WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.019 Good evening and welcome to the planning zoning work 00:00:07.019 --> 00:00:10.240 session for August 22nd 2018. 00:00:10.240 --> 00:00:13.439 Call this work session order at 5.04. 00:00:13.439 --> 00:00:15.849 First item on the work session agenda is clarification of 00:00:15.849 --> 00:00:19.199 agenda items listed on the agenda for this 00:00:19.199 --> 00:00:20.199 meeting. 00:00:20.199 --> 00:00:22.719 Do we have any clarification for that? 00:00:22.719 --> 00:00:25.589 With that it's worth noting that the public hearing 4B has 00:00:25.589 --> 00:00:26.640 been withdrawn. 00:00:26.640 --> 00:00:30.800 If you want to make a note that will not be heard tonight. 00:00:30.800 --> 00:00:34.399 But we can skip to the consent agenda. 00:00:34.399 --> 00:00:38.880 We have two items, final plat and preliminary plat. 00:00:38.880 --> 00:00:44.280 We got updates on these so I'll invite Julie to speak on 00:00:44.280 --> 00:00:46.159 the first item. 00:00:46.159 --> 00:00:49.920 Do you have any questions for Julie? 00:00:49.920 --> 00:00:53.119 Yes sir. 00:00:53.119 --> 00:00:57.119 Commissioner Beck. 00:00:57.119 --> 00:00:59.119 Oh you have one on the second one? 00:00:59.119 --> 00:01:01.119 I don't think that's Julie. 00:01:01.119 --> 00:01:02.119 Not me. 00:01:02.119 --> 00:01:07.680 Is there any questions on the final plat 18-19? 00:01:07.680 --> 00:01:08.680 Survivors trust? 00:01:08.680 --> 00:01:13.439 I think we're good Julie. 00:01:13.439 --> 00:01:16.799 Thank you. 00:01:16.799 --> 00:01:28.920 I will call Cindy Jackson for the PP 18-01. 00:01:28.920 --> 00:01:30.879 And Commissioner Beck for Jers. 00:01:30.879 --> 00:01:31.879 Thank you. 00:01:31.879 --> 00:01:36.019 Cindy on the prints it looks like there's four stub outs 00:01:36.019 --> 00:01:38.200 for the streets on the north 00:01:38.200 --> 00:01:41.879 side and two on the west side. 00:01:41.879 --> 00:01:46.159 So is the developer going to be here tonight? 00:01:46.159 --> 00:01:50.090 I'm just curious is that done with the intention for future 00:01:50.090 --> 00:01:53.879 development or did the city require 00:01:53.879 --> 00:01:54.879 that for some reason? 00:01:54.879 --> 00:01:56.920 That's done for future development. 00:01:56.920 --> 00:01:59.510 We anticipate there will be future development and we want 00:01:59.510 --> 00:02:01.239 to make sure everything connects. 00:02:01.239 --> 00:02:02.239 With this developer? 00:02:02.239 --> 00:02:03.239 Not with this developer. 00:02:03.239 --> 00:02:06.239 Okay good thank you. 00:02:06.239 --> 00:02:13.879 Any other questions on this plat? 00:02:13.879 --> 00:02:14.879 Thank you Cindy. 00:02:14.879 --> 00:02:17.319 That will move us to the public hearings. 00:02:17.319 --> 00:02:25.819 The first one is the SUP 17-7 and I'll invite Haley for 00:02:25.819 --> 00:02:28.400 presentation. 00:02:28.400 --> 00:02:39.479 Alright good evening. 00:02:39.479 --> 00:02:43.000 This is case S17-7 for the enclave at Denton. 00:02:43.000 --> 00:02:45.580 So the request before you is to hold a public hearing 00:02:45.580 --> 00:02:48.039 tonight and consider making a recommendation 00:02:48.039 --> 00:02:51.199 to city council regarding a request for a specific use 00:02:51.199 --> 00:02:53.240 permit to allow for a multifamily 00:02:53.240 --> 00:02:57.080 use on the site you can see outlined in yellow on the map. 00:02:57.080 --> 00:03:00.199 It is just over 12 acres located on the east side of Br 00:03:00.199 --> 00:03:01.080 inker Road. 00:03:01.080 --> 00:03:06.270 You can see here the Walmart development to the north for 00:03:06.270 --> 00:03:07.680 reference. 00:03:07.680 --> 00:03:09.449 So since we do have a couple of new members I wanted to 00:03:09.449 --> 00:03:10.680 give a little bit of explanation 00:03:10.680 --> 00:03:13.240 for what a specific use permit is. 00:03:13.240 --> 00:03:16.919 An SUP is a type of approval that's required for uses that 00:03:16.919 --> 00:03:18.919 may be compatible in a zoning 00:03:18.919 --> 00:03:22.409 district so the use is not permitted by right but it could 00:03:22.409 --> 00:03:24.439 be made compatible if there are 00:03:24.439 --> 00:03:26.729 conditions or restrictions that could be imposed on the 00:03:26.729 --> 00:03:28.879 property to limit any potential nuisances. 00:03:28.879 --> 00:03:31.699 An SUP does require two public hearings so you are their 00:03:31.699 --> 00:03:33.280 first stop and then this will 00:03:33.280 --> 00:03:38.439 be going to city council pending your recommendation. 00:03:38.439 --> 00:03:41.419 So looking at this site the zoning port is regional center 00:03:41.419 --> 00:03:43.039 commercial downtown so that's 00:03:43.039 --> 00:03:46.979 one of our more intensive mixed use districts permits, high 00:03:46.979 --> 00:03:49.400 density of development, a variety 00:03:49.400 --> 00:03:52.139 of commercial and institutional uses. 00:03:52.139 --> 00:03:55.819 Within this zoning limitation four applies to multifamily 00:03:55.819 --> 00:03:57.599 and this limitation states 00:03:57.599 --> 00:04:00.610 that multifamilies only permitted through approval of a 00:04:00.610 --> 00:04:02.139 specific use permit as part 00:04:02.139 --> 00:04:05.169 of a mixed use development that meets the criteria outlined 00:04:05.169 --> 00:04:06.719 in our code for mixed use. 00:04:06.719 --> 00:04:10.080 So in this case in our CCD mixed use only allows multifamil 00:04:10.080 --> 00:04:11.719 ies to be 30% of the site 00:04:11.719 --> 00:04:16.420 acreage and then there are some other criteria involved in 00:04:16.420 --> 00:04:16.920 that. 00:04:16.920 --> 00:04:19.050 And then the other options under this limitation were that 00:04:19.050 --> 00:04:20.279 it was previously approved as a 00:04:20.279 --> 00:04:25.399 use under an MPC or a small area plan which is not the case 00:04:25.399 --> 00:04:26.279 here. 00:04:26.279 --> 00:04:29.430 So with an SUP the development code provides many criteria 00:04:29.430 --> 00:04:31.120 that are outlined in detail in 00:04:31.120 --> 00:04:34.779 your backup but the general gist of these criteria for 00:04:34.779 --> 00:04:37.319 approval is compatibility between 00:04:37.319 --> 00:04:40.310 the surrounding property and the requested use which 00:04:40.310 --> 00:04:42.399 includes many different things such 00:04:42.399 --> 00:04:45.730 as parking, traffic, access, whether it would in some way 00:04:45.730 --> 00:04:47.759 impede development of surrounding 00:04:47.759 --> 00:04:51.720 properties, any sort of nuisances, noise, visuals, landsca 00:04:51.720 --> 00:04:53.959 ping and screening compatibility 00:04:53.959 --> 00:04:57.639 as well as architectural compatibility. 00:04:57.639 --> 00:05:00.839 So we'll look a little more specifically at the site, you 00:05:00.839 --> 00:05:02.120 can see in blue the two 00:05:02.120 --> 00:05:04.199 buildings that are proposed here. 00:05:04.199 --> 00:05:07.620 So the footprint of those buildings is just over 95,000 00:05:07.620 --> 00:05:08.420 square feet. 00:05:08.420 --> 00:05:11.209 Within the buildings there would be 270 apartment units as 00:05:11.209 --> 00:05:12.879 proposed, it's a mixture of one, 00:05:12.879 --> 00:05:14.560 two and three bedroom units. 00:05:14.560 --> 00:05:16.720 And then outlined in red you can see that there's about 5 00:05:16.720 --> 00:05:18.240 100 square feet of commercial 00:05:18.240 --> 00:05:20.279 space allocated on the site. 00:05:20.279 --> 00:05:22.100 So it is mixed use, it just doesn't quite meet the 00:05:22.100 --> 00:05:23.439 thresholds that would be required 00:05:23.439 --> 00:05:26.000 for a mixed use development. 00:05:26.000 --> 00:05:29.180 Over the site they've provided 471 parking spaces, that's a 00:05:29.180 --> 00:05:30.819 combination of surface spaces 00:05:30.819 --> 00:05:33.939 and some tuck under garages for some of the apartments. 00:05:33.939 --> 00:05:36.660 And then there is also a significant tree conservation area 00:05:36.660 --> 00:05:37.680 on the site that we'll 00:05:37.680 --> 00:05:41.800 look at a little more specifically. 00:05:41.800 --> 00:05:44.199 So looking at their landscape plan I've highlighted several 00:05:44.199 --> 00:05:46.560 of the key features of the site. 00:05:46.560 --> 00:05:49.629 Overall they are meeting the lot coverage requirements, so 00:05:49.629 --> 00:05:51.560 they're at 84% lot coverage, 00:05:51.560 --> 00:05:54.279 90% is allowed within our CCD. 00:05:54.279 --> 00:05:59.230 They're providing the landscape area in a variety of places 00:05:59.230 --> 00:06:01.199 you can see here, I'm sorry 00:06:01.199 --> 00:06:05.160 this should say 10% minimum, that's a typo on my part. 00:06:05.160 --> 00:06:07.850 And some of the components of that are the two light green 00:06:07.850 --> 00:06:09.459 areas show type C buffers, 00:06:09.459 --> 00:06:12.490 so between multifamily and commercial to the north they've 00:06:12.490 --> 00:06:14.279 provided that required buffer 00:06:14.279 --> 00:06:15.279 there. 00:06:15.279 --> 00:06:20.259 It's a 15 foot wide area, contains six trees and 25 shrubs. 00:06:20.259 --> 00:06:22.240 You can see also where they've provided for that buffer 00:06:22.240 --> 00:06:23.379 here on the south side because 00:06:23.379 --> 00:06:26.500 there is an institutional use to the south of them, a 00:06:26.500 --> 00:06:28.079 memory care facility. 00:06:28.079 --> 00:06:30.660 In the dark green you can see the tree conservation area 00:06:30.660 --> 00:06:31.720 that I referenced. 00:06:31.720 --> 00:06:34.600 This is called out on their plat as a two and a half acre 00:06:34.600 --> 00:06:36.139 conservation area for the 00:06:36.139 --> 00:06:38.000 upland habitat that's on the site. 00:06:38.000 --> 00:06:41.279 So they're meeting the ESA requirements for preservation. 00:06:41.279 --> 00:06:44.129 And then in yellow you can see they are allowing space for 00:06:44.129 --> 00:06:46.079 the 15 foot screening area that's 00:06:46.079 --> 00:06:47.639 required for the parking lot. 00:06:47.639 --> 00:06:49.040 Commissioner Beck. 00:06:49.040 --> 00:06:51.079 Thank you Chair. 00:06:51.079 --> 00:06:55.970 The conservation area there, will the apartment, will the 00:06:55.970 --> 00:06:57.879 tenants have access to that? 00:06:57.879 --> 00:06:59.800 I see those parking spaces there, is there going to be a 00:06:59.800 --> 00:07:01.000 fence or something or will they 00:07:01.000 --> 00:07:03.079 be able to access that area? 00:07:03.079 --> 00:07:06.019 I believe there is something called out on the plan, let me 00:07:06.019 --> 00:07:07.139 look and see there. 00:07:07.139 --> 00:07:09.589 There was discussion over maybe putting a trail through 00:07:09.589 --> 00:07:10.800 there and I believe that is 00:07:10.800 --> 00:07:13.180 kind of off the board, it's just going to be left as a 00:07:13.180 --> 00:07:14.879 natural area as is required for 00:07:14.879 --> 00:07:15.879 the ESA. 00:07:15.879 --> 00:07:18.079 I can probably pick the applicant's brain tonight. 00:07:18.079 --> 00:07:19.680 Yes, the applicant will be here. 00:07:19.680 --> 00:07:22.329 I just see there is actually a retaining wall on the 00:07:22.329 --> 00:07:24.399 backside of those parking spaces. 00:07:24.399 --> 00:07:26.720 All the way around the conservation area? 00:07:26.720 --> 00:07:27.720 I believe so. 00:07:27.720 --> 00:07:30.149 It is this hatched area that's kind of hard to see just 00:07:30.149 --> 00:07:31.800 outside of the green highlights 00:07:31.800 --> 00:07:32.800 there. 00:07:32.800 --> 00:07:35.639 That would be the retaining wall just outside the ESA. 00:07:35.639 --> 00:07:36.639 Thank you. 00:07:36.639 --> 00:07:37.639 Commissioner Smith. 00:07:37.639 --> 00:07:40.709 Is there going to be retention, a retention pond or 00:07:40.709 --> 00:07:42.920 anything like that for this site? 00:07:42.920 --> 00:07:45.589 With as much concrete being added to what's already perme 00:07:45.589 --> 00:07:47.079 able area, I just didn't know 00:07:47.079 --> 00:07:48.079 if there's going to be retention ponds. 00:07:48.079 --> 00:07:51.149 Certainly, so there's a large detention facility associated 00:07:51.149 --> 00:07:52.680 with the Walmart just north of 00:07:52.680 --> 00:07:53.680 there. 00:07:53.680 --> 00:07:54.680 I couldn't see it on the right. 00:07:54.680 --> 00:07:58.279 Yeah, we can see it on the aerial here. 00:07:58.279 --> 00:08:01.009 This green space behind Walmart is actually a large 00:08:01.009 --> 00:08:02.360 detention facility. 00:08:02.360 --> 00:08:04.180 It's my understanding that they're still working through 00:08:04.180 --> 00:08:06.399 the details of the drainage analysis, 00:08:06.399 --> 00:08:09.540 but this pond was sized to accept some runoff from this 00:08:09.540 --> 00:08:11.600 property, so I believe they will 00:08:11.600 --> 00:08:13.819 be able to account for their stormwater in that existing 00:08:13.819 --> 00:08:14.399 facility. 00:08:14.399 --> 00:08:17.220 As long as you guys are on top of it, I can't see on the 00:08:17.220 --> 00:08:18.959 aerial shot that I see a little 00:08:18.959 --> 00:08:22.339 tiny little pond off to the- Yeah, it's just north of their 00:08:22.339 --> 00:08:23.079 property boundary 00:08:23.079 --> 00:08:24.079 on Walmart's lot. 00:08:24.079 --> 00:08:25.079 Okay, understood. 00:08:25.079 --> 00:08:28.079 I have one more question. 00:08:28.079 --> 00:08:30.420 For parking, for the square footage of the commercial use 00:08:30.420 --> 00:08:31.639 that is actually going to be 00:08:31.639 --> 00:08:34.600 in there, it says about 5,100 square feet of commercial, 00:08:34.600 --> 00:08:35.919 how much parking is required 00:08:35.919 --> 00:08:38.440 within that zoning? 00:08:38.440 --> 00:08:41.279 Well, the parking doesn't depend necessarily on the zoning. 00:08:41.279 --> 00:08:42.279 It's use specific. 00:08:42.279 --> 00:08:43.279 Sure, yeah. 00:08:43.279 --> 00:08:45.399 So what they've proposed now is kind of a mixture. 00:08:45.399 --> 00:08:47.809 I believe there's a small area allocated for cafes as well 00:08:47.809 --> 00:08:49.039 as some retail and a fitness 00:08:49.039 --> 00:08:50.039 center. 00:08:50.039 --> 00:08:51.039 Okay. 00:08:51.039 --> 00:08:53.149 So based on those uses, I want to say it was in the ball 00:08:53.149 --> 00:08:54.639 park of 30 spaces required for the 00:08:54.639 --> 00:08:56.639 commercial, and that's being accounted for on the site. 00:08:56.639 --> 00:08:57.639 But they did. 00:08:57.639 --> 00:08:59.139 The applicant's going to be here tonight, so we're going to 00:08:59.139 --> 00:08:59.799 ask about designation of 00:08:59.799 --> 00:09:03.159 parking spaces for, so now this is all, well, they have 00:09:03.159 --> 00:09:05.240 designation for parking spaces just 00:09:05.240 --> 00:09:07.450 for the commercial use, and then I don't want to have 00:09:07.450 --> 00:09:09.039 residents coming back and getting 00:09:09.039 --> 00:09:12.049 mad about commercial use parking in their parking spots and 00:09:12.049 --> 00:09:13.200 that kind of stuff. 00:09:13.200 --> 00:09:15.149 So I'm not sure what the signage of those spaces may be, 00:09:15.149 --> 00:09:16.279 but they have accounted for 00:09:16.279 --> 00:09:18.279 adequate parking for all of the uses. 00:09:18.279 --> 00:09:19.279 Got it. 00:09:19.279 --> 00:09:20.279 Thank you. 00:09:20.279 --> 00:09:23.240 So I just wanted to kind of show you- 00:09:23.240 --> 00:09:24.240 Commissioner Ellis. 00:09:24.240 --> 00:09:25.240 Thank you, Chair. 00:09:25.240 --> 00:09:27.240 Haley, back to the detention area. 00:09:27.240 --> 00:09:29.399 Do I remember from a meeting that we had previously that 00:09:29.399 --> 00:09:31.480 they worked some kind of deal with Walmart 00:09:31.480 --> 00:09:32.480 with that area? 00:09:32.480 --> 00:09:33.480 Right there expanding it, I think. 00:09:33.480 --> 00:09:35.590 Yes, that's my understanding is they have an agreement with 00:09:35.590 --> 00:09:36.639 Walmart to allow their drainage 00:09:36.639 --> 00:09:38.200 to go to that existing pond. 00:09:38.200 --> 00:09:40.200 Okay, that's what I thought I remembered. 00:09:40.200 --> 00:09:41.200 Okay, thanks. 00:09:41.200 --> 00:09:42.200 You're welcome. 00:09:42.200 --> 00:09:43.840 Okay, so back to landscaping. 00:09:43.840 --> 00:09:46.830 I wanted to show you in a little more detail just kind of 00:09:46.830 --> 00:09:48.720 how this tree conservation area 00:09:48.720 --> 00:09:49.720 lines up. 00:09:49.720 --> 00:09:52.710 So I had our GIS team overlay the plat on an aerial of the 00:09:52.710 --> 00:09:54.360 site, so you can generally 00:09:54.360 --> 00:09:58.309 see outlined in green that an extensive contiguous area of 00:09:58.309 --> 00:10:01.080 trees is being preserved, contiguous 00:10:01.080 --> 00:10:02.720 with the acreage on the site to the south of them. 00:10:02.720 --> 00:10:07.629 So it will be a fairly large size portion of upland habitat 00:10:07.629 --> 00:10:09.480 left there intact. 00:10:09.480 --> 00:10:10.480 Commissioner Beck. 00:10:10.480 --> 00:10:11.480 Thank you, Chair. 00:10:11.480 --> 00:10:16.389 Is that going to count towards their tree coverage, tree 00:10:16.389 --> 00:10:17.200 canopy? 00:10:17.200 --> 00:10:19.039 Because it looks like they're going to mow a lot of trees 00:10:19.039 --> 00:10:19.480 down too. 00:10:19.480 --> 00:10:23.799 So will there be any mitigation requirement or is the fact 00:10:23.799 --> 00:10:26.080 that they're preserving that 00:10:26.080 --> 00:10:29.919 ESA there, is that going to cover that for them? 00:10:29.919 --> 00:10:30.919 Certainly. 00:10:30.919 --> 00:10:33.210 So under our current development code, if you are 00:10:33.210 --> 00:10:35.039 preserving trees within an ESA, that 00:10:35.039 --> 00:10:37.440 can count towards your tree preservation requirements. 00:10:37.440 --> 00:10:39.950 So with this, they will be meeting their tree preservation 00:10:39.950 --> 00:10:41.159 with this existing area. 00:10:41.159 --> 00:10:42.159 Without having to mitigate? 00:10:42.159 --> 00:10:44.879 No, they would be meeting the requirements. 00:10:44.879 --> 00:10:51.600 So nothing beyond that has to be mitigated. 00:10:51.600 --> 00:10:54.440 So the other component of what we have before site are the 00:10:54.440 --> 00:10:55.799 building elevations. 00:10:55.799 --> 00:10:58.409 Prior to the meeting, I had passed out some revised sheets 00:10:58.409 --> 00:11:00.720 that the applicant sent over. 00:11:00.720 --> 00:11:03.580 The content and the style of the buildings hasn't changed. 00:11:03.580 --> 00:11:06.149 They just made some adjustments to clarify the materials 00:11:06.149 --> 00:11:07.519 that are on the buildings. 00:11:07.519 --> 00:11:09.970 The previous version had a couple of materials listed such 00:11:09.970 --> 00:11:11.399 as stucco that weren't actually 00:11:11.399 --> 00:11:12.559 shown on the elevation. 00:11:12.559 --> 00:11:15.779 So they just did a little cleanup, but content wise the 00:11:15.779 --> 00:11:17.940 building design hasn't changed. 00:11:17.940 --> 00:11:20.360 So what we have are four story buildings. 00:11:20.360 --> 00:11:23.360 They're approximately 52 feet tall at their highest point. 00:11:23.360 --> 00:11:27.360 RCCD does permit a maximum of 100 feet. 00:11:27.360 --> 00:11:29.039 So they're well within that. 00:11:29.039 --> 00:11:31.509 And the materials would be a combination of brick and stone 00:11:31.509 --> 00:11:32.879 veneer and fiber cement siding 00:11:32.879 --> 00:11:36.580 and panels. 00:11:36.580 --> 00:11:39.159 So kind of diving into the analysis based on those 00:11:39.159 --> 00:11:41.200 conditions, one of the criteria for 00:11:41.200 --> 00:11:43.639 approval is consistency with the current zoning on the 00:11:43.639 --> 00:11:44.279 property. 00:11:44.279 --> 00:11:47.100 So as you've seen, it meets the requirements for RCCD in 00:11:47.100 --> 00:11:48.360 terms of site design. 00:11:48.360 --> 00:11:50.659 It is also consistent with the future land use designation 00:11:50.659 --> 00:11:51.799 for the property, which is 00:11:51.799 --> 00:11:53.679 regional mixed use. 00:11:53.679 --> 00:11:56.690 So this is intended to be an area with higher density 00:11:56.690 --> 00:11:59.240 housing alongside intensive commercial 00:11:59.240 --> 00:12:02.039 uses that you would see at these kind of large centers of 00:12:02.039 --> 00:12:03.159 transportation. 00:12:03.159 --> 00:12:06.159 So where we have the loop and 35 meeting is a logical kind 00:12:06.159 --> 00:12:07.840 of regional center for shopping 00:12:07.840 --> 00:12:11.480 and high density housing. 00:12:11.480 --> 00:12:13.789 Some other criteria that we looked at were the surrounding 00:12:13.789 --> 00:12:14.360 land uses. 00:12:14.360 --> 00:12:16.740 So as I mentioned, we have Walmart to the north of them, 00:12:16.740 --> 00:12:18.320 the Target and Home Depot shopping 00:12:18.320 --> 00:12:20.080 center just to the west. 00:12:20.080 --> 00:12:22.500 There's an assisted living kind of multifamily type 00:12:22.500 --> 00:12:24.279 development to the south, as well as 00:12:24.279 --> 00:12:27.399 some other multifamily further south. 00:12:27.399 --> 00:12:30.370 So what's proposed here, high density multifamily with a 00:12:30.370 --> 00:12:32.679 little bit of retail mixed in is consistent 00:12:32.679 --> 00:12:34.799 with this land use pattern. 00:12:34.799 --> 00:12:37.759 It's unlikely that this use would generate any nuisances 00:12:37.759 --> 00:12:39.639 that would affect their neighbors 00:12:39.639 --> 00:12:42.519 in terms of odors or noise. 00:12:42.519 --> 00:12:45.639 We found it to be generally compatible, particularly with 00:12:45.639 --> 00:12:48.360 the landscaping that they're providing. 00:12:48.360 --> 00:12:50.850 So public notification was sent about the case, as you can 00:12:50.850 --> 00:12:51.440 see here. 00:12:51.440 --> 00:12:53.279 We received no responses. 00:12:53.279 --> 00:12:56.639 A neighborhood meeting was not held. 00:12:56.639 --> 00:13:00.450 And the applicant did post the required signage on the 00:13:00.450 --> 00:13:02.519 property along breaker. 