1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:07,019 Good evening and welcome to the planning zoning work 2 00:00:07,019 --> 00:00:10,240 session for August 22nd 2018. 3 00:00:10,240 --> 00:00:13,439 Call this work session order at 5.04. 4 00:00:13,439 --> 00:00:15,849 First item on the work session agenda is clarification of 5 00:00:15,849 --> 00:00:19,199 agenda items listed on the agenda for this 6 00:00:19,199 --> 00:00:20,199 meeting. 7 00:00:20,199 --> 00:00:22,719 Do we have any clarification for that? 8 00:00:22,719 --> 00:00:25,589 With that it's worth noting that the public hearing 4B has 9 00:00:25,589 --> 00:00:26,640 been withdrawn. 10 00:00:26,640 --> 00:00:30,800 If you want to make a note that will not be heard tonight. 11 00:00:30,800 --> 00:00:34,399 But we can skip to the consent agenda. 12 00:00:34,399 --> 00:00:38,880 We have two items, final plat and preliminary plat. 13 00:00:38,880 --> 00:00:44,280 We got updates on these so I'll invite Julie to speak on 14 00:00:44,280 --> 00:00:46,159 the first item. 15 00:00:46,159 --> 00:00:49,920 Do you have any questions for Julie? 16 00:00:49,920 --> 00:00:53,119 Yes sir. 17 00:00:53,119 --> 00:00:57,119 Commissioner Beck. 18 00:00:57,119 --> 00:00:59,119 Oh you have one on the second one? 19 00:00:59,119 --> 00:01:01,119 I don't think that's Julie. 20 00:01:01,119 --> 00:01:02,119 Not me. 21 00:01:02,119 --> 00:01:07,680 Is there any questions on the final plat 18-19? 22 00:01:07,680 --> 00:01:08,680 Survivors trust? 23 00:01:08,680 --> 00:01:13,439 I think we're good Julie. 24 00:01:13,439 --> 00:01:16,799 Thank you. 25 00:01:16,799 --> 00:01:28,920 I will call Cindy Jackson for the PP 18-01. 26 00:01:28,920 --> 00:01:30,879 And Commissioner Beck for Jers. 27 00:01:30,879 --> 00:01:31,879 Thank you. 28 00:01:31,879 --> 00:01:36,019 Cindy on the prints it looks like there's four stub outs 29 00:01:36,019 --> 00:01:38,200 for the streets on the north 30 00:01:38,200 --> 00:01:41,879 side and two on the west side. 31 00:01:41,879 --> 00:01:46,159 So is the developer going to be here tonight? 32 00:01:46,159 --> 00:01:50,090 I'm just curious is that done with the intention for future 33 00:01:50,090 --> 00:01:53,879 development or did the city require 34 00:01:53,879 --> 00:01:54,879 that for some reason? 35 00:01:54,879 --> 00:01:56,920 That's done for future development. 36 00:01:56,920 --> 00:01:59,510 We anticipate there will be future development and we want 37 00:01:59,510 --> 00:02:01,239 to make sure everything connects. 38 00:02:01,239 --> 00:02:02,239 With this developer? 39 00:02:02,239 --> 00:02:03,239 Not with this developer. 40 00:02:03,239 --> 00:02:06,239 Okay good thank you. 41 00:02:06,239 --> 00:02:13,879 Any other questions on this plat? 42 00:02:13,879 --> 00:02:14,879 Thank you Cindy. 43 00:02:14,879 --> 00:02:17,319 That will move us to the public hearings. 44 00:02:17,319 --> 00:02:25,819 The first one is the SUP 17-7 and I'll invite Haley for 45 00:02:25,819 --> 00:02:28,400 presentation. 46 00:02:28,400 --> 00:02:39,479 Alright good evening. 47 00:02:39,479 --> 00:02:43,000 This is case S17-7 for the enclave at Denton. 48 00:02:43,000 --> 00:02:45,580 So the request before you is to hold a public hearing 49 00:02:45,580 --> 00:02:48,039 tonight and consider making a recommendation 50 00:02:48,039 --> 00:02:51,199 to city council regarding a request for a specific use 51 00:02:51,199 --> 00:02:53,240 permit to allow for a multifamily 52 00:02:53,240 --> 00:02:57,080 use on the site you can see outlined in yellow on the map. 53 00:02:57,080 --> 00:03:00,199 It is just over 12 acres located on the east side of Br 54 00:03:00,199 --> 00:03:01,080 inker Road. 55 00:03:01,080 --> 00:03:06,270 You can see here the Walmart development to the north for 56 00:03:06,270 --> 00:03:07,680 reference. 57 00:03:07,680 --> 00:03:09,449 So since we do have a couple of new members I wanted to 58 00:03:09,449 --> 00:03:10,680 give a little bit of explanation 59 00:03:10,680 --> 00:03:13,240 for what a specific use permit is. 60 00:03:13,240 --> 00:03:16,919 An SUP is a type of approval that's required for uses that 61 00:03:16,919 --> 00:03:18,919 may be compatible in a zoning 62 00:03:18,919 --> 00:03:22,409 district so the use is not permitted by right but it could 63 00:03:22,409 --> 00:03:24,439 be made compatible if there are 64 00:03:24,439 --> 00:03:26,729 conditions or restrictions that could be imposed on the 65 00:03:26,729 --> 00:03:28,879 property to limit any potential nuisances. 66 00:03:28,879 --> 00:03:31,699 An SUP does require two public hearings so you are their 67 00:03:31,699 --> 00:03:33,280 first stop and then this will 68 00:03:33,280 --> 00:03:38,439 be going to city council pending your recommendation. 69 00:03:38,439 --> 00:03:41,419 So looking at this site the zoning port is regional center 70 00:03:41,419 --> 00:03:43,039 commercial downtown so that's 71 00:03:43,039 --> 00:03:46,979 one of our more intensive mixed use districts permits, high 72 00:03:46,979 --> 00:03:49,400 density of development, a variety 73 00:03:49,400 --> 00:03:52,139 of commercial and institutional uses. 74 00:03:52,139 --> 00:03:55,819 Within this zoning limitation four applies to multifamily 75 00:03:55,819 --> 00:03:57,599 and this limitation states 76 00:03:57,599 --> 00:04:00,610 that multifamilies only permitted through approval of a 77 00:04:00,610 --> 00:04:02,139 specific use permit as part 78 00:04:02,139 --> 00:04:05,169 of a mixed use development that meets the criteria outlined 79 00:04:05,169 --> 00:04:06,719 in our code for mixed use. 80 00:04:06,719 --> 00:04:10,080 So in this case in our CCD mixed use only allows multifamil 81 00:04:10,080 --> 00:04:11,719 ies to be 30% of the site 82 00:04:11,719 --> 00:04:16,420 acreage and then there are some other criteria involved in 83 00:04:16,420 --> 00:04:16,920 that. 84 00:04:16,920 --> 00:04:19,050 And then the other options under this limitation were that 85 00:04:19,050 --> 00:04:20,279 it was previously approved as a 86 00:04:20,279 --> 00:04:25,399 use under an MPC or a small area plan which is not the case 87 00:04:25,399 --> 00:04:26,279 here. 88 00:04:26,279 --> 00:04:29,430 So with an SUP the development code provides many criteria 89 00:04:29,430 --> 00:04:31,120 that are outlined in detail in 90 00:04:31,120 --> 00:04:34,779 your backup but the general gist of these criteria for 91 00:04:34,779 --> 00:04:37,319 approval is compatibility between 92 00:04:37,319 --> 00:04:40,310 the surrounding property and the requested use which 93 00:04:40,310 --> 00:04:42,399 includes many different things such 94 00:04:42,399 --> 00:04:45,730 as parking, traffic, access, whether it would in some way 95 00:04:45,730 --> 00:04:47,759 impede development of surrounding 96 00:04:47,759 --> 00:04:51,720 properties, any sort of nuisances, noise, visuals, landsca 97 00:04:51,720 --> 00:04:53,959 ping and screening compatibility 98 00:04:53,959 --> 00:04:57,639 as well as architectural compatibility. 99 00:04:57,639 --> 00:05:00,839 So we'll look a little more specifically at the site, you 100 00:05:00,839 --> 00:05:02,120 can see in blue the two 101 00:05:02,120 --> 00:05:04,199 buildings that are proposed here. 102 00:05:04,199 --> 00:05:07,620 So the footprint of those buildings is just over 95,000 103 00:05:07,620 --> 00:05:08,420 square feet. 104 00:05:08,420 --> 00:05:11,209 Within the buildings there would be 270 apartment units as 105 00:05:11,209 --> 00:05:12,879 proposed, it's a mixture of one, 106 00:05:12,879 --> 00:05:14,560 two and three bedroom units. 107 00:05:14,560 --> 00:05:16,720 And then outlined in red you can see that there's about 5 108 00:05:16,720 --> 00:05:18,240 100 square feet of commercial 109 00:05:18,240 --> 00:05:20,279 space allocated on the site. 110 00:05:20,279 --> 00:05:22,100 So it is mixed use, it just doesn't quite meet the 111 00:05:22,100 --> 00:05:23,439 thresholds that would be required 112 00:05:23,439 --> 00:05:26,000 for a mixed use development. 113 00:05:26,000 --> 00:05:29,180 Over the site they've provided 471 parking spaces, that's a 114 00:05:29,180 --> 00:05:30,819 combination of surface spaces 115 00:05:30,819 --> 00:05:33,939 and some tuck under garages for some of the apartments. 116 00:05:33,939 --> 00:05:36,660 And then there is also a significant tree conservation area 117 00:05:36,660 --> 00:05:37,680 on the site that we'll 118 00:05:37,680 --> 00:05:41,800 look at a little more specifically. 119 00:05:41,800 --> 00:05:44,199 So looking at their landscape plan I've highlighted several 120 00:05:44,199 --> 00:05:46,560 of the key features of the site. 121 00:05:46,560 --> 00:05:49,629 Overall they are meeting the lot coverage requirements, so 122 00:05:49,629 --> 00:05:51,560 they're at 84% lot coverage, 123 00:05:51,560 --> 00:05:54,279 90% is allowed within our CCD. 124 00:05:54,279 --> 00:05:59,230 They're providing the landscape area in a variety of places 125 00:05:59,230 --> 00:06:01,199 you can see here, I'm sorry 126 00:06:01,199 --> 00:06:05,160 this should say 10% minimum, that's a typo on my part. 127 00:06:05,160 --> 00:06:07,850 And some of the components of that are the two light green 128 00:06:07,850 --> 00:06:09,459 areas show type C buffers, 129 00:06:09,459 --> 00:06:12,490 so between multifamily and commercial to the north they've 130 00:06:12,490 --> 00:06:14,279 provided that required buffer 131 00:06:14,279 --> 00:06:15,279 there. 132 00:06:15,279 --> 00:06:20,259 It's a 15 foot wide area, contains six trees and 25 shrubs. 133 00:06:20,259 --> 00:06:22,240 You can see also where they've provided for that buffer 134 00:06:22,240 --> 00:06:23,379 here on the south side because 135 00:06:23,379 --> 00:06:26,500 there is an institutional use to the south of them, a 136 00:06:26,500 --> 00:06:28,079 memory care facility. 137 00:06:28,079 --> 00:06:30,660 In the dark green you can see the tree conservation area 138 00:06:30,660 --> 00:06:31,720 that I referenced. 139 00:06:31,720 --> 00:06:34,600 This is called out on their plat as a two and a half acre 140 00:06:34,600 --> 00:06:36,139 conservation area for the 141 00:06:36,139 --> 00:06:38,000 upland habitat that's on the site. 142 00:06:38,000 --> 00:06:41,279 So they're meeting the ESA requirements for preservation. 143 00:06:41,279 --> 00:06:44,129 And then in yellow you can see they are allowing space for 144 00:06:44,129 --> 00:06:46,079 the 15 foot screening area that's 145 00:06:46,079 --> 00:06:47,639 required for the parking lot. 146 00:06:47,639 --> 00:06:49,040 Commissioner Beck. 147 00:06:49,040 --> 00:06:51,079 Thank you Chair. 148 00:06:51,079 --> 00:06:55,970 The conservation area there, will the apartment, will the 149 00:06:55,970 --> 00:06:57,879 tenants have access to that? 150 00:06:57,879 --> 00:06:59,800 I see those parking spaces there, is there going to be a 151 00:06:59,800 --> 00:07:01,000 fence or something or will they 152 00:07:01,000 --> 00:07:03,079 be able to access that area? 153 00:07:03,079 --> 00:07:06,019 I believe there is something called out on the plan, let me 154 00:07:06,019 --> 00:07:07,139 look and see there. 155 00:07:07,139 --> 00:07:09,589 There was discussion over maybe putting a trail through 156 00:07:09,589 --> 00:07:10,800 there and I believe that is 157 00:07:10,800 --> 00:07:13,180 kind of off the board, it's just going to be left as a 158 00:07:13,180 --> 00:07:14,879 natural area as is required for 159 00:07:14,879 --> 00:07:15,879 the ESA. 160 00:07:15,879 --> 00:07:18,079 I can probably pick the applicant's brain tonight. 161 00:07:18,079 --> 00:07:19,680 Yes, the applicant will be here. 162 00:07:19,680 --> 00:07:22,329 I just see there is actually a retaining wall on the 163 00:07:22,329 --> 00:07:24,399 backside of those parking spaces. 164 00:07:24,399 --> 00:07:26,720 All the way around the conservation area? 165 00:07:26,720 --> 00:07:27,720 I believe so. 166 00:07:27,720 --> 00:07:30,149 It is this hatched area that's kind of hard to see just 167 00:07:30,149 --> 00:07:31,800 outside of the green highlights 168 00:07:31,800 --> 00:07:32,800 there. 169 00:07:32,800 --> 00:07:35,639 That would be the retaining wall just outside the ESA. 170 00:07:35,639 --> 00:07:36,639 Thank you. 171 00:07:36,639 --> 00:07:37,639 Commissioner Smith. 172 00:07:37,639 --> 00:07:40,709 Is there going to be retention, a retention pond or 173 00:07:40,709 --> 00:07:42,920 anything like that for this site? 174 00:07:42,920 --> 00:07:45,589 With as much concrete being added to what's already perme 175 00:07:45,589 --> 00:07:47,079 able area, I just didn't know 176 00:07:47,079 --> 00:07:48,079 if there's going to be retention ponds. 177 00:07:48,079 --> 00:07:51,149 Certainly, so there's a large detention facility associated 178 00:07:51,149 --> 00:07:52,680 with the Walmart just north of 179 00:07:52,680 --> 00:07:53,680 there. 180 00:07:53,680 --> 00:07:54,680 I couldn't see it on the right. 181 00:07:54,680 --> 00:07:58,279 Yeah, we can see it on the aerial here. 182 00:07:58,279 --> 00:08:01,009 This green space behind Walmart is actually a large 183 00:08:01,009 --> 00:08:02,360 detention facility. 184 00:08:02,360 --> 00:08:04,180 It's my understanding that they're still working through 185 00:08:04,180 --> 00:08:06,399 the details of the drainage analysis, 186 00:08:06,399 --> 00:08:09,540 but this pond was sized to accept some runoff from this 187 00:08:09,540 --> 00:08:11,600 property, so I believe they will 188 00:08:11,600 --> 00:08:13,819 be able to account for their stormwater in that existing 189 00:08:13,819 --> 00:08:14,399 facility. 190 00:08:14,399 --> 00:08:17,220 As long as you guys are on top of it, I can't see on the 191 00:08:17,220 --> 00:08:18,959 aerial shot that I see a little 192 00:08:18,959 --> 00:08:22,339 tiny little pond off to the- Yeah, it's just north of their 193 00:08:22,339 --> 00:08:23,079 property boundary 194 00:08:23,079 --> 00:08:24,079 on Walmart's lot. 195 00:08:24,079 --> 00:08:25,079 Okay, understood. 196 00:08:25,079 --> 00:08:28,079 I have one more question. 197 00:08:28,079 --> 00:08:30,420 For parking, for the square footage of the commercial use 198 00:08:30,420 --> 00:08:31,639 that is actually going to be 199 00:08:31,639 --> 00:08:34,600 in there, it says about 5,100 square feet of commercial, 200 00:08:34,600 --> 00:08:35,919 how much parking is required 201 00:08:35,919 --> 00:08:38,440 within that zoning? 202 00:08:38,440 --> 00:08:41,279 Well, the parking doesn't depend necessarily on the zoning. 203 00:08:41,279 --> 00:08:42,279 It's use specific. 204 00:08:42,279 --> 00:08:43,279 Sure, yeah. 205 00:08:43,279 --> 00:08:45,399 So what they've proposed now is kind of a mixture. 206 00:08:45,399 --> 00:08:47,809 I believe there's a small area allocated for cafes as well 207 00:08:47,809 --> 00:08:49,039 as some retail and a fitness 208 00:08:49,039 --> 00:08:50,039 center. 209 00:08:50,039 --> 00:08:51,039 Okay. 210 00:08:51,039 --> 00:08:53,149 So based on those uses, I want to say it was in the ball 211 00:08:53,149 --> 00:08:54,639 park of 30 spaces required for the 212 00:08:54,639 --> 00:08:56,639 commercial, and that's being accounted for on the site. 213 00:08:56,639 --> 00:08:57,639 But they did. 214 00:08:57,639 --> 00:08:59,139 The applicant's going to be here tonight, so we're going to 215 00:08:59,139 --> 00:08:59,799 ask about designation of 216 00:08:59,799 --> 00:09:03,159 parking spaces for, so now this is all, well, they have 217 00:09:03,159 --> 00:09:05,240 designation for parking spaces just 218 00:09:05,240 --> 00:09:07,450 for the commercial use, and then I don't want to have 219 00:09:07,450 --> 00:09:09,039 residents coming back and getting 220 00:09:09,039 --> 00:09:12,049 mad about commercial use parking in their parking spots and 221 00:09:12,049 --> 00:09:13,200 that kind of stuff. 222 00:09:13,200 --> 00:09:15,149 So I'm not sure what the signage of those spaces may be, 223 00:09:15,149 --> 00:09:16,279 but they have accounted for 224 00:09:16,279 --> 00:09:18,279 adequate parking for all of the uses. 225 00:09:18,279 --> 00:09:19,279 Got it. 226 00:09:19,279 --> 00:09:20,279 Thank you. 227 00:09:20,279 --> 00:09:23,240 So I just wanted to kind of show you- 228 00:09:23,240 --> 00:09:24,240 Commissioner Ellis. 229 00:09:24,240 --> 00:09:25,240 Thank you, Chair. 230 00:09:25,240 --> 00:09:27,240 Haley, back to the detention area. 231 00:09:27,240 --> 00:09:29,399 Do I remember from a meeting that we had previously that 232 00:09:29,399 --> 00:09:31,480 they worked some kind of deal with Walmart 233 00:09:31,480 --> 00:09:32,480 with that area? 234 00:09:32,480 --> 00:09:33,480 Right there expanding it, I think. 235 00:09:33,480 --> 00:09:35,590 Yes, that's my understanding is they have an agreement with 236 00:09:35,590 --> 00:09:36,639 Walmart to allow their drainage 237 00:09:36,639 --> 00:09:38,200 to go to that existing pond. 238 00:09:38,200 --> 00:09:40,200 Okay, that's what I thought I remembered. 239 00:09:40,200 --> 00:09:41,200 Okay, thanks. 240 00:09:41,200 --> 00:09:42,200 You're welcome. 241 00:09:42,200 --> 00:09:43,840 Okay, so back to landscaping. 242 00:09:43,840 --> 00:09:46,830 I wanted to show you in a little more detail just kind of 243 00:09:46,830 --> 00:09:48,720 how this tree conservation area 244 00:09:48,720 --> 00:09:49,720 lines up. 245 00:09:49,720 --> 00:09:52,710 So I had our GIS team overlay the plat on an aerial of the 246 00:09:52,710 --> 00:09:54,360 site, so you can generally 247 00:09:54,360 --> 00:09:58,309 see outlined in green that an extensive contiguous area of 248 00:09:58,309 --> 00:10:01,080 trees is being preserved, contiguous 249 00:10:01,080 --> 00:10:02,720 with the acreage on the site to the south of them. 250 00:10:02,720 --> 00:10:07,629 So it will be a fairly large size portion of upland habitat 251 00:10:07,629 --> 00:10:09,480 left there intact. 252 00:10:09,480 --> 00:10:10,480 Commissioner Beck. 253 00:10:10,480 --> 00:10:11,480 Thank you, Chair. 254 00:10:11,480 --> 00:10:16,389 Is that going to count towards their tree coverage, tree 255 00:10:16,389 --> 00:10:17,200 canopy? 256 00:10:17,200 --> 00:10:19,039 Because it looks like they're going to mow a lot of trees 257 00:10:19,039 --> 00:10:19,480 down too. 258 00:10:19,480 --> 00:10:23,799 So will there be any mitigation requirement or is the fact 259 00:10:23,799 --> 00:10:26,080 that they're preserving that 260 00:10:26,080 --> 00:10:29,919 ESA there, is that going to cover that for them? 261 00:10:29,919 --> 00:10:30,919 Certainly. 262 00:10:30,919 --> 00:10:33,210 So under our current development code, if you are 263 00:10:33,210 --> 00:10:35,039 preserving trees within an ESA, that 264 00:10:35,039 --> 00:10:37,440 can count towards your tree preservation requirements. 265 00:10:37,440 --> 00:10:39,950 So with this, they will be meeting their tree preservation 266 00:10:39,950 --> 00:10:41,159 with this existing area. 267 00:10:41,159 --> 00:10:42,159 Without having to mitigate? 268 00:10:42,159 --> 00:10:44,879 No, they would be meeting the requirements. 269 00:10:44,879 --> 00:10:51,600 So nothing beyond that has to be mitigated. 270 00:10:51,600 --> 00:10:54,440 So the other component of what we have before site are the 271 00:10:54,440 --> 00:10:55,799 building elevations. 272 00:10:55,799 --> 00:10:58,409 Prior to the meeting, I had passed out some revised sheets 273 00:10:58,409 --> 00:11:00,720 that the applicant sent over. 274 00:11:00,720 --> 00:11:03,580 The content and the style of the buildings hasn't changed. 275 00:11:03,580 --> 00:11:06,149 They just made some adjustments to clarify the materials 276 00:11:06,149 --> 00:11:07,519 that are on the buildings. 277 00:11:07,519 --> 00:11:09,970 The previous version had a couple of materials listed such 278 00:11:09,970 --> 00:11:11,399 as stucco that weren't actually 279 00:11:11,399 --> 00:11:12,559 shown on the elevation. 280 00:11:12,559 --> 00:11:15,779 So they just did a little cleanup, but content wise the 281 00:11:15,779 --> 00:11:17,940 building design hasn't changed. 282 00:11:17,940 --> 00:11:20,360 So what we have are four story buildings. 283 00:11:20,360 --> 00:11:23,360 They're approximately 52 feet tall at their highest point. 284 00:11:23,360 --> 00:11:27,360 RCCD does permit a maximum of 100 feet. 285 00:11:27,360 --> 00:11:29,039 So they're well within that. 286 00:11:29,039 --> 00:11:31,509 And the materials would be a combination of brick and stone 287 00:11:31,509 --> 00:11:32,879 veneer and fiber cement siding 288 00:11:32,879 --> 00:11:36,580 and panels. 289 00:11:36,580 --> 00:11:39,159 So kind of diving into the analysis based on those 290 00:11:39,159 --> 00:11:41,200 conditions, one of the criteria for 291 00:11:41,200 --> 00:11:43,639 approval is consistency with the current zoning on the 292 00:11:43,639 --> 00:11:44,279 property. 293 00:11:44,279 --> 00:11:47,100 So as you've seen, it meets the requirements for RCCD in 294 00:11:47,100 --> 00:11:48,360 terms of site design. 295 00:11:48,360 --> 00:11:50,659 It is also consistent with the future land use designation 296 00:11:50,659 --> 00:11:51,799 for the property, which is 297 00:11:51,799 --> 00:11:53,679 regional mixed use. 298 00:11:53,679 --> 00:11:56,690 So this is intended to be an area with higher density 299 00:11:56,690 --> 00:11:59,240 housing alongside intensive commercial 300 00:11:59,240 --> 00:12:02,039 uses that you would see at these kind of large centers of 301 00:12:02,039 --> 00:12:03,159 transportation. 302 00:12:03,159 --> 00:12:06,159 So where we have the loop and 35 meeting is a logical kind 303 00:12:06,159 --> 00:12:07,840 of regional center for shopping 304 00:12:07,840 --> 00:12:11,480 and high density housing. 305 00:12:11,480 --> 00:12:13,789 Some other criteria that we looked at were the surrounding 306 00:12:13,789 --> 00:12:14,360 land uses. 307 00:12:14,360 --> 00:12:16,740 So as I mentioned, we have Walmart to the north of them, 308 00:12:16,740 --> 00:12:18,320 the Target and Home Depot shopping 309 00:12:18,320 --> 00:12:20,080 center just to the west. 310 00:12:20,080 --> 00:12:22,500 There's an assisted living kind of multifamily type 311 00:12:22,500 --> 00:12:24,279 development to the south, as well as 312 00:12:24,279 --> 00:12:27,399 some other multifamily further south. 313 00:12:27,399 --> 00:12:30,370 So what's proposed here, high density multifamily with a 314 00:12:30,370 --> 00:12:32,679 little bit of retail mixed in is consistent 315 00:12:32,679 --> 00:12:34,799 with this land use pattern. 316 00:12:34,799 --> 00:12:37,759 It's unlikely that this use would generate any nuisances 317 00:12:37,759 --> 00:12:39,639 that would affect their neighbors 318 00:12:39,639 --> 00:12:42,519 in terms of odors or noise. 319 00:12:42,519 --> 00:12:45,639 We found it to be generally compatible, particularly with 320 00:12:45,639 --> 00:12:48,360 the landscaping that they're providing. 321 00:12:48,360 --> 00:12:50,850 So public notification was sent about the case, as you can 322 00:12:50,850 --> 00:12:51,440 see here. 323 00:12:51,440 --> 00:12:53,279 We received no responses. 324 00:12:53,279 --> 00:12:56,639 A neighborhood meeting was not held. 325 00:12:56,639 --> 00:13:00,450 And the applicant did post the required signage on the 326 00:13:00,450 --> 00:13:02,519 property along breaker. 