Good afternoon and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session for March 6, 2019.
We'll call the meeting to order at 3.05.
First items up for discussion and talk is the Item 1A,
by pre-tim to hold a discussion and receive information regarding roundabouts and special study areas.
Good afternoon, members of the Commission, pre-tim Daeshmuk, City Traffic Engineer,
and I will be talking about some of our special projects as well as get an introduction into the roundabouts.
What are they and a really a quick brief overview on those.
So these are our special projects. I did start with the name of the project and I'll get into what the status is.
But as you can see, there are a couple projects in the south side of the city where they're much needed.
And the north side, there is one project that's also needed. And how do we come up with these?
So these were basically looked at as two areas that are pretty much really growing faster than the rest of the city.
Area 1, as you can see, is ahead of area 2 as far as growth is concerned.
They're already in place. We're sort of playing catch up at this point and want to make sure we get there as soon as we can.
Area 2 is now we want to get ahead of the curve and see if we can plan and design as well as implement some of the changes before the traffic starts showing up.
So these are the two focus areas pretty much addressing infrastructure needs and deficiencies for existing as well as future.
Where are we at with the studies? Area 1, we're currently underway.
It's a larger area, Hobson on the north side, 377 on the west side.
And then you have Teasley 2181 on the east and going all the way south to Hickory Creek and further south.
That's the whole area. We are looking at a holistic approach where not only consider existing subdivisions that are in place or the plats that are coming in,
but also take into account some of the other areas or ETJ areas that are planning on coming on board or getting annex for the city in some type of fashion or form.
So that being said, that'll be our basis of what the traffic growth will be.
We'll start projecting that and then laid on the transportation network and see how it actually works.
We've already completed the study for FM 428 and here are the results.
We looked at a bigger area is almost the city limits on the north side.
We have Locust on the west, Loop 288 or a little bit south Loop 288 on the south.
And then this side, it's city limits as well.
What we looked at big picture is there are several parcels coming in, big ranches, a lot of interest in developing those ranches with a lot of housing, single family dwelling, multifamily and such.
So what we did is work with planning to project what is the long term need in this area?
What is the long term projection as far as land use and what are some of the worst case scenarios we can look at so that we can plan our traffic network in a way that it actually balances, connects well and has logical points.
What we came out ultimately with the study was FM 428 Sherman Drive is in need of higher capacity currently on this north segment. It's a two lane highway. It needs to get to a four lane divided.
And the ultimate right of way needs to be acquired for six, which at some point it will be a six lane divided facility.
It is a textile facility. So at this point we are working with textile. We have a meeting Friday to with the textile district office to see if we can on their end start their process, which is the environmental process as well as getting into a 30 percent schematic phase.
So if we're meeting them, if we can see, get some funding and get that project going.
The others are noted here. There's several four lane divided highways needed in the future and we're talking future being 2040.
We projected our volumes all the way to 2040 based on the type of development and interest shown in this area.
So these are the recommendations that came out of the study. The study is available.
I can send you a copy, but this is a big picture planning level. And now these particular roadways will be a part of our mobility plan once we get to that level, once we update it.
The reason we're breaking down into different smaller areas and studying it is because of the need.
We don't have time to wait longer and for the entire mobility plan to be in place. So we're really focusing on our needs and focusing on these smaller areas, get that circulation figured out and then move forward with some of the projects that are within that area.
So, as I mentioned, these are the three projects that we have, Hickory Creek Road. We recently went to council for getting the design started on this portion of Hickory Creek to the east.
It starts at $24.99. The yellow piece we're currently under design between $24.99 and $21.81.
We're designing this currently going to construction later this year with a signal at $24.99. So that's currently being worked at.
The second portion, which is green, this is under construction. We're starting the utility work right now.
They're digging ground. We hired a contractor recently. It was last month that we hired a contractor and we're starting construction.
So this will go on for the next 12 months. And then there is a smaller piece here, which is in blue.
We are moving forward with not only the study for this whole area, but based on the needs for this particular segment, we're moving forward with the 100% design plans.
And this section blue will primarily be bridges. It's a large floodplain area that currently the road literally isn't the floodway.
It is right next to the creek, very unsafe situation. I think recently we worked with the county to install some guardrail to make it safer as an interim.
So long term solution, we need to make sure that it just goes over this floodplain and then connects to FM 1830.
The larger project, which is the phase two, goes all the way to 35W.
And so if you may be aware of the Colton Hunter Ranch coming in this area and this interchange, this is all red where it meets 35W.
So all red will be realigned slightly in this portion and go through at 377, go all the way to 1830.
What we're planning on doing is currently take this project through the environmental and 30% schematic phase so that we get to a point where we can go and ask for funding for this larger project,
from TxDOT, from COG, from other partners from the county as well to see how we can, once we have a shovel ready project, we can actually get funding sources.
So that's part of our plan for Hickory Creek. It's currently under design for the small section and then long term we're doing a 30% schematic for the longer length.
Next project is Ryan Road, much needed widening project between Teasley 2181 and Country Club Drive.
It's currently a two lane undivided roadway. There is a school here.
This area between Country Club and just past the school is congested during the peak hours in the morning.
There is a need in this area. So we have identified this as a critical project.
Currently, we do not have funding for this project, but we are looking for ways to fund this project,
working with our finance group to see if we can use some impact fees, how we can channel some money.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair. Every time you called it a critical project, what does that mean within the workings of the city?
So critical meaning there is a there is traffic congestion today. It is required.
So within the workings, we want to take it to council and present it as something that is required and see if they are willing to move forward with a bond funded project,
move forward with reallocating some other monies, general funds. At this point, we don't know, but this is that that's what we've identified.
Yes. Tagging it critical allows possible a different route to funding.
Tagging it critical allows it to get on the priority list where, okay, we need funding for these projects that that are needed.
This is the next one we want to get ahead of the curve, as I mentioned, from right from where the creek is all the way to the loop.
It's about a two mile project. Excuse me. And currently, it's a two lane without any turning turning lanes in the middle.
So we want to get to a point where we get to a six lane divided highway.
And we're as I mentioned, we're working with text out to get funding for this particular segment.
It is a text off facility, not a city.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair. When you say six line divided, so we'll have a medium in the middle and they'll have left turn.
Correct. So it's not going to be three lanes on each side with a center turn line.
No, it would be a median.
The area would be approximately twenty four feet.
I don't know if you can see there. So there will be a median area, continuous median.
But where you have intersections where, for example, long road comes in, there'll be a median opening with turn lanes within the median area.
So that's that's the whole this is how it will lay out.
This is our federal cross section.
Is that a bike lane I see there, too? Correct. So there will be some sort of bike accommodation.
It could be a multi use path on the side or it could be a bike lane.
So it'll be a combination depending on what kind of speed limits, how what section it is.
So we have not decided we've not gotten that far with this particular project.
Circular intersections. Now we're moving on to the roundabout portion of it.
And there are several types of circular intersections.
And I just wanted to start with talking about the difference.
What is it? How is it?
And get to the modern roundabouts and discuss those a little bit in detail later on.
So the types of circular intersections are rotaries, signalized traffic circles.
I haven't seen one around here, but there are signalized traffic circles.
Neighborhood traffic circles and then modern roundabouts.
If if you recall, these are all within the city of Denton,
and none of them are consistent with modern roundabout definition.
So just wanted to point out that's Teasley at Shady Oaks.
I'm sorry. Yeah, Shady Shady Oaks.
And then this is these are these two are in Unicorn Lake on the shoreline shoreline drive.
So what happened here?
OK, so rotary this this type of it is a circle looks like a circular section.
Everyone thinks that that's a roundabout.
But the way traffic works and functions is slightly different within the rotary.
This is how they look.
The vehicles coming in, it's much larger area, much larger islands,
splitter islands, vehicles have larger distances to cover within the actual circle itself.
So it is it is very different.
I can get into the circle versus roundabout in the next slide.
But I want to show the different types that are not a roundabout.
So this is a traffic circle and this is a neighborhood circle.
These are all circles. These are not roundabouts.
So what is the difference?
The difference is for a roundabout, when you're entering,
you're yielding to the vehicles that are already in the roundabout.
So someone's traveling, someone's already here and traveling here.
The vehicle entering has to yield for them to pass and then they can enter in circular
in other circles or traffic circles.
You can actually vehicles that are entering circulating stop for vehicles that are entering.
So these people that are moving around the circle literally stop so that these people can enter.
Then you can park around the circle.
If you have a park in the middle, you can actually park around the circle.
So that is this is slightly different than what we have here.
I think that this one's from Fort Worth, this picture.
So this is the primary difference between the roundabouts and circle.
What is a modern roundabout?
So it is a circular intersection, but within the circular intersection,
traffic flows counterclockwise along these arrows.
So you enter in, go around, and then turn left.
This is the left turn movement that you'll be doing.
So as I mentioned earlier, traffic that is entering yields to the traffic
that is actually within the circle.
These approaches are really channelized, so anyone that is flying in at 40,
45 miles an hour has to slow down because of this angle.
Because you see this island in the middle, you have to literally hit your brakes
and this curve makes sure that that vehicle goes down to almost 15 miles an hour.
So that's the yield approach.
>> Mr. Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Is this-- they've got that one roundabout over there off of Unicorn Lake,
that's the only one I've seen.
But, you know, you go online and you see, like, over in Indy
and these other things look maddening when you get on there.
But in something like this, when you get in, is that inside lane the one you stay in
until you're going to exit, say if you're going to come all the way around there,
you can actually get on without slowing down because--
>> Can you-- is there a lane when you're coming into it, the others?
>> Yes.
>> It's an open lane where you can get in and not have to--
>> So I'll talk about it.
This is a two-lane roundabout.
So as the markings tell you, both these lanes actually have lane assignment.
So the inner lane is the lane that you can either go straight, that's what it says,
or you can go all the way and make this left going to this intersection.
The outer lane is only for going straight through traffic.
So that's the way this roundabout is set up.
So there are lane markings that actually channelize it and there's a lot
of signage before you get to a roundabout.
And it's more of a-- on the learning side that a lot of these roundabouts need
to be signed appropriately so that people understand.
Some of them are not and the ones on Unicorn Lake are absolutely not signed appropriately.
But that's the lane assignment and then hopefully that addresses your question.
And then the approaches that are channelized as I mentioned and the main reason is
to just slow vehicles down when they reach the intersection.
So deflected entry, that's one of the main focuses of a roundabout is this island.
Anyone that's traveling on this particular street or arterial,
they can be flying through an intersection if there's a--
say for example, this is a signalized intersection and you see green.
You are literally flying through the intersection of 30, 40, 50 miles an hour and not stopping.
But if you have a roundabout that creates a traffic calming within a street so that you have
to reduce your speed, you have to slow and you can see the deflection angle.
If you don't slow down, you're literally going to hit the islands and go straight.
But you have to slow down, go with the flow.
So that is the main idea behind this island to deflect traffic and control the speed.
There we go.
A little bit of animation going there.
The second thing is yield control which means you come at that intersection,
you don't have to necessarily stop.
If you are at a signalized intersection, you could be waiting there
on a red light for 20, 30, 40 seconds, easy.
And in case of roundabout, you come at this intersection, it could be a large intersection,
you still have almost zero to a few second wait, just you have to wait only
to see if your path is clear.
If a vehicle passes, you can get behind them.
Everyone is driving slowly, so everyone's 15, 20 miles an hour, no higher speeds.
It's a very quick in and out.
You're only looking at one direction, you're not looking at different direction,
left turns, any other conflict, and I'll get to that advantages.
But that's why this helps continuous flow of traffic through the intersection.
And then the splitter islands definitely slow traffic down, that's another.
The other thing for splitter islands, and this roundabout doesn't show it,
is it provides a refuge for pedestrian.
So anyone that wants to cross only looks at one lane, crosses, waits,
look for the other, and then cross.
So it creates a much safer, you're not looking at four different directions,
you're not looking at vehicles that are turning left,
turning right from different directions.
So that's why roundabouts are much safer for pedestrians.
And then the last component is the truck apron.
So those large vehicles can actually make that turn.
Smaller vehicles are required to stay within this lane, but this apron is
for large vehicles that they can actually, the rear wheels can actually drive over it.
So this is a surmountable curb, which is approximately, it starts at one inch
and goes all the way to three inches, and this is a full six inch depth.
So that's the way they design these aprons, is if there is a large truck making a U-turn,
making a left turn is not an issue through the intersection.
And this is probably my last slide.
It's advantages of roundabout.
So I really want to point out to this picture, if you look at this intersection,
look at the number of conflict points that you can have
with different vehicles making turns, going through the intersection.
There are 32 conflict points between vehicles themselves,
and then 24 pedestrian conflict zones.
This is just a regular intersection.
It could be stopped control, it could be uncontrolled, it could be signalized,
but there are that many conflict points.
In a roundabout, you're talking about eight conflict points on both counts
between the vehicles and between pedestrians and vehicles.
And the other thing I want to point out is most
of these conflicts are side swipe at 15 to 20 miles an hour, which is really low speed.
These conflicts, you could be talking about right angle crashes at high speeds
because other folks are going faster through the intersection, probably get a green light
or running the yellow light, and then, so this is how much of a conflict reduction there is,
just to begin on the geometry basis.
And then, as I mentioned, I think I touched on everything,
pedestrian and vehicular safety is higher.
It eliminates left turn or head on or T-bone collisions.
This is what I talked about a little bit, but there's a little bit of data behind this.
This is from the FHW website.
There is a crash reduction, 90% reduction in fatal crashes.
Since everyone is slowing down, they're not traveling at high speeds,
and then 51% reduction in injury and 37 overall.
So there are a lot of benefits to a roundabout,
and the last one actually is interesting.
It's, you can actually have a landmark.
You can point or make it an entrance to a community, entrance to an area and mark it.
And I think that's it, but I do want to say one last thing is we are going out to bid
for construction for a roundabout for Bonnebray and Scripter so that it'll go out to bid this week
or early next week, which means the construction should begin in the next two
to three months for Scripter and Bonnebray.
>> Chris, you're back.
>> Thank you, Chair.
So are you presenting this to us because this is something that the city has got a direction
in and future roads will probably see a lot more of these?
>> Correct.
I'm presenting it.
This is our, I would say I want to say it's a start on RN, on the public outreach effort,
on the education effort campaign to introduce this particular concept
around about two different forums, get feedback.
It's more of a learning and educating process.
So we have started, we started with our internal departments.
We have already met with fire and police department, gone over their concerns.
We've also installed a temporary roundabout within our service center.
If you guys want to come in and check it out, that would be fantastic, but we had fire department
with their fire engine out there checking out a roundabout, driving through it.
So--
>> Is this something that we're going to focus maybe on the busy intersections?
We're not-- this isn't going to be an every corner thing, obviously.
>> No, no.
We are going through-- we're going to go through a intersection evaluation process
and if it really requires it, then we'll use this as one of our toolbox, not just signal.
Let's just drop a signal everywhere.
That's-- that won't be our-- moving forward, that won't be the way we'll work.
We'll look at different options.
And if roundabout fits in which really fit in well for the Bonnie Bray and scripture location,
then we will recommend some of these going forward with our capital projects.
>> And did I hear you right that we're not dealing with traffic signals on roundabouts?
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> There are no signals.
>> Okay. Thanks.
>> Commissioner Sanchez.
>> Yes, sir.
>> As far as roundabouts, I mean, one of the big issues we get every two weeks from people is traffic.
I mean, and that's-- you know, it's not going to get any better.
As it then grows, traffic is going to continue to increase.
You get these intersections and you're-- you have to wait two or three times for that light to change for you to get to the front.
You know, and so that's really frustrating.
But as far as roundabouts, I mean, some other cities have already looked at them.
Like Fort Worth, I was reading an article where they've already, you know, they came in, introduced them, and they're having very good luck with them.
You know, once people get educated from, you know, what they are, how to approach them, how to use them, people start liking them.
So my question is, you know, if that's the case, why not-- why do we have to start at the bottom and start people--
we already know that once people realize how easy it is and you approach them, the traffic's always moving, you don't have to sit there and wait.
Why do we continue to wait when other places have already decided, hey, it's working?
You know, why do we have to continue doing studies when those things have already been proven that they work?
I mean, I mean, I was stationed in Europe, and not only that, but I've been there a couple of times and I've driven-- these things are fantastic.
It doesn't take that long to figure out how to get in there and get out, you know, so-- and it really moves-- as far as I'm concerned, it moves traffic.
So I'd like to see-- I mean, to me, it seems like it's something that we're just-- we're so used to something, we hate change, and that's the way I look at it.
And this-- we're not-- traffic's not going to get any better.
We need to look at which is the best avenue.
The cost may be high at the beginning, but when you look at the statistics, I mean, it's well worth it.
>> Yeah, I totally agree.
And to your point of starting at the bottom, we-- so Fort Worth started the program about 10 or 12 years ago.
Frisco McKinney had latched onto the similar program, and in fact, our new city engineer came from Fort Worth who was involved heavily in designing and constructing roundabouts.
So he has a background in roundabouts, but one of the things that these cities noticed as part of their growing pains is when they deployed their first couple roundabouts,
they had not gone through the due diligence of public education piece, and they had not gone through certain-- not appropriate steps, but certain steps that had to be taken to get everyone on board.
And they've really faced a lot of backlash.
So we want to make sure that, yes, we're moving forward with the first roundabout that we have at Bonnie Brea and Scripture, and it fit well,
at the same time we want to bring our education piece in at the same time so that we're talking to people, we're getting them educated.
We're also deploying some of them in neighborhoods as well.
Right now, we're designing one at Hinkle and Mimosa.
The fireside development that is off of Hinkle, residents that live on the east side of Hinkle had major concern about that traffic cutting through into their neighborhood.
So the access where it connects, based on the meetings that we had with the community, we are designing right now a roundabout for that neighborhood on Hinkle.
So that will be implemented as part of our Hinkle project, which is starting construction pretty soon.
So we are slowly getting there, but yes, as far as overall infrastructure, we're a little bit playing catch-up as compared to the rest of the communities.
>> Yeah, I just want to say is, you know, anything change like this, people are afraid, but it doesn't take that long.
Once they realize the benefits, it's like, hey, why weren't we doing it 20 years ago?
I mean, these aren't nothing new, you know.
I mean, if you go to, I guess, like the East Coast, you find these all the time, and like I said, you find them in Europe, and they really work.
It's just a matter of people just being afraid to use them.
The cost would probably be the most prohibited thing at first.
>> And if we implement them as part of our larger capital projects, the cost is not that different than having some of the other treatments.
Any other questions?
>> Mr. Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
One quick question, going back to Hickory Creek.
Have we already purchased right away for the Hickory Creek expansion from Farm to Market 1830 to I-35, or is that something we're still working on?
>> We are still working on that.
We have not.
So one of the first steps to get there is our schematic phase, 30% design.
Once we have a final alignment, at that point, we can then start approaching all these property owners with, hey, here's our alignment.
And then go with partial maps and the surveying associated with it to create some legal documents.
And we can go and acquire these properties, but we're still in the preliminary phases.
>> Okay, good, thanks.
>> President, the only question I have is, can you clarify why the three roundabouts you showed in our city currently are not roundabouts?
>> Yes, so this definitely is not, because the treatment on this particular end doesn't exist.
They attempted in putting a splitter island.
There is no island.
The lane assignment does not work.
One of the issues with these two is there is no deflection associated with these splitter islands.
So they are not actually reducing speed for any of these oncoming traffic.
It just goes straight.
A lot of people just breeze through the intersection without even noticing.
And Richard is laughing because he's probably done that, that he just.
>> [LAUGH]
>> Yeah, you just breeze through this like a regular intersection.
So it doesn't force, these islands don't force you to come in at an angle.
So typically when a roundabout is designed, this approach or
any approach has to be off centered, so the center of the island.
So this approach has to be directed this way, away from the center.
But in this case, the approach goes straight through the intersection.
So these were not designed to reduce speeds, and they were probably designed by,
so I think the developer designed them, so it's not.
>> Gotcha.
>> This is probably just an attempt to fix a location.
It's not necessarily a full roundabout design here.
>> Yeah.
Any other questions for this presentation?
Great.
The next item for business is 1B, which is also pre-timmed,
to receive an update on the master thoroughfare mobility plan.
Is that similar, or is that different?
>> I have- >> It was just where we are in the process.
>> Okay, so a quick update.
I don't have a presentation on that one.
>> Perfect.
>> [LAUGH]
>> Even better.
>> Quicker the better.
So for the mobility plan, there are three elements that we're focusing on.
It is the master thoroughfare plan for all the street network.
Then the second is bicycle plan, and third is pedestrian plan.
Those three combined will form our mobility plan.
It will be a single document, and
the last missing piece that goes with the plan itself will be our roadway impact fees.
We currently have a mobility plan and the roadway impact fee, but
we are changing so much around in the city.
Land use is changing, the traffic demand is changing, and
then some of the layout for street network will change.
So we have to update the mobility plan and then in conjunction to that,
we'll be updating the roadway impact fee as well.
Currently, the RFQ is out in the street, so
I think it closes towards the end of the month.
We will then select a consultant to get them on board, and
then they'll work through all these different plans pretty much hand in hand
with the planning group to understand what is the land use that is really driving
the need for all of this transportation infrastructure.
So once we have the land use information that will be used as a backup to create
the traffic numbers to see what kind of infrastructure we need as far as
transportation is concerned.
So I think it's a 12-month process.
Once we hire someone, by next March we should definitely add something, but
the first draft should be out end of this year by December.
>> Great, any questions on update?
Preetan, thanks for being here, super helpful, thank you.
The next item of business is item 1C, which is to receive a report and
discussion on the development code update and zoning map.
And Ron Maguita is here to present.
>> Thank you, Chair, if you can give us a couple minutes to set up real quick.
>> Absolutely.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
>> All right, it's gonna be me, Solo, this afternoon.
But we have another opportunity to discuss the DEN code update.
The chapters that we will be discussing.
This afternoon will be more or less a continuation of sub-chapter three.
I know we spoke about the districts.
This also gives the committee an opportunity to ask additional question on
the zoning map as it relates to sub-chapter three.
But primarily we are going to get into the land uses,
the allowed land uses, and following that we'll go into sub-chapter four if we have time.
So, do you all have any questions on the zoning districts?
I know we talked about it last P&Z work session last week.
I was trying to think when we met.
We went through it very methodically, and
then I think we got into some discussion on some of the lane uses.
This is probably one of the most important part of the development code in my opinion.
So, we want to spend time with this section.
And if you're looking at your draft, it is sub-chapter five.
If there's nothing that we want to discuss about the zoning map,
we can go into sub-chapter five.
I do want to mention that we will be meeting with the Development Code Review Committee
on certain aspects of the draft zoning map.
I know we had a long discussion about it last Plying Zoning Commission.
We've put together a list of items that we will be discussing.
So again, there will be another series of discussions with the committee.
But we certainly would like to hear from you all, and get your input on the zoning districts,
the zoning map, and of course, the allowed uses.
So that's what we're here for.
I don't plan on going, I'm sorry, that was our map.
That was our earlier slide that we discussed last week, but this is the actual discussion.
Again, sub-chapter four, we will discuss, but I really want to focus on sub-chapter five
this afternoon in the beginning.
>> Commissioner Beck.
>> As far as the map goes, Ron, thank you, Chair, and I wasn't here last week, obviously.
But I know a couple of the commissioners raised the point about how we had rezoned some of the RD5X,
just as a generic, are we going to look a little bit closer at being more specific on that zoning?
>> Yes, that is the-
>> Do we need to discuss that today, or is that going to be-
>> No, no, that's a good, I mean, as I mentioned earlier, we will be discussing that with the committee.
However, we are here with the Planning Zoning Commission, so we want to hear from you as well.
So not to, you know, take it to the committee, but we plan on sharing with the committee.
And we are prepared to share that with you as well, that the identified parcels,
Cody can help me with this one, that we've identified that are going to be non-conforming based on the zoning of RR.
That will be below the minimum lot area of five acres.
We show about 867 of those parcels.
>> That are going to be zoned RR?
>> That are currently shown on our draft map that are zoned RR and are less than five acres.
>> Okay.
>> And so the question to the commission and also to the committee is that, how do we want to handle this?
Do we want to look at those properties that are less than five acres and
assign them the zoning district where they will be conforming as far as the lot coverage?
There's obviously a lot of other things that would need to be considered but that was our first attempt to get at least that component of the zoning map squared away.
There's other zoning districts that have resulted in the same similar situation.
Let's use R2 or R1 for example.
The minimum lot area there is 32,000 square feet.
There may be some zoning districts that will result in a non-conforming status as far as minimum lot area.
So right now, what I believe Cody has up are those zoning, I'm sorry,
are those parcels that are below five acres that are shown on our draft zoning map as RR?
>> Well, can we get, I guess I should ask the Chair, do we have a consensus with the PNZ to be more specific on some of these zones?
No.
>> There has not been direction from PNZ of specific areas to look at more directly,
apart from those 851 that have been identified as RR that are below the required lot size.
>> Okay. >> If that makes sense.
>> Those are areas we can't look at and zone them specifically?
>> No, that's as specific as PNZ got last week.
>> Okay. >> Was to bring up the fact that 851 or 78% of all RR areas will be under the new codes requirement.
>> Okay. >> For new development, right.
>> Okay, but they're currently, as it stands with the draft zoning map, RR right now, right?
>> Correct. >> And there's clearly some areas in there that I think we feel or
some of us feel that we should be more specific going in.
And the one that just comes to mind to me is the development that didn't go through or
maybe did go through off of Hickory Creek where there's already, I believe, an R2 and an R in one area.
And then you've got this empty area, we've made RR, and I believe there's R3 to the south of it.
>> Larry, if you can kind of help Cody get there, and I've got a pointer if we need to.
>> Yeah, what was the- >> It's right, I think it's right by 2499 in Robinson.
>> Yeah, it's off Hickory Creek.
>> Right there, yep, right there.
Ron's on it.
>> Is that the one you're talking about?
>> It was just lit up RR.
>> Okay, all that green is RR, right?
>> Right, and so currently it is zone RR because it was recently, or
annexed as part of the 2010 zoning annexation.
It does not have a zoning district, it defaults to an RD5X.
The staff initially had that proposed to be zoned in close to what the zoning districts are in the area.
I believe it was in R4 because you see R4, I'm sorry, R4 in the area.
>> Now actually, go on Hickory Creek, go west on Hickory Creek.
Okay, before you get to, yeah, right in there.
Look what you, now the, what is that light green, is that?
>> That would be RR.
>> Okay, and if you look to the north, we have R3, is that correct?
And to the east is R4.
So it seems obvious that we need something along R3, R4 there.
It's rather than leaving RR, just simply because the people that are already living there need to know what to expect.
That's usually the arguments we get, something's left open and somebody comes in and wants to do something more intense.
Starts considering R6 or something like that.
So this would be an area we'd want to protect and get zoned specifically.
And I'd like to hear any arguments opposed to that, but if we don't have a consensus,
we don't have direction to move that thought forward.
Maybe that's something we need to do here.
>> I know I can give you one, and that is when you bring an area in under annexation and
there's no particular proposal for development, you don't know what's going to go in there.
And so the anticipation of what we believe will go in there is really more of a function of the future land use map and our comprehensive plan.
And so you set forth where you think it's going to go in that future land use map,
but you don't bias the development higher than by shooting wrong or guessing wrong.