00:13:02.519 --> 00:13:05.000 So again, just going back and kind of wrapping this up, we 00:13:05.000 --> 00:13:06.480 had these criteria for approval 00:13:06.480 --> 00:13:09.049 to look at in terms of compatibility with the surrounding 00:13:09.049 --> 00:13:10.480 property, consistency with 00:13:10.480 --> 00:13:12.360 the zoning and future land use. 00:13:12.360 --> 00:13:14.519 We found through our analysis that it met all of these 00:13:14.519 --> 00:13:16.159 criteria and is generally compatible 00:13:16.159 --> 00:13:18.799 in style and form with surrounding properties. 00:13:18.799 --> 00:13:21.960 Therefore, staff is recommending approval with one 00:13:21.960 --> 00:13:22.840 condition. 00:13:22.840 --> 00:13:25.039 That being that the plans you've seen before you tonight be 00:13:25.039 --> 00:13:26.320 considered a preliminary site 00:13:26.320 --> 00:13:28.799 plan, landscape plan, and building elevations, which we've 00:13:28.799 --> 00:13:30.179 found to be generally consistent 00:13:30.179 --> 00:13:32.639 with the requirements of the development code. 00:13:32.639 --> 00:13:35.620 A final site plan, landscape plan, and elevations should be 00:13:35.620 --> 00:13:37.320 consistent with what you've seen 00:13:37.320 --> 00:13:39.990 here tonight as well as meeting all the criteria of the 00:13:39.990 --> 00:13:40.440 code. 00:13:40.440 --> 00:13:43.440 I'd be happy to stand for any other questions. 00:13:43.440 --> 00:13:44.440 Mr. Beck. 00:13:44.440 --> 00:13:45.440 Thank you, Chair. 00:13:45.440 --> 00:13:49.679 Can you go back to one of the plans that shows Brinker and 00:13:49.679 --> 00:13:51.840 how people are going to enter 00:13:51.840 --> 00:13:52.840 on that? 00:13:52.840 --> 00:13:53.840 This one good? 00:13:53.840 --> 00:13:54.840 Or is that? 00:13:54.840 --> 00:13:55.840 There you go. 00:13:55.840 --> 00:13:56.840 Okay. 00:13:56.840 --> 00:14:00.870 You indicated there was going to be a means of egress there 00:14:00.870 --> 00:14:02.799 on Brinker before they get 00:14:02.799 --> 00:14:05.399 to that traffic light, right? 00:14:05.399 --> 00:14:07.950 The traffic light, I believe, is at the Home Depot Target 00:14:07.950 --> 00:14:09.720 Shopping Center, existing today? 00:14:09.720 --> 00:14:10.720 Yes. 00:14:10.720 --> 00:14:11.720 Yes. 00:14:11.720 --> 00:14:12.720 Right. 00:14:12.720 --> 00:14:13.720 It's an intersection there. 00:14:13.720 --> 00:14:14.720 Correct. 00:14:14.720 --> 00:14:15.720 Yeah. 00:14:15.720 --> 00:14:16.720 Can you point it out on the map there? 00:14:16.720 --> 00:14:20.039 The aerial might be a better place to look at this. 00:14:20.039 --> 00:14:21.039 There is a light. 00:14:21.039 --> 00:14:22.039 Right there. 00:14:22.039 --> 00:14:23.039 Just north of the site. 00:14:23.039 --> 00:14:24.039 No, no. 00:14:24.039 --> 00:14:25.039 Go back to the other one. 00:14:25.039 --> 00:14:27.440 Can you point out the means of egress in the department off 00:14:27.440 --> 00:14:28.080 of Brinker? 00:14:28.080 --> 00:14:29.080 Certainly, yes. 00:14:29.080 --> 00:14:31.919 They have two driveways you can see here. 00:14:31.919 --> 00:14:34.539 The southern driveway, there is existing pavement there 00:14:34.539 --> 00:14:36.159 that was put in with the facility to 00:14:36.159 --> 00:14:38.559 the south of them, so that will be one shared primary 00:14:38.559 --> 00:14:39.919 entrance to the facility. 00:14:39.919 --> 00:14:41.899 You can see that's kind of where the building would be 00:14:41.899 --> 00:14:43.320 dressed up, and there's that little 00:14:43.320 --> 00:14:46.620 circle there with -- it'll probably have some enhancements 00:14:46.620 --> 00:14:47.159 to it. 00:14:47.159 --> 00:14:50.190 Then there is a secondary point of access here on the north 00:14:50.190 --> 00:14:50.720 side. 00:14:50.720 --> 00:14:53.120 They're still working through the details of the traffic 00:14:53.120 --> 00:14:54.360 impact analysis for the site 00:14:54.360 --> 00:14:56.940 as they go through the platting process, but I've heard 00:14:56.940 --> 00:14:58.639 discussion that that may be a right 00:14:58.639 --> 00:15:01.950 in, right out only to alleviate some concerns, but the 00:15:01.950 --> 00:15:03.960 final details of that are not yet 00:15:03.960 --> 00:15:04.960 determined. 00:15:04.960 --> 00:15:05.960 Concerned a little bit about that. 00:15:05.960 --> 00:15:06.960 I've been in that lane at certain times today. 00:15:06.960 --> 00:15:07.559 Everybody gets over in that lane in anticipation of 288 and 00:15:07.559 --> 00:15:07.960 pull into Walmart, so they can 00:15:07.960 --> 00:15:08.960 back up quite a bit. 00:15:08.960 --> 00:15:18.259 Now you've got 270 units here, probably that many cars at 00:15:18.259 --> 00:15:20.919 certain times. 00:15:20.919 --> 00:15:25.259 Any chance that they've considered doing a little lane 00:15:25.259 --> 00:15:27.360 pulling off a brink until it 00:15:27.360 --> 00:15:29.769 allows them to go ahead and pull in without stopping the 00:15:29.769 --> 00:15:30.679 flow of traffic? 00:15:30.679 --> 00:15:33.080 Yeah, that will be part of their traffic impact analysis. 00:15:33.080 --> 00:15:35.960 We determine what's needed in terms of turn lanes here. 00:15:35.960 --> 00:15:38.360 That has been one of the considerations to this point that 00:15:38.360 --> 00:15:39.480 they might need a turn lane 00:15:39.480 --> 00:15:40.480 on Brinker. 00:15:40.480 --> 00:15:42.480 Maybe at both entrances or just the one closer? 00:15:42.480 --> 00:15:43.879 I'm not sure where it would be located. 00:15:43.879 --> 00:15:46.490 I suspect it would be at this primary entrance if they're 00:15:46.490 --> 00:15:48.320 to install one, but again, they're 00:15:48.320 --> 00:15:50.120 still working through that with the city's traffic engineer 00:15:50.120 --> 00:15:50.279 . 00:15:50.279 --> 00:15:51.279 Great, thanks. 00:15:51.279 --> 00:15:57.399 I have a question. 00:15:57.399 --> 00:16:00.460 The issue for the SUP or what's your SUP was that they're 00:16:00.460 --> 00:16:02.320 wanting to use multifamily for 00:16:02.320 --> 00:16:03.879 more than 30% of the acreage. 00:16:03.879 --> 00:16:04.879 Is that correct? 00:16:04.879 --> 00:16:07.850 Yeah, so under limitation four, like I said, since they're 00:16:07.850 --> 00:16:09.600 not part of a previously approved 00:16:09.600 --> 00:16:12.820 plan, they either had to be mixed use development or have 00:16:12.820 --> 00:16:13.519 the SUP. 00:16:13.519 --> 00:16:16.559 The code is a little bit convoluted in how mixed use works. 00:16:16.559 --> 00:16:19.509 So there's a definition for mixed use that specifies it has 00:16:19.509 --> 00:16:20.720 to be three or more uses 00:16:20.720 --> 00:16:23.559 mixed vertically or horizontally on a site. 00:16:23.559 --> 00:16:26.500 But within certain zoning districts such as RCCD and the NR 00:16:26.500 --> 00:16:28.440 MU districts, there's a limitation 00:16:28.440 --> 00:16:30.980 on the acreage that can be multifamily. 00:16:30.980 --> 00:16:33.179 For RCCD, that limit is 30%. 00:16:33.179 --> 00:16:36.210 So the intent was to have a majority of the footprint of 00:16:36.210 --> 00:16:38.039 the buildings and everything 00:16:38.039 --> 00:16:40.320 be for commercial uses. 00:16:40.320 --> 00:16:43.559 And since they weren't meeting that criteria, the SUP 00:16:43.559 --> 00:16:44.919 became necessary. 00:16:44.919 --> 00:16:49.830 If you can clarify that a little more, the backup says 00:16:49.830 --> 00:16:52.279 multifamily use to no more than 00:16:52.279 --> 00:16:53.960 30% of the acreage. 00:16:53.960 --> 00:16:56.159 That acreage is for the entire property, correct? 00:16:56.159 --> 00:16:57.159 Correct. 00:16:57.159 --> 00:17:00.820 Maybe my math's wrong, but 95,000 square feet doesn't seem 00:17:00.820 --> 00:17:02.480 like that's breaching 30% 00:17:02.480 --> 00:17:03.960 of 12 acres. 00:17:03.960 --> 00:17:07.400 No, so they do have, like I said, the large portion of the 00:17:07.400 --> 00:17:09.000 site is conservation. 00:17:09.000 --> 00:17:11.210 And then the majority of the site will be the footprint of 00:17:11.210 --> 00:17:12.759 those buildings that is multifamily 00:17:12.759 --> 00:17:15.480 as well as the parking and the other uses such as the 00:17:15.480 --> 00:17:17.400 playground area, the pool, the 00:17:17.400 --> 00:17:20.420 things that are associated directly with that multifamily 00:17:20.420 --> 00:17:20.839 use. 00:17:20.839 --> 00:17:21.839 Okay. 00:17:21.839 --> 00:17:24.950 The question in tandem with that is typically when we 00:17:24.950 --> 00:17:27.079 process the SUPs, there's kind of 00:17:27.079 --> 00:17:28.440 like a give and take. 00:17:28.440 --> 00:17:30.660 They're asking for something out of the ordinary and then 00:17:30.660 --> 00:17:32.240 the applicant provides something 00:17:32.240 --> 00:17:34.180 to kind of offset that. 00:17:34.180 --> 00:17:37.859 Could you highlight what they're presenting to kind of 00:17:37.859 --> 00:17:38.960 offset that? 00:17:38.960 --> 00:17:41.069 I think you may be thinking of the alternative development 00:17:41.069 --> 00:17:42.440 plan process a little bit more. 00:17:42.440 --> 00:17:45.519 No, I'm just, I don't think I am. 00:17:45.519 --> 00:17:49.130 I think it's typically, like if they're asking for the city 00:17:49.130 --> 00:17:51.039 to provide a special use, there's 00:17:51.039 --> 00:17:55.089 typically an additional landscape that they put in or there 00:17:55.089 --> 00:17:57.839 's some sort of give and take, 00:17:57.839 --> 00:18:00.509 almost like unofficially, like, hey, if you would allow us 00:18:00.509 --> 00:18:01.759 to do this, we will kind of 00:18:01.759 --> 00:18:02.759 do this. 00:18:02.759 --> 00:18:08.130 I didn't see any kind of concessions on their end to help 00:18:08.130 --> 00:18:10.000 this SUP along. 00:18:10.000 --> 00:18:11.000 Maybe I'm mistaken. 00:18:11.000 --> 00:18:14.480 Yeah, it's not part of the criteria for approval that there 00:18:14.480 --> 00:18:16.240 be any sort of enhanced site design 00:18:16.240 --> 00:18:17.240 features. 00:18:17.240 --> 00:18:19.240 It's more just to ensure compatibility of the site. 00:18:19.240 --> 00:18:20.240 Okay. 00:18:20.240 --> 00:18:21.849 Yeah, I think maybe you're thinking more in lines of the 00:18:21.849 --> 00:18:22.839 alternative development plan 00:18:22.839 --> 00:18:25.609 where they're seeking some deviation or something outside 00:18:25.609 --> 00:18:27.240 the norm of the code and providing 00:18:27.240 --> 00:18:28.240 that alternative. 00:18:28.240 --> 00:18:29.240 Gotcha. 00:18:29.240 --> 00:18:31.119 Maybe I am. 00:18:31.119 --> 00:18:34.000 Just to add, I think what happens to a lot of times when we 00:18:34.000 --> 00:18:35.880 do these SUPs, they're typically 00:18:35.880 --> 00:18:39.039 adjacent to single family residential or some other use. 00:18:39.039 --> 00:18:42.069 So we'll add conditions that require maybe something 00:18:42.069 --> 00:18:44.160 additional to mitigate for that. 00:18:44.160 --> 00:18:47.119 In this instance, it's kind of sandwiched between a 00:18:47.119 --> 00:18:49.079 detention pond and a similar use 00:18:49.079 --> 00:18:50.079 to the south. 00:18:50.079 --> 00:18:51.079 So that's why. 00:18:51.079 --> 00:18:52.079 Yeah. 00:18:52.079 --> 00:18:53.079 Thank you for the clarification. 00:18:53.079 --> 00:18:56.079 Any other questions for Haley? 00:18:56.079 --> 00:18:57.799 Awesome. 00:18:57.799 --> 00:18:58.799 Thank you. 00:18:58.799 --> 00:19:01.279 Thank you. 00:19:01.279 --> 00:19:06.180 The next and final item on the public hearing is Z1816, and 00:19:06.180 --> 00:19:08.240 that is being presented by Julie 00:19:08.240 --> 00:19:09.240 Wyatt. 00:19:09.240 --> 00:19:10.240 Good evening. 00:19:10.240 --> 00:19:11.240 I'm Julie Wyatt. 00:19:11.240 --> 00:19:12.240 I am presenting Z1816. 00:19:12.240 --> 00:19:26.200 This one's a fairly straightforward initial zoning case. 00:19:26.200 --> 00:19:29.029 So the request before you is to hold a public hearing and 00:19:29.029 --> 00:19:30.680 consider an initial zoning of 00:19:30.680 --> 00:19:35.119 RC, I'm sorry, NR1 on approximately one acre. 00:19:35.119 --> 00:19:38.829 The subject property is on the north side of Shiloh, about 00:19:38.829 --> 00:19:42.559 910 feet east of Swisher Road. 00:19:42.559 --> 00:19:46.059 This property was annexed in 2013 as part of a city-wide 00:19:46.059 --> 00:19:47.240 annexation plan. 00:19:47.240 --> 00:19:53.440 It was a part of DH9, which included 298 acres and 129 parc 00:19:53.440 --> 00:19:54.079 els. 00:19:54.079 --> 00:19:59.119 So this is one small part of a larger annexation. 00:19:59.119 --> 00:20:01.750 As most of you are familiar, when a property is annexed 00:20:01.750 --> 00:20:03.680 into the city of Denton, it receives 00:20:03.680 --> 00:20:06.839 essentially kind of a place holding district until the time 00:20:06.839 --> 00:20:08.839 that the property owner applies 00:20:08.839 --> 00:20:10.259 for an initial zoning. 00:20:10.259 --> 00:20:15.170 And so as you can see in this diagram, that place holding 00:20:15.170 --> 00:20:17.799 designation of RD5X is reflected. 00:20:17.799 --> 00:20:20.599 And RD5X is one of our rural zoning districts. 00:20:20.599 --> 00:20:24.980 It permits single family homes, some ag uses at a very 00:20:24.980 --> 00:20:28.400 large lot, the minimum of five acres. 00:20:28.400 --> 00:20:31.569 The applicant is proposing neighborhood residential one, NR 00:20:31.569 --> 00:20:31.980 1. 00:20:31.980 --> 00:20:34.559 So this is the proposed initial zoning. 00:20:34.559 --> 00:20:38.269 NR1 is one of our residential, very low density residential 00:20:38.269 --> 00:20:39.160 districts. 00:20:39.160 --> 00:20:44.130 It permits single family uses, some of the lighter ag uses, 00:20:44.130 --> 00:20:46.240 but at a minimum lot size 00:20:46.240 --> 00:20:49.160 of one acre. 00:20:49.160 --> 00:20:52.599 So when we review a rezoning request, we look at the 00:20:52.599 --> 00:20:55.160 criteria for approval in subchapter 00:20:55.160 --> 00:20:56.839 three of the Denton Development Code. 00:20:56.839 --> 00:20:59.279 First, does it conform to the future land use? 00:20:59.279 --> 00:21:01.720 Second, is there adequate provision of public 00:21:01.720 --> 00:21:02.799 infrastructure? 00:21:02.799 --> 00:21:05.880 So first we'll take a look at the comprehensive plan. 00:21:05.880 --> 00:21:09.000 The Denton Plan 2030 identifies this area as low 00:21:09.000 --> 00:21:10.000 residential. 00:21:10.000 --> 00:21:14.079 The intent of low residential is to promote residential 00:21:14.079 --> 00:21:16.440 uses, both at kind of the rural 00:21:16.440 --> 00:21:19.140 fringe as well as in kind of suburban development. 00:21:19.140 --> 00:21:22.799 So from one to four dwelling units per acre. 00:21:22.799 --> 00:21:25.690 NR1 conforms to this low residential future land use 00:21:25.690 --> 00:21:28.039 designation because it permits primarily 00:21:28.039 --> 00:21:32.950 single family residential uses at a maximum density of one 00:21:32.950 --> 00:21:35.119 dwelling unit per acre. 00:21:35.119 --> 00:21:38.920 We also looked at the surrounding zoning and development 00:21:38.920 --> 00:21:39.759 pattern. 00:21:39.759 --> 00:21:42.920 And our analysis yields that NR1 is consistent with that 00:21:42.920 --> 00:21:45.079 existing development pattern, both 00:21:45.079 --> 00:21:46.079 in use and scale. 00:21:46.079 --> 00:21:48.720 There's a lot of single family residential immediately 00:21:48.720 --> 00:21:50.299 adjacent to the property on very 00:21:50.299 --> 00:21:52.599 large lots. 00:21:52.599 --> 00:21:56.059 Surrounding that is a plan development, which also includes 00:21:56.059 --> 00:21:57.960 single family developments. 00:21:57.960 --> 00:22:01.480 Initial zoning is required to plot the property. 00:22:01.480 --> 00:22:04.200 The property owner would like to develop a single family 00:22:04.200 --> 00:22:05.160 home on the lot. 00:22:05.160 --> 00:22:08.190 They can't do so until they plot and they can't plot until 00:22:08.190 --> 00:22:10.400 the zoning designation permits 00:22:10.400 --> 00:22:14.039 lot sizes of a minimum of one acre lots. 00:22:14.039 --> 00:22:17.720 So that's why they're here tonight. 00:22:17.720 --> 00:22:20.690 If approved, development must comply with all requirements, 00:22:20.690 --> 00:22:22.559 including tree preservation, 00:22:22.559 --> 00:22:25.500 screening, landscaping and site design requirements. 00:22:25.500 --> 00:22:29.950 One item that's come up recently is that RD5X is exempt 00:22:29.950 --> 00:22:32.960 from our tree preservation requirements. 00:22:32.960 --> 00:22:38.349 So if the NR1 is approved, then they would have to comply 00:22:38.349 --> 00:22:41.160 with those tree preservation 00:22:41.160 --> 00:22:43.519 requirements. 00:22:43.519 --> 00:22:47.109 There are public facilities available that it has access to 00:22:47.109 --> 00:22:48.279 a private road. 00:22:48.279 --> 00:22:49.279 And there's water. 00:22:49.279 --> 00:22:54.849 The septic would have to be installed for the residential 00:22:54.849 --> 00:22:55.640 home. 00:22:55.640 --> 00:22:57.039 Public notification was sent out. 00:22:57.039 --> 00:23:00.839 We haven't received any responses. 00:23:00.839 --> 00:23:03.140 So based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends 00:23:03.140 --> 00:23:04.440 approval of the request and I'll 00:23:04.440 --> 00:23:08.519 stand for any questions. 00:23:08.519 --> 00:23:11.680 - Commissioner Sanchez. 00:23:11.680 --> 00:23:16.589 That property is, okay, they're requesting NR1 and the 00:23:16.589 --> 00:23:19.640 adjacent properties are all 5D? 00:23:19.640 --> 00:23:20.640 - RD5X. 00:23:20.640 --> 00:23:21.640 Yes, sir. 00:23:21.640 --> 00:23:23.640 - RD5, I mean RD5. 00:23:23.640 --> 00:23:24.640 Okay. 00:23:24.640 --> 00:23:28.799 I guess my question is the neighbors are gonna have to come 00:23:28.799 --> 00:23:31.319 back and request, are gonna have 00:23:31.319 --> 00:23:34.269 to come and request a change, especially when you look at 00:23:34.269 --> 00:23:36.079 the neighborhood, what's going 00:23:36.079 --> 00:23:39.319 on further north on that. 00:23:39.319 --> 00:23:41.960 There's a lot of development in there. 00:23:41.960 --> 00:23:45.670 So I guess my question is when a property like this or an 00:23:45.670 --> 00:23:47.640 area or neighborhood gets 00:23:47.640 --> 00:23:52.549 annexed, why isn't it annexed into a situation where, okay, 00:23:52.549 --> 00:23:54.880 you have one acre lots in there 00:23:54.880 --> 00:23:57.759 because you put it in a holding pattern and it just seems 00:23:57.759 --> 00:23:59.319 like now they're gonna keep 00:23:59.319 --> 00:24:00.839 coming back and coming back. 00:24:00.839 --> 00:24:06.680 We saw this in a property on 380, but we had 16 lots, acre 00:24:06.680 --> 00:24:07.519 lots. 00:24:07.519 --> 00:24:09.920 And then is there any way of changing this? 00:24:09.920 --> 00:24:12.779 So when you annex something, instead of putting it in a 00:24:12.779 --> 00:24:14.839 holding pattern, bring it into what 00:24:14.839 --> 00:24:17.440 best fits that. 00:24:17.440 --> 00:24:20.480 - I think legal is gonna weigh in on your question, sir. 00:24:20.480 --> 00:24:22.769 - The city doesn't have jurisdiction over zoning until it's 00:24:22.769 --> 00:24:23.839 actually inside the city 00:24:23.839 --> 00:24:24.839 limits. 00:24:24.839 --> 00:24:27.839 So we have to annex first and then zone it. 00:24:27.839 --> 00:24:31.440 And so this is the initial zoning stand. 00:24:31.440 --> 00:24:34.859 The initial zoning is what you're being called on to set 00:24:34.859 --> 00:24:35.680 tonight. 00:24:35.680 --> 00:24:41.299 But in the meantime, they're still subject to this holding 00:24:41.299 --> 00:24:43.799 pattern zoning until the initial 00:24:43.799 --> 00:24:45.799 zoning takes place. 00:24:45.799 --> 00:24:53.059 - Okay, so, and I know when you annex it, it automatically 00:24:53.059 --> 00:24:54.920 comes into that five X, right? 00:24:54.920 --> 00:24:59.759 - As a holding pattern only, not as a zone. 00:24:59.759 --> 00:25:01.259 That's not zoning. 00:25:01.259 --> 00:25:06.900 It's a default set of regulations that apply to unzoned 00:25:06.900 --> 00:25:08.359 property. 00:25:08.359 --> 00:25:13.319 It's actually unzoned until it's zoned for the first time, 00:25:13.319 --> 00:25:14.759 which you're making a recommendation 00:25:14.759 --> 00:25:17.160 on tonight. 00:25:17.160 --> 00:25:19.400 But it's subject to RD5X. 00:25:19.400 --> 00:25:23.869 It's easier to call it RD5X than to say it's unzoned, but 00:25:23.869 --> 00:25:26.400 it's subject to some requirements. 00:25:26.400 --> 00:25:27.400 - Okay. 00:25:27.400 --> 00:25:30.490 Well, I guess my question is, you're already bringing them 00:25:30.490 --> 00:25:32.240 in, you annexed it, you see what 00:25:32.240 --> 00:25:35.490 the neighborhood looks like, and yeah, you're gonna bring 00:25:35.490 --> 00:25:37.319 it in RD5, but it doesn't make 00:25:37.319 --> 00:25:39.039 sense at that point. 00:25:39.039 --> 00:25:41.039 You already know what the neighborhood looks like. 00:25:41.039 --> 00:25:44.329 Now I can see if you're looking at a piece of property that 00:25:44.329 --> 00:25:45.960 's completely vacant and there's 00:25:45.960 --> 00:25:49.720 nothing there, but if say you annex an area and you have a 00:25:49.720 --> 00:25:51.599 neighborhood in there that's 00:25:51.599 --> 00:25:54.869 similar to this, yes, you annex it and you look at the area 00:25:54.869 --> 00:25:57.079 and you say, okay, this particular 00:25:57.079 --> 00:26:01.559 area is already NR1 because of the neighborhood. 00:26:01.559 --> 00:26:06.450 One acre lots, hey, let's right away move it into that 00:26:06.450 --> 00:26:08.319 zoning rather than this. 00:26:08.319 --> 00:26:11.559 I was just curious why that doesn't happen. 