 --> 02:10:26.279 guess this Commission 02:10:26.279 --> 02:10:31.310 City Council could agree on well if you're referring as a 02:10:31.310 --> 02:10:32.359 creating a 02:10:32.359 --> 02:10:38.000 mitigation bank where developers can go and purchase that 02:10:38.000 --> 02:10:40.079 right now if we use 02:10:40.079 --> 02:10:43.560 the example that the Court of Engineer uses for wetland 02:10:43.560 --> 02:10:45.319 mitigation those are 02:10:45.319 --> 02:10:49.880 actually probably owned by entities okay and they have 02:10:49.880 --> 02:10:51.399 aside those areas that 02:10:51.399 --> 02:10:55.319 provide the half wetlands and things like that and then the 02:10:55.319 --> 02:10:56.439 developer goes 02:10:56.439 --> 02:11:00.489 like they will go to any other bank and say I'm interesting 02:11:00.489 --> 02:11:01.920 on purchasing from 02:11:01.920 --> 02:11:05.649 you X number of credit the number of credits are determined 02:11:05.649 --> 02:11:06.479 by the Court of 02:11:06.479 --> 02:11:13.060 Engineers based on the proposed meeting impact so and have 02:11:13.060 --> 02:11:15.399 worked so far is a 02:11:15.399 --> 02:11:19.960 private driven market to be honest with you where they 02:11:19.960 --> 02:11:21.800 establish the the price 02:11:21.800 --> 02:11:26.859 for those units and so far so at this point I don't know if 02:11:26.859 --> 02:11:27.840 the city will 02:11:27.840 --> 02:11:33.130 entertain the idea to actually create a bank like that but 02:11:33.130 --> 02:11:34.840 I would say I will 02:11:34.840 --> 02:11:38.470 not say that it's not possible but the that option if 02:11:38.470 --> 02:11:40.199 somebody happens to have 02:11:40.199 --> 02:11:45.600 to see that as a more credible idea somebody can pursue it 02:11:45.600 --> 02:11:46.760 they could be a 02:11:46.760 --> 02:11:51.319 part of future discussion definitely okay okay thank you 02:11:51.319 --> 02:11:52.199 Commissioner Rizzo 02:11:52.199 --> 02:11:54.779 thank you chair thank you Deborah for the presentation I 02:11:54.779 --> 02:11:56.720 need to hopefully get 02:11:56.720 --> 02:11:58.750 some clarification before I ask a question can you go back 02:11:58.750 --> 02:11:59.199 to your very 02:11:59.199 --> 02:12:03.039 first slide where it talked about the reasons or the 02:12:03.039 --> 02:12:06.560 motives for this 02:12:08.720 --> 02:12:20.039 no no no one more it talked about MS4 okay so these four 02:12:20.039 --> 02:12:21.319 items listed here are 02:12:21.319 --> 02:12:26.960 all economic benefits to the city I'm wondering is the sole 02:12:26.960 --> 02:12:29.119 intent and motive 02:12:29.119 --> 02:12:33.699 behind this manual to protect the economics of the city or 02:12:33.699 --> 02:12:35.039 to protect the 02:12:35.039 --> 02:12:39.090 actual habitats found in S to the B because as you 02:12:39.090 --> 02:12:42.000 mentioned the four items that are 02:12:42.000 --> 02:12:45.079 adding value to the city you're not mentioning tree canopy 02:12:45.079 --> 02:12:46.359 critters birds 02:12:46.359 --> 02:12:49.460 any of that listed here it's all economic value so I'm 02:12:49.460 --> 02:12:50.520 wondering if you 02:12:50.520 --> 02:12:54.569 can clarify the city's motive in all of this and I 02:12:54.569 --> 02:12:57.159 apologize that one of the 02:12:57.159 --> 02:13:01.210 slides that I that I skipped was actually the six basic 02:13:01.210 --> 02:13:02.199 functions of 02:13:02.199 --> 02:13:06.000 environmental sensitive area first is to provide habitat 02:13:06.000 --> 02:13:07.720 and most of the time is 02:13:07.720 --> 02:13:13.020 is their methods to quantify that in a monotonous way to 02:13:13.020 --> 02:13:14.760 provide some because 02:13:14.760 --> 02:13:17.979 most of the time what they they do is how much it will take 02:13:17.979 --> 02:13:18.880 for us to mimic 02:13:18.880 --> 02:13:23.439 that habitat and we can make those those numbers but 02:13:23.439 --> 02:13:24.640 sometimes it is hard to 02:13:24.640 --> 02:13:29.479 quantify that so by preserving is as we are preserving 02:13:29.479 --> 02:13:30.399 habitat which is a 02:13:30.399 --> 02:13:35.279 benefit not only for the wildlife but for for for for us 02:13:35.279 --> 02:13:37.239 surface as a conduit 02:13:37.239 --> 02:13:41.689 all those these are allows that the the wildlife the plants 02:13:41.689 --> 02:13:43.119 the material to move 02:13:43.119 --> 02:13:47.760 from point A to point B it works as a barrier for example 02:13:47.760 --> 02:13:48.479 sedimentation 02:13:48.479 --> 02:13:52.189 pollutants it stops that even hydrocarbons when we have a 02:13:52.189 --> 02:13:52.880 spill and 02:13:52.880 --> 02:13:56.439 that hydrocarbons is allowed to go through some sort of 02:13:56.439 --> 02:13:57.840 grassy area all of 02:13:57.840 --> 02:14:02.720 that hydrocarbons are captured by the by the vegetation 02:14:02.720 --> 02:14:04.279 filter pollutants 02:14:04.279 --> 02:14:09.640 sediments is a pollutant source of resources and provide 02:14:09.640 --> 02:14:10.760 supply like 02:14:10.760 --> 02:14:15.319 organic matter nutrients and aquifer recharge all the 02:14:15.319 --> 02:14:16.359 vegetation that you see 02:14:16.359 --> 02:14:20.920 a lone Creek all the foliage that falls into the water 02:14:20.920 --> 02:14:23.520 those are actually the 02:14:23.520 --> 02:14:27.340 food that the creature downstream are going to use to feed 02:14:27.340 --> 02:14:28.359 from and those 02:14:28.359 --> 02:14:33.409 creatures are the food of fish and then you can see how how 02:14:33.409 --> 02:14:35.079 the chain progresses 02:14:35.079 --> 02:14:41.899 all the way to to us and it's a source of resources we have 02:14:41.899 --> 02:14:44.520 our one of the one 02:14:44.520 --> 02:14:48.260 of our sort of portable water is Lake Lewisville so the 02:14:48.260 --> 02:14:50.460 cleaner we we keep the 02:14:50.460 --> 02:14:54.029 water going to discharge into the lake the less treatment 02:14:54.029 --> 02:14:55.640 that we are having to 02:14:55.640 --> 02:14:59.899 provide to make that water portable and sink and sequest 02:14:59.899 --> 02:15:01.399 ration of pollutant 02:15:01.399 --> 02:15:05.579 carbon would be one of those that have been linked to the 02:15:05.579 --> 02:15:07.720 climate change so 02:15:07.720 --> 02:15:12.840 those are the more environmental functions that we get out 02:15:12.840 --> 02:15:13.319 of it 02:15:13.319 --> 02:15:19.810 interesting enough is approximately over 50% of the tree 02:15:19.810 --> 02:15:22.000 canopy in the in the 02:15:22.000 --> 02:15:31.109 city is within some sort of ESA so just by 50% of the tree 02:15:31.109 --> 02:15:32.800 canopy is within some 02:15:32.800 --> 02:15:37.800 sort of ESA so just by preserving the ESA we also 02:15:37.800 --> 02:15:40.279 maintaining our tree canopy 02:15:40.279 --> 02:15:43.710 for the city which is something that the community have 02:15:43.710 --> 02:15:45.239 rated highly important 02:15:45.239 --> 02:15:49.689 for them so those are the the the environmentally more 02:15:49.689 --> 02:15:50.760 driven reasons to 02:15:50.760 --> 02:15:55.319 why to maintain but there are more pragmatic uses to also 02:15:55.319 --> 02:15:56.359 preserve ESAs and 02:15:56.359 --> 02:16:01.159 those are for compliance with permitting improving our 02:16:01.159 --> 02:16:02.840 score in the floodplain 02:16:02.840 --> 02:16:07.659 management so forth so a little bit of more less 02:16:07.659 --> 02:16:10.159 quantitative and the other 02:16:10.159 --> 02:16:13.710 sides more quantitative so thank you very much I really 02:16:13.710 --> 02:16:14.840 appreciate that and 02:16:14.840 --> 02:16:18.270 and based on on those six things just to bring back what I 02:16:18.270 --> 02:16:19.520 talked about in work 02:16:19.520 --> 02:16:22.680 session it seems like we would want to protect these six 02:16:22.680 --> 02:16:23.800 things regardless of 02:16:23.800 --> 02:16:28.920 the use going into the property in the new rules it's 50% 02:16:28.920 --> 02:16:29.720 for residential and 02:16:29.720 --> 02:16:33.200 30% for non-residential and talking to staff I understand 02:16:33.200 --> 02:16:34.399 that non-residential 02:16:34.399 --> 02:16:37.290 does have landscape requirements and barriers that they do 02:16:37.290 --> 02:16:37.959 add but those 02:16:37.959 --> 02:16:42.520 aren't creating SS those are function of some beaut 02:16:42.520 --> 02:16:44.760 ification of the property and 02:16:44.760 --> 02:16:47.520 I would say residential property owners want to put trees 02:16:47.520 --> 02:16:48.559 in their front yards 02:16:48.559 --> 02:16:50.500 and they have landscaping around there in front of the 02:16:50.500 --> 02:16:51.239 house and in their 02:16:51.239 --> 02:16:56.930 backyard and so I I think those should be equal I think 02:16:56.930 --> 02:16:59.280 especially if one of 02:16:59.280 --> 02:17:02.450 the reasons why their residential use is 50% is because 02:17:02.450 --> 02:17:03.719 developers can charge 02:17:03.719 --> 02:17:06.520 more for treating property I think that is not an 02:17:06.520 --> 02:17:08.879 appropriate reason to have an 02:17:08.879 --> 02:17:13.329 increased amount of upland habitat specifically on the 02:17:13.329 --> 02:17:14.159 property just 02:17:14.159 --> 02:17:17.809 because we assume that developers gonna make more money off 02:17:17.809 --> 02:17:20.159 of it and so I don't 02:17:20.159 --> 02:17:24.209 want to belabor the point but I do feel that I have yet to 02:17:24.209 --> 02:17:26.159 be convinced why the 02:17:26.159 --> 02:17:31.809 city is proposing two different percentages based on use 02:17:31.809 --> 02:17:33.040 when I think if 02:17:33.040 --> 02:17:35.620 we are about protecting upland habitat then it shouldn't 02:17:35.620 --> 02:17:36.840 matter who's destroying 02:17:36.840 --> 02:17:42.350 it we want to protect it so I think either non-residential 02:17:42.350 --> 02:17:42.959 you should go to 02:17:42.959 --> 02:17:46.409 50% or seemingly because of the other points brought up in 02:17:46.409 --> 02:17:47.440 work session about 02:17:47.440 --> 02:17:50.430 the issues with residential property owners not having 02:17:50.430 --> 02:17:51.319 access to their 02:17:51.319 --> 02:17:54.440 property I'd be more of opponent proponent of dropping the 02:17:54.440 --> 02:17:55.360 residential 02:17:55.360 --> 02:18:00.659 use down to 30% but I just think it and maybe I'm missing 02:18:00.659 --> 02:18:01.360 something you can help 02:18:01.360 --> 02:18:07.030 me understand I don't understand why non-residential are 02:18:07.030 --> 02:18:07.959 allowed to tear down 02:18:07.959 --> 02:18:12.409 more upland habitat and not keep it contiguous and that 02:18:12.409 --> 02:18:13.879 they can just keep 02:18:13.879 --> 02:18:16.579 the tree canopy in line with the potential tree code 02:18:16.579 --> 02:18:18.159 provisions okay well 02:18:18.159 --> 02:18:22.440 we are starting from right now that we preserving zero on 02:18:22.440 --> 02:18:23.479 non-residential 02:18:23.479 --> 02:18:27.420 development for upland habitat to a 30% which is is an 02:18:27.420 --> 02:18:29.840 improvement okay 02:18:29.840 --> 02:18:33.739 non-residential development they have parking areas loading 02:18:33.739 --> 02:18:35.200 docks maneuvering 02:18:35.200 --> 02:18:40.040 geometry that they have to maintain to make their site plan 02:18:40.040 --> 02:18:42.319 workable okay they 02:18:42.319 --> 02:18:46.500 also are some of them they will come to the city with a 02:18:46.500 --> 02:18:48.520 preconceived site plan 02:18:48.520 --> 02:18:51.950 which it worked for them in other locations and would like 02:18:51.950 --> 02:18:53.040 to implement the 02:18:53.040 --> 02:19:00.530 same here so I see why that the 30% to the to the non- 02:19:00.530 --> 02:19:02.399 residential is given 02:19:02.399 --> 02:19:08.280 that the other side was when I was reviewing this the tree 02:19:08.280 --> 02:19:09.120 code was also 02:19:09.120 --> 02:19:16.399 being redrafted okay and the 30% was something that is 02:19:16.399 --> 02:19:18.319 where the language 02:19:18.319 --> 02:19:26.799 which I believe still there it was trying to attain so in 02:19:26.799 --> 02:19:28.479 we want to make 02:19:28.479 --> 02:19:35.379 development in that and feasible okay so we try to by 02:19:35.379 --> 02:19:37.479 maintaining that 30% 02:19:37.479 --> 02:19:41.930 consistency if they were to have to preserve 30% for tree 02:19:41.930 --> 02:19:43.159 canopy they can use 02:19:43.159 --> 02:19:48.219 the open habitat to meet that code as well so it was a way 02:19:48.219 --> 02:19:50.040 to improve of what 02:19:50.040 --> 02:19:55.159 we currently have from 0 to 30 and also to provide some 02:19:55.159 --> 02:19:57.040 place flexibility to 02:19:57.040 --> 02:20:04.059 non-residential developer and to actually trying to pass 02:20:04.059 --> 02:20:05.600 the benefit of 02:20:05.600 --> 02:20:09.399 preserving our plan and make them count towards other 02:20:09.399 --> 02:20:10.799 requirements so that was 02:20:10.799 --> 02:20:15.520 the intent behind that however if this Commissioner would 02:20:15.520 --> 02:20:16.600 like to change that 02:20:16.600 --> 02:20:19.469 percentage and make and make that part of your 02:20:19.469 --> 02:20:21.680 recommendation a staff would 02:20:21.680 --> 02:20:27.129 pass that recommendation to City Council as well so just if 02:20:27.129 --> 02:20:28.799 there's something in 02:20:28.799 --> 02:20:32.229 the code right now that you are not hundred percent if the 02:20:32.229 --> 02:20:32.760 Commission as a 02:20:32.760 --> 02:20:36.440 whole is not hundred percent what it either want to 02:20:36.440 --> 02:20:38.319 increase or actually want 02:20:38.319 --> 02:20:43.500 to make the requirements lesser let us know and make that 02:20:43.500 --> 02:20:44.399 part of your 02:20:44.399 --> 02:20:49.479 recommendation and we will pass that so I don't want to 02:20:49.479 --> 02:20:51.639 because we have not you 02:20:51.639 --> 02:20:54.799 are not agreeing with every single word of that is just 