Good evening and welcome to the planning zoning work
session for August 22nd 2018.
Call this work session order at 5.04.
First item on the work session agenda is clarification of
agenda items listed on the agenda for this
meeting.
Do we have any clarification for that?
With that it's worth noting that the public hearing 4B has
been withdrawn.
If you want to make a note that will not be heard tonight.
But we can skip to the consent agenda.
We have two items, final plat and preliminary plat.
We got updates on these so I'll invite Julie to speak on
the first item.
Do you have any questions for Julie?
Yes sir.
Commissioner Beck.
Oh you have one on the second one?
I don't think that's Julie.
Not me.
Is there any questions on the final plat 18-19?
Survivors trust?
I think we're good Julie.
Thank you.
I will call Cindy Jackson for the PP 18-01.
And Commissioner Beck for Jers.
Thank you.
Cindy on the prints it looks like there's four stub outs
for the streets on the north
side and two on the west side.
So is the developer going to be here tonight?
I'm just curious is that done with the intention for future
development or did the city require
that for some reason?
That's done for future development.
We anticipate there will be future development and we want
to make sure everything connects.
With this developer?
Not with this developer.
Okay good thank you.
Any other questions on this plat?
Thank you Cindy.
That will move us to the public hearings.
The first one is the SUP 17-7 and I'll invite Haley for
presentation.
Alright good evening.
This is case S17-7 for the enclave at Denton.
So the request before you is to hold a public hearing
tonight and consider making a recommendation
to city council regarding a request for a specific use
permit to allow for a multifamily
use on the site you can see outlined in yellow on the map.
It is just over 12 acres located on the east side of Br
inker Road.
You can see here the Walmart development to the north for
reference.
So since we do have a couple of new members I wanted to
give a little bit of explanation
for what a specific use permit is.
An SUP is a type of approval that's required for uses that
may be compatible in a zoning
district so the use is not permitted by right but it could
be made compatible if there are
conditions or restrictions that could be imposed on the
property to limit any potential nuisances.
An SUP does require two public hearings so you are their
first stop and then this will
be going to city council pending your recommendation.
So looking at this site the zoning port is regional center
commercial downtown so that's
one of our more intensive mixed use districts permits, high
density of development, a variety
of commercial and institutional uses.
Within this zoning limitation four applies to multifamily
and this limitation states
that multifamilies only permitted through approval of a
specific use permit as part
of a mixed use development that meets the criteria outlined
in our code for mixed use.
So in this case in our CCD mixed use only allows multifamil
ies to be 30% of the site
acreage and then there are some other criteria involved in
that.
And then the other options under this limitation were that
it was previously approved as a
use under an MPC or a small area plan which is not the case
here.
So with an SUP the development code provides many criteria
that are outlined in detail in
your backup but the general gist of these criteria for
approval is compatibility between
the surrounding property and the requested use which
includes many different things such
as parking, traffic, access, whether it would in some way
impede development of surrounding
properties, any sort of nuisances, noise, visuals, landsca
ping and screening compatibility
as well as architectural compatibility.
So we'll look a little more specifically at the site, you
can see in blue the two
buildings that are proposed here.
So the footprint of those buildings is just over 95,000
square feet.
Within the buildings there would be 270 apartment units as
proposed, it's a mixture of one,
two and three bedroom units.
And then outlined in red you can see that there's about 5
100 square feet of commercial
space allocated on the site.
So it is mixed use, it just doesn't quite meet the
thresholds that would be required
for a mixed use development.
Over the site they've provided 471 parking spaces, that's a
combination of surface spaces
and some tuck under garages for some of the apartments.
And then there is also a significant tree conservation area
on the site that we'll
look at a little more specifically.
So looking at their landscape plan I've highlighted several
of the key features of the site.
Overall they are meeting the lot coverage requirements, so
they're at 84% lot coverage,
90% is allowed within our CCD.
They're providing the landscape area in a variety of places
you can see here, I'm sorry
this should say 10% minimum, that's a typo on my part.
And some of the components of that are the two light green
areas show type C buffers,
so between multifamily and commercial to the north they've
provided that required buffer
there.
It's a 15 foot wide area, contains six trees and 25 shrubs.
You can see also where they've provided for that buffer
here on the south side because
there is an institutional use to the south of them, a
memory care facility.
In the dark green you can see the tree conservation area
that I referenced.
This is called out on their plat as a two and a half acre
conservation area for the
upland habitat that's on the site.
So they're meeting the ESA requirements for preservation.
And then in yellow you can see they are allowing space for
the 15 foot screening area that's
required for the parking lot.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you Chair.
The conservation area there, will the apartment, will the
tenants have access to that?
I see those parking spaces there, is there going to be a
fence or something or will they
be able to access that area?
I believe there is something called out on the plan, let me
look and see there.
There was discussion over maybe putting a trail through
there and I believe that is
kind of off the board, it's just going to be left as a
natural area as is required for
the ESA.
I can probably pick the applicant's brain tonight.
Yes, the applicant will be here.
I just see there is actually a retaining wall on the
backside of those parking spaces.
All the way around the conservation area?
I believe so.
It is this hatched area that's kind of hard to see just
outside of the green highlights
there.
That would be the retaining wall just outside the ESA.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
Is there going to be retention, a retention pond or
anything like that for this site?
With as much concrete being added to what's already perme
able area, I just didn't know
if there's going to be retention ponds.
Certainly, so there's a large detention facility associated
with the Walmart just north of
there.
I couldn't see it on the right.
Yeah, we can see it on the aerial here.
This green space behind Walmart is actually a large
detention facility.
It's my understanding that they're still working through
the details of the drainage analysis,
but this pond was sized to accept some runoff from this
property, so I believe they will
be able to account for their stormwater in that existing
facility.
As long as you guys are on top of it, I can't see on the
aerial shot that I see a little
tiny little pond off to the- Yeah, it's just north of their
property boundary
on Walmart's lot.
Okay, understood.
I have one more question.
For parking, for the square footage of the commercial use
that is actually going to be
in there, it says about 5,100 square feet of commercial,
how much parking is required
within that zoning?
Well, the parking doesn't depend necessarily on the zoning.
It's use specific.
Sure, yeah.
So what they've proposed now is kind of a mixture.
I believe there's a small area allocated for cafes as well
as some retail and a fitness
center.
Okay.
So based on those uses, I want to say it was in the ball
park of 30 spaces required for the
commercial, and that's being accounted for on the site.
But they did.
The applicant's going to be here tonight, so we're going to
ask about designation of
parking spaces for, so now this is all, well, they have
designation for parking spaces just
for the commercial use, and then I don't want to have
residents coming back and getting
mad about commercial use parking in their parking spots and
that kind of stuff.
So I'm not sure what the signage of those spaces may be,
but they have accounted for
adequate parking for all of the uses.
Got it.
Thank you.
So I just wanted to kind of show you-
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Haley, back to the detention area.
Do I remember from a meeting that we had previously that
they worked some kind of deal with Walmart
with that area?
Right there expanding it, I think.
Yes, that's my understanding is they have an agreement with
Walmart to allow their drainage
to go to that existing pond.
Okay, that's what I thought I remembered.
Okay, thanks.
You're welcome.
Okay, so back to landscaping.
I wanted to show you in a little more detail just kind of
how this tree conservation area
lines up.
So I had our GIS team overlay the plat on an aerial of the
site, so you can generally
see outlined in green that an extensive contiguous area of
trees is being preserved, contiguous
with the acreage on the site to the south of them.
So it will be a fairly large size portion of upland habitat
left there intact.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Is that going to count towards their tree coverage, tree
canopy?
Because it looks like they're going to mow a lot of trees
down too.
So will there be any mitigation requirement or is the fact
that they're preserving that
ESA there, is that going to cover that for them?
Certainly.
So under our current development code, if you are
preserving trees within an ESA, that
can count towards your tree preservation requirements.
So with this, they will be meeting their tree preservation
with this existing area.
Without having to mitigate?
No, they would be meeting the requirements.
So nothing beyond that has to be mitigated.
So the other component of what we have before site are the
building elevations.
Prior to the meeting, I had passed out some revised sheets
that the applicant sent over.
The content and the style of the buildings hasn't changed.
They just made some adjustments to clarify the materials
that are on the buildings.
The previous version had a couple of materials listed such
as stucco that weren't actually
shown on the elevation.
So they just did a little cleanup, but content wise the
building design hasn't changed.
So what we have are four story buildings.
They're approximately 52 feet tall at their highest point.
RCCD does permit a maximum of 100 feet.
So they're well within that.
And the materials would be a combination of brick and stone
veneer and fiber cement siding
and panels.
So kind of diving into the analysis based on those
conditions, one of the criteria for
approval is consistency with the current zoning on the
property.
So as you've seen, it meets the requirements for RCCD in
terms of site design.
It is also consistent with the future land use designation
for the property, which is
regional mixed use.
So this is intended to be an area with higher density
housing alongside intensive commercial
uses that you would see at these kind of large centers of
transportation.
So where we have the loop and 35 meeting is a logical kind
of regional center for shopping
and high density housing.
Some other criteria that we looked at were the surrounding
land uses.
So as I mentioned, we have Walmart to the north of them,
the Target and Home Depot shopping
center just to the west.
There's an assisted living kind of multifamily type
development to the south, as well as
some other multifamily further south.
So what's proposed here, high density multifamily with a
little bit of retail mixed in is consistent
with this land use pattern.
It's unlikely that this use would generate any nuisances
that would affect their neighbors
in terms of odors or noise.
We found it to be generally compatible, particularly with
the landscaping that they're providing.
So public notification was sent about the case, as you can
see here.
We received no responses.
A neighborhood meeting was not held.
And the applicant did post the required signage on the
property along breaker.
So again, just going back and kind of wrapping this up, we
had these criteria for approval
to look at in terms of compatibility with the surrounding
property, consistency with
the zoning and future land use.