00:26:11.559 --> 00:26:16.920 - Well, and the city could open up a zoning case for that 00:26:16.920 --> 00:26:20.880 and initiate that, but traditionally 00:26:20.880 --> 00:26:23.000 the city doesn't do that. 00:26:23.000 --> 00:26:27.910 Traditionally it lets market forces and interests drive rez 00:26:27.910 --> 00:26:30.839 oning decisions based upon need. 00:26:30.839 --> 00:26:36.829 And so, I imagine with some cities they probably do annex 00:26:36.829 --> 00:26:40.599 or do zone soon after annexation, 00:26:40.599 --> 00:26:44.769 but traditionally Denton has not and it has taken this 00:26:44.769 --> 00:26:45.839 approach. 00:26:45.839 --> 00:26:49.329 We might have zoned it something like NR1 and then all of a 00:26:49.329 --> 00:26:50.920 sudden somebody will buy 00:26:50.920 --> 00:26:54.259 up a bunch of the land and decide that it needs to be, I 00:26:54.259 --> 00:26:56.759 don't know, a Walmart or something. 00:26:56.759 --> 00:27:01.670 And so, I think that's really a policy issue rather than a 00:27:01.670 --> 00:27:04.079 legal issue as far as how you 00:27:04.079 --> 00:27:10.440 do it, but it is possible to zone soon after annexation. 00:27:10.440 --> 00:27:13.779 It's just that that's not the policy direction that the 00:27:13.779 --> 00:27:15.920 city is traditionally taking. 00:27:15.920 --> 00:27:18.930 - I was just looking at, I'm not looking at the whole area 00:27:18.930 --> 00:27:20.160 they're annexing. 00:27:20.160 --> 00:27:21.160 I would just look at it. 00:27:21.160 --> 00:27:24.170 If there's a neighborhood already in existence right there, 00:27:24.170 --> 00:27:25.680 hey, let's go ahead and take 00:27:25.680 --> 00:27:26.680 care of it. 00:27:26.680 --> 00:27:29.680 This way we won't be dealing with it in the future. 00:27:29.680 --> 00:27:32.400 Because you know all those houses are pretty nice. 00:27:32.400 --> 00:27:34.740 If you go through that neighborhood, the housing in those 00:27:34.740 --> 00:27:36.599 neighborhoods, they're not just gonna 00:27:36.599 --> 00:27:38.599 come in town down. 00:27:38.599 --> 00:27:39.599 - Okay. 00:27:39.599 --> 00:27:40.599 - Commissioner Beck. 00:27:40.599 --> 00:27:41.599 - Thank you, Chair. 00:27:41.599 --> 00:27:45.920 - Just curious, go to the site location map that Google, 00:27:45.920 --> 00:27:46.599 okay. 00:27:46.599 --> 00:27:48.279 - That work? 00:27:48.279 --> 00:27:52.960 - Well, on ours, there's this little red, now there you go. 00:27:52.960 --> 00:27:53.960 - That's still in the ETJ. 00:27:53.960 --> 00:27:54.960 It's not in the city, yes. 00:27:54.960 --> 00:27:55.960 - Well, why is that singled out like that? 00:27:55.960 --> 00:27:59.960 I mean, everything around it's ETJ. 00:27:59.960 --> 00:28:03.480 - They probably went through the non-annexation agreement 00:28:03.480 --> 00:28:04.240 process. 00:28:04.240 --> 00:28:07.400 So at some point, it probably will come into the city, but 00:28:07.400 --> 00:28:07.960 right now it's-- 00:28:07.960 --> 00:28:08.960 - So that's not RD5. 00:28:08.960 --> 00:28:09.960 - No, sir, it's in the county. 00:28:09.960 --> 00:28:10.960 - Gotcha, gotcha. 00:28:10.960 --> 00:28:14.279 And just wanted to throw something out there if the 00:28:14.279 --> 00:28:16.640 applicants here so they can ponder 00:28:16.640 --> 00:28:17.640 on them. 00:28:17.640 --> 00:28:19.750 I mean, Commissioner, are they okay with the future 00:28:19.750 --> 00:28:21.599 prospect, kind of in conjunction with 00:28:21.599 --> 00:28:24.819 what Commissioner Sanchez was saying, the prospect of the 00:28:24.819 --> 00:28:26.279 surrounding property could 00:28:26.279 --> 00:28:29.359 be zoned with a higher density district to accommodate the 00:28:29.359 --> 00:28:30.839 housing that's all around 00:28:30.839 --> 00:28:31.839 it. 00:28:31.839 --> 00:28:32.450 So I guess, you know, that's something they're gonna be 00:28:32.450 --> 00:28:32.839 facing down the road. 00:28:32.839 --> 00:28:36.140 And I just was curious to whether they, you know, thought 00:28:36.140 --> 00:28:37.839 about that down the road. 00:28:37.839 --> 00:28:41.240 So anyway, I don't expect you to answer that. 00:28:41.240 --> 00:28:42.240 Thank you. 00:28:42.240 --> 00:28:43.240 - Commissioner Smith. 00:28:43.240 --> 00:28:44.240 - Thank you, Chair. 00:28:44.240 --> 00:28:45.240 Just for my own notification. 00:28:45.240 --> 00:28:49.549 Comparison of uses for NR1 versus RD5X, I'm trying to pull 00:28:49.549 --> 00:28:50.240 it up. 00:28:50.240 --> 00:28:53.240 I don't know if it was in our backup or not. 00:28:53.240 --> 00:28:55.039 Yeah, it is right there. 00:28:55.039 --> 00:28:57.039 What are they gaining by actually going through NR1? 00:28:57.039 --> 00:29:00.039 - Minimum lot size. 00:29:00.039 --> 00:29:01.039 - Build. 00:29:01.039 --> 00:29:02.319 What is it? 00:29:02.319 --> 00:29:03.319 So they can build? 00:29:03.319 --> 00:29:04.319 They can do a new build? 00:29:04.319 --> 00:29:05.359 - Yes, sir. 00:29:05.359 --> 00:29:08.440 So there was a structure on the property that-- 00:29:08.440 --> 00:29:09.440 - They're gonna tear it down and build a new one? 00:29:09.440 --> 00:29:12.920 - I think it burned, so I think it's gone. 00:29:12.920 --> 00:29:16.190 And they just, according to the applicant, want to build a 00:29:16.190 --> 00:29:17.319 single family home. 00:29:17.319 --> 00:29:20.319 And they can't plot because they don't have five acres. 00:29:20.319 --> 00:29:23.319 - Okay, thank you. 00:29:23.319 --> 00:29:26.920 - I do not see any other questions. 00:29:26.920 --> 00:29:29.920 - Thank you. 00:29:29.920 --> 00:29:32.029 - Next item on our work session is to receive an update 00:29:32.029 --> 00:29:34.599 regarding the DDC subchapter 13 00:29:34.599 --> 00:29:39.720 tree preservation and landscape standards. 00:29:39.720 --> 00:29:44.720 - Okay. 00:30:09.720 --> 00:30:14.630 All right, so tonight what I wanted to do, I know we've 00:30:14.630 --> 00:30:17.039 talked about the tree code for 00:30:17.039 --> 00:30:18.960 a long time. 00:30:18.960 --> 00:30:21.359 So a little bit of a timeline. 00:30:21.359 --> 00:30:24.000 I know it stretches even before this. 00:30:24.000 --> 00:30:26.920 I think the last time, at least from what I saw, the last 00:30:26.920 --> 00:30:28.400 time this was presented in 00:30:28.400 --> 00:30:33.079 some form or fashion, the P&Z was February of 2017. 00:30:33.079 --> 00:30:37.970 Right after that, there was I think some proposed 00:30:37.970 --> 00:30:41.160 amendments to the Senate bill that was going 00:30:41.160 --> 00:30:43.960 back and forth limiting tree preservation. 00:30:43.960 --> 00:30:48.869 And then as we were partly updating the DDC and landscape, 00:30:48.869 --> 00:30:50.839 there are a number of other 00:30:50.839 --> 00:30:51.839 things going on. 00:30:51.839 --> 00:30:56.740 And so we kind of took a step back and really looked at how 00:30:56.740 --> 00:30:59.279 this tree code came about, the 00:30:59.279 --> 00:31:04.240 last draft and sort of where we were going and sort of what 00:31:04.240 --> 00:31:05.799 could result. 00:31:05.799 --> 00:31:08.940 So what we did is we had a policy discussion with the 00:31:08.940 --> 00:31:11.079 council and the committee on the 00:31:11.079 --> 00:31:15.240 environment in May 21st. 00:31:15.240 --> 00:31:18.640 And from there, we really looked at some of the state 00:31:18.640 --> 00:31:20.839 regulations that came into play 00:31:20.839 --> 00:31:24.059 and really looking at trying to unify both the tree 00:31:24.059 --> 00:31:27.039 preservation landscape and ESA together. 00:31:27.039 --> 00:31:29.450 I think one of the questions that came up even on one of 00:31:29.450 --> 00:31:31.039 the earlier items was the credit 00:31:31.039 --> 00:31:33.680 that you currently get from an ESA. 00:31:33.680 --> 00:31:37.480 And so that was one of the policy questions we asked. 00:31:37.480 --> 00:31:40.680 Should you get that credit or is there another way? 00:31:40.680 --> 00:31:42.789 And also what do we really want to do with tree 00:31:42.789 --> 00:31:43.680 preservation? 00:31:43.680 --> 00:31:46.400 Is it do we want to build our fund? 00:31:46.400 --> 00:31:47.880 Do we want to preserve trees? 00:31:47.880 --> 00:31:50.079 And to what form or fashion? 00:31:50.079 --> 00:31:51.839 And so that was the initial discussion. 00:31:51.839 --> 00:31:55.599 So we kind of went back and I'll be honest, it was hard 00:31:55.599 --> 00:31:57.960 drafting because there were so 00:31:57.960 --> 00:32:02.759 many various drafts previously and it was hard to follow. 00:32:02.759 --> 00:32:06.220 None of them were in track changes and there were things 00:32:06.220 --> 00:32:08.359 that were in there that I thought 00:32:08.359 --> 00:32:11.440 was -- shame on me that I thought, okay, this must have 00:32:11.440 --> 00:32:12.440 been vetted. 00:32:12.440 --> 00:32:14.359 It's probably good to go. 00:32:14.359 --> 00:32:15.359 I'll leave that. 00:32:15.359 --> 00:32:17.160 It makes -- it probably makes sense. 00:32:17.160 --> 00:32:20.130 And I didn't ask the question why, which I normally do, to 00:32:20.130 --> 00:32:21.460 only find out I probably 00:32:21.460 --> 00:32:23.480 should have asked why. 00:32:23.480 --> 00:32:25.589 So that's why I'm giving you an update because we're coming 00:32:25.589 --> 00:32:26.599 -- we're going to be coming 00:32:26.599 --> 00:32:27.599 back again. 00:32:27.599 --> 00:32:31.160 But more tonight what I really wanted to get into is that 00:32:31.160 --> 00:32:33.359 we are working on -- we are moving 00:32:33.359 --> 00:32:34.359 forward. 00:32:34.359 --> 00:32:37.450 I know there was a concern that it had just stalled and 00:32:37.450 --> 00:32:39.599 died, but that was not the case. 00:32:39.599 --> 00:32:45.079 We did have a discussion at DCRC on some of the items. 00:32:45.079 --> 00:32:48.099 One in particular, it was interesting when you really read 00:32:48.099 --> 00:32:49.640 that code and really get into 00:32:49.640 --> 00:32:52.630 it, part of the problem was in the past, to be quite honest 00:32:52.630 --> 00:32:55.240 , it was not administered correctly. 00:32:55.240 --> 00:32:58.039 There are some things in there that are good. 00:32:58.039 --> 00:33:01.500 And for whatever reason, they just were not administered 00:33:01.500 --> 00:33:03.279 how they should have been. 00:33:03.279 --> 00:33:06.200 I can't explain why or why not. 00:33:06.200 --> 00:33:09.119 It just -- it is what it is. 00:33:09.119 --> 00:33:13.680 I can't tell you that we have made changes already. 00:33:13.680 --> 00:33:16.950 One of the concerns we've always had moving forward was how 00:33:16.950 --> 00:33:18.640 do we memorialize these tree 00:33:18.640 --> 00:33:20.200 preservation plans? 00:33:20.200 --> 00:33:22.509 And it's one of those things also -- if you continue to 00:33:22.509 --> 00:33:24.000 read our code, you always find 00:33:24.000 --> 00:33:26.720 something. 00:33:26.720 --> 00:33:30.440 And one requirement was on the plat, it's supposed to be 00:33:30.440 --> 00:33:33.700 noted, that tree preservation, 00:33:33.700 --> 00:33:35.359 where that tree preservation takes place. 00:33:35.359 --> 00:33:38.079 I think a previous plat, we included that note. 00:33:38.079 --> 00:33:42.970 So if it was on the lot, it is now included as a notation 00:33:42.970 --> 00:33:45.359 on that plat following what was 00:33:45.359 --> 00:33:46.440 adopted. 00:33:46.440 --> 00:33:48.920 And so we're kind of looking at does that still make sense 00:33:48.920 --> 00:33:50.160 and how do we sort of build 00:33:50.160 --> 00:33:53.299 on some of these things that we probably should have been 00:33:53.299 --> 00:33:54.759 enforcing in the past. 00:33:54.759 --> 00:33:58.799 But again, we are where we are today. 00:33:58.799 --> 00:34:03.880 So we went to COE August 6th with the draft. 00:34:03.880 --> 00:34:09.679 I think I had provided the PowerPoint and draft regulations 00:34:09.679 --> 00:34:10.079 . 00:34:10.079 --> 00:34:13.400 And so what we did is we really looked at a number of 00:34:13.400 --> 00:34:15.719 recent adopted regulations. 00:34:15.719 --> 00:34:21.489 We do know that the Home Builders Association made it very 00:34:21.489 --> 00:34:24.480 known that they wanted to see 00:34:24.480 --> 00:34:27.280 what we were doing and had concerns. 00:34:27.280 --> 00:34:30.420 And again, looking at it weighing both sides, but also 00:34:30.420 --> 00:34:32.480 knowing that we have an obligation 00:34:32.480 --> 00:34:36.039 and policy directive to preserve trees. 00:34:36.039 --> 00:34:39.570 And so how can we kind of write regulations where we think 00:34:39.570 --> 00:34:41.559 we can kind of get there where, 00:34:41.559 --> 00:34:44.559 one, we're not going to be challenged and have it thrown 00:34:44.559 --> 00:34:46.239 out, but also still preserve 00:34:46.239 --> 00:34:49.179 trees greater than where we are, greater than where we are 00:34:49.179 --> 00:34:49.719 today. 00:34:49.719 --> 00:34:54.079 And so that was the attempt of the first, of this latest 00:34:54.079 --> 00:34:54.920 draft. 00:34:54.920 --> 00:34:58.719 And so again, one was really to again to unify the code. 00:34:58.719 --> 00:35:00.920 And what we're looking at, kind of what we've been calling 00:35:00.920 --> 00:35:02.360 is really conservation and landscape 00:35:02.360 --> 00:35:04.829 standards and kind of bringing it all together, tree 00:35:04.829 --> 00:35:07.079 preservation, landscaping, ESA, but also 00:35:07.079 --> 00:35:09.980 looking at how we look at park space and park dedication 00:35:09.980 --> 00:35:11.719 and whether or not that could be 00:35:11.719 --> 00:35:15.639 factored in as an incentive to preserve trees. 00:35:15.639 --> 00:35:20.519 Again, although they're kind of independent, they all inter 00:35:20.519 --> 00:35:22.079 relate to each other. 00:35:22.079 --> 00:35:25.199 The park is not part of the land development code. 00:35:25.199 --> 00:35:26.440 It's part of the code of ordinances. 00:35:26.440 --> 00:35:29.440 But again, they all kind of play in together. 00:35:29.440 --> 00:35:31.769 And I think part of the problem with some of the other 00:35:31.769 --> 00:35:33.199 drafts, it was just looked at 00:35:33.199 --> 00:35:36.159 on its own and we didn't really look at how it was going to 00:35:36.159 --> 00:35:39.079 affect some of the other ordinances. 00:35:39.079 --> 00:35:44.050 One of the concerns we had with I think the last draft, it 00:35:44.050 --> 00:35:46.440 was on canopy coverage. 00:35:46.440 --> 00:35:50.199 Right now we're looking at staying on DBH. 00:35:50.199 --> 00:35:55.110 When we looked at the way it could be interpreted, easily 00:35:55.110 --> 00:35:58.280 interpreted, was that if the ESA counted 00:35:58.280 --> 00:36:02.090 for 30%, that would count for all of your tree canopy 00:36:02.090 --> 00:36:03.320 requirements. 00:36:03.320 --> 00:36:05.000 No mitigation would be required. 00:36:05.000 --> 00:36:07.179 In addition, it would count for all of your canopy 00:36:07.179 --> 00:36:08.880 requirements for your landscaping. 00:36:08.880 --> 00:36:11.260 And so it's kind of like, well, wait a second, is that 00:36:11.260 --> 00:36:13.480 meeting the intent of what we really 00:36:13.480 --> 00:36:17.000 want because that's kind of an easy out. 00:36:17.000 --> 00:36:19.679 And so again, it's sort of going back and looking at that 00:36:19.679 --> 00:36:21.239 as well as there was an exempt 00:36:21.239 --> 00:36:24.599 tree list that was in there. 00:36:24.599 --> 00:36:28.320 And the other component that I questioned is how can we 00:36:28.320 --> 00:36:30.599 administer a code where we're going 00:36:30.599 --> 00:36:34.099 to base a percentage off in an aerial photograph, not 00:36:34.099 --> 00:36:36.639 require a tree study, but then have a 00:36:36.639 --> 00:36:37.639 number of exempt trees. 00:36:37.639 --> 00:36:41.000 So if somebody comes in at a later date and wants to remove 00:36:41.000 --> 00:36:42.840 those exempt trees, how are 00:36:42.840 --> 00:36:45.880 we going to then make sure that 30% is preserved? 00:36:45.880 --> 00:36:48.849 And it would just, I think it would be very difficult to 00:36:48.849 --> 00:36:49.760 administer. 00:36:49.760 --> 00:36:50.760 Christopher Beck. 00:36:50.760 --> 00:36:51.760 Thank you, Chair. 00:36:51.760 --> 00:36:57.900 Yeah, my concern here too is how do you get to, if tree 00:36:57.900 --> 00:37:01.440 canopy is what we want, how do 00:37:01.440 --> 00:37:03.000 you get there using DBH? 00:37:03.000 --> 00:37:05.269 I mean, how do you know what kind of tree canopy you're 00:37:05.269 --> 00:37:06.559 going to get unless you know 00:37:06.559 --> 00:37:07.559 the tree specifically? 00:37:07.559 --> 00:37:10.639 Is there going to be that kind of information? 00:37:10.639 --> 00:37:13.780 I think it's when we get into the requirements for the tree 00:37:13.780 --> 00:37:15.840 preservation plan, I think that's 00:37:15.840 --> 00:37:19.690 where we need to, it's going to have to be detailed on that 00:37:19.690 --> 00:37:20.320 plan. 00:37:20.320 --> 00:37:23.869 I'll get through, I'll go through and I'll show kind of the 00:37:23.869 --> 00:37:24.880 comparison. 00:37:24.880 --> 00:37:28.559 Just wanted to touch base on our current tree code. 00:37:28.559 --> 00:37:31.820 Again, it actually gives you the option, believe it or not, 00:37:31.820 --> 00:37:34.000 either percentage of DBH or percentage 00:37:34.000 --> 00:37:35.000 of tree canopy. 00:37:35.000 --> 00:37:39.909 And this has been administered differently on a variety of 00:37:39.909 --> 00:37:40.900 projects. 00:37:40.900 --> 00:37:46.519 But again, it gives you the OR, again, current code. 00:37:46.519 --> 00:37:49.360 In-fill development, there's no minimum preservation, only 00:37:49.360 --> 00:37:50.840 mitigation for large trees. 00:37:50.840 --> 00:37:54.110 So if you're part of an infill lot, there's really no 00:37:54.110 --> 00:37:57.039 preservation requirements, no mitigation 00:37:57.039 --> 00:38:01.000 requirements, very little. 00:38:01.000 --> 00:38:03.480 Non-in-fill lots, again, quality tree, if you're a smaller 00:38:03.480 --> 00:38:04.800 lot, there's nothing that's 00:38:04.800 --> 00:38:06.280 required. 00:38:06.280 --> 00:38:09.920 If you're greater than two and a half, you have a minimum 00:38:09.920 --> 00:38:12.639 of 20% for single family, 25% 00:38:12.639 --> 00:38:17.550 for multi-family and non-residential, and then that can be 00:38:17.550 --> 00:38:24.840 reduced down to 10% and 12.5%. 00:38:24.840 --> 00:38:28.659 In addition to that, we have a number of categories. 00:38:28.659 --> 00:38:31.389 We have protected, historic quality, large secondary, 00:38:31.389 --> 00:38:32.960 secondary, then we have quality 00:38:32.960 --> 00:38:35.159 tree stands and secondary tree stands. 00:38:35.159 --> 00:38:38.500 And so looking at this on a table and trying to figure out 00:38:38.500 --> 00:38:40.199 where kind of things fit in 00:38:40.199 --> 00:38:41.920 and what's exempt, what's not exempt. 00:38:41.920 --> 00:38:45.960 Again, it's not organized in the best fashion. 00:38:45.960 --> 00:38:48.920 But again, this is our current code. 00:38:48.920 --> 00:38:52.280 What we were recommending is, first and foremost, is let's 00:38:52.280 --> 00:38:54.159 establish a purpose statement and 00:38:54.159 --> 00:38:56.440 some goals of what we really want to achieve. 00:38:56.440 --> 00:38:59.460 One, so we could have that public purpose of why we're 00:38:59.460 --> 00:39:01.880 doing it, but also if an interpretation 00:39:01.880 --> 00:39:04.030 does come up, we can go back to, okay, well, what was 00:39:04.030 --> 00:39:05.500 really the intent and the purpose 00:39:05.500 --> 00:39:07.320 of these regulations? 00:39:07.320 --> 00:39:10.900 And if we make this interpretation, are we following with 00:39:10.900 --> 00:39:12.320 what was intended? 00:39:12.320 --> 00:39:16.289 Again, we had that intent of achieving a 30% canopy 00:39:16.289 --> 00:39:19.079 coverage citywide, staying with the 00:39:19.079 --> 00:39:22.650 measurement at DBH, not on a canopy percentage, and trying 00:39:22.650 --> 00:39:24.880 to really look at encouraging saving 00:39:24.880 --> 00:39:28.679 larger trees. 00:39:28.679 --> 00:39:31.480 Going back to where did that, one of the questions, where 00:39:31.480 --> 00:39:33.000 did that 30% come from? 00:39:33.000 --> 00:39:36.969 And so there was this study in 2016, the State of Denton 00:39:36.969 --> 00:39:39.440 Urban Forest Report, that indicated 00:39:39.440 --> 00:39:42.920 there was an average canopy coverage of 30% in the city. 00:39:42.920 --> 00:39:44.679 And so we really started looking at that. 00:39:44.679 --> 00:39:47.369 And it's interesting when you start to read things a couple 00:39:47.369 --> 00:39:48.679 of times and pick out those 00:39:48.679 --> 00:39:50.599 little words. 00:39:50.599 --> 00:39:54.360 And so when we looked at how the urban, I think it's the 00:39:54.360 --> 00:39:56.719 urban tree canopy was defined, 00:39:56.719 --> 00:39:59.579 it actually was more than the city limits. 00:39:59.579 --> 00:40:03.000 So there were pockets of, and this is the map that we had 00:40:03.000 --> 00:40:04.320 pulled together. 00:40:04.320 --> 00:40:09.230 So there were maps of areas in the ETJ that were included, 00:40:09.230 --> 00:40:12.000 as well as non-annexation areas 00:40:12.000 --> 00:40:14.800 that were included as part of that analysis. 00:40:14.800 --> 00:40:17.230 So we sort of stepped back and said, well, okay, well, what 00:40:17.230 --> 00:40:18.320 is our actual, if we just 00:40:18.320 --> 00:40:20.280 look at our current city limits? 00:40:20.280 --> 00:40:24.639 And so at that time, 27.9, which is where we're about now. 00:40:24.639 --> 00:40:27.239 And I'll show you some numbers later where we're starting 00:40:27.239 --> 00:40:28.519 to get a little bit more into 00:40:28.519 --> 00:40:31.920 the analysis of exactly what we have and what we want to 00:40:31.920 --> 00:40:33.440 preserve and where. 