02:20:54.799 --> 02:20:56.760 prevent you to actually 02:20:56.760 --> 02:21:00.079 move forward with it with the proposed changes that some of 02:21:00.079 --> 02:21:01.040 them are really 02:21:01.040 --> 02:21:06.989 needed I appreciate the context thank you Commissioner 02:21:06.989 --> 02:21:10.399 Sullivan yes has I 02:21:10.399 --> 02:21:14.049 haven't heard anything so I'm just curious you know to 02:21:14.049 --> 02:21:15.399 state and national 02:21:15.399 --> 02:21:20.110 level there is a process whereby you can turn land over to 02:21:20.110 --> 02:21:21.879 the state into the 02:21:21.879 --> 02:21:26.120 national federal government in return you get tax benefits 02:21:26.120 --> 02:21:27.040 and so forth 02:21:27.040 --> 02:21:31.760 conservation easements and is there any provision whereby 02:21:31.760 --> 02:21:33.479 the changes to the 02:21:33.479 --> 02:21:39.840 code renders either all or a portion of somebody's property 02:21:39.840 --> 02:21:42.159 unusable in other 02:21:42.159 --> 02:21:44.959 words they can't make any changes it's a certain 02:21:44.959 --> 02:21:49.559 designation ESA whatever and it 02:21:49.559 --> 02:21:54.860 basically renders it unusable is there any thought to 02:21:54.860 --> 02:21:57.200 saying you know what you 02:21:57.200 --> 02:21:59.780 deed this over to the city because the city is telling you 02:21:59.780 --> 02:22:00.520 you can't do anything 02:22:00.520 --> 02:22:03.959 within this area you deed it over to the city the city 02:22:03.959 --> 02:22:05.440 takes it over in an 02:22:05.440 --> 02:22:10.000 exchange whether for cash or for tax benefit making a 02:22:10.000 --> 02:22:11.120 charitable contribution 02:22:11.120 --> 02:22:15.569 to the city or something of that effect whereby the land 02:22:15.569 --> 02:22:17.360 owner gets some benefit 02:22:17.360 --> 02:22:22.659 by the city effectively taking that land from them well the 02:22:22.659 --> 02:22:23.760 conservation easement 02:22:23.760 --> 02:22:26.129 most of the time they are not driven by the city they are 02:22:26.129 --> 02:22:27.319 actually institution 02:22:27.319 --> 02:22:31.700 that manage them and how they work this let's say that you 02:22:31.700 --> 02:22:33.479 have hundred acres of 02:22:33.479 --> 02:22:37.340 development you can actually restrict the development 02:22:37.340 --> 02:22:39.319 rights on your property 02:22:39.319 --> 02:22:44.680 let's say that is a farm right now with potential to be rez 02:22:44.680 --> 02:22:46.260 oned into single 02:22:46.260 --> 02:22:51.700 family and being a subdivision you can actually put a 02:22:51.700 --> 02:22:52.879 conservation easement 02:22:52.879 --> 02:22:58.799 where you say this area will not be developed more than 02:22:58.799 --> 02:23:01.159 this amount of units 02:23:01.159 --> 02:23:06.149 okay even though I'm capping that and then you're trading 02:23:06.149 --> 02:23:07.559 your development 02:23:07.559 --> 02:23:14.340 rights and by doing that you can get some tax reduction 02:23:14.340 --> 02:23:16.559 because you are your 02:23:16.559 --> 02:23:21.190 the property the value of the property no longer allows for 02:23:21.190 --> 02:23:22.840 maximizing hundred 02:23:22.840 --> 02:23:27.510 units per acre now is limited to 30 so the value of your 02:23:27.510 --> 02:23:29.120 property changes 02:23:29.120 --> 02:23:32.920 according to it and you get the benefits through some sort 02:23:32.920 --> 02:23:33.840 of tax but those 02:23:33.840 --> 02:23:37.739 conservations easements are not provided by the city they 02:23:37.739 --> 02:23:39.239 're usually run by 02:23:39.239 --> 02:23:44.280 institution we have some in the state of Texas we have some 02:23:44.280 --> 02:23:46.399 landowners most of 02:23:46.399 --> 02:23:50.399 time big ranches that actually pursue that but it's not 02:23:50.399 --> 02:23:51.399 through city 02:23:51.399 --> 02:23:54.239 government through conservation easement and those 02:23:54.239 --> 02:23:56.159 organizations who manage them 02:23:56.159 --> 02:24:00.149 but the effect of the property owner is the same and that 02:24:00.149 --> 02:24:01.360 is that they are 02:24:01.360 --> 02:24:05.379 giving up a portion of their land not necessarily because 02:24:05.379 --> 02:24:06.959 they want to but 02:24:06.959 --> 02:24:10.389 because of these changes being made to the code require 02:24:10.389 --> 02:24:12.799 them to give up some of 02:24:12.799 --> 02:24:17.920 the land so in effect the city really is taking that land 02:24:17.920 --> 02:24:19.159 and now you have all 02:24:19.159 --> 02:24:24.110 kinds of issues going on and so you know I think there's 02:24:24.110 --> 02:24:26.079 needs to be some talk as 02:24:26.079 --> 02:24:28.969 Commissioner Roselle is talking it seems like it's sort of 02:24:28.969 --> 02:24:30.000 all faith in the favor 02:24:30.000 --> 02:24:32.920 of the city well I think the city needs to give some of 02:24:32.920 --> 02:24:34.079 that back to the homeowner 02:24:34.079 --> 02:24:38.799 to the landowner so that if they're willing to abide by 02:24:38.799 --> 02:24:40.520 these rules then 02:24:40.520 --> 02:24:44.159 deed it to the city let the city take it over and get some 02:24:44.159 --> 02:24:45.920 tax benefit for the 02:24:45.920 --> 02:24:52.350 landowner for example the flood plain is the is that number 02:24:52.350 --> 02:24:53.719 one type of visa that 02:24:53.719 --> 02:24:56.819 is larger in acreage you know because it's a floodplain if 02:24:56.819 --> 02:24:58.000 you were to 02:24:58.000 --> 02:25:00.579 developed if you were to develop property who has a flood 02:25:00.579 --> 02:25:02.879 penny a floodplain FEMA 02:25:02.879 --> 02:25:07.440 hundred-year floodplain most of that area the city would 02:25:07.440 --> 02:25:09.600 not allow you to do to 02:25:09.600 --> 02:25:13.799 put any structures to it why because when you do that you 02:25:13.799 --> 02:25:14.319 are actually 02:25:14.319 --> 02:25:18.000 reducing the the value storage you are increasing the water 02:25:18.000 --> 02:25:18.959 surface elevation 02:25:18.959 --> 02:25:21.659 and you are making condition the flooding conditions 02:25:21.659 --> 02:25:22.600 downstream of you 02:25:22.600 --> 02:25:27.299 worst okay so in those instances the city is required you 02:25:27.299 --> 02:25:28.760 to put a drainage 02:25:28.760 --> 02:25:33.399 easement on it what it means is you own the land is yours 02:25:33.399 --> 02:25:34.559 what you are doing is 02:25:34.559 --> 02:25:38.090 restricting they use the development of that of that 02:25:38.090 --> 02:25:39.840 section of your property 02:25:39.840 --> 02:25:44.649 because it is within a essay we have three type of ESA that 02:25:44.649 --> 02:25:45.639 most of the time 02:25:45.639 --> 02:25:49.299 are nested in floodplaining essay so when you put a 02:25:49.299 --> 02:25:51.200 drainage easement on your 02:25:51.200 --> 02:25:55.899 property just to meet the floodplain requirements nothing 02:25:55.899 --> 02:25:57.239 else just to you 02:25:57.239 --> 02:26:02.639 are preserving for the most time those three both of ESA so 02:26:02.639 --> 02:26:04.520 in those and that's 02:26:04.520 --> 02:26:09.610 why some of our definitions are crafted very carefully to 02:26:09.610 --> 02:26:11.479 make sure that when 02:26:11.479 --> 02:26:15.299 development happens if they're already having to provide a 02:26:15.299 --> 02:26:16.360 drainage easement 02:26:16.360 --> 02:26:19.459 because floodplain conditions then you already meeting the 02:26:19.459 --> 02:26:20.680 ESA floodplain so 02:26:20.680 --> 02:26:25.469 use us in the way that have been it doesn't work in every 02:26:25.469 --> 02:26:26.040 in every instance 02:26:26.040 --> 02:26:29.000 hundred percent but most of the time we have crafted the 02:26:29.000 --> 02:26:31.120 language to allow the 02:26:31.120 --> 02:26:36.969 developers and homeowners to actually meet multiple 02:26:36.969 --> 02:26:39.520 requirements drainage 02:26:40.120 --> 02:26:45.680 landscape opens minimum open space and so on by preserving 02:26:45.680 --> 02:26:49.079 the essay so we are 02:26:49.079 --> 02:26:53.639 look we are open to to other options but the condition that 02:26:53.639 --> 02:26:54.920 the code have been 02:26:54.920 --> 02:27:02.129 drafted with that mentality already I've got a couple more 02:27:02.129 --> 02:27:03.840 questions that we 02:27:03.840 --> 02:27:08.879 didn't get to in work session I've got a question on in 02:27:08.879 --> 02:27:10.760 regards to the page turn 02:27:10.760 --> 02:27:23.319 I guess this would be section 17.7 be section 3 standard 02:27:23.319 --> 02:27:24.120 for fill and 02:27:24.120 --> 02:27:31.600 undeveloped floodplains okay yes and as I read this it says 02:27:31.600 --> 02:27:33.719 filling of any flood 02:27:33.719 --> 02:27:37.680 plane of a stream that drains more 02:27:37.920 --> 02:27:42.479 and one square miles per unless the fill on any lot is less 02:27:42.479 --> 02:27:44.280 than 50 cubic yards 02:27:44.280 --> 02:27:49.479 or 300 cubic feet per acre whichever is greater and further 02:27:49.479 --> 02:27:50.879 on in E it talks 02:27:50.879 --> 02:27:54.600 about fill being concrete or aggregate and there's a 02:27:54.600 --> 02:27:56.040 description of what is 02:27:56.040 --> 02:28:02.649 Phil my question is thinking like I think is that if you 02:28:02.649 --> 02:28:03.520 have a lot or a 02:28:03.520 --> 02:28:06.639 piece of property that has undeveloped floodplain on it and 02:28:06.639 --> 02:28:07.840 it's considered a 02:28:07.840 --> 02:28:12.760 lot or an acre you can't come do in excess of 50 cubic 02:28:12.760 --> 02:28:14.680 yards of material on 02:28:14.680 --> 02:28:18.479 that lot anywhere the way that this is written it doesn't 02:28:18.479 --> 02:28:19.239 say it's in the flood 02:28:19.239 --> 02:28:23.229 plane it just says unless the fill on any lot is less than 02:28:23.229 --> 02:28:24.959 50 cubic yards so if 02:28:24.959 --> 02:28:28.780 you have a lot that has undeveloped floodplain on it you 02:28:28.780 --> 02:28:30.479 can't put 50 cubic 02:28:30.479 --> 02:28:36.000 yards of material on it well this is meant they the ESA is 02:28:36.000 --> 02:28:36.799 the floodplain 02:28:36.799 --> 02:28:43.079 itself okay so this call deals with with those ESA the 02:28:43.079 --> 02:28:44.600 limitation on the field is 02:28:44.600 --> 02:28:50.489 is intended to to be within the floodplain so if your lot 02:28:50.489 --> 02:28:52.159 is partially 02:28:52.159 --> 02:28:56.610 outside of the floodplain and you are willing to put a fill 02:28:56.610 --> 02:28:57.799 on that lot but 02:28:57.799 --> 02:29:00.930 not encumber into the floodplain you are allowed the 02:29:00.930 --> 02:29:03.120 problem is when you want you 02:29:03.120 --> 02:29:08.159 decide is to go over that threshold within the floodplain 02:29:08.159 --> 02:29:10.600 this is it have 02:29:10.600 --> 02:29:15.959 two connections first by the I understand that part I'm 02:29:15.959 --> 02:29:16.719 just reading 02:29:16.719 --> 02:29:23.520 what it says okay is that if you have floodplain on there 02:29:23.520 --> 02:29:25.260 it's prohibited 02:29:25.260 --> 02:29:29.170 unless the fill is on any lot less than 50 cubic yards it 02:29:29.170 --> 02:29:30.559 doesn't say that if 02:29:30.559 --> 02:29:34.010 it's in the floodplain it just says if it's on the lot so 02:29:34.010 --> 02:29:35.360 for clarification 02:29:35.360 --> 02:29:39.319 purposes I think it needs to be clarified kind of what you 02:29:39.319 --> 02:29:39.639 're describing 02:29:39.639 --> 02:29:42.729 is that it can't be in the floodplain because the way I 02:29:42.729 --> 02:29:44.040 read it now is that it 02:29:44.040 --> 02:29:46.889 can't be on the lot if a piece of the lot is in the flood 02:29:46.889 --> 02:29:47.760 plain does that make 02:29:47.760 --> 02:29:51.700 sense yeah I can definitely rework that lot language to 02:29:51.700 --> 02:29:53.200 make it clear okay 02:29:53.200 --> 02:29:55.969 because you at that point if you have a lot that has any 02:29:55.969 --> 02:29:57.200 floodplain on it it's 02:29:57.200 --> 02:30:03.760 an unbuildable lot essentially yes so that was one just 02:30:03.760 --> 02:30:05.399 item that was pretty 02:30:05.399 --> 02:30:10.549 straightforward I had some questions in work session I want 02:30:10.549 --> 02:30:11.680 to revisit a couple 02:30:11.680 --> 02:30:16.239 of them really quickly just since we're in public session 02:30:16.239 --> 02:30:16.879 for those that may 02:30:16.879 --> 02:30:20.309 have not been watching work session one of the things that 02:30:20.309 --> 02:30:21.399 I would like for us 02:30:21.399 --> 02:30:25.959 to take a look at and get some clarification on is back in 02:30:25.959 --> 02:30:28.799 35 17.2 a it 02:30:28.799 --> 02:30:32.229 says within the corporate limits of the city of Denton 02:30:32.229 --> 02:30:33.600 except is otherwise 02:30:33.600 --> 02:30:37.139 specifically provided for in this subsection when you go 02:30:37.139 --> 02:30:39.559 farther into this 02:30:39.559 --> 02:30:45.700 subsection and go to 35 17 6 it says official maps it says 02:30:45.700 --> 02:30:47.040 the official map 02:30:47.040 --> 02:30:52.340 that identifies areas designated as ESA's and my question 02:30:52.340 --> 02:30:53.760 at work session was 02:30:53.760 --> 02:30:57.190 when you first read this it sounds like it just applies to 02:30:57.190 --> 02:30:58.120 the corporate limits 02:30:58.120 --> 02:31:02.680 city limits of Denton but when you go to this provision 02:31:02.680 --> 02:31:03.879 that I just brought up 02:31:03.879 --> 02:31:08.959 about applicable or official maps it actually some of this 02:31:08.959 --> 02:31:10.319 applies to the ETJ 02:31:10.319 --> 02:31:13.510 and I think you clarified in work session that it's not the 02:31:13.510 --> 02:31:14.319 open habitat 02:31:14.319 --> 02:31:19.620 but it has to do with wet yeah with a plane so cleaners 02:31:19.620 --> 02:31:23.360 yeah the item 17 point 02:31:23.360 --> 02:31:26.840 two point B it says the floodplain