We found through our analysis that it met all of these
criteria and is generally compatible
in style and form with surrounding properties.
Therefore, staff is recommending approval with one
condition.
That being that the plans you've seen before you tonight be
considered a preliminary site
plan, landscape plan, and building elevations, which we've
found to be generally consistent
with the requirements of the development code.
A final site plan, landscape plan, and elevations should be
consistent with what you've seen
here tonight as well as meeting all the criteria of the
code.
I'd be happy to stand for any other questions.
Mr. Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Can you go back to one of the plans that shows Brinker and
how people are going to enter
on that?
This one good?
Or is that?
There you go.
Okay.
You indicated there was going to be a means of egress there
on Brinker before they get
to that traffic light, right?
The traffic light, I believe, is at the Home Depot Target
Shopping Center, existing today?
Yes.
Right.
It's an intersection there.
Correct.
Yeah.
Can you point it out on the map there?
The aerial might be a better place to look at this.
There is a light.
Right there.
Just north of the site.
No, no.
Go back to the other one.
Can you point out the means of egress in the department off
of Brinker?
Certainly, yes.
They have two driveways you can see here.
The southern driveway, there is existing pavement there
that was put in with the facility to
the south of them, so that will be one shared primary
entrance to the facility.
You can see that's kind of where the building would be
dressed up, and there's that little
circle there with -- it'll probably have some enhancements
to it.
Then there is a secondary point of access here on the north
side.
They're still working through the details of the traffic
impact analysis for the site
as they go through the platting process, but I've heard
discussion that that may be a right
in, right out only to alleviate some concerns, but the
final details of that are not yet
determined.
Concerned a little bit about that.
I've been in that lane at certain times today.
Everybody gets over in that lane in anticipation of 288 and
pull into Walmart, so they can
back up quite a bit.
Now you've got 270 units here, probably that many cars at
certain times.
Any chance that they've considered doing a little lane
pulling off a brink until it
allows them to go ahead and pull in without stopping the
flow of traffic?
Yeah, that will be part of their traffic impact analysis.
We determine what's needed in terms of turn lanes here.
That has been one of the considerations to this point that
they might need a turn lane
on Brinker.
Maybe at both entrances or just the one closer?
I'm not sure where it would be located.
I suspect it would be at this primary entrance if they're
to install one, but again, they're
still working through that with the city's traffic engineer
.
Great, thanks.
I have a question.
The issue for the SUP or what's your SUP was that they're
wanting to use multifamily for
more than 30% of the acreage.
Is that correct?
Yeah, so under limitation four, like I said, since they're
not part of a previously approved
plan, they either had to be mixed use development or have
the SUP.
The code is a little bit convoluted in how mixed use works.
So there's a definition for mixed use that specifies it has
to be three or more uses
mixed vertically or horizontally on a site.
But within certain zoning districts such as RCCD and the NR
MU districts, there's a limitation
on the acreage that can be multifamily.
For RCCD, that limit is 30%.
So the intent was to have a majority of the footprint of
the buildings and everything
be for commercial uses.
And since they weren't meeting that criteria, the SUP
became necessary.
If you can clarify that a little more, the backup says
multifamily use to no more than
30% of the acreage.
That acreage is for the entire property, correct?
Correct.
Maybe my math's wrong, but 95,000 square feet doesn't seem
like that's breaching 30%
of 12 acres.
No, so they do have, like I said, the large portion of the
site is conservation.
And then the majority of the site will be the footprint of
those buildings that is multifamily
as well as the parking and the other uses such as the
playground area, the pool, the
things that are associated directly with that multifamily
use.
Okay.
The question in tandem with that is typically when we
process the SUPs, there's kind of
like a give and take.
They're asking for something out of the ordinary and then
the applicant provides something
to kind of offset that.
Could you highlight what they're presenting to kind of
offset that?
I think you may be thinking of the alternative development
plan process a little bit more.
No, I'm just, I don't think I am.
I think it's typically, like if they're asking for the city
to provide a special use, there's
typically an additional landscape that they put in or there
's some sort of give and take,
almost like unofficially, like, hey, if you would allow us
to do this, we will kind of
do this.
I didn't see any kind of concessions on their end to help
this SUP along.
Maybe I'm mistaken.
Yeah, it's not part of the criteria for approval that there
be any sort of enhanced site design
features.
It's more just to ensure compatibility of the site.
Okay.
Yeah, I think maybe you're thinking more in lines of the
alternative development plan
where they're seeking some deviation or something outside
the norm of the code and providing
that alternative.
Gotcha.
Maybe I am.
Just to add, I think what happens to a lot of times when we
do these SUPs, they're typically
adjacent to single family residential or some other use.
So we'll add conditions that require maybe something
additional to mitigate for that.
In this instance, it's kind of sandwiched between a
detention pond and a similar use
to the south.
So that's why.
Yeah.
Thank you for the clarification.
Any other questions for Haley?
Awesome.
Thank you.
The next and final item on the public hearing is Z1816, and
that is being presented by Julie
Wyatt.
Good evening.
I'm Julie Wyatt.
I am presenting Z1816.
This one's a fairly straightforward initial zoning case.
So the request before you is to hold a public hearing and
consider an initial zoning of
RC, I'm sorry, NR1 on approximately one acre.
The subject property is on the north side of Shiloh, about
910 feet east of Swisher Road.
This property was annexed in 2013 as part of a city-wide
annexation plan.
It was a part of DH9, which included 298 acres and 129 parc
els.
So this is one small part of a larger annexation.
As most of you are familiar, when a property is annexed
into the city of Denton, it receives
essentially kind of a place holding district until the time
that the property owner applies
for an initial zoning.
And so as you can see in this diagram, that place holding
designation of RD5X is reflected.
And RD5X is one of our rural zoning districts.
It permits single family homes, some ag uses at a very
large lot, the minimum of five acres.
The applicant is proposing neighborhood residential one, NR
1.
So this is the proposed initial zoning.
NR1 is one of our residential, very low density residential
districts.
It permits single family uses, some of the lighter ag uses,
but at a minimum lot size
of one acre.
So when we review a rezoning request, we look at the
criteria for approval in subchapter
three of the Denton Development Code.
First, does it conform to the future land use?
Second, is there adequate provision of public
infrastructure?
So first we'll take a look at the comprehensive plan.
The Denton Plan 2030 identifies this area as low
residential.
The intent of low residential is to promote residential
uses, both at kind of the rural
fringe as well as in kind of suburban development.
So from one to four dwelling units per acre.
NR1 conforms to this low residential future land use
designation because it permits primarily
single family residential uses at a maximum density of one
dwelling unit per acre.
We also looked at the surrounding zoning and development
pattern.
And our analysis yields that NR1 is consistent with that
existing development pattern, both
in use and scale.
There's a lot of single family residential immediately
adjacent to the property on very
large lots.
Surrounding that is a plan development, which also includes
single family developments.
Initial zoning is required to plot the property.
The property owner would like to develop a single family
home on the lot.
They can't do so until they plot and they can't plot until
the zoning designation permits
lot sizes of a minimum of one acre lots.
So that's why they're here tonight.
If approved, development must comply with all requirements,
including tree preservation,
screening, landscaping and site design requirements.
One item that's come up recently is that RD5X is exempt
from our tree preservation requirements.
So if the NR1 is approved, then they would have to comply
with those tree preservation
requirements.
There are public facilities available that it has access to
a private road.
And there's water.
The septic would have to be installed for the residential
home.
Public notification was sent out.
We haven't received any responses.
So based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends
approval of the request and I'll
stand for any questions.
- Commissioner Sanchez.
That property is, okay, they're requesting NR1 and the
adjacent properties are all 5D?
- RD5X.
Yes, sir.
- RD5, I mean RD5.
Okay.
I guess my question is the neighbors are gonna have to come
back and request, are gonna have
to come and request a change, especially when you look at
the neighborhood, what's going
on further north on that.
There's a lot of development in there.
So I guess my question is when a property like this or an
area or neighborhood gets
annexed, why isn't it annexed into a situation where, okay,
you have one acre lots in there
because you put it in a holding pattern and it just seems
like now they're gonna keep
coming back and coming back.
We saw this in a property on 380, but we had 16 lots, acre
lots.
And then is there any way of changing this?
So when you annex something, instead of putting it in a
holding pattern, bring it into what
best fits that.
- I think legal is gonna weigh in on your question, sir.
- The city doesn't have jurisdiction over zoning until it's
actually inside the city
limits.
So we have to annex first and then zone it.
And so this is the initial zoning stand.
The initial zoning is what you're being called on to set
tonight.
But in the meantime, they're still subject to this holding
pattern zoning until the initial
zoning takes place.
- Okay, so, and I know when you annex it, it automatically
comes into that five X, right?
- As a holding pattern only, not as a zone.
That's not zoning.
It's a default set of regulations that apply to unzoned
property.
It's actually unzoned until it's zoned for the first time,
which you're making a recommendation
on tonight.
But it's subject to RD5X.
It's easier to call it RD5X than to say it's unzoned, but
it's subject to some requirements.
- Okay.
Well, I guess my question is, you're already bringing them
in, you annexed it, you see what
the neighborhood looks like, and yeah, you're gonna bring
it in RD5, but it doesn't make
sense at that point.
You already know what the neighborhood looks like.
Now I can see if you're looking at a piece of property that
's completely vacant and there's
nothing there, but if say you annex an area and you have a
neighborhood in there that's
similar to this, yes, you annex it and you look at the area
and you say, okay, this particular
area is already NR1 because of the neighborhood.
One acre lots, hey, let's right away move it into that
zoning rather than this.
I was just curious why that doesn't happen.
- Well, and the city could open up a zoning case for that
and initiate that, but traditionally
the city doesn't do that.
Traditionally it lets market forces and interests drive rez
oning decisions based upon need.