00:40:33.440 --> 00:40:36.730 One of the other recommendations we had early on was coming 00:40:36.730 --> 00:40:38.559 up with really a comprehensive 00:40:38.559 --> 00:40:40.300 tree management plan. 00:40:40.300 --> 00:40:42.480 We do have a tree mitigation fund. 00:40:42.480 --> 00:40:45.880 And I know there's been debates in the past about what and 00:40:45.880 --> 00:40:47.480 where that money should go 00:40:47.480 --> 00:40:50.079 and how it should be spent. 00:40:50.079 --> 00:40:52.659 One of the suggestions we had was really creating this tree 00:40:52.659 --> 00:40:54.639 , comprehensive tree management plan. 00:40:54.639 --> 00:40:59.940 Ironically, it was budgeted last year for whatever reason, 00:40:59.940 --> 00:41:02.280 it didn't move forward. 00:41:02.280 --> 00:41:05.360 We are asking that those funds be re-appropriated this 00:41:05.360 --> 00:41:07.719 coming budget year to actually have that 00:41:07.719 --> 00:41:09.119 plan completed. 00:41:09.119 --> 00:41:12.059 And really what we're looking at doing is really continuing 00:41:12.059 --> 00:41:13.320 to set those goals, but 00:41:13.320 --> 00:41:16.829 more so outlining where the trees should be planted, where 00:41:16.829 --> 00:41:18.559 should we have, what kind of 00:41:18.559 --> 00:41:20.719 streetscaping should we have, what kind of street trees 00:41:20.719 --> 00:41:22.000 should we have, and really just 00:41:22.000 --> 00:41:27.050 looking at overall improving both the look and environment 00:41:27.050 --> 00:41:28.440 for the city. 00:41:28.440 --> 00:41:30.440 What I have on the side... 00:41:30.440 --> 00:41:31.440 Commissioner Ellis. 00:41:31.440 --> 00:41:32.440 Thank you, Chair. 00:41:32.440 --> 00:41:35.530 Okay, Richard, you're talking about funding from the tree 00:41:35.530 --> 00:41:37.239 fund, funding for the study. 00:41:37.239 --> 00:41:39.239 Is that what you're talking about? 00:41:39.239 --> 00:41:43.039 Yes, there was funding to have the study complete. 00:41:43.039 --> 00:41:44.679 Which never was done, you're saying, last year? 00:41:44.679 --> 00:41:46.639 The study wasn't done this past year. 00:41:46.639 --> 00:41:50.900 And so we're asking that those funds be re-budgeted next 00:41:50.900 --> 00:41:53.599 year so we can have that study complete. 00:41:53.599 --> 00:41:56.039 So where are those funds that were budgeted? 00:41:56.039 --> 00:41:57.039 They're sitting in an account. 00:41:57.039 --> 00:42:01.940 Okay, so they just have to be re-accounted for with the 00:42:01.940 --> 00:42:03.199 existing budget. 00:42:03.199 --> 00:42:05.639 And then who's doing the study? 00:42:05.639 --> 00:42:08.639 It'll go out for an RFP. 00:42:08.639 --> 00:42:13.639 At least that's what we're initially planning. 00:42:13.639 --> 00:42:16.599 The table on the side, one thing what I'd like to be able 00:42:16.599 --> 00:42:18.039 to do is each year provide 00:42:18.039 --> 00:42:19.039 some metrics. 00:42:19.039 --> 00:42:21.829 So if we're gonna provide these purpose statements and 00:42:21.829 --> 00:42:23.920 goals, I should be able to tell you what 00:42:23.920 --> 00:42:25.360 we did and how we're meeting them. 00:42:25.360 --> 00:42:26.360 Right now I can't. 00:42:26.360 --> 00:42:28.960 I can't tell you how many trees we've preserved. 00:42:28.960 --> 00:42:31.239 I can't tell you how much canopy. 00:42:31.239 --> 00:42:34.440 Within general numbers, I can. 00:42:34.440 --> 00:42:38.380 But we haven't done a good account of really accounting for 00:42:38.380 --> 00:42:40.480 new landscape plans that have 00:42:40.480 --> 00:42:41.480 come in. 00:42:41.480 --> 00:42:45.480 I mean, versus what's been removed. 00:42:45.480 --> 00:42:48.719 And so I'd like to be able every year to kind of give that 00:42:48.719 --> 00:42:50.079 state of the city. 00:42:50.079 --> 00:42:51.079 Here's where we are. 00:42:51.079 --> 00:42:55.119 Here were the metrics and provide that on all aspects. 00:42:55.119 --> 00:42:58.639 But this one in particular. 00:42:58.639 --> 00:43:02.690 And so as part of that redrafting, we looked at sort of 00:43:02.690 --> 00:43:05.320 consolidating and really looking 00:43:05.320 --> 00:43:09.440 at keeping the historic tree, heritage, any tree 18 inches 00:43:09.440 --> 00:43:11.679 or greater, and all the post-opes 00:43:11.679 --> 00:43:16.579 would regardless of their size, and then get into the 00:43:16.579 --> 00:43:19.320 quality 6 to, it should be less than 00:43:19.320 --> 00:43:20.320 18. 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, 00:43:23.849 --> 00:43:25.880 but that was really the intent. 00:43:25.880 --> 00:43:29.000 But again, looking at that exempt, it was Mesquite, Cotton 00:43:29.000 --> 00:43:30.539 wood, Hackberry, or Texas 00:43:30.539 --> 00:43:35.599 Sugarberry, Bodark, or Locust, less than 18. 00:43:35.599 --> 00:43:38.599 Interestingly, the majority of those trees I think that I 00:43:38.599 --> 00:43:40.440 have underlined, I think account 00:43:40.440 --> 00:43:42.429 for over, and I have the number later, but it's the 00:43:42.429 --> 00:43:43.840 majority of the trees that make up 00:43:43.840 --> 00:43:45.199 our canopy. 00:43:45.199 --> 00:43:48.280 And so it's one of those shame on me. 00:43:48.280 --> 00:43:51.500 So here we are, we're going to preserve 30% of our canopy, 00:43:51.500 --> 00:43:53.039 but 50% of our canopy is going 00:43:53.039 --> 00:43:54.960 to be made up of exempt trees. 00:43:54.960 --> 00:43:56.960 Commissioner Beck. 00:43:56.960 --> 00:43:57.960 Thank you, Chair. 00:43:57.960 --> 00:43:59.960 Okay, help me here. 00:43:59.960 --> 00:44:04.119 Can an exempt tree like a Hackberry that's 18 inches or 00:44:04.119 --> 00:44:06.280 more, can it be considered a 00:44:06.280 --> 00:44:07.280 quality tree? 00:44:07.280 --> 00:44:09.280 Can you explain quality to us a little bit? 00:44:09.280 --> 00:44:13.280 If you've got a nice Hackberry with a nice canopy. 00:44:13.280 --> 00:44:14.960 And that's where we are now. 00:44:14.960 --> 00:44:19.019 And so what came out of the last COE was to really look at 00:44:19.019 --> 00:44:21.480 should we have exempt, should 00:44:21.480 --> 00:44:24.800 the trees be exempt, or if the exempt trees are a certain 00:44:24.800 --> 00:44:26.519 size, even if it's greater 00:44:26.519 --> 00:44:30.860 than or less than 18 inches, if it's eight inches or nine 00:44:30.860 --> 00:44:32.920 inches, should it be worth 00:44:32.920 --> 00:44:34.559 preserving? 00:44:34.559 --> 00:44:38.360 And so that's where we are now, kind of looking at again 00:44:38.360 --> 00:44:40.639 what we have as really where our 00:44:40.639 --> 00:44:43.719 exempt trees come in are our secondary trees. 00:44:43.719 --> 00:44:48.630 So the exempt trees would be susceptible to being looked at 00:44:48.630 --> 00:44:51.039 less favorably, but we could, 00:44:51.039 --> 00:44:54.440 when we go in and do a development, we've got a lot of Mes 00:44:54.440 --> 00:44:56.599 quite or Hackberry, Sugarberry, 00:44:56.599 --> 00:44:59.159 we can determine then whether they. 00:44:59.159 --> 00:45:02.239 We may not have them as exempt trees, ultimately. 00:45:02.239 --> 00:45:03.239 Okay, okay. 00:45:03.239 --> 00:45:05.719 So there's some buffer there. 00:45:05.719 --> 00:45:10.019 One thing that I was requested was to meet with the Master 00:45:10.019 --> 00:45:13.239 Gardeners Association to specifically 00:45:13.239 --> 00:45:16.840 kind of talk about species and what should be exempt. 00:45:16.840 --> 00:45:20.329 And so we had our first meeting, I met with the director 00:45:20.329 --> 00:45:22.320 earlier this week, and so she 00:45:22.320 --> 00:45:25.079 gave me some good things to consider. 00:45:25.079 --> 00:45:28.929 There are some that are susceptible to disease, and so we 00:45:28.929 --> 00:45:31.159 're kind of looking at that, and 00:45:31.159 --> 00:45:34.519 so this is one area that we're going to be coming back on. 00:45:34.519 --> 00:45:38.329 Are there any other native trees other than post-okes in 00:45:38.329 --> 00:45:40.199 this area that need to be in 00:45:40.199 --> 00:45:41.679 this classification? 00:45:41.679 --> 00:45:46.119 Probably, and I think that's where we're, rather than just 00:45:46.119 --> 00:45:48.159 naming the exempt, I think 00:45:48.159 --> 00:45:52.300 we're also going to look at specifically whether it's a Sch 00:45:52.300 --> 00:45:55.760 umart Oak or some other species, 00:45:55.760 --> 00:45:58.760 that's where we're looking at really coming in and defining 00:45:58.760 --> 00:45:59.920 those kind of trees. 00:45:59.920 --> 00:46:01.280 Okay, good, thank you. 00:46:01.280 --> 00:46:02.280 Commissioner Sanchez. 00:46:02.280 --> 00:46:07.190 When we're looking at, since we're in cross timbers, would 00:46:07.190 --> 00:46:09.599 that be, look at those species 00:46:09.599 --> 00:46:16.429 that occur naturally in the cross timbers habitat, rather 00:46:16.429 --> 00:46:19.639 than just bring in trees and 00:46:19.639 --> 00:46:23.869 say, okay, it meets these criteria or they're introduced 00:46:23.869 --> 00:46:26.119 trees, we should be looking at 00:46:26.119 --> 00:46:29.880 those species that are native, because if we're looking to 00:46:29.880 --> 00:46:31.679 preserve native habitat, 00:46:31.679 --> 00:46:35.090 that's basically what we're looking at, native trees, 00:46:35.090 --> 00:46:37.519 native vegetation, and like you say, 00:46:37.519 --> 00:46:41.199 blackberries, those grow everywhere. 00:46:41.199 --> 00:46:44.840 Most people consider them as trash species, because they'll 00:46:44.840 --> 00:46:47.000 grow long fence lines everywhere, 00:46:47.000 --> 00:46:50.300 but what we need to look at, I think more is post-okes, 00:46:50.300 --> 00:46:52.360 blackjack oaks, all your white 00:46:52.360 --> 00:46:55.000 oaks and your red oaks. 00:46:55.000 --> 00:46:58.559 There's a whole slew of oaks that actually occur in this 00:46:58.559 --> 00:47:01.360 area and that we should be concentrating 00:47:01.360 --> 00:47:02.360 on. 00:47:02.360 --> 00:47:08.519 I'm going to jump in and make sure Cole can take over. 00:47:08.519 --> 00:47:12.239 Is there any part of this, this is more fodder for thought, 00:47:12.239 --> 00:47:14.039 is there any thought to help 00:47:14.039 --> 00:47:17.639 out keeping the trees that we do have healthy? 00:47:17.639 --> 00:47:20.570 We talk a lot about just not cutting trees down, but like 00:47:20.570 --> 00:47:22.440 post-okes, they are some fickle 00:47:22.440 --> 00:47:28.010 trees that, I mean, I have several that are dying on me 00:47:28.010 --> 00:47:31.480 with no fault of my own, I think, 00:47:31.480 --> 00:47:34.360 but is there anything we're doing through this process of 00:47:34.360 --> 00:47:36.000 preservation and conservation 00:47:36.000 --> 00:47:38.239 to help the species that are out there? 00:47:38.239 --> 00:47:40.880 More maybe a rhetorical question, but something to play 00:47:40.880 --> 00:47:42.159 into the conversation. 00:47:42.159 --> 00:47:44.769 Part of it has to do with where we're headed with the 00:47:44.769 --> 00:47:47.000 preservation plan and what you preserve 00:47:47.000 --> 00:47:49.920 and the length of time. 00:47:49.920 --> 00:47:55.710 Right now, we don't have any real mechanism to go back and 00:47:55.710 --> 00:47:58.360 inspect it or check it. 00:47:58.360 --> 00:48:01.269 That is a component to make sure that they are maintained 00:48:01.269 --> 00:48:02.119 throughout. 00:48:02.119 --> 00:48:03.119 Do you have a question? 00:48:03.119 --> 00:48:03.880 Yeah, I was going to take you back on what Mr. Sanchez was 00:48:03.880 --> 00:48:04.119 saying. 00:48:04.119 --> 00:48:09.690 Taking mesquite, for instance, we ranchers in the city of 00:48:09.690 --> 00:48:12.119 Denton are having to hold a 00:48:12.119 --> 00:48:13.119 mesquite. 00:48:13.119 --> 00:48:16.480 I mean, two things, feral hogs and mesquite trees. 00:48:16.480 --> 00:48:20.460 We're losing so much of our ag pastures to mesquite because 00:48:20.460 --> 00:48:22.440 it's invasive and it spreads 00:48:22.440 --> 00:48:23.440 like wildfire. 00:48:23.440 --> 00:48:29.300 I don't think there's anything ... I guess we could look at 00:48:29.300 --> 00:48:31.800 the size of it because I've 00:48:31.800 --> 00:48:37.079 seen some big mesquite trees, but we're losing acreage. 00:48:37.079 --> 00:48:41.159 We've lost several hundred acres to mesquite. 00:48:41.159 --> 00:48:42.920 It multiplies like crazy. 00:48:42.920 --> 00:48:46.239 It's not supposed to be here. 00:48:46.239 --> 00:48:47.519 That's my two cents on mesquite. 00:48:47.519 --> 00:48:48.519 I hate it. 00:48:48.519 --> 00:48:49.519 No, it's good. 00:48:49.519 --> 00:48:59.650 A couple other ... I don't want to get too in depth, but a 00:48:59.650 --> 00:49:02.960 couple new concepts. 00:49:02.960 --> 00:49:07.559 One is what we're calling a development impact area. 00:49:07.559 --> 00:49:11.619 Really the development impact area would exclude any ESA or 00:49:11.619 --> 00:49:14.119 preserved habitat, again, which 00:49:14.119 --> 00:49:17.599 is a new term, or any sort of conservation easement. 00:49:17.599 --> 00:49:23.170 Again, the thought was is really looking at, if that's your 00:49:23.170 --> 00:49:25.960 entire site, your ESA you're 00:49:25.960 --> 00:49:28.239 going to have to do regardless. 00:49:28.239 --> 00:49:31.920 Let's take that out of the equation altogether. 00:49:31.920 --> 00:49:36.280 Then really look at the site excluding that area and then 00:49:36.280 --> 00:49:39.079 base your requirements on that. 00:49:39.079 --> 00:49:43.400 In addition, your landscape requirements would not include 00:49:43.400 --> 00:49:45.719 that ESA area either, where now 00:49:45.719 --> 00:49:46.719 it can be. 00:49:46.719 --> 00:49:51.280 Again, it was again looking at a give and take. 00:49:51.280 --> 00:49:56.170 We looked at a number of recent ordinances that were 00:49:56.170 --> 00:49:56.840 adopted. 00:49:56.840 --> 00:49:59.820 The city of Dallas in particular that I believe the home 00:49:59.820 --> 00:50:01.119 builders endorsed. 00:50:01.119 --> 00:50:03.000 They had a very similar concept. 00:50:03.000 --> 00:50:08.199 I think the city of Arlington recently passed one a year 00:50:08.199 --> 00:50:08.960 ago. 00:50:08.960 --> 00:50:13.159 We were looking at what has been supported and where can we 00:50:13.159 --> 00:50:15.199 go, but also improve what 00:50:15.199 --> 00:50:16.199 we have. 00:50:16.199 --> 00:50:21.610 Again, the preserved habitat, this would be an area 00:50:21.610 --> 00:50:23.840 adjacent to an ESA. 00:50:23.840 --> 00:50:28.070 Initially, we looked at a minimum square footage of 1,200 00:50:28.070 --> 00:50:29.119 square feet. 00:50:29.119 --> 00:50:34.030 Again, this is to just build upon that preserved, trying to 00:50:34.030 --> 00:50:36.480 preserve that habitat that may be 00:50:36.480 --> 00:50:38.360 outside of the ESA. 00:50:38.360 --> 00:50:41.579 But again, giving credit and when you, as part of that 00:50:41.579 --> 00:50:43.840 development impact area, again, 00:50:43.840 --> 00:50:47.639 further reducing it on what you would be required to do on 00:50:47.639 --> 00:50:49.440 the landscaping side. 00:50:49.440 --> 00:50:50.440 - Commissioner Beck. 00:50:50.440 --> 00:50:51.519 - Help me with that. 00:50:51.519 --> 00:50:56.079 What distinguishes the preserved habitat from the ESA? 00:50:56.079 --> 00:50:58.849 - With the ESA, you have to preserve, so say you have, you 00:50:58.849 --> 00:51:00.599 only have to preserve 30% of 00:51:00.599 --> 00:51:02.519 the ESA. 00:51:02.519 --> 00:51:06.969 If you decide to preserve, you can either preserve the ESA, 00:51:06.969 --> 00:51:08.880 you wouldn't get credit 00:51:08.880 --> 00:51:11.599 for your tree preservation or landscaping. 00:51:11.599 --> 00:51:15.829 If you went to the minimum on ESA, you would no longer get 00:51:15.829 --> 00:51:16.679 credit. 00:51:16.679 --> 00:51:19.289 That's another recommendation, so you would no longer get 00:51:19.289 --> 00:51:20.519 credit for your ESA on your 00:51:20.519 --> 00:51:23.510 tree preservation or landscaping, but it wouldn't count 00:51:23.510 --> 00:51:24.760 against you either. 00:51:24.760 --> 00:51:28.400 - Well, I guess what I'm asking, what makes up a preserved 00:51:28.400 --> 00:51:29.199 habitat? 00:51:29.199 --> 00:51:34.639 - It would be a designated area on the site that would be 00:51:34.639 --> 00:51:37.159 adjacent to that ESA. 00:51:37.159 --> 00:51:39.159 That would satisfy your tree preservation requirements. 00:51:39.159 --> 00:51:40.159 - Okay, okay. 00:51:40.159 --> 00:51:46.989 - Not to use the site, the SGP site, but where you saw that 00:51:46.989 --> 00:51:49.920 they had, if they were under 00:51:49.920 --> 00:51:53.889 the new code, if it was adopted, if they still had to do 30 00:51:53.889 --> 00:51:56.280 %, that could be adjacent to that, 00:51:56.280 --> 00:51:58.559 that would be their preserved habitat. 00:51:58.559 --> 00:52:02.400 Then the requirements for landscaping would be taken out of 00:52:02.400 --> 00:52:04.400 that area that's set aside. 00:52:04.400 --> 00:52:07.190 - Okay, so that would appease them since they can't use the 00:52:07.190 --> 00:52:08.559 ESA for their minimum, they 00:52:08.559 --> 00:52:12.429 could use this area and keep a lot of trees at the same 00:52:12.429 --> 00:52:13.119 time. 00:52:13.119 --> 00:52:14.119 - Correct. 00:52:14.119 --> 00:52:16.480 The intent was really to try to focus on continuing that 00:52:16.480 --> 00:52:18.239 habitat or preserving large trees. 00:52:18.239 --> 00:52:19.239 - Right, right, thanks. 00:52:19.239 --> 00:52:21.440 - Commissioner Sanchez, you have a question? 00:52:21.440 --> 00:52:26.329 - I guess my question is, you have your ESA and your 00:52:26.329 --> 00:52:27.559 preserved habitat. 00:52:27.559 --> 00:52:29.280 Long-term, how are you gonna manage those? 00:52:29.280 --> 00:52:33.059 Is there anything that's gonna discuss how to manage those 00:52:33.059 --> 00:52:34.760 areas to preserve them in 00:52:34.760 --> 00:52:36.400 the long-term? 00:52:36.400 --> 00:52:40.559 Because if you just preserve them over time, other species 00:52:40.559 --> 00:52:43.079 will come in or you won't have, 00:52:43.079 --> 00:52:46.730 ESA is supposed to be, we're talking about upland habitat, 00:52:46.730 --> 00:52:48.440 so you should have a canopy 00:52:48.440 --> 00:52:49.440 and a ground cover. 00:52:49.440 --> 00:52:51.659 If you go into an area where all you have is a canopy and 00:52:51.659 --> 00:52:53.920 you don't have no ground cover, 00:52:53.920 --> 00:52:57.159 that's a very poor example of an ESA. 00:52:57.159 --> 00:53:01.349 So if you continue to preserve it over time, you're gonna 00:53:01.349 --> 00:53:02.239 lose it. 00:53:02.239 --> 00:53:07.809 So is there anything in this whole tree preservation or ESA 00:53:07.809 --> 00:53:11.400 issue that brings about how to manage 00:53:11.400 --> 00:53:12.400 those? 00:53:12.400 --> 00:53:17.969 - The management, on the ESA, I'm not sure how, because the 00:53:17.969 --> 00:53:19.159 regulations, as you know, 00:53:19.159 --> 00:53:22.199 were recently adopted, and I honestly, I don't know. 00:53:22.199 --> 00:53:26.199 We haven't written that in, any sort of management plan yet 00:53:26.199 --> 00:53:26.480 . 00:53:26.480 --> 00:53:29.800 Certainly we'll look at including that. 00:53:29.800 --> 00:53:31.800 That's a good point. 00:53:31.800 --> 00:53:32.800 - Commissioner Pernitta. 00:53:32.800 --> 00:53:35.409 - So just to clarify, so on the ESA, you mentioned that 00:53:35.409 --> 00:53:37.639 they're required to preserve 30% of the 00:53:37.639 --> 00:53:38.639 ESA, right? 00:53:38.639 --> 00:53:39.639 - Correct. 00:53:39.639 --> 00:53:40.639 - Okay. 00:53:40.639 --> 00:53:45.739 And if they are not preserving 30%, we have the preserved 00:53:45.739 --> 00:53:47.519 habitat, right? 00:53:47.519 --> 00:53:48.519 - They're sort of separate. 00:53:48.519 --> 00:53:52.030 So regardless, they have to preserve, if there's an ESA on 00:53:52.030 --> 00:53:53.760 the site, they have to preserve 00:53:53.760 --> 00:53:55.760 at least 30% of it. 00:53:55.760 --> 00:53:56.760 - Okay. 00:53:56.760 --> 00:53:58.980 What is the, so the preserved habitat, is there a 00:53:58.980 --> 00:54:00.800 percentage that's required there? 00:54:00.800 --> 00:54:03.400 - No, no, there would be no minimum percentage. 00:54:03.400 --> 00:54:05.579 They would still have to meet their tree preservation 00:54:05.579 --> 00:54:10.440 requirements of 30%, but that area could be, 00:54:10.440 --> 00:54:16.469 however it's conformed, it could be, whether it's 10%, 20%, 00:54:16.469 --> 00:54:18.480 or the full 30%. 00:54:18.480 --> 00:54:27.960 It just needs to be attached to the ESA. 00:54:27.960 --> 00:54:35.010 So again, talking about the preservation requirements, 30% 00:54:35.010 --> 00:54:39.320 of DBH as opposed to the canopy, but then 00:54:39.320 --> 00:54:41.039 70% replacement. 00:54:41.039 --> 00:54:44.039 So right now, there's, depending what kind of tree and the 00:54:44.039 --> 00:54:45.280 size and the size of your 00:54:45.280 --> 00:54:49.840 lot, you may not have to replace it. 00:54:49.840 --> 00:54:52.019 This is a complete opposite. 00:54:52.019 --> 00:54:53.380 So this would require mitigation. 00:54:53.380 --> 00:54:59.010 So if you clear cut your post oaks, the post oaks on a 00:54:59.010 --> 00:55:03.360 property, you would have to mitigate 00:55:03.360 --> 00:55:07.719 some form or fashion under what's being proposed. 00:55:07.719 --> 00:55:11.780 And that was a discussion that really came out, part of the 00:55:11.780 --> 00:55:13.880 COE and council, where it's 00:55:13.880 --> 00:55:16.780 interesting, you get phone calls, "Hey, why was there tree 00:55:16.780 --> 00:55:19.280 mitigation only, I saw it was 00:55:19.280 --> 00:55:20.280 only $4,000." 00:55:20.280 --> 00:55:25.920 They clear cut that entire property, well, they met our 00:55:25.920 --> 00:55:26.840 code. 00:55:26.840 --> 00:55:31.730 So again, it's not really meant to hurt a property owner, 00:55:31.730 --> 00:55:33.559 but it's also looking at, 00:55:33.559 --> 00:55:35.449 if we are going to have tree preservation requirements, let 00:55:35.449 --> 00:55:36.239 's make sure we're kind 00:55:36.239 --> 00:55:39.809 of selective and how we can kind of work together and meet 00:55:39.809 --> 00:55:40.880 those goals. 