Because if you zone it too high, then nobody's going to want to come in and use it for a lesser use.
>> Well, let me ask you this, Jerry, that I mean, even though we zone it, say we do zone it for an R3, take it from an RR to R3,
there's still that opportunity for a developer to come in and ask for a zone change request on that, right?
I mean, they essentially got to do that for an RR anyway, if they want to do something a little bit more dense than that.
>> But are they going to do that, let's say that we shoot too high.
And we give it some kind of a mixed use development,
the price per square foot is probably not going to pencil out for a residential development.
And it's going to bias this property in that direction before you even have the planning staff look at it that closely.
>> Well, and if I can just interject real quick, as we've been working on the zoning map for a while.
And we did look at the surrounding, we understand what Jerry's saying.
And I think if Cody can help me for that particular area.
Remind me again, Cody, what we propose that to be zoned looking at the context of the area.
>> Let me pull it up here real quick.
I believe that area was actually pending because of the zoning.
>> Okay.
>> So there was, we had the application that was ultimately denied.
We're in the process of resubmitting a new application.
And so this might ultimately get blacked out, once again, as part of a revised proposal.
>> And I believe that was they were looking for R3 or something like that, weren't they?
>> Okay. >> And see, that makes sense there.
I mean, you mentioned we'd come in with mixed use.
I don't see us even contemplating that, not in that area.
It just seems natural to go ahead and zone that for R3, if they want to tweak it a little bit, as far as density.
And I know we can't use that anymore, but then they can do that just as well with an R3 as it came with an R, I would think.
>> Well, if I could add two things.
One, with all due respect to Jerry, I don't want to speculate on what other owners would do with their property or not.
>> That's the point.
>> Well, you said you would speculate that if we zoned it higher, no one would come in at a lower density.
That would be speculation that I wouldn't be comfortable doing.
>> And second of all, is how old is the future land use map?
>> It was approved in 2015, February of 2015.
>> Okay, and currently, is the city scene development completely 100% in line with the future land use map?
>> In some respects, but in others, not so much.
Specifically, north of the loop, that's actually changing its character.
We obviously, and you hear my soap box, as a future land use planner, we plan on that being rural.
And my hope is that we keep with the plan.
But obviously, there's change in markets, there's change in development activity, and we have to adjust.
But if we want to keep with the plan, we should try, but there's obviously opportunity to see if we can update it, if necessary.
>> Yeah, and I think to the extent where there's ETJ on the outside of the city,
where we absolutely have no idea what will become of that, whether it's mixed use,
grocery store to support houses out there or not, I 100% understand that.
To Commissioner Beck's point, we have property that's gridlocked into other neighborhoods.
Those seem, if there's some way to specify those type of areas,
we potentially could help direct an easier path to development.
If we can say, hey developers, this is what the city sees fitting for this area, is in R3, for instance.
Rather than, we're putting our developer, you can come tell us what you want, and we can go through the process and let you know if you're in a line with us or not.
Where we're in control of that conversation as a city, more proactively looking at it the other way.
>> And I think too, if I can add on, when we look at the future land use map, that is single family residential over there anyway.
So we're still in line with the future land use map.
[INAUDIBLE]
>> No, you're right, and so that was one of, we had 16 total factors in when we looked at the zoning map.
One was the future land use, and that's not, obviously that's one big one, but there's other things that we looked at, existing conditions.
So we used aerial, we visited the site, and we wanted to make sure that we got it right.
So to your point, if the future land use does guide what that zoning will be or should be,
the idea here is, do we do it now, or do we address it at a later time through a different process?
And that's the direction we got from the DCRC.
We are certainly welcome to see what the commission wants to provide as far as input.
And probably what we need to do is probably focus on the RR for now, and then we can get into the more, actually the other zoning districts.
So for example, the RR, there are about 850, I guess one, parcels that are less than the minimum lot area.
What is the commission's desire or direction on how we should address those technically non-conforming if they were to be zoned RR?
>> Mr. Sanchez.
>> My question is, why can't you create, can you create another zone?
Like I said last, the last meeting is an R1, and that would kind of help you out and just keep those in place.
And as you start zoning those particular units or areas,
you have less of them over time, you quit using it.
But it seems, does it make sense what I'm trying to say?
>> I know we had talked about this, Mr. Sanchez, but we do have an R1 now.
I don't mean, I don't think that-
>> No, no, no, well, okay, we'll give it an RRX or whatever.
Something where you be kind of a holding for all these that don't conform.
You have 800, and so you put them in that other classification.
And I'm just, I said R1, but I mean, RX or whatever.
And it's just something, they're non-conforming to any of the rest of them.
And as you start zoning them, you're moving them out over time.
But I kind of agree that if you give them an R, if you start applying a zone classification to them, long term.
I mean, there's areas there that are two, threes in the whole area.
And you don't know what, if you give it too high of a classification, as it was mentioned,
people are going to come back and they say, this is what we moved into, we don't want it.
And we don't know who's going to be the next zoning council.
And they're going to look at it totally different than what we're looking at it.
So I like just leaving it in an area where let somebody in the future make that decision as the growth occurs in that area.
>> So to me, that would be giving it the lowest intense zoning district, which would be RR.
So they can develop with the lowest intents or they can zone it to a higher intense zoning district at that point.
>> Well, yeah, if you want to leave it in RR, but then we've talked about being non-conforming.
>> And if that's not an issue, then that's.
>> That's a question, because we currently have zoning, I'm sorry, we currently have parcels that are non-conforming now.
There are zoning that are zoned RD5 that are less than five acres.
And that was done in 2002.
So it's a question is creating this RR and
having 800 and 50 or so, is that okay?
Or should we look at it and maybe address certain areas?
And I think that's the direction, I think, what we're asking for.
And then we will share that with the committee and get their input.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>> Thank you, Chair.
Well, I think what we have to decide is, do we want to do any planning as it relates to the draft zoning map?
Because that's what it comes down to is planning.
And if we leave it RR, it can't be developed, 851 of them anyway,
can't be developed at the lowest intensity, because it doesn't fit into the parameters of an RR anyway.
So to me, having 78% of the,
and that's an incredibly high percentage that don't conform.
I think that's a mistake that we're making when you've got 78% of something that we're labeling RR that cannot be developed.
>> Right, right. >> To me, that doesn't make any sense.
>> And going back to your first comment, I think the direction that we received is that,
again, is it, do we do it with this code update in the zoning map?
Or do we continue that process through a public hearing process,
where notices are sent out to properties within 200 foot layer.
Eventually, we will get there as just that, is it going to be in April, or is it going to be in the future?
>> I think therein lies the crux of the whole issue, and that's what has to be determined.
And I don't know who's going to make that determination, but that's what has to be determined.
Because right now, we've basically removed the planning element, in my opinion, from the draft zoning map,
which is not the path that we were on prior to February 23rd.
So if that is the direction, then somebody's going to have to say that's the direction and end of discussion, or we could continue to discuss this for the next year.
>> And I don't mean to cut you off there, but yes, I think what I heard was that we will continue to plan, but it won't be now.
It would be later through a different process, is how I'm taking it.
So the question, I guess, going back to the RR,
is are we okay with keeping them non-conforming, or should we look at specific areas?
And that is a question or direction that we would like to hear.
Or if not, we can have the committee, three members of the planning zoning commission are part of that committee.
So we can discuss that at the next meeting.
>> So I think I understand the question.
To Commissioner Ellis' point, I'm not sure how to best answer it.
So my take as a singular commissioner is that 78% is too high.
But I don't think it's feasible to get it to zero.
I don't know if that's a realistic goal.
So one, what is that number?
All the other ones are 10, 20%, whatever.
Whatever that number is, is a great target.
What I would struggle with is how to efficiently identify those properties.
What conditions, how do we systematically go about that?
Do we look at, if the RR is adjacent on three sides to R1, I don't know how to define that.
So I'm not trying to provide you a vague answer to your question.
>> No, I understand what you're saying.
>> But I think I would like to see that number decrease.
But I don't know how to provide you a specific study area or specific properties, because they are, I mean, scattered.
>> Right.
>> One point I wanted to make on even this last example that we looked at.
I think it's important to note that a lot of these came in as part of a voluntary annexation.
So even though they're getting an RD5 or RD5X,
it isn't like we kind of pulled a wool over their eyes or sold them a false bill of goods.
They know exactly what they were getting when they voluntarily annexed into the city.
Even though that they've annexed whatever their use currently is under the annexation laws,
they can continue to have that use as long as they want.
We can't come in and stop them and say, you can't do this now that you're in the city.
But on a lot of these, particularly these larger parcels, they were voluntary annexations.
And so it was their request to come into the city and they knew that they weren't going to get any zoning assigned until they would apply.
So I just wanted to sort of frame that as part of this conversation too, because I think it's important.
>> To clarify, are you saying that in the defense of not proactively rezoning them?
>> As we look at some of these, I think as we continue to do that analysis,
we have to look at what voluntarily came in.
The last example, they were actually requesting, I believe it was the NR4,
the last project, Lakeview, but their actual density was closer to three and a half units an acre or an NR3.
And so even though that zoning failed to go to an NR3,
it was essentially where they were.
And so I think that's the caution that I would throw out as we look at these.
>> But wouldn't that be true for anyone who's proactively come in here and voluntarily tried to rezone their property that we're about to rezone?
I mean, regardless of someone voluntarily annexing and not wanting to zone at that time,
there's been countless amount in the past two years that have come in and say,
we want this other zone and we are practically saying we're changing that zone.
So I think I can understand the idea that someone voluntarily came to the city with the idea of a zone.
But we had people last week that just voluntarily asked for a new zone that we're going to proactively change the same way.
So I think the difference between a voluntarily annexed property
being zoned to an R4 versus an MRMU being zoned to an MN is marginal.
The difference is between those two cases in my opinion.
>> Commissioner Beck.
>> On this voluntary annexation, I mean, these property owners are aware of the future land use map too.
In other words, if it's looking like it's going to be a single family residential with a three or four density,
hopefully they realize that's the direction they need to go.
Is that part of the conversation that the city has with them?
>> Yes and no, but sometimes they, Stark Farms is a perfect example of,
it has a rural land use of five units an acre, but they requested it was an NR6 with an overlay.
But again, they went through, it wasn't an automatic assignment, they went through that process of notification and public hearing.
>> Can I, Ron, I know you asked a question about RR, can I ask a question related to the zoning map and not specific to RR?
>> Sure. >> To help me out.
>> No, that's, we're open.
>> I'm currently looking at these two before and afters.
I don't know if everyone has these, but on the one dated draft zoning before February 22nd, 2019.
I'm looking out 380, there's a pink strip along 380, but at the very end of the pink strip to the south is a pale yellow.
My color blind's not messing me up.
>> We'll pull it up, we'll try to pull it up for you.
>> Okay.
I get a pointer.
It's dangerous now.
It's all fun and games, he gave me a pointer.
>> I feel like my glasses are open.
>> So right here, right there.
So that, what is that, this is the after map, right?
>> Yeah, this is today's.
>> Right, that's an R4.
>> Correct.
>> Before it was an R1.
>> Correct.
>> So when, from what I understand, the DCRC provided feedback to the city to look at split zoning cases.
Rural areas, those were the specific things to be looked at.
Why did the city move an R1 to an R4?
>> We shared this with the committee.
We had several study areas that we wanted direction from the committee.
And because this area is, if you look at what's on there right now,
Lakeview Ranch is two to three acre lots.
And the zoning, or the area, along with the future land use map,
lend itself to be more of an R1, or yes, an R1 zoning district.
And so that's what we were provided as far as direction.
So we proposed that to be R1, specifically that area.
And I don't know if Cody has an earlier version map of what was shown for this area.
>> Yeah, I think the actual existing zoning is R4.
>> Okay, so that's how we were proposing it to be R1.
I believe your question is, how do we get to R1?
>> No, no, I just, yeah, well, we're talking about this,
it sounds to me, a fear of changing a rural area and making it more dense.
>> Right. >> Right?
It's been said by several people that once you make it dense, you can't go back, or whatever.
So we're just leaving RRs as they are.
>> Right. >> In some cases, we're upzoning.
I don't want to use the word falsely, but we're providing proactively a denser area.
So I'm trying to understand the rationale on RRs, we don't want to provide more density.
>> Right. >> But in other areas, the city's fine with it.
It seems like those are different philosophies.
>> I think for this example, it actually went from, it was NR4.
What we initially proposed with the NR1 was actually a down zone.
I think that's where we had the caution to down zoning a property.
And so when it went back up to R4, it's what it is today.
>> Okay. >> Current zoning.
>> Current zoning.
>> Is that the case for all the other examples on this map in which upzoning took place?
For instance, just to the northeast, you all had RR, and
then after the change, it moved to an R2, that lot.
>> Would that be the similar rationale for upzoning that area?
>> So again, those were, the existing zoning district is NR2 and
that's how it transitioned to an R2.
>> Okay, and I know I missed that meeting, right?
I've asked, I hopefully can get the meeting, the minutes.
But it seems like the direction from the committee was to address RR territories,
or RR districts, and split zoning.
>> That was the original discussion, and it moved forward to a greater discussion
on how the zoning map should be drafted through a process that we're doing today,
or should it be a different process, and essentially, that's the question or
the direction that we were given.
>> So if I understand it correctly, and I'm sure Commissioner Ellis can add clarity, hopefully.
If I understand this correctly, a discussion started with rural areas and split zoning.
Based on that, the city looked at all zoning areas.
>> No, it was, I think there was a discussion that we had with outside council that was
really, you need to zone, whatever their zone now,
it needs to be as close to what they currently have today.
>> And when was outside council, I mean, this has been worked on for a year.
Why did outside council two weeks ago say we needed a line zoning?
>> I don't know.
>> Okay. >> I mean, that was part of that discussion
of, because I think they were under the impression, or I can't speak for her, but
whether she was under the impression that we were kind of holding the line on all of it.
So that's why you had that, it was consistent, it went down, and then it went back up on some of these.
>> Gotcha, Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair, I was just going to clarify a little bit more.
Yeah, so the discussion started in committee on an RR property,
actually on the corner of Robinson and 2499, that is where, that is ground zero where we started.
We started with that discussion.
It ended up becoming, you're going to take the map and
it's going to be aligned as closely as it looks today with the current zoning.
That is how the meeting ended and that is what staff has up there now and presented to us.
So it really wasn't formal, in my opinion, as far as how it went down.
It was a discussion and seemed then a direction that was taken with and run.
And so that's why, more than just RR changed, it was not just RR focused, it just started that way.
But it became, the entire map was being redone, basically.
To align with the way it looks today.
>> Mr. Chair, if I might.
>> Absolutely. >> Yes, and Commissioner Ellis is accurate in that.
And I think that our intent was two and threefold.
So the RR was that larger conversation that we didn't address the RD5X.
And Ron probably has already spoken to this, and I'll just maybe reiterate some of that, and I apologize if I do.
As we did that, it was quite a broad stroke.
So we took every RD5X and said, make it RR.
We recognize, I think that's about the time that I came in, that you were looking at that table.
>> Right.
>> All the while, staff is continuing to analyze the data to say where it is that we have these potential non-conformities or where it is that it's very simple.
We're going to bring those back to the committee and have that very conversation to say what makes the most sense.
The third part to the conversation was that we need to not up zone, down zone,
but truly try to mirror as closely as possible what exists today.
But there's also some of that, that what is the environment around that.
And I don't know that you had an opportunity to speak to the downtown as of yet.
And so this is fluid.
Very much appreciate the comments that have been received from several members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
I've had those conversations with staff, and I think this Friday we'll be addressing
some of those comments with really some ideas or options.
I want to stress that this is a draft zoning map.
That the very purpose in this is to be a living, breathing, or trying to work through this and make sure that we have the best possible product.
Another component to that is that as staff, we recognize that the committee doesn't have the comfort level to say,
we're going to take some more broader sweeps towards the future land use map.
Outside Council is a land use expert, and she was very clear to say, be consistent in how it is that you're applying this.
So we're heeding that legal advice, and we're trying to do that.
And we also understand that we're going to come back with some city initiated rezoning.
So we can then target, in the example that you were referencing earlier, where it is that some properties around that may be
just questionable as to whether it would be an up zone or a down zone or what somebody's anticipating.
But we as the city can bring forth a recommendation, whether it's a parcel or parcels, to say this makes the most sense.
We can provide the notification to the affected properties that we're required to do and the courtesy notices.
And bring that forward in a more pragmatic way that we're addressing really what PNZ I think is expressing.
What I understand, Commissioner's desire, which is to align it more closely with the future land use map.
But because it is not the future land use map, that it is the zoning map that we try to stay as consistent as we can to what's on the ground today.
So what somebody has for a current entitlement and perhaps what might be around that because we have consolidated some of those zoning districts.
There is no ill intent, I think, by anybody.
I think it was a fairly organic discussion and there was a couple of broad strokes in that.
And I think that we do have somewhat of a plan to rectify some of that,
which puts it probably more closely aligned with what was prior to that.
But I will also say that that map will constantly change as we have these types of discussions and
we receive the feedback and the input to whatever it is that's going to be the draft map for adoption.
So just keep in mind living, breathing, and the feedback.
We're listening and I think it's important.
I don't want that to be understressed.
>> Well, I appreciate that.
Just the adoption target is April-ish.
>> Right, so the next six weeks, it will continually evolve.
>> Correct.
And I think it should be fairly minor in nature.
I think there have been changes.
There were changes to the zoning map after we went to the public, and
that was really highlighted by one of the members of this commission as to some of the steps that staff took.
Anticipating some future development, saying it should go that way.
And we were corrected in that, and so what the public saw last summer was changed last summer.
So it was a subtle change, but it went back to really what the zoning was on the ground,
regardless of kind of what the context around that was based on the feedback and the comments.
So I don't want anyone to have a preconceived notion that this is going a particular direction.
It is just something we're trying to listen and do our best to try to accommodate.
>> Great, Commissioner Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
>> Thanks, Scott.
And we're all aware that it is a draft map, it's just the point was made.
There's a little bit of urgency here because we're shooting for an April-ish date to wrap this thing up.
So what I was, I think what we're trying to put forth here is,
because we are so close, there's some moves we need to make now.
Not the overall thing, but there are some areas we need to look at that I think we should go ahead and zone more specifically.
They may be fewer than I'm imagining right now, but the fact that it is open,
we're narrowing down to an approval date here, just kind of puts a little bit of urgency in making those changes.
>> And I don't disagree with that.
I think that it's just important to note, and I think that the,
some of that final say as it has been with the draft is with the review committee.
That the review committee is the one that is driving the input.
And I think if you have specific input, that's related to maybe the how.
And not so much on each parcel would be very beneficial.
Understanding our charge, and again, I think focused on legal counsel.
So if our outside legal counsel is telling us to maintain as close as possible to the current zoning,
we just certainly have to try to separate the future land use map from the current zoning map and the draft map.
Unless we can definitively prove everything around it or why that should be different.
And those specifics, we certainly want to hear, that's the work that staff is doing today.
So staff is looking at each of the parcels that were affected by this.
We have heard from commission members, we've heard from council,
we have heard from individual property owners on some specific rationale for
some particular properties, and we're going to bring all of that forward to the review committee.
So if we can generalize kind of some of, I think some of the concepts,
I don't know that there's any possible way to do parcel by parcel.
I will also add that it is the intent that we have this,
whatever the adoption date and an effective date is going to be later in time.
So this six month, we'll just use as an example, if we have six months.
We can still anticipate that we will be providing city initiated
rezoning for some areas, so we recognize some areas.
It's just what we heard from the council committee is important for the due process piece for
people to be notified that changes that may have a more dramatic effect.
Something, we're trying to lessen whatever that might be in any area possible, if that helps.
>> Just real quick, just want to add to that.
The meeting that we were talking about, referring to, we brought up,
or I brought up, the notion about the MD zoning district.
And if you all recall, the MD zoning district is purpose for the downtown.
And so we have a number of zoning, I'm sorry,
a number of MD zoning districts along the highway corridor throughout,
you know, close to the University of North Texas, as well as TW.
And we asked the question, we said, well, this can't be MD along the highway or
in these particular areas, it should be focused on downtown.
And what we received, and I think it was good, and it still keeps in line of what we were trying to do.
In those particular areas, let's give that area the zoning that is closely to what it should be.
And so, I don't know if Cody has it, in front of, or behind me that is,
we looked at those areas and gave it the zoning based on the context of what's there, what it should be.
And those areas around the University of North Texas, TW, and downtown,
in the transition chart that you'll have, if it was DCG, it would have gotten to MD.
That's not the case.
Our proposed zoning map reflects what is there.
So that's a small piece of what we're doing, and the committee recognize that.
We're trying to get it as close as we can, but it's not going to be MD.
Because again, MD is meant to be for the downtown area.
>> Chris Charles.
>> Thank you, Chair, and I do appreciate that, Ron, because that makes sense to me.
What I don't understand is why we're not using that same logic throughout the map is all.
I mean, it makes sense around those areas that you just said, that's great.
But you know, why that has more priority over other things.
That, you know, I feel that we, you as staff, we as a committee, that is what we are doing.
So, anyway, again, I appreciate that.
It makes sense, but.
>> I think that- >> We just did it there, and-
>> Yeah, I think the answer to that question, Commissioner Ellis, is that we were,
when Scott and I were talking about this earlier, is that we are trying to understand what was happening.
So that was one example that I was passionate about, because I knew that that was something that we needed to keep.
And of course, throughout the coming weeks after, there will be those examples.
And we hope to present that to the committee and to the planning zoning commission.
And maybe there will be opportunity, as we discussed earlier, it's still a draft.
But maybe there are certain, such as the RR, there may be where we can address those.
And again, through discussion with the planning zoning commission and city council and
this committee, we may find that there are other areas that we should be focusing on before the April 23rd deadline.
But again, the general direction is try to get as close to the existing zoning district.
So that the process of rezoning will occur with what is already established as far as rezoning,
where we send out notifications to folks within 200 foot, and as well as 500 foot.
So a little bit of, it's continuing, right?
We're continuing to work through this, and so we're hoping through more discussion that we'll have an opportunity
to follow the same methodology as what we've done with the university in downtown.
And we're hoping for feedback from the commission, from the council, and from the committee.
>> Ron, is it safe to say that the reason to go to city-initiated zoning is to provide
an additional step for neighbors to weigh in on their neighbor's property?
Is that the reason do city-initiated rezoning?
>> Yes, the concerns that we've heard for
some months from the committee, and in particular, the mayor was very passionate about that if we rezone a property.
Let's just use the RR example, and all of a sudden we make it an R4, and it's adjacent to some R1 and R2.
Where it is that it might be more aligned with the future land use map,
we're providing notice to the entire city that we're changing the zoning map or updating the zoning map.
It doesn't necessarily give the specificity of what is occurring next door to someone.
So it's truly to go to that point of the local government code, say we're going to provide notice to residents within 250 feet.
And even if it's multiple tracks of land, we'll encompass all of that so we can have the conversation and the dialogue.
And it is just that ensuring that the citizens are aware of what's occurring adjacent to them as much as possible, where there's going to be a change.
>> This is more of a maybe a theoretical question, but speaking more out loud, I don't know if it's a rhetorical question or not.
I'm wondering the city's role in making sure neighbors are more aware of their neighbor's property than the property owner itself.
If you're rezoning an RR to an R1 and the property owner's okay with that, and it's not upzoning to apartments next door,
we're doing the city, PNC, and council a ton of extra work so that neighbors can speak about property they don't own.
And I understand there might be a change in property value.
I guess that's the big fear, or I guess neighbors looking at a two story neighbor looking into a pool.
There's some concern there, but it seems like we're unduly providing neighbors opportunity to speak about property they don't own.
So again, I don't know if that's a question or just me thinking out loud, but
it causes me a little bit of pause to understand what we're, as a city, needing to do.
I think it's protect property, owner's property, not provide, I don't know, we've had a dozen sitting meetings.
I mean, how many opportunities are we going to have to give neighbors the opportunity to speak against someone else's property use?
>> And we've had some of that dialogue in the committee meetings.
I think that that has been the conversation, and that is up to the policy makers.
Whether the policy makers are the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, and ultimately it lands with City Council as to how much that they want to take.
They have the ability to do it by providing notice and
theoretically could rezone and change zoning and do all of those things.
I think it's the policy makers that ultimately make the decision as to how much of that they choose to do.
And that's what I'm understanding our guidance from the committee is, is to minimize that impact to adjacent properties.
Whether that be traffic, whether that be density, whether it be the character.
I think there are a number of factors and they're trying to be as conservative as possible.
And yet, it is a step in the right direction.
It works towards our comp plan.
It's consolidating zoning districts.
It's not replicating what we have on the ground.
There are changes to that.
It's trying to minimize the impacts wherever possible.
I'm offering up the fact that staff can further that cause,
what it is that we're hearing from various commission members,
that we can take some more proactive steps to do those city initiated rezonings.
Which I think work towards achieving that, yes, it's more work.
I think it provides more notice.
I think that we're doing everything possible that we can to provide notice to our citizens.
To say, hey, we're doing something major.
This is incredibly large.
And I think our policy makers are just giving us a little bit different direction to say,
we want to be overly cautious.
And I don't have a voice in that.
I expressed my thoughts early in the process.
It's the direction that we've been given.
So now it's kind of that, what are the next steps and how can we continue on this path
to try to achieve what we're looking for, if that helps.
>> Yeah, sure.
I mean, I didn't really provide you a question and answer,
but I think you provided some good context to my thought process.
I only have two other questions.
I don't want to get too bogged down here.
The new map has a new zoning, conditional zoning.
Is that defined in the-
>> Yes, and really what that means are the zoning change requests
that the planning zoning commission made recommendation,
ultimately city council considered and approved with conditions.
So those parcels are, it's not easy to give them a zoning district or
transition them into a zoning district because they have those conditions.
For example, a zoning district that came in from an NR2 to NR6
with a limitation that it only be four units per acre, whatever it is.
Well, you can't really give that a zoning district.
And we went through the process of the conditions in the public hearing.
And we are saying that we need to keep those and we're going to identify those.
Currently, they are on the zoning map as we speak with a gray, with a number.
So when someone looks at a zoning map, they know that it's not any zoning district.
They have to look at an ordinance to really understand what that developability of that parcel can be.
That being said, we're going to carry forward that in the new draft zoning map and
any future zoning, hopefully we don't have any more condition zoning as we move forward.
Because we have other options.
We have the PDs, we have the minor modifications and
other planning tools that can address any need for a rezoning.
Maybe rather than do a rezoning, let's do this first or let's try this.
I think that's probably what will happen.
But to answer your question, those are parcels that have conditions on them.
>> Thank you for clarifying that.
Last thing I have is we talked about last week, remind me, DR1 is going to MN.
>> DR1, DR2, RCR1, and RCR4, I'm sorry.
DR1, DR2, RCR1, and RCR2 are going to R7.
>> Going to R7.
>> Those four zoning districts will go into one.
And the reason we did that is we recognize that those zoning districts closely match each other.
And that those zoning districts in some instances were very little as far as the number of parcels.
And so rather than have, again, we're trying to consolidate, we're trying to make it more user friendly,
we're trying to identify where we can clean up things.
And the R7 was the answer, and that's what we're going forward with.