327 00:13:02,519 --> 00:13:05,000 So again, just going back and kind of wrapping this up, we 328 00:13:05,000 --> 00:13:06,480 had these criteria for approval 329 00:13:06,480 --> 00:13:09,049 to look at in terms of compatibility with the surrounding 330 00:13:09,049 --> 00:13:10,480 property, consistency with 331 00:13:10,480 --> 00:13:12,360 the zoning and future land use. 332 00:13:12,360 --> 00:13:14,519 We found through our analysis that it met all of these 333 00:13:14,519 --> 00:13:16,159 criteria and is generally compatible 334 00:13:16,159 --> 00:13:18,799 in style and form with surrounding properties. 335 00:13:18,799 --> 00:13:21,960 Therefore, staff is recommending approval with one 336 00:13:21,960 --> 00:13:22,840 condition. 337 00:13:22,840 --> 00:13:25,039 That being that the plans you've seen before you tonight be 338 00:13:25,039 --> 00:13:26,320 considered a preliminary site 339 00:13:26,320 --> 00:13:28,799 plan, landscape plan, and building elevations, which we've 340 00:13:28,799 --> 00:13:30,179 found to be generally consistent 341 00:13:30,179 --> 00:13:32,639 with the requirements of the development code. 342 00:13:32,639 --> 00:13:35,620 A final site plan, landscape plan, and elevations should be 343 00:13:35,620 --> 00:13:37,320 consistent with what you've seen 344 00:13:37,320 --> 00:13:39,990 here tonight as well as meeting all the criteria of the 345 00:13:39,990 --> 00:13:40,440 code. 346 00:13:40,440 --> 00:13:43,440 I'd be happy to stand for any other questions. 347 00:13:43,440 --> 00:13:44,440 Mr. Beck. 348 00:13:44,440 --> 00:13:45,440 Thank you, Chair. 349 00:13:45,440 --> 00:13:49,679 Can you go back to one of the plans that shows Brinker and 350 00:13:49,679 --> 00:13:51,840 how people are going to enter 351 00:13:51,840 --> 00:13:52,840 on that? 352 00:13:52,840 --> 00:13:53,840 This one good? 353 00:13:53,840 --> 00:13:54,840 Or is that? 354 00:13:54,840 --> 00:13:55,840 There you go. 355 00:13:55,840 --> 00:13:56,840 Okay. 356 00:13:56,840 --> 00:14:00,870 You indicated there was going to be a means of egress there 357 00:14:00,870 --> 00:14:02,799 on Brinker before they get 358 00:14:02,799 --> 00:14:05,399 to that traffic light, right? 359 00:14:05,399 --> 00:14:07,950 The traffic light, I believe, is at the Home Depot Target 360 00:14:07,950 --> 00:14:09,720 Shopping Center, existing today? 361 00:14:09,720 --> 00:14:10,720 Yes. 362 00:14:10,720 --> 00:14:11,720 Yes. 363 00:14:11,720 --> 00:14:12,720 Right. 364 00:14:12,720 --> 00:14:13,720 It's an intersection there. 365 00:14:13,720 --> 00:14:14,720 Correct. 366 00:14:14,720 --> 00:14:15,720 Yeah. 367 00:14:15,720 --> 00:14:16,720 Can you point it out on the map there? 368 00:14:16,720 --> 00:14:20,039 The aerial might be a better place to look at this. 369 00:14:20,039 --> 00:14:21,039 There is a light. 370 00:14:21,039 --> 00:14:22,039 Right there. 371 00:14:22,039 --> 00:14:23,039 Just north of the site. 372 00:14:23,039 --> 00:14:24,039 No, no. 373 00:14:24,039 --> 00:14:25,039 Go back to the other one. 374 00:14:25,039 --> 00:14:27,440 Can you point out the means of egress in the department off 375 00:14:27,440 --> 00:14:28,080 of Brinker? 376 00:14:28,080 --> 00:14:29,080 Certainly, yes. 377 00:14:29,080 --> 00:14:31,919 They have two driveways you can see here. 378 00:14:31,919 --> 00:14:34,539 The southern driveway, there is existing pavement there 379 00:14:34,539 --> 00:14:36,159 that was put in with the facility to 380 00:14:36,159 --> 00:14:38,559 the south of them, so that will be one shared primary 381 00:14:38,559 --> 00:14:39,919 entrance to the facility. 382 00:14:39,919 --> 00:14:41,899 You can see that's kind of where the building would be 383 00:14:41,899 --> 00:14:43,320 dressed up, and there's that little 384 00:14:43,320 --> 00:14:46,620 circle there with -- it'll probably have some enhancements 385 00:14:46,620 --> 00:14:47,159 to it. 386 00:14:47,159 --> 00:14:50,190 Then there is a secondary point of access here on the north 387 00:14:50,190 --> 00:14:50,720 side. 388 00:14:50,720 --> 00:14:53,120 They're still working through the details of the traffic 389 00:14:53,120 --> 00:14:54,360 impact analysis for the site 390 00:14:54,360 --> 00:14:56,940 as they go through the platting process, but I've heard 391 00:14:56,940 --> 00:14:58,639 discussion that that may be a right 392 00:14:58,639 --> 00:15:01,950 in, right out only to alleviate some concerns, but the 393 00:15:01,950 --> 00:15:03,960 final details of that are not yet 394 00:15:03,960 --> 00:15:04,960 determined. 395 00:15:04,960 --> 00:15:05,960 Concerned a little bit about that. 396 00:15:05,960 --> 00:15:06,960 I've been in that lane at certain times today. 397 00:15:06,960 --> 00:15:07,559 Everybody gets over in that lane in anticipation of 288 and 398 00:15:07,559 --> 00:15:07,960 pull into Walmart, so they can 399 00:15:07,960 --> 00:15:08,960 back up quite a bit. 400 00:15:08,960 --> 00:15:18,259 Now you've got 270 units here, probably that many cars at 401 00:15:18,259 --> 00:15:20,919 certain times. 402 00:15:20,919 --> 00:15:25,259 Any chance that they've considered doing a little lane 403 00:15:25,259 --> 00:15:27,360 pulling off a brink until it 404 00:15:27,360 --> 00:15:29,769 allows them to go ahead and pull in without stopping the 405 00:15:29,769 --> 00:15:30,679 flow of traffic? 406 00:15:30,679 --> 00:15:33,080 Yeah, that will be part of their traffic impact analysis. 407 00:15:33,080 --> 00:15:35,960 We determine what's needed in terms of turn lanes here. 408 00:15:35,960 --> 00:15:38,360 That has been one of the considerations to this point that 409 00:15:38,360 --> 00:15:39,480 they might need a turn lane 410 00:15:39,480 --> 00:15:40,480 on Brinker. 411 00:15:40,480 --> 00:15:42,480 Maybe at both entrances or just the one closer? 412 00:15:42,480 --> 00:15:43,879 I'm not sure where it would be located. 413 00:15:43,879 --> 00:15:46,490 I suspect it would be at this primary entrance if they're 414 00:15:46,490 --> 00:15:48,320 to install one, but again, they're 415 00:15:48,320 --> 00:15:50,120 still working through that with the city's traffic engineer 416 00:15:50,120 --> 00:15:50,279 . 417 00:15:50,279 --> 00:15:51,279 Great, thanks. 418 00:15:51,279 --> 00:15:57,399 I have a question. 419 00:15:57,399 --> 00:16:00,460 The issue for the SUP or what's your SUP was that they're 420 00:16:00,460 --> 00:16:02,320 wanting to use multifamily for 421 00:16:02,320 --> 00:16:03,879 more than 30% of the acreage. 422 00:16:03,879 --> 00:16:04,879 Is that correct? 423 00:16:04,879 --> 00:16:07,850 Yeah, so under limitation four, like I said, since they're 424 00:16:07,850 --> 00:16:09,600 not part of a previously approved 425 00:16:09,600 --> 00:16:12,820 plan, they either had to be mixed use development or have 426 00:16:12,820 --> 00:16:13,519 the SUP. 427 00:16:13,519 --> 00:16:16,559 The code is a little bit convoluted in how mixed use works. 428 00:16:16,559 --> 00:16:19,509 So there's a definition for mixed use that specifies it has 429 00:16:19,509 --> 00:16:20,720 to be three or more uses 430 00:16:20,720 --> 00:16:23,559 mixed vertically or horizontally on a site. 431 00:16:23,559 --> 00:16:26,500 But within certain zoning districts such as RCCD and the NR 432 00:16:26,500 --> 00:16:28,440 MU districts, there's a limitation 433 00:16:28,440 --> 00:16:30,980 on the acreage that can be multifamily. 434 00:16:30,980 --> 00:16:33,179 For RCCD, that limit is 30%. 435 00:16:33,179 --> 00:16:36,210 So the intent was to have a majority of the footprint of 436 00:16:36,210 --> 00:16:38,039 the buildings and everything 437 00:16:38,039 --> 00:16:40,320 be for commercial uses. 438 00:16:40,320 --> 00:16:43,559 And since they weren't meeting that criteria, the SUP 439 00:16:43,559 --> 00:16:44,919 became necessary. 440 00:16:44,919 --> 00:16:49,830 If you can clarify that a little more, the backup says 441 00:16:49,830 --> 00:16:52,279 multifamily use to no more than 442 00:16:52,279 --> 00:16:53,960 30% of the acreage. 443 00:16:53,960 --> 00:16:56,159 That acreage is for the entire property, correct? 444 00:16:56,159 --> 00:16:57,159 Correct. 445 00:16:57,159 --> 00:17:00,820 Maybe my math's wrong, but 95,000 square feet doesn't seem 446 00:17:00,820 --> 00:17:02,480 like that's breaching 30% 447 00:17:02,480 --> 00:17:03,960 of 12 acres. 448 00:17:03,960 --> 00:17:07,400 No, so they do have, like I said, the large portion of the 449 00:17:07,400 --> 00:17:09,000 site is conservation. 450 00:17:09,000 --> 00:17:11,210 And then the majority of the site will be the footprint of 451 00:17:11,210 --> 00:17:12,759 those buildings that is multifamily 452 00:17:12,759 --> 00:17:15,480 as well as the parking and the other uses such as the 453 00:17:15,480 --> 00:17:17,400 playground area, the pool, the 454 00:17:17,400 --> 00:17:20,420 things that are associated directly with that multifamily 455 00:17:20,420 --> 00:17:20,839 use. 456 00:17:20,839 --> 00:17:21,839 Okay. 457 00:17:21,839 --> 00:17:24,950 The question in tandem with that is typically when we 458 00:17:24,950 --> 00:17:27,079 process the SUPs, there's kind of 459 00:17:27,079 --> 00:17:28,440 like a give and take. 460 00:17:28,440 --> 00:17:30,660 They're asking for something out of the ordinary and then 461 00:17:30,660 --> 00:17:32,240 the applicant provides something 462 00:17:32,240 --> 00:17:34,180 to kind of offset that. 463 00:17:34,180 --> 00:17:37,859 Could you highlight what they're presenting to kind of 464 00:17:37,859 --> 00:17:38,960 offset that? 465 00:17:38,960 --> 00:17:41,069 I think you may be thinking of the alternative development 466 00:17:41,069 --> 00:17:42,440 plan process a little bit more. 467 00:17:42,440 --> 00:17:45,519 No, I'm just, I don't think I am. 468 00:17:45,519 --> 00:17:49,130 I think it's typically, like if they're asking for the city 469 00:17:49,130 --> 00:17:51,039 to provide a special use, there's 470 00:17:51,039 --> 00:17:55,089 typically an additional landscape that they put in or there 471 00:17:55,089 --> 00:17:57,839 's some sort of give and take, 472 00:17:57,839 --> 00:18:00,509 almost like unofficially, like, hey, if you would allow us 473 00:18:00,509 --> 00:18:01,759 to do this, we will kind of 474 00:18:01,759 --> 00:18:02,759 do this. 475 00:18:02,759 --> 00:18:08,130 I didn't see any kind of concessions on their end to help 476 00:18:08,130 --> 00:18:10,000 this SUP along. 477 00:18:10,000 --> 00:18:11,000 Maybe I'm mistaken. 478 00:18:11,000 --> 00:18:14,480 Yeah, it's not part of the criteria for approval that there 479 00:18:14,480 --> 00:18:16,240 be any sort of enhanced site design 480 00:18:16,240 --> 00:18:17,240 features. 481 00:18:17,240 --> 00:18:19,240 It's more just to ensure compatibility of the site. 482 00:18:19,240 --> 00:18:20,240 Okay. 483 00:18:20,240 --> 00:18:21,849 Yeah, I think maybe you're thinking more in lines of the 484 00:18:21,849 --> 00:18:22,839 alternative development plan 485 00:18:22,839 --> 00:18:25,609 where they're seeking some deviation or something outside 486 00:18:25,609 --> 00:18:27,240 the norm of the code and providing 487 00:18:27,240 --> 00:18:28,240 that alternative. 488 00:18:28,240 --> 00:18:29,240 Gotcha. 489 00:18:29,240 --> 00:18:31,119 Maybe I am. 490 00:18:31,119 --> 00:18:34,000 Just to add, I think what happens to a lot of times when we 491 00:18:34,000 --> 00:18:35,880 do these SUPs, they're typically 492 00:18:35,880 --> 00:18:39,039 adjacent to single family residential or some other use. 493 00:18:39,039 --> 00:18:42,069 So we'll add conditions that require maybe something 494 00:18:42,069 --> 00:18:44,160 additional to mitigate for that. 495 00:18:44,160 --> 00:18:47,119 In this instance, it's kind of sandwiched between a 496 00:18:47,119 --> 00:18:49,079 detention pond and a similar use 497 00:18:49,079 --> 00:18:50,079 to the south. 498 00:18:50,079 --> 00:18:51,079 So that's why. 499 00:18:51,079 --> 00:18:52,079 Yeah. 500 00:18:52,079 --> 00:18:53,079 Thank you for the clarification. 501 00:18:53,079 --> 00:18:56,079 Any other questions for Haley? 502 00:18:56,079 --> 00:18:57,799 Awesome. 503 00:18:57,799 --> 00:18:58,799 Thank you. 504 00:18:58,799 --> 00:19:01,279 Thank you. 505 00:19:01,279 --> 00:19:06,180 The next and final item on the public hearing is Z1816, and 506 00:19:06,180 --> 00:19:08,240 that is being presented by Julie 507 00:19:08,240 --> 00:19:09,240 Wyatt. 508 00:19:09,240 --> 00:19:10,240 Good evening. 509 00:19:10,240 --> 00:19:11,240 I'm Julie Wyatt. 510 00:19:11,240 --> 00:19:12,240 I am presenting Z1816. 511 00:19:12,240 --> 00:19:26,200 This one's a fairly straightforward initial zoning case. 512 00:19:26,200 --> 00:19:29,029 So the request before you is to hold a public hearing and 513 00:19:29,029 --> 00:19:30,680 consider an initial zoning of 514 00:19:30,680 --> 00:19:35,119 RC, I'm sorry, NR1 on approximately one acre. 515 00:19:35,119 --> 00:19:38,829 The subject property is on the north side of Shiloh, about 516 00:19:38,829 --> 00:19:42,559 910 feet east of Swisher Road. 517 00:19:42,559 --> 00:19:46,059 This property was annexed in 2013 as part of a city-wide 518 00:19:46,059 --> 00:19:47,240 annexation plan. 519 00:19:47,240 --> 00:19:53,440 It was a part of DH9, which included 298 acres and 129 parc 520 00:19:53,440 --> 00:19:54,079 els. 521 00:19:54,079 --> 00:19:59,119 So this is one small part of a larger annexation. 522 00:19:59,119 --> 00:20:01,750 As most of you are familiar, when a property is annexed 523 00:20:01,750 --> 00:20:03,680 into the city of Denton, it receives 524 00:20:03,680 --> 00:20:06,839 essentially kind of a place holding district until the time 525 00:20:06,839 --> 00:20:08,839 that the property owner applies 526 00:20:08,839 --> 00:20:10,259 for an initial zoning. 527 00:20:10,259 --> 00:20:15,170 And so as you can see in this diagram, that place holding 528 00:20:15,170 --> 00:20:17,799 designation of RD5X is reflected. 529 00:20:17,799 --> 00:20:20,599 And RD5X is one of our rural zoning districts. 530 00:20:20,599 --> 00:20:24,980 It permits single family homes, some ag uses at a very 531 00:20:24,980 --> 00:20:28,400 large lot, the minimum of five acres. 532 00:20:28,400 --> 00:20:31,569 The applicant is proposing neighborhood residential one, NR 533 00:20:31,569 --> 00:20:31,980 1. 534 00:20:31,980 --> 00:20:34,559 So this is the proposed initial zoning. 535 00:20:34,559 --> 00:20:38,269 NR1 is one of our residential, very low density residential 536 00:20:38,269 --> 00:20:39,160 districts. 537 00:20:39,160 --> 00:20:44,130 It permits single family uses, some of the lighter ag uses, 538 00:20:44,130 --> 00:20:46,240 but at a minimum lot size 539 00:20:46,240 --> 00:20:49,160 of one acre. 540 00:20:49,160 --> 00:20:52,599 So when we review a rezoning request, we look at the 541 00:20:52,599 --> 00:20:55,160 criteria for approval in subchapter 542 00:20:55,160 --> 00:20:56,839 three of the Denton Development Code. 543 00:20:56,839 --> 00:20:59,279 First, does it conform to the future land use? 544 00:20:59,279 --> 00:21:01,720 Second, is there adequate provision of public 545 00:21:01,720 --> 00:21:02,799 infrastructure? 546 00:21:02,799 --> 00:21:05,880 So first we'll take a look at the comprehensive plan. 547 00:21:05,880 --> 00:21:09,000 The Denton Plan 2030 identifies this area as low 548 00:21:09,000 --> 00:21:10,000 residential. 549 00:21:10,000 --> 00:21:14,079 The intent of low residential is to promote residential 550 00:21:14,079 --> 00:21:16,440 uses, both at kind of the rural 551 00:21:16,440 --> 00:21:19,140 fringe as well as in kind of suburban development. 552 00:21:19,140 --> 00:21:22,799 So from one to four dwelling units per acre. 553 00:21:22,799 --> 00:21:25,690 NR1 conforms to this low residential future land use 554 00:21:25,690 --> 00:21:28,039 designation because it permits primarily 555 00:21:28,039 --> 00:21:32,950 single family residential uses at a maximum density of one 556 00:21:32,950 --> 00:21:35,119 dwelling unit per acre. 557 00:21:35,119 --> 00:21:38,920 We also looked at the surrounding zoning and development 558 00:21:38,920 --> 00:21:39,759 pattern. 559 00:21:39,759 --> 00:21:42,920 And our analysis yields that NR1 is consistent with that 560 00:21:42,920 --> 00:21:45,079 existing development pattern, both 561 00:21:45,079 --> 00:21:46,079 in use and scale. 562 00:21:46,079 --> 00:21:48,720 There's a lot of single family residential immediately 563 00:21:48,720 --> 00:21:50,299 adjacent to the property on very 564 00:21:50,299 --> 00:21:52,599 large lots. 565 00:21:52,599 --> 00:21:56,059 Surrounding that is a plan development, which also includes 566 00:21:56,059 --> 00:21:57,960 single family developments. 567 00:21:57,960 --> 00:22:01,480 Initial zoning is required to plot the property. 568 00:22:01,480 --> 00:22:04,200 The property owner would like to develop a single family 569 00:22:04,200 --> 00:22:05,160 home on the lot. 570 00:22:05,160 --> 00:22:08,190 They can't do so until they plot and they can't plot until 571 00:22:08,190 --> 00:22:10,400 the zoning designation permits 572 00:22:10,400 --> 00:22:14,039 lot sizes of a minimum of one acre lots. 573 00:22:14,039 --> 00:22:17,720 So that's why they're here tonight. 574 00:22:17,720 --> 00:22:20,690 If approved, development must comply with all requirements, 575 00:22:20,690 --> 00:22:22,559 including tree preservation, 576 00:22:22,559 --> 00:22:25,500 screening, landscaping and site design requirements. 577 00:22:25,500 --> 00:22:29,950 One item that's come up recently is that RD5X is exempt 578 00:22:29,950 --> 00:22:32,960 from our tree preservation requirements. 579 00:22:32,960 --> 00:22:38,349 So if the NR1 is approved, then they would have to comply 580 00:22:38,349 --> 00:22:41,160 with those tree preservation 581 00:22:41,160 --> 00:22:43,519 requirements. 582 00:22:43,519 --> 00:22:47,109 There are public facilities available that it has access to 583 00:22:47,109 --> 00:22:48,279 a private road. 584 00:22:48,279 --> 00:22:49,279 And there's water. 585 00:22:49,279 --> 00:22:54,849 The septic would have to be installed for the residential 586 00:22:54,849 --> 00:22:55,640 home. 587 00:22:55,640 --> 00:22:57,039 Public notification was sent out. 588 00:22:57,039 --> 00:23:00,839 We haven't received any responses. 589 00:23:00,839 --> 00:23:03,140 So based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends 590 00:23:03,140 --> 00:23:04,440 approval of the request and I'll 591 00:23:04,440 --> 00:23:08,519 stand for any questions. 592 00:23:08,519 --> 00:23:11,680 - Commissioner Sanchez. 593 00:23:11,680 --> 00:23:16,589 That property is, okay, they're requesting NR1 and the 594 00:23:16,589 --> 00:23:19,640 adjacent properties are all 5D? 595 00:23:19,640 --> 00:23:20,640 - RD5X. 596 00:23:20,640 --> 00:23:21,640 Yes, sir. 597 00:23:21,640 --> 00:23:23,640 - RD5, I mean RD5. 598 00:23:23,640 --> 00:23:24,640 Okay. 599 00:23:24,640 --> 00:23:28,799 I guess my question is the neighbors are gonna have to come 600 00:23:28,799 --> 00:23:31,319 back and request, are gonna have 601 00:23:31,319 --> 00:23:34,269 to come and request a change, especially when you look at 602 00:23:34,269 --> 00:23:36,079 the neighborhood, what's going 603 00:23:36,079 --> 00:23:39,319 on further north on that. 604 00:23:39,319 --> 00:23:41,960 There's a lot of development in there. 605 00:23:41,960 --> 00:23:45,670 So I guess my question is when a property like this or an 606 00:23:45,670 --> 00:23:47,640 area or neighborhood gets 607 00:23:47,640 --> 00:23:52,549 annexed, why isn't it annexed into a situation where, okay, 608 00:23:52,549 --> 00:23:54,880 you have one acre lots in there 609 00:23:54,880 --> 00:23:57,759 because you put it in a holding pattern and it just seems 610 00:23:57,759 --> 00:23:59,319 like now they're gonna keep 611 00:23:59,319 --> 00:24:00,839 coming back and coming back. 612 00:24:00,839 --> 00:24:06,680 We saw this in a property on 380, but we had 16 lots, acre 613 00:24:06,680 --> 00:24:07,519 lots. 614 00:24:07,519 --> 00:24:09,920 And then is there any way of changing this? 615 00:24:09,920 --> 00:24:12,779 So when you annex something, instead of putting it in a 616 00:24:12,779 --> 00:24:14,839 holding pattern, bring it into what 617 00:24:14,839 --> 00:24:17,440 best fits that. 618 00:24:17,440 --> 00:24:20,480 - I think legal is gonna weigh in on your question, sir. 619 00:24:20,480 --> 00:24:22,769 - The city doesn't have jurisdiction over zoning until it's 620 00:24:22,769 --> 00:24:23,839 actually inside the city 621 00:24:23,839 --> 00:24:24,839 limits. 622 00:24:24,839 --> 00:24:27,839 So we have to annex first and then zone it. 623 00:24:27,839 --> 00:24:31,440 And so this is the initial zoning stand. 624 00:24:31,440 --> 00:24:34,859 The initial zoning is what you're being called on to set 625 00:24:34,859 --> 00:24:35,680 tonight. 626 00:24:35,680 --> 00:24:41,299 But in the meantime, they're still subject to this holding 627 00:24:41,299 --> 00:24:43,799 pattern zoning until the initial 628 00:24:43,799 --> 00:24:45,799 zoning takes place. 629 00:24:45,799 --> 00:24:53,059 - Okay, so, and I know when you annex it, it automatically 630 00:24:53,059 --> 00:24:54,920 comes into that five X, right? 631 00:24:54,920 --> 00:24:59,759 - As a holding pattern only, not as a zone. 632 00:24:59,759 --> 00:25:01,259 That's not zoning. 633 00:25:01,259 --> 00:25:06,900 It's a default set of regulations that apply to unzoned 634 00:25:06,900 --> 00:25:08,359 property. 635 00:25:08,359 --> 00:25:13,319 It's actually unzoned until it's zoned for the first time, 636 00:25:13,319 --> 00:25:14,759 which you're making a recommendation 637 00:25:14,759 --> 00:25:17,160 on tonight. 638 00:25:17,160 --> 00:25:19,400 But it's subject to RD5X. 639 00:25:19,400 --> 00:25:23,869 It's easier to call it RD5X than to say it's unzoned, but 640 00:25:23,869 --> 00:25:26,400 it's subject to some requirements. 641 00:25:26,400 --> 00:25:27,400 - Okay. 642 00:25:27,400 --> 00:25:30,490 Well, I guess my question is, you're already bringing them 643 00:25:30,490 --> 00:25:32,240 in, you annexed it, you see what 644 00:25:32,240 --> 00:25:35,490 the neighborhood looks like, and yeah, you're gonna bring 645 00:25:35,490 --> 00:25:37,319 it in RD5, but it doesn't make 646 00:25:37,319 --> 00:25:39,039 sense at that point. 647 00:25:39,039 --> 00:25:41,039 You already know what the neighborhood looks like. 648 00:25:41,039 --> 00:25:44,329 Now I can see if you're looking at a piece of property that 649 00:25:44,329 --> 00:25:45,960 's completely vacant and there's 650 00:25:45,960 --> 00:25:49,720 nothing there, but if say you annex an area and you have a 651 00:25:49,720 --> 00:25:51,599 neighborhood in there that's 652 00:25:51,599 --> 00:25:54,869 similar to this, yes, you annex it and you look at the area 653 00:25:54,869 --> 00:25:57,079 and you say, okay, this particular 654 00:25:57,079 --> 00:26:01,559 area is already NR1 because of the neighborhood. 655 00:26:01,559 --> 00:26:06,450 One acre lots, hey, let's right away move it into that 656 00:26:06,450 --> 00:26:08,319 zoning rather than this. 657 00:26:08,319 --> 00:26:11,559 I was just curious why that doesn't happen. 658 00:26:11,559 --> 00:26:16,920 - Well, and the city could open up a zoning case for that 659 00:26:16,920 --> 00:26:20,880 and initiate that, but traditionally 660 00:26:20,880 --> 00:26:23,000 the city doesn't do that. 661 00:26:23,000 --> 00:26:27,910 Traditionally it lets market forces and interests drive rez 662 00:26:27,910 --> 00:26:30,839 oning decisions based upon need. 663 00:26:30,839 --> 00:26:36,829 And so, I imagine with some cities they probably do annex 664 00:26:36,829 --> 00:26:40,599 or do zone soon after annexation, 665 00:26:40,599 --> 00:26:44,769 but traditionally Denton has not and it has taken this 666 00:26:44,769 --> 00:26:45,839 approach. 