00:55:40.880 --> 00:55:41.880 - Mr. Beck. 00:55:41.880 --> 00:55:42.880 - Thank you, Chair. 00:55:42.880 --> 00:55:43.880 That just kind of blew my mind. 00:55:43.880 --> 00:55:48.769 - You say a lot if you've got the lot has half the trees 00:55:48.769 --> 00:55:50.719 there, that they can come in 00:55:50.719 --> 00:55:52.639 and clear cut that. 00:55:52.639 --> 00:55:54.679 What about the 30% preservation? 00:55:54.679 --> 00:55:57.539 - They would have under the current code, talking about the 00:55:57.539 --> 00:55:58.880 current code, depending 00:55:58.880 --> 00:56:02.780 on the tree, they could technically take it down to 12.5%, 00:56:02.780 --> 00:56:04.320 assuming it's greater than 00:56:04.320 --> 00:56:05.320 two and a half acres. 00:56:05.320 --> 00:56:07.519 And I've got an example I'll show you. 00:56:07.519 --> 00:56:10.400 Let me just flip to it now. 00:56:10.400 --> 00:56:12.039 So it kind of puts it in perspective. 00:56:12.039 --> 00:56:16.460 This was the, before I get there, just on the ESA, the way 00:56:16.460 --> 00:56:18.480 it's written now, so you 00:56:18.480 --> 00:56:22.349 get one square foot of tree canopy for every square foot of 00:56:22.349 --> 00:56:23.719 ESA tree canopy. 00:56:23.719 --> 00:56:26.539 Plus you get two square feet of landscape credits for every 00:56:26.539 --> 00:56:27.840 square feet of preserved 00:56:27.840 --> 00:56:31.139 ESA tree canopy, or one square foot of landscape credit for 00:56:31.139 --> 00:56:33.000 every square foot of non-wooded 00:56:33.000 --> 00:56:34.000 preserved ESA. 00:56:34.000 --> 00:56:37.880 So you get a pretty, it's a pretty robust bonus for your 00:56:37.880 --> 00:56:40.480 landscaping and tree preservation 00:56:40.480 --> 00:56:41.480 requirements. 00:56:41.480 --> 00:56:42.480 - Current? 00:56:42.480 --> 00:56:44.639 - This is what was, yeah, this is the current. 00:56:44.639 --> 00:56:50.909 The directive that we got from COE was to move forward with 00:56:50.909 --> 00:56:52.400 an amendment to eliminate 00:56:52.400 --> 00:56:58.039 the credit that currently exists. 00:56:58.039 --> 00:57:00.440 And so this is an example. 00:57:00.440 --> 00:57:04.880 This was a plat that was recently approved. 00:57:04.880 --> 00:57:10.969 So on their site, they had a total DBH of 3260, which 00:57:10.969 --> 00:57:15.159 accounted for roughly 28.5% of 00:57:15.159 --> 00:57:17.599 their lot. 00:57:17.599 --> 00:57:21.840 So if you look at what they preserved, that's the red. 00:57:21.840 --> 00:57:23.679 And so that met our requirements. 00:57:23.679 --> 00:57:30.260 They had to do some mitigation, but what they preserved was 00:57:30.260 --> 00:57:33.920 1.14% of the canopy. 00:57:33.920 --> 00:57:37.679 And then they had a mitigation payment of 18,750. 00:57:37.679 --> 00:57:40.239 And so you see the amount that was lost. 00:57:40.239 --> 00:57:45.400 - Well, I hope I'm not the only one here, but again, I don 00:57:45.400 --> 00:57:47.320 't understand how DBH and 00:57:47.320 --> 00:57:52.320 canopy correlate. 00:57:52.320 --> 00:57:54.360 - It depends on the type of tree. 00:57:54.360 --> 00:57:55.360 - Okay. 00:57:55.360 --> 00:57:59.440 - It depends on the type of tree, the size. 00:57:59.440 --> 00:58:02.500 - I mean, the DBH alone doesn't tell you what the canopy is 00:58:02.500 --> 00:58:02.760 . 00:58:02.760 --> 00:58:03.760 - No. 00:58:03.760 --> 00:58:09.639 - So if we're trying to sustain 30% canopy in the city, I 00:58:09.639 --> 00:58:10.960 just don't understand how we 00:58:10.960 --> 00:58:14.000 do that based on DBH. 00:58:14.000 --> 00:58:17.079 - I think part of the issue too that I have in measuring, 00:58:17.079 --> 00:58:18.800 particularly if it's in a tree 00:58:18.800 --> 00:58:22.280 stand, because there are gonna be some trees removed. 00:58:22.280 --> 00:58:26.340 So if the branches are co-mingled, what belongs to what 00:58:26.340 --> 00:58:28.719 looking at it from an aerial? 00:58:28.719 --> 00:58:33.239 And so I don't think there's any real exact way to do that. 00:58:33.239 --> 00:58:38.000 But then again, is 30% the number? 00:58:38.000 --> 00:58:39.760 Again, I don't know. 00:58:39.760 --> 00:58:42.360 That's really more of a policy discussion. 00:58:42.360 --> 00:58:43.360 - 40%? 00:58:43.360 --> 00:58:47.880 - Or should it be something else? 00:58:47.880 --> 00:58:53.230 But this just gives you an idea of the current versus 00:58:53.230 --> 00:58:54.639 proposed. 00:58:54.639 --> 00:58:59.539 And so the area in yellow, what we did is we took this tree 00:58:59.539 --> 00:59:01.159 preservation plan and then 00:59:01.159 --> 00:59:06.639 looked at the inches at 30%, 978. 00:59:06.639 --> 00:59:13.469 And so what that equated to was roughly 27.7% of the canopy 00:59:13.469 --> 00:59:15.000 on the site. 00:59:15.000 --> 00:59:24.539 Again it's gonna depend on the tree. 00:59:24.539 --> 00:59:29.139 And so sort of where we're headed with additional analysis, 00:59:29.139 --> 00:59:30.840 a couple of things. 00:59:30.840 --> 00:59:34.010 One we're sort of really looking at what is our true 00:59:34.010 --> 00:59:35.079 percentage? 00:59:35.079 --> 00:59:40.260 And it's interesting if you look at in 2014, the percent 00:59:40.260 --> 00:59:43.280 canopy coverage was 28.4%. 00:59:43.280 --> 00:59:47.639 2018, 27.9. 00:59:47.639 --> 00:59:48.639 And how did that change? 00:59:48.639 --> 00:59:50.119 It's the municipal boundary change. 00:59:50.119 --> 00:59:51.659 That's all that reflects. 00:59:51.659 --> 00:59:55.820 So as we continue to annex land from out west where it's 00:59:55.820 --> 00:59:59.440 more prairie, obviously our percentage 00:59:59.440 --> 01:00:01.079 is gonna decrease. 01:00:01.079 --> 01:00:04.980 And so when we start to really look at, so what we're doing 01:00:04.980 --> 01:00:06.960 now is really the map and 01:00:06.960 --> 01:00:11.849 trying to find what would it take to achieve that goal, 01:00:11.849 --> 01:00:14.480 making some general assumptions. 01:00:14.480 --> 01:00:18.420 And so now we're really looking at all the platted acreage, 01:00:18.420 --> 01:00:20.920 platted, unplatted, developed, 01:00:20.920 --> 01:00:25.760 undeveloped and what's required under certain PDs. 01:00:25.760 --> 01:00:28.309 And again, 'cause we have a multitude of properties that 01:00:28.309 --> 01:00:30.239 fall under different regulations from 01:00:30.239 --> 01:00:31.800 different periods of time. 01:00:31.800 --> 01:00:36.059 So it's a little difficult, but we do wanna do, we wanna be 01:00:36.059 --> 01:00:38.420 able to have those answers. 01:00:38.420 --> 01:00:41.619 But then also look at of that vacant land, whether it be pl 01:00:41.619 --> 01:00:43.400 atted or unplatted, how much 01:00:43.400 --> 01:00:46.199 of that is city owned property? 01:00:46.199 --> 01:00:48.309 But in addition to that, how much of that canopy then is 01:00:48.309 --> 01:00:49.400 related to that city owned 01:00:49.400 --> 01:00:50.480 property? 01:00:50.480 --> 01:00:53.860 And so whether or not we wanna make policy decisions to 01:00:53.860 --> 01:00:55.880 preserve that in perpetuity in 01:00:55.880 --> 01:00:59.840 some form or fashion, again, but those are the items that 01:00:59.840 --> 01:01:01.719 we're looking at and we're 01:01:01.719 --> 01:01:03.960 really asked at that last COE meeting. 01:01:03.960 --> 01:01:07.460 Again, looking at that tree species and exempt tree list, 01:01:07.460 --> 01:01:09.840 again, 58% of what we had is exempt 01:01:09.840 --> 01:01:10.840 trees. 01:01:10.840 --> 01:01:14.309 I'm sorry, 58% of the existing canopy is made up of the 01:01:14.309 --> 01:01:17.880 trees that were on the exempt list. 01:01:17.880 --> 01:01:22.039 Same with the master gardeners, the ESA credits. 01:01:22.039 --> 01:01:24.550 One of the items that came up recently when we were talking 01:01:24.550 --> 01:01:25.840 conservation areas and how 01:01:25.840 --> 01:01:29.909 we were gonna use that, this was part of the DCRC, which is 01:01:29.909 --> 01:01:31.960 the group that meets as part 01:01:31.960 --> 01:01:33.519 of the DDC update. 01:01:33.519 --> 01:01:36.860 And the outside council cautioned making sure that there is 01:01:36.860 --> 01:01:38.599 a proportionality factor. 01:01:38.599 --> 01:01:44.690 And I won't get into the whole proportionality issue with 01:01:44.690 --> 01:01:47.179 respect to takings. 01:01:47.179 --> 01:01:50.599 And so we're sort of rethinking how we do that. 01:01:50.599 --> 01:01:53.329 But also looking at, there was some language with offsite 01:01:53.329 --> 01:01:54.920 plannings and whether somebody 01:01:54.920 --> 01:01:57.800 should be permitted if they are required to mitigate to be 01:01:57.800 --> 01:01:59.280 able to plant somewhere else 01:01:59.280 --> 01:02:02.679 in the city and how that would be managed long-term. 01:02:02.679 --> 01:02:05.480 And so that's kind of where we are now. 01:02:05.480 --> 01:02:08.000 But again, at least wanted to give you guys an update. 01:02:08.000 --> 01:02:11.559 I know there's a lot there, but at least wanted to at least 01:02:11.559 --> 01:02:13.199 present some of the ideas 01:02:13.199 --> 01:02:18.800 and changes from the vast array of drafts that you had 01:02:18.800 --> 01:02:20.440 before you. 01:02:20.440 --> 01:02:21.440 -Kashelis. 01:02:21.440 --> 01:02:22.920 -Thank you, Chair. 01:02:22.920 --> 01:02:26.900 Richard, could we maybe add on the analysis, the tree fund, 01:02:26.900 --> 01:02:28.760 and maybe getting it on some 01:02:28.760 --> 01:02:33.199 kind of a regular annual plan of what to do with it? 01:02:33.199 --> 01:02:35.139 I mean, we've had this in the past where it just grows and 01:02:35.139 --> 01:02:35.920 grows and grows. 01:02:35.920 --> 01:02:39.010 If we're gonna keep it in there as an option, and clearly 01:02:39.010 --> 01:02:40.679 there's a lot of money in it, 01:02:40.679 --> 01:02:43.730 I mean, you just, that was one development, $18,000 went 01:02:43.730 --> 01:02:44.239 into it. 01:02:44.239 --> 01:02:45.519 What are we doing with it? 01:02:45.519 --> 01:02:47.869 We need to have a plan for the tree fund if we're having a 01:02:47.869 --> 01:02:48.519 tree fund. 01:02:48.519 --> 01:02:51.019 -Right, and that's where that goes back to that management 01:02:51.019 --> 01:02:51.380 plan. 01:02:51.380 --> 01:02:56.260 So if we have those funds, again, rather than just putting 01:02:56.260 --> 01:02:58.679 a tree in a park here or there, 01:02:58.679 --> 01:03:01.340 let's really use them to improve the city and what the 01:03:01.340 --> 01:03:02.719 intent for the... 01:03:02.719 --> 01:03:05.289 -Well, I would think to achieve the goal of what we're 01:03:05.289 --> 01:03:05.840 doing. 01:03:05.840 --> 01:03:08.349 I mean, if they're not gonna do it on that site, then let's 01:03:08.349 --> 01:03:09.480 take money from the tree 01:03:09.480 --> 01:03:13.519 fund and achieve the goal of the city somewhere else. 01:03:13.519 --> 01:03:15.800 That would make sense to me anyway. 01:03:15.800 --> 01:03:18.000 Chair, may I have one more question? 01:03:18.000 --> 01:03:19.000 -Go for it. 01:03:19.000 --> 01:03:20.000 -Thank you. 01:03:20.000 --> 01:03:24.909 Getting back to DBH, you didn't explain how you got to that 01:03:24.909 --> 01:03:26.880 determination that you decided 01:03:26.880 --> 01:03:29.840 to do that instead of Canopy. 01:03:29.840 --> 01:03:32.800 Tell me how that conversation with whom was the 01:03:32.800 --> 01:03:34.000 conversation? 01:03:34.000 --> 01:03:39.619 -It was a conversation with staff that we really looked at, 01:03:39.619 --> 01:03:42.519 and we went through literally 01:03:42.519 --> 01:03:50.250 a multitude of...and days of scenarios and just saying, " 01:03:50.250 --> 01:03:51.719 Okay, well, let me look at this 01:03:51.719 --> 01:03:56.719 site and let's run the numbers again," and really trying to 01:03:56.719 --> 01:03:59.500 determine what makes sense. 01:03:59.500 --> 01:04:02.039 But then looking at and then really diving into our current 01:04:02.039 --> 01:04:03.280 code where it kind of gives 01:04:03.280 --> 01:04:07.280 you that option and looking at, "All right, well, when we 01:04:07.280 --> 01:04:10.480 really enforce the code at 25% 01:04:10.480 --> 01:04:13.599 of DBH, what did we achieve?" 01:04:13.599 --> 01:04:19.159 And there were some cases that it seemed to work. 01:04:19.159 --> 01:04:26.860 I think where it got...where it may have failed is the Rais 01:04:26.860 --> 01:04:29.880 ing Cane site, right? 01:04:29.880 --> 01:04:33.800 I mean, that's the one everyone points to, but believe it 01:04:33.800 --> 01:04:35.920 or not, it met the tree code. 01:04:35.920 --> 01:04:38.170 That was the first one I wanted to look at, but they met 01:04:38.170 --> 01:04:38.760 the code. 01:04:38.760 --> 01:04:42.469 There were some mitigation, but again, it's within the 01:04:42.469 --> 01:04:45.039 parameters of what the code allows. 01:04:45.039 --> 01:04:48.469 So that's where we really started thinking of, "Well, what 01:04:48.469 --> 01:04:50.079 's really our intent, and 01:04:50.079 --> 01:04:54.239 do we want to try to preserve post-Oaks or blackjack oaks?" 01:04:54.239 --> 01:04:57.199 And some may not have a big Canopy. 01:04:57.199 --> 01:05:00.570 And so let's really start looking at the DBH of some of 01:05:00.570 --> 01:05:04.199 these...that's why we didn't have 01:05:04.199 --> 01:05:05.199 a DBH on post-Oaks. 01:05:05.199 --> 01:05:08.280 We initially did, and then backed off of it. 01:05:08.280 --> 01:05:11.789 And so that's where we're at now is just trying to come up 01:05:11.789 --> 01:05:13.760 with a better sort of formula, 01:05:13.760 --> 01:05:17.989 I guess, if you will, of how we measure it and what species 01:05:17.989 --> 01:05:18.320 . 01:05:18.320 --> 01:05:23.210 So, but in this brainstorming that you did, I mean, so you 01:05:23.210 --> 01:05:24.920 determined that getting here 01:05:24.920 --> 01:05:29.360 was easier to do with DBH versus a percentage of Canopy? 01:05:29.360 --> 01:05:30.130 That's where I'm trying to go with the question of how you 01:05:30.130 --> 01:05:30.360 ... 01:05:30.360 --> 01:05:33.239 Not that it was easier, it was better representative. 01:05:33.239 --> 01:05:36.230 The Canopy was actually much easier, because all you're 01:05:36.230 --> 01:05:38.719 doing is looking at an aerial from 01:05:38.719 --> 01:05:44.289 Google and drawing, you know, calculating in the area, " 01:05:44.289 --> 01:05:47.480 Okay, this is 30 percent, and 01:05:47.480 --> 01:05:48.679 here's my preservation plan." 01:05:48.679 --> 01:05:51.340 And to me, that...and then we're going to have a list of 01:05:51.340 --> 01:05:52.199 exempt trees. 01:05:52.199 --> 01:05:54.760 Well, how do we administer that? 01:05:54.760 --> 01:05:58.400 And so for me, it was hard to determine it. 01:05:58.400 --> 01:05:59.400 Okay. 01:05:59.400 --> 01:06:00.400 Thanks. 01:06:00.400 --> 01:06:01.400 Christopher Beck. 01:06:01.400 --> 01:06:02.400 Thank you, Chair. 01:06:02.400 --> 01:06:05.900 Was part of the staff that was brainstorming this was City 01:06:05.900 --> 01:06:07.880 Arborist, Haywood Morgan? 01:06:07.880 --> 01:06:08.880 Yeah. 01:06:08.880 --> 01:06:09.880 So we've all been involved. 01:06:09.880 --> 01:06:12.449 This is kind of a term from his state of the Denton Urban 01:06:12.449 --> 01:06:14.000 Forest he gave a couple years 01:06:14.000 --> 01:06:15.000 ago. 01:06:15.000 --> 01:06:18.449 It was all Canopy then, so he's had a change of attitude on 01:06:18.449 --> 01:06:19.039 that? 01:06:19.039 --> 01:06:22.559 Well, we're still working through that. 01:06:22.559 --> 01:06:27.260 I know he, you know, he has some...he likes the Canopy, but 01:06:27.260 --> 01:06:28.480 again, I think administering 01:06:28.480 --> 01:06:36.400 it, again, practically in a code, it's much more...I think 01:06:36.400 --> 01:06:38.639 it's much more difficult, and 01:06:38.639 --> 01:06:39.639 there's less assurances. 01:06:39.639 --> 01:06:40.639 Okay. 01:06:40.639 --> 01:06:42.789 I like that he's still involved, because I mean, I read his 01:06:42.789 --> 01:06:44.039 report, and I liked everything 01:06:44.039 --> 01:06:46.309 about it, so I would just...I wanted to make sure he's 01:06:46.309 --> 01:06:47.760 still in the loop on that. 01:06:47.760 --> 01:06:48.760 Oh, absolutely. 01:06:48.760 --> 01:06:49.760 Okay. 01:06:49.760 --> 01:06:50.760 Thanks. 01:06:50.760 --> 01:06:51.760 So I'm going to jump in real fast. 01:06:51.760 --> 01:06:57.079 I echo Ellis and Beck's opinions on the DBH Canopy. 01:06:57.079 --> 01:07:01.969 I think I understand, to the best of my ability, the 01:07:01.969 --> 01:07:05.159 rationale, because I get that Canopy and 01:07:05.159 --> 01:07:08.800 tree type, there's some issues there. 01:07:08.800 --> 01:07:11.369 What's incongruent to my mind right now, and it takes time 01:07:11.369 --> 01:07:13.099 to process, obviously, is having 01:07:13.099 --> 01:07:16.389 a goal measured by Canopy, but the standard in place for 01:07:16.389 --> 01:07:18.440 development is going to be DBH. 01:07:18.440 --> 01:07:21.110 And so it seems like if you go that route, then you'd have 01:07:21.110 --> 01:07:22.619 to have some sort of all-tree 01:07:22.619 --> 01:07:26.570 matrix that post oak, you have to have two inches of DBH, 01:07:26.570 --> 01:07:28.519 but a pecan, you just have 01:07:28.519 --> 01:07:31.960 to have one because of the Canopy associated to the DBH. 01:07:31.960 --> 01:07:36.869 And so that seems like a massive effort to have a matrix of 01:07:36.869 --> 01:07:38.900 every possible tree that 01:07:38.900 --> 01:07:42.480 could grow here, and how Canopy credits given to DBH. 01:07:42.480 --> 01:07:46.510 And so I wonder if we know that kind of ratio, is there 01:07:46.510 --> 01:07:50.320 like a 20,000 inch DBH that the city 01:07:50.320 --> 01:07:54.559 wants that represents 30% Canopy, and now we have our goal 01:07:54.559 --> 01:07:56.280 of DBH and the standard we're 01:07:56.280 --> 01:07:58.639 placing is DBH, if that's the way you want to go. 01:07:58.639 --> 01:08:02.730 But I'm still trying to process, if we're having developers 01:08:02.730 --> 01:08:04.480 adhere to DBH, but we're 01:08:04.480 --> 01:08:08.039 going to measure our goal by Canopy, the difference is 01:08:08.039 --> 01:08:08.760 there. 01:08:08.760 --> 01:08:11.559 I agree. 01:08:11.559 --> 01:08:16.470 I think that, again, some of these things we just carried 01:08:16.470 --> 01:08:18.640 forward, again, it's a new 01:08:18.640 --> 01:08:19.640 day. 01:08:19.640 --> 01:08:22.649 Interestingly, we're one of the few cities that actually 01:08:22.649 --> 01:08:24.359 have a percent requirement. 01:08:24.359 --> 01:08:27.569 I think that was one of the bones of contention with the 01:08:27.569 --> 01:08:29.760 Builders Association that you're 01:08:29.760 --> 01:08:32.819 making me require a certain percentage. 01:08:32.819 --> 01:08:38.449 If we end up requiring mitigation for all trees, again, the 01:08:38.449 --> 01:08:41.539 question is, does it matter? 01:08:41.539 --> 01:08:46.920 It could be very expensive, depending how it's written. 01:08:46.920 --> 01:08:52.319 But if you put more weight on trees that are native from 01:08:52.319 --> 01:08:55.920 the cross timber, then that alone 01:08:55.920 --> 01:08:59.119 just can be the force for preservation. 01:08:59.119 --> 01:09:04.510 And maybe that's really the true goal and not just 30% 01:09:04.510 --> 01:09:07.600 because it was in this report. 01:09:07.600 --> 01:09:12.640 And again, is it really achievable? 01:09:12.640 --> 01:09:16.079 And that's really what we're even doing that analysis of. 01:09:16.079 --> 01:09:17.079 Is it even achievable? 01:09:17.079 --> 01:09:18.680 Yeah, I think there's something, too. 01:09:18.680 --> 01:09:21.640 If there's 100% mitigation, then there's going to be a 01:09:21.640 --> 01:09:23.159 consequence for a tree coming 01:09:23.159 --> 01:09:24.159 down. 01:09:24.159 --> 01:09:29.050 Then that might have a lot more weight towards the goal of 01:09:29.050 --> 01:09:31.479 maximizing trees and dentin above 01:09:31.479 --> 01:09:32.739 anything. 01:09:32.739 --> 01:09:35.989 But I'm sure there's going to be some significant pushback 01:09:35.989 --> 01:09:36.680 on that. 01:09:36.680 --> 01:09:38.960 And that's kind of where we were going, too. 01:09:38.960 --> 01:09:43.199 But also putting a little more weight on, putting a little 01:09:43.199 --> 01:09:48.520 more weight, and I didn't 01:09:48.520 --> 01:09:51.119 finish on this one, putting a little bit more weight on 01:09:51.119 --> 01:09:52.920 those type of tree, on a post oak. 01:09:52.920 --> 01:09:54.460 So still getting a credit. 01:09:54.460 --> 01:09:57.670 So even though you're required to do 30, you would still 01:09:57.670 --> 01:09:59.300 get a credit based on that. 01:09:59.300 --> 01:10:00.859 And the larger and the tight. 01:10:00.859 --> 01:10:04.859 So if you decide you're going to preserve all sort of all 01:10:04.859 --> 01:10:06.880 post oaks for every inch of 01:10:06.880 --> 01:10:11.869 post oak that you preserve every DBH, it would be at one to 01:10:11.869 --> 01:10:12.760 three. 01:10:12.760 --> 01:10:16.300 So that would write down your mitigation amount. 01:10:16.300 --> 01:10:19.470 And so really the intent is, what do we really want to 01:10:19.470 --> 01:10:20.340 preserve? 01:10:20.340 --> 01:10:24.609 And let's focus on that rather than just some number out 01:10:24.609 --> 01:10:27.239 there that we may not physically 01:10:27.239 --> 01:10:30.800 ever be able to achieve, looking at really our ETJ and what 01:10:30.800 --> 01:10:32.319 's on the ground now. 01:10:32.319 --> 01:10:34.720 Thank you, Chair. 01:10:34.720 --> 01:10:36.960 I know at one point the state was trying to weigh in on 01:10:36.960 --> 01:10:37.399 this. 01:10:37.399 --> 01:10:39.479 Do you know where we are with that? 01:10:39.479 --> 01:10:41.560 There was Senate Bill 6. 