And so to answer your question, DR1, all those that are currently zoned DR1, will be transitioned into R7.
>> And then we talked about last week, DR1 does not allow multifamily, but R7 does.
>> R7 with a specific use permit.
>> With specific use permit, but DR1 does not.
I guess the point to maybe reiterate is we've talked extensively about your neighbor being able to provide,
being able to do something you didn't know was able to be done before.
So you moved into a field, now it's an R6.
It seems like there are some cases in which someone's neighbor who last week couldn't build an apartment,
fast forward six months, can come and build an apartment.
>> With a specific use permit.
>> Well, all apartments right now have a specific use permit.
But either way, they, by right, can come in and apply, where on a DR1, they had no ability to build an apartment.
>> Correct, they would have to rezone, right.
>> Is there any concern about that?
>> I think with the specific use permit, there's the ability to further review that.
And if you look at the zoning map, and again, that's part of the discussion.
If you look at the zoning map, where are those DR1s?
And I don't know if Cody has them in front of us.
The areas that are currently shown there are DR1.
>> Yeah, so that area right at Congress and Carroll.
>> Right, it's DR1 now.
>> And then six months, if it's the same, I know it's a draft.
>> Remember, this is the year around the downtown, so we have to look at the context of the area.
So if Cody can show the draft zoning map, I believe it's R4, if I'm not mistaken.
So that did not follow the transition, because we looked at those particular areas.
>> So some DR1s didn't go to R7.
>> Correct, but again, because we were looking at the downtown and the university areas.
And so in the context of that area, we know that that's the Stroud neighborhood.
And so we wanted to protect the existing neighborhoods.
And that was one example of where it didn't follow that transition,
because we were looking at that particular area.
>> If I may add though, early, early on, I mean months ago, when we first started the process.
If you recall, we had, I don't remember now how many residential zoning districts we had, where we were trying to consolidate them.
And so the R7 was really created to kind of capture these
residential neighborhoods in and around downtown that really didn't fit within those minimum lot sizes of NR4.
And so as a result, a couple things happened.
One, we went back and applied the sort of carry forward the existing districts that we currently have today.
We also included the language about not having a property being non-conforming, but then really looked at where should R7 apply.
And it really was those, what we'll call sort of the more urban neighborhoods.
And so there was a lot more that went into that than just sort of this quick and dirty change.
>> And I fully appreciate that.
To Commissioner Ellis's point, I think we can do that everywhere.
I thought that that was the effort being put forth by the DCRC is to pace such contextual sensitivities across the map.
And if I understand this correctly, the legal direction was it's okay to
change the zoning as long as it's done fairly across everyone to be, did I hear that correctly?
The legal advice was to make sure it's done uniformly and as fairly as possible.
I don't know how, when you think of the context, well in downtown we can do this, but
this DR1 needs to go to R4, this DR1 goes to R7.
Are we going against legal direction to say, okay, we can think about the sensitivities of the different areas when it comes to this.
But in this area, we're going to just leave it as an alignment.
>> The direction, I can be corrected here, but the direction from the outside legal representative was that to get it as close to the existing zoning map.
And if there was no easy transition that you can adjust it as long as it's close to that existing zoning district.
So looking at it, looking at that example, that was a unique example.
But if you look at north of the downtown, most of those are R7 and
Cody's already actually shown where there's currently DR1, if you look at the surrounding context,
those are already with multi-family developments, specifically south of Eagle in that area.
>> But to the northeast of McKinney and, what was that, Bell?
>> That would be Bell.
>> That was DR1, that's now R7 next to an NR4, to an R4.
>> Use them in there.
>> So those properties right there on Frame Street, they can be redeveloped into an apartment.
>> Not currently, but under the new zoning map, they could.
>> With a specific use permit?
>> All the same.
I don't know what the new P&Z commissioners are going to determine later on.
But my point is not specific to this.
It's more broadly, it seems as though there's been inconsistencies being applied to this draft zoning map.
>> And there may be inconsistencies.
I mean, this is a huge undertaking, and every time we touch it, I think it gets a little more complicated.
I would just ask that you speak at the committee meeting.
And when we have legal there in a format to address some of these issues.
>> Sure.
>> We can certainly entertain any of the discussion.
I don't know that we're the appropriate forum to answer that.
And so I just urge us to kind of stay on task of what it is we'd like for
the committee to move forward with in some of those recommendations.
We can bring back some recommendations and some further ideas.
I think Ron may have some yet today to kind of talk about, at least philosophically, what we want to do.
In this, I don't know that you're going to get consistency when you consolidate 28 to 14.
And this is a large undertaking.
I think that everyone in the process is trying to do the best that they can to be the least impactful and do the best for the citizens of Denton.
And we can pick and choose parcels all over that may or may not be.
And to Ron's point on the R7s, where it is that we said SUP.
So SUP, so we can address it.
We can certainly make sure that we've got notification to the adjacent properties.
So where those exist, I don't know how it is you consolidate 28 to 14 and not have inconsistencies.
But certainly, we've tried to address the vast majority of those, and
I urge you to attend on Friday and at least ask those questions so
we get a good consistent legal answer rather than staff presuming what it is that might be said, if that helps.
>> Let me make one other point too, is that I was not there when you received the outside legal advice.
I was not at that particular meeting, but I heard about it after the fact.
And I suspect that to the extent it was to match the existing land uses as they stand right now,
that's colored an influence to a large degree by a decision that was made some time back.
That we did not want to engage in a wholesale rezoning of the city and
reexamination of it on a wholesale basis through the adoption of the zoning map without going through
the neighborhood of process of sending out notice and allowing people to come up for a public hearing at P&Z and council.
Weigh in on that, because that's what they were used to.
And the direction, at least from the committee,
was pretty strong that the process needed to be one in which we
honored that and did make radical changes to the zoning map
without going through that neighborhood hearing and the hearing process that we use for
rezoning cases once a code is in place.
And so I suspect that there could be a number of different ways to analyze and give advice on that.
And I think it was in the context of that direction and those decisions that had already been given.
>> That's helpful.
And Scott, I know there's a lot of hard work and I'm not trying to undermine any of it.
I guess one of the fundamental issues I have is I agree there's going to be inconsistencies.
It's a huge project.
It seemed as though, and this is me personally,
it was more easier to be consistently applying the new draft map when we were planning of where the highway corridor needs to be and those things.
When we're going to this granular activity, I think there still will be inconsistencies.
But it seems like it's more difficult to consistently apply the alignment.
Whereas how are we being consistent where some DR1s go R7 and some DR1s go R4 or however that looks.
That's, I think, where additional complications, in my opinion, are unnecessary if we would have stuck to the idea of more broadly planning that seemed to go on.
Where there was just more proactivity in some of the things.
And so that, I guess, is where I feel like where we're currently at.
>> I certainly appreciate Jerry's thoughts on the future land use map and not doing a wholesale rezone.
But it seems like as we now have to get granular, we're coming up with all these different nuances that become even more challenging.
>> And I don't disagree with you.
And the example that we were just looking at has been there since last year.
So that wasn't a change that occurred since the Friday before last?
>> No, no, I think the DR1s, R7s, that's been there, that isn't new.
>> Yeah, so that's a long time ago.
But now we're looking at that, and now we're questioning, and we can do that through the entirety of the map.
What occurred a week and a half ago was largely that RD5X.
That was largely it, and then there were some other issues.
And like I say, I think there will be more changes as we go through the process.
So, I think that input and that discussion needs to be had.
And I think going forward, I don't know that this is the right place for that.
I think there is a statement to be made.
And I think that providing that feedback as to the direction that you prefer that we continue on is important to note.
Again, to your point on the granular, we intend on bringing some of those granular issues.
I will say, one of the split zone properties that we discussed on that Friday was a very good example.
And I don't know if Cody can pull that up, if you've talked about that, or?
>> Locus and 288.
>> So ironically, we discussed that.
We discussed a couple of split zonings, and there wasn't a good decision.
So we said, well, we should probably look at those individually.
So if we just apply an overlay today to those and say, okay, they'll continue to have the zoning that they have today, the way that they have it today.
Over the course of the next six weeks, over the course of the next six months, we can continue to evaluate what we believe it should be.
Visit with the property owner, visit with the adjacent properties, and
bring those forward in something that at least we're taking an approach that we're doing the best that we can for notifications.
When that occurred, we had a couple of public open houses.
And the property owners came there and actually asked for
a rezoning of that property or said, hey, we want this to be, and I don't recall, SC.
Yeah, Suburban Corridor is what they were looking for.
And I don't know that we had necessarily an option on what we thought that would be zoned.
>> So one of the methodologies with these split zoning or multiple zoning parcels that you see here.
This particular parcel has three zoning districts.
And what we use as far as methodology, and we explained this as part of the 16,
because you can't split this parcel because it's not a broken parcel.
The map of the zoning map has it, has just three zoning districts.
So we told the committee that we're going to pick
the largest zoning of that property and assign it that and give that.
Now, that may not be the right option, but that was the methodology that we were using generally for all of these.
And Cody did his research, and we have a what, how many parcels are split?
>> I believe it was.
>> 370.
>> So we went back after our initial meeting, chair.
And we actually narrowed that down to less because they were either slivers or
they were not necessarily this evident as far as multiple zoning districts.
So I think it dropped to about 150, 160 of those parcels.
But that's still 160 parcels.
>> Sure. >> Yeah, it was 158.
>> There you go, 158.
So the question that I'm going to be asking, the committee, I mean, we're here today,
and I want to take advantage of your input, is we have three options.
The first option is, do we go with the largest zoning district?
And in this particular case is NR6, because the largest there is NR6.
Option two is we create a layer and we just split it based on the existing zoning district.
Which again is existing and moving forward, it'll be consistent with the transitional chart.
Option three is we reach out to the property owners.
In fact, as Scott mentioned, the property owners attended the public meeting, and those public meetings have worked.
They've generated people coming out, and we've heard from a lot of people recently as well, that we want it to be this.
Because that's option three, do we want to propose what they are requesting?
Not that we're going to do it off completely based on what they're requesting, but look at what that area truly should be, and NSC should be in that area.
So those are the options we have.
Do we pick the largest one and apply that to all the 158?
Do we split it using just GIS and match exactly what it is today?
Or the third one is do we want to plan and talk to the property owners and find out what they want it to be?
That's a different option, and of course, the committee is going to chime in,
obviously provide input, the council, and then the Planning Zoning Commission as well.
>> Thanks, Ron.
Mr. Ellison.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Prior to this new approach to the map, you didn't have any split zonings left, correct?
You did go ahead and assign a zoning district based on the largest.
>> What methodology did you use when you did that?
>> One, we assigned it to the largest zoning district that was there.
But I will add that we also looked at and made sure the context of the area wasn't going to be detrimental.
And so we also adjusted based on our, we,
parcel by parcel, making sure that we weren't creating something that would be detrimental to the community.
>> And that makes sense, and certainly my hope going forward is that we do not have a draft zoning map that has split zone remaining.
That, to me, has got to be taken care of.
Split zoning makes no sense, and I do not understand why we would at least not proactively take that step with this draft map.
And use good methodology and best practices to assign it a zone.
>> No, you're absolutely, and that is, I think what Scott was referring to.
We had to react, and so we wanted to get the map out and
we assigned it that split zoning as a way to identify where we need to do more work.
And more discussion and more input.
>> If I, let me, but what I do recall coming out of committee in that February 22nd meeting was,
because we pulled up, and I don't know if it was this parcel, but we pulled up a split zoning parcel.
And it was discussed at that meeting by some members that
we're okay to leave it split zoning.
So, I mean, definitely going to bring that up again at this Friday's meeting,
because that just doesn't make sense to me, so.
But that was definitely a direction that was given, was to leave it split.
>> And I just want to be clear, that is, I believe option two is what I listed.
That the parcel would be one parcel, but the map would have the split zoning.
>> Okay, I think I understand what you're saying.
>> Commissioner Smith.
>> Thank you, Chair.
I think the having visited with some of the other committee members there on that committee.
I know that- >> Is your mic on?
>> Sure, it's my, yeah, it's on.
So having visited with some of the members on the committee, I'm in support of going through and not doing split zoning.
I think it's unintelligent for us to leave split zoning out there.
But I do know it's expressed that allowing the process be the process, allowing owners,
property owners to come and go through the exact same zoning process that they normally would if they want to rezone the property.
Just as a way of trying to protect that all neighborhood community members surrounding the property in question knows that it's going to get rezoned.
I think that if we do a big citywide rezoning, we're not going to notify enough.
It's not going to be blatant enough to where somebody who's bought a home 5, 10 years prior and
has known that field that's been split zoned the way it is, someone comes and starts developing and says, well, when I bought it, it wasn't zoned that way.
Well, it got rezoned.
Well, when was that?
It was through citywide rezoning and we sent out, we had notices on the website.
We sent out notifications in your electric bill, but we know how people are.
They don't read and they don't look at it.
And so it's almost like it'd be more protective to allow every single neighborhood to have the option to say what they want to if we allow the process to be the process.
I'm not so sure if I would 100% agree the fact that we need to leave split zoning across there.
But I do want to just bring that up to the commission as just to play devil's advocate for a second and make sure all points are being represented.
That there is that process that is already in existence that allows for the neighborhood surrounding to be notified,
to have the signs out there, and we would do that anyways if we did the citywide rezoning, right?
If we're going to be changing the zoning, there would be signs put out, correct?
No, it would just be done?
>> No, there will be no signs.
Obviously, there will be notifications of the public hearing through the newspaper, illegal notice,
and we are planning on sending out letters out to every property owner,
over 30,000 letters letting them know that their property is being rezoned to whatever zoning district.
Not necessarily the neighborhood, the neighbors surrounding those properties that are being rezoned.
>> No. >> And that'd be unfeasible.
That'd be way too much.
That'd be way too much notification, and that's understandable.
So I guess the reason why I think that the mayor said what he said and the position he takes on it
is the process allows for neighborhoods to keep in touch with what's happening on land surrounding their property.
So just that point of view.
>> Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
And I completely understand the mayor's point of view and all of our points of view of notifying and communicating with what's going on.
To me, what staff has set out to do with this entire process of the DDC rewrite and
this draft zone map is to communicate at the highest level and have dozens and dozens of meetings.
And I'm not sure how we could notify people more than what we're doing now.
And they're probably apt to pay more attention now because
the momentum is there and we're talking about it and meeting after meeting is being done.
So I mean, I think it's a great opportunity to do this and to alert everybody of what's going on because
they're going to get a piece of mail and it may or may not be looked at and it's going to happen once.
So that's just my take on that.
I certainly want everybody to be paying attention in reading and clicking on the mapping, clicking on their neighbor's mapping.
Clicking on the parcel north of town to see what, I mean, now is the time to do that.
And I think the staff's doing a great job on trying to get public engagement on this project.
>> So zoning map, any other questions on this?
Kind of a stop down, my apologies for contributing to that.
Ron, I'll give the presentation back to you, sorry for all that.
>> Yeah, if I can have Cody go back to PowerPoint and I'm going to grab the pointer.
>> Yep, I'll turn it back over.
I know, it's probably safer this way though.
>> So this work session is really dedicated to the zoning district, the zoning map.
Because there was a continuation from our last meeting, I just want to make sure we wrap that up and
we fully vet it out because I think it's important because there's been a lot of discussion and
I didn't want to leave it out and it's important that we discuss it.
We also want to talk about sub-chapter five, which is the uses.
And I know that you all have done your homework and we want to hear from you.
This is the opportunity to get input from you.
Are we missing land uses?
Are we adding land uses that don't necessarily need to be there?
How are we approving these land uses?
Should they have a specific use permit?
Should they be permitted in this particular zoning district or not?
Those are the type of information that we're looking from the commission so
that when we have this brought forward to you at a later time,
we're all comfortable and we have your buy in and we want to make sure we get it right.
That's probably the most important thing.
We want to get this right as close as we can.
We may not get that 100%, right, but we want to get it as close as we can.
So we want to hear from you.
You've listed behind me the new or added zoning.
I'm sorry, added land uses that we've added to help with questions that we've received.
When you hear a developer come in and say, well, I want to do this.
Well, we don't have a use for that.
We need to do a code amendment.
We're trying to address those today.
When we come open, we can talk about a particular use.
We can talk about a particular approval of that use.
We can also talk about the use specific standard that is associated to that use.
So when you see a plus assigned to that P or
to that S, P being permitted, S being specific use permit.
If you see a plus, that means that there is a use specific standard or
standards that are tied to that particular use.
So I know we talked about multifamily a little bit at our last meeting.
But really, the conversation that I want to hear is, what other uses do we want to discuss?
And I'm going to repeat myself, are we missing anything?
Is it the right approval, or is the use specific standard, it doesn't make sense, and we need to add or refine it.
>> Commissioner Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Thanks, Ron, and I sent you a list of things, so we can probably start with some of those if you don't mind.
The use, excuse me, the use specific standard required tiny homes.
Projects to be on a minimum of two acres is a good idea, that makes sense.
And it's permitted on except the MD zones,
where we probably have several areas within Denton with less than two acres.
What I was hoping is we get Cody to do his magic and, if possible, bring the zoning map to determine how many such areas like that we have.
Is that possible?
>> Two acres, yes.
Is that possible, Cody, or is that?
>> Anything's possible with Cody.
>> The Candyman.
>> The candyman will be working.
>> The only, well, I'll make a comment.
It seems odd that with an SUP, the city would allow manufactured home development in RR and R2, but not R1, so I was wondering, why is that?
>> Let me, when you were talking, Commissioner Beck, you mentioned MD.
What are you referring to specifically?
>> Tiny homes.
>> MD is permitted, I mean, tiny home developments are permitted in the MD.
>> Oh, let me get there, I think he was talking about lot size.
>> I see, see what I'm talking about?
I think I'm looking at tiny homes.
MD.
>> MD minimum lot size is none, so as long as you have
it permitted and you comply with the U-specific standard.
>> U-specific standard for it in MD, well, I guess in NMR,
was that it be, one of them in that way was that it be on at least two acres.
>> And that's page 212.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Okay, yeah, I didn't put pages, not on this one anyway.
>> Well, the first one is the minimum project size for tiny home development is two acres.
>> Right.
Now, MDs are usually in areas, we were talking about them all ago, aren't we?
>> Right, the downtown, and Cody has that up front.
>> Okay, that's what I wanted to see, if we've got areas.
>> Are we only looking at MD right now?
>> Yeah. >> Or anything that tiny homes are allowed?
>> MD with less than two acres.
>> Less than two acres.
>> Right, because the object of developing tiny home communities
is to get them in areas where public transportation is, close to jobs, stuff like that.
And I found a couple that are at least two acres, but
I was curious to see if we had anything.
>> So this is all MD that is less than two acres.
>> Which ones?
>> Everything that's highlighted in both, almost all of it there.
>> Okay, which is already done, I guess, probably to be more specific.
Do we have empty lots currently?
We can obviously go in if it's MD and say there's an old dwelling there, or a closed business.
We could go in and remove that and create a, and put a tiny home there.
>> As long as it is more than, or two acres or more.
>> Okay, so on MD, we don't have anything.
>> That are available?
>> Yeah, that are listed.
>> Someone can consolidate a lot, or lots, someone can take a larger.
I mean, there are a number of parcels, I believe, that are over two acres.
And those are the ones that are not highlighted.
So those are options.
>> Now they're highlighted.
>> Oh, sorry.
So not many, but those are currently over two acres.
>> Okay, that just seems like a limiting factor for tiny homes, but I understand.
>> And again, tiny homes are permitted in the MN, in the MR, RR, and R1 as well.
>> Right, right.
Okay, the other question was why not,
why manufactured home developments are allowed with an SUP in RR and R1, R2, but not R1?
Have I read that right?
Manufactured home?
>> Yep.
>> I'm trying to recall, and I'm with some of our planners back there that have hopefully their code book.
I don't know where they're permitted, how they're permitted now.
Manufactured housing developments?
>> R6.
>> R6, yes.
>> R6, the R, the rural residential.
>> You got to go to the mic, please, so.
>> You're getting me in trouble.
>> Rural residential by right.
>> NR2 and NR6 with an SUP.
>> So the rural.
>> I'm wrong.
>> Right, but you can get it in rural residential and rural residential too, but it's not permitted in rural residential one.
>> Commissioner Back, so ultimately your question is, or maybe we need to discuss with the committee, why we would not allow it in R1.
>> Exactly, yeah, that's all.
>> And I think it's just consistent with what the code is today, but we certainly can discuss that.
>> Okay.
>> And again, just to reiterate, obviously the draft, and this is why we're talking about this.
So if the commission recommends that it be permitted,
we can note that and discuss it further with the committee, but that is a good comment.
>> Well, it requires an SUP, so yeah, if we get into an R1 where it doesn't make sense and
the SUP process would prevent that from happening, but just to automatically not allow it in R1 just seemed to be weird since we were allowed in R2, which is more dense.
>> Duly noted.
>> Yes. >> Okay.
>> And I could go on, but I don't want to keep, I want everybody else to have an opportunity, so if there's anything else.
>> Certainly, see, your notes, if I understand it, have been submitted to the Senate?
>> Right.
>> Okay.
Well, let's see if anyone has any questions, and if we want to walk through your list, we can.
Does anyone else have questions right now to be addressed here?
And then just for the commission's sake, what's the best way to provide feedback?
There's three of us that have committee access, what's the options?
I encourage that you email me as Commissioner Beck has.
I encourage you to bring it up during our next work sessions.
I encourage you to call me as well.
I mean, I will be taking these, and Sean, who's not here,
does help me make sure that we document every comment that we receive.
And the hope is that we share that with the commission, the committee, and the council.
We've been doing that with, to date.
As we hear comments from the public, we put them in a comment spreadsheet, and we share that with everyone.
>> Great.
>> [UNKNOWN]
>> Thank you, Chair.
So with regard to uses, it'll be impossible to get them all, right?
because there's always a new site, yeah, that's new, we never thought about that.
Is that something that could be added to the table at one of those, as the,
I think it was Clarion who suggested that the city look at it maybe even so much as twice a year.
Is that something that could be added had it come up as a use that didn't fit down?
Is that something in that type of process that could be addressed then?
>> Absolutely, and I think just like the current DDC where we recognize changes in how people live or
operate businesses, we would take it as a text amendment if we needed to.
But with this process, we're going to have that six month, if you will, certainly going to look at it in a year.
How is this functioning, what changes do we need to make, and we do want to have a regular process, to your point.
>> Yeah, I think it's a great idea to implement into this whole thing because, yeah, I mean, you're just not going to know them all.
>> Scott will, Scott knows them all.
>> I don't think so.
>> Every day is a new day, probably the beauty of the job.
>> Can you all just make me feel better about the term short term rental?
Is that like standard nomenclature, because we're addressing VRBOs, Airbnbs, right?
That's the- >> That is what-
>> That's like the type of term for sure.
>> Correct. >> Okay.
>> And just a point for the commission so that they have this reference.
Each use has a definition, so we're clear.
So I know in the past, there was a use, and we don't have a definition, or we have a definition without a use.
And so we're trying to make it more clear, or two definitions, even worse.
So that's, I want to make sure that when you look at these uses, and you let me know there are definitions associated with each of them.
>> And I think it's important to note we've looked at those definitions.
And those definitions are probably the last part of the review that will happen,
just as we add uses, remove uses, and make changes.
So the definitions need some work, and we have changes for those definitions.
So you may read some of that today that will be different and certainly would like your feedback and input.
>> That makes sense to me, I just want to make sure that all the people that are currently taking advantage of the short term rentals are aware.
I don't know if they're going to be notified that they need to be registering or that.
I didn't know if someone had told me are you using your house as a short term rental, if I would have known just naturally that means an Airbnb.
I don't do that for the record.
But hopefully that's a transparent term for the general public who are engaged in that activity.
That they know that there are new kind of conditions on the use of that.
>> And today, well, I think once we have the adoption,
we'll certainly be doing all sorts of press releases and notifications.
And we'll have an implementation period.
So this won't be a hard fast, and there's going to be some constituent notification that has to occur in a variety of areas.
>> Great, Commissioner Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair. I'd like to get the commission's input on religious assemblies.
If you look, get the use definition, which is on page 218.
To me, it read more like a definition than a limitation.
Am I overthinking it there?
Because what is the limitation?
>> Let me just, religious assemblies are pretty much allowed by right.
>> I think that's just trying to give at least a little bit of an understanding as to what it is.
And then you have the one and two on the following page.
So I don't know that it's so much as like the rest of the code that it's at least user friendly.
So you can look, review, and understand if that's where you're at.
>> Okay, but you don't go- >> It's given it a broader scope.
I mean, a shrine could be a place of religious assembly.
It may not be understandable to someone who's looking for a church.
And so if we define it in terms of a church, they may not know that a shrine might fit, or a student worship location.
We had that come up again over on Oak Street a few years back.
And we had a big challenge under Ralupa.
And one of the things that became very obvious is that
there's really no good way to win those kinds of challenges.
>> All right, that makes sense, thanks.
>> And just to chime in real quick, there is a definition for religious assembly in the back.
This, you are correct, Larry.
>> The U specific standard just seemed to be redundant.
>> And I think what we did, and what Clarion did, was they did, I believe this was in the definition section.
Because it had a lot more standards, or tied to some standards related, we moved it here so
that it's clear that these are what an assembly, a religious assembly, should be.
>> Okay, that makes sense.
>> Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Okay, so a couple things.
With regard to musician's studio, you have that noted from last meeting, right?
That we're either, we're missing the U specific standards, or we need to take off the plus if we don't have them, right?
Okay, and then secondly, with regard to definition, I know you said it'll be the end of the process.
So is our hope to maybe have the whole SRO, collegiate housing, whatever?
Are we going to try to maybe have it done by then, or?
>> Just curious.
>> Commissioner Ellis, no.
>> There's a lot to it, and as we discussed, it will require more analysis,
and we will do our best to get it as soon as we can.
>> Okay, thank you.
And I will say, ironically, we talked with the city manager's office today about that very topic, and some of your comments.
So we are diligently working on many facets.
>> Mr. Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Again, input from the commission.
I have a problem with clubs or lodges being allowed at all in R2, R3, and R4, even with an SUP.
For me, these are single family districts that may be isolated from high traffic commercial areas.
That can burn the neighborhood with the undue amount of traffic on any given day.
And could contribute to increase late hour noise levels that tend to come with the sale of alcohol, which goes on at clubs and lodges, which is allowed at clubs and lodges.
So how does the other commissioners feel about it?
>> That's a good question, Mr. Beck.
My first thought is there's a lot of planned development communities that have clubs as their entrance.
When you come in, they have the game room, or the coffee shop, or whatever.
So it seems like there needs to be some provision in the code to allow for those type of structures.
>> Well, to that point, what's it called?
>> Amenity center.
>> Not amenity, yeah.
Yes, amenity center.
>> That's fine, that's a different thing.
These lodges and clubs that allow the sale of alcohol.
I can see them on the periphery of certain neighborhoods, close to a mixed use area.
But if you allow that in the middle of a neighborhood, you're going to have a problem with that.
>> Right.
>> SUP process should stop that.
>> Yeah, and that's the idea that it is required to have a specific use permit.
>> Just the idea of even allowing those neighborhoods seems like we're inviting trouble, it's invariably.
Unless again.
>> And some of those may exist already today, so whether it's a Masonic or
some of the other clubs that could exist in some residential zones, I just, I'm sorry, Jerry.