667 00:26:45,839 --> 00:26:49,329 We might have zoned it something like NR1 and then all of a 668 00:26:49,329 --> 00:26:50,920 sudden somebody will buy 669 00:26:50,920 --> 00:26:54,259 up a bunch of the land and decide that it needs to be, I 670 00:26:54,259 --> 00:26:56,759 don't know, a Walmart or something. 671 00:26:56,759 --> 00:27:01,670 And so, I think that's really a policy issue rather than a 672 00:27:01,670 --> 00:27:04,079 legal issue as far as how you 673 00:27:04,079 --> 00:27:10,440 do it, but it is possible to zone soon after annexation. 674 00:27:10,440 --> 00:27:13,779 It's just that that's not the policy direction that the 675 00:27:13,779 --> 00:27:15,920 city is traditionally taking. 676 00:27:15,920 --> 00:27:18,930 - I was just looking at, I'm not looking at the whole area 677 00:27:18,930 --> 00:27:20,160 they're annexing. 678 00:27:20,160 --> 00:27:21,160 I would just look at it. 679 00:27:21,160 --> 00:27:24,170 If there's a neighborhood already in existence right there, 680 00:27:24,170 --> 00:27:25,680 hey, let's go ahead and take 681 00:27:25,680 --> 00:27:26,680 care of it. 682 00:27:26,680 --> 00:27:29,680 This way we won't be dealing with it in the future. 683 00:27:29,680 --> 00:27:32,400 Because you know all those houses are pretty nice. 684 00:27:32,400 --> 00:27:34,740 If you go through that neighborhood, the housing in those 685 00:27:34,740 --> 00:27:36,599 neighborhoods, they're not just gonna 686 00:27:36,599 --> 00:27:38,599 come in town down. 687 00:27:38,599 --> 00:27:39,599 - Okay. 688 00:27:39,599 --> 00:27:40,599 - Commissioner Beck. 689 00:27:40,599 --> 00:27:41,599 - Thank you, Chair. 690 00:27:41,599 --> 00:27:45,920 - Just curious, go to the site location map that Google, 691 00:27:45,920 --> 00:27:46,599 okay. 692 00:27:46,599 --> 00:27:48,279 - That work? 693 00:27:48,279 --> 00:27:52,960 - Well, on ours, there's this little red, now there you go. 694 00:27:52,960 --> 00:27:53,960 - That's still in the ETJ. 695 00:27:53,960 --> 00:27:54,960 It's not in the city, yes. 696 00:27:54,960 --> 00:27:55,960 - Well, why is that singled out like that? 697 00:27:55,960 --> 00:27:59,960 I mean, everything around it's ETJ. 698 00:27:59,960 --> 00:28:03,480 - They probably went through the non-annexation agreement 699 00:28:03,480 --> 00:28:04,240 process. 700 00:28:04,240 --> 00:28:07,400 So at some point, it probably will come into the city, but 701 00:28:07,400 --> 00:28:07,960 right now it's-- 702 00:28:07,960 --> 00:28:08,960 - So that's not RD5. 703 00:28:08,960 --> 00:28:09,960 - No, sir, it's in the county. 704 00:28:09,960 --> 00:28:10,960 - Gotcha, gotcha. 705 00:28:10,960 --> 00:28:14,279 And just wanted to throw something out there if the 706 00:28:14,279 --> 00:28:16,640 applicants here so they can ponder 707 00:28:16,640 --> 00:28:17,640 on them. 708 00:28:17,640 --> 00:28:19,750 I mean, Commissioner, are they okay with the future 709 00:28:19,750 --> 00:28:21,599 prospect, kind of in conjunction with 710 00:28:21,599 --> 00:28:24,819 what Commissioner Sanchez was saying, the prospect of the 711 00:28:24,819 --> 00:28:26,279 surrounding property could 712 00:28:26,279 --> 00:28:29,359 be zoned with a higher density district to accommodate the 713 00:28:29,359 --> 00:28:30,839 housing that's all around 714 00:28:30,839 --> 00:28:31,839 it. 715 00:28:31,839 --> 00:28:32,450 So I guess, you know, that's something they're gonna be 716 00:28:32,450 --> 00:28:32,839 facing down the road. 717 00:28:32,839 --> 00:28:36,140 And I just was curious to whether they, you know, thought 718 00:28:36,140 --> 00:28:37,839 about that down the road. 719 00:28:37,839 --> 00:28:41,240 So anyway, I don't expect you to answer that. 720 00:28:41,240 --> 00:28:42,240 Thank you. 721 00:28:42,240 --> 00:28:43,240 - Commissioner Smith. 722 00:28:43,240 --> 00:28:44,240 - Thank you, Chair. 723 00:28:44,240 --> 00:28:45,240 Just for my own notification. 724 00:28:45,240 --> 00:28:49,549 Comparison of uses for NR1 versus RD5X, I'm trying to pull 725 00:28:49,549 --> 00:28:50,240 it up. 726 00:28:50,240 --> 00:28:53,240 I don't know if it was in our backup or not. 727 00:28:53,240 --> 00:28:55,039 Yeah, it is right there. 728 00:28:55,039 --> 00:28:57,039 What are they gaining by actually going through NR1? 729 00:28:57,039 --> 00:29:00,039 - Minimum lot size. 730 00:29:00,039 --> 00:29:01,039 - Build. 731 00:29:01,039 --> 00:29:02,319 What is it? 732 00:29:02,319 --> 00:29:03,319 So they can build? 733 00:29:03,319 --> 00:29:04,319 They can do a new build? 734 00:29:04,319 --> 00:29:05,359 - Yes, sir. 735 00:29:05,359 --> 00:29:08,440 So there was a structure on the property that-- 736 00:29:08,440 --> 00:29:09,440 - They're gonna tear it down and build a new one? 737 00:29:09,440 --> 00:29:12,920 - I think it burned, so I think it's gone. 738 00:29:12,920 --> 00:29:16,190 And they just, according to the applicant, want to build a 739 00:29:16,190 --> 00:29:17,319 single family home. 740 00:29:17,319 --> 00:29:20,319 And they can't plot because they don't have five acres. 741 00:29:20,319 --> 00:29:23,319 - Okay, thank you. 742 00:29:23,319 --> 00:29:26,920 - I do not see any other questions. 743 00:29:26,920 --> 00:29:29,920 - Thank you. 744 00:29:29,920 --> 00:29:32,029 - Next item on our work session is to receive an update 745 00:29:32,029 --> 00:29:34,599 regarding the DDC subchapter 13 746 00:29:34,599 --> 00:29:39,720 tree preservation and landscape standards. 747 00:29:39,720 --> 00:29:44,720 - Okay. 748 00:30:09,720 --> 00:30:14,630 All right, so tonight what I wanted to do, I know we've 749 00:30:14,630 --> 00:30:17,039 talked about the tree code for 750 00:30:17,039 --> 00:30:18,960 a long time. 751 00:30:18,960 --> 00:30:21,359 So a little bit of a timeline. 752 00:30:21,359 --> 00:30:24,000 I know it stretches even before this. 753 00:30:24,000 --> 00:30:26,920 I think the last time, at least from what I saw, the last 754 00:30:26,920 --> 00:30:28,400 time this was presented in 755 00:30:28,400 --> 00:30:33,079 some form or fashion, the P&Z was February of 2017. 756 00:30:33,079 --> 00:30:37,970 Right after that, there was I think some proposed 757 00:30:37,970 --> 00:30:41,160 amendments to the Senate bill that was going 758 00:30:41,160 --> 00:30:43,960 back and forth limiting tree preservation. 759 00:30:43,960 --> 00:30:48,869 And then as we were partly updating the DDC and landscape, 760 00:30:48,869 --> 00:30:50,839 there are a number of other 761 00:30:50,839 --> 00:30:51,839 things going on. 762 00:30:51,839 --> 00:30:56,740 And so we kind of took a step back and really looked at how 763 00:30:56,740 --> 00:30:59,279 this tree code came about, the 764 00:30:59,279 --> 00:31:04,240 last draft and sort of where we were going and sort of what 765 00:31:04,240 --> 00:31:05,799 could result. 766 00:31:05,799 --> 00:31:08,940 So what we did is we had a policy discussion with the 767 00:31:08,940 --> 00:31:11,079 council and the committee on the 768 00:31:11,079 --> 00:31:15,240 environment in May 21st. 769 00:31:15,240 --> 00:31:18,640 And from there, we really looked at some of the state 770 00:31:18,640 --> 00:31:20,839 regulations that came into play 771 00:31:20,839 --> 00:31:24,059 and really looking at trying to unify both the tree 772 00:31:24,059 --> 00:31:27,039 preservation landscape and ESA together. 773 00:31:27,039 --> 00:31:29,450 I think one of the questions that came up even on one of 774 00:31:29,450 --> 00:31:31,039 the earlier items was the credit 775 00:31:31,039 --> 00:31:33,680 that you currently get from an ESA. 776 00:31:33,680 --> 00:31:37,480 And so that was one of the policy questions we asked. 777 00:31:37,480 --> 00:31:40,680 Should you get that credit or is there another way? 778 00:31:40,680 --> 00:31:42,789 And also what do we really want to do with tree 779 00:31:42,789 --> 00:31:43,680 preservation? 780 00:31:43,680 --> 00:31:46,400 Is it do we want to build our fund? 781 00:31:46,400 --> 00:31:47,880 Do we want to preserve trees? 782 00:31:47,880 --> 00:31:50,079 And to what form or fashion? 783 00:31:50,079 --> 00:31:51,839 And so that was the initial discussion. 784 00:31:51,839 --> 00:31:55,599 So we kind of went back and I'll be honest, it was hard 785 00:31:55,599 --> 00:31:57,960 drafting because there were so 786 00:31:57,960 --> 00:32:02,759 many various drafts previously and it was hard to follow. 787 00:32:02,759 --> 00:32:06,220 None of them were in track changes and there were things 788 00:32:06,220 --> 00:32:08,359 that were in there that I thought 789 00:32:08,359 --> 00:32:11,440 was -- shame on me that I thought, okay, this must have 790 00:32:11,440 --> 00:32:12,440 been vetted. 791 00:32:12,440 --> 00:32:14,359 It's probably good to go. 792 00:32:14,359 --> 00:32:15,359 I'll leave that. 793 00:32:15,359 --> 00:32:17,160 It makes -- it probably makes sense. 794 00:32:17,160 --> 00:32:20,130 And I didn't ask the question why, which I normally do, to 795 00:32:20,130 --> 00:32:21,460 only find out I probably 796 00:32:21,460 --> 00:32:23,480 should have asked why. 797 00:32:23,480 --> 00:32:25,589 So that's why I'm giving you an update because we're coming 798 00:32:25,589 --> 00:32:26,599 -- we're going to be coming 799 00:32:26,599 --> 00:32:27,599 back again. 800 00:32:27,599 --> 00:32:31,160 But more tonight what I really wanted to get into is that 801 00:32:31,160 --> 00:32:33,359 we are working on -- we are moving 802 00:32:33,359 --> 00:32:34,359 forward. 803 00:32:34,359 --> 00:32:37,450 I know there was a concern that it had just stalled and 804 00:32:37,450 --> 00:32:39,599 died, but that was not the case. 805 00:32:39,599 --> 00:32:45,079 We did have a discussion at DCRC on some of the items. 806 00:32:45,079 --> 00:32:48,099 One in particular, it was interesting when you really read 807 00:32:48,099 --> 00:32:49,640 that code and really get into 808 00:32:49,640 --> 00:32:52,630 it, part of the problem was in the past, to be quite honest 809 00:32:52,630 --> 00:32:55,240 , it was not administered correctly. 810 00:32:55,240 --> 00:32:58,039 There are some things in there that are good. 811 00:32:58,039 --> 00:33:01,500 And for whatever reason, they just were not administered 812 00:33:01,500 --> 00:33:03,279 how they should have been. 813 00:33:03,279 --> 00:33:06,200 I can't explain why or why not. 814 00:33:06,200 --> 00:33:09,119 It just -- it is what it is. 815 00:33:09,119 --> 00:33:13,680 I can't tell you that we have made changes already. 816 00:33:13,680 --> 00:33:16,950 One of the concerns we've always had moving forward was how 817 00:33:16,950 --> 00:33:18,640 do we memorialize these tree 818 00:33:18,640 --> 00:33:20,200 preservation plans? 819 00:33:20,200 --> 00:33:22,509 And it's one of those things also -- if you continue to 820 00:33:22,509 --> 00:33:24,000 read our code, you always find 821 00:33:24,000 --> 00:33:26,720 something. 822 00:33:26,720 --> 00:33:30,440 And one requirement was on the plat, it's supposed to be 823 00:33:30,440 --> 00:33:33,700 noted, that tree preservation, 824 00:33:33,700 --> 00:33:35,359 where that tree preservation takes place. 825 00:33:35,359 --> 00:33:38,079 I think a previous plat, we included that note. 826 00:33:38,079 --> 00:33:42,970 So if it was on the lot, it is now included as a notation 827 00:33:42,970 --> 00:33:45,359 on that plat following what was 828 00:33:45,359 --> 00:33:46,440 adopted. 829 00:33:46,440 --> 00:33:48,920 And so we're kind of looking at does that still make sense 830 00:33:48,920 --> 00:33:50,160 and how do we sort of build 831 00:33:50,160 --> 00:33:53,299 on some of these things that we probably should have been 832 00:33:53,299 --> 00:33:54,759 enforcing in the past. 833 00:33:54,759 --> 00:33:58,799 But again, we are where we are today. 834 00:33:58,799 --> 00:34:03,880 So we went to COE August 6th with the draft. 835 00:34:03,880 --> 00:34:09,679 I think I had provided the PowerPoint and draft regulations 836 00:34:09,679 --> 00:34:10,079 . 837 00:34:10,079 --> 00:34:13,400 And so what we did is we really looked at a number of 838 00:34:13,400 --> 00:34:15,719 recent adopted regulations. 839 00:34:15,719 --> 00:34:21,489 We do know that the Home Builders Association made it very 840 00:34:21,489 --> 00:34:24,480 known that they wanted to see 841 00:34:24,480 --> 00:34:27,280 what we were doing and had concerns. 842 00:34:27,280 --> 00:34:30,420 And again, looking at it weighing both sides, but also 843 00:34:30,420 --> 00:34:32,480 knowing that we have an obligation 844 00:34:32,480 --> 00:34:36,039 and policy directive to preserve trees. 845 00:34:36,039 --> 00:34:39,570 And so how can we kind of write regulations where we think 846 00:34:39,570 --> 00:34:41,559 we can kind of get there where, 847 00:34:41,559 --> 00:34:44,559 one, we're not going to be challenged and have it thrown 848 00:34:44,559 --> 00:34:46,239 out, but also still preserve 849 00:34:46,239 --> 00:34:49,179 trees greater than where we are, greater than where we are 850 00:34:49,179 --> 00:34:49,719 today. 851 00:34:49,719 --> 00:34:54,079 And so that was the attempt of the first, of this latest 852 00:34:54,079 --> 00:34:54,920 draft. 853 00:34:54,920 --> 00:34:58,719 And so again, one was really to again to unify the code. 854 00:34:58,719 --> 00:35:00,920 And what we're looking at, kind of what we've been calling 855 00:35:00,920 --> 00:35:02,360 is really conservation and landscape 856 00:35:02,360 --> 00:35:04,829 standards and kind of bringing it all together, tree 857 00:35:04,829 --> 00:35:07,079 preservation, landscaping, ESA, but also 858 00:35:07,079 --> 00:35:09,980 looking at how we look at park space and park dedication 859 00:35:09,980 --> 00:35:11,719 and whether or not that could be 860 00:35:11,719 --> 00:35:15,639 factored in as an incentive to preserve trees. 861 00:35:15,639 --> 00:35:20,519 Again, although they're kind of independent, they all inter 862 00:35:20,519 --> 00:35:22,079 relate to each other. 863 00:35:22,079 --> 00:35:25,199 The park is not part of the land development code. 864 00:35:25,199 --> 00:35:26,440 It's part of the code of ordinances. 865 00:35:26,440 --> 00:35:29,440 But again, they all kind of play in together. 866 00:35:29,440 --> 00:35:31,769 And I think part of the problem with some of the other 867 00:35:31,769 --> 00:35:33,199 drafts, it was just looked at 868 00:35:33,199 --> 00:35:36,159 on its own and we didn't really look at how it was going to 869 00:35:36,159 --> 00:35:39,079 affect some of the other ordinances. 870 00:35:39,079 --> 00:35:44,050 One of the concerns we had with I think the last draft, it 871 00:35:44,050 --> 00:35:46,440 was on canopy coverage. 872 00:35:46,440 --> 00:35:50,199 Right now we're looking at staying on DBH. 873 00:35:50,199 --> 00:35:55,110 When we looked at the way it could be interpreted, easily 874 00:35:55,110 --> 00:35:58,280 interpreted, was that if the ESA counted 875 00:35:58,280 --> 00:36:02,090 for 30%, that would count for all of your tree canopy 876 00:36:02,090 --> 00:36:03,320 requirements. 877 00:36:03,320 --> 00:36:05,000 No mitigation would be required. 878 00:36:05,000 --> 00:36:07,179 In addition, it would count for all of your canopy 879 00:36:07,179 --> 00:36:08,880 requirements for your landscaping. 880 00:36:08,880 --> 00:36:11,260 And so it's kind of like, well, wait a second, is that 881 00:36:11,260 --> 00:36:13,480 meeting the intent of what we really 882 00:36:13,480 --> 00:36:17,000 want because that's kind of an easy out. 883 00:36:17,000 --> 00:36:19,679 And so again, it's sort of going back and looking at that 884 00:36:19,679 --> 00:36:21,239 as well as there was an exempt 885 00:36:21,239 --> 00:36:24,599 tree list that was in there. 886 00:36:24,599 --> 00:36:28,320 And the other component that I questioned is how can we 887 00:36:28,320 --> 00:36:30,599 administer a code where we're going 888 00:36:30,599 --> 00:36:34,099 to base a percentage off in an aerial photograph, not 889 00:36:34,099 --> 00:36:36,639 require a tree study, but then have a 890 00:36:36,639 --> 00:36:37,639 number of exempt trees. 891 00:36:37,639 --> 00:36:41,000 So if somebody comes in at a later date and wants to remove 892 00:36:41,000 --> 00:36:42,840 those exempt trees, how are 893 00:36:42,840 --> 00:36:45,880 we going to then make sure that 30% is preserved? 894 00:36:45,880 --> 00:36:48,849 And it would just, I think it would be very difficult to 895 00:36:48,849 --> 00:36:49,760 administer. 896 00:36:49,760 --> 00:36:50,760 Christopher Beck. 897 00:36:50,760 --> 00:36:51,760 Thank you, Chair. 898 00:36:51,760 --> 00:36:57,900 Yeah, my concern here too is how do you get to, if tree 899 00:36:57,900 --> 00:37:01,440 canopy is what we want, how do 900 00:37:01,440 --> 00:37:03,000 you get there using DBH? 901 00:37:03,000 --> 00:37:05,269 I mean, how do you know what kind of tree canopy you're 902 00:37:05,269 --> 00:37:06,559 going to get unless you know 903 00:37:06,559 --> 00:37:07,559 the tree specifically? 904 00:37:07,559 --> 00:37:10,639 Is there going to be that kind of information? 905 00:37:10,639 --> 00:37:13,780 I think it's when we get into the requirements for the tree 906 00:37:13,780 --> 00:37:15,840 preservation plan, I think that's 907 00:37:15,840 --> 00:37:19,690 where we need to, it's going to have to be detailed on that 908 00:37:19,690 --> 00:37:20,320 plan. 909 00:37:20,320 --> 00:37:23,869 I'll get through, I'll go through and I'll show kind of the 910 00:37:23,869 --> 00:37:24,880 comparison. 911 00:37:24,880 --> 00:37:28,559 Just wanted to touch base on our current tree code. 912 00:37:28,559 --> 00:37:31,820 Again, it actually gives you the option, believe it or not, 913 00:37:31,820 --> 00:37:34,000 either percentage of DBH or percentage 914 00:37:34,000 --> 00:37:35,000 of tree canopy. 915 00:37:35,000 --> 00:37:39,909 And this has been administered differently on a variety of 916 00:37:39,909 --> 00:37:40,900 projects. 917 00:37:40,900 --> 00:37:46,519 But again, it gives you the OR, again, current code. 918 00:37:46,519 --> 00:37:49,360 In-fill development, there's no minimum preservation, only 919 00:37:49,360 --> 00:37:50,840 mitigation for large trees. 920 00:37:50,840 --> 00:37:54,110 So if you're part of an infill lot, there's really no 921 00:37:54,110 --> 00:37:57,039 preservation requirements, no mitigation 922 00:37:57,039 --> 00:38:01,000 requirements, very little. 923 00:38:01,000 --> 00:38:03,480 Non-in-fill lots, again, quality tree, if you're a smaller 924 00:38:03,480 --> 00:38:04,800 lot, there's nothing that's 925 00:38:04,800 --> 00:38:06,280 required. 926 00:38:06,280 --> 00:38:09,920 If you're greater than two and a half, you have a minimum 927 00:38:09,920 --> 00:38:12,639 of 20% for single family, 25% 928 00:38:12,639 --> 00:38:17,550 for multi-family and non-residential, and then that can be 929 00:38:17,550 --> 00:38:24,840 reduced down to 10% and 12.5%. 930 00:38:24,840 --> 00:38:28,659 In addition to that, we have a number of categories. 931 00:38:28,659 --> 00:38:31,389 We have protected, historic quality, large secondary, 932 00:38:31,389 --> 00:38:32,960 secondary, then we have quality 933 00:38:32,960 --> 00:38:35,159 tree stands and secondary tree stands. 934 00:38:35,159 --> 00:38:38,500 And so looking at this on a table and trying to figure out 935 00:38:38,500 --> 00:38:40,199 where kind of things fit in 936 00:38:40,199 --> 00:38:41,920 and what's exempt, what's not exempt. 937 00:38:41,920 --> 00:38:45,960 Again, it's not organized in the best fashion. 938 00:38:45,960 --> 00:38:48,920 But again, this is our current code. 939 00:38:48,920 --> 00:38:52,280 What we were recommending is, first and foremost, is let's 940 00:38:52,280 --> 00:38:54,159 establish a purpose statement and 941 00:38:54,159 --> 00:38:56,440 some goals of what we really want to achieve. 942 00:38:56,440 --> 00:38:59,460 One, so we could have that public purpose of why we're 943 00:38:59,460 --> 00:39:01,880 doing it, but also if an interpretation 944 00:39:01,880 --> 00:39:04,030 does come up, we can go back to, okay, well, what was 945 00:39:04,030 --> 00:39:05,500 really the intent and the purpose 946 00:39:05,500 --> 00:39:07,320 of these regulations? 947 00:39:07,320 --> 00:39:10,900 And if we make this interpretation, are we following with 948 00:39:10,900 --> 00:39:12,320 what was intended? 949 00:39:12,320 --> 00:39:16,289 Again, we had that intent of achieving a 30% canopy 950 00:39:16,289 --> 00:39:19,079 coverage citywide, staying with the 951 00:39:19,079 --> 00:39:22,650 measurement at DBH, not on a canopy percentage, and trying 952 00:39:22,650 --> 00:39:24,880 to really look at encouraging saving 953 00:39:24,880 --> 00:39:28,679 larger trees. 954 00:39:28,679 --> 00:39:31,480 Going back to where did that, one of the questions, where 955 00:39:31,480 --> 00:39:33,000 did that 30% come from? 956 00:39:33,000 --> 00:39:36,969 And so there was this study in 2016, the State of Denton 957 00:39:36,969 --> 00:39:39,440 Urban Forest Report, that indicated 958 00:39:39,440 --> 00:39:42,920 there was an average canopy coverage of 30% in the city. 959 00:39:42,920 --> 00:39:44,679 And so we really started looking at that. 960 00:39:44,679 --> 00:39:47,369 And it's interesting when you start to read things a couple 961 00:39:47,369 --> 00:39:48,679 of times and pick out those 962 00:39:48,679 --> 00:39:50,599 little words. 963 00:39:50,599 --> 00:39:54,360 And so when we looked at how the urban, I think it's the 964 00:39:54,360 --> 00:39:56,719 urban tree canopy was defined, 965 00:39:56,719 --> 00:39:59,579 it actually was more than the city limits. 966 00:39:59,579 --> 00:40:03,000 So there were pockets of, and this is the map that we had 967 00:40:03,000 --> 00:40:04,320 pulled together. 968 00:40:04,320 --> 00:40:09,230 So there were maps of areas in the ETJ that were included, 969 00:40:09,230 --> 00:40:12,000 as well as non-annexation areas 970 00:40:12,000 --> 00:40:14,800 that were included as part of that analysis. 971 00:40:14,800 --> 00:40:17,230 So we sort of stepped back and said, well, okay, well, what 972 00:40:17,230 --> 00:40:18,320 is our actual, if we just 973 00:40:18,320 --> 00:40:20,280 look at our current city limits? 974 00:40:20,280 --> 00:40:24,639 And so at that time, 27.9, which is where we're about now. 975 00:40:24,639 --> 00:40:27,239 And I'll show you some numbers later where we're starting 976 00:40:27,239 --> 00:40:28,519 to get a little bit more into 977 00:40:28,519 --> 00:40:31,920 the analysis of exactly what we have and what we want to 978 00:40:31,920 --> 00:40:33,440 preserve and where. 979 00:40:33,440 --> 00:40:36,730 One of the other recommendations we had early on was coming 980 00:40:36,730 --> 00:40:38,559 up with really a comprehensive 981 00:40:38,559 --> 00:40:40,300 tree management plan. 982 00:40:40,300 --> 00:40:42,480 We do have a tree mitigation fund. 983 00:40:42,480 --> 00:40:45,880 And I know there's been debates in the past about what and 984 00:40:45,880 --> 00:40:47,480 where that money should go 985 00:40:47,480 --> 00:40:50,079 and how it should be spent. 986 00:40:50,079 --> 00:40:52,659 One of the suggestions we had was really creating this tree 987 00:40:52,659 --> 00:40:54,639 , comprehensive tree management plan. 988 00:40:54,639 --> 00:40:59,940 Ironically, it was budgeted last year for whatever reason, 989 00:40:59,940 --> 00:41:02,280 it didn't move forward. 