standard of this sub 02:31:26.840 --> 02:31:28.120 chapter shall apply 02:31:28.120 --> 02:31:31.120 to all land and all development within the extra-territory 02:31:31.120 --> 02:31:32.120 jurisdiction of the 02:31:32.120 --> 02:31:37.780 city and that is granted to the city by the state based on 02:31:37.780 --> 02:31:38.959 the protection of 02:31:38.959 --> 02:31:44.590 water resources that's the reason behind it so that's why 02:31:44.590 --> 02:31:45.479 we made the 02:31:45.479 --> 02:31:51.329 clarification upland habitat water related habitat or 02:31:51.329 --> 02:31:53.680 repairing buffer that 02:31:53.680 --> 02:31:57.520 is located outside the city limits a we have no 02:31:57.520 --> 02:32:00.639 jurisdiction over those okay the 02:32:00.639 --> 02:32:05.790 ESA regulations does not apply to those the only ESA that 02:32:05.790 --> 02:32:07.000 we have jurisdiction 02:32:07.000 --> 02:32:12.639 in the ETJ is floodplain and most of the time when 02:32:12.639 --> 02:32:14.520 development happens in the ETJ 02:32:14.520 --> 02:32:18.100 because it's floodplain that area will be set aside through 02:32:18.100 --> 02:32:19.360 some sort of drainage 02:32:19.360 --> 02:32:23.979 easement so through that through providing that mechanism 02:32:23.979 --> 02:32:24.879 on the plot 02:32:24.879 --> 02:32:28.520 itself they are providing they are meeting the protection 02:32:28.520 --> 02:32:29.360 of the floodplain 02:32:29.360 --> 02:32:34.489 ESA if you don't mind would you pull up the interactive map 02:32:34.489 --> 02:32:35.319 for the city of 02:32:35.319 --> 02:32:40.620 Denton and then go on the links where it says ESA just bear 02:32:40.620 --> 02:32:46.520 with me sure so 02:33:06.319 --> 02:33:07.319 , thank you. 02:33:35.319 --> 02:33:37.319 , thank you. 02:34:06.319 --> 02:34:06.459 So when you go over on the ESA's and hit the button to 02:34:06.459 --> 02:34:14.040 expand it the little 02:34:14.040 --> 02:34:14.040 triangle to the left would you just click on the bottom 02:34:14.040 --> 02:34:18.479 where it says ESA 02:34:18.479 --> 02:34:18.479 floodplain designations and let's light up what that 02:34:18.479 --> 02:34:29.799 entails there you go so 02:34:29.799 --> 02:34:29.799 that's everything that's floodplain okay and if you'll 02:34:29.799 --> 02:34:35.040 click on then the 02:34:35.040 --> 02:34:40.000 skip the ESA habitats but click on the one that says ESA 02:34:40.000 --> 02:34:41.520 stream buffers 02:34:49.040 --> 02:34:55.180 it is shown in pale yellow very skinny line inside the 02:34:55.180 --> 02:34:59.399 floodplain you might zoom in a little 02:35:02.440 --> 02:35:06.629 if you'll click it back off the last button we just put on 02:35:06.629 --> 02:35:08.399 there the ESA 02:35:08.399 --> 02:35:15.110 stream buffers yes that's what we're talking about that you 02:35:15.110 --> 02:35:15.959 all do regulate 02:35:15.959 --> 02:35:19.420 so not only the floodplain within all of these stream buff 02:35:19.420 --> 02:35:20.799 ers are the areas that 02:35:20.799 --> 02:35:23.370 you regulate not only in the city of Denton but then also 02:35:23.370 --> 02:35:24.319 out in the ETJ is 02:35:24.319 --> 02:35:31.620 it correct well if there is a riparian buffer okay and if 02:35:31.620 --> 02:35:33.760 you read what the 02:35:33.760 --> 02:35:37.250 regulations are between floodplain and riparian buffers and 02:35:37.250 --> 02:35:38.280 water related you 02:35:38.280 --> 02:35:41.180 will find that the regulations of water related and rip 02:35:41.180 --> 02:35:42.440 arian buffers are more 02:35:42.440 --> 02:35:46.819 stringent the reason why is because that's the last line of 02:35:46.819 --> 02:35:47.920 defense before a 02:35:47.920 --> 02:35:52.600 pollutant can get waterborne okay so you will see that the 02:35:52.600 --> 02:35:53.360 requirements are a 02:35:53.360 --> 02:35:59.209 little bit more stringent in those so if you are in the ETJ 02:35:59.209 --> 02:36:02.799 for example we will 02:36:02.799 --> 02:36:09.020 be able to regulate within the floodplain okay but we will 02:36:09.020 --> 02:36:10.360 not be able 02:36:10.360 --> 02:36:16.819 to regulate the riparian buffer okay so in some extent you 02:36:16.819 --> 02:36:18.879 would be entitled to 02:36:18.879 --> 02:36:26.399 do the requirements in the ETJ because it's just limited to 02:36:26.399 --> 02:36:27.040 the floodplain 02:36:27.040 --> 02:36:30.280 and not the riparian buffer and not the water related in 02:36:30.280 --> 02:36:31.719 some extent are a little 02:36:31.719 --> 02:36:37.299 bit lesser than what will be in the city limits okay so I 02:36:37.299 --> 02:36:39.879 could not tell them for 02:36:39.879 --> 02:36:44.940 example that they will have to work under the riparian 02:36:44.940 --> 02:36:46.360 buffer for the 02:36:46.360 --> 02:36:52.350 installation of something because if it is a permitted use 02:36:52.350 --> 02:36:54.719 within the floodplain 02:36:54.719 --> 02:36:59.290 for example installation of a utility line by open trench 02:36:59.290 --> 02:37:01.760 ing so if you were to 02:37:01.760 --> 02:37:06.809 do that in the ETJ you can probably open trench all through 02:37:06.809 --> 02:37:08.959 it okay because the 02:37:08.959 --> 02:37:12.049 only thing that I have regulations on is the floodplain not 02:37:12.049 --> 02:37:13.680 the riparian buffer or 02:37:13.680 --> 02:37:19.530 the water related I may have misunderstood what you said 02:37:19.530 --> 02:37:20.360 when you were 02:37:20.360 --> 02:37:23.639 stating that the only thing that you could do in the ETJ 02:37:23.639 --> 02:37:24.680 where the water 02:37:24.680 --> 02:37:30.079 related I'm sorry is floodplain floodplain so when you 02:37:30.079 --> 02:37:30.479 click on the 02:37:30.479 --> 02:37:35.209 button back again where it says stream buffers all those 02:37:35.209 --> 02:37:36.659 that pop up in the 02:37:36.659 --> 02:37:40.319 city limits and when you go outside into the ETJ they're 02:37:40.319 --> 02:37:41.639 nice to be on the map 02:37:41.639 --> 02:37:44.219 but you don't have any regulation of those or you do 02:37:44.219 --> 02:37:45.959 correct no I don't have 02:37:45.959 --> 02:37:50.030 and they one of the reason is the the ESA map is also a 02:37:50.030 --> 02:37:51.639 tool for us when we 02:37:51.639 --> 02:37:54.709 are considering annexations for example those are lands 02:37:54.709 --> 02:37:55.879 that are currently in 02:37:55.879 --> 02:38:00.440 the ETJ and when they are they come in they will be subject 02:38:00.440 --> 02:38:01.040 to all city 02:38:01.040 --> 02:38:04.469 regulations so in those instances when we do the evaluation 02:38:04.469 --> 02:38:05.200 it helps them 02:38:05.200 --> 02:38:12.000 understand what is it is very typical of me then when I 02:38:12.000 --> 02:38:14.680 review a proposal in the 02:38:14.680 --> 02:38:19.540 ETJ I I acknowledge the presence of all the type of ESS I 02:38:19.540 --> 02:38:20.959 made me very clear 02:38:20.959 --> 02:38:24.760 which one we have jurisdiction on however we always for 02:38:24.760 --> 02:38:25.760 example if there's 02:38:25.760 --> 02:38:29.510 open habitat even though I cannot require preservation of 02:38:29.510 --> 02:38:31.040 it I said you 02:38:31.040 --> 02:38:34.510 know if you could consider the preservation of the of the 02:38:34.510 --> 02:38:35.159 existing 02:38:35.159 --> 02:38:38.159 habitat on your property so some of them are many 02:38:38.159 --> 02:38:40.479 developers they see that as a 02:38:40.479 --> 02:38:43.870 added value to the property and they already have 02:38:43.870 --> 02:38:45.180 incorporated the 02:38:45.180 --> 02:38:50.719 preservation into it so it is a suggestion at that point 02:38:50.719 --> 02:38:52.000 but we try to 02:38:52.000 --> 02:38:56.329 at least educate the applicant of the value of the habitat 02:38:56.329 --> 02:38:57.739 that they have on 02:38:57.739 --> 02:39:02.299 site okay so when you when you turn those back off and it's 02:39:02.299 --> 02:39:02.920 just a purple 02:39:02.920 --> 02:39:04.579 those are the things they're in floodplain and then 02:39:04.579 --> 02:39:05.360 everything else that's 02:39:05.360 --> 02:39:09.409 in brown that's there in the city limits is what you're 02:39:09.409 --> 02:39:11.239 talking about as far as 02:39:11.239 --> 02:39:15.110 the authority and possibly going on into ETJ on some of 02:39:15.110 --> 02:39:16.959 those correct and for 02:39:16.959 --> 02:39:22.639 this map for example all that red stuff means that those 02:39:22.639 --> 02:39:23.659 are repairing buffer 02:39:23.659 --> 02:39:26.889 designation that have been removed why it because that is 02:39:26.889 --> 02:39:28.040 the pecan Creek going 02:39:28.040 --> 02:39:32.010 through the middle of town who have been heavily harnessed 02:39:32.010 --> 02:39:34.280 concreted in so we have 02:39:34.280 --> 02:39:37.829 removed those designation we still show them on the map but 02:39:37.829 --> 02:39:38.760 if you click on 02:39:38.760 --> 02:39:41.379 information it will tell you that there was an ESAP field 02:39:41.379 --> 02:39:43.040 assessment done and so 02:39:43.040 --> 02:39:50.139 on so you kind of have all that paper trail created so we 02:39:50.139 --> 02:39:52.459 provide sometimes 02:39:52.459 --> 02:39:56.040 we provide more information and that you know create some 02:39:56.040 --> 02:39:57.959 confusion but 02:39:57.959 --> 02:40:01.350 sometimes the more we provide the better so in that way 02:40:01.350 --> 02:40:03.280 developers can make a 02:40:03.280 --> 02:40:07.139 educated decision so is this the official map essentially 02:40:07.139 --> 02:40:07.520 or is there 02:40:07.520 --> 02:40:10.950 someplace else that you can get a copy this is this is just 02:40:10.950 --> 02:40:11.760 the interactive 02:40:11.760 --> 02:40:16.799 map if we have a paper copy it would look like just keep in 02:40:16.799 --> 02:40:18.239 mind the ESA map 02:40:18.239 --> 02:40:23.329 is amended on a regular basis the map by no means is 02:40:23.329 --> 02:40:26.559 hundred percent accurate but 02:40:26.559 --> 02:40:31.120 it's a good it's a good start it's a good indication to 02:40:31.120 --> 02:40:32.479 make us pause for a 02:40:32.479 --> 02:40:36.420 moment and say we have to reassess few things if there are 02:40:36.420 --> 02:40:38.159 questions about the 02:40:38.159 --> 02:40:42.719 presence of the of the ESAS we can do a city field 02:40:42.719 --> 02:40:44.959 assessment at no cost to the 02:40:44.959 --> 02:40:48.610 applicant and we will go we have a specific criteria for 02:40:48.610 --> 02:40:49.959 each type of ESA 02:40:49.959 --> 02:40:56.399 if that criteria is not met then we will require we will 02:40:56.399 --> 02:40:57.879 conclude that that 02:40:57.879 --> 02:41:01.629 designation should be removed we notify the the planning 02:41:01.629 --> 02:41:03.079 director about the need 02:41:03.079 --> 02:41:07.639 of changing and what area needs to be changed so we the ESA 02:41:07.639 --> 02:41:09.399 map is a living 02:41:09.399 --> 02:41:13.959 document it changes all the changes that are from time to 02:41:13.959 --> 02:41:15.440 time happen is when 02:41:15.440 --> 02:41:19.569 FEMA reissue firms which is the floodplain insurance map 02:41:19.569 --> 02:41:20.239 and they 02:41:20.239 --> 02:41:25.799 sometimes they take ten years to change those when the 02:41:25.799 --> 02:41:27.920 floodplain when the FEMA 02:41:27.920 --> 02:41:32.569 floodplain changes our boundary changes as well because in 02:41:32.569 --> 02:41:33.680 the way that we have 02:41:33.680 --> 02:41:38.239 defined the floodplain ESA it matches that boundary when 02:41:38.239 --> 02:41:39.600 somebody wants to do 02:41:39.600 --> 02:41:43.510 a reclamation of the floodplain meaning that they will do 02:41:43.510 --> 02:41:45.479 some type of exclamation 02:41:45.479 --> 02:41:49.360 to reduce or to modify the change of it that goes through a 02:41:49.360 --> 02:41:50.719 clomer which stands 02:41:50.719 --> 02:41:53.879 for conditional letter of man revision and then goes 02:41:53.879 --> 02:41:55.319 through a long more process 02:41:55.319 --> 02:41:59.180 and that is approved by the city and by FEMA when FEMA 02:41:59.180 --> 02:42:00.879 changes the boundary 02:42:00.879 --> 02:42:04.930 through the long more process it changes the definition of 02:42:04.930 --> 02:42:06.639 the floodplain with it 02:42:06.639 --> 02:42:14.909 so the ESA map is a living document that changes just I 02:42:14.909 --> 02:42:17.000 think I think you 02:42:17.000 --> 02:42:21.559 addressed those changes amendments to the map correct in 02:42:21.559 --> 02:42:22.540 there and I think it's 02:42:22.540 --> 02:42:29.760 on there 35 17 6 B is that correct with those we all the 02:42:29.760 --> 02:42:30.760 would that be the 02:42:30.760 --> 02:42:33.600 process for amendments 02:42:40.360 --> 02:42:49.969 okay I had one final question on 17.5 D water related 02:42:49.969 --> 02:42:51.680 habitat it says areas 02:42:51.680 --> 02:42:56.719 designated as wetland is there a definition for that or 02:42:56.719 --> 02:42:57.799 where do we find 02:42:57.799 --> 02:43:02.360 that and how is that determined what land those are 02:43:02.360 --> 02:43:03.920 transitional have from 02:43:03.920 --> 02:43:06.889 from my ecological I'm going to give you the ecological 02:43:06.889 --> 02:43:08.719 definition of it okay the 02:43:08.719 --> 02:43:11.309 ecological definition of a wetlands that they are 02:43:11.309 --> 02:43:13.760 transitional habitat which 02:43:13.760 --> 02:43:18.319 withstand some sort of flood condition for some period of 02:43:18.319 --> 02:43:20.239 time okay because the 02:43:20.239 --> 02:43:24.260 inundation conditions that they experience there's certain 02:43:24.260 --> 02:43:25.959 type of plant 02:43:25.959 --> 02:43:31.270 species that live there because they are they tolerate the 02:43:31.270 --> 02:43:33.920 inundation process 02:43:33.920 --> 02:43:38.979 the soils change characteristics and also they are 02:43:38.979 --> 02:43:41.239 hydraulic characteristics so 