>> Well, that's okay, but I was just going to say that really, SUP isn't a basis for
winnowing out which uses should go where.
SUPs are really more of an issue of what does the site look like and
how will this impact traffic and how will traffic impact the use and things of that nature.
Usually, SUPs, as we've used them in Denton for 30 years that I've been here,
is that these are uses that are allowed in these zoning districts.
But this is an extra administrative step that has to be taken.
You can't just count on the zoning being enough, you've got to additionally go through and
get the site plan review that goes along with the specific use permit.
>> Okay, and again, I'm sure that they exist, but I think if we look at them,
you're going to see that they're in that part of a residential neighborhood that's probably closer to what we're now calling
suburban corridor, some mixed use or something like that, where it kind of fits in a little bit better.
But in the thick of a neighborhood away from all that on one of the collector roads,
that just would be a problem, and obviously, hopefully the SUP would stop that.
It's just an idea that we've not allowed at all, so my two cents.
>> Thanks, Commissioner.
>> Commissioner Cole.
>> Yeah, I mean, look at Robeson Ranch, they got a club and
all that stuff right in the middle of the thick of everything.
They got several buildings.
>> But it's also a PD.
>> Yeah, that's true.
It is planable.
>> They sell alcohol.
>> We can continue with Commissioner Beck, I apologize,
I meant to print this out for the whole commission.
If it's okay with you, Commissioner Beck, I can share this, or
Kathy can help me share this with the rest of the commission.
>> And we'll get into it in detail Friday, too, probably more appropriate because we've got a lot of other things to do.
>> So the plan for
the next work session, which is on the 20th, we'll continue as we should.
In any of this discussion, we want to make sure we get it right, but we're going to go into the development standards.
So this ship is moving, but it's not moving as fast, but we want to make sure that we get your input.
But know that we are going to be going into development standards at our next work session.
>> Great.
>> Okay.
I want to, before we leave this, I know we kind of go back and forth, and that's okay.
Chair Rosell mentioned the condition zoning, but I also want to make sure that we understand that PDs,
there will be options for PDs, we also have existing PDs, those will be transitioned to PDs.
We also have existing MPCs, master plan communities, those will transition to PDs.
So before we leave the map and the zoning districts,
I want to be clear that that's how they'll be transitioned, and you should have, in your copy of the chart,
that's how we're going forward with those areas that are currently PDs, as well as master plan communities.
I kind of, go ahead.
>> Would conditional zoning is kind of in between the map zoning districts and overlay historic districts, correct?
Where are they being specifically addressed, are they going to be in three or four?
>> They will be in three, as part of the zoning map, yes.
>> Four are special purpose overlay districts, the Fry Street,
the Razor Range, to a certain degree, the Unicorn Lake, that area.
Those are special purpose overlay districts, and you see the list there in front of you.
Those are the existing special purpose overlay districts.
>> Right, but when we've approved zoning, we've used the term zoning with an overlay condition.
>> Right. >> But that's not necessarily this overlay.
>> That is correct, and that is why we're calling it conditioned zoning to help separate, because it is confusing.
>> Yeah. >> Well, you said overlay.
Was it a special purpose overlay, or was it an overlay with conditions?
So by calling it conditioned zoning, we're completely separating.
And again, hopefully in the future, we are not going to be discussing more conditioned zoning,
but rather looking at PDs or other options.
>> Right, that makes perfect sense.
>> But to your point, yes, they are not the special purpose overlay districts.
So the list that you have in front of you is the contents of sub-chapter four.
They are really to provide you with the same information that is currently in sub-chapter seven of the development code.
And it's how we create special purpose overlay districts,
how we amend it in the list of existing special purpose overlays that we have,
which includes our historic districts, and the historic districts are listed here as well as part of the new code.
One of the things that I want to express is the Razor Ranch
is a very large overlay, special purpose overlay district.
We are going to move that as part of the appendix.
And it will be referenced in sub-chapter four, but it will be contained in an appendix.
We want to keep it as it is today so that we're not adjusting the numbering system.
We're not adjusting the zoning that's associated with it.
It's going to remain intact, but referenced and located in an appendix.
Does that make sense?
If you have a question, Richard can answer.
>> No, just you.
>> Okay.
>> Roman isn't here, but I want to make sure that you all understand.
The amendments that you all approved some time ago on the historic districts and
the procedures and the code amendment related to administrative,
really minor in my opinion, will be incorporated with this draft.
It never went to city council.
We did take your recommendation.
We did take your comments.
We folded it into the draft that is now included in this DDC update.
Moving forward, when the city council approves this code amendment, this DDC update,
it will incorporate all those code amendments to the historic districts that was discussed here.
I think that's all of four.
It was a really simple one.
That's why I kept it towards the end, because I think it's just a carryover from what we already have.
And the only difference here is that the razor wrench is going to be just slightly in
a different location to help with the user friendliness of the code.
Any questions on sub-chapter four?
Okay.
Last, I know we're, I think what we'll do here, as I mentioned earlier,
the, I'll make sure the slide behind me is accurate.
We will be talking about sub-chapter six at our next work session.
That doesn't mean that we can't talk about prior sub-chapters, but
focusing on a agenda, our agenda for next discussion on the DDC update,
which will be March 20th, will be on sub-chapter six.
So, I expect everyone to review it.
Larry's already reviewed it already, I know that.
>> He's memorized it.
>> I know, he's had some time to look at.
>> Commissioner Beck.
>> I do have a question though.
Could we include, from chapter five, gas wells on that too?
That's a big area.
Gas well is actually in, we are absolutely not going to touch gas wells.
But thank you for your consideration.
If you'd like to bring that as a separate amendment to the, for a separate conversation,
we can, but we were given very specific direction.
And we have not touched gas wells, we will not touch gas wells.
We do have some numbering, I think some numbering issues as far as where they
might be contained when we made the transition, that requires a great deal of work.
Some of the things that we would like to include in the development code,
i.e. the reference to collegiate housing, SROs, we're even trying to get through that.
So, we certainly had no intention of making any changes with gas wells nor ESAs and don't intend to do that.
>> Go ahead to try, thank you.
>> Yeah, sir, thank you.
>> Thank you, Paul.
>> He's been in it.
>> Yes, he's been in it.
>> Well, what's he doing here?
>> Can't get enough of that on your record.
>> Larry, I just want to make, so that the commission and the viewing public know,
that the gas well production, drilling production, is a carryover.
And it will be located in sub-chapter five, section 5.7 to be specific.
And it is being literally just carried over to this chapter.
Nothing's changed.
>> And if Ron didn't mention it, nothing's changing with the gas well ordinance?
>> Really, this is the end of my presentation or our discussion, unless there's other topics or discussion items.
Sub-chapter six, I want to reiterate again our next work session.
There is a lot under this sub-chapter, so I just want to give you, during spring break,
there's opportunity to look at it, go on a vacation, take it with you.
We will have technical experts at the next work session.
So if you're asking about water, I'm not going to answer it.
I'm going to have someone else answer that.
So please take a look at it.
We want to again make sure that we have everything we need.
The big change in sub-chapter six is that we're trying to put in all one sub-chapter,
but know that there's certain requirements that are more in line with a criteria manual.
So a lot of what you may have seen in those sub-chapters are now in the criteria manual.
Sub-chapter six is meant to be more concise, clear, and specifically just related to development
related standards.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, and it will reference the manual, correct?
That is correct.
Not only will it reference the manual, if it is in the code of ordinances, we are reviewing
that as well, so that, again, to be more user-friendly, if there's a discussion on, say, fees or whatever
it may be, it's not going to be in here, it will be in the code of ordinances, and it
will be referenced from here to the code of ordinances.
So trying to, again, make it more practical and understandable for the person that's looking
through the code.
All right.
I expect more questions next work session.
That you can defer to the water people.
Yeah, defer to the water people.
Thanks to Ron and Scott for their presentation and listening to all our questions.
Really appreciate the patience.
At this time, Councilmember Meltzer announced we had dinner.
So we will take a break at 527 to get a quick bite to eat, and then we'll reconvene to go
over the agenda items for this evening.
Thank you for that break.
It is now 546, and I'll call the meeting back to order, and we'll hop into the agenda.
The first item for the work session would be a clarification of agenda items, which
I think the only clarification is that on the public hearing section, item 4A has been
withdrawn and item 4B is being postponed to the March 20th meeting, so 4A and B will not
be heard tonight.
There's no other changes besides that, Richard?
So with that, there's four items on the consent agenda.
Is there any questions on the consent agenda?
And we'll call up the presenter if there is.
Oh, Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you.
I just have a comment about 3A, and I don't know if Julie wants to maybe come up, because
she and I had a little bit of a discussion today, and I just wanted to bring it up here.
So when I pulled up the plaque, what I noticed on this one is it was written in the general
notes about the lots being close to gas wells, and they listed them in the notes, the lot
numbers, but what I noticed that they didn't have was the asterisks on them that we've
seen in a lot of plots prior.
So I had presented Julie with the question of if it was a requirement or not to do that,
and apparently it's not, and it's more of a preference.
But I don't know what your all thoughts are, but I mean, I said to Julie that I like the
asterisks on there.
I think it's better for a person looking at a plot to be able to see that.
It's 3A.
More readily.
Yeah, bent rail.
Let me pull up the plat so we can kind of think at it.
Yeah.
Yeah, so it's listed on the notes on the plot where the lots are that are within a thousand
feet of the gas well, but they're not starred like we've seen on prior plots.
Were those active gas wells or they've been kept?
They are.
Are they?
Okay.
I don't know if it was that or not, that well's close to something, but they were kept, they
were closed.
Okay.
I agree that it should be.
So it was elapsed that?
Well no.
So apparently it's not.
It's not required.
I mean, I'll let Julie speak to that.
All right.
And Haley may correct me.
She's normally our gas well reviewer.
But I'm going to, I'll try to see if I can address your question.
So almost there.
All right.
So Commissioner Ellis is referring to plat note eight.
So and that does reference lots that are within a certain distance of a gas well.
And so often we see, particularly in ropes and ranch, they do an asterisk on each individual
lot that falls within that boundary.
This developer elected to just reference the actual lots in that note instead of depicting
it on the drawing.
So her concern was that would any future buyer of that lot read all of the notes?
So that was definitely a concern and that's certainly something that we will take into
consideration as we review.
So we want to make sure that that notice is seen.
I appreciate that.
Yeah.
And I think it's just easier to look at the plat and know what they are.
So okay.
Thank you.
For clarification though, Julie, apart from that is not part of the technical requirements
of a plat to have that included?
It is.
If it is within that gas well, the notice.
About the asterisk.
Not correct.
Correct.
But some sort of notation.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
Great.
Any other questions for 3A?
Thank you, Julie.
Thank you.
Any other questions about the other final plats we had for the Kinston agenda?
Great.
That'll move us on to 4C, so another final replat, 18-0018, and I'll invite Haley up
to discuss.
All right.
Good evening.
This site may be familiar to you.
It's the future McDonald's located at the intersection of 377 and I-35.
So the replat is actually a combination of portions of three lots.
Over the past few decades, the sunrise addition and adjoining subdivision have been kind of
piece milled and replatted and this was the remainder of some lots as well as the remainder
of what was left after TXDOT acquired right of way in this area.
So the McDonald's that you all saw for a specific use permit request a couple of months ago
is moving on through the process now and so they're looking to combine those pieces together
to make one cohesive lot for their development.
Happy to answer any questions about it if you may have.
We're back.
Thank you, Chair.
So everything on the looks like the west end is a it's going to be an open space, green,
is that what it's saying?
Gross land area.
No, sir, that's just a label for the entire lot area once they combine these three pieces.
Okay.
I'm sorry.
I thought I read somewhere in there that this was going to be open green space.
No, sir, this is the McDonald's we saw an SUP application for a couple of months ago.
I can't recall exactly when that was, but there will be a McDonald's restaurant located
somewhere in this area.
This will be primarily parking on this end and then they do have some landscape buffering
they're doing back here because they adjoin multifamily, but.
Okay.
Thanks.
Commissioner Sanchez.
So all they're picking up is that north side, right?
Is that correct?
No, they're actually combining three pieces.
So there's a label here, this was one of the old lot lines that used to come all the way
down to this area before TxDOT acquired their right of way.
And then there's another lot line that cuts through in kind of an L shape through here.
So this used to be lot two of the Sunrise Center addition.
And then this corner is a remainder of a piece that was left over when the apartments and
the commercial development to the north of this replatted, I believe back in the 70s.
Okay, great.
Any other questions for Haley?
Thank you very much.
Before we get into our next item, wanted to jump back real fast, I skipped over item two,
the minutes.
Is there any edits or comments on the minutes from February 6th or 13th?
We good?
Perfect, jumping back then to our public section 4D is to discuss sub chapters 13 and 17 of
the tree preservation landscape standards and ESSA standards.
Yeah, I don't know how much we want to go into right now.
I just wanted to point out I did hand out at the beginning of the meeting, some revisions
that were made just over the past couple of days.
Richard may want to speak to a few of those, but just in a work session we had with council
yesterday as well as some continual cleanup that we're trying to do as we notice minor
inconsistencies throughout, we've made some amendments.
So the red line that you all had just has a few changes throughout, they're all marked
in either red or blue so that you can see exactly what's changed since what you received
on Friday.
And what I'll do is I won't go in depth I think with each slide, but just try to hit
on some high points.
I know we've seen this multiple times, but really wanted to hit on, one, some of the
changes that we made from the last time that we saw this in November, December, as well
as then some really two substantive changes that were made as a result of the work session
we had yesterday with city council.
One thing I did want to just highlight, again, I'll get into more detail, but we did do quite
a bit of outreach on this, both from a number of professional agencies or organizations.
Two or three I'd like to just point out.
One was Keep Hittin' Beautiful, I think we had presented that previously, but since 2019
we actually presented this at the North Texas Urban Forestry Council.
We kind of set some time aside at their annual conference to just kind of have us talk a
little bit about it and get some input.
We also really haily sat with the American Society of Landscape Architects, Texas Dallas-Fort
Worth group for about three hours, going line by line, and they were very appreciative.
I think it was the first time that they've ever had a city reach out to the actual people
that do the work to talk about an ordinance and changes that would affect what they do.
And we also met with the development community, we met with the Denton Community Developers
Alliance as well as sent this out to the Dallas Builders Association.
And so a lot of the changes were a result from the input that we got primarily from
the development community once we got to that sort of final draft.
What was some of that input you got back from the development community?
What were some of the things that they brought up, the concerns they had with the tree code?
There were a number of concerns.
I don't know if I can summarize one, and I know we included in the backup kind of the
list of items that they had.
I think part of it initially was just kind of looking at it singularly.
I think the way our current code is, it's just the tree code.
You really don't take into account the landscape requirements associated with it and the credits.
And so one, it was just kind of changing that thought process.
But there were also some concerns that they addressed over tree types, some of the mitigation
standards they thought were a little too heavy-handed.
There were, I'm trying to think of some of the other big items.
Mostly secondary trees, again, the mitigation type.
Those were really probably, and just some clarification.
Some things that we didn't necessarily have in the current code, or I'm sorry, that we
have in the current code that we didn't have.
One being we didn't include an exemption for if you needed to go out to do a survey
and you had to clear some of the understory.
In the current code, there's a provision where you're exempt from having to comply with
the tree code in those instances.
And so we agreed and just kind of carried that language.
So some of it was more clarification.
We had some standards, I think we may have mentioned this even before, where we got into
really some details in some of the tree preservation plan-related items that really will get brought
into more into the criteria manual as opposed to being in a code.
So it was just kind of that overall discussion.
Mr. Beck.
Was one of the changes the removal of the signage requirement?
Yes.
Okay.
What about on page 15 under enforcement, why do we line out protected tree stand, historic
trees, quality trees, or quality trees where it gives the building official the designated
authority to place a stop work order on any activity involving the removal of trees?
We line those out.
On which page?
Page 15.
Okay.
The enforcement provision.
Yes.
That's currently in there.
If you look at the current draft, line 559, enforcement, that line, actually line 560,
building official or designated authority to place a stop work order on any activity involving
removal of protected trees.
Okay.
So that encompasses.
Yeah.
It encompasses it.
Okay.
So that distinct, you know, we really brought it down from seven different designations of
types of trees down to really four, landmark, heritage, quality, and secondary.
So we're not talking about any trees, we're talking about those four?
Those four.
Okay.
On page 16, it seems like we removed some of the requirements from the tree survey and
preservation plan near the bottom.
There was a lot of things lined out there.
Did we?
Yes.
Some of that will eventually just get put back into a criteria manual as opposed to
being code.
Okay.
Thank you.
Just wanted to really touch a little bit on the work session we had yesterday and kind
of what prompted it.
Obviously, there were a number of concerns raised by the development community and some
changes.
There were some council members that did attend that developers or Denton County Developers
Alliance meeting and initially there was a discussion as to whether or not we should
go back to the committee on the environment for a meeting since that's really where a
lot of this started on a policy level.
And really the city manager looked at it and really recommended that Council Member Briggs
and the mayor really sit down rather than going back to the committee and her as the
chair of that committee and the mayor, let's work through and try to see if we can come
up with some resolution on some of these issues.
And that's really where the draft is today as a result of that.
And then presenting it to council yesterday.
Again, so as I said, really two major changes as a result of yesterday's work session.
One with respect to applicability and the other secondary trees.
Let's run through really quickly on the applicability side.
You'll start to see this will look substantially different even in the current draft if you
look on page -- if you look on page 12, starting at line 415, where really we started off with
just exceptions to it.
As we started making revisions, it was getting to have an exception to an exception and we
said, you know, let's just start with what we initially had as an applicability.
Let's mention how and in what circumstances this is applicable to what.
And so it's really undeveloped land, all non-residential multifamily to be redeveloped.
And part of the discussion yesterday had to do with what we did include in there was an
exemption for existing single family and duplex homeowners.
That was some input that we had received even from certain residents in the city to the
point that they actually reached out to the state senator and state rep with concerns
over the application of this.
In the current code, single family and duplex are exempt and we thought let's just carry
that forward.
There was already the exemption if you had a DBH of 10 inches or under and in just dealing
with the likelihood of us really having to enforce it, I don't think most people would
really be cutting down that many large trees on the property to begin with.
So we just carried that exemption over.
As part of the discussion that we had with council yesterday was a concern that individuals
buying single family lots with the purpose of land assembly and then ultimately demoing
those properties and then having that exemption.
And so we kind of rewrote it and put in that existing single family and two family properties
applying for demolition permit for the primary structure would be required to comply with
the regulations provided those trees have a minimum DBH of 10 inches or greater and
that comes from that local government code requirement.
And so that's in there, the other item that we included, if there is a, even though single
family and two family would be exempt, if there is a tree that was preserved as part
of an overall preservation plan and it's designated by plat or some other instrument and noted
on that, then they would have to comply with the ordinance provided that tree is greater
than 10 inches.
Commissioner Ellis.
So I guess just my concern on that is, I mean, how would they even know to look?
Because we have, we were supposed to under the current code, but we've been enforcing
it now.
So if you've preserved say a 20 inch or 30 inch pecan on your property, we now have
that notes on plat with an asterisk that will reference that trees located on this property
include a tree preserved under ordinance 3517, 35137.
And so if that is on that plat and it was part of an overall preservation plan, as long
as it was 10 inches or greater, then we're saying you would need to comply if you wanted
to tear that down.
I'm sure the average homeowner would not even know that that exists, if they even know what
a plat is.
So I don't quite know how the enforcement of that would even take place, honestly.
And then one other change on here, again, this came as a result of meeting with the
development community.
There was some language in here that's crossed out now that spoke to ag properties.
If they were actively being marketed, then they wouldn't be exempt.
That provision just came out.
And so if you have a current ag operation, you're exempt.
If you're marketing the property for sale, as long as you have that ag and continuous
operation, then you still would be exempt from the code.
And then item three that you see on the screen, four, really three and four, those are -- were
already part of the nonprotected tree definition.
We included it in the applicability section.
There were a lot of questions we had from -- primarily from single-family homeowners.
And so we thought more of a belt and suspenders, let's just put it in the exception part as
well so someone doesn't have to dig around and try to find it and just be explicit about
it.
And then five is the language that I talked about earlier with respect to the clearing
of understory.
>> Commissioner Burke, you have a question?
>> Yeah.
Thank you, Chair.
Richard, one thing, and if we don't have time to do it, that's fine.
In fact, I may, you know, see if I can schedule individual time when you come over.
But the mitigation issue, in fact, what -- I don't understand it.
It's a complex formula.
You've got the -- on page 20, sample tree mitigation worksheet.
Would you have time to help us with that?
>> Yeah, I know you've done this before, but it's -- for me, when I was in school, math
was like a brick wall.
Every time you just put it up there, it just -- I had a hard time with it.
I mean, if there's no objection from other commission members, I'm just trying to get
a -- wrap my head around how we're mitigating --
>> No, I'd love to see Richard do math.
>> -- using VBH.
>> Pardon me?
>> I'd love to see Richard do math.
>> No, don't.
Don't, please.
>> I --
>> Put them on the spot.
>> I've been known to do it on -- at council meetings.
>> All right, so we'll just kind of -- everyone can see this up, right?
I'll just kind of walk you through this.
So total VBH, under this example -- I'll just work off the worksheet.
Under this example, there's 120 inches VBH on the site total.
Non-protected VBH, 20 inches.
So non-protected would be a mesquite, would be a honey locust, an invasive.
So for the sake of this discussion, let's just say they're 20 inches of mesquite.
And then you have total protected VBH.
So those are really your heritage trees and your quality trees, 100 inches of those.
And so your preservation is based off of 30% of the protected VBH, which gives you that
30, okay?
And so kind of working it down, and so now we're looking at what protected trees were
removed.
So you took out, under this example, 40 inches of heritage, 30 inches of quality, which is
a subtotal of 70.
And so your preserved is at 30, which kind of nets here.
And so there's your removed of 70.
Now you have a replacement ratio or multiplier for each inch.
So for a heritage, it's two and a half to one, which gives you that 100.
>> I'm getting a little confused.
When you're going and replacing it, especially a heritage tree, which would be -- is that
post oak and blackjack?
>> Blackjack is no longer part of that.
It's really post oak, six inches or greater.
And then any quality tree, 18 inches or greater.
>> Okay.
And those are trees that we really can't replace as post oak.
So what are we going back in with on those?
Are you basing it on what the canopy will amount to over time?
>> The replacement is -- we're somewhat limited in that.
So the replacement -- and I'll go through how those numbers kind of -- how they net
out, but the replacement is really prescribed by the Texas local government code.
So if we're going to charge a mitigation fee, we have to be able to give credit for what
they're planting.
And the replacement tree is really a two-inch tree.
>> Two-inch.
And so that's where -- that's what all of -- that's what these numbers are -- it's
the minimum of two-inch.
If they do a three-inch tree, then obviously they may not have to provide as many trees.
>> And it might help if I work through the table?
>> Well, I was reading where it said the preservation -- the replacement rate for a heritage tree
is 2.5 inches per one inch.
>> Correct.
>> So to me that sounds like if a developer moves an 18-inch --
>> DBH.
>> Heritage tree, they have to replace it with 36 two-and-a-half-inch trees?
>> No.
They would multiply that -- let's just say for this sake, the heritage tree was one 40-inch
tree.
>> Okay.
>> Under this example, those 40 times two-and-a-half, so they have to replace it with 100 inches.
>> Okay.
>> And that could be -- that could be 52-inch trees, it could be 34 three-inch trees.
>> Okay.
Okay.
>> And then same with quality, 30 inches times two, 60.
And so you have your total calculated DBH at 160, which is the number here.
>> Okay.
Now, when they're replacing these, obviously they had to cut down a lot of trees in the
first place, and that's why they're mitigating.
So where do they go to these trees?
Are they going back on that lot or --
>> Yes.
>> They are?
>> Yes.
And so under this example, we also require -- while they're not required to be preserved,
these secondary trees that are removed require replacement.
But instead of on an inch for inch, it's on a tree per replacement tree.
>> Okay.
>> So for every secondary tree that's removed, you have to replace it with two two-inch trees
or four inches.
So that's where that four inches comes from.
It's two two-inch replacement trees.
>> Okay.
So you mean you're not taking into consideration ultimate canopy when you replace them?
>> Not under this.
Not under this.
>> Okay.
Go ahead.
>> And so that gives you your total of 176.
Now because it's residential, the local government code requires a 50% discount, if you will.
That's where that number comes down to 88.
So it's sort of cut in half.
Now we give --
>> Okay.
So they got to cut down 70% of the trees.
But then when they go in and mitigate it by this formula, they can still cut it down to
half of that?
>> Correct.
>> Wow.
>> And then in addition to that, if you preserve heritage trees, you get more -- you get an
additional credit for the type of tree that you preserve.
And again, it's weighted more towards preserving the heritage as opposed to quality.
And so if you preserve a heritage tree, you get a three to one credit or 60.
A quality tree, it's a two to one, under this example, 20.
We've also built in the ability if you preserve a secondary tree, as long as you hit your
minimum preservation of 30%, so as long as you hit that, you can get credit for preserving
secondary trees up to 50% of the preserved quality.
So under this, so if you preserve 10 inches, you can get a credit for up to five.
>> But that's within the 30% that you're preserving?
>> This is in addition to the 30%.
>> Okay.
>> This is in addition.
It's just the ability to sort of write that down.
And so your total -- so your total 82.5.
And so the mitigation is 88 minus 82.5, which gives you the 5.5.
>> Okay.
That's where you lost when you were right there.
Okay.
Well, we had 88 inches of mitigation.
>> Because this is your -- yeah, this is your preliminary mitigation.
>> Right.
Right.
>> You're applying additional credits based on the tree's product, which is deducted from
that mitigation, which gives you your --
>> So they only have to replace 5.5 inches?
>> Correct.
>> DBH?
>> Correct.
>> Holy cow.
>> Right.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
They are preserving the minimum 30% to begin with.
>> Yeah, they're preserving the minimum.
And so I think what's important to note, though, under the current code, they're only -- depending
again on the size of your lot, they're only required to preserve -- the greatest they're
required to preserve is 20.
That number could be cut down to 10, 20% down to 10%.
>> See, that's where I'm confused, too, because I thought it was 30 that could be cut down
to 20.
>> That also is included in here.
But you're mitigating at a much higher rate.
And so I'll jump back to -- just so you can see it in -- sort of in real time.
And so these are real examples.
And so we looked at -- again, we took the -- a current tree preservation plan and subdivision.
And we took the 30% preservation and then looked at, okay, well, let's assume you're
going to preserve 75% of the heritage trees and 25% of the quality.
So under this, total trees DBH on that site was just over 3,000.
Berry trees made up 946 inches.
You had 80 inches of exempt.
And I think the majority of the exempt, ironically, were invasive species.
>> Okay.
>> I think some were -- I think the majority were China berries.
And so under the current code, you actually got credit so you can remove oaks and preserve
China berries and you're good to go.
Under the current code, under the current code.
And so your heritage and your -- heritage is at 15 -- just over 1,500, quality 456.
So looking at your heritage and quality, the required -- I'm sorry, it's 2005, required
preservation, 602 inches.
And so when you -- I won't go through the full math.
I mean, we can kind of walk you through each of it, but you see how that relates.