990 00:41:02,280 --> 00:41:05,360 We are asking that those funds be re-appropriated this 991 00:41:05,360 --> 00:41:07,719 coming budget year to actually have that 992 00:41:07,719 --> 00:41:09,119 plan completed. 993 00:41:09,119 --> 00:41:12,059 And really what we're looking at doing is really continuing 994 00:41:12,059 --> 00:41:13,320 to set those goals, but 995 00:41:13,320 --> 00:41:16,829 more so outlining where the trees should be planted, where 996 00:41:16,829 --> 00:41:18,559 should we have, what kind of 997 00:41:18,559 --> 00:41:20,719 streetscaping should we have, what kind of street trees 998 00:41:20,719 --> 00:41:22,000 should we have, and really just 999 00:41:22,000 --> 00:41:27,050 looking at overall improving both the look and environment 1000 00:41:27,050 --> 00:41:28,440 for the city. 1001 00:41:28,440 --> 00:41:30,440 What I have on the side... 1002 00:41:30,440 --> 00:41:31,440 Commissioner Ellis. 1003 00:41:31,440 --> 00:41:32,440 Thank you, Chair. 1004 00:41:32,440 --> 00:41:35,530 Okay, Richard, you're talking about funding from the tree 1005 00:41:35,530 --> 00:41:37,239 fund, funding for the study. 1006 00:41:37,239 --> 00:41:39,239 Is that what you're talking about? 1007 00:41:39,239 --> 00:41:43,039 Yes, there was funding to have the study complete. 1008 00:41:43,039 --> 00:41:44,679 Which never was done, you're saying, last year? 1009 00:41:44,679 --> 00:41:46,639 The study wasn't done this past year. 1010 00:41:46,639 --> 00:41:50,900 And so we're asking that those funds be re-budgeted next 1011 00:41:50,900 --> 00:41:53,599 year so we can have that study complete. 1012 00:41:53,599 --> 00:41:56,039 So where are those funds that were budgeted? 1013 00:41:56,039 --> 00:41:57,039 They're sitting in an account. 1014 00:41:57,039 --> 00:42:01,940 Okay, so they just have to be re-accounted for with the 1015 00:42:01,940 --> 00:42:03,199 existing budget. 1016 00:42:03,199 --> 00:42:05,639 And then who's doing the study? 1017 00:42:05,639 --> 00:42:08,639 It'll go out for an RFP. 1018 00:42:08,639 --> 00:42:13,639 At least that's what we're initially planning. 1019 00:42:13,639 --> 00:42:16,599 The table on the side, one thing what I'd like to be able 1020 00:42:16,599 --> 00:42:18,039 to do is each year provide 1021 00:42:18,039 --> 00:42:19,039 some metrics. 1022 00:42:19,039 --> 00:42:21,829 So if we're gonna provide these purpose statements and 1023 00:42:21,829 --> 00:42:23,920 goals, I should be able to tell you what 1024 00:42:23,920 --> 00:42:25,360 we did and how we're meeting them. 1025 00:42:25,360 --> 00:42:26,360 Right now I can't. 1026 00:42:26,360 --> 00:42:28,960 I can't tell you how many trees we've preserved. 1027 00:42:28,960 --> 00:42:31,239 I can't tell you how much canopy. 1028 00:42:31,239 --> 00:42:34,440 Within general numbers, I can. 1029 00:42:34,440 --> 00:42:38,380 But we haven't done a good account of really accounting for 1030 00:42:38,380 --> 00:42:40,480 new landscape plans that have 1031 00:42:40,480 --> 00:42:41,480 come in. 1032 00:42:41,480 --> 00:42:45,480 I mean, versus what's been removed. 1033 00:42:45,480 --> 00:42:48,719 And so I'd like to be able every year to kind of give that 1034 00:42:48,719 --> 00:42:50,079 state of the city. 1035 00:42:50,079 --> 00:42:51,079 Here's where we are. 1036 00:42:51,079 --> 00:42:55,119 Here were the metrics and provide that on all aspects. 1037 00:42:55,119 --> 00:42:58,639 But this one in particular. 1038 00:42:58,639 --> 00:43:02,690 And so as part of that redrafting, we looked at sort of 1039 00:43:02,690 --> 00:43:05,320 consolidating and really looking 1040 00:43:05,320 --> 00:43:09,440 at keeping the historic tree, heritage, any tree 18 inches 1041 00:43:09,440 --> 00:43:11,679 or greater, and all the post-opes 1042 00:43:11,679 --> 00:43:16,579 would regardless of their size, and then get into the 1043 00:43:16,579 --> 00:43:19,320 quality 6 to, it should be less than 1044 00:43:19,320 --> 00:43:20,320 18. 1045 00:43:20,320 --> 00:43:23,849 I know we can have 17 and a half and be in a no man's land, 1046 00:43:23,849 --> 00:43:25,880 but that was really the intent. 1047 00:43:25,880 --> 00:43:29,000 But again, looking at that exempt, it was Mesquite, Cotton 1048 00:43:29,000 --> 00:43:30,539 wood, Hackberry, or Texas 1049 00:43:30,539 --> 00:43:35,599 Sugarberry, Bodark, or Locust, less than 18. 1050 00:43:35,599 --> 00:43:38,599 Interestingly, the majority of those trees I think that I 1051 00:43:38,599 --> 00:43:40,440 have underlined, I think account 1052 00:43:40,440 --> 00:43:42,429 for over, and I have the number later, but it's the 1053 00:43:42,429 --> 00:43:43,840 majority of the trees that make up 1054 00:43:43,840 --> 00:43:45,199 our canopy. 1055 00:43:45,199 --> 00:43:48,280 And so it's one of those shame on me. 1056 00:43:48,280 --> 00:43:51,500 So here we are, we're going to preserve 30% of our canopy, 1057 00:43:51,500 --> 00:43:53,039 but 50% of our canopy is going 1058 00:43:53,039 --> 00:43:54,960 to be made up of exempt trees. 1059 00:43:54,960 --> 00:43:56,960 Commissioner Beck. 1060 00:43:56,960 --> 00:43:57,960 Thank you, Chair. 1061 00:43:57,960 --> 00:43:59,960 Okay, help me here. 1062 00:43:59,960 --> 00:44:04,119 Can an exempt tree like a Hackberry that's 18 inches or 1063 00:44:04,119 --> 00:44:06,280 more, can it be considered a 1064 00:44:06,280 --> 00:44:07,280 quality tree? 1065 00:44:07,280 --> 00:44:09,280 Can you explain quality to us a little bit? 1066 00:44:09,280 --> 00:44:13,280 If you've got a nice Hackberry with a nice canopy. 1067 00:44:13,280 --> 00:44:14,960 And that's where we are now. 1068 00:44:14,960 --> 00:44:19,019 And so what came out of the last COE was to really look at 1069 00:44:19,019 --> 00:44:21,480 should we have exempt, should 1070 00:44:21,480 --> 00:44:24,800 the trees be exempt, or if the exempt trees are a certain 1071 00:44:24,800 --> 00:44:26,519 size, even if it's greater 1072 00:44:26,519 --> 00:44:30,860 than or less than 18 inches, if it's eight inches or nine 1073 00:44:30,860 --> 00:44:32,920 inches, should it be worth 1074 00:44:32,920 --> 00:44:34,559 preserving? 1075 00:44:34,559 --> 00:44:38,360 And so that's where we are now, kind of looking at again 1076 00:44:38,360 --> 00:44:40,639 what we have as really where our 1077 00:44:40,639 --> 00:44:43,719 exempt trees come in are our secondary trees. 1078 00:44:43,719 --> 00:44:48,630 So the exempt trees would be susceptible to being looked at 1079 00:44:48,630 --> 00:44:51,039 less favorably, but we could, 1080 00:44:51,039 --> 00:44:54,440 when we go in and do a development, we've got a lot of Mes 1081 00:44:54,440 --> 00:44:56,599 quite or Hackberry, Sugarberry, 1082 00:44:56,599 --> 00:44:59,159 we can determine then whether they. 1083 00:44:59,159 --> 00:45:02,239 We may not have them as exempt trees, ultimately. 1084 00:45:02,239 --> 00:45:03,239 Okay, okay. 1085 00:45:03,239 --> 00:45:05,719 So there's some buffer there. 1086 00:45:05,719 --> 00:45:10,019 One thing that I was requested was to meet with the Master 1087 00:45:10,019 --> 00:45:13,239 Gardeners Association to specifically 1088 00:45:13,239 --> 00:45:16,840 kind of talk about species and what should be exempt. 1089 00:45:16,840 --> 00:45:20,329 And so we had our first meeting, I met with the director 1090 00:45:20,329 --> 00:45:22,320 earlier this week, and so she 1091 00:45:22,320 --> 00:45:25,079 gave me some good things to consider. 1092 00:45:25,079 --> 00:45:28,929 There are some that are susceptible to disease, and so we 1093 00:45:28,929 --> 00:45:31,159 're kind of looking at that, and 1094 00:45:31,159 --> 00:45:34,519 so this is one area that we're going to be coming back on. 1095 00:45:34,519 --> 00:45:38,329 Are there any other native trees other than post-okes in 1096 00:45:38,329 --> 00:45:40,199 this area that need to be in 1097 00:45:40,199 --> 00:45:41,679 this classification? 1098 00:45:41,679 --> 00:45:46,119 Probably, and I think that's where we're, rather than just 1099 00:45:46,119 --> 00:45:48,159 naming the exempt, I think 1100 00:45:48,159 --> 00:45:52,300 we're also going to look at specifically whether it's a Sch 1101 00:45:52,300 --> 00:45:55,760 umart Oak or some other species, 1102 00:45:55,760 --> 00:45:58,760 that's where we're looking at really coming in and defining 1103 00:45:58,760 --> 00:45:59,920 those kind of trees. 1104 00:45:59,920 --> 00:46:01,280 Okay, good, thank you. 1105 00:46:01,280 --> 00:46:02,280 Commissioner Sanchez. 1106 00:46:02,280 --> 00:46:07,190 When we're looking at, since we're in cross timbers, would 1107 00:46:07,190 --> 00:46:09,599 that be, look at those species 1108 00:46:09,599 --> 00:46:16,429 that occur naturally in the cross timbers habitat, rather 1109 00:46:16,429 --> 00:46:19,639 than just bring in trees and 1110 00:46:19,639 --> 00:46:23,869 say, okay, it meets these criteria or they're introduced 1111 00:46:23,869 --> 00:46:26,119 trees, we should be looking at 1112 00:46:26,119 --> 00:46:29,880 those species that are native, because if we're looking to 1113 00:46:29,880 --> 00:46:31,679 preserve native habitat, 1114 00:46:31,679 --> 00:46:35,090 that's basically what we're looking at, native trees, 1115 00:46:35,090 --> 00:46:37,519 native vegetation, and like you say, 1116 00:46:37,519 --> 00:46:41,199 blackberries, those grow everywhere. 1117 00:46:41,199 --> 00:46:44,840 Most people consider them as trash species, because they'll 1118 00:46:44,840 --> 00:46:47,000 grow long fence lines everywhere, 1119 00:46:47,000 --> 00:46:50,300 but what we need to look at, I think more is post-okes, 1120 00:46:50,300 --> 00:46:52,360 blackjack oaks, all your white 1121 00:46:52,360 --> 00:46:55,000 oaks and your red oaks. 1122 00:46:55,000 --> 00:46:58,559 There's a whole slew of oaks that actually occur in this 1123 00:46:58,559 --> 00:47:01,360 area and that we should be concentrating 1124 00:47:01,360 --> 00:47:02,360 on. 1125 00:47:02,360 --> 00:47:08,519 I'm going to jump in and make sure Cole can take over. 1126 00:47:08,519 --> 00:47:12,239 Is there any part of this, this is more fodder for thought, 1127 00:47:12,239 --> 00:47:14,039 is there any thought to help 1128 00:47:14,039 --> 00:47:17,639 out keeping the trees that we do have healthy? 1129 00:47:17,639 --> 00:47:20,570 We talk a lot about just not cutting trees down, but like 1130 00:47:20,570 --> 00:47:22,440 post-okes, they are some fickle 1131 00:47:22,440 --> 00:47:28,010 trees that, I mean, I have several that are dying on me 1132 00:47:28,010 --> 00:47:31,480 with no fault of my own, I think, 1133 00:47:31,480 --> 00:47:34,360 but is there anything we're doing through this process of 1134 00:47:34,360 --> 00:47:36,000 preservation and conservation 1135 00:47:36,000 --> 00:47:38,239 to help the species that are out there? 1136 00:47:38,239 --> 00:47:40,880 More maybe a rhetorical question, but something to play 1137 00:47:40,880 --> 00:47:42,159 into the conversation. 1138 00:47:42,159 --> 00:47:44,769 Part of it has to do with where we're headed with the 1139 00:47:44,769 --> 00:47:47,000 preservation plan and what you preserve 1140 00:47:47,000 --> 00:47:49,920 and the length of time. 1141 00:47:49,920 --> 00:47:55,710 Right now, we don't have any real mechanism to go back and 1142 00:47:55,710 --> 00:47:58,360 inspect it or check it. 1143 00:47:58,360 --> 00:48:01,269 That is a component to make sure that they are maintained 1144 00:48:01,269 --> 00:48:02,119 throughout. 1145 00:48:02,119 --> 00:48:03,119 Do you have a question? 1146 00:48:03,119 --> 00:48:03,880 Yeah, I was going to take you back on what Mr. Sanchez was 1147 00:48:03,880 --> 00:48:04,119 saying. 1148 00:48:04,119 --> 00:48:09,690 Taking mesquite, for instance, we ranchers in the city of 1149 00:48:09,690 --> 00:48:12,119 Denton are having to hold a 1150 00:48:12,119 --> 00:48:13,119 mesquite. 1151 00:48:13,119 --> 00:48:16,480 I mean, two things, feral hogs and mesquite trees. 1152 00:48:16,480 --> 00:48:20,460 We're losing so much of our ag pastures to mesquite because 1153 00:48:20,460 --> 00:48:22,440 it's invasive and it spreads 1154 00:48:22,440 --> 00:48:23,440 like wildfire. 1155 00:48:23,440 --> 00:48:29,300 I don't think there's anything ... I guess we could look at 1156 00:48:29,300 --> 00:48:31,800 the size of it because I've 1157 00:48:31,800 --> 00:48:37,079 seen some big mesquite trees, but we're losing acreage. 1158 00:48:37,079 --> 00:48:41,159 We've lost several hundred acres to mesquite. 1159 00:48:41,159 --> 00:48:42,920 It multiplies like crazy. 1160 00:48:42,920 --> 00:48:46,239 It's not supposed to be here. 1161 00:48:46,239 --> 00:48:47,519 That's my two cents on mesquite. 1162 00:48:47,519 --> 00:48:48,519 I hate it. 1163 00:48:48,519 --> 00:48:49,519 No, it's good. 1164 00:48:49,519 --> 00:48:59,650 A couple other ... I don't want to get too in depth, but a 1165 00:48:59,650 --> 00:49:02,960 couple new concepts. 1166 00:49:02,960 --> 00:49:07,559 One is what we're calling a development impact area. 1167 00:49:07,559 --> 00:49:11,619 Really the development impact area would exclude any ESA or 1168 00:49:11,619 --> 00:49:14,119 preserved habitat, again, which 1169 00:49:14,119 --> 00:49:17,599 is a new term, or any sort of conservation easement. 1170 00:49:17,599 --> 00:49:23,170 Again, the thought was is really looking at, if that's your 1171 00:49:23,170 --> 00:49:25,960 entire site, your ESA you're 1172 00:49:25,960 --> 00:49:28,239 going to have to do regardless. 1173 00:49:28,239 --> 00:49:31,920 Let's take that out of the equation altogether. 1174 00:49:31,920 --> 00:49:36,280 Then really look at the site excluding that area and then 1175 00:49:36,280 --> 00:49:39,079 base your requirements on that. 1176 00:49:39,079 --> 00:49:43,400 In addition, your landscape requirements would not include 1177 00:49:43,400 --> 00:49:45,719 that ESA area either, where now 1178 00:49:45,719 --> 00:49:46,719 it can be. 1179 00:49:46,719 --> 00:49:51,280 Again, it was again looking at a give and take. 1180 00:49:51,280 --> 00:49:56,170 We looked at a number of recent ordinances that were 1181 00:49:56,170 --> 00:49:56,840 adopted. 1182 00:49:56,840 --> 00:49:59,820 The city of Dallas in particular that I believe the home 1183 00:49:59,820 --> 00:50:01,119 builders endorsed. 1184 00:50:01,119 --> 00:50:03,000 They had a very similar concept. 1185 00:50:03,000 --> 00:50:08,199 I think the city of Arlington recently passed one a year 1186 00:50:08,199 --> 00:50:08,960 ago. 1187 00:50:08,960 --> 00:50:13,159 We were looking at what has been supported and where can we 1188 00:50:13,159 --> 00:50:15,199 go, but also improve what 1189 00:50:15,199 --> 00:50:16,199 we have. 1190 00:50:16,199 --> 00:50:21,610 Again, the preserved habitat, this would be an area 1191 00:50:21,610 --> 00:50:23,840 adjacent to an ESA. 1192 00:50:23,840 --> 00:50:28,070 Initially, we looked at a minimum square footage of 1,200 1193 00:50:28,070 --> 00:50:29,119 square feet. 1194 00:50:29,119 --> 00:50:34,030 Again, this is to just build upon that preserved, trying to 1195 00:50:34,030 --> 00:50:36,480 preserve that habitat that may be 1196 00:50:36,480 --> 00:50:38,360 outside of the ESA. 1197 00:50:38,360 --> 00:50:41,579 But again, giving credit and when you, as part of that 1198 00:50:41,579 --> 00:50:43,840 development impact area, again, 1199 00:50:43,840 --> 00:50:47,639 further reducing it on what you would be required to do on 1200 00:50:47,639 --> 00:50:49,440 the landscaping side. 1201 00:50:49,440 --> 00:50:50,440 - Commissioner Beck. 1202 00:50:50,440 --> 00:50:51,519 - Help me with that. 1203 00:50:51,519 --> 00:50:56,079 What distinguishes the preserved habitat from the ESA? 1204 00:50:56,079 --> 00:50:58,849 - With the ESA, you have to preserve, so say you have, you 1205 00:50:58,849 --> 00:51:00,599 only have to preserve 30% of 1206 00:51:00,599 --> 00:51:02,519 the ESA. 1207 00:51:02,519 --> 00:51:06,969 If you decide to preserve, you can either preserve the ESA, 1208 00:51:06,969 --> 00:51:08,880 you wouldn't get credit 1209 00:51:08,880 --> 00:51:11,599 for your tree preservation or landscaping. 1210 00:51:11,599 --> 00:51:15,829 If you went to the minimum on ESA, you would no longer get 1211 00:51:15,829 --> 00:51:16,679 credit. 1212 00:51:16,679 --> 00:51:19,289 That's another recommendation, so you would no longer get 1213 00:51:19,289 --> 00:51:20,519 credit for your ESA on your 1214 00:51:20,519 --> 00:51:23,510 tree preservation or landscaping, but it wouldn't count 1215 00:51:23,510 --> 00:51:24,760 against you either. 1216 00:51:24,760 --> 00:51:28,400 - Well, I guess what I'm asking, what makes up a preserved 1217 00:51:28,400 --> 00:51:29,199 habitat? 1218 00:51:29,199 --> 00:51:34,639 - It would be a designated area on the site that would be 1219 00:51:34,639 --> 00:51:37,159 adjacent to that ESA. 1220 00:51:37,159 --> 00:51:39,159 That would satisfy your tree preservation requirements. 1221 00:51:39,159 --> 00:51:40,159 - Okay, okay. 1222 00:51:40,159 --> 00:51:46,989 - Not to use the site, the SGP site, but where you saw that 1223 00:51:46,989 --> 00:51:49,920 they had, if they were under 1224 00:51:49,920 --> 00:51:53,889 the new code, if it was adopted, if they still had to do 30 1225 00:51:53,889 --> 00:51:56,280 %, that could be adjacent to that, 1226 00:51:56,280 --> 00:51:58,559 that would be their preserved habitat. 1227 00:51:58,559 --> 00:52:02,400 Then the requirements for landscaping would be taken out of 1228 00:52:02,400 --> 00:52:04,400 that area that's set aside. 1229 00:52:04,400 --> 00:52:07,190 - Okay, so that would appease them since they can't use the 1230 00:52:07,190 --> 00:52:08,559 ESA for their minimum, they 1231 00:52:08,559 --> 00:52:12,429 could use this area and keep a lot of trees at the same 1232 00:52:12,429 --> 00:52:13,119 time. 1233 00:52:13,119 --> 00:52:14,119 - Correct. 1234 00:52:14,119 --> 00:52:16,480 The intent was really to try to focus on continuing that 1235 00:52:16,480 --> 00:52:18,239 habitat or preserving large trees. 1236 00:52:18,239 --> 00:52:19,239 - Right, right, thanks. 1237 00:52:19,239 --> 00:52:21,440 - Commissioner Sanchez, you have a question? 1238 00:52:21,440 --> 00:52:26,329 - I guess my question is, you have your ESA and your 1239 00:52:26,329 --> 00:52:27,559 preserved habitat. 1240 00:52:27,559 --> 00:52:29,280 Long-term, how are you gonna manage those? 1241 00:52:29,280 --> 00:52:33,059 Is there anything that's gonna discuss how to manage those 1242 00:52:33,059 --> 00:52:34,760 areas to preserve them in 1243 00:52:34,760 --> 00:52:36,400 the long-term? 1244 00:52:36,400 --> 00:52:40,559 Because if you just preserve them over time, other species 1245 00:52:40,559 --> 00:52:43,079 will come in or you won't have, 1246 00:52:43,079 --> 00:52:46,730 ESA is supposed to be, we're talking about upland habitat, 1247 00:52:46,730 --> 00:52:48,440 so you should have a canopy 1248 00:52:48,440 --> 00:52:49,440 and a ground cover. 1249 00:52:49,440 --> 00:52:51,659 If you go into an area where all you have is a canopy and 1250 00:52:51,659 --> 00:52:53,920 you don't have no ground cover, 1251 00:52:53,920 --> 00:52:57,159 that's a very poor example of an ESA. 1252 00:52:57,159 --> 00:53:01,349 So if you continue to preserve it over time, you're gonna 1253 00:53:01,349 --> 00:53:02,239 lose it. 1254 00:53:02,239 --> 00:53:07,809 So is there anything in this whole tree preservation or ESA 1255 00:53:07,809 --> 00:53:11,400 issue that brings about how to manage 1256 00:53:11,400 --> 00:53:12,400 those? 1257 00:53:12,400 --> 00:53:17,969 - The management, on the ESA, I'm not sure how, because the 1258 00:53:17,969 --> 00:53:19,159 regulations, as you know, 1259 00:53:19,159 --> 00:53:22,199 were recently adopted, and I honestly, I don't know. 1260 00:53:22,199 --> 00:53:26,199 We haven't written that in, any sort of management plan yet 1261 00:53:26,199 --> 00:53:26,480 . 1262 00:53:26,480 --> 00:53:29,800 Certainly we'll look at including that. 1263 00:53:29,800 --> 00:53:31,800 That's a good point. 1264 00:53:31,800 --> 00:53:32,800 - Commissioner Pernitta. 1265 00:53:32,800 --> 00:53:35,409 - So just to clarify, so on the ESA, you mentioned that 1266 00:53:35,409 --> 00:53:37,639 they're required to preserve 30% of the 1267 00:53:37,639 --> 00:53:38,639 ESA, right? 1268 00:53:38,639 --> 00:53:39,639 - Correct. 1269 00:53:39,639 --> 00:53:40,639 - Okay. 1270 00:53:40,639 --> 00:53:45,739 And if they are not preserving 30%, we have the preserved 1271 00:53:45,739 --> 00:53:47,519 habitat, right? 1272 00:53:47,519 --> 00:53:48,519 - They're sort of separate. 1273 00:53:48,519 --> 00:53:52,030 So regardless, they have to preserve, if there's an ESA on 1274 00:53:52,030 --> 00:53:53,760 the site, they have to preserve 1275 00:53:53,760 --> 00:53:55,760 at least 30% of it. 1276 00:53:55,760 --> 00:53:56,760 - Okay. 1277 00:53:56,760 --> 00:53:58,980 What is the, so the preserved habitat, is there a 1278 00:53:58,980 --> 00:54:00,800 percentage that's required there? 1279 00:54:00,800 --> 00:54:03,400 - No, no, there would be no minimum percentage. 1280 00:54:03,400 --> 00:54:05,579 They would still have to meet their tree preservation 1281 00:54:05,579 --> 00:54:10,440 requirements of 30%, but that area could be, 1282 00:54:10,440 --> 00:54:16,469 however it's conformed, it could be, whether it's 10%, 20%, 1283 00:54:16,469 --> 00:54:18,480 or the full 30%. 1284 00:54:18,480 --> 00:54:27,960 It just needs to be attached to the ESA. 1285 00:54:27,960 --> 00:54:35,010 So again, talking about the preservation requirements, 30% 1286 00:54:35,010 --> 00:54:39,320 of DBH as opposed to the canopy, but then 1287 00:54:39,320 --> 00:54:41,039 70% replacement. 1288 00:54:41,039 --> 00:54:44,039 So right now, there's, depending what kind of tree and the 1289 00:54:44,039 --> 00:54:45,280 size and the size of your 1290 00:54:45,280 --> 00:54:49,840 lot, you may not have to replace it. 1291 00:54:49,840 --> 00:54:52,019 This is a complete opposite. 1292 00:54:52,019 --> 00:54:53,380 So this would require mitigation. 1293 00:54:53,380 --> 00:54:59,010 So if you clear cut your post oaks, the post oaks on a 1294 00:54:59,010 --> 00:55:03,360 property, you would have to mitigate 1295 00:55:03,360 --> 00:55:07,719 some form or fashion under what's being proposed. 1296 00:55:07,719 --> 00:55:11,780 And that was a discussion that really came out, part of the 1297 00:55:11,780 --> 00:55:13,880 COE and council, where it's 1298 00:55:13,880 --> 00:55:16,780 interesting, you get phone calls, "Hey, why was there tree 1299 00:55:16,780 --> 00:55:19,280 mitigation only, I saw it was 1300 00:55:19,280 --> 00:55:20,280 only $4,000." 1301 00:55:20,280 --> 00:55:25,920 They clear cut that entire property, well, they met our 1302 00:55:25,920 --> 00:55:26,840 code. 1303 00:55:26,840 --> 00:55:31,730 So again, it's not really meant to hurt a property owner, 1304 00:55:31,730 --> 00:55:33,559 but it's also looking at, 1305 00:55:33,559 --> 00:55:35,449 if we are going to have tree preservation requirements, let 1306 00:55:35,449 --> 00:55:36,239 's make sure we're kind 1307 00:55:36,239 --> 00:55:39,809 of selective and how we can kind of work together and meet 1308 00:55:39,809 --> 00:55:40,880 those goals. 1309 00:55:40,880 --> 00:55:41,880 - Mr. Beck. 1310 00:55:41,880 --> 00:55:42,880 - Thank you, Chair. 1311 00:55:42,880 --> 00:55:43,880 That just kind of blew my mind. 1312 00:55:43,880 --> 00:55:48,769 - You say a lot if you've got the lot has half the trees 1313 00:55:48,769 --> 00:55:50,719 there, that they can come in 1314 00:55:50,719 --> 00:55:52,639 and clear cut that. 1315 00:55:52,639 --> 00:55:54,679 What about the 30% preservation? 