01:10:41.560 --> 01:10:47.760 There were some requirements passed. 01:10:47.760 --> 01:10:51.279 But it really had to do with on mitigation. 01:10:51.279 --> 01:10:53.560 There are some exemptions for single family on the size of 01:10:53.560 --> 01:10:53.960 tree. 01:10:53.960 --> 01:10:58.850 I think it's anything below seven inches, if I'm recalling 01:10:58.850 --> 01:10:59.520 correctly. 01:10:59.520 --> 01:11:02.979 I'll send that out to everyone. 01:11:02.979 --> 01:11:06.640 But there you have to provide for the ability to replant. 01:11:06.640 --> 01:11:09.399 So it can't be all payment is really what it equated to, 01:11:09.399 --> 01:11:11.079 whether or not this next session 01:11:11.079 --> 01:11:14.000 there's something else that comes out. 01:11:14.000 --> 01:11:15.000 But yeah. 01:11:15.000 --> 01:11:24.279 The mayor was very upset. 01:11:24.279 --> 01:11:30.159 Better get ours in sooner than later. 01:11:30.159 --> 01:11:35.520 That was my point exactly. 01:11:35.520 --> 01:11:37.560 I don't see any more questions. 01:11:37.560 --> 01:11:38.560 Oh, Commissioner Beck. 01:11:38.560 --> 01:11:39.560 Thank you, Chair. 01:11:39.560 --> 01:11:43.439 Just as a comment on the 30%. 01:11:43.439 --> 01:11:45.479 Maybe it's more, maybe it's less. 01:11:45.479 --> 01:11:49.130 But I think there's an advantage to having an established 01:11:49.130 --> 01:11:51.199 amount to draw a line and saying 01:11:51.199 --> 01:11:53.649 just to make sure that we don't go crazy in the one 01:11:53.649 --> 01:11:55.680 direction in the negative aspect. 01:11:55.680 --> 01:12:01.659 So just for what it's worth, I think 30%, 28%, 32%, I think 01:12:01.659 --> 01:12:03.840 we need to have some figure 01:12:03.840 --> 01:12:07.319 to draw a line and saying. 01:12:07.319 --> 01:12:08.319 I'm going to have both of those. 01:12:08.319 --> 01:12:10.470 That's why I want to be able to at least have both of those 01:12:10.470 --> 01:12:11.760 options so we can everyone can 01:12:11.760 --> 01:12:13.760 make that informed decision. 01:12:13.760 --> 01:12:18.199 Make it all set. 01:12:18.199 --> 01:12:19.680 Thank you, Richard. 01:12:19.680 --> 01:12:23.039 With that, we will close the work session at 616. 01:12:23.039 --> 01:12:25.479 We'll reconvene in council chambers at 630. 01:12:41.760 --> 01:12:45.920 Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning 01:12:45.920 --> 01:12:48.840 Commission meeting for Wednesday, 01:12:48.840 --> 01:12:49.840 August 22nd. 01:12:49.840 --> 01:12:52.680 I'll call this meeting to order at 637. 01:12:52.680 --> 01:12:55.439 Apologize for the delay. 01:12:55.439 --> 01:12:57.369 First order of business is to stand and give a Pledge of 01:12:57.369 --> 01:12:58.840 Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas 01:12:58.840 --> 01:12:59.840 flag. 01:12:59.840 --> 01:13:04.850 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of 01:13:04.850 --> 01:13:07.840 America and to the Republic for 01:13:07.840 --> 01:13:12.750 which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with 01:13:12.750 --> 01:13:14.840 liberty and justice for all. 01:13:14.840 --> 01:13:17.840 I honor the Texas flag. 01:13:17.840 --> 01:13:27.869 I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one 01:13:27.869 --> 01:13:31.359 and indivisible. 01:13:31.359 --> 01:13:34.560 First order of business is to consider approval of the P&Z 01:13:34.560 --> 01:13:36.359 minutes from August 8th. 01:13:36.359 --> 01:13:38.359 Commissioner Smith? 01:13:38.359 --> 01:13:40.359 Commissioner Ellis? 01:13:40.359 --> 01:13:41.359 Second. 01:13:41.359 --> 01:13:44.359 We have a first and a second. 01:13:44.359 --> 01:13:45.359 Any discussion? 01:13:45.359 --> 01:13:48.239 Seeing none, I will call for a vote by show of hands. 01:13:48.239 --> 01:13:50.800 All those in favor? 01:13:50.800 --> 01:13:52.399 All those against? 01:13:52.399 --> 01:13:53.399 Abstaining? 01:13:53.399 --> 01:13:57.039 Minutes passed, seven-zero. 01:13:57.039 --> 01:13:58.520 Next is the consent agenda. 01:13:58.520 --> 01:14:01.920 Is there any motion or discussion? 01:14:01.920 --> 01:14:02.920 Commissioner Beck? 01:14:02.920 --> 01:14:05.920 Move to approve the consent agenda. 01:14:05.920 --> 01:14:06.920 Commissioner Smith? 01:14:06.920 --> 01:14:07.920 Second. 01:14:07.920 --> 01:14:09.640 There is a first and a second. 01:14:09.640 --> 01:14:12.880 Any discussion on the consent? 01:14:12.880 --> 01:14:16.880 Seeing none, I will call for a vote by show of hands. 01:14:16.880 --> 01:14:19.159 Those in favor? 01:14:19.159 --> 01:14:20.159 Those against? 01:14:20.159 --> 01:14:22.159 Any abstaining? 01:14:22.159 --> 01:14:26.640 Consent passes, seven-zero. 01:14:26.640 --> 01:14:29.279 Next order of business is public hearings. 01:14:29.279 --> 01:14:35.600 The first is 4A-6 or S-17-7. 01:14:35.600 --> 01:14:38.399 I will open the public hearing and call Haley for 01:14:38.399 --> 01:14:39.520 presentation. 01:14:39.520 --> 01:14:45.319 Good evening. 01:14:45.319 --> 01:14:49.239 This is case S-17-7 for the enclave at Denton. 01:14:49.239 --> 01:14:51.350 The request before you is to hold this public hearing and 01:14:51.350 --> 01:14:52.760 consider making a recommendation 01:14:52.760 --> 01:14:56.210 to the City Council regarding a specific use permit for a 01:14:56.210 --> 01:14:58.279 multifamily use on the property 01:14:58.279 --> 01:15:00.279 outlined on the map in yellow. 01:15:00.279 --> 01:15:04.279 The site is just over 12 acres located on the east side of 01:15:04.279 --> 01:15:05.439 Brinker Road. 01:15:05.439 --> 01:15:08.789 For a little bit of background on what an SUP is, this 01:15:08.789 --> 01:15:10.720 specific use permit is a type 01:15:10.720 --> 01:15:13.869 of approval that's required for uses that may be compatible 01:15:13.869 --> 01:15:15.359 in a zoning district where 01:15:15.359 --> 01:15:17.680 the use is not permitted by right. 01:15:17.680 --> 01:15:20.319 So there may be certain conditions or restrictions that are 01:15:20.319 --> 01:15:22.000 needed to limit nuisance potential 01:15:22.000 --> 01:15:24.000 for the use that's requested. 01:15:24.000 --> 01:15:26.369 An SUP does require two public hearings, so this will be 01:15:26.369 --> 01:15:27.920 the first and this will be followed 01:15:27.920 --> 01:15:32.079 up by a public hearing at the City Council pending your 01:15:32.079 --> 01:15:33.520 recommendation. 01:15:33.520 --> 01:15:35.880 The subject property is located within a regional center 01:15:35.880 --> 01:15:37.520 commercial downtown zoning district 01:15:37.520 --> 01:15:39.199 or RCCD. 01:15:39.199 --> 01:15:42.239 Within this district, multifamily is permitted with 01:15:42.239 --> 01:15:43.239 limitations. 01:15:43.239 --> 01:15:46.920 So limitation four requires that either a specific use 01:15:46.920 --> 01:15:48.939 permit be approved, that the 01:15:48.939 --> 01:15:51.430 multifamily be part of a mixed use development that meets 01:15:51.430 --> 01:15:53.279 our definition and additional criteria 01:15:53.279 --> 01:15:55.770 for mixed use development, or that have been previously 01:15:55.770 --> 01:15:57.359 approved as part of something such 01:15:57.359 --> 01:16:02.239 as an MPC or a small area plan. 01:16:02.239 --> 01:16:05.359 An SUP has several criteria for approval that were outlined 01:16:05.359 --> 01:16:06.960 in detail in your backup, so 01:16:06.960 --> 01:16:09.319 I'll just kind of summarize those here. 01:16:09.319 --> 01:16:12.260 All of those conditions or criteria are aimed at ensuring 01:16:12.260 --> 01:16:13.920 compatibility between the use 01:16:13.920 --> 01:16:18.000 that's proposed and surrounding uses or zoning surrounding 01:16:18.000 --> 01:16:19.140 the property. 01:16:19.140 --> 01:16:21.579 So that would include that the use wouldn't impede the 01:16:21.579 --> 01:16:23.359 orderly development of surrounding 01:16:23.359 --> 01:16:27.170 properties, that adequate parking and access are provided 01:16:27.170 --> 01:16:29.000 for the site, that there are 01:16:29.000 --> 01:16:31.779 measures in place to ensure there's no nuisances generated 01:16:31.779 --> 01:16:33.279 by the use that could be noise, 01:16:33.279 --> 01:16:36.239 light, glare, things of that nature, that there's adequate 01:16:36.239 --> 01:16:37.640 landscaping and screening 01:16:37.640 --> 01:16:41.760 provided and that there's architectural compatibility. 01:16:41.760 --> 01:16:43.630 So we'll now look in a little more detail at what's 01:16:43.630 --> 01:16:44.199 proposed. 01:16:44.199 --> 01:16:47.399 So you can see here two buildings proposed on the site 01:16:47.399 --> 01:16:48.680 outlined in blue. 01:16:48.680 --> 01:16:52.000 The footprint of the buildings is just over 95,000 square 01:16:52.000 --> 01:16:52.439 feet. 01:16:52.439 --> 01:16:56.229 There are 270 multifamily units proposed, a mixture of one, 01:16:56.229 --> 01:16:57.760 two, and three bedroom, 01:16:57.760 --> 01:17:01.409 and additionally outlined in red, there is a small area of 01:17:01.409 --> 01:17:03.460 commercial, there'd be a variety 01:17:03.460 --> 01:17:05.859 of uses that could be permitted there under our CCD, such 01:17:05.859 --> 01:17:07.079 as restaurants or retail or 01:17:07.079 --> 01:17:08.960 fitness centers. 01:17:08.960 --> 01:17:11.909 In addition to the building footprint, there are 471 01:17:11.909 --> 01:17:13.800 parking spaces shown on the site. 01:17:13.800 --> 01:17:16.960 This does meet the Denton Development Code's criteria for 01:17:16.960 --> 01:17:18.760 parking based on the individual 01:17:18.760 --> 01:17:21.270 uses that they've thought of on the site, so multifamily as 01:17:21.270 --> 01:17:22.680 well as the various commercial 01:17:22.680 --> 01:17:23.800 uses. 01:17:23.800 --> 01:17:26.250 About 30 of those spaces would be required for just the 01:17:26.250 --> 01:17:27.720 commercial uses, the remainder 01:17:27.720 --> 01:17:30.399 would be associated with the multifamily. 01:17:30.399 --> 01:17:32.600 And then the other key feature of the site is a two and a 01:17:32.600 --> 01:17:34.119 half acre area of tree conservation 01:17:34.119 --> 01:17:37.960 that we'll look at a little more closely. 01:17:37.960 --> 01:17:40.880 So looking at the landscaping, as I mentioned, landscaping 01:17:40.880 --> 01:17:42.319 is one of the key features for 01:17:42.319 --> 01:17:43.560 compatibility. 01:17:43.560 --> 01:17:46.619 So the code requires between multifamily and commercial use 01:17:46.619 --> 01:17:48.319 , as well as between multifamily 01:17:48.319 --> 01:17:51.960 and the institutional use to the south, a type C buffer. 01:17:51.960 --> 01:17:54.909 So that's a 15 foot wide area planted with a combination of 01:17:54.909 --> 01:17:56.159 trees and shrubs based on 01:17:56.159 --> 01:17:57.159 the linear footage. 01:17:57.159 --> 01:17:59.520 So you can see outlined in light green the two areas where 01:17:59.520 --> 01:18:00.880 that buffer has been provided 01:18:00.880 --> 01:18:02.119 for. 01:18:02.119 --> 01:18:04.949 The area outlined in orange is the required parking lot 01:18:04.949 --> 01:18:06.000 screening area. 01:18:06.000 --> 01:18:08.510 So when you have parking between a building and the street, 01:18:08.510 --> 01:18:09.960 code requires a 15 foot wide 01:18:09.960 --> 01:18:14.850 area with trees, shrubs, and a berm all included in that 01:18:14.850 --> 01:18:15.359 space. 01:18:15.359 --> 01:18:17.149 And then shown in dark green is the area of that tree 01:18:17.149 --> 01:18:17.880 conservation. 01:18:17.880 --> 01:18:21.989 As I mentioned, it's approximately two and a half acres in 01:18:21.989 --> 01:18:22.640 size. 01:18:22.640 --> 01:18:25.060 And I wanted to show you what that actually looks like with 01:18:25.060 --> 01:18:25.960 an aerial image. 01:18:25.960 --> 01:18:30.199 So this is that overlaying on an aerial of the site. 01:18:30.199 --> 01:18:32.770 So you can see this is actually a copy of the plat for this 01:18:32.770 --> 01:18:34.359 development, the preliminary 01:18:34.359 --> 01:18:35.359 plat. 01:18:35.359 --> 01:18:37.510 So this will be memorialized on the plat for this property 01:18:37.510 --> 01:18:38.920 that it will remain a conservation 01:18:38.920 --> 01:18:41.359 area. 01:18:41.359 --> 01:18:44.159 The other key feature of the SUP is the building elevations 01:18:44.159 --> 01:18:46.640 to ensure that architectural compatibility. 01:18:46.640 --> 01:18:51.680 So you can see here just one of the buildings. 01:18:51.680 --> 01:18:54.510 They're both proposed to be four stories tall, just over 50 01:18:54.510 --> 01:18:54.960 feet. 01:18:54.960 --> 01:18:58.079 The zoning district does allow up to 100 feet in height. 01:18:58.079 --> 01:19:00.479 The materials would be a mixture of brick and stone veneer 01:19:00.479 --> 01:19:01.520 as well as a combination 01:19:01.520 --> 01:19:05.920 of fiber cement, siding, and panels. 01:19:05.920 --> 01:19:08.119 So a little bit of our analysis was not only ensuring that 01:19:08.119 --> 01:19:09.279 it met those zoning and code 01:19:09.279 --> 01:19:12.350 requirements, was that it's also consistent with the future 01:19:12.350 --> 01:19:13.000 land use. 01:19:13.000 --> 01:19:15.689 So this area, as you can see here in the dark pink, is 01:19:15.689 --> 01:19:17.760 designated for regional mixed use. 01:19:17.760 --> 01:19:21.430 So here at the loop, and I-35 is kind of a logical location 01:19:21.430 --> 01:19:23.119 for a major commercial and 01:19:23.119 --> 01:19:27.720 high density multifamily or high density housing hub. 01:19:27.720 --> 01:19:29.939 So this does fit comfortably within that, providing a place 01:19:29.939 --> 01:19:31.000 for people to live in close 01:19:31.000 --> 01:19:35.920 proximity to some of our key retail uses in town. 01:19:35.920 --> 01:19:39.399 Further analysis is looking at what's around the property. 01:19:39.399 --> 01:19:42.159 So we do have a large area that's undeveloped. 01:19:42.159 --> 01:19:44.590 But we also have the Walmart Shopping Center just to the 01:19:44.590 --> 01:19:46.000 north of the property as well 01:19:46.000 --> 01:19:48.680 as another large shopping center across the street. 01:19:48.680 --> 01:19:52.390 And then to the south, we have a variety of institutional 01:19:52.390 --> 01:19:54.119 and multifamily uses. 01:19:54.119 --> 01:19:57.479 So some assisted living memory care facilities as well as 01:19:57.479 --> 01:19:59.840 straight multifamily development. 01:19:59.840 --> 01:20:02.359 So we found this used to be compatible with what's in the 01:20:02.359 --> 01:20:03.640 area today and what would be 01:20:03.640 --> 01:20:06.390 permitted on the vacant property surrounding, which has a 01:20:06.390 --> 01:20:07.960 similar regional center zoning 01:20:07.960 --> 01:20:09.359 designation. 01:20:09.359 --> 01:20:11.300 And we found that it would be unlikely to generate any nuis 01:20:11.300 --> 01:20:12.279 ances for these uses since 01:20:12.279 --> 01:20:16.720 they're so consistent and similar. 01:20:16.720 --> 01:20:19.130 Notification was posted in the newspaper and mailed for 01:20:19.130 --> 01:20:19.800 this case. 01:20:19.800 --> 01:20:22.380 We received no responses and there wasn't a neighborhood 01:20:22.380 --> 01:20:23.199 meeting held. 01:20:23.199 --> 01:20:27.340 The applicant did post the required public hearing sign on 01:20:27.340 --> 01:20:28.560 the property. 01:20:28.560 --> 01:20:30.430 So just kind of wrapping up and going back to those 01:20:30.430 --> 01:20:32.079 criteria, again, we found there would 01:20:32.079 --> 01:20:34.560 be no major concerns for nuisance prevention here. 01:20:34.560 --> 01:20:36.670 There was adequate landscaping buffers and screening 01:20:36.670 --> 01:20:37.159 provided. 01:20:37.159 --> 01:20:40.579 And it generally is consistent with all the criteria for 01:20:40.579 --> 01:20:42.600 multifamily development in our 01:20:42.600 --> 01:20:43.600 code. 01:20:43.600 --> 01:20:46.180 With that, staff is recommending approval of their request 01:20:46.180 --> 01:20:47.359 with one condition, that 01:20:47.359 --> 01:20:50.260 the provided preliminary site plan, landscape plan, and 01:20:50.260 --> 01:20:52.039 building elevations were found to 01:20:52.039 --> 01:20:53.880 be consistent with the requirements of the Denton 01:20:53.880 --> 01:20:55.840 Development Code for site design, landscaping, 01:20:55.840 --> 01:20:57.960 parking, and building design. 01:20:57.960 --> 01:21:00.289 But a final site plan, landscaping plan, and building elev 01:21:00.289 --> 01:21:01.460 ations will be required. 01:21:01.460 --> 01:21:04.500 And at the time those are provided, they should be 01:21:04.500 --> 01:21:07.119 consistent with these approved plans. 01:21:07.119 --> 01:21:11.399 And with that, I can stand for any questions. 01:21:11.399 --> 01:21:12.399 I do not see any questions. 01:21:12.399 --> 01:21:13.399 Thank you, Haley. 01:21:13.399 --> 01:21:14.399 This is a public hearing. 01:21:14.399 --> 01:21:17.399 Anyone wanting to talk is more than welcome to do so. 01:21:17.399 --> 01:21:19.399 If you want, you can fill out a blue card. 01:21:19.399 --> 01:21:21.359 We'd be happy to have you speak. 01:21:21.359 --> 01:21:22.960 We do have one already filled out. 01:21:22.960 --> 01:21:25.920 It is for Kim McGibbon wanting to speak in opposition. 01:21:25.920 --> 01:21:28.680 If you want to come down, when you get to the mic, if you 01:21:28.680 --> 01:21:29.960 could state your name and 01:21:29.960 --> 01:21:31.399 address for the record. 01:21:31.399 --> 01:21:36.310 Yes, my name is Kim McGibbon, 1306 West Hickory here in 01:21:36.310 --> 01:21:37.000 Denton. 01:21:37.000 --> 01:21:43.039 I was in the earlier meeting, so I have some idea about 01:21:43.039 --> 01:21:44.319 what you guys have already discussed 01:21:44.319 --> 01:21:46.439 about this project. 01:21:46.439 --> 01:21:50.670 The thing that concerns me is the environmentally sensitive 01:21:50.670 --> 01:21:53.239 area, which is adjacent to this. 01:21:53.239 --> 01:21:57.170 I do not remember or I have not heard anything about how 01:21:57.170 --> 01:21:59.760 they're going to protect that. 01:21:59.760 --> 01:22:03.180 I did hear in the earlier meeting that they are planning on 01:22:03.180 --> 01:22:04.840 using a retention wall. 01:22:04.840 --> 01:22:07.470 If you've been out to that site and looked at what the 01:22:07.470 --> 01:22:09.159 previous development did when 01:22:09.159 --> 01:22:12.890 they built the assisted living facility, they basically 01:22:12.890 --> 01:22:14.880 just chopped it off and left it 01:22:14.880 --> 01:22:15.880 standing there. 01:22:15.880 --> 01:22:19.729 I'd like to know more about the elevations of this planned 01:22:19.729 --> 01:22:20.699 building. 01:22:20.699 --> 01:22:24.170 Is the retention wall going to be above the ground level at 01:22:24.170 --> 01:22:26.239 the environmentally sensitive 01:22:26.239 --> 01:22:29.069 level or area, or is it going to be containing the 01:22:29.069 --> 01:22:31.560 environmentally sensitive area with the 01:22:31.560 --> 01:22:36.359 drainage coming off into the planned development? 01:22:36.359 --> 01:22:40.420 Also the stand of trees that is a little skinny thing that 01:22:40.420 --> 01:22:42.760 kind of sticks off up next to the 01:22:42.760 --> 01:22:43.760 parking lot. 01:22:43.760 --> 01:22:46.800 One of the things about environmentally sensitive areas is 01:22:46.800 --> 01:22:48.520 that the trees themselves act as 01:22:48.520 --> 01:22:50.399 a community. 01:22:50.399 --> 01:22:53.020 To be designated as environmentally sensitive area, I would 01:22:53.020 --> 01:22:54.279 assume in this one is because 01:22:54.279 --> 01:22:58.199 of the type of trees and the type of habitat that's there. 01:22:58.199 --> 01:23:02.399 It's very rare that we are losing rapidly. 01:23:02.399 --> 01:23:07.310 If there is a way to bring that landscape, to bring the 01:23:07.310 --> 01:23:09.800 outline of the environmentally 01:23:09.800 --> 01:23:15.369 sensitive area back into a more rounded or compact area, 01:23:15.369 --> 01:23:18.119 you're going to have better 01:23:18.119 --> 01:23:22.960 survival of not only the trees, but also of the habitat. 01:23:22.960 --> 01:23:26.270 The little tiny slip that's there next to the parking lot 01:23:26.270 --> 01:23:27.920 is not going to survive for 01:23:27.920 --> 01:23:31.890 very long, nor is it going to be adequate coverage for any 01:23:31.890 --> 01:23:34.319 animals, birds, native plants 01:23:34.319 --> 01:23:36.159 that grow in the understory. 01:23:36.159 --> 01:23:41.329 I know that I heard the additional thing about the tree 01:23:41.329 --> 01:23:43.119 preservation. 01:23:43.119 --> 01:23:45.550 When you talk about environmentally sensitive areas, we're 01:23:45.550 --> 01:23:46.920 talking about more than trees. 01:23:46.920 --> 01:23:50.039 We're talking about the entire ecosystem that's in there. 01:23:50.039 --> 01:23:52.920 If you would talk to my friends with the master naturalist 01:23:52.920 --> 01:23:54.680 from the parks department, you'd 01:23:54.680 --> 01:23:57.869 get a little bit more information about how these things 01:23:57.869 --> 01:23:59.319 work and what goes on. 01:23:59.319 --> 01:24:01.039 I think it's a great development. 01:24:01.039 --> 01:24:05.930 I just feel like they're setting themselves up at this 01:24:05.930 --> 01:24:08.399 point to try to preserve the trees 01:24:08.399 --> 01:24:11.369 and then with the construction that's going to go on and 01:24:11.369 --> 01:24:13.039 encroachment and the leaving 01:24:13.039 --> 01:24:15.949 of that tiny little slither, they're not really going to 01:24:15.949 --> 01:24:17.800 achieve what they want to achieve 01:24:17.800 --> 01:24:19.600 in the long run. 01:24:19.600 --> 01:24:21.640 There's a lot of things to be considered. 01:24:21.640 --> 01:24:23.399 How's that retaining wall going to go in? 01:24:23.399 --> 01:24:25.000 Is stuff going to drain into the ESA? 01:24:25.000 --> 01:24:27.279 You're not supposed to drain into an ESA. 01:24:27.279 --> 01:24:30.399 Is stuff going to drain out of the ESA? 01:24:30.399 --> 01:24:32.680 How is that going to be affected? 