And so, again, secondary and so the way the numbers work out, your mitigation DBH is 185,
which is the equivalent of 93 trees.
Now you have to look at this in conjunction with what's required for a residential subdivision.
Currently they were required to plant 43 trees and mitigate 36.
You didn't get any credit for that.
So they can either pay or plant.
So it's either plant under the current 36 trees or pay $7,200.
It was actually less because the current fee is at 125.
We ran this on what we're proposing to be at 200 just so it's more of an apples to apples.
Under the current -- I'm sorry, under what's proposed, you're required to plant 86 trees
and it's really one tree per lot plus one -- plus a street tree averages out to about
one per lot.
So you're automatically going to get credit for planting those for the required plantings,
which brings your mitigation trees down to seven because it's being reduced off of that.
Again, these are based on two-inch trees.
It could be three-inch trees, so it could even be less.
>> I'm sorry, we're dealing with actual trees now, not DBH, these numbers?
>> Yeah, for this -- for the example in the middle, this shows you what it equates to
for trees.
>> Okay.
>> For trees.
And so you either would plant those seven trees or you would pay $2,600.
If you plant, it brings it back up to that 93 total.
And so looking at canopy on the required trees, we have a factor of 1,256 is what we assign
for a large shade tree.
>> Square footage?
>> Yeah, square footage of canopy.
And so when you do that comparison of 79 to 93, overall, it's a 17% canopy increase than
what's required under the current code.
>> You've helped some, not really, and that's a lot.
>> And just to give you the reverse, if you do 25% heritage and 75% quality, it completely
changes -- it completely changes it.
Because now your mitigation trees, even -- you're at 207.
So it's 414 where the inches -- again, these are -- I'm just using the minimum of 2-inch
trees.
So it would be a mitigation of 207 trees.
You'd get credit for the required 86.
So now you either have to plant an additional 121 or pay just over 24,000 or a combination
of both.
>> And this is just showing how much more significant a priority is for developers to
save the heritage trees over other trees?
>> Correct.
But also it gives them an option to get somewhere in the middle if it works for them.
>> Where does it come in -- and maybe I'm getting off script here, so if I am, tell
me -- when you don't have any place to put trees, so you can put them on another lot
somewhere or where does that play in?
>> You could -- you could either -- you can either pay, pay or plant them on a -- on another
property or at another location.
Some of that will come into play when the city's -- sort of that planting plan is done.
>> Right.
>> I know Parks has that.
I believe -- >> Would that be some of the areas that go
would be parks?
>> Correct.
>> Trails, things like that?
>> Correct.
I don't think anybody would probably pay as opposed to planting it on someone else's property,
but that option is there.
The other component to this, and I don't want us to forget it, because we didn't change
it, but if you remember, we also included language regarding a conservation area or
a preserved habitat.
If that's included, there's the ability, depending on what you're preserving in there, you have
the ability to -- if that -- if that DBH that's preserved within that conservation area, it
could essentially equalize your mitigation, and really that incentive is to get those
larger.
It would be 10% of the area.
>> Where is this area here?
This isn't the area over there off Brinker Road, is it?
No, it's not.
I can see it isn't.
>> This is off of Riddell, I think.
>> Okay.
>> The development that's coming off off Brinker that sits back behind Wal-Mart, they've got
-- they're going to conserve some trees, they're going to create a conservation area.
You know what I'm talking about?
>> Yes and no.
Oh, yeah.
Actually, yeah, the plate is on.
>> Okay.
And that would be a case where because they're creating that conservation area, their mitigation
factor is nil.
>> That one's a little -- that one's a little different.
Because they were under the old code, and so they had an upland ESA.
And so they were able to count their ESA area towards meeting their preservation.
Under the proposed, that ESA would not be counted.
And so the preservations -- >> Two and a half acre tree conservation.
>> Yeah, that's it.
>> So they would have had additional mitigation and preservation as a requirement of this
-- >> Of the new code?
>> Of the new code.
>> Okay.
>> I'm going to interrupt here, Commissioner Becker, I think you have good questions.
I don't want to catch you off too short, but if there is a meeting for you and Richard,
that might be helpful.
>> Yeah, I'm good.
Thanks.
>> Did that help the -- unless there's anything else.
>> Well, are we going to run through this presentation?
>> Yeah.
We'll go through the whole presentation.
The only question I have off the top of my head is hearing the elimination of like ESAs
in terms of counting towards -- was there significant developer feedback on -- what
was -- out of all the meetings, were they generally okay with it?
They feel this is aggressive?
How did the developers feel?
>> I think they were much -- and we met with them again on Friday afternoon to go over
the changes that we presented yesterday to council.
And I think it was much more palatable for them.
Unfortunately, with some of these -- it's like if no one's happy, then you really did
a great job.
But it's really hard to get really true preservationists on one spectrum and then development community
that doesn't want to do any and just to try to get somewhere in the middle, but ultimately
still try to get where the city's goals want to be.
So I think at the end of the day, I think it's much more palatable to them now that
they're looking at it differently.
They understand if they dedicate a conservation easement, it probably might be to their benefit,
but also to the city's benefit.
Something else that we added in is a line to allow tree fund dollars to be used towards
the maintenance of some of those conservation areas.
Even though they're really not touched, there is some minor maintenance that's related to
that.
And that's been an issue in the past where I think the city's been a little reluctant
to take those on because, you know, how are we going to manage those?
And so it's a little bit different under this scenario.
Great.
Well, then we can look forward to the rest of the presentation here in a little bit.
Any other questions for Richard or Haley?
Okay.
We'll close the work session at 625 and meet over in council chambers at 6.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
for March 6, 2019.
I will call the meeting to order at 633, seeing that we have a quorum.
The first item of business is to stand and say the 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 pledge allegiance to the flag of Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.
The next item of business is to consider the
minutes from February 6th and February 13th.
We'll take these as separate items, and the chair will entertain a motion on the February
6th minutes.
Commissioner Smith?
Motion approved.
We have a first to approve.
Commissioner Beck?
Second.
We have a first and a second to approve the minutes for February 6th.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 5-0.
Next item is February 13th minutes.
Commissioner Ellis?
I move approval.
We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Sanchez?
I second.
We have a first and a second for approval of the February 13th minutes.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 5-0.
The next item of business is our consent agenda.
Is there any motion or discussion on the consent agenda?
Commissioner Smith?
Make a motion to approve.
We have a first to approve the consent agenda.
Commissioner Ellis?
Second.
We have a first and a second to approve the consent agenda.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 6-0.
With that, I'll move it to the public hearings.
It's point of order.
There is two changes to the agenda, or at least two notes.
Item 4A has been withdrawn, and Item 4B has been postponed to the March 20th meeting.
So 4A and 4B will not be heard this evening.
The next item to be heard will be 4CFR18-0018.
I'll invite Haley for presentation and open the public hearing.
This is a replant for a proposed McDonald's located at the intersection of Fort Worth
Drive and I-35.
As you all may recall, there was recently an SGP application for this property.
This is the same project, moving on through the next steps of the development process.
The total property is approximately 1.69 acres.
This is a combination of portions of three lots that were left from various other replants
of adjoining properties, as well as text-out acquiring a significant amount of right-of-way
here on the southern side of the property.
So this is the combination of those three remainder parcels into one lot for that development.
And I'm happy to answer any other questions.
I do not see any questions for you, Haley.
Thank you.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak may do so.
We do have a card from the applicant.
If you're wishing to speak, invite Greg Massey.
And since you are speaking on behalf of the group, you have 10 minutes.
Okay, hopefully it won't take the full 10 minutes.
My name is Greg Massey.
I'm with Red Plains Professionals, the civil engineering group representing McDonald's.
As Haley identified, this plat is for combining three tracts in the remainder from the text-out
taking into one for the development of McDonald's.
We have been through extensive submittals and review processes with the city, and I
would be happy to answer any questions you have.
I'm hoping everyone's had a chance to review the staff report and the minutes and is familiar
with everything we have gone through in getting compliance with the engineering requirements,
the planning and zoning requirements, the tree preservation requirements, the TDP, all
those items.
So if there are specific questions, I will address them.
Otherwise, I'm not going to occupy your time for the night.
I appreciate you being here for questions.
However, we don't have any at this time.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone else wishing to speak may certainly do so.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais for conversation, discussion
or motion.
Mr. Sanchez?
We have a first for approval.
Mr. Smith?
Second.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 6-0.
Congratulations.
The next item on the agenda for business is item 4-D, and I'll invite Haley for a presentation
on the tree preservation landscape standards and ESSA standards, and I'll go ahead and
open the public hearing.
Yeah.
I don't think this will be a tag team between Richard and I.
Good evening for the record.
I am Richard Campanoni, deputy director of development services planning director.
What I wanted to do tonight is just kind of walk through some of the changes that resulted
from meetings we had both with the development community public input that we've received,
that you'll see that really that's changed since that last draft and public hearings
that we had in November and December of last year.
And so I just want to give a little bit of background.
I usually start off, I think, every presentation that we've done with this slide, again, just
to give a little bit of guidance as to the approach that we took when we developed these
standards.
Again, a lot of that stems from a policy discussion from city council and the committee on the
environment in April and May of '18, again, looking at a unified approach, making sure
we comply with the Texas local government code, limit clear-cutting, require mitigation
for all trees removed, guide priorities towards preserving larger and quality trees, promote
multi-age forest, balance it with reasonable development, and increase tree canopy citywide
at 30 percent.
Some of that outreach that I had alluded to, up through 2018, we did have a draft initially
posted on the website for public comment in November.
We did meet right around that same time with Denton County Ag extension and the master
gardeners to get some input, particularly with respect to the tree species.
In December, we did present at a Keep Denton Beautiful board meeting to kind of go over
the proposed at that point in time.
And then we did put out another draft at the beginning of, once we really started honing
it in based upon a lot of the input and those initial two public hearings we had, we reissued
a draft in November, I'm sorry, in February, and then kind of went back out on the road.
We did meet at the North Texas Urban Forestry Council Conference in February.
We also sat, Haley really sat for, I think, almost three hours with the American Society
of Landscape Architects of Texas Dallas-Fort Worth chapter.
We did have a meeting with the Denton Community Developers Alliance.
We actually met with them again last Friday based on some changes.
We also sent the draft, that February draft, to the Dallas Builders Association.
It was discussed also at the community workshops we had with respect to the DDC update from
some of our residents and single-family homeowners.
And then just individual meetings with both members of the development community, citizens,
phone calls, et cetera.
A lot of those comments, or really any of the comments that we received either through
the website comment page or written comments, were all sort of combined into this spreadsheet
that was attached.
Again, most of those comments were from that February, really all of those comments were
from that, I don't know why, the February 1st draft.
So the changes that we've made really work to address a lot of those comments.
And so again, where are we today?
As I mentioned, we had 14, really now 15 different work sessions and committee meetings from
April of last year, so within 11 months.
We met, really the last full council review was on 11/13.
That sort of prompted those changes that ultimately went into that draft on February 1st.
Based upon some of the concerns that we heard from the development community, we were looking
at making additional changes.
And at the time, it was being contemplated whether we take that back to the committee
on the environment for input.
At that time, two weeks ago, the city manager's recommendation really was meet with the chair
of that committee, Council Member Briggs, as well as the mayor, and let's work through
that to avoid back and forth and make sure that we're moving together.
So we held three separate meetings with both the chair and the mayor to work through and
address some of those concerns.
And then that's essentially the draft that was sent out to you on Friday.
We did have another city council work session yesterday to go over those changes and get
input.
And for the most part, there were really two central changes as a result.
It had to do with applicability in secondary trees.
And so the draft that we handed out tonight has those changes, and I'll go through those
here shortly.
And so, again, where are we going?
You might have seen this slide before where we talked about sort of our overall canopy
goals.
And so I think in the past, we've always looked at the tree preservation landscape, but we
kind of looked at these all separately, whereas now they're kind of really looking at them
unified and how they all kind of tie together.
And so, again, our current – currently citywide, we're at 27.97 percent canopy, set a goal
of 30.
And we also broke that down between east to 35, west to 35, and, again, that's based
on the U.S. Forest Service, 40 to 60 percent for forested areas and 20 percent for grassland.
And so, again, what we looked at was, you know, what has development actually even brought
us?
Where have we – where are we going and where do we come from?
And so we were able to get a 1942 aerial photograph.
And so we then applied the current – or I'm sorry, the canopy in 1942.
And so this is an area between Bonnie Bray, 77, and university.
And so it really includes just about everything.
So you have larger commercial areas, you have some single family, you have some parks.
And so that's where we looked at this while we included this example.
And so what we did is we looked at, based upon the landscape requirements, applying
that maximum canopy cover of the undeveloped property to developed, it actually brings
our canopy citywide to about 36 percent, not including this area.
This is, again, across the spectrum.
And so what we thought was interesting in looking at that 42 to 2017 example is in 1942,
this area sort of within the yellow had a 6 percent tree canopy; 2017 it's at 33 percent.
And so while we had a lot of that single family development, where you see now the red, what's
interesting is – this is North Lake Park, so you see the increase in canopy as a result
of our parks.
And then this area here, which is equivalent to this area, this is actually an ESA area.
And so you see through those preservation areas of the ESA what is actually done as
far as promoting canopy.
And so looking at that 36 percent citywide when we extrapolated the numbers, it's the
equivalent of about 13 trees an acre.
Looking at past codes, I think we were at 15 trees per acre, but we really didn't
do preservation.
So looking at those combined, we're at or really close to or even above sort of meeting
that goal in the future.
And so, again, focusing on the changes, kind of what changed and why.
And so when we initially presented this back in November, we really tried to hone these
in in five sort of main components – applicability, tree type, preservation, credit and incentives,
and mitigation.
And so we'll walk through sort of each of those and what's changed.
And so under the applicability, we removed some language that was going to – if a agricultural
property was being marketed for non-agricultural use, they would not be exempt.
We removed that – we removed that from the code or from the draft.
We also included an exemption for property on which a single-family or two-family residential
dwelling exists.
Again, this is a current exemption in the code.
We just carried that over under – if you recall, under the local government code, there's
an exemption already for single-family for trees under 10 inches in DBH.
This just exempts them overall.
I'll speak to some additional changes with respect to number two as a result of yesterday's
work session.
Number three, if it's in a hazardous condition or in danger – again, this was already mentioned
in the non-protected tree definition.
We just included it here, so it's a little bit more explicit for property owners.
Same with number four.
Number five, this was a comment that we received from the development community, a concern
about if they needed to do a survey to even get onto the property, sometimes the clearing
of trees are required.
And so the language in number five is what's in the current code today.
And so we're just recommending now that that be included.
And then also number six will ultimately, I think, change somewhat.
One thing we talked about was having these regulations go in place almost like an interim
regulation, if you will, where for a six-month period of time you can fall under the current
code or have the ability to go under the current.
Interestingly enough, while there was some concern from the development community, we
also met with some residential builders that actually – one in particular that actually
liked our – liked the current or the proposed draft.
Their concern was the iron floor of 30 percent, but under the current code, their mitigation
amounts would have been much more.
And so the change that resulted from yesterday's work session – and again, you can see this
in the draft that was handed out on – starting at line 415, it really just – rather than
having exceptions to exceptions, we just created a applicability section outlined explicitly
when it's – when it's – what it's applicable to and when it's exempt.
So if you – undeveloped land, non-residential and multifamily being redeveloped, and number
C in particular was – really prompted this change as a result of the discussion with
council was if there was an existing single-family or two-family that was going to demo their
property primarily for redeveloping, making sure that if that was the case, then they
would have to comply with the preservation and mitigation requirements.
And the only caveat that we added in there is I – that the minimum DBH for protected
trees shall be 10 inches or greater.
Again, there's that exemption from the Texas local government code for single-family and
duplex that in order to apply it, it would have to be greater than 10 inches.
So that's why that – that's why that's spelled out.
We also included another item under item 2 – 2B.
We do have trees that are currently on a plat if they are preserved as part of a subdivision
on a single-family lot.
Typically they're a larger tree.
Any time that those would be removed unless otherwise exempt.
So if they were greater than 10 inches, they would not be exempt.
They would have to mitigate because, again, that would be a replacement tree or a preserved
tree that would be – that would be removed.
The tree types, really four types, under the current code there are seven different designations.
And so what we're looking at now is really preservation based on two types, mitigation
based on three.
So your preservation is based on heritage trees, which are quality trees with a DBH
of 18 inches or greater and all post-oaks with a DBH of 6 inches or greater.
And then quality trees are really all healthy non-secondary trees except post-oaks that
measure between 6 and up to 18 inches.
So very similar to the current definitions, if you recall at one point we had carved out
a separate line for post-oaks and blackjack oaks and had that minimum DBH at 4.
That was a concern that from the development community we brought it back up to 6 inches.
We heard a lot of concern also with the blackjack oaks.
And so where we're at under the proposed is really just the post-oaks at 6 inches or
greater.
And then secondary trees, while they're not required to be preserved, it includes all
bowdark, hackberry and cottonwoods, and so under the current code both honey locust and
mesquite are part of that secondary.
What we're proposing now is that those be removed.
That's kind of stayed the same from the secondary and be treated as a non-protected tree.
We do also have a designation of a landmark tree.
This included the current code has a designation of a historic tree, which we currently don't
necessarily have.
And it was also as we went through the creation of this, it was recommended we also include
any tree that's on the Texas Big Tree Registry.
But one thing I wanted to note that while 100 percent preservation is required in order
to have either of the designations under a landmark tree, it's something that's designated
by the property owner.
So this isn't something that the city's going to put on a property and then not allow you
to remove it.
So again, this would be something that would be designated by that property owner.
And currently there are none in the city.
Non-protected trees, again, no changes.
Mesquite, unless it's part of a preserved habitat or conservation easement, honey locust,
unless part of a preserved habitat or conservation easement.
These all essentially are the same.
Just to kind of give a recap on the preserved habitat or conservation easement, if you do
have an area, let's just say a preserved habitat that's adjacent to an ESA, again, we're still
with a development impact area where the ESA is not included.
So it's not counting for you, it's not counting against you.
But if you had an area equal to the greater of 5,000 square feet or 10 percent of that
development impact area, if that area was preserved, and it included mesquite or honey
locust or any other tree for that matter, since you are keeping that area intact, that
those trees could count towards designating that land.
And so this is something that we've had in there since day one, but I just wanted to
make sure that we didn't forget.
Under preservation, pretty much the biggest change is there were multiple types and varying
replacement rates.
This really simplified it into preserving the quality and heritage at 30 percent, and
then your replacement rate for a heritage is two and a half inches per one inch removed.
For quality trees, two inches per one inch removed.
And then for secondary trees, while there's no minimum preservation, there is a mitigation,
but it's not based on the DBH or the diameter at breast height, which is four and a half
feet above grade.
It's really at a tree-for-tree basis.
And so it's really for every secondary tree that's removed, the replacement rate is really
two replacement trees, and the replacement trees are the minimum of -- the minimum is
a two-inch tree.
And again, that's prescribed as a result of the Texas Civil Government Code 2 and 2905.
We did provide some additional flexibility.
One of the concerns we heard, particularly from the development community, was that in
addition to requiring more preservation, more mitigation, and then ultimately increasing
the fee, there was no real wiggle room, if you will, or the ability to lessen the preservation
amount.
Under the current code, if you're greater than two and a half -- I think it's two and
a half acres, you're required to preserve 20 percent.
That can be cut down in half to 10 percent, provided you mitigate.
And so we came up with something very similar.
So you could reduce the 30 to 20, provided that 10 percent -- there's some additional
mitigation associated with that 10 percent.
And really what it does, it bumps up those replacement rates by 0.25.
So it goes from -- for heritage, it goes from two and a half to two and three quarters.
For quality, it goes from two to two and a quarter.
We also included language to allow for an alternative tree preservation plan.
There's some language now in the code where, because it's in subchapter 13, you can do
an ADP.
When we discussed this, primarily with the committee chair and the mayor in developing
this, we had recommended -- staff had recommended that this be an administrative process, that
you allow for an alternative tree preservation plan for under certain circumstances.
And the first would be to allow trees less than the minimum DBH to be counted towards
protected trees when the allowance would result in the preservation of a greater number of
post oaks, regardless of DBH.
And so if you had a number of post oaks or a stand that you wanted to preserve, if they
were four inches or three inches, to be able to count those towards that preservation goal.
The second part of that would be the preservation.
If there's a substantial burden, but smaller DBH quality trees could be preserved in such
a way that they're incorporated into site design, such as parking lot buffer, front
yard landscaping, that they then could count.
And really, the rationale behind that was, if you had, let's say, a four-inch quality
tree while you're not required to preserve it, why -- and that's an area that you're
going to have a landscape buffer -- why remove those trees and plant them with a two-inch
tree where you already have a four-inch tree that's established and probably has a better
likelihood of surviving.
And so these are other sort of options and some flexibility that we included.
And then the other component to that is to allow secondary trees to count towards meeting
the minimum preservation instead of quality trees.
And this is really to avoid those instances where, if a site is just undevelopable because
of where those quality trees are located, rather than having to go through this long,
drawn-out process, if there are secondary trees that could be preserved on that site
to allow that to take the place.
In addition to that, as a result of yesterday's work session, we also included some additional
language with respect to secondary trees.
And so really, it starts on line 668 under subsection 8 -- I'm sorry, H of the draft
minimum preservation requirements.
And it's the language outlined in blue here.
And so while there's no minimum preservation required when there are quality and heritage
trees, in instances where there are no quality or heritage trees on the property, then a
minimum of 20 percent of the total DBH of the secondary trees must be preserved within
that development impact area.
And so the concern was, in some sites that maybe were all secondary trees, instead of
completely clearing that land, that at least some preservation would be -- would take place.
And again, this was something as a result of a discussion with council yesterday.
Credits and incentives -- again, these are the only thing that really changed here.
Under the previous draft, we had a 50 percent credit for both residential and non-residential.
We sort of went back, since we reduced some of the mitigation rates from what they were,
I think some were even at four -- the multipliers were four and three and a half.
We put the credit for non-residential at 40 percent, and again, these credits are prescribed
in Texas Local Government Code.
Credits were reduced for the required replacement.
So again, we're at a heritage trees at -- so if you preserve the heritage trees -- so in
addition to that 50 or 40 percent credit, depending if you're residential or non-residential,
again, gearing it towards preserving sort of those larger trees, there's a three-to-one
credit for preserved and a two-to-one credit for quality.
And so while your mitigation is two and a half on quality -- I'm sorry, on heritage,
your preservation credit is actually higher, again, with trying to incentivize preserving
those larger trees.
In addition, if you hit your minimum 30 percent and you wanted to further write down those
mitigation requirements, or mitigation inches, if you will, if you wanted to preserve secondary
trees, again, not a requirement, but if you did, you would get a half inch per every inch
preserved.
So again, I also wanted to state, if you preserved greater than your 30 percent, you would still
get credit for everything that you preserved over that.
Secondary trees could also be included in that.
And so the intent is really, if we can get more preservation, then really draw down the
mitigation amount.
This is a component, really nothing to change.
The only thing that we included is the cross-reference.
This is something that's in the code today.
Pre-preservation relief.
And what it does is, if a property owner believes that they're unreasonably burdened by the
preservation ordinances, and that they've been deprived of all economically viable use
of their property based on these three factors, then they can go to counsel for relief.
And we did have a discussion on this specifically yesterday with counsel.
It's interesting, because this has been in the DDC since adoption.
It, to my knowledge, has never been used.
Unfortunately, we never cross-referenced it within the tree preservation requirements.
But we just wanted to make sure that that was noted in the section where it would be
applicable.
And really, this is that prior to going to court for any taking, this is that option
or opportunity to meet with the elected body.
Payment into the tree fund.
While this is not a component of the tree code, the tree fund is set, the mitigation
amount is set by a separate ordinance or fee schedule.
Under the current code, we're at $125 an inch.
And so this has been the fee that has been in place, I think, since its inception, as
far as I can tell.
We had quite a robust conversation even at counsel back in November regarding this.
And really the question that came about was, what is the actual cost?
What does it cost the city to put it in?
And so if we're going to have to plant these trees, it should be for the cost, for the
cost not.
We shouldn't lose money on having to plant these or make it up with additional funds.
And so if you recall it, at one point we had referenced an appraisal document, I think
it was at North or the Texas Society on Tree Appraisers, Texas Edition, I can't remember
the exact name of the document.
And so when we presented this at the council workshop in November, we really had three
funds or three figures.
It was the current and then the recommended was either, I think that number was at like
286 more or less, and then the number that we had gotten was 317 for the city.
And so we went back to look at that 317 and as we started looking at it, we said, well,
if you plant a three inch tree, does it really cost close to $1,000?
It just seemed like an awful lot of money.
And so when we really looked at what was being included in that fee, there were some fees
that were associated with, because again, it includes purchase, planting, and irrigation.
Typically there's, on that irrigation, there's a meter fee or meter tap fee.
And so it's hard to determine, at least when we started really looking at it, hard to kind
of spread that out in an ordinance on tree mitigation.
And so we said, well, what does it actually cost just to buy the tree, plant it, and then
irrigate it on a three year basis?
And so I think the appraisal number was a little over 200.
The number that we got was 209 per inch.
And so we recommended that it just be a flat 200 an inch.
And so there was, again, this won't be part of, while the fees assess is part of the code,
the actual amount is set separately.
In conjunction with that conservation easement that I had mentioned previously, we did include
an additional item under what the tree fund can be used for.
And that's item B, to conduct maintenance on conservation easements dedicated in accordance
with this subsection.
And so that's something new.
All of the other, A through F, these are all currently in the code.
The only thing that we really did is just sort of reorganize it.
They were really all jumbled in just one paragraph.
Sometimes I think things got lost.
And so just for simplification purposes, we just sort of enumerated the list.
And then two and three, again, these are currently in the code and nothing changed.
And so what I wanted to do is run through a couple of examples that we had.
And so what we did is we took sort of the mitigation worksheet that's included as part
of the code, as part of the draft, and then we kind of broke out a comparison of current
versus proposed.
And so I won't get, I'm not really going to get deep into the math unless you have any
questions or would like, but I'll just kind of hit on some of the highlights.
And so again, the spreadsheet in the middle is based on, is really looking at trees.
So we did that conversion from the mitigation DBH.
And so for the purposes of these examples, we used that minimum two-inch.
Obviously, the numbers would be different if someone were to plant a three-inch tree.
And so the mitigation required trees, under this example, is a 43-lot residential subdivision.
Under the current code, they were only required to do street trees.
Under the proposed, it's a street tree plus a lot tree.
And so that's where you have the required trees of 43 and 86.
The mitigation trees were 93.
That's taking that number, dividing it by two, the two-inch trees.
So total new trees.
So either under this scenario, the 75, preserving 75% heritage, 25% quality, you would either
plant seven trees or pay 2,600.
And so you see the difference of what was required and mitigation under the current
versus the proposed.
And so if they were to plant on both examples, you're looking at an overall canopy increase
of 17%.
Again, just based on, most of that comes from the required, but again, that is, you are
now able to get credit towards your mitigation trees under the current code that is not permitted.
This is the reverse example.
So this is 25% heritage, 75% quality.
And again, we try to look at a development on the east side of town that's heavily
treed, one on the west side of town that I'll show next.
And so probably somewhere in the middle on a lot of these.