1316 00:55:54,679 --> 00:55:57,539 - They would have under the current code, talking about the 1317 00:55:57,539 --> 00:55:58,880 current code, depending 1318 00:55:58,880 --> 00:56:02,780 on the tree, they could technically take it down to 12.5%, 1319 00:56:02,780 --> 00:56:04,320 assuming it's greater than 1320 00:56:04,320 --> 00:56:05,320 two and a half acres. 1321 00:56:05,320 --> 00:56:07,519 And I've got an example I'll show you. 1322 00:56:07,519 --> 00:56:10,400 Let me just flip to it now. 1323 00:56:10,400 --> 00:56:12,039 So it kind of puts it in perspective. 1324 00:56:12,039 --> 00:56:16,460 This was the, before I get there, just on the ESA, the way 1325 00:56:16,460 --> 00:56:18,480 it's written now, so you 1326 00:56:18,480 --> 00:56:22,349 get one square foot of tree canopy for every square foot of 1327 00:56:22,349 --> 00:56:23,719 ESA tree canopy. 1328 00:56:23,719 --> 00:56:26,539 Plus you get two square feet of landscape credits for every 1329 00:56:26,539 --> 00:56:27,840 square feet of preserved 1330 00:56:27,840 --> 00:56:31,139 ESA tree canopy, or one square foot of landscape credit for 1331 00:56:31,139 --> 00:56:33,000 every square foot of non-wooded 1332 00:56:33,000 --> 00:56:34,000 preserved ESA. 1333 00:56:34,000 --> 00:56:37,880 So you get a pretty, it's a pretty robust bonus for your 1334 00:56:37,880 --> 00:56:40,480 landscaping and tree preservation 1335 00:56:40,480 --> 00:56:41,480 requirements. 1336 00:56:41,480 --> 00:56:42,480 - Current? 1337 00:56:42,480 --> 00:56:44,639 - This is what was, yeah, this is the current. 1338 00:56:44,639 --> 00:56:50,909 The directive that we got from COE was to move forward with 1339 00:56:50,909 --> 00:56:52,400 an amendment to eliminate 1340 00:56:52,400 --> 00:56:58,039 the credit that currently exists. 1341 00:56:58,039 --> 00:57:00,440 And so this is an example. 1342 00:57:00,440 --> 00:57:04,880 This was a plat that was recently approved. 1343 00:57:04,880 --> 00:57:10,969 So on their site, they had a total DBH of 3260, which 1344 00:57:10,969 --> 00:57:15,159 accounted for roughly 28.5% of 1345 00:57:15,159 --> 00:57:17,599 their lot. 1346 00:57:17,599 --> 00:57:21,840 So if you look at what they preserved, that's the red. 1347 00:57:21,840 --> 00:57:23,679 And so that met our requirements. 1348 00:57:23,679 --> 00:57:30,260 They had to do some mitigation, but what they preserved was 1349 00:57:30,260 --> 00:57:33,920 1.14% of the canopy. 1350 00:57:33,920 --> 00:57:37,679 And then they had a mitigation payment of 18,750. 1351 00:57:37,679 --> 00:57:40,239 And so you see the amount that was lost. 1352 00:57:40,239 --> 00:57:45,400 - Well, I hope I'm not the only one here, but again, I don 1353 00:57:45,400 --> 00:57:47,320 't understand how DBH and 1354 00:57:47,320 --> 00:57:52,320 canopy correlate. 1355 00:57:52,320 --> 00:57:54,360 - It depends on the type of tree. 1356 00:57:54,360 --> 00:57:55,360 - Okay. 1357 00:57:55,360 --> 00:57:59,440 - It depends on the type of tree, the size. 1358 00:57:59,440 --> 00:58:02,500 - I mean, the DBH alone doesn't tell you what the canopy is 1359 00:58:02,500 --> 00:58:02,760 . 1360 00:58:02,760 --> 00:58:03,760 - No. 1361 00:58:03,760 --> 00:58:09,639 - So if we're trying to sustain 30% canopy in the city, I 1362 00:58:09,639 --> 00:58:10,960 just don't understand how we 1363 00:58:10,960 --> 00:58:14,000 do that based on DBH. 1364 00:58:14,000 --> 00:58:17,079 - I think part of the issue too that I have in measuring, 1365 00:58:17,079 --> 00:58:18,800 particularly if it's in a tree 1366 00:58:18,800 --> 00:58:22,280 stand, because there are gonna be some trees removed. 1367 00:58:22,280 --> 00:58:26,340 So if the branches are co-mingled, what belongs to what 1368 00:58:26,340 --> 00:58:28,719 looking at it from an aerial? 1369 00:58:28,719 --> 00:58:33,239 And so I don't think there's any real exact way to do that. 1370 00:58:33,239 --> 00:58:38,000 But then again, is 30% the number? 1371 00:58:38,000 --> 00:58:39,760 Again, I don't know. 1372 00:58:39,760 --> 00:58:42,360 That's really more of a policy discussion. 1373 00:58:42,360 --> 00:58:43,360 - 40%? 1374 00:58:43,360 --> 00:58:47,880 - Or should it be something else? 1375 00:58:47,880 --> 00:58:53,230 But this just gives you an idea of the current versus 1376 00:58:53,230 --> 00:58:54,639 proposed. 1377 00:58:54,639 --> 00:58:59,539 And so the area in yellow, what we did is we took this tree 1378 00:58:59,539 --> 00:59:01,159 preservation plan and then 1379 00:59:01,159 --> 00:59:06,639 looked at the inches at 30%, 978. 1380 00:59:06,639 --> 00:59:13,469 And so what that equated to was roughly 27.7% of the canopy 1381 00:59:13,469 --> 00:59:15,000 on the site. 1382 00:59:15,000 --> 00:59:24,539 Again it's gonna depend on the tree. 1383 00:59:24,539 --> 00:59:29,139 And so sort of where we're headed with additional analysis, 1384 00:59:29,139 --> 00:59:30,840 a couple of things. 1385 00:59:30,840 --> 00:59:34,010 One we're sort of really looking at what is our true 1386 00:59:34,010 --> 00:59:35,079 percentage? 1387 00:59:35,079 --> 00:59:40,260 And it's interesting if you look at in 2014, the percent 1388 00:59:40,260 --> 00:59:43,280 canopy coverage was 28.4%. 1389 00:59:43,280 --> 00:59:47,639 2018, 27.9. 1390 00:59:47,639 --> 00:59:48,639 And how did that change? 1391 00:59:48,639 --> 00:59:50,119 It's the municipal boundary change. 1392 00:59:50,119 --> 00:59:51,659 That's all that reflects. 1393 00:59:51,659 --> 00:59:55,820 So as we continue to annex land from out west where it's 1394 00:59:55,820 --> 00:59:59,440 more prairie, obviously our percentage 1395 00:59:59,440 --> 01:00:01,079 is gonna decrease. 1396 01:00:01,079 --> 01:00:04,980 And so when we start to really look at, so what we're doing 1397 01:00:04,980 --> 01:00:06,960 now is really the map and 1398 01:00:06,960 --> 01:00:11,849 trying to find what would it take to achieve that goal, 1399 01:00:11,849 --> 01:00:14,480 making some general assumptions. 1400 01:00:14,480 --> 01:00:18,420 And so now we're really looking at all the platted acreage, 1401 01:00:18,420 --> 01:00:20,920 platted, unplatted, developed, 1402 01:00:20,920 --> 01:00:25,760 undeveloped and what's required under certain PDs. 1403 01:00:25,760 --> 01:00:28,309 And again, 'cause we have a multitude of properties that 1404 01:00:28,309 --> 01:00:30,239 fall under different regulations from 1405 01:00:30,239 --> 01:00:31,800 different periods of time. 1406 01:00:31,800 --> 01:00:36,059 So it's a little difficult, but we do wanna do, we wanna be 1407 01:00:36,059 --> 01:00:38,420 able to have those answers. 1408 01:00:38,420 --> 01:00:41,619 But then also look at of that vacant land, whether it be pl 1409 01:00:41,619 --> 01:00:43,400 atted or unplatted, how much 1410 01:00:43,400 --> 01:00:46,199 of that is city owned property? 1411 01:00:46,199 --> 01:00:48,309 But in addition to that, how much of that canopy then is 1412 01:00:48,309 --> 01:00:49,400 related to that city owned 1413 01:00:49,400 --> 01:00:50,480 property? 1414 01:00:50,480 --> 01:00:53,860 And so whether or not we wanna make policy decisions to 1415 01:00:53,860 --> 01:00:55,880 preserve that in perpetuity in 1416 01:00:55,880 --> 01:00:59,840 some form or fashion, again, but those are the items that 1417 01:00:59,840 --> 01:01:01,719 we're looking at and we're 1418 01:01:01,719 --> 01:01:03,960 really asked at that last COE meeting. 1419 01:01:03,960 --> 01:01:07,460 Again, looking at that tree species and exempt tree list, 1420 01:01:07,460 --> 01:01:09,840 again, 58% of what we had is exempt 1421 01:01:09,840 --> 01:01:10,840 trees. 1422 01:01:10,840 --> 01:01:14,309 I'm sorry, 58% of the existing canopy is made up of the 1423 01:01:14,309 --> 01:01:17,880 trees that were on the exempt list. 1424 01:01:17,880 --> 01:01:22,039 Same with the master gardeners, the ESA credits. 1425 01:01:22,039 --> 01:01:24,550 One of the items that came up recently when we were talking 1426 01:01:24,550 --> 01:01:25,840 conservation areas and how 1427 01:01:25,840 --> 01:01:29,909 we were gonna use that, this was part of the DCRC, which is 1428 01:01:29,909 --> 01:01:31,960 the group that meets as part 1429 01:01:31,960 --> 01:01:33,519 of the DDC update. 1430 01:01:33,519 --> 01:01:36,860 And the outside council cautioned making sure that there is 1431 01:01:36,860 --> 01:01:38,599 a proportionality factor. 1432 01:01:38,599 --> 01:01:44,690 And I won't get into the whole proportionality issue with 1433 01:01:44,690 --> 01:01:47,179 respect to takings. 1434 01:01:47,179 --> 01:01:50,599 And so we're sort of rethinking how we do that. 1435 01:01:50,599 --> 01:01:53,329 But also looking at, there was some language with offsite 1436 01:01:53,329 --> 01:01:54,920 plannings and whether somebody 1437 01:01:54,920 --> 01:01:57,800 should be permitted if they are required to mitigate to be 1438 01:01:57,800 --> 01:01:59,280 able to plant somewhere else 1439 01:01:59,280 --> 01:02:02,679 in the city and how that would be managed long-term. 1440 01:02:02,679 --> 01:02:05,480 And so that's kind of where we are now. 1441 01:02:05,480 --> 01:02:08,000 But again, at least wanted to give you guys an update. 1442 01:02:08,000 --> 01:02:11,559 I know there's a lot there, but at least wanted to at least 1443 01:02:11,559 --> 01:02:13,199 present some of the ideas 1444 01:02:13,199 --> 01:02:18,800 and changes from the vast array of drafts that you had 1445 01:02:18,800 --> 01:02:20,440 before you. 1446 01:02:20,440 --> 01:02:21,440 -Kashelis. 1447 01:02:21,440 --> 01:02:22,920 -Thank you, Chair. 1448 01:02:22,920 --> 01:02:26,900 Richard, could we maybe add on the analysis, the tree fund, 1449 01:02:26,900 --> 01:02:28,760 and maybe getting it on some 1450 01:02:28,760 --> 01:02:33,199 kind of a regular annual plan of what to do with it? 1451 01:02:33,199 --> 01:02:35,139 I mean, we've had this in the past where it just grows and 1452 01:02:35,139 --> 01:02:35,920 grows and grows. 1453 01:02:35,920 --> 01:02:39,010 If we're gonna keep it in there as an option, and clearly 1454 01:02:39,010 --> 01:02:40,679 there's a lot of money in it, 1455 01:02:40,679 --> 01:02:43,730 I mean, you just, that was one development, $18,000 went 1456 01:02:43,730 --> 01:02:44,239 into it. 1457 01:02:44,239 --> 01:02:45,519 What are we doing with it? 1458 01:02:45,519 --> 01:02:47,869 We need to have a plan for the tree fund if we're having a 1459 01:02:47,869 --> 01:02:48,519 tree fund. 1460 01:02:48,519 --> 01:02:51,019 -Right, and that's where that goes back to that management 1461 01:02:51,019 --> 01:02:51,380 plan. 1462 01:02:51,380 --> 01:02:56,260 So if we have those funds, again, rather than just putting 1463 01:02:56,260 --> 01:02:58,679 a tree in a park here or there, 1464 01:02:58,679 --> 01:03:01,340 let's really use them to improve the city and what the 1465 01:03:01,340 --> 01:03:02,719 intent for the... 1466 01:03:02,719 --> 01:03:05,289 -Well, I would think to achieve the goal of what we're 1467 01:03:05,289 --> 01:03:05,840 doing. 1468 01:03:05,840 --> 01:03:08,349 I mean, if they're not gonna do it on that site, then let's 1469 01:03:08,349 --> 01:03:09,480 take money from the tree 1470 01:03:09,480 --> 01:03:13,519 fund and achieve the goal of the city somewhere else. 1471 01:03:13,519 --> 01:03:15,800 That would make sense to me anyway. 1472 01:03:15,800 --> 01:03:18,000 Chair, may I have one more question? 1473 01:03:18,000 --> 01:03:19,000 -Go for it. 1474 01:03:19,000 --> 01:03:20,000 -Thank you. 1475 01:03:20,000 --> 01:03:24,909 Getting back to DBH, you didn't explain how you got to that 1476 01:03:24,909 --> 01:03:26,880 determination that you decided 1477 01:03:26,880 --> 01:03:29,840 to do that instead of Canopy. 1478 01:03:29,840 --> 01:03:32,800 Tell me how that conversation with whom was the 1479 01:03:32,800 --> 01:03:34,000 conversation? 1480 01:03:34,000 --> 01:03:39,619 -It was a conversation with staff that we really looked at, 1481 01:03:39,619 --> 01:03:42,519 and we went through literally 1482 01:03:42,519 --> 01:03:50,250 a multitude of...and days of scenarios and just saying, " 1483 01:03:50,250 --> 01:03:51,719 Okay, well, let me look at this 1484 01:03:51,719 --> 01:03:56,719 site and let's run the numbers again," and really trying to 1485 01:03:56,719 --> 01:03:59,500 determine what makes sense. 1486 01:03:59,500 --> 01:04:02,039 But then looking at and then really diving into our current 1487 01:04:02,039 --> 01:04:03,280 code where it kind of gives 1488 01:04:03,280 --> 01:04:07,280 you that option and looking at, "All right, well, when we 1489 01:04:07,280 --> 01:04:10,480 really enforce the code at 25% 1490 01:04:10,480 --> 01:04:13,599 of DBH, what did we achieve?" 1491 01:04:13,599 --> 01:04:19,159 And there were some cases that it seemed to work. 1492 01:04:19,159 --> 01:04:26,860 I think where it got...where it may have failed is the Rais 1493 01:04:26,860 --> 01:04:29,880 ing Cane site, right? 1494 01:04:29,880 --> 01:04:33,800 I mean, that's the one everyone points to, but believe it 1495 01:04:33,800 --> 01:04:35,920 or not, it met the tree code. 1496 01:04:35,920 --> 01:04:38,170 That was the first one I wanted to look at, but they met 1497 01:04:38,170 --> 01:04:38,760 the code. 1498 01:04:38,760 --> 01:04:42,469 There were some mitigation, but again, it's within the 1499 01:04:42,469 --> 01:04:45,039 parameters of what the code allows. 1500 01:04:45,039 --> 01:04:48,469 So that's where we really started thinking of, "Well, what 1501 01:04:48,469 --> 01:04:50,079 's really our intent, and 1502 01:04:50,079 --> 01:04:54,239 do we want to try to preserve post-Oaks or blackjack oaks?" 1503 01:04:54,239 --> 01:04:57,199 And some may not have a big Canopy. 1504 01:04:57,199 --> 01:05:00,570 And so let's really start looking at the DBH of some of 1505 01:05:00,570 --> 01:05:04,199 these...that's why we didn't have 1506 01:05:04,199 --> 01:05:05,199 a DBH on post-Oaks. 1507 01:05:05,199 --> 01:05:08,280 We initially did, and then backed off of it. 1508 01:05:08,280 --> 01:05:11,789 And so that's where we're at now is just trying to come up 1509 01:05:11,789 --> 01:05:13,760 with a better sort of formula, 1510 01:05:13,760 --> 01:05:17,989 I guess, if you will, of how we measure it and what species 1511 01:05:17,989 --> 01:05:18,320 . 1512 01:05:18,320 --> 01:05:23,210 So, but in this brainstorming that you did, I mean, so you 1513 01:05:23,210 --> 01:05:24,920 determined that getting here 1514 01:05:24,920 --> 01:05:29,360 was easier to do with DBH versus a percentage of Canopy? 1515 01:05:29,360 --> 01:05:30,130 That's where I'm trying to go with the question of how you 1516 01:05:30,130 --> 01:05:30,360 ... 1517 01:05:30,360 --> 01:05:33,239 Not that it was easier, it was better representative. 1518 01:05:33,239 --> 01:05:36,230 The Canopy was actually much easier, because all you're 1519 01:05:36,230 --> 01:05:38,719 doing is looking at an aerial from 1520 01:05:38,719 --> 01:05:44,289 Google and drawing, you know, calculating in the area, " 1521 01:05:44,289 --> 01:05:47,480 Okay, this is 30 percent, and 1522 01:05:47,480 --> 01:05:48,679 here's my preservation plan." 1523 01:05:48,679 --> 01:05:51,340 And to me, that...and then we're going to have a list of 1524 01:05:51,340 --> 01:05:52,199 exempt trees. 1525 01:05:52,199 --> 01:05:54,760 Well, how do we administer that? 1526 01:05:54,760 --> 01:05:58,400 And so for me, it was hard to determine it. 1527 01:05:58,400 --> 01:05:59,400 Okay. 1528 01:05:59,400 --> 01:06:00,400 Thanks. 1529 01:06:00,400 --> 01:06:01,400 Christopher Beck. 1530 01:06:01,400 --> 01:06:02,400 Thank you, Chair. 1531 01:06:02,400 --> 01:06:05,900 Was part of the staff that was brainstorming this was City 1532 01:06:05,900 --> 01:06:07,880 Arborist, Haywood Morgan? 1533 01:06:07,880 --> 01:06:08,880 Yeah. 1534 01:06:08,880 --> 01:06:09,880 So we've all been involved. 1535 01:06:09,880 --> 01:06:12,449 This is kind of a term from his state of the Denton Urban 1536 01:06:12,449 --> 01:06:14,000 Forest he gave a couple years 1537 01:06:14,000 --> 01:06:15,000 ago. 1538 01:06:15,000 --> 01:06:18,449 It was all Canopy then, so he's had a change of attitude on 1539 01:06:18,449 --> 01:06:19,039 that? 1540 01:06:19,039 --> 01:06:22,559 Well, we're still working through that. 1541 01:06:22,559 --> 01:06:27,260 I know he, you know, he has some...he likes the Canopy, but 1542 01:06:27,260 --> 01:06:28,480 again, I think administering 1543 01:06:28,480 --> 01:06:36,400 it, again, practically in a code, it's much more...I think 1544 01:06:36,400 --> 01:06:38,639 it's much more difficult, and 1545 01:06:38,639 --> 01:06:39,639 there's less assurances. 1546 01:06:39,639 --> 01:06:40,639 Okay. 1547 01:06:40,639 --> 01:06:42,789 I like that he's still involved, because I mean, I read his 1548 01:06:42,789 --> 01:06:44,039 report, and I liked everything 1549 01:06:44,039 --> 01:06:46,309 about it, so I would just...I wanted to make sure he's 1550 01:06:46,309 --> 01:06:47,760 still in the loop on that. 1551 01:06:47,760 --> 01:06:48,760 Oh, absolutely. 1552 01:06:48,760 --> 01:06:49,760 Okay. 1553 01:06:49,760 --> 01:06:50,760 Thanks. 1554 01:06:50,760 --> 01:06:51,760 So I'm going to jump in real fast. 1555 01:06:51,760 --> 01:06:57,079 I echo Ellis and Beck's opinions on the DBH Canopy. 1556 01:06:57,079 --> 01:07:01,969 I think I understand, to the best of my ability, the 1557 01:07:01,969 --> 01:07:05,159 rationale, because I get that Canopy and 1558 01:07:05,159 --> 01:07:08,800 tree type, there's some issues there. 1559 01:07:08,800 --> 01:07:11,369 What's incongruent to my mind right now, and it takes time 1560 01:07:11,369 --> 01:07:13,099 to process, obviously, is having 1561 01:07:13,099 --> 01:07:16,389 a goal measured by Canopy, but the standard in place for 1562 01:07:16,389 --> 01:07:18,440 development is going to be DBH. 1563 01:07:18,440 --> 01:07:21,110 And so it seems like if you go that route, then you'd have 1564 01:07:21,110 --> 01:07:22,619 to have some sort of all-tree 1565 01:07:22,619 --> 01:07:26,570 matrix that post oak, you have to have two inches of DBH, 1566 01:07:26,570 --> 01:07:28,519 but a pecan, you just have 1567 01:07:28,519 --> 01:07:31,960 to have one because of the Canopy associated to the DBH. 1568 01:07:31,960 --> 01:07:36,869 And so that seems like a massive effort to have a matrix of 1569 01:07:36,869 --> 01:07:38,900 every possible tree that 1570 01:07:38,900 --> 01:07:42,480 could grow here, and how Canopy credits given to DBH. 1571 01:07:42,480 --> 01:07:46,510 And so I wonder if we know that kind of ratio, is there 1572 01:07:46,510 --> 01:07:50,320 like a 20,000 inch DBH that the city 1573 01:07:50,320 --> 01:07:54,559 wants that represents 30% Canopy, and now we have our goal 1574 01:07:54,559 --> 01:07:56,280 of DBH and the standard we're 1575 01:07:56,280 --> 01:07:58,639 placing is DBH, if that's the way you want to go. 1576 01:07:58,639 --> 01:08:02,730 But I'm still trying to process, if we're having developers 1577 01:08:02,730 --> 01:08:04,480 adhere to DBH, but we're 1578 01:08:04,480 --> 01:08:08,039 going to measure our goal by Canopy, the difference is 1579 01:08:08,039 --> 01:08:08,760 there. 1580 01:08:08,760 --> 01:08:11,559 I agree. 1581 01:08:11,559 --> 01:08:16,470 I think that, again, some of these things we just carried 1582 01:08:16,470 --> 01:08:18,640 forward, again, it's a new 1583 01:08:18,640 --> 01:08:19,640 day. 1584 01:08:19,640 --> 01:08:22,649 Interestingly, we're one of the few cities that actually 1585 01:08:22,649 --> 01:08:24,359 have a percent requirement. 1586 01:08:24,359 --> 01:08:27,569 I think that was one of the bones of contention with the 1587 01:08:27,569 --> 01:08:29,760 Builders Association that you're 1588 01:08:29,760 --> 01:08:32,819 making me require a certain percentage. 1589 01:08:32,819 --> 01:08:38,449 If we end up requiring mitigation for all trees, again, the 1590 01:08:38,449 --> 01:08:41,539 question is, does it matter? 1591 01:08:41,539 --> 01:08:46,920 It could be very expensive, depending how it's written. 1592 01:08:46,920 --> 01:08:52,319 But if you put more weight on trees that are native from 1593 01:08:52,319 --> 01:08:55,920 the cross timber, then that alone 1594 01:08:55,920 --> 01:08:59,119 just can be the force for preservation. 1595 01:08:59,119 --> 01:09:04,510 And maybe that's really the true goal and not just 30% 1596 01:09:04,510 --> 01:09:07,600 because it was in this report. 1597 01:09:07,600 --> 01:09:12,640 And again, is it really achievable? 1598 01:09:12,640 --> 01:09:16,079 And that's really what we're even doing that analysis of. 1599 01:09:16,079 --> 01:09:17,079 Is it even achievable? 1600 01:09:17,079 --> 01:09:18,680 Yeah, I think there's something, too. 1601 01:09:18,680 --> 01:09:21,640 If there's 100% mitigation, then there's going to be a 1602 01:09:21,640 --> 01:09:23,159 consequence for a tree coming 1603 01:09:23,159 --> 01:09:24,159 down. 1604 01:09:24,159 --> 01:09:29,050 Then that might have a lot more weight towards the goal of 1605 01:09:29,050 --> 01:09:31,479 maximizing trees and dentin above 1606 01:09:31,479 --> 01:09:32,739 anything. 1607 01:09:32,739 --> 01:09:35,989 But I'm sure there's going to be some significant pushback 1608 01:09:35,989 --> 01:09:36,680 on that. 1609 01:09:36,680 --> 01:09:38,960 And that's kind of where we were going, too. 1610 01:09:38,960 --> 01:09:43,199 But also putting a little more weight on, putting a little 1611 01:09:43,199 --> 01:09:48,520 more weight, and I didn't 1612 01:09:48,520 --> 01:09:51,119 finish on this one, putting a little bit more weight on 1613 01:09:51,119 --> 01:09:52,920 those type of tree, on a post oak. 1614 01:09:52,920 --> 01:09:54,460 So still getting a credit. 1615 01:09:54,460 --> 01:09:57,670 So even though you're required to do 30, you would still 1616 01:09:57,670 --> 01:09:59,300 get a credit based on that. 1617 01:09:59,300 --> 01:10:00,859 And the larger and the tight. 1618 01:10:00,859 --> 01:10:04,859 So if you decide you're going to preserve all sort of all 1619 01:10:04,859 --> 01:10:06,880 post oaks for every inch of 1620 01:10:06,880 --> 01:10:11,869 post oak that you preserve every DBH, it would be at one to 1621 01:10:11,869 --> 01:10:12,760 three. 1622 01:10:12,760 --> 01:10:16,300 So that would write down your mitigation amount. 1623 01:10:16,300 --> 01:10:19,470 And so really the intent is, what do we really want to 1624 01:10:19,470 --> 01:10:20,340 preserve? 1625 01:10:20,340 --> 01:10:24,609 And let's focus on that rather than just some number out 1626 01:10:24,609 --> 01:10:27,239 there that we may not physically 1627 01:10:27,239 --> 01:10:30,800 ever be able to achieve, looking at really our ETJ and what 1628 01:10:30,800 --> 01:10:32,319 's on the ground now. 1629 01:10:32,319 --> 01:10:34,720 Thank you, Chair. 1630 01:10:34,720 --> 01:10:36,960 I know at one point the state was trying to weigh in on 1631 01:10:36,960 --> 01:10:37,399 this. 1632 01:10:37,399 --> 01:10:39,479 Do you know where we are with that? 1633 01:10:39,479 --> 01:10:41,560 There was Senate Bill 6. 1634 01:10:41,560 --> 01:10:47,760 There were some requirements passed. 1635 01:10:47,760 --> 01:10:51,279 But it really had to do with on mitigation. 1636 01:10:51,279 --> 01:10:53,560 There are some exemptions for single family on the size of 1637 01:10:53,560 --> 01:10:53,960 tree. 1638 01:10:53,960 --> 01:10:58,850 I think it's anything below seven inches, if I'm recalling 1639 01:10:58,850 --> 01:10:59,520 correctly. 1640 01:10:59,520 --> 01:11:02,979 I'll send that out to everyone. 