02:43:41.239 --> 02:43:48.950 you will see a watermark depicted and you see the oxidation 02:43:48.950 --> 02:43:49.639 reduction of the 02:43:49.639 --> 02:43:54.200 soil and that's where the watermark is or that so those are 02:43:54.200 --> 02:43:55.040 characteristic those 02:43:55.040 --> 02:44:00.450 are the scientific ecological definition of what a wetland 02:44:00.450 --> 02:44:02.479 is many of the people 02:44:02.479 --> 02:44:05.280 many of the comments have addressed or hinges upon the 02:44:05.280 --> 02:44:06.200 definition of what 02:44:06.200 --> 02:44:11.340 wetlands by the Court of Engineers is if you read the Court 02:44:11.340 --> 02:44:12.600 of Engineers 02:44:12.600 --> 02:44:17.159 definition all that is is tied to navigable waters to 02:44:17.159 --> 02:44:18.319 commerce to be able 02:44:18.319 --> 02:44:24.200 to promote commerce in your state comments okay so when 02:44:24.200 --> 02:44:26.239 they were so the 02:44:26.239 --> 02:44:31.239 wetlands that are protected by the core are those who are 02:44:31.239 --> 02:44:32.399 hydrologically 02:44:32.399 --> 02:44:41.000 connected to a water body that is deemed navigable okay so 02:44:41.000 --> 02:44:43.719 if we take that limited 02:44:43.719 --> 02:44:49.860 concept of it then if we go by the definition of the core 02:44:49.860 --> 02:44:51.680 more it will be 02:44:51.680 --> 02:44:56.280 less areas protected of wetlands wetlands are incredible 02:44:56.280 --> 02:44:57.680 habitats they do 02:44:57.680 --> 02:45:05.370 fantastic services as filtration devices okay so if we 02:45:05.370 --> 02:45:07.120 limit that to what the 02:45:07.120 --> 02:45:10.260 court in the way that the court defined wetlands or provide 02:45:10.260 --> 02:45:11.319 protections to it 02:45:11.319 --> 02:45:17.239 then many of the habitats that are good to maintain will be 02:45:17.239 --> 02:45:18.520 our order of 02:45:18.520 --> 02:45:25.649 protection so our definition as it is it is more broad than 02:45:25.649 --> 02:45:28.079 what other state or 02:45:28.079 --> 02:45:33.680 federal agencies define what is that in here somewhere no 02:45:33.680 --> 02:45:35.079 that's the only 02:45:35.079 --> 02:45:41.719 definition is that something that you would like to it's 02:45:41.719 --> 02:45:42.680 stuff to expand 02:45:42.680 --> 02:45:47.309 provide a definition on on wetlands I think it's necessary 02:45:47.309 --> 02:45:48.319 to define the term 02:45:48.319 --> 02:45:52.879 especially if for your discussion if city didn't has a 02:45:52.879 --> 02:45:53.719 determination of what 02:45:53.719 --> 02:45:56.290 what a wetland is which is different than what the state or 02:45:56.290 --> 02:45:56.879 the federal 02:45:56.879 --> 02:45:59.559 government says I think it needs to be spelled out here's 02:45:59.559 --> 02:46:00.440 what the city of 02:46:00.440 --> 02:46:04.090 Denton determines as a wetland for everybody to understand 02:46:04.090 --> 02:46:05.120 if you have this 02:46:05.120 --> 02:46:08.510 on your property you have for the city of Denton a wetland 02:46:08.510 --> 02:46:10.879 okay okay so I'm 02:46:10.879 --> 02:46:13.639 familiar with where your what you're defining because I see 02:46:13.639 --> 02:46:15.079 them in phase one 02:46:15.079 --> 02:46:17.979 reports it'll have a designation on it that this is on the 02:46:17.979 --> 02:46:19.600 map and if it's not 02:46:19.600 --> 02:46:24.520 on that map you proceed forward with it however the city 02:46:24.520 --> 02:46:25.239 didn't may have a 02:46:25.239 --> 02:46:30.729 different determination what a wetland is versus what's on 02:46:30.729 --> 02:46:32.879 the maps that all 02:46:32.879 --> 02:46:36.440 these people that do this for a living produce for us and 02:46:36.440 --> 02:46:37.399 say yeah this 02:46:37.399 --> 02:46:40.270 property's got a clean phase one on it and it's nothing on 02:46:40.270 --> 02:46:41.680 it you say that's 02:46:41.680 --> 02:46:47.680 wetland on it because we are creating the E-Secretary 02:46:47.680 --> 02:46:49.239 manual where all the 02:46:49.239 --> 02:46:52.860 more technical part would be would this be something that 02:46:52.860 --> 02:46:54.159 you would like to see 02:46:54.159 --> 02:46:58.959 in the DDC as a part of 17 or would you like to see that as 02:46:58.959 --> 02:47:00.040 a part of the 02:47:00.040 --> 02:47:04.219 criteria manual as I recall as I read this it says that if 02:47:04.219 --> 02:47:05.760 it's more stringent 02:47:05.760 --> 02:47:09.969 in the code and what's in the criteria manual then what's 02:47:09.969 --> 02:47:11.920 in the code prevails 02:47:11.920 --> 02:47:15.879 is that correct on how this is written so I think it should 02:47:15.879 --> 02:47:16.959 be in the actual 02:47:16.959 --> 02:47:23.610 code rather than in the criteria maybe put it in both you 02:47:23.610 --> 02:47:24.239 know 02:47:46.959 --> 02:47:58.520 thank you I got a couple more questions Commissioner Ellis 02:47:58.520 --> 02:47:59.559 thank you chair 02:47:59.559 --> 02:48:02.989 Deborah thanks for your work in this my question has to do 02:48:02.989 --> 02:48:04.239 with the alternative 02:48:04.239 --> 02:48:11.260 ESA plan so you can basically walk me through why we're 02:48:11.260 --> 02:48:12.440 considering it a 02:48:12.440 --> 02:48:17.229 zoning amendment procedure a zoning amendment procedure if 02:48:17.229 --> 02:48:17.920 you go back to 02:48:17.920 --> 02:48:22.200 sub chapter three three I believe on the DDC establishes a 02:48:22.200 --> 02:48:23.000 different processes 02:48:23.000 --> 02:48:26.069 and the is called the process the zoning amendment 02:48:26.069 --> 02:48:27.559 procedure just because 02:48:27.559 --> 02:48:30.239 requires the public hearing process before the planning and 02:48:30.239 --> 02:48:31.079 zoning Commission 02:48:31.079 --> 02:48:34.870 and City Council that's that's the reason why it's called a 02:48:34.870 --> 02:48:35.559 zoning amendment 02:48:35.559 --> 02:48:38.319 procedure because it really is nothing to do with zoning 02:48:38.319 --> 02:48:39.319 this all has to do with 02:48:39.319 --> 02:48:42.799 development yeah the zoning is not in question is just 02:48:42.799 --> 02:48:44.000 followed the steps 02:48:44.000 --> 02:48:51.040 require through a any zoning change which is planning and 02:48:51.040 --> 02:48:51.520 zoning 02:48:51.520 --> 02:48:55.709 notification newspaper public hearing before the planning 02:48:55.709 --> 02:48:56.639 and zoning Commission 02:48:56.639 --> 02:48:59.620 recommendation from the planning and zoning Commission and 02:48:59.620 --> 02:49:00.159 the final 02:49:00.159 --> 02:49:05.469 approval of City Council okay just so I understand so so 02:49:05.469 --> 02:49:07.159 going this route so it 02:49:07.159 --> 02:49:09.520 can be a public hearing is that what you're saying correct 02:49:09.520 --> 02:49:11.959 okay thank you 02:49:11.959 --> 02:49:18.100 Commissioner Sanchez yeah I worked as a biologist biologist 02:49:18.100 --> 02:49:19.680 for 30 years and we 02:49:19.680 --> 02:49:23.639 talked about habitat wetland habitat it was based primarily 02:49:23.639 --> 02:49:25.120 on the vegetation and 02:49:25.120 --> 02:49:28.579 the soils and that's what we would look at we go in there I 02:49:28.579 --> 02:49:30.000 mean you just that's 02:49:30.000 --> 02:49:34.450 the definition primarily you can't deviate from that yeah 02:49:34.450 --> 02:49:35.520 and the other 02:49:35.520 --> 02:49:40.590 question I had is when we talk we talked a lot a lot about 02:49:40.590 --> 02:49:42.840 upland habitat and 02:49:42.840 --> 02:49:48.690 preserving that you know Mother Nature did a good job here 02:49:48.690 --> 02:49:49.520 in the cross timbers 02:49:49.520 --> 02:49:55.799 fire was a big proponent of managing the cross-land timbers 02:49:55.799 --> 02:49:57.079 we've taken that out 02:49:57.079 --> 02:50:00.510 of there so a lot of these habitats that we have are very 02:50:00.510 --> 02:50:02.600 deteriorated so I it's 02:50:02.600 --> 02:50:06.829 hard for me when we start talking about little areas five 02:50:06.829 --> 02:50:09.079 ten twenty acres they're 02:50:09.079 --> 02:50:12.510 really going to be if without burning they're just going to 02:50:12.510 --> 02:50:13.840 deteriorate so I'm 02:50:13.840 --> 02:50:18.540 just wondering why are we maintaining these small areas 02:50:18.540 --> 02:50:21.079 when they really don't 02:50:21.079 --> 02:50:25.639 really see what's the word I want they're not they're not 02:50:25.639 --> 02:50:26.479 going to do a 02:50:26.479 --> 02:50:31.180 whole lot because they're over time they're just deterior 02:50:31.180 --> 02:50:32.799 ating yeah because 02:50:32.799 --> 02:50:35.479 fire is a big part of the understory I mean the grasses are 02:50:35.479 --> 02:50:36.319 a big part of the 02:50:36.319 --> 02:50:38.520 understory and that's what would carry through the fires 02:50:38.520 --> 02:50:39.559 through the through 02:50:39.559 --> 02:50:43.040 this habitat and as and as I see a lot of areas you don't 02:50:43.040 --> 02:50:43.680 have a lot of 02:50:43.680 --> 02:50:46.989 vegetation on the ground on the ground on the surface you 02:50:46.989 --> 02:50:48.079 know a lot of has 02:50:48.079 --> 02:50:51.139 just deteriorated you have just invade invasive grasses so 02:50:51.139 --> 02:50:52.079 you're just 02:50:52.079 --> 02:50:56.969 maintaining primarily you're maintaining the woodlands you 02:50:56.969 --> 02:50:58.520 know but even those 02:50:58.520 --> 02:51:02.209 it's hard for me to see how we're maintaining upland 02:51:02.209 --> 02:51:03.840 habitat without 02:51:03.840 --> 02:51:09.149 managing them somehow yeah well so and that that brings a 02:51:09.149 --> 02:51:11.879 very good point in 02:51:11.879 --> 02:51:16.600 nature if if this were not within the urban setting okay 02:51:16.600 --> 02:51:18.920 fire is a big 02:51:18.920 --> 02:51:22.360 management tool okay this is how habitats they renew 02:51:22.360 --> 02:51:23.440 themselves that's 02:51:23.440 --> 02:51:28.250 how invasive species are control and so on sometimes you 02:51:28.250 --> 02:51:29.680 need to even open up 02:51:29.680 --> 02:51:33.680 the canopy to allow the understory and the juvenile to be 02:51:33.680 --> 02:51:34.479 able to reach out 02:51:34.479 --> 02:51:39.530 enough sunlight to grow so these areas are should be 02:51:39.530 --> 02:51:41.719 managed and I want to use 02:51:41.719 --> 02:51:46.700 carefully the word managed okay if you see all the all the 02:51:46.700 --> 02:51:48.079 permitted uses 02:51:48.079 --> 02:51:51.559 within all the top of the four type of ESA some sort of 02:51:51.559 --> 02:51:53.440 management provision is 02:51:53.440 --> 02:52:00.489 allowed removal or of invasive planting of native pruning 02:52:00.489 --> 02:52:02.280 up to 25% of the 02:52:02.280 --> 02:52:08.129 canopy of upland habitat for the health of the habitat so 02:52:08.129 --> 02:52:12.319 these eases are meant 02:52:12.319 --> 02:52:19.959 to be managed that is different from manicuring the ESA 02:52:19.959 --> 02:52:22.280 okay it's different 02:52:22.280 --> 02:52:25.360 perspective so that's why I wanted to use the word 02:52:25.360 --> 02:52:27.920 management carefully if you 02:52:27.920 --> 02:52:32.579 if those are you needs to be intervene to actually restore 02:52:32.579 --> 02:52:33.639 them make them 02:52:33.639 --> 02:52:38.200 better you are allowed to do it by right okay because 02:52:38.200 --> 02:52:39.799 sometimes you need it 02:52:39.799 --> 02:52:46.530 repairing buffers if the if the watershed have been urban 02:52:46.530 --> 02:52:47.159 ized for 02:52:47.159 --> 02:52:50.239 example you are putting more runoff through those through 02:52:50.239 --> 02:52:51.120 those channels 02:52:51.120 --> 02:52:57.659 that if it's not been dealt or if it is a watershed that 02:52:57.659 --> 02:52:58.680 have been developed 02:52:58.680 --> 02:53:01.770 under you know long time ago where none of the floodplain 02:53:01.770 --> 02:53:03.200 standards were in place 02:53:03.200 --> 02:53:06.850 probably those those channels are eroding already and the 02:53:06.850 --> 02:53:07.840 vegetation might 02:53:07.840 --> 02:53:13.489 be gone because that's the way that the creek adjust the 02:53:13.489 --> 02:53:14.520 channel adjust to the 02:53:14.520 --> 02:53:20.780 changes so in those instances by all means go there and if 02:53:20.780 --> 02:53:22.440 you can do it you 02:53:22.440 --> 02:53:27.270 are entitled to do it so yeah those those eases are meant 02:53:27.270 --> 02:53:29.600 to be in some level 02:53:29.600 --> 02:53:36.309 managed if they need to thank you for answering all of our 02:53:36.309 --> 02:53:38.000 questions I don't 02:53:38.000 --> 02:53:43.399 have anymore this is a public hearing I don't have any 02:53:43.399 --> 02:53:44.639 cards on this item but 02:53:44.639 --> 02:53:46.780 anyone who would like to speak on this item please come 02:53:46.780 --> 02:53:48.639 forward at this time if 02:53:48.639 --> 02:53:55.579 you'll give us your name and address and please an old hand 02:53:55.579 --> 02:53:56.559 at this he's already 02:53:56.559 --> 02:54:00.360 got a card filled out thank you Lee certainly good evening 02:54:00.360 --> 02:54:01.040 my name is Lee 02:54:01.040 --> 02:54:04.299 Allison with Allison engineering group didn't in Texas I'm 02:54:04.299 --> 02:54:05.319 here to speak on 02:54:05.319 --> 02:54:08.129 behalf of the Denton Community Development Alliance as I 02:54:08.129 --> 02:54:09.280 get into it 02:54:09.280 --> 02:54:12.610 I'd like to put the emphasis on community development we're 02:54:12.610 --> 02:54:13.180 not the 02:54:13.180 --> 02:54:16.229 developers Alliance we're not here to try and get the city 02:54:16.229 --> 02:54:17.200 to redact all its 02:54:17.200 --> 02:54:20.069 rules so developers can come in and do what they want but 02:54:20.069 --> 02:54:21.760 we're here working on 02:54:21.760 --> 02:54:24.680 behalf of the community and the property owners and the 02:54:24.680 --> 02:54:25.559 people who maintain 02:54:25.559 --> 