01:24:32.680 --> 01:24:36.500 These plans on flat things look great, but that's not a 01:24:36.500 --> 01:24:37.520 flat area. 01:24:37.520 --> 01:24:41.199 It's a very elevated hilltop kind of place. 01:24:41.199 --> 01:24:43.680 We forget that if we don't go out and actually look at it. 01:24:43.680 --> 01:24:47.390 If we're just looking at it from above in the aerial things 01:24:47.390 --> 01:24:49.000 , we can't see that. 01:24:49.000 --> 01:24:52.000 The objection I have is not to the building itself. 01:24:52.000 --> 01:24:54.119 I think it's a good fit. 01:24:54.119 --> 01:24:57.600 I think that the parking lots could be rearranged and some 01:24:57.600 --> 01:25:02.880 adjustment could be made so that 01:25:02.880 --> 01:25:06.300 they're avoiding those tiny splits of your environmentally 01:25:06.300 --> 01:25:08.039 sensitive area that are going 01:25:08.039 --> 01:25:10.279 to be at risk. 01:25:10.279 --> 01:25:13.119 If you're asking anything for them for asking for this 01:25:13.119 --> 01:25:15.159 special use permit, ask them to look 01:25:15.159 --> 01:25:19.239 at that, to redesign possibly where their parking is for 01:25:19.239 --> 01:25:21.000 the density of the trees and 01:25:21.000 --> 01:25:24.039 what they're really trying to do there. 01:25:24.039 --> 01:25:25.039 Because I think that's important. 01:25:25.039 --> 01:25:29.960 Also, I would really encourage this board to look at the 01:25:29.960 --> 01:25:31.920 other side of that. 01:25:31.920 --> 01:25:36.829 As people come forward with other developments, you have to 01:25:36.829 --> 01:25:39.279 have at least five acres of any 01:25:39.279 --> 01:25:43.600 kind of habitat to make an environmental difference. 01:25:43.600 --> 01:25:47.399 Five acres of the cross timbers is not very much when we 01:25:47.399 --> 01:25:49.399 have to consider what we had 01:25:49.399 --> 01:25:51.520 out there to begin with. 01:25:51.520 --> 01:25:54.510 As you continue to look at these plannings, particularly 01:25:54.510 --> 01:25:56.199 for these very sensitive areas 01:25:56.199 --> 01:26:01.100 that we have on the east side of town, think about keeping 01:26:01.100 --> 01:26:03.760 huge parts of this upland habitat 01:26:03.760 --> 01:26:08.670 intact because tiny little islands of it are not what we 01:26:08.670 --> 01:26:11.640 need to survive in this habitat. 01:26:11.640 --> 01:26:16.529 I question, is an ESA in the city of Denton an area that 01:26:16.529 --> 01:26:18.439 cannot be improved upon? 01:26:18.439 --> 01:26:22.020 You can't mow it, you can't cut down trees, you can't do 01:26:22.020 --> 01:26:23.199 things to it. 01:26:23.199 --> 01:26:25.520 It's just got to be the way it is. 01:26:25.520 --> 01:26:27.399 So that's my question. 01:26:27.399 --> 01:26:30.409 Also, what protection are they going to give that area when 01:26:30.409 --> 01:26:32.560 they're doing the construction? 01:26:32.560 --> 01:26:35.090 Because the construction workers, they love to park their 01:26:35.090 --> 01:26:36.319 trees under those great big 01:26:36.319 --> 01:26:37.319 post oaks. 01:26:37.319 --> 01:26:38.319 What's going to happen there? 01:26:38.319 --> 01:26:39.319 Thank you. 01:26:39.319 --> 01:26:42.319 We have a couple of questions, I think. 01:26:42.319 --> 01:26:43.319 Yes. 01:26:43.319 --> 01:26:44.319 Mr. Beck. 01:26:44.319 --> 01:26:45.319 Thank you, Chair. 01:26:45.319 --> 01:26:46.319 Thanks, Kim, for coming up and speaking. 01:26:46.319 --> 01:26:51.020 I'm always appreciative of your input and I'm with you on 01:26:51.020 --> 01:26:51.560 this. 01:26:51.560 --> 01:26:54.720 I hate to see any of these trees go. 01:26:54.720 --> 01:26:57.810 It is two and a half acres, I believe, that we're salvaging 01:26:57.810 --> 01:26:58.520 , right? 01:26:58.520 --> 01:26:59.520 Okay. 01:26:59.520 --> 01:27:05.350 And in conjunction with the habitat east of it, it does 01:27:05.350 --> 01:27:09.359 keep it from falling apart easily. 01:27:09.359 --> 01:27:12.180 It will if we're very cautious about what other things we 01:27:12.180 --> 01:27:12.800 approve. 01:27:12.800 --> 01:27:15.770 We also don't know what's preserved there behind the 01:27:15.770 --> 01:27:17.560 assisted living facility. 01:27:17.560 --> 01:27:20.199 I'm not real sure what that looked like. 01:27:20.199 --> 01:27:23.729 Well, looking at the picture here, there's quite a bit 01:27:23.729 --> 01:27:24.399 there. 01:27:24.399 --> 01:27:25.399 Good. 01:27:25.399 --> 01:27:26.399 Yeah. 01:27:26.399 --> 01:27:29.239 Going forward with future development, we're going to have 01:27:29.239 --> 01:27:30.600 to be cautious of how we deal 01:27:30.600 --> 01:27:31.600 with this area. 01:27:31.600 --> 01:27:32.600 I agree. 01:27:32.600 --> 01:27:34.279 So like I said, I'm not opposed to the development. 01:27:34.279 --> 01:27:36.880 I just think we need to be very, very careful. 01:27:36.880 --> 01:27:39.609 You guys, once again, I've told you before, you're the 01:27:39.609 --> 01:27:40.439 guardians. 01:27:40.439 --> 01:27:44.069 If we've got the owners here, the applicant, maybe they can 01:27:44.069 --> 01:27:46.119 address that one concern here. 01:27:46.119 --> 01:27:48.880 So I'll ask them to come up. 01:27:48.880 --> 01:27:49.880 Thank you. 01:27:49.880 --> 01:27:50.880 Thank you. 01:27:50.880 --> 01:27:57.880 Thank you, Ms. McGibbons. 01:27:57.880 --> 01:28:02.399 Also, to address, I think you mentioned one question. 01:28:02.399 --> 01:28:06.840 The retaining wall will be constructed outside the ESA. 01:28:06.840 --> 01:28:11.760 Is the ESA above the retaining wall or below the retaining 01:28:11.760 --> 01:28:12.560 wall? 01:28:12.560 --> 01:28:13.560 That's my question. 01:28:13.560 --> 01:28:16.560 I can't answer that question. 01:28:16.560 --> 01:28:17.560 They can. 01:28:17.560 --> 01:28:19.039 We do have someone else who's wanting to speak. 01:28:19.039 --> 01:28:20.039 Kenneth Ambrow. 01:28:20.039 --> 01:28:21.039 Okay. 01:28:21.039 --> 01:28:22.039 Yes, he's here to speak in support. 01:28:22.039 --> 01:28:26.949 If you could just state your name and address for the 01:28:26.949 --> 01:28:27.800 record. 01:28:27.800 --> 01:28:28.800 And you are the applicant? 01:28:28.800 --> 01:28:29.800 Yes. 01:28:29.800 --> 01:28:30.800 Okay. 01:28:30.800 --> 01:28:31.800 Thank you. 01:28:31.800 --> 01:28:32.800 Kenneth Ambrow. 01:28:32.800 --> 01:28:35.800 Address is 317 Edinburgh Court, South Lake, Texas. 01:28:35.800 --> 01:28:39.640 I'm really here to answer questions. 01:28:39.640 --> 01:28:43.130 If you want me to start with the comment, I can definitely 01:28:43.130 --> 01:28:47.079 dive into that if that's okay. 01:28:47.079 --> 01:28:49.319 She's absolutely correct. 01:28:49.319 --> 01:28:53.510 Through construction, I mean, we're setting aside this per 01:28:53.510 --> 01:28:55.520 the current requirements of 01:28:55.520 --> 01:28:58.119 the city and it's contiguous to another site. 01:28:58.119 --> 01:29:00.779 So that's how it meets the ESA. 01:29:00.779 --> 01:29:04.220 Through construction, we're required to really fence in all 01:29:04.220 --> 01:29:05.279 of these areas. 01:29:05.279 --> 01:29:07.909 We've done a lot of development in Austin and in San 01:29:07.909 --> 01:29:08.600 Antonio. 01:29:08.600 --> 01:29:11.909 So we're familiar with tree preservation and what you have 01:29:11.909 --> 01:29:14.119 to do through construction in 01:29:14.119 --> 01:29:16.039 order to meet it. 01:29:16.039 --> 01:29:19.399 Your protective fencing has to go outside or at least 01:29:19.399 --> 01:29:21.399 extend through the canopy. 01:29:21.399 --> 01:29:25.449 You can't just, and you'll agree with that, you just can't 01:29:25.449 --> 01:29:28.319 wrap the trees themselves 01:29:28.319 --> 01:29:29.380 and call that protection. 01:29:29.380 --> 01:29:32.640 So we're adequate and we know what to do there. 01:29:32.640 --> 01:29:35.510 If you see on the site plan itself, and I don't know what 01:29:35.510 --> 01:29:36.960 you have in front of you, 01:29:36.960 --> 01:29:39.159 so I have a colored rendering set up. 01:29:39.159 --> 01:29:41.960 Yeah, we can turn on the eye in the sky if you just want to 01:29:41.960 --> 01:29:43.520 put it right on that felt. 01:29:43.520 --> 01:29:46.479 We can magically make it appear for everyone. 01:29:46.479 --> 01:29:49.479 That's fancy, I like that. 01:29:49.479 --> 01:29:50.479 Okay. 01:29:50.479 --> 01:29:55.390 What we did here in order to make sure that we had 01:29:55.390 --> 01:29:58.399 protection of the ESA is that this 01:29:58.399 --> 01:30:00.279 is a set aside right here. 01:30:00.279 --> 01:30:05.170 So we took out of the ESA footprint this node right here to 01:30:05.170 --> 01:30:07.439 allow us to actually build the 01:30:07.439 --> 01:30:08.800 retaining wall. 01:30:08.800 --> 01:30:11.789 So that was taken into consideration when we put the site 01:30:11.789 --> 01:30:13.279 plan together to allow for 01:30:13.279 --> 01:30:17.689 some space that wasn't counted in the ESA set aside to give 01:30:17.689 --> 01:30:19.640 us a set back to actually 01:30:19.640 --> 01:30:22.640 build the wall. 01:30:22.640 --> 01:30:23.640 Commissioner Smith. 01:30:23.640 --> 01:30:24.640 Thank you, Chair. 01:30:24.640 --> 01:30:26.850 I don't know if Commissioner DeBak will probably bring 01:30:26.850 --> 01:30:28.479 something back up to your comment. 01:30:28.479 --> 01:30:31.409 The question I had was it is an elevated area, that ESA, 01:30:31.409 --> 01:30:33.600 that tree area is an elevated area. 01:30:33.600 --> 01:30:37.140 It's uphill from where the development is, from what I can 01:30:37.140 --> 01:30:37.640 see. 01:30:37.640 --> 01:30:42.600 And so I asked a question during work session about the 01:30:42.600 --> 01:30:44.439 retention pond. 01:30:44.439 --> 01:30:47.079 I didn't see anything on the aerial shot there. 01:30:47.079 --> 01:30:49.750 Do you have anything extra in what you brought to show 01:30:49.750 --> 01:30:51.760 where that retention pond would be, 01:30:51.760 --> 01:30:54.279 and that there would be drainage coming out of the ESA? 01:30:54.279 --> 01:30:55.760 Nothing should be draining uphill if it is. 01:30:55.760 --> 01:30:58.760 Correct, so that's why we're starting to touch it off. 01:30:58.760 --> 01:30:59.760 Go ahead. 01:30:59.760 --> 01:31:01.760 So I just didn't know where it was going to be draining to. 01:31:01.760 --> 01:31:04.560 So the slope of the site is actually draining to the 01:31:04.560 --> 01:31:05.960 detention pond here. 01:31:05.960 --> 01:31:09.319 So everything is cross-sloped to actually drain for the 01:31:09.319 --> 01:31:10.560 detention pond. 01:31:10.560 --> 01:31:12.710 So that's the nature and why we actually need the retaining 01:31:12.710 --> 01:31:13.079 wall. 01:31:13.079 --> 01:31:15.079 Yeah, so it doesn't drain into it. 01:31:15.079 --> 01:31:16.079 Absolutely. 01:31:16.079 --> 01:31:17.079 Works. 01:31:17.079 --> 01:31:18.079 Thank you. 01:31:18.079 --> 01:31:19.079 Commissioner Beck. 01:31:19.079 --> 01:31:20.079 Thank you, Chair. 01:31:20.079 --> 01:31:23.199 A couple of questions outside of that. 01:31:23.199 --> 01:31:26.739 What about the building height, is there plans to put at 01:31:26.739 --> 01:31:29.319 least one elevator in each building? 01:31:29.319 --> 01:31:31.819 That is, that actually, these elevators, these plants have 01:31:31.819 --> 01:31:33.239 two elevators in each building, 01:31:33.239 --> 01:31:35.520 so yes, we'll at least have one elevator in every building. 01:31:35.520 --> 01:31:36.520 Excellent, excellent. 01:31:36.520 --> 01:31:38.970 The other thing is, as I mentioned in the work session, 01:31:38.970 --> 01:31:40.560 concerned about that right-hand 01:31:40.560 --> 01:31:43.840 lane on Brinker at certain times of the day. 01:31:43.840 --> 01:31:45.319 I'm concerned about it as well. 01:31:45.319 --> 01:31:46.319 Okay. 01:31:46.319 --> 01:31:49.319 Do y'all have plans to make a little, what do they call 01:31:49.319 --> 01:31:49.960 those? 01:31:49.960 --> 01:31:50.960 It's a right-turn lane. 01:31:50.960 --> 01:31:51.960 Yes. 01:31:51.960 --> 01:31:55.630 So what we're doing right here is, well, we're currently, 01:31:55.630 --> 01:31:57.479 and I looked into this, my civil 01:31:57.479 --> 01:31:59.659 engineer is very technical and he goes, "All right, well, 01:31:59.659 --> 01:32:00.960 per the code, we don't have to 01:32:00.960 --> 01:32:03.199 put this in." 01:32:03.199 --> 01:32:05.239 We have it on the site plan right now. 01:32:05.239 --> 01:32:06.239 Okay. 01:32:06.239 --> 01:32:08.520 It's a right-turn lane only, so you actually come off. 01:32:08.520 --> 01:32:12.760 This driveway is, part of it is already in, so we have to 01:32:12.760 --> 01:32:14.920 come in and actually modify 01:32:14.920 --> 01:32:16.880 it per its existing standpoint. 01:32:16.880 --> 01:32:20.579 So we'll come in at a right-turn lane only, because this 01:32:20.579 --> 01:32:22.880 entrance actually feeds in turns 01:32:22.880 --> 01:32:23.880 back this way. 01:32:23.880 --> 01:32:28.279 If you'd like to see an arrow, I can go backwards. 01:32:28.279 --> 01:32:31.689 So this feeds, it's actually a shared entrance to the 01:32:31.689 --> 01:32:34.239 assisted living development as well, 01:32:34.239 --> 01:32:35.560 and some other stuff that's back here. 01:32:35.560 --> 01:32:38.300 But it looks a little like too that you've got some 01:32:38.300 --> 01:32:40.399 separation there, where you enter 01:32:40.399 --> 01:32:42.640 and separate it from the assisted living center. 01:32:42.640 --> 01:32:45.069 So what we're planning is an improvement at this 01:32:45.069 --> 01:32:47.399 intersection, because we want our residents 01:32:47.399 --> 01:32:49.600 to be able to come in and get out of the traffic and come 01:32:49.600 --> 01:32:50.159 back here. 01:32:50.159 --> 01:32:51.159 Good, good. 01:32:51.159 --> 01:32:54.869 What Haley mentioned, and we're in discussion with traffic 01:32:54.869 --> 01:32:56.800 and trying to prove to them why 01:32:56.800 --> 01:33:01.779 we need this, but this is intended as a, I want everyone to 01:33:01.779 --> 01:33:03.920 enter here and then have 01:33:03.920 --> 01:33:06.760 this as an exit only and a right-turn lane only, out. 01:33:06.760 --> 01:33:07.760 Okay. 01:33:07.760 --> 01:33:11.079 So we're in a process, we think with our TA, we'll prove 01:33:11.079 --> 01:33:12.800 that up, and then that way we 01:33:12.800 --> 01:33:16.760 can just have that as no gate access and kind of cut in. 01:33:16.760 --> 01:33:17.760 Okay, okay. 01:33:17.760 --> 01:33:18.760 Thank you. 01:33:18.760 --> 01:33:21.149 We have areas in the city of Denton that have that right- 01:33:21.149 --> 01:33:22.680 turn, like think of the turn out 01:33:22.680 --> 01:33:24.869 of the parking lot that you put way over on 288, that's a 01:33:24.869 --> 01:33:26.319 right turn, onto 288, that's 01:33:26.319 --> 01:33:27.800 a right-turn only exit. 01:33:27.800 --> 01:33:30.159 So it makes sense there. 01:33:30.159 --> 01:33:33.279 You don't want, I mean, given the units that we have here, 01:33:33.279 --> 01:33:35.039 we don't want to force everyone 01:33:35.039 --> 01:33:37.560 to come out of this entrance right here. 01:33:37.560 --> 01:33:41.720 So we would like to be able to use both access points. 01:33:41.720 --> 01:33:44.619 And then this one, this is a secondary access point for 01:33:44.619 --> 01:33:45.920 life safety as well. 01:33:45.920 --> 01:33:46.920 Sure. 01:33:46.920 --> 01:33:47.920 I just started speaking earlier. 01:33:47.920 --> 01:33:50.689 I don't know if you were, that was Mr. Smith for the record 01:33:50.689 --> 01:33:50.920 . 01:33:50.920 --> 01:33:51.920 Thank you. 01:33:51.920 --> 01:33:52.920 I did have another question there, Chair. 01:33:52.920 --> 01:33:55.520 The, how close is that right-turn exit? 01:33:55.520 --> 01:34:00.430 How close is that to, it's hard to just see where that stop 01:34:00.430 --> 01:34:02.359 light right there runs to where 01:34:02.359 --> 01:34:03.600 you go behind that Walmart. 01:34:03.600 --> 01:34:07.600 So that right-turn exit, I mean, if someone's trying to go, 01:34:07.600 --> 01:34:09.960 I guess that's what, southbound 01:34:09.960 --> 01:34:13.960 basically on Brinker, it'd be, it's just difficult. 01:34:13.960 --> 01:34:16.539 They'd have to almost go back up to that entrance that you 01:34:16.539 --> 01:34:18.159 originally designed to get back out 01:34:18.159 --> 01:34:20.270 so they're far enough up the road to where they can get 01:34:20.270 --> 01:34:21.359 into that stoplight and make 01:34:21.359 --> 01:34:23.359 a U-turn and come back southbound. 01:34:23.359 --> 01:34:25.359 So it's just, it's a little tricky. 01:34:25.359 --> 01:34:26.359 It is. 01:34:26.359 --> 01:34:30.720 I mean, I can't deny it from that standpoint. 01:34:30.720 --> 01:34:34.000 It will kind of be what it is for people that live here. 01:34:34.000 --> 01:34:36.500 It's going to be impossible at that intersection to, you 01:34:36.500 --> 01:34:38.279 know, unless you have a very, unless 01:34:38.279 --> 01:34:40.630 it's light in the middle of the day and you're able to kind 01:34:40.630 --> 01:34:42.119 of skip over two lanes and make 01:34:42.119 --> 01:34:44.640 a U-turn at that intersection. 01:34:44.640 --> 01:34:47.270 But that's, I mean, I've been there, you know, at all 01:34:47.270 --> 01:34:49.319 different points of the day and it's, 01:34:49.319 --> 01:34:51.819 you'll have to really maneuver and go right-hand and kind 01:34:51.819 --> 01:34:53.319 of go up and do what you need to. 01:34:53.319 --> 01:34:54.319 Yeah. 01:34:54.319 --> 01:34:55.319 You have to figure it out. 01:34:55.319 --> 01:34:57.109 Go all the way up to 288 and go back to 35 if you want to 01:34:57.109 --> 01:34:57.720 go southbound. 01:34:57.720 --> 01:35:01.710 I had a question about the parking for the commercial uses 01:35:01.710 --> 01:35:03.439 on that west side of your 01:35:03.439 --> 01:35:04.439 development. 01:35:04.439 --> 01:35:07.729 So are you guys going to have markings both either for the 01:35:07.729 --> 01:35:10.079 residential use only, for commercial 01:35:10.079 --> 01:35:13.409 use only, just that, I like the idea of incorporating 01:35:13.409 --> 01:35:16.119 commercial use into multifamily like this 01:35:16.119 --> 01:35:19.729 type of development, but the, you see this a lot in like 01:35:19.729 --> 01:35:21.800 the Plano Legacy development 01:35:21.800 --> 01:35:24.430 there where you get a lot of residents who are complaining 01:35:24.430 --> 01:35:25.859 because they got commercial 01:35:25.859 --> 01:35:28.159 parking in their residential parking. 01:35:28.159 --> 01:35:29.960 So I don't know if you guys have plans. 01:35:29.960 --> 01:35:30.960 Yes. 01:35:30.960 --> 01:35:33.140 So in instances like this, we actually go in and assign 01:35:33.140 --> 01:35:34.039 parking spaces. 01:35:34.039 --> 01:35:35.039 Okay. 01:35:35.039 --> 01:35:37.470 So all the tenants will actually have parking spaces to do 01:35:37.470 --> 01:35:37.880 that. 01:35:37.880 --> 01:35:41.390 We'll go in and actually assign some to the commercial as 01:35:41.390 --> 01:35:43.399 well, but mainly we combat that 01:35:43.399 --> 01:35:45.399 by assigning parking spaces. 01:35:45.399 --> 01:35:48.399 Just wanted to make sure you guys had a plan for it. 01:35:48.399 --> 01:35:49.399 That's all. 01:35:49.399 --> 01:35:50.399 Good. 01:35:50.399 --> 01:35:51.399 Thank you. 01:35:51.399 --> 01:35:52.399 Thank you. 01:35:52.399 --> 01:35:56.239 My last question is, curiosity is why did you cap the 01:35:56.239 --> 01:35:58.680 development at 51 feet? 01:35:58.680 --> 01:36:01.039 Why didn't you go higher? 01:36:01.039 --> 01:36:02.039 Parking. 01:36:02.039 --> 01:36:03.039 Parking? 01:36:03.039 --> 01:36:04.039 Yeah. 01:36:04.039 --> 01:36:07.039 We use a different parking ratio than, even though every 01:36:07.039 --> 01:36:08.760 city has its own parking ratio, 01:36:08.760 --> 01:36:10.760 I look at parking proximity. 01:36:10.760 --> 01:36:15.670 And so to even the comment of the building orientation and 01:36:15.670 --> 01:36:18.279 everything, it makes no sense 01:36:18.279 --> 01:36:22.380 to have to build a building and then have parking 300 feet 01:36:22.380 --> 01:36:23.479 away from it. 01:36:23.479 --> 01:36:25.539 It doesn't work from a residential standpoint. 01:36:25.539 --> 01:36:28.680 So you have to look at a parking count, but you also have 01:36:28.680 --> 01:36:30.439 to look at, check the box for 01:36:30.439 --> 01:36:32.989 the parking count, but you have to look at parking 01:36:32.989 --> 01:36:33.800 proximity. 01:36:33.800 --> 01:36:36.670 So we do an analysis where I have to look at a unit here 01:36:36.670 --> 01:36:38.640 and figure out where that tenant's 01:36:38.640 --> 01:36:41.939 going to park in relationship to the building or look at 01:36:41.939 --> 01:36:43.439 the furthest tenant. 01:36:43.439 --> 01:36:47.680 So this is kind of like my split of the development where 01:36:47.680 --> 01:36:50.760 you'll have this over here, this over 01:36:50.760 --> 01:36:51.760 there. 01:36:51.760 --> 01:36:54.079 That's really how the parking works. 01:36:54.079 --> 01:36:57.539 If you go with a five story building, I love the density, 01:36:57.539 --> 01:36:59.439 but I can't get, trust me, I 01:36:59.439 --> 01:37:02.600 would love to have 300 units here, but the parking doesn't 01:37:02.600 --> 01:37:03.439 allow for it. 01:37:03.439 --> 01:37:05.479 That's what I assume, but I would ask. 01:37:05.479 --> 01:37:06.479 Thank you. 01:37:06.479 --> 01:37:07.479 Any other questions? 01:37:07.479 --> 01:37:09.859 I do want to address one question that you guys brought up 01:37:09.859 --> 01:37:11.159 during your work session was 01:37:11.159 --> 01:37:13.079 dealing with the detention. 