1641 01:11:02,979 --> 01:11:06,640 But there you have to provide for the ability to replant. 1642 01:11:06,640 --> 01:11:09,399 So it can't be all payment is really what it equated to, 1643 01:11:09,399 --> 01:11:11,079 whether or not this next session 1644 01:11:11,079 --> 01:11:14,000 there's something else that comes out. 1645 01:11:14,000 --> 01:11:15,000 But yeah. 1646 01:11:15,000 --> 01:11:24,279 The mayor was very upset. 1647 01:11:24,279 --> 01:11:30,159 Better get ours in sooner than later. 1648 01:11:30,159 --> 01:11:35,520 That was my point exactly. 1649 01:11:35,520 --> 01:11:37,560 I don't see any more questions. 1650 01:11:37,560 --> 01:11:38,560 Oh, Commissioner Beck. 1651 01:11:38,560 --> 01:11:39,560 Thank you, Chair. 1652 01:11:39,560 --> 01:11:43,439 Just as a comment on the 30%. 1653 01:11:43,439 --> 01:11:45,479 Maybe it's more, maybe it's less. 1654 01:11:45,479 --> 01:11:49,130 But I think there's an advantage to having an established 1655 01:11:49,130 --> 01:11:51,199 amount to draw a line and saying 1656 01:11:51,199 --> 01:11:53,649 just to make sure that we don't go crazy in the one 1657 01:11:53,649 --> 01:11:55,680 direction in the negative aspect. 1658 01:11:55,680 --> 01:12:01,659 So just for what it's worth, I think 30%, 28%, 32%, I think 1659 01:12:01,659 --> 01:12:03,840 we need to have some figure 1660 01:12:03,840 --> 01:12:07,319 to draw a line and saying. 1661 01:12:07,319 --> 01:12:08,319 I'm going to have both of those. 1662 01:12:08,319 --> 01:12:10,470 That's why I want to be able to at least have both of those 1663 01:12:10,470 --> 01:12:11,760 options so we can everyone can 1664 01:12:11,760 --> 01:12:13,760 make that informed decision. 1665 01:12:13,760 --> 01:12:18,199 Make it all set. 1666 01:12:18,199 --> 01:12:19,680 Thank you, Richard. 1667 01:12:19,680 --> 01:12:23,039 With that, we will close the work session at 616. 1668 01:12:23,039 --> 01:12:25,479 We'll reconvene in council chambers at 630. 1669 01:12:41,760 --> 01:12:45,920 Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning 1670 01:12:45,920 --> 01:12:48,840 Commission meeting for Wednesday, 1671 01:12:48,840 --> 01:12:49,840 August 22nd. 1672 01:12:49,840 --> 01:12:52,680 I'll call this meeting to order at 637. 1673 01:12:52,680 --> 01:12:55,439 Apologize for the delay. 1674 01:12:55,439 --> 01:12:57,369 First order of business is to stand and give a Pledge of 1675 01:12:57,369 --> 01:12:58,840 Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas 1676 01:12:58,840 --> 01:12:59,840 flag. 1677 01:12:59,840 --> 01:13:04,850 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of 1678 01:13:04,850 --> 01:13:07,840 America and to the Republic for 1679 01:13:07,840 --> 01:13:12,750 which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with 1680 01:13:12,750 --> 01:13:14,840 liberty and justice for all. 1681 01:13:14,840 --> 01:13:17,840 I honor the Texas flag. 1682 01:13:17,840 --> 01:13:27,869 I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one 1683 01:13:27,869 --> 01:13:31,359 and indivisible. 1684 01:13:31,359 --> 01:13:34,560 First order of business is to consider approval of the P&Z 1685 01:13:34,560 --> 01:13:36,359 minutes from August 8th. 1686 01:13:36,359 --> 01:13:38,359 Commissioner Smith? 1687 01:13:38,359 --> 01:13:40,359 Commissioner Ellis? 1688 01:13:40,359 --> 01:13:41,359 Second. 1689 01:13:41,359 --> 01:13:44,359 We have a first and a second. 1690 01:13:44,359 --> 01:13:45,359 Any discussion? 1691 01:13:45,359 --> 01:13:48,239 Seeing none, I will call for a vote by show of hands. 1692 01:13:48,239 --> 01:13:50,800 All those in favor? 1693 01:13:50,800 --> 01:13:52,399 All those against? 1694 01:13:52,399 --> 01:13:53,399 Abstaining? 1695 01:13:53,399 --> 01:13:57,039 Minutes passed, seven-zero. 1696 01:13:57,039 --> 01:13:58,520 Next is the consent agenda. 1697 01:13:58,520 --> 01:14:01,920 Is there any motion or discussion? 1698 01:14:01,920 --> 01:14:02,920 Commissioner Beck? 1699 01:14:02,920 --> 01:14:05,920 Move to approve the consent agenda. 1700 01:14:05,920 --> 01:14:06,920 Commissioner Smith? 1701 01:14:06,920 --> 01:14:07,920 Second. 1702 01:14:07,920 --> 01:14:09,640 There is a first and a second. 1703 01:14:09,640 --> 01:14:12,880 Any discussion on the consent? 1704 01:14:12,880 --> 01:14:16,880 Seeing none, I will call for a vote by show of hands. 1705 01:14:16,880 --> 01:14:19,159 Those in favor? 1706 01:14:19,159 --> 01:14:20,159 Those against? 1707 01:14:20,159 --> 01:14:22,159 Any abstaining? 1708 01:14:22,159 --> 01:14:26,640 Consent passes, seven-zero. 1709 01:14:26,640 --> 01:14:29,279 Next order of business is public hearings. 1710 01:14:29,279 --> 01:14:35,600 The first is 4A-6 or S-17-7. 1711 01:14:35,600 --> 01:14:38,399 I will open the public hearing and call Haley for 1712 01:14:38,399 --> 01:14:39,520 presentation. 1713 01:14:39,520 --> 01:14:45,319 Good evening. 1714 01:14:45,319 --> 01:14:49,239 This is case S-17-7 for the enclave at Denton. 1715 01:14:49,239 --> 01:14:51,350 The request before you is to hold this public hearing and 1716 01:14:51,350 --> 01:14:52,760 consider making a recommendation 1717 01:14:52,760 --> 01:14:56,210 to the City Council regarding a specific use permit for a 1718 01:14:56,210 --> 01:14:58,279 multifamily use on the property 1719 01:14:58,279 --> 01:15:00,279 outlined on the map in yellow. 1720 01:15:00,279 --> 01:15:04,279 The site is just over 12 acres located on the east side of 1721 01:15:04,279 --> 01:15:05,439 Brinker Road. 1722 01:15:05,439 --> 01:15:08,789 For a little bit of background on what an SUP is, this 1723 01:15:08,789 --> 01:15:10,720 specific use permit is a type 1724 01:15:10,720 --> 01:15:13,869 of approval that's required for uses that may be compatible 1725 01:15:13,869 --> 01:15:15,359 in a zoning district where 1726 01:15:15,359 --> 01:15:17,680 the use is not permitted by right. 1727 01:15:17,680 --> 01:15:20,319 So there may be certain conditions or restrictions that are 1728 01:15:20,319 --> 01:15:22,000 needed to limit nuisance potential 1729 01:15:22,000 --> 01:15:24,000 for the use that's requested. 1730 01:15:24,000 --> 01:15:26,369 An SUP does require two public hearings, so this will be 1731 01:15:26,369 --> 01:15:27,920 the first and this will be followed 1732 01:15:27,920 --> 01:15:32,079 up by a public hearing at the City Council pending your 1733 01:15:32,079 --> 01:15:33,520 recommendation. 1734 01:15:33,520 --> 01:15:35,880 The subject property is located within a regional center 1735 01:15:35,880 --> 01:15:37,520 commercial downtown zoning district 1736 01:15:37,520 --> 01:15:39,199 or RCCD. 1737 01:15:39,199 --> 01:15:42,239 Within this district, multifamily is permitted with 1738 01:15:42,239 --> 01:15:43,239 limitations. 1739 01:15:43,239 --> 01:15:46,920 So limitation four requires that either a specific use 1740 01:15:46,920 --> 01:15:48,939 permit be approved, that the 1741 01:15:48,939 --> 01:15:51,430 multifamily be part of a mixed use development that meets 1742 01:15:51,430 --> 01:15:53,279 our definition and additional criteria 1743 01:15:53,279 --> 01:15:55,770 for mixed use development, or that have been previously 1744 01:15:55,770 --> 01:15:57,359 approved as part of something such 1745 01:15:57,359 --> 01:16:02,239 as an MPC or a small area plan. 1746 01:16:02,239 --> 01:16:05,359 An SUP has several criteria for approval that were outlined 1747 01:16:05,359 --> 01:16:06,960 in detail in your backup, so 1748 01:16:06,960 --> 01:16:09,319 I'll just kind of summarize those here. 1749 01:16:09,319 --> 01:16:12,260 All of those conditions or criteria are aimed at ensuring 1750 01:16:12,260 --> 01:16:13,920 compatibility between the use 1751 01:16:13,920 --> 01:16:18,000 that's proposed and surrounding uses or zoning surrounding 1752 01:16:18,000 --> 01:16:19,140 the property. 1753 01:16:19,140 --> 01:16:21,579 So that would include that the use wouldn't impede the 1754 01:16:21,579 --> 01:16:23,359 orderly development of surrounding 1755 01:16:23,359 --> 01:16:27,170 properties, that adequate parking and access are provided 1756 01:16:27,170 --> 01:16:29,000 for the site, that there are 1757 01:16:29,000 --> 01:16:31,779 measures in place to ensure there's no nuisances generated 1758 01:16:31,779 --> 01:16:33,279 by the use that could be noise, 1759 01:16:33,279 --> 01:16:36,239 light, glare, things of that nature, that there's adequate 1760 01:16:36,239 --> 01:16:37,640 landscaping and screening 1761 01:16:37,640 --> 01:16:41,760 provided and that there's architectural compatibility. 1762 01:16:41,760 --> 01:16:43,630 So we'll now look in a little more detail at what's 1763 01:16:43,630 --> 01:16:44,199 proposed. 1764 01:16:44,199 --> 01:16:47,399 So you can see here two buildings proposed on the site 1765 01:16:47,399 --> 01:16:48,680 outlined in blue. 1766 01:16:48,680 --> 01:16:52,000 The footprint of the buildings is just over 95,000 square 1767 01:16:52,000 --> 01:16:52,439 feet. 1768 01:16:52,439 --> 01:16:56,229 There are 270 multifamily units proposed, a mixture of one, 1769 01:16:56,229 --> 01:16:57,760 two, and three bedroom, 1770 01:16:57,760 --> 01:17:01,409 and additionally outlined in red, there is a small area of 1771 01:17:01,409 --> 01:17:03,460 commercial, there'd be a variety 1772 01:17:03,460 --> 01:17:05,859 of uses that could be permitted there under our CCD, such 1773 01:17:05,859 --> 01:17:07,079 as restaurants or retail or 1774 01:17:07,079 --> 01:17:08,960 fitness centers. 1775 01:17:08,960 --> 01:17:11,909 In addition to the building footprint, there are 471 1776 01:17:11,909 --> 01:17:13,800 parking spaces shown on the site. 1777 01:17:13,800 --> 01:17:16,960 This does meet the Denton Development Code's criteria for 1778 01:17:16,960 --> 01:17:18,760 parking based on the individual 1779 01:17:18,760 --> 01:17:21,270 uses that they've thought of on the site, so multifamily as 1780 01:17:21,270 --> 01:17:22,680 well as the various commercial 1781 01:17:22,680 --> 01:17:23,800 uses. 1782 01:17:23,800 --> 01:17:26,250 About 30 of those spaces would be required for just the 1783 01:17:26,250 --> 01:17:27,720 commercial uses, the remainder 1784 01:17:27,720 --> 01:17:30,399 would be associated with the multifamily. 1785 01:17:30,399 --> 01:17:32,600 And then the other key feature of the site is a two and a 1786 01:17:32,600 --> 01:17:34,119 half acre area of tree conservation 1787 01:17:34,119 --> 01:17:37,960 that we'll look at a little more closely. 1788 01:17:37,960 --> 01:17:40,880 So looking at the landscaping, as I mentioned, landscaping 1789 01:17:40,880 --> 01:17:42,319 is one of the key features for 1790 01:17:42,319 --> 01:17:43,560 compatibility. 1791 01:17:43,560 --> 01:17:46,619 So the code requires between multifamily and commercial use 1792 01:17:46,619 --> 01:17:48,319 , as well as between multifamily 1793 01:17:48,319 --> 01:17:51,960 and the institutional use to the south, a type C buffer. 1794 01:17:51,960 --> 01:17:54,909 So that's a 15 foot wide area planted with a combination of 1795 01:17:54,909 --> 01:17:56,159 trees and shrubs based on 1796 01:17:56,159 --> 01:17:57,159 the linear footage. 1797 01:17:57,159 --> 01:17:59,520 So you can see outlined in light green the two areas where 1798 01:17:59,520 --> 01:18:00,880 that buffer has been provided 1799 01:18:00,880 --> 01:18:02,119 for. 1800 01:18:02,119 --> 01:18:04,949 The area outlined in orange is the required parking lot 1801 01:18:04,949 --> 01:18:06,000 screening area. 1802 01:18:06,000 --> 01:18:08,510 So when you have parking between a building and the street, 1803 01:18:08,510 --> 01:18:09,960 code requires a 15 foot wide 1804 01:18:09,960 --> 01:18:14,850 area with trees, shrubs, and a berm all included in that 1805 01:18:14,850 --> 01:18:15,359 space. 1806 01:18:15,359 --> 01:18:17,149 And then shown in dark green is the area of that tree 1807 01:18:17,149 --> 01:18:17,880 conservation. 1808 01:18:17,880 --> 01:18:21,989 As I mentioned, it's approximately two and a half acres in 1809 01:18:21,989 --> 01:18:22,640 size. 1810 01:18:22,640 --> 01:18:25,060 And I wanted to show you what that actually looks like with 1811 01:18:25,060 --> 01:18:25,960 an aerial image. 1812 01:18:25,960 --> 01:18:30,199 So this is that overlaying on an aerial of the site. 1813 01:18:30,199 --> 01:18:32,770 So you can see this is actually a copy of the plat for this 1814 01:18:32,770 --> 01:18:34,359 development, the preliminary 1815 01:18:34,359 --> 01:18:35,359 plat. 1816 01:18:35,359 --> 01:18:37,510 So this will be memorialized on the plat for this property 1817 01:18:37,510 --> 01:18:38,920 that it will remain a conservation 1818 01:18:38,920 --> 01:18:41,359 area. 1819 01:18:41,359 --> 01:18:44,159 The other key feature of the SUP is the building elevations 1820 01:18:44,159 --> 01:18:46,640 to ensure that architectural compatibility. 1821 01:18:46,640 --> 01:18:51,680 So you can see here just one of the buildings. 1822 01:18:51,680 --> 01:18:54,510 They're both proposed to be four stories tall, just over 50 1823 01:18:54,510 --> 01:18:54,960 feet. 1824 01:18:54,960 --> 01:18:58,079 The zoning district does allow up to 100 feet in height. 1825 01:18:58,079 --> 01:19:00,479 The materials would be a mixture of brick and stone veneer 1826 01:19:00,479 --> 01:19:01,520 as well as a combination 1827 01:19:01,520 --> 01:19:05,920 of fiber cement, siding, and panels. 1828 01:19:05,920 --> 01:19:08,119 So a little bit of our analysis was not only ensuring that 1829 01:19:08,119 --> 01:19:09,279 it met those zoning and code 1830 01:19:09,279 --> 01:19:12,350 requirements, was that it's also consistent with the future 1831 01:19:12,350 --> 01:19:13,000 land use. 1832 01:19:13,000 --> 01:19:15,689 So this area, as you can see here in the dark pink, is 1833 01:19:15,689 --> 01:19:17,760 designated for regional mixed use. 1834 01:19:17,760 --> 01:19:21,430 So here at the loop, and I-35 is kind of a logical location 1835 01:19:21,430 --> 01:19:23,119 for a major commercial and 1836 01:19:23,119 --> 01:19:27,720 high density multifamily or high density housing hub. 1837 01:19:27,720 --> 01:19:29,939 So this does fit comfortably within that, providing a place 1838 01:19:29,939 --> 01:19:31,000 for people to live in close 1839 01:19:31,000 --> 01:19:35,920 proximity to some of our key retail uses in town. 1840 01:19:35,920 --> 01:19:39,399 Further analysis is looking at what's around the property. 1841 01:19:39,399 --> 01:19:42,159 So we do have a large area that's undeveloped. 1842 01:19:42,159 --> 01:19:44,590 But we also have the Walmart Shopping Center just to the 1843 01:19:44,590 --> 01:19:46,000 north of the property as well 1844 01:19:46,000 --> 01:19:48,680 as another large shopping center across the street. 1845 01:19:48,680 --> 01:19:52,390 And then to the south, we have a variety of institutional 1846 01:19:52,390 --> 01:19:54,119 and multifamily uses. 1847 01:19:54,119 --> 01:19:57,479 So some assisted living memory care facilities as well as 1848 01:19:57,479 --> 01:19:59,840 straight multifamily development. 1849 01:19:59,840 --> 01:20:02,359 So we found this used to be compatible with what's in the 1850 01:20:02,359 --> 01:20:03,640 area today and what would be 1851 01:20:03,640 --> 01:20:06,390 permitted on the vacant property surrounding, which has a 1852 01:20:06,390 --> 01:20:07,960 similar regional center zoning 1853 01:20:07,960 --> 01:20:09,359 designation. 1854 01:20:09,359 --> 01:20:11,300 And we found that it would be unlikely to generate any nuis 1855 01:20:11,300 --> 01:20:12,279 ances for these uses since 1856 01:20:12,279 --> 01:20:16,720 they're so consistent and similar. 1857 01:20:16,720 --> 01:20:19,130 Notification was posted in the newspaper and mailed for 1858 01:20:19,130 --> 01:20:19,800 this case. 1859 01:20:19,800 --> 01:20:22,380 We received no responses and there wasn't a neighborhood 1860 01:20:22,380 --> 01:20:23,199 meeting held. 1861 01:20:23,199 --> 01:20:27,340 The applicant did post the required public hearing sign on 1862 01:20:27,340 --> 01:20:28,560 the property. 1863 01:20:28,560 --> 01:20:30,430 So just kind of wrapping up and going back to those 1864 01:20:30,430 --> 01:20:32,079 criteria, again, we found there would 1865 01:20:32,079 --> 01:20:34,560 be no major concerns for nuisance prevention here. 1866 01:20:34,560 --> 01:20:36,670 There was adequate landscaping buffers and screening 1867 01:20:36,670 --> 01:20:37,159 provided. 1868 01:20:37,159 --> 01:20:40,579 And it generally is consistent with all the criteria for 1869 01:20:40,579 --> 01:20:42,600 multifamily development in our 1870 01:20:42,600 --> 01:20:43,600 code. 1871 01:20:43,600 --> 01:20:46,180 With that, staff is recommending approval of their request 1872 01:20:46,180 --> 01:20:47,359 with one condition, that 1873 01:20:47,359 --> 01:20:50,260 the provided preliminary site plan, landscape plan, and 1874 01:20:50,260 --> 01:20:52,039 building elevations were found to 1875 01:20:52,039 --> 01:20:53,880 be consistent with the requirements of the Denton 1876 01:20:53,880 --> 01:20:55,840 Development Code for site design, landscaping, 1877 01:20:55,840 --> 01:20:57,960 parking, and building design. 1878 01:20:57,960 --> 01:21:00,289 But a final site plan, landscaping plan, and building elev 1879 01:21:00,289 --> 01:21:01,460 ations will be required. 1880 01:21:01,460 --> 01:21:04,500 And at the time those are provided, they should be 1881 01:21:04,500 --> 01:21:07,119 consistent with these approved plans. 1882 01:21:07,119 --> 01:21:11,399 And with that, I can stand for any questions. 1883 01:21:11,399 --> 01:21:12,399 I do not see any questions. 1884 01:21:12,399 --> 01:21:13,399 Thank you, Haley. 1885 01:21:13,399 --> 01:21:14,399 This is a public hearing. 1886 01:21:14,399 --> 01:21:17,399 Anyone wanting to talk is more than welcome to do so. 1887 01:21:17,399 --> 01:21:19,399 If you want, you can fill out a blue card. 1888 01:21:19,399 --> 01:21:21,359 We'd be happy to have you speak. 1889 01:21:21,359 --> 01:21:22,960 We do have one already filled out. 1890 01:21:22,960 --> 01:21:25,920 It is for Kim McGibbon wanting to speak in opposition. 1891 01:21:25,920 --> 01:21:28,680 If you want to come down, when you get to the mic, if you 1892 01:21:28,680 --> 01:21:29,960 could state your name and 1893 01:21:29,960 --> 01:21:31,399 address for the record. 1894 01:21:31,399 --> 01:21:36,310 Yes, my name is Kim McGibbon, 1306 West Hickory here in 1895 01:21:36,310 --> 01:21:37,000 Denton. 1896 01:21:37,000 --> 01:21:43,039 I was in the earlier meeting, so I have some idea about 1897 01:21:43,039 --> 01:21:44,319 what you guys have already discussed 1898 01:21:44,319 --> 01:21:46,439 about this project. 1899 01:21:46,439 --> 01:21:50,670 The thing that concerns me is the environmentally sensitive 1900 01:21:50,670 --> 01:21:53,239 area, which is adjacent to this. 1901 01:21:53,239 --> 01:21:57,170 I do not remember or I have not heard anything about how 1902 01:21:57,170 --> 01:21:59,760 they're going to protect that. 1903 01:21:59,760 --> 01:22:03,180 I did hear in the earlier meeting that they are planning on 1904 01:22:03,180 --> 01:22:04,840 using a retention wall. 1905 01:22:04,840 --> 01:22:07,470 If you've been out to that site and looked at what the 1906 01:22:07,470 --> 01:22:09,159 previous development did when 1907 01:22:09,159 --> 01:22:12,890 they built the assisted living facility, they basically 1908 01:22:12,890 --> 01:22:14,880 just chopped it off and left it 1909 01:22:14,880 --> 01:22:15,880 standing there. 1910 01:22:15,880 --> 01:22:19,729 I'd like to know more about the elevations of this planned 1911 01:22:19,729 --> 01:22:20,699 building. 1912 01:22:20,699 --> 01:22:24,170 Is the retention wall going to be above the ground level at 1913 01:22:24,170 --> 01:22:26,239 the environmentally sensitive 1914 01:22:26,239 --> 01:22:29,069 level or area, or is it going to be containing the 1915 01:22:29,069 --> 01:22:31,560 environmentally sensitive area with the 1916 01:22:31,560 --> 01:22:36,359 drainage coming off into the planned development? 1917 01:22:36,359 --> 01:22:40,420 Also the stand of trees that is a little skinny thing that 1918 01:22:40,420 --> 01:22:42,760 kind of sticks off up next to the 1919 01:22:42,760 --> 01:22:43,760 parking lot. 1920 01:22:43,760 --> 01:22:46,800 One of the things about environmentally sensitive areas is 1921 01:22:46,800 --> 01:22:48,520 that the trees themselves act as 1922 01:22:48,520 --> 01:22:50,399 a community. 1923 01:22:50,399 --> 01:22:53,020 To be designated as environmentally sensitive area, I would 1924 01:22:53,020 --> 01:22:54,279 assume in this one is because 1925 01:22:54,279 --> 01:22:58,199 of the type of trees and the type of habitat that's there. 1926 01:22:58,199 --> 01:23:02,399 It's very rare that we are losing rapidly. 1927 01:23:02,399 --> 01:23:07,310 If there is a way to bring that landscape, to bring the 1928 01:23:07,310 --> 01:23:09,800 outline of the environmentally 1929 01:23:09,800 --> 01:23:15,369 sensitive area back into a more rounded or compact area, 1930 01:23:15,369 --> 01:23:18,119 you're going to have better 1931 01:23:18,119 --> 01:23:22,960 survival of not only the trees, but also of the habitat. 1932 01:23:22,960 --> 01:23:26,270 The little tiny slip that's there next to the parking lot 1933 01:23:26,270 --> 01:23:27,920 is not going to survive for 1934 01:23:27,920 --> 01:23:31,890 very long, nor is it going to be adequate coverage for any 1935 01:23:31,890 --> 01:23:34,319 animals, birds, native plants 1936 01:23:34,319 --> 01:23:36,159 that grow in the understory. 1937 01:23:36,159 --> 01:23:41,329 I know that I heard the additional thing about the tree 1938 01:23:41,329 --> 01:23:43,119 preservation. 1939 01:23:43,119 --> 01:23:45,550 When you talk about environmentally sensitive areas, we're 1940 01:23:45,550 --> 01:23:46,920 talking about more than trees. 1941 01:23:46,920 --> 01:23:50,039 We're talking about the entire ecosystem that's in there. 1942 01:23:50,039 --> 01:23:52,920 If you would talk to my friends with the master naturalist 1943 01:23:52,920 --> 01:23:54,680 from the parks department, you'd 1944 01:23:54,680 --> 01:23:57,869 get a little bit more information about how these things 1945 01:23:57,869 --> 01:23:59,319 work and what goes on. 1946 01:23:59,319 --> 01:24:01,039 I think it's a great development. 1947 01:24:01,039 --> 01:24:05,930 I just feel like they're setting themselves up at this 1948 01:24:05,930 --> 01:24:08,399 point to try to preserve the trees 1949 01:24:08,399 --> 01:24:11,369 and then with the construction that's going to go on and 1950 01:24:11,369 --> 01:24:13,039 encroachment and the leaving 1951 01:24:13,039 --> 01:24:15,949 of that tiny little slither, they're not really going to 1952 01:24:15,949 --> 01:24:17,800 achieve what they want to achieve 1953 01:24:17,800 --> 01:24:19,600 in the long run. 1954 01:24:19,600 --> 01:24:21,640 There's a lot of things to be considered. 1955 01:24:21,640 --> 01:24:23,399 How's that retaining wall going to go in? 1956 01:24:23,399 --> 01:24:25,000 Is stuff going to drain into the ESA? 1957 01:24:25,000 --> 01:24:27,279 You're not supposed to drain into an ESA. 1958 01:24:27,279 --> 01:24:30,399 Is stuff going to drain out of the ESA? 1959 01:24:30,399 --> 01:24:32,680 How is that going to be affected? 1960 01:24:32,680 --> 01:24:36,500 These plans on flat things look great, but that's not a 1961 01:24:36,500 --> 01:24:37,520 flat area. 1962 01:24:37,520 --> 01:24:41,199 It's a very elevated hilltop kind of place. 