02:54:29.559 property and manage property and live in property and work 02:54:29.559 --> 02:54:31.079 and play here to have a 02:54:31.079 --> 02:54:37.299 community that develops providing opportunities similar for 02:54:37.299 --> 02:54:37.639 the 02:54:37.639 --> 02:54:40.590 undeveloped elements of the community that the development 02:54:40.590 --> 02:54:41.680 commit elements had 02:54:41.680 --> 02:54:46.299 when they came here and in general we not sure where we 02:54:46.299 --> 02:54:47.520 stand on this 02:54:47.520 --> 02:54:52.360 particular ordinance when it when I worked on ordinances or 02:54:52.360 --> 02:54:53.319 items similar to 02:54:53.319 --> 02:54:59.510 this we usually start with with before principles and 02:54:59.510 --> 02:55:02.680 practices we we have I 02:55:02.680 --> 02:55:05.670 had the word in the head top my head a minute ago and now I 02:55:05.670 --> 02:55:06.760 forgot it but what 02:55:06.760 --> 02:55:09.340 are the guiding things we know we want to keep the water 02:55:09.340 --> 02:55:10.120 quality in Lake 02:55:10.120 --> 02:55:13.200 Louisville it's a it's where our drinking water comes from 02:55:13.200 --> 02:55:14.040 that's a fact 02:55:14.040 --> 02:55:18.600 a principle a policy is that we don't want development to 02:55:18.600 --> 02:55:20.159 degrade the water 02:55:20.159 --> 02:55:23.770 quality in Lake Louisville is and then what are the 02:55:23.770 --> 02:55:25.399 practices we provide 02:55:25.399 --> 02:55:28.489 protections against what would degrade development 02:55:28.489 --> 02:55:30.159 practices that would degrade 02:55:30.159 --> 02:55:33.829 the water quality and maybe we provide incentives for those 02:55:33.829 --> 02:55:34.840 practices that 02:55:34.840 --> 02:55:38.270 might help improve the water quality above what it is today 02:55:38.270 --> 02:55:39.120 certainly we don't 02:55:39.120 --> 02:55:44.020 have a Boston Harbor issue or a Chicago issue where we got 02:55:44.020 --> 02:55:45.399 meat fats floating on 02:55:45.399 --> 02:55:48.420 top of the river allowing it to burn across town and and 02:55:48.420 --> 02:55:49.600 destroy the rest of 02:55:49.600 --> 02:55:59.280 the city the DCDA submitted 43 comments to staff those are 02:55:59.280 --> 02:56:00.920 included in the 61 in 02:56:00.920 --> 02:56:04.639 the list that you were given our concern is that in that 02:56:04.639 --> 02:56:06.079 list what is missing is 02:56:06.079 --> 02:56:10.069 a column there's not a column in there that shows the staff 02:56:10.069 --> 02:56:11.239 comments related 02:56:11.239 --> 02:56:13.510 to responses to our comments how they might have been 02:56:13.510 --> 02:56:14.600 addressed or thought of 02:56:14.600 --> 02:56:18.540 or whether they were good or not good or should be included 02:56:18.540 --> 02:56:19.440 in the TCM or 02:56:19.440 --> 02:56:22.059 whatever there's that's there's just nothing there related 02:56:22.059 --> 02:56:22.680 to the staff's 02:56:22.680 --> 02:56:27.260 position secondly related to that the draft ordinance you 02:56:27.260 --> 02:56:28.280 have tonight is the 02:56:28.280 --> 02:56:31.059 same draft ordinance that we were given the comment on a 02:56:31.059 --> 02:56:33.159 couple of months ago so 02:56:33.159 --> 02:56:35.750 apparently our comments were not very impressive because it 02:56:35.750 --> 02:56:36.520 made absolutely 02:56:36.520 --> 02:56:41.319 zero changes in the ordinance that's being presented 02:56:41.319 --> 02:56:43.920 tonight again when it 02:56:43.920 --> 02:56:48.479 comes to policy I believe Deborah stated there was only one 02:56:48.479 --> 02:56:49.799 policy change in the 02:56:49.799 --> 02:56:54.360 overall ordinance and that was increasing to require 02:56:54.360 --> 02:56:54.959 commercial 02:56:54.959 --> 02:56:57.920 properties to be subject to the upland habitat prepers 02:56:57.920 --> 02:57:02.639 preservations and that's the only one that we saw that that 02:57:02.639 --> 02:57:03.600 was addressed or 02:57:03.600 --> 02:57:05.899 thought of in all the comments we had and I can't say that 02:57:05.899 --> 02:57:06.680 's a movement in the 02:57:06.680 --> 02:57:08.840 wrong direction just saying that's the only policy 02:57:08.840 --> 02:57:10.000 statement that seems to have 02:57:10.000 --> 02:57:12.950 been addressed in all this and when it comes to practices 02:57:12.950 --> 02:57:13.920 we don't see that 02:57:13.920 --> 02:57:17.079 there are any changes a couple of things that we have most 02:57:17.079 --> 02:57:18.200 interest in and one of 02:57:18.200 --> 02:57:21.159 them is the process the fact that has to go through a 02:57:21.159 --> 02:57:23.559 zoning ordinance ESA's oh 02:57:23.559 --> 02:57:27.360 man I'm going fast ESA's are land characteristics not land 02:57:27.360 --> 02:57:29.239 uses the 02:57:29.239 --> 02:57:33.819 council can hear a plat if it wants to it has the authority 02:57:33.819 --> 02:57:35.079 to delegate plat 02:57:35.079 --> 02:57:39.159 approvals to PNZ this could be kept going to council it 02:57:39.159 --> 02:57:39.959 could have public 02:57:39.959 --> 02:57:42.799 hearings but with the zoning ordinance is subject to the 02:57:42.799 --> 02:57:43.959 supermajority rules 02:57:43.959 --> 02:57:47.489 and the neighbors opposing and I've got a couple of 02:57:47.489 --> 02:57:49.280 examples of ESA's I wouldn't 02:57:49.280 --> 02:57:51.440 do one for a client unless I get paid in front because they 02:57:51.440 --> 02:57:52.120 got very little 02:57:52.120 --> 02:57:54.879 chance of getting through because of the zoning process and 02:57:54.879 --> 02:57:55.799 I think there's other 02:57:55.799 --> 02:57:59.520 processes that could do that when it comes to the 50 cubic 02:57:59.520 --> 02:58:00.600 yards of fill on a 02:58:00.600 --> 02:58:05.159 piece of land that's less than a half inch over an acre we 02:58:05.159 --> 02:58:07.719 have meaningless 02:58:07.719 --> 02:58:11.829 offers of how you can get into the developed floodplain 02:58:11.829 --> 02:58:13.120 because it's not 02:58:13.120 --> 02:58:16.639 worth getting into for that little mountain so could go on 02:58:16.639 --> 02:58:18.799 and on but I'll obviously stop thank you 02:58:18.799 --> 02:58:22.360 I have a question for you yes did you have any meetings 02:58:22.360 --> 02:58:22.760 with city 02:58:22.760 --> 02:58:26.200 staff on your 43 comments or did you submit the comments 02:58:26.200 --> 02:58:27.920 and no follow-up 02:58:27.920 --> 02:58:31.040 meetings to talk about them Deborah and I met on December 02:58:31.040 --> 02:58:33.360 the 22nd and went over 02:58:33.360 --> 02:58:36.149 them I hand my comments were mostly handwritten at that 02:58:36.149 --> 02:58:37.159 time and we discussed 02:58:37.159 --> 02:58:40.010 them and she explained to me the history of the why they're 02:58:40.010 --> 02:58:40.879 using the zoning 02:58:40.879 --> 02:58:44.610 ordinance and not another mechanism to bring those items 02:58:44.610 --> 02:58:46.440 before counsel and then 02:58:46.440 --> 02:58:51.000 I wrote up all of the comments and submitted to her on 02:58:51.000 --> 02:58:52.579 behalf of DCDA after 02:58:52.579 --> 02:58:56.010 that okay but did you have any follow-up conversations of 02:58:56.010 --> 02:58:57.680 what have we done on 02:58:57.680 --> 02:59:00.850 item for aid or whatever it's just these are the comments 02:59:00.850 --> 02:59:02.040 and then there's no 02:59:02.040 --> 02:59:05.719 follow-up of no Deborah did help me become aware when it 02:59:05.719 --> 02:59:07.040 was going to come as 02:59:07.040 --> 02:59:12.750 a workshop item but we had no real discussions back and 02:59:12.750 --> 02:59:13.719 forth or with our 02:59:13.719 --> 02:59:19.110 group regarding the merits of any any particular item that 02:59:19.110 --> 02:59:21.840 was brought up okay 02:59:21.840 --> 02:59:26.799 Commissioner Ellis thank you chair hi mr. Allison can you 02:59:26.799 --> 02:59:27.799 share with me how you 02:59:27.799 --> 02:59:29.950 would like to see the procedure would you like it to have 02:59:29.950 --> 02:59:31.079 its own procedure as 02:59:31.079 --> 02:59:37.520 far as an alternative ECA yes a the alternative ESA is fine 02:59:37.520 --> 02:59:38.239 it's just that 02:59:38.239 --> 02:59:44.459 instead of going forward as a zoning it could go forward as 02:59:44.459 --> 02:59:46.120 either a subdivision 02:59:46.120 --> 02:59:49.979 variance or just like an alternative development plan does 02:59:49.979 --> 02:59:51.040 now it's just that 02:59:51.040 --> 02:59:54.469 the council could say for I believe they can and I'm not 02:59:54.469 --> 02:59:55.559 gonna ask you to chime in 02:59:55.559 --> 02:59:59.260 now mr. Flores but you'll give the final say so I think the 02:59:59.260 --> 03:00:00.239 council could say 03:00:00.239 --> 03:00:03.959 we're not gonna delegate approval of alternative ESAs to PN 03:00:03.959 --> 03:00:04.959 Z and it has to go 03:00:04.959 --> 03:00:08.239 to City Council well I was just gonna make a comment after 03:00:08.239 --> 03:00:09.639 after you finished 03:00:09.639 --> 03:00:12.889 but maybe if I can have Deborah come up because I know we 03:00:12.889 --> 03:00:14.879 discussed this because 03:00:14.879 --> 03:00:17.459 there's been some talk about what the process or appeal 03:00:17.459 --> 03:00:18.200 process would be 03:00:18.200 --> 03:00:22.760 Deborah would you mind explaining the difference between 03:00:22.760 --> 03:00:24.360 designation of an ESA 03:00:24.360 --> 03:00:30.729 and then approval of an alternative plan the designation of 03:00:30.729 --> 03:00:31.680 an ESA is 03:00:31.680 --> 03:00:36.739 determined by a field assessment okay we have we have the E 03:00:36.739 --> 03:00:38.120 SA map which is a 03:00:38.120 --> 03:00:43.420 first chance to to to look into areas that should be 03:00:43.420 --> 03:00:45.760 protected if the ESAs if 03:00:45.760 --> 03:00:50.319 there is questions about the validity of the map as is 03:00:50.319 --> 03:00:52.719 shown the applicant has 03:00:52.719 --> 03:00:57.299 the right to request a field assessment either staff will 03:00:57.299 --> 03:00:59.079 do it at the applicant 03:00:59.079 --> 03:01:02.879 request or the applicant can hire a consultant a biologist 03:01:02.879 --> 03:01:04.680 to do it and what 03:01:04.680 --> 03:01:11.559 it does is go through a criteria of vegetation of soil and 03:01:11.559 --> 03:01:13.440 hydrology okay and 03:01:13.440 --> 03:01:16.770 we look into what is in the back what is about the bank and 03:01:16.770 --> 03:01:19.479 so on so it is a the 03:01:19.479 --> 03:01:22.059 criteria that we use is the same very similar to what the 03:01:22.059 --> 03:01:22.920 Court of Engineers 03:01:22.920 --> 03:01:27.979 have been used when we did our research we research not 03:01:27.979 --> 03:01:30.159 only state of Texas but 03:01:30.159 --> 03:01:34.319 nationwide and so on so this is the typical criteria that a 03:01:34.319 --> 03:01:35.520 for example a 03:01:35.520 --> 03:01:41.379 wetland delineator we use okay so after we go to this to 03:01:41.379 --> 03:01:42.639 the side we do the 03:01:42.639 --> 03:01:46.219 assessment or the applicants submit their assessment 03:01:46.219 --> 03:01:47.680 through a third party 03:01:47.680 --> 03:01:53.840 we review it if we concord with the with the conclusions 03:01:53.840 --> 03:01:55.079 either the ESA is there 03:01:55.079 --> 03:02:00.229 or the ESA is there but not as shown is moved around or the 03:02:00.229 --> 03:02:01.559 type of ESA is 03:02:01.559 --> 03:02:06.530 different then we will issue a memo to the planning 03:02:06.530 --> 03:02:08.120 director to request the 03:02:08.120 --> 03:02:11.700 change the officially change of the map I guess my question 03:02:11.700 --> 03:02:12.440 is to be more 03:02:12.440 --> 03:02:17.840 specific is the the appellate board or the board that would 03:02:17.840 --> 03:02:18.680 that would hear the 03:02:18.680 --> 03:02:24.879 the appeal for one for for ESA determinations and two for 03:02:24.879 --> 03:02:25.319 alternative 03:02:25.319 --> 03:02:29.180 plans okay the new process proposed for appealing and again 03:02:29.180 --> 03:02:29.840 this is completely 03:02:29.840 --> 03:02:34.510 new is it would be through the zoning board of adjustment 03:02:34.510 --> 03:02:36.239 process meaning that 03:02:36.239 --> 03:02:39.399 there will be a public hearing advertisement and all that 03:02:39.399 --> 03:02:40.280 and it will 03:02:40.280 --> 03:02:42.860 be the applicant will have a chance to make their case a 03:02:42.860 --> 03:02:44.520 staff would provide a 03:02:44.520 --> 03:02:50.569 recommendation and then that's how the appeal of a staff 03:02:50.569 --> 03:02:52.520 determination of what 03:02:52.520 --> 03:02:55.799 type of ESA or the president of the ESA is going to be okay 03:02:55.799 --> 03:02:56.719 the difference 03:02:56.719 --> 03:03:00.010 between that and the alternative ESA plan is that it goes 03:03:00.010 --> 03:03:01.040 through the planning 03:03:01.040 --> 03:03:04.729 and zoning Commission and City Council now is the 03:03:04.729 --> 03:03:07.399 alternative is that process 03:03:07.399 --> 03:03:13.659 any different than it is currently no no it is is is follow 03:03:13.659 --> 03:03:14.719 the same so the only 03:03:14.719 --> 03:03:19.319 difference the only change to the ESA ordinance is the 03:03:19.319 --> 03:03:21.319 additional appellate 03:03:21.319 --> 03:03:25.920 procedure before be zoning board of adjustment correct for 03:03:25.920 --> 03:03:26.120 ESA 03:03:26.120 --> 03:03:33.559 determinations at the outset correct okay and mr. Allison I 03:03:33.559 --> 03:03:34.399 'm not sure that 03:03:34.399 --> 03:03:39.700 helps or answers clarifies in any of the questions you had 03:03:39.700 --> 03:03:41.920 not at all 03:03:43.079 --> 03:03:47.639 he says they're still not in my mind still not a zoning 03:03:47.639 --> 03:03:49.920 issue and when you're 03:03:49.920 --> 03:03:53.819 looking at the presence of an ESA and staff determination 03:03:53.819 --> 03:03:55.040 that can