And so, I imagine with some cities they probably do annex
or do zone soon after annexation,
but traditionally Denton has not and it has taken this
approach.
We might have zoned it something like NR1 and then all of a
sudden somebody will buy
up a bunch of the land and decide that it needs to be, I
don't know, a Walmart or something.
And so, I think that's really a policy issue rather than a
legal issue as far as how you
do it, but it is possible to zone soon after annexation.
It's just that that's not the policy direction that the
city is traditionally taking.
- I was just looking at, I'm not looking at the whole area
they're annexing.
I would just look at it.
If there's a neighborhood already in existence right there,
hey, let's go ahead and take
care of it.
This way we won't be dealing with it in the future.
Because you know all those houses are pretty nice.
If you go through that neighborhood, the housing in those
neighborhoods, they're not just gonna
come in town down.
- Okay.
- Commissioner Beck.
- Thank you, Chair.
- Just curious, go to the site location map that Google,
okay.
- That work?
- Well, on ours, there's this little red, now there you go.
- That's still in the ETJ.
It's not in the city, yes.
- Well, why is that singled out like that?
I mean, everything around it's ETJ.
- They probably went through the non-annexation agreement
process.
So at some point, it probably will come into the city, but
right now it's--
- So that's not RD5.
- No, sir, it's in the county.
- Gotcha, gotcha.
And just wanted to throw something out there if the
applicants here so they can ponder
on them.
I mean, Commissioner, are they okay with the future
prospect, kind of in conjunction with
what Commissioner Sanchez was saying, the prospect of the
surrounding property could
be zoned with a higher density district to accommodate the
housing that's all around
it.
So I guess, you know, that's something they're gonna be
facing down the road.
And I just was curious to whether they, you know, thought
about that down the road.
So anyway, I don't expect you to answer that.
Thank you.
- Commissioner Smith.
- Thank you, Chair.
Just for my own notification.
Comparison of uses for NR1 versus RD5X, I'm trying to pull
it up.
I don't know if it was in our backup or not.
Yeah, it is right there.
What are they gaining by actually going through NR1?
- Minimum lot size.
- Build.
What is it?
So they can build?
They can do a new build?
- Yes, sir.
So there was a structure on the property that--
- They're gonna tear it down and build a new one?
- I think it burned, so I think it's gone.
And they just, according to the applicant, want to build a
single family home.
And they can't plot because they don't have five acres.
- Okay, thank you.
- I do not see any other questions.
- Thank you.
- Next item on our work session is to receive an update
regarding the DDC subchapter 13
tree preservation and landscape standards.
- Okay.
All right, so tonight what I wanted to do, I know we've
talked about the tree code for
a long time.
So a little bit of a timeline.
I know it stretches even before this.
I think the last time, at least from what I saw, the last
time this was presented in
some form or fashion, the P&Z was February of 2017.
Right after that, there was I think some proposed
amendments to the Senate bill that was going
back and forth limiting tree preservation.
And then as we were partly updating the DDC and landscape,
there are a number of other
things going on.
And so we kind of took a step back and really looked at how
this tree code came about, the
last draft and sort of where we were going and sort of what
could result.
So what we did is we had a policy discussion with the
council and the committee on the
environment in May 21st.
And from there, we really looked at some of the state
regulations that came into play
and really looking at trying to unify both the tree
preservation landscape and ESA together.
I think one of the questions that came up even on one of
the earlier items was the credit
that you currently get from an ESA.
And so that was one of the policy questions we asked.
Should you get that credit or is there another way?
And also what do we really want to do with tree
preservation?
Is it do we want to build our fund?
Do we want to preserve trees?
And to what form or fashion?
And so that was the initial discussion.
So we kind of went back and I'll be honest, it was hard
drafting because there were so
many various drafts previously and it was hard to follow.
None of them were in track changes and there were things
that were in there that I thought
was -- shame on me that I thought, okay, this must have
been vetted.
It's probably good to go.
I'll leave that.
It makes -- it probably makes sense.
And I didn't ask the question why, which I normally do, to
only find out I probably
should have asked why.
So that's why I'm giving you an update because we're coming
-- we're going to be coming
back again.
But more tonight what I really wanted to get into is that
we are working on -- we are moving
forward.
I know there was a concern that it had just stalled and
died, but that was not the case.
We did have a discussion at DCRC on some of the items.
One in particular, it was interesting when you really read
that code and really get into
it, part of the problem was in the past, to be quite honest
, it was not administered correctly.
There are some things in there that are good.
And for whatever reason, they just were not administered
how they should have been.
I can't explain why or why not.
It just -- it is what it is.
I can't tell you that we have made changes already.
One of the concerns we've always had moving forward was how
do we memorialize these tree
preservation plans?
And it's one of those things also -- if you continue to
read our code, you always find
something.
And one requirement was on the plat, it's supposed to be
noted, that tree preservation,
where that tree preservation takes place.
I think a previous plat, we included that note.
So if it was on the lot, it is now included as a notation
on that plat following what was
adopted.
And so we're kind of looking at does that still make sense
and how do we sort of build
on some of these things that we probably should have been
enforcing in the past.
But again, we are where we are today.
So we went to COE August 6th with the draft.
I think I had provided the PowerPoint and draft regulations
.
And so what we did is we really looked at a number of
recent adopted regulations.
We do know that the Home Builders Association made it very
known that they wanted to see
what we were doing and had concerns.
And again, looking at it weighing both sides, but also
knowing that we have an obligation
and policy directive to preserve trees.
And so how can we kind of write regulations where we think
we can kind of get there where,
one, we're not going to be challenged and have it thrown
out, but also still preserve
trees greater than where we are, greater than where we are
today.
And so that was the attempt of the first, of this latest
draft.
And so again, one was really to again to unify the code.
And what we're looking at, kind of what we've been calling
is really conservation and landscape
standards and kind of bringing it all together, tree
preservation, landscaping, ESA, but also
looking at how we look at park space and park dedication
and whether or not that could be
factored in as an incentive to preserve trees.
Again, although they're kind of independent, they all inter
relate to each other.
The park is not part of the land development code.
It's part of the code of ordinances.
But again, they all kind of play in together.
And I think part of the problem with some of the other
drafts, it was just looked at
on its own and we didn't really look at how it was going to
affect some of the other ordinances.
One of the concerns we had with I think the last draft, it
was on canopy coverage.
Right now we're looking at staying on DBH.
When we looked at the way it could be interpreted, easily
interpreted, was that if the ESA counted
for 30%, that would count for all of your tree canopy
requirements.
No mitigation would be required.
In addition, it would count for all of your canopy
requirements for your landscaping.
And so it's kind of like, well, wait a second, is that
meeting the intent of what we really
want because that's kind of an easy out.
And so again, it's sort of going back and looking at that
as well as there was an exempt
tree list that was in there.
And the other component that I questioned is how can we
administer a code where we're going
to base a percentage off in an aerial photograph, not
require a tree study, but then have a
number of exempt trees.
So if somebody comes in at a later date and wants to remove
those exempt trees, how are
we going to then make sure that 30% is preserved?
And it would just, I think it would be very difficult to
administer.
Christopher Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, my concern here too is how do you get to, if tree
canopy is what we want, how do
you get there using DBH?
I mean, how do you know what kind of tree canopy you're
going to get unless you know
the tree specifically?
Is there going to be that kind of information?
I think it's when we get into the requirements for the tree
preservation plan, I think that's
where we need to, it's going to have to be detailed on that
plan.
I'll get through, I'll go through and I'll show kind of the
comparison.
Just wanted to touch base on our current tree code.
Again, it actually gives you the option, believe it or not,
either percentage of DBH or percentage
of tree canopy.
And this has been administered differently on a variety of
projects.
But again, it gives you the OR, again, current code.
In-fill development, there's no minimum preservation, only
mitigation for large trees.
So if you're part of an infill lot, there's really no
preservation requirements, no mitigation
requirements, very little.
Non-in-fill lots, again, quality tree, if you're a smaller
lot, there's nothing that's
required.
If you're greater than two and a half, you have a minimum
of 20% for single family, 25%
for multi-family and non-residential, and then that can be
reduced down to 10% and 12.5%.
In addition to that, we have a number of categories.
We have protected, historic quality, large secondary,
secondary, then we have quality
tree stands and secondary tree stands.
And so looking at this on a table and trying to figure out
where kind of things fit in
and what's exempt, what's not exempt.
Again, it's not organized in the best fashion.
But again, this is our current code.
What we were recommending is, first and foremost, is let's
establish a purpose statement and
some goals of what we really want to achieve.
One, so we could have that public purpose of why we're
doing it, but also if an interpretation
does come up, we can go back to, okay, well, what was
really the intent and the purpose
of these regulations?
And if we make this interpretation, are we following with
what was intended?
Again, we had that intent of achieving a 30% canopy
coverage citywide, staying with the
measurement at DBH, not on a canopy percentage, and trying
to really look at encouraging saving
larger trees.
Going back to where did that, one of the questions, where
did that 30% come from?
And so there was this study in 2016, the State of Denton
Urban Forest Report, that indicated
there was an average canopy coverage of 30% in the city.
And so we really started looking at that.
And it's interesting when you start to read things a couple
of times and pick out those
little words.
And so when we looked at how the urban, I think it's the
urban tree canopy was defined,
it actually was more than the city limits.
So there were pockets of, and this is the map that we had
pulled together.
So there were maps of areas in the ETJ that were included,
as well as non-annexation areas
that were included as part of that analysis.
So we sort of stepped back and said, well, okay, well, what
is our actual, if we just
look at our current city limits?
And so at that time, 27.9, which is where we're about now.
And I'll show you some numbers later where we're starting
to get a little bit more into
the analysis of exactly what we have and what we want to
preserve and where.
One of the other recommendations we had early on was coming
up with really a comprehensive
tree management plan.