1963 01:24:41,199 --> 01:24:43,680 We forget that if we don't go out and actually look at it. 1964 01:24:43,680 --> 01:24:47,390 If we're just looking at it from above in the aerial things 1965 01:24:47,390 --> 01:24:49,000 , we can't see that. 1966 01:24:49,000 --> 01:24:52,000 The objection I have is not to the building itself. 1967 01:24:52,000 --> 01:24:54,119 I think it's a good fit. 1968 01:24:54,119 --> 01:24:57,600 I think that the parking lots could be rearranged and some 1969 01:24:57,600 --> 01:25:02,880 adjustment could be made so that 1970 01:25:02,880 --> 01:25:06,300 they're avoiding those tiny splits of your environmentally 1971 01:25:06,300 --> 01:25:08,039 sensitive area that are going 1972 01:25:08,039 --> 01:25:10,279 to be at risk. 1973 01:25:10,279 --> 01:25:13,119 If you're asking anything for them for asking for this 1974 01:25:13,119 --> 01:25:15,159 special use permit, ask them to look 1975 01:25:15,159 --> 01:25:19,239 at that, to redesign possibly where their parking is for 1976 01:25:19,239 --> 01:25:21,000 the density of the trees and 1977 01:25:21,000 --> 01:25:24,039 what they're really trying to do there. 1978 01:25:24,039 --> 01:25:25,039 Because I think that's important. 1979 01:25:25,039 --> 01:25:29,960 Also, I would really encourage this board to look at the 1980 01:25:29,960 --> 01:25:31,920 other side of that. 1981 01:25:31,920 --> 01:25:36,829 As people come forward with other developments, you have to 1982 01:25:36,829 --> 01:25:39,279 have at least five acres of any 1983 01:25:39,279 --> 01:25:43,600 kind of habitat to make an environmental difference. 1984 01:25:43,600 --> 01:25:47,399 Five acres of the cross timbers is not very much when we 1985 01:25:47,399 --> 01:25:49,399 have to consider what we had 1986 01:25:49,399 --> 01:25:51,520 out there to begin with. 1987 01:25:51,520 --> 01:25:54,510 As you continue to look at these plannings, particularly 1988 01:25:54,510 --> 01:25:56,199 for these very sensitive areas 1989 01:25:56,199 --> 01:26:01,100 that we have on the east side of town, think about keeping 1990 01:26:01,100 --> 01:26:03,760 huge parts of this upland habitat 1991 01:26:03,760 --> 01:26:08,670 intact because tiny little islands of it are not what we 1992 01:26:08,670 --> 01:26:11,640 need to survive in this habitat. 1993 01:26:11,640 --> 01:26:16,529 I question, is an ESA in the city of Denton an area that 1994 01:26:16,529 --> 01:26:18,439 cannot be improved upon? 1995 01:26:18,439 --> 01:26:22,020 You can't mow it, you can't cut down trees, you can't do 1996 01:26:22,020 --> 01:26:23,199 things to it. 1997 01:26:23,199 --> 01:26:25,520 It's just got to be the way it is. 1998 01:26:25,520 --> 01:26:27,399 So that's my question. 1999 01:26:27,399 --> 01:26:30,409 Also, what protection are they going to give that area when 2000 01:26:30,409 --> 01:26:32,560 they're doing the construction? 2001 01:26:32,560 --> 01:26:35,090 Because the construction workers, they love to park their 2002 01:26:35,090 --> 01:26:36,319 trees under those great big 2003 01:26:36,319 --> 01:26:37,319 post oaks. 2004 01:26:37,319 --> 01:26:38,319 What's going to happen there? 2005 01:26:38,319 --> 01:26:39,319 Thank you. 2006 01:26:39,319 --> 01:26:42,319 We have a couple of questions, I think. 2007 01:26:42,319 --> 01:26:43,319 Yes. 2008 01:26:43,319 --> 01:26:44,319 Mr. Beck. 2009 01:26:44,319 --> 01:26:45,319 Thank you, Chair. 2010 01:26:45,319 --> 01:26:46,319 Thanks, Kim, for coming up and speaking. 2011 01:26:46,319 --> 01:26:51,020 I'm always appreciative of your input and I'm with you on 2012 01:26:51,020 --> 01:26:51,560 this. 2013 01:26:51,560 --> 01:26:54,720 I hate to see any of these trees go. 2014 01:26:54,720 --> 01:26:57,810 It is two and a half acres, I believe, that we're salvaging 2015 01:26:57,810 --> 01:26:58,520 , right? 2016 01:26:58,520 --> 01:26:59,520 Okay. 2017 01:26:59,520 --> 01:27:05,350 And in conjunction with the habitat east of it, it does 2018 01:27:05,350 --> 01:27:09,359 keep it from falling apart easily. 2019 01:27:09,359 --> 01:27:12,180 It will if we're very cautious about what other things we 2020 01:27:12,180 --> 01:27:12,800 approve. 2021 01:27:12,800 --> 01:27:15,770 We also don't know what's preserved there behind the 2022 01:27:15,770 --> 01:27:17,560 assisted living facility. 2023 01:27:17,560 --> 01:27:20,199 I'm not real sure what that looked like. 2024 01:27:20,199 --> 01:27:23,729 Well, looking at the picture here, there's quite a bit 2025 01:27:23,729 --> 01:27:24,399 there. 2026 01:27:24,399 --> 01:27:25,399 Good. 2027 01:27:25,399 --> 01:27:26,399 Yeah. 2028 01:27:26,399 --> 01:27:29,239 Going forward with future development, we're going to have 2029 01:27:29,239 --> 01:27:30,600 to be cautious of how we deal 2030 01:27:30,600 --> 01:27:31,600 with this area. 2031 01:27:31,600 --> 01:27:32,600 I agree. 2032 01:27:32,600 --> 01:27:34,279 So like I said, I'm not opposed to the development. 2033 01:27:34,279 --> 01:27:36,880 I just think we need to be very, very careful. 2034 01:27:36,880 --> 01:27:39,609 You guys, once again, I've told you before, you're the 2035 01:27:39,609 --> 01:27:40,439 guardians. 2036 01:27:40,439 --> 01:27:44,069 If we've got the owners here, the applicant, maybe they can 2037 01:27:44,069 --> 01:27:46,119 address that one concern here. 2038 01:27:46,119 --> 01:27:48,880 So I'll ask them to come up. 2039 01:27:48,880 --> 01:27:49,880 Thank you. 2040 01:27:49,880 --> 01:27:50,880 Thank you. 2041 01:27:50,880 --> 01:27:57,880 Thank you, Ms. McGibbons. 2042 01:27:57,880 --> 01:28:02,399 Also, to address, I think you mentioned one question. 2043 01:28:02,399 --> 01:28:06,840 The retaining wall will be constructed outside the ESA. 2044 01:28:06,840 --> 01:28:11,760 Is the ESA above the retaining wall or below the retaining 2045 01:28:11,760 --> 01:28:12,560 wall? 2046 01:28:12,560 --> 01:28:13,560 That's my question. 2047 01:28:13,560 --> 01:28:16,560 I can't answer that question. 2048 01:28:16,560 --> 01:28:17,560 They can. 2049 01:28:17,560 --> 01:28:19,039 We do have someone else who's wanting to speak. 2050 01:28:19,039 --> 01:28:20,039 Kenneth Ambrow. 2051 01:28:20,039 --> 01:28:21,039 Okay. 2052 01:28:21,039 --> 01:28:22,039 Yes, he's here to speak in support. 2053 01:28:22,039 --> 01:28:26,949 If you could just state your name and address for the 2054 01:28:26,949 --> 01:28:27,800 record. 2055 01:28:27,800 --> 01:28:28,800 And you are the applicant? 2056 01:28:28,800 --> 01:28:29,800 Yes. 2057 01:28:29,800 --> 01:28:30,800 Okay. 2058 01:28:30,800 --> 01:28:31,800 Thank you. 2059 01:28:31,800 --> 01:28:32,800 Kenneth Ambrow. 2060 01:28:32,800 --> 01:28:35,800 Address is 317 Edinburgh Court, South Lake, Texas. 2061 01:28:35,800 --> 01:28:39,640 I'm really here to answer questions. 2062 01:28:39,640 --> 01:28:43,130 If you want me to start with the comment, I can definitely 2063 01:28:43,130 --> 01:28:47,079 dive into that if that's okay. 2064 01:28:47,079 --> 01:28:49,319 She's absolutely correct. 2065 01:28:49,319 --> 01:28:53,510 Through construction, I mean, we're setting aside this per 2066 01:28:53,510 --> 01:28:55,520 the current requirements of 2067 01:28:55,520 --> 01:28:58,119 the city and it's contiguous to another site. 2068 01:28:58,119 --> 01:29:00,779 So that's how it meets the ESA. 2069 01:29:00,779 --> 01:29:04,220 Through construction, we're required to really fence in all 2070 01:29:04,220 --> 01:29:05,279 of these areas. 2071 01:29:05,279 --> 01:29:07,909 We've done a lot of development in Austin and in San 2072 01:29:07,909 --> 01:29:08,600 Antonio. 2073 01:29:08,600 --> 01:29:11,909 So we're familiar with tree preservation and what you have 2074 01:29:11,909 --> 01:29:14,119 to do through construction in 2075 01:29:14,119 --> 01:29:16,039 order to meet it. 2076 01:29:16,039 --> 01:29:19,399 Your protective fencing has to go outside or at least 2077 01:29:19,399 --> 01:29:21,399 extend through the canopy. 2078 01:29:21,399 --> 01:29:25,449 You can't just, and you'll agree with that, you just can't 2079 01:29:25,449 --> 01:29:28,319 wrap the trees themselves 2080 01:29:28,319 --> 01:29:29,380 and call that protection. 2081 01:29:29,380 --> 01:29:32,640 So we're adequate and we know what to do there. 2082 01:29:32,640 --> 01:29:35,510 If you see on the site plan itself, and I don't know what 2083 01:29:35,510 --> 01:29:36,960 you have in front of you, 2084 01:29:36,960 --> 01:29:39,159 so I have a colored rendering set up. 2085 01:29:39,159 --> 01:29:41,960 Yeah, we can turn on the eye in the sky if you just want to 2086 01:29:41,960 --> 01:29:43,520 put it right on that felt. 2087 01:29:43,520 --> 01:29:46,479 We can magically make it appear for everyone. 2088 01:29:46,479 --> 01:29:49,479 That's fancy, I like that. 2089 01:29:49,479 --> 01:29:50,479 Okay. 2090 01:29:50,479 --> 01:29:55,390 What we did here in order to make sure that we had 2091 01:29:55,390 --> 01:29:58,399 protection of the ESA is that this 2092 01:29:58,399 --> 01:30:00,279 is a set aside right here. 2093 01:30:00,279 --> 01:30:05,170 So we took out of the ESA footprint this node right here to 2094 01:30:05,170 --> 01:30:07,439 allow us to actually build the 2095 01:30:07,439 --> 01:30:08,800 retaining wall. 2096 01:30:08,800 --> 01:30:11,789 So that was taken into consideration when we put the site 2097 01:30:11,789 --> 01:30:13,279 plan together to allow for 2098 01:30:13,279 --> 01:30:17,689 some space that wasn't counted in the ESA set aside to give 2099 01:30:17,689 --> 01:30:19,640 us a set back to actually 2100 01:30:19,640 --> 01:30:22,640 build the wall. 2101 01:30:22,640 --> 01:30:23,640 Commissioner Smith. 2102 01:30:23,640 --> 01:30:24,640 Thank you, Chair. 2103 01:30:24,640 --> 01:30:26,850 I don't know if Commissioner DeBak will probably bring 2104 01:30:26,850 --> 01:30:28,479 something back up to your comment. 2105 01:30:28,479 --> 01:30:31,409 The question I had was it is an elevated area, that ESA, 2106 01:30:31,409 --> 01:30:33,600 that tree area is an elevated area. 2107 01:30:33,600 --> 01:30:37,140 It's uphill from where the development is, from what I can 2108 01:30:37,140 --> 01:30:37,640 see. 2109 01:30:37,640 --> 01:30:42,600 And so I asked a question during work session about the 2110 01:30:42,600 --> 01:30:44,439 retention pond. 2111 01:30:44,439 --> 01:30:47,079 I didn't see anything on the aerial shot there. 2112 01:30:47,079 --> 01:30:49,750 Do you have anything extra in what you brought to show 2113 01:30:49,750 --> 01:30:51,760 where that retention pond would be, 2114 01:30:51,760 --> 01:30:54,279 and that there would be drainage coming out of the ESA? 2115 01:30:54,279 --> 01:30:55,760 Nothing should be draining uphill if it is. 2116 01:30:55,760 --> 01:30:58,760 Correct, so that's why we're starting to touch it off. 2117 01:30:58,760 --> 01:30:59,760 Go ahead. 2118 01:30:59,760 --> 01:31:01,760 So I just didn't know where it was going to be draining to. 2119 01:31:01,760 --> 01:31:04,560 So the slope of the site is actually draining to the 2120 01:31:04,560 --> 01:31:05,960 detention pond here. 2121 01:31:05,960 --> 01:31:09,319 So everything is cross-sloped to actually drain for the 2122 01:31:09,319 --> 01:31:10,560 detention pond. 2123 01:31:10,560 --> 01:31:12,710 So that's the nature and why we actually need the retaining 2124 01:31:12,710 --> 01:31:13,079 wall. 2125 01:31:13,079 --> 01:31:15,079 Yeah, so it doesn't drain into it. 2126 01:31:15,079 --> 01:31:16,079 Absolutely. 2127 01:31:16,079 --> 01:31:17,079 Works. 2128 01:31:17,079 --> 01:31:18,079 Thank you. 2129 01:31:18,079 --> 01:31:19,079 Commissioner Beck. 2130 01:31:19,079 --> 01:31:20,079 Thank you, Chair. 2131 01:31:20,079 --> 01:31:23,199 A couple of questions outside of that. 2132 01:31:23,199 --> 01:31:26,739 What about the building height, is there plans to put at 2133 01:31:26,739 --> 01:31:29,319 least one elevator in each building? 2134 01:31:29,319 --> 01:31:31,819 That is, that actually, these elevators, these plants have 2135 01:31:31,819 --> 01:31:33,239 two elevators in each building, 2136 01:31:33,239 --> 01:31:35,520 so yes, we'll at least have one elevator in every building. 2137 01:31:35,520 --> 01:31:36,520 Excellent, excellent. 2138 01:31:36,520 --> 01:31:38,970 The other thing is, as I mentioned in the work session, 2139 01:31:38,970 --> 01:31:40,560 concerned about that right-hand 2140 01:31:40,560 --> 01:31:43,840 lane on Brinker at certain times of the day. 2141 01:31:43,840 --> 01:31:45,319 I'm concerned about it as well. 2142 01:31:45,319 --> 01:31:46,319 Okay. 2143 01:31:46,319 --> 01:31:49,319 Do y'all have plans to make a little, what do they call 2144 01:31:49,319 --> 01:31:49,960 those? 2145 01:31:49,960 --> 01:31:50,960 It's a right-turn lane. 2146 01:31:50,960 --> 01:31:51,960 Yes. 2147 01:31:51,960 --> 01:31:55,630 So what we're doing right here is, well, we're currently, 2148 01:31:55,630 --> 01:31:57,479 and I looked into this, my civil 2149 01:31:57,479 --> 01:31:59,659 engineer is very technical and he goes, "All right, well, 2150 01:31:59,659 --> 01:32:00,960 per the code, we don't have to 2151 01:32:00,960 --> 01:32:03,199 put this in." 2152 01:32:03,199 --> 01:32:05,239 We have it on the site plan right now. 2153 01:32:05,239 --> 01:32:06,239 Okay. 2154 01:32:06,239 --> 01:32:08,520 It's a right-turn lane only, so you actually come off. 2155 01:32:08,520 --> 01:32:12,760 This driveway is, part of it is already in, so we have to 2156 01:32:12,760 --> 01:32:14,920 come in and actually modify 2157 01:32:14,920 --> 01:32:16,880 it per its existing standpoint. 2158 01:32:16,880 --> 01:32:20,579 So we'll come in at a right-turn lane only, because this 2159 01:32:20,579 --> 01:32:22,880 entrance actually feeds in turns 2160 01:32:22,880 --> 01:32:23,880 back this way. 2161 01:32:23,880 --> 01:32:28,279 If you'd like to see an arrow, I can go backwards. 2162 01:32:28,279 --> 01:32:31,689 So this feeds, it's actually a shared entrance to the 2163 01:32:31,689 --> 01:32:34,239 assisted living development as well, 2164 01:32:34,239 --> 01:32:35,560 and some other stuff that's back here. 2165 01:32:35,560 --> 01:32:38,300 But it looks a little like too that you've got some 2166 01:32:38,300 --> 01:32:40,399 separation there, where you enter 2167 01:32:40,399 --> 01:32:42,640 and separate it from the assisted living center. 2168 01:32:42,640 --> 01:32:45,069 So what we're planning is an improvement at this 2169 01:32:45,069 --> 01:32:47,399 intersection, because we want our residents 2170 01:32:47,399 --> 01:32:49,600 to be able to come in and get out of the traffic and come 2171 01:32:49,600 --> 01:32:50,159 back here. 2172 01:32:50,159 --> 01:32:51,159 Good, good. 2173 01:32:51,159 --> 01:32:54,869 What Haley mentioned, and we're in discussion with traffic 2174 01:32:54,869 --> 01:32:56,800 and trying to prove to them why 2175 01:32:56,800 --> 01:33:01,779 we need this, but this is intended as a, I want everyone to 2176 01:33:01,779 --> 01:33:03,920 enter here and then have 2177 01:33:03,920 --> 01:33:06,760 this as an exit only and a right-turn lane only, out. 2178 01:33:06,760 --> 01:33:07,760 Okay. 2179 01:33:07,760 --> 01:33:11,079 So we're in a process, we think with our TA, we'll prove 2180 01:33:11,079 --> 01:33:12,800 that up, and then that way we 2181 01:33:12,800 --> 01:33:16,760 can just have that as no gate access and kind of cut in. 2182 01:33:16,760 --> 01:33:17,760 Okay, okay. 2183 01:33:17,760 --> 01:33:18,760 Thank you. 2184 01:33:18,760 --> 01:33:21,149 We have areas in the city of Denton that have that right- 2185 01:33:21,149 --> 01:33:22,680 turn, like think of the turn out 2186 01:33:22,680 --> 01:33:24,869 of the parking lot that you put way over on 288, that's a 2187 01:33:24,869 --> 01:33:26,319 right turn, onto 288, that's 2188 01:33:26,319 --> 01:33:27,800 a right-turn only exit. 2189 01:33:27,800 --> 01:33:30,159 So it makes sense there. 2190 01:33:30,159 --> 01:33:33,279 You don't want, I mean, given the units that we have here, 2191 01:33:33,279 --> 01:33:35,039 we don't want to force everyone 2192 01:33:35,039 --> 01:33:37,560 to come out of this entrance right here. 2193 01:33:37,560 --> 01:33:41,720 So we would like to be able to use both access points. 2194 01:33:41,720 --> 01:33:44,619 And then this one, this is a secondary access point for 2195 01:33:44,619 --> 01:33:45,920 life safety as well. 2196 01:33:45,920 --> 01:33:46,920 Sure. 2197 01:33:46,920 --> 01:33:47,920 I just started speaking earlier. 2198 01:33:47,920 --> 01:33:50,689 I don't know if you were, that was Mr. Smith for the record 2199 01:33:50,689 --> 01:33:50,920 . 2200 01:33:50,920 --> 01:33:51,920 Thank you. 2201 01:33:51,920 --> 01:33:52,920 I did have another question there, Chair. 2202 01:33:52,920 --> 01:33:55,520 The, how close is that right-turn exit? 2203 01:33:55,520 --> 01:34:00,430 How close is that to, it's hard to just see where that stop 2204 01:34:00,430 --> 01:34:02,359 light right there runs to where 2205 01:34:02,359 --> 01:34:03,600 you go behind that Walmart. 2206 01:34:03,600 --> 01:34:07,600 So that right-turn exit, I mean, if someone's trying to go, 2207 01:34:07,600 --> 01:34:09,960 I guess that's what, southbound 2208 01:34:09,960 --> 01:34:13,960 basically on Brinker, it'd be, it's just difficult. 2209 01:34:13,960 --> 01:34:16,539 They'd have to almost go back up to that entrance that you 2210 01:34:16,539 --> 01:34:18,159 originally designed to get back out 2211 01:34:18,159 --> 01:34:20,270 so they're far enough up the road to where they can get 2212 01:34:20,270 --> 01:34:21,359 into that stoplight and make 2213 01:34:21,359 --> 01:34:23,359 a U-turn and come back southbound. 2214 01:34:23,359 --> 01:34:25,359 So it's just, it's a little tricky. 2215 01:34:25,359 --> 01:34:26,359 It is. 2216 01:34:26,359 --> 01:34:30,720 I mean, I can't deny it from that standpoint. 2217 01:34:30,720 --> 01:34:34,000 It will kind of be what it is for people that live here. 2218 01:34:34,000 --> 01:34:36,500 It's going to be impossible at that intersection to, you 2219 01:34:36,500 --> 01:34:38,279 know, unless you have a very, unless 2220 01:34:38,279 --> 01:34:40,630 it's light in the middle of the day and you're able to kind 2221 01:34:40,630 --> 01:34:42,119 of skip over two lanes and make 2222 01:34:42,119 --> 01:34:44,640 a U-turn at that intersection. 2223 01:34:44,640 --> 01:34:47,270 But that's, I mean, I've been there, you know, at all 2224 01:34:47,270 --> 01:34:49,319 different points of the day and it's, 2225 01:34:49,319 --> 01:34:51,819 you'll have to really maneuver and go right-hand and kind 2226 01:34:51,819 --> 01:34:53,319 of go up and do what you need to. 2227 01:34:53,319 --> 01:34:54,319 Yeah. 2228 01:34:54,319 --> 01:34:55,319 You have to figure it out. 2229 01:34:55,319 --> 01:34:57,109 Go all the way up to 288 and go back to 35 if you want to 2230 01:34:57,109 --> 01:34:57,720 go southbound. 2231 01:34:57,720 --> 01:35:01,710 I had a question about the parking for the commercial uses 2232 01:35:01,710 --> 01:35:03,439 on that west side of your 2233 01:35:03,439 --> 01:35:04,439 development. 2234 01:35:04,439 --> 01:35:07,729 So are you guys going to have markings both either for the 2235 01:35:07,729 --> 01:35:10,079 residential use only, for commercial 2236 01:35:10,079 --> 01:35:13,409 use only, just that, I like the idea of incorporating 2237 01:35:13,409 --> 01:35:16,119 commercial use into multifamily like this 2238 01:35:16,119 --> 01:35:19,729 type of development, but the, you see this a lot in like 2239 01:35:19,729 --> 01:35:21,800 the Plano Legacy development 2240 01:35:21,800 --> 01:35:24,430 there where you get a lot of residents who are complaining 2241 01:35:24,430 --> 01:35:25,859 because they got commercial 2242 01:35:25,859 --> 01:35:28,159 parking in their residential parking. 2243 01:35:28,159 --> 01:35:29,960 So I don't know if you guys have plans. 2244 01:35:29,960 --> 01:35:30,960 Yes. 2245 01:35:30,960 --> 01:35:33,140 So in instances like this, we actually go in and assign 2246 01:35:33,140 --> 01:35:34,039 parking spaces. 2247 01:35:34,039 --> 01:35:35,039 Okay. 2248 01:35:35,039 --> 01:35:37,470 So all the tenants will actually have parking spaces to do 2249 01:35:37,470 --> 01:35:37,880 that. 2250 01:35:37,880 --> 01:35:41,390 We'll go in and actually assign some to the commercial as 2251 01:35:41,390 --> 01:35:43,399 well, but mainly we combat that 2252 01:35:43,399 --> 01:35:45,399 by assigning parking spaces. 2253 01:35:45,399 --> 01:35:48,399 Just wanted to make sure you guys had a plan for it. 2254 01:35:48,399 --> 01:35:49,399 That's all. 2255 01:35:49,399 --> 01:35:50,399 Good. 2256 01:35:50,399 --> 01:35:51,399 Thank you. 2257 01:35:51,399 --> 01:35:52,399 Thank you. 2258 01:35:52,399 --> 01:35:56,239 My last question is, curiosity is why did you cap the 2259 01:35:56,239 --> 01:35:58,680 development at 51 feet? 2260 01:35:58,680 --> 01:36:01,039 Why didn't you go higher? 2261 01:36:01,039 --> 01:36:02,039 Parking. 2262 01:36:02,039 --> 01:36:03,039 Parking? 2263 01:36:03,039 --> 01:36:04,039 Yeah. 2264 01:36:04,039 --> 01:36:07,039 We use a different parking ratio than, even though every 2265 01:36:07,039 --> 01:36:08,760 city has its own parking ratio, 2266 01:36:08,760 --> 01:36:10,760 I look at parking proximity. 2267 01:36:10,760 --> 01:36:15,670 And so to even the comment of the building orientation and 2268 01:36:15,670 --> 01:36:18,279 everything, it makes no sense 2269 01:36:18,279 --> 01:36:22,380 to have to build a building and then have parking 300 feet 2270 01:36:22,380 --> 01:36:23,479 away from it. 2271 01:36:23,479 --> 01:36:25,539 It doesn't work from a residential standpoint. 2272 01:36:25,539 --> 01:36:28,680 So you have to look at a parking count, but you also have 2273 01:36:28,680 --> 01:36:30,439 to look at, check the box for 2274 01:36:30,439 --> 01:36:32,989 the parking count, but you have to look at parking 2275 01:36:32,989 --> 01:36:33,800 proximity. 2276 01:36:33,800 --> 01:36:36,670 So we do an analysis where I have to look at a unit here 2277 01:36:36,670 --> 01:36:38,640 and figure out where that tenant's 2278 01:36:38,640 --> 01:36:41,939 going to park in relationship to the building or look at 2279 01:36:41,939 --> 01:36:43,439 the furthest tenant. 2280 01:36:43,439 --> 01:36:47,680 So this is kind of like my split of the development where 2281 01:36:47,680 --> 01:36:50,760 you'll have this over here, this over 2282 01:36:50,760 --> 01:36:51,760 there. 2283 01:36:51,760 --> 01:36:54,079 That's really how the parking works. 2284 01:36:54,079 --> 01:36:57,539 If you go with a five story building, I love the density, 2285 01:36:57,539 --> 01:36:59,439 but I can't get, trust me, I 2286 01:36:59,439 --> 01:37:02,600 would love to have 300 units here, but the parking doesn't 2287 01:37:02,600 --> 01:37:03,439 allow for it. 2288 01:37:03,439 --> 01:37:05,479 That's what I assume, but I would ask. 2289 01:37:05,479 --> 01:37:06,479 Thank you. 2290 01:37:06,479 --> 01:37:07,479 Any other questions? 2291 01:37:07,479 --> 01:37:09,859 I do want to address one question that you guys brought up 2292 01:37:09,859 --> 01:37:11,159 during your work session was 2293 01:37:11,159 --> 01:37:13,079 dealing with the detention. 2294 01:37:13,079 --> 01:37:17,079 There is actually an agreement in place of record, filed of 2295 01:37:17,079 --> 01:37:19,119 record with when this Walmart 2296 01:37:19,119 --> 01:37:20,119 was done. 2297 01:37:20,119 --> 01:37:23,359 There's a regional detention center that really allowed the 2298 01:37:23,359 --> 01:37:24,640 Walmart and some of the 2299 01:37:24,640 --> 01:37:26,039 service folks have been draining into it. 2300 01:37:26,039 --> 01:37:32,319 So we're actually allowed by my right to drain into this. 2301 01:37:32,319 --> 01:37:33,319 We're working with staff. 