be appealed 03:03:55.040 --> 03:03:58.059 via the zoning board of adjustments again you're back into 03:03:58.059 --> 03:03:59.000 the zone but I've 03:03:59.000 --> 03:04:01.649 never really had any issues with that then once it's 03:04:01.649 --> 03:04:03.200 established that there is 03:04:03.200 --> 03:04:06.959 an ESA and you want to modify that ESA then you have to go 03:04:06.959 --> 03:04:07.879 through the 03:04:07.879 --> 03:04:10.920 alternative ESA problem because the alternative ESA is not 03:04:10.920 --> 03:04:11.760 addressed whether 03:04:11.760 --> 03:04:14.520 it's there or not it's how do we deal with the one that is 03:04:14.520 --> 03:04:15.559 there and then 03:04:15.559 --> 03:04:19.290 that gets run through as a zoning process and the real 03:04:19.290 --> 03:04:20.399 issue with the 03:04:20.399 --> 03:04:25.399 zoning process is not rather P&Z and City Council hear it 03:04:25.399 --> 03:04:26.239 not whether there's 03:04:26.239 --> 03:04:31.239 a public hearing or not the real issue is driving the super 03:04:31.239 --> 03:04:32.399 majority requirement 03:04:32.399 --> 03:04:36.959 I've had instances where staff is recommended approval and 03:04:36.959 --> 03:04:37.680 because of 03:04:37.680 --> 03:04:41.479 neighbors public opinion that drove a super majority 03:04:41.479 --> 03:04:43.040 council voted against it 03:04:43.040 --> 03:04:45.920 I had a previous P&Z member come to me one time and say why 03:04:45.920 --> 03:04:46.840 don't y'all put 03:04:46.840 --> 03:04:49.420 that retaining wall there you should have moved it way up 03:04:49.420 --> 03:04:50.079 closer I said 03:04:50.079 --> 03:04:52.959 because you wouldn't let us you know you wouldn't approve 03:04:52.959 --> 03:04:54.760 that alternate ESA and 03:04:54.760 --> 03:05:00.979 I won't go further into that but that's the kind of things 03:05:00.979 --> 03:05:02.760 we're dealing with 03:05:02.760 --> 03:05:05.149 with that type of the process the alternative ESA in 03:05:05.149 --> 03:05:06.319 general is not an 03:05:06.319 --> 03:05:10.389 issue with it it's the actual process with the not even the 03:05:10.389 --> 03:05:11.700 public hearing is 03:05:11.700 --> 03:05:15.299 the potential of the super majority as you would for land 03:05:15.299 --> 03:05:16.760 use versus modifying 03:05:16.760 --> 03:05:21.319 land characteristics FEMA doesn't have to go through a 03:05:21.319 --> 03:05:23.079 zoning process to change 03:05:23.079 --> 03:05:26.709 the maps and yet we have to go through that to let us do 03:05:26.709 --> 03:05:28.239 things that FEMA would 03:05:28.239 --> 03:05:33.040 allow us to do that the city doesn't even allow us to do 03:05:33.040 --> 03:05:34.559 and it's kind of 03:05:34.559 --> 03:05:38.309 like well just like the National Flood Insurance Program do 03:05:38.309 --> 03:05:39.559 our ordinances help 03:05:39.559 --> 03:05:43.309 set a maximum insurance rate here yes what are the 03:05:43.309 --> 03:05:45.360 insurance company charging 03:05:45.360 --> 03:05:49.209 here should we relax our ordinances to let that maximum 03:05:49.209 --> 03:05:50.280 come down I've seen 03:05:50.280 --> 03:05:55.200 that with fire a good reason to have ordinances is to keep 03:05:55.200 --> 03:05:56.639 your maximum rate 03:05:56.639 --> 03:05:59.270 down but if the insurance companies aren't charging 03:05:59.270 --> 03:06:00.280 anywhere near that rate 03:06:00.280 --> 03:06:03.809 anyway are we realizing that economic benefit are we really 03:06:03.809 --> 03:06:04.639 accomplishing our 03:06:04.639 --> 03:06:12.629 goals maybe Deborah if you could explain the rationale 03:06:12.629 --> 03:06:16.159 behind having it before 03:06:16.159 --> 03:06:21.559 PNC versus MUE originally the alternative ESA plan and the 03:06:21.559 --> 03:06:22.319 ADP follow 03:06:22.319 --> 03:06:27.360 the same process it was meant for to go through PNC and 03:06:27.360 --> 03:06:29.680 City Council the then 03:06:29.680 --> 03:06:36.180 that the ADP were process change and ESA stand following 03:06:36.180 --> 03:06:37.159 the the original 03:06:37.159 --> 03:06:42.719 procedure the reason why PNC City Council of retain is they 03:06:42.719 --> 03:06:46.000 feel that they 03:06:46.000 --> 03:06:50.729 want to have the ability to hear those cases as a public 03:06:50.729 --> 03:06:53.840 hearing I correct me 03:06:53.840 --> 03:06:56.780 if around if there's any other procedures current 03:06:56.780 --> 03:06:58.079 procedures outline in 03:06:58.079 --> 03:07:01.879 subchapter 3 that go through public hearings without the 03:07:01.879 --> 03:07:02.760 super majority 03:07:02.760 --> 03:07:12.520 that's there's not so that would have been for for to take 03:07:12.520 --> 03:07:15.360 the super majority 03:07:15.360 --> 03:07:19.540 possibility out of the context of the hearing then a new 03:07:19.540 --> 03:07:21.040 process will have to 03:07:21.040 --> 03:07:28.139 be crafted and spell out in subchapter 3 and then sub 03:07:28.139 --> 03:07:29.959 chapter 17 will have to 03:07:29.959 --> 03:07:35.149 say this process the alternative ESA plan will follow this 03:07:35.149 --> 03:07:37.639 new process 03:07:37.799 --> 03:07:41.229 well I'll just chime in and I'm a recognized Commissioner 03:07:41.229 --> 03:07:42.120 back that was 03:07:42.120 --> 03:07:45.200 one of the things I mentioned in work session that's a 03:07:45.200 --> 03:07:46.799 concern of mine as well 03:07:46.799 --> 03:07:50.620 is that it's it's great to offer that as an alternative 03:07:50.620 --> 03:07:51.799 kind of a lot of the 03:07:51.799 --> 03:07:54.450 discussion that we had but at the end of the day it becomes 03:07:54.450 --> 03:07:55.479 a political decision 03:07:55.479 --> 03:07:58.959 as to whether you're going to get an alternative ESA plan 03:07:58.959 --> 03:08:00.280 granted or not it's 03:08:00.280 --> 03:08:03.959 not a criteria if you do these four things it gets approved 03:08:03.959 --> 03:08:05.239 it's you can do 03:08:05.239 --> 03:08:08.670 all these things and we still may as a body not approve it 03:08:08.670 --> 03:08:09.959 and so that's one of 03:08:09.959 --> 03:08:12.620 the concerns that I shared at work session I want to just 03:08:12.620 --> 03:08:13.479 bring back here 03:08:13.479 --> 03:08:18.879 at this point to Commissioner back thank you chair Lee 03:08:18.879 --> 03:08:20.680 first of all thanks for 03:08:20.680 --> 03:08:23.520 coming up and making your presentation it makes me a little 03:08:23.520 --> 03:08:24.440 bit more aware of 03:08:24.440 --> 03:08:27.680 what's out there and you know you and I usually stand on 03:08:27.680 --> 03:08:28.600 opposite sides of thing 03:08:28.600 --> 03:08:31.770 but I have a lot of respect for you and as a result of that 03:08:31.770 --> 03:08:32.479 I am kind of 03:08:32.479 --> 03:08:35.520 disappointed here that how many of these suggestions that 03:08:35.520 --> 03:08:36.559 are here did you say 03:08:36.559 --> 03:08:43.459 were yours about 30 or 60 percent of them listed there now 03:08:43.459 --> 03:08:44.840 other people may 03:08:44.840 --> 03:08:48.260 have commented on the same thing but we submitted 43 03:08:48.260 --> 03:08:49.920 comments that got included 03:08:49.920 --> 03:08:54.000 in that full list of 61 by us and others and I think you 03:08:54.000 --> 03:08:54.600 should have a fair 03:08:54.600 --> 03:08:56.739 hearing on that I know in the past we've talked about the 03:08:56.739 --> 03:08:57.520 tree code we talked 03:08:57.520 --> 03:09:00.120 about doing workshops on that because there was a the devil 03:09:00.120 --> 03:09:00.719 's are in the the 03:09:00.719 --> 03:09:03.659 devil is in the details and we haven't had that yet either 03:09:03.659 --> 03:09:04.760 and I hope we do 03:09:04.760 --> 03:09:07.379 because I want to hear both sides the argument I don't want 03:09:07.379 --> 03:09:08.200 anybody to be 03:09:08.200 --> 03:09:12.989 railroaded so would workshops as much as I know staff would 03:09:12.989 --> 03:09:14.239 like to see this go 03:09:14.239 --> 03:09:18.350 forward I kind of like to see it go forward too but at the 03:09:18.350 --> 03:09:18.920 same time I'd 03:09:18.920 --> 03:09:22.909 like to make sure that everybody's had a fair hearing so 03:09:22.909 --> 03:09:24.280 workshops with that 03:09:24.280 --> 03:09:27.969 benefit you where we can all sit down and hear your griev 03:09:27.969 --> 03:09:29.239 ances along with 03:09:29.239 --> 03:09:33.389 staff that would be appreciated and I'd also like to say in 03:09:33.389 --> 03:09:34.680 the last year the 03:09:34.680 --> 03:09:37.870 staff across the board has been making noble efforts to try 03:09:37.870 --> 03:09:38.840 and correct a lot 03:09:38.840 --> 03:09:42.030 of things and fix a lot of things and thanks for saying I 03:09:42.030 --> 03:09:43.159 get up talk about 03:09:43.159 --> 03:09:46.000 the one or two things we have an issue with versus the 03:09:46.000 --> 03:09:47.360 thousands of things that 03:09:47.360 --> 03:09:50.790 are going great but yes that we have appreciated okay well 03:09:50.790 --> 03:09:51.159 that'd be something 03:09:51.159 --> 03:09:54.079 to consider them thank you 03:09:55.360 --> 03:09:59.920 I see no other questions thank you this is a public hearing 03:09:59.920 --> 03:10:00.680 anyone else who would 03:10:00.680 --> 03:10:04.319 like to come speak on this island please come forward at 03:10:04.319 --> 03:10:09.239 this time seeing none 03:10:09.239 --> 03:10:12.440 will close the public hearing and I will open the floor for 03:10:12.440 --> 03:10:13.319 discussion or a 03:10:13.319 --> 03:10:27.159 motion Commissioner Beck thank you chair now as I mentioned 03:10:27.159 --> 03:10:30.319 mr. Allison for the 03:10:30.319 --> 03:10:32.750 most part I have no problem with this revision there's a 03:10:32.750 --> 03:10:33.879 lot of good stuff to 03:10:33.879 --> 03:10:37.920 it but on the other hand and I've heard expressed with 03:10:37.920 --> 03:10:39.319 commissioners in the in 03:10:39.319 --> 03:10:42.840 our work session too that some more discussion is probably 03:10:42.840 --> 03:10:44.040 needed on this so 03:10:44.040 --> 03:10:47.840 I wouldn't be reluctant to putting this off a little bit 03:10:47.840 --> 03:10:49.319 longer I know it's been 03:10:49.319 --> 03:10:52.549 13 months never know you're eager to but I want to make 03:10:52.549 --> 03:10:53.959 sure that both sides are 03:10:53.959 --> 03:10:57.549 heard and there is counter arguments to the concerns 03:10:57.549 --> 03:10:59.239 everybody has here that I'd 03:10:59.239 --> 03:11:02.030 like to present to and get them out there in the open and 03:11:02.030 --> 03:11:02.440 have that 03:11:02.440 --> 03:11:08.290 opportunity so you know if we consider this a motion to 03:11:08.290 --> 03:11:09.760 move forward I wouldn't 03:11:09.760 --> 03:11:12.340 be opposed to that I'm not gonna make a motion at this time 03:11:12.340 --> 03:11:14.799 okay 03:11:14.799 --> 03:11:17.719 you mean Commissioner Ellis thank you chair yeah I mean I 03:11:17.719 --> 03:11:18.559 have some of those 03:11:18.559 --> 03:11:22.889 same thoughts we we have too many unanswered questions I 03:11:22.889 --> 03:11:23.760 think and too 03:11:23.760 --> 03:11:26.340 many things that that I guess haven't been addressed 03:11:26.340 --> 03:11:27.379 whether we haven't had 03:11:27.379 --> 03:11:32.680 enough time together to to to address them or not but it 03:11:32.680 --> 03:11:34.319 does seem like we 03:11:34.319 --> 03:11:39.149 need more discussion just to get those things answered so 03:11:39.149 --> 03:11:41.360 that that we can move 03:11:41.360 --> 03:11:44.440 forward with a recommendation most of this I like there 03:11:44.440 --> 03:11:46.399 just seems to be a few 03:11:46.399 --> 03:11:49.520 questions out there and in concerns that that haven't been 03:11:49.520 --> 03:11:51.139 answered yet and I 03:11:51.139 --> 03:11:53.350 think it's been lack of time both of our work sessions the 03:11:53.350 --> 03:11:54.159 last two meetings 03:11:54.159 --> 03:11:57.360 we've literally run out of time in the middle of your 03:11:57.360 --> 03:11:58.920 presentation so I don't 03:11:58.920 --> 03:12:01.930 know how we can fix that if we can if we can move that to 03:12:01.930 --> 03:12:03.319 another work session or 03:12:03.319 --> 03:12:07.139 how we do that but we need some kind of uninterrupted time 03:12:07.139 --> 03:12:08.360 to be able to I think 03:12:08.360 --> 03:12:12.409 get to the bottom of some of these concerns so that we can 03:12:12.409 --> 03:12:13.440 give a 03:12:13.440 --> 03:12:16.520 recommendation I don't think we're there tonight 03:12:16.520 --> 03:12:21.079 Commissioner Sanchez yeah I know we we spent a lot of time 03:12:21.079 --> 03:12:22.159 discussing this and 03:12:22.159 --> 03:12:25.069 I'm still kind of confused this whole thing since this is 03:12:25.069 --> 03:12:26.799 the first time I you 03:12:26.799 --> 03:12:30.430 know I'm relatively new again but I think we need more time 03:12:30.430 --> 03:12:31.360 to discuss it 03:12:31.360 --> 03:12:34.670 that was I think one of the things we said at our work 03:12:34.670 --> 03:12:36.079 session is that we need 03:12:36.079 --> 03:12:39.510 a little bit more time so I'd like to see this postponed 03:12:39.510 --> 03:12:41.559 and have another run 03:12:41.559 --> 03:12:47.479 at it and see what comes out of the more understanding 03:12:50.399 --> 03:12:57.040 staff is willing to do a and another work session we can 03:12:57.040 --> 03:12:58.239 either have a regular 03:12:58.239 --> 03:13:02.200 work session of an hour just for ESA or we can have an 03:13:02.200 --> 03:13:04.200 early work session or we 03:13:04.200 --> 03:13:08.909 can have just a work session not right before the regular P 03:13:08.909 --> 03:13:10.799 NC sessions in that 03:13:10.799 --> 03:13:13.670 way there will be more time for discussion if that's 03:13:13.670 --> 03:13:14.799 something that you 03:13:14.799 --> 03:13:20.110 would like to to do this is a public hearing we already 03:13:20.110 --> 03:13:21.879 notified