01:37:13.079 --> 01:37:17.079 There is actually an agreement in place of record, filed of 01:37:17.079 --> 01:37:19.119 record with when this Walmart 01:37:19.119 --> 01:37:20.119 was done. 01:37:20.119 --> 01:37:23.359 There's a regional detention center that really allowed the 01:37:23.359 --> 01:37:24.640 Walmart and some of the 01:37:24.640 --> 01:37:26.039 service folks have been draining into it. 01:37:26.039 --> 01:37:32.319 So we're actually allowed by my right to drain into this. 01:37:32.319 --> 01:37:33.319 We're working with staff. 01:37:33.319 --> 01:37:34.319 We have to do a little bit of modification. 01:37:34.319 --> 01:37:36.670 This is the last time I've got it updated on it, but the 01:37:36.670 --> 01:37:38.119 majority of our detention goes 01:37:38.119 --> 01:37:39.119 in there. 01:37:39.119 --> 01:37:41.119 All of our detention will go in there, kind of unused. 01:37:41.119 --> 01:37:42.119 Commissioner Beck. 01:37:42.119 --> 01:37:43.119 Yes, sir. 01:37:43.119 --> 01:37:45.960 One other question you helped me remember. 01:37:45.960 --> 01:37:49.640 Access to this ESA from the apartments. 01:37:49.640 --> 01:37:50.640 I'm on my list. 01:37:50.640 --> 01:37:51.640 Okay. 01:37:51.640 --> 01:37:53.960 Is that ... Okay. 01:37:53.960 --> 01:37:59.520 So the way that your ESA is written, you can't touch it. 01:37:59.520 --> 01:38:03.310 My initial plan when we were talking with planning was to 01:38:03.310 --> 01:38:05.119 really come in and even if 01:38:05.119 --> 01:38:10.069 it's put DG there or some type of trail going through it to 01:38:10.069 --> 01:38:12.520 be able to access a walking 01:38:12.520 --> 01:38:16.760 trail through it, non-combustible kind of deal. 01:38:16.760 --> 01:38:17.760 I can't. 01:38:17.760 --> 01:38:18.760 Okay. 01:38:18.760 --> 01:38:19.760 Good. 01:38:19.760 --> 01:38:22.760 Unless you guys let me. 01:38:22.760 --> 01:38:24.760 Yeah, right. 01:38:24.760 --> 01:38:26.319 Commissioner Smith. 01:38:26.319 --> 01:38:29.609 Intended use, is this going to be primarily marketed to 01:38:29.609 --> 01:38:31.520 student housing or is this going 01:38:31.520 --> 01:38:33.520 to be general residential? 01:38:33.520 --> 01:38:34.520 General residential. 01:38:34.520 --> 01:38:35.520 Okay. 01:38:35.520 --> 01:38:36.520 Then no. 01:38:36.520 --> 01:38:37.520 So thank you. 01:38:37.520 --> 01:38:38.520 Yes. 01:38:38.520 --> 01:38:39.520 I do not see other questions. 01:38:39.520 --> 01:38:43.520 You still have the floor if you have any more comments. 01:38:43.520 --> 01:38:47.130 No, I think I answered every question that you guys brought 01:38:47.130 --> 01:38:49.239 up, so unless there's something 01:38:49.239 --> 01:38:50.239 else. 01:38:50.239 --> 01:38:51.239 We're good up here. 01:38:51.239 --> 01:38:52.239 Thank you very much. 01:38:52.239 --> 01:38:53.239 Thank you. 01:38:53.239 --> 01:38:54.239 This is a public hearing. 01:38:54.239 --> 01:39:01.260 If anyone would like to speak, you're more than welcome to 01:39:01.260 --> 01:39:02.279 do so. 01:39:02.279 --> 01:39:03.640 Seeing none. 01:39:03.640 --> 01:39:09.619 I will close the public hearing and open up the floor for 01:39:09.619 --> 01:39:12.439 discussion or motion. 01:39:12.439 --> 01:39:13.439 Commissioner Smith. 01:39:13.439 --> 01:39:18.680 Make a motion to approve the project. 01:39:18.680 --> 01:39:19.680 Commissioner Beck. 01:39:19.680 --> 01:39:20.680 I'm sorry. 01:39:20.680 --> 01:39:22.520 Make a motion to approve the project with staff conditions. 01:39:22.520 --> 01:39:24.520 You're welcome, Ailey. 01:39:24.520 --> 01:39:25.520 Second. 01:39:25.520 --> 01:39:26.520 Thank you. 01:39:26.520 --> 01:39:28.520 We have a first and a second. 01:39:28.520 --> 01:39:29.520 Any discussion? 01:39:29.520 --> 01:39:32.720 Seeing none, I will call for a vote by show of hands. 01:39:32.720 --> 01:39:39.960 All those that approve, deny, abstain. 01:39:39.960 --> 01:39:46.720 This passes 7-0. 01:39:46.720 --> 01:39:51.630 Item 4B on a public hearing was withdrawn, so we will go to 01:39:51.630 --> 01:39:55.680 item 4C, which is Z18-0016. 01:39:55.680 --> 01:40:01.729 I'll call Julie for presentation and open the public 01:40:01.729 --> 01:40:03.159 hearing. 01:40:03.159 --> 01:40:07.199 Good evening. 01:40:07.199 --> 01:40:17.800 I'm Julie Wyatt, and I'm presenting Z18-16. 01:40:17.800 --> 01:40:20.920 The request before you tonight is to hold a public hearing 01:40:20.920 --> 01:40:22.520 and consider recommending 01:40:22.520 --> 01:40:25.739 approval of an initial zoning of neighborhood residential 1 01:40:25.739 --> 01:40:26.800 district on an approximately 01:40:26.800 --> 01:40:28.600 one-acre tract. 01:40:28.600 --> 01:40:32.300 The property is located on the north side of Shiloh Lane, 01:40:32.300 --> 01:40:34.840 about 910 feet east of Swisher 01:40:34.840 --> 01:40:35.840 Road. 01:40:35.840 --> 01:40:41.140 It was annexed in 2013 as part of a citywide annexation 01:40:41.140 --> 01:40:41.880 plan. 01:40:41.880 --> 01:40:44.979 When property is annexed into the city of Denton, it has a 01:40:44.979 --> 01:40:46.520 placeholding zoning until 01:40:46.520 --> 01:40:50.600 an initial zoning can be approved. 01:40:50.600 --> 01:40:54.779 Placeholding zoning, it follows the regulations for the RD5 01:40:54.779 --> 01:40:56.840 X district, so both in use and 01:40:56.840 --> 01:41:01.239 development dimensional requirements. 01:41:01.239 --> 01:41:04.199 The property is only an acre, so it doesn't actually meet 01:41:04.199 --> 01:41:05.760 the minimum lot size for that 01:41:05.760 --> 01:41:09.079 placeholding zoning designation of RD5X. 01:41:09.079 --> 01:41:12.609 The applicant is here requesting that initial zoning of NR1 01:41:12.609 --> 01:41:12.880 . 01:41:12.880 --> 01:41:18.149 NR1 is one of our residential districts that permits lot 01:41:18.149 --> 01:41:20.520 sizes of about an acre. 01:41:20.520 --> 01:41:24.359 When we have a rezoning request, we analyze it based upon 01:41:24.359 --> 01:41:26.640 two criteria in subchapter three 01:41:26.640 --> 01:41:28.119 of the Denton Development Code. 01:41:28.119 --> 01:41:30.920 First is it conformed to the future land use plan, and 01:41:30.920 --> 01:41:32.880 second is there adequate provision 01:41:32.880 --> 01:41:34.479 of public infrastructure. 01:41:34.479 --> 01:41:38.819 When we first look at Denton Plan 2030, the property is 01:41:38.819 --> 01:41:41.319 located in a low residential future 01:41:41.319 --> 01:41:43.920 land use designation. 01:41:43.920 --> 01:41:47.409 The intent of that is for residential uses for up to four 01:41:47.409 --> 01:41:49.239 dwelling units per acre. 01:41:49.239 --> 01:41:52.460 It can be the rural fringe or the urban fringe for the one 01:41:52.460 --> 01:41:52.960 acre. 01:41:52.960 --> 01:41:55.880 It could go up to four dwelling units per acre. 01:41:55.880 --> 01:41:59.689 NR1 meets the intent of low residential because it's 01:41:59.689 --> 01:42:02.520 primarily a single family residential 01:42:02.520 --> 01:42:07.640 district, and it permits lot sizes for an acre. 01:42:07.640 --> 01:42:10.390 We also looked at the zoning compatibility just in terms of 01:42:10.390 --> 01:42:11.880 use surrounding the property 01:42:11.880 --> 01:42:14.680 as well as the adjacent zoning districts. 01:42:14.680 --> 01:42:17.279 The property is surrounded by a lot of properties that have 01:42:17.279 --> 01:42:19.000 the RD5X zoning district because 01:42:19.000 --> 01:42:23.909 they were all annexed into the city at roughly the same 01:42:23.909 --> 01:42:24.640 time. 01:42:24.640 --> 01:42:26.960 Many of them are developed with either with large lot 01:42:26.960 --> 01:42:28.439 residential uses and maybe some 01:42:28.439 --> 01:42:30.399 agriculture. 01:42:30.399 --> 01:42:32.720 Surrounding that immediate neighborhood, there is a plan 01:42:32.720 --> 01:42:34.199 development that is developed with 01:42:34.199 --> 01:42:35.600 single family homes. 01:42:35.600 --> 01:42:39.319 You have a mix of RD5X and plan development, but primarily 01:42:39.319 --> 01:42:41.119 it's a residential area. 01:42:41.119 --> 01:42:44.930 The applicant is seeking the initial zoning as I spoke of 01:42:44.930 --> 01:42:47.359 before because they're intending 01:42:47.359 --> 01:42:49.789 to build a single family home and they would like to plot 01:42:49.789 --> 01:42:51.239 the property, and they can't 01:42:51.239 --> 01:42:56.229 do so until the zoning district permits that one acre lot 01:42:56.229 --> 01:42:57.039 size. 01:42:57.039 --> 01:42:59.649 If the zoning is approved and development moves forward, 01:42:59.649 --> 01:43:00.960 then it must comply with all 01:43:00.960 --> 01:43:03.869 Denton Development Code requirements for residential 01:43:03.869 --> 01:43:04.779 development. 01:43:04.779 --> 01:43:08.380 One thing to take note of is that the current placeholding 01:43:08.380 --> 01:43:10.359 zoning designation is exempt 01:43:10.359 --> 01:43:13.439 from tree preservation in our current code. 01:43:13.439 --> 01:43:16.329 If the zoning is approved, they would have to comply with 01:43:16.329 --> 01:43:18.479 any tree preservation requirements. 01:43:18.479 --> 01:43:21.319 Public facilities are available in the area. 01:43:21.319 --> 01:43:24.720 It's accessed by a private road and water is available. 01:43:24.720 --> 01:43:27.920 Sewer will have to be obtained with septic. 01:43:27.920 --> 01:43:30.600 Public notification was sent out. 01:43:30.600 --> 01:43:33.270 We received one response and I said, I didn't say it 01:43:33.270 --> 01:43:35.560 correctly in a work session, we received 01:43:35.560 --> 01:43:40.199 one response from the applicant and they are in support. 01:43:40.199 --> 01:43:42.319 There was a neighborhood meeting. 01:43:42.319 --> 01:43:44.430 Based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends 01:43:44.430 --> 01:43:45.359 approval of the request. 01:43:45.359 --> 01:43:48.600 I'll stand for any questions and the applicant is here. 01:43:48.600 --> 01:43:49.600 Commissioner Smith. 01:43:49.600 --> 01:43:50.600 Thank you, Chair. 01:43:50.600 --> 01:43:56.220 In the past when we've had notifications sent out, we don't 01:43:56.220 --> 01:43:58.720 send notifications to residents 01:43:58.720 --> 01:44:00.720 that live in the ETJ. 01:44:00.720 --> 01:44:03.600 The next door neighbor is in the ETJ. 01:44:03.600 --> 01:44:04.600 Correct. 01:44:04.600 --> 01:44:07.079 Is the next door neighbor aware of the zoning change 01:44:07.079 --> 01:44:09.000 because if this has to meet screening 01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:15.239 requirements, then the applicant can put up a fencing. 01:44:15.239 --> 01:44:18.810 Assuming that since that original person went through the 01:44:18.810 --> 01:44:21.000 non-annexation agreement, they 01:44:21.000 --> 01:44:23.479 probably don't want fencing put up right next to them. 01:44:23.479 --> 01:44:24.479 I have no clue. 01:44:24.479 --> 01:44:26.359 I'm just making conjecture here. 01:44:26.359 --> 01:44:28.869 I believe the adjacent property is the single family home, 01:44:28.869 --> 01:44:30.319 so no buffers would necessarily 01:44:30.319 --> 01:44:31.319 be required. 01:44:31.319 --> 01:44:32.319 However, you're right. 01:44:32.319 --> 01:44:36.170 Properties within the ETJ do not receive that public 01:44:36.170 --> 01:44:37.560 notification. 01:44:37.560 --> 01:44:41.119 That's why we have lots of notification options within the 01:44:41.119 --> 01:44:42.279 City of Denton. 01:44:42.279 --> 01:44:44.680 There is the sign that has to be put on the property. 01:44:44.680 --> 01:44:45.680 It's a rather large sign. 01:44:45.680 --> 01:44:49.680 Then there's also the newspaper notification. 01:44:49.680 --> 01:44:50.680 Okay. 01:44:50.680 --> 01:44:55.880 I do not see any other questions. 01:44:55.880 --> 01:44:56.880 All right. 01:44:56.880 --> 01:44:57.880 Thank you. 01:44:57.880 --> 01:44:58.880 Julie. 01:44:58.880 --> 01:44:59.880 This is a public hearing if anyone wishes to speak. 01:44:59.880 --> 01:45:00.880 You're more than welcome to do so. 01:45:00.880 --> 01:45:01.880 Commissioner Beck. 01:45:01.880 --> 01:45:07.090 I was going to ask if the applicant is here and they come 01:45:07.090 --> 01:45:07.960 down. 01:45:07.960 --> 01:45:13.359 If you could, I do have one question for you, one concern. 01:45:13.359 --> 01:45:15.289 If you could just state your name and address for the 01:45:15.289 --> 01:45:15.760 record. 01:45:15.760 --> 01:45:16.760 Appreciate it. 01:45:16.760 --> 01:45:19.760 Jonathan Merling, 3609 San Lucas Lane. 01:45:19.760 --> 01:45:23.680 Alexis Kuhn, 3609 San Lucas Lane. 01:45:23.680 --> 01:45:27.079 Mike, and it's just a concern, and I mentioned it. 01:45:27.079 --> 01:45:31.970 I don't know if you all were in the work session, but I was 01:45:31.970 --> 01:45:32.079 just curious that if you all are 01:45:32.079 --> 01:45:38.100 okay with the future prospect of more dense zoning, the 01:45:38.100 --> 01:45:40.319 fact that you've got a lot of 01:45:40.319 --> 01:45:43.899 development around you now, you're surrounded by eventually 01:45:43.899 --> 01:45:45.399 this may start to encroach on 01:45:45.399 --> 01:45:46.399 you if you have a dense zoning. 01:45:46.399 --> 01:45:48.840 Do you all have a problem with, would you have a problem 01:45:48.840 --> 01:45:51.119 with that more dense zoning 01:45:51.119 --> 01:45:54.119 should it come to be? 01:45:54.119 --> 01:45:59.000 It's kind of out of our hands. 01:45:59.000 --> 01:46:00.989 When it comes in, it's going to be more dense than what you 01:46:00.989 --> 01:46:01.439 've got. 01:46:01.439 --> 01:46:03.199 Are you going to be opposed to that? 01:46:03.199 --> 01:46:04.319 No, I think we're okay. 01:46:04.319 --> 01:46:07.289 We actually live less than a mile away in one of the 01:46:07.289 --> 01:46:09.319 suburbs that is encroaching on 01:46:09.319 --> 01:46:10.319 that area currently. 01:46:10.319 --> 01:46:11.319 Okay. 01:46:11.319 --> 01:46:12.319 Okay. 01:46:12.319 --> 01:46:14.319 And again, I'm pleased that you can do this and everything. 01:46:14.319 --> 01:46:16.760 I'm just thinking down the road. 01:46:16.760 --> 01:46:19.109 This area eventually is probably going to fill in there 01:46:19.109 --> 01:46:19.840 pretty good. 01:46:19.840 --> 01:46:20.840 Okay. 01:46:20.840 --> 01:46:21.840 That's all I had. 01:46:21.840 --> 01:46:22.840 Thank you. 01:46:22.840 --> 01:46:23.840 Commissioner Smith. 01:46:23.840 --> 01:46:26.779 Have you discussed with that neighbor who's in the ETJ, y' 01:46:26.779 --> 01:46:28.159 all's rezoning request and what 01:46:28.159 --> 01:46:29.159 you've got to do? 01:46:29.159 --> 01:46:30.159 Not that it really matters. 01:46:30.159 --> 01:46:32.159 It's your own property to do it, but. 01:46:32.159 --> 01:46:33.159 Right. 01:46:33.159 --> 01:46:36.649 I haven't talked to him directly on the, I guess, right- 01:46:36.649 --> 01:46:38.399 hand side of the property as 01:46:38.399 --> 01:46:39.399 it's shown up there. 01:46:39.399 --> 01:46:43.439 He's a neighbor that knows everybody and access kind of the 01:46:43.439 --> 01:46:44.239 keeper. 01:46:44.239 --> 01:46:45.239 He takes care of the roads. 01:46:45.239 --> 01:46:46.239 He does everything. 01:46:46.239 --> 01:46:48.520 He's talked to everybody in that neighborhood. 01:46:48.520 --> 01:46:52.119 And he's kind of told us that, I guess, the guy next door 01:46:52.119 --> 01:46:54.319 that owns the ETJ property also 01:46:54.319 --> 01:46:57.680 owns the property next to that as well, which is not in the 01:46:57.680 --> 01:46:58.119 ETJ. 01:46:58.119 --> 01:47:01.119 So assuming he may have not noted, it's two lots. 01:47:01.119 --> 01:47:02.119 He owns both of them. 01:47:02.119 --> 01:47:03.119 Yeah. 01:47:03.119 --> 01:47:04.119 It's weird that he files for not. 01:47:04.119 --> 01:47:05.119 Yeah. 01:47:05.119 --> 01:47:07.390 I don't know if one ended up in the ETJ and the other didn 01:47:07.390 --> 01:47:09.319 't, but he, I assume, got notification 01:47:09.319 --> 01:47:10.319 based on the other property's address. 01:47:10.319 --> 01:47:11.319 Sure. 01:47:11.319 --> 01:47:13.840 But I have not talked to him directly. 01:47:13.840 --> 01:47:16.239 And your concern was with fencing, is that correct? 01:47:16.239 --> 01:47:17.239 Yeah. 01:47:17.239 --> 01:47:19.439 I think there's already a fence between the properties that 01:47:19.439 --> 01:47:20.239 we didn't put up. 01:47:20.239 --> 01:47:21.239 Yeah. 01:47:21.239 --> 01:47:22.239 There is already one. 01:47:22.239 --> 01:47:23.239 Okay. 01:47:23.239 --> 01:47:24.239 I couldn't see. 01:47:24.239 --> 01:47:25.239 Yeah. 01:47:25.239 --> 01:47:26.239 It's his fence. 01:47:26.239 --> 01:47:27.239 And we're cool with that. 01:47:27.239 --> 01:47:28.239 We actually don't intend on putting one. 01:47:28.239 --> 01:47:29.560 You get people who come in here and they live in the ETJ 01:47:29.560 --> 01:47:30.239 for a very specific reason. 01:47:30.239 --> 01:47:32.239 And it's because they don't want to be told to do anything. 01:47:32.239 --> 01:47:35.239 And so I just wanted to know. 01:47:35.239 --> 01:47:36.239 That's all. 01:47:36.239 --> 01:47:37.239 Thanks. 01:47:37.239 --> 01:47:38.239 We have a vote on that. 01:47:38.239 --> 01:47:39.239 I do not see any other questions. 01:47:39.239 --> 01:47:40.239 Thank you. 01:47:40.239 --> 01:47:41.239 All right. 01:47:41.239 --> 01:47:42.239 Thanks. 01:47:42.239 --> 01:47:43.239 This is a public hearing. 01:47:43.239 --> 01:47:44.239 Anyone else wants to speak? 01:47:44.239 --> 01:47:45.239 May I do so? 01:47:45.239 --> 01:47:46.239 Ironically, I don't know. 01:47:46.239 --> 01:47:47.239 I don't know. 01:47:47.239 --> 01:47:50.880 Ironically, I have two cards from Alexis Kuhn and Jonathan 01:47:50.880 --> 01:47:51.720 Berling. 01:47:51.720 --> 01:47:57.000 They did not wish to speak, but they both said they're in 01:47:57.000 --> 01:47:59.579 support of the project. 01:47:59.579 --> 01:48:03.199 Any other individuals wanting to speak? 01:48:03.199 --> 01:48:05.689 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing, open up the 01:48:05.689 --> 01:48:07.279 floor for discussion or motion. 01:48:07.279 --> 01:48:08.279 Commissioner Ellis. 01:48:08.279 --> 01:48:12.600 I move approval. 01:48:12.600 --> 01:48:13.600 Commissioner Smith. 01:48:13.600 --> 01:48:14.600 I'll second that. 01:48:14.600 --> 01:48:15.600 We have a first and a second. 01:48:15.600 --> 01:48:16.600 Any discussion? 01:48:16.600 --> 01:48:19.840 Seeing none, I will call for a vote by a show of hands. 01:48:19.840 --> 01:48:22.039 All those in favor? 01:48:22.039 --> 01:48:23.039 All those opposed? 01:48:23.039 --> 01:48:24.039 Any abstaining? 01:48:24.039 --> 01:48:27.039 Motion carries 7-0. 01:48:27.039 --> 01:48:29.800 Congratulations. 01:48:29.800 --> 01:48:32.689 That takes us to item five, the Planning and Zoning 01:48:32.689 --> 01:48:34.560 Commission Project Matrix. 01:48:34.560 --> 01:48:40.399 Anyone have anything to add or updates? 01:48:40.399 --> 01:48:41.399 Just a quick update. 01:48:41.399 --> 01:48:45.880 As you know, we're trying to kind of clear that backlog. 01:48:45.880 --> 01:48:48.689 One thing in particular, now that we have a couple new 01:48:48.689 --> 01:48:50.520 members on the commission, what 01:48:50.520 --> 01:48:53.279 we thought would probably be a good thing, and even maybe 01:48:53.279 --> 01:48:54.800 just a refresher, is to just 01:48:54.800 --> 01:48:58.510 sort of give a general overview of the type of applications 01:48:58.510 --> 01:49:00.119 that come in front of the 01:49:00.119 --> 01:49:03.289 Planning and Zoning Commission, what the review criteria 01:49:03.289 --> 01:49:05.399 are, and sort of what your task to 01:49:05.399 --> 01:49:06.399 do. 01:49:06.399 --> 01:49:09.960 I don't know if that was ever done in the past. 01:49:09.960 --> 01:49:13.640 I know some cities do that, so we thought it probably would 01:49:13.640 --> 01:49:14.840 be a good thing. 01:49:14.840 --> 01:49:16.640 Moving forward, we're all on the same page. 01:49:16.640 --> 01:49:19.279 We all know sort of what we're supposed to do. 01:49:19.279 --> 01:49:22.579 We'll be bringing that together, or putting that together 01:49:22.579 --> 01:49:24.319 and bringing that forward. 01:49:24.319 --> 01:49:26.600 We'll probably start. 01:49:26.600 --> 01:49:29.079 We won't tackle all in one meeting, but we will probably 01:49:29.079 --> 01:49:30.520 start with planning since that 01:49:30.520 --> 01:49:34.649 seems to be the most prevalent, and then kind of work our 01:49:34.649 --> 01:49:37.960 way through SUPs, ADPs, rezoning, 01:49:37.960 --> 01:49:38.960 and the like. 01:49:38.960 --> 01:49:41.899 So unless there's anything else I can bring forward, I'll 01:49:41.899 --> 01:49:43.359 continue to work on that list 01:49:43.359 --> 01:49:44.920 as well as bring those items. 01:49:44.920 --> 01:49:47.659 I'd prefer if Matt and Jason had to learn it the way I had 01:49:47.659 --> 01:49:49.199 to learn it, which was just 01:49:49.199 --> 01:49:51.159 trial by fire and asking dumb questions. 01:49:51.159 --> 01:49:54.399 They're like, "Well, that's what a final plan is." 01:49:54.399 --> 01:49:55.399 Got it. 01:49:55.399 --> 01:49:56.399 Now let them figure it out. 01:49:56.399 --> 01:49:58.720 Yeah, training would be great. 01:49:58.720 --> 01:50:02.500 Any other items for the matrix so I can put away my dumb 01:50:02.500 --> 01:50:03.600 questions? 01:50:03.600 --> 01:50:06.819 So before we close out the meeting, what I wanted to do was 01:50:06.819 --> 01:50:08.779 take just a minute and recognize 01:50:08.779 --> 01:50:09.779 Athenia Green. 01:50:09.779 --> 01:50:14.640 She is ... Last meeting, I think, is tonight for planning 01:50:14.640 --> 01:50:15.479 and zoning, so the commission 01:50:15.479 --> 01:50:16.479 got you a card. 01:50:16.479 --> 01:50:19.350 It has a Starbucks gift card so you can study well on some 01:50:19.350 --> 01:50:20.880 caffeine going forward. 01:50:20.880 --> 01:50:28.960 So thank you so much for all you've done for P&Z. 01:50:28.960 --> 01:50:31.449 Seeing no other discussion points, I will close this 01:50:31.449 --> 01:50:32.840 meeting at 7.15. 01:50:38.779 --> 01:50:49.760 [ Silence ]