But you see the difference primarily from the credits that you get.
And so by preserving more quality than heritage, your mitigation trees, the total required
is 207.
So after you're writing down that 86 that's required, you're still required to mitigate
121 two-inch trees.
Of course, that number can be reduced if you do a three-inch or you have the ability to
pay just over $24,000 or a combination of both somewhere in between.
And so you see the difference from the current versus the proposed.
As I mentioned, you have the ability to take that 30% down to 20% with that additional
mitigation.
Under this example, I just did taking it down to 20% and just assume they preserved all
heritage trees, giving the greatest credit.
And as you see, this is one where the numbers are much greater.
But again, if you're going to go below the minimum, there is a cost associated with that.
So your mitigation trees now go up to 432, which would really be brought down to 346
after you net out the required trees or a payment of just over $138,000, which under
this development, that's the equivalent of roughly $3,200 a lot.
And so again, substantially different, but you have a spectrum that really you can choose
from.
What I didn't run in this example is that option to do a conservation easement.
So there's really the bottom line is there's multiple options.
There's just not one way to do this, and it's really trying to be more flexible to the property
owner and developer.
The example here is a subdivision that was approved on sort of the west side of town
of Bonnie Bray.
This site, if you look at the mitigation worksheet, had almost 3,300 inches of trees.
All of that secondary trees made up 2,852.
So again, this is one of those lots where they had primarily secondary trees.
A lot of these trees, or a good portion, you had mesquite, you had honey locust, you even
had some evasive species on here.
So while some were actually preserved under the current, they would have been exempt under
the existing.
And so what we really looked at was required trees, both current and proposed.
So again, 108 lots, using that example of one street tree per lot, and one lot tree
per lot.
And so under the proposed, you have a required 216 trees.
Also has a required mitigation of 233 that leaves you with 17 to mitigate.
So under this example, you would either have to plant those 17 trees or pay 10,000.
Under the current code, again, this is what was required.
You either mitigate by planting 77 trees in addition to the 108, or you pay $30,000.
So now you see under this example, it's actually substantially less than the current code, again,
because it doesn't put such a greater value on secondary trees under this example.
Last example that I'll just touch on briefly, commercial is a little bit different just
because of the, again, there's additional flexibility built in with respect to the landscape
table, the point system that's available and that Haley will get into.
But I just looked at this purely on preservation and mitigation.
This site had all post oaks.
Everyone probably remembers when this site redeveloped.
So under the current, they preserved 112.
Under the proposed, it would be 202.
Required trees, 34.
And so your mitigation down to 17 under the current 42.
And so you start to see that, again, that difference.
And so while both the mitigation would be less than the current code, whether planting
or payment, substantially less, the amount of trees that were preserved increased by
80%.
And again, I didn't run this with going down to 20.
It was, I could probably run I think 100 different scenarios, but just wanted to kind of give
some of these extreme examples.
And so with that, I'll turn over the landscape street tree and buffer to Haley.
All right.
Not a lot of drastic changes on this from what we've seen in the past.
So I'll move through it a little quickly.
So just some of the highlights of the landscaping portion of the code.
We are maintaining the minimum percentages for landscape and tree canopy requirements
that are in the current code.
The major changes that we're introducing a point system for both buffers and site landscaping.
So the buffer points will be based, again, similar to what we have now on what use is
developing and what uses are adjoining it.
The point system for everything else will be broken down into three main elements.
Adjoining at the right of way, parking lot landscaping, and then just your other site
landscaping requirements.
And then with that, there is a landscape plan requirement that would affect a multifamily
and non-residential development when they all across the board would be required to
provide a minimum of 30 points on that landscape plan.
And then for street trees, the major change that's occurred is that we're now basing
the street tree requirements on the total linear frontage for a property rather than
just the number of lots that we have, which would be a major change for residential development.
Since the last draft that you all saw, the largest change that was made to the landscape
code was a change for the single family and duplex requirements.
Previously, we just had in there a proposal for one yard tree per lot or per dwelling.
Based on what we've seen with the new parking code that was adopted with the four parking
spaces per unit, that creates some challenges with people that may want to enclose a garage
and just put all parking across the front yard.
So we're encouraging that there be a minimum of 30% landscaping within the front yard so
that someone just doesn't pave the entire frontage of a property and you still have
that nice street presence with room for that yard tree.
And then there would also, we're proposing a minimum 20% rear yard landscaping.
So looking specifically at how the point system would work, this is the table that would be
in the code for buffers.
So again, on the left-hand side, you see the various developing use categories.
So whatever your use is, you would go there and then look at what uses adjoin your property
on the various sides to determine what type of buffer would be required there.
So it assigns a minimum points that you would have to obtain within that buffer from the
next chart that we'll look at, as well as the minimum width.
So you'll see for a lot of them, there may not be a minimum width because it could be
as simple as a fence, but for some of the more intensive uses, that width goes up to
30 to 50 feet in some case, or 30 feet, I'm sorry, with points ranging from no minimum
points up to 50 points for industrial uses.
So again, the buffer element table with all the options hasn't changed drastically.
The one addition that we've made is to encourage the preservation of existing trees within
a buffer, so there would be an option if at least 50% of your buffer area contains preserved
trees that you could get some kind of bonus points for that, but all of the other options
remain the same in terms of different tree shrub options as well as fencing options.
And then as I mentioned, all non-residential and multi-family development would be required
a landscape plan that demonstrates not only that minimum percentage of landscape area,
but also a minimum number of 30 points.
So the way that would work is you would have at least two options from the right-of-way
screening if you have front parking.
If you don't have parking in the front, then that's reduced to one because it may be as
simple as foundation plantings if your building's pulled up to the street.
So you would choose one or two of those options, and then similarly, within your parking lot,
you would choose a minimum of two options.
Within this table, the significant change is outlined in yellow, and it's really nothing
drastic, just specifying how you would provide the vines if you were to do a wrought-iron
fence within that area.
That came from the American Society of Landscape Architects.
They had some encouragement on providing specifics on how we would want these things landscaped
to help guide their work.
And then within the other landscape options available for the remainder of your site,
there are a few things outlined here in yellow that are kind of the changes from the last
draft that you saw.
And again, it's really just geared towards providing more specificity on how these plantings
would look.
So what used to just say a five-foot-wide planting area along the foundation of the
building, we expanded that to clarify that you still have to maintain clear, accessible
space there, so it became a 10-foot area with five feet of planting and five feet of clear
space for maneuverability.
And then we do want to encourage the planting of larger trees.
Two inches may be the minimum under local government code for mitigation.
But if someone is to plant all four-inch trees or larger, we do want to give them some bonus
points for that on their landscaping.
So you see that option has been added there.
Combined all of the kind of bio-swell, grass-swell options into one to allow a combination of
those to be used together to obtain that seven points.
And then with the other options for living walls and green roofs, we're really just specifying,
again, a minimum area to those to help guide site design.
And then one of the other options that I think we discussed briefly with you all, but we
did provide some clarification on how the alternative development plan could still apply
to landscaping, since we are proposing to relocate these standards to a different subchapter.
And then in addition, we're proposing to allow a little bit of flexibility for sites, such
as you may recall the truck wash that we looked at in an ADP recently, where the property
was very large in size.
It was almost 12 acres, and they had significant encumbrances on the property that made it
nearly impossible to meet their minimum tree canopy.
So we did want to allow an option there without having to go to an ADP, where you could reduce
your canopy requirement by 10% and pay into the tree fund for that 10% instead.
So just another option to give some flexibility there.
And then really looking ahead, after tonight, our intended next stop, if you all make a
recommendation, is to go to city council for formal consideration on March 19.
And with that, Richard and I are happy to answer any other questions.
Thank you, Haley.
We do have a couple.
Commissioner Smith?
Thank you, Chair.
Richard, I actually have two questions for you, or a couple questions for you.
When you went and presented to the development community, as you mentioned in work session,
how much of this information did you share?
How much of this presentation did you share?
Did you share exactly this presentation with them, or what did you exactly get?
What exactly was that meeting like?
We met at the chamber office.
We had a little bit of a different presentation, but then we also went through just really
some of their concerns.
They provided us with really a marked-up PDF with a number of comments.
And so within your backup, we've kind of encapsulated all of those comments, both that were written
as well as some of the comments that we received, either via e-mail or when we posted the draft
on the website, there was the ability to add comments.
And so all of that, all of those comments were incorporated into that.
Would you describe those comments as regarding the new code as being too restrictive or more
restrictive than the current -- or the new code being too restrictive or more restrictive
than the current code?
Well, they had concerns with it being overly restrictive, primarily on really getting hit
with additional mitigation, an additional fee, and then additional landscaping.
And so I think what we really tried to do, though, is stress that, you know, not looking
at these sort of as it is in the current code, that there are credits that are built in as
a result, but also the changes that this draft reflects, even the one that was included in
the backup on Friday, I think is substantially different.
And when we met with some of those representatives again, I think that was Thursday or Friday
of last week, they understood also that it was a substantial change to what we had initially
discussed.
So there was some compromise there?
There was definitely some compromise.
And again, I don't think it's -- again, we have two sides that somebody -- you know,
have one side that wants to preserve all.
Obviously, the development community has other -- has a different opinion.
Yeah, if one half of the community had its way, we'd never cut down a single tree, and
if the other half of the community had its way, we'd cut down every single tree and develop
on it.
So if no one really is happy, it's probably a good thing.
The $200 per square inch or $200 per diameter inch increase from the $125, was that shared
with the development community?
Was that a conversation?
Actually, the number that was shared with them was actually higher.
It was that at one point it was $317, then we were actually looking at a $286 number,
and then before we -- as we were preparing for this workshop yesterday, we really sort
of rolled back and really dove into that, what really comprises that number, and let's
really take a hard look at it and make sure that we're not including something in there
that we can't necessarily defend.
And so that's where we brought it back down to $200.
And the last question I have, under the old code, if you could think about the time there's
been development that's happened where trees have been removed, whenever the mitigation
has occurred, about how many do you think is actually planting new trees, about how
much is it just paying the impact fee?
It really depends, and part of the issue is, to be quite honest and quite frank about it,
we were consistently inconsistent in enforcing the code.
I think part of it is, it's very confusing under some circumstances where if you have
a heritage tree, under the current it's called a protected tree, let's just say, if you have
heritage trees on site, anything that you remove requires mitigation.
However, if they're part of a tree stand, so if there's three or more trees together,
then all you have to do is preserve that quality tree stand.
And I've seen some tree preservation plans where you had secondary trees that were included
where really secondary trees should be in a secondary tree stand.
And so it's varied throughout the years.
And so that was one of the other difficult tasks is doing that comparison.
It was hard because a lot of them just were all sort of applied differently.
So when we applied it, it was all right, let's really look at it how it's supposed to be.
So it's hard to say which is which because the code was essentially too vague to be able
to be correctly applied in every single instance with the uniformity.
Going forward looking at it from a perspective of the city, I think this code leaned itself
more one way or another.
I think it's going to, personally, obviously the preservation is greater, but I suspect
because of the credits that are being built in, you're going to have less, less payment.
Okay.
And more because I think that's been a question has been payments into a tree fund that isn't
necessarily being what's being done with the money that's going in there.
So you're saying that it seems like the code is built more for trees to be planted by trees.
Yeah, I mean, if the intent looked at it really preserved, but then put new ones in to mitigate
them, correct, if our overall goal is really to increase canopy, then let's let's have
have them be planted rather than let's plant new trees rather than having them just pay
and say, well, I don't feel like doing the work, we'll just pay and get out of here.
So correct.
And just to kind of give you another sort of a for example, we had met with a residential
builder, looked at looked at a very large part, this is a few weeks back that looked
at a very large parcel covered in trees.
They actually preferred, interestingly, they preferred the new code because of the credits
that they were going to that they were going to get, where they where they were hung up
on was that was that hard 30%, where what they were looking at, I think they were going
to hit like 22 or 23%.
They weren't necessarily so much worried with the mitigation in their in their model.
At least what was what was explained to us was they typically plant three trees per lot,
two lot trees and a street tree, nine inch, so three, but but they plant three inch trees.
So what they were going to have to be required and what they thought they were going with
their landscape architect looked at what was going to be removed, really, for them, it
was it was it was zero, because they were going to they were going to they were going
to plant that on the property anyways.
And this is just a I want to just confirm, but that's not that's kind of a question
on Haley's section of the presentation, but you can answer it more than likely.
The the tree, but the trees are included in that landscape buffer.
Those are of course included into as long as they meet the size requirements, they're
included into the the mitigation planting and everything else.
Correct, correct.
And so we almost the other way to put it is we almost allowed a double dip, if you will,
because we added in now that flexibility if you can mitigate by putting your landscape
buffers in essentially is what you're saying, correct, or you can preserve you can preserve
under the alternative tree preservation plan, you can preserve smaller trees or even secondary
trees and get credit for meeting your preservation in addition to getting credit for for meeting
your landscape requirements.
And so it would have been it would almost be so it's counted against your plant, your
mitigation requirements in addition to getting an additional credit for your for your landscaping.
Thank you.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Thanks, Richard, for your presentation.
And I know you and your staff have worked real hard on this.
And there's a lot of details there that I haven't wrapped my head around yet.
But I'll take your word that this is going to be better for us overall.
We may have to fix some things down the road one way or the other.
But let me ask you this, I believe in currently or at least if it's not currently existing,
it'll be part of a new plan.
When somebody does plant a new tree, a developer does plant a new tree, they're responsible
for it for two or three years, if it dies within that time, they have to replace it.
Is that correct?
Correct.
If it's part of an approved and approved landscape plan.
Let me ask you this.
Do we have anything like that in place when they preserve trees, especially like post oak
trees or something, they go in and the ones that they preserve die from probably actions
that their developer did or something like that?
Do we go back?
I mean, and I'll use the example that is pretty obvious to everybody.
It was the last example you used on DBH, the raising cane development killed, killed off
some of those trees that they preserve.
Do we go back in?
Do we have anything set up where we can go back in, say?
Yes.
Okay.
Can you elaborate on that?
And I know under that example, if I'm not mistaken, last I spoke to Haywood, one of
the issues was I think he was waiting until after the, until once the spring, until the
warmer weather gets here.
And again, just to look at the, to check and confirm the status of those, of those trees.
Okay.
But we do hold their feet to the fire.
Correct.
You know, for a certain period of time.
Yeah, on an approved preservation plan.
Okay.
Commissioner Sanchez.
I just wanted to talk about, well, I think, I think the whole idea of giving credit is
pretty good.
I think that, sorry.
Yeah, I like the idea of giving credit to, to the developer.
One, I just have a couple of minor questions and we had talked about secondary trees and
one of the issues was to the cottonwood tree.
And I mentioned that once before, is the female tree, preserving female cottonwood trees,
is that in a neighborhood or even in a developing neighborhood, they provide a lot, they create
a lot of problems.
Is there anything that we can put in that code that says, you know, I know it's hard
to determine a female from a male tree, but keeping female tree cottonwood trees, if there's
any way that can be resolved to try to, because they are a problem, especially air conditioning,
you know, they'll destroy an air conditioner in a few years.
So I was just curious if there was any thought for something like that.
We could certainly include that, include that in a recommendation, you know, to, to council.
Interestingly, one of the other comments that we received, even after our meeting on Friday
with one, with a member of the development community, that was his exact same concern
with the cottonwoods and the condensing units and some of the damage that they do.
And the other question is, I know we had talked quite a bit about blackjack oaks, why was
that taken out and just post oaks included?
There was a discussion and that came up as part of that, the meeting that we had with
the development community, and I can't recall the exact specifics, but it had to do with,
and Haley, maybe you remember the exact, but it had to do with the tree itself and, and
the rotting that it's susceptible to.
I can't remember the exact, the exact, the exact details, but, but that came from, from
an individual that does a lot of the tree surveys in the city.
And so that was, that was the reason why that, why that came out.
Okay.
Okay, thanks.
Richard, can you go back to the example worksheet you had, the very first one that had the 7525
heritage?
That one.
You mentioned that the proposed significantly reduces the mitigation, either by the seven
trees or the payment of $2,600 being less, but their required trees is double.
Correct.
So it's not that mitigation, I mean, mitigation is lower, but that's...
Because you're getting the credit.
For having more trees?
You're getting the credit for what's required.
So your mitigation is the 93 trees, so even though the amount doubled, it's still your,
it's being credited against the...
Yeah, well, maybe some of the speakers are going to speak to this, but it seems like,
like a sales tactic to say your mitigation's going down, but in all reality, they're having
to keep a lot more trees.
So the mitigation, the process of actually mitigating is lower, but the requirements
to build out a development around those 86 trees presents, seemingly to me, I welcome
feedback, greater challenge to the developer, because it used to be that they just could
identify 43 trees to build around and then mitigate, and now they're having to build
around 86 trees, although they can mitigate less.
86 is landscaping, right?
The required are the landscaping trees that are required as a result of the one tree per
lot, the lot tree and the street tree.
Okay.
And so under the current code, they're required just to do street trees, 43.
You don't get credit, so even though you're required to plant those, you don't get credit
off of the 36 that you're required to mitigate for.
So under the proposed, you're required to mitigate 93 trees.
In addition to that, you're required to plant 86, but you get credit for planting those
86 trees off the mitigation amount.
I think I understand it still nets the developer 14 additional trees.
Right, there's still more trees being worked on.
And then, not related to the presentation, this was presented at council yesterday?
Correct.
The recommendation is for P&Z to recommend to council for approval, then it goes back
to council for approval.
Is that the process that we're in right now?
Correct.
So the way it's scheduled now is it's advertised for city council public hearing to consider
adoption on the 19th.
And what we looked at is really having a sort of the six month period where you can still
go under, you can't choose, you pick between one or the other, you can't pull one from
this section, one from the other.
So if you wanted to go under the current code, you can.
If you wanted to go under the proposed, you can, and then what we would really do is after
that six months, just do an assessment, and then if any changes needed to be made, we
would make them at that point in time.
One other item that I would just like to add, depending where the recommendation goes tonight,
just that we have some leeway on some of the editing, I know, Jerry, there's some things
we probably want to tweak, just word it differently, I don't think, it won't change anything really
substantively, but one or two words might change, and so we just ask that we have that
ability.
Thanks, Richard.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Richard, let me fall back on Commissioner Sanchez's question about the blackjack post-op.
People would dispute, but we gave up quite a bit to the developers, and we're still,
I guess, in a pretty good position, but the guy that presented the case that our blackjack
oaks, is that right, blackjack oaks, are more prone to disease, now was he part of the community
development group?
Correct.
He was speaking on behalf of them?
Correct.
He was one of the members.
Okay.
He was more on one of the individuals that does more landscaping, and actually does the
tree preservation service.
Let me ask you this.
Was the city arborist there, Haywood Morgan, was he there, too?
He was not at that developers alliance.
Okay.
I would be curious if he would see the same thing.
I mean, again, we've conceded some things here, I'm wondering if this is something we
should have conceded.
I'd love to get some kind of feedback, and I don't want to hold this tree ordinance up
any longer, and I won't, but I would like to get some feedback from Haywood on his view
about that.
If he is in line with it, then fine, but if he has a solid opposition argument.
One of the concerns that they were, in fact, I think they actually referred to it as a
post oak ordinance, the previous draft, and so that was really the concern, even with
the sensitivity of post oaks, the example that we just talked about where they died,
and moving soil around them that not really conducive for their long-term viability.
So that was sort of that compromise, so we increased it from four inches back up to six,
and then removed the blackjack oaks from them.
Okay.
I think, though, at the end of our meeting tonight, with the matrix, I may make a recommendation
that we get a report of some kind from Haywood Morgan on that assessment.
That's okay.
That's all right.
Okay.
Thank you.
I don't see any other questions.
Thanks, Richard.
Thanks, Haley.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak may do so.
I do have a couple of cards.
First one is David Ladey, Ladey, if you could state your name and address for the record,
and you'll have four minutes.
Thank you.
David Ladey.
I'm director of government affairs for the Dallas Builders Association.
We're at 5816 West Plano Parkway in Plano, Texas, 75093.
We cover a 10-county region.
Obviously, Denton is one of those, of the 10, one of the more prominent ones, and appreciate
the opportunity to speak here.
We represent about 1,000 member companies, and that includes a broad range, a lot of
builders, remodelers, pusher developers.
Wanted to kind of speak on this, kind of give you kind of background how we do it.
I know we're marked on there, one or two options, really speaking on it, and the legislature
we also have an option to speak on something, we're still working with city staff to get
to the point where we can, so it's marked as opposition, because at this point we can't
support it as written until we get a few more answers, so just clarify on that.
When we look at tree ordinances, we look at through a lens primarily first of housing affordability.
There's only so much added money cost to an area, especially in Denton, that the market
can take.
To give you an example, we work at Texas A&M Real Estate Research Center, and for $1,000
we add to the price of home, they say at a medium price market, you price 22,000 Texas
families out of it.
So when we look at something like that, we look at from the scope of how many people
are we saying can't move to Denton.
This person who graduated from here, lives in the area, that's a big deal to me.
We also look at it from a lens that, especially tree ordinances, because we've dealt with
these before, that they should preserve the biggest and the best, and it should be about,
mainly about the trees and not necessarily the fees, and hey, we'll use this as punitive.
We see this in other cities, and it always ends up becoming about the fees and not the
trees, and the victim in that usually ends up being housing affordability, because it
prices people out of the market.
It is at the end of the day, the homeowner, buyer, who is going to pay for this ordinance,
and keep that in mind, that kind of rolls in as kind of a new property tax for them.
They end up paying for this, it's rolled into their mortgage, and obviously, amortization
charts that grows over time.
And if it's too high, like we've seen with recent tree ordinances in some areas, a development
may not happen, because simply it is too cost prohibitive to provide the home to the potential
buyer.
Just a couple items that we want to bring up, we think would help.
One of the key items that's a concern for us, is the preservation area, you've heard
from some home builders, and you see the mitigation prices, and we'll work with staff to get some
answers on this, but one of the first things that comes to our concern is, okay, if I have
to preserve a certain area, if I'm preserving more, that is less lots I develop.
Obviously, there's a fee, and they're saying the fee could be low, or it could be high,
depending on the range you saw, but you need to consider that you should be adding in the
calculation of any possible loss of lots.
Say, I was going to do 50 lots, and now I've got to go down to 40, whatever, one of those
lots comes with the price, and that's a much bigger price than when we're looking at the
fee, and that has to be rolled in and absorbed by the other lots in the development, driving
up the lot basis, and it runs into the issue of us worrying about pricing out members.
A few items I think they could address, we've dealt with in other cities, is, say, a buildable
area exemption.
Say, you've got a building pad, and 10 feet around it, this is a very rudimentary drawing
I have.
I have a member here, don't tell him I showed you this, because he'll never let me draft
a picture of a house, but say a building pad for the home structure, and then 10 feet around
it, and that helps a lot of times, because they can go ahead and, hey, I know I'm going
to have these areas.
This may free me up to preserve open space and more tree stands elsewhere.
A few other items that we're kind of mainly concerned about, especially with the secondary
trees, we would say don't raise the mitigation price, don't start mitigating trees until
they're at 10 inches, and under 10 inches, you're going to replant trees a lot of times,
you get a better health of canopy, those trees grow back quicker.
We're concerned about the enforcement provisions in this ordinance, that being a criminal item
that seems a bit extreme for messing with what is essentially your own property, and
then also with existing homeowners, especially with the site trees.
We have a significant concern about the city telling them, hey, you can't improve in our
right of way, but we have a tree that's in our right of way, and we're going to require
you to take the cost and the responsibility to maintain that tree.
That puts the existing homeowner in a considerable pinch, and look at it this way.
You're saying that they can't go in and approve and touch the right of way, at the same time
you shouldn't go out and say that they're responsible for the maintenance and the cost
of that in the right of way, it's the city's purview.
When you look at that section, it refers to a manual that few people outside or inside
this room would really know where to readily access or how to interpret as far as pruning
trees.
Some of the items that we have, obviously it's the mitigation costs that we're concerned
about, and that's why we'd like a little more time to look through this.
Any questions?
Please let me know.
We do.
So, Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Leahy, for your presentation.
Your comments on cost, we understand that's going to be a big concern for you.
Your bottom line gets passed on to the homebuyer, but the value of trees that get added, do
y'all ever weigh that in?
Back in 2015, and Scott can probably pray, we did an urban forest study, and I don't
have all that data in front of me, but the value of trees for energy saving, absorbing
CO2 to clean the air here, which is pretty bad, and just the aesthetic value to you adds
some value to the house.
When you factor that in, I don't think the loss is as bad, and I know you're not a tree
lover, I know you're not a tree hater, I'm not a tree hugger, anything like that.
I can tell you, at the end of the day, they're looking at a home, and they're looking at
the prices, a tree that's pretty and all, but all this other stuff, there's really not
what you're going to be able to calculate in the price.
At the end of the day, they come to the market with a set value that they can afford, what
they know they can be loaned on, and what they can approach.
For example, when you deal with these existing trees, say I've got a tree in an area, and
I want to expand my home, or it's just here, and this root is growing.
Keep in mind, these roots can grow beyond the drip line, and we've talked with arborists
about this, and we have developers that have their arborists tell them a certain species
of a tree should not be out in the middle of the yard, away from the pad, and the reason
being is it absorbs so much moisture, that soil connects to the soil.
I have a tree, my guy's going to come in, I've got to do an FHA or a HUD loan or something,
my inspector's going to come in from my home that I'm looking at, and he's going to go,
that tree has to go.
Well, all of a sudden, I see this tree mitigation price, and what happens if it gets up over
$1,000, and I'm getting into the area of what I'd save for my down payment?
This starts affecting other decisions, so I realize it's a broad scope answer, but these
are all the things we have to consider, and I wouldn't say that, hey, it's bad to have
the tree on the lot, but I would come out and say, well, all these other benefits would
outweigh the added costs in some areas.
I can tell you from the reality in other cities where they've increased mitigation in some
of these items, like we've seen some of the ratios here, what we heard from the builder
was I can't make the development happen at the market price needed that can be absorbed
by this area.
I mean, so I understand your question, and yeah, there is some, but --
Well, there's going to be that.
They're going to see that bottom line, and it is going to scare someone away.
It's kind of like --
The value of trees, if we don't sustain -- we're trying to sustain 30 percent of them, we lose
in a lot of different other ways, too, and so will the individual homer.
They won't see it at first, of course, but the value that's there has to be taken into
consideration and not just ignored completely.
I would tell you to keep in mind that you are increasing trees as these gentlemen and
ladies develop in your area, and you saw the first slide this evening, and my members would
tell you, you're welcome, because -- and we see this in Dallas.
We always hear about the urban canopy and urban forest.
What that forest is, a lot of times, is the forest that was put there by the homeowner
and the builder, and they're going to plant trees in Edley, and you know, you see it.
There's not been a decrease in canopy, so when you look at the preservation, I ask you
to look at that whole picture there, and the tradeoff.
Thank you.
And I realize, and we don't want to be harsh on anybody here, I realize this can be a politically
sensitive issue.
We run into this in all sorts of city halls where there may be a loud group, but you always
have to keep in mind the quiet group who may bear the brunt of the impact.
That's what we ask you to consider.
And to your point, yeah, would you look at is there a value our guys like to plant it?
But there comes a point where that value tips the other way, and it becomes an encumbrance
on being able to sell the home or provide the home at the price they need.