so if you 03:13:21.879 --> 03:13:27.430 can determine that a date to continue and then between now 03:13:27.430 --> 03:13:28.879 and that day to 03:13:28.879 --> 03:13:31.459 have the work session meeting with you the staff is 03:13:31.459 --> 03:13:32.760 perfectly fine with that 03:13:32.760 --> 03:13:41.000 and then I have the 61 comments I have answers for those 03:13:41.000 --> 03:13:44.360 the the reason why that 03:13:44.360 --> 03:13:48.350 those were not reflected on the draft that you were reading 03:13:48.350 --> 03:13:49.399 is because those 03:13:49.399 --> 03:13:56.010 were the changes that COE have heard and was vetted through 03:13:56.010 --> 03:13:57.680 it however that 03:13:57.680 --> 03:14:01.649 doesn't means that you can make a proposed change to the to 03:14:01.649 --> 03:14:02.639 the language 03:14:02.639 --> 03:14:05.520 and that as a part of your recommendation when the public 03:14:05.520 --> 03:14:05.879 hearing 03:14:05.879 --> 03:14:15.040 is done so we will provide answers for those for you 61 03:14:15.040 --> 03:14:17.760 comments right now if 03:14:17.760 --> 03:14:22.639 you have a specific questions please please please send it 03:14:22.639 --> 03:14:24.239 to me and I will 03:14:24.239 --> 03:14:30.590 make sure that those items are extensively discussed during 03:14:30.590 --> 03:14:31.200 the work 03:14:31.200 --> 03:14:35.440 session items some of you have sent me questions by email 03:14:35.440 --> 03:14:36.959 and those have been 03:14:36.959 --> 03:14:42.360 answered as well so please take the chance to send me those 03:14:42.360 --> 03:14:43.079 emails in that 03:14:43.079 --> 03:14:47.639 way I can really tailor the work session to address those 03:14:47.639 --> 03:14:49.120 comments or those 03:14:49.120 --> 03:14:53.260 questions to your question I guess I'll give some thoughts 03:14:53.260 --> 03:14:56.360 and feedback so the 03:14:56.360 --> 03:14:59.790 the backup that we had with all the comments the process 03:14:59.790 --> 03:15:00.959 went those went to 03:15:00.959 --> 03:15:10.290 the COE and they chose essentially to not from October of 03:15:10.290 --> 03:15:15.200 2016 through I'm sorry 03:15:15.200 --> 03:15:21.780 August of 2013 of 2016 through August of 2017 so those are 03:15:21.780 --> 03:15:23.239 the the 13 month 03:15:23.239 --> 03:15:26.319 abetting process that we did with the COE when we have 03:15:26.319 --> 03:15:27.520 finished all those 03:15:27.520 --> 03:15:32.829 comments those were the the draft posted online for public 03:15:32.829 --> 03:15:35.920 input so the COE have 03:15:35.920 --> 03:15:41.409 not seen those comments and we were hoping that after going 03:15:41.409 --> 03:15:42.799 through PNC we 03:15:42.799 --> 03:15:46.399 collect your input your recommendation whatever changes you 03:15:46.399 --> 03:15:47.479 are proposing and 03:15:47.479 --> 03:15:52.370 forward those to the the City Council as a whole and 03:15:52.370 --> 03:15:54.719 showing what the COE have 03:15:54.719 --> 03:16:00.149 proposed what the PNC is now proposing and then show the 03:16:00.149 --> 03:16:02.319 list of public input 03:16:02.319 --> 03:16:05.549 that we have received if necessary we will provide a 03:16:05.549 --> 03:16:07.040 written a response for 03:16:07.040 --> 03:16:11.639 every single of them I went through them I have responses 03:16:11.639 --> 03:16:14.399 so we can do that so in 03:16:14.399 --> 03:16:18.459 that way everybody who has been involved in the process 03:16:18.459 --> 03:16:20.120 from the get-go can see 03:16:20.120 --> 03:16:24.170 the changes throughout and City Council can make a final 03:16:24.170 --> 03:16:25.120 recommendation or a 03:16:25.120 --> 03:16:29.840 final decision well I think that would be a good step for 03:16:29.840 --> 03:16:32.360 us to have I know for 03:16:32.360 --> 03:16:34.450 this Commission and a lot of times we sit up here and one 03:16:34.450 --> 03:16:35.000 of the first 03:16:35.000 --> 03:16:37.629 questions we ask when it's a private have y'all had a 03:16:37.629 --> 03:16:39.079 neighborhood meeting and 03:16:39.079 --> 03:16:43.020 this is a neighborhood meeting comment to me and when we 03:16:43.020 --> 03:16:44.159 have those come to us 03:16:44.159 --> 03:16:46.399 the first thing we turn around to the developer of all 03:16:46.399 --> 03:16:47.440 these things that were 03:16:47.440 --> 03:16:50.479 brought up in your neighborhood meeting what you do about 03:16:50.479 --> 03:16:52.159 them and usually the 03:16:52.159 --> 03:16:55.760 reception is we didn't do anything with them is not 03:16:55.760 --> 03:16:58.000 received well and I think 03:16:58.000 --> 03:17:00.899 it's good just from the city standpoint when we ask people 03:17:00.899 --> 03:17:01.719 to do that even 03:17:01.719 --> 03:17:04.920 though it's not mandatory it's highly encouraged go have a 03:17:04.920 --> 03:17:05.319 neighborhood 03:17:05.319 --> 03:17:08.600 meeting hopefully there's some resolution there if there 03:17:08.600 --> 03:17:09.040 can't be we 03:17:09.040 --> 03:17:11.899 understand we want to hear both sides of it and then this 03:17:11.899 --> 03:17:13.079 board or Commission can 03:17:13.079 --> 03:17:16.059 make a determination and move it to City Council I think 03:17:16.059 --> 03:17:17.399 that's an important step 03:17:17.399 --> 03:17:22.120 for us as a city to lead by example that we ask other 03:17:22.120 --> 03:17:23.719 people to do that and I 03:17:23.719 --> 03:17:26.659 think we should do that too to be able to say hey we got 60 03:17:26.659 --> 03:17:27.959 -something comments 03:17:27.959 --> 03:17:31.860 20 of them we addressed 20 of them we didn't agree with and 03:17:31.860 --> 03:17:32.959 20 of these we'd 03:17:32.959 --> 03:17:35.319 like to throw up here and you guys can bat them around and 03:17:35.319 --> 03:17:35.959 decide which 03:17:35.959 --> 03:17:37.899 direction you want to go on them and I think that's 03:17:37.899 --> 03:17:39.040 something that should be 03:17:39.040 --> 03:17:42.290 incorporated to your point of kind of next steps how we 03:17:42.290 --> 03:17:44.040 move this forward I'd 03:17:44.040 --> 03:17:47.280 like to see it continued like to see these comments 03:17:47.280 --> 03:17:48.319 addressed so that we can 03:17:48.319 --> 03:17:52.879 come back and say okay we see the processes has moved 03:17:52.879 --> 03:17:54.559 forward and I think 03:17:54.559 --> 03:17:57.729 one of the other comments I would give the difficulty that 03:17:57.729 --> 03:17:59.239 I have when at least 03:17:59.239 --> 03:18:01.940 for me personally is I know there's a tremendous amount of 03:18:01.940 --> 03:18:02.920 effort and work that 03:18:02.920 --> 03:18:06.670 goes on behind the scenes to get the ordinance to place to 03:18:06.670 --> 03:18:07.239 bring it here 03:18:07.239 --> 03:18:09.940 before us and it always seemed like there's been a 03:18:09.940 --> 03:18:11.399 tremendous amount of time 03:18:11.399 --> 03:18:14.370 and then we see it and y'all vote on it and move it and I'm 03:18:14.370 --> 03:18:15.879 like what's the 03:18:15.879 --> 03:18:18.319 process for us to review it what's the process for us to 03:18:18.319 --> 03:18:19.200 get to people that 03:18:19.200 --> 03:18:23.110 send emails telephone calls add those things in there 03:18:23.110 --> 03:18:24.639 versus you see it it 03:18:24.639 --> 03:18:27.409 needs to move to the next level there doesn't that's an 03:18:27.409 --> 03:18:28.680 issue that I personally 03:18:28.680 --> 03:18:31.290 have when we have a lot of these changes I think a lot of 03:18:31.290 --> 03:18:32.200 things clean up lives 03:18:32.200 --> 03:18:35.120 are good in here there's some things as I pointed out 03:18:35.120 --> 03:18:36.280 tonight that I read it I 03:18:36.280 --> 03:18:40.000 go well the intention may be this but that's not what it 03:18:40.000 --> 03:18:41.360 says it needs to be 03:18:41.360 --> 03:18:45.219 cleaned up so that it is very clear you can fill or not 03:18:45.219 --> 03:18:46.840 fill and how you do it 03:18:46.840 --> 03:18:49.139 and some of the other things I brought up and don't want 03:18:49.139 --> 03:18:50.879 rehash and I think 03:18:50.879 --> 03:18:54.129 those are the things that need to happen when these things 03:18:54.129 --> 03:18:54.959 come to us as a 03:18:54.959 --> 03:19:00.520 commission is to have an opportunity to review them make 03:19:00.520 --> 03:19:01.799 comments to their 03:19:01.799 --> 03:19:04.579 suggestions and changes get it good and hopefully move it 03:19:04.579 --> 03:19:05.559 to City Council but 03:19:05.559 --> 03:19:08.200 when it does get the City Council hopefully it's been very 03:19:08.200 --> 03:19:08.799 well vetted 03:19:08.799 --> 03:19:11.889 very clean and they can look at and go you know this looks 03:19:11.889 --> 03:19:12.959 great there's two 03:19:12.959 --> 03:19:15.829 things on here we do different and let's vote on it versus 03:19:15.829 --> 03:19:16.879 it gets to City 03:19:16.879 --> 03:19:20.629 Council and there's 60 questions and people are coming and 03:19:20.629 --> 03:19:21.719 going none of this 03:19:21.719 --> 03:19:24.819 has been addressed and it turns into a bog and those City 03:19:24.819 --> 03:19:26.079 Council spends a lot 03:19:26.079 --> 03:19:29.399 more time on these things than we do and I think one of the 03:19:29.399 --> 03:19:30.879 jobs is us as P&Z 03:19:30.879 --> 03:19:34.020 Commissioners is hopefully to clean it up and do as best as 03:19:34.020 --> 03:19:34.879 we can here and 03:19:34.879 --> 03:19:37.200 move it to them that they can look at and go you know what 03:19:37.200 --> 03:19:38.000 the folks that we 03:19:38.000 --> 03:19:41.899 appointed that board did a good job and we know we're gonna 03:19:41.899 --> 03:19:43.159 do our piece to it 03:19:43.159 --> 03:19:46.729 and approve it not approve it change it or whatever and so 03:19:46.729 --> 03:19:48.000 those would be some 03:19:48.000 --> 03:19:50.760 of my thoughts I know you pose a question and we're still 03:19:50.760 --> 03:19:51.399 open and so I'm 03:19:51.399 --> 03:19:54.450 gonna recognize Commissioner Beck to throw out some other 03:19:54.450 --> 03:19:55.159 things and hopefully 03:19:55.159 --> 03:19:57.590 we can get something put together on next steps for us 03:19:57.590 --> 03:19:58.360 thank you chair 03:19:58.360 --> 03:20:00.680 actually you pretty much said it all what I wanted to do 03:20:00.680 --> 03:20:01.200 was kind of 03:20:01.200 --> 03:20:06.760 encapsulate what we probably should do is set a specific 03:20:06.760 --> 03:20:08.639 work session either 03:20:08.639 --> 03:20:11.409 prior to a regular work session P&Z or maybe even on a 03:20:11.409 --> 03:20:13.760 different day I know I'm 03:20:13.760 --> 03:20:17.200 retired here so I can pretty much do it anytime but it 03:20:17.200 --> 03:20:18.200 makes it difficult for the 03:20:18.200 --> 03:20:20.239 other ones work so that would have to be taking 03:20:20.239 --> 03:20:23.680 consideration right Andrew so but 03:20:23.680 --> 03:20:26.510 we it needs to be distinctive needs to be at least an hour 03:20:26.510 --> 03:20:27.639 I would think you 03:20:27.639 --> 03:20:31.829 know maybe a little bit longer and prior to that if you 03:20:31.829 --> 03:20:33.239 would send us your 03:20:33.239 --> 03:20:36.959 responses to the 60 questions so we can mull over them plus 03:20:36.959 --> 03:20:38.920 we need to have Mr. 03:20:38.920 --> 03:20:43.639 Allison and others in his area his field of expertise come 03:20:43.639 --> 03:20:44.799 there and defend their 03:20:44.799 --> 03:20:47.840 positions on that and I think that way we get a good 03:20:47.840 --> 03:20:49.280 rounded deal so I think if 03:20:49.280 --> 03:20:51.860 we just kind of if I can get a nod from everybody here if 03:20:51.860 --> 03:20:52.840 that's okay I could 03:20:52.840 --> 03:20:56.489 make that motion and we can move forward does anybody see 03:20:56.489 --> 03:20:57.760 problem with that 03:20:57.760 --> 03:21:02.450 process as I just line laid out I think the only point of 03:21:02.450 --> 03:21:03.680 that is just a 03:21:03.680 --> 03:21:08.969 timeframe right I would suggest we want to get it done as 03:21:08.969 --> 03:21:09.319 soon as possible 03:21:09.319 --> 03:21:17.000 probably 21st two weeks two weeks has had enough time for 03:21:17.000 --> 03:21:18.680 everybody we've seen 03:21:18.680 --> 03:21:25.700 a lot of it there's just just a smaller stuff now I'll call 03:21:25.700 --> 03:21:26.360 on make sure that we 03:21:26.360 --> 03:21:28.940 can we can get it done because that's about a week 03:21:28.940 --> 03:21:33.680 turnaround okay okay so 03:21:33.680 --> 03:21:37.870 maybe have a work session start like at 4 o'clock or even 3 03:21:37.870 --> 03:21:43.440 o'clock okay and date 03:21:43.440 --> 03:21:48.750 certain of the 21st with prior to that with the responses 03:21:48.750 --> 03:21:51.280 from Deborah on the 03:21:51.280 --> 03:21:56.920 60 questions and it includes Lee and other members of his 03:21:56.920 --> 03:21:58.799 group that want to 03:21:58.799 --> 03:22:07.760 have their inputs it from from Lee you wanted no actually I 03:22:07.760 --> 03:22:08.639 want your response 03:22:08.639 --> 03:22:12.729 you said you had responses for all that's all we want in an 03:22:12.729 --> 03:22:14.239 email okay and 03:22:14.239 --> 03:22:18.229 Lee just needs to be there to defend his own positions okay 03:22:18.229 --> 03:22:19.319 but by the time he 03:22:19.319 --> 03:22:21.899 gets there will have read your responses to it so we can 03:22:21.899 --> 03:22:23.200 anticipate what he's 03:22:23.200 --> 03:22:33.649 gonna say so that's my motion okay commissioner Ellis thank 03:22:33.649 --> 03:22:34.319 you chair I 03:22:34.319 --> 03:22:37.149 guess just to maybe clarify that you know you've got that 03:22:37.149 --> 03:22:38.159 spreadsheet with 03:22:38.159 --> 03:22:41.719 all the questions in it and if you just add another column 03:22:41.719 --> 03:22:43.280 that just says why or 03:22:43.280 --> 03:22:47.180 why not this is already