We do have a tree mitigation fund.
And I know there's been debates in the past about what and
where that money should go
and how it should be spent.
One of the suggestions we had was really creating this tree
, comprehensive tree management plan.
Ironically, it was budgeted last year for whatever reason,
it didn't move forward.
We are asking that those funds be re-appropriated this
coming budget year to actually have that
plan completed.
And really what we're looking at doing is really continuing
to set those goals, but
more so outlining where the trees should be planted, where
should we have, what kind of
streetscaping should we have, what kind of street trees
should we have, and really just
looking at overall improving both the look and environment
for the city.
What I have on the side...
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Okay, Richard, you're talking about funding from the tree
fund, funding for the study.
Is that what you're talking about?
Yes, there was funding to have the study complete.
Which never was done, you're saying, last year?
The study wasn't done this past year.
And so we're asking that those funds be re-budgeted next
year so we can have that study complete.
So where are those funds that were budgeted?
They're sitting in an account.
Okay, so they just have to be re-accounted for with the
existing budget.
And then who's doing the study?
It'll go out for an RFP.
At least that's what we're initially planning.
The table on the side, one thing what I'd like to be able
to do is each year provide
some metrics.
So if we're gonna provide these purpose statements and
goals, I should be able to tell you what
we did and how we're meeting them.
Right now I can't.
I can't tell you how many trees we've preserved.
I can't tell you how much canopy.
Within general numbers, I can.
But we haven't done a good account of really accounting for
new landscape plans that have
come in.
I mean, versus what's been removed.
And so I'd like to be able every year to kind of give that
state of the city.
Here's where we are.
Here were the metrics and provide that on all aspects.
But this one in particular.
And so as part of that redrafting, we looked at sort of
consolidating and really looking
at keeping the historic tree, heritage, any tree 18 inches
or greater, and all the post-opes
would regardless of their size, and then get into the
quality 6 to, it should be less than
18.
I know we can have 17 and a half and be in a no man's land,
but that was really the intent.
But again, looking at that exempt, it was Mesquite, Cotton
wood, Hackberry, or Texas
Sugarberry, Bodark, or Locust, less than 18.
Interestingly, the majority of those trees I think that I
have underlined, I think account
for over, and I have the number later, but it's the
majority of the trees that make up
our canopy.
And so it's one of those shame on me.
So here we are, we're going to preserve 30% of our canopy,
but 50% of our canopy is going
to be made up of exempt trees.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Okay, help me here.
Can an exempt tree like a Hackberry that's 18 inches or
more, can it be considered a
quality tree?
Can you explain quality to us a little bit?
If you've got a nice Hackberry with a nice canopy.
And that's where we are now.
And so what came out of the last COE was to really look at
should we have exempt, should
the trees be exempt, or if the exempt trees are a certain
size, even if it's greater
than or less than 18 inches, if it's eight inches or nine
inches, should it be worth
preserving?
And so that's where we are now, kind of looking at again
what we have as really where our
exempt trees come in are our secondary trees.
So the exempt trees would be susceptible to being looked at
less favorably, but we could,
when we go in and do a development, we've got a lot of Mes
quite or Hackberry, Sugarberry,
we can determine then whether they.
We may not have them as exempt trees, ultimately.
Okay, okay.
So there's some buffer there.
One thing that I was requested was to meet with the Master
Gardeners Association to specifically
kind of talk about species and what should be exempt.
And so we had our first meeting, I met with the director
earlier this week, and so she
gave me some good things to consider.
There are some that are susceptible to disease, and so we
're kind of looking at that, and
so this is one area that we're going to be coming back on.
Are there any other native trees other than post-okes in
this area that need to be in
this classification?
Probably, and I think that's where we're, rather than just
naming the exempt, I think
we're also going to look at specifically whether it's a Sch
umart Oak or some other species,
that's where we're looking at really coming in and defining
those kind of trees.
Okay, good, thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez.
When we're looking at, since we're in cross timbers, would
that be, look at those species
that occur naturally in the cross timbers habitat, rather
than just bring in trees and
say, okay, it meets these criteria or they're introduced
trees, we should be looking at
those species that are native, because if we're looking to
preserve native habitat,
that's basically what we're looking at, native trees,
native vegetation, and like you say,
blackberries, those grow everywhere.
Most people consider them as trash species, because they'll
grow long fence lines everywhere,
but what we need to look at, I think more is post-okes,
blackjack oaks, all your white
oaks and your red oaks.
There's a whole slew of oaks that actually occur in this
area and that we should be concentrating
on.
I'm going to jump in and make sure Cole can take over.
Is there any part of this, this is more fodder for thought,
is there any thought to help
out keeping the trees that we do have healthy?
We talk a lot about just not cutting trees down, but like
post-okes, they are some fickle
trees that, I mean, I have several that are dying on me
with no fault of my own, I think,
but is there anything we're doing through this process of
preservation and conservation
to help the species that are out there?
More maybe a rhetorical question, but something to play
into the conversation.
Part of it has to do with where we're headed with the
preservation plan and what you preserve
and the length of time.
Right now, we don't have any real mechanism to go back and
inspect it or check it.
That is a component to make sure that they are maintained
throughout.
Do you have a question?
Yeah, I was going to take you back on what Mr. Sanchez was
saying.
Taking mesquite, for instance, we ranchers in the city of
Denton are having to hold a
mesquite.
I mean, two things, feral hogs and mesquite trees.
We're losing so much of our ag pastures to mesquite because
it's invasive and it spreads
like wildfire.
I don't think there's anything ... I guess we could look at
the size of it because I've
seen some big mesquite trees, but we're losing acreage.
We've lost several hundred acres to mesquite.
It multiplies like crazy.
It's not supposed to be here.
That's my two cents on mesquite.
I hate it.
No, it's good.
A couple other ... I don't want to get too in depth, but a
couple new concepts.
One is what we're calling a development impact area.
Really the development impact area would exclude any ESA or
preserved habitat, again, which
is a new term, or any sort of conservation easement.
Again, the thought was is really looking at, if that's your
entire site, your ESA you're
going to have to do regardless.
Let's take that out of the equation altogether.
Then really look at the site excluding that area and then
base your requirements on that.
In addition, your landscape requirements would not include
that ESA area either, where now
it can be.
Again, it was again looking at a give and take.
We looked at a number of recent ordinances that were
adopted.
The city of Dallas in particular that I believe the home
builders endorsed.
They had a very similar concept.
I think the city of Arlington recently passed one a year
ago.
We were looking at what has been supported and where can we
go, but also improve what
we have.
Again, the preserved habitat, this would be an area
adjacent to an ESA.
Initially, we looked at a minimum square footage of 1,200
square feet.
Again, this is to just build upon that preserved, trying to
preserve that habitat that may be
outside of the ESA.
But again, giving credit and when you, as part of that
development impact area, again,
further reducing it on what you would be required to do on
the landscaping side.
- Commissioner Beck.
- Help me with that.
What distinguishes the preserved habitat from the ESA?
- With the ESA, you have to preserve, so say you have, you
only have to preserve 30% of
the ESA.
If you decide to preserve, you can either preserve the ESA,
you wouldn't get credit
for your tree preservation or landscaping.
If you went to the minimum on ESA, you would no longer get
credit.
That's another recommendation, so you would no longer get
credit for your ESA on your
tree preservation or landscaping, but it wouldn't count
against you either.
- Well, I guess what I'm asking, what makes up a preserved
habitat?
- It would be a designated area on the site that would be
adjacent to that ESA.
That would satisfy your tree preservation requirements.
- Okay, okay.
- Not to use the site, the SGP site, but where you saw that
they had, if they were under
the new code, if it was adopted, if they still had to do 30
%, that could be adjacent to that,
that would be their preserved habitat.
Then the requirements for landscaping would be taken out of
that area that's set aside.
- Okay, so that would appease them since they can't use the
ESA for their minimum, they
could use this area and keep a lot of trees at the same
time.
- Correct.
The intent was really to try to focus on continuing that
habitat or preserving large trees.
- Right, right, thanks.
- Commissioner Sanchez, you have a question?
- I guess my question is, you have your ESA and your
preserved habitat.
Long-term, how are you gonna manage those?
Is there anything that's gonna discuss how to manage those
areas to preserve them in
the long-term?
Because if you just preserve them over time, other species
will come in or you won't have,
ESA is supposed to be, we're talking about upland habitat,
so you should have a canopy
and a ground cover.
If you go into an area where all you have is a canopy and
you don't have no ground cover,
that's a very poor example of an ESA.
So if you continue to preserve it over time, you're gonna
lose it.
So is there anything in this whole tree preservation or ESA
issue that brings about how to manage
those?
- The management, on the ESA, I'm not sure how, because the
regulations, as you know,
were recently adopted, and I honestly, I don't know.
We haven't written that in, any sort of management plan yet
.
Certainly we'll look at including that.
That's a good point.
- Commissioner Pernitta.
- So just to clarify, so on the ESA, you mentioned that
they're required to preserve 30% of the
ESA, right?
- Correct.
- Okay.
And if they are not preserving 30%, we have the preserved
habitat, right?
- They're sort of separate.
So regardless, they have to preserve, if there's an ESA on
the site, they have to preserve
at least 30% of it.
- Okay.
What is the, so the preserved habitat, is there a
percentage that's required there?
- No, no, there would be no minimum percentage.
They would still have to meet their tree preservation
requirements of 30%, but that area could be,
however it's conformed, it could be, whether it's 10%, 20%,
or the full 30%.
It just needs to be attached to the ESA.
So again, talking about the preservation requirements, 30%
of DBH as opposed to the canopy, but then
70% replacement.
So right now, there's, depending what kind of tree and the
size and the size of your
lot, you may not have to replace it.
This is a complete opposite.
So this would require mitigation.