And it's always -- and I know cities will look at what other cities do.
Always keep in mind, fees that can be absorbed, say, somewhere like in certain areas of Frisco
probably can't be absorbed so well in Denton.
Think of it like when you look at when we visited in the past about impact fees.
Well, that's a debate I wish we could have and, you know, open it up a little bit where
we'd see --
I mean, we want everybody to be able to move into Denton.
For the record, I love all the cities in my service area, so just for the record.
All right.
Thank you, sir.
All right.
Well, Commissioner, I'll let you go.
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Leahy, thanks for coming out and speaking.
Have you been to any of the city meetings?
Have you met with staff?
We've been -- we've stayed in contact with the city staff.
Some of the meetings that were mentioned here, honestly, I didn't know about them until I
saw here.
We have asked what -- you know, we know other developers that have been at these, but we
have sent our comments throughout time.
We sent some last week to city staff.
So we can't be everywhere at once in some of these we did not know about.
And so we'll check and say, hey, where are these meetings going to happen?
But regardless, we try and send our comments in.
And then you mentioned having more time.
What exactly does that mean?
Well, our guys need to be able to look at this.
You saw the range up there.
Hey, you know, it could be less here, it could cost less, or it could cost more.
I need to be able to run this through my guys.
I'm not going to -- I can't sit here and say I would approve of ordinance without checking
with my board.
I have -- you know, I have to seek permission just like anybody else in a job, but I also
have to personally feel a lot more comfortable with this ordinance, and, you know, city staff
has been great to work with, have good relationships.
I think we could get there.
You know, I realize there's a timeline we've got to go on, but -- and that's one thing
I would add here is as you do this, you may consider, hey, maybe we don't implement this
for six months, because you have people that have already bought lots and they did it -- you
know, project success is very reliant on predictability.
And they did it coming in going, hey, this is the ordinance when we brought this lot.
Well, what if it kills the deal?
What if it is the $3,200 per home, and what if they're in a situation where the preservation
didn't work out and they had to reduce the amount of lots they had plus these fees?
You can make that deal go away.
>> Well, I think, yeah, Steph has mentioned the grace period for once adoption happens.
>> And one thing else I would stress is as you look at this -- and you had mentioned,
hey, we've got to do tweaks later down the road.
You mentioned that earlier this evening.
This isn't Washington.
You don't have to live with something bad and worry about images.
You can come back and say six months, we're hearing some things.
I always urge cities to be flexible and willing to come back and tweak it.
It's ordinances like this that have, you know, two big interests.
We always have an environment interest, we have a development interest, and then we have
a huge economic interest for the city of Denton.
Those are things that you want to revisit frequently.
>> Can you tell me how long you've been looking at the code?
>> I mean, I think I could, you know, we'll try to sit down sometime in the next couple
of weeks with staff, but -- >> Oh, no, but I mean how much time have you
worked with it prior to today?
>> I've been looking at this -- I got the most recent draft Friday night and I spent
through the weekend.
And we've sent it out to our members, so we're waiting to hear back.
We have some of them looking at it, but we looked at a previous draft back from I guess
I want to say a month ago, we were going through that, sending it out.
Obviously, there's new when you send that back out.
We had seen a previous draft back in 2017, too.
>> It's been going on a long time.
>> Yeah.
So we observe these, especially in kind of our flagship cities, we observe them a lot.
>> Understood.
Thanks.
>> Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Hey, Richard.
Thank you very much, Ms. Shalani.
Richard, on the six-month grace period, that initially I wouldn't go too far, I think there
might be.
I wouldn't go too far.
That six-month grace period, just splitting hairs here, is it -- they get to choose in
the six months, and do they have to start doing something, do they have to start doing
some sort of development within that six months for them to be able to choose the code, or
are they just elect it and if they don't build for another year, they still get to go underneath
the old code or whatever code they decide?
What's the cutoff, basically?
>> If they have the way we initially had it, under the applicability, if you can pull the
presentation back up, if you look at item 6, we did add in the draft, unfortunately
we didn't get it, but if you have a site plan, a preliminary or final plat, or a building
permit application that's deemed complete as of the effective date, then it would have
been fall under the new.
We since went back and really looked at and said, okay, as a way to really look and see
how this works, let's really look at sort of the six-month interim period, where during
that time, if you submit an application, you really have an option of, I'm going to go
with either the current code, what's on the books now, or under the proposed code, but
not to pick and choose from, I'd like to do some of this and some of that, so it was really
either one or the other.
>> But your preliminary or final plat or your building permit have to be deemed complete
within that six-month grace period?
>> Correct.
>> Got you.
Thank you.
>> Hang on.
>> Richard, correct me if I'm wrong, but the choosing between the two, that hasn't been
decided yet, has it?
>> It is not.
That was something we discussed yesterday.
I mean, it's just a proposal at this point, so I mean, it would be premature to promise
that that would be the case if this goes in, but just, okay.
>> Yeah, that was what we discussed with counsel yesterday.
That was something we, we weren't really sure how to put that language specifically in there
for today's discussion, but that's at least a premise that we're recommending this, that
we look at sort of this six-month interim period and then sort of do a true up at the
end and really do a reassessment and say, hey, this is what works, this is what, this
is what, this doesn't work, and provide that, again, provide that feedback.
>> Thanks, Richard.
First card I have is Rick Barrio.
And as you can just state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to
speak.
>> Okay.
Can I, I have some pictures that I would like to show you why I'm the guy that didn't like
the, the red oak trees, the blackjack oaks.
>> Did you have those loaded?
>> Yes, they loaded them up earlier, and it's not too many, I promise it won't be long,
there it is, right there.
Thank you.
I love trees.
Oh, my name, Rick Barrio, I live here in Denton, 5112 Edwards Road.
I love the beauty of trees.
I think that's a beautiful tree, it's out by the library.
I thought this tree was so beautiful that I recently got married about four years ago,
and I put that on our invitations because I like trees.
Now, some trees serve us longer than other trees, they're worth more.
I think this ordinance is a great improvement, it's been a lot of work and a long time coming,
so no doubt about that.
It recognizes relative value a little bit better, not quite enough, I think.
You know, shelters got value to everyone, but a house is worth more than a tent, a tent
doesn't last nearly as long, of course.
You know, hackberries always get mistletoe, post oaks almost never.
I only know a few in town that I've seen that have mistletoe.
Here's a picture of a hackberry right near downtown, and I guess the thing is, is you
see all the mistletoe in it, that tree is not going to last as long as a tree that doesn't
have it, of course, and then I asked myself, since it was planted by birds in the wrong
place, how long will it be until that wall gets pushed in by that tree?
Now, this is a black jack oak from a current tree survey, I'm doing this one now, and there's
a picture of the tree.
Now, this is a black jack oak that's in great shape, but the problem with them is that the
lower limbs die and they stay attached, they don't self prune and drop off.
Well, the family of red oaks, of which this is a member, has little channels that carry
water, so it carries water into the trunk, water and fungus, and so the structure rots
from the inside, and this is actually my property, and that's the last and best of five of them.
Four of the others died.
Now, you can see the problem starts early.
That's a black jack oak, you can see from the bark, and then you may notice that the
leaves also indicate that, but that tree is rotten all the way down to the bottom, and
it's not very big, that's about eight inches across, something like that.
Now, this is a mature tree, the one you see in the middle, and there's juvenile trees
around it, and they do change their shape of the crown, and I think that's important.
Most post oaks are crowded on the sites that you find them on, and they grow on elevated
rock piles.
Now, this was one of the worst ones that I've seen, I took a picture of that a few years
ago when I did a tree survey there.
They seldom have a full canopy, you can see none of these have a full canopy.
Note the canopies here, the trees that are small, and the smallest one would be probably
six inches, and some of the others may be up to about eight, and the one in the middle
I think is about 18 inches, something like that.
Huge difference in the amount of foliage, you see the girth increase is a cubic increase
of canopy volume, it's half the volume of a sphere, roughly.
So I just wanted to point this out, if we go from six inches to 12 inches, that's eight
times the foliage.
Now if we go to 12 inches to 24, that's eight times again.
Now if we go from six inches to 24, that's 64 times the foliage, and we're not given
64 times the value.
And if we go from two inch, which is the tree that we might put in, to 24 inches, that's
an astounding 1728 times as much foliage, as much leaves, as much cooling, as much space
for squirrels, if you want to call it.
So when I see that, according to the new plan, I'm offered four times, if I save the large
trees, that's better than I've gotten, but you see four compared to 1728 is a little
paltry.
In fact, you might say it's a little stingy, and I guess my time is about up.
I stand for any questions that you have, but I do believe the ordinance is definitely going
in the right direction, definitely.
As long as we can, for instance, also keep the lot size down, if we have to save so many
trees.
Some of these large trees are almost the size of a lot, and the volume of their canopy is
as much as a house.
Thank you.
We do have a question, and just for the record, you're in support of the current code?
I would like to see a few changes.
I'm in support of the new one, it's much better in my opinion.
It can be much better.
Chris Rebeck.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Berrien.
Berrien.
Okay.
You mentioned the blackjack tree.
Were you the one that gave the report?
Yes.
Okay.
So that was your report.
I'm the one that's prejudiced against them, I suppose, but I've cut down quite a number.
Okay.
You're probably a lot smarter than I am, I'm sure you are on that.
What is the, in your opinion then, and your knowledge of the loss of blackjack oaks, what
percentage do we lose in the way you're talking about here?
Well, I did a tree surveyor, I'm doing one now, and I think I have two blackjack trees
on this site that's about five acres.
Everything else is post oak, plus I have maybe two or three cedar elms, a couple of cedar
trees.
They're a pretty small percentage, especially when they get bigger because they die and
they get rotten inside and fall down.
Let me ask you this, if maintaining them, pruning them properly.
If you do that, that works, but a lot of times when you see one that's been out in the woods,
no one's pruning it.
Right, right.
Yeah.
But where we're in an area where we can preserve some, then if we did take care of them.
Right, but a lot of times you would have to start when that tree was young.
Right.
Not when it's already old.
Okay.
And granted, if we got a dead tree and it's dying, then that's automatically on the exempt
list from preservation.
So, okay.
Thank you for that.
All right.
One more question.
Commissioner Sanchez.
Yes.
I just wanted to mention, you know, I worked on grasslands up in Decatur and we used to
do, we had that's the Blackland Prairie back in there and we did have a lot of blackjacks
and post oaks.
Basically that was what the primary trees we had and we had larger blackjacks and large
post oaks.
And so, you know, it depends on the habitat, I guess, in your area.
I don't know.
It's hard to determine what's causing them to die.
Well, it's a fungal disease and any time you go further north and west, there's less rain
and so the trees does better.
Okay.
Because like I said, out west, in Decatur, we had I guess the soils also make a big difference.
So if we're not finding those trees, to me, they have a bigger value.
I think I've seen them in the city.
So I can say that you do have some decent larger blackjack oaks.
So again, I think if they're not surviving, it's a species that then if we can't find
it that often, we need to protect it even more because it's part of the Blackland Prairie.
This is what was up in this area or across Timbers, you know.
So I just wanted to mention that you may have an experience with blackjack oak, but there's
other experiences that other people have had that they haven't had the fungus problem.
I don't know, maybe your property or something's going on in there.
So to say that's relevant throughout its habitat, I mean, there's areas where blackjack oak
is very prominent.
You're absolutely right.
I'm basing my opinion on what I've done in Denton County.
Okay.
Well, I just wanted to say what I see in Wise County.
Okay.
I did not see any questions.
Thank you.
Richard, do you have something to say?
I just wanted to make a point of clarification on the blackjack oaks.
They are still included in the protected trees.
They're just not, those trees that are between six inches and less than 18 inches are counted
as a quality tree instead of being counted as a heritage tree.
So they're still required to be preserved.
They're just not given that extra, they're not given having the extra multiplier of two
and a half if they're a quality tree, but they're also not getting that additional
credit either if they're preserved.
So if they're a quality tree, they're still required to be preserved.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak?
We certainly do so.
Yes, sir.
It's a stranger among us.
Just state your name and address.
Jim Strange, 3613 Falcon Court here in Denton.
Thank you, Commissioners, for giving me the opportunity to speak.
As most of you know, I've been involved with this for many years.
I think Rick and I served together probably 20 years ago on the original tree code in
the city of Denton.
I did attend the DCDA forum, and I have to say, from where the tree code was at the beginning
of that meeting to where we are today, much more pleased with it.
I thought we had a fantastic discussion.
Rick was there.
There were a number of other people there and a couple of city council people there.
I think there were a lot of tremendous ideas that were shared there that really opened
a lot of different perspectives and ideas.
To me, as I've gotten more and more involved in this over the years and studied it, I'm
going to go back to the original slide that was started, when you really look at trees
in the city of Denton, they're planted trees.
The vast majority of our canopy is planted trees.
It's not preservation.
The concern I have with preservation is we're increasing it.
It was a mandatory 30.
It's now down.
You can go from 30 to 20.
Currently, it's 20 and can go down to 10.
You're doubling preservation, which you are going to lose that develop a land.
It's going to be gone.
On the heavily treed side, it's untouchable.
There's no flexibility to address that.
That's a concern that I have, because we have so many public facilities in our city.
We have the city of Denton.
We have Denton County, UNT, TWU.
The concern I have is how much more private property are we going to take and basically
make off limits by tree preservation.
The goal, to me, is canopy, and how we're going to increase canopy, in my view, is by
planting trees, to have an aggressive tree planting program.
I asked many years ago when I sat on this board, how much money is in the tree fund?
It's millions.
I'm not going to say it should be zero, but it ought to be close to zero, because we're
not growing any tree canopy with money sitting in the bank.
We're earning a quarter or a half percent interest on it.
It does nothing to increase tree canopy.
Money in the tree code needs to be spent planting trees in public areas.
We have North Lakes Park is almost 400 acres.
South Lakes Park is almost 200 acres.
Those are city properties.
There is right-of-way all over.
All of our old subdivisions don't have street trees planted in them.
All of our new subdivisions have street trees.
There's tremendous areas that are already public property outside of our parks and our
right-of-ways that we can plant street trees in.
That's the best way to increase our canopy.
The other concern I have about preservation is it makes those areas very species-defined.
Typically, if it's going to be post oaks, they're all post oaks.
In 40 years, what do those areas really look like?
They're very susceptible to disease.
I think an aggressive tree planting program where you plant multitudes of species in all
of these areas gives great diversity.
If there are ash borers, if there's oak wilt, we don't lose a whole area that's just gone
because there's no diversity in our tree canopy.
From my point of view, I would ask this commission to really take a hard look because I think
the goal here is canopy, but it focuses on preservation.
You're not going to increase the canopy by preserving a certain percentage of what's
left.
You're going to increase canopy by planting and encouraging the planting of trees.
I think Rick's slide was phenomenal.
How much more exponential growth are you going to get?
Bang for the buck, planting two-inch trees, four-inch trees versus preserving a 30-inch
poke stoke that may be in 10 or 15 years of stead and it's gone.
The value of what you would have gained in planting trees is tremendous.
I urge you to consider that as you get ready to move this forward that I think your biggest
bang for your buck needs to move off of the preservation and more onto an aggressive tree
planting program.
I'd stand for any questions.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
What's up, old man?
I'm here, on this side, though.
Yeah, I can pick on you now.
I asked a question to Richard earlier about paid versus planted and your experience as
a developer.
The buildings you've done, the times that you've been involved in projects where there
was trees being removed and you had a choice under the tree code between planting and mitigation
or paying and mitigation.
What's been your experience?
What have you seen more of?
Paying more for mitigation or planting?
I think most guys like to pay because you've won and done and it's somebody else's responsibility
to take care of it because you've got to care for it for three years.
Got it.
Do you think underneath this new code that would, because of the credits that are built
into it, that you would see the exact same trend?
They'd probably still be paying even though the cost is getting higher, but do you think
it'd still be easier to pay and get out of there?
There's still a few million dollars in the tree fund.
Say it again.
There's still millions of dollars in the tree fund.
Understood.
I think I'm going to get to that point in a minute.
The proof's in the pudding.
You'd rather pay than plant trees.
Okay.
Before I come back to that piece there, which I guess will actually probably be just a conversation
I have with commissioners in a minute, the 20% versus 30% in conservation and preservation,
from a developer standpoint, what do you see as that adding in cost to a homeowner and
the value of the home?
Because Mr. Laney brought up as 100% the truth, I think that's been my only concern I've really
had with this the entire time has been the end up cost is not going to be on the builder
themselves.
The builder's going to pass the cost on to the homeowner.
By preserving tree canopy, we are in turn creating a pathway for us to ramp up home
values in the city of Denton and cause everybody to be affected.
Yeah.
The overall cost, sure.
The overall cost is going to affect overall home value as well and drive out affordability
even more, which I'm sure many people who are wanting the preservation of trees would
probably also not want to drive affordability downwards.
So a 20% versus 30% from a development standpoint, do you feel like that increase in preservation
is big enough to make that huge of a cost difference or is that ...
Sure.
Do you have a dollar amount you think you could ... I mean, that's a hard number, but ...
Sure.
Well, every deal is different because there's two things you have to consider when you do
that.
One is you're having to preserve more of the property that you're paying for, but then
you have the lost revenue that if you were going to develop 10 more lots, the profitability
that you get on the 10 lots as well.
So not only are you increasing the cost of the dirt that you've already bought by losing
the 10%, but then you're also losing the margin that you would make developing it.
So it's kind of a double whammy in my experience and opinion.
Sure.
I agree with you.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Sanchez.
I just want to talk ... We talk about canopy, but there's also a value in old trees, the
fact ... And maybe they don't have a lot of canopy, but have you ever driven by some of
these old trees?
They just said that they're just beautiful, but the fact that they don't necessarily have
a lot of canopy, but they just have that old look that makes them beautiful that it adds.
So it's not always just young trees, but looking at these old trees that are maybe two, three,
400 years old, they're sitting out there with 36 inch DBHs or ... Those also provide value
to me.
Don't disagree at all.
And I think the issue is, and we talked about it quite a bit at the DCDA meeting, there's
a big difference in intentions and results.
And I will just use a great example, and I thought it was very eye-opening and informative
for a lot of people there.
One of the slides, and it was actually in the presentation again tonight, is the property
that was so controversial, which is Raising Canes over on Loop 288.
If you ever had a property that was under a microscope for tree preservation, maybe
that was it.
I mean it was top of the line, and I can guarantee you with all the tree fencing and all the
things that they had going on over there, they did everything according to the book
to preserve the trees.
And I challenge each one of you to drive by that property now and see how many of those
trees have survived in what, less than 24 months since that store's opened.
And that's the problem that I have with the focus being on preservation.
I think the intentions of it are extraordinarily well-meaning, and it's great.
The problem is, is what happens with the results.
And that's what I'm really looking at.
At the end of the day, I'm a results-oriented kind of guy.
That's what people come to me for in the business that I'm in, results.
And I drive by and I look at those properties, and I go, well, Raising Canes to me is a great
example of that.
Lowe's Cafe out in front of Lowe's was done at least 10 years ago, same thing.
The new sprouts out there on 2181, they had a huge big oak tree that they preserved out
in front.
It's gone now.
So I mean, the problem that I have with it, when you focus on the preservation, you really
need to look at the end of the day, how successful is that?
Or would you be better off in the loss of however many years it is as those trees are
declining and dying because they've been disturbed?
If you'd have gone in the very beginning and say, you know what, we can preserve a certain
amount out here in an area, but a lot of these other places, let's go ahead and plant the
trees and get them growing.
And what do you end up with at the end of the day with a whole bunch of new trees?
And I think you have to look at it from my point of view, the long-term game, not, well,
I had this and tomorrow I got a little bitty two-inch.
It's, well, what did we plant 20 years ago?
We can see in the example what has been planted since the '40s and the '50s has increased
the canopy multitudes of times.
And if we continue to take that same point of view and take the long view here in our
city, what can our tree canopy actually grow to by not focusing exclusively on preservation
but planting and not just doing it in private areas, doing it in the public areas?
Because, again, I don't think it's right to focus so much of what's good for the public.
I don't disagree.
We work tremendously on most of our projects to save every tree that we can.
We get credit for them.
Properties sell for more money with trees.
I get it.
But they're not always able to be saved.
When you look at developing and things that, to me, are just obvious that I know just because
of my background and experience might not be to other people, but by the time you come
into these sites and you have to meet all the criteria for the grading and the right
of ways and the utilities and all the compaction and everything, it's almost impossible sometimes
to actually preserve and save the trees because there's too much disturbance.
They may live for a little while, but eventually I think they're going to die and they're not
going to be a successful and healthy tree.
And I think raising canes is a great example.
I'm not trying to pick on them, but the trees that are left there are not like they were
before they did anything.
So the ones that are still there are declining and will probably die as well.
And if they'd been planted initially, what would they have already grown to versus the
trees that have been preserved take four or five years to die, then they get replanted
with two-inch trees, versus if you'd planted new trees and they have five years' worth
of growth, I'm planting gobs of trees on jobs.
And I'm always amazed when you come back and look and go, that's a 30-foot tall tree.
It was a little eight-footer when we stuck it out there in the front yard, and it's totally
changed what something looked like before.
And I think that's something that we take a look and we talked about at the DCDA meeting.
We were talking about, I said, guys, look across the street, Eagan Street, Congress Street,
Panhandle Street, those aren't post oaks that are over there.
Those are all trees that were planted when those homes were built.
Some of them are 60 feet tall.
Like I said, they're huge trees and beautiful trees.
But they were planted.
They were planted at the right elevation, they were planted in the right spots, and
they've done extraordinarily well.
And the nice thing about it, when they get planted in areas like that, I've driven through
several existing neighborhoods as I've gotten more and more involved in the tree code, you
know what happens with those?
People typically take care of their places, and when those trees die, they plant a new
one.
You're not going to have that in preserve areas.
That's one of the reasons I think staff is now starting to talk about it, I brought that
up in the meeting.
You'll preserve all these areas and put it in HOA.
HOA ain't going to come in there and do tree planting programs.
The residents all complain about how high the fees are already and how much it costs
when there's a storm and you've got to go in there and clean up the trees.
It's much better off to look at turning a lot of this stuff over, either in public or
private people that, you know what, in their own property, they replant the trees.
People have Bradford pears and they're gone and they plant new trees, and go drive through
some of these older neighborhoods.
You'll find a lot of places where people have planted new trees in the older existing neighborhoods.
And I think long term, that type of approach is a much more successful tree canopy approach
for our city, because it's not exclusively focused on preservation.
Christian Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, former Chair Strange.
Good to see you.
Do you have an ideal for preservation?
Is there any percentage that you would consider for preservation?
You know, I'm a property rights guy.
I think that we ought to leave a lot of this to private property people to decide.
I think we're going in the right direction.
I've complimented staff on some of the landscaping and then go into a point system and let people
start picking and choosing and go, you know what, what's important to this person?
You may have people that say, you know what, I want to preserve a whole bunch of trees.
And you may have people that say, because of their project, that's really not a viable
option and it's going to be very economically and it may kill that particular type of project,
where they can pick and choose and say, you know what, for this particular project, we'd
much rather take trees out and then replant them or do a conservation area.
I think the key is for this program to be even more successful is the greater flexibility
that you can build into it, the better.
I think it'll be more well received to private property owners, that it's not them having
to bear the burden of it.
I think you'd be surprised with the creativity that you might find with people that can actually
go out there and have some flexibility to be able to do things versus, this is the only
way that you will be able to do that.
And I think that's the challenge.
But do you want clear cutting as an option then?
Is that what you mean?
Well, I think there's a place for that.
And I think that's what the difficult part for this body to consider.
There are pieces of property, use raising gains for example, there are pieces of property
that is going to be a corner property, they might have a lot of trees, it might be worth
a million dollars.
There may be a piece of property that's heavily treed that's in the back and it's worth 10,000.
Now for our city from a property tax standpoint and those types of things and what comes out
of that, are those two properties exactly the same?
No, there's a huge economic difference in them.
They may have the same tree canopy on them.
But because of the different things that those properties bring, I think it makes it very
difficult to say, well, here's the box and it applies to everything.
So to answer your question, I think there are instances that some of those properties,
if you want to clear cut it, you've got a huge mitigation to do.
But you know what?
If the property is that valuable and it is a high volume corner, you may have a pretty
high tree mitigation, either payment or combination of plant.
So I think that's the challenge that you guys have of trying to draft a code that's got
enough flexibility in it that allows people to then say, you know what?
This corner is worth a million bucks and I can do a whole lot of tree mitigation on it.
And other ones that drive by and say, you know what, I'm not going to cut down any of
the trees because the property doesn't have enough value to offset the tree and the mitigation
cost.
And I think that's the part that is very difficult for people to comprehend when you start passing
these is what kind of economic impact are you going to have when you change, when you
go from you have to preserve this much to doubling it?
How many things have people already purchased or deals that are in the works that people
say, you know, maybe they can't be ready in six months or maybe it's a very big piece
of property?
I don't know.
But those are some of the issues that you get into is unintended consequences of thinking
that this is not going to have those kinds of impacts because every property may be different.
Okay.
And one more question.
So you mentioned earlier that you can sell property for more money with trees on it.
So a lot has been brought up about passing the cost on and raising the prices, but can
you not also put a lot premium on a tree lot?
I mean, I know the answer is yes to that.
Well, I've been doing this a long time and I'll tell you what my experience a lot of
times with tree lots are, is people pay a premium for them and then they pay a premium
to have to remove a bunch of them to be actually able to build on them.
And then the problem that I've seen over and over again is because of post oaks and I love
post oaks.
They're beautiful trees.
The problem is a minute that you sometimes look at them, they are just so finicky and
even trying to be very cautious around them by staying outside the root zones with sprinkler
systems rather than, you know, guys running trenches right up against the bottoms of them
and doing everything that you can.
When you put sprinkler systems around them and start to water them and try to keep grass
and all the landscaping and the requirements that you have, sometimes you just kill them.
And that's the problem sometimes that you get into with the preservation part of them.
But yes, typically as you know in real estate, a tree lot and an older existing home with
a beautiful tree lot has an intrinsic value that's very hard to over, you know, some people
will love that and will choose that as long as that's available in the marketplace and
sometimes it's not available and then people are going to be over in new construction homes.
Things are going to be different to different people.
Some people want new construction and all the energy efficiency that comes with it and
a new home with all new things and the maintenance that's not as much versus an older home that
has a beautiful tree stand around it.
All right.
But I even know a new construction home that's built on a tree lot.
I would say in this day and age, that's extreme rarity.
I've been in the high end custom home business for many years here in town.
That's not the typical market, main part of our market in town.
Most of our market is closer down in the 200 to 300 range.
There's not a tremendous number of folks that are up in that upper echelon.
I wish there were, but that's unfortunately just not where our city is and therefore,
the demand for those types of, you know, half acre, three quarter acre, acre type lots is
extremely limited and there's not very much of that property that's still available.
I think there may be some opportunities for redevelopment in some of those areas in our
city, but I think that is a challenge.
Sure.
We still got questions.
Christian Beck.
Okay.
Thank you, Chair.
Good seeing you again, Jim.
I'm glad to be here.
You always still speak elegantly and wisely and inspire me to this day, so I appreciate
your input.
Thank you.
I think you make a good point about the tree planting thing.