addressed here you know that would 03:22:47.180 --> 03:22:48.000 that would be really 03:22:48.000 --> 03:22:51.819 helpful you know we want public comment and obviously you 03:22:51.819 --> 03:22:53.040 know you're not going 03:22:53.040 --> 03:22:56.469 to take all those suggestions and incorporate it I'm sure 03:22:56.469 --> 03:22:58.399 but I think you 03:22:58.399 --> 03:23:01.889 know whoever made the comment certainly should know why or 03:23:01.889 --> 03:23:03.559 what your response is 03:23:03.559 --> 03:23:06.739 to the comment and we certainly would love to see that you 03:23:06.739 --> 03:23:07.760 know just it 03:23:07.760 --> 03:23:10.459 doesn't have to be long and drawn out just this is why or 03:23:10.459 --> 03:23:11.440 this is where it's 03:23:11.440 --> 03:23:14.500 located or this is why we can't do that or this is how it's 03:23:14.500 --> 03:23:15.399 addressed or or 03:23:15.399 --> 03:23:19.799 what have you that would be really helpful thank you 03:23:20.799 --> 03:23:27.239 do we need to continue the public hearing to a certain day 03:23:27.239 --> 03:23:32.639 we will thank 03:23:32.639 --> 03:23:37.200 you Commissioner Roselle so first I just wanted to second 03:23:37.200 --> 03:23:38.280 or echo everything that 03:23:38.280 --> 03:23:41.180 the chair said including the appreciation for the amount of 03:23:41.180 --> 03:23:41.479 work 03:23:41.479 --> 03:23:43.719 going into this I don't I know for me it's it's not 03:23:43.719 --> 03:23:45.840 overlooked this seems like 03:23:45.840 --> 03:23:49.649 a lot of work and certainly our my feedback and our 03:23:49.649 --> 03:23:50.799 feedback hopefully is 03:23:50.799 --> 03:23:53.379 not belittling of any of those efforts but I think there 03:23:53.379 --> 03:23:54.360 might be opportunities 03:23:54.360 --> 03:23:59.559 to as chair said strengthen the efficiency of this process 03:23:59.559 --> 03:24:00.319 but with that 03:24:00.319 --> 03:24:04.000 I will second the Commissioner Beck's motion to continue 03:24:04.000 --> 03:24:05.079 this item to date 03:24:05.079 --> 03:24:09.870 certain February 21st with a additional allocation of time 03:24:09.870 --> 03:24:16.159 for work session okay 03:24:16.159 --> 03:24:18.959 we have a first and a second do we have any further 03:24:18.959 --> 03:24:20.120 discussion or is there 03:24:20.120 --> 03:24:30.120 anything legal or staff needs to add to our motion okay 03:24:30.120 --> 03:24:33.120 seeing no further 03:24:33.120 --> 03:24:36.639 discussion I will call for a vote on the board to continue 03:24:36.639 --> 03:24:37.760 to date certain of the 03:24:37.760 --> 03:24:51.770 21st motion to continue carry six to zero that will take us 03:24:51.770 --> 03:24:52.760 to our I think 03:24:52.760 --> 03:25:00.440 our final agenda item this evening is going to be our 03:25:00.440 --> 03:25:02.440 project matrix 03:25:02.440 --> 03:25:06.340 Commissioner Roselle thank you chair I have two things that 03:25:06.340 --> 03:25:07.799 I would like to bring 03:25:07.799 --> 03:25:10.729 up for maybe action items in the future the first is 03:25:10.729 --> 03:25:12.159 recently brought to my 03:25:12.159 --> 03:25:16.719 attention that we have a downtown implementation plan of 03:25:16.719 --> 03:25:19.319 2010 that speaks 03:25:19.319 --> 03:25:23.700 of eight tenants for planning the downtown area one of 03:25:23.700 --> 03:25:24.719 those eight tenants 03:25:24.719 --> 03:25:28.579 is form-based zoning for the downtown development I would 03:25:28.579 --> 03:25:30.079 like an update if 03:25:30.079 --> 03:25:33.690 that is still in existence if that's been amended if the 03:25:33.690 --> 03:25:35.840 overarching plan for 03:25:35.840 --> 03:25:38.600 downtown is still the downtown implementation plan 2010 03:25:38.600 --> 03:25:39.639 what do we as a 03:25:39.639 --> 03:25:44.840 P&Z Commission need to do to fulfill the approved P&Z and 03:25:44.840 --> 03:25:46.719 council plan for 03:25:46.719 --> 03:25:51.840 form-based zoning downtown and maybe second to that what is 03:25:51.840 --> 03:25:52.399 form-based 03:25:52.399 --> 03:25:55.180 zoning and an education of that if we need to proceed 03:25:55.180 --> 03:25:56.200 forward with that I 03:25:56.200 --> 03:25:58.319 don't know the accuracy of that because that downtown 03:25:58.319 --> 03:25:59.399 implementation plan also 03:25:59.399 --> 03:26:02.280 talks about forward in parking and now we do reverse 03:26:02.280 --> 03:26:03.760 parking downtown so I don't 03:26:03.760 --> 03:26:06.879 I don't know the accuracy of that document but I would like 03:26:06.879 --> 03:26:07.680 information 03:26:07.680 --> 03:26:12.469 about that downtown implementation plan of 2010 that's the 03:26:12.469 --> 03:26:14.600 first thing the 03:26:14.600 --> 03:26:21.450 second thing is Scott McDonald talked earlier about traffic 03:26:21.450 --> 03:26:22.760 planning and the 03:26:22.760 --> 03:26:26.260 future of that and I think the Commission has all said kind 03:26:26.260 --> 03:26:26.879 of today in 03:26:26.879 --> 03:26:30.760 different ways that we do a whole lot of zoning here and I 03:26:30.760 --> 03:26:32.639 think the planning 03:26:32.639 --> 03:26:36.170 portion of our responsibilities could be strengthened and I 03:26:36.170 --> 03:26:38.760 think one way to kind 03:26:38.760 --> 03:26:42.000 of step into strengthening the planning is to really figure 03:26:42.000 --> 03:26:43.079 out what's going on 03:26:43.079 --> 03:26:47.370 from a traffic standpoint it seems as though that's always 03:26:47.370 --> 03:26:48.000 a recurrent issue 03:26:48.000 --> 03:26:50.780 and especially considering the council's momentum from 03:26:50.780 --> 03:26:52.200 yesterday talking about 03:26:52.200 --> 03:26:55.950 bike sharing I just think that as we as a commission try to 03:26:55.950 --> 03:26:56.840 plan one of those 03:26:56.840 --> 03:27:01.290 purviews is mobility plan and so I think to help maybe 03:27:01.290 --> 03:27:03.200 guide council and come 03:27:03.200 --> 03:27:06.379 together with them on that effort I'd be really interested 03:27:06.379 --> 03:27:09.159 in figuring out that 03:27:09.159 --> 03:27:12.250 piece of our planning responsibility in terms of traffic 03:27:12.250 --> 03:27:14.239 and I think a broad 03:27:14.239 --> 03:27:19.100 stroke would be good but I think it could include biking 03:27:19.100 --> 03:27:20.680 and roads and 03:27:20.680 --> 03:27:25.510 proactively what where are we able to proactively look at 03:27:25.510 --> 03:27:26.959 road I know a lot of 03:27:26.959 --> 03:27:30.760 roads and mobility plan have bond tie-ins and they're all 03:27:30.760 --> 03:27:32.079 prioritized but 03:27:32.079 --> 03:27:35.809 it's it's very rare that we ever proactively look to 03:27:35.809 --> 03:27:37.159 increase a road 03:27:37.159 --> 03:27:39.860 construction it's always retroactively and if that has to 03:27:39.860 --> 03:27:40.760 happen why those 03:27:40.760 --> 03:27:44.229 type of questions I'd love to know more about so that we 03:27:44.229 --> 03:27:45.440 can as a commission be 03:27:45.440 --> 03:27:50.799 more proactive in the planning aspect of this of this job 03:27:50.799 --> 03:27:51.520 certainly in fact well 03:27:51.520 --> 03:27:56.079 one thing that we've been starting to put together is just 03:27:56.079 --> 03:27:57.079 the number of 03:27:57.079 --> 03:28:00.819 applications that are pending platting site plan some that 03:28:00.819 --> 03:28:01.680 may not come to 03:28:01.680 --> 03:28:05.500 public hearing and just sort of generally looking at what's 03:28:05.500 --> 03:28:06.280 I mean there's 03:28:06.280 --> 03:28:08.860 all sorts of things that go into a TIA but broad picture 03:28:08.860 --> 03:28:09.920 what are what are the 03:28:09.920 --> 03:28:13.430 trips generating and then starting to look at that on a 03:28:13.430 --> 03:28:14.840 citywide basis and 03:28:14.840 --> 03:28:17.930 trying to really basically tie into what you're saying you 03:28:17.930 --> 03:28:18.920 start to plan for 03:28:18.920 --> 03:28:22.790 these types of things so I'll prepare an item and then have 03:28:22.790 --> 03:28:23.600 some of that backup 03:28:23.600 --> 03:28:29.739 so so so we can have that discussion that sounds great and 03:28:29.739 --> 03:28:31.239 maybe it would be 03:28:31.239 --> 03:28:35.180 also helpful to clarify our general role in guiding council 03:28:35.180 --> 03:28:36.360 and some of these 03:28:36.360 --> 03:28:41.719 things the the idea of the bike share decision that 03:28:41.719 --> 03:28:42.440 happened at council 03:28:42.440 --> 03:28:46.100 yesterday seems like it naturally should have come through 03:28:46.100 --> 03:28:46.959 the commission 03:28:46.959 --> 03:28:50.219 charged with working through mobility plans and so I don't 03:28:50.219 --> 03:28:51.280 know if that is our 03:28:51.280 --> 03:28:53.840 purview I know they had discussion about permitting which 03:28:53.840 --> 03:28:55.500 is apart from us but we 03:28:55.500 --> 03:28:58.260 didn't provide any kind of insight that I know of to 03:28:58.260 --> 03:28:59.840 council about mobility as it 03:28:59.840 --> 03:29:03.959 comes to to bikes maybe they were using old report or old 03:29:03.959 --> 03:29:04.600 minutes but I don't 03:29:04.600 --> 03:29:07.709 know where our responsibility falls from like an actual 03:29:07.709 --> 03:29:08.920 legal perspective of 03:29:08.920 --> 03:29:12.770 what's been charged to us to counsel them and direct them 03:29:12.770 --> 03:29:13.719 for and so maybe 03:29:13.719 --> 03:29:16.540 that would be helpful just to know like what what we can do 03:29:16.540 --> 03:29:19.319 within those bounds 03:29:23.319 --> 03:29:30.750 that sounds great thank you commissioner Sullivan yes seems 03:29:30.750 --> 03:29:32.639 the last two meetings 03:29:32.639 --> 03:29:38.229 or so we've spent a lot of time and looking at residential 03:29:38.229 --> 03:29:40.399 zoning in our 1 2 03:29:40.399 --> 03:29:47.549 3 4 6 in our MU 12 in our MU and that the one place that we 03:29:47.549 --> 03:29:48.840 seem to be caught 03:29:48.840 --> 03:29:56.049 up on a lot is why don't we have an NR 5 you know we've 03:29:56.049 --> 03:29:57.959 spent last meeting I 03:29:57.959 --> 03:30:01.709 don't know how much time cussing and discussing the uses 03:30:01.709 --> 03:30:02.639 and abuses of 03:30:02.639 --> 03:30:06.799 overlays and we come in here and we vote for an overlay and 03:30:06.799 --> 03:30:08.559 so which could have 03:30:08.559 --> 03:30:14.200 been avoided because of point 2 density and I'm just 03:30:14.200 --> 03:30:15.440 thinking that you know 03:30:15.440 --> 03:30:17.950 that's not the first time that that's happened there is one 03:30:17.950 --> 03:30:18.680 I think one or two 03:30:18.680 --> 03:30:21.879 meetings prior to that I'm just wondering why don't we have 03:30:21.879 --> 03:30:23.840 an NR 5 that 03:30:23.840 --> 03:30:29.149 would catch those that are kind of leaking over a little 03:30:29.149 --> 03:30:30.760 bit that we don't 03:30:30.760 --> 03:30:37.239 have to employ an overlay to accomplish the goal in the 03:30:37.239 --> 03:30:39.319 very near future as part 03:30:39.319 --> 03:30:44.700 of the DDC update you will see that in fact one of the one 03:30:44.700 --> 03:30:45.959 of the the the ways 03:30:45.959 --> 03:30:48.079 that we're going with this now is actually to kind of go 03:30:48.079 --> 03:30:48.799 back to where we 03:30:48.799 --> 03:30:53.170 were and not regulate by density but by lot size I had made 03:30:53.170 --> 03:30:54.200 a statement 03:30:54.200 --> 03:30:58.459 yesterday at City Council on those Audra projects where the 03:30:58.459 --> 03:30:58.920 surroundings 03:30:58.920 --> 03:31:02.510 subdivisions were at like a 4.3 or 4.4 density and the 03:31:02.510 --> 03:31:04.399 reason is that it is 03:31:04.399 --> 03:31:07.659 because the minimum lots at that time were 10,000 square 03:31:07.659 --> 03:31:09.120 feet so divide 43 by 03:31:09.120 --> 03:31:12.840 560 by 10 and you get 4.3 or depending how you around 4.4 03:31:12.840 --> 03:31:14.120 and so it's really 03:31:14.120 --> 03:31:19.760 caused a problem and now we have a multitude of overlay 03:31:19.760 --> 03:31:20.440 districts that 03:31:20.440 --> 03:31:23.870 aren't the best to to manage you know moving forward 10-20 03:31:23.870 --> 03:31:24.920 years from now and 03:31:24.920 --> 03:31:28.350 so that's where we're now looking at looking at those lot 03:31:28.350 --> 03:31:29.200 sizes and then 03:31:29.200 --> 03:31:31.780 trying to really fit everybody in and not make anybody 03:31:31.780 --> 03:31:33.000 really non-conforming 03:31:33.000 --> 03:31:38.200 over 0.2 density or anything like that with that if I just 03:31:38.200 --> 03:31:40.799 may add at the next 03:31:40.799 --> 03:31:44.969 work session what Ron is actually working on is sort of a 03:31:44.969 --> 03:31:46.120 public engagement plan 03:31:46.120 --> 03:31:49.709 we're going to be moving very swiftly in the very near 03:31:49.709 --> 03:31:51.760 future with with the 03:31:51.760 --> 03:31:55.989 modules for the DDC update and so within that plan will be 03:31:55.989 --> 03:31:56.840 in that engagement 03:31:56.840 --> 03:32:01.719 plan will be community meetings subcommittee meetings P&Z 03:32:01.719 --> 03:32:02.479 and so that 03:32:02.479 --> 03:32:05.049 way before we finalize that we can kind of get it out there 03:32:05.049 --> 03:32:05.840 to everybody and 03:32:05.840 --> 03:32:08.489 then have have a discussion of do we want to hold you know 03:32:08.489 --> 03:32:09.280 separate meetings 03:32:09.280 --> 03:32:11.860 or how do we want to proceed moving forward and so we 03:32:11.860 --> 03:32:12.799 wanted to get that to 03:32:12.799 --> 03:32:15.379 wanted to get that in front of you sooner than later and 03:32:15.379 --> 03:32:15.920 have that 03:32:15.920 --> 03:32:18.280 discussion 03:32:23.280 --> 03:32:28.280 okay with that at 855 I will close us this evening and 03:32:28.280 --> 03:32:29.360 thank you everybody for 03:32:29.360 --> 03:32:32.280 all your time and efforts