2302 01:37:33,319 --> 01:37:34,319 We have to do a little bit of modification. 2303 01:37:34,319 --> 01:37:36,670 This is the last time I've got it updated on it, but the 2304 01:37:36,670 --> 01:37:38,119 majority of our detention goes 2305 01:37:38,119 --> 01:37:39,119 in there. 2306 01:37:39,119 --> 01:37:41,119 All of our detention will go in there, kind of unused. 2307 01:37:41,119 --> 01:37:42,119 Commissioner Beck. 2308 01:37:42,119 --> 01:37:43,119 Yes, sir. 2309 01:37:43,119 --> 01:37:45,960 One other question you helped me remember. 2310 01:37:45,960 --> 01:37:49,640 Access to this ESA from the apartments. 2311 01:37:49,640 --> 01:37:50,640 I'm on my list. 2312 01:37:50,640 --> 01:37:51,640 Okay. 2313 01:37:51,640 --> 01:37:53,960 Is that ... Okay. 2314 01:37:53,960 --> 01:37:59,520 So the way that your ESA is written, you can't touch it. 2315 01:37:59,520 --> 01:38:03,310 My initial plan when we were talking with planning was to 2316 01:38:03,310 --> 01:38:05,119 really come in and even if 2317 01:38:05,119 --> 01:38:10,069 it's put DG there or some type of trail going through it to 2318 01:38:10,069 --> 01:38:12,520 be able to access a walking 2319 01:38:12,520 --> 01:38:16,760 trail through it, non-combustible kind of deal. 2320 01:38:16,760 --> 01:38:17,760 I can't. 2321 01:38:17,760 --> 01:38:18,760 Okay. 2322 01:38:18,760 --> 01:38:19,760 Good. 2323 01:38:19,760 --> 01:38:22,760 Unless you guys let me. 2324 01:38:22,760 --> 01:38:24,760 Yeah, right. 2325 01:38:24,760 --> 01:38:26,319 Commissioner Smith. 2326 01:38:26,319 --> 01:38:29,609 Intended use, is this going to be primarily marketed to 2327 01:38:29,609 --> 01:38:31,520 student housing or is this going 2328 01:38:31,520 --> 01:38:33,520 to be general residential? 2329 01:38:33,520 --> 01:38:34,520 General residential. 2330 01:38:34,520 --> 01:38:35,520 Okay. 2331 01:38:35,520 --> 01:38:36,520 Then no. 2332 01:38:36,520 --> 01:38:37,520 So thank you. 2333 01:38:37,520 --> 01:38:38,520 Yes. 2334 01:38:38,520 --> 01:38:39,520 I do not see other questions. 2335 01:38:39,520 --> 01:38:43,520 You still have the floor if you have any more comments. 2336 01:38:43,520 --> 01:38:47,130 No, I think I answered every question that you guys brought 2337 01:38:47,130 --> 01:38:49,239 up, so unless there's something 2338 01:38:49,239 --> 01:38:50,239 else. 2339 01:38:50,239 --> 01:38:51,239 We're good up here. 2340 01:38:51,239 --> 01:38:52,239 Thank you very much. 2341 01:38:52,239 --> 01:38:53,239 Thank you. 2342 01:38:53,239 --> 01:38:54,239 This is a public hearing. 2343 01:38:54,239 --> 01:39:01,260 If anyone would like to speak, you're more than welcome to 2344 01:39:01,260 --> 01:39:02,279 do so. 2345 01:39:02,279 --> 01:39:03,640 Seeing none. 2346 01:39:03,640 --> 01:39:09,619 I will close the public hearing and open up the floor for 2347 01:39:09,619 --> 01:39:12,439 discussion or motion. 2348 01:39:12,439 --> 01:39:13,439 Commissioner Smith. 2349 01:39:13,439 --> 01:39:18,680 Make a motion to approve the project. 2350 01:39:18,680 --> 01:39:19,680 Commissioner Beck. 2351 01:39:19,680 --> 01:39:20,680 I'm sorry. 2352 01:39:20,680 --> 01:39:22,520 Make a motion to approve the project with staff conditions. 2353 01:39:22,520 --> 01:39:24,520 You're welcome, Ailey. 2354 01:39:24,520 --> 01:39:25,520 Second. 2355 01:39:25,520 --> 01:39:26,520 Thank you. 2356 01:39:26,520 --> 01:39:28,520 We have a first and a second. 2357 01:39:28,520 --> 01:39:29,520 Any discussion? 2358 01:39:29,520 --> 01:39:32,720 Seeing none, I will call for a vote by show of hands. 2359 01:39:32,720 --> 01:39:39,960 All those that approve, deny, abstain. 2360 01:39:39,960 --> 01:39:46,720 This passes 7-0. 2361 01:39:46,720 --> 01:39:51,630 Item 4B on a public hearing was withdrawn, so we will go to 2362 01:39:51,630 --> 01:39:55,680 item 4C, which is Z18-0016. 2363 01:39:55,680 --> 01:40:01,729 I'll call Julie for presentation and open the public 2364 01:40:01,729 --> 01:40:03,159 hearing. 2365 01:40:03,159 --> 01:40:07,199 Good evening. 2366 01:40:07,199 --> 01:40:17,800 I'm Julie Wyatt, and I'm presenting Z18-16. 2367 01:40:17,800 --> 01:40:20,920 The request before you tonight is to hold a public hearing 2368 01:40:20,920 --> 01:40:22,520 and consider recommending 2369 01:40:22,520 --> 01:40:25,739 approval of an initial zoning of neighborhood residential 1 2370 01:40:25,739 --> 01:40:26,800 district on an approximately 2371 01:40:26,800 --> 01:40:28,600 one-acre tract. 2372 01:40:28,600 --> 01:40:32,300 The property is located on the north side of Shiloh Lane, 2373 01:40:32,300 --> 01:40:34,840 about 910 feet east of Swisher 2374 01:40:34,840 --> 01:40:35,840 Road. 2375 01:40:35,840 --> 01:40:41,140 It was annexed in 2013 as part of a citywide annexation 2376 01:40:41,140 --> 01:40:41,880 plan. 2377 01:40:41,880 --> 01:40:44,979 When property is annexed into the city of Denton, it has a 2378 01:40:44,979 --> 01:40:46,520 placeholding zoning until 2379 01:40:46,520 --> 01:40:50,600 an initial zoning can be approved. 2380 01:40:50,600 --> 01:40:54,779 Placeholding zoning, it follows the regulations for the RD5 2381 01:40:54,779 --> 01:40:56,840 X district, so both in use and 2382 01:40:56,840 --> 01:41:01,239 development dimensional requirements. 2383 01:41:01,239 --> 01:41:04,199 The property is only an acre, so it doesn't actually meet 2384 01:41:04,199 --> 01:41:05,760 the minimum lot size for that 2385 01:41:05,760 --> 01:41:09,079 placeholding zoning designation of RD5X. 2386 01:41:09,079 --> 01:41:12,609 The applicant is here requesting that initial zoning of NR1 2387 01:41:12,609 --> 01:41:12,880 . 2388 01:41:12,880 --> 01:41:18,149 NR1 is one of our residential districts that permits lot 2389 01:41:18,149 --> 01:41:20,520 sizes of about an acre. 2390 01:41:20,520 --> 01:41:24,359 When we have a rezoning request, we analyze it based upon 2391 01:41:24,359 --> 01:41:26,640 two criteria in subchapter three 2392 01:41:26,640 --> 01:41:28,119 of the Denton Development Code. 2393 01:41:28,119 --> 01:41:30,920 First is it conformed to the future land use plan, and 2394 01:41:30,920 --> 01:41:32,880 second is there adequate provision 2395 01:41:32,880 --> 01:41:34,479 of public infrastructure. 2396 01:41:34,479 --> 01:41:38,819 When we first look at Denton Plan 2030, the property is 2397 01:41:38,819 --> 01:41:41,319 located in a low residential future 2398 01:41:41,319 --> 01:41:43,920 land use designation. 2399 01:41:43,920 --> 01:41:47,409 The intent of that is for residential uses for up to four 2400 01:41:47,409 --> 01:41:49,239 dwelling units per acre. 2401 01:41:49,239 --> 01:41:52,460 It can be the rural fringe or the urban fringe for the one 2402 01:41:52,460 --> 01:41:52,960 acre. 2403 01:41:52,960 --> 01:41:55,880 It could go up to four dwelling units per acre. 2404 01:41:55,880 --> 01:41:59,689 NR1 meets the intent of low residential because it's 2405 01:41:59,689 --> 01:42:02,520 primarily a single family residential 2406 01:42:02,520 --> 01:42:07,640 district, and it permits lot sizes for an acre. 2407 01:42:07,640 --> 01:42:10,390 We also looked at the zoning compatibility just in terms of 2408 01:42:10,390 --> 01:42:11,880 use surrounding the property 2409 01:42:11,880 --> 01:42:14,680 as well as the adjacent zoning districts. 2410 01:42:14,680 --> 01:42:17,279 The property is surrounded by a lot of properties that have 2411 01:42:17,279 --> 01:42:19,000 the RD5X zoning district because 2412 01:42:19,000 --> 01:42:23,909 they were all annexed into the city at roughly the same 2413 01:42:23,909 --> 01:42:24,640 time. 2414 01:42:24,640 --> 01:42:26,960 Many of them are developed with either with large lot 2415 01:42:26,960 --> 01:42:28,439 residential uses and maybe some 2416 01:42:28,439 --> 01:42:30,399 agriculture. 2417 01:42:30,399 --> 01:42:32,720 Surrounding that immediate neighborhood, there is a plan 2418 01:42:32,720 --> 01:42:34,199 development that is developed with 2419 01:42:34,199 --> 01:42:35,600 single family homes. 2420 01:42:35,600 --> 01:42:39,319 You have a mix of RD5X and plan development, but primarily 2421 01:42:39,319 --> 01:42:41,119 it's a residential area. 2422 01:42:41,119 --> 01:42:44,930 The applicant is seeking the initial zoning as I spoke of 2423 01:42:44,930 --> 01:42:47,359 before because they're intending 2424 01:42:47,359 --> 01:42:49,789 to build a single family home and they would like to plot 2425 01:42:49,789 --> 01:42:51,239 the property, and they can't 2426 01:42:51,239 --> 01:42:56,229 do so until the zoning district permits that one acre lot 2427 01:42:56,229 --> 01:42:57,039 size. 2428 01:42:57,039 --> 01:42:59,649 If the zoning is approved and development moves forward, 2429 01:42:59,649 --> 01:43:00,960 then it must comply with all 2430 01:43:00,960 --> 01:43:03,869 Denton Development Code requirements for residential 2431 01:43:03,869 --> 01:43:04,779 development. 2432 01:43:04,779 --> 01:43:08,380 One thing to take note of is that the current placeholding 2433 01:43:08,380 --> 01:43:10,359 zoning designation is exempt 2434 01:43:10,359 --> 01:43:13,439 from tree preservation in our current code. 2435 01:43:13,439 --> 01:43:16,329 If the zoning is approved, they would have to comply with 2436 01:43:16,329 --> 01:43:18,479 any tree preservation requirements. 2437 01:43:18,479 --> 01:43:21,319 Public facilities are available in the area. 2438 01:43:21,319 --> 01:43:24,720 It's accessed by a private road and water is available. 2439 01:43:24,720 --> 01:43:27,920 Sewer will have to be obtained with septic. 2440 01:43:27,920 --> 01:43:30,600 Public notification was sent out. 2441 01:43:30,600 --> 01:43:33,270 We received one response and I said, I didn't say it 2442 01:43:33,270 --> 01:43:35,560 correctly in a work session, we received 2443 01:43:35,560 --> 01:43:40,199 one response from the applicant and they are in support. 2444 01:43:40,199 --> 01:43:42,319 There was a neighborhood meeting. 2445 01:43:42,319 --> 01:43:44,430 Based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends 2446 01:43:44,430 --> 01:43:45,359 approval of the request. 2447 01:43:45,359 --> 01:43:48,600 I'll stand for any questions and the applicant is here. 2448 01:43:48,600 --> 01:43:49,600 Commissioner Smith. 2449 01:43:49,600 --> 01:43:50,600 Thank you, Chair. 2450 01:43:50,600 --> 01:43:56,220 In the past when we've had notifications sent out, we don't 2451 01:43:56,220 --> 01:43:58,720 send notifications to residents 2452 01:43:58,720 --> 01:44:00,720 that live in the ETJ. 2453 01:44:00,720 --> 01:44:03,600 The next door neighbor is in the ETJ. 2454 01:44:03,600 --> 01:44:04,600 Correct. 2455 01:44:04,600 --> 01:44:07,079 Is the next door neighbor aware of the zoning change 2456 01:44:07,079 --> 01:44:09,000 because if this has to meet screening 2457 01:44:09,000 --> 01:44:15,239 requirements, then the applicant can put up a fencing. 2458 01:44:15,239 --> 01:44:18,810 Assuming that since that original person went through the 2459 01:44:18,810 --> 01:44:21,000 non-annexation agreement, they 2460 01:44:21,000 --> 01:44:23,479 probably don't want fencing put up right next to them. 2461 01:44:23,479 --> 01:44:24,479 I have no clue. 2462 01:44:24,479 --> 01:44:26,359 I'm just making conjecture here. 2463 01:44:26,359 --> 01:44:28,869 I believe the adjacent property is the single family home, 2464 01:44:28,869 --> 01:44:30,319 so no buffers would necessarily 2465 01:44:30,319 --> 01:44:31,319 be required. 2466 01:44:31,319 --> 01:44:32,319 However, you're right. 2467 01:44:32,319 --> 01:44:36,170 Properties within the ETJ do not receive that public 2468 01:44:36,170 --> 01:44:37,560 notification. 2469 01:44:37,560 --> 01:44:41,119 That's why we have lots of notification options within the 2470 01:44:41,119 --> 01:44:42,279 City of Denton. 2471 01:44:42,279 --> 01:44:44,680 There is the sign that has to be put on the property. 2472 01:44:44,680 --> 01:44:45,680 It's a rather large sign. 2473 01:44:45,680 --> 01:44:49,680 Then there's also the newspaper notification. 2474 01:44:49,680 --> 01:44:50,680 Okay. 2475 01:44:50,680 --> 01:44:55,880 I do not see any other questions. 2476 01:44:55,880 --> 01:44:56,880 All right. 2477 01:44:56,880 --> 01:44:57,880 Thank you. 2478 01:44:57,880 --> 01:44:58,880 Julie. 2479 01:44:58,880 --> 01:44:59,880 This is a public hearing if anyone wishes to speak. 2480 01:44:59,880 --> 01:45:00,880 You're more than welcome to do so. 2481 01:45:00,880 --> 01:45:01,880 Commissioner Beck. 2482 01:45:01,880 --> 01:45:07,090 I was going to ask if the applicant is here and they come 2483 01:45:07,090 --> 01:45:07,960 down. 2484 01:45:07,960 --> 01:45:13,359 If you could, I do have one question for you, one concern. 2485 01:45:13,359 --> 01:45:15,289 If you could just state your name and address for the 2486 01:45:15,289 --> 01:45:15,760 record. 2487 01:45:15,760 --> 01:45:16,760 Appreciate it. 2488 01:45:16,760 --> 01:45:19,760 Jonathan Merling, 3609 San Lucas Lane. 2489 01:45:19,760 --> 01:45:23,680 Alexis Kuhn, 3609 San Lucas Lane. 2490 01:45:23,680 --> 01:45:27,079 Mike, and it's just a concern, and I mentioned it. 2491 01:45:27,079 --> 01:45:31,970 I don't know if you all were in the work session, but I was 2492 01:45:31,970 --> 01:45:32,079 just curious that if you all are 2493 01:45:32,079 --> 01:45:38,100 okay with the future prospect of more dense zoning, the 2494 01:45:38,100 --> 01:45:40,319 fact that you've got a lot of 2495 01:45:40,319 --> 01:45:43,899 development around you now, you're surrounded by eventually 2496 01:45:43,899 --> 01:45:45,399 this may start to encroach on 2497 01:45:45,399 --> 01:45:46,399 you if you have a dense zoning. 2498 01:45:46,399 --> 01:45:48,840 Do you all have a problem with, would you have a problem 2499 01:45:48,840 --> 01:45:51,119 with that more dense zoning 2500 01:45:51,119 --> 01:45:54,119 should it come to be? 2501 01:45:54,119 --> 01:45:59,000 It's kind of out of our hands. 2502 01:45:59,000 --> 01:46:00,989 When it comes in, it's going to be more dense than what you 2503 01:46:00,989 --> 01:46:01,439 've got. 2504 01:46:01,439 --> 01:46:03,199 Are you going to be opposed to that? 2505 01:46:03,199 --> 01:46:04,319 No, I think we're okay. 2506 01:46:04,319 --> 01:46:07,289 We actually live less than a mile away in one of the 2507 01:46:07,289 --> 01:46:09,319 suburbs that is encroaching on 2508 01:46:09,319 --> 01:46:10,319 that area currently. 2509 01:46:10,319 --> 01:46:11,319 Okay. 2510 01:46:11,319 --> 01:46:12,319 Okay. 2511 01:46:12,319 --> 01:46:14,319 And again, I'm pleased that you can do this and everything. 2512 01:46:14,319 --> 01:46:16,760 I'm just thinking down the road. 2513 01:46:16,760 --> 01:46:19,109 This area eventually is probably going to fill in there 2514 01:46:19,109 --> 01:46:19,840 pretty good. 2515 01:46:19,840 --> 01:46:20,840 Okay. 2516 01:46:20,840 --> 01:46:21,840 That's all I had. 2517 01:46:21,840 --> 01:46:22,840 Thank you. 2518 01:46:22,840 --> 01:46:23,840 Commissioner Smith. 2519 01:46:23,840 --> 01:46:26,779 Have you discussed with that neighbor who's in the ETJ, y' 2520 01:46:26,779 --> 01:46:28,159 all's rezoning request and what 2521 01:46:28,159 --> 01:46:29,159 you've got to do? 2522 01:46:29,159 --> 01:46:30,159 Not that it really matters. 2523 01:46:30,159 --> 01:46:32,159 It's your own property to do it, but. 2524 01:46:32,159 --> 01:46:33,159 Right. 2525 01:46:33,159 --> 01:46:36,649 I haven't talked to him directly on the, I guess, right- 2526 01:46:36,649 --> 01:46:38,399 hand side of the property as 2527 01:46:38,399 --> 01:46:39,399 it's shown up there. 2528 01:46:39,399 --> 01:46:43,439 He's a neighbor that knows everybody and access kind of the 2529 01:46:43,439 --> 01:46:44,239 keeper. 2530 01:46:44,239 --> 01:46:45,239 He takes care of the roads. 2531 01:46:45,239 --> 01:46:46,239 He does everything. 2532 01:46:46,239 --> 01:46:48,520 He's talked to everybody in that neighborhood. 2533 01:46:48,520 --> 01:46:52,119 And he's kind of told us that, I guess, the guy next door 2534 01:46:52,119 --> 01:46:54,319 that owns the ETJ property also 2535 01:46:54,319 --> 01:46:57,680 owns the property next to that as well, which is not in the 2536 01:46:57,680 --> 01:46:58,119 ETJ. 2537 01:46:58,119 --> 01:47:01,119 So assuming he may have not noted, it's two lots. 2538 01:47:01,119 --> 01:47:02,119 He owns both of them. 2539 01:47:02,119 --> 01:47:03,119 Yeah. 2540 01:47:03,119 --> 01:47:04,119 It's weird that he files for not. 2541 01:47:04,119 --> 01:47:05,119 Yeah. 2542 01:47:05,119 --> 01:47:07,390 I don't know if one ended up in the ETJ and the other didn 2543 01:47:07,390 --> 01:47:09,319 't, but he, I assume, got notification 2544 01:47:09,319 --> 01:47:10,319 based on the other property's address. 2545 01:47:10,319 --> 01:47:11,319 Sure. 2546 01:47:11,319 --> 01:47:13,840 But I have not talked to him directly. 2547 01:47:13,840 --> 01:47:16,239 And your concern was with fencing, is that correct? 2548 01:47:16,239 --> 01:47:17,239 Yeah. 2549 01:47:17,239 --> 01:47:19,439 I think there's already a fence between the properties that 2550 01:47:19,439 --> 01:47:20,239 we didn't put up. 2551 01:47:20,239 --> 01:47:21,239 Yeah. 2552 01:47:21,239 --> 01:47:22,239 There is already one. 2553 01:47:22,239 --> 01:47:23,239 Okay. 2554 01:47:23,239 --> 01:47:24,239 I couldn't see. 2555 01:47:24,239 --> 01:47:25,239 Yeah. 2556 01:47:25,239 --> 01:47:26,239 It's his fence. 2557 01:47:26,239 --> 01:47:27,239 And we're cool with that. 2558 01:47:27,239 --> 01:47:28,239 We actually don't intend on putting one. 2559 01:47:28,239 --> 01:47:29,560 You get people who come in here and they live in the ETJ 2560 01:47:29,560 --> 01:47:30,239 for a very specific reason. 2561 01:47:30,239 --> 01:47:32,239 And it's because they don't want to be told to do anything. 2562 01:47:32,239 --> 01:47:35,239 And so I just wanted to know. 2563 01:47:35,239 --> 01:47:36,239 That's all. 2564 01:47:36,239 --> 01:47:37,239 Thanks. 2565 01:47:37,239 --> 01:47:38,239 We have a vote on that. 2566 01:47:38,239 --> 01:47:39,239 I do not see any other questions. 2567 01:47:39,239 --> 01:47:40,239 Thank you. 2568 01:47:40,239 --> 01:47:41,239 All right. 2569 01:47:41,239 --> 01:47:42,239 Thanks. 2570 01:47:42,239 --> 01:47:43,239 This is a public hearing. 2571 01:47:43,239 --> 01:47:44,239 Anyone else wants to speak? 2572 01:47:44,239 --> 01:47:45,239 May I do so? 2573 01:47:45,239 --> 01:47:46,239 Ironically, I don't know. 2574 01:47:46,239 --> 01:47:47,239 I don't know. 2575 01:47:47,239 --> 01:47:50,880 Ironically, I have two cards from Alexis Kuhn and Jonathan 2576 01:47:50,880 --> 01:47:51,720 Berling. 2577 01:47:51,720 --> 01:47:57,000 They did not wish to speak, but they both said they're in 2578 01:47:57,000 --> 01:47:59,579 support of the project. 2579 01:47:59,579 --> 01:48:03,199 Any other individuals wanting to speak? 2580 01:48:03,199 --> 01:48:05,689 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing, open up the 2581 01:48:05,689 --> 01:48:07,279 floor for discussion or motion. 2582 01:48:07,279 --> 01:48:08,279 Commissioner Ellis. 2583 01:48:08,279 --> 01:48:12,600 I move approval. 2584 01:48:12,600 --> 01:48:13,600 Commissioner Smith. 2585 01:48:13,600 --> 01:48:14,600 I'll second that. 2586 01:48:14,600 --> 01:48:15,600 We have a first and a second. 2587 01:48:15,600 --> 01:48:16,600 Any discussion? 2588 01:48:16,600 --> 01:48:19,840 Seeing none, I will call for a vote by a show of hands. 2589 01:48:19,840 --> 01:48:22,039 All those in favor? 2590 01:48:22,039 --> 01:48:23,039 All those opposed? 2591 01:48:23,039 --> 01:48:24,039 Any abstaining? 2592 01:48:24,039 --> 01:48:27,039 Motion carries 7-0. 2593 01:48:27,039 --> 01:48:29,800 Congratulations. 2594 01:48:29,800 --> 01:48:32,689 That takes us to item five, the Planning and Zoning 2595 01:48:32,689 --> 01:48:34,560 Commission Project Matrix. 2596 01:48:34,560 --> 01:48:40,399 Anyone have anything to add or updates? 2597 01:48:40,399 --> 01:48:41,399 Just a quick update. 2598 01:48:41,399 --> 01:48:45,880 As you know, we're trying to kind of clear that backlog. 2599 01:48:45,880 --> 01:48:48,689 One thing in particular, now that we have a couple new 2600 01:48:48,689 --> 01:48:50,520 members on the commission, what 2601 01:48:50,520 --> 01:48:53,279 we thought would probably be a good thing, and even maybe 2602 01:48:53,279 --> 01:48:54,800 just a refresher, is to just 2603 01:48:54,800 --> 01:48:58,510 sort of give a general overview of the type of applications 2604 01:48:58,510 --> 01:49:00,119 that come in front of the 2605 01:49:00,119 --> 01:49:03,289 Planning and Zoning Commission, what the review criteria 2606 01:49:03,289 --> 01:49:05,399 are, and sort of what your task to 2607 01:49:05,399 --> 01:49:06,399 do. 2608 01:49:06,399 --> 01:49:09,960 I don't know if that was ever done in the past. 2609 01:49:09,960 --> 01:49:13,640 I know some cities do that, so we thought it probably would 2610 01:49:13,640 --> 01:49:14,840 be a good thing. 2611 01:49:14,840 --> 01:49:16,640 Moving forward, we're all on the same page. 2612 01:49:16,640 --> 01:49:19,279 We all know sort of what we're supposed to do. 2613 01:49:19,279 --> 01:49:22,579 We'll be bringing that together, or putting that together 2614 01:49:22,579 --> 01:49:24,319 and bringing that forward. 2615 01:49:24,319 --> 01:49:26,600 We'll probably start. 2616 01:49:26,600 --> 01:49:29,079 We won't tackle all in one meeting, but we will probably 2617 01:49:29,079 --> 01:49:30,520 start with planning since that 2618 01:49:30,520 --> 01:49:34,649 seems to be the most prevalent, and then kind of work our 2619 01:49:34,649 --> 01:49:37,960 way through SUPs, ADPs, rezoning, 2620 01:49:37,960 --> 01:49:38,960 and the like. 2621 01:49:38,960 --> 01:49:41,899 So unless there's anything else I can bring forward, I'll 2622 01:49:41,899 --> 01:49:43,359 continue to work on that list 2623 01:49:43,359 --> 01:49:44,920 as well as bring those items. 2624 01:49:44,920 --> 01:49:47,659 I'd prefer if Matt and Jason had to learn it the way I had 2625 01:49:47,659 --> 01:49:49,199 to learn it, which was just 2626 01:49:49,199 --> 01:49:51,159 trial by fire and asking dumb questions. 2627 01:49:51,159 --> 01:49:54,399 They're like, "Well, that's what a final plan is." 2628 01:49:54,399 --> 01:49:55,399 Got it. 2629 01:49:55,399 --> 01:49:56,399 Now let them figure it out. 2630 01:49:56,399 --> 01:49:58,720 Yeah, training would be great. 2631 01:49:58,720 --> 01:50:02,500 Any other items for the matrix so I can put away my dumb 2632 01:50:02,500 --> 01:50:03,600 questions? 2633 01:50:03,600 --> 01:50:06,819 So before we close out the meeting, what I wanted to do was 2634 01:50:06,819 --> 01:50:08,779 take just a minute and recognize 2635 01:50:08,779 --> 01:50:09,779 Athenia Green. 2636 01:50:09,779 --> 01:50:14,640 She is ... Last meeting, I think, is tonight for planning 2637 01:50:14,640 --> 01:50:15,479 and zoning, so the commission 2638 01:50:15,479 --> 01:50:16,479 got you a card. 2639 01:50:16,479 --> 01:50:19,350 It has a Starbucks gift card so you can study well on some 2640 01:50:19,350 --> 01:50:20,880 caffeine going forward. 2641 01:50:20,880 --> 01:50:28,960 So thank you so much for all you've done for P&Z. 2642 01:50:28,960 --> 01:50:31,449 Seeing no other discussion points, I will close this 2643 01:50:31,449 --> 01:50:32,840 meeting at 7.15. 2644 01:50:38,779 --> 01:50:49,760 [ Silence ]