I want to make a couple of points here first.
The raising canes parcel, I think what aggravated most people is not that they're dying now
because they built it, it's the fact that I think there was a kind of a cop out there.
That land was supposed to have been preserved anyway.
It was supposed to be part of a deal that was made and I think everybody realized once
they come in and built their building, there was that risk of losing them because you're
right, post-op can be sensitive when you start building around them.
Along with clear cutting is, again, robust tree planting program is good and has its
benefits that you pointed out, but when you come in and clear cut a lot of trees, you
don't get the benefit of those for another 15, 20 years.
It takes that long to lose it.
We're in a position here in Denton, sitting north of Dallas and Fort Worth where our quality
is poor.
If we lose the value that trees do for air quality, then it takes a while to get it back.
Just want to make those points.
Let me ask you this.
The tree fund, according to the exhibit that we have here, says the city shall administer
and use the tree fund to purchase, plant, and maintain trees, conduct maintenance on
conservation easements dedicated in accordance with this subsection, and to preserve a wooded
property remaining in naturalistic state in perpetuity.
That tree fund could do an active tree planting program, but what if we also went in areas
especially that are salvageable, get in there and prune and clean up the area to help sustain
the trees that are there?
A combination of those two things would probably work to our advantage more than just doing
strictly a tree planting program.
I agree there's going to be areas where trees are in areas that are threatened just because
of the development.
They're old.
There are some diseases, but there's a lot of them out there that can be sustained if
we get in there and prune them properly.
The house I had over on Sherman Drive, probably about half the post oaks are there.
Probably grew after they built that house.
That house was built in '55 or '57, but the owners took good care of it, pruned the trees
when they were supposed to, kept the area watered, and when I came in, I did the same
thing.
So it's not that they're bad trees, they're just not being taken care of.
So the money we have in the tree fund, along with planting trees, could be helped to clean
up areas and sustain what we've got.
What would you say to that?
Well, I don't know what the value, the amount of money that's in there, but just doing the
math, if you're going to figure it at $200 a caliper inch, you'd go plant 5,000 two-inch
trees with the money that's in there right now.
And if you count the canopy that's there on what you're going to get, you're going to
get a lot more bang for the buck out of that versus the preservation.
I think the other thing about preservation that I think Rick touched on a little bit,
and Commissioner Ellis brought it up, a lot of those heavily treed areas, when you go
look at them, the canopy's not that great.
The trees are so close together, they're like little sticks, and they've got a little tuft
on them.
So one of the first things that we do when we go into a nice tree lot is have somebody
come in here and tie ribbons on all the little small understories and clear them out so that
those other trees that are the larger nice ones can pop.
And when you look at most of the pictures of these great big beautiful trees, these
big 24 larger post oak trees, they're not in a group with 100 other trees stuck underneath
them.
They're by themselves because somebody took the time to go in and selectively prune and
clean out all the competition and choose that's the one that's going to live and all these
other guys are going to go so that that tree can grow into all that it can be.
And I think that's the other part that you need to consider when you talk about preservation.
When you preserve it, you're not going to be doing that.
It's all going to stay like it is.
So you're going to end up with a whole bunch of trees in there with all bent over and misshapen
and a little tough trying to find the one little spot that he can get some sunlight
and survive waiting for the guy that's bigger above him to die and he takes over.
And I think that's part of the issue that part of my point and standing before you is
what's the intention versus at the end of the day, what are they going to be the results?
And I think the results of what people have envisioned on the preservation is you're going
to end up with a whole bunch of big 36 inch giant post oak trees standing out there all
by themselves.
I don't think that's what you're going to end up with.
I think you're going to end up with an acre or two acres stuck over here in the corner.
That's a bunch of little four and six inch trees all sitting there fighting with maybe
one or two larger ones in there.
And I think that's a very different type of look of what you're going to really end up
with versus what you may think that you're going to have two or three or four of these
ginormous trees all pruned out all by themselves.
That's not what you're going to end up with the preservation that you're after.
I agree.
And I don't want to add to your cause or anything, but if we put the onus of pruning those trees
up and you're being out before you say that, that's an added cause, I agree.
But perhaps we could give credits for that where you at least break even where if you're
going in helping preserve those trees by pruning and cleaning up the understory and everything
like that, you should get credited for that.
Well, you might, but I think the problem is most of those trees are going to then count
instead of being as preserved, they're going to be counted as being taken out.
Because essentially what you're going to be doing is you're going to be removing a bunch
of those understory trees that may be four inch, six inch trees to make room for that
one tree to spread out and grow and you're not going to be allowed to do that under this
code.
Okay.
I'm just thinking that on the top of my head maybe that is something we could take a look
at.
But that's my only point is as this commission considers this, is really what is the goal
and at the end of the day what are we going to end up with if we move forward with it?
Is it going to produce the results that we're truly after?
And again, I think the goal or it's been presented as tree canopy and I think the tree canopy
is going to do all the things that you're talking about, it's going to clean the air,
it's going to cool, but the most effective way that the city is going to grow the tree
canopy is going to be to plant more trees than it is going to be to preserve.
And I'm not saying that just so you can go cut down every tree that there is out there,
but I think when you look at the past history of our city and where we've been to where
we are today and how do we go from today into the future to actually grow the tree canopy,
I think you'll have a lot more success and at 20 years or 30 years from now when you
look back in time, you'll be glad that you planted way more trees than trees that you
preserved because your canopy will be bigger and larger and more diverse rather than species
specific and end up like I was saying, it's going to be clumped in all kinds of small
trees growing together versus these big giant monarch trees that are, you know, that's not
what you're going to end up with, you're going to end up with clumps all clumped together
and not great big individual trees standing there majestically spaced all out all over
the place.
That's not how this is going to pan out.
>> Thank you, sir.
>> So that looks very good.
One more.
Mr. Sanchez?
>> Yeah.
When you talk about preservation, and one of the things I disagree with that we've done
is when we talk about preserving areas, and I've always said that you just can't preserve
it, you have to manage it or you're going to lose it.
But that's one aspect of it.
There's the other aspect where we go in and I don't believe in preserving an area 10 acres
and never touch it again because you're going to lose it over time or like you said, you're
just going to have a bunch of little trees growing, nothing ever happen or you're going
to have some invasive species move in and then you don't have what you want to do, what
you should have.
But I also think is when we're looking at areas where we're looking at building homes
and trying to preserve some of those trees or neighborhoods and trying to preserve some
of those bigger trees or trees that are already there and a variety of trees that we're looking
at is a totally, they're two different animals to me.
And so I think I don't agree with preservation of state 10 acres unless you manage it, but
I do believe in preserving when you're building a neighborhood, preserving some of those old
trees that were in that area so that you're going to have some new plant, new trees, but
you should also have some old trees in there, make sure that some of those trees are left
behind so that you have a staggered, what do you call it, growth there.
So I've been into neighborhoods where all you have is a bunch of young trees and it
doesn't add nothing to the neighborhood, you know, maybe 10, 20 years, but it takes a long
time.
So keeping some of the old trees there, I think we're talking about two different animals.
One is preservation of an area and leaving trees in areas where neighborhoods are going
to be.
Well, I agree with you.
I think it's nice to be able to preserve them.
I think the problem is the reality of when you develop those sites, by the time you cut
the streets and fix all the grades to meet all the criteria that you have to for FHA
and all the slopes, the ability to maintain the elevation of existing trees is extremely
difficult if not impossible.
And that's the problem that the reality that you get into.
I think your idea is great and I think around the perimeter, there's an opportunity to do
that.
It's trying to do it out and get them out into much further.
It doesn't mean that it can't be done.
I've done subdivisions in town that we've got trees out in the middle of the street
and have little islands around them and put private streets in to save them.
So people do try to do that, but I think the problem is a lot of times when you're forced
to save it, the problem is you end up saving a tree that you know is not going to live
because there's going to be so much change and disturbance around it and grade change
and elevation wise that it may be there for a few years and then it's going to die.
And that's the problem and the concern that I have is that what you give up when you force
that on people is if you would have taken it out at the beginning and replaced it with
other trees and those trees can grow during the period that that tree is dying, you end
up to your point replacing a lot more canopy in that regard versus one that is a declining
tree until it eventually dies.
And then you plant new ones and you've lost that whole time.
It's the same argument I've had about the tree fund.
Plant the trees.
You're not gaining any canopy with the money sitting in the bank.
That's what it was there for, it was to plant trees and mitigation.
And so it needs to be spent and those those trees can be growing and making canopy.
And I think that's the same principle that you should look at on a lot of these development
projects.
The more trees that you get planted, correct elevation, right places that they can grow
in the long term, again long term look, you will have a much bigger, healthier, diverse
tree canopy in our city versus preserving individual or small tree stand areas.
It's just my opinion and experience.
We ran out of questions.
Well again, I want to thank you to staff.
I think they've made a lot of changes.
It's come a long way from the DCDA and I think it's going in the right direction.
I appreciate it.
Thank you, Chairman Strange.
Yes, sir.
Scott McDonald, Director of Development Services.
Just want to touch on a couple of things.
I appreciate the public comment.
As far as a reference for the tree fund and the approach that the city is taking, we've
moved most of that over to parks and recreation.
Parks and recreation is doing a tree master plan.
Additionally, our urban forester Haywood Morgan is now in parks and recreation.
And so we're going to come together with a plan and a strategy to best utilize those
funds.
I think the point's valid, the money's been sitting there.
We haven't necessarily spent the dollars.
We've spent some over the years, but we're going to go in a more pragmatic way and make
certain that we address that.
Additionally, a couple of the other points that were made I'd like to address and a portion
of that is that between having conversations with the Development Review Committee, even
with the DCDA and council and city manager's office, we're certainly attempting to find
a means to-- we anticipate that this will go to council if approved and if council approves
that that it wouldn't be-- the effective date would be six months out.
Certainly looking at a way that we may possibly be able to run it parallel with our existing
tree ordinance so we have an opportunity to test it, allow the development community that
opportunity whether they use the old or the new just to see how it in fact functions.
We're going to continue to receive feedback and input from all of our stakeholders and
we certainly don't want to stop at the point where it's adopted and we're done.
We know that this has been in process since I think literally 2005.
Richard has been working aggressively on it for just about a year and we can't do it without
that input.
But I think it's really important that we recognize that it's going to need refinement
and we know what we have is a better product.
We know that we're going to increase canopy and we just want to make sure that it's fair
for all of our stakeholders and it does the job that we're trying to do.
So just wanted to add that.
Thank you.
Thanks.
I'm going to pop quiz you but I'm confident you can have these answers.
Okay.
I'll try my best.
What's the current canopy and see you didn't east of 35 east of 35 in East 33% and what's
the goal for the city?
Citywide goal is 30% oh citywide goal East East 40% if I can go to that's good enough.
My question stems from that.
Has there been any research done to know if the tree fund was put into practice with its
master tree master tree plan if that's what we're calling it.
What what needs to be done of private residents to hit the 40% I guess what I'm saying is
if we put out a thousand trees do private residents need to preserve 30% for us still
to hit our goal.
It seems like the burden of the city driven goal can be absorbed mostly by the city not
by individual property owners.
It's really it's really a combination of both and again I want to make sure sure we as we
talk about this if you're an existing lot or single family you're exempt and so really
our biggest gains if you will will come from the development really west of 35 so as we
start to annex if that's even a possibility given where where even some of these latest
bills are are headed but but that's where our biggest gains are are being made and I
think that's where if you look at even that old the example from 1942 to 2017 if you look
out west at 35 I mean Hunter cold ranch that that development alone if you just look at
what what would be required would would bring that number up quite a bit I mean it's a long
that's a long term number but I think it's it's an overall you know when we first approached
this it really was looking at this in stages and so continuing just to assess where we
are and whether that goal needs needs to move at some point in time in the future but the
intent was really to to really look at that balance of of mature and and and and new trees.
Right right so but if we're looking at the east of the city where most of the trees are
if we're at 33 we're trying to get 40 that can't happen through preservation we we can't
increase our canopy by saving trees.
So to Mr. Strange's point it seems like there's a there's a missed priority being placed on
actually growing the canopy rather than saving what we have if you're in terms of numbers
of of again two inch trees it's a huge number but but you're you're looking at 283,000 trees
currently in the city or what would be required to be to be planted and so that doesn't take
into account any canopy that's lost and so that that's just meeting meeting the the 40
percent.
So so in some on some parcels it's a gain citywide some parcels it's a loss and so it's
hard to look at each individual parcel in addition if you look at some of the single
family standards the the percent of canopy coverage isn't necessarily applied that to
single family and so it's looking then at the number of trees that are being required
that's why you see an increase in the number of trees required to sort of start to bring
that that that equalization up but but it's really it's really a combination a combination
of both but just looking at at truly the undeveloped parcels and so that's that's not taking into
account parcels that redevelop which which now we're starting you know we're starting
to see but just on undeveloped parcels it's the equivalent of about 13 trees per acre.
Chris Rebeck.
Thank you chair I would to address your point chair I know this seems it is unrealistic
we're not going to go there but actually the fact that we're eliminating a lot of trees
because of their inferiority prevents nature from adding to the canopy but that's neither
here there really but it can do that nature can can add to it but again it's going to
need some help from us too let me ask you this Richard KDB once a year Keep It Beautiful
has its tree program where it offers up trees free for those people willing to come and
get them do we have any data on how that is contributing to planting trees that we need
to do.
I know that it's out there I don't I don't particularly have it but but you kind of raise
you kind of raise a point and I know we've talked about this months ago as we were really
debating over the tree type and I think it's one thing to note on the secondary trees if
you go back to that 2016 study if you remember I think it was probably in November I had
this sort of chart which assigned values to types of trees and so the majority of the
trees a lot of the trees that we have are hackberries I think was like 20 or 30 percent
in addition there were a lot of mosquitoes and there are a lot of honey locusts and all
of a sudden if those are now exempt you're not required to preserve those there is going
to be a ultimately there will be a loss in an overall canopy and so that's where I think
it's that's again why we're looking at that at that balancing.
Commissioner Ellis Thank You Chair Richard do you know the percentage
of current canopy on undeveloped land.
I can probably calculate it relatively.
I'm going to just throw a number out there while he's looking what I the urban forest
report what I remember it was like 44 48 percent it's a lot but let's see what he comes up
with.
I know the undeveloped parcel acreage is 21,705 I'm trying to find the
the existing the existing because what we did is and I remember I had these numbers
at one one presentation because we actually when we first looked at the undeveloped parcels
we looked at citywide and then what we did is we netted out we took out these city owned
parcels from that number and so I know that percentage dropped because a lot of the city
owned parcels had a higher canopy and again depending where it was in the city but I'm
going to look to see if we can find that that actual number of canopy of that of that no
I just love that number so if she can that'd be great thank you this is a public hearing
anyone wishing to speak we certainly do so no one else okay seeing no other speakers
I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais for a motion and then discussion
yeah I did want to mention a couple other had so many papers now I lost my notes just
wanted to make make a couple sort of points closing because I know there's there's been
a lot of a lot of a lot of discussion I guess it's good no one's throwing I've got any
I got having gotten hit with anything yet but but just wanted to note a couple a couple
items I know Scott talked about this the six month one one item in particular was that
was the conversation or discussion regarding the conservation easements one of the again
one of the one of the new points in in this proposed draft is contrary to the past they
can be dedicated to the city in the past that that was really not an option now it doesn't
necessarily mean the city has to accept every single one but at least that that option that
option is there and going with that option is the ability to use tree fund dollars to
maintain those areas and so I think it's important as we look at this or as a budget is brought
to council each year we at least will have an idea of what what we have and and what
it costs to maintain those and so we can begin to actually see you know kind of holistically
how these tree fund dollars while they're being sort of pulled on the development side
how they're being how they're being put to work in a variety of aspects whether it's
through the planning plan whether it's through maintenance of dedicated conservation areas
so I just wanted to kind of bring that make sure that that point was there the other is
the ability for and I think this is a big one is the ability for that alternative tree
preservation plan that that that option to be able to be used at an administrative level
based upon those sort of three three areas or three criteria that that really I think
puts it in those really difficult instances where you may not be able to develop to really
look at an alternative an alternative method you know our intent here is to really try
to work you know to not not really be a hammer but try to try to work the best way we can
one making sure we're meeting our overall goals but also not limiting someone's ability
to to to develop their property I think I was it thanks Richard Christian Beck thank
you chair I move we approve this agenda item if I can comment this has been a long time
coming I think both sides can agree it's got a little bit everything that we like there's
some things both sides don't like and it's something we can work on but I think it's
a starting point for us we've been a long time waiting for this and to you know put
the brakes on now I think would be a mistake we need a good tree ordinance this is a good
start and we can work out the kinks as we go along there's a six month waiting period
that we can take advantage of that if we need to change some things I think Mr. Strange's
suggestion about planting more trees is an excellent idea but I think they can go hand
in hand with preservation too and where the city can contribute to that with the out of
the fun I think they should do it we have a first for approval Commissioner Sanchez
yes like I second it I'd like to state you know we've talked you know about increasing
costs well everything we've doing now I mean and that's one of the big things that I struggle
with is that we want we we want the developer developer to pay for everything and think
we can still have affordable housing out there you know so it's kind of a catch-22 but and
so yeah it's going to increase the cost but I think it also is going to increase the quality
of of those neighborhoods and I think that's a very important two of the individuals that
did talk about this new program both of them said we're headed in the right direction and
so I don't want to go backwards I think we're going forwards and from this point I I I believe
there is some a lot of a kinks in this in this ordinance but at the same time I believe
the city is is willing to work hard enough to work them out and I think over time it's
no no program that's ever implemented is 100% proof you know it always has to be worked
on and so that's why I'm going to vote for it because I believe the city is willing to
work on on those issues and and developers need to come and work with them and give them
input and hopefully the city will look at that and say okay we need to fix it and that's
what they've said you know we have six months to try it and if it doesn't work we're going
to have to change some things and so that's why I'm voting for it we have a first and
and a second for approval of the item Commissioner Smith thank you chair I had some pretty big
apprehensions about this in regards to the affordability piece I think that I was trying
to get from Mr. Strange and I was trying to get from Richard is that my and my experience
and knowledge of how developers work is it's a lot easier to just pay and move on and so
I'm really afraid of the affordability both for what's going to happen with that money
that goes in and it's not being used by the tree fund and so I'm glad that Gary Packen
and the guys in Parks Department are putting together a master tree plan to use some of
that money for a good use and actually gets a planting but when it comes to the affordable
of the house this is not just like building a brand new three hundred thousand dollar
home development right next to a bunch of homes that are right now one hundred fifty
thousand dollars when it comes to real estate comps you are actually looking at comparables
and homes that were sold within a certain amount of time that are truly comparable in
both the how old the house is the size of the house I think we start getting into passing
on cost to customers because our buyers of a home because of the trees that are on the
lot those aren't included within comp purview and so you could very easily have a home that's
the exact same size built in the exact same time frame on a lot that is much fewer much
fewer trees and therefore lower cost built next to a home that has more trees on a lot
there for a higher cost and that's going to start pushing home values upwards I think
that's a little bit scary for me but I think I do agree with everybody else on the commission
that we have to move forward in that Richard said something that is probably the best thing
that's ever been said is that a good negotiation is whatever both sides feel like they got
screwed so this is probably this is probably this is probably the best thing that we could
possibly do I will I will ask that it's just not a requirement and what Commissioner Sanchez
mentioned it's not something in there now the six month grace period I would like for
that to be recommended to City Council be included in that and then I would really really
like to see the tree fund actually plan be highlighted more in a City Council presentation
as well Commissioner Ellis thank you chair yeah just a couple thoughts a whole lot of
time and work has gone into this and I think staff has done a tremendous job engaging stakeholders
and the public and and not only engaging them but listening to them and and adapting the
code and I mean we will never get everyone to agree on every aspect of this code it's
just not going to happen and that's why we've been at this for so many years and at some
point we just have to stop the debate because we can debate it indefinitely so I am comfortable
with with the way this reads right now I think it's improved I think it's fair and I think
we need to move it forward now that being said as an aside the tree fund is something
that I have been talking about since I've been on this commission the city has got to
get a process in place of how to spend money out of the tree fund and it should be used
to plant trees and beautify the city that is what the money's for without a process
it's not going to get done on any kind of consistent basis so I plead whoever it is
whether it be parks or council or whatever we have got to get something in place on paper
that regularly looks at this fund and spends it in the most appropriate places on a regular
basis so thanks.
Chris or Cole?
Thank you chair is this perfect no not even close but it's progress I I got two big problems
with this first one is we're giving we're still giving Mesquite and Honey Locust a lifeline
you know I mean if you got a conservation easement you're going to have a conservation
easement full of Mesquite before long if you can't touch it and then your natural state's
gone you're going to have several invasive species come in and your conservation easement
is going to change but that's something I would like to you know I don't want to give
Mesquite and Honey Locust a reprieve y'all know how I feel about those two that's that's
my two cents on it but I'll vote I'm gonna vote for this.
Absolutely you're more than welcome.
Okay thank you.
I just wanted to confirm that I know that Richard mentioned it earlier the the proposal
that that the your your attorneys work with the planners to make a few editorial tweaks
just to make the the the submitted code provision work better and and and read better and be
a little bit clearer and cleaner as it goes forward to City Council and if we're okay
with that that is you're not necessarily voting on it exactly in this sense but the the idea
is that substantively no changes in meeting are going to be proposed it's just a matter
of making it a little bit clearer and putting the little few touches on organization commas
editing things of that nature.
So before we vote I have a couple things to weigh in and hopefully the analogy works I'm
going to try to use one but I feel like we're at a poker table we've made a bet and really
got out of cards Commissioner Cole says our cards are not perfect Commissioner Ellis says
we got to move forward with these cards Commissioner Sanchez says there's glitches in these cards
Commissioner Beck says we worked way too hard we've been betting this game too long we're
all looking at these cards and saying we could get better cards let's bet it all.
So I'm not one to say we've worked so hard we can all identify ways in which it's it's
weak but yet we're going to say let's move forward because I don't know why it sounds
like we don't want to spend two more months three more months to perfect this we want
to go right now and looking at just numbers I'm not as good as numbers as Richard is but
if there's a property that can be developed with 50 homes at $200,000 if we decrease that
by 10% the amount that the builder can build and he's going to pass that on to the clients
that's $22,000 a home that's just the cost of missing out on the other developer land
that's not the cost of mitigation preservation or anything else that we come to with it so
the from what I can sell the concrete minimum dollar for a new house to Commissioner Smith's
point is 22 grand on a $200,000 home I think if someone's in the $200,000 home and that's
their their budget that's probably their budget if they could spend $222,000 on a home they
would have been looking at that home to begin with and so I'm not a proponent of this I
think that the staff has done a good job and I think we all agree on that I think most
of the the individuals here have complemented the progress but I don't know if progress
means it's it's final and so for an agreement with Commissioner Smith's point about affordability
I'd also like to see if possible in sub chapter 17 codifying the city's responsibility for
the tree code we have up and down the requirements of property owners what they have to do what
they have to mitigate but nowhere does it say the city must spend 15% of the tree fund
every year it never holds the city responsible for their end of this bargain so I feel like
the city is saying property owners do all this to help with us and we'll continue messing
around the tree fund well we'll look at a master plan but but nowhere are they putting
their feet to the fire like they are the property owners and so I think there's an easy opportunity
to codify some sort of requirement from the city to do something that's refund it's sitting
there it got moved around apparently so I have concerns about that so for those primary
reasons I'm going to vote against Commissioner Beck's motion with that commission else thank
you chair and just a couple words to your comment you mentioned perfection it's we're
never going to reach perfection we could we could debate forever because we have you almost
have polar opposites on the extremes of this this discussion so perfection is never going
to be reached no matter how much time we give it I think those of us who want to go see
it for it is not because we're tired of it but we've seen it change we've seen the engagement
we've seen staff make the changes after listening and engaging these groups and there's more
positive in it than negative I believe I mean I can only speak for myself but for me there's
more positive in it than negative that I can feel comfortable moving it forward because
perfection is never going to happen with it sure for clarification I was quoting Commissioner
Cole's perfection comment I agree with you perfection is unattainable Mr. Beck thank
you chair I would be glad to email each and every one of you a copy of the Denton urban
forest report and if just a sewage the feelings you have about how this cost impacts the homeowner
in a negative way yes it's not an upfront cost but the the value of trees for economic
reasons energy reasons and just plain beauty are out there and it should carry some weight
so if you don't have a copy of that let me know I'll be glad to email it to you I've
had it on my desktop since it first came out it's it's really worth reading let me ask
chairman Roselle question would you have some amendment that would address codifying addressing
the need to use the tree fun for the purposes we stated so you could jump on board with
this I don't know if my boats gonna be needed and this man I know but still I would say
you make a valid point I don't disagree I would hesitate to try to come with a language
with the tree code so substantial thing it's a thousand lines I mean it's okay eleven hundred
lines okay I would want to have that fleshed out well I just wanted to offer you the opportunity
I appreciate it thank you see no other suggestion I'll call for vote on the board
motion carries five one that leads us to the last item of our agenda which is the planning
and zoning matrix I allow Richard to start and we can add on if we needed just wanted
to really don't have much to add on here I know we're continuing to work through through
these through these items it's almost I think we're down to three a year ago I think we
probably have three pages yeah and so I want to just continue to to kind of flush these
out I know some of these we're still keeping on because we're continuing to discuss them
I think it's part of the the DDC update I will be coming back at some point in time
with with sort of discussion on those policies that we talked about but but perhaps and maybe
someone's going to bring it up but it probably would be I think appropriate to to include
a discussion on the tree fun and whether I have I asked Gary to come from parks or somebody
else just to kind of talk about where things are headed with that and and even some of
the projects that they're looking at now I know that I think well I won't speak on behalf
of council I know some you know that that's been an issue that constantly comes up I think
Scott hit hit it earlier but I know they are actively looking at both looking at purchasing
property some large tree stands to preserve as well as just how those funds will be used
more strategically I know that there's been that concern of just kind of planting them
on a hodgepodge basis but I'll I'll speak to Gary and next month for the next meeting
I'll at least have a I know it probably won't be next meeting but at least I'll have a date
as to when when when we can look to to put that on if that if that works.
Chris Rebecca thank you chair I would like to if I could and not to disparage Mr. various
you know research on the blackjack oak but I would like to get another point of view
from a professional and if we could ask our arborist he would Morgan to give his assessment
on and if it lines up with it then you know so much better but if there's some sound research
that disputes it enough I think we ought to reconsider you know whether we want to remove
the blackjack or not so if we could put that on the agenda okay.
Chris Ellis thank you chair Richard I'm just bringing up again Bernard Street I know I
had asked a couple of weeks ago if you could I was on it again I mean the pothole I think
is bigger than you know three weeks ago when I was there so we'd just love an update from
from someone regarding that and just so I make sure which is it between it's Bernard
between Sycamore and Mulberry where none of the construction is going okay because when
I first call this well yeah we're doing construction there and then I meant to circle back they're
not doing construction so between Sycamore yeah okay it's highly traveled with UNT students
on foot on bike it is incredibly dangerous it's very difficult to even drive your car
there so I would just love an update on that particular area I'll have it before the I'll
send any I'll just copy everyone but I'll send it before having to update on the next
one so I have to wait thank you I don't see anything else with that I will close our meeting
at 912.