So if you clear cut your post oaks, the post oaks on a
property, you would have to mitigate
some form or fashion under what's being proposed.
And that was a discussion that really came out, part of the
COE and council, where it's
interesting, you get phone calls, "Hey, why was there tree
mitigation only, I saw it was
only $4,000."
They clear cut that entire property, well, they met our
code.
So again, it's not really meant to hurt a property owner,
but it's also looking at,
if we are going to have tree preservation requirements, let
's make sure we're kind
of selective and how we can kind of work together and meet
those goals.
- Mr. Beck.
- Thank you, Chair.
That just kind of blew my mind.
- You say a lot if you've got the lot has half the trees
there, that they can come in
and clear cut that.
What about the 30% preservation?
- They would have under the current code, talking about the
current code, depending
on the tree, they could technically take it down to 12.5%,
assuming it's greater than
two and a half acres.
And I've got an example I'll show you.
Let me just flip to it now.
So it kind of puts it in perspective.
This was the, before I get there, just on the ESA, the way
it's written now, so you
get one square foot of tree canopy for every square foot of
ESA tree canopy.
Plus you get two square feet of landscape credits for every
square feet of preserved
ESA tree canopy, or one square foot of landscape credit for
every square foot of non-wooded
preserved ESA.
So you get a pretty, it's a pretty robust bonus for your
landscaping and tree preservation
requirements.
- Current?
- This is what was, yeah, this is the current.
The directive that we got from COE was to move forward with
an amendment to eliminate
the credit that currently exists.
And so this is an example.
This was a plat that was recently approved.
So on their site, they had a total DBH of 3260, which
accounted for roughly 28.5% of
their lot.
So if you look at what they preserved, that's the red.
And so that met our requirements.
They had to do some mitigation, but what they preserved was
1.14% of the canopy.
And then they had a mitigation payment of 18,750.
And so you see the amount that was lost.
- Well, I hope I'm not the only one here, but again, I don
't understand how DBH and
canopy correlate.
- It depends on the type of tree.
- Okay.
- It depends on the type of tree, the size.
- I mean, the DBH alone doesn't tell you what the canopy is
.
- No.
- So if we're trying to sustain 30% canopy in the city, I
just don't understand how we
do that based on DBH.
- I think part of the issue too that I have in measuring,
particularly if it's in a tree
stand, because there are gonna be some trees removed.
So if the branches are co-mingled, what belongs to what
looking at it from an aerial?
And so I don't think there's any real exact way to do that.
But then again, is 30% the number?
Again, I don't know.
That's really more of a policy discussion.
- 40%?
- Or should it be something else?
But this just gives you an idea of the current versus
proposed.
And so the area in yellow, what we did is we took this tree
preservation plan and then
looked at the inches at 30%, 978.
And so what that equated to was roughly 27.7% of the canopy
on the site.
Again it's gonna depend on the tree.
And so sort of where we're headed with additional analysis,
a couple of things.
One we're sort of really looking at what is our true
percentage?
And it's interesting if you look at in 2014, the percent
canopy coverage was 28.4%.
2018, 27.9.
And how did that change?
It's the municipal boundary change.
That's all that reflects.
So as we continue to annex land from out west where it's
more prairie, obviously our percentage
is gonna decrease.
And so when we start to really look at, so what we're doing
now is really the map and
trying to find what would it take to achieve that goal,
making some general assumptions.
And so now we're really looking at all the platted acreage,
platted, unplatted, developed,
undeveloped and what's required under certain PDs.
And again, 'cause we have a multitude of properties that
fall under different regulations from
different periods of time.
So it's a little difficult, but we do wanna do, we wanna be
able to have those answers.
But then also look at of that vacant land, whether it be pl
atted or unplatted, how much
of that is city owned property?
But in addition to that, how much of that canopy then is
related to that city owned
property?
And so whether or not we wanna make policy decisions to
preserve that in perpetuity in
some form or fashion, again, but those are the items that
we're looking at and we're
really asked at that last COE meeting.
Again, looking at that tree species and exempt tree list,
again, 58% of what we had is exempt
trees.
I'm sorry, 58% of the existing canopy is made up of the
trees that were on the exempt list.
Same with the master gardeners, the ESA credits.
One of the items that came up recently when we were talking
conservation areas and how
we were gonna use that, this was part of the DCRC, which is
the group that meets as part
of the DDC update.
And the outside council cautioned making sure that there is
a proportionality factor.
And I won't get into the whole proportionality issue with
respect to takings.
And so we're sort of rethinking how we do that.
But also looking at, there was some language with offsite
plannings and whether somebody
should be permitted if they are required to mitigate to be
able to plant somewhere else
in the city and how that would be managed long-term.
And so that's kind of where we are now.
But again, at least wanted to give you guys an update.
I know there's a lot there, but at least wanted to at least
present some of the ideas
and changes from the vast array of drafts that you had
before you.
-Kashelis.
-Thank you, Chair.
Richard, could we maybe add on the analysis, the tree fund,
and maybe getting it on some
kind of a regular annual plan of what to do with it?
I mean, we've had this in the past where it just grows and
grows and grows.
If we're gonna keep it in there as an option, and clearly
there's a lot of money in it,
I mean, you just, that was one development, $18,000 went
into it.
What are we doing with it?
We need to have a plan for the tree fund if we're having a
tree fund.
-Right, and that's where that goes back to that management
plan.
So if we have those funds, again, rather than just putting
a tree in a park here or there,
let's really use them to improve the city and what the
intent for the...
-Well, I would think to achieve the goal of what we're
doing.
I mean, if they're not gonna do it on that site, then let's
take money from the tree
fund and achieve the goal of the city somewhere else.
That would make sense to me anyway.
Chair, may I have one more question?
-Go for it.
-Thank you.
Getting back to DBH, you didn't explain how you got to that
determination that you decided
to do that instead of Canopy.
Tell me how that conversation with whom was the
conversation?
-It was a conversation with staff that we really looked at,
and we went through literally
a multitude of...and days of scenarios and just saying, "
Okay, well, let me look at this
site and let's run the numbers again," and really trying to
determine what makes sense.
But then looking at and then really diving into our current
code where it kind of gives
you that option and looking at, "All right, well, when we
really enforce the code at 25%
of DBH, what did we achieve?"
And there were some cases that it seemed to work.
I think where it got...where it may have failed is the Rais
ing Cane site, right?
I mean, that's the one everyone points to, but believe it
or not, it met the tree code.
That was the first one I wanted to look at, but they met
the code.
There were some mitigation, but again, it's within the
parameters of what the code allows.
So that's where we really started thinking of, "Well, what
's really our intent, and
do we want to try to preserve post-Oaks or blackjack oaks?"
And some may not have a big Canopy.
And so let's really start looking at the DBH of some of
these...that's why we didn't have
a DBH on post-Oaks.
We initially did, and then backed off of it.
And so that's where we're at now is just trying to come up
with a better sort of formula,
I guess, if you will, of how we measure it and what species
.
So, but in this brainstorming that you did, I mean, so you
determined that getting here
was easier to do with DBH versus a percentage of Canopy?
That's where I'm trying to go with the question of how you
...
Not that it was easier, it was better representative.
The Canopy was actually much easier, because all you're
doing is looking at an aerial from
Google and drawing, you know, calculating in the area, "
Okay, this is 30 percent, and
here's my preservation plan."
And to me, that...and then we're going to have a list of
exempt trees.
Well, how do we administer that?
And so for me, it was hard to determine it.
Okay.
Thanks.
Christopher Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Was part of the staff that was brainstorming this was City
Arborist, Haywood Morgan?
Yeah.
So we've all been involved.
This is kind of a term from his state of the Denton Urban
Forest he gave a couple years
ago.
It was all Canopy then, so he's had a change of attitude on
that?
Well, we're still working through that.
I know he, you know, he has some...he likes the Canopy, but
again, I think administering
it, again, practically in a code, it's much more...I think
it's much more difficult, and
there's less assurances.
Okay.
I like that he's still involved, because I mean, I read his
report, and I liked everything
about it, so I would just...I wanted to make sure he's
still in the loop on that.
Oh, absolutely.
Okay.
Thanks.
So I'm going to jump in real fast.
I echo Ellis and Beck's opinions on the DBH Canopy.
I think I understand, to the best of my ability, the
rationale, because I get that Canopy and
tree type, there's some issues there.
What's incongruent to my mind right now, and it takes time
to process, obviously, is having
a goal measured by Canopy, but the standard in place for
development is going to be DBH.
And so it seems like if you go that route, then you'd have
to have some sort of all-tree
matrix that post oak, you have to have two inches of DBH,
but a pecan, you just have
to have one because of the Canopy associated to the DBH.
And so that seems like a massive effort to have a matrix of
every possible tree that
could grow here, and how Canopy credits given to DBH.
And so I wonder if we know that kind of ratio, is there
like a 20,000 inch DBH that the city
wants that represents 30% Canopy, and now we have our goal
of DBH and the standard we're
placing is DBH, if that's the way you want to go.
But I'm still trying to process, if we're having developers
adhere to DBH, but we're
going to measure our goal by Canopy, the difference is
there.
I agree.
I think that, again, some of these things we just carried
forward, again, it's a new
day.
Interestingly, we're one of the few cities that actually
have a percent requirement.
I think that was one of the bones of contention with the
Builders Association that you're
making me require a certain percentage.
If we end up requiring mitigation for all trees, again, the
question is, does it matter?
It could be very expensive, depending how it's written.
But if you put more weight on trees that are native from
the cross timber, then that alone
just can be the force for preservation.
And maybe that's really the true goal and not just 30%
because it was in this report.
And again, is it really achievable?
And that's really what we're even doing that analysis of.
Is it even achievable?
Yeah, I think there's something, too.
If there's 100% mitigation, then there's going to be a
consequence for a tree coming
down.
Then that might have a lot more weight towards the goal of
maximizing trees and dentin above
anything.
But I'm sure there's going to be some significant pushback
on that.
And that's kind of where we were going, too.
But also putting a little more weight on, putting a little
more weight, and I didn't
finish on this one, putting a little bit more weight on
those type of tree, on a post oak.
So still getting a credit.
So even though you're required to do 30, you would still
get a credit based on that.
And the larger and the tight.
So if you decide you're going to preserve all sort of all
post oaks for every inch of
post oak that you preserve every DBH, it would be at one to
three.
So that would write down your mitigation amount.
And so really the intent is, what do we really want to
preserve?
And let's focus on that rather than just some number out
there that we may not physically
ever be able to achieve, looking at really our ETJ and what
's on the ground now.
Thank you, Chair.
I know at one point the state was trying to weigh in on
this.
Do you know where we are with that?
There was Senate Bill 6.
There were some requirements passed.
But it really had to do with on mitigation.
There are some exemptions for single family on the size of
tree.
I think it's anything below seven inches, if I'm recalling
correctly.
I'll send that out to everyone.
But there you have to provide for the ability to replant.
So it can't be all payment is really what it equated to,
whether or not this next session
there's something else that comes out.
But yeah.
The mayor was very upset.
Better get ours in sooner than later.
That was my point exactly.
I don't see any more questions.
Oh, Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Just as a comment on the 30%.
Maybe it's more, maybe it's less.
But I think there's an advantage to having an established
amount to draw a line and saying
just to make sure that we don't go crazy in the one
direction in the negative aspect.
So just for what it's worth, I think 30%, 28%, 32%, I think
we need to have some figure
to draw a line and saying.
I'm going to have both of those.
That's why I want to be able to at least have both of those
options so we can everyone can
make that informed decision.
Make it all set.
Thank you, Richard.
With that, we will close the work session at 616.
We'll reconvene in council chambers at 630.
Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting for Wednesday,
August 22nd.
I'll call this meeting to order at 637.
Apologize for the delay.
First order of business is to stand and give a Pledge of
Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas
flag.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America and to the Republic for
which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.
I honor the Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one
and indivisible.
First order of business is to consider approval of the P&Z
minutes from August 8th.
Commissioner Smith?
Commissioner Ellis?
Second.
We have a first and a second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I will call for a vote by show of hands.
All those in favor?
All those against?
Abstaining?
Minutes passed, seven-zero.
Next is the consent agenda.
Is there any motion or discussion?
Commissioner Beck?
Move to approve the consent agenda.
Commissioner Smith?
Second.
There is a first and a second.
Any discussion on the consent?
Seeing none, I will call for a vote by show of hands.
Those in favor?
Those against?
Any abstaining?
Consent passes, seven-zero.
Next order of business is public hearings.
The first is 4A-6 or S-17-7.
I will open the public hearing and call Haley for
presentation.
Good evening.
This is case S-17-7 for the enclave at Denton.
The request before you is to hold this public hearing and
consider making a recommendation
to the City Council regarding a specific use permit for a
multifamily use on the property
outlined on the map in yellow.
The site is just over 12 acres located on the east side of
Brinker Road.
For a little bit of background on what an SUP is, this
specific use permit is a type
of approval that's required for uses that may be compatible
in a zoning district where
the use is not permitted by right.
So there may be certain conditions or restrictions that are
needed to limit nuisance potential
for the use that's requested.
An SUP does require two public hearings, so this will be
the first and this will be followed
up by a public hearing at the City Council pending your
recommendation.
The subject property is located within a regional center
commercial downtown zoning district
or RCCD.
Within this district, multifamily is permitted with
limitations.
So limitation four requires that either a specific use
permit be approved, that the
multifamily be part of a mixed use development that meets
our definition and additional criteria
for mixed use development, or that have been previously
approved as part of something such
as an MPC or a small area plan.
An SUP has several criteria for approval that were outlined
in detail in your backup, so
I'll just kind of summarize those here.
All of those conditions or criteria are aimed at ensuring
compatibility between the use
that's proposed and surrounding uses or zoning surrounding
the property.
So that would include that the use wouldn't impede the
orderly development of surrounding
properties, that adequate parking and access are provided
for the site, that there are
measures in place to ensure there's no nuisances generated
by the use that could be noise,
light, glare, things of that nature, that there's adequate
landscaping and screening
provided and that there's architectural compatibility.
So we'll now look in a little more detail at what's
proposed.
So you can see here two buildings proposed on the site
outlined in blue.
The footprint of the buildings is just over 95,000 square
feet.
There are 270 multifamily units proposed, a mixture of one,
two, and three bedroom,
and additionally outlined in red, there is a small area of
commercial, there'd be a variety
of uses that could be permitted there under our CCD, such
as restaurants or retail or
fitness centers.
In addition to the building footprint, there are 471
parking spaces shown on the site.
This does meet the Denton Development Code's criteria for
parking based on the individual
uses that they've thought of on the site, so multifamily as
well as the various commercial
uses.
About 30 of those spaces would be required for just the
commercial uses, the remainder
would be associated with the multifamily.
And then the other key feature of the site is a two and a
half acre area of tree conservation
that we'll look at a little more closely.
So looking at the landscaping, as I mentioned, landscaping
is one of the key features for
compatibility.
So the code requires between multifamily and commercial use
, as well as between multifamily
and the institutional use to the south, a type C buffer.
So that's a 15 foot wide area planted with a combination of
trees and shrubs based on
the linear footage.
So you can see outlined in light green the two areas where
that buffer has been provided
for.
The area outlined in orange is the required parking lot
screening area.
So when you have parking between a building and the street,
code requires a 15 foot wide
area with trees, shrubs, and a berm all included in that
space.
And then shown in dark green is the area of that tree
conservation.
As I mentioned, it's approximately two and a half acres in
size.
And I wanted to show you what that actually looks like with
an aerial image.
So this is that overlaying on an aerial of the site.
So you can see this is actually a copy of the plat for this
development, the preliminary
plat.
So this will be memorialized on the plat for this property
that it will remain a conservation
area.
The other key feature of the SUP is the building elevations
to ensure that architectural compatibility.
So you can see here just one of the buildings.
They're both proposed to be four stories tall, just over 50
feet.
The zoning district does allow up to 100 feet in height.
The materials would be a mixture of brick and stone veneer
as well as a combination
of fiber cement, siding, and panels.
So a little bit of our analysis was not only ensuring that
it met those zoning and code
requirements, was that it's also consistent with the future
land use.
So this area, as you can see here in the dark pink, is
designated for regional mixed use.
So here at the loop, and I-35 is kind of a logical location
for a major commercial and
high density multifamily or high density housing hub.
So this does fit comfortably within that, providing a place
for people to live in close
proximity to some of our key retail uses in town.
Further analysis is looking at what's around the property.
So we do have a large area that's undeveloped.
But we also have the Walmart Shopping Center just to the
north of the property as well
as another large shopping center across the street.
And then to the south, we have a variety of institutional
and multifamily uses.
So some assisted living memory care facilities as well as
straight multifamily development.
So we found this used to be compatible with what's in the
area today and what would be
permitted on the vacant property surrounding, which has a
similar regional center zoning
designation.
And we found that it would be unlikely to generate any nuis
ances for these uses since
they're so consistent and similar.
Notification was posted in the newspaper and mailed for
this case.
We received no responses and there wasn't a neighborhood
meeting held.
The applicant did post the required public hearing sign on
the property.
So just kind of wrapping up and going back to those
criteria, again, we found there would
be no major concerns for nuisance prevention here.
There was adequate landscaping buffers and screening
provided.
And it generally is consistent with all the criteria for
multifamily development in our
code.
With that, staff is recommending approval of their request
with one condition, that
the provided preliminary site plan, landscape plan, and
building elevations were found to
be consistent with the requirements of the Denton
Development Code for site design, landscaping,
parking, and building design.
But a final site plan, landscaping plan, and building elev
ations will be required.
And at the time those are provided, they should be
consistent with these approved plans.
And with that, I can stand for any questions.
I do not see any questions.
Thank you, Haley.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone wanting to talk is more than welcome to do so.
If you want, you can fill out a blue card.
We'd be happy to have you speak.
We do have one already filled out.
It is for Kim McGibbon wanting to speak in opposition.
If you want to come down, when you get to the mic, if you
could state your name and
address for the record.
Yes, my name is Kim McGibbon, 1306 West Hickory here in
Denton.
I was in the earlier meeting, so I have some idea about
what you guys have already discussed
about this project.
The thing that concerns me is the environmentally sensitive
area, which is adjacent to this.
I do not remember or I have not heard anything about how
they're going to protect that.
I did hear in the earlier meeting that they are planning on
using a retention wall.
If you've been out to that site and looked at what the
previous development did when
they built the assisted living facility, they basically
just chopped it off and left it
standing there.
I'd like to know more about the elevations of this planned
building.
Is the retention wall going to be above the ground level at
the environmentally sensitive
level or area, or is it going to be containing the
environmentally sensitive area with the
drainage coming off into the planned development?
Also the stand of trees that is a little skinny thing that
kind of sticks off up next to the
parking lot.
One of the things about environmentally sensitive areas is
that the trees themselves act as
a community.
To be designated as environmentally sensitive area, I would
assume in this one is because
of the type of trees and the type of habitat that's there.
It's very rare that we are losing rapidly.
If there is a way to bring that landscape, to bring the
outline of the environmentally
sensitive area back into a more rounded or compact area,
you're going to have better
survival of not only the trees, but also of the habitat.
The little tiny slip that's there next to the parking lot
is not going to survive for
very long, nor is it going to be adequate coverage for any
animals, birds, native plants
that grow in the understory.
I know that I heard the additional thing about the tree
preservation.
When you talk about environmentally sensitive areas, we're
talking about more than trees.
We're talking about the entire ecosystem that's in there.
If you would talk to my friends with the master naturalist
from the parks department, you'd
get a little bit more information about how these things
work and what goes on.
I think it's a great development.
I just feel like they're setting themselves up at this
point to try to preserve the trees
and then with the construction that's going to go on and
encroachment and the leaving
of that tiny little slither, they're not really going to
achieve what they want to achieve
in the long run.
There's a lot of things to be considered.
How's that retaining wall going to go in?
Is stuff going to drain into the ESA?
You're not supposed to drain into an ESA.
Is stuff going to drain out of the ESA?
How is that going to be affected?
These plans on flat things look great, but that's not a
flat area.
It's a very elevated hilltop kind of place.
We forget that if we don't go out and actually look at it.
If we're just looking at it from above in the aerial things
, we can't see that.
The objection I have is not to the building itself.
I think it's a good fit.
I think that the parking lots could be rearranged and some
adjustment could be made so that
they're avoiding those tiny splits of your environmentally
sensitive area that are going
to be at risk.
If you're asking anything for them for asking for this
special use permit, ask them to look
at that, to redesign possibly where their parking is for
the density of the trees and
what they're really trying to do there.
Because I think that's important.
Also, I would really encourage this board to look at the
other side of that.
As people come forward with other developments, you have to
have at least five acres of any
kind of habitat to make an environmental difference.
Five acres of the cross timbers is not very much when we
have to consider what we had
out there to begin with.
As you continue to look at these plannings, particularly
for these very sensitive areas
that we have on the east side of town, think about keeping
huge parts of this upland habitat
intact because tiny little islands of it are not what we
need to survive in this habitat.
I question, is an ESA in the city of Denton an area that
cannot be improved upon?
You can't mow it, you can't cut down trees, you can't do
things to it.
It's just got to be the way it is.
So that's my question.
Also, what protection are they going to give that area when
they're doing the construction?
Because the construction workers, they love to park their
trees under those great big
post oaks.
What's going to happen there?
Thank you.
We have a couple of questions, I think.
Yes.
Mr. Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Thanks, Kim, for coming up and speaking.
I'm always appreciative of your input and I'm with you on
this.
I hate to see any of these trees go.
It is two and a half acres, I believe, that we're salvaging
, right?
Okay.
And in conjunction with the habitat east of it, it does
keep it from falling apart easily.
It will if we're very cautious about what other things we
approve.
We also don't know what's preserved there behind the
assisted living facility.
I'm not real sure what that looked like.
Well, looking at the picture here, there's quite a bit
there.
Good.
Yeah.
Going forward with future development, we're going to have
to be cautious of how we deal
with this area.
I agree.
So like I said, I'm not opposed to the development.
I just think we need to be very, very careful.
You guys, once again, I've told you before, you're the
guardians.
If we've got the owners here, the applicant, maybe they can
address that one concern here.
So I'll ask them to come up.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. McGibbons.
Also, to address, I think you mentioned one question.
The retaining wall will be constructed outside the ESA.
Is the ESA above the retaining wall or below the retaining
wall?
That's my question.
I can't answer that question.
They can.
We do have someone else who's wanting to speak.
Kenneth Ambrow.
Okay.
Yes, he's here to speak in support.
If you could just state your name and address for the
record.
And you are the applicant?
Yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
Kenneth Ambrow.
Address is 317 Edinburgh Court, South Lake, Texas.
I'm really here to answer questions.
If you want me to start with the comment, I can definitely
dive into that if that's okay.
She's absolutely correct.
Through construction, I mean, we're setting aside this per
the current requirements of
the city and it's contiguous to another site.
So that's how it meets the ESA.
Through construction, we're required to really fence in all
of these areas.
We've done a lot of development in Austin and in San
Antonio.
So we're familiar with tree preservation and what you have
to do through construction in
order to meet it.
Your protective fencing has to go outside or at least
extend through the canopy.
You can't just, and you'll agree with that, you just can't
wrap the trees themselves
and call that protection.
So we're adequate and we know what to do there.
If you see on the site plan itself, and I don't know what
you have in front of you,
so I have a colored rendering set up.
Yeah, we can turn on the eye in the sky if you just want to
put it right on that felt.
We can magically make it appear for everyone.
That's fancy, I like that.
Okay.
What we did here in order to make sure that we had
protection of the ESA is that this
is a set aside right here.
So we took out of the ESA footprint this node right here to
allow us to actually build the
retaining wall.
So that was taken into consideration when we put the site
plan together to allow for
some space that wasn't counted in the ESA set aside to give
us a set back to actually
build the wall.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
I don't know if Commissioner DeBak will probably bring
something back up to your comment.
The question I had was it is an elevated area, that ESA,
that tree area is an elevated area.
It's uphill from where the development is, from what I can
see.
And so I asked a question during work session about the
retention pond.
I didn't see anything on the aerial shot there.
Do you have anything extra in what you brought to show
where that retention pond would be,
and that there would be drainage coming out of the ESA?
Nothing should be draining uphill if it is.
Correct, so that's why we're starting to touch it off.
Go ahead.
So I just didn't know where it was going to be draining to.
So the slope of the site is actually draining to the
detention pond here.
So everything is cross-sloped to actually drain for the
detention pond.
So that's the nature and why we actually need the retaining
wall.
Yeah, so it doesn't drain into it.
Absolutely.
Works.
Thank you.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
A couple of questions outside of that.
What about the building height, is there plans to put at
least one elevator in each building?
That is, that actually, these elevators, these plants have
two elevators in each building,
so yes, we'll at least have one elevator in every building.
Excellent, excellent.
The other thing is, as I mentioned in the work session,
concerned about that right-hand
lane on Brinker at certain times of the day.
I'm concerned about it as well.
Okay.
Do y'all have plans to make a little, what do they call
those?
It's a right-turn lane.
Yes.
So what we're doing right here is, well, we're currently,
and I looked into this, my civil
engineer is very technical and he goes, "All right, well,
per the code, we don't have to
put this in."
We have it on the site plan right now.
Okay.
It's a right-turn lane only, so you actually come off.
This driveway is, part of it is already in, so we have to
come in and actually modify
it per its existing standpoint.
So we'll come in at a right-turn lane only, because this
entrance actually feeds in turns
back this way.
If you'd like to see an arrow, I can go backwards.
So this feeds, it's actually a shared entrance to the
assisted living development as well,
and some other stuff that's back here.
But it looks a little like too that you've got some
separation there, where you enter
and separate it from the assisted living center.
So what we're planning is an improvement at this
intersection, because we want our residents
to be able to come in and get out of the traffic and come
back here.
Good, good.
What Haley mentioned, and we're in discussion with traffic
and trying to prove to them why
we need this, but this is intended as a, I want everyone to
enter here and then have
this as an exit only and a right-turn lane only, out.
Okay.
So we're in a process, we think with our TA, we'll prove
that up, and then that way we
can just have that as no gate access and kind of cut in.
Okay, okay.
Thank you.
We have areas in the city of Denton that have that right-
turn, like think of the turn out
of the parking lot that you put way over on 288, that's a
right turn, onto 288, that's
a right-turn only exit.
So it makes sense there.
You don't want, I mean, given the units that we have here,
we don't want to force everyone
to come out of this entrance right here.
So we would like to be able to use both access points.
And then this one, this is a secondary access point for
life safety as well.
Sure.
I just started speaking earlier.
I don't know if you were, that was Mr. Smith for the record
.
Thank you.
I did have another question there, Chair.
The, how close is that right-turn exit?
How close is that to, it's hard to just see where that stop
light right there runs to where
you go behind that Walmart.
So that right-turn exit, I mean, if someone's trying to go,
I guess that's what, southbound
basically on Brinker, it'd be, it's just difficult.
They'd have to almost go back up to that entrance that you
originally designed to get back out
so they're far enough up the road to where they can get
into that stoplight and make
a U-turn and come back southbound.
So it's just, it's a little tricky.
It is.
I mean, I can't deny it from that standpoint.
It will kind of be what it is for people that live here.
It's going to be impossible at that intersection to, you
know, unless you have a very, unless
it's light in the middle of the day and you're able to kind
of skip over two lanes and make
a U-turn at that intersection.
But that's, I mean, I've been there, you know, at all
different points of the day and it's,
you'll have to really maneuver and go right-hand and kind
of go up and do what you need to.
Yeah.
You have to figure it out.
Go all the way up to 288 and go back to 35 if you want to
go southbound.
I had a question about the parking for the commercial uses
on that west side of your
development.
So are you guys going to have markings both either for the
residential use only, for commercial
use only, just that, I like the idea of incorporating
commercial use into multifamily like this
type of development, but the, you see this a lot in like
the Plano Legacy development
there where you get a lot of residents who are complaining
because they got commercial
parking in their residential parking.
So I don't know if you guys have plans.
Yes.
So in instances like this, we actually go in and assign
parking spaces.
Okay.
So all the tenants will actually have parking spaces to do
that.
We'll go in and actually assign some to the commercial as
well, but mainly we combat that
by assigning parking spaces.
Just wanted to make sure you guys had a plan for it.
That's all.
Good.
Thank you.
My last question is, curiosity is why did you cap the
development at 51 feet?
Why didn't you go higher?
Parking.
Parking?
Yeah.
We use a different parking ratio than, even though every
city has its own parking ratio,
I look at parking proximity.
And so to even the comment of the building orientation and
everything, it makes no sense
to have to build a building and then have parking 300 feet
away from it.
It doesn't work from a residential standpoint.
So you have to look at a parking count, but you also have
to look at, check the box for
the parking count, but you have to look at parking
proximity.
So we do an analysis where I have to look at a unit here
and figure out where that tenant's
going to park in relationship to the building or look at
the furthest tenant.
So this is kind of like my split of the development where
you'll have this over here, this over
there.
That's really how the parking works.
If you go with a five story building, I love the density,
but I can't get, trust me, I
would love to have 300 units here, but the parking doesn't
allow for it.
That's what I assume, but I would ask.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
I do want to address one question that you guys brought up
during your work session was
dealing with the detention.
There is actually an agreement in place of record, filed of
record with when this Walmart
was done.
There's a regional detention center that really allowed the
Walmart and some of the
service folks have been draining into it.
So we're actually allowed by my right to drain into this.
We're working with staff.
We have to do a little bit of modification.
This is the last time I've got it updated on it, but the
majority of our detention goes
in there.
All of our detention will go in there, kind of unused.
Commissioner Beck.
Yes, sir.
One other question you helped me remember.
Access to this ESA from the apartments.
I'm on my list.
Okay.
Is that ... Okay.
So the way that your ESA is written, you can't touch it.
My initial plan when we were talking with planning was to
really come in and even if
it's put DG there or some type of trail going through it to
be able to access a walking
trail through it, non-combustible kind of deal.
I can't.
Okay.
Good.
Unless you guys let me.
Yeah, right.
Commissioner Smith.
Intended use, is this going to be primarily marketed to
student housing or is this going
to be general residential?
General residential.
Okay.
Then no.
So thank you.
Yes.
I do not see other questions.
You still have the floor if you have any more comments.
No, I think I answered every question that you guys brought
up, so unless there's something
else.
We're good up here.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
This is a public hearing.
If anyone would like to speak, you're more than welcome to
do so.
Seeing none.
I will close the public hearing and open up the floor for
discussion or motion.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to approve the project.
Commissioner Beck.
I'm sorry.
Make a motion to approve the project with staff conditions.
You're welcome, Ailey.
Second.
Thank you.
We have a first and a second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I will call for a vote by show of hands.
All those that approve, deny, abstain.
This passes 7-0.
Item 4B on a public hearing was withdrawn, so we will go to
item 4C, which is Z18-0016.
I'll call Julie for presentation and open the public
hearing.
Good evening.
I'm Julie Wyatt, and I'm presenting Z18-16.
The request before you tonight is to hold a public hearing
and consider recommending
approval of an initial zoning of neighborhood residential 1
district on an approximately
one-acre tract.
The property is located on the north side of Shiloh Lane,
about 910 feet east of Swisher
Road.
It was annexed in 2013 as part of a citywide annexation
plan.
When property is annexed into the city of Denton, it has a
placeholding zoning until
an initial zoning can be approved.
Placeholding zoning, it follows the regulations for the RD5
X district, so both in use and
development dimensional requirements.
The property is only an acre, so it doesn't actually meet
the minimum lot size for that
placeholding zoning designation of RD5X.
The applicant is here requesting that initial zoning of NR1
.
NR1 is one of our residential districts that permits lot
sizes of about an acre.
When we have a rezoning request, we analyze it based upon
two criteria in subchapter three
of the Denton Development Code.
First is it conformed to the future land use plan, and
second is there adequate provision
of public infrastructure.
When we first look at Denton Plan 2030, the property is
located in a low residential future
land use designation.
The intent of that is for residential uses for up to four
dwelling units per acre.
It can be the rural fringe or the urban fringe for the one
acre.
It could go up to four dwelling units per acre.
NR1 meets the intent of low residential because it's
primarily a single family residential
district, and it permits lot sizes for an acre.
We also looked at the zoning compatibility just in terms of
use surrounding the property
as well as the adjacent zoning districts.
The property is surrounded by a lot of properties that have
the RD5X zoning district because
they were all annexed into the city at roughly the same
time.
Many of them are developed with either with large lot
residential uses and maybe some
agriculture.
Surrounding that immediate neighborhood, there is a plan
development that is developed with
single family homes.
You have a mix of RD5X and plan development, but primarily
it's a residential area.
The applicant is seeking the initial zoning as I spoke of
before because they're intending
to build a single family home and they would like to plot
the property, and they can't
do so until the zoning district permits that one acre lot
size.
If the zoning is approved and development moves forward,
then it must comply with all
Denton Development Code requirements for residential
development.
One thing to take note of is that the current placeholding
zoning designation is exempt
from tree preservation in our current code.
If the zoning is approved, they would have to comply with
any tree preservation requirements.
Public facilities are available in the area.
It's accessed by a private road and water is available.
Sewer will have to be obtained with septic.
Public notification was sent out.
We received one response and I said, I didn't say it
correctly in a work session, we received
one response from the applicant and they are in support.
There was a neighborhood meeting.
Based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends
approval of the request.
I'll stand for any questions and the applicant is here.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
In the past when we've had notifications sent out, we don't
send notifications to residents
that live in the ETJ.
The next door neighbor is in the ETJ.
Correct.
Is the next door neighbor aware of the zoning change
because if this has to meet screening
requirements, then the applicant can put up a fencing.
Assuming that since that original person went through the
non-annexation agreement, they
probably don't want fencing put up right next to them.
I have no clue.
I'm just making conjecture here.
I believe the adjacent property is the single family home,
so no buffers would necessarily
be required.
However, you're right.
Properties within the ETJ do not receive that public
notification.
That's why we have lots of notification options within the
City of Denton.
There is the sign that has to be put on the property.
It's a rather large sign.
Then there's also the newspaper notification.
Okay.
I do not see any other questions.
All right.
Thank you.
Julie.
This is a public hearing if anyone wishes to speak.
You're more than welcome to do so.
Commissioner Beck.
I was going to ask if the applicant is here and they come
down.
If you could, I do have one question for you, one concern.
If you could just state your name and address for the
record.
Appreciate it.
Jonathan Merling, 3609 San Lucas Lane.
Alexis Kuhn, 3609 San Lucas Lane.
Mike, and it's just a concern, and I mentioned it.
I don't know if you all were in the work session, but I was
just curious that if you all are
okay with the future prospect of more dense zoning, the
fact that you've got a lot of
development around you now, you're surrounded by eventually
this may start to encroach on
you if you have a dense zoning.
Do you all have a problem with, would you have a problem
with that more dense zoning
should it come to be?
It's kind of out of our hands.
When it comes in, it's going to be more dense than what you
've got.
Are you going to be opposed to that?
No, I think we're okay.
We actually live less than a mile away in one of the
suburbs that is encroaching on
that area currently.
Okay.
And again, I'm pleased that you can do this and everything.
I'm just thinking down the road.
This area eventually is probably going to fill in there
pretty good.
Okay.
That's all I had.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
Have you discussed with that neighbor who's in the ETJ, y'
all's rezoning request and what
you've got to do?
Not that it really matters.
It's your own property to do it, but.
Right.
I haven't talked to him directly on the, I guess, right-
hand side of the property as
it's shown up there.
He's a neighbor that knows everybody and access kind of the
keeper.
He takes care of the roads.
He does everything.
He's talked to everybody in that neighborhood.
And he's kind of told us that, I guess, the guy next door
that owns the ETJ property also
owns the property next to that as well, which is not in the
ETJ.
So assuming he may have not noted, it's two lots.
He owns both of them.
Yeah.
It's weird that he files for not.
Yeah.
I don't know if one ended up in the ETJ and the other didn
't, but he, I assume, got notification
based on the other property's address.
Sure.
But I have not talked to him directly.
And your concern was with fencing, is that correct?
Yeah.
I think there's already a fence between the properties that
we didn't put up.
Yeah.
There is already one.
Okay.
I couldn't see.
Yeah.
It's his fence.
And we're cool with that.
We actually don't intend on putting one.
You get people who come in here and they live in the ETJ
for a very specific reason.
And it's because they don't want to be told to do anything.
And so I just wanted to know.
That's all.
Thanks.
We have a vote on that.
I do not see any other questions.
Thank you.
All right.
Thanks.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone else wants to speak?
May I do so?
Ironically, I don't know.
I don't know.
Ironically, I have two cards from Alexis Kuhn and Jonathan
Berling.
They did not wish to speak, but they both said they're in
support of the project.
Any other individuals wanting to speak?
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing, open up the
floor for discussion or motion.
Commissioner Ellis.
I move approval.
Commissioner Smith.
I'll second that.
We have a first and a second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I will call for a vote by a show of hands.
All those in favor?
All those opposed?
Any abstaining?
Motion carries 7-0.
Congratulations.
That takes us to item five, the Planning and Zoning
Commission Project Matrix.
Anyone have anything to add or updates?
Just a quick update.
As you know, we're trying to kind of clear that backlog.
One thing in particular, now that we have a couple new
members on the commission, what
we thought would probably be a good thing, and even maybe
just a refresher, is to just
sort of give a general overview of the type of applications
that come in front of the
Planning and Zoning Commission, what the review criteria
are, and sort of what your task to
do.
I don't know if that was ever done in the past.
I know some cities do that, so we thought it probably would
be a good thing.
Moving forward, we're all on the same page.
We all know sort of what we're supposed to do.
We'll be bringing that together, or putting that together
and bringing that forward.
We'll probably start.
We won't tackle all in one meeting, but we will probably
start with planning since that
seems to be the most prevalent, and then kind of work our
way through SUPs, ADPs, rezoning,
and the like.
So unless there's anything else I can bring forward, I'll
continue to work on that list
as well as bring those items.
I'd prefer if Matt and Jason had to learn it the way I had
to learn it, which was just
trial by fire and asking dumb questions.
They're like, "Well, that's what a final plan is."
Got it.
Now let them figure it out.
Yeah, training would be great.
Any other items for the matrix so I can put away my dumb
questions?
So before we close out the meeting, what I wanted to do was
take just a minute and recognize
Athenia Green.
She is ... Last meeting, I think, is tonight for planning
and zoning, so the commission
got you a card.
It has a Starbucks gift card so you can study well on some
caffeine going forward.
So thank you so much for all you've done for P&Z.
Seeing no other discussion points, I